The word is “wrong”. You were wrong about the calutrons and now you’re trying to move the goal posts to cover it up. Saddam had a history of hiding his assets and he had a history of interfering with UN inspections.
The point is Bush said Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD from the post-1441 inspections in March 2003. He was not referring to decades old activities that have been stopped.
Saddam told the world he did not have WMD stockpiles or programs and was proactively cooperating with the inspectors. Bush said he had doubtless intelligence that Iraq was still hiding them. SH told the truth in March 2004 whole the President of the USA did not tell the truth. Bush obstructed the peaceful inspections to pursue war.
I am stating all facts, Magiver. If you can challenge any of them please try.
No, he disagrees with them and publically states what he thinks is right.
One here said Obama had only one world leader that agrees with him. My point us that Cameron agrees with Obama but a majority of his public do not.
That is just a reality for many reasons but Iraq has soured so many including myself. But Syria is not Iraq. And specifically now that a diplomatic resolution is being pursued.
Right, he doesn’t ignore the majority, he ignores the view of the majority. Got it.
If we’re still talking about the PM, it doesn’t really matter whether he ignores the majority view or carefully considers it before saying “Fuck it, I’m gonna do what I want”; the effect is the same. And in fact this seems to be SOP for the Government.
It does not matter since my point stands that Cameron should be counted as a major world leader that agrees the US should act militarily agsinst Syria unless diplomatic resolution can be achieved. And that is where we are. Magiver posted an error to state that only France was with Obama so Magiver should stand corrected but I expect he won’t.
Magiver please learn the difference between “has” and “had”. Chemical weapons have a expiration date of a few years the weapons used against the Kurds and Iranians would not have been functional by 2003. We all agree that at one point SH had chemical weapons at one point. The question is did he have any such programs that he kept hidden from international inspectors at the time the Bush started a war against him. All reports I have seen about this indicate that he did not. If you have evidence of such a program at 2002 or later we would be happy to see it.
From your logic we should really be invading Germany since that have vast quantities of Zyklon B that they used on millions of Jews.
Agreed. The issue at hand is Syria, and I don’t know that the experience in Iraq is particularly useful in this instance. For one thing, Russia is Syria’s patron, and they have as much, if not more, interest in keeping Syria’s CWs in check. Whether that means destroying them or making sure Assad has his personal stash somewhere will be hard to know.
We do know that Khadaffi in Libya “voluntarily” said he’d give up all WMDs, but CWs were found hidden there after he was overthrown. I don’t think that is a particularly difficult thing for a dictator to do if he is so inclined.
But we’ll see how this all plays out in the coming months. The first milestone will be for the US, Russia and Syria to agree on what Syria has and where Syria has it. I expect that will have to happen in the next few weeks.
The deadly and costly experience in Iraq is quite useful in today’s Syria discussion because we are already hearing the rightwing hawks on the radio this very moment (Mark Bellling filling in for Limbaugh - it was John Bolton on this morning pre-dissing Obama’s UN Speech) creating a new Iraq-based myth that Obama is now, as a result of bungling Syria, being conned by Iran. The myth is that Bush was not conned by Iran’s Ayatollah’s when Bush deposed their bitter enemy with American blood and borrowed money.
The other Iraq right wing myth being resuscitated is that UN inspections did not work in Iraq so they won’t work in Syria and on the Iranian nuclear program. Look at Saddam- Bush was right to not trust him.
Bush Iraq invasion myths allowed to fester and linger on can be precipitators of bad outcomes in world where national security situation are sure to be confronted and dealt with in the future.
It will be amazing to watch the newfound Tea Party peaceniks depart from their new found lefty antiwar friends on Syria so they can go back to trashing Obama for ‘talking’ to Iran instead of bombing them.
And my point stands that Obama is a politician who chooses to not represent the majority view of the people he purports to represent, but rather chooses to pursue his own agenda, reckless as it would be to human life.
Do you mean his reckless, bloodthirsty decision not to bomb Syria, or his wimpy, pacifistic decision not to bomb Syria?
I mean his bullshit “red line” and subsequent failed attempt to manufacture support for an entirely self-serving, and murderous, agenda.
Would be a very compelling narrative were it not for the fact that he didn’t actually do anything. Outside of that, very convincing.
What is wreckless and “own agenda” about getting Assad to initiate transfer of his CW arsenal to safe-keeping far removed from a war zone where global jihadists would love to get their murderous hands on them and Assad won’t be using them again.
Obama and the majority of Americans are united in the Syria strategy that yet includes the use of force if necessary to get Assad to follow through on disarming.
I’m sure the majority of Americans support a plan to get such weapons out of Assad’s hands if it can be easily done. But the “use of force” if that fails? Not so sure about that. Substantiate?
For which we have the UK Parliament to thank.
And btw, yes it is the same Obama now looking very statesmanlike speaking at the UN who didn’t feel the need for a legal resolution from the same organisation in order to attack another country.
The man has some front, and no shame.
Yep, well done Vlad Putin.
OK, so he might well have blithely ignored any interference from the UN, but the awesome power of the country that used to be Great Britain, that stopped him dead?
Putin flipped to Obama’s military objective after refusing to agree for two years. When you flip to your opponents objective and demands 100% you lost. Putin lost and is losing more every day his association with a mass murderer is on front pages.
Not supported, but closer than I would like it to be:
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 12-15, 2013. N=1,004 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.
“If the diplomatic efforts to take control of Syria’s chemical weapons do not work, do you think Congress should or should not approve the use of military force against Syria?”
Should 44%
Should not 48%
Unsure 8%