• I really don’t want to get into another argument about this, so I’ll reply to these comments, and not to any later ones.

    What mattered? That Sadam could provide good documentation, or that he give up all his WMD?

    But since he failed to provide the documentation showing he had disarmed, we were authorized, and justified, in attacking, and making sure he did.

    I would prefer to have had another resolution to that little snipit.

    That would send a great message to the world; “it’s ok folks, neither the UN nor us mean what we say the first time, and we’ll give you several chances after the first ultimatum. Take your time.”

    We did not need to prove we meant what we said.

    We didn’t invade to prove we were strong enough to do it; we invaded to force Saddam to comply with the UN resolution. Ever heard of the Munich Agreement? Giving insane dictators chance after chance is not a good strategy.

    We are pullig troops out of deployments all over the world. Is that the the act of a strong nation?

    That is the act of a smart nation. We don’t need to leave those troops in Europe, so why keep them there? Interesting too that Kerry not too long ago was in favor of pulling the troops out of Europe, but now that Bush is doing it, Kerry doesn’t like it. Oops; another flip-flop :roll: .

    i’m sorry - what was that 5000-odd paged document that Saddam had given up (that the US had taken and no-one had ever heard of since)?
    I had understood that this was to be documentation that showed that he disarmed.

    I’m sorry, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m not saying you’re making that up, but then since neither of us know what was in that document (assuming it existed) it’s pointless to bring it up.


  • @Wargaming_nut:

    I’m sorry, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m not saying you’re making that up, but then since neither of us know what was in that document (assuming it existed) it’s pointless to bring it up.

    It is SOOOOO not pointless to bring it up.
    Approximately a week before the US invaded Iraq, Saddam had made every overture to mollify the US. The one that he did not agree to was the demand that he step down.
    To prove that he had destroyed the WMD’s, he provided a massive document that was generated by Iraqi scientists to (i think) the weapons inspectors. The Americans held on to the document.
    For some reason, this document has been forgotten about (conveniently) - particularly interesting given the fact that there are STILL NO WMD’s. Oddly enough exactly what Saddam had said that he would do, and had done, he did. My question is why Bush chose to ignore this, as well as the evidence that attempts at acheiving WMD’s were hoaxes.
    Why? Because: He is a deceitful, warmongering, hubristic idiot.


  • Kerry won, solidly, but it won’t affect the election just yet.

    Its more important that Kerry is solid in all the debates.


  • From what I saw, Kerry definitely won.


  • not a big fan of this columnist, but i thought this kind of funny . . .

    http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2004/10/02/652445.html


  • Wargamming,
    CC is correct. Sadam did give us documentation that he said proved he disarmed. The US did take it and refused to share it until we had a chance to view it. The UN was not pleased by this. We decided that it proved nuthing and attacked. Now I have not seen the docs, from what I gather not many people have. Those that did see it said it was junk. Maybe it was. That was my point. If Sadam had a good Accountant, we would not have invaded. He failed to PROVE he disarmed. He did disarm.
    The history books will show we invaded because Sadam failed to prove to our satisfaction that he had indeed disarmed. So we get to look… steadfast and resolute.

    "That would send a great message to the world; “it’s ok folks, neither the UN nor us mean what we say the first time, and we’ll give you several chances after the first ultimatum. Take your time.”

    I would prefer that to sending the message that America will attack you no matter what the truth might be. Personally I am shocked that Bush did not plant some WMD after the war. Poor planning is all I can think. It’s certainly not that he minds manufactoring evidence.


  • how do YOU know that he disarmed, if he couldnt prove so to the US and the UN, or whoever else saw the documents?


  • how do YOU know that he disarmed, if he couldnt prove so to the US and the UN, or whoever else saw the documents?

    How do you know he didn’t disarm.

    Remember this arguement?

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3619

    Now your flip flopping ;)


  • @Janus1:

    how do YOU know that he disarmed, if he couldnt prove so to the US and the UN, or whoever else saw the documents?

    that’s just the thing. To the rest of the world, it looks like Saddam DID disarm, but the US needed the WMD argument in order to invade with ANY support.
    So they concocted (forged) evidence, and hid evidence of dis-armament. The US did not let anyone else see the evidence/documents (which was puzzling to me as if it was useless information/incriminating, then the rest of the world should have found out and Bush may well have had more support. If the docs said that Saddam did disarm, then why did the US invade?)


  • How do you know he didn’t disarm.

    i dont. i was responding to LB, who claimed, with no basis, that he did disarm, and just couldnt prove it. i want to know why he is so sure.

    Now your flip flopping

    i dont think so, and even if i am, i do it as the exception, rather than the rule. :wink:


  • Kerry won, solidly, but it won’t affect the election just yet.

    Have you seen the polls lately. Kerry has definately recieved momentum. The polls prior to the debate had Kerry trailing, but now he is winning? This tells me that the American voters want to see more of Kerry acting Presidental, and the more debates they have the more likely this is to happen. Conversely, Bush going out and attacking Kerry after losing an election looks dishonest. Sort of like saying “I couldn’t say this to your face, but when your not around I can” Not very presidential if you ask me.


  • He may have a temporary bounce now, but we’ll see if it lasts the weekend. It may, but it also may not.


  • Did you people know that Bush wanted to be at least 10 feet from Kerry so he didn’t look like a shrimp? Thought that was rather humorous… :lol:


  • dont blame him, i wouldnt wanna be close to that guy any way!


  • The disarm documents provided by Saddam are based on his account.

    Would any enemy of Saddam accept documents that he provides as flat truth? His 2 sons in law believed Saddam would grant clemency when they returned w/their wives to Iraq. Saddam had them killed. His intel minister was on TV speaking of many phony victories when our soldiers were systematically wiping the resistance off the map. This same ministry hushed up the gas attacks against the Kurdish minorities. The schools in Iraq have taught 2 decades worth of hatred and lies to the citizenry.

    It should not surprize anyone that bad and evil people will present untruths, even in document form, if it provides an advantage.


  • There were so many reasons to go after Saddam. My personal thoughts are that WMD was a lame reason. Kinda like getting Capone on taxes.

    Such was my analysis way before the war declaration. However, it (WMD) did get some UN support.


  • He may have a temporary bounce now, but we’ll see if it lasts the weekend. It may, but it also may not.

    But what has been forgotten since the RNC is that Kerry held an edge over Bush for a very long time up until then. That he has now regained this edge only affirms what has been known by pollsters for a year, and that is Bushs approval is low while his disapproval is high. The bigger question is whether Kerrys poll numbers can translate into votes and wins. Gore won the popular vote but lost the election. It is therefore incumbent upon Kerry to win Ohio, Penn and Florida or some of the smaller states like Iowa, Wisc, Nevada etc.


  • Ohio and Pa are very key this year, no republican has ever won without ohio, and if PA is a battleground state, and its one of the more liberal states, then kerry should be worried.


  • Janus,
    How do I know he disarmed? Well, my assumption is that he did have WMD at some point. They are not there now, so…


  • PA is a battleground state, and its one of the more liberal states, then kerry should be worried.

    I don’t think so. Penn while it has pockets of liberalism is very conservative in the Western part of the state. Like most states the urban areas tend to be the most liberal. So Philly which is really big tends to distort how leftist the state by in large is.

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 1
  • 2
  • 8
  • 9
  • 8
  • 1
  • 25
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

49

Online

17.7k

Users

40.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts