US reports finds that Iraq had no WMD - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mephisto2 · 09-16-2004, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Saddam had no WMD stockpile: US report
September 17, 2004 - 1:28PM

Drafts of a report from the top US inspector in Iraq conclude there were no weapons stockpiles.

But they say there were signs that fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had dormant programs he hoped to revive at a later time, according to people familiar with the findings.

In a 1,500-page report, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, will find Saddam was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of UN agreements and maintaining a dual-use industrial sector that could produce weapons.

Duelfer also says Iraq only had small research and development programs for chemical and biological weapons.

As Duelfer puts the finishing touches on his report, he concludes Saddam had intentions of restarting weapons programs at some point, after suspicion and inspections from the international community waned.

After a year and a half in Iraq, however, the United States has found no weapons of mass destruction - its chief argument for overthrowing the regime.

An intelligence official said Duelfer could wrap up the report as soon as this month, but noted it may take time to declassify it.

Those who discussed the report inside and outside the government did so on the condition of anonymity because it contains classified material and is not yet completed.

If the report is released publicly before the November 2 election, Democrats are likely to seize on the document as another opportunity to criticise the Bush administration's leading argument for war in Iraq and the deteriorating security situation there.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has criticised the president's handling of the war in Iraq, but has also said he still would have voted to authorise the war even if he had known no weapons of mass destruction would be found there.

Duelfer's report is expected to be similar to findings reported by his predecessor, David Kay, who presented an interim report to Congress in October. Kay left the post in January, saying, "We were almost all wrong" about Saddam's weapons programs.

The new analysis, however, is expected to fall between the position of the Bush administration before the war - portraying Saddam as a grave threat - and the declarative statements Kay made after he resigned.

It will also add more evidence and flesh out Kay's October findings. Then, Kay said the Iraq Survey Group had only uncovered limited evidence of secret chemical and biological weapons programs, but he found substantial evidence of an Iraqi push to boost the range of its ballistic missiles beyond prohibited ranges.

He also said there was almost no sign that a significant nuclear weapons project was under way.

Duelfer's report doesn't reach firm conclusions in all areas. For instance, US officials are still investigating whether Saddam's fallen regime may have sent chemical weapons equipment and several billion dollars over the border to Syria. That has not been confirmed, but remains an area of interest to the US government.

The Duelfer report will come months after the Senate Intelligence Committee released a scathing assessment of the prewar intelligence on Iraq.

After a yearlong inquiry, the Republican-led committee said in July that the CIA kept key information from its own and other agencies' analysts, engaged in "group think" by failing to challenge the assumption that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and allowed President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell to make false statements.

The Iraq Survey Group has been working since the summer of 2003 to find Saddam's weapons and better understand his prohibited programs. More than a thousand civilian and military weapons specialists, translators and other experts have been devoted to the effort.

AP

REF: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...320949195.html

Emphases added by poster.

Interesting reading.

Mr Mephisto

Bodyhammer86 · 09-17-2004, 07:59 AM

There's two other things that need to be considered here: 1. If Saddam did indeed have wmd's, do you really think that he would've kept them lying around for us to find? Come on now, he would have either A. destroyed them, B. buried them in the desert, or C. sold them to the highest bidder. 2. To support the "buried in the desert point," Iraq is roughly the size of california and most of it, if not all, is desert. A million troops could not search that entire area in ten years, much less the hundred thousand troops we have there now that have been there for just a year and a half, and most of them are in the combat zone. Furthermore, a few months ago, we discovered that the Iraqis had buried a fleet of Mig-25 fighter jets in the desert. If they could bury a squadron of jets in the desert, why couldn't they bury the weapons there as well?

onetime2 · 09-17-2004, 09:13 AM

Not that my words will influence anyone's stance on this but, his secret activities prior to the current war (enhancing the range of missiles, storing programs to be reactivated later, misappropriation of oil for food monies, etc) obviously left plenty of room for interpretation and understandably the worst case scenario perspective was taken.

In the end it, the wmd argument doesn't matter to me since my stance has always been that Iraq was about changing the perception of the US as a paper tiger, but I digress...

In terms of the implications of this article, I wonder if there will be an investigation into what happened to the "unaccounted for" weapons then. There is no doubt he had wmds in the past and there is no doubt that he did not prove to any of the weapons inspectors conclusively that all had been destroyed. So, as the article points out, were any of them shipped across the border or were they destroyed?

brianna · 09-17-2004, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

There's two other things that need to be considered here: 1. If Saddam did indeed have wmd's, do you really think that he would've kept them lying around for us to find? Come on now, he would have either A. destroyed them, B. buried them in the desert, or C. sold them to the highest bidder. 2. To support the "buried in the desert point," Iraq is roughly the size of california and most of it, if not all, is desert. A million troops could not search that entire area in ten years, much less the hundred thousand troops we have there now that have been there for just a year and a half, and most of them are in the combat zone. Furthermore, a few months ago, we discovered that the Iraqis had buried a fleet of Mig-25 fighter jets in the desert. If they could bury a squadron of jets in the desert, why couldn't they bury the weapons there as well?

ok, let's say that's the case. he had weapons and they were hidden or sold off. so how are we safer now? the weapons are out there somewhere and SOMEONE knows where. so what have we gained? all we did was move the weapons form one dangerous regime to another -- hardly seems worth the cost of the war.

onetime2 · 09-17-2004, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianna

ok, let's say that's the case. he had weapons and they were hidden or sold off. so how are we safer now? the weapons are out there somewhere and SOMEONE knows where. so what have we gained? all we did was move the weapons form one dangerous regime to another -- hardly seems worth the cost of the war.

But we had no way to know this prior to invasion. By all indications Saddam was hiding his activities and remaining non compliant with the treaty signed to end Gulf War I. Every major intelligence network, country in the Middle East, and our allies believed that he had the wmds.

Bodyhammer86 · 09-17-2004, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

But we had no way to know this prior to invasion. By all indications Saddam was hiding his activities and remaining non compliant with the treaty signed to end Gulf War I. Every major intelligence network, country in the Middle East, and our allies believed that he had the wmds.

You, my friend, are absolutely right. Hell, even the democrats thought he had wmds.

OpieCunningham · 09-17-2004, 12:38 PM

How many times does the gov't have to tell us that there were no WMDs before we stop claiming, hypothesizing and hoping that there were?

It's a damn good thing there were no WMDs.

nanofever · 09-17-2004, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

In the end it, the wmd argument doesn't matter to me since my stance has always been that Iraq was about changing the perception of the US as a paper tiger, but I digress...

You have to admit that we did blow our load on a pretty low-level threat country. I mean if we were going to attack a country to prove how tough we are why not North Korea or Saudi Arabia? I bet we could show the whole world how tough we are by bombing one of those countries into oblivion.

Superbelt · 09-17-2004, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

But we had no way to know this prior to invasion. By all indications Saddam was hiding his activities and remaining non compliant with the treaty signed to end Gulf War I. Every major intelligence network, country in the Middle East, and our allies believed that he had the wmds.

And all those intelligence networks were echo chambers for others, usually the US intel.

Lebell · 09-17-2004, 01:16 PM

I don't see anything here that hasn't been hashed over at least a dozen times in "Politics".

Sen · 09-17-2004, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I don't see anything here that hasn't been hashed over at least a dozen times in "Politics".

What would politics be if not hashing and rehashing the same issues?

Rdr4evr · 09-17-2004, 02:04 PM

Lets attack Iran now, thats where the WMD's were transported!! /sarcasm

Most people know WMD's were just an excuse to go to war. The Bush administration knew damn well Saddam had no WMD's, he did have a lot of oil though.

Arc101 · 09-17-2004, 04:01 PM

North Korea has lot of WMD's and is ruled by a total evil dictator why not attack them next ? I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact there is no oil and he really does have WMD's.

rukkyg · 09-17-2004, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arc101

North Korea has lot of WMD's and is ruled by a total evil dictator why not attack them next ? I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact there is no oil and he really does have WMD's.

The Neoncons thought the american public would believe a connection between 9/11 and iraq. They did. So they supported the war. They added some icing to the cake of lies in the form of this WMD nonsense. American Empire annexes Iraq!

onetime2 · 09-17-2004, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nanofever

You have to admit that we did blow our load on a pretty low-level threat country. I mean if we were going to attack a country to prove how tough we are why not North Korea or Saudi Arabia? I bet we could show the whole world how tough we are by bombing one of those countries into oblivion.

It didn't matter whether they were low level or not. They were blatantly opposing the UN and the US in the face of every sanction and penalty imaginable. They were a shining example of the fact that countries could do what they wanted on the world stage with little real impact to their leaders from any sort of retaliation.

onetime2 · 09-17-2004, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

And all those intelligence networks were echo chambers for others, usually the US intel.

Not all of them. Some were Islamic countries who came to the conclusion without the benefit of US intelligence.

Bodyhammer86 · 09-17-2004, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

How many times does the gov't have to tell us that there were no WMDs before we stop claiming, hypothesizing and hoping that there were?

This isn't evidence that at one point in time, he did possess wmd's? http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html Next time, try to ask a question that takes less than 5 seconds worth of searching to answer.

shakran · 09-17-2004, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

You, my friend, are absolutely right. Hell, even the democrats thought he had wmds.

No, it's absolutely wrong. There was a LOT of doubt about WMD's - so much so that most nations chose not to join us in our invasion of Iraq. Their best evidence, presented by Colin Powell to the UN, was shaky and circumstantial at best, and the majority of the world saw through it. Of course, the response of Bush and his cowboys was to jeer at these nations (*cough*France*cough*) and encourage national hatred of them, thus proving not only their stupidity, but their immaturity as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

This isn't evidence that at one point in time, he did possess wmd's? http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html Next time, try to ask a question that takes less than 5 seconds worth of searching to answer.

The United States at one time had slaves. Should we be put on trial now for what we had in the past and got rid of?

The issue was not whether Iraq had WMD's some time in the murky past, but whether Iraq had them at the time the war started. And all signs point to the fact that Iraq did not have them.

Bodyhammer86 · 09-17-2004, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

No, it's absolutely wrong. There was a LOT of doubt about WMD's - so much so that most nations chose not to join us in our invasion of Iraq. Their best evidence, presented by Colin Powell to the UN, was shaky and circumstantial at best, and the majority of the world saw through it. Of course, the response of Bush and his cowboys was to jeer at these nations (*cough*France*cough*) and encourage national hatred of them, thus proving not only their stupidity, but their immaturity as well.

Take a look at this:

Quote:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

“Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Boo · 09-17-2004, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

How many times does the gov't have to tell us that there were no WMDs before we stop claiming, hypothesizing and hoping that there were?

It's a damn good thing there were no WMDs.

I wish I could believe that. I still believe some innocent person is gonna die a horrible death after discovering them. Then we will get blamed for not finding the WMD and destroying them.

OpieCunningham · 09-17-2004, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

Take a look at this:

Amazingly, none of them were as stupid as Bush Jr. to get us into the mess we're in. Hell, even his pop knew better.

Quote:

Had we gone into Baghdad -- we could have done it, you guys could have done it, you could have been there in 48 hours -- and then what? Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most-secure dictator in the world? Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power -- America in an Arab land -- with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous. -- George H W Bush to Gulf War veterans, 1998

sprocket · 09-17-2004, 07:18 PM

Very enlightening post BoddyHammer86.

roachboy · 09-17-2004, 10:08 PM

no amount of rationalization is going to make the facts of the matter change or go away.

bush sold the american people a war on false information, false pretenses.

it would be nice to see supporters of this administration demonstrate a modicum of intellectual courage, abandon excuses and just face this reality...maybe issue a mea culpa...maybe admit that they were chumped and that they have to rethink their positions...maybe even rethink their support for george w. bush....even once would be refreshing.

i do not know anyone else who would continue to support a president who lied to the country about war.

but i do not see it coming.

i take this--and the supporters of the administration on this thread as only an example---as a nice lesson in exactly what the right means by taking personal responsibility--it means holding others to account while refusing to acknowledge anything, even the most outrageous acts, if they are carried out by republicans or by interests friendly to the republicans.

so it appears that personal responsibility for the right only applies to other people.
for them, for their party, for the interests that party represents, anything goes.

that is quite a particular kind of "moral" leadership.
quite a high ground to defend.
you should be proud.

in case you forgot about the opening post, here is a different account:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...307529,00.html

hannukah harry · 09-17-2004, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

You, my friend, are absolutely right. Hell, even the democrats thought he had wmds.

and they were wrong about them too, then. but the big difference is that you didn't see Clinton (or even the elder Bush) attacking and making that a case for war with them.

nanofever · 09-17-2004, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

and they were wrong about them too, then. but the big difference is that you didn't see Clinton (or even the elder Bush) attacking and making that a case for war with them.

Why do you hate America Hannukah Harry?

DJ Happy · 09-18-2004, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

It didn't matter whether they were low level or not. They were blatantly opposing the UN and the US in the face of every sanction and penalty imaginable. They were a shining example of the fact that countries could do what they wanted on the world stage with little real impact to their leaders from any sort of retaliation.

