Anybody else hear this?

[GraceAbounds]

What does anyone suppose Saddam would have done with that $1 billion dollars? He could have easily funded more Palestinian suicide bombers and wreaked all sorts of havoc on the region. Imagine how the American public would have reacted? "Bush gives $1 billion to get rid of Saddam and now Saddam is funding more terrorists". Saddam would have used that as a propaganda item as well.


And what about all the folks that have been yelling that there were no WMD and that it is a lie about why we went to war, yet Saddam wants to leave with all the information regarding his WMD. Sounds like an admission to me. Or was it just another way for him to keep up the appearance that he had WMD's? Or was it more of his deadly and sick poker games where he got caught bluffing?


With Saddam dead, we'll never know, but now that we've spend billions more than the bribe Saddam wanted, it of course is going to appear to be an attractive offer to people that can't stand the fact we went to war, but it could have very well been disastrous to accept that bribe as well.


Conjecture at this point is useless. It is always nice when you have hindsight to go back in history and state what others 'should' have done or what you would have done - but life doesn't work that way.

 

[Tim]

What does anyone suppose Saddam would have done with that $1 billion dollars? He could have easily funded more Palestinian suicide bombers and wreaked all sorts of havoc on the region. Imagine how the American public would have reacted? "Bush gives $1 billion to get rid of Saddam and now Saddam is funding more terrorists". Saddam would have used that as a propaganda item as well.

Why do you insist on saying Bush would be giving him the money? He wanted to go into exile with money from his own country. He wasn't asking us to fund his exile. And even if he did eventually fund terrorists, which would be a new venture for him since he wasn't in the business of funding terrorist organizations, wouldn't he be MUCH more manageable while he is in exile instead of having his military protecting him? And how much power do you really think he would have? Going into exile would has destroyed his image of power, his power was based on being able to control his people with an iron fist. The people would no longer fear him and no longer follow him once he was exiled. That's the life of a dictator, take away their power and they are nothing... A perfect example is Idi Amin, read about him and his rise and fall sometime. He was 10X worst than Saddam.

And what about all the folks that have been yelling that there were no WMD and that it is a lie about why we went to war, yet Saddam wants to leave with all the information regarding his WMD. Sounds like an admission to me. Or was it just another way for him to keep up the appearance that he had WMD's? Or was it more of his deadly and sick poker games where he got caught bluffing?

He had WMD's, who said that he didn't? Everyone KNOWS that he had them. We are the ones that gave him the weapons and the information of how to use, handle and store them. The lead up to the war was based off his not getting rid of them and to stop any production of them (with the information we gave him) since he showed that he was willing to use them on his own people. But he did get rid of them like he was so ordered to do so. Why do you think we never found them after the invasion? Because they weren't there. He had them and now he doesn't... is that so hard to understand?

With Saddam dead, we'll never know, but now that we've spend billions more than the bribe Saddam wanted, it of course is going to appear to be an attractive offer to people that can't stand the fact we went to war, but it could have very well been disastrous to accept that bribe as well.

It could have been, but wouldn't it have been nice to see if that would have worked before throwing our men and women into the meat grinder? My biggest problem with this information is the fact that it appears that Bush didn't give a shit what other avenues might have been available to him. His mind was made up that he wanted to finish his Daddy's work and show that he was a "man" The problem is, he's doing it with American lives and our money.

Conjecture at this point is useless. It is always nice when you have hindsight to go back in history and state what others 'should' have done or what you would have done - but life doesn't work that way.

History is EVERYTHING when it comes to war. It is from our past mistakes that we can learn not what to do in the future.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

.......He had WMD's, who said that he didn't? Everyone KNOWS that he had them.

And where o where are those famous WMD's pray tell? They found any yet?

 

[Tim]

And where o where are those famous WMD's pray tell? They found any yet?

Of course they didn't, they were destroyed or used.

How is this so hard to understand? I had a Ford pickup truck once. I don't anymore, and hell, I still have the Chilton manual for it. Amazing, no truck and yet I still have all the information on how to fix and maintain it. So you can come look at my house all you want, you won't find the truck, but maybe, just maybe I'll take the manual with me when I move again.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Of course they didn't, they were destroyed or used.

How is this so hard to understand? I had a Ford pickup truck once. I don't anymore, and hell, I still have the Chilton manual for it. Amazing, no truck and yet I still have all the information on how to fix and maintain it. So you can come look at my house all you want, you won't find the truck, but maybe, just maybe I'll take the manual with me when I move again.

