The proper analogy here would be a cop breaking into someone’s house and shooting them just in case they have a gun. We still don’t have a shred of credible evidence that Iraq is a threat to the US. The CIA says they aren’t, and Bush is a proven liar on this issue. Why should we trust him now?
I imagine the US knows the location of several facilities producing and/or storing WMD. As soon as Saddam denies their existence and/or moves to conceal them (though I imagine we have already found something he thinks is hidden) we will send special forces in, seize the area, and provide incontravertible proof that Saddam was hiding them, if safety permits allow international inspectors to visit the facility. We will then have full justification to go to war. The only way this won’t happen is if Saddam comes forth with the locations of all his WMD, and I doubt he will.
Oh. OK. How about this?
Compare it to this
[QUOTE]
In June 2002, Ritter said:
quote:
’It was possible as early as 1997 to determine that, from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq had been disarmed. Iraq no longer possessed any meaningful quantities of chemical or biological agent, if it possessed any at all, and the industrial means to produce these agents had either been eliminated or were subject to stringent monitoring. The same was true of Iraq’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. As long as monitoring inspections remained in place, Iraq presented a WMD-based threat to no one.’
http://pilger.carlton.com/iraq/weapons
In September 1998, Ritter made assertions of fact that:
- Iraq was not nearly disarmed;
- Highly credible evidence indicated that Iraq still had biological agents in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing them;
- That Iraq likely retained tons of chemical weapons; and
- Iraq retained the industrial capacity to quickly reconstitute large-scale production of chemical weapons.
In June 2002, Ritter made an assertion of fact that back in 1997, before he wrote the September 1998 article, he knew all of the assertions in that article were untrue. To wit:
- In 1997, Iraq had been disarmed;
- Iraq possessed none or no meaningful amounts of chemical and biological weapons; and
- Iraq’s industrial capacity to produce chemical weapons had been eliminated or closely monitored so that production was impossible.
So, why did he write the article in 1998 when he knew it was all lies back in 1997? Or was it the truth, and his June 2002 statement was the lie? We can dispute which one was the truth (if either), but I don’t think anyone can say that both statements by Ritter were true. Ergo, in at least one of those instances, he lied.
Olentzero, I have no problem with someone reversing their position - that is, their interpretation of the facts. I do have a problem with someone reversing the alleged facts themselves. And that is what Ritter did.
CyberPundit, Ritter actually made both assertions. Here’s the disarmament assertion
Ritter also stated in, IIRC, 2001 that Iraq had engaged in “100% complete compliance” with inspections. I’ll track that one down.
Sua
Sua
And what the Bush administration is doing differs from what Ritter is doing how?
That’s not relevant to the point I was trying to make. Maybe we should invade Iraq, maybe we shouldn’t. However, saying that we wish to invade Iraq simply because we can is incorrect. Similarly, saying that because the US is a strong nation, we must be a bully, is incorrect - in essence, it’s a statement that because the US can invade, it shouldn’t invade. The purpose of the cop analogy was simply to illustrate that the ability of an entity to engage in violent action doesn’t make that violent action necessarily wrong. Some criminals need to be shot, and some countries need to be invaded. Say, Germany, 1939. Or Iraq, 1991. Or (if you’re a Jonah Goldberg fan) Canada, 2002. 
Jeff
Sua Sponte,
Interpreting those statements would depend on what you mean by “militarily viable”, “meaningful” ,“qualitative standpoint” etc. Since Ritter has also said that he doesn’t give Iraq a clean bill of health ,it’s reasonable to not interpret them to mean 100% disarmament.
BTW you say there was no new evidence between 1998 and 1999. How do you know this? Perhaps Ritter had inside sources who changed his mind.
I agree that Ritter should be taken with a pinch of salt but he hardly deserves being called a “flat-out liar” let alone compared to the Protcols of the Elders of Zion.
Incidentally despite your claim that he has been completely discredited he is interviewed fairly often in mainstream publications:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html
Doubtful to impossible, for two reasons:
-
There weren’t any inspections in that time period. Ritter didn’t get any new information from UNSCOM, because UNSCOM was collecting no new information;
-
The only possible source of new information would have been from intelligence agencies. I doubt that they provided him with confidential intelligence, if only because he was being investigated by the FBI for leaking information when he had been an inspector (ironically, the information he was alleged to have leaked was that Iraq wasn’t complying).
Brilliant response - “well, the Bushies are lying, so people who support my position are allowed to lie, too.”
In any event, Bush’s truthfulness or lies don’t impact my position, as my position is based on two things. First, the UNSCOM 1998 and 1999 reports, which found that tons of biological and chemical WMD were not accounted for (ironically, Ritter’s 1998 position).
Second, my support for war with Iraq, if necessary, isn’t conclusively based on allegations of WMD. I support, where possible, the overthrow, capture, and trial of any leader who conducts genocide, as Saddam has done to the Kurds and the Ma’dan. But that’s a topic for another thread.
Sua
Now you’re just being a deliberate chucklehead. I’m not seeking to justify Ritter’s previous prevarications by any stretch of the imagination.
Do you have cites for that? I’m not challenging your veracity, I’m just interested in checking the sources for myself.
Those issues weren’t of concern to the US when they occurred, and trying to play them up now is simply hypocritical.
Um, Olentzero, how is it hypocritical for me to believe that a war to overthrow Iraq is necessary/justified because of the genocides Saddam has committed and is committing? I’m not the U.S.
I’ll get the UNSCOM cites after my (late) lunch.
And yes, I was being a chucklehead. 
Sua
And what about Turkey’s treatment of the Kurds? The Turks certainly have a genocidal history worse than Iraq’s … I wonder how many Americans are even aware of the Armenian genocide?
Simply put, because the US not only ignored the UN’s well-founded assertions that such things were happening, but normalized relations with Baghdad so that they could sell military supplies and chemical weapons to Saddam’s regime.
The United States propped up Saddam Hussein and enabled him to commit atrocities. Using those atrocities as justification for your support of a war conducted by the United States is hypocritical.
Ace - I went to high school with the grandson of a survivor of that horror. He interviwed his granddad for a class project. I only wish I’d been as historically aware then as I am now - would have been very interesting indeed to talk to him.
It’s Hussein who has painted himself into this corner. Let’s pretend for a moment that Iraq has no current WMD programs. All factories have been converted to civilian use, all inventories of contraband components destroyed, and all research personnel dispersed. Iraq will still be in material breach of Resolutions 1441 and 687 until they provide credible documentation about the disposition of their former programs.
For example, UN inspectors know as fact that German and British companies shipped literally tons of bacterial growth medium to Iraq as well as fermenting tanks, much more than could possibly be used for civilian purposes. The Iraqis have continued to lie about the status of these components. That was still being in investigated in 1998 when the inspectors were forced out. The Iraqis must be able to prove to the inspectors that the components were destroyed. Saying that they “fell off a lorry” doesn’t cut the mustard gas. If the inspectors are unsatisfied with those explanations, the ball will be back in the Security Council’s court. The easiest way out of this mess is for Hussein to provide accurate declarations of its WMD to the UN. That’s the impossible situation you’re talking about. Hussein won’t do it and Bush knows it.
Shoot. That quote is from UN Resolution 1441
I’m still having trouble with the idea that I, who have always opposed Saddam for his genocides (well, since around 1988), am somehow hypocritical because the U.S. government in the 1988 time period acted like a bunch of dicks.
Sua
OK, I’ll try again.
The genocides in 1988 were committed with military supplies sold to Iraq by the United States. The ability to sell those supplies stems from the normalization of relations with Baghdad in 1984, which occurred the same week the UN issued a report providing concrete evidence that Iraq had gassed Iranian soliders in combat.
The war to remove Saddam, which you support on the grounds of those genocides he committed, is being pushed hardest by, and will probably be led by, the very same United States which sold the supplies to Iraq that enabled Saddam to commit the atrocities you abhor.
Note, of course, that I don’t think you are hypocritical, since you aren’t either directly or indirectly responsible for the situation in Iraq. Nor have I intended to state as such. But citing Iraqi atrocities as a justification for war is. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft are definitely hypocritical, but you aren’t.
If you’re so interested in truth, why do you blabber some fantasy about one million civilians dying? People pull the number out of their asses. One day it’s 500k children. Another day it’s a million children.
Another time it’s just a million people. No, people never make the comment that the UN sanctions DO NOT restrict Saddam from importing food and medicine. They often seem to ignore Saddam’s more than 70 lavish palaces, the two giant mosques he’s constructing, etc.
Straight Dope about the sanctions, including an enlightening sampling of an article from The Economist.
That logic seems a bit skewed to me. The US didn’t sell Saddam the weapons for the purpose of practicing genocide. So, an American being against Saddam because of genocide is not hypocritical.
Here, in other words: My friend wants to buy a gun from me. My friend is a hunter, in the market for a new gun. I, being a friend and hunting enthusiast, sell him the gun. He uses the gun for some hunting, but he also murders someone with it. I want to put him in jail.
As implied by your logic, I’d be a hypocrite. By most standards, I’d be doing what’s generally considered a moral response.
Do you have a cite that the US actually sold/gave military hardware to Iraq at any point? I am somewhat familiar with the Iran-Iraq war, and to the best of my knowledge, only Iran had US equipment (from the Shah’s rule).