Now We Know Where The Evil Ones Get Their Weapons

A. I disagree that a decade in defiance is irrelevant. I distinctly remember feeling Saddam's cooperation was too little, too late. He should have accepted the entirely too generous offer of exile… but that's not what I spoke up about.
B. None of that provides any excuse for the multitude of personal attacks. There is a lot of ground between; "Are you being deliberately obtuse?" or "Don't let the FACTS stand in your way"... and straight out attacking a member personally. I haven't seen you stoop to that level; so why defend it? Defend your shared position with a vengeance, but you'd do well by yourself to stop short of defending the idiotic tactics of your peers.

He kept completely out of the inspectors' way in the final round.

In the next-to-last round of inspections the UN ordered, hoping to avoid war, Saddam did in fact interfere, insisting on sending "guides"-actually agents-along onthe interviews and interfering in other ways.

Hans Blix came back and outlined this interference, but pleaded for one more shot before the UN authorized the invasion. The Bush Administration was opposed, but the UN finally agreed to one last chance for Saddam to come clean. This time, he did. then, in the middle of the inspections, Bush ordered the inspectors out and the invasion commenced.

It was not too little too late. The inspections were UN ordered, and Bush even allowed them to commence. Then capriciously, and with no real provocation, Bush ordered the inspectors out.

The only conclusion you can draw from this is that Bush wanted to invade Iraq, WMD or no WMD, and allowed the inspections only because he felt either WMDs would be found or Saddam could not keep himself from interfering. When Saddam did allow unhindered inspections, and the inspections were turning up no WMD's, Bush decided to invade while the country was still all riled up and ready for war. If the inspections were allowed to continue, there was a chance people might get the sneaky idea they were being conned, and possibly the press might quit genuflecting to the Bush Administration on the invasion issue and start asking some actual questions.

25 Americans died in Iraq on Saturday. The lastest bad news from a war which really has been just meandering along without much purpose for the past three years. Bush hasn't had a plan for the place since Shock and Awe. At this point, the leaders are discussing things like what actually constitutes victory in Iraq.

At some point, the question really does beg to be asked of those who support this apparently senseless carnage-if you think it is so important, why don't you go over there yourself? Honestly. The Iraqis don't want us there-either side-nobody seems to be all choked up in grattitude for us deposing their leader. How many more 19 year old kids have to be sacrificed before the leaders are psychologically able to admit they made a mistake?

Maybe Blacksmithn was awfully insistent with Brandon, but this war has been going on a long, long time.

Yep, he cooperated as long as he was staring down the the barrel of a .45. In your desire to show Bush's actions unnecessary, you err in pretending Saddam could be trusted. The moment we pulled the Military might of the United States away from that Dog and Pony show; Saddam would have reverted back to behaving like Saddam. I think you know that, and moreover think you don't care as long as Saddam was sufficiently contained from harming the United States. Got it.

I don't agree. Saddam was in the process of getting screwed by Kim Jong Il, by attempting to secure Rodong missiles even as the inspections were going on. At no point did he present the complete and accurate inventory he was compelled to produce. The very weapons being destroyed (Al Samoud II?) were designed and built contrary to restrictions placed by the U.N. You're not going to get your kid off weed simply by confiscating his bag whenever you happen to find one.

We'll never find agreement here. I will continue to believe that every Saddam should be removed for the sake of the citizens they oppress. This Saddam was a good start... nothing more. I will also continue to believe that every single person on this earth is entitled to basic sustenance. I'll not buy the BS position that's an idealistic fantasy either.

Since I'm neither a member of the United States Armed Forces, nor a member of the Peace Corp... I guess I'm not entitled to either of those opinions in yours and Blacksmith's world. You are free to consider me a coward... and an apparently apathetic coward at that.

Right. The Al Samoud 2 had a range of about 110 miles. UN resolution 1441 allowed for no possession of rockets with a range of more than 150 km (~93 miles). There was discussion if the Al Samoud 2 would actually exceed that range once fitted with a warhead.
I would still agree with you that the AS2 violated UNSCR 1441.

But: was the fact that some of Iraq's missiles exceeded the range set by the UNSC by 17 miles ever given as a reason for the invasion of Iraq? I don't seem to remember that bit.

I distinctly remember talk about "mushroom clouds" over American cities, though...

Al Samoud II was designed with an Engine diameter that exceeded specs as well, presumably for the extra range. It was no accident.

You can go on pretending it was all about Mushroom clouds if it helps the argument here, but according to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America it was actually something like this :wink: :

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

###

Yeah. That must be the reason why in 2003, a majority of Americans believed that Saddam was somehow connected to 9/11, and that he was in possession of WMD.

Or maybe they didn't read it, and rather relied on what Condi, Rummy, Cheney and Bush kept trumpeting.

What's more likely, what do you think?

I spent a lot of years in Sales... and one of the first things you learn is a basic, basic fundamental. Don't try pitching every aspect of anything or you'll put your prospect to sleep. They can look in the prospectus or package for that. Instead, focus on two or three good selling points and hammer it home until they buy it! Show me one Joint resolution that was sold any other way.

Well, I'm rather glad that we can agree on the fact that you (the American people) were sold a war. What people remembered was Condi's scenario of mushroom clouds, Cheney's bits about the certainty of the existence of WMD and Rummy's statement that even the location of those WMD was known.

What surprised me at the time was how the US media simply echoed all those accusations, without questioning a single aspect - especially amazing in contrast with the media in other western countries (including the UK).

Now, I don't doubt that some people (that would include you) can justifiy the invasion of Iraq intellectually, pointing to the Joint resolution as if that was the only reason for the pro-war stance the general public took back in '02/'03. Then again, I don't think that you really believed that Saddam was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks, that an Iraqi nuke was soon to detonate somewhere in America, or that unmanned drones would spray biological agents over downtown Kansas.

debate all you want folks but look at facts. This is a disastrous screw up. Saddam is gone and he met the end he deserved, but he was also the only one who could keep Iraq under control.

The US has f**cked it's resources, it's position of respect in the world, we are polarized like at no oher time in our history short of the Civil War, we are buried in debt and funneling money away from domestic programs including domestic programs to protect ourselves in order to keep this cluster going, our leadership is in tatters, our president is a disgrace according to the majority of the people he was elected to serve, Iraq is in a bigger mess than it was before....way bigger, and we ARE eventually going to leave and when we do, Iraq will become a radically run Fundamentalist Islamic state that hates America even worse than before, people will be exterminated on a regular basis EVEN MORE THAN BEFORE and Iraq on the whole will be even more brutal and backwards than with Saddam. Difference being their mission statement will be to detroy America and they will have the sympathy of more people, where we will be on the receiving end of apathy about it from most of the world.

bush and this war have f**ked us but good and their is no victory possible, only degrees of defeat.

And the question does, at long last, have to be asked-- who supported and continues to support this monumental screw-up and why? That some don't care for the way the question is asked or what conclusions are drawn is completely immaterial to me. The rather more important consideration is why the "feelings" of these war cheerleaders is apparently more important than the lives of the ones they're so callously rah-rahing into harm's way?

You want to debate the root cause of this war, fine. Debate away with this talking parrot of the GOP. Lance Corporal Too-Scared-To-Fight will be happy to ramble on all day and all night, I'm sure. But the bottom line is this-- This war is a disastrous cancer that is eating our people and our country up and virtually every expert agrees that there is no good end in sight. The handwriting is on the wall for all to see and yet there continue to be moral cowards like this who natter on with the "put the boys in, more boots on the ground, stay the course, have the stomach for the fight!" nonsense and never come near to being discomfited or inconvenienced in the slightest by any aspect of this tragedy.

The issue of their hypocrisy is completely on point.

I wish you guys would at least lose the tired "Americans thought Saddam was behind 911" nonsense. I know no one who thought that. Yes, I've seen some polls that suggested the idiots do indeed exist, and I've no doubt they did (and perhaps even still do) to some extent... but I'd wager they represented the collective mindset of the American people about as well as the Foil-hat wearing community that thinks Bush was behind it. I remember Tony Blair giving a very compelling speech about how the events of 9-11 compelled him to change his rationale about Saddam's Iraq… and I think he articulated the connection better than anyone. It is a pity that connection cannot be acknowledged without the immediate ridicule of "See, you think they're connected!"

There are a great many facets to consider about the possible results of the invasion but, like most heated debates on subjects of this magnitude, the opposing sides become so polarized they cannot acknowledge any information that doesn't fit their ideology. Rather than relying on opinions of probability, and examining the individual facets for their actual worth, they'll just reach for the extremes and assume everything short of their own hyperpolarized opinion is a measure of wrongness. Notice our beloved Bi-polar One is the polar opposite of the man in the Oval office. Both speak with a certainty that belies reason.

While Iraq is obviously looking grim at the moment, the final results are not yet available to be assessed. Delusions to the contrary are just that. The gambler who only bets favorites loses as much money as the man who only bets underdogs. The risks in seeking democracy for Iraq are great, but I wonder if the anti-war crowd has ever really considered the potential rewards?

Oh, and if anyone would like to judge my degree of cowardice for themselves; I'll be more than happy to provide my address… and I assure you I won't lose any sleep over the potential ramifications of providing it to internet loudmouths, hiding behind fake names and phony avatars. Peculiar place to sling the word coward from, that. The recent scourge of false bravado around here is worse than the telephone-tough-guys of years past.

uh. okay.

I'll address the relevant bits of your post, OB...



That's nice and pretty that you, personally, know no one who thought that, and I haven't suggested it. Neither have I said that you believed in it - quite the opposite, I think.

Nevertheless, what I saw and heard were Bush admin members using "9/11", "Iraq" and "Saddam Hussein" in a single sentence in a way that could very easily be misunderstood, and numerous polls hinting at the fact that a good number of Americans did misunderstand.

As for the "connection" - sure. There's a connection. It's weaker than the "connection" between the White House and the million victims of the Iraq-Iran war, but yes, there's a connection.

Are you saying that "connection" was the reason for rushing to war?




Certainly. Democracy in Iraq would be nice and fluffy. I wonder of the pro-war crowd has ever really considered that some of those potential rewards could have been reached without bombing the place to tiny bits, though.

now OBill wants to provide his address so someone can come and have a fistfight with him.... that's hilarious.... and soooo bush cowboy like.... what bullshit

Certainly. But I've never been very fond of starving millions of people to death with economic sanctions while we wait for Tyrants, living in luxury anyway, to expire naturally.

Come git some, Bear~

you see OBill, that's our fundamental difference... I wouldn't waste my time and resources traveling to a place where someone MIGHT whip my ass.... but if they attempted to come to me, there'd be no protracted drawn out fight.... I'd just blow their brains out...... then go to dinner. :wink:

That's the difference between reasoned self defense and fools rushing in where angels fear to tread.

Just for you Bear... Don't anyone else click here

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1169

bill

As late as sept 06, 46% of Republicans still believed there was a connection between Sadaam and 9/11.

A couple of years previous to that, polling of soldiers in Iraq found that more than 80% of them believed they were in Iraq to pay Sadaam back for his involvement in the WTT attacks.

If you don't face up to these misapprehensions of reality, and to the means by which they have been fostered, you aren't going to have a clear or accurate understanding of this administration's untrustworthiness nor of how propaganda is currently effectuated in the US.

I'd be glad to think that your main concern was the welfare of the Iraqi people. As I don't know a lot about your reasons for propagating this war, I might as well assume that much.

And if had argued that the sanctions, while keeping Saddam from seriously re-arming Iraq, had been the best thing for the people of Iraq, then you would have a point.

But I don't really believe in those black-and-white options. Either sanctions - or a war? I don't think so. Again, off the top of my head - look at the progress that's being made in Uganda. Western countries/organisations have been working for almost two decades with opposition parties in the country, which were formally allowed - even though campaigning was prohibited. In 2005, the nineteen-year ban on multi-party politics came to an end, and last year, democratic elections have been held.

Or you might look at the Congo (the Democratic Republic one), where MONUC peacekeepers tried to secure the country, which had seen not much besides civil war, ethnic conflicts, and fighting. Nevertheless, last year, the first multi-party elections since 1960 took place.


It would certainly be terrific if "nation builing" - invading a country one day and the people having democratic elections the next day - would be a realistic perspective. But I'm afraid that this is not the case. And that was known before the current quagmire.

Do you agree or disagree that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terror attacks?
OVER-ALL-46%
DEM- 32%
GOP- 65%
IND- 39%

Point made, Blatham, I stand corrected... and frankly, astounded. Where do these ignoramuses live I wonder. I know a lot of Americans who don't pay attention to politics... but this is beyond ridiculous.