Why does America need Europe?

[zimmer]

But that's hardly all he did. Also, in every speech he claimed Iraq is developing WMD, maybe even nukes, fearmongering the people they are about to experience another 9/11 soon by Saddam's hands. Also, every expert said that's absurd, and that if you want to be concerned about WMD and nuclear proliferation, North Korea or Iran would be the real reasons for worry, not Iraq. Also, Bush evoked the impression that Saddam had ties to the 9/11 terrorists and was partly responsible for it. That fearmongering (which probably convinced more people than the freedom argument) was a blatant lie.

I think democratic politicians just shouldn't do that, no matter how much they think they are right. Or no matter how much you agree with their stances. It damages democratic culture.

Well they didn't exonerate Saddam, but they hardly gave way for an invasion. I'm afraid I don't have time enough here to go deeper into this subject now, but maybe we can continue this topic some day later.

The huge increase to the numbers under Saddam, though, are most likely due to casualties resulting from insurgency, terrorism and rampant criminality the occupation didn't manage to effectively curb at very least until the "surge" in ... when was it? Early 2008? I think it was at very least severe negligence not to send more troops in to stabilize the situation, and to go in without good plans as for what to do after the invasion.

Agreed.

Saddam had WMD and used them.
From Clinton/Algore and all the major Dems went on the record to state the serious threat Saddam posed.

Saddam lost a war, agreed to disarm, but played games, eventually tossing out Inspecteurs de la UN. They speculated but did not know what he did or did not have. Given the post 911 climate, it was no time to fool around, and no time to make idle threats a'la Clinton.

We discovered and broke up a Nuclear Black Market. We also got Libya out of the nuke game. We eliminated Saddam as a threat. Three pretty good wins; unless of course, you think nukes and kooks are no big deals.

Saddam had 16 UN resolutions in 12-years. Bush went to the UN and gave Saddam one last chance to come clean.

After 911, we couldn't allow the possibility of a guy who tried to assassinate a president, was openly hostile to the US... continue on.

The UN failed miserably, and Saddam was given one last chance. He pokered and lost.

NOW... we learned there were many corrupt entities working with Saddam through the Oil-for-Food program. These people, involved in billions in scheming, falsely gave Saddam the hope he would not be subject to attack. Had the UN and its cohorts been honest brokers, instead of corrupt to the core, war might have been averted.

Another instance of the UN having blood from head to toe.

Now... for some realities that never saw the light of day in the Euro Sewer Pipe Press:

CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee
Tidbits of David Kay's Testimony to the US Senate Armed Services Committee
The entire testimony is worth reading.
Lord knows the Euro Press didn't report this. Didn't fit their template.

KAY: Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.

Senator Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq, indeed, had weapons of mass destruction.

I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD. The German certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.

It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing.

We're also in a period in which we've had intelligence surprises in the proliferation area that go the other way. The case of Iran, a nuclear program that the Iranians admit was 18 years on, that we underestimated. And, in fact, we didn't discover it. It was discovered by a group of Iranian dissidents outside the country who pointed the international community at the location.

The Libyan program recently discovered was far more extensive than was assessed prior to that.

There's a long record here of being wrong. There's a good reason for it. There are probably multiple reasons. Certainly proliferation is a hard thing to track, particularly in countries that deny easy and free access and don't have free and open societies.

In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities: one last chance to come clean about what it had.

We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.

KAY: ... Iraq was in clear and material violation of 1441. They maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their program. So there was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what they were doing that was illegal.

CORNYN: You said something during your opening statement that intrigues me, and something that I'm afraid may be overlooked in all of this back and forth; and that has to do with proliferation.

You said that there was a risk of a willing seller meeting a willing buyer of such weapons or weapon stockpiles, whether they be large, small or programs, whether it's information that Iraqi scientists might be willing to sell or work in cooperation with rogue organizations or even nations.

But do you consider that to have been a real risk in terms of Saddam's activities and these programs -- the risk of proliferation?

KAY: Actually, I consider it a bigger risk. And that's why I paused on the preceding questions. I consider that a bigger risk than the restart of his programs being successful.

KAY: I think the way the society was going, and the number of willing buyers in the market, that that probably was a risk that if we did avoid, we barely avoided.

KAY: ...I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought.

I think when we have the complete record you're going to discover that after 1998 it became a regime that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own protection. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out not to be a fully accurate estimate.

KAY: Senator Kennedy, it's impossible in a short time I have to reply to take you through fully that. And in fact, that's my hope that Senator Roberts and his committee will have done that.

But let me just say that while it -- there's a selecting process that goes on both ways. There were people in the DOE who believed that those aluminum tubes were indeed for a centrifuge program. It's a lot easier after the fact and after you know the truth to be selective that you were right. I've gone through this a lot in my career.

All I can say is if you read the total body of intelligence in the last 12 to 15 years that flowed on Iraq, I quite frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with regard to WMD.

And I remind you, it was Secretary Cohen who stood, I think, in this very committee room with five pounds of flour and talked about anthrax.

It wasn't fear mongering.
We had great reason to fear, and we still do.

Is it not interesting Schroeder had a report buried about biological weapons that predicted an attack could swiftly exterminate 25 million Germans?

London Times
February 18, 2003
Berlin 'ignoring smallpox threat'
By Roger Boyes


THE German Government was accused yesterday of leading the campaign against
war with Baghdad even though it had been told by its intelligence service
that Iraq and other states could unleash a smallpox epidemic killing up to
25 million people.

http://www.mail-archive.com/sam11@erols.com/msg00058.html

Last August, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (link in German), the German Health Ministry prepared a report in which it said German intelligence had found evidence that Iraq was stockpiling the smallpox virus. But Gerhard Schroeder's government, then waging an anti-American re-election campaign, suppressed the report.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003089

Schroeder is a scumbag of the highest order.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Afghanistan. European countries did not sign up for a war, but for training of military and police and building of infrastructure. We were told that the Taliban had been all but defeated by the US... If we had the choice today, we would say no.

Well good to see that even the largest attack on any NATO member in the history of the NATO treaty doesn't qualify in enforcing the NATO treaties collective self defense measurement. I understand that Europe has not problem spending the blood and treasure of the U.S. to provide for its security and maintain its high standards of living but you would think they would want to return the favor every once and a while.

 

[Agent Ferris]

you're right, the war's taking longer than expected, we should just let afghanistan slip back into the dark ages, back to public beheadings and the like, why should anyone stick around for the innocent civilians :roll:

Come now who are you to judge a different culture? It's just there way. Oh and IIRC he's French, I doubt he's opposed to public beheadings, he probably has a picture of Robespierre on his wall.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Well yes and no. The Brits. the Russians and the Afghans themselves sought mineral riches long before the Taliban or the war. We knew that there was many minerals in the ground but of what value was unknown. Personally I think the number out is too low but that is me.

So GWB knew as did everyone else that there was a possibility of huge riches in minerals based on historical records, which is most likely why the report was commissioned in the first place.

Oh give me a ****ing break, you're suggesting that we went and waged a war prompted by the most deadly attack in this nations history in the most god awful and poorest country on the planet for economic reasons? What "minerals" do they have there exactly? Are their goats ****ting out diamonds? Because that's about the only way your little scenario would be even slightly economically viable.

 

[Agent Ferris]

That is a load of American right wing propaganda crap.

Europe is in no more financial trouble than the rest of the industrialized world and in fact some European countries are in very good condition.. those "Socialist" Scandinavian countries in particular.

Not properly funded.. give me a break. Most European countries before the crisis had budgets with slight deficits or surpluses. The US has had a deficit since before Reagan.... every single year.. and you accuse us of over spending? LOL And the only reason that some European countries like the UK and Spain are in any sort of trouble is because of the US sub-prime crisis and them following the US lead. You should stop listening to the right wing anti-European propaganda and look at the freaking facts instead.

Ya just look at Greece, they're doing just super, oh wait that's probably America's fault too.

 

[Agent Ferris]

The Soviets were peace thirsty after WWII (lost some 22 million), but due to the Red Scare in the USA, America beleived their own propagand. Lots of money for nothing.

So peace crazy that they continued to occupy all of the countries within their sphere of influence and crush any opposition under their jackboots.

 

[Agent Ferris]

But that's hardly all he did. Also, in every speech he claimed Iraq is developing WMD, maybe even nukes, fearmongering the people they are about to experience another 9/11 soon by Saddam's hands. Also, every expert said that's absurd, and that if you want to be concerned about WMD and nuclear proliferation, North Korea or Iran would be the real reasons for worry, not Iraq. Also, Bush evoked the impression that Saddam had ties to the 9/11 terrorists and was partly responsible for it. That fearmongering (which probably convinced more people than the freedom argument) was a blatant lie.

A) Saddam never gave up his WMD programs, he maintained them right up until his overthrow, he just didn't have the on button pushed but he maintained the ability to produce massive amounts of WMD as soon as he was no longer under the eye of the international community.

