I was just watching Hannity & Colmes and wondered what people thought. Here's the link.
Basically 500 or so chemical weapons have been found in the past 3 years. The weapons are thought to have been made prior to 1991, some of which have degraded since their creation. What do you guys think? Unimportant? Reason for apology? Just wondering.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I think it's a far cry from the stockpiles we thought were there. Anyway, I've heard about this before from time to time-- at one point someone tried to hook an old shell up to an IED. They're intersting findings that haven't gotten much coverage.
I wonder why Sens. Hoekstra and Santorum are bring it up now.
--j_k
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Since when is mustard gas a WMD? As I understand it, what we're talking about here are nerve gas and mustard gas munitions of the sort used by the Iraqi Army in past conflicts -- which, while certainly illegal, are hardly of the "mushroom cloud" nature that was used as a justification for war in the first place.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
My guess is that the designation dates back to the time when they were called NBCs.
--j_k
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
While I think the weapons of the "mushroom cloud" nature are certainly the most frightening variation of WMDs, the term WMD is also used to describe chemical and biological weapons.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Tom get real! Admit you were wrong! They found WMD, he had WMD, and we were right not to allow him to continue with his WMD.
And since you need it here’s a definition of WMD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD "A weapon crosses the WMD threshold when the consequences of its release overwhelm local responders"
Notice chemical and nerve are listed.
No one said he had nuclear weapons, sure he wanted to get them. But your mushroom cloud reference is laughable.
This is going to be funny. I’m already enjoying seeing all the DNC squirm and make up excuses and talking points. They just can’t do the right thing and apologize to President Bush for calling him a liar. Bush is and was right. Who’s the liar now?
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
As I recall, we were told that Saddam Hussein was going to kill us all with anthrax and nerve gas.
To my knowledge, all they've found previously is a refridgerator full of Botox.
This Fox report would seem to imply that they've FINALLY dug so deep that they've dug up some stuff that's been buried and forgotten since the Iran-Iraq War. This doesn't change much.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: Tom get real! Admit you were wrong! They found WMD, he had WMD, and we were right not to allow him to continue with his WMD.
And since you need it here’s a definition of WMD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD "A weapon crosses the WMD threshold when the consequences of its release overwhelm local responders"
Notice chemical and nerve are listed.
No one said he had nuclear weapons, sure he wanted to get them. But your mushroom cloud reference is laughable.
This is going to be funny. I’m already enjoying seeing all the DNC squirm and make up excuses and talking points. They just can’t do the right thing and apologize to President Bush for calling him a liar. Bush is and was right. Who’s the liar now?
Watch out, Tom, he's got a Wikipedia definition to defend one of a hundred thousand problems with Bush's administration & presidency.
Good thing the GOP uses pirates and not ninjas, because a Wikipedia study reported conclusively that ninjas rock pirates hardcore. Ninjas in '08, anyone?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Watch out, Tom, he's got a Wikipedia definition to defend one of a hundred thousand problems with Bush's administration & presidency.
At least he bothered to reference a definition before speaking about the usage.
The inclusion of chemical weapons within the term WMD is absolutely consistent with both common usage and with how it was used prior to the war.
These shells alone don't match the scope of what was claimed. But they are part of those claims and there's no misdirection in saying "WMDs were found" (assuming there's live agent left in these).
To say, "Bush's claims concerning WMDs were proved true," however, would be inaccurate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But they are part of those claims and there's no misdirection in saying "WMDs were found" (assuming there's live agent left in these).
The point, of course, is that saying "WMDs were found" and meaning that these WMDs were found is inherently weasely.
500 canisters of mostly-expired sarin and nerve gas don't exactly constitute a stockpile worthy of invasion; in fact, since we already know that 80 tons of chemical weapons vanished since the Gulf War, it's very surprising that only 500 shells have been found. That none of these shells are of modern manufacture also strongly suggests that there was no WMD program actually producing anything in any numbers at the time of our invasion.
No one is saying "WMDs have been found" in order to check off a little box. They're saying "WMDs have been found" in an effort to show that the original motivation given for our invasion was valid -- something they're having to do because they've now run out of alternate justifications and are forced to start again at the top of the list. And so using these old shells in that way is extraordinarily cynical and not a little dishonest. But I'd expect that of Santorum, really.
I find myself wondering why they're bringing this one up now, in pseudo-press-release format. Is there another scandal breaking that I haven't heard about yet?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The point, of course, is that saying "WMDs were found" and meaning that these WMDs were found is inherently weasely.
Nope. I'm not going to play that game. If I can call Jay on asserting that "Bush was right" so baldly, I can also insist on the accuracy of "WMDs were found."
I'm not vouching for anything else Santorum said, and I've already made the caveat about there still being live agent.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I can also insist on the accuracy of "WMDs were found."
Yes. But it's no "game." It's using technical accuracy to project a completely inaccurate message.
It is quite exactly the same thing as observing that "Mr. Gherkin has repeatedly run afoul of the law" during a public debate, by which you mean that he has received four speeding tickets. But that's not what you're attempting to insinuate, and that's not what "WMDs were found" is attempting to say, either.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes. But it's no "game." It's using technical accuracy to project a completely inaccurate message.
I'm not the one playing a game. You and Santorum are playing games.
The press release lists what was found. We can draw our own conclusions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dag, are you willing to concede that facts may well be misused, and that it might frequently be necessary to discuss the motivations and subtleties behind the usage of facts in order to prevent their dishonest use?
"WMDs were found" is a meaningless "fact" without context, and the context in which these "WMDs" are being discussed is baldly and brazenly distorted.
When the senators Santorum criticized for saying "no WMDs have been found" were speaking, it's silly to assume that they somehow didn't know that some nerve gas had been found. After all, Cheney himself said he'd misspoken when he talked about WMD stockpiles having been discovered; surely Santorum doesn't think that Cheney somehow forgot about these. Rather, it's more logical to conclude that "no WMDs were found" is a convenient way to observe that no WMDs matching the previous template laid out by the Bush Administration as a justification for war were found.
In fact, by the technical definition of WMD provided, a sufficient quantity of conventional explosive can be classed as a WMD. By this logic, it would be technically accurate to say that almost every country in the world possesses WMDs capable of killing thousands of people if detonated in New York City.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, are you willing to concede that facts may well be misused, and that it might frequently be necessary to discuss the motivations and subtleties behind the usage of facts in order to prevent their dishonest use?
Sure. And the subtlety here is that some WMDs were found (assuming live agent) and that this doesn't prove the claims made before the war to be correct.
That's it.
quote:"WMDs are found" is a meaningless "fact" without context, and the context in which these "WMDs" are being discussed is baldly and brazenly distorted.
And the context you attempted to provide a the top of this thread was just wrong. Mustard gas is a WMD, and there was never a contention that Saddam had nuclear weapons, which is what was clearly suggested by "'mushroom cloud' nature."
You tried to make two points:
1.) These aren't WMDs. 2.) Even if they were, they don't match the claims.
I then made two points:
A.) #1 is wrong. B.) #2 is right.
I'm not going to apologize or accept your game-playing label for pointing that out.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
My question is whether these were supplied by us, lo, those many years ago...
I hope not.
-Bok
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Jay,
Question,
If the President had come forward claiming that Saddam Hussein had 500 cannisters of probably expired Sarin and mustard gas, would Congress have voted in favor of the war?
As I recall, the claims were that Iraq was producing and stockpiling alarming amounts of various agents, includiong germ warfare items. I recall pictures of mobile weapons factories being shown by Colin Powell in his briefing at the UN.
I'm very happy that these 500 things have been found before someone stumbled on them and used them in the insurgency, or decided that Shias (or Sunnis) needed a little smackdown. Good...get rid of the stuff. Even if it is degraded, it's probably still deadly enough, or poisonous enough to do a lot of harm.
But... I also remain convinced that the Administration overstated the case for war and based it on a level of WMD presence in Iraq that was well beyond this cummulative discovery of 500 cannisters in 3 years time.
As for the wiki definition of WMD, I think it's awful. By that standard, every Home Depot store is a WMD supply center. The average American farm is a stockpile.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Mustard gas is a WMD, and there was never a contention that Saddam had nuclear weapons, which is what was clearly suggested by "'mushroom cloud' nature."
The "mushroom cloud" reference was an allusion to a specific quote by, I believe, Condi Rice. The administration quite clearly attempted to emphasize the "N" part of "NBC" in the initial build-up to war.
And, again, I'm still very reluctant to call a canister of mustard gas a WMD. As I've noted -- and as Bob has noted -- the same definition by which mustard gas is a WMD would apply to a fertilizer bomb. A sarin gas attack could, if executed properly and in the right situation, kill thousands -- but so could some properly detonated dynamite.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Don't try to use facts to convince anybody here, just move on over to Ann Coulters Chat room with me...
BC
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The "mushroom cloud" reference was an allusion to a specific quote by, I believe, Condi Rice. The administration quite clearly attempted to emphasize the "N" part of "NBC" in the initial build-up to war.
The mushroom cloud reference was to a capability acknowledged not to exist before the war. This would be part of that claim which I said that the find doesn't support.
quote:And, again, I'm still very reluctant to call a canister of mustard gas a WMD. As I've noted -- and as Bob has noted -- the same definition by which mustard gas is a WMD would apply to a fertilizer bomb. A sarin gas attack could, if executed properly and in the right situation, kill thousands -- but so could some properly detonated dynamite.
I'm not referencing the wiki definition. The U.S. has considered chemical weapons to be WMDs for years - it's integral to our announced policy regarding nuclear retaliation.
Further, they specifically mentioned chemical and biological weapons before the war as part of the justification. There were specific scenarios listed involving small chemical weapons in the hands of terrorists. The Japanese subway gassing was specifically mentioned, and these would allow that (if active).
These are consistent with specific justifications made before the war.
To belabor a point, they still don't support the entirety of the claims. But they do support a piece (the piece where he retained the chemical weapons from before Desert Storm).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The U.S. has considered chemical weapons to be WMDs for years...
*nod* This is one of my quibbles with our definition of "WMD," though. Because it's not really mass destruction, even if you detonate it in a subway. And while sarin would be more effective at killing everyone in attendance at the Super Bowl, a big enough pile of gunpowder could theoretically do the same thing.
One of the problems I've always had with the term "WMD" -- as opposed to "NBC" -- is that pretty much any weapon, used optimally, can cause "mass" destruction. Even a single bullet, if fired at the right target, could kill hundreds.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A senior official at the Defense Department said that these were not the weapons we went to war over, and was not what we were expecting to find.
Using this has a justification of the war would be laughable if the stakes weren't so high. Going to war in Iraq, of all places, for 500, PRE-GULF WAR weapons was not what was pitched to the people or to the Congress. The reasons stated, were repeatedly that the Iraqi government had significant stockpiles of weapons, that they had rearmed since they kicked out inspectors, and that they had the capacity (that was being used) to create more, and were working on nuclear power at an alarming rate.
That last part turned out to be true...if you replace the 'q' in Iraq with an 'n.'
I can't believe, that anyone who is against the war would see this as a reason to say "well oh crap, I was wrong, guess it was a good idea afterall."
Well some might, but I can't imagine there are that many stupid people out there.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I never did either, then I came to Hatrack...
BC
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Providing us with our own pet example of one.
You shouldn't have.
Really.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Considering all the false alarms in the past, are we sure that they found canisters of mustard gas as opposed to jars of mustard? I mean, maybe Saddam's back-up plan was to open a deli after the war, so he buried condiment caches all over the place.
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
Everyone knows that to run a successfull deli, mustard just isn't enough. My bet is that he has committed his resources to advanced scientific procedures that can produce a cloud capable of raining mushrooms down upon the customers of his deli. Which deli store are you going to go to when you need a sandwich? One with *just* mustard, or one with the added benefit of free mushrooms?
We need to keep on searching.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Mustard covered mushrooms, it's what's for dinner.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What what Saddam CALL his deli?
Possible Deli Names:
Deliciously Diabolical Deli
The Baath House
Possible Sandwich Special Names:
Saddami Salami
Other than that, I got nothing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Warning: this incident is Santorum being Santorum.
1. Santorum is trying to make news over something that the Iraq Survey Group made light of two years ago in 2004:
quote:"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991," the Iraq Survey Group reported in 2004. "There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."
"The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there," said President Bush in October of 2004.
2004.
2. Santorum's acknowledgement of the chemical weapons 'degrading over time' is meagre, but expected: the chemical agents in the warheads were sarin and mustard gas and all of that once upon a time long ago, but are now just antiquated chemical remnants of the unstable concoctions. These weapons were unusable scrap, essentially. I personally have mentioned them before, many times, since I remembered that the Iraq Survey Group found them lying around, rotting. I wasn't aware that there was really any doubt that Iraq had WMD's once.
3. Apparently, Santorum had a 'moment' on live television on Fox where he was informed that the Defense Department had disavowed his claims. Initial
4. This is a desperate election-year ploy designed to wow the uninformed
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
1) Basically, these were 0 threat to the US, its "Homeland" or its people, even if Sadaam had dug them up and given them to Al Queda. Hence these represent no reason to go to war.
2) Mr. Squicky--a Kosher deli?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The U.S. has considered chemical weapons to be WMDs for years...
*nod* This is one of my quibbles with our definition of "WMD," though. Because it's not really mass destruction, even if you detonate it in a subway. And while sarin would be more effective at killing everyone in attendance at the Super Bowl, a big enough pile of gunpowder could theoretically do the same thing.
One of the problems I've always had with the term "WMD" -- as opposed to "NBC" -- is that pretty much any weapon, used optimally, can cause "mass" destruction. Even a single bullet, if fired at the right target, could kill hundreds.
OK, but that's absolutely irrelevant to your complaints about this announcement. You started off with "Since when is mustard gas a WMD?" The answer is for at least 40 years or so.
You can disagree with that meaning, of course. But that's a complaint about something else other than this announcement.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Here is the "mushroom cloud" quote in full, courtesy of George W. Bush himself:
quote:Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Hussein was supposed to provide complete documentation on how he disposed of ALL his WMD. The 500 chemical munitions shows that he did not do what he agreed to do under the terms of surrender back in 1991. Then after more than a decade of attempts to get Hussein to comply with 16 UN resolutions, we removed him from power. Honestly though, it would not matter to people like TomDavidson and others like him what we found in Iraq. They believe that Bush is evil and that he lied so nothing else matters. They will change the arguement to suit their needs. For example, TomDavidson does not think mustard gas or sarin qualifies as a WMD therefore no WMD's were found. The usability of the WMD's is irrelevant because the Terms of Surrender Hussein agreed to back in 1991 stated he must prove that he has destroyed all of his WMD's. He did not do that. Hussein was given more than 10 years to show his was in compliance with Terms of Surrender and he ignored them at every turn. Things like this from Lyrhawn
quote: The reasons stated, were repeatedly that the Iraqi government had significant stockpiles of weapons, that they had rearmed since they kicked out inspectors, and that they had the capacity (that was being used) to create more, and were working on nuclear power at an alarming rate.
At the time every intelligence agency in the world including France, Germany and Russia, and even Hussein's top people all believed that Iraq possessed WMD's. Only after removing him from power did the world discover that Hussein had been lying to his staff and the rest of the world. To illustrate, here is a link from Democrat Joe Biden Biden Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Since when is mustard gas not a WMD? Note also that they found cannisters of sarin (not sure on spelling). It was only two cannisters (of what I recall was mustard gas) that Saddam used to kill over 5000 people in a Kurdish village. Some on this forum may not consider that number to constitute mass destruction, but for some of us even a fraction of that deadly potential in the hands of a madman like Saddam is too deadly of a possibility to let stand.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Honestly though, it would not matter to people like TomDavidson and others like him what we found in Iraq.
I believe I have said before -- and on this forum -- what would "matter" to me. Your speculation on my motivations is inaccurate.
quote:For example, TomDavidson does not think mustard gas or sarin qualifies as a WMD therefore no WMD's were found.
Specifically, I don't think these expired military munitions qualify as the sort of clandestine WMD for which we invaded Iraq.
quote:The usability of the WMD's is irrelevant because the Terms of Surrender Hussein agreed to back in 1991 stated he must prove that he has destroyed all of his WMD's. He did not do that.
It's worth noting that we've found merely 500 canisters of a stockpile that was at one point estimated at over 250 tons. 80 tons of the stuff -- considerably more than 500 canisters -- is unaccounted-for. And given that the 500 canisters are almost certainly expired by this point, I think it's fairly reasonable to say that, as far as we can tell, Saddam did destroy or abandon his WMDs (to the limits of his ability and what he considered practical, no doubt).
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Specifically, I don't think these expired military munitions qualify as the sort of clandestine WMD for which we invaded Iraq.
Except that they do qualify under the Terms of Surrender Saddam agreed to in 1991. As far as being expired, I don't know if they were expired or unusable in 1991.
quote: I think it's fairly reasonable to say that, as far as we can tell, Saddam did destroy or abandon his WMDs (to the limits of his ability and what he considered practical, no doubt).
No it is not. The Terms of Surrender did not call for a fairly reasonable, as far as we can tell, attempt for Saddam to destroy or abandon his WMDs. Saddam agreed to destroy ALL of his WMDs, under UN supervision, with proper documentation. Unless of course you are saying that Saddam only had to live up to what Saddam considered practical and not what the agreement stated?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
So if he did destroy it why didn’t he show that? Where’s the proof? Knowing how he is isn’t it more logical to think that he moved it somewhere or hid a lot of it?
And yes Tom, we know you’re just like most of the DNC and Bush could say the sky is a pretty blue today and you’d go off on him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And yes Tom, we know you’re just like most of the DNC and Bush could say the sky is a pretty blue today and you’d go off on him.
The most baffling thing about this quote is that it's not meant as sarcasm, but it's actually much more effective as sarcasm than as legitimate criticism.
You might want to spend some time comparing my positions to the positions and opinions of the DNC before you call me "just like most" of their leadership.
quote:Unless of course you are saying that Saddam only had to live up to what Saddam considered practical and not what the agreement stated?
I'm saying that the reason we had weapons inspectors in the first place was that we never seriously believed that Saddam would attempt to eliminate all of his stockpiles. And 500 canisters is in fact considerably less of a stockpile than we ever imagined he'd have. In fact, if you read the text of the actual report, it suggests that most of the munitions that were found appeared both lost and abandoned, suggesting that -- due to decades of chaos -- the Iraqi Army simply lost track of the remainder, something that I find highly unsurprising when I consider the general disarray in Iraq.
Now, I'm not saying that the guy didn't try to hold onto a few canisters deliberately. I'm sure he did. In fact, I'm even pretty confident that there's a bunker or two we haven't found with a hundred or maybe even a thousand more of these old shells in there. But the drumbeat of war was not pounding out "Let's invade Iraq now to retroactively enforce a treaty on some weapons that've passed their sell-by date."
As Dagonee has observed, the technical fact that these "WMDs" exist is not exactly a validation of our original invasion argument.
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
Until ten minutes ago I had no idea mustard gas counted as a WMD. I can't be the only one out here. Do you think that Bush would have had very much support for going to war if he hadn't implied *nuclear* WMD? Ok so he didn't technically lie to us. He mislead us with innuendo. Great. All those lives and all those bazillions of dollars were suddenly worth it.
It's like my second cousin who was "technically" a virgin on her wedding night. Her husband believed that she was sexually inexperienced just like he was. The reality was that she merely had an intact hymen. I suppose he shouldn't be upset if he found out the details...she didn't actually lie to him after all...
