[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[teal]

Scott Ritter (a previous inspector) was very active in saying that the Iraqi's did NOT have WMDs (or at least that they could not possibly be a threat to the U.S.). i.e. the point of view was out there that Iraq was not a threat well before the war. If Bush was not aware of these arguments how come? Isn't it his job to be aware of what is going on and the arguments pro and con? Being ignorant about the arguments is almost as bad as lying about them, to my mind far worse. If Bush was aware of the arguments and *if* they are later shown to be correct (as early indications are that they will) how come he didn't believe them? To my mind being biased against arguments that are later shown to be completely and utterly correct is also a troubling trait.

Ritter's speech in which he outlines his case is also quite interesting in another point. He says that just before the inspectors left the first time that the U.S. tried to assasinate Hussein. They did so by using the inspections as an intelligence gathering mission to try and pin down where he was and then nail him with cruise missles. So the inspections were a vital part of the U.S. assasination attempt. Now ask yourself this. The people you are dealing with have tried to kill you in the past and they have used inspections as a tool with which to make it easier for them to do so. Now do you cooperate fully with these people when they ask for inspections again?

Before people jump on me, this says *nothing* about whether such an assasination attempt was a good thing or not. It does however go a long way to explaining why a Hussein who did not have WMDs would still not cooperate fully with the inspections.

[Narrew]

ok, ok, if I remember my history

Englands PM Chamberlin (the appeaser) let Hitler build up his military (against the WWI treaty), take over Austria, well Hitler said it was not an invasion, it was bringing the german people home. It wasn't until it was too late that the Europeans figured that Hitler was a bad guy.

Many corralations here, the appeaser (the UN) let Hitler (Saddam) do many things against the resulotion that THEY passed but refused to enforce (and Iraq is not the only example of refusing to enforce resulotions). Hell the appeasers were in bed with Saddam, the Oil for Food was never ran the way it was supposed to be ran, and UN did nothing to right the wrongs their either.

About the Nukes, yes it was a joke, but Hitler didn't fund it like he did other things, he even didnt fund "Jets" because he thought the prop planes were good enough. If he had known what his jets were capable of and funded them much earlier, WWII would have been very different, if anything it would have taken years longer to finish.

When a bully is on the play ground beating on kids, sometimes someone needs to do the right thing and go take that bully down a notch or 2. Even if that someone gets suspended for fighting, the play ground is better off with the bully gone.

[Narrew]

Scott Ritter is a joke. Besides having a political axe to grind. At one point he was saying there were WMDs and now he says there are not. There are reports that he has received money (aka bribes). I have to go to class now, but I will look for those facts to back up what I say when I get home.

I am sure there have been many attempts on Saddam.

[tesco samoa]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/pr...455828,00.html

WMD is very important. Reguardless of what spin is placed on it.

As is the occupation of Iraq.

This coliation of willing who helped bring Iraq from Dictatorship to Anarchy have some members who are just as 'evil' to their own people. As is the eradication of western media to report the story and its corperate idology.

I have always felt that this war was a mistake. As it basically destroyed the international war on terrorism and all the positive gains from that concept.
I wish to thank everyone in this thread for helping me come to this conculsion.

I will still keep posting links to stuff I find interesting and reading peoples opinions and their links to articles of interest.
For it is very fasinating how we can read and read and read from all sides and all view points.

[kalthalior]

Tesco, I would agree with you that the WMD issue is very important -- and that the discussion about it is also very interesting.

From Rich Lowery:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists," the president of the United States warned. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

The secretary of state loyally followed this hard line, defending the U.N. sanctions on Saddam Hussein: "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Leveraging U.N. resolutions to support military action, the secretary of defense said: "The United Nations has determined that Saddam should not possess chemical or biological or nuclear weapons, and what we have is the obligation to carry out the U.N. declaration."

The officials argued that U.N. inspections weren't enough. "It is ineffectual; it is not able to do its job by its own judgment," the president's national security adviser said of the U.N. inspections regime. "It doesn't provide much deterrence against WMD activity."

The president's congressional loyalists stood behind him. "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction," said a prominent senator, sounding a familiar theme, "but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people."

"For the United States and Britain, an Iraq equipped with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons under the leadership of Saddam Hussein is a threat that almost goes without description," said another hawk, taking aim at the split in the international community. "France, on the other hand, has long established economic and political relationships within the Arab world, and has had a different approach."

Who were the political leaders who, according to critics of the Iraq war, perpetrated this fraud on the American people by making overblown warnings about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? Respectively, President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Defense Secretary William Cohen, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Sen. Tom Daschle and Sen. John Kerry. (BOLDFACE MINE)
They were all speaking in the late 1990s when Clinton bombed Iraq to "degrade" an Iraqi WMD capacity that we are supposed to believe disappeared in the inspection-free years that ensued, only to be resurrected as a false justification for war by the Bush administration.

The failure so far to find WMD in Iraq is a major embarrassment for President Bush, and congressional hearings into the intelligence prior to the Iraq War are welcome. But the post-Iraq debate shouldn't proceed on false pretenses: Everyone this side of famed Iraqi prevaricator Baghdad Bob believed that Iraq had WMD. In the run-up to the war, the United Nations, the "axis of weasel" (France and Germany) and high-profile Democrats all agreed about WMD.

The specific figures in Secretary of State Colin Powell's U.N. presentation about Iraq's unaccounted-for WMD came from U.N. inspectors. France and Germany didn't argue that Saddam had no WMD, but inspections could rid him of them. Clinton and Al Gore dissented from aspects of Bush's policy, but agreed about WMD. "We know," Gore said, "he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons."

The question was what to do about a dictator with ties to terrorism who for 12 years had defied the procedures set out by the world to confirm that he no longer had dangerous weapons. For the Bush administration, Sept. 11 meant erring on the side of safety, and so continuing to accept Saddam's denials and defiance wasn't an option.

As someone once warned: "This is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of the reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals. We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century." Even if the rhetoric was shrill, Bill Clinton had a point.

EDIT: I just found an interesting article about Paul Wolfowitz addressing a convention of North American Shia Muslims:
NY Post article

[ June 03, 2003, 20:47: Message edited by: kalthalior ]

[tbontob]

Originally posted by teal:
*If* I remember my history correctly...

In world war II justification for making nuclear weapons was that Hitler was making them. At end of the war is was discovered that Nazi nuclear weapons project was a complete joke. Then many people felt bad about making nuclear weapons, many other people felt good about it.

No point. I just find the parallel somewhat interesting to think about.

Yes, but I am not convinced it was a complete joke.

Apprently Germany was taking all the heavy water Norway could produce and wanted more. The allies knew this and feared that Germany would get the bomb first.

At war's end they discovered that Germany was not nearly advanced as they had thought.

I've also read that Germany's research program was somewhat chaotic. There was a tendancy to improve existing models of equipement rather than come up with completely new designs.

Also research projects would be started and then put on the backburner.

This changed in late 1942, but by then it was too late.

It was a change sponsored by necessity as their equipement was becoming increasingly out of date. For example, the Russian T4 sponored a major research program into new tanks.

Or the allies air superiority sponsored final research into the V1, V2 and the jet.

[Narrew]

kalthalior, nice link.

He described the reception for Wolfowitz as "very warm." He added: "We should thank the Bush administration for liberating the Shias of Iraq. I think Dr. Wolfowitz understands our viewpoint and our deep opposition to extremism. We were thrilled to have him attend and to hear his words."

Others, including non-Muslims, who attended the event were struck by the enthusiasm shown to Paul Wolfowitz. But Jafri put the emphasis in the right place: "The convention inaugurated a new period in the history of American Muslims, of heightened awareness of our responsibilities to the country we live in and hope for the future flourishing of Islam and democracy. At our convention next year, we would like to have President Bush as a guest."

And why did a story like this go unreported in the rest of our media?

The reason that this was not reported...Contary to belief, the majority of the US media is still biased to the left, and any information like this is just ignored by the anti war people (and anyone that has made their mind up). So, though it is very easy to copy/paste information that supports the anti war view it is very hard to find (in the media) positive information.

Its like the story of the boy yelling WOLF, but in this case we have the whole village yelling WOLF, while the boy is trying to explain that the wolf is actually a dog. But everyone in the village is unwilling to see the truth, because all they hear is the village people screaming.

I contend many of the anti war people are not held accountable for their spin. Yet expect the pro war people to be held to strict accountably. I will admit that is politics, and just the way things are.

An example would be the intellengce report that was found to be fabricated by the French. Then the colalition was crucifed for relying on it. Instead, one (a reasonable person) would wonder WHY France fabricated that report? WHY would a so called ally go out of their way to mislead us? Well, I didn't read any of the crucifiers apologizing or at least NAIL France to the same cross. Nope, nada...

[Narrew]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
As is the occupation of Iraq.

This coliation of willing who helped bring Iraq from Dictatorship to Anarchy have some members who are just as 'evil' to their own people.

Anarchy? How fast do you expect things to change?

I might be reading this wrong, and if so I apologise. It seems you are saying that there are members of the "Coliation of the Willing" who are just as evil as Saddam? If so, tell me who is more evil than Saddam? Who has killed millions of their OWN people? Who has put children in jail? Who has supported terrorism? Who has killed people because of their religion?

So if I am following you, you think that Saddam still in power would be a good thing. And if that is the fact, then I am glad I live in the world I live in and not yours. All Saddam had to do is say, come back in the country and I will prove to you that there were no WMDs and he would still be in power.

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
I have always felt that this war was a mistake.

And like many others that feel the same as you, there will be no amount of information that will change your mind.

Granted I am biased also. I also think we need to find those WMDs (but I will give them 6 more months) and help the Iraqi people get their goverment going, again it will take a long time (from what I have heard, min of 2 years) but I hope that there is some form of interm Iraqi control within 6 months.

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
As it basically destroyed the international war on terrorism and all the positive gains from that concept.

Um, how do you see that. Have you failed to see that North Korea are talking about concessions. The Saudi's starting to realize that supporting terror will bite them in the butt. That we have been catching the terorists before they strike? That perhaps the Arab countries will marginalize Arafat (about damn time if you ask me)?

True, there have been attacks, but I still see more positive things since the war on Iraq, than before the war. Back to the glass half full again.

[tesco samoa]

lets look at the Coalition's countries that have clean human rights records

Afghanistan , Albania , Angola , Azerbaijan , Colombia, Dominican Republic ,El Salvador , Eritrea ,Ethiopia ,Georgia ,Honduras ,Kuwait ,Nicaragua , Philippines ,Rwanda ,Turkey ,Uganda ,Uzbekistan

You did read me wrong. I believe they should have removed him in 90 when he was doing these mass killings..

And it is the information that has helped me think that the conflict was wrong. I have yet to see a reason why it was nessary.

The french asked for 3 more weeks....

Time will tell if this was correct.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tesco samoa:
As is the occupation of Iraq.

This coliation of willing who helped bring Iraq from Dictatorship to Anarchy have some members who are just as 'evil' to their own people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anarchy? How fast do you expect things to change?

I might be reading this wrong, and if so I apologise. It seems you are saying that there are members of the "Coliation of the Willing" who are just as evil as Saddam? If so, tell me who is more evil than Saddam? Who has killed millions of their OWN people? Who has put children in jail? Who has supported terrorism? Who has killed people because of their religion?

So if I am following you, you think that Saddam still in power would be a good thing. And if that is the fact, then I am glad I live in the world I live in and not yours. All Saddam had to do is say, come back in the country and I will prove to you that there were no WMDs and he would still be in power.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tesco samoa:
I have always felt that this war was a mistake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And like many others that feel the same as you, there will be no amount of information that will change your mind.

Granted I am biased also. I also think we need to find those WMDs (but I will give them 6 more months) and help the Iraqi people get their goverment going, again it will take a long time (from what I have heard, min of 2 years) but I hope that there is some form of interm Iraqi control within 6 months.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tesco samoa:
As it basically destroyed the international war on terrorism and all the positive gains from that concept.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um, how do you see that. Have you failed to see that North Korea are talking about concessions. The Saudi's starting to realize that supporting terror will bite them in the butt. That we have been catching the terorists before they strike? That perhaps the Arab countries will marginalize Arafat (about damn time if you ask me)?

True, there have been attacks, but I still see more positive things since the war on Iraq, than before the war. Back to the glass half full again.

[Andrés]

It's not a question of why WMDs haven't been found yet.
But if he had them, why didn't Saddam used them in his most desperate hour?
He may be as evil as you paint him, but he is no fool, he knew his troops couldn't defeat coalition forces by conventional means.
Wouldn't it have been good for him to use WMDs againt the invading forces? or retaliate if coalition countries were out of range at least at their nearer allies?
There were obviouly no WMD were it was "known" they were.
I grant that there's still a posibility that there's something that remains hidden. But something that can be so well hidden canot be a very big facility. And would probably need years of research before it can become an efective weapon.
A part of me believes that Bush's men attacked becasuse they feared no retaliation with WMDs.

And BTW I never understood why it's claimed that Saddam was willing to use the WMDs while other countries that have WMDs are not.
This has always been used as a known fact and as one of the justifications of the war. So please enlighten me.
And, no, saying he's used WMDs against his own people is two exagerated facts added up to make a biased lie. I'm not saying it was not brutal, but from his POV they were not his people but a rebel minority that seized some of the richest oil fields and threatened his country, and it's an exageration to talk about WMDs here.