No More Places to Look for WMDs...

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

This is a few days old, but somehow it passed under everyone's radar... HMMM...

 

U.S. hunt for Iraqi banned weapons slows

DAFNA LINZER

Associated Press

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. military units assigned to track down Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have run out of places to look and are getting time off or being assigned to other duties, even as pressure mounts on President Bush to explain why no banned arms have been found.

 

After nearly three months of fruitless searches, weapons hunters say they are now waiting for a large team of Pentagon intelligence experts to take over the effort, relying more on leads from interviews and documents.

 

"It doesn't appear there are any more targets at this time," said Lt. Col. Keith Harrington, whose team has been cut by more than 30 percent. "We're hanging around with no missions in the foreseeable future."

 

Over the past week, his and several other teams have been taken off assignment completely. Rather than visit suspected weapons sites, they are brushing up on target practice and catching up on letters home.

 

Of the seven Site Survey Teams charged with carrying out the search, only two have assignments for the coming week - but not at suspected weapons sites.

 

Lt. Col. Ronald Haan, who runs team 6, is using the time to run his troops through a training exercise.

 

"At least it's keeping the guys busy," he said.

 

The slowdown comes after checks of more than 230 sites - drawn from a master intelligence list compiled before the war - turned up none of the chemical or biological weapons the Bush administration said it went after Saddam Hussein to destroy.

 

Still, President Bush insisted Monday that Baghdad had a program to make weapons of mass destruction. "Intelligence throughout the decade shows they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced that with time, we'll find out they did have a weapons program," he said.

 

The Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency said work will resume at a brisk pace once its 1,300-person Iraq Survey Group takes over.

 

Ahead of the war, planners were so certain of the intelligence that the weapons teams were designed simply to secure chemical and biological weapons rather than investigate their whereabouts, as U.N. inspectors had done.

 

But without evidence of weapons, the CIA and other intelligence agencies have begun reviewing the accuracy of information they supplied to the administration before the March invasion of Iraq. Government inquiries are being set up in Washington, London and other coalition countries to examine how possibly flawed intelligence might have influenced the decision for war.

 

"The smoking guns just weren't lying out in the open," said David Gai, spokesman for the Iraq Survey Group. "There's a lot more detective work that needs to be done."

 

The group will work more along the model of U.N. weapons inspectors.

 

Future sites in the search will be compiled from intelligence gathered in the field, and the teams will be reconfigured to include more civilian scientists and engineers, Gai said.

 

Several former U.N. inspectors from the United States, Britain and Australia, who know many of Iraq's top weapons experts, will also be brought in.

 

Led by Keith Dayton, a two-star general from Defense intelligence, the Iraq Survey Group is settling into headquarters in Qatar rather than Iraq. However, it will maintain a large presence of analysts and experts on the same palace grounds outside Baghdad where the weapons hunters are based.

 

Several dozen staffers have moved to the palace and into other buildings, now being turned into classified document centers, living quarters and office space for the Iraq Survey Group.

 

With prewar intelligence exhausted and senior figures from the former regime insisting Iraq hasn't had chemical or biological weapons in years, Dayton's staff will be starting from scratch.

 

"We've interviewed a fraction of the people who were involved. We've gone to a fraction of the sites. We've gone through a fraction of thousands and thousands and thousands of documents about this program," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said Sunday.

 

Intelligence agents and weapons hunters have been speaking with scientists and experts for the past month, but those interviews have not led the teams to any illegal weapons and none of the tips provided by Iraqis have panned out.

 

U.N. inspectors spent years learning the names and faces of the Iraqi weapons programs. But in postwar Iraq, the Bush administration cut the organization out of the hunt because of recent assessments that conflicted with Washington's portrayal of Saddam's weapons.

 

Relations soured further amid reports that U.S. troops failed to secure Iraq's largest nuclear facility from looters.

 

This week, a U.N. nuclear team returned to Iraq to survey the damage at Tuwaitha - where 2 tons of uranium had been stored for more than a decade. They began scanning the facility and its equipment for leaking radiation and signs of missing uranium.

 

One weapons team, specializing in nuclear materials, has been tasked to accompany the U.N. experts until they leave on June 25.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Wow, never in my life would I have imagined that a thread like this would get 53 views and zero replies.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

if it's true.... I was right. Or you guys aren't looking hard enough.

 

It's Iraq...look for the one building that doesn't look like it was made in the 20's and that's were they'll be.

[Guest JMA]

Don't worry, Tyler. I'm sure someone on the board will make more excuses to why we haven't found any weapons...

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

like...

 

"we must be using U.N. weapons Inspector's!"

 

or

 

"It's the size of California, blah blah excuse excuse"

 

?

[Guest Powerplay]

Don't worry, Tyler. I'm sure someone on the board will make more excuses to why we haven't found any weapons...

Of course, you can just use the dozens of other good reasons to justify the war, but meh. On the article itself, I'm taking it with a grain of salt. There are two ways you can look at this:

 

1) Right from the page, there aren't any WMDs in Iraq. Blair and Bush were both grossly misinformed by their respective intelligence people, though it doesn't give any support to the "unnecessary war" theory since Saddam being out of power is still a good thing.

 

2) Given that the French delayed the US and UK from getting approval by the UN gave Iraq plenty of time to hide their weapons (Bury them in the middle of the desert. We can't dig up every foot of sand...) that we still need to keep looking. Should we really expect them to be sitting out in the open when we were obviously on a collision course with them?

 

At any rate, it doesn't give the Anti-War people any foothold to say this war wasn't necessary or justified, since there are dozens of other convincing reasons that Saddam should have been unseated. But take it as you will.

[Guest Powerplay]

"It's the size of California, blah blah excuse excuse"

This ISN'T a legitimate excuse? Christ, we expect a lot, don't we?

 

And please, give me an excuse to why this war SHOULDN'T have happened? Massive casualties? Eco-disaster? The Middle East in flames? Terrorist justification? Guys, just give it up. The war happened, turned out it was a good thing, get over it. Hell, it even came in under budget and ended quickly. What's the problem here?

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

the REASON given was to defend yourselves from the threat of attack from Iraq. There at this time is no proof of and WMD's nor was Iraq capable of posing any other type of threat to America in any significant way.

 

Yeah Hussein out of power MAY be good. MAY be. But what if someone worse comes to power. it's happened before. and now the middle east is going to hate the West even more than they already did.

 

If bush/blair were misinformed then that says something about American Intelligence agiences doesn't it?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

1) Right from the page, there aren't any WMDs in Iraq. Blair and Bush were both grossly misinformed by their respective intelligence people, though it doesn't give any support to the "unnecessary war" theory since Saddam being out of power is still a good thing.

 

Agree wholeheartedly, but the problem I have is the following.

 

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” Dick Cheney speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

 

“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.” George W. Bush speech to U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

 

“If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.” Ari Fleischer press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

 

“We know for a fact that there are weapons there.” Ari Fleischer press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

 

“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” George W. Bush State of the Union address, Jan. 28, 2003

 

“We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.” Colin Powell remarks to U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

 

“We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.” George W. Bush radio address, Feb. 8, 2003

 

“So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? My judgment, I think our judgment, has to be clearly not.” Colin Powell remarks to U.N. Security Council, March 7, 2003

 

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” George W. Bush address to the nation, March 17, 2003

 

“Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly ... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.” Ari Fleischer press briefing, March 21, 2003

 

“There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And ... as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.” Gen. Tommy Franks press conference, March 22, 2003

 

“I have no doubt we’re going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.” Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman in Washington Post, Page A27, March 23, 2003

 

“One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.” Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clark press briefing, March 22, 2003

 

“We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” Donald Rumsfeld ABC interview, March 30, 2003

 

“Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find — and there will be plenty.” Neo-conservative scholar Robert Kagan in Washington Post op-ed, Apr. 9, 2003

 

“I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.” Ari Fleischer press briefing, Apr. 10, 2003

 

“We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.” George W. Bush NBC interview, Apr. 24, 2003

 

“There are people who in large measure have information that we need... so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.” Donald Rumsfeld press briefing, Apr. 25, 2003

 

“We’ll find them. It’ll be a matter of time to do so.” George W. Bush remarks to reporters, May 3, 2003

 

“I’m absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We’re just getting it just now.” Colin Powell remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003

 

“We never believed that we’d just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.” Donald Rumsfeld Fox News interview, May 4, 2003

 

“I’m not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein — because he had a weapons program.” George W. Bush remarks to reporters, May 6, 2003

 

“U.S. officials never expected that we were going to open garages and find weapons of mass destruction.” Condoleezza Rice Reuters interview, May 12, 2003

 

“I just don’t know whether it was all destroyed years ago — I mean, there’s no question that there were chemical weapons years ago — whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they’re still hidden.” Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, commander, 101st Airborne, press briefing, May 13, 2003

 

“Before the war, there’s no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.” Gen. Michael Hagee, commandant of the Marine Corps, interview with reporters, May 21, 2003

 

“Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we’re interrogating, I’m confident that we’re going to find weapons of mass destruction.” Gen. Richard Myers, chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, NBC Today Show interview, May 26, 2003

 

“They may have had time to destroy them, and I don’t know the answer.” Donald Rumsfeld remarks to Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003

 

“For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.” Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair interview, May 28, 2003

 

“It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it’s not for lack of trying. We’ve been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they’re simply not there.” Lt. Gen. James Conway, commander, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, press interview, May 30, 2003

 

 

 

Source: Eric Alterman

 

 

 

That doesn't sound like "maybe", that doesn't sound like "there could be, but..."

 

That sounds like they are using THAT as the justification for war -- the fact that Iraq presents a direct and grave danger to us vis a vis their WMD program -- and we must stop it at once.

 

Guess what?

 

They're not here.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

okay Tyler, that's WAY better than the way I put it. Props.

[Guest Powerplay]

See, thing is, the war is over. The right thing was done, everything is still intact. An evil dictator is out of power, and the Iraqi people have a chance at democracy and it was all done with a minimum amount of casualties on both sides. I fail to see how the bitching about WMDs really matters besides trying to somehow save face because the sky didn't fall down during the war. Jesus, do I harp about you thinking there would be thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead in the war, Tyler? No, because its over now. What would be the point besides to bitch? All that matters is that we DID go in and do the right thing.

 

Secondly, I fail to see the justification that the war was somehow bad because "Well, they said THIS was the reason and it might be wrong" when there are tons of proven reasons we should have went in anyways. If there were other reasons that they should have gone to war, why does it matter that one might turn out to be wrong? Really, I don't see a point in all this arguing after the fact.

[Guest JMA]

Those quotes are very damning to the Bush administration. On an unrelated note, I wonder if some of our non US posters will change their custom titles to read "Evil Foreigner" now.

[Guest Anglesault]

Yeah Hussein out of power MAY be good. MAY be. But what if someone worse comes to power. it's happened before.

Someone worse coming in in no way means that Saddam leaving was a bad thing.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

See, thing is, the war is over. The right thing was done, everything is still intact. An evil dictator is out of power, and the Iraqi people have a chance at democracy and it was all done with a minimum amount of casualties on both sides. I fail to see how the bitching about WMDs really matters besides trying to somehow save face because the sky didn't fall down during the war. Jesus, do I harp about you thinking there would be thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead in the war, Tyler? No, because its over now. What would be the point besides to bitch? All that matters is that we DID go in and do the right thing.

 

Secondly, I fail to see the justification that the war was somehow bad because "Well, they said THIS was the reason and it might be wrong" when there are tons of proven reasons we should have went in anyways. If there were other reasons that they should have gone to war, why does it matter that one might turn out to be wrong? Really, I don't see a point in all this arguing after the fact.

Look just because these reasons are proven to YOU doesn't mean it really IS a proven fact. The statement that WMD's were in Iraq was presented as a fact, and they haven't found any.

 

I think you AMericans give Hussein too much credit. He was a bad man, there's no doubt there but he isn't Satan incarnate, Nor was Iraq a major threat.

 

and If war is about doing the right thing then you would have gone to War against Russia during the cold war, against China now, and joined WW2 right away.

 

War *isn't* about the right thing. "The right thing" is what people use to justify their actions. you think the 9-11 bombers didn't think their actions were justified? I'm sure they did.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I had a bitchin' reply, but Dames fucked it up.

[Guest JMA]

In all honesty, no country on Earth is a true threat to the United States. We're that powerful. The real threats, IMO, are terrorist groups who move around constantly.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

All that matters is that we DID go in and do the right thing.

 

[snip snip] Really, I don't see a point in all this arguing after the fact.

These are the two ideas in here that don't sit well with me. I don't think all that matters is that we did go in and do the right thing, and I think there is absolutely and utterly huge, huge reasons to argue this after the fact. I'm an ends don't justify the means guy.

 

It is good that Saddam Hussein is out of power. It is good that the Iraqi people will now, hopefully before too many years have passed, get themselves a government that won't murder them. It is good that the war went off without too many hitches in terms of combat, and with a relatively low loss of life.

 

However, it's not good that this sort of lazy administrating has the potential to be the new precedent. I think the point in arguing this after the fact and really seriously looking into the reasons that our country stated it was going to war is so that this potentially flawed intelligence, flawed interpretation of intelligence, and flawed execution of intelligence DOESN'T happen again. I'm all for the results, but this is one time. If there aren't WMDs, we got lucky. We did a good thing and no one got too chafed by it. But that's one time. I don't like the idea that the US can go to war so certain of something that now might turn out to be unsubstantiated. It is a dangerous idea, and one of the chief reasons that I do not plan to vote Republican in 2004--not so much because I don't want Bush in office, but because I don't want this administration as a whole making haphazard choices for another four years.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I figure it'll take a year or two at least to search everywhere and discover everything about the Iraqi regime. We're still discovering WWII materials and that was brought to an end almost 60 years ago.

 

I'm just waiting for proof or a lack of proof at this point. There's no real reason to argue it anymore, since we've already gone in and done our thing. Not like it's going to bring back all the lives and buildings and restore health to everyone injured or wounded. If they end up saying they can't find anything, it'll be the administration's job to deal with the situation, because a lot of people weren't satisified with the objective of eliminating a dictator, they wanted to see proof of weapons too. This could, if people's attention spans last long enough to care (because no explosions and shooting = no one pays attention for the most part), be the one thing that robs Bush of a second term.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I don't really care if there are "no places to look," but I think there should be some explaining regarding theintel we got which seemed to convice people like Tony Blair that Iraq had WMDs (I personally think they did)...

[Guest Vern Gagne]

2) Given that the French delayed the US and UK from getting approval by the UN gave Iraq plenty of time to hide their weapons (Bury them in the middle of the desert. We can't dig up every foot of sand...) that we still need to keep looking. Should we really expect them to be sitting out in the open when we were obviously on a collision course with them?

That's how I look at it. Why was Hussein playing games with the weapons inspectors if he didn't have anything to hide. Iraq claimed not to have weapons but they gave misinformation to the inspectors. Like they where trying to hide something.

 

IMO, the war should of started earlier than it did. President Bush didn't gain anything by trying to convince countries like France, Germany, and Russia to join the coalition. World opinion didn't change because the US waited. I really think if the war would of started in January we would of found WMD's by know. Iraq had too much time to hide WMD's. They'll be found eventually, because yes Iraq is the size of California.

[Guest Powerplay]

Look just because these reasons are proven to YOU doesn't mean it really IS a proven fact. The statement that WMD's were in Iraq was presented as a fact, and they haven't found any.

...

 

It's a FACT that Saddam has kidnapped, tortured, and killed hundreds of innocent people during his reign as dictator.

 

It is a FACT that his unpredictability and his aggressiveness (He's invaded Iran, Kuwait, and I believe he's attacked Turkey (Though I may be wrong on the last on)) are a constant threat to the stability of the region and a blocker to a longstanding peace.

 

It is a FACT supported Terrorist operations (The $25,000 to the family of any homicide bomber in Israel).

 

It's a FACT that the man is the primary reason that the Iraqi people were suffering the way they were.

 

IF (And if is stressed. Kotzenjunge is right when he says it'll take a few years to learn the whole story. Christ, all you people want everything done in a month and a half...) the WMDs are proven wrong it doesn't suddenly eliminate these reasons for the unseating of Hussein. Whoever gave out the false intelligence will have hell to pay, but it doesn't dim the other reasons for going in.

 

I think you AMericans give Hussein too much credit. He was a bad man, there's no doubt there but he isn't Satan incarnate, Nor was Iraq a major threat.

 

It was a threat to the Middle East, which does affect us greatly. Saddam was a timebomb; he wasn't going to sit around content to twiddle his thumbs in one of his many Presidential palaces. He was waiting for a chance to do something, whether it actively attack another country or provide aid to those who would attack someone. Again, the $25K comes to mind. He wouldn't rest as long as Israel existed so it was necessary to take him out to further the peace process. And allow me to repeat this man has tortured, kidnapped, and summerarily executed hundreds of innocent people. This is only "bad" in your book?

 

and If war is about doing the right thing then you would have gone to War against Russia during the cold war, against China now, and joined WW2 right away.

 

So you are giving me the choice to prematurely end both the bloodiest war in the history of man (And thereby saving the greater part of the 52 million people lost) and saving two countries from horribly oppressive tolitarian regeimes (We could have attacked Russia after WWII while Stalin was still around: Our troops were fresh as can be, we had the manpower and most importantly the manufacturing power to take on the war-weary Russians, especially after they would begin losing much of there mechanized equipment from us. With China, we could have theoretically taken them out during the Korean War if we had followed MacArthur's advice and pressed forwards and even used the Atom Bomb against them.) from mistreating their people like dogs and basically putting them three steps behind all other civilized countries in the modern world. Hmmm... Absolutely. To save millions upon millions of lives from endless suffering, death, and ignomy is far greater than just trying to keep the status quo. But whatever.

 

War *isn't* about the right thing. "The right thing" is what people use to justify their actions. you think the 9-11 bombers didn't think their actions were justified? I'm sure they did.

 

I've given all the justifacations to SHOW YOU why it's the right thing to do. I thought you could catch it on your own, but you didn't seem to so I spelled them out for you. And on the comparison, cops and murderers can both justify their actions, but a comparison between the two doesn't work.

 

Edwin: I say the right thing was done because of the reasons above. Iraq is a special case, really, because the issue was so Black and White: We knew he was evil because of everything he's done, so even if one reason doesn't pan out (And remember, we still don't know if there are or are not WMDs give it some time, people), it was still the smart and the right thing to do because of all the other reasons surrounding it. I'm not sure I could make the same case other countries because, well, Saddam was a really a one of a kind thing.

 

If they end up saying they can't find anything, it'll be the administration's job to deal with the situation, because a lot of people weren't satisified with the objective of eliminating a dictator, they wanted to see proof of weapons too.

 

Actually, if you believe the polls they show that less and less people care about finding weapons in Iraq. I'm guessing because all the people really cared for was Saddam being out of power because it is universally accepted that he was an evil person and he needed to be eliminated. *Shrugs*.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Sure, the people polled were all good with eliminating Sadaam, but polls don't elect people. More politically-minded people who might still have issue with no evidence of weapons are the ones who vote. What was the 2000 election turnout? 44% of the voting population? In this small percentage, you're more liable to get the politically charged and active citizens voting instead of Billy Blow who didn't pay much attention and only knows that "he was a bad man, and now he's gone," or whatever your average citizen would present as a comment on the affair.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

Edwin: I say the right thing was done because of the reasons above. Iraq is a special case, really, because the issue was so Black and White: We knew he was evil because of everything he's done, so even if one reason doesn't pan out (And remember, we still don't know if there are or are not WMDs give it some time, people), it was still the smart and the right thing to do because of all the other reasons surrounding it. I'm not sure I could make the same case other countries because, well, Saddam was a really a one of a kind thing.

 

That's the trick of it, Judge. I'm happy as hell that Saddam was deposed, and I agree that the entire situation was a one of a kind thing. I entirely approve of the cessation of that regime. But you see what I mean, I think, when I say that I'm worried that this administration--or any other administration in the future of our country--could use this special case as precedent for something not so clear-cut in the future. If the intelligence doesn't have to be perfect, and the reasons to get the support of potential allies don't have to be entirely substantiated...I think you can see where my qualms lie.

 

Of course, if the weapons are found, I will happily renege on this concern and hope that the post-war congressional inquiries just smooth things out, so in the future there will be less anxiety in the interim between declaration of war and substantiation of claim.

[Guest SP-1]

I can't believe people are pointing fingers and demanding answers so soon after the war. The country is the size of California, mostly desert, and had countries blocking us long enough to get things hidden. Saddam was equipping his own men with gas masks, his regime blatantly misled their own people with propaganda during the war when it was obvious that they were lying, and his own people, driven from his country by his evil ways and threats, pleaded for him to be driven from power.

 

I'm glad alot of people alive today were born to be alive today. They'd have been lost back when evil was evil and had to be stopped, political justification be damned. I hate politics, they serve only as a means to justify greed, or to deter those who seek to do a greater good.

 

If we dont find WMD's, then I hope whomever provided the bad intel is prevented from doing it again. Personally, I'd have much rather we simply said that he's an evil son of a bitch, his people should be free, and we went in and took him down. Much cleaner, easier, and, I believe, harder to argue against.

 

And to those who might say that it wasn't our place, then I ask you whose place was it? The rest of the world defends him for political gain, popularity. If we were ruled by a power that kills for merely speaking against it, that put people to death for different beliefs, that controlled and tormented us, would it be wrong for a superpower elsewhere to recognize injustice and come and fight with us and for us? Or would the milksops sit back and cry about how wrong war is while their own families are slaughtered for daring to dream of freedom?

 

This world disgusts me. It truly does.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

I'm glad alot of people alive today were born to be alive today. They'd have been lost back when evil was evil and had to be stopped, political justification be damned.

 

Uh, like when? This struck me as a really weird and kinda short-sighted statement. Can you elaborate?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Related article:

 

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=655182003

 

Aziz and other Iraqi leaders have pretty much disappeared, according to reports. I'm sure it's just a vacation with Idi Amin by Riyadh. "Tariq is gone fishing"

 

One fallacy of logic that I heard from.. I forget who, somebody around Rumsfeld, or a talk radio guy is "Since we can't find Saddam, that doesn't mean that he doesn't exist". Fallacy: We've seen pictures of Saddam, alot of pictures. We haven't seen pictures of these WMDs in Iraq. (Unless the aerial shots of places that we presented to the UN were really the WMDs)

 

"If we dont find WMD's, then I hope whomever provided the bad intel is prevented from doing it again."

 

If the provider was Chalabi or an INC member, what actions would you take? what actions would you expect? How would you prevent bad intel? sending him off to another country (like Jordan, where he was convicted of fraud)? Killing him?

 

"Personally, I'd have much rather we simply said that he's an evil son of a bitch, his people should be free, and we went in and took him down. Much cleaner, easier, and, I believe, harder to argue against."

 

Yeah, especially if you are prepared to invade China, North Korea, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Zimbabwe, Libya, and Myanmar. Alot of countries are run by evil bastards, but something has to make Iraq more urgent of a 'freeing' than Myanmar or freeing China. And Cuba too, get Fidel out of power. Liberacion de Cuba!

 

in the President's speech on March 17, you can see how he went over WMDs and their threat in the hands of the Iraqi government.

 

The reasons of the war don't have equal strength. If the WMDs are shown to be exaggerated or absent, then the credibility of the war will suffer. No matter how justifible freeing the people of Iraq is.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Look just because these reasons are proven to YOU doesn't mean it really IS a proven fact. The statement that WMD's were in Iraq was presented as a fact, and they haven't found any.

...

 

It's a FACT that Saddam has kidnapped, tortured, and killed hundreds of innocent people during his reign as dictator.

 

It is a FACT that his unpredictability and his aggressiveness (He's invaded Iran, Kuwait, and I believe he's attacked Turkey (Though I may be wrong on the last on)) are a constant threat to the stability of the region and a blocker to a longstanding peace.

 

It is a FACT supported Terrorist operations (The $25,000 to the family of any homicide bomber in Israel).

 

It's a FACT that the man is the primary reason that the Iraqi people were suffering the way they were.

 

1. Who's to say who is innocent? Do you really know if everyone he tortured is innocent. I'm in no way saying they deserved to be tortured I'm merely playing devils advocate. Hussein may have seen it as eliminating threats to his power. Just as America saw eliminating HIM as ending a threat to their power.

 

2. I don't think there's anything unpredictible about Hussein at all, his actions were all fairly obvious and had been predicted by some years before taking place. Yes he's invaded other countries but if invading countries is wrong shouldn't America be in trouble? the UK? Germany? Russia? China? every other country that's invaded a country?

 

And I really think that Hussein was a minor eliminate in preventing peace in the Middle East, in fact by removing him I think you've actually worsened things in the long run.

 

3. So has Isreal and Palestine, and probably the majority of other nations in the Middle East.

 

4. Maybe. But you can't say that for sure. The middle east is a poor region and there's no real reason or proof to show that someone worse than Huessein would have ruled Iraq n his stead.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Look just because these reasons are proven to YOU doesn't mean it really IS a proven fact. The statement that WMD's were in Iraq was presented as a fact, and they haven't found any.

...

 

It's a FACT that Saddam has kidnapped, tortured, and killed hundreds of innocent people during his reign as dictator.

 

It is a FACT that his unpredictability and his aggressiveness (He's invaded Iran, Kuwait, and I believe he's attacked Turkey (Though I may be wrong on the last on)) are a constant threat to the stability of the region and a blocker to a longstanding peace.

 

It is a FACT supported Terrorist operations (The $25,000 to the family of any homicide bomber in Israel).

 

It's a FACT that the man is the primary reason that the Iraqi people were suffering the way they were.

 

1. Who's to say who is innocent? Do you really know if everyone he tortured is innocent. I'm in no way saying they deserved to be tortured I'm merely playing devils advocate. Hussein may have seen it as eliminating threats to his power. Just as America saw eliminating HIM as ending a threat to their power.

 

2. I don't think there's anything unpredictible about Hussein at all, his actions were all fairly obvious and had been predicted by some years before taking place. Yes he's invaded other countries but if invading countries is wrong shouldn't America be in trouble? the UK? Germany? Russia? China? every other country that's invaded a country?

 

And I really think that Hussein was a minor eliminate in preventing peace in the Middle East, in fact by removing him I think you've actually worsened things in the long run.

 

3. So has Isreal and Palestine, and probably the majority of other nations in the Middle East.

 

4. Maybe. But you can't say that for sure. The middle east is a poor region and there's no real reason or proof to show that someone worse than Huessein would have ruled Iraq n his stead.

1) Wow, justifying torture now? Man, you must REALLY hate Bush --- you are sounding ridiculous at this point. You, no doubt, feel fo those poor souls at Guantanamo --- but those Iraqis tortured by Saddam --- they must have had it coming.

 

The man tortured soccer players who didn't play well enough. How do we know? THE PLAYERS TOLD US SO. He imprisoned little kids who wouldn't join the Ba'ath party. How do we know? WE FREED THEM. He gassed Kurds --- lots of them. How do we know? HE ADMITTED TO IT.

 

And, just as an aside --- Iraq threatened to unleash chemical and biological weaponry upon our troops when they begin heading towards Baghdad. Even though it didn't happen --- why would the threat have been made?

 

2) Fine, his actions are predictable -- he invades his neighbors. I guess no bad person invades other countries. God knows invading others is NOT a good reason to remove a guy from power. No sir.

 

And, uh, in the past, I don't know, 90 years --- who have we invaded? Heck, we're the greatest power IN HISTORY yet we hold virtually NO possessions worldwide.

 

I guess they don't make empires like they used to.

 

And, quite frankly, we SHOULD do something about Russia's treatment of their "breakaway" republics and about how China treats Tibet.

 

And removing Saddam makes things WORSE in the long run?

 

I'm DYING to hear this --- how?

 

3) Israel supports terrorism? You seem to mistake retaliation for terrorism.

 

Look at this past week --- who started it?

 

Look at ALL of Israel's wars --- who started them?

 

I guess because they're "stronger", Israel should not do anything about people slaughtering their citizens.

 

Thank God you have no power in any country.

 

And, please note, if we ATTEMPT to tell others in the Middle East to stop supporting terrorism, people like you immediately claim we wish to invade the Middle East for its oil.

 

4) So, because somebody worse MIGHT rule --- we should just do nothing about Saddam.

 

Thank God people chose to ignore THAT asinine line of logic during World War II.

-=Mike --- "Don't replace Hitler --- you might get somebody worse" --- sincerely, The French

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

I didn't say NOT to replace Saddam. I said you can't garuntee it'll be better without him. and any time a country is leveled by bombardment and it's leaders killed it creates havoc and can cause problems in the future.

 

I in no way advocate Saddam's torture of anyone. that is wrong. I merely said that he beleived he should do it. Other nations torture people perhaps in more brutal ways. But it's Iraq America focus's on not China or Russia.

 

I apoligize If I seemed to be on Saddam's "Side" I just disagree with this war and I think that America's leaders don't give a damn about the suffering of people in Iraq or any other nation even their own.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I didn't say NOT to replace Saddam. I said you can't garuntee it'll be better without him. and any time a country is leveled by bombardment and it's leaders killed it creates havoc and can cause problems in the future.

 

I in no way advocate Saddam's torture of anyone. that is wrong. I merely said that he beleived he should do it. Other nations torture people perhaps in more brutal ways. But it's Iraq America focus's on not China or Russia.

 

I apoligize If I seemed to be on Saddam's "Side" I just disagree with this war and I think that America's leaders don't give a damn about the suffering of people in Iraq or any other nation even their own.

I say the odds are DRAMATICALLY in favor things being better without him. Again, if you're waiting for a GUARANTEE that things will be better when a despot is deposed, you'll NEVER be satisfied. We couldn't guarantee that things would be better after Pol Pot, Idi Amin, the Soviet Communist Pary, Hitler, et al --- but the odds were pretty good that they WOULD be.

 

Your words were "How do we know they're innocent?" (the being the victims). That is a justification for it --- a piss poor one, mind you, but one nonetheless. And, again, you're saying "Well, you should take on people who do worse" --- but if we DO that, you will bitch about THAT as well. You --- and the int'l left --- cannot be pleased and, thus, are largely ignored.

 

Well, if you think that about America's leaders, then you're a blithering idiot. There is no way to sugarcoat it. You think that Bush et al don't give a damn about anybody, not even Americans? You sound even MORE idiotic now. And the world wonders why we dismiss their demented ramblings.

 

YOU are the one who'd rather Iraqis continue being tortured and slaughtered rather than risk somebody ELSE being in power.

-=Mike