....the UN did not support the war and did not deem war necessary and 2. that the Bush admin only went to the UN for diplomatic reasons.
The simple fact that the US invaded Iraq for 'self-defence' means that Iraq needed to be a threat in order for the war to be justified.
objection your honor!!! the badger is counseling the witness!!!!
sooooooo.... you admit that Iraq was dirty, at least by UN standards!!!
...veeerrrrryyyyy innnteeerrresting.
If the UN thought Iraq had CBN last fall, I think it's fairly reasonable that they would have some working CBN that posed a legitimate danger to themselves or others.
That is good enough for me. If the ding dongs in the administration lied to sweeten the urgency, it will come out, and, as Boss Nass says, they will be pewnished.
sooooooo.... you admit that Iraq was dirty, at least by UN standards!!!
Actually, I have no opinion about that in particular. For some reason you apparently can't understand the distinction.
Quote:
If the UN thought Iraq had CBN last fall
The UN was dealing with the much more detailed reality of the situation, which is not something that can be simplified down to 'CBN'->threat->defensive war (well, unless you are trying to sell a war to lemmings who don't bother to inform themselves). That is why the UN doesn't support it and why you are so clueless about the situation.
giant, come on. Play fair. You're just engaged in childish semantics.
The question you have raised is whether or not Iraq has any WMD. This includes chemical weapons, biological weapons and nuclear weapons. We all know that, so give up the semantics.
On this question, the burden of proving the weapons exist is NOT, I repeat NOT on the coalition. Normally, I'd agree that the person making the accusation must prove it. In this case, that doesn't apply. Why? Because we KNOW, beyond ANY doubt that Saddam had WMD in the past. We also know that we have seen NO evidence of the destruction of those weapons. We can't just take Saddam's word for it. We have to see evidence of their destruction.
I can't believe that your entire position on this is based on the fact that we haven't found the WMD. I seriously can't believe it. That's your support for claiming there are no WMD in Iraq. My god.
giant, you are the one who keeps dodging the questions:
Since we know Saddam DID have these weapons, how do we know they are not there now? How were they destroyed? Where? When??? Could they have been moved at the last second? Could they have been moved during the five years inspectors weren't there?
sammi jo:
Quote:
Before the war...Saddam Hussein and his regime was a known entity, contained, surveilled and no real threat to an outside nation. Now...all bets are off, anything may happen. Bush lied, Powell lied, Blair lied... and now the world is now potentially a far more dangerous place.
giant, come on. Play fair. You're just engaged in childish semantics.
The question you have raised is whether or not Iraq has any WMD. This includes chemical weapons, biological weapons and nuclear weapons. We all know that, so give up the semantics.
I'm playing games? Which chemical, biological or nuclear weapons? If you are so sure that Iraq had 'CBN' weapons, then you must know what he had.
And remember this: if you put a hamburger in your backyard, it stays there and rots, then ten years later someone asks you if you have a hamburger, do you?
Quote:
On this question, the burden of proving the weapons exist is NOT, I repeat NOT on the coalition.
Proving that the weapons had been destroyed was a matter between the UN and Saddam's government. Yes, it was up to Saddam to prove they were destroyed. And the UN wanted more inspections, for reasons that become clear when you look at the details of the inspection process.
But the US said that Iraq was an 'imminent threat' and that the need for war was 'urgent'. This is why we went to war.
If there were no weapons that were an 'imminent threat' to the 'american people,' then the war was not justified. Period.
All day I have been asking in just about every post for someone to point out what saddam had that was an 'imminent threat' to the 'american people' yet everyone refuses to answer. If you believe that he had certain chemical weapons that were a threat to the US that justified war, just ****ing name them already. If you are so convinced his weapons posed a threat to US national security, this should be the easiest damn question in the world for you.
Okay, one more, then I have to paint the house and mow the yard.
Here is my "owed" to giant and his bitching about going to war in Iraq.
Red Sector A
All that we can do is just survive
All that we can do to help ourselves is stay alive
Ragged lines of ragged grey
Skeletons, they shuffle away
Shouting guards and smoking guns
Will cut down the unlucky ones
I clutch the wire fence until my fingers bleed
A wound that will not heal
A heart that cannot feel
Hoping that the horror will recede
Hoping that tomorrow we'll all be freed
Sickness to insanity
Prayer to profanity
Days and weeks and months go by
Don't feel the hunger
Too weak to cry
I hear the sound of gunfire at the prison gate
Are the liberators here?
Do I hope or do I fear?
For my father and my brother, it's too late
But I must help my mother stand up straight
Are we the last ones left alive?
Are we the only human beings to survive?
And that answers his question how?
Quote:
All day I have been asking in just about every post for someone to point out what saddam had that was an 'imminent threat' to the 'american people' yet everyone refuses to answer.
I'm playing games? Which chemical, biological or nuclear weapons? If you are so sure that Iraq had 'CBN' weapons, then you must know what he had.
And remember this: if you put a hamburger in your backyard, it stays there and rots, then ten years later someone asks you if you have a hamburger, do you?
Proving that the weapons had been destroyed was a matter between the UN and Saddam's government. Yes, it was up to Saddam to prove they were destroyed. And the UN wanted more inspections, for reasons that become clear when you look at the details of the inspection process.
But the US said that Iraq was an 'imminent threat' and that the need for war was 'urgent'. This is why we went to war.
If there were no weapons that were an 'imminent threat' to the 'american people,' then the war was not justified. Period.
All day I have been asking in just about every post for someone to point out what saddam had that was an 'imminent threat' to the 'american people' yet everyone refuses to answer. If you believe that he had certain chemical weapons that were a threat to the US that justified war, just ****ing name them already. If you are so convinced his weapons posed a threat to US national security, this should be the easiest damn question in the world for you.
OK. Since you are obviously going to divert time and energy this semantical point, I'll respond. For the sake of this discussion, I'll define "WMD" as any usable weapon or weapon that was produced recently (say, 5 years). This would serve as proof that Saddam did have a fairly current program when he said he didn't. Remember, the line of the Iraq regime was that Saddam gave up his program in 1991. We already know that wasn't true. You are correct that I don't know the specifics are of a usable chem weapon. I'm not sure I need to know that, though. Any evidence found must be dealt with in a reasonable manner. For example, if we found Anthrax that was, in "weapons expert's" opinions, 20 years old and non-toxic, I'd say that wouldn't qualify. However, when we find Mustard Gas produced within 4 years, I'd say that's a major find. I'm not sure if that answers your question. I don't think it is important for me to know the shelf life of some of this stuff. The real point is that Saddam was not even supposed to have a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs at all. If he did, I say war was completely justified for the reasons I posted earlier.
All I'm saying is that in my opinion, Saddam had a weapons program AT LEAST right up until the inspectors came back in. It's also my opinion that even if he DID discontinue it, he still hadn't destroyed the weapons themselves. He was supposed to not only discontinue such programs, but lead inspectors to sites where he had destroyed weapons, had weapons that needed to be destroyed and account for any materials that could have been used to build such weapons. In looking at all the evidence, it is clear that there were simply too many questions about all of this. The inspectors were "played with" for years in Iraq. They never got the cooperation they needed. In short, they never were able to reconcile Iraq's verbal and written declarations with hard visual evidence or even, documented evidence of the discontinuation of such programs. This went on for 12 years and seventeen resolutions, all of which had the goal of bringing Iraq in to compliance. They were even punished for non-compliance in 1998 by joint military attacks by the US and Britain. It STILL didn't work. In fact, it is my belief that there simply was NO other way to disarm this madman. Had there been another way, I'd have supported it. No one wants a war, bu really...there were no other alternatives. Containing Saddam (even if that was possible) was NOT acceptable. The only acceptable course of action was for Saddam to disarm. Can anyone really tell me there was another way for this to be accomplished?
Sorry that was so long, but now your big question: The imminent threat? The problem, I think, is that we are talking about two different versions of what a "threat" is. (how Clinton-esque!)
I have already stated that I think the biggest threat was Iraq giving even small amounts of WMD to a terrorist group. There is mounting evidence that Al-Queda was in Iraq. This was "the straw that broke the camel's back" for the President and his team, if I had to guess. As the President said, imagine the possibility of a 9/11 with planes full of compact, but deadly chemical weapons or biological weapons. Now imagine you are George W. bush in the days, weeks and months after 9/11. I can't see how any reasonable person could deny this very real possibility. I for one wouldn't be willing to accept this threat, and would be willing to do anything, really, ANYTHING to prevent it. Of course, if you're of the mentality that there were absolutely NO WMD in Iraq, you probably feel differently. As I said though, I can't see how anybody could believe that. I really can't. No offense, but for reasons I have already stated, it is completely and totally IDIOTIC to think there were NO weapons of mass destruction anywhere in Iraq. Perhaps there weren't "massive" stockpiles, but I'm of the mentality that if this man had ANY WMD or current capacity to produce it, then it was worth going to war.
It's also my opinion that even if he DID discontinue it, he still hadn't destroyed the weapons themselves
As big as your post is, you still have not answered my question. So, what weapons did Saddam possess that posed an 'imminent threat' to the US? Please stop dancing around the question. If you are so convinced of the things you state above, they MUST be based on actual detailed fact, otherwise they are entirely uninformed.
Quote:
They never got the cooperation they needed.
It would do you some good to realize that any inferences you make are probably wrong because they are completely uninformed. You OBVIOUSLY don't know the details of the inspection process, and you know very little about Iraqi culture or Saddam himself. You don't know any of the whys, hows or whats other than general concepts reported in major news sources. Until you have any work or education experience related to the inspection process or Iraqi foreign relations, military strategy or international diplomacy, you are really in no position to comment on what Saddam's motives are or were.
Notice that Blix even says he doesn't know what Saddam's motive were, so for you to make your claims is an indicationthat you are living in fantasy land.
Quote:
There is mounting evidence that Al-Queda was in Iraq.
You really, really, really need to stop making unsubstantiated claims. I don't know what planet you live on, but the opposite is true here on Earth.
OK. Since you are obviously going to divert time and energy this semantical point, I'll respond. For the sake of this discussion, I'll define "WMD" as any usable weapon or weapon that was produced recently (say, 5 years). This would serve as proof that Saddam did have a fairly current program when he said he didn't. Remember, the line of the Iraq regime was that Saddam gave up his program in 1991. We already know that wasn't true. You are correct that I don't know the specifics are of a usable chem weapon. I'm not sure I need to know that, though. Any evidence found must be dealt with in a reasonable manner. For example, if we found Anthrax that was, in "weapons expert's" opinions, 20 years old and non-toxic, I'd say that wouldn't qualify. However, when we find Mustard Gas produced within 4 years, I'd say that's a major find. I'm not sure if that answers your question. I don't think it is important for me to know the shelf life of some of this stuff. The real point is that Saddam was not even supposed to have a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs at all. If he did, I say war was completely justified for the reasons I posted earlier.
All I'm saying is that in my opinion, Saddam had a weapons program AT LEAST right up until the inspectors came back in. It's also my opinion that even if he DID discontinue it, he still hadn't destroyed the weapons themselves. He was supposed to not only discontinue such programs, but lead inspectors to sites where he had destroyed weapons, had weapons that needed to be destroyed and account for any materials that could have been used to build such weapons. In looking at all the evidence, it is clear that there were simply too many questions about all of this. The inspectors were "played with" for years in Iraq. They never got the cooperation they needed. In short, they never were able to reconcile Iraq's verbal and written declarations with hard visual evidence or even, documented evidence of the discontinuation of such programs. This went on for 12 years and seventeen resolutions, all of which had the goal of bringing Iraq in to compliance. They were even punished for non-compliance in 1998 by joint military attacks by the US and Britain. It STILL didn't work. In fact, it is my belief that there simply was NO other way to disarm this madman. Had there been another way, I'd have supported it. No one wants a war, bu really...there were no other alternatives. Containing Saddam (even if that was possible) was NOT acceptable. The only acceptable course of action was for Saddam to disarm. Can anyone really tell me there was another way for this to be accomplished?
Sorry that was so long, but now your big question: The imminent threat? The problem, I think, is that we are talking about two different versions of what a "threat" is. (how Clinton-esque!)
I have already stated that I think the biggest threat was Iraq giving even small amounts of WMD to a terrorist group. There is mounting evidence that Al-Queda was in Iraq. This was "the straw that broke the camel's back" for the President and his team, if I had to guess. As the President said, imagine the possibility of a 9/11 with planes full of compact, but deadly chemical weapons or biological weapons. Now imagine you are George W. bush in the days, weeks and months after 9/11. I can't see how any reasonable person could deny this very real possibility. I for one wouldn't be willing to accept this threat, and would be willing to do anything, really, ANYTHING to prevent it. Of course, if you're of the mentality that there were absolutely NO WMD in Iraq, you probably feel differently. As I said though, I can't see how anybody could believe that. I really can't. No offense, but for reasons I have already stated, it is completely and totally IDIOTIC to think there were NO weapons of mass destruction anywhere in Iraq. Perhaps there weren't "massive" stockpiles, but I'm of the mentality that if this man had ANY WMD or current capacity to produce it, then it was worth going to war.
That's what the threat was, IMO.
Well then not really much of a threat ( certainly not more than any other country that could do this ) huh?
As big as your post is, you still have not answered my question. So, what weapons did Saddam possess that posed an 'imminent threat' to the US? Please stop dancing around the question. If you are so convinced of the things you state above, they MUST be based on actual detailed fact, otherwise they are entirely uninformed.
It would do you some good to realize that any inferences you make are probably wrong because they are completely uninformed. You OBVIOUSLY don't know the details of the inspection process, and you know very little about Iraqi culture or Saddam himself. You don't know any of the whys, hows or whats other than general concepts reported in major news sources. Until you have any work or education experience related to the inspection process or Iraqi foreign relations, military strategy or international diplomacy, you are really in no position to comment on what Saddam's motives are or were.
Notice that Blix even says he doesn't know what Saddam's motive were, so for you to make your claims is an indicationthat you are living in fantasy land.
You really, really, really need to stop making unsubstantiated claims. I don't know what planet you live on, but the opposite is true here on Earth.
First, I am not dancing around anything. I'm not sure what kind of an answer you want beyond what I stated. You asked "what weapons" and I gave you some examples. Are you asking for the specific name of such weapons? Are you asking for their written chemical formula? I tried to clarify what "WMD" was IMO....though I can't imagine anyone would need a definition of that. Are you asking me if I know the amount, look, shape, weight, location and perhaps smell of these weapons? Seriously, what you are really asking is what the definition of WMD is...right? Don't you KNOW the definition?
As far as the inspection process, are you telling me that my statements about the process are incorrect? If not, then you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing again. Agree or disagree, but don't simply state that's I'm ignorant and walk away. It's cheap.
As far as Blix is concerned, I really think this man is an idiot (that's just an opinion, though). "Even blix says"....WTF is that? And Saddam's motives? Are you kidding? Again, are you disagreeing that Saddam was hostile to the US? This is the man that openly praised 9/11, even as figures such as Quadafi and Castro offered sympathies and in the case of the latter, assistance! This is the man that had the intestinal fortitude to slaughter, torture and USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON his own people, and you are questiong his "motives". That's patently ludicrous.
Agree or disagree. Take a position, giant. Tell me you THINK there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Don't play these bullshit "depends on what the definition of is, is" semantical games. It's useless.
Guys, I think once you allow giant to abstract (and therefore sparate and marginalize) the fact that the UN found Iraq to be in Material Breach of 1441 in August, you are giving him the room to play games as to what was a threat and what wasn't. The UN found Iraq to be a threat---you can't discuss this and leave that out of he dialoge.
The fact of the matter is that the world, for all intents and purposes, told Iraq to come clean or face "seroius consequences". Once you allow giant to "not have an opinion" on the UN finding Iraq in material breach of 1441, this discussion is about as relevent as the thread on Bush falling off his Segway.
This is kinda like the O.J. defense of Iraq---all that's missing is the mexican mafia.
Guys, I think once you allow giant to abstract (and therefore sparate and marginalize) the fact that the UN found Iraq to be in Material Breach of 1441 in August, you are giving him the room to play games as to what was a threat and what wasn't. The UN found Iraq to be a threat---you can't discuss this and leave that out of he dialoge.
The fact of the matter is that the world, for all intents and purposes, told Iraq to come clean or face "seroius consequences". Once you allow giant to "not have an opinion" on the UN finding Iraq in material breach of 1441, this discussion is about as relevent as the thread on Bush falling off his Segway.
This is kinda like the O.J. defense of Iraq---all that's missing is the mexican mafia.
That's a good point. If Iraq was in breach, then I'd argue that they were a threat. But just wait---giant's going to say that they didn't find Iraq in breach of anything and that we are just typical, corporate media watching Budweiser drinkers.
Guys, I think once you allow giant to abstract (and therefore sparate and marginalize) the fact that the UN found Iraq to be in Material Breach of 1441
Hey, stupid. Iraq was never said to be in breach of 1441 by the UN. What you are referring to is the DRAFTING of 1441. Do your research.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
Again, does this apply to me?
And if not, why do you keep asking me questions that don't apply to me?
If you claim Iraq 'had' 'them,' then it applies to you. If not, go back and note that the question was directed at multiple people.
Originally posted by giant
ena, you are avoiding the question.
....the UN did not support the war and did not deem war necessary and 2. that the Bush admin only went to the UN for diplomatic reasons.
The simple fact that the US invaded Iraq for 'self-defence' means that Iraq needed to be a threat in order for the war to be justified.
objection your honor!!! the badger is counseling the witness!!!!
sooooooo.... you admit that Iraq was dirty, at least by UN standards!!!
...veeerrrrryyyyy innnteeerrresting.
If the UN thought Iraq had CBN last fall, I think it's fairly reasonable that they would have some working CBN that posed a legitimate danger to themselves or others.
That is good enough for me. If the ding dongs in the administration lied to sweeten the urgency, it will come out, and, as Boss Nass says, they will be pewnished.
Relax.
I'm done here.
Originally posted by ena
sooooooo.... you admit that Iraq was dirty, at least by UN standards!!!
Actually, I have no opinion about that in particular. For some reason you apparently can't understand the distinction.
If the UN thought Iraq had CBN last fall
The UN was dealing with the much more detailed reality of the situation, which is not something that can be simplified down to 'CBN'->threat->defensive war (well, unless you are trying to sell a war to lemmings who don't bother to inform themselves). That is why the UN doesn't support it and why you are so clueless about the situation.
The question you have raised is whether or not Iraq has any WMD. This includes chemical weapons, biological weapons and nuclear weapons. We all know that, so give up the semantics.
On this question, the burden of proving the weapons exist is NOT, I repeat NOT on the coalition. Normally, I'd agree that the person making the accusation must prove it. In this case, that doesn't apply. Why? Because we KNOW, beyond ANY doubt that Saddam had WMD in the past. We also know that we have seen NO evidence of the destruction of those weapons. We can't just take Saddam's word for it. We have to see evidence of their destruction.
I can't believe that your entire position on this is based on the fact that we haven't found the WMD. I seriously can't believe it. That's your support for claiming there are no WMD in Iraq. My god.
giant, you are the one who keeps dodging the questions:
Since we know Saddam DID have these weapons, how do we know they are not there now? How were they destroyed? Where? When??? Could they have been moved at the last second? Could they have been moved during the five years inspectors weren't there?
sammi jo:
Before the war...Saddam Hussein and his regime was a known entity, contained, surveilled and no real threat to an outside nation. Now...all bets are off, anything may happen. Bush lied, Powell lied, Blair lied... and now the world is now potentially a far more dangerous place.
Originally posted by SDW2001
giant, come on. Play fair. You're just engaged in childish semantics.
The question you have raised is whether or not Iraq has any WMD. This includes chemical weapons, biological weapons and nuclear weapons. We all know that, so give up the semantics.
I'm playing games? Which chemical, biological or nuclear weapons? If you are so sure that Iraq had 'CBN' weapons, then you must know what he had.
And remember this: if you put a hamburger in your backyard, it stays there and rots, then ten years later someone asks you if you have a hamburger, do you?
On this question, the burden of proving the weapons exist is NOT, I repeat NOT on the coalition.
Proving that the weapons had been destroyed was a matter between the UN and Saddam's government. Yes, it was up to Saddam to prove they were destroyed. And the UN wanted more inspections, for reasons that become clear when you look at the details of the inspection process.
But the US said that Iraq was an 'imminent threat' and that the need for war was 'urgent'. This is why we went to war.
If there were no weapons that were an 'imminent threat' to the 'american people,' then the war was not justified. Period.
All day I have been asking in just about every post for someone to point out what saddam had that was an 'imminent threat' to the 'american people' yet everyone refuses to answer. If you believe that he had certain chemical weapons that were a threat to the US that justified war, just ****ing name them already. If you are so convinced his weapons posed a threat to US national security, this should be the easiest damn question in the world for you.
Here is my "owed" to giant and his bitching about going to war in Iraq.
Red Sector A
All that we can do is just survive
All that we can do to help ourselves is stay alive
Ragged lines of ragged grey
Skeletons, they shuffle away
Shouting guards and smoking guns
Will cut down the unlucky ones
I clutch the wire fence until my fingers bleed
A wound that will not heal
A heart that cannot feel
Hoping that the horror will recede
Hoping that tomorrow we'll all be freed
Sickness to insanity
Prayer to profanity
Days and weeks and months go by
Don't feel the hunger
Too weak to cry
I hear the sound of gunfire at the prison gate
Are the liberators here?
Do I hope or do I fear?
For my father and my brother, it's too late
But I must help my mother stand up straight
Are we the last ones left alive?
Are we the only human beings to survive?
Originally posted by ena
Okay, one more, then I have to paint the house and mow the yard.
Here is my "owed" to giant and his bitching about going to war in Iraq.
Red Sector A
All that we can do is just survive
All that we can do to help ourselves is stay alive
Ragged lines of ragged grey
Skeletons, they shuffle away
Shouting guards and smoking guns
Will cut down the unlucky ones
I clutch the wire fence until my fingers bleed
A wound that will not heal
A heart that cannot feel
Hoping that the horror will recede
Hoping that tomorrow we'll all be freed
Sickness to insanity
Prayer to profanity
Days and weeks and months go by
Don't feel the hunger
Too weak to cry
I hear the sound of gunfire at the prison gate
Are the liberators here?
Do I hope or do I fear?
For my father and my brother, it's too late
But I must help my mother stand up straight
Are we the last ones left alive?
Are we the only human beings to survive?
And that answers his question how?
All day I have been asking in just about every post for someone to point out what saddam had that was an 'imminent threat' to the 'american people' yet everyone refuses to answer.
What about 1998? What about Desert Fox?
You know me, man, the boot stays on the throat if you start attacking, baby!
Originally posted by giant
I'm playing games? Which chemical, biological or nuclear weapons? If you are so sure that Iraq had 'CBN' weapons, then you must know what he had.
And remember this: if you put a hamburger in your backyard, it stays there and rots, then ten years later someone asks you if you have a hamburger, do you?
Proving that the weapons had been destroyed was a matter between the UN and Saddam's government. Yes, it was up to Saddam to prove they were destroyed. And the UN wanted more inspections, for reasons that become clear when you look at the details of the inspection process.
But the US said that Iraq was an 'imminent threat' and that the need for war was 'urgent'. This is why we went to war.
If there were no weapons that were an 'imminent threat' to the 'american people,' then the war was not justified. Period.
All day I have been asking in just about every post for someone to point out what saddam had that was an 'imminent threat' to the 'american people' yet everyone refuses to answer. If you believe that he had certain chemical weapons that were a threat to the US that justified war, just ****ing name them already. If you are so convinced his weapons posed a threat to US national security, this should be the easiest damn question in the world for you.
OK. Since you are obviously going to divert time and energy this semantical point, I'll respond. For the sake of this discussion, I'll define "WMD" as any usable weapon or weapon that was produced recently (say, 5 years). This would serve as proof that Saddam did have a fairly current program when he said he didn't. Remember, the line of the Iraq regime was that Saddam gave up his program in 1991. We already know that wasn't true. You are correct that I don't know the specifics are of a usable chem weapon. I'm not sure I need to know that, though. Any evidence found must be dealt with in a reasonable manner. For example, if we found Anthrax that was, in "weapons expert's" opinions, 20 years old and non-toxic, I'd say that wouldn't qualify. However, when we find Mustard Gas produced within 4 years, I'd say that's a major find. I'm not sure if that answers your question. I don't think it is important for me to know the shelf life of some of this stuff. The real point is that Saddam was not even supposed to have a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs at all. If he did, I say war was completely justified for the reasons I posted earlier.
All I'm saying is that in my opinion, Saddam had a weapons program AT LEAST right up until the inspectors came back in. It's also my opinion that even if he DID discontinue it, he still hadn't destroyed the weapons themselves. He was supposed to not only discontinue such programs, but lead inspectors to sites where he had destroyed weapons, had weapons that needed to be destroyed and account for any materials that could have been used to build such weapons. In looking at all the evidence, it is clear that there were simply too many questions about all of this. The inspectors were "played with" for years in Iraq. They never got the cooperation they needed. In short, they never were able to reconcile Iraq's verbal and written declarations with hard visual evidence or even, documented evidence of the discontinuation of such programs. This went on for 12 years and seventeen resolutions, all of which had the goal of bringing Iraq in to compliance. They were even punished for non-compliance in 1998 by joint military attacks by the US and Britain. It STILL didn't work. In fact, it is my belief that there simply was NO other way to disarm this madman. Had there been another way, I'd have supported it. No one wants a war, bu really...there were no other alternatives. Containing Saddam (even if that was possible) was NOT acceptable. The only acceptable course of action was for Saddam to disarm. Can anyone really tell me there was another way for this to be accomplished?
Sorry that was so long, but now your big question: The imminent threat? The problem, I think, is that we are talking about two different versions of what a "threat" is. (how Clinton-esque!)
I have already stated that I think the biggest threat was Iraq giving even small amounts of WMD to a terrorist group. There is mounting evidence that Al-Queda was in Iraq. This was "the straw that broke the camel's back" for the President and his team, if I had to guess. As the President said, imagine the possibility of a 9/11 with planes full of compact, but deadly chemical weapons or biological weapons. Now imagine you are George W. bush in the days, weeks and months after 9/11. I can't see how any reasonable person could deny this very real possibility. I for one wouldn't be willing to accept this threat, and would be willing to do anything, really, ANYTHING to prevent it. Of course, if you're of the mentality that there were absolutely NO WMD in Iraq, you probably feel differently. As I said though, I can't see how anybody could believe that. I really can't. No offense, but for reasons I have already stated, it is completely and totally IDIOTIC to think there were NO weapons of mass destruction anywhere in Iraq. Perhaps there weren't "massive" stockpiles, but I'm of the mentality that if this man had ANY WMD or current capacity to produce it, then it was worth going to war.
That's what the threat was, IMO.
Originally posted by SDW2001
It's also my opinion that even if he DID discontinue it, he still hadn't destroyed the weapons themselves
As big as your post is, you still have not answered my question. So, what weapons did Saddam possess that posed an 'imminent threat' to the US? Please stop dancing around the question. If you are so convinced of the things you state above, they MUST be based on actual detailed fact, otherwise they are entirely uninformed.
They never got the cooperation they needed.
It would do you some good to realize that any inferences you make are probably wrong because they are completely uninformed. You OBVIOUSLY don't know the details of the inspection process, and you know very little about Iraqi culture or Saddam himself. You don't know any of the whys, hows or whats other than general concepts reported in major news sources. Until you have any work or education experience related to the inspection process or Iraqi foreign relations, military strategy or international diplomacy, you are really in no position to comment on what Saddam's motives are or were.
Notice that Blix even says he doesn't know what Saddam's motive were, so for you to make your claims is an indicationthat you are living in fantasy land.
There is mounting evidence that Al-Queda was in Iraq.
You really, really, really need to stop making unsubstantiated claims. I don't know what planet you live on, but the opposite is true here on Earth.
Originally posted by SDW2001
OK. Since you are obviously going to divert time and energy this semantical point, I'll respond. For the sake of this discussion, I'll define "WMD" as any usable weapon or weapon that was produced recently (say, 5 years). This would serve as proof that Saddam did have a fairly current program when he said he didn't. Remember, the line of the Iraq regime was that Saddam gave up his program in 1991. We already know that wasn't true. You are correct that I don't know the specifics are of a usable chem weapon. I'm not sure I need to know that, though. Any evidence found must be dealt with in a reasonable manner. For example, if we found Anthrax that was, in "weapons expert's" opinions, 20 years old and non-toxic, I'd say that wouldn't qualify. However, when we find Mustard Gas produced within 4 years, I'd say that's a major find. I'm not sure if that answers your question. I don't think it is important for me to know the shelf life of some of this stuff. The real point is that Saddam was not even supposed to have a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs at all. If he did, I say war was completely justified for the reasons I posted earlier.
All I'm saying is that in my opinion, Saddam had a weapons program AT LEAST right up until the inspectors came back in. It's also my opinion that even if he DID discontinue it, he still hadn't destroyed the weapons themselves. He was supposed to not only discontinue such programs, but lead inspectors to sites where he had destroyed weapons, had weapons that needed to be destroyed and account for any materials that could have been used to build such weapons. In looking at all the evidence, it is clear that there were simply too many questions about all of this. The inspectors were "played with" for years in Iraq. They never got the cooperation they needed. In short, they never were able to reconcile Iraq's verbal and written declarations with hard visual evidence or even, documented evidence of the discontinuation of such programs. This went on for 12 years and seventeen resolutions, all of which had the goal of bringing Iraq in to compliance. They were even punished for non-compliance in 1998 by joint military attacks by the US and Britain. It STILL didn't work. In fact, it is my belief that there simply was NO other way to disarm this madman. Had there been another way, I'd have supported it. No one wants a war, bu really...there were no other alternatives. Containing Saddam (even if that was possible) was NOT acceptable. The only acceptable course of action was for Saddam to disarm. Can anyone really tell me there was another way for this to be accomplished?
Sorry that was so long, but now your big question: The imminent threat? The problem, I think, is that we are talking about two different versions of what a "threat" is. (how Clinton-esque!)
I have already stated that I think the biggest threat was Iraq giving even small amounts of WMD to a terrorist group. There is mounting evidence that Al-Queda was in Iraq. This was "the straw that broke the camel's back" for the President and his team, if I had to guess. As the President said, imagine the possibility of a 9/11 with planes full of compact, but deadly chemical weapons or biological weapons. Now imagine you are George W. bush in the days, weeks and months after 9/11. I can't see how any reasonable person could deny this very real possibility. I for one wouldn't be willing to accept this threat, and would be willing to do anything, really, ANYTHING to prevent it. Of course, if you're of the mentality that there were absolutely NO WMD in Iraq, you probably feel differently. As I said though, I can't see how anybody could believe that. I really can't. No offense, but for reasons I have already stated, it is completely and totally IDIOTIC to think there were NO weapons of mass destruction anywhere in Iraq. Perhaps there weren't "massive" stockpiles, but I'm of the mentality that if this man had ANY WMD or current capacity to produce it, then it was worth going to war.
That's what the threat was, IMO.
Well then not really much of a threat ( certainly not more than any other country that could do this ) huh?
Originally posted by groverat
Come on, tonton, if you've been backed into a corner surely you can admit it. If I've been anything I've been consistent.
What about 1998? What about Desert Fox?
You know me, man, the boot stays on the throat if you start attacking, baby!
I'd get new jack boots then because your slipping still harping on that desert fox thing.
Originally posted by jimmac
Well then not really much of a threat ( certainly not more than any other country that could do this ) huh?
Other countries that have this capability generally aren't run by maniacal dictators with and open hatred of the United States.
Originally posted by SDW2001
this capability
How many times to I have to ask? Exactly what weapons did Saddam have that posed an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people'?
Originally posted by giant
As big as your post is, you still have not answered my question. So, what weapons did Saddam possess that posed an 'imminent threat' to the US? Please stop dancing around the question. If you are so convinced of the things you state above, they MUST be based on actual detailed fact, otherwise they are entirely uninformed.
It would do you some good to realize that any inferences you make are probably wrong because they are completely uninformed. You OBVIOUSLY don't know the details of the inspection process, and you know very little about Iraqi culture or Saddam himself. You don't know any of the whys, hows or whats other than general concepts reported in major news sources. Until you have any work or education experience related to the inspection process or Iraqi foreign relations, military strategy or international diplomacy, you are really in no position to comment on what Saddam's motives are or were.
Notice that Blix even says he doesn't know what Saddam's motive were, so for you to make your claims is an indicationthat you are living in fantasy land.
You really, really, really need to stop making unsubstantiated claims. I don't know what planet you live on, but the opposite is true here on Earth.
First, I am not dancing around anything. I'm not sure what kind of an answer you want beyond what I stated. You asked "what weapons" and I gave you some examples. Are you asking for the specific name of such weapons? Are you asking for their written chemical formula? I tried to clarify what "WMD" was IMO....though I can't imagine anyone would need a definition of that. Are you asking me if I know the amount, look, shape, weight, location and perhaps smell of these weapons? Seriously, what you are really asking is what the definition of WMD is...right? Don't you KNOW the definition?
As far as the inspection process, are you telling me that my statements about the process are incorrect? If not, then you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing again. Agree or disagree, but don't simply state that's I'm ignorant and walk away. It's cheap.
As far as Blix is concerned, I really think this man is an idiot (that's just an opinion, though). "Even blix says"....WTF is that? And Saddam's motives? Are you kidding? Again, are you disagreeing that Saddam was hostile to the US? This is the man that openly praised 9/11, even as figures such as Quadafi and Castro offered sympathies and in the case of the latter, assistance! This is the man that had the intestinal fortitude to slaughter, torture and USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON his own people, and you are questiong his "motives". That's patently ludicrous.
Agree or disagree. Take a position, giant. Tell me you THINK there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Don't play these bullshit "depends on what the definition of is, is" semantical games. It's useless.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Are you asking for the specific name of such weapons? Are you asking for their written chemical formula?
Please just answer the damn question. Actually looking at an UNSCOM or UNMOVIC report will help you. I'm asking you a really simple question.
Guys, I think once you allow giant to abstract (and therefore sparate and marginalize) the fact that the UN found Iraq to be in Material Breach of 1441 in August, you are giving him the room to play games as to what was a threat and what wasn't. The UN found Iraq to be a threat---you can't discuss this and leave that out of he dialoge.
The fact of the matter is that the world, for all intents and purposes, told Iraq to come clean or face "seroius consequences". Once you allow giant to "not have an opinion" on the UN finding Iraq in material breach of 1441, this discussion is about as relevent as the thread on Bush falling off his Segway.
This is kinda like the O.J. defense of Iraq---all that's missing is the mexican mafia.
Originally posted by ena
I have failed---FAILED---to stay away.
Guys, I think once you allow giant to abstract (and therefore sparate and marginalize) the fact that the UN found Iraq to be in Material Breach of 1441 in August, you are giving him the room to play games as to what was a threat and what wasn't. The UN found Iraq to be a threat---you can't discuss this and leave that out of he dialoge.
The fact of the matter is that the world, for all intents and purposes, told Iraq to come clean or face "seroius consequences". Once you allow giant to "not have an opinion" on the UN finding Iraq in material breach of 1441, this discussion is about as relevent as the thread on Bush falling off his Segway.
This is kinda like the O.J. defense of Iraq---all that's missing is the mexican mafia.
That's a good point. If Iraq was in breach, then I'd argue that they were a threat. But just wait---giant's going to say that they didn't find Iraq in breach of anything and that we are just typical, corporate media watching Budweiser drinkers.
Originally posted by ena
Guys, I think once you allow giant to abstract (and therefore sparate and marginalize) the fact that the UN found Iraq to be in Material Breach of 1441
Hey, stupid. Iraq was never said to be in breach of 1441 by the UN. What you are referring to is the DRAFTING of 1441. Do your research.