While this may be true (and assuming our satellite recon didn’t notice him digging these suspicious trenches in the middle of the desert), I believe a lot of the agents involved degrade in a matter of years (and that is presumably if kept under good conditions), so while they might be able to keep them stored there for a while, they might not be very useful after a while.
Okay, color me confused here. I thought the whole war is predicated on not just the allegation that Saddam has WMDs but also that he might actually use said WMDs against us…or give them to people who would. Now you want us to believe that in the ultimate “nothing to lose” situation we are creating, he is still going to use the sort of restraint we didn’t think he would use otherwise?!? Just because he doesn’t want to prove us right?!?
This is what I have thought all along about the anti-war folks. You are against war no matter what. It’s a waste of time all the debates over the last year and a half. WMD’s or no WMD’s, attrocities by Saddam or not, it’s all moot.
You would be against a war no matter what, so first you claim that Saddam has no chemical or biological weapons, then when you are about to be proven wrong, you quickly change stride and claim it doesn’t really matter anyway.
Why weren’t you arguing this before? How come this argument only comes out on the eve of us having proof of Saddam’s capabilties?
This is just sick. I have read this thread through and see that you later admit to hyperbole after your usual delay of coming to your senses in the face of many posters pointing out how absurd your position is. It’s still sick that you say it and defend it at all.
BTW, did you hear about the construction worker murdered by Ted Kennedy today?
Ted Kennedy is more responsiblity than anyone else for the big dig. Some construction workers were bound to be hurt and killed during a project of this size. Ted Kennedy = Muderer, right?
Age: “Anyone that thinks we’ve lost the high ground to Hussein is climbing pretty far out on a limb.”
Of course we haven’t lost the high ground to Hussein–or to Osama, or to Hitler, or to Pol Pot, or to Charles Manson, or to Caligula, for that matter.
But many Americans have much higher expectations for their president and their country. And it is these expectations that are disappointed when an American administration resorts to deceptive rhetoric that borders on outright misinformation, and when a dangerous doctrine such as preemption–which any third-rate tyrant can now invoke as the policy of the United States of America–becomes our creed.
Scylla, since when do advanced degrees or any other kind of professional credential insulate any poster from opposing viewpoints? If Straight Dope dynamics tilt towards the posters with the longest c.v.s, I’ve yet to see it.
This sort of post, of which I’ve read endless variations, reminds me of an oily salesman using any number of sales pitches to offload the only product he has: WAR.
[ul]
[li]He has WMDs![/li][li]Humanitarian reasons![/li][li]‘Nukular’ weapons![/li][li]He might, could, perhaps, maybe attack us![/li][li]Scratch that, he’s an “inminent danger”![/li][li]He tried to kill my Daddy![/li][li]Ten year old thesis shows how nasty he is![/li][li]he bought uranium in Nigeria![/li][li]We’ll get a second UN resolution![/li][li]The UN is irrelevant![/li][li]We don’t want war![/li][li]War is peace![/li][li]It’s Saddam Bin Laden![/li][li]We’ll bomb them into Democracy![/li][li]It has nothing to do with oil…but we’ll take the oil fields first![/li][/ul]
Sir, you posted a whole mess of “cheap rhetoric,” and I asked you to provide the authority upon which you base your long-distance psychoanalysis of a whole lot of people. On these boards, asking someone for a cite is not being “shrill.”
Engaging in ad hominem attacks instead of providing a cite is, OTOH, “shrill.”
As for one reason that the invasion is legal, I can’t. However, as I discussed in my earlier posts, nor can you provide one reason that it is legal. We are at an impasse, for a simple reason -
there has been no ruling on the legality of the war by either the UNSC or the ICJ. Only they can determine whether this war is legal or not.
If you want to cloak yourself in “international law,” then you must respect the processes of international law. If you are qualified to be an arbiter of what is legal and illegal under international law, then George Bush is also equally qualified. Since you quite obviously won’t acknowledge (and rightfully so) that Bush is a qualified arbiter, how about you accept that neither are you, and let the UNSC and the ICJ - you know, the groups that are supposed to make such determinations - do their jobs.
Mandelstam, it was sarcasm. RedFury had engaged in long-distance psychoanalysis and determined that American supporters of the war had been “lobotomized” and were engaged in “self-delusion.” I asked him for his c.v. because only the reincarnation of Freud and Jung could possibly be able to psycholanalyze millions of Americans while sitting in front of a computer in the Dominican Republic.
