1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Bush admits that terrorist suspects were held in secret prison network

Discussion in 'The OT' started by cj9788, Sep 6, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    The point of the "sanctions" was containment. But the sanctions were a joke. Saddam was using this money he made to bribe UNSC members to get the sanctions dropped so he could continue seeking weapons of mass destruction. He was harboring terrorists. He was breaking his cease-fire agreements. He was destroying his own people. He was a threat to our allies in the area, he was a threat in his support of terrorists, and if you don't agree, that's your view point, but you disagree with most of the national leaders from both parties at the time. If you'd like to disagree because of hindsight and perfect knowledge, that's nifty but not realistic.

    The bottom line: his removal is a net good.
     
  2. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Every politician knows, you need a good enemy. The enemy must be "strong" and "evil" because you are judged by your enemies. If you have a strong, evil enemy, then it just makes you strong and pure. Islam extremists know this. They have picked the strongest enemy in the world, made us evil, an abomination to be destroyed which will make them pure, and since we are so strong, if they can even make us flinch, they have won, since they can't expect to REALLY win.

    But when you ARE really strong, and your enemy is really weak, you still have to build up that enemy. It turned out the Soviet Union was a house of straw. We found out twice that the vaunted Iraqi army was made of tissue paper, with no WMDs to use. Even today, we can't just look at the problem of terrorism the way the rest of the world does, as Great Britain does, as a law enforcement problem. No, we are now in WW3, or possibly WW4. We don't just have a law enforcement problem, it is a WAR ON TERROR. We have to (and our politicians have to) build it up into the biggest problem they can, we are a great nation, so we need a great enemy. Great Britain uses a tip from an informer and some good police work, and break up a ring that wants to blow up airplanes. They didn't have to invade a singe country to do the job. Bush has said he succeeds by setting his goals low. I'd hate to see what would happen if he tried to imagine some BIG enemies. :nono:
     
  3. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Continue seeking WMDs? He would have needed an active program to continue anything. We were told his production of nukes was imminent. That is why a moment to re-consider couldn't be spared. Not only were nuclear weapons not imminent, they were nothing but a figment of Saddam's imagination. Harboring terrorists? Not al Qaeda. Yes he kept breaking his cease-fire agreements, wasting ammunition trying to bring down one of our jets. If he had actually HIT anything, we may have had a reason to respond. As it was, it was a joke. The bulk of his "destroying his own people" took place while he was our buddy, fighting Iran. Then we had no objections. Which of our allies felt he was a threat to them? Which of them supported our invasion? Kuwait, because they kinda had to after we bailed them out. Not that they are any great example of Democracy. Perhaps Kuwait is where we should have started with regime change. I suppose that Israel considered him a threat, but then again, they consider ALL of their neighbors to be threats, and I hope that doesn't mean you think we should invade them all. And I have already stated I disagree with the statements most of our national leaders made. And as far as hindsight, if you want to dig out my statements prior to the invasion I think you will find I was saying the same thing then as I do now. I haven't changed my position with the knowledge gained by hindsight. His removal may have been good, but it has resulted in a worsening of the world wide situation, not an improvement.
     
  4. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    The facts on this point are quite clear. While the Duelfer report concluded that no current WMD could be found the the programs had stagnated, it also found that Iraq's main goal was to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute WMD production. It also found that Saddam intended to restart all banned weapons programs as soon as multilateral sanctions against it had been dropped, "a prospect that the Iraqi government saw coming soon."

    It also found the following:

    * Smuggling was used by Iraq to rebuild as much of its WMD program as could be hidden from U.N. weapons inspectors.

    * Iraq had an effective system for the procurement of items banned by sanctions.

    * Until March 2003, Saddam Hussein convinced his top military commanders that Iraq did indeed possess WMD that could be used against any U.S. invasion force, in order to prevent a coup over the prospects of fighting the U.S.-led Coalition without these weapons.

    * Iraq used procurement contracts allowed under the Oil for Food program to buy influence among U.N. Security Council member states including France, China, and Russia, as well as dozens of prominent journalists and anti-sanctions activists.

    * The ISG judged that in March 2003, Iraq would have had the ability to produce large quantities of Sulfur Mustard in 3-6 months, and large quantities of nerve agent in 2 years.

    I would never want foreign policy (or any policy, really) to rest on your judgement, as I find it generally misguided and mistaken (I'm sure you think the same of me). I'm talking about those politicians who saw the CIA reports, saw other world intel agency reports, and made their determination at their time.
     
  5. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    The 9/11 Commission stated in its report that while bin Laden DID sponsor anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, prior to 2001, but after 2001 he re-formed the group into an organization called Ansar al Islam. The commission found that there were indications by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy. So, yes, al Qaeda related terrorists but certainly less than other states we do nothing about--and should.

