MegaDave said:
" I think it is funny when these anti-war peace hippies use arguments that are blatantly hypocritical."
Magiver said : “I would worry less about dissing someone and more about the weapons. If you listened to Bush’s prewar speeches you would realize the initial defeat of Saddam was the first step in a long journey.”
** I ** say: How come you two boys are wise beyond your years?
Raz:
This is pretty much the same thread as December’s “even the dolls were burried with the children” thread, so I’m just going to post here what I posted over there. And add that I was never “duped”, and that it’s still a bit early to say yay or nay on the WMD thing. Let’s give it a few more months. I did think the whole “Jessica Lynch” thing was ridiculously overblown by the media. She was a captured POW who got rescued. If there were heroes involved, it was the rescuers (both US and Iraqi) involved. I’m glad this has “blown over” so we can focus on the more important issue of rebuilding Iraq.
The US had a moral right, though not a moral obligation, to invade Iraq and overthrow S.H. This is based on the cease fire terms of Gulf War I, which were not adhered to by S.H. (BTW, I’d also argue that those terms were more or less impossible for a sovereign nation to adhere to.) We actually should’ve taken him out during Gulf War I for invading another country.
I was not really concerned about the alledged WMDs. We had that country surrounded, and anything he had was safer there (from terrorists) than 2 dozen other countries I could rattle off in about 10 seconds. I did’t find Powell’s presentation to the UN very convincing. I didn’t see all the coverage, but what I did see was something like this: “Here’s a building that could be used for chemical weapons. Here’s a truck out front one day. On the next day the truck was gone”. I didn’t get it.
As much as I would have loved to see the Iraqi people free, I did not think it was worth American lives to accomplish that end. I was skeptical that we could install a lasting democracy there and expect(ed) to see some strongman back in power in 5-10 yrs time. Probably nowhere near as bad as S.H., and hopefullly more along the lines of Musharref (sp?) in Pakestan.
I would not have initiated the war, but I think it was a tough call. I can see that reasonable people could look at all the aspects of this and come to different conclusions. I don’t believe that Bush et al have some hidden agenda, but I will freely admit that we’d never be talking about this if oil were not involved.
I do not believe that the UN would ever have gotten rid of S.H. He played their game perfectly and could’ve strung that organization along for decades to come.
I think it is possible for this to come out good-- A more or less stable gov’t in Iraq and possibly a solution to the I/P problem. If I were a betting man though, I’d bet against both, but I do think the I/P issue has a better chance of being resolved in a post-S.H. world.
Having invaded Iraq, the US needs to clean up that situation and tone down the rhetoric about possible invasions of other countries. The one country that scares me more than all the others is N.K. I don’t know the answer to that situation, but if I were a terrorist they’d be on my list as one of the prime places to shop for weaons to use against the US.
I’m not very concerned about the “rift” between the US and Europe. We’re intertwined economically and are going to be allies for years to come. We have many more things in common than we have differences. If Europe begins to act more independently of the US because of this, I think that’s great.
It was a tragedy that many Iraqis died during the war. But I believe that more Iraqis would’ve died under any other scenario. S.H remains in power = more Iraqis dead. If, and this would’ve been a miracle, the Iraqi people had risen up to overthrow S.H. = more Iraqis dead. As per above, I don’t believe the UN would ever have gotten rid of the brutal, evil Dictator that was S.H.
I wasn’t duped. Even if everything Powel said was gospel- I still maintain we had no right to invade. (Without UN Sanction)
About the WMD- sure Bush & co sold us on these. However, pre-Blix, way back when, the UN and all said there WERE massive WMD. Even SH admitted it- becuase in the UN they said they destroyed them. Now, Blix could find little evidence of them being destroyed and even Blix said this was fishy. If SH destroyed them pre-Blix (as he claimed)- why stall on the Inspections? Why not invite the UN inspectors to a huge BBQ and WMD destruction party? The sanctions were costing Saddam BILLIONS. My guess is that some were destroyed, but the rest were hidden way deep in the desert- or more likely moved, maybe to Syria. I think he got rid of the last of 'em post-Blix and pre-invasion. Of course, if you like, you can beleive that SH destroyed them out of the goodness of his heart pre-Blix, but just didn’t bother to keep any documentation. :rolleyes: Bush & Powell exaggerated the danger, no doubt.
Al-quada. Yep, here the Bush admin pulled a fast one, a “smoke & mirrors” magic trick. SH did support Islamic terrorism. Al Qaeda are Islamic terrorists. Thus, by showing us the “the hat & the rabbit” - Powell & Bush basicly inferred that the Rabbit came out of the hat- without ever QUITE saying so. Cheap, yes- but not quite a lie.
However, we did find prove positive that SH was even more horrible evil & sadistic that we thought. And now the Iraqi people- and the world- are better off without his evil ass. And, that is a “good thing”. Already, by SH just being gone this short time, we have stopped more horrible atrocities than innocent bystanders killed by our bombs.
(Still, this last, although it mollifies me somewhat, is STILL not a good enough reason to invade).
seems pretty obvious that concerns that the reasons for going to war being fake, invented, etc are becomming more glaringly transperant as each day passes, serious enough for investigations to be commenced both in the US and the UK.
from -
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/04/international/middleeast/04CND-BRIT.html.
