Oh, sure: it's just that a lot of wretches hate the country and its president without whose leadership this wouldn't have happened, and these wretches choose every opportunity to denigrate both.
Richard:
Brandon:
No, there isn't anything partisan about that among those who value freedom and hate murderous tyrants.
As chief mouthpiece in this newsgroup for the wretches of the world, you don't deserve any.
My last word on this subject -- that's your one break.
Had that president not used false premises to set up the attack there wouldn't be an issue. Instead we had claims of WMDs being ready for immediate deployment, claims that Iraq was seeking nuclear (or is that nucular?) weapons and other bunk. If something is ready for immediate deployment, how likely is it that that something can be hidden as effectively as it obviously has been?
Have you looked at the American track record? A sudden *apparent* shift in MO doesn't excuse the acts performed over the last 20 years or so. You've installed and supported enough tyrants to know. Were you aware that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq helping Saddam back when he gassed the Kurds? No complaints at all then, funnily enough. In fact the Iraqis were very happy with how things were progressing between the two nations.
I'm getting blinded by the glint of light off of your white hat.
The important point here is that both the Germans and Japanese make products superior to those made by "American" (note quotes, since nameplate is only vaguely related to where a vehicle is actually assembled) companies, therefore either is more worthy of my purchasing dollars than an "American" company.
Patriotism at work! It's far better to buy the best product that suits your needs regardless of where it's from. If local companies know they can put out crap and people will buy it because it's local, crap is what you'll get. Competition improves the breed! :)
From the 1990s on every major Western intelligence agency was in agreement that Saddam had and/or was actively pursuing WMDs. His chemical WMDs were actually used -- no secret to anyone -- against the Kurds and Iranians. Now, the Democrats are more interested in partisan amnesia; so are you, Brandon.
Below I've appended a fact sheet on Democratic Party statements on the subject of Iraqi WMDs when *their* president was in office.
See also:
formatting link
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction [Fact sheet courtesy of Laurie Mylroie and Peter Huessy]:
"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. 4, 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."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 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."
- Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- House Democratic Party leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16,
1998
"Hussein has... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"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..."
No, I'm interested in the location of the apparent WMDs that everyone had intelligence on. IIRC there were "tons" of them ready to be deployed at a moments notice. Now, unless Saddam had David Copperfield on staff as an advisor, I'm thinking that the quantity of WMDs claimed to exist in the state of readiness that they were apparently at shouldn't be able to vanish overnight. How many months have the Americans had to find them?
There's no question that Saddam had WMDs at one point, I mean all you have to do is look at American sales receipts to prove it. After all, as you say, he used them against the Kurds and Iranians. I noticed that you didn't mention the fact that good ol' Donald Rumsfeld was America's man on the field in Iraq at the time. The Iraqis were apparently very happy with discussions at the time.
What *you* have apparently forgotten is that there were weapons inspectors in the country for a while. They tell us that approximately 95% of the weapons were confirmed to be destroyed and the remaining 5% cannot be confirmed due to being bombed out of existence.
Of course not, WMDs aren't really all that important *now*, after all Bush simply used them as the prime motivator to get people to band together to attack Iraq. If it turns out that he lied the whole time about their existence what does it really matter?
We'll probably never agree on much. All I know is that the man responsible for the deaths of almost two million arabs - some killed with wmd - is captured. He won't have the opportunity to use wmd again or give them to terrorists willing to use them. We'll probably learn eventually whether he still had them and if not, why he lied and wouldn't cooperate with the UN in proving they didn't exist. One theory is that he wanted people to believe it to intimidate Iraqi's and Iraq's neighbors. Peace.
[Another bad week for the anti-American whiners and nit-pickers. This article comes from a journalist who is often one of that set, which makes its content all the more interesting. -R.S.]
The 'Bush Doctrine' Experiences Shining Moments By Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writer Washington Post, Sunday, December 21, 2003; Page A26
It has been a week of sweet vindication for those who promulgated what they call the Bush Doctrine.
Beginning with the capture of Saddam Hussein a week ago and ending Friday with an agreement by Libya's Moammar Gaddafi to surrender his unconventional weapons, one after another international problem has eased.
On Tuesday, the leaders of France and Germany set aside their long-standing opposition to the war in Iraq and agreed to forgive an unspecified amount of that country's debt. On Thursday, Iran signed an agreement allowing surprise inspections of its nuclear facilities after European governments applied intense pressure on the U.S. foe. On Friday, Libya agreed to disarm under the watch of international inspectors, just as administration officials were learning that Syria had seized $23.5 million believed to be for al Qaeda.
To foreign policy hard-liners inside and outside the administration, the gestures by Libya, Iran and Syria, and the softening by France and Germany, all have the same cause: a show of American might.
Those who developed the Bush Doctrine -- a policy of taking preemptive, unprovoked action against emerging threats -- predicted that an impressive U.S. victory in Iraq would intimidate allies and foes alike, making them yield to U.S. interests in other areas. Though that notion floundered with the occupation in Iraq, the capture of Hussein may have served as the decisive blow needed to make others respect U.S. wishes, they say.
"It's always been at the heart of the Bush Doctrine that a more robust policy would permit us to elicit greater cooperation from adversaries than we'd had in the past when we acquiesced," said Richard Perle, an influential adviser to the administration. "With the capture of Saddam, the sense that momentum may be with us is very important."
Perle had provoked much criticism for saying a successful U.S. invasion of Iraq would signal to other foes that "you're next." But he said the actions by Libya and Iran prove that the threat alone was sufficient to produce action. "Gaddafi surely had to take more seriously that we would not allow him to get away with the programs he was embarked," he said.
Perle and the other "neo-conservative" hawks whose views dominate the Bush administration know better than to claim victory. Gaddafi or the Iranians may still cheat despite admitting inspectors. And other potential foes, notably North Korea and China, have shown little susceptibility to the threat implicit in the Bush Doctrine. Still, Perle allowed, "it's nice to have a good week every once in a while."
Bush's domestic adversaries have had some trouble responding to the administration's diplomatic successes. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a presidential aspirant, portrayed the success with Libya as an exception to the Bush Doctrine. "Ironically, this significant advance represents a complete U-turn in the Bush administration's overall foreign policy," he said in a statement Saturday. "An administration that scorns multilateralism and boasts about a rigid doctrine of military preemption has almost in spite of itself demonstrated the enormous potential for improving our national security through diplomacy."
But Bush's supporters say it is precisely his willingness to go it alone and take preemptive action that has encouraged other countries to seek diplomatic solutions before the United States launches a military attack. The Libya and Iran concessions "show the peripheral benefit of preemption," said Kenneth Adelman, a Reagan administration arms control official who now serves on a Pentagon advisory panel. "Most of all it scares the bejesus out of rogue dictators." As for stubborn allies such as Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder, "they pay more attention when there's a forceful U.S. policy," Adelman said.
It is unlikely, of course, that France or Germany would acknowledge that they are reacting to U.S. strength. Yet it is noteworthy that they were conciliatory on the issue of Iraqi debt forgiveness after Hussein was captured -- even though they were complaining bitterly just a week before about a Bush plan to exclude them from U.S.-funded Iraq reconstruction projects.
And it is inarguable that Germany and France have taken a more active role in winning Iranian compliance with weapons inspections since the United States invaded Iraq. The foreign ministers of Germany, France and Britain visited Iran in October, overcoming Iran's longtime resistance to signing a monitoring agreement.
"The Europeans never would have taken these steps [in Iran] without Bush taking the steps he took in Iraq," said Gary Schmitt, who directs the hard-line Project for the New American Century. "The Europeans don't want us to do another Iraq there, so they're rushing in to get a deal. Bush gets an immense amount of credit for laying out what the agenda is and making others step up to the plate."
Bush still has some inconsistencies to work out with his doctrine. Earlier this month, he drew rebukes from conservatives for undermining democratic Taiwan to win favor with totalitarian China. And, as Bush's domestic opponents point out, he has been contradictory in his views of international organizations. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) said the administration's support for International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors in Libya and Iran "is difficult to reconcile with the administration's previous ridicule of IAEA inspectors in Iraq."
But such complaints, at least for now, have been overshadowed by the results achieved with Iran and Libya. That was the clear message Bush delivered in his unusual appearance late Friday in the White House briefing room. Mentioning the fate of Hussein, Bush said, "These actions by the United States and our allies have sent an unmistakable message to regimes that seek or possess weapons of mass destruction."
If Bush was oblique, a senior aide who briefed reporters after the president's statement, was quicker to take credit. "The outcome today is a response [to] the policies that we have pursued," he said. The official said the secret discussions with Libya began in March -- when the invasion of Iraq started. "I can't imagine that Iraq went unnoticed by the Libyan leadership," the aide said.
The need for better foreign policy behavior is in Washington, DC., not Paris or Berlin. After the airplanes flew into the buildings a little over two years ago, the US had the symapthy of the world. The "leadership" of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Ashcroft has changed that into the US being hated by most of the world. Sadaam was not a nice guy, but invading other countries just because you have lots of military capability is not the way to be respected.
Regarding cars, unfortunately, there are no French cars now sold in the US market, even though there are some very good ones which are rated highly even by the British car enthusiast publications. The are some German ones, though, and I recently bought a Jetta TDi wagon which has performed flawlessly.
Kokomokid, you're as late to this thread as you are clueless in your comments.
Qaddafi's turnaround regarding his WMD programs; French, German, and Russian acquiescence regarding Iraqi debt forgiveness; Iranian agreement to nuclear inspections; Afghan adoption of a constitution; Japanese commitment of forces to Iraq; and Musharaf's meeting with his Indian counterpart owe very much to the leadership of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Ashcroft.
See, among many sources on this question,
formatting link
free registration may be required) And in any case, as Machiavelli correctly noted, it is better to be feared than loved.
I still consider it the right of anyone to have their opinion, but I also consider the "anti-war" movement, as close to treason (aiding and abetting the enemy) as can be, by our current standards.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.