Iraqi resistance gives a hummus about WMD

The BBQ Pit
61

Let’s see. Car analogy is not very good, because Saddam owned the place and wasn’t late on payments, so you couldn’t justify taking Iraq from him on these grounds. How about child protection analogy? Iraq was a household and Saddam was abusive parent, so the world community had to do something about it. So the world community told Saddam to stop the abuse or face “serious consequences”. He kind of like acquiesced, but sometimes would relapse, and the whole thing was a mess. Meanwhile, the world community couldn’t agree on the clear course of action until finally one man went ahead and relieved Saddam of his household.

The story didn’t end there. Many in Saddam’s household were happy to see him gone, but quite a few were not. Unhappy ones started fighting and continue to fight to this day, against their own household and the intruders. As a result, the world community opinion split three ways. Some said that it was right to remove Saddam; others said it was not right and he had to be left in possession (while continuously disciplined from outside); yet the third group kept saying that removing Saddam was good but the method was wrong, implying that if the method was different, the result would be too: and they were full of shit.

Because there were always only two ways: leave Saddam or take him out.

There was no resolution possible, because Chirac has finally stated that France will veto “no matter what”. Few days after that Bush invaded Iraq.

62

Sailor & ** elucidator** are both correct. GWB intends to maintain permanent US military bases in Iraq.

Nobody mention “appeasement”, “Osama bin Laden” & “Saudi Arabia” in the one sentence, though. Feelings may be hurt.

As a commentator noted; the test of an effective democracy in Iraq will be its ability to tell the Americans to leave. GWB won’t allow that. Many have already drawn comparisons, saying Iraq may become the US’s own Gaza strip.

I won’t recover the cites, they are opinion, not fact: The accuracy of these opinions will be matters of fact in a month or 2 or less. Patience.

All far as issues of debate having no effect on quantum of deaths in Iraq, well that’s hooey.

The OP is supposing all opposition is irrational: That is, that the numbers and degree of resistance was inevitable no matter what diplomacy and efforts preceded the invasion.

The OP supposes that the public injustice and naked falsehoods preceding the invasion had no effect on the numbers and degree of resistance.

The OP supposes that funding & supplies to the resistance is unaffected by the justice absent in the US’s cause. Including from outside Iraq.

As it stands **between **the death of US personnel & Iraqis, fair-minded people will elect US personnel. Including those who are the family and friends of people on this board.

Finally, let’s not forget Saddam’s backchannel approach to the US: Install democracy: 2 years: Saddam & family retire. Easy to say this wouldn’t have worked. Much less confident in saying it wasn’t even worth trying.

Sailor is right again. The real reason the US rejected this is it’s real interest was in a show of force. Think with the reptilian brain and all is clear. It could not accept a non-military resolution after the WTC fell. Remember the 2 events, the terrorism and the invasion are intimately connected & the US electorate understands.

The fact that the connection is not a rational connection is neither here nor there, on-board knicker-twisting notwithstanding.

63

New Iskander, No, your analogy is flawed. The community did not feel Saddam deserved the punishment for his behavior but the neighborhood bully used it as an excuse and went in anyway.

And the "France will veto no matter what” has been debunked so many times on this board that, frankly it is getting old. And it is irrelevant anyway. Your reasoning assumes the only valid outcome was invasion. So what if France would veto? The USA does that all the time and the rest of the world lives with it. I can’t see why it is OK for the USA to use its veto but not for France.

64

One of the sustaining staples of gormless right-wingers. Fed straight from the toxic medusa teat of the GOP.

Pity it’s so much bullshit, but then that’s the essential diet of a growing young Republican these days.

Or in a word “cite”?

Or do you not know the significance of quotation marks?

65

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030314-12.html

66

Then how do you explain this,

British efforts to secure a deal were scuppered when the French president, Jacques Chirac, gave a television interview saying he would veto a resolution authorising war whatever the circumstances.

I support the invasion. I would also support the decision not to invade. Both of those were valid options. Someone had to make a call. I always thought the French should use their veto in any way they think is right.

67

Quotation marks means a quote. Surprise!

Really, is this cretins hour of power or what?

Cite the quote. Yes, by Jacques Chirac.

But you’ve googled furiously to no avail and won’t share that result here, n’est-ce pas?

Lying creep.

68

That is a bad, simplified, assertion. That is NOT what Chirac said and the complete and explained quote has been cited many times in GD so you are being willfully ignorant.

So what you are saying the USA has no obligation to respect UN resolutions. So why would other countries be under any obligation? The logical consequence is to disband the UN. . . which you might support but be aware the UN is a tool the USA uses all the time for its own ends.

69

May as well just provide the actual quote.

The critical part is this: “regardless of the circumstances, France will vote “no” because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, i.e. to disarm Iraq.”

Which does sort of sound like France was determined to say no to the war. However, he was talking about only two particular circumstances. One in which the US achieves a majority vote in favour of the particular resolution, and one in which it doesn’t. In the end the point was moot because it never went to a vote.

It’s pretty clear in the interview that France wanted the inspection process which had already been agreed to to proceed.

We can guess what would have happened if the inspection process had actually continued. They would have found jack shit, because there was jack shit there to find to begin with.

If Bush was still serious about “liberating the Iraqi people”, he then would have had to drop the fabricated WMD scenario, and push for a humanitarian intervention. That may even have worked, but wouldn’t have fitted Bush’s carefully cultivated macho-rabid-cowboy-asshole image.

70

Thanks Desmostylus. It really shows how desperately the Bushistas are searching for arguments when they justify the war on France’s threat to veto when it turns out that:

a) In the end, the USA was wrong and France was right and there were no WMD to justify the invasion.

b) France never did veto anything because it never came to a vote. The fact is it never came to a vote because the great majority of the countries would have voted against it. They were right and the USA was wrong.

And yet, the pigheaded bushistas continue their stupid justifications which do not convince anyone. They are just a way of not facing the facts.

71

Would that be the Brits? Is this really Tony Blairs war? Has it ever come out who it was that forced Mr. Bush to go with the invasion?

72

I dunno, but any minute now, I expect him to tell us it was Jesus.

73

The president you’re quoting is Chirac, not Bush.

74

Let’s not forget that the one who finally removed Saddam was the same one that protected his neighbours from Saddam agression, same one that executed the will of world community to discipline Saddam for 11 years, same one that would be entrusted to deal with Saddam if and when world community finally came to agreement, with all the sacrifices in human life and treasury that this required. To call this one a “neighborhood bully” without qualifications is disingenous.

What I’m saying that whether there was UN resolution or not the same US soldiers and Iraqis were going to die, so why do we care so much? Whether we want to preserve UN, or how to fine-tune it, has no bearing on the actions of Iraq resistance. They sure don’t give a damn about UN and all it’s resolutions.

75

That quote is from President Chirac and neither Bush nor Chirac post here (that I know of).

76

The same one that is now inciting Kerry to un-seat Bush? The One and Only? The One who rules the World?

77

So, the stonewalling continues. I already said that not to invade and continue on with the sanctions was just as valid option as to invade. I already said that I never criticized the French for their principled stand. I repeat, “If you believe that the invasion was a wrong thing to do; if you believe that Saddam had to be left in power and continued to be kept under pressure, I have no problem with that”. My quarrel is with those who want to have it both ways: to have Saddam out, but to continue harping at Bush for doing it the wrong way, citing Iraqi resistance for their justification. There was no nice way to remove Saddam by force. There would be the same bloodshed, the same resistance, no matter how we split hairs in the West.

Every time I try to argue an honest case, whether Saddam had to be removed by force or not, a whole bunch of double-dealers come along, saying, “D’oh! Of course Saddam had to go, any idiot knows that! But look what a mess Bush has done of his removal, you Bush lackey!” Stop obfuscating, you frauds! People that support Saddam removal have a valid argument. People that support Saddam left under sanctions have a valid argument. You swindlers don’t have a valid argument.

78

And lets also not forget that we were the one that propped his little regime up in the first place!

Executed the will of the world community? Please. I think it’s pretty well established that the world community was largely opposed to our “disciniplary” measures in Iraq.

79

Oops, Sorry :o