Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 10/9/2004 9:27:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 9:31:12 PM EST by Mike_Mills]
New York Times

OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Report That Nails Saddam
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: October 9, 2004

Saddam Hussein saw his life as an unfolding epic narrative, with retreats and advances, but always the same ending. He would go down in history as the glorious Arab leader, as the Saladin of his day. One thousand years from now, schoolchildren would look back and marvel at the life of The Struggler, the great leader whose life was one of incessant strife, but who restored the greatness of the Arab nation.
They would look back and see the man who lived by his saying: "We will never lower our heads as long as we live, even if we have to destroy everybody." Charles Duelfer opened his report on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction with those words. For a humiliated people, Saddam would restore pride by any means.
Saddam knew the tools he would need to reshape history and establish his glory: weapons of mass destruction. These weapons had what Duelfer and his team called a "totemic" importance to him. With these weapons, Saddam had defeated the evil Persians. With these weapons he had crushed his internal opponents. With these weapons he would deter what he called the "Zionist octopus" in both Israel and America.
But in the 1990's, the world was arrayed against him to deprive him of these weapons. So Saddam, the clever one, The Struggler, undertook a tactical retreat. He would destroy the weapons while preserving his capacities to make them later. He would foil the inspectors and divide the international community. He would induce it to end the sanctions it had imposed to pen him in. Then, when the sanctions were lifted, he would reconstitute his weapons and emerge greater and mightier than before.
The world lacked what Saddam had: the long perspective. Saddam understood that what others see as a defeat or a setback can really be a glorious victory if it is seen in the context of the longer epic.
Saddam worked patiently to undermine the sanctions. He stored the corpses of babies in great piles, and then unveiled them all at once in great processions to illustrate the great humanitarian horrors of the sanctions.
Saddam personally made up a list of officials at the U.N., in France, in Russia and elsewhere who would be bribed. He sent out his oil ministers to curry favor with China, France, Turkey and Russia. He established illicit trading relations with Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and other nations to rebuild his arsenal.
It was all working. He acquired about $11 billion through illicit trading. He used the oil-for-food billions to build palaces. His oil minister was treated as a "rock star," as the report put it, at international events, so thick was the lust to trade with Iraq.
France, Russia, China and other nations lobbied to lift sanctions. Saddam was, as the Duelfer report noted, "palpably close" to ending sanctions.
With sanctions weakening and money flowing, he rebuilt his strength. He contacted W.M.D. scientists in Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria and elsewhere to enhance his technical knowledge base. He increased the funds for his nuclear scientists. He increased his military-industrial-complex's budget 40-fold between 1996 and 2002. He increased the number of technical research projects to 3,200 from 40. As Duelfer reports, "Prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem."
And that is where Duelfer's story ends. Duelfer makes clear on the very first page of his report that it is a story. It is a mistake and a distortion, he writes, to pick out a single frame of the movie and isolate it from the rest of the tale.
But that is exactly what has happened. I have never in my life seen a government report so distorted by partisan passions. The fact that Saddam had no W.M.D. in 2001 has been amply reported, but it's been isolated from the more important and complicated fact of Saddam's nature and intent.
But we know where things were headed. Sanctions would have been lifted. Saddam, rich, triumphant and unbalanced, would have reconstituted his W.M.D. Perhaps he would have joined a nuclear arms race with Iran. Perhaps he would have left it all to his pathological heir Qusay.
We can argue about what would have been the best way to depose Saddam, but this report makes it crystal clear that this insatiable tyrant needed to be deposed. He was the menace, and, as the world dithered, he was winning his struggle. He was on the verge of greatness. We would all now be living in his nightmare.
E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com

The Report That Nails Saddam



If you haven't read the actual text of the Duelfer report, do so ASAP. Don't waste one MINUTE reading the media coverage of the report's contents. They've got it ALL wrong.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 2:29:07 AM EST
link requires registration, how long is that baby?
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 4:09:24 AM EST

Saddam personally made up a list of officials at the U.N., in France, in Russia and elsewhere who would be bribed. He sent out his oil ministers to curry favor with China, France, Turkey and Russia. He established illicit trading relations with Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and other nations to rebuild his arsenal.
It was all working. He acquired about $11 billion through illicit trading. He used the oil-for-food billions to build palaces. His oil minister was treated as a "rock star," as the report put it, at international events, so thick was the lust to trade with Iraq.
France, Russia, China and other nations lobbied to lift sanctions.



Now tell me again why we friggen bother with the U.N.!?!?l

It's ALL about the $$$$$$!!!!!!!!

Oh.......and GET THE U.S. OUT OF THE U.N.!!!.........then GET THE U.N. OUT OF THE U.S.!!!!
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 4:19:44 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 4:40:42 AM EST
Interesting. Vindicating, but under-reported.

Oh, and this was interesting:

He increased the number of technical research projects to 3,200 from 40.

Interesting "increase." 40 to 50 would be an "increase." 40 to 3200 is a total fu*king redirection of resources and a change in ideology/philosophy/direction.


Woody
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 4:54:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By shotar:
I am actually quite amazed at that article. It completely vindicates the President.



+1
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 4:56:52 AM EST
I have access to that NYT site...yes that is a legit article...of course it probably gets lost in the vast sea of liberal hucksterism that is the NYT...
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:00:26 AM EST


other than the fact that our president stood in front of all of us and said

"we know where they are" referring to massive stockpiles of WMDs.
Now I know where the gas can is, can walk right to it. if the pres and company "knew where they were" seems they could have produced. but........nope. flip flops and slight of hand and NADDA.


Bush used fear as a means to an end, and well, a whole lot of "fearful" people bought in hook, line and sinker. Most were the same that bought the flag to hang out their window only to have it wind up on the side of the highway in the dirt. "false patriotism" I called it.

myself NOT included thank you very much.

wasn't the road to hell paved in good intentions?

We attacked a country with a hell of a lot of work to do to even begin to "produce" any WMD. yet we pull troops from S Korea when we are actually threatened by N Korea. AND AND pulled 3000 elite troops from the search for Bin, to hunt for saddam.


Now N korea has nukes that'll get to us and nothing has been found that was any sort of "imminent threat to our country" in Iraq. and bin is still out there( as unnecessary as he is at this point)

so at this point we have

No WMDs in Iraq
a nutty N Korean leader with nukes
We're paying to rebuild Iraq instead of their oil paying for it. as we were told by bush co.
none of those "open arms" we were promised when we " liberated"
an election coming up in Iraq, and majority will not rule. (as the majority would lead to yet another theocracy.)
and from everything I've heard getting ready to open another front in Iran in the near future.
ain't but one way to keep all those wars running, and it isn't "volunteer service"



brayer (sp) rabbit can't get his hands free from this tar baby that seems to hold tighter with every move we make.
maybe if I kick it, that'll help.

but again, that's just my perspective of this travesty. take it as you will.


Chris




Originally Posted By shotar:
I am actually quite amazed at that article. It completely vindicates the President. Are you sure this appeared in the NY times?

Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:11:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By virginia22:


but again, that's just my perspective of this travesty. take it as you will.



I take it as a crock of shit, with very few actual facts and much in the way of distortion, bullshit and propoganda.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:18:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/10/2004 5:19:16 AM EST by IamtheNRA]

Originally Posted By virginia22:

other than the fact that our president stood in front of all of us and said

"we know where they are" referring to massive stockpiles of WMDs.
Now I know where the gas can is, can walk right to it. if the pres and company "knew where they were" seems they could have produced. but........nope. flip flops and slight of hand and NADDA.

Bush used fear as a means to an end, and well, a whole lot of "fearful" people bought in hook, line and sinker. Most were the same that bought the flag to hang out their window only to have it wind up on the side of the highway in the dirt. "false patriotism" I called it.



You call it false patriotism...most people call it common sense...when it looks like someone is a threat, you remove that threat...in any way possible...and yes, there was bad intelligence...but that does not make Bush a liar. Removing Saddam was the right thing to do.



myself NOT included thank you very much.



We don't need your help...



wasn't the road to hell paved in good intentions?



Oh, yeah...the sanctions were working SOOOO well...



We attacked a country with a hell of a lot of work to do to even begin to "produce" any WMD. yet we pull troops from S Korea when we are actually threatened by N Korea. AND AND pulled 3000 elite troops from the search for Bin, to hunt for saddam.



We can walk and chew gum at the same time...BTW, OBL is probably dead anyway...and the war on terror doesn't end with OBL and al Qaeda...



Now N korea has nukes that'll get to us and nothing has been found that was any sort of "imminent threat to our country" in Iraq. and bin is still out there( as unnecessary as he is at this point)

so at this point we have

No WMDs in Iraq
a nutty N Korean leader with nukes
We're paying to rebuild Iraq instead of their oil paying for it. as we were told by bush co.
none of those "open arms" we were promised when we " liberated"
an election coming up in Iraq, and majority will not rule. (as the majority would lead to yet another theocracy.)



Each nation has to be dealt with differently...and I work with people who were actually there in Iraq...the vast majority of Iraqis are ecstatic that we are there and that we got rid of Saddam...it is only a small minority in certain limited areas that is grabbing all the headlines...remember, the news doesn't report on all the houses that DIDN'T burn down yesterday...

As far as the elections go, why should the "majority" rule??? The BEST PERSON should be selected, whether or not he or she is a member of any "majority"...you probably want to do away with the electoral college here in the USA, don't you...



and from everything I've heard getting ready to open another front in Iran in the near future.
ain't but one way to keep all those wars running, and it isn't "volunteer service"



Heard where??? DU???

There's NOT going to be a draft...PERIOD...stop reading DU and come back to reality...



brayer (sp) rabbit can't get his hands free from this tar baby that seems to hold tighter with every move we make.
maybe if I kick it, that'll help.

but again, that's just my perspective of this travesty. take it as you will.



I take it as a steaming pile of bullshit...you are utterly wrong...history will prove that...

So...you gonna cast your 3 votes for sKerry???
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:18:20 AM EST
Ahem.

No WMDs in Iraq
a nutty N Korean leader with nukes
We're paying to rebuild Iraq instead of their oil paying for it. as we were told by bush co.
none of those "open arms" we were promised when we " liberated"
an election coming up in Iraq, and majority will not rule. (as the majority would lead to yet another theocracy.)
and from everything I've heard getting ready to open another front in Iran in the near future.
ain't but one way to keep all those wars running, and it isn't "volunteer service"


those aren't facts??
go
.
.
.
here

Chris


Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By virginia22:


but again, that's just my perspective of this travesty. take it as you will.



I take it as a crock of shit, with very few actual facts and much in the way of distortion, bullshit and propoganda.

Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:21:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By virginia22:
Ahem.

No WMDs in Iraq
a nutty N Korean leader with nukes
We're paying to rebuild Iraq instead of their oil paying for it. as we were told by bush co.
none of those "open arms" we were promised when we " liberated"
an election coming up in Iraq, and majority will not rule. (as the majority would lead to yet another theocracy.)
and from everything I've heard getting ready to open another front in Iran in the near future.
ain't but one way to keep all those wars running, and it isn't "volunteer service"


those aren't facts??
go



Some are bullshit, and others do not tell the whole story...so the answer is...NO...
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:22:00 AM EST

myself NOT included thank you very much.



Who asked for your help. It is obvious you are a troll and hate Bush. My don't you just tell us the real reason you are against the WOT, is it because you are just scared of everything and don't believe in standing for any issue.


SGtar15
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:30:45 AM EST

Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:31:28 AM EST
1] so in theory. some guy at the grocery store looks like a threat to you, you attack him only to find yourself WRONG about your assumptions.

yeah, that'll get ya a one way trip to jail.
are you that paranoid?

removing saddam is great, but the way we went about it IS NOT.

2] you got my help anyway, as I picked up many of those flags in the beginning of this war.

3]the sanctions kept saddam busy, plenty of time to come back to get him.

4] rerad further and you'll see we agree on OBL being meaningless at this juncture.when those troops were pulled, saddam was not even a risk to us.OBL was

5] majority rule is democracy to me. and yeah, I think the electoral is a crock. One man/woman one vote.
if it's about the "best person" why don't we just install a dictator here too?
quite "liberating"

6]all the news channels with iran and their nucular ( aspirations.
no draft. where exactly will we gather enough troops to spread themselves out over that vast area?
We're spread pretty thin right now. wouldn't you agree?

7] history will proove that. well for all our sakes, you better hope the hell so.

3 votes LMAO naaaa, just one and it won't be for kerry or bush. only people such as yourself "spam" polls. I play by the rules.

Chris

­

Originally Posted By IamtheNRA:

Originally Posted By virginia22:

other than the fact that our president stood in front of all of us and said

"we know where they are" referring to massive stockpiles of WMDs.
Now I know where the gas can is, can walk right to it. if the pres and company "knew where they were" seems they could have produced. but........nope. flip flops and slight of hand and NADDA.

Bush used fear as a means to an end, and well, a whole lot of "fearful" people bought in hook, line and sinker. Most were the same that bought the flag to hang out their window only to have it wind up on the side of the highway in the dirt. "false patriotism" I called it.



You call it false patriotism...most people call it common sense...when it looks like someone is a threat, you remove that threat...in any way possible...and yes, there was bad intelligence...but that does not make Bush a liar. Removing Saddam was the right thing to do.



myself NOT included thank you very much.



We don't need your help...



wasn't the road to hell paved in good intentions?



Oh, yeah...the sanctions were working SOOOO well...



We attacked a country with a hell of a lot of work to do to even begin to "produce" any WMD. yet we pull troops from S Korea when we are actually threatened by N Korea. AND AND pulled 3000 elite troops from the search for Bin, to hunt for saddam.



We can walk and chew gum at the same time...BTW, OBL is probably dead anyway...and the war on terror doesn't end with OBL and al Qaeda...



Now N korea has nukes that'll get to us and nothing has been found that was any sort of "imminent threat to our country" in Iraq. and bin is still out there( as unnecessary as he is at this point)

so at this point we have

No WMDs in Iraq
a nutty N Korean leader with nukes
We're paying to rebuild Iraq instead of their oil paying for it. as we were told by bush co.
none of those "open arms" we were promised when we " liberated"
an election coming up in Iraq, and majority will not rule. (as the majority would lead to yet another theocracy.)



Each nation has to be dealt with differently...and I work with people who were actually there in Iraq...the vast majority of Iraqis are ecstatic that we are there and that we got rid of Saddam...it is only a small minority in certain limited areas that is grabbing all the headlines...remember, the news doesn't report on all the houses that DIDN'T burn down yesterday...

As far as the elections go, why should the "majority" rule??? The BEST PERSON should be selected, whether or not he or she is a member of any "majority"...you probably want to do away with the electoral college here in the USA, don't you...



and from everything I've heard getting ready to open another front in Iran in the near future.
ain't but one way to keep all those wars running, and it isn't "volunteer service"



Heard where??? DU???

There's NOT going to be a draft...PERIOD...stop reading DU and come back to reality...



brayer (sp) rabbit can't get his hands free from this tar baby that seems to hold tighter with every move we make.
maybe if I kick it, that'll help.

but again, that's just my perspective of this travesty. take it as you will.



I take it as a steaming pile of bullshit...you are utterly wrong...history will prove that...

So...you gonna cast your 3 votes for sKerry???

Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:33:07 AM EST
patience grasshopper. I'm a slow typist.

Chris


Originally Posted By IamtheNRA:
www.pma.edmonton.ab.ca/natural/insects/projects/_images/hscrick.jpg

Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:33:31 AM EST
SO basically you are say the USA and Iraq would be safer if we left Sadam in power.

Is that what you are saying?

SGtar15
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:36:23 AM EST
So, v22...you have made it clear where you stand...firmly on the WRONG side of history...and the fact that you want to abolish the Electoral College speaks volumes...you need say nothing further...
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:36:27 AM EST
and it's obvious you're a troll and hate kerry.
I'm not voting for either of them . thanks

I'm not against the war on terror at all, but I also don't believe in handing freedoms away for false security from it.

Chris


Originally Posted By sgtar15:

myself NOT included thank you very much.



Who asked for your help. It is obvious you are a troll and hate Bush. My don't you just tell us the real reason you are against the WOT, is it because you are just scared of everything and don't believe in standing for any issue.


SGtar15

Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:37:56 AM EST
no, what I'm saying is there were more "imminent threats" elsewhere and we went after someone we could have gotten later on down the line. who was NO THREAT at that point in time.

Chris


Originally Posted By sgtar15:
SO basically you are say the USA and Iraq would be safer if we left Sadam in power.

Is that what you are saying?

SGtar15

Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:38:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By virginia22:
no, what I'm saying is there were more "imminent threats" elsewhere and we went after someone we could have gotten later on down the line. who was NO THREAT at that point in time.



Chamberlain...Hitler...1930s...read your history...'nuff said...
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:39:45 AM EST
SUre you are against it. You are against going after Sadam, who is a terrorist, and you are against Bush, who is LEADING the WOT.

And to top it all off, you plan on voting for someone who has no chance of getting elected.

In short, your solution to the terrorist problem is to do nothing.

Sgatr15
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:41:21 AM EST
As I said, you'd better HOPE you're right.

one man/woman one vote. or the vote is worthless and probably has a lot to do with the sparse turnout at election time.

not one man/woman vote , and some guy/woman you've never even talked to speaks for you.


Chris


Originally Posted By IamtheNRA:
So, v22...you have made it clear where you stand...firmly on the WRONG side of history...and the fact that you want to abolish the Electoral College speaks volumes...you need say nothing further...

Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:41:38 AM EST
Originally Posted By virginia22:
no, what I'm saying is there were more "imminent threats" elsewhere and we went after someone we could have gotten later on down the line. who was NO THREAT at that point in time.

Chris

What other threats?

And...do you even know where Iraq is?

Do you know where Iran is?


Think about that. Think about that whole area in terms of strategic importance.


Sgatr15
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:43:18 AM EST
Originally Posted By virginia22:

not one man/woman vote , and some guy/woman you've never even talked to speaks for you.


Chris



Have you talked person-to-person with everyone YOU have elected?


You're not all that bright concerning the EC are you?

SGtar15
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:43:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By shotar:
I am actually quite amazed at that article. It completely vindicates the President. Are you sure this appeared in the NY times?



David Brooks was brought in by the NYT as a PR move. He's the token conservative on the Op-Ed page. "See! We're not biased!"

He's a senior editor at THE WEEKLY STANDARD and sharp as hell.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:45:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By virginia22:
As I said, you'd better HOPE you're right.

one man/woman one vote. or the vote is worthless and probably has a lot to do with the sparse turnout at election time.

not one man/woman vote , and some guy/woman you've never even talked to speaks for you.


Chris


Originally Posted By IamtheNRA:
So, v22...you have made it clear where you stand...firmly on the WRONG side of history...and the fact that you want to abolish the Electoral College speaks volumes...you need say nothing further...




I trust the wisdom of the Founding Fathers...the Electoral College was a brilliant idea...without it, the residents of a handful of large cities would determine the outcome of every Presidential election...with it, every state has a voice...that's the meaning of a Republic.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:46:35 AM EST
you get your vote. I get mine.

So?

Leading the WOT LMAO. oh yeah, we're well on the way now.
feel safer? walk into a mall.... a movie theater.... a bus... a train....you ain't safer now that we were before 9/11.

" the terrorists want to take your freedom" we were told.

news for ya. ain't a terrrorist out there that can do that. only our own.

Chris


Originally Posted By sgtar15:
SUre you are against it. You are against going after Sadam, who is a terrorist, and you are against Bush, who is LEADING the WOT.

And to top it all off, you plan on voting for someone who has no chance of getting elected.

In short, your solution to the terrorist problem is to do nothing.

Sgatr15

Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:47:46 AM EST
Not at all, but i sure as shit never talked to that man/ woman making my vote for me.
Chris


Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Originally Posted By virginia22:

not one man/woman vote , and some guy/woman you've never even talked to speaks for you.


Chris



Have you talked person-to-person with everyone YOU have elected?


You're not all that bright concerning the EC are you?

SGtar15

Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:49:30 AM EST
NK for one saudi for another.

NK was in the process of building nukes and our so called friend saudi arabia has been covering terrorists asses for years.

Chris


Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Originally Posted By virginia22:
no, what I'm saying is there were more "imminent threats" elsewhere and we went after someone we could have gotten later on down the line. who was NO THREAT at that point in time.

Chris

What other threats?

And...do you even know where Iraq is?

Do you know where Iran is?


Think about that. Think about that whole area in terms of strategic importance.


Sgatr15

Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:55:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By virginia22:
NK for one saudi for another.

NK was in the process of building nukes and our so called friend saudi arabia has been covering terrorists asses for years.

Chris



Hmm...and GWB is dealing with NK just like he is dealing with Iraq. WHich do you think would be hard to invade militarily? Saudi is also a problem GWB is dealing with diplomatically for now.

Are you suggesting we go after these two countries militarily? I have a hard time believing you would support that since you don't support the war in Iraq, which was the easiest target to deal with at the rtime.

What exactly do you suggest we do with NK and Iraq then?

Sgtar15
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:57:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By virginia22:
you get your vote. I get mine.

So?

Leading the WOT LMAO. oh yeah, we're well on the way now.
feel safer? walk into a mall.... a movie theater.... a bus... a train....you ain't safer now that we were before 9/11.



Yes, you are. MUCH safer. You really don't know what the hell you're talking about, but that is sadly nothing new for you.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 6:11:09 AM EST
no matter your suprise.

I was for going into afganistan too. and was for saudi after that. BUT no. we diverted to Iraq, for nothing.

Chris


Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By virginia22:
NK for one saudi for another.

NK was in the process of building nukes and our so called friend saudi arabia has been covering terrorists asses for years.

Chris



Hmm...and GWB is dealing with NK just like he is dealing with Iraq. WHich do you think would be hard to invade militarily? Saudi is also a problem GWB is dealing with diplomatically for now.

Are you suggesting we go after these two countries militarily? I have a hard time believing you would support that since you don't support the war in Iraq, which was the easiest target to deal with at the rtime.

What exactly do you suggest we do with NK and Iraq then?

Sgtar15

Link Posted: 10/10/2004 6:11:48 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/10/2004 6:13:13 AM EST by virginia22]
dreams rik, no safer.


I guess you figure you're safer with more cops to be there just in time to clean up the mess too, don'tcha?

Chris
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 6:17:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/10/2004 6:20:22 AM EST by Paul]
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 6:19:59 AM EST
What sickens me about people like V22 is that he is so selfish and sanctimonius with regards to freedom - it's OK for him to have it, but not for people in Iraq to have it. What a selfish bastard.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 7:14:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By virginia22:
dreams rik, no safer.




Delusions Chris, much safer.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 8:00:00 AM EST
Originally Posted By virginia22:
no matter your suprise.

I was for going into afganistan too. and was for saudi after that. BUT no. we diverted to Iraq, for nothing.

Chris



See, that just shows how little you know. We went into Afgan and set up bases which hopefully we shall keep there for about 10+ years. Then we went into Iraq and defeated the military there in less then a few weeks. So now, with our friends in Kuwait, we have a supply line and bases DIRECTLY into the HEART of the Middle East. ANd right next to Iraq is our next two threats, Syria and Iran. GWB and the US Military did this less than 1 year! At a rather small cost!


GWB did not just attack the hand of terrorism...he went straight for a kill!

If you can not see the effectiveness of this on a larger scale then you sonny are just way too selfcentered and narrowminded.


SGatr15
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 8:13:39 AM EST
Lets all remember we did disarm a nation that had WMD because of our actions: Libya. And without even firing a shot against them.

Furthermore, we're far too close to the WOT to declare it a failure. Without any real distance on the strategy, it's pointless to declare it so.

But each day that passes without another attack, IMO, is a good one. And judging by what I've seen in Richard Miniter's Shadow War, we've taken out a lot of BG's all over the place who had the intent of doing us harm. We just don't hear about it.

I'd say we're doing pretty well, until I see evidence to the contrary.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 8:17:49 AM EST
Full Article:

The Report That Nails Saddam
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: October 9, 2004

Saddam Hussein saw his life as an unfolding epic narrative, with retreats and advances, but always the same ending. He would go down in history as the glorious Arab leader, as the Saladin of his day. One thousand years from now, schoolchildren would look back and marvel at the life of The Struggler, the great leader whose life was one of incessant strife, but who restored the greatness of the Arab nation.

They would look back and see the man who lived by his saying: "We will never lower our heads as long as we live, even if we have to destroy everybody." Charles Duelfer opened his report on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction with those words. For a humiliated people, Saddam would restore pride by any means.

Saddam knew the tools he would need to reshape history and establish his glory: weapons of mass destruction. These weapons had what Duelfer and his team called a "totemic" importance to him. With these weapons, Saddam had defeated the evil Persians. With these weapons he had crushed his internal opponents. With these weapons he would deter what he called the "Zionist octopus" in both Israel and America.

But in the 1990's, the world was arrayed against him to deprive him of these weapons. So Saddam, the clever one, The Struggler, undertook a tactical retreat. He would destroy the weapons while preserving his capacities to make them later. He would foil the inspectors and divide the international community. He would induce it to end the sanctions it had imposed to pen him in. Then, when the sanctions were lifted, he would reconstitute his weapons and emerge greater and mightier than before.

The world lacked what Saddam had: the long perspective. Saddam understood that what others see as a defeat or a setback can really be a glorious victory if it is seen in the context of the longer epic.

Saddam worked patiently to undermine the sanctions. He stored the corpses of babies in great piles, and then unveiled them all at once in great processions to illustrate the great humanitarian horrors of the sanctions.

Saddam personally made up a list of officials at the U.N., in France, in Russia and elsewhere who would be bribed. He sent out his oil ministers to curry favor with China, France, Turkey and Russia. He established illicit trading relations with Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and other nations to rebuild his arsenal.

It was all working. He acquired about $11 billion through illicit trading. He used the oil-for-food billions to build palaces. His oil minister was treated as a "rock star," as the report put it, at international events, so thick was the lust to trade with Iraq.

France, Russia, China and other nations lobbied to lift sanctions. Saddam was, as the Duelfer report noted, "palpably close" to ending sanctions.

With sanctions weakening and money flowing, he rebuilt his strength. He contacted W.M.D. scientists in Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria and elsewhere to enhance his technical knowledge base. He increased the funds for his nuclear scientists. He increased his military-industrial-complex's budget 40-fold between 1996 and 2002. He increased the number of technical research projects to 3,200 from 40. As Duelfer reports, "Prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem."

And that is where Duelfer's story ends. Duelfer makes clear on the very first page of his report that it is a story. It is a mistake and a distortion, he writes, to pick out a single frame of the movie and isolate it from the rest of the tale.

But that is exactly what has happened. I have never in my life seen a government report so distorted by partisan passions. The fact that Saddam had no W.M.D. in 2001 has been amply reported, but it's been isolated from the more important and complicated fact of Saddam's nature and intent.

But we know where things were headed. Sanctions would have been lifted. Saddam, rich, triumphant and unbalanced, would have reconstituted his W.M.D. Perhaps he would have joined a nuclear arms race with Iran. Perhaps he would have left it all to his pathological heir Qusay.

We can argue about what would have been the best way to depose Saddam, but this report makes it crystal clear that this insatiable tyrant needed to be deposed. He was the menace, and, as the world dithered, he was winning his struggle. He was on the verge of greatness. We would all now be living in his nightmare.

Source



The Duelfer Report (key findings HERE) clearly vindicates GWBush, proves Saddam had no intention of ever giving up his WMD programs and provides a damning account of how France, Germany and the rest of the 'Axis Of Weasels' were guilty of corruption, bribery and kickbacks in that international criminal scam called the "United Nation's Oil-For-Food Program".

Link Posted: 10/10/2004 8:25:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By virginia22:
no matter your suprise.

I was for going into afganistan too. and was for saudi after that. BUT no. we diverted to Iraq, for nothing.
Chris



I piss on you and your "for nothing" attitude.

We went to Iraq for MANY reasons, one of the BEST of which was to allow all of the jihadists who would otherwise be setting off all kinds of terrorist acts HERE to concentrate their efforts THERE in Baghdad, where we have the power to deal with them in a forthright manner.

How dare you desecrate the lives of our brave men who protect our freedom!




Link Posted: 10/10/2004 8:25:39 AM EST
Bush's leadership, his strategy, his DOCTRINE took us into Iraq to eliminate a terrorist-supporting nation. He may have gotten this detail wrong or that detail wrong but his leadership, the BIG picture, was perfect. He got more of it right than wrong.

North Korea got their nukes because of CLINTON and his APPEASEMENT of a radical regime, not because of Bush.

The American economy was in near free-fall when Bush came in. He stopped the free-fall and is rebuiolding a SOUND economy. My God, since when is 5% unemployment a problem, get real!!!

As for a lot of V22's other "facts", they sound are nothing more than liberal propoganda.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 8:28:14 AM EST
If, you listened to the last debate GW listed one of the more important reasons for going into Iraq
Freedom does not breed terrorists. Once there all too fat and happy like us they will just sit around and bitch on there computer about how there going to rise up because of a AWB. But will be too comfortable to really do anything about it lol
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 8:28:28 AM EST
you can't force freedom with the barrel of a gun pointed at the civilians. killing civilians and telling them who will and won't be in gov't there.
. and installing puppet gov'ts does not make "freedom" it just makes the next ruthless dictator we supplied, funded and let loose on it's own people.

this circle will continue in Iraq.

yeah, freedom is a grand gesture, but freedom isn't wanted in the religious zone we know as the middle east.
they are happy with their theocracies. not all of course, but a major portion.
you know freedom may have come to the Iraqis 10 or so years ago. had we not "said" we'd back the uprising and then walked away while they were butchered.

they have very very long memories.
Chris



Originally Posted By Greywolf2112:
What sickens me about people like V22 is that he is so selfish and sanctimonius with regards to freedom - it's OK for him to have it, but not for people in Iraq to have it. What a selfish bastard.

Link Posted: 10/10/2004 8:33:55 AM EST
GWB did not just attack the hand of terrorism...he went straight for a kill!


oh yeah, and terrorism world wide has >>> increased<<<<<. we killed them alright. with our $$ billions$$ 19 people desecrated this country.

time will tell if we "killed" them, problem is, if one terrorist is left the cycle starts again.
and you know as well as i do, terrorists aren't all that easy tospot, are they?


Chris
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 8:39:07 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 8:39:07 AM EST
Virginian22-

I will be very careful not to hold any open flames near you. You constantly resort to the time-honored debating technique of the Strawman Argument.

The Strawman Argument is easy to use. You simply take the other sides argument, distort it and then either rail against the distorted argument or try the hang the same around your oponents neck.

The Strawman Argument is the refuge of skilled debators, slimy politicians, and young idiots who have a weak argument on their side.

Virginian22, which catagory do you fall into?
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 8:40:12 AM EST
Remember the adage, "we have to get it right 100% of the time, they only have to get it right once", remember that? I think it was even stated in the debate.

Well, this is how I see it. We only have to get it right but only more or less right. They have to get it 100% right.

Bush took out an evil regime - EVIL. Bush got it right.

Thank you Mr. Bush. Thanks to all our troops for ridding the world of the scourge of Saddam Hussein AND his sons. That regime is ended.

Iran and North Korea are next.

Mr. Kerry, we might need bunker busting nukes, especially for N Korea. If they are not tready when we need them, you will have gotten it WRONG.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 8:42:38 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 8:46:44 AM EST
You are missing the big picture.

Saudi Arabia was becoming hostile to the world. They kicked out the U.S. forces and closed down talks with us. Hence why we had our forces in Qatar. We could not bring down the house of Saud without destroying the world economy for oil.

So what is the next best thing. IRAQ!

The fact is that GWB had a million reasons to take out Saddam, but the BIG PICTURE reason is that Iraq gave the U.S. the ability to have U.S. forces on the border with some unfriendly nations. Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

They got the picture, and now Saudi Arabia wants to be friends again. Syria and Iran are feeling the squeeze.

The mistake was that GWB used WMD's, which all the info pointed to, as a THE selling point to the U.S. public. If they would have listed all the reasons in advance, there would be no "nah nah" from the democrats.

The mideast is in alot of turmoil, and GWB can't let them set their miss guided sites on us as the reason for all their problems.

Sometimes ya gotta lay down the law.


Oh did I happen to say...............

4 MORE YEARS!
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 8:56:22 AM EST
oh BS. libya was ready to fall before this. been trying to appease the lawsuits of the lockerbie victims, and working towatrds getting back into the mainstream too.
do you really think momars on the up and up?

I sure as hell don't.

one thing about the terrorists, they have plenty of patience. as is shown with the durations between attacks on the WTC.
it doesn't suprise me in the least we haven't had one.. YET.

but be assured, they're working hard on it, and we flat out can't stop them all.

inevitibility.

Chris


Originally Posted By the:
Lets all remember we did disarm a nation that had WMD because of our actions: Libya. And without even firing a shot against them.

Furthermore, we're far too close to the WOT to declare it a failure. Without any real distance on the strategy, it's pointless to declare it so.

But each day that passes without another attack, IMO, is a good one. And judging by what I've seen in Richard Miniter's Shadow War, we've taken out a lot of BG's all over the place who had the intent of doing us harm. We just don't hear about it.

I'd say we're doing pretty well, until I see evidence to the contrary.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top