Bush pisses off the white flag democrats w/ Knesset speech

[robin48]

I certainly don't disagree with that.

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I'm not the only one blaming the U.S. for sanctions hurting children in Iraq during the 90s. And, not just liberals do the blaming.

I believe the application of sanctions often have unintended consequences. Nowadays, the consequences should be quite obvious but we are talking about the UN and our government so that should be explanation enough for that. That said I also understand that sometimes sanctions are the only way to get another government to do something that it otherwise might not do ... short of getting bombed.

As proved on Saddam's Iraq sanctions can and do work to some degree on the sanctioned government but I agree, often the people of the sanctioned government will often suffer the most. Kind of like the Myanmar people right now in that the Myanmar government is taking relief supplies for it's own or changing the country of origin signage to make themselves look better ... all the while the people they are suppossedly there to oversee suffer the most.

While I recognize that sanctions against Saddam and Son's, Inc. hurt the Iraqi people far more than it hurt Saddam and cronies, I would've been perfectly happy letting sanctions get ratcheted up even more so and for quite some time before even beginning to ramp up forces in Kuwait.

As it turns out, the lack of WMD's suitable for attack of anything outside Irq's borders were non-existent. In my estimation, history will show that the invasion was premature and that increased sanctions and diplomatic pressure, while taking longer surely would've had an impact on how Saddam and Son's would've dealt with the world.

[robin48]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

I believe the application of sanctions often have unintended consequences. Nowadays, the consequences should be quite obvious but we are talking about the UN and our government so that should be explanation enough for that. That said I also understand that sometimes sanctions are the only way to get another government to do something that it otherwise might not do ... short of getting bombed.

As proved on Saddam's Iraq sanctions can and do work to some degree on the sanctioned government but I agree, often the people of the sanctioned government will often suffer the most. Kind of like the Myanmar people right now in that the Myanmar government is taking relief supplies for it's own or changing the country of origin signage to make themselves look better ... all the while the people they are suppossedly there to oversee suffer the most.

While I recognize that sanctions against Saddam and Son's, Inc. hurt the Iraqi people far more than it hurt Saddam and cronies, I would've been perfectly happy letting sanctions get ratcheted up even more so and for quite some time before even beginning to ramp up forces in Kuwait.

As it turns out, the lack of WMD's suitable for attack of anything outside Irq's borders were non-existent. In my estimation, history will show that the invasion was premature and that increased sanctions and diplomatic pressure, while taking longer surely would've had an impact on how Saddam and Son's would've dealt with the world.

I respectfully disagree. I believe the Iranians would also. They have had experience with Saddams chemical weapons

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by robin48

I respectfully disagree. I believe the Iranians would also. They have had experience with Saddams chemical weapons

I understand that Saddam HAD WMD's in the form of chemical weapons and DID use them. But there is no evidence that he still had them to the capacity that he used them previously. Also, there is no evidence he had any functional bio weapons capacity. The nuclear capacity was so damaged by the Israeli's in 1981 (?) I don't hink that was ever a viable WMD program either. The yellow cake/Niger story was a fabrication.

Once again, I ask you to search YouTube for the George Piro 60 Minutes interviews. If you disagree with me fine but watch the Piro interview and then disagree with the FBI agent that spent months interviewing Saddam.

The long and short if it is that the WMD justification for the invasion has been thoroughly debunked. No doubt some on here will "ya but" this.

[robin48]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

I understand that Saddam HAD WMD's in the form of chemical weapons and DID use them. But there is no evidence that he still had them to the capacity that he used them previously. Also, there is no evidence he had any functional bio weapons capacity. The nuclear capacity was so damaged by the Israeli's in 1981 (?) I don't hink that was ever a viable WMD program either. The yellow cake/Niger story was a fabrication.

Once again, I ask you to search YouTube for the George Piro 60 Minutes interviews. If you disagree with me fine but watch the Piro interview and then disagree with the FBI agent that spent months interviewing Saddam.

The long and short if it is that the WMD justification for the invasion has been thoroughly debunked. No doubt some on here will "ya but" this.

I don't have any problem believing it was mostly ego that brought on the invasion. I do think Saddam had to go. If I had been President (scary thought huh) I would have went with the old fashioned assassination method, but that's just me.

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by robin48

I don't have any problem believing it was mostly ego that brought on the invasion. I do think Saddam had to go. If I had been President (scary thought huh) I would have went with the old fashioned assassination method, but that's just me.

I agree that at some point in time Saddam had overstayed his stay on Earth but that wasn't the basis for the invasion ... initially. Then there was mission creep but I dgress.

I agree ... eventually every slug crawls out from under a rock. A 24/7/365 Predator with a "this Hellfire is for you" could've been a much more cost and life effective way to deal with the cretin.

[robin48]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

I agree that at some point in time Saddam had overstayed his stay on Earth but that wasn't the basis for the invasion ... initially. Then there was mission creep but I dgress.

I agree ... eventually every slug crawls out from under a rock. A 24/7/365 Predator with a "this Hellfire is for you" could've been a much more cost and life effective way to deal with the cretin.

Lol I agree

[Cannibul]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

We could always create Israel in Idaho.

That would just mean that the suicide bombers would come south out of Canada.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

Agreed. I think many times the "America is always right" crowd sees anything that doesn't agree with it as "blaming America first". America isn't always right but certainly looking at her as the first place to lay blame is equally as dumb.

Agreed!
But the dumbness is grounded in meddlesome ways. The distinction that the "America is always right" group fail to see is ... That it is not America, when America is not right. It is a group of idiots who mis-represent America, or via covert action do things to the cookie jar that should not be done.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by robin48

I don't have any problem believing it was mostly ego that brought on the invasion. I do think Saddam had to go. If I had been President (scary thought huh) I would have went with the old fashioned assassination method, but that's just me.

WOW!~!!
I've got a huge problem, if ego brought on the invasion ... Someone should be brought up on charges.

Do you really think this whole thing called Iraq and 4000+ soldiers lives are the result of ego ????