Quantcast

WMD Mega-Thread

Discussion in 'Legal' started by SkunkApe, May 8, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SkunkApe

    SkunkApe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    748
    Location:
    Louisiana
  2. SkunkApe

    SkunkApe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    748
    Location:
    Louisiana
    Griz, don't ake away their "he's a liberal" excuse. They're almost completely defenseless without that.

    On the HighRoad, the "liberal" card trumps any other hand.
     
  3. Geech

    Geech Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    541
    According to that link, skunk, only 34% thought we had found them, not 41%.
     
  4. Derek Zeanah

    Derek Zeanah System Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    8,853
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    The only problem with that line of reasoning is that if we get to do "what we want, when we want, how we want," then anyone else can as well.

    If we get to take out Iraq because we think they'll be a threat in a few years, does that mean China gets to invade Taiwan because they have secret "intelligence" that proves that Taiwan was about to buy fissionable materials suitable for use in nuclear weapons? How about secret proof that Japan is secretly working on a germ warfare program to sterilize chinamen so their next expansion attempt into China is more successful than their last? Does it matter that we're creating a double standard, as long as we assume the balance of power in the world will always remain as it is now? Might this come back to bite us in the butt a little bit later?

    Legitimacy.

    If we'd looked for a legitimate justification for our invasion, we could have looked to those seen as disinterested and non-biased (like the UN inspection teams), and maybe helped them along a little. At that point we could have at least stood up and said "he's in violation of our cease-fire agreement, so the cease-fire is off and we're gonna fix everything." But now we're stuck with being the schoolyard bully saying "yeah, what are you gonna do about it?"

    How does that help us in the long run?
     
  5. Geech

    Geech Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    541
    I think it's also worth noting that 54% of those polled stated that they did not follow foreign events closely or at all. Despite that large number, I think it's pretty amazing that only 34% did think we found them.
     
  6. Mike Irwin

    Mike Irwin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    7,956
    Location:
    Below the Manson-Nixon line in Virginia...
  7. SkunkApe

    SkunkApe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    748
    Location:
    Louisiana
    -Geech

    Geech, I misquoted the text of the article. Sorry. You are correct. 34% believe we found WMds, and 7% were unsure. Adding the 34% to the 7% is where the 41% figure came from.

    "41% said they believed that the US has found such weapons (34%) or were unsure (7%)." - from the article
     
  8. Boats

    Boats member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    3,705
    Location:
    Oregon
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That is the world we have always lived in. Any country can do anything they wish to do, however, if they get their comeuppance at the hands of another nation, that too is a "legitimate" result.

    Perhaps the "might makes right" model will haunt us in the distant future. Somehow I doubt it as we will always remain a suspected nuclear power even if we foolishly "disarmed" ourselves on the altar of international comity. China can invade Taiwan--if they want to tangle with Taiwan's friends. . . .

    SNIP

    Non-biased UN inspection teams? Surely you jest. Hans Blix was a EU flunky. I did enjoy his seemingly endless mission to keep his budget and tip off the Iraqis as to every move he was going to make. Nothing quite like playing three card monty for a living when someone else is footing the bill. I will repeat it until you read it--when Saddam kicked the inspectors to the curb in 1998 he was in material breech of the '91 cease fire, nothing more was required to reinstitute hostilities. The Administration's biggest mistake was in feeling the need to strengthen the "justification" to knock off a recalitrant loser who failed to live up to the terms of the cease fire agreement which bound him. Would World War 2 have been fought if France and Britain had the will to just go in and smash Hitler's fairly obvious rearmament early on when they still held the upper hand? This is pointedly not an attempt to compare Saddam to Hitler, only to highlight the principle that no matter the size of the security problem, confronting evil in its infancy is easier than ignoring it while it grows. That our "friends" were actively nursing Saddam along in his recovery speaks volumes about their motivations.

    You have yet to demonstrate how it hurts us. Last I checked France still wants our tourists' dollars.
     
  9. LawDog

    LawDog Moderator Emeritus cum Laude

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,101
    WMD threads are producing more heat than light.

    Ain't nobody changed their minds on the WMD idea since the discussions began.

    Any and all future discussions, screaming matches and squabbles regarding whether or not weapons of mass destruction will be/won't be found in Iraq and whether or not the Gov't lied to the American People and the Nations of the World will be either posted to this thread, or moved here.

    LawDog
     
  10. SkunkApe

    SkunkApe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    748
    Location:
    Louisiana
    Good move. Just in time for the the results of the British inquiries.
     
  11. jsalcedo

    jsalcedo Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,683
    I'm not fond of Bush, his cronies or his agenda to eliminate the constitution by means of the patriot act, homeland security, incumbent protection act.


    But I always believed it was time to take out Saddam.

    He had WMD at one time. Saddam being a tyrant, murderer, thug and thief, it is not a great leap to assume he was hiding them.

    A question to folks who are against the war.

    Is it good or bad that Saddam's regime is out of power?

    I question our government daily, everytime I pay taxes, see police abuse, graft, corruption, lying politicians.

    Sometimes bad intentions lead to good results.

    A good thing came out of the war in Iraq, probably by accident.

    I just hope we can find excuses to dethrone some other tryannical, murderous, dictators in the region.
     
  12. SkunkApe

    SkunkApe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    748
    Location:
    Louisiana
    -jsalcedo

    Its good that he's out of power, because he was most likely a murdering, torturing tyrant.

    Its bad that he's out of power, because he was the leader of the most secular government in a region of religous zealots. (That's the reason, by the way, that the U.S. supported Hussein, and Rumsfeld shook his hand, during the Iran-Iraq war.)

    Its good that he's out of power, because the U.S. showed it means business.

    Its bad that he's out of power, because the U.S. showed the world that its government will lie its people to gain support for its causes.
     
  13. jsalcedo

    jsalcedo Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,683
    Thanks for the answers Skunkape.

    I'm not as emotionally charged up about this issue as some
    but I am interested in all points of view.


    Found this

    NAJAF, Iraq, April 2-- In the giddy spirit of the day, nothing could quite top the wish list bellowed out by one man in the throng of people greeting American troops from the 101st Airborne Division who marched into town today. What, the man was asked, did he hope to see now that the Baath Party had been driven from power in his town? What would the Americans bring? "Democracy," the man said, his voice rising to lift each word to greater prominence. "Whiskey. And sexy!"
    --the New York Times
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2003
  14. Tom B

    Tom B Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    176
    Location:
    Georgia
    LBJ had a majority in the House and Senate...So does Bush. LBJ trumped up an excuse to go to war...So far it appears so did Bush. No the real difference is Bush is a republican so therefore he can do no wrong. Even if he takes more and more of our liberties he is "conservative" so it is ok. He must being doing it for the good of the country. As far as sitting safely behind a keyboard and talking about "acceptable casualties" etc... I won't even comment on that. :barf:
     
  15. rrader

    rrader member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    234
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Syria (the other Baath run country) and Egypt both have governments with a more secular orientation than Iraq under Saddam.
     
  16. SkunkApe

    SkunkApe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    748
    Location:
    Louisiana
    Rrader, can you elaborate on your claim?
     
  17. rrader

    rrader member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    234
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    SkunkApe:

    Both Egypt under Sadat and Mubarak, and Syria under Assad Senior and Jr. have both had zero tolerance for Islamic fundamentalist attacks against the state and both have heavily cracked down on fundamentalist opposition. Egypts crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood for example is well known.

    The radical Imams have very little influence on the governments in Egypt and Syria although Syria does tolerate Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad to the extent that those groups are effective weapons against Israel.

    Saddam on the other hand, sought legitimacy with the radical Imams and the Arab street, he would often be seen dressed in traditional garb, praying at the Mosque, meeting with the Clerics etc..., things Mubarak and Assad haven't done to a great extent, and that Sadat and Assad Sr. didn't do either.

    IMO, Egypt and Syria have governments that are more secular, i.e., pan-Arabic socialist (along with Lybia at one time) or Baathist, then Iraq ever was under Saddam.
     
  18. DonQatU

    DonQatU member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2003
    Messages:
    434
    Didn't Saddam have laws on the books that provided severe sentences for those who proselytized in the name of Whahabbism?

    This is why it is so absurd to think that Saddam had links with to bin-Laden!

    Don
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2003
  19. Destructo6

    Destructo6 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,031
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    I'll bet Iraq also had laws on the book that guaranteed due process and free elections. What's absurd is to believe that a dictator would not consider anything and everything that could possibly keep him in power.

    Ideology has nothing to do with it. You do know that Hitler and Stalin reached a non-aggression pact even though each had laws on the books banning the other's ideology? It was convenient.
     
  20. DonQatU

    DonQatU member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2003
    Messages:
    434
    I suppose the fact that Osama bin-Laden had a history of hating the "apostate Hussein" also had nothing to do with it! :rolleyes:

    The claims of ANY connection/co-operation between al-Qaeda and Iraq are even weaker than the claim that Iraq was an immediate threat! I think even Blair is backing away from his "45 minute" statement. :D

    Don
     
  21. Destructo6

    Destructo6 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,031
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    Why? Enlighten us.
     
  22. DRC

    DRC Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Messages:
    275
    Location:
    Texas
  23. DonQatU

    DonQatU member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2003
    Messages:
    434
    DRC and Destructo, should I prove there's a NO connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam?

    Would you also like me to give you proof that there is NO tooth fairy?!!

    Please, gentlemen! As you well know.....it's impossible to prove something that doesn't exist..........DOESN'T EXIST!

    I also can never prove (to YOUR satisfaction at least) that Osama bin-Laden isn't sleeping right under YOUR beds! SO........ before you go to bed...... keep checking!! :D

    Don :D
     
  24. SkunkApe

    SkunkApe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    748
    Location:
    Louisiana
    I CAN prove Bin Laden's not sleeping under their beds.

    He's sleeping under mine.
     
  25. DonQatU

    DonQatU member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2003
    Messages:
    434
    DRC, very interesting read on Cpt. Khodada! :D

    :D

    Note the dates of his service???!

    Keep digging, Holmes! :D

    Don

    PS - Does the US conduct anti-hijacking training? Do they use mockups? Where do they conduct their training?

    PPS - Sorry, DRC! But your article is hilarious! :D

    "What was your job?"

    "Administrational things, such as providing food, leave of absence permissions, general training. Ammunition ... providing them with ammunition when needed."

    Clerk!!!!!! :D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice