Recommended Posts
QuoteI give credit to any person who runs and wins the highest position in this great country of ours.
If you don't like what they are doing, try to beatQuotethem in the next election. We could sit here all day and "voice our opinions".
If half the people on this site took the time to try to make this country a better place and not just "state there views and opinions" from a computer some changes might just happen.
Perhaps you could help get us started. Tell us about what you have done to help make this a better country and it might inspire others.
billvon 2,426
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Sure, he finally did it, but who knows what he did in the time between
> the initial 'inspections', and the time that the US demanded full
> access?
Probably tried to figure out a way to deny the UN access to sensitive places; we've used the UN inspectors to spy on his military for us before. (Would _you_ allow inspections of our military facilities under those conditions?) When it was clear that the UN (and the US) wasn't going for that, he relented. Which was the original objective of presenting a united front in inspection requirements.
There's no question he was an incredibly evil guy, or that his downfall, at least in the mid-term, will be a good thing. But because we went around the UN, we are in the uncomfortable position of having to admit that the UN inspections were working, and he was telling the truth when he said he had no WMD's. (I know, a great many people never, ever admit their mistakes, but most people now realize that he had no significant WMD's when we invaded.)
> the initial 'inspections', and the time that the US demanded full
> access?
Probably tried to figure out a way to deny the UN access to sensitive places; we've used the UN inspectors to spy on his military for us before. (Would _you_ allow inspections of our military facilities under those conditions?) When it was clear that the UN (and the US) wasn't going for that, he relented. Which was the original objective of presenting a united front in inspection requirements.
There's no question he was an incredibly evil guy, or that his downfall, at least in the mid-term, will be a good thing. But because we went around the UN, we are in the uncomfortable position of having to admit that the UN inspections were working, and he was telling the truth when he said he had no WMD's. (I know, a great many people never, ever admit their mistakes, but most people now realize that he had no significant WMD's when we invaded.)
Jimbo 0
QuoteBut because we went around the UN, we are in the uncomfortable position of having to admit that the UN inspections were working, and he was telling the truth when he said he had no WMD's.
Why do we have to admit that weapons inspections were working? If they were working then why the shell game?
Quoteand he was telling the truth when he said he had no WMD's.
Which time? Minutes before we invaded? Maybe, I could even buy that that's true. But was he telling the truth while he was leading UN inspectors to select sites and denying access to others?
Quote(I know, a great many people never, ever admit their mistakes, but most people now realize that he had no significant WMD's when we invaded.)
Emphasis mine. But how could we be sure? How could the world be sure? He had more than enough chances to let the inspections happen peacefully, he knew that. He shouldn't reasonably expect to continue the games forever, and we didn't allow it.
-
Jim
"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
tbrown 26
Sean, those are my views. If you're a Christian, then good luck and God bless.
I think it's a mistake to talk religion and politics with other skydivers. We're a very mixed sack o' nuts. I'd rather drop the whole thing and maybe this year we can make a few loads together and enjoy what we both have in common, which is that we love to skydive.
Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !
I think it's a mistake to talk religion and politics with other skydivers. We're a very mixed sack o' nuts. I'd rather drop the whole thing and maybe this year we can make a few loads together and enjoy what we both have in common, which is that we love to skydive.
Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !
billvon 2,426
>Why do we have to admit that weapons inspections were working? If
>they were working then why the shell game?
What shell game? A shell game is where you move things around, but they still exist. Where are the things he moved around?
If you mean that he destroyed his WMD's, well - that's exactly what sanctions were intended to force him to do, and exactly what the inspections were intended to verify.
We invaded to disarm Hussein and remove his WMD's. We did not find any WMD's. Hence we accomplished with violence (and nearly ten thousand dead) what inspections had already accomplished. At least in terms of the _stated_ goal of the war, we didn't accomplish anything.
>Which time? Minutes before we invaded? Maybe, I could even buy
> that that's true.
OK, and I will agree that it might well have only been a few weeks. (He didn't have enough warning to act within minutes, and the job was too complete to be done in a day or so if he had the quantities of CBN weapons we claimed he did.)
>But was he telling the truth while he was leading UN inspectors to
> select sites and denying access to others?
He lied a lot, but his statement "we don't have any WMD's" was true. The entire military might of the USA has been trying to disprove that statement for eight months without any luck.
> But how could we be sure? How could the world be sure?
Inspections, backed up with the threat of force. A UN resolution that says "you let us inspect X, Y and Z by this date or the US invades." France and Germany said they'd agree to that in Powell's last days of negotiation; we didn't want to wait.
And if you do that, and inspect every facility in his country without finding WMD's? It may just be that he really doesn't have any, and presents no WMD threat to the rest of the world.
Now, there were many other reasons for invading Iraq, the primary one being that we wanted to overthrow an unstable and dangerous regime in an attempt to stabilize the Middle East a bit and make them more amenable to American interests. This was spelled out in the PNAC report, and endorsed by most of the hawks in the administration. The reason they said they were going after the WMD's was because it was the one reason that would fly bureacratically, that they could get everyone behind. Is that bad? Well, administrations have lied before; they will lie again. This particular lie resulted in the deaths of between 5000 and 9000 people. It may have some good effects in the future; time will tell.
BTW I will be impressed if an administration official comes out and says "we thought he might have had WMD's; we were wrong." It would be nice to see people admit their mistakes, even if this particular mistake was a smokescreen for other issues.
>they were working then why the shell game?
What shell game? A shell game is where you move things around, but they still exist. Where are the things he moved around?
If you mean that he destroyed his WMD's, well - that's exactly what sanctions were intended to force him to do, and exactly what the inspections were intended to verify.
We invaded to disarm Hussein and remove his WMD's. We did not find any WMD's. Hence we accomplished with violence (and nearly ten thousand dead) what inspections had already accomplished. At least in terms of the _stated_ goal of the war, we didn't accomplish anything.
>Which time? Minutes before we invaded? Maybe, I could even buy
> that that's true.
OK, and I will agree that it might well have only been a few weeks. (He didn't have enough warning to act within minutes, and the job was too complete to be done in a day or so if he had the quantities of CBN weapons we claimed he did.)
>But was he telling the truth while he was leading UN inspectors to
> select sites and denying access to others?
He lied a lot, but his statement "we don't have any WMD's" was true. The entire military might of the USA has been trying to disprove that statement for eight months without any luck.
> But how could we be sure? How could the world be sure?
Inspections, backed up with the threat of force. A UN resolution that says "you let us inspect X, Y and Z by this date or the US invades." France and Germany said they'd agree to that in Powell's last days of negotiation; we didn't want to wait.
And if you do that, and inspect every facility in his country without finding WMD's? It may just be that he really doesn't have any, and presents no WMD threat to the rest of the world.
Now, there were many other reasons for invading Iraq, the primary one being that we wanted to overthrow an unstable and dangerous regime in an attempt to stabilize the Middle East a bit and make them more amenable to American interests. This was spelled out in the PNAC report, and endorsed by most of the hawks in the administration. The reason they said they were going after the WMD's was because it was the one reason that would fly bureacratically, that they could get everyone behind. Is that bad? Well, administrations have lied before; they will lie again. This particular lie resulted in the deaths of between 5000 and 9000 people. It may have some good effects in the future; time will tell.
BTW I will be impressed if an administration official comes out and says "we thought he might have had WMD's; we were wrong." It would be nice to see people admit their mistakes, even if this particular mistake was a smokescreen for other issues.
Perhaps you could help get us started. Tell us about what you have done to help make this a better country and it might inspire others.
***
Well first off I do not sit on here and talk politics all day long. I run a cub scout pack with 230 kids. Have been for 3 years. I support and volunteer with the Youth Outreach Program of Chicago, helping out underprivileged kids. Raise 4 kids with my wife and run a IT consulting firm. What about you?
***
Well first off I do not sit on here and talk politics all day long. I run a cub scout pack with 230 kids. Have been for 3 years. I support and volunteer with the Youth Outreach Program of Chicago, helping out underprivileged kids. Raise 4 kids with my wife and run a IT consulting firm. What about you?
Tom,
Sounds good to me but you gotta bring some of the homebrewed beer with ya
Sounds good to me but you gotta bring some of the homebrewed beer with ya
If you don't like what they are doing, try to beat them in the next election. We could sit here all day and "voice our opinions".
If half the people on this site took the time to try to make this country a better place and not just "state there views and opinions" from a computer some changes might just happen.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites