How frustrating it must be for you that Saddam didn’t leave signs for the troops saying “Chem/Bio stocks >This Way”
I just can’t imagine why in a country the size of France, and mostly desert, the troops haven’t been able to locate it yet. After all, 10 tons of stuff can’t be that difficult to find.
Saddam must have a good chuckle when he thinks of the consternation not finding it is producing. Wonder what he said when the troops found him “I’m a celebrity - get me out of here”.
You know, they say too much jerking off can destroy brain cells?
My point is really quite simple, but vital, to wit: it is flatly misleading to claim that Iraq’s assumed possession of “WMDs” was not the central justifying reason promoted by this administration for invading Iraq. It might not have been your personal reason for supporting the intervention, but it was the main reason given us by Bush et. al. Hussein was dangerous, Bush claimed, and he was dangerous to the extent that he possessed “WMDs.”
Now, afterwards, when no “WMDs” are forthcoming, many of those who support the invasion would like to pretend – to downplay, as it were – the centrality of those claims to the administration’s pre-invasion case for war. And one way of doing that is to rhetorically downplay the significance of those charges; to claim that “ack – we never said the WMDs were important in the first place.”
When you claim, “Powell didn’t go to the UN to prove that Iraq was a serious threat; he only wanted to demonstrate that it was in violation of 1441,” I see you as engaging in this type of rhetorical maneuver. At first glance, it seems like a nit pick; but I don’t think it is. I’ve been watching pro-war apologists employ every trick in the book to back off from the administration’s pre-war assertions of absolute certainty. Your argument is simply a subtle way to accomplish this: to say, “Hey, this was never really about ‘WMDs’ in the first place; it was just about Iraq’s unwillingness to abide by 1441.”
However, nothing that you’ve quoted proves your point, at least as I understand it. So the section you underlined from one of your citations, above:
…actually supports the point I’m trying to make, and undermines your own. In this quote Powell makes it clear that he sees Iraq’s reticence as proof that Iraq possessed “WMDs.” He conflates them, precisely as I argued in my first response to you a page ago.
And if you look at the section headings, you see they are divided into 2) hiding equipment, 3) thwarting inspections, 4) access to scientists, on the one hand: that is to say, that portion of the presentation dedicated to demonstrating that Hussein was “unwilling to comply” with the inspections; and 5) biological weapons, 6) chemical weapons, 7) nuclear weapons, 8) prohibited weapons systems, on the other: that is to say, that portion of the presentation devoted to demonstrating that Hussein actually possessed these weapons. Its really quite clear.
Yet you seem to want to pretend like sections 5 to 8 didn’t exist, or somehow weren’t central to Powell’s presentation. Now, tell me: why would you want to do something like that?
But let’s not beat around the bush, Tee; if we can’t see eye to eye, let’s just drop it. At a certain point an argument becomes a rather sterile waste of time. If you can’t see what I’m getting at, then let’s let it go. Theodore, Theodore, Theodore::
Good Lord, son. Stupid, obnoxious and repetitive is really no way to go through life.
I’m going to take the liberty of pasting a post I read in another forum. Here’s someone coming from your side of the fence, but still has the ability to think for himself, and one I would still consider a patriot who loves his society.
AGAIN with the copyright flaunting?
I begin to suspect that you truly are a clueless dweeb with too much time on your hands.
How’s about at least supplying a link to the relevant sites copyright policy?
Now you show to be even an ignorant in this subject too, the latest evidence reports that it does nothing of the sort, and it also reduces the chances for prostrate cancer.
You are really a jerk for assuming we are in league with Saddam, If a cop captures the criminal using crooked evidence, that doesn’t mean one has to free the crook, the crook remains in jail; however, the crooked cop still needs to get the boot.
Speaking of losers and winners, it takes an specially deluded kind of loser to claim victory when the items that the war proponents “knew” were there, are not found. You are also stupidly ignoring that there are less restrictions now for us to get the evidence: with the capture of Saddam, whatever loyalty there was is gone and we should have gotten the goods by now from whoever was involved in the programs.
It is obvious now that even if WMD are found, they will be so few and so far from the theater of operations of the war, that it should be clear that someone decided not to use them in the war and the threat was still exaggerated.
Or we can conclude, based on the evidence that has been found lately, that the WMD were eliminated at the end of the first gulf war up to a year before the second gulf war
[Super cynical mode]
Or they are going to be planted, I do think it will be the puppet Iraqis themselves that will do it, they have a demonstrated track record in producing evidence that “proved” the Al- Qaeda connections to Saddam. For thick sculls out there: those smoking gun Al-Qaeda-Saddam documents proved to be false. Of course, the retractions of the previous reports usually were in page 48 or never mentioned in the so-called “liberal media”. I do expect this stunt to be performed with WMD this time, and then discredited later, but much much later, particularly after the election).
[/Super cynical mode]
Of course there is a motive you moron! It is to combat ignorance. We now KNOW that that huge quantity is not there, with the evidence found so far, one is safe to say that they were disposed and whoever did it, did not record it properly (I do suspect this was done by design). This snafu happens even in the best democratic bureaucracies, it is more likely now that it was the WMD program handlers that gave false information, or as I suspect more likely: that it was Chalavi’s men who “enhanced” the false info.
On preview: I am afraid you don’t have the liberty of pasting a post from another forum without mentioning where it came from, on top of that, it is a post that conflagrates the war on terror with Saddam once again, I can grant you that there were good reasons to get Saddam, However, for the administration to mislead us into a war and telling us that that should have been the priority after failing to capture Osama in Afganistan was not right.
On preview again: Well, that meltdown disposal was quick. I tell you: If Lynn Bodoni had been in Chernovol, she would have cleaned the place so good, that even a rabbi would have declared the beef stroganoff from the area to be kosher!
Oh, come on, as if his last string of “Bush is right and all you skeptics are idiots” messages didn’t confirm that already.
Wouldn’t surprise me one iota to learn that TheodoreBear spends his days in his mom’s darkened basement, yankin’ off to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly on an hourly basis.
I’d like to emphasize that not only was it the central stated reason behind this administration’s decision to invade, but it was the only justification given for the urgency of the invasion. Why did we have to invade right then? Because Saddam had WMDs, and he was capable of using them on us.
Therefore, we couldn’t afford to wait for the UN. We couldn’t afford to build an international coalition that included heavy-hitting nations who could provide actual support, as opposed to cheerlead halfheartedly from the sidelines.
We invaded when we did based on the idea that there were large, viable, deployable, threatening stores of biological, chemical, and possibly nuclear weapons.
Sorry rjung the first part of the sentence was a gimme to mask the shocking prescience of the second part. You can’t be too careful when predicting things like the imminent death of a toad on a freeway during rush hour.
Look, this is not rocket science. Oh, actually, yes it is.
Just look at North Korea, are they dictating terms to the United States?
No.
Look at Russia, do they dictate terms to the US?
No.
Do we dictate terms to them?
No. Guess what, genius, all we’d like North Korea to do is take their absurdly large one million man army and back it away from the border. Russia, we’d like them to get their house in order and quit wanking to pictures of Stalin or Zhirinovsky.
The minute North Korea starts “dictating terms” to Japan, North Korea, and especially the US – I will WAGER MONEY that our plan is to hit North Korea with nuclear weapons just as the attack from North Korea begins. Or, that is already engraved Plan “B”.
…bigger genius, someone was talking about Pakistan, and I think Pakistan will be setting the parameters for anything having to do with the US and terrorists within its borders. I guess you disagree.
Well that’s not really what I said, and I spent a lot of time saying it so you know that…but yes, I know how it goes. “Is Iraq’s unwillingness to abide by 1441 a reason to for the UN to take action?” Answer: “That’s not what Bush said though. So where are the WMD?” The opposite: “WMD is the reason we went to war, where are they?” Answer: “Saddam was a very bad man! That’s the issue.” If left like that it’s not arguing, it’s sidestepping the argument, or chronic willful buddlement, maybe both. Michael Moore and his counterparts on the right do this act professionally and earn zillions.
I’m willing to discuss any of it myself but I do see that people can and will have differing valid opinions. No harm, no foul here.
That was me talking about Pakistan, Tee. I was pointing out that Pakistan poses a bigger demonstrable threat to the United States than Iraq did. Futhermore, if the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Osama are ducking across the Pakistan/Afghan border to avoid our pursuit, then we should tell Pakistan that we’re going to be chasing them onto their terriroty and there’s not a damned thing they can do about it. “Dead or alive”, remember? September 11, remember? You seem to think that the fact that Pakistan possesses some nuclear capability means they can dictate terms to us. This is not the case. As I pointed out, we have been building up our nuclear arsenel for 50+ years in order to deterr any nuclear-armed nations from using their weapons against us. I’m not saying we should use nuclear weapons first, I’m saying that we should make clear to the Pakistani government what the consequences would be should they decide to either to use nuclear weapons against us or allow those weapons to fall into the hands of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists with whom we know they and elements of their security forces have contacts. I’m saying that in the “War on Terror”, Pakistan is a much bigger problem than Iraq ever was and we should be dealing with them. I’m also saying that as a result of the Iraq war, we are currently stretched way too thin to do that.
Would refusal to abide by Res. 1441 have justified war? Perhaps. But only for the UN to have gone to war. A member of an organization does not have authority to act on behalf of that organization. If Canada abrogates a fisheries treaty with the US, Tennessee is not authorized to declare war.
Now, if the UN had authorized the US to act on its behalf, that is, if they had pinned a tin star to GeeDubya’s chest and said “Sic 'em!”, a claim to UN legitimacy could be made, and rightly so. Indeed, the Bushiviks made a move in that direction, the “second resolution” that, if you recall, Bush sternly demanded. Further, he thrust his widdle chin out and stated that he would go ahead with the resolution regardless of the possible outcome, he was going to “see everybody’s cards.” Apparently, a staff aide who could count to 17 was consulted, and the dismaying results forwarded to the Shining One. Who promptly folded and proceeded to pretend he had never said any such thing.
To simultaneously flip the UN the bird and try to drape one’s unilateral actions with the legitimacy of the UN is an excercise in world-class hypocrisy.
How long will it be before anyone believes a word we say? If we enter into delicate negotiations with a potential belligerant, with a sincere intent to reduce the chance of catastrophic war? Could anyone blame them for assuming that a premptive strike against us is the only rational option?
I did specifically quote you saying that “other nations” with nukes could “dictate terms” to the United States.
Actually, even with your qualifications, you are wrong. Pakistan is not “dictating terms” to the US. Musharraf, the military dictator, has supposedly been making many concessions (read his opinion on terrorism below). But, not because we are dictating to him either. If the US had a firm location on Usama and it was in Pakistan, I’m positive they would hellfire the pickup, spider hole, cave, or taxi. Pakistan can’t really nuke the United States. They are not capable. Nor would hellfiring a car probably provoke much reaction from Musharraf, much less a nuclear one.
Pakistan has exported nuclear technology. Obviously the US should demand information through back channels – I mean all of the information. As we are the likely target, it’s only fair.
Musharraf’s a military dictator. But, it’s not our business to overthrow him. He’s got his own problems. Moreover, he does not preach the destruction of the US, or support for terrorism. What he does in his bedroom, dunno. He tolerates dissent, protests, and such. That’s pretty rare in military dictators.
Back in the 1990s the Pakistani CIA, ISI, created the Taliban. It’s likely that many of the Taliban have reconstituted inside the tribal areas of Pakistan. Musharraf is not my idea of a perfect leader (understatement). He is no threat to the United States primarily because he says he isn’t. I don’t think we would conduct massive military operations inside Pakistan without their permission. That has almost nothing to do with them having nuclear weapons. That’s standard procedure. Why do it the hard way?
Moreover, nobody really wants to go into those tribal areas right away. That might enrage the locals, create another guerilla war, and maybe not locate Usama. As bad as Musharraf is, many potential competing Pakistani factions are potentially worse. We really don’t want to use strongarm tactics on him. If he had 20 nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US I doubt our policy would be much different. If so, probably more hostile.
I guess this is kinda like the way the US didn’t want to go into Iraq, because it might enrage the locals, create another guerilla war, and maybe not locate Usama.
