WMD Mega-Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
What I find even more shocking is the percentage of folks out there under the mistaken impression that the hunt for WMDs was the sole reason for the Iraqi campaign and that not finding them ever would somehow invalidate any other rationale.
Click to expand...
Not the sole reason we wanted to go (we've got tons of those), but the only one that gave our actions any legitimacy. That may be a vague concept that doesn't have any obvious importance in the real world though...
 
No, actually the massive propaganda campaign is failing miserably. The shrill, strident anti-Bush anti-war agit-prop put forth over the past 6 months by the news media, Hollywood, and hard-left extremists like Sen. Daschle and Rep. Pelosi has failed to convince many Americans. Most still solidly support the war and President Bush, most still plan on voting Republican in the next elections and state they are glad that our President is George Bush, and not Al Gore, etc...

Speaking of the propaganda campaign, I'm still waiting on Alec Baldwin to make good on his promise to leave the US, on the next "we were only kidding" non-apology from the fat Dixie Chick, the next shrill anti-Bush attack in a t.v. show like The West Wing, the next snide anti-Bush crack from Peter Jennings, etc...

And of course Michael Moore's new propaganda film about how the Bush's were behind the 9/11 attacks is now in production (funded by Disney).

Yep, the propaganda campaign continues, thankfully, and as usual, the American people have enough smarts to see right through it.
 
Last edited:
Legitimacy in the eyes of whom exactly?

If we want to get all misty eyed over the BS claptrap that is international law, observed only out of convenience by every soveriegn nation at one time or another, the minute Saddam kicked weapons inspectors out of his country over the course of 1997-98, he had violated the cease fire agreement laid down in 1991, but of course we had a president having serious trouble with his cigar holder.:evil:
 
For example, I can report "DonQatU asserts that the trucks discovered in Iraq are not mobile biological labs."
Click to expand...

Yup, you can assert that! I won't deny it! :D

Your point? :confused: Don
 
It's funny how the entire world basically acknowledged at one time or another that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; that weapons of mass destruction were indeed used at one time by Hussein against the Kurds; that Hans Blix knew there were weapons of mass destruction, and not everything was accounted for-- and now that Iraq has been given almost an eternity by the global community (see UN) to hide his weapons of mass destruction, the naysayers appear puzzled that no weapons of mass destruction have been found yet.

We have documented history telling us that Iraq has possessed and, unfortunately, used weapons of mass destruction. What are the chances that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction leading up to the invasion, especially since the entire global community (again see UN) was unable to account for several of the inventory?

So, there is a 1 in 100,000,000 chance that Iraq suddenly refrained from producing weapons of mass destruction. Okay, I will give you that. So in that infinitely miniscule chance, let's just say we invaded Iraq to finally reprimand the actions of the regime against the Kurds, in which the global community never did anything. Justice was finally served.

The weapons will be found eventually. Then what will "they" say?
 
'They' are using their window of opportunity

while 'they' perceive a political advantage.

Either the WMD will be found, or the issue will lose momentum
and be forgotten as it becomes obvious that it is irrelevant in the larger pursuit of the campaign against fundamentalist Islam.

Time is on the side of the Bush Administration, and the critics know this.:)
 
So, then, Reason.....

"And Chamberlain should have declared London an 'open city' in World War 2 in order to avoid all of those civilian casualties, right? Or perhaps Roosevelt should have handed Hawaii over to the Japanese to avoid more fighting?

It's so easy to say that when you're the one invading."
****************************************************

Is it your assertion that Churchill and Roosevelt were defying the U.N. equivalent (pathetic though the League of Nations was) to declare and destroy their weapons of mass destruction?

If not, what similarity does your example have to the situation in Iraq?

The point is that Hussein knew he could not win a conflict with the U.S., and he knew he could avoid it and all civilian casualities by simply departing. Or declaring the WMD. He played a game of 'chicken' and lost.

Perhaps Roosevelt did share Saddam's delusion that he was a reincarnated ruler of some sort:uhoh:
 
I'm not a rabid GW fan by any means-I don't like his stance on Assault weapons, the border, signing the "campaign reform act" and a few other things.

I am glad the murderer Saddam is off the radar and the Al Queda is no longer in power in Afghanistan.
So far as the majority of the American people having the brains to see through the smoke, well, they voted Clinton in, twice.

If GW has actually lied to the American people as to the WMD, I am not going to like it, even though they don't even come close to some of the President's we have had in our recent past, and I didn't like them either. Whether it is a pack of lies as some propose, really remains to be seen.

I did not know there was a time frame as to the discovery of WMD once the invasion was started, but to some, it seems very important. No mention being made of the mass graves discovered or the torture chambers seem to make much difference.

And now, we have the Congress holding hearings on the quality of intelligence which the President acted upon. And they want to ask whether they should be open hearings? The congress couldn't hold a secret if it were in a straight jacket and tied to a tree upside down:rolleyes: This is not a hunt for the quality of intel so much as it is to pick apart what the President acted on for political reasons. Should it be done? Well, I guess that depends on the reports from the field as to what evidence they have based on the intel they were given.
 
And....

you can always present the angle that Bush wasn't 'lying'...
just being hopeful:)

And, he wasn't 'lying' to save his hide from the damage that the truth about sex with an intern would do.....

He was 'being hopeful' about getting some military strategy in place to deal with the islamofundamentalists in their own backyard:D

Politicians....are they slick, or what?

The interesting phenomenon here is the closing window of opportunity for the Democrats to flail 'dubya' with the WMD issue....time is not on their side.
 
So NOW we've got DRC and Destructo saying that the NPR report was true.

Thank-You BOTH for committing to the record!
Click to expand...
Are you incapable of grasping so simple a concept as a report? I have committed to the validity of nothing other than that NPR did make a report.

How do you make the logical leap from reporting to endorsing?
 
facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.'
Click to expand...
Uh Huh. For birthday parties for the arty Commander, right? :rolleyes:
AFAIK, artillery hasn't used balloons for spotting since before WWII. If they're intended to sense winds aloft, that makes them "weather balloons" so why aren't the Iraqi apologists calling them that? Has anyone uncovered a cache of these balloons? Can anyone cite evidence of the peaceful use of these trailers as currently configured ? And why would the Iraqis have gone to such extremes to get them the hell out of Dodge just as the war started?

This theory stinks.

TC
TFL Survivor
 
Legitimacy in the eyes of whom exactly?
Click to expand...
Everyone but the US and our allies.

Look, we're at a point in history where it's considered unlawful for one country to initiate force against another for reasons like "I just didn't like the guy," or "I wanted some of the resources that they had access to," or "I'm destined by God to rule over all of this land," or anything like that. Force is allowed in defense, and for few other reasons.

The UN was working on building the legitimacy required to go indo Iraq, get rid of Saddam, and remove any WMD's found. It was trying to do so by proving that Saddam had failed to live up to a contractual agreement he signed after the gulf war. It was taking a while.

We decided to step up and say "the hell with this, we're going in now even if we have to go all by ourselves." Our justification for doing so was a little twisted -- something like "this is a defensive action, only he hasn't attacked us yet. That's OK though, as we have intelligence that proves that Saddam Hussein is an immediate threat to our nation, and we are fairly certain that there will be ugly consequences if we don't go immediately. And no, you can't see the intelligence we're referencing -- we'll prove our point once we're in control in Iraq."

Our source of legitimacy was secret proof that Hussein was capable of using chem/bio weapons against us, and most like willing to do so. Without that we had absolutely no right to start bombing Iraq. Saying "but he's a bad dude, and the world is a better place without him" doesn't offer the legitimacy required to attack another nation in the modern world. Doing so even undermines our arguments against terrorism -- if a bunch of Saudis living in Afganistan saw us as literally satan, are they allowed to do something like drive airplanes into the pentagon in some sort of defensive pre-emptive strike?

The short answer is "no." And in the international court, you can't think it's OK to stand up and say "these are the rules we've built over centuries, but they don't apply to the country that I run."
 
I believe in my heart that President Bush had information showing that Sadam was a threat. I think the 911 horror and the fact that Sadam would love to do us in and had billions to do so, is enough to go in and change the leader in order to have a safer country.

If another horrible incident had happened, Bush would be held personaly responsible. Some people prey upon other people. Whether we like it or not, this is one of the facts of life. The peril of physical assault does exist, and it exists at all times. Better to be safe than sorry.

To me what Bush did was self-defense. By the time one has exhausted every means of avoiding conflict it may be too late . One who does not fight back will certainly suffer for it. You can't let these people think they can get away with any attack on the USA. We are the most powerful country in the world and I hope we stay that way.

After all didn't the UN have 12 years to find the WMD? Why shouldn't Bush have at least 8 years? Didn't we have fly overs for the past 12 years. I don't think that was a cheap way to take care of business.

Molly


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Kings 21: 25,26
But there was none like Ahab, which did sell shimself to work wickedness in the sight of the Lord, Whom Jezebel his wife stirred up. And he did very abominably in following idols, according to all things as did the Amorites, whom the Lord cast out before the children of Israel.
 
The UN was working on building the legitimacy required to go indo Iraq, get rid of Saddam, and remove any WMD's found. It was trying to do so by proving that Saddam had failed to live up to a contractual agreement he signed after the gulf war. It was taking a while.
Click to expand...

Absloutely not true.

The UN was getting ready to lift sanctions on Iraq at the behest of the French, Russians, and Germans. Bill Clintoon tacitly agreed to this and it would have been realized if Al Gore had been elected.

UN Weapons inspections were restarted solely to try and thwart the US led efforts to go into Iraq and remove the Hussein government from power
 
Legitimacy in the eyes of whom exactly? Everyone but the US and our allies.
Click to expand...

And those others matter why precisely?

Look, we're at a point in history where it's considered unlawful for one country to initiate force against another for reasons like "I just didn't like the guy," or "I wanted some of the resources that they had access to," or "I'm destined by God to rule over all of this land," or anything like that. Force is allowed in defense, and for few other reasons.
Click to expand...

We are certainly not at any point in history where the fundamental structure of international relations has changed. Since the creation of the nation-state system there has been no supranational entity with the power to constrain or punish sovereign states. The nearest system approaching a “peace enforcement†mechanism remains remarkably akin to the old western posse. There is no law and order other than that maintained by the strongest members of the community. It is a fairly anarchic world out there at the most grandiloquent yet tribal level of human relations.

There has historically been a curious attempt, first by churchmen, and then by their humanist diplomatic successors, to conform war to talk of justness, justification, allowance, propriety, and whatnot. Such an effort is folly. In many ways, it is the same approach that most of us find so revolting about certain aspects of the gun control movement–preachy moralizing that purports a one size fits all solution, circumstances–whether novel or repetitive, be damned. The imposition of morality on something–war–that at its heart is an amoral act, strikes me as something to be snickered at as an exercise in ineffectiveness.

The UN was working on building the legitimacy required to go into Iraq, get rid of Saddam, and remove any WMD's found. It was trying to do so by proving that Saddam had failed to live up to a contractual agreement he signed after the gulf war. It was taking a while.
Click to expand...

The UN is correctly seen as the Lilliputians attempting to constrain Gulliver. Does France seek international approval of all of its military adventures in its former colonies in Africa? Of course not. Does Russia heed the UN regarding Chechnya? No way Ivan. “The legitimacy required to go into Iraq.†What curious language. Mr. Hussein was in obvious breach of the ‘91 cease fire the moment he booted weapons inspectors out of his country. What more objective evidence should one need that he wasn’t honoring his commitments made as the loser of Gulf War I? “It was taking awhile?†Only because France and Russia were content with the status quo and Clinton couldn’t keep his fly buttoned.

We decided to step up and say "the hell with this, we're going in now even if we have to go all by ourselves." Our justification for doing so was a little twisted -- something like "this is a defensive action, only he hasn't attacked us yet. That's OK though, as we have intelligence that proves that Saddam Hussein is an immediate threat to our nation, and we are fairly certain that there will be ugly consequences if we don't go immediately. And no, you can't see the intelligence we're referencing -- we'll prove our point once we're in control in Iraq."
Click to expand...

Again there is this irrelevant “justification†talk. Why does it matter why we do anything in an anarchic international system? We do what we want, when we want, how we want, because our menu of options affords us any choice we wish to pay for. The current state of Great Power has-beens like France, Germany, and Russia, only affords them diplomatic obstructionism to retain even a scrap of relevance, so that is the “power†they wield. France does not dictate American foreign policy any more than St. Tropez on the Riviera dictates frog foreign policy to Paris.

Our source of legitimacy was secret proof that Hussein was capable of using chem/bio weapons against us, and most like willing to do so. Without that we had absolutely no right to start bombing Iraq. Saying "but he's a bad dude, and the world is a better place without him" doesn't offer the legitimacy required to attack another nation in the modern world. Doing so even undermines our arguments against terrorism -- if a bunch of Saudis living in Afghanistan saw us as literally Satan, are they allowed to do something like drive airplanes into the pentagon in some sort of defensive pre-emptive strike?
Click to expand...

Saddam violated the ‘91 cease fire. By its own terms we bombed and invaded five years later than we had “the right†to. As for private Saudi citizens, hopefully for the House of Saud, they are not allowed to make foreign policy for the Kingdom. If the 9/11 attackers were given any assistance at all by the government there, the Kingdom should be in our sights too. I think that their reaction to the recent attack on the western enclave outside Riyadh shows a 180 degree turn around from their attitude following the Khobar Towers attack. They get the message that we will not be deterred from classical punitive measures against them by the hot air specialists in New York and Geneva.

The short answer is "no." And in the international court, you can't think it's OK to stand up and say "these are the rules we've built over centuries, but they don't apply to the country that I run."
Click to expand...

I can think anything I want, and so can the administration. No rules, from the convention regarding telephones and telegraphs, to ones “requiring†Security Council authorization for the use of force need be observed if a nation wishes not to observe them, for the moment, or the rest of time. That nation need only live with the consequences, if any. The most likely outcome for the US is for no meaningful consequences at all in defying the Security Council. There is no International Court with anything but voluntary submission to its jurisdiction or involuntary justice at the hands of the victors. Could the IC somehow coerce the US to appear as a defendant? Good luck! The “rules†built up over the last century are “more observed in custom than in the breech.†Shakespeare, via Hamlet, understood more of human nature than a whole population segment of internationalists piling their ultimately meaningless frameworks upon a Darwinian international order.
 
Why are people being criticized for questioning the reasons for going to war? Can’t you wonder about the logic of going to war without being a Liberal, Pacifist, Bush hater, or (shudder) a Democrat? I lean to the Libertarian side but it seems to me that anybody, even a supporter of any current administration, would demand a legitimate and truthful reason for invading a sovereign nation. I’ve heard many reasons for starting this war, but huge contradictions still exist in the logic.

As far as WMD: of course we know they had them, we still have the receipts. As has already been said, if they were a problem before the war they still are. Lets find them, in whatever country they happen to be in, and fix the problem.
 
I wonder how the survey asked the question. It should be common practice to include the question whenever reporting survey results.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
New Documents Reveal Saddam Hid WMD, Was Tied to Al Qaida
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
RealGun
RealGun
D
  • Locked
Saddam's Conveniently Forgotten WMD Confession
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
greyhound
G
H
  • Locked
These aren't the WMD you were looking for......
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
135
Views
5K
Art Eatman
A
J
  • Locked
WMD in a haystack
Replies
14
Views
585
bountyhunter
B
C
  • Locked
Kay Report On WMD
Replies
6
Views
395
Gary H
G
Back
Top