P
PeachMonkey
Guest
rmcrobertson said:
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!"
Saddam Hussein would still be in power
- Thread starter michaeledward
- Start date
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!"
M
MisterMike
Guest
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.
Or we could nitpick on what we presume the reply will have in it...
Guess that's not a change of subject.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
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.
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.
Exactly what is your definition of WMD?PeachMonkey said:
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.
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
Kane said:
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:
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
Senior Master
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
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
Grandmaster
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.Kane said:
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
B
bassplayer
Guest
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!
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
Grandmaster
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).bassplayer said:
The process was working when the President decided he had to 'Take a Chance'.
Mike
B
bassplayer
Guest
"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?
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
Grandmaster
I guess that depends on whether you choose your actions based upon the law, or your best interests.bassplayer said:
michaeledward
Grandmaster
bassplayer, if you truly want to be informed on these items, please don't take my word for any of this.bassplayer said:
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
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
bassplayer said:
Then you weren't paying attention. The inspectors themselves have said that there was no justification for invasion.
bassplayer said:
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:
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:
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:
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.
B
bassplayer
Guest
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:
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
Grandmaster
As you wish. You certainly didn't waste my time and there are no hard feelings at all.bassplayer said:
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
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
michaeledward said:
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
Grandmaster
Well, I certainly can.
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
michaeledward said:
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
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
éåæ ZhĆ²ngxÄ«n center of gravity- Latest: windwalker099
-
-