Will the Bushies Ever Accept the Truth???

[GePap]

Much like you guys, people toss that out to give veneer to the claim of terrorist links.

At most, you can claim Saddam's actions made it economically appealing for people to chose to blow themselves up. Sicne you can not show any Iraqi money going towards planning, perations, buying materials, so forth, this is sort of a very tepid link not worth an invasion period.

Agasin, why the admin. kept talking about Ansar and AQ most of the time.

As for the claim the US would not mention hamas cause of an anti-Israel bent in the UN or the world-BULL. Everyone knows what the US position towards Israel, so failing to mention Hamas would not fool one person.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap

As for the claim the US would not mention hamas cause of an anti-Israel bent in the UN or the world-BULL. Everyone knows what the US position towards Israel, so failing to mention Hamas would not fool one person.

Yes and apparently that is one of the reasons why unilaterilism did not form. To blatantly throw it out there was courting failure. While attempting to choose other means of substantiating the case was a hope at success that ultimately ended in failure.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap
At most, you can claim Saddam's actions made it economically appealing for people to chose to blow themselves up. Sicne you can not show any Iraqi money going towards planning, perations, buying materials, so forth, this is sort of a very tepid link not worth an invasion period.

Perhaps not, but it is yet another material breach in teh UN resolution. And IIRC the stated reason was failure to abide by UN resolutions and constant material breach thereof.

[rah]

Originally posted by GePap
At most, you can claim Saddam's actions made it economically appealing for people to chose to blow themselves up. Sicne you can not show any Iraqi money going towards planning, perations, buying materials, so forth, this is sort of a very tepid link not worth an invasion period.

I agree that this alone does not justify an invasion, but it is quite good enough to say that he has supported terrorism. It's just not veneer. If he did this in public view, what might he have been doing out of the public view? As proven many times, our intel has been spotty at best.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Saddam probably procured boys for Michael Jackson, too.

Joe Public as a rule doesn't like "ragheads" since the oil thing in '73. Joe Public particularly doesn't care much for uppity ragheads like Saddam, and Joe Public could be sold easily on any accusation against Saddam, whether he happens to be guilty of it or not. The simple fact is that our alliance with Israel and being on the opposite side of the oil barrel has generally had the US in a rather less than lovey dovey relationship with the arab world. Throw in a little cold war fun, issues with Iran (and again, Joe Public doesn't really care that they're not arabs, they're bearded guys with turbans who don't like us and talk funny.), and you have an American public who doesn't like the mideast and much of anyone in it.

The whole Hamas and money for the families thing is a hell of a lot less support than members of the Saudi royal family have given directly to Al Qaeda, but we look the other way, whistle dixie, and our politicians suck a little Saudi dick rather than rock that boat.

Joe Public was perfectly happy to be sold any line about Saddam and why we ought to get rid of him.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
Remember the mistake that happened when Chamberlain thought Hitler would comply with world peace??

So you think the comparison of a embargoed, Third World, non-industrialized, 4th rate military dicatorship to the most modern industrial, economic, and military power of its day is valid? The difference you so conveniently ignore is that the world was doing something to stop Hussein, or was it merely my imagination that Hussein had been driven back from Kuwait, had his military crushed, had his major weapons systems disarmed, and didn't even have sovreign control over his whole territory?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

MTG agreed. Any statement to the detriment of Saddam no doubt resonated well with Joe Public. Hence my claim that Joe Public remembered this tidbit quite well.

As for the issues you raise regarding the Saud family, et. al. your synopsis is fairly accurate.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
He sure did the first time around.

I don't think he thought he could win. I think he thought maybe he could stave off defeat until we got tired of fighting. These days, that's all anyone can really hope for, isn't it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So you think the comparison of a embargoed, Third World, non-industrialized, 4th rate military dicatorship to the most modern industrial, economic, and military power of its day is valid?

Hitler's Germany ca 1938 was an economic bubble and far from the "most modern" industrial or military power of it's day. From the repudiation of the treaty of Versailles in 1934 to "Peace in our time" in 1938, Hitler could have been squashed like a bug, but with a lot of resulting instability. Stalin had his own agenda, and the west wanted the whole thing to go away.

Saddam may have been a dumbass with relatively palrty amount of power, but he was a dumbass with a relatively paltry amount of power on top of half the world's oil supply, so his potential to panic yuppie oil futures traders on the Merc was pretty strong. If Saddam was being Saddam in Burkina Faso, who would honestly give a ****? But he was being Saddam right on top of the biggest oil producing region in the world.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I don't think he thought he could win. I think he thought maybe he could stave off defeat until we got tired of fighting. These days, that's all anyone can really hope for, isn't it.

Saddam and his senior military staff held us and our forces in a lot of contempt. He had a very poor appreciation of modern doctrine, the capabilities of our equipment vis-a-vis his Soviet export ****, and he expected us to fight like the Iranians with similar effect - except that we were gutless to take those kinds of casualties.

They were completely stunned and shocked at how much damage we did and how fast we could deal it, and at the complete ineffectiveness of their static barrier defenses.

[chequita guevara]

Oil the world has more or less managed to do without for the last decade plus. He wasn't that important or dangerous. He was a convenient excuse to display our military might.

[DinoDoc]

You sound like the people that take the Turner Diaries as gospel che with these paranoid fantasies of yours.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Oil the world has more or less managed to do without for the last decade plus. He wasn't that important or dangerous. He was a convenient excuse to display our military might.

It's not just the oil he sits on. The Kuwaitis and Saudis were able to pick up that slack in terms of daily production. The point is that as long as Saddam remained in power, and especially if he was allowed to rebuild his military with sanctions lifted, he had a potential destabilizing influence that couldn't be discounted, because the potential was there (with the past history) for him to **** things up.

Besides, if we had to thump someone, don't you agree that all things considered, he was a fairly good target?

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah


I agree that this alone does not justify an invasion, but it is quite good enough to say that he has supported terrorism. It's just not veneer. If he did this in public view, what might he have been doing out of the public view? As proven many times, our intel has been spotty at best.

At this level, throughout the 1980's the US was a supporter of terrorism, and a lot of people in this admin. were participants (like Negroponte).

[rah]

And there are a lot of people that have accused the US of supporting terrorism because of that past. That doesn't change anything in terms of Saddam.