Got WMD?

[Althornin]

i just think its funny the emotionally charged language both sides in this "discussion" are using (although, Natoma, L233 and calshman, et al are using it the most).
Its a pthetic attempt to not have to wrestle with logic and facts.
Instead, you use words like "parroting" and "oh-so-great administration" and other attempts to use attacks on the persona rather than attacks of logic. Presumably, you are capable of understanding this and are doing so out of choice - or is it just that your "arguments" lack any real basis?

Try writing as if you werent frothing at the mouth.

Thanks.

 

[Natoma]

Hey I provided quotes from the horses mouth. No frothing at the mouth required.

 

[Vince]

Hey I provided quotes from the horses mouth. No frothing at the mouth required.

Hehe, true. But I can also take quotes from Democritus, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Riemann, Ramanujan, Einstein, Bohr, Bell, Magueijo (?!? heh) or any of the plathora of influential men our civilization has produced and based on their contemporaries comments - you'd think they were wrong too.

 

[Fred]

(edit, wrong thread. Too much coffee )

 

[pascal]

You can say whatever you want using the language you want but there is only one fact: up to now NO WMD.

Maybe time will tell more.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You can say whatever you want using the language you want but there is only one fact: up to now NO WMD.

Maybe time will tell more.

Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't matter though, which is why I'm continualkly puzzled by discussions like this.

We don't need "time" to tell everyone that the UN Security Counsel unamimously believed and understood Iraq to have WMD. History tells us that....by virture of the fact that Iraq could not acceptably account for them by anyone's standard. (See UN resolution 1441).

Despite the left's rhetoric, whether or not we do find them has no bearing on the justification of the war. Whetever your feeling on the justification of the war (for or against), actually FINDING the WMD shouldn't change anything. If you think the war wasn't justified, finding WMD shouldn't change your view.

We went to war because EVERYONE, those both pro and anti-war, agreed that Iraq was not forthcoming about their WMD. There was never any disagreement, not with the U.N., the former Clinton Administration, or this administration, that IRAQ "had weapons of mass destruction."

The only disagreement was what to do about it.

 

[Natoma]

The only disagreement was what to do about it.

Yes. Russia, Germany, and France, along with much of the rest of the world, wanted UN Weapons Inspectors in Iraq, along with any intelligence that US officials could provide to help them in their cause. As you can recall, US officials provided no such intelligence to Hans Blix's team. Even intel that would not have compromised the 'spooks' living in Iraq at the time.

No, what they did over and over was parrot "These inspections will never work," "They're a waste of time," "Why are we doing this. We need to go into Iraq NOW!" Yadda yadda yadda. So I find it quite hilarious now that they are asking for more time when they were the ones from day one undermining and undercutting the validity of the inspectors.

Also, I seriously doubt that the families of those who lost sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, mothers, and fathers in Iraq would not want to know why we were going in there. Since, as I've shown earlier in this thread, this country was sold on the war in Iraq *specifically* because of the imminent threat of nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare they posed to us, if we don't find those threats, then it can be said that we were led on a wild goose chase for different motives, that led to the deaths of over 100 soldiers and thousands of Iraqis. I know that if I had lost my brother over there (he served in the navy for 2 years, and he's 28 ) I'd want to know *exactly* where those WMDs were, since that was the reason we went there in the first place.

I can tell you this much. If this war was sold to the american public with regard to just getting rid of an awful dictator, then the public would have said "meh" and moved on. You know that's how this country works. We don't give a damn about what's going on in the rest of the world unless it directly affects us. And I also seem to recall that it was *only* after Bush's State of the Union Address in which he brought out the incontrovertible "evidence" with regard to the purchase from Niger for nuclear purposes, that the american majority were for the war. Before the speech, the american majority were staunchly opposed to moving in to Iraq. The american majority said "Give inspectors more time before we have to use force." It was only after that "evidence" in the State of the Union did public opinion sway to support of this war. Because according to the statements by the administration, Saddam was within a year of building a Nuclear weapon and giving it to Al-Qaeda. Not to mention the 100-500 *tons* of chem-bio weapons he already possessed, thank you very much Mr. Colin Powell. And as we all know, the documents stating the Iraqi purchase from Niger were forged, fakes, etc etc etc. Yet the Administration still ran with it and presented it to the american public. C'mon, at the very least that's got to stick out in your mind as disingenuous and misleading by the administration in order to prove a point as it were, falsely or not.

If we now find out that all of those claims (and the quotes are provided on page 3 so I don't need to requote them) were falsely made, or at the very least stretched to their breaking point, then there should be hell to pay for this administration for dragging this country into a war that it did not support by any stretch of the imagination.

p.s.: I also find it funny, with regard to Paul Wolfowitz's comments in Vanity Fair earlier this month, that it's coming out from the highest members of the administration that the main reason WMDs were parrotted was because that was what the american public would get behind. That's the only way they could get us to support this war. That, and rightly so, the american public would not support a war in Iraq to simply get rid of an awful dictator. There had to be something that made all those "Soccer moms" quake in their boots in the suburbs and all of middle america cry out for blood. What fit the bill? WMDs.

I also find it funny that it's now coming out that the CIA stated in almost every case that they presented to the president that their evidence with regard to WMDs in Iraq was tenuous at best, murky and stretchable at worst. For instance, the CIA believed Saddam could have a nuclear weapon within a decade. And they put in a worst case scenario that he could, though highly unlikely, have a nuke within a year. What did Bush stress in his State of the Union Address merely three days later? That Iraq would undoubtedly have a Nuke within a year.

There are many other instances of stretching the truth, or running with the worst case scenario from this administration that have come out. It's in all the news. So I'm sorry, but I cannot just roll over and say "Well we didn't find any WMDs, but it doesn't matter. We freed a people from an awful dictator." The Weapons of Mass Destruction were the casus belli for us going to war with Iraq. They were the casus belli for over 100 soldiers losing their lives, and many more now that we're policing that country. So if there is no pushing point, there is no reason for war. No reason for war means we got dragged into this as a citizenry.

As I told Vince before, I want to see the Weapons of Mass Destruction we were all told about and convinced would be there to do us great harm. Even before the war began, there were doubters. I happened to be one of them, and frankly stated that I hoped we'd find WMDs soon after the war because we'd need them to re-establish our credibility on the world stage. I seem to recall getting laughed at about that one. "Problems finding WMDs? Pshaw! Pfft! Laughable! Outrageous!" and so forth and so on. So now it's been two months and nothing.

Tony Blair, one of the few allies of this administration in the world, is getting roasted at home over this, and what do we do? We have Rumsfeld go out and state that the weapons could have been destroyed before the war began, thus negating the whole reason to go to war in the first place in many people's eyes. "Well if the weapons had been destroyed, we didn't have to go." yadda yadda yadda. Not that I believe that particular train of thought because it's a woulda/coulda/shoulda situation, but many people do and are now parrotting it. It's one reason why Tony Blair is having a tough time in Britain now.

And now you have people like CNN and others calling for a potential impeachment of the president if it turns out these WMDs never existed. Which frankly I think is going a tad too far at this stage of the game. If we're a year in and still no Weapons, then sure, maybe. But even then, I have a hard time believing that this was more a deception on the administration's part rather than faulty evidence from the CIA that they misinterpreted to fit their goals. I don't believe the latter is an impeachable offense, but certainly a lack of judgement for the good of the american people.

But anyways, I need to get to work, so I'll cut this post, errm, short.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Yes. Russia, Germany, and France, along with much of the rest of the world, wanted UN Weapons Inspectors in Iraq...

Right, and for 12 years, they had them....on and off of course, until the U.S. put the pressure of force on to get them back in.

No, what they did over and over was parrot "These inspections will never work," "They're a waste of time," "Why are we doing this. We need to go into Iraq NOW!" Yadda yadda yadda.

The inspections didn't work, and it was more or less a waste of 12 years. So, we (U.N. security council) laid down an ultimatum, and Iraq failed to meet it. (Debate then ensues over what "serious consequences" means...)

So I find it quite hilarious now that they are asking for more time when they were the ones from day one undermining and undercutting the validity of the inspectors.

Um, there is perhaps a slight difference.

The U.S. was undermining and undercutting the validity of inspectors that do not have the cooperation of the Iraqi regime, and would never get the cooperation of the Iraqi regime, as long as it was lead by Saddam Husein.

Also, I seriously doubt that the families of those who lost sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, mothers, and fathers in Iraq would not want to know why we were going in there. Since, as I've shown earlier in this thread, this country was sold on the war in Iraq *specifically* because of the imminent threat of nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare they posed to us, if we don't find those threats, then it can be said that we were led on a wild goose chase for different motives...

Again, you are changing the argument after the fact. Read my last post.

Sadam having WMD is in fact an imminent threat. Agree or disagree? The fact that he would not willingly participate in the truthful ascertation of his WMD was the problem.

that led to the deaths of over 100 soldiers and thousands of Iraqis.

Listen to you. "Over 100 Soldiers". Contrast that to the "tens of thousands" of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis forcasted by folks like yourself before the war started.

All loss of life is tragic, of course. But having a war that results in the ousting of a leading regime, with offensive casualties in the 100's, is nothing short of remarkable.

Don't mention the tens of thousands of Iraqis dug up in mass graves though...

I know that if I had lost my brother over there (he served in the navy for 2 years, and he's 28 ) I'd want to know *exactly* where those WMDs were, since that was the reason we went there in the first place.

If I'd lost my brother over there, I'd be damn proud of him for doing such a great job.

Edit: Just as I'm damn proud of EVERY service man and woman involved in the war, for carrying it out the operation with courage and compassion.

I can tell you this much. If this war was sold to the american public with regard to just getting rid of an awful dictator, then the public would have said "meh" and moved on. You know that's how this country works.

Yeah, I know how this country works: that's the reason why leftists have any popularity at all, because they don't appeal to reason, only emotion and what "feels good."

 

[pascal]

The only disagreement was what to do about it.

Nobody will disagree that Iraq may had some WMD programs, but there was a disagrement about:
- the extension of those programs
- the capability to disarm or contention
- the need of war to disarm

Most countries agreed that Iraq was not a real threat but US oficially went to war based on the WMD.

The are many areas of discussions about it, just to list some with my HO:

- The justification of the war. That WMD was weak but probably the best they could find. Also the UN inspectors could not finish their job after the war.
- The legality of the war. Some countries like France still think it was illegal. I am not an international lawer then I have no position.
- The morality of the war. This is an extremelly subjective and complex area. IMHO the loss of lifes was small compared to what was expected by some (specially because of the WMD propaganda) and it is good to see Iraq without Sadam. In the end more pros than cons, but Americans may have a different view because was your soldiers lifes that were under risk.
- The wisdom of the war. With a turbulent and divided world maybe it could have been done with more agreement. The world need more coalition and less division, and in the end the logic of mighty is prevailing. In the long term it may be a bad move.
- The real reasons of the war. The WMD was just an excuse and the Iraq liberation a propaganda to make it public (internally and externally) accepatble. Probably a combination of some factors with different wheights (regional strategy, long term economic, WMD, etc...).

But please dont come with this WMD excuse again. Also dont try to find people to blame (CIA, NSA). They were just obeying orders. What is done is done. Bush has more work to finish. I want to see how he will solve the absurd Israel/Palestina conflict.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Nobody will disagree that Iraq may had some WMD programs, but there was a disagrement about:
- the extension of those programs
- the capability to disarm or contention
- the need of war to disarm

Right.

The U.S. believed that
1) Not being able to confidently ascretain the extent of those programs
2) Iraq's unwillingness to cooperate fully in disarmament would never allow us to ascertain the extent of those programs

combined with

3) Possibility for said WMD to find their way to terrorists

...Necessitated the war and forceful removal of Sadam.

I see no need to re-hash all the same old tired arguments over the need for war or not. The war is over. That debate is pointless.

What is the point, is that whether or not WMD are actually found in Iraq, it has no bearing on the legitimacy of the decision to go to war. Whether or not you were for or against the war. It just shouldn't matter.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I want to see how he will solve the absurd Israel/Palestina conflict.

I'll say it: He won't...unless he uses force. And he probably won't go that far unless a group like Hamaas is stupid enough to directly attack a U.S. target.

He can lead the horses to water, but he can't make them drink. See current effort. NO 3rd party will ever "solve" that conflict through "diplomacy." They will have to solve it for themselves, and that probably means an all out war at some point. Not necessarily between the Palestinian people / Authority and Isarel, but at least against the terrorist organizations like Hamaas that teach hatred.

 

[pascal]

I see no need to re-hash all the same old tired arguments over the need for war or not. The war is over. That debate is pointless.

Well there is one point that is really important for Americans, the next election.

For the international community it is one more lesson.

About Israel, US has ways to control at least one side very well (money, weapons and technology).

 

[Natoma]

Yes. Russia, Germany, and France, along with much of the rest of the world, wanted UN Weapons Inspectors in Iraq...

Right, and for 12 years, they had them....on and off of course, until the U.S. put the pressure of force on to get them back in.

Exactly. *Pressure* of force is what was making the inspections work this time. Not *use* of force.

No, what they did over and over was parrot "These inspections will never work," "They're a waste of time," "Why are we doing this. We need to go into Iraq NOW!" Yadda yadda yadda.

The inspections didn't work, and it was more or less a waste of 12 years. So, we (U.N. security council) laid down an ultimatum, and Iraq failed to meet it. (Debate then ensues over what "serious consequences" means...)

When you're trying to convince people that you want to give every possible effort short of the use of force in order to solve a conflict, stating the things that you quoted from my post doesn't help.

So I find it quite hilarious now that they are asking for more time when they were the ones from day one undermining and undercutting the validity of the inspectors.

Um, there is perhaps a slight difference.

The U.S. was undermining and undercutting the validity of inspectors that do not have the cooperation of the Iraqi regime, and would never get the cooperation of the Iraqi regime, as long as it was lead by Saddam Husein.

Ok I'll grant you that. The UN inspectors were more than likely kept from doing their jobs as well as they could by the deceptions of the Iraqi regime.

*However*, do you not find it just a bit strange that now that we *do* have control over the country, it is now *our* "regime" that will not let the weapons inspectors come back in and join the search for the WMDs?

It would seem that they are still being kept from doing their job. Only the "government" keeping them from doing their job has changed.

Also, I seriously doubt that the families of those who lost sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, mothers, and fathers in Iraq would not want to know why we were going in there. Since, as I've shown earlier in this thread, this country was sold on the war in Iraq *specifically* because of the imminent threat of nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare they posed to us, if we don't find those threats, then it can be said that we were led on a wild goose chase for different motives...

Again, you are changing the argument after the fact. Read my last post.

I did. You stated the following:

Despite the left's rhetoric, whether or not we do find them has no bearing on the justification of the war. Whetever your feeling on the justification of the war (for or against), actually FINDING the WMD shouldn't change anything. If you think the war wasn't justified, finding WMD shouldn't change your view.

The american public, as I stated earlier, was sold on the imminent threat of WMDs. The american public was not sold on the idea of removing an awful dictator. If it had been, there would have been no need to even talk about WMDs. But the public was not buying the whole "he's a bad bad man!" argument, so, as Paul Wolfowitz stated, the administration decided to use the WMD argument, however tenuous, to push their agenda.

If we continue on in Iraq and find not a single weapon of mass destruction, then the entire casus belli for the war is, *poof*, up in smoke. So no, I wasn't changing the argument. Merely taking it to its logical conclusion.

I would be mighty pissed if I lost family in Iraq, only to find out that the whole reason we went out there in the first place was a fabrication at worst, and an intelligence failure at best.

Sadam having WMD is in fact an imminent threat. Agree or disagree? The fact that he would not willingly participate in the truthful ascertation of his WMD was the problem.

I agree, *if* there are weapons in existence. If no WMDs exist, then it is *not* an imminent threat by any stretch of the imagination.

I agree that it was his problem to not fully disclose, through official documentation, what happened to his WMDs from the 80's and 90's. But my question is this. Do we, the USA, have all our destroyed weapons documented? That is not a partisan question, or an attempt at belittling the administration, if that's what you're thinking.

Do we have everything documented? I don't know the ins and outs of detailing weapons destruction, but has anyone considered the possibility that maybe, just maybe, those weapons had been destroyed, but not documented? I'm merely playing devil's advocate on this one, because frankly I believe Saddam dug his own grave with regard to that issue, and rightfully so.

that led to the deaths of over 100 soldiers and thousands of Iraqis.

Listen to you. "Over 100 Soldiers". Contrast that to the "tens of thousands" of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis forcasted by folks like yourself before the war started.

*If* we got bogged down in urban warfare. You forgot that qualifier in there. It *does* make a difference in what I stated. And considering how Bush built up Saddam to be this great menacing force, you can forgive me for believing that we might face mass casualties in Iraq in urban warfare.

You do of course realize we're still losing soldiers in Iraq. Bush may have labeled the military phase of the conflict over (though I think this was premature since it's not over until we find those WMDs. If they do exist, there's nothing to keep smaller factions in Iraq from using them against our troops), but we still have hundreds of thousands of troops over there, and lawlessness abounds.

Not to mention the casualties we're still suffering in Afghanistan

All loss of life is tragic, of course. But having a war that results in the ousting of a leading regime, with offensive casualties in the 100's, is nothing short of remarkable.

A leading regime? Saddam's regime was a pussycat. We knocked them off in two weeks. For all the bellicosity of Bush's remarks, the way he built up Saddam to be this great menace, he sure rolled over quick didn't he.

If you want to talk about a "leading" regime, then may I move you a few thousand miles north-east of Iraq? There's a little country called North Korea that has long range missiles, 3-6 nukes within the next half year, and over 1,000,000 troops.

This war wasn't remarkable at all. It was a beatdown of a tired regime that had been severely weakened by the first gulf war, and 10 years of sanctions. Though considering how the Bush Administration built up Saddam's regime, it's no wonder we all thought this could be a bloodbath.

Don't mention the tens of thousands of Iraqis dug up in mass graves though...

No one has stated that Saddam was a nice guy. I certainly haven't ever thought that he was anything *but* a menace to his people.

But this war was about finding and removing the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not getting rid of the evil evil man so he couldn't oppress his people anymore. The quotes from the Bush Administration over the past year more than prove that.

I know that if I had lost my brother over there (he served in the navy for 2 years, and he's 28 ) I'd want to know *exactly* where those WMDs were, since that was the reason we went there in the first place.

If I'd lost my brother over there, I'd be damn proud of him for doing such a great job.

Edit: Just as I'm damn proud of EVERY service man and woman involved in the war, for carrying it out the operation with courage and compassion.

I'm proud of the men and women who sacrificed their lives and put their lives in danger for our country. But that pride for *them* does not extend to pride for the administration, obviously.

As I stated earlier, this war was about finding and removing the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not getting rid of the evil evil man so he couldn't oppress his people anymore. The quotes from the Bush Administration over the past year more than prove that.

So if it turns out Iraq has no WMDs, that means the men and women risked their lives, or lost their lives, for no reason. No, let me amend that. They did risk/sacrifice their lives for a reason that is noble. The removal of an awful dictator who terrorized his people for decades. But make no mistake, this war was not sold to us on those reasons. It was predicated on taking away his toys of mass destruction.

In that sense, I'd be damn pissed at the administration if I had family risking their lives over there, and even moreso if I lost family. But I'm certainly proud of the troops for doing their job.

There is a distinction there.

 

[Natoma]

Btw, I want to make sure that the second half of my post with regard to Paul Wolfowitz's comments are not glossed over. They most *certainly* support my position that this was more political manuevering when it comes to the WMDs that it was ever really about the true levels of the threat posed by Saddam.


--------------------------
I also find it funny, with regard to Paul Wolfowitz's comments in Vanity Fair earlier this month, that it's coming out from the highest members of the administration that the main reason WMDs were parrotted was because that was what the american public would get behind. That's the only way they could get us to support this war. That, and rightly so, the american public would not support a war in Iraq to simply get rid of an awful dictator. There had to be something that made all those "Soccer moms" quake in their boots in the suburbs and all of middle america cry out for blood. What fit the bill? WMDs.

I also find it funny that it's now coming out that the CIA stated in almost every case that they presented to the president that their evidence with regard to WMDs in Iraq was tenuous at best, murky and stretchable at worst. For instance, the CIA believed Saddam could have a nuclear weapon within a decade. And they put in a worst case scenario that he could, though highly unlikely, have a nuke within a year. What did Bush stress in his State of the Union Address merely three days later? That Iraq would undoubtedly have a Nuke within a year.

There are many other instances of stretching the truth, or running with the worst case scenario from this administration that have come out. It's in all the news. So I'm sorry, but I cannot just roll over and say "Well we didn't find any WMDs, but it doesn't matter. We freed a people from an awful dictator." The Weapons of Mass Destruction were the casus belli for us going to war with Iraq. They were the casus belli for over 100 soldiers losing their lives, and many more now that we're policing that country. So if there is no pushing point, there is no reason for war. No reason for war means we got dragged into this as a citizenry.

As I told Vince before, I want to see the Weapons of Mass Destruction we were all told about and convinced would be there to do us great harm. Even before the war began, there were doubters. I happened to be one of them, and frankly stated that I hoped we'd find WMDs soon after the war because we'd need them to re-establish our credibility on the world stage. I seem to recall getting laughed at about that one. "Problems finding WMDs? Pshaw! Pfft! Laughable! Outrageous!" and so forth and so on. So now it's been two months and nothing.

Tony Blair, one of the few allies of this administration in the world, is getting roasted at home over this, and what do we do? We have Rumsfeld go out and state that the weapons could have been destroyed before the war began, thus negating the whole reason to go to war in the first place in many people's eyes. "Well if the weapons had been destroyed, we didn't have to go." yadda yadda yadda. Not that I believe that particular train of thought because it's a woulda/coulda/shoulda situation, but many people do and are now parrotting it. It's one reason why Tony Blair is having a tough time in Britain now.

And now you have people like CNN and others calling for a potential impeachment of the president if it turns out these WMDs never existed. Which frankly I think is going a tad too far at this stage of the game. If we're a year in and still no Weapons, then sure, maybe. But even then, I have a hard time believing that this was more a deception on the administration's part rather than faulty evidence from the CIA that they misinterpreted to fit their goals. I don't believe the latter is an impeachable offense, but certainly a lack of judgement for the good of the american people.

But anyways, I need to get to work, so I'll cut this post, errm, short.
--------------------------

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Exactly. *Pressure* of force is what was making the inspections work this time. Not *use* of force.

Um, inspectors did not work this time. They were allowed in, but still were not being cooperated with. Where have you been?

And how does one, exactly, apply "pressure", if force is not used when the threat of force, is not actually a threat, but a mere "show"?
Yeah, we'll park some destroyers and aircraft carriers around, to flex our muscles....but don't worry about actually doing what is requested of you. We don't "use" force after all.

It's called "walking the walk." The administration shouldn't flex its military might unless it plans to use it if the terms are not agreed to.

When you're trying to convince people that you want to give every possible effort short of the use of force in order to solve a conflict, stating the things that you quoted from my post doesn't help.

What if you're trying to convince people that we have exhausted every possible effort short of the use of force?

Again, let's not rehash the old "for or against war" debates. It's irrelevant.

*However*, do you not find it just a bit strange that now that we *do* have control over the country, it is now *our* "regime" that will not let the weapons inspectors come back in and join the search for the WMDs?

No, because the weapons inspectors were not there to FIND weapons. That's what we're doing now. Searching for them. The weapons inspectors were there to verify claims of iraqi disarmament, and determine what they have or have not complied with.

This has been stated over and over and never seems to get through to the left.

U.N. Weapons inspectors were not charged with searching for and finding WMD.

The american public, as I stated earlier, was sold on the imminent threat of WMDs.

Right.

The american public was not sold on the idea of removing an awful dictator.

Wrong.

The American public was sold on the idea of removing an awful dictator ... as the only real means to the end.

If we continue on in Iraq and find not a single weapon of mass destruction, then the entire casus belli for the war is, *poof*, up in smoke.

Only in your mind, certainly not mine.

I would be mighty pissed if I lost family in Iraq, only to find out that the whole reason we went out there in the first place was a fabrication at worst, and an intelligence failure at best.

I would be sad of course...and possibly pissed...but at Sadam. I'm not sure why you seem to want to make this a "family" issue. I AM PISSED at Sadam that he was the cause of not only American and coalition losses, but of countless Iraqi's as well. They don't need to be my family to have those emotions.

I agree, *if* there are weapons in existence. If no WMDs exist, then it is *not* an imminent threat by any stretch of the imagination.

Well, hindsight is 20/20 isn't it? You're saying that the war would have only been justified in the first place if well pulled some anthrax out of the Iraqi desert. You are probably one of the same people criticizing the administration for "not connecting the dots" prior to 9/11.

What if I gave you and everyone else on this message board a stock tip with some evidence to back it up? Half of the people think my tip is baseless, the other half thinks it's sound. All of the evidence I provide for rapid growth is accurate and truthful to the best of my knowledge.

Am I lying or being dishonest if the stock tanks? I could be completely honest, and then circumstances AFTER I my statements changed. For example...the WMD may have been shipped out of Iraq.

I agree that it was his problem to not fully disclose, through official documentation, what happened to his WMDs from the 80's and 90's. But my question is this. Do we, the USA, have all our destroyed weapons documented?

Dunno. Did the U.N. draft a resultion demanding such or else we'll face "serious consquences?" That I do know. the answer is no.

Do we have everything documented? I don't know the ins and outs of detailing weapons destruction, but has anyone considered the possibility that maybe, just maybe, those weapons had been destroyed, but not documented?

Of course that's a possibility. The problem is, Sadam's reluctance to cooperate is not exactly conducive to supporting that possibility. Quite the contrary, actually.

I'm merely playing devil's advocate on this one, because frankly I believe Saddam dug his own grave with regard to that issue, and rightfully so.

Right.

[quoite]*If* we got bogged down in urban warfare. You forgot that qualifier in there. [/quote]

No, because getting "bogged down in urban warfare" was practically forwarded as a given by the left. Everyone loves to poke fun at Fox News....however THEIR war analysts seemed to be the only ones saying "operational slow-down? Where?" Supply line problems? Where?

Right up to the end, it was, "We don't have enough ground forces...we're being bogged down....etc." And then when it was over...the story changes to "Of course we won 'easily'".

They try and make the Coalition forces to either be "ill-prepared" on one hand and then "obviously an overmatch" on the other.

Doesn't fly.

How about: We were extremely well preapred, the enemy was tough, and we won a well fought war.

It *does* make a difference in what I stated. And considering how Bush built up Saddam to be this great menacing force, you can forgive me for believing that we might face mass casualties in Iraq in urban warfare.

We might also face mass casualties in a nuclear war too!

You do of course realize we're still losing soldiers in Iraq. Not to mention the casualties we're still suffering in Afghanistan

No, I do realize that, thank you. And those men and women are continuing to do this country a great service, and I honor their sacrifices.

A leading regime? Saddam's regime was a pussycat.

Read above.

We knocked them off in two weeks. For all the bellicosity of Bush's remarks, the way he built up Saddam to be this great menace, he sure rolled over quick didn't he.

What a 100% flip-flop.

I thought the Bush Administration was telling everyone how "easy it was going to be", and you lambasted them for it. Now you're claiming they built up some great enemy?

How about the truth:

War is unpredictable. the only "guarantee" Bush EVER made with respect to the war, is that ultimately, we would win.

If you want to talk about a "leading" regime, then may I move you a few thousand miles north-east of Iraq? There's a little country called North Korea that has long range missiles, 3-6 nukes within the next half year, and over 1,000,000 troops.

Good thing Iraq won't turn out that way...at least any time soon....wouldn't you say?

This war wasn't remarkable at all. It was a beatdown of a tired regime that had been severely weakened by the first gulf war, and 10 years of sanctions.

Do you really think war is some kind of game?

Though considering how the Bush Administration built up Saddam's regime, it's no wonder we all thought this could be a bloodbath.

Read above...I though he was saying what a cakewalk it was going to be. Pick one.

But this war was about finding and removing the Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The war is STILL about that.

Not getting rid of the evil evil man so he couldn't oppress his people anymore.

That was the means to achieve the end.

I'm proud of the men and women who sacrificed their lives and put their lives in danger for our country. But that pride for *them* does not extend to pride for the administration, obviously.

No, you just essentially called these men and women cowardly...as there was nothing remarkable about a conflict against such a weak enemy.

So if it turns out Iraq has no WMDs, that means the men and women risked their lives, or lost their lives, for no reason.

Wrong.

It means they risked their lives on the basis that we had every reason to believe that Sadam's regime was a threat to the U.S. And if the WMD are not found in Iraq, that doesn't mean they didn't have them.

It means that any other dictator that is intent on developing WMD will have to think twice about it.

No, let me amend that. They did risk/sacrifice their lives for a reason that is noble. The removal of an awful dictator who terrorized his people for decades. But make no mistake, this war was not sold to us on those reasons. It was predicated on taking away his toys of mass destruction.

And again. Removing Sadam is the means to that end.

In that sense, I'd be damn pissed at the administration if I had family risking their lives over there, and even moreso if I lost family. But I'm certainly proud of the troops for doing their job.

And I'd be damned pissed at the administration if 10 years from now Iraq showcases[/] to the world that they have Nukes and other WMD..."so what you you going to do about it now?" See N. Korea.

And I'd be damn pissed at the administration if nothing was done to Iraq except "more inspections" and then 5 years from now, "Anthrax traced to Iraq" is released in the NYC subway killing you.

But you'd accept that, right?

 

[Natoma]

Exactly. *Pressure* of force is what was making the inspections work this time. Not *use* of force.

Um, inspectors did not work this time. They were allowed in, but still were not being cooperated with. Where have you been?

Actually Hans Blix stated that they were making progress. Where have you been? Or did you miss his report to the UN Security Council merely days before the war began?

And how does one, exactly, apply "pressure", if force is not used when the threat of force, is not actually a threat, but a mere "show"?
Yeah, we'll park some destroyers and aircraft carriers around, to flex our muscles....but don't worry about actually doing what is requested of you. We don't "use" force after all.

It's called "walking the walk." The administration shouldn't flex its military might unless it plans to use it if the terms are not agreed to.

One can threaten use of force if compliance does not occur and mean it. I'm pretty sure Saddam got the point, or he would have never allowed the inspectors back into the country. *That* alone was proof that Saddam was bowing to the pressure.

And certainly the reports coming from Blix with regards to the WMD issue showed that the threat of force certainly was working. The administration went into this saying "On the count of five, if you don't move, I'll punch you. One... Two... Five..." There was so little real attempt to making the inspections work that it wasn't even worth the time.

The day Bush went to the UN to press the case for movement in Iraq, Rumsfeld and Cheney were on the news talking about how useless it was to go the UN route. And while Powell was trying to build a coalition, Rumsfeld and Cheney went about their business trying their best to discredit the UN and everything it stands for. The "Old Europe" comments certainly didn't help.

Please. One hand not knowing what the other is doing? Not in this white house.

When you're trying to convince people that you want to give every possible effort short of the use of force in order to solve a conflict, stating the things that you quoted from my post doesn't help.

What if you're trying to convince people that we have exhausted every possible effort short of the use of force?

Again, let's not rehash the old "for or against war" debates. It's irrelevant.

Uhm, Colin Powell and Bush went to the UN to reinstate weapons inspections. Hello, UN Resolution 1441 was all about reinstating weapons inspections. So they were trying to convince people to use the weapons inspectors.

Then, *only* then, if it failed, would we use force. Problem is, they didn't even give the process a day to work before Rummy and Cheney called out the dogs, i.e. the media offensive.

It is certainly relevant when looking at the motives behind doing things.

*However*, do you not find it just a bit strange that now that we *do* have control over the country, it is now *our* "regime" that will not let the weapons inspectors come back in and join the search for the WMDs?

No, because the weapons inspectors were not there to FIND weapons. That's what we're doing now. Searching for them. The weapons inspectors were there to verify claims of iraqi disarmament, and determine what they have or have not complied with.

Right. And how do you verify claims that there are no more weapons? You *LOOK* for them. You open your eyes and walk around.

This has been stated over and over and never seems to get through to the right.

The american public was not sold on the idea of removing an awful dictator.

Wrong.

The American public was sold on the idea of removing an awful dictator ... as the only real means to the end.

You're funny. Read the quotes from the last page. *That* is what the american public was sold on. You're stretching the truth here. We were not going in there to remove an awful dictator because he was an evil evil man (which if you had quoted the entire paragraph would have been apparent) and had tortured his people.

We were going in there to get rid of the Weapons of Mass Destruction that he supposedly possessed.

If Saddam had never possessed WMDs, but was merely a thug who tortured his people, you can bet that we'd have never touched Iraq. So please, get over the delusion and see the truth. Even Paul Wolfowitz stated it as clear as day. The casus belli for us going into Iraq was WMDs because that's the only thing the administration felt it could sell the public on.

If we continue on in Iraq and find not a single weapon of mass destruction, then the entire casus belli for the war is, *poof*, up in smoke.

Only in your mind, certainly not mine.

Naturally. Typical hard-right conservative blindness to the truth.

I would be mighty pissed if I lost family in Iraq, only to find out that the whole reason we went out there in the first place was a fabrication at worst, and an intelligence failure at best.

I would be sad of course...and possibly pissed...but at Sadam. I'm not sure why you seem to want to make this a "family" issue. I AM PISSED at Sadam that he was the cause of not only American and coalition losses, but of countless Iraqi's as well. They don't need to be my family to have those emotions.

Here you are skirting the whole issue at hand, yet again.

I would be mighty pissed if I lost family in Iraq, only to find out that the whole reason we went out there in the first place was a fabrication at worst, and an intelligence failure at best.

I agree, *if* there are weapons in existence. If no WMDs exist, then it is *not* an imminent threat by any stretch of the imagination.

Well, hindsight is 20/20 isn't it? You're saying that the war would have only been justified in the first place if well pulled some anthrax out of the Iraqi desert. You are probably one of the same people criticizing the administration for "not connecting the dots" prior to 9/11.

First, I don't criticize the administration for not connecting the dots with regard to 9/11. I criticize the CIA and FBI for that failure. As I stated before, I believe this whole thing, if no WMDs are found, would most certainly be an intelligence failure moreso than deliberate deception on the part of the administration.

Second, if there are no WMDs found in Iraq, then there is no reason to go into Iraq. If you recall, I stated, *before* the war, that we needed to find WMDs to restore our credibility on the world stage. *Before* the war, I did not believe everything coming out of the white house with regard to the Weapons of Mass Destruction.

So this is certainly not a case of 20/20 hindsight, but more of a validation for my beliefs before this whole brouhaha began.

Am I lying or being dishonest if the stock tanks? I could be completely honest, and then circumstances AFTER I my statements changed. For example...the WMD may have been shipped out of Iraq.

Great. We're on a goose chase around the world to find those rascally WMD. This is exactly what the Bush Administration tried when they tried to finger Syria and Iran as harboring WMD from Iraq. I'm not saying that Syria and Iran *don't* have WMD and that they may indeed have come from Iraq, but you see the point here? You could attack every single country in the Middle east, and say "Goddamn, they must have shipped them to China." Attack China, find nothing. "Goddamn, they must have shipped them to Russia." Attack Russia, find nothing. "Goddamn!! They must have shipped them to the lefties houses in the US! Get those lefties"



You can't go forever on "Well they must have sent them to another country." That just will not hold water. And I'm sorry, but Iraq has been under *tremendous* surveillance since 9/11 via satellite and flybys. I seriously doubt there's anyway they could have shipped out hundreds of tons of chem-bio weapons, and nuclear weapons materials, without someone noticing *something* along the lines.

I agree that it was his problem to not fully disclose, through official documentation, what happened to his WMDs from the 80's and 90's. But my question is this. Do we, the USA, have all our destroyed weapons documented?

Dunno. Did the U.N. draft a resultion demanding such or else we'll face "serious consquences?" That I do know. the answer is no.

I'm not talking about whether or not we were forced to document them. I'm asking what the difficulty is in detailing weapons destruction, and if we've done the same. Our Anti ICBM treaty of 1972 with the Russians, along with other anti-nuke proliferation treaties we've signed would certainly have to show some proof or evidence that we had complied would it not?

As I said in the paragraph that you took and broke up, I don't know the ins and outs of detailing weapons destruction. That's why I asked.

*If* we got bogged down in urban warfare. You forgot that qualifier in there.

No, because getting "bogged down in urban warfare" was practically forwarded as a given by the left. Everyone loves to poke fun at Fox News....however THEIR war analysts seemed to be the only ones saying "operational slow-down? Where?" Supply line problems? Where?

The idea of getting bogged down in urban warfare was a respones that *everyone* took. Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, the major networks, etc etc etc. *Everyone* was afraid of getting bogged down in urban warfare because of what happened in Mogadishu, World War II in Berlin, etc etc etc.

Please don't politicize that *universal* fear.

With regard to the supply line problems, the army had to stop for 3-5 days a few hundred miles outside Baghdad, and double back because their supply lines had been cut by Fedayeen attacks. So yes, there were supply line problems. General Franks was one of the people complaining about this during the war.

Right up to the end, it was, "We don't have enough ground forces...we're being bogged down....etc." And then when it was over...the story changes to "Of course we won 'easily'".

They try and make the Coalition forces to either be "ill-prepared" on one hand and then "obviously an overmatch" on the other.

Doesn't fly.

We didn't have enough forces in Baghdad. Or did you not notice the fact that we couldn't protect their museums that housed artifacts from the birthplace of human civilization dating back thousands of years? Nor did they have enough forces to protect the hospitals and medicines that were being looted.

Oh but we certainly had enough forces to protect the Oil and Finance Ministry. Gee, thousand year old culture and hospitals and medicine, or oil? Is it any wonder what our administration chose to protect?

But guess what? They *both* could have been saved with enough forces in Baghdad. We were ill-prepared for maintaining control, but we were certainly an overmatch for the main Saddam forces

But I guess we had more than enough to do the job *right* eh joe?

It *does* make a difference in what I stated. And considering how Bush built up Saddam to be this great menacing force, you can forgive me for believing that we might face mass casualties in Iraq in urban warfare.

We might also face mass casualties in a nuclear war too!

Oh lord don't start the nuclear war bit. It's already been proven that the documents showing Saddam trying to purchase uranium for Nuclear weapons were forged and faked, even *before* the president told the american public this blatant lie.

And it's already been proven that the aluminum tubing purchased by the Iraqis could *not* have been used to reprocess nuclear material for bomb making because they were not high enough quality. They could *only* be used for rockets, which was well within the rights afforded by the UN Resolutions.

Please don't trot out the nuclear war bit anymore with regard to Iraq.

If you want to talk about nuclear war, move your attention to North Korea. *They* are the danger that we should have been removing in March, not Iraq. *They* are the ones who have got missiles pointed at us, and in a couple of years will have the technology to hit the continental United States. *They* are the ones who will have 3-6 nukes in less than a year.

A leading regime? Saddam's regime was a pussycat.

Read above.

I would suggest you do the same.

We knocked them off in two weeks. For all the bellicosity of Bush's remarks, the way he built up Saddam to be this great menace, he sure rolled over quick didn't he.

What a 100% flip-flop.

I thought the Bush Administration was telling everyone how "easy it was going to be", and you lambasted them for it. Now you're claiming they built up some great enemy?

How did I flip flop? I never flip flopped. The Bush Administration was telling everyone how difficult it would be and how much WMD Iraq possessed and how we could be facing massive casualties in Iraq. Everyone also spoke about how if their forces are that strong, we could get bogged down in urban warfare. *Everyone*. So tell me, where is the flip flop?

Where did I lambast the Bush Administration on that? You're making this up 100%.

How about the truth:

Yes, please do so, especially since you're telling me I said things I did not say.

War is unpredictable. the only "guarantee" Bush EVER made with respect to the war, is that ultimately, we would win.

Actually he went on TV saying that it would take a long time, that there would be massive casualties, that we had to be prepared for the use of chem-bio-nuke weapons, yadda yadda yadda. If that's not building up the public's expectations for the worst, then I don't know what is.

If you want to talk about a "leading" regime, then may I move you a few thousand miles north-east of Iraq? There's a little country called North Korea that has long range missiles, 3-6 nukes within the next half year, and over 1,000,000 troops.

Good thing Iraq won't turn out that way...at least any time soon....wouldn't you say?

Iraq was nowhere close to having 1,000,000 troops, long range missiles, 3-6 nukes, or even a nuclear reactor! They don't even have missiles that can go more than 200 miles, let alone thousands.

That country is so backwards, electricity is a luxury. *That* is what they've found. The sanctions reduced that country from a 70% literacy rate pre-Gulf War I to a 20% literacy rate today.

They made the Iraqi people suffer far more than Saddam and his cronies. Iraq was not going to turn out to be another North Korea.

This war wasn't remarkable at all. It was a beatdown of a tired regime that had been severely weakened by the first gulf war, and 10 years of sanctions.

Do you really think war is some kind of game?

Where does that come from? Of course I don't think war is a game. Where do you get that from my statement.

Though considering how the Bush Administration built up Saddam's regime, it's no wonder we all thought this could be a bloodbath.

Read above...I though he was saying what a cakewalk it was going to be. Pick one.

Again, you're making this up. When did I *ever* state that Bush was saying this would be a cakewalk eh? Please find me the quotes. You're pulling this one out your arse.

But this war was about finding and removing the Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The war is STILL about that.

And yet we've found *none*. 100-500 tons of chem-bio weapons don't just up and disappear. If they're there, then

Not getting rid of the evil evil man so he couldn't oppress his people anymore.

That was the means to achieve the end.

BS. See above.

I'm proud of the men and women who sacrificed their lives and put their lives in danger for our country. But that pride for *them* does not extend to pride for the administration, obviously.

No, you just essentially called these men and women cowardly...as there was nothing remarkable about a conflict against such a weak enemy.

Now you're doing it again. Inserting your own BS reasoning instead of looking at exactly what was stated. Please. Spare us.

So if it turns out Iraq has no WMDs, that means the men and women risked their lives, or lost their lives, for no reason.

Wrong.

It means they risked their lives on the basis that we had every reason to believe that Sadam's regime was a threat to the U.S. And if the WMD are not found in Iraq, that doesn't mean they didn't have them.

It means that any other dictator that is intent on developing WMD will have to think twice about it.

You know, I wrote that paragraph *specifically* in that manner because I *knew* you'd break it up and read what you wanted to read, instead of the entire *thought*.

This is the entire paragraph:

So if it turns out Iraq has no WMDs, that means the men and women risked their lives, or lost their lives, for no reason. No, let me amend that. They did risk/sacrifice their lives for a reason that is noble. The removal of an awful dictator who terrorized his people for decades. But make no mistake, this war was not sold to us on those reasons. It was predicated on taking away his toys of mass destruction.

If you're going to address my points, do it completely.

In that sense, I'd be damn pissed at the administration if I had family risking their lives over there, and even moreso if I lost family. But I'm certainly proud of the troops for doing their job.

And I'd be damned pissed at the administration if 10 years from now Iraq showcases to the world that they have Nukes and other WMD..."so what you you going to do about it now?" See N. Korea.

And I'd be damn pissed at the administration if nothing was done to Iraq except "more inspections" and then 5 years from now, "Anthrax traced to Iraq" is released in the NYC subway killing you.

But you'd accept that, right?

Again. Please. We had unequivocable proof from the get go that North Korea had a nuclear facility, along with long range missiles.

Iraq has no nuclear facility. They haven't had one since 1981 when the Israelies bombed it to bits to keep them from being able to reprocess and make nukes. They don't even have nuclear material, as those claims have been proven to be forgeries.

Iraq has, so far, not been shown to have, *to date*, 2 months after the war ended with no resistance in sight, any chem-bio weapons of any kind. Yes they possessed them in the past, but that is not a precursor to future development necessarily.

As the CIA stated in documents released to the press (shown in TIME magazine last week, as an example), much of the "proof" was hearsay, conjecture, and guesswork. There wasn't anything concrete to make a statement to the public that this was definitively going to occur. But I guess you don't need hard proof and evidence before supporting a war and sending people off to die, as long as they die honorably and for their country.

 

[antlers]

Even, and perhaps especially, if there were WMD in Iraq, the war was stupid (as far as enhancing the security of the U.S., certainly it has had some benefits for those Iraqis who weren't blown up, shot, or had their livelihoods destroyed).

If there weren't WMDs, the U.S. looks like it lied or was just mistaken when it claimed it had certain knowledge of WMDs. This will reduce the U.S.'s credibility next time we look for international cooperation on any security issue.

If there were WMD's, they are now outside the control of any government that could be held responsible. Not a situation that makes me feel secure.

 

[Natoma]

Exactly.

 

[Clashman]

Even, and perhaps especially, if there were WMD in Iraq, the war was stupid (as far as enhancing the security of the U.S., certainly it has had some benefits for those Iraqis who weren't blown up, shot, or had their livelihoods destroyed).

If there weren't WMDs, the U.S. looks like it lied or was just mistaken when it claimed it had certain knowledge of WMDs. This will reduce the U.S.'s credibility next time we look for international cooperation on any security issue.

If there were WMD's, they are now outside the control of any government that could be held responsible. Not a situation that makes me feel secure.

There's more to it than that. WMD is the only pretense under which this invasion can be considered legal, (and even this is pretty shaky ground). I don't doubt that we still would have invaded even if they acknowledged there were no WMD's, it just would have been a flagrant violation of international law. And thus, if it is shown that they deliberatly mislead the public on the only legal ground for conducting this war, the administration has committed a war crime, for which it should be tried.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Actually Hans Blix stated that they were making progress. Where have you been?

On the same planet where the deadline set by Resolution 1441 wasn't met.

Or did you miss his report to the UN Security Council merely days before the war began?

You mean after the resolution deadline had passed?

One can threaten use of force if compliance does not occur and mean it.

Hogwash. How do you demonstrate that you "mean it?"

I'm pretty sure Saddam got the point, or he would have never allowed the inspectors back into the country. *That* alone was proof that Saddam was bowing to the pressure.

Or was it just like he's always done: Bowing to the pressure, or putting up more smokescreens and delay tactics until we just give up as we have in the past?

And certainly the reports coming from Blix with regards to the WMD issue showed that the threat of force certainly was working. The administration went into this saying "On the count of five, if you don't move, I'll punch you. One... Two... Five..." There was so little real attempt to making the inspections work that it wasn't even worth the time.

So what you're saying is, you disagree with Resolution 1441.

And BTW, it's more like "On the count of 5, I'll punch you...1...2..3...4..5..6..7..8..poke...prod.......no, um, OK...on the count of 10, I'll punch you, and this time I mean it....1..2..3..4..5..6.....ah...forget it for 4 years....(4 years later) OK, on the count of 5, I will punch you....1...2...3...4..5...OK one LAST CHANCE...on the count of 3, I'll punch you....1..2...3...PUNCH.

[snip Bush conspiracy theories....]

Then, *only* then, if it failed, would we use force.

It did fail. It did not produce the demands of the resolution by the deadline set by the resolution.

It is certainly relevant when looking at the motives behind doing things.

I think I'll stop right here. (Then again, maybe not.) You are not looking at the motives...you are ASSUMING motives and then building a story behind it. Quite useless to continue on that pretext.

How did we get off of the original point of this thread, that is how finding WMD makes a difference to the legitimacy of the war, anyway?

You're funny. Read the quotes from the last page. *That* is what the american public was sold on. You're stretching the truth here. We were not going in there to remove an awful dictator because he was an evil evil man (which if you had quoted the entire paragraph would have been apparent) and had tortured his people.

Um, I agree with that. As I said, removing that evil man was the means to the end.

We were going in there to get rid of the Weapons of Mass Destruction that he supposedly possessed.

Yes and no. We have to find them first, then at least ascertain what happened to them.

If Saddam had never possessed WMDs, but was merely a thug who tortured his people, you can bet that we'd have never touched Iraq. So please, get over the delusion and see the truth.

Where did I disagree with that?

Naturally. Typical hard-right conservative blindness to the truth.

I would be mighty pissed if I lost family in Iraq, only to find out that the whole reason we went out there in the first place was a fabrication at worst, and an intelligence failure at best.

What FABRICATION? That the whole world assumed Iraq had WMDs?

Would it be a "more acceptable intelligence failure" to you if Iraq's WMD were unleashed on U.S. soil, and we didn't do something to stop it when we could have?

I would NOT be pissed off if there was an "intillegence failure." We have our intelligence, and if it failed, we must learn why. But that doesn't mean we just ignore our intelligence when you see fit too, just because you say so.

First, I don't criticize the administration for not connecting the dots with regard to 9/11. I criticize the CIA and FBI for that failure.

And if the CIA and FBI sometime in July 2001 gave "intelligence" to the President that Al Quadea was going to ram jet lineres into some U.S. targets.....and the President said "Start bmobing Afghanistan and disrupting the network"

What would you say?

Don't trust THAT intelligence? Some e-mails are no reason to go to war? Where's the hard proof? If we send troops to Afghanistan, and there IS NO 9/11 ATTACK, did those servicemen die "for no good reason?"

You love to use the benefit of hindsight to place blame, don't you?

WouldAs I stated before, I believe this whole thing, if no WMDs are found, would most certainly be an intelligence failure moreso than deliberate deception on the part of the administration.

As I said before, Intelligence failures should be looked over to find out "why." That serves to better our intelligence gathering prcedures. That doesn't mean we shouldn't act on intellignce. What you are saying is that "If the intelligence is good, the war is OK. If the intelligence is not, then it's not OK and I'm pissed."

When do you EVER know how "good" intelligence is until maybe in hindsight. You have intellignce, and you have some degree of confidence in it's accuracy.

Second, if there are no WMDs found in Iraq, then there is no reason to go into Iraq.

Again, wrong. If there are no WMDs found in Iraq, that MAY mean there was an intelligence break down, but we'll never know. In any case the only reason to NOT go into Iraq, is if our intelligence told us there was no WMD threat.

If you recall, I stated, *before* the war, that we needed to find WMDs to restore our credibility on the world stage.

And I say "credibility on the world stage" takes a back-seat to U.S. security. That's our difference.

So this is certainly not a case of 20/20 hindsight, but more of a validation for my beliefs before this whole brouhaha began.

Wow...some soothsayer you are. Who wouldn't predict that our "credibility would take some hit" if WMDs weren't found? You do understand that's not the point here, right?

And it's not OUR credibility, it's the WORLD'S (defined as UN security council's) credibility. They all believed that Iraq had WMDs.

Again, the credibility of world intelligence on Iraq may be inquestion. But that has no impact on the legitimacy of going to war based on the intelligence that everyone had.

Great. We're on a goose chase around the world to find those rascally WMD.

Possibly, yup. I want those WMDs found. Not for any reasons of "justifying the war", but so that we know where they are. That's what this is all about.

You can't go forever on "Well they must have sent them to another country." That just will not hold water.

Correct. You have to have reasonable intelligence to that effect in order for it to hold water. On the contrary, you seem to be content with going on forever with failed inspections who for 12 years could not validate Iraqs disarmament. That holds water to you?

The idea of getting bogged down in urban warfare was a respones that *everyone* took. Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, the major networks, etc etc etc. *Everyone* was afraid of getting bogged down in urban warfare because of what happened in Mogadishu, World War II in Berlin, etc etc etc.

Please don't politicize that *universal* fear.

Huh? You're the one politicizing some nonsense about Bush making the enemy more dangerous than they were.

With regard to the supply line problems, the army had to stop for 3-5 days a few hundred miles outside Baghdad, and double back because their supply lines had been cut by Fedayeen attacks. So yes, there were supply line problems. General Franks was one of the people complaining about this during the war.

Franks did no such thing (complain about supply lines.) He did acknowledge that when some reporters talk to an individual soldier on the field, and the soldier says "I didn't get my rations yet today", that reporters wrongly draw false conclusions and don't understand that's not a "real problem".

That's typical.

We didn't have enough forces in Baghdad. Or did you not notice the fact that we couldn't protect their museums that housed artifacts from the birthplace of human civilization dating back thousands of years?

Lol...are you kidding me? As if protecting a museum is some high priority vs. risking american lives?

By the way, I guess this statement of yours means you missed the reports today that the majority of "so called missing" artifacts are not actually missing at all?

Gee, thousand year old culture and hospitals and medicine, or oil? Is it any wonder what our administration chose to protect?

Gee....museum artifacts or American lives. Oil, which is the natural resource and basis of the economy for the Iraqis for the forseeable future, or temporary medicine shortages.

Oh yes, what morally absurd positions.

But guess what? They *both* could have been saved with enough forces in Baghdad.

No, they both could NOT have been saved without people like you bitching about how more American lives are lost in the conflict. They both could NOT have been saved without people like you bitching about how much money it costs.

But I guess we had more than enough to do the job *right* eh joe?

Geezus, Natoma, if the biggest gripe from a leftist like you is the loss of some museum artifcats, I'd say that qualifes as being enough.

Oh lord don't start the nuclear war bit...

(Cnip rest of Nuke discussion)

Holy hell, Natoma. I am so sorry you wasted such effort on "dubunking nuclear war in Iraq."

I see my point went right over your head. OF COURSE if large scale Urban warfare broke out, there would be more casualites. As there would be if WMD were deployed....or nukes. Or if God dropped out of the sky and decided to arm Iraqis with weapons of his own making.

Why state the obvious?

Yes, everyone was "concerned" about urban warfare. Duh. Some (like yourself) used that as an argument to not consider war...because of the potential cost.

We are fully aware of the potential cost.

Please don't trot out the nuclear war bit anymore with regard to Iraq.

Please learn to spot analogy to make a point, rather than wasting your time rebutting something that's pointless.

How did I flip flop? I never flip flopped. The Bush Administration was telling everyone how difficult it would be and how much WMD Iraq possessed and how we could be facing massive casualties in Iraq.

I don't EVER recall Bush telling anyone about how we could be facing "massive casualities."

Again, I REPEAT. He was telling everyone about the unpredictability of war...that we WOULD stick it out as long as it takes. That we WOULD win. That it would NOT be "easy." He never said how long or short it would take. He cautioned people against ASSUMIUNG it would be a cakewalk.

Where do you get this stuff about "massive casualties?"

Everyone also spoke about how if their forces are that strong, we could get bogged down in urban warfare. *Everyone*. So tell me, where is the flip flop?

The flip flop is in the left's position of Bush initially trying to sell this on one hand as an easy victory. You, for example, feel "compelled" to warn us all about urban warefare casualites, as if Bush had not considered that and did not relay potential for such issues to arise. And now you saying Bush was making the enemy to be bigger than it was.

Yes, please do so, especially since you're telling me I said things I did not say.

Why did you bring up the "fear" of casualties of Urban Warfare? If Bush was always selling Iraq as a tough battle than it would be....what would be the need? But I'll look for some quotes...

Actually he went on TV saying that it would take a long time, that there would be massive casualties, that we had to be prepared for the use of chem-bio-nuke weapons, yadda yadda yadda.

OK, now it's your turn to find the quotes. He MIGHT have said that large casualites are a possibility...which is/was the truth. We DID have to be preapred for the use of WMD, which was also prudent. He said the WAR ON TERROR as a whole would take a long time. He made no definitive statements about the duration of the Iraq conflict.

If that's not building up the public's expectations for the worst, then I don't know what is.

So, again, he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't is that it? He can't let people think it'll be "too easy" because of the possibility that things can go wrong...like large scale urban warfare. On the other hand, he can't caution nd he can't caution people that it'll be "tough", because that's making the enemy out to be "bigger and badder" than they are?

How exactly should he have "prepared" Americans for war? Told us exactly how many soldiers would die, when Baghdad would fall?

He should have done EXACTLY what he did: say that war is not predictable. We must be prepared for casualties. We must be prepared to see it though no matter how long it takes. All without predicting how long it would take....because he could not know that.

Iraq was nowhere close to having 1,000,000 troops, long range missiles, 3-6 nukes, or even a nuclear reactor! They don't even have missiles that can go more than 200 miles, let alone thousands.

And it doesn't take 1,000,000 troops, long range missiles, 3-6 nukes, or even a nuclear reactor to support another 9/11. Hello?

That country is so backwards, electricity is a luxury. *That* is what they've found. The sanctions reduced that country from a 70% literacy rate pre-Gulf War I to a 20% literacy rate today.

Sanctions. Another U.N. Gem.

Again, you're making this up. When did I *ever* state that Bush was saying this would be a cakewalk eh? Please find me the quotes. You're pulling this one out your arse.

I'll check, but if it wasn't you, then I pulled it out of the same arse you've been pulling the "Bush Was Building Up Iraqi Forces" crap.

And yet we've found *none*. 100-500 tons of chem-bio weapons don't just up and disappear.

Correct, they don't. If only Sadam had told anyone credibly what had happened to them.

If they're there, then...

Then what?

Now you're doing it again. Inserting your own BS reasoning instead of looking at exactly what was stated. Please. Spare us.

Nope. Just taking your statments "to their logical conclusion." You play that game all the time, correct?

You know, I wrote that paragraph *specifically* in that manner because I *knew* you'd break it up and read what you wanted to read, instead of the entire *thought*.

Sigh....

So if it turns out Iraq has no WMDs, that means the men and women risked their lives, or lost their lives, for no reason. No, let me amend that. They did risk/sacrifice their lives for a reason that is noble. The removal of an awful dictator who terrorized his people for decades. But make no mistake, this war was not sold to us on those reasons. It was predicated on taking away his toys of mass destruction.

If you're going to address my points, do it completely.

I did. Hint: your staement about the removal of a dictator is irrelevant to my point. Which is that is NOT the only "noble" reason to go to war if no WMD are found. I gave you ANOTHER reason, which you just completely igored to reiterate yet another point that didn't need reiterating. Gee, thanks.

Next time, trust me when I don't copy everything you write, OK?

And I'd be damned pissed at the administration if 10 years from now Iraq showcases to the world that they have Nukes and other WMD..."so what you you going to do about it now?" See N. Korea.

And I'd be damn pissed at the administration if nothing was done to Iraq except "more inspections" and then 5 years from now, "Anthrax traced to Iraq" is released in the NYC subway killing you.

But you'd accept that, right?

(again, snip nucelar crap, you're just ignoring the terrorist aspect of this again.)

Iraq has, so far, not been shown to have, *to date*, 2 months after the war ended with no resistance in sight, any chem-bio weapons of any kind. Yes they possessed them in the past, but that is not a precursor to future development necessarily.

Shock. A whole 2 months to try and find WMD that Sadam had years to hide / move / whatever. What a surprise.

As the CIA stated in documents released to the press (shown in TIME magazine last week, as an example), much of the "proof" was hearsay, conjecture, and guesswork. There wasn't anything concrete to make a statement to the public that this was definitively going to occur. But I guess you don't need hard proof and evidence before supporting a war and sending people off to die, as long as they die honorably and for their country.

I guess you need to have Sadam himself to personally and publically air a videotape of his handing off WMD to terrorists before you think going to war is justified.