Ugly hate-filled anti-US rant by the Globe & Mail

[BHS]

Canada's warmongering was embarrassing. Germany never invaded Canada; never declared war on Canada, yet Canada sailed across the ocean to attack the Germans.

Why?

Stop trolling, troll.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Better watch it, BD. I caught flack from Grandmaster G for a very similar post. And I think it might even have been a reply to one of your posts.

Besides which, I think MB's satire is a relevant reflection of the kind of posts I see coming out of the murkier corners of the left all of the time. If the Americans are warmongers for intervening to depose a murderous tyranny on one hand, how are we not also warmongers for intervening to depose a murderous tyranny on the other?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

If the Americans are warmongers for intervening to depose a murderous tyranny on one hand, how are we not also warmongers for intervening to depose a murderous tyranny on the other?

There is a serious difference in both the circumstance and the motivation, albeit in the case of Iraq it is a perceived motivation. Iraq had not conquered Europe, in fact they were seriously incapable of fighting any war. Had the US waited (and it is generally agreed that no 'immediate threat' was there) for Un and world support, and had made a legitimate case for it, things would be different.

[Black Dog]

Besides which, I think MB's satire is a relevant reflection of the kind of posts I see coming out of the murkier corners of the left all of the time. If the Americans are warmongers for intervening to depose a murderous tyranny on one hand, how are we not also warmongers for intervening to depose a murderous tyranny on the other?

First: satire should contain at least a minimum of irony or wit. Simply spewing an extreme interpretation of your opponnent's viewpoints is not satire.

Second: it should go without saying, but Canada's entry into World War 2 and the U.S.'s decision to invade Iraq are completely non-analagous situations. In the former case, we had the demonstrable threat of a powerful military force bent on expansion, domination and extermination, a threat that initiated the conflict by attacking its neighbours without warning and without justification.

In the latter case, we have a small, militarily weak nation, run by an odious but enfeebled dictator, devastated by war and contained by sanctions which was set upon by the most powerful nation in the world. Apples and oranges.

Certainly you can quibble over whether Canada was justified in joining the war (IMO, it was, as the threat of fascism to humankind was great enough to warrant a response), but there's no comparison between the situations.

[Montgomery Burns]

BHS:

Besides which, I think MB's satire is a relevant reflection of the kind of posts I see coming out of the murkier corners of the left all of the time. If the Americans are warmongers for intervening to depose a murderous tyranny on one hand, how are we not also warmongers for intervening to depose a murderous tyranny on the other?

Exactly. I was pointing out some of the hypocrisy I see on this forum towards the USA. Unfortunately the usual morons missed the boat - again.

Canada declared war on Germany 9 days after Poland was invaded by the Nazis. Yet Germany was no threat whatsoever to Canada.

So why did Canada declare war on Germany so quickly?

Because it was the right thing to do.

Whatever happened to that Canada? It appears that Canada's leaders taking Saddam's blood money is more important these days, and some on this forum seem to support that.

[Montgomery Burns]

Dear BHS,

If the Americans are warmongers for intervening to depose a murderous tyranny on one hand, how are we not also warmongers for intervening to depose a murderous tyranny on the other?

There is a serious difference in both the circumstance and the motivation, albeit in the case of Iraq it is a perceived motivation. Iraq had not conquered Europe, in fact they were seriously incapable of fighting any war. Had the US waited (and it is generally agreed that no 'immediate threat' was there) for Un and world support, and had made a legitimate case for it, things would be different.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is this a troll post?

Saddam was definitely capable of starting up his WMD ambitions very quickly after the US and UK left. And Saddam's sponsorship of international terrorism, his Al Qaeda links were definitely capable of doing great damage to the USA.

