Text 10496, 137 rader
Skriven 2009-03-21 17:37:48 av JOHN FITZGERALD (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av DAN CEPPA
Ärende: US Foreign Policy
=========================
-


DC>   ...     I never once claimed Saddam to be a saint.  
DC>   His only real saving grace is in that his regime acted as 
DC>   a buffer against Iran.  That's why the US, that's right, 
DC>   the United States, supported him up until Gulf War I. 

JF>   Old news, so you can stop acting like you're revealing some 
JF>   hidden truth. The US is not the first country to support 
JF>   someone who later became an enemy, nor will it be the 
JF>   last I suspect.

DC>   Non-responsive. 

  Above you claim the US supported Iraq, which they did.  My response 
to that is written clearly below that assertion.  Hardly "non-responsive"


DC>   I want an apology for your insinuation that 
DC>   I have ever supported Saddam and his policies.  

   I never said you supported his policies, only that you defended him
inasmuch as you categorically deny most, if not all, accusations made 
against him.  That is all, Dan.


DC>    The fact is, John, he was a great ally of 
DC>    the US in that region until that point in time.  

JF>    A "great ally"?  Hardly.  Just a tool to use against Iran.

DC>    Which is a major problem of US foreign policy.

  Actually this is a common and often effective tactic:  Get one enemy 
to fight another one of your enemies. 


DC>    That policy is oft driven by corporate special 
DC>    interest groups.  That needs to be changed.  

   Any change should be made with the perspective that these corporate 
entities have provided us with the means and ways to deter major world 
conflicts between super powers for almost 70 years.



JF>   Your assumption that all of these people were just hallucinating
JF>   for  eight years over Saddam is moronic.  Try selling it to 
JF>   someone who doesn't know any better.  When Democrats said he 
JF>   was a threat, what were  they referring to?  His stock piles 
JF>   of Bug Spray?
 
DC>   Wrong again, John.  His WMD was effectively dismantled 
DC>   shortly after the end of the Gulf War.  

   Then why were we sending inspectors in during both Clinton's terms 
and Bush's first term?   Sorry, complete WMD destruction of stocks and 
infrastructure was never confirmed.  If they were, Saddam would have 
made a big show of it in front of credible witnesses ie.UN, USA, British 
officials, along with journalists from these countries.  He never did.
Instead he played a shell game with inspectors at every turn, and often 
outright barred them from entering numerous places.  Finally Bush said 
'enough' and went in and mopped up.



DC>   What to you think many chemical weapons are made of?  
DC>   What do you think Timothy McVie made his OKC bomb out of? 

JF>   Chemicals, just like some of those Saddam had.  Are you trying
JF>   to tell  us Saddam was only capable of making McVeigh style  
JF>   truck bombs?? Ha!  

DC>   Try checking out the dangerous stuff that can be 
DC>   manufactured with products found in your own home.  
DC>   If you have a lawn and garden, it'll be even more.  

  Never denied that.  But your suggestion that Saddam could only make 
McVeigh style bombs is patently naive.



DC>   Does that mean you are a terrorist?  

  Who has claimed that this by itself does?  Pointless question.


DC>   The bottom line is that UN inspectors were forced 
DC>   out of Iraq before their job was done.  

  And that alone should tell you the WMD issue was far from ever being
resolved.


DC>  The preliminary reorts were that no WMD were found.  

  Yes, and given the vast Iraqi desert and the millions of dwellings 
in that country, there was no way a handful of inspectors could ever 
conclude WMD status.   Aside from checking in the obvious locations 
(military installations, factories, etc) they were sent in to gauge 
and report on Saddam's reactions.  Even Saddam complained that the 
inspectors were a bunch of spies.  No doubt some of them were.  
Think, Dan.



DC>   US inspection teams, who had a vested interest 
DC>   in finding WMD, found absolutely nothing 
DC>   after the war. 

   This is nothing amazing, Dan.   Iraq is a big country and we only had
a handful of inspectors, who didn't know the country, to look for them.
Again, they were more interested in Saddam's responses, which is largely 
what tipped his hand.

 

DC>   W started an illegal war and should be charged 
DC>   as a war criminal.  

   Baloney...  Blind partisan vindictiveness.  The legality of the allied
invasion was already in place from Kuwait.  Saddam was in violation of 
numerous UN resolutions.

   And I still don't see anyone who feels Bush should be tried as a war 
criminal going after Clinton.  Again, the whole objection to the Iraq 
invasion was spun on Democrat vindictiveness and for partisan reasons 
only.  This can easily be asserted as they ignored Clinton for doing 
what they claimed Bush had done. ie.Commit war crimes..  
Easy to see, Dan.



---
 *   *
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)