1
   

We went to war over THIS?

Forums: Politics, Iraq
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 12:19 pm
BTW, weren't people talking a week or so ago about some new initiative? To go to other planets, or something like that? You know, one of the most ambitious projects in all of human history?

Does that ring any bells?

I guess there wasn't room for it in the speech, after the gay marriage stuff and the steroids. Neutral
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 12:24 pm
He spent more time talking about steroids than he did about the environment. Well, he was a baseball owner earlier in his illustrious career. I can imagine him pestering the speech writers about adding that paragraph about steroids--it was probably his only input, so they were sure to put it in!
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 12:49 pm
Bush Inc. is an evil threat to the entire world. IMO

Unfortunately, a large population of Americans are either

A: too stupid to see it
B: to lazy to investigate it
C:worshippers, and I mean that in its pure sense, of Bush Inc.

I was thinking this morning that although I can't keep my mouth shut, I believe that by speaking my mind about Bush I put myself and my family in danger down the road somewhere. I believe that I, and everyone like me, is on a list somewhere.

This guy has got to be voted out and we need to take steps to not only get him out of Washington, but to dismantle Bush Inc. which has much deeper, wider, and more sinister and dangerous roots than merely the office of the Presidency. IMO.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 01:04 pm
Bear, if you and a lot of other A2K'ers are on that list, I'd be honored to be on it with you. There was a tactic during the 60's that if one group of demonstrators got arrested, then everybody else would go down, act up, and get arrested also. After a few hours the local jail would be full and the authorities would get the message. Maybe Shrub's list needs to be filled up to overflowing.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 01:14 pm
Where are Saddam's WMDs? Do you think he destroyed them? When? Why?

If he was in compliance and had none left, why did he continue to refuse to comply with Investigators? Maybe some of you can give these answers and close the case.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 01:22 pm
Re: We went to war over THIS?
joefromchicago wrote:
Anyone else notice the drift in presidential rhetoric that has taken place over the past year? Here's what Bush said in last year's State of the Union Address:
It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed.

So, in other words, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And in his May 1, 2003 speech declaring an end to "major hostilities," Bush reiterated his pledge to find those weapons:
We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated.

But when the weapons stubbornly refused to be found, the rhetoric shifted. Now, it's weapons of mass destruction programs that were the real problem, as Bush pointed out in remarks at the Oct. 28, 2003 press conference:
David Kay's report said that Saddam Hussein was in material breach of 1441, which would have been casus belli. In other words, he had a weapons program, he's disguised a weapons program, he had ambitions.

And now we have this from yesterday's State of the Union address:
Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.

So we've gone from "weapons of mass destruction" to "weapons of mass destruction programs" to, finally, "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." What's next? Attempted weapons of mass destruction-related program activities? Weapons of mass destruction-related program activity office supplies? How many qualifiers will ultimately be larded onto "weapons of mass destruction" before the administration finally settles on a definition that could justify going to war?

So, my question: if you supported the war when it was about "weapons of mass destruction," would you have supported it if it was about "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities"?

EDIT: cleared up some stylistic errors


This is made even more damning by the fact that the other ostensible reason for the war - supposed terrorist links - is patently retarded.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 01:26 pm
PDiddie wrote:
BTW, weren't people talking a week or so ago about some new initiative? To go to other planets, or something like that? You know, one of the most ambitious projects in all of human history?

Does that ring any bells?

I guess there wasn't room for it in the speech, after the gay marriage stuff and the steroids. Neutral

Yeah, I noticed that too. Just last week Bush announced a new plan to explore space and extend a human presence across our solar system. But: The big plan floated a week ago -- to settle the moon and strike out for Mars -- never came up, having bombed in the polls and on both sides of the congressional aisle.

Of course, that's kinda' ironic, since Bush said last night: "no one can now doubt the word of America." Maybe so, but we certainly can doubt the words of its leaders.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 01:38 pm
Sofia wrote:
Where are Saddam's WMDs? Do you think he destroyed them? When? Why?

If he was in compliance and had none left, why did he continue to refuse to comply with Investigators? Maybe some of you can give these answers and close the case.


Sofia, the case is closed. And, for those of us with a modicum of objectivity and intelligence, it was closed long ago.

Questions about why Saddam didn't get all cosy and submissive to the weapons inspectors are interesting but ultimately irrelevant. The line of reasoning that you are taking - namely that Saddam refused to co-operate because he was hiding weapons - is full of holes.

Perhaps Saddam was an incorrigible prick by nature; perhaps he was stalling to show his defiance; perhaps he made the mistake of assuming Bush would actually wait for the weapons inspectors to finish. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

The bottom line is that Bush claimed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, he knew where they were, and they were an immediate threat to our national security. He was so sure of this, in fact, that he waged a war that has killed over 500 Americans and thousands of innocent Iraqis. He was wrong.

Bush also claimed that there were clear connections between Saddam and Al-Qaida. He was also wrong here, as most informed people knew all along.

Either Bush lied to us (in which case he has got to go) or he was doubly wrong on an issue that has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars (in which case he has got to go.)

Case closed.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 01:46 pm
Sofia wrote:
Where are Saddam's WMDs? Do you think he destroyed them? When? Why?

If he was in compliance and had none left, why did he continue to refuse to comply with Investigators? Maybe some of you can give these answers and close the case.


Since more than 45 years I KNOW that this other gay had gerrymandered marmels. And one day, I swear, I'll find out how he did it.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 01:50 pm
Well, since you and all of your intelligent friends know so much, where are the WMDs? What happened to them?

We dummards don't close a case until we have all the information.
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 01:57 pm
Sophia, you wrote:"Where are Saddam's WMDs? Do you think he destroyed them? When? Why? If he was in compliance and had none left, why did he continue to refuse to comply with Investigators? Maybe some of you can give these answers and close the case."

I don't think Saddam had any WMDs. I don't doubt that he may have been seriously interested in acquiring them, as are dozens of world leaders, for various reasons. But we were lead to believe that our government KNEW he had them, and that the danger they posed was immminent; both of those statements were apparently lies. Saddam was contained; there was time to build a coalition the hard way, through diplomacy, but our government chose to use our position as sole world power to act unilaterally.

Foreign policy is complicated, particularly in the middle east. On our best day in the middle east, we are still percieved as arrogant, white, western, and Christian, and for that reason alone, winning allies there is difficult. Additionally, things like pride and respect and ego are huge factors. People need to be "played". It does us no good in the long run to in-your-face-it to other countries. I believe Colin Powell knew this and knew that, in the long run, the resentment such behavour fosters will ultimately do us harm.

Saddam was, if we are to believe even some of what we read, a secularist, not an idealogue. As despicable as he was/is, however, I believe it is easier to deal with a secularist than a religious fanatic. Our actions in Iraq may have eliminated Saddam, but they may also have paved the way for Islamic extremists, in Iraq and elsewhere.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 01:57 pm
We dummards don't know where the holy grail was put either. <shrugs>

If you are referring to the old weapons Iraq posessed decades ago I bet that they have naturally deteriorated or have been destroyed.

Either way, they were not any threat except to the imagination of fools. And that much is clear despite your call for us to prove a negative to you.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 02:01 pm
The Bush logic re the WMDs seems to be: We know he had them (or plans to build them); we can't find them; therefore he must have destroyed them.

It all comes down to believing the Bush premise, in which case his argument makes sense, or not. HIs argument itself is meaningless; it just exists to explain the lack of evidence.

I guess, like the holy grail that Craven mentions, it's more a matter of faith than anything else...Some want to believe it, others are skeptical.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 02:06 pm
I wanna believe we'll get rid of Bush . . . in the long watches of the night, i despair . . .
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 02:09 pm
Well actually Sofia has a point. The holy grail comment was intended to address burden of proof shifting.

I think what Sofia is saying is that Iraq was known to have weapons (they admitted and gave inventory of a lot of them).

And their records of destruction were not complete.

This much is true. But still no smoking gun, most of the inventory that was not accounted for is at an age where it poses no threat except to those who happen to draw disposal duty.

But ILZ made a very relevant post. Perhaps Saddam's records that were given to us were not complete. Maybe he is a prick by nature. <shrugs>

Either way, not knowing the exact fate of each of his old toys does not constitute an imminent threat.

Whatever hasn't been found by now is simply not going to make a mushroom cloud.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 02:18 pm
Sofia wrote:
Well, since you and all of your intelligent friends know so much, where are the WMDs? What happened to them?

We dummards don't close a case until we have all the information.


Again - the point is that there are no WMD's in Iraq. Bush was either wrong or he lied. The war was fought on false pretences. Case closed.

The question of why there are no WMD's in Iraq in no way affects the fact that there are none. Period.


Joe: This box is empty.

Sofia: You're wrong because we aren't sure about why the box is empty.

IronLionZion: It doesn't matter why. The box is empty.

Sofia: You're wrong. You cannot say the box is empty untill you know why.


Part of being intelligent and objective is acknowledging when it is simply impossible to know something. I don't know what happened to the WMD's that Iraq once had. It would be dumb of anybody to claim otherwise.

Your argument - that since Iraq had WMD's in the past means they still have them now - is retarded. There are any number of things that could have happened to them. Hussien could have destroyed them secretly a long time ago to avoid looking like he was caving to international pressure. He could have used them. We could have over-estimated the amount of WMD's he had and thus not realized they were already expended. His records may have been intentionally or unintentionally incorrect. He could have hidden them in his anus. The list goes on.

My advice is that you start trying to justify the war based on a different criteria. It becomes increasingly pathetic each day when conservatives latch on to the now-discredited 'WMD's' and "terrorist connections' arguments. You are going down with the ship, Sofia. Find a new argument.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 02:22 pm
Debating, or arguing points has aided me in watching my words, and being able to prove what I say is true. This has been valuable. I try to be careful about the words I choose.

Craven speaks to my point.

I do know Saddam Hussien had WMDs.
I know he used them.
I don't know where they are, or what was done with them.
Neither do any of the members here.

All the connected facts, or absence of facts are extraneous from the points presented above. They may aid in arriving at an opinion--just as I can bring facts, which will show how I reached my opinion.

The missles with nerve agent found recently remind me that the desert is large. I am content to wait and see what is found. One group says Bush fabricated or embellished Intel Reports--one group says the Intel reports were true for a time, and made erroneous by action taken after the reports were compiled, and the information gathered.

Who can say with proof of knowledge which is true? None of us.

D'art-- Who can fault the skeptics? Its those who profess the knowledge that tee me.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 02:38 pm
I don't fault the skeptics, Sofia. I'm one of them!
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 02:43 pm
Sofia,

My position has long been that there are WMDs (in the wide sense of the word) in Iraq. It has also long been that weaponized WMDs that pose a significant threat were a specter and too ridiculous to contemplate.

Don'tcha agree that our recent find is, as roger put it, a smoking gun a decade ago and wasn't smoking now?

Because if your point is to suggest that WMDs (in all definitions of the term) exist in a nation I'd point out that there is not a single nation on earth where they don't.

You can find some things classified as WMDs in nature. Heck a buddy of mine had a naturally occuring substance that is considered an WMD on his farm in Brazil. It was his pet nuisance.

So yeah, there might be some old weapons out there. But do you think any of them posed a imminent threat? And "I don't know", while true, doesn't count.

Nobody can bet on "I don't know". We already made the bets. Given the result did we bet right (on WMDs)? If your answer is "I don't know" what would you say if you had to come to a conclusion?

Hell I'll be the first to say that Saddam wasn't spreading his cheeks as widely as we'd have liked. But for the argument of pre-emption an imminent threat is needed.

Without the imminent threat, the argument must cease to be one of pre-emption.

Possibility of a threat doesn't count. Everything is possible. So in accessing the justification of pre-emption you must make a probability accessment.

What's your probablity accessment? Nations's can't be invaded on a "I don't know". Otherwise one could conquer the world with "just in case" pre-emption.

As an aside, the humanitarian argument for invading Iraq was always a much better one IMO. Like most other supporters I'd move on to that argument if I wanted to justify the war.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 03:09 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
I don't fault the skeptics, Sofia. I'm one of them!

Yes. That was my point. I can't argue with you, because I can't prove my case any more than the Opposition can prove theirs. The skeptics are like all the rest of us--they don't know.

Craven--
I realize WMDs are everywhere. I think we all know why we haven't bombed the hell out of Jerusalem, or other nuke holders. And, I think everyone knows why we did bomb Iraq. The geopolitical realities are too huge to fall back on the tired, partisan ones.

I think Bush had Intel that the threat from Saddam was imminent. Whether or not that intelligence was correct is in question. It has been revealed that some of the intel was based on Saddam's taped statements--whether they were legitimate conversation, or an intentional ploy--who can say?

A President, when faced with such overwhelming evidence (tapes of Saddam discussing his WMDs), should act. If the information he trusts, and other Presidents have trusted is wrong, who's fault is that? I don't know if this is the case--but most detractors don't want to consider the possibility.

I still think fomenting democracy in the ME is the best thing since the fall of the USSR. Considering the reality that lived behind the Iron Curtain, the former prospect is much more vital to the world.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » We went to war over THIS?
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 08:06:34
▲ ▼