    But so what if they weren't usually al Qaeda? There's no doubt that Iraq supported terrorists.

    http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/iraq/iraq_f_a.htm

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

    http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/#1
     
  6. jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    And we've been attacked HOW many times since 9/11? Yeah, the world "liked" us just fine under Clinton. They just didn't respect us. That was sure true of al Qaeda. As for making Hussein a martyr.... what? Um, he's not dead... so by definition he CAN'T be a martyr. And if he's so well thought-of now, why is he still awaiting trial? The Iraqis are free to put him back in power, and they've done no such thing.
     
  7. jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    Um, WHO told us that Hussein's nuclear program was imminent? Was that THIS administration? Uh, no, it wasn't. But Clinton came close to making that statement in 1998. And this administration has always said that danger from Hussein was NOT imminent (when it IS imminent, it's too late). And find for me, if you can, any quote from Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld, or anyone high up in this administration that they believed Hussein had a nuclear program... I don't believe one exists.

    As for harboring terrorists, want to explain what al Zarqawi was doing in Iraq before we went in? Or Abu Nadal? Were they vacationing on the Tigris or something? And Cap is right, Ansar al Islam is an off-shoot of al Qaeda. And they WERE being harbored in Iraq.

    And if you don't believe he killed his own people in large numbers, you're just not following the news. He's on trial currently for the death of 180,000 Kurds. And that's just ONE of the charges brought up against him.

    And before you go off on this administration pushing for regime change... you DO realize that regime change became official US policy in 1998-1999, right? Clinton pushed for, and Congress signed the Iraqi Liberation Act (I believe that's what it was called). Official policy NOT enacted by THIS administration.

    And I still don't understand your view of Israel. They VIEW everyone around them as a threat? Just about everyone around them IS a threat. They've been attacked, repeatedly, by those countries that they "see" as a threat. That's what was so important about the Sadat/Begin talks. Egypt, after repeatedly attacking Israel, did something novel - they accepted Israel's right to exist. Other countries in that region are working to make sure that it's wiped off the face of the earth. Its existence is threated by Iran, Syria, and most of its neighbors. You can scoff that it's just their perception... but the blood that's been shed to try to get rid of Israel is very real.
     
  8. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    He's on trial now. Has been for months.
     
  9. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Cheney did say on Meet the Press that they were believed to be reconstituting their nuke weapons program:

     
  10. jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    I don't want to get nitpicky, but that's no how I read those quotes. Cheney isn't saying, from what I can tell, that Hussein HAS a nuclear program. Just that he would like to reconstitute it, and if left to his own devices he eventually would reconstitute it. Sorry, but I didn't see anything in there that said that Hussein has nukes.... or even that he's currently developing nukes. Only that he has in the past, and would likely again in the future. That's not the same thing to me.
     
  11. jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    This quote kinda sums that up:

    "Well, I think I've just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons. . . ."

    Cheney refers to development of chemical and biological weapons, but refers to pursuit of nuclear weapons. Subtle no doubt, but meaningful.
     
  12. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Sorry, missed the first part of the quote:

    Pretty clear he meant weapons program from the rest of what he said, not weapons themselves.

    But its clear from Bush's major policy speeches on why we needed to do this which he gave in Sept. and Oct. of 2002 that there were various reasons, logically stated and thought out.
     
  13. jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    I stand corrected then. Thanks, Cap.
     
  14. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    if you don't agree, that's your view point, but you disagree with most of the national leaders from both parties at the time.

    Yes, democrats did think Saddam may have had WMDs (I believe he had chemical weapons too. I also saw he refrained from using them during the 1st gulf war) and posed somewhat of a threat. However Saddam as a threat is no different than Syria as a threat, or any other middle eastern nation which we generally don't get along with.

    Thus the question is not if Saddam may have been trying to get weapons or flaunting the rules imposed upon him by western society, but if he posed ENOUGH of a threat to warrant invasion and huge cost to our own country in both money and lives.

    Thats not to say I wouldn't have supported the war if implemented correctly. But a war is more than just invasion. Its planning for the aftermath. Invading without follow through is poor policy and only makes things worse.

    Using your previous example of the rotten neighbor... yes he was bad for his own kids, but he also kept them off the street. Now they are members of gangs and killing folks themselves, doing just as many dastardly deeds. The police can no longer round them up because they have them intimidated.

    Even if the goal were ONLY humanitarian relief, I may have supported the war. But given the poor follow through and the huge amount of misery we have since caused, I don't believe the cost has been worth it.
     
