Saddam caught on tape talking of WMD's

[snakebyte05]

This article is not saying he had them, but he definatly wanted them and was trying to decieve the U.N. that he had them. Also makes references to him having the supplies to make them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11373537/

MSNBC.com
Saddam talked of WMD attack in U.S.
Tapes show him ‘almost obsessed’ with weapons, don’t prove he had them
By Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit
NBC News
Updated: 6:29 p.m. ET Feb. 15, 2006
WASHINGTON - Among the treasure trove of information captured after Saddam Hussein's fall were tape
recordings of the Iraqi leader discussing weapons of mass destruction with top aides.
Transcripts of Saddam's tapes reviewed by NBC News show him ruminating about future terror attacks
in the United States using weapons of mass destruction.
"We shouldn’t be surprised to see a car bomb with nuclear [material] explode [in] Washington, either
germ or chemical," Saddam tells aides. "So this is coming,” Saddam says on the tapes, “but not from
Iraq," he adds, seeming to indicate that Iraq would not be the source of any such attack.
An unidentified Saddam aide replies that biological weapons are easy to construct: “… any biologist can
make it in water tank and kill 100,000 person … so you can’t accuse a country, one person can do it.
One American person can do it in a house, next to the White House.”
On another tape, Saddam says future terrorism will be with WMD. "It is possible in the future to see a
booby trap and the explosion turns out to be nuclear, germ or chemical."
U.S. intelligence analysts have confirmed to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that
Saddam’s voice on the audiotapes is authentic. The analysts believe most of the tapes were recorded in
the ’90s, after the first Gulf War.
“What the tapes show is that between the first gulf war and the second gulf war, Saddam Hussein had
not lost his appetite for, or interest in, weapons of mass destruction,” says Gary Milhollin of the
Wisconsin Project, an advocacy group working to slow the spread of weapons of mass destruction. “To
the contrary, he was almost obsessed by them.’’
Importantly, though, many U.S. intelligence experts say the 12 hours of tape does not solve the riddle
of whether Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 U.S. invasion.
“It certainly shows that he was trying to deceive the U.N., but it doesn't show that he actually had
weapons in his possession at the time of the invasion,” says Bill Harlow, a former CIA spokesman and
an NBC News analyst.
In the transcripts, one of Saddam’s aides discusses filling missiles with germs. “Yes, the intention is that
the missile will be filled with chemical or germ, and when it comes down it will cover a wider circle than
the traditional missile,” the aide tells Saddam. Saddam replies: “That’s good, they are teaching us
things that will be useful in the future.”
Other aides seem to discuss hiding weapons from U.N. inspectors. “We have not told them the truth
about the imported material,” one says. He adds, “Where was the nuclear material transported to? A
number of them were transported out of Iraq.” He also says: “We will confess, but not to the biological
program.”
The debates over Iraq’s WMD will likely continue. The House Intelligence Committee is pressing U.S.
intelligence officials to publicly release more than 35,000 boxes of documents recovered in Iraq after the
U.S. invasion. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., does not believe the
documents have been fully translated and analyzed.
John Loftus, an author and former federal prosecutor, obtained the Saddam audiotapes through a
former U.S. military intelligence analyst, he says. Loftus tells NBC News he will play the tapes this
weekend at an intelligence summit he is hosting in the Washington area.
NBC News has not listened to the tapes and has not been able to independently confirm the accuracy of
the translations.
Lisa Myers is NBC's senior investigative correspondent.
© 2006 MSNBC Interactive
© 2006 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11373537/

 

[RipdnTxs2]

Iwonder why the media did not jump all over this, hmmmmm....

 

[diminuendo]

Seems casual to blow it off as "well, just because he was hoping to have a chance to use WMDs in Washington doesn't mean he was gonna do it...like for certain."

**** the media machine...too busy covering a hunting accident.

 

[bpmartyr]

Media are a bunch of Brokeback Mountain lovin queers. All they know is sensationalism and the forward march of their idealist, Socialist, Politically correct, make me want to string someone up by the nutsack agenda.

 

[LakeMountD]

Seems casual to blow it off as "well, just because he was hoping to have a chance to use WMDs in Washington doesn't mean he was gonna do it...like for certain."

**** the media machine...too busy covering a hunting accident.

Fucking seriously man. I mean I am not going to sit here and take political sides but I did take Bush's side on the whole WMD thing because whether they had them right this second or not, everyone should have known he was trying his ass off to get them.

 

[MaynardMeek]

actually more of that story does say that saddam had them... one of his old generals is talking now and is going public with the whole plan they had and did to load these weapons both chem. and bio on two or 3 large cargo planes and get them out of the country while the US came in...

 

[snakebyte05]

actually more of that story does say that saddam had them... one of his old generals is talking now and is going public with the whole plan they had and did to load these weapons both chem. and bio on two or 3 large cargo planes and get them out of the country while the US came in...

any articles on this? Id be very interested to read them, also to have some documented sources to show others (then they cant say I am full of ****, ill have some thing to back it up)

 

[milwood]

Fucking seriously man. I mean I am not going to sit here and take political sides but I did take Bush's side on the whole WMD thing because whether they had them right this second or not, everyone should have known he was trying his ass off to get them.

werd that!!!

 

[CDB]

Media are a bunch of Brokeback Mountain lovin queers. All they know is sensationalism and the forward march of their idealist, Socialist, Politically correct, make me want to string someone up by the nutsack agenda.

It's definitely and interesting development. However as far as the media goes, I haven't seen this on Fox News either so there may be more to the lack of coverage than liberal bias and agendas. It may in fact be lack of credibility or confirmation across sources. In others words not a good, or more to the point factually solid story yet. Last article I read on this was posted here and according to that one the translation of the tapes had not been independently confirmed yet.

 

[bpmartyr]

It's definitely and interesting development. However as far as the media goes, I haven't seen this on Fox News either so there may be more to the lack of coverage than liberal bias and agendas. It may in fact be lack of credibility or confirmation across sources. In others words not a good, or more to the point factually solid story yet. Last article I read on this was posted here and according to that one the translation of the tapes had not been independently confirmed yet.

I'm not a fan of Fox news either. They may have a slightly diff agenda than other networks but an agenda it is. My rantings were more toward the media in general and not relating praticularly to this story. I was just being a bitter old man.

 

[milwood]

I generally prefer FOX news to the other bilge out there, but that's not to say they don't have their particular opinion/slant/adgenda.

 

[chauncy]

Even if we establish that he had intent to create WMDs. I still disagree that he was a greater threat then those countries who right this moment are starting their nuclear weapons programs. Yeah we got rid of Saddam, but in his wake the rise of Iran, Hamas and islamofacism has taken hold.

 

[bpmartyr]

And we are now logistically in prime real estate to launch an assault into Iran.

 

[MaynardMeek]

we will have a much better ability to go into iran after the port deal goes thru. and also protect the only water way to the ocean from iran sinking old cargo ships blocking the way...

 

[CDB]

we will have a much better ability to go into iran after the port deal goes thru. and also protect the only water way to the ocean from iran sinking old cargo ships blocking the way...

And the president, should these tapes prove out, would not be vulnerable to the He Lied Us Into War attacks except to the most aerdent democrats who wouldn't vote for the next Republican anyway. Basically if it turns out true Saddam either had WMDs or was vigorously trying to aquire them, and that gets broad exposure, Bush could probably get away with leveling France and not have to deal with much backlash from anyone. Also as has been pointed out the strategic position we're in now with regrds to Iran, oil and the ability to protect its shipment, ain't all that bad. Which makes me wonder just how dumb this president actually isn't, or at least his staff. I've heavily doubted the intelligence of this administration a lot of times, but I got to admit every now and then something like this pops up and makes me wonder.

 

[chauncy]

And the president, should these tapes prove out, would not be vulnerable to the He Lied Us Into War attacks except to the most aerdent democrats who wouldn't vote for the next Republican anyway. Basically if it turns out true Saddam either had WMDs or was vigorously trying to aquire them, and that gets broad exposure, Bush could probably get away with leveling France and not have to deal with much backlash from anyone. Also as has been pointed out the strategic position we're in now with regrds to Iran, oil and the ability to protect its shipment, ain't all that bad. Which makes me wonder just how dumb this president actually isn't, or at least his staff. I've heavily doubted the intelligence of this administration a lot of times, but I got to admit every now and then something like this pops up and makes me wonder.

Even if strategicly we are in a good spot to launch an attack against iran. It does not take into account the fact that our military is highly over extended right now and thats according to research conducted by the federal government. This is the first time I've heard about the ports deal offering us some sort of strategic position. I thought it was primarily an economic decision. What troubles me about the deal is that dubai still has a huge amount of disdain towards israel which could lead to a conflict of interest in the future.

 

[Squeaks4ver]

it still is a great econmic thing in my opinion. gas prices should go down but like, how can pres bush go around and talk about that. everyone will be like "you are selling the country out for oil!"

everyone they interview on these docks doesn't care, i think their opinon counts here

 

[CDB]

Even if strategicly we are in a good spot to launch an attack against iran. It does not take into account the fact that our military is highly over extended right now and thats according to research conducted by the federal government. This is the first time I've heard about the ports deal offering us some sort of strategic position. I thought it was primarily an economic decision. What troubles me about the deal is that dubai still has a huge amount of disdain towards israel which could lead to a conflict of interest in the future.

True. The most recent issue and the one just past of Foreign Affairs has some great articles on Iraq. Get yourself a copy if you haven't already, it's reall good reading. In the current issue the first article was on the Iraqization strategy and the author, Biddle, makes some pretty interesting points regarding that strategy and why it could be likely to be a loser in the end.

 

[bioman]

We cannot even hope to attack Iran and remove it's leadership until Iraq is fully stabilized. Iran knows this, thus the saber rattling and tough sounding rhetoric. I seriously doubt any military action will come out of Iran. If they so much as look at Israel they will be sorry and they know it.

Leaders of these Arab nations that pledge the destruction of Israel are just blowing smoke up their populaces' asses. They couldn't hope to win against Israel, they know it, but they have to sound tough against the Jews or they'll be taken out by zealots.

So if we march on Iran, we have to occupy if there is going to be any hopes of having it stabilize and keep the oil flowing. I'd be for surgical strikes to take out nuclear capacity but even that is reported to not be easy as Iran has placed these targets in hardened bunkers and the like.



IF Saddam really had WMD it would be the sensational story of the year and no media outlet is going to sit on it while the others run with it. There is not a worldwide liberal media conspiracy no matter how much some of you wish there was. It's an absurd premise to justify the actions of an absurd administration.

 

[CDB]

Leaders of these Arab nations that pledge the destruction of Israel are just blowing smoke up their populaces' asses. They couldn't hope to win against Israel, they know it, but they have to sound tough against the Jews or they'll be taken out by zealots.

The Israeli army is fairly impressive. But then again "winning" no longer means what it traditionally meant. Israel can very well win a war against Iran, but one well placed nuke from a suicide bomber or a missle and Israel would be crippled. It's possible to win while still sufferring losses in the hundreds of thousands in other words. I'm fairly sure the zealots know that too.