Unless he was simply engaging in “cheap rhetoric” and being “shrill.” But that’s not possible :wally
Debaser: *"This is what I have thought all along about the anti-war folks. You are against war no matter what…
You would be against a war no matter what, so first you claim that Saddam has no chemical or biological weapons, then when you are about to be proven wrong, you quickly change stride and claim it doesn’t really matter anyway."* (my emphasis)
Okay, Debaser, I’m going to take a page from AZCowboy’s book and ask you to provide evidence of any poster in this thread having “claim[ed] that Saddam has no chemical or biological weapons.”
Since neither I (nor anyone else I see posting her) has made that claim, I’m not clear how I’m “about to be proven wrong”; but let me point out nevertheless that so far, despite Fox News’s rush to make misleading public pronouncements, there is no evidence of chemical weapons production at this factory.
Finally: and please try to open your mind and understand what follows b/c it’s all been said so many times before, including in this very thread. In bolding so as (hopefully) to stick: The main objections to this war are to do with the preemptive doctrine and its effort to justify US aggression in the absence of UN approval, and in the face of disapproval by key allies, and by the majority of the world’s people. The fear is that this will not only worsen the threat of terrorism, but that it will also set a dangerous precedent that will lead to greater instability in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. From this view, Saddam was being effectively contained by inspections, and no imminent threat required us to abandon diplomatic negotiations with our allies. As war began, compromises were on the table from various Security Council members in which timetables would be backed up by deadlines for the use of force. Bush said no thanks. For many, there is an awful lot to object to there: both in moral terms, and in simple terms of cost/benefit analysis. None of it has to do with ruling out Saddam’s possession of WMDs. Also, with the exception of a small minority of pacifists, few oppose this war b/c they oppose war under any circumstances.
Apologies to Scylla and to Sua. My last post should have been addressed to the latter, not the former. (And on preview: oh, okay, sorry I missed the sarcasm.)
And if none of those people are the UNSC or ICJ, what impact does their opinion have on the legality or illegality of the war?
If we wish to approach this from the legal POV, you are rushing past the fundament of a legal system – due process of law. A complaint (or the appropriate analogous document) must be filed with the institution properly constituted to hear the complaint, the accused party must be afforded an opportunity to defend itself, and the institution must apply the law to the facts and reach a determination as to whether the accused party has acted within or without the bounds of the law.
Yet I note that none of these “powerful people” you refer to, even as they claim that they are upholding international law, have even started this process. Why? Perhaps they are afraid they would lose?
And in case it isn’t clear, read Mandelstam’s latest post, as he captures my position – and that of most people the world over – perfectly.
Naked aggression will not pass with impunity. The exact nature of the blowback is yet to be determined. Hopefully, it’ll stay in the political and economic realm. But I doubt it.
Last I’ll say on this thread, Sulla, because I’ve already had this argument a thousand times and know positions are pretty much set in stone, is that this is simply a microcosm of what led the world to this point.
It is my contention, that one way or another, your lies (read; your Gov) will come back to haunt you.
In the end, anything either one of us says matters not a whit – but barring the unthinkable, we should both be around in a few months. And with the benefit of hindsight, we shall see who was ultimately “right” about this. The world or the US.
And what, pray tell, is “set in stone”? In response to your accusations of illegality, I have merely pointed out that there is a thing called “due process of law,” and that said due process has not been initiated. Thus, claims of either legality or illegality are premature.
I see that you have dropped the claim in your last post. See, things aren’t set in stone; you show the ability to recognize when you are in error and change your position. Good for you.
This sort of post, of which I’ve read endless variations, reminds me of an oily salesman using any number of sales pitches to offload the only product he has: APPEASEMENT.
He’s cooperating!
Inspections are working despite his lack of cooperation!
There are no WMD programs!
There are no WMD!
There’s no evidence of WMD!
There’s not sufficient evidence of WMD!
There’s no evidence he’ll use his WMD against us!
He’ll only use his WMD against us if we attack!
He’ll pass his WMD off to others if we attack!
He’s harmless!
He’s not a threat to our interests!
He’s not a threat to the US!
He’s right to attack the US!
He’s a bad guy, but that’s no justification!
North Korea is a bigger threat!
Innocent people will die if we attack!
We’re bullies because they don’t stand a chance!
They’re actually going to win!
We shouldn’t go it alone!
