The Truth about Iraqi WMDs!

[Crossbow]

Well it has taken one war, about 100 billion dollars, and thousands to die, but the White House is finally admitting their actual rationale concerning Iraq and there WMDs.

BECAUSE Iraq used chemical weapons before, and
BECAUSE the destruction of these weapons could not be confirmed, and
BECAUSE it was well known that Iraq wanted to make WMDs,
THEREFORE the White House assumed that Iraq currently had WMDs (even though direct evidence of this claim was lacking).
THUS, the real pretext for going to war against with Iraq has finally been officially provided.

Ari Fleischer (White House press secretary) essentially said as much yesterday during his press briefing in which he was repeatedly asked about Iraqi WMDs. Where are they?(Don't know) Have any been found?(No) What about all this proof you supposedly had before the war?(Well, Saddam is dead) And so on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6899-2003Jun17.html

The administration case is not based entirely on direct evidence. Fleischer said that "the decision to go to war was based on the knowledge that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam Hussein had a history of using weapons of mass destruction." He said the intelligence about the lack of evidence that any weapons were destroyed "led to the conclusion of this administration, the previous administration and many on the Hill that Saddam Hussein did indeed have weapons of mass destruction."

[Monketey Ghost]

It's our guess that Hussein's up to something, so we're going invade, lay waste, and see what there is to be seen.

Goodbye, Land of the Free. Hello, Land of the Warhawk Guesswork.

Oh, for the days when a person could really be proud of this country. (Thinks back, recalling many unsavory moments in our history) ~~What days were those, again?

[ssibal]

Given Saddam's history, how can you consider that to be an unreasonable conclusion?

[Cain]

A few things. First, the Whitehouse website contains detailed receipts, incontrovertible evidence, for Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction:

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/images/wmd-receipt1.jpg

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/images/wmd-receipt2.jpg

Also, don't forget about the two tractor trailers that could have possibly been produced weapons of mass destruction (even though experts, as usual, have now disputed the administration's initial claims):

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW06-11-03.gif

[Cain]

Given Saddam's history, how can you consider that to be an unreasonable conclusion?

Let's recall Bush's address to the nation shortly after we invaded on March 19th:

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.
...

My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.
May God bless our country and all who defend her. -- Bush, fear-mongerer

He shamelessly invoked the memory of 9/11 to invade a country alleged to present a "grave danger" to the world. If you want to go in to liberate Iraqis, bring about democracy, improve their lives, great. But the administration never made this case (and it's laughable given our past support for Saddam, arguably at the height of his terror).

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by ssibal
Given Saddam's history, how can you consider that to be an unreasonable conclusion?

OK Ssibal, perhaps I did not make myself clear at the start of this thread, so allow me to try again.

I consider the conclusion [the one where it was plainly stated that Iraq currently had WMDs] to be quite unreasonable because it was not based on accurate information.

I hope this helps!

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Cain


Let's recall Bush's address to the nation shortly after we invaded on March 19th:



He shamelessly invoked the memory of 9/11 to invade a country alleged to present a "grave danger" to the world. If you want to go in to liberate Iraqis, bring about democracy, improve their lives, great. But the administration never made this case (and it's laughable given our past support for Saddam, arguably at the height of his terror).

I did not agree with the assesment of Iraq being a threat to the U.S. but in my opinion the ends justify the means.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Crossbow


OK Ssibal, perhaps I did not make myself clear at the start of this thread, so allow me to try again.

I consider the conclusion [the one where it was plainly stated that Iraq currently had WMDs] to be quite unreasonable because it was not based on accurate information.

I hope this helps!

What is the inaccurate information that you refer to? You listed three main points in your original post, do you think they are not accurate?
BECAUSE Iraq used chemical weapons before, and
BECAUSE the destruction of these weapons could not be confirmed, and
BECAUSE it was well known that Iraq wanted to make WMDs,

Now if you accept these statements and take into consideration Saddam's history, how is it unreasonable to conclude that Iraq still had WMD?

[Jon_in_london]

Nice one cain.

ssibal: you say the ends justifys the means, Do the ends justify our leaders lying to us to justify an unnecessary war that has cost 1000s of lives?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by No Answers
It's our guess that Hussein's up to something, so we're going invade, lay waste, and see what there is to be seen.

Goodbye, Land of the Free. Hello, Land of the Warhawk Guesswork.

Oh, for the days when a person could really be proud of this country. (Thinks back, recalling many unsavory moments in our history) ~~What days were those, again?

What about the 56 UN resolutions that Saddam ignored which thrust the US into a military invasion of Iraq? What about the 300,000 people found in mass graves as innocent Iraqi family members looked on and tried to identify their loved ones? What about Saddam's persistent threat in the international media to deal the United States civilian populations "a fatal blow"?

Saddam asked for it and he got it. If there was ever a reason to fight for US ideals it was in Iraq.

Also, more WMD will be found. I guarantee it.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Nice one cain.

ssibal: you say the ends justifys the means, Do the ends justify our leaders lying to us to justify an unnecessary war that has cost 1000s of lives?

That is less than 1% of the Muslims Saddam butchered as crimes against humanity in the last ten years.

JK

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


That is less than 1% of the Muslims Saddam butchered as crimes against humanity in the last ten years.

JK

A large number of the people that Saddam killed were in cooperation with the US or with US approval.

The US supplied the WMDs that were used in the war with Iran, which involves the alleged gassing of the Kurds though no one knows if it was the Iraqis or Iranians that killed the Kurds. Still at the time the US approved of the activity and under Reagan it was ruled that Iran killed the Kurds.

We supplied the materials, taught them how to use them, and provided their intelligence. Hmm...

As for other killings, many were part of CIA backed anti-Communsit effort.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Nice one cain.

ssibal: you say the ends justifys the means, Do the ends justify our leaders lying to us to justify an unnecessary war that has cost 1000s of lives?

Exactly, the issue here for US and Americans is the lying, not the war. The fact is they got support w/o being honest. The fact that they didn't feel they could be honest with the people and still support their agenda is the problem, and the fact that they were successful in massivly manipulating opinion.

I still contend that this war was about:

The war on Iraq was really designed to be a war on the European Union, OPEC, and the UN as much as a war on Iraq. It was designed to indirectly attack the EU and UN via the Iraqi situation. The three primary goals were to secure American influence in the Persian Gulf, weaken the EU and UN, and gain increased influence over OPEC.

Now, what conditions have led the Bush administration to pursue war in Iraq in order to promote this agenda, and what are the objectives of the conflict with Iraq, and in what way do they promote this agenda? (Note that I am referring to the Bush administration from prior to the time that Bush took office. Major members of the current Bush administration have been assembled and cooperating together as a group towards their goals since at least 1998.)

There seems to be several different "layers" of conditions that have compelled the Bush administration to seek war with Iraq.

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.

What is significant about these conditions is that most of them have not been addressed publicly by the Bush administration, and some of them have actually been denounced as factors influencing their decision to go to war with Iraq, such as Iraq's under developed oil reserves.

I broke these conditions up into two groups. The conditions that originally influenced the Bush "administration" prior to taking office, and the conditions that would have strengthened the administrations resolved after having taken office.

It's clear that the Bush administration already felt strongly about the need to invade Iraq even prior to Iraq's move to the euro. This is evidenced most prominently by the 1998 letter to Clinton. The entire Gulf region has long been considered an area that is directly linked to American national security because of the high amount of oil in that region and America's dependence on that oil for the American economy and the American military. As was already stated, the Carter Doctrine was established in 1980 and stated plainly that, “an attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Malachi151

A large number of the people that Saddam killed were in cooperation with the US or with US approval.


The people that were killed did not want to live under a brutal oppresive leadership. Do you think they should have been killed for it?

I do think that the US made a mistake in not giving more support to people demonstrating against Saddam; however, a mistake in the past should not prevent positive actions in the future.

Originally posted by Malachi151

The US supplied the WMDs that were used in the war with Iran,

Now, repeat after me...

"The US was not the only supporter of Iraq in the 80s". Can you say that? I knew you could.

Fact is, the US was not the only supplier of weapons to Iraq. All in all, only 1% of the conventional arms used in Iraq came from the US, with the majority coming from Russia and France. See: http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html

Even though the US did sell some WMD technology to Iraq, much of it (perhaps a majority) came from other countries, including France (including Anthrax stock, and the reactor that was destroyed in the 80s) and Germany (including technology to make poison gas.) See: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003269

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Nice one cain.

ssibal: you say the ends justifys the means, Do the ends justify our leaders lying to us to justify an unnecessary war that has cost 1000s of lives?

I disagree that the war was unnecessary.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Now, repeat after me...

"The US was not the only supporter of Iraq in the 80s". Can you say that? I knew you could.
Now repeat after me...
"If the US gave any WMDs to Iraq, then it is hypocritical if it then complains about them."

Did the US ever say, "Be sure not to use these"? Was Saddam less brutal then, or only the enemy of our enemy?

Of course, if you want to be brutally straight, no country that has WMDs has any right to complain about WMDs. Everybody will have them eventually. You can't get the genie back in the bottle.

[Captain_Snort]

the simple truth about WMD's were that they were an excuse, a pretext that they hoped they could get away with

[voidx]

"If the US gave any WMDs to Iraq, then it is hypocritical if it then complains about them."
Whoever claimed international politics weren't inextricably filled with hypocrits? :D Is it hypocritical? Sure it is. Should it stay your hand from going back and correcting previous administrations f*ck ups? Of course not. It will be interesting to see how the apparently misleading stance of the Bush administration plays out as the delay time on further lack of WMD proof continues. The parallels back to the cold war era still make me chuckle, and makes people seem naive. Its naive to think that any world wide clash and arm wrestling of super powers would not leave dirty laundry littered all over the place in its wake in the years to come. Was it the right thing to do then? From the American stand point in the world today, it seems to have worked well for them. But then that's all perspective right :D. Basically to me thats a whole seperate arguement and forum thread. Did they handle this situation properly, hard to say. Should they be called to task if no solid proof is ever shown, certainly. Are they playing dangerous games with the opinion of the status of American foreign policy in the world? Sure thing. Should any of the above items prevent you, even hypocritically so, from going back and cleaning up a mess past administrations created, if they can be shown to be justified? Hell no. IMO this attitude just leads to inaction which solves nothing.

I'm not sure where I stand on the justification for this war any longer. Its just difficult for us to tell getting what information we can from news agencies and internet sources. One gets tired of eating grains of salt all day long :D.

Superior tech, bazillquadrillions spent, and we still don't know if Osama or Sadaam are dead, or if they have or had any WOMD!

LOL

-Who

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Whodini
Superior tech, bazillquadrillions spent, and we still don't know if Osama or Sadaam are dead, or if they have or had any WOMD!

LOL

-Who

But we were positive, before the war.

Unfortunately the threads dealing with the use of selective, questionable, inaccurate intelligence get hijacked into a discussion of whether Saddam should have been deposed regardless ("the ends justify the mean"--wasn't that Adolf's motto?).
That's irrelevent to the issue of the credibility of a government domestically and internationally.
It happens to be an important thing.

But not to worry, someone has guaranteed that we will find them, or I guess we get those lives back.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by ssibal


I disagree that the war was unnecessary.

Congrats Ssibal!

I can respect that opinion. It is much better than insisting an inaccurate fact is an accurate fact.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Malachi151
As for other killings, many were part of CIA backed anti-Communsit effort. Evidence? Or is this just an assumption on your part?

[Mr Manifesto]

I may as well ask this question again- I don't recall if it has been answered.

Does anyone know how many of his own people Saddam killed?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I may as well ask this question again- I don't recall if it has been answered.

Does anyone know how many of his own people Saddam killed?
Either 300,000 (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869962345&highlight=saddam+people#post1869962345) or 100,000 (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869961162&highlight=saddam+people#post1869961162) based on the extensive research of that noted historian, Jedi Knight.

[E.J.Armstrong]

The next time I see anyone in the Bush administration with their mouths moving I'll know how to take what comes out.

With Bush there must be a buck there somewhere. You could sell it as fertiliser I suppose. Perhaps Haliburton can bag it up for us? After they claim the money from the Eye Raqis for fixing Eye Raq that is.

