Will Sarkozy Win?

[salmoneous]

Contained?? Please. The sanctions were crumbling. Oil for food bribes were rampant. He never did disclose disposal of his WMD. Saddam could have done almost anything he wanted, and the UN would have just passed another resolution.

We were wise to liberate Iraq from Saddam.

So there were bribes in the oil for food program. There are bribes and corruption in almost any major program. That doesn't mean the program wasn't working.

Saddam was contained. Every time someone brings up the corruption, it's a red herring. The issue isn't whether or not there were bribes in the program. The issue is whether they succeeded in keeping Saddam from being a threat. And from that standpoint, they worked.

Why do you want to discuss the bribes in the program, rather than whether or not the programs worked.

No, Saddam couldn't have "done almost anything he wanted." That's an absurd statement. Why would you say such a thing? There were a great many things he wanted to do, that he was prevented from due to the sanctions and inspections.

The programs worked. War isn't always the answer. In this case, it was a mistake.

 

[DawnCt1]

We don't have to guess as to the cost of keeping Saddam contained without war - we did it for 12 years. We know what it took to contain him. How can you say the cost would "probably have been higher?"

Saddam was no Hitler - he wasn't a serious threat to the outside world. Invasion was not necessary to deal him. It hasn't made the world a safer place. Support for terrorism from Iraq is higher post invasion.

The French might not always be right - but they sure were correct about the wisdom of invading Iraq in 2003.

The reality is, he was gearing up to resume his pursuit of WMDs when the sanctions were lifted. There was pressure from within the UN to lift those sanctions. How can you possibly forget the UN/Saddam "oil for food" fiasco. People were starving, he was building palaces and biding his time.

 

[billythefish]

The reality is, he was gearing up to resume his pursuit of WMDs when the sanctions were lifted. There was pressure from within the UN to lift those sanctions. How can you possibly forget the UN/Saddam "oil for food" fiasco. People were starving, he was building palaces and biding his time.

LOL, "gearing up to resume his pursuit of WMDs". It wasn't so long ago that you were saying that Iraq was awash with WMD.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

LOL, "gearing up to resume his pursuit of WMDs". It wasn't so long ago that you were saying that Iraq was awash with WMD.

The burden of proof was on Saddam to disclose disposal of the WMD he had. He had it in the past and used some in the past.

He refused to cooperate. The UN did nothing. The USA and its allies took action -- thank God!

 

[DawnCt1]

LOL, "gearing up to resume his pursuit of WMDs". It wasn't so long ago that you were saying that Iraq was awash with WMD.

I still believe that it was. They had a 6 month window to ship them out. I have no doubt that is what he did. I should be specific and say "gearing up to pursue nuclear weapons".

 

[billythefish]

The burden of proof was on Saddam to disclose disposal of the WMD he had. He had it in the past and used some in the past.

He refused to cooperate. The UN did nothing. The USA and its allies took action -- thank God!

Wrong. UN weapons inspectors had cleared all Iraq's WMD by 1998 according to Scot Ritter, the American UN inspector who was actually involved in that process. You're also forgetting that UN inspectors went to Iraq just before the invasion and inspected various sites specifically given to them by the American government. They found nothing, because they'd all gone by 1998.

 

[billythefish]

I still believe that it was. They had a 6 month window to ship them out. I have no doubt that is what he did. I should be specific and say "gearing up to pursue nuclear weapons".

You believe that because you cannot accept that you were, quite clearly, wrong.

 

[Database]

LOL, "gearing up to resume his pursuit of WMDs". It wasn't so long ago that you were saying that Iraq was awash with WMD.

Documention found idicates that SH was trying to reconstitute his WMD program. It wasn't that long ago that the majority of our leaders said that good ole SH had WMD.

No matter what side of the political debate we lean, let us all pray that some sort of stability is achieved for that region.

IMHO, Europeans have the most to lose initially if the region isn't stablized because of proximity.

 

[salmoneous]

The reality is, he was gearing up to resume his pursuit of WMDs when the sanctions were lifted.

"Gearing up" how? By seeking to buy large quantities of uranium for Africa? Buy buying aluminum tubes that are suitable only for nuclear weapons production?

Fact is, he wasn't pursuing WMD. The sanctions and other restrictions were working. And if you are worried about what would happen after the sanctions and other restrictions were lifted, the solution is to NOT LIFT THEM. If you are worried about corruption in various programs - the solution is to FIX them.

Going to war wasn't necessary.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Wrong. UN weapons inspectors had cleared all Iraq's WMD by 1998 according to Scot Ritter, the American UN inspector who was actually involved in that process. You're also forgetting that UN inspectors went to Iraq just before the invasion and inspected various sites specifically given to them by the American government. They found nothing, because they'd all gone by 1998.

According to Scott Ritter ............

And where did they go?? Syria maybe??

One more time -- Saddam was requried to dislose their disposal.

 

[salmoneous]

The burden of proof was on Saddam to disclose disposal of the WMD he had. He had it in the past and used some in the past.

Back in 2003, you could have argued that Saddam wasn't doing a good enough job of proving he had no WMD and say that the risk of him having them was threatening so we must go to war.

But in 2007, when we know he didn't have them, you can't say his lack of disclosure means the war was necessary. It wasn't. You can debate if we could have known it back in 2003 - but knowing what we do now, it's clear war wasn't necessary.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

"Gearing up" how? By seeking to buy large quantities of uranium for Africa? Buy buying aluminum tubes that are suitable only for nuclear weapons production?

Fact is, he wasn't pursuing WMD. The sanctions and other restrictions were working. And if you are worried about what would happen after the sanctions and other restrictions were lifted, the solution is to NOT LIFT THEM. If you are worried about corruption in various programs - the solution is to FIX them.

Going to war wasn't necessary.

Pressure was going on in the UN to lift them. The sanctions were crumbling because of the bribes. Saddam was getting richer and his people were suffering. Who was going to fix it??? The very UN people who were destorying the current ones??

 

[salmoneous]

I still believe that it was. They had a 6 month window to ship them out. I have no doubt that is what he did. I should be specific and say "gearing up to pursue nuclear weapons".

Where were the weapons designed? Where were the parts of the weapons built? How were those parts transported? Where were the weapons assembled? Where were they stored? How were they transported?

Who did the weapons designed? Who worked building the parts? Who transported the parts? Who assembled them? Who stored the weapons? Who trained with them? Who transported them out of the country? How?

Saddam didn't need to just hide a few weapons in those six months. He needed to removed any trace that they ever existed in any possible form. He needed to rid the world of all the people who had ever worked on or with the weapons at any stage of their development. He needed to rid the world of anyone who was even aware of the weapons at any stage of their development, or know any person who was involved.

And all this happened while the country was under total aerial surveillance.

Despite $billions spent searching, not a trace of evidence exists pointing to post gulf-war weapons in Saddam's control. Not a single person has turned up that knows a single thing about any such programs.

It is simple inconceivable that WMD could have been under his control.

And yet you believe he had them. Why? In contract to the mountains of evidence there weren't WMD, what evidence is there that he had them?

As for your second part - again, what do you mean by "gearing up to pursue"? He didn't have them. He wasn't pursuing them. So what was he doing?

 

[salmoneous]

He refused to cooperate. The UN did nothing.

The UN got rid of Saddam's pre-gulf war WMD's, and made sure he didn't get any more. That's not nothing.

 

[salmoneous]

Pressure was going on in the UN to lift them.

Which doesn't mean Saddam wasn't contained

The sanctions were crumbling because of the bribes.

Which doesn't mean Saddam wasn't contained

Saddam was getting richer and his people were suffering.

Which doesn't mean Saddam wasn't contained.

Ignoring all the side issues you keep bringing up, what makes you say Saddam wasn't contained?

 

[bimshire]

I'm surprised that Dawn and Joe can sleep at night with the unnecessary American deaths in Iraq for a war of choice and no WMD.

 

[salmoneous]

For the record, here is what the French were saying in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Don't you wish more Americans were saying the same?

The option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest. But let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace. Let us not delude ourselves; this will be long and difficult because it will be necessary to preserve Iraq's unity and restore stability in a lasting way in a country and region harshly affected by the intrusion of force.

There is an alternative to war: disarming Iraq via inspections. Furthermore, premature recourse to the military option would be fraught with risks... Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region. It would compound the sense of injustice, increase tensions and risk paving the way to other conflicts.

Ten days ago, the US Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links. On the other hand, we must assess the impact that disputed military action would have on this plan. Would not such intervention be liable to exacerbate the divisions between societies, cultures and peoples, divisions that nurture terrorism?

 

[BelleBoo&AmisMum]

Wow! Thanks for the tip on Idaho! I couldn't afford Normandie anyway!

I'm simple folk. So they fit in just fine with my personality! (Did I mention Calvados?)

We have a bottle or two of calvados in the cupboard. It is quiet and laid back up there for the most part. DH is from the north north though, not the Pas-de-Calais.

We did spend some time in Normandy on our last trip, it was nice, and they're slightly less shocked by Americans it seems!

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

I'm surprised that Dawn and Joe can sleep at night with the unnecessary American deaths in Iraq for a war of choice and no WMD.

I sleep well knowing the USA did the right thing.

I wouldn't sleep well putting my trust in Saddam.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

For the record, here is what the French were saying in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Don't you wish more Americans were saying the same?

The option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest. But let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace. Let us not delude ourselves; this will be long and difficult because it will be necessary to preserve Iraq's unity and restore stability in a lasting way in a country and region harshly affected by the intrusion of force.

There is an alternative to war: disarming Iraq via inspections. Furthermore, premature recourse to the military option would be fraught with risks... Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region. It would compound the sense of injustice, increase tensions and risk paving the way to other conflicts.

Ten days ago, the US Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links. On the other hand, we must assess the impact that disputed military action would have on this plan. Would not such intervention be liable to exacerbate the divisions between societies, cultures and peoples, divisions that nurture terrorism?

In other words, let's do nothing and pretend the sanctions are working, and thanks for the $$$, Mr. Saddam. <wink> <wink>