Ok, so why did it take a History Channel show to convince me when the Prez couldn't?

[Zander]

...there will be all the proof anyone could wish for, even the French.

The cheese-eating surrender-monkeys don't need any proof; they've been aiding and abetting Hussein [Chirac is a best buddy with Hussein] for more than three decades in their own self-interest. They care little if anything for his CBN capabilities as long as their contracts are fulfilled.

Nothing short of an Aerobus flying into the Eiffel Tower is likely to change their perverse and amoral stance.

 

[firestar]

I bet Bush will never be called "The great Communicator". I don't understand what his problem is but he just ain't right in the head. I swear its like listening to a crackhead.

Bush is a national and international embarassment. I only hope that he doesn't get us in too much trouble before we kick his cocain snorting rich boy butt out of the White House.

I like Bush Senior and I LOVED Reagan but this young Bush a moron. For the first time in my life, I wish a Democrat got elected instead. I don't Gore would have been too bad, I hear he is pro-gun. At least that is what he tells us until he gets elected.

I guess I'll just vote Libertarian and throw my vote away.

 

[ahadams]

uh folks, there's another element here:

The prez, veep, secstate, secdef, and so forth have this information it's a bunch of photos, transcriptions of conversations, stuff put together by analysts explaining it all, and some long lists of stuff that *telling* anybody about it will compromise.

It's nice to say "they have 5.5 tons of VX" or whatever (which is a boatload of nervegas, btw) but if the govt says it and *proves* it both the bad guys, AND every other nation and non-national group who might be worried about us watching are looking at exactly how it's proved and then working countermeasures to prevent anything even vaguely similar (like, say, insecticide) that they might have from being similarly proven.

It's nice to say "here's one of the major league terrs talking to iraq, and here's what they're saying to each other" but if the govt says it and then proves it, not only iraq and the terrs, but every other country and group that might be using anything similar in their comms immediately scrambles (pun intended) to change what they're doing in order to prevent any more from being heard the same way.

It's nice to say "here's a nuke weapons facility they built out in the middle of nowhere underground where they think we can't see it." but if the govt says it and proves it then every other country, and every terr group, in the world is looking at that imagery, trying to figure out how it was made and what it would take to defeat the imaging systems.

Now go back and look at Sec. Powell's dog and pony show in front of the UN, and think about the risks they felt they had to take. Then go back and look at the HC show, and think about how maybe sometimes it's better for a nongovernmental entity to do the really fancy public dog and pony show, no?

 

[Monkeyleg]

Firestar, you're wrong on so many points that it's impossible to even begin to debate you.

Would you care to settle for just one point and take it from there?

 

[Blackhawk]

Well said, ahadams.

 

[Freedspeak]

True, but AFAIK 2.2 was is still in affect, and Israel has been ignoring it for decades.

Seems to indicate the UN has been nonfunctional for longer than most filks figure, we're just at a nexus now.

 

[Justin]

There's an old, and now very hackneyed joke that goes 'How can you tell when a politician is lying? Answer: His lips are moving.'

I have what can be considerded to be nothing less than an ardent, built-in distrust of every politician. Powell, and maybe even Bush had mentioned these things in the past, but to my eye, it seemed only tagentially so, and for the most part without backing up their claims. (How does one give footnotes to a speech?)

However, the documentary on The History Channel gave meat to such claims. They interviewed a number of weapons inspectors, and backed it up with video shot during the inspections. So, given that, I'd say it's pretty much a sure thing that Saddam has bio/chem weapons, and that if he didn't he'd be doing anything in his power to try to get them.

Which satisfies part A of my questions about the Iraq situation. (Does he, in fact, have such weapons?)

Now, normally, I couldn't care less if some tin-pot dictator in a 3rd world hellhole were torturing his people, irritating his neighbors, and stockpiling WMD. American military might is such that no nation state would dare to attempt to use such weapons on the US because it would result in said country swiftly becoming nothing more than a glassed-over smoking crater.

Which brings me to:

Even if Iraq does have chemical weapon stockpiles, that's not the be-all-end-all of the argument.

Agreed, it isn't. However, at the end of Gulf War I, part of the agreement Saddam signed said he would no longer stockpile WMD's. He signed the agreement, but has continued to stockpile WMD's. That's an obvious breach of contract, one which, in order for it to be effective, must make it obvious that military force can and will be used to enforce it.
Whether or not going to war with Iraq is a good thing is really quite immaterial, we're really nothing more than the repo man in this whole deal. I suppose if anything, it's an object lesson in the idiocy of entangling alliances.

But in the end, whether or not I agree with going to war with Iraq is a good thing or not is really quite immaterial. There's going to be a fight, regardless of how I feel about it, so in the end, the whole thing is a moot point.

 

[rick458]

What we need is More inspectors

250,000 more inspectors and not in Toyotas and Range Rovers but in Humvees and M1A2 Abrams and F15Es and FA18s with a bunch of EA6Bs , and not carrying note books but M4s and M249s
with Apaches and Blackhawks thrown in for good measure.
and when we find all the french and german made Bio terror equipment we know who to send the bill to
BTW that Cheese eating surrender monkey thing is truly hillarious

 

[moa]

I have to agree that the Administration has done a rather poor job of listing specific, outlawed WMDs.

As an example, Bush's crew of Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc., are regular features on the Sunday morning talk shows like Meet The Press, Face The Nation, etc., but they rarely ever go into any detail about known Iraqi WMDs.

 

[gk1]

Like throwing money down a hole.

Exactly how much do you think THC spent producing this, as opposed to, say, the cost of the bombs/missiles we used just the other day to take out Iraqi SAM and SSM sites? Why not spend, say (as an outrageously high estimate) $30 million to make a blockbuster propaganda series and broadcast it on whatever channels will accept it? That's probably about 5 minutes worth of low-level military deployment, which is, without domestic and international support, truly throwing money down a hole. If spending some money is necessary to accomplish the goal NOW, then why not do it. We're spending the same money X1000 just WAITING to get to the point where the "international community" will accept the use of force. Here's an alternate aphorism for your reasoning: Penny wise but pound foolish.

George

 

[Chris Rhines]

DrJones -

...they are not allowed to have any such weapons.

By whose authority?

You also ignore the fact that they have taken every opportunity to decieve and ignore any and all US/UN inspections and disarmament resolutions.

I'm not ignoring that, I just know that were I in a similar situation I would attempt to lie to and decieve the US/UN too.

As long as the US.gov maintains stockpiles of NBC weapons, they don't have any ethical standing to demand that other governments disarm.

Thumper - Grow up.

Justin - We come to the crux of the argument. Is the Iraqi government in breach of contract? I'd have to say that if the Iraqi gov entered into a contract under threat of force, then the contract can't be considered valid. It would be tantamount to me putting a gun to your head and forcing you to sign over your AR-15 to me. A simplification, but an accurate one I think.

You are right that there's going to be a war, irregardless of what Iraq turns out to have or not have. The administration is too committed to back down now. But as long as we peons are footing the bill, it's still a relevant topic for discussion.

There's a point I never thought of. If Iraq is violating UN resolutions, then why isn't the UN sending in troops? Or at least footing the bill for them?

- Chris

 

[Destructo6]

Is the Iraqi government in breach of contract? I'd have to say that if the Iraqi gov entered into a contract under threat of force, then the contract can't be considered valid. It would be tantamount to me putting a gun to your head and forcing you to sign over your AR-15 to me. A simplification, but an accurate one I think.

False analogy. First of all, a country is not an individual.

All cease-fires are signed under threat of violence or they wouldn't call them cease-fires. It's legally binding and enforceable if those tasked with the enforcing have the will.

We know why the UN isn't sending troops and you do, too.

 

[Desert Dog]

I will never be an advocate of war, now or in the future. Now with that being said, I also do not want to live in a country where random occurances/explosions/incidents begin to happen on a regular basis as part of a "terrorists" agenda to destroy what they consider to be infidels or devils.

High explosives, be in jet fuel, nitrate bombs or the like are one thing, WMD's; chemical, nuclear, whatever, is a whole different avenue.

If disarming Iraq stops even one WMD event in America, it will be worth it. Sodamn is way too close to the terrorist extreme, and it will only be a matter of time before he gives WMD to these splinter groups for use against us...

But then that is MO....

Mike

 

[Thumper]

Chris Rhines

Thumper - Grow up.

As far as I can tell, I merely quoted and stated my opinions on Resolution 687. Perhaps you can explain what you mean?

Oh wait...You quote www.LewRockwell.com in your sigline. Nice sigline BTW.

Anyway, the "anti-state/pro-market site" reference, combined with your badly misinformed (I'm trying to be polite) views on how a cease fire works tells me all I need to know about your credibility.

 

[thaddeus]

No offense intended to the original post, but I think this is an example of how most American perceive things.

A false 10-second soundbyte like "no war for oil" will win over a one hour speech any day.

Most Americans do not have attention spans long enough to soak in a speech from our President. And the media does not outline his speeches favorably, to point out the details to those that want it summed up.
So, it takes a show with pictures and entertainment to deliver the message. Most of us have become spoon-fed TV idiots.

 

[beemerb]

Well, here's a question for you. Isreal has been in violation of U.N. Resolution 2.2 since the late 60's (not totally sure on the date). And yet, that's okay for them?


When was the last time that Isreal gave aid or materials to someone to attact the US. You are ignoring the factor of who is going to use what on whom.
Saddam has been supplying weapons money training areas for terrorists.Isreal hasn't.
Think on it for a while
Bob

 

[ahadams]

Beemerb - you're arguing against antisemitism here with someone who may not realize he's being antisemitic.

Thaddeus - I think you are making an important point about the *need* for dog and pony shows. Sometimes I wonder if that isn't part of the attempts by the DOD to integrate reporters into forward military units now, prior to the actual official start of the festivities, so to speak. I just have to wonder how many of those reporters will actually be worth anything once the shooting starts.