Quote:
|
But isn't Clinton our ex-president? Or is he still very much in office in your own little world? Aren't we talking about Bush taking us into Iraq and not what Clinton didn't do?
|
Those quotes are relevant because they show that Bush and his administration were not the only ones that saw Iraq as a threat. Liberals are trying to paint him as some crackpot cowboy with a personal agenda. Well, if he was, then Clinton shared that agenda. Yet we do not see criticism of Clinton from liberals. Why do you think that is?
Quote:
|
That whenever a fervent Bush supporter lacks a real argument, they play the ever-faithful Clinton did (or didn't) do such and such. The vast majority of the time anything Clinton-related is irrelevant to the discussion.
|
Why is it irrelevant? It shows that previous administrations considered Saddam as much a threat as Bush Jr did. You cant make the accusation that Bush's suspicions were irrational if so many other people that did NOT share his agenda still shared his suspisions. Give me a break.
Even among liberals you people appear to have been in the minority.
Quote:
|
Ok, I misinterpreted you're "not cooperating" - argument. I thought you meant the time, when Saddam kicked the inspectors out of Iraq.
|
It was part of a pattern...Saddam was playing a delaying game. He would give the appearance of cooperation, then yank that cooperation back when the inspectors got too close to somthing he didnt want them to see.
How many times should we have allowed him to do this before finally saying "enough"?
Quote:
|
When I meantioned the secondary motivations for uncooperations, I meant that uncooperation is not a strong indication of crime by pointing some other motives for uncooperation (such as pride). For example in this case - the other suggested motives were most likely the real motives.
|
But we have no way of knowing that. Thats why I used the word "ultimatum" instead of "request". It was not a request.
Maybe it was for reasons of humilitation...but we are not obligated to assume that IMO. The burden of proof is on HIM, not us.
Quote:
|
Iraqian's actually cooperated rather well - not perfectly, because Saddam refused to ratify - in a way - the most humiliating parts of the cooperation.
|
Again...how do we know that humiliation was the reason? How do we know we were not simply getting too close to somthing he didnt want us to see?
I am unwilling to assume humiliation was the reason by default. If he'd had WMDs or WMD programs in place, he would have had plenty of reason to interfere with inspections. Why should we assume it was because he felt humiliated?
Quote:
|
The inspectors were given a completely free movement and lot of information...
|
They were denied cooperation at the last minute several times. It didnt just happen once. Yes, that makes me suspicious.
If humiliation was the reason, then he would not be doing that at the last minute. He would say somthing like "Ok, 3 more days and that is it". But he would not restrict access to specific places.
Quote:
|
The other issue was, that they didn't give proof about the missing weapons, but it seems it was impossible for Iraqians, because they had neither weapons or documented proof.
|
Had he cooperated fully with the rest of it, I would probably accept this excuse. It is reasonable to believe they didnt keep good records.
Quote:
|
In the end, the Iraqians cooperated rather well.
|
Why do you say "Iraqians" and not "Saddam's government"? They are not the same thing.
Quote:
You: The inspections didn't seem to bring any concrete benefit for Saddam and he couldn't see why to keep up the humiliating process.
Me: Had he given full cooperation, the process would have been much shorter. Humiliation is irrelevant. We gave him to opportunity to cooperate...IMO we were not really obligated to do even that.
This is arrogant.
|
Why is it arrogant? Why do despots have a right to rule?
Quote:
|
Well, we can talk about the magnitudes here. Iraq had some contact to Al'Qaida at some point, but they never led to cooperation.
|
We dont know that for sure. I am unwilling to assume innosence by default.
The point is, he DID have ties to terrorists. They had a common enemy, and both had few moral restraints and were not answerable to the masses.
btw - how sure are you that Al Quaeda was the only terrorist group Saddam interacted with?