gbear Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 gbear, that is not why they left. They left because Saddam would not allow them to inspect anything. As a result, Clinton threatened to bomb them. The UN pulled them back for safety. But I guess thats the difference between the 2 sides. One side sees it as Saddams fault for not letting them do their job. The Liberals see it as the US bombing them for no reason. -------------------- whenever there is an indefensible position you blaim Clinton huh? Bush was the president March 17, 2003. That's when the inspecters left. I know it's much easier to just blaim Clinton than to think, and it comes kind of natural. :doh: Let's stick to this topic though shall we? Pick the article: They left because we said our bomb are coming. Pick the article: Blix said repeatedly they wer not denied access to any sites. To deny them would be a smoking gun. Note the dates of the articles. It's kind of important when talking about "revising history." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 two different times the UN inspectors left. Both times were because Saddam refused to comply with UN resolutions and the US was going to attack. The first time Clinton attacked, the second time it was Bush. sfrench, I thought we went to war for oil? The fact is that we went for NUMEROUS reasons. Most importantly, Saddam refused to comply with 1441 in which HE (not us) was responsible for showing where his weapons were or explain how and when they were destroyed. Your contention that we went because ""a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." " Is a small part of it. And on it's own would support your case. However, those of us who see the broad picture and dont try to infer different meanings to words and actions understand what really happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Why are you quick to believe Blix and quick to not believe US intel? Why do you think Blix has our interests at heart more than our own people? I'll trust our own people over anti-american UN reps anyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 But Kilmer, that quote is a direct quote from Bush, and it's simply not true. Iraq did not toally comply in that they did not volunteer info, but they didn't deny inspecters. We should not say we went to war because he had " a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." That's simply not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Funny, I believe the people who were THERE. Given our intels record of late, I'm not sure why I should take a second or third hand accounts over a first hand accounts from people actually there with the knowledge to understand what they see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 :gus: :gus: :gus: :gus: :gus: :gus: :gus: :gus: :gus: :gus: Etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Kilmer- You're changing the subject. Again. What Bush said was wrong. I didn't say that's why we went to war. I said his statement that Saddam didn't let inspectors in was bs. He obviously did let inspectors in. I find your debate style very dishonest. And I'm still waiting for those 100 links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Inspectors+denied+access&btnG=Google+Search 70,800 results. Some (even MOST) are not germain. But there are well over 100 for your enjoyment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Help out those who would rather try to answer one question before rushing off to pose a dozen more: what is the specific timeline gbear and sfrench are interested in, here? Or is the "debate" not about Saddam's lying and deception since 1991 at all, but rather George Bush's in the SOTU? Sorry, guess that was 2 questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 The debate is about Bush's quote in the article that was posted: Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 OM, To me...I dont think anyone is denying that at one time or another (and perhaps that time includes this year) - Saddam had WMD's. That's a given. I think the argument is over two things... 1.) Did Saddam deny the UN inspectors from entering IRAQ and examining for WMD's. 2.) Was the intelligence that Bush used in the SOTU accurate? If it was inaccurate - did either (or both) the CIA and Bush know it was inaccurate before the SOTU? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Originally posted by sfrench The debate is about Bush's quote in the article that was posted: Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." sfrench he was referring to specific locations that they were not allowed to go in, as well being able to talk to the scientists without saddams watchdogs there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 sfrench, let me ask you even more directly ... do you interpret his statement to be referring to EVER, meaning in this case 1991, or since some particular and specific date since? TEG ... same question reference your #1 point above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Personally, I think Saddam provided every bit if resistance he could in keeping inspectors out of Iraq. He complied (although I am positive is wasnt 100%) when he had too...but he was very public about his views on keeping the inspectors out. In fact, I wouldnt be suprised if he intentionally tried to bait the US (and the UN) into skirmishes along the way. I do not have the insight, however, as to whether Saddam's actions warranted US intervention. Was Saddam an evil SOB who ruled his country with mercy? Yes. It appears he was. Not sure if I answered you question though, OM. I confess, I didnt really understand it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 I just want to know if people are seriously saying Saddam NEVER interfered with UN Inspections. Becuase if they are, I'm moving to another galaxy because this one just developed a serious wobble. If the evidence already provided here isn't enough to show that -- or for tha matter, if simply having been ALIVE for the last decade and picking up a paper from time to time wasn't enough -- then nothing anybody can say on here is going to convince them otherwise. I just keep hoping someone will say, "no, we're not talking about 1991 through X, Om, we're talking about X through the start of the war." Then at least we'll have established a frame of reference. Which I will personally probably not be able to enjoy until tomorrow, as I am now taking my leave of you for the day. Talk amongst yourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 I interpret it as him saying that they didn't let inspectors in before this war. Obviously he is wrong. I'm not discussing compliance after they got in. I'm commenting on what the president said . That's all I have to go on. You'll have to ask Kilmer why he states facts from the 90's to make an argument. Or why he attributes things to me that I never said. Or why he claims that I said he never stopped inspections in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Doesn't all of this depend on what the meaning of the word "is" is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phanatic Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 I think everyone missed the point in this argument. The inspectors job was not to find WMD, as in a "treasure hunt", but to inspect sites that were known to have produced these weapons. Saddam was REQUIRED to give PROOF of the destruction of these weapons. He stated they were disposed of . Do you believe him? Furthermore, the "inspectors" were required to reveal the location they would be inspecting. Each team of inspectors were followed by no less than 5 minders. If you remember correctly, just before time ran out on Saddam he offered to lower that nunber to "1 or 2". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Thank you, phanatic. It also begs the question, does anyone here want to put saddam back in power? Because that was the alternative to taking him out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 OM, your links provide the date the UN sent the inspecters back to Iraq to give Iraq one last chance: Nov 27, 2002. From that point on, they were not denied access to any place at any time, and with no notice. Every article quotes Blix saying that, and what's more he said that were the UN inspecters to be denied access at any point it would constitute the "smoking gun." Now it's true that it wasn't till a later date that we got air surveilance or interviews with scientists. It just seems everyone gets facts confused about prior attempts (90s) and the lattest round. You can say he wasn't compliant, and I'd agree. But it is a lie to say he did not allow people in. That's what Bush said. It's another example of an unneccessary lie. Say he wasn't compliant, don't make MORE stuff up (tubes now not for WMD, "we've found wmd," or false attempted purchase from Nigeria, ect.). We want people to be able to believe what we say. It hurts our credibility everywhere when the president of the US tries to rewrite history and well documented recent history at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.