Sam, I agree with you that the weapons are not there. But he did have them before and he couldn't account for them later. Where did they go? Surely that is an honest question that needs a good answer and not just a "well they're not there now so don't worry about it" kind of answer. Regardless of your position on the war we should all be concerned about where Saddams WMDs ended up. If they were destroyed or simply decayed over time that's fine but we shouldn't just assume that happened. As far as I know, no one has ever accounted for the un-accounted for weapons.
Undoubtably. And I'm not kidding. See (a) and (b) above. Your proposition that you'll 'know greater cooperation when (you) see it' doesn't foster any 'legitimate discussion' on the topic.
Actually every speach the president gave talked about both WMDs and Freedom for the Iraqi people. From his 2003 State of the Union address: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.) And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.) " Your correct in that WMDs were emphasized but it wasn't the only reason. However, after it was found that there were no WMDs there you can bet the President's political opponents took the opportunity to emphasize that fact to make a case that the president lied (which conveniently ignores the fact that Clinton, Allbright, UN, Russia, Germany, etc... all thought the WMDs were there). There's a lot of BS flying from both sides. The truth is, as always, somewhere in the middle. So what you're saying is that if you can't free everyone you shouldn't free anyone? Is that right? What about Yugoslavia? That was pretty recent and, as far as I know, Milosevic didn't ever attack or threaten the interests of the US. But that was okay because Clinton was President. We don't fight everyone's battle because it's not in our interest to do so although, to be fair, we've come to bat for a LOT of people over the years way more than Europe or anyone else for that matter has. Heck, Europe couldn't handle Milosevic without our help and is doing pretty much nothing with regards to the Suddan. Can you back up that statement using "objective" sources (as opposed to anti-war propoganda)? I've read that Saddam was responsible for hundred's of thousands of deaths. I would also argue that the people who died while his country was under UN sanctions were also his responsibility after he took the oil-for-food money and used it to build palaces. He was essentially letting Iraqi children die as a PR move to gain sympathy in an effort to get santions lifted (so that he could then start working on his WMD program again). Here is some interesting reading. Although it's from the US Government so you may feel it's biased: Iraq: A Population Silenced
European Union, US stand side by side in Iraq, Iran, Mideast: Solana AFP: 2/22/2005 WARSAW, Feb 22 (AFP) - The European Union will work closely with the United States in Iraq, Iran and the Middle East, the EU's foreign policy chief Javier Solana said in an editorial published in Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza on Tuesday. "We have chosen to accept the invitation to forge a partnership (with the United States) and prove that a strong and united Europe is the best partner for the United States, which thinks along the same lines," said Solana. "We Europeans must be more involved in Iraq through the European Union... With the United States, we want to back the next steps in the Iraqi political process: the drafting of a constitution and the creation of effective democratic institutions," he said. "A joint effort by the EU and US is also indispensable to deal with two other priority issues, first of which is Iran," said Solana. "We agree that it would be unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons capability," he said. "The second priority is peace in the Middle East. Both the EU and the US have chosen to take advantage of the present political openness in relations between Israel and the Palestinians." "Naturally, the trans-Atlantic agenda goes much further than that, too. It includes Afghanistan, China, Russia, global warming, reforming the UN, revising the nuclear non-proliferation pact, the Doha round," Solana said. "When the EU and the United States head in the same direction, we are capable of producing magnificent results," he concluded. http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?ID=37627
I stand by the statement, Sam. We can guess at what happened to weapons he once had. But we don't know with any certainty. And he would never answer the questions straight. Allowed limited inspections. Provided shoddy accountings. I don't know what happened to them for sure. I know that they once existed.
as far as our reasons for invading, the main reason was the connections b/t saddam and bin laden and the WMD's - that was the main reason used to justify invasion and to get the public's support. there is no way that the american public would have gone along with an invasion simply to bring democracy to an oppressed people. bush used scare tactics in the months leading up to the invasion - drawing connections b/t saddam and al-qaeda and saddam's persuit of nuclear arms. the connection b/t saddam and 9/11 was even played up over and over to the point that many americans believed that iraq was directly involved in 9/11. "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02] in a feb 2003 poll, 72 percent said it was either very or somewhat likely that saddam was involved in 9/11. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast...raq.Qaeda.link/ a june 2003 poll revealed that half of those polled belived that iraqis were among the 19 hijackers. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/.../6085261.htm?1c of course we all know that 15 of the 19 were saudis, who are our biggest allies in the middle east. in the months leading up to the war, bush again and again claimed that iraq had WMD's right now and he must be taken out now, as he is an immediate threat to the u.s.a. "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03] and later he contradicts himself with this statement... "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04] he goes from saying "we found WMD's" to we "found the CAPACITY to produce". in the first statement he quite clearly states that if you dont think they have WMD's, you are wrong "WE FOUND THEM"...a slam dunk case if you will. simply a matter of going in there and getting them. while the WMD's/al-quaeda link wasnt the ONLY reason used to justify invasion, it was the main reason that the public got behind bush. again, no way the american public would have gone with an invasion to nation build. i liken the whole thing to basically throwing poo against the wall and seeing what sticks. the WMD theory didnt pan out so bush just went along with the "freedom, democracy, he's a hitler, torture, rape-room" stuff. "whatever works for you, just shut up and go along with us."
Your position here rests on the inability to prove a negative to a 100% certainty. Have you read, either excerpted or in whole, any of David Kay or Charles Duelfer's reports? These are the official reports of the Iraq Survey Group. They are very conclusive. We are talking about a stockpile in the millions dating back to the early 80's, with rusted old shells interspersed througout the country. To expect every single last piece to be accounted for is ridiculous (this is notwithstanding the fact that a lot of the Iran-Iraq war shells decomposed naturally years ago) To put it in perspective, organizations within the US regularly report large amounts of missing nuclear or toxic material, just last week Halliburton found 200 lbs of nuclear material from Russia that had been lost for 6 months. http://news.usti.net/home/news/cn/?/tw.nuclear/1/wed/bi/Uus-radioactive.R8Xt_FFA.html It was not missing due to any concealment, simply due to being mislabelled. Likewise, missing plutonium from a British nuclear plant was the rsult of an auditing error: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4272691.stm I could list hundreds of examples of missing fuel rods etc but I think you get the point. So you are citing accounting errors with respect to a small fraction of ancient artillery shells, many of which are no longer dangerous and have not been for some time. This argument is a non-starter, which is why it was not made contemporaneously, nor does anybody attempt to seriously make it now.
i agree. is that unfair? reminds me of the standard in a breach of fiduciary duty case. make an accounting of what we know you had. you can't? sorry..you're screwed.
One point that you might also consider, since krosfyah sometimes like technicalities and sometimes doesn't - Saddam was IN FACT found to be in violation of the disarmament agreements.
I don't know what you mean by that statement but you are proving my point. Yes, Sadaam was in violation of UN sanctions...on a technicality. We have learned that he did infact disarm, haven't we? He just didn't do it the way we wanted. Now, if Sadaam had been actively threatening to attack another country...that's another story...like in 91. Attacking Sadaam prememtively because he MIGHT attack somebody later...well that's not good enough for me. But apparently that IS good enough for some of you. Apprently that is worth hundreds of American lives, thousands of Iraqi lives, and >$200 billion.
Jo Mama, your comments express my thoughts exactly. Thx. Again, on a technicality, W may have used the phrase "freedom" previously...but that sure ain't how American's took it. So again, the spirit of W's messages were to scare us into thinking Sadaam was a threat to Americans. Sadaam was no immenent threat...we've since learned. I'd rather we spend that $200 billion dollars shoring up SS. But that is another topic altogether.
Uh, no - lol. If he'd disarmed then he wouldn't have been in violation of the disarmament agreement! Your opinion and you're entitled to it. There are plenty of other reasons that don't need to be rehashed in a Bush/Europe thread why it was a justified intervention. My only point was to let max know that he needed depend on an unprovable factor to make his point. Saddam HAD weapons he wasn't supposed to have.
What is that supposed to mean? I was making a joke about you making a childish comment (don't we all sometimes). And you respond this way? Hmm. I see. These kind of comments ARE supposed to foster legitimate discussion. Nice. Nice snappy come back. I guess that means your not interested in discussing the actual topic anymore.
LOL back. He did disarm. Oh yea, where are they? As they say in sports....SCOREBOARD SCOREBOARD. What part of...they never found any weapons don't you understand?
they never found WMD...but those weren't the only weapons he was not allowed to have under the disarmament treaty, as i understand it. he was in violation of more UN orders than I could count. let's not pretend like we just went in there and attacked some guy out of the blue...like he was just minding his own business. the international community set the standard and refused to enforce it. a law without enforcement is pretty useless. i agree wholeheartedly that the administration oversold the "imminent" language stuff. but you make it sound as if this is merely a "technicality." it's not. the guy was in serious violation of many UN orders.
Google Al Samoud, hot shot. Was Saddam in possession of weapons he was not supposed to have, that he was supposed to have disposed of? Uh, yes. Scoreboard: Hayesstreet 1 krosfyah the big donut
Sadaam was a bad man. Nobody is disputing that. Did he violate sanctions...Yes. The question is was it worth going to war? My opinion...No. History will be the judge. So far, our justification for war was WMD which we never found. So the historians are off and running. In 30 years, we'll look back and see if Iraq turned into a happy place. If they end up having 30 years of civil unrest over there, then by every possible standard...the Iraqi war was a disaster. And so far, things aren't looking too good. But at least oil companies are trading high on Wallstreet.
I googled Al Massoud, hotshot, and I got stories about the leader of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan who was murdered two days before 9/11. Care to elaborate on what he has to do with Saddam possessing weapons of mass destruction?
