Calling All Democrats

McGentrix wrote:

Date and link?

Sorry... the source

... Only after the invasion were the inspectors allowed to fulfill their responsibilities in determining that.

Let me highlight some points: The first point, made in paragraph 8 of the report, is that the Commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items - whether from pre-1991 or later. I leave aside the Al Samoud 2 missile system, which we concluded was proscribed.

But U.N. reports submitted to the Security Council before the war by Hans Blix, former chief U.N. arms inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, have been largely validated by U.S. weapons teams. The common findings:

Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dormant.

No evidence was found to suggest Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons. U.N. officials believe the weapons were destroyed by U.N. inspectors or Iraqi officials in the years after the 1991 Gulf War.

... There are still many doubts though whether Saddam had them leading up to the invasion...

There is enough evidence to suggest they had been moved to Syria and no one can truly say whether he had them or not.

they may still be found buried in the desert... like the centrifuges found in a scientists backyard garden...

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

You miss the point entirely. Since Hussein had been so misleading about his WMD and WMD programs for so long, and since he had not provided any real proof that he had disarmed despite the fact that he badly wanted sanctions removed, there was some real chance that he still had them. Had that been so, millions of lives could have been lost down the line. For this reason, the decision to invade was exactly correct.

So North Korea resumed its WMD program. It claims to have WMD. Millions of lives could be lost down the line. For this reason, what would you do?

This is so elementary, it's almost sickening that I have to plod through it, but here is your answer. I would negotiate and impotently beg them to be nice. Maybe use an economic carrot and stick. It's too late with North Korea. They have the bomb. If we invaded they could either destroy the south or use nuclear weapons on our troops. We missed the bus on this one. We invaded Iraq to prevent Hussein from achieving this level of near invulnerability.

This is so elementary, it's almost sickening - I have to agree! And I have to agree on how to deal with NK. But maybe you remember this:

16 October 2002: The US announces that North Korea admitted in their talks to a secret nuclear arms programme.

source

So you say Iray was invaded to prevent Hussein from achieving this level. But then I would ask: What has been done concerning North Korea? A country that admis to a secret nuke program?
AND, at the same time, Iraq has been invaded, even though there was at least a lot of doubt about WMDs?
Can't you see the least bit of incongruency?

Brandon9000 wrote:

The reason that it was a good idea to invade Iraq was because of questions about WMD, not to free his hideously opressed people. That was a fringe benefit. We can't invade North Korea. They are nuclear. All we can do is whine for NK to please play nice.

This is so funny, but soooo sad at the same time!! Please clarify:

Quote:

The reason that it was a good idea to invade Iraq was because of questions about WMD

So whenever there is a question about WMD you'd say: INVADE. No, wait, you would say it is a GOOD IDEA to INVADE,

Whereas

Quote:

We can't invade North Korea. They are nuclear.

In other words: once a country has reached the level of nuclearness, you have to respect them and treat them like decent guys.

Isn't this world a weird place?

McGentrix wrote:

... Only after the invasion were the inspectors allowed to fulfill their responsibilities in determining that.

This is not quite right. The UNMOVIC inspections ended in May 2003. In his final report Hans Blix, then Acting Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, briefed the Security Council on the findings of the inspectors.
You can read this

Quote:

Let me highlight some points: The first point, made in paragraph 8 of the report, is that the Commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items - whether from pre-1991 or later. I leave aside the Al Samoud 2 missile system, which we concluded was proscribed.

here.

As I have noted before, this does not necessarily mean that such items could not exist. They might - there remain long lists of items unaccounted for - but it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for.

In May 2003, the Bush administration decided to establish a specialized group of about 1,500 individuals, the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), to search the country for WMD - replacing the 75th Exploitation Task Force, which had originally been assigned the mission. Appointed to lead the Group, whose motto is "find, exploit, eliminate," was Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency's Directorate of Operations.

Now you might wish to actually READ the article I mentioned, and pay attention to this statement:

Quote:

But U.N. reports submitted to the Security Council before the war by Hans Blix, former chief U.N. arms inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, have been largely validated by U.S. weapons teams. The common findings:

Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dormant.

No evidence was found to suggest Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons. U.N. officials believe the weapons were destroyed by U.N. inspectors or Iraqi officials in the years after the 1991 Gulf War.

So when you are saying that

McGentrix wrote:

... There are still many doubts though whether Saddam had them leading up to the invasion...

then this is not quite true. Mind you, these are the findings of the U.S. ISG Group and David Kay, who was appointed special advisor and traveled to Iraq to lead the search.

So I might ask YOU for a your sources proving that

McGentrix wrote:

There is enough evidence to suggest they had been moved to Syria and no one can truly say whether he had them or not.

or that

McGentrix wrote:

they may still be found buried in the desert... like the centrifuges found in a scientists backyard garden...

Oh, btw I don't want to ignore the sensational centrifuges found in a scientists backyard garden...
It's true, a lot can be done with some centrifuges. It's well worth invading a country. It's well worth hundred of BILLIONS of dollars (of your tax money, hehehehe). It's well worth the death of thousands of Iraqi civilians. It's well worth the death of 1,469 soldiers until today (1,332 since "Mission Accomplished", I should add).

It just doesn't look like a WMD program. Just like David Kay, the former U.S. chief inspector, concludes: that Iraq had no banned weapons before last year's U.S-led invasion. And that Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dormant.

Every Boy's ABCs of the Nuclear Age:

1. When a very bad and evil dictator who is a high risk to use WMD should he obtain them, tries to acquire them, but has not yet acheived a level to make invasion impossible, you ask him a few times to stop, and if he doesn't you stop him. This is even more true if said dictator is friendly with terrorists.

October 2002: The Bush administration reveals that Pyongyang had admitted operating a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of the 1994 agreement. North Korean officials acknowledged the program after U.S. officials confronted them with evidence.

This is even more true if said dictator is friendly with terrorists.

2. Once the same dictator has achieved near invulnerability with WMD, as, for instance, when he seems to already have nukes, you cannot invade. Said dictator could kill a million people in the first hour of said war. In this case, you simply have no choice but to whine for him to play nice.

the Commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items - whether from pre-1991 or later.

2. Once the same dictator has achieved near invulnerability with WMD, as, for instance, when he seems to already have nukes, you cannot invade. Said dictator could kill a million people in the first hour of said war. In this case, you simply have no choice but to whine for him to play nice.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the administration believed it had the diplomatic tools to try to force Syria to leave Lebanon but noted Bush never took options off the table -- code for not ruling out the possibility, however remote, of military action.

What part of that don't you get?

The very next paragraph:

Quote:

As I have noted before, this does not necessarily mean that such items could not exist. They might - there remain long lists of items unaccounted for - but it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for.

As I have noted before, this does not necessarily mean that such items could not exist. They might - there remain long lists of items unaccounted for - but it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for.

Nor was it justified to ignore the long list of items that could have fallen into Osama's hands when Saddam decided to sell them on the black market.

... There are still many doubts though whether Saddam had them leading up to the invasion...

snip

Were there no longer doubts, would we be having this conversation? It would only take one WMD to change the landscape of America. One. Do you care to take that risk? I sure don't.

snip

Nope. I am merely speculating. Do you have sources that can 100% deny those charges?

Prior to the invasion, Saddam had 12 years to allow weapons inspectors to prove he had dismantled ALL of his WMD's and WMD programs. Saddam was uncooperative and thought he would eventually win the little battle between himself and the great satan. He thought he would outlast the resolve of the US to protect itself. He was wrong.

It wasn't until we had amasses 100,000 soldiers on his borders that he finally allowed the UN weapon inspectors to try to do their job. He finally realized that the eagle was awake and mightily pissed off. He finally realized he had lost the game.

It wasn't enough. 9/11 changed the rules of the game. We could no longer allow the failed UN sanctions to protect oour country from terrorism. We could no longer take the risk that Saddam had indeed fulfilled his obligations under repeatedly ignored UN resolutions.

It would only take one WMD to change the landscape of America. One. Do you care to take that risk? I sure don't.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Every Boy's ABCs of the Nuclear Age:

1. When a very bad and evil dictator who is a high risk to use WMD should he obtain them, tries to acquire them, but has not yet acheived a level to make invasion impossible, you ask him a few times to stop, and if he doesn't you stop him. This is even more true if said dictator is friendly with terrorists.

Okay, Brandon.... To some degree I have to agree with you. Nobody wants to see WMD in the hands of dictators. Or in the hands of madmen who seem to be totally capable of using them. Still, I wonder if you are making these statements IN GENERAL or if you are just JUSTIFYING the

invasion of Iraq.

Because if you are saying EVERY "evil dictator who is a high risk to use WMD

should he obtain them, tries to acquire them, but has not yet acheived a level to make invasion impossible" should be stopped by means of invading the countries (pardon, "liberating" the country), then what about North Korea in 2002? Or is this question too difficult for you to answer?
Oh, in case you forgot about what happened twoandahalf years ago (some people just have a bad memory) - maybe a look at the NK timeline might be helpful:

Quote:

October 2002: The Bush administration reveals that Pyongyang had admitted operating a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of the 1994 agreement. North Korean officials acknowledged the program after U.S. officials confronted them with evidence.

source

So North Korea wasn't invaded BECAUSE??? Oh, right, the 9/11 guys where muslims... not asians....

....right! That's what you mean by

Brandon9000 wrote:

This is even more true if said dictator is friendly with terrorists.

No, I probably got you wrong... I beg you to explain what you mean by that statement, it doesn't make too much sense to me.

Brandon9000 wrote:

2. Once the same dictator has achieved near invulnerability with WMD, as, for instance, when he seems to already have nukes, you cannot invade. Said dictator could kill a million people in the first hour of said war. In this case, you simply have no choice but to whine for him to play nice.

Yes. I agree. So Washington knew (and said it knew) about NKs secret nuke program. Whereas int about Iraq said there was no such program. You might want to reread the findings of

UNMOVIC, stating that

Quote:

the Commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items - whether from pre-1991 or later.

So you have one country that openly admits to pursuing a nuke program and one country that for all we know doesn't have one. Which country do we invade? You might be kind enough to share your opinion on this issue with the rest of us.

But lets continue...

Brandon9000 wrote:

2. Once the same dictator has achieved near invulnerability with WMD, as, for instance, when he seems to already have nukes, you cannot invade. Said dictator could kill a million people in the first hour of said war. In this case, you simply have no choice but to whine for him to play nice.

True. I agree. Deal with them. Some diplomatic efforts, maybe. Trick them into giving up their program. Get them to destroy their nukes. DON'T JUST IGNORE THEM. I honestly doubt the government is exactly doing that... I doubt the government pays a lot of attention to NK. I would rather say they downsize the problem and distract people by stating this:

Quote:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the administration believed it had the diplomatic tools to try to force Syria to leave Lebanon but noted Bush never took options off the table --

code for not ruling out the possibility, however remote, of military action.

source

Another splendid idea of the Bush government, wouldn't you say? Oh, right, I forgot your statement: Invade them BEFORE they even have a CHANCE of obtaining nukes. Fight

another war. Bomb Iran. And Syria.

Brandon9000 wrote:

What part of that don't you get?

Honestly?

Brandon9000 wrote:

theantibuddha wrote:

A war could have been useful for reducing terrorism and altering global politics. Yet this one was handled badly and will not yield positive results.

A pity really.

You miss the point entirely. Since Hussein had been so misleading about his WMD and WMD programs for so long, and since he had not provided any real proof that he had disarmed despite the fact that he badly wanted sanctions removed, there was some real chance that he still had them. Had that been so, millions of lives could have been lost down the line. For this reason, the decision to invade was exactly correct.

Sorry to bring this back, I've been gone for a week or so and feel I should reply to a post directed to me.

Brandon. Your arguments are incoherent. First you claim it's against terrorism... Now it's against a foreign government possessing weaponry... These are two different things. I can not, nor do I ever wish to, argue against equivocation.

I have addressed terrorism already. If you wish to debate my points on that topic you are welcome to do so. As it is I can only assume that you have changed the topic since you are now talking about something completely different. We can discuss WMDs if that is your wish though.

It is apparent at this point that the so-dubbed WMDs do not exist. If the American military was unable to determine this at the time, then something is extremely wrong with the way they operate. Their resources should easily be sufficient to determine such information.

In such a case should the WMDs be the motivation for this war rather than counter-terrorism as was originally claimed, then the failure to note that these WMDs did not in fact exist speaks of either incompetence or a hidden agenda within the military and political circles.

Brandon,

again I have to agree on a lot of points you made. I am trying to sum up what you said:

Every time a bad and evil dictator tries to obtain WMD you should try to stop him. First by negotiations/diplomatic efforts. If that doesn't change anything, within a reasonable amount of time, then stop him by means of force.

I definitely don't want to misquote you. I am just trying to understand your position.

You seem to propagate Kant's categorical imperative: "Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

I might be wrong, though. You might argue that the US is "better" than all the other nations in the world (higher moralic principles etc.) and therefore can set the rules by which to play and at the same time be the judge and the policeman, i.e. judge about other nations and enact the rules.

I am not sure which position you're on. Still, of you would claim that the same rules should be valid for all the nations around the globe, I'd like to ask you a few questions:

1. What authority can define what qualifies a dictator as "bad and evil"? And, furthermore, when is a head of state a dictator? Would Pervez Musharraf qualify as a dictator at all? When did the definition for Hussein change from "president" to "dictator"?

2. What possibility would Iraq have had to stop the invasion? When would it have had that chance? When, in March 2003, Hans Blix said that "the Commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items - whether from pre-1991 or later" - was that too late? Was the invasion force already in place, so the actual invasion was inadvertable?

3. You say Iraq couldn't prove the non-existance of a WMD program. Do the words "in dubio pro reo" have any meaning to you? Because I am pretty sure that neither Syria nor Iran can prove the non-existance of a WMD program (or of their trying to obtain nuclear WMD). How can you prove non-existance at all? For example: how can you prove you didn't secretly plan to murder your neighbor? Shouldn't you be executed then (Florida having the death penalty, as far as I know...), subsequently? 'Preemptively' protecting your neighbor?

Essentially, as I said, I have to agree with you on many points. I don't want to see WMD spread around the globe. I don't want to see terrorist's attacks happening.
But I have to question the US's right to invade Iraq.

No, I did not ever claim that the invasion of Iraq was motivated by a desire to fight terrorism.

Fabrication on your part.

Why? Some things really are hard to determine, as, for example, what a secretive, duplicitous country might be hiding. Based on the totality of our history with Hussein, there was some chance that there were still WMD or WMD programs in hiding, and we could not chance leaving Hussein possessing or soon to possess sufficient WMD to do real harm, e.g. kill a hundred thousand Americans with a nuke or bioweapon.

It seems to me that the president stated clearly and often that the motive for invasion was WMD.

...Now, on to the meat.

Quote:

Why? Some things really are hard to determine, as, for example, what a secretive, duplicitous country might be hiding. Based on the totality of our history with Hussein, there was some chance that there were still WMD or WMD programs in hiding, and we could not chance leaving Hussein possessing or soon to possess sufficient WMD to do real harm, e.g. kill a hundred thousand Americans with a nuke or bioweapon.

Dude, what the hell is the CIA for. (Or is that the NSA, I'm not 100% on american governmental bodies). They get massive funding to be a spy agency, they find out this kind of thing. Nuclear weapons are not easy to make, they require ingredients and advanced technology, most of which is carefully monitored. It's not like a backyard Meth laboratory. If America was worried about it they would have had many many spies within Iraq who could have uncovered the actual information.

How, precisely, would Iraq launch an attack on America. They are in military parlance very very far away, (6211 miles according to one source). Do they have a capacity to launch a missile over that distance?

Why would Iraq ever ever ever attack america? If Iraq had 20 nukes (an impossibility but let's imagine), they could kill a few million americans. Yet america would turn around and be able to turn every square inch of iraq into charred radioactive soil without anyone in the world questioning it. Even hussein is not stupid enough to do that.

Brandon9000 wrote:

It seems to me that the president stated clearly and often that the motive for invasion was WMD.

Clearly? Given his method of speech I would question that word. But yes, he did frequently say that.... later on. It is intriguing though that George Bush senior would have personally (through his investments) made a large profit from the war. I'm certain that never played a moments thought within his son's brain. It's also intriguing that a war would increase his chances of re-election. Would enable him to enact reinforms people would never consider during peace-time...

What surprises me is that a politician has said something, and you believe them. To me that seems particularly naive.

The WMD and/or programs may simply have been disposed of in the weeks preceding invasion.

We're really not that sure of our facts. In spying on a country like Iraq, the intelligence service has kind of a tough problem because of religious/cultural issues which take some work for an undercover agent to fake.

US intelligence undoubtedly should have had more agents who spoke Arabic, but apparently the human intelligence side of the service had been deteriorating for quite a long time.

I do not think that our lack of clarity about what was happening with the Iraqi weapons program reflects a level of incompetence under Bush that exceeds the degree of incompetence in past recent administrations.

theantibuddha wrote:

How, precisely, would Iraq launch an attack on America.

Smuggle the components of a bioweapon or nuke into the US, then assemble and detonate it from within.

Better yet, just infect a volunteer with some monstrous plague and have him take a bus tour of the country, creating numerous separate plague epicenters.

I believe that he could kill a few million Americans with much fewer than 20 nukes, even relatively small ones, especially if you figure in people who die of their wounds within, say, six months.

How are we going to retaliate if we don't know who did it?

Why would he attack us? Because we've stood in the way of his ambitions.

He might have sold the WMD to terrorists who might have used them against us. Even if we somehow identified the terrorist group, they might not really have a return address to direct retaliation at.

I believed this long before Bush ran for president.

Brandon9000 wrote:

The WMD and/or programs may simply have been disposed of in the weeks preceding invasion.

Why would they do that?

Brandon9000 wrote:

We're really not that sure of our facts. In spying on a country like Iraq, the intelligence service has kind of a tough problem because of religious/cultural issues which take some work for an undercover agent to fake.

That is certainly true.

Quote:

US intelligence undoubtedly should have had more agents who spoke Arabic, but apparently the human intelligence side of the service had been deteriorating for quite a long time.

Given the circumstances I think that needs to be fixed.

brandon9000 wrote:

I do not think that our lack of clarity about what was happening with the Iraqi weapons program reflects a level of incompetence under Bush that exceeds the degree of incompetence in past recent administrations.

Nor do I. I'm not pointing a finger of blame here saying "George Bush is evil and secretly cavorts with Satan and Hitler" (and there are plenty who do). I'm saying that intelligence would have been a better alternative to war and that while that may have been realised I think a secret agenda is behind the choice to go to war rather than investigate more thoroughly.

Quote:

theantibuddha wrote:

How, precisely, would Iraq launch an attack on America.

Smuggle the components of a bioweapon or nuke into the US, then assemble and detonate it from within.

If you're worried about that just put a gigacounter in every customs dept. It's about a million times cheaper than invading iraq.

Quote:

Better yet, just infect a volunteer with some monstrous plague and have him take a bus tour of the country, creating numerous separate plague epicenters.

I don't think they have access to the components required for that kind of bioplague. BL4 plagues have been quite throughly contained within a few research centres.

Quote:

I believe that he could kill a few million Americans with much fewer than 20 nukes, even relatively small ones, especially if you figure in people who die of their wounds within, say, six months.

The point was he couldn't actually destroy america's military capacity for retalliation. But you are correct.

Quote:

How are we going to retaliate if we don't know who did it?

Such an attack would be useless and pointless. It would not aid Iraq in any fashion.

Quote:

Why would he attack us? Because we've stood in the way of his ambitions.

And what would the attack achieve for him? Beyond being emotionally satisfying. He is not going to waste his time getting nukes if it's not going to further his ambitions.

Brandon9000 wrote:

He might have sold the WMD to terrorists who might have used them against us. Even if we somehow identified the terrorist group, they might not really have a return address to direct retaliation at.

I think he'd probably be too paranoid for that, but it is a minor possibility. I just don't think it's a "bankrupt the country to fight a war over" worth possibility.

I believed this long before Bush ran for president.

Glad to hear I misjudged you. So not naive, but perhaps a touch overly paranoid if you've been worrying about this kind of thing for the last 5 years or so.