And aircraft covered in camoflage nets can’t fly. So what? Do you have some point, here?
The point is that if these mobile production facilities were innocent, there would be no reason to conceal them.
Additionally, it argues that the labs were not being used to produce hydrogen, which is perfectly legal. The intelligence report concluded that they were not, since there are more efficient methods of doing so. The fact that the Iraqis set up their labs as they did, and went to the trouble of concealing them, and cleaning them, would seem to indicate to the un-biased mind that they were up to no good - just exactly as Colin Powell said they were.
It also means that you on the Left are going to have to come up with a better argument than simply waving your hands and arbitrarily declaring, “These don’t count, because… well, they just don’t!”
This whole line of argument - that Bush gave an iron-clad guarantee that Iraq was parked atop a mountain of WMD, and that the whole war would be discredited if we didn’t immediately find a thousand ICBMs with “Destination: USA” stamped on the side - is a straw man.
We invaded Iraq because after 9/11, it was clear that the US could not afford to allow terrorists - ALL terrorists, not just al-Queda - to continue to operate unmolested. So we struck against Afghanistan, to destroy the training camps and support bases there, and to overthrow the Taliban who were giving aid and comfort to terrorists. At the same time, we began to act to bring a conclusion to the twelve years of “cheat and retreat” that Saddam had been conducting - NOT because Iraq was a stronghold of al-Queda, but because Bush had identified a number of terrorist states as sources of actual or potential trouble for the US. Remember the “axis of evil”?
So Bush gave Saddam one last chance to begin cooperating fully with the inspectors. He did not. Read the inspector’s report to the UN. More of the same from the last twelve years.
So we knew perfectly well that Saddam had the will to use WMD - as evidenced by his use of poison gas against the Kurds - and the capability to produce them - as evidenced by the intelligence reports presented by Powell to the UN. Now we have begun discovering what the intelligence reports said were there.
During the Iraq war, Saddam destroyed as many of his currently existing WMD as he could manage. He wasn’t going to use them against the allied forces - to do so would have been suicide in the court of world opinion, many members of which had convinced themselves that things could continue as they have since the end of Gulf War I. Or they were looking for a plausible excuse to drop the sanctions altogether and go back to business as usual with Iraq.
Saddam hung on to his labs to produce WMD, of course. His hope - a slim one, I grant you, but megalomaniacs can convince themselves of much - was to stall the invasion long enough to push the pressure back onto the US to declare a cease-fire, allow the inspectors back in, say, “See? All my WMD are gone! Everything is fine! Lift the sanctions!”, and then fire up the labs and begin churning out poison again.
You guys on the Left are not going to do well in 2004 with this kind of silliness. The majority middle of American politics are going to look at the mobile labs, realize that all this from the liberals is just hand-waving, and re-elect Bush by a landslide.
No Presidential candidate who says, “The war with Iraq was a bad idea” stands any chance in 2004. The world has moved on, the war is over, and the liberals lost.
You were wrong. It happens. Get over it. Or get used to being the loyal opposition.
Regards,
Shodan
Gosh. How ever did I know that “get over it” was going to become the new position of the apologists? How nuanced.
As can partisans.
So anyone who conceals anything,however innocent, is just asking to be invaded?
Well, that WAS his so-called reason for invading, wasn’t it?
So the war was either to stop Hussein from using weapons that he didn’t intend to use or didn’t have in the first place? Which of these reasons is worth $70 billion and over 200 lives?
Tell that to the families of those that died last week.
So let me get this straight- it’s okay to start a war on a lie, with the pretense of these horrible weapons that pose imminent danger to American interests. Only they didn’t exist, or else didn’t intend to use. In any event, the Iraqis sat on these devastating weapons in the face of an invasion. Now if we question this wisdom, we’re the ones with a problem?
The war may be over, but the questioning of the motives behind it is not, not by a long way.
The planes covered in camouflage were also perfectly legal. They were also military assets that Iraqis didn’t want bombed. Get it through your head - a military purpose does not mean a prohibited purpose.
The analyses that I’ve seen indicate that these don’t count because they aren’t bio production facilities.
Not quite, but the fact that nothing whatsoever has been found is a bit hard for you to come to terms with.
Afghanistan, no problem. Iraq? It’s looking like the “terrorist state” in Iraq was entirely inside the administration’s imagination. Oh, wait, you’re going to tell me now that it was about liberating the Iraqi people.
Well, it really seems that Saddam did cooperate, but that just wasn’t acceptable.
No, the data from a decade ago may have been true, but the more recent stuff we now know was just plain bullshit.
And here you are simply pulling things from thin air.
Liars and cheats always win, do they?
Well, if there are no weapons of mass destruction I guess that proves Clinton was lying, and wagging the dog when he sent those cruise missiles and went to the UN.
I guess that means Gore was lying.
Aren’t these lies typical of liberals, the Clinton administration, and those that support them?
No, anyone who invades Kuwait, loses, signs a cease-fire agreeing to destroy all WMD and to account in full for that destruction, and then refuses to cooperate with the UN inspection regimes and conceals portable bio-weapons production facilities, is asking to be overthrown.
Saddam specifically gave up his right to conceal his WMD production capabilities when he signed the cease-fire. The world became aware that he was not to be trusted when he invaded Kuwait. After he was defeated, he was subjected to (and agreed to) a regime of inspections and accounting that were designed to prevent him from doing exactly what he attempted to do - secretly to acquire WMD. He was given ONE last chance to come clean, and failed to do so. Boom bang - now we are sure he is no longer a threat.
Clear enough? Let’s not pretend that Saddam was the injured innocent in a war of aggression.
No, the purpose of the invasion was regime change - to overthrow the regime who had and was failing to cooperate with the inspections, and attempting (still) to acquire weapons of mass destruction - and to liberate the people of Iraq from Saddam’s sickening oppression, send a message to the other “axis of evil” countries, and all the other benefits incidental to overthrowing Saddam.
No, the war was to overthrow Hussein, and prevent his regime from continuing to produce and acquire weapons of mass destruction. See above.
Yes, it was worth it. Although your estimate of 200 lives lost is likely to be a gross under-estimate. Iraqi lives count, too.
The only problem is the inability clearly to see the situation.
No lie was involved in this instance - Powell mentioned the mobile weapons labs specifically, and they have been found. The imminent danger to American interests is the continued presence of a regime like Saddam’s in the Middle East - since we now have verification that he was in possession of the mean to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons.
You need to realize the distinction between tactical and strategic thinking in war. Saddam could have used his WMD against the invading troops, and won, possibly, a tactical victory or two. But, as I said, it would have prevented those who wanted an excuse to support him from pretending what many on the SDMB would like still to pretend - that he was not actively attempting to amass WMD. And use of WMD might have won him a battle, but it would have made little or no difference in the war. The US and her allies were going to win, one way or another. Saddam might have increased the body count, but after his inevitable loss, had he actually used poison gas or anthrax, he would have had no chance to remain as dictator. His best chance - indeed, his only chance, and a chance that it turns out did not pay off - was to try to stall the invasion, and turn world opinion against the US with suicide bombers, attacks by soldiers in civilian dress, and other actions designed to create situations he could use to blame human rights abuses and war crimes on the US. Remember all the US uniforms he had stockpiled? He was going to blame all that he could on the US, and hope for a negotiated settlement that would leave him in charge - just as after Gulf War I.
Fortunately, the speed of the overwhelming US victory exceeded his ability to stall and to fake atrocities. So we wind up where we are - Iraq has destroyed all the poison gas and anthrax, so they could claim they were clean after the war, but retained the mobile production facilities they wanted to use to rebuild their WMD after the sanctions were lifted.
