Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
So, we went to war (now its a battle) with Iraq to rid the admittedly horrible Saddam of WMD, so where are they? Daniel Wolfowitz has come very colse to admitting that this was a lie. SO, why did we go to war with Iraq? No WMD's, no connection with Al Quida, no Bin Laden, We did'nt even get Saddam! So we won? We achieved our objectives? Which were? Maybe we did. Haliburtun got lots of multi-million contracts, and the oil will start to flow. And this wasn't about oil? And the Iraqis want us out, and want what I predicted, an Islamic theological state. Democracy would dictate that we give it to them - AND THEN WHAT?
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Well, hopefully I'll get more good ol' Iraqi oil for my new Hummer ;D
1 highway, 0 city.
;D
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
DC, i originally wrote out a long and boring response to this tired topic, but I summed it all down in these few words:
In the months/weeks prior to war, the same people who are now crying "where are they" and "so Bush, where are these wmd's? we want them now" blah blah and so on, were more than willing to give Hans Blix and the UN "inspectors" more and more and more time, over 15 months total to be exact.
And now, that the war is over, you aren't willing to give the military and current inspection team more than 1 freakin month before you start demanding immediate results.
If Hans Blix deserves 16 months, our military and current inspection teams also deserve some time. Not just 1 stinkin month.
The moral of the story: Patience
Quoting:
Well, hopefully I'll get more good ol' Iraqi oil for my new Hummer ;D
1 highway, 0 city.
;D
End Quote
yea, but she's a sweet sweet ride. :D
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030531/wl_mideast_afp/us_iraq_powell_030531004225
Interesting...
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Whether this war was for the better good, or misguided mistake won't be known for a few years and everything is sorted out. Yep, it was quick and with minimal casualties but the aftermath sure is ugly and it seems that there wasn't a good plan to get business and services functioning again. While the short term aftermath is clearly seen, it's to early to see the long term benefit or cost to the Iraqi state.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Oh, people don't care that we fought and one a war without finding the reason we were fighting. The important thing is we won, right? GO USA! WE ROCK!
Seriously, when has a war been over for a month without any kind of justification. Right now, our story is "Saddam was bad" and if it stays that way, I don't think history will look kindly on this war.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
In the UK, Tony Blair is coming under increasing pressure over this issue. His 'intelligence' was pretty much all lies. In the run up to the war, Tony went through several reasons, each one being found to be false or a lie.
It's not really a surprise that no WMDs have been found. That's why as soon as the war started, politicians started the job of shifting the reason to 'Saddam is bad'
We were told that Saddam could launch WMDs within 45 mins and was a threat to the world. In actual fact, he couldn't launch them within 6 weeks into his own territory.
Conclusion = Saddam has no WMDs!
The only question left must be, is Tony Blair criminally incompetant or just a lying, murdering war criminal?
IMO, no WMDs negates the UN resolution making the war illegal. The UK is obliged to hand over war criminals to The Hague where they can be tried and punished.
Incidentally, even though Bush will also be wanted for (more) war crimes, the US won't hand him over, being the only country in the world to fail to sign up to the war crimes treaty - make of that what you will!
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
One of very few times where I agree with 80srocked ;-) I think patience is called for: Iraq is a big country with lots of space to hide things.
But... there have been people reported as coming forward with information, but not listened to as there aren't formal inspection teams in place - looks to me like there is no great desire to look for WMDs at the moment, any search is incidental rather than truly investigative. Now this is (or should be) stupid: the threat of WMDs to countries or people outside Iraq was the only legal justification for this war. As time goes on, to say "we've not found any, but then we've not really been looking that hard" may be OK with the US electorate, but I predict it'll cause the fall of Tony Blair over here... I think Tao's being overly optimistic (pessimistic?) in the desire that any allied leader's going to be tried for war crimes, but he won't last as Labour party leader... unless a whole load of the Labour MPs suddenly lose their principles. Which isn't that unlikely, I guess: there does tend to be a shedding of principles if it looks like they'll cause a loss of power. But I don't see the Conservatives over here gaining a huge amount from this: their line was to support the US irrespective of the complete and utter bollocks they were trying to sell the world, so at best all they can honestly say is "we didn't believe it, but were prepared to go to war anyway". If people thought before they voted (and I mean actually used their brains, unpopular an idea as it may be), we'd have a LibDem government at the next election.
I seem to have strayed a bit... maybe I'd better stop there ;-)
Phil
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I think Tao's being overly optimistic (pessimistic?) in the desire that any allied leader's going to be tried for war crimes, but he won't last as Labour party leader.End Quote
Don't worry, I'm under no illusions about what will happen here. War crimes only go punished when those with military might find it convenient. British war crimes will simply be overlooked/spun and as noted in my previous post, the US believes it has the 'sovereign right' to commit war crimes.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Taoist, no offense, but I recall even weeks before the war began you were hell-bent on the whole "war crimes" thing. And you were determined(or perhaps eager to see) that Bush and Blair would be tried for war crimes.
War crimes? Its only been a month since the war ended, the search is on for the WMD's, the country is in the process of being rebuilt, the Iraqi people are free for the first time in nearly 30 years, etc etc etc, and you are still holding your sign saying "Bush and Blair are war criminals"?
My God man, give it a rest. ::)
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
and you are still holding your sign saying "Bush and Blair are war criminals"?
End Quote
They are war criminals, so is Henry Kissinger. But they will never stand before any court of justice. The victors write the rules. I just hope Henrey suffes a long and painfull illness before he meets is maker - in retribution for all those Timores, Chileans, Vietnamese and USians that died because of him. And 80s, I wish the same to Saddam by the way. And to every other SOB you can think of.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
If no WMD's are ever found to be/have been in Iraq, then I will liken the war there to the war in Kosovo. Remember that one? The public was told that as many as two hundred thousand Albanian civilians had been slaughtered... yet foreign observers who searched the country for mass graves after the war turned up less than 3,000 bodies.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
There's no doubt Iraq had WMD. They used them against Iran and against the Kurds. There just doesn't seem to be any evidence to suggest that there's any there now or at any time in the lead up to the invasion this year. Bush's rhetoric was that Iraq had to disarm itself of WMDs willingly, or be forced. At the moment, it appears that Iraq didn't have any WMDs, so the US-led invasion was in direct contravention of international law. Not only that, but if no weapons are found there, it means that the leaders of the coalition willingly and wilfully lied to their constitutents. Yes, politicians lie all the time, but this time the lie led to an invasion of a sovereign nation. That's a pretty big lie.
As to the Iraqi people being free, I guess in one sense that's true. They're free of the oppression of the Saddam regime. But until they have their own government, chosen and elected by Iraqi people without intervention from any foreign influence (the US included), until the infrastructure of their cities and towns is restored and their ecomony rebuilt, until fresh and clean water runs again and there's enough food to go around and until foreign troops withdraw and they truly have their country back to do as they will with it, they won't really be free. And that's a long way off.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
At the moment, it appears that Iraq didn't have any WMDs...End Quote
why? because they haven't stumbled onto them yet?
As of last week, there were over 600 sites that still remained to be searched, with more to come as Iraqi officials continue to defect. Something like this takes time!
Quoting:As to the Iraqi people being free, I guess in one sense that's true. They're free of the oppression of the Saddam regime. But until they have their own government, chosen and elected by Iraqi people without intervention from any foreign influence (the US included), until the infrastructure of their cities and towns is restored and their ecomony rebuilt, until fresh and clean water runs again and there's enough food to go around and until foreign troops withdraw and they truly have their country back to do as they will with it, they won't really be free. And that's a long way off.End Quote
Again, its only been little over a month.
