The W
Views: 97648193
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.7.07 1809
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - NO Iraqi WMD's in a Decade? Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next(1030 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (60 total)
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 1517/3059
EXP: 11457908
For next: 13537

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1896 days
Last activity: 1830 days
#21 Posted on 3.3.04 1256.43
Reposted on: 3.3.11 1258.02
(Raising voice to get above all the semantics)

The point here is that the Bush Administration used the WMD assertion as one of its primary building blocks when putting together its case for war. Now that intel turns out to be sketchy at best, totally false at worst. Now, this means that Bush et al are either a)Liars for taking bad intel and deliberately distorting it in such an important public forum, or b)incompetent for not making sure that the intel was 100% accurate.

Now, I'm sorry, but I'm not buying "we couldn't wait any longer to ascertain the state of WMDs in Iraq". They could and they should have. It was a rush-job from the word "go". Nor am I buying the UN sanctions being broken. Bush made clear his contempt for the UN during the approach to war, so why should he give a fuck which sanctions Iraq broke? His case wasn't built on the, it was built on America's supposed stockpile of evidence that PROVED CONCLUSIVELY that iraq was of significant threat to other nations, including America. THAT WAS HIS CASE. That case now looks very bad indeed. There is no positive way to spin this outside of mudslinging, and that's not positive anyway because when you start slinging mud you always end up getting yourself dirty.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 211

Posts: 4057/16100
EXP: 138703909
For next: 27957

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 28 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#22 Posted on 3.3.04 1315.49
Reposted on: 3.3.11 1316.08
Bush doesn't have contempt for the UN - his father is a former ambassador to the UN and loooooooooooved the UN.

I *can* understand, however, how he could get frustrated with the UN for allowing Iraq to repeatedly flaunt the final opportunity1 of S/RES/1441 (un.org) without suffering any of the serious consequences2 promised. To mix a metaphor, what good does it do to pass resolutions if it turns out their teeth are false?

1. ¶2
2. ¶13,14
Barbwire Mike
Boudin rouge
Level: 46

Posts: 234/502
EXP: 703559
For next: 8220

Since: 6.11.03
From: Dudleyville

Since last post: 3209 days
Last activity: 3202 days
#23 Posted on 3.3.04 1331.50
Reposted on: 3.3.11 1332.29
This may be a little off topic, but while checking Snopes to see if I could find a definitive answer as to whether Mel Gibson was a member of Opus Dei this popped up. It's far from proving anything, but it does go a long way towards showing how hard it is to find even HUGE weapons if they're hidden well enough:

Iraqi War Planes Buried In Desert. Status: True
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 493/641
EXP: 1093737
For next: 63389

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3611 days
Last activity: 3269 days
#24 Posted on 3.3.04 1342.17
Reposted on: 3.3.11 1342.39
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
      Originally posted by ThreepMe
      Damned if you do...Damned if you don't. Both suck. So let's not start throwing stones at the UN just yet.


    It's not a damned if you do choice. I'll choose the freely elected government of my United States over a UN that provides equal voice to our enemies & some of the worst, most dangerous nations in the world every single time, no matter who was in office.
    The US should never let itself be dictated to by the UN, ever.

      Originally posted by ThreepMe
      And dontcha just love the fact that some people still think that Iraq was ever a threat to American security.


    The simple fact that Iraq was a threat to the Middle East's security MAKES it a threat to our security!
    Like it or not, the region controls a LOT of the world's oil. If that would have been controlled by a Saddam-like dictator, the US & the world would be in a very bad situation.

    The fact that Hussein was a supporter of various terrorist organizations as well (he would offer money to the families of homicide bombers for example) also speaks of the threat they posed to us. Any regime that supports or even tolerates terrorism is a threat to America IMO.

      Originally posted by ThreepMe
      Hell, I think GW and his Administration is more of a threat to American Security than Iraq ever was.


    These are the kind of statements from the Left that drive me crazy. Why can't you make your argument without including such ridiculous assertions that any right-thinking individual would properly dismiss??

    Come on, you seem above that...


Actually, I give less than a crap about "Left" and "Right." It's that kind of narrow thinking that tends to get this country in trouble.

And yes it is Damned if you do, Damned if you Don't. On one hand we have the U.N. They are a mixed handbag of agendas that can't ever seem to agree on anything.

Then we have the U.S. government. Who has shown many times over that they are willing to bend, alter or dismiss the truth if it serves their purpose (knowing that no matter what, there will always be sheep to follow).

BTW, no one ever said anyting about being "dictated to" by the U.N. But one can still "play nice" without buckling like a belt or immediately telling them to go F themselves. There is such thing as a gray area.

Yes, Iraq was a threat to the Middle East. But guess what? The Middle East is a threat to the Middle East. It's the entire region! Not one yahoo. We need to stop thinking of it as a Middle East Conflict, and MAYBE start thinking like it's Middle East Culture.

They are all that way. There is not ONE decent country over there. They all are tyrannical dicatorships. Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia...They are all like Iraq. We just give clemency to whoever is placating to us at the time.

And do me a favor...Prove to me that Iraq was a DIRECT threat to the U.S. and I'll show you scores of families that now hate the U.S. (possible future suicide bomber terrorists) that have resulted from GW's "war."

Both are equally probable. Actually, I take that back, I guarantee you that I can find at least 12 people (possibly more) in Iraq, right now, that would be willing to kill themselves to get revenge on America. Guarantee it.

But I still have yet to see direct evidence that Iraq was a direct threat to the U.S. (at least not any more than any other country that hates us right now. See: Korea, North)

"The simple fact that Iraq was a threat to the Middle East's security MAKES it a threat to our security!
Like it or not, the region controls a LOT of the world's oil."

To do so, he would have to ATTACK another territory. If he did attack, then we would have a reason to step up (just like the first Gulf War). And the minute that ACTUALLY happens, then he becomes a direct threat, THEN we go to war.

He saw what happened last time he did that, I don't think he is THAT dumb to try it again.
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 61/512
EXP: 719011
For next: 47198

Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 134 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#25 Posted on 3.3.04 1404.24
Reposted on: 3.3.11 1405.10
Threep-

If I was President & the intel showed that Hussein had WMDs, I would have acted exactly the same way for a couple of reasons:

1) If Hussein did have these weapons or was close to having them, we could not go in like we did in 1991. THAT is where the the "DIRECT" threat was. Had Hussein been able to threaten the region (or even the world) with WMDs, he would have been able to gain control of the world's oil. Again, like it or not, this is a great threat to the entire world.

2) If I had been given that intel Post 9/11, you can bet your ass I would have acted on that intel & not waited for another attack on American soil before I retaliated!!


As an aside, I agree with some of what you say, but it's hard to have a real conversation about this when you actually believe that there is a difficult decision to be made when choosing between our government & the friggin UN... :)
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 1518/3059
EXP: 11457908
For next: 13537

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1896 days
Last activity: 1830 days
#26 Posted on 3.3.04 1409.34
Reposted on: 3.3.11 1409.44
"If I was President & the intel showed that Hussein had WMDs, I would have acted exactly the same way for a couple of reasons"

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. We now don't know what the Hell the intel said, we don't know what Bush acted upon, we don't know why we're not finding anything out there.

eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 831/1084
EXP: 2415835
For next: 46029

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2897 days
Last activity: 2894 days
#27 Posted on 3.3.04 1424.11
Reposted on: 3.3.11 1424.39
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
    Threep-

    If I was President & the intel showed that Hussein had WMDs, I would have acted exactly the same way for a couple of reasons:

    1) If Hussein did have these weapons or was close to having them, we could not go in like we did in 1991. THAT is where the the "DIRECT" threat was. Had Hussein been able to threaten the region (or even the world) with WMDs, he would have been able to gain control of the world's oil. Again, like it or not, this is a great threat to the entire world.


Why wouldn't we be able to invade like we did in 1991? Hussein had the weapons then. He was less of a threat now than he was then. And unless he made some huge gains, he would not be controlling the world's oil any time soon.


    2) If I had been given that intel Post 9/11, you can bet your ass I would have acted on that intel & not waited for another attack on American soil before I retaliated!!


Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Nothing. Invading them did not make us any safer from such attacks.
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 62/512
EXP: 719011
For next: 47198

Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 134 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#28 Posted on 3.3.04 1434.11
Reposted on: 3.3.11 1435.17
    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    Why wouldn't we be able to invade like we did in 1991? Hussein had the weapons then. He was less of a threat now than he was then. And unless he made some huge gains, he would not be controlling the world's oil any time soon.


The intel showed he DID have the weapons, both nuclear & chemical. An Iraq with nuclear capability can not be dealt with the same way it was in 1991. If that was the info I had been handed, I would also have acted.

Plus the main problem is Hussein would not show if he had or had not made those gains. That was the issue & the cause of the fear. Why would someone be so adamantly against inspections if he had nothing to hide?

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Nothing. Invading them did not make us any safer from such attacks.


I didn't say Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I said that if I was President in a time following an unprovoked attack on American soil & I was given intel that showed a current enemy of the US was a potential threat, I would damn sure act on it & not wait for another attack on US soil!!
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 445/2159
EXP: 6266702
For next: 126097

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2201 days
Last activity: 2199 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#29 Posted on 3.3.04 1544.02
Reposted on: 3.3.11 1544.21
    Originally posted by von maestro
    didn't say Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I said that if I was President in a time following an unprovoked attack on American soil & I was given intel that showed a current enemy of the US was a potential threat, I would damn sure act on it & not wait for another attack on US soil!!


That's the geopolitical equivelent of punching out a kid at recess because you THINK he took your milk money.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 139

Posts: 1029/6217
EXP: 32189435
For next: 278092

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 3 min.
Last activity: 3 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#30 Posted on 3.3.04 1607.40
Reposted on: 3.3.11 1610.18
The thing you all fail to realise is this. Iraq violated the first Gulf War Cease Fire agreement. That alone, according to the UN resolution that ended that war, gave us the authority to go back in.

All the "did he or didnt he have WMD" stuff is actually irrelevant, since we didnt need that justification to begin with.

If we are going to say "we will follow the UN resolutions" then we had the right to go to war. If we are going to say "the UN is useless, we should do what we think is right" then we had the right to go to war.

Either way, its the whiney people who needed a just cause to be justified, who created the entire need for the WMD debate to begin with.
SKLOKAZOID
Bratwurst
Level: 74

Posts: 649/1399
EXP: 3513817
For next: 139744

Since: 20.3.02
From: California

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
#31 Posted on 3.3.04 1646.16
Reposted on: 3.3.11 1647.43
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    The thing you all fail to realise is this. Iraq violated the first Gulf War Cease Fire agreement. That alone, according to the UN resolution that ended that war, gave us the authority to go back in.

    All the "did he or didnt he have WMD" stuff is actually irrelevant, since we didnt need that justification to begin with.

    If we are going to say "we will follow the UN resolutions" then we had the right to go to war. If we are going to say "the UN is useless, we should do what we think is right" then we had the right to go to war.

    Either way, its the whiney people who needed a just cause to be justified, who created the entire need for the WMD debate to begin with.


So, now "we had to go into Iraq" turns into "we could go into Iraq." Of course we could go into Iraq. We have The Bomb.

No one is questioning our ability and our right as an independent nation state to declare war on Iraq. There was nothing holding us back from doing so, whether the UN liked it or not. That is not the argument.

The argument is whether Iraq had WMD beyond 1994 and whether there was a real incitement to change the regime.

I'm all in favor of getting rid of Saddam, but the pretense for our war was based on unreliable information, and that is something both the US and the UN have come to the same conclusion on.

(edited by SKLOKAZOID on 3.3.04 1505)
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 495/641
EXP: 1093737
For next: 63389

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3611 days
Last activity: 3269 days
#32 Posted on 3.3.04 1646.35
Reposted on: 3.3.11 1650.34
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    The thing you all fail to realise is this. Iraq violated the first Gulf War Cease Fire agreement. That alone, according to the UN resolution that ended that war, gave us the authority to go back in.

    All the "did he or didnt he have WMD" stuff is actually irrelevant, since we didnt need that justification to begin with.

    If we are going to say "we will follow the UN resolutions" then we had the right to go to war. If we are going to say "the UN is useless, we should do what we think is right" then we had the right to go to war.

    Either way, its the whiney people who needed a just cause to be justified, who created the entire need for the WMD debate to begin with.


A just cause to be justified? The horror!

What are we going to ask for next? Due Process?

Remind me to stop being whiny so I don't ask for something so unreasonable as "just cause."

Oh, "whiny people" didn't create the WMD debate...Bush did when he decided to use it as a Red Herring. And heaven forbid someone go..."Hey, that was B.S.!"

I remember a bunch of people said that to England once...They ended up becoming our founding fathers. But I guess to the Commonwealth of England they were "whiney."

So I don't want to hear any more crap about "whiney" people.

BTW, please justify your facts. "Violated" is something that you need to back up. I have yet to see the "proof" that they actually did violate the Cease Fire, and I have yet to see the document that just allows us to go blazing in immediately after.

"All the "did he or didnt he have WMD" stuff is actually irrelevant, since we didnt need that justification to begin with."

But GW and his Admin still used it. But now (gee, isn't hindsight 20/20?) it was "bad intel." I want to see this Intel. I bet money that it was inconclusive and was spun to death to make it look like Iraq was some kind of "immediate threat."
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 515/2690
EXP: 8760044
For next: 228775

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#33 Posted on 3.3.04 1657.07
Reposted on: 3.3.11 1658.03
If we could have a real, honest, and truly independent investigation of the whole mess leading up to the Iraq invasion, we could settle this. This will not be done. No BS about sensitive info etc., There are only two obvious conclusions since the administration is stonewalling:

1. Bad intel which the president agreed with and was misled by
or
2. "W"'s advisors knew better and wanted to do it anyway.

By not allowing full disclosure to an independent investigation, even if he is blameless, discussions like this will continue ad nauseum.
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 475/763
EXP: 1426245
For next: 59692

Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 491 days
Last activity: 106 days
AIM:  
#34 Posted on 3.3.04 1704.33
Reposted on: 3.3.11 1705.52
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    The thing you all fail to realise is this. Iraq violated the first Gulf War Cease Fire agreement. That alone, according to the UN resolution that ended that war, gave us the authority to go back in.

    All the "did he or didn't he have WMD" stuff is actually irrelevant, since we didnt need that justification to begin with.

    If we are going to say "we will follow the UN resolutions" then we had the right to go to war. If we are going to say "the UN is useless, we should do what we think is right" then we had the right to go to war.

    Either way, its the whiney people who needed a just cause to be justified, who created the entire need for the WMD debate to begin with.



How can thy have violated the agreement if there are no WMDs? We cant even find evidence of the existence of any since 1994.


Don't get me wrong. I don't weep for Saddam Hussein, but I don't feel one bit safer because hes no longer in power. Yes he was a bad guy and yeah he needed to go. But he wasn't an immediate threat to the the US. So why did we have to go alone? Why instead of the Military using their incredible force to track down Osama Bin Laden and Al-Queada in Afghanistan, do we have 120,000 thousand troops guarding street corners in Iraq? Why not finish our business in Afghanistan, completely stomp out the Al Quaeda leadership and capture or kill the man we know is responsible for 9/11? THEN after we do that THEN lets concentrate on Iraq? Now we have our armed forces stretched incredibly thin in a mission that really could have waited. If we had used our diplomatic might with the same passion we used our military might, there might be a true multinational force in Iraq helping us do what needs to be done. And perhaps with a true Multinational force, maybe our forces wouldn't meet with so much hostility in Iraq.







Gavintzu
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 392/443
EXP: 631442
For next: 28727

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2776 days
Last activity: 2776 days
#35 Posted on 3.3.04 1704.47
Reposted on: 3.3.11 1706.23
Sorry CRZ, but in international legalese, "serious consequences" doesn't justify breaking the UN charter by invading another country because it might be a threat. When the UN authorizes the use of force, it words it as "the use of all necessary means." That's how they worded it in 1990 when condemning the invasion of Kuwait and authorized the use of force against Iraq.

It is well documented that the Bush Administration assured its allies diplomatically that 1441 wasn't going to be used as an automatic justification for war -- their initial draft would have but the French and Russians wouldn't go along, so the compromise wording was agreed.

# 11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

# 12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;


The arms inspectors did report back to the UN, the Security Council did convene immediately, and the Security Council failed to authorize "the use of all necessary means." Bringing up the "serious consequences" in #13 is good public relations, but a horrible stab in the back diplomatically to the countries who voted for 1441 with the understanding that it would not by itself justify an invasion. That's why much of Europe was so pissed off when the Administration started using 1441 as a justification for the war.

Here's a biased website arguing the case.

Here's a more balanced account, but still pretty forceful in dismissing the "serious consequences" argument.

Final point: Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits any nation from using force. The Charter contains only two exceptions: when such force is employed in self-defense or when it is authorized by the UN Security Council. Thus far the Security Council has been unwilling to authorize a U.S. attack against Iraq. This refusal, reflecting the widespread international sentiment against war with Iraq, makes any unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq illegal under international law. Click Here (fpif.org)

The US invasion was illegal, and I'm confident history will bear that view out. Whether or not it was worth it practically, history will also decide.


ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 974/1493
EXP: 3904540
For next: 101539

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 81 days
Last activity: 4 days
#36 Posted on 3.3.04 1959.22
Reposted on: 3.3.11 2002.59
    Originally posted by CRZ
    Bush doesn't have contempt for the UN - his father is a former ambassador to the UN and loooooooooooved the UN.

    I *can* understand, however, how he could get frustrated with the UN for allowing Iraq to repeatedly flaunt the final opportunity1 of S/RES/1441 (un.org) without suffering any of the serious consequences2 promised. To mix a metaphor, what good does it do to pass resolutions if it turns out their teeth are false?

    1. 2
    2. 13,14


While I don't really disagree with you, the bottomline is it's the UN's prerogative to choose how and when they enforce their own resolutions. It wasn't the United States's resolution to enforce.

As far as the rest goes, my objection to this war has always been that I just didn't think Iraq could possibly be a threat to this nation, and that's the only purpose we should use our military, to protect this nation. In my mind, a UN resolution to use force wouldn't have made the war any more just. I saw Iraq as a third-world nation that simply lacked the capability of attacking us here. Without capability, intent is irrelevent. I also did not believe and do not believe that Iraq had strong ties to Al-Qaeda. I'm not saying they didn't have any ties whatsoever, but I think they were only token ties, the type that many of our so-called allies in the region have. Keep in mind that the Saddam regime was secular in nature, not radical Muslim. I feel that the sanctions were working to keep Saddam contained, he had not done anything since the Gulf War, and it is now clear he was not in position to do anything to any of his neighbors, much less the United States. His military was in shambles.

I also think some of you are setting the bar way too low for grounds of war. War is serious business, it shouldn't be taken lightly. It's not good enough to say that we must attack because some nation maybe could build up some capability and maybe could attack us down the line. The threat must be imminent, and even the Bush adminstration admits now that the intelligence never indicated an imminent threat. I thought the whole pre-emptive strategy was kind of shady to begin with, but was willing to accept it if we were 100% sure that an attack would happen. But it is quite clear now that our intelligence is not nearly reliable enough to envoke a pre-emptive strategy, so that should be dropped right now. There was a time in this nation where we had more or less a "We don't start wars, we finish them" type policy. I think this is more just. Now we seem to have a "Do whatever it takes to ensure 100% that we never get attacked again by anybody" which is really an impossible idea.

Keep in mind that it is impossible to lose the "war on terrorism". Yes, the attacks on 9/11 were awful. Another attack would also be awful. But it's not like these terrorism attacks are a threat to this nation's general welfare. We will not someday fall to Al-Qaeda. Terrorism is not an entity, but a tactic. It's a tactic used by those who are desperate and lack resources. Given the United States resources, time is definitely on our side.

(edited by ges7184 on 3.3.04 2023)
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 139

Posts: 1032/6217
EXP: 32189435
For next: 278092

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 3 min.
Last activity: 3 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#37 Posted on 4.3.04 0330.22
Reposted on: 4.3.11 0331.55
    Originally posted by ThreepMe
    BTW, please justify your facts. "Violated" is something that you need to back up. I have yet to see the "proof" that they actually did violate the Cease Fire, and I have yet to see the document that just allows us to go blazing in immediately after.


The fact that the UN resolution called for inspectors to be able to go into the nation, anywhere, and inspect. The fact that the Iraqi government would not allow the inspectors to inspect certain buildings, certain palaces, and other "industrial" sites violates that. Holding UN inspectors outside of large industrial complexes for hours and days at a time, before letting them in, or before eventually telling them that they were not allowed in.
This violates the resolution.
And, if you still havent seen any document that allows us to go back in, please scroll up and read the excerpts from the cease fire agreement.


The reason Bush used the WMD as a "red herring" is because of the people who seem to think that 12 years of disobeying a resolution that THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT SIGNED, was still not enough time. Also, the resolution called for the weapons to be destroyed and accounted for, yet no accounting other than the government of Iraq saying "we got rid of them" exists.

Are any WMD in Iraq now? It certainly doesnt seem that way. Were they all destroyed, IAW the UN Resolution? Certainly not. Does this leave the possibility that they are hidden, have been moved, or were sold to other nations or organizations? Yes, it does.
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 477/763
EXP: 1426245
For next: 59692

Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 491 days
Last activity: 106 days
AIM:  
#38 Posted on 4.3.04 0405.47
Reposted on: 4.3.11 0405.48
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    The reason Bush used the WMD as a "red herring" is because of the people who seem to think that 12 years of disobeying a resolution that THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT SIGNED, was still not enough time. Also, the resolution called for the weapons to be destroyed and accounted for, yet no accounting other than the government of Iraq saying "we got rid of them" exists.



But isnt this saying that basically three years after the agreement the Iraqi WMD program was dead? Isnt that compliance?






    Are any WMD in Iraq now? It certainly doesnt seem that way. Were they all destroyed, IAW the UN Resolution? Certainly not. Does this leave the possibility that they are hidden, have been moved, or were sold to other nations or organizations? Yes, it does.


I used to think this too. Now Im not so sure. I was once very sure that Saddam had some weapons squirreled away under a matttress somewhere. But Damn, weve captured a number of high ranking Iraqis including Saddam himself and WE STILL cannot find once piece of hard evidence saying that Saddam had any WMD capability past 1994.



If this were a court case the US would lose big. I dont like that. I wanted us to be right on this one.

ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 496/641
EXP: 1093737
For next: 63389

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3611 days
Last activity: 3269 days
#39 Posted on 4.3.04 0817.35
Reposted on: 4.3.11 0818.20
"The fact that the UN resolution called for inspectors to be able to go into the nation, anywhere, and inspect. The fact that the Iraqi government would not allow the inspectors to inspect certain buildings, certain palaces, and other "industrial" sites violates that. Holding UN inspectors outside of large industrial complexes for hours and days at a time, before letting them in, or before eventually telling them that they were not allowed in.
This violates the resolution.
And, if you still havent seen any document that allows us to go back in, please scroll up and read the excerpts from the cease fire agreement."

Ok...Playing Devil's advocate...Let's assume that this happened the exact way you present it...

Now what part, of what resolution says that, based on those precise actions, allows the U.S. to declare War?

If you're going to use a U.N. resolution to justify this, then you have to let the U.N. security council decide what the action is. And I do believe that they were doing something in respone. Too many people like to think that the U.N. was just sittin on their ass during all of the times when Iraq was being a pain in the ass about inspections.

But I do seem to remember that Iraq was beginning to cooperate there right before we marched in. But I guess it was too late for GW and his Admin, who, I guess, had already invested in the war.

But if you're not going to justify this without the U.N. resolution and rest on the laurals of "they were a threat to America," then you need to show me how they were a direct threat.

Because as of right now, this is what we have:

A) U.N. resolution - that should be decided by the U.N. (it is their resoltuion after all)but we acted independently of that, so we can use that as justification

B) Iraq being a direct U.S. threat - Still haven't seen anything that even remotely suggestes that Iraq was a direct U.S. threat. Not in a Country Vs. Country sense or even an "Iraq is directly planning terrorist attacks" sense.

C) Bad Intel - Well, I still won't believe this one until we see this "bad intel." So far, most reports that talk about the content of the intel suggest that there was NO direct evidence showing that Iraq had any WMD's or posed a direct threat.

So far every reason to go to war are shaky at best, flat out lies at worst.

I would like to amend Blanket's Statement of "That's the geopolitical equivelent of punching out a kid at recess because you THINK he took your milk money." by saying, "That's the geopolitical equivelent of beating a kid 3 grades lower than you at recess with a baseball bat because you THINK he took your milk money."
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 516/2690
EXP: 8760044
For next: 228775

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#40 Posted on 4.3.04 0817.36
Reposted on: 4.3.11 0818.44
Try to put aside the whole Saddam is a bad man and it's good he's gone for a second. To prevail over time in the international community you need two things, the ability to act (i.e. might) and moral authority (i.e. you tell the truth and don't screw other countries). The way this is playing out, we lose moral authority. The next time an issuie like this comes up, perhaps Korea, no matter how much proof we have, we have a harder or impossible time because we have sacrificed our moral authority, even if it was for a good reason.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: British woman suing for the right to live
Next thread: CIA not in the loop on Iraq?
Previous thread: California Legislators proposes 14-year old voting age
(1030 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - NO Iraqi WMD's in a Decade? Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.191 seconds.