U.N.: Weapons equipment missing in Iraq
Just curious...because, well, I thought Iraq had no WMD capabilities.
No, you thought they had actual stockpiles of WMDs. We already knew the equipment was there -- how else could the UN say they were missing? BTW, wouldn't it be a good idea to actually let the inspectors back in the country so they can give us a complete list of what they think is missing?
No, no, no...it was asserted that Saddam Hussein did not have the capability to make weapons.
Capability + 5 years (1998-2003) = High likelihood He was making them.
You're the ones demanding that stockpiles be found...
By whom? Not the UN. Not by me. Certainly some of the ignorant out there have, but even a cursory knowledge of this subject would preclude that.No, no, no...it was asserted that Saddam Hussein did not have the capability to make weapons.Yes I am, since this was the main selling point of going to war in the first place.Capability + 5 years (1998-2003) = High likelihood He was making them.
You're the ones demanding that stockpiles be found...
Well, it's a big country and he had some pretty unsavory allies during the run up to the war (not least of which were France, Germany, Russia, and the UN)...so, it's possible they were there and either destroyed, disposed, or hidden.
I think the truth will be known before President Bush leaves office.
I also believe it's the ultimate stupidity to believe Saddam Hussein had the capability to produce Weaponse of Mass Destruction and that he wasn't either a) doing so or b) situating himself to do so on a very short time frame (as has been suggested by some of his former generals).
Personally, I believe the WMD's existed. At the very least, Saddam Hussein could have cons uted enough to do great harm given the chance...which WAS by the way, one of the main justifications for war; not that he had them but that if he did, by the time we found out, it would be too late...there'd be another smoldering hole on U.S. soil.
And another thing. I also personally believe Saddam Hussein was completely flummoxed by the U.S. invading without U.N. approval. I'm equally certain that he'd be assured by France, Germany, Russia, and Kofi Annan that the U.S. could be reined in...which is the only explanation for why we felled Bagdhad so easily and in only 21 days.
I cannot fathom the ignorance it must take to continue holding onto your anti-Bush conventions in light of the corruption of the U.N. OFF program and the implications it has for conspiracy between France, Germany, Russia, and the U.N. to posture Iraq in a more favorable light so the gravy train could continue.
Tell that to the administration....I know Saddam had the components, but there is no evidence that he was going to put them together and use them against the US -- he had two chances to do so. You can speculate all you like about what might've happened, but it's just that: speculation -- and from what we've discovered after the invasion, not terribly well-based speculation. We went to war on a bad hunch.At the very least, Saddam Hussein could have cons uted enough to do great harm given the chance...which WAS by the way, one of the main justifications for war; not that he had themOne doesn't make the other look any better. The contempt I hold for both is mutually exclusive.I cannot fathom the ignorance it must take to continue holding onto your anti-Bush conventions in light of the corruption of the U.N. OFF program and the implications it has for conspiracy between France, Germany, Russia, and the U.N. to posture Iraq in a more favorable light so the gravy train could continue.
"High confidence and certainty are not the same.Tell that to the administration...
Well, if that were the only justification for the invasion, you might have a point...but, it wasn't. In fact, the principle justification was 12 years of defying UN Resolutions, violation of the '91 cease fire agreement, continuing hostility against coalition military assets in the no-fly zones, humanitarian offenses against Shi'ites and Kurds, environmental crimes in the South wetlands of Iraq, etc...
I also happen to believe the U.S. was fed up with the U.N. Oil-for-food charade and saw it leading only to the lifting of sanctions on a more powerful, more secretive, and more deadly Iraq.
Then what do you believe?
Would it be better with Saddam Hussein in power today? With no sanctions (which is where it was headed) and a WMD capabilities with or without the inept UN inspectors?
Sorry, I have no sympathy for Hussein and no remorse for backing the invasion of Iraq. It was necessary and justifiable.
High confidence and certainty are not the same.No, I have a very good point, because it's clear the administration misled the public about the WMDs because that was the main selling point that was meant to scare them into approving the action.Well, if that were the only justification for the invasion, you might have a point.That both are full of .Then what do you believe?Yes the ends justify the means argument - you prefer being lied to as long as you get the chance to wave a flag. I understand.Sorry, I have no sympathy for Hussein and no remorse for backing the invasion of Iraq. It was necessary and justifiable.
I disagree. Me and a whole bunch of other Americans do not feel misled in the least. I've always believed the justification for invading Iraq and dismantling the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein was inevitable for the security of that region and this country to be insured.
Everyone, from the UN to the Democrats to the President believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs IN ADDITION to all the other offenses he had perpetrated since the end of the Gulf War in '91. In fact, there still isn't a definitive reason to believe he didn't have them...absence of evidence isn't evidence of absense.
Given all the complicity and conspiracy between Iraq and our alleged allied on the runup to the war, it's entirely possible he was given a hand in hiding, destroying, or relocating whatever WMDs he did have.
And, the fact is that since 1998 there has been no way to verify, with any certainty that he didn't have them. However, given all the cir stantial evidence absent the opportunity for verification, I think it was a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw that he was recons uting a WMD program he was known to have in the past and from which he used weapons in the past.
His capabilities were never completely destroyed and he was funneling money from the OFF scandal into rebuilding the WMD program capability; these points aren't argued.
Again, I ask you, would you prefer the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein to still be in power?
I'm not arguing an "ends/means" scenario. I'm arguing that with all we knew about Saddam Hussein and what he had done since signing the cease-fire agreement that stopped hostilities in 1991, it was reasonable to conclude he would, if within his power, use WMDs against the US or it's allied or, worse, make them available to rogue nations and terrorists. That couldn't be allowed and there was enough OTHER justification for invading to insure that didn't happen.
He was indiscriminately killing Kurds and Shi'ites.
He was supporting Terrorists in Israel.
He was draining the wetlands of South Iraq (as a punishment to the Shi'ites).
He was allowing Iraqi children to starve by diverting funds from the OFF program to build weapons and palaces.
He was shooting DAILY at coalition military assets in the no-fly zones.
He was ingoring and defying 12 UN resolutions born out of the illegal invasion of Kuwait and pursuant to the cease fire agreement he signed to save his own bacon.
He was taunting his neighbors.
This guy was a growing threat, just as the President said. And, it needed to be dealt with.
If there was any misleading going on it surrounded the motivations for France, Germany, Russia, and the UN objecting to the invasion on grounds that now seem rather vacant in light of their dealings with Saddam Hussein in the oil-for-food program.
You can keep gnashing your teeth over it or you can appreciate that the evil bas is out of power and no longer running innocent Iraqis through plastics shredders or pushing them off 5 story buildings for sport.
Nor is it evidence -- I'll believe it when I see it. Not before.In fact, there still isn't a definitive reason to believe he didn't have them...absence of evidence isn't evidence of absense.That's not what they said. They had no doubts -- they said there were between 100 and 500 tons of chemical agents.I think it was a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw that he was recons uting a WMD program he was known to have in the past and from which he used weapons in the past.I ask you, is it up to us to get rid of every bad regime in the world, or just the ones we supported a couple of decades before?Again, I ask you, would you prefer the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein to still be in power?That was fine when he was our buddy though, if the Shi'ites were Iranian he was our hero.He was indiscriminately killing Kurds and Shi'ites.Is this an environmentalist argument? That's rich.He was draining the wetlands of South IraqLMFAO! I can't believe you just listed draining swamps and taunting as reasons for going to war. Your threshold is clearly pretty low for sending Americans off to die.He was taunting his neighbors.Again, it's not like he didn't do that when we supported him. Can't take the moral high ground now if we didn't then.You can keep gnashing your teeth over it or you can appreciate that the evil bas is out of power and no longer running innocent Iraqis through plastics shredders or pushing them off 5 story buildings for sport.
Is there a No-Taunt Zone around North Korea too?
That's like saying "I'll believe Jimmy Hoffa is dead when I see the body."
Well, apparently they were gone when we got there. Oh well.
No, just the ones that violate conditions of a decade-old cease fire. Just hte ones that are capable of destabling a region of the world that jeopardizes our own national security. Just the ones that have proven, in the past, a willingness to use WMDs on its neighbors and its own citizens. Just the ones that videotape the brutal murder of its own citizens and sit around watching them as entertainment. Just the ones defy the global community (even if three of the leading members and the Secretary General of that august body were in collusion with Iraq). Just those.
Well, you have to pick your battles. Global diplomatic and relational dynamics change. There was a big change when he invaded Kuwait.
You know, I might give my crazy cousin a loan and a helping hand but, when he starts shooting at my neighbor and my friends, I'm probably going to stop the support. I might even come to the aid of my neighbor.
Do you really believe all relationships are static and unchanging?
What he did to the wetlands of South Iraq and the oil fields in Kuwait rank as two of the most horrific environmental crimes in history.
Again, considering the magnitude of his environmental crimes and that his taunting was against people he had previously been an aggressor, and yeah, that's fairly consistent with the rest of the argument for invading.
You're cherry-picking and refusing to look at the totality of the threat posed by a Ba'athist Iraq.
As I've stated he wasn't a security threat to the United States or a destablizing influence to region vital to our economic and security posture until he invaded Kuwait.
Things change.
Yeah...there is.
More like "I'll believe OJ when he finds the real killer."That's like saying "I'll believe Jimmy Hoffa is dead when I see the body."Or they didn't exist -- the story changes every few weeks or so.Well, apparently they were gone when we got there.But he did that when he was our hero too....Just the ones that have proven, in the past, a willingness to use WMDs on its neighbors and its own citizens. Just the ones that videotape the brutal murder of its own citizens and sit around watching them as entertainment.But Saddam didn't, that's the sad part. If you're going to call him Satan, what does that say about us when we rooted for and supported Satan?Well, you have to pick your battles. Global diplomatic and relational dynamics change.No blood for taunts!is taunting was against people he had previously been an aggressorYou listed them. And considering the administration's appraisal of Iraq before 9/11, I don't think Saddam was as big a threat as was sold to us a couple of years later. The ease with which his forces were defeated supports that.You're cherry-picking and refusing to look at the totality of the threat posed by a Ba'athist Iraq.And once he was kicked out and lost control of half his land and all his airspace, he wasn't much of a threat -- that is what the Bush administration said as late as July 2001 -- until we decided to skew existing intelligence and make up stories about nuclear aluminum tubes and buying uranium in Africa. There's a bunch of lies that were told to get us into the war, you have to acknowledge that.As I've stated he wasn't a security threat to the United States or a destablizing influence to region vital to our economic and security posture until he invaded Kuwait.
Funny how it isn't enforced then -- because lil Kim has done everything Saddam did and worse -- AND he really does have WMDs. When do we attack? Isn't it the good and moral thing to do as the infallible world police you are playing us off to be? I'm sure Kim is draining a swamp as we speak. He must be stopped right now.Yeah...there is.
I'm all for it.
Uzbechistan...I'm all for it.
Saudi Arabia...
Pakistan...
Some of our biggest supporters in the war on terra are torture regimes and confirmed to possess WMDs. When do we invade?
, China too then.
We've found the level of the room.
TRO you got dumped chump.
TRO =
Last edited by Bandit2981; 06-03-2005 at 06:03 PM.
A big reason Saddam drained the wetlands was to try to wipe out the Marsh Arabs, who didn't support his regime. So on top of one of the world's worst Ecological disasters, the act was attempted genocide. I guess that's rich.
And you suddenly care because we're told to? You called for regime change way back during the Iran/Iraq war when Saddam gassed Iranians and Kurds right?You're ready to send troops into the Sudan right now aren't you? They're chopping folks up, not draining swamps. You were ready to go to Rwanda too, right?A big reason Saddam drained the wetlands was to try to wipe out the Marsh Arabs, who didn't support his regime. So on top of one of the world's worst Ecological disasters, the act was attempted genocide. I guess that's rich.
You can try wearing the white hat all you want, just be consistent.
Uhhh, what the are you talking about? I point out that the event you were mocking included thousands of deaths and the near destruction of an entire culture, and you respond with a small list of conflicts and accuse me of trying to wear a white hat? With your little fan club backing you up, I would have expected a response with at least a little substance, not that mangled hackjob you posted there.
I was -4 when the Iran/Iraq War started, so I didn't really have much of a position on the conflict at the time. I've said on here before that I would support sending troops to the Sudan to help protect the inhabitants from the Janjaweed. Again, I think I was about 10 during the worst of Rwanda, so sorry I didn't start an awareness group or raise a mercenary army to try to put an end to the bloodshed. I would further address your point but, well, I'm not sure exactly what your point was. Sorry.
Was it funny to you when Bush was mocking the reasons he sent our troops to war? Do you even remember the whole "Lemme see if theres any WMD's under this table here! Hehe!" bit he did at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association Dinner? Thousands, including civilians, have died over that knee-slapper.I point out that the event you were mocking included thousands of deaths
My point with the person I was actually addressing was that these things happen all the time and he only makes a fuss when politicians he favors does likewise. Your point is people died. I neither doubt nor mock the event. Someone always dies when Saddam does something. That has been the only constant here, not our moral superiority since we were all for it when he killed the folks we thought it was ok to kill, be it by bullet, gas or sump pump.
I commend you for saying you'd commit troops to these other situations, you are much more consistent than others here.
I haven't read this thread or the article, but I'd just like to point out that Weapons != WMDs
Saddam was an SOB. He should have been overthrown in the 80's by the Reagan Administration when they learned that he possessed mus gas and other chemical and biological weapons - some of the stuff he mass produced thanks to us, but thats a different story. There is some legitimate controversy over who really gassed the Kurds, Iraq or Iran, but there is little doubt that Iraq turned the tide of the Iraq-Iran war by abusing these banned chemicals.Uhhh, what the are you talking about? I point out that the event you were mocking included thousands of deaths and the near destruction of an entire culture, and you respond with a small list of conflicts and accuse me of trying to wear a white hat? With your little fan club backing you up, I would have expected a response with at least a little substance, not that mangled hackjob you posted there.
Still, what we are really talking about here is did the means justify the end? Was toppling Saddam at all costs worth the price to our, once proud, but now disintigrating military, to our Nations reputation around the world, and to our self-appointment as the world's moral authority? Can other world leaders ever trust the W administration again in light of the Downing Street minute revelations, and its insistency to put a pit-bull who knows nothing about diplomacy in charge of the U.N.?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
