hehe

when allocating blame, that it should be parceled out fairly, on the basis of having done the most?

See, in my mind, if france was responsible for 12 times as many weapons being provided to Iraq than we were, then you should have 12 times as many threads critiquing their behavior. But instead, WE are the only nation to have been singled out here, when in fact the role we played, in the vast scheme of things, was relatively small.

What about throwing some guilt in the direction of the USSR who was the number one leading champion of dictators back in the 80s and 90s? After all, they provided 57 TIMES AS MUCH BAD STUFF TO IRAQ as we did. I know y'all are huge fans of communism, is that why you've neglected to hold the USSR culpable for arming Iraq?

solely on who gave Iraq what. At least mine is not. Mine is based on the fact that we are the only ones who cuddled up to him, provided him weapons, said very little when he used them and then later invaded him for having the very weapons we encouraged him to have! Frankly, I do see kind of a HMMMMM issue here. And I know full well that you are not blind to it, even if you support the current war. It's sort of like handing your kids a beer and then grounding them for drinking. France, for example, whether right or wrong, has been consistent. You could certainly argue that France is dead wrong, but I don't think they have been hypocritical. They cuddled up to him, supplied him with weapons, bought his oil and were against invading. That's pretty consistent, so I can't really call them out on that account. They were always OK with Saddam. And yes, they have blood on their hands. But they are OK with it.

Blame for what happened certainly falls to everyone who gave him weapons and not just the U.S., but we seem to be the only ones complaining about it. You can still argue that we were right to go in, but I think you also have to admit that Saddam was very much our fault to begin with. Rumsfeld loved the guy.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Saddam was the fault of the civilized world, in which we played a (small) role. Saddam is very much more the USSR's fault.

The difference between us and the USSR/France/China is that we actually had the balls to say, "yeah we're semi-responsible and now we're gonna go and fix what we did wrong." They didn't, in spite of thinking that he had what we thought he had.

Catz

alone. There is plenty of blame to go around. But it's not like we ever really cared what he was doing.

I think the actual position of those countries was that Saddam was not a threat, so there was little to fix. They "knew" he had weapons because they had the receipts. But they also knew this: Saddam had those weapons for 20 years (going on the assumption he still had them, of course). And in all that time he was never a threat to the West. Ever.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Then why did the Germans stock up on anti-biological agents starting in the fall of 2002? (namely, smallpox vaccines)

Why was Hussein harboring terrorists who had perpetrated terrorist actions in Europe and elsewhere?

And I guess that Hussein's foiled attack on George Bush I doesn't count.

Germany's role and hypocritical response to Iraq:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EB05Ak02.html

If we really want to be righteous about eliminating dictators, we need to stop installing them, supporting them, then installing new ones. We also need to stop toppling democratically elected governments and installing less democratic ones (ie Iran in the 50s, took out Mossadegh, put in the Shah.....CIA helped the corporations in Venezuela take out Chavez for a day......then the PEOPLE of Venezuela rose up in the streets, surrounded the capitol, and demanded CHavez' return....and they won)

If you stop making more dictatorships, they will eventually die off, or if any try and do something hostile, we take them out. IE Hitler.
Oppressive regimes should be taken out. But in a smart way that minimizes civillian casualties. This is not what we have done in Iraq, and we didnt go in for humanitarian purposes at all. If we did, Baghdad would not still be without water and electricity.

__________________
www.contraweb.tk
.: Digital Activism for the New Millenium :.

I would not know. But despite your author's contention I think "because Saddam Hussien was going to attack Germany" would be a tad far fetched and more than a little paranoid. What the hell for?

"Harboring" is not the right word. That is a word best used for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Syria. Countries we never invaded, incidentally. Granted, a terrorist or two did spend some time in Iraq, and Saddam certainly did not turn them over or anything (even if he knew they were there in the first place). But compared to MANY countries, including some of our "allies", there were very few terrorists in Iraq. It was never a safe haven country or a training ground. That would be Pakistan. But we like them. Weird. Some neo-con commentators keep trying like mad to make it a safe haven, but it never was. Until we got there, of course. Now there are plenty of terrorists. Or so says the Pentagon. But prior to the invasion you are talking about some pretty small numbers by anyone's account. And when compared with our "allies" the numbers are very small indeed. Hell, there were likely more terrorists HERE. We even taught some of them to fly for God's sake. Further, the thought that by invading Iraq we somehow hurt terrorists is simply laughable. They don't give two spits about the invasion other than getting to use it as a recruitment tool. And they certainly were not harmed by and large in the process. $500 billion and we are no safer or less safe. (Although I never thought of terrorism as a big threat in the first place). That's why I continue to be against the war. The bang for the buck was AWFUL. We got no benefits at a high cost.

Not for me it doesn't. Saddam hated George Sr. and certainly did want him dead. Plenty of people did. Some lived right here! But that does not mean America or Americans were in the slightest danger from Iraq. He was pretty silent for 8 years while Clinton was around. So the fact he wanted Bush dead hardly makes him a threat to me or you. He was not going to attack America anymore than Libya, North Korea, Syria or a host of others were or are. We are the last country on Earth that would be invaded.

I can see why you think it was a good idea to go in, I just think every single reason applies more to countries we never invaded. I do hope Iraqi's will be better off in the long run, however. And I do want us to finish the job. I do not support a withdrawl.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Hardly.

LOL...So I guess Clinton launching 430 cruise missiles into Iraq during 500 missions by U.S. pilots over 4 days in December 1998 was "pretty silent"? And Iraq kicking out the UN weapons inspectors on Clinton's watch in 1998 was "pretty silent" as well?

If Iraq didn't intend to resume weapons production that might threaten it's neighbors and/or the west, why kick out the weapons inspectors?

If Clinton had held a stronger political position, I have no doubt he'd have launched a larger force on Iraq back in 1998. And probably should have.

Catz

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
....

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.


.....The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

...Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agreed with him then. I agree with him now.

Catz