Ron Paul on Iraq: 'Who's better off?'

The all great and powerful UN (Don't look behind the curtain) developed a process for documenting that the WMD's (Which did exist as a fact) were destroyed

... you need to keep your enemies at bay by convincing them of the threat that you DO have them.

The world was behind the U.S. in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, East Timor and Haiti.

Powell was on TV in Feb or Mar 2002 and said sanctions and no-fly zones were working and that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.

which world countries were IN those places with us side by side?

Which of those countries came to our aid when we were being attacked world-wide....including here in the States?

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you over THIS topic post, too.....

As for Powell.....although I love the man dearly, where was that piece of intelligence coming from that he's the ONLY one who thought on that date that there were no WMD when the rest of the UN and world on that date believed otherwise?

TONI

If you look into each of these U.S. interventions you will see a long list of countries that rode in with America. All you have to do is google these subjects.
Bosni and Kosovo were European and U.S.(NATO) undertakings.

---Which of those countries came to our aid when we were being attacked world-wide....including here in the States?----
Take a look at all the countries that went into Afghanistan with the U.S. most if not all of NATO went in to Afghanistan.Most of the countries in the world rallied to the U.S. after 911.

In all these cases the U.S. (and NATO)had the moral support of the world in addition to the countries that sent troops in alongside the U.S.

Condi Rice also thought Saddam was not a threat.
I asssume they got this from the U.S. intel services.

... was far more significant this time around than reported. Compare world contributions to Korea and Iraq and those that poo poo Bush's coalition look downright silly.

Since you brought up Haiti -- another resounding example of how NOT to do things!

The point however is the support the U.S. has had in some of its interventions.
As you know Evie, the U.S. is gradually losing countries from this coalition.

You like to see a glass half empty.

Some smaller countries are pulling out combat troops. NATO is picking up the slack training Iraqis (that's a good thing right?). Ukraine has not withdrawn their support, they are withdrawing some troops and redirecting their resources to training Iraqis to police themselves. Same for Italy if I'm not mistaken.

Have you read the BBC piece YET? I see HOPE there. Good thing the Iraqis have more than enough to counter the despair of those around the world pulling their hair out because they didn't get their way. After all, the Iraqi situation was contained. Kids in prison, young girls raped to satisfy the disgusting power of Uday and Quasay, what's a little execution every now and then. Wood chipper anyone? Not dead yet? Eh, dig the grave. Little more alive? Eh, cover up your almost dead brother over there.

a reliable sample.
What the U.S. despperately needs is troops on the ground. Training is, at this point, not the main issue.
Spain has left the Coalition. Kingdom of Tonga (all 40 of them!)Portugal, Thailand, Honduras, Hungary, The Netherlands, Moldova, Phillipines and New Zealand have all left Iraq.Poland has begun its withdrawal of its troops. Ukraine and Italy are going to leave soon.Singapore only has a ship there. Iceland has no one there.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
Evie there was no doubt thar Saddam was a brutal dictator. There's at least a dozen or so others in the world. The fact that we are now citing the humanitarian benefits of the invasion is proof of the fraud that the Bush administration perpetrated.
Yes it's good that Saddam and co. are gone. But that doesn't help Iraqis very much if they have to live in constant fear and danger. At least 20,000 are dead. By all accounts that is a low estimate. The Coalition doesn't do body counts. That is all you need to know.

that Saddam Hussein posed no threat. Don't forget the reports out of the intel community about Cheney and co. pressuring the intel people for some, any info that would make Iraq look dangerous.
Was it believed? Then why did everyone,all or most of the countries at the U.N. insist on a new round of inspections in order to establish Saddam's possession of WMD.
Even if Saddam had WMD, there was even less proof that he was going to use them or even could use them against the U.S.
Since when has respect for the system been a prerequisite. A system is just an organization of individuals. A system has to earn respect.It is not worthy of idolatry, unless of course you were in the U.S.S.R.

As I remember Clinton's bombing was roundly deplored by the international community.

opposed only by the farther left crowd in most countries. I know here in Canada, a clear majority supported the Kosovo intervention. The only two countries that opposed the bombing were China and Russia.At least those are the two I remember opposing it. We all watched and followed the crisis for months.

The NATO bombing campaign was widely condemned by many countries, organizations on the left and the right and the UN and was considered a humanitarian disaster.

Powell, although the left thinks he's a genius God when he counters the Administration he served is more than capable of being wrong.

The consensus was that Saddam was contained. When you say they weren't working. What do you mean? As far as I know he never touched the Kurds or the Shia after the institution of the NFZs at least not the way he had before.That was their point.Or wasn't it?

... oh yeah, they were "working". Our planes were being shot at daily, not to mention the ongoing cost with no end in sight. Saddam was contained to rape women, execute men, imprison children. Reality is that almost every day Saddam was violating the terms of the cease fire from Gulf War I. That, in and of itself, was reason -- not to mention the plethora of UN Resolutions. Milosevic was certainly contained, without international forces, BTW.

but how many were brought down? The Iraqi air defence system was obsolete. I'd be surprised if more than an handful were ever shot down. The no-fly zones were certainly cheaper than the cost of the war/invasion.It costs far less far less to maintain a no fly zone than it does to prepare plan and carrry out an invasion with some 150,000 troops, tanks, aircraft, artillery and so on.

That's an interesting point about violating the cease-fire agreement. Could you elaborate on that for me please?
Which resolutions was he violating? I should say that I have little respect for the "violating of U.N. resolutions" How many has Israel defied? How many U.N. resolutions has the U.S. stopped from being passed against Israel?

Evie, Milosovic was not contained. That was the problem. We finally did something about him in Bosnia/Herzogovina. We gave him a warning and, sure enough, he was at it again in Kosovo.
Come to think of it, maybe we should have slapped some no fly zones on him. He would not have been so brave about Kosovo if he knew his army was going to come under air assault by NATO the minute his tanks crossed the border.

That just isn't true. He didn't "go into" parts of what, at the time, was HIS country.

UN Resolutions against Israel. Well over 90% of these are a good reason to dissolve the UN.

If ONE plane was shot down, that is one too many. Had Saddam complied with the provisions re: WMD, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Almost a year old. It's like saying conditions in Europe were better just before WW II compared to bef0ore teh Marshll Plan./ Here's another point of view:

IRAQ

Or do you want Saddam back?

But I also don't want this debacle of an occupation either. There is no doubt that life under Saddam was ugly. Unlesss of course you were a Sunni or one of the Shia families who cut a deal with Saddam.The GAO report is hardly a snapshot. The GAO report was based on facts. That was a telling article. I found it hard to disagree with most of it in principle. But it supplied no facts.Numbers require supporting evidence. Do you really think things are better in Iraq now than ten months ago?
---Living hopelessly is much more destructive than any problem you see in Iraq today----
Car bombs, roadside bombs, U.S. soldiers that fire in all directions when they hit a mine or IED, unexploded cluster bombs, 1 and 2000 lb. bombs being dropped in civian areas, depleted uranium related illnesses esp. in children, no control over any of the borders, travel made impossible in large parts of the country because of safety concerns.... I'm not sure you can say one Iraq was or is better than another.

months ago?

YES.

Hopeless? Doesn't sound that way to me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4420933.stm