It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by BlackJackal
IOk so what is your logic 10 years from now there will be another problem in Iraq if we leave. Why would we not finish the job now instead of letting the problem arise again. To do that would make absolutly no sense. What is the logic?
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
As far as the freedom of telling us to get out, they should have, as a nation, rid the world of Hussein so that we would not have had to do it for our own security
It was us who paid the price for their freedom, not them. Anything that comes cheaply isn't respected or valued, and it was very cheap for them.
There are other countries that are doing worse, yet you still find new ways to show your own ignorance of the events happening in Iraq, or the rest of the world for that matter, and blaming the US for them.
Whether or not these people say that they beleived there was WMD's in Iraq is irrelevant because before we went to war there they did just as Bush did.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Don't listen to Jakomo, he is writting his daily "I hate America, all American administrations and all Americans in general" garbage. It seems he does not feel good or wanted, unless he bashes the US everyday.
Originally posted by Jakomo
Um, except that since there are NO WMDS IN IRAQ THEN THERE WAS NO THREAT TO THE USA. You follow that?
It's touching that you trust your politicians so much. Touching and a little naive, but you'll eventually realize that it's better to trust the IRS than your politicians.
Yeah I follow you, but I need to know what your point is. Is your point that since there were no WMD's found that we now need to pull out of Iraq? Is that your logic?
Is your point that all politicians lie? Well we all know that but they all seemed to lie the same way on this one, republicans, indepentdents, and democrats.
Is your point that in your all knowlegdable point of view that WMD's did not exsist in Iraq when they have been used in the past and all intelligence pointed to the exsistence of them?
I have yet to see credable evidence that the USA gave Iraq WMD's and if you can produce some credable evidence I would love to hear it. Make sure you don't just plug somebody's anti-war website.
Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism....
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East...
...The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war...
....In April 1984, the Baghdad interests section asked to be kept apprised of Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq, which were not to be "in any way configured for military use"....
...During the spring of 1984 the U.S. reconsidered policy for the sale of dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program, and its "preliminary results favor[ed] expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities" [Document 57]. Several months later, a Defense Intelligence Agency analysis said that even after the war ended, Iraq was likely to "continue to develop its formidable conventional and chemical capability, and probably pursue nuclear weapons"...
Later in the month, the State Department briefed the press on its decision to strengthen controls on the export of chemical weapons precursors to Iran and Iraq, in response to intelligence and media reports that precursors supplied to Iraq originated in Western countries. When asked whether the U.S.'s conclusion that Iraq had used chemical weapons would have "any effect on U.S. recent initiatives to expand commercial relationships with Iraq across a broad range, and also a willingness to open diplomatic relations," the department's spokesperson said "No. I'm not aware of any change in our position. We're interested in being involved in a closer dialogue with Iraq"
...The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik that determined this country's policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons. Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.
Jak's favorite pastime is standing on the side lines and throwing $hyte grenades. Loves to point out problems but never offers a solution.
If we attack a threat to us, well, there goes those brutal capitalist war-mongering Americans again, out to dominate the world!
Why don't you just come out and say that you hate Americans, our leaders, our government, our society, our way of life and get it over with? That way you could save you (and us) some time and you wouldn't have to create those mega-posts bashing our actions.
A big, fat leech stuck to our side, offering nothing in return but disease and discomfort. With the US to the south and west, NATO to the east, and the Arctic Circle to the north, you guys are all snug as a bug in a rug up there, aren't you?
We don't care if you think that's arrogant, because maybe it is.
I don't understand this reasoning for bashing the USA here.
If you take the position that Saddam was a monster then in fact it was the USA and UK who recognized this first and lead the way to undo the acquiesence of the West to Saddam's depravity.
The prospect of Osama bin Laden ruling Arabia and Saddam in Iraq---unfettered by sanctions---was horrible. And that was the previous direction that things are going.