POL: New terror detainee bill being discussed

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I suppose what I don't understand, though, is that faced with clear evidence that the Bush Administration's thinking and acting about those problems hasn't solved any of them, why would one continue to believe that those ways of thinking and acting about those problems would be effective?

My answer to that is, what problems would somebody else have solved? Much of what you see is just the era that we live in, not necessarily the consequences of decisions that Bush has made. The middle east, Bush's most notable failure, has been a problem for it seems like forever. The list of Presidents who didn't solve that particular problem is "all of them." Now, maybe you will argue that Bush has made the problem worse, and you might be right - but I don't think so. I think he has been bold and imaginative in his approach, although I do admit it looks like a colossal failure now. But I, for one, never expected it to be a short-term success.

[NoMyths]

*nods*

I'll think about that.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Ah, so you are one of the 30%.

I think it's 26% today.

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't agree with all the answers Bush comes up with, but I do admire the way he thinks about these questions.

I think this is the crux of where we go our separate ways. I honestly don't think Bush thinks a lot of this stuff through, especially with regard to long-term ramifications, unintended consequences, etc. Plus, I think he's been (more so in the past than now) too quick to take the advice he's gotten from others completely at face value.

I think he has been bold and imaginative in his approach, although I do admit it looks like a colossal failure now.

Bold I'll give you, but imaginative, not so much, which relates to my above comment. I don't want to hash out the invasion of Iraq again, as we've had this conversation many times before, but I'll just say that from my viewpoint, the lack of effective planning for the post-invasion period shows, amongst other things, a lack of imagination. I think, to speak to your example, this episode for Bush has been all about action, not thought.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

My answer to that is, what problems would somebody else have solved?

The soft bigotry of low expectations.

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't agree with all the answers Bush comes up with, but I do admire the way he thinks about these questions.

It's next to impossible to agree with any politician on every single issue, but shouldn't performance trump 'thinking' about something? For example, all the issues you mentioned (the Middle East, immigration, our primacy in the world) have at best stayed steady and at worst been damaged for a generation or more.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

My answer to that is, what problems would somebody else have solved? Much of what you see is just the era that we live in, not necessarily the consequences of decisions that Bush has made. The middle east, Bush's most notable failure, has been a problem for it seems like forever. The list of Presidents who didn't solve that particular problem is "all of them." Now, maybe you will argue that Bush has made the problem worse, and you might be right - but I don't think so. I think he has been bold and imaginative in his approach, although I do admit it looks like a colossal failure now. But I, for one, never expected it to be a short-term success.

Not bad, not bad at all. What I tend to bring to the table is a historical perspective, reacting against a short-term or narrow-minded view. History will judge accordingly and we are not even close to being there. What I look back to is the Spring of 1863 and probably the Summer of 1864. Lincoln was fighting a very hostile (albeit fair weather) press, a nation that was losing its will to fight and incompetence in many levels of the government, not to mention a mad autocratic Sec of War. I am not saying at all that Bush will come out like Lincoln but just showing the danger of a narrow view of a point in time.

In studying the Civil War and its aftermath, I recognize how crucial the post-victory planning must be. It is very clear, historical perspective or not, that the aftermath after the fall of Baghdad was a collosal failure on many levels. A lot of blame falls everywhere but I do not think for a second that an alternate history (i.e., with different leadership) would have come out any better. With everyone, I mean everyone, saying that we must get Saddam out (for many reasons), any president and administration would become afflicted with the Middle East disease, as everyone else has in post-WW2 history.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

A lot of blame falls everywhere but I do not think for a second that an alternate history (i.e., with different leadership) would have come out any better. With everyone, I mean everyone, saying that we must get Saddam out (for many reasons), any president and administration would become afflicted with the Middle East disease, as everyone else has in post-WW2 history.

Are you saying that you think it wouldn't have mattered who was President, we would have gone into Iraq and been unsuccessful there regardless of who was in office?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Are you saying that you think it wouldn't have mattered who was President, we would have gone into Iraq and been unsuccessful there regardless of who was in office?

Yes, given how clear the vote was in 2003, esp. considering there were those voting against just because of opposition politics. If certain hawkish members of the adminstration could not prosecute the post-war planning and execution, certainly less hawkish members would not have done better. Just because the justifications proved faulty (as in many others wars throughout history) in hindsight, one has to have been there when everyone, from all those in the Clinton admin and into the Bush admin, was calling for Saddam's head. In my view, all they had to say that this was simply a continuation of the Persian Gulf War, which had a Soprano ending.

[Buccaneer]

By the way, there will always be those in Congress and in the general public that will oppose any way for any reason on the ground of appeasement, regardless of obvious genocide or invasion of ones country. Many more will become appeasers if things don't go right, which the Civil War (and ultimately the Vietnam and Iraq War) provide great examples.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

It's next to impossible to agree with any politician on every single issue, but shouldn't performance trump 'thinking' about something? For example, all the issues you mentioned (the Middle East, immigration, our primacy in the world) have at best stayed steady and at worst been damaged for a generation or more.

Asked and answered. Pay attention.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Yes, given how clear the vote was in 2003, esp. considering there were those voting against just because of opposition politics.

Bush still had a lot of momentum on his side from the aftermath of 9/11 - it was politically difficult for Congress to oppose the intent to overthrow Saddam due to the unshakable desire by Bush to see it happen by any means necessary.

If certain hawkish members of the adminstration could not prosecute the post-war planning and execution, certainly less hawkish members would not have done better.

I fail how to see this is a logical certainty - why exactly do you think that a more "hawkish" politician is more apt to plan for a post-war Iraq? In fact, I think the opposite is true.

Just because the justifications proved faulty (as in many others wars throughout history) in hindsight, one has to have been there when everyone, from all those in the Clinton admin and into the Bush admin, was calling for Saddam's head.

Bull. Shit.

Many people were not convinced that going after Saddam when we did was a good idea. But Bush's desire to see this war happen at any cost, and with a loose regard for facts or information that didn't support his contentions made for a politically difficult atmosphere to oppose him. His administration still had political cache in the aftermath of 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, and it certainly had a huge target on Saddam's head.

An alternate administration that didn't have the same level of intent of toppling Saddam, one that would've shown greater patience with continuing the path of sanctions and U.N. weapons inspectors very likely wouldn't have been pushing so hard (or even at all) to go after Saddam at that point; I certainly don't think Congress would've spearheaded an Iraq invasion.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Bull. Shit.

Many people were not convinced that going after Saddam when we did was a good idea. But Bush's desire to see this war happen at any cost, and with a loose regard for facts or information that didn't support his contentions made for a politically difficult atmosphere to oppose him. His administration still had political cache in the aftermath of 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, and it certainly had a huge target on Saddam's head.

An alternate administration that didn't have the same level of intent of toppling Saddam, one that would've shown greater patience with continuing the path of sanctions and U.N. weapons inspectors very likely wouldn't have been pushing so hard (or even at all) to go after Saddam at that point; I certainly don't think Congress would've spearheaded an Iraq invasion.

The patience of waiting for sanctions to work was already crashing down in 2002 with proposed backdoor Soviet military deals and French and German oil contracts waiting in the wings. The US was about to get left out in the cold anyway by Europe on the Iraq deal. The traction of those sanctions were failing quickly.

A huge misconception that is gaining traction as the left gains in popularity was that President Bush is the true instigator of turmoil in the middle east; that there was peace and prosperity under sanctions for Americans and Iraqi's alike.

The terror war against the west has been gaining momentum, not idling or declining for decades. The Iraqi's were funding daily bombings in Israel. Post war documents showed that Iraq only needed to be removed from the crippling sanctions (enter: Russia/France/Germany) to reconstitue their nuclear program.

Obviously there were other reasons beyond just the fight against terror. 1991 UN Cease-Fire was violtated hundreds of times by the Iraqi's. They were engaging UN planes daily in 2002 with anti-aircraft fire because these planes were enforcing protection on large ethnic groups in the north (Kurds) and the south (Shia) which the Sunni Iraqi's needed to continually suppress to remain in power.

He had killed at least 1,000,000 people in ground wars against his neighbors, threatened other neighbors, and only held strong ties with Syria (state-sponsor of terror).

Sanctions are successful only if they rehabilitate. It didn't work. It wasn't a peaceful nor prosperous time for those underneath the higher echolon's of Iraq's Baath Party. Although news reporters weren't allowed in side Iraq to record daily death rates, some figures did creep out.

There was not less death under sanctions, but more death (according to the anti-US/liberal web-site archives of Amnesty International where they record 500,000 annual deaths directly responsible to UN Sanctions).

As for another president not pushing for regime change in Iraq, that's debateable as well. That was US policy. It was Bush Sr's policy, it was Clinton's policy. At some point, if that's our stance, and we mean what we say, you have to expect a new President will actually enforce such a policy, especially in a time when the international climate was quickly changing to our dissadvantage. Nobody, and I mean nobody, was clamoring for us to chance our stance of regime change in Iraq except for reactionary opponents to Bush in the 11th hour. And the reason was simple, "regime change" in Iraq was something that had to be done when it was done. That's the inconvenient truth.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Asked and answered. Pay attention.

Maybe you should go back and read your response more carefully. You said that the fact that the President didn't solve the problems doesn't mean anything. I'm asking you, how can you say the way he thinks trumps his actions when he hasn't even had a positive impact on the problems you see, never mind solving them.

It seems to me that you are still in love with candidate Bush (who you have to look at his thinking to judge) rather than President Bush (who has a clear track record of mediocrity at best and colossal failures at worst). If you had chosen issues like 'cutting taxes for the upper class', or 'loosening corporate regulations' I could see where you are coming from. You chose immigration and the Middle East, the former of which there has been no activity on and the latter of which has by most objective accounts gotten worse.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

A huge misconception that is gaining traction as the left gains in popularity was that President Bush is the true instigator of turmoil in the middle east; that there was peace and prosperity under sanctions for Americans and Iraqi's alike.

I read a lot of left of center sites, and the only time I have ever heard this is from Bush supporters setting up a straw man.

Originally Posted by Dutch

Sanctions are successful only if they rehabilitate. It didn't work.

The sanctions were in place primarily to keep Saddam from developing WMD's and from having a decent military. I know you believe that Saddam sent his WMDs to Syria, but so far we haven't found any, so it looks like they worked.

Originally Posted by Dutch

There was not less death under sanctions, but more death (according to the anti-US/liberal web-site archives of Amnesty International where they record 500,000 annual deaths directly responsible to UN Sanctions).

First off, AI isn't anti-US nor is it liberal. Secondly, I find it hard to believe that one out of every 50 Iraqi's died every year because of sanctions, and I think you somehow messed up that statistic. I will grant you though that there were serious problems with the sanctions.

Originally Posted by Dutch

As for another president not pushing for regime change in Iraq, that's debateable as well. That was US policy. It was Bush Sr's policy, it was Clinton's policy. At some point, if that's our stance, and we mean what we say, you have to expect a new President will actually enforce such a policy, especially in a time when the international climate was quickly changing to our dissadvantage. Nobody, and I mean nobody, was clamoring for us to chance our stance of regime change in Iraq except for reactionary opponents to Bush in the 11th hour. And the reason was simple, "regime change" in Iraq was something that had to be done when it was done. That's the inconvenient truth.

Everyone wanted Saddam out, but a minority of people, especially in the Democratic party, wanted to wage war to do it until Bush came along. No President before Bush thought it was a good idea to wage a preventative war of aggression. In fact, Bush's doctrine was so novel that they named it after him. This 'anyone would have done it' idea is simply not true.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You said that the fact that the President didn't solve the problems doesn't mean anything.

Please don't put words in my mouth, that's not what I said.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Everyone wanted Saddam out, but a minority of people, especially in the Democratic party, wanted to wage war to do it until Bush came along. No President before Bush thought it was a good idea to wage a preventative war of aggression. In fact, Bush's doctrine was so novel that they named it after him. This 'anyone would have done it' idea is simply not true.

John Kerry must have been one of the few, but I'm not sure how much traction this was getting with his party.

http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/IR971109.html

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

First off, AI isn't anti-US nor is it liberal. Secondly, I find it hard to believe that one out of every 50 Iraqi's died every year because of sanctions, and I think you somehow messed up that statistic. I will grant you though that there were serious problems with the sanctions.

Amensty International's report that surely was the main thrust of the article I read so many years ago...

Iraq continued to be subjected to stringent economic sanctions imposed by UN Security Council resolutions after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The sanctions have crippled the country’s economic infrastructure and have contributed to a deteriorating economic situation, increased unemployment, rising malnutrition and mortality levels and widespread corruption. In 1999, UNICEF estimated that sanctions had contributed to the deaths of some 500,000 children under the age of five.

http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2000.nsf/f5ea2b18926bc708802568f500619c95/24fe8ccc9d037845802568f200552932!OpenDocument

Also of interest and not reported in 2000...

Violent clashes between the security forces and armed Islamist activists in the predominantly Shi‘a south were frequently reported, especially following the killing in suspicious circumstances on 19 February of Ayatollah Sadeq al-Sadr, a prominent Shi‘a cleric. Dozens of people from both sides were killed. Hundreds of people, including political prisoners and possible prisoners of conscience, were executed and large-scale arbitrary arrests of suspected political opponents took place. Torture and ill-treatment of prisoners and detainees were widely reported. Hundreds of non-Arab families, mostly Kurds, were forcibly expelled from their homes in the Kirkuk area to Iraqi Kurdistan.

How did Saddam Hussein's "stable" government quell the violence?

Reports of widespread arbitrary arrests of suspected political opponents, including possible prisoners of conscience, continued throughout 1999. Most of those arrested were Shi‘a Muslims suspected of having links with underground Islamist armed groups or simply relatives of people sought by the authorities.Thousands of suspected political opponents arrested in previous years continued to be held at the end of 1999. Generally it was not possible to obtain information on the detainees’ fate and whereabouts, because of both the government’s control of information and the fear of reprisals. In some cases those arrested were later executed and there was no information as to whether they had been tried and convicted or simply extrajudicially executed.

Torture and ill-treatment were used systematically against detainees in prisons and detention centres despite its prohibition under the Iraqi Constitution. Political detainees were subjected to severe torture. The most common methods of physical and psychological torture included electric shocks to various parts of the body, pulling out of fingernails, long periods of suspension by the limbs, beating with cables, falaqa (beating on the soles of the feet), cigarette burns, piercing of hands with an electric drill, mock executions and threats of bringing in a female relative of the detainee, especially the wife or the mother, and raping her in front of the detainee.

The sanctions were in place primarily to keep Saddam from developing WMD's and from having a decent military. I know you believe that Saddam sent his WMDs to Syria, but so far we haven't found any, so it looks like they worked.

Yes, of course I believe it's possible the WMD's that the UN inventoried were moved to Syria. Regardless, documents recovered in post-war Iraq clearly showed Saddam Hussein wanted to restart his nuclear program once the UN was removed, which remains the other key point in the post-war debate regarding the sanctions with regard to WMD's.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

[Dutch]

dola - so it was UNICEF that made the remark, Amnesty International simply propagated it in it's annual country report.

In 1999, UNICEF estimated that sanctions had contributed to the deaths of some 500,000 children under the age of five.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Everyone wanted Saddam out, but a minority of people, especially in the Democratic party, wanted to wage war to do it until Bush came along. No President before Bush thought it was a good idea to wage a preventative war of aggression. In fact, Bush's doctrine was so novel that they named it after him. This 'anyone would have done it' idea is simply not true.

Ding-ding-ding.

Let's be clear here - aside from a very small minority of extremists, virtually everyone recognized that Saddam was a horrible leader and that he needed to be removed (not unlike many horrible leaders around the world). However, Bush the elder and Clinton also recognized that it would be problematic for the U.S. to invade Iraq and depose him - this was an action that would've been best accomplished by internal revolution, or at the very least with a broad international coalition that included at least some of the Middle Eastern states (like Operation Desert Storm).

My position has always been that I didn't oppose removing Saddam from power - my objections were that I didn't think the U.S. had enough of a case to do so when we did (reflected in the stark differences of our allies between Iraq wars I & II) and that I didn't think this administration had really thought through and prepared for the aftermath of an invaded Iraq. I suspect those are similar reasons to why Clinton never decided to invade Iraq and why Bush the elder chose not to continue Desert Storm to remove Saddam.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Or to sum up what Dawgfan very accurately stated:

Bush 1 and Clinton = smart

Bush 2 = doofus

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

If certain hawkish members of the adminstration could not prosecute the post-war planning and execution, certainly less hawkish members would not have done better.

Untrue. Colin Powell and General Shinseki, to name just two, counseled certain strategies (more initial troops, no immediate disbanding of the Iraqi army, etc...) which, in hindsight, would have radically changed the post-invasion landscape.

It continues to beggar belief that Bush chose the military advice of Rumsfeld (Naval Aviator & flight instructor 1954 - 1957), Wolfowitz (no military experience) & Cheney (no military experience) wholly and completely over that of his generals and the 4-star general he appointed Secretary of State.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Please don't put words in my mouth, that's not what I said.

Originally Posted by st.cronin

My answer to that is, what problems would somebody else have solved? ...The middle east, Bush's most notable failure, has been a problem for it seems like forever. The list of Presidents who didn't solve that particular problem is "all of them."

WTF, you said it right here. You seriously think that "the fact that the President didn't solve the problems doesn't mean anything" is an unfair characterization of that post, or are you just going out of your way to be a douchebag?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

dola - so it was UNICEF that made the remark, Amnesty International simply propagated it in it's annual country report.

500k a year, which you said, is much different than 500k over 8 years. Estimates then went down to 300k-500k, but the UNICEF report still helped push for changes to the oil-for-food program designed to ameliorate those problems. In any case, I think most world organizations consider the humanitarian situation worse in Iraq right now than it was before.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BrianD

John Kerry must have been one of the few, but I'm not sure how much traction this was getting with his party.

http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/IR971109.html

At the point in time of the speech, Saddam had kicked out the inspectors, and Kerry said:

In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior.

This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value. But how long this military action might continue and how it may escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out.

That's not a call for war and occupation. At the time when Bush decided to go into Iraq, he had to actually recall the inspectors himself and take them out of Iraq.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

That's not a call for war and occupation. At the time when Bush decided to go into Iraq, he had to actually recall the inspectors himself and take them out of Iraq.

He also said

While our actions should be thoughtfully and carefully determined and structured, while we should always seek to use peaceful and diplomatic means to resolve serious problems before resorting to force, and while we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.

Reading the whole article shows that he basically laid out the plan that Bush followed. Stepped up sanctions, stronger resolutions, calls for multinational enforcement of the resolutions, and then finally military force.

Had this war been more successful, Kerry probably would have made more noise in the 2004 race about Bush using his roadmap for the success.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Reading the whole article shows that he basically laid out the plan that Bush followed. Stepped up sanctions, stronger resolutions, calls for multinational enforcement of the resolutions, and then finally military force.

Kerry had several criteria for going to war that were not followed by Bush:

- Existence of a grave threat
- Saddam not cooperating with inspectors

Like I said, his whole speech was predicated on Saddam kicking inspectors out of Iraq. On the other hand, Bush himself kicked the inspectors out of Iraq in order to attack them. Going to war if there is a grave threat that can not be solved peacefully is pretty standard.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Like I said, his whole speech was predicated on Saddam kicking inspectors out of Iraq. On the other hand, Bush himself kicked the inspectors out of Iraq in order to attack them. Going to war if there is a grave threat that can not be solved peacefully is pretty standard.

Actually Saddam never kicked the inspectors out. In 1998 they were pulled out by the UN at a warning from the US that we were going to bomb Iraq...

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Kerry had several criteria for going to war that were not followed by Bush:

- Existence of a grave threat
- Saddam not cooperating with inspectors

Like I said, his whole speech was predicated on Saddam kicking inspectors out of Iraq. On the other hand, Bush himself kicked the inspectors out of Iraq in order to attack them. Going to war if there is a grave threat that can not be solved peacefully is pretty standard.

I seem to remember hearing the words "clear and present danger" thrown around before we went into Iraq. There may not have actually been a grave threat, but there were enough people that thought there was a grave threat. Either way, both called for resolutions to be passed and enforced.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

WTF, you said it right here. You seriously think that "the fact that the President didn't solve the problems doesn't mean anything" is an unfair characterization of that post, or are you just going out of your way to be a douchebag?

Nowhere in the post that you quoted, or anywhere else at any time, did I say anything like that. I don't believe you are retarded, so quit trying to bait me into a fight.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Kerry had several criteria for going to war that were not followed by Bush:

- Existence of a grave threat
- Saddam not cooperating with inspectors

Good one, thanks for the laugh.

1) CLINTON thought there was a grave threat. This was not particular to the Bush Administration.

2) You're just flat-out rewriting history on that last one. Saddam didn't start even pretending to cooperate until the troops were on their way...

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

You're just flat-out rewriting history on that last one. Saddam didn't start even pretending to cooperate until the troops were on their way...

That's not really true. Saddam had agreed to allow inspectors to return even before the authorization of force by the U.S. (Sept 2002) The UN had ever brokered an agreement for the inspectors to return, but the U.S. rejected that agreement (Oct 1, 2002). And inspectors were back in the country in November 2002. So accusing Bigglesworth of "flat-out rewriting history" seems to be a bit off the mark.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by John Galt

That's not really true. Saddam had agreed to allow inspectors to return even before the authorization of force by the U.S. (Sept 2002) The UN had ever brokered an agreement for the inspectors to return, but the U.S. rejected that agreement (Oct 1, 2002). And inspectors were back in the country in November 2002. So accusing Bigglesworth of "flat-out rewriting history" seems to be a bit off the mark.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm

You need to see how long he had been avoiding cooperation. It looks like I was exaggerating on the comparison to troops being in the air, but it wasn't until the threat of invasion was likely that he started to even think about cooperating for the first time in 10 years.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

500k a year, which you said, is much different than 500k over 8 years. Estimates then went down to 300k-500k, but the UNICEF report still helped push for changes to the oil-for-food program designed to ameliorate those problems. In any case, I think most world organizations consider the humanitarian situation worse in Iraq right now than it was before.

It's been nearly 8 years since that report came out, but blame the wording, "In 1999...".

Glad to hear that 500 thousand civilian deaths spread out over a few years is irrelevant and you can still say it was more peaceful then than now.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by John Galt

That's not really true. Saddam had agreed to allow inspectors to return even before the authorization of force by the U.S. (Sept 2002) The UN had ever brokered an agreement for the inspectors to return, but the U.S. rejected that agreement (Oct 1, 2002). And inspectors were back in the country in November 2002. So accusing Bigglesworth of "flat-out rewriting history" seems to be a bit off the mark.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm

Saddam Hussein agreed to allow inspectors back in to be toyed with, you mean. If this is the exact same thing as how South Africa or Libya "let inspectors in" then the accusation is pretty legitimate.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Glad to hear that 500 thousand civilian deaths spread out over a few years is irrelevant and you can still say it was more peaceful then than now.

The number was revised by UNICEF to 200-300k, but in any case a few posts of mine up I said that I wouldn't argue that the sanctions had a lot of problems and were not ideal. However, if you are going to tell me that Iraq is more peaceful now than before our invasion and the resulting civil war, I don't think we even have a starting point for discussions.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

You need to see how long he had been avoiding cooperation. It looks like I was exaggerating on the comparison to troops being in the air, but it wasn't until the threat of invasion was likely that he started to even think about cooperating for the first time in 10 years.

Yes, the threat of invasion is a useful political tool. Smart people like Clinton realize that, which is why you heard tough talk from that administration for years. What you didn't hear was anyone seriously pushing for invasion of Iraq, because, as it turns out, it's a terribly bad idea.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Nowhere in the post that you quoted, or anywhere else at any time, did I say anything like that. I don't believe you are retarded, so quit trying to bait me into a fight.

I asked you a respectful question, and you mocked me in return, twice. But fine, whatever, you think Bush is great because he thinks good. I won't question it.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I asked you a respectful question, and you mocked me in return, twice. But fine, whatever, you think Bush is great because he thinks good. I won't question it.

You call me a douchebag and yet somehow I'm the one mocking you. Right.