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 Smoking Gun?
Ringwraith
post Feb 16 2006, 03:27 AM
Post #1


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 253
Member No.: 697
Joined: April-28-03

From: Houston, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



From the following link....

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page...T20060215c.html

QUOTE
Secret audiotapes of Saddam Hussein discussing ways to attack America with weapons of mass destruction will be the subject of an ABC "Nightline" program Wednesday night.....

The tapes are being called the "smoking gun" of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. The New York Sun reported that the tapes have been authenticated and currently are being reviewed by the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

"Saddam's tapes confirm he had active CW [chemical weapons] and BW [biological weapons] programs that were hidden from the UN."


Given the information above that is about to be revealed, I thought I would pose the following questions for debate...

True or False: This information finally proves beyond any doubt Saddam Hussein's intention to use WMD upon America.

Assuming for the moment the information is valid, does this justify the decision to invade Iraq?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Ted
post Mar 1 2006, 05:38 PM
Post #41


***********
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
Nighttimer
And THAT makes the death and maiming of thousands, the expenditure of billions and a country teetering on the verge of all-out civil war worth it? Because George W. Bush might be right about WMD's?

The hell that follows war should never be casually unleashed. What doesn't require the HIGHEST STANDARDS of proof than the reasons to go to war?

It never fails to astonish me the degrees people will go to in defense of this stupid misadventure.


Well actually as I have posted above and elsewhere there is plenty of reason to deal with Iraq. No one has ever shown a single IOTA of proof that Iraq destroyed the TONS of WMD they admitted to having produced. This was the subject of UN 1441.

And quite frankly who gives a damn where they went. (by the way Hillery mentioned Syria in that regard lately) The point is they are missing and if not for GWB the lunatic who made and used them would still be in charge of them. He moved them because we were coming to get them and for no other reason. It never fails to astonish me how far opponents of GW will go in ignoring all evidence on Iraqi WMD and their danger to us.


Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept. The storage places are:
click for images of Iraq's WMD location in Syria : http://www.2la.org/syria/wmd.html
-1- Tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria. These tunnels are an integral part of an underground factory, built by the North Koreans, for producing Syrian Scud missiles. Iraqi chemical weapons and long-range missiles are stored in these tunnels.
-2- The village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there is a big Syrian air force camp. Vital parts of Iraq's WMD are stored there.
-3-. The city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon, south of Homs city.
Nayouf writes that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the commanders of Saddam Hussein's Special Republican Guard, including General Shalish, with the help of Assif Shoakat , Bashar Assad's cousin. Shoakat is the CEO of Bhaha, an import/export company owned by the Assad family.
In February 2003, a month before America's invasion in Iraq, very few are aware about the efforts to bring the Weapons of Mass Destruction from Iraq to Syria, and the personal involvement of Bashar Assad and his family in the operation. Nayouf, who has won prizes for journalistic integrity, says he wrote his letter because he has terminal cancer.
Click here for Satellite Images of the Syrian-Iraq's WMD Locations



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1259806/posts

This post has been edited by Ted: Mar 1 2006, 05:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vsrenard
post Mar 1 2006, 05:59 PM
Post #42


********
vsrenard

Sponsor
September 2008

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,065
Member No.: 5,438
Joined: September-6-05

From: SF Bay Area
Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Other




True or False: This information finally proves beyond any doubt Saddam Hussein's intention to use WMD upon America.

False. What it did was confirm what we already knew--that Saddam Hussein was a bad man with delusions of grandeur.

Assuming for the moment the information is valid, does this justify the decision to invade Iraq?

No. The rationale given for invasion was that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat. That is, he had WMDs and was planning an attack on the US. Nowhere have I found evidence that this was actually the case. In fact, S.H. is on the tape saying that any such attack would not come from Iraq.

GWB made a hasty decision to go to war. He refused to allow the UN inspectors to complete their job. Wait, you say the inspections weren't working? Well, then I maintain that it was our job to make them work, rather than to drag everyone along for a war that would result in so much death and destruction for who knows how long. Does anyone remember the farce of the explanations given for war, and how quickly GWB wanted the UN to agree to it? We should have taken more time then to verify our intel and proceed cautiously but efficiently. The debacle in Iraq is neither.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Mar 1 2006, 06:05 PM
Post #43


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(moif @ Mar 1 2006, 12:21 PM)
I am merely pointing out that a lack of knowledge can not justify any argument.... one way or another.

QUOTE(nighttimer)
The absence of evidence means everything when the President makes the decision to unleash war upon another nation, Moif. The single most important thing a president can do is to send soldiers off to fight and die. If he's going to tell me I have to send my son to Iraq, he'd better be absolutely certain that it's for a credible, valid reason.
And what if he can't be absolutely certain NT?

Would you be willing to cut him some slack in the event of an attack that left your son dead in his home in the USA? Considering how GW Bush was treated over Katrina, I doubt it very much.
So, just how certain does a political leader actually have to be before he unleashes war? 100%? 90%? At what point do you act when the stakes are as high as they are when dealing with a possible attack with weapons of this magnitude?

I don't know ...but what I do know is that I'd rather shoot first and ask questions later when dealing with a threat of that magnitude. As far as I am concerned, the responsibility for the war in Iraq lies with Saddam Hussein. He could have avoided the war, many times but he didn't.

You, for all your conviction, do not know if there were or weren't WMD's in Iraq. You don't know if Saddam Hussein had the capability to attack the USA or not.

Your conviction is based on an assumption.

Possibly even a lie.

What we do know is that the USA once gave Iraq chemicals and biological agents which were not accounted for by Saddam Hussein. This by itself doesn't mean they were still a threat to the western world, but it certainly puts things into a different perspective than the notion that GW Bush 'casually' sent coalition forces into Iraq and then lied about why.
*


It does for you, Moif. Not for me. dry.gif

I'm not interested in engaging in a point-by-point rebuttal, but I'm going to challenge this absurd notion that lacking hard evidence of a credible, imminent threat Bush gets a pass to "shoot first and ask questions later."

Plain and simple, that's NOT how waging war works in a democracy. Not even the President of the United States gets to bomb and kill and maim on the sake of a "hunch" and it's monsterous to assume he does.

The difference between you and I is that you can afford to give Bush the latitude to lie and let U.S. soldiers die. I don't have that luxury because I have a son that can be compelled to fight this wrong-headed war. For me, that is a very real threat and not an intellectually abstract concept.

I hate to pull the "You're Not A American" Card on you, Moif, but in this case it applies. For you, the war is something that doesn't touch you personally. It took a while, but I finally found someone I knew go off and die in Iraq. For Americans, it's our countrymen that are being killed, wounded and chewed up like greasy hamburger for a war (that by some supporter's standards has already accomplished the primary goal in the removal of Saddam Hussein from power).

Regarding cutting Bush some slack, why should I? The incompetent bungling Bush demonstrated in Katrina's aftermath was to be expected. He was asleep at the wheel prior to September 11, 2001 and despite claims to the contrary, America and the world is more vulnerable to radical Islamic fundamentalists, not less. The botched war in Iraq has served to fuel anger and hatred against America. The welcome we were told we would receive as liberators has proven to be another lie from the Bush Administration.

The critical, crucial and important difference between MY belief that Iraq didn't have WMD's, didn't truck 'em over to Syria or bury them in the middle of nowhere, and didn't present a clear and present danger and YOURS that all the preceedng events were true or possibly true is MY BELIEF didn't kill anyone.

We can argue hypotheticals and the "evidence of things not seen." We can ponder what would have happened if Saddam Hussein hadn't been ousted. We can play with words and argue on whose head the burden of proof rests.

What CANNOT be argued is George Walker Bush took the world's most powerful military against a nation that had not attacked us, had no credible links to 9/11 and posed no imminent threat to national or global security.

And I can't argue the dead, wounded and maimed created by Bush's war with you, Moif. That is beyond pointless.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vermillion
post Mar 1 2006, 06:21 PM
Post #44


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,547
Member No.: 2,065
Joined: December-23-03

From: Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 1 2006, 03:57 PM)
Now who is “cherry-picking”?  I know Mr. Blix (after he was fired) said Iraq ‘may” have destroyed their WMD but NOWHERE has he ever said, and certainly not in UN testimony, that he was certain Iraq had no WMD – quite the opposite.    I find it amusing that liberals lock on to anything he said after he was out of Iraq to discount ALL of his statements while he was doing the job.   If you feel he ever said definitively Iraq never had WMD please post it. 


No, of course he never said he was positive Iraq had no WMD, he just said he had found no evidence of such WMD in existence. He confirmed that Iraq HAD destroyed the vast majority of the WMD it had in 1990 under UN supervision, and said there were still some unaccounted for. he also stated it is possible they were destroyed in the Gulf War 1.0 air war, which specifically targeted WMD sites, as Iraq claimed.

No, he simply said he did not know yet, he had found no evidence of any and wanted more time.


QUOTE
And this is not my “precognition” but the opinion of many who were THERE such as Chief inspector Butler who said:


By commenting on your precognition, I was referring to your difinitive statement about what these new tapes will 'prove'.


QUOTE
The OFF scandal will snare US “companies” (as well as French, Russian and German companies).  What I am referring to are governments


(Backpedal, Backpedal)

OK, so now its not the companies you are mad at, but the governments. OK. Please provide ANY PROOF WHATOSEVER that exists tying the corruption scandal to the French government. I mean ANY.

I think you will find there is none. There is a lot of stories and accusations, mostly by US hawks, but no evidence. The far-right in the US seems happy to presume as true any innuendo they here, but only about other governments.

When 52% of the Oil for food scandal happens with US companies, and these US companies subsequently contribute heavily to Bush Jr' and the Republicans, even to the point of the single largest profit maker personally funding the construction of Bush Jr's presiential library, THEN suddenly 'rumous and links of corruption are foul lies with no veracity'.

Aren't blatant double standards fun?

QUOTE
France and Russia had no intension of ever forcing Iraq to comply with UN Resolutions and Iraq knew it.  Thus Saddam felt secure thumbing his nose at the UN and the inspectors.    IMO the war should have been UN lead and could have been if not for this corruption.


Really. Thats a fascinating peice of revisionism. You mean 96% of the planet was against the war because Russia and France took money (that you have no evidence for)? Wow, Did France and Russia pay off the planet then?

And France and Russia had no intention of forcing compliance? Really. Thats the opposite of what they said at the time of course, that they would wait for a UN mandate, before going in. You are projcting utterly baseless accusations about national governments with no foundation at all.

Nations like France and Russia... and Germany and Canada and 95% of the rest of the Planet did not go into Iraq because they were waiting for a UN mandate, which the US refused to consider, rushing the invasion and ignoring the UN. Canada for example declared they would vote for a war, and would follow the UN lead, as did most of these nations. They were following the reccomendations of the UN inspectors in Iraq, who were asking for more time to complete the inspections.

If the war is not a UN war, it is NOT the UN's fault, it is the US's fault for ignoring and trampling over the UN.

Thats why in the end the only nations willing to go along with the US were the UK, Poland.... uh.... and .... didnt Estonia send 30 people?


QUOTE
The point is they are missing and if not for GWB the lunatic who made and used them would still be in charge of them. He moved them because we were coming to get them and for no other reason.


OK, OK, this is my ALL TIME favourite argument from the Hawks.

So you maintain:
-Saddam Hussein had WMD.
-Saddam Hussein wanted to Use these WMD on Americans.

Why? well presumably because he wanted to kill Americans, strike a blow and all that, and because he is a dangerous psychopath.

With me so far? This is The hawk party line, as Typefied by Ted.


SO, The US INVADES Iraq, not once but twice, Hussein is fighting for his life and his country is just full of American targets, he knows if he loses he is done for: dead or on trail, and his regime is over. Nothing to lose now.


So what does this dangerous psychopath with nothing to lose with weapons of Mass destruction and a will to Kill Americans DO, in this situation where he is fighting for his life, using every weapon at his disposal and has a target rich environment full of Americans?


He doesn't use them, In fact, he ships them off to a country he HATES, Syria is a traditional enemy that supported IRAN in the Iran-Iraq war.


He will, in a million years never have a better opportunity and justification for using WMD, and he will never have a chance to kill more Americans. But he does not, instead he apparently gives them to an enemy regime.


Riiiight.

And this is the man we are SURE was a threat to the US? We are SURE he would attack the US and kill Americans if he had the chance?

Well he had the chance, he had the best chance in the world with the perfect justification, when his own life was in the blance, TWICE, and he did not use them.


Does any of this scenario seem just a BIT unrealistic to anyone else?

This post has been edited by Vermillion: Mar 1 2006, 06:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Mar 1 2006, 07:03 PM
Post #45


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,690
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Female
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(nighttimer)
It does for you, Moif. Not for me.  shifty.gif 

I'm not interested in engaging in a point-by-point rebuttal, but I'm going to challenge this absurd notion that lacking hard evidence of a credible, imminent threat Bush gets a pass to "shoot first and ask questions later."
Well, thats your perogative. I however feel inclined to address what you say, rather than just those few aspects which can be turned to represent an argument that fits my replies.

As for the 'absurd notion', I never said Bush had any such 'pass'. I was refering to myself. That is why I wrote 'I'd' rather shoot first and ask questions later when dealing with a threat of that magnitude.

It says a lot about your position that you have to twist my words, or place them out of context in order to make your reply.


QUOTE(nighttimer)
Plain and simple, that's NOT how waging war works in a democracy. Not even the President of the United States gets to bomb and kill and maim on the sake of a "hunch" and it's monsterous to assume he does.
Which is why I never made any such assumption.

I merely pointed out that the arguments made here regarding WMD's are based on ignorance.

That includes your certainty.

The validity of the war or the performance of the president of the USA does not change that one jot. You have chosen, for your own personal reasons to base your arguments on ignorance, apparently for sentimental reasons which to you supercede any decisions that GW Bush may or may not have had to make.


QUOTE(nighttimer)
The difference between you and I is that you can afford to give Bush the latitude to lie and let U.S. soldiers die. I don't have that luxury because I have a son that can be compelled to fight this wrong-headed war. For me, that is a very real threat and not an intellectually abstract concept.

I hate to pull the "You're Not A American" Card on you, Moif, but in this case it applies. For you, the war is something that doesn't touch you personally. It took a while, but I finally found someone I knew go off and die in Iraq. For Americans, it's our countrymen that are being killed, wounded and chewed up like greasy hamburger for a war (that by some supporter's standards has already accomplished the primary goal in the removal of Saddam Hussein from power).
Yes, because of course you know that I have no family or friends serving in Iraq and anyway the death of a US sodlier is just soooooo much more important than the death of a Danish soldier. Right...?

As it happens I do know of a person who has served in Iraq and that person happens to be a friend of mine. He is a Brit and he is at home now, but has been told he may be shipped back to Iraq again.

By the way, that "You're Not An American" Card, is it in any ways similar to the "You're Not Black" argument you once pulled on me?


QUOTE(nighttimer)
The critical, crucial and important difference between MY belief that Iraq didn't have WMD's, didn't truck 'em over to Syria or bury them in the middle of nowhere, and didn't present a clear and present danger and YOURS that all the preceedng events were true or possibly true is MY BELIEF didn't kill anyone.
And how do you know that NT?

What divine insight have you been granted that you are able to view into parrallel dimensions and tell us what would have happened if Iraq had not been invaded?

Your whole argument is based on ignorant assumptions.


QUOTE(nighttimer)
And I can't argue the dead, wounded and maimed created by Bush's war with you, Moif. That is beyond pointless.
It also has nothing at all to do with the topic of this thread, so thats just as well.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Mar 1 2006, 07:37 PM
Post #46


***********
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
Vermillion
No, of course he never said he was positive Iraq had no WMD, he just said he had found no evidence of such WMD in existence. He confirmed that Iraq HAD destroyed the vast majority of the WMD it had in 1990 under UN supervision, and said there were still some unaccounted for. he also stated it is possible they were destroyed in the Gulf War 1.0 air war, which specifically targeted WMD sites, as Iraq claimed.



No he did not say there was no evidence the WMD existed. What he said was, and I have posted it, is there is NO proof the WMD that Iraq admitted to having was ever destroyed. And while you may try to minimize this by saying that “there were still some unaccounted for” - that “some” included tons of VX and thousands of liters of Anthrax.

I never read he felt they were destroyed in Gulf War I – please post quote for me. And quite frankly if he believed that he would not have asked the specific questions that I have quoted. The reality is enough WMD was missing in Iraq to kill every person in the world 4 times. Yes I agree with you. We should have waited longer for it to become clear France and Russia had sold out but we didn’t – oh well




QUOTE
OK, so now its not the companies you are mad at, but the governments. OK. Please provide ANY PROOF WHATOSEVER that exists tying the corruption scandal to the French government. I mean ANY.


Come on please. We know both France and Russia hoped to get hundreds of billions in Iraqi oil field contracts.

A report from a Senate committee has claimed that two politicians, British MP George Galloway and former French government minister Charles Pasqua, were given allocations of oil by Iraq under the OFF programme.
On 16 May 2005, a second set of reports accused Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and former presidential aides Alexander Voloshin and Sergei Issakov, of receiving allocations.

The Oil-for-Food fraud is potentially the biggest scandal in the history of the United Nations and one of the greatest financial scandals of modern times.
The Russian government alone allegedly received an astonishing $1.36 billion in oil vouchers.

The list of Russian entities accused of accepting bribes from Saddam goes to the heart of the Russian financial and political establishment and includes the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Russian Communist Party, Lukoil, Yukos, Gasprom, the Russian Orthodox Church, and the chief of the President's Bureau. The list of French names includes former Interior Minister Charles Pasqua.

The close ties between Russian and French politicians and the Iraqi regime may have been an important factor in influencing their governments' decision to oppose Hussein's removal from power. They also highlight the close triangular working relationships among Paris, Moscow, and Baghdad and the huge French and Russian financial interests in pre-liberation Iraq. Prior to the regime change in April 2003, French and Russian oil companies possessed oil contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime that covered roughly 40 percent of the country's oil wealth.8Congressional hearings on the financial, political, and military links among Moscow, Paris, and Baghdad will help to shed light on the tempestuous Security Council debates that preceded the war with Iraq and on the motives of key Security Council members in opposing regime change in Baghdad

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Internati...ions/bg1772.cfm


You might also be interested in this little piece:

The Oil-for-Food Scandal – the Canadian Connection

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...17/133225.shtml

This post has been edited by Ted: Mar 1 2006, 07:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vermillion
post Mar 1 2006, 07:52 PM
Post #47


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,547
Member No.: 2,065
Joined: December-23-03

From: Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 1 2006, 07:37 PM)
Yes I agree with you. We should have waited longer for it to become clear France and Russia had sold out but we didn’t – oh well

Come on please.  We know both France and Russia hoped to get hundreds of billions in Iraqi oil field contracts.



I must laught.

I should be fair to you Ted, this was kindof a trap. I ask a lot of hawks the same question to laugh at the steriotypical, univeral answer, which you provided. I love hearing a Hawk talk about another country and sincerely believe that they went to war for oil money. The same hawks who spent YEARS defending the US claiming they would never got to war for oil money, that its not about oil money, that oil money is not important, those same people always seem to spin on a dime and yell furiously that 'Everything everybody ELSE does (but not us, not ever us) is about oil money!'

You yell 'They did it for oil' even as you reject the fact that the companies in the US that benefitted from Oil-for-Food scandal subsequently donated huge sums of money to the President and his party MIGHT be called corruption, THATS totally fine and legal and proper and normal and good. right?

Of course, there is no evidence of other nations acting 'just for oil', just your staggeringly unsubstantiated and obviously hypocritical opinion...


You may recall one post ago I asked you for ANY evidence that the French government was implicated in the Oil for food scandal. You responded by claiming they were corrupt, and providing... NO evidence. I did not ask about Russia, because sadly in Russia the main oil company is still tied into the state, and in a sense it is not possible for anything to have doings with oil and NOT have some links to the US.

Mind you, thats not to say there were any. You may recall Rusia had promised not to use its VETO if the UN adopted a resolution for war. So much for your theory.



I find it STAGGERING that you claim that France's desire to keep oil contracts in Iraq was the primary motive for opposing the war, and YET claim that the fact that almost ALL of these oil contracts are held now by US companies (and contributors to Bush jr, who is a former oilman) has NOTHING to do with the US's motives.

Thet level of hypocricy is almost amusing.



And EVEN THEN, you never addressed my point about the fact that, it may surprise you to know, Russia and France were not the only countries to oppose the war without a UN mandate. Almost the WHOLE WORLD did, and they all did it for very clear and reasonable motives, that the haste to go to war was unjustified, and that all the evidence was not in.

Oh, and they were right by the way. Whinge all you want about how IRAQ might have shipped canisters to other countries (like its longtime hated enemy, Syria... boggle) but one of the resons for war was ongoing production of these weapons, and you do not ship away a nuclear research facility or nerve agent lab. The US left having found NO evidence of ANY WMD production facilities, which interestingly is the SAME amount of evidence (none) that the inspectors found.


EDIT to add: I am not attacking sources here, no need since your sources didn't provide anything substantive to my questions, but it might be better if you didn't use personal editorials posted in some of the most blatantly right-wing online sources one would care to find as your 'proof'. Might I humbly suggest for future reference some somewhat more, shall we say... unbiased sources than an editorial on the heritage foundation site?

This post has been edited by Vermillion: Mar 1 2006, 08:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trouble
post Mar 1 2006, 08:14 PM
Post #48


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 751
Member No.: 1,142
Joined: September-6-03

From: Regina, Sk. Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
As for the 'absurd notion', I never said Bush had any such 'pass'. I was refering to myself. That is why I wrote 'I'd' rather shoot first and ask questions later when dealing with a threat of that magnitude.


This arguement feels very familiar Nighttimer. Moif has stated before his intentions that an allegation is enough to go war. We are lead to assume the evidence will appear in our hands once we are engaged in the situation. Sadly, he fails to see this line of behaviour as criminal because this was one of the original intentions of the UN. The coalition of the bullied was a half heartened attempt at pretending to be multilateral.

Accepting this line of thinking has already lead to one preventable war. Now we are to accept this as standard policy (IE PNAC) for X many other countries? Now that is tragic.

QUOTE
It says a lot about your position that you have to twist my words, or place them out of context in order to make your reply.


Uh huh. From my vantage point I would have to disagree. How does vice versa grab you? hmmm.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cube Jockey
post Mar 1 2006, 09:11 PM
Post #49


*********
Now with more truthiness

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,799
Member No.: 1,224
Joined: September-16-03

From: San Francisco, CA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(moif @ Mar 1 2006, 09:21 AM)
I don't know ...but what I do know is that I'd rather shoot first and ask questions later when dealing with a threat of that magnitude. As far as I am concerned, the responsibility for the war in Iraq lies with Saddam Hussein. He could have avoided the war, many times but he didn't.

