The Iraq Thread 2

[Major Fubar 0]

<snip> He was a bad person and the world is better off now that he doesn't have power <snip>

[sarcasm]You know, many people and countries around the world feel that way about George Dubbya...does that make it OK for them to invade the USA?[/sarcasm]

No one is saying that Sadam was a good guy or in fact that it isn't a good thing that he has been removed...but the fact of the matter is that the USA had no right to take it upon themselves to remove him, especially since their flimsy excuse for a reason (WMD) has so far proven to be nothing but a red herring.

IMHO Iraq was about a misplaced sense of national outrage and revenge for S11...

[Cannon Fodder 0]

Quote[/b] ] never said we had conclusive proof. What we did have were the Satellite Imagery (Interpreted by experts)

Satellite imagery, one of which, although interpreted by experts, turned out to be a mushroom field. To go to war on the basis of a misinterpreted picture would have been ludicrous.

Quote[/b] ]We also had the fact they they kicked out the UN Inspectors...

The only people who kicked out the UN inspectors this time were the coalition forces who wanted to wage war. The UN inspectors would have been allowed to continue their work had war not been declared. Why such a rush? Surely if the coalition forces 'know' there are WMD and are so eager to find the WMDs Iraq has / was allegedly hiding, they would have let the inspectors continue their work?

Quote[/b] ]...the fact he has used chemical weapons before...

So he's bound to have them now, is he? Let's say I go and rob a corner shop with a sawn-off shotgun. I'm convicted and I am imprisoned for a number of years. A couple of days after my release, I am accused of robbing another corner shop. Because I have committed an offence before, does that, in your eyes, mean I am bound to have committed the following offence?

It may seem as though I am defending the former Iraqi regime - I am not. By questioning what both the US and UK governments have provided us with as evidence, I am excersing my right as an individual to make an objective opinion on what I am led to believe. It's every citizen's duty, regardless of nationality, to make sure that they try to ascertain a more 3 dimensional view of world issues. So far the governments of the coalition forces have failed to convince me that the war with Iraq was justified. I have been misled (45 minutes? Links with Al Qaeda?) and wish to question said governments. If a government is going to wage a war in my name, I deserve to be given conclusive evidence as to why such a war is justified.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps the concept of a simple yes or no question is beyond some of you.

Yes, I'm afraid it is beyond me at least. The reason you may ask - is that the world in general - and international politics in particulare - is all about nuances. No black and white - no simple answers like yes or no! What kind of a simpleton world do you live in anyway?

Quote[/b] ]Did Iraq, provide conclusive proof, that it had destroyed any or all weapons of mass destruction that it had.

No they didn't - but then again - how is that possible to do at all? Would you know for sure that everything is accounted for? Should one in that case allow for weapons inspectors to continue whith their job to prove or falsifie such an acclaim?

[ralphwiggum 6]

Perhaps a little historical memory:

in 1996(or was it 98?) it turns out some of UN inspectors were working for CIA planting eavesdropping devices and etc, and that was the reason why Saddam kicked UN inspectors out.

A simple question: where is proof that Iraq had WMD?

[Harnu 0]

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps the concept of a simple yes or no question is beyond some of you.

Yes, I'm afraid it is beyond me at least. The reason you may ask - is that the world in general - and international politics in particulare - is all about nuances. No black and white - no simple answers like yes or no! What kind of a simpleton world do you live in anyway?

Quote[/b] ]Did Iraq, provide conclusive proof, that it had destroyed any or all weapons of mass destruction that it had.

No they didn't - but then again - how is that possible to do at all? Would you know for sure that [/i]everything is accounted for? Should one in that case allow for weapons inspectors to continue whith their job to proove or falsifie such an acclaim?

It's an easy concept, and you're calling me a simpleton? I'm an American for God's sake, it comes with the territory!

How could he have proven that he destroyed/dismantled his WMD's? He could have shown where if any were denotated, video recordings, paperwork, picutres.

My point isn't that he had to have accounted for all of it, but that he had really not accounted for any of it.

Since there was no proof he did disarm, that is part of the proof we had to attack. If he didn't get rid of them, magic sure didn't carry them on a magic carpet out of there.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Quote

...the fact he has used chemical weapons before...

So he's bound to have them now, is he? Let's say I go and rob a corner shop with a sawn-off shotgun. I'm convicted and I am imprisoned for a number of years. A couple of days after my release, I am accused of robbing another corner shop. Because I have committed an offence before, does that, in your eyes, mean I am bound to have committed the following offence?

It sure wouldn't be out of character if someone did do that.

As for the above two replys to my quotes Cannon Fodder, like I said, these have all been said, and cycled through, why do you need to keep arguing with them?

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's an easy concept, and you're calling me a simpleton? I'm an American for God's sake, it comes with the territory!

Hehe...sorry about the simpleton-thing. I was perhaps a wee bit out of line.

Quote[/b] ]How could he have proven that he destroyed/dismantled his WMD's? He could have shown where if any were denotated, video recordings, paperwork, picutres.

I guess you couldn't - but you could perhaps present proof that he still had it I guess. Seems fair to me.

Quote[/b] ]My point isn't that he had to have accounted for all of it, but that he had really not accounted for any of it.

While I could be wrong on this one I seem to remember at least two occasions where the WI found destroyed WMD's buried in the ground. I'll try to find a link somewhere!

Quote[/b] ]

Since there was no proof he did disarm, that is part of the proof we had to attack. If he didn't get rid of them, magic sure didn't carry them on a magic carpet out of there.

If I thought you nicked my bicycle and you did not. Wouldn't it be at least a bit unfair if I demanded you to show me the bike - and if you didn't I'd give you a bloody nose? Now how simple isn't that

[Harnu 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Quote

How could he have proven that he destroyed/dismantled his WMD's? He could have shown where if any were denotated, video recordings, paperwork, picutres.

I guess you couldn't - but you could perhaps present proof that he still had it I guess. Seems fair to me.

If him not showing anything as far as proof that he did infact dismantle them, is not not proof that he very well could still have them?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Quote

Since there was no proof he did disarm, that is part of the proof we had to attack. If he didn't get rid of them, magic sure didn't carry them on a magic carpet out of there.

If I thought you nicked my bicycle and you did not. Wouldn't it be at least a bit unfair if I demanded you to show me the bike - and if you didn't I'd give you a bloody nose? Now how simple isn't that

Unfair, somewhat. But it happens anyway

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]If him not showing anything as far as proof that he did infact dismantle them, is not not proof that he very well could still have them?

Possesion my dear Watson - not dismantled proof. How can you present something you don't have? For all we know, a video recording of a destruction process could very well be a video of Dr. Peppers beverage being thrown into a destruction oven.

Now, can you please "strangulate your objections" , because we are indeed running around in circles  

[Major Fubar 0]

I must admit, even though I was (and am) totally opposed to the US invading Iraq, resolutiion 1441 DID place the onus of proof on Iraq to show the weapons had been destroyed...

[brgnorway 0]

I must admit, even though I was (and am) totally opposed to the US invading Iraq, resolutiion 1441 DID place the onus of proof on Iraq to show the weapons had been destroyed...

That's correct, but it is silly as hell. That's what you get when the rest of the world tries to buy time in order to avoid an attack on Iraq which seemed imminent.

[Harnu 0]

Quote[/b] ]If him not showing anything as far as proof that he did infact dismantle them, is not not proof that he very well could still have them?

Possesion my dear Watson - not dismantled proof. How can you present something you don't have? For all we know, a video recording of a destruction process could very well be a video of Dr. Peppers beverage being thrown into a destruction oven.

Now, can you please "strangulate your objections" , because we are indeed running around in circles  

Damn Placebo, I knew that nickname would kick me in the ass someday!

Anyway, I would think that destroying all his weapons would have been majorly publisized. It would have been quite the significant event. And US Intel would indeed have known about something that big.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, I would think that destroying all his weapons would have been majorly publisized. It would have been quite the significant event. And US Intel would indeed have known about something that big.

So are you saying there was no WMDs? Wouldnt us "intel" get to know if they were destroyed? Or wouldnt us "intel" for now had found WMDs if there were any?

[Harnu 0]

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, I would think that destroying all his weapons would have been majorly publisized.  It would have been quite the significant event.  And US Intel would indeed have known about something that big.

So are you saying there was no WMDs? Wouldnt us "intel" get to know if they were destroyed? Or wouldnt us "intel" for now had found WMDs if there were any?

I'm saying they may not have been destroyed afterall. The various Iraqi Division could hide them and get away with it, much easier than it would be to Dismantle/Destroy them.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Anyway, I would think that destroying all his weapons would have been majorly publisized.

No? The last thing a dictator would admit to is losing. Besides, showing that something is being destroyed on tape does not mean anything. As it was mentioned earlier, it could have been Dr. Pepper or something.

The key was to prove that Iraq had possession of WoMDs. Iraq presented a dossier that answered about 80% of the questions. They also proceeded to dismantle a few missiles that Blix wanted destroyed straight away.

This situation is very similar to 1914, when Austria-Hungary made ridiculous demands to Serbia, Serbia complied with all of them but one single point which would have sacrificed their national sovereignty, and Austria went to war with them anyway.

Anyhow, as it stands at the moment, governments have lied to their people. Some governments claim they were given false information. Well, too bad, a government does not only need to justify its actions, but it also needs to take responsibility for them. If it acts on false intelligence, it is just as guilty, particularly because intelligence gathering is part of the government anyway. Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush have a lot to answer for, and I hope that the voters will show their disapproval at the upcoming elections.

[-TU--33ker 0]

I´m glad Bush found an explanation for the missing WMD´s...

Does anyone here still believe he is not a liar ?

If anyone still believes him I suggest to check his Cincinatti speech and read the Washington Post.

The truth and nothing but Bush´s truth...

hmmm this link wants me to give away my personal information!

Damn CIA!

Very good article anyway.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Perhaps the concept of a simple yes or no question is beyond some of you.

Did Iraq, provide conclusive proof, that it had destroyed any or all weapons of mass destruction that it had.

Now it's quite simple, yes they did, or no they didn't.

Not "counterquestion" or "don't you think that" or "shouldn't it be...".

I wasn't asking for an argument.  I'm asking for one, single word.  Either yes, or no.

is a Republican way of seeing things. Unfortunately the world is not alway yes or no!  By this stage of the Iraq-war I hoped that some of the over-optimstic should have learned that.

Did Saddam provide us with proof of WMD? No! Did he have to, YES! So what?

Quote[/b] ]...and I'm sure those in the Pentagon would have conducted a feasibility report stressing this exact eventuality

The whole reasoning to attack Iraq was nothing else than a "feasability study". Yes, it was likely that Iraq stores weapons of mass destruction" But the probability is no proof. And as you might know there are some very optimistic feasability studies and some very pessimistic ones. And then there are the ones which are biased.

All they do is to persuade instead to convince. And this is what Bush and Blair provided. They provided some recycled information, up-sexed it and sold it as the OFP-GOLDEN-PLATINUM 2000 ULTRA VIP LIMITED (directors cut) edition!

More fundamentally, most Americans still do not accept the critics' premise. One recent poll found that a third of the population actually believes that weapons have been discovered, even though the best investigators have come up with are a couple of vehicles some experts say might have been mobile bio-weapons laboratories. According to a Gallup survey last week, 83 per cent of Americans believe Saddam was developing nuclear arms, despite no serious evidence to support that view.

But some people buy any shit that is sold to them!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. troops psyched up on a bizarre musical reprise from Vietnam war film "Apocalypse Now" before crashing into Iraqi homes to hunt gunmen on Saturday, as Shi'ite Muslims rallied against the U.S. occupation of Iraq

Article

[Die Alive 0]

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. troops psyched up on a bizarre musical reprise from Vietnam war film "Apocalypse Now" before crashing into Iraqi homes to hunt gunmen on Saturday, as Shi'ite Muslims rallied against the U.S. occupation of Iraq

Article

hehe, I read that on a extreme left news post board with the title: U.S. plays anti-Semitic Nazi music to 'inspire' troops in Iraq! They cited saying that Hitler was a big fan of his music, and now the US forces using that music makes them Nazis too.

God I love the extreme left, always entertaining.

-=Die Alive=-

[turms 0]

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. troops psyched up on a bizarre musical reprise from Vietnam war film "Apocalypse Now" before crashing into Iraqi homes to hunt gunmen on Saturday, as Shi'ite Muslims rallied against the U.S. occupation of Iraq

Article

I think that is quite absurd...I mean boosting the morale with effects as in videogames or movies? Reality bites..

[Longinius 1]

Art, imitating life, imitating art?

[Crazysheep 1]

Quote[/b] ]How could he have proven that he destroyed/dismantled his WMD's?  He could have shown where if any were denotated, video recordings, paperwork, picutres.

But why hsould he take photos, when he has a nice pretty report from the UN to bring back to the CIA saying that they have destroyed the weapons.....

I am quite amazed that in 2 pages nobody has pointed out to you that the UN destroyed Saddams WMDs way back in 1997..........I thought that was common knowledge.

[Harnu 0]

Quote[/b] ]No? The last thing a dictator would admit to is losing. Besides, showing that something is being destroyed on tape does not mean anything. As it was mentioned earlier, it could have been Dr. Pepper or something.

The key was to prove that Iraq had possession of WoMDs. Iraq presented a dossier that answered about 80% of the questions. They also proceeded to dismantle a few missiles that Blix wanted destroyed straight away.

If the last thing a dictator would admit to is losing, then why did he say that his WMD's were gone? And those missiles they were destroying, how many didn't they even get rid of? I can't recall if they had done away with all of them.

Quote[/b] ]is a Republican way of seeing things. Unfortunately the world is not alway yes or no! By this stage of the Iraq-war I hoped that some of the over-optimstic should have learned that.

Did Saddam provide us with proof of WMD? No! Did he have to, YES! So what?

HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A REPUBLICAN!

No the world isn't yes or no, my question was. Either he did provide conclusive proof that his weapons were gone, or he didn't provice conclusive proof that his weapons were gone.

...*mumbles*... rebulican... hmmpf!

Quote[/b] ]But why hsould he take photos, when he has a nice pretty report from the UN to bring back to the CIA saying that they have destroyed the weapons.....

I am quite amazed that in 2 pages nobody has pointed out to you that the UN destroyed Saddams WMDs way back in 1997..........I thought that was common knowledge.

So you think the UN Weapons Inspectors then had destroyed all WMD's, he never made more, and he never had any hidden away?

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]So you think the UN Weapons Inspectors then had destroyed all WMD's, he never made more, and he never had any hidden away?

I think so, until prooven other. Now isnt it up to the coalition to proove me wrong? Or is it not?

[Crazysheep 1]

So you think the UN Weapons Inspectors then had destroyed all WMD's, he never made more, and he never had any hidden away?

1) No, the statistics say that they destroyed 90%....and let's not forget 70% of Iraqs military was crushed in the devastating bombing campaign of the first gulf war, which means when the UN destroyed these this was already significantly less than it was a decade beforehand.

2) No, because they destroyed all the factories that made WMDs and filled up the mining shafts of mines which mined.....stuff involving their creation. It is also not easy to hide a weapons factory, and none were found, so do you really think it's likely he made more?

3) Yes, he did have some hidden away-the Al Samoud missiles....or, perhaps, where these not illegal at the time?

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

If the last thing a dictator would admit to is losing, then why did he say that his WMD's were gone?   And those missiles they were destroying, how many didn't they even get rid of?  I can't recall if they had done away with all of them.

What I meant was that he would not say to the world "Look, I just destroyed all my WoMDs, as you wished".

To get him to say that, they had to hold a gun to his head, thats all I meant. I thought you were talking about Saddam telling everyone that he had finished complying with the resolution before the crisis?