Sweet irony

[David Abramowitz]

Sweet irony

Glen Kerner wrote: The peace treaty that Saddam signed was with the U.S. It really wasn't a peace treaty, but you are correct in the spirit of your statement. That being agreed to, it should not have been necessary to use WMDs as a smokescreen for a pretext to an invasion. Dave

[J.Pluta]

Sweet irony

The rallying cry of the anti-Bush and/or anti-Iraq-war folks consistently centers on the bizarre notion that the only reason we went to war was because of weapons of mass destruction. This is a fabrication. Let's be clear on this. Here's the President's statement AS WE WENT TO WAR: "My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." Note the three-pronged agenda? Note how freeing the people of Iraq is right up there, along with defending the world from grave danger? Anybody who insist that the administration's only excuse for war was WMD need only read this to have that notion disabused. And as I've said before, for those whose argument is they would not have gone to war except for the issue of WMD, shame on you. The horrific suffering of the Iraqi people and the clear and present danger of having the world's fifth largest army run by a genocidal tyrant willing to use WMD on his own people should have been reason enough. Once again: WMD were only one of the reasons we deposed Hussein, and frankly I'm getting tired of hearing that argument over and over. Joe

[dacust]

Sweet irony
[*]******* Glen said "When the UN sanctioned the Gulf War they left us in charge. The peace treaty that Saddam signed was with the U.S. NOT the UN."[*]******* I would be interested to see documentation that shows the UN "left us in charge". I thought the Gulf war was a coalition and was not only UN sanctioned, but officially a UN opperation, just with a US general appointed as commander. Just because our politicians insisted on saying "the U.S." all the time did not make it "our" war. I thought the agreement was officially signed with the UN. Anyway, I'm not saying I know this for a fact, but it was always what I thought. So if you have articles you can give me links to, I would definately like to read them. As an aside, during the Gulf war, I was angered at the politicians for constantly saying "the U.S." because I thought that was just making sure we would be further targeted by terrorists. Before people jump, I'm sure we would have continued to be targeted by terrorists regardless, but the language used just exacerbated the situation. It was not just us that waged that war, it was a group of countries that joined together to do it. The fact that we did the majority was due to the capabilities we have, not because it was our duty to do the most.

Sweet irony

David, you are missing one very very important detail. When the UN sanctioned the Gulf War they left us in charge. The peace treaty that Saddam signed was with the U.S. NOT the UN. Therefore, WE were not asking permission from the UN to act to Saddam's violation of the peace treaty only asking for their assistance and support. Therefore, WE not the UN were the the ones that were "wronged" by the violation of the treaty (I believe that called it the "Peace accord"). The UN does not have the power to dictate to any country how it is to handle such violations. The UN is and always will be a place to try and get world support, but they do not make policy nor do they enforce policy. The US and Iraq made an arrangement to end the Gulf War. Saddam broke that arrangement multiple times. How many times should we have let Saddam break his agreements? 1? 20? 1000? More? The longer you allow one country to go back on it's arrangement (especially in regards to peace treaties) the more other countries will try to take advantage. If let's say France had a specific peace treaty with a country and that country kept violating it, do you really expect them to simply let it go? I don't think even the french would allow it to happen for long.

Sweet irony

David said: "Then it should have been the responsibility of the international body to pursue action." Ah, to live in a world where everyone lived up to their responsibilities! chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "David Abramowitz" wrote in message news:6ae8b07d.41@WebX.WawyahGHajS... > Brian Singleton wrote: Saddam continued to thumb his nose at the UN and international law and played brinksmanship and lost. Someone had to step up to the plate on the enforcement side. > > Then it should have been the responsibility of the international body to pursue action. The UN mandate was not there when we entered Iraq. In point of fact, the UN rejected Colin Powell's presentation, and proceded to vote to give inspectors more of a chance. We justified our action by stating that there was a threat of WMDs from Iraq. > > IMO, it would have been far nobler for Bush to state that whereas Saddam was a no-good evil sumbich, that therefore he was going to kick his assets. Instead the American public was a forced audience to sermon after sermon concerning the WMDs. > > BTW, you are correct about Saddam's intentions concerning Saudi Arabia. Participants in Desert Storm who were stationed in Saudi Arabia have told me that the first question asked of them was "When are you going home?" Never a word of thanks for putting their lives on the line to save their country. > > Dave

Sweet irony

We are in agreement. I'm still having a problem seeing where we are in disagreement if: "Where we seem to disagree is where we would force democracy on a people that didn't want it or worse would reject it just because it was being forced on them. Allowing them to choose for themselves...they will probably choose democracy....but the choice must be theirs. But we must be open to the possibility that they will choose something else....who knows?" this quote is about Iraq? Are we forcing democracy on Iraq? I contend that we are forcing out a regime that is not in place due to the will of the people. And we cannot turn over the country, until it can safely be turned over to the people, not the next set of bullies. When Iraq gets to the point where true free elections can be held, then by definition democracy will not have been forced on them...they will have chosen it. We are forcing democratic methods on the dictator, his henchmen, and the foriegn(to Iraq) terrorists that are there. But, the Iraqi people seem to be participating in the opportunity to play in the new political arena. In the news that I'm watching I am not seeing a majority of anybody calling for the old regime to be put back in place. I guess what I am trying to say, is the old regime is what was forcing the people of Iraq to not have their say, not the liberators. And, ain't it great that we are able to have these conversations without fear of winding up in a mass grave. And now the Iraqi's can start to have these kinds of conversations in public, too. I have enjoyed it also.

[cwscholbe@dstsystems.com]

Sweet irony

ctibodoe, At last something we are in complete agreement on where you said: I believe the human condition is the quest for freedom and self determination. And every group of people should have the chance to decide for themselves. I have NOTHING against democracy....and I also believe that it is the best form of government around. Where we seem to disagree is where we would force democracy on a people that didn't want it or worse would reject it just because it was being forced on them. Allowing them to choose for themselves...they will probably choose democracy....but the choice must be theirs. But we must be open to the possibility that they will choose something else....who knows? I've enjoyed the discussion.

[J.Pluta]

Sweet irony

"Believe it or not, the delivery system for the chemical weapons of which you speak categorizes the weapon as conventional according to military sources." Please re-read the article. It says, "Second, Saddam has a history of aggressive behavior and has shown a willingness to use his WMD against internal and external adversaries." How much clearer do you need than that, David? Please show me a source that says Hussein never had WMD. You may choose to argue the delivery system issue, but that's unconscionable nitpicking in my opinion. The gases themselves are the weapons we've agreed as civilized nations not to use. How they are delivered is a detail. As to reading your posts carefully, I have. You consistently contend that WMD was the administration's only reason for deposing Hussein and then you complain because we haven't found the WMD. Those of us who support the war realize that WMD was just one of many reasons, and always was. You say that "Many in congress (...) voted for military action, based solely upon a threat to the nation from WMDs." I say FOR SHAME on those Congressmen. The WMD was but the tip of the brutal, sadistic regime that Hussein headed. And if only the threat of WMD was able to move Congress to act their conscience, then I'm glad it did. I'm sorry the intelligence was wrong and the evidence overhyped. But I'm disgusted that it was even required. Joe

[J.Pluta]

Sweet irony

Then it should have been the responsibility of the international body to pursue action. Which they abdicated, leaving it up to us. If your position is that the Iraqi people should have waited until the UN moved, then you would be implicitly condemning hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to torture, rape and murder. I suggest you re-read the comments the Iraqi foreign minister had to say about the UN: "The UN as an organisation failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny of 35 years". Joe

[David Abramowitz]

Sweet irony

Joe Pluta wrote: You want to argue against the war? That's fine. You're welcome to your own opinion. But I think you're wrong. Read my posts carefully. My arguements were not against the war itself. I am not confusing WMD with conventional weapons. Hussein used chemical WMD against his own people and against Iran. Believe it or not, the delivery system for the chemical weapons of which you speak categorizes the weapon as conventional according to military sources. Dave

[David Abramowitz]

Sweet irony

Brian Singleton wrote: Saddam continued to thumb his nose at the UN and international law and played brinksmanship and lost. Someone had to step up to the plate on the enforcement side. Then it should have been the responsibility of the international body to pursue action. The UN mandate was not there when we entered Iraq. In point of fact, the UN rejected Colin Powell's presentation, and proceded to vote to give inspectors more of a chance. We justified our action by stating that there was a threat of WMDs from Iraq. IMO, it would have been far nobler for Bush to state that whereas Saddam was a no-good evil sumbich, that therefore he was going to kick his assets. Instead the American public was a forced audience to sermon after sermon concerning the WMDs. BTW, you are correct about Saddam's intentions concerning Saudi Arabia. Participants in Desert Storm who were stationed in Saudi Arabia have told me that the first question asked of them was "When are you going home?" Never a word of thanks for putting their lives on the line to save their country. Dave

Sweet irony

I agree with you Joe but you forgot one very important reason, which in my humble opinion tops them all. Hussein voilated the peace treaty he signed after the Gulf War. A violation of the peace treaty is considered an act of war. The peace treaty was with us, not the United Nations. We are the only country that could act upon the breach of the peace treaty. He didn't violate it once but multiple time. Basically, we have finished what was started when Hussein overtook Kuwait. He started this whole thing and we have finally finished it. His own arogance brought this "war" upon him and the people of Iraq. As for the other reasons, we, the United States, in conjuction with the United Nations have stepped in to other countries when genocide was be done. What Hussein was doing to his own countryman was equal to genocide, if left unchecked he would have killed most of the Iraq people.

[J.Pluta]

Sweet irony

David, I would hope you'd recognize the term "weenies" as one of sarcasm. You may hold Congress in some great regard, but I simply think they are guys with jobs who don't look out for my interests unless their jobs are at stake. When I said "same idiots" I was referring to Congress in toto. Please, let's not start a discussion about the moral stature of our Congress. And Iraq was a threat to the US! If Husseins's genocidal tendencies and support of terrorism and the fact that he had the world's fifth largest army doesn't convince you, then I certainly can't convince you. I am not confusing WMD with conventional weapons. Hussein used chemical WMD against his own people and against Iran. Feel free to read about this: http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepReso...middleEast.asp. We did not sell WMD to Hussein, we sold precursors which were at the time widely available to anybody in the world. You want to argue against the war? That's fine. You're welcome to your own opinion. But I think you're wrong. Joe

Sweet irony

Let me correct something I said about countries in Europe in the seventies. Some of them may have been democracies, but with socialist leanings. I believe the human condition is the quest for freedom and self determination. And every group of people should have the chance to decide for themselves.

[David Abramowitz]

Sweet irony

Those Congressmen were weenies. This one is beneath you, Joe. Congress is composed of VFWs (Veterans of foreign wars) on both sides of the aisle. Many of the weenies you talk about about have defended our nation with honor, and know what harm's way is all about. Me, and most of the people I know, supported deposing Hussein for gassing his own people, for lying to weapons inspectors, for supporting terrorism, and for a number of other reasons, all of which amounted to him basicaly being a genocidal tyrant in control of the fifth largest army in the world. That ought to be enough for anybody, but hey what can you do. Evidently the President does not agree with you. In his interview last night, he reiterated that the reason for going into Iraq, was because Iraq was a threat to U.S. Perhaps a certain number of the more appeasement oriented congressmen needed to hear WMD, but these are the same idiots who say we need to bring in foreign IT workers. In the neighborhoods around me, we'er all pretty comfortable that Hussein was deposed. Get your facts straight Joe. An example here is Orin Hatch (R-Ut). Hatch was the largest supporter of sending troops to Iraq in the first place. Right now Hatch is leading the fight to increase H1-B quotas. Hatch is a leader with many followers who reflect his views. OTOH, I can tell you personally that many who opposed sending troops, or who would only send troops under evidence of threat also support our position on visas. You don't have to believe me, check it out for yourself. BTW, as one who meets with politicos of various persuasions (to try to persuade them) I have developed a respect for our elected officials, even those who do not reflect my own viewpoint. I strongly object to the term idiot. And another issue: Iraq had WMD. This is a fact (he used them on Iran and on his own people). And Hussein historically has been willing to both bury his weapons and give them to neighboring countries when he was worried about losing them. The really scary thing is that we don't know where his WMD program went. What we're trying to determine is not whether they had WMD, but where they went. You are confusing WMDs with conventional weapons. The U.S. knows that these were conventional weapons because we know where he got them from. we sold them to him! After Iran took Americans hostage in the late 70s, we buddied up with Saddam based on the notion that the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Saddam was in power ten years at that point, and there was never any objection as to how he handled his power by the U.S. In 1982, the French started to build a nuclear reactor in Iraq. The Israelis put a stop to that very quickly. you can complain all you want about the Great Government Conspiracy, but until you can point to one administration in the last 30 or 40 years that HASN'T lied to the people, I'm pretty much going to tune you out. The term conspiracy is yours not mine. I lost a great many friends in Vietnam. We justified our existance in that country due to bad information, and spin. Military leaders who were truly aware of the strength of the Vietcong and North Vietnamese withheld that information, and gave the impression that we could win the war if only we had more troops. Well we kept sending in more and more and more. The impact of the Tet offensive in 1968 was withheld even from the president. Today, I have neighbors, relatives, and friends who serve as officers in the National Guard and the Reserves. These are proven patriots. I do not want to lose any more friends for lies. Anyway, I'm pretty comfortable with the concept.