I don't like GW Bush at all, but I must admit with hindsight that I don't see what other option's were available and all the antiwar sentiments in the world don't change that for me because I don't see whats happening in Iraq as a side show to a bigger performance. The claim that the war in Iraq is some how seperate from everything else we have seen in since the fall of the Berlin wall now strikes me as a twee argument that seeks to isolate those elements of contemporary geo-politics which don't fit in with a certain world view and portray them as seperate from 'the good fight'.
*


This certainly is a wild departure from things you've written not even a year ago Moif. I'm sure you are capable of going back and reviewing your own posts but here are a few examples.

QUOTE(moif)
According to those who still support GW Bush's attack on Iraq, the removal of Saddam Hussein and foundation of a new and 'democratic state' justifies the thousands of civilians deaths caused as a result.

July 3, 2005 - link


QUOTE(moif)
I'm not all that convinced that 'terrorism' is the thing we really get so worked up about.
Looking back on the last few decades in Europe I don't see the near hysterical attitudes towards terrorism that we see today. Paris and London were bombed repeatedly in the 80's but neither nation responded with open warfare against 'terrorist sponsors'.

When the IRA blew the Thatcher government at Brighton Maggie didn't respond by invading Ireland.

July 17, 2005 - link


QUOTE(moif)
The articles are no longer available without subscription so I must reply on my own understanding of the question as to whether attacking Iraq has made us safer or not. unsure.gif

In my opinion we are not safer as a result of the attack against Iraq.

Why not?

If we had removed Saddam Hussein and replaced him with a stable democratic government, then I'm sure we would have seen increased regional and global stability and safety but due to the amazing incomeptence of the Bush administration and its urge to go to war regardless of the many prophetic voices that councilled against it, what we have today is a nation so heavily divided that it will take a very long time for the government of Iraq to assert total control over it.

What we have acheived is a nation where terrorism is now able to flourish, polish its art and muster its strength for further attacks in the future. Under Saddam Hussein, as hatefull as he was, this was never the case. We have effectively reduced Iraq to chaos and given Osama Bin Laden exactly what he wanted. War.

July 18, 2005 - link


So how does one get from statements like that (and there are many more) to "with hindsight that I don't see what other option's were available" hardly a year later?

I've got an idea, perhaps one of the best options would have been to do nothing and continue sanctions while continuing inspections. Instead we could have focused our energy on finding Bin Laden and exterminating Al Qaeda and I don't know, trying to find terrorists instead of creating them. If there was proof that Iraq was stockpiling WMD then perhaps we could have taken an option requiring slightly less effort than invasion like maybe airstrikes or covert missions.

This little war has cost the country almost half a trillion dollars, over 2000 (isn't it close to 2200 now?) lives -- and that is just american lives, not civilian deaths -- and from recent news accounts we could be on the verge of seeing civil war there. You said it yourself less than a year ago that our actions in Iraq have not made us safer, on what evidence have you revised that position? Do you think the level of conflict there and the fact that new terrorists are being created and trained and muslim-western relations in general have been damaged is a good thing Moif?

Now I know that your patience with muslims in general is frayed these days but what you are saying here simply isn't logical and in your case contradicts the positions you have passionately held since the conflict began.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Mar 1 2006, 09:42 PM
Post #50


***********
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
I should be fair to you Ted, this was kindof a trap. I ask a lot of hawks the same question to laugh at the steriotypical, univeral answer, which you provided. I love hearing a Hawk talk about another country and sincerely believe that they went to war for oil money. The same hawks who spent YEARS defending the US claiming they would never got to war for oil money, that its not about oil money, that oil money is not important, those same people always seem to spin on a dime and yell furiously that 'Everything everybody ELSE does (but not us, not ever us) is about oil money!'


I have never and would never say that OIL had nothing or even little to do with the war with Iraq. Anyone or any country that says that is hypocritical and the US has not said that either. The left claimed we were going to “steal” the Iraqi oil. In reality all we are doing is protecting the oil market and our economy and spending 200 Billion + to do it. I could not support that more since allowing anything to happen to the world oil supply would fall on our economy like a thunderbolt. YES our interests in the area are OIL and Israel and protecting them is a major reason we could not allow a madman with WMD to stay in power. This does not make all the other reasons invalid but certainly compliments them. By that I mean all those silly UN Resolutions – you know.
As far as US companies profiting from this – I would surely hope that after spilling blood and spending billions we would get some consideration in that area.


QUOTE
I find it STAGGERING that you claim that France's desire to keep oil contracts in Iraq was the primary motive for opposing the war, and YET claim that the fact that almost ALL of these oil contracts are held now by US companies (and contributors to Bush jr, who is a former oilman) has NOTHING to do with the US's motives.
And EVEN THEN, you never addressed my point about the fact that, it may surprise you to know, Russia and France were not the only countries to oppose the war without a UN mandate.


I am not the only one who feels France was in it for the oil contracts sir. Surely 100+ billion in revenue was significant to the French economy – no? What is clear to me and will no doubt come out on the “tapes” is that France and Russia opposed doing what was right in the UN Security Council and Saddam KNEW they were doing it for HIM and the promised oil contracts. If you find that STAGGERING to believe then you are more naïve then I believe you are. IMO Iraq went to war with the US and did not cooperate with the UN because they felt the “fix” was in at the UN. I also feel this may come out on the “tapes” but it will have to be leaked since I am sure our government would not want to embarrass them more that the UN scandal already has. Apparently you feel that my post naming French government officials on the Saddam pay-role is wrong? Please be specific as to WHY beside the fact that you don’t like the politics of the source.

QUOTE
And I know a lot of countries opposed the war but most of them were not on the UN SC working with Saddam. 

Oh, and they were right by the way. Whinge all you want about how IRAQ might have shipped canisters to other countries (like its longtime hated enemy, Syria... boggle) but one of the resons for war was ongoing production of these weapons, and you do not ship away a nuclear research facility or nerve agent lab. The US left having found NO evidence of ANY WMD production facilities, which interestingly is the SAME amount of evidence (none) that the inspectors found.


You have no idea what you are talking about. Saddam had dozens of “dual use” plants and used OFF money to keep the programs and equipment current. When Sanctions ended he would have been back in business very soon and the ISG said just that. Must I post all of this for you?

In the weeks before and following the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, at least 10 facilities believed by American, European, and Israeli intelligence to be for the production and research of chemical and biological weapons were systematically looted by members of Iraq's Republican Guard, ordered by the regime's leadership to destroy and hide evidence of the programs, according to current and former intelligence officials from America, Britain and Israel. In interviews with the New York Sun, these officials reflect the position of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in the months after the war: "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

The chairman of the House intelligence committee apparently has a similar view. "The chairman very much believes the issue of weapons of mass destruction is not settled yet and there are sufficient questions of organized looting, transfer to another country or party or things that may have been missed by the survey group. There are enough questions that need to be answered before anyone can say definitively what happened," a spokesman for Mr. Hoekstra, Jamal Ware, said yesterday.
http://www.nysun.com/article/27000

I addition Blix found numerous “scrubbed clean” facilities that could have been used for WMD production. In a BBC documentary he toured one and showed the BBC reporter the piece of equipment that could have been used to make chemical weapons. And he showed her where the key part of the machine that would have proved it was used for just that had been REMOVED.

Apparently you and most liberals think Butler and others who were there are just idiots. I do NOT.

This post has been edited by Ted: Mar 1 2006, 09:46 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Mar 1 2006, 10:45 PM
Post #51


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,690
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Female
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Trouble)
This arguement feels very familiar Nighttimer. Moif has stated before his intentions that an allegation is enough to go war. We are lead to assume the evidence will appear in our hands once we are engaged in the situation. Sadly, he fails to see this line of behaviour as criminal because this was one of the original intentions of the UN. The coalition of the bullied was a half heartened attempt at pretending to be multilateral.