Some people would go off on Bush if he said the sky is a pretty blue today. Others would support his assertion that the sky is a pretty blue today even as they hid from the rain under their umbrellas. It goes both ways. For every person who blindly rejects Bush no matter what is another who blindly follows him, justifying his every move.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: But the drumbeat of war was not pounding out "Let's invade Iraq now to retroactively enforce a treaty on some weapons that've passed their sell-by date."
We should have removed Saddam YEARS before we did since he did not live up to the Terms of Surrender. We did not retroactively enforce a treaty, we finally enforced the treaty and 16 subsequent UN resolutions. Again, in 1991 no one thought that Saddam had weapons that've passed their sell-by date. The world thought that Saddam had viable WMDs. Saddam never disclosed that he had a few defunked bombs somewhere out there. He led the world to believe he had an active WMD program in direct violation of the treaty.
quote:As Dagonee has observed, the technical fact that these "WMDs" exist is not exactly a validation of our original invasion argument.
Do you know if these WMDs wear not viable in 1991 or after 1991 they were 'lost' and fell into disrepair?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Again, in 1991 no one thought that Saddam had weapons that've passed their sell-by date.
Yes. And in 1991, Nirvana had just broken through to the mainstream and it looked like the world was full of bright new possibilities. I'd imagine that was the year most of the country learned what a "latte" was for the first time.
quote: Do you know if these WMDs wear not viable in 1991 or after 1991 they were 'lost' and fell into disrepair?
It's amazing how many things that happened over a decade ago simply aren't remotely relevant today. When was the last time you listened to Candlebox?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: It's like my second cousin who was "technically" a virgin on her wedding night. Her husband believed that she was sexually inexperienced just like he was. The reality was that she merely had an intact hymen. I suppose he shouldn't be upset if he found out the details...she didn't actually lie to him after all...
That is a bad example. If she had sex before him then she did lie to him. She knows she had sex and knowingly told a lie. In your scenario, she would be Saddam, not President Bush. There is no way for her husband to know that she was not a virgin if she was examined and he was told by multiple reliable independant sources that she was a virgin. If for some odd reason one of the stipulations in the marriage 'contract' was that she MUST be a virgin and after they were married her husband found out that she was not a virgin, then she violated that contract and should have to abide by whatever consequences a violation means.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I hate how people act like there are only two relevant possibilities here:
(1) Iraq had WMDs when we invaded. (2) Iraq did not have WMDs.
People act like Bush said (1), his critics said (2), and there is no middle ground between them. So if even one mustard gas shell is found in Iraq, (1) is true and the critics are wrong.
Of course that's false. The questions that are relevant to whether the war was ethical, or begun deceptively, are the following:
-Did Iraq have the kind and quantity of WMDs that the administration claimed they did?
-Did they have enough WMDs, or enough production capacity, to eventually be a threat?
These are the important questions, not stupid nitpicking about whether Tom Davidson was wrong because Iraq had one or more chemical weapons.
I close with a quote from the article.
quote:Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.
"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I should stay out of this conversation because Dag's the only one making sense and I don't feel like fighting...
But I gotta know.. what's the deal with the emphasis on the fact the nerve gas had "expired"?
Does nerve gas turn into Kool-aid when it expires? "mmm mmm! Mustard flavour!"
I don't know if it loses its effectiveness or not, but I know a lot of things get more nasty as they age. Dynamite for instance. Play with that and you might get some Arnst on you.
Pix
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Yes. And in 1991, Nirvana had just broken through to the mainstream and it looked like the world was full of bright new possibilities. I'd imagine that was the year most of the country learned what a "latte" was for the first time. It's amazing how many things that happened over a decade ago simply aren't remotely relevant today. When was the last time you listened to Candlebox?
So, using your logic, I no longer have to pay my mortgage because that was more than 10 years ago! How very awesome! I suppose marriages become null and void after 10 years too? Perhaps Life itself is no longer relevant after age 10? How disappointing...
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:But I gotta know.. what's the deal with the emphasis on the fact the nerve gas had "expired"?
Sounds to me (from the passage I just quoted) like none of the gas was "in useable condition."
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It is very much like the example above....the speeding one....where the implied context is incorrect.
They TOLD us there were weapons unaccounted for, so there wasn't even a lie involved.
At least not from Iraq.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't know if it loses its effectiveness or not
That would, in a nutshell, have provided the answer to your question.
quote:So, using your logic, I no longer have to pay my mortgage because that was more than 10 years ago!
No, not quite. Before I use a bad analogy, I need to ask: do you not understand why the fact that Iraq did not manage to successfully divest itself of all chemical munitions in accordance with the 1991 treaty is not considered by many people to be a satisfactory equivalent to an active NBC weapons program?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: do you not understand why the fact that Iraq did not manage to successfully divest itself of all chemical munitions in accordance with the 1991 treaty is not considered by many people to be a satisfactory equivalent to an active NBC weapons program?
Indeed I do. However, your point is pretty much irrelevant since you are making your considerations of Saddam's active NBC program AFTER we removed him from power and found what the status of Saddam's NBC program was. All the world's intelligence agencies believed that Saddam did have an active NBC program. Until we removed Saddam from power the world believed Saddam in fact did have an active NBC program. After it was proven that Saddam had misled the world you are now asserting how completely wrong the assements of the NBC programs were. Yet we would never have known if we were wrong had we not enforced the Terms of Surrender and 16 UN resolutions. Had the completely corrupt Oil for Food program continued, Saddam would have restarted his NBC programs with the millions and millions of dollars that he was earning.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
tom: I was hoping for a link rather than a smirk. =/
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:All the world's intelligence agencies believed that Saddam did have an active NBC program.
If you're going to make THIS argument, that renders the presence or absence of WMDs completely irrelevant. In other words, saying "it doesn't matter if we found WMDs or not because we really thought there were WMDs" means that calling a press conference to discuss the "discovery" of WMDs is pretty pointless.
Unless of course the question is not whether we thought WMDs were there, but rather whether we thought correctly. Santorum's press conference is designed to address the latter question, and I'm attacking it on that basis.
If we want to discuss whether the administration really thought there were WMDs there to find, we can -- but that's unrelated to this issue.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
So which is more plausible:
In the wake of the gulf war Iraq simply stopped trying to make chemical weapons as it could not afford it. The weapons that had already been constructed were buried and people all forgot about them. When weapon inspectors showed up to see to check on WMD, Saddam turned them away without letting them poke around, because he enjoyed pissing off the international community. He had no intention of using any of his degrading chemical weapons and he had no intention of perhaps selling a handful of his working WMD to terrorist as a sort of, "Stick it to the US," because he was afraid of repurcussions.
Or
Saddam after trying to flex his muscles by grabbing Kuwait was beaten down and decided to be more discreat about developing his armed forces. He couldnt win in a battle of strength so he decided to take the WMD/Nuclear Weapons route as everyone knows if you have nuclear weapons, nobody can touch you. He was using WMD as a means of control to remain in power until he could develop nuclear weapons. AQ Kahn afterall was selling the technology to the North Koreans and to Iran, why should Iraq be any different, they were just another muslim country. The possibility of him giving WMD to terrorists remains unknown.
Maybe neither explanation is close to the truth, it just seems so strange that Saddam after being beaten in 1991 harbored no resentment towards the US and simply did nothing for the next decade.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: If you're going to make THIS argument, that renders the presence or absence of WMDs completely irrelevant
Once again, my point is that Saddam agreed to Terms of Surrender which he did not comply with. 16 UN resolutions were passed against him in attempts to make him comply. Saddam still did not comply. He was then removed from power. Saddam was to allow UN weapons inspectors search where they wanted back in 1991. Had he done so, none of this would have happened. He did not. He stalled, refused access, and then threw out the UN inspectors. For more than a decade, Saddam did not allow UN inspections to occur as stated in the Terms of Surrender. Does this clarify anything for you?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If they can no longer cause "mass destruction" (assuming of course that sarin and mustard gas ever could) are they really WMDs? Wouldn't WSDPs or Weapons of Somewhat Dangerous Poofs be a more accurate term?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
DK, I'm still confused as to why you think that's relevant to this conversation.
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
Dark Knight,
Sorry if I didn't make that clear. It's not a perfect analogy to be sure. Actually, it was probably a crappy analogy since I have to explain it. To me the actual issue is about implied definitions and whether or not we have a right to be upset about being mislead about those implied definitions.
My cousin had never had sexual intercourse before the wedding, even though she had done...other things. But according to strict definition, she was a virgin. When she told her husband she was a virgin, she was telling the truth, but in his mind virginity also precluded those "other things".
Bush implied that WMD = nuclear weapons to get us to support the war. My cousin implied to her now husband that she was a virgin in the way that he thought she was. She never corrected his mistaken assumption, as far as I know.
If my cousin's husband found out about those other things, he might accuse her of lying about being a virgin when they got married. But she never lied. She may have obfuscated definitions, but she never lied. Just like some people are saying now that Bush never lied about WMD in Iraq. Sure, he may have implied that WMD = nuclear weapons, but he never lied according to the strict definition of WMD (which includes mustard gas and other chemical weapons, expired or not).
Ok so I can say that strictly speaking, Bush didn't lie to us. But that doesn't mean I don't have a right to be upset with the way he presented the WMD issue before the Iraq war. If my cousin's husband found out about the other stuff she did that didn't include intercourse would he have a right to be upset with her even though she never lied?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Once again, my point is that Saddam agreed to Terms of Surrender which he did not comply with. 16 UN resolutions were passed against him in attempts to make him comply. Saddam still did not comply. He was then removed from power.
Yes, yes, everyone agrees that Iraq didn't live up to the terms. The question is whether that was a sufficiently bad deed to justify invading the country. And the answer to that might have something to do with whether there was really a working WMD program going on.
Stasia, I'm really enjoying this analogy about your cousin. Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
Heh. I'm sure she would appreciate my discussing it if only she knew. I've got to start drinking more coffee in the morning before I start posting in non-fluff threads....
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
You know, DK, I see people project those two "likelihoods" about what/why Saddam did what he did, concerning his weapons programs... But there are other reasons why he may have dragged his feet. One I can think of, off the top of my head, is that there was/is a neighboring country that he had not long ago fought a nasty war against (to a standstill, essentially), and who was also building up a weapons program. Had he been completely upfront with his weapons program (or lack threof), it could certainly entice that country to try and invade, or send agents to destabilize his control. So long as the spectre of a weapons program existed, it would give that country's leaders pause.
He complied, but publicly dragged his feet as much as he could, so that he would lose his stranglehold on the country.
-Bok
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The question is whether that was a sufficiently bad deed to justify invading the country.
I don't think that is the real question. Rather, it's considering that invading Iraq was one of the many things we could have done at that point, was it a good choice or at least one we were compelled to do?
Ultimately, I think it comes down to whether the invasion was going to be of net benefit to us, not one of simple justification. I think we were obviously justified by Iraq's breaking of the cease-fire agreement. If you sign something that says "We'll do this so you stop shooting at us." and then don't do the things you said you would do, the other side has the right (assuming that the original attacks were justified) to resume hostilities.
However, having the right to do something and it being a good idea to do so, especially in such a complicated situation as we found ourselves in, are two very different things. If the situation were as it was presented as "Iraq is actively trying to obtain nuclear weapons and is cleverly hiding their ongoing programs for the weapons inspectors.", this presents a very compelling reason for invasion. However, "They're not living up to the full agreement they signed, but don't really poise any threat to us." makes a very bad argument for invasion being necessary.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
/agree with Dag and Pix...
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Ya know making stupidly misleading
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Stasia, I agree it's probably not the best analogy either. The biggest issue I have with the analogy is that your cousin knew that she was not a virgin according to her husband's definition of the word. She knows what actions she performed that were 'wrong' (I'm saying that they were wrong or making that judgement, just according to her husband's definition they were wrong). That is much different than the entire world believing that Saddam has WMDs and then finding out that his WMD program was not as active as everyone believed.
quote: Ok so I can say that strictly speaking, Bush didn't lie to us. But that doesn't mean I don't have a right to be upset with the way he presented the WMD issue before the Iraq war. If my cousin's husband found out about the other stuff she did that didn't include intercourse would he have a right to be upset with her even though she never lied?
Her husband should be upset (I don't think being upset is a 'right', anyone can be upset about anything so that is not really an issue) because his wife knew that she was not a virgin according to his definition of it and she told him that she was. I see where you are going with this, it's just a bad analogy
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The real issue is and always has been: was this war necessary at that time? We still had one going on in Afghanistan, remember. We had economical issues at home. Hussein violated his agreement, no question, and we had every right to go after him. I doubt you'd be able to find many Americans in any political party that are unhappy he's out of power. But did we need to invade right then, and no later?
The WMD threat was one of several different justifications used to launch the war, and the evidence even beforehand wasn't as cut and dried as you make it out to be. There were protests from the military and intelligence communities as to the veracity of the evidence and to the effectiveness of the invasion plans. Inspectors had been let back into Iraq and had unparalled access. We were bullied into this war, frightened with exaggerated claims, and told afterwards that it was all under control when it plainly wasn't. That's what the outrage is about. Not the war. The way it was fed to us.
I support staying and finishing what was started -- you clean up your messes -- but I want to see plans based on reality and not on what will sound good to the voting base.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by akhockey: Basically 500 or so chemical weapons have been found in the past 3 years. The weapons are thought to have been made prior to 1991, some of which have degraded since their creation. What do you guys think? Unimportant? Reason for apology? Just wondering.
IIRC, the US has many more than 500 chemical weapons dating from the Cold War. For the most part, they are degraded, unstable and unusable--we just for various reasons haven't gotten around to destroying them. Is that sufficient causus belli for a foreign power to invade and occupy the US? What do you guys think? Unimportant? Reason for apology? Or just irrelevant to the question of invasion? Just wondering.
(I skipped the rest of the thread due to time pressure, just thought I'd toss this in.) Reseach Post-script: While the details are fuzzy, this graph from a US Army website verifies that the US still has chemical and/or nerve agent weapons.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A Department of Defense official has recently confirmed that the weapons were fully degraded, and the chemical concoctions were dead and decayed. They were mostly unable even to be fired as designed.
Information is still mostly classified as to where these shells were found, but it's considered likely that these were just mothballed remnants left unaccounted for.
quote:But I gotta know.. what's the deal with the emphasis on the fact the nerve gas had "expired"?
It becomes about eight gazillion times (ballpark estimate) less dangerous as a substance, and useless as a chemical munition. Sarin and tabun, in particular, have a very short shelf life and degrade into useless sludge.
It's important to emphasize because -- for the purposes of determining the importance of this find -- it means that there was literally no benefit towards keeping / mothballing the ordinance. What you have here is a few pallets in total of enough ammunition to count as an infinitesimal quantity of material that Saddam could not benefit from keeping.
Likely, that means, it was misplaced ordinance out of an original supply that was discarded and/or dismantled.
quote:Had the completely corrupt Oil for Food program continued, Saddam would have restarted his NBC programs with the millions and millions of dollars that he was earning.
The administration's own Iraq Survey Group concluded that Saddam had no intent, and assumed no capacity, to restart the weapons program while under sanction.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
But he was only being sanctioned by refusing to allow inspectors in. If all he had was near useless warheads why take the economical punch in the gut for nothing?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No . . . he had giant sanctions on him even when the inspectors were allowed in. We wouldn't even allow Iraqi airplanes to fly over large portions of Iraq (notably Kurdish territory)!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: No . . . he had giant sanctions on him even when the inspectors were allowed in. We wouldn't even allow Iraqi airplanes to fly over large portions of Iraq (notably Kurdish territory)!
if this is completely true, then I stand corrected.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
But he never allowed the inspectors full access or to finish the job or even show them anything useful. All of which was his responsibility. This is such a broken record…….
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Well, no, the last big barrier to the inspectors finishing up in terms of time was us and our invasion. He certainly impeded their progress, but he wasn't too successful in that. Try reading the report of the head inspector.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, hey, Bush DID give those inspectors what, five or six weeks before he declared them ineffective and said we HAD to invade.
Of course, six weeks into the invasion, he claimed we just needed a bit more time to find the weapons...nice to know that a few years later, with literally hundreds of thousands of men and women scouring the sand, we actually found something.
I can't imagine Bush ever seriously expected the inspectors to find something. The burden if proof was ridiculous. Saddam turned over thousands of documents about his chemical weapons programs and how they were destroyed. Does anyone honestly think we actually went through every page in the six weeks or whatever we had to look at them before we invaded?
Between that, and the inspectors' 'failure,' I don't see any real commitment to a peaceable solution. It was always going to be war. Saddam could never have supplied the proof that Bush wanted.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Have you ever scoured that sand you smart mouth punk? If you haven't then keep your cake hole busy trying for marital rights for your life partner.
How much poison is enough? How much support for terror is enough, the answer seems to depend on your political agenda, three thousand dead American Civilians are not enough for some people, two thousand dead soldiers are too many for some.
All I can say is that I am glad our grandfathers are mostly dead and unable to see what we have come too, making excuses for evildoers and throwing it all away because we never had to live without it.
It is safer to be a solder in this country then a fetus, chew on that...
BC
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
BC,
If I thought for an instant that the Iraq war makes us safer, and that it punishes those responsible for the attacks on 9/11, I could perhaps agree with a portion of that post.
But without a definitive connection between Saddam's regime and the Al Qaeda group, you are basically saying that it's okay for America to get generally ticked off at people who are SIMILAR to the people who attack us, and go kill them.
That particular justification for the invasion of Iraq just doesn't hold water.
Heck, why didn't we attack France while we were at it? They got us angry too.
The entire invasion of Iraq was predicated on a clear and present danger from that regime.
And every person who supports a war should recognize one very ugly fact about war. No matter how hard one tries to end the war quickly, and with as few casualties as possible, there will be people killed on both sides. And there will be civilians killed. Now, some say that is the price of war.
I see a certain moral equivalence here. If you want to tally civilian deaths, it's 3000 Americans killed by representatives of a group based mostly in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia; against how many (no one will tell us) civilians killed in Iraq?
Are their lives less valuable than the lives of our civilians' lives? Why? Because we chose to go to war against their brutal dictator?
I know you don't like looking at it from this perspective. And I assure you that I understand that we (the American people) have asked our soldiers to go into harm's way and make often split-second decisions on whether to pull a trigger or not. I don't want more of our soldiers to die because we change the rules of engagement and make our soldiers more vulnerable.
But I want to impress upon you that I think there's a reason why war is a last resort. And by last resort I mean you exhaust every possible avenue, then hesitate, then wait some more, then work again, and try other things, and try to work the problems out. And then hesitate again.
And you go to war when you are SURE, with certainty born of real facts and your back is against the wall, that war is the only option that will keep your own people from being killed.
Why? Because in war there are deaths of people who should not have died. Who would not have died if the war hadn't come to their country. And when innocent people die, it isn't enough to say that they should've cleaned up their own messes, or that our rules of engagement protect our troops, or that we weren't sure that they weren't insurgents. Those deaths are a moral burden placed upon us by our decision to go to war.
I won't put that burden on the soldiers who we sent over there (except in cases where the soldiers acted illegally). No. Those deaths are on me and every other American.
And it's a burden I do not want, and I am not happy to accept it. And I don't want more of it if there is a way to avoid it or stop it.
You can't ease that burden from my shoulders. You can't take away the shared guilt that we all have for those deaths. You can just do your job and come home as soon as possible.
And remember that my "cake hole," and those of others like me put bullets in your guns, gas in your tank, armor plating on your Humvee, plasma in the medical tent, money in your wallet, money in your pension fund, and medical care in the VA.
I do not support this war. But I support you and other soldiers in every possible way short of coming over there and pulling the trigger for you. And I will not do that because I know in my heart of hearts that the war in Iraq was never right, that it was started not as a last resort but out of some other motivations that I am too angry to allow myself to guess at, and I have guilt and shame enough over the death we have wrought in our rush to remove Saddam without a solid understanding of the country, the people, or how we would deal with the vaccuum left by his removal.
And before someone tells me about how a year more of Saddam in power would've (or might've) meant a greater menace, I will ask what our military planners might have accomplished with another year to gain a better understanding of who and what we would be dealing with once we got over there.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: Have you ever scoured that sand you smart mouth punk? If you haven't then keep your cake hole busy trying for marital rights for your life partner.
How much poison is enough? How much support for terror is enough, the answer seems to depend on your political agenda, three thousand dead American Civilians are not enough for some people, two thousand dead soldiers are too many for some.
All I can say is that I am glad our grandfathers are mostly dead and unable to see what we have come too, making excuses for evildoers and throwing it all away because we never had to live without it.
It is safer to be a solder in this country then a fetus, chew on that...
BC
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: Have you ever scoured that sand you smart mouth punk? If you haven't then keep your cake hole busy trying for marital rights for your life partner.
How much poison is enough? How much support for terror is enough, the answer seems to depend on your political agenda, three thousand dead American Civilians are not enough for some people, two thousand dead soldiers are too many for some.
All I can say is that I am glad our grandfathers are mostly dead and unable to see what we have come too, making excuses for evildoers and throwing it all away because we never had to live without it.
It is safer to be a solder in this country then a fetus, chew on that...
BC
Hey jackass, I served MY time in the Army, punk, so that people could express themselves whenever they want to, and I don't agree with you on anything.
Particularly if they have the brains to disagree with anything you say.
You are the reason pillow parties never went out of style.
Be glad I wasn't your medic.
Actually, scratch that. I know I would have done my best for you, despite you being an idiotic, bigoted, uneducated piece of @#$$. Even the lowest common denominator deserves to live.
You deserve every single piece of sand you get in your toilet paper and food. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Interesting BC.
I'm guessing from the marital rights thing, you're either trying to call me gay, or liberal. Quite frankly I don't really see how either applies as a justifiable insult given the topic at hand, but I won't pretend to understand the odd complexities of your mind.
As for the "keep your cake hole shut" comment: No. I won't. Why? Because some of those dead grandfathers you referenced made sure to write it into law that I have the right to keep my cake hole eternally open. Furthermore, both my grandfathers, two of my uncles, and my brother fought for the same thing as well.
You think that just because I haven't spent my time in the sand I've been untouched by war? My brother came back from basic training in Parris Island with a flesh eating bacteria, and fibromyalgia. The former of which, after he was discharged from the Marine Corps, ate a nice little hole in his body, and when the VA refused to treat him, I, and my family, watched him screaming in pain in the ER of the local hospital while we waited for them to treat him.
I won't pretend for a minute that I felt anything like the pain he went through, and while I haven't heard the screams of war directly, I have his cries of pain and agony to keep me company whenever I think about the war over there.
Do you even know what you're fighting for? Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at home eh? Fighting to avenge a wrong done to us by visiting death and horror on a nation that had nothing to do with the original crime? You know what forum you're in, haven't you read the rest of the Ender series? Osama bin Laden was Warmaker, and Bush was a malicious version of Grego. He got the rabble moving, and instead of going after the real bad guy, we just went after something that looked exactly like it who happens to have done us wrong in the past, so why not take care of them now.
I honestly don't think that the war in Iraq has anything at all to do with protecting my liberty, or my freedom. It's not about fighting terrorists who wanted to kill me. Or at least, if it is NOW, it's only that way because of what we started, because of the floodgates that WE opened. We're fighting a war, and an enemy of our own creation. It started that way when we fought Saddam, a warlord more or less that WE armed and WE trained who ran amok, supporting him in a war against a nation whose former leader that WE supported and WE propped up and befriended. And now that he is gone, we fight insurgents that want us gone, we fight foreign terrorists that want to kill Americans anytime anywhere.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I wonder how much it's worth when you measure it in blood.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
All it cost YOU is money, If we are not the hammer we will be the nail, what does it make us if we created Saddam's regime and then turned around and created this one? The Master of both. Live with it.
When you have power you either use it or fail in your moral obligation, FAIL IN DUTY, for a lesson in that I suggest you watch "Guest's of the Ayatollah" tonight and see what happens in an action vaccuum, however 'moral' intentions.
It also will teach you why the Left cannot be trusted even when they put forward a good man of honest faith. (Good luck finding one today) Bush acted on the best intel he had, we are learning that he acted very correctly, we are also being reminded that action itself is more right then waiting for all the facts to come in.
BC
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You know BC, if I thought you actually represented "the Right," I'd probably become a Democrat. Fortunately I know that your attitude represents neither that of the majority of our soldiers or our conservatives in this country.
You are a piss-poor representative of both.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh bull BC, dear God, do you REALLY believe the things you are saying?
This isn't about sitting at home on our hands and waiting while the world passes us by, I never suggested that, and by the way, the Republican poster child for anti-Liberalism, Hillary Clinton, is more gung-ho than the rest of her party. She fully supported Afghanistan, as I did, and do, and she fully supported, and continues to support Iraq. She might think it was a bad idea, but she's thrown herself into the mix to ensure that the soldiers get what they need, and to increase funding for veterans, which Republicans cut. Thank your vaunted hero for that.
As I was saying, people aren't mad that we got involved at all, they are mad that we went after the wrong friggin target. Why are we bogged down in Iraq, accomplishing nothing and pissing off EVERYONE in that region, when we could have actually gone after the real supporters of this ideology. We could have thrown the full power and effort of the US military and government into solving the Palestine/Israel problem, rather than just giving them a road map and saying "deal with it," or we could have put the screws to Saudi Arabia, which funnels millions of dollars to state supported wahhabist schools if Islam that teach hatred and jihad. We could have gone after Islamic warlords in northeast Africa where open air markets sell thousands of guns and explosives, and RPGs that are sold to insurgents and terrorists that later use them against us.
But no. We went after secular Iraq, which no proven ties to Al Qaeda, no proven ties to 9/11, only ties to Palestinian terrorists, who until recently have almost always avoided US targets, military or civilian. We went in with little understanding, or at apparently little care of the situation there, political or religious, and are paying the price for it now.
But hey, if that is what you want in a military and MORAL leader, then I guess Bush is the guy for you.
quote:we are also being reminded that action itself is more right then waiting for all the facts to come in.
And here is where I've officially come to conclusion that you're totally off your rocker. As Stephen Colbert would say, "that's the craziest f*$(#)$ thing I've ever heard."
You REALLY think THAT is the lesson we've learned from this war? I'd HOPED that we'd learned the exact OPPOSITE of that lesson. It's a lack of facts that has led to the mess we are currently in over there.
And by the way, for all Americans who care, or who have family in the military, or previously in the military, it costs a hell of a lot more than money, and I think it's incredibly smug, uncaring, and douchebaggish of you to say that.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Was I talking to them? No I was talking to those who are still not behind the mission, but who 'support the troops' what a crock. I am a soldier and I am what I do, my mission defines my role in the world, support me and support the mission. You cannot do one without the other. It is way past time to get behind the mission.
We have broken the terrorist and are slowly teaching the everyday Iraqi basic morality, a much more tedious and ubiquitous process which neither side likes very much, they love their corruption and we despise it. Get behind the damn mission and help us get it over with or shut up.
BC
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
How American of you.
Take that as you wish.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:I am a soldier and I am what I do, my mission defines my role in the world
Out of curiosity, BC, do you believe it's possible for soldiers to be misused? In other words, are all your missions good ones, even the ones that aren't?
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
It is certainly possible for leadership to make tactical blunders that costs lives, that happens way below the level of Strategy for the most part. A soldier also has a responsibility to not follow orders that violate the rules of war and code of conduct.
But if you are asking if soldiers can make sweeping political decisions like 'this is an unjust war' then no, a soldier needs to focus on 'is my weapon clean, did I PMCS this vehicle, do I have a full tank, an MRE, how are my coms, are all my guys in full armor, etc...' then at higher levels they must think about the best way to carry out the mission, and in Iraq we often needed to find our our own Intel to guide mission selection.
Military force is a violent solution, so it is hard to throw words in common usage out to describe it because in military terminology they have different meaning, for instance it can be good to kill three hundred people in a military engagement, sometimes because it is a large number, sometimes because it is small. For non military the concept of violence itself is negative, whereas like Eskimo's with snow, the military breaks violent action into many flavors.
So there is no such thing as a "good" military mission by civilian standards, they are effective, the meet objectives, they conserve assets, they alter the battle space in ways we intend. The military is a tool, so it can only be used competently or incompetently, with skill or with disdain. The current administration has certainly used it better then one before. I do know of a case of gross military misuse, Hillary Clinton once made her Marine security detail serve drinks in Dress Uniform...
BC
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: I do know of a case of gross military misuse, Hillary Clinton once made her Marine security detail serve drinks in Dress Uniform...BC
Off with her head!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's a case of gross military misuse? What would it be called if, say, the President orchestrated a publicity stunt where he appropriated military hardware and landed on the deck of a carrier before a press conference?
And I think there are certainly good military missions from a civilian standpoint.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It is certainly possible for leadership to make tactical blunders that costs lives...
On a non-tactical level -- on a strategic level, in other words -- is it possible to misuse the military?
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Its his aircraft carrier, his plane and we are his men. We were sure as hell glad to see him there, to hear him speak, Since we were doing the fighting I am glad he did not check with you before he boosted my morale.
I think there were strategy errors in every war we ever fought, then even higher a kind of 'policy' error. I think we should have pounded the Chinese in Viet Nam, I think we should enforce freedom of religion in all the new governments we build. But I will say this about our fight in Iraq, it has been strategically brilliant, we have flexed with reality in record time on a hundred issues, we have implemented new strategy quickly and used new technology to build whole new strategies from scratch. Where is the book on how to fight this kind of fight? We are still writing it!
Redesigning the military, fighting two wars and redesigning combat operations all on the fly, I think anybody who does not consider Rumsefield and Bush to be the best leadership the military has had since the cold war ended and changed our priorities forever is existing in a vacuum of information.
BC
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Its his aircraft carrier, his plane and we are his men.
So, to clarify, if Bill Clinton had required his security detail to serve drinks, that would have been an appropriate use of the military? The inappropriate nature of Hillary Clinton's request was due to the fact that they weren't hers to order around?
quote: I think there were strategy errors in every war we ever fought, then even higher a kind of 'policy' error.
Okay. Given that you concede this, how do you reconcile that concession with this statement: "I am a soldier and I am what I do, my mission defines my role in the world, support me and support the mission."
That's another quote of yours.
In your opinion, if there have been both strategy and policy errors in almost every war ever fought, should it be the role of civilian leadership to identify those errors and seek to correct them -- or is a soldier's purpose more fulfilled when he dies due to policy or strategy mistakes than when his "mission" is altered by civilians?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:How much poison is enough? How much support for terror is enough, the answer seems to depend on your political agenda, three thousand dead American Civilians are not enough for some people, two thousand dead soldiers are too many for some.
Yes, how interesting that some people would dare consider Iraq to be something different and unrelated to 9/11.
quote:But I will say this about our fight in Iraq, it has been strategically brilliant
This is absolutley untrue: it is acknowledged by military strategists that Donald Rumsfeld's operation of the war with minimal initial troop numbers, in defiance of military reccomendation, created a significant operational and peacetime power vaccum that allowed the insurgency (and sectarian warfare) to take root.
quote:I think anybody who does not consider Rumsefield and Bush to be the best leadership the military has had since the cold war ended and changed our priorities forever is existing in a vacuum of information.
I find that position to be hopelessly misguided, and I feel that it is because I've been paying attention to debacles such as the Shinseki fallout. A "Vaccum of information," from your perspective, is probably anything short of administrative kowtow.
quote:We have broken the terrorist and are slowly teaching the everyday Iraqi basic morality, a much more tedious and ubiquitous process which neither side likes very much, they love their corruption and we despise it. Get behind the damn mission and help us get it over with or shut up.
Yours is the sort of purposefully ignorant, willingly obsequent genuflection that I refuse to allow the present administration to have a free ride off of.
I would have trouble finding a sentiment less 'patriotic' than the idea that critics should remain silent, so don't bother telling me to shut up.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:it is acknowledged by military strategists that Donald Rumsfeld's operation of the war with minimal initial troop numbers, in defiance of military reccomendation, created a significant operational and peacetime power vaccum that allowed the insurgency (and sectarian warfare) to take root.
This is a significant recasting of what that original criticism was. Most of the original "quagmire" predictions were about the main offensive. The contention that more troops were needed was that we would not be able to defeat Iraq's military quickly enough.
It was only after the "quagmire" of the original invasion turned out to be a 1 week pause that the insurgency quagmire (which had been predicted by some strategist before) was suddenly adopted by the strategists who had been wrong about the major combat operations. "See, we told you there'd be a quagmire." Yeah, but they were wrong about what type.
There are plenty of strategists who think more troops would have encouraged the existence of more insurgents and/or more adventurism elsewhere by other states.
I'm not saying they didn't make mistakes. I am saying that presenting the opinion of some military strategists as if it were fact is pretty much the flip side of what Counter is doing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, the troop numbers thing is mostly a non-issue. The problem was with a complete lack of good post-invasion planning for the troops we did use.
There were widely known planning problems long before the invasion of Iraq that the State Department tried to get the DoD (which had taken over post-invasion planning from the State Department at the administration's direction) to address. Needless to say, the concerns were not addressed, and problems even a simple plan would have prevented mushroomed into crises.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:it is acknowledged by military strategists that Donald Rumsfeld's operation of the war with minimal initial troop numbers, in defiance of military reccomendation, created a significant operational and peacetime power vaccum that allowed the insurgency (and sectarian warfare) to take root.
This is a significant recasting of what that original criticism was. Most of the original "quagmire" predictions were about the main offensive. The contention that more troops were needed was that we would not be able to defeat Iraq's military quickly enough.
This turns out not to be the case, Dag. The professional uniformed military had many strategists, including head of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Shinseki, commander of the invasion Gen. Tommy Franks, and the Army War College, as well as the civilian Secretary of the Army White who insisted that high troop levels would be needed in post-war Iraq to maintain order. It was Rumsfeld and others in the Pentagon , particulary his deputy Wolfowitz who argued for low troop levels. The final troop levels were apparently a compromise between the 2 camps.
Now, if you're talking about armchair generals (like me, and basically anyone on the internet) and MSM analysts, that's different. My concern pre-war, and the main reason I was always against it, was the general one that the occupation would be much more difficult than the conquest (without the specifics available to professional analysts, of course.) Plenty of MSM analysts had various views about quagmire in the conquest and/or the occupation phases of the war. But Samprimary's point was about Rumsfeld ignoring the advice from the military, not other analysts.
From an interview with Army Secretary White:
quote: Frontline interviewer:How much of the concern was there around troop levels that would be in place in Iraq immediately after the war?
White:Shinseki's concern and my concern was, if you were to look at the postwar tasks that had to be accomplished, the special weapons sites that had to be inspected, which numbered in the hundreds -- The size and scope of the concentration of people in Baghdad, for example. The fact that this was a country as large as the state of California with a population of 25 million people. We were very concerned that there wouldn't be sufficient boots on the ground after the operation to provide for security and get on with the stabilization activities. That was our principle concern, from an Army perspective.
Frontline interviewer:There are those who argue that no one could have forecast that the Iraqi state would have collapsed as it did. Is that a fair enough defense?
White:I don't think that's an adequate rationale to not have done a better job of planning. We have more experience in the United States Army in peacekeeping operations, because of the Balkans, than probably any army on the face of the earth. All of us in the Army were very, very concerned that if it wasn't a war of liberation, if lawlessness broke out, that we would have a very difficult time stopping that.
There are two ways you could have sized the force to go into Iraq. One was the way it with done, which is necessary to win the war, and then assume that you would need fewer and fewer troops to ensure the peace after the war.
The other was to say the real force driver here is the stability operation following combat. So even if we launched the combat operation early to achieve, to guard against these other problems, the torching of the oil fields and so forth, we still need to keep the force flow going and get additional forces in there so that we can secure the peace.
Unfortunately, the latter course was not the one that was adopted. I think to a certain degree, it was foreseeable. … We were absolutely convinced that it would take an enormous number of people to stabilize the [postwar] situation. Short of those people, a great deal of mischief would occur. I guess you take a bit of satisfaction that your view has been vindicated by the way the results played out. But at the same time, this is something that could have been anticipated, I believe.
Paul Wolfowitz, also Donald Rumsfeld, were very strong, outspoken in criticizing the army's views on troop levels needed.
Well, yes. There's a certain amount of arrogance to both of them in this regard. Neither man is a man that I would say was burdened by a great deal of self-doubt. Having been right in Afghanistan with conducting an operation with basically special operating forces and indigenous forces, their view was that they would be absolutely right here.
Our view was that they were going to be terribly wrong. Their response, publicly and privately, was basically that Shinseki and I didn't know what we were talking about. I suppose, looking back on it, it is hard to believe that rational people looking at that situation before the combat operation could have thought it was going to come out in any other way than in fact it did.
I mean, here you have a population which is fractured, with the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shias. It's a huge country. It's been ruled with an iron fist by a tyrant. As soon as you take that iron fist off the population and don't replace it with an obvious presence of law and order, I don't think it was that hard to divine what was going to occur.
quote:Frontline interviewer: Specific to prewar, what was the main reason the Army wanted so many troops -- why they thought the numbers that they were talking about were necessary?
Fallows:The Army had both a specific and a larger metaphysical reason for wanting to have a lot of troops going in. The specific reason was their very precise argument that it would be harder to occupy Iraq than to conquer it. You would need a relatively small number of troops actually to beat Saddam Hussein's military, but then occupying this quite large and quite fractured country would be quite hard, and would take a lot of troops.
The metaphysical reason was the Army's sense that, once the sort of glory of the short war was over, the people that would actually be there would be the U.S. Army, not some international force, not the Air Force. The U.S. Army would be taking the heat for whatever went wrong. We wouldn't have enough of them there.
Frontline interviewer:Explain the reasoning of the head of the U.S. Army, Gen. Shinseki, on how important the first days after the fall of Baghdad would be.
Fallows:Shinseki of the Army drew not only on his experience in the Balkans, trying to administer a fractious region postwar. [He also drew from] all the corpus of evidence that had been produced by the Army War College, by every other group that looked into this, to say that there was a crucial moment just after the fall of a regime when the potential for disorder was enormous. So there would be ripple effects for years to come, depending on what happened in those first days or weeks when the regime went [down] ….
The Army War College study had worked out a very detailed checklist for how the military, and the Army in particular, should start thinking about the postwar, well before it actually went to war. One of their conclusions was that it was best to go in heavier than you actually needed to be, so that at the beginning of the postwar period your presence would be so intimidating that nobody would dare challenge you. You'd set a tone that would allow you then to draw down the forces very rapidly. So it was better to go in heavy and then draw down, than the reverse.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I wouldn't say troop levels are "mostly a non-issue", fugu.
I guess I would say, better pre-war planning for the occupation phase is the most important lack, was needed, and would have suggested higher troop levels.
Oooh, I can add Bremer to my list. From fugu's link:
quote:As the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Ambassador Paul Bremer, later argued, “The single most important change . . . would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout.” Bremer claimed to have “raised this issue a number of times with our government” but to have been overruled.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:This is a significant recasting of what that original criticism was. Most of the original "quagmire" predictions were about the main offensive. The contention that more troops were needed was that we would not be able to defeat Iraq's military quickly enough.
That doesn't match up with what I know/remember at all. There were voices from the military, most blatantly Shineski, saying exactly that the troops levels would be insufficient for post-combat challenges. A great deal of the criticism I remember both hearing and saying at the time was that the initial combat was going to be by far the easier task. This was also the understanding of planners ever since the first GUlf War. Heck, George H. W. Bush dedicated a significant portion of a book about why they didn't topple Saddam Hussein when they had a chance, with the inevitable long, protracted, and bloody occupation - or "quagmire" - this would necessitate being the main concern.
At the beginning of the first Gulf War, the Iraqi army was the 5th largest in the world with formidable supplies and equipment. At the beginning of the second, they were significantly weaker in terms of manpower and supplies. I'm having problems picturing people focusing on beating the Iraqi military as being something we wouldn't be able to accomplish as being taken seriously.
edit: Also, considering that the point up for debate was fully realized by the planners of the first Gulf War, I can't buy that it wasn't realized by the planners of the second. Actually, I could buy it - I mean George W. Bush seemed almost proud he didn't ask his father for advice - but I couldn't then see it as anything but an amazing display of incompetence.
[ June 26, 2006, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Wow I stand corrected, the mission is wrong, the war is wrong, soldiers are bad, I am going to go kill myself now by climbing a water tower and shooting people until the cops get me...
BC
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If it makes you feel any better BC, you're not actually a soldier. You just lie about being one on messge boards.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There were voices from the military, most blatantly Shineski, saying exactly that the troops levels would be insufficient for post-combat challenges.
True. Doesn't contradict a single thing I said, of course.
quote:I'm having problems picturing people focusing on beating the Iraqi military as being something we wouldn't be able to accomplish as being taken seriously.
And, yet, it happened.
Go back and review the commentary during the time we were "stalled" outside Bahgdad.
quote:If it makes you feel any better BC, you're not actually a soldier. You just lie about being one on messge boards.
Wow, you are in an arrogant pissy little mood today, aren't you.
You might not want to make absolute personal charges you can't back up.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Wow I stand corrected, the mission is wrong, the war is wrong, soldiers are bad....
This doesn't logically follow, either.
The mission MIGHT be bad; it might not. Soldiers MIGHT be bad; they might not.
What I'm trying to point out to you is that it's perfectly possible for good soldiers to be used on a bad mission, and perfectly reasonable and loyal for people to observe that a mission is bad without concluding that the soldiers themselves are bad.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
What I am teaching you is that to a soldier it matters not at all that you are splitting hairs in your own mind, when you break on the mission the soldiers do not feel supported reguardless of the PC rehtoric, so just make your choice, support the troops on their missions or be the other thing. We will police up our bad soldiers, we will provide feedback to the policy makers so they can adjust the mission.
In the end we always hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct then any soldiers in history, the end is this, our soldiers are on a mission against evil, and we have leaders who believe in both good and evil and try to fight on the side of good. That is where I place my blood and bone and that is where I vote.
BC
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What I am teaching you is that to a soldier it matters not at all that you are splitting hairs in your own mind, when you break on the mission the soldiers do not feel supported reguardless of the PC rehtoric,
Change that to "some soldiers" and you would be accurate.
I know many soldiers who have said that they don't feel unsupported by people who oppose the mission but wish them the best.
quote:We will police up our bad soldiers, we will provide feedback to the policy makers so they can adjust the mission
I know MANY servicemen who are utterly offended by this idea. In fact, I've heard quite a bit of complaining from people in the service about soldiers who try to claim exclusivity of comment on military matters.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We will police up our bad soldiers, we will provide feedback to the policy makers so they can adjust the mission.
And if the policy makers don't adjust the mission in response to your feedback, do you believe your useless deaths are good ones?
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Useless Deaths? If nothing else the Left will try to use the death nee?
BC
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Will you consider that an appropriate use of your corpse?
At what point, BC, do you believe that your leadership is capable of betraying your trust and no longer deserving of your unquestioning obedience? Is your answer to that question "never?"
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Until they ask me to violate the rules of war, I do as I am told, If I have to fight Iran, China, Russia, Somalia I will do the best I can for those with me and for the people I love. There is no question for a soldier about these things, I choose to be a soldier if I want to pick my own targets I would have to go freelance as a serial killer.
Do you think that my name and that of the rest of my family is beyond the reach of terrorists? We caught lists of our mail return addresses in the hands of insurgents that were compiled from our thrown away mail, they will bring it home to us if we do not take it to them. Breath the free air in the space we provide, use it for something nice like making inroads into Space, don't trip us up as we try to give you room.
BC
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Until they ask me to violate the rules of war, I do as I am told...
That's still not the question. I'm not asking "should you obey?" I'm asking if people should offer advice to and criticism of your leadership while you are required to obey those leaders, or if you believe your effectiveness is reduced by any and all attempts to make your leadership more effective (and, consequently, your obedience most useful.)
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Firstly, if Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions, it was far from alone in that regard.
And yet, notably, the UN did not authorize invasion of Iraq.
Now, if you want to get into treaty violations, that's a whole other ball of wax. Just be warned there's a lot of treaties and cease-fires violated around the world. Even the U.S has been guilty of a few.
Secondly, while functional mustard gas and sarin may be WMD. However, a "mushroom cloud" specifically refers to a nuclear weapon.
Never mind the question of whether a non-functioning nerve agent can be called a weapon at all, let alone a weapon of mass destruction.
If one were to lay off specifics and just accept that the administration has been, shall we say, fairly disingenuous, it would be fair to leave it at that.
Thirdly, if "all the world's intelligence agencies were in agreement, it's odd to have George Tenet attesting that "US Analysts never claimed Iraq was an imminent threat";
and that the infamous Downing Street memo implies that numerous holes and dissensions on the subject of intelligence would have to be covered to make the case for war:
The unanimity of international intelligence on the subject of Iraq and its weapons programs is a fiction. There wasn't even a unanimity of intelligence within the United States.
I'm not even going to bother joining in the dogpile on Bean Counter. Someone who screams constantly about fighting for America while deriding the basic democratic principles it stands for isn't worth the breath.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, a "mushroom cloud" specifically refers to a nuclear weapon.
Yes, it does. However, there was NEVER a contention that Iraq had a working nuclear weapon. There was a contention that it had working chemical weapons.
The mushroom cloud quote is irrelevant to this find except to refute the contention that the find proves Bush's claims were all correct.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
The noisemakers only trouble me to the extent that they get listened to, so long as the administration can remain steadfast and listen to intelligence gathered by the military about the situation instead of the media I am fine.
We all got good laughs at Bush's plummeting poll numbers, it is so cute to say "look if we could only have the election now instead of two years ago people would agree with us..." In reality people are ignoring the furor and going about their business until they have to do their duty again, and keep the Left away from the Presidency.
As for deriding Democratic principle I have no idea when I have ever done so. A democracy at war is not the same as a democracy at peace, and some principles should be enshrined beyond the touch of mere mob rule, but I am a big fan of Democracy, fan enough to fight and die for it, fan enough to vote.
BC
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:A democracy at war is not the same as a democracy at peace...
Can you explain why this should be so?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't understand your way of thinking. It's narrow minded, to a degree that just boggles my mind from someone who grew up in America.
You strike me as an Ann Coulter fanatic, and that says it all for me.
Good luck. And even though you don't think it matters, I wish you well over there, but I don't support the war.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I am back home, but I did do well over there.
BC
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
A secret known by three people is public knowledge, if you have a Town Hall discussion dictate policy during war time you are certain to have your decisions known to your enemy.
If you want to take your enemy with the least loss of life on your side, you cannot beat surprise. That is as simple an example of why you cannot discuss military maneuvers in a public forum as I can offer.
I trust you are just naive to need to ask this question at all, it is interesting how this fell from common knowledge in a couple generations.
BC
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:As for deriding Democratic principle I have no idea when I have ever done so. A democracy at war is not the same as a democracy at peace, and some principles should be enshrined beyond the touch of mere mob rule, but I am a big fan of Democracy, fan enough to fight and die for it, fan enough to vote.
Any time anyone says that others should shut up and let those who "know better" run the state, they deride democracy.
At this time, the democracy, or rather, republic, is "at war" only in as much as those who "know better" say it is. And frankly, they want to have it both ways, gaining credit for victory but remaining "at war". There's no single organized enemy to declare surrender or call for cease fire; there's no easily definable fronts which can be declared taken and held when insurgents fight with IEDs. And there's certainly no clear evidence that the occupation in Iraq is a fight against enemies who would otherwise attack America, or even are necessarily capable of attacking America. As has been repeatedly noted, exactly zero of those responsible for the 9/11/01 attack which has been so pilloried for the pleasure of those who sought to invade Iraq were actually from Iraq.
"The Left" is not something seperate from that democracy. It is a vital part of it. It is inseperable from it, and should be. The people who disagree with you are crucial to democracy, and they're no less doing their "duty" than you.
God help us all, if people are doing their "duty" they WON'T "shut up and let the people who know better" do their thinking for them. They'll speak up and try to convince people to go their way. On both sides. That's democracy.
Otherwise, hell, God save the king.
Give it a couple of years, we'll see who We, The People should decide make the big decisions. And we'll complain bitterly about those decisions, too, no doubt. That's part of the process. It's the immune system. The "we don't let a knuckleheaded idiot keep making bad decisions until we're run into the ground" process. I'm not claiming to know who will hold the office next. I'm not that stupid. The polls certainly don't tell me that. They do strongly imply this nation doesn't remotely swing right, right or wrong. If it came down to a Clinton-McCain race, I don't even know for sure who I'd vote for.
quote:Yes, it does. However, there was NEVER a contention that Iraq had a working nuclear weapon. There was a contention that it had working chemical weapons.
An insinuation, perhaps. A contention, harder to nail down.
Whether they had working chemical weapons remains under question as well, however. But I believe you noted as much.
Notably, arms expert David Kay claims that in all likelihood any weapons that have been discovered are presently degraded to non-lethal intensities:
One opinion, of course.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think there was ever a claim that they had nukes, but I'm positive that Bush or Administration officials have said at least a dozen times that Saddam was actively seeking them. Basically, "Saddam might get them in a decade, thus, this is urgent!"
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:What I am teaching you is that to a soldier it matters not at all that you are splitting hairs in your own mind, when you break on the mission the soldiers do not feel supported reguardless of the PC rehtoric, so just make your choice, support the troops on their missions or be the other thing.
Sorry you feel that way. I'll keep paying my taxes anyway. But I guess I'm the "other thing."
I am not splitting hairs, by the way. I am resolving a major dilemma between what is right and what my country sometimes does in my name. The fact that soldiers sometimes perform duties that I disagree with gives me three options:
1) Adjust my thinking to align with whatever the soldiers' leaders say is right.
2) Exercise my role as a citizen to try to ensure that the government represents the highest ideals, as written in our laws and as embodied in our society's basic principals.
3) Actively fight against the government because I consider it corrupt.
#1 is not really an option that I can make work. In some cases, it would mean going against my faith, but in others it's just plain orneriness on my part -- refusing to give up simply because I know the arguments against my position are wrong.
Suffice it to say we're left with #2 and #3.
I choose #2 -- It preserves the United States in the truest sense of the word and does so in a way that #1 cannot.
It would take a lot for me to get to #3.
quote: In the end we always hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct then any soldiers in history,
Not to be a pain, but do you have anything to back this assertion? Every military historian-type I've ever asked about this points to the Brits as taking top honors in this regard. I don't mind being first, mind you, but I was just wondering if there was some sort of military ethics competition and we'd recently scored an upset victory.
quote: the end is this, our soldiers are on a mission against evil, and we have leaders who believe in both good and evil and try to fight on the side of good. That is where I place my blood and bone and that is where I vote.
I try to fight on the side of good too. If I see my government committing evil, I will work to stop it. If I see my government failing to do the best it can do, I will work to encourage it to do better. If I see us sacrificing our principles for the sake of expediency, I will raise questions.
I would expect ANY American to do likewise.
The main thing that's special about a time of war is that the stakes are higher. That's when having people who force us to stick to our ideals matters the most. It's not sedition to insist that the government act out our ideals.
If you understood what a gut punch launching a pre-emptive war was to what my underestanding of American values, perhaps you'd understand the disgust I have for the circumstances under which our troops arrived in Iraq. That alone has colored my feelings about the mission there. I find it difficult to imagine the good that will come from something so fundamentally against our unspoken principles.
The other things I dislike about the mission in Iraq pale against that one first problem. Unfortunately, my view of that also colors my perception of the good parts of the mission too. I worry that we didn't take the time to plan this whole thing well, and that people on both sides are dying as a result of that lack of careful planning in advance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you want to take your enemy with the least loss of life on your side, you cannot beat surprise.
Believe it or not, I think you dishonor our soldiers by suggesting that our highest priority should be ensuring surprise. By that same logic, we'd be better off keeping them at home.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:A democracy at war is not the same as a democracy at peace...
Can you explain why this should be so?
Democracy is effective as a means to keep a stable government in times of peace. But in terms of being able to make effective decisions during a war a democracy is woefully inadequate in terms of speed. Many democracies temporarily invest powers in a select group of people so that they can be effective during war time rather than demanding total oversight on what the military does in a conflict.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Democracy is effective as a means to keep a stable government in times of peace. But in terms of being able to make effective decisions during a war a democracy is woefully inadequate in terms of speed. Many democracies temporarily invest powers in a select group of people so that they can be effective during war time rather than demanding total oversight on what the military does in a conflict.
... which is really no different from how a representative democracy handles non-military issues like education and interstate highways. Responsibility is delegated. Big whoop.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Democracy is effective as a means to keep a stable government in times of peace. But in terms of being able to make effective decisions during a war a democracy is woefully inadequate in terms of speed. Many democracies temporarily invest powers in a select group of people so that they can be effective during war time rather than demanding total oversight on what the military does in a conflict.
... which is really no different from how a representative democracy handles non-military issues like education and interstate highways. Responsibility is delegated. Big whoop.
Responsibility is delegated because the entire legislative body does not have TIME to deal with EVERYTHING those responsibilities entail. During war time decisions must be decisive and efficient. Neither of which is possible in a democracy. Just look at how the founding fathers organized the constitution and the declaration of independance. There was a HUGE debate on how much the delegates HAD to represent the people and how much they could make decisions FOR the masses. During the civil war Lincoln suspended writs of habeus corpus, and though he was scolded by the legislature (something that simply had to be done) many of the people in the legislature still said publically that Lincoln really had no choice as it was war time and he needed to make quick decisive action.
I imagine its like football. When do you scold the quarterback for changing the play at the huddle? Everytime, regardless of whether or not the outcome is favorable? Or only when the play goes south?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Supporting the Troops Consists of...
1) Insuring they know we respect and admire thier courage and dedication and that we know they step in harms way not for glory or for money, but for us.
2) Insuring that we welcome them home with open arms and gratitude for the services they have done.
3) Making sure the sacrifices they are called on to make are used to the utmost to help everyone in the US, our goals and our beliefs. That not one drop of US Military Blood be spilled in waste.
4) Making sure that they are equipped with the best equipment available.
5) Making sure that those that are injured recieve the care that hero's deserve, not the care that the beaurocrats think we can afford. Whether that is psychological, medical, or lifestyle support (as in a Quadroplegic lifestyle that requires special mobility, help, or nursing) does not matter.
6) Ensure that the reservists have their jobs when they return, that their families have our support while they are gone, and that the full time soldier can find great jobs when they leave the military.
7) Make sure that once home they are safe from enemies, foriegn and domestic, who would belittle thier sacrifices for political gain or who seek violent misplaced vengeance.
Anything less than this support is TREASON.
But what is not included in this support is...
1) Unconditional backing of the politicians who use our soldiers.
2) Small little magnets on our car that proclaim our support.
3) Political support of people some soldiers believe we should support.
4) Surrendering of our own personal freedoms or responsibilities to those who have bled for us.
This is my opinion.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I agree with Dan.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The Dubya&Gang have decided to give the "person of interest" in the anthrax attack upon the Senate (more accurately upon the Senate office building occupied by Democrats) $5.8million to quash his lawsuit against the government.
BTW: That "Iraqi sketch of mobile WMD laboratories" -- which Dubya used as evidence against the Saddam regime -- was actually drawn much earlier by Hatfill in his capacity as advisor to the US government on biological weapons development.
[ August 01, 2008, 02:32 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Ah, this thread... one of Bean Counter's golden oldies.
That guy was something else. And by 'else' I mean 'deeply biased against Arabs.'
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Of course everyone is going to agree with Dan's list. I mean, it's a nice list and all, but kind of fluffy.
Posted by Zemra (Member # 5706) on :
Wow, that's one of the best bumps I've ever seen. 2 years and 13 hours after the last post... if I wasn't paying attention, I might not even have noticed the delay.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I wasn't paying attention, I might not even have noticed the delay.
Sure you would. This is an anachronistic level of militaristic jingodronism. An archaic remnant of a darker time.
Fellows like Bean Counter now spend their days complaining about how Bush was actually too liberal, when not forwarding important and helpful emails about how that obama feller is a muslim.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"One of the nation's top biodefense researchers has died in Maryland from an apparent suicide, just as the Justice Department was to file criminal charges against him in the anthrax mailing assaults... "Bruce E. Ivins, 62, who for the past 18 years worked at the government's elite biodefense research laboratories at Fort Detrick, Md., had been informed of the impending prosecution, people familiar with Ivins, his suspicious death and with the FBI investigation said."
Convenient considering that it allows the FBI to close future investigation.....without ever providing any public argument showing that they were actually targeting the guilty party.
BTW: While Health and Human Services Secretary TommyThompson was lying to the public inregard to the "unknown" source of the anthrax -- allowing the DubyaAdministration to scatter FBI investigators on a worldwide wild goose chase -- it was already known through DNA analysis that the particular anthrax strain used in the attacks could have come only from FortDetrick.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I hate to be nitpicky (well not that much actually), but this is a case when it would have been much better to start new thread rather than resurrect this old one.
1. The information about Ivins suicide is at best cursorily related to the original thread topic. It is a new event and likely to be of interest to people who were never interested in this thread.
2. Resurrecting this two year old unpleasant thread draws more attention to what was already proven to be an overblown claim by a wight wing wacko.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Yeah, there is that. However since I believe it unlikely that there would be a great deal of response to a new thread upon the topic, and the original anthrax attack thread was deleted by a forum crash, it seemed better to just attach the "how it all came out in the wash" to an old (somewhat) related thread.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: BTW: While Health and Human Services Secretary TommyThompson was lying to the public inregard to the "unknown" source of the anthrax -- allowing the DubyaAdministration to scatter FBI investigators on a worldwide wild goose chase -- it was already known through DNA analysis that the particular anthrax strain used in the attacks could have come only from FortDetrick.
No, it was suspected. I should know, I worked there for 2 years in the safety office. There are a lot of reasons why they look at more than one possible origin. One reason is that there are people out there that no LONGER work at USAMRIID who could make this grade of anthrax, but could have made this in a home made lab. The techniques aren't that hard, per say, but the knowledge is the hard thing to come by.
Also, there isn't even a consensus regarding what technique was actually used to create it, or what grade it actually was upon delivery. All that is KNOWN is that at least two different levels/grades were used.
If it was that simple, you would hold office (god forbid).
And before you go off on yet another useless, pointless and uninformed rant not backed by any actual proof at all, keep this in mind.....I am hardly a fan of this administration. I think that this admin botched a lot of things, including this investigation....but there were a lot of areas of interest when this broke, and it is easy to second guess the people investigating years after the fact.
I worked with Dr. Ivins, and while I don't remember him well, what I do remember (from people who worked with him directly) is that he was a decent guy. I hope they find he wasn't responsible, and I feel for his family.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)