Archive through November 06, 2002
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archives: Iraq will allow full weapons inspections!!!!!: Archive through November 06, 2002

Bohawkins

Saturday, September 21, 2002 - 03:21 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Sadaam's statement that he will not allow access to the so-called Presidential Palaces is indicative to me that he is not being forthright. Now, I think that we need to insist on full access. Previously, I couldn't see Bush's view at all.

Maris

Saturday, September 21, 2002 - 03:48 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Ya think Bo????? add to the presidential palace, schools, hospitals, mosques and what have you got. Plenty of hiding places. Oh and another condition he had was "no surprise inspections"

Suitsmefine

Saturday, September 21, 2002 - 06:32 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Well, the thread was about Iraq and Saddam, and some where in this there is a chicken with dumplings for brains.....Need I say more? And btw, Sw&&t S#e makes good chicken broth, but those dumplings should be out-lawed!!!!

Hillbilly

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 07:49 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Oh...looky...here's another Bush-bashing thread.

Weenerlobo

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 08:12 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I know there's some revisionist history going on lately, but have people totally forgotton about Saddam's MO? Didn't he whine and stall and hide weapons before? I'm amazed that mutliple countries are letting him have more than enough time to repeat the same actions. History does repeat itself and is there for us to learn what we did wrong (or right) the first time.

Weenerlobo

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 08:23 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Not to mention; SO WHAT if Daddy Bush had the chance to shut down Saddam 11 years ago. That is now irrelevant; it's OVER. And if one persists in that vein, then please explain to me why it was a great idea 11 years ago and today it's not. Are we to assume that Saddam hasn't been the same guy we loved to hate for the past 11 years, or, indeed, has more reasons for us to hate him that we don't even know about? Has he changed into a democratic champion? How is it that he's attained "victim" status? Yeah, sure, that's why his people get to choose between him in office or death.

Calamity

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 08:31 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Weenerlobo - "And if one persists in that vein, then please explain to me why it was a great idea 11 years ago and today it's not."

Why did the US think it was okay for Iraq to use biological weapons (with which we partially supplied them) against the Kurds and Iranians in 1980's but now the US cites that as evidence that Hussein must be eliminated?

Weenerlobo

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 08:33 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Good question, Calamity, thanks, but have you answered the first one?

Whowhere

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 08:40 am EditMoveDeleteIP
picture

Calamity

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 08:54 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I thought I did - the US played a major role in creating Saddam and his biological weapon arsenal. You reap what you sow. Most Western nations didn't care when Hussein was terrorizing and annihilating Kurds & Iranians.

Hussein was not eliminated in 1991 because the US and its allies got Middle Eastern support for the Gulf Way only under the condition that it was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, nothing more. That was what the US agreed to and they did not want to risk a threatened oil embargo by OPEC nations if they ignored the agreement and continued on into Baghdad.

Now please answer my question.

Goddessatlaw

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 08:57 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Can I just point out that this thread was started over 6 weeks ago, and not a single weapons inspector has been allowed back into Iraq?

Nimtu

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 08:59 am EditMoveDeleteIP
LOL Goddess! You tell 'em!

Weenerlobo

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 09:56 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Thanks again, Calamity. Enjoying the discussion. Like someone mention earlier in this thread, it's refreshing to have discourse with other people who do have opinions. So many people don't even pay attention to these "heavy" subjects! Hope you feel the same.

Obviously you are familiar with cliches, so I know you'll recognize "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." During the Iran/Iraq war we assisted Saddam because Iran was backed by Communists and you'll remember that there were no warm fuzzy feelings back then. I don't agree with your statement that America "created" Saddam. He has not been and never will be a puppet.

I'm assuming that you never thought it was a good idea to go after Saddam?

Goddess - you are the voice of reason.

Calamity

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 12:05 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Hello Weenerlobo. Thanks for the discussion.

The US provided conventional weapons and some funding and aid to Iraq during its war with Iran. We also supplied samples of material that could be used to manufacture biological weapons. In doing so, we definately helped strengthen Hussein, as well as fortified and diversified his military resources. It was only when he began to flex his muscles against Western interests that he suddenly became a bad guy.

Apparently back in the 1980's our government thought it was okay for Iraq to use poison gas on those Iranian soliders and Kurdish civilians because in the case of the former they were our enemies and the latter were too poor and powerless to matter so who cares what happens to them, eh? But now that we have realized that these bio-weapons could be used against our own people and/or our allies, well, that changes everything, doesn't it? We've gained some type of retroactive moral outrage over Iraq's past use of bio-weapons and decided Hussein must go. What I want to know is, if Hussein was still our buddy, would we ever have had our ephiphany about his bio-weapons use?

Yes, I realize the Hussein is a potential threat to stability in the Middle East. But do I think a war with Iraq should take precedence over our pursuit of al-queda & other terrorist organizations as well as take resources away from protecting our own borders? No, I do not.

And maybe we should have another belated flash of enlightenment and realize Jimmy Carter's wisdom in the 1970's when he said that we should seriously pursue alternative energy sources and conservation. People may scoff at him, but just think were we would be today if we weren't dependent on Gulf oil supplies.

Weenerlobo

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 12:27 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Thanks for the details - I was cognizant of them, however I don't mind a refresher.

I didn't realize that America had ceased its pursuit of al-quaida terrorists. Seems to me the "second in charge" just died. Surely we're not supposed to do only one thing at a time?

Twinkie

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 12:28 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Doesn't anyone find it interesting that most of the terrorists from 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia but they are our friends? Could that be that Dubbya and daddy and the Saudi's are all part of an oil coalition? They are. And include Cheney in that coalition.

Goddessatlaw

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 12:39 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
If Bush was interested in profiting from oil, and molly-coddling the Saudi's for that reason, all he'd have to do is lift the U.S. led sanctions on Iraq and start dealing. If he were in a coalition, he could make alot more money that way. But that's not happening, is it?

Twinkie

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 12:45 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Try to check out The Carlyle Group. Bet you can't find anything on it. :-) But it does exist. Several Americans and Saudis in business together concerning oil.

Twinkie

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 12:49 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Has Bush been pushing for Americans to go to at least half electric half gas cars? Or course not. It wouldn't be profitable for him.

Goddessatlaw

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 12:50 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Gotta tell ya, Twinkie - I don't get my news from the Red Rock Eater Digest.

PS if in fact any of the above were true or of national importance, then the Democratic party is more miserably inept than my original opinion of them because they would have shoved these rumors up Republican wazoo sideways during this past election. But they didn't, and if there were any creedence to these partisan reports, I'm pretty sure they would have.

Twinkie

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 12:59 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Red Rock Eater Digest? I don't think I said anything insulting in my posts but I think you just did, GAL.

Goddessatlaw

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 01:00 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
That's the news group that provided the Carlyle report (literally - no joke).

Max

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 01:09 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
There are lots of internet references to the Caryle Group, including Red Rock Eater Digest, but also including Hoover's online (http://www.hoovers.com/co/capsule/6/0,2163,42166,00.html). which states:

"With former US Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci as its chairman, it's no surprise that The Carlyle Group is drawn to defense. Defense and aerospace firms such as United Defense Industries (maker of the Crusader artillery system) make up a significant share of the world's largest private equity firm's portfolio. Also represented are information technology, health care, real estate, and bottling companies. Since Carlucci joined in 1989, a host of staffers from the Reagan and first Bush administrations have stinted at the company, including ex-Secretary of State James Baker and ex-budget chief Richard Darman. Former President Bush and former UK Prime Minister John Major have also made appearances."

I think, if you look, you can find extremist viewpoints on both sides. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. :)

Twinkie

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 01:13 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Well after just looking at that rag I wouldn't get my news from them either.

Goddessatlaw

Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 01:14 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Thanks, Max. I'm content to leave it at that. LOL, Twinkie. No hard feelings. We just disagree.