posted
Didn't he, to a certain degree, do just that?
He allowed unrestricted access to anywhere in the nation, we didn't even have that before when the UN inspectors were there in the early 90's.
He also gave thousands of documents to the UN and US on the weapons programs, which weren't even dented before we went to war.
I'm not saying that Saddam is innocent, surely he was NOT innocent. But Bush created a situation with literally no chance of escape. Saddam was trapped no matter what.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But why on earth wouldn't Saddam cooperate if he had nothing to hide?
Once he learned how serious we were he should have thrown open all his storehouses and declared his innocence.
He did not.
Why act guilty if you have nothing to hide?
Well...this argument doesn't work in America. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is our standard. Between nations, that translates to they have the sovereign right to tell us (and anyone else) to go screw themselves.
Saddam was probably playing a very dangerous game. His regime was kept in power by fear. If large groups of people in Iraq felt like he no longer had poison gas or other major weapons that could be turned on them, a popular uprising might've actually toppled his dictatorship. So...admitting he really didn't have anything was probably just as dangerous as letting people think he did have something. He gambled that the international community would be able to reign in Washington, even if Bush et al. did have him in their sights. He made a strategic mistake in counting on our President listening to what anyone else had to say.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: But why on earth wouldn't Saddam cooperate if he had nothing to hide?
Once he learned how serious we were he should have thrown open all his storehouses and declared his innocence.
He did not.
Why act guilty if you have nothing to hide?
By this logic, the US should immediately open Gitmo to the International community. I mean, if we have nothing to hide. . .
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quote: "By this logic, the US should immediately open Gitmo to the International community. I mean, if we have nothing to hide."
No we should not open Gitmo because the Dems in Congress do not and should not hold the same influence as an international peacekeeping force.
Saddam should have opened his stores to the latter, he had everything to gain by doing so.
Bush on the other hand has no compelling reason to "open up" Gitmo (whatever that means) and he has nothing to gain by doing so. His virulent critics give him no credit for any of his actions and blast him for his non-actions.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But if he has nothing to hide, it will only help his image and will shut up his critics. He has everything to gain from opening Guantanamo. If he would keep it closed from public scrutiny just to spite the Democrats, then he's a childish man who isn't fit to run a cactus plant..ation. Yeah.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: No we should not open Gitmo because the Dems in Congress do not and should not hold the same influence as an international peacekeeping force.
Who said anything about opening it up to Congress? I was talking about opening it up to an international peacekeeping group. Like the UN. Or the International Red Cross.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should add, however, that letting the Red Cross in is not the same as disclosure since, as is true for ALL Red Cross operations, complaints are sent only to the government in charge of the facility. It's the only way the ICRC can sustain its access to prisoners -- not ratting out the governments in charge when there are problems.
The NYT somehow got ahold of one of their reports and leaked it. It was a MAJOR stink.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
First, for this issue, read www.Factcheck.org and see what the facts are in the speech versus the fluff.
Second, I was all for the invasion of Iraq because I believed President Bush when he had the country assuming there were WMD's in Iraq. When this turned out to be wrong I felt, and still feel betrayed. That is a personal betrayal that President Bush did to me, which is why it is such a hot button.
Third, did the WMD ever exist? Everything we have uncovered has shown they did not. The only argument we seem to have against this is the "Well, why didn't he just play ball then?" You forget that Hussein was a dictator who controlled his people, and scared his neighbors with the fierceness of his bravado. As long as they thought he might have WMD they bowed to his will. It is a shame that we believe that all Saddam Hussein had to worry about was the US. He had Kurds and Rebels, terrorists, and coupe ready subordinates, not to mention Iranian fanatics just across the border. The more he blustered and played us, the more secure his footing was with them.
Finally, while I agree that we are doing good things in Iraq, and am proud to be helping them find freedom, we must not forget, "Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness Against Your Neighbor." What else do you call making false claims of WMD, Al-Queda Connections, and more against Iraq. The commandment does not tell us to differentiate between good neighbors and bad, between Christians and non-Christians. It states that we should not lie about our neighbors. I find it hypocritical and almost blasphemous that a man who claims to be a True Christian Leader either bears that false witness knowingly, or allows those who work for him to do so without publicly reproaching them for it.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, Lyr, Saddam did not permit unfettered, good-faith access to his country as he was bound to do because of a war he started. There isn't 'a certain degree' when you're talking about giving unfettered access.
Whether or not he had zero chance to avoid war is purely conjecture.
------
Irami, the literal meaning of her words is as unpleasant to me as it is to you. I think, though, if you double-checked with FG and asked, "Really? Anything?" she would probably say no.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Irami, the literal meaning of her words is as unpleasant to me as it is to you. I think, though, if you double-checked with FG and asked, "Really? Anything?" she would probably say no.
You're right. I would say no.
I was just making a point -- not an absolute statement.
(and I'm signing off for the night, so if you ask anything to me directly, it will probably have to wait until Monday)
posted
"By the way, Lyr, Saddam did not permit unfettered, good-faith access to his country as he was bound to do because of a war he started. There isn't 'a certain degree' when you're talking about giving unfettered access."
UN inspectors prior to the Iraq war had unfettered access, unlike before. They used to be restricted from visiting certain sites and palaces, but this time they could literally go anywhere they wanted. I wasn't talking about the early 90's, I was referring to the lead up to THIS war.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfettered access in good faith means immediate access, aircraft flyovers without hedging, and no trucks bailing out of factories before inspections.
Inspectors weren't permitted all of these things this time.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since when did Saddam ever have the ability to stop aircraft flyovers whether we asked for permission or not?
The inspectors could go anywhere they wanted, and in fact they almost automatically went right to the places they were denied access to the last time they were there, and were let in without complaints from Saddam.
As far as the trucks go, other than satelite images, we have no proof of anything other than conjecture.
Regardless, a couple weeks isn't near long enough to find anything, if in fact there was ever anything to find. If a hundred thousand US troops can't find it, a hundred inspectors with a few jeeps never would have, regardless of accessibility.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saddam was clearly not being completely cooperative before the war. There was plenty of obstructing the access of inspectors going on.
Of course, at least some of the evidence that we were given about these obstructions were outright lies and, again, the Downing Street memos show that the U.S. was specifically trying to provoke Saddam into being less than compliant. It's not like they were sitting there hoping that Saddam would let the inspectors in. They'd already decided on going to war and were trying to get Saddam to make himself look bad in regards to the inspectors.
Not that this was all that hard because Saddam was a pretty bad guy even without people deliberately trying to provoke him. I think it's a little silly for people to try to portray him as being mostly an innocent victim who was trying to go along. Regardless of all the other issues involved, I'm glad that we deposed him and I think everyone else should be too.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The inspectors could go anywhere they wanted, and in fact they almost automatically went right to the places they were denied access to the last time they were there, and were let in without complaints from Saddam.
Really?
quote:Four days later, Baghdad announces that it will allow arms inspectors to return “without conditions.” Iraqi and UN officials meet September 17 to discuss the logistical arrangements for the return of inspectors and announce that final arrangements will be made at a meeting scheduled for the end of the month. The United States contends that there is nothing to talk about and warns that the Iraqis are simply stalling. The Bush administration continues to press the Security Council to approve a new UN resolution calling for Iraq to give weapons inspectors unfettered access and authorizing the use of force if Iraq does not comply.
Iraq said today it would comply with demands for greater cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors, promising to encourage its scientists to speak privately with inspectors, to comb the country for more undeclared chemical munitions and to hand over additional documents to augment the arms declaration it issued last month.
....
The issue of interviewing weapons scientists has emerged as a key point of controversy between Iraq and the inspectors. The inspectors want to be able to interview Iraqi scientists in private, away from government minders who, the inspectors fear, might intimidate the scientists from speaking freely. Although Iraqi officials had said the country's scientists were free to choose how they want to be questioned, U.N. officials maintained the Iraqi government did not do enough to encourage the scientists to talk and instead effectively dissuaded them from consenting to private interviews.
quote:"Iraq announces that it will not cooperate with a new resolution which is different to what was agreed upon with the secretary-general (Kofi Annan)," said a statement issued following a meeting of top Iraqi leaders chaired by President Saddam Hussein.
I could go on, but I think the point is made, Lyrhawn. Saying, "We will permit unfettered access to our facilities and our scientists...let's talk the specifics in two weeks," is not good faith, and you know it. That's just one basic example.
Edit: I hit return in the links to stop the page from spreading out, they can still be cut and pasted.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I see your point, and it's made. Iraq wasn't 100% compliant. Lord knows when the US is told to do something by a foriegn nation, we hop to and make it happen immediately.
But most of what you posted isn't extremely substantive. I'll accept the point, but my entire point was that Bush set ultimatums that weren't really achievable, and then didn't even give anyone time to attempt satisfying them.
Iraq had 10 years to build new weapons. Bush all of a sudden felt a pressing need to attack, but allowed for three weeks of inspecting before invading. I think MY point is made as well.
Edit to add: If you want you talk about GOOD FAITH, I think good faith is trying to solve a problem through diplomatic INTERNATIONAL solutions. I think good faith is calling attention to a problem and then giving more than a month's time to trying to solve it before INVADING. Apparently Bush is no better than Saddam when it comes to good faith to the world.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't forget, besides war or producing hypothetical WMDs for inspectors, there was a third option: that last minute offer that President Bush made for Saddam and his sons to give up power and go into exile. Does anyone remember if a country offered him asylum?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't remember. Did Syria or Jordan? Those are the only two in the region I can imagine actually would.
And calling that a viable third option is about as serious as saying Bush should resign or go into exile himself. Creating an option you know for a fact someone won't accept isn't an option at all.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who said it was viable? It was an publicly disclosed option for Saddam, that's all. That his psychology as a dictator made it impossible to accept doesn't mean it wasn't an option we offered.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
