Anti-War protesters change their minds...

Great Debates
21

Cite? Please show me at least three SDMB posters who claim that Iraq has no WoMD (versus speculating that they may not, or emphasizing that no proof exists).

This is the most despicable of the recurring pro-war strawmen, and I for one, am getting tired of hearing it.

I’ve been reading GD war threads for a few weeks now, and I cannot remember a single poster who claims that Iraq does not have any WoMD. Please back up your statement, or retract it.

On the issue of the general population, I do not believe that I underestimate the terror in Iraq. But they have also been innundated with anti-Amerian propoganda. I suspect they distrust America even more than Saddam.

I saw an interview with a refugee in Jordan. She was a mother with two small children. The interviewer asked a five year old girl what she thought of Americans. She replied, “they’re bad, they bomb our homes. We love Saddam.”

Depressing, yes, but reality for some, nonetheless.

22

U.S. Forces Capture Chemical Facility

23

Should be interesting to see what follows on this story.

What’s your point?

24

Sam, you got a bumper sticker on your car, says “George said it, I believe it, and that settles it”?

I second AZ’s remark. Prove it.

Do you ever consider alternative explanations? 'Cause I’ve got on for you. You see, I tend to think he’s got them too, mostly based on the certainty that he’s an evil old bugger. But there is a plausible case for an evil old bugger destroying those weapons precisely because he’s an evil old bugger. To wit:

Since WWI we have known that chemical and gas weapons are very unreliable and subject to the vagaries of weather. Any number of these things don’t work at all in hot weather, and if the wind changes, well, its your ass, isn’t it?

Conjecture: Saddam used WMD’s in his war against Iran and found them unreliable. Perhaps even (and this is a stretch) he unleashed them against troops in the field and inadvertently wiped out a village. Not that he wept for them, but they weren’t the target, he was aiming to wipe out Iranians.

So EOB (evil old bugger) says “These things are for shit. You can’t trust them, you can’t rely on them. But they do make dandy threats, they scare my enemies as long as my enemies are convinced I will not hesitate to use them. Hmmmmmmm.”

After Gulf War I, he’s sitting, thinking, "Jeeez, that was close. I’m gonna have to walk a careful line here. Got all this nasty shit, which doesn’t help me much, and the UN says get rid of it or else. Why keep it? Well, to scare the Iranians. Why get rid of it? Ain’t worth shit, and if I get caught, it might be trouble. Probably not, but why risk it. Plus, what happens if somebody turns me in, rats me out, and the Americans drop a bomb on it and it spreads all over. Hmmmmmmm

OK, heres the plan. Get rid of the shit on the QT. That way, theres no risk the UN will find it, 'cause it doesn’t exist. No way the Iranians will believe I destroyed it, so they will stay scared. I dump a weapon thats not very useful, keep it quiet, so I get the benefit without the risk.

I know! I’ll put my useless son-in-law in charge of getting rid of it. He hasn’t got the balls to rat me out."

And, as you know, his son-in-law did, in fact, run to the west and tell the story of how Saddam destroyed his WMD’s in 1991. Was he lying? Who knows? What we do know is the Bushistas rather conveniently airbrushed this part of the story out. Then, of course, the chucklewit went back to the welcoming arms of his father-in-law, thus advancing the cause of Darwinism.

So: it is plausible that he did, in fact, destroy his WMD’s precisely because he is an EOB! Not from motives of humanity, which he damn sure ain’t got, but for reasons of cunning and treachery.

Do I know this is true? Of course not, it is conjecture. But then again, so is your position. Do you know your left foot exists? Can you show me? Of course. Do you know Chicago exists? Can you show me. Righty-o. Do you know Saddam has WMD’s? Of course you do, GeeDubya says so. Well, can you show me? GeeDubya says so. But where are they? GeeDubya says so. How come the UN inspectors havent found them, if GeeDubya is so sure? GeeDubya doesn’t want to compromise an intelligence source. (You are aware, of course, that the inspectors made public complaint about being sent on wild goose chases by US intelligence? You knew that, right?)

But before you get to answering all this, if it pleases you, be so kind as to answer AZ’s question first. Please cite all these “radical” SDMB posters who swear up and down that they know that EOB doesn’t have any WMD’s. I’ve got some microwaveable crow in the freezer.

25

For the record, with the demise of Chumpsky, I am probably the closest thing to an actual “radical” on the SDMB. One meaningless label is as good as another, I suppose, and being called a “liberal” sets my teeth on edge.

Be that as it may, I’m pretty damn sure I never said EOB doesn’t have WMDs.

26

Sam: "I have read that MOST families have lost someone to Saddam’s regime. "

I’d be interested in reading this article if you can provide a link to it.

27

Actually, so far from ruling out that Saddam has chemical, biological weapons, many anti-war people (on and off of the SDMB) have been arguing that war would give Saddam a reason to use them; or to hand them off to other hostile nations or terrorist groups. Inspections, in other words, were seen as the best way to deal with the problem to the extent that it existed.

28

The reason initially given to us by Prez Dumbya et al. for going to war was that Saddam Hussein had dealies with the guys behind 9/11.

Then they said it was because Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, all aimed at the US.

Now the reason we’re out there is to liberate Iraqis.

Surely the pro-war contigent can understand why everyone else is a bit impatient and confused. To be sure, none of the stated reasons are mutually exclusive, but I have a hard time believing that we’d be going to war to “liberate” the Iraqis if 1)Iraq was not strategically located, 2)many of the folks influencing our government (and in a few cases, actually running it)
don’t stand to profit substantially from all this mess, and 3)we had actually captured Osama Bin Laden.

Am I glad that some of the Iraqis are grateful for our presence? Yes, because at least I know that not all this shit is going to be in vain. But this ain’t a “feel good” war, IMHO. I think the liberate-the-Iraqis card is being played as insurance just in case we don’t find any WOMD. It’s there so that this war can be said to be a “success” even if it really isn’t, and Dubya can come out looking like the Second Coming.

29

There are some who seem to imply that once that evil Sadaam is gone we will all live happily ever after in the city on the hill.

Whatever happened to the right wingers’ incessant calls for “an exit strategy?”

30

That was last week. You didn’t get the memo, apparently. Its now the “Citadel on the Hill”. And a strategy of peace through world domination does not need an “exit strategy”.

31

Again, the issue of whether the war is justified based on liberating an oppressed population from a terrible ruler comes up, and many posters here seem particularly upset by this. I ask again, not rhetorically, but looking for an answer, and trying to see to the horizon: Which people do you feel we should liberate next? I just don’t remember the groundswell of fervor for liberating Iraq until late last year, so I would like to be ahead of the tide the next time around. Since liberating the Iraqi’s mandated our actions, oppression of others also mandates our intervention. Who is next?

32

elu: “And a strategy of peace through world domination does not need an “exit strategy”.”

No–it just needs a buzz word of choice such as the Bush doctrine, or the Pax Americana.

monstro, I agree with you on the flip-flop, but just want to add that there is still a steady flow of misinformation emanating from the administration, assuring us that Saddam was indeed connected to 9/11 and that this war will therefore make us safer from that kind of terrorist threat.

At a recent press conference Fleischer was asked about Bush’s sentiments towards Iraqi civilian deaths. Here is part of his reply:

“The other portion of what the President remembers when he thinks about the innocents are the 3,000 innocents who lost their lives on September 11th in the United States. And if it were not for the worries that the President had about an Iraqi regime, in defiance of the United Nations, possessing weapons of mass destruction, which he fears could again be used against the United States, you might not see this developing.” (my emphasis)

As I said in this thread, notice how this reply indicates that the Iraqi regime has in the past used weapons of mass destruction against the United States, and implies that 9/11 was the episode in question. Here again, Americans are misled into believing that there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11 when there is no such connection. And they are further asked to believe that 9/11 involved WMD when in actuality 9/11 involved the use of box cutters and lax airport security measures. That is simply shameful as well as an insult to our intelligence.

It’s stuff like this that makes it hard for me to be optimistic about the outcome of this war. Although I dislike characterizing people in terms of evil intent, or of painting them with too broad a brush, it’s hard for me to see sometimes whether the Bush administration sees any important difference between authentic improvement in Iraqi lives and spin that would create the appearance of it.

Aside to elucidator: too busy to read the link that mentions Halliburton? Or just tired that old summertime hobbyhorse? :wink:

33

I’m assuming since you juxtaposed my comment below elucidator’s you are referring to me.

How should I know?

I hate the term “exit strategy.” We had no exit strategy in WWII, except unconditional surrender. Who knew what would happen with the captured German and Japanese populations?

34

No, I haven’t, which leads me to this question:

Does anyone have a link to concrete evidence that this is true? (Not that I doubt Saddam is capable of it; I just remember the outrage over the Iraqi-soldiers-dumping-babies-from-incubators story which turned out to be untrue.)

35

Iran

36

Beagle: “We had no exit strategy in WWII, except unconditional surrender. Who knew what would happen with the captured German and Japanese populations?”

No one knew. But then we had a number of compelling reasons to go to war, not least of which was Pearl Harbor. Whereas now we pretty much chose to go to war, and without taking the necessary steps to persuading our allies outside of the UK to join us either with significant troops or financial support. Then we had a vision of nation-building through the Marshall Plan. Just about no one believes that our commitment to nation-building will measure up to that standard now; and it’s not clear that Americans would be willing to pick up the tab even if there were the political will to do it.

37

We’re not picking up the tab. It was subtle, you might easily have missed it. Koffi Annan came out last week and made the moral point that an invading force was obligated for the repair and reconstruction of the conquered nation. (Trans. from diplo-speak: OK, do your thing, but without specific and explicit permission from the UN, you’re on your own. mazel tov, and much good may it do you.)

Then we said that Iraq’s oil would be held in trust by us in order to finance the reconstruction, contracts for which had been let to certain reliable corporations*. Previously the line had been “held in trust for the Iraqi people”. A subtle distinction, to be sure.

They’ll be lucky if we don’t make them pay for thier “liberation”.

*reliability verified by thier wisdom and probity in campaign donations

38

Okay, this is just false. Come on, Sam, you know your history better than that. Chemical weapons are effective against civilian targets, but they have never been effective against prepared military targets. Hell, they aren’t even very effective against unprepared military targets. Read up on 2nd Ypres, for example. The first use of chlorine gas in WWI, and no one was prepared, but French and Canadian troops held the line after a few small German gains during the initial shock of things. It seems to me that the initial use of mustard gas was slightly more effective, though not by a lot. Once troops had masks, gas was just an annoyance - occasionally a deadly annoyance, granted, but not one which swung any battles.

Saddam’s bio and chemical weapons, if he has them in significant amounts along with effective delivery systems to begin with, are barely more strategically significant than his short range ballistic missiles. They do not contribute one iota to his chances of winning, even without their downside of bringing more countries into the coalition.

39

elu, I am aware that there is much discussion about using Iraqi oil profits in order to rebuild Iraq (in fact the link I posted mentions this.) I predict that they will, in that sense, pay for their “liberation.” But I think a bona fide Marshall Plan-scale nation-building effort would require more than that source alone. The costs of occupation itself are, IIRC, astronomical. (It’s possible the EU may pitch despite the pre-war problems: undoubtedly there maybe some political trades involved. But, tobe honest, I haven’t really been following this issue closely enough to post with any authority on it.)

40

I disagree. He may not kill a lot of soldiers, but forcing them to fight through gas would slow them down a lot.

And there is precedent. Saddam used gas against Iranian soldiers in the Iran-Iraq war.