Plus the fact that Iraq admitted to and declared these weapons and then refused to destroy all of them.
We aren't even getting into the conjecture. If they said they only ran their Anthrax facility at 20% of it's production capability, we aren't arguing the other 80% here. Rather they didn't even destroy the 20%.
The Bush Administration mentioned the previous violated resolutions and the lack of success from UNMOVIC ad nauseum. They also said they KNEW they had WMD, but that doesn't cancel out all the other arguments they made.
I know you don't want to stray because it leaves you defenseless, but the issue is much larger than you make it seem.
You can't dispute these things.
I have proof that you killed Kennedy, Ena is from Mars and Apple just lowered the price of their iBook.
Now do the least comment prevent me from being a liar?
The Bush Administration mentioned the previous violated resolutions and the lack of success from UNMOVIC ad nauseum.
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.
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?
Originally posted by trumptman Plus the fact that Iraq admitted to and declared these weapons and then refused to destroy all of them.
We aren't even getting into the conjecture. If they said they only ran their Anthrax facility at 20% of it's production capability, we aren't arguing the other 80% here. Rather they didn't even destroy the 20%.
really?
from my previous pos:
Quote:
Iraq claimed that it produced 8,445 litres of anthrax spores at al-Hakam, material which UNSCOM had some evidence that Iraq destroyed:
"There are various accounts derived from both [Iraq's declaration to UNSCOM] and independent Iraqi testimony concerning the destruction of bulk Agent B [ie, Bacillus anthracis spores]. Laboratory analysis of samples obtained at Al-Hakam has demonstrated the presence of viable Bacillus anthracis spores at an alleged bulk agent disposal site."
...
Since late February, the Iraqi government has been provided documentation to demonstrate its claim that it destroyed its anthrax stocks in 1991. An account was provided by Hans Blix in his 7 March 2003 statement to the Security Council:
"More papers on anthrax [..] have recently been provided. [...] Iraq proposed an investigation using advanced technology to quantify the amount of unilaterally destroyed anthrax dumped at a site. However, even if the use of advanced technology could quantify the amount of anthrax said to be dumped at the site, the results would still be open to interpretation. Defining the quantity of anthrax destroyed must, of course, be followed by efforts to establish what quantity was actually produced."
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.
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, esspecially since it looks like it was destroyed and that Iraq was apparently cooperating.
Cooperating would be your word for it. It is not mine. Claiming you dumped anthrax in the desert out of U.N. supervision and then asking for them to figure out a way of proving you did it is not my definition of "compliance."
I am not mentioning Anthrax to make it into a big, bad bogeyman. Rather to show how they handled matters. They wouldn't give open access, and would make false claims with no means of backing them up.
I quoted the very section of Blix you just quoted. It said the Iraqi's were giving as proof a list of, I believe it was 89 names of folks who could give anecdotal testimony that they had witnessed the anthrax being dumped.
They were supposed to declare the anthrax, bring it to the U.N. and then let the U.N. witness them destroying it.
I have read an interesting article about the subject in the Time magazine.
I will not resume it, but there where some interesting points in it :
- suppositions taking as facts : when the CIA make a report they made three interpretations : the better one (read : not serious threat) the middle one and the worse one. Bush admin systematically take the worst one and presented it as the only serious explanation.
- Rumsfeld tend to choose always the worse one, not for lying by intimate conviction, because he see the world as a potential threat.
- Wolfowitz and others , do not appreciate the CIA, saying that they are inneficients, so they create a special office, to interpret in a better way the threats.
- for the first time in history US make a sort of preemptive war based upon secret intelligence, probabily it will be the last time.
I have proof that you killed Kennedy, Ena is from Mars and Apple just lowered the price of their iBook.
Now do the least comment prevent me from being a liar
- The UNMOVIC list of issues (click) was not made up of such idiotic demands. They came from things that either Iraq declared or things that were discovered by inspectors
- Also, those things can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I was born in 1981; physical impossibility. Ena will have overwhelming evidence of Earth being his birthplace. Check Apple's price for today and compare with yesterday's price.
Your analogy is even dumber than pfflam's above in its sarcastic petulance. I'd even say it's insulting; I certainly consider it such.
--
giant:
Quote:
Violation of UN resolutions in itself is not a justification for war.
That's a subjective measurement. I think repeated violation of said sanctions/resolutions concerning deadly weapons over a decade are definitely worth forced disarmament. You say "no", I say "yes", the resolutions themselves are ambiguous.
Quote:
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?
Since I'm not one who said he have to go into Iraq solely because they are threatening to the continental US I can't comment on that. But I can say that your logic is more full of holes than a fishing net. You grab dozens of subjective measurements and act as if they are concrete.
"More papers on anthrax [..] have recently been provided. [...] Iraq proposed an investigation using advanced technology to quantify the amount of unilaterally destroyed anthrax dumped at a site. However, even if the use of advanced technology could quantify the amount of anthrax said to be dumped at the site, the results would still be open to interpretation. Defining the quantity of anthrax destroyed must, of course, be followed by efforts to establish what quantity was actually produced."
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.
And as I noted previously:
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.
-The UNMOVIC list of issues (click) was not made up of such idiotic demands. They came from things that either Iraq declared or things that were discovered by inspectors
And that was what I for the sake of the argument put as the lowering of iBook prices. THAT IS NOT WHAT IS ARGUED AGAINST BY ME OR THE TOPIC STARTER. ITS THE CLAIM OF THE CURRENT INTELLIGENS FINDINGS.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
- Also, those things can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I was born in 1981; physical impossibility. Ena will have overwhelming evidence of Earth being his birthplace. Check Apple's price for today and compare with yesterday's price.
"Proven without reasonable doubt"? Well we haven´t had an investigation into that yet have we? Lets someone investigate into CIA, DIA and SPO and see what really happened on the build up to the war. A lot of things indicate that pressure was put on the agencies to come up with what the administration wanted to hear. Only one thing to do: Find out what happened.
- The UNMOVIC list of issues (click) was not made up of such idiotic demands. They came from things that either Iraq declared or things that were discovered by inspectors
You still haven't read that document through, have you? Why the hell do you keep citing it when you can't point to anything in it that shows Iraq is a threat? I beg you (or anyone) to demonstrate that Iraq was a threat using specific and technical information.
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.
And as I noted previously:
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.
You are high.
I am not asking for a perfect world. I am asking for compliance.
Your definition of compliance.
Inspectors arrive..
Inspectors:Oh open the gates, we need to look inside.
Iraqi guard:Oh the guy with the key, he is on vacation. Come back tomorrow.
Inspectors: You have declared that you have 8500 liters of Anthrax, where is it?
Iraqi guard: Oh, well, we dumped that in the desert.
You call my unwillingness to accept this nonsense asking for a "perfect world."
My definition of compliance
Inspectors: You have declared 8,500 liters of anthrax. Bring it this designated spot and we will watch you destoy it.
Iraqi guard: Yes, we will bring it and destroy it.
I don't have access to the archive (because it is paid) but this Time magazine article related exactly what I am talking about.
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.
However, it would be good to realize that your defintion of compliance on this issue is not the same as UNMOVIC's, since UNMOVIC wants to focus on research into production, not specifically disposal. Iraq was providing papers. You should notice that even though you are accustomed to everything being on computer, this is not the case here and that makes research of this kind very difficult. It is not realistic to look at set-backs as only due to Iraqi non-compliance. In fact, 9 times out of 10 it can be attributed to disorganization, human error, etc.
Quote:
I don't have access to the archive (because it is paid) but this Time magazine article related exactly what I am talking about.
long story short, he doesn't even really know what goes on in his country. When you see how disorganized it is, the difficult inspections start to make more sense.
Quote:
As for the wet anthrax, again I won't debate wet vs. dry because they weren't suppose to have either.
But that's the entire point. We invaded Iraq because it was a portrayed as a threat (as the white house says, not me), not because of UN violations or even simply any weapons. If that was the case, there are other countries to be invaded, one of which is almost a 51st state.
Anyway, all available evidence points to destruction of anthrax stocks. Whatever was left, if anything was, was not a threat and therefore does not justify war conducted for the expressed purpose of preempting a threat. Plain and simple. You can't avoid this.
You might try to play games to avoid dealing with the reality of the situation, but in the end you are just fooling yourself.
I don't see Iraq as a threat. It is up to those that see it as a threat to demonstrate the threat.
So it's up to someone else to prove to you something you don't want to believe? Interesting.
If they consider it a threat how do you tell them it's not? It's subjective. Your interpretation is not infallible.
--
Anders:
Quote:
And that was what I for the sake of the argument put as the lowering of iBook prices. THAT IS NOT WHAT IS ARGUED AGAINST BY ME OR THE TOPIC STARTER. ITS THE CLAIM OF THE CURRENT INTELLIGENS FINDINGS.
But your logic at the base of it is flawed. It was and is no one's responsibility to find anything in Iraq. Finding WMD in Iraq means NOTHING legally for the US now. It means nothing, except to those with political interests. That's it.
Even if Bush himself were to discover a huge underground nuke project live on Al-Jazeera it would mean nothing legally. Nothing.
And this is something you guys don't seem to understand.
Quote:
"Proven without reasonable doubt"? Well we haven´t had an investigation into that yet have we? Lets someone investigate into CIA, DIA and SPO and see what really happened on the build up to the war. A lot of things indicate that pressure was put on the agencies to come up with what the administration wanted to hear. Only one thing to do: Find out what happened
Find out what happened, by all means. Investigate your asses off, it doesn't mean anything until you get something real. The "evidence" against Bush at this point is laughable and no one can even pin a solid claim against him.
The "evidence" against Bush at this point is laughable and no one can even pin a solid claim against him.
If you are referring to the evidence that the Bush admin (including Bush himself) lied and skewed intelligence reports, it's already been demonstrated thoroughly.
Bush cited ficticious IAEA reports. The entire bush admin cited forged documents trying to demonstrate a nuclear program. They cited construction at al-furat saying it was defintive proof of a renewed program, which was later demonstrated wrong. The list goes on and on and on and on and on. These are things that there is NO QUESTION ABOUT and are not open to interpretation.
But your logic at the base of it is flawed. It was and is no one's responsibility to find anything in Iraq. Finding WMD in Iraq means NOTHING legally for the US now. It means nothing, except to those with political interests. That's it.
I agree with this. Even the part about this being a political question. What is importent is: Did the Bush administration know what they said was not true, secondary was twisted enough to be considered very questionable despite presented as facts to the US congress, UN SC, GB, Polan, Australia, Denmark and whoever else reacted on the information by supporting the US lead war against Iraq.
I agree with this. Even the part about this being a political question. What is importent is: Did the Bush administration know what they said was not true, secondary was twisted enough to be considered very questionable despite presented as facts to the US congress, UN SC, GB, Polan, Australia, Denmark and whoever else reacted on the information by supporting the US lead war against Iraq.
If millions (hell, probably tens or hundreds of millions worldwide) of us knew it was not true, the Bush admin would be expected to as well. There is no excuse.
Comments
We aren't even getting into the conjecture. If they said they only ran their Anthrax facility at 20% of it's production capability, we aren't arguing the other 80% here. Rather they didn't even destroy the 20%.
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
The Bush Administration mentioned the previous violated resolutions and the lack of success from UNMOVIC ad nauseum. They also said they KNEW they had WMD, but that doesn't cancel out all the other arguments they made.
I know you don't want to stray because it leaves you defenseless, but the issue is much larger than you make it seem.
You can't dispute these things.
I have proof that you killed Kennedy, Ena is from Mars and Apple just lowered the price of their iBook.
Now do the least comment prevent me from being a liar?
Originally posted by groverat
The Bush Administration mentioned the previous violated resolutions and the lack of success from UNMOVIC ad nauseum.
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.
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?
Originally posted by trumptman Plus the fact that Iraq admitted to and declared these weapons and then refused to destroy all of them.
We aren't even getting into the conjecture. If they said they only ran their Anthrax facility at 20% of it's production capability, we aren't arguing the other 80% here. Rather they didn't even destroy the 20%.
really?
from my previous pos:
Iraq claimed that it produced 8,445 litres of anthrax spores at al-Hakam, material which UNSCOM had some evidence that Iraq destroyed:
"There are various accounts derived from both [Iraq's declaration to UNSCOM] and independent Iraqi testimony concerning the destruction of bulk Agent B [ie, Bacillus anthracis spores]. Laboratory analysis of samples obtained at Al-Hakam has demonstrated the presence of viable Bacillus anthracis spores at an alleged bulk agent disposal site."
...
Since late February, the Iraqi government has been provided documentation to demonstrate its claim that it destroyed its anthrax stocks in 1991. An account was provided by Hans Blix in his 7 March 2003 statement to the Security Council:
"More papers on anthrax [..] have recently been provided. [...] Iraq proposed an investigation using advanced technology to quantify the amount of unilaterally destroyed anthrax dumped at a site. However, even if the use of advanced technology could quantify the amount of anthrax said to be dumped at the site, the results would still be open to interpretation. Defining the quantity of anthrax destroyed must, of course, be followed by efforts to establish what quantity was actually produced."
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.
Originally posted by giant
really?
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, esspecially since it looks like it was destroyed and that Iraq was apparently cooperating.
Cooperating would be your word for it. It is not mine. Claiming you dumped anthrax in the desert out of U.N. supervision and then asking for them to figure out a way of proving you did it is not my definition of "compliance."
I am not mentioning Anthrax to make it into a big, bad bogeyman. Rather to show how they handled matters. They wouldn't give open access, and would make false claims with no means of backing them up.
I quoted the very section of Blix you just quoted. It said the Iraqi's were giving as proof a list of, I believe it was 89 names of folks who could give anecdotal testimony that they had witnessed the anthrax being dumped.
They were supposed to declare the anthrax, bring it to the U.N. and then let the U.N. witness them destroying it.
This did not happen.
Nick
I will not resume it, but there where some interesting points in it :
- suppositions taking as facts : when the CIA make a report they made three interpretations : the better one (read : not serious threat) the middle one and the worse one. Bush admin systematically take the worst one and presented it as the only serious explanation.
- Rumsfeld tend to choose always the worse one, not for lying by intimate conviction, because he see the world as a potential threat.
- Wolfowitz and others , do not appreciate the CIA, saying that they are inneficients, so they create a special office, to interpret in a better way the threats.
- for the first time in history US make a sort of preemptive war based upon secret intelligence, probabily it will be the last time.
I have proof that you killed Kennedy, Ena is from Mars and Apple just lowered the price of their iBook.
Now do the least comment prevent me from being a liar
- The UNMOVIC list of issues (click) was not made up of such idiotic demands. They came from things that either Iraq declared or things that were discovered by inspectors
- Also, those things can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I was born in 1981; physical impossibility. Ena will have overwhelming evidence of Earth being his birthplace. Check Apple's price for today and compare with yesterday's price.
Your analogy is even dumber than pfflam's above in its sarcastic petulance. I'd even say it's insulting; I certainly consider it such.
--
giant:
Violation of UN resolutions in itself is not a justification for war.
That's a subjective measurement. I think repeated violation of said sanctions/resolutions concerning deadly weapons over a decade are definitely worth forced disarmament. You say "no", I say "yes", the resolutions themselves are ambiguous.
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?
Since I'm not one who said he have to go into Iraq solely because they are threatening to the continental US I can't comment on that. But I can say that your logic is more full of holes than a fishing net. You grab dozens of subjective measurements and act as if they are concrete.
What is a threat?, For instance.
"More papers on anthrax [..] have recently been provided. [...] Iraq proposed an investigation using advanced technology to quantify the amount of unilaterally destroyed anthrax dumped at a site. However, even if the use of advanced technology could quantify the amount of anthrax said to be dumped at the site, the results would still be open to interpretation. Defining the quantity of anthrax destroyed must, of course, be followed by efforts to establish what quantity was actually produced."
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.
And as I noted previously:
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.
Originally posted by groverat
What is a threat?, For instance.
I don't see Iraq as a threat. It is up to those that see it as a threat to demonstrate the threat.
This war with Iraq was a 'pre-emptive strike' against a 'threat'. This is what the whitehouse said, not me:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html
Title: Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction
This is why we are not invading Israel, which is in much more flagrant violation of UN resolutions.
stop playing games.
Originally posted by groverat
-The UNMOVIC list of issues (click) was not made up of such idiotic demands. They came from things that either Iraq declared or things that were discovered by inspectors
And that was what I for the sake of the argument put as the lowering of iBook prices. THAT IS NOT WHAT IS ARGUED AGAINST BY ME OR THE TOPIC STARTER. ITS THE CLAIM OF THE CURRENT INTELLIGENS FINDINGS.
Originally posted by groverat
- Also, those things can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I was born in 1981; physical impossibility. Ena will have overwhelming evidence of Earth being his birthplace. Check Apple's price for today and compare with yesterday's price.
"Proven without reasonable doubt"? Well we haven´t had an investigation into that yet have we? Lets someone investigate into CIA, DIA and SPO and see what really happened on the build up to the war. A lot of things indicate that pressure was put on the agencies to come up with what the administration wanted to hear. Only one thing to do: Find out what happened.
Originally posted by groverat
- The UNMOVIC list of issues (click) was not made up of such idiotic demands. They came from things that either Iraq declared or things that were discovered by inspectors
You still haven't read that document through, have you? Why the hell do you keep citing it when you can't point to anything in it that shows Iraq is a threat? I beg you (or anyone) to demonstrate that Iraq was a threat using specific and technical information.
Originally posted by giant
earth to trumpetman
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.
And as I noted previously:
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.
You are high.
I am not asking for a perfect world. I am asking for compliance.
Your definition of compliance.
Inspectors arrive..
Inspectors:Oh open the gates, we need to look inside.
Iraqi guard:Oh the guy with the key, he is on vacation. Come back tomorrow.
Inspectors: You have declared that you have 8500 liters of Anthrax, where is it?
Iraqi guard: Oh, well, we dumped that in the desert.
You call my unwillingness to accept this nonsense asking for a "perfect world."
My definition of compliance
Inspectors: You have declared 8,500 liters of anthrax. Bring it this designated spot and we will watch you destoy it.
Iraqi guard: Yes, we will bring it and destroy it.
I don't have access to the archive (because it is paid) but this Time magazine article related exactly what I am talking about.
Time Cover
It doesn't require a perfect world. It requires compliance and an unwillingness to tolerate lies.
As for the wet anthrax, again I won't debate wet vs. dry because they weren't suppose to have either.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
My definition of compliance
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.
However, it would be good to realize that your defintion of compliance on this issue is not the same as UNMOVIC's, since UNMOVIC wants to focus on research into production, not specifically disposal. Iraq was providing papers. You should notice that even though you are accustomed to everything being on computer, this is not the case here and that makes research of this kind very difficult. It is not realistic to look at set-backs as only due to Iraqi non-compliance. In fact, 9 times out of 10 it can be attributed to disorganization, human error, etc.
I don't have access to the archive (because it is paid) but this Time magazine article related exactly what I am talking about.
Time Cover
You should really get a higher quality news source. The atlantic had an amazing article on the world of saddam:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/bowden.htm
long story short, he doesn't even really know what goes on in his country. When you see how disorganized it is, the difficult inspections start to make more sense.
As for the wet anthrax, again I won't debate wet vs. dry because they weren't suppose to have either.
But that's the entire point. We invaded Iraq because it was a portrayed as a threat (as the white house says, not me), not because of UN violations or even simply any weapons. If that was the case, there are other countries to be invaded, one of which is almost a 51st state.
Anyway, all available evidence points to destruction of anthrax stocks. Whatever was left, if anything was, was not a threat and therefore does not justify war conducted for the expressed purpose of preempting a threat. Plain and simple. You can't avoid this.
You might try to play games to avoid dealing with the reality of the situation, but in the end you are just fooling yourself.
I don't see Iraq as a threat. It is up to those that see it as a threat to demonstrate the threat.
So it's up to someone else to prove to you something you don't want to believe? Interesting.
If they consider it a threat how do you tell them it's not? It's subjective. Your interpretation is not infallible.
--
Anders:
And that was what I for the sake of the argument put as the lowering of iBook prices. THAT IS NOT WHAT IS ARGUED AGAINST BY ME OR THE TOPIC STARTER. ITS THE CLAIM OF THE CURRENT INTELLIGENS FINDINGS.
But your logic at the base of it is flawed. It was and is no one's responsibility to find anything in Iraq. Finding WMD in Iraq means NOTHING legally for the US now. It means nothing, except to those with political interests. That's it.
Even if Bush himself were to discover a huge underground nuke project live on Al-Jazeera it would mean nothing legally. Nothing.
And this is something you guys don't seem to understand.
"Proven without reasonable doubt"? Well we haven´t had an investigation into that yet have we? Lets someone investigate into CIA, DIA and SPO and see what really happened on the build up to the war. A lot of things indicate that pressure was put on the agencies to come up with what the administration wanted to hear. Only one thing to do: Find out what happened
Find out what happened, by all means. Investigate your asses off, it doesn't mean anything until you get something real. The "evidence" against Bush at this point is laughable and no one can even pin a solid claim against him.
Originally posted by groverat
So it's up to someone else to prove to you something you don't want to believe? Interesting.
If they consider it a threat how do you tell them it's not? It's subjective. Your interpretation is not infallible.
Wrong. It is a technical question, and you are doing a piss-poor job of avoiding answering it.
Originally posted by groverat
The "evidence" against Bush at this point is laughable and no one can even pin a solid claim against him.
If you are referring to the evidence that the Bush admin (including Bush himself) lied and skewed intelligence reports, it's already been demonstrated thoroughly.
Bush cited ficticious IAEA reports. The entire bush admin cited forged documents trying to demonstrate a nuclear program. They cited construction at al-furat saying it was defintive proof of a renewed program, which was later demonstrated wrong. The list goes on and on and on and on and on. These are things that there is NO QUESTION ABOUT and are not open to interpretation.
Originally posted by groverat
But your logic at the base of it is flawed. It was and is no one's responsibility to find anything in Iraq. Finding WMD in Iraq means NOTHING legally for the US now. It means nothing, except to those with political interests. That's it.
I agree with this. Even the part about this being a political question. What is importent is: Did the Bush administration know what they said was not true, secondary was twisted enough to be considered very questionable despite presented as facts to the US congress, UN SC, GB, Polan, Australia, Denmark and whoever else reacted on the information by supporting the US lead war against Iraq.
Originally posted by Anders
I agree with this. Even the part about this being a political question. What is importent is: Did the Bush administration know what they said was not true, secondary was twisted enough to be considered very questionable despite presented as facts to the US congress, UN SC, GB, Polan, Australia, Denmark and whoever else reacted on the information by supporting the US lead war against Iraq.
If millions (hell, probably tens or hundreds of millions worldwide) of us knew it was not true, the Bush admin would be expected to as well. There is no excuse.