WMD material found!

[Malachi151]

US finds evidence of WMD at last - buried in a field in Maryland

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,965319,00.html

The anthrax was a non-virulent strain, and the discoveries are apparently remnants of an abandoned germ warfare programme. They merited only a local news item in the Washington Post.

But suspicious finds in Iraq have made front-page news (before later being cleared), given the failure of US military inspection teams to find evidence of the weapons that were the justification for the March invasion.

Even more embarrassing for the Pentagon, there was no documentation about the various biological agents disposed of at the US bio-defence centre at Fort Detrick. Iraq's failure to come up with paperwork proving the destruction of its biological arsenal was portrayed by the US as evidence of deception in the run-up to the war.

In an effort to explain why no chemical or biological weapons had been found in Iraq, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said yesterday the regime may have destroyed them before the war.

[DialecticMaterialist]

The fact still is Saddam was sold a number of weapons. A good number of that was never found or recovered, where did it go?

Secondly, Saddam violated UN orders for almost a decade.

Lastly, who cares? Are you saying that Iraq would have been better off without Saddam? That in time this brutal dicatotor wouldn't have created more problems for the US?

I really don't care if they never find any WMD's. I just wanted the guy, with his totalitarian, anti-american, fascist, regime out of there. I know to some people wanting to remove totalitarian governments is an evil act. And those people can spend all the time they want complaining about WMD's not being found and such (because we all know that is the only compelling reason for the US to invade a nice upstanding country like Iraq), I however see the entire thing as something that should have been done a long time ago: WMD's or not.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
The fact still is Saddam was sold a number of weapons. A good number of that was never found or recovered, where did it go?

Secondly, Saddam violated UN orders for almost a decade.

Lastly, who cares? Are you saying that Iraq would have been better off without Saddam? That in time this brutal dicatotor wouldn't have created more problems for the US?

I'll never understand this type of response. The issue here isn't Saddam, it's the U.S. The situation is equivalent to the police beating a confession out of a guilty suspect. Maybe the end result has some positive aspects, but at what cost? What damage has been done to personal freedom along the way? And, in the case of Iraq, what damage to our country's credibility and international status?

If our goal in Iraq was to take out Saddam on humanitarian grounds, then we should've made a case for that -- it wouldn't have been hard -- and had the courage of our convictions. I would like to see our country keep its hands clean.

Jeremy

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
The fact still is Saddam was sold a number of weapons. A good number of that was never found or recovered, where did it go?

Secondly, Saddam violated UN orders for almost a decade.

Lastly, who cares? Are you saying that Iraq would have been better off without Saddam? That in time this brutal dicatotor wouldn't have created more problems for the US?

I really don't care if they never find any WMD's. I just wanted the guy, with his totalitarian, anti-american, fascist, regime out of there. I know to some people wanting to remove totalitarian governments is an evil act. And those people can spend all the time they want complaining about WMD's not being found and such (because we all know that is the only compelling reason for the US to invade a nice upstanding country like Iraq), I however see the entire thing as something that should have been done a long time ago: WMD's or not.

Who cares do you say?

I sure care! And anyone else interested in the proper exercise of US Foregin Policy should care as well!

What do you think will happen the next time the USA brings a case before the world about some other brutal dictator that they want to get rid of?

I can tell you what will happen, they will say something like "Well gee whiz guys, you said all those nasty things about Saddam having nukes, anthrax, mustard gas, supporting terrorism, and so on and even after you invaded their country, you could not find any real evidence to support these claims. So how can you possibly expect us to support you now? You all just might be lying again in order to get your own way."

[DialecticMaterialist]

What do you think will happen the next time the USA brings a case before the world about some other brutal dictator that they want to get rid of?

I can tell you what will happen, they will say something like "Well gee whiz guys, you said all those nasty things about Saddam having nukes, anthrax, mustard gas, supporting terrorism, and so on and even after you invaded their country, you could not find any real evidence to support these claims. So how can you possibly expect us to support you now? You all just might be lying again in order to get your own way."

Because they helped us soooo much this time.....

So I guess for them, simply doing the moral thing and removing evil regimes and future threats isn't enough....they only act under WMDs....how upstanding.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Who cares do you say?

I sure care! And anyone else interested in the proper exercise of US Foregin Policy should care as well!

What do you think will happen the next time the USA brings a case before the world about some other brutal dictator that they want to get rid of?

I can tell you what will happen, they will say something like "Well gee whiz guys, you said all those nasty things about Saddam having nukes, anthrax, mustard gas, supporting terrorism, and so on and even after you invaded their country, you could not find any real evidence to support these claims. So how can you possibly expect us to support you now? You all just might be lying again in order to get your own way."

But then again, what keeps the US from planting the proof themselves to prove their point? Is there any way to know for sure?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by toddjh


I'll never understand this type of response. The issue here isn't Saddam, it's the U.S. The situation is equivalent to the police beating a confession out of a guilty suspect. Maybe the end result has some positive aspects, but at what cost? What damage has been done to personal freedom along the way? And, in the case of Iraq, what damage to our country's credibility and international status?

If our goal in Iraq was to take out Saddam on humanitarian grounds, then we should've made a case for that -- it wouldn't have been hard -- and had the courage of our convictions. I would like to see our country keep its hands clean.

Jeremy

*applause*

[DialecticMaterialist]

Great analogy, yeah accusation of WMD's, is exactly like forcing a confession from a criminal....


Well I don't know but if this "criminal" was commiting MASS murder, having thousands executed, opressing/enslaving millions of people, having people thrown in baths of acid, killing kids in front of there parents and hiring a professional rapist to "take care" of women who didn't agree with him: the forced confession might not be so bad.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Great analogy, yeah accusation of WMD's, is exactly like forcing a confession from a criminal....

Well I don't know but if this "criminal" was commiting MASS murder, having thousands executed, opressing/enslaving millions of people, having people thrown in baths of acid, killing kids in front of there parents and hiring a professional rapist to "take care" of women who didn't agree with him

Then why did we need to make up a bunch of nonsense about weapons? Those all sound like pretty good reasons to go ahead to me.

If we had said "Saddam is violating basic human rights. Our country stands for defending those rights, so we will not allow him to continue," that sends the message that we have some moral character and the willingness to stand up for it. But since we said "He has weapons of mass destruction! No, he has links to al Qaeda! Well okay, not really, but...he's violating U.N. resolutions! No wait! He's oppressing his people!", the only message we're sending is that we'll come up with a reason -- any reason -- to do whatever we want.

Why is it that you prefer the latter over the former?

Jeremy

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Great analogy, yeah accusation of WMD's, is exactly like forcing a confession from a criminal....


Well I don't know but if this "criminal" was commiting MASS murder, having thousands executed, opressing/enslaving millions of people, having people thrown in baths of acid, killing kids in front of there parents and hiring a professional rapist to "take care" of women who didn't agree with him: the forced confession might not be so bad.

Well, the issue is that if he's doing all that, then why fabricate evidence of other things instead of making that argument?

The issue is that if we claim that X is a condition for war, and that war can be made soley on conditon X, but yet we also meet that criteria, then how can condition X really be a conditoin for war?

To say, well if he has a report that fails to account for just one littel thing then thats cause for war, yet every country could fit that criteria, and in fact we fit that criteria. Every country has weapons that aren't accounted for I'm sure, as we do.

