So, Bush says "we found the weapons of mass destruction." Uh, no we haven't, Mr. President sir. We've found two RVs that could be biological weapons laboratories, but we didn't find any evidence of weapons in them.
What is also interesting is that everyone that has any expertise is saying that it is FAR from clear. From UN inspectors to the CIA, folks are finding it much easier to point out the flaws in that assessment:
...you're saying that even if Saddam disarmed in 1991 we still needed to go to war in 2003 to disarm him.
If you consider disarmament to inclue answering these questions (and that's what the UN considers disarmament), then there was absolutely no way to get Hussein to disarm; with weak threats, credible threats or outright war. Hussein was not going to cooperate.
So you remove Hussein; simple.
Whether or not weapons are there does not encompass disarmament, it is more than that.
For you to be right disarmament would have had to occur, and that hasn't happened. And if it does now then I will be proven right because someone besides Hussein will have done the disarmament.
Sorry, bunge, you're just going to have to start being more quiet.
Do people not think through anything? Hey guy, if the goal is to save the most innocent lives, there are much more pressing situations than the one in Iraq. If the goal is to make life as pleasant as possible for the most people, or for the people that are suffering the most, there are many places that are MUCH more in need of our help than Iraq. Like...oh, maybe...Afghanistan. Or have you forgotten along with everyone else? Or have you just not noticed that Afghanistan is getting little substantial help from the US, and certainly nothing close to the scale of Iraq. Maybe you are unaware of what going on in Congo. Hell, we could go down a whole list of regions that make Iraq seem like disneyland.
Oh, and as far as prisoners go, did you forget that Saddam released just about all of them last year, including all of the murderers and rapists? Isn't it ironic that perhaps one of the biggest human rights offenses the regime committed in the last year was to release the prisoners?!?!
And how is it that someone in one of the last developed countries to execute prisoners is condemning another nation for doing the same thing?
PS: I should also remind you that those large mass graves in the south were very much our fault, too, since we prompted the uprising and basically handed them to the Iraqis. Also those deaths happened in the context of a civil war, of which there are many that we never get involved in.
If you consider disarmament to inclue answering these questions (and that's what the UN considers disarmament), then there was absolutely no way to get Hussein to disarm; with weak threats, credible threats or outright war. Hussein was not going to cooperate.
So you remove Hussein; simple.
Whether or not weapons are there does not encompass disarmament, it is more than that.
If you want to talk about the UN, it did not support the war. The UN does not support your position, plain and simple.
What position? That Iraq was required to disarm fully by answering the question in the document I linked?
Because that's what I said in my post.
This is what you said in your post:
Quote:
If you consider disarmament to inclue answering these questions (and that's what the UN considers disarmament), then there was absolutely no way to get Hussein to disarm; with weak threats, credible threats or outright war. Hussein was not going to cooperate.
If you consider disarmament to inclue answering these questions (and that's what the UN considers disarmament), then there was absolutely no way to get Hussein to disarm; with weak threats, credible threats or outright war. Hussein was not going to cooperate.
So you remove Hussein; simple.
Whether or not weapons are there does not encompass disarmament, it is more than that.
For you to be right disarmament would have had to occur, and that hasn't happened. And if it does now then I will be proven right because someone besides Hussein will have done the disarmament.
Sorry, bunge, you're just going to have to start being more quiet.
I wouldn't be so verbal yourself. There's a growing feeling about being duped by Bush over this ( no WOMD found ). What kills me is that it took them so long to figure this out. It doesn't matter what you think about this as jutification. This is why Bush said we should be there. This has a large potential to come back and bite George in the butt. Couple that with the money spent on this war and ummm, well let's just say election time should be interesting.
If you look at some of the posts prior to the war from the supporters* of the war they said "We need this war to disarm Saddam and when WoMDs are found after the war the anti-war people will try and move the goal posts and say "well that ain´t real evidence" or try to take the focus away from the WoMDs"
When people in support of the war NOW talk about the reasons for going to war its "Well the WoMDs wasn´t importent. There was other more compellign reasons"
Moving the goal post?
*(not you personally Grovy. Been there. discussed that)
What kills me is that it took them so long to figure this out.
The reason it took so long is that no one really bothers to go over the UN reports and see what was there. Everyone just keeps saying 'WMD, WMD, WMD' ignoring the fact that we are talking about something in particular. What was the important things that were unaccounted for?
. maybe 500 tons of Mustard Gas, though this number only comes from a discrepancy in ONE document of bombs dropped and previous stock during the war with Iran. Mustard gas alone is not enough of a threat since many nations have it,it has been used since WWI and is difficult to deliver in non-military environments. It is also something that would not (not even in a fantasy world) have been deployed against the US.
Beyond that, what do we have?
. Chemical agent that would have degraded by now and would be useless.
. Biological weapons that would likely be useless at this point, though they always were since bio weapons are not very practical (which is the main reason the US doesn't have a large bio weapons program anymore).
Every piece of information on nuclear weapons, from the non-existant IAEA reports cited by Bush to the forged Nigerian docs, were pure BS. The claims that large chem facilities were being rebuilt is NOW KNOWN TO BE FALSE.
And this is what is so important, and why we don't need more time. The facilities were not rebuilt. Iraq did not produce new large stocks of these weapons. Period. That's why we don't have to wait and see.
This is exactly why anyone that repeats the 'Saddam has/had WMD' mantra is so backward! None of them have bothered to look into what they are really talking about.
These are the same folks that ignore that the 'bio-lab trailers' not only make no sense, but are a claim that sits on little (if any) evidence.
This is also why these same folks will eat up anything that is planted, which is not without precident and becoming increasingly more likely as the political situation gets tougher. When and if it happens, those that have actually studied what is possible will speak out about it, but the american public, whose depth of thought hasn't gone far past the phrase 'WMD' will eat up the marketing.
"Perhaps the CIA analysts are correct when they claim the
fermentors in Iraq are part of a biological weapons program,"
Dr. Smith said. But "a vapor trap is no smoking gun indicating
the labs must be for bioweapons production."
Furthermore, "it is not that difficult to think of legitimate
reasons for the generation and uses of microbial products in
Iraq." He cited the production of Bacillus thuringiensis for
pest control as one illustrative hypothesis.
In short, the CIA report does not conclusively prove the case
that it asserts.
Nevertheless, President Bush said last week that the mobile
production facilities were unambiguously intended for
biological weapons.
"For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing
devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them," Bush
said May 30, referring of the trailers.
So not only is Bush still flat out lying (or at the extreme least, he's misrepresenting the facts in a dramatic way), we also have a good example of a situation where the American public, including people here in AO, eat up claims without being aware of the particulars of each case. Hell, they aren't even aware of the fact that there are particulars.
I think the reason Americans are so unquestioning is that they fall victim to belief in, as one intel expert called it, "Hollywood rinky-dink." Some of you guys think that, like in the movies, details don't matter and terrorists are all good looking and drive speedboats. Well, here in the real world, details matter much more than the phrase 'WMD.'
What ever crazier, however, is the number of people that are too dense to realize that they politicians rely on this same ignorance to sell their policies, like Bush has been all along with this war.
Ok, this is partially off-topic, but Just what the Hell does the Pentagon think it's playing at? Their plans are to hire a terrorist organization to carry out military operations in Iran. Lying to the world to "justify" an illegal war is bad enough....but funding terrorist organizations on the we-the-taxpayers?
Take note: For those not familiar with The Daily Telegraph, it is Britain's most Conservative broadsheet daily newspaper[/b].
Ok, this is partially off-topic, but Just what the Hell does the Pentagon think it's playing at? Their plans are to hire a terrorist organization to carry out military operations in Iran. Lying to the world to "justify" an illegal war is bad enough....but funding terrorist organizations on the we-the-taxpayers?
I still don't think you'll convince anyone that war was necessary, even if someone lost on Jeopardy.
I'm not going to convince anyone of anything, but I'm having fun beating people over the head with the Cluestick for now. When it ceases to amuse me I'll stop.
Comments
Originally posted by tonton
They'll believe anything....
Well hopefully they'll believe this too.
Originally posted by BRussell
Another lie, by guess who:
Here.
So, Bush says "we found the weapons of mass destruction." Uh, no we haven't, Mr. President sir. We've found two RVs that could be biological weapons laboratories, but we didn't find any evidence of weapons in them.
What is also interesting is that everyone that has any expertise is saying that it is FAR from clear. From UN inspectors to the CIA, folks are finding it much easier to point out the flaws in that assessment:
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/002879.html
the link to the UN staff assessment is earlier in the thread.
...you're saying that even if Saddam disarmed in 1991 we still needed to go to war in 2003 to disarm him.
If you consider disarmament to inclue answering these questions (and that's what the UN considers disarmament), then there was absolutely no way to get Hussein to disarm; with weak threats, credible threats or outright war. Hussein was not going to cooperate.
So you remove Hussein; simple.
Whether or not weapons are there does not encompass disarmament, it is more than that.
For you to be right disarmament would have had to occur, and that hasn't happened. And if it does now then I will be proven right because someone besides Hussein will have done the disarmament.
Sorry, bunge, you're just going to have to start being more quiet.
Originally posted by burningwheel
here's a n interesting article
Do people not think through anything? Hey guy, if the goal is to save the most innocent lives, there are much more pressing situations than the one in Iraq. If the goal is to make life as pleasant as possible for the most people, or for the people that are suffering the most, there are many places that are MUCH more in need of our help than Iraq. Like...oh, maybe...Afghanistan. Or have you forgotten along with everyone else? Or have you just not noticed that Afghanistan is getting little substantial help from the US, and certainly nothing close to the scale of Iraq. Maybe you are unaware of what going on in Congo. Hell, we could go down a whole list of regions that make Iraq seem like disneyland.
Oh, and as far as prisoners go, did you forget that Saddam released just about all of them last year, including all of the murderers and rapists? Isn't it ironic that perhaps one of the biggest human rights offenses the regime committed in the last year was to release the prisoners?!?!
And how is it that someone in one of the last developed countries to execute prisoners is condemning another nation for doing the same thing?
PS: I should also remind you that those large mass graves in the south were very much our fault, too, since we prompted the uprising and basically handed them to the Iraqis. Also those deaths happened in the context of a civil war, of which there are many that we never get involved in.
Originally posted by groverat
If you consider disarmament to inclue answering these questions (and that's what the UN considers disarmament), then there was absolutely no way to get Hussein to disarm; with weak threats, credible threats or outright war. Hussein was not going to cooperate.
So you remove Hussein; simple.
Whether or not weapons are there does not encompass disarmament, it is more than that.
If you want to talk about the UN, it did not support the war. The UN does not support your position, plain and simple.
Originally posted by bunge
Well hopefully they'll believe this too.
Here's a guardian article on it, too
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...968581,00.html
If you want to talk about the UN, it did not support the war.
Thanks for the newsflash, Mr. Hearst.
The UN does not support your position, plain and simple.
What position? That Iraq was required to disarm fully by answering the question in the document I linked?
Because that's what I said in my post.
Or are you moving goalposts to start an argument?
Originally posted by giant
Here's a guardian article on it, too
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...968581,00.html
If what Powell said in the SC is to be considered "real evidence" I am dying for the questionable evidence
Originally posted by groverat
What position? That Iraq was required to disarm fully by answering the question in the document I linked?
Because that's what I said in my post.
This is what you said in your post:
If you consider disarmament to inclue answering these questions (and that's what the UN considers disarmament), then there was absolutely no way to get Hussein to disarm; with weak threats, credible threats or outright war. Hussein was not going to cooperate.
And the UN does not agree.
Or are you moving goalposts to start an argument?
Don't worry. I don't want your job.
Originally posted by groverat
If you consider disarmament to inclue answering these questions (and that's what the UN considers disarmament), then there was absolutely no way to get Hussein to disarm; with weak threats, credible threats or outright war. Hussein was not going to cooperate.
So you remove Hussein; simple.
Whether or not weapons are there does not encompass disarmament, it is more than that.
For you to be right disarmament would have had to occur, and that hasn't happened. And if it does now then I will be proven right because someone besides Hussein will have done the disarmament.
Sorry, bunge, you're just going to have to start being more quiet.
I wouldn't be so verbal yourself. There's a growing feeling about being duped by Bush over this ( no WOMD found ). What kills me is that it took them so long to figure this out. It doesn't matter what you think about this as jutification. This is why Bush said we should be there. This has a large potential to come back and bite George in the butt. Couple that with the money spent on this war and ummm, well let's just say election time should be interesting.
Originally posted by groverat
Or are you moving goalposts to start an argument?
Moving the goal posts?
If you look at some of the posts prior to the war from the supporters* of the war they said "We need this war to disarm Saddam and when WoMDs are found after the war the anti-war people will try and move the goal posts and say "well that ain´t real evidence" or try to take the focus away from the WoMDs"
When people in support of the war NOW talk about the reasons for going to war its "Well the WoMDs wasn´t importent. There was other more compellign reasons"
Moving the goal post?
*(not you personally Grovy. Been there. discussed that)
Originally posted by jimmac
What kills me is that it took them so long to figure this out.
The reason it took so long is that no one really bothers to go over the UN reports and see what was there. Everyone just keeps saying 'WMD, WMD, WMD' ignoring the fact that we are talking about something in particular. What was the important things that were unaccounted for?
. maybe 500 tons of Mustard Gas, though this number only comes from a discrepancy in ONE document of bombs dropped and previous stock during the war with Iran. Mustard gas alone is not enough of a threat since many nations have it,it has been used since WWI and is difficult to deliver in non-military environments. It is also something that would not (not even in a fantasy world) have been deployed against the US.
Beyond that, what do we have?
. Chemical agent that would have degraded by now and would be useless.
. Biological weapons that would likely be useless at this point, though they always were since bio weapons are not very practical (which is the main reason the US doesn't have a large bio weapons program anymore).
Every piece of information on nuclear weapons, from the non-existant IAEA reports cited by Bush to the forged Nigerian docs, were pure BS. The claims that large chem facilities were being rebuilt is NOW KNOWN TO BE FALSE.
And this is what is so important, and why we don't need more time. The facilities were not rebuilt. Iraq did not produce new large stocks of these weapons. Period. That's why we don't have to wait and see.
This is exactly why anyone that repeats the 'Saddam has/had WMD' mantra is so backward! None of them have bothered to look into what they are really talking about.
These are the same folks that ignore that the 'bio-lab trailers' not only make no sense, but are a claim that sits on little (if any) evidence.
This is also why these same folks will eat up anything that is planted, which is not without precident and becoming increasingly more likely as the political situation gets tougher. When and if it happens, those that have actually studied what is possible will speak out about it, but the american public, whose depth of thought hasn't gone far past the phrase 'WMD' will eat up the marketing.
"Mobile pilot plant fermentation facilities are not uncommon,"
observed chemist George C. Smith. In fact, they have a
sufficient number of conventional applications, he noted, that
they are commercially marketed. One such mobile fermentor is
described here:
http://www.johnmorris.com.au/html/Ne...ioflow5000.htm
The CIA report said the Iraqi plant design could be specifically
identified as a banned weapons system because of its device for
capturing exhaust gases: "The capability of the system to
capture and compress exhaust gases produced during fermentation
is not required for legitimate biological processes and
strongly indicates attempts to conceal production activity."
But that's not necessarily so either, said Smith, a senior
fellow at GlobalSecurity.org.
Thus, a design for a mobile bioreactor that is used to
decontaminate soil at the U.S. Department of Energy Savannah
River site features an optional "noxious gas adsorber" that has
nothing to do with biological weapons production. See the
schematic diagram on this page:
http://www.wpi.org/Initiatives/2002/20020603.asp
"Perhaps the CIA analysts are correct when they claim the
fermentors in Iraq are part of a biological weapons program,"
Dr. Smith said. But "a vapor trap is no smoking gun indicating
the labs must be for bioweapons production."
Furthermore, "it is not that difficult to think of legitimate
reasons for the generation and uses of microbial products in
Iraq." He cited the production of Bacillus thuringiensis for
pest control as one illustrative hypothesis.
In short, the CIA report does not conclusively prove the case
that it asserts.
Nevertheless, President Bush said last week that the mobile
production facilities were unambiguously intended for
biological weapons.
"For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing
devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them," Bush
said May 30, referring of the trailers.
So not only is Bush still flat out lying (or at the extreme least, he's misrepresenting the facts in a dramatic way), we also have a good example of a situation where the American public, including people here in AO, eat up claims without being aware of the particulars of each case. Hell, they aren't even aware of the fact that there are particulars.
I think the reason Americans are so unquestioning is that they fall victim to belief in, as one intel expert called it, "Hollywood rinky-dink." Some of you guys think that, like in the movies, details don't matter and terrorists are all good looking and drive speedboats. Well, here in the real world, details matter much more than the phrase 'WMD.'
What ever crazier, however, is the number of people that are too dense to realize that they politicians rely on this same ignorance to sell their policies, like Bush has been all along with this war.
Originally posted by groverat
Sorry, bunge, you're just going to have to start being more quiet.
Link didn't work. And until it does, you're condescension just looks like poor taste.
I still don't think you'll convince anyone that war was necessary, even if someone lost on Jeopardy.
Take note: For those not familiar with The Daily Telegraph, it is Britain's most Conservative broadsheet daily newspaper[/b].
Originally posted by sammi jo
Ok, this is partially off-topic, but Just what the Hell does the Pentagon think it's playing at? Their plans are to hire a terrorist organization to carry out military operations in Iran. Lying to the world to "justify" an illegal war is bad enough....but funding terrorist organizations on the we-the-taxpayers?
They are not terrorists. They are patriots.
And the UN does not agree.
What *does* the UN think about it, giant. Please inform me.
And past that, how does one deduce what the UN thinks?
--
bunge:
Link didn't work. And until it does, you're condescension just looks like poor taste.
click
click "cluster document"
click "available here"
I still don't think you'll convince anyone that war was necessary, even if someone lost on Jeopardy.
I'm not going to convince anyone of anything, but I'm having fun beating people over the head with the Cluestick for now. When it ceases to amuse me I'll stop.