Just a clarification on my earlier post.
I am not looking to split hairs on WMD vs. plain ordinary weapon of minor blowupitude. I was just curious if there was some list that had been agreed to that said weapon A is a WMD while weapon B is not.
I do think at this point that it has been proven that Sadaam is better at hiding things than UN inspectors are at finding them.
Millosarian, just so you know…WMD’s are defined only as chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Scuds are not WMD’s.
What are you going to say when we DON’T find any WMD’s?
From the Globe and Mail - a respectable news souce outside the US
[sub]Emphasis mine.[/sub]
Doesn’t appear he used Scuds at all. But don’t worry. I am sure the US will “find” WoMD after they fall off the back of one of their trucks. The USA War Propoganda Machine[supTM[/sup] works both on foreign soil, and the home front.
Do you know for a fact that we won’t? I mean, saying “when we don’t find any WMDs” is a lot stronger than “if we don’t find any WMDs.”
No appologies necessary, even if he has WMD, Bush still had no right (IMHO) to attack Iraq without UN support…
I’ve said from the get go, (perhaps not here), that Saddam isn’t shit. His military is crippled, has no morale, and will fold like a house of cards. And don’t even mention the elite republican guard to me. I bet the only thing that makes them elite is that they have helmets or something.
All this Israel and chemical weapons and fire and brimstone shit is vapor. This war will be quick.
I think it was a good strategy for the US to push for disarmament of Iraq knowing that it would ultimately attack despite the outcome of the disarmament, it makes things a lot easier. I also think it’s a good strategy for Iraq to keep its missles in light of the fact that the US was going to attack them anyway.
Um … what? The U.S. has the right to attack any nation it wants. Any country does. It’s part of the whole “nation-state” gig. The UN doesn’t have to approve it first.
Now, if you’re arguing morally, you would have a point, except for your clarification “even if he has WMD.” Even France has said that if Iraq uses WMD during the war they’ll join in on the side of the U.S. Following that train of thought to its logical conclusion, the UN Security Council would be in de facto agreement with the U.S. Hence, tacit approval of the attack.
And so would a 500 gallon propane tank.
Which I have in my backyard.
Suddenly, I fear the wrath of GWB.
If we ask any country to obey international law, shouldn’t we do the same?
Now if you want to know who else believes the attack violated international law, you can include Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Zing!
I believe the point of this thread is that Iraq has proven it has violated an agreement it entered into with the UN. (Although if the missiles launched weren’t SCUDs, that may be incorrect. Anybody know what the range is of the missiles in the al-Samoud arsenal? Is it greater than or less than 150 km?)
From your article: “He (Putin) believes there was no reason for military action because the issue of whether Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction had not been answered, Dougherty said.” Which implies that if WMDs are discovered, Putin would believe there was reason for military action. Same as France. Which is what I said.
Again, if WMDs aren’t discovered, the U.S. and Bush are on some seriously shaky ground here. If they are, some folks will owe an apology.
Oh, and CuriousCanuck? Those black helicopters hovering over you are just checking the traffic. Pay them no mind.
Sauron, I’m not entirely certain who you directed this towards. I’m certainly not splitting hairs. I have just never heard the phrase “weapons of mass destruction” used to refer to anything other than nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, or biological weapons.
Hell, I wouldn’t trust the man farther than I could throw his 17 palaces. But to be perfectly frank, if Saddam Hussein suddenly claimed he didn’t have a Martian Death Ray I wouldn’t start claiming he did. His denials simply aren’t evidence one way or another.
The attacks this morning may provide new evidence that Saddam lied about his stocks of long-range missiles. (Assuming they are Scuds and not Al-Samouds, as the Globe and Mail article suggests.) But Milo’s original post was a false statement (Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction against U.S. troops) followed by a cite which didn’t support the statement, followed by a gratuitous insult, followed by a strawman, all in only five lines. His later posts provided no evidence that even the Monterey Institute or the CDI believe Scuds with conventional warheads are weapons of mass destruction (as opposed to just potential delivery systems for them). So you’ll forgive me, I hope, if I call “bullshit”.
Pretty scary to think that this is not all that unlikely… says alot, doesn’t it?
CuriousCanuck, please tell me you’re joking. Or an ex-writer for The X-Files.
And as I said, In My Humble Opinion, no they won’t. It’s like the police breaking into your house in hopes of finding evidence to prove themselves right, whether or not they find anything, they’re still wrong.
(My apologies for using two posts; I forgot to reply to Orbifold.)
Orbifold, I agree the OP was off-base. I also agree that if Iraq has no WMDs, Bush and Co. have launched a war of unprovoked aggression, and I think they’d be completely wrong in doing so.
Having said that, if WMDs are discovered, Bush and Co. are completely justified in their actions. For that matter, if Iraq has long-range missiles, I think the attack is justified. Saddam has had 13 freakin’ years to get rid of these things. If he does have long-range missiles or WMDs, he’s actively developed and/or hidden them from inspectors in blatant violation of a UN agreement. I think even the most ardent supporter of international law would agree that he should not be running a country under those circumstances.
On preview, a reply to Who_me?:
Your analogy is flawed. Iraq was already on probation, to use your scenario. Part of their probation was an agreement not to carry concealed firearms. If they report to their probation officer with a suspicious lump under their coat, the PO has every right to ask “Is that a gun?” If the PO also has photographs of a person strongly resembling Iraq (I know, this gets silly, but it wasn’t my scenario) purchasing a gun, the PO is within his rights to demand to see the lump under the coat. If the parolee refuses, the PO has probably cause to search him.
He’s slipping, if he took five whole lines this time. Ah well, it just shows the power of a certain mindset to not only try to fit facts to a preconception, but to create “facts” when that effort fails. Another example is the effort by the OP poster to try to redefine a common term (WMD in this case) to prop up his own BS when called upon it. That never works on this board, but those who try it never seem to learn either.
We’ve seen a whole lot of that from the Bushies and their cheerleaders, and we’ll see even more when it’s time to explain the size of the inventory of the vaunted NBC stocks.
BTW, the Cato Institute, of all people, also says Bush is, shall we say, self-deluding about the presence of an imminent threat from Iraq, and at best similarly self-deluding about his commitment to rebuilding it.
If even they, as ideological but not blindly so as they are, say a conservative President is wrong, what are the chances he’s right?
Now it’s been about 12 hours more since then, and where’s the follow-up? Can it be that we’ve seen all Saddam has already? And what, while we’re at it, would have been the consequences of his actually getting killed last night?
ElvisL1ves, a couple of questions regarding the cite from the Cato Institute:
The director seems to take for granted that Iraq still has chemical and biological weapons, and is actively pursuing the technology to produce nuclear weapons. Wouldn’t these be crystal-clear violations of the UN agreements? In that instance, why on earth would any member of the Security Council vote against military action? I’m confused. I figured the reason for France and others not backing the U.S. was a lack of proof regarding the possession of WMDs. Is that wrong?
Secondly, I heard a reporter on the radio this morning saying something in an offhand way that indicated Saddam had admitted he’d helped plan or somehow participated in the attacks of 9/11. The reporter spoke as though this was common knowledge. Do you know if this is true? I don’t remember hearing that, but I could have missed it.
If you push us any harder, we shall have to boycott the maple syrup on our pancakes, or possibly start calling it “Freedom Juice.” Tremble before the awesome power of the American consumer !