Blix Says No WMD Found in Iraq [Archive]

rikzilla

14th February 2003, 08:21 AM

armageddonman

14th February 2003, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Anyone willing to cut Saddam more slack than GWB is no skeptic.
Simple as that.
-z

Well, I'd rather believe the weapon inspectors than GWB and his friends.

Kodiak

14th February 2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by armageddonman

Well, I'd rather believe the weapon inspectors than GWB and his friends.

You're missing the point. The inspectors haven't said that Iraq has no WMD, but that they were unsuccessful at finding any WMD in Iraq.

Nobody here is disputing what the inspectors said they have, or have not, seen...

The fact remains that just because the inspectors haven't found WMD doesn't mean that they aren't there.

Again, it comes down to who do you trust more? The coalition led by the Bush Administration, or Saddam's Regime?

aerocontrols

14th February 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by armageddonman

Well, I'd rather believe the weapon inspectors than GWB and his friends.

No one that I'm aware of is calling them liars.

They say they haven't found much. Warheads, missiles, etc... but not much.

It's not a choice between believing the inspectors (We can't find anything) and believing the Bush Admin. (No you cant. But it's there) since the two statements are not contradictory.

Iraq's statements, on the other hand, do conflict with the Bush Administration.

MattJ

armageddonman

14th February 2003, 08:48 AM

The thing is that the US government is claiming that Iraq has WMDs. The inspectors haven't found any, still the US claim there are WMDs. If the US has information about were these alleged WMDs are (as they have been claiming this for MONTHS), WHY aren't they providing these information to the inspectors? Why does the US insist on a war even when the inspectors say that Iraq is more or less cooperating and they wish for the inspections to carry on?
There are a lot of open questions that should be answered BEFORE a war is started.

Thanz

14th February 2003, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by aerocontrols

It's not a choice between believing the inspectors (We can't find anything) and believing the Bush Admin. (No you cant. But it's there) since the two statements are not contradictory.

MattJ

But how does the Bush admin. know that they are there? Why can't they communicate this info to the inspectors so that they can find it?

I don't trust Saddam any farther than I could thorw him, but I have to take an agnostic position here. Just because Bush says it is so, does not make it so. I need a bit more evidence.

Further, this can't just be about WMD. NK has nukes, and is repudiating treaties. Kim Jong Il is a not exactly a great guy, either. Why the willingness to negotiate with NK, but not Iraq?

Kodiak

14th February 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by armageddonman
If the US has information about were these alleged WMDs are (as they have been claiming this for MONTHS), WHY aren't they providing these information to the inspectors?

Why are you assuming they haven't?

Also, what keeps the Iraqi's from moving their illegal weapons around? After all, it is exactly what Saddam did with his SCUD's during the gulf war. If memory serves, we couldn't find those weapons either. That fact didn't keep Saddam from raining SCUDs down on Israel and Saudi Arabia though, did it?

Originally posted by armageddonman
Why does the US insist on a war even when the inspectors say that Iraq is more or less cooperating and they wish for the inspections to carry on?

Because the coalition, led by Bush says they have evidence to the contrary, and 12 years of inspections have accomplished nothing except allow Saddam to grow stronger.

armageddonman

14th February 2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Why are you assuming they haven't?

Because the inspectors haven't found any WMDs.

armageddonman

14th February 2003, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak
Because the coalition, led by Bush says they have evidence to the contrary, and 12 years of inspections have accomplished nothing except allow Saddam to grow stronger. [/B]

So, where is the evidence? SUBSTANTIAL evidence. The US have been claiming for MONTHS to know where WMDs are hidden. If that is true, why haven't the inspectors found any of them?

Segnosaur

14th February 2003, 09:34 AM

It should be noted that although Blix has said they haven't found anything, and are cooperating, there are a few problems:

- They did find empty warheads for delivering chemical weapons
- He admitted that they have rockets which can travel more than 150 km (against instructions from the U.N.)

So, they are technically in breach of the U.N. resolution.

