The W
Views: 97592939
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.7.07 0226
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - NO Iraqi WMD's in a Decade? Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3(1028 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (60 total)
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 449/2159
EXP: 6265374
For next: 127425

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2200 days
Last activity: 2197 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#41 Posted on 4.3.04 0826.17
Reposted on: 4.3.11 0827.53
    Originally posted by ThreepMe
    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."


I was going for subtlety...it's been proven in studies that baseball bat attacks at school recess are way down. Except in Newark, of course. :P
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 139

Posts: 1036/6212
EXP: 32144442
For next: 323085

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#42 Posted on 4.3.04 1038.43
Reposted on: 4.3.11 1038.51
    Originally posted by ThreepMe
    Ok...Playing Devil's advocate...Let's assume that this happened the exact way you present it...

It did happen that way, several times in fact.


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

This part: 34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.






    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.

Oh, you mean like UN Resolution 1441? Have you read that one? I could cut and paste the sections that pertain to use of force, but that would probably bore you.



    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.


Do the words DEADLINE or LAST CHANCE mean anything? BOTH were used quite frequently since Clinton was in office, yet Iraq thumbed thier noses at the US and the UN.


    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.

By not complying with this section, we could only interpret this to mean they still had all thier WMD:

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:


(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;


(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;




    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.




I believe that 1441 covered this, in full, and that it did indeed give us the option to use force. Combined with the fact that they DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE CEASE FIRE AGREEMENT we had every right and obligation to go into Iraq.



    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.

likewise, there is no direct evidence that all WMD were destroyed under international supervision, as required in the cease fire agreement.



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



Only if you are willfully ignorant of the FACTS associated with the UN Resolution that ended the Gulf War, and EVERYTHING that Iraq did to spit in the face of the UN in the 12 plus years since it signed it.
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 498/641
EXP: 1093538
For next: 63588

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3609 days
Last activity: 3268 days
#43 Posted on 4.3.04 1343.01
Reposted on: 4.3.11 1343.07
Hey Stagger...

The point is...You can't justify this war using ANY U.N. resolution. (that's why I was playing Devil's Advocate)

Why?

Because we basically told the U.N. to go F itself. We did this on our own (with Britian).

Now, IF the U.N. Security Council says, "Ok, Iraq is in violation of Resoultion XXX, and according to said resolution, we have the right to declare war on Iraq," THEN we would be justified. And if we never found the WMD's, it wouldn't be our mistake, it would be the Security Council's fault.

But that isn't how it happened.

The U.N. asked us to hold off. We acted independently.

Therefore, we have to use our OWN reasons for justification, not the U.N.'s. You can't have it both ways.

You can't tell the U.N. "Too bad we're gonna do it anyways," and then later say, "Well, U.N. resolution says..." and expect to have any credibility.
Net Hack Slasher
Banger
Level: 100

Posts: 2016/2805
EXP: 10054246
For next: 300186

Since: 6.1.02
From: Outer reaches of your mind

Since last post: 3497 days
Last activity: 1917 days
#44 Posted on 6.3.04 2016.18
Reposted on: 6.3.11 2017.21
When I hear Bush saying "They could be a threat in the future", I keep thinking does he think he's Tom Cruise and this is the Minority Report?... You cannot arrest, convict and execute someone without there even being an act by that said person. If any other scenario you use the excuse of "what could be" with no real evidence you'd be laughed out of any court that has an ounce of credibility

The UN enforcement did work. Gawd Iraq put up little fight, their missiles had the aim of a toddler learning to potty train. If they had any major weapons they would have certainly used it when their country is invaded... UN was on Iraq back since the mid 90s and it shows as there weapons and equipment were ancient

The consequences of this America's First Strike might not be felt right now but will be felt in the future. Tension will grow even more there against the United States, Who cares about democracy when American bombs killed your family... Mistrust against the United States will grow even more, this was an example of taking away your weapons via declaration then going on your own to overtake said country, who's would disarm now. I'm sure they rather take their chances. And America can never go around and ask another country to hold off an attack on another one and ask for cooler heads to prevail when they themselves are so quick to attack someone without proper evidence.

