|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,182
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 8 hours, 35 minutes
|
Re: A year in the life of the WMD-ometer [Re: HagbardCeline]
#2943974 - 07/30/04 09:18 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
You're desperate to find some kind of justification for this war. I guess you just can't admit that you were wrong.
Absolutely none of the reasons you list are good enough to warrant a war that costs US tax payers BILLIONS of dollars, costs soldier's lives and costs the US our reputation and crediblity.
-------------------- -------------------------------- Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
Re: A year in the life of the WMD-ometer [Re: Xlea321]
#2944130 - 07/30/04 10:07 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
No, Duelfer said this on the radio a few weeks ago.
|
Vvellum
Stranger
Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
|
Re: A year in the life of the WMD-ometer [Re: Learyfan]
#2944257 - 07/30/04 10:49 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You're desperate to find some kind of justification for this war. I guess you just can't admit that you were wrong.
Absolutely none of the reasons you list are good enough to warrant a war that costs US tax payers BILLIONS of dollars, costs soldier's lives and costs the US our reputation and crediblity.
|
HagbardCeline
Student-Teacher-Student-Teacher
Registered: 05/10/03
Posts: 10,028
Loc: Overjoyed, at the bottom ...
Last seen: 1 month, 10 days
|
Re: A year in the life of the WMD-ometer [Re: Learyfan]
#2944437 - 07/30/04 11:55 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
But the fact remains he was violation. We had every right to dispose of him. Especially considering he was failing to live up to his obligations. He was still developing missles in violation, and as David Kay, the man everyone loves to quote as saying the stuff isn't there said, he had retained the ability to resume production of these substances also in violation. All he had to do was prove what he said was true. If he had nothing to hide he would have just allowed the inspectors free reign as he promised. He didn't allow this as he obviously had something to hide.
To blaim Bush for this assinine. He adopted the same position as his predecessor which was also the same of rest of the world.
Put the conspiracy theories to bed for one minute and put yourself in his shoes. He was the leader of this country when it was attacked. For the first time in our history a president faced the worst civilian casualties and destruction we'd seen on our soil. With the potential for something much worse. Don't dismiss the severity - our very existence is at stake.
While I believe politicians are still self-serving and often don't act in the best interests of populace, most just want power and money. I don't believe he wants us dead or enslaved. In fact, not protecting us would threaten the very things they covet.
He begins a campaign to do what he can to make our world a safer place. Like it or not, it certainly wasn't without logic.
Saddam was a brutal dictator, that murdered with little indescretion. We had defectors claiming he still engaged in clandestine programs for the purpose of producing, or procuring weapons. Even his own son-in-law who led these programs (who was lured back and beheaded). Given the way he was dealing with the inspectors, it seemed obvious he had something to hide. We had evidence he was consorting with al Qaida - the very organization who admits to wanting nothing less than our complete annhilation and already responsible for numerous attacks against us.
You can say what you will about the intelligence after the fact. When dealing with something of this nature, there will always be conflicting ideas of interpretation. Oddly enough, before 9/11, it was nearly universally accepted Saddam was in extreme violation of his agreements and something would have to be done. His behaviour did nothing but reinforce this. Then suddenly when Bush decides its time to do something, some naysayers emerge. Taking positions contradictory to what they had once espoused. Curious? I think so. Especially when you remember the most outspoken critics were all found to have evidence pertaining to dealings with Saddam.
By the nature of these things, there will always be questionable materials. Evidence is usually circumstantial. As has been covered before, how many people do you believe are actually convicted with direct evidence? But observing the big picture - including proof that Saddam was still attempting the things agreed not to, proof he hadn't destroyed all the shells he claimed to have, proof he retained abilities he agreed not to, and proof he was not forthright - what other conclusion was Bush to arrive at? With what has been discovered no one can deny Saddam remained committed to aquiring these weapons. Again, even David Kay has said this was still the right thing to do because eventually Saddam would have attained what he saught. That alone would have been bad enough, but with the corruption in his regime, it is likely at least someone would have been willing to sell these weapons to terrorists.
So are a few shells worth it? No. Absolutely not. Hindsight is always 20/20.
When I was a younger I find out this guy (over some stupid shit) was going to kick my ass. He had a reputation as a bad ass, and I really didn't want to fight with him. I finally ran into him one night after leaving a club and he approached me. I reasoned my only chance was to hit him first, so after he'd gotten close enough and said enough to convince me of his intentions, I commenced to doing what I could. Quite to my surprise, he only landed a couple of hits and neither that bad. We were broken up and the cops came over and after finding out I was in the military, they told me to get out of there. The next day I find out he had had a dislocated shoulder at the time and just intended on talking shit to me. I didn't need to protect myself as the threat I perceived wasn't real, at least not at that time, but was I wrong to do what I did?
I don't think so, and neither do I think Bush was wrong.
-------------------- I keep it real because I think it is important that a highly esteemed individual such as myself keep it real lest they experience the dreaded spontaneous non-existance of no longer keeping it real. - Hagbard Celine
|
Vvellum
Stranger
Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
|
Re: A year in the life of the WMD-ometer [Re: HagbardCeline]
#2944844 - 07/30/04 01:04 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
so, miniscule technical reasons justify the deaths of thousands, the waste of billions of dollars (3 billion a month indefinitely), and creating more reasons for the unconverted to listen more dearly to the islamist propaganda (and possibly support or join the terrorist cell ranks)? personally, I wish all these resources and energy had gone into tracking down the obvious threats (bin laden's network) instead of going after these major what ifs, what ifs (iraq). but hey, we should all now by now, WMD is just a pretext and a shield for the invasion. Read the PNAC statement.
|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,182
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 8 hours, 35 minutes
|
Re: A year in the life of the WMD-ometer [Re: HagbardCeline]
#2945296 - 07/30/04 02:50 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, like Bio said your whole argument seems to hinge on "what if".
Do you think in times like these it was worth stretching our military dangerously thin while at the same time giving the enemy excellent recruitment material?
-------------------- -------------------------------- Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: A year in the life of the WMD-ometer [Re: HagbardCeline]
#2946859 - 07/30/04 11:38 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
In this piece she claims - and by extension you - that no WMD has been found. This is obviously false.
Come again? So Blair, David Kay, Kerry etc etc are saying WMD arn't there but they are all wrong and old Hagbard is right? Why don't you tell them WMD have been found? I'm sure they'd be over the moon.
Come on Hag, and you call me pure comedy
This was no dud.
I don't think you understand what a dud is. Read the article I posted recently by Scott Ritter.
But it is most certainly WMD
Nah, (even if we ignore the fact that most military experts consider that only nuclear weapons are WMD), a WMD would have to be described as a weapon that could cause mass death and devastation to a city - usually delivered by a ballistic missile. An artillery round isn't going to cause mass death and devastation to a city.
If one drop is enough to kill someone quickly,
You misunderstand the nature of chemical weapons. I posted an article by a military arms expert on this a while ago in which he explained why it was so incredibly difficult to use chemical and biological weapons effectively.
Do you deny he was in violation of his obligations?
Are you seriously saying that a 20 year old shell laid in the desert that even the Iraqis themselves didn't know existed constitutes a "threat from WMD"? If a Iraqi knew they had a stockpile of shells don't you think he'dve gone to the americans just after the war ended and said "Give me 20 million bucks and I'll take you where the shells are"? Don't you think one of the scientists would have told David Kay?
And remember, even if he was in breach of the UN resolution then it's up to the UN to decide what action is appropriate, not George Bush. There are countless countries in breach of UN resolutions all around the world.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
|