Segnosaur

14th February 2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by armageddonman

So, where is the evidence? SUBSTANTIAL evidence. The US have been claiming for MONTHS to know where WMDs are hidden. If that is true, why haven't the inspectors found any of them?
A couple of possibilities:
- Iraq is good at hiding them
- The inspectors are incompetent
- The U.S. knows where they are, but they don't want to tell the inspectors, because either 1) They believe Iraq will find out ahead of time and move them, 2) They will compromise information sources (Hey, inspectors, our secret informant Akbar told us there was bad stuff here. Woops, he just vanished.) 3) They need to know where they are to target them in any upcoming war 4) They know that some people will say "yes, its evidence, but is it SUBSTANTIAL evidence. (Nothing short of Sadam sitting on top of a nuclear bomb in the middle of the U.N. chambers will convince people that he has something illegal.)

It should be known that in the last round of inspections, they were not able to find any evidence of Iraq's nuclear program, until a defector told them exactly where to look. (And that took several years.) The inspectors haven't been able to interview scientists privately, or take them outside Iraq. Why should we have faith in the inspector's abilities to find things when they missed stuff before?

aerocontrols

14th February 2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Segnosaur
So, they are technically in breach of the U.N. resolution.

I agree, but I don't know where the 'technically' comes from.

How is a technical breach different from a regular breach?

Victor Danilchenko

14th February 2003, 09:59 AM

Kodiak

I guess it all comes down to who do you trust more: the U.S. government currently led by the Bush Administration, or the Iraqi regime headed by Saddam Hussein?********. Utter demogogic ********.

Administration repeatedly claimed that it has positive proof of Iraqi WMD. There are numerous ways in which they could support this claim without compromising their intelligence sources. The fact that they have not done so, means that the administration is failing to make a case for its claim -- a case it must make, because it's the one making a positive existential assertion.

To put it simply, I have no faith in Bush administration, or any administration. before I accept anyone's claim, I want evidence. Bush has failed to provide such, to the best of my knowledge.

You try to make this an issue of faith -- but a choice between having faith in Saddam or The Shrub is no choice at all.

Sorry Saddam, but with with your record, I gotta go with Bush here...My condolences on having given up skepticism on this issue, and fallen back on faith.

Segnosaur

14th February 2003, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko

You try to make this an issue of faith -- but a choice between having faith in Saddam or The Shrub is no choice at all.

The issue is whether you believe Iraq should be invaded or not. Now, for most people that decision is based on whether they think Iraq poses a threat to world peace and has WMD or not. (There may be some that think Iraq does not have WMD but should be invaded anyways, based on their human rights record; however, I doubt there are many people who feel that way.)

Now, if there were no practical considerations, we could wait forever for the inspectors to either find something, or to go through ever square inch of Iraqi territory. But, there are practical considerations (current sanctions are touch on the Iraqi people, Iraq cannot be invaded in the summer because the chem/bio suits are impractcal in hot weather, the president is only on a 4 year term and has limited time to implement his agenda, etc.)

So, we have to make a decision now, based on imperfect information. And, unfortunately, that decision boils down to "who do you trust more". I don't fully trust either myself, but I think Bush is a little less un-trustworthy.
Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko

My condolences on having given up skepticism on this issue, and fallen back on faith.
I'm sorry, but calling this a matter of 'faith' is unfair. I believe the sun will come up tomorrow. Is that faith? No, its based on past history, scientific analysis, etc. The sun may actually go out tomorrow, but I feel the chance of it coming up is actually pretty good.

I can't guarantte 100% that Iraq has WMD, but I feel the chances are better that he does than he doesn't. And that's not faith, that's an analysis based on:
- Current inspections (chem warheads discovered, among other things, which were illegal)
- Iraqi interferrence during the current round of inspections
- Past history (hiding WMD/nuclear weapons during last round of inspections). If they did it before, they may do it again.

So, I am making my decision not based on 'faith' but on what I've seen/read. And what I've seen/read indicates that the Shrub is closer to the truth than Saddam is.

Segnosaur

14th February 2003, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by aerocontrols

I agree, but I don't know where the 'technically' comes from.

How is a technical breach different from a regular breach?
Well, you're right, a breach is a breach.

I guess I was using the term 'technical breach' to refer to them finding something illegal but minor (such as empty chem warheads) as apposed to a 'regualar breach' where they find something major (a Nuke with Israel's name on it, or letter containing antrax addressed to the white house).

Kodiak

14th February 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Kodiak

********. Utter demogogic ********.

Administration repeatedly claimed that it has positive proof of Iraqi WMD. There are numerous ways in which they could support this claim without compromising their intelligence sources. The fact that they have not done so, means that the administration is failing to make a case for its claim -- a case it must make, because it's the one making a positive existential assertion.

To put it simply, I have no faith in Bush administration, or any administration. before I accept anyone's claim, I want evidence. Bush has failed to provide such, to the best of my knowledge.

You try to make this an issue of faith -- but a choice between having faith in Saddam or The Shrub is no choice at all.

My condolences on having given up skepticism on this issue, and fallen back on faith.

Ah, your typical professional reply... :rolleyes:

So ******** is the best refute you can come up with?

Just because they haven't provided you with their "positive proof" doesn't mean they do not indeed have it.

All of the member nations of NATO (except 3) think that Bush has made his case...

The fact that they have not done so means they have not done so for you.

Reread my posts please. I said it was a matter of trust. You are the one trying to manipulate the issue with your "faith" spin...

Nice straw man there at the end. If you were as fervent a skeptic as you claim, you'd be just as skeptical of you own position on this issue.

Diplomacy and statecraft are subtle arts and, as such, logic and skepticism will not always serve you well.

aerocontrols

14th February 2003, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak
All of the member nations of NATO (except 3) think that Bush has made his case...

Let's also show a little skepticism for what the '3' say (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=327346&highlight=intelligence#post327346)

Germany's opposition party says Germany knows Saddam has WMD.

Presuming that they do, exhortations for Bush to 'make his case' will not impress me.

MattJ

Victor Danilchenko

14th February 2003, 11:24 AM

Kodiak

So ******** is the best refute you can come up with?Only if you are so dumb that you can't read past the first line of the post. Or are you perhaps discovering that lying is easier that thinking?

Just because they haven't provided you with their "positive proof" doesn't mean they do not indeed have it.Oh, so there was more than just '********" to my post? Why, I never!

Of course the fact that they haven't provided us with proof, doesn't mean that they don't have it; but the only proof that can be applied to consideration is the proof that we know. I can claim to be able to prove that I am prince of Wales, but until I provide such a proof, my claim is unsupported.

All of the member nations of NATO (except 3) think that Bush has made his case...Wait, am i seeing an argument from majority -- especially related to a field where self-interest is the primary governing factor? the fact that other NATO members toe Shrub's line doesn't mean that he supported his claims, just as France and germany's refusal don't mean Saddam has no WMD.

The fact that they have not done so means they have not done so for you.OK, I am willing to be corrected. Where has Shrub supported his claims of having proog for Iraqi WMD?

Reread my posts please. I said it was a matter of trust. You are the one trying to manipulate the issue with your "faith" spin...trust without evidence -- which is all we have -- is faith. You are the one engaging in spin by using loaded words like "trust" (of course we should "trust" our Commander in Chief, we elected him!)

Well, you know what? As I general principle, I don't trust people to resolve issues where they are in conflict of interest. This applies to almost any situation involving political power, and it certainly applies to the current situation.

Nice straw man there at the end. If you were as fervent a skeptic as you claim, you'd be just as skeptical of you own position on this issue.Did you notice the little passage about positive existential claim there, bucko?

But I am skeptical. I don't believe that Saddam has been proven to have WMD, nor do I believe the opposite. We are uncertain, all of us -- and in the face of uncertainty, going to war is by far not the best option IMO.

Diplomacy and statecraft are subtle arts and, as such, logic and skepticism will not always serve you well.Yup. Politics requires lying. News at 11.

corplinx

14th February 2003, 11:28 AM

All those liters of anthrax they had, they uhhh..... sold them as bottles of olive oil from the holy land. Yeah. No WMD here, no proof. We just know they _had_ them, not that they _have_ them. To assume they still have them is soooooooo farfetched.

a_unique_person

14th February 2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak
Read about Blix's report here (http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?0cv=CA01)

Does this mean Iraq doesn't have any WMD, or just that they've successfully hid them from inspectors thus far?

I guess it all comes down to who do you trust more: the U.S. government currently led by the Bush Administration, or the Iraqi regime headed by Saddam Hussein?

Sorry Saddam, but with with your record, I gotta go with Bush here...

hang, what you are saying is you don't trust Blix.

And I am also sorry to have to say it, but there are plenty out there who would put Dubya and Sadaam at the same level of being trustworthy.

Why doesn't dubya just come out and say it, he liked to snort coke for a few years. then we might start to believe him a bit more.

Kodiak

14th February 2003, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

hang, what you are saying is you don't trust Blix.

Again, who here has disputed anything the inspectors have said???

Do I trust inspections to work??

They've had 12 years and they haven't worked yet...

What's changed??

9-11

Segnosaur

14th February 2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
hang, what you are saying is you don't trust Blix.

Why do you think that we don't have to trust Blix if we think Saddam has WMD?

Blix said that Iraq hasn't accounted for chem and bio weapons they knew he had before. He said they had missles and war heads that they should not have.

He said they were 'more cooperative' now. (However, they were supposed to cooperate 100% right from the very beginning.)

Blix never came out and said "Iraq doesn't have WMD". What he did do was give areas where Iraq has failed to live up to the U.N. resolution. So, if we trust Blix, we can start going to war now.

Of course, he did say that we should continue with inspections. But that's his opinion, which cannot be considered true or false (only accepted or rejected).

pgwenthold

14th February 2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Again, who here has disputed anything the inspectors have said???

Do I trust inspections to work??

They've had 12 years and they haven't worked yet...

What's changed??

9-11

Aside from Powell's silly attempt to twist OBL's recent release into a link, which no one has fallen for, there is no indication that Iraq has or had anything to do with 9-11.

If there was any reason to think that this was about rooting out terrorism, I would be all for it. But it's not, and no one is really even claiming that. The UN resolutions that Iraq is violating were not passed on the grounds that the Iraqis are terrorists, but on the grounds that he is a despot ruler who tried to take over another country without provocation. He has a record of unruly leadership, and the UN wants to keep that in check (yes, they did learn a lesson from Hitler --> you don't appease a ruler who is using military force to annex neighboring states; you stop them and send them home). But it's not terrorism that we are battling there.

Charles Livingston

14th February 2003, 01:19 PM

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only if you are so dumb that you can't read past the first line of the post. Or are you perhaps discovering that lying is easier that thinking?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Victor,

You seem like a smart guy, particularly with regard to economic issues (I am drawing this inference about economics from the tax threads), but why does every counter argument you post include calling somebody stupid/dumb/liar/not thinking, ect? Your posts are certainly very well thought out most of the time and some of the time I agree with what you have said, but you dont know everything and i would reckon you are calling some pretty smart people dumb. It not only gets tiring, but may damage the credibility of your otherwise well-thought arguments. Like a lot of other people I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with on this forum, I look foward to your posts, but I have to say all of the name calling evokes a negative emotional response from that has culminated into this post. I started the flat tax thread and clearly had no idea what I was talking about (which is really why I posted it), does this make me dumb?

Sorry if this is something that I should use PM for, but I dont know how to do it and since your posts are public I feel I am not doing anything wrong by QUESTIONING such name calling.

I mean no disrespect with this post, but am confused why someone who can usually hold his own in an argument resorts to mean/cruel tactics.

pgwenthold

14th February 2003, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Just because they haven't provided you with their "positive proof" doesn't mean they do not indeed have it.

No, it doesn't, but: Are we willing to go to war over WMD that were not found but _might_ be there?

I think we should have a little higher standard than that when it comes to war.

Troll

14th February 2003, 01:48 PM

We know they had some because we gave them some. we know they had some because they were found prior to the inspectors being kicked out the last time. We know they have some because they are about to destroy some artillery shells with mustard gas that have been found by the current inspectors. The real question now is what else, that we know was left over from the previous inspections, do they have left that they have been unable to account for as being destroyed and what else may they have that they developed in the years when there were no inspections?

pgwenthold

14th February 2003, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Troll
We know they had some because we gave them some. we know they had some because they were found prior to the inspectors being kicked out the last time. We know they have some because they are about to destroy some artillery shells with mustard gas that have been found by the current inspectors. The real question now is what else, that we know was left over from the previous inspections, do they have left that they have been unable to account for as being destroyed and what else may they have that they developed in the years when there were no inspections?

If we know they have them, then why send inspectors to find them? Just ask where they are and, if they don't answer, then start bombing until they tell us?

If we really know they have WMD, then inspectors do not serve any purpose at all.

Troll

14th February 2003, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by pgwenthold

If we know they have them, then why send inspectors to find them? Just ask where they are and, if they don't answer, then start bombing until they tell us?

If we really know they have WMD, then inspectors do not serve any purpose at all.

Because sending inspectors in is a step towards avoiding war. His hindering their process is not. All he has to do is say, "Hey, we have some stuff left. here it is. Help us destroy it, watch us destroy it and comply" He doesn't do that and so the UN sends in inspectors to find them. Like I said, we know he still has some as they found some shells with mustard gas that are set to be destroyed. Game over. No more doubt. we know he has them. The inspectors found them. Now it's just a matter of convincing those that are blind to the proof so as not to create a larger scale international incident out of what needs to be done.

Troll

14th February 2003, 02:05 PM

the story on the mustard gas and artillery shells http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78592,00.html

On Friday, an inspection team headed to a chemical weapons installation where they have been destroying artillery shells and neutralizing mustard gas, while another conducted an aerial survey of an army chemical warfare training facility, according to a spokesman for the inspectors in Baghdad.

I had to look it up to verify the AP news story in the tiny local paper I read yesterday.

pgwenthold

14th February 2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Troll
Because sending inspectors in is a step towards avoiding war.

How so?

What is the purpose of the inspectors? To look for WMD? Why do that, because you claim we know they are there.

His hindering their process is not. All he has to do is say, "Hey, we have some stuff left. here it is. Help us destroy it, watch us destroy it and comply"

So the purpose of the inspectors is to watch the Iraqis destroy their weapons? Why do they need unfettered access to the scientists?

He doesn't do that and so the UN sends in inspectors to find them. Like I said, we know he still has some as they found some shells with mustard gas that are set to be destroyed. Game over. No more doubt. we know he has them. The inspectors found them. Now it's just a matter of convincing those that are blind to the proof so as not to create a larger scale international incident out of what needs to be done.

From what you are saying, the administration's handling of this has been the most incompetent foriegn policy ever, making Carter's handling of Iran hostage crisis look adept.

Why send Powell to the UN with vague references and fuzzy pictures of places where he claims weapons are buried? Why not just show the report from what we know he had, and then show the current claimed inventory, and say, hey some appear to be missing, and their absence has not been explained. Until they are accounted for, we assume that they must remain as part of the arsenal. That is a far stronger case than any satellite picture.

BTW, your link to the mustard gas is really funny. It sounds like what is happening is that this is some mustard gas that the Iraqis have admitted to having, and the inspectors are watching them destroy it. IOW, it is a case of

All he has to do is say, "Hey, we have some stuff left. here it is. Help us destroy it, watch us destroy it and comply"

pgwenthold

14th February 2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Troll
Like I said, we know he still has some as they found some shells with mustard gas that are set to be destroyed.

Do you have any justification for the claim that the inspectors found the shells with mustard gas? The inspectors know about them, and are in the process of getting them neutralized, but there is nothing in the link you provided that indicates they were weapons that Iraq was hiding and the inspectors found them.

As far as I know, they are weapons that Iraq has admitted having and have turned over to the inspectors. From what has been said it is clear that they have some weapons that are still being neutralized. The concern are the weapons that are not accounted for.

Troll

14th February 2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by pgwenthold

How so?

What is the purpose of the inspectors? To look for WMD? Why do that, because you claim we know they are there.

The inspectors are a UN thing. They were sent to ensure compliance. They were then booted out for about 4 years. during which time Hussein claimed he had no more to show. Which, seeing as things are being found, is a lie. As Kodiak asked, who are you going to believe? That's one lie already. Could there be more?

So the purpose of the inspectors is to watch the Iraqis destroy their weapons? Why do they need unfettered access to the scientists?

Their purpose is to find them and destroy them. Iraq has made the finding process very difficult with delays and such that allow them time to move things prior to inspections. Access to scientists allows access to people that may wish to confess about weapons programs that Iraq has denied and apparently lied about.

From what you are saying, the administration's handling of this has been the most incompetent foriegn policy ever, making Carter's handling of Iran hostage crisis look adept.

I never said that but if that's your interpretation then go with it. I think the administration is doing everything it can to actually prevent having to go to war. Sure we're building up and getting ready for war but that's the smart move. Be ready for the worse case and hope you don't have to go that route. Way better than a half assed approach of just calling everyone up and sending them over without any logistics or planning

Why send Powell to the UN with vague references and fuzzy pictures of places where he claims weapons are buried? Why not just show the report from what we know he had, and then show the current claimed inventory, and say, hey some appear to be missing, and their absence has not been explained. Until they are accounted for, we assume that they must remain as part of the arsenal. That is a far stronger case than any satellite picture.

Why not ask him? I wasn't part of the planning process. But the approach you suggest was already used. Some are so anti-war or military action that they avoid the evidence.

BTW, your link to the mustard gas is really funny. It sounds like what is happening is that this is some mustard gas that the Iraqis have admitted to having, and the inspectors are watching them destroy it. IOW, it is a case of

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All he has to do is say, "Hey, we have some stuff left. here it is. Help us destroy it, watch us destroy it and comply"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not quite. See he didn't fess up and display the stuff. Inspectors had to find the stuff.

Kodiak

17th February 2003, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold

Aside from Powell's silly attempt to twist OBL's recent release into a link, which no one has fallen for, there is no indication that Iraq has or had anything to do with 9-11.

I never said they did...

Originally posted by pgwenthold

If there was any reason to think that this was about rooting out terrorism, I would be all for it. But it's not, and no one is really even claiming that. The UN resolutions that Iraq is violating were not passed on the grounds that the Iraqis are terrorists, but on the grounds that he is a despot ruler who tried to take over another country without provocation. He has a record of unruly leadership, and the UN wants to keep that in check (yes, they did learn a lesson from Hitler --> you don't appease a ruler who is using military force to annex neighboring states; you stop them and send them home). But it's not terrorism that we are battling there.

You're right...we are not battling terrorism in our war with Iraq. We are proactively attacking the high probability of terrorism in our war with Iraq.

After 9-11 the US rightly decided to wage a war against terrorism. Part of that is no longer waiting for an attack to come and then responding to it. The destruction of the twin towers and the resultant loss of life showed us the folly in that. Thus, the US is no longer content to sit back and watch the Iraqi regime play a "shell game" with the UN inspectors. The Iraqi regime is in violation of the Gulf War terms of surrender and several UN resolutions. It has had dealings with known terrorist organizations (though not with Al-Quida, reportedly) and has used WMD against both Iran and its own population.

I wonder if France would still be calling for more inspections if the Eiffel Tower had been taken out by a hijacked 747...

DaChew

17th February 2003, 07:15 AM

UN resolution 1441 says that the UN already KNOWS that Iraq has weapons banned under the cease fire agreement and that it is up to IRAQ to produce them or show evidence that they've been destroyed. It is NOT up to the inspectors to FIND the weapons. It is NOT up to the U.S. to produce any evidence that Iraq has the weapons. The UN has already resolved that Iraq has them. The UN inspection team is there to oversee the destruction of those weapons. Period.

Iraq has not produced those weapons and has not shown evidence that they've destroyed them. They ARE in breach of 1441. Iraq has undeniably been uncooperative and has undeniably hindered the process. Also, the fact that the inspection team has been compromised and is under constant surveillance has been well established. To give secret information to the inspection team as to the whereabouts of Iraq's weapons is to hand it also to Saddam.

shuize

17th February 2003, 07:34 AM

The Eiffel Tower example is not complete. You need to factor in the 3,000 French men and women forced to decide whether to burn or jump to death while all Paris looks on . . . .

My personal opinion with respect to some of our European "allies" is that while they talk a good war on terrorism, they really wouldn't give a f*ck if the United States were attacked again. Just as long as they are not.

As Kodiak points out, if the situation were closer to the example above, I expect France would have quite a different view of the world. Even so, I believe the United States would prove a better ally than France has been to us.

Lest anyone forget June 6, 1944.

pgwenthold

17th February 2003, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by shuize
Lest anyone forget June 6, 1944.

Are you seriously suggesting that this situation is even remotely related to the situation on that day?

Then we had a powerful dictator with one of the best armies in the world who had invaded and had military control over most of the countries in Europe. Of course, a lot of the problem was that no one tried to control him when he first started, so his power could grow.

Now we have a dictator who is powerful within his own country, but the instant he tried to move into neighboring states he was squashed like a bug. The biggest problem we have now is that we have reason to believe that he has WMD somewhere in his own country but we don't know where they are.

Whereas there are likely personal similarities between Saddam and Hitler (both are psychotic whack jobs), to suggest that there is any similarity in the political situation between now and then is a stretch indeed.

I heard someone claim the other day that "I'm sick of us (the US) having to solve all of Europe's problems," referring to our involvement in WWI and WWII. I'm sorry, but we aren't talking about solving Europe's problem here. This is an issue of Europe helping us solve _our_ problem.

Jocko

17th February 2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by shuize
The Eiffel Tower example is not complete. You need to factor in the 3,000 French men and women forced to decide whether to burn or jump to death while all Paris looks on . . . .

9/11 was more than an attack on the US economy, infrastructure and its very citizens. It was an attack on American pride.

On that score, at least, the French are utterly immune to terrorism.

My personal opinion with respect to some of our European "allies" is that while they talk a good war on terrorism, they really wouldn't give a f*ck if the United States were attacked again. Just as long as they are not.

...and just as long as they can make a few bucks (or francs) on Iraq, both above board and under the table. And then they accuse the US of letting civilians die for oil and money while they support Saddam's murderous regime for the very same reasons?!

As Kodiak points out, if the situation were closer to the example above, I expect France would have quite a different view of the world. Even so, I believe the United States would prove a better ally than France has been to us.

Lest anyone forget June 6, 1944.

I'd like to believe that France could be stirred to indignity over something OTHER than a tourist who doesn't know French... but I really don't think that's possible.

I was very happy to see the French getting the ass-end of their own petulance when NATO did an end-run on the committee they boycotted, and their "pals" Germany and Belgium had a change of heart. Like Iraq, it seems the French only respond to a naked demonstration of imaptient power.

Kodiak

17th February 2003, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold

Are you seriously suggesting that this situation is even remotely related to the situation on that day?

Then we had a powerful dictator with one of the best armies in the world who had invaded and had military control over most of the countries in Europe. Of course, a lot of the problem was that no one tried to control him when he first started, so his power could grow.

Now we have a dictator who is powerful within his own country, but the instant he tried to move into neighboring states he was squashed like a bug. The biggest problem we have now is that we have reason to believe that he has WMD somewhere in his own country but we don't know where they are.

Whereas there are likely personal similarities between Saddam and Hitler (both are psychotic whack jobs), to suggest that there is any similarity in the political situation between now and then is a stretch indeed.

I heard someone claim the other day that "I'm sick of us (the US) having to solve all of Europe's problems," referring to our involvement in WWI and WWII. I'm sorry, but we aren't talking about solving Europe's problem here. This is an issue of Europe helping us solve _our_ problem.

I don't think shuize was making a direct comparison between the two dates, but was trying to make the point that maybe the nation of France owes us and the other Normandy forces (Britain and Canada) a little extra consideration in regard to Iraq because of the effort and sacrifices we made on their behalf on June 6th...

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure shuize will clarify his position for you...

shuize

17th February 2003, 08:11 AM

I thought I was clear.

But here's my point again: France would have a different view of the world had 3,000 French men and women had to decide whether to burn or leap to death as the world looked on . . . .

If France were so attacked, I believe the United States would stand with them as we did in World War II. It is telling how France, in particular, seems willing to reap the benefits of their alliances but when push comes to shove, they are not willing to stand up and be counted.

I made the point about June 6, 1944 to remind them what it means to be an ally.

hammegk

17th February 2003, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold

No, it doesn't, but: Are we willing to go to war over WMD that were not found but _might_ be there?

I think we should have a little higher standard than that when it comes to war.

Yeah, I suppose Indiana is not high on the target list for nuts who don't like us.

And yes, when Wash.DC is a mushroom cloud that might convince you "something" should actually be done to attempt to alleviate a problem.

Sounds good to me, except I'm a liitle to close to DC for personal comfort in the matter.

Thanz

17th February 2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

You're right...we are not battling terrorism in our war with Iraq. We are proactively attacking the high probability of terrorism in our war with Iraq.

What are you basing this assertion of "high probability" on? What has Iraq done for the last 12 years? There are no links between Iraq and 9-11 that I have seen. I think the highest you could put this threat is as a "possibility" rather than a "high probability". I think that it has been shown that there are far more terrorist links to Saudi Arabia. Why not proactively attack them??

After 9-11 the US rightly decided to wage a war against terrorism. Part of that is no longer waiting for an attack to come and then responding to it. The destruction of the twin towers and the resultant loss of life showed us the folly in that. Thus, the US is no longer content to sit back and watch the Iraqi regime play a "shell game" with the UN inspectors. The Iraqi regime is in violation of the Gulf War terms of surrender and several UN resolutions. It has had dealings with known terrorist organizations (though not with Al-Quida, reportedly) and has used WMD against both Iran and its own population.

I wonder if France would still be calling for more inspections if the Eiffel Tower had been taken out by a hijacked 747...

Other countries (North Korea) appear to me to be much more of a threat than Iraq. Why Iraq? Why now? The only reason I see that Bush is focussing on Iraq is that it would be easier to win. Picking on the "little guy" even though the "big guy" is more dangerous.

Please stop using 9-11 as an excuse or reason for this war. It was a horrible event, but doesn't give the USA carte blanche to do whatever it feels like. If Iraq was somehow behind the attack, I'd agree that 9-11 is a justification. But the culprit, OBL, is still out there - and it appears that the USA is just ignoring him.

pgwenthold

17th February 2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

Yeah, I suppose Indiana is not high on the target list for nuts who don't like us.

And yes, when Wash.DC is a mushroom cloud that might convince you "something" should actually be done to attempt to alleviate a problem.

Sounds good to me, except I'm a liitle to close to DC for personal comfort in the matter.

But jeez, if you are concerned about the mushroom cloud, shouldn't you be more worried about North Korea? I know I sure am, and that is even with Indiana not being on the target list for nuts.

pgwenthold

17th February 2003, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by shuize
I made the point about June 6, 1944 to remind them what it means to be an ally.

And my point about June 6 is that we were helping them long after they had been invaded and taken over by the Germans. That's when we came to their aid, and it was a darn good thing we did.

We want France to help us go after a country that has not taken over anyone, much less us. They tried once, but got their knickers handed to them. These are not comparable tasks at all.

If you want to use D-Day as an example of allies, then France will just say, sure, call us when you have Iraqi soldiers patrolling your streets and ruling your country, and we will come to help. That's what we did for them. The US didn't help the French when the Germans were moving in, much less a "possible threat."

Of course, there is something to being pre-emptive in our approach is one thing, but to hold the French to this new standard of "being an ally" is a real stretch. Our involvement and assistance in WWII is not at all similar to what we are asking the other countries to do now.