[20th Century Fox fanfare]It's giant's absurdity parade!
I actually need two posts to be allowed to fit it all in:
Actually, that's the opposite of the truth. All available evidence points to disarmament and discontinuation of weapons programs.
That is patently false. The evidence points to Iraqi deception in order to get the world off its back. They did destroy *some* weapons. They also gave the inspectors problems for 12 years. They also produced banned delivery systems for said weapons. We know. Your very precious UN inspectors found them BEING produced. When someone has a track record like Saddam, ANY violation is a major one. Any lack of cooperation...any banned, undelcared weapons, any omissions in the delclaration itself, etc. These ALL came to pass....and your telling us Iraq had disarmed.
I don't see why it is so damn difficult for people to post specific information that was cited by the Bush admin as a threat that justified war. Violation of UN resolutions in itself is not a justification for war. The violations in this instance were portrayed as a THREAT TO THE US. This is why this war happened. Not because Iraq had more sloan valves than it was allow. This war happened because the Bush admin portrayed Iraq and it's violations as a threat.
Violation of 17 UN resolutions IS a justification for war. Otherwise, there is no consequence or "teeth" to the resolutions in the first place. Iraq was a threat because even small amounts of these weapons could easily have been given to a group like Al-Queda, which we have since proven were present in Iraq. Bush never argued or stressed that Saddam might eminently lauch an Biologically loaded ICBM at us. That wasn't the point.
Do you deny the possibiltiy of a hostile, anti-US dicator with a history of WMD use giving such WMD to a terrorist organization?
So, again, what specifically was a threat to the US? Can anyone here that supported the war on those terms actually answer that question, or do you guys just hide behind vague and unsubstantiated statements like SDW?
I just answered that. As far as my statements being unsubstantiated, that's your opinion. I maintain that there is no reaosn to think that Saddam gave up his programs. There's no evidence he did...at all.
But any discussion of anthrax should also point out that the US (and every terrorist on earth) knows FROM EXPERIENCE that anthrax is not a threat to the US. It's probably one of the most inefficient terror weapons imaginable. So you probably shouldn't get too hung up on it if your goal is to try to make Iraq look like a threat.
Especially since Iraq's anthrax, if any was left, was not nearly as effective as what was in the letters. Hell, it wasn't even dried, so it couldn't be airborne.
There's nothing here that even remotely resembles a threat.
That's a highly unqualified opinion. It's also laden with the supposition that Iraq probably didn't have any Anthrax left, which there is no evidence of.
what you have been asking for is a perfect world. Unfortunately for you, in the physical world there is actually a process that people need to go through to get things done. All evidence demonstrates Iraqi compliance on this issue. Period.
how about the ridiculous UN inspection process which, depsite thousands of Iraqi violations, had no consequences. How about 17 resoltutions with NO results? And there you go again..."all evidence points to Iraqi compliance".
Hmmm...I think I see where is deluded thinking is going.....
You definition doesn't matter. What matters is the fact that all evidence points to Iraqi compliance on this issue and you can provide no evidence otherwise. End of story.
And there it is! Iraq doesn;t ahve any WMD!! Iraq has disarmed! He actually believes this!
No. The information they were providing was incorrect, fabricated and skewed, and they were criticised by their own intel services. Both the British and US admins pressured intel services to skew or fabricate information. Period.
Yet another stop on giants twisting of all reality. He has no basis for this statement. None.
Yes it does. All evidence pointed to Iraq being benign. If our government is so dramatically incompetent that they ignore all available evidence, then they should not be in power.
Which brings us to the center of your argument, that the Bush admin is incredibly incompetent. I will agree with you that Bush himself is, but the Admin that consists of many people is not.
If the Bush admin really is that dramatically incompetent, Bush needs to be taken out of power immediately and a massive review of our government needs to be conducted.
As for Clinton, I think he was a crook. Better than Bush, but a crook. So stop with this SDW bullshit where you try to retreat to criticisms of someone that is irrelevant in the actions of the Bush admin.
It just keeps getting better. See, giant knows better than the thousands of intelligence professionals working for the US and UK intelligence services, all of whom have the most sophisticated technology available, not to mention vast financila resources and intelligence networks. After all, if we haven't physically found the wepaons, they must not be there! Incompetence, I say!!! Additionally, even IF the CIA, NSA and Military Intel and British Intel were blatantly wrong, that doesn't necessarily represent "The Bush Administration".
See I'm not making a claim, I'm making a negation of a claim. I don't need to prove that pixies don't exist because the original claim affirming their existence is completely baseless.
We're not talking about pixies. We're talking about weapons we knew he at least had at one point because he used them. In other words, existence of said weapons has been demonstrated, irrefutably, at least one time.
Or rather, if we WERE talking about pixies: Once their existence is demonstrated, it's awfully hard to prove they don't exist. WMD did, in fact, exist in Iraq and there was no reason to think they didn't anymore. I suppose Saddam just complied, changing his nature completely? I suppose his lying regime, complete with such figures as Baghdad Bob, just turned over a new leaf with no real reason to do so...AND, no EVIDENCE of them doing so?
The Bush admin made a claim and presented 'evidence' to try to support it. That 'evidence' doesn't hold up to scrutiny at all, therefore the claim is baseless.
The fact that the US now controls Iraq and that WMD were never used against Americans shows defintively that Iraq under Saddam was not a threat. Period.
If you have an affirmative claim, have some supporting evidence. I have more than enough evidence supporting my claim, and AO is filled with it.
1) Ahhh, now the burden of proof argument. He's not there yet, though....
2) "Shows definitively" ? Why? There couldn't be another reason....like we completely disprupted their command and control facilities? It doesn't show a damn thing. I could easily make the argument that Saddam was/is concerned with his place in Arab history, and didn't want to look bad by using the weapons he said he didn't have.
3)...he's getting closer!!!
End Part 1