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

[deccan]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
From what I have seen on the news, the search hasn't found much. Does this mean the components aren't there? No; nor does it mean that they are there, nor does it mean they never were there, nor does it mean many other things, especially because I've also read a news report where a member of a US search team was criticizing the methods he had been ordered to use. Mind you, the news in my area is severly slanted and not too terribly reliable, so that should be taken with a health dose of salt. If my assumptions aren't valid, then neither are most of my possible conclusions. I personally have no method by which to be certain on the subject. I have suspicions, but that is all they are, when it comes down to it.

By and large, I agree with Jack Smith's reasoning. I agree that it was reasonable for the various governments to assume that Iraq had / might still have WMDs. I'd like to point out that even France didn't claim that Iraq was free of WMDs.

A more significant point of contention was whether or not the supposed WMDs were a credible, imminent threat to the United States. I'd say that claiming that they were would be stretching the truth.

[Loser]

Originally posted by oleg:
We must revenge - I'm not American but I DO remember my anger 2y ago - The right solution would be to seek out true villians and invade SA, but that would be too expensive economically (oil and stuff).

In yet another situation I just have to say "It's not about the oil, man."

Can't invade Saudi. Too close to Mecca. Not the ground you want to get blood on.

[Erax]

Great article Tesco. Following its links I came to this other article which pretty much sums up my views on Iraq, the US and the world.

A few excerpts which I would agree with :

"Television news may become a more powerful operational weapon than armored divisions."

"Ideally, the enemy's military is simply irrelevant to the terrorist."

"Terrorists use a free society's freedom and openness, its greatest strengths, against it. They can move freely within our society while actively working to subvert it. They use our democratic rights not only to penetrate but also to defend themselves. If we treat them within our laws, they gain many protections; if we simply shoot them down, the television news can easily make them appear to be the victims. Terrorists can effectively wage their form of warfare while being protected by the society they are attacking. If we are forced to set aside our own system of legal protections to deal with terrorists, the terrorists win another sort of victory."

"hostile forces could easily take advantage of a significant product of television reporting — the fact that on television the enemy's casualties can be almost as devastating on the home front as are friendly casualties."

This is why I believe that the current methods for fighting terrorism may not work; although I do not claim to have the answers. No one does.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Here are some pictures that someone emailed to my wife. They really touched me, putting a human face on the soldiers that are deployed.

Soldier and Kitten.jpg
Prayer Circle.jpg
Low Five.jpg
Cradling.jpg
Letter from Home.jpg

This isn't a political statement about whether we should be there or not, nor am I trying to convince anyone of anything. I just wanted to share a little of the human side of the situation.

[tesco samoa]

Erax it is a double edged sword.

Take Northern Ireland.

Take IRA and Gilbrater

Take 4 SAS men.

They believed that there was a bomb about to go off so they killed the 4 marks.

They basiaclly lost their careers over the issue.

The problem with fighting terrorism is that if you want a police action against them which falls within the laws ( due to the fact it is close to home, if it was very far away , say far east, central asia all gloves are off ) use the police.

If you want to take the terrorists out. The Groups like the SAS must be free to opperate.

The decision makers must be responsible if something goes wrong ( which may be public opinion ), not the soldiers.

As there caught in a catch 22.

Failure to follow an order can result in Treason charges and jail upwards to death.

Follow an order and if it draws public fire. Then the soldier is held accountable not those who set the policy.

[tesco samoa]

A interesting interview with Dr. Krugman.

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002170.html

I do not know enough about economics to add to it.

But I did read it. And thought it was worth passing on.

There is mention of A.Sullivan Does anyone have any good interviews with this gentleman ??

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by deccan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
From what I have seen on the news, the search hasn't found much. Does this mean the components aren't there? No; nor does it mean that they are there, nor does it mean they never were there, nor does it mean many other things, especially because I've also read a news report where a member of a US search team was criticizing the methods he had been ordered to use. Mind you, the news in my area is severly slanted and not too terribly reliable, so that should be taken with a health dose of salt. If my assumptions aren't valid, then neither are most of my possible conclusions. I personally have no method by which to be certain on the subject. I have suspicions, but that is all they are, when it comes down to it.

By and large, I agree with Jack Smith's reasoning. I agree that it was reasonable for the various governments to assume that Iraq had / might still have WMDs. I'd like to point out that even France didn't claim that Iraq was free of WMDs.

A more significant point of contention was whether or not the supposed WMDs were a credible, imminent threat to the United States. I'd say that claiming that they were would be stretching the truth.

---

The real problem that you are missing is that most of the 'components' of both chemical and biological weapons are useful in countless civilian industries. You have the 'components' of chemical weapons under your kitchen sink and/or in your garage. With the recent advent of bio-engineered organisms as 'pesticides' you might even have bio-weapons in your garage. Who's to say whether a pesticide (chemical or bio) plant is going to be retooled in one day to make 'human' pesticide instead of insect pesticide? This is just the most obvious case. There are scores of other manufacturing processes that use the same toxic chemicals that you would use to make chemical weapons. It takes manufacturing experts a lot of serious study of the equipment to recognize signs that certain manufacturing equipment is setup for 'dual use' and then the UN had to decide whether to further destroy Iraqs civilian economy just to remove one more possibile souce of WMD.

So you can see how someone watching this process from the outside and seeing the constant maneuvers to frustrate or outright deceive the inspectors could decide that this government simply can't be trusted. That said, I don't at all agree with the course they took once they decided this. The 9-11 attacks have set off a genuine panic/paranoia in the US government and created something very dangerous.

[ September 16, 2003, 17:23: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Erax]

Who's to say whether a pesticide (chemical or bio) plant is going to be retooled in one day to make 'human' pesticide instead of insect pesticide?

Yes, chemical pesticide factories are a potential source for WMDs, which opens up a lot of scary scenarios. Most people don't realize that a chemical plant can be just as dangerous as a nuclear power plant.

Edit - Tesco, like I said, I don't have the answers and I don't think anyone does right now.

[ September 16, 2003, 17:39: Message edited by: Erax ]

[rextorres]

It's time to shift the argument to -

"Did the administration knowing lie about WDM?" and if so "Is it more of a crime to lie about having sex with an intern than it is to lie about reasons for sending your country to war?"

Arguing if they existed is absurd especially in the historical context:
*To this day NONE have been found
*ALL the scientist who were the supposed weapons makers insist that there was no longer a program
*NOT ONE credible weapons making facility has been found.
*Not to mention that the Iraqis did not use them even in the dieing throws of the regime

All these theories of what happened to the WMD simply stretches the imagination and says more about what people are willing to believe than any reality.

Goerge Orwell is probably rolling over in his grave right now.

AJT

[ September 16, 2003, 19:17: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by rextorres:
It's time to shift the argument to -

"Did the administration knowing lie about WDM?" and if so "Is it more of a crime to lie about having sex with an intern than it is to lie about reasons for sending your country to war?"

Arguing if they existed is absurd especially in the historical context:
*To this day NONE have been found
*ALL the scientist who were the supposed weapons makers insist that there was no longer a program
*NOT ONE credible weapons making facility has been found.
*Not to mention that the Iraqis did not use them even in the dieing throws of the regime

All these theories of what happened to the WMD simply stretches the imagination and says more about what people are willing to believe than any reality.

Goerge Orwell is probably rolling over in his grave right now.

AJT

Well you win some, and you loose some. At lease he is not around any more and we don't have to worry about him selling off the technology if he was left in place to develop it.

[ September 16, 2003, 20:01: Message edited by: Atrocities ]