logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> WMD = New World Gulf of Tonkin?, Is There Really A Correlation? Really?
johnlocke
post Dec 6 2005, 08:26 AM
Post #1


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 683
Member No.: 709
Joined: May-4-03

From: To Your Right.
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



In 1975 when Richard Nixon withdrew the United States from the Vietnam War it was painfully obvious that the American peace movement was able to coral a lot of support because it was correct in it's assertion that the war was not necessary.

The Gulf of Tonkin Affair ( http://www.whitehousetapes.org/exhibits/tonkin/text.htm ) was the prime reason for going to war in Vietnam, and as it was later revealed in the Pentagon Papers ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers ), the entire incident was contrived.

Today with the War in Iraq many people give the same level of credence to the purpose of our military being in Iraq based soley on the idea that they believe that President Bush lied about the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq leading up to the war. However there are many differences and similarities historically speaking, it seems to me that the differences here constitute a debate.

In my opinion President Bush did not present any evidence that members of the Security Council didn't have access to, all of whom were not Republicans, all of whom, voted to go to war. Nor did he (as far as I know) withold any information that he had about the evidence for WMD in Iraq from the American public.

So the questions are as follows:

Is there any sound evidence that President Bush intentionally misled the American public, to go to war in Iraq?

Is there a correlation between the Gulf of Tonkin Affair, and the lack of WMD in Iraq ?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 32)
TruthMarch
post Jan 31 2006, 05:06 AM
Post #21


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 265
Member No.: 5,806
Joined: January-27-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



This is kind of simple. I think the 911 'terror' attack was the Gulf of Tonkin comparison, and the WMD is equal to 'containing Communism' and 'helping poor beleaguered South Vietnam from falling into the domino theory'. The pretext in Vietnam was the fabled attack on the US ship Maddox. The pretext in Iraq is the 911 attack and fighting 'terrorism'.
I don't know if this is against the rules here (yeah I should read them more closely but instead will just take my 3 strike chances) but this link has a video clip of Condeleeza Rice and Colin Powell (separate clips) stating their containment policy against Hussein's Iraq was highly successful. Here's an excerpt:
Colin Powell, Egypt, 2001
QUOTE
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

Mz. Rice stated, in reference to the sanctions:
QUOTE
But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

Full video link:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Feb 1 2006, 09:53 PM
Post #22


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
TruthMarch
but this link has a video clip of Condeleeza Rice and Colin Powell (separate clips) stating their containment policy against Hussein's Iraq was highly successful. Here's an excerpt:
Colin Powell, Egypt, 2001


Highly successful is a relative term and this was before 9/11 and the additional concerns that came thereafter. Also this is not all Powell said. He also said :

There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, .....,
We have not been able to get the inspectors back in, though, to verify that, and we have not been able to get the inspectors in to pull up anything that might be left there

And those missing “stockpiles” were the concern of the UN and the Bush administration in 2002-2003. The UN was looking for verification that Iraq destroyed (unilaterally and illegally) tons of deadly VX nerve gas and thousands of liters of Anthrax. This was the subject of UN 1441 and a s you know Iraq never complied. Iraq never complied with ANY UN Resolution and as we discovered later the plan was to wait out the Sanctions while maintaining the WMD and programs to produce more.

This post has been edited by Ted: Feb 1 2006, 09:54 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TruthMarch
post Feb 1 2006, 10:28 PM
Post #23


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 265
Member No.: 5,806
Joined: January-27-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Sorry but I think the fact is that Iraq told the US and the UN that they had no WMD anymore and they even went so far as to give up the infamous 10,000 page report on their fabled WMD programs which the US edited out over 6,000 pages. The time has come long ago to stop trusting in the politician's word and stop the aggressive actions which protract an unwinnable concept i.e. war on 'terror'. There's good reason why your hypothetical daughter gives you her diary upon demand, though it's missing a ton of dates, ripped out to be sidestepped. Now why would someone edit out pages of a document? It's a sad fact that Hussein and 'evil' Iraq turned out to be telling the truth and the US officials all turned out to be wrong.
The overall fact is that since the US deleted over 50% of a (requested) document, they have something to hide. Seriously. Let's apply the same western democracy to this. The same people claim to be exporting to Iraq. You Ted are accused of a crime. You deny it. Your accusers make lots of outlandish claims about you and your future intentions as if they were swamis and can see into the future. You defend yourself with written documented evidence, evidence which can clear the matter once and for all, for the world to behold. Then you find out your accusers burned over 50% of your evidence, and refuse to tell the world what they are hiding. No one, Ted, of course, listens to you. Why? Simple. Because for months on end they have been reading and hearing about how evil you are and how heinous your 'crimes' are, of course not mentioning that your current accusers were your previous political allies with a very nice fair comfortable relationship beneficial to all.
Think that's fair?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Feb 2 2006, 04:18 PM
Post #24


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
TruthMarch
It's a sad fact that Hussein and 'evil' Iraq turned out to be telling the truth and the US officials all turned out to be wrong



I have no clue what you are speaking of. The UN compiled a 12,000 page report which was still referred to by Blix in 2003.

The reality is Iraq never ever complied with a single UN resolution. Serious questions were raised by Butler and Blix concerning WMD that Iraqi records captured in 1991-1995 showed they produced and they ADMITTED to having produced. ALL UN resolutions required Iraq to bring out these WMDs for destruction supervised by the UN. Instead Iraq told the UN they destroyed the WMD unilaterally! And by the way they have no proof of doing this.

If you believe this nonsense that’s fine but the UN never did. See my posts here:

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...opic=11647&st=0

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...pic=11594&st=20


If you have some secret proof that Iraq destroyed all the missing WMD please post it here so we can all see it.

This post has been edited by Ted: Feb 2 2006, 04:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TruthMarch
post Feb 3 2006, 08:01 PM
Post #25


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 265
Member No.: 5,806
Joined: January-27-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Allow me a moment to be playful here. Make your argument but this time without any mention of Iraq not complying with UN Security Council Resolutions because, as we all should know, a level playing field is and should be mandatory. If that is not a parameter, then the argument anyone makes is for naught. I'm sure it's a bore by now but there is a very long list of UN Resolutions directed towards Israel and the United States, and they've all been ignored. Resolutions made in the very same rooms as were the ones Iraq supposedly were ignoring. (It's funny how in retrospect Iraq did what anyone would have done if faced with assertions which are not true. After repeated responses onto deaf ears, they finally ignored them). The idea that Hussein kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq is a media fallacy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Feb 3 2006, 09:10 PM
Post #26


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
TruthMarch
I'm sure it's a bore by now but there is a very long list of UN Resolutions directed towards Israel and the United States, and they've all been ignored. Resolutions made in the very same rooms as were the ones Iraq supposedly were ignoring. (It's funny how in retrospect Iraq did what anyone would have done if faced with assertions which are not true. After repeated responses onto deaf ears, they finally ignored them). The idea that Hussein kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq is a media fallacy.

Come on please. Why would I ever even try to compare Regimes like that of Saddam’s Iraq to the US. WE did not invade a neighbor or kill thousands of our citizens with VX nerve gas. AND Iraq signed said Resolutions so as to remain a soverign state and the US and the UN had the right to expect them to live up to them – which they never did. And Iraq did effectively “kick the inspectors out” in 1998 by refusing to let them “inspect”. What would you have had them do? Stay and play cards in thir spare time?

What “assertions that were not true” are you speaking of? It cannot be the WMD Iraq admitted to having can it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TruthMarch
post Feb 6 2006, 04:37 PM
Post #27


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 265
Member No.: 5,806
Joined: January-27-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



No one has ever asked you to compare Israel to Hitler. No one. All this is about is the fact read that: FACT that Israel and the US act exactly the same as they say Hussein did. That is to ignore the UN. It matters not a whit who or what or why. You're saying the law is only restricted to certain groups? Ha. That's so naive I doubt you even think that. This is not about particular crimes nor about particular groups. It's about the UN Security Council creating a resolution which is ignored. That's it. This idea of two sets of justice is pathetic and kind of humiliating for anyone who is truly all for real freedom and democracy.
In the end, the US and Israel have ignored more UN resolutions than Iraq ever had. And that's a sad fact which creates poor excuses. Excuses like "hell I'm not comparing dead Jewish people to dead Iraqi people" never impress me. If you wish to compare crimes and (often faulty) statistics, then this isn't the thread to do it. My part is about UN resolutions being ignored. Are you, Ted, saying it's fine for the US and Israel to ignore the UN, but it's not ok for anyone else to ignore the UN? Perhaps Iraq looked to Israel's example and decided to copy them. How about this? When the UN makes a resolution, they should be adhered to. Iraq, the US, Israel, everyone. Sound fair?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TruthMarch
post Feb 6 2006, 04:42 PM
Post #28


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 265
Member No.: 5,806
Joined: January-27-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
WE did not invade a neighbor or kill thousands of our citizens with VX nerve gas

Hold on a second. First, the US is the one who provided such evil weapons and the US were the ones who shared vital top secret sattelite intelligence with Hussein so he could kill as many people as he could with efficiency. Second, one has to wonder why you don't equate that comment with the US's killing of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. Even if you use the lower bush-endorsed figure of 30,000, that's still pretty high don't you agree? And for the international record, the US invasion of Iraq is by all standards, illegal. As is the occupation of Iraq. By the way, why is Iraq worth an American life? Because the US cares for the Iraqi people? laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Feb 6 2006, 07:12 PM
Post #29


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
TruthMarch
In the end, the US and Israel have ignored more UN resolutions than Iraq ever had. And that's a sad fact which creates poor excuses. Excuses like


What Resolutions have the US and Israel ignored. The Resolutions Iraq ignored grew out of a vast UN operation that cost the US lives, occupied an ally, and threatened our vital interests in the area. If your idea is that we have no right to do anything related to UN resolutions then fine- we will defend our allies and our interests in the world. Would that be ok with you or should we as a nation go hide our heads in the sand?

QUOTE
Second, one has to wonder why you don't equate that comment with the US's killing of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians


Nonsense. Want to show a link - one that has real data.

QUOTE
Hold on a second. First, the US is the one who provided such evil weapons


HUH? What exactly are you speaking of. Please post something when you make claims like this.

This post has been edited by Ted: Feb 6 2006, 07:15 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TruthMarch
post Feb 6 2006, 10:11 PM
Post #30


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 265
Member No.: 5,806
Joined: January-27-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



I'm surprised someone on top of things would need provided links as it was headline news for a while not long ago. The mainstream version has Bush claiming 30,000 Iraqi civilian dead. Interesting. The President is telling us that innocent Iraqi deaths are ten times more than any American 911 statistics, and this is a country which had nothing to do with 911 at all. But here are a couple of them (which I think you may be anxious to see).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/
As for the known fact that the US supplied Iraq with his scary illegal WMD (the US isn't exclusive to this fact by the way):
http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina...hp&id=815&blz=1
"September 1988. U.S. Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. (7)".
http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/Features/iraq.html
"...more than 207 companies from 21 western countries, including at least 18 from the United States, contributed to the buildup of Saddam Hussein's arsenal. Subsequent investigations turned up more than 100 more companies participating in the Iraqi weapons buildup".
Also:
"The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories," Gonzalez said. "Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Feb 7 2006, 08:53 PM
Post #31


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
TruthMarch
I'm surprised someone on top of things would need provided links as it was headline news for a while not long ago


Come on please this is the same internet garbage that has been going around for years and is not supported by a lot of REAL data. This on the 30,000 deaths claim: From YOUR source.

Unofficial estimates of civilian deaths had varied from 10,000 to over 37,000.[/b]
The Lancet admits the research is based on a small sample - under 1,000 homes
QUOTE
and the bacteria would be based on a strain imported from the United States.


And of course this anthrax bacteria nonsense is as old as the hills. The bacteria was “based on” a “strain” (of commercially available at the time) garden variety anthrax. Iraq got this from the US and others and then , the important part – they weaponized it. Iraq was one of the few countries in the world capable of doing this.


Public misconceptions exist in the areas of treatment, prevention, detection, and destructiveness with regard to the character of anthrax. First of all, it is not the bacteria, Bacillus anthracis, that poses the greatest risk, but its dry concentrated spores. Inhaled spores, several microns in diameter, reach deep into the lungs

In a recent issue of PNAS, Wein, Craft, and Kaplan (3) filled this critical gap by providing quantitative assessment of the deaths resultant to a civilian population from an airborne attack of weaponized anthrax on a large city
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/8/4355


Your effort to blame the work of madmen on the US is ridiculous – at best.

This post has been edited by Ted: Feb 7 2006, 09:03 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TruthMarch
post Feb 7 2006, 09:26 PM
Post #32


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 265
Member No.: 5,806
Joined: January-27-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



[/QUOTE]September 1988. U.S. Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. (7)[QUOTE]
The US shipping weapons-grade anthrax to Iraq. But it wasn't weapons-grade until it hit Iraqi soil, right. Gee. The US sure enabled Iraq's WMD program didn't they? When they could have just sent non-weaponized anthrax instead.
And the way you say 'your' numbers is funny. It's almost as if you're not responding with your own numbers as well. Or let me guess. Your numbers are right and my numbers are wrong, right?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Feb 13 2006, 04:55 PM
Post #33


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(TruthMarch @ Feb 7 2006, 05:26 PM)
September 1988. U.S. Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. (7)
QUOTE
The US shipping weapons-grade anthrax to Iraq. But it wasn't weapons-grade until it hit Iraqi soil, right. Gee. The US sure enabled Iraq's WMD program didn't they? When they could have just sent non-weaponized anthrax instead.
And the way you say 'your' numbers is funny. It's almost as if you're not responding with your own numbers as well. Or let me guess. Your numbers are right and my numbers are wrong, right?
*




The US has never EVER shipped “weaponized” anthrax to Iraq or any other country. If you have any proof that this was ever done please post the SITE link so all of us can see it. Iraq weaponized anthrax which was commericlly available, for research, from numerous countries including the US.

Anthrax As a Bioterrorist Weapon
Aerosol release of weaponized spores is the most likely mechanism for use of anthrax as a biological weapon (see References: Inglesby 2002). However, deliberate contamination of food also potentially could occur. During World War II, the Japanese reportedly impregnated chocolate with anthrax to kill Chinese children. The apartheid government of South Africa also experimented with anthrax in chocolate (see References: Sirisanthana 2002).
Although there is no formal definition of weaponized anthrax, weaponization for aerosol release generally involves:
• Use of small particle size
• A high concentration of spores
• Treatment to reduce clumping
• Neutralization of the electrical charge
• Use of antimicrobial-resistant strains or genetic modification of the organism to increase virulence or escape vaccine protection
In 1972, more than 140 countries signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, which called for termination of all offensive biological weapons research and development and destruction of existing biological weapons stocks. However, the former Soviet Union continued to expand its biological weapons program (which included weaponization of anthrax) throughout the 1980s and early 1990s.
After the demise of the Soviet Union, many of the scientists who worked in the biological weapons program left the country. The status of those scientists remains unknown; however, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and North Korea actively have recruited such experts (see References: Henderson 1999). These countries and others have been suspected of ongoing development of offensive bioweapons programs.


http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/b...nized_Anthrax_1


This post has been edited by Ted: Feb 13 2006, 05:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 2nd, 2021 - 10:52 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.