Bottomline the military personnel who gave their lives deserved to know what they are putting their lives on the line and I'm sure most thought it was a just cause because Iraq can attack their beloved country at any moment and I'm sure more then a few believed that Iraq had a direct link to 9/11 (just look at the sayings written on some of the bombs). The 550 U.S military deaths alone and their families deserved better then being led to war thinking they died for one purpose but then it just turns out to be "Oh well that Saddam was not a very nice guy, so hey ends justify the means". Well no it doesn't.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1038/1528
EXP: 4044117
For next: 147031

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2737 days
Last activity: 2580 days
AIM:  
#45 Posted on 8.3.04 1230.18
Reposted on: 8.3.11 1230.51
    Originally posted by ThreepMe
    Hey Stagger...

    The point is...You can't justify this war using ANY U.N. resolution. (that's why I was playing Devil's Advocate)

    Why?

    Because we basically told the U.N. to go F itself. We did this on our own (with Britian).

    Now, IF the U.N. Security Council says, "Ok, Iraq is in violation of Resoultion XXX, and according to said resolution, we have the right to declare war on Iraq," THEN we would be justified. And if we never found the WMD's, it wouldn't be our mistake, it would be the Security Council's fault.

    But that isn't how it happened.

    The U.N. asked us to hold off. We acted independently.

    Therefore, we have to use our OWN reasons for justification, not the U.N.'s. You can't have it both ways.

    You can't tell the U.N. "Too bad we're gonna do it anyways," and then later say, "Well, U.N. resolution says..." and expect to have any credibility.


The U.N. said, basically, "If X, then Y."

X occurred.

The U.N. then failed to bring about Y.

Does this mean that the U.N. did not endorse Y as a result of X, or that the U.N. failed to live up to its own word?
SKLOKAZOID
Bratwurst
Level: 74

Posts: 660/1399
EXP: 3513172
For next: 140389

Since: 20.3.02
From: California

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
#46 Posted on 8.3.04 1308.48
Reposted on: 8.3.11 1310.19
International law pretty much clears us to go into Iraq. Ever since 1998 when they kicked out the inspectors, they were in violation of the terms that ended the Gulf War.

There is no doubt that we could do it.

We won't have to worry about France and Germany's armies coming after us any time soon. (HA!)

The question is more of a domestic one for Americans and other nations involved and whether going into Iraq was something we held a real interest in sending hundreds/thousands to their deaths for. We fought this war for the UN.

(edited by SKLOKAZOID on 8.3.04 1111)
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 506/641
EXP: 1093538
For next: 63588

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3609 days
Last activity: 3268 days
#47 Posted on 8.3.04 1344.09
Reposted on: 8.3.11 1344.12
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
      Originally posted by ThreepMe
      Hey Stagger...

      The point is...You can't justify this war using ANY U.N. resolution. (that's why I was playing Devil's Advocate)

      Why?

      Because we basically told the U.N. to go F itself. We did this on our own (with Britian).

      Now, IF the U.N. Security Council says, "Ok, Iraq is in violation of Resoultion XXX, and according to said resolution, we have the right to declare war on Iraq," THEN we would be justified. And if we never found the WMD's, it wouldn't be our mistake, it would be the Security Council's fault.

      But that isn't how it happened.

      The U.N. asked us to hold off. We acted independently.

      Therefore, we have to use our OWN reasons for justification, not the U.N.'s. You can't have it both ways.

      You can't tell the U.N. "Too bad we're gonna do it anyways," and then later say, "Well, U.N. resolution says..." and expect to have any credibility.


    The U.N. said, basically, "If X, then Y."

    X occurred.

    The U.N. then failed to bring about Y.

    Does this mean that the U.N. did not endorse Y as a result of X, or that the U.N. failed to live up to its own word?


Well, in this case...

The U.N. gets to decide the terms of X

and when they get to use Y as a solution (Y was not a finite variable, it's more like Y approx= Y)

regardless...

