Wmd?

[n2wolves]

Interesting article for all to read.....seems like you can't trust anyone these days.....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm

 

[MadeInOz]

But they're still not weapons of mass destruction, whether the russkies pinched them or not.

 

[ChrisB803]

But they're still not weapons of mass destruction, whether the russkies pinched them or not.

Well, they haven't shown whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction involved in the dismantling. I think it lends some credence to those who claim that the chemical weapons production facilities were dismantled and moved either out of the country in small pieces, or spread out all across Iraq. Remember the mobile chemlabs that Colin Powell showed to the UN Security Council? Those could easily be dismantled and spread around, or taken out of the country either disguised as something else, or in small pieces.

Remember what I keep saying: Lack of evidence does not prove innocence, just as much as it can't prove guilt. That sounds like a cop-out, I know, but it's true. There's a lot we don't know yet, and I think for us to jump to the conclusion that there were DEFINITELY NO WMDS is foolhardy and dangerous.

Consider this: What if we had NOT taken Saddam Hussein out of power and 10,000 people were now dead because of a chemical weapons attack in Israel, or even America... Isn't it better to assume the worst and take action, then to say we're not sure and then do nothing until we're attacked again?

 

[Sycophant]

Remember the mobile chemlabs that Colin Powell showed to the UN Security Council? Those could easily be dismantled and spread around, or taken out of the country either disguised as something else, or in small pieces.

You mean the artists impressions of mobile chemical weapons labs based on evidence that was 'not solid' and was a mistake? Fictional labs are indeed very easy to hide.

The fact that no weapons, or significant weapons related infrastructure was discovered beyond what Iraq had declared and the weapons inspectors had found, were discovered is fairly reliable evidence that they were not there as claimed.

 

[Doctrine1st]

Isn't it better to assume the worst and take action, then to say we're not sure and then do nothing until we're attacked again?

Do you really want the world, with it's multitude of adversaries, to get into the game of assumptions given the fire power and hate toward one country or another?

 

[ChrisB803]

Do you really want the world, with it's multitude of adversaries, to get into the game of assumptions given the fire power and hate toward one country or another?

But we're not talking about "the World". We're talking about Iraq, with a brutal murderous dictator at the helm. The fact that Hussein previously used WMDs on people in his own country shows that if there was any evidence to prove that he may have either obtained them again, or was in the process of trying to obtain them, we had a duty to stop him.

As to the inevitable question of, "Well what about N. Korea and Iran?": Did we have an excuse to invade them? Had the UN passed resolutions against them saying that if they failed to comply they would be disarmed? The answer, of course, is no. So if you can't take military action against them, and Iraq is proving that sanctions are of little or no effect, then you go and make an example to them of the one place you have a reason to go into. By proving that you will not shrink back from enforcing the collective word of the civilized world, you put more pressure on other regimes to comply with the international will.

The sad part is that because the UN has proven itself impotent and corrupt, the US has been forced to go this road with precious little resources outside our own. (Let's not kid ourselves, no matter how many countries are in our coalition, it is mostly in name alone) Without the support of major countries like Germany, France (cough, cough) and Russia, it will be difficult to keep N.Korea, Iran, and (most frighteningly) China in line.

 

[Jonathan David]

Woah, let's be careful about just exactly the "collective word of the civilized world" entails. First off, the notion of "civilized" is highly problematic... especially considering the disregard that we show for human life. Second, this was not the collective word.... the collective word was to hold out.... just as a point of interest.

Peace.

JD

 

[Doctrine1st]

Interesting article for all to read.....seems like you can't trust anyone these days.....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm

First paragraph:

"Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned."

Sixth paragraph:

"The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam's weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX, is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said."

Even if this is true, there seems to be not enough evidence for the article to be what it is, one big assertion.

 

[Doctrine1st]

But we're not talking about "the World". We're talking about Iraq, with a brutal murderous dictator at the helm. The fact that Hussein previously used WMDs on people in his own country shows that if there was any evidence to prove that he may have either obtained them again, or was in the process of trying to obtain them, we had a duty to stop him.

Hi Chris,

We could have cared less about him being a murderous dictator that until his record of attrocities became a selling point for the war. In fact, when he used the gas, we tried to deflect the blame on Iran knowing full and well it was Saddam. We only understood Saddam having gas was a bad idea when he didn't use it on the people we thought he was going to use it on. I mean why take a man off the State Department list of Terrorists and facilitate him in getting WMDs?

But even with Saddam or anyone it's not good to assume anything, but instead to know. We as the leaders of the free world can not afford to be setting a precident of assumption, and then be wrong, for the world to start and follow. So even in Uzbekistan who has the same type of atroctities as Saddam, less the gas, but who we support and fund fully.

The sad part is that because the UN has proven itself impotent and corrupt, the US has been forced to go this road with precious little resources outside our own. (Let's not kid ourselves, no matter how many countries are in our coalition, it is mostly in name alone) Without the support of major countries like Germany, France (cough, cough) and Russia, it will be difficult to keep N.Korea, Iran, and (most frighteningly) China in line.

The US has been part of the UN corruptedness. We tend to look the other way when we or our allies break resolutions, and the recent bugging incident sure didn't help. Again we started the UN, we are it's leader, we should show integrity in our participation. We can do better.

 

[ChrisB803]

Woah, let's be careful about just exactly the "collective word of the civilized world" entails. First off, the notion of "civilized" is highly problematic... especially considering the disregard that we show for human life. Second, this was not the collective word.... the collective word was to hold out.... just as a point of interest.

Peace.

JD

I'm not talking so much about the collective word in regards to going to war in Iraq, but in terms of the resolutions the UN passed requiring Saddam to disarm, and to meet certain requirments when it came to his possession of military technologies, and the distribution of foods to his people.

In regards to the term "civilized", I mean it only in terms of this: Countries possessing technology and economic strength enough to provide a greater level of prosperity than poverty amongst the majority of its citizens.

 

[Sycophant]

I'm not talking so much about the collective word in regards to going to war in Iraq, but in terms of the resolutions the UN passed requiring Saddam to disarm, and to meet certain requirments when it came to his possession of military technologies, and the distribution of foods to his people.

Standing up to enforce the 'collective word' of the UN is only a relavant arguement if it is applied equally to those the 'collective word' of the UN speaks out against. The US cannot claim to want to enforce UN resolutions only on those it has an interest in punishing.

UN Resolutions Against Israel - I am not saying the US should attack Israel, but I am saying that using the resolutions passed by the UN as justification for unilateral action is hypocracy.

 

[ChrisB803]

We could have cared less about him being a murderous dictator that until his record of attrocities became a selling point for the war. In fact, when he used the gas, we tried to deflect the blame on Iran knowing full and well it was Saddam. We only understood Saddam having gas was a bad idea when he didn't use it on the people we thought he was going to use it on. I mean why take a man off the State Department list of Terrorists and facilitate him in getting WMDs?

I'm not going to excuse the actions of past administrations, nor am I going to blithely assume the current administration is without fault. The U.S. has often adopted a policy of "the end justifies the means" when it came to manipulating world leaders to try and achieve their goals. Personally I think that some information that has come to light in regards to military technologies that have been sold to China shows that we haven't learned our lesson there yet, and the most difficult lesson may be yet to come.

However, I think you would be unfair if you judged the intent and motivation of this current administration's work in Iraq in the light of past administrations.

But even with Saddam or anyone it's not good to assume anything, but instead to know. We as the leaders of the free world can not afford to be setting a precident of assumption, and then be wrong, for the world to start and follow. So even in Uzbekistan who has the same type of atroctities as Saddam, less the gas, but who we support and fund fully.

