New study concludes no WMDs in Iraq. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

MuadDib · 01-08-2004, 11:33 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/08/spr...ort/index.html

Quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraq had ended its weapons of mass destruction programs by the mid-1990s and did not pose an immediate threat to the United States before the war, according to a report released Thursday.

Bush administration officials likely pushed U.S. intelligence assessors to conform with its view the country posed an impending danger, said one of the authors of the study.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- a nonpartisan, respected group that opposed the war in Iraq -- conducted the study.

It follows a nine-month search in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, biological and chemical -- the key reason the administration cited in its decision to invade Iraq.

"We looked at the intelligence assessment process, and we've come to the conclusion that it is broken," author Joseph Cirincione said Thursday on CNN's "American Morning."

"It is very likely that intelligence officials were pressured by senior administration officials to conform their threat assessments to pre-existing policies."

The report says that the "dramatic shift between prior intelligence assessments and the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), together with the creation of an independent intelligence entity at the Pentagon and other steps, suggest that the intelligence community began to be unduly influenced by policymakers' views sometime in 2002."

More than 1,000 U.S. inspectors have worked daily since before the war began in March, searching the country and interviewing scientists and other Iraqi officials, according to Cirincione.

"We found nothing," Cirincione said. "There are no large stockpiles of weapons. There hasn't actually been a find of a single weapon, a single weapons agent, nothing like the programs that the administration believe existed."

The Carnegie report based its conclusions on information gleaned from declassified U.S. intelligence documents about Iraq from U.N. weapons inspectors and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear watchdog for the United Nations. The endowment also said the study used statements from the Bush administration and corroborated reports from the news media.

The report also accuses the Bush administration of misrepresenting the threat from Iraqi WMDs by "treating nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as a single 'WMD threat'" instead of characterizing the threats from the three types separately. It says the Bush administration also insisted "without evidence -- yet treating as a given truth -- that Saddam Hussein would give whatever WMD he possessed to terrorists."

Cirincione said the study "is the first comprehensive review of everything we knew or thought we knew about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and it turns out that some of the things we thought were working -- our threat assessments -- we're deeply flawed."

"We exaggerated the threat. We worst-cased it and then acted as if that worst case was the most likely case."

However, Cirincione also said other systems put in place to prohibit Saddam Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction were working better than experts thought at the time.

Weapons inspectors conduct an examination in Iraq.
Iraq's "programs were crippled by years of [U.N.] inspections and U.S. military strikes," he said, "and the sanctions that prevented them from getting anything going at all."

Cirincione said one reason for the apparent lack of progress in the Iraqi weapons programs was because Iraqi scientists were "telling Saddam that they were further along than they actually were."

"Apparently that was picked up by some of the Iraqi defectors who came to the U.S. telling stories of elaborate advanced weapons programs," he said.

"So the defectors were fooled, Saddam was fooled, but as it turns out Saddam himself had made the decision -- as far as we can tell -- in the mid-'90s to shut down these programs."

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told ABC News' "Nightline" on Wednesday that there is no way to know for sure what weapons were or were not in Iraq at the time.

In a dramatic display last year before the war, Powell presented the U.N. Security Council with U.S. intelligence information about alleged Iraqi weapons.

"Everything we have seen over those years since they actually used these weapons in 1988 led us to the conclusion, led the intelligence community to the conclusion that they still had intent, they still had capability and they were not going to give up that capability," said Powell, apparently referring to Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in Iraq.

"And the intelligence community to this day stands behind the judgments that were made and that were presented to the world, presented to the Congress and presented to the American people through the national intelligence estimate, and that I presented before the Security Council."

The Carnegie report isn't "a gotcha study" seeking to blame officials, Cirincione said. "We're trying to prevent it from happening in the future," he said.

"We recommend the formation of a senior blue ribbon commission to examine this in an independent, nonpartisan way and make recommendations for how to insulate intelligence assessors from political pressures," Cirincione said.

"We don't know what happened in the offices of the administration, but there's a lot of evidence that points to" intelligence assessors being pressured by their bosses.

So how many more times do you think research will claim WMDs were not present in Iraq, then the government will counter that they were before we finally come to a coherent opinion about the status of WMDs in Iraq. Personally, I firmly believe that there were none there, but regardless of that it just seems like independent researchers continually find that the cause for war was misinformed and the government counters. Thoughts?

Endymon32 · 01-08-2004, 01:15 PM

So why did Saddam interfere with the inspectors then?

MuadDib · 01-08-2004, 01:26 PM

I dunno, pry because any leader would be less then happy with an international body having unrestricted access to any facility within his country or maybe just cause he is a evil crazy dictator, regardless the evidence doesn't support WMDs being there. To me the perfect example is someone who refuses to let a cop search his/her home. Just because you try to not let them in and interfere with them once they do come in doesn't mean you have anything to hide. You are just trying to maintain your sovereignty over your own household.

Dragonlich · 01-08-2004, 01:27 PM

MuadDib, if this org opposed the war, they can hardly be considered "independent" researchers, now can they?