Blair Denies Britain Distorted Intelligence Reports on Iraq
By WARREN HOGE
LONDON, June 4 — Prime Minister Tony Blair told a boisterous session of the House of Commons today that charges that the government distorted intelligence reports to exaggerate the threat of weapons of mass destruction and justify war in Iraq were false. He said a parliamentary committee would investigate the matter and make public its findings.
The announcement of the new inquiry by the joint Commons and House of Lords intelligence and security committee, which will parallel one by the House’s foreign affairs panel, did not silence repeated calls on Mr. Blair by lawmakers to authorize an independent judicial investigation entirely free of the government’s control.
and -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2963338.stm
Pentagon denies distorting intelligence
US officials say there are inaccuracies that need rebutting.
The Pentagon has strongly denied suggestions that it slanted intelligence findings to support a view that Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to US interests.
The move came as the US Congress ordered an investigation into possible abuse of intelligence information in the run-up to the war in Iraq.
this is also very good.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3610.htm
.
Common Sense Lost In Politics
Doc McCoy
06/04/03: (Information Clearing House) Three questions are prominent around the world today, and the careers and reputations of numerous people and their respective political parties are at stake. As answers to the three questions are sought, we must remember that human nature will no doubt take precedence and the two “power brokers” of the world, Blair and Bush will do whatever is necessary to preserve their legacy and roles in history with a strong emphasis on being reelected to another term in office. Their respective parties are also desirous of maintaining majority control within the government.
The three questions are of course: Where is Bin Laden? Where is Saddam? Where are the WMDs in Iraq?
ffs, we we told pre-war that SH had WMD, and that they could be deployed within 45minutes, that we were in immediate danger globally, that we simply HAD to invade NOW!
what has been found? - absolutely nothing!
Zanthor
My conspiracy theory is that the oil companies were afraid of the possibility of the fall of the House of Saud, so in order to regain the supply of Iraqi oil, they made up intelligence on the WMD. This, of course, makes Bush the …
Dupe…Dupe…Dupe…Dupe of Oil…Dupe…Dupe
Wonder how Clinton got duped?
It seems fairly obvious to me that if SH admitted to have x amount of anthrax/mustard/serin gas, and he could not show any kind of proof that they were gone, or account for them in any way shape or form, then either a) he moved/hid them or b) he had absoulutly no control over his own countrymen and could not stop them from taking them and doing whatever he wanted to (including selling them to terrorist).
Either way it goes, he admitted that he had it, and now no one can account for what happened to it. So please, since you are so sure they do not exist, please give me a plausible excuse for what happened to them that does not put other lives in danger (as would be the case if he moved them to Syria, or hid them in the desert, or allowed his army to sell them).
If your neighbor was beating his wife and children to death and formed a support group to promote family violence and you had the only means and will to stop him…
Thank you for pointing out the obviouse (to some) differences between the brutal regime of SH and an annoying neighbor.
I must have missed the part where he admitted he had them. Could have sworn he kept claiming he didn’t have them.
From the editorial linked to above:
“Iraq denied having biological weapons for four years after the 1991 Gulf War, then admitted their existence after a defector pointed inspectors to the arsenal.”
What I keep wondering about is if Iraq is so big and hard to find WMDs in, how did they find them before the war? The proof that they allegedly had, certainly this would have constituted “finding WMDs”. Or was this proof actually lacking the location of the WMDs? Or did Iraq become bigger once Saddam left?
Wouldn’t it be easier to find them once you control the country? They managed to find them before to justify the war, when Saddam was controlling the country, but they can’t find them after they own the place?
Thanks. Which link, though? I opened the three links in
Thanks. Which link, though? I opened the three links in Zanthor’s post, but I didn’t see it there.
Yes you did miss it then. At the end of Gulf War 1, he admitted to having anthrax and mustard gas, along with serin gas.
Hussein Kamil (SH’s BIL defected in '95 and led inspectors to some of them.
When the UN weapons inspection agency left Iraq in 1998, inspectors were unable to account for: 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent; 1.5 tonnes of VX; up to 3000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, including about 300 tonnes that were unique to the production of VX; growth media for biological agents (enough to produce more than three times the 8500 litres of anthrax spores Iraq admits to having manufactured); and more than 30,000 special munitions for the delivery of chemical and biological agents. (from
here emphasis mine)
I could go on, but any doing even the slightest bit of research can find more evidence.
not only that, but it is very well documented that SH used some of the WMD’s on his own people (the Kurds anyway, not the Ba’ath party members). Are you disputing that he did that? Or did he just make enough to torture a few thousand Kurds then say “We’ll I accomplished that, I don’t need to make more, and more, and more, and more”?
Seems kind of naive.
I’m not trying to impugn you, MegaDave. I’m just saying that I thought SH kept denying he had them. He may have admitted it in 1991, but not recently, right?
Just a question.
He was denying it recently (like just before the war) but the point to that was that he could not account for the WMD’s that he admitted to having in the past. As others have said, if they were destroyed, there would be evidence. So he either hid them, or moved them to another location (i.e.,m Syria, Iran, Etc.)
Fair enough. And I’d say he moved them. Unless, of course, he ate them.
I personally think that he did both. He moved the bulk of them (probably to Syria, although I have no evidence of this), but he hid some somewhere inside the country (maybe in the vast undgerground tunnels) in case he needed to use them.