So the US invading Iraq in direct contravention of the UN is going to rectify that, is it?

The weapons inspectors in the weeks prior to the invasion said that there was almost no evidence that he had any WMDs and pleaded with the US to let them finish the job. It's quite obvious that oil was the only thing on Bush's mind and he wasn't going to allow some uppity scientists to obliterate the only excuse he had to get his mitts on the second largest oil reserve in the world.

Bodyhammer86 · 09-18-2004, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

So the US invading Iraq in direct contravention of the UN is going to rectify that, is it?

Well, the UN sure as hell wasn't doing their job despite the fact that he had also thrown out the weapons inspecters numerous times, fired at planes patrolling the two internationally recognized no-fly zones, and was gassing the Kurds in the north, but did the UN ever do anything about it? No

DJ Happy · 09-18-2004, 08:03 AM

Please don't offer "reasons" such as violating UN resolutions or crimes against humanity as legitimate reasons to invade a sovereign nation unless you're willing and able to explain why other, more blatant and savage violations and crimes by other nations are ignored and even encouraged.

The point of the post you've quoted was that defying a UN resolution so as to administer punishment for defying a UN resolution hardly makes sense. Or do you disagree?

09-18-2004, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

and they were wrong about them too, then. but the big difference is that you didn't see Clinton (or even the elder Bush) attacking and making that a case for war with them.

Wait, what? You don't call the missile strikes (which were aimed at the stockpiles they KNEW he had, and DID have at the time) warlike?

student · 09-18-2004, 10:00 AM

Blowing up suspected sites with long range missisles is a whole lot different than an ill conceived invasion. We have the technology to know if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction i.e. satellites, high altitude planes. U.S. planes were patrolling the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. They knew they had nothing. Seriously, the stealth bomber was developed in the late 70's, and now you don't think we have comparably advanced technologies especially dealing with intelligence and surveilance matters?

hannukah harry · 09-18-2004, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jconnolly

Wait, what? You don't call the missile strikes (which were aimed at the stockpiles they KNEW he had, and DID have at the time) warlike?

heh... that was one dangerous asprin factory... we really showed it!

powerclown · 09-18-2004, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

Please don't offer "reasons" such as violating UN resolutions or crimes against humanity as legitimate reasons to invade a sovereign nation unless you're willing and able to explain why other, more blatant and savage violations and crimes by other nations are ignored and even encouraged.

How about this then:

What made Hussein different from any number of other insane dictators around the world is the fact that he sat on the largest untapped reserves of oil in the world. The entire world relies on Middle East oil to run their societies productively, and with his oil he, 1) took advantage of the UN with the oil for food deal, enriching himself, while his people became of the poorest living standards in the world, and his country's infrastucture was neglected and in ruin, 2) used the oil to obtain and enhance his WMD stockpile and his conventional weaponry which he used to attack Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. 3) funded terrorist suicide bombers in Palestine. One could go on a long time.

I say it is a Bad Thing when so much oil, which so much of the world relies on, is controlled by an insane, aggressive dictator. I would pick a corrupt but civilized government over a corrupt, inept, hostile and backward dictator every time. Even though I don't think it was the only reason Iraq was invaded, if in fact it WAS the only reason, I'd be fine with it. A vital, finite resource was being wasted and abused. Add to it his sympathies and funding of terrorism, and the occurence of 9/11 and the potential danger he posed in this new light, its really a no-brainer.

pan6467 · 09-18-2004, 11:58 AM

It's a lose - lose situation that we didn't need to embark on, but we did and now what?

Just looking at the sides without any bias (or at least trying to):

If we withdraw now 3 things are apparent:

1) we show weakness (in some people's opinions and perhaps we do)

2) we allow the Iraqis to continue a civil war and have turned our backs on (yet again) those who believed we were there to help and wanted a better country.

3) Our allies will wonder why we didn't finish the war.
However if we stay 3 things are apparent:

1) We keep sending men and women over and the fighting gets worse

2) We show no diplomacy, take the oil and have even our best allies starting to doubt there will be a good ending to this.

3) More of our men and women will die in a foreign land fighting in a war that shouldn't have happened.

No matter how you look at it, I have a feeling for the next decade at least we are in serious trouble.

powerclown · 09-18-2004, 12:02 PM

Im of the opinion that its not a lose-lose situation. I prefer to look at as potential for progress in the Middle East, on many levels. 100 years from now, I think history will look at this and consider it an attempt to advance an area of the world in dire need of help. Not saying it will be 100% successful, but a bold attempt, an experiment to be learned from.

rukkyg · 09-18-2004, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

How about this then:

What made Hussein different from any number of other insane dictators around the world is the fact that he sat on the largest untapped reserves of oil in the world.

I thought I already answered this question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

The Neoncons thought the american public would believe a connection between 9/11 and iraq. They did. So they supported the war. They added some icing to the cake of lies in the form of this WMD nonsense. American Empire annexes Iraq!

powerclown · 09-18-2004, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rukkyg

I thought I already answered this question.

The fact that Hussein was sympathetic to people similar to the people who carried out 9/11 I believe was the subsequent mindset that led to the invasion.
"The friend of my enemy is my enemy as well."

If something like 9/11 was possible, then what could Hussein be capable of doing/funding/planning/ with the terrorist-types he sympathized with and funded?? This subsequently brought out the theory of 'pre-emptive warfare', or striking your enemy before he strikes you. A sound military principle.

pan6467 · 09-18-2004, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

The fact that Hussein was sympathetic to people similar to the people who carried out 9/11 I believe was the subsequent mindset that led to the invasion.
"The friend of my enemy is my enemy as well."

If something like 9/11 was possible, then what could Hussein be capable of doing/funding/planning/ with the terrorist-types he sympathized with and funded?? This subsequently brought out the theory of 'pre-emptive warfare', or striking your enemy before he strikes you. A sound military principle.

Power you do make good arguments. And in reply to your previous post: perhaps 100 years from now it will be looked upon as you say an experiment to bring a region into todays world. I truly hope so.

roachboy · 09-18-2004, 12:57 PM

you really should read through the posts by folk who are still struggling to find a justification of bush's actions with reference to iraq--just read through them--if you want to see a curious outline of how political propositions and psychological structures interact, an interaction that only really surfaces at point of dissonance or crisis.

so far, i have seen amazing willingness to distort reality through false equilvalences (clinton's acts versus those of gwb); desperate attempts to salvage an explanation that was obviously floated ex post facto, was never relevant to the decision to go to war (hussein was a bad man), the construction of fantasy scenarios (wmds are buried in the sand)-----anything and everything but a direct confrontation with the fact of the matter.

there are no wmds.
the un inpsections team made this argument at the moment when the bush people were looking to go to war--they were hellbent on war, so allowing the un teams to confirm the nonexistence of the wmds--and thereby imploding the whole argument the bush people were trying to advance--was not an option politically, according to the terms specific to their worldview.

bush had no argument for war.
not really.
it was based on premises that were false, wrong, erroneous.

you might say: well, he believed it, as you might have....

but the fact is that the guy is president of the united states and is not in a position like you sitting on your couch watching tv--you cannot send 150,000 american troops into harm's way on account of your suspicions or beliefs---and you work from a very differently filtered information pool, so it is a damn good thing that you cannot do it.

you have to assume that bush was privy to a full range of information.

therefore george w bush is not in a position like that you are in, and must be held to other standards.

if part of his administration lied to him to justify carrying out a project that ran counter to the political interests of the country, then you have to hold bush accountable for that.

and there is no way, no way at all, that launching a war on false pretenses was in the interests of the united states.

drawing the conclusions about the iraq war from this information should be a no-brainer.
why is it so diffucult for bush supporters to face this?

what kind of democratic politics is the conservative worldview if it is not amenable to the slightest degree of self-criticism?

what good is it to support this position if it places you in a situation in which you are psychologically unable to draw obvious inferences?

if you assume this inability is a function of the political worldview itself, then the obvious question is how does this worldview enable anyone who subscribes to it competent to run the country? if the avoidance of dissonance is the hallmakr of this kind of belief, how is rational decision making possible?

powerclown · 09-18-2004, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

if part of his administration lied to him to justify carrying out a project that ran counter to the political interests of the country, then you have to hold bush accountable for that.

I do hold bush accountable. Im glad he did what he did!
I would argue that trying to implement positive change in an area of the world that so desperately needs it is in line with the political interests of the US and its people. Lets not have anymore 9/11's or worse, shall we? The rest of the world should stand up, show some resolve, and help out with the hard work of setting a good example in dealing with rogue dictators and giving the people of Iraq a hopeful future, because sooner or later this is going to effect every single country that abstained from the endeavor. Its already happened in Russia, and its starting in France as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

you have to assume that bush was privy to a full range of information.

Indeed, and based on that information, he launched a 'pre-emptive strike'.
It all makes perfect sense don't it?

smooth · 09-18-2004, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I do hold bush accountable. Im glad he did what he did!
I would argue that trying to implement positive change in an area of the world that so desperately needs it is in line with the political interests of the US and its people. Lets not have anymore 9/11's or worse, shall we? The rest of the world should stand up, show some resolve, and help out with the hard work of setting a good example in dealing with rogue dictators and giving the people of Iraq a hopeful future, because sooner or later this is going to effect every single country that abstained from the endeavor. Its already happened in Russia, and its starting in France as well. Indeed, and based on that information, he launched a 'pre-emptive strike'.
It all makes perfect sense don't it?

this is the height of cultural myopia--Russia and France, along with a huge proportion of the industrialized nations, have been dealing with domestic terrorism for decades.

09-17-2004, 07:59 AM	#2 (permalink)
Bodyhammer86 Insane Location: Mattoon, Il	There's two other things that need to be considered here: 1. If Saddam did indeed have wmd's, do you really think that he would've kept them lying around for us to find? Come on now, he would have either A. destroyed them, B. buried them in the desert, or C. sold them to the highest bidder. 2. To support the "buried in the desert point," Iraq is roughly the size of california and most of it, if not all, is desert. A million troops could not search that entire area in ten years, much less the hundred thousand troops we have there now that have been there for just a year and a half, and most of them are in the combat zone. Furthermore, a few months ago, we discovered that the Iraqis had buried a fleet of Mig-25 fighter jets in the desert. If they could bury a squadron of jets in the desert, why couldn't they bury the weapons there as well? __________________ Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/

09-17-2004, 09:13 AM	#3 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Not that my words will influence anyone's stance on this but, his secret activities prior to the current war (enhancing the range of missiles, storing programs to be reactivated later, misappropriation of oil for food monies, etc) obviously left plenty of room for interpretation and understandably the worst case scenario perspective was taken. In the end it, the wmd argument doesn't matter to me since my stance has always been that Iraq was about changing the perception of the US as a paper tiger, but I digress... In terms of the implications of this article, I wonder if there will be an investigation into what happened to the "unaccounted for" weapons then. There is no doubt he had wmds in the past and there is no doubt that he did not prove to any of the weapons inspectors conclusively that all had been destroyed. So, as the article points out, were any of them shipped across the border or were they destroyed? __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

09-17-2004, 01:16 PM	#10 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I don't see anything here that hasn't been hashed over at least a dozen times in "Politics". __________________ "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!

09-17-2004, 07:18 PM	#22 (permalink)
sprocket Psycho Location: In transit	Very enlightening post BoddyHammer86. __________________ Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

09-17-2004, 10:08 PM	#23 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	no amount of rationalization is going to make the facts of the matter change or go away. bush sold the american people a war on false information, false pretenses. it would be nice to see supporters of this administration demonstrate a modicum of intellectual courage, abandon excuses and just face this reality...maybe issue a mea culpa...maybe admit that they were chumped and that they have to rethink their positions...maybe even rethink their support for george w. bush....even once would be refreshing. i do not know anyone else who would continue to support a president who lied to the country about war. but i do not see it coming. i take this--and the supporters of the administration on this thread as only an example---as a nice lesson in exactly what the right means by taking personal responsibility--it means holding others to account while refusing to acknowledge anything, even the most outrageous acts, if they are carried out by republicans or by interests friendly to the republicans. so it appears that personal responsibility for the right only applies to other people. for them, for their party, for the interests that party represents, anything goes. that is quite a particular kind of "moral" leadership. quite a high ground to defend. you should be proud. in case you forgot about the opening post, here is a different account: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...307529,00.html __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 09-17-2004 at 10:11 PM..

09-17-2004, 12:38 PM	#7 (permalink)
OpieCunningham Loser	How many times does the gov't have to tell us that there were no WMDs before we stop claiming, hypothesizing and hoping that there were? It's a damn good thing there were no WMDs.

09-17-2004, 02:04 PM	#12 (permalink)
Rdr4evr Banned	Lets attack Iran now, thats where the WMD's were transported!! /sarcasm Most people know WMD's were just an excuse to go to war. The Bush administration knew damn well Saddam had no WMD's, he did have a lot of oil though.

09-17-2004, 04:01 PM	#13 (permalink)
Arc101 Addict Location: Nottingham, England	North Korea has lot of WMD's and is ruled by a total evil dictator why not attack them next ? I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact there is no oil and he really does have WMD's.

09-18-2004, 08:03 AM	#28 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	Please don't offer "reasons" such as violating UN resolutions or crimes against humanity as legitimate reasons to invade a sovereign nation unless you're willing and able to explain why other, more blatant and savage violations and crimes by other nations are ignored and even encouraged. The point of the post you've quoted was that defying a UN resolution so as to administer punishment for defying a UN resolution hardly makes sense. Or do you disagree?

09-18-2004, 10:00 AM	#30 (permalink)
student Crazy	Blowing up suspected sites with long range missisles is a whole lot different than an ill conceived invasion. We have the technology to know if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction i.e. satellites, high altitude planes. U.S. planes were patrolling the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. They knew they had nothing. Seriously, the stealth bomber was developed in the late 70's, and now you don't think we have comparably advanced technologies especially dealing with intelligence and surveilance matters?

09-18-2004, 11:58 AM	#33 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	It's a lose - lose situation that we didn't need to embark on, but we did and now what? Just looking at the sides without any bias (or at least trying to): If we withdraw now 3 things are apparent: 1) we show weakness (in some people's opinions and perhaps we do) 2) we allow the Iraqis to continue a civil war and have turned our backs on (yet again) those who believed we were there to help and wanted a better country. 3) Our allies will wonder why we didn't finish the war. However if we stay 3 things are apparent: 1) We keep sending men and women over and the fighting gets worse 2) We show no diplomacy, take the oil and have even our best allies starting to doubt there will be a good ending to this. 3) More of our men and women will die in a foreign land fighting in a war that shouldn't have happened. No matter how you look at it, I have a feeling for the next decade at least we are in serious trouble. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

09-18-2004, 12:02 PM	#34 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Im of the opinion that its not a lose-lose situation. I prefer to look at as potential for progress in the Middle East, on many levels. 100 years from now, I think history will look at this and consider it an attempt to advance an area of the world in dire need of help. Not saying it will be 100% successful, but a bold attempt, an experiment to be learned from. Last edited by powerclown; 09-18-2004 at 12:06 PM..

09-18-2004, 12:57 PM	#38 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	you really should read through the posts by folk who are still struggling to find a justification of bush's actions with reference to iraq--just read through them--if you want to see a curious outline of how political propositions and psychological structures interact, an interaction that only really surfaces at point of dissonance or crisis. so far, i have seen amazing willingness to distort reality through false equilvalences (clinton's acts versus those of gwb); desperate attempts to salvage an explanation that was obviously floated ex post facto, was never relevant to the decision to go to war (hussein was a bad man), the construction of fantasy scenarios (wmds are buried in the sand)-----anything and everything but a direct confrontation with the fact of the matter. there are no wmds. the un inpsections team made this argument at the moment when the bush people were looking to go to war--they were hellbent on war, so allowing the un teams to confirm the nonexistence of the wmds--and thereby imploding the whole argument the bush people were trying to advance--was not an option politically, according to the terms specific to their worldview. bush had no argument for war. not really. it was based on premises that were false, wrong, erroneous. you might say: well, he believed it, as you might have.... but the fact is that the guy is president of the united states and is not in a position like you sitting on your couch watching tv--you cannot send 150,000 american troops into harm's way on account of your suspicions or beliefs---and you work from a very differently filtered information pool, so it is a damn good thing that you cannot do it. you have to assume that bush was privy to a full range of information. therefore george w bush is not in a position like that you are in, and must be held to other standards. if part of his administration lied to him to justify carrying out a project that ran counter to the political interests of the country, then you have to hold bush accountable for that. and there is no way, no way at all, that launching a war on false pretenses was in the interests of the united states. drawing the conclusions about the iraq war from this information should be a no-brainer. why is it so diffucult for bush supporters to face this? what kind of democratic politics is the conservative worldview if it is not amenable to the slightest degree of self-criticism? what good is it to support this position if it places you in a situation in which you are psychologically unable to draw obvious inferences? if you assume this inability is a function of the political worldview itself, then the obvious question is how does this worldview enable anyone who subscribes to it competent to run the country? if the avoidance of dissonance is the hallmakr of this kind of belief, how is rational decision making possible? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite