Are Bush Supporters ready to admit Iraq was a collossal mistake? - Page 12 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #111 of 237 (permalink) Old 02-23-2006, 09:54 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
chiphomme's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2005
Vehicle: 2008 CLK63 Black Series, 2008 Cayenne GTS
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 480
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Are Bush Supporters ready to admit Iraq was a collossal mistake?

Quote:
elau - 2/23/2006 11:33 PM

Quote:
So only idiots join the armed forces? Nice.
And I didn't say I was better I was responding to someone telling me to join. Get it?
Since the discussion of the Iraqi invasion started 3 years ago, and all the arguments from the pro - ex- and current military? Yes, you are all idiots.

Want me to prove your point? Just read your own writing.

Normal people don't sign up to be a killer for living. Get it?
Yeah we're all killers. Go crawl back under your rock.




chiphomme is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #112 of 237 (permalink) Old 02-23-2006, 10:01 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
chiphomme's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2005
Vehicle: 2008 CLK63 Black Series, 2008 Cayenne GTS
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 480
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Are Bush Supporters ready to admit Iraq was a collossal mistake?

Quote:
Ammonium - 2/23/2006 11:43 PM

Quote:
chiphomme - 2/23/2006 9:09 PM

Quote:
GermanStar - 2/23/2006 7:51 PM

We invaded Afghanistan in retaliation to an attack upon our country. That invasion was wholly justified, despite the fact that the 9/11 attack would have probably never occurred without U.S. complicity. If you don't see the distinction, maybe you should work on that...

Afganistan didn't attack our country. How about those other countries I had mentioned?
Whoa, I almost missed this. So now you're saying we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan?

No I was just trying to figure out Germanstar's criteria for intervention.
Afghanistan didn't attack our country, OBL's gang did.
If the invasion of Afghanistan was justified because they harbored al-Qaeda. Shouldn't we then be in Pakistan, Somolia, and Sudan?

chiphomme is offline  
post #113 of 237 (permalink) Old 02-23-2006, 10:08 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
elau's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
RE: Are Bush Supporters ready to admit Iraq was a collossal mistake?

Quote:
Will it turn out for the better? I hope so.
Frankly I thought Afghanistan was going to be a harder nut to crack.
Still the wishful thinking, huh? Iraq is getting closer to an all out civil war. And who put them in this position? Hint: not the guy we just deposed.

So you finally admit the Administration realize Afghanistan is a no win, so they go after a soft target to save face?

Chip, either way you look at it. This war IS a mistake. I can't see how you can justify anything less than that.

'95 R129
'04 G35.5 BS
'10 X204
elau is offline  
post #114 of 237 (permalink) Old 02-23-2006, 10:12 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
chiphomme's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2005
Vehicle: 2008 CLK63 Black Series, 2008 Cayenne GTS
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 480
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Are Bush Supporters ready to admit Iraq was a collossal mistake?

Quote:
elau - 2/24/2006 12:08 AM

Quote:
Will it turn out for the better? I hope so.
Frankly I thought Afghanistan was going to be a harder nut to crack.
Still the wishful thinking, huh? Iraq is getting closer to an all out civil war. And who put them in this position? Hint: not the guy we just deposed.


No there probably wouldn't be a civil war under Saddam's rule because he would have just murdered anyone dissenting.
How many people died under Saddam's rule again?









chiphomme is offline  
post #115 of 237 (permalink) Old 02-23-2006, 10:21 PM
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Sep 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 308
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Ammonium
RE: Are Bush Supporters ready to admit Iraq was a collossal mistake?

Quote:
chiphomme - 2/23/2006 11:52 PM

Quote:
Ammonium - 2/23/2006 11:30 PM

No one on this entire thread is arguing with you that Saddam is a bad guy. No one disputes that.

Though you may not be advocating invasion, your argument thus far seems to give that impression. And if we follow your assursion that we should invade given the chance of an outcome positive to us, what is to stop other nations doing the same? What is to stop India from invading Pakistan?

Who makes the decission what is within reason? You? Me? The President? Congress? Where is that threshold? 1000 lives lost? 100,000? 1 Million? It's a very slippery slope that I would like to avoid completely.

I agree it's a slippery slope and all factors should be weighed but Iraq clearly needed to be dealt with. Saddam's regime was in violation of numerous international obligations, was a humanitarian disaster, and was a current and future threat. Given the increasing power of Islamic terrorists hell-bent on destroying the west and the need for sponsor states Saddams removal was prudent.
Did the US blunder in the WMDs assessment? Of course.
But it was a stupid to use that as the caus belli for the invasion. There were so many other stronger arguments.
But was there nothing there to be worried about?
Of course not. That’s why I keep hammering the Deulfer report. I should also point out the Volker findings were pretty damning of the UN.
Was the Iraq invasion a colossal mistake? No.
Was Iraq handled properly after the invasion? No
Will it turn out for the better? I hope so.
Frankly I thought Afghanistan was going to be a harder nut to crack.
China currently has numerous human rights violations. They are a totalitarian state and prohibits free speach/press, religion, and right to assemble and protest. They have weapons of mass destruction and have threatened Taiwan with invasion numerous times. They have engaged in spying on the United States on just about every level.

Does this classify as a "humanitarian disaster, and was a current and future threat"?

The whole purpose of everyone's prodding you is why is Iraq such a special case other than their oil? There are other countries throughout the world that are just as bad/if not worse than Iraq with leaders just as iron fisted yet we do nothing. So why Iraq?

Also, Saddam's only tie to terrorism was paying families of PLO suicide bombers. No ties to Al-Queda. That sounds like an Israeli problem, so let them deal with it. It's in their neighborhood, they've got an army with ships, planes, and nuclear bombs. Let them sort it out, it's not our problem.
Ammonium is offline  
post #116 of 237 (permalink) Old 02-23-2006, 10:36 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
chiphomme's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2005
Vehicle: 2008 CLK63 Black Series, 2008 Cayenne GTS
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 480
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Are Bush Supporters ready to admit Iraq was a collossal mistake?

Quote:
Ammonium - 2/24/2006 12:21 AM

Quote:
chiphomme - 2/23/2006 11:52 PM

Quote:
Ammonium - 2/23/2006 11:30 PM

No one on this entire thread is arguing with you that Saddam is a bad guy. No one disputes that.

Though you may not be advocating invasion, your argument thus far seems to give that impression. And if we follow your assursion that we should invade given the chance of an outcome positive to us, what is to stop other nations doing the same? What is to stop India from invading Pakistan?

Who makes the decission what is within reason? You? Me? The President? Congress? Where is that threshold? 1000 lives lost? 100,000? 1 Million? It's a very slippery slope that I would like to avoid completely.

I agree it's a slippery slope and all factors should be weighed but Iraq clearly needed to be dealt with. Saddam's regime was in violation of numerous international obligations, was a humanitarian disaster, and was a current and future threat. Given the increasing power of Islamic terrorists hell-bent on destroying the west and the need for sponsor states Saddams removal was prudent.
Did the US blunder in the WMDs assessment? Of course.
But it was a stupid to use that as the caus belli for the invasion. There were so many other stronger arguments.
But was there nothing there to be worried about?
Of course not. That’s why I keep hammering the Deulfer report. I should also point out the Volker findings were pretty damning of the UN.
Was the Iraq invasion a colossal mistake? No.
Was Iraq handled properly after the invasion? No
Will it turn out for the better? I hope so.
Frankly I thought Afghanistan was going to be a harder nut to crack.
China currently has numerous human rights violations. They are a totalitarian state and prohibits free speach/press, religion, and right to assemble and protest. They have weapons of mass destruction and have threatened Taiwan with invasion numerous times. They have engaged in spying on the United States on just about every level.

Does this classify as a "humanitarian disaster, and was a current and future threat"?

The whole purpose of everyone's prodding you is why is Iraq such a special case other than their oil? There are other countries throughout the world that are just as bad/if not worse than Iraq with leaders just as iron fisted yet we do nothing. So why Iraq?

Also, Saddam's only tie to terrorism was paying families of PLO suicide bombers. No ties to Al-Queda. That sounds like an Israeli problem, so let them deal with it. It's in their neighborhood, they've got an army with ships, planes, and nuclear bombs. Let them sort it out, it's not our problem.

China is an authoritarian monster but is not in violation of numerous UN chapter 7 resolutions.
And is not thumbing it's nose at the world community trying to enforce those obligations.
It also is changing through non violent market forces.
Also, I have said that a probable positive outcome would be needed. Going after China militarily would quite clearly be a world distaster. Paging Dr Stranglelove.
As far as Iraq is concerned their terrorist support went beyond paying families of suicide bombers in Israel. They harbored terrorists and had training facilities.
chiphomme is offline  
post #117 of 237 (permalink) Old 02-23-2006, 11:18 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
RE: Are Bush Supporters ready to admit Iraq was a collossal mistake?

