TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Iraq to use Chemical WMD in war...u morons
Pages (6): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by JM Cheers to tiesto14! as for all of you "liberal pricks" as tiesto14 stated, now that we know that they DO HAVE WOMD, you'll just come up with another thing to complain about the war..some other excuse that you won't be able to back up. oh boii, like i said it before, it amazes me how some are so passionate about things they have no idea what they're talking about. >JM<

...they already started maiking exscuses...LOL...they crack me up.........its funny how everyone here SWORE up and won Iraq had no weapons liek this and would not use them...YET NOW he has plans to use them in the war....and why does he care?...wont affect him anyway he KNOWS after this war is over he is finished...so he will do whatever he wants...so when those WOMD fall u all better pucker up and kiss my red white and blue American as...

quote:

Originally posted by ProDiGaL you couldnt possibly beleive how ironic that statement is......

jus like a liberal poster boy for pacifism to post half ass comments.....

quote:

Originally posted by Konijn Island Anybody who's a crazy dictator is theoretically a threat: I was just pointing out that 12 years of a combination of UN inspections/sanctions/and the threat of international force has done a pretty good job of keeping the guy in line. That's why it doesn't matter whether he has WMD or not--he would never use them (and anything he does have is bound to be miniscule). Saddam knows that any show of force on his part would doom him, and so like the multitudes of other dictators in the world (most of whom exist with our backing--a topic for a later date), he minds his business. As far as his army is concerned, I would check the stats on the "5th largest" figure--it's probably including potential civilian conscriptions. And while the $1.5 billion he spent last year on defense sounds like a lot, the US spent slightly over $400 billion. I'm fairly certain no one at the Pentagon is quaking with fear

Well YOU are saying that he would never use them. I'm sorry but I don't really think you're an authoratative voice in being able to predict what he will and will not do. You just said he was a crazy dictator. That doesn't really imply that he's a wholly logical person. The only person that knows what Saddam is going to do is Saddam.

I'm pretty sure its' the 5th largest ... I'll try and find that source again. And I never said that he posed a threat to the US, I said he poses a threat to the region. I'm sure that 1.5 billion is a lot compared to what kuwait or saudi arabia is spending. Anyway with regards to how much he is spending I was merely alluding to the fact that he is still very militaristically minded especially since he is spending that much on his military when Iraqi civilians are suffering.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider What tacit agreement are you talking about? The nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Nations are not obligated to sign the treaty. And it's purely voluntary. IT's more or less a sign of good faith. With regards to the second statement, the UN brokered the truce agreement between the US and Iraq, but that doesn't imply recognition that the UN has full authority. The UN was not dictating how the war was to end and the US essentially had authority over what was acceptable terms for an Iraqi surrender.

Two more points and then I'm outta here:

Whether limiting nukes by a tacit (voluntary) agreement or official censure, the unassailable fact remains that North Korea and Pakistan are far more dangerous than Iraq. In both these regions, regional war is apt to break out at any moment, over the demilitarized zones of the Korean peninsula and over Kashmir in the Indus valley. There is no comparable threat with Saddam, as Iraq has never bothered Turkey, Jordan or Saudi Arabia, and hasn't been involved with Iran or Kuwait in over a decade.

My second point is more abstract and concerns the UN. In theory, the UN is supposed to exist as a body where countries can come and mitigate their differences on an equal playing field. Since its inception in the late 1940s, the US has run roughshod over the UN and bent it to its will so there hasn't been a visible power struggle. Now, a combination of a vocal leader, Kofi Annan, and the appearance of new, vote-bearing nationalistic states, have caused the US and the UN to clash.

This brings into question the UN's authority and legitimacy. For the UN to function as its mandate calls, member countries ought to reciprocally renunciate their international rights, and work within the confines of mutually-agreed upon rules--one country ought not, therefore, have the power to "set the terms" of another's surrender (look at Germany after WWI).

World leaders who turn their backs on diplomacy, the established mechanisms for preserving international order, and the protests of millions of people, are either extremely foolish, extremely cynical, or extremely presumptous--or all three.

-cheers

quote:

Originally posted by Konijn Island Follow me: Saddam threatened Kuwait in 1991. His effort failed. Since then he has pretty much minded his own business (there is no Al-Qaeda link). He has neither threatened any neighbors nor attacked the Kurds (the "murder of his own" people that we've heard repeated ad nauseum occurred in the mid-1980s under US auspices). Who exactly is he threatening?

you need a history lesson my friend. maybe you havent heard of the attorcities the kurds faced after they tried to rebel agianst saddam following the gulf war. read up on the following chem attacks in 1993 & 1995 agianst the kurds.
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chem...emiraqgas1.html
just look at amnesty's critizism of iraq:
http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/count...nt=30&Expandall
for example:
Expulsion of Kurdish families must stop
http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index...=COUNTRIES\IRAQ
theres many more there...
if you care to learn you'll find out that going to war over the disposition of saddam is worth it, both to the world and the iraqi people.

quote:

Originally posted by Konijn Island Two more points and then I'm outta here: Whether limiting nukes by a tacit (voluntary) agreement or official censure, the unassailable fact remains that North Korea and Pakistan are far more dangerous than Iraq. In both these regions, regional war is apt to break out at any moment, over the demilitarized zones of the Korean peninsula and over Kashmir in the Indus valley. There is no comparable threat with Saddam, as Iraq has never bothered Turkey, Jordan or Saudi Arabia, and hasn't been involved with Iran or Kuwait in over a decade.

But that's the reason why the US is pursuing Iraq and threatening with force whereas it is using diplomacy with N. Korea and Pakistan (why do you always leave out India?). The US HAS taken precationary steps against conflict by basing 40,000 troops in S. Korea, and erecting thousands of mine fields. There not much more we can do except to initiate hostilities. That would go against the brokered armististice agreement set at the end of the Korean war.

With regards to India and Pakistan, the US has no direct role in that matter and can only act as an intermediary. It's a long standing issue between India and Pakistan only that has lasted 50 years. It's a claim over ownership of a disputed region. It's not a case of Pakistan wanting to invade India or vice-versa. Iraq on the other hand has engaged in two wars of hostile aggression over the past 2 decades with the INTENT to completely invade and rule another country. You don't think Iraq bothered Saudi Arabia? Why do you think the Saudis INVITED the US to set up bases before the gulf war? It was a clear bid for protection.

quote:

--one country ought not, therefore, have the power to "set the terms" of another's surrender (look at Germany after WWI).

Seemed to work pretty well in WW2. And how would a deal like that be brokered by the UN? Do you think the allies would have settled for anything LESS than unconditional surrender after being invaded? It's an ideal goal but it would never work.

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 jus like a liberal poster boy for pacifism to post half ass comments.....

pacisfism, wow im suprised that word is in your vocabulary,.....

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Seriously, the American generals must be pretty pissed-off when they have to obey Bush, Blair and other political clowns whose pomp and silly goals make proper military operations impossible. Especially when Bush's ultra conservative lobby mixes in: - democracy (Bush's de-baathification threats repelled all top Iraqi officials who might otherwise be potential allies during the invasion; not all ordinary Iraqi civilians want a Western-style democracy in the first place)

Bush will not be running this war from a tactical standpoint. It's not going to be another Vietnam. But putting another dictator in place of Saddam wouldn't sit well with public opinion so I can see why he did that.

quote:

- religion ("Bush constantly brings up his newborn Christianity. So the American attack is a crusade! Kill the infidels!") These only make achieving the military goals harder because of the increased Iraqi resistance.

I think you're reading into this too much. I never heard religion being used in any way as justification for US policy.

quote:

- Bush must have known for sure that Saddam has chemical WMD. So why did he bring in huge land troops who are the most vulnerable to such an attack? Why did he try to bully UN for involvement? Troops from non-professional countries have less training against chemical WMD, so foreign forces would only be a liability to American generals. I suppose Bush wants to please the generals of land troops and/or he has further military goals for his massive land troops beyond Iraq.

Chemical weapons are largely ineffective as a tactical battlefield weapon (see WW1). It's unlikely they will seriously phase ground troops. They would however be most effective against unprotected civilian populations. Also I don't think Bush really wanted UN military involvement so much as he wanted backing.

quote:

- Why go to the UN, and attack in the spring when a couple months ago in the winter would have been better? And now Saddam has had lots of time to prepare his chemical counterattacks.

I don't know maybe because we wanted to exhaust diplomacy and gather world support first? This is a good question to ask someone who thinks the US is all about invading regardless of what happens.

quote:

- Why bring in the journalists and the Shock & Awe? Is this war some kind of a military fair? American military power makes the other countries shit their pants even without Bush having to show it off on TV. The missiles will not help at all in destroying Saddam's chemical WMD.

I just saw an interview with a general about the journalist issue. Apparentely the press will have unprecedented access to the frontlines ... more so than any war before. Essentially the General said that they would be there to document any collateral damage or WOMD as they are found to ensure integrity.

quote:

What's the point of street battles, anyway? Hitler lost World War II irrevocably at Stalingrad, which could have easily been bypassed. Is there a lesson to learn there?

Well Saddam is going to be in Baghdad and that's what this whole thing was about. And Stalingrad couldn't have been avoided if Hitler's objective were the oil fields of the caucusses. The Russians would have been able to mount attacks against the German army's left flank. At any rate what do you propose we do? Start a blockade? I don't think that would sit well with world opinion when Baghdad ran out of food and water.

quote:

Originally posted by JM Cheers to tiesto14! as for all of you "liberal pricks" as tiesto14 stated, now that we know that they DO HAVE WOMD, you'll just come up with another thing to complain about the war..some other excuse that you won't be able to back up. oh boii, like i said it before, it amazes me how some are so passionate about things they have no idea what they're talking about. >JM<

If tiesto14 is your intellectual ally in this discussion then, sorry mate, you're struggling.

You don't seem particularly interested in anything else anyone has to say, but in the hope of generating a useful reply from you, I'll back up what I said earlier:

quote:

I don't think there's any doubt that Iraq still possesses some reminants of its biological/chemical weapons programs from the late 80's (guess who funded them?) but my argument was always that firstly the US are overplaying the quantity and quality of these weapons and the threat that they pose. [...] It is not the kind of undertaking we should be entering into on the "hunch" that Saddam may have a 15 year old vial of Anthrax hidden somewhere. I severely doubt that you would sacrifice friends of members of your family on the off-chance that Iraq has WMD's and it's unfair of you to expect that innocent Iraqi's should make this sacrifice just to appease your vague concerns.

Look at what I said: "Iraq possesses some reminants of its biological/chemical weapons programs" not "Iraq has WMDs". Iraq has no active biological/chemical programs, and certainly no nuclear program. The only thing that the US has to go on is the fact that there are biological agents left over from the late 80's that Iraq hasn't declared. Or rather, Iraq has declared them in the sense that they assert that it has all been destroyed. Therefore, we have the scenario where Iraq says it has destroyed the agents and the US says it hasn't, with virtually no evidence supporting either case (and I'm inclined to not completely believe either). Nonetheless, the US have basically used this as ammunition for their crusade and in doing so have violated the principle on which its legal system is based - the Iraqis are innocent until proven guilty. It doesn't matter that the US have no evidence, it only matters that Iraq doesn't either. What a grand conception of justice this President Bush possesses.

The Iraqis have declared a great deal of material, including the Al Samoud missiles that were destroyed recently. As Hans Blix put it "these are not toothpicks". While Blix was undeniably concerned about what reminants of the dormant biological/chemical programs there may be, Iraqi co-operation was generally quite good and was definitely shifting from "passive" to "pro-active" as time wore on. The UN inspectors were doing the job that the US intends to do, only without blood-shed and at a tiny fraction of the cost. Thus, given that much of Iraqs weaponry has been destroyed over the past 12 years (remember the vast amount of material that was destroyed during the 7 years of inspections after the Gulf War) if it has anything left then it is in a comparitively small quantity and is of little threat to anyone (what has Saddam Hussein done over the past 12 years that makes us believe he is likely to be a threat to anyone?). Remember, to preserve large amounts of biological material, you need adequate facilities to store and transport it. Iraq is banned from importing refrigerated trucks (which has also prevented the safe transportation of medicine over that time period) and you can't just store vials of anthrax in the back of your car or in any old cupboard and expect it to remain intact - especially given the time period that the US asserts it has possessed it for.

Besides, even if Iraq has somehow been able to keep all these agents safe and away from the prying eyes of inspectors for this period of time, we must first ask if it is of sufficient quality or quality to pose a risk to any other nation (which is highly unlikely), then if Saddam Hussein has the means to transport it (he has no scud missiles left - even the US acknowledge this - and what's left is insufficient to pose any risk to anyone more than 150km away) and finally - even given that he has the means available - whether Saddam is likely to use these weapons against another nation (I doubt he - nor anyone else - would be that stupid). What does this say then?

I would agree that Iraq posed a threat if it (demonstrably) had large amounts of biological and chemical agents, and the sophisticated technology to transport it. This functioning system is a weapon of mass destruction. Small amounts of raw, aging biological agents that cannot be easily transported around the country let alone outside the Iraqi borders constitute a weapon, sure, but a Weapon of Mass Destruction? No. Not even close. The US will be bombing Bagdhad with weapons far more destructive and unnecessarily powerful than anything Iraq has - oh, but I forgot. America's doing it for the good of the Iraqi people isn't it?

As I have said time and time again, war is not something that we should enter into on a hunch. It should only be the last unavoidable course of action in a desperate situation, and there should be undebatable and unambiguous justification for it. In this case, we see that the US have been desperate for warfare from the beginning, and have derailed any and all attempts at a peaceful resolution. Similarly, whatever evidence provides the justification for the conflict is at best murky and ambiguous, at worst fraudulant. Given all this, I fail to see how the deaths of all these Iraqi innocents can be justified. Quite apart from the death, I still feel that this war is likely to do the US a lot more harm in the region (through political instability, Arab dissent which fosters terrorism etc.) than would have occurred through the continuation of the UN Inspections. If it was just about putting a bullet in Saddam Hussein's head then I'd be all for it, but the consequences of this war far outweigh any conceiveable benefits.

