|
US gives up on WMD search (pg. 14)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ResonantDrag |
| quote: | Originally posted by smokeape
Search ain't over until someone does an anal cavity search of Saddam!
Problem is they haven't found a volunteer yet.
;)
[[[smoke]]] |
keep us posted on that one;) |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
:toothless
 |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
Yeah, the mass graves argument is really flawed on its own, because those happened years ago, they weren't happening anymore. People in the Bush administration who also worked for Reagan (e.g. Rumsfeld) and also think tanks who promoted the war were aiding Saddam at the time and helped him get the chemical weapons that caused those graves. If that was the argument, there are current graves being filled in other countries today that we choose to ignore, though they could be prevented with action.
It was always about WMDs as the issue for why we needed to go to war, until they were not found. Everything else, like bringing democracy and mass graves was window dressing to the cause for war. Think about this fact: Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum to provide the U.N. with lists of his WMDs, allow inspectors unlimited access and destroy weapons or else he would be removed. So, if Saddam HAD followed those steps (if he still had WMDs to turn over at the time, rather than us thinking he was lying when he said he had nothing) we would have left him in power! If there was a concern over mass graves continuing and that's really why we acted, why would we have provided him a scenario to remain in power as a dictator and continue doing that to Iraqis?
This argument is simply an after-the-fact attempt to justify the action since their main reason was not true. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
What the cartoon fails to convey is how, at the time, we were very eager to give him any chemical that he wanted. |
Yes, and at the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, several countries contributed chemicals and it was the U.S. that led the embargo of selling chemicals to Iraq in the U.N.
All this before Saddam's head grew out of proportion and his synapse snapped... |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
Yeah, the mass graves argument is really flawed on its own, because those happened years ago...
|
So I guess that makes it ok then huh?
| quote: |
...they weren't happening anymore.
|
With Saddam not being there; that would be the more correct term.
| quote: |
People in the Bush administration who also worked for Reagan (e.g. Rumsfeld) and also think tanks who promoted the war were aiding Saddam at the time and helped him get the chemical weapons that caused those graves. If that was the argument, there are current graves being filled in other countries today that we choose to ignore, though they could be prevented with action.
|
Let's not kid outselves, as stated in my previous post, the U.S. are not alone in this arguement.
And we're forgetting our time line.
The mass graves are those of his own people only days after the Iran-Iraq war.
War is one thing; commiting genocide on your own people is totally different.
No I'm not say one is better than the other, but in war, there are rules of conduct. (at least, there is supposed to be).
| quote: |
It was always about WMDs as the issue for why we needed to go to war, until they were not found. Everything else, like bringing democracy and mass graves was window dressing to the cause for war.
|
While WMDs were the main point, they weren't the only point.
It was the one most accepted however, and apparently the only point Leftists seem to grasp.
| quote: |
Think about this fact: Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum to provide the U.N. with lists of his WMDs, allow inspectors unlimited access and destroy weapons or else he would be removed. So, if Saddam HAD followed those steps (if he still had WMDs to turn over at the time, rather than us thinking he was lying when he said he had nothing) we would have left him in power!
If there was a concern over mass graves continuing and that's really why we acted, why would we have provided him a scenario to remain in power as a dictator and continue doing that to Iraqis?
|
The man repeatedly violated 16 UN Security Council resolutions.
How many times does one have to ask before steps are taken?
If Saddam HAD followed the steps?
Highly unlikely, but it was obvious that the benefit of the (world's) doubt was given and Saddam hung himself with it.
| quote: |
This argument is simply an after-the-fact attempt to justify the action since their main reason was not true.
|
While it is true that the WMDs were not found, it is also true that WMDs existed.
Did they just disappear? More likely they went over the border before they were found... |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
While WMDs were the main point, they weren't the only point.
It was the one most accepted however, and apparently the only point Leftists seem to grasp.
|
I'll say it again: Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum to provide the U.N. with lists of his WMDs, allow inspectors unlimited access and destroy weapons or else he would be removed. So, if Saddam HAD followed those steps we would have left him in power! Saddam staying in power = no democracy, no mass graves argument. It was about WMDs & security, that was THE argument. Otherwise there's no reason not to have taken action long before September 11th. I will find the Ari Fleisher quote on this if I have to.
The mass grave argument doesn't hold up if we were willing to leave him in power for meeting totally separate guidelines. Please show me one specific credible source (e.g. not Sean Hannity), just one, that states that one single mass grave was filled in the last decade from genocide? The people who he attacked long ago were the Kurds and he was since unable to get to them with the no fly zone in the north.
The mass graves happened YEARS ago and we just suddenly decided that we were going to take action? Why wasn't Bush concerned about them when we said we would not be the world's policeman when he ran in 2000? Also, then when are we invading the Sudan? They are allowed to currently fill graves? Make no mistake, Saddam was a war criminal, but there are many others we ignore who do the same things & there simply hasn't been a major PR campaign to highlight these leaders to the public. If something is based on principle, you can't pick & choose who is allowed to break the rules and who can't.
As far as U.N. resolutions, how many have been made regarding Israel/Palestine? Furthermore, how was Saddam breaking a resolution with inspectors on the ground that were finding no WMDs? Right when the inspectors were pulled before the start of the war, the biggest violation was Iraq was not destroying Al Samuud missiles that went several kilometers further than treaties allowed at a rate deemed fast enough. You have to have proof that WMDs exist and know that for a FACT before you go to war based on them. The search has already has been given up. Show me the Daily Show clips again! |
|
|
| occrider |
Look, it all boils down to a simple cost-benefit analysis. Forget ideology and idealism. What pro-war activists have failed to establish is the reconciliation between what was promised and the elimination of a regime actively involved in state terrorism that actually constituted a threat. Is the removal of a regime that had no connections to 9/11 and no weapons of mass destruction worth the $120 billion + and 1400 American lives spent?
idealism. democracy in the middle east. I'm a goddamn libertarian realist. The money I'm spending is not worth the "freedom" their getting. We willingly allow North Korea to exist despite concentration camps, torture, and their threats because it's not worth it to respond. As such, I welcome anyone to make a case that Iraq was more of a threat than n. Korea ever was that justifies this kind of response. WHY should American lives and American tax dollars be spent on this cause? Can ANYONE answer that question with a straightforward response? |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
As such, I welcome anyone to make a case that Iraq was more of a threat than n. Korea ever was that justifies this kind of response. WHY should American lives and American tax dollars be spent on this cause? Can ANYONE answer that question with a straightforward response? |
Because we never would have gotten to know Baghdad Bob and you would be without an avatar if we invaded NK instead? |
|
|
| DampCold |
| I think this could have all been avoided if either they didn't withdraw in the first Gulf War or the UN started taking a stronger stance on things. As it is now, nobody cares about what the UN says because they don't back it up. I think the UN should hit hard and fast on countries and/or leaders that violate human rights. Diplomatic pressure only works if there are consequences for not following warnings/sanctions. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergenc...imeline_03.html
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/con...91/h910221g.htm
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
and we just suddenly decided that we were going to take action? |
1984
The State Department announced on 6 March that, based on "available evidence," it "concluded" that Iraq used "lethal chemical weapons" (specifically mustard gas) in fresh fighting with Iran.
On 20 March, U.S. intelligence officials said that they had "what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has used nerve gas in its war with Iran and has almost finished extensive sites for mass-producing the lethal chemical warfare agent".
European-based doctors examined Iranian troops in March 1984 and confirmed exposure to mustard gas.[15] The UN sent expert missions to the battle region in March 1984, February/March 1986, April/May 1987, March/April 1988, July 1988 (twice), and mid-August 1988. These missions detailed and documented Iraq’s CW use.
According to the Washington Post, the CIA began in 1984 secretly to give Iraq intelligence that Iraq uses to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. In August, the CIA establishes a direct Washington-Baghdad intelligence link, and for 18 months, starting in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive U.S. satellite reconnaissance photography...to assist Iraqi bombing raids." The Post’s source said that this data was essential to Iraq’s war effort.
The United States re-established full diplomatic ties with Iraq on 26 November, just over a year after Iraq’s first well-publicized CW use and only 8 months after the UN and U.S. reported that Iraq used CWs on Iranian troops.
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html |
|
|
|
|
