# Did we have justification?



## MartialArtist68 (Aug 12, 2004)

Were we justified in going into Iraq? NO! 

Here is an article stating how the quality of life has deteriorated since we came into power...
http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=4451

We either failed miserably or the main goal wasn't to help those people.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0309f.asp <-- an article about how we were "justified" goint into Iraq. GWB lies again...

So now, with thousands of Americans dead, several terrorist and rebel attacks on Iraqi soil, and many other anomolies, we are left with a smaller country in shambles and a larger one against it's very core--the president (for the most part).

One interesting comment I heard from the locals here in Southern Indiana was that we should just "nuke the h*** outta..." and I'm just going to stop there...

Sigh... I feel better now...

Best wishes,
pck


----------



## lonecoyote (Aug 12, 2004)

Finally! Let's all stop dancing around the subject. No, we were not justified in invading Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was a bad guy but no worse than than all the bad guys the US has supported in the past, present, and into the future. Someone on another thread got "disgusted" with me as I wrote that Iraq doesn't want what we have to give. I think they thought I should feel that it was  a bright and shining day for Iraq (the fake handover) and they even compared the Iraqis to American Revolutionaries rather than a bunch of people who had just been screwed royally. Democracy or majority rule would probably give them theocracy. That's fine with me but our government won't tolerate it. Democracy will never be a reality for them and they may not want it anyway, even if they got a look at it. They should have been left alone. Better for us and for them too. Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11. What will happen now is brave young men and women getting killed, a U.S. puppet, billions of dollars, decades of lasting hatred. We should leave. We have already failed, we failed on the first day when we invaded and will fail to a greater degree the longer we stay in Iraq. But how can we leave now, with no exit strategy? Why is there no exit strategy? Because Bush and company never planned to leave! I'm not naive, I understand that Iraq was really about the whole middle east. We were killing the chicken to frighten the monkey. But all it has done is fill the monkey with hatred. Kerry will keep us over there all through his administration if he wins, too. He will make the same mistakes Bush has made. This has nothing to do with the military. A lot of my family members and friends have been and are serving. Just because one doesn't support the war in Iraq doesn't mean that don't admire and respect the brave people who are serving their country.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Aug 12, 2004)

MartialArtist68 said:
			
		

> Were we justified in going into Iraq? NO!



Well... I disagree.



			
				MartialArtist68 said:
			
		

> Here is an article stating how the quality of life has deteriorated since we came into power...



They are still in transition so of course things aren't all better yet.  It's still a war zone.  This is like saying Russia isn't better because they moved to a democratic society, even after 15 years.  Yes they will suffer for a while.  They will be better but it will take time.

WhiteBirch


----------



## MartialArtist68 (Aug 12, 2004)

That's exactly right; it will probably get better. It also may not. The thing you are overlooking is that there are WAY more rebel groups than there were before, except for different reasons. Besides fifteen years is a long time. 

And after putting more thought into it, there are two sides to the coin on this whole "presence of WMDs" in Iraq:

1) Saddam had no weapons for whatever reason

2) Saddam had TIME to hide the weapons BECAUSE WE GAVE HIM A DATE and a TIME.


----------



## Gary Crawford (Aug 12, 2004)

Please also take note that Saddam funded Lybia's nuclear weapons program.Why do you think after we invaded Iraq that lybia decided to surrender them to us?


----------



## loki09789 (Aug 12, 2004)

MartialArtist68 said:
			
		

> That's exactly right; it will probably get better. It also may not. The thing you are overlooking is that there are WAY more rebel groups than there were before, except for different reasons. Besides fifteen years is a long time.
> 
> And after putting more thought into it, there are two sides to the coin on this whole "presence of WMDs" in Iraq:
> 
> ...


THe thing that doesn't get a lot of press is things like local Army Corps of Engineer volunteers building schools and other public works/services buildings for the the local Iraqi people to use to build their own future.

There is a distinction between SHussein not being proven to having WMD's and the idea that they weren't there before....We didn't just give him a Date, we gave him 11 years of "Screw you" tolerance when he hassled and blocked inspectors that he agreed to by signing the treaty at the end of the first gulf war.

There is also only real evidence that rebel/terrorists groups are actively operating since the ousting of SHussein. I am pretty sure that it is entirely possible that 

A: These rebel groups were not reported to the world by SHussein's government because of embarrassment, 

B: SHussein's gov. looked the other way to these outside influenced groups because of a 'strange bed fellows' dealing of some kind existed between His government (or at least the local political leader as in Mayor or other officials getting their pockets lined.)

C: Part of the rebel/terror resistance is because the current martial rule type of situation because of the war state is interferring with their black market business and ability to do business as usual (Drugs and Terror groups have been clearly linked for a long time).

THough it is possible that these groups moved into the area to do some "Infidel hunting", I doubt very strongly that the volume all moved in and set up shop as quickly as they did without some of them being pre-war emplaced for what ever reason.

No real evidence, just some homespun logic of how practical it is to try and sneak explosives, guns and such INTO a controlled combat zone. Now if they were already there, but lying low or in cahoots with local authorities or even the Central SHussein gov, the speed and number of incidents seems more logical to me.

To me, it is the same idea as saying that the Russian mafia only moved in and set up shop after the fall of the USSR....no, they were there all along. THe government under the USSR (and SHussein) were not known for an "open an honest" policy about internal embarassments.

Can you make military/political moves based on this kind of thinking? No.

BUT

I still say that we had every reason to go into Iraq but that the reasoning should have been based on the non compliance of SHussein and been done after some very overt diplomatic contacts that reiterrated the treaty terms, and given him 'one more chance' so to speak.

I still say that the timing of taking the political support and dividing military assets between Iraq and Afg so quickly was confusing and poor judgement.

I would say that we were justified, but that the public explanation wasn't the correct one to maintain public support/acceptance to any degree because of the tenuous link (there is a 'logical' one there but not an evidencial one) between the two efforts.

Iraq could have waited IMO.  Hell, LET the terrorists start running and maneuvering/communicating with Iraq if it was going to happen. Collect as much hard data as possible to reveal the dealings betweent the two and then move in....sort of giving them enough political rope to hand themselves.


----------



## Raewyn (Aug 13, 2004)

If Iraq had no oil, but had suposed weapons of mass destruction would America have still gone to war??????  Our petrol prices over here have risen dramatically since the war began.  
There are still countries that have worse dictators than Saddam, what is America doing about those????  

PS Dont mean to offend anyone with these comments! If I have.


----------



## loki09789 (Aug 13, 2004)

The issue of oil can not be trivialized.  OPEC sets the international market prices even if US oil generally comes from US sources.  How does the US presence in Iraq directly influence OPEC driven prices?  It doesn't.  If it did the spike in gas prices (and the millions of petroleum based products that we use every day and some, quite literally, can't live without) were due to war, why didn't the prices spike like this during the first gulf war when SHussein set the oil fields on fire?

Along those same lines, should we have left such an important international market controlling asset in the control of an obviously corrupt man?  Remember that, unlike the NY Stock Exchange - which is influence/regulated to avoid another crash - but private business influenced, the oil fields in Iraq were under the direct influence of SHussein.

Could/can things be handled better, always - regardless of who is in office.  I can guarentee that if Kerry gets the job, he will fall flat on his face in someone's eyes because of inflated expecations and the reality of who and what any administration is dealing with over there.

Just because SHussein isn't the only bad guy out there doesn't mean that we shouldn't be doing something about something.  We don't sit on our hands about local crime do we?  No, we train in martial arts/self defense.  Some here have served in the military or are/were LEO.  No one person or country can do everything, but that should not be an excuse to sit back and let someone who signed a treaty get away with ignoring his signed agreement.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 13, 2004)

My Case Against Iraq

As of this date, we have been given four reasons to support the war in Iraq.  The Bush Administration has claimed the following: Iraq had large stockpiles of WMD that they were selling to terrorits, Iraq was supporting Al-qaeda, Iraq was an imminent threat, and that Saddam was a murderous dicator that gassed his own people.  

These justifications were given to us and we were told that by removing Saddam Huissain we would be safer.  I do not believe that we are any safer for the following reasons

Regarding the WMD in Iraq, Iraq had them at one time, but did not have them when we invaded. Inspectors were beginning to catch on this fact, but the Bush Administration did not wait for their full report. 

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

This information is repeated in the 911 commissions report, in Richard Clarkes book and in a new book named Nuclear Terrorism which was written by Graham Allison.  

As far as the terrorists go, the 911 Commisions report states that no connections to 911 or Al-qaeda have been found.  Although Iraq did support some terrorist acts in Isreal, this is a far cry from the terrorism the Saudis or other countries support worldwide.

"Riyadh has not yet fully joined the international effort to block bank accounts thought to be financing terrorist operations, U.S. officials say. But the Bush administration, fearful of offending the Saudis, has not yet raised a public complaint. Elaine Sciolino, et al., U.S. is Reluctant to Upset Flawed, Fragile Saudi Ties, New York Times, October 25, 2001 

They were not even close to the worst offenders when it came to supporting terrorism.  Granted, Iraq did support suicide bombers in Isreal and many innocents died because of this, but at the same time, so did Lebonon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, ect...

Consider the following about Iraq, before you think that it was this huge threat to our security. 

"Iraq has never threatened nor been implicated in any attack against U.S. territory and the CIA has reported no Iraqi-sponsored attacks against American interests since 1991." Stephen Zunes, "An Annotated Overview of the Foreign Policy Segments of President George W. Bushs State of the Union Address," Foreign Policy In Focus, January 29, 2003. Segments of President George W. Bushs State of the Union Address," Foreign Policy In Focus, January 29, 2003 

"Iraq never threatened U.S.security. Bush officials cynically attacked a villainous country because they knew it was easier than finding the real 9/11 villain, who had no country. And now they're hoist on their own canard." Maureen Dowd, "Were Not Happy Campers," The New York Times, September 11, 2003. 

"Iraq never threatened the US, let alone Australia. The basic consideration was and remains the perception of America's wider strategic interest in the Middle East." Richard Woolcott, "Thread bare Basis To The Homespun Yarn That Led Us Into Iraq," Sydney Morning Herald, November 26, 2003(Woolcott was Australias Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs And Trade during the first Gulf War.) 

And then there is the question regarding the humanitarian nature of this mission.  There seems to be a dubious double standard where this is concerned.  Lets look into Iraqs historyPerhaps we should ask where Saddam came from, how he got those weapons, and what the US response was at that time these atrocities were committed.

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/02-18-98.html 

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/02-19-98.html 

And then there is the question of what actually happened during the infamous gassing event...and this is very interesting... 

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html 

Apparently we are left with some serious doubt in this situation. Either way, the US was heavily involved in the skullduggery against Iran and wasn't too concerned when the event initially happened.  In the end, the US helped Saddam get to power and we KNEW what kind of leader he would be.  

Regardless, the humanitarian effort is the Bush Administrations strongest justification for the war.  History has told us that at one time we didnt care what Saddam did and that now we do.  Now, at the very least, Saddam is gone.  The atrocities that can be pinned on him are still bad beyond belief and are reason enough for America to take a little pride.  

Yet, shouldnt we have a little different priority list when it comes to threats?  Has the Iraq war made us safer when all of this manpower and capital could be used to eliminate greater threats to our security?  As a martial artist concerned about my safety in the War on Terror, I would say, *no*.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## lvwhitebir (Aug 13, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I still say that we had every reason to go into Iraq but that the reasoning should have been based on the non compliance of SHussein and been done after some very overt diplomatic contacts that reiterrated the treaty terms, and given him 'one more chance' so to speak.
> ...
> I would say that we were justified, but that the public explanation wasn't the correct one to maintain public support/acceptance to any degree because of the tenuous link (there is a 'logical' one there but not an evidencial one) between the two efforts.



I agree that the reason for going in was non-compliance with the 12-year-old UN resolution.  That was our first intention until the UN disagreed.  We then had to come up with other reasons.

I think waiting 12 YEARS was long enough for him to comply with the MULTIPLE UN resolutions against him, especially since the original estimate by the inspectors was a lousy 1 year.

So, let's see.  Hussein invades Kuwait and is beaten back.  The world "fines" him for his actions.  He thumbs his nose at everyone because he believes that if he waits long enough, we'll just forget about it and move on.  It worked for the past 12 years; he kicked out the inspectors for a few years and what happened, we bombed a stupid factory, after hours; we imposed embargos and he took everything from his people and cried that they were starving.  Have we really forgotten what he did to start all this?  Do we punish the police because they arrest someone 12 years after their horrific crime?

WhiteBirch


----------



## OULobo (Aug 13, 2004)

Raisin said:
			
		

> If Iraq had no oil, but had suposed weapons of mass destruction would America have still gone to war??????  Our petrol prices over here have risen dramatically since the war began.
> There are still countries that have worse dictators than Saddam, what is America doing about those????
> 
> PS Dont mean to offend anyone with these comments! If I have.



I guess not. N. Korea, Iran and others have admitted to having WMDs and threated to use them. They don't really have the resources to make action against them worth it and they didn't try to have daddy offed. The idea that the the military action against Iraq is justified on a human rights basis or on WMD basis fails a comparitive test. The only qualification is that Saddam had agreed to allow inspectors to inspect and had agreed to not have WMDs after the first Gulf War, which from what I can see, he followed. This was a trumped up war. I can however personally jusify the war in Afghanistan. Which consequently is going smoother and is seemingly more successful.


----------



## OULobo (Aug 13, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> Have we really forgotten what he did to start all this?  Do we punish the police because they arrest someone 12 years after their horrific crime?
> 
> WhiteBirch



Firstly, when did we decide to be the global police. I know I didn't vote us into that job. Second, it isn't that I have a problem punishing someone who broke the rules, but how about all the other criminals that GW seems to be ignoring, despite the fact that they commited crime 12 years ago and are still committing crimes today. If you are going to enforce a law, your have to enforce it on everyone, not just the ones that took a shot a Dad.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 13, 2004)

OULobo - very succinctly put!


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 13, 2004)

You know, the original question - Did *we* have justification?

Which *we*?

The USA?  The 'coalition of the willing'? No.  They are not mandated (as OULobo already posted) to unilaterally enforce international law.  Even if done under the guise of a coalition, it is nonetheless unilateral, as in the coalition alone.  

The global community, i.e., the UN?  Yes.  By the way, the UN is currently, IMO, justified in taking military actions in Sudan right now too, but that's another thread...(hint).

Thanks, OULobo, for putting this back into perspective for me.  The answer to the question is actually quite simple.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Aug 13, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Firstly, when did we decide to be the global police. I know I didn't vote us into that job.



I think that came about after WW2 when our policy of isolation doomed Europe, which was nearly completely conquered by Hitler until the US "decided" (or were forced) we had to step in.  By the way, the UN is considered the "global police", in which we are Security Council members.  Who do you think sends more troops to enforce UN sanctions?  As far as I can tell, the US has the most troops to send, the most money to support the cause for reconstruction, and the willingness to not let things get out of hand.

This is far bigger than GW as well.  Clinton did a lot of action against Iraq during his term as well.  Unfortunately it fell short of making Saddam submit to the resolutions.

If the global "laws" are not enforced, blame the UN, not the US.  The US is only an arm of it and really only have our interests at heart.  We only have so much money/force that we can apply at one time and must do so wisely.



			
				OULobo said:
			
		

> The only qualification is that Saddam had agreed to allow inspectors to inspect and had agreed to not have WMDs after the first Gulf War, which from what I can see, he followed.



Hmm...  in compliance?

CNN   7/18/1996
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Less than a month after promising U.N. inspectors unlimited access to possible weapons sites, Iraq twice blocked teams from making their rounds, diplomats said Wednesday. 

CNN  8/23/1996
The United Nations Security Council once again called on Iraqi authorities to stop interfering with inspections requested by U.N. weapons experts in Iraq. 

Chief U.N. weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus told the Council Thursday that his inspectors were stopped last Friday on their way to a site outside Baghdad, in direct violation of an agreement reached June 22 between Ekeus and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. 

CNN    1/23/1998
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iraq has no intention of giving U.N. arms inspectors full access to potential weapons sites, chief weapons inspector Richard Butler told the 15-member Security Council on Friday. 

CNN    11/5/1998
The United Nations Security Council late Thursday voted unanimously to condemn Iraq and to demand that Baghdad immediately resume cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors. Baghdad has already said it will not comply. 

CNN  11/27/2001
A day after President Bush issued a stern warning, Iraqi government officials said Tuesday they will not let weapons inspectors back into the country until U.N. sanctions have been lifted. 




The weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998.  The only thing I see is non-compliance... across the board.

WhiteBirch


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 13, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> The weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. The only thing I see is non-compliance... across the board.


I agree that this was one justification for Hussein's ousting.  However, 


			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> By the way, the UN is considered the "global police", in which we are Security Council members. Who do you think sends more troops to enforce UN sanctions? As far as I can tell, the US has the most troops to send, the most money to support the cause for reconstruction, and the willingness to not let things get out of hand.


according to the UN Security Council webpage, 



> Each Council member has one vote. Decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions onsubstantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of "great Power unanimity", often referred to as the "veto" power.


The invasion of Iraq, I believe, qualifies as a "substantive" matter.  France vetoed.  So, by your own argument, though the UN security council IS the global police, and the US is a major contributor of resources to their cause, they stepped outside of their UN authority in order to accomplish the task.

The powers and historical contributions of the US do not provide justification for the war.


----------



## OULobo (Aug 13, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> I think that came about after WW2 when our policy of isolation doomed Europe, which was nearly completely conquered by Hitler until the US "decided" (or were forced) we had to step in.  By the way, the UN is considered the "global police", in which we are Security Council members.  Who do you think sends more troops to enforce UN sanctions?  As far as I can tell, the US has the most troops to send, the most money to support the cause for reconstruction, and the willingness to not let things get out of hand.



Congress made an official declaration of war to attack the axis powers in WWII, something I have yet to see for Iraq. Even if there was a declaration of war it would be against the nation of Iraq of which we have conquered. I agree the UN is the "global police", yet we go directly against them in unilateral action. Who's the bad guy now?



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> This is far bigger than GW as well.  Clinton did a lot of action against Iraq during his term as well.  Unfortunately it fell short of making Saddam submit to the resolutions.
> 
> If the global "laws" are not enforced, blame the UN, not the US.  The US is only an arm of it and really only have our interests at heart.  We only have so much money/force that we can apply at one time and must do so wisely.



It's the "wisely" descriptor that I don't agree with. Attacking a country against the UN in a unilateral military action is our fault, not the UN's. If the UN placed the sanctions, who are we to enforce them without UN approval? In a sense we have become vigilantes or some would say bullies, as opposed to police. 



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> Hmm...  in compliance?
> 
> CNN   7/18/1996
> UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Less than a month after promising U.N. inspectors unlimited access to possible weapons sites, Iraq twice blocked teams from making their rounds, diplomats said Wednesday.
> ...



Non-compliance, like the complete lack of WMDs. The only thing that is across the board is GW's willingness to trample all international law on his way to getting at Saddam. His compliance, as I tried to relay in my statement, was that he had no WMDs, and unless something has changed in the past few minutes, no one seems to be able to prove that he did. I won't argue that he obstructed the inspectors, but the jist of the operation and the sanctions was POSSESSION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, yet no one seems to be able to find any. If a cop arrests me for having a concealed weapon, but he can't find a concealed weapon on me, then I can spell wrongful arrest, and when I'm done, I'm sure he will be able to too. What is the differance?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Aug 13, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> The weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. The only thing I see is non-compliance... across the board.


 Apparently you're not looking closely enough. It's particularly interesting that your CNN article listings end in 2001, *before* Iraq actually allowed inspectors *back into the country*. 

 Since we're using CNN as a data-source, let me provide a few more links for those interested in a more complete history of Iraq weapons inspections.

  UN Weapons Inspectors Return To Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/17/blix.iraq.cyprus/index.html

  The Inspections So Far:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/03/timep.inspections.tm/index.html

  UN Weapons Inspectors State No Evidence of WMDs Before War:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/05/sprj.irq.blix.intl/index.html

  UN Weapons Inspectors Claim War Was Not Justified:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

  UN Chief Weapons Inspector Attacks WMD 'Spin':
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/18/sprj.irq.blix.bush/


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 13, 2004)

Whoa.  Peachmonkey. OULobo.  Flatlander.   Good ripostes to Whitebirch.

The notion of invading Iraq for reasons of national security brings up the question of "who is next?"  

Iran, who backed the terrorist bombing of 241 Marines in Lebanon in 1981, is in the final stages of developing nuclear weapons.  Korea is working on them as well, and is developing missile technology that will allow Kim Jong Il to deploy warheads as far as the continental United States.  Korea uses overt threatening language in stating its hostile intent towards the United States, and has for decades.

http://www.iht.com/articles/532461.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=603

*North Korea also sold enriched uranium to Libya as well as missiles to Iran.  They use missile sales to fund their nuclear weapons programs.*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1223058,00.html

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=1546


So.  When are we hitting North Korea?  Iran?  I would argue they were far greater threats than Iraq.  They have hostile intent, the nukes, and the delivery systems.  They're part of Bush's "Axis of Evil" and are listed on the State Department's list of six remaining countries that sponsor terrorism.

Wimpy Iraq didn't really have squat, now, did she?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## loki09789 (Aug 14, 2004)

This might not be a factually substantiated defense of a justificiation or our invovlement in any way, but I do think it is still substantial in a humanitarian way:

I was watching the opening ceremonies for the summer olympics and really cheered and noticed the Greek spectators cheering heartily when the Iraq and Afg. contingencies were announced.  I would say that the olympic athletes who don't have to worry about being tortured or killed for any losses or substandard performances by SHussein's son Uday would say that, though the short term of rebuilding and reorganization makes life 'interesting', that the future prospects for themselves and their country are far more open and progressive than they were under SHussein.

Same goes for the Afg. athletes (Afg. was barred from the Olympics because of teh Taliban rule and oppression of women).  Especially the women athletes who were there to compete.  They, none of them, may be medal contendors in their sports, but at least they had the chance to compete.

Quality of life might not be where it could be, or even was before the war actions in both countries, but I would say the potential for quality of life for the future generations is better than it was before....


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 14, 2004)

OTOH they also cheered loudly when the non-country of 'Palestine' entered the stadium.


----------



## loki09789 (Aug 14, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> OTOH they also cheered loudly when the non-country of 'Palestine' entered the stadium.


True, but we here in the USA recognize the Samoan 'nation' and certain Native American 'nations' as cultural/'non-countries' a well.  It was just nice to see them cheer.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Aug 14, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I was watching the opening ceremonies for the summer olympics and really cheered and noticed the Greek spectators cheering heartily when the Iraq and Afg. contingencies were announced


 Loki, you raise an interesting point.

 I was watching the ceremonies as well, and seeing those olympic teams really was touching, particularly after having watched the HBO report about the torture practiced by Uday Hussein on Iraq's sportsmen.  It was also nice to see Afghanistan's athletes.

 It reminded me that, although the war in Iraq was not justified as a way to free Iraq from Saddam by its proponents until WMDs were not discovered, and that I *still* think it was the wrong, illegal, immoral, and just plain idiotic thing to do, there have been positive developments from it for some, and the potential long-term for positive developments for many.

 However, I can't say I'm optimistic.  I supported the campaign in Afghanistan, but doubted our ability and desire to actually put the country back together, and my fears are panning out there... I don't have much higher hopes for Iraq.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 14, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> OTOH they also cheered loudly when the non-country of 'Palestine' entered the stadium.


That, my friend, is a whole other thread.  KT


----------



## loki09789 (Aug 15, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Loki, you raise an interesting point.
> 
> However, I can't say I'm optimistic. I supported the campaign in Afghanistan, but doubted our ability and desire to actually put the country back together, and my fears are panning out there... I don't have much higher hopes for Iraq.


It is interesting how on one hand we aren't suppose to be there and are seen as the commercial empirialists, but on the other hand (when we have opened the door to a potential for a government that represents and responds to the citizenry in a democratic structure) it becomes our job to put the country back together. I am not directly attacking you as much as this logic.

If we have dismantled the Taliban or SHussein's seriously F*ed Up power structures, tried (notice that these things aren't as clean and easy as we would like them to be - remember the enemy doesn't WANT to let your plan work) to establish some form of stability AND THEN help to hand a situation of potential nationalistic and political energy back into the hands of the locals, how is it our fault that it failed? It is not our job to rebuild anything in either place, that is the responsibilty of the citizens to step up. If they say they want sovereignity, want a more democratic process and can't make it work because they can't overcome their own cultural or historical rivalries.... how is that our fault.

Analogy time: 

I stop an abusive husband from killing his wife and children.  I shelter them, set the mother/wife up in counselling and educational opportunities so that she can be self reliant.  After that, she goes off with another abusive type...is that my fault?  If these abusive governments have been ousted, but the citizenry - once the power to choose and act is back in their hands - allow or vote in another abuser... doom on them.  But it is easier to blame those "Damn Americans"  because we didn't do more.... How can we do more without being seen as the evil empirialists?

I break up the fight between two people in a bar. I talk them down and they shake hands on it and say they want to let it drop....then continue to bash each other senseless how is that my fault? I acted based on my personal values to try and make a positive difference. If, at the point where I step out of it, the other parties involved can't play nice that is on them.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 16, 2004)

*...how is it our fault that it failed?  It is not our job to rebuild anything in either place, that is the responsibilty of the citizens to step up.  If they say they want sovereignity, want a more democratic process and can't make it work because they can't overcome their own cultural or historical rivalries.... how is that our fault.*

*Analogy time:  I break up the fight between two people in a bar.  I talk them down and they shake hands on it and say they want to let it drop....then continue to bash each other senseless how is that my fault?  I acted based on my personal values to try and make a positive difference.  If, at the point where I step out of it, the other parties involved can't play nice that is on them.*


The analogy fails.  We started the fight, recall, and entered the bar swinging.  We also have gotten a fairly bloody lip from it all, with nearly a thousand dead.  A thousand ruined and broken American families and we exit saying, "Oh, well...too bad they couldn't get it together.  Better luck next time."  Shall we do that?

Surely someone knew entering into the Iraqi fray the sheer complexities of the politics of the region.  Two ethnic groups (Arab/Kurd) struggling against each other, along with two competing religious sects (Shia/Sunni) who have been at each other's throats for 1,300 years.  Did we bother consulting with any experts?

Prior to the invasion of Iraq the US Army War College published an assessment predicting the present day situation and suggesting we avoid an invasion.   The report stated that we'd run into heavy guerrilla activity and get bogged down in urban warfare and hot insurgency---which we have.    

_The report was ignored._

In George H.W. Bush's biography he specifically stated that he didn't move into Baghdad in '91 and oust Saddam because he was concerned we'd get bogged down in urban warfare with guerrillas.  

_His son apparently didn't read the book.  _ 

As far as your suggestion that the Iraqis step up to rebuild their country, I agree we should let them.  Why then are we paying for the reconstruction?  Democrats pushed to have Iraqi oil funds pay for the reconstruction when negotiating Senate Bill 1689, yet Republicans resisted it every step of the way.  

_The bulk of the reconstruction is being paid by US the taxpayer.  Why?_

Why are we paying American truck drivers $10,000 per month to work there--albeit at great risk--when we can pay an Iraqi a third of that to do the same job?  We've outsourced the Iraqi jobs to ourselves.

_Iraqi unemployment stands now at 70%._ 




Regards,


Steve


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 16, 2004)

> In George H.W. Bush's biography he specifically stated that he didn't move into Baghdad in '91 and oust Saddam because he was concerned we'd get bogged down in urban warfare with guerrillas.
> 
> _His son apparently didn't read the book_.


That's because, as Dubya himself said, he gets his advice directly from God--he doesn't need his father's advice.

IMO, no the war was not justified.  Iraq did not have WMD.  Not only did the UN weapons inspectors not find any, but neither have our own troops who've been there for 17 months.  

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, though Bush thinks if he keeps saying so it becomes true (and unfortunately that seems to hold true for all the Fox News watchers).

Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States.

Bush lied to us to gain support for the war.

We are now LESS safe than before.  Maybe those of you in Michigan and Indiana feel safer...those of us on the East coast with the elevated terror alert do not feel safer.  And Bush has done nothing substantive to increase our readiness... I guess he thinks changing the color of the alert works well enough.  (And he then has the gall to have the Republican National Convention in already over-burdened NYC)

We are now essentially alone in Iraq--there is no coalition.  We have no support in the world. Terror attacks have INCREASED.  We have lost nearly 1000 young Americans.  There's a good chance we will have to institute a draft to feed this meat grinder war (There are already twin bills in the House and Senate to do exactly that).   The world community hates us.  And we have an untenable deficit.

I believe the sole purpose of this war was to enrich Bush's cronies, and it has certainly achieved that end.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 16, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Firstly, when did we decide to be the global police. I know I didn't vote us into that job. Second, it isn't that I have a problem punishing someone who broke the rules, but how about all the other criminals that GW seems to be ignoring, despite the fact that they commited crime 12 years ago and are still committing crimes today. If you are going to enforce a law, your have to enforce it on everyone, not just the ones that took a shot a Dad.



I can agree with that.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Aug 16, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Congress made an official declaration of war to attack the axis powers in WWII, something I have yet to see for Iraq.



I know that the President only has the authority to keep troops in action for 60 days.  After that, Congress must approve it.  I wonder what their method of "approval" is?  Anybody?

Also, what happened to the Congressional Intelligence Subcommittee?  Did they not see the same material as Bush?  If they didn't respond to the same intelligence "lapse" that we're blaming Bush for, what good are they?  If they did, why didn't they tell Congress to get the troops out because this whole business was unjustified?  If they didn't see it, what in the heck are they doing?




			
				OULobo said:
			
		

> If the UN placed the sanctions, who are we to enforce them without UN approval? In a sense we have become vigilantes or some would say bullies, as opposed to police.



I agree we probably should have had UN approval.  I don't know what the resolutions said, but they said something to the fact that non-compliance would lead to military action.  And, before the war, there was some discussion that said our military action was not against international law.  If anybody knows the sides of that story it might add to this discussion.





			
				OULobo said:
			
		

> I won't argue that he obstructed the inspectors, but the jist of the operation and the sanctions was POSSESSION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, yet no one seems to be able to find any.



Actually the gist of the resolutions was to declare, disarm, and prove compliance with the disarmament.  Iraq obstructed all of them.  Even the inspectors believed there *were* WMDs there, at least at one time.  Iraq couldn't account for its distruction so couldn't discount them.

I find it funny that just before the war started up to now, the inspectors didn't think there was anything there.  But until then, they believed there was something or at least weren't able to say for sure either way...



CNN    4/24/1998
As described in the latest report, the criteria is threefold: "full declaration by Iraq, verification by the Commission, and destruction, removal or rendering harmless under international supervision." 

Butler argued that while Iraq may claim to have fully declared all of its weapons, its "consistent refusal" to provide UNSCOM with needed information and materials to back up the claims fails to satisfy the second step -- verification. That makes the destruction of all of Iraq's prohibited weapons programs impossible, the report said. 


CNN    10/26/1998
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- International arms experts validated U.S. tests indicating Iraq put the deadly nerve gas VX into warheads before the 1991 Gulf War, contrary to Baghdad's denials, according to a U.N. report. 


CNN     9/9/2002
According to the terms of the 1991 U.N. cease-fire resolution that ended the Gulf War, Iraq was supposed to destroy all stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, along with the machinery and precursors to make them, and dismantle its entire nuclear-development program. By the time the U.N. inspectors left Iraq for the last time in Dec. 1998, sizable chunks of Saddam's weapons program were gone: 39,000 chemical munitions, 690 tons of chemical agents, 3,000 tons of precursors, 426 pieces of production equipment. The U.N. had also dismantled or accounted for 817 Scud missiles, which might have lofted toxic warheads at Iraq's neighbors. 
   ...
Even so, in those seven years, the inspection teams were never sure of their accounting. While they were in Iraq, Saddam admitted to just a fraction of his missile and chemical stores and falsely denied the existence of a biological program. After Saddam finally quit cooperating in 1998 and the U.S. and Britain bombarded Iraq for four days, the inspectors were gone for good, immensely disturbed by what they had not found. Yet they knew, based on discrepancies in Iraqi documents they had seized, that Iraq still hid 6,000 chemical bombs. They discounted Iraq's contention that it had destroyed all of the 3.9 tons of deadly VX nerve poison that it admitted to having produced or the 500 tons of precursor chemicals to make more. They suspected Iraq retained 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas. 
...
Saddam's biological-weapons program was the deepest black hole. Despite more than 30 searches for various unconventional arms, inspectors did not even know of its existence until mid-1995, when Saddam's defecting son-in-law Hussein Kamal revealed that secret labs buried in Iraq's security, not military, apparatus were cooking up deadly germs. Iraq subsequently admitted it made batches of anthrax bacteria, carcinogenic aflatoxin, agricultural toxins and the paralyzing poison botulinum. Iraqi officials reported they had loaded 191 bombs, including 25 missile warheads, with the poisons for use in the Gulf War. They said they destroyed them after the conflict, but they presented no proof, and Western officials don't believe them. 


CNN    1/31/2003
Blix told the council Monday that Iraq has not fully accounted for its stocks of chemical and biological weapons and has not fully accepted its obligation to disarm under U.N. Resolution 1441. 


CNN    3/14/2003
The United Nations has been waiting for months for Iraq to provide information that could prove what happened to chemical and biological weapons it possessed in the 1990s. 

As much as 1,000 tons of VX are unaccounted for. Iraq also cannot account for as much as 2,245 gallons [8,500 liters] of anthrax. 
...
Iraqi Air Force documents found by inspectors in 1998 show that Iraq dropped more than 13,000 chemical bombs during the Iraq-Iran War that lasted from 1983-1988. Iraq previously claimed that 19,500 bombs were used, which could mean that 3,500 bombs -- with more than 1,000 tons of VX -- are unaccounted for. 


WhiteBirch


----------



## lvwhitebir (Aug 16, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Apparently you're not looking closely enough. It's particularly interesting that your CNN article listings end in 2001, *before* Iraq actually allowed inspectors *back into the country*.



Not really.  My argument was strictly non-compliance.  The articles I presented clearly showed that Iraq was not complying with the resolutions.  Whether they allowed them back into the country or not, they kicked them out which was non-compliance.

Not surprisingly, just before the war, Iraq said it would start complying...



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> UN Weapons Inspectors Return To Iraq:
> http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/17/blix.iraq.cyprus/index.html
> 
> The Inspections So Far:
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/03/timep.inspections.tm/index.html



Yes the inspectors came back in the country and yes they did something while they were there.  As always, I applaud their effort.  But they didn't stand a chance against a country who was not willing to help them.




			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> UN Weapons Inspectors State No Evidence of WMDs Before War:
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/05/sprj.irq.blix.intl/index.html



This one kills me.  The title doesn't do the article justice.  So he says that WMDs are not there..., well... we think...  (highlights added by me)



> The U.N.'s chief weapons inspector has said no evidence was found before the U.S.-led invasion that Iraq had restarted its chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons programs.
> 
> Hans Blix has said *he cannot conclude that Iraq is free of banned weapons*, but is urging the U.S.-led occupation forces to allow U.N. inspectors back into the country.



Wow, they did so well for the first 12 years.  A few more will really get to the bottom of this.



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> UN Weapons Inspectors Claim War Was Not Justified:
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/
> 
> UN Chief Weapons Inspector Attacks WMD 'Spin':
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/18/sprj.irq.blix.bush/



Gotta like Monday-morning quarterbacking.

And...   Highlights added by me.



> In an interview on Australian radio on Wednesday, Blix said *he believed* that Iraq had destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago but *maintained the appearance* it had them to deter a military attack.


 
Ok, so we think they're gone, but we don't know.  We had 12 years to find out, but we haven't yet, and Iraq is maintaining the appearance that it has them.  So all of this could have been averted if Iraq would have complied with the resolutions!

WhiteBirch


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 16, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> Not really. My argument was strictly non-compliance.


Yes, everyone agrees that Saddam was a non-compliant, generally evil and bad man, certainly unfit to play nice with others, but 



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> I agree that the reason for going in was non-compliance with the 12-year-old UN resolution. That was our first intention until the UN disagreed.We then had to come up with other reasons.


This is the fundamental crux of the argument. Yes, Saddam was non-compliant, but why did the US and the 'coalition of the willing' then have "to come up with other reasons"? Upon which authority were they justified in moving forward? Where is the justification? 

Non compliance is a justification under UN authority. The war in Iraq is not sanctioned by the UN. Ergo, non compliance is no justification.

The only justification that can be validly argued, given that there was no clear and present threat to the United States, nor ANY other member of their coalition force, would be one based on "ethics and human compassion". But this is neither what you are arguing, nor what the President tried to sell us. Furthermore, it is an argument based upon opinion and emotion, which I do not find as sufficient reasons to risk so many lives.


----------



## OULobo (Aug 16, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> I know that the President only has the authority to keep troops in action for 60 days.  After that, Congress must approve it.  I wonder what their method of "approval" is?  Anybody?
> 
> Also, what happened to the Congressional Intelligence Subcommittee?  Did they not see the same material as Bush?  If they didn't respond to the same intelligence "lapse" that we're blaming Bush for, what good are they?  If they did, why didn't they tell Congress to get the troops out because this whole business was unjustified?  If they didn't see it, what in the heck are they doing?



Bush rode the post 9/11 anger, fear and nationalism into congress and basically dared anyone to defy him. He won out by gaining the approval from congress to wage war on anyone cart blanche. I personally don't see anything intelligent about the Congressional Intelligence Subcommittee. They are still a bunch of polititians, not a valid cross-section of the people. 



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> I agree we probably should have had UN approval.  I don't know what the resolutions said, but they said something to the fact that non-compliance would lead to military action.  And, before the war, there was some discussion that said our military action was not against international law.  If anybody knows the sides of that story it might add to this discussion.



Yes, military action, with UN approval. As to the US breaking international law, I'm sure it has more to do with us being the global big boy more than legitimacy. 



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> Actually the gist of the resolutions was to declare, disarm, and prove compliance with the disarmament.  Iraq obstructed all of them.  Even the inspectors believed there *were* WMDs there, at least at one time.  Iraq couldn't account for its distruction so couldn't discount them.
> 
> I find it funny that just before the war started up to now, the inspectors didn't think there was anything there.  But until then, they believed there was something or at least weren't able to say for sure either way...



Actually, it seems to me they met all of those resolution criteria. They declared disarmament 2 years after the first war, they seem to have indeed disarmed (seeing as we have no proof they didn't), and they allowed initially for inspections to prove compliance. I almost don't blame them for saying enough is enough. 



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> CNN    4/24/1998
> As described in the latest report, the criteria is threefold: "full declaration by Iraq, verification by the Commission, and destruction, removal or rendering harmless under international supervision."
> 
> Butler argued that while Iraq may claim to have fully declared all of its weapons, its "consistent refusal" to provide UNSCOM with needed information and materials to back up the claims fails to satisfy the second step -- verification. That makes the destruction of all of Iraq's prohibited weapons programs impossible, the report said.



It doesn't make it impossible that they disarmed, just that it may be impossible to provide enough proof for the UNSCOM to be satisfied. 




			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> CNN    10/26/1998
> UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- International arms experts validated U.S. tests indicating Iraq put the deadly nerve gas VX into warheads before the 1991 Gulf War, contrary to Baghdad's denials, according to a U.N. report.
> 
> 
> ...



Basically all the articles talk about the opinons of the inspectors and anylists. None of that matters if there are no WMDs. That is what it comes down to, if they broke the rules and had them, then where are they?


----------



## lvwhitebir (Aug 16, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> This is the fundamental crux of the argument. Yes, Saddam was non-compliant, but why did the US and the 'coalition of the willing' then have "to come up with other reasons"? Upon which authority were they justified in moving forward? Where is the justification?



From what I recall, their justification was that Iraq was in non-compliance and had the means and will to attack the US or at a minimum provide the means to the terrorists.  The Intel at the time supported that, at least in the eyes of the government.  We had documentation pointing to the fact that he had chemical, biological, and nuclear capabilities that were unaccounted for.  He had the previous 4 years to do anything he wanted with those capabilities because there were no inspectors in the country.

Both the House and Senate voted and approved to allow military action against Iraq in October 2002.  What evidence was provided to them is unknown to me.  They voted strongly in support.



			
				flatlander said:
			
		

> Non compliance is a justification under UN authority. The war in Iraq is not sanctioned by the UN. Ergo, non compliance is no justification.



The UN agreed that they were non-compliant and gave multiple resolutions and sanctions towards that fact.  The sticky part was a line that said if he didn't play nice there would be consequences.  I guess the international-law argument was that we were going to provide those consequences.



			
				flatlander said:
			
		

> The only justification that can be validly argued, given that there was no clear and present threat to the United States, nor ANY other member of their coalition force, would be one based on "ethics and human compassion".



Actually the President argued that there *was* a clear and present threat to the US and to the world.  That's the second argument he gave to Congress for the attack after the UN vote failed to pan out.  Congress agreed to the argument and voted to allow us to attack.

We found out afterwards that we were wrong, but that doesn't dismiss what we thought to begin with, unless a whole lot of people are just lying... more than just the President mind you.  The majority opinion of the *government* was that there was a threat and Bush believed he had to address it.

Even Kerry says he would still have voted for the war, even knowing that we wouldn't find WMDs.

IMO, we weren't lied to.  The government thought something was true when it was found to be not true, months after the fact.  And I would hate to be beat up for making an informed decision that turned out to be the wrong one.  For example, someone runs into a school carrying a backpack.  The metal detectors say it might be a weapon, they don't know.  The cop tells the teen to stop, but he only runs faster.  He chases the teen down and tackles him.  The teen fights back until the officer forcibly subdues him.  When the officer only finds paper in the backpack, was he justified for his actions?  Can the teen sue him?  Do we revile the cop or congratulate him for his vigilence?  What if there really was a weapon in the bag?

I believe our pre-war condition was much like the cop's.  We believed the weapons were there.  We believed he was helping the terrorists.  He wasn't submitting to our request to prove he didn't have the weapon, and according to the weapons inspectors held on to the illusion of having them.  What choice did we really have?  Wait for him to attack?

To me, it sounds like too many people are reviling the cop (Bush).  We don't have to necessarily congratulate him, but we shouldn't outright attack his character either.  One, he's human and will make mistakes.  Two, our government is not a one-man show.  We can't only blame him for what happened.  Congress was at fault too, as was the intelligence providers.  The UN was at fault for not being diligent enough to enforce its earlier resolutions.  Iraq, IMO, was the most at fault for not submitting to the resolutions.  They are not the innocent victims some are pointing them out to be.  I think the US showed great restraint by waiting for 12 years.



			
				OULobo said:
			
		

> Actually, it seems to me they met all of those resolution criteria. They declared disarmament 2 years after the first war, they seem to have indeed disarmed (seeing as we have no proof they didn't), and they allowed initially for inspections to prove compliance. I almost don't blame them for saying enough is enough.



Even the inspectors were disappointed with the Iraqi declarations and found weapons during their inspections that were never declared.  There were multiple resolutions condeming Iraq for not complying with 1441.  They may have disarmed, but the resolution was that they had to provide evidence that they had.  They failed to provide it.

The problem was that Iraq wasn't forthcoming as they were *required* by the resolution.  Had they been forthcoming, I think Saddam would have won a great political blow against the US by showing that he indeed didn't have the weapons we said he had.  Bottom line... why didn't he do it?  Was he still trying to hide something?

WhiteBirch


----------



## lvwhitebir (Aug 16, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> It doesn't make it impossible that they disarmed, just that it may be impossible to provide enough proof for the UNSCOM to be satisfied.



But that was their *required* action under the UN resolution.



			
				OULobo said:
			
		

> Basically all the articles talk about the opinons of the inspectors and anylists. None of that matters if there are no WMDs. That is what it comes down to, if they broke the rules and had them, then where are they?



The opinions of the inspectors are important IMO because they show what the mind-set of the government was.  I believe this is close to the information that the US government had to justify the attack.  We believed he had all of those weapons.  We had information that the weapons were there at one time and no information that they were ever destroyed, ergo the weapons are still there.

Even in our society, if you're known to be hostile (a felon) and are known to carry a weapon the cops have a more leeway in dealing with you.  Unannounced searches and seizures are allowed.

Just because the information we had was wrong, doesn't mean the war wasn't justified based on the information we had at the time.  It's always nice being a Monday-morning quarterback.  You can do no wrong!

WhiteBirch


----------



## OULobo (Aug 16, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> Actually the President argued that there *was* a clear and present threat to the US and to the world. That's the second argument he gave to Congress for the attack after the UN vote failed to pan out.



The problem is the notion of a clear and present danger. The danger was neither clear, not in this case, present. Sounds like two strikes.



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> The UN was at fault for not being diligent enough to enforce its earlier resolutions.



or more level headed in not wanting to start a war over something that they weren't sure existed and today we are pretty sure infact didn't exist.



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> We had information that the weapons were there at one time and no information that they were ever destroyed, ergo the weapons are still there.



That is faulty logic. It would only be true if there were not other options except that they still had the weapons. There are however many other options, like that they may have destroyed them and just not documented it, sold them, someone stole them, ect. 



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> But that was their *required* action under the UN resolution.



Now we are chasing our tails. You say Saddam didn't comply, I say the UN gets to make that decision, not GW.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 16, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> There were multiple resolutions condeming Iraq for not complying with 1441.  They may have disarmed, but the resolution was that they had to provide evidence that they had.  They failed to provide it.
> 
> The problem was that Iraq wasn't forthcoming as they were *required* by the resolution.  Had they been forthcoming, I think Saddam would have won a great political blow against the US by showing that he indeed didn't have the weapons we said he had.  Bottom line... why didn't he do it?  Was he still trying to hide something?
> 
> WhiteBirch




Well, we required proof of a negative.  We made the allegations they had them, and required them to prove they didn't have the weapons.  We have yet to provide any proof that they DID exist.  I would think it rather difficult to prove they didn't exist...particularly given our desire to believe they did.

The UN didn't back the invasion.  How can the US go against the wishes of the Security Council and invade?  How does that work?  We cite the UN sanctions and decisions concerning the Iraq as a _casus belli_, and then flout the UN in ignoring their authority regarding the issue of invasion.

And since when did we get picky regarding the enforcement of UN sanctions?  We've violated UN resolutions and ignored sanctions in the past when they've been directed against us or our allies.  Do we merely pick those that we deem convenient?

_Russia, France and China remain implacable in their opposition to a redrafted US resolution that threatens Saddam Hussein with "serious consequences" if he resists UN weapons inspections and twice accuses him of being in "material breach" of earlier resolutions - language which they say implicitly authorises George Bush to use military force without returning to the security council. _ 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,817793,00.html


Regards,


Steve




Regards,


Steve


----------



## Deflecting_the_Storm (Aug 16, 2004)

This is what I find funny. Its funny how americans now are asking if we were justified in going to Iraq? When has America been justified in doing anything? When does America stop? Oh when nuclear force is threatened. For this countries whole entire lifespan we have been doing things that are completely wrong and not justifiable and I find it so funny that it took a conflict in the 60's to bring that out. The United States almost destroyed a whole entire race. They took their land, moved them to another part of the country, and gave them nothing else. Well now they have reparations but you cant put a price on life. It almost takes a revolution for anything here to be changed. It took women around this country to fight for years so that their rights can be recongnized. One Hundred years after the slaves were freed, they had to fight for equality. So in essence they had to end the fight for their freedom. All this started not by politicans, but by the people. We pay the government to lie, cheat, and keep us in this "Matrix" lifestyle that we enjoy. Not telling us all of threats and dangers headed toward us because we as a society cannot take it. So we pay them to lie to us. And then when we ask them why do they lie? What are the suppose to say? The common answer. The reason why we pay them. To keep us safe. No matter who you vote for it will be like this. The minority rules the majority. The president doesnt lead this country. He just represents it. He is the guy who speaks for us. But the others behind the scenes make the choices. We are being duped right now into thinking that by voting for president we actually have a say in how this country is run. Who cares if GWB lies, or if Kerry lies. Thats what you want! If you dont think so, all the great presidents were just good at not getting caught when it comes to a lie. And when a president gets too powerful, he is removed, assainated, or just right out "Bushed" out of the election. Like I have said before I am not going to vote right along with the other 75% of the country, because there is no right choice. We can make a right choice. But this is america. Land of the free, home of the greedy. If it doesnt effect you, you dont care. But thats the whole idea of capitalism. But if we can grow as a country, do we grow at all? Or do we all just fall together? Everyone always says that when it comes to voting, you are picking the lesser of two evils. Thats ok, I will pass that by. Because I believe that in order to give a man the position to speak for the better good of me and this country, he has to be far from evil. But I guess, noone else has to be justified to vote for him do they?


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 17, 2004)

You've touched on a number of different subjects here, most of them rather unrelated to the discussion at hand.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Aug 17, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> The problem is the notion of a clear and present danger. The danger was neither clear, not in this case, present. Sounds like two strikes.



I believe that the evidence at that time showed that there was a clear and present danger.  Congress agreed too, thus the war.

Perhaps knowing what we do now, however, we should not have simply gone in.  That to me doesn't mean the decision at that time was wrong or a lie.



			
				OULobo said:
			
		

> or more level headed in not wanting to start a war over something that they weren't sure existed and today we are pretty sure infact didn't exist.



I don't know if anyone is really saying this.  All they're saying is that we're not finding it.  It could be the items were removed from the country during the 4-year absence of the inspectors.  It could be they were removed during the war itself.  A lot of weapons and people crossed into Iraq, who's to say those items didn't cross out of Iraq.



			
				OULobo said:
			
		

> That is faulty logic. It would only be true if there were not other options except that they still had the weapons. There are however many other options, like that they may have destroyed them and just not documented it, sold them, someone stole them, ect.



But without knowledge that they were destroyed, sold, or stolen, we *had* to assume they still existed.  According to the resolution it was Iraq's responsibility to document what they had and what they destroyed.  The UN and the weapons inspectors agreed that they did not do this.



			
				OULobo said:
			
		

> Now we are chasing our tails. You say Saddam didn't comply, I say the UN gets to make that decision, not GW.



The UN made the decision multiple times.  They just chose not to do as much about it.  They authorized some airstrikes and such throughout the 90's, but never authorized anything with real teeth.  IMO, that weakens the UN because countries will believe that the resolutions are useless.

I guess there are three parts to this discussion:

1) Was Iraq fullfilling it's obligations according to the UN resolutions?
2) Was there a clear and present danger from Iraq?  Did the evidence at that time suggest WMDs and/or ties with terrorist organizations?
3) Were we legally justified to attack, either because of the UN resolution or because of some international law that allows it when there's a "clear and present danger?"

WhiteBirch


----------



## lvwhitebir (Aug 17, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Well, we required proof of a negative.  We made the allegations they had them, and required them to prove they didn't have the weapons.  We have yet to provide any proof that they DID exist.  I would think it rather difficult to prove they didn't exist...particularly given our desire to believe they did.



That's the way the UN resolution worded it.  Iraq was to declare what they had and what they destroyed.  The weapons inspectors were there to verify the declaration.  We had plenty of proof of many weapons that were used during the Iraq/Iran war and those used against the Kurds.  The inspectors also found several items that weren't in the declaration and had information on items that weren't declared and were never found.

CNN  2/17/2003
Hans Blix report to the UN
"To take an example, a document which Iraq provided suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for. I must not jump to the conclusion that they exist; however, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented."


CNN 10/30/1997
"The chemical and biological (weapons), there is no ambiguity," [chief weapons inspector Richard] Butler said. "They are able to produce those weapons." 


In short, the UN believed the weapons were there and sent the inspection team in to verify the weapons had indeed been destroyed.  If the UN didn't believe the weapons were there, the original resolution would have been concluded.

CNN    10/26/1998
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- International arms experts validated U.S. tests indicating Iraq put the deadly nerve gas VX into warheads before the 1991 Gulf War, contrary to Baghdad's denials, according to a U.N. report. 
...
"The experts as a whole said the whole picture is that Iraq put chemical weapons in these warheads," said Richard Butler, chairman of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM). "What's critical ... is that for years (the Iraqis) said they never did any such thing, so that blows this wide open." 

Iraq has admitted putting sarin, a gas that causes spasms, nausea and possible death, into warheads but has denied it was able to load VX before the 1991 Gulf War. 


CNN     9/9/2002
Before the Gulf War, U.S. intelligence estimated that Iraq was five to 10 years away from building a nuclear bomb. When the International Atomic Energy Agency team went in after the war, it discovered Saddam was just six months from a crude device. Iraqi scientists had devised a workable weapon design, cobbled together tools and parts and had come very close to refining all of the 44 lbs. of highly enriched uranium necessary to fuel one bomb.
...
Yet they (the inspectors) knew, based on discrepancies in Iraqi documents they had seized, that Iraq still hid 6,000 chemical bombs. They discounted Iraq's contention that it had destroyed all of the 3.9 tons of deadly VX nerve poison that it admitted to having produced or the 500 tons of precursor chemicals to make more. They suspected Iraq retained 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas. 
...
Despite more than 30 searches for various unconventional arms, inspectors did not even know of its existence until mid-1995, when Saddam's defecting son-in-law Hussein Kamal revealed that secret labs buried in Iraq's security, not military, apparatus were cooking up deadly germs. Iraq subsequently admitted it made batches of anthrax bacteria, carcinogenic aflatoxin, agricultural toxins and the paralyzing poison botulinum. Iraqi officials reported they had loaded 191 bombs, including 25 missile warheads, with the poisons for use in the Gulf War. They said they destroyed them after the conflict, but they presented no proof, and Western officials don't believe them.


CNN    3/14/2003
Iraqi Air Force documents found by inspectors in 1998 show that Iraq dropped more than 13,000 chemical bombs during the Iraq-Iran War that lasted from 1983-1988. Iraq previously claimed that 19,500 bombs were used, which could mean that 3,500 bombs -- with more than 1,000 tons of VX -- are unaccounted for. 



So we, the UN, had intelligence that there were 1000s of tons of chemical agents in Iraq's possession.  They had antrax, botulinum, VX, and sarin.  The IAEA said they were 6-months away from being able to produce a nuclear bomb.  All of this was not declared by Iraq, but was found after the fact.  What more evidence did we need, a bomb blowing up in the US with Saddam's fingerprint on it?




			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The UN didn't back the invasion.  How can the US go against the wishes of the Security Council and invade?  How does that work?  We cite the UN sanctions and decisions concerning the Iraq as a _casus belli_, and then flout the UN in ignoring their authority regarding the issue of invasion.



That to me is really the issue.  It has nothing to do with what we have or haven't found to date.  The decision was based on intelligence at the time, which is really an educated guess.  I don't know anything about international law nor about how the UN charter works.  All I know is that before the war there was discussion saying we weren't violating international law and that since the war I know of no resolution in the UN denouncing our effort nor some international court going against the US for violating Iraq's sovereignty.  If anyone has a deeper understanding of the legal justification, please respond.  We can jump up and down all we want, but I don't believe the US did anything "illegal."



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Do we merely pick those that we deem convenient?



Historically, yes.  We pick the fights that have the most "value" to the country.  We the people are paying for it, so I for one don't care about small African nations duking it out.  There are other ways we can help that cause that are more cost effective.  I care about more influential countries that can cause more global distress.  We ignore resolutions against Israel because that would be a political hotbed that would cause more problems than solve.  You may not like it, but it's my version of the truth.

There are threads on here all the time about martial artists attacking first when they believe there is an imminent threat.  Many people believe it's morally justified even if the law says you shouldn't.  What's so different in this case?  Boil this down to three people, Iraq who is the ex-con possibly armed and coming at you, the US the possible victim, and the world stage who represent the law.  As far as you know, he has the ability, the intent, and the opportunity to attack you.  Do you strike first believing that to do so would represent less harm to you and your family or wait and see what he does possibly losing a family member in the process?

WhiteBirch


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 17, 2004)

> I am not going to vote


Then quit complaining. Your voice means nothing.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Aug 17, 2004)

This just triggered with me as to what you're thinking...



			
				OULobo said:
			
		

> Basically all the articles talk about the opinons of the inspectors and anylists. None of that matters if there are no WMDs. That is what it comes down to, if they broke the rules and had them, then where are they?



Essentially there was no rule that said we'll invade you if you have WMDs.  We, the UN, believed they had WMDs and according to UN Resolution 1441 they were to dismantle them and provide proof they were gone.

There was no proof that it was dismantled which is one of the biggest contentions of their non-compliance.  The weapons inspectors were unable to make this determination in the amount of time they were allowed to be there.

So, people ask why don't we invade N. Korea because it has WMDs.  The reason is they're allowed to *have* them.  They did break a treaty, but the treaty didn't say there'd be "serious consequences" if they developed them.  There probably are economic sanctions tied to it, but nothing that says we can invade them.  AFAIK there are no resolutions against N. Korea for their nuclear development.  Iraq had UN sanctions against them, preventing them from having WMDs, because they attacked another country and the world sanctions said they had to disarm and start playing nice.

WhiteBirch


----------



## lvwhitebir (Aug 17, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Yes, everyone agrees that Saddam was a non-compliant, generally evil and bad man, certainly unfit to play nice with others,



I don't get the impression that everyone agrees with this.  OULobo for one seems to believe they *were* compliant and were merely tired of having to prove it.  I apologize if I misunderstand your position OULobo.

Non-compliance is the basic crux of the US argument.  If we believe they have the weapons and can't prove otherwise because of their non-compliance, then we feel in iminent danger.

Whether we were allowed to act on that danger is a question of international law and the rule of the UN.

WhiteBirch


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 17, 2004)

Well, yes. But the main problem of operating outside of the UN is that the same "justification" could be used for a host of other countries, and that could turn into a real foreign relations mess for the US. Yes, it can get worse than it is now....


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 17, 2004)

*That to me is really the issue.  It has nothing to do with what we have or haven't found to date.  The decision was based on intelligence at the time, which is really an educated guess.  I don't know anything about international law nor about how the UN charter works.  All I know is that before the war there was discussion saying we weren't violating international law and that since the war I know of no resolution in the UN denouncing our effort nor some international court going against the US for violating Iraq's sovereignty.  If anyone has a deeper understanding of the legal justification, please respond.  We can jump up and down all we want, but I don't believe the US did anything "illegal."*


To use enforcement of UN sanctions as a rationale for invasion when it goes against the wishes of the UN Security Council is ridiculous.  Bush invaded knowing he would not attain a majority in the Security Council had an "eighteenth resolution" been passed giving Iraq a deadline.  The majority of the members of the Security Council were against military action in spite of strong pressure from the US to back an attack.  He circumvented this by taking things into his own hands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UN_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_war

In invading without UN support the US undermined the legitmacy of the Security Council, while at the same time saying that UN resistance to invasion was in itself calling into question their credibility.  Given that popular opinion outside the US was against the war, the UN's credibility wasn't an issue.  


*Historically, yes.  We pick the fights that have the most "value" to the country.  We the people are paying for it, so I for one don't care about small African nations duking it out.  There are other ways we can help that cause that are more cost effective.  I care about more influential countries that can cause more global distress.  We ignore resolutions against Israel because that would be a political hotbed that would cause more problems than solve.  You may not like it, but it's my version of the truth.*

We've also ignored resolutions made against us, which again undermines the legitmacy of the UN.  Some call this hubris.  

Insofar as "global distress", Iran and North Korea are far more capable and far more inclined to cause unrest, hate, and discontent.  We picked a fight with the smallest bully on the block.

*There are threads on here all the time about martial artists attacking first when they believe there is an imminent threat.  Many people believe it's morally justified even if the law says you shouldn't.  What's so different in this case?  Boil this down to three people, Iraq who is the ex-con possibly armed and coming at you, the US the possible victim, and the world stage who represent the law.  As far as you know, he has the ability, the intent, and the opportunity to attack you.  Do you strike first believing that to do so would represent less harm to you and your family or wait and see what he does possibly losing a family member in the process?*

Iraq was fully contained.  Prior to 9-11 both Powell and Rice are on record stating there was no threat from Saddam.  Their military was degraded, they had no means of conventional delivery of WMD's, their supposed connections with Al Qaeda were didn't exist (and we had no intelligence of any merit indicating otherwise).  This "ex-con", as I've indicated, was the least threatening of Bush's "Axis of Evil."

Further, there is evidence that this invasion was an administration priority before 9-11--in spite of the previously mentioned containment-- and that there was pressure to force a link with Al Qaida following the attack.  

The day after the 9-11 Commission's report indicating that the Al Qaeda/Iraq connection was flimsy, Dick Cheney again maintained this "connection" as if he had not seen the news or was privy to the contents of the report.  Following the report's release and Tony Blair's apology to the people of Great Britain, the President said the intelligence was "good intelligence".  Both the President and Vice President seemed unable to come to grips with reality.

In the face of such overwhelming evidence against their appeals, their efforts go beyond denial into the realm of simply silly dishonestness directed at defusing the doubts of the less educated among the electorate.  

It further indicates a refusal to accept responsibility for a debacle that will, I predict, bring an end to George Bush's political career.  He will not aknowledge the error, nor will his die-hard supporters.

But then, Jingoism doesn't move beyond the black and white of dualism, nor does it recognize the mistakes of the _True Believer._

Regards,


Steve


----------



## lvwhitebir (Aug 18, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> To use enforcement of UN sanctions as a rationale for invasion when it goes against the wishes of the UN Security Council is ridiculous.  Bush invaded knowing he would not attain a majority in the Security Council had an "eighteenth resolution" been passed giving Iraq a deadline.  The majority of the members of the Security Council were against military action in spite of strong pressure from the US to back an attack.  He circumvented this by taking things into his own hands.



That's why he dropped that as his specified reason for the invasion.  He did go to the Security Council and did get multiple vetos to the proposed resolution which would give stronger language for reprisal if Iraq didn't comply.  He then came up with the clear-and-present-danger argument.  I don't like how things went down, but I support it and can't at all see how it can be considered "unjustified."  I don't see how he circumvented anything either.  The US merely selected another path that at least so far was legally our right.





			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> We've also ignored resolutions made against us, which again undermines the legitmacy of the UN.



I've heard this before.  What UN resolutions have been put against the US that we didn't fulfill?  Is there a link where I can look them up?  



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Insofar as "global distress", Iran and North Korea are far more capable and far more inclined to cause unrest, hate, and discontent.  We picked a fight with the smallest bully on the block.



IMO, that isn't true.  Iraq actually invaded another country.  N. Korea is simply shouting in the wind at this point, although it can develop into something quickly.  Iran may be harboring terrorist but nationally isn't doing anything itself either.  Iraq has shown a willingness to take whatever it wants and isn't ashamed about gassing its citizens in the process.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Iraq was fully contained.  Prior to 9-11 both Powell and Rice are on record stating there was no threat from Saddam.



Maybe evidence surfaced post 9/11 that changed that opinion.  I'd be interested in seeing the date and the comments from Powell and Rice.




			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Further, there is evidence that this invasion was an administration priority before 9-11--in spite of the previously mentioned containment



I'm not surprised.  As I said, I'm surprised the US waited so long to really do something about it.  We danced around it for 12 years.  I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton had made plans for it himself.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> In the face of such overwhelming evidence against their appeals, their efforts go beyond denial into the realm of simply silly dishonestness directed at defusing the doubts of the less educated among the electorate.
> 
> It further indicates a refusal to accept responsibility for a debacle that will, I predict, bring an end to George Bush's political career.  He will not aknowledge the error, nor will his die-hard supporters.



They seem to fully believe that what they did was the correct course of action.  It would most certainly be political suicide to say that they were indeed outright wrong.  I don't think I've ever heard a person in charge of something big ever admit they did something wrong.  Even their supporters would flee.  If they believed they made the right decision based on the evidence at hand, it's better to work on what might have gone wrong and correct it so it never happens again.

I'm neither a Republican nor a Bush-supporter.  There are many issues I disagree with him about.  But I feel that he is my President, whether I voted for him or not, he made a very tough decision based on the evidence at hand (a decision that I feel is neither immoral nor illegal and which I support) and believes he did the right thing.  People can call him all sorts of names and say he was wrong, but I believe most would have done the same thing given the same circumstances and evidence.  

Think about what might have happened had our fears of that evidence become reality.  What would people have thought, said, and done if we had evidence that the weapons existed, that they were sold to terrorist organizations, used against US targets, and we did nothing to stop it?

WhiteBirch


----------



## OULobo (Aug 18, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> That's why he dropped that as his specified reason for the invasion.  He did go to the Security Council and did get multiple vetos to the proposed resolution which would give stronger language for reprisal if Iraq didn't comply.  He then came up with the clear-and-present-danger argument.  I don't like how things went down, but I support it and can't at all see how it can be considered "unjustified."  I don't see how he circumvented anything either.  The US merely selected another path that at least so far was legally our right.



I still don't see anything clear or verifyably present in Iraq that posed a significant threat to the US. 



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> I'm neither a Republican nor a Bush-supporter.  There are many issues I disagree with him about.  But I feel that he is my President, whether I voted for him or not, he made a very tough decision based on the evidence at hand (a decision that I feel is neither immoral nor illegal and which I support) and believes he did the right thing.  People can call him all sorts of names and say he was wrong, but I believe most would have done the same thing given the same circumstances and evidence.



I disagree, he's not my President, he's the President. If I voted for him, he would be my president. Belief in the right thing is not what he was elected for or is paid to do. He was elected and is paid to do the will of the people, not the will of the Bush clan. He spent so much time justifying the stance of the paper tiger we call the UN, but then pats them on the head for their efforts like a lap dog and does what he wants anyway, and they are so desperate for a little muscle that they are too scared to nip that hand with international charges. We let him do this, because the sheeple of the US were wrapped up in the same post 9/11 ferver that allowed, that toilet paper, the patriot act to be passed. 



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> Think about what might have happened had our fears of that evidence become reality.  What would people have thought, said, and done if we had evidence that the weapons existed, that they were sold to terrorist organizations, used against US targets, and we did nothing to stop it?



I don't need to play the "what if" game with you do I, because there is very little in this world you should take action on, with just a "what if". What if he touched off a war that destroyed the global opinion of the US and formed the middle east into a unified US hating goliath, oh, wait, he practically did. He gambled and lost, now he needs to pay the price. The fact that he is the US president and thought he was justified, doesn't give him a pass, he doesn't get to make that decision. If I shoot someone on the street and think I'm justified, doesn't mean I get off. I have to face a jury that makes that decision. Why would he get the privilage of being his own jury? Hey, what if the president was using his power to push his own personal vendetta and financial gain, that would be just as viable as Iraq having WMD, but wait we actually have proof that they didn't. I guess that's not much of a what if anymore is it.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 18, 2004)

*I've heard this before.  What UN resolutions have been put against the US that we didn't fulfill?  Is there a link where I can look them up?  * 

No resolutions were passed authorizing invasion.  1441 threatened "serious consequences", but didn't authorize use of force.  Serious consequences could result in further sanctions or a limited bombing campaign.  

US Congressional authorization for the President to use force specifically stated that he would have to be in compliance with UN resolutions in order to take military action.  Those resolutions weren't passed by the Security Council, and in invading he defied Congressional directives that game him a specific length of "leash".  See below:

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

*IMO, that isn't true.  Iraq actually invaded another country.  N. Korea is simply shouting in the wind at this point, although it can develop into something quickly.  Iran may be harboring terrorist but nationally isn't doing anything itself either.  Iraq has shown a willingness to take whatever it wants and isn't ashamed about gassing its citizens in the process.*

Do we have a statute of limitations on evil acts?  When do we decide to decry these acts and move against the perpetrators?  Ten years after?  Twenty?  Fifty?

Iraq invaded another country in August of 1990 and was ousted.  End of story.  It gassed its civilians in the 80's and nothing was done by Reagan at the time.  Had we issues with the gassing George HW Bush (Bush the elder) had ample opportunity to take care of it then in 1991, as did his predecessor, Ronald Reagan when the actual gassing occured.

We could easily list a litany of abuses over the years by the other members of the "Axis of Evil".

Korea has murdered and starved its own civilian in the millions in the past decade.  Korea has in the past murdered a U.S. infantry captain (mid seventies) who was in neutral territory on the DMZ.  They seized a US intelligence gathering ship following a lethal attack upon it (late sixties), killing two crewmen and imprisoning the others.  They have metaphorically threatened the use of nuclear weapons on the US should we attack.  They have biological weapons and nerve gas.

Iran seized our embassy and kept our people hostage for 444 days.  They sponsored terrorism throughout the world during the Reagan administration and were responsible for the murder of 241 Marines in 1981.  Iran is still one of the leading state sponsors of terror.  They also have biological weapons and nerve gas.

Both countries, again, are developing nukes and the means of delivering them to the US.  

http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/st_terror/iran.htm

http://www.terrorismfiles.org/countries/iran.html

Note here that I'm not calling for war with these nations.  I AM saying that Bush knew well in advance who was the greatest threat.  It wasn't Iraq.

*
Maybe evidence surfaced post 9/11 that changed that opinion.  I'd be interested in seeing the date and the comments from Powell and Rice.*

If you want to see the actual clips, rent Fahrenheit 9-11.

Given this administration's touting of threats that they knew were false, many Americans suspect their motives.  George Tenet told the White House six months in advance that the story concerning yellow cake uranium was bogus, and advised Bush not to use it in his State of the Union address.  Bush did anyway.  There was foreknowledge that the Al Qaeda connections were shakey.  They stuck with connections, even though they knew better.  

*They seem to fully believe that what they did was the correct course of action.  * 

They clearly want the public to believe that this is so.  

*It would most certainly be political suicide to say that they were indeed outright wrong.  I don't think I've ever heard a person in charge of something big ever admit they did something wrong.  * 

Tony Blair did just that, as I've indicated.  Donald Rumsfeld did it with the Abu Ghraib scandal.  The President apologized for that, as well.  It is not unheard of.

*If they believed they made the right decision based on the evidence at hand, it's better to work on what might have gone wrong and correct it so it never happens again.*

Following the WTC/Pentagon attacks George Bush told terrorism expert Richard Clarke to attempt to actively link 9-11 to Saddam, _Clarke told him there was no link._  Bush directed him to find one, regardless.  Bush was trying to create a case when he was told there wasn't a case.   

The administration was creating evidence or bolstering shakey evidence.  The refutations of this "evidence" were leveled before, during and after the invasion.  The 9-11 commission's findings were, if anything, a denoument to the drama of the mythical WMD's.

*I'm neither a Republican nor a Bush-supporter.  There are many issues I disagree with him about.  But I feel that he is my President, whether I voted for him or not, he made a very tough decision based on the evidence at hand (a decision that I feel is neither immoral nor illegal and which I support) and believes he did the right thing.  People can call him all sorts of names and say he was wrong, but I believe most would have done the same thing given the same circumstances and evidence.  * 

Many would not have, given what we now know _he knew _ prior to invading.  Note what I wrote.  He knew better.   He knew the Al Qaeda connection was virtually non-existant, yet he pressed it (and Cheney still presses it).  He knew the yellow cake uranium was false.  Powell spent days at the CIA trying to find stuff he could make a case to the UN with.  They were scrabbling to try and justify an invasion they had allready decided to make.  The "imminent threat" was a creation of the administration.  


*Think about what might have happened had our fears of that evidence become reality.  What would people have thought, said, and done if we had evidence that the weapons existed, that they were sold to terrorist organizations, used against US targets, and we did nothing to stop it?*

Think of that.  And think of how a month before 9-11, on August 4,  George Bush had briefing notes that stated terrorists were planning to use airliners as missiles.  

_And he did nothing to stop it._



http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0332/mondo4.php

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/pdb-a12.shtml

http://www.wanttoknow.info/911timeline2pg

*Recommended readings:*

James Carville, _Had Enough?_
Al Franken, _Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them._
Bill Press, _Bush Must Go._



Regards,


Steve


----------



## lvwhitebir (Aug 20, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> No resolutions were passed authorizing invasion.



I understand this.  You misunderstood me.  You had said: *"We've also ignored resolutions made against us, which again undermines the legitmacy of the UN."*  I had heard this before, someone said that we had flagrantly disregarded a UN resolution against us.  I was wondering where your information came from because I'd like to look more into it.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Do we have a statute of limitations on evil acts?  When do we decide to decry these acts and move against the perpetrators?  Ten years after?  Twenty?  Fifty?



My point was that there were still UN resolutions outstanding against Iraq because it had invaded another country and that we were still attempting to resolve that resolution.  No matter if it takes 5 or 10 years to resolve the resolution, until it is, the punishment dictated by the resolution is still in force.  Once the UN resolution was resolved then we definitely couldn't use that "evil act" as a justification.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Iraq invaded another country in August of 1990 and was ousted.  End of story.



Not end of story.  That's what brought about this whole thing.  This is what UN resolution 1441 was all for.  It was to force their disarmament because they attacked another country.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> We could easily list a litany of abuses over the years by the other members of the "Axis of Evil". ... I AM saying that Bush knew well in advance who was the greatest threat.  It wasn't Iraq.



Sure, a lot of countries had done serious attrocities both interally and against other countries.  Some have been dealt with by UN actions, some not.  But we were actively working to resolve UN resolution 1441 that was being "fought" by Iraq (not only through their inaction, but blocking the actions of the inspectors and attacking our planes legally protecting the no-fly zones) *and* we had intelligence that they had WMDs *and* we had recent historical evidence that they used the illegal weapons against another country and internally (which not only says they have them, but that they're willing to use them).



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Tony Blair did just that, as I've indicated.  Donald Rumsfeld did it with the Abu Ghraib scandal.  The President apologized for that, as well.  It is not unheard of.



It's more of the *type* of appology that you won't see.  For example, they may appologize for something that happened under their watch (Abu Ghraib), but they won't appologize for a direct decision they made that they knew was wrong.

Here's the last info I could get on what Blair has said about it...



> CNN  7/20/04
> British Prime Minister Tony Blair has defended his decision to go to war against Iraq, insisting intelligence at the time left "little doubt" about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
> ...
> Challenged by former Cabinet minister Clare Short, who quit her post over the conflict, Blair said confronted with the choice of backing away or making sure he was incapable of developing WMD: "I still think we made the right decision."
> ...






			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The administration was creating evidence or bolstering shakey evidence.



It's funny that on one hand the British inquiry into the invasion said 



> the intelligence was "insufficiently robust" to justify claims that Iraq was in breach of U.N. resolutions requiring it to disarm



 on one hand and then 



> At the time, Britain was not alone in believing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence services of Russia, China, France, Germany and America believed it too



on the other.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The "imminent threat" was a creation of the administration.



Sorry, but from what I've seen, the evidence was there.  We may look back now and say that the evidence was wrong, but they based their decision on the evidence they had.  I haven't seen any inquiry that said Bush nor Blair did anything intentionally wrong, only conjecture and Monday-morning quarterbacking.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> _And he did nothing to stop it._



OT.  That's covered in the 9/11 Commission Report.  I haven't seen anything that says Bush could have or should have done something.  They've said that this administration and the ones previous to it had a lack of "imagination" concerning foreign attacks on our soil, but no one has said that Bush knew enough that he could had prevented the attack.  There were intelligence lapses and lots of intelligence that something was going to happen, but just knowing it was going to be a plane wouldn't have done much.  There are thousands of planes in the air at any one time.  They had no idea how it would happen nor where.  What could they have done?  They're trying to figure out how to keep it from happening again and are having difficulty.

WhiteBirch


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 20, 2004)

I appreciate your great patience in reading this.

Your comments in bold.

*I had heard this before, someone said that we had flagrantly disregarded a UN resolution against us.  I was wondering where your information came from because I'd like to look more into it.*

I erred here.  In reading my post I said we violated UN resolutions against us.  I have no evidence that we've violated any sanctions or resolutions made against us, but we have violated United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2131(XX).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

http://www.lossless-audio.com/usa/index16.php


*Not end of story.  That's what brought about this whole thing.  This is what UN resolution 1441 was all for.  It was to force their disarmament because they attacked another country.*

Name the subsequent UN Security Council resolution calling for invasion, please.  If you refer to the links I provided you'll find that a majority of the members of the Security Council did not favor an invasion.  I referenced that.  Again, how do we "enforce" UN resolutions without UN consent of that enforcement?  Since when do we disregard democratic procedure?

**and* we had intelligence that they had WMDs *and* we had recent historical evidence that they used the illegal weapons against another country and internally (which not only says they have them, but that they're willing to use them).*

Their use of these WMD's predate the '91 war.  Their sale by the US to Iraq apparently continued after the war.  Given the following article, and the inertia on the part of the Reagan/Bush (senior) administrations, one might get the idea that we were intentionally looking the other way.  

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

Another article along the same lines indicating that sale of WMD materials continued up to March of '92, which is after the Gulf War:

http://www.cursor.org/stories/burying_news_on_iraq.htm

Yet another article on the same issue, indicating that after it was discovered Iraq was using gas on a daily basis in its war with Iran, U.S. support stopped and then picked up again:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

Another story indicating the US was responsible for the buildup of their WMD's:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true

And here is perhaps the most damning outline of our support for their WMD program, a well done timeline:

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

So...we gave them the WMD's.  We supported the development of WMD's.  I cite this to point out that this was never a concern of previous administrations, and was brought out as an issue of morality only to further Bush (the younger) plan to justify the invasion.  Had this been an issue, one would think that Bush the elder would have simply rolled on into Baghdad when he had the opportunity and backing of the UN.

In response to my line _"The "imminent threat" was a creation of the administration."  _ You wrote: 

*Sorry, but from what I've seen, the evidence was there.  We may look back now and say that the evidence was wrong, but they based their decision on the evidence they had.  I haven't seen any inquiry that said Bush nor Blair did anything intentionally wrong, only conjecture and Monday-morning quarterbacking.*

Let's take a look at some of our starting line-up.

George Tenet defended his agents from being accused of botching the intel when he said "They never said there was an imminent threat."  This was February 5, 2004 at a speech at Georgetown University.  A Monday morning quarterback?

In the summer of 1995, Hussein Kamel--a Hussein son-in-law and the highest Iraqi official ever to defect--told the CIA that after Desert Storm Iraq had destroyed all of its chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.  He was telling the truth, and he was ignored.  A Monday morning quarterback?

On September of 2002 a Defense Intelligence Agency study on Iraq's chemical weapons program stated that there was "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons."  The President had access to this report.  Was it made by Monday morning quarterbacks?

You have yet to address the issue of the false report of Iraq's attempt to purchase "yellow cake" uranium from Nigeria, which the Bush administration knew to be a false allegation.  Former ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent by the CIA to confirm the report, and he returned saying it was hooey.  Bush was warned by Tenet not to use this "fact".  Ignoring Tenet, on Jan. 28, 2003 during his State of the Union address Bush said, and I quote:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

_Bush knew in advance.  _ 

Bush claimed in a news conference in Sept. 2002 that Iraq was within six months of developing a nuke.  There was no evidence to support that in spite of Bush's claims to the contrary.  The National Intelligence Estimate of Ocober 2002 estimated that had Iraq gotten their hands on fissile material it would take five to seven years to produce their first nuke.

In that same news conference he attributed the source of this information as being the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency):

"I would remind you that when the inspectors went into Iraq and were denied, finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic--the IAEA, that they were six months away from developing a weapon.  I don't know what more evidence we need."

The IAEA issued a report on Jan. 27, 2002 that stated there was no evidence of Iraqi nuclear weapons development.

http://www.mideastweb.org/inspectionreports.htm

An earlier IAEA report in October of 1997 that said of on site inspections, "These verification activities have revealed no indictions that Iraq had achieved its program objective of producing nuclear weapons...Furthermore, there are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance."

That same month the State Department's Intelligence and Research Department reported "The activities we have detected do not add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive apporach to accquiring nuclear weapons."

*OT.  That's covered in the 9/11 Commission Report.  * 

Certainly OT, and designed to point out the irony of your statement, which I hope people will go back and read over.

*There are thousands of planes in the air at any one time.  They had no idea how it would happen nor where.  What could they have done?  * 

Bush says he would have, and I quote "moved heavan and earth" to prevent that attack if he'd known it was in the offing.  The August 6 report game him plenty of warning, and no action was taken.  But as you point out, that's a topic for another thread.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## lvwhitebir (Aug 23, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Name the subsequent UN Security Council resolution calling for invasion, please.



There wasn't one which specifically authorized us the invade.  But 1441 pointed out unspecified consequences if Iraq didn't comply.  We thought it was too broad and tried to get another resolution through, which was vetoed by the Security Council.

I did not say that the UN ever authorized the attack, but they haven't condemed it either.  I merely pointed out that our first attempt to convince them was the non-compliance argument.  Personally, I find it to be the best argument.  I was very disappointed that the UN didn't back it.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Again, how do we "enforce" UN resolutions without UN consent of that enforcement?  Since when do we disregard democratic procedure?



I agree that the government can't cite that as its reason for the invasion.  And they don't.  They always go back to the "imminent threat" argument.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Their use of these WMD's predate the '91 war.  Their sale by the US to Iraq apparently continued after the war.  Given the following article, and the inertia on the part of the Reagan/Bush (senior) administrations, one might get the idea that we were intentionally looking the other way.
> ...
> So...we gave them the WMD's.  We supported the development of WMD's.  I cite this to point out that this was never a concern of previous administrations, and was brought out as an issue of morality only to further Bush (the younger) plan to justify the invasion. Had this been an issue, one would think that Bush the elder would have simply rolled on into Baghdad when he had the opportunity and backing of the UN.



That to me points out that they had the weapons at one time.  Whether we supplied them or not, we *know* that they at least had them.  We cannot now argue that they didn't.  My point is that it was Iraq's responsibility under 1441 to declare them or point to documentation of their destruction.  They didn't.  It wasn't an issue of morality (except them using them on their own people) but an issue of non-compliance.  We complained because they were supposed to destroy them.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Let's take a look at some of our starting line-up.



I can't comment on most of these because I don't have any reference for my own research.  I'd be interested in reading where you got your information.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> In the summer of 1995, Hussein Kamel--a Hussein son-in-law and the highest Iraqi official ever to defect--told the CIA that after Desert Storm Iraq had destroyed all of its chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. He was telling the truth, and he was ignored. A Monday morning quarterback?



The weapons inspectors were not convinced that either their chemical or biological stores were destroyed as he claimed.  How can we trust his statement?  The Monday-morning quarterback would say that he was telling the truth just because we haven't found any.  All that's important was he said it was destroyed and we didn't believe him.  This isn't evidence of lies or government conspiracy.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> You have yet to address the issue of the false report of Iraq's attempt to purchase "yellow cake" uranium from Nigeria, which the Bush administration knew to be a false allegation



The only evidence I have is that CNN said (the emphasis is mine):



> CNN  6/2003
> Critics point to Bush's State of the Union address in January in which he cited intelligence from one of the country's closest allies that he said indicated Iraq was seeking nuclear material.
> 
> "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," he said in the January 28 speech.
> ...



I haven't seen anything which said Bush knew anything before the speech.  Where is the evidence that says he did that I can also look into?  Was he wrong to no have it verified before he pushed it as evidence?  Yes.  Did he necessarily lie because it was later found to be forged?  No.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The IAEA issued a report on Jan. 27, 2002 that stated there was no evidence of Iraqi nuclear weapons development.
> 
> http://www.mideastweb.org/inspectionreports.htm



Yep, that's what the report says.  However, it also says they want more time to verify it, so the report isn't conclusive.

In my research, however, I did find the following alarming recent report...



> CNN  7/2004
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/index.html
> The United States removed nearly two tons of radiological and nuclear materials from Iraq last month, the Energy Department said.
> 
> The material could have potentially been used to make a "radiological dispersal device" -- a so-called dirty bomb -- "or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program," the department said Tuesday.



If they didn't have a program, they certainly had a lot of material.

WhiteBirch


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 23, 2004)

*There wasn't one which specifically authorized us the invade.  But 1441 pointed out unspecified consequences if Iraq didn't comply.  We thought it was too broad and tried to get another resolution through, which was vetoed by the Security Council.
<snip>
I was very disappointed that the UN didn't back it.*

So too the Administration.

*I agree that the government can't cite that as its reason for the invasion.  And they don't.  They always go back to the "imminent threat" argument.*

Indeed they did, and ignored the second clause of the Congressional Resolution requiring UN consent.  1441 did not provide this.  This brings us to the arguments for WMD's, which I suggest we focus on.


*That to me points out that they had the weapons at one time.  Whether we supplied them or not, we *know* that they at least had them.  We cannot now argue that they didn't.  My point is that it was Iraq's responsibility under 1441 to declare them or point to documentation of their destruction.  They didn't.  It wasn't an issue of morality (except them using them on their own people) but an issue of non-compliance.  We complained because they were supposed to destroy them.*

The issue of morality was brought up as a justification for the war, which I've indicated is disingenuous.  Paul Wolfowitz is on record saying that wasn't a good reason for invasion.  Reference Press' book, which I've provided as a source.

Of course we know they had them at one time.  The question is whether they had them any time following the Administration's post 9-11 allegations.

*I can't comment on most of these because I don't have any reference for my own research.  I'd be interested in reading where you got your information.*

I'll confess I appreciate your efforts to research.  

Bill Press' "Bush Must Go."  Is a primary source.  I cross-checked some of Press's allegations on line.  I recently cross referenced many of this with an article that appeared in August 30, 2004 issue of "In These Times", which I purchased off the shelf.  The report is by David Sirota and Christy Harvey.  I have a link to the article:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/

The article has hyperlinks to sources used.

I also cross referenced some of this with "The Book on Bush" by Eric Alterman, Mark Green and Mark J. Green.  I sat down with this book just this morning over coffee.  It is well written and well researched.  Hopefully this link to the book on Amazon will work:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0670032735/102-6123543-8314545?v=glance

*The weapons inspectors were not convinced that either their chemical or biological stores were destroyed as he claimed.  How can we trust his statement?  The Monday-morning quarterback would say that he was telling the truth just because we haven't found any.  All that's important was he said it was destroyed and we didn't believe him.  This isn't evidence of lies or government conspiracy.*

Taken in context with the other arguments I've presented, it does indicate dishonesty on the part of the White House.  The October 2002 CIA report directly contradicts one from the previous February.  Both Powell and Rice are on record prior to 9-11 stating that Hussein didn't have the capacity to be dangerous.  Rather than beat this point to death, I'd ask you to first read the article by Sirota and Harvey.

*The only evidence I have is that CNN said (the emphasis is mine):*

The UN did repoted those as forgeries later, as you emphasized.  As I've indicated, the CIA was aware well *before* the UN released this report, as was the White House, who removed the "yellow cake" reference from an October speech only to reinsert it later.  Again, the CIA sent Joe Wilson to confirm the report.  Wilson found the report to be bogus.  Reference my sources.

*I haven't seen anything which said Bush knew anything before the speech.  Where is the evidence that says he did that I can also look into?  Was he wrong to no have it verified before he pushed it as evidence?  Yes.  Did he necessarily lie because it was later found to be forged?  No.*

Sorry, yes.  Reference sources provided.

*In my research, however, I did find the following alarming recent report...*

You'll note in the second article that all of this uranium had been kept under seal and control by the IAEA.  It isn't fissile material and can not be used for a nuclear weapon, though it can be used for a "dirty bomb".  All of this material was known to the US and UN and was accounted for prior to the war and was not part of our casus belli:

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/iraq/article.jsp?id=99993860&sub=News update

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32195-2004Jul6?language=printer

A report from earlier this month:

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/iraq/article.jsp?id=99994549&sub=News update

*If they didn't have a program, they certainly had a lot of material.*

As I've indicated, they didn't really have either.

Again, I appreciate your work here.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## lvwhitebir (Aug 24, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Indeed they did, and ignored the second clause of the Congressional Resolution requiring UN consent.



According to the CNN report I have, the authorization did not require UN consent.



> CNN  10/11/2002
> In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
> ...
> "The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to  (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
> ...






			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The issue of morality was brought up as a justification for the war, which I've indicated is disingenuous.  Paul Wolfowitz is on record saying that wasn't a good reason for invasion.  Reference Press' book, which I've provided as a source.



I don't believe it was cited as a reason for the invasion, but it was additional support material.  *IF* he had the weapons, his proven immoral prior use of weapons shows that he wouldn't hesitate to use them against us; Ability, Opportunity, and Intent.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The report is by David Sirota and Christy Harvey.  I have a link to the article:
> 
> http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/
> 
> The article has hyperlinks to sources used.



Unfortunatly I found the article jumped to some conclusions.  As an example the article states:

"But such an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country required a public rationale. And so the Bush administration struck fear into the hearts of Americans about Saddam Husseins supposed WMD, starting with nuclear arms. In his first major address on the Iraqi threat in October 2002, President Bush invoked fiery images of mushroom clouds and mayhem, saying, Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

Yet, before that speech, the White House had intelligence calling this assertion into question. A 1997 report by the U.N.s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)the agency whose purpose is to prevent nuclear proliferationstated there was no indication Iraq ever achieved nuclear capability or had any physical capacity for producing weapons-grade nuclear material in the near future."

1) The IAEA was kicked out of the country in 1998 and the speech was 4 years later.
2) The report didn't say they were weapons free.  They said they had no indication, which isn't the same thing.
3) The IAEA shipped weapons grade nuclear material out of Iraq and locked up the non-weapons-grade material within Iraq, according to the source you cited.
4) Your source also indicated that the non-weapons-grade material would be ideal for terrorists.

*IF* we had some intelligence saying that post 1998 they were still attempting to beg, borrow, or steal materials, then they could still have produced a bomb.  *AND* with the IAEA out of the way, how was the nuclear material under UN seal and control when it resided in Iraq?



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Taken in context with the other arguments I've presented, it does indicate dishonesty on the part of the White House.  The October 2002 CIA report directly contradicts one from the previous February.  Both Powell and Rice are on record prior to 9-11 stating that Hussein didn't have the capacity to be dangerous.



I don't see how this indicates dishonesty.  Prior to 9-11 we never thought we had to worry about a foreign terrorist attack on US soil either.  I think 9-11 made them change a lot of views that they previously had.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I'd ask you to first read the article by Sirota and Harvey.



I'm reading it now, but I don't care for this form of editorial-journalism.  It makes bold statements with a flurry of adjectives that are a viewpoint rather than fact.  But it has shown additional information for which I thank you.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The UN did repoted those as forgeries later, as you emphasized.  As I've indicated, the CIA was aware well *before* the UN released this report, as was the White House, who removed the "yellow cake" reference from an October speech only to reinsert it later.



The source indicates that an aid screwed up big time.  I don't see this necessarily as a lie.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> You'll note in the second article that all of this uranium had been kept under seal and control by the IAEA.  It isn't fissile material and can not be used for a nuclear weapon, though it can be used for a "dirty bomb".  All of this material was known to the US and UN and was accounted for prior to the war and was not part of our casus belli:



I disagree, with passages pulled from the sources you quoted (emphasis is mine).  
1) It was known to be there in 1998,
2) It was controlled in Iraq by the IAEA *until* 1998,
3) It is material that is attractive to terrorists,
4) While not weapons-grade, it can be used to create a "dirty" bomb,



> http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/iraq/article.jsp?id=99993860&sub=News update
> According to the IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, "most" of the uranium is accounted for, though he is still waiting for the final report from his inspectors. The material has been kept under IAEA seal since 1991 to prevent it from being manufactured into high-enriched uranium for atomic bombs.
> 
> The uranium, however, poses less of an immediate health risk than the radiation sources. Medical and industrial sources are more radioactive, more widespread and *more attractive to terrorists*.
> ...





> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32195-2004Jul6?language=printer
> The International Atomic Energy Agency, which in the prewar period had kept the Tuwaitha uranium under seal, was told in advance of the U.S. removal, as were Iraqi officials.
> ...
> Tuwaitha was once the center of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons effort, but its equipment was dismantled at the direction of U.N. inspectors in the early 1990s as part of the agreement following Iraq's surrender in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The U.N. inspectors removed highly enriched uranium that could be used for weapons and shipped it for storage in Russia. The low-enriched uranium was placed under seal in storage at Tuwaitha but under the control of the IAEA.
> ...






			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> A report from earlier this month:
> .../iraq/article.jsp?id=99994549&sub=News update



This didn't tell me much; we haven't found anything.  I did make me think of one thing, though.  They were able to design and build a prohibited weapon under our noses (the missile).  Why do we think they couldn't do the same thing with their chemical, biological, or nuclear programs?  The report says they had the desire to do so.


Bottom line to me:  If the argument is so convincing that Bush *lied* why did the British government conclude Blair didn't lie; he presented the same evidence to his country?  Why don't the Democrats press this to the limit, it's an election year, yet hasn't been brought up as an issue?  Proving Bush lied to the American public would make Kerry a shoo-in.  Why doesn't someone, anyone, in Congress push for Bush's impeachment?  If true, this is definitely far worse than sleeping with an intern.  Why doesn't someone in the UN bring forth a resolution condeming our action against Iraq?

It's kind of like UFOs to me.  Lot's of people say they're there, but no one can seem to prove it.

My thoughts, nothing there is "provable."  People in power don't believe it.  It's all somebody's belief.  He's innocent until proven guilty.

Bush may have made a bad decision; I don't think so, but some do, and that's their choice.  Only Iraq could have a "democracy" with 100% voting for him and agreeing with everything he ever said and did.  

I still don't see how the US attack was unjustified or unlawful.

WhiteBirch


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 25, 2004)

*According to the CNN report I have, the authorization did not require UN consent.*

It took me awhile to look that report up, but you're correct.  The article does state that.  

"_The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its allies were under imminent threat." _ 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html


*I don't believe it was cited as a reason for the invasion, but it was additional support material.  *IF* he had the weapons, his proven immoral prior use of weapons shows that he wouldn't hesitate to use them against us; Ability, Opportunity, and Intent.*

The issue of Saddam's evil was brought up continually throughout the buildup to this war and was indeed used as justification to the American people.  Now that there appear to be no WMD's, it has become an increasingly shrill defense for the attack...particularly among the less informed who aren't very clear on the concept of WMD's and their role in the unfolding of this tragedy. 

Ability:  Elsewhere I've demonstrated Saddam didn't have the ability...in fact I've given ample evidence he had none, and the administration knew this.

Opportunity:  Without the ability, the opportunity doesn't exist.  Aside from that, he had no delivery vehicles or demonstrable alliances with terrorist organizations that would have delivered them to US shores.

Intent:  Other than the 1993 attempt on George HW Bush's life and the shooting at Brit and American flyovers, there was no aggression on Saddam's part leading up to this war.


*1) The IAEA was kicked out of the country in 1998 and the speech was 4 years later.*

_Inspections in Iraq pursuant to resolution 1441 (2002) were resumed by the IAEA and UNMOVIC on 27 November 2002. _ 

Summary:  "_In general, the IAEA has observed that, while a few sites have improved their facilities and taken on new personnel over the past four years, at the majority of these sites (which had been involved in research, development and manufacturing) the equipment and laboratories have deteriorated to such a degree that the resumption of nuclear activities would require substantial renovation. The IAEA has found no signs of nuclear activity at any of these sites._" 


*2) The report didn't say they were weapons free.  They said they had no indication, which isn't the same thing.*

This implies a logical fallacy.  One can't prove a negative.  If one makes an allegation, then the burden of proof is on the person making the allegation.  The onus of responsibility was upon us to prove that Iraq had WMD's.  We failed to prove that.  We then assumed that because we couldn't verify their non-existance, they must therefore exist.  We  then invaded.

Note that we didn't say they MIGHT have these.  We claimed we had strong reason to believe so, even though we had no evidence and subsequent investigations have shown our intel was faulty.


*3) The IAEA shipped weapons grade nuclear material out of Iraq and locked up the non-weapons-grade material within Iraq, according to the source you cited.*

This is true, and is listed in IAEA documents.  This was well known to the US.  Mention of terrorist "dirty bombs" using this material was made following the toppling of the regime.

*4) Your source also indicated that the non-weapons-grade material would be ideal for terrorists.*

The 2002 inspections verified that the material was still under seal, and the seals had not been violated.  

**IF* we had some intelligence saying that post 1998 they were still attempting to beg, borrow, or steal materials, then they could still have produced a bomb.  *AND* with the IAEA out of the way, how was the nuclear material under UN seal and control when it resided in Iraq?*

"If" isn't an issue.  They did not attempt to beg, borrow, or steal materials that could have produced a bomb.  Had they these materials, they would not have been able to produce a bomb given the status of their facilities.  I have presented evidence of this in citing a summary of the IAEA report from November of 2002.  

I also mentioned a National Intelligence Estimate of Ocober 2002 stating that had Iraq gotten their hands on fissile material it would take five to seven years to produce their first nuke.

AND I have addressed the material that was under seal.  This is also listed in the IAEA summary.  It was not compromised as of November 2002.



*I don't see how this indicates dishonesty.  Prior to 9-11 we never thought we had to worry about a foreign terrorist attack on US soil either.  I think 9-11 made them change a lot of views that they previously had.*

I'd construct a timeline of events for you that would perhaps make the dishonesty clear, but its quite late.  I have to sleep sometime.


*I'm reading it now, but I don't care for this form of editorial-journalism.  It makes bold statements with a flurry of adjectives that are a viewpoint rather than fact.  But it has shown additional information for which I thank you.*

Thank you.  It does have an agenda, but the facts seem to bear out.


*
The source indicates that an aid screwed up big time.  I don't see this necessarily as a lie.*

The President was informed in advance by George Tenet of the yellow cake reports spurious nature.  The President is responsible for what he says during his State of the Union address.  One can't fingerpoint to an aide when one has such weight of responsibility.


*I disagree, with passages pulled from the sources you quoted (emphasis is mine).  
1) It was known to be there in 1998,
2) It was controlled in Iraq by the IAEA *until* 1998,
3) It is material that is attractive to terrorists,
4) While not weapons-grade, it can be used to create a "dirty" bomb,*

I've addressed this above.  Insofar as it being used as a "dirty bomb", the material not accounted for went missing _following the invasion_, not prior to it.  Again, we are discussing justification for invasion.  Prior to invasion the material was under seal and accounted for as listed in the November 2002 IAEA report.  The chaos of the regime's fall led to the loss of the material.  

I have no idea why the U.S. or Brits didn't step in to secure this stuff after the invasion when we knew where it was and what it was.  It would have taken perhaps a platoon of Marines...or lacking that, a battalion of the 3rd Infantry Division. 


*They were able to design and build a prohibited weapon under our noses (the missile).  Why do we think they couldn't do the same thing with their chemical, biological, or nuclear programs?  The report says they had the desire to do so.*

They didn't build a missile.  The article indicates they had flawed designs for a missile that likely wouldn't have worked.  The report does not indicate that such innovation was standard with SCUDS, and they did this with them in '91, which is why those missiles fired at Coalition forces and Israel often broke up in flight.


*Bottom line to me:  If the argument is so convincing that Bush *lied* why did the British government conclude Blair didn't lie; he presented the same evidence to his country?* 

Our government isn't claiming Bush lied, either...though some in power claim he is.  

Many Brits believe Blair is lying.

_Britain: Former minister Robin Cook says Blair lied over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction_

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/oct2003/cook-o08.shtml

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0306/S00076.htm

(read those just for the headlines if you like...they don't bear heavily on the debate)

And I needn't tell you that a significant number of Americans feel Bush lied.  I am not a lone voice crying out in the wilderness.

*Why don't the Democrats press this to the limit, it's an election year, yet hasn't been brought up as an issue?  * 

They've been pressing it very, very hard.  Press' book, which I listed, is only one of dozens on the shelves right now that lambast the President for this.  I can recommend several other than Press' book if you'd like to read them.  See the DNC link below.

*Proving Bush lied to the American public would make Kerry a shoo-in.* 

To my satisfaction, it has been proven.  Writing this up for you has clarified it for me and given me a better grasp of it.  

Kerry is a shoo-in, Whitebirch...unless something unforseen happens.  The numbers are killing Bush right now, and his affluent Republican supporters are bailing on him.  Some have stopped sending checks, according to Newsmax

*Why doesn't someone, anyone, in Congress push for Bush's impeachment?  * 

Because Congress bought this B.S.  hook line and sinker and gave the President Congressional authority to go to town and party.  And he did.  

And you know what, Whitebirch?  I BOUGHT IT TOO.  I supported the war initially.  I didn't want to accept any of this for the longest time...and then I started getting the facts.

*If true, this is definitely far worse than sleeping with an intern.* 

The line among Dems is "When Clinton lied, nobody died."

*Why doesn't someone in the UN bring forth a resolution condeming our action against Iraq?*

The might yet get around to it.  I don't know why they don't want to condemn a military hyper-power with the greatest economic clout the world has ever seen.  Its beyond me.

*It's kind of like UFOs to me.  Lot's of people say they're there, but no one can seem to prove it.*

You're talking about WMD's, right?

*My thoughts, nothing there is "provable."  * 

You're talking about WMD's, right?

*People in power don't believe it.  It's all somebody's belief.  * 

Some people in power do.  Max Cleland, a now ousted Senator, though Bush lied.  The DNC is claiming he did so.   

http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/top10_lies/


*He's innocent until proven guilty.*

One must cry "J'accuse!"  to even get a man a day in court.  Bush's day in court will come in November.  

*Bush may have made a bad decision; I don't think so, but some do, and that's their choice.  * 

A slight majority think it was a mistake, according to Gallup.

*Only Iraq could have a "democracy" with 100% voting for him and agreeing with everything he ever said and did. * 

No.  Not now.  Iraq has nothing but chaos and 70% unemployment.   North Korea would probably fit that "totalitarian regime" bill just fine.  And they have REAL nukes.  The kind that really go boom...and the missiles to reach California.

*I still don't see how the US attack was unjustified or unlawful.*

Richard Perle thought it unlawful...see the preceding link.  I won't argue any more that it is.

But its past midnight.  I've nothing more to give.  If after all I've given doesn't convince you, you're likely not to be convinced.  I confess disappointment, but I had fun trying.  And I appreciate you listening and giving play to my comments.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## lvwhitebir (Aug 25, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> If after all I've given doesn't convince you, you're likely not to be convinced.  I confess disappointment, but I had fun trying.  And I appreciate you listening and giving play to my comments.



Unfortunately it doesn't convince me.  There are simply too many agenda's and until congress puts out a commission similar to 9/11 to study it we're not going to learn the "truth."  I read most of the 9/11 commission report and I thought it provided a good, in-depth look at what went wrong.  I would like to read the British report on the war in Iraq if it's even publicly available.

That's probably it for both of us.  Unfortunately nothing in politics is a cut-and-dried issue.  I promised myself several months ago that I wouldn't get into this argument because I don't believe it can be proven either way.  If it could, we wouldn't be here right now.  But, low and behold, I got suckered in.

Good luck in your training,

WhiteBirch


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 25, 2004)

Well, it was good practice for me.  Thanks.

I'll probably go on with a timeline sometime in the near future and post it if anybody else wants to take that on.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 25, 2004)

Well done. :asian:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 29, 2004)

Sigh.  Once more into the breech...and THEN maybe I'll leave it alone.

I worked up a timeline for the Nukes argument to sort out all the dates of claims and reports and put them into a proper chronology.  I could do one for the Al Qaeda allegations and the biological/chemical weapons that is similar in pointing out inconsistencies with the administration's allegations and what intelligence agencies were actually reporting.  

Rather than do that I would suggest those interested read the "In These Times" article (posted earlier) and cross reference the articles allegations using "Google."  The weight of the arguments I've been able to find go against the Bush administration.

I found this interesting article that quotes Paul Wolfowitz stating that there was no Al Qaeda/Iraq connection:

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/080703Leopold/080703leopold.html

It seems that Wolfowitz has a hard time keeping his remarks on line with the statements of the administration.  Cheney and Bush were still making claims of the connection earlier this year...even after the 9/11 Commission's refutation of the link.


Regards,


Steve

I


----------



## lvwhitebir (Sep 1, 2004)

I found the Butler Report on-line and have read through most of it.  I suggest people read it since it provides a prospective on what the British intelligence services knew, what they perceived, and how it was presented to the government (e.g., nuclear, biological, and chemical threats, al qaida link, etc).  It also has the British argument on why they believed the attack was legal (i.e., they violated resolution 687 which authorized the 1991 attack and which was still in force).

If nothing else, it provides additional, "non-biased" (if it can ever be) information for you to chew on and base your opinion.

WhiteBirch


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 1, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> I found the Butler Report on-line and have read through most of it.  I suggest people read it since it provides a prospective on what the British intelligence services knew, what they perceived, and how it was presented to the government (e.g., nuclear, biological, and chemical threats, al qaida link, etc).  It also has the British argument on why they believed the attack was legal (i.e., they violated resolution 687 which authorized the 1991 attack and which was still in force).
> 
> If nothing else, it provides additional, "non-biased" (if it can ever be) information for you to chew on and base your opinion.
> 
> WhiteBirch




Link please?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## lvwhitebir (Sep 2, 2004)

Oops, sorry about that.  You can find it at:

http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/report/index.asp

WhiteBirch


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 8, 2004)

*Here's the footage of Condi Rice and Colin Powell stating that Saddam's weapons threat was null:

http://www.ejectbush.com/*

*Scroll down a bit and you'll see their pictures and a link to the clips.*

"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." 
Colin Powell in Cairo February 24, 2001


"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." 
Condoleeza Rice, July 2001


Regards,


Steve


----------

