DoD Report Appears to Confirm Downing Street Memo

[The_Real_ElRoi]

Maybe you can write the speech for Ronald Reagan to give to the nation saying we are now supporting Saddam Hussein even after Reagan knew Hussein was using chemical weapons on people.

You need to stop with all your "logic" and "facts" stuff. Don't you know you're supposed to think from your "gut?"

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by The_Real_ElRoi
Anyone who isn't completely delusional already knew these things to be true and factual.

Originally Posted by Stinger
Except they weren't but let's name names, how about Hillary Clinton or John Edwards or John Kerry or Bill Clinton or Madeline Albright or Carl Levin just to name a few.

You think crying Democrat makes a difference,

I don't know that's up to you. Certainly you would want anyone who is delusional to be serving in high office so let's test your statement. Name names, how about those I mentioned? Delusional or not?

Any Congressman who voted for the Iraq war was wrong,

How so? How about those that voted for the Iraq Liberation Act?

and so was the President for wanting it blindly,

I think he was pretty clear about why he was ordering the removal by force of Saddam Hussien, were you blind to the reasons?

and for rushing in.

How do you see it as a Rush when we waited 8 years to do it, through 14 UN resolutions and 13 more months of debate and two more authorizations to use force? How is that rushing? How long were we suppose to wait and let him continue on with his plan?

Party affiliation doesn't matter, not to me anyway.

So none of those I have mentioned so far should be serving in office?

Stupid is stupid. Wrong is wrong.

So all those congresses men and women are not as smart as you? The Clinton administration was stupid, the government of the United Kingdom were all just stupid too? You however were in the know.

What exactly was the evidence you had that convinced you above all others that Saddam Hussien had turned nice and was in full compliance with the cease-fire and UN resolutions?

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Stinger
Except they weren't but let's name names, how about Hillary Clinton or John Edwards or John Kerry or Bill Clinton or Madeline Albright or Carl Levin just to name a few.

Let's see here...I'm pretty sure none of those people you named were President at the time. Do you have another pointless point to put forth?

Clinton was President and Albright was SoS when they both stated that Saddam could not be allowed to remain in office and if force was necessary then it should be used. Edwards, Kerry and Levin all voted for the his removal and then the use of force to do it.

So were they all delusional or not?

 

[Stinger]

You need to stop with all your "logic" and "facts" stuff. Don't you know you're supposed to think from your "gut?"

OK give me the facts and evidence that Saddam was free of all WMD materials and programs and in full compliance with the cease-fire and UN resolutions. Or was that just a gut feeling?

 

[Stinger]

Maybe you can write the speech..........

I asked you first, give the the reasons Carter would have used in his speech to tell the American people that we were supporting Iran and the Khomeini regime.

 

[EAGLE1]

Yes. We should have. Why? because it was us, the US & the UK that commited the first act of war against Iran in 1953.

I knew it! Here it is, I was right! I did answer your question. So why have you been accusing me of not answering your question?

 

[EAGLE1]

Yes he won the vote to dissolve parliament in a popular referendum which consisted of 99.9% of the voters voting yes, if you believe that then I got some swamp land to sell you.

​

Ah finally, an attempt at some detail. Kudos my friend. Id nearly forgotten about this thread.

Although Mossadeq and his party were the most honestly elected people in the Parliament/ Majlis, perhaps even in Iranian history, there is some doubt over his democratic credentials due to the fact that the referendum on the dissolution of the Majlis was held with separete boxes for the simple YES or NO option and that the referendum was not held simultaneously across the country.
I tend to give this man the benefit of the doubt in this circumstance for these reasons;

i/ His government was subject to continual subterfuge and sabotage by the forces outside Iran while the country suffered under a British imposed blockade.

ii/ Iran was not long used to proper conduct of ballots, especially snap referendums.

iii/ Mossadeq previous record in public life is IMPECCABLE. In fact he had avoided leadership of the country until he was challenged by a right wing member of the Majlis to take a positive step. He called the man's bluff and was put in power on a wave of enthusiasm. Surely one can agree that the best man to put in power is very one who does not want it.

iv/
Although the referedum was crudely handled the popular support of the National Front is clear for very good historical reasons, making it likely that he would have won the referendum by some margin even if it had been done simultaneously with one voting booth.
Can anyone honestly say that Mossadeq did not have the support of the vast majority of the country behind him at the time?

v/ During his time in office he won support in the Majlis for tinkering with the system of representation - changing the Senate tenure from 6 to 2 years for example. This can be looked at as some attempt to subvert democracy however, you can also see it as his moves to reform an antiquated system. IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE SHAH NOT LONG BEFORE HAD EXTENDED HIS POWERS OVER THE COUNTRY WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT.

 

[Stinger]

I knew it! Here it is, I was right! I did answer your question. So why have you been accusing me of not answering your question?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EAGLE1
Yes. We should have. Why? because it was us, the US & the UK that commited the first act of war against Iran in 1953.






:rofl THAT's the reason you think we should have supported Iran against Iraq while they were committed an act of war against us (specious point to begin with but will let you hang on it for now). Carter should have gone before the public and told the American people that even though Iran was holding our embassy hostage, where beating our citizens and keeping them in deplorable conditions, and act of war against us, we were going to support them and help them defeat Saddam Hussein. What folly.

OK and what was the reason he was going to tell us we were going to aid in Saddam's defeat, why did we want Iraq to be defeated and taken over by Iran?

 

[tryreading]

Originally Posted by The_Real_ElRoi
Anyone who isn't completely delusional already knew these things to be true and factual.

Originally Posted by Stinger
Except they weren't but let's name names, how about Hillary Clinton or John Edwards or John Kerry or Bill Clinton or Madeline Albright or Carl Levin just to name a few.






I don't know that's up to you. Certainly you would want anyone who is delusional to be serving in high office so let's test your statement. Name names, how about those I mentioned? Delusional or not?



How so? How about those that voted for the Iraq Liberation Act?



I think he was pretty clear about why he was ordering the removal by force of Saddam Hussien, were you blind to the reasons?



How do you see it as a Rush when we waited 8 years to do it, through 14 UN resolutions and 13 more months of debate and two more authorizations to use force? How is that rushing? How long were we suppose to wait and let him continue on with his plan?



So none of those I have mentioned so far should be serving in office?


So all those congresses men and women are not as smart as you? The Clinton administration was stupid, the government of the United Kingdom were all just stupid too? You however were in the know.

What exactly was the evidence you had that convinced you above all others that Saddam Hussien had turned nice and was in full compliance with the cease-fire and UN resolutions?

Clinton and Albright didn't vote for the war so they shouldn't have been on your list. They are not relevant to my point, that the Congresspeople who voted for the Iraq war were wrong, and the President was wrong too. Am I smarter than them? No. But I definitely had more common sense at the time than they did. I was against the war then, and will be against it when it ends, no matter what the outcome will be.

I didn't need evidence that Hussein had turned nice. I had 100% reliable confirmed evidence (and it Goddam sure wasn't based on alternative intelligence) that we had already defeated him in a war, and he couldn't fly a kite without our permission. He was not a threat with global reach. I would have much rather we used our resources to secure our American borders, than going overseas and jumping 'hellfire into freeing other people,' as President Ford said. A Texas Congressman, I think his name is Culbertson, has been screaming bloody murder for months and months that members of Al Quida have been crossing our border with Mexico. That is a grave problem, and our government refuses to do anything about it. Again, there is no common sense in Washington, nobody sees the forest for the trees.

 

[tryreading]

I asked you first, give the the reasons Carter would have used in his speech to tell the American people that we were supporting Iran and the Khomeini regime.

This argument has already been settled. We did not support Iran. We supported Iraq. Remember?

 

[tryreading]

You need to stop with all your "logic" and "facts" stuff. Don't you know you're supposed to think from your "gut?"

Yeah, you're right. But when these other guys think from their gut, every idea they squeeze out is crap.

 

[Stinger]

Clinton and Albright didn't vote for the war so they shouldn't have been on your list.

They wrote and present to the congress an Act which called for the forced removal of the Saddam government, an act of war. They both spoke very clearly when they stated Saddam could not be allowed to remain in office and that he was a threat to our national security.

They are not relevant to my point

They are relevant to the war in Iraq, why we are there, and what will happen in the long term.

, that the Congresspeople who voted for the Iraq war were wrong, and the President was wrong too.

How?

Am I smarter than them? No. But I definitely had more common sense at the time than they did.

Commons sense about what? Saddam was in final violation of the UN resolutions, and by everyone who voted for the ILA sponsored by the Clinton administration could not be allowed to remain in power, further stated by the authorization to use US military force directly to achieve that goal.

I was against the war then, and will be against it when it ends, no matter what the outcome will be.

So your plan was what?

I didn't need evidence that Hussein had turned nice. I had 100% reliable confirmed evidence (and it Goddam sure wasn't based on alternative intelligence) that we had already defeated him in a war, and he couldn't fly a kite without our permission.

Sanctions which were coming off. If he was no longer a threat why keep sanctions on him and for how long? How many times was he to be allowed to violate the resolutions and hide things from inspectors who had already told the UN that he was STILL not telling the truth?

He was not a threat with global reach.

And what evidence to that effect did you have that the entire American government including the White House the CIA the DIA and the congress didn't have?

I would have much rather we used our resources to secure our American borders, than going overseas and jumping 'hellfire into freeing other people,' as President Ford said.

So surrender to Saddam and walk away, then everything the Kay and Duelfer reports stated would have come to fruition. You do know what the ISG found.

A Texas Congressman, I think his name is Culbertson, has been screaming bloody murder for months and months that members of Al Quida have been crossing our border with Mexico.

Why do you think one preclude doing something about the other?

 

[Stinger]

This argument has already been settled. We did not support Iran. We supported Iraq. Remember?

No we supported both, we didn't want either to win, but you are claiming we should not have even done that and should have opposed Saddam which would mean supporting Iran.

So make the case, you going back to the end of WW2 is not convincing at all. Tell me how Carter would have explained it.

 

[tryreading]

They wrote and present to the congress an Act which called for the forced removal of the Saddam government, an act of war. They both spoke very clearly when they stated Saddam could not be allowed to remain in office and that he was a threat to our national security.


They are relevant to the war in Iraq, why we are there, and what will happen in the long term.



How?



Commons sense about what? Saddam was in final violation of the UN resolutions, and by everyone who voted for the ILA sponsored by the Clinton administration could not be allowed to remain in power, further stated by the authorization to use US military force directly to achieve that goal.



So your plan was what?



Sanctions which were coming off. If he was no longer a threat why keep sanctions on him and for how long? How many times was he to be allowed to violate the resolutions and hide things from inspectors who had already told the UN that he was STILL not telling the truth?



And what evidence to that effect did you have that the entire American government including the White House the CIA the DIA and the congress didn't have?



So surrender to Saddam and walk away, then everything the Kay and Duelfer reports stated would have come to fruition. You do know what the ISG found.



Why do you think one preclude doing something about the other?

I am arguing the current Iraq war where we are stuck and thousands of our people are dead.

But you keep bringing up an act that provided trifling amounts of money to Iraqis to fight for themselves. Act of war or not, I don't care. Financially helping a group of Iraqi rebels is fine with me for one reason - No Americans die.

Common sense... People like you, many Congress people, and the President wanted us to invade Iraq. Many people have admitted it was a mistake. If you are going to attack another country, you have to be right, especially if the war is an elective, so-called 'pre-emptive' war. But a lot of our intelligence was just plain wrong, and some of our intelligence was pulled from the colon of an asss that craps lies.

What's that you are saying? You say we thought the intelligence we had was right at the time (except for the part that was made up)? So that mistake, since we thought we were right, is okay?

That's not good enough. Not good enough. Our justifications were wrong, and most of the intelligence didn't pan out. And ignorance of the fact that the information was wrong is no excuse. When you screw up, fix it, but be man enough to admit it.

 

[tryreading]

No we supported both, we didn't want either to win, but you are claiming we should not have even done that and should have opposed Saddam which would mean supporting Iran.

So make the case, you going back to the end of WW2 is not convincing at all. Tell me how Carter would have explained it.

Carter again? He wanted Saddam to go into Iran. Then Reagan supported Saddam. George H. W. Bush supported Saddam. Then, of course, George H. W. changed his mind.

But every President in office from 1976 to 1992 supported Saddam Hussein in some way. A couple of Presidents in office before 1976 supported Hussein. I don't care how any one of them would have explained it, although it would have been extremely hard for Reagan or George H. W. Bush to explain themselves for supporting Hussein after he began using chemical weapons.

And again, can you provide proof that we supported Iran against Iraq? Just a link, any link. Another Iran-Contra link maybe? I had a good time with that one.

 

[EAGLE1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by EAGLE1
Yes. We should have. Why? because it was us, the US & the UK that commited the first act of war against Iran in 1953.






:rofl THAT's the reason you think we should have supported Iran against Iraq while they were committed an act of war against us (specious point to begin with but will let you hang on it for now). Carter should have gone before the public and told the American people that even though Iran was holding our embassy hostage, where beating our citizens and keeping them in deplorable conditions, and act of war against us, we were going to support them and help them defeat Saddam Hussein. What folly.

OK and what was the reason he was going to tell us we were going to aid in Saddam's defeat, why did we want Iraq to be defeated and taken over by Iran?

This act of war against the US you speak of. Your still pretty outraged about that arent you? Why did they do it, care to put any detail on the table?
Also, why is it that when other people interfere on your sovereign territory its an act of war but when you do the same (please ask for examples) its all 'debatable'?
What Carter should have done is launch full scale negotiations, the prizes on the table being apologiies for western interference and the release of frozen irabian assets. Handing over the Shah is a debatable one I suppose but you could put it to the UN.
Supprting Iran against Iraq was not really necessary just as supporting Iraq was not really necessary, especially as Iraq invaded Iran first.