B) As proven conclusively by the Pentagon's review of DOCEX Saddam did have a collaborative relationship with Islamic Extremist terrorist organizations (including AQ affiliates) and was plotting with them to attack the U.S. and U.S. interests right up until the fall of Baghdad.

 

[Gardener]

Come now who are you to judge a different culture? It's just there way. Oh and IIRC he's French, I doubt he's opposed to public beheadings, he probably has a picture of Robespierre on his wall.

Cummon man, don't be cynical!

we support the taliban because they are the very embodiment of all those values we profess to uphold when we decide to grandstand about it.

 

[gunner]

A) Saddam never gave up his WMD programs, he maintained them right up until his overthrow, he just didn't have the on button pushed but he maintained the ability to produce massive amounts of WMD as soon as he was no longer under the eye of the international community.

B) As proven conclusively by the Pentagon's review of DOCEX Saddam did have a collaborative relationship with Islamic Extremist terrorist organizations (including AQ affiliates) and was plotting with them to attack the U.S. and U.S. interests right up until the fall of Baghdad.

Have you any evidence for those outlandish claims?

Its no longer a contentious issue for most of the International community that Saddam had the ability or still the inclination to pursue any sort of 'mass' weapons program at the start of the war. For your second point, you really need to look into the incompatibility of a secular Saddam regime being in collaboration with Islamic fundamentalists namely AQ.

"The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda".

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said".

Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com

Paul

 

[bennyhill]

The British were war weary after WWI just like most Americans after WWI. America is stronger now than Britian was before WWI or after WWII. Think about it. You dig?

 

[Agent Ferris]

Have you any evidence for those outlandish claims?

Its no longer a contentious issue for most of the International community that Saddam had the ability or still the inclination to pursue any sort of 'mass' weapons program at the start of the war.

So are we in agreement on this point or did you mispeak?

For your second point, you really need to look into the incompatibility of a secular Saddam regime being in collaboration with Islamic fundamentalists namely AQ.

"The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda".

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said".

Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com

Paul

A) Your 2nd article has to be one of the most misleading titles I have ever heard. While true they found no collaborative relationship between AQ proper and Saddam what the Pentagon Review of DOCEX actually found and what your article would have us believe are two completely different things.

B) I didn't say AQ proper I said "AQ affiliates" and the Pentagon Review of the DOCEX release entitled the "Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents (Redacted)," proves conclusively that Saddam was sponsoring terrorist activities with Islamic Radical Organizations (including AQ affiliates) against the U.S. right up to the fall of Baghdad.

WASHINGTON — A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.

The report also undercuts the claim made by many on the left and many at the CIA that Saddam, as a national socialist, was incapable of supporting or collaborating with the Islamist al Qaeda. The report concludes that instead Iraq's relationship with Osama bin Laden's organization was similar to the relationship between the rival Colombian cocaine cartels in the 1990s. Both were rivals in some sense for market share, but also allies when it came to expanding the size of the overall market.

The Pentagon study finds, "Recognizing Iraq as a second, or parallel, 'terror cartel' that was simultaneously threatened by and somewhat aligned with its rival helps to explain the evidence emerging from the detritus of Saddam's regime."

A long time skeptic of the connection between al Qaeda and Iraq and a former CIA senior Iraq analyst, Judith Yaphe yesterday said, "I think the report indicates that Saddam was willing to work with almost any group be it nationalist or Islamic, that was willing to work for his objectives. But in the long term he did not trust many of the Islamist groups, especially those linked to Saudi Arabia or Iran." She added, "He really did want to get anti-American operations going. The fact that they had little success shows in part their incompetence and unwilling surrogates."

A former Bush administration official who was a member of the counter-terrorism evaluation group that analyzed terror networks and links between terrorists and states, David Wurmser, said he felt the report began to vindicate his point of view.

"This is the beginning of the process of exposing Saddam's involvement in Islamic terror. But it is only the beginning. Time and declassification I'm sure will reveal yet more," he said. "Even so, this report is damning to those who doubted Saddam Hussein's involvement with Jihadist terrorist groups. It devastates one of the central myths plaguing our government prior to 9-11, that a Jihadist group would not cooperate with a secular regime and vice versa."

The report concludes that Saddam until the final months of his regime was willing to attack America. Its conclusion asks "Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against the United States?" It goes on, "Judging from Saddam's statements before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes." As for after the Gulf War, the report states, "The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's 'coercion' tool box." It goes on, "Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces." The report does note that it is unclear whether Saddam would have authorized terrorism against American targets in the final months of his regime before Operation Iraqi Freedom five years ago. "The answer to the question of Saddam's will in the final months in power remains elusive," it says.

Report Details Saddam's Terrorist Ties - March 14, 2008 - The New York Sun

I really can't get over how misleading the MSM can be sometimes which is why you have to go directly to the source.

Here's a rather telling document from DOCEX which shows how Saddam was recruiting suicide volunteers right up until at least 2001 to attack U.S. interests:

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

March 2001 Document: Saddam Regime Recruits Suicide Terrorists to Hit US Interests (Translation)


Page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654 is a Top Secret letter dated March/11/2001 six months prior to 9/11/2001, proves that not only Saddam Regime supported terrorists organization like Hamas and Al Qaeda as we have learned from other documents but also they were recruiting Suicide Terrorist Bombers to hit US interests. Saddam Regime was a TERRORIST REGIME and there was no other way but to destroy it after 9/11.

Beginning of the translation of page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654

In the Name of God the Merciful The Compassionate

Top Secret

The Command of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
No 3/6/104
Date 11 March 2001
To all the Units

Subject: Volunteer for Suicide Mission

The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.

Air Brigadier General
Abdel Magid Hammot Ali
Commander of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
Air Colonel
Mohamad Majed Mohamadi.
End of translation of page 6

 

[bennyhill]

America doesnt need Europe, they can plunder the rest of the world.

 

[spud_meister]

America doesnt need Europe, they can plunder the rest of the world.

why should they do that, europes an easy target, they can't defend 'emselves

 

[bennyhill]

You cant even plug a hole in the Golf, and experts say it will continue for the next four years until the Gulf has be renamed the Black Gulf of Mexico.
America has been in decline since Jimmy Carter, I think we could kick ass if we were invaded by cowboys.

 

[Areopagitican]

You cant even plug a hole in the Golf, and experts say it will continue for the next four years until the Gulf has be renamed the Black Gulf of Mexico.
America has been in decline since Jimmy Carter, I think we could kick ass if we were invaded by cowboys.

It's spelled "Gulf."

Do people in Europe not know how to spell?

Also, what experts? And shouldn't they know that the spill looks more brown than black?

 

[Gardener]

You cant even plug a hole in the Golf .

What part of the word "British" in "British Petrolium" do you not understand?

 

[German guy]

Quotes being the important thing there. Slaves are not immigrants, in our context at least if at all.

That was exactly my point.

We had an irish catholic president decades ago.

Indeed. But only few decades earlier, the situation looked differently. I'm not saying this hasn't been overcome.

There is no more prejudice againt Latin Americans than anyone else. You are seeing what you want here.

Well you can't deny that frictions do exist between "illegal immigrants" and the native population.

There are alot of reasons for this, and the most significant one is not "because we're racist".

I'm sorry if what I said caused misunderstanding. I never claimed that is the reason, nor did I intend to do so.

This is an unfair simplification and characterization.

Fair enough, it was a pointed polemic. Apparently, it was not suited to demonstrate what I mean: Unlike in Europe, there is a much stronger tendency in America to individualize certain social problems. Unemployed? Means you are lazy, you don't deserve support. Blacks are still socially worse off than whites? No need to take collective action, it's because the individual blacks don't do enough to achieve. And so on ...

 

[Agent Ferris]

America has been in decline since Jimmy Carter, I think we could kick ass if we were invaded by cowboys.

If by decline you mean surpassing every other nation on earth exponentially, then ya sure thing.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Well you can't deny that frictions do exist between "illegal immigrants" and the native population.

Far less so than Europe.

 

[German guy]

To be fair, no one in recent history has attempted such a feat as overthrowing a genocidal dictator in a backwards country and trying to rebuild it in the image of democracy and western values. For all we know, this is the best that can be done.

Maybe. But when the result of this attempt (which is still too early to be called a "success") are 650,000+ dead Iraqis and several thousand dead soldiers, then maybe the price is too high. It's a pretty high death toll for a bold social experiment, isn't it?

You say you are a hawk. I wonder how high is the death toll you are willing to take into account to consider a war a success? Less than 6 million, probably?

There's nothing to compare it to and there no way to know how easy it could have been. To claim it was negligent or a disaster is meaningless when we have no idea how good or bad it could have been and we have nothing to compare it to - be fair.

The problem is, the post-invasion situation in Iraq as it was was so bad, and it was well expected (there were many people who predicted just this outcome before the invasion), that this alone takes away any legitimacy the invasion might have had. The risks were well known, Bush decided to ignore them, a rather bad scenario became reality as predicted, now the blood is on his hands.

Perhaps we should do the inspectors debate later, I'll quote their final report and we'll see if you can refute it.

Ok.

Just one thing that comes to mind:
Former UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal
Hans Blix: A war of utter folly | Comment is free | The Guardian
Blix: Lack of 'Critical Judgment' Led to Iraq War : NPR

Hans Blix, chief inspector of the UN himself, said that no evidence whatsoever for WMD in Iraq were found, that many of the according claims were deliberately fabricated by the US and reminds that there was no UN resolution that explicitly allowed the use of force. And you'd think the UN chief inspector himself should know better what he wrote, than Bush and Blair who apparently wanted to read things into it Blix had never said or intended, don't you think?

 

[German guy]

Far less so than Europe.

Yeah, let's compare our dick size. That's exactly what I had in mind ...

 

[German guy]

Saddam had WMD and used them.
From Clinton/Algore and all the major Dems went on the record to state the serious threat Saddam posed.

The question was not if Saddam ever had WMD or was interested in developing them, but if Iraq was "an imminent threat". The UN inspectors found no evidence whatsoever for WMD in Iraq (see links above). After the invasion, no WMD whatsoever were found, except maybe for decades old Sarin gas grenades or something like that (which, of course, didn't keep FOX News and the far-right propaganda machine from applauding that WMD have allegedly been found after all, as absurd as it is).

Saddam lost a war, agreed to disarm, but played games, eventually tossing out Inspecteurs de la UN. They speculated but did not know what he did or did not have. Given the post 911 climate, it was no time to fool around, and no time to make idle threats a'la Clinton.

Saddam was a bad guy, agreed. But it was proven his Iraq posed no "imminent threat". There was no justification whatsoever for the invasion which resulted in the death of 5 times the number of civilians per year than under Saddam in the post-war period (more than 650,000 between 2003 and 2007).

Maybe you think human life can easily be sacrifized if it gives you a nice warm feeling of security, but I beg to differ. This is no video game. It's war.

We discovered and broke up a Nuclear Black Market. We also got Libya out of the nuke game.

And that are fine achievements. But there was no need to risk the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

We eliminated Saddam as a threat. Three pretty good wins; unless of course, you think nukes and kooks are no big deals.

That Saddam was about developing nukes has long been debunked as reckless lie, and no expert, not in 2002 nor 2003, ever wasted more than a dry laugh to comment on that claim.

Kooks are not nice. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily justified to remove them, when that means the death of hundreds of thousands of people. Also, it's hypocritical: The US never had or have problems with genocidal kooks or even islamofascists, as long as they are their kooks. I don't see you can claim this high ground, but at the same time deliver weapons to the Saudi Arabian regime, for example.

Saddam had 16 UN resolutions in 12-years. Bush went to the UN and gave Saddam one last chance to come clean.

Yes, and there was no indication whatsoever that Saddam did not comply. The UN inspectors, like Hans Blix, explicitly stated that on numerous occassions. This whole "last chance" regarding the inspection was nothing but a sharade by Bush: The decision for war had already been taken.

After 911, we couldn't allow the possibility of a guy who tried to assassinate a president, was openly hostile to the US... continue on.

How dangerous could Saddam have possibly been? A small backwards country with not even 25 million inhabitants, shattered by wars and embargos, subjected to fly control zones, whose military could be shattered in roughly 4 weeks.

Yet the American far-right propaganda machine incessantly repeated the mantra that Saddam is the new Hitler. Yes, that is true, they actually said that: Saddam is like Hitler. Accordingly, any kind of diplomacy would have been "appeasement". No matter how absurd or ridiculous this kind of thought is, the brainwashed American right actually believed that.

The UN failed miserably, and Saddam was given one last chance. He pokered and lost.

Neither the UN nor Saddam were ever given a chance by Bush. He tried to use them as long as they'd help him supporting the war that had long been decided on already, and when that failed, Bush ignored it.

NOW... we learned there were many corrupt entities working with Saddam through the Oil-for-Food program. These people, involved in billions in scheming, falsely gave Saddam the hope he would not be subject to attack. Had the UN and its cohorts been honest brokers, instead of corrupt to the core, war might have been averted.

It's fascinating that a Bush supporter of all people would blame others for corruption and/or reckless behavior in favor of material interests.

It wasn't fear mongering.
We had great reason to fear, and we still do.

Bush and Blair made it appear as if Saddam's Iraq was an "imminent threat", deliberately evoked the notion that he's right about performing another 9/11 and that he is even successful at developing nuclear weapons.

All this were extreme exaggerations based on intelligence that was most unreliable at best, or even blatant lies -- with the sole purpose of fearmongering the population into a state of mind where they will swallow any massacre, no matter its scope.

Such behavior from elected leaders damages democracy and is ethically abhorrent, because it resulted in a high bloodshed.

How exactly unreliable clues were fabricated into alleged "proof" for Saddam's activities, and what kind of systematic pressure the White House put on the intelligence agencies, can be found here:
USA: Das Prinzip Ofenrohr | Politik | ZEIT ONLINE

(Unfortunately, it's in German language. You can use google translate to read it, if you are interested. And no, to avert this ad hominem attack in the first place, "Die Zeit" is not an abscure left-wing paper, but one of the most renommeed highbrow papers on the German market, which even published a few pro-war commentaries in 2003.)

 

[German guy]

You cant even plug a hole in the Golf, and experts say it will continue for the next four years until the Gulf has be renamed the Black Gulf of Mexico.
America has been in decline since Jimmy Carter, I think we could kick ass if we were invaded by cowboys.

Tell me, are you really European, or are you just an American joker pulling off a parody on ignorant naive Europeans? I can't believe you mean anything of what you say here. And you give us Europeans a bad name.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

As world cop america gets criticized for its unilateralism. So they need the EU in order to bet some world legitimacy. Militarily, they dont need Europe they could go it alone, but the need Europe politically, in order to deflect some criticism that there behaving like Mr. jeckel. The worst part is that the EU gets sucked into these phony wars because their all NATO members and in world politics everything is complicated and hangs with everything together.

I favor abolishing NATO or kicking America out of it and giving it a new name like European Arm Forces 2001.

The European Union with the "right to first refusal" toggle isn't good enough for you?

If we left then a lot of other nations would come with us or join whatever we formed - and still be on our side :shrug:

 

[zimmer]

Maybe. But when the result of this attempt (which is still too early to be called a "success") are 650,000+ dead Iraqis and several thousand dead soldiers, then maybe the price is too high. It's a pretty high death toll for a bold social experiment, isn't it?

How about a million dead and nothing gained except empowering a despot who has used WMD?
Maddie Albright thought a million dead was OK.

The problem is, the post-invasion situation in Iraq as it was was so bad, and it was well expected (there were many people who predicted just this outcome before the invasion), that this alone takes away any legitimacy the invasion might have had. The risks were well known, Bush decided to ignore them, a rather bad scenario became reality as predicted, now the blood is on his hands.

Being German, you should know Clausewitz.
Plans are plans, war is war. War is unpredicatable, and less so when the enemy hides in schools, Mosques, hospitals and uses human shields.
Four thousand brave Americans perished. Considering the task, the time and enemy, they managed to stabilize Iraq. It has a constitution, elections and a government.

I know where the mentality comes from. I watched the German press shred Bush. I watched Schroeder play a disgusting game... see link to thread below.

OIL-FOR-FOOD PROGRAM
Much blame can be placed directly on the corrupt UN.
They gave Saddam hope by dirty dealing to the tune of billions. I suspect he thought he had bought off security.

Just one thing that comes to mind:
Former UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal
Hans Blix: A war of utter folly | Comment is free | The Guardian
Blix: Lack of 'Critical Judgment' Led to Iraq War : NPR

Hans Blix, chief inspector of the UN himself, said that no evidence whatsoever for WMD in Iraq were found, that many of the according claims were deliberately fabricated by the US and reminds that there was no UN resolution that explicitly allowed the use of force. And you'd think the UN chief inspector himself should know better what he wrote, than Bush and Blair who apparently wanted to read things into it Blix had never said or intended, don't you think?

They were kicked out in 1998.
They were not permitted to seek WMD without games.
So Hans can claim what he does, but he could not state anything of the kind with 100% certainty... and he said so much.

David Kay stated as much, and as he noted... it went the other way.
We had no idea about Iraq's 18-year program.
Both are intel failures, and in closed societies.

I don't know if you saw this; post #51
David Kay US Senate Armed Services Committee Testimony:
Schroeder buries smallpox report forecasting 25 million dead Germans.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/75002-why-does-america-need-europe-6.html#post1058813021