No More Places to Look for WMDs...

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Just out of curiousity, what will America do about all the WMD's we know for sure that exist in North Korea and such? What do you think they should do about it?

 

Honest question is all...

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Those quotes are very damning to the Bush administration.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

 

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

 

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

 

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

 

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

 

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

 

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

 

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

 

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

 

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Acting on the intelligence they were given, who wouldn't respond that way?

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Acting on the intelligence they were given, who wouldn't respond that way?

Thank you.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I'll be willing to bet that it wasn't the Democrats who manipulated and trumped up the intelligence, though.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

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

I didn't say you Should take them on. I'm saying that America is being Hypocritical.

 

And if Bush and others did give a damn about Americans they wouldn't be spending so much on the Military and hell of alot more on healthcare, the elderly, and the poor.

 

I'm not an ignorant foreigner. I've spent lots of time In America. Particulary in the South states, where you can still find restruants with "No Blacks allowed" signs, and other racial slurs. I've driven by and talked to poor families who live in a small shack picking cotton for a living. You talk about being the best nation in the world well than look to your own first.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

 

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

I didn't say you Should take them on. I'm saying that America is being Hypocritical.

 

And if Bush and others did give a damn about Americans they wouldn't be spending so much on the Military and hell of alot more on healthcare, the elderly, and the poor.

 

I'm not an ignorant foreigner. I've spent lots of time In America. Particulary in the South states, where you can still find restruants with "No Blacks allowed" signs, and other racial slurs. I've driven by and talked to poor families who live in a small shack picking cotton for a living. You talk about being the best nation in the world well than look to your own first.

1) The "international community" is LADEN with cowards, hypocrites, and corrupt despots. If the "world" thinks we're "bad" --- then I have NO problem with that. This is the same band of nothing little people that would rather sit back and discuss HOW to solve a problem than to actually SOLVE it.

 

As to your point about the military --- of ALL of those things listed, ONLY the military is actually listed in the Constitution as a function of government (I've read it a few times). The rest are not. We, whether YOU like it or not, have the best health care system in the world --- hint: When leaders of foreign countries get REALLY sick, they seldom head to Canada for treatment. If you wish to be a bleeding heart, have a ball. We do, though, have a few more people than Canada and since, unlike Canada, we're called upon to pull the world's bacon out of the fire, you've been able to develop your "utopia" largely upon OUR sweat and tears. If we had a neighbor who'd protect us, we could spend a lot less on the military, too.

 

We don't have that option, though.

 

As for "No Blacks Allowed" restaurants still existing in the South, you're lying. I am not sugar-coating it and I am not mis-stating it. In simple English: You are LYING through your teeth on that and it is BEYOND pathetic. Your entire post is undone by this absolute and unmitigated lie. See, I LIVE in the South --- if these restaurants existed, it would be fairly obvious as the South, whether you know it or not, has A LOT of blacks living here. Far more than up North.

 

I'm doubt you've driven by a shack and talked to a poor family picking cotton. You've probably not even SEEN a cotton farm in your life. Just because you have seen "Roots" or various other films about the plight of poor blacks in the antebellum South does not mean YOU personally have the slightest clue as to what life is like here -- or that it comparable to the situation TODAY.

 

You don't see ME saying I know what Canada is like because I've seen "Strange Brew" or "Canadian Bacon", do you?

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I'll be willing to bet that it wasn't the Democrats who manipulated and trumped up the intelligence, though.

Of course, some of those quotes were from 1998.

 

How, exactly, could Bush have manipulated THAT intel?

-=Mike

[Guest SP-1]

It may not have happened on a large scale, but I'm sure there have been coups where a dictator was overthrown. Hell, WW2 is, to me, a good example of the recognition of evil and rising against it. I only wish we'd have entered the battle sooner instead of waiting around for it to directly effect us.

 

My wording was a bit strong. But my point is that it's disappointing that evil men are left to rule because others will defend them for political and social gain. Especially these days with the UN and that whole process.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

I'll be willing to bet that it wasn't the Democrats who manipulated and trumped up the intelligence, though.

Of course, some of those quotes were from 1998.

 

How, exactly, could Bush have manipulated THAT intel?

-=Mike

Trust me, he did.

 

He got C's in college, ya know.

 

[/sarcasm]

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

Fair enough. I've been largely of the disposition that a nation deserves the leader it has--that change/uprising/whatever has to be internal for it to really take--but I see your notion. I also think it's more important to attempt to have everything right, clear, and well-ground before playing Superman, which is where my misgivings in the precedent crafted lie.

[Guest SP-1]

If we find nothing over there, then I wish we'd have run our intel through the ringer. I'm starting to wonder if Bush isn't being straight up manipulated. He's a good guy at heart, i think, but let's face it: he doesn't appear to be that bright.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Don't no-sell me damnit!

[Guest SP-1]

Me?

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Heh, nah, just to posters in general, about my earlier reply asking what the US would do about all the WMDs in North Korea, and what they would do as well. Your opinion is valued, and welcome

[Guest SP-1]

North Korea is, to me, touchy. Saddam was believed to have had chemical weapons, which is pretty horrible, but these people are working on nukes, or already have them (I can't remember). Their leader hasn't exactly appeared all that stable. Best case scenario is to find a way to covertly take him out without too much fuss.

 

Or let China handle them eventually. But that might get ugly.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I pretty much agree with SP on North Korea. Going back to benefits of the Iraq War, I think it forced rogue countries like North Korea to take notice and understand that the U.S. isn't afraid to use force to remove a threat. The postering from Jung hasn't been at the level it was before the Iraq War.He'll still make his threats, but not at the level it once was.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Sorta unrelated..

 

what happened to those boats that supposedly had Iraqi WMDs hidden on them and they were refusing to ID themselves?

 

Anybody?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I have honestly never heard about any boats? Did this happen a few days ago, or a few months ago?

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Okay, this is obviously a little late, but I'm wondering what were everyone's justifications for this war? Freedom of the Iraqi people, Oil, removal of Saddam, whatever. I'm just curious as to what everyone believes the reasons were to go to war, and what you think of the aftermath....

[Guest SP-1]

For me, I believe that there are WMD's there. You don't defy the world courts and try to buy time and have other countries giving you weaponry and conspiring with you for more time if you're complying with the mandates handed to you. Saddam was doing something, something that was no good. Our government has to fly by the Intel it has. Whether that Intel was good or not, the decisions it makes have to be based on what it knows. Just like you or me or anyone else. A ruling body is still comprised of it's mere people.

 

Personally, I wouldn't have bothered with making the WMD's the central issue. I'd have directly stated that the reasoning was that he was a madman partaking in subterfuge, defying the world community, flying in the face of the laws that we came together to lay down. I'd have pointed out that he has innocent people executed for little to no reason, often for merely speaking against him. I'd have brought in refugees, the same who wept and begged Tony Blair to drive Saddam from power on live television. I'd have rallied the world against him because of his demented history of rule, and used WMD's and everything else as mere points in the bulletin.

 

But that's me. I prefer to deal with the heart of the matter and not find a way to skirt around it.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

While I must admit that those are good personal reasons, I find it hard to believe that George Bush really had it in his heart to save the Iraqi people. I mean, what about the whole Rwanda situation? Another point is that if I am correct didn't Reagan put this guy into power in the first place? True, they could easily feel that they made a mistake and decide to take him out, but I highly doubt the sincerity of that belief.

 

As for the good of the Iraqi people, I doubt they'd be more in favour of the US than Saddam, with the whole lesser of two evils thing. Saddam is a terrible man, but taking him out won't change their feelings about you, especially after an incident like "The Highway of Death". People don't forget something like that.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

While I must admit that those are good personal reasons, I find it hard to believe that George Bush really had it in his heart to save the Iraqi people. I mean, what about the whole Rwanda situation? Another point is that if I am correct didn't Reagan put this guy into power in the first place? True, they could easily feel that they made a mistake and decide to take him out, but I highly doubt the sincerity of that belief.

 

As for the good of the Iraqi people, I doubt they'd be more in favour of the US than Saddam, with the whole lesser of two evils thing. Saddam is a terrible man, but taking him out won't change their feelings about you, especially after an incident like "The Highway of Death". People don't forget something like that.

Nah, Saddam was in power long before Reagan ever got into office.

 

As for concern over the plight of Iraqis v Rwanda situation

 

1) We can't save everybody

2) Rwanda has a civil war going on --- Iraq didn't have that; just a vicious despot

3) If we DID try and save Rwanda, we'd be torn to shreds internationally --- so why SHOULD we?

 

And, I guess I'm totally ignorant here --- what the heck IS "The Highway of Death"?

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

For me, I believe that there are WMD's there. You don't defy the world courts and try to buy time and have other countries giving you weaponry and conspiring with you for more time if you're complying with the mandates handed to you. Saddam was doing something, something that was no good. Our government has to fly by the Intel it has. Whether that Intel was good or not, the decisions it makes have to be based on what it knows. Just like you or me or anyone else. A ruling body is still comprised of it's mere people.

 

Personally, I wouldn't have bothered with making the WMD's the central issue. I'd have directly stated that the reasoning was that he was a madman partaking in subterfuge, defying the world community, flying in the face of the laws that we came together to lay down. I'd have pointed out that he has innocent people executed for little to no reason, often for merely speaking against him. I'd have brought in refugees, the same who wept and begged Tony Blair to drive Saddam from power on live television. I'd have rallied the world against him because of his demented history of rule, and used WMD's and everything else as mere points in the bulletin.

 

But that's me. I prefer to deal with the heart of the matter and not find a way to skirt around it.

Thing is, people ignore that Bush DID give other reasons BESIDES WMD before the war.

 

Heck, I remember him saying that we're doing it to protect the legitimacy of the U.N just off the top of my head.

-=Mike --- not that saving the U.N's "legitimacy" is a good aim

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I admit that America shouldn't save everyone, since it's not their job. Who's to say that they should step in to solve all of the rest of the countries' problems. BUT, that sort of ruins your credibility when you cite one of the reasons for war to liberate their people.

 

Explain to me your stance on the Rwanda situation, and how you guys would be torn internationally. No sarcasm, I'm really curious.

 

The Highway of Death was one of the most disturbing war crimes in contemporary history. I honestly thought you were being sarcastic, or perhaps just didn't refer to it by that name. Who knows, maybe you are being sarcastic. Regardless, here's a helpful link: http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm

 

Just search all over the net, and you could find info on this. Here's one with a pretty famous picture. It's disturbing, so click at your own risk. http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm

 

I don't know about you, but after something like that, I sure as hell would NOT trust the US to liberate my people.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I admit that America shouldn't save everyone, since it's not their job. Who's to say that they should step in to solve all of the rest of the countries' problems. BUT, that sort of ruins your credibility when you cite one of the reasons for war to liberate their people.

 

Explain to me your stance on the Rwanda situation, and how you guys would be torn internationally. No sarcasm, I'm really curious.

 

The Highway of Death was one of the most disturbing war crimes in contemporary history. I honestly thought you were being sarcastic, or perhaps just didn't refer to it by that name. Who knows, maybe you are being sarcastic. Regardless, here's a helpful link: http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm

 

Just search all over the net, and you could find info on this. Here's one with a pretty famous picture. It's disturbing, so click at your own risk. http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm

 

I don't know about you, but after something like that, I sure as hell would NOT trust the US to liberate my people.

We have to pick and choose our battles. Nationalreview.com, right now, has a good piece going over the reasons why the war with Iraq was justified that has NOTHING to do w/ WMD. We want ALL people to be liberated --- just because we can't free ALL people does not mean we should not free ANY peoples.

 

Rwanda is torn asunder by a civil war. I feel that, ugly as they may be, civil wars can be NECESSARY. The U.S Civil War was VITAL for the future strength of America. I didn't think that intervention in Bosnia --- as bad as the atrocities may be --- was a good move because I do honestly believe that within our lifetimes, the hostilities that we ended will flare up anew and get even uglier.

 

And there is no doubt that if we tried to end it, we'd be called racist and imperialists. The int'l community makes doing the right thing such an unmitigated pain in the BUTT that doing the right thing is seldom desirable. Why should we constantly deal with headaches to help others? The world puts that mentality in our heads and it is sad.

 

I had never heard of the "Highway of Death" -- however, reading more on the deoxy.org website, I SERIOUSLY question their objectivity.

-=Mike

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Don't have time to leave a long reply now, but I will state that it's obvious that the site would be more slanted towards the left if they posted an article about that, as a right-wing site would never have posted it at all, thus explaining why you would've never heard of it.

 

Regardless of bias, the facts are there; Iraqi troops were withdrawing, and were massacred regardless. Again, I don't have time, but I'm sure you can look elsewhere.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Don't have time to leave a long reply now, but I will state that it's obvious that the site would be more slanted towards the left if they posted an article about that, as a right-wing site would never have posted it at all, thus explaining why you would've never heard of it.

 

Regardless of bias, the facts are there; Iraqi troops were withdrawing, and were massacred regardless. Again, I don't have time, but I'm sure you can look elsewhere.

Not necessarily. The left reported Jenin as a massacre --- it turned out to be an absolute farce and a lie.

-=Mike

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I seem to recall you telling me to shut my mouth so people wouldn't know that I was an idiot, after I mentioned that I felt the US Media was spewing propaganda about being for the war in Iraq(Which I believe it was, but that's another argument). But hey, if Fox News is what you prefer over those crazy Lefty conspiracy experts over at TIME magazine, than I suggest you heed your own advice.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Maybe it is the american's people's will that was manipulated and not Bush's. I don't like this notion being presented right now that Bush was just the innocent guy being told what buttons to push. I mean look, no one is trying to say they are sad to see Saddam out of power, however a question worth asking is, was it necessary. All this, "freedom comes with a price" rhetoric is a load of crap. How in the hell was Iraq threatening USA's "freedom" in any way? Unless you were a citizen hiding in your closet, whenever the "terror threat" went up to orange.

 

The main thing I, among others have said from before the war started was simply, that the reasons behind this were most likely not having to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction, rather other reasons not being told to the american people. I am sure there are tons of reasons why we went to war with Iraq, but the BIGGEST QUESTION I ask, is.......Was this war necessary?