Will Sarkozy Win?

[JoeEpcotRocks]

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?

So why did not Saddam disclose disposal as required?

He knew the UN had no teeth, but he underestimated the USA.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

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??

I'm sorry but as asomeone who is fiscally conservative I never would have supported a war just to liberate the people of Iraq. I do not believe it is the US's job to police the world.

~Amanda

 

[DawnCt1]

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

And I believe that you are wrong so, we will have to agree to disagree. Saddam violated over 21 UN resolutions, he continued to violate the no fly zone, he continued to fire on our aircraft, he is gone, that is an excellent thing.

 

[DawnCt1]

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 believe that the war in Iraq was and is necessary on a multitude of levels. I sleep very well at night, even when DH was in Iraq.

 

[salmoneous]

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

No Joe, those aren't other words for what I wrote. Do you honestly think they are? Where in what I wrote do you see anything that is other words for "do nothing"? You still seem to think that the only options were "war" and "do nothing". That's absurd. The quotes were taken from a larger speech outlining specific action points to take. I pulled these quotes to point out that the French were addressing the possible dangers for going to war - dangers that have proven all too real. Why weren't we addressing those dangers in 2003?

Also Joe, we don't have to pretend the sanctions were working. They worked. You can change the subject to talk about bribes all you want - that doesn't change the fact that the sanctions worked. Saddam's WMD were taken away. He couldn't get more.

 

[salmoneous]

So why did not Saddam disclose disposal as required?

Because he was (1) a loon and (2) a bad record keeper. In any case, he told us he had no WMD's, and he didn't.

War isn't the answer to deal with bad records keeping. The inspectors were providing the information when Bush kicked them out and invaded.

In any case, you compelely ignore the fact that whether or not Saddam was good at demonstrating he didn't have WMD, there is overwhelming evidence he didn't have them.

 

[salmoneous]

And I believe that you are wrong so, we will have to agree to disagree. Saddam violated over 21 UN resolutions, he continued to violate the no fly zone, he continued to fire on our aircraft, he is gone, that is an excellent thing.

The harm from Saddam firing on our aircraft was, what, a few dents in our airplanes? The harm from invasion is thousands of US solders dead, tens of thousands maimed, hundreds of $billions spent, increased terrorism, the growth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, etc.

Yes, it's good that Saddam is gone. But the cost is too great.

 

[Database]

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!

It is getting HOT on this thread! Wish we could pass out the calvados to everyone. Nice talkin' to you BelleBoo&AmisMum. I'm heading over to another thread now.

 

[Database]

I believe that the war in Iraq was and is necessary on a multitude of levels. I sleep very well at night, even when DH was in Iraq.

I sleep well too.

Hang in there. I'm heading to quieter ground.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

No Joe, those aren't other words for what I wrote. Do you honestly think they are? Where in what I wrote do you see anything that is other words for "do nothing"? You still seem to think that the only options were "war" and "do nothing". That's absurd. The quotes were taken from a larger speech outlining specific action points to take. I pulled these quotes to point out that the French were addressing the possible dangers for going to war - dangers that have proven all too real. Why weren't we addressing those dangers in 2003?

Also Joe, we don't have to pretend the sanctions were working. They worked. You can change the subject to talk about bribes all you want - that doesn't change the fact that the sanctions worked. Saddam's WMD were taken away. He couldn't get more.

French are good at talking (full stop).

What makes you think the USA did not consider/address the dangers?

Sanctions were not working. They did not keep money from Saddam.

 

[billythefish]

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

One more time......UN weapons inspectors did that and were ignored.

 

[salmoneous]

French are good at talking (full stop).

What makes you think the USA did not consider/address the dangers?

The Bush administration talked about the dangers and dismissed them. We have their speeches. Need me to dig them up?

The sanctions were not working. They did not keep money from Saddam.

Don't be ridiculous. The goal was to keep him from having WMD and being a threat to his neighbors.

Come on Joe, not even you can suggest that the sanctions weren't working and we needed to go to war because Saddam was getting rich?

 

[Chloe'sMom]

French are good at talking (full stop).

What makes you think the USA did not consider/address the dangers?

Sanctions were not working. They did not keep money from Saddam.

We didn't go to war because he was receiving money that he shouldn't have.

~Amanda

 

[Captain Capslock]

French are good at talking (full stop).

What makes you think the USA did not consider/address the dangers?

Sanctions were not working. They did not keep money from Saddam.

ON MY RETURN FROM THE WORLD CAPSLOCK CONVENTION, I STUMBLED OVER SOMETHING BURIED IN THE SAND. ON CLOSER INSPECTION, IT TURNED OUT TO BE YOUR HEAD. REMOVE IT IMMEDIATELY.

 

[dcentity2000]

The UK military has been exhausted. Why didn't we expend our abilities on, say, Darfur, the worst trouble spot on the planet (so says the USA Gov't)? If WMDs weren't the reason, it appears to be a gross misallocation of funds that has potentially cost scores of lives. But that's assuming that stockpiles of WMDs launch-able within 45 minutes weren't the prime cause for war, which is ludicrous and devious.



Rich::

 

[toto2]

For those who think relashiond will be better with France , it is important that Mr Sarkozi is alomost ultra nationalist. it might no be easy to have his governement get in line with US polocies around the world.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Going back to the election in France the 35 hour limit meant that people couldn't make up their wages with overtime. Now where I work I work an average of 42 hours but I work 12 continental shifts with a 2 on 3 off 2 on 2 off 3 on 2 off pattern so every other weekend is worked, BUT I would not be happy with someone telling me that I can't do overtime I am an adult and will make choice myself.

As for Iraq in Saddam got into power 5 years after the Iraqis got rid of the leader that the British put in so it doesn't look good for the leaders we have put in now as for the women in Iraq we have just pushed them right back to the dark ages and made their lives a living hell, when even walking through the front door of their house is becoming to dangerous.

http://storiesinamerica.blogspot.com/2006/12/life-is-utter-hell-for-women-in-iraq.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/15/AR2006121501744.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0713-33.htm