The point is, don't make stupid aguments cause in the end you just end up losing credibilty, and its the reason WHY so many criminals who really were gilty get off, beuase of these kinds of things.

Let's face it, if this weere a court room case it would have been thrown out long ago and Saddam would be back on the streets with an apology.

Now, the thing is, Saddam is a "bad guy" yes, but the way thet case was biult only undermines its credibility.

If we can't make a REAL case against him then what exactly does that mean? The issue is that we all know he was a bad guy. Are we saying that just being a bad guy is not cause for war? Let's say that they had been honest from the start, would we have gone to war? If not, and if we now think the war ws good, then why wouldn't we have gone to war using an honest case? Maybe we need to look at that.

All this does is reinforce lying and deception as a way to achieve goals.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by toddjh


Then why did we need to make up a bunch of nonsense about weapons? Those all sound like pretty good reasons to go ahead to me.

If we had said "Saddam is violating basic human rights. Our country stands for defending those rights, so we will not allow him to continue," that sends the message that we have some moral character and the willingness to stand up for it. But since we said "He has weapons of mass destruction! No, he has links to al Qaeda! Well okay, not really, but...he's violating U.N. resolutions! No wait! He's oppressing his people!", the only message we're sending is that we'll come up with a reason -- any reason -- to do whatever we want.

Why is it that you prefer the latter over the former?

Jeremy

Brilliant. This would seem to encapsulate the entire pre-war fishing-around-for-reasons process. One of the things that has embarrassed me greatly about this administration.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by toddjh


Then why did we need to make up a bunch of nonsense about weapons? Those all sound like pretty good reasons to go ahead to me.

If we had said "Saddam is violating basic human rights. Our country stands for defending those rights, so we will not allow him to continue," that sends the message that we have some moral character and the willingness to stand up for it. But since we said "He has weapons of mass destruction! No, he has links to al Qaeda! Well okay, not really, but...he's violating U.N. resolutions! No wait! He's oppressing his people!", the only message we're sending is that we'll come up with a reason -- any reason -- to do whatever we want.

Why is it that you prefer the latter over the former?

Jeremy

There was no debate about humanitarian grounds because everyone agreed about that.

Of course Saddam is a bad guy but...

The administration had to argue WMD over and over because that was the only claim they were challenged on.

Saddam's brutalization of his own people and his foreign aggression came up every time, but it didn't get dwelt upon because everyone agreed.

It's in Resolution 1441, by the way.

MattJ

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
There was no debate about humanitarian grounds because everyone agreed about that.

So the question is, are humanitarian grounds good enough reasons to invade countries? I'm only asking cause I don't really know. According to the UN, it isn't.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
There was no debate about humanitarian grounds because everyone agreed about that.

Were those reasons insufficient, then? I would question the legitimacy of an organization which did not consider intervention in those kinds of things justified.

Jeremy

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Frostbite


So the question is, are humanitarian grounds good enough reasons to invade countries? I'm only asking cause I don't really know. According to the UN, it isn't.

Right, the UN doesn't think so. The US/UK/Spain/Australia/Poland/etc. disagree.

As to who is 'right', I don't know, but I know who I agree with.

MattJ

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well, the issue is that if he's doing all that, then why fabricate evidence of other things instead of making that argument?

Like what? They said Saddam had bought weapons which were not yet found.

They also said Saddam was not cooperating with UN inspectors.

Saddam's brutality is already proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The issue is that if we claim that X is a condition for war, and that war can be made soley on conditon X, but yet we also meet that criteria, then how can condition X really be a conditoin for war?

They gave more then one reason for going to war. Bush mentioned Saddam's violation of UN resolutions and brutality as well. As did many who were for the war. Also Saddam was funding terrorism, another reason given.

Every country has weapons that aren't accounted for I'm sure, as we do.

But not every country is run by a totalitarian dictator....



Let's face it, if this weere a court room case it would have been thrown out long ago and Saddam would be back on the streets with an apology.

I doubt it. There'd be much eyewitness testimony to his brutality.

Now, the thing is, Saddam is a "bad guy" yes, but the way thet case was biult only undermines its credibility.

Not really. Only to someone fixated on the WMD issue.

If we can't make a REAL case against him then what exactly does that mean?

We already have. He funds terrorists, violates UN resolutions and is a brutal dictator.


Are we saying that just being a bad guy is not cause for war? Let's say that they had been honest from the start, would we have gone to war? If not, and if we now think the war ws good, then why wouldn't we have gone to war using an honest case? Maybe we need to look at that.


I think you are attacking a strawman Malachi. Nobody ever said Saddam's WMD's were the only reason for the war. Saddam's violations of UN resolutions,terrorist funding and totalitarianism were mentioned on a daily basis by pro-war advocates.
Even Bush explained how we were there to "liberate" Iraq. Implying the war was not merely about WMD's.

If anything I think yours and other radicals continued attack of this strawman amounts to a loss of credibility.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by toddjh


Were those reasons insufficient, then? I would question the legitimacy of an organization which did not consider intervention in those kinds of things justified.

Jeremy

I would (and did) as well.

[OBgac]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Right, the UN doesn't think so. The US/UK/Spain/Australia/Poland/etc. disagree.

As to who is 'right', I don't know, but I know who I agree with.

MattJ



On behalf of Poland :-) , let me suggest to you the only reason we agreed was to get some of those US bases moved from Germany to Poland and to increase the offset in the F16 tender you just won (BTW - offset increased USD 3bn, and Polish oil refineries are now in Iraq - but don't mention the oil)

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by OBgac




On behalf of Poland :-) , let me suggest to you the only reason we agreed was to get some of those US bases moved from Germany to Poland and to increase the offset in the F16 tender you just won (BTW - offset increased USD 3bn, and Polish oil refineries are now in Iraq - but don't mention the oil)

Quite sad, if true.

What do you mean Polish oil refineries are now in Iraq?

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Quite sad, if true.

What do you mean Polish oil refineries are now in Iraq?

I think he's talking about them new inflatable pop-tent oil refineries. Takes minutes to deploy.

[OBgac]

Originally posted by Frostbite


I think he's talking about them new inflatable pop-tent oil refineries. Takes minutes to deploy.

The Polaks built 90% of Saddam's motorways and some of his oil refineries in the old days...

What goes around comes around...:D

[OBgac]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Quite sad, if true.

What do you mean Polish oil refineries are now in Iraq?


Why is it sad?

[Malachi151]

But not every country is run by a totalitarian dictator....

THATS JUST IT!

Then the REASON for invading is because he is a totalitarian dictator!

See, why was that so hard to say? They never said that was the reason, they said WMD was teh reason.

See, this sets precedent because it really says we can and will invade you based only on politcal reasons.

If the US and Iraq both fail to comply with being able to account for all their bio hazard weapons.

And the US has a "good" leader, and Iraq has a bad leader.

We say that its okay to invade Iraq.

Can we say that the reason it was okay to invade Iraq is because they failed to account for all their WMDs? No, the REASON is because the leader was "bad".

So, the argument then should have been that the leaders was bad, and there was no need to go into the issues about WMDs. If we are being honest that is.

Brining up one country's failure to meet a given criteria in a case where many countries also fail to meet that same criteria, including your own, and saying that that reason is a cause for war is nothing more than deception and hypocrisy that ends up hurting your own cause. It gave a false impression to Americans. It gave the impression that that action was a bad action that was cause for war, when in fact it was not. Not having an account of every piece of weapons is not "being bad". Now that we have labeled that "being bad" we see that we are guilty of the same thing. Now, it can be said that either we are "being bad" or Iraq ws "not being bad" in that regard.

The sames issue with the UN resolutions really. Israel also is in violation of UN resolutions, but are we invading them? No.

This all leads to subjective judgment, and that is the problem.

It's the its okay to do X as long as we liek you routine. People don't like that. Applying rules or laws subjectively always brings cries of discrimintion does it not?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Can we say that the reason it was okay to invade Iraq is because they failed to account for all their WMDs? No, the REASON is because the leader was "bad".

So, the argument then should have been that the leaders was bad, and there was no need to go into the issues about WMDs. If we are being honest that is.


If we are being honest, we would acknowledge that there were many reasons, and not try to find "the" reason.

The Real Reason (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=438481#post438481)

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


If we are being honest, we would acknowledge that there were many reasons, and not try to find "the" reason.

The Real Reason (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=438481#post438481)

I wrote a 200 page paper on "the reason" :p

My anwser to "the reason" why we invaded is:

1) Initial conditions that shaped the Bush administration's stance on Iraq (?-2000):

a) The Gulf region is an area that has been deemed essential to control for the purpose of American national security and American control in that region has been undermined since 1979 when the Shah was removed from power.

b) The Iraqi oil resources are underdeveloped which presents a large economic opportunity for oil companies, but they are nationalized which negates much of that opportunity.

c) It was likely that any change of power that occurred within Iraq based on the will of the Iraqi people would see the rise of an anti-American government in Iraq because the interests of most Iraqis as viewed by Iraqis is in opposition to America or American desires and ways.

d) The situation in Iraq presented a window of opportunity for American involvement in the shaping of the Middle East because after years of sanctions some change was going to have to take place in Iraq. If America did not act on it unilaterally then the international community would act on it, which would be less advantageous for American interests.

e) Saddam Hussein remained a regional threat that undermined American interests in the Middle East.

f) The European Union was growing increasingly more powerful, and moving towards a stronger political, military, and economic position.

g) The euro was launched and successful.

h) Saddam Hussein was allowed to move his UN oil-for-food account to Euros instead of dollars, which ended up being profitable for Iraq (while Clinton was still in office)

2) Progressing conditions that elevated the Bush administration's stance (2001 - 2003)

a) Other OPEC countries began considering a move to the euro, following Iraq's successful lead.

b) The euro began gaining prominence in the Middle East through both Iraq and the EU.

c) The September 11, 2001 attack on America, which provided a strong window of opportunity to gain support for a full-scale invasion of Iraq and regime change.

d) The EU's role in Middle Eastern politics and economics was continuing to increase.

e) OPEC began seriously considering adopting the euro as their primary currency.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Malachi151
The sames issue with the UN resolutions really. Israel also is in violation of UN resolutions, but are we invading them? No.


No, it is not the same. Israel is under Chapter 6 resolutions (unenforcable), Iraq was under Chapter 7 (enforcable). And the resolutions against Iraq are unilateral whereas the ones against Israel are not.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by ssibal


No, it is not the same. Israel is under Chapter 6 resolutions (unenforcable), Iraq was under Chapter 7 (enforcable). And the resolutions against Iraq are unilateral whereas the ones against Israel are not.

point taken.

[ImpyTimpy]

This is a moot point since the war wasn't authorised by U.N.

Originally posted by ssibal


No, it is not the same. Israel is under Chapter 6 resolutions (unenforcable), Iraq was under Chapter 7 (enforcable). And the resolutions against Iraq are unilateral whereas the ones against Israel are not.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Then the REASON for invading is because he is a totalitarian dictator!

See, why was that so hard to say? They never said that was the reason, they said WMD was teh reason.

I've already explained to you Malachi that there is no single reason, there are many reasons for the war. Remember Bush said many times we were going to liberate Iraq, that Iraq violated UN resolutions and that Iraq funded terrorists/had WMDs. There was no single reason given as "the" reason.

See, this sets precedent because it really says we can and will invade you based only on politcal reasons.

Well if you consider stopping a man who funds terrorists, calls us Satan, and runs a totalitarian regime a "political reason" then I think that's reason enough.

So, the argument then should have been that the leaders was bad, and there was no need to go into the issues about WMDs. If we are being honest that is.

No, there was reason to suspect Saddam had WMDs. We had former Iraqi officials testify that there was, weapons missing and a dictator refusing to cooperate with UN inspectors.

Also did you ever consider that the UN may have simply been wrong? Ever consider that evidence may lead you astray and a government can actually make mistakes without being dishonest?

Brining up one country's failure to meet a given criteria in a case where many countries also fail to meet that same criteria,

Oh, good point. We may have to allow any western democracy to overthrow a totalitarian dicatorship now....terrifying thought.

including your own

I didn't know the US was a totalitarian dictatorship.....

It gave a false impression to Americans. It gave the impression that that action was a bad action that was cause for war, when in fact it was not.

Most pro-war americans I know wanted to invade in order to liberate Iraq, not cause of any WMD's. Can you even tell me of an american on this board who only wanted to invade over WMDs? On any board? I can't.

Not having an account of every piece of weapons is not "being bad".

It sure is dangerous when dealing with a man like Saddam Hussein.

Israel also is in violation of UN resolutions, but are we invading them? No.

Is Israel a totalitarian dictatorship that funds terrorism?

Malachi your reasoning is absolutist and simplistic. The irony here is I doubt you are even an absolutist.

You fail utterly to distinguish between some very relevant points in different situations. You seem to think we should treat free nations like totalitarian dictatorships, that weapons in the hands of one country are just as bad as weapons in the hands of another etc. Such a failure at making relevant distinctions and changing your behavior for different situations is what absolutism is all about. I however am more situational in my approach and realize we do not treat all nations the same, different violations of UN resolutions are not equally wrong, etc.

Israel may be occupying the Palestinian region(for good reason, seeing as the Palestinians wanted to attack and kill them and throw suicide bombers at them) but Israel unlike Iraq, has not used WMDs in wars, has not invaded peaceful neighbors like Kuwait, does not execute dissenters, does not have women raped, does not squander their nation's rescources for one man and his family, does not call America Satan, does not fund terrorism, etc.

As for your post, concerning your "200 page" report(like writing a lot makes you correct) and "real reasons".

Your given "real" reasons are pure conjecture. Basically they amount to circmustantial evidence, it "could" benefit the US to invade Iraq, so the US motives are purely selfish.

Which begs the question of why the US doesn't invade any other country(that would benefit us as well) or why the US doesn't invade Saudi Arabia.....

This little anti-EU conspiracy theory is REALLY far fetched. If it's true, why did some European nations help us?

[More Evolved-er]

Malachi151Well, the issue is that if he's doing all that, then why fabricate evidence of other things instead of making that argument?

Good point, Malachi, but I think there's a very good reason: We can't go in on the pretext of totalitarian dictatorships and human rights abuse because that would characterize many of those in our "coalition of the willing" that fought so bravely alongside us.

