Is there a legitimate case that the blood is on Saddam's hands?

NCfan

While it is accepted these days to blame the death and destruction in Iraq on the Americans and especially BushCo, isn't there a case to be made that Saddam is the one who is responsible? And at the very least, isn't this worth talking about? I never hear anything about this in political discourse.

- It's pretty clear that Saddam was condemed by the UN and nearly every major country on Earth.

- Saddam refused to come clean about his weapons programs; stalling, lying and playing games with inspectors and the international community for over 15 years.

- Be it right or wrong, the United States decided to act with the purpose of removing him from power. This was cleary stated several times, and Bush even gave Saddam and his sons a 48 hour ultimatum to leave the country or face invasion.

Somebody please give me a legitimate reason why Saddam did not leave or come clean? His military was almost non-existant. He knew he and his sons would face certain death if invaded. Why is it that nobody blames fucking Saddam for this bullshit??????????? It is his ego, not Bush's that is to blame...

josevolution

yeah some of the blame has to be put onto his name but what good would that do now people are still being killed by the dz over there ?? is BUSH a relative of your's you allways wan't to defend his administration for what will turn out to be the biggest blunder this country has created that is my opinion ........

jlew24asu

I blame saddam more then I do bush. but bush made a huge mistake by assuming that sunnis and shittes would live happily ever after in freedom.

Ahnimus

Didn't the U.S. make it possible for Saddam to run Iraq to begin with?
Didn't the U.S. provide Saddam with the so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?

Let's see, the U.S. gave dictorial power to Saddam, and provided him with weapons to kill Kurds, then condemned the act and Saddam stopped killing people, right?

So years later the U.S. decides its time to go back and clean up the mess they caused?

Something is missing from this equation, could it be Oil or permanent military control of the middle east?

Cui Bono?

callen

NCfan wrote:

While it is accepted these days to blame the death and destruction in Iraq on the Americans and especially BushCo, isn't there a case to be made that Saddam is the one who is responsible? And at the very least, isn't this worth talking about? I never hear anything about this in political discourse.

- It's pretty clear that Saddam was condemed by the UN and nearly every major country on Earth.

- Saddam refused to come clean about his weapons programs; stalling, lying and playing games with inspectors and the international community for over 15 years.

- Be it right or wrong, the United States decided to act with the purpose of removing him from power. This was cleary stated several times, and Bush even gave Saddam and his sons a 48 hour ultimatum to leave the country or face invasion.

Somebody please give me a legitimate reason why Saddam did not leave or come clean? His military was almost non-existant. He knew he and his sons would face certain death if invaded. Why is it that nobody blames fucking Saddam for this bullshit??????????? It is his ego, not Bush's that is to blame...

no matter how you try to justify it..this war was a mistake....and it was a mistake to vote for Bush...and the second time even worse. Yea Sadaam was horrible..no doubt....problem is we invaded that fked up country...and that blood is on the hands of all those that voted for Bush and his henchmen.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Ahnimus wrote:

Didn't the U.S. make it possible for Saddam to run Iraq to begin with?
Didn't the U.S. provide Saddam with the so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?

Let's see, the U.S. gave dictorial power to Saddam, and provided him with weapons to kill Kurds, then condemned the act and Saddam stopped killing people, right?

So years later the U.S. decides its time to go back and clean up the mess they caused?

Something is missing from this equation, could it be Oil or permanent military control of the middle east?

Cui Bono?

^^ ditto this. The term played like a card comes to mind...Interesting how the US govt even made up a deck of cards with Saddam being one of them... the fucking quacks. Saddam was a lunatic, but who knew this already selling him WMD?

callen

jlew24asu wrote:

I blame saddam more then I do bush. but bush made a huge mistake by assuming that sunnis and shittes would live happily ever after in freedom.

Sadaam's actions have nothing to do with our actions.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

This about sums it up...

FYI some content is a bit disturbing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl1Iy32lIT8

Cosmo

Did you forget about the part in history where the U.N. Weapons Inspectors were let back into Iraq in 2002/2003?
Yes. Saddam Hueesin has blood on his hands. But, the blood was from the Iranians that he killed in the 1980s... the Kuwaitis killed in his 1990 Invasion and occupation of Kuwait... the Iraqis that died as a result of his poor military decisions... the Kurds and Shi'ites that died under his oppressive and brutal reign... the deaths of his own citizens as a result of the U.N. Economic Sanctions as he stole aid funds to furnish his homes. But, after his 1991 ass kicking and subsequent weapons inspection and the dismantling of hs weapons, he was pretty much rendered impotent. He still tormented his Shi'ite Majority and talked a lot of shit, but he was being contained. The threat was coming from Iran... it always had been.
I'm sorry... but, as much as you'd like to, you cannot deny any responsibility on this one. What ever happened to 'Personal Responsibility and accountability' that everyone always claims? I guess it only applies to other people, right? This is OUR mess... the blood is on OUR hands. We need to quit pretending it belongs to someone else and get serious about fixing it.

Abookamongstthemany

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

This about sums it up...

FYI some content is a bit disturbing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl1Iy32lIT8

Good find! I'm gonna bulletin it.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Good find! I'm gonna bulletin it.

Why thank you. I believe it is a rock solid perspective, and a must watch by all.

To save argumentative keystrokes in the future, I just put it in my sig

(sorry Tenacious D)

Byrnzie

NCfan wrote:

- Be it right or wrong, the United States decided to act with the purpose of removing him from power. This was clearly stated several times, and Bush even gave Saddam and his sons a 48 hour ultimatum to leave the country or face invasion.

Somebody please give me a legitimate reason why Saddam did not leave or come clean? His military was almost non-existant. He knew he and his sons would face certain death if invaded. Why is it that nobody blames fucking Saddam for this bullshit??????????? It is his ego, not Bush's that is to blame...

The reason given for the invasion - and the only reason that the U.S Government thought had any chance of being supported at the U.N - was that Sadaam possessed wmd's. Everyone knew this to be complete bollocks. No one with any sense believed the lies prior to the invasion. If the U.S or Britain had based their case for war on the fact that they wanted to remove Sadaam then they wouldn't have even made it to the front gate of the U.N building. This was never about removing Sadaam. And it was never about WMD's. It was a land grab, and an attempt to steal that countries natural resources and establish yet another power base in the heart of the middle East. They have failed. And hundreds of thousands of innocents have been killed in the process.

Cover Me

Byrnzie wrote:

The reason given for the invasion - and the only reason that the U.S Government thought had any chance of being supported at the U.N - was that Sadaam possessed wmd's. Everyone knew this to be complete bollocks. No one with any sense believed the lies prior to the invasion. If the U.S or Britain had based their case for war on the fact that they wanted to remove Sadaam then they wouldn't have even made it to the front gate of the U.N building. This was never about removing Sadaam. And it was never about WMD's. It was a land grab, and an attempt to steal that countries natural resources and establish yet another power base in the heart of the middle East. They have failed. And hundreds of thousands of innocents have been killed in the process.

Do you feel that a crime has been committed and someone should be held accountable?

pjalive21

jlew24asu wrote:

I blame saddam more then I do bush. but bush made a huge mistake by assuming that sunnis and shittes would live happily ever after in freedom.

i agree with you...thats what his biggest mistake was...not invading Iraq and dethroning Saddam, it was the planning AFTER we did that...thats what become the mess

Abookamongstthemany

pjalive21 wrote:

i agree with you...thats what his biggest mistake was...not invading Iraq and dethroning Saddam, it was the planning AFTER we did that...thats what become the mess

They knew very well what would happen. They've had their hands in this for years. Watch the clip Roland posted.

sponger

It's obviously stupid to think that Saddam had WMD's, but it's equally stupid to think that he didn't. There's just no way of knowing, and it's hard not to say that the circumstantial evidence wasn't strong. And regardless of how he may have gotten the means and the materials, he had a history of non-compliance and he had proven his willingness to use them.

Everyone knows about the truckloads of secret goods that went streaming up to Syria just before the 2003 invasion. How can anyone say for sure that those weren't his WMD's being shipped north for safe keeping?

And who is to say that they aren't buried somewhere in the middle of the desert somewhere? Anything is possible. Of any country in the middle east, Iraq is obviously the most likely to have possessed WMD's at that time no matter what inspectors or the White House Enquirer has to say.

Of course, whether he did or didn't have WMD's really doesn't matter when considering that removal of those WMDs was never really the true agenda of the Bush administration to begin with.

But that isn't to say that a Gore administration would have done any different. Other than the oil that lay beneath Iraq, I have no doubt there was another motive behind the invasion, and I believe that motive was the immortality that comes with being a war president.

After all, it was what the country wanted at that time, and approval ratings are music to any politician's ears. To this day, I think most people in the US still cannot differentiate between a fanatical shiite fascist and a secular dictator.

And let's face it....Bush never implicated Saddam in 9/11. He never implied that Saddam had anything to do with Al Qaeda. He never even suggested that Saddam was linked to terrorism. It was Cheney who made those misleading connections, and his choice of words when making those statements were vague and indirect.

People in the US made that inference on their own. They dreamed up the Saddam 9/11 connection, and Bush merely capitalized on it to expand the fossil fuel empire and to transform himself from a Vietnam draft dodger to the emperor of a victorious army. I have no reason to believe Gore or any other president wouldn't have done the same. Well, maybe Nader wouldn't, but that's because Nader is a hippie.

Bu2

sponger wrote:

It's obviously stupid to think that Saddam had WMD's, but it's equally stupid to think that he didn't. There's just no way of knowing, and it's hard not to say that the circumstantial evidence wasn't strong. And regardless of how he may have gotten the means and the materials, he had a history of non-compliance and he had proven his willingness to use them.

Everyone knows about the truckloads of secret goods that went streaming up to Syria just before the 2003 invasion. How can anyone say for sure that those weren't his WMD's being shipped north for safe keeping?

And who is to say that they aren't buried somewhere in the middle of the desert somewhere? Anything is possible. Of any country in the middle east, Iraq is obviously the most likely to have possessed WMD's at that time no matter what inspectors or the White House Enquirer has to say.

Of course, whether he did or didn't have WMD's really doesn't matter when considering that removal of those WMDs was never really the true agenda of the Bush administration to begin with.

But that isn't to say that a Gore administration would have done any different. Other than the oil that lay beneath Iraq, I have no doubt there was another motive behind the invasion, and I believe that motive was the immortality that comes with being a war president.

After all, it was what the country wanted at that time, and approval ratings are music to any politician's ears. To this day, I think most people in the US still cannot differentiate between a fanatical shiite fascist and a secular dictator.

And let's face it....Bush never implicated Saddam in 9/11. He never implied that Saddam had anything to do with Al Qaeda. He never even suggested that Saddam was linked to terrorism. It was Cheney who made those misleading connections, and his choice of words when making those statements were vague and indirect.

People in the US made that inference on their own. They dreamed up the Saddam 9/11 connection, and Bush merely capitalized on it to expand the fossil fuel empire and to transform himself from a Vietnam draft dodger to the emperor of a victorious army. I have no reason to believe Gore or any other president wouldn't have done the same. Well, maybe Nader wouldn't, but that's because Nader is a hippie.

Have you ever heard of Valerie Plame?

mookie blaylock 10

Ahnimus wrote:

Didn't the U.S. make it possible for Saddam to run Iraq to begin with?
Didn't the U.S. provide Saddam with the so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?

Let's see, the U.S. gave dictorial power to Saddam, and provided him with weapons to kill Kurds, then condemned the act and Saddam stopped killing people, right?

So years later the U.S. decides its time to go back and clean up the mess they caused?

Something is missing from this equation, could it be Oil or permanent military control of the middle east?

Cui Bono?

yes, indeedie.

Bu2

....we already knew this shit a long time ago.

sponger

Bu2 wrote:

Have you ever heard of Valerie Plame?

You didn't even remotely make a point in contrast to my post with the dropping of that name. Please just attempt to make a point so I can have a really good laugh at your reading comprehension. thank you.

Bu2

Valerie Plame's husband was sent to Africa, as our US Ambassador, to see if Saddam had, in fact, been purchasing uraniam there.

Valerie's husband realized the answer was no.

Valerie's husband then turned around and tried to say so, to anyone who would listen.

Valerie Plame, herself, then, was outed.