Wmd
Melatonin
Babbler Join Date: 2003-03-15 Member: 14551Members, Constellation
Babbler Join Date: 2003-03-15 Member: 14551Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">what now?</div> Its looking more and more like WMD wasnt the real reason for the War in Iraq, I beleive Colendeeza Rice said recently that weapons may never be found. With this admission the US admin rests its case soley on the humanitarian arguement.
Lets be real about this, yes Saddam was a 'bad man', but I think we can safely assume the US would send its dollars and soldeiers to die unless it expected somthing back.
Im not saying Freedom (no matter how imposed) is bad, Im saying its no reason to go to war [one of the things i dislike about the Bush administration, is that they speak in such general terms, of 'freedom' and 'Liberation' that its hard to argue against their 'goals' without sounding like an **** (everyone loves freedom right?)]
anyway, before i break into more rambling, the point is this;
The Intelligence behind the claims of WMD appears to be highly flawed (the so called dodgy dossier was a right joke), Can we trust our governments after this episode?
It comes down to lies.
lies that end up killing people.
what about next time they tell us a country is harbouring WMD/ terrorists/ communists and must be invaded for our own safety?
do you think this could happen again now that we see we have been lied to?
what happens to democracy when people lose faith in their leaders honesty?
Lets be real about this, yes Saddam was a 'bad man', but I think we can safely assume the US would send its dollars and soldeiers to die unless it expected somthing back.
Im not saying Freedom (no matter how imposed) is bad, Im saying its no reason to go to war [one of the things i dislike about the Bush administration, is that they speak in such general terms, of 'freedom' and 'Liberation' that its hard to argue against their 'goals' without sounding like an **** (everyone loves freedom right?)]
anyway, before i break into more rambling, the point is this;
The Intelligence behind the claims of WMD appears to be highly flawed (the so called dodgy dossier was a right joke), Can we trust our governments after this episode?
It comes down to lies.
lies that end up killing people.
what about next time they tell us a country is harbouring WMD/ terrorists/ communists and must be invaded for our own safety?
do you think this could happen again now that we see we have been lied to?
what happens to democracy when people lose faith in their leaders honesty?
Comments
Scary. What is more scary, is that a couple weeks later:
Pat Roberts, a leading member of President Bush's Republican Party, said in Washington on Wednesday: "I think that there is some concern that shipments of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) went to Syria."
Im seriously getting worried about just what my country is doing...
/Edited for stability
Now all of a sudden our poor, poor president is the victim! He's even been <b><i>abused</i></b> by the intelligence community! Oh the manipulation and coercion!
Yeah, ok. The truth is coming out now that there weren't any WMDs there. But looks like the administration has a convienient plan - just set up a lot of people to take the blame before the president. This is sickening. He's playacting like such a victim.
I was listening to the radio and I heard his fuzzy bunny voice saying something to the effect of "I want to know about all the details of the intelligence community and the validity of their reporting." WELL HEY - <b>maybe you should have done that before wasting thousands of people.</b>
When I look at the millions my country has had to pay to fight this war I ask myself what we got out of it. Some free Iraqis? Great. I'd much rather have a better funded health care or education system. Let's face it, the reason Bush and Co. said they went to war because of WMDs is because the humanitarian arguement doesn't hold any water, either in terms of legality or with the voters. We did not elect these guys to put Iraqis first, we elected them to put us first. If our leaders are going to spend massive amounts of our tax dollars on a war, it had better be for a damn good reason which affects our countries and people. Freeing Iraqis doesn't fall under that catagory.
First, I thought there were WMDs. It just didn't add up that Saddam didn't have them. He kicked the UN out for years, to what? Make cupcakes? Most intelligence (really, all, including the bribed France and Russia) thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Looks like he didn't. It should be important to note that Kay DID also say that there was evidence of programs, as well as documented transfers of WMDs, supplies, and intelligence (in limited quanities) to Syria. Saddam had something; perhaps not the arsenal we thought, but he had enough means to distribute trace amounts to anti-American forces, as well as the intent. While that alone does not justify a war, it builds the case for one.
What were the other justifications? There was also concrete evidence of Saddam's intent to restart his nuclear programs. Scientists revealed nuclear components he had been instructed to hide with the express intent of restarting the program with the same equipment and knowledge as before. Saddam was going to wait until the world thought he had reformed before suprising them with a nuclear weapon. Sound familar? It should. The same situation happened in North Korea. The War in Iraq prevented another North Korea situation 10 years down the road. That remains, in my mind, the primary justification for the war.
Now, also consider the humanitarian effects and the greater effects on combating terrorism. The United States has freed a people from tyranny and is attempting to install democracy, always a good thing. It will be a long and difficult road, but with dedication, the Iraqi people will be free and prosperous, and a model to others suffering under totalitarian regimes. The significance of this comes in combating the intellectual arguments of terrorism. Islamic Facism has support because people beleive it is a superior form of government to a Liberal Capitalist Democracy. To destroy terrorism at its roots, the allure of Islamic Facism must be destroyed. To do so, we must PROVE that our way of life is superior. This is not done by hoisting the US up on a pillar; rather, it is accomplished by rising part of a people to the same standard and showing them how much better their lives our under our social system.
The war was worth it, for these 3 reasons. That is not to say that Bush and Co are absolved from their sins.There are other, more nefarious aspects to consider.
First, there is no doubt Bush planned war first and shaped the facts to justify it. He set up a special office in the CIA to forward the most tantalizing bits of intelligence, regardless of their reliability. It is important to keep in mind that even the most conservative estimates still had Saddam posessing WMDS. 'Bush Lied People Died' isn't applicable; I am not absolving him from this intelligene debacle though.
There is also the 'War for Oil!' school that seeks to undermind the justificaton of the war. This premise falls apart rather quickly. If oil were the single goal, Bush could have lifted sanctions, saving money and lives. Even if Bush wanted to get his oil buddies in on the action, going to war wouldn't have helped. US is keeping Iraq's oil feilds nationalized, giving contracts out only to repair and improve the oil infastructure of Iraq, NOT to control the oil itself. I am not naive enough to say oil had never crossed their minds, but to implicate it as the ONLY reasons (or even a major reason) is foolish.
Clearly, the War in Iraq has raised many questions. First and foremost should be our intelligence. We cannot allow such disasterous intelligence failures in our government. That is unacceptable. We also should wonder what safegaurds must be implemented to prevent the President from cherry-picking reports for his own benefits. The question we should certainly not ask is 'Was it worth it?" WMDs or not, the War in Iraq was neccesary and worthwhile.
It would be a short disscussion without someone voicing an alternate opinion..
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It should be important to note that Kay DID also say that there was evidence of programs<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
as a matter of semantics, im informed programs is a wide ranging term, which while implying some creation of weapons, does not neccesarily demand it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There was also concrete evidence of Saddam's intent to restart his nuclear programs. Scientists revealed nuclear components he had been instructed to hide with the express intent of restarting the program with the same equipment and knowledge as before.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
another issue of wording, saddam's 'intent' is a hard thing to represent, it also fall into the catagory of future events. I am stedfastly against pre-emptive attacks against anyone for anything which hasnt happened yet. You dont execute a man because he might commit murder one day (not yet at least).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is also the 'War for Oil!' school that seeks to undermind the justificaton of the war<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
To do so, we must PROVE that our way of life is superior<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On an interesting side point, ive read alot about so called 'peak oil' lately, while I dont want to start proclaiming the 'end is nigh' just yet, I am aware that our superior way of life (everything from fuel to plastics to medicine) is produced frrom oil. I also am aware that reserves of oil are finite and are expected to dry up with the next 10 - 30 years (depending on what you read). some are even talking about the end of western civilisation and massive death tolls as the infrastructure decays. Hopefully this can somehow be avoided, but it does add an 'interesting twist' to recent events.
C'mon America, catch up, we've already had our finger pointing session about who told who what, and who was really to blame. Surprisingly the government has come out as completely innocent! Who'da thunk it?
As for clear evidence of an intention to restart a nuclear weapons program, so what? Unless he HAD be gun a nuclear weapons program, you can't convict the guy for having a thought. The minute he begins the program, he's liable for the consequences of that, but UNTIL he does, there is NO justifcation whatsoever for starting a war over what your intelligence sources believe his intentions are.
I'm also starting to find the justifications about humanitarianism unpalatable. If that were the case, war would begin on Turkey (which has an appalling human rights record, but its a nice friendly Islamic nation, and can't therefore be touched) on China, on North Korea, On Syria, on Saudi Arabia, on Burma...etc....
Its all very well saying that its a nice result of the war, but a little different from Iraq offering a clear and present danger to the Western World. The end and the justification are not even in the same sentence on this one, and quite frankly Bush's protestations about being misled leave me cold. Whatever happened to "THE BUCK STOPS HERE"?
I'm pretty sure we've been 'Almost out of oil' since the 60's. Also, if oil really does dry up, the market will fix it. We'll have renewable energy as soon as someone thinks they can make money off it. It has already happened; there are 2 companies who have worked out a process to create crude oil of out any carbon material. Currently, the process is more expensive then drilling, and the output isn't as high, but eventually...
I think the intent of Iraq to eventually have Nuclear weapons was enough to justify it. If we disagree, its a matter of policy and it will be tough to change someone's mind about it.
Also Saddam has always stood up to the Americans and has said countless times that he will die before surrendering. Now with his capture, that image is shattered with the Arab people.
So i believe the Iraq War did/hopefully will stop countries from gaining WMDs. This is just what i think and if i screwed up any facts let me know
EVERYONE acknowledged that Saddam possessed WMDs, America <b>still has the receipts of some of the WMDs that Iraq ever had!</b> On top of this, the U.N. passed 13 resolutions to have Iraq examined for WMDs, and the fact that he never allowed anyone to inspect his country properly most certainly gives the implication he has some WMD's!
If anyone is to blame, it is Saddam!
Furthermore, how do we know we just haven't stumbled on WMD's yet?
If this is true, it further invalidates WMD as the true reason for war.
either that or makes our governments apear so two faced its untrue.
its really sad that my lifestyle fuels the kind of corrupt governments that would sell arms to a smaller nation only to turn around some years on and use the very same arms as a pretext for war.
seriously, thats a bad argument if your trying to talk about how trruthful our governments are...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Furthermore, how do we know we just haven't stumbled on WMD's yet? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you can bet your bottom dollar this has been priority number one since the get go.
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
i) Saddam gambled that the US would not invade
ii) Bush gambled Saddam had WMD
they both lost,
but Saddam is a prisoner and Bush is still his smug/unapologetic self.
Just to give an example of how we've helped a government than tore it down:
When the U.S.S.R. invaded Afghanistan, we assisted the Taliban by giving Osama Bin Laden U.S. weapons (yea, that Osama).
I'm pretty sure we also helped Iraq in the Iraq/Iran conflict, but we might have helped Iran.
Although, I highly doubt they planned to invade these countries 20 years later.
On the oil:
An article in Discover, not sure what month but from 2003, gives examples of synthetic oil creation. A guy managed to make oil from discarded chicken parts, eventually forming minute quantities of assorted petrolium based products.
Also on a slightly stranger note- Technically oil, coal and natural gas are renewable, since they were made from dead plants and animals millions of years ago. Theoretically, we could make oil for millions of years from now in the same way...they're just not immediately renewable <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
On the war:
Not taking any particular side in the war, I'm all for the humanitarian stuff. Although, I think they should have just done it during the Gulf War...pulling out wad dumb (make Iraqis distrust the US, give Saddam a 'victory', leave Saddam in power...). Not big on the 'attacking countries with no real proof of anything' ploys either.
If we really wanted Oil, we could just take over Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela (or other assorted OPEC countries). So, I don't think the oil argument holds anything.
...forgot what else I was going to say...so there's my stuff.
EVERYONE acknowledged that Saddam possessed WMDs, America <b>still has the receipts of some of the WMDs that Iraq ever had!</b> On top of this, the U.N. passed 13 resolutions to have Iraq examined for WMDs, and the fact that he never allowed anyone to inspect his country properly most certainly gives the implication he has some WMD's!
If anyone is to blame, it is Saddam!
Furthermore, how do we know we just haven't stumbled on WMD's yet? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wouldn't this be like having a police department sell guns to a triad, then arrest them for having guns?
Let me tell you of a country. It's rather big, and mines very large quantities of uranium. It has a nuclear reactor, plus the technological know-how to build a nuclear device. The name of this country? Australia.
Go to virtually any country around the world, and you find something: all of them have the potential, and ability, to develop nuclear weapons. The technology isn't that difficult, and certainly the knowledge can be obtained in any physics department of any university around the globe. Current administrations may say they don't want nukes, or may be allied with the US. But things change.
Thus, we should invade every non-nuclear nation around the globe to ensure that they never develop nukes. All of them have the capability. Some have the intent. All, under the Bush doctrine of pre-emption, are threats.
Proving Saddam had intent is quite tricky. Did Saddam intend to aquire nukes if sanctions were lifted? Most likely. Was he trying to aquire them during the sanctions period? That's what the inspectors are trying to establish, and so far the evidence has been not forthcoming.
Forlorn, we all know Iraq <i>used</i> to have WMDs. We went to war because Bush thought Iraq <i>still</i> had WMDs. That is the crucial part.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On top of this, the U.N. passed 13 resolutions to have Iraq examined for WMDs, and the fact that he never allowed anyone to inspect his country properly most certainly gives the implication he has some WMD's!
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fact that Saddam didn't want people nosing into every part of his country doesn't mean he had WMDs. Think of how the US would react if the UN demanded to inspect every part of the US; there are some things governments like to keep secret. Saddam may very well have wanted to foster the belief that he did have WMDs in an attempt to forstall any potential invasions. Evidently, if such a bluff was taking place, it failed.
But the problem with your arguement Forlorn is that it relies upon something that has not been found: WMDs. If the US tommorow unearths a massive cache of WMDs in Iraq with "Look out Los Angeles" written on the side of them I will come right into this forum and say "Well, the war was justified and we weren't lied to". But the chances of that happening are growing more and more unlikely with every passing day. The US army and government has the resources of the world's most powerful nation at their disposal, yet they have found nothing. How much time will have to pass before the supporters of the war admit that there arn't any WMDs to be found?
And people didn't care that Clinton lied? Man I must have been imagining the impeachment proceedings and massive media uproar.
At the core of this whole issue is truth and trust. If Bush, Blair and Howard lied to us over this, where is their credibility? Where is the trust we are supposed to give them? Why should these men be allowed to run our respective countries if they lie to us?
Lying in a pretext to war where billions of dollars and thousands of lives are at stake, which will affect millions of people over several decades, is a <i>little bit</i> different than lying about having sex with some secretary/intern.
Quite frankly I find it more than a little frightening that that some think it doesn't really matter that Bush may have lied. I thought democracy was founded on being able to make informed decisions regarding our leaders and the choices they make. The historical significance of what the current administration is doing regarding the second Iraq war may now simply appear to be the stuff of the latest news bulletins on CNN, but in my opinion it represents a crossroads at which America has to examine it's international policy. Like Ryo pointed out, there's a huge blanket covering "preemptive actions". If such a stance is to be continued, citizens <i>need</i> the truth.
I dont believe that for one second.
there is no way on earth Iraq would have ever attacked the USA without provocation... hell they didnt even attack the USA <i>when they were invaded by them!</i>
[i mean of course the coutry, not the soldiers]
*edit. my spelling far too trendy..*
You can forget about Iraq being a free nation. Afghanistan is hardly free and the Taliban is in control again. Sharia (islamic law) will be insituted in Iraq. Expect it to be an Islamic puppet state within a few years.
So... the excuses for war?
WMDs - Nope. Not there.
Humanitarian- Negative. Refuted by past and current american policies. Also refuted by upcoming Sharia laws in Iraq.
Prospect of future WMD attack - Duuuuurrr huuuuurrr. My neocon buddies told me that you were planning to break into my house and shoot me. Even though we don't have any evidence of such a thing, I'll glass your neighborhood just to play it safe.
EVERYONE acknowledged that Saddam possessed WMDs, America <b>still has the receipts of some of the WMDs that Iraq ever had!</b> On top of this, the U.N. passed 13 resolutions to have Iraq examined for WMDs, and the fact that he never allowed anyone to inspect his country properly most certainly gives the implication he has some WMD's!
If anyone is to blame, it is Saddam!
Furthermore, how do we know we just haven't stumbled on WMD's yet? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wouldn't this be like having a police department sell guns to a triad, then arrest them for having guns? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's wrong with this?
This is one of the USA's best methods for catching criminals. A cop will go undercover, sell some dude some drugs and then arrest them for possesing illegal drugs.
Catching in the act, surefire way to get them.
And the whole point being about how we still have the receipts of us selling WMD's to Iraq; so what? We sold them to it, we were allies. It was a different time. Saying relations between two countries can't change is the stupidiest thing I've ever heard.
I mean, Germany has invaded France two times in the same Century only to become the best of lovers in bed 50 years later... but wait that can't happen because of their past history, right?
We nuked Japan but today Japan is one of our best economic allies.
I mean come on, just because we sold them weapons doesn't mean we can't use it as evidence of them having weapons so we can go to war. Relations change all the time, it's been this way for... milliena?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You missed the point Forlorn. No-one is disputing that Iraq used to have WMDs; inspectors went into Iraq after the 1990 - 1991 Gulf War and found heaps, plus there is hard evidance from the nations that supplied them or assissted Iraq. What is being disputing is what Bush, Blair and Howard said prior to the Second Gulf War: that Iraq still had WMDs.
Your arguement that because they used to have them, they must still have them holds little water; by that logic, Germany has a large chemical weapons stockpile because they used to have them during WWII. You need current evidance and proof before leveling an accusation at a nation, and that's exactly what was lacking before the war and is still lacking now.
If this is true, it further invalidates WMD as the true reason for war.
either that or makes our governments apear so two faced its untrue. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the best option would have waited around under piles of evidence (concrete, circumstancial or otherwise) until we knew they had WMDs. Sure we might be missing half of Los Angelas but at least we'd be sure.
WMDs - Nope. Not there.
Humanitarian- Negative. Refuted by past and current american policies. Also refuted by upcoming Sharia laws in Iraq.
Prospect of future WMD attack - Duuuuurrr huuuuurrr. My neocon buddies told me that you were planning to break into my house and shoot me. Even though we don't have any evidence of such a thing, I'll glass your neighborhood just to play it safe. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not complying fully and completly with weapons inspectors - Yup.
<a href='http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/054_2003-02-06/han054_1330-E.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus...n054_1330-E.htm</a>
Relevant point:
"Because of Iraq's continued violation of the ceasefire's disarmament resolution, the ceasefire no longer exists."
The Gulf War never ended. There was nothing inherently illegal about the Iraq occupation. Delaying the weapons inspectors was just one of his violations of this ceasefire.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right. As I've said before, we simply must invade every nation on the planet, as they all have the capability to build nuclear weapons. Must we wait for Nepal to launch before we wipe them out? How about Kenya? Belgium must burn I say!
Please. It's ridiculous to say "we invaded because there MIGHT have been a threat", because EVERYONE is therefore a threat. When you commit a nation to a war because you think there's a threat you make damn sure you have the facts about that threat. You don't say "Well perhaps they have something that could possibly be used against us, though we've found virtually no evidance to support that".