And no doubt that Bush lied about him having them in order to convince the US to go to war.
Where is the logical inconsistancy in those points? Either Bush didn't know, so he lied about knowing....or he knew, but can't find (or plant them in public) them now...
Either way, you can't say we didn't know, when the reason we went to war, according to the President, was to disarm him of those weapons (which, it turns out, he didn't really have)...
posted
Again, the same intelligence that told us he had them, told us he wanted them before the war.
The only way we know he wanted them, is because now that he is captured because of the WAR, (where he would be in power if the bush haters had their way) he has admitted to plans to get them again if sanctions were lifted (which is where'd we be if the bush haters had their way).
See you can't claim he has them and wants them, send in inspectors (instead of go to war), find out he doesn't have them, but claim the same FLAWED intelligence that said he had them shows he wants them (because Sadaam would have NEVER admitted to that while in power and wanting sanctions lifted. That is an absurd claim).
They would have had to drop the sanctions. You would have had some stupid @ss country like France or Russia that had already been bribed and traded with them during the sanctions stand up and say.
"Well the inspectors have shown that he doesn't have WMD's and that the world's intelligence gatherers said he did, and it's those same intelligence gatherers that says he wants them if we lift sanctions when Sadaam says he doesn't. And Sadaam has met the requirements necessary by disarming to have the sanctions removed so what are the arguments for keeping them up again?"
The Sanctions would have been dropped (assuming the inspectors were even effective and not kicked out, or killed because of the Afghan war bringing out anti-American insurgents in Iraq. Oh yeah, you think the people who attacked the UN in Iraq would NOT have had we invaded Afghanistan? I guarantee you that Sadaam would have used the invasion of Afghanistan as an excuse to kick the UN out again, or at least allow the inspectors to be harrassed or taken hostage.)
And the sanctions being dropped would have meant that Sadaam would still be in power. The Iraqi's would still be under his dictatorship. And he would be FREE to persue WMD's with no sanctions on him.
Sorry, the war was the right war at the right time factually.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I seriously doubt he is a prophet or diviner.
True, but I guess I must have been a prophet or diviner, because I did say before the war that we didn't know there were WMDs in Iraq as Bush claimed we knew.
Then again, I also said toppling Saddam would likely just lead to Iraq becoming a new haven for terrorism. The question is - why can ordinary people see these things coming, but apparently not the executive branch of our government with billions of dollars in their budget and countless expert advisors?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
[whispers]pssst. Hey. You. Over here. Yeah here. Listen, you've got to help me. In less than 30 days, you're going to get your chance to get this George W. Bush guy out of the White House, out of the government, and out of my hair. For good! This guys a nut! He really is! He refuses to listen to reason--he can be staring reason in the face, and then he just turns one way or the other, shrugs, and goes on doing the same damn stupid thing. Over and over again. You've got to get to the polls, and vote him the hell out! No, don't vote for Nader. I mean, he's a nice guy and all..a little weird, but a nice guy. But you know what will happen if you vote for him--Bush will win again, and he'll be pissed, really pissed. You've got to vote for that other guy--Kerry. It's OK, he's a nice guy--he really is. He fought for his country, didn't hide from it, and then used the rights given him as a citizen to stand up for what he thought was right, even though it hurt him then, and it's hurting him now. But that's what I'm all about, isn't it? Oh, sh**! GWB has seen me! He's going to hurt me again! G2G!
[ October 08, 2004, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: The Federal Government ]
Posts: 11 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This report reveals it succeeded in disarming Iraq, and was continuing to weaken Iraq's military capacity to attack again even after inspectors left.
The report revealed that Iraq had no nuclear capability, and destroyed most of it's stockpile of chemical weapons-- but that Sadaam was continuing the pursuit of biological and chemical weapons in secret. The report details that plans were put in place to assemble and produce WMD within months of the end of sanctions.
The report and its author state very clearly that sanctions were eroding. To me, this means that Iraq was finding ways to get around them, and that the UN had lost its authority.
