This is an OpEd. Let me preface this with, I agree with some of it.
This is someone's opinion. Are you just parroting?
I am not sure why this is part of the discussion.
Anyone here can dig up someone somewhere that agrees with something.
This is what i am talking about.
Read the title of this thread. You agree or you don't. If you have some information to add, let's have it. If not, please don't post some journalists OpEd as some sort of clincher.
This is an OpEd. Let me preface this with, I agree with some of it.
This is someone's opinion. Are you just parroting?
I am not sure why this is part of the discussion.
Anyone here can dig up someone somewhere that agrees with something.
This is what i am talking about.
Read the title of this thread. You agree or you don't. If you have some information to add, let's have it. If not, please don't post some journalists OpEd as some sort of clincher.
You know what OpEd stands for. Right?
That doesn't change the facts contained in the editorial.
" Mr. Kay's performance has drawn mixed reviews. Some critics complain that his first interim report and statements painted minor finds as major threats and buried strong evidence that Iraq had been contained by United Nations weapons inspectors. But Mr. Kay and his search team had the integrity to report conclusions that undermined the administration's chief rationale for going to war. "
Of course, I have seen how you refuse to accept anything that does not fit with your world view, so I will not waste my time re-repeating things for you here.
The stement I quoted above is a statement of fact - read Kay's own words if you need to
"The surprise in his first report was not the revelation that no actual weapons of mass destruction had been found. That was obvious from daily news reports."
Notice the use of the word "actual". As also pointed out, actual "evidence*" was found of the WMD and the programs. From the Kay report:
"Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons."
"New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN."
---------------------
"Rather it was the team's judgment that Iraq did not even have active programs to make chemical or nuclear weapons and had been pursuing missiles that could threaten only nearby countries, not the United States."
From the kay report:
"In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service. While we have much yet to learn about the exact work programs and capabilities of these activities, it is already apparent that these undeclared activities would have at a minimum facilitated chemical and biological weapons activities and provided a technically trained cadre."
*evidence
\\Ev"i*dence\\, n. [F. ['e]vidence, L. Evidentia. See Evident.] 1. That which makes evident or manifest; that which furnishes, or tends to furnish, proof; any mode of proof; the ground of belief or judgement; as, the evidence of our senses; evidence of the truth or falsehood of a statement.
"The surprise in his first report was not the revelation that no actual weapons of mass destruction had been found. That was obvious from daily news reports."
Notice the use of the word "actual". As also pointed out, actual "evidence*" was found of the WMD and the programs. From the Kay report:
"Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons."
"New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN."
---------------------
"Rather it was the team's judgment that Iraq did not even have active programs to make chemical or nuclear weapons and had been pursuing missiles that could threaten only nearby countries, not the United States."
From the kay report:
"In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service. While we have much yet to learn about the exact work programs and capabilities of these activities, it is already apparent that these undeclared activities would have at a minimum facilitated chemical and biological weapons activities and provided a technically trained cadre."
*evidence
\\Ev"i*dence\\, n. [F. ['e]vidence, L. Evidentia. See Evident.] 1. That which makes evident or manifest; that which furnishes, or tends to furnish, proof; any mode of proof; the ground of belief or judgement; as, the evidence of our senses; evidence of the truth or falsehood of a statement.
Nobody is saying that these people didn't try to develop terrible things. However there is still zero " evidence " that they were a threat to us which is at the heart of the discussions in this thread.
The war is being fought, at phenomenal expense in monetary terms, $172BILLION so far, and hundreds of $BILLIONS more to be sucked in, ongoing coalition military casualties, up to 10,000 civilian deaths in Iraq, and the upsurge of terrorism in middle east countries where terrorism was a rarity before the war. In Sept. 2001 we had the sympathy and alliance of the whole world, and had our very best chances of putting some of the worlds problems to right, but 18 short months later due to some insanely shortsighted and misguided foreign policy decisions, (penis waving) the Bush Administration has trashed all the good will after 9-11, earned the disrespect of a large part of the civilized world, divided our own nation like never before, done bin Laden a big favor by helping him in his goal of denying Americans the freedoms he wants to demolish, and now has weakened the United Nations and NATO.
The thread states "No ties to Al-Qaeda. No weapons of mass destruction. No danger to U.S. security". We sent our people to war against Iraq because we were told Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction even though Iraq was probably the most "disarmed" country in the Middle East, re WMD. The way of finding and disarming nations with WMD is to send in the inspectors, which is what the UN did. But Bush gave up, sent in the military to do the job...which is a strange move considering that the purpose of WMD is TO USE as a last resort when a country is confronted by an invading force of greater strength. By using the military option, Bush must have known that Iraq either had no WMD, or if they did, then Saddam would never have used them. ie there was no danger to US security. (Many of the invading US troops didnt even have adequate bio and chem protection anyway. What was the Pentagon thinking??).
They found NO WMD, because there were none. Kamel Hussein's (Saddam's deceased brother-in-law), testimony was used by the Bush Admin. to justify the war, but they conveniently ignored the parts where (Kamel) detailed how all of Iraq's chem and bio programs and stocks had been destroyed before the initial set of inspections started in 1991 shortly after the conclusion of the Gulf War. These actions were unauthorized by the U.N. and were carried out by Saddam's forces.
Where are the valid rebuttals to this thread's pronouncements?, So far, NONE have been forthcoming. A set of (declassified) documents from an intelligence service such as the CIA would be a start. The best evidence from the Bush Administration has been empty, unsupported rhetoric. At worst, a series of unadulterated, baldfaced LIES.
Arguing with jimmac is pointless, though often amusing. One reason is that jimmac does not take a position. He makes no definitive statements, or presents to premise to be debated. For instance, jimmac will link to a story about one piece of economic data, and make a snide comment like "yeah, sdw, looks like things are going great". What he won't do is say "I believe the economy is not in recovery", and then post data or even anecdotal evidence to support his statement. What he's good at is unsupported statements, like this: "I've seen this pattern all my life, as soon as Republicans get in the white house, the economy tanks, looks better for awhile, then tanks again. It's just the way things are". .
I have never seen him take a position and then defend it or support it. The WMD issue is another example...perhaps the prime one. jimmac will not come out and say he believes there to be no WMD in Iraq. What he WILL say is that Bush lied BECAUSE we haven't found the weapons. That's the kind of "logic" he uses.
The war is being fought, at phenomenal expense in monetary terms, $172BILLION so far, and hundreds of $BILLIONS more to be sucked in, ongoing coalition military casualties, up to 10,000 civilian deaths in Iraq, and the upsurge of terrorism in middle east countries where terrorism was a rarity before the war. In Sept. 2001 we had the sympathy and alliance of the whole world, and had our very best chances of putting some of the worlds problems to right, but 18 short months later due to some insanely shortsighted and misguided foreign policy decisions, (penis waving) the Bush Administration has trashed all the good will after 9-11, earned the disrespect of a large part of the civilized world, divided our own nation like never before, done bin Laden a big favor by helping him in his goal of denying Americans the freedoms he wants to demolish, and now has weakened the United Nations and NATO.
The thread states "No ties to Al-Qaeda. No weapons of mass destruction. No danger to U.S. security". We sent our people to war against Iraq because we were told Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction even though Iraq was probably the most "disarmed" country in the Middle East, re WMD. The way of finding and disarming nations with WMD is to send in the inspectors, which is what the UN did. But Bush gave up, sent in the military to do the job...which is a strange move considering that the purpose of WMD is TO USE as a last resort when a country is confronted by an invading force of greater strength. By using the military option, Bush must have known that Iraq either had no WMD, or if they did, then Saddam would never have used them. ie there was no danger to US security. (Many of the invading US troops didnt even have adequate bio and chem protection anyway. What was the Pentagon thinking??).
They found NO WMD, because there were none. Kamel Hussein's (Saddam's deceased brother-in-law), testimony was used by the Bush Admin. to justify the war, but they conveniently ignored the parts where (Kamel) detailed how all of Iraq's chem and bio programs and stocks had been destroyed before the initial set of inspections started in 1991 shortly after the conclusion of the Gulf War. These actions were unauthorized by the U.N. and were carried out by Saddam's forces.
Where are the valid rebuttals to this thread's pronouncements?, So far, NONE have been forthcoming. A set of (declassified) documents from an intelligence service such as the CIA would be a start. The best evidence from the Bush Administration has been empty, unsupported rhetoric. At worst, a series of unadulterated, baldfaced LIES.
Nobody is saying that these people didn't try to develop terrible things. However there is still zero " evidence " that they were a threat to us which is at the heart of the discussions in this thread.
What then do you suppose they were developing these terrible things for ?
I guess that they were only for the region or his own people. Well now I'm sold. Human misery is OK as long as it was just contained inside of Iraq or just in the middle east.
I have heard some in these threads say that our policy effects the stability of the world and that may justify or excuse the terroristic actions of those that are angered by the US' policies.
Why then are policies made in these rogue nations by rogue leaders excused? Do they not effect the world scene also? Do they not also have the effect of angering people?
i guess that it is OK if SH makes ripples in the peace but not the US and it's policy makers.
Arguing with jimmac is pointless, though often amusing. One reason is that jimmac does not take a position. He makes no definitive statements, or presents to premise to be debated. For instance, jimmac will link to a story about one piece of economic data, and make a snide comment like "yeah, sdw, looks like things are going great". What he won't do is say "I believe the economy is not in recovery", and then post data or even anecdotal evidence to support his statement. What he's good at is unsupported statements, like this: "I've seen this pattern all my life, as soon as Republicans get in the white house, the economy tanks, looks better for awhile, then tanks again. It's just the way things are". .
I have never seen him take a position and then defend it or support it. The WMD issue is another example...perhaps the prime one. jimmac will not come out and say he believes there to be no WMD in Iraq. What he WILL say is that Bush lied BECAUSE we haven't found the weapons. That's the kind of "logic" he uses.
I believe the economy isn't in the kind of recovery you'd like to think it is.
I don't think there are WOMD in Iraq or were there right before the war. I don't think Bush had the justification for going to war.
As for Bush lieing you can draw your own conclusions but you already know what I think.
^ Of course. Bush lied because we haven't found WMD. We caused 9/11. We squandered the "good will" of the rest of the world. Iraq was a peaceful nation who never hurt anyone. It's leader was a bad man, but he was hurting anyone so we should have left him alone. It didn't matter how many UN resolutions Saddam violated, and it certainly doesn't matter how much SADDAM lied, now does it?
The war is being fought, at phenomenal expense in monetary terms, $172BILLION so far, and hundreds of $BILLIONS more to be sucked in, ongoing coalition military casualties, up to 10,000 civilian deaths in Iraq, and the upsurge of terrorism in middle east countries where terrorism was a rarity before the war. In Sept. 2001 we had the sympathy and alliance of the whole world, and had our very best chances of putting some of the worlds problems to right, but 18 short months later due to some insanely shortsighted and misguided foreign policy decisions, (penis waving) the Bush Administration has trashed all the good will after 9-11, earned the disrespect of a large part of the civilized world, divided our own nation like never before, done bin Laden a big favor by helping him in his goal of denying Americans the freedoms he wants to demolish, and now has weakened the United Nations and NATO.
The thread states "No ties to Al-Qaeda. No weapons of mass destruction. No danger to U.S. security". We sent our people to war against Iraq because we were told Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction even though Iraq was probably the most "disarmed" country in the Middle East, re WMD. The way of finding and disarming nations with WMD is to send in the inspectors, which is what the UN did. But Bush gave up, sent in the military to do the job...which is a strange move considering that the purpose of WMD is TO USE as a last resort when a country is confronted by an invading force of greater strength. By using the military option, Bush must have known that Iraq either had no WMD, or if they did, then Saddam would never have used them. ie there was no danger to US security. (Many of the invading US troops didnt even have adequate bio and chem protection anyway. What was the Pentagon thinking??).
They found NO WMD, because there were none. Kamel Hussein's (Saddam's deceased brother-in-law), testimony was used by the Bush Admin. to justify the war, but they conveniently ignored the parts where (Kamel) detailed how all of Iraq's chem and bio programs and stocks had been destroyed before the initial set of inspections started in 1991 shortly after the conclusion of the Gulf War. These actions were unauthorized by the U.N. and were carried out by Saddam's forces.
Where are the valid rebuttals to this thread's pronouncements?, So far, NONE have been forthcoming. A set of (declassified) documents from an intelligence service such as the CIA would be a start. The best evidence from the Bush Administration has been empty, unsupported rhetoric. At worst, a series of unadulterated, baldfaced LIES.
What then do you suppose they were developing these terrible things for ?
I guess that they were only for the region or his own people. Well now I'm sold. Human misery is OK as long as it was just contained inside of Iraq or just in the middle east.
I have heard some in these threads say that our policy effects the stability of the world and that may justify or excuse the terroristic actions of those that are angered by the US' policies.
Why then are policies made in these rogue nations by rogue leaders excused? Do they not effect the world scene also? Do they not also have the effect of angering people?
i guess that it is OK if SH makes ripples in the peace but not the US and it's policy makers.
This gets back to a very old point that has been covered many times here at AO. There is still much misery in the world. Not just Iraq or even the middle east. Some as bad as Iraq or worse. We simply can't be world policemen ( much as you'd like us to be ). So why did he pick Iraq. He might as well have stuck a pin in a map. Great countries must choose carefully when to interfere. This wasn't it.
Also once again we are taken back to the fact of why we were told we were going to war. The main reason that made this possible is that it was a threat to us.
This gets back to a very old point that has been covered many times here at AO. There is still much misery in the world. Not just Iraq or even the middle east. Some as bad as Iraq or worse. We simply can't be world policemen ( much as you'd like us to be ). So why did he pick Iraq. He might as well have stuck a pin ina map. Great countries must choose carefully when to interfere.
Also once again we are taken back to the fact of why we were told we were going to war. The main reason that made this possible is that it was a threat to us.
That's just so wrong. The US cannot relieve all misery in the world. There were numerous reasons for going in, despite your refusal to see them. Why don't you list for us where we SHOULD have gotten involved.
^ Of course. Bush lied because we haven't found WMD. We caused 9/11. We squandered the "good will" of the rest of the world. Iraq was a peaceful nation who never hurt anyone. It's leader was a bad man, but he was hurting anyone so we should have left him alone. It didn't matter how many UN resolutions Saddam violated, and it certainly doesn't matter how much SADDAM lied, now does it?
God if you say so! But I don't go along with that.
There will congressional inquiries into this matter for years, so you need not worry about the evidence coming out. You and a lot of others are jumping the gun here.
How can the government declassify everything when they haven't questioned everyone possible and captured all of the players yet?
It is not going to happen for while. get used to that.
That's just so wrong. The US cannot relieve all misery in the world. There were numerous reasons for going in, despite your refusal to see them. Why don't you list for us where we SHOULD have gotten involved.
The type of " involvement " you're talking about is done by empires not peace loving democracies.
The thing is we didn't get to go in because of helping the Iraqis. We got the cooperation of the UN, congress, and the american people because of the idea that it was a threat to us.
There will congressional inquiries into this matter for years, so you need not worry about the evidence coming out. You and a lot of others are jumping the gun here.
How can the government declassify everything when they haven't questioned everyone possible and captured all of the players yet?
It is not going to happen for while. get used to that.
Still with what we have already it's looking pretty obvious.
This gets back to a very old point that has been covered many times here at AO. There is still much misery in the world. Not just Iraq or even the middle east. Some as bad as Iraq or worse. We simply can't be world policemen ( much as you'd like us to be ). So why did he pick Iraq. He might as well have stuck a pin in a map. Great countries must choose carefully when to interfere. This wasn't it.
Also once again we are taken back to the fact of why we were told we were going to war. The main reason that made this possible is that it was a threat to us.
Quit saying the main reason was the threat. That was one of many reasons given over and over.
There was a great possibility that SH would pass WMD or WMD technology onto terrorist group like al-qaeda, considering that they had just declared war on the US. That was the threat.
Comments
This is an OpEd. Let me preface this with, I agree with some of it.
This is someone's opinion. Are you just parroting?
I am not sure why this is part of the discussion.
Anyone here can dig up someone somewhere that agrees with something.
This is what i am talking about.
Read the title of this thread. You agree or you don't. If you have some information to add, let's have it. If not, please don't post some journalists OpEd as some sort of clincher.
You know what OpEd stands for. Right?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Why did you quote this article?
This is an OpEd. Let me preface this with, I agree with some of it.
This is someone's opinion. Are you just parroting?
I am not sure why this is part of the discussion.
Anyone here can dig up someone somewhere that agrees with something.
This is what i am talking about.
Read the title of this thread. You agree or you don't. If you have some information to add, let's have it. If not, please don't post some journalists OpEd as some sort of clincher.
You know what OpEd stands for. Right?
That doesn't change the facts contained in the editorial.
I found this part particularly interesting :
-----------------------------------------------------------
" Mr. Kay's performance has drawn mixed reviews. Some critics complain that his first interim report and statements painted minor finds as major threats and buried strong evidence that Iraq had been contained by United Nations weapons inspectors. But Mr. Kay and his search team had the integrity to report conclusions that undermined the administration's chief rationale for going to war. "
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair..._10022003.html
Of course, I have seen how you refuse to accept anything that does not fit with your world view, so I will not waste my time re-repeating things for you here.
Originally posted by fishdoc
The stement I quoted above is a statement of fact - read Kay's own words if you need to
"The surprise in his first report was not the revelation that no actual weapons of mass destruction had been found. That was obvious from daily news reports."
Notice the use of the word "actual". As also pointed out, actual "evidence*" was found of the WMD and the programs. From the Kay report:
"Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons."
"New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN."
---------------------
"Rather it was the team's judgment that Iraq did not even have active programs to make chemical or nuclear weapons and had been pursuing missiles that could threaten only nearby countries, not the United States."
From the kay report:
"In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service. While we have much yet to learn about the exact work programs and capabilities of these activities, it is already apparent that these undeclared activities would have at a minimum facilitated chemical and biological weapons activities and provided a technically trained cadre."
*evidence
\\Ev"i*dence\\, n. [F. ['e]vidence, L. Evidentia. See Evident.] 1. That which makes evident or manifest; that which furnishes, or tends to furnish, proof; any mode of proof; the ground of belief or judgement; as, the evidence of our senses; evidence of the truth or falsehood of a statement.
And 1000 km does not include the US, true?
I see I am wasting my time here...enjoy your worldview!
Fish
Originally posted by NaplesX
"The surprise in his first report was not the revelation that no actual weapons of mass destruction had been found. That was obvious from daily news reports."
Notice the use of the word "actual". As also pointed out, actual "evidence*" was found of the WMD and the programs. From the Kay report:
"Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons."
"New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN."
---------------------
"Rather it was the team's judgment that Iraq did not even have active programs to make chemical or nuclear weapons and had been pursuing missiles that could threaten only nearby countries, not the United States."
From the kay report:
"In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service. While we have much yet to learn about the exact work programs and capabilities of these activities, it is already apparent that these undeclared activities would have at a minimum facilitated chemical and biological weapons activities and provided a technically trained cadre."
*evidence
\\Ev"i*dence\\, n. [F. ['e]vidence, L. Evidentia. See Evident.] 1. That which makes evident or manifest; that which furnishes, or tends to furnish, proof; any mode of proof; the ground of belief or judgement; as, the evidence of our senses; evidence of the truth or falsehood of a statement.
Nobody is saying that these people didn't try to develop terrible things. However there is still zero " evidence " that they were a threat to us which is at the heart of the discussions in this thread.
The thread states "No ties to Al-Qaeda. No weapons of mass destruction. No danger to U.S. security". We sent our people to war against Iraq because we were told Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction even though Iraq was probably the most "disarmed" country in the Middle East, re WMD. The way of finding and disarming nations with WMD is to send in the inspectors, which is what the UN did. But Bush gave up, sent in the military to do the job...which is a strange move considering that the purpose of WMD is TO USE as a last resort when a country is confronted by an invading force of greater strength. By using the military option, Bush must have known that Iraq either had no WMD, or if they did, then Saddam would never have used them. ie there was no danger to US security. (Many of the invading US troops didnt even have adequate bio and chem protection anyway. What was the Pentagon thinking??).
They found NO WMD, because there were none. Kamel Hussein's (Saddam's deceased brother-in-law), testimony was used by the Bush Admin. to justify the war, but they conveniently ignored the parts where (Kamel) detailed how all of Iraq's chem and bio programs and stocks had been destroyed before the initial set of inspections started in 1991 shortly after the conclusion of the Gulf War. These actions were unauthorized by the U.N. and were carried out by Saddam's forces.
Where are the valid rebuttals to this thread's pronouncements?, So far, NONE have been forthcoming. A set of (declassified) documents from an intelligence service such as the CIA would be a start. The best evidence from the Bush Administration has been empty, unsupported rhetoric. At worst, a series of unadulterated, baldfaced LIES.
Arguing with jimmac is pointless, though often amusing. One reason is that jimmac does not take a position. He makes no definitive statements, or presents to premise to be debated. For instance, jimmac will link to a story about one piece of economic data, and make a snide comment like "yeah, sdw, looks like things are going great". What he won't do is say "I believe the economy is not in recovery", and then post data or even anecdotal evidence to support his statement. What he's good at is unsupported statements, like this: "I've seen this pattern all my life, as soon as Republicans get in the white house, the economy tanks, looks better for awhile, then tanks again. It's just the way things are". .
I have never seen him take a position and then defend it or support it. The WMD issue is another example...perhaps the prime one. jimmac will not come out and say he believes there to be no WMD in Iraq. What he WILL say is that Bush lied BECAUSE we haven't found the weapons. That's the kind of "logic" he uses.
Originally posted by sammi jo
The war is being fought, at phenomenal expense in monetary terms, $172BILLION so far, and hundreds of $BILLIONS more to be sucked in, ongoing coalition military casualties, up to 10,000 civilian deaths in Iraq, and the upsurge of terrorism in middle east countries where terrorism was a rarity before the war. In Sept. 2001 we had the sympathy and alliance of the whole world, and had our very best chances of putting some of the worlds problems to right, but 18 short months later due to some insanely shortsighted and misguided foreign policy decisions, (penis waving) the Bush Administration has trashed all the good will after 9-11, earned the disrespect of a large part of the civilized world, divided our own nation like never before, done bin Laden a big favor by helping him in his goal of denying Americans the freedoms he wants to demolish, and now has weakened the United Nations and NATO.
The thread states "No ties to Al-Qaeda. No weapons of mass destruction. No danger to U.S. security". We sent our people to war against Iraq because we were told Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction even though Iraq was probably the most "disarmed" country in the Middle East, re WMD. The way of finding and disarming nations with WMD is to send in the inspectors, which is what the UN did. But Bush gave up, sent in the military to do the job...which is a strange move considering that the purpose of WMD is TO USE as a last resort when a country is confronted by an invading force of greater strength. By using the military option, Bush must have known that Iraq either had no WMD, or if they did, then Saddam would never have used them. ie there was no danger to US security. (Many of the invading US troops didnt even have adequate bio and chem protection anyway. What was the Pentagon thinking??).
They found NO WMD, because there were none. Kamel Hussein's (Saddam's deceased brother-in-law), testimony was used by the Bush Admin. to justify the war, but they conveniently ignored the parts where (Kamel) detailed how all of Iraq's chem and bio programs and stocks had been destroyed before the initial set of inspections started in 1991 shortly after the conclusion of the Gulf War. These actions were unauthorized by the U.N. and were carried out by Saddam's forces.
Where are the valid rebuttals to this thread's pronouncements?, So far, NONE have been forthcoming. A set of (declassified) documents from an intelligence service such as the CIA would be a start. The best evidence from the Bush Administration has been empty, unsupported rhetoric. At worst, a series of unadulterated, baldfaced LIES.
Well said!
Originally posted by jimmac
Nobody is saying that these people didn't try to develop terrible things. However there is still zero " evidence " that they were a threat to us which is at the heart of the discussions in this thread.
What then do you suppose they were developing these terrible things for ?
I guess that they were only for the region or his own people. Well now I'm sold. Human misery is OK as long as it was just contained inside of Iraq or just in the middle east.
I have heard some in these threads say that our policy effects the stability of the world and that may justify or excuse the terroristic actions of those that are angered by the US' policies.
Why then are policies made in these rogue nations by rogue leaders excused? Do they not effect the world scene also? Do they not also have the effect of angering people?
i guess that it is OK if SH makes ripples in the peace but not the US and it's policy makers.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Naples,
Arguing with jimmac is pointless, though often amusing. One reason is that jimmac does not take a position. He makes no definitive statements, or presents to premise to be debated. For instance, jimmac will link to a story about one piece of economic data, and make a snide comment like "yeah, sdw, looks like things are going great". What he won't do is say "I believe the economy is not in recovery", and then post data or even anecdotal evidence to support his statement. What he's good at is unsupported statements, like this: "I've seen this pattern all my life, as soon as Republicans get in the white house, the economy tanks, looks better for awhile, then tanks again. It's just the way things are". .
I have never seen him take a position and then defend it or support it. The WMD issue is another example...perhaps the prime one. jimmac will not come out and say he believes there to be no WMD in Iraq. What he WILL say is that Bush lied BECAUSE we haven't found the weapons. That's the kind of "logic" he uses.
I believe the economy isn't in the kind of recovery you'd like to think it is.
I don't think there are WOMD in Iraq or were there right before the war. I don't think Bush had the justification for going to war.
As for Bush lieing you can draw your own conclusions but you already know what I think.
Are you two joined at the hip or what?
Originally posted by sammi jo
The war is being fought, at phenomenal expense in monetary terms, $172BILLION so far, and hundreds of $BILLIONS more to be sucked in, ongoing coalition military casualties, up to 10,000 civilian deaths in Iraq, and the upsurge of terrorism in middle east countries where terrorism was a rarity before the war. In Sept. 2001 we had the sympathy and alliance of the whole world, and had our very best chances of putting some of the worlds problems to right, but 18 short months later due to some insanely shortsighted and misguided foreign policy decisions, (penis waving) the Bush Administration has trashed all the good will after 9-11, earned the disrespect of a large part of the civilized world, divided our own nation like never before, done bin Laden a big favor by helping him in his goal of denying Americans the freedoms he wants to demolish, and now has weakened the United Nations and NATO.
The thread states "No ties to Al-Qaeda. No weapons of mass destruction. No danger to U.S. security". We sent our people to war against Iraq because we were told Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction even though Iraq was probably the most "disarmed" country in the Middle East, re WMD. The way of finding and disarming nations with WMD is to send in the inspectors, which is what the UN did. But Bush gave up, sent in the military to do the job...which is a strange move considering that the purpose of WMD is TO USE as a last resort when a country is confronted by an invading force of greater strength. By using the military option, Bush must have known that Iraq either had no WMD, or if they did, then Saddam would never have used them. ie there was no danger to US security. (Many of the invading US troops didnt even have adequate bio and chem protection anyway. What was the Pentagon thinking??).
They found NO WMD, because there were none. Kamel Hussein's (Saddam's deceased brother-in-law), testimony was used by the Bush Admin. to justify the war, but they conveniently ignored the parts where (Kamel) detailed how all of Iraq's chem and bio programs and stocks had been destroyed before the initial set of inspections started in 1991 shortly after the conclusion of the Gulf War. These actions were unauthorized by the U.N. and were carried out by Saddam's forces.
Where are the valid rebuttals to this thread's pronouncements?, So far, NONE have been forthcoming. A set of (declassified) documents from an intelligence service such as the CIA would be a start. The best evidence from the Bush Administration has been empty, unsupported rhetoric. At worst, a series of unadulterated, baldfaced LIES.
Originally posted by NaplesX
What then do you suppose they were developing these terrible things for ?
I guess that they were only for the region or his own people. Well now I'm sold. Human misery is OK as long as it was just contained inside of Iraq or just in the middle east.
I have heard some in these threads say that our policy effects the stability of the world and that may justify or excuse the terroristic actions of those that are angered by the US' policies.
Why then are policies made in these rogue nations by rogue leaders excused? Do they not effect the world scene also? Do they not also have the effect of angering people?
i guess that it is OK if SH makes ripples in the peace but not the US and it's policy makers.
This gets back to a very old point that has been covered many times here at AO. There is still much misery in the world. Not just Iraq or even the middle east. Some as bad as Iraq or worse. We simply can't be world policemen ( much as you'd like us to be ). So why did he pick Iraq. He might as well have stuck a pin in a map. Great countries must choose carefully when to interfere. This wasn't it.
Also once again we are taken back to the fact of why we were told we were going to war. The main reason that made this possible is that it was a threat to us.
Originally posted by jimmac
This gets back to a very old point that has been covered many times here at AO. There is still much misery in the world. Not just Iraq or even the middle east. Some as bad as Iraq or worse. We simply can't be world policemen ( much as you'd like us to be ). So why did he pick Iraq. He might as well have stuck a pin ina map. Great countries must choose carefully when to interfere.
Also once again we are taken back to the fact of why we were told we were going to war. The main reason that made this possible is that it was a threat to us.
That's just so wrong. The US cannot relieve all misery in the world. There were numerous reasons for going in, despite your refusal to see them. Why don't you list for us where we SHOULD have gotten involved.
Originally posted by SDW2001
^ Of course. Bush lied because we haven't found WMD. We caused 9/11. We squandered the "good will" of the rest of the world. Iraq was a peaceful nation who never hurt anyone. It's leader was a bad man, but he was hurting anyone so we should have left him alone. It didn't matter how many UN resolutions Saddam violated, and it certainly doesn't matter how much SADDAM lied, now does it?
God if you say so! But I don't go along with that.
How can the government declassify everything when they haven't questioned everyone possible and captured all of the players yet?
It is not going to happen for while. get used to that.
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's just so wrong. The US cannot relieve all misery in the world. There were numerous reasons for going in, despite your refusal to see them. Why don't you list for us where we SHOULD have gotten involved.
The type of " involvement " you're talking about is done by empires not peace loving democracies.
The thing is we didn't get to go in because of helping the Iraqis. We got the cooperation of the UN, congress, and the american people because of the idea that it was a threat to us.
Geez! Round and round!
Originally posted by NaplesX
There will congressional inquiries into this matter for years, so you need not worry about the evidence coming out. You and a lot of others are jumping the gun here.
How can the government declassify everything when they haven't questioned everyone possible and captured all of the players yet?
It is not going to happen for while. get used to that.
Still with what we have already it's looking pretty obvious.
Originally posted by jimmac
This gets back to a very old point that has been covered many times here at AO. There is still much misery in the world. Not just Iraq or even the middle east. Some as bad as Iraq or worse. We simply can't be world policemen ( much as you'd like us to be ). So why did he pick Iraq. He might as well have stuck a pin in a map. Great countries must choose carefully when to interfere. This wasn't it.
Also once again we are taken back to the fact of why we were told we were going to war. The main reason that made this possible is that it was a threat to us.
Quit saying the main reason was the threat. That was one of many reasons given over and over.
There was a great possibility that SH would pass WMD or WMD technology onto terrorist group like al-qaeda, considering that they had just declared war on the US. That was the threat.