We still need more allies before attacking!
The countries that support the war are small!
Some countries still don’t support the war!
Get the approval of Congress!
Get the approval of the UN!
Get an 18th UN Resolution!
Get the approval of Congress again!
The UN will be mad at us if we attack!
Arab street will be mad at us if we attack!
Europe will be mad at us if we attack!
Dubya is an idiot!
Dubya is a calculating killer!
We’re doing it for the oil!
We’re doing it for revenge!
We’re doing it for power!
And on and on and on…what puke.
Caveat: I think there are valid reasons against the war. I use this example simply to show that RedFury’s disgust is selective, at best.
By the way, why does the pro-war side have to put forward just one argument? There can’t be more than one justification for a war? Did the US get involved in WW2 only to save the Jewish people from death camps? We couldn’t also have been doing it to liberate the French, and to stabilize the European continent, and to protect the English, and for the economic benefits, and to protect our own soveriegnity, etc.?
The ground is many and varied; while Bush is above Hussein (a position shared by such luminaries as Fidel Castro and Idi Amin), he is below Jacques Chirac, highgroundwise.
And considering that Chirac was reelected by a bunch of people wearing clothespins on their noses, that’s saying something.
I’ve never said taht there are no usable WMDs in Iraq, although I’ve said I don’t see evidence for it. What I do see is a lot of bluster, a lot of smoke, that turns out to be nothing once it’s closely examined. I thank the OP for bringing us yet another example of false evidence of WMDs in Iraq.
SuaSponte, I was right there with you, until this:
Certainly you will acknowledge that they may have other valid reasons for not taking this claim up with the appropriate boidies. I think your point was well established, but the last sentence undermined it.
And thanks, Mandelstam, for saving me the typing. We’ve seen alot of black and white thinking on this topic, dichotomists, led by the phrase, “you are either with us, or against us”. It is either a form of intellectual dishonesty, or extremism.
I’m close to the middle on this spectrum. I share you the sentiments you offer, yet I can see the peacenik position, and understand it. I can also see the hawks’ arguments. To break the issue down to such absolutes ignores the enormous complexities underlying many different dimensions that one must weigh to arrive at a comfortable conclusion.
Some of both the hawks and the doves on this board speak in this dichotomist dialect. They are either extremists, or they are being intellectually dishonest in these debates.
On preview, this point is well illustrated by Age Quod Agis.
Two sentences to the OP: This thread stands testament to the anxiety the hawks quietly express. They need for WoMD to be found.
How so? What valid reason is there for Putin, say, or Chirac to make speaches asserting the war is illegal, yet do nothing to establish that illegality before the duly constituted bodies charged by treaty to make that determination.
This is the problem. If people wish to fight against this war on legal grounds, they have to respect the legal process. Otherwise, they are doing what they accuse the US of doing - making their own interpretation of international law, and ignoring the processes of international law when it is not in their interest to respect them.
Quite frankly I don’t give a damn what Hussein’s motives are. I’m in no way responsible for his actions. Mr. Bush, on the other hand, derives his power from the governed, not from the barrel of a gun. As one of those governed I reserve the right to call bullshit when he pushes for war on grounds of Iraq aiding terrorists(evidence?), or being a threat to “our interests”(what interests, and in what way is he a threat?). I hold MY leaders, as is my right as a citizen of a democracy, to a high standard of evidence before I let them use the power I have delegated to them to kill people.
Hussein may have been killing his own people for some sort of sadistic pleasure as far as I know. I may well have supported action against him(although probably not full-scale war) on humanitarian grounds, as would, I would guess, a fair number of nations in the UN. This was not put forward as our motivation. Our motivation was “In a year, in five years, he will have weapons of mass destruction and be a serious threat to world peace” which, quite frankly, seems to be speculation instead of proof.
No one said we had lost the high ground TO Hussein. From where I stand, no one has the high ground.
Sorry, perhaps we did cross signals somewhere. I’m not trying to fight against this war on legal grounds. I believe that the evidence to support legality is both flimsy and sorely lacking. But I also don’t see any international authority being able to enforce any international law. Without enforcement, the legal process breaks down.
Neither Chirac nor Putin have any interests in taking the US to court, in the UN or the ICJ. But it has nothing to do with whether they would “win” the legal argument.
Here is an interesting perspective, that is clearly dovish, but wants to see the UN survive, at most any cost. The article is from an online Lebanese magazine, Monday Morning.