Do you think Saddam missed the difference between North Korea and his own regime? NK has nukes, and the world is therefore much more leery of invading her. If Saddam could survive the war, he could create a stockpile of anthrax and (if possible) nukes, and present the world with a fait accompli - and, if the White House is occupied with a foreign policy moron like Clinton or Jimmy Carter, Saddam could negotiate a fat aid package as NK did in 1994 which could be disregarded at will. Then Saddam brings out his weapons, and blackmails the world or the Middle East as he intended all along.
But the bio-weapons labs are not perfectly legal. And if you are arguing that the bio-labs were going to be used for a military purpose, they weren’t so innocent as you want to claim. Get it thru your head.
This was what I was referring to as “waving your hands”. Finding the mobile bio-weapons labs are more than “nothing whatsoever”. Denying evidence is not the same as refuting it.
You have produced nothing whatever to support the allegation that these are in any way innocent. Powell and the administration said they were there, and by golly, there they are. It does not stand to reason that they could be innocent facilities for producing hydrogen, since if they were, they would not need to have been concealed or cleaned. Therefore, given the past history of possession of WMD and their use against the Kurds, it is rather more than likely that these are exactly what they seem to be.
You don’t think Iraq was a terrorist state, do you?
Not even close. Saddam did not cooperate, as the UN inspectors’ report makes clear, and which is made even clearer by the discovery of these mobile bio-weapons production facilities. Saddam did not have the right to posssess these labs. They are exactly what the inspection regime was designed to deny him - the regime he has repeatedly thumbed his nose at for the last twelve years.
That won’t be happening again, which was the purpose of the invasion.
No, Saddam is out of power. After a dozen years, even reasonable men sometimes lose patience.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, do you actually believe the bullshit that spews out of your keyboard? I don’t mean that as a rhetorical question. I mean, honestly, do you believe what you typed? Seriously?? Or are you using a technique most recently employed by your Republican Big Brothers, repeating the same thing over and over, crossing your fingers and hoping that people will eventually believe it simply because you say it often enough?
“It argues.” Those are some strong words! I’m convinced. We shoulda nuked the bastards. :rolleyes:
**
I’m a chemist. My lab is concealed – I’ve got the windows blocked up, because I do photochemistry and so I need a light-controlled environment – and I clean it all the time. What’s more, if you test my lab for chemical weapons, none will show up… all you’ll find is cleaning agents!! Clearly, I’m also producing contraband.
Give me a break. The truly unbiased mind would say, “We should test them for the presence of chemical weapons. If no traces show up, then they weren’t being used to produce chemical weapons!” Any other conclusion is simply wishful thinking… which I’m sure the Bush Administration is currently engaging in round-the-clock.
I mean, I haven’t looked into how the CIA (or whoever) tested these mobile trailers, but I imagine they used HPLC at some point. High Pressure/Performance Liquid Chromatography, depending on the type of detector used and the nature of the solute being tested, can detect the presence of as little as 1 picogram of material. These Iraqis did one HELL of a cleaning job!
**
Hello Mr. Strawman!! No, the reason these don’t count is because they haven’t tested positive for bupkus. Easy peasy.
**
If you say so, chief. Me, I’ve got the
[quotes]
(http://billmon.org.v.sabren.com/archives/000172.html) to back my shit up.
**
I see… so “cheat and retreat” = terrorism. Got it. What’s more, we don’t even need proof – all we need is Bush to identify a terrorist state as a source of “potential trouble.” Tell me, by this criterion, is there ANY country that you wouldn’t support blowing the shit out of? I mean, hell, they’ve probably got fertilizer in Chad… they COULD maybe one day build a bomb! We’d better get them!
Come to think of it, I bet there’s at least ONE trailer in Chad, too. They’d better hope and pray that there’s not some tarp obscuring the trailer’s location, or else we’ve got enough reason to bomb.
**
In what way does Saddam’s gassing the Kurds in ANY way reflect on the imminent threat that he posed to the US? By your partisan logic, one could point to the US bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki and conclude that WE are a threat to use WMDs on the rest of the world.
**
This has GOT to take the cake. Because we all know just how concerned Saddam was with the court of world opinion. I mean, honestly, you picture Saddam fleeing from the country, staring at the wreckage of his once-glorious empire, and then cackling evilly and proclaiming, “Well, I might have lost everything, but I’ll have the last laugh, as I’ve DESTROYED all of my own weapons!! Muhahahaha!”
Insane.
**
But Shodan, now you’re contradicting yourself. Above, you established (to your own warped perspective, at least) that weapons labs = a valid causus belli. If Saddam leaves these weapons labs behind, that cause of war still exists! What happens to Saddam’s “last laugh”?
**
Do you have ANY basis for this? I mean, ANYTHING to offer in support? A degree in political science? Maybe a psychology degree? Political analysis in ANY sort of professional setting? Or is this just your last ditch effort to justify this war?
I mean, I’d say that you pulled this out of your ass, but this smells more like bull shit, not human shit.
**
I’d tell you to apply this philosophy to yourself, but you’re obviously past that point.
Sorry, Shodan. Ordinarily I regard you as one of the most intelligent and articulate posters. However, in this matter I must respectfully disagree.
You claim that the war was about regime change… well here
is the text of Bush’s speech on the opening of hostilities.
Where in this speech was the call for regime change? Regime change was certainly one of the desired results, but I don’t believe a reasonable person would read this and believe that was the goal. The reason for the war was the presence of the weapons. If this was a lie, then so was the pretense for this sham war.
MSU 1978:
Actually, Bush has consistently given about 5 reasons starting with his September 12, speech to the UN.
- WMD
- Human Rights Abuses
- Supporting terorrism
- Violating oil for food program
- Gulf war MIAs, Doas/reparations
In most speeches and arguments since, he has also hit on those five things but the WMD is the thing he talked loudest about.
Apparently the rabid Bush detractors can’t keep more than one item in their heads at a time, otherwise they would have heard these other things.
It’s also surprising they don’t remember these five things from 1998 or so when Clinton/Gore were going on about them.
You have a point, Scylla. In the UN speech , Bush indeed mentioned the items you cited. But the emphasis was clearly on the weapons. If human rights were truly the issue, then perhaps other nations would fall in the crosshairs first, such as Cuba, N. Korea, China, a host of African countries, etc. If you believe the American people would have supported the war without the weapons argument, then your position is understandable. But I don’t believe that, and so believe the war was based on lies.
I don’t see a correlation between being a Bush detractor and keeping more than one item in my head at a time, but thanks for asking. I might ask you if you would have supported the war had Jimmy Carter started it over the human rights issue.
MSU:
Actually I wouldn’t have supported it with Jimmy Carter because I think he would have messed it up and it would have become a quagmire.
And please note that I said “rabid Bush detractors,” as clearly there is a difference between people who often disagree with what Bush is doing, and those who seem to have their identities wrapped up in hating the man.
Yes, he spoke about the WMD the loudest, but he did spend a good amount of time in every speech that I recall talking about these things as well. I don’t think it is fair to dismiss them and say the war was just about WMDs. You have to go with what the man, actually said.
The previous administration was pretty damn sure that Saddam had WMDs and was working on a nuclear program, sure enough to send missiles and go to the UN. The UN was pretty sure of it.
When did it suddenly become a lie that Bush made up?
The attempt to portray it as such is to me a deliberate attempt at revisionist misinformation.
FTR, I’m sure the WMDs will show up.
Seriously? Yes, I do think this is how it happened. Although I must confess to a sneaking sort of pleasure at triggering the kind of foam-flecked hysteria with which some liberal react when their most sacred cows are called into question.
Actually, the ones repeatedly denying the facts in front of them are the anti-war types. You know, the ones who class ‘finding what Powell predicted would be there’ as evidence that ‘he was lying’.
I’m sorry you are having such trouble with the conventions of rational discourse. Which word was too hard for you?
Well, if you were operating out of a van, producing WMD for a regime like Saddam Hussein, and lying about the nature and purpose of your work, I would suggest the likelihood is rather high that you are indeed up to no good.
Incidentally, this all seems to contradict the stuff you posted below about how impossible it is to clean the Iraqi mobile weapons labs to eliminate every trace of their work. If you can clean so well that no trace exists, why can’t they?
And it is biologic agents we are talking about, not chemical. Anthrax, not photochemistry.
If you think there is no difference between drawing the drapes and creating a mobile weapons production facility, I suspect you know rather less about the situation than you imagine.
Unless the un-biased mind was able to keep before it that we are talking about producing biological weapons, not chemical.
In which case the un-biased mind might indeed need a break.
Perhaps they did. Or perhaps you are talking out your ass, with no idea of what they have or haven’t done. And expressing an opinion based on that talk with a great deal more vehemence than coherence.
Sorry, had a look at your page o’ quotes. Not a damn one of them stakes the credibility of the whole war on the mountains of WMD, as you claim. They seem to be either stating (before or early into the war) that Iraq had WMD. On which they agree with the inspectors. Many others then state exactly what I am stating - that Iraq is cheating on the inspections, and attempting to acquire and/or preserve the capability of producing WMD.
Incidentally, you are not to address me as “chief”. If you can’t spell my name, feel free to cut and paste it.
“Proof” is exactly what we are discussing. Add to that the UN weapons inspectors’ report, the history of the last twelve years, the invasion of Kuwait, etc., etc., and you have a bar that is set more than a little above what Bush identifies. See UNSC Resolution 1441 if you need clarification.
In both cases, past use is an indication of the willingness to make present use. Which is what I said.
Iraq had the means of production, and the willingness to use them without provocation. The US has the means of production, and a great deal more unwillingness to use them.
Unless you are using your own logic to argue that the US doesn’t really have WMD.
No, I specifically mentioned that Saddam wished to remain in control of Iraq. Go back and re-read my post. I’ll wait.
It isn’t that hard. Saddam was willing to give up what he had to (the poisons he had already stockpiled) in order to retain control of Iraq, and the production facilities he could conceal. Then, if he won the war (“won” meaning in this case any situation in which he retained power), he could fire them up, and be no worse off than before.
It doesn’t strike me as being all that subtle. The concept was apparently not too difficult for Saddam - surely you can grasp it.
He still has all the left-wingers around to make apologies for him. 
Perhaps you missed the word “concealed”. This means “hidden”. Saddam was hoping that we would not find the mobile weapons labs before the war stalled. Then he could keep them.
See how it works? It is like when Mr. Policeman pats you down for drugs. If you can hide the crack in your hat, then he might miss it during a search, and you can go on your way laughing up your sleeve at the dumb police who let you get away with your crimes.
Then you can smoke the crack, and come up with a post like you just did.
Obviously a topic on which your expertise far outweighs mine.
Regards,
Shodan
Wow ! Human rights abuses! Yeah. Thats the ticket.
Lets violate international law. Kill 2000 iraqui civilians. 7000 iraqui soldiers defending their country. Destroy a whole countries infrastructure, including water supply, electricity, food, medical supply and assistance. Push them into complete civil disorder so as to install military curfew and a shoot on sight policy.
That will solve all them human rights issues and stuff.
So you’re saying we should have let Hitler kill all the jews?
oops … correction: 5500 civilian casualties
This is a vital point from a political POV. I admit that I wrongly expected a lot of WMDs to have been discovered by now – much more than 2 or 3 mobile biological weapons trailors. I don’t know why more WMDs haven’t come to light.
But, the American public will never buy the idea that the Saddam could not have been a threat to the US unless he possessed large amounts of WMDs right before the war began. The public knows that Saddam created WMDs before and used them before, so he might create them and use them again. They know that he hated the US.
It may be possible to convince the American public that Bush was incompetent, exaggerating or even lying about Iraqi WMDs. But they will never believe that Saddam wasn’t a potential threat to us.
I’ll let you figure out yourself all the reasons why your analogy is wrong.
Yeah, what’s half a million Kurds? They don’t count. Genocide of Kurds is way different than genocide of Jews.