IF Saddam really had WMD it would be the sensational story of the year and no media outlet is going to sit on it while the others run with it. There is not a worldwide liberal media conspiracy no matter how much some of you wish there was. It's an absurd premise to justify the actions of an absurd administration.

I don't think there's a world wide media conspiracy, I just think the majority of media is liberal. I have no problem with that, all media are biassed. The likely reason this hasn't been reported anywhere is lack of confirmation, etc.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I haven't seen this on Fox News either so there may be more to the lack of coverage than liberal bias and agendas. .

I saw it on Fox when it first hit. I did not see it on CNN and MSNBC has buried under the port deal.

It was on FOX the same night they ran the Cuban immigrant story (the bridge that isn't a bridge)

 

[CDB]

I saw it on Fox when it first hit. I did not see it on CNN and MSNBC has buried under the port deal.

It was on FOX the same night they ran the Cuban immigrant story (the bridge that isn't a bridge)

Interesting. I never caught it and that's the news channel I generally watch.

 

[mindgames]

May I just say,
"What if Saddam was trying to get WMD's.....what right does that give the country that has more of them than any nation on earth to invade a sovereign nation illegally and in the process murder over 30,000 innocent women and children and destabilise the Middle East???"

 

[bpmartyr]

May I just say,
"What if Saddam was trying to get WMD's.....what right does that give the country that has more of them than any nation on earth to invade a sovereign nation illegally and in the process murder over 30,000 innocent women and children and destabilise the Middle East???"

That statement is so rampant with error that I don't know whether or not it justifies a response. Are you that far out of the mainstream or have you just totally ignored the history of that region. I suppose Hitler should have been left alone as well huh? At least let him massacre Jews within the confines of his own sovereign borders. Destabalize the Middle East? Are you joking? How dare us take a peacefull tourist and resort area and turn it into a bloodbath. If you have a problem with the most benevolent nation in recorded history wielding the biggest hammer so be it. But if we were so bad your little island continent would be a US state by now.

 

[milwood]

May I just say,
"What if Saddam was trying to get WMD's.....what right does that give the country that has more of them than any nation on earth to invade a sovereign nation illegally and in the process murder over 30,000 innocent women and children and destabilise the Middle East???"

Interesting wording. Assisting a country's removal of a barbaric, murderous tyrant (on trial now for crimes against humanity in his own country) is hardly an invasion (my opinion). And as far as the murdering, well, that was Saddam's specialty! Lastly, the idea that the US (or anyone, for that matter) will "destabilize" the middle east is pretty unlikely; place has been unstable for 1000+ years.

 

[SirThor]

We should've took Sadam out when we had the chance! Now we got to worry about sadam, osama, iran, north korea....and list keeps going on and on. I spent four months over there when i was a medic in the army. It was not fun at all.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Interesting. I never caught it and that's the news channel I generally watch.

Hannity covered it then saw it again briefly with Brit Hume. I was rather surprised that they didn't go into more detail though.

 

[CDB]

May I just say,
"What if Saddam was trying to get WMD's.....what right does that give the country that has more of them than any nation on earth to invade a sovereign nation illegally and in the process murder over 30,000 innocent women and children and destabilise the Middle East???"

In a way I agree, but in a way I also have to disagree. It's kind of like my opinion on gun control. There's no reason to stop law abiding citizens from owning them, but criminals definitely. Any methods that don't impinge on the rights of the former but do stop the latter from aquiring firearms would be acceptable to me. Which is also why I have no problem with France having WMDs, because even though they seem kind of pathetic to me, I doubt they're going to nuke us. Saddam on the other hand, while he might not directly attack us, I would not put an attempt at an attack directly or indirectly outside the realm of possibility, which justifies some action.

Now what action, how and when are of course arguable. But there is a distinct difference between Canada having nukes and Iraq and/or Iran having them which does justify different treatment of those situations. There are madmen in the world. They occasionally get a hold of knives, guns, and sometimes nations and armies.

 

[chauncy]

We cannot even hope to attack Iran and remove it's leadership until Iraq is fully stabilized. Iran knows this, thus the saber rattling and tough sounding rhetoric. I seriously doubt any military action will come out of Iran. If they so much as look at Israel they will be sorry and they know it.

Leaders of these Arab nations that pledge the destruction of Israel are just blowing smoke up their populaces' asses. They couldn't hope to win against Israel, they know it, but they have to sound tough against the Jews or they'll be taken out by zealots.

Great point.

 

[chauncy]

That statement is so rampant with error that I don't know whether or not it justifies a response. Are you that far out of the mainstream or have you just totally ignored the history of that region. I suppose Hitler should have been left alone as well huh? At least let him massacre Jews within the confines of his own sovereign borders. Destabalize the Middle East? Are you joking? How dare us take a peacefull tourist and resort area and turn it into a bloodbath. If you have a problem with the most benevolent nation in recorded history wielding the biggest hammer so be it. But if we were so bad your little island continent would be a US state by now.

If we are going to go along that line of reasoning than why not involve ourselves in darfur? How about North Korea ? This whole hitler reference I think is not totally applicable. Hitler was an active threat to all of the world. The power he had amassed and the power Saddam yield are not even close. Saddam was a threat , yes, but definitely not more than say Kim Jong-il. I certainly don't think that the threat posed by iraq was sufficient enough to warrant war. Also I think this idea of us as liberators is one that really was more of a side note during the initial build up to the war. My recollections are that our main goal was not to liberate a nation but to defeat a growing threat upon our nation. Maybe I'm simply not giving enough credit to Saddam.

 

[CDB]

This whole hitler reference I think is not totally applicable. Hitler was an active threat to all of the world. The power he had amassed and the power Saddam yield are not even close. Saddam was a threat , yes, but definitely not more than say Kim Jong-il.

Kim's got better hair.

 

[bpmartyr]

If we would have intervened sooner Hitler would not have amassed so much power.

 

[mindgames]

Interesting wording. Assisting a country's removal of a barbaric, murderous tyrant (on trial now for crimes against humanity in his own country) is hardly an invasion (my opinion). And as far as the murdering, well, that was Saddam's specialty! Lastly, the idea that the US (or anyone, for that matter) will "destabilize" the middle east is pretty unlikely; place has been unstable for 1000+ years.

I'd say from the reaction of the Iraqi people, and 2300+ dead US soldiers later, that they may disagree by their actions with your idea that you are "assisting."

Regardless of Saddam's record -which was obviously bad - what gave the US the right to go stomping on in there and like a mindless imbecile on speed in a crystal shop and trash infrastructure and innocents all over the show?

"Murderous tyrant", ..............hmmmmmmmm 30,000 plus innocents killed by US soldiers really weakens your point - what does that make Bush?

Look at Bush's latest approval rating - 34% - it is now lower than Nixon's before he resigned.......symptomatic I'd say.

BTW there are much more murderous - but obviously not as politically expedient - targets the US could have chosen.

Hardly an invasion...OMG you are really pushing it there - ask the 72% of US soldiers who want to go home by Christmas and the families of the dead soldiers on both sides if invasion is a too strong term.

 

[mindgames]

That statement is so rampant with error that I don't know whether or not it justifies a response. Are you that far out of the mainstream or have you just totally ignored the history of that region. I suppose Hitler should have been left alone as well huh? At least let him massacre Jews within the confines of his own sovereign borders. Destabalize the Middle East? Are you joking? How dare us take a peacefull tourist and resort area and turn it into a bloodbath. If you have a problem with the most benevolent nation in recorded history wielding the biggest hammer so be it. But if we were so bad your little island continent would be a US state by now.

Your response in no place shows where I have made "errors."

Most benevolent nation - are you totally out of your mind!! Where do I start.....Vietnam, Contras/ Nicaragua /Central America.(where you armed cocaine dealers), Cuba, Middle East, Afghanistan ( Where you ousted a government armed the insurgents and are now fighting them!!)South America...the world is TOTALLY over your unwanted self righteous Christian fundamentalist inteference. Thats why all over the world, citizens are electing nightmare governments for the USA - look at elections in Central and south America and Palestine for example over the past year.....

We may as well be your Island state as unfortunately our idiotic PM kowtows to your vastly unpopular President.

 

[mindgames]

Sorry to be a thread hog, but look at this link to see just how "benevolent" the US is perceived.

An excerpt......

For 1999's session of the United Nations Commission for Human Rights, Amnesty International put the United States on a list of persistent violators of human rights, higher than China and excluding Cuba. (Here is the full document.)




http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Abuses/USA.asp#USAandInternationalHumanRights

 

[CDB]

That statement is so rampant with error that I don't know whether or not it justifies a response. Are you that far out of the mainstream or have you just totally ignored the history of that region. I suppose Hitler should have been left alone as well huh?

I don't quite agree with you here. Hitler had an obvious desire for territorial expansion coupled with the ability to act on it, which I don't think Saddam ever did have or would have had. This was brought to fruition because of the punitive nature of the Versailles Treaty, which helped to get a mass movement in German nationalism going. The situation in the Middle East is not similar in one crucial way: there is no nationalist movement. Nor is there really a strong Muslimist movement because of all the various sectarian and ethnic differences among them in the area. It would really be hard if not impossible to get something like WWII Germany going there. Many of their problems stem from post WWI divisions and interventions and they've yet to get a mass movement together and likely never will.

There is one crucial similar point between the Middle East and Saddam and his ilk and Hitler and WWII, and that is unless you blatantly ignore it the current situation was created/made worse by previous interventions by others, the USA, the British, etc. One could, and many have argued, that without Versailles and WWI, WWII never would have happened. The current situation in the Middle East goes back to WWI and interventions in the region since then. While you could say we're obligated to clean up our own mess, unless we learn to stop making messes we'll never see the end of it.

Point being, just like preWWII Germany these countries in the Middle East did not get the way they are currently without a lot of "help" on the part of the USA and others. However, unlike preWWII German there is and likely never was a world threat of the type Hitler represented. And even in that example, look at the results. The classic example would Czecs and Poles. Britain looked the other way when Germany invaded Czecoslovakia, but declared war after he invaded Poland. The relative death counts in those countries during WWII make it a legitimate question as to whether or not Poland was actually helped by anyone else's intervention on their behalf. And what happened after we "saved" so many of those countries in WWII? They were delivered into the hands of another set of brutal butchers in the USSR.

The war started because of treaty violations. The wholesale mass murder of the Jews only started after the war started. Is it possible that more Jews could have been saved by avoiding war? Would the Wannsee meeting and Final Solution have been pursued if German thought they could languidly go about expunging Jews through legal actions as they generally had until then, until war pressures gave a justification and a cover to do the unthinkable? I know a lot of people think of WWII as this sacred struggle against tyranny, but the tyranny that came afterward in the form of the USSR was worse in terms of deaths and the time it was in power than Hitler's regime. WWII is not an unquestionably wonderful war despite the Greatest Generation propoganda. It is a valid point to make that interventions by the west, the USA and Britain in particular, may have done more to escalate existing wars, WWII included, and caused more death in the past than our noninvolvment would have caused or allowed to happen. And one could argue that perhaps the people who got killed who otherwise would have lived would have preferred to live under tyranny than die in the name of a western defined version of freedom.

To put it shortly Hitler isn't a trump card. Bring him up and you have to acknowledge we had a hand in making him and escalating his power to the hyper levels they went to. You also have to deal with the aftermath of WWII, which wasn't exactly ideal for a lot of people for the following few decades. Few good things happen leading up to, during and in the aftermath of wars. Distance from WWII in time gives a lot of people the idea that it was unquestionably a good idea. Maybe in the end it was. But you can't deal with WWII and Hitler in a vacuum and ignore our and others' hand in bringing it about, and how we completely fell asleep at the wheel while worse tyrants than Hitler happily murdered away.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Hitler had an obvious desire for territorial expansion coupled with the ability to act on it, which I don't think Saddam ever did have or would have had.

Iraq? Kuwait?

 

[Iron Warrior]

Iraq? Kuwait?

He was on the verge of invading Saudi Arabia too wasn't he ? No way we'd let him control all that oil

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I don't quite agree with you here. Hitler had an obvious desire for territorial expansion coupled with the ability to act on it, which I don't think Saddam ever did have or would have had. This was brought to fruition because of the punitive nature of the Versailles Treaty, which helped to get a mass movement in German nationalism going. The situation in the Middle East is not similar in one crucial way: there is no nationalist movement. Nor is there really a strong Muslimist movement because of all the various sectarian and ethnic differences among them in the area. It would really be hard if not impossible to get something like WWII Germany going there. Many of their problems stem from post WWI divisions and interventions and they've yet to get a mass movement together and likely never will.

There is one crucial similar point between the Middle East and Saddam and his ilk and Hitler and WWII, and that is unless you blatantly ignore it the current situation was created/made worse by previous interventions by others, the USA, the British, etc. One could, and many have argued, that without Versailles and WWI, WWII never would have happened. The current situation in the Middle East goes back to WWI and interventions in the region since then. While you could say we're obligated to clean up our own mess, unless we learn to stop making messes we'll never see the end of it.

Point being, just like preWWII Germany these countries in the Middle East did not get the way they are currently without a lot of "help" on the part of the USA and others. However, unlike preWWII German there is and likely never was a world threat of the type Hitler represented. And even in that example, look at the results. The classic example would Czecs and Poles. Britain looked the other way when Germany invaded Czecoslovakia, but declared war after he invaded Poland. The relative death counts in those countries during WWII make it a legitimate question as to whether or not Poland was actually helped by anyone else's intervention on their behalf. And what happened after we "saved" so many of those countries in WWII? They were delivered into the hands of another set of brutal butchers in the USSR.

The war started because of treaty violations. The wholesale mass murder of the Jews only started after the war started. Is it possible that more Jews could have been saved by avoiding war? Would the Wannsee meeting and Final Solution have been pursued if German thought they could languidly go about expunging Jews through legal actions as they generally had until then, until war pressures gave a justification and a cover to do the unthinkable? I know a lot of people think of WWII as this sacred struggle against tyranny, but the tyranny that came afterward in the form of the USSR was worse in terms of deaths and the time it was in power than Hitler's regime. WWII is not an unquestionably wonderful war despite the Greatest Generation propoganda. It is a valid point to make that interventions by the west, the USA and Britain in particular, may have done more to escalate existing wars, WWII included, and caused more death in the past than our noninvolvment would have caused or allowed to happen. And one could argue that perhaps the people who got killed who otherwise would have lived would have preferred to live under tyranny than die in the name of a western defined version of freedom.

To put it shortly Hitler isn't a trump card. Bring him up and you have to acknowledge we had a hand in making him and escalating his power to the hyper levels they went to. You also have to deal with the aftermath of WWII, which wasn't exactly ideal for a lot of people for the following few decades. Few good things happen leading up to, during and in the aftermath of wars. Distance from WWII in time gives a lot of people the idea that it was unquestionably a good idea. Maybe in the end it was. But you can't deal with WWII and Hitler in a vacuum and ignore our and others' hand in bringing it about, and how we completely fell asleep at the wheel while worse tyrants than Hitler happily murdered away.

No offense CDB, but this sounds more like a politicans spin on history to me. By adapting this viewpoint I could tie in causes for todays events all the way back to the middle ages.

Nationalistic frenzy and the subsequent wars they have caused were around before US was ever a significant figure in European affairs. Germany's declaration of war on Russia in 1914 had little to do with the US (since the people favored isolation at that point in time) and the majority of the war was fought without US intervention (other than trade). US intervention escalated the war but also helped end it sooner. By using your criteria I could say the Black Hand had more influence in "making" Hitler than anytihng the US did.


I don't tihnk anyone here is stating the US is 100% innocent. Far from it, but I tend to see those with very passionate ideological point of views lose a very large grip on reality. (not you CDB, I think you are pretty level headed)


"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke

 

[MaynardMeek]

all i know is.. he is looking good! Bobo what exactly have you been doing with him?

 

[snakebyte05]

I also believe the reason for bush's low ratings is the press he gets. Whether you like it or not, all he does get is bad press, you usually do not hear good things on him on general news. Many americans do not take the time to read into things, they live their private lives watching tv and not interacting with the public domain.

 

[MaynardMeek]

yeah he is at 41% today.. his "lowest in his history" even though last week he was at 34% the lowest in his history :blink:

 

[bioman]

His ratings have a lot more to do with the way he carries himself in public..and that's not the media's fault.

Clinton got nothing but bad press in last 2 years..but he sailed out of office with some impressive approval ratings nonetheless. The difference is he had CHARISMA and putting all politics aside for a moment, you gotta admit this is one thing that GW sorely lacks. Having Cheney as a VP only makes things worse in this area as Cheney has even lower approval ratings.

Despite the glowing economy, people are not happy with the way things are being run and that is a testament not to the media's magical ability to make everyone think the same thing, but to the public's perception that GW is detatched from a lot of issues, that Iraq was not the bed of roses people thought it was going to be, and IMO there's a growing sense of dread over the burgeoning deficit. Nobody sleeps well knowing that their credit card bills are going to be tremendous in years to come.

 

[MaynardMeek]

no no i dont care about what the numbers mean.. i care about why media on both occasions are saying these numbers are the lowest in his history... i mean come on.. i even know 41 is higher than 34

 

[CDB]

Iraq? Kuwait?

I see your point, but it's a long step from Kuwait to say, Poland, or even just Iran, Syria, etc. Iraq had been at war with Kuwait and Iran before, hell I think they've been at war with every other nation in the area and hadn't accomplished much in the end. Hitler on the other hand basically rode into Poland and left the Brits standing there with that Who Farted look on their faces, relatively speaking of course. that Saddam might have wanted to dominate the world I'd allow as a possibility. Could he have though, is I think the question the answer to which should govern our response. Some madmen need to be locked up, others you can just smile at and let be, other's need a leash but no major looking after, just an occasionaly hand wiping their butts, etc.

No offense CDB, but this sounds more like a politicans spin on history to me. By adapting this viewpoint I could tie in causes for todays events all the way back to the middle ages.

I don't doubt a lefty would like to point to some of it's aspects to support their ideas, but they'd also have to ignore others. Like the fact that almost every dictatorship has had right or left wing version of socialism as their main political program.

Nationalistic frenzy and the subsequent wars they have caused were around before US was ever a significant figure in European affairs. Germany's declaration of war on Russia in 1914 had little to do with the US (since the people favored isolation at that point in time) and the majority of the war was fought without US intervention (other than trade). US intervention escalated the war but also helped end it sooner. By using your criteria I could say the Black Hand had more influence in "making" Hitler than anytihng the US did.

There could be a lot of claims as to who was most responsible, but that wouldn't be my point in the end. It would be that we and quite possibly the people who were being victimized would be better off in the short and long term if interference in foreign affairs was kept to a minimum. So far as I know the Black Hand was a nationalist response to previous imperialist/interventionist tendencies. Things like this keep going and keep escalating, but generally things were okay for those who did not interfere. That was in fact the major thrust behind the first stirrings of international law: protection of neutral's rights. "He kept us out of war," used to be a compliment, now it's "He sat idly by" while whoever the victim of the minute happens to be was getting bloodied. There used to be honor in standing idly by because people knew whatever moral satisfaction involvment might bring in the short term, in the long term all that would be accomplished is a mingling of a once neutral nation's interests with those of nations who continually war.

In order to take the Wilsonian route and be the cop on the corner we have to pick a good guy and a bad guy, and sit on the bad guy and then buy the good guy a drink. Internationally speaking. But, in the end since no one's hands are clean whoever we help eventually turns out to be an arbitrary decision based on our political needs/desires of the moment, and in that respect we end up at best setting aside fuel for a future confalguration to break out which we will inevitably play a role in, or acting as Patterson's Humanitarian with a Guillotine, visiting our idea of help on people who, if they needed it would have asked for it, and were they competent would not have needed it. Involvment doesn't seem to lead to any good, for the individual or the nation, in the long term and often in the short term as well.

I don't tihnk anyone here is stating the US is 100% innocent. Far from it, but I tend to see those with very passionate ideological point of views lose a very large grip on reality. (not you CDB, I think you are pretty level headed)

My head is far from level. Literally, I have dent in the top of it from an accident when I was kid.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke

I believe this quote, but good men when they act in the name of nations and ideals, and under the cover of a mass movement that obliterates blame for poor decision making, well their actions which I would otherwise trust on an individal level seem to take on a dangerous edge.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I see your point, but it's a long step from Kuwait to say, Poland, or even just Iran, Syria, etc. Iraq had been at war with Kuwait and Iran before, hell I think they've been at war with every other nation in the area and hadn't accomplished much in the end. Hitler on the other hand basically rode into Poland and left the Brits standing there with that Who Farted look on their faces, relatively speaking of course. that Saddam might have wanted to dominate the world I'd allow as a possibility. Could he have though, is I think the question the answer to which should govern our response. Some madmen need to be locked up, others you can just smile at and let be, other's need a leash but no major looking after, just an occasionaly hand wiping their butts, etc.



I don't doubt a lefty would like to point to some of it's aspects to support their ideas, but they'd also have to ignore others. Like the fact that almost every dictatorship has had right or left wing version of socialism as their main political program.



There could be a lot of claims as to who was most responsible, but that wouldn't be my point in the end. It would be that we and quite possibly the people who were being victimized would be better off in the short and long term if interference in foreign affairs was kept to a minimum. So far as I know the Black Hand was a nationalist response to previous imperialist/interventionist tendencies. Things like this keep going and keep escalating, but generally things were okay for those who did not interfere. That was in fact the major thrust behind the first stirrings of international law: protection of neutral's rights. "He kept us out of war," used to be a compliment, now it's "He sat idly by" while whoever the victim of the minute happens to be was getting bloodied. There used to be honor in standing idly by because people knew whatever moral satisfaction involvment might bring in the short term, in the long term all that would be accomplished is a mingling of a once neutral nation's interests with those of nations who continually war.

In order to take the Wilsonian route and be the cop on the corner we have to pick a good guy and a bad guy, and sit on the bad guy and then buy the good guy a drink. Internationally speaking. But, in the end since no one's hands are clean whoever we help eventually turns out to be an arbitrary decision based on our political needs/desires of the moment, and in that respect we end up at best setting aside fuel for a future confalguration to break out which we will inevitably play a role in, or acting as Patterson's Humanitarian with a Guillotine, visiting our idea of help on people who, if they needed it would have asked for it, and were they competent would not have needed it. Involvment doesn't seem to lead to any good, for the individual or the nation, in the long term and often in the short term as well.



My head is far from level. Literally, I have dent in the top of it from an accident when I was kid.



I believe this quote, but good men when they act in the name of nations and ideals, and under the cover of a mass movement that obliterates blame for poor decision making, well their actions which I would otherwise trust on an individal level seem to take on a dangerous edge.

I agree but then create another problem. Who do you lock up? Who do you leave alone? Who do you have on a leash and your are powerful enough to even have them on a leash should you just erradicate them based on moral/ethical values? Then it becomes a judgement call for who? The UN? HA!

You open up can or worms the current administration is in. Saddam has shown to be the most willing to try an "expand" more than anyone. Just because he didn't have the industry Hitler had doens't mean their motives and intentions aren't the same. Today you can creat more fear out of an envolope of anthrax instead of tank division. The current report showing them clearly talking about the use of WMD clearly shows their intentions. I tihnk most people just took this for granted and knew he could, or would do it regardless. Kim acts more like an isolationist than anything so its not the same IMO.


Well I tihnk the role of sitting idly by is a thing of the past. With todays world and globalization being fact it simply isnt possible uness you want to be France. Those who are sitting idly by usually have something to hide. I think in the 17th, 18th, 19th century a country could remain reletively nuetral or in isolation withouth having that much consequence (if you werren't in the middle of disputed territory). Today, you will just get left in the dust or remain insignificant IMO. Japan and China are two perfect exmaples of philosphy change strictly due to economic factors. And once you get more involved economically, everything else generally follows.

Simply stating in general that involvement doens't help in the long term or short term is a gross exaggeration IMO. You can find examples both positive and negative and depedning what viewpoint you want to look at you could make a case strongly for either one. It simply is a matter of interpretation but I can assure the French people are quite happy they aren't speaking German today.

But they would never say that....

 

[Dwight Schrute]

His ratings have a lot more to do with the way he carries himself in public..and that's not the media's fault.

Clinton got nothing but bad press in last 2 years..but he sailed out of office with some impressive approval ratings nonetheless. The difference is he had CHARISMA and putting all politics aside for a moment, you gotta admit this is one thing that GW sorely lacks. Having Cheney as a VP only makes things worse in this area as Cheney has even lower approval ratings.

Despite the glowing economy, people are not happy with the way things are being run and that is a testament not to the media's magical ability to make everyone think the same thing, but to the public's perception that GW is detatched from a lot of issues, that Iraq was not the bed of roses people thought it was going to be, and IMO there's a growing sense of dread over the burgeoning deficit. Nobody sleeps well knowing that their credit card bills are going to be tremendous in years to come.

I believe it is. When you make strong statement and have a solid position the people who disagree will generally lash out more. Be timid and flip flop back and forth, like Clinton, and the opposing side feels less threatened (he caused his own bad press with his cigar antics). I believe the media is definetly more liberal than conservative so the coverage tend to be more negative than anything (title of this thread? Where did you hear this story? Certinaly not CNN and MSBNC). I think approval ratings mean nothing. Having both parties creat enough of a stink causes a negtaive approval rating for whoever is on top. Want to test it out? Creat a thread here and make such a ****storm about something that eventually everyone who posts just says, close the thread, this is ridiculous. What a waste. They don't even care who is right or wrong.

People just get sick and tired of it and its been like this ever since Bush took office with a contraversal election.

Any war will end up the same. People will get sick of it the more it drags on. Popular sentiment when it comes to war follow the same pattern and you can see it WWI, II, Korean War, Falklands, Iraq-Iran, Vietnam, etc.....the list goes on and on.

I don't agree with you on what people see or think. I actually find it about half and half. Same pattern with most presidents in their second term.

 

[CDB]

I agree but then create another problem. Who do you lock up? Who do you leave alone? Who do you have on a leash and your are powerful enough to even have them on a leash should you just erradicate them based on moral/ethical values?

That's where 12 sided dice come in.

You open up can or worms the current administration is in. Saddam has shown to be the most willing to try an "expand" more than anyone. Just because he didn't have the industry Hitler had doens't mean their motives and intentions aren't the same. Today you can creat more fear out of an envolope of anthrax instead of tank division. The current report showing them clearly talking about the use of WMD clearly shows their intentions. I tihnk most people just took this for granted and knew he could, or would do it regardless. Kim acts more like an isolationist than anything so its not the same IMO.

Kim seems more batty to me though. The only thing he needs is a funny hat and he'd be prepared to take over the Earth.

Simply stating in general that involvement doens't help in the long term or short term is a gross exaggeration IMO. You can find examples both positive and negative and depedning what viewpoint you want to look at you could make a case strongly for either one.

Something I notice though and which is why I favor noninterventionism, is that when intervention leads to a positive, it's always to correct a negative that a previous intervention caused. If we would stop causing negatives perhaps all the people who would like to kill each other would, and we could happily trade with whoever is left.

It simply is a matter of interpretation but I can assure the French people are quite happy they aren't speaking German today.

But they would never say that....

Not likely, but it kind of prove my point on that one at least. The pricks have the US to thank for a large part of that, and while they're not our enemies they certainly have a different enough view of their internation interests that an intervention on our part to produce a positive left us a bunch of smellies who spent a good amount of time poo pooing and trying to stomp on our policies in the Middle East, and later we find out they had financial interests in the region, spanning the whole legitatmate to illegitimate world.

I just don't think we'll ever fight a successful war for peace, because in the end it's contradictory. To save the many we kill the few, save the constitution by shredding it a bit in our own history, etc. Unless of course the goal isn't peace, which I believe it isn't. I don't see the government, any government, as anything more than a mafia-like organization that's somehow managed to convince its main victims they're lucky to have them. They then spend their victim's money 'protecting' them from aggression that wouldn't exist were it not for their own actions. A world without them would not match many people's idea of perfect, but I think a lot of people who aren't alive now would be, though under what conditions is arguable.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

That's where 12 sided dice come in.



Kim seems more batty to me though. The only thing he needs is a funny hat and he'd be prepared to take over the Earth.



Something I notice though and which is why I favor noninterventionism, is that when intervention leads to a positive, it's always to correct a negative that a previous intervention caused. If we would stop causing negatives perhaps all the people who would like to kill each other would, and we could happily trade with whoever is left.



Not likely, but it kind of prove my point on that one at least. The pricks have the US to thank for a large part of that, and while they're not our enemies they certainly have a different enough view of their internation interests that an intervention on our part to produce a positive left us a bunch of smellies who spent a good amount of time poo pooing and trying to stomp on our policies in the Middle East, and later we find out they had financial interests in the region, spanning the whole legitatmate to illegitimate world.

I just don't think we'll ever fight a successful war for peace, because in the end it's contradictory. To save the many we kill the few, save the constitution by shredding it a bit in our own history, etc. Unless of course the goal isn't peace, which I believe it isn't. I don't see the government, any government, as anything more than a mafia-like organization that's somehow managed to convince its main victims they're lucky to have them. They then spend their victim's money 'protecting' them from aggression that wouldn't exist were it not for their own actions. A world without them would not match many people's idea of perfect, but I think a lot of people who aren't alive now would be, though under what conditions is arguable.

Oh, he's nuts alright but he's more of a Castro type figure to me. As long as he has some sort of population to fear him, he's usually content enough where he is. He gets kicks just raising his fist in defiance.

Well I cna't argue that about the French. Who can... :lol:

...but it its just an example of how intervention does help those invaded. At least their point of view but as I said you make a case either way. Its purely subjective. Just because they don't say doens't mean they don't believe it. You can't apply today's politics to that time period anyway IMO. Different sitiuations, different ballgame.

Any military leader understands that war generally isn't fought for peace. Any competent leader understands this as well. Wars are fought for stability whether its economic or political. If people criticize this administration for fighting a war simply because its not for peace, then they should criticize every nation that has ever fought a war.


I just think people let their ideology blind them to reality.

 

[CDB]

Oh, he's nuts alright but he's more of a Castro type figure to me. As long as he has some sort of population to fear him, he's usually content enough where he is. He gets kicks just raising his fist in defiance.

He wouldn't look good in a beard though.

Any military leader understands that war generally isn't fought for peace. Any competent leader understands this as well.

The leaders I don't doubt, it's the populations who always buy it and willingly send their youngest and best to die that confuses the hell out of me.

I just think people let their ideology blind them to reality.

If they didn't it wouldn't be ideology. I think the main problem I have you can boil down to this: as long as interventionism is the policy we're using it should be used sparingly, and with honesty as to its goals. While I don't expect those like Bush or Kerry or any other politician to admit they're fighting a war to end an unstable regime and replace it with one that may be just as horrible but more stable, I do expect people like you, me and everyone else like us to point out the state reasons for going to war are often not the real ones. At the very least we should make sure the politicians don't start believing their own lies, as seems to be happening in Iraq. I think Bush believes his line about bringing freedom to the Iraqis.

Arming the Iraqis and begining US troop draw downs right now is, in my opinion, a big mistake. Our presence there is the only bargaining chip we have, a mixed Iraqi police/army force is likely to be ineffective and break down along sectarian lines eventually. The Sunnis won't ever trust the Kurds or the Shiites, the Shiites and the Kurds hate each other just enough less than they hate the Sunnis to work temporarily together. Democratizing that place and giving the Shiites and Kurds guns when they're the majority of the police and army is a sure way to encourage a massacre of Sunnis, and the Sunnis know that.

It seems Bush hasn't gotten the fact that there are three different types of people living there, they all seem to want to kill each other, and that Iraq never really existed as a nation in its current form. In my opinion it should have been divided with special consideration given to equal/proportional distribution of oil profits, or we should stay there, come down hard on the population to stop insurgents, disarm the population and strip them of any indigenous police/army force as effectively as possible, and make their independence contingent on agreeing to a solid working government model, using our power to threaten those who refuse to compromise and agree with each other by alluding to the fact that we may favor their worst enemy out of the remaining two groups with more weapons, political power, etc., in the end.

I think it's only after they've been forced into some mutually acceptable political agreement and are somewhat assured they won't be the victim of some mass power grab after the US leaves that Iraq qill stabilize. I'm also in favor of annexation. So long as we are going to be interventionist/imperialists, we may as well do it right. Invade them, make them a US state or protectorate, subject them to our rules of law and government, us the US military to police the area Roman style until people settle down.