nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
With what's going on in Falluja, I say we send in Saddam.....
Powell: Iraq Evidence May Have Been Wrong
- Thread starter MrBrau1
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Dreadsox said:
Inspectors can't do Saddam's job for him which is to hand over or show where thousands of Stocks of WMD either are located intact or were destroyed. Verifiable disarmament cannot be achieved short of the use of military force without the cooperation of Saddam. Saddam did not account for all kinds of WMD when inspectors re-entered the country. The Inspectors can't find the WMD for him, especially if he has hidden it somewhere and does not want it to be found.
The exact same problems that UN inspectors had in 1998 when they were kicked out still existed in March 2003.
If you want an example of how the disarmament process is supposed to go, please examine the disarmament of the Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakstahn, South Africa or even Libya now.
Whats your definition of a coalition?
OP
OP
MrBrau1
ONE love, blood, life
We haven't found ANY WMD yet, and Bush is going to turn the county back over to self rule on June 30? That makes NO sense.
OP
OP
MrBrau1
ONE love, blood, life
STING2 said:
Where are they? We've been there for over a year.
MrBrau1 said:
If Saddam is unwilling to answer that question, the WMD may whether it is intact or not, may never be found. In a country the size of Iraq, it would be reletively easy to bury such materials making it nearly impossible to ever find them.
Regardless of that fact, Saddam's regime has been effectively disarmed.
On June 30, all that will happen is that the 25 members of the Iraqi council will take over from Bremer. More than 100,000 US troops and other coalition troops will remain in the country continuing the work they are currently doing. The search for Saddam's WMD, regardless of what state it is in will continue.
STING2 said:
Oh really?
"Absolutely."
? White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
"This is about imminent threat."
? White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
"Well, of course he is.?
? White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question ?is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home??, 1/26/03
Some "variations"...
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
? President Bush, 10/2/02
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
"And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
? Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
You want to argue semantics, fine. But don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining (TM Judge Judy). Reasonable people don't see much difference between imminent and immediate, both of which are patently untrue apparently.
anitram said:
Why do you think the United Nations in the March 1991 Ceacefire agreement required that Saddam VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD or face military action to insure his disarmament?
#1 If Saddam's WMD was not a threat the United Nations would never have brought the issue up in the Ceacefire.
#2 More importantly, the only reason to back up ceacefire agreement and other resolutions with potential enforcement through the use of military force, is if the threat is in fact a serious one.
You can throw around terms or cherry pick sentence a or sentence b from this or that speech, but the central reasons and cases for military action were laid down more than a decade ago.
Did Saddam have a military that could cross the border into other countries at any given time? Yes
Did Saddam's military actually have WMD that it could use at that particular time? No one knows for sure.
What we do know is that Saddam failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD which multiple UN resolutions considered serious enough to warrent the use of military force in order to bring about full and verifiable Disarmament of Saddam's regime.
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
Gee, how come I always lose interest as soon as I see the phrase 'verifiably disarm' in a post? It always makes me assume there's nothing of interest in the rest of it...
Calluna
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Popmartijn, I feel exactly the same way. Some people around here sound just like a broken record so you have no choice but to tune them out.
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
STING2 said:
Firstly, it wasn't whether he HAD disarmed (that is a seperate debate) but whether the weapons were the main reason.
Secondly, why it has never been presented well to the American and worldwide public. Now there is understandable anger that the evidence is shaky. That's all. You've put your case forward many times, I understand your response. It wasn't what I was talking about though.
Angela Harlem said:
#1 I tried to explain that that Saddam's possession of WMD was the main reason by discussing the history of US and UN involvement in Iraq from March 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003.
UN Sanctions, resolutions, and inspections all revolved around the issue of Saddam's WMD for 12 years prior to this war.
Saddam + WMD have been viewed as an intolerable threat to the region and the world by the UN since March 1991.
#2 I think it has been very well presented and Bush is not the first American to present the case for military action against Iraq. The central issue presented by the administration has been the central issue for the past 12 years. The international community had tried everything short of full scale military invasion to achieve Verifiable Disarmament of Saddam and failed.
Intelligence information is ALWAYS shaky! I remind you of the intelligence estimates from the 1980s that said Saddam was decades away from having a nuclear weapon. After the Gulf War was over, UN inspectors found that Saddam was only months away from a nuclear weapon.
Tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year, there is going to be Intelligence Information that is very accurate and not so accurate. Thats the nature of intelligence.
This war was not based on intelligence but on Saddam's obligations to verifiably disarm. If Saddam had cooperated like the Ukraine, Belarus, Kazaksthan or even now Libya, there would not be a war.
Salome
you are what you is
yes, that's what I'm starting to fearSTING2 said:
pax
ONE love, blood, life
But the administration DID use the words "imminent threat," yes?
Salome said:
I would fear if that was all that was used to determine if war was necessary. Detecting WMD which is easily hidden is unbelievable difficult with outside intelligence means. Such intelligence failed to see that Saddam was months away from having a Nuclear Weapon back in 1990.
For these reasons, the central criteria for further military action against Saddam was never based on CIA or NSA intelligence, but on Saddam's cooperation with United Nations inspectors in achieving Verifiable Disarmament.
paxetaurora,
As I recall, they said a grave and gathering threat. An imminent threat would essentially be an attack that is already in progress. The Presidents central case for military action is found in the UN resolutions, not in cherry picked words from speeches, who's meanings are mis-construed and context lost for the purpose of those opposed to the administrations policy to remove Saddam.
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
Determining if war is necessary is kind of like asking how long a piece of string is. Asking if removing people like Saddam from power is necessary is easy to answer, as it is yes. To remove any chance of him using his stockpile of weapons, if he indeed has them, then yes. To be comfortable with the idea of a war being the means to this is harder for people to agree with. But then, they're military people. It's what our military do. They go and fight wars decided by other people, in this archaic and violent way. Its stupid you know, we teach our kids to not resolve fights in the school yard with their fists, but then our kids grow up and join the military and fight for their country for a 'disagreement' (for want of a better term) between 2/more nations or whatever.
There's no sense in the actions. Sense in the reasons, yes. Splitting hairs over semantics like the diference between grave and gathering, and imminent is really more of asking how long this piece of string is. To continually be saying those opposed to the war are opposed to the removal of Saddam is either really a case of not listening, or just...I dont know. Its not the case STING. I dont know how many ways people can say this, or how often it has to be repeated over and over and over again before it sinks in, but it is plain and simply NOT the case. Why is it not enough for people to say "I agree getting rid of him is a great thing, but the violence of war is something I can never like"? Why is THAT misconstrued to be some weird arsed approval and support of Saddam?
There's no sense in the actions. Sense in the reasons, yes. Splitting hairs over semantics like the diference between grave and gathering, and imminent is really more of asking how long this piece of string is. To continually be saying those opposed to the war are opposed to the removal of Saddam is either really a case of not listening, or just...I dont know. Its not the case STING. I dont know how many ways people can say this, or how often it has to be repeated over and over and over again before it sinks in, but it is plain and simply NOT the case. Why is it not enough for people to say "I agree getting rid of him is a great thing, but the violence of war is something I can never like"? Why is THAT misconstrued to be some weird arsed approval and support of Saddam?
Cherry picked words?
WTF?
The case was sold that we were in immediate danger.
He had WMD was the case.
They could use them or give them to TERRORISTS was the case.
Acting without the UN was alright if the above were true.
The American people were not interested in enforcing UN resolutions without the UN. The American people were not interested in violating international law unless we were in immediate danger. The American people voted for GWB in a campaign where he said the US forces SHOULD NOT BE USED for NATION BUILDING.
There was ONE reason that the American people decided it was time. Immediate Danger. PERIOD.
The rest of the stuff that is spewed out about Saddam being a bad man, while true, was NOT the reason.
WTF?
The case was sold that we were in immediate danger.
He had WMD was the case.
They could use them or give them to TERRORISTS was the case.
Acting without the UN was alright if the above were true.
The American people were not interested in enforcing UN resolutions without the UN. The American people were not interested in violating international law unless we were in immediate danger. The American people voted for GWB in a campaign where he said the US forces SHOULD NOT BE USED for NATION BUILDING.
There was ONE reason that the American people decided it was time. Immediate Danger. PERIOD.
The rest of the stuff that is spewed out about Saddam being a bad man, while true, was NOT the reason.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1188191,00.html
...
There is a multiplicity of different possible mechanisms to bring about a negotiated, orderly withdrawal and free elections. Tony Blair calls that "running away" and admitting "we have got it all wrong". But he and Bush did get it wrong: there were no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq wasn't a threat, there was no UN authorisation, and the invasion was manifestly illegal. Foreign troops in Iraq are not peacekeepers, but aggressors. The lessons of empire are having to be learned all over again.
s.milne@guardian.co.uk
...
There is a multiplicity of different possible mechanisms to bring about a negotiated, orderly withdrawal and free elections. Tony Blair calls that "running away" and admitting "we have got it all wrong". But he and Bush did get it wrong: there were no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq wasn't a threat, there was no UN authorisation, and the invasion was manifestly illegal. Foreign troops in Iraq are not peacekeepers, but aggressors. The lessons of empire are having to be learned all over again.
s.milne@guardian.co.uk
tackleberry
War Child
Dreadsox said:
Thank you!!
I agree! Is there any chance you could "run" for president?As for the words imminent and grave, let us look to their definitions:
GRAVE: with possible harm or danger: causing, involving, or arising from a threat of danger or harm or other bad consequences
IMMINENT: Impending. In imminent danger.
Both seem to suggest "possible danger" It doesn't matter which words we "cherry pick" or "apple pick" or "nose pick". They both basically mean the same thing, for f*ck's sake!
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Dreadsox said:
Exactly. I wasn't sold on the WMD argument, and that's why I demonstrated against the war before the invasion. I was *not* in favor of keeping Saddam in power, but that's not what Bush and Co. used in their arguments to go to war. They used "imminent threat", etc, etc. GWB campaigned against nation building in his campaign, then he ended up trying to do it. These sentiments don't mean I supported Saddam. Saddam was a
brutal dictator, but the Administration used the WMD/"imminent threat" argument.Dreadsox said:
Yep, cherry picking is what many democrats opposed to the war have done, although its a basic political tactic of any party searching for a way to be critical of a sitting administration.
The United Nations determined that Saddam's possession of WMD was an intolerable danger to the region and the world. That is why Saddam's was required to verifiably disarm of all WMD or face military action that would insure that he was disarmed.
To this date it is unknown what Saddam had at the time of the invasion, but it continues to be a fact that vast stocks of WMD remain unaccounted for, but Saddam and his regime no longer have access to them.
The United Nations approved the military operation against Iraq with 3 different resolutions, 678, 687, and 1441. It then has approved 3 more resolutions approving the occupation that was a result of the invasion.
The American people were supportive of the use of military force to enforce these resolutions because these resolutions involved the verifiable disarmament of Saddam which was vital to the security of the region and the world.
The operation did not violate international law, it enforced it. The American people do support the enforcement of international especially in cases that are so vital to security.
GWB was against Nation Building that did not involve US Security needs. The Nation Building that is occuring in Afghanistan and Iraq is important to US and International Security.
The American people after 9/11 are unwilling to allow danger to American security to become imminent because acting at that point is simply acting to late.
The American people before the war and after the war have consistently supported the removal of Saddam insuring that he is disarmed. They understand especially after 9/11, that failing to insure the disarmament of Saddam's regime would be an unacceptable danger to the USA and the rest of the world!
verte76 said:
Exactly. I wasn't sold on the WMD argument, and that's why I demonstrated against the war before the invasion. I was *not* in favor of keeping Saddam in power, but that's not what Bush and Co. used in their arguments to go to war. They used "imminent threat", etc, etc. GWB campaigned against nation building in his campaign, then he ended up trying to do it. These sentiments don't mean I supported Saddam. Saddam was a
The administrations arguements are consistent with US policy since the March 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement. It was always known since then that military force may have to be used to ensure that Saddam was disarmed. If that was not the case, UN resolutions would not have been passed under Chapter VII rules. 12 years after the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire, everything short of the use of military force to remove Saddam had been used and failed to accomplish the vital security goals of the resolutions.
GWB was against nation building that he claimed was not in the security interest of America. Nation Building in Afghanistan and Iraq are in the security interest of America.
Salome
you are what you is
Sting,
I just have to ask is
is 95% (it's just a rough estimation so don't expect any articles stating this, it could be 60% for all I care) of the world population who feel like this war was presented to us as the only way to fight the imminent thread that Iraq was supposed to be merely delusional?
or is there another reason why this seems to be the opinion of a vast majority?
I just have to ask is
is 95% (it's just a rough estimation so don't expect any articles stating this, it could be 60% for all I care) of the world population who feel like this war was presented to us as the only way to fight the imminent thread that Iraq was supposed to be merely delusional?
or is there another reason why this seems to be the opinion of a vast majority?
pax
ONE love, blood, life
Dreadsox said:
"The American people"?
Not this American person.
OP
OP
MrBrau1
ONE love, blood, life
Can anyone else smell the bullshit that's being shoveled here?
paxetaurora said:
"The American people"?
Not this American person.
Well, if it were NOT the American people, I hope that if this were not supported by a majority of Americans, they would vote out not only the President, but the congress as well, since they, who represent US and vote for US gave this administration the authority to wage war.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Dreadsox said:
Weren't they shoveled the same bullshit that everyone here is.
STING2 said:
Play again....this is your opinion(and that of the US).
The Security Council did not authorize the US to take action.
I do not feel like derailing this thread with yet another argument about the intent of the resolutions.
This is the first time a CEASE FIRE was broken and force not authorized by the SECURTIY COUNCIL.
The only reason that I supported the invasion was because the administration led me to believe we were in immediate danger, and I do not believe we need permission to defend ourselves from the Security Council. Now that were were clearly wrong, I wish a competant candidate had been chosen from the Democratic side, because I would vote for them.
Similar threads
