From the following link....

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



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?

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.

False


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

Well, if the tapes confirm beyond shadow of a doubt that he had WMD, then it is a reason for justification of the war. The whole war was based on that Saddam had WMD, if we can confirm that these tapes are authentic and within a reasonablke time frame, then it is justification.

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

False- just another cook up by the gang that can't shoot straight- OR- can shoot at the right person/thing (anyone remember Osoma, that guy that ACTUALLY attacked the US?)


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

Nope- the entire invasion of Iraq has been botched by this Admin since day one- but they are just too imcompetent to be trusted with anything bigger than a 28 gauge. Total incompetance is enough to shut down the REASONING behind the Iraq invasion in the first place.

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

False. We'll never have proof unless we physically find something, and even then there will be people claiming we planted it. This certainly makes the case for the WMDs more beleivable, but proves nothing.

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

The new information shows that Iraq was in fact a threat. But there are threats all over the world with WMDs. I never believed that this was a war over the WMDs to start with. There's a whole lot more to it than this one issue, and I think GW would have gone in either way. If that justifies a war, we would be invading other nations every other month.

These recordings do not "prove" anything. But what they do is corroborate what the Bush administration (and the Clinton administration prior) had been saying, namely that Saddam desired WMD's, hated the USA, and would have used terrorist organizations to use those weapons to maintain his state's deniability.

The intent of Iraq was once clear to the flip-floppers who have now decided that Iraq was an innocent victim of Bush's "illegal and immoral" war.

Democrat quotes on Iraq WMD's

One can only judge Bush in the context of the time around the decision. Hindsight is 20-20. In my view, the jury is still out with respect to the status of Iraq WMD's in 2003. We just do not know for sure. But, what was clear was that the focus of the US changed profoundly after 9/11 when Bush made it clear that our country wouldn't just wait again to be attacked and then prosecute only individual terrorists in a "law enforcement way", all the while with our government's hands tied behind their backs by Ms. Gorelick.

Bush made it clear that our target was not only the terrorists but the STATES that support them. And that list includes Iraq. Add to that the defiance of Saddam with respect to the gulf war cease fire terms, his expulsion of the UN inspectors, his attempt to assassinate Bush 41, and his routine firing upon our patrol aircraft (acts of war in their own rights), and the case to go after Iraq was very strong. So strong, in fact, that Senators Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, and Reid all voted FOR the resolution.

But, politics and emotion, since they drive the opposition democrats more than principle and resolve, have a way of distorting the past history. And the democrat's view has been heavily distorted.

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?

This does it and it merly confirms what many of us always suspected. To believe that a madman who hated the US with an intense passion was not considering this was always something IMO was impossible to believe. This also tells us Saddam did maintain and hide his WMD and fully intended to pass them to anyone who could get them here to kill millions of Americans.

The exclusive report featured documents showing numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans.

The documents also demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. The papers showed that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

“What the tapes show is that between the first gulf war and the second gulf war, Saddam Hussein had not lost his appetite for, or interest in, weapons of mass destruction,” says Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project, an advocacy group working to slow the spread of weapons of mass destruction. “To the contrary, he was almost obsessed by them.’’

On the surface it may seem that way and unfortunately many people will fall for this red herring because they lack the fortitude and don't have enough brain control to try looking at it in any other way. I will give some reasons why I think this is not actually based in reality in any way.
*In December of 2001, a video tape was apparently found in Jalalabad in which "Osama Bin Laden" 'confessed' to the 911 attacks. The world had never seen such a luck fortunate find before. There was one problem, a problem the mainstream media never addressed. "Osama" wasn't really Osama.
IMAGE
"E" is clearly a fake 'Osama', and "E" is the 'Osama' whom 'confessed' to 911. So this teaches us that government deception is always a definite possibility, especially during turbulent political periods. Does this prove the Sadaam tape is phony? Of course not, but it's entirely possible.
*The fact that the US does and will not allow any soundbytes during 'Hussein's" show trial. With such a trophy, the US reluctance to show Hussein or to allow his voice to be heard is clearly suspect, as it would be if the tables were turned. Indeed, why wouldn't the US allow us to laugh and jeer at Hussein's statements defending himself?
*Sadaam has an overbite and nice straight white teeth. The Sadaam on trial has an underbite and crooked dirty teeth. A half a year in a hole may dirty and stain your teeth, but it will never change you from and overbite to an underbite unless he was under facial correction operating lights.
In the end, I simply can't trust the government's word when they make astounding claims about far-reaching situations. Everything they said about Iraq and its intentions was fully wrong, so why would the pattern change now?


Edited to remove image and link to it, in accordance with forum Rules.

You might like to believe this but I cannot imagine ABC going with this (after the Rather debacle) without absolute certainty that it is authentic. Certainly with thousands of tapes and Saddam still very much alive a talking these tapes will be confirmed accurate by every country in the world – and SOON.

And this info seems to square with a 2004 story: CNN

Laurie Mylroie, who authored the book, "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War against America," and advised Clinton on Iraq during the 1992 presidential campaign, told CNSNews.com that the papers represent "the most complete set of documents relating Iraq to terrorism, including Islamic terrorism" against the U.S.

Mylroie has long maintained that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism against the United States. The documents obtained by CNSNews.com , she said, include "correspondence back and forth between Saddam's office and Iraqi Mukhabarat (intelligence agency). They make sense. This is what one would think Saddam was doing at the time."

They detail the Iraqi regime's purchase of five kilograms of mustard gas on Aug. 21, 2000 and three vials of malignant pustule, another term for anthrax, on Sept. 6, 2000. The purchase order for the mustard gas includes gas masks, filters and rubber gloves. The order for the anthrax includes sterilization and decontamination equipment. (See Saddam's Possession of Mustard Gas)

The documents show that Iraqi intelligence received the mustard gas and anthrax from "Saddam's company," which Tefft said was probably a reference to Saddam General Establishment, "a complex of factories involved with, amongst other things, precision optics, missile, and artillery fabrication."

http://www.cnsnews.com/SpecialReports/arch...E20041004a.html

The view popularized by Michael Moore, and joined by democrats who hold hating our current president above any threats foreign or domestic is a recent twist for these people.

They concurred with Bush in the past as documented here. No more needs to be said.

Democrat quotes on Iraq WMD's.

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

Neither until further details. As of now all it proves is at one time he “might” have had this conversation, for the time being I’ll assume they’re authentic. However, no where in the linked story does it give the date that these tapes were taken (I couldn’t find it). That matters. If this tape is, for example, from 1994 it proves nothing, other than the fact he might have still had the weapons that were sold to him by the nefarious group of North/Rumsfeld/Bush.

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

Your first assumption is that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Still haven't seen one piece of evidence.

Since the war hawk republicans started beating their chests and war drums I’ve asked the simple question: what did Saddam have to gain from attacking the United States? From the Gulf War it was obvious he didn’t stand a chance against the US military. He had larger worries right next door.


So the Saudi’s are next? They had more connections to 9/11 than Iraq, oh wait, those are Bush buddies.

Edited for spelling.

As I pointed out, the issue wasn't direct complicity of Iraq and 9/11. I could repeat what I said below or you could read it again, your choice.

Let me put it this way....

If you decided to "declare war on the mob" would you....

1. Prosecute one "button man" from one "family" in one "city"?

or would you...

2. Use our RICO statutes to go after the entire infrastructure of organized crime, their sources of money and political power, and the institutions that shelter them?

Again, your choice.

Bush had a choice. He could follow the (spectacularly) failed policies of Clinton/Gore/Gorelick or he could escalate our response to address the Jihad that had been declared against us.

Bush took a wise tact. He wasn't satisfied with "swatting flies". Were you?

True or False: This information finally proves beyond any doubt Saddam Hussein's intention to use WMD upon America.
I am not satisfied with the information. Until I see a lot more details, I cannot make any conlusion.

Assuming for the moment the information is valid, does this justify the decision to invade Iraq?
Of course not. The posession of WMD is exactly the reason to avoid war. As the number of these weapons increases universally, the need for peace also increases. It may sound very ideological, but we will never last the coming years if the world superpower can't promote peace.

Yes Ideological but I tend to agree. Where I differ is the method. Iraq not only possessed but USED WMD and even worse used them inside his own territory. And on top of tat he was nuts enough to invade a neighbor. How could we ever believe that after frustrating all of these plans including ending his nuclear program, that he would not be itching for the day that he could get even with us. As the tape seems to say Iraq intended to pass the WMD to terrorists while keeping their “hands” clean.

IMO the way to “provoke peace” with people like Saddam, or North Korea is to either to prevent them from acquiring the WMD or to make it clear to them that we will watch them carefully and IF they pass WMD to anyone that uses it against us THEY will pay a VERY high price – and quickly. IMO any other doctrine invites disaster. As has been said Pray for Peace while preparing for War.

I read your comments and would agree with your first two points, no big secret there, in fact Saddam probably wasn’t at the head of the line for dictators who meet those qualifications.

But, would you like to offer any proof that Saddam was seeking terrorist organizations to carry out his dirty work against the US? Or is this just more chest thumping scare the masses rhetoric.

If you want to start speculating than I could fill up this entire site with “speculative” chicanery from the current administration.

Intentionally or not, you avoided my question of motive for Saddam wanting to bomb us or to your ‘theory” hire some one. That’s fine, no one that supports Bush and the invasion has bee able to answer that question so no surprise there.

This answers question Fife. More will no doubt come out soon.

Lorie Byrd at Polipundit has been all over this story for quite some time. She has listened to the tapes on the ABC webiste and supplies the following interpretation:
In the beginning of the tape, Saddam says terrorist attacks are coming to the US but they won’t be from Iraq. Tariq Aziz then tells him that it would not be hard to set off a nuclear, chemical or bio weapon in Washington. There is then some discussion to the effect that anyone could do such a thing and it could be argued, says ABC’s Ross, that this could be interpreted as Saddam saying he fears Iraq would be blamed for such an attack. The second part of the tape includes discussion about how quickly Iraq could reconstitute their WMD capability. Dulfer was interviewed for the piece and he said it does not prove that Iraq had WMD, but it shows that Saddam was a master of deception with the intention of acquiring and using WMD.
In my opinion, when these tapes are added to the information we were getting from everywhere that Saddam had WMD and the intent to use it, it makes it difficult for me to imagine how any reasonable person could have ignored the threat Saddam posed.
Lorie also supplies the following sage guidline:

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

True. I never had a resonable doubt in the first place once the evidence was revealed about how he treated his OWN people. Saddam Hussein hates the United States and, I believe, would have jumped at any opportunity to display his hate for this country through violent measures.



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

I think that we were justified without the solid evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Saddam is a sociopath and needed to have power removed from his unstable hands. That said, the Bush administration SHOULD NOT have based our whole reason for invading Iraq on the WMD issue. We were justified without them.

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

False, but I’m sure it will be spun that way. There is an air of desperation to find something, anything concrete to justify going to war.

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

I wasn’t aware that TALKING about an attack was the same as HAVING WMDs.

Heck, I could talk all day about what I’d do if I won the Lotto, but not having the money in my account won’t get me very far in making that talk reality.

Bingo. Lets go through the list of nations that support terrorism. Then those that have WMDs. Are we going after them next? No, as Fife and Drum pointed out, some of them are our friends. Granted, Hussein was not stable and and could possibly try something against us even if it defied logic, but there are plenty of others who fit that description too.

WMDs can't be the justification because it can't be consistently applied.

Since many are hoping this is their silver bullet let’s take a look at the “analysis”. I hope I’ve missed something here because it appears too obvious.


Proves no link from Iraq to the attacks and certainly no intent. In fact it exonerates him.


Still proves no link from Iraq to the attacks, still no intent (not to mention that this is a subjective interpretation “this could be”).


Still proves no link from Iraq to the attacks, still no intent but it does prove they didn’t have WMD, else why would they discuss how quickly they could reconstitute their WMD program.

Unless I’ve really missed something, it appears a lot of folks are pinning their hopes on what at this time appears to refute the Bush administrations reasoning for the invasion.

Fife and Drum, I don't think anyone is saying that this links Iraq with 9/11, because it certainly does not. Bush never used an Iraq-9/11 link as justification for war either.

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

Here is a link to Nightline's story (I do find it a bit odd that although this aired last night on ABC's Nightline, this story is not the lead story on the Nightline website.

I think it proves that at one time he had the intention to use WMDs, on the US if possible. These tapes were from 1995-96, I believe. They certainly demonstrate that Iraq was never being honest with the inspectors, which is not really anything new.

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

Again, I don't think this is anything new. John Negroponte has said that CIA analysts knew about this information.



These tapes show that Saddam and his cronies wanted WMDs and hid their programs from the UN. Again, this is nothing new. It does repudiate claims that Iraq had no WMD programs after the first Gulf War, that's about it.

So let me get this straight then. This "smoking gun" consists of tapes from 10 years ago?

Since then quite a lot has happened, including members of this administration such as Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice stating, on the public record, in 2000/2001 timeframe that Iraq had no WMD capability and that the sanctions were working (those very quotes were posted here on this site and if you insist I suppose I'll go dig them up and post them again). Then in 2002/2003 they did a 180 as we started the march to war after 9/11 and afghanistan. All of a sudden there was this "intelligence" that stated there were WMD. Of course the inspectors didn't find any but that's ok.

Now we've been in-country for what, 3 years now? We haven't found a single bit of evidence of WMD, nothing.

Yet somehow this is the smoking gun justifying the war? Please.

I think Duelfer's comment within the Nightline report Amlord linked sums up my thoughts exactly:

I doubt you'd find anyone on this board that believed that if we took the clamps off, that Saddam would be a good boy and play nice with the other kids. The sanctions were working, he was crippled, and would have at least permitted us to focus on real threats in responding to 9/11 and deal with him later.

It does not prove, however, Ringwraith's original premise that Saddam intended to use these weapons against us. He knew better.

Nor does this information change one iota my opinion about the justification for invading a sovereign country that was not involved in hostile acts against the United States or its interests following 9/11.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
Certainly the US knew Iraq had no WMD nor any designs to use them against the USA or anyone in the region. It's telling how the US was never asked by any nation to secure any country's borders from Iraq because they knew full well what Rice and Powell both preciously knew but apparently forgot once the lies to war were on the march forward. That Iraq was not a threat to the US or the region.

I’ve posted this before but it applies here again. This is from the president’s pre-invasion State of the Union address, when the drums and chests were being thumped. And if you read the entire speech it’s obvious it’s sole purpose was to justify his reasoning for war.


Now if that’s not attempting to link Iraq and 9/11 than I don’t know what is.


And I would agree with you. But you can’t remove the events of 9/11 with the invasion of Iraq, the president obviously didn’t.

And to further the point, another question that I like to ask Bush/war supporters: if 9/11 didn’t happen, would we have invaded Iraq? Because as CJ has pointed out, before 9/11 the administration’s canaries were singing a different tune.

Again let me post this link as any rebuttal towards anyone who says the US didn't know Iraq's capabilities before 911. Rice and Powell both stated, on video, that Iraq is contained, is not a threat to its neighbours, and hasn't rebuilt it's weapons programs. They said it, not me.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

Powell in 2001.

Rice in 2001

Well IMO you are misinterpreting the statement. What is said here is that Saddam has not, since the occupation, developed any new significant capabilities. I say new because we all know he HAD significant capabilities before the 1991 war.

AND lets remember that before 9/11 we were far less worried about WMD being passed to terrorists. So AFTER 9/11 we have a situation where Iraq has tons of “missing” WMD and suspected connections to terrorists. (now being more fully revealed by the tapes).

Thus the subject of UN 1441 which required Iraq to account for the missing WMD they admitted they had produced.

And of course, outside of giving WMD to terrorists he could not “project conventional power”. We controlled his movement.



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 seurity of the neighbors of Iraq...

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

False. I haven't listened to all of the tapes, obviously, but from the interpretations of people who, apparently, have... I would say that there is no proof beyond any doubt regarding Saddam Hussein's intention to use WMD against America.

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

No. If the CIA knew about this information, why did we believe in 2001 that Iraq had no WMD's? The tapes are old. They provide no proof that Iraq had in fact, reconstituted it's weapons program. The fact that it could reconstitute them does not provide a justification for war.

If we are going to go after state sponsor's of terrorism, Saudi Arabia should be at the top of the list. They have the closest connection to 9/11 and are known sponsor's of terrorism. But we do nothing... why? What is the point of my having to give up my rights in order for the adminstration to wage this war if they aren't going to even go after the most obvious targets? We want to win this "War on Terror", but we don't want to go after the biggest state sponsors of terrorism? How does that work?

Ted,

It is you who are misinterpreting the statement. You are adding the term "new". He did not say new. He said that Saddam Hussein had not developed any significant capabilities. Meaning that Saddam Hussein had no significant capability with respect to WMD's.

Yes I do believe that these tapes if true do prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Saddam had WMD's and that he intended to use them against America. He may have used in attacking America, by distibuting the weapons amongst the terrorist networks; or he may have attempted to use them through his own network of terror. The former plan of attack is most likely. Yes, if these tapes are true than this definitively justifies our invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent regime change. These tapes point out how necessary it was for Sadaam to be stripped of his power. Those who have repeatedly accused Bush of being a liar must now eat some crow. However, Bush and his intelligence gather units, should be ashamed that they did not know this for sure before we invaded Iraq. I believe, that once again America has been justified in its actions, though many nations opposed the invasion of Iraq. Many things have been revealed because the regime change in Iraq, and it was necessary that they be revealed. We now have a more honest U.N. that is hopefuly, no longer involved in any major scandals, and the Iraqis are now free from tyrrany. These two things alone justify America's invasion of Iraq, these new tapes only serve to further justify America's actions.

No I am not and we can weasel word passages from Powell or anyone else in 2001 but the reality is, as I have posted, that Iraq HAD and never accounted for TONS of WMD. Just read what Butler or Blix said to the UN.

Certainly he did not develop any significant capabilities (to make more WMD) but this by no means indicates he did not have any WMD. Try reading UN 1441.

In any case the tapes WILL reveal the truth, which in this case, will be IMO worse than we ever thought it could be.


From UN 1441:
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
;

But did they have them in 2003 when we were being told that he had them? Apparently not. So when Powell states in 2001 that sanctions are working and that Saddam Hussein's ambitions regarding WMD's are in check... you're saying that isn't the case? We should believe that for some apparent reason a year later, Saddam Hussein suddenly does have WMD's? And when we find none... then what? This tape that, from what I understand, only talks about the possibility of reconstituting a WMD program. Nothing that I've read about the tape indicates that it provides a "smoking gun" that Iraq had WMD's in 2002 and that he was willing to use them against the US.



There you go... adding more words to a relatively simple statement. He didn't have any significant capabilities with respect to WMD's. That's what Powell stated... He stated that sanctions were working and that Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing WMD's were in put in check by those sanctions. Was that not what he was said?

No one??
What about this:

Or this:
Okay, no one is exactly mentioning al-Qaeda, but I can't think of many other foreign terrorist organizations that have had recent designs on US territory.

But you are quite right: there is nothing here that says anything about Hussein's intentions - and certainly nothing that suggests that Iraq was communicating with anyone about passing these alleged weapons to terrorist organizations. Those flights of fantasy are reserved for the paranoid Bush apologists who are spinning documents that, in this case, really are "historical" in nature. They are, at least, far more "historical" than the August 6, 2001, PDB that reported that bin Laden was determined to strike inside the US - with no help from Saddam Hussein.

And, as virtually everyone in the Bush administration agreed prior to September 11, 2001, Hussein had no such weapons to pass to anyone, even had he wanted to.

FALSE....Again! Those tapes are a decade old, they prove nada.

It seems to me that people who "want" to believe that Saddam was a threat are grasping for any straws they can find, in desperation.

Saddam was not a threat, period. He had nothing in his arsenal, and he had no way of getting anything. He was contained and Iraq was nit what it is today, namely a training ground for terrorists that also develops and builds more and more hatred against Americans in the world every day.

I truly believe that Bush and his mob will ultimately go down as one of, if not the worst Presidents in US history.

It was not too long ago when America and it's government (Clinton) were respected and admired in most parts of the world. Americans were not despised and mocked they way we are today. It's a shame that any President in modern times could single handedly set back the standing and growth of our society.

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

The information proves that he had the intention to pursue WMD's and use those weapons to attack the U.S. Whether he had the means or the capabilities to pursue that objective is another matter altogether, but the tapes should not be disregarded if they are truly authentic.

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

It confirms the suspicions that would justify a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, but it's hardly conclusive. Considering Iraq had a history of WMD development and procurement, combined with the intentions that he had, the likelihood that he could reconstitute his program is very high, and the threat that that would pose to the U.S. is equally threatening.

The 9-11 commission completely disagrees. However, I doubt that citing evidence, even objective, bi-partisan analysis, would ever change your opinion.


Amazing how easy it is to be liked when you don't stand up for your own interests, isn't it? This would be somewhat like pointing out how nice it was to not have to deal with all the airport security we have, and citing the pre-911 environment as an example of how nice things used to be, yet not discussing any of the issues created in that environment. Essentially, ignorance can be bliss...but that doesn't mean it should be a desired state, does it?

Not only 9/11 Commission but the UN (Blix, Butler) totally disagree with you. It seems clear from the tapes that Saddam was playing with the inspectors and confirms what many of us always suspected. Saddam had no intension to destroy or turn over the tons of VX nerve gas, thousands of liters of anthrax and other chemical/biological weapons he admitted to having after proof of their manufacturer was found by the UN.

As the tapes will reveal Iraq was one of the most dangerous countries in the world to our safety. To saw Saddam “had nothing” is so ludicrous as to be not worth discussing. Even Hillery is now changing her tune as the evidence starts to emerge. I am sure idiots like Teddy K will never admit how wrong they were regardless of the facts as they emerge.




Respected by who? The French? Germans? Russians? The AQ folks always hated us over Israel and always will. The French and Russians were profiting from the sanctions, taking bribes from the Oil for Food program and dishonestly derailed dealing with Iraq in the UN Security Council. It is the US that should not respect THEM for what they have done.

It always annoys me when people cherry-pick from Blix's report to justify the invasion.

You know who disagrees with your interpretation of Hans Blix's report? Hans Blix.



I admire your precognition, but interestingly nobody has yet been able to put an actual finger on hos Hussein was one of the most dangerous countries in the world to the safety of the US. I remind you that Hussein was in power for 30 odd years, and had Chemical weapons for 15 years, before the US suddenly decided he was 'one of the most dangerous countries in the world to the US' safety'.




Ah this old chestnut. A few facts for you:

1- No, the US was respected pretty much the wold over, polls on the popularity of the US since Bush Jr. took over have shown a staggering loss of faith in the US internationally, around the world. Now that may not matter to you, it doesn't to a lot of Americans, but regardless it is squarely on Bush Jr's shoulders.

2- So nations heavily involved in the UN Oil for Food Scandal should be disrespected and shunned? Is that your argument?

So if you say that for nations who were just 'involved' in the Oil for food scandal, what would you say about the single nation MOST involved in the oil for food scandal? You mjust LOATHE them..

Oh wait...

The fact is that the US Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations determined that individuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein. US businesses such as BayOil, Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp. El Paso Corp and Oilexco. Considering many of these companies made subsequent massive contributions to the Bush jr. election, including the funding of his presidential library, perhaps Americans should not be so quick to throw stones of this scandal 'discrediting' anybody...

I loathe how hawks instantly condemn France and Rusia as corrupt because some French Companies were involved in the scandal (though not their govrnments) and conveniently forget that US companies, and US companies tied to Bush Jr. were responsible for more of the corruption than the rest of the world put together...

But I suppose its easier just to make fun of France than to deal with actual facts...

Assuming it is valid, then yes of course, the information contributes to the justification of going to war.

I don't have much to say on this issue any more. WMD's are in the past now, but I am surpirsed that so many people, even here at still subscribe to the notion that since no WMD's have been found, then they never existed.

Since when did an absence of evidence mean no crime had been comitted?

Africa is full of the mass graves of people who's deaths were never logged in journals or records, never witnessed by CNN, never spoken of in the UNSC... does this mean that these people were never murdered?

Not in my book. Speaking of evidence is good enough for a debate, but it means nothing beyond the e-walls of our little forum. Iraq is a huge place... full of sand, sand which has swallowed entire civilisations!

And because the USA (and UN) has been unable to locate or account for the chemicals and ingredients, many of which the USA sent to Iraq in the first place then we now have a situation where otherwise rational people, perhaps blinded by their hatred for GW Bush?, make automatic assumptions that these weapons never existed. I don't like GW Bush either, but I'm not going to throw aside objectivity just for the sake of attacking him.

The only thing I think is clear about Iraq's possible WMD's is that Saddam Hussein was unable to use them. There is nothing that proves they existed or not and its pure intellectual laziness to assume that simply because groups of foreigners cannot find WMD's in Iraq, that these never existed.

As if the locals are not able to hide such things in their own country!

Or indeed, in another country entirely...

Link.

What is the difference between what people choose to believe and the truth?

I'm not saying that Iraq's WMD's were moved to Syria, I'm just pointing out that, actually... We don't know.

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. LOL





This of course was pre his invasion of Kuwait and subsequent defeat by a coalition organized by Bush Sr. (Who he tried to have assassinated). Needless to say that this defeat and the dismantling of much his of his nuclear/chem./bio infrastructure made him a bitter enemy of the US. The tapes seem to indicate that Saddam’s hatred for the US would drive him to “get even” with WMD passed to terrorists.

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

Iraq's record on biological weapons is "pathetic," Butler said. "For
four and a half years Iraq flatly denied having any. When we
confronted them with compelling evidence to the contrary they then
admitted that they had a program, but sought to minimize its nature
and extent."

"The fact is that Iraq created a quantity and quality of weapons of
mass destruction that, when one thinks of the size of the industrial
base, etc., was virtually unique, breathtaking in its scope and its
danger to its region and population beyond," Butler said.
You seem to feel comfortable ignoring the facts.



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

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. First, they insist Saddam had to be disarmed of his weapons of mass destruction. Can't find any? Well, let's just suggest Saddam moved them to Syria or the middle of the desert or Allah knows where.

Darn strange that there's NO intelligence or surveilance photos of trucks lumbering off into the desert. Darn strange that NOBODY has come forth three years later to say, "Yep. It was me. I helped Saddam load up the U-Haul and run 'em over to Syria." Darn strange that after three years of searching, NOBODY has found even one viable weapon of mass destruction left behind. Wow, what a wascally wabbit, that ol' Saddam is!

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.

The difference between what people choose to believe and the truth is you can choose to believe a lie if the lie is more comforting to you than the truth.

And the truth is there were no weapons of mass destruction.

The question is what does that make those whom persist in the unfounded belief that there were WMD's? People who can't face the truth and would rather believe in a lie?

Excuse me... but where did I say that?


...and how do you know that the decision was taken 'casually'? What is that assumption based up NT?


Well, your astonishment is your own problem I'm afraid. The truth is not that I am 'defending any stupid misadventure'.

I am merely pointing out that a lack of knowledge can not justify any argument.... one way or another.

I'm surprised at you NT. I'd have thought my post was fairly clear on that.


Do you know how big Iraq actually is?

Its 437,000 square kilometres. It really doesn't matter how many satelites you have looking down on a haystack that big. If you don't know where the needle is, then you'll never find it.

However... as was written in the article I just linked to:
Link.
By itself this isn't proof that Saddam Hussein smuggled his weapons into Syria... but it does negate your assertions regarding surveillance photo's.

The thing about chemical and biological weapons though is once they've been put aboard a truck or a plane... you can't actually see them from space any more.


Do you really think its so strange that Saddam's most loyal people... (probably the same Sunni's who are now instigating said civil war) ...haven't come forth to co-operate with the US military like good little Iraqi's


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.

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'.


Your very certain in your convictions NT but the truth is, this applies just as much to you as it does to those whom you accuse of choosing to believe a lie.

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.

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

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.

It does for you, Moif. Not for me.

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.

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.




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




(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?



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?




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?

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.


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.


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?


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.


It also has nothing at all to do with the topic of this thread, so thats just as well.

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






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

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 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.



Uh huh. From my vantage point I would have to disagree. How does vice versa grab you?

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?

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.