Give it time!
A country is not rebuilt in 2 days, it takes time.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
I said "at the moment". Maybe they will find something. Eventually. One day.
But I ask you this: what if they don't? As a skeptic, I can't believe anything unless there's proof. Lack of proof is not proof in itself. So when WMDs are found in Iraq, when the means to deliver them within 45 minutes are found and when full sovereignty is restored there, then I'll be more inclined to believe the things we were told. Until then, I will continue to question the motives and reasons. And if I turn out to be wrong, I'll happily admit it, because that's part of being a skeptic too.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
They are war criminals, so is Henry Kissinger. But they will never stand before any court of justice. The victors write the rules. I just hope Henrey suffes a long and painfull illness before he meets is maker - in retribution for all those Timores, Chileans, Vietnamese and USians that died because of him. And 80s, I wish the same to Saddam by the way. And to every other SOB you can think of.
End Quote
Well, I hope he sticks around in the land of the living for a while. He talks funny! I always could do a mean Kissinger. He has one of the best impersonatable voices, right up there with Sean Connery, Jimmy Stewart, Clinton, and Bush Senior.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quick UK update
The government has decided there is no need for an independent enquiry in the WMD evidence, no surprises there ::)
Tony Blair has been offered a way out (as suggeseted by some US guy who is asking for an enquiry in the US). He could blame The US for misleading him.
I think he's out of a job at the next election regardless but it will be interesting to see if he cops the blame himself or if he stabs poor George in the back.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Lester - there's one big difference between Iraq and Kosovo: in Kosovo, the Serb minority was being helped out by Serbia. This made it the sort of international event the UN could legitimately stick its nose into.
Irrespective of what a ruler is doing to his own people, the UN charter explicitly says that sovereignty is to be respected: while there is an argument to change the UN's mandate to include something like a "humanitarian invasion" (which sounds rather oxymoronic to me), international law currently states that the UN or individual countries cannot simply march into another country based on a dislike of that country's regime. That's why the issue of WMDs is so critical: as I've said many times before, it's the only possible legal justification for the invasion - whatever you may think about the "liberation" of Iraq's populace, that is not a legal reason for invading.
Listening to the discussion on BBC radio this morning, it seems likely that the intelligence information was distorted, because the source of that intelligence was from Iraqis who wanted to see the invasion happen, so they said what they thought would cause it. Reckon it's guys like that who'll be the real winners in the end...
Phil
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
My local paper carried an opinion piece by Paul Krugman of the New York Times titled "Lies are standard operating procedure". http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/columns
VERY interesting
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Okay, so we haven't found anything yet. We know for a fact that Iraq HAD WMD's. They were ordered to destroy them. Now, I don't remember there being any proof found that the weapons HAD been destroyed (correct me if I'm wrong) other than a videotape showing one missile being dismantled.
Just a question, what would you all think of the war IF there was a huge stockpile of WMD's found? OR, proof that they had been destroyed a few days before the war started (as has been suggested by some Iraqi officials)?
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
Just a question, what would you all think of the war IF there was a huge stockpile of WMD's found?
End Quote
I'd start thinking that maybe I could start trusting our leaders again... once it had been proven that the WMDs hadn't just turned up there
Quoting:
OR, proof that they had been destroyed a few days before the war started (as has been suggested by some Iraqi officials)?
End Quote
I'd find it very hard to believe that Saddam complied with the UN resolutions at the last minute and kept it secret - I mean, what would the point have been in destroying the things without telling anyone?
Phil
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
When did the war officially "end"? I want to keep track of how we've gone without finding anything.
P.S. I'll gladly eat my words if I'm proved wrong. I'd be more than happy to have justification.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Taoist, DC, John, you guys are so amazing. ::)
Let me type this again, since obviously you missed it the first several times:
Something of this magnatude takes time!
If you were willing to give Hans Blix over a year to search, you must be willing to give the military and current inspection team more than one month.
Hopefully you will all read this and get it this time around, I'm getting tired of typing it.
PS- I'm fairly certain a few of you actually hope they don't find any wmd's, just so you can say "see I told ya so...". ::)
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
Taoist, DC, John, you guys are so amazing. ::)
Something of this magnatude takes time!
If you were willing to give Hans Blix over a year to search, you must be willing to give the military and current inspection team more than one month.
End Quote
Actually, 80's, I did read it the first time. In the year that Hans Blix was looking, he found nothing. So now our military inspectors can skip the places Hans searched. In other words, Iraq has been being searched for OVER a year, Hans' year and since Saddam fell. AND STILL NO SOAP. In addition to the article I mentioned above, you might also want to refer to Paul Wolfowitz's recent statements with regard to WMD.
And then there is the recent case of the guy detained at LAX for trying to bring a protractor, compas, and slide rule onto a plane. He was arrested for carrying weopons of math distruction ;)
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
In the year that Hans Blix was looking, he found nothing. So now our military inspectors can skip the places Hans searched. In other words, Iraq has been being searched for OVER a year, Hans' year and since Saddam fell. AND STILL NO SOAP. End Quote
not quite that simple. ;)
The UN "inspections" were a joke to say the least. When Hans and his prestige team of "inspectors" were over there, they were looking only in places the Iraqi officials allowed them to look.
In other words, hmmm, if I know an group of inspectors are coming to my house to look for illegal items, well let's see, what am I going to do before they get there? Perhaps, move the illegal items out of my house and clean up all traces of evidence? It doesn't take a genius to figure out how flawed the UN's "inspections" process was. That is why so many people, inlcuding myself, knew the UN was not accomplishing anything over there when they could only go where Saddam and his group allowed them to.
However, NOW that the military and a new team of inspectors has taken over the search, they aren't being led around on a wild goose chase by Saddams' followers leading them to empty buildings that may have been cleaned up the night before. And again I stress the time issue, as of last week there were over 600 new sites to search, with more to come as ex-Iraqi officials continue to defect.
I recall a story during the UN's "inspections" where they had to skip an entire facility that was on that particular day's schedule, because the Iraqi guard on duty said he lost the key to the doors. I am not making this up. If I can find a link to the story I will gladly post it. But this proves how utterly flawed and useless the UN "inspections" process was when Saddam was there.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
not quite that simple. ;)
The UN "inspections" were a joke to say the least. When Hans and his prestige team of "inspectors" were over there, they were looking only in places the Iraqi officials allowed them to look.
In other words, hmmm, if I know an group of inspectors are coming to my house to look for illegal items, well let's see, what am I going to do before they get there? Perhaps, move the illegal items out of my house and clean up all traces of evidence? It doesn't take a genius to figure out how flawed the UN's "inspections" process was. That is why so many people, inlcuding myself, knew the UN was not accomplishing anything over there when they could only go where Saddam and his group allowed them to.
However, NOW that the military and a new team of inspectors has taken over the search, they aren't being led around on a wild goose chase by Saddams' followers leading them to empty buildings that may have been cleaned up the night before. And again I stress the time issue, as of last week there were over 600 new sites to search, with more to come as ex-Iraqi officials continue to defect.
I recall a story during the UN's "inspections" where they had to skip an entire facility that was on that particular day's schedule, because the Iraqi guard on duty said he lost the key to the doors. I am not making this up. If I can find a link to the story I will gladly post it. But this proves how utterly flawed and useless the UN "inspections" process was when Saddam was there.End Quote
The UN inspectors were also a little frustrated over the wild goose chase the American government was leading them on with their false information.
http://www.wcco.com/topstories/topstories_story_051201318.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,970331,00.html
Paul Wolfowitz made some more comments regarding the war.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
The UN inspectors were also a little frustrated over the wild goose chase the American government was leading them on with their false information.
http://www.wcco.com/topstories/topstories_story_051201318.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,970331,00.html
Paul Wolfowitz made some more comments regarding the war.
End Quote
Thanks Chaser. I read similar stuff in my local paper.
This is for 80's Rocked: So, now how do you defend this illeagal and immoral act of aggression? Your own Dudes and admitting that they were lying. Are you willing to defend a lie? As I and others said before this started, "its about the oil". You said it wasn't. Now, your good buddy Wolfowitz says it was. Comments?
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
Thanks Chaser. I read similar stuff in my local paper.
This is for 80's Rocked: So, now how do you defend this illeagal and immoral act of aggression? Your own Dudes and admitting that they were lying. Are you willing to defend a lie? As I and others said before this started, "its about the oil". You said it wasn't. Now, your good buddy Wolfowitz says it was. Comments?
End Quote
That's pretty damning, and it's certainly not good for the pro-war argument. But it doesn't prove anything. The guy admitted that oil was an ulterior motive for the war. He did not say that the stated motive of WMD was a false pretense. He did not say oil was the only factor in the decision to go to war. The threat of Saddam may have been exaggerated for the purposes of oil; I'd be very surprised if that was not true, in fact. But it doesn't mean that everything they said was a complete lie, or that Saddam wasn't a world threat.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Three words:
Burden of Proof
Any claim must bear this. If a doctor says she can cure all known diseases, she must be able to prove it before her claims can be recognised by science. If a detective claims someone is a murderer, he must prove it before he can put that person in prison.
If one country accuses another of having weapons of mass destruction, that country must prove it before they invade. Not a week later. Not a month later. Not years and years later. They must prove it first. America has not done this.
You can stonewell and obfusticate all you like and say "Blix didn't find anything, the UN inspectors were a sham, duped, led by the nose, blah blah blah" and that might be true. You can say "It's only been a month since the war ended" blah blah blah... BUt the fact is the US should have proved Iraq had weapons before they invaded. They didn't. They couldn't. But they invaded anyway. That makes the invasion illegal.
By the way, I'm pretty sure that, officially, the war isn't over. If it was, Iraqi POWs would have to be released. That they haven't would say to me that the war in Iraq is still taking place.
NB: The burden of proof is on the party making the claim, not the party the claim is made against. If I'm accused of murder, I technically don't prove my innocence. It's up to the courts to prove that I did it. The same applies with Iraq. It wasn't up to them to prove they had nothing, it was up to their accusers to claim they did.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
Three words:
Burden of Proof
Any claim must bear this. If a doctor says she can cure all known diseases, she must be able to prove it before her claims can be recognised by science. If a detective claims someone is a murderer, he must prove it before he can put that person in prison.
If one country accuses another of having weapons of mass destruction, that country must prove it before they invade. Not a week later. Not a month later. Not years and years later. They must prove it first. America has not done this.
You can stonewell and obfusticate all you like and say "Blix didn't find anything, the UN inspectors were a sham, duped, led by the nose, blah blah blah" and that might be true. You can say "It's only been a month since the war ended" blah blah blah... BUt the fact is the US should have proved Iraq had weapons before they invaded. They didn't. They couldn't. But they invaded anyway. That makes the invasion illegal.
By the way, I'm pretty sure that, officially, the war isn't over. If it was, Iraqi POWs would have to be released. That they haven't would say to me that the war in Iraq is still taking place.
NB: The burden of proof is on the party making the claim, not the party the claim is made against. If I'm accused of murder, I technically don't prove my innocence. It's up to the courts to prove that I did it. The same applies with Iraq. It wasn't up to them to prove they had nothing, it was up to their accusers to claim they did.
End Quote
While this high judicial standard applies in what most of us would describe as "civilized" nations, it does not apply in many nations we call friends - like Saudi Arabia, or Chile under Pinochet (get the point Bitter?)
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
(get the point Bitter?)
End Quote
Was this really necessary?
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
While this high judicial standard applies in what most of us would describe as "civilized" nations, it does not apply in many nations we call friends - like Saudi Arabia, or Chile under Pinochet (get the point Bitter?)
End Quote
Agreed, but I was referring to the United States, the greatest, richest and most powerful civilization that has ever existed, and apparently the most just.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
This subject has been in the news lately - again. I read today that John McCain (R-Arizona) wants the senate to hold hearings. GO JOHN ;D
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
I found an article today arguing very strongly that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I link it here because I like playing devil's advocate and, in my opinion, Don Carlos has been winning the argument so far.
A Plot to Deceive?
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
in my opinion, Don Carlos has been winning the argument so far.
A Plot to Deceive?
End Quote
I wouldn't call it winning, but rather a matter of people tired of arguing this over and over and over and over..., especially with people like DC, who refuses to see it any way but his.
There's arguments and points supporting both sides of the issue, and at this point, 99% of it is either based on the person's bias who is reporting on it, or just plain speculation.
Time will tell. ;)
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
My belief is that the Iraqi government acted rather suspiciously during the months leading up to the war, suggesting that they had WMDs.
However, being the objective thinker I am (::)) I believe that if there were intelligence snafus and if the administration has been lying to us all this time, Bush and Blair should be impeached (or whatever they do in UK) and tried for war crimes. I don't like being lied to.
But for now, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and hoping that they will find some evidence, and maybe in the coming months they can "leak" more intelligence to the public. Now that the situation is done with I think the public has a right to know what the government knows about this whole WMD mess.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I believe that if there were intelligence snafus and if the administration has been lying to us all this time, Bush and Blair should be impeached (or whatever they do in UK) and tried for war crimes. I don't like being lied to.End Quote
The key word there is: if.
I just am so ticked that so many of the people who were more than willing to give Hans Blix over a year to do ridiculous and Saddam-led "inspections" aren't willing to give the military the same amount of time to search without the Iraqi Officials leading them to empty buildings and cleaned facilities.
If its officially found that they made it all up (as DC is praying for ::)), then by all means, carry out the war crimes spiel and all that.
BUT, until then, give it time. it may take days, weeks, or even many months. But I am confident weapons were there, as are many others, and evidence will be found. Sorry Don Carlos. ;)
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I just am so ticked that so many of the people who were more than willing to give Hans Blix over a year to do ridiculous and Saddam-led "inspections" aren't willing to give the military the same amount of time to search without the Iraqi Officials leading them to empty buildings and cleaned facilities.
End Quote
Amen to that. It is a little ridiculous. Hans could only go where Saddam would let him. Gee, what do they think he would find. Give the army time to search...Iraq is a big place.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
I think you're missing the point.
It's too late!
Doesn't the US have laws regarding illegal searches?
The invasion of Iraq was Illegal, Period!
No evidence will retrospectively change that, it would be tainted anyway as anything could be planted by the US.
In civilised societies, evidence should be presented before punishment is dished out.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
It was our duty to prove Saddam had the weapons. Since we couldn't do that before the war, the war was illegal. It doesn't matter that Saddam made a mockery of the inspections. It doesn't matter. We still have a duty as a civilized nation to abide by international laws set up by the UN (which was our idea in the first place!)
You can't execute a man who you are pretty sure commited horrible murders. You have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. We didn't do that. Simple as that.
Did you know that I was almost right wing following Sept. 11? Yep. I was part of the 90% approval rating. I supported attacking the Taliban (great job of reconstruction there, boys!). I even wanted war against Iraq. Then I found out that Saddam actually had no connection to Al Qaida and we decided to make up a reason to go to war. You could say that Bush made me the leftist that I am.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I think you're missing the point.
It's too late!
Doesn't the US have laws regarding illegal searches?
The invasion of Iraq was Illegal, Period!
No evidence will retrospectively change that, it would be tainted anyway as anything could be planted by the US.
In civilised societies, evidence should be presented before punishment is dished out.
End Quote
Yep, they've missed the point. Or ignored it. If the cops invaded their home on suspicion of having drugs without a warrant, smashed the place up, bashed them and locked them in prison and found nothing, would they then go "Oh well, I guess they'll find something on me eventually"? Surely not.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
I just can't imagine what you, in the "other" parts of the world, are thinking about a country that would spend tens of millions of dollars investigating their president, find nothing on him except that he lied about something that millions of men all over the world lie about every day, and then spend more millions, not to mention the congress' precious time, impeaching him for it. And then when the next president and his "war council" lie to the world in order to justify invading a sovereign nation, they tout theirselves as some kind of "couquering heros". I hope, when you say "they", Gore, that you're not lumping all of "us" into that "they".
So much for my "never discussing politics" personal credo, huh? ::)
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
If the cops invaded their home on suspicion of having drugs without a warrant, smashed the place up, bashed them and locked them in prison and found nothing, would they then go "Oh well, I guess they'll find something on me eventually"? Surely not.
End Quote
Beautifully put, GR: can I quote you on that?
Phil
PS It's just crossed my mind that there are some people out there who would see just such action by police as evidence that someone was guilty...
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I hope, when you say "they", Gore, that you're not lumping all of "us" into that "they".
End Quote
Not at all. I was referring to the people here who keep overlooking the point we're trying to make, and that is (in case it still isn't clear) if you CLAIM a country has weapons of mass destruction, you need to PROVE THEY ACTUALLY STILL HAVE THEM before you invade -- not months later.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
Not at all. I was referring to the people here who keep overlooking the point we're trying to make, and that is (in case it still isn't clear) if you CLAIM a country has weapons of mass destruction, you need to PROVE THEY ACTUALLY STILL HAVE THEM before you invade -- not months later.
End Quote
I knew that (you weren't lumping "us" all together) before I asked. Thanx for responding though.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
1. Ir
aq Arms Report Mishandled, Blair Aide Concedes in Letter (NY Times; reg. required)
2. Bush Aides Deny Effort to Slant Data on Iraq Arms (NY Times; reg. required)
3. Captiv
es Deny Qaeda Worked With Baghdad (NY Times; reg. required)
4. Oil War (Charleston Gazette)
5. Briti
sh postwar approach provides model for U.S. (USA Today)
6. Basra protest against British presence (BBC)
7. Child sickness "soars" in Iraq (BBC)
8. Transcr
ipt, speech by George W. Bush, 3.18.2003 (CNN)
9. The Saddam in Rumsfeld's Closet (CommonDreams)
It is, in the end, heartbreaking. As the justifications for war tumble, one by one, it is a challenge to celebrate at this point the newfound freedom for the people of Iraq.
Yet a dictator has fallen.
And when we strip away the ill-clad justifications for warfare, as Blair (1) and Bush (2) move to handle the collapse of the WMD scam; as Wolfowitz touts the motivation of Iraqi petroleum (4); as connections to Al Qaeda (3) never really fooled anybody but the most desperate, we find that the best reason to go forward was that a dictator could fall. Perhaps the lesson will be learned in the future: do not nurture dictators (9).
It is quite obvious that a tyrant is not motivation in and of itself, is not plague enough upon the Earth to stir the United States to action. But a tyrant in the way of oil ... now that needs to be handled immediately.
And with the North Korean juxtaposition ... you know, I understand that you don't rush to beat the heck out of someone who can hit you back really really hard. Maybe that's why selling snake oil Bush style just isn't a good idea. Any other president would have the minimal integrity to put some effort into lying. Of course, any other president could spell "integrity".
Who's going to take Iraq's place on the Blacklist? er ... I mean, the Axis of Evil? But even the praise of the British (5) is wearing off (6).
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
Quick UK update
The government has decided there is no need for an independent enquiry in the WMD evidence, no surprises there ::)
Tony Blair has been offered a way out (as suggeseted by some US guy who is asking for an enquiry in the US). He could blame The US for misleading him.
I think he's out of a job at the next election regardless but it will be interesting to see if he cops the blame himself or if he stabs poor George in the back.
End Quote
Tone? Out of a job? I wish...
This failed barrister hasn't even got the job he wants yet - King, sorry, President of Europe...
...and as for copping blame - when was the last time you saw a politician (especially a UK one) copping blame? Surely not in their vocab, that one!
Let buck-passing commence!
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
What does Tony Blair do if he's peeing himself - He hides behind a Bush.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I found an article today arguing very strongly that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I link it here because I like playing devil's advocate and, in my opinion, Don Carlos has been winning the argument so far.
A Plot to Deceive?
End Quote
Its been a while since I have been here - sailing and loving it, loving and sailing it - Sooo.
Everyone knows that Saddam HAD WMD's, and used them - no question - and he had them during the Clinton administration. But the more recent accounts, as quoted in the story, say things like "no evidence that they were destroyes". Well, isn't it the responsibility of the prosecuter to prove quilt, rather that of the accused to prove innocence? Or does that standard only apply in U.S. criminal cases? And as to "bacterial growth media", the company my sister works for probably has as much of it in their petri dishes as Iraq has. I seriously doubt the DPC. Inc is planning on developing WMD's. This is an interesting article, that raises serious issues, but it certainly isnt a vindication of Mr. Bush. It skillfully combines history with the present to leave an impression, and so is a skillful piece of editorial wreiting, but certainy NOT conclusive.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
The key word there is: if.
I just am so ticked that so many of the people who were more than willing to give Hans Blix over a year to do ridiculous and Saddam-led "inspections" aren't willing to give the military the same amount of time to search without the Iraqi Officials leading them to empty buildings and cleaned facilities.
End Quote
This is just inacurate, and an inacuracy that 80's has repeated several times. During the first inspection regime it WAS accurate. There were places, such as Saddam's palaces, that Blix's team was not allowed to go. After the return of U.N. inspectors that wqas no longer the case. I remember news footage of them rolling into a palace, fertilizer plant, etc unannounced, being admitted, and carrying out their search. Still to no avail. They had complete access, without prior notice, and they used it. So I think its about time we get away from calling the last inspection regime inept. IMHO it was sabotaged and cut short because if it had continued, little Georgie wouldn't have gotten the war he needed to distract us from the lose of jobs, the stupid tax cut, the attack on the environment, and the gutting of services for the elderly, children, and veterans. THAT'S why Blix was cut short. Little Georgie needed a war, and the oil.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I wouldn't call it winning, but rather a matter of people tired of arguing this over and over and over and over..., especially with people like DC, who refuses to see it any way but his.
(/quote]
But then, 80's, I could say the same about you, and I support your right to maintain your belief. But acctually, I HAVE considered other points of view. I have rejected them, but I have considered them.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I wouldn't call it winning, but rather a matter of people tired of arguing this over and over and over and over..., especially with people like DC, who refuses to see it any way but his.
End Quote
Sorry to make this observation 80's, but that's the worse case of "the pot calling the kettle black" that I've witnessed in a long time.
And while I'm at it......can anyone tell me why before "Operation Desert Invasion" started, Dubya had used the term "Weapons of mass destruction" so much that he took to saying "W-M-D". But now, I haven't heard him use the term ONCE in all the "excuse speeches", saying how a congressional investigation into whether "false intelligence reports" were used in justifying invading Iraq, would be "politically motivated".
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
And while I'm at it......can anyone tell me why before "Operation Desert Invasion" started, Dubya had used the term "Weapons of mass destruction" so much that he took to saying "W-M-D". But now, I haven't heard him use the term ONCE in all the "excuse speeches", saying how a congressional investigation into whether "false intelligence reports" were used in justifying invading Iraq, is "politically motivated".
End Quote
That's a very good observation, Dude. I'm not so stupid and hell-bent in my ways that I didn't notice that either. And frankly, it's rather disturbing.
I still say give them some time to figure it out, but being a situation of this magnitude, I think they need to disclose the so-called intelligence to Congress and to the public now and stop hiding in the bushes so to speak.
On the other hand, we don't have to worry about Saddam anymore, so hey, break a few eggs... ;)
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
The question is: Did we ever have to worry about him? If he had no WMD's... well?
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
And in the latest news...Mr Bush and corp. are getting ready to hand CIA Director George Tenet out to dry. Any scaprgoat to protect Mr Bush. And they tries to impeach Clinton over a B. J. I guess this proves my senior civic teacher in high school right. "Tell a big enough lie and people will believe you." If any president should be impeached, its Mr Bush, the lying little turd.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
The question is: Did we ever have to worry about him? If he had no WMD's... well?
End Quote
This answer is totally unrelated to the war. Yes, I think we would have had to worry. He would have obtained them or biological warfare. The man is insane and therefore very irrational.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
He didn't seem too keen on fighting us. Sounds pretty rational to me.
The thing is, you can't punish someone for what they might do. You have to punish them for something they did do. Saddam didn't do anything, and so far we haven't proved that he had anything.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I just am so ticked that so many of the people who were more than willing to give Hans Blix over a year to do ridiculous and Saddam-led "inspections" aren't willing to give the military the same amount of time to search without the Iraqi Officials leading them to empty buildings and cleaned facilities.
If its officially found that they made it all up (as DC is praying for ::)), then by all means, carry out the war crimes spiel and all that.
BUT, until then, give it time. it may take days, weeks, or even many months. But I am confident weapons were there, as are many others, and evidence will be found. Sorry Don Carlos. ;)
End Quote
Once again, if weapons/programs was the justification for invasion, they should have been discovered before war was declared. You can't execute a man first, then find him guilty.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
Once again, if weapons/programs was the justification for invasion, they should have been discovered before war was declared. You can't execute a man first, then find him guilty.
End Quote
I respect your point.
However let me paint this scenario:
If you are a police officer (Bush/America/FBI/CIA/various International Intelligence Agencies) and recieve intelligence reports over a multi-year basis pointing to evidence that an estranged psychotic mass murderer (Saddam) across town (Iraq) might be plotting to kill you and your family (America), not to mention the possibility of gaining an arsenol of illegal weaponry to do so, do you just sit back and wait for it to happen? Hoping day to day that it deosn't? Or do you make the first move to prevent it?
Persoanlly I don't want to get into a big argument about this, as it has been literally ran into the ground on these boards.
But as you make make a good point, I think the opposition to your point has a valued argument as well.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I respect your point.
However let me paint this scenario:
If you are a police officer (Bush/America/FBI/CIA/various International Intelligence Agencies) and recieve intelligence reports over a multi-year basis pointing to evidence that an estranged psychotic mass murderer (Saddam) across town (Iraq) might be plotting to kill you and your family (America), not to mention the possibility of gaining an arsenol of illegal weaponry to do so, do you just sit back and wait for it to happen? Hoping day to day that it deosn't? Or do you make the first move to prevent it?
Persoanlly I don't want to get into a big argument about this, as it has been literally ran into the ground on these boards.
But as you make make a good point, I think the opposition to your point has a valued argument as well.
End Quote
You might think so, but your opinion flies in the face of every concept of justice and jurice prudence that we hold dear. Suppose that your paranoid schitosophrenic neighbor gets it in his head that you are conjoring against him. According to your logic, he would have the right to burst into your home with an AK-47 and blow you way - you represented a threat to him, real or imagined. That's what we did in Iraq and there are no two way around it. And no jury would free him because you also beat your wife (I'm not implying that you do or did - its just an analogy).
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
The thing is, you can't punish someone for what they might do. You have to punish them for something they did do. Saddam didn't do anything, and so far we haven't proved that he had anything.End Quote
The trouble with punishing someone after they've dropped a nuclear bomb on you is that you are not alive to give the punishment.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
The trouble with punishing someone after they've dropped a nuclear bomb on you is that you are not alive to give the punishment.
End Quote
If that's the case than maybe the US and Brits should have invaded a country that actually has a nuclear program (North Korea), instead of fabricating evidence and invading a country that doesn't (Iraq).
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
John Holmes had one...didn't he :-X
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:If that's the case than maybe the US and Brits should have invaded a country that actually has a nuclear program (North Korea), instead of fabricating evidence and invading a country that doesn't (Iraq).
End Quote
I think someone should have done something about Korea if they were irrational but I thought the US solved their differences with them.
With Iraq, they certainly have a grudge to bear and if remained undetected in any way, would do to the world what it has done to it's own people.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Oh Donny boy, were you in the war? Didin't think so! So where do you get we from? You people crack me up!
Know who really cracks me up? Those unemployed dirty looking people who demonstrate. Heres a clue, Take a bath and get a job.
Tim
RATT-n-ROLL
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I respect your point.
However let me paint this scenario:
If you are a police officer (Bush/America/FBI/CIA/various International Intelligence Agencies) and recieve intelligence reports over a multi-year basis pointing to evidence that an estranged psychotic mass murderer (Saddam) across town (Iraq) might be plotting to kill you and your family (America), not to mention the possibility of gaining an arsenol of illegal weaponry to do so, do you just sit back and wait for it to happen? Hoping day to day that it deosn't? Or do you make the first move to prevent it?
Persoanlly I don't want to get into a big argument about this, as it has been literally ran into the ground on these boards.
But as you make make a good point, I think the opposition to your point has a valued argument as well.
End Quote
Thank you for the measured response.
Unfortunately, by the same logic you have expounded here, someone on 'the other side' could call for a war against the United States on the basis that they have intelligence to believe that America is about to begin purging militant Islamists, then launch a series of attacks against her before she gets the chance to do so.
And that's what we would call "terrorism".
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
Unfortunately, by the same logic you have expounded here, someone on 'the other side' could call for a war against the United States on the basis that they have intelligence to believe that America is about to begin purging militant Islamists, then launch a series of attacks against her before she gets the chance to do so.
And that's what we would call "terrorism".
End Quote
Waitaminute waitaminute! So you're actually equating the USA with terrorism now? Because from what I read here you are putting the USA's actions to rid the world of terrorists on the same moral level as the terrorists who are trying to blow innocent women and children up!
I don't care what position you have in this war, that's just not an appropriate comparison. Not at all.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I don't care what position you have in this war, that's just not an appropriate comparison. Not at all.
End Quote
Why not?
Sorry Rice, but you've just put across the US opinion, I'm sure Al-Quaida/Iraq can say the same thing with roles reversed.
You seem to assume the US position is correct and everyone else is wrong.
I'm not going to list all examples of US terrorism but just because your politicians tell you your actions are righteous, that doesn't make it so.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
I think, instead of war, that Saddam, Bush and the rest of the political leaders should have a game of Snakes and Ladders or something.
That's more practical.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
Why not?
Sorry Rice, but you've just put across the US opinion, I'm sure Al-Quaida/Iraq can say the same thing with roles reversed.
You seem to assume the US position is correct and everyone else is wrong.
I'm not going to list all examples of US terrorism but just because your politicians tell you your actions are righteous, that doesn't make it so.
End Quote
Alright, I see where you're coming from, and I never claimed that the USA was holier-than-thou in my post...but let me ask you this now...if you have a choice between helping out the USA to weed out terrorists OR getting bombed or ricined by said terrorists that you seem to be trying to defend, which would you prefer?
Because it seems to me that you have a different set of priorities and moral equivalency than I do.
Quoting:
I think, instead of war, that Saddam, Bush and the rest of the political leaders should have a game of Snakes and Ladders or something.
That's more practical.
End Quote
I say they play paintball ;) That hurts more, and then maybe they'd be a little less eager to engage in an actual battle after feeling the stings of the paintballs collapsing against their skin :D
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:I say they play paintball ;) That hurts more, and then maybe they'd be a little less eager to engage in an actual battle after feeling the stings of the paintballs collapsing against their skin :D
End Quote
Nice one, Rice Cube! Make 'em sting, that's what I say.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
And where was our Mr. Bush during the war he might have served in? We all know that the little draft dodger was in the Texas (!????) National Guard, AWOL for a good part of the time (probably snorting coke), and out of harm's way. A GREAT warrior and a GREAT war hero. The man really had cojones.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
Waitaminute waitaminute! So you're actually equating the USA with terrorism now? Because from what I read here you are putting the USA's actions to rid the world of terrorists on the same moral level as the terrorists who are trying to blow innocent women and children up!
End Quote
I'm not equating anything with anything. I was merely pointing out the hole in 80s' logic and merely suggested that either side can use the same justifications. That's why it is imperative that nations like the US follow the law, and not become a law unto itself -- it's setting a bad example.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
That's a very good observation, Dude. I'm not so stupid and hell-bent in my ways that I didn't notice that either. And frankly, it's rather disturbing.
I still say give them some time to figure it out, but being a situation of this magnitude, I think they need to disclose the so-called intelligence to Congress and to the public now and stop hiding in the bushes so to speak.
End Quote
I only just now had the chance to read your response. Please, Rice, tell me that "hiding in the bushes" was one of the worlds great Freudian slips, and that you didn't mean it that way! Hiding in the Bush's? Is that what you were going for here? ;D
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I'm not equating anything with anything. I was merely pointing out the hole in 80s' logic and merely suggested that either side can use the same justifications. That's why it is imperative that nations like the US follow the law, and not become a law unto itself -- it's setting a bad example.
End Quote
IMHO the U.S. HAS been involved in state sponsored terrorism in the not too distant past. In fact, our current President's father, as Veep, was directly involved in supporting "death squads" in El Salvador, in financing the Contra army in Nicaragua, and in suppling Saddam Hussain with WMD's in his war against Iran. Not to mention our continuing support for Isreal, even though it is violation of zillions (I exagurate) of U.N. resolutions pertaining to settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. We don't call any of this "terrorism" because we did, and are doing it. That makes it "foreign policy". Terrorism is what the other guys do. Sorry for being so cynical.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I only just now had the chance to read your response. Please, Rice, tell me that "hiding in the bushes" was one of the worlds great Freudian slips, and that you didn't mean it that way! Hiding in the Bush's? Is that what you were going for here? ;D
End Quote
I meant it ;) Just because I'm a registered Republican doesn't mean that I'm boneheaded enough never to question my leaders. And you should know me well enough by now that I have a wry sense of humor.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I meant it ;) Just because I'm a registered Republican doesn't mean that I'm And you should know me well enough by now that I have a wry sense of humor.
End Quote
Good for you!
And I love your wry, or is it rye, ;) sence of humor! ;D
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I meant it ;) Just because I'm a registered Republican doesn't mean that I'm boneheaded enough never to question my leaders. And you should know me well enough by now that I have a wry sense of humor.
End Quote
I do (know you well enough)! ;) Just thought it was great enough to warrent being posted a second time for those who missed it. ;D
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I say they play paintball ;) That hurts more, and then maybe they'd be a little less eager to engage in an actual battle after feeling the stings of the paintballs collapsing against their skin :D
End Quote
I reckon an on-line Quake fragfest (with a virtual map of Iraq as the battlefield)... that way everyone can fight for their country, and die as many times as they like. You'd need a pretty serious server to cope with 0000s of connections, but that would cost much less than just one tank, helicopter or whatever.
Phil
PS I must say this has been by and large a much more cogently (and less heatedly) argued thread than the ones at the start of the year.. maybe time has cooled tempers a bit.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I reckon an on-line Quake fragfest (with a virtual map of Iraq as the battlefield)... that way everyone can fight for their country, and die as many times as they like. You'd need a pretty serious server to cope with 0000s of connections, but that would cost much less than just one tank, helicopter or whatever.End Quote
I like that idea!
But let's make "camping" and "sniping" a war crime, because that annoys the HELL out of me!
And while we're at it, let's ban the rail gun too...I used to play with a friend who was a rail gun w-hore (apparently I can't say that :P) and I swear I was gonna break him...mrrrrrr >:( ;D
Quoting:
Phil
PS I must say this has been by and large a much more cogently (and less heatedly) argued thread than the ones at the start of the year.. maybe time has cooled tempers a bit.
End Quote
...and yet another triumph for Zoloft and Valium 8) Or maybe they've just had lots of sex lately, it being spring/summer and all ;D
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
But let's make "camping" and "sniping" a war crime, because that annoys the HELL out of me!
End Quote
...and send Hans Blix in to look for the Quad Damage/BFG ;-)
...and I guess you have to make spectators vulnerable, too
(I'm really getting into this idea :-))
Phil
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
...and send Hans Blix in to look for the Quad Damage/BFG ;-)
...and I guess you have to make spectators vulnerable, too
(I'm really getting into this idea :-))
Phil
End Quote
HAHAHA! Hans Blix couldn't find an armor shard to save his life ;D
So would the "spectators" be considered civilian casualties? I wonder if they can pick up some weapons and be those suicide bomber/sniper dudes.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
So would the "spectators" be considered civilian casualties?
End Quote
That's kind of what I was thinking
Quoting:
..suicide bomber..
End Quote
Philbo baggins has tripped on his own grenade
;-)
Phil
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Oh, this reminds me...have you ever played a guy called "some_a$$hole" or "his_stupidity"?
Because when you get fragged, it says something like "Rice Cube was killed by his_stupidity" or "Rice Cube ate some_a$$hole's rocket".
If you have ever played this guy, chances are it was my friend Watt ;)
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
When I played multi-player on Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, I often went by the name "A_cute_little_bunny_rabbit". So it would read "Deathkiller had his brains blown out by A_cute_little_bunny_rabbit"
It was also funny when I got killed.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
HAHAHA! Hans Blix couldn't find an armor shard to save his life ;D
End Quote
How do you know this? are you a weapons expert? If Blix is so incompetent than why was he the chief UN weapons inspector? Facts? Evidence? Or just opinion based on Georgie's exaggerated "intelligence" claims? This is what I would call "character assasination". Rice, you can do better!
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
I don't know why everyone is ragging on Hans. We haven't found anything yet and we don't have the Iraqi government getting in our way.
Sometimes I can't find my wallet and I was the one that put it on the dresser top. Lay off Hans. We don't even know if there are WMD's. Maybe there was nothing to find.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I don't know why everyone is ragging on Hans. We haven't found anything yet and we don't have the Iraqi government getting in our way.
Sometimes I can't find my wallet and I was the one that put it on the dresser top. Lay off Hans. We don't even know if there are WMD's. Maybe there was nothing to find.
End Quote
The more the evidence - or lack of it - piles up, the more it becomes apparent that GWB and friends lied to us. In today's paper, an annonomous "State Dept. Intellegance Expert" testified to Congress that he was pressured to make his reports conform to the administration line". Some Constitutional scholars believe that "contragate" was worse that Watergate. This is worse than contragate, IMHO.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
And now its July 2, and still no WMD. And without "blowing my own horn" all that I predicted before the Iraqi WAR is working out. U.S. troops (and Brits) are getting killed on an almost daily basis. The Shi'its want a theocracy. Anti-U.S. feelings are up almost everywhere. And we didn't even get Saddam. Man if this is victory, I'd hate to see defeat (or de feet)
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Yeah, well, I was hoping I was wrong. I would have liked the Iraqis to have kept waving the US flag and adopt democracy, unfortunately it seems like the left might be right (ha ha).
Perhaps we'll get a reality check after this. We can't go around forcing people who don't think like us to think like us.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
In a topical bit of self-publicity, did you have a look at my Brotherhood of Man parody It Sounds Like Bull... to Me?
Phil
PS
Quoting:
And without "blowing my own horn"
End Quote
I can't do that, either: just not supple enough ;-)
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
An interesting analysis of the Iraqi situation in this morning's paper by Geogre Jaeger, retired senior foreign service office.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/Columns/Article/67972.html
The gist is that Little Georgie blew it. We were totally unprepared to get things going after we knocked out Saddam, and we are paying the price. Is 26 U.S. dead so far, since "the end of hostilities"?
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Thanks for posting the link DC. Jaeger reinforces virtually every fear I had about the invasion since before it began. There's been so much pressure on the administration to find their smoking gun they're ignoring the economic and humaniarian angles of the Iraqi reconstruction. If the US was to restore the nation properly, the world would eventually forget Bush lied about why Iraq was invaded. The way it stands now, the whole endeavour is going to become far more embarassing than Vietnam ever was. It's clear that the current American strategies in Iraq aren't working. The burning question now isn't whether there are or ever were WMDs in Iraq, but whether America can save some face and build something positive out of the mess they've created.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
I seem to remember Bush saying last year (?) or so that "we (the U.S.) are not into nation building." or something to that effect. That is quite obvious but the U.S. is really good at nation distroying.
Cat
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
Thanks for posting the link DC. Jaeger reinforces virtually every fear I had about the invasion since before it began. There's been so much pressure on the administration to find their smoking gun they're ignoring the economic and humaniarian angles of the Iraqi reconstruction. If the US was to restore the nation properly, the world would eventually forget Bush lied about why Iraq was invaded. The way it stands now, the whole endeavour is going to become far more embarassing than Vietnam ever was. It's clear that the current American strategies in Iraq aren't working. The burning question now isn't whether there are or ever were WMDs in Iraq, but whether America can save some face and build something positive out of the mess they've created.
End Quote
I'm not sure I agree with you on this one GR. To label your "burning question" would you accept "nation building"? If so, then see Cat's reference to Bush's canpaign statement (from a debate I think - if memory serves) about it.
We need to look at that concept, I would propose, from two perspectives. We could think about it as one country (the U.S.) offering to assist another country (for argument's sake Cuba) build itself along lines that satisfy its politics, its culture and its values without reference to ours. In the process we might even encourage that country's leaders to consider copying some of our practices and/or institutions, or offering constructive critizisms of theirs. To do so they would have to trust that we respected their sovereignty and their independence, and would refrain from any attempts to force our will on them. Just to give a Cuban example, we would need to stop demonizing both Fidel and the Cuban Communist Party. We would need to recognize that they DO hold periodic, open (in which both party members and non-members can run for office at all levels. As of the last election, the national assembly was majority non-members. Can't report on provincial or municipal assemblies) elections under their constitution. We would have to acknowledge that Cuba has chosen a path different than our in order to realize results different than those pursued by our society. In brief, that would be "nation Building model 1"
"Nation building model 2" is quite different. As has been said of Iraq, we want to replicate something like our "pluralist" capitalist and secular "democracy". But wait! Democracy means rule by the people. I would bet $$$ to doughnuts that the majority there would favor some sort of theocracy with the religious leaders holding the final say. Maybe not like the Taliban, but certainly along the lines of Iran. This is the outcome I predicted before the WAR, and is an outcome that neither the administration nor I would like to see. But the alternative is to impose our values and our form of government on a society that is not conditioned, by either history or culture, to accept it. This is the kind of nation building that I think, in the long run, is bound to fail. We westerners need to recognize that 1, we do not rule the world, 2 that we can't make it over in our own image, and 3, that it is arrogant to try.
The history of empires - all of them from anchient times to the present - I think demonstrates this.
I appreciate the humanism and optimism of your reply - I really do - I share your humanistic concerns and hopes. I'm sorry I can't share your optimism.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
A friend of mine just sent this to me...apologies if it's been around the block...
Better do it quick before Google catches on...
Go To Google
Type In "Weapons Of Mass Destruction"
Hit the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button
...and see what comes up!
Hope that's none too controversial - I know feelings run high on this - just the sort of thing that makes me grin...
Amended just in case Google have caught on...
Or just go straight to:
http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Very, very funny Paul.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
Or just go straight to:
http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
End Quote
Mwahahahahahaah!!!!!!!!!!! Lovely...
Many thanks for that
Phil
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
First time through, I missed it - not reading, just looking at the format. VERY funny, and oh so true.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Sorry Tony/George, your crimes just won't go away!
No weapons, still!
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
It's starting to look obvious what's happened: Saddam did have a mass destruction programme, in which he destroyed his WMDs en mass...
or something like that
Phil
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
If the cops invaded their home on suspicion of having drugs without a warrant, smashed the place up, bashed them and locked them in prison and found nothing, would they then go "Oh well, I guess they'll find something on me eventually"? Surely not.
End Quote
In all fairness it's a lot easier to find some drugs on someone's person or in their house than it is to search an entire country.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
IMHO the U.S. HAS been involved in state sponsored terrorism in the not too distant past. In fact, our current President's father, as Veep, was directly involved in supporting "death squads" in El Salvador, in financing the Contra army in Nicaragua, and in suppling Saddam Hussain with WMD's in his war against Iran. Not to mention our continuing support for Isreal, even though it is violation of zillions (I exagurate) of U.N. resolutions pertaining to settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. We don't call any of this "terrorism" because we did, and are doing it. That makes it "foreign policy". Terrorism is what the other guys do. Sorry for being so cynical.
End Quote
I'm glad Don Carlos brought this up, because a lot of people seem to think America is some sort of overwhelming moral force in the world. :-/ :)
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I reckon an on-line Quake fragfest (with a virtual map of Iraq as the battlefield)... that way everyone can fight for their country, and die as many times as they like.
End Quote
Funny you should say that. I had a dream i was fighting in Iraq and it looked like a Q2 map - and there were Storm Troopers running around. ??? What was most confusing was i was fighting on the side of the Coalition. :-/ :-[ The war took about half an hour (all the Iraqis were dead :-/ ) and our commander (or whatever, i have no clue about military titles) said something like 'Right, well done. On to Syria!' :P
:)
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I'm glad Don Carlos brought this up, because a lot of people seem to think America is some sort of overwhelming moral force in the world. :-/ :)
End Quote
Which it is not and never has been. Anyone remotely familiar with U.S. history knows that.
And still NO WEAPONS
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
A friend of mine just sent this to me...apologies if it's been around the block...
Better do it quick before Google catches on...
Go To Google
Type In "Weapons Of Mass Destruction"
Hit the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button
...and see what comes up!
End Quote
LOL. :D That's ace! I nearly closed the window cos i thought it was just an ordinary error message :P ::)
Don't see any reason why Google would take it down though.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
What struck me about both wars (Afghanistan and Iraq):
In the first war, they said 'Right, we have to go in to Afghanistan to get Osama and the rest of Al-Qaeda - We'll just change the regime while we`re here.' and granted, they got some Al-Qaeda members but a lot of them are still at large and they didn't get Osama.
In the Iraqi war, they said 'Right, Saddam, Weapons of Mass Destruction, let's invade and oh - while we`re here we`ll change the regime'...and i don't want to annoy 80sRocked again, personally i agree with him - if you want to find WMDs you have to give it time - but so far no luck and we don't know where Saddam is, which was the alternative reason for the war.
:-/
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
I think that all of this is Bush's Weapons of Mass DISTRACTION! ;)
Cat
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Got to admit, i like these plays on words you Americans come up with. The distraction one was one of them. Another one i like is Bin Forgotten...there was a third one but i forget.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I think that all of this is Bush's Weapons of Mass DISTRACTION! ;)
Cat
End Quote
As in "distracting the masses", but it's working less and less as the death toll mounts. Several more killed over the last few days - one guy shot in the head while drinking a soda at Bagdad U. But they REALLY love us over there, after all, we're the liberators.
I posted this before but it's still funny:
A guy was stopped from boarding a plane because he was carrying a compass a protractor, and a slide rule. He had weapons of math destruction. ;)
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
In all fairness it's a lot easier to find some drugs on someone's person or in their house than it is to search an entire country.
End Quote
This was an analogy. Of course it's easier to find drugs on someone than to find hidden weapons over an entire country. My point was that you need to find them, and you need to find them before you find someone guilty, not after.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
and i don't want to annoy 80sRocked again, personally i agree with him - if you want to find WMDs you have to give it time - but so far no luck and we don't know where Saddam is, which was the alternative reason for the war.
End Quote
80sRocked wants to see Bush vindicated, which is why he chants the "give it time" mantra. But before the war was declared, he was the first one here to decry the UN's "give it time" mantra and say that time had run out. If time had run out for the UN, how long before time runs out for the US? The US has more people on the ground there now than the UN ever did, and they're no longer restricted as to where they can look, but they still can't find squat. It's not that they haven't found enough evidence. They've found nothing whatsoever. If weapons were there, you'd think they would have found something at least in this time.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
I don't think these weapons will ever be found. I think the whole "weapons inspectors" deal was a big farce anyway. It was like the cops calling up a drug dealer and saying "Ok...we'll be coming over around next Tuesday to bust you for drugs, will that be alright? Just have all your drugs laid out in the garage and we'll get this straightened out in a jiffy. Thanks man." ::)
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I don't think these weapons will ever be found. I think the whole "weapons inspectors" deal was a big farce anyway. It was like the cops calling up a drug dealer and saying "Ok...we'll be coming over around next Tuesday to bust you for drugs, will that be alright? Just have all your drugs laid out in the garage and we'll get this straightened out in a jiffy. Thanks man." ::)
End Quote
Indeed. And if Iraq flushed their weapons down the toilet before the inspectors got there, they were hardly going to rush straight out and get more as soon as they were gone now were they? So they probably didn't have any weapons to find, and if they didn't have any weapons to find, we're back to the original argument, aren't we? :)
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
I think it's important to remember, we were told, not only did Saddam have these weapons, but he was an immediate threat to the world. History will record that he couldn't even threaten enemy soldiers invading his own country.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
I think it's important to remember, we were told, not only did Saddam have these weapons, but he was an immediate threat to the world. History will record that he couldn't even threaten enemy soldiers invading his own country.
End Quote
This is one of the most significant statements yet posted here about this issue. If Saddam could attack us within 45 minutes, why didn't he as soon as he knew he was under attack?
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Here in the UK Tony Blair told the British people that Iraq definitely had the weapons and gave the impression that he knew where they were from intelligence reports.
He also said that the weapons could be launched in 45 minutes which is the subject of great controversy over here given that the weapons can't be found and you can't launch what you haven't got. It's also said that the threat was deliberately exaggerated to increase the justification for the war.
It's also further complicated by Rumsfeld's statement that they may never be found, which is also true if they were never there in the first place.
The belief that Saddam had these weapons stems from the fact that he had them in 1991, not on recent surveillance intelligence fom American spy satellites or from American agents in Iraq. The information given to the British Parliament was from old 1991 reports and some info was 'lifted' from the internet.
Though it's generally felt that the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam the fact that the American and British people have been deceived as to the threat posed has caused the integrity of our leaders to be questioned. Was it just done to get the oil? Were weapons of mass destruction just an excuse to invade in pursuit of that aim? Were the lives of American and British soldiers sacrificed unnecessarily because the value of oil was worth more than their lives?
If everything was so well planned, how come they didn't seal the borders to prevent Saddam escaping? What did they find in the tunnels under the presidential palaces in Baghdad? Why was Comical Ali, the Iraqi Information minister able to hide out in Baghdad when a British newspaper published his location? What happened to all the other high ranking officials on the 'wanted' list?
In the UK there are too many unanswered questions and the government is refusing to have a fully independent enquiry into the matter. The feeling is that the government has something to hide.
Only time will tell.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Yes in Britain, there is a big conflict involving Tony Blair and The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation - TV Channel). The BBC are questioning Tony Blair's integrity.
I don't know too much about this though, maybe another British person can fill in the blanks?
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
There's an extra dimension to the Government/BBC spat: I was reading in the new issue of Private Eye how the reporter in question (Andrew Gilligan), once a researcher for a Labour MP, has got himself into Alastair Campbell's bad books before; also that his journalism has not always been the beacon of truth one might expect...
Phil
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
The BBC are questioning Tony Blair's integrity.
End Quote
I think most of the country (if not most of the world) are questioning TB's integrity.
This is hardly surprising, anyone who paid attention to what he said knows he's a liar!
The WMD issue is not the whole of it, the British people were led a merry dance regarding Iraq. TB gave several explainations for why we needed a war, as each one was proved to be false, he simply moved to the next one.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
TB gave several explainations for why we needed a war, as each one was proved to be false, he simply moved to the next one.
End Quote
...as did GWB.
Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Quoting:
Indeed. And if Iraq flushed their weapons down the toilet before the inspectors got there, they were hardly going to rush straight out and get more as soon as they were gone now were they? So they probably didn't have any weapons to find, and if they didn't have any weapons to find, we're back to the original argument, aren't we? :)
End Quote
Saddam DID have WMD's before the first invasion. They were supplied by the U.S. to aid him in his war against Iran. After the Bush I war, he was ordered to destroy them. Apparently he did. He apparently "flushed them" as required by the U.N. resolutions. So there was no threat after they were flushed.