Just seems incredible there was talk of having weapons of mass destructions and yet they haven't found any...not even one.

Now, the ole Saddass had to have been a great magician to make em all disappear, 'specially given the watchful eyes of US and allies intelligence. They have the technology to spy on things from a great distance don't they? Satellite and stuff. And then there's ground intelligence. Just sounds fishy to me.

I too believed they had WMDs and was hoping they would have found them as evidence if only to prove the point. Dammit at least find one or two.

Not that I'm saying we're not better off without Saddass's sorry ass but it would have been more credible and justified the action in the eyes of many, both naysayers and protagonists.

 

[GraceAbounds]

Tim, I'd love to have a convo with you, but unfortunately due to wording only being 7% of communication and you not knowing me, you seem to constantly take my words/posts from the perspective that I'm not coming from.

The way in which you respond to what I say - all it does is put me in the position to go back and say that is not where I was coming from, you are misunderstanding my point. So to post back to you would just lead me to typing the same thing again, but to add that the way you are perceiving my posts were not where I was going, not what I was wanting you to understand, or not my intention.

I will however correct you in that when I stated that conjecture at this point is useless. It is always nice when you have hindsight to go back in history and state what others 'should' have done or what you would have done - but life doesn't work that way was NOT me saying that history is not important. I agree that with the well known statement that those that don't learn from the past are condemned to repeat it. Where I was going with my above statement is that we can all say NOW that knowing what we know in hindsight we would have done this or we would have done that - that is always easy for people to say after the fact.

And as far as the 'no WMD', plently of far-left wings nuts were stating this. They were yelling it from the rooftops in every forum I ever visited a couple of years ago.

 

[Tim]

During operation Desert Fox and Desert Storm we were bombing every scud missile site we could find in Iraq. We also targeted any chemical weapons facilities we knew about. This went on for a long time with thousands of sorties flown. It is possible that his WMD program was neutralized at that time.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

During operation Desert Fox and Desert Storm we were bombing every scud missile site we could find in Iraq. We also targeted any chemical weapons facilities we knew about. This went on for a long time with thousands of sorties flown. It is possible that his WMD program was neutralized at that time.

Yeaaaah right!!!
....and the sun rises in the west.

 

[Tim]

Grace, if there is something I have misread in your post, then help me out and clarify it for me. I can only go by what is written here since the written word is all we have here.

As far as the Far-left people thinking he didn't have WMD's, it must be a matter of when the question is asked. It all depends what time frame you are asking the question to.

He had no WMD's
then we gave him some
then they were gone
now he's dead

But I have not met a Far-left wing nut yet that would argue that he didn't have them at some point. I think their argument is that he didn't have any when we invaded. And that's my stance to. He didn't have any or only reminiscences of them.

 

[Tim]

Yeaaaah right!!!
....and the sun rises in the west.

So we were only bombing huts in the desert? What do you think we were targeting for those thousands of sorties? We did have good intel, we did know where he was hiding his stuff, and we bombed the hell out of it. Why is that hard to believe?

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

So we were only bombing huts in the desert? What do you think we were targeting for those thousands of sorties? We did have good intel, we did know where he was hiding his stuff, and we bombed the hell out of it. Why is that hard to believe?

Guess you might have a point there. The sorties etc must have done great damage.

.......BUT...now here's the one billion dollar question....if they can examine and find remnants from massive explosions and whatnot (say for example, World Trade Towers), how can't they do the same there?:confused

 

[GraceAbounds]

Grace, if there is something I have misread in your post, then help me out and clarify it for me. I can only go by what is written here since the written word is all we have here.

I know hun. It is just sometimes I don't want to have to put a lot of effort into communicating on here because I have to do that 24/7 in school and my brain is just fried and exhausted half the time. It just feels to much like work right now. I hope you understand. In the future, when school is not so demanding, I'll take the time to communicate more productively with you. I enjoy reading your posts and I agree with more things that you say than you probably realize.

 

[groundpounder]

How about a short list of brutal dictators that the US are friendly with....
Abacha, General Sani
Amin, Idi
Banzer, Colonel Hugo
Batista, Fulgencio
Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal
Botha, P.W.
Branco, General Humberto
Cedras, Raoul
Cerezo, Vinicio
Chiang Kai-Shek
Cordova, Roberto Suazo
Christiani, Alfredo
Diem, Ngo Dihn
Doe, General Samuel
Duvalier, Francois
Duvalier, Jean Claude
Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, King
Franco, General Francisco
Hitler, Adolf
Hassan II
Marcos, Ferdinand
Martinez, General Maximiliano Hernandez
Mobutu Sese Seko
Noriega, General Manuel
Ozal, Turgut
Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza
Papadopoulos, George
Park Chung Hee
Pinochet, General Augusto
Pol Pot
Rabuka, General Sitiveni
Montt, General Efrain Rios
Salassie, Halie
Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira
Somoza, Anastasio Jr.
Somoza, Anastasio, Sr.
Smith, Ian
Stroessner, Alfredo
Suharto, General
Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas
Videla, General Jorge Rafael
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed

Cut-and-paste google research is given away by the different font and the fact that it's in alphabetical order - probably came from some "We Hate Republicans!" or "Yellow dog Democrats FOR THE WIN" website that you're a member of and get a weekly e-mail from. It's more effort than what most put into a point, so I have to hand it to you. But alas, your list is tainted because it includes several people that while we may have "been friendly with," ultimately those "friends" didn't work out. Happens that way sometimes, like divorce and such, and you look back and say "What was I thinking?" Doesn't make you a bad country or even one with bad judgement. Evil people are VERY charismatic.

The list reeks of propoganda, the likes of which is regurgitated at times like this when people with an agenda say, "Bush is evil because we gave Saddam WMD technology back in the late 70's! WE HAVE NO RIGHT!" Bullshit. Politics, and especially geopolitics, make strange bedfellows. Some of which came back to haunt you years later when you look back and say, "That didn't turn out so well...." I mean, since we're digging up old bones, who was in office in the late 70's? Carter! Does that make Clinton a terrible president since they're both Democrats? Or his foreign policy somehow tied to the Bay of Pigs because Kennedy was a Dem?? HELL NO! It's just so blantant to bring up things like this when arguing about the present. Partisan is what it is.

Allowing any brutal dictator to go free is not something I would ever want to see... ever. But if I could trade the lives of every American killed or injured for his remaining years living in the lap of luxury out of power, I would. Forget the money.

yeah, you and everyone else including me, Tim. War sucks. People die. I HATE WAR! Problem is, "But if" and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee.

WWII is the single deadliest conflict in the history of mankind. Estimated human loss is 72 million, 47 million of which was civilian. FDR, arguably one of the greatest Presidents in revisionist history, led us into WWII to get us out of the Great Depression, and 47 million civilians paid for it.

Oh wait, But if I could trade the lives of every American killed or injured for one assassin's bullet in Berlin around, say, 1932, I would, and WWII would have never happened, right? But it doesn't work that way, does it? Tell me, Tim - how do you feel about World War II? Is the blood of 47 million civilians on the hand of Franklin Roosevelt, a good old fashioned blue blooded Democrat? I, for one, think not. Which is why bringing up some obscure list of madmen that "the US is friendly with" doesn't add to the argument that the war in Iraq is wrong.

What makes you think for one second that Kim Jong-il would want to go into exile? Why would he?

Hell, I never said that he did, so don't put words or ideals in my posts to try to make your point. But what makes you think that he wouldn't? Neither one of us knows if he would or if he wouldn't. It's not central to the point. The point of the Kim Jon-il reference is you just can't let people like Saddam Hussein go unchecked. People like that, you give them an inch and they take take take until they're gassing their own people, creating an Aryan race, making plans to nuke their neighbors, thumbing their nose at the rest of the civilized world and wreaking havoc. You can't just say, "You've been a very very bad boy. Now take this money and get the fuck outta here." Sets a BAD precedent.

He may be on the Axis of evil list, but he is in no way in danger of losing his country. So why would we offer him the opportunity to go into exile? It doesn't make any sense.

And now this doesn't make any sense now that you see that you extrapolated the whole reference.

So letting him leave on his own then helping Iraq set up a new government wasn't even considering? Is it the fact that the war machine was already set into motion and nothing was going to stop it?

Fact is, I never bought into the WMD thing from Day 1. I didn't like the way he was stonewalling the UN inspectors, but I was thinking to myself "These towelheads aren't smart enough to develop a weapon to disperse Sarin gas over Los Angeles." But we needed to know for sure. I thought his stonewalling was more about his stupid pride than having anything to hide. And that turned out to be right.

From the jump, though, I thought W had a hard-on for Iraq and war was inevitable. Which sucked. I think Saddam had to go, but I think we were led into war under false pretense and went for the wrong reasons (the biggest of which is a three letter word that rhymes with foil). I think this Administration knew that Saddam didn't pose a WMD threat even to Iran or Israel, let alone New York City. And I think this administration knew there was no credible link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, which is like saying we need to lock down New Hampshire because of Timothy McVeigh.
But Saddam had to go.

And I think this $1,000,000,000 thing is a big lie to stir up more of what's already stirred up - anti-war sentiment. And it's working.

W came into office with a flair, and he snowed the American public as being a "bipartisan bridge builder" (his words). He is nothing of the sort. He is one of the most divisive presidents in history, and he's arrogant and hard headed. That's what sent us to war, and that's what's keeping us knee deep in it. He refuses to change the course because to do so would involve eating some crow, which is something W will NOT do. Too prideful. I can't WAIT for the elections to come. Only the next prez will have the stones to get us out. We gotta get out!

Of course he had weapons of mass destruction, he used them on the kurds. He used them against Iran. He had a pretty good WMD program thus good information on making, handling and using them. But he was asking to take the info on them, not suitcases of nerve gas.

And knowing this you think it would have been a good idea to let him walk with that info? You want to talk about not making sense....:wtf:

 

[Peter Parka]

opcorn2: Bit like waiting to watch an execution, this! Anyone got the salt?opcorn2:

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Dayuuuumn Groundpounder. Brutally frank post there. Brutal.

Made some very interesting points. So have Tim. You do know he's not going to take that lying down do you?

Very interesting debate. Kudos to the both of you :clap

CB.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

opcorn2: Bit like waiting to watch an execution, this! Anyone got the salt?opcorn2:

LOL Pete. Tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...tock.......

Only a matters of time now. There's gonna be some blood spillin'.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Still LOL Pete. Wonder if ole Tim seen GP's post yet?

Dayuuumn, like an expectant father waiting for his first newborn to arrive.

Here, have some more popcorn while we wait.

opcorn2:opcorn2:opcorn2:opcorn2:opcorn2:

 

[groundpounder]

Dayuuuumn Groundpounder. Brutally frank post there. Brutal.

Not meant to be brutal, and I don't think Tim's going to take it that way. Tim, if it's seems brutal, I'll edit it. Send me a PM. But I don't think it's going to be an issue. Tim and I understand each other pretty well, I think.

Made some very interesting points. So have Tim. You do know he's not going to take that lying down do you?
Very interesting debate. Kudos to the both of you :clap
CB.

and here's why: Tim and I can both make points in a civil fashion, which is a hallmark of intelligent debate. We're not existentialist coffee house philosophers, we both understand the issues and on some level see both sides, because things like this are rarely black and white. Relativists cannot do that.

LOL Pete. Tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...tock.......
Only a matters of time now. There's gonna be some blood spillin'.

I'm sure Tim will have something well thought out. Or he might say, "Fuck it." When it comes to Tim and I debating a point, it's not about having the last word, per se. The guess here is that he'll have a rebuttal, and it'll be a good one.

What's interesting is that I think it's pretty clear that we both think Bush is an idiot and can't wait for him to leave office. :mad

W had such potential when he entered office - charisma, bipartisan support, solid moral ground (no blue dresses for Bushie), record approval ratings post 9-11. His bullhorn speech at Ground Zero delivered 9-14-01 when he said, "I can here you! I can here you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!" STILL puts tears in my eyes! It was AWESOME!!! Seriously, it's right up there with "Ask not what your country can do for you" and "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Here, go have a listen. Click right under the picture and press play on the player. The Rhetoric of 9/11: Bullhorn Address at Ground Zero ( 9-14-01)

If that don't wanna make you salute the flag, recite the Pledge of Allegiance and eat some apple pie, nothing will. And it doesn't matter if he was GOP or Dem. It could have been Kucinich saying the same thing, and the reaction would have been the same.
Then he pissed it all away because he let his approval rating go to his head because he thought it was going to let him do anything. Fucker. :smiley24:
And now this: easily one of the worst presidents in the recorded history of the United States. Sheesh.

 

[AUDRAA]

yeah Im not seeing a problem with this post either, Tim and GP are both pretty knowlegable and can disagree like adults on this. I think the post will remain as far as Im concerned unless another mod feels differently

 

[Maulds]

I thought his stonewalling was more about his stupid pride than having anything to hide. And that turned out to be right.

That reminds me of a quote from "The Sum of All Fears"

"It's better to appear guilty, than weak."