So now that I've justified my position, JM, perhaps you'd like to abandon your policy of posting patronising, illogical bullshit for a second and tell me why you're currently rubbing your hands together in glee at the prospect of this war?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade If tiesto14 is your intellectual ally in this discussion then, sorry mate, you're struggling. You don't seem particularly interested in anything else anyone has to say, but in the hope of generating a useful reply from you, I'll back up what I said earlier:

because all u guys say is pacifist liberal garbage......all you do is condem Bush for his stance on the war...yet not once have ANY of you said "how come Hussein wont comply on what he agreed on" or "Saddam is an evil tyrant that places people in plastic shredders feet first while they scream their way to death"..or any of the horrific things he has done....

Or how about how just the other day he had the tongue cut off a person who oppsed him then let him bleed to death....

NOOOOOOO God forbid you remark on how Hussein needs to be removed purely on humanitarian reasons....you oppose a US war effort cus of civilian deaths...however u agree with keeping Hussein in and letting him continue to torcher and murder people all the time....

Then you will go on about it is because of sanctions placed upon him...well if you where so concerned with iraq civilians you would be demanding the compliance of Hussein to those sanctions to help his people....which he wont....

You are all alike...your hatred for American government shines through everyday in your lame ass efforts as you dig up numerous web pages on how America and Bush are so bad...yet you never do that to Hussein....

Like i asked you before ...would you of removed Hitler in 1933?..because Hussein is Hitler like.....

Your anti-American and noone will change that....and to be honest i could care less...just please continue to buy our wonderful products so the money comes in to my wonderful country...as you infact support America in your purchases...

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Iraq has no active biological/chemical programs, and certainly no nuclear program. The only thing that the US has to go on is the fact that there are biological agents left over from the late 80's that Iraq hasn't declared. Or rather, Iraq has declared them in the sense that they assert that it has all been destroyed. Therefore, we have the scenario where Iraq says it has destroyed the agents and the US says it hasn't, with virtually no evidence supporting either case (and I'm inclined to not completely believe either). Nonetheless, the US have basically used this as ammunition for their crusade and in doing so have violated the principle on which its legal system is based - the Iraqis are innocent until proven guilty. It doesn't matter that the US have no evidence, it only matters that Iraq doesn't either. What a grand conception of justice this President Bush possesses. :

that "innocent to proven guilty" scenario ONLY applyies to US citizens...thought you would know that....jeeezzz...

And you WILL be proven wrong about the WMD as we enter Iraq...then your apology will need to be heard...

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The Iraqis have declared a great deal of material, including the Al Samoud missiles that were destroyed recently. As Hans Blix put it "these are not toothpicks". While Blix was undeniably concerned about what reminants of the dormant biological/chemical programs there may be, Iraqi co-operation was generally quite good and was definitely shifting from "passive" to "pro-active" as time wore on. The UN inspectors were doing the job that the US intends to do, only without blood-shed and at a tiny fraction of the cost. Thus, given that much of Iraqs weaponry has been destroyed over the past 12 years (remember the vast amount of material that was destroyed during the 7 years of inspections after the Gulf War) if it has anything left then it is in a comparitively small quantity and is of little threat to anyone (what has Saddam Hussein done over the past 12 years that makes us believe he is likely to be a threat to anyone?). Remember, to preserve large amounts of biological material, you need adequate facilities to store and transport it. Iraq is banned from importing refrigerated trucks (which has also prevented the safe transportation of medicine over that time period) and you can't just store vials of anthrax in the back of your car or in any old cupboard and expect it to remain intact - especially given the time period that the US asserts it has possessed it for. :

your full of shit...it took almost 300,000 troops for the beginign of the disarmement.....a few motnhs ago he was doing NOTHING....get real.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade (he has no scud missiles left - even the US acknowledge this - and what's left is insufficient to pose any risk to anyone more than 150km away) and finally - even given that he has the means available - whether Saddam is likely to use these weapons against another nation (I doubt he - nor anyone else - would be that stupid). What does this say then?

:


it says your full of shit AGAIN...it has been reported for the last week that he has Scud missiles and they are aimed at the south and at Israel....again thought u would know that...

You DOUBT he would use them?...you doubt a man who tests chemical and biological weapons and men, women, children and even puppies?..u doubt a man who mass murdered Kurds, you doubt a man who sets up rapes of women? you doubt a man who cuts tongues out and puts people in plastic shredders?...you doubt a man who has continues to lie and deceive UN officials for 12 years?....man you sure are trusting...

And remember Hussein ""IS"" leaving...one way or another he will either leave in a body bag or on his own...but either or Hussein is going.....so he has NOTHING to lose anymore...whih means he is going to fight with EVERYTHING he has and wil hold nothing back at this point...yet you DOUBT this man...if i should even call him a man...Renegade just the fact that you doubt Hussein shows your very unintelligent...u may be able to provide links to good sources and have a good background on events...but anyone who doubts Hussein is...um...sorry to have to say this...but a moron.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade (I would agree that Iraq posed a threat if it (demonstrably) had large amounts of biological and chemical agents, and the sophisticated technology to transport it. This functioning system is a weapon of mass destruction. Small amounts of raw, aging biological agents that cannot be easily transported around the country let alone outside the Iraqi borders constitute a weapon, sure, but a Weapon of Mass Destruction? No. Not even close. The US will be bombing Bagdhad with weapons far more destructive and unnecessarily powerful than anything Iraq has - oh, but I forgot. America's doing it for the good of the Iraqi people isn't it?

:


No your right America is doing it for fun...we want to be cool...WTF that statement in itself is representing on how sad you are...you REALLY think America wants to go in and kill innocent people...get real...

And AGAIN i ask would you of removed Hitler in 1933?...Hussein IS Hitler like...maybe YOU want to wait for him to get the means to deliver the weapons or sell them...but i and 70% of my fellow Americans DO NOT....i mean come on enough is enough...he had his chance to leave.....so that NOONE would die....he refused...he has given orders to use chemical weapons on our forces...which right there shows he is a mad man....what will it take for you to realize Hussein needs to go?...another 9.11?..maybe it needs to happen in Sydney for you to change your views....and i know Hussein was not behind 9.11 but you get my point....

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade ( In this case, we see that the US have been desperate for warfare from the beginning, and have derailed any and all attempts at a peaceful resolution.

:

17 resolutions 12 years and a 48 hour warning....hhhmmm we gave time and diiplomacy....

or would 1000 resolutions and 40 years be sufficent for you?..or maybe Hussein getting stronger?....

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade (Similarly, whatever evidence provides the justification for the conflict is at best murky and ambiguous, at worst fraudulant..

:

wheres the VX?...wheres the mustard?...wheres the anthrax?...wheres the rest of the missiles?...wheres the refrigarated trucks for mobile bio/chem factories?...what about the drones?.....

Maybe YOU need a big fat nuclear missile up your ass to see the light...but i and 70% of my fellow Americans do not.

I

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade ( f it was just about putting a bullet in Saddam Hussein's head then I'd be all for it,

here i agree with you...but wont happen.

I'll attempt to reply to your post intellectually Renegade since nobody is taking you up on your challenge

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Look at what I said: "Iraq possesses some reminants of its biological/chemical weapons programs" not "Iraq has WMDs". Iraq has no active biological/chemical programs, and certainly no nuclear program. The only thing that the US has to go on is the fact that there are biological agents left over from the late 80's that Iraq hasn't declared. Or rather, Iraq has declared them in the sense that they assert that it has all been destroyed. Therefore, we have the scenario where Iraq says it has destroyed the agents and the US says it hasn't, with virtually no evidence supporting either case (and I'm inclined to not completely believe either).

You're speculating. There's no way you can know for a fact that Iraq doesn't have an active biological/chemical programs. For the same reasons that I can't say that Iraq definetely has mobile chemical/biological weapons programs, you can't say that they don't. However, I think we can conclude that there seems to be and definetely in the past some suspicious activity occurring.

quote:

Nonetheless, the US have basically used this as ammunition for their crusade and in doing so have violated the principle on which its legal system is based - the Iraqis are innocent until proven guilty. It doesn't matter that the US have no evidence, it only matters that Iraq doesn't either. What a grand conception of justice this President Bush possesses.

Let's not forget the absence of complete, full compliance as proscribed by the truce agreement. Every weapons inspector report I raid always said Iraq should be doing more.

quote:

The Iraqis have declared a great deal of material, including the Al Samoud missiles that were destroyed recently. As Hans Blix put it "these are not toothpicks". While Blix was undeniably concerned about what reminants of the dormant biological/chemical programs there may be, Iraqi co-operation was generally quite good and was definitely shifting from "passive" to "pro-active" as time wore on. The UN inspectors were doing the job that the US intends to do, only without blood-shed and at a tiny fraction of the cost.

The modified extended range Al Samoud missiles were never declared and were in violations of UN sanctions. The only reason why Iraq became "pro-active" was due to the mounting pressure by the US. Think otherwise? Why did inspections fail in 1998 then? The Iraqis didn't seem very cooperative then when the US wasn't breathing down their neck.

quote:

Thus, given that much of Iraqs weaponry has been destroyed over the past 12 years (remember the vast amount of material that was destroyed during the 7 years of inspections after the Gulf War) if it has anything left then it is in a comparitively small quantity and is of little threat to anyone (what has Saddam Hussein done over the past 12 years that makes us believe he is likely to be a threat to anyone?).

How very optimistic of you. The inspections were going so well that in 1998 there was nothng left to destroy so we just up and stopped inspections! Out of curiosity do you have any data documenting just how successful these inspections were?

quote:

Besides, even if Iraq has somehow been able to keep all these agents safe and away from the prying eyes of inspectors for this period of time, we must first ask if it is of sufficient quality or quality to pose a risk to any other nation (which is highly unlikely), then if Saddam Hussein has the means to transport it (he has no scud missiles left - even the US acknowledge this - and what's left is insufficient to pose any risk to anyone more than 150km away) and finally - even given that he has the means available - whether Saddam is likely to use these weapons against another nation (I doubt he - nor anyone else - would be that stupid). What does this say then? I would agree that Iraq posed a threat if it (demonstrably) had large amounts of biological and chemical agents, and the sophisticated technology to transport it. This functioning system is a weapon of mass destruction. Small amounts of raw, aging biological agents that cannot be easily transported around the country let alone outside the Iraqi borders constitute a weapon, sure, but a Weapon of Mass Destruction? No. Not even close.

Throughout the 1990s, UN inspectors in Iraq supervised or verified the destruction of:
about 100,000 chemical munitions
over 400 tonnes of bulk chemical agents, and
over 2,600 tonnes of chemicals, known as precursors, which could have been used to make weapons.
Iraq initially lied to UN inspectors about producing VX, one of the most toxic of all known chemical warfare agents. It continues to deny ever weaponising VX, even though UN inspectors uncovered unambiguous physical evidence in 1998. UNSCOM uncovered documentation which suggested Iraq had in the order of an additional 6000 undeclared chemical munitions. UNSCOM could not confirm Iraq's claim to have destroyed 500 artillery shells filled with mustard gas and 500 aerial bombs for delivery of chemical weapons.

UNSCOM assessed that major uncertainties still exist concerning some 4000 tonnes of declared chemical precursors, including 200 tonnes of precursors used in the production of VX.

Only after the defection in 1995 of General Hussein Kamil � Saddam Hussein's son-in-law � did Iraq admit it had produced over 19,000 litres of botulinum toxin, almost 8,500 litres of anthrax and over 2,000 litres of aflatoxin. At the end of 1998, UN inspectors judged that Iraq could have produced two to four times more biological weapons agent than it had declared.

UNSCOM judged the biological weapons program to be the most incompletely documented of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. It concluded that Iraq possesses an industrial capability and knowledge base through which biological warfare agents could be produced quickly and in volume, if Iraq decided to do so. UNSCOM reported that in 1997 Iraq still had 79 facilities capable of playing a role in biological weapons production.

Taking all this into account I think that we can state that the threat of Iraq possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction (not mere weapons as you state) is very real. And I think that a COUNTRY can get around a simple ban on refrigerated trucks. It's not like these people walk around rubbing sticks together to generate fire ... they do have engineers and scientists too you know.


By the way, has anyone actually checked out the CIA's publication on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? It's very long. I'm not accepting it all as fact, I'm just saying that it's very in-depth.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...aq_Oct_2002.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Of course, the US has wanted to invade all along. Unilaterally, and without any foreign troops to distract them. The problem was that Americans were scared to be singled out for the blame. That's what coalitions are for. When it became apparent that the European public opinion was against the War, Bush should have cut his losses, and used a pretext to attack immediately and alone. It would have been best for everyone.

Well I kinda disagree when you say it so matter of factly. There's some debate to the theory that the US's end goal was to invade.

quote:

The positive side is that the journalists will help the Western public to know what has happened. I doubt that the journalists will be allowed to join Spec-Ops for searching WOMD caches, though.

Yes more journalists can only be a good thing. We'll see how that turns out.

quote:

Hopefully Saddam will be in Baghdad (so that he can be eliminated soon), but he might well disappear when the land invasion begins. By the way, how are the Americans going to find him? Do they knock on every door, and ask if Saddam or any other Baathist is in? It's true that Germans may have needed to carry out an operation similar to Stalingrad, but they might have had some choice in the exact location to avoid casualties. I can't see how the Americans could capture Baghdad safely without heavy civilian losses. Any fighting inside Baghdad will hardly help the food and water situation. But perhaps you are right that a long siege might cause even more casualties. The best option would be to have the new Iraqi administration take Baghdad with help from Free Iraqi troops (like in Kabul). If Americans arrive, ambushes will be plentiful, as will the retaliations.

Well Saddam can't hide forever in Baghdad. However, the point is to remove him from power. Without his military, access to WOMDs, money, etc., he's powerless. Anyway yes Army Group South needed to confront the Russians sometime before they reached the Caucusses and Hitler made the mistake of picking Stalingrad as that place because of its namesake.

Occrider:

quote:

You're speculating. There's no way you can know for a fact that Iraq doesn't have an active biological/chemical programs. For the same reasons that I can't say that Iraq definetely has mobile chemical/biological weapons programs, you can't say that they don't. However, I think we can conclude that there seems to be and definetely in the past some suspicious activity occurring.

I agree entirely on both points: firstly that I cannot know for certain that Iraq has no biological/chemical programs and I do agree that Iraq has produced chemical/biological agents in the past. However, you must keep in mind that what production was going on in the past was severely destroyed by bombing in the first Gulf War and then the subsequent 7 years of inspections. For instance, have a look at this page:

http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/intel/961031/003bk_00d.txt

BIOLOGICAL:

a. Initially, there were four facilities in the area of
BW R&D/production--the Abu Ghurayb Suspect BW Production Facility,
the Abu Ghurayb Clostridium Vaccine Plant, the Taji Suspect BW
Production Facility, and the Salman Pak R&D/Suspect Production and
Support Facility. A fifth facility, the Latifiyah BW Production
Facility, was added to the 1st in February 1991. At these five
facilities, there were a total of 13 major buildings assessed to
associated with BW R&D and production. As a result of coalition
bombing, 11 of the 13 buildings were destroyed and two severely
damaged. All five facilities were assessed to be unable to
support BW R&D and/or production.

b. BW storage initially include 19 twelve-frame
environmentally controlled bunkers at 11 locations and the Taji
Suspect BW Storage Facility. During February 1991, two
additional twelve-frame bunkers were Identified, bringing the
total to 21 such bunkers. Of these targets, the original 19
bunkers
and theTaji Suspect BW Storage Facility were all destroyed or
severely damaged. The final two bunkers were discovered too late
in the campaign to be attacked.

CHEMICAL:

a. CW production included the Samarra Chemical Weapons
Production and Storage Facility, and the Habbanlyah I, II
and III precursor production facilities. Production at Samarra
occurred in six un-bunkered buildings and four bunkered buildings.
Five of six unbunkered buildings and none of the bunkered
buildings were destroyed. Of the four surviving bunkered
production buildings the most significant was P-6, which is
capable of producing 50-70 MT of nerve agent per month. About 70
percent of Samarra's total production capacity was destroyed. The
three Habbaniyah facilities were destroyed and with them most all
ability to produce CW agent precursor chemicals. Three buildings
at Samarra were dedicated to CW munitions filling and all three
buildings were destroyed.

b. CW storage capability was in the form of eight cruciform
bunkers at Samarra and 22 "S"-shaped bunkers at 14 locations. Of
the eight cruciform bunkers, one was destroyed and the remaining
seven sustained only superficial damage. Of the 22 "S"-shaped
bunkers, 16 were destroyed and six suffered serious damage.
Although these bunkers were Identified as CW-related bunkers and
included in the CW target set, bunker architecture is not relevant
to its ability to store agent or weapons, which would have an
important impact on Iraq's ability to reconstitute its CW storage
system in that Iraq would not need to reproduce the 22 "S"-shaped
bunkers to have significant CW storage capability.

It's hard to comprehend the damage done to Iraqi infrastructure during this campaign. According to that site, to restart the biological program would take "100-200 million dollars and 5-8
years" and the chemical weapons program would require "at least several hundred million dollars and 3-5 years. [...] This is assuming that Iraq has access to the required materiel [sic] on the
international market". You can't just stop and start weapons programs at the drop of a hat. Then consider the toll that 7 years of weapons inspections (and a further 12 years of sustained bombing - http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html - basically a new sortie every day) have taken on the programs. In an article I wrote for JohnSmith's website, I said:

"During the UN-led inspections of the Iraqi weapons plants after the Gulf War, in fact, huge amounts of weaponry were destroyed, rendering Saddam Hussein virtually powerless to launch another, similarly potent offensive. Even if Saddam Hussein were stupid enough to wage a war against the US or any other nation (in the knowledge that doing so would lead to US intervention anyway), his capabilities to cause mass destruction are extremely limited. According to UNSCOM, under their own supervision, they were able to affect "the destruction of 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 liters of live chemical weapons agents, 48 missiles, six missile launchers, 30 missile warheads modified to carry chemical or biological agents, and hundreds of pieces of related equipment with the capability to produce chemical weapons." In addition to this, "the International Atomic Energy Agency categorically declared that Iraq no longer has a nuclear program" and "817 of the 819 Soviet-supplied long-range missiles had been accounted for"."

(I've lost the link for the stats provided there, so you'll just have to trust me when I say that they're genuine. )

A poor nation, with no relevant existing infrastructure, is going to struggle to develop these sorts of weapons. The only real danger is the weapons left over from before the Gulf War, and even then I think that their threat is being severely overplayed. This is what Hans Blix had to say about it a few hours ago:

http://www.news.com.au/common/story...5E25777,00.html

So the point is, Iraq may still possess a few disjointed reminents of a long extinct chemical/biological program, but this alone is no justification for war. If the inspectors were given the opportunity to do their job, there is a chance - a good chance - that the remaining weapons could have been cleared up, and that Iraq could have been disarmed peacefully. Instead we go to war because Iraq "may" have weapons. If any chemical and biological weapons are used against American forces, then I will genuinely feel for the soldiers (it's not their fault that they're there afterall) but ultimately the blame lies as much with Bush and co. as it does with Saddam Hussein. Over the past 12 years Saddam Hussein has given no indication that he has any intention of using whatever weapons he may have left against other nations. If he uses them in self-defence, then, as much as he should (and will) be condemned for it, part of the blame must go with those who orchestrated this wholly unnecessary war. If you throw a man into a cage with a tiger, you must accept some of the responsibility when he gets mauled.

quote:

Let's not forget the absence of complete, full compliance as proscribed by the truce agreement. Every weapons inspector report I raid always said Iraq should be doing more.

Is that justification for war though? Iraq probably could have done more, but I think that they did much more than was expected of them and what does it matter if it takes them 2 days or 2 years to fully disarm (as Hans Blix said, even if the Iraqis were to fully disarm tomorrow, it would take at least two months to verify it - it's not an overnight job)? Resolution 1441 does not authorize war in this case. Paragraph 12 of resolution 1441 states that the security council must reconvene after a report from UNMOVIC declaring that the Iraqis were not complying (which hasn't happened):

"[...] to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security."

The Security Council has not reconvened for discussion about this conflict though. If you'll remember, the US didn't even bother going to a vote on the issue.

Nonetheless, even if we assume that the Resolution had been breached by Iraq, it does not open the door for unilateral US action (that is to say, a US led offensive without UN approval). The US can't say that a broken UN resolution is justification for war, when war in this case would be going against the will of the UN in the first place! They either accept what the UN has to say, or they ignore everything, they can't have it both ways. You can't pick and choose which laws you wish to abide by and which you ignore.

quote:

Why did inspections fail in 1998 then?

Because Bill Clinton ordered them out ahead of a heavy series of bombings.

Towards the end, the relationship between Iraq and the inspectors because - rightly or wrongly - the Iraqis believed that the US were obtaining state sensitive information from some of the inspectors and that the demands of the inspectors were unreasonable. Once again, I'm not necessarily agreeing with the Iraqis on either of these points, just pointing out what happened.

quote:

How very optimistic of you. The inspections were going so well that in 1998 there was nothng left to destroy so we just up and stopped inspections! Out of curiosity do you have any data documenting just how successful these inspections were?

I don't disagree with inspections though. The stats I posted above demonstrate that the inspections were largely successful and - I can only assume - that more pro-active rigorous inspections this time round would have been just as successful. If Saddam Hussein has WMDs then they need to be taken off him, I don't disagree. What I do disagree with, though, is rushing to war - at an unjustifiable costs both in pecuniary and humanitarian terms - when the diplomatic process hadn't yet run its course and, indeed, had only just resumed after 4 years of relative US apathy (where did this desperation to disarm Iraq suddenly come from?).

Is the data I posted above significant enough to show that post Gulf-war inspections were successful enough to give them another try this time around?

quote:

Taking all this into account I think that we can state that the threat of Iraq possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction (not mere weapons as you state) is very real.

Like I said there is a good chance that Iraq has some left-over reminents of biological material, which is why I have believed all throughout this ordeal that inspections must continue. It's not as though I think that Saddam should be left alone and allowed to do what he wants. Nonetheless, if he did have these weapons in any great quantity, we'd have a smoking gun by now, I'm certain of it. With all the intelligence that the US armed the UN with, and after hundreds of random/suprise inspections the UN have turned up nothing apart from 13 empty missles a couple of months ago and discovered that the Al Samoud missiles - which were declared by Iraq - travelled further than they were meant to (the Iraqis showed them the inspectors the missiles assuming that there was no breach in the terms of Iraqs disarmourment, but they were found to be able to travel 87 km further than the limit). So yes, there is still a great deal of uncertainty about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or not, but even if we take the worst case scenario (that Iraq still has all the material that the US says it hasn't declared) I still don't feel that there is just cause for war especially when you consider that North Korea and Iran have admitted to having nuclear programs (something the Iraq definately does not have).

Like I said, if were just about quickly and cheaply marching into Baghdad and taking out Saddam Hussein then I'd be all for it - hell, give me the gun, I'd do it myself! Nonetheless - and I can't reiterate this enough - the costs of war, pecuniary and humanitarian, are unjustifiable given the overwhelming ambiguity of the situation and the unwillingness to try and settle the matter through diplomatic, peaceful means.

Nonetheless, after spending most of the afternoon defending my position, I feel that I must add this: even though I am happy to continue justifying my position in this way for as long as I need to, surely the onus in this argument must be on Bush and his supporters to justify why war is necessary and not the other way around? We all know the horrors of warfare and why they should be avoided - so, working within this framework, can any of you say that the "chance" that Saddam Hussein has WMDs is worth $100 billion or more, not to mention the certain deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi people, with as much right to life as you or I? Would you still think the conflict was just if the cost were tens of thousands of American lives instead? Do you not feel that there is any other way this issue can be solved without the need to resort to warfare? Do you feel that the removal of Saddam Hussein is likely to solve these problems?

Please, keep in mind that I am not a pacifist unable to admit to the ocassional necessity of warfare. I am not blind to Saddam Hussein's abysmal human rights record, nor the possibility that he has WMDs. Nonetheless, I feel that there were still other options available before Bush committed to war and even if the best case scenario occurs - a relatively quick, cheap war - there is still going to be a huge loss of human life and a huge outlay of money, which, in my opinion, is unjustifiable given the sheer ambiguity of the risk Iraq poses and the way that far more dangerous enemies are being allowed to develop much more potent weapons without so much as a slap on the wrist.

War, in this scenario, is not the answer.

And this is what someone posted on another forum, which clarifies a bit better my thoughts on "WMD as justification for war" (posted by an American incidentally):

quote:

Originally posted by theyeti I support [military action] too. It's just that I don't think it's necessary at this point. I would at least like to know just what it is that he should be disarming himself from before an attack would be justified. Afterall, how is it that we're supposed to know that he's not "disarming" if we don't even know what it is that he's got? No one has said in any straight-forward terms what this is exactly. We're just given an amorphous "Weapons of Mass Destruction." Okay, but which weapons? How much of them? How dangerous are they really? The Bush administration has claimed ad nauseam that Saddam has something, but their initial claims that they used to scare everyone with (that of a nuclear weapons program) has essentially been refuted, and the key pieces of evidence cited have turned out to be fraudulent. The other claims they've made about chemical and biological weapons cannot be confirmed, although quite a lot of their claims have been disconfirmed, which doesn't give me much confidence in the rest. All of the sites that the inspectors have checked-put because of US intelligence turned out to be dead-ends. There are certainly reasons to be suspicious of Saddam, like the fact that some stuff is unaccounted for (though Iraq has provided some of that to the inspectors), but suspicion alone isn't enough. We certainly wouldn't convict an accused murder on mere suspicion, so why should it be sufficient to start a major war? As long as there is suspicion, I would like to see the inspectors get to the bottom of it. As I see it at this point, there are basically three possiblities: 1) Saddam is hiding stuff so well that even US intelligence can't find it (in which case Bush's claims to evidence are bogus), 2) US intelligence has found it but won't share it with the inspectors for whatever reason, possibly to discredit them, or 3) Saddam doesn't have anything worth finding. Note that none of these possiblities make the case for war right now. In case 1, we've got an intelligence problem. There are suspicions but that's all. In case 2 the inspections haven't been given a chance to work, so the solution would be for the intelligence community to share its info. (And remember that the inspectors are there to corroborate any claims from US intel -- the claims are believable when the inspectors confirm them. If the inspectors aren't being allowed to confirm them, then I have no reason to believe them.) And of course case 3 means that Saddam hasn't done anything wrong, aside from being an all-around asshole. I would gladly support military action if it was made evident that Saddam has weapon X and that after having been told to relinquish weapon X he refused to do so. That would make the WMD issue very clear, but that's not even remotely the case. The case is simply that Bush has said that Saddam has something bad, but he's not saying exactly what it is, and it's up to Saddam to guess what it is that he should be proving he doesn't have. This is most broadly defined and slippery pretext for war imaginable. Regardless of what Saddam does or doesn't have, there can always be a post hoc rationalization that he broke the rules. And note also that the issue of disarmament is different from the issue of regime change. The Bush administration has masterfully mixed up the two so that now the supposed failure of the UN to do the first is taken as justification for the second. theyeti

Renegade, great post, it's nice to finally interact with someone that is extremely intelligeble with the matter at hand. I'm about to go to bed and I think that I'm going to need a few hours to properly reply to your post so I'll reply piecemeal for now. In one segement of your argument you state that if Saddam does indeed utilize chemical or biological weapons there would have been a "chance" that they would have been cleared up through weapons inspections. Then you rationalize that the blame for WOMD use, if it came to that in a war, is just as much in Bush's hands as it is Saddam's. You state that Saddam is utilizeing WOMDs in "self-defence" so a portion of the blame should be accepted by the US. Personally I find this to be the crux of the ENTIRE debate in that Saddam should not have ANY capabilities to do as such. IF Saddam has ANY chemical/biological weapons in his possession that right then and there establishes the UN as a failure in their abiltiy to establish their crediblilty and authority over the world. Heh this is just the TIP of the iceberg but I need to pass out. To be continued ...

quote:

you ALL swore up and down that Hussein had ZERO WMD

Please show me where I swore he doesn't hav WOMDs. I only said we don't know if he has them or not, and that the US shouldn't attack until it is certain it has them. Read my posts better.

Quote:----------------------------
So now what are you anti war liberal fucks going to say??...
Quote: -----------------------------


IN defence. If u look at the way we raise our kids now and the attitude of societys as a whole. We clearly see that we uphold peace and mental progress. We are tearing down bleifes of segragation and the need for violence all the time. So does it suprise u that person "x" who was raised to belive that violence is wrong and that u should "use your words" doesnt want war??? Dispite the suposive need.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Occrider: I agree entirely on both points: firstly that I cannot know for certain that Iraq has no biological/chemical programs and I do agree that Iraq has produced chemical/biological agents in the past. However, you must keep in mind that what production was going on in the past was severely destroyed by bombing in the first Gulf War and then the subsequent 7 years of inspections. For instance, have a look at this page: http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/intel/961031/003bk_00d.txt It's hard to comprehend the damage done to Iraqi infrastructure during this campaign. According to that site, to restart the biological program would take "100-200 million dollars and 5-8 years" and the chemical weapons program would require "at least several hundred million dollars and 3-5 years. [...] This is assuming that Iraq has access to the required materiel [sic] on the international market". You can't just stop and start weapons programs at the drop of a hat. Then consider the toll that 7 years of weapons inspections (and a further 12 years of sustained bombing - http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html - basically a new sortie every day) have taken on the programs. In an article I wrote for JohnSmith's website, I said: "During the UN-led inspections of the Iraqi weapons plants after the Gulf War, in fact, huge amounts of weaponry were destroyed, rendering Saddam Hussein virtually powerless to launch another, similarly potent offensive. Even if Saddam Hussein were stupid enough to wage a war against the US or any other nation (in the knowledge that doing so would lead to US intervention anyway), his capabilities to cause mass destruction are extremely limited. According to UNSCOM, under their own supervision, they were able to affect "the destruction of 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 liters of live chemical weapons agents, 48 missiles, six missile launchers, 30 missile warheads modified to carry chemical or biological agents, and hundreds of pieces of related equipment with the capability to produce chemical weapons." In addition to this, "the International Atomic Energy Agency categorically declared that Iraq no longer has a nuclear program" and "817 of the 819 Soviet-supplied long-range missiles had been accounted for"." (I've lost the link for the stats provided there, so you'll just have to trust me when I say that they're genuine. )

I believe your stats, but I think you said it best when you said, "It's hard to comprehend the damage done to Iraqi infrastructure during this campaign." The fact of the matter is, we really don't know how much of an impact there has been on their chemical/biological weapons program. Yes I'm sure that it has been set back significantly but as to how much we don't know for sure. Yes it may take 7-8 years for those programs to regain their former production capabilities but what if they have been revamped to produce only 50% of what they were able to produce before. 500 litres of VX is going to make you just as dead as 1000 litres. Also you describe what has been destroyed, the key question however is what is LEFT and what was not destroyed. Their production have been seriously hindered however, their CAPABILITIES are still questionable. There have been a number of documentation discoveries by UNSCOM detailing Iraqi efforts to hide the actual number of weapons they produced.

quote:

A poor nation, with no relevant existing infrastructure, is going to struggle to develop these sorts of weapons. The only real danger is the weapons left over from before the Gulf War, and even then I think that their threat is being severely overplayed. This is what Hans Blix had to say about it a few hours ago: http://www.news.com.au/common/story...5E25777,00.html

A poor nation with a 1.5 billion dollar military budget ... and that's only the official quoted figure, who knows how much is spent on secret programs.

quote:

So the point is, Iraq may still possess a few disjointed reminents of a long extinct chemical/biological program, but this alone is no justification for war. If the inspectors were given the opportunity to do their job, there is a chance - a good chance - that the remaining weapons could have been cleared up, and that Iraq could have been disarmed peacefully. Instead we go to war because Iraq "may" have weapons.

I agree, most of my arguments are based on "may", "could", "possibly", etc. However, it's not the world's obligation to prove that they definetely have WOMDs it is IRAQ'S obligation to eliminate ALL doubts as to its WOMDs arsenal and production. Since they have failed to comply fully and unconditionally with the UN (again where is the UN report saying that Iraq is doing everything they possibly can to assist weapons inspections?) they have failed to prove to the world that they don't possess these weapons. This is not an innocent until proven guilty topic. This is a parole hearing. THEY have to prove to us not vice-versa.

quote:

If any chemical and biological weapons are used against American forces, then I will genuinely feel for the soldiers (it's not their fault that they're there afterall) but ultimately the blame lies as much with Bush and co. as it does with Saddam Hussein. Over the past 12 years Saddam Hussein has given no indication that he has any intention of using whatever weapons he may have left against other nations. If he uses them in self-defence, then, as much as he should (and will) be condemned for it, part of the blame must go with those who orchestrated this wholly unnecessary war. If you throw a man into a cage with a tiger, you must accept some of the responsibility when he gets mauled.

Please see my last post from last night

quote:

Is that justification for war though? Iraq probably could have done more, but I think that they did much more than was expected of them and what does it matter if it takes them 2 days or 2 years to fully disarm (as Hans Blix said, even if the Iraqis were to fully disarm tomorrow, it would take at least two months to verify it - it's not an overnight job)? Resolution 1441 does not authorize war in this case. Paragraph 12 of resolution 1441 states that the security council must reconvene after a report from UNMOVIC declaring that the Iraqis were not complying (which hasn't happened): "[...] to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security."

I disagree, what was EXPECTED of them was that they would pass inspections with no complaints. You can't say that, since we're used to them being liars and cheats that 2 honest answers is better than what was expected so we're making effective progress. And with regards to it taking at least 2 months to fully verify their disarmament, they've had 11 years!

quote:

Nonetheless, even if we assume that the Resolution had been breached by Iraq, it does not open the door for unilateral US action (that is to say, a US led offensive without UN approval). The US can't say that a broken UN resolution is justification for war, when war in this case would be going against the will of the UN in the first place! They either accept what the UN has to say, or they ignore everything, they can't have it both ways. You can't pick and choose which laws you wish to abide by and which you ignore.

It's not an issue of a broken resolution. It's an issue of a broken truce agreement.

quote:

I don't disagree with inspections though. The stats I posted above demonstrate that the inspections were largely successful and - I can only assume - that more pro-active rigorous inspections this time round would have been just as successful. If Saddam Hussein has WMDs then they need to be taken off him, I don't disagree. What I do disagree with, though, is rushing to war - at an unjustifiable costs both in pecuniary and humanitarian terms - when the diplomatic process hadn't yet run its course and, indeed, had only just resumed after 4 years of relative US apathy (where did this desperation to disarm Iraq suddenly come from?).

This desparation came after 9/11 when US foreign policy shifted gears from being complacent to pro-active

quote:

Is the data I posted above significant enough to show that post Gulf-war inspections were successful enough to give them another try this time around?

My take on the matter is that the data is inconclusive.

quote:

Nonetheless, if he did have these weapons in any great quantity, we'd have a smoking gun by now, I'm certain of it. With all the intelligence that the US armed the UN with, and after hundreds of random/suprise inspections the UN have turned up nothing apart from 13 empty missles a couple of months ago and discovered that the Al Samoud missiles - which were declared by Iraq - travelled further than they were meant to (the Iraqis showed them the inspectors the missiles assuming that there was no breach in the terms of Iraqs disarmourment, but they were found to be able to travel 87 km further than the limit). So yes, there is still a great deal of uncertainty about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or not, but even if we take the worst case scenario (that Iraq still has all the material that the US says it hasn't declared) I still don't feel that there is just cause for war especially when you consider that North Korea and Iran have admitted to having nuclear programs (something the Iraq definately does not have).

You're presenting two opposing arguments. First you're saying you're SURE that Iraq doesn't have WOMDs because we didn't find the smoking gun and then you're saying that there's still a great deal of uncertainty as to whether they have WOMDs or not. If they do and they are hiding it, then there IS just cause for a war. Let's say I get in a war with you and you surrender on the terms that you will no longer buy tomatoes. If I find you buying tomatoes again I'm justified in going back to war with you! I told you explicitly the conditions of a peace, you agreed to it, and you violated it, so you lose out on peace.

quote:

Nonetheless, after spending most of the afternoon defending my position, I feel that I must add this: even though I am happy to continue justifying my position in this way for as long as I need to, surely the onus in this argument must be on Bush and his supporters to justify why war is necessary and not the other way around? We all know the horrors of warfare and why they should be avoided - so, working within this framework, can any of you say that the "chance" that Saddam Hussein has WMDs is worth $100 billion or more, not to mention the certain deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi people, with as much right to life as you or I? Would you still think the conflict was just if the cost were tens of thousands of American lives instead? Do you not feel that there is any other way this issue can be solved without the need to resort to warfare? Do you feel that the removal of Saddam Hussein is likely to solve these problems?

Like I said before, it's not up to Bush to justify the war, it's up to Iraq to prove to the world that its unjustified. If it is unjustified I expect the UN to declare the war as an illegal act. We'll see if that happens. As for the worth of this war with respects to cost. We don't know because we don't know the true costs yet. 1 innocent may die or 10 million. It may cost a lot, it may not. You can't place a price cap or perform cost-benefit analysis on foreign policy because the issue extends beyond cost. Is there any other way to resolve this issue? Maybe ... we just don't know.

Its so funny how Tiesto14 went from tying to be articulate and argumentative a month ago to comming back to his own name-calling idiotic and propagated american self.

In all honesty Tiesto14, you really do know how to make an idiot of yourself.

Do you actually think people here are going to take your word over Rnenegades?

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Keep acting stupid..... I like laughing at you!

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa You are speaking like all Iraqis are one single person. How are innocent Iraqi civilians and conscripts related to the WMD, and why should they suffer a land invasion for the WMD? Can't the WMD be eliminated without American troops? I'll answer this myself. Even if Saddam suddenly started speaking the truth and complying 100%, he couldn't prove that Iraq doesn't have any WMD. How can he know whether or not some of his generals snatched some WMD into their own caches? If Bush wants to be convinced that all the WMD have been destroyed, he needs to have trustworthy American troops to check out every square yard of the Iraqi soil. It's unlikely that America will immediately find all WMD caches, so they'll need to stage their military there permanently to prevent former Baathists from digging out WMD from well-hidden caches and selling them to Al-Qaidas. That's the problem with the WMD, and especially with chemical and biological weapons. When they exist, they'll be hard to destroy without leaving lingering doubts. Conclusion: the Iraqi civilians will be collateral damage in a long-term occupation, so that Bush can keep an eye on the Iraqi bad guys. Or perhaps the bad guys will be taken to Quantanamo, and all info about hidden caches tortured out of them.

Why ask the question when you're gonna answer it yourself?

No Iraqi civilians aren't at fault for their leaders possessing WOMDs. And it's unfortunate that they're all pawns in this. However, foreign policy revolves around the actions of governments not people. If the two could be seperated then the world would be a lot better of a place but they can't.

Yes you're correct that we would never be 100% for sure that the WOMDs were all destroyed. However we aren't demanding 100% assurity, we were demanding 100% compliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King ... propagated american self.

I must have been asleep when the word American became a derogetory remark.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Just a rhetorical device to help me continue with my argument. Nothing personal, as usual.

I know I was joking

Tiesto14, if you have a point, it would be nice see you express it in a way that we could actually understand it the right way, not the ignorant way. You seem to spitting up in the air and your own spit seems to fall right into your face. You actually have no idea on who you are throwing your words to, and why. I didnt bother to read all 4 threads, but just your first posts.
First, I would only like to say that, the French were never defending Saddam Hussein or what ever sort you thought inbetween your brain cells. The French as well as the other nations against war, were against it for one reason, and that reason does not mean that they are Saddam's friends. The actual reason was because WAR is not the answer and from their view of point, and the view of point of actually majority around the world, as well americans, is that Why Attack Iraq?!?! ( Classic questions here ), what has Iraq done to the US? Is IRAQ an actual threat?!?! what proof do we have that they are linked to AL QUAEDA?!?... The point from what the US was on was that, its been 11 years and Iraq hasent disarmed, and the logical answer for that, was probably because there was no PRESSURE on them, also, the same pressure now on IRAQ, if held, we could have Iraq disarm, and the US government give out evidence if tehy claim that Iraq has the weapons.. also, not to denie that Iraq didnt have weapons, but to actually disarm him through diplomacy and through other ways, but not a WAR like the US and allies will start in less then 3 hours. So whatever side you are on, you are actually showing to everyone in here what a fool you are, jsut by the way you are speaking, saying what you said about the French, Im happy that not every country jumps out the building if the US tells them too.. US can be a superpower, but that doesnt mean that everyone should do what they say, and I think that many like you, and the US presidency got very surprised when many didnt support the action on which they are on now. I personally dont support it, as Im not convinced on why and what. Iraq does have the weapons I think, but a WAR like this all of the sudden its no justification, even if its after 9/11, Iraq was not behind 9/11. All I can do now though is pray that everything is done fast, and that what Bush is doing now, will HOPEFULLY not go farther then Iraq.. I pray that things dont get worst( nationally and economically)..I pray that the casualties are less then though, And I pray that better times come, and that the elections arise through the Horizon, I just PRAY!

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I don't think there's any doubt that Iraq still possesses some reminants of its biological/chemical weapons programs from the late 80's (guess who funded them?) but my argument was always that firstly the US are overplaying the quantity and quality of these weapons and the threat that they pose. Iraq would never be stupid enough to use these weapons against another nation just for the sake of it (even though they don't have the means to now that they've destroyed half the Al Samoud's - which would struggle to make it past the Iraqi borders if launched from Baghdad anyway) and, as I have said time and time again, the threat is nowhere near significant enough to justify the high-level of civilian casualties that will doubtless ensue (especially if Saddam Hussein does use what biological weapons he has - ironically, this war could provoke the kind of scenarios - namely the deployment of cheical/biological weapons - that it was trying to prevent). This isn't some sort of movie about good vs evil, or us vs the terrorists. This is warfare, and people will die. It is not the kind of undertaking we should be entering into on the "hunch" that Saddam may have a 15 year old vial of Anthrax hidden somewhere. I severely doubt that you would sacrifice friends of members of your family on the off-chance that Iraq has WMD's and it's unfair of you to expect that innocent Iraqi's should make this sacrifice just to appease your vague concerns. Human life is more precious than that.

I agree.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.