Conclamo Ludus · 01-08-2004, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MuadDib
I dunno, pry because any leader would be less then happy with an international body having unrestricted access to any facility within his country or maybe just cause he is a evil crazy dictator, regardless the evidence doesn't support WMDs being there. To me the perfect example is someone who refuses to let a cop search his/her home. Just because you try to not let them in and interfere with them once they do come in doesn't mean you have anything to hide. You are just trying to maintain your sovereignty over your own household.

Then again, if you had signed a piece of paper that said you lawfully had to let them into your house, and then refused them entry, I would say its a little suspicious.

I think at this point it seems that Saddam wanted a weapons program, even believed that he had a weapons program, but his scientists were giving him the run-around and they really hadn't come up with much. Either that, or they were moved out, or they're still buried somewhere. I think Saddam and the rest of the world were fooled into thinking they're program was much further along than it was. Only a handfull of scientists may have known what their capabilities actually were.

MuadDib · 01-08-2004, 01:34 PM

Well Dragon, yes they can. You see they are not dependent on the government or others making the assertions that there were WMDs in Iraq. They also have nothing to gain or lose from their findings. Inherently, this makes them independent of the people making the original claims as well as their own findings.

Furthermore, I think it is absurd to claim simply because you have an opinion on a matter that you can not be independent or objective (which is what I take it you actually mean). If that were the case objectivity would be impossible in any form. From a research prospective you always start with a hypothesis and work to objectively confirm or deny that hypothesis. The key having objective results is not to avoid having a hypothesis or opinion on the matter, but rather it is to be free from standing to gain from finding one way or another.

MuadDib · 01-08-2004, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Then again, if you had signed a piece of paper that said you lawfully had to let them into your house, and then refused them entry, I would say its a little suspicious.

I agree it is suspicious. But lets not forget that the entire modern worlds concept of justice isn't based on suspicion equalling guilt. If police had a warrant to search my home and I was mandated by a court agree to said search, that in no way makes me obligated to like the search, help the search, or even not interfere with the search. If I were to obstructive I could be jailed or in Saddams case have my country ravaged, live in filth for several months and then be jailed but you get the point. If the reason given for ousting Saddam had been because he was being obstructive to inspectors then thats the UNs business because they were their inspectors and it is with them that Saddam had the agreement, not us. However, this was not our reason. We invaded because we said that Saddam had WMDs and we knew it. The having WMDs was obviously near criminally poor intelligence and the us knowing it thing was obviously a blatant lie.

shakran · 01-08-2004, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus
Then again, if you had signed a piece of paper that said you lawfully had to let them into your house, and then refused them entry, I would say its a little suspicious.

What if you signed that piece of paper when surrounded by people holding guns to your head? Saddam didn't exactly have a lot of choice in the matter

I for one have known this since before the war started. We went to war on the flimsiest of made up bullshit evidence (colin powell's presentation on WMD to the UN is the BEST they could come up with? The BEST info they had to try to persuade other nations to join us? If that's the best they had, then as they say on fark, they got nothin').

Lebell · 01-08-2004, 02:51 PM

In MD's defense, they can be independent and still be biased.

They might also be able to report on the facts instead of their bias. Without seeing the report and researching the sources, it is hard to say.

In any event, I see that there is a strong possibility that Hussein was just bluffing the whole time and that Iraq might not have had WMD's.

If we knew this (unlikely) or let ourselves be convinced he did (more likely) then I will be unhappy that this was the main reason for war.

That is NOT to say however that the war wasn't justified given what a monster he is. Just that the reasons for going should have been different.

2wolves · 01-08-2004, 03:03 PM

The biggest issue I have with the invasion and occupation of Iraq was the administrations linkage to Bin Ladin's terrorist efforts.

2Wolves

Superbelt · 01-08-2004, 03:08 PM

They had no WMD but they couldn't sign any papers, or provide proof that they had none because they have not stopped being in a standoff with Iran. Fighting stopped but the ill-will each nation harbors for each other did not. Remember, Saddam gassed and killed probrably 100k Iranians in his term.

The only thing that ever kept Iran from invading Iraq and slaughtering them was the fear of the Mustard gas and other WMD.

So Saddam bluffs and provides no proof to Iraq being clean. That keeps him safe from any kinds of attacks from Iran, al Qaeda or a cohesive effort by the Kurds to overthrow him.

Endymon32 · 01-08-2004, 03:11 PM

Well then dont bluff, look were it got him...

Superbelt · 01-08-2004, 03:15 PM

Good Justification.

nanofever · 01-08-2004, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Endymon32
Well then dont bluff, look were it got him...

I don't think that... fark it, no point in trying to reason with a person who is just out to argue.

Endymon32 · 01-08-2004, 06:08 PM

No, not argueing, just talking reason here. The man invaded a nation, then signed a treaty that said he would disclose all information and furthermore allow unannounced, un fettered inspecters.

Then he didnt disclose that information, and he messed with the inspectors. And he bluffed and make it look like he had em. So we did what was legal, moral, and reasonable to do. And I am glad for it.

silent_jay · 01-08-2004, 06:33 PM

legal, moral and reasonable. is it moral to invade a country without justification. bush used WMD as an excuse as he put it "to get the man that tried to kill my daddy"

Quote:

Originally posted by 2wolves
The biggest issue I have with the invasion and occupation of Iraq was the administrations linkage to Bin Ladin's terrorist efforts.

2Wolves

agreed and there has never been a connection between al-quaeda (sp) and saddam

Xell101 · 01-08-2004, 06:46 PM

We know he used to have them, now he doesn't seem to and he failed to account for their whereabouts suffeciently. Seems obvious to me something sneaky occured. Unless there is more going on with this situation than we are being told, which is my geuss.

shakran · 01-08-2004, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
They had no WMD but they couldn't sign any papers, or provide proof that they had none because they have not stopped being in a standoff with Iran. Fighting stopped but the ill-will each nation harbors for each other did not. Remember, Saddam gassed and killed probrably 100k Iranians in his term.

The only thing that ever kept Iran from invading Iraq and slaughtering them was the fear of the Mustard gas and other WMD.

So Saddam bluffs and provides no proof to Iraq being clean. That keeps him safe from any kinds of attacks from Iran, al Qaeda or a cohesive effort by the Kurds to overthrow him.

Wow! That's an excellent point. I don't think I've seen that argument made anywhere else, but it's a very good one.

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell

That is NOT to say however that the war wasn't justified given what a monster he is. Just that the reasons for going should have been different.

Bad argument. If you justify invading one country because its leader is a bad guy, then you have to invade ALL countries whos leaders are bad guys. This includes Iran, N. Korea (much worse than Saddam), China, India, Pakistan, Lebanon, and a boatload of other countries.

Besides, it is not our job to be the world's policeman. All that has ever gotten us is ill will.

WWII was the last war we ever fought that we had any right to be in.

WWII and the wars before it were fought because someone was aggressive against us (WWII - Hitler declared war on us, Japan bombed us. WWI, England intercepted a german transmission and decoded it. The transmission said they were going to have their submarines sink ships without surfacing. We had told them they had to surface the sub to identify their target because they had sunk one of our ships by accident. The german document gave instructions to Mexico to invade the U.S. with the financial and military support of Germany - effectively declaring war on us).

Sparhawk · 01-08-2004, 07:07 PM

My problem was the characterization of Iraq as an "emerging threat." By most anyone's standard, Iraq was a contained threat, a known variable. Iran, on the other hand, is a country you can legitimately call an emerging threat, based on their known pursuit of nuclear weapons.

2wolves · 01-08-2004, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
My problem was the characterization of Iraq as an "emerging threat." By most anyone's standard, Iraq was a contained threat, a known variable. Iran, on the other hand, is a country you can legitimately call an emerging threat, based on their known pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Given the differences in how the United States has treated North Korea and Iraq it is understandable that ANY country that doesn't have nukes is scrambling like mad to acquire them. Our ally Pakistan is not helping, nor is Putin showing the good side of his soul.

2Wolves

OFKU0 · 01-08-2004, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Endymon32
,..he would disclose all information and furthermore allow unannounced, un fettered inspecters.

Then he didnt disclose that information, and he messed with the inspectors.

If I remember correctly the inspectors needed more time but Bush couldn't wait. But they did face some opposition from the Iraqi's.

And the Iraqi's provided thousands of documents to the UN regarding their weapons, while Hans Blix looked on.

Wednesday Colin Powell tells ABC there is no way to tell for sure what weapons were in Iraq yet on Thursday on CNN he says Saddam had them but moved them just prior to the war. He didn't speculate as to where they were moved to.

Zeld2.0 · 01-08-2004, 08:57 PM

You know what Superbelt had a point there with the bluffing - saying you have those weapons does make enemies nearby think twice about starting a war or insurrection, whether you have em or not.

Though for sure he had em before the war, we don't know when exactly before the war - could've been as long ago as Operation Desert Storm, a bit after that, or even before it.

As to now? Wouldn't surprise me if they did or didn't honestly.

However that point on bluffing to deter fundamentalist insurrections or invaders is a big point - in fact, thats a good reason why we in teh first place even allowed them / supported them in the 80's - a (relatively) westernized nation in the heart of the Middle East that could deter fundamentalists and communists.

smooth · 01-08-2004, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by OFKU0
But they did face some opposition from the Iraqi's.

Blix stated that his team was receiving more cooperation leading up to the invasion than he had ever had before.

The inspection team accused our intelligence agency of giving them junk intel and keeping them running around in circles.

Mehoni · 01-08-2004, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xell101
We know he used to have them, now he doesn't seem to and he failed to account for their whereabouts suffeciently. Seems obvious to me something sneaky occured. Unless there is more going on with this situation than we are being told, which is my geuss.

I think it's kind of hard to prove that you DON'T have something. Prove to me that you don't have a red ball, please.

Lebell · 01-08-2004, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shakran

Bad argument. If you justify invading one country because its leader is a bad guy, then you have to invade ALL countries whos leaders are bad guys. This includes Iran, N. Korea (much worse than Saddam), China, India, Pakistan, Lebanon, and a boatload of other countries.

Besides, it is not our job to be the world's policeman. All that has ever gotten us is ill will.

WWII was the last war we ever fought that we had any right to be in.

WWII and the wars before it were fought because someone was aggressive against us (WWII - Hitler declared war on us, Japan bombed us. WWI, England intercepted a german transmission and decoded it. The transmission said they were going to have their submarines sink ships without surfacing. We had told them they had to surface the sub to identify their target because they had sunk one of our ships by accident. The german document gave instructions to Mexico to invade the U.S. with the financial and military support of Germany - effectively declaring war on us).

Nonsense and nonsense.

The world is not as black and white as you paint it.

The truth is that if Saddam had stayed in his borders in '92, we probably would never get the internal and international support to remove him.

That doesn't mean that it wouldn't be justified, just that it would likely fail.

That is simply politics on the world stage.

Yes, I would love it if we went into North Korea and Iran (not sure how India and China pissed in your Wheaties), but there are other factors that make it prohibitive.

But what I'm really scratching my head over is that you are apparently saying that it is a bad thing Saddam is out of power and that is beyond belief.

The man was an inhuman monster who killed hundreds of thousands of human beings. Circumstances came about that we could take him out and I am not losing one minute of sleep over it.

shakran · 01-09-2004, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Yes, I would love it if we went into North Korea and Iran (not sure how India and China pissed in your Wheaties), but there are other factors that make it prohibitive.

I see. So we only invade the countries that we can easilly defeat. . . .the ones that pose no threat to us in other words. You're saying we should get rid of evil dictators only when it's really easy. Funny, but that doesn't sound very moral to me.

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
But what I'm really scratching my head over is that you are apparently saying that it is a bad thing Saddam is out of power and that is beyond belief.

Well scratch no more, because I'm not saying that. It's not a bad thing that Saddam is out of power. What I AM saying is that it was not OUR place to remove him. We are not, nor does the world want us to be, the world's policeman. Ever since we started assuming that role, world opinion of our country has gotten worse and worse because we are now seen as a swaggering bully, attacking any country we disagree with.

What if someone had looked at the United States back when slavery was legal, and said we were being cruel (we were) and we should therefore be defeated and occupied indefinitely. Think that would have been a good idea?

We as a country looked at Korea when they started fighting with each other and decided we just HAD to butt in. That worked REAL well. Got umpteen thousands of our soldiers killed, and now, decades later, Korea is still divided and they still hate each other.

We looked at Vietnam when the north and south were fighting with each other and decided we just HAD to butt in. That also worked real well for us. Got a staggering number of soldiers killed while doing nothing but pissing the world off at us. Again.

We looked at Iran and decided we didn't like the democratically elected leader. So we had him removed in a coup and installed the Ayatollah. Yeah. Good move.

We looked at Cuba and said we just HAVE to support Castro's coup to take power in 1959. Gee. Good idea there.

Chile, 1973. We supported the overthrow of Salvador Allende to put Pinochet in office. Pinochet was the mastermind of Operation Condor, the international terrorist network formed to eliminate any opponents of Pinochet's regime. Chalk another dazzling success up for the US of A.

1983, the US supports CIA agent Manuel Noriega in his takeover of the Panamanian armed forces. One year later, the US would work with Noriega to rig the Panamanian election, while simultaneously praising it as democracy in action. Noriega would go on to control this, and the next president of Panama, in effect a shadow-president. Another wonderful example of the US making life better for the world.

In short, every single time we have butted in where we don't belong to try to force our values on others, it's bitten us in the butt and made the world a worse place.

I am all for making sure our interests are protected. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who attacks us or tries to do us harm should be annihilated. But if they're not messing with us, then it is not our place or our right to mess with them.

Lebell · 01-09-2004, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shakran
I see. So we only invade the countries that we can easilly defeat. . . .the ones that pose no threat to us in other words. You're saying we should get rid of evil dictators only when it's really easy. Funny, but that doesn't sound very moral to me.

I read my post again and saw that I said nothing of the sort.

What I did say is that there are other considerations. For example, sure we could invade North Korea and they would immediately launch an attack that would kill a couple of million South Koreans. Plus we might not have the support of our allies.

So while I wouldn't lose sleep over that crackpot either, I can understand why we don't invade right now.

Quote:

Well scratch no more, because I'm not saying that. It's not a bad thing that Saddam is out of power. What I AM saying is that it was not OUR place to remove him. We are not, nor does the world want us to be, the world's policeman. Ever since we started assuming that role, world opinion of our country has gotten worse and worse because we are now seen as a swaggering bully, attacking any country we disagree with.

That is your opinion that the world looks at us as a bully. Sure, stroll the streets of Paris or Rome and you can find people who think so. You can also find people who think otherwise.

Quote:

What if someone had looked at the United States back when slavery was legal, and said we were being cruel (we were) and we should therefore be defeated and occupied indefinitely. Think that would have been a good idea?

