Do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over?"60% of Americans say "No

"Faceless Man" wrote in message

Did Iraq have or
seek to obtain weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Those are the facts

And they got them...from America.

We fed some weapons to Iraq/Saddam during the war with Iran. We hated
Iran so badly that we tried to influence the outcome by arming Hussein.
That is history.

We did the same to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to get Russia kicked out.

We came to regret it.

"John Rennie" wrote in message
...
hls wrote:

"O'Donovan, PJ, Himself" wrote in message
news:007c8801-9dd1-4234-a4f0-
\

It is clear, however, that if left
unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to
wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop
nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
********
He did not have WMDs and his development on them had been
stopped, but he DID indeed plan to continue with this work when
possible. That is a fact.

As containment was working and would have worked even more
efficiently had the White House been at all interested in
a peaceful solution to Iraq Saddam would never have had
the wherewithal to develop his own WMDs.

If effective containment could have been maintained, then you would
of course be right.

hls wrote:

"John Rennie" wrote in message
...
hls wrote:

"O'Donovan, PJ, Himself" wrote in message
news:007c8801-9dd1-4234-a4f0-
\

It is clear, however, that if left
unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to
wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop
nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
********
He did not have WMDs and his development on them had been
stopped, but he DID indeed plan to continue with this work when
possible. That is a fact.

As containment was working and would have worked even more
efficiently had the White House been at all interested in
a peaceful solution to Iraq Saddam would never have had
the wherewithal to develop his own WMDs.

If effective containment could have been maintained, then you would
of course be right.

Read the link I posted and perhaps Carne Ross's evidence
to the Chilcot Inquiry. There he stated that the money
paid to Saddam by Syria and others for 'illegal' exports
of Iraqi oil was deposited in Jordanian banks. These
deposits could have easily been stopped but the Americans
whose cooperation was required showed absolutely no
interest in stopping them.

John Rennie wrote:
hls wrote:

"O'Donovan, PJ, Himself" wrote in message
news:007c8801-9dd1-4234-a4f0-
\

It is clear, however, that if left
unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to
wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop
nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
********
He did not have WMDs and his development on them had been
stopped, but he DID indeed plan to continue with this work when
possible. That is a fact.

As containment was working and would have worked even more
efficiently had the White House been at all interested in
a peaceful solution to Iraq Saddam would never have had
the wherewithal to develop his own WMDs.

This is ridiculous. Saddam was practiced in brinkmanship, he would take
things to their limits and beyond. It caught up with him when the first
Bush was president and ended him when the second Bush was president.



http://tinyurl.com/ahb868

"Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials
dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been
"effectively contained".

He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing
down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since
witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this
view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said.

"At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the
subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds
that Iraq would collapse into chaos."

Of course Iraq would collapse into chaos. The question is whether or not
you are willing to go through that to a better day.

"John Rennie" wrote in message news:6MidnSrs-

These
deposits could have easily been stopped but the Americans
whose cooperation was required showed absolutely no
interest in stopping them.

I'll take a look. I dont think there was any way, really, to stop the
generation
of oil revenues outside the control of the UN. You could limit it, but not
stop it.. And in addition, some of the middle eastern and far eastern
countries did not require money on the barrelhead. You know that.

Saddam would have eventually returned to his rather puny attempts
to make WMDs. I dont think he could have delivered them
effectively, but then again he was a crafty old *******.

We agree that the Bush invasion was uncalled for. It solved no
practical purpose, and cost the American people much more
money than it was worth.

Now, we have farted around and watched Iran develop, with the
help of France and others, rather impressive weaponry. Do we
care?

I dont if you dont.

Will they attack Israel? Probably not today.

hls wrote:

"John Rennie" wrote in message news:6MidnSrs-

These
deposits could have easily been stopped but the Americans
whose cooperation was required showed absolutely no
interest in stopping them.

I'll take a look. I dont think there was any way, really, to stop the
generation
of oil revenues outside the control of the UN. You could limit it, but not
stop it.. And in addition, some of the middle eastern and far eastern
countries did not require money on the barrelhead. You know that.

Saddam would have eventually returned to his rather puny attempts
to make WMDs. I dont think he could have delivered them
effectively, but then again he was a crafty old *******.

We agree that the Bush invasion was uncalled for. It solved no
practical purpose, and cost the American people much more
money than it was worth.

Now, we have farted around and watched Iran develop, with the
help of France and others, rather impressive weaponry. Do we
care?

I dont if you dont.

Will they attack Israel? Probably not today.


What they will do is continue to aid Hezbollah as will
Syria. If it's not the Sunnis it's the Shi'ites - Israel
will never be at peace.

"hls" wrote in message
...

"Faceless Man" wrote in message
Did Iraq have or
seek to obtain weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Those are the facts

And they got them...from America.
We fed some weapons to Iraq/Saddam during the war with Iran. We hated
Iran so badly that we tried to influence the outcome by arming Hussein.
That is history.

We did the same to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to get Russia kicked out.

We came to regret it.

I guess it's ok when America supplies a tyrannical dictator with WMD's but
not when other countries do. Or was Saddam only a tyrannical dictator when
he was America's enemy?

Faceless man wrote:


"hls" wrote in message
...

"Faceless Man" wrote in message
Did Iraq have or
seek to obtain weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Those are the facts

And they got them...from America.
We fed some weapons to Iraq/Saddam during the war with Iran. We hated
Iran so badly that we tried to influence the outcome by arming
Hussein. That is history.

We did the same to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to get Russia kicked
out.

We came to regret it.

I guess it's ok when America supplies a tyrannical dictator with WMD's
but not when other countries do. Or was Saddam only a tyrannical
dictator when he was America's enemy?


To be strictly fair America supplied Saddam with weapons but not with
WMD's. It appears that the chemicals used to kill Iranians and Kurds
were manufactured by what was then a quite rich country. However
there is no doubt that Iraq received whole hearted support from
America which together with the horrifying use of chemicals enabled
them to win an eight year war which almost bankrupted themselves.
The wholesale pillaging of Kuwait in the short time that the Iraqis
were there suggest that there was an urgent need of supplies in
Iraq. What is still interesting is whether Saddam thought he had
received a 'go ahead' from the American ambassador for the invasion of
Kuwait. I'm sure he didn't but that doesn't mean that Saddam
didn't think so. He had after all worked closely with the CIA
in the past and he had fought and won a war against America/Israel's
prime enemy. Perhaps he considered Kuwait to be his prize?

"John Rennie" wrote in message
...
Faceless man wrote:


"hls" wrote in message
...

"Faceless Man" wrote in message
Did Iraq have or
seek to obtain weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Those are the facts

And they got them...from America.
We fed some weapons to Iraq/Saddam during the war with Iran. We hated
Iran so badly that we tried to influence the outcome by arming Hussein.
That is history.

We did the same to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to get Russia kicked
out.

We came to regret it.

I guess it's ok when America supplies a tyrannical dictator with WMD's
but not when other countries do. Or was Saddam only a tyrannical dictator
when he was America's enemy?


To be strictly fair America supplied Saddam with weapons but not with
WMD's. It appears that the chemicals used to kill Iranians and Kurds
were manufactured by what was then a quite rich country. However
there is no doubt that Iraq received whole hearted support from
America which together with the horrifying use of chemicals enabled
them to win an eight year war which almost bankrupted themselves.
The wholesale pillaging of Kuwait in the short time that the Iraqis
were there suggest that there was an urgent need of supplies in
Iraq. What is still interesting is whether Saddam thought he had received
a 'go ahead' from the American ambassador for the invasion of Kuwait. I'm
sure he didn't but that doesn't mean that Saddam
didn't think so. He had after all worked closely with the CIA
in the past and he had fought and won a war against America/Israel's prime
enemy. Perhaps he considered Kuwait to be his prize?

And now all of a sudden it was bad when Saddam used those chemicals on
civilians. Hey here's a clue, Saddam Hussein was always a tyrant. Which
would mean...

Faceless man wrote:


"hls" wrote in message
...

"Faceless Man" wrote in message
Did Iraq have or
seek to obtain weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Those are the facts

And they got them...from America.
We fed some weapons to Iraq/Saddam during the war with Iran. We hated
Iran so badly that we tried to influence the outcome by arming
Hussein. That is history.

We did the same to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to get Russia kicked
out.

We came to regret it.

I guess it's ok when America supplies a tyrannical dictator with WMD'

Kook Alert.