Having read this thread, and taking its various responses as representative, I have come to the conclusion that finding WMD’s will not matter a damn, one way or the other - those opposed to the war will still be so, if they are found; those in favour, will still be so, if they are not found.
I disagree, Malthus. I think it is imperative for the Bush administration that credible and verifiable proof of WMD be found in Iraq. The absense of such proof would weaken his stance and undermine this crerdibility for starting this war. With verifiable and irrefutable proof of WMD, the naysayers can still say what they want but Bush’s credibility will be so high that it wouldnt matter what the naysayers say.
Personally, I think we will find actual weapons. From reports I’ve read there were literally hundreds of tons of dry anthrax produced in Iraq over the last 10 years. I just can’t imagine Saddam is competent to hide it all without a trace.
However, I agree completely with rjung. Even if they find a doomsday device and a swimming pool filled with virgin’s blood at Saddam’s pad it doesn’t change the fact that: [ul]
[li]Bush failed to make a good case for war to the nation and the world[/li][li]This war is going to provoke further terrorism, not pave the way for peace, prosperity, and the American way in the Middle East[/li][li]Saddam is not Osama[/li]Bush’s precedent of preemption and scoffing at NATO and the UN is going to change international relations forever[/ul]
Was the Taliban cooking up war plans to stage an offensive attack against the U.S.? No. Did they pose an iminent threat to us? Yes, because they were a hostile regime that provided refuge for OBL’s Al Qaeda. But if we had “invaded” Afghanistan on 9/10/2001 without approval :rolleyes: from the UN Security Council you would have been crying foul then as well.
Here’s an even better preemptive strategy…
If you absolutely must arm and train militant Islamic radicals, don’t leave them to their own devices when you’re done exploiting them.
IIRC this war isn’t about WOMD, it’s about Saddam breaking Resolution 1441 multiple times.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by cainxinth *
**…I agree completely with rjung. Even if they find a doomsday device and a swimming pool filled with virgin’s blood at Saddam’s pad it doesn’t change the fact that: [ul]
[li]Bush failed to make a good case for war to the nation and the world[/li][li]This war is going to provoke further terrorism, not pave the way for peace, prosperity, and the American way in the Middle East[/li][li]Saddam is not Osama[/li][li]Bush’s precedent of preemption and scoffing at NATO and the UN is going to change international relations forever[/ul] **[/li][/QUOTE]
Bush failed to make a good case for war to the nation and the world
When we find those WMD and chemical laboratories, if they happen to use WMD against the coalition troops or Israel, when the Iraqi people rise up against Saddam, the case for war just became vindication for Bush rhetoric. It will justify this war even if it was doubtful at the onset. A big “I Told You SO” will ring out from the whitehouse and shame anyone who ever said that Bush was nothing but a liar.
This war is going to provoke further terrorism, not pave the way for peace, prosperity, and the American way in the Middle East
Peace in the middle east will depend on how we treat the Iraqi people and its new govt after this war. If we give them back their dignity and pride, treat them equally and with respect to their culture and religion and help them get back to the 21st century without any conflicts with Islamic doctrine, then peace in the middle east has taken a positive step.
Saddam is not Osama
and unlike Osama, Saddam will be dead.
Bush’s precedent of preemption and scoffing at NATO and the UN is going to change international relations forever
We will deal with it. Altho, I dont understand how we have actually scoffed at NATO.
So it’s about a UN resolution? Well, isn’t it up to the UN to enforce those? I thought the United States was doing this because the UN wouldn’t - but if the UN doesn’t matter, then why is breaking Resolution 1441 such a big deal?
You’ll have to show me some precedence that a state breaking or ignoring a UNSC resolution is justification for any other state to attack it. Technically, that means half the damned world can be attacked. Should France be entitled to attack Israel? After all, Israel has broken or ignored many resolutions.
There’s a lot of “if” and “whens” going on there. Also, as mentioned, WMD weren’t Bush’s official justification for war. And I’ve yet to hear evidence showing Saddam intended to attack us imminently.
It’s not nearly that simple. I’ve been going over some of the minutia of the persistent problem of authoritarianism and social unrest in the Middle East in this thread
That’s what I’m worried about.
I really hope statements like that aren’t being passed around the White House. Although….
“Mr. President, North Korea has declared a nuclear weapons program and its open hostility towards us, and Musharaff is losing control of Islamic radicals in Pakistan, what should we do?”
“We will deal with, can’t you see I’m busy watching the tourney? Go Long Horns!”
The trajectory of the shit will intersect the locus of the fan.
I think it is entirely possible, as Saddam said, that he actually destoyed his ugly toys. This is further testified by his son-in-law, during his brief term as our favorite defector, before he improved the gene pool by rushing back to his father-in-laws arms. Do I mean to suggest Saddam is kindly soul? No, Saddam is an evil old bugger. More importantly, he is a cunning evil old bugger.
Think about it. These weapons are almost more trouble than they are worth. (And remember, the Iraqis have admitted trying and failing to make nerve gas.) They have terror value, but no strategic value. If he used them on Israel, Baghdad would be a smoking hole in the Godforsaken Desert in about twenty minutes. If anybody used them on the US, he would be blamed. Same result, maybe forty minutes. (Frankly, I’m happily surprised none of his numerous enemies thought of this: let’s you and him fight, and I win.)
If he destroyed them, he could allow the inspectors back in, which he did, without worrying. The fact that no one believes him works in his favor, to a certain degree, because he still retains thier power for bluffing: a “Quaker cannon” if you will.
I have, all along, tended to believe that he had them. But I have to admit to myself my main reason is because hes an evil old bugger. But if its plausible that an EOB would destroy his WMD’s for evil and cunning motives, he very well may have.
In which case, Heaven help us.
being overly pragmatic, shouldn’t we (the usa) just plant WMD’s in Iraq and claim we found them if we don’t by a certain time after Saddam is removed? We’ll be accused of planting them regardless, so it is ultimately irrelevant. I say just plant em and “find” em. Anyone who is against the war will accuse us of doing so anyway.
Not sure what you’re saying here. Are you literally claiming that if we had invaded on 9/10, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened? I think we can all call “bullshit” on that one, from a realistic point of view.
Maybe you’re saying that if we’d apprehended the 9/11 hijackers beforehand and sweated out of them whom they were working for, would that have justified an invasion? I’d like to know if you’d honestly support such an invasion in that scenario. And then we’d have to go back and look at all the other failed terrorist plots against the United States, and I’d ask you to tell me what the appropriate response would be for each of them.
Or are you saying that we should have taken out the Taliban a long time ago, way before 9/11? And if so, would you please pursue the ramifications of that hypothetical action to their logical conclusions, as well as the justification for said action? That we should travel halfway across the world, to areas devoid of valuable resources or strategic import, to wipe out any and all hostile regimes that don’t pose any kind of military threat to our national well-being?
And if you answer ‘yes’, on the basis that they might sponsor terroristic attacks on us, then are you willing to accept the blowback that will inevitably come down on us? In other words, again in a hypothetical scenario that we unilaterally brought down the Taliban before 9/11 ever happened, do you honestly think that the act of toppling a hostile regime before they did anything to us would not have the effect of creating even more anti-American sentiment in a hugely unstable yet vital part of the world?
Please use a number 2 pencil, and be sure to phrase your answer in the form of a question. (Kinda like i was doing towards the end there.)
Well, that would’ve stopped those terrorists, I’m sure. :rolleyes:
Peace,
mangeorge
Nice. So not only are we going to illegally rush into a country, destroying and killing everything we see, we’re going to cinch everything up with a great big ole lie (that would inevitably be found out sooner or later).
And we wonder why everybody hates us so much,
I dont understand where that came from. Youre the one who posted that “can’t imagine Saddam is competent to hide it all without a trace.” There will be WMD found and when that happens, a lot of Bushes will breathe a sigh of relief. As I said, whatever was said prior to this war will be forgotten as soon as those weapons are found.
Well I never said it was easy. My point is that this war will not make the peace in the Middle East. It will allow for a peace process to grow. It all hinges upon removing Saddam and his regime.
I will need some specificity to answer that one…
I find reason for your sarcasm to be lacking. You failed to specify what changes in international relationships that this war has produced. Indeed, I would not hazard a guess myself until this war is over and WMD are found, verified and all accounted for. We will have to deal with whatever comes along. We dont ignore it as you so sarcastically implied. We find out what the problem is and fix it, like we always do.
LOL! You kids slay me.
At times like this there is a deep and meaningful question you have to ask yourself…
Was that the worst pun you’ll hear this week?
Iraq broke a Cease Fire agreement with the United States, that the UN just happened to broker. And the UN did try to enforce 1441, but unsuccessfully.
The hospital the coalition captured today had 3,000 chemical/biological suits in it.
Iraqi officers who surrendered have been found with Cipro pills (for Anthrax) and Atropine (for nerve gas).
Somehow, I think there are chemical and biological weapons around.
Something interesting I read today - If the coalition has found WMD, it may be in their interest to NOT tell the world. The reason being that the only thing holding Saddam back from using WMD now is that he hopes to win a war of world opinion, and he’d lose that instantly if he uses those weapons.
But if the U.S. displays those weapons and proves he has them, then a big impediment to his using them will be gone.
Oh my goodness, Sam. 