We used P and Q as our reasons for going there. Then to justify it, we tried (P,Q) = (X,Y)

But (P,Q) does not= (X,Y).

Now, are P and Q valid variables? Well, we're finding out that the answer is: "Maybe Not"

So, if you want to argue FOR the War in Iraq, then you need to support (P,Q) and not (X,Y).

Edit: The board doesn't support appox= or does not= symbols, had to change it.

(edited by ThreepMe on 8.3.04 1147)
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 139

Posts: 1040/6212
EXP: 32144442
For next: 323085

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#48 Posted on 8.3.04 1633.48
Reposted on: 8.3.11 1634.20
ThreepMe, apparently we just differ on one major issue, and that is, does a UN resolution mean anything. To say that we cant use a UN resolution for justifying war, but then saying that we can, but have to let the UN dictate what our actions should be just doesnt add up to me.

Iraq was clearly in violation of the cease fire agreement. Nobody can deny that.

1441 stated that if inspectors werent allowed in, and given full access, military action was available.

Iraq defied that as well.

The need to FURTHER justify this action was the only thing the US government was at fault with here. A dozen years of OTHER presidents not doing anything led so many people into thinking this HAD to be justified to the NTH degree beforehand, when the UN Resolutions did that job for them.
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 509/641
EXP: 1093538
For next: 63588

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3609 days
Last activity: 3268 days
#49 Posted on 8.3.04 1653.00
Reposted on: 8.3.11 1653.01
"To say that we cant use a UN resolution for justifying war, but then saying that we can, but have to let the UN dictate what our actions should be just doesnt add up to me. "

I never said that.

In any example where I was pleading the case FOR a U.N. resolution was purely hypothetical (and I think something to that effect was either stated or was in direct response to someone asking about it).

My definitive stance is: You cannot use a U.N. resolution to justify U.S. actions in Iraq.

You must justify U.S. actions using reasons that are valid to the U.S. only (being that we acted onour own).

In regards to allowing the U.N. to dictate what the actions should be was just in response to Palpatine's idea that if they allowed X and Y didn't happen......etc, etc.

My idea is that since it is the U.N.'s resolution, they get to determine what actions they get to take based on the wording of the resolution (I have read it myself and it never specifies EXACTLY what the reprocussions are to be if violations occur. I think this is due to them not wanting to be pidgeon-holed into HAVING to make certain actions (i.e. War) if the violation doesn't quite warrant such a drastic action).

Basically, in regards to the U.N. resolution side of this whole thing....It's their party and they'll cry if they want to.

Granted, we did take actions, so we need to justify it using OUR reasons. If you want to structure your argument FOR the war, then I suggest starting there.

"ThreepMe, apparently we just differ on one major issue, and that is, does a UN resolution mean anything."

It does if the U.N. orders the actions based on their own resolution. Going against the wishes of the U.N. (and the resolution they wrote) and then using their resolution as your justification is basically a vigilante mindset.

(edited by ThreepMe on 8.3.04 1456)
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 139

Posts: 1042/6212
EXP: 32144442
For next: 323085

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#50 Posted on 8.3.04 1831.37
Reposted on: 8.3.11 1831.58

    Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002

    The Security Council,

    Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

    Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

    Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

    Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

    Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

    Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

    Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

    Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

    Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

    Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein



Every resolution, including the Cease Fire one, has been breached, thus making it NULL and VOID. Meaning, the cease fire is no longer in effect. Meaning the USA had the authority, along with every other nation that signed on during the first Gulf War, to resume military operations.

Its cut and dry. Cant be much more simple to understand. I dont get why people seem the need to have MORE reasons other than the ones spelled out above.

Nate The Snake
Liverwurst
Level: 67

Posts: 995/1136
EXP: 2590438
For next: 2448

Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3656 days
Last activity: 3125 days
AIM:  
#51 Posted on 8.3.04 1852.15
Reposted on: 8.3.11 1852.22
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Its cut and dry. Cant be much more simple to understand. I dont get why people seem the need to have MORE reasons other than the ones spelled out above.




We didn't. And, apparently, Bush had been planning to go in since pretty much day one of his administration.

But apparently they (Bush's administration) felt like we needed more reasons, and came up with the smoke/mirrors/faulty intel WMD accusations.

None of this hoo-hah would have happened if they'd just come out and said from the start that they were going in because of violations of the UN resolutions. Hell, we most likely would have gotten a great deal more international support if we had. Instead someone brought up phantom weapons, which prompted calls for inspections, which forced Bush and Blair to try and push this patently ridiculous notion that Iraq, a nation that when their WMD program was in full swing could only come up with a missle that wasn't even accurate when fired at their own neighbors, was an imminent threat to the entire free world.

They had a perfectly good reason, and instead used a bogus one as their justification. How can anyone not wonder why they'd do something as pointless and divisive as that?
ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 975/1493
EXP: 3903835
For next: 102244

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 79 days
Last activity: 2 days
#52 Posted on 8.3.04 2247.14
Reposted on: 8.3.11 2249.05
    Originally posted by StaggerLee

      Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002

      The Security Council,

      Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

      Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

      Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

      Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

      Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

      Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

      Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

      Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

      Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

      Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein



    Every resolution, including the Cease Fire one, has been breached, thus making it NULL and VOID. Meaning, the cease fire is no longer in effect. Meaning the USA had the authority, along with every other nation that signed on during the first Gulf War, to resume military operations.

    Its cut and dry. Cant be much more simple to understand. I dont get why people seem the need to have MORE reasons other than the ones spelled out above.




Because, once again, the cease fire was not between the United States and Iraq, it was between the United Nations and Iraq. We are either operating within the framework of the U.N., or we are not. It can't be both. We can't just pick and choose which parts we want to respect, and dispense with the rest. If we wanted our own separate agreement, we should have gotten one.

Quite frankly, I don't think we should work within the framework of the U.N., because you get stuck with situations like Haiti. Our military is for defense of the country, and that's its only justified use. That's the case whether or not the U.N. votes to enforce a resolution, and whether or not Iraq had violated a resolution. No threat, no need for action.

What's funny is that I suspect that some of the people who are using the U.N. resolution for justification have no more respect for the organization as I do. If that's the case, why does ANYTHING involving the U.N. matter (and if it does matter, why does it not matter whether or not they authorize force?)

(edited by ges7184 on 8.3.04 2248)
wmatistic
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 23/2168
EXP: 6242057
For next: 150742

Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 69 days
Last activity: 16 hours
AIM:  
#53 Posted on 9.3.04 0821.30
Reposted on: 9.3.11 0824.27
    Originally posted by Nate The Snake
    We didn't. And, apparently, Bush had been planning to go in since pretty much day one of his administration.

    But apparently they (Bush's administration) felt like we needed more reasons, and came up with the smoke/mirrors/faulty intel WMD accusations.

    None of this hoo-hah would have happened if they'd just come out and said from the start that they were going in because of violations of the UN resolutions. Hell, we most likely would have gotten a great deal more international support if we had. Instead someone brought up phantom weapons, which prompted calls for inspections, which forced Bush and Blair to try and push this patently ridiculous notion that Iraq


I really don't believe Bush made up things about Iraq's WMD. Here's what I think to be the more likely scenario...just gimme a chance here.

9/11 happens. If you're president, you're pissed. You're screaming at the intelligence agencies asking for answers. You make sure they understand if they ever let something like this fly under the radar(no pun intended) again, there will be hell to pay. So now you've got all those guys running around, twitching at any little thing they find. They find something little, and let their minds wander to something bigger then report to Bush. I may be totally off, but it makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. More so than some conspiracy by Bush and Blair to lie to us.

So Bush goes on what he's given, and he's scared too of not acting before someone else screws with us because he knows it would be his ass on the line, and we go into Iraq.

Now we know(well we think we do) that Iraq wanted WMD's but either didn't get far enough to make them or hid them too well for us to find. Ok, so what other results have come from this? Less people have died in Iraq since we took over than would have living under Saddam. That's a good thing I think. Sure we lost American lives, but to me life overall is important, not just our men and women. We saved lives. That's a pretty good thing.

"Our military is for defense of the country, and that's its only justified use. That's the case whether or not the U.N. votes to enforce a resolution, and whether or not Iraq had violated a resolution. No threat, no need for action."

Wow, I so hate it when people take this isolationist line. It's never been a good idea in the past, so why should it be now? We are impacted by what the rest of the world does. Remember during WWII we didn't want to get involved either until our hand was forced. How smart would it have been for us to just let Hitler do what he wanted? No threat to us directly, right?

(edited by wmatistic on 9.3.04 0624)
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst
Level: 67

Posts: 996/1136
EXP: 2590438
For next: 2448

Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3656 days
Last activity: 3125 days
AIM:  
#54 Posted on 9.3.04 1949.29
Reposted on: 9.3.11 1955.59
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    I really don't believe Bush made up things about Iraq's WMD. Here's what I think to be the more likely scenario...just gimme a chance here.

    9/11 happens. If you're president, you're pissed. You're screaming at the intelligence agencies asking for answers. You make sure they understand if they ever let something like this fly under the radar(no pun intended) again, there will be hell to pay. So now you've got all those guys running around, twitching at any little thing they find. They find something little, and let their minds wander to something bigger then report to Bush. I may be totally off, but it makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. More so than some conspiracy by Bush and Blair to lie to us.

    So Bush goes on what he's given, and he's scared too of not acting before someone else screws with us because he knows it would be his ass on the line, and we go into Iraq.


If that's the case, that's a gigantic display of complete incompetance. Right after an intelligence failure of such massive proportions, panicking and leaping into a war over something like that (a country who hasn't had an actual WMD program in a decade suddenly becomes a major threat to world peace) without intense fact-checking is so negligent it should involve criminal charges no matter what the end result. And while things might be somewhat quieter there now (in spite of, you know, all the dying soldiers and whatnot) I still have a bad feeling that when it's all said and done we won't have done the Iraqi people any favors.

Plus, since things seem to be pointing to the Iraq campaign being planned well before 9/11 ever took place, I honestly don't think your scenario is the way it went down.

I don't know if it was an out-and-out lie, or not. I just have to question why (since they already had a perfectly justifiable and LEGAL reason to start shit up in Iraq again) they decided to use what has turned out to be at BEST highly questionable and completely unverified data as their smoking gun to start a war.
wmatistic
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 24/2168
EXP: 6242057
For next: 150742

Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 69 days
Last activity: 16 hours
AIM:  
#55 Posted on 10.3.04 0800.42
Reposted on: 10.3.11 0802.18
"If that's the case, that's a gigantic display of complete incompetance. Right after an intelligence failure of such massive proportions, panicking and leaping into a war over something like that (a country who hasn't had an actual WMD program in a decade suddenly becomes a major threat to world peace) without intense fact-checking is so negligent it should involve criminal charges no matter what the end result."

Well you're going a bit overboard there. We did know Saddam wanted WMD's and we have one report so far saying they can't find direct evidence of it since the last Gulf War. Wouldn't you think after that ass kicking Saddam would take extra steps to hide whatever he was doing? If he really did stop and destroy what he had, why did he not say that? Why not show us? Wouldn't that make a hell of a lot more sense than staying quiet, knowing it would mean us coming back? No, I think it's pretty clear the man was hiding something. Maybe not the huge stockpiles we first expected, but still.

"And while things might be somewhat quieter there now (in spite of, you know, all the dying soldiers and whatnot) I still have a bad feeling that when it's all said and done we won't have done the Iraqi people any favors."

Other than the saving of their lives and stuff considering they'll lose thousands less every year now that Saddam's gone.

"Plus, since things seem to be pointing to the Iraq campaign being planned well before 9/11 ever took place, I honestly don't think your scenario is the way it went down."

Whoa, things are most certainly NOT pointing to anything like that. We've had ONE person, OOOOONNNNEEEEE say they think Bush had this thing planned in advance. Some people have taken that and tried to run with it like it's fact. I'd like at the very least multiple witnesses or at best actual evidence before I start buying what one person throws out there.

"I don't know if it was an out-and-out lie, or not. I just have to question why (since they already had a perfectly justifiable and LEGAL reason to start shit up in Iraq again) they decided to use what has turned out to be at BEST highly questionable and completely unverified data as their smoking gun to start a war."

Well when you're in the position he was in, I can understand it. Especially if it was like I think and the intelligence agencies were a little nuts. Think about it. If they're telling you Saddam has all kinds of stuff and he's a huge threat and we gotta do something soon, then Saddam won't let you inspect anything, won't provide any evidence to the contrary, what else can you do to verify what you're being told??? I'm not saying it was a great way to do things, but I don't think the end results are all that terrible and I don't think Bush was purposely lying to us.
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst
Level: 67

Posts: 1000/1136
EXP: 2590438
For next: 2448

Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3656 days
Last activity: 3125 days
AIM:  
#56 Posted on 10.3.04 0956.21
Reposted on: 10.3.11 0957.02
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    Well you're going a bit overboard there. We did know Saddam wanted WMD's and we have one report so far saying they can't find direct evidence of it since the last Gulf War.


Wanting WMDs and having them are two completely different animals. All evidence points to Saddam essentially saying "boy howdy, as soon as these restrictions get lifted I sure am going to research me some weapons!" Which would have been, you know, never.

    Originally posted by wmatistic
    Wouldn't you think after that ass kicking Saddam would take extra steps to hide whatever he was doing? If he really did stop and destroy what he had, why did he not say that? Why not show us?


If he had them, wouldn't he have used them in the face of a massive military force swarming into his country hell-bent on removing him from power and/or killing him? If he had them, wouldn't he have used them after his SONS WERE KILLED? As belligerent and nasty a guy as he was, if he'd had the weapons he was supposed to have, he'd have used them if nothing else as a last resort.

    Originally posted by wmatistic
    Wouldn't that make a hell of a lot more sense than staying quiet, knowing it would mean us coming back? No, I think it's pretty clear the man was hiding something. Maybe not the huge stockpiles we first expected, but still.


Why not stay quiet? If there's nothing there and we come storming in after saying "screw you, world, we're the United States and we know best!" we come out looking like... well, exactly like we look right now: stupid and arrogant.

    Originally posted by wmatistic
    Other than the saving of their lives and stuff considering they'll lose thousands less every year now that Saddam's gone.


Until the next guy comes in, who may wind up just as bad if not worse. At least one of the guys who was lined up to be our personally-approved leader post-occupation was one of Saddam's buddies who decided to roll over on him when he saw the way things were going.

The way things are looking right now, Iraq's going to wind up looking a lot like many of the other nations in the Middle East in a few years - run by a fundamentalist, non-secular government and festering with resentment against the US. They may be better off in the short term right now, but considering our recent history with toppling regimes I don't hold out a lot of hope for it turning out better in the long run.

    Originally posted by wmatistic
    Whoa, things are most certainly NOT pointing to anything like that. We've had ONE person, OOOOONNNNEEEEE say they think Bush had this thing planned in advance. Some people have taken that and tried to run with it like it's fact. I'd like at the very least multiple witnesses or at best actual evidence before I start buying what one person throws out there.


Except, of course, that the Bush administration (not to mention Bush himself) has come out and said that there've been plans in the works since Clinton was in office to get Saddam out of power. In fact, Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfwitz, and several other people who have positions in the current administration were pushing for Hussein's toppling as far back as '96. Plus, the O'Neill story has been corroborated by at least one official in the Pentagon that I know of. (I'd do more digging but I've only gotten a few hours of sleep and am winding down rapidly, heh)

    Originally posted by wmatistic
    Well when you're in the position he was in, I can understand it. Especially if it was like I think and the intelligence agencies were a little nuts. Think about it. If they're telling you Saddam has all kinds of stuff and he's a huge threat and we gotta do something soon, then Saddam won't let you inspect anything, won't provide any evidence to the contrary, what else can you do to verify what you're being told???


Again, the idea that they went off intel from an agency that has just failed on a massive scale and was going "a little nuts" in the aftermath without being DAMNED sure that they were concrete fact, then ignoring evidence that directly contradicted said intel, makes the Bush administration look like complete and utter fools.

Think about it like this. You're playing the stock market, and your financial adviser fails to tell you about a big shake-up in a company you're investing in. As a consequence, you not only miss out on a chance to make a ton of money, you actually LOSE a ton in the process. A few weeks later that same person tells you he's got a sure thing, a really great investment. You go to another company to ask about it, and they tell you that the information they have is that this is a horrible idea that won't make you a dime. Do you:

A: Hold off on making that investment until your original adviser can prove that his sure thing will really pan out, or
B: Tell the other company to go fuck themselves and go with the guy who just cost you a ton of money anyway?
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 548/2690
EXP: 8758206
For next: 230613

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 20 hours
Last activity: 20 hours
#57 Posted on 10.3.04 1133.12
Reposted on: 10.3.11 1133.33
Does anyone remember the report a few months back. Just a blurb really that was never followed up on. n The jist was that Saddam was giving money to his WMD scientists for WMD's but they were pocketing it while pulling the wool over his eyes. May have been nubk since it died.

As far as Saddam not using them last March. In 1991, our diplomats informed Saddams's during talks right before the war that if he used them, we would level Iraq. He didn't use them. Similar situation last March? I don't know. I personally don't believe he had any, but if he did, it makes sense.
wmatistic
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 26/2168
EXP: 6242057
For next: 150742

Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 69 days
Last activity: 16 hours
AIM:  
#58 Posted on 10.3.04 1306.12
Reposted on: 10.3.11 1306.51
"If he had them, wouldn't he have used them in the face of a massive military force swarming into his country hell-bent on removing him from power and/or killing him? If he had them, wouldn't he have used them after his SONS WERE KILLED? As belligerent and nasty a guy as he was, if he'd had the weapons he was supposed to have, he'd have used them if nothing else as a last resort."

Um, no pretty sure he wouldn't. Cause that means we would use ours and Iraq would be a wasteland. He's crazy, but not stupid. Can't rule a country if it doesn't exist anymore.

"Why not stay quiet? If there's nothing there and we come storming in after saying "screw you, world, we're the United States and we know best!" we come out looking like... well, exactly like we look right now: stupid and arrogant."

Staying quiet meant we would come in and take him out of power. So he would lose his country. He would not have risked that if he really had nothing to hide. No way. And not everyone thinks we look that way.

Your post war Iraq is total and complete speculation with no evidence so it's not really worth talking about. For now they are much better off than they were. That's a fact.

The Bush administration has said we have been watching Iraq, likely knowing we would have to go back in since the Clinton administration because Saddam was clearly still hiding things. Even Bill Clinton has said yes we knew he was doing bad things and knew it would come to this and supported Bush in this effort. That's totally different than the way some are trying to spin this, like Bush is just CRAZY for war and had some devious plan to go in from the day he was born.

"then ignoring evidence that directly contradicted said intel, makes the Bush administration look like complete and utter fools."

Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen anywhere it says the Bush people looked directly at evidence to the contrary and ignored it. Maybe somebody, somewhere did, but you seem to want to pin this all on Bush no matter what. And your example fails as well because no one was saying the opposite of the intelligence Bush was getting. The UN was saying "well a while back we said we'd rate that as a strong buy the second it reached this level, and it has but now we don't want to".

Look we can go back and forth on this but there's no point. From some of your comments I think it's clear you really hate Bush and will take anything said and find a negative way to paint it on him and his staff. I'm not saying you're wrong, just giving my opinions on the matter, which clearly differ from yours. And I'm also not saying there haven't been mistakes made. I'm just not convinced Bush is a moron/the devil/trying to destroy our country like some others are and I don't see the war in Iraq as a bad thing.
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst
Level: 67

Posts: 1001/1136
EXP: 2590438
For next: 2448

Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3656 days
Last activity: 3125 days
AIM:  
#59 Posted on 11.3.04 0109.31
Reposted on: 11.3.11 0109.31
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen anywhere it says the Bush people looked directly at evidence to the contrary and ignored it.


Then what would you call the complete discounting of the findings of the UN inspectors? The party line was "OMG Iraq has weapons", the inspectors went in and said "We can't find any", the party line then became "STFU UN, we know better."

    Originally posted by wmatistic
    The Bush administration has said we have been watching Iraq, likely knowing we would have to go back in since the Clinton administration because Saddam was clearly still hiding things. Even Bill Clinton has said yes we knew he was doing bad things and knew it would come to this and supported Bush in this effort. That's totally different than the way some are trying to spin this, like Bush is just CRAZY for war and had some devious plan to go in from the day he was born.


Bush has been quoted that he "inherited a position of regime change" in Iraq when he came into office. More than a dozen people in his administration, including his VP and the Secretary of Defense, have wanted Saddam gone for years and have never hidden it. They wanted him out, plain and simple. Trying to pretend otherwise is ignoring the facts. I never said he was crazy-mad for war or anything else, I've just pointed out what's already been said.

    Originally posted by wmatistic
    Maybe somebody, somewhere did, but you seem to want to pin this all on Bush no matter what.
    Look we can go back and forth on this but there's no point. From some of your comments I think it's clear you really hate Bush and will take anything said and find a negative way to paint it on him and his staff.


Okay, that's just ridiculous. I'm no fan of Bush, but I don't think he's a moron, I don't think he's some kind of ultimate evil, and I'm not going out looking for ways to paint his administration in a bad light. I'm simply questioning the point of using intelligence gathered by an agency that had just allowed the single largest terrorist attack in history to slip under their radar as the justification for war... especially when they already had legal recourse to do it. It just makes no sense.
wmatistic
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 33/2168
EXP: 6242057
For next: 150742

Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 69 days
Last activity: 16 hours
AIM:  
#60 Posted on 11.3.04 0912.31
Reposted on: 11.3.11 0914.52
    Originally posted by Nate The Snake
    Then what would you call the complete discounting of the findings of the UN inspectors? The party line was "OMG Iraq has weapons", the inspectors went in and said "We can't find any", the party line then became "STFU UN, we know better."


How can you use the UN search before the war as evidence when they weren't allowed to search where or when they wanted?? They were being messed with by Saddam which only added to our suspicions. Why screw with them and not let them just search if you're not hiding anything?

    Originally posted by Nate The Snake
    Bush has been quoted that he "inherited a position of regime change" in Iraq when he came into office. More than a dozen people in his administration, including his VP and the Secretary of Defense, have wanted Saddam gone for years and have never hidden it. They wanted him out, plain and simple. Trying to pretend otherwise is ignoring the facts. I never said he was crazy-mad for war or anything else, I've just pointed out what's already been said.


Right, that's why I said "some" people rather than saying you. They, meaning the Bush administration, as well as the Clinton administration(for the most part) wanted Saddam gone. The people of Iraq wanted him gone. Tons of people around the world wanted him gone.

    Originally posted by Nate The Snake
    Okay, that's just ridiculous. I'm no fan of Bush, but I don't think he's a moron, I don't think he's some kind of ultimate evil, and I'm not going out looking for ways to paint his administration in a bad light. I'm simply questioning the point of using intelligence gathered by an agency that had just allowed the single largest terrorist attack in history to slip under their radar as the justification for war... especially when they already had legal recourse to do it. It just makes no sense.


Well I get what you're saying. At the same time you would expect as President that after their previous mistakes they would be damn sure before coming to you with something new. Or at least you would hope so, and considering they were the only ones who come to you with anything you're kinda stuck. I think what we can both agree on is this issue is mostly due to poor intelligence and I don't believe those agencies have been properly dealt with because of it. Tenet really should not still be in there. I mean fail once ok, fail what three times now? Yeah, bye bye.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2 3Thread 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
(1028 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 0.19 seconds.