Aha, but what about the idea that they have WMDs, AND they are totalitarian human rights abusers who hate us? That would seem to make this apparent inconsistency justifiable, so the administration emphasized the nukes/chemical bit, while seeming to mention the whole human rights thing only in passing.

Thus, it provided the perfect excuse to invade the evil nation of North Ko... ahem, Iraq.

In my mind, the moral question is does that make it "wrong"? Eeeh... tough one. What I can say is that I hope we haven't just substituted a secular terrorist dictatorship with a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist dictatorship. Time will tell, I suppose.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

I've already explained to you Malachi that there is no single reason, there are many reasons for the war. Remember Bush said many times we were going to liberate Iraq, that Iraq violated UN resolutions and that Iraq funded terrorists/had WMDs. There was no single reason given as "the" reason.

Sorry DM, I have to jump in here. The initial reasons given for the war were WMD's and Iraq's apparent ability to use them. This was followed by terrorist links and finally supplemented with human right abuses/UN violations.

Well if you consider stopping a man who funds terrorists, calls us Satan, and runs a totalitarian regime a "political reason" then I think that's reason enough.

Can you show conclusive evidence that Iraq was sponsoring terrorism? I must've missed it.

No, there was reason to suspect Saddam had WMDs. We had former Iraqi officials testify that there was, weapons missing and a dictator refusing to cooperate with UN inspectors.

Actually I thought Saddam began cooperating with U.N. along with the usual huffing and puffing to show his defiance, but cooperated nonetheless.

Is that a reason to invade a country? Because you suspect they have WMD's. If they don't you say ah well, we were wrong? Sorry for the loss of life and disruption and all, we had to make sure. Your logic dictates it is ok to shoot first and ask questions later...

Also did you ever consider that the UN may have simply been wrong? Ever consider that evidence may lead you astray and a government can actually make mistakes without being dishonest?
We're talking about waging wars here, not making accusations... Oh look, we killed that suspected drug dealer but it turns out he was innocent. Oops.

Oh, good point. We may have to allow any western democracy to overthrow a totalitarian dicatorship now....terrifying thought.

I didn't know the US was a totalitarian dictatorship.....

Most pro-war americans I know wanted to invade in order to liberate Iraq, not cause of any WMD's. Can you even tell me of an american on this board who only wanted to invade over WMDs? On any board? I can't.

So waging war on a country is now ok as long as we liberate it? Got ya.

It sure is dangerous when dealing with a man like Saddam Hussein.

Is Israel a totalitarian dictatorship that funds terrorism?

There we go with this terrorism idea. Can you show me proof of that?

Malachi your reasoning is absolutist and simplistic. The irony here is I doubt you are even an absolutist.

You fail utterly to distinguish between some very relevant points in different situations. You seem to think we should treat free nations like totalitarian dictatorships, that weapons in the hands of one country are just as bad as weapons in the hands of another etc.

This is just stupid. WMD's are unsafe no matter what country holds them. A government isn't some super human entity, it is made up of people, people who can become corrupted.
Such a failure at making relevant distinctions and changing your behavior for different situations is what absolutism is all about. I however am more situational in my approach and realize we do not treat all nations the same, different violations of UN resolutions are not equally wrong, etc.

Israel may be occupying the Palestinian region(for good reason, seeing as the Palestinians wanted to attack and kill them and throw suicide bombers at them) but Israel unlike Iraq, has not used WMDs in wars, has not invaded peaceful neighbors like Kuwait, does not execute dissenters, does not have women raped, does not squander their nation's rescources for one man and his family, does not call America Satan, does not fund terrorism, etc.

So? Did Iraq fund terrorism? If so I'd like to see the proof.

As for your post, concerning your "200 page" report(like writing a lot makes you correct) and "real reasons".

Your given "real" reasons are pure conjecture. Basically they amount to circmustantial evidence, it "could" benefit the US to invade Iraq, so the US motives are purely selfish.

Which begs the question of why the US doesn't invade any other country(that would benefit us as well) or why the US doesn't invade Saudi Arabia.....
This little anti-EU conspiracy theory is REALLY far fetched. If it's true, why did some European nations help us?
Because US is friends with the Saudis I thought.. The fact they harbour terrorists doesn't matter does it...

[DialecticMaterialist]

Sorry DM, I have to jump in here. The initial reasons given for the war were WMD's and Iraq's apparent ability to use them. This was followed by terrorist links and finally supplemented with human right abuses/UN violations.

1) Prove it.

2) Initial reasons are not the only reasons.

According to my experience Iraqi opression and noncooperation were always on the forefront of justification.

Please quite attacking this strawman.

Can you show conclusive evidence that Iraq was sponsoring terrorism? I must've missed it.

Must have
: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/synopsis.html




Actually I thought Saddam began cooperating with U.N. along with the usual huffing and puffing to show his defiance, but cooperated nonetheless.


Really? Hans Blix didn't seem to think so: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/04/iraq/main542652.shtml

http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/012803/a0128wire.html

Is that a reason to invade a country? Because you suspect they have WMD's.

Depends on the country. In the case of hostile dictatorships; yes.


If they don't you say ah well, we were wrong? Sorry for the loss of life and disruption and all, we had to make sure. Your logic dictates it is ok to shoot first and ask questions later...

No Saddam has been shooting hos own people over and over and over again. Even if the US was wrong, so what? Iraq is still better off now then under Saddam. There are no more acid baths, professional rapists, or chlidren being killed in front of parents.


You speak about loss of life and dispruption. But what about the loss of life under Saddam? What about the disruption of totalitarianism? What about all that decades after Saddam via his heir?


We're talking about waging wars here, not making accusations... Oh look, we killed that suspected drug dealer but it turns out he was innocent. Oops.

Saddam can hardly be called innocent. Oops, we accidently killed one of the most brutal dictators in hsitory....so tragic.

A mistake in this case is acceptable




I didn't know the US was a totalitarian dictatorship.....

Never said it was.....


So waging war on a country is now ok as long as we liberate it? Got ya.

Yeah, yeah it is. :cool:


There we go with this terrorism idea. Can you show me proof of that?

Done, look above.

This is just stupid. WMD's are unsafe no matter what country holds them.

Nope. The US has had WMD's for years. Has only used them once(nukes, when they first came out) Not since. Nor has France,Germany, Russia,or China. Again your reasoning is simplistic and absolutist. "Bad no matter what"

Are you honestly telling me that if you had a choice to give Nukes to France or Iran, you honestly wouldn't care one way or the other?


A government isn't some super human entity, it is made up of people, people who can become corrupted.

*Can* become corrupted. That's a far cry from proof of corruption.

And no, a government emplyee isn't like a car dealer. He or she has to follow rules and regulations and has checks in place.





So? Did Iraq fund terrorism? If so I'd like to see the proof.

Ah, I have given the proof. But you seem to be fixated on only one thing, attacking more or less the weakest(and oft time the most irrelevant) point. To the exclusion of others, that is the fallacy of slanting.

What about the other issues, like human rights violations? Not cooperating with the UN? How Saddam would probably attack the US, or try to, some time in the future?




Because US is friends with the Saudis I thought.. The fact they harbour terrorists doesn't matter does it...

So why friends with the Saudis and not Iraq then? I mean, if we weren't their friend we could have them both.

I also hope in the future the US does reconsider its partntership with Saudi Arabia.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


1) Prove it.

2) Initial reasons are not the only reasons.

According to my experience Iraqi opression and noncooperation were always on the forefront of justification.

Please quite attacking this strawman.

It's not a strawman.

Here's your proof... The president himself.. WMD's, disarming Iraq and security to U.S. is repeated again and again and again...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushtext_012803.html


Must have
: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/synopsis.html

Ok, let's go through the article. First we have one alleged meeting with a terrorist who meets an Iraqi agent in prague.. Well, I'm sorry but that doesn't prove squat. I don't doubt spooks meet all kinds of people in their line of work...

Ok, next we have a secret training camp, which obviously proves terrorism. Or does it?

From the article:

Editor's Note: Although U.S. officials acknowledge terrorists were trained at Salman Pak, they say it is unlikely that these activities were related to the Sept. 11 attacks. It should also be noted that the two defectors interviewed for this report have been brought to FRONTLINE's attention by members of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a dissident organization seeking to overthrow Saddam Hussein

So the source is not exactly the most reliable one. Also the captain contradicts the editor's information here:


That was your reaction on September 11 -- that some of these people might be involved?

I assure you, this operation was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam. And I'm going to keep assuring the world this is what happened.

So either the U.S. government is confused or this guy is lying. Better yet, how does he know so much?

He mentions that he was just a sidelines person, involved in administration and handing out of ammunition!


What was your job?

Administrational things, such as providing food, leave of absence permissions, general training. Ammunition ... providing them with ammunition when needed.


But wait, it gets better...


This is even government officials [who] are not allowed to see this kind of training?

Yes. At the very highest level, they cannot see this training.

So high level government officials are NOT allowed to view the training but he is? A guy who hands ammunition out and takes care of admin...

Ok, I think we can safely say his credibility is 0...

Sorry DM, you're going to have to find some proper proof.

Really? Hans Blix didn't seem to think so: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/04/iraq/main542652.shtml

http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/012803/a0128wire.html

I take it you haven't read the Blinx reports to U.N. have you? In actual reports Blinx talks about how Iraq is cooperating more and more.

I take it you haven't even read your links?

:rolleyes:

Geez man, even the title should give you a clue.


U.S. Insists Iraq's Not Cooperating

Nothing about Blix saying U.N. isn't cooperating...

Now as for the second article... Here's the actual report from something more reliable - the UN.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/docslist.htm

I urge you to look at the twelth quarterly report. Please also note this report was made before destruction of the banned missiles (and it mentions need for cooperation on their destruction) - this has happened. Furthermore the report states Iraq has been cooperating.


Depends on the country. In the case of hostile dictatorships; yes.

I ask when was Iraq actively hostile to US? Did Saddam go on TV and threaten to use WMD's against US? If so show me where...


No Saddam has been shooting hos own people over and over and over again. Even if the US was wrong, so what? Iraq is still better off now then under Saddam. There are no more acid baths, professional rapists, or chlidren being killed in front of parents.

You don't know that Iraq is better off now. For all we know a bigger psycho might take control.


You speak about loss of life and dispruption. But what about the loss of life under Saddam? What about the disruption of totalitarianism? What about all that decades after Saddam via his heir?

Saddam can hardly be called innocent. Oops, we accidently killed one of the most brutal dictators in hsitory....so tragic.

A mistake in this case is acceptable

Nobody said Saddam was innocent. And no, nobody killed Saddam, he ran away... How do you know we won't get a worse dictator in Iraq now?

Never said it was.....

I never said it was either. You misquoted me (quoted someone else I believe)...

Yeah, yeah it is. :cool:

:rolleyes:

Done, look above.

You have failed to prove anything except your inability to look at the sources you provide.

Nope. The US has had WMD's for years. Has only used them once(nukes, when they first came out) Not since. Nor has France,Germany, Russia,or China. Again your reasoning is simplistic and absolutist. "Bad no matter what"

Are you honestly telling me that if you had a choice to give Nukes to France or Iran, you honestly wouldn't care one way or the other?

*Can* become corrupted. That's a far cry from proof of corruption.

And no, a government emplyee isn't like a car dealer. He or she has to follow rules and regulations and has checks in place.

You honestly think that someone has to follow rules just because they are there? That is simplistic reasoning.

I also see you're trying to put me in a position I never took up. I am advocating no WMD's whatsoever. Nobody should have them, period.


Ah, I have given the proof. But you seem to be fixated on only one thing, attacking more or less the weakest(and oft time the most irrelevant) point. To the exclusion of others, that is the fallacy of slanting.

What about the other issues, like human rights violations? Not cooperating with the UN? How Saddam would probably attack the US, or try to, some time in the future?

A) You gave no proof.
B) I showed you that Iraq was cooperating.
C) Saddam attacking US in the future - :rolleyes:
D) Other countries have much more horrible human rights violations, what made Iraq the worst?

So why friends with the Saudis and not Iraq then? I mean, if we weren't their friend we could have them both.

I also hope in the future the US does reconsider its partntership with Saudi Arabia.

[subgenius]

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20349

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
This is a moot point since the war wasn't authorised by U.N.



Yes it was, through resolutions 687, 678, and 1441.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal


Yes it was, through resolutions 687, 678, and 1441.

I think these resolutions were passed on the basis that there were actually WMD there. So far, that appears to be a fraud.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Note: The Bold quotes are me quoting articles. The non-bold quotes are from ImpyTimpy.

It's not a strawman.

Here's your proof... The president himself.. WMD's, disarming Iraq and security to U.S. is repeated again and again and again...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...ext_012803.html

Did you even read it? I will quote some passages:

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

(APPLAUSE)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

(APPLAUSE)

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (APPLAUSE)



Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.




Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country.


Nowhere does Bush say that having WMD's was the only reason for war with Iraq.

Also this isn't even the delcaration of war, but a state of the Union adress.

The final warning reads:

We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.

Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.

That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.


http://www.americanrhetoric.com/wariniraq/gwbushiraq31703.htm

There Bush does talk of opression and future threats. Again nowhere does he say the only reason for war with Iraq is WMD's.

Lastly lets say Bush did used WMD's as a mere excuse to attack Iraq...what's your problem with that? In the end they took out a brutal dictator. The whole thing can be compared to getting Al Capone on tax evasion. With some people its not as important why they get them as much as that they do get them.


Ok, let's go through the article. First we have one alleged meeting with a terrorist who meets an Iraqi agent in prague.. Well, I'm sorry but that doesn't prove squat. I don't doubt spooks meet all kinds of people in their line of work...

Such an in depth analysyes.

Ok, next we have a secret training camp, which obviously proves terrorism. Or does it?

No actually it says this:

In recent weeks, the case against Saddam seems to have accumulated fresh evidence. There are reports that Osama bin Laden met with a former head of Iraqi intelligence and Czech officials confirm that Mohamed Atta, one of the Sept. 11 hijackers, met with an Iraqi agent in Prague in the spring of 2001 (read about the controversy which surfaced in the spring of 2002 over the alleged Prague meeting). And now two Iraqi military defectors -- one a captain in the Iraqi army and the other a lieutenant general who was a senior officer in the Iraqi intelligence service -- have come forward to tell FRONTLINE of a secret government camp (see a map of the camp drawn by the army captain) on the outskirts of Baghdad that trained radical Islamic terrorists from across the Middle East.


This is testimony and confirmed reports which amount to evidence.

From the article:
quote:
Editor's Note: Although U.S. officials acknowledge terrorists were trained at Salman Pak, they say it is unlikely that these activities were related to the Sept. 11 attacks. It should also be noted that the two defectors interviewed for this report have been brought to FRONTLINE's attention by members of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a dissident organization seeking to overthrow Saddam Hussein

So the source is not exactly the most reliable one.

Here is the actual excerpt, which you took out of context(it was in reference to one interview) here:

This general served Saddam Hussein for decades. Along with another Iraqi defector, Sabah Khodada (see below), the general tells of terrorists training in a Boeing 707 resting next to railroad tracks on the edge of Salman Pak, an area south of Baghdad. The existence of the plane has been confirmed by U.N. inspectors. The general describes the men who trained there, the camp's security, and his "gut feeling" that the camp was in some way tied to the Sept. 11 attacks. This interview was done in association with The New York Times and was conducted through a translator on Nov. 6, 2001. [Editor's Note: Although U.S. officials acknowledge terrorists were trained at Salman Pak, they say it is unlikely that these activities were related to the Sept. 11 attacks. It should also be noted that the two defectors interviewed for this report have been brought to FRONTLINE's attention by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a dissident organization seeking to overthrow Saddam Hussein.]

It's from a General that served Saddam for decades. How much more reliable of a source can you get?

Less then perfect does not mean unreliable.


Also PBS is actually being very honest by aknowledging its weak points as well as its strong points. The editors note was there, in large print for everyone to read. I hardly see how that is "being dishonest".


Also the captain contradicts the editor's information here:

I assure you, this operation was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam. And I'm going to keep assuring the world this is what happened.

So either the U.S. government is confused or this guy is lying. Better yet, how does he know so much?

Or the guy is wrong, or the US government is conflicted? Or he has access to information the US government does not.

You are very much jumping to conclusions. Just because 1 captain says something that conflicts with US intelligence does not totally discredit neither party.



He mentions that he was just a sidelines person, involved in administration and handing out of ammunition!

You know THAT was flat out dishonest, especially since he said:

So you were training Iraqis, Saddam's fedayeen, members of the militia in Iraq. And someone else, other groups, were training the non-Iraqis?

They were special trainers or teachers from the Iraqi intelligence and al-Mukhabarat. And those same trainers or teachers will train the fedayeen, the Iraqi fedayeen, and also the same group of those teachers will train the non-Iraqis, foreigners who are in the camp. Personally, my profession is not this kind of training. My profession is to train people on infantry, typical infantry training, such as training on machine guns, pistols, hand grenades, rocket launchers on the shoulder and this kind of training. The special training that I'm talking about, such as the kidnapping and so, is conducted by those trainers who are not from the army; they are from ... al-Mukhabarat.And there was a person who is very famous. They call him Al-Shaba. [ph]. This is Arabic word means "The Ghost," who was responsible for all the training, and those trainers or the teachers.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

i.e. he was training troops, not just handing out ammo.

Also:

What kind of training went on, and who was being trained?

Training is majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism.


:
What was your job?

Administrational things, such as providing food, leave of absence permissions, general training. Ammunition ... providing them with ammunition when needed. (bold added by me)

See the section where it says General Training?





So high level government officials are NOT allowed to view the training but he is? A guy who hands ammunition out and takes care of admin...

Your point? In totalitarian nations some of even the highest ranking officials are forbidden from seeing certain sections activities which others, due to the fact that such activities need people can see. In the Soviet Union for example, Stalin's Generals couldn't just look into secret police files.

And even in the US the CIA I imagine just can't go through NSA buildings or just read through Pentagon files.

Ok, I think we can safely say his credibility is 0...

Oh yes, because Saddam couldn't just say "don't go there" or not tell his official about it.....

Sorry DM, you're going to have to find some proper proof.

How much more proper do you get then PBS and interviews with former Iraqi officials?



I take it you haven't read the Blinx reports to U.N. have you? In actual reports Blinx talks about how Iraq is cooperating more and more.

Actually I have and he says Iraq is cooperating more in some areas but not enough.



Nothing about Blix saying U.N. isn't cooperating..

Second article.

Now as for the second article... Here's the actual report from something more reliable - the UN.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/docslist.htm

I urge you to look at the twelth quarterly report. Please also note this report was made before destruction of the banned missiles (and it mentions need for cooperation on their destruction) - this has happened. Furthermore the report states Iraq has been cooperating.

I had read it. The man claims Iraq is cooperating in process but not in substance.

Also read the last paragraph, issue 73.(His conclusion)

Also 72 stated Iraq was to cooperate fully, without delay and Iraq has been delaying.



I ask when was Iraq actively hostile to US?

Saddam has only called us Satan and said

In the 10 years since the Gulf War ended, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has said that he has always considered himself at war with America.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/synopsis.html



Did Saddam go on TV and threaten to use WMD's against US?

Did he have to? That's a ridiculous question and is not necessary to establish hostility to the US.





You don't know that Iraq is better off now. For all we know a bigger psycho might take control.

That's improbable. The US has promised to free Iraq and help turn it into a democracy. Just as we are helping Afghanistan. A lot of these "what ifs" are getting tedious.

I really doubt a bigger psycho then Saddam could be found, and at the very least we've opened Iraq so it could improve itself.




Nobody said Saddam was innocent.

Your analogy compared attacking Saddam under mistaken pretense to killing an accused "innocent" man. Ignoring the fact that what makes us so sympathetic to the accused is their actual innocence....


And no, nobody killed Saddam, he ran away... How do you know we won't get a worse dictator in Iraq now?

Like I said, it's unlikely. First off I doubt the US would install one given its promise, values and track record with reconstruction after a war.

Secondly, I doubt the Iraquis would select a worst dictator.

Third, I doubt a worst dictator can be found.

But you miss the point, the important thing is Iraq is now free of a tyrant and ABLE to select a better leader.

Lastly, you don't know if Saddam is still alive. Nobody does. Unless you have some proof that is...




I never said it was either. You misquoted me (quoted someone else I believe)...

Oh yes you are actually correct on that. Sorry for the confusion.
.



You have failed to prove anything except your inability to look at the sources you provide.

Ah, but you are proving something. Your ability to simply dismiss credible sources(like PBS) on the basis of one or two inconsistencies between people who are interviewed(not like different sources can ever hold different opinions....)

Confirmation bias and ad hominid.





You honestly think that someone has to follow rules just because they are there? That is simplistic reasoning.

Never said that. I said there are checks, and there is accountability. The rules usually imply that but I've also spelled it out. Again you attack a strawman with a red herring.

I also see you're trying to put me in a position I never took up. I am advocating no WMD's whatsoever. Nobody should have them, period.

Strange that's an even weaker position then I presume. That is an extreme and unrealistic viewpoint. If no free country had WMD's like Nukes for deterence, more opressive countries like China and Pakistan would bully them. And what's to stop them? Harsh language? In respect to China:Protests? ;)



A) You gave no proof.

Yes I did you simply did not except them on the basis of some rather small, nit picky reasons. example: The gy was *only* involved in administration.(Hardly a valid criticism.)

B) I showed you that Iraq was cooperating.

No, you just said "report X shows Iraq to be cooperating" when it doesn't. It says Iraq cooperates, is cooperating in a sense. But not in the sense of following resolutions. Hence all you had was partial cooperation, which is insufficient.


C) Saddam attacking US in the future -

Yeah I mean a peaceful guy like that....proposterous.


D) Other countries have much more horrible human rights violations, what made Iraq the worst?

Do they? Which ones?

Isn't that a bit of an approximation?

And even if so, the reason for Saddam was not that a single thing he did made him a prime target but a variety of factors converged.

Factors like not cooperating with the UN, having bad relations with the US in the past, sponsoring terrorism, having WMDs at least in the past and a will to build more, human rights violations and a weak army. As well as being in the ME where we currently have momentum.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well, actually none of those resolutions legitimised war. They were resolutions that the UN would do something unspecified if Iraq didn't cooperate.

The US government decided unilaterally that "the UN" meant "the USA", "something" meant "invade and occupy", and that "if Iraq didn't cooperate" meant "if the US government felt like it". Which is about as illegal as it gets.

This is a seperate issue from the (also fairly obvious) question of why the only murderous dictator the US chooses to unseat is the one sitting on a big chunk of the Middle East's oil.

If Saudi Arabia and Turkey are next, I might start to believe it had something to do with moral outrage over totalitarian brutality. :rolleyes:

[DialecticMaterialist]

Oh yes, the UN did intend to do something if Saddam did not cooperate, make more resolutions and demand more inspections. Perhaps invoke "sanctions" since those worked so well.

Seriously why in the end was Saddam being more cooperative? Couldn't have been threats from the US....


So the US warned Saddam time and time again, and then 8 years later finally decided to put its foot down. This while the UN was giving lip service to human rights, peace and disarmement, which it hoped to attain thorugh threats of more resolutions.

Lastly the US has overthrown many dictators in the past that have angered it, Afghanistan for example...but the US can't be everywhere. I've already pointed out how that is a perfectionist fallacy and how no matter what dictator the US overthrew you could always ask "Why THAT dictator and not others?"

And every country has at least one rescource: South America: coffee, cocain, trade. The Middle East: oil. Africa: labor/diamonds.

All of which amounts to circumstantial evidence.

[reprise]

DM, what many of us living outside of the US find difficult to understand is why when the US adopts a posture of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (as it did in both Afghanistan and in during the Iran/Iraq conflict) you are surprised when it comes back to bite you on the arse.

Saddam was a brutal dictator who needed to be removed - but he was always a brutal dictator who needed to be removed, even when the US was aiding him in the Iran/Iraq conflict.

Similarly, do you really believe that the US would have taken military action to oust the Taliban from power had the events of 11 September not occured, because I truly do not.

Why was it OK for US companies to provide the equipment to develop nuclear programmes to some of the countries now on the US "list of countries not to be allowed to play with uranium" THEN, and yet now the US is calling for those same programmes to be terminated. Did you really not foresee that those states might one day use their nuclear programmes to develop weapons? And if you didn't foresee that possibility, then why not?

Those sound like criticisms and I don't mean them to, I just don't really understand why the US didn't foresee the probability that "the enemy of my enemy" would turn on the US once the common enemy was dealt with - because at least in respect of Iraq and Saddam, and Afghanistan and The Taliban, such an outcome seemed far more likely than not.

[Malachi151]

DialecticMaterialist

Are you saying that the the alleged threat of WMDs was not a critical factor in going to war? Are you saying that if it definately known from the start by everyone that Saddam had no WMDs that we still would have gone to war?

Thats the only question worth asking IMO.

reprise

The Taliban stuff is really an even bigger problem because the Bush administrtion gave $43 million in aid to the Taliban prior to 9/11.

Energy related companies from America and other foreign countries helped the Taliban to power. The Taliban are not even from Afganistan. They were given weapons and money and helped into power by energy companies and the American government because they were cracking down on "crime".

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think these resolutions were passed on the basis that there were actually WMD there. So far, that appears to be a fraud.

And UN inspectors found WMD there long after 678 and 687 were passed. But then, there is the fact that these resolutions address other violations which are not possesion of WMD.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Well, actually none of those resolutions legitimised war. They were resolutions that the UN would do something unspecified if Iraq didn't cooperate.

The US government decided unilaterally that "the UN" meant "the USA", "something" meant "invade and occupy", and that "if Iraq didn't cooperate" meant "if the US government felt like it". Which is about as illegal as it gets.

Well, I am still waiting for the UN to condemn the U.S. and the U.K. for our 'illegal' act. If none of those resolutions legitimised war, then I supposed the first Gulf War was 'illegal' also.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Malachi151
The Taliban stuff is really an even bigger problem because the Bush administrtion gave $43 million in aid to the Taliban prior to 9/11.

Energy related companies from America and other foreign countries helped the Taliban to power. The Taliban are not even from Afganistan. They were given weapons and money and helped into power by energy companies and the American government because they were cracking down on "crime".

The Bush administration gave $43 million worth of famine relief aid to Afghanistan, you mean? No cash, mostly staple food by the ton, 100% administered through the UN. That makes the Taliban a 'bigger problem', does it?

Is your second paragraph as informed as your first?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by reprise
Those sound like criticisms and I don't mean them to, I just don't really understand why the US didn't foresee the probability that "the enemy of my enemy" would turn on the US once the common enemy was dealt with...

What brings you to that conclusion?

[edit: The conclusion that the US didn't forsee that some allies of convenience would likely turn on us eventually, that is.]

[DialecticMaterialist]

Are you saying that the the alleged threat of WMDs was not a critical factor in going to war? Are you saying that if it definately known from the start by everyone that Saddam had no WMDs that we still would have gone to war?

Thats the only question worth asking IMO.

Depends, I suppose to many it was A critical factor but not THE critical factor. There was more then one.

For me it wasn't really even a factor at all, I really didn't care whether Saddam had WMDs or not, well I mean I DID care if he had lots of WMDs, but I was far more focused on getting rid of a brute.

As I believe many were. It depends on your priorities.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Note: The Bold quotes are me quoting articles. The non-bold quotes are from ImpyTimpy.



Did you even read it? I will quote some passages:
<snipped passages>
Nowhere does Bush say that having WMD's was the only reason for war with Iraq.

Also this isn't even the delcaration of war, but a state of the Union adress.

The final warning reads:
<snipped>

I never said the only reason for war was WMD's, nice strawman... I said the original reason was WMD's, followed by other reasons. In the state of union address, the primary focus is on WMD's and the threat Saddam is because of them. Additional reasons are given which you qouted (well done) but they are just that - additional reasons.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/wariniraq/gwbushiraq31703.htm

There Bush does talk of opression and future threats. Again nowhere does he say the only reason for war with Iraq is WMD's.

Stop the strawmen already.

Lastly lets say Bush did used WMD's as a mere excuse to attack Iraq...what's your problem with that? In the end they took out a brutal dictator. The whole thing can be compared to getting Al Capone on tax evasion. With some people its not as important why they get them as much as that they do get them.

You're right, let's throw away the whole dual process, guilty until proven innocent from now on. :rolleyes:

Such an in depth analysyes.

No actually it says this:

This is testimony and confirmed reports which amount to evidence.

Here is the actual excerpt, which you took out of context(it was in reference to one interview) here:

It's from a General that served Saddam for decades. How much more reliable of a source can you get?

Less then perfect does not mean unreliable.

Also PBS is actually being very honest by aknowledging its weak points as well as its strong points. The editors note was there, in large print for everyone to read. I hardly see how that is "being dishonest".

Or the guy is wrong, or the US government is conflicted? Or he has access to information the US government does not.

Did you even read my critique of the article? Yes, the editors are honest where they point out the man might be lying - he was after all given to them by an organisation sworn to dispose of Saddam. Enough said after that.

You are very much jumping to conclusions. Just because 1 captain says something that conflicts with US intelligence does not totally discredit neither party.

In this case we have a more reliable source such as the U.S. intelligence correcting a biased source... You do the math.

You know THAT was flat out dishonest, especially since he said:


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

i.e. he was training troops, not just handing out ammo.

Also:

[/quote](bold added by me)

See the section where it says General Training?

Your point? In totalitarian nations some of even the highest ranking officials are forbidden from seeing certain sections activities which others, due to the fact that such activities need people can see. In the Soviet Union for example, Stalin's Generals couldn't just look into secret police files.

And even in the US the CIA I imagine just can't go through NSA buildings or just read through Pentagon files.

Oh yes, because Saddam couldn't just say "don't go there" or not tell his official about it.....
[/QUOTE][/B]
I don't know if you're ignorant on purpose or accidentally. Your own reply shows the man can't make up his mind as to what exactly he does at the camp. First he trains soldiers in weapons and combat techniques, next he hands out ammunition and does leaves. SO - either he works in Admin or he works as a proper trainer. He just can't seem to work out which it is.

What a reliable source!
:rolleyes:


How much more proper do you get then PBS and interviews with former Iraqi officials?

Nothing wrong with the article itself because the editors themselves point out the reliability of the source is very tainted. But you failed to see that didn't you...


Actually I have and he says Iraq is cooperating more in some areas but not enough.

Have you???? Then you're either blind or a liar. He urged more cooperation, that was BEFORE (note the word - before) destruction of the banned missiles.


Second article.

I had read it. The man claims Iraq is cooperating in process but not in substance.

Also read the last paragraph, issue 73.(His conclusion)

Also 72 stated Iraq was to cooperate fully, without delay and Iraq has been delaying.

This is typical of Saddam. Now once again, the report was written before the destruction of banned missiles and urged further cooperation from Iraq. This means Iraq was fully cooperating after the report was written.


Saddam has only called us Satan and said

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/synopsis.html

Did he have to? That's a ridiculous question and is not necessary to establish hostility to the US.

Ok, there's a big difference between blaming the ills of your country on something else and openly declaring your hostile intents. Since you can't find when Saddam actually stated that Iraq will go to war with America I note your most amusing attempt at reply - "it's not necessary".


That's improbable. The US has promised to free Iraq and help turn it into a democracy. Just as we are helping Afghanistan. A lot of these "what ifs" are getting tedious.

I really doubt a bigger psycho then Saddam could be found, and at the very least we've opened Iraq so it could improve itself.

Uhh, ok... What ifs is what you're left with after you remove something you know and leave it open to something you don't know...


Your analogy compared attacking Saddam under mistaken pretense to killing an accused "innocent" man. Ignoring the fact that what makes us so sympathetic to the accused is their actual innocence....

And you're just content to throw dual process of law out the window, shoot first and ask questions later?


Like I said, it's unlikely. First off I doubt the US would install one given its promise, values and track record with reconstruction after a war.

Secondly, I doubt the Iraquis would select a worst dictator.

Third, I doubt a worst dictator can be found.

But you miss the point, the important thing is Iraq is now free of a tyrant and ABLE to select a better leader.

Lastly, you don't know if Saddam is still alive. Nobody does. Unless you have some proof that is...

This is what you think. Just because you think they'll select a better leader doesn't mean they will. There's a saying - better the devil you know.

Also track record of reconstruction after a war?? Are you trying to make a joke here?


Oh yes you are actually correct on that. Sorry for the confusion.
.

Thank you :)

Ah, but you are proving something. Your ability to simply dismiss credible sources(like PBS) on the basis of one or two inconsistencies between people who are interviewed(not like different sources can ever hold different opinions....)

Confirmation bias and ad hominid.

I didn't dismiss the article. I dismissed the person after showing you the errors they made. The article itself even points out the person interviewed may not be credible at all.

You're also incorrectly applying logical fallacies to a good argument.

Never said that. I said there are checks, and there is accountability. The rules usually imply that but I've also spelled it out. Again you attack a strawman with a red herring.

Strange that's an even weaker position then I presume. That is an extreme and unrealistic viewpoint. If no free country had WMD's like Nukes for deterence, more opressive countries like China and Pakistan would bully them. And what's to stop them? Harsh language? In respect to China:Protests? ;)

What would stop those oppressive countries from developing more nuclear arsenal? You get into another arms race, with everyone scared that someone might push the button.

Now do you understand my position?


Yes I did you simply did not except them on the basis of some rather small, nit picky reasons. example: The gy was *only* involved in administration.(Hardly a valid criticism.)

The guy's speech contained incosistent information, the guy's speech indicated one thing, then proceeded to indicate another, the editor himself noted the guy came from a purely biased source.

So once again, you showed no conclusive proof of Iraq's terrorism link.


No, you just said "report X shows Iraq to be cooperating" when it doesn't. It says Iraq cooperates, is cooperating in a sense. But not in the sense of following resolutions. Hence all you had was partial cooperation, which is insufficient.

Wrong again. The report was written before the destruction of the banned missiles. That is why it urges substance cooperation. After the report was written the missiles were getting destroyed. I already said it but you selectively seem to ignore it (can't you argue your position without selectively using what I said?)


Yeah I mean a peaceful guy like that....proposterous.

Uhh.. So you're saying Saddam was going to attack the US?


Do they? Which ones?

Isn't that a bit of an approximation?

And even if so, the reason for Saddam was not that a single thing he did made him a prime target but a variety of factors converged.
Ok, let's take a look at your factors...

Factors like not cooperating with the UN,
A) U.N. never gave go ahead for the war, so U.S. didn't cooperate with U.N. either...
B) Iraq was cooperating with the U.N. Already showed you the evidence for it.
having bad relations with the US in the past,
THAT is a laughable reason... Oooh, I don't like you so I'm going to attack you?
sponsoring terrorism
You can't even prove it...
, having WMDs at least in the past
Which it was attacked for before...
and a will to build more
Quick fill out the application for JREF prize since you can see into Saddam's mind.
, human rights violations
Nobody denies that one but they weren't the only country. I hear the Saudi's are pretty good at torturing confessions out of innocent people.
and a weak army. As well as being in the ME where we currently have momentum.
That is the best reason of all...

They had a weak army, so why not hey?

:rolleyes:


P.S.

Apologies for not answering earlier.