Accepting this line of thinking has already lead to one preventable war. Now we are to accept this as standard policy (IE PNAC) for X many other countries? Now that is tragic.
Is this directed at me, or nighttimer?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
This certainly is a wild departure from things you've written not even a year ago Moif. I'm sure you are capable of going back and reviewing your own posts but here are a few examples.

So how does one get from statements like that (and there are many more) to "with hindsight that I don't see what other option's were available" hardly a year later?
Are you trying to tell me you don't understand the meaning of hindsight?


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
I've got an idea, perhaps one of the best options would have been to do nothing and continue sanctions while continuing inspections. Instead we could have focused our energy on finding Bin Laden and exterminating Al Qaeda and I don't know, trying to find terrorists instead of creating them. If there was proof that Iraq was stockpiling WMD then perhaps we could have taken an option requiring slightly less effort than invasion like maybe airstrikes or covert missions.
Yes. This would have been an excellent idea and it would have maintained the status quo admirably.

No weapons would have been found, the sanctions would have been lifted, Saddam Hussein, still in power, would have been free to continue his dictatorship and perhaps even start up his weapons programmes again.

And at some future point he might very well have authorized and equipped a terrorist attack on... for example, Ramstein AFB in Germany.

And all those terrorists you say we have 'created'... Who are these people to whom you refer by the way? ...do you think these, alleged people (I'm assuming you are refering to human beings, with the power of free will, rather than golems or zombies, unable to think for themselves and slaves to the consequences of US foreign policy) would have remained passive onlookers regardless of the US led intervention into Iraq?

Do you suppose Iraq is the sole cause of hatred for the USA? That the policies of GW Bush are why Osama Bin Laden is so popular he has managed to evade capture for so long?


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
This little war has cost the country almost half a trillion dollars, over 2000 (isn't it close to 2200 now?) lives -- and that is just american lives, not civilian deaths -- and from recent news accounts we could be on the verge of seeing civil war there. You said it yourself less than a year ago that our actions in Iraq have not made us safer, on what evidence have you revised that position?
Excuse me CJ, but where did I say we were safer?

Hmmm....?

ermm.gif


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
Do you think the level of conflict there and the fact that new terrorists are being created and trained and muslim-western relations in general have been damaged is a good thing Moif?
Is that a loaded question CJ or are you just happy to see me?

Of course I don't think that.

But I'm not so convinced that the whole world revolves around the actions of the USA either... and certainly not this one president or this latest war.

There is a far bigger picture here and it has far more to do with Islamic ideology than US foreign policy does.


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
Now I know that your patience with muslims in general is frayed these days but what you are saying here simply isn't logical and in your case contradicts the positions you have passionately held since the conflict began.
Isn't logical? huh.gif How exactly is it illogical to point out that a lack of WMD's is not evidence of anything?

No... Its posts like this one that have changed my mind CJ.

In the beginning of the conflict I was in favour of military intervention and I have said so many times here at ad.gif I believed Tony Blair and later I regretted it because, like you and so many others here, I saw the lack of WMD's and made an assumption.

With the passage of time however came new understanding... hence the word 'hindsight' ...and a different point of view. Up until the recent cartoon debate you see, I had only bothered to question one side of things... the western governments.

The reason for this was simple. In my understanding, we as democratic nations have an obligation towards the international laws and institutions which were set up to defend us all. In the light of this understanding I read hundreds, if not thousands of articles which detailed the excesses and atrocities carried out by the USA and its allies.
Angered by these examples I often made long and hard posts here at ad.gif and I assumed I was in the right, because I was defending those I saw as the weak. The innocent. Civilians. Children.

Now suddenly though, it was my country being attacked and those institutions did nothing to defend us. They even blamed us for what has happened!

I'm fortunate that I'm not an African for now I understand how it is possible to slaughter a million people and no one bats an eye lid. Not even the glorious UN.

I'm reading just as many articles as before, but now I have a different perspective as well as the old one. Now I question both sides and what I find is that the atrocities (like Abu Graib and Guantanamo bay) whilst real enough, do not amount to an 'evil empire'.

That a great many people are not motivated in their opposition to the war in Iraq by facts but simply because they hate the idea of war and they look at GW Bush as a warmonger.

Is he a warmonger? Yes he is. So was Josef Stalin and Winston Churchill and where would I be without them? I don't know because I would not even have been born.

So, what is the deal with GW Bush and the WMD's? Bush went to war and the foundation for his attack proved invisible. Does that mean it never existed?

Bush abused the UN to get what he wanted. Hans Blix was never allowed to finish his inspections and Saddam Hussein is no longer the dictator of Iraq.

Bush sent the troops in and now tens of thousands of people have died in Iraq.

There have been elections though... almost every blog I've read out of Iraq lately has been ambiguous about the US presence but nearly all were overjoyed by the elections. How am I supposed to put the bad over the good?

How am I supposed to accept the authority of the UN when its leadership attacks my country over a set of drawings? When undemocratic nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait can use the United Nations to accuse and condem Denmark over a set of caricature drawings whilst Kofi Annan stands by like some marionet and nods? Are we the 'evil empire' now as well? Are we wicked and cruel to the poor defenceless Muslims?

No.

The UN has failed us. It is flawed, undemocratic. It gives power to tyrants and war mongers to attack innocent people in democracies. Its institutions are worthless because they are only the sum of their national companent parts.

All of the above is my personal perspective. Bitter at our betrayal I am may, but that does not make my original point any the less valid.

We don't know if there were any WMD's and far too many, otherwise intelligent people, have ignored alternative possibilities and based their arguments on assumptions.

I'm not excusing what GW Bush has done. If has violated any laws, then by all means prosecute him. For my part though, I forgive him.

And I do so because the last time an evil ideology was allowed to flourish by a politician heralding 'peace in our time', my country got invaded.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cube Jockey
post Mar 2 2006, 12:08 AM
Post #52


*********
Now with more truthiness

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,799
Member No.: 1,224
Joined: September-16-03

From: San Francisco, CA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(moif @ Mar 1 2006, 02:45 PM)
Are you trying to tell me you don't understand the meaning of hindsight?
*


Is that a real question or are you trying to be inflammatory? If you believe that you've learned something in hindsight that implies in this case that your objectives and principles have been served, just maybe not in a way you would have liked. Based on your previous posts since, well as long as I've known you, those principles have had to do with reducing the threat of terrorism.

So unless you believe that removing Saddam Hussein and all of the subsequent events that have happened since have actually reduced the threat of terrorism and made the world safer then I'm not exactly sure what you believe you've learned with the benefit of hindsight so perhaps you should clarify.

QUOTE(Moif)
Yes. This would have been an excellent idea and it would have maintained the status quo admirably.

No weapons would have been found, the sanctions would have been lifted, Saddam Hussein, still in power, would have been free to continue his dictatorship and perhaps even start up his weapons programmes again.

And at some future point he might very well have authorized and equipped a terrorist attack on... for example, Ramstein AFB in Germany.

And at some point in the future I might be a multi-billionaire and buy an island in the south pacific. Both scenarios are equally fantastic Moif.

There is absolutely no proof that Saddam had any weapons or that he intended to use them or sell them to terrorists. In fact there is a mountain of evidence suggesting that he didn't and that sanctions were working. In fact our administration was making statements to that effect in the 2000/2001 time frame - would you like me to go grab the quotes for you?

I was not aware of anyone considering lifting sanctions at any time, in fact this whole thing was marched into as sort of a prelude to war, just seeking justification.

QUOTE(moif)
And all those terrorists you say we have 'created'... Who are these people to whom you refer by the way? ...do you think these, alleged people (I'm assuming you are refering to human beings, with the power of free will, rather than golems or zombies, unable to think for themselves and slaves to the consequences of US foreign policy) would have remained passive onlookers regardless of the US led intervention into Iraq?

Do you suppose Iraq is the sole cause of hatred for the USA? That the policies of GW Bush are why Osama Bin Laden is so popular he has managed to evade capture for so long?

I'd say that these terrorists were created by the war Moif. They were created by unbalancing political power, they were created by the tens of thousands of dead civilians at the hands of US bombs and weapons and they were created by hundreds if not thousands of people being carted off from their homes in the middle of the night to be stashed in detention centers. They were also created by the close to 70% unemployment rate and the lack of critical infrastructure after the war, infrastructure we helped to destroy.

Those are the perfect conditions for extremist muslim groups to recruit volunteers to their cause. And I can tell you that if I were living in a similar situation and US troops gunned down my wife or child I'd be picking up a weapon to use it against them. I would not be saying "thank you sir for freeing me, don't trouble yourself over my wife and child I know they were only 'collateral damage'."

The terrrorists were created by the deaths of the innocents you claimed to care about so many months ago. Have you thought of that? Have you thought what you might do if an occupying force killed your family?

QUOTE(moif)
But I'm not so convinced that the whole world revolves around the actions of the USA either... and certainly not this one president or this latest war.

There is a far bigger picture here and it has far more to do with Islamic ideology than US foreign policy does.

I'm sure that the world doesn't revolve around the US but I really don't understand your "bigger picture" remarks here which you claim is part of your hindsight unless you are just happy we are picking a fight with muslims these days...

The amount of terrorism on a global scale has increased dramatically since we went into Iraq, none of those incidents have happened on US soil. The conflict in Iraq has created some of the conditions you claim to speak out against such as the cartoon fiasco.

QUOTE(Moif)
Now suddenly though, it was my country being attacked and those institutions did nothing to defend us. They even blamed us for what has happened!

So Iraq, which had nothing to do with terrorism, is now justified because a cartoonist in your country insulted muslims and some extremists protested and some members of the international community scolded you for it? That makes absolutely no sense.

QUOTE(Moif)
How am I supposed to accept the authority of the UN when its leadership attacks my country over a set of drawings?

I don't see how that is relevant. Is there now proof that Iraq had WMD Moif? If so then supply it. If not then I fail to see what UN Reports from several years ago have to do with them criticizing your country.

======

I really, really don't want to paint you as some sort of racist or xenophobe because that is not what I know you to be from your posts here but you do I hope realize that is how you've come off recently and especially in this response.

It seems to me (and please clarify if this is wrong) that you have somehow justified the attack on Iraq even despite the complete lack of evidence because you are dissatisfied with the UN and because your own country has been embroiled in the terrorism problem. That simply is not logical Moif, especially when the act of invading Iraq and destabilizing the region has likely lead to the problems you are complaining about.

If this analysis is completely off then feel free to clarify your position but it seems to me you have completely compromised your principles.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaime
post Mar 2 2006, 01:29 AM
Post #53


Group Icon

**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Admin
Posts: 5,941
Member No.: 4
Joined: July-25-02

From: Down where the River meets the Sea
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



Let's all remember to debate with a civil tone. Belittling posts are against the Rules.

TOPICS:

True or False: This information finally proves beyond any doubt Saddam Hussein's intention to use WMD upon America.

Assuming for the moment the information is valid, does this justify the decision to invade Iraq?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Mar 2 2006, 01:31 AM
Post #54


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
QUOTE(moif @ Mar 1 2006, 02:03 PM)

I merely pointed out that the arguments made here regarding WMD's are based on ignorance.

That includes your certainty.

I hate to pull the "You're Not A American" Card on you, Moif, but in this case it applies. For you, the war is something that doesn't touch you personally. It took a while, but I finally found someone I knew go off and die in Iraq. For Americans, it's our countrymen that are being killed, wounded and chewed up like greasy hamburger for a war (that by some supporter's standards has already accomplished the primary goal in the removal of Saddam Hussein from power).
Yes, because of course you know that I have no family or friends serving in Iraq and anyway the death of a US sodlier is just soooooo much more important than the death of a Danish soldier. Right...?

As it happens I do know of a person who has served in Iraq and that person happens to be a friend of mine. He is a Brit and he is at home now, but has been told he may be shipped back to Iraq again.

By the way, that "You're Not An American" Card, is it in any ways similar to the "You're Not Black" argument you once pulled on me?

Your whole argument is based on ignorant assumptions.



Two points to clarify here, Moif:

1. It was presumptous of me to say you had no personal stake in the Iraq War. I'm sure you are concerned with your British friend as much as I with the American soldier I know that was killed over there. I regret any anger that remark may have caused.

It's not that an American life lost in Iraq is worth more or less than anyone else. But when Denmark loses over 2,000 soldiers in Iraq you be sure to let me know, okay?

And no, the "You're Not an American Card" is not similar to the "You're Not Black" card. But the fact remains that you aren't American and you aren't Black, so your insights as to what Americans or Blacks should think, say or do makes about as much sense as me trying to gauge the pulse of a White Danish Male.

Which, no matter how hard I try I'm still going to operating at a cultural disadvantage. The same applies to you, capeesh? ermm.gif

And the second point?

I.
Don't.
Make.
Ignorant.
Assumptions.

Attack my positions all you like. Don't attack me personally.

This post has been edited by nighttimer: Mar 2 2006, 01:34 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Mar 2 2006, 02:56 AM
Post #55


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,690
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Female
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
Is that a real question or are you trying to be inflammatory? If you believe that you've learned something in hindsight that implies in this case that your objectives and principles have been served, just maybe not in a way you would have liked. Based on your previous posts since, well as long as I've known you, those principles have had to do with reducing the threat of terrorism.
Well, sometimes it seems to me that no matter how clearly I express myself, I am still misunderstood and the apparent reason behind this is not because I am poor at English but rather because people try to read between the lines, or ascribe to me thoughts and opinions which are not my own. All I wrote was that there is no evidence surrounding Iraqi WMD's so its dishonest to claim their absence is proof of anything and from that nighttimer extrapolated a pro GW Bush position which I was not making.

When I express myself as clearly as I can, and you respond by asking how I got from one set of older statements to "with hindsight that I don't see what other option's were available" within the space of a year, then you have lost me.

Isn't it obvious how I reached my current perspective when I say it was with hindsight? I looked back on what has happened with the understanding of the world I have now and see things in a very different light. How hard is that to understand?

And what are my principles CJ? Do you know me better than I know myself? I don't recall ever putting reducing the threat of terrorism ahead of protecting myself and my nation.


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
So unless you believe that removing Saddam Hussein and all of the subsequent events that have happened since have actually reduced the threat of terrorism and made the world safer then I'm not exactly sure what you believe you've learned with the benefit of hindsight so perhaps you should clarify.
I've learned that tyranny is very real and tyrants are all the same whether they are terrorists, dictators, mullahs, MP's or journalists. That oppression lurks in unlikely places and those whom you count as solid friends may very well betray you if they see a gain in it.


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
And at some point in the future I might be a multi-billionaire and buy an island in the south pacific. Both scenarios are equally fantastic Moif.

There is absolutely no proof that Saddam had any weapons or that he intended to use them or sell them to terrorists. In fact there is a mountain of evidence suggesting that he didn't and that sanctions were working. In fact our administration was making statements to that effect in the 2000/2001 time frame - would you like me to go grab the quotes for you?

I was not aware of anyone considering lifting sanctions at any time, in fact this whole thing was marched into as sort of a prelude to war, just seeking justification.
Yes. Perhaps. Its both diabolical and elegant in its self justification.


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
I'd say that these terrorists were created by the war Moif.
Yeah?

Which terrorists CJ? I asked you this in my last post but you haven''t answered me. Who are these 'new terrorists' you say have come onto the battlefield?


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
They were created by unbalancing political power, they were created by the tens of thousands of dead civilians at the hands of US bombs and weapons and they were created by hundreds if not thousands of people being carted off from their homes in the middle of the night to be stashed in detention centers. They were also created by the close to 70% unemployment rate and the lack of critical infrastructure after the war, infrastructure we helped to destroy.
Really CJ? Is that what really created them?

We also have Islamicists telling us now that Denmark is going to be attacked because of 12 drawings... and 80% of Danes now expect a terrorist attack in Denmark within the next year.
48% of Danes are even convinced we are on the brink of a religious war.
If this isn't terror, then what is?

And what does this tell you?

That a set of cartoon drawings are as good an excuse to hate the west as a phony war regarding WMD's...?

I no longer accept the argument that the war provoked people into becoming terrorists and the reason why not is because I keep seeing and reading about Iraqi's, in Iraq, who say the opposite.

They want the US out, yes, but the vast majority do not hate the American coalition. They have their own fish to fry and in their justifications GW Bush and the WMD's occupy a very small space. It was this that really changed my mind about the war in Iraq, not the cartoons, not the debates here and not the mountain of western media articles I read about it all. Why should I ignore the voices I was reading and seeing?

You say new terrorists have been 'created' but where are they?


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
Those are the perfect conditions for extremist muslim groups to recruit volunteers to their cause. And I can tell you that if I were living in a similar situation and US troops gunned down my wife or child I'd be picking up a weapon to use it against them. I would not be saying "thank you sir for freeing me, don't trouble yourself over my wife and child I know they were only 'collateral damage'."

The terrrorists were created by the deaths of the innocents you claimed to care about so many months ago. Have you thought of that? Have you thought what you might do if an occupying force killed your family?
Yes I have.

I've also considered that this hypothetical example is nothing besides the very real possibility of a very real terrorist attack against Århus, where Jyllandsposten is based and where my family and I live.

What does that have to do with WMD's?

Nothing. I am merely explaining my reasoning.

Everything. If the attack on Iraq had not taken place then could you guarantee that Iraqi chemical weapons would not be used against Danes? I don't think so and frankly, why should I take the risk? Would you?


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
I'm sure that the world doesn't revolve around the US but I really don't understand your "bigger picture" remarks here which you claim is part of your hindsight unless you are just happy we are picking a fight with muslims these days...
Ahhhhhh... it was this sort of thing to which I alluded in my first paragraph ...because people try to read between the lines, or ascribe to me thoughts and opinions which are not my own.

You see, I don't believe we are 'picking a fight' with the Muslims. I believe they have picked a fight with us and we are defeding ourselves against a very intelligent and very dangerous enemy.


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
The amount of terrorism on a global scale has increased dramatically since we went into Iraq, none of those incidents have happened on US soil. The conflict in Iraq has created some of the conditions you claim to speak out against such as the cartoon fiasco.
I saw this point raised in Denmark during a TV debate (we have lots of those. One of our channels seems to be nothing but political debates) in reply to just that same point an expert on global terrorism pointed out that the rise in terrorism began prior to the war in Iraq. In fact it began right back in the mid 1990's, during the Bosnian massacres.

This statement was backed up by others who pointed out that most of the young Muslims who left Europe to join terrorist groups (well before Iraq) were originally recruited into militant Islamic groups because they saw what was happening to the Muslims in Bosnia and just how little the rest of Europe did to stop it.

This detail is one amongst many others that tells me that there is a bigger picture. That Iraq is only one chapter in the ongoing story of Islamic extremist ideology and looking back there are countless examples of the link between Islamic terrorism and political Islam, starting in 1928 in Egypt with a man called Hassan al Banna and coming right up to the present turmoil.

The bigger picture is the history and ideology of political Islam. I accept that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and al qaeda, but I don't think it matters. Saddam Hussein was a threat all by himself. If left in power he would be yet another thorn in our sides. It was better to get rid of him and try to introduce democray into Iraq.

So far, I have not seen anything to suggest Iraqi democracy has actually failed. Like turnea has said elsewhere, people have been predicting civil war in Iraq since day one and we've yet to see it.

If order does come from chaos then what we are seeing could just as easily be the birth pains of Iraqi democracy. Its just too early to tell.


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
So Iraq, which had nothing to do with terrorism, is now justified because a cartoonist in your country insulted muslims and some extremists protested and some members of the international community scolded you for it? That makes absolutely no sense.
Did I say that?

I was answering your query by explaining to you my personal perspective... that is to say, why I had changed my point of view with regards to the war in Iraq.

What justifies Iraq, in my current opinion, is Neville Chamberlain and his 'peace in our time' speech. We are under attack and we have been for a long time. The removal of Saddam Hussein was a prudent move that denied the enemy a staging ground for further actions against us.

We really are under attack and I only realised it when I saw them hunt for Danish charity workers in Gaza and Indonesia and burn our embassies.
All it took was a few drawings in a newspaper and that was all the justification they needed to attack us.


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
I really, really don't want to paint you as some sort of racist or xenophobe because that is not what I know you to be from your posts here but you do I hope realize that is how you've come off recently and especially in this response.
I appreciate that you think so highly of me CJ. You can rest assured that, no matter what impression I may give here, I am not a xenophobe.

I live in a very small country which still bears a memory of invasion and carries the shame of occupation. We Danes saw our nation taken from us by the nazi's and we saw our government do nothing to prevent it.

Now, we see another such threat approaching, only this time its more dangerous.
There are 1.3 billion Muslims on this planet and about 5½ million Danes. We have already been infiltrated, our laws, autonomy and culture are being challenged and the international institutions which are meant to protect minorities are united against us.

The last time it was the USA and the UK which saved us. This time, at least we can stand beside our allies rather than just waving flags at them after they've finished dying on our beaches to save us.


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
It seems to me (and please clarify if this is wrong) that you have somehow justified the attack on Iraq even despite the complete lack of evidence because you are dissatisfied with the UN and because your own country has been embroiled in the terrorism problem. That simply is not logical Moif, especially when the act of invading Iraq and destabilizing the region has likely lead to the problems you are complaining about.
And when was the Middle East stable?

Was Iraq 'stable' under Saddam Hussein? If it was, then thats not any sort of stability I feel any need to protect.


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
If this analysis is completely off then feel free to clarify your position but it seems to me you have completely compromised your principles.
I will accept what ever people choose to believe of me. I can't change my priorities because other people feel they are wrong. I have to follow my principles.

Thanks for the debate, but this has gotten so far off WMD's now that I'm not going to repsond futher for I fear I am disrupting it. I never intended to get this involved in this debate because I knew I would not be able to stay focused. Sorry.



nighttimer.

I have the utmost respect for you and would never dream of insulting you personally. My remarks were only intended to be comments on the position you (and others) are holding.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Mar 2 2006, 04:36 AM
Post #56


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,227
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



Was Saddam Hussein an imminent threat to the United States? No. That is really the only basis for invading a sovereign nation – if they pose an imminent threat. He did not. Any other type of threat can be dealt with through diplomatic means until they can't anymore. But Bush wanted to invade Iraq. Rather than waiting for the diplomatic means to actually fail, he jumped in claiming that they were failing and went to war. So, the reason we are unsure about the intelligence is because we didn't wait for the appropriate intelligence. As has been pointed out, if Saddam was an imminent threat he could've used his WMD's when he was backed into a corner and knew we were coming to get him. What I deduce from that fact is that he had no real intention of attacking the US. Whether he was going to use them on his enemies within his country and possibly in neighboring countries... I don't know. It is certainly more likely. But as a government, the US claimed in 2001 that Saddam was not a threat. After 9/11, suddenly he becomes a threat. It reeks of taking advantage of a tragedy in order to go into Iraq. That is what it seems to be to me. That's what I felt at the time and nothing has come forth to make me change that view.

I think the US government was hoping Saddam would have WMD's lying around somewhere even if they didn't know whether he did or not. They banked on it. There would've been their smoking gun to say... "See! He has WMD's and these WMD's could be used against Americans." What happened instead was we went in there and said "See! He has... WMD's... somewhere... in... the country... ... okay he doesn't seem to have an WMD's lying about... but we're here, so let's liberate the country even though we don't really have a solid plan for doing that.... someone get on the horn with Halliburton."

It was a gamble and Bush lost on the intelligence. He didn't get his smoking gun, so he's been trying to manufacture one ever since. But, I don't believe Saddam was going to attack the United States. I believe what Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice said before 9/11 gave Bush his big opportunity... they said that sanctions were working. Might the sanctions have ultimately failed... might the world have had to deal with Saddam at some point... I think so. But it could've been done smarter and maybe with less unnecessary loss of life. The unnecessary deaths that occur due to Bush's "cowboy diplomacy" fall squarely on this adminstration's head. There is no smoking gun to indicate that Saddam was an imminent threat. We should've stuck with getting Al Qaeda – a much more important problem. Bin Laden was no fan of Saddam's, by the way... it was the invasion that made the enemy of his enemy his friend.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Mar 2 2006, 04:37 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trouble
post Mar 2 2006, 04:43 AM
Post #57


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 751
Member No.: 1,142
Joined: September-6-03

From: Regina, Sk. Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
It seems to me (and please clarify if this is wrong) that you have somehow justified the attack on Iraq even despite the complete lack of evidence because you are dissatisfied with the UN and because your own country has been embroiled in the terrorism problem.  That simply is not logical Moif, especially when the act of invading Iraq and destabilizing the region has likely lead to the problems you are complaining about.

If this analysis is completely off then feel free to clarify your position but it seems to me you have completely compromised your principles.
*



You have to realize Cube Jockey that not everyone has faith in global cooperation to solve the problem. Mr Dick Cheney has said on numerous occasions that he has no faith in the UN and seeks every opportunity to discredit it. I would go so far to say that it is a distinctly neoconservative trait, something that distinguishes it from old right conservatives.

Only by accepting the need to cooperate can the issue of terrorism be handled. I would like to mention it is my personal opinion that the military is not equipped to handle terrorism because it cannot distinguish between friend from foe.

When war was made with Iraq, everyone became involved. So the important question is how to pursue terror suspects without:

1) destabilizing existing police forces. Law and order as the americans have found out and getting one going again isn't so easy.
2) destabilizing the existing judiciary no matter how draconian it may be because if you do - it will appear as puppet replacement.
3) threatening to go it alone and break the 60 year streak of using multilateral consent to take action.

If we can address these three points I think we will have made some headway into addressing this problem.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Mar 2 2006, 04:54 AM
Post #58


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



True or False: This information finally proves beyond any doubt Saddam Hussein's intention to use WMD upon America.

Assuming for the moment the information is valid, does this justify the decision to invade Iraq?

False- in fact, this entire fiasco involving WMDs and the US can only be categorized as "a swing and a miss"- again, and again, and again.

Um- no, at this point, we all pretty much no, except for the eternal "ra ra GW" crowd.

A conservative commentator said it best, here locally, on the radio "You know what sucks about us Conservative republicans- we don't know how to police our own- after all our griping about Clinton and such- we get a guy just as bad, and we don't have the guts, the moral fortitude we demanded of mamby-pamby liberals- to do as we said, to walk the walk that we talked"

And I think that sums up this silly "oh, now we have a smoking gun, okay, how about now, no? What about now?" approach to WMDs

conservatives THOUGHT they had all the answers to global peace and US economic doldrums. Now they may have to admit they elected the wrong "conservative".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Mar 2 2006, 02:50 PM
Post #59


***********
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
Crusingram
And I think that sums up this silly "oh, now we have a smoking gun, okay, how about now, no? What about now?" approach to WMDs

conservatives THOUGHT they had all the answers to global peace and US economic doldrums. Now they may have to admit they elected the wrong "conservative".


I find it amusing that now that GW is in the Bush hating crowd will accept nothing as proof of Saddam’s possession of WMD or his intension to use them against us – including words right out of his mouth.

Odd since when Bill was in it was exactly the opposite from the same crowd – I am sure you have seen the quotes. The tapes surely indicated Bill was correct as well as Teddy K, Hillary, Schumer etc – OH but now its all wrong, all different because GW is president.

I see now. The UN was wrong, Butler was wrong, Blix was wrong ……….. Ya right.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cube Jockey
post Mar 2 2006, 06:08 PM
Post #60


*********
Now with more truthiness

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,799
Member No.: 1,224
Joined: September-16-03

From: San Francisco, CA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 2 2006, 06:50 AM)
Odd since when Bill was in it was exactly the opposite from the same crowd – I am sure you have seen the quotes.    The tapes surely indicated Bill was correct as well as Teddy K, Hillary, Schumer etc – OH but now its all wrong, all different because GW is president.

*


Uh huh, and I'm sure you know that the timeline matters here. It is an indisputable fact that people like Collin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were stating in the 2000/2001 timeframe that Saddam was contained, sanctions were working and he was not a threat. Or was that just anti-Clinton rhetoric? hmmm.gif

All of a sudden a year later he was some sort of grave and gathering threat and all of the rhetoric changed from the administration. They were contradicting things they said only a year earlier. Ok fine, so what changed? Where is the proof that Saddam was this grave and gathering threat?

No proof was supplied during the run up to the invasion and even years afterwards we still have no proof. In fact the information we do have suggests that Saddam was contained and he had no WMD.

The item that started this topic isn't a smoking gun and is completely irrelevant to the current debate, especially since it is 10 years old.

Now as far as Congress goes their behavior can't be excused (by me anyway) but they were duped right along with the rest of us. They didn't even have access to the same information Bush did, that also is a proven fact. There is the added dimension that at that time speaking out against the President was unpopular and was likely to earn you an "un-american" tag. For many senators and representatives they couldn't deal with that so they chose the cowardly route. Personally I was proud to be "un-american" then and I'm proud to be in the majority now.

But citing Congress to back up Bush's claims is just ridiculous. Here's how it basically went down with them.
- Bush brings out a RED ball into the Senate
- Frist calls out "This ball is BLUE!"
- Republicans in the chamber echo him "That is the bluest ball I've ever seen"
- Democrats start going along "That ball really is Blue, I haven't seen anything like it before."

Edited to add: See also this report from Murray Wass on Iraq Intelligence.
QUOTE
he second classified report, delivered to Bush in early January 2003, was also a summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, this one focusing on whether Saddam would launch an unprovoked attack on the United States, either directly, or indirectly by working with terrorists.

The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if "ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime" or if he intended to "extract revenge" for such an assault, according to records and sources.

The single dissent in the report again came from State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, which believed that the Iraqi leader was "unlikely to conduct clandestine attacks against the U.S. homeland even if [his] regime's demise is imminent" as the result of a U.S. invasion.

On at least four earlier occasions, beginning in the spring of 2002, according to the same records and sources, the president was informed during his morning intelligence briefing that U.S. intelligence agencies believed it was unlikely that Saddam was an imminent threat to the United States.

However, in the months leading up to the war, Bush, Cheney, and Cabinet members repeatedly asserted that Saddam was likely to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or to provide such weapons to Al Qaeda or another terrorist group.


So basically the entire intelligence community told Bush Iraq was not a threat to the US unless they felt like they might be attacked or if we attacked them unsuccessfully. Bush's response to this - let's go attack them. wacko.gif

This post has been edited by Cube Jockey: Mar 2 2006, 08:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
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 5th, 2021 - 11:31 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.