Quote:
chiphomme - 2/23/2006 3:36 PM

It wasn't conjecture. The Deulfer group interview 1000s of Iraqi's, sifted through millions of pieces of paper, and listen to a lot of audio (note the ABC news reports this past week). Iraq was a threat. They kept their infrasructure in tact as best they could, they purchased dual use equipment, they kept seed stocks of biological weapons, and they were bribing their way clear of sanctions. Saddam was obsessed with WMDs.
I just wasted several hours reading the Duelfer Report sections that contained specific conjectures of the type you are repeating. You need to read the report yourself and stop repeating out of context one-liners extracted by someone desperate for some kind of threads to hang on and keep their faith. Here is a quote of the "Key Findings" in the "Regime Strategic Intent" chapter, which is where your claims of Saddam's intent to do whatever you said with WMD come from. Please note the wording, which is far from that which is used to present documented evidence of a particular point. This is clearly language of innuendo, guesswork, and projections of what Saddam wanted to do from the "ISG" perspective. It is a whole load of bullshit. Please don't quote it as a source of anything that presents a case that would stand up in an American court of law - quote it for what it is, a huge boondogle at the taxpayer's expense that says nothing with any authority, other than there were no WMD, and there was no means available to produce WMD.

"Key Findings
Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.


Saddam totally dominated the Regime’s strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq’s strategic policy.

Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.


Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq’s principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.

Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam’s view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi’a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.

The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them."


And, just to address your "seed stock" hyperbole, here is the single reference I could find in the "Biological Warfare" chapter, which is cited in the "Key Findings" section of that chapter (I have itallicized the words which appear near the end of quoted section to make them easier to find - please note they were not emphasized in the original text this way):

"Key Findings

The Biological Warfare (BW) program was born of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and this service retained its connections with the program either directly or indirectly throughout its existence.


The IIS provided the BW program with security and participated in biological research, probably for its own purposes, from the beginning of Iraq’s BW effort in the early 1970s until the final days of Saddam Husayn’s Regime.

In 1991, Saddam Husayn regarded BW as an integral element of his arsenal of WMD weapons, and would have used it if the need arose.


At a meeting of the Iraqi leadership immediately prior to the Gulf war in 1991, Saddam Husayn personally authorized the use of BW weapons against Israel, Saudi Arabia and US forces. Although the exact nature of the circumstances that would trigger use was not spelled out, they would appear to be a threat to the leadership itself or the US resorting to “unconventional harmful types of weapons.�

Saddam envisaged all-out use. For example, all Israeli cities were to be struck and all the BW weapons at his disposal were to be used. Saddam specified that the “many years� agents, presumably anthrax spores, were to be employed against his foes.

ISG judges that Iraq’s actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.


ISG assesses that in 1991, Iraq clung to the objective of gaining war-winning weapons with the strategic intention of achieving the ability to project its power over much of the Middle East and beyond. Biological weapons were part of that plan. With an eye to the future and aiming to preserve some measure of its BW capability, Baghdad in the years immediately after Desert Storm sought to save what it could of its BW infrastructure and covertly continue BW research, hide evidence of that and earlier efforts, and dispose of its existing weapons stocks.

From 1992 to 1994, Iraq greatly expanded the capability of its Al Hakam facility. Indigenously produced 5 cubic meter fermentors were installed, electrical and water utilities were expanded, and massive new construction to house its desired 50 cubic meter fermentors were completed.

With the economy at rock bottom in late 1995, ISG judges that Baghdad abandoned its existing BW program in the belief that it constituted a potential embarrassment, whose discovery would undercut Baghdad’s ability to reach its overarching goal of obtaining relief from UN sanctions.

In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level.


Iraq would have faced great difficulty in re-establishing an effective BW agent production capability. Nevertheless, after 1996 Iraq still had a significant dual-use capability—some declared—readily useful for BW if the Regime chose to use it to pursue a BW program. Moreover, Iraq still possessed its most important BW asset, the scientific know-how of its BW cadre.


Any attempt to create a new BW program after 1996 would have encountered a range of major hurdles. The years following Desert Storm wrought a steady degradation of Iraq’s industrial base: new equipment and spare parts for existing machinery became difficult and expensive to obtain, standards of maintenance declined, staff could not receive training abroad, and foreign technical assistance was almost impossible to get. Additionally, Iraq’s infrastructure and public utilities were crumbling. New large projects, particularly if they required special foreign equipment and expertise, would attract international attention. UN monitoring of dual-use facilities up to the end of 1998, made their use for clandestine purpose complicated and risk laden.

Depending on its scale, Iraq could have re-established an elementary BW program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so, but ISG discovered no indications that the Regime was pursuing such a course.


In spite of the difficulties noted above, a BW capability is technically the easiest WMD to attain. Although equipment and facilities were destroyed under UN supervision in 1996, Iraq retained technical BW know-how through the scientists that were involved in the former program. ISG has also identified civilian facilities and equipment in Iraq that have dual-use application that could be used for the production of agent.

ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent. However ISG lacks evidence to document complete destruction. Iraq retained some BW-related seed stocks until their discovery after Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).


After the passage of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 687 in April 1991, Iraqi leaders decided not to declare the offensive BW program and in consequence ordered all evidence of the program erased. Iraq declared that BW program personnel sanitized the facilities and destroyed the weapons and their contents.

Iraq declared the possession of 157 aerial bombs and 25 missile warheads containing BW agent. ISG assesses that the evidence for the original number of bombs is uncertain. ISG judges that Iraq clandestinely destroyed at least 132 bombs and 25 missiles. ISG continued the efforts of the UN at the destruction site but found no remnants of further weapons. This leaves the possibility that the fragments of up to 25 bombs may remain undiscovered. Of these, any that escaped destruction would probably now only contain degraded agent.

ISG does not have a clear account of bulk agent destruction. Official Iraqi sources and BW personnel, state that Al Hakam staff destroyed stocks of bulk agent in mid 1991. However, the same personnel admit concealing details of the movement and destruction of bulk BW agent in the first half of 1991. Iraq continued to present information known to be untrue to the UN up to OIF. Those involved did not reveal this until several months after the conflict.

Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha Al ‘Azzawi, head of the bacterial program claims she retained BW seed stocks until early 1992 when she destroyed them. ISG has not found a means of verifying this. Some seed stocks were retained by another Iraqi official until 2003 when they were recovered by ISG.

ISG is aware of BW-applicable research since 1996, but ISG judges it was not conducted in connection with a BW program.


ISG has uncovered no evidence of illicit research conducted into BW agents by universities or
research organizations.

The work conducted on a biopesticide (Bacillus thuringiensis) at Al Hakam until 1995 would serve to maintain the basic skills required by scientists to produce and dry anthrax spores (Bacillus anthracis) but ISG has not discovered evidence suggesting this was the Regime’s intention. However in 1991, research and production on biopesticide and single cell protein (SCP) was selected by Iraq to provide cover for Al Hakam’s role in Iraq’s BW program. Similar work conducted at the Tuwaitha Agricultural and Biological Research Center (TABRC) up to OIF also maintained skills that were applicable to BW, but again, ISG found no evidence to suggest that this was the intention.

Similarly, ISG found no information to indicate that the work carried out by TABRC into Single Cell Protein (SCP) was a cover story for continuing research into the production of BW agents, such as C. botulinum and B. anthracis, after the destruction of Al Hakam through to OIF.

TABRC conducted research and development (R&D) programs to enable indigenous manufacture of bacterial growth media. Although these media are suitable for the bulk production of BW agents, ISG has found no evidence to indicate that their development and testing were specifically for this purpose.

Although Iraq had the basic capability to work with variola major (smallpox), ISG found no evidence that it retained any stocks of smallpox or actively conducted research into this agent for BW intentions.

The IIS had a series of laboratories that conducted biological work including research into BW agents for assassination purposes until the mid-1990s. ISG has not been able to establish the scope and nature of the work at these laboratories or determine whether any of the work was related to military development of BW agent.


The security services operated a series of laboratories in the Baghdad area. Iraq should have declared these facilities and their equipment to the UN, but they did not. Neither the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) nor the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) were aware of their existence or inspected them.

Some of the laboratories possessed equipment capable of supporting research into BW agents for military purposes, but ISG does not know whether this occurred although there is no evidence of it. The laboratories were probably the successors of the Al Salman facility, located three kilometers south of Salman Pak, which was destroyed in 1991, and they carried on many of the same activities, including forensic work.

Under the aegis of the intelligence service, a secretive team developed assassination instruments using poisons or toxins for the Iraqi state. A small group of scientists, doctors and technicians conducted secret experiments on human beings, resulting in their deaths. The aim was probably the development of poisons, including ricin and aflatoxin to eliminate or debilitate the Regime’s opponents. It appears that testing on humans continued until the mid 1990s. There is no evidence to link these tests with the development of BW agents for military use.
In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent production systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons.

Prior to OIF there was information indicating Iraq had planned and built a breakout BW capability, in the form of a set of mobile production units, capable of producing BW agent at short notice in sufficient quantities to weaponize. Although ISG has conducted a thorough investigation of every aspect of this information, it has not found any equipment suitable for such a program, nor has ISG positively identified any sites. No documents have been uncovered. Interviews with individuals suspected of involvement have all proved
negative.

