Saen, I stand corrected: you are indeed correct in using the term “warhead” - my connotation of the term is incorrect, the denotation is simply
from this site http://define.ansme.com/words/w/warhead.html As this definition exists, I concede the point; however, there is also evidence to say that warhead means a “complete” construction, to include the payload. But I hate hairsplitters, so consider this an apology.
As for the rest of your post: look, I’m not going to convince you of anything, and you surely won’t convince me. I’m open-minded, but this is an area I know very well, and you are basing your opinion on the inherent “rightness” of the government to invade another sovereign country. As pointed out in other posts, regardless of what we say, the UN signed the ceasefire with Iraq, not the US. It is up to them, not us; if we invade Iraq, and they haven’t attacked us first, then it is an illegal action. Period. If you can’t see that, nothing I can show you will help.
Am I as informed as the government is on this issue? In some aspects, much better informed; in others, less so. Why? Because I know, after studying the region and interacting here, as PART OF THE MILITARY, what the effects of this war will be. And they will be totally counter to what we want them to be, period. Just because the government gathers intelligence doesn’t mean they listen to it; how many times has the government had the proper intelligence, but the wrong analysis? And how many other times have they simply ignored both the intel and the analysis? Way too many times to count, and this shouldn’t come as a surprise to you. The administration, the government, DoD, the military are all made up of people, some of whom have their own agendas. Sometimes, those agendas get in the way of good intelligence and good analysis; it isn’t always at the level of the president’s office - it can happen anywhere in between as well. For instance: if we took any one particular person in the cabinet, and asked them the specifics of this case, do you think they would know all of the facts? Another question: We are dealing with Iraqis, Arab terrorists, etc.: do the main decision makers speak Arabic, are they Muslim, are there people in the cabinet that are either of these things?
Does Saddam have something he’s hiding? I would not be surprised at all; I think he is a despot, who has trampled his own people for power, and has attempted to obtain nukes and WMD. Did he succeed? Probably to some extent: we know from the previous inspections and from info gathered during the Iran-Iraq war that he had some caches of nerve agents, chemical weapons, and biological agents, and that he was trying to develop nukes. In the 80’s we didn’t have a problem with this, per se, and certainly we did little to stop him. Up until he invaded Kuwait, we really didn’t care a whole lot about what he had; the Israelis took out the Osiraq reactor in 1981, and we pretty much considered the case closed (though that reactor was not proven to be capable of producing weapons grade material). From 1991 to 1998, the inspectors scoured Iraq, and the found and destroyed tons of war materiel. Did they get it all? I highly doubt it; he was estimated to have 200,000 missiles of all types in 1990, and UNSCOM says by 1998 95% of those were “most likely” destroyed. So that would leave a few lying around… The chances of any of these weapons being used against us or our “interests” are pretty slim, outside of an actual war. I have posited possible scenarios in other threads; there are many other countries out there with much worse, but their desire to exist in the world community keeps them in check, more or less. Even the more whacked out world leaders tend to realize that any group of the others that were pissed off enough could end their reign pretty quickly; there are whole dynamics at play here, and wars do occur. Usually, however, between neighbors, not from half a world away.
In answer to your question (I hadn’t realized this was the question in your earlier post): the government didn’t, and couldn’t possibly, have protected us from 9/11. The government can’t prtect us from every possible threat; there has to be a balance between security and freedom. We are who we are; we are an open country, that is what we project, and a fundamental that our society was based on. Sure, we could protect ourselves by pre-emptively striking every possible threat out there; I mean, we are the biggest and the baddest, right? But then what do we become? If we become the world’s vigilante, flouting the laws and norms to beat up who we want, or who we perceive as a threat, then we have now stooped to where our supposed enemies are. Is that what YOU want? Is that how you want us to be perceived?
{up on soapbox}
I have been civil with you, but am starting to get annoyed at your baseless accusation: for your information undermine is synonomous with sabotage, subvert, weaken. If you are going to accuse me, take it to the Pit, where I will flay you to pieces; you want to say those kind of things, you had better be prepared. Are you backing up the the assertions of another poster that the anti-war protesters are “subversive”, as well? As I am directly involved in this conflict, and you aren’t, better tread a little more carefully here. If you want to push it, just let me know when you start the pit thread.{off of soapbox}
I, unlike you, am dealing with the “evidence at hand”; however, I take ALL of the evidence, not picking and choosing what supports my opinion and that which doesn’t. Whether you like it or not, much of why we are in war mode has to do with 9/11 and bin Laden; you would have to be an ignorant fool to claim otherwise. The history of the Middle East, the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, the Saudi attitude/connection to terrorism, ALL of this and other topics have direct bearing on this issue. How cut and dry do you want to make this? I, and others, have dealt with the so-called “evidence”; there isn’t enough there to support any kind of war. Here it is, in quick succession:
-
If Iraq is guilty of breaking a ceasefire agreement, it is with the UN, not the US (as stated previously). Why are we invading, again?
-
WMD is present, say we; where is YOUR evidence of this? and don’t point to 16 rockets, either; even the administration has backed away from that, as there was no evidence of ANY chemical or biological substances on the devices, nor anywhere close to where they were found. And nuke material hasn’t an issue since the last round of inspections: you have any evidence contrary to this?
-
He is dangerous to his neighbors; how? Even the Kuwaitis, his neighbors, have not agreed with us on the use of force. His other neighbors, Iran, Saudi, Turkey, Syria and Jordan, had a meeting today; did they request the use of force? NO, and they recommend NO USE OF FORCE. So where is your evidence here?
I tell you what: I have just given three main reasons and dealt with them directly. You have others you want to throw in there, be my guest, and I’ll knock 'em down as well. You can have opinions all day; however, there is no “evidence” to be dealt with here. Or, if there is, you certainly haven’t presented it, and neither has the administration. In fact, in your first post in this thread, you only provided two arguments, one of which (the support of terrorists) you have absolutely no evidence for (and neither does anyone else). He has not been proven to support any terrorist organization, whereas others in the region that are considered our allies have; the sole complaint is that he supports the families of Palstinian suicide bombers by giving them money. If this is a bad thing, and we should go to war over it, then why is it not germaine to the argument that some of our allies do the exact same thing? Your first argument is that he has used WMD against his enemies (Iran, Kurds), and we are now one of his enemies. You forgot the most important part; you left out information that didn’t fit your pat little hypothesis. He invaded Kuwait, however, and he fought a brief war against us and coalition forces: did he use WMD in that conflict, either against Kuwait or in the aftermath, against us? If not, why not? And there goes your argument - logically, you are in a pretty bad position there. Since he would be going up against us again (and has specifically gone up against us in the past), why didn’t he use them then, since we know he definitely had them then? And where is your proof that he would use them in the future, since he didn’t when he very clearly had the motive, the opportunity, and a “history” of such use?
Hey, I would be more than willing to debate you; just waiting for you to bring something to the table other than supposition, accusations, and blind support of a weak policy.
