View Poll Results: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

Voters
124. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    87 70.16%
  • No

    37 29.84%
Page 94 of 152 FirstFirst ... 44849293949596104144 ... LastLast
Results 931 to 940 of 1513

Thread: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

  1. #931
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Oh what's this? Some more quotes. Are you going to claim that the Democrats in Congress at the time did not believe Saddam had WMDs?

    If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People — Version 3.0 | Right Wing News

    “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

    “This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

    “Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

    “Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998

    “(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

    “Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

    “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002

    “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
    Ummm, why are you posting quotes by Democrats in response to me pointing out that it's a lie that Hussein didn't let the inspectors back into Iraq??

    At any rate, of the quotes you offer, they were either made before Desert Fox, When Clinton and Blair bombed the **** out of Hussein's WMD facilities; or they were made by those who did not have the same intelligence report that Bush had. Only one of the people you quoted from post-Desert Fox was on the Senate Intelligence Committee and had access to the same NIE that Bush had.

    And none of them matter. Again, only Bush had the ability to deploy troops into Iraq. Something he decided to do because he didn't want to lose the ability to invade Iraq because the U.N. inspectors in Iraq (despite your BS to the contrary) would have determined there were none of the WMD that Bush was scaring America with.

  2. #932
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

    Quote Originally Posted by JC Callender View Post
    Here are the Democratic Senators who voted YEA on October 2002.

    Baucus (D-MT), Yea
    Bayh (D-IN), Yea
    Biden (D-DE), Yea
    Breaux (D-LA), Yea
    Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
    Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
    Carper (D-DE), Yea
    Cleland (D-GA), Yea
    Clinton (D-NY), Yea
    Daschle (D-SD), Yea
    Dodd (D-CT), Yea
    Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
    Edwards (D-NC), Yea
    Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
    Harkin (D-IA), Yea
    Hollings (D-SC), Yea
    Johnson (D-SD), Yea
    Kerry (D-MA), Yea
    Kohl (D-WI), Yea
    Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
    Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
    Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
    Miller (D-GA), Yea
    Nelson (D-FL), Yea
    Nelson (D-NE), Yea
    Reid (D-NV), Yea
    Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
    Schumer (D-NY), Yea
    Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
    James Love: Who voted to authorize force in Iraq October 2002?
    So? Not one of them was Commander-in-Chief. You know, the one person who could have deployed troops to Iraq.

    And here's another thing about Democrats of the 107th Senate ... only 9 of them had access to the same full 96 page NIE Bush had. The other 41 did not have the same level of clearance to be allowed to access it. For those 41, they were provided a highly redacted 28 page version which stripped out much of the uncertainty of WMD that was found in Bush's version.

    Of the 9 Democrat members of the Senate Intelligence Community with access to the full NIE, 5 of them voted against letting Bush decide if we should go to war or not with Iraq.

  3. #933
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

    Quote Originally Posted by JC Callender View Post
    The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]
    Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
    Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
    Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
    Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
    Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
    Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
    Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
    Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
    The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
    The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
    The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
    Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
    The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
    The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."


    Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    So what? The main reason Bush decided to invade Iraq was over WMD. That could have been avoided had Bush simply let the U.N. inspectors in Iraq finish their job. Who could have known at the time that Bush was lying when he said that war was a last resort when it was really what he wanted? Had he let the inspectors finish their job, we would have learned the same thing we learned the hard way -- that the WMD Bush warned us about weren't there. Only it would have saved us from a 9 year long war which cost us some 35,000 American casualties. At least a trillion dollars, probaby way more. And the moral price of at least 100,000 Iraqi deaths.

  4. #934
    Sage
    JC Callender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,632

    Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

    I disagree that anyone would know there were lies back then, as a huge amount of smart people in and out of government supported the war.

    Quote Originally Posted by marywollstonecraft View Post
    I can give you dot points ... but if you weren't following what was happening at the time, you are better off familiarizing yourself with the full picture.

    Really, to me this was common knowledge - even before the invasion started it was discussed in the media that there were doubts and inconsistencies, and over the next few years the evidence showed that these doubts were well founded.

    anyone who looked at a variety of media sources over those years would know what was lied about, and if not aware of the actual source, would be aware that some key people were regurgitating lies which bolstered their agenda.

    not exclusively in the US, either.

  5. #935
    Sage
    JC Callender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,632

    Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

    So Bush made up the WMD story and just lied to all of these Democrats, and for some crazy reason the Democrats decided to believe Bush wholeheartedly without evidence, agree to the Iraq Resolution, and sign a blank check for the war?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    So what? The main reason Bush decided to invade Iraq was over WMD. That could have been avoided had Bush simply let the U.N. inspectors in Iraq finish their job. Who could have known at the time that Bush was lying when he said that war was a last resort when it was really what he wanted? Had he let the inspectors finish their job, we would have learned the same thing we learned the hard way -- that the WMD Bush warned us about weren't there. Only it would have saved us from a 9 year long war which cost us some 35,000 American casualties. At least a trillion dollars, probaby way more. And the moral price of at least 100,000 Iraqi deaths.

  6. #936
    Professor
    marywollstonecraft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-13 @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,317

    Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

    Quote Originally Posted by JC Callender View Post
    I disagree that anyone would know there were lies back then, as a huge amount of smart people in and out of government supported the war.
    and a huge amount didn't.

    Whistleblowing and Iraq

    here are some examples of whistleblowers ....



    Intelligence made it 'very clear' that Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the UK in the run-up to the Iraq war, a whistleblower has told MPs.

    Carne Ross, a former diplomat who quit the Foreign Office over the conflict, said it was 'disgraceful' that ministers had pretended inquiries had uncovered the full story about the war.

    Speaking to the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee, Mr Ross said that there was still a lot of information about the decision-making process leading to war which should be put into the public domain.

    Carne Ross, who called for a full public or parliamentary inquiry into the run-up to the 2003 conflict, said there was no reason why documents detailing the intelligence debates and discussions over the legality of military action should not be made public.

    Career diplomat Mr Ross, who was Britain's leading expert on Iraq at the United Nations for four years before the war, resigned in 2004 after giving secret evidence to the Butler Inquiry.

    He told the inquiry that the intelligence made it "very clear" that Saddam Hussein did not pose a significant threat to the UK - as was being claimed at the time by ministers - and that tougher enforcement of sanctions could bring his regime down.

    Mr Ross told the committee how he tried to inform ministers about his misgivings over the developing momentum towards war, taking them aside during their visits to New York or having brief conversations in their car to the airport.

    But he said he was aware that speaking out too often or too openly - even in internal debates - about his concerns about the Government's policy direction would damage his career by winning him a reputation as a 'naive troublemaker'.


    Read more: Whistleblower calls for Iraq war intelligence to be made public | Mail Online
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
    Wilkie trained at the Royal Military College, Duntroon[3] and graduated in 1984.[4] He joined the Young Liberals while a cadet. After graduation and being stationed in Brisbane, he became a member of the Liberal Party.[5] His military career spanned 1980–2000 and he rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel.[6] He was seconded to the Office of National Assessments (ONA), an Australian intelligence agency, from 1999 until late 2000.[6][7] After a stint with US defence company Raytheon,[3] Wilkie returned to the ONA shortly after the 11 September attacks.[6][7]

    In the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war, the Australian, British and United States governments were asserting that intelligence reports showed that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction.

    Wilkie has stated that he increasingly encountered ethical conflict between his duty as an intelligence officer and his respect for the truth. [4] On 11 March 2003, he resigned from the ONA, asserting that while Iraq likely did possess weapons of mass destruction, its program in this area was contained, that international sanctions were having an effect, and therefore an invasion was premature and also reckless in potentially provoking Saddam Hussein to use those weapons and possibly even begin supporting terrorism.[8]

    In response to widespread opposition to the war, Wilkie gave extensive television interviews and accepted numerous offers of public speaking engagements.[citation needed] He subsequently gave evidence to official British and Australian inquiries into the government's case for involvement in the Iraq war.[7]

    In 2004, Wilkie published Axis of Deceit, an account of the reasons for his decision and its results.[9] He describes his views on the nature of intelligence agencies and the analyst's work, the history of the Iraq war, the untruths of politicians and the attempts to suppress the truth.[citation needed]
    Andrew Wilkie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    this may not be lies about saddam - but is this what you expect of those making decisions about our collective futures?
    Ten years ago a shy, introverted British translator with skills in Mandarin leaked an e-mail she had received at her desk at Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) in Cheltenham, England. The leak came close to averting the Iraq War and changing the course of history. The memo, sent from Frank Koza, chief of staff at the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), was essentially a direct order to Katharine Gun and others in her section to monitor, track, follow, and develop information from UN diplomats from six key nations that were waffling in their support of a UN resolution permitting action against Iraq because of its perceived threat against the peace and security of the world.

    This violated not only the independence of the GCHQ from the NSA and the sovereignty inherent in that independence, but also various laws against interfering with diplomats representing their countries’ interests at the UN. Further, the information sought would also likely have been personal in nature, with the resulting possibility of the threat of blackmail against those diplomats who refused to “get in line” and support the UN resolution for war against Iraq.

    The Koza e-mail was, in short, a blockbuster, and it took Gun’s breath away. In an interview with Amy Goodman for Democracy Now! in September, 2004, she recounted what happened:

    I was working for Government Communication Headquarters in the U.K., which is the equivalent to N.S.A. here in the U.S., and I was a Chinese linguist at the time, and this email crossed my desk in my in-box in January of 2003.

    At that time, as we all know, it was a crucial time for the U.N. in its decision-making process as to whether or not a resolution was needed with regard to Iraq and its alleged weapons of mass destruction.

    So, when I saw this email asking GCHQ’s help to bug the six swing nations to gather a vote for war with Iraq, I was very angry at first and very saddened that it had come to this, and that despite all of the talk from both Tony Blair and George Bush about how important it was to get the U.N. on board and to legitimize any kind of aggression, that they were actually going around it in such a low-handed manner.

    I decided that the risk to my career was minute compared to the upcoming war in Iraq and the best thing to do for me was to leak this information to the press so that everybody else could have the information, and hopefully it could avert this disastrous course of events that have occurred.

    Gun printed out a hard copy of the Koza memo, took it home with her that night, and gave it to the Guardian newspaper. On Sunday, March 2, 2003, just 17 days before U.S. forces attacked Iraq, the Guardian headlined the story: “Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war.” The lead paragraph began: The United States is conducting a secret “dirty tricks” campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favor of war against Iraq.
    10th Anniversary of U.K. Whistleblower Almost Averting Iraq War

    and there were numerous interviews with people discussing this information in the lead up to the war. February 2003, a day didn't go by without these doubts being discussed./ I lived in a remote community with no internet and no television at the time, and I was aware of these discussions.

    you can't tell me that politicians who had hundreds of advisers and access to the best intelligence knew less than I did.
    Every political good carried to the extreme must be productive of evil.

  7. #937
    Sage
    JC Callender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,632

    Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

    In regards to your last sentence, why did they vote for the Iraq Resolution then? What did they have to gain?



    Quote Originally Posted by marywollstonecraft View Post
    and a huge amount didn't.

    Whistleblowing and Iraq

    here are some examples of whistleblowers ....






    Andrew Wilkie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    this may not be lies about saddam - but is this what you expect of those making decisions about our collective futures?

    10th Anniversary of U.K. Whistleblower Almost Averting Iraq War

    and there were numerous interviews with people discussing this information in the lead up to the war. February 2003, a day didn't go by without these doubts being discussed./ I lived in a remote community with no internet and no television at the time, and I was aware of these discussions.

    you can't tell me that politicians who had hundreds of advisers and access to the best intelligence knew less than I did.

  8. #938
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,570

    Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

    Bush was not the architect of the Iraqi invasion anyway. It was the PNAC guys, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and wolfowitz who were pulling the strings. The three of them were able to convince not only the CIC, but a large percentage of Congress as well, that their long desired and awaited war was worth the trouble.

    They got what they wanted. Now what? Are they now looking for a new war to support, perhaps one against Iran?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  9. #939
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

    Quote Originally Posted by JC Callender View Post
    In regards to your last sentence, why did they vote for the Iraq Resolution then? What did they have to gain?
    I suspect that many thought Saddam had WMD, but trusted President Bush would use diplomatic efforts, as specified in the resolution, to disarm him. As it turned out, he never did. In fact he refused to extend the time the UN inspectors has in the country.

    Excerpt from the Iraq resolution:

    SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

    (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

    (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

    Iraq War Resolution


  10. #940
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

    Quote Originally Posted by JC Callender View Post
    So Bush made up the WMD story and just lied to all of these Democrats, and for some crazy reason the Democrats decided to believe Bush wholeheartedly without evidence, agree to the Iraq Resolution, and sign a blank check for the war?
    No, not lie about the threat Iraq posed. But exaggerate. The full 96 page NIE contained much uncertainty to the reliability of the intelligence. Most people in Congress did not have access to that report. Most were given the heavily redacted 28 page version which did not include much of the uncertainty. Then we're stuck with the fact that many in Congress didn't even bother to read it.

    Still, most Democrats in Congress voted against giving Bush the authorization to use military force in Iraq and most Democrats on Intelligence committee (who did have access to the full 96 page NIE) also voted against it.

    And again, the bill was not a declaration of war, but an authorization to go war IF the president felt it was the only way to achieve the stated goals in the bill. And if diplomacy wouldn't work.

    But Bush didn't give diplomacy the full opportunity it deservered when he pulled the U.N. inspectors out prematurely because he was eager to invade.

    Instead, if you recall, he claimed he had to rush to war because he didn't want our troops in Iraq during the summer time because it gets so hot there. So what does that idiot do? Condemns our troops suffer 10 summers in Iraq. The reality is, Bush did not care about our troops having to be in Iraq in the summer time, he wanted to rush to war before the U.N. concluded the WMD for which he invaded weren't there, thereby squashing American support for invading Iraq.

    THAT'S the lie. And few, if any in Congress, could know that all along while Bush was insisting that war was a last resort in his feeble mind, it was really his only goal.

    Over 35,000 American casualties
    Between 1 and 2 trillion dollars
    No less than 100,000 Iraqi deaths

    Was it worth THAT price? Hell no. Hussein didn't even have the WMD for which Bush claimed he needed to invade.

    And that's not even considering other factors, such as how removing Hussein has emboldened Iran to gain nukes, which they are closing in on. One of the best foreign policies Reagan had was to keep Iran and Iraq fighting against each other. Bush idiotically turns into Iraq into West Iran and more than doubles the threat against us.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •