• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US releases prisoners from Guantanamo

RabidAlpaca said:
I also live in Germany. Welcome to DP.

Most of what you've written is based on a fundamentally flawed assumption. You assume that America rolling from country to country blowing up is somehow "securing trade" and making peace. I think Iraq and Afghanistan are the best examples of this. How could you possibly claim that either of those wars have done ANYTHING to stabilize the region or international trade? Iraq, for one, is worse off than they started. Their infrastructure is crippled, near a million of them are dead, and over 4,000 US soldiers are dead.
Click to expand...

Here I would say, that you take a flawed view of how security in a country and in the international community is produced. As within a country it is not the individual crime that is of impotence to security. What is important is that it as any other crime is seen to be punished. It is also wrong to assume that the immediate consequence of the acts necessary to maintaining security will be cost free or even beneficial to the environ of such acts. We tend to believe this because we live in relative safety and under circumstances, where a dependable police are available. This was quite different in the early days of the Republic and ist is quite different in cases, where a dictator must be removed or Warlords hold power.

I do believe that both Afghanistan and Iraq were too expensive for the US and should prossibly have been carried out differently. But that is quite another question.

RabidAlpaca said:
Without a trial, you're giving the power to permanently imprison somebody to individuals' judgement. The reason a trial would be so "burdensome" is because the evidence didn't really exist in the first place. A lot of the things they use to nab these guys are circumstantial evidence and guilt by association. If there was real, tangible evidence of wrong-doing, it would not be hard to produce in court.
Click to expand...

You make the same error here again. You may be able to have courts in the international theater, when and if a supra national organization enforces the security and safety of people the world over. Until countries like Russia and Germany are willing to take on "their fair share" of responsibility and costs? Forget it. Because it is asymmetric under present conditions it is too expensive and is thus counter productive. If you want rule of law internationally, get the major Countries to sign on to R2P. That is what the UN established it for. But as long as countries like Germany do not help, we will have wars, collateral damage and instinctless calls for law, where it will not work.

RabidAlpaca said:
Germany is thriving because they have a strong production oriented economy, and don't waste their resources on pointless wars. They grow from international trade. For instance, the company I work for is in the process of designing, manufacturing and delivering products to Iran. Their trade abilities have nothing to do with the American war machine.

When you support the world view you do, you inevitably cheapen the very American ideals we were founded on. We've become the same monsters we're trying to fight, and we're not a single bit safer for doing so. A trial is a fundamental human right, and we are simply better than this.
Click to expand...

Trade with Iran is a good example of the way Germany operates. There is a niche in Iran, as most other countries are trying to persuade Iran to stop building an atomic weapon or at least show the UN, that it is not doing so. Germany is undercutting this effort as it often does. Do you remember Auschwitz in the Sand. That was a similar case. So it is even worse, than I had pointed out. Germany is not only a free rider. It is also destructive. Its trade with Iran strengthens the regime as German trade with the East prolonged the Cold War. In the honest world with enforced law and courts such behavior would be criminal for every person to profit from it.

As for the cheapening of ideals, what you say is hogwash. Any set of high values relies on force, without which the high values are pipe dreams and leave everybody at the mercy of bandits.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
I don't know that it's not true. That's why I did not claim that it wasn't true.
Someone claimed that it was true. So I asked how they knew.

The Ynet story is not sourced.
There's good reason to believe that doing such a thing would incite Congress and could be a crime if done w/o Congress' approval.
It would be a HUGE story.
But, so far, there's just the one story (that I know about).

Imho, even though that doesn't mean that the story is false, it is reason to be skeptical.
Other people have a different opinion about whether that is enough to warrant skepticism and further inquiry. That's fine.

You know that this article refers to an incident much different than what is described in the Ynet article, don't you?
Click to expand...
Yes, I know the second link is different. I read them prior to posting. I've been reading ynet for years and have never known of them carrying a false story. Also, Why would they source a story like that? They would never again get info from that source. It is also being carried by some pretty reputable outlets, all linking back to ynet like you stated, but reputable at least above CNN/NBC standards.
 
Jon Slice said:
Yes, I know the second link is different. I read them prior to posting. I've been reading ynet for years and have never known of them carrying a false story. Also, Why would they source a story like that? They would never again get info from that source. It is also being carried by some pretty reputable outlets, all linking back to ynet like you stated, but reputable at least above CNN/NBC standards.
Click to expand...
As I previously noted:
"Other people have a different opinion about whether that is enough to warrant skepticism and further inquiry. That's fine."

It seems that if the report were true, then either Congress has approved it in secret, or they have decided to give Obama a pass on breaking the law.
One could also surmise that the Taliban themselves have also agreed to keep it hush-hush. Otherwise they would trumpet the return of their comrades to w/e international press would be willing to listen.
It seems like getting back some senior guys from the US would be a coup of sorts for them.

But that's all empty speculation rather than factual determination.

If the story is true, I doubt that it will remain singly sourced for long. Again, just my humble speculation.
 
Last edited:
joG said:
Here I would say, that you take a flawed view of how security in a country and in the international community is produced. As within a country it is not the individual crime that is of impotence to security. What is important is that it as any other crime is seen to be punished. It is also wrong to assume that the immediate consequence of the acts necessary to maintaining security will be cost free or even beneficial to the environ of such acts. We tend to believe this because we live in relative safety and under circumstances, where a dependable police are available. This was quite different in the early days of the Republic and ist is quite different in cases, where a dictator must be removed or Warlords hold power.

I do believe that both Afghanistan and Iraq were too expensive for the US and should prossibly have been carried out differently. But that is quite another question.
Click to expand...

Aha, so you're trying to pin our random wars in third world countries like Iraq and Afghanistan is somehow the reason we have relative global peace? I think you drastically underestimate the former power of both countries. What really has been the source of peace has been international trade and cooperation. Western countries bound together after WWII to form a western block of peace and stability. This has been where the peace has come from, not shooting people in random places.

If you'd like to make some specific arguments with sources about how the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have (or could have) made us safer, I'm all ears. These generalized statements with no backing however don't hold up.


joG said:
You make the same error here again. You may be able to have courts in the international theater, when and if a supra national organization enforces the security and safety of people the world over. Until countries like Russia and Germany are willing to take on "their fair share" of responsibility and costs? Forget it. Because it is asymmetric under present conditions it is too expensive and is thus counter productive. If you want rule of law internationally, get the major Countries to sign on to R2P. That is what the UN established it for. But as long as countries like Germany do not help, we will have wars, collateral damage and instinctless calls for law, where it will not work.
Click to expand...
LOL, yes, by not killing enough people with us, countries like Russia and Germany are the reason the world is a dangerous place. If only they had helped us more in our wars we'd be riding rainbows and eating unicorn meat right now.

More conjecture on your part.


joG said:
Trade with Iran is a good example of the way Germany operates. There is a niche in Iran, as most other countries are trying to persuade Iran to stop building an atomic weapon or at least show the UN, that it is not doing so. Germany is undercutting this effort as it often does. Do you remember Auschwitz in the Sand. That was a similar case. So it is even worse, than I had pointed out. Germany is not only a free rider. It is also destructive. Its trade with Iran strengthens the regime as German trade with the East prolonged the Cold War. In the honest world with enforced law and courts such behavior would be criminal for every person to profit from it.

As for the cheapening of ideals, what you say is hogwash. Any set of high values relies on force, without which the high values are pipe dreams and leave everybody at the mercy of bandits.
Click to expand...
Iran hasn't attacked another country in over 200 years. We can't go 5 days without attacking somebody. You really can sit there with a straight face and tell me Iran is the aggressor? The relationship between Iran and Germany is a LOT better than between the US and Iran. Making diplomatic ties and trading freely is what brings peace. Threatening people to do what we tell them is not peace.
 
joG said:
In the run up to the Iraq war Germany even made things worse by standing behind Saddam with Chirac and Putin thereby giving the dictator the feeling he could hold out against die UN inspection, which was a recipe for war.
Click to expand...

What I find absolutely amazing that even though you'll find few Americans who would still defend the Iraq war, some are still angry because of the German refusal to participate. To get back to the historical facts, that war was justified with evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which was faked by the United States. It was not a defensive war, not even a preemptive war, but an American-led war of aggression. There was no genocide which was going to happen at that point, and no attack on any foreign country which Saddam's regime was about to launch.

Now that all those facts are visible to everyone, how can anyone still be shameless enough to accuse Germany of a lack of loyalty or commitment to "international security" for not participating in that unprovoked attack? Should we be ashamed of not embracing "shock and awe" bombing tactics, not plunging a country into chaos, not having caused over 100 000 civilian deaths in Iraq? No, only for having secretly supported the US invasion of Iraq with intelligence.
 
Last edited:
Sanddune said:
What I find absolutely amazing that even though you'll find few Americans who would still defend the Iraq war, some are still angry because of the German refusal to participate. .....
Now that all those facts are visible to everyone, how can anyone still be shameless enough to accuse Germany of a lack of loyalty or commitment to "international security" for not participating in that unprovoked attack?
Click to expand...

I was not a question of lack of loyalty. That is a misunderstanding I hear a lot over here.

It was more the fact that Saddam thought he could stay in power, exclude the UN inspectors and maintain the uncertainty of his arsenal. By backing him the war became much more probable and put Bush in a position, where he would have to back down after drawing a red line. That is something a country does only at high risk. When Saddam/Putin/Chirac/Schröder bluffed, Bush was forced to call it.

That, in fact, was inexcusable. The German people probably did not understand the consequences and thought Schröder was standing up for some sort of "Good". Schröder, though, knew all this and one must assume he acted willfully to increase the chances of war.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Western countries bound together after WWII to form a western block of peace and stability. This has been where the peace has come from, not shooting people in random places.
Click to expand...


A statement like that is really quite painfully lopsided.

Peace and stability between 1945 and 1989 came about, because MAD worked. Since the structure has changed, we need another. There is no way, I can develop the whole gamut of thought for you here.

Multipolarity is developing. That is essentially the structure of international security before 1945. As far as we know from game theory and history, this structure is instable and will breed periodic wars of smaller and greater size. The larger wars with today’s technology can easily cost a billion or more live. This was part of debate in the 1990s, as you will recall. You seem not to recall the conclusions drawn at the time. You can follow a good part of the discussion in old issues of Foreign Affairs Magazine if you like.

You might agree with positions and conclusions and you may not. At least you will know them, however.
 
joG said:
I was not a question of lack of loyalty. That is a misunderstanding I hear a lot over here.

It was more the fact that Saddam thought he could stay in power, exclude the UN inspectors and maintain the uncertainty of his arsenal. By backing him the war became much more probable and put Bush in a position, where he would have to back down after drawing a red line. That is something a country does only at high risk. When Saddam/Putin/Chirac/Schröder bluffed, Bush was forced to call it.

That, in fact, was inexcusable. The German people probably did not understand the consequences and thought Schröder was standing up for some sort of "Good". Schröder, though, knew all this and one must assume he acted willfully to increase the chances of war.
Click to expand...

Schröder, Chirac, and Putin were not on a team with Sadam just because they didn't support the idea of a US invasion. Can we get over that "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality? And as I'm sure you know, Saddam did not have any weapons of mass destruction, and the "evidence" was an American fake. The UN inspectors (you may remember the name Hans Blix) did NOT call for an attack on Iraq. It was an American decision to attack, and the WMDs were a pretext.
 
Sanddune said:
What I find absolutely amazing that even though you'll find few Americans who would still defend the Iraq war, some are still angry because of the German refusal to participate. To get back to the historical facts, that war was justified with evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which was faked by the United States. It was not a defensive war, not even a preemptive war, but an American-led war of aggression. There was no genocide which was going to happen at that point, and no attack on any foreign country which Saddam's regime was about to launch.

Now that all those facts are visible to everyone, how can anyone still be shameless enough to accuse Germany of a lack of loyalty or commitment to "international security" for not participating in that unprovoked attack? Should we be ashamed of not embracing "shock and awe" bombing tactics, not plunging a country into chaos, not having caused over 100 000 civilian deaths in Iraq? No, only for having secretly supported the US invasion of Iraq with intelligence.
Click to expand...

I think you would find more than a "few" American's that would still defend the Iraq war. It's just that many don't feel like listening to the phony vile spew from the left on the issue. You are real quick to say and accuse the US of faking evidence of weapons of mass destruction but for some reason (you are a liberal) you don't mention what Saddam himself owned up to before he was executed by his people. He deliberately wanted other countries to think he already had plenty of weapons of mass destruction and had taken steps to ensure they would think that. And never mind the Chemical Weapons found and the tons of yellow cake. And as far as an American led war of aggression under the treaty signed at the end of Gulf War 1, Iraq had clearly been the illegal aggressor when firing numerous times at US Military personnel. But for some reason, liberals don't like for people to talk about that or play it off as meaningless (even though US lives were at stake). Quite frankly, for you to pretend you know what attack Saddam was or was not planning next is absurd.

However, it is perhaps time to rethink NATO. Since the end of WWII, the US has been left holding the bag for European security and they have reaped the majority of the benefit. We have as well but they got the best end of the deal. But when we needed a little extra help of our own in Iraq and Afgan, we got token help. Screw that.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
I think you would find more than a "few" American's that would still defend the Iraq war. It's just that many don't feel like listening to the phony vile spew from the left on the issue. You are real quick to say and accuse the US of faking evidence of weapons of mass destruction but for some reason (you are a liberal) you don't mention what Saddam himself owned up to before he was executed by his people. He deliberately wanted other countries to think he already had plenty of weapons of mass destruction and had taken steps to ensure they would think that. And never mind the Chemical Weapons found and the tons of yellow cake. And as far as an American led war of aggression under the treaty signed at the end of Gulf War 1, Iraq had clearly been the illegal aggressor when firing numerous times at US Military personnel. But for some reason, liberals don't like for people to talk about that or play it off as meaningless (even though US lives were at stake). Quite frankly, for you to pretend you know what attack Saddam was or was not planning next is absurd.

However, it is perhaps time to rethink NATO. Since the end of WWII, the US has been left holding the bag for European security and they have reaped the majority of the benefit. We have as well but they got the best end of the deal. But when we needed a little extra help of our own in Iraq and Afgan, we got token help. Screw that.
Click to expand...

The German government kept German troops in Afghanistan for over 10 years against the will of the majority of the population. And that war was carried on for several years even after it was proved to be useless. I appreciate what the US did for Europe but you can't start unjustified wars and then just expect all your allies to join them without even asking them if they agree with those wars. I don't like Saddam either but the fact that he was an evil dictator does not justify bombing the country unless he is about to commit a genocide or attack another country.

You're right about the 1st Gulf War, Saddam was the bad guy there, but you forgot to point out that the US had massively supported Saddam's aggressive war on Iran, and been completely indifferent about his gassing of Kurds throughout the 1980s. When he started attacking Kuwait in 1991, that was not a change of policy, he simply turned into the other direction. And all of a sudden, the American government realized what an evil dictator he was, and condemned his aggression.
 
Sanddune said:
The German government kept German troops in Afghanistan for over 10 years against the will of the majority of the population. And that war was carried on for several years even after it was proved to be useless. I appreciate what the US did for Europe but you can't start unjustified wars and then just expect all your allies to join them without even asking them if they agree with those wars. I don't like Saddam either but the fact that he was an evil dictator does not justify bombing the country unless he is about to commit a genocide or attack another country.

You're right about the 1st Gulf War, Saddam was the bad guy there, but you forgot to point out that the US had massively supported Saddam's aggressive war on Iran, and been completely indifferent about his gassing of Kurds throughout the 1980s. When he started attacking Kuwait in 1991, that was not a change of policy, he simply turned into the other direction. And all of a sudden, the American government realized what an evil dictator he was, and condemned his aggression.
Click to expand...

Aw geez, they were not allow to close with the enemy (you probably don't know what that means). Token support troops was the brunt of the German effort and if the majority of the Germans were against even that, it makes my point. Why should a single American risk his life another day for a German life when the favor won't be returned? It ain't worth it, the free ride for the Germans and the rest of the Europeans needs to end. Just about the only Europeans that have made a real effort in the war on terror came from former east block countries. They are not ******s like the rest of the Europeans and they know how to keep their word.

Perhaps the US should have done more when Saddam gassed the Kurds. But I find it odd you would advocate doing anything about it because it doesn't phase you one bit that since the end of Gulf War 1 until the start of Gulf War 2 he had his people try to kill members of the US military on a routine basis. You and the other liberals always choose to ignore that. So the US should have gone to war with Iraq over the Kurds but not over it's service members? Does that make a lick of sense to you? That's what you have proposed in a round about way.
 
Are there any new sources for this factoid yet?

Either Congress was complicit or it was a crime.

Taliban have decided to keep their mouth shut about the coup the pulled on the US?
Imho, that doesn't jibe with my impression of them as eager to tout their successes to bolster the roles of recruits to their causes.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Aw geez, they were not allow to close with the enemy (you probably don't know what that means). Token support troops was the brunt of the German effort and if the majority of the Germans were against even that, it makes my point. Why should a single American risk his life another day for a German life when the favor won't be returned? It ain't worth it, the free ride for the Germans and the rest of the Europeans needs to end. Just about the only Europeans that have made a real effort in the war on terror came from former east block countries. They are not ******s like the rest of the Europeans and they know how to keep their word.

Perhaps the US should have done more when Saddam gassed the Kurds. But I find it odd you would advocate doing anything about it because it doesn't phase you one bit that since the end of Gulf War 1 until the start of Gulf War 2 he had his people try to kill members of the US military on a routine basis. You and the other liberals always choose to ignore that. So the US should have gone to war with Iraq over the Kurds but not over it's service members? Does that make a lick of sense to you? That's what you have proposed in a round about way.
Click to expand...

What you don't realize is that the US with its wars is making the world a more dangerous and not a safer place. Do you really think the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, the drone attacks in Pakistan, the disgusting conditions in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have made the world a safer place? That idea is ludicrous.

It's debatable whether Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Kurds would have justified a war in the 1980s. I don't know enough to tell. My point was that the US supported Saddam during his most evil time, so the idea that Iraq was attacked to liberate the people there from an evil dictator is pure hypocrisy.

How many US servicemen got killed? And why did the US government have to produce faked evidence of WMDs to justify an attack if it was about defending US bases in the middle east?
 
Sanddune said:
What you don't realize is that the US with its wars is making the world a more dangerous and not a safer place. Do you really think the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, the drone attacks in Pakistan, the disgusting conditions in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have made the world a safer place? That idea is ludicrous.

It's debatable whether Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Kurds would have justified a war in the 1980s. I don't know enough to tell. My point was that the US supported Saddam during his most evil time, so the idea that Iraq was attacked to liberate the people there from an evil dictator is pure hypocrisy.

How many US servicemen got killed? And why did the US government have to produce faked evidence of WMDs to justify an attack if it was about defending US bases in the middle east?
Click to expand...

I suspect not seeing things through as Obama has pulled the pug in Iraq early, will create additional problems for the world just as not completing the job during Gulf War 1 did. Things didn't work out to well for us when we were not at war in Afghanistan but you are German and don't care. Although had the same happened on your turf, your government would expect and get real help from us instead of token support. Conditions in Iraq prisons were disgusting before we got there, while we were there and are disgusting now that we are gone. Is there a point you are trying to make with that? Terrorists locked up in Guantanamo have neither planned nor carried out any missions of terror. I don't see that as a bad thing, why do you? Drone attacks in Pakistan kill terrorists. It is unfortune that some mistakes are made but the terrorists are the ones that hide behind the skirts of women. Talk to them about keeping their distance from people not involved in the terror game. The US didn't produce "faked" evidence of WMD. Talk to Saddam about that, it was his plan.
 
Sanddune said:
Schröder, Chirac, and Putin were not on a team with Sadam just because they didn't support the idea of a US invasion. Can we get over that "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality? And as I'm sure you know, Saddam did not have any weapons of mass destruction, and the "evidence" was an American fake. The UN inspectors (you may remember the name Hans Blix) did NOT call for an attack on Iraq. It was an American decision to attack, and the WMDs were a pretext.
Click to expand...
I did not call it a "team". Because you are right. It was not a "team". It was an informal social group.

Also it is not a question, as you would have it, of "if you're not with us you're against us". To assume such, is childish. But informal social groups often do semi coordinated things that cause others to believe things on which they act. This is one of those cases. As we cannot view the documents nor hear the tapes, we do not know, why these people acted as they did. But it is clear, that Saddam thought he could survive the ambiguity, because he thought the Axis would save his arse.

PS: Some say the evidence was "faked". I personally have not seen documentary evidence of this. Sloppy intelligence yes. "Lie"? No. Certain people will say it was lying. I think they are talking through their hats. What is certain, however, is the fact, that the UN inspectors after the first Iraq engagement had found large stores of WMD and Saddam could or would not show, what had become of them, when he was asked to by the SC. As he did not show how he had destroyed them, it was perfectly logical to assume they could still be there. Had he believed Bush would remove him, the probability would have been better, that he would have shown the inspectors, where the weapons had gone. As it was, Putin, Chirac and Schröder made him believe it was not necessary and history took its course.

PPS: Blix was, as you may remember not willing to say that the weapons were gone, when Blaire asked him point blank. He fudged. Blix was a bureaucrat and totally overwhelmed by his visibility.
 
joG said:
I did not call it a "team". Because you are right. It was not a "team". It was an informal social group.

Also it is not a question, as you would have it, of "if you're not with us you're against us". To assume such, is childish. But informal social groups often do semi coordinated things that cause others to believe things on which they act. This is one of those cases. As we cannot view the documents nor hear the tapes, we do not know, why these people acted as they did. But it is clear, that Saddam thought he could survive the ambiguity, because he thought the Axis would save his arse.

PS: Some say the evidence was "faked". I personally have not seen documentary evidence of this. Sloppy intelligence yes. "Lie"? No. Certain people will say it was lying. I think they are talking through their hats. What is certain, however, is the fact, that the UN inspectors after the first Iraq engagement had found large stores of WMD and Saddam could or would not show, what had become of them, when he was asked to by the SC. As he did not show how he had destroyed them, it was perfectly logical to assume they could still be there. Had he believed Bush would remove him, the probability would have been better, that he would have shown the inspectors, where the weapons had gone. As it was, Putin, Chirac and Schröder made him believe it was not necessary and history took its course.

PPS: Blix was, as you may remember not willing to say that the weapons were gone, when Blaire asked him point blank. He fudged. Blix was a bureaucrat and totally overwhelmed by his visibility.
Click to expand...

Defend the Iraq war as much as you want but it's simply absurd to say that Bush was forced into it by Schröder, Chirac, and Putin. And it's equally absurd to see some sort of "informal social group", axis of whatever, secret alliance, or anything else between Schröder, Chirac, and Saddam.

The Iraq war was wanted by the Bush administration and it was started by the Bush administration under pretexts. "sloppy intelligence"... call it that if you want, but there was certainly a purpose behind the sloppiness.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Conditions in Iraq prisons were disgusting before we got there, while we were there and are disgusting now that we are gone. Is there a point you are trying to make with that? Terrorists locked up in Guantanamo have neither planned nor carried out any missions of terror. I don't see that as a bad thing, why do you? Drone attacks in Pakistan kill terrorists. It is unfortune that some mistakes are made but the terrorists are the ones that hide behind the skirts of women. Talk to them about keeping their distance from people not involved in the terror game.
Click to expand...

Yes there is a point I am trying to make with that. All of those things produce a lot more terrorism than they prevent. And besides that, the US have been pissing on our common values since 9/11. How credible do you think it is whenever the US government talks about human rights these days?
 
Sanddune said:
Defend the Iraq war as much as you want but it's simply absurd to say that Bush was forced into it by Schröder, Chirac, and Putin. And it's equally absurd to see some sort of "informal social group", axis of whatever, secret alliance, or anything else between Schröder, Chirac, and Saddam.

The Iraq war was wanted by the Bush administration and it was started by the Bush administration under pretexts. "sloppy intelligence"... call it that if you want, but there was certainly a purpose behind the sloppiness.
Click to expand...
I would not say he was forced. But it would have been very bad for the US after saying he would invade not to do so.

And yes again. The administration wanted to take out an enemy in the area. Iran was discussed as an alternative. But Saddam screamed: "Here!"

And no. I think we could have forced Saddam with other means.

But once Bush had committed, Schröder/Chirac/Putin had him. They knew he could not back down. They needed only convince Saddam he was safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom