Well, some of the biggest claims the US has made against Iraq have turned out to be false (like you needed me to tell you ):
[quote]Powell argued that Iraq had intended to use the aluminum tubes as part of a nuclear weapons program and not for artillery rockets as critics had argued. To support his case, he cited unusually precise specifications and high tolerances for heat and stress. He said, “It strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets. Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so.” But other sources noted that the tubes’ dimensions were identical to that of Iraq's existing arsenal of 81mm artillery rockets. In fact, Iraq used the same type of aluminum tubes in the 1980s. [Washington Post, 2/5/03g] Powell also suggested that because the tubes were ‘anodized’ it was unlikely that they had been designed for conventional use. But experts later contested this, saying that this attribute actually made it less probable that they were meant for a nuclear program. The Institute for Science and International Security, a research organization specializing in nuclear issues, said that Powell's staff had been explained the implications of the anodized coatings prior to Powell’s presentation. “Despite being presented with the falseness of this claim, the administration persists in making misleading arguments about the significance of the tubes,” David Albright, a nuclear physicist observed. [Washington Post, 3/8/03]
<hr></blockquote>
and it's now known Iraq did not try to get uranium from Niger:
[quote]Chief Weapons Inspector ElBaradei of the IAEA said that his inspectors had failed to find any evidence that Iraq had tried to obtain uranium from Niger. In fact, he said that the documents upon which the U.S. had been basing it accusations were fakes. “Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that documents which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic,” ElBaradei explained. “We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/03; Washington Post, 3/8/03; Associated Press, 3/7/03; CNN, 3/7/03; New York Times, 3/8/03; Reuters, 3/7/03; Globe and Mail, 3/8/03; Guardian, 3/8/03; Associated Press, 3/8/03] The forged documents were described as several letters that had allegedly been exchanged between Iraqi agents and Niger officials [Washington Post, 3/8/03]. The letters had been sold to Italian intelligence by a con man and later handed over to the French before eventually making its way to the UN. But careful examination of these correspondences by the International Atomic Energy Agency [AIEA] revealed that several of the names and titles of officials mentioned in the documents were incorrect. [Globe and Mail, 3/8/03] “Close scrutiny and cross-checking of the documents, the letterheads on them, the signatures on them, led us to conclude with quite absolute certainty that the documents were false,” explained one IAEA official. [Guardian, 3/8/03] U.S. officials admitted the documents were not authentic. “We fell for it,” one official told the The Washington Post. [Washington Post, 3/8/03] Reported the Guardian: “The fabrication was transparently obvious and quickly established,” adding that this suggested “that British intelligence was either easily hoodwinked or a knowing party to the deceit.” [Guardian, 3/8/03]
<hr></blockquote>
from cooperative research
also, after much effort to connect 9/11 and Iraq, Bush has publicly admitted that there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11:
[quote]Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
That interesting, considering in just october 66% of americans believed saddam was involved in the attacks![Poll Sees Americans Taking Bush Line on Iraq, Reuters, 10.10.2]
Even in January 03, 50% of Americans believed that at least one of the 9/11 hijackers came from Iraq, and only 17% said none did!!!
No wonder we are going to war! Look at how insanely uninformed America is, and not just the hawk-wannabes on AI!
What I don't understand is how some of you people keep latching on to propaganda put out by the US government, even though you know they are blatantly lying or exaggerating. Are you that much in need of violent Romanesque reality-tv entertainment?
It didn't take long for skeptics to dismiss George W. Bush's pledge to democratize a postwar Iraq. Antiwar activists saw the pledge as a transparent excuse for warmongering. And democracy advocates harshly, and justifiably--criticized the State Department for scotching plans for a postwar federal government in favor of a centralized regime.
<strong>War = we disarm him because he's not doing it himself.
If we're going to disarm him, and we can do it through peaceful means, why go to war?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If it's not clear to you by now that we can't disarm Saddam without force then I don't know what else to say to you. I guess for you all of history starts with every new breath.
<strong>Try answering the question.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did. The process is unfolding as we speak, and we're not at war. He'll disarm, just not before we go to war. But if we don't go to war, he'll still disarm.
<strong>I never get direct answers from you, but what the hell I'll try again.
How long do you think a credible threat of force can be maintained?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Didn't I show you a link where one of the inspectors was asking for a year? I think the quote was actually saying they'd need less than a year, but I'll round up for your sake. At that time I said we could hold the threat for a year.
<strong>Didn't I show you a link where one of the inspectors was asking for a year? I think the quote was actually saying they'd need less than a year, but I'll round up for your sake. At that time I said we could hold the threat for a year.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well what the inspectors say about the time they need to disarm Iraqi (given full Iraqi cooperation) has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you.
You think a credible threat of force can be maintained for an entire year? Ok. Nice talking to you.
..Iraq will disarm without force? That it can be done without regime change?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Anyone regurgitating strings of soundbytes to make a point is obviously lacking a sophisticated understanding of the situation, policies concerning it or the decades long history behind them. Maybe you should step back and look at the big picture and you might be able to come up with a seemingly valid case for war. Of course, it seems you haven't notice that the case presented to academics is far more complex than your soundbyte world view, as typically is the case with real world.
Funny, too, how the words you use come right out of the mouths of the highest admin officials. As if all the other 6,199,999,990 people in the world have no valid input (unless they are also regurgitating the same soundbytes).
Oh well. Someday some 'right-winger' (or more accurately, 'neo-cons,' since, if you haven't noticed, the republican party is devided over the war. Funny that those in opposition are considered the republican 'realists') will point out how myopic you are. Do you really think that the current Admin would risk a rift in global diplomatic ties, and very likely violent anti-US agression for decades to come over saddam hussein? Think, boy! And if you had researched it, you would have found that this plan has been decades in the making.
The amazing part is that your debate could get stepped up to the notch that it is in the Bush adminsitration and the academic circles advising it.
But that would just be asking too much. Hell, you would actually have to turn of all the flashy graphics and ADHD stream of stories on FOX and do some research at a library. Remember what that is? They have lots of books and stuff.
Comments
[quote]Powell argued that Iraq had intended to use the aluminum tubes as part of a nuclear weapons program and not for artillery rockets as critics had argued. To support his case, he cited unusually precise specifications and high tolerances for heat and stress. He said, “It strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets. Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so.” But other sources noted that the tubes’ dimensions were identical to that of Iraq's existing arsenal of 81mm artillery rockets. In fact, Iraq used the same type of aluminum tubes in the 1980s. [Washington Post, 2/5/03g] Powell also suggested that because the tubes were ‘anodized’ it was unlikely that they had been designed for conventional use. But experts later contested this, saying that this attribute actually made it less probable that they were meant for a nuclear program. The Institute for Science and International Security, a research organization specializing in nuclear issues, said that Powell's staff had been explained the implications of the anodized coatings prior to Powell’s presentation. “Despite being presented with the falseness of this claim, the administration persists in making misleading arguments about the significance of the tubes,” David Albright, a nuclear physicist observed. [Washington Post, 3/8/03]
<hr></blockquote>
and it's now known Iraq did not try to get uranium from Niger:
[quote]Chief Weapons Inspector ElBaradei of the IAEA said that his inspectors had failed to find any evidence that Iraq had tried to obtain uranium from Niger. In fact, he said that the documents upon which the U.S. had been basing it accusations were fakes. “Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that documents which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic,” ElBaradei explained. “We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/03; Washington Post, 3/8/03; Associated Press, 3/7/03; CNN, 3/7/03; New York Times, 3/8/03; Reuters, 3/7/03; Globe and Mail, 3/8/03; Guardian, 3/8/03; Associated Press, 3/8/03] The forged documents were described as several letters that had allegedly been exchanged between Iraqi agents and Niger officials [Washington Post, 3/8/03]. The letters had been sold to Italian intelligence by a con man and later handed over to the French before eventually making its way to the UN. But careful examination of these correspondences by the International Atomic Energy Agency [AIEA] revealed that several of the names and titles of officials mentioned in the documents were incorrect. [Globe and Mail, 3/8/03] “Close scrutiny and cross-checking of the documents, the letterheads on them, the signatures on them, led us to conclude with quite absolute certainty that the documents were false,” explained one IAEA official. [Guardian, 3/8/03] U.S. officials admitted the documents were not authentic. “We fell for it,” one official told the The Washington Post. [Washington Post, 3/8/03] Reported the Guardian: “The fabrication was transparently obvious and quickly established,” adding that this suggested “that British intelligence was either easily hoodwinked or a knowing party to the deceit.” [Guardian, 3/8/03]
<hr></blockquote>
from cooperative research
also, after much effort to connect 9/11 and Iraq, Bush has publicly admitted that there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11:
[quote]Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
<hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html"; target="_blank">whitehouse transcript</a>
That interesting, considering in just october 66% of americans believed saddam was involved in the attacks![Poll Sees Americans Taking Bush Line on Iraq, Reuters, 10.10.2]
Even in January 03, 50% of Americans believed that at least one of the 9/11 hijackers came from Iraq, and only 17% said none did!!!
<a href="http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/4911975.htm"; target="_blank">knight-ridder poll</a>
No wonder we are going to war! Look at how insanely uninformed America is, and not just the hawk-wannabes on AI!
What I don't understand is how some of you people keep latching on to propaganda put out by the US government, even though you know they are blatantly lying or exaggerating. Are you that much in need of violent Romanesque reality-tv entertainment?
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>What impasse?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Almost a month later and the only progress on disarmament is the destruction of a couple-dozen missiles.
THAT impasse.
<strong>
THAT impasse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
War = we disarm him because he's not doing it himself.
If we're going to disarm him, and we can do it through peaceful means, why go to war?
<strong>OK, now the hawks have to <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/14/MN22108.DTL"; target="_blank">strike</a> the excuse that "we're trying to spread democracy" from their list of reasons to go to war....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some would disagree. Besides just because something may fail doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried.
<a href="http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=scholar&s=drezner031203"; target="_blank">CHICAGO SCHOOL
Democracy by America</a>
by Daniel W. Drezner
[quote]
It didn't take long for skeptics to dismiss George W. Bush's pledge to democratize a postwar Iraq. Antiwar activists saw the pledge as a transparent excuse for warmongering. And democracy advocates harshly, and justifiably--criticized the State Department for scotching plans for a postwar federal government in favor of a centralized regime.
...<hr></blockquote>
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<strong>War = we disarm him because he's not doing it himself.
If we're going to disarm him, and we can do it through peaceful means, why go to war?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If it's not clear to you by now that we can't disarm Saddam without force then I don't know what else to say to you. I guess for you all of history starts with every new breath.
<strong>
War = we disarm him because he's not doing it himself.
If we're going to disarm him, and we can do it through peaceful means, why go to war?</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you still cling to the illusion that Iraq will disarm without force? That it can be done without regime change?
<strong>
So you still cling to the illusion that Iraq will disarm without force? </strong><hr></blockquote>
No. I believe we can force him to disarm without war though.
<strong>What's the difference, to you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let the current process unfold and we'll see.
<strong>Try answering the question.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did. The process is unfolding as we speak, and we're not at war. He'll disarm, just not before we go to war. But if we don't go to war, he'll still disarm.
<strong>But if we don't go to war, he'll still disarm.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You said that he would only disarm with force. Explain to me what "force" is.
<strong>
You said that he would only disarm with force. Explain to me what "force" is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I said we could force him to disarm. We're doing it now with a credible threat, sanctions, inspections.
How long do you think a credible threat of force can be maintained?
<strong>I never get direct answers from you, but what the hell I'll try again.
How long do you think a credible threat of force can be maintained?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Didn't I show you a link where one of the inspectors was asking for a year? I think the quote was actually saying they'd need less than a year, but I'll round up for your sake. At that time I said we could hold the threat for a year.
<strong>Didn't I show you a link where one of the inspectors was asking for a year? I think the quote was actually saying they'd need less than a year, but I'll round up for your sake. At that time I said we could hold the threat for a year.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well what the inspectors say about the time they need to disarm Iraqi (given full Iraqi cooperation) has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you.
You think a credible threat of force can be maintained for an entire year? Ok. Nice talking to you.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
No. I believe we can force him to disarm without war though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll take that as a yes.
<strong>
..Iraq will disarm without force? That it can be done without regime change?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Anyone regurgitating strings of soundbytes to make a point is obviously lacking a sophisticated understanding of the situation, policies concerning it or the decades long history behind them. Maybe you should step back and look at the big picture and you might be able to come up with a seemingly valid case for war. Of course, it seems you haven't notice that the case presented to academics is far more complex than your soundbyte world view, as typically is the case with real world.
Funny, too, how the words you use come right out of the mouths of the highest admin officials. As if all the other 6,199,999,990 people in the world have no valid input (unless they are also regurgitating the same soundbytes).
Oh well. Someday some 'right-winger' (or more accurately, 'neo-cons,' since, if you haven't noticed, the republican party is devided over the war. Funny that those in opposition are considered the republican 'realists') will point out how myopic you are. Do you really think that the current Admin would risk a rift in global diplomatic ties, and very likely violent anti-US agression for decades to come over saddam hussein? Think, boy! And if you had researched it, you would have found that this plan has been decades in the making.
The amazing part is that your debate could get stepped up to the notch that it is in the Bush adminsitration and the academic circles advising it.
But that would just be asking too much. Hell, you would actually have to turn of all the flashy graphics and ADHD stream of stories on FOX and do some research at a library. Remember what that is? They have lots of books and stuff.