NOW-- none of this is a justification for the war. Poor intelligence showed that Sadaam had WMD, and that was the justification that the US used to invade. The fact that France and Germany had (perhaps) illegal contracts with Iraq for oil or whatever doesn't figure in. The fact that the UN offered only weak leadership doesn't matter. What matters is that the reason we were told that we had to send our troops to die was incorrect.
Sadaam did not pose a threat to the US when we invaded. He posed a threat to his own people, sure; you can argue that so did sanctions, since Sadaam wasn't touched by them at all, but his people were.
That EVERYONE was duped by all sorts of bad intelligence isn't an excuse either. In America, we pride ourselves on quality, and this time we failed.
I am not ready to believe that Bush deliberately lied to the public about Iraq and WMD. I've seen no evidence for it. But I do wish he would own up to the fact that the reasons we invaded were mistaken.
And this information does not change my November vote. Kerry thought Iraq had WMD as well, remember? Since I do not find either candidate satisfactory, I will write in a protest vote.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The report revealed that Iraq had no nuclear capability, and destroyed most of it's stockpile of chemical weapons-- but that Sadaam was continuing the pursuit of biological and chemical weapons in secret.
WANTING to produce WMDs is not the same thing as producing WMDs. Hoping sanctions end so you can start pursuing WMDs is not the pursuit of WMDs.
I don't think anyone ever thought sanctions could or should eliminate the DESIRE for these weapons programs from Saddam's mind. Nothing, not even war, will do that. Saddam likely still wants WMDs, even sitting in his prison cell.
The report said specifically that these weapons programs were on the decline. It's easy to claim sanctions are eroding, but where is the evidence? If the weapons programs were still weakening, rather than restarting, then sanctions had not eroded to a degree where the purpose of the sanctions is undermined.
quote:Kerry thought Iraq had WMD as well, remember?
Yes, but Kerry wasn't the one claiming he KNEW there were WMDs there. Bush may have not lied about there being WMDs - he may have just been ill-informed. But he definitely lied when he said he KNEW Saddam had these weapons - because we can now see he knew nothing of the sort, and had no evidence more than we did, contrary to what he implied.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As has become increasingly more clear, as well, Senators and representatives were not shown an unbiased picture. Reports from experts who contested the administration's views were not brought forth, and reports from experts which supported the administration's views were trumpeted with more certainty than they themselves asserted.
So what senators and representatives thought about WMDs was viewed through a glass tainted by the administration's viewpoint. Of course they thought Iraq had WMDs, the intelligence they were shown was pre-slanted to support the case for WMDs more than it did!
That this happened, and that it happened with the knowledge of top-ranking administration officials including Cheney, Rice, and Powell is made abundantly clear in the example of the aluminum tube intelligence (our sole substantial reason that we put forth in the National Intelligence Estimate for Iraq being close to nuclear arms, and known to be laughable for that purpose by nuclear scientists in the Energy department, one of whom jokingly suggested that if this were how Saddam wanted to make nuclear weapons we should give the tubes to him as they were worse than other technology he already had, and using the tubes would take him many years to refine enough uranium).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Actually the war made it impossible that he will get them...ever. It also made it possible for democracy to have a chance there. It also allowed us to KNOW what we do now about the WMD's.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And actually, could you imagine the horrible mess we'd actually have if we DIDN'T invade?
You'd have another half million dead Iraqi children due to the continued Sanctions.
You'd have Sadaam still in complete control of his country.
You'd have had the sanctions LIFTED because (if we accept the liberal presumption of the best case scenario that we would have found NO WMD's) they would have found that he had no WMD's.
You'd have a man who wants WMD's with NOTHING being able to stop him from acquiring them.
And the people of Iraq would still be living under Tyrrany.
So, to recap to make sure you don't miss it:
- 500,000+ more dead Iraqi Children. - Sadaam in complete control of his country. - France and Russia having subverted the sanctions anyway to make more $$$. - Sanctions being lifted because no WMD's being found. - Sadaam freely being able to persue WMD's as he wanted.
Well, that plan seems to suck eggs to me.
Just my opinion of course.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's easy to claim sanctions are eroding, but where is the evidence? If the weapons programs were still weakening, rather than restarting, then sanctions had not eroded to a degree where the purpose of the sanctions is undermined.
Are you going to trust the report and the author of the report only when he says things that agree with your worldview?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually heard the sound byte on the radio where the Duelfer guy actually said:
Sanctions were collapsing.
I think people are reading the Liberal News "spin" on the report instead of the actual report themselves.
It's rather comical to claim "Sanctions are working" and basing it on a report that clearly says "sanctions were collapsing".
And when those sanctions collapse (which can't be argued against if he had no WMD's) with Sadaam "still" in power....
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
CStroman, So we'd have all of the negatives of not having sanctions AND all of the negatives of having sanctions but none of the positives of either? You're being unrealistic. If there had been no war there we'd simply have Saddam still there, still under sanctions, and continually weakening. Iraqis would still be poor but there'd be little threat from Saddam.
quote:Are you going to trust the report and the author of the report only when he says things that agree with your worldview?
No, I'll trust him on all the facts he gives. But you are putting words into his mouth that are the opposite of what the report claims. You are trying to suggest comments about an erosion of sanctions imply that Saddam was capable of restarting his weapons programs, whereas the report contradicts this. Saddam was trying but could not restart his weapons programs between 1998 and our invastion, thus any claim that sanctions had eroded enough to allow Saddam to restart his weapons programs is false.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidently, there is nothing inconsistent about saying sanctions are both working and eroding. Sanctions only work if you enforce them. If they are not enforced it is not the sanctions that are to blame but the people supposed to be following those sanctions - and the solution is not war, but rather to actually enforce the sanctions.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you ban guns and then don't enforce the ban, you can't say "well, I guess gun bans aren't effective."
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the UN is effective. Sanctions DID work after all, as the report proves. There were no WMDs, no WMD program, and Saddam's weapons capacity was declining. And it did that without weapons inspectors inside Iraq and with Saddam working as hard as he could to get around the sanctions. That's not just success - it's spectacular success.
There's simply no evidence any more to back up claims that the U.N. was not effective on Iraq between the first Gulf War and our invasion.
posted
Sadaam would NOT be under sanctions. The terms of the sanctions being in place were that he would account for his WMD's and Disarm them.
If we find out he doesn't have WMD's the conditions for the sanctions remaining no longer exist.
If anyone thinks for one moment that once it was found that he didn't have WMD's that France or Russia wouldn't VETO any resolution asking for a continuation of Sanctions is up in the night.
They had accepted BRIBES from Sadaam during sanctions and were "illicitly" trading with him.
I encourage ANYONE to read the history of UN resolutions dealing with Iraq and the conditions for Sanctions.
You can't keep Sanctions on a country that has fulfilled the requirements for those sanctions to be lifted.
As much as the US wouldn't want that to happen, how would you have stopped it from happening?
Sadaam would be FREE to persue WMD's.
Again, that is my opinion.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except the report specifically states that the effectiveness of the sanctions was eroding, and that Sadaam was using oil money to purchase things like weapons delivery systems, and that Sadaam retained material and expertise to produce chemical and biological weapons.
If that is spectacular success. . .
:shrug:
Are we not looking at the same report, Xap?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but you are taking very minor issues and trying to twist them into a failure, when the big picture paints a clear success. You are changing the criterion for success from doing a good job at achieving our goals to doing a perfect job of fixing every problem we have with Saddam.
Again, whether or not the sanctions are "eroding" is not a huge deal so long as the goal is still being achieved - the continued disarming of Iraq - and the report says that was achieved. If they didn't erode to a level where Saddam could restart any weapons programs, it doesn't matter much.
Also again, the sanctions did not solve all the world's problems, but they did disarm Iraq, prevent any concrete weapons program from existing in any form, and cause the continued diminishing of Saddam's weapons programs even after inspectors left. No, it's not a perfect score, no-hit-game sort of success, but it's pretty spectacular when you consider how hard Saddam was trying to get around it and how much anti-UN folk kept claiming the sanctions had done nothing.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