ISG harbors severe doubts about the source’s credibility in regards to the breakout program.

ISG thoroughly examined two trailers captured in 2003, suspected of being mobile BW agent production units, and investigated the associated evidence. ISG judges that its Iraqi makers almost certainly designed and built the equipment exclusively for the generation of hydrogen. It is impractical to use the equipment for the production and weaponization of BW agent. ISG judges that it cannot therefore be part of any BW program."


Given there are probably another 50 pages of text that never mention these "seed stocks" again, and nowhere is the type of Biological Weapon these "seed stocks" represent noted. In fact, the bulk of the actual factual reporting says things like "there was no evidence to support that Saddam was doing this, that or the other thing" yet Chip, you get hung up on the near meaningless, rumor-like clauses that Duelfer hangs on the end with lines like "but the ISG still thinks he could have done something if he tried again in the future" all of which are unsupported. Which, in my book means they amount to no more than gratuitous, sycophantic, and toadyish gesturing and bowing. Either read the Duelfer report in its entirety and quote from it in context or just put it down.


Quote:
chiphomme - 2/23/2006 3:36 PM
No the stockpiles of WMDs that were expected to found weren't (much to the embarrassment of the US)but that doesn't change the point of this argument. Saddam was a threat and thank goodness we took him out before he got to the North Korean stage.
As an aside, I always thought the WMD angle wasn't the best. There were so many other reasons to knock that butcher out of power (from mass graves to terrorist support).
You are entitled to your opinion. The Congress authorized the invasion of Iraq based on the WMD story, which was bullshit. A different argument about your concerns with Saddam and his inhuman treatment of the people in and around Iraq who opposed him should have been posed, debated and action plans resolved by Congress as appropriate. Unfortunately, Congress already issued a Resolution on this subject and concluded no US armed forces would be deployed, although the United States would fund and support an internal opposition to overthrow Saddam, if such an organization was formed and asked for help. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #118 of 237 (permalink) Old 02-24-2006, 12:29 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Dec 2005
Vehicle: 1993 300SEL (Sold) 2001 530i
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 7,217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
RE: Are Bush Supporters ready to admit Iraq was a collossal mistake?

I think that it can be said that no matter what you think about the war Saddam was a man who practiced a regime of extreme evil. The entire world is better off with otu him. Iraq will one day be a stable country but that may take 10 years or so and it wont be easy. As for the war being a mistake. Man I thought "Good get that SOB" in the start but as more and more problems like troops abusing the local populas and the lack of WMD. I would not go so far to say a mistake but perhaps the post Saddam phase adn occupation could have been thought out a little better.
NZ Benz is offline  
post #119 of 237 (permalink) Old 02-24-2006, 07:32 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
elau's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
RE: Are Bush Supporters ready to admit Iraq was a collossal mistake?

Quote:
No there probably wouldn't be a civil war under Saddam's rule because he would have just murdered anyone dissenting.
How many people died under Saddam's rule again?
That's right. And the region will still be stable.

Again, when did we really give a rat's b-hind on the welfares of the Iraqi, if not for oil? Millions are dead in Africa everyday, except Bono, did any our Government officials went there and help out? Nope, because they are brown people and no single resource we can steal from the region. Then why bother?

The question to you is, given the grave situation that Iraq may plunge into a civil war, is that what you rather see as oppose to have Saddam in power and keep everybody in check? I think anyone with one ounce of intelligence can see the difference, except you. It is no long IF a civil war will break out, it is WHEN. And when that happens, you can bet your arse a lot more innocence people will die. America will have it's share of blood in her hands.

'95 R129
'04 G35.5 BS
'10 X204
elau is offline  
post #120 of 237 (permalink) Old 02-24-2006, 07:38 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
elau's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
RE: Are Bush Supporters ready to admit Iraq was a collossal mistake?

Quote:
NZ Benz - 2/24/2006 2:29 AM

I think that it can be said that no matter what you think about the war Saddam was a man who practiced a regime of extreme evil. The entire world is better off with otu him. Iraq will one day be a stable country but that may take 10 years or so and it wont be easy. As for the war being a mistake. Man I thought "Good get that SOB" in the start but as more and more problems like troops abusing the local populas and the lack of WMD. I would not go so far to say a mistake but perhaps the post Saddam phase adn occupation could have been thought out a little better.
Dude, it's easy for you to say since you are not paying for the stupid war. 10 years? Are you frigging out of your mind? I, for one, do not want another penny sinks into that sh!t hole. Yes, the entire war is a collossal mistake!!!!!

'95 R129
'04 G35.5 BS
'10 X204
elau is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome