Alright: Where Are The Weapons of Mass Destruction?

[blowero]

*Originally posted by buttonjockey308 *
Nope, just the ones that murder their own citizens for exercising free dissent, kill olympic athletes for poor performance, imprison innocent people for being illiterate, and hoarde billions of american dollars while the common people starve, and openly harbor terrorists who are a threat to freedom world wide.

Surely you know that North Korea and some African nations are every bit as oppressive as Saddam was? China isn’t doing too well in the human rights department, either. As much as we abhor such things, we aren’t supposed to just unilaterally start bombing the hell out of countries because we decided they are oppressive. If we decide to become a vigilante nation that declares itself above international law, then the law ceases to have any meaning. I find it sickening for us to feign altruism only when a military action suits our political purposes.

By the way, I heard about a country that kidnapped million of people from overseas and held them captive to work as slaves under deplorable conditions. Even after they were freed, they were systematically denied rights, beaten, murdered, and humiliated. This same country committed genocide against the original inhabitants of the land. I’m wondering, had you been around at the time, and this country had been unilaterally invaded with the intent to murder the president and take over the government, how you would have felt about it?

[Hammer]

If the weapons don’t exist and there was no effort to manufacture or aquire them, then Sadam has to be the dumbest man a live(maybe). That’s what convinces me that there are weapons. His refusal to just follow the resolutions. Even Blix couldn’t say with a straight face that he was getting the cooperation required.

[Beagle]

*Originally posted by Jackmannii *
**Can’t. Missed the window of weather opportunity (too hot and sticky). **

No kidding. Don’t forget, Alabama has [http://www.truckworld.com/Monster-Trucks/Monsters-Monthly/2000-august/august.html"]light armored vehicles]( [url).

[Beagle]

light armored vehicles.

[Cartman]#!&*[/Cartman] :o

[Mandelstam]

If they were deployed in such a manner as to be used, how were they hidden so quickly?

Maybe, Rick, they were withdrawn from the bank and put in the tractor trailers like the billion dollars Saddam took care to squirrel away before he skipped town.

[sailor]

*Originally posted by buttonjockey308 *
Nope, just the ones that murder their own citizens for exercising free dissent, kill olympic athletes for poor performance, imprison innocent people for being illiterate, and hoarde billions of american dollars while the common people starve, and openly harbor terrorists who are a threat to freedom world wide.

By that reasoning Iraq was not even in the top ten countries which should be invaded but in any case, the USA is not the world cop and has no right to go around invading countries it does not like. I would fully supports efforst to remove tirannical regimes if they are done within the framework of the UN but I am not going to support unilateral bullying. The problem is that the USA is very selective and does not seem to care that there are plenty of other regimes which abuse human rights.

[Tejota]

Hummer if the Weapons didn’t exist. Then it simply wasn’t possible for Saddam to comply. Compliance would have required that he either hand over WMD he didn’t have or prove that he had destroyed something that he had never had to begin with.

Surely you can see how that wouldn’t be possible?

[Magiver]

*Originally posted by Tejota *
**Hummer if the Weapons didn’t exist. Then it simply wasn’t possible for Saddam to comply. Compliance would have required that he either hand over WMD he didn’t have or prove that he had destroyed something that he had never had to begin with.

Surely you can see how that wouldn’t be possible? **

It’s as possible as the weapons Saddam promised to use on the United States.

[buttonjockey308]

Blowero said…

Surely you know that North Korea and some African nations are every bit as oppressive as Saddam was?

Certianly I do, yet with the exception of that closet mental case Kim Jong Il, North Korea is far from capable of what Iraq once was, and Africa is generally so riddled with disease and poverty, that it’s inhabitants are far from motivated to harbor terrorists. And FTR, the house passed GWB’s 15 Billion dollar AIDS bill for Africa, so to say we’re feigning altruism is a bit of a stretch, maybe?

China isn’t doing too well in the human rights department, either.

** No, you’re right, they’re not, and that war has been going on for years, with prodding from the UN. There’s a reason that the US in on the UN Human Rights Committee, and China is not.**

As much as we abhor such things, we aren’t supposed to just unilaterally start bombing the hell out of countries because we decided they are oppressive.

** Perhaps not, but you may want to take that up with Mohammad Atta.**

If we decide to become a vigilante nation that declares itself above international law, then the law ceases to have any meaning.

**well, international law was in the process of having its’ teeth yanked out by Saddam Hussein, with his refusal to either pony up the WMD’s or prove he has gotten rid of what he had. UN Res. 1441 made his duty clear, yet he failed to do it **

quote…
“Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material”

Sailor said…
By that reasoning Iraq was not even in the top ten countries which should be invaded… cite please?

USA is not the world cop and has no right to go around invading countries it does not like.

** OK, I’m not sure how to deal with you on this one, except to say…Croatia, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Not the world’s cop? The hell you say! If that’s the case, then tell the world to stop dialing 911.**

I would fully supports efforst to remove tirannical regimes if they are done within the framework of the UN but I am not going to support unilateral bullying.

** The framework of the UN is weak and getting weaker, France hoping their paltry veto would keep the world from discovering that they’re selling more than jets to Iraq. Germany appealing to their leftist political majority, by flatly refusing to discuss any solution other than endless inspections (what kind of world IS it, where Germans are against war, anyway??) :dubious: the rest of the world has done as much, if not more damage to the UN through inaction, than America has with action, more importantly, the US did NOT ACT ALONE, there are more than 70 countries aligned with the US, so I wouldn’t say that there is anything unilateral about the bullying we gave to Saddam.**

—What Would Scooby Doo?

[Squink]

*Originally posted by Magiver *
**It’s as possible as the weapons Saddam promised to use on the United States. **

Hyperbolic saber-rattling aside, it does seem that Saddam’s word on Iraq’s WMD’s is better than that of our president. If Bush were a used car salesman, he’d drive Nixon out of business.

[jshore]

Originally posted by buttonjockey308 *
** Perhaps not, but you may want to take that up with Mohammad Atta.*

Ah…Would you care to elaborate on this? Is your logic:

(1) Well, if Mohammad Atta did it, we can too. [In which case, I won’t even dignify such logic with a response.]

(2) Or, because Mohommad Atta did what he did, we are so threatened that we now do have to bomb the hell out of countries because we think they’re regimes are repressive.

(3) Something I’ve missed.

[Dissonance]

*Originally posted by buttonjockey308 *
Certianly I do, yet with the exception of that closet mental case Kim Jong Il, North Korea is far from capable of what Iraq once was, and Africa is generally so riddled with disease and poverty, that it’s inhabitants are far from motivated to harbor terrorists. And FTR, the house passed GWB’s 15 Billion dollar AIDS bill for Africa, so to say we’re feigning altruism is a bit of a stretch, maybe?

You are aware that North Korea not only likely possesses nuclear weapons, but could turn Seoul into a hellhole without even needing to resort to chemical weapons, right? And that Sedan has been mentioned as a terrorist supporting nation?

** No, you’re right, they’re not, and that war has been going on for years, with prodding from the UN. There’s a reason that the US in on the UN Human Rights Committee, and China is not.**

You do know that not only is China a member, but so are Cuba and Zimbabwe and that Libya is the chair, right?
http://hrw.org/editorials/2003/cuba043003.htm

**well, international law was in the process of having its’ teeth yanked out by Saddam Hussein, with his refusal to either pony up the WMD’s or prove he has gotten rid of what he had. UN Res. 1441 made his duty clear, yet he failed to do it **

Please tell me that you know that UN 1441 didn’t authorize the use of force.

[blowero]

*Originally posted by buttonjockey308 *
Certianly I do, yet with the exception of that closet mental case Kim Jong Il, North Korea is far from capable of what Iraq once was

WHAAAAAAAAAAT!!! Dude, they have NUKES. Unless by “far from” you mean “way MORE” capable, I have no idea what you’re talking about.

and Africa is generally so riddled with disease and poverty, that it’s inhabitants are far from motivated to harbor terrorists.

So then you are admitting that freeing an oppressed people was not the motivation, yes? Otherwise, the logic would apply to Africa.

And FTR, the house passed GWB’s 15 Billion dollar AIDS bill for Africa, so to say we’re feigning altruism is a bit of a stretch, maybe?

What the Sam Hill? What does an AIDS bill have to do with the Iraq war?

As much as we abhor such things, we aren’t supposed to just unilaterally start bombing the hell out of countries because we decided they are oppressive.
** Perhaps not, but you may want to take that up with Mohammad Atta.**

I’m sure I don’t have any idea what your point is, unless you are claiming that 2 wrongs make a right.:rolleyes:

If we decide to become a vigilante nation that declares itself above international law, then the law ceases to have any meaning.

**well, international law was in the process of having its’ teeth yanked out by Saddam Hussein, with his refusal to either pony up the WMD’s or prove he has gotten rid of what he had. UN Res. 1441 made his duty clear, yet he failed to do it **

And what was the specified course of action in 1441? Hint: it did NOT say for the U.S. to unilaterally invade. It ought to be clear by now that Iraq was not an immediate threat to the US. Your logic is like a cop saying: “Well, I thought the suspect might jaywalk, so I shot him”.

[Note - I’m not comparing Saddam to a jaywalker; just pointing out that the potential violation of a law does not entitle us to administer any punishment we happen to feel like.]

** The framework of the UN is weak and getting weaker, France hoping their paltry veto would keep the world from discovering that they’re selling more than jets to Iraq. Germany appealing to their leftist political majority, by flatly refusing to discuss any solution other than endless inspections (what kind of world IS it, where Germans are against war, anyway??) :dubious: the rest of the world has done as much, if not more damage to the UN through inaction, than America has with action, more importantly, the US did NOT ACT ALONE, there are more than 70 countries aligned with the US, so I wouldn’t say that there is anything unilateral about the bullying we gave to Saddam.**

Now you’re getting so far right you’re scrolling off the page. If any country is reponsible for weakening the UN, I would say it’s the one who declared them “irrelevant”.

Didn’t act alone? Hardy har, har. Oh, yeah, we had Blair. And you know what the British people were calling him? “Bush’s bitch”. The only place besides the US where Bush enjoyed any serious support was in your dreams.

[jshore]

*Originally posted by blowero *
WHAAAAAAAAAAT!!! Dude, they have NUKES.

Not to nitpick since I agree with your basic point that NK has a way more dangerous military and a much more advanced nuclear program than Iraq did…But, I think the correct statement is that North Korea claims to have nukes (and that our intelligence believes it at least possible).

The reason I make this distinction is that in the current climate of pre-emptive U.S. wars, I think it is probably in their best interests for North Korea to make this claim whether they already do or not.

[blowero]

Point taken.

[Magiver]

*Originally posted by Squink *
**Hyperbolic saber-rattling aside, it does seem that Saddam’s word on Iraq’s WMD’s is better than that of our president. If Bush were a used car salesman, he’d drive Nixon out of business. **

Which of Saddam’s words are correct? When he said he didn’t have them, When he said he got rid of them, or when he threatened to use them?

IMO, Saddam is a ruthless liar. He is on record as having used WMD multiple times, and he had an active program to develope Nukes. Patience is a virtue when you have 12 square miles of palaces and gardens to wait in. It was just a matter of time before he perfected a nuclear weapon. Iran is doing the same thing. The difference is Iran will likely self implode from popular dislike of heavy handed Mullahs.

[Squink]

When he said he didn’t have them, When he said he got rid of them

That’s it. If your “honest opinion” is correct on this subject, then where are the weapons ? Truth and falsehood exist independently of anyone’s, even the president’s, beliefs. Saddam’s badness, or goodness, is irrelevent to the facts of the matter, as is the president’s moral standing.

[TwistofFate]

African countries don’t harbour terrorists because they are too poor and riddled with disease to be motivated?

Sir/Madam, I respectfully request that you educate yourself what is actually going on in the world.

[elucidator]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40212-2003May10.html

You gotta read this. Right now. Stop what you’re doing and read this. Especially if you are one of the Usual Suspects. You know who you are. Read this. Right now.

[samclem]

Army Col. Richard McPhee says

“My unit has not found chemical weapons,” he said. "That’s a fact. And I’m 47 years old, having a birthday in one of Saddam Hussein’s palaces on a lake in the middle of Baghdad. It’s surreal. The whole thing is surreal.

Happy Birthday, Col.

That was a pretty good article, showing both sides of the argument.