Is it really possible to supply WOMD to a murderous dictator to help him terrorise his own people if required, start a war for invalid reasons, award contracts to corporate supporters of your own party in a highly suspicious manner, refuse to give the supposed beneficiaries of the war the government they might want then - the piece de resistance - get the terrorised Eye Raqis to pay for it themselves? Man, what a great scam. I hope China or North Korea or Iran or Israel haven't noticed.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tricky

Now repeat after me...
"If the US gave any WMDs to Iraq, then it is hypocritical if it then complains about them."

Did the US ever say, "Be sure not to use these"? Was Saddam less brutal then, or only the enemy of our enemy?

Of course, if you want to be brutally straight, no country that has WMDs has any right to complain about WMDs. Everybody will have them eventually. You can't get the genie back in the bottle.

Sorry, I just get annoyed by people claiming that the US is somehow the only one responsible for Saddam.

The US may be a bit hypocritical in this situation. But I have a bit more respect for a country that says "Oops, we made a mistake, now let us fix it", instead of other countries (such as France and Germany) who created the vast majority of the problem, then tried to take the moral high ground when things got tough. (If America is hypocritical over its actions in Iraq, what does that make France, Germany and Russia? They were clearly in a conflict-of-interest situation.)

[Cain]

But I have a bit more respect for a country that says "Oops, we made a mistake, now let us fix it", instead of other countries (such as France and Germany) who created the vast majority of the problem, then tried to take the moral high ground when things got tough.

When did anyone in the administration confess we made a mistake? Many of these people were also members of the previous administrations...

(If America is hypocritical over its actions in Iraq, what does that make France, Germany and Russia? They were clearly in a conflict-of-interest situation.)

It's further evidence that governments are not moral agents. Here in the United States we constantly heard about France's economic ties to Saddam. Yep, that's certainly a fair criticism. But any suggestion that the U.S. might have economic ambitions of its own were treated as the mad ravings of conspiracy theorists.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Tricky

Either 300,000 (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869962345&highlight=saddam+people#post1869962345) or 100,000 (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869961162&highlight=saddam+people#post1869961162) based on the extensive research of that noted historian, Jedi Knight.


Those numbers are about right according to estimates of human rights watchdog organisations and such.

here is how some died in Iraq
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/index.html#2

[subgenius]

Let's see: No WMDs, economy's tanking and Saddam still alive
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/20/international/worldspecial/20SADD.html?th
Our political future is starting to look brighter.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Well it has taken one war, about 100 billion dollars, and thousands to die, but the White House is finally admitting their actual rationale concerning Iraq and there WMDs.
That's their,...not "there". ;)

BECAUSE Iraq used chemical weapons before
Iraq has used chemical weapons on civilian and military people in the past. One would be a fool to assume they had no chemical weapons program.

BECAUSE the destruction of these weapons could not be confirmed
The destruction could not be confirmed because the Iraqi regime would never cooperate fully and in good faith with UNSCOM.

BECAUSE it was well known that Iraq wanted to make WMDs,

Indeed it is very well known from the testimony of high level defectors including the late Hussein Kamal who ran Iraq's clandestine WMD programs.

THEREFORE the White House assumed that Iraq currently had WMDs (even though direct evidence of this claim was lacking).
Of course they did. It was a safe assumption based on what they knew at the time. (and BTW has not yet been disproven) A President must trust his intelligence agencies,...that is why it is important for the CIA, NSA, and other providers of this intelligence be investigated if /when it becomes obvious that there are/were no WMD's in Iraq. (The mobile labs are damning evidence of a program....no matter how you may joke about them. The product of one such lab could kill many more times the amount of people murdered on 9/11...and contained recently imported technology brought into Iraq in violation of UN resolutions.)


THUS, the real pretext for going to war against with Iraq has finally been officially provided.


....and that is?? (insert your favorite lefty conspiracy theory)


This is not a perfect world. Saddam Hussein would still be in power were he smart enough to have cooperated openly and fully with UNSCOM from day one. The war, it's casualties, and it's cost are the full responsability of Mr. Hussein and his regime.

-zilla

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Cain

When did anyone in the administration confess we made a mistake? Many of these people were also members of the previous administrations...


Ok, I was taking literary liscence. But the point is, the US is taking steps to eliminate a problem which was caused (in some tiny bit) by themselves (although again the vast majority of the problems in Iraq were caused by others, not the US.)

Originally posted by Cain

It's further evidence that governments are not moral agents. Here in the United States we constantly heard about France's economic ties to Saddam. Yep, that's certainly a fair criticism. But any suggestion that the U.S. might have economic ambitions of its own were treated as the mad ravings of conspiracy theorists.

Ok, here's a question... how much publicity is there in FRANCE over France's economic and military ties to Iraq? How about Germany/Russia? Does anyone in the media there question French or German motives for opposing the war? (Note: I don't know; I don't get European TV/newspapers, so the subject could very well have been discussed. I just don't see any reports of it in the media here.)

People automatically assume the worst in US motives in Iraq. I do question some of their actions, but I realize that if, in the long term they manage to turn Iraq into a democracy, then the US won't have any real economic leverage to force Iraq to sell its oil, or buy its products, or whatever.

[Cain]

But the point is, the US is taking steps to eliminate a problem which was caused (in some tiny bit) by themselves (although again the vast majority of the problems in Iraq were caused by others, not the US.)

Fine; but this administration has still given no indication that they're conscioiusly correcting a "past mistake," or even admitting mistake in the past.

As for French media reporting the government's economic ties to Saddam I am in no position to comment. Maybe someone from France can help us.

People automatically assume the worst in US motives in Iraq. I do question some of their actions, but I realize that if, in the long term they manage to turn Iraq into a democracy, then the US won't have any real economic leverage to force Iraq to sell its oil, or buy its products, or whatever.

We sort of failed at nation-building in Afghanistan; it's a mess by all accounts. This administration has shown nothing but contempt for democracy. We sternly lectured Turkey of the consequences if they failed to lend their support. Here, as in the case of France, the government got most of the blame. Turkey was trying to defraud us and the French government wants to maintain economic ties; both are no doubt true in part. But also don't forget the number of people in these countries who opposed the invasion (around 95% in Turkey and probably at least 2/3 of France). It never occurs to anyone that maybe, possibly, these governments are influenced by, I dunno, public opinion? Members of the "Coalition of the Willing" also had majority populations opposing the war, most notably Spain and England.

Are you telling me that if the Iraqi people voted into power an Iranian-type clergy -- not extremely unlikely -- we would just sit back and say, "Yep, that's democracy!"

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Ok, here's a question... how much publicity is there in FRANCE over France's economic and military ties to Iraq? How about Germany/Russia? Does anyone in the media there question French or German motives for opposing the war?

Probably about the same publicity Donald Rumsfeld received when in 1983 he visited Saddam in Iraq to sell him weapons. Or about the same about of publicity Ronald Reagan received when Saddam visited him in the White House.

Yes folks, these events ACTUALLY happened.

So its important to realize that now that the US has found religion that we would own up to our past sins... oops! We can't! Rumsfeld is now the Secretary of Defense, Reagan is still alive and his VP - that would be George Sr. (also a former president and our current president's dad) - was also present at the same meeting where Reagan met Saddam.

So when it comes to hypocrisy, let's be sure to make everyone aware that the US is in all things... #1. Fact: US stands to make a lot more off Iraq's oil than France ever made off weapon sales. Get real: money had little or nothing to do with France's opposition to the war. I think it hurts some people too much to imagine that someone might actually be against the war because it is wrong.

Face it: this argument does not address the substance of the debate, it is a blatent attempt to smear those who oppose the war by stating there are pecuniary motives for those who oppose the war, while claiming those who support the war are somehow of pure motives. Talk turkey in this forum, not trash. We should be discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of the war. I note that no matter how many ways forum particpants point out in thread after thread that no WMD have been found, there are those who attempt to de-rail these discussions and move things off-topic.

The truth about Iraqi WMD: Bush claimed the US should attack immediately to defend itself pre-emptively against the imminent use of the WMDs its intelligence indicated existed in abundance. Bush's assertions amount to either lies or a wanton disregard for the truth, based on what we know today. In a court of law, this would fit the legal definition of fraud, which is what Bush has effected on the American people and the people of the world.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Probably about the same publicity Donald Rumsfeld received when in 1983 he visited Saddam in Iraq to sell him weapons. Or about the same about of publicity Ronald Reagan received when Saddam visited him in the White House.

Yes folks, these events ACTUALLY happened.

Huh? When did Saddam visit Reagan at the White House?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by DrChinese

The truth about Iraqi WMD: Bush claimed the US should attack immediately to defend itself pre-emptively against the imminent use of the WMDs its intelligence indicated existed in abundance. Bush's assertions amount to either lies or a wanton disregard for the truth, based on what we know today. In a court of law, this would fit the legal definition of fraud, which is what Bush has effected on the American people and the people of the world.

"You can't handle the truth".

The truth is we won a war in record time with a minimum of civilian casualties. The truth is we are defending ourselves from a group of terrorists and countries that harbor terrorists who want us dead. Do they want us dead because of US influence and mishandled foreign policy or do they want us dead because we are infidels? Only their Mullahs know for sure :D

Saddam had WMD, everyone knows it. What you should worry about is where did those WMD go? He never accounted for them as several Security Council resolutions and the terms of his surrender from the Gulf war demanded. There are a couple of nuclear facilities in Iraq that can't even be searched right now, because even with protective gear on, after about 20 min. of exposure you'd be puking your guts out from radiation poisoning. Is it possible that some of the weapons are hidden there? There have already been found several underground laboratories that we know of. Is it possible there are ones that we don't know of? Is it possible that some of the WMD's are buried under tons of rubble from bunker buster bombs?

I've said it before, and I stand by it: It is premature to say that there are no WMD's in Iraq before the search is concluded.

And what about those mobile labs? Have you made yourself believe that they were to produce hydrogen for weather balloons?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Well it has taken one war, about 100 billion dollars, and thousands to die, but the White House is finally admitting their actual rationale concerning Iraq and there WMDs.
Originally posted by rikzilla
That's their,...not "there". ;)

*snip*

The war, it's casualties, and it's cost are the full responsability of Mr. Hussein and his regime.That's "its," not "it's." (Though I'll give you a freebie on the misused ellipsis and the misplaced period.) ;)

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by ssibal


Huh? When did Saddam visit Reagan at the White House?

Sorry, my error. It was Tariq Aziz at the White house, not Saddam. Then VP Bush was present as well. See picture (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/nsa/publications/iraqgate/igpic.html).

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


There are a couple of nuclear facilities in Iraq that can't even be searched right now, because even with protective gear on, after about 20 min. of exposure you'd be puking your guts out from radiation poisoning.

Could you provide a link?

And what about those mobile labs? Have you made yourself believe that they were to produce hydrogen for weather balloons?

I can believe it. yah. It seems to me less of a stretch than believing they were weapons labs.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
The truth is we won a war in record time with a minimum of civilian casualties.
Minimum for a war, yes, but still more civilian casualties than from the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
The truth is we are defending ourselves from a group of terrorists and countries that harbor terrorists who want us dead.
Which terrorists were Iraqi? I seem to have misplaced that list. Osama hated Saddam.

Do they want us dead because of US influence and mishandled foreign policy or do they want us dead because we are infidels? Only their Mullahs know for sure :D
Well, we've been infidels for many years, but the terrorist attacks only began since we started interfering in Middle East politics. Do you think there is a connection?

Saddam had WMD, everyone knows it. What you should worry about is where did those WMD go?
Yes, he had them years ago. If he had them recently, then they went somewhere that we don't know, and yes that does worry me. It does seem odd, though, that no one he gave them to has used them against the forces which occupy Iraq. They are a perfect target, all grouped together within easy reach. Also, chem and bio weapons degrade quickly if they are not used. Thank goodness we are dealing with thoughtful terrorists.:rolleyes:

There are a couple of nuclear facilities in Iraq that can't even be searched right now, because even with protective gear on, after about 20 min. of exposure you'd be puking your guts out from radiation poisoning.
This is the first I've heard of them. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

Is it possible that some of the weapons are hidden there? There have already been found several underground laboratories that we know of. Is it possible there are ones that we don't know of? Is it possible that some of the WMD's are buried under tons of rubble from bunker buster bombs?
They would put the weapons where they couldn't get to them without being poisoned by radiation? That's really useful. They busted the bunkers, but no germs, gas or radiation leaked out? Again, your suppositions are unsupported.

I've said it before, and I stand by it: It is premature to say that there are no WMD's in Iraq before the search is concluded.
And yet it was not premature for the US to invade, claiming the WMDs definately did exist, even before the search was concluded?:rolleyes:
And what about those mobile labs? Have you made yourself believe that they were to produce hydrogen for weather balloons?
There is simply no evidence that they were used for WMDs. If you wish to propose that the presence of certain types of equipment proves what their purpose was, well then, they were better equipped for making hydrogen than they were for making WMDs. Of course, the only honest thing to do is to admit (as I have) that we simply don't know what they were for. We also don't know how recently they had been used.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Sorry, my error. It was Tariq Aziz at the White house, not Saddam. Then VP Bush was present as well. See picture (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/nsa/publications/iraqgate/igpic.html).

(You forgot to mention the picture of (I think Cheny) meeting with Saddam.)

You will ALWAYS have pictures of top politician of a 'good' country meeting with top politicians of a bad country. Such meetings occur regularly and are a part of normal diplomacy. The pictures can also be taken out of context. Therefore, I tend not to put any 'faith' in pictures like this.

(Note: There is also a picture of Saddam and Chirac taken years ago; however, I don't think that implies that Chirac was somehow best-buddies with Saddam.)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tricky

Minimum for a war, yes, but still more civilian casualties than from the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

But the question is, will there be fewer Iraqi civilian casulties in the long run as the result of the invasion, than if Saddam had remained in power.

Originally posted by Tricky

Well, we've been infidels for many years, but the terrorist attacks only began since we started interfering in Middle East politics. Do you think there is a connection?

What time line are you referring to? The US (and western powers in general) have been mucking about with the middle east for a long time. Terrorism has been going on for a long time.

Personally, I think the 'bigger' connection is not between the US interferrence in teh middle east and terrorism, but the globalization of media and commerce and terrorism. There was another thread which suggested that the reason why there is so much religious terrorism is because religious types are 'threatened' by the thought of their younger generation being lured by 'thongs and cheeseburgers' from the West. An increase in terrorism seems to coincide with this globalization.

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes, he had them years ago. If he had them recently, then they went somewhere that we don't know, and yes that does worry me. It does seem odd, though, that no one he gave them to has used them against the forces which occupy Iraq. They are a perfect target, all grouped together within easy reach. Also, chem and bio weapons degrade quickly if they are not used. Thank goodness we are dealing with thoughtful terrorists.:rolleyes:


I want to state once again that I don't know what happened to Iraqi weapons (whether they were destroyed years ago, or right before the war, or they still exist somewhere.)

However, if they do still exist, I think there is a very good reason they haven't been used; any use of them would immediately justify the American invasion. By holding off on the use of WMD, the Americans end up 'looking bad'... people start grumbling about made-up evidence, etc. Once chem or bio weapons are used, much of the 'doubt' over the invasion would disappear. (Perhaps not all of it, but some of it.)

From a tactical stand point, the best solution (if weapons do still exist) is to hold on to them, wait until the 'fall out' over the invasion is over and people forget how bad Saddam was, THEN start to use them. And yes, I do know that they supposedly have a 'shelf life' of only a few years. However, they do retain some effectiveness past that 'shelf life'; and in many cases, just the panic that results would make their use worth while.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well I see the propoganda machine is up and running, and that anti-american, anti-war radicals are churning out propoganda full speed ahead. Especially Cain who has resorted to using comics, (of course when fundies or conservatives do it, it's bad propoganda, when he does it, its good humor.)

Not that I condemn all propoganda, it has its place. It just shouldn't be used in a serious discussion. And it is somewhat hypocritical for someone that seems to have such strong a strong dedication to "consistency".

He shamelessly invoked the memory of 9/11 to invade a country alleged to present a "grave danger" to the world. If you want to go in to liberate Iraqis, bring about democracy, improve their lives, great. But the administration never made this case (and it's laughable given our past support for Saddam, arguably at the height of his terror).

Saddam did present a grave danger, if not now for sure in the future. He wasn't building a Babylon cannon for defense you know. And he was hiding from UN inspectors, he did kick them out at one point. It was only a matter of us getting lax and him getting time.

And the administration did state explicitly one of our goals was to free the Iraqi people. And no, freeing millions of people from a totalitarian dictator is not laughable. And we wereb't really supporting Saddam but more helping him defend against Iran. So the administration wasn't really as much pro-saddam as much as it was anti-Iran.(Kinda like how FDR gave the brutal Stalin weapons to fight Hitler.) And if you recall Saddam what support he had after he used the weapons and conducted crimes against humanity. Also what's your point...we screw up once so we keep doing it?

We give a dictator weapons out of short term expediency and on a gamble so we let him perhaps seriously damage us in the future?

We sort of failed at nation-building in Afghanistan; it's a mess by all accounts.

Well that is certainly jumping the gun now....

Though perhaps not for most anti-war activists who insisted it would fail even before we got there.

Are you willing to say the region is no better off now or not improving since US liberation?


I also see the absolutist engine is going strong. Being fed as always by hyperbole and confirmation bias.

Tricky:

Now repeat after me...
"If the US gave any WMDs to Iraq, then it is hypocritical if it then complains about them."

Did the US ever say, "Be sure not to use these"? Was Saddam less brutal then, or only the enemy of our enemy?

Of course, if you want to be brutally straight, no country that has WMDs has any right to complain about WMDs. Everybody will have them eventually. You can't get the genie back in the bottle.


AH so its the either/or. Either we have WMDs, don't try to control them at all and don't complain or we don't have WMDs.

To answer Tricky's question we gave Saddam the weapons so he wouldn't lose to Iran. And we gave him less then certain European countries that complain of our self-centerdness.

And what does it mean?

It means the US was thinking short term and needs to fix the problem. Sure that may make the US a bit of a hypocrite but I'd rather be a hypocrite then a man that let bloodthirsty dictators run rampant.

If anything I think because the US gave Saddam the WMDs, that makes it more so America's(and every other country involved in this:France's,Germany's,Russia's) moral duty to correct the problem.

That is more incentive to go to war, not less.

Which terrorists were Iraqi? I seem to have misplaced that list. Osama hated Saddam.


And both hated the US even more......

They are a perfect target, all grouped together within easy reach. Also, chem and bio weapons degrade quickly if they are not used. Thank goodness we are dealing with thoughtful terrorists.

Ah but wasn't the argument before that Iraq wasn't stupid enough to make WMD's for fear of US reprisal....now they are too stupid to know how to hide/destroy them.

Subgenius:

"the ends justify the mean"--wasn't that Adolf's motto?

Well what else can justify the means?

And whatever happened to Godwin's law....guess it only applies to the pro-war lobby.

Anyways, yeah the end does justify the means. If I can save 1,000 people by murdering one innocent man, I'd do it. If I could save the world by murdering 1 million would you subgenius or would you let the human race go extinct?

Dr.Chinese:

So when it comes to hypocrisy, let's be sure to make everyone aware that the US is in all things... #1. Fact: US stands to make a lot more off Iraq's oil than France ever made off weapon sales. Get real: money had little or nothing to do with France's opposition to the war. I think it hurts some people too much to imagine that someone might actually be against the war because it is wrong.

The US having a chance to gain more money doesn't mean France wouldn't by that token stand to earn less. France's motives could still be economic by your standard though I believe it to be more a combination of economics, anti-american sentiment, and idealist/relativist ideology.

Face it: this argument does not address the substance of the debate, it is a blatent attempt to smear those who oppose the war by stating there are pecuniary motives for those who oppose the war, while claiming those who support the war are somehow of pure motives. Talk turkey in this forum, not trash. We should be discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of the war. I note that no matter how many ways forum particpants point out in thread after thread that no WMD have been found, there are those who attempt to de-rail these discussions and move things off-topic.

Which is what I and other have been trying to do, look at the overall picture, not fixate on the WMD issue.

For me and many others who support the war, the WMD issue was a minor one we knew was exagerated.

But lets look at the benefits: A future threat: ended. A message is sent to other dictators and terrorist supporters. We have a foothold in the ME. The strength of fundamentalist Islam and radical anti-Western, anti-humanist,anti-democratic sentiment declines.

And a nation of millions of people is freed from totalitarian. At little domestic cost.

The only bad thing I see to counter this is the WMD case was exagerated, the US became less popular with certain countries(which obviously didn't care much for us anyways) and America's motives *might* not be benevolent and may be slightly hypocrtical. Along with the usual cost of war(one of the cleanest in history).

To me the benefits outweighs the cost.



Also what many people fail to realize is that evidence can lead you astray.

Remember the Bertand Russel lesson concerning induction. A turkey can conclude after 364 days of being fed eachmorning that this pattern will continue forever, however the next day is Thanksgiving.

Bush could have had evidence to support his assertions yet still have ben wrong. Reason is the best thing we have but reason is not infallible

.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Tricky:

Either 300,000 or 100,000 based on the extensive research of that noted historian, Jedi Knight.



Actually the number is probably much higher then that. As about 250,000 Kurds were killed in a single uprising. Lets also not forget the 400,000 children that died of malnutrition.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030404-1.html
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text2003/0407blackwill2.htm

Though we likewise shouldn't downplay the hundreds of thousands deported and arrested or the tens of millions that live in dire poverty under totalitarian terror.

Most anti-war advocates freak out over Harry Potter book burnings. Or not being allowed to burn the flag. They shouldn't downplay the fact that in Iraq you could get your head chopped off for just talking badly about Saddam Hussein to you friends.
(Imagine if Bush did ANYTHING like Saddam, you'd see plenty of anti-war lobbyists then wishing the EU or China liberated them).

And how many died in the war, not to downplay it but current estimates go to around 3,000 civilian casualties. Far less then under Saddam and UN sanctions.

http://www.nctimes.com/news/2003/20030611/55908.html

Though estimates suggest the numbers may be much higher. But unless they are 100 times higher they won't even approach UN sanctions and Saddam's tyranny.

[reprise]

FWIW, I'm getting sick of various sections of the Australian media trying to hang this one on Bush alone. Our intelligence agencies raised concerns about the accuracy of the intelligence regarding WMD in Iraq at the time it was given to them and our government made its decisions in spite of the concerns expressed by those agencies - trying to portray our government as somehow having been misled by the Bush administration is both inaccurate and cowardly when our government always had other options than simply accepting at face value the information with which it was supplied by the US and making an immediate decision based on that information.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Tricky:



Actually the number is probably much higher then that. As about 250,000 Kurds were killed in a single uprising. Lets also not forget the 400,000 children that died of malnutrition.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030404-1.html
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text2003/0407blackwill2.htm

Though we likewise shouldn't downplay the hundreds of thousands deported and arrested or the tens of millions that live in dire poverty under totalitarian terror.

Most anti-war advocates freak out over Harry Potter book burnings. Or not being allowed to burn the flag. They shouldn't downplay the fact that in Iraq you could get your head chopped off for just talking badly about Saddam Hussein to you friends.
(Imagine if Bush did ANYTHING like Saddam, you'd see plenty of anti-war lobbyists then wishing the EU or China liberated them).

And how many died in the war, not to downplay it but current estimates go to around 3,000 civilian casualties. Far less then under Saddam and UN sanctions.

http://www.nctimes.com/news/2003/20030611/55908.html

Though estimates suggest the numbers may be much higher. But unless they are 100 times higher they won't even approach UN sanctions and Saddam's tyranny.

Once again, diversion as a means of debate. I do not doubt that Saddam was a ruthless butcher, or that anyone in the mainstream press doubted that either. But that was not the issue, and it was not the issued chosen by the US and it's allies as the main reason for the invasion. You cannot, after no WMD were found, say that the war was for the people of Iraq, and didn't Saddam treat them badly. That was never a major concern of those involved in the invasion.

Millions were suffering in Somalia, but when the first casualties were occurring, Clinton dragged the troops out of there as fast as he could to avoid any further political attacks from the Republicans. They were promising when they were elected that they weren't in the business of nation building.

Now all of a sudden they are, and they care about human rights, but still not in Somalia, or Angola, or Burnam, or Indonesia, or any number of other countries.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Once again, diversion as a means of debate. I do not doubt that Saddam was a ruthless butcher, or that anyone in the mainstream press doubted that either. But that was not the issue, and it was not the issued chosen by the US and it's allies as the main reason for the invasion. You cannot, after no WMD were found, say that the war was for the people of Iraq, and didn't Saddam treat them badly. That was never a major concern of those involved in the invasion.


Different supporters of the invasion had different reasons for supporting the invasion. For me and many others, WMD did play a role, but only a partial one, and my posisition has not changed. Some may have even supported the war purely on a humanitarian basis.

It should be noted that Resolution 1441 had portions criticising Iraq for Human rights, and terrorist links. Bush also brought up these same issues PRIOR to the invasion, in an address to the UN. (I believe Aerocontrols posted a link to the speach a while ago; anyone have the link handy?)

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Millions were suffering in Somalia, but when the first casualties were occurring, Clinton dragged the troops out of there as fast as he could to avoid any further political attacks from the Republicans. They were promising when they were elected that they weren't in the business of nation building.


Somalia is very similary to Vietnam... The American's had very little chance at success because they didn't supply their forces properly. (I believe Clinton withdrew all heavy armour, which would have been very helpful in carrying out their mission.) Basically, the US went in without the tools to do their job.

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Now all of a sudden they are, and they care about human rights, but still not in Somalia, or Angola, or Burnam, or Indonesia, or any number of other countries.

How would you react if the US did send in forces into those areas? Would you support them? or would you view it as American Imperialism?

Personally, I think the US should go into some of these other places, but even though they are very powerful, they can't be everywhere. So choices have to be made.

Some cases are 'no win' situations. In Iraq, the US had one clear objective (and one clear enemy)... Saddam's government. And the majority of Iraqis probably agreed that Saddam had to be removed. In Somalia, you have one group of people fighting against another group; both hate each other. There is no clear objective, other than keeping both sides from slaughtering each other. Even then, how do you measure success?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Different supporters of the invasion had different reasons for supporting the invasion. For me and many others, WMD did play a role, but only a partial one, and my posisition has not changed. Some may have even supported the war purely on a humanitarian basis.

It should be noted that Resolution 1441 had portions criticising Iraq for Human rights, and terrorist links. Bush also brought up these same issues PRIOR to the invasion, in an address to the UN. (I believe Aerocontrols posted a link to the speach a while ago; anyone have the link handy?)



Somalia is very similary to Vietnam... The American's had very little chance at success because they didn't supply their forces properly. (I believe Clinton withdrew all heavy armour, which would have been very helpful in carrying out their mission.) Basically, the US went in without the tools to do their job.



How would you react if the US did send in forces into those areas? Would you support them? or would you view it as American Imperialism?

Personally, I think the US should go into some of these other places, but even though they are very powerful, they can't be everywhere. So choices have to be made.


Which one of the points I have been making. Why, out of all the countries suffering human rights abuses, go for Iraq? In Somalia, Clinton may have sent in more troops, but any deaths were sheeted home directly to him. The same is not happing to dubya, even though US troops are still dying in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As for the hypothetical question about the US going into some of these other countries, I think you will find this stays a hypothetical question for many years to come.

[reprise]

Personally, I think the US should go into some of these other places, but even though they are very powerful, they can't be everywhere. So choices have to be made.

I also think it's important to acknowledge that nation-building is an essential part of stabilising countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if the US has the military power to force regime change in many countries in relatively rapid succession, it does not necessarily have unlimited resources to commit to the longterm reconstruction of all of those nations at the one time - it either needs to wait until it has those resources available or it needs other countries to be prepared to commit to the process of nation-building.

[Earthborn]

And how many died in the war, not to downplay it but current estimates go to around 3,000 civilian casualties. Far less then under Saddam and UN sanctions.

http://www.nctimes.com/news/2003/20030611/55908.html

Though estimates suggest the numbers may be much higher. But unless they are 100 times higher they won't even approach UN sanctions and Saddam's tyranny.I agree. AP isn't the only one to estimate civilian casualties. Iraqi Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net) estimates the number of civilian casualties is between 5567 and 7240 at the moment I type this. It should be noted that this estimate covers a much larger area, but does not count actual casualties, but the casualties reported in the press. AP tries to count death certificates, but as a result can only cover a smaller area and only people who are brought into a hospital. Both approaches have their limitations.

Here (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_june1203.htm) is the AP tally (and other similar projects) discussed by Iraqi Body Count. They have a few criticisms, but generally agree that it is a good study.

Also we should realize that the problems in Iraq are not quite over yet, and the number of civilians killed in the American led attacks happened in a short period of time. The Iraqi regime had a lot more time to all the people it did. I have been following Iraqi Body Count from before this war officially started, and the killing of civilians has definitely slowed down now, so I have good hope that the US will never even come close to Saddam's death toll in the long run.

But I am still nagged by my Ethics question (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17489&highlight=ethics): "Is it justifiable to kill the few, to save the many?"

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Tricky

Minimum for a war, yes, but still more civilian casualties than from the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

Which terrorists were Iraqi? I seem to have misplaced that list. Osama hated Saddam.


Well, we've been infidels for many years, but the terrorist attacks only began since we started interfering in Middle East politics. Do you think there is a connection?


Yes, he had them years ago. If he had them recently, then they went somewhere that we don't know, and yes that does worry me. It does seem odd, though, that no one he gave them to has used them against the forces which occupy Iraq. They are a perfect target, all grouped together within easy reach. Also, chem and bio weapons degrade quickly if they are not used. Thank goodness we are dealing with thoughtful terrorists.:rolleyes:


This is the first I've heard of them. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?


They would put the weapons where they couldn't get to them without being poisoned by radiation? That's really useful. They busted the bunkers, but no germs, gas or radiation leaked out? Again, your suppositions are unsupported.


And yet it was not premature for the US to invade, claiming the WMDs definately did exist, even before the search was concluded?:rolleyes:

There is simply no evidence that they were used for WMDs. If you wish to propose that the presence of certain types of equipment proves what their purpose was, well then, they were better equipped for making hydrogen than they were for making WMDs. Of course, the only honest thing to do is to admit (as I have) that we simply don't know what they were for. We also don't know how recently they had been used.

Here's a link to a story about the radiation. (http://www.greatestjeneration.com/archives/001203.php) Beyond the poisoning that the looting created, is it all possible that these materials were left there as a trap? You know how Saddam likes to leave behind a scorched Earth and all.

So the 16 months of "diplomacy" didn't give Saddam much time to hide WMD?

Terrorists in Iraq? How about Abu Musab Zarqawi (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-05-zarqawi-usat_x.htm) ?

I don't doubt that Osama hated Saddam. The sons of Abraham all hate each other. They hate us more, that's all. "Brother before other" or some such is how the saying goes.

Is it at all possible that WMD's have not been used against coalition forces because of the threat of retaliation with "tactical nukes"? I think it's more likely that Saddam just played it smart, trying to look like a martyr and stir up the Islamic fundies.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Here's a link to a story about the radiation. (http://www.greatestjeneration.com/archives/001203.php) Beyond the poisoning that the looting created, is it all possible that these materials were left there as a trap? You know how Saddam likes to leave behind a scorched Earth and all.
LOL. That story is more than two months old and has already been thoroughly debunked. It was hospital waste, and the UN already knew about it. It was one of the first pies that hit the face of the US in the post-war search for WMDs.

Scorched earth? In Kuwait, perhaps, but apparently not in his own country. Aside from a very few oil fires, what part of Iraq did Saddam scorch as he left?

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
So the 16 months of "diplomacy" didn't give Saddam much time to hide WMD?
And not one single person knows where he hid them? All the folks we have captured and civilians we have questioned cannot lead us to one single WMD? Did he hide them all himself?

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Terrorists in Iraq? How about Abu Musab Zarqawi (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-05-zarqawi-usat_x.htm) ?
And his connection to Saddam was what? If a government is terrorist because some terrorists get into the country, then the US is a terrorist government. BTW. This story is so old it is pre-war. As we have discovered, our pre-war intelligence was not, shall we say, Bond-like.

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I don't doubt that Osama hated Saddam. The sons of Abraham all hate each other. They hate us more, that's all. "Brother before other" or some such is how the saying goes.

Yes, I'm sure Osama hated the West more than Saddam, but that doesn't mean he ever worked with Saddam, and there is zero evidence that he did.

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Is it at all possible that WMD's have not been used against coalition forces because of the threat of retaliation with "tactical nukes"? I think it's more likely that Saddam just played it smart, trying to look like a martyr and stir up the Islamic fundies.
Uh huh. That means that Saddam cared more about preventing nuclear war than the US did. I had no idea he was such a humanitarian.

[DialecticMaterialist]

AP isn't the only one to estimate civilian casualties. Iraqi Body Count estimates the number of civilian casualties is between 5567 and 7240 at the moment I type this. It should be noted that this estimate covers a much larger area, but does not count actual casualties, but the casualties reported in the press. AP tries to count death certificates, but as a result can only cover a smaller area and only people who are brought into a hospital. Both approaches have their limitations.

Perhaps the AP is maybe being a bit more cautious then a group with an obvious/extreme ideological agenda?

As for your ethics question: Yes it is. Would you rather kill the many to save the few all things being equal?

Is your morality deontological?

In any event, lets say we do accept the bloated figure of 7,000. That's still far less then the the single incident Saddam orchestrated where 250,000 kurds were killed. There is more as well. Saddam has probably been responsible for the deaths of millions in his lifetime.

According to any reasoning that says "You cannot kill the few to save the many" you cannot fight a war at all. The Allies would have had to sit there and watch Hilter win world war 2. The Union would have had to watch the Confederacy during the civil war.


Peace is a great good; and doubly harmful, therefore, is the attitude of those who advocate it in the terms that would make it synonymous with selfish and cowardly shrinking from warring against the existence of evil.
-T. Roosevelt

[Tricky]

A government intelligence expert has come forth and admitted that he was pressured to distort his reports. In this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/25/international/worldspecial/25INTE.html)
Christian Westermann, became the first member of the intelligence community on active service to make this sort of admission to members of Congress.
although
A number of analysts at the C.I.A. and other agencies have privately complained over the past few months that they felt pressure from administration officials to write reports that they believe overstated evidence that Iraq had illegal weapons programs and terrorist links.

The information Westerman was pressured to distort was not about Iraq but about Cuba, nor did he change any of the wording of his reports. However, it is at least significant that there is a named source claiming that this sort of pressure does occur.

[Earthborn]

Perhaps the AP is maybe being a bit more cautious then a group with an obvious/extreme ideological agenda?With obvious I agree. (And I prefer to know peoples ideological agenda's when they do things) But extreme? In what way?As for your ethics question: Yes it is. Would you rather kill the many to save the few all things being equal?You should read the thread where I raised the question. I offered a hypothetical situation (although not so hypothetical in some countries!) in which killing many to save a few is, according to most people, the right thing to do.Is your morality deontological?You won't impress me with your fancy words. :)In any event, lets say we do accept the bloated figure of 7,000.Bloated, right... Well sofar it is the most comprehenisive tally of civilian causualties, and they only count casualties caused by specific incidents and not indirect effects. So until you there is a better count, let's not call this one 'bloated' just yet...That's still far less then the the single incident Saddam orchestrated where 250,000 kurds were killed.This is true.There is more as well. Saddam has probably been responsible for the deaths of millions in his lifetime.Millions? Not saying that isn't true, I'm only saying that it requires some evidence.According to any reasoning that says "You cannot kill the few to save the many" you cannot fight a war at all.In another scenario I presented in the Ethics Question thread, a reasoning that says that you allows you to kill to save the many makes that you can't fight war either, but making it necessary to use the resources it costs to save people from disease... That makes it so complicated.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originaly posted by peptoabyssmal
The truth is we are defending ourselves from a group of terrorists and countries that harbor terrorists who want us dead.

Care to explain where Iraq fits into that definition or tell us what your definition of a terrorist is? Which group of terrorists currently fall into your definition and more imprtantly which countries currently fall into your definition.

For example does the Cosa Nostra fall into your definition of a terrorist group which wants to kill USA citizens?