Recent History - U.S vs Iraq

[SheetWise]

Just how big a threat was Saddam Hussein? Let’s reprise what our leaders had to say on the subject. First, here’s the president:

[ QUOTE ]
If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences. … Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction…? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who’s really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the vice president:

[ QUOTE ]
If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people. So this is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here’s the hitch: That was Clinton and Gore in 1998, not Bush and Dick Cheney in 2002.

President Clinton offered his assessment in February 1998. Gore made his observations the following December, defending the military strikes Clinton had ordered against Iraq. These were not off-the-cuff remarks but vetted statements by the two highest officials of the United States.

More

[ QUOTE ]
President Clinton offered his assessment in February 1998. Gore made his observations the following December, defending the military strikes Clinton had ordered against Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ] Exactly, C/G defending some strategic MISSLE STRIKES, designed to make a point. that point being, don't stockpile WMD's. Lo and behold, it appears he didn't. if your point is that Clinton did a good job in containing Saddam without costing thousands of american lives, and Billions of dollars, your point is well taken.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly, C/G defending some strategic MISSLE STRIKES, designed to make a point. that point being, don't stockpile WMD's. Lo and behold, it appears he didn't. if your point is that Clinton did a good job in containing Saddam without costing thousands of american lives, and Billions of dollars, your point is well taken.

[/ QUOTE ]
If liberals would like to limited the debate to how the US responded -- there is a legitimate debate. If they want to continually make an issue of why we responded, they're being intellectually dishonest.

The only reason I can think of that they have changed the subject from how to why -- is because they voted for the how before they had a chance to wet their finger and stick it in the air.

[ QUOTE ]

If liberals would like to limited the debate to how the US responded -- there is a legitimate debate. If they want to continually make an issue of why we responded, they're being intellectually dishonest.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please, spare us. The "intellectual dishonesty" here is your lame attempt to suggest that any opposition to the war or acknowlegdement of the obvious -- i.e., that the administration misled the country to sell the war -- is somehow equivilant to a position that Saddam Hussein is a swell fellow that we didn't have to worry about at all.

If you see someone walking toward you and looking another way, and you believe that he is going to bump into you and you can't get out of the way, do you:

1) Call out to get him to pay attention;
2) Put out your hands to stop him; or
3) Take out a knife and attack him.

Only a fool equates all of these options, and only a bigger fool believes that anyone who rejects number 3 doesn't care if someone bumps into them.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
if your point is that Clinton did a good job in containing Saddam without costing thousands of american lives, and Billions of dollars, your point is well taken.


[/ QUOTE ]

Couple of counter points:

Containing Saddam did cost billions and would have continued to cost billions. In that process American lives would have continued to be put in Jeopardy just as they have for the 12 years prior to Iraqi freedom. During this time thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Iraqis were being killed by Saddam.

The actual cost in American lives to remove Saddam from power was extremely small. Its the cost of trying to establish a free, stable and democratic Iraq that is actually proving to be very high.

Remember, the number one enemy in Iraq is Zarqawi and his organization, Al Queda in Iraq. These are the people thousands of American soldiers have died fighting. They attacked us first in the United States, and then in Iraq.

Stu

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
If you see someone walking toward you and looking another way, and you believe that he is going to bump into you and you can't get out of the way, do you:

1) Call out to get him to pay attention;
2) Put out your hands to stop him; or
3) Take out a knife and attack him.

Only a fool equates all of these options, and only a bigger fool believes that anyone who rejects number 3 doesn't care if someone bumps into them.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you confront a known murderer, who tells you he is armed, and after 17 times asking him to drop his weapon -- he refuses -- do you:

1) Ask him again;
2) Speak louder; or
3) Shoot.

Only a fool equates all of these options, and only a bigger fool believes that anyone who selects number 3 is guilty of a crime upon finding that the gun wasn't loaded.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Just how big a threat was Saddam Hussein?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have just crashed through the comedic level of MMMMMM and are now heading for the level of Jaxmike.

You understand, I hope, that this is a downward course.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
You understand, I hope, that this is a downward course.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can you tell from down there?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The number one enemy in Iraq is Zarqawi and his organization, Al Queda in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can one respond to such an assertion, to such a gross generalisation, without calling its source names, such as "ignorant" or "close-minded"?

Ah well. One can attempt, perhaps, to respond by putting forth questions:

- Is a foreign, terrorist organisation able to be as successful as the Iraqi insurgency is so far, without significant assistance from the local, Iraqi civilian population?

- If a significant number of Iraqi civilians are assisting the insurgents, does it not follow that a significant number of Iraqi civilians are taking the step from offering logistics support to actively participating in operations?

- When, in History, has a foreign-led and foreign-instigated rebellion/insurgency been successful without the active and massive participation of the local civilian population?

- If what you assert is true, then capturing Zarqawi would strike a lethal blow to the insurgency ?

One could go on. But then one would waste Sunday.

[ QUOTE ]
The actual cost in American lives to remove Saddam from power was extremely small. Its the cost of trying to establish a free, stable and democratic Iraq that is actually proving to be very high.

[/ QUOTE ]
May I remind you that removing Saddam was only one part of the "American Plan"?

Care to tell us how you would rate the success, so far, of the whole Plan?

But, possibly, you prefer announcements like this one: "And now, the latest from Astrodome: Houston 7."

[InchoateHand]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, the number one enemy in Iraq is Zarqawi and his organization, Al Queda in Iraq. These are the people thousands of American soldiers have died fighting. They attacked us first in the United States, and then in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can call myself Al Queda, walk downtown, and set myself on fire. Does that mean that they will have attacked us in NY, in Iraq and in Michigan?

Are you really so foolish as to think these are remotely the same organizations?