Political Meltdown in Egypt...

An empty statement?

 

I guess so. Our CIA must have found Mr. Habbush less than credible. After all, how many other Iraqi officials on the most wanted list? Even so, Saddam gave us every reason to trust him, right?

 

That argument was weak five years ago, it's not getting any stronger over time. The issue was not whether he ever had them. Everyone knows he did, as evidenced by the fact that he used them. In the 1980s.

Did you know that the Iraqi engineer who made up the stories that intelligence services used as the basis for the invasion confessed that he was lying all along and did it for revenge? You need to let this go. All that's going to happen is you will blow a fuse again, declare that you hate the dungeon and quit for the 11th time.

 

That would make him a Hendecagoner...

 

He used them in the first Gulf War too.

Just sayin.

 

I'm not disputing that.

1991. Just sayin.

To be serious for a minute, I saw a piece on TV recently that revealed the story about that Iraqi engineer, and explained why the French Foreign Minister made that speech at the UN back in 2003(?). He actually knew about the made up story. It's believed that the information had not yet made its way to Colin Powell.

 

So this subject has made me blow a fuse and quit the dungeon? Cite please. Should be easy since I've done it 11 times.

When the UN inspectors were prohibited from inspecting and thwarted and delayed at every pass, it didn't necessarily overwhelm me with a deep sense of trust in Saddam. Many in his regime were intensely loyal to him and they weren't to be trusted either, so I don't think the argument is weak at all. In fact, I still believe that during all the delay and deception, that Saddam had the nerve gas, mustard gas, or whatever else he had trucked off to another country or region. You don't think this was possible?

 

I didn't said this was the only topic that makes you lose it in here. But let's say I imagined all those times you said you weren't coming back, if that makes you feel better.

Possible, definitely. But they didn't say it was possible he has WMD. They didn't even say it was plausible. They said he had them at the time of the invasion.

Everything is possible until someone proves it couldn't possibly have happened. But that doesn't make it true. Or even plausible.

This is a part where the last line of defense is the sarcastic "poor, poor Saddam" but really, that's not the point. If he was going to be removed for being a bad guy, they could have just said that. I don't think too many people would have lost any sleep over it. And 1991 would've been a good time to do it, in my opinion.

 

1991 wouldn't have made much difference. They didn't go in because they had no exit plan. The dad, as opposed to runt son, realised that.

History and recent history, show that dictators are best to be disposed by his own people.

The WMDs were a sham that neolithic cons lapped up...

 

Sorry TZ, we didn't go into Iraq in '91 because that is not what the U.N. Security Resolutions called for. The resolutions were to eject Iraq from Kuwait, not regime change in Iraq.

 

Saddam Hussein waved that "sham" around like a saber when he threatened their use against an impending invasion. Fact: He unquestionably USED that "sham" against Iran and the Kurds.

We neolithic cons do understand history, and bathe regularly, unlike tree-hugging liberal idiots.

 

Cite?

(There's no 'snort in stunned derision while nearly peeing yourself laughing' smiley.).

 

I thought we were discussing Egypt. Why this latent hostility toward Saddam?
Let's let bygones be bygones! He didn't hang around any longer than he had to.

 

There was a strong push from the military and some within the Administration to 'finish the job'. H.W. and - would you beleive - D. Cheney said 'No' for the reasons listed in my previous post.

'U.N. resolution' You're kidding, right?

 

I remember a stronger push from public opinion to keep pushing then the military itself. All of our preparation, training, and forces in place where built to liberate Kuwait. Not regime change and occupation of Iraq, because that was not the mandate.

 

A very good summary statement; not only did the President say 'no more,' so did Colin Powell, both men concerned with public and world opinion. I don't know why this isn't very clear to some people.

 

Why wait until 2003 to decide it was a bad thing and he needed to go? Reagan, Bush I and Clinton knew he played dirty.

 

When was there a U.N. Resolution to go in under Reagan? With G.H. Bush there was a resolution to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, which he did. Under Clinton, Saddam continued to violate U.N. Resolutions time and time again, he also violated the terms of surrender that ended the first Gulf War time and time again. Many people want to ignore these and say the war was only about WMD's, it wasn't. WMD's were but one item on a laundry list of items. It is also an item that Saddam himself promoted. During this time we continually had troops in position in the region, carrier battle groups, etc for over a decade that racked up billions of dollars. That is partly why so many in the military supported G.W. Bush. After a decade of his b.s. and the attacks on 9/11 Bush finally had enough of this and did something.

Part of what Bush did was to instill a democratic seed in that region and the prospect of it growing through out the region. It is still too early to tell how this will all play out but if it does play out to be a democratic movement will Bush get credit for it?

 

I remember a LOT of reasons, and the WMD was just a minor part.

Bush will still be the devil regardless of whether this democratic movement works.