  15. GeneralDisarray

    GeneralDisarray Banned User

    293
    0
    Jul 8, 2006
    You have part of the facts correct. They were not kicked out. But they left voluntarily out of frustration. They were being stonewalled and were not allowed to do their jobs. Therefore, they left.


    "The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them."

    -- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98

    "The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and--as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning"

    --Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98


    "The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to cooperate--a report that renewed the threat of U.S. and British airstrikes."

    --AP, 12/16/98


    "Immediately after submitting his report on Baghdad's noncompliance, Butler ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq."

    --Los Angeles Times, 12/17/98


    "The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Today's evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector Richard Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq's failure to cooperate with the inspectors could lead to air strikes."

    --Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98


    "This is the second time in a month that UNSCOM has pulled out in the face of a possible U.S.-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back. Weapons inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up equipment at U.N. headquarters after a predawn evacuation order. In a matter of hours, they were gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to Bahrain."

    --Jane Arraf, CNN, 12/16/98

    "Butler abruptly pulled all of his inspectors out of Iraq shortly after handing Annan a report yesterday afternoon on Baghdad's continued failure to cooperate with UNSCOM, the agency that searches for Iraq's prohibited weapons of mass destruction."

    -- Newsday, 12/17/98
     
  16. bear paws

    bear paws Icon

    521
    0
    Jan 11, 2006
    NE Ct.
     
  17. bear paws

    bear paws Icon

    521
    0
    Jan 11, 2006
    NE Ct.
    War for liberation is humanitarian and there are casualties. Unfortunitly people die and property is destroyed. We did in our own [76] along with countless French that came to ower aid. People are willing to risk everything for the chance of freedom for them selves, their country, their children, and for other's. I have seen selfless acts of courage just so that their children will have a possibly "maybe" chance. I said somewhere else what my DI said to use. "If you are fighting for your life and you fail you won't see death comeing, but if you don't fight, your death will be long and painfull". The killing fields from Cambodia to Bagdad to Poland's mass death pits, I won't call them graves, speak to this.
    War by its very nature is miserable. I have never seen a comfortable war yet except on a computor game and I suspect that a lot of arm chair worriors see the world thru that prism. Where once they figure out the rules they can win every battle with out lose.
    In real world if you go into battle with rules the enemy will change the rules. And in our case so will the politicians. Which is why so many of us question who's side they really are on and what their agenda is. Is it to defeat Bush at any cost or win the war the they so elequently waxed on about or is there just a idiological and morel break down in their core belief.

    When People like that great moral "humaniterian" Ted Kennedy, Biden, Fidel Durban Et Al decry playing load music and pantys as WE tourture, the mid-east press only reports that WE torture. To a middle eastern torture is cutting off feet, gougeing eye balls out, rapeng your mother in front of you, Unicing your young son and nice things like that.
    Some one please explain how this disgusting retoric makes our soldiers safer and helps win the war. ****, no wonder half the world hates us, They hear the faux worst about us from our own elected leaders.

    Bear!

    PS, excuse spelling I'm in a hurry:)
     
  18. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    THE "WAR" WAS IMPLEMENTED CORRECTLY.

    I agree that the major combat portion of the war was implemented correctly. The current peacekeeping portion of the war is not.

    But I would bet $ to donuts that YOU would have been the fisrt , along with the Democrats and Kofee, to scream our mandate was NOT to "occupy" and we used "exceptional and excessive" force.

    Um, we are using exceptional and excessive force at times NOW.... thus the number of dead Iraqi's.

    But more troops actually allows us to use less force, as we don't have to rely upon heavy weapons that cause massive casualties because we don't have enough troops on the ground to do the job. Likewise, just as a neighborhood with a regular police presense is usually safer than inner city blocks that never see a cop, an increase in troops prevent deaths by their simple presence.

    I'm a strong follower of the Powell doctrine. Go in with massive force and get the job done. Generals like Powell and Zinni pushed for more troops, but were ignored or kicked out because of their viewpoints.
     
  19. bear paws

    bear paws Icon

    521
    0
    Jan 11, 2006
    NE Ct.
    But more troops conjure up charges of occupation and that does not fit the "worlds", read as UN, templet of liberator. Unfortunitly thats whose mandate we went in under. Which so often convienantly forgotten.
    Me? I think shock and awe and overwellming force is a good thing.
    Geeter Done :D
     
  20. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Here we have another answer for those who use the argument, "If Saddam didn't have WMDs why didn't he just come out and say so, and save himself all that trouble." He was not only gambing on holding off an invasion from outside with the threat of weapons he didn't have, he was trying to hold off an internal coup, both with the weapons as a threat, and an assurance that they had some hope of a defense.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page