# Saddam Hussein would still be in power



## michaeledward (Sep 11, 2004)

As this election has been reported to be the first election in 30 years to have 'Foreign Policy' as the primary reason people are voting, I think this topic is worth discussing.

At a campaign stop on Friday September 10, 2004, President Bush made the following statement:



> The newest wrinkle is that Sen. Kerry has now decided we are spending too much money in Iraq even though he criticized us earlier for not spending enough, Bush said. *One thing about Sen. Kerrys position is clear ... if he had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power and would still be a threat to our security and to the world.*


Now, I do not want to talk about Saddam Hussein of the mid-80's, when he used chemical weapons against the Iranians and Kurds. I don't want to talk about Saddam Hussein of the early 90's, making a land-grab in Kuwait. But let's take a close look at Saddam Hussein of the 21st century.

If Saddam Hussein was still in power, today, in 2004, would he be a threat to *our *security? to the *world*? How would that threat manifest itself? What actual dangers did Saddam Hussein pose?

If, indeed, Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq would be a threat, then the President's claim *may* have some merit, and we could then debate the merit of removing Hussein, and against Kerry. *But, are you ready to accept the premise?*

I do not think that Saddam Hussein in power over Iraq was a threat to American Security. I do not think Saddam Hussein in power over Iraq was a threat to the world. It had been years since the fighter planes had been off the ground. His military was not fully staffed. Spare parts were not available for his armor, and he could not acquire them due to lack of capital and embargoes. 

In the words of Mr. O'Reilly ... "What say you?"

Mike


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 11, 2004)

I think that the primary threat that Saddam posed outside of his own country was toward Israel.  He was financially supporting the Palestinian suicide bombers, and I would imagine allowing the most wanted of them safe haven.  So, if anyone believes that a threat to Israel corresponds to a threat to the US, then sure.  I, however, do not.


----------



## bignick (Sep 11, 2004)

Saddan Hussein was absoluetly no threat to america...at least i've seen no evidence of it...

but he had those WMDs, right?

well...he was had the facilities to build them, right?

But, he had every intention doing so, right?

Well, he was a tyrant and treated his people horribly, right?

this one is true...but there is no justification to go to war over internal conflicts withing a country...if it is...well...we've got a lot more wars we need to start...


----------



## Kane (Sep 12, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> As this election has been reported to be the first election in 30 years to have 'Foreign Policy' as the primary reason people are voting, I think this topic is worth discussing.
> 
> At a campaign stop on Friday September 10, 2004, President Bush made the following statement:
> 
> ...


In time he would be a threat to America and the rest of the world, he has ties to Al Queda. Just imagine if he developed any stronger weapons. I'm sure eventually Saddam would develop a nuke.....and give it to Bin Ladden. I don't know about you, but I definitely don't want to wait around for that too happen.


----------



## bignick (Sep 12, 2004)

where is your evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 12, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> In time he would be a threat to America and the rest of the world, he has ties to Al Queda. Just imagine if he developed any stronger weapons. I'm sure eventually Saddam would develop a nuke.....and give it to Bin Ladden. I don't know about you, but I definitely don't want to wait around for that too happen.


How much time would it take for Saddam Husseing to be a threat to America? And you do realize that your President said that Saddam Hussein *was *a threat to America. Do you think someone who makes that assessment deserves to be President? From the first sentence in your post, you do not think Saddam Hussein was the a threat to America in 2001, 2002.

According to the 9/11 Commission, the group investigating al Qaeda's attacks on America, Saddam Hussein did not have ties to al Qaeda. What evidence do you have to counter their research? This is important, because your premise is that even if Hussein could develop Nuclear Weapons, or if he had Chemical and Biological weapons (which he apparently didn't), he would deliver those weapons to Bin Laden. Why do you make this assertion?

How are you sure that Saddam would develop a nuclear weapon? There is no evidence of a nuclear weapons development going on in Iraq between the time the UNSCOM inspectors left in 1998 and when the UNMOVIC inspectors returned in late 2002.

I don't want to wait around til the next planet killing asteroid impacts the planet Earth, but I'm not going to go commit suicide because it is going to happen.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 12, 2004)

Yeah, but you've gotta love watching the Big Lie mutate from "we know for sure," to, "well, he mighta."


----------



## Kane (Sep 12, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> where is your evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda?


*Connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda?*

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...03/378fmxyz.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...04/152lndzv.asp

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...ein_al_ qaeda/

The 911 Commission is full of it.


Weapon's of Mass Destruction in Iraq; 

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6705


*President Bush speaks out about Iraq & Al Qaeda ties...*

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/new...id=azMEdM2f.xzQ

*Clinton Justice Dept Bin Laden indictment cites Iraq ties...in 1998!* 

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html


Honestly though, why would anyone of you want Saddam in power.


----------



## bignick (Sep 12, 2004)

the only linked that work was the very last one...



> Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
> with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
> they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
> development.



and that was the entire evidence within that article...this isn't evidence...this is a sentence that says they did...where is the evidence behind that statement


----------



## Kane (Sep 12, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> *Connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda?*
> 
> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...03/378fmxyz.asp
> 
> ...


The links should work now. If they don't work the first time click on them a few more times.

*Connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda?*

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/06/16/bush_backs_cheney_on_assertion

The 911 Commission is full of it.


Weapon's of Mass Destruction in Iraq; 

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6705


*President Bush speaks out about Iraq & Al Qaeda ties...*

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=71000001&refer=top_world_news&sid=azMEdM2f

*Clinton Justice Dept Bin Laden indictment cites Iraq ties...in 1998!* 

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html


Honestly though, why would anyone of you want Saddam in power.[/


----------



## bignick (Sep 12, 2004)

it's not a question of saddam being in power...it's a question of our rights and responsibilities.  We neither had the right nor the responsibility to invade Iraq...not to mention over the thousand lives it's cost us...

if the desire to develop WMDs lays upon us the responsibiility to invade and overthrow a sovereign nation...we've got a lot of work to do....


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 12, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> The links should work now. If they don't work the first time click on them a few more times.
> 
> *Connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda?*
> 
> ...


In answer to your question ... *Because it was none of our business!*.

I looked at the first few links and found the names Douglas Feith, Dick Cheney, and Stephen Hayes. Kane, you are aware that Douglas Feith and Dick Cheney were heavily involved in the planning and execution of the invasion of Iraq. They can hardly be considered 'Reliable Sources'. Stephen Hayes is someone I am not very familiar with, but as his major supporter seems to be Bill O'Reilly, I do have a hard time taking him seriously.

I checked the link to the American Spectator. Here was an articel talking about someone named 'Demetrius Perricos'. That is a name I am not familar with, perhaps there is something here. I read the article and it states "_While it's true that *these finds are not the chemical and biological weapons*..._". But you are citing this as a source for "Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq".

Hmmm ... Doesn't seem like strong evidence to me.

I did a Google on Demetrius Perricos and found this ... the first hit.



> U.N. weapons inspector sees vindication in U.S. frustration
> 
> UNITED NATIONS  Demetrius Perricos, acting head of the United Nations weapons inspection program, can't disguise his satisfaction that almost a year after the invasion of Iraq, U.S. inspectors have found the same thing that their much-maligned U.N. counterparts did before the war: no banned weapons.


OK ... so let's review ... the one neutral name you mention gets a report in American Specator that there are not chemical biological weapons; and my find says that this source is satisfied that the United States weapons inspectors are coming up empty handed too.

Geesh ... with evidence like this ... How can you be asking these questions?

Mike


----------



## Kane (Sep 12, 2004)

I can't believe you would want him to still be in power. Dont you think someone like Saddam shouldnt be in power?

My main reason why I supported the Iraq war was not because of the ties to Al Queda, it was the fact that Saddam treated his people lower than dirt. He has done so many violations of human rights. He SHOULDN'T be in power.

Michaeledward, I remember one time you said that you define yourself as a extreme liberal. If this is the case, how and why would you want someone like Saddam to rule? Liberal is a short term for sdomeone who believes in liberty. Do you think Iraq had any liberty under Saddam?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 12, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> I can't believe you would want him to still be in power. Dont you think someone like Saddam shouldnt be in power?
> 
> My main reason why I supported the Iraq war was not because of the ties to Al Queda, it was the fact that Saddam treated his people lower than dirt. He has done so many violations of human rights. He SHOULDN'T be in power.
> 
> Michaeledward, I remember one time you said that you define yourself as a extreme liberal. If this is the case, how and why would you want someone like Saddam to rule? Liberal is a short term for sdomeone who believes in liberty. Do you think Iraq had any liberty under Saddam?



Kane, when Saddam was at his most ruthless, the US could care less.  He gassed his own people with the weapons we sold him.  And the whole gassing event makes no mention of the people he gassed for us in Iran.  Yep, women and children died their too.  Perhaps someone should ask our esteemed secratary of defense about this event?


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 12, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> I can't believe you would want him to still be in power. Dont you think someone like Saddam shouldnt be in power?
> 
> My main reason why I supported the Iraq war was not because of the ties to Al Queda, it was the fact that Saddam treated his people lower than dirt. He has done so many violations of human rights. He SHOULDN'T be in power.
> 
> Michaeledward, I remember one time you said that you define yourself as a extreme liberal. If this is the case, how and why would you want someone like Saddam to rule? Liberal is a short term for sdomeone who believes in liberty. Do you think Iraq had any liberty under Saddam?


Kane, I agree with you.  However, there is a major difference between legal justification and moral obligation.  You started off with trying to show legal justification.  Now you're abandoning that for moral obligation as justification.  
And that's a bad can of worms to open, - where does the line get drawn?  Those are not democratic values based upon rule of law, they are based on rule of morality, and all people carry different ways of interpreting morality.  Rule of law can be an absolute foundation, and thus provide irrefutable justification for any action, provided the law is followed.

In this case, it wasn't.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 12, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> I can't believe you would want him to still be in power. Dont you think someone like Saddam shouldnt be in power?
> 
> My main reason why I supported the Iraq war was not because of the ties to Al Queda, it was the fact that Saddam treated his people lower than dirt. He has done so many violations of human rights. He SHOULDN'T be in power.
> 
> Michaeledward, I remember one time you said that you define yourself as a extreme liberal. If this is the case, how and why would you want someone like Saddam to rule? Liberal is a short term for sdomeone who believes in liberty. Do you think Iraq had any liberty under Saddam?


You can't believe I would still want Saddam Hussein in power? 

What I want really is not the issue ... I don't *want* George Bush in power. I don't *want* Kim Jong Il in power. I don't *want *Ahmed Chalabi or Ayotollah al-Sadr in power in Iraq. I don't *want* Hamid Karzai in power in Afghanistan. 

To want something doesn't make it so. To *make is so*, takes action and money. I am not willing to obligate the United States of America, the soldiers wearing her unifrom, and the taxpayers who support the government and service to making my *wants* a reality. 

As of this posting, 1007 United States soldiers have been killed in Iraq. To me, that price is unacceptable.
As of this posting, the United States has spent $137,756,000,000.00 dollars to remove Saddam Hussein from power. To me, that price is unacceptable.

I don't know if 'Liberal' and 'Liberty' are the synonyms you are claiming them to be, but if I recall my history, when, in 1775, there were people in the colonies feeling that their liberty was being denied by their ruler, they not only rebuked their ruler with words, but pledged their 'Lives', their 'Fortunes' and the 'Sacred Honor'. 

Why should not the Iraqi's make a similiar pledge for their own liberty?


Post Script


			
				Kane said:
			
		

> My main reason why I supported the Iraq war was ... the fact that Saddam treated his people lower than dirt. He has done so many violations of human rights.


Were these your motivations prior to May 19, 2003? If so, you are in a distinct minority among the American people. Prior to the invasion, the Administration, on Douglas Feith's recommendation, presented this war as necessary because of the Weapons of Mass Destruction. With this argument, American public opinion supported the war. Without this argument, there was insufficient support for the war.

Them's the facts.
Mike


----------



## bignick (Sep 12, 2004)

some of you may have seen this...some may not...it's a picture of Bush's man Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with the man himself, Saddam Hussein


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 12, 2004)

I got bad links on several of those you posted as well.  

Here's a link that works.  Scroll down to the section on the Saddam/Al Qaida connection:

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

I'll snip a piece of it for you to preview:

_It started on September 25, 2002, when Bush said, you cant distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam. This was news even to members of Bushs own political party who had access to classified intelligence. Just a month before, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, Saddam is not in league with al Qaeda. I have not seen any intelligence that would lead me to connect Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda."_

The article links with the following piece, which can give you a bit of background on the issue:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/26/time.iraq/




			
				Kane said:
			
		

> I can't believe you would want him to still be in power. Dont you think someone like Saddam shouldnt be in power?
> 
> My main reason why I supported the Iraq war was not because of the ties to Al Queda, it was the fact that Saddam treated his people lower than dirt. He has done so many violations of human rights. He SHOULDN'T be in power.
> [/color]




So that is the role of our military, then?  The world's police?

Given that we've got this new agenda set by you and the administration, let's remember there are five remaining terrorist states on the State Department's list of rogue nations.  We have China to deal with as well.  China has killed...how many Chinese and Tibetans in my lifetime alone?   At least 1.5 million.  

One of those documents you provided "linking" Saddam to Al Qaeda also listed Iran...several times.  Are they next on our hit list?  Cuba?  North Korea?  Syria?  Turkey?  Sri Lanka?  Chechnya?  Do we go after the ones with the nukes first, or do we go after the ones that our allies?  We seem to like to financially support murderous thugs who abuse their people.  I'd like you to tell me which murderous thugs we support, and which we go after for "moral reasons".   I'm a tad confused...particularly since Saddam was one of those cretins we supported.

Bottom line:  The purpose of the United States Military is NATIONAL SECURITY.  Nowhere does our Constitution list "nation building" as a job description for our troops.  George Bush said that before getting elected.  Pity he flip flopped.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Kane (Sep 13, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> So that is the role of our military, then? The world's police?


 
Why did we attack Germany in WWII? They never attacked us. Japan was the one who spilt our people's blood. Why did we bother to help Britain liberate Europe from Hitler?

On a different note, why didn't Britain and France stop Germany after he took over Poland or even before then? Why can't we and other countries help other countries in need?

Anyway, my point is: it is our job as a superpower to support democracy and human rights and to stop others who violate them. What is wrong with helping those who are oppressed or in need?

The world is a better place without Saddam in power. Michaeledward, how can you even compare George Bush to someone like Saddam? Disliking a president is a TOTALLY different matter than not disliking a Stalin-like dictator.


Upnorthkyosa, you might be right. Maybe we did ignore Saddam when he was at his worse. Does that give any reason why we shouldnt care now? Where going to just let him get away with all the horrible things he did? I don't think so.


----------



## Raewyn (Sep 13, 2004)

I dont live in your country but you have made some real vailid points.  Do you think maybe the oil over in Iraq had anything to do with part of the decision to invade it??  It is a land quite rich in resources (oil).  I think if it had been another country ie Zimbabwe (which is also run by a shady dictator)  which does not really have that much to offer, would Bush still have invaded Iraq if it had no oil??


----------



## Marginal (Sep 13, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> Why did we attack Germany in WWII? They never attacked us. Japan was the one who spilt our people's blood. Why did we bother to help Britain liberate Europe from Hitler?
> 
> On a different note, why didn't Britain and France stop Germany after he took over Poland or even before then? Why can't we and other countries help other countries in need?



Please. What happened would be the WWII equivalent of Japan bombing Pearl Harbor so we focus our resources on an invasion of Italy because Benito's a "bad man". Was Saddam voraciously taking one country after the next? Well, no. He attempted to invade Kuwait, and was beaten back in short order. He was then sealed in his country and left with no real capacity to make war again.   



> Anyway, my point is: it is our job as a superpower to support democracy and human rights and to stop others who violate them. What is wrong with helping those who are oppressed or in need?



What happened to stopping those nasty terrorists? For that matter, who are we helping? Afghanistan seems to be completely forgotten now, and it's a mess. 

Ah right. They don't matter anymore. We're bringing light to the dark, dark world now because the Allmighty told Bush to do so.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> Why did we attack Germany in WWII? They never attacked us. Japan was the one who spilt our people's blood. Why did we bother to help Britain liberate Europe from Hitler?
> 
> On a different note, why didn't Britain and France stop Germany after he took over Poland or even before then? Why can't we and other countries help other countries in need?
> 
> ...


OK, this thread has drifted a bit, but concerning Germany, back in the Good Old Days of 'Declared War' (Congress's obligation); Follow along now.

United States enforces an English and Dutch oil embargo on Japan. Summer 1941
Japan attacked United States
Japan Declared War on the United States
Germany, Japan's ally, Declared War on the United States. December 11, 1941

That's why we attacked Germany in WWII.

On your second note .. Why can't we help others? This is a wonderful question. I don't know the answer, but, as a matter of policy, the United States *does not* send military troops into other nations for humanitarian reasons. The term 'Genocide' must be used before we will even begin discussing 'helping' others. See Colin Powell's recent use of 'Genocide' in referring to the Darfur region of Sudan. I would be willing to discuss whether we should get invovled to help out on another thread.

By the way, it is not our job to support democracies around the world, support human rights and stop those who violate them. Now, you might argue that it is our responsibility to behave so, but I think you would be in a very small minority. Also, there is a great deal of recent history in the New World you are ignoring. The United States has removed democracies from many Central and South American in favor of dictatorship that would 'properly' support American Business. 

Ah, here we get to the topic of this thread. 


			
				Kane said:
			
		

> "The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power".


I don't know about the world, but let us turn an eye toward Iraq. This morning I read two articles about Iraq that were pretty disturbing. The United States military has given over Fallujah, Samarra, Ar Ramadi and Baquba; we just gave that territory away because a) the insurgency was too effective, b) we didn't have the stomach for it. 
There just might be an argument that, in these Iraqi cities at least, things were better when Saddam Hussein was in power.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5973272/site/newsweek/

*Kane, please pay very important attention to this next part.*

I did not compare Saddam Hussein to George Bush.​ 
You said:


			
				Kane said:
			
		

> I can't believe you would *want* him (Saddam Hussein) to still be in power.


We were discussing 'wants'. I said, what I "want" is irrelevant. I have lots of wants. Wanting something does not make it so. To make a 'want' a 'reality' takes action and money. Concerning George Bush, rest assured, I will take action against him in November. That is a want I would support taking action for.

I said, the cost to remove Saddam Hussein has been too high. When I balance my 'want' against the 'action' and 'cost', I can not square them on the balance sheet.

Again, if you want to compare and contrast George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein, I will be happy to, on another thread.

Mike


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 13, 2004)

*Why did we attack Germany in WWII? They never attacked us. Japan was the one who spilt our people's blood. Why did we bother to help Britain liberate Europe from Hitler?*

As Michael said, they declared war on US.  We invaded so as to whip him.

*On a different note, why didn't Britain and France stop Germany after he took over Poland or even before then? * 

Read.

On September 3, 1939, the Allies (France and Germany) declared war against National Socialist Germany.   The declaration did not--and could not-- save Poland.  Lodz was about to fall, and Krakow fell on September 6.  The fort at Danzig fell on September 7, after a week of direct fire from German battleships.  On the 17th of September Russia invaded Poland from the East.  In a span of two weeks that country was crushed.  Great Britain and France had no time to save anything...hence the name "Blitzkrieg" or "Lighting War."  

France was invaded the following May 13th.   Within _two weeks _ the British were cut off at Dunkirk and by June 14, 1940...one month and one day following the invasion...Paris surrendered.  

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make but last I checked, Saddam didn't have too much of a blitzkrieg going against us or against anyone.  I believe it was the other way around.

*Anyway, my point is: it is our job as a superpower to support democracy and human rights and to stop others who violate them. What is wrong with helping those who are oppressed or in need?*

Cite the Constitutional reference for that, sunshine.  

"Helping Iraq" was not the reason we invaded.  Its a reason Bush and you have fallen back on having failed to prove a threat to our nation's security.  It is a moral appeal, and a failed one at that.  



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Kane (Sep 13, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> *On a different note, why didn't Britain and France stop Germany after he took over Poland or even before then? *
> 
> Read.
> 
> ...


When Germany attacked Poland they still waited many months befroe attacking Germany. When it was too late.

What is wrong in helping those in need? Not only are we helping a people in need, we are destroying an ally of Al Queda. I don't see why that isn't enough to justify this war.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 13, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> What is wrong in helping those in need? Not only are we helping a people in need, we are destroying an ally of Al Queda. I don't see why that isn't enough to justify this war.


  So, based upon morals, rather than Law.  If you are so morally inclined, and feel that this was a 'human' duty, I'm curious, did you enlist?


----------



## qizmoduis (Sep 13, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> When Germany attacked Poland they still waited many months befroe attacking Germany. When it was too late.



This line of "reasoning" is so irrelevant to the original topic of this thread I'll not even bother to address it.



> What is wrong in helping those in need? Not only are we helping a people in need, we are destroying an ally of Al Queda. I don't see why that isn't enough to justify this war.



So we should, as a rule, use our military power to impose our will on all national governments we see as being distasteful to us?  That doesn't strike me as good policy, and it certainly wasn't the justification for us going into Iraq in the first place.  The justifications were that Saddam had WMDs, was selling them to terrorists, and was supporting terrorist training camps.  those justifications, we now know, were based on faulty or even possibly manufactured evidence.  This nonsense about liberating Iraq from an evil dictator with links to Al Qaeda is pure face-saving political garbage.  What we've really done is create a seething, fermenting cesspool that is tailor made to recruit anti-US terrorists.  We are in more danger from attack NOW than we were before Bush went on his anti-Saddam crusade.

As good as it makes us feel on a personal level to give a nasty dictator a good ***-kicking, it doesn't make for good policy on an international level.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> we are destroying an ally of Al Queda. I don't see why that isn't enough to justify this war.


*What part of 'There are no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda' don't you understand?*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html


By the way .... please see definition of 'ally'.

*1* *:* to unite or form a connection between *: [size=-1]ASSOCIATE[/size]* <_allied _himself with a wealthy family by marriage>
*2* *:* to connect or form a relation between (as by likeness or compatibility) *: [size=-1]RELATE[/size]*

*Germany *declared War on the United States in WWII, as mentioned earlier, because they were an 'Ally' of Japan. Not only were there no ties between the two organizations in question, even the meetings and exploritory communications that did exist can not possibly be compared to the relationships between Germany & Japan in 1941; or amongst the countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

To make such a claim (that Iraq and al Qaeda were allies) would be like comparing President Bush to Saddam Hussein.

Good Grief - Mike


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 13, 2004)

*When Germany attacked Poland they still waited many months befroe attacking Germany. When it was too late.*


You're woefully ignorant of military history.  They didn't attack Germany.  You need to hit the books, lad.  Or better, yet, read my post...it pretty much outlined it for you there.


You're also ducking the issue and the questions posed.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tkang_TKD (Sep 13, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> So, based upon morals, rather than Law. If you are so morally inclined, and feel that this was a 'human' duty, I'm curious, did you enlist?


That's a very good question indeed.  So Kane, did you enlist, or do you plan to? Let me know. I'm sure I can find a recruiter to speak with you.


----------



## Kane (Sep 13, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> *What part of 'There are no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda' don't you understand?*


Didn't you read any of the sources I gave? I know some of the links didn't work, but a lot of them should have worked. Try them again and don't give up after one try.

Good grief, I don't see how you can say Saddam has no ties to Al Queda. Try the link below;

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp

Try the link below too;

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

Try each link more if it doesn't work the first time.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> Didn't you read any of the sources I gave? I know some of the links didn't work, but a lot of them should have worked. Try them again and don't give up after one try.
> 
> Good grief, I don't see how you can say Saddam has no ties to Al Queda. Try the link below;


Yes, I followed the first link ... as I said .. the weekly standard and Stephen Hayes can hardly be considered a 'reliable source'.  Let's see .... *Stephen Hayes* ... or ... *the 911 commission*. Of course, why didn't I see it ... of Course Stephen Hayes must be the more credible, despite the agenda.

Kane, I know the right wing radio promote these sources all the time. But there are much better sources available. If these guys were correct, it would be just them calling out from the darkness.

Honestly, I can say that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda had no ties (which, by the way, is way less than being allies) because all of the evidence provided by the United States Government says they had no ties. Yes, they did have some meetings in the mid 90's ... but those meetings did not result in a 'functional relationship'. That is what the evidence shows.

So, you can go back to arguing that we should have unseated Hussein on Humanitarian reasons now.

Thanks for participating. Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 13, 2004)

Beyond the fact that the "techcentral," people have long articles extolling ol' Dugout Doug himself as a beautiful example of personal commitment to a cause (you know...the Douglas Mac Arthur who ran out at Bataan, leaving General Wainwright and tens of thousands of troops to face the music without him...then exceeded his orders in Korea and got China into the war?), and their charming piece equating, "ecoterrorists," with Al Quaida and arguing that their costs should be paid out of the EPA budget, here's who these guys are:

"Tech Central Station is supported by sponsoring corporations that share our faith in technology and free markets. Smart application of technology - combined with pro free market, science-based public policy - has the ability to help us solve many of the world's problems, and so we are grateful to AT&T, Avue Technologies, The Coca-Cola Company, ExxonMobil, General Motors Corporation, Intel, McDonalds, Merck, Microsoft, Nasdaq, PhRMA, and Qualcomm for their support. All of these corporations are industry leaders that have made great strides in using technology for our betterment, and we are proud to have them as sponsors. However, the opinions expressed on these pages are solely those of the writers and not necessarily of any corporation or other organization."

But I, like, so TOTALLY believe everything they say! Totally!!

It's a right-wing uber-capitalist website, dude. What'd you THINK they'd say? Did you expect they'd back up their claims, as ignert groups like the 9/11 commission did? If you trust their sort of "evidence"--and I use the word loosely--when are we invading Iran? Saudi Arabia? North Korea? places where we have far-solider cause?


----------



## Kane (Sep 13, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Yes, I followed the first link ... as I said .. the weekly standard and Stephen Hayes can hardly be considered a 'reliable source'. Let's see .... *Stephen Hayes* ... or ... *the 911 commission*. Of course, why didn't I see it ... of Course Stephen Hayes must be the more credible, despite the agenda.
> 
> Kane, I know the right wing radio promote these sources all the time. But there are much better sources available. If these guys were correct, it would be just them calling out from the darkness.
> 
> ...


Yes, my main reason was because of the way Saddam treated his people in the present AND the past. It doesn't mean Saddam never had ties to Al Qaeda, which I believe he did.

The commission found that there was no evidence to support the Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection to the attacks on 9-11. That was the mission they were assigned and that was all they looked into. Also, the Clinton Administratration Justice Department obviously had enough evidence of the ties betwen Iraq & Al-Qaeda, or did they lie to a Grand Jury and fabricate the evidence in order to get an indictment?


----------



## bignick (Sep 13, 2004)

what i'd like to do is get those son of a guns that set Osama bin Laden up with all his arms and training...when i find them i'll....oh wait...it was us..oops


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 13, 2004)

Here you go, Kane...but will you read it?:

_WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell reversed a year of administration policy, acknowledging Thursday that he had seen no smoking gun [or] concrete evidence of ties between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida._

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3909150/

Nice little flip flop there.

_I have seen nothing that makes a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime and what happened on 9/11," Powell said._

http://www.boston.com/news/politics...rror_comment_kerrys_response_would_be_robust/

_[A] March 2004 Knight Ridder report that quoted administration officials conceding there never was any evidence that Husseins secular police state and Osama bin Ladens Islamic terror network were in league._

Also:

_In June 2003, the chairman of the U.N. group that monitors al Qaeda told reporters his team found no evidence linking the terrorist group to Iraq. _ 

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



The list goes on.  You list a brief mention of a link in an indictment given in a district court.  Have anything a tad higher than that insofar as intel?  The preponderance of evidence refutes the Al Qaeda/Saddam link, and yet you persist.  

Is this an issue of faith with you?  Or do you have some solid facts to counter with?



Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 14, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> Yes, my main reason was because of the way Saddam treated his people in the present AND the past. It doesn't mean Saddam never had ties to Al Qaeda, which I believe he did.
> 
> The commission found that there was no evidence to support the Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection to the attacks on 9-11. That was the mission they were assigned and that was all they looked into. Also, the Clinton Administratration Justice Department obviously had enough evidence of the ties betwen Iraq & Al-Qaeda, or did they lie to a Grand Jury and fabricate the evidence in order to get an indictment?


Excellent. Thank you Kane. Here at last is the crux of this discussion.



> which I believe he did.


I can not alter your beliefs. You are entitled to believe anything you wish, with evidence or without. That's all fine. Hell, I didn't believe the Monica Lewinsky story until the blue dress showed up.

Again, you are in the minority in why you support the action in Iraq. Only after the Weapons of Mass Destruction were not found and David Kay told us we were "all wrong", did the huminitarian reasons rise to prominence in motivating the invasion.

Concerning an Indictment, Grand Juries are not required to present the other side of the argument, which is why we will hear about 'being able to indict a ham sandwich'.

Kane, again, you truly can "believe" whatever you wish (please see the threads about 'proof' of a higher power), but in this situation the preponderance of evidence is aligned contrary to your belief.

Thanks for playing - Mike


----------



## bassplayer (Sep 15, 2004)

Nevermind that intelligence from Russia, England, and the US all said without a doubt, 'he's got 'em' - nevermind that Saddam DID actively pursue weapons grade materials and have his own chemical & biological agents - nevermind that he looked the other way where al quaeda was concerned, but had the presence of mind not to blatantly dirty his hands with that mess - nevermind the tunnels and tunneling devices that we heard about ever so briefly at the beginning of the war (what the hell happened to that, btw?) - nevermind the maneuvered border guards and all of the trucks that went into Syria just before we invaded - and nevermind the two ABSOLUTE LUNATICS that were going to be running the country once Saddam died!!! And we all think Kim is dysfunctional!!!

Oh, but of course, its ALL the president's fault. Blame it all on one man. God forbid we're proactive, causing controversy, as opposed to reactive and having the economy, and a big ET. AL., suffer as a result. God forbid we say 'enough already!' What were the UN resolutions for, anyway??? Saddam ignored them and the squeamish nations (or the ones that were contracting his oil under the table) balked at actually putting something behind their words like they have done so many times before. We enforce it to avoid a potentially significant craptastrophe in the future and people go apesh*t saying its unjustified?
I remember the president's remark about nation building before he got elected. I think we can all safely recall that a lot of things came to a head shortly after he got elected. Was it right for him to say that? Yes. Was it ok for him to change that position in light of events after that fact? I think it is justifiable.

And the bit about people thinking we're going after his oil...please, we're not conquerors taking over a country and pillaging its resources here! Realistically, its not going to be THAT long before oil is obsolete, anyway.  Technology is a good thing!


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 15, 2004)

bassplayer said:
			
		

> Nevermind that intelligence from Russia, England, and the US all said without a doubt, 'he's got 'em' - nevermind that Saddam DID actively pursue weapons grade materials and have his own chemical & biological agents -


So he did have chemical and biological weapons? Damn, sure missed THAT news report. 




> nevermind that he looked the other way where al quaeda was concerned, but had the presence of mind not to blatantly dirty his hands with that mess -


In other words, nevermind that Saddam didn't do anything about Al-Quaeda?



> nevermind the tunnels and tunneling devices that we heard about ever so briefly at the beginning of the war (what the hell happened to that, btw?) -


Call me ignorant, but I have no idea what you're talking about. 



> What were the UN resolutions for, anyway??? Saddam ignored them and the squeamish nations (or the ones that were contracting his oil under the table) balked at actually putting something behind their words like they have done so many times before.


This I have to agree with, to a certain point. Hussein was refusing to cooperate with UN sanctions, and by all means, the UN should have enforced them. However, that does not mean that it falls to the US to take charge, barring any evidence that Iraq actually posed a threat to the United States.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 15, 2004)

bassplayer said:
			
		

> Nevermind that intelligence from Russia, England, and the US all said without a doubt, 'he's got 'em'



Except, wait, you're wrong.  This has been covered in multiple threads on this board... please read them and get back to us.



			
				bassplayer said:
			
		

> nevermind that Saddam DID actively pursue weapons grade materials and have his own chemical & biological agents



... with the help of the United States.  Let's bomb Washington!



			
				bassplayer said:
			
		

> nevermind that he looked the other way where al quaeda was concerned, but had the presence of mind not to blatantly dirty his hands with that mess



So we can invade any country that didn't dirty its hands with Al-Qaeda?  I say we start with England... I love their sports cars.



			
				bassplayer said:
			
		

> What were the UN resolutions for, anyway???



Again, please read the other threads on these topics and come back when you know more.  To sum up:

-- Previous UN inspection regimes declared Iraq's ability to wage chemical/biological/nuclear warfare destroyed
-- Iraq was complying with UNSCOM when we invaded

It's always nice to see new voices on the Study, but it would be helpful if you brought some facts with you to the table.



			
				bassplayer said:
			
		

> We enforce it to avoid a potentially significant craptastrophe in the future and people go apesh*t saying its unjustified?



When it's not justified, yeah, we do.  We're kinda anal about that.



			
				bassplayer said:
			
		

> And the bit about people thinking we're going after his oil...please, we're not conquerors taking over a country and pillaging its resources here!



Aren't we?  Who gets the contracts to rebuild Iraq?  Who gets the contracts to extract their oil?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 15, 2004)

Bassplayer would do well to read Christopher Hitchens' articles on "Slate," which do a pretty good job of arguing for the invasion without making claims that simply aren't remotely true. 

I'd be interested to see how he explains the Administration's complete changes (there were more than one) of its story on Iraq, however. Or how we justify going after Hussein because he was a threat, before going after very much clearer threats:

1. North Korea
2. Iran
3. The guys who we KNOW aided and abetted terrorists--Saudi Arabia
4. Chechniya
5. Organized crime in the US
6. White-collar crime in the US
7. Cocaine cartels in Mexico and Colombia

...and oh yes...Osama bin Laden...remember him?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 15, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I'd be interested to see how he explains...



I wouldn't hold your breath.  We're more likely to see either:

1) No response
2) A change of subject to "I guess you like having an evil dictator like Saddam Hussein in power, then!"


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 15, 2004)

So rather than debating whether we should have gone in or not, we barf up something about the order of attacks we should have made as a rebuttal?

Or we could nitpick on what we presume the reply will have in it...   

Guess that's not a change of subject.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 15, 2004)

I see I wasn't sufficiently clear. 

1. "Going in," was stupid in this case, and stupid not by the sort of moral code  that some find a joke, but by the very logic of "national security."

2. It was stupid because there are other, very clear threats--which I listed. Cheer up; I could have mentioned other very clear threats, such as our stupid reliance on fossil fuels, and our cavalier insistence upon pissing in the oxygen production system for the planet.

3. I still await--since we're so fascinated with debate--in the explanation for the Bush Administration's several compete changes of its story.


----------



## Kane (Sep 15, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> -- Previous UN inspection regimes declared Iraq's ability to wage chemical/biological/nuclear warfare destroyed
> -- Iraq was complying with UNSCOM when we invaded


Exactly what is your definition of WMD?

Here is the DOD's definition from JP 1-02 (Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms):

*"In arms control usage, weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. Can be nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, but excludes the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part of the weapon. Also called WMD."* 

The UN has found WMD components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles.

4 months ago (May) the US found a shell with three to four liters of the nerve agent (sarin) in a a binary chemical shell. And in the same month Mustard Gas was found by the US. I'm sure by now they found much more.


----------



## bignick (Sep 15, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> 4 months ago (May) the US found a shell with three to four liters of the nerve agent (sarin) in a a binary chemical shell. And in the same month Mustard Gas was found by the US. I'm sure by now they found much more.


i've never heard about either sarin or mustard gas being found....

and i don't they've found any more...trust me...if the current adminstration had found WMD's they'd be parading around their discovery to the whole world to vindicate their actions


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 15, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> The UN has found WMD components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles.



Kane, have you actually *read* the threads where these claims were discussed, along with the articles showing UNSCOM's response to the issues?



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> 4 months ago (May) the US found a shell with three to four liters of the nerve agent (sarin) in a a binary chemical shell. And in the same month Mustard Gas was found by the US. I'm sure by now they found much more.



Do you mean this shell?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0521/p09s01-coop.html

Nothing more has been found, or you would know about it, given that WMDs were the *reason we invaded*.  *None* of the other major intelligence provided to the United Nations by Colin Powell has been validated.

Or are you comfortable that over a thousand Americans and many more Iraqis died over a single artillery shell?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 16, 2004)

*Bassplayer's comments in bold: * 

*Nevermind that intelligence from Russia, England, and the US all said without a doubt, 'he's got 'em' * 

Check the thread "Did we have justification".  I provide ample argument and evidence indicating that the intel was bogus...the President KNEW it was bogus.  Our intelligence agencies told the White House there was no credible threat from Iraq.

*
- nevermind that Saddam DID actively pursue weapons grade materials and have his own chemical & biological agents * 

If you want to go down that road, I'll be happy to debate you in the "Did We have Justification" thread.  I would ask you read it first before we resurrect it.

*- nevermind that he looked the other way where al quaeda was concerned, but had the presence of mind not to blatantly dirty his hands with that mess* 

This is a casus belli for going to war?  "He looked the other way?"  

*- nevermind the tunnels and tunneling devices that we heard about ever so briefly at the beginning of the war (what the hell happened to that, btw?)* 

We call that "rumor".  If the Army hasn't found them by now, they likely aren't there.  It was a fun, dramatic story that the news hounds loved to work.  They worked it for about three weeks.

*- nevermind the maneuvered border guards and all of the trucks that went into Syria just before we invaded *

Unsubstantiated.  Dealt with in the following NRO article.

http://www.nationalreview.com/geraghty/geraghty200401120834.asp


*Oh, but of course, its ALL the president's fault. Blame it all on one man. * 

Last I checked, the Presidency was a position of responsibility.  The buck has to stop somewhere.

*God forbid we're proactive, causing controversy, as opposed to reactive and having the economy, and a big ET. AL., suffer as a result.* 

Our "proactive" stance has helped the economy?  Where?  How?  Show me the figures that this war has helped the economy.

*
We enforce it [UN resolution] to avoid a potentially significant craptastrophe in the future and people go apesh*t saying its unjustified?*

Because there WAS NO POTENTIAL CRAPTASTROPHE (sic).  He had nothing. Both Rice and Powell said this prior to 9-11.

*
I remember the president's remark about nation building before he got elected. I think we can all safely recall that a lot of things came to a head shortly after he got elected. Was it right for him to say that? Yes. Was it ok for him to change that position in light of events after that fact? * 

Wolfowitz and Cheney are ON RECORD for calling for an invasion of Iraq as early as '98...as are a bunch of the neo-cons who have influence with the administration.  They had this planned before 9-11.  THAT makes Bush a hypocrite and a flip flopper...if not a damned liar.

* 
And the bit about people thinking we're going after his oil...please, we're not conquerors taking over a country and pillaging its resources here! * 

The Iraqis killing our troops disagree.

Bush took 1.8 million in campaign contributions from the oil and gas companies in the 2000 election.  41 members of his administration have ties to the oil and gas industry...and 11% of the world's oil reserves lie in Iraq.  

*Realistically, its not going to be THAT long before oil is obsolete, anyway.  Technology is a good thing!*

How long is THAT long?  What effective initiatives has the administration endorsed to swing us over to a hydrogen economy?  From what I've read estimates are 2020 at the earliest.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 16, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> The UN has found WMD components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles.
> 
> 4 months ago (May) the US found a shell with three to four liters of the nerve agent (sarin) in a a binary chemical shell. And in the same month Mustard Gas was found by the US. I'm sure by now they found much more.


According to the terms of the 1991 cease-fire, Iraq could have missiles for its own self-defense with a range of 150 Kilometers (approximatel 97 miles). During the 2002 & 2003 inspection plans (UNMOVIC) the inspectors found missles with a range of 156 Kilometers (approximately 100) miles. This was, in fact, a violation of the 1991 cease-fire treaty. Please note, it was discovered, and the weapons were being destroyed by the United Nations, which should have negated the need for a United States invasion.

Please note that according to the Arms Control Association Ballistic Missles with a range of less than 1000 Kilometers are considered 'Short Range'. 

What evidence can you show us of a Iraqi Ballistic Missle with a range of 1000 to 3000 Kilometers? This is the definition of 'Medium Range'. 

The artillary shell to which you refer has been shown to contain Sarin created *before* the 1991 war.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121035,00.html


> At the Pentagon, Brig. Gen. David Rodriguez, deputy director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the 155-millimeter artillery shell was *made by the Iraqis before the 1991 Gulf War*. The source of the bomb is still under investigation.
> While its apparent age would mean *it can't be regarded as evidence of recent Iraqi chemical weapons production*, some analysts worry the shell may be part of a larger stockpile of Iraqi chemical weapons now in the hands of insurgents, but no more have turned up.


----------



## bassplayer (Sep 16, 2004)

I'll read up and reply 
Question for the interim though, things like this are seldom 100% concrete - Bush took a chance going on things that could not be 100% proven.  In his mind, that's a chance he was willing to make.  While there are other areas that are more of a threat, from a strategical perspective, Iraq was a more logical choice.  I'll elaborate more later, I've gotta knock down some of this work here!


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 16, 2004)

bassplayer said:
			
		

> Question for the interim though, things like this are seldom 100% concrete - Bush took a chance going on things that could not be 100% proven. In his mind, that's a chance he was willing to make.


I think it is important to note that in order for President Bush to 'take a chance', he had to expel the United Nations experts who were in the process of attempting to prove to a higher degree of certainty whether the banned weapons existed or not. Those materials that the United Nations experts did find that were outside the treaty requirements were being destroyed under the inspections regime (UNMOVIC).

The process *was working* when the President decided he had to 'Take a Chance'.

Mike


----------



## bassplayer (Sep 16, 2004)

*"The process was working when the President decided he had to 'Take a Chance'."*

I think that's a matter of opinion. I saw no indications that the UN's inspection process was 'working' and saw continual runarounds. Deadlines were missed and it wasnt enforced. *shrug* The UN has demostrated a lack of nut time and again, what is to be done? (Now something similar is happening in Iran and hell, north korea too - they are thumbing their noses at inspectors, and I honestly dont think the UN will stand on its wobbly legs and do something about it. Proliferation is a serious issue and it doesnt seem like they are treating it as such!)

Saddam funneled so much money out of his country, were his weapons programs a coverup for it? By that rationale was he just a wannabe badass, 'dangerous' man that pushed his countrymen around? He obviously wanted to make people think he had power.

Also, noone had anything to say about the kids...I think its fairly certain that if Iraq was in their hands then things would have gotten more problematic (not that everything's problem-free now,) because those two were obviously not as smart or subtle as Saddam.

To reply to peachmonkey's comment about saddam not dirtying his hands with al quaeda connections...I was saying that from a context of he was cognizant enough _not_ to have ties at a significant enough level that actions al quaeda took could be verifyably traced back to him.

My point is, the stakes were/are too high here not to have a plan of action. Saddam was not forthcoming, violated sanctions and deadlines, was shady about his actions, had histories of using WMDs in the past, had an obvious dislike for the US, and amorphous al quaeda ties. (The fact that nothing conclusive tied Saddam to the 9-11 plot is irrelevant and seems to be often misconstrued as 'there is nothing linking Saddam and Al Quaeda.')
What do you do?
Do you wait until a sarin attack kills 10,000 in LA or Boston and then gets traced to Iraq after the fact, kicking yourself for not moving on evidence that wasnt totally fool proof? Do you rely on the UN to stop dragging their feet and stand behind a resolution? Do you let the inspectors wander around to places they are allowed in to and indefinitely search for something that is probably hidden too well for them to find, nevermind those deadlines? Or do you go in, eliminate the threat, and turn a country around in the process?


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 16, 2004)

bassplayer said:
			
		

> What do you do?
> Do you wait until a sarin attack kills 10,000 in LA or Boston and then gets traced to Iraq after the fact, kicking yourself for not moving on evidence that wasnt totally fool proof? Do you rely on the UN to stop dragging their feet and stand behind a resolution? Do you let the inspectors wander around to places they are allowed in to and indefinitely search for something that is probably hidden too well for them to find, nevermind those deadlines? Or do you go in, eliminate the threat, and turn a country around in the process?


I guess that depends on whether you choose your actions based upon the law, or your best interests.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 16, 2004)

bassplayer said:
			
		

> *"The process was working when the President decided he had to 'Take a Chance'."*
> 
> My point is, the stakes were/are too high here not to have a plan of action. Saddam was not forthcoming, violated sanctions and deadlines, was shady about his actions, had histories of using WMDs in the past, had an obvious dislike for the US, and amorphous al quaeda ties. (The fact that nothing conclusive tied Saddam to the 9-11 plot is irrelevant and seems to be often misconstrued as 'there is nothing linking Saddam and Al Quaeda.')
> What do you do?
> Do you wait until a sarin attack kills 10,000 in LA or Boston and then gets traced to Iraq after the fact, kicking yourself for not moving on evidence that wasnt totally fool proof? Do you rely on the UN to stop dragging their feet and stand behind a resolution? Do you let the inspectors wander around to places they are allowed in to and indefinitely search for something that is probably hidden too well for them to find, nevermind those deadlines? Or do you go in, eliminate the threat, and turn a country around in the process?


bassplayer, if you truly want to be informed on these items, please don't take my word for any of this.

Do a search on UNMOVIC on the Google Web Site. UNMOVIC is the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Committe. They were responsible for carrying out the United nations Inspections in late 2002 & early 2003. President Bush 'suggested' they leave Iraq because of the imminent danger the United States military posed to anyone in Iraq In March of 2003.

This might be a good place to start:
http://www.mideastweb.org/inspectionreports.htm

Also, please do a quick review of 'Sarin' gas. You will find that it tends not to be a very effective weapon in large quantities. It is unlikely that Sarin gas would be able to create 10,000 deaths anywhere in at a single time. The weapon is too unstable for that. Distributing the agent is a difficult proposition. In Tokyo, for instance, a small canister was exloded which resulted in 12 deaths and hundreds of illnesses. But, you can't just extrapolate small canister distribution to large distributions. It destabalizes the agent.

Perhaps you could start here;
http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/Articles03/prolandersmaniraq2.htm

Mike


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 16, 2004)

bassplayer said:
			
		

> I think that's a matter of opinion. I saw no indications that the UN's inspection process was 'working' and saw continual runarounds.



Then you weren't paying attention.  The inspectors themselves have said that there was no justification for invasion.



			
				bassplayer said:
			
		

> (Now something similar is happening in Iran and hell, north korea too - they are thumbing their noses at inspectors, and I honestly dont think the UN will stand on its wobbly legs and do something about it. Proliferation is a serious issue and it doesnt seem like they are treating it as such!)



Neither North Korea nor Iran are nations that are subject to United Nations weapons inspection under Security Council mandate.  The IAEA process is entirely separate from the one Iraq found itself under, and as such, is completely irrelevant to this discussion.



			
				bassplayer said:
			
		

> Also, noone had anything to say about the kids...I think its fairly certain that if Iraq was in their hands then things would have gotten more problematic (not that everything's problem-free now,) because those two were obviously not as smart or subtle as Saddam.



So is it then acceptable and desirable to conquer a sovereign nation because the children of its dictator are unstable?



			
				bassplayer[To reply to peachmonkey's comment about saddam not dirtying his hands with al quaeda connections...I was saying that from a context of he was cognizant enough [i said:
			
		

> not[/i] to have ties at a significant enough level that actions al quaeda took could be verifyably traced back to him.



This is speculation, and also happens to be irrelevant.  Whether Saddam chose not to form deep ties with Al-Qaeda due to political or religious beliefs, or simply because he was afraid the US would kick his ***, the fact remains that NO DEEP TIES EXISTED.

If simply communicating with Al-Qaeda is sufficient reason to be conquered, why don't we go into Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Palestine, and Chechnya?



			
				bassplayer said:
			
		

> My point is, the stakes were/are too high here not to have a plan of action.



The United Nations had a plan of action, which was being undertaken.  Your description of UN inspectors wandering around aimlessly and allowing themselves to be pushed around is not accurate about either the original inspections regime or the renewed one under Hans Blix.

The US pre-empted this plan in violation of international law and conquered a sovereign nation on pretexts that have been shown to be false.

If Iraq's WMDs were so dangerous, why were Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, and Dick Cheney all quoted as saying that Iraq was contained and not a threat to its neighbors before the rise of the neoconservative powers in the Bush Administration?

If Iraq's possession of WMDs was so dangerous, why did we provide Iraq with the ability to build these weapons?

The invasion of Iraq was not based on any humanitarian reasons.  Plans for the invasion of Iraq date back to at least the beginning of the Bush Administration, with some (who are now Bush Administration officials) demanding an invasion several years before that.  

These are facts that you still have not addressed.

Moreover, your assertion that we're "turning the country around" is blatantly false.  Water quality and electric power are worse than before the invasion; the insurgency continues to grow in strength; US intelligence experts are beginning to conclude that the battle is unwinnable; we're having to divert funds from civilian reconstruction to security.


----------



## bassplayer (Sep 16, 2004)

hmmm...I knew when I first replied to this I knew that I hadnt done enough homework to support my ideas to the extent necessary to debate the matter in a complete and thoughtful manner, but I did so anyway. My fault for that, perhaps I should listen to myself a little more often. Honestly, I dont have the time nor the desire to follow all of these links supporting everyone's views - or research my own, for that matter - to the extent I feel necessary to hold up my points on this subject and to understand the opposing side properly. (proofread...why dont I repeat myself and use different words  lol, maybe I should be a politician after all :rofl: ) In general, I despise political debates and normally avoid them. Sorry if anyone feels I have wasted their time on this - I am going to respectfully bow out of this discussion. :asian:


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 16, 2004)

bassplayer said:
			
		

> . . .  Honestly, I dont have the time nor the desire to follow all of these links supporting everyone's views - or research my own, for that matter - to the extent I feel necessary to hold up my points on this subject and to understand the opposing side properly. . . .  Sorry if anyone feels I have wasted their time on this - I am going to respectfully bow out of this discussion.


As you wish. You certainly didn't waste my time and there are no hard feelings at all. 

The statements you are making and the questions that arise from them are very important in terms of the future of the United States. Even if you don't take up the discussion here, do try to invest a little time in these questions. If you do, you will be that much more confident with your vote in November, whichever way it falls.

Good luck to you. Mike


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 16, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> As you wish. You certainly didn't waste my time and there are no hard feelings at all.
> 
> The statements you are making and the questions that arise from them are very important in terms of the future of the United States. Even if you don't take up the discussion here, do try to invest a little time in these questions. If you do, you will be that much more confident with your vote in November, whichever way it falls.



Michael, I can't give you any more rep points but I can point out what a positive message this one was -- particularly given the divisive nature of the political debate that surrounded it.  Well done.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 16, 2004)

Well, I certainly can.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 16, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> As you wish. You certainly didn't waste my time and there are no hard feelings at all.
> 
> The statements you are making and the questions that arise from them are very important in terms of the future of the United States. Even if you don't take up the discussion here, do try to invest a little time in these questions. If you do, you will be that much more confident with your vote in November, whichever way it falls.
> 
> Good luck to you. Mike





I would agree with Michael, Bassplayer.  One ought to invest a bit of time in investigating BOTH sides of these issues.  Just a little bit (five to fifteen minutes) every night.  It is our duty as members of an "informed electorate".  



Regards,


Steve


----------