I think you forget that for all intents and purposes we believed we had concrete evidence of WMDs in Saddam's possession. Even John Kerry himself looked at the evidence and said that Saddam was a threat who must be removed. I, for one, am not convinced that Saddam did not have WMDs, and that it is likely they are either in Syria, Lebanon, or Pakistan. (Possibly all three) It may be years before we know the entire story, and to make a judgement within less than six months of our ousting of Saddam's regime is foolhardy and impatient. These types of operations can take years and years to complete, and it takes much more time than we've been given in order to compile the information and make an accurate picture of what happened.

The US has been part of the UN corruptedness. We tend to look the other way when we or our allies break resolutions, and the recent bugging incident sure didn't help. Again we started the UN, we are it's leader, we should show integrity in our participation. We can do better.

Again, you're correct. However, let's keep our focus on the present. I think President Bush has done a fine job of standing up to the other powers within the UN and making a case for a new way of doing business. Once again, what has passed is the past, and all you can do is look forward. If you agree many of the nations in the UN are corrupt, then you should like what the President has done in attempting to hold them to their word, and to not let them get away with the kind of sneaky and under-the-table tactics they've used in the past.

 

[ChrisB803]

Standing up to enforce the 'collective word' of the UN is only a relavant arguement if it is applied equally to those the 'collective word' of the UN speaks out against. The US cannot claim to want to enforce UN resolutions only on those it has an interest in punishing.

UN Resolutions Against Israel - I am not saying the US should attack Israel, but I am saying that using the resolutions passed by the UN as justification for unilateral action is hypocracy.

First of all, it wasn't "unilateral" action. We had a majority of UN nations with us, just not the big ones that everyone seems to think mattered. Secondly, Iraq was a country that had already lost a war, that had proven itself to be capable of aggressive military action in the past against harmless civilians, and was believed to be either currently in possession of WMDs, or in the process of making them. I'm not going to say that Bush definitely didn't have a personal axe to grind, because he may well have, but I think if you take into account what I've said here, add in Saddam's known ties to a number of terrorist groups, and just a dash of "You've had this coming for a while", and you have a pretty logical next choice in the war on terror. You have to start somewhere, which was Afghanistan (logically, since that was Al-Qaeda's main base of operations), and then you have to have a next step in the plan of action. From all that I've listed it sounds like Iraq was the perfect choice.

Not to mention that if Iraq and Afghanistan enact successful democracies over the coming years it's bound to have an influence on the minds and outlook of people in surrounding nations... what that eventually will be is anyone's guess, but I like the sound of "Democratic Middle East", don't you?

 

[Norseman]

Well, they haven't shown whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction involved in the dismantling. I think it lends some credence to those who claim that the chemical weapons production facilities were dismantled and moved either out of the country in small pieces, or spread out all across Iraq. Remember the mobile chemlabs that Colin Powell showed to the UN Security Council? Those could easily be dismantled and spread around, or taken out of the country either disguised as something else, or in small pieces.

Remember what I keep saying: Lack of evidence does not prove innocence, just as much as it can't prove guilt. That sounds like a cop-out, I know, but it's true. There's a lot we don't know yet, and I think for us to jump to the conclusion that there were DEFINITELY NO WMDS is foolhardy and dangerous.

Consider this: What if we had NOT taken Saddam Hussein out of power and 10,000 people were now dead because of a chemical weapons attack in Israel, or even America... Isn't it better to assume the worst and take action, then to say we're not sure and then do nothing until we're attacked again?

Have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? You don't punish someone for somethink you THINK they did. You punish them only if you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did it.

 

[Sycophant]

However, I think you would be unfair if you judged the intent and motivation of this current administration's work in Iraq in the light of past administrations.

The point is not judging their motivation or intent, but their justification. The US cannot be allowed to justify a war with a nation for attrocities commited with the US's knowledge and support.

To use a bad analogy, because I am tired - it would be like a me giving my friend Zoot a gun, and watching him take the gun I had given him and use it to kill 20 people, then giving him more ammunition, and buying him lunch. Then 5 years later, seeing him on the street and shooting him between the eyes and defending my actions by saying, "well I saw him shoot 20 people 5 years ago!"

I think you forget that for all intents and purposes we believed we had concrete evidence of WMDs in Saddam's possession. Even John Kerry himself looked at the evidence and said that Saddam was a threat who must be removed.

Much the same as Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 makes it's points by taking facts and evidence that support it's hypothesis and presenting them in such a way as to make the case against Bush clear, so it would seem possible and in fact likely that the evidence gathered and presented to build the case for war in Iraq was chosen and presented because it conformed to the hypothesis. Contradictory evidence was omitted.

The evidence presented was one side of a story. Most of the world wanted to hear the other side, or at the very least, see if there was another side.

Again, you're correct. However, let's keep our focus on the present. I think President Bush has done a fine job of standing up to the other powers within the UN and making a case for a new way of doing business. Once again, what has passed is the past, and all you can do is look forward. If you agree many of the nations in the UN are corrupt, then you should like what the President has done in attempting to hold them to their word, and to not let them get away with the kind of sneaky and under-the-table tactics they've used in the past.

President Bush has done a fine job at standing up to the world and making it clear that the US sees it's interests in the world as far more important than anyone elses. And at standing up to the world and presenting a with-us-or-against-us situation that disallows any compromise, discussion or debate.

Barely any arguement for war beside WMD came out before the invasion started. Colin Powell didn't present a powerpoint presentation with cute artists impressions of mass graves, gassed civilians or human rights violations to the UN.

The Bush administration made it clear that 'disarmament' was their only interest in Iraq. They were not interested in anything else.

 

[Sycophant]

First of all, it wasn't "unilateral" action. We had a majority of UN nations with us, just not the big ones that everyone seems to think mattered.

The 'Coalition of The Willing' comprised of 48 nations when the war began.
The UN has 191 member states.
That is 25%. No where near a majority.

The UN Security Council has 15 member state, of which 4 were with the USA in the Coalition, they were: Angola, Philippines, Romania and the UK.
That is 33%, still not a majority.

There are currently 28 countries with a presence in Iraq as part of the coalition. Which is 58% of the Coalition -- the first majority.

There are around 137,000 troops in Iraq at the moment. Of those, only around 23,000 are from nations other than the USA. That's 17%. Still not a majority.

Not to mention that if Iraq and Afghanistan enact successful democracies over the coming years it's bound to have an influence on the minds and outlook of people in surrounding nations... what that eventually will be is anyone's guess, but I like the sound of "Democratic Middle East", don't you?

I like the sound of 'Peaceful Middle East' better. The strong and continued US Military presence in those countries over the coming years is also bound to have an influence of people. Osama bin Laden often cited the US Military presence in Saudi Arabia as a justification for attacks against the US.

 

[Doctrine1st]

I'm not going to excuse the actions of past administrations, nor am I going to blithely assume the current administration is without fault. The U.S. has often adopted a policy of "the end justifies the means" when it came to manipulating world leaders to try and achieve their goals. Personally I think that some information that has come to light in regards to military technologies that have been sold to China shows that we haven't learned our lesson there yet, and the most difficult lesson may be yet to come.

Although I'm not quite sure what military technology sold to China you are referring too, but fair enough.

However, those countries and their citenzy we chose to manipulate for our expediency don't see them as seperate administrations, for them it is one big continuum.

However, I think you would be unfair if you judged the intent and motivation of this current administration's work in Iraq in the light of past administrations.

You see Chris, the motivations and intent line up quite well with pass objectives given his current administration. The only fresh start here is the having the opportunity, given 9/11, to implement them. It's not a coincidence they were trying to make Iraq fit into the equation the very next day.

I think you forget that for all intents and purposes we believed we had concrete evidence of WMDs in Saddam's possession. Even John Kerry himself looked at the evidence and said that Saddam was a threat who must be removed.

Given the erroneous evidence yes, that's what they believed. They should have been far more diligent. It's not that there wasn't any doubt to the claims from the start specially given Powells speech. Even past and existing inspectors were questioning the assertions. So rather than maybe reevaluating and making sure they are right before killing innocents, they just choose to ignore contrary reports, Saddams own disclosure, and went with that "gut" feeling. Even Kerry with his approval. Not good.

I, for one, am not convinced that Saddam did not have WMDs, and that it is likely they are either in Syria, Lebanon, or Pakistan. (Possibly all three) It may be years before we know the entire story, and to make a judgement within less than six months of our ousting of Saddam's regime is foolhardy and impatient.

We finally have an allegation that Russia moved them, but surely seeing that we offered "golden boats" to anyone who had knowledge of this massive move, but still we came up with zilch. It's not like Saddam put on a pair of overalls rented a couple of U-Haul trucks and did it himself, someone had to know something? The fear of Saddam is gone and we were willing to move whole families and supply lots of cash but still nothing? It makes one wonder?

These types of operations can take years and years to complete, and it takes much more time than we've been given in order to compile the information and make an accurate picture of what happened.

True it will take time for the dust to clear and the truth to start eventually to come out, just like it has here recently with the WMDs, Al-Qaida connections, and the Inspectors reports. There is another commission that delves deeper into the Whitehouse's actions, but the President managed to negociate that to be released after the election. What a coincidence?

Again, you're correct. However, let's keep our focus on the present. I think President Bush has done a fine job of standing up to the other powers within the UN and making a case for a new way of doing business.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I feel the opposite. Being wrong about a premise for war and killing innocents is not a good way to do business at all. Heck he can't even acknowledge he was wrong. That is a character flaw.

If you agree many of the nations in the UN are corrupt, then you should like what the President has done in attempting to hold them to their word, and to not let them get away with the kind of sneaky and under-the-table tactics they've used in the past.

He's addressing problems in the UN? You mean we will finally look at ourselves in the mirror and ask, "is it anything we are doing wrong."

As long as we don't do that the UN will remain irrelevant. We set the trend and consitancy is of great need. I really don't think you'll find that has been a attribute of ours. As long as we continue the current course, terrorism will be like that game at Chucky Cheese were those Gophers stick their heads out of a bunch of holes real fast, and you have a hammer in your hand and you hit it in the head before it goes back down in the hole, and then next one comes up, and the next one, and the next one.

 

[jameseb]

Have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?

Have you ever heard of Saddam Hussein?

 

[Jonathan David]

I'm not talking so much about the collective word in regards to going to war in Iraq, but in terms of the resolutions the UN passed requiring Saddam to disarm, and to meet certain requirments when it came to his possession of military technologies, and the distribution of foods to his people.

See Sycophant's comments. I will go and check but I am pretty sure that the US is in contravention of several UN resolution/treaties. Shall I justify an invasion of the States based on that? I know that I could never succeed, but if that is the defence, then we are into a "might makes right" situation which, while a VERY accurate assessment of the current situation, can hardly be considered "just" (or "civilized" for that matter).

In regards to the term "civilized", I mean it only in terms of this: Countries possessing technology and economic strength enough to provide a greater level of prosperity than poverty amongst the majority of its citizens.

That's an interesting definition... especially when our wealth has been attained through such "civilized" practices as slavery, unjustified war I am not just talking about Iraq) and the continued colonization of less powerful countries.... I have always thought of "civilization" as implying a level of moral righteousness... I guess that we just see the world differently.

Peace.

JD

 

[drboyd]

Issue: Many of the people who make policy in this administration were also involved in the previous administrations in question. Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense for the first Bush.

Don Rumsfeld, official handshaker.

Among others.

<snip>
However, I think you would be unfair if you judged the intent and motivation of this current administration's work in Iraq in the light of past administrations.
<snip>