And get this! The US is supposed to ask for the world's permission to defend itself, according to Theloniusfleabag. And even though the 16 Chapter VII (binding) UN resolutions were broken, even though Resolution 1441 warned of serious consequences, which even Hans Blix - in his book - said was diplospeak for war, the US was supposed to ask Russia's permission - a country that supplied Iraq with 57% of its weapons and was owed billions of dollars by Saddam; ask France's permission - a country that supplied Iraq with 13% of its weapons AND had built Saddam a nuclear reactor, and was owed billions by Saddam, and ask China's permission - a country that supplied Iraq with 12% of its arms, and was owed billions by Saddam.

Since China, France and Russia voted no, the war was "illegal".

Unbelievable "logic".

[PocketRocket]

Saddam was definitely capable of starting up his WMD ambitions very quickly after the US and UK left.  And Saddam's sponsorship of international terrorism, his Al Qaeda links were definitely capable of doing great damage to the USA.

You keep saying that, but your repetition does not make it so.

If it WERE so, then the wonderful American sattelite surveilance would have shown us exactly where it was all happening, just like it showed us the nukes Saddam already had. After all, he definitely had 'em, at least that's what Bush said repeatedly. Uh-huh.

Well, maybe the sattelites aren't all they're cracked up to be, but that's a different story.

Why don't we simply invade every country that would be "capable" of starting up a nuke program???

Hey, Canada has reactors. We could start processing useable fission material.

And look how convenient we'd be to invade. No long trip across an ocean.

Besides, being right next door, we're even MORE of a threat, because we'd only need short-range missiles.

Hell, we could send the nukes across the Great Lakes in rowboats.

Better get rid of all Canadian air AND watercraft.

And get this!  The US is supposed to ask for the world's permission to defend itself, according to Theloniusfleabag.

You say America was "defending" itself???

So show us all exactly how the USA was threatened.

Not some "possible" distant threat, but immediate, imminent threat.

How exactly was Iraq threatening the USA???

No missiles capable of travelling across the Atlantic. No navy. No air force to speak of. Certainly no planes capable of crossing the ocean.

Show me the immediate threat.

Or maybe you're thinking along the lines of that old football saw, "The best defense is a good offense".

And even though the 16 Chapter VII (binding) UN resolutions were broken, even though Resolution 1441 warned of serious consequences, which even Hans Blix - in his book - said was diplospeak for war, the US was supposed to ask Russia's permission - a country that supplied Iraq with 57% of its weapons and was owed billions of dollars by Saddam; ask France's permission - a country that supplied Iraq with 13% of its weapons AND had built Saddam a nuclear reactor, and was owed billions by Saddam, and ask China's permission - a country that supplied Iraq with 12% of its arms, and was owed billions by Saddam.

Since China, France and Russia voted no, the war was "illegal".

First, if you're going to bitch about countries that have provided arms to Saddam, then you should have a look at this link.....

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

.....because the USA led the way in providing arms to Iraq.

Second, if you're going to use UN resolutions as a valid reason to invade, then you're as hypocritical as the cop who enforces the law by day, then drives dunk at night.

IOW, either you acknowledge ALL the rules of the game, or you acknowledge NONE of the rules, and don't play the game.

Bush, in using the resolutions as reason, while ignoring the security council's veto on invasion, showed stupendous hypocrisy, not to mention breaking the rules they agreed to play by in the UN.

Third, the "diplospeak" for war, was spoken by the UN, not by the USA.

Some good things have come about as the result of this war; Saddam gone, along with his sons.

Democracy brought to Iraq (I won't say "imposed upon"). Hopefully the latter will last, and not be usurped by some future dictator.

The records of several countries America has "helped" in the past is abysmal, Iraq included.

But if Bush had bided his time, and kept pleading his case to the UN, eventually one of two things would have happened.

Either the UN would have caved and agreed to go in along with the USA, or in time it would have been shown that Saddam did NOT have the massive buildup of WMD's (nukes included) which he was accused of having.

Unbelievable "logic". 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You??? Deriding the logic of others???

Pot, meet kettle.

[Black Dog]

Exactly. I was pointing out some of the hypocrisy I see on this forum towards the USA. Unfortunately the usual morons missed the boat - again.

Canada declared war on Germany 9 days after Poland was invaded by the Nazis. Yet Germany was no threat whatsoever to Canada.

So why did Canada declare war on Germany so quickly?

Because it was the right thing to do.

Whatever happened to that Canada? It appears that Canada's leaders taking Saddam's blood money is more important these days, and some on this forum seem to support that.

It was right because Germany was a threat in all the ways the Iraq most definitely was not.

Saddam was definitely capable of starting up his WMD ambitions very quickly after the US and UK left. And Saddam's sponsorship of international terrorism, his Al Qaeda links were definitely capable of doing great damage to the USA.

Ridiculous. Read the Deufler Report, which lays out, in detail, Saddam's ambitions and capabilities:

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq’s principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.

...

The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.

...

Saddam’s rationale for the possession of WMD derived from a need for survival and domination. This included a mixture of individual, ethnic, and nationalistic pride as well as national security concerns particularly regarding Iran. Saddam wanted personal greatness, a powerful Iraq that could project influence on the world stage, and a succession that guaranteed both. Saddam sought the further industrialization of Iraq, held great hopes for Iraqi science, and saw himself as the liberator of Palestine. His vision was clearest—and seemingly most achievable—in terms of leaving Iraq militarily strong, within appropriate borders and safe from external aggressors, especially Iran. WMD was one of the means to these interrelated ends.

...

Saddam did not consider the United States a natural adversary, as he did Iran and Israel, and he hoped that Iraq might again enjoy improved relations with the United States, according to Tariq ‘Aziz and the presidential secretary.

...

Throughout the 1990s, Saddam and the Ba’th Regime considered full-scale invasion by US forces to be the most dangerous potential threat to unseating the Regime, although Saddam rated the probability of an invasion as very low. Throughout the UNSCOM period, Iraqi leaders extended a number of feelers to the United States through senior UNSCOM personnel offering strategic concessions in return for an end to sanctions. The stumbling block in these feelers was the apparent Iraqi priority on maintaining both the Saddam Regime and the option of Iraqi WMD.

In a custodial debriefing, Saddam said he wanted to develop better relations with the US over the latter part of the 1990s. He said, however, that he was not given a chance because the US refused to listen to anything Iraq had to say.

In 2004, Charles Duelfer of ISG said that between 1994 and 1998, both he and UNSCOM Executive Chairman Rolf Ekeus were approached multiple times by senior Iraqis with the message that Baghdad wanted a dialogue with the United States, and that Iraq was in a position to be Washington’s “best friend in the region bar none.”

So it appears Saddam's aspirations never went beyond restoring and maintaining his own status as a regional power and protecting his regime. Given that, it's highly doubtful he would have ever attacked the United States. You don't go out of your way to provoke the biggest threat to the regime's survival.

The US is supposed to ask for the world's permission to defend itself,

The U.S. was defending itself from Iraq in much the same way as Germany was defending itself from Poland in September 1939.

[PocketRocket]

The U.S. was defending itself from Iraq in much the same way as Germany was defending itself from Poland in September 1939.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*Chuckle* Well put.

Game, set, and match.

[Montgomery Burns]

PocketRocket:

You keep saying that, but your repetition does not make it so.

If it WERE so, then the wonderful American sattelite surveilance would have shown us exactly where it was all happening, just like it showed us the nukes Saddam already had. After all, he definitely had 'em, at least that's what Bush said repeatedly. Uh-huh.

Well, maybe the sattelites aren't all they're cracked up to be, but that's a different story.

As Mahdi Obeidi, a scientist who worked on Saddam's nuclear program, said, "we put together the most efficient covert nuclear program the world has ever seen." Apparently those sup=duper satellites you talk about are not all-seeing.

And who said that Saddam had nukes? More fairy tales from you?

Why don't we simply invade every country that would be "capable" of starting up a nuke program???

Hey, Canada has reactors. We could start processing useable fission material.

And look how convenient we'd be to invade. No long trip across an ocean.

Besides, being right next door, we're even MORE of a threat, because we'd only need short-range missiles.

Hell, we could send the nukes across the Great Lakes in rowboats.

Better get rid of all Canadian air AND watercraft.

That would be too dangerous for the US to take on the mighty Liberal-funded Canadian military.. After all, as liberal Canadians constantly remind Americans, they burned down the White House during the War of 1812. So what if it was the Brits who did it and Canada didn't become Canada until 1867? Let's just leave out that little fact. Facts are for those silly rightwingers.

The only fact you need to know is NO BLOOD FOR OOOIIILLLLL!!!

Hell, let's give all despotic regimes nukes. After all, it's only fair since despotic regimes are morally equivalent to the US, the UK, and other democracies. Right?

You say America was "defending" itself???

So show us all exactly how the USA was threatened.

Not some "possible" distant threat, but immediate, imminent threat.

How exactly was Iraq threatening the USA???

No missiles capable of travelling across the Atlantic. No navy. No air force to speak of. Certainly no planes capable of crossing the ocean.

Show me the immediate threat.

The US was a sworn enemy of Saddam's Iraq. He previously tried to assassiante a US president. He harbored all kinds of terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda. He allowed Al Qaeda to train at the Salman Pak terrorist training camp - which had a Boeing 747 plane to practice....what? Counter-terrorism tactics? Saddam gave the families of dead displaced Arab homicide bombers which also killed Americans in Israel. Saddam had ignored the ceasefire Iraq signed. You're toothless - like Clinton was - if you let someone walk all over you.

And one does not need a military to be a threat to the US these days. Biological weapons are very small and cause great damage.

Or maybe you're thinking along the lines of that old football saw, "The best defense is a good offense".

Well, at least you were paying attention to part of Bush's speeches.

First, if you're going to bitch about countries that have provided arms to Saddam, then you should have a look at this link.....

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

.....because the USA led the way in providing arms to Iraq.

Bull. Dual-use biological and chemicals are used and sold to all countries. Nealy every country does this. To the USA's credit, when they suspected that Saddam was not using it for medical purposes, they ceased shipping them to him.

And the US was no where near the leader of in providing arms to Iraq. Nor was Canada, who shipped six Bo-105L helicopters to Saddam in 1988 (they were ordered in 1987).

From the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI):

Russia: 57%

France: 13%

China: 12%

Where are the US arms sales to Iraq? Oh, there they are...way down at #11, one percent of Iraq's arms sales were from the US.

I couldn't get SIPRI's PDF file to open today (I've opened it many times before to counter the "US led the way in arming Iraq" falsehood); otherwise I would have sent you directly to them, instead of a copy of the graph from The Command Post.

I'll take SIPRI's numbers over the Bush-bashing NY Times, Washington Post, and *snicker* Counterpunch.org any day.

If you claim that the US led the way in arming Iraq, I challenge you to name one weapon in the Iraqi arsenal that was made in the US. Name the specific weapon – missile, bomb, fighter, tank or shell – that is US-made or has US equipment installed in it.

The Iraqi air force did not fly Falcons or Eagles. The majority of the Iraqi air force was made in Russia. The Russian MiG and Sukhoi design bureaus supplied Iraq with hundreds of advanced strike-fighters and the Mach 3 Foxbat interceptor. The remainder of the Iraqi air force came from France and China. The Chinese supplied Saddam with the Chengdu F-7, a copy of the Russian MiG-21. The F-7 can fly from unimproved runways and is known to be a vicious in-close dog fighter. The French supplied Iraq the Mirage F-1. Anyone with half of a brain knows that you cannot keep a modern jet fighter in the air without spare parts. Thus the Russian, Chinese and French jets should've been museum pieces after 12 years of a so-called UN ban on weapons sales to Iraq. Yet somehow Saddam has his air force flying over 1,000 sorties a month. Maybe, just maybe, Russia, France, and China were supplying Iraq with spare parts during the UN "ban". Naw, it is America's fault. It's always America's fault.

Perhaps the Iraqi missile force has some US-made weapons? Nope. The primary Iraqi missile was the Russian-made Scud. Other missiles include the FROG-7 from Russia, the Exocet from France and the Silkworm from China. The Iraqi air defense has plenty of missiles ... from Russia, China and France. The SA-2 Guideline, SA-3 Goa and SA-6 Gainful SAM missiles are all of Russian or Chinese manufacture. The French also supplied Iraq with a number of Roland air defense missile systems. Even the missile parts are from Chinese, German and French sources. Israeli authorities know full well what is inside Iraqi-made Scud missiles since many of them fell on Tel Aviv during the Gulf War. The Israelis found that the Scud warhead electronics were made in Germany – not the USA.

Tanks! What about tanks? The Iraqi armor force was made up of Chinese and Russian models familiar to any "cold" warrior. The Iraqi T-72 and T-55 tanks are all Russian. The Iraqis also had a large number of Type-59 Chinese tanks and Russian-made BMP armored troop carriers. No M-1 Abrams here.

How about attack helicopters? The Iraqis had a number of choppers they used against the Kurds and Shiites. Sorry. The Iraqi attack chopper force was Russian and French. The Russians supplied Iraq with a large number of the Mil-24 Hind attack helicopters, armed to the teeth with cannon, missiles and even chemical weapon sprayers. The French supplied Saddam with a large number of Gazelle attack helicopters. The same French also managed to keep Saddam's attack helicopter force flying today with spare parts.

Well, uh, er, what about Guns, then? Surely the US supplied Saddam with guns? Nope. The main Iraqi artillery was the French 155mm howitzer. The remainder of Iraq's artillery is 122mm Russian-made cannons and Russian-made short-range rocket launchers. Even the Iraqi foot soldier was armed with the venerable AK-47 of Russian and Chinese make.

Second, if you're going to use UN resolutions as a valid reason to invade, then you're as hypocritical as the cop who enforces the law by day, then drives dunk at night.

IOW, either you acknowledge ALL the rules of the game, or you acknowledge NONE of the rules, and don't play the game.

Bush, in using the resolutions as reason, while ignoring the security council's veto on invasion, showed stupendous hypocrisy, not to mention breaking the rules they agreed to play by in the UN.

Third, the "diplospeak" for war, was spoken by the UN, not by the USA.

If you're going to say that the UN can let Saddam ignore 16 or 17 of their BINDING UN resolutions, then allow Saddam's biggest arms dealers to veto the enforcement of the BINDING UN Resolutions, then you are as hypocritical as the US liberal who says he supports the troops, even though they are a bunch of baby-killing, blood-drinking fascists.

The records of several countries America has "helped" in the past is abysmal, Iraq included.

Especially Japan and Germany. And your derision of the US freeing 25 million Iraqis from a lifetime of tyranny is contemptible.

But if Bush had bided his time, and kept pleading his case to the UN, eventually one of two things would have happened.

Either the UN would have caved and agreed to go in along with the USA, or in time it would have been shown that Saddam did NOT have the massive buildup of WMD's (nukes included) which he was accused of having.

Yep. 12 years of playing games with Saddam was not enough. It should have went on for at least another 50 years.

Only one thing would have happened if the UN caved - like Russia, France, and China desperately wanted them to. Saddam would have immediately started up his WMD and nuke programs. But then again, they're only "programs". Nothing to worry about. Let's move on.

As you so aptly put it...Game.Set.Match.

[Black Dog]

As Mahdi Obeidi, a scientist who worked on Saddam's nuclear program, said, "we put together the most efficient covert nuclear program the world has ever seen." Apparently those sup=duper satellites you talk about are not all-seeing.

Iraq's nuclear program was wiped out in 1991. The intent remained and some intellectual capital, but there was nothing else.

And one does not need a military to be a threat to the US these days. Biological weapons are very small and cause great damage.

Biological weapons have very little military use. Bioterrorism is a threat, but common sesne rejects the notion that a authoritarian personality like Saddam would spend a lot of time and energy developing biological weapons, only to relinquish control over their use by handing them off to someone else, especially given the possibility that the same weapons could be used against his own regime (let's not forget that the secular socialist Saddam did not share the same objectives as Islamist organizations like Al Qaeda: in fact, Saddam was precisely teh kind of Arab leader AQ wants to overthrow.)

The US was a sworn enemy of Saddam's Iraq.

Nope. Again (from the ISG):

Saddam did not consider the United States a natural adversary, as he did Iran and Israel, and he hoped that Iraq might again enjoy improved relations with the United States

.

pwned.

[PocketRocket]

I must admit, your knowledge of Iraq's conventional weapon inventory far surpasses my own.

Well done.

So, on the point of the US leading weapons supplies to Iraq, I will concede the point.

If I decide to take the time to research further, and find you wrong, great.

If not, then my concession stands, and that's fine too.

Either way, good job on that point.

But I also must address few other things.

First, you still never showed any clear and imminent threat.

"Potential", perhaps. "Imminent", no.

Saddam was an ass, no doubt. He could have become a threat. But if we allow every "potential" threat to become a target, no matter how long-range that "potentail" may be, then it's simply giving free lisence to invade, at will, just about every country in the world, given the proper political spin.

Second, none of the following things were ever said by me......

"NO BLOOD FOR OOOIIILLLLL!!!"

"......despotic regimes are morally equivalent to the US, the UK, and other democracies."

"...the US liberal who says he supports the troops, even though they are a bunch of baby-killing, blood-drinking fascists."

Your implication is that I have used all of the previous "arguments".

Sorry to disappoint.

But I won't be hooked through having words put in my mouth, nor by obfuscation.

(I have said I support the troops, I have never said or implied that any troop is anything but heroic and courageous.

But troops, after all, do not get to choose their wars.)

As for this........

After all, as liberal Canadians constantly remind Americans, they burned down the White House during the War of 1812.

I used that line exactly once, and it was in direct reply to a comment by one of our esteemed American members who had made the extremely ignorant claim that the USA should simply come up here and take over Canada.

I seem to recall him saying that it would take "about ten minutes" or something to that effect.

That comment seemed to require a reply of this sort.

Childish of me perhaps, but it seemed suitable at the time.

So, your attempts at misdirection which make up a large bulk of your post aside, you've basically shown that most of the conventional weapons recently used by Iraq were not of American make.

But there has still been nothing to show an imminent threat.

And you still hang on to the justification of Saddam flouting the UN resolutions, while at the same time supporting the idea that the UN is irrelevant.

Can't have it both ways.

If the UN resolutions were valid, then so was their veto on the war.

If the UN is irrelevant, then their resolutions are not a justification for the war.

Therein lies the hypocrisy of which I spoke.

[Guest eureka]

I posted on another thread quite some time ago that, in the decade of the 1980's. the US shipped $18 billion worth of arms to Israel, through China to Iraq. That should be a little more than 1%.

In 1812, when we burned down the White House and burned the American invaders, the Us had 14 times the population of Canada. Now it is only nine times. Any invading force would be massacred.

[Montgomery Burns]

Pocket Rocket:

you still never showed any clear and imminent threat.

"Potential", perhaps. "Imminent", no.

From President Bush's SOTU address in January 2003:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

[Montgomery Burns]

Black Dog:

Iraq's nuclear program was wiped out in 1991. The intent remained and some intellectual capital, but there was nothing else.

From President Bush's January 2003 SOTU address:

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

Apparently Black Dog is from the John Kerry School of Defense. We will let Saddam do what he wants, but after he launches an attack, nuclear or otherwise, we will respond swiftly. GRRR!!!

Thankfully the Bush Administration has a more realistic worldview. Same with the American voting public.

Biological weapons have very little military use. Bioterrorism is a threat, but common sesne rejects the notion that a authoritarian personality like Saddam would spend a lot of time and energy developing biological weapons, only to relinquish control over their use by handing them off to someone else, especially given the possibility that the same weapons could be used against his own regime (let's not forget that the secular socialist Saddam did not share the same objectives as Islamist organizations like Al Qaeda: in fact, Saddam was precisely teh kind of Arab leader AQ wants to overthrow.)

Nonsense. Al Qaeda and Saddam joined forces against a common enemy. Secular Iraq? Are you unaware of the inscription Saddam had placed on Iraq's flag? Biological weapons are small and can be a devastating terror tactic. As President Bush stated in his January 2003 SOTU address:

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

Montgomery Burns:

The US was a sworn enemy of Saddam's Iraq.

Black Dog:

Nope. Again (from the ISG):

Saddam did not consider the United States a natural adversary, as he did Iran and Israel, and he hoped that Iraq might again enjoy improved relations with the United States

.

As VP Cheney so aptly put it: "The case of Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of our country, requires a candid appraisal of the facts.... We are, after all, dealing with the same dictator who shot at American and British pilots in the no-fly zone on a regular basis, the same dictator who dispatched a team of assassins to murder former president [George H.W.] Bush as he traveled abroad, the same dictator who invaded Iran and Kuwait and has fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel, the same dictator who has been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism for the better part of two decades"

But the USA wasn't really a sworn enemy of Saddam's Iraq.

pwned - again.

[Montgomery Burns]

In 1812, when we burned down the White House and burned the American invaders, the Us had 14 times the population of Canada. Now it is only nine times. Any invading force would be massacred.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who is "we"? Are you British?

And what are you saying? That US forces would be massacred by Canadian forces in the extremely unlikely chance that the US invaded Canada?

I don't want to flame you, but 2 words came to mind when I read your post:

Kool-Aid. Bong.

[Montgomery Burns]

Black Dog:

It was right because Germany was a threat in all the ways the Iraq most definitely was not.

Yes, Germany was a threat to Canada....well, uh, no they weren't.

Ridiculous. Read the Deufler Report, which lays out, in detail, Saddam's ambitions and capabilities:

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq’s principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.

...

The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.

...

Saddam’s rationale for the possession of WMD derived from a need for survival and domination. This included a mixture of individual, ethnic, and nationalistic pride as well as national security concerns particularly regarding Iran. Saddam wanted personal greatness, a powerful Iraq that could project influence on the world stage, and a succession that guaranteed both. Saddam sought the further industrialization of Iraq, held great hopes for Iraqi science, and saw himself as the liberator of Palestine. His vision was clearest—and seemingly most achievable—in terms of leaving Iraq militarily strong, within appropriate borders and safe from external aggressors, especially Iran. WMD was one of the means to these interrelated ends.

...

Saddam did not consider the United States a natural adversary, as he did Iran and Israel, and he hoped that Iraq might again enjoy improved relations with the United States, according to Tariq ‘Aziz and the presidential secretary.

...

Throughout the 1990s, Saddam and the Ba’th Regime considered full-scale invasion by US forces to be the most dangerous potential threat to unseating the Regime, although Saddam rated the probability of an invasion as very low. Throughout the UNSCOM period, Iraqi leaders extended a number of feelers to the United States through senior UNSCOM personnel offering strategic concessions in return for an end to sanctions. The stumbling block in these feelers was the apparent Iraqi priority on maintaining both the Saddam Regime and the option of Iraqi WMD.

In a custodial debriefing, Saddam said he wanted to develop better relations with the US over the latter part of the 1990s. He said, however, that he was not given a chance because the US refused to listen to anything Iraq had to say.

In 2004, Charles Duelfer of ISG said that between 1994 and 1998, both he and UNSCOM Executive Chairman Rolf Ekeus were approached multiple times by senior Iraqis with the message that Baghdad wanted a dialogue with the United States, and that Iraq was in a position to be Washington’s “best friend in the region bar none.”

Ludicrous. As VP Dick Cheney stated:

"The case of Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of our country, requires a candid appraisal of the facts.... We are, after all, dealing with the same dictator who shot at American and British pilots in the no-fly zone on a regular basis, the same dictator who dispatched a team of assassins to murder former president [George H.W.] Bush as he traveled abroad, the same dictator who invaded Iran and Kuwait and has fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel, the same dictator who has been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism for the better part of two decades"

So it appears Saddam's aspirations never went beyond restoring and maintaining his own status as a regional power and protecting his regime. Given that, it's highly doubtful he would have ever attacked the United States. You don't go out of your way to provoke the biggest threat to the regime's survival.

Trust Saddam. Trust him. He hates America with every fiber of his being so he is credible.

The U.S. was defending itself from Iraq in much the same way as Germany was defending itself from Poland in September 1939.

Congratulations for winning The Dumbest Analogy of the Day™ Award.

[Guest eureka]

Congratulations on finding the two words, Monty. Now if only you could reduce the drivel in all your posting to a few equally childlike words, we could all be spared the tedium.

Why do you insist on quoting Bush's SOTU as support for your "arguments" when the whole point is that Bush and his SOTU's have been thoroughy discredited? Have you nothing at all to back up your claims?

[PocketRocket]

Pocket Rocket:

you still never showed any clear and imminent threat.

"Potential", perhaps. "Imminent", no.

From President Bush's SOTU address in January 2003:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Trusting in the sanity of Bush is questionable at best, and as for HIS restraint, well, it seems that his restraint is based on what he can get away with politically.

Luckily for him, the American public (or any public for that matter) seems to have a short memory.

[I Miss Trudeau]

From President Bush's SOTU address in January 2003:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Invoking a proven liar to defend your points, now?

[Black Dog]

From President Bush's January 2003 SOTU address:

You're actually citing the discredited Niger story and the discredited aluminum tubes story? Good thing you don't have any credibility, because that would have wiped it out entirely.

But the USA wasn't really a sworn enemy of Saddam's Iraq.

You're right: they weren't, as the Dufler report clearly stated.

You're clearly sufering from an extreme case of Bush Fantasist Syndrome (wow, making up mental ailments is fun! Thanks for showing me how!).

[B. Max]

The niger story was not discredited. Wlison and the leftwing media are discredited.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml

[Black Dog]

The niger story was not discredited. Wlison and the leftwing media are discredited.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Niger story was discredited. The documents indicating Saddam's attempts to purchase yellowcake from Niger were fraudlent (something the IAEA spotted off the bat). This is widely accepted, even by the Bush administration.

The prescence of a few hundred tons of unenriched uranium in a former nuclear facility prove nothing. Saddam had no active nuke program.

[masterkush]

that America faces bankruptcy should china and japan call in the debts

is without a doubt correct 100%

america owes now get this

more then 7,000 billion dollars and tacks an extrar 1/2 trillion per annum on to it

that makes a debt of more than 26,000$ u.s. per person

considering that 1/3 of americans cant pay their share because they are destitute

and 1/3 wont pay they are the elite and dont pay taxes in most cases

it leaves the dwindling middleclass with the tab

which equals 80,000$ us each

not counting their personal debts like mortgage ,car payments ,personal loans

indeed

Japan wouldnt call in the debt

because their currency is tied to the US $

the only way America could pay was to lower the $ to a level where

it would be worth a tooth pick and a bubblegum

1/2 trillion $ added to american debt each year

while Walmart peddles chinese goods by the tonage America has to borrow to stay afloat

No wonder they need iraq oil wells