What if, what if, what if...

Not interested in the "what if" game.

Quote:

We as a country looked at Korea when they started fighting with each other and decided we just HAD to butt in. That worked REAL well. Got umpteen thousands of our soldiers killed, and now, decades later, Korea is still divided and they still hate each other.

Reread your history book. The UN stepped into Korea and things would have been fine if China hadn't butted in.

So in otherwords, China butted in on a UN operation.

Quote:

We looked at Vietnam when the north and south were fighting with each other and decided we just HAD to butt in. That also worked real well for us. Got a staggering number of soldiers killed while doing nothing but pissing the world off at us. Again.

Thank the French for starting that mess.

But we would have done ok if we had waged real war from the start. By the time we started, the American people had lost the will to fight and the war was over.

But the world was pissed off at us? I don't recall hearing or reading such.

Quote:

We looked at Iran and decided we didn't like the democratically elected leader. So we had him removed in a coup and installed the Ayatollah. Yeah. Good move.

We looked at Cuba and said we just HAVE to support Castro's coup to take power in 1959. Gee. Good idea there.

Uh, we did neither. We supported the Shah in Iran and Batista in Cuba. While I think we were myopic in our fight against communism, I can at least understand why it happened. But if you're gonna slam us, get your history right.

Quote:

Chile, 1973. We supported the overthrow of Salvador Allende to put Pinochet in office. Pinochet was the mastermind of Operation Condor, the international terrorist network formed to eliminate any opponents of Pinochet's regime. Chalk another dazzling success up for the US of A.

1983, the US supports CIA agent Manuel Noriega in his takeover of the Panamanian armed forces. One year later, the US would work with Noriega to rig the Panamanian election, while simultaneously praising it as democracy in action. Noriega would go on to control this, and the next president of Panama, in effect a shadow-president. Another wonderful example of the US making life better for the world.

I have only a passing knowledge of Pinochet and some of Noriega, so I can't comment yes or no.

Quote:

In short, every single time we have butted in where we don't belong to try to force our values on others, it's bitten us in the butt and made the world a worse place.

Tell that to East Berlin, Grenada, South Korea, Panama, and Serbia/Bosnia to name a few. Or perhaps tell that to the victims that Saddam won't kill.

Quote:

I am all for making sure our interests are protected. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who attacks us or tries to do us harm should be annihilated. But if they're not messing with us, then it is not our place or our right to mess with them.

No, you're an isolationist straight out of the early 20th Century.

And your policy was a failure then and you have said nothing to convince me that things have changed.

MuadDib · 01-09-2004, 01:29 AM

I agree that Saddam was a monster and the world is a better place with him in custody. What disturbs me is that at the very least this study implies that my government is willing to commit to war on hazy notions of wrongdoing and at most I was intentionally misled to by my government. I'm sorry, but I don't feel this was our war or we were threatened by Saddam's regime. I've heard the "stop policing the world" rhetoric for years and it was among a handful of positions that I gladly sided with conservatives on (though for different reasons). The way I see it is that we over extended what was within our rights to do for reasons that are less than clear. Like I said, I'm glad Saddam is gone but I am not someone who justifies means by ends and I, personally, can not support the means for our actions.

Superbelt · 01-09-2004, 04:38 AM

Lets see, other developments in the Iraq War Justification:

David Kay and his inspectors are pulling out. Kay is quitting without finding any WMD. He did find a couple short range missiles though, the same missiles Blix was disarming when we started the invasion. Kay won't even produce a final report. No WMD.

Colin Powell had a press conference yesterday, I think in reaction to Carnegie. In it he said that we have no proof and never will be able to prove that Iraq had connections to Al Qaeda.

Sty · 01-09-2004, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
But the world was pissed off at us? I don't recall hearing or reading such.

You need to move to this side of pond and then you see that yes, nobody likes America anymore, more like hate.

seretogis · 01-09-2004, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mehoni
I think it's kind of hard to prove that you DON'T have something. Prove to me that you don't have a red ball, please.

First, hi!

Secondly, Hussein/Iraq did have chemical/biological weapons. Why did he have them? Because we, the United States, gave them to him. Hussein is responsible for proving that he destroyed the weapons which we gave him and he failed to do so. Because of this, the United States is responsible for taking him out of power to ensure that our little pet dictator isn't planning to do something with said chemical/biological weapons which we provided to him.

I just wish that the US Government would stop with the "imminent threat" spin and simply admit that Hussein and Iraq were problems which we contributed to, and so we are responsible for cleaning up the mess.

floydthebarber · 01-09-2004, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sty
You need to move to this side of pond and then you see that yes, nobody likes America anymore, more like hate.

I have to agree with Sty, most of the people around here don't like or respect America. A little bit of world travel would be an eye opener for most Americans in that they would see how little they are cared for these days and I'm not talking about a cruise or a bus tour, I'm talking about geting out there and meeting the local folks. It's quite sad really.

Conclamo Ludus · 01-09-2004, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sty
You need to move to this side of pond and then you see that yes, nobody likes America anymore, more like hate.

That's too bad for them. Hate sucks. It can be a difficult emotion to wrestle with. I'm sure they'll get over it though. Its unfortunate that it has plagued "everybody" across the pond. My condolences.

Disagreeing with a country's policies shouldn't cause you to hate them. I don't hate France, or Russia, or China. On the contrary, I have a love for these countries and cultures regardless of their governments. I would hope that his "hate" towards America that "everybody" suffers from wouldn't lead them to any sort of snobbery or prejudice. They can hate all they want, I still love them anyway.

onetime2 · 01-09-2004, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by floydthebarber
I have to agree with Sty, most of the people around here don't like or respect America. A little bit of world travel would be an eye opener for most Americans in that they would see how little they are cared for these days and I'm not talking about a cruise or a bus tour, I'm talking about geting out there and meeting the local folks. It's quite sad really.

Interesting how "everyone" hates America now. Nothing like broad generalizations, huh. I guess we should learn from those with this attitude. That would be healthy. Should our goal be popularity? I doubt it.

reconmike · 01-09-2004, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shakran
I see. So we only invade the countries that we can easilly defeat. . . .the ones that pose no threat to us in other words. You're saying we should get rid of evil dictators only when it's really easy. Funny, but that doesn't sound very moral to me.

Well scratch no more, because I'm not saying that. It's not a bad thing that Saddam is out of power. What I AM saying is that it was not OUR place to remove him. We are not, nor does the world want us to be, the world's policeman. Ever since we started assuming that role, world opinion of our country has gotten worse and worse because we are now seen as a swaggering bully, attacking any country we disagree with.

What if someone had looked at the United States back when slavery was legal, and said we were being cruel (we were) and we should therefore be defeated and occupied indefinitely. Think that would have been a good idea?

We as a country looked at Korea when they started fighting with each other and decided we just HAD to butt in. That worked REAL well. Got umpteen thousands of our soldiers killed, and now, decades later, Korea is still divided and they still hate each other.

We looked at Vietnam when the north and south were fighting with each other and decided we just HAD to butt in. That also worked real well for us. Got a staggering number of soldiers killed while doing nothing but pissing the world off at us. Again.

We looked at Iran and decided we didn't like the democratically elected leader. So we had him removed in a coup and installed the Ayatollah. Yeah. Good move.

We looked at Cuba and said we just HAVE to support Castro's coup to take power in 1959. Gee. Good idea there.

Chile, 1973. We supported the overthrow of Salvador Allende to put Pinochet in office. Pinochet was the mastermind of Operation Condor, the international terrorist network formed to eliminate any opponents of Pinochet's regime. Chalk another dazzling success up for the US of A.

1983, the US supports CIA agent Manuel Noriega in his takeover of the Panamanian armed forces. One year later, the US would work with Noriega to rig the Panamanian election, while simultaneously praising it as democracy in action. Noriega would go on to control this, and the next president of Panama, in effect a shadow-president. Another wonderful example of the US making life better for the world.

In short, every single time we have butted in where we don't belong to try to force our values on others, it's bitten us in the butt and made the world a worse place.

I am all for making sure our interests are protected. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who attacks us or tries to do us harm should be annihilated. But if they're not messing with us, then it is not our place or our right to mess with them.

Do you have a clue of what you are talking about?

Where are the correction lefties when one of your own if spewing history lessons that that are down right hysterical?

I read a study from the non-partisan Napoleonanic Endowment for Military Studies and war winning and they infact concluded that not only did Iraq have WMD they were building Photon Torpedos to shoot at the US from their light ships.

( sorry the link is down right now but I will post it as soon as it is up again)

james t kirk · 01-09-2004, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell

That is NOT to say however that the war wasn't justified given what a monster he is. Just that the reasons for going should have been different.

EXACTLY.

Problem is that there are probably about a hundred Saddams running around in the world right now. Do you want to take on all of them one at a time?

james t kirk · 01-09-2004, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xell101
We know he used to have them, now he doesn't seem to and he failed to account for their whereabouts suffeciently. Seems obvious to me something sneaky occured. Unless there is more going on with this situation than we are being told, which is my geuss.

Yeah, he used them all up.

shakran · 01-09-2004, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
I read my post again and saw that I said nothing of the sort.

What I did say is that there are other considerations. For example, sure we could invade North Korea and they would immediately launch an attack that would kill a couple of million South Koreans. Plus we might not have the support of our allies.

Oh come on. Not have the support of our allies? Like we had a whole lot of support in Iraq.

[B][QUOTE]

Quote:

Reread your history book. The UN stepped into Korea and things would have been fine if China hadn't butted in.

So in otherwords, China butted in on a UN operation.

The United States stepped in with their military. Sanctioned by the UN, but we were the primary force there.

Quote:

But we would have done ok if we had waged real war from the start. By the time we started, the American people had lost the will to fight and the war was over.

The american people never had the will to fight in the first place. Those that did have the will to fight (and were standup enough to enlist rather than sitting back proclaiming how OTHER americans should go fight) quickly lost the will to fight once they found out what was really happening over there.

Quote:

Uh, we did neither. We supported the Shah in Iran and Batista in Cuba. While I think we were myopic in our fight against communism, I can at least understand why it happened. But if you're gonna slam us, get your history right.

I mistyped about the Shah. But we did not support Batista. We supported Castro.

Quote:

Tell that to East Berlin, Grenada, South Korea, Panama, and Serbia/Bosnia to name a few. Or perhaps tell that to the victims that Saddam won't kill.

East Berlin? What the hell did we have to do with East Berlin? You don't really think that just because the Almighty Reagan said "tear down that wall" that Berlin actually listened do you? The german people revolted and tore it down themselves.

Grenada? Yes, that got us condemned by the entire world, including the British. A UN resolution deploring the invasion didn't pass ONLY because the United States vetoed it.

South Korea? Yes, they now live next to a nutty neighbor with nukes. They're in a great position. We killed 3 million Korean civilians and nearly 400,000 americans were killed. That doesn't count those who lost limbs and spent their lives disabled. All for what? To not solve a damn thing.

Panama - you cannot tell me we didn't screw up by supporting Noriega. Under him, drug exports to the US grew at an astronomical rate. Sure, things are better now that we've finally removed him, but don't forget that WE put him there in the first place.

Serbia/Bosnia is still a hellish place to live with violence occurring daily. It was a civil war that we had no right to mess with. We had our own civil war in the late 1800's. If some jackass nation had stepped in and tried to break it up, we'd have kicked their asses, then gone right back to fighting.

Quote:

No, you're an isolationist straight out of the early 20th Century.

Hey, finally something we agree on. You're damn right I'm an isolationist. Our responsibility is to fix our own country, not to go running around messing with others. We love to play the "we're the angelic country that everyone else should look up to and learn from us how to run things" role, but 1) we're not good at it and 2) it's not our place to do it. If we paid more attention to working on our own problems (poverty, education, crime, etc), we'd be a much better country today.

Quote:

And your policy was a failure then and you have said nothing to convince me that things have changed.

How exactly was it a failure? We kept ourselves to ourselves until we were directly threatened or attacked, at which point we kicked the ass of whoever has screwed with us. The policy did not fail. In fact, it worked out very well for us. Unfortunately it was abandoned for extremely poor reasons.

Conclamo Ludus · 01-09-2004, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk
EXACTLY.

Problem is that there are probably about a hundred Saddams running around in the world right now. Do you want to take on all of them one at a time?

Not all at once. Start with one, and slowly watch the others start to disappear. Of course its not that easy, but that's the basic idea. You take out a couple here and a couple there, they'll start to shrivel up. The innocent people of these countries will become less and less tolerant of having dictators ruin their lives. Its a slow process, but you obviously can't take them all out at once, and letting them do whatever they want will eventually become your problem too. Supporting these little Saddam's has got to stop though, and unfortunately many western nations are at fault for this. There's no foreign policy "cookie-cutter" though.

james t kirk · 01-09-2004, 09:20 AM

[

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
That is your opinion that the world looks at us as a bully. Sure, stroll the streets of Paris or Rome and you can find people who think so. You can also find people who think otherwise.

The US has gone from being a super-power to the new word i read last week - "Hyper-power" So true. There is no-one to counterbalance the threat of the United States. Before, the USSR and the USA kept each othe largely in check. Now, there is no such arrangement.

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
But the world was pissed off at us? I don't recall hearing or reading such.

Oh yeah, the world was pissed off with Vietnam. Even Great Britain didn't support that one. President Johnson got into a physical altercation with Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson of Canada over Canada's not supporting Vietnam. The world was not smiles and chuckles over the whole Vietnam thing. In the end, what was gained by it all????

As Springstein so aptly put, "they're still there, he's all gone."

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Uh, we did neither. We supported the Shah in Iran and Batista in Cuba. While I think we were myopic in our fight against communism, I can at least understand why it happened. But if you're gonna slam us, get your history right.

Yep, those were two candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Tell that to East Berlin, Grenada, South Korea, Panama, and Serbia/Bosnia to name a few. Or perhaps tell that to the victims that Saddam won't kill.

East Berlin (I take it you mean the 1960's airlift)= Nato

Grenada = live ammunition fire practice

Panama = your boy Noreiga pissed off his benefactors

the former Yugoslavia = UN operation

Iraq = still trying to figure that one out.

01-08-2004, 01:26 PM	#3 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	I dunno, pry because any leader would be less then happy with an international body having unrestricted access to any facility within his country or maybe just cause he is a evil crazy dictator, regardless the evidence doesn't support WMDs being there. To me the perfect example is someone who refuses to let a cop search his/her home. Just because you try to not let them in and interfere with them once they do come in doesn't mean you have anything to hide. You are just trying to maintain your sovereignty over your own household. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

01-08-2004, 01:34 PM	#6 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	Well Dragon, yes they can. You see they are not dependent on the government or others making the assertions that there were WMDs in Iraq. They also have nothing to gain or lose from their findings. Inherently, this makes them independent of the people making the original claims as well as their own findings. Furthermore, I think it is absurd to claim simply because you have an opinion on a matter that you can not be independent or objective (which is what I take it you actually mean). If that were the case objectivity would be impossible in any form. From a research prospective you always start with a hypothesis and work to objectively confirm or deny that hypothesis. The key having objective results is not to avoid having a hypothesis or opinion on the matter, but rather it is to be free from standing to gain from finding one way or another. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

01-08-2004, 02:51 PM	#9 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	In MD's defense, they can be independent and still be biased. They might also be able to report on the facts instead of their bias. Without seeing the report and researching the sources, it is hard to say. In any event, I see that there is a strong possibility that Hussein was just bluffing the whole time and that Iraq might not have had WMD's. If we knew this (unlikely) or let ourselves be convinced he did (more likely) then I will be unhappy that this was the main reason for war. That is NOT to say however that the war wasn't justified given what a monster he is. Just that the reasons for going should have been different. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-08-2004, 03:03 PM	#10 (permalink)
2wolves Psycho Location: Just outside the D.C. belt	The biggest issue I have with the invasion and occupation of Iraq was the administrations linkage to Bin Ladin's terrorist efforts. 2Wolves __________________ Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet.

01-08-2004, 07:07 PM	#19 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	My problem was the characterization of Iraq as an "emerging threat." By most anyone's standard, Iraq was a contained threat, a known variable. Iran, on the other hand, is a country you can legitimately call an emerging threat, based on their known pursuit of nuclear weapons. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

01-08-2004, 01:15 PM	#2 (permalink)
Endymon32 Banned	So why did Saddam interfere with the inspectors then?

01-08-2004, 01:27 PM	#4 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	MuadDib, if this org opposed the war, they can hardly be considered "independent" researchers, now can they?

01-08-2004, 03:08 PM	#11 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	They had no WMD but they couldn't sign any papers, or provide proof that they had none because they have not stopped being in a standoff with Iran. Fighting stopped but the ill-will each nation harbors for each other did not. Remember, Saddam gassed and killed probrably 100k Iranians in his term. The only thing that ever kept Iran from invading Iraq and slaughtering them was the fear of the Mustard gas and other WMD. So Saddam bluffs and provides no proof to Iraq being clean. That keeps him safe from any kinds of attacks from Iran, al Qaeda or a cohesive effort by the Kurds to overthrow him.

01-08-2004, 03:11 PM	#12 (permalink)
Endymon32 Banned	Well then dont bluff, look were it got him...

01-08-2004, 03:15 PM	#13 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Good Justification.

01-08-2004, 06:08 PM	#15 (permalink)
Endymon32 Banned	No, not argueing, just talking reason here. The man invaded a nation, then signed a treaty that said he would disclose all information and furthermore allow unannounced, un fettered inspecters. Then he didnt disclose that information, and he messed with the inspectors. And he bluffed and make it look like he had em. So we did what was legal, moral, and reasonable to do. And I am glad for it.

01-08-2004, 06:46 PM	#17 (permalink)
Xell101 Junkie	We know he used to have them, now he doesn't seem to and he failed to account for their whereabouts suffeciently. Seems obvious to me something sneaky occured. Unless there is more going on with this situation than we are being told, which is my geuss.

01-08-2004, 08:57 PM	#22 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	You know what Superbelt had a point there with the bluffing - saying you have those weapons does make enemies nearby think twice about starting a war or insurrection, whether you have em or not. Though for sure he had em before the war, we don't know when exactly before the war - could've been as long ago as Operation Desert Storm, a bit after that, or even before it. As to now? Wouldn't surprise me if they did or didn't honestly. However that point on bluffing to deter fundamentalist insurrections or invaders is a big point - in fact, thats a good reason why we in teh first place even allowed them / supported them in the 80's - a (relatively) westernized nation in the heart of the Middle East that could deter fundamentalists and communists.

01-09-2004, 01:29 AM	#28 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	I agree that Saddam was a monster and the world is a better place with him in custody. What disturbs me is that at the very least this study implies that my government is willing to commit to war on hazy notions of wrongdoing and at most I was intentionally misled to by my government. I'm sorry, but I don't feel this was our war or we were threatened by Saddam's regime. I've heard the "stop policing the world" rhetoric for years and it was among a handful of positions that I gladly sided with conservatives on (though for different reasons). The way I see it is that we over extended what was within our rights to do for reasons that are less than clear. Like I said, I'm glad Saddam is gone but I am not someone who justifies means by ends and I, personally, can not support the means for our actions. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

01-09-2004, 04:38 AM	#29 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Lets see, other developments in the Iraq War Justification: David Kay and his inspectors are pulling out. Kay is quitting without finding any WMD. He did find a couple short range missiles though, the same missiles Blix was disarming when we started the invasion. Kay won't even produce a final report. No WMD. Colin Powell had a press conference yesterday, I think in reaction to Carnegie. In it he said that we have no proof and never will be able to prove that Iraq had connections to Al Qaeda.