Iraq WMD report
-
Christian Graus wrote: I've had a revelation - Terry is actually Mike Moore trolling to try and make those who oppose his views look narrow minded, bigoted and stupid. I dunno why it took me this long to figure it out. HuuuuuuuuuUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHH?!??!?!??!?!? Christian Graus wrote: narrow minded Trust me - the width of my mind is in no way represented by the tiny slice of issues I choose to post about here. For you to suggest that a persons entire width of mind can be determined by their personal opinion about the Iraq liberation is rather troubling. Christian Graus wrote: bigoted Who do you think I am bigoted against? Christian Graus wrote: stupid I'd hate to think you found interest in debating issues with a stupid person.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!Terry O`Nolley wrote: I'd hate to think you found interest in debating issues with a stupid person. if it's good enough for Shakespeare... ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
See, I would also like to clarify that I am just trying to be a rational person, to look at facts (as they are being presented by various media) and try to draw a picture. Somehow to me it seems that there is no way he had WMDs. He destroyed everything so perfectly in such a short time that no trace remains of any WMDs. One has to be totally blinded, brain-washed or a total moron like Terry who pays no regards to any facts to be absolutely sure that Saddam was the threat that he was made out to be and that US did not make up facts here. Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
pankajdaga wrote: See, I would also like to clarify that I am just trying to be a rational person ok, but... pankajdaga wrote: (as they are being presented by various media) therein lies the problem. no one knows all the facts outside of those who have a need to know. the rest is fueled by liberal, gay, love the world, peace in cannibis, same sex marrige lobbying, narrow minded, think they are right because they love both sexes, live in the UK (or san fransisco), bush-hating because he's a man, elect the wallflowers for president type media. sheesh, stop pole smoking, love a woman (or man if ure female), have a family, get off wellfare, get off the weed, and take a look at the freaking world! See, this is what happens when peeople do away with God! I'd hate to be any of you at the second coming. :|
-
What happened to your "absence of proof is not proof of absence" mantra? Did you realize it could also be used to prove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot? Or maybe Bigfoot with WMDs! If they haven't been proved not to exist, then they must, right? :rolleyes: Terry O'Nolley wrote: will tell you that this means Bush lied 1) Bush said that Saddam had WMD and that this was a compelling reason to invade. I can provide links to speeches on whitehouse.gov if you don't remember. 2) This is now known to be a lie. Thus: Bush lied.
Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains. ~Robert G. Ingersoll, Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1
« eikonoklastes »
so without your vote, he'll surely lose this year's election, right? Or was that comment for Clinton... I can't remember :~ OP
-
pankajdaga wrote: See, I would also like to clarify that I am just trying to be a rational person ok, but... pankajdaga wrote: (as they are being presented by various media) therein lies the problem. no one knows all the facts outside of those who have a need to know. the rest is fueled by liberal, gay, love the world, peace in cannibis, same sex marrige lobbying, narrow minded, think they are right because they love both sexes, live in the UK (or san fransisco), bush-hating because he's a man, elect the wallflowers for president type media. sheesh, stop pole smoking, love a woman (or man if ure female), have a family, get off wellfare, get off the weed, and take a look at the freaking world! See, this is what happens when peeople do away with God! I'd hate to be any of you at the second coming. :|
in the words of Jimi Hendrix: I'm the one who's gonna have to die When it's time for me to die So let me live my life The way I want to ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
pankajdaga wrote: The UN inspectors were never given a chance! Ummmm... he threw them out. Please allow me to introduce myself - I’m a man of wealth and taste. I’ve been around for a long, long year - Stole many a man’s soul and faith
Mike Mullikin wrote: Ummmm... he threw them out. Actually, he didn't. http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html[^] John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
in the words of Jimi Hendrix: I'm the one who's gonna have to die When it's time for me to die So let me live my life The way I want to ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Well said :) Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
-
pankajdaga wrote: How come you are so whole-heartedly convinced that Saddam had WMDs? I think you need to read my other posts on this topic. I have repeated it many times. [sigh]. Ok, I am still leaning towards believing Saddam had weapons prior to the war. I have also said that this belief is lessening as new facts come in. The reasons I continue to believe he had weapons boil down to: 1) Saddam's listing of WMD he had after the first gulf war 2) Intel reports from at least 4 countries 3) Saddam's kicking out of the UN inspecters when they began visiting certain sites he wanted left hidden 4) Reports from Iraqi defectors 5) Saddam's willingness to live under sanctions and US airpower rather than let the UN verify his weapon's disposal You say: pankajdaga wrote: 1: No weapons of mass destruction have been found. This is logically meaningless. You can't cite lack of proof as proof of lack. This point is invalid. pankajdaga wrote: 2: Sure people say that Saddam transferred or destroyed it before the war. If Saddam indeed did that, he could have averted the war by opening the gates to really full-fledged investigation. I use this exact same point to bolster my argument - if Saddam had no weapons then he could have let the UN into his country and had the sanctions removed 12 years ago. Since we are both claiming this argument, they cancel each other out. pankajdaga wrote: 3: Even if he destroyed the weapons, they would still leave traces in the soils and the effect would be seen for many years. That is a lot of WMDs we are talking about. Exactly - and Saddam couldn't show the UN where that contaminated soil was prior to him kicking the UN out in the late 90's. So, by your argument, Saddam NEVER had WMD. Since we know he did (after all - he killed thousands of his own people with them just a couple years before the gulf war), we can strike this point as invalid. It is also another example of using lack of proof as proof of lack. pankajdaga wrote: 4: Sure he transferred tons and tons of weapons of mass destruction but himself was hiding in a bunker probably for months like a dog that he is. Transferring weapons while in power is not logically inconsistent with hiding in a hole after he lost his power. This point is irrelevant. pankajdaga wrote: I would rather keep an open mind than stroke
Terry O`Nolley wrote: You can't cite lack of proof as proof of lack. This point is invalid. Are you crazy? This way I can say that you have WMDs and come in and beat your head in. So apparantly we do not need proof for anything anymore. This point is not invalid. It is the only valid point. Solid evidence is the only valid reason for action. - Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Ummmm... he threw them out. Actually, he didn't. http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html[^] John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
Actually, he did (on a number of occassions). BBC Timeline: Iraq weapons inspections[^] 29 October 1997: Iraq bars US weapons inspectors... 13 January 1998: Iraq blocks an inspection by a US-dominated team and accuses its leader, Scott Ritter, of spying for America. 31 October 1998: The Iraqi leadership says it has ceased all co-operation with Unscom... 5 July 2002: UN-Iraq talks end without agreement on inspections Obviously Saddam was playing a game with the UN. How much longer do you think the game should have continued? Please allow me to introduce myself - I’m a man of wealth and taste. I’ve been around for a long, long year - Stole many a man’s soul and faith
-
Actually, he did (on a number of occassions). BBC Timeline: Iraq weapons inspections[^] 29 October 1997: Iraq bars US weapons inspectors... 13 January 1998: Iraq blocks an inspection by a US-dominated team and accuses its leader, Scott Ritter, of spying for America. 31 October 1998: The Iraqi leadership says it has ceased all co-operation with Unscom... 5 July 2002: UN-Iraq talks end without agreement on inspections Obviously Saddam was playing a game with the UN. How much longer do you think the game should have continued? Please allow me to introduce myself - I’m a man of wealth and taste. I’ve been around for a long, long year - Stole many a man’s soul and faith
Mike Mullikin wrote: Actually, he did (on a number of occassions). I don't know the detail of all of these cases, but they appear to fall under the category of a lack of cooperation and brinkmanship rather than an expulsion. Mike Mullikin wrote: Obviously Saddam was playing a game with the UN. How much longer do you think the game should have continued? We are revisiting old ground. The fact is that the weapons inspections succeeded in removing WMDs from Iraq, notwithstanding the games. Frankly, I don't think that, even with WMDs, Iraq would pose much of a threat to its neighbours. It had them in the first Gulf War and declined to use them because it knew that, if it did, the US would obliterate it. And the experience of getting its arse well and truly kicked in that war means Iraq was very unlikely to try it again. Iraq waged war against Iran with the tacit approval of the US. With the knowledge, post-Kuwait, that the US would oppose any aggressive moves, the threat from Iraq had essentially evaporated. The focus on Iraq is for historical reasons (the invasion of Kuwait), not currently relevant ones. The only argument with any force for invading Iraq is the human rights argument. I have a lot of sympathy for it and might have been prepared to support an invasion on that basis if I thought that the Bush Administration was both credible and competent on the issue --- which I don't. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Actually, he did (on a number of occassions). I don't know the detail of all of these cases, but they appear to fall under the category of a lack of cooperation and brinkmanship rather than an expulsion. Mike Mullikin wrote: Obviously Saddam was playing a game with the UN. How much longer do you think the game should have continued? We are revisiting old ground. The fact is that the weapons inspections succeeded in removing WMDs from Iraq, notwithstanding the games. Frankly, I don't think that, even with WMDs, Iraq would pose much of a threat to its neighbours. It had them in the first Gulf War and declined to use them because it knew that, if it did, the US would obliterate it. And the experience of getting its arse well and truly kicked in that war means Iraq was very unlikely to try it again. Iraq waged war against Iran with the tacit approval of the US. With the knowledge, post-Kuwait, that the US would oppose any aggressive moves, the threat from Iraq had essentially evaporated. The focus on Iraq is for historical reasons (the invasion of Kuwait), not currently relevant ones. The only argument with any force for invading Iraq is the human rights argument. I have a lot of sympathy for it and might have been prepared to support an invasion on that basis if I thought that the Bush Administration was both credible and competent on the issue --- which I don't. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
John Carson wrote: I have a lot of sympathy for it and might have been prepared to support an invasion on that basis if I thought that the Bush Administration was both credible and competent on the issue --- which I don't. Seems like your saying "If someone who I respect wants to do X than X is a wonderful thing, but if someone who I disrespect wants to do X than X is a bad thing." No? Isn't the value of X the only real concern? Please allow me to introduce myself - I’m a man of wealth and taste. I’ve been around for a long, long year - Stole many a man’s soul and faith
-
John Carson wrote: I have a lot of sympathy for it and might have been prepared to support an invasion on that basis if I thought that the Bush Administration was both credible and competent on the issue --- which I don't. Seems like your saying "If someone who I respect wants to do X than X is a wonderful thing, but if someone who I disrespect wants to do X than X is a bad thing." No? Isn't the value of X the only real concern? Please allow me to introduce myself - I’m a man of wealth and taste. I’ve been around for a long, long year - Stole many a man’s soul and faith
Mike Mullikin wrote: Seems like your saying "If someone who I respect wants to do X than X is a wonderful thing, but if someone who I disrespect wants to do X than X is a bad thing." No? Isn't the value of X the only real concern? Wanting to do X and actually accomplishing X are not the same thing. The costs of achieving X also need to be considered. I think that achieving democracy/human rights in Iraq is really difficult, given the divisions between Sunnis/Shiites/Kurds, the desire on the part of many in Iraq for a theocratic state, the lack of a democratic tradition in Iraq and the legacy of the Baath Party, and the fact that Iraq is going to need an "honest broker" to help them on the way to democracy yet many Iraqis are deeply suspicious of the US (unfairly, no doubt) and, for that matter, the UN. If there is not demonstrable progress, the US will eventually grow tired of the cost in dollars and lives and withdraw. At that point (and possibly before), the situation in Iraq may become dire. If all that happens is that a lot of lives are lost and the Iraqis end up no better off, then it would be better if the attempt had not been made. Now that the die has been cast, I can only hope that it works out for the best and that democracy/human rights take firm root in Iraq (the mere holding of an election doesn't ensure this --- plenty of places have had elections and subsequently slid back into dictatorship/civil war). The Iraqi people could certainly do with some breaks (which is not to deny that they have been to some extent the authors of their own problems and remain so). But I am not optimistic. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Seems like your saying "If someone who I respect wants to do X than X is a wonderful thing, but if someone who I disrespect wants to do X than X is a bad thing." No? Isn't the value of X the only real concern? Wanting to do X and actually accomplishing X are not the same thing. The costs of achieving X also need to be considered. I think that achieving democracy/human rights in Iraq is really difficult, given the divisions between Sunnis/Shiites/Kurds, the desire on the part of many in Iraq for a theocratic state, the lack of a democratic tradition in Iraq and the legacy of the Baath Party, and the fact that Iraq is going to need an "honest broker" to help them on the way to democracy yet many Iraqis are deeply suspicious of the US (unfairly, no doubt) and, for that matter, the UN. If there is not demonstrable progress, the US will eventually grow tired of the cost in dollars and lives and withdraw. At that point (and possibly before), the situation in Iraq may become dire. If all that happens is that a lot of lives are lost and the Iraqis end up no better off, then it would be better if the attempt had not been made. Now that the die has been cast, I can only hope that it works out for the best and that democracy/human rights take firm root in Iraq (the mere holding of an election doesn't ensure this --- plenty of places have had elections and subsequently slid back into dictatorship/civil war). The Iraqi people could certainly do with some breaks (which is not to deny that they have been to some extent the authors of their own problems and remain so). But I am not optimistic. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
John Carson wrote: Wanting to do X and actually accomplishing X are not the same thing. The costs of achieving X also need to be considered. Agreed, but this applies equally to those we respect as well as those we do not. For me it boils down to this: From a purely human rights perspective the world failed the Iraqis specifically and the middle east in general. Saddam seized ultimate power in 1978, executed dozens of his political rivals within days and went to war against Iran less than 2 years later. Eight years and 400,000 lives later the war ended with no significant territorial or political change. Two years later he invades Kuwait and shoots SCUD missles into Israel. Upon surrender after the first Gulf War he should have been removed from power (forcefully). The world was too soft on him and our failures then have caused our grim situation now. During his reign Saddam and his minions killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. His secret police ran state sponsored torture/rape centers while spending the nation's oil riches on opulent palaces. Iraqi "elections" were a farce. Intelligence (flawed or not) indicated his pursuit and/or posession of WMD's and his support of terrorism. Given his past and the constant games with UN inspectors, both seemed likely. IMO - Saddam was the poster child for cruel dictators who need to be brought down. Please allow me to introduce myself - I’m a man of wealth and taste. I’ve been around for a long, long year - Stole many a man’s soul and faith
-
John Carson wrote: Wanting to do X and actually accomplishing X are not the same thing. The costs of achieving X also need to be considered. Agreed, but this applies equally to those we respect as well as those we do not. For me it boils down to this: From a purely human rights perspective the world failed the Iraqis specifically and the middle east in general. Saddam seized ultimate power in 1978, executed dozens of his political rivals within days and went to war against Iran less than 2 years later. Eight years and 400,000 lives later the war ended with no significant territorial or political change. Two years later he invades Kuwait and shoots SCUD missles into Israel. Upon surrender after the first Gulf War he should have been removed from power (forcefully). The world was too soft on him and our failures then have caused our grim situation now. During his reign Saddam and his minions killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. His secret police ran state sponsored torture/rape centers while spending the nation's oil riches on opulent palaces. Iraqi "elections" were a farce. Intelligence (flawed or not) indicated his pursuit and/or posession of WMD's and his support of terrorism. Given his past and the constant games with UN inspectors, both seemed likely. IMO - Saddam was the poster child for cruel dictators who need to be brought down. Please allow me to introduce myself - I’m a man of wealth and taste. I’ve been around for a long, long year - Stole many a man’s soul and faith
Mike Mullikin wrote: Agreed, but this applies equally to those we respect as well as those we do not. My point was that, because the Bush Administration's motives are mixed and because it is, in my view, lacking in competence (in this particular area), I believe that the chances of success are lower, and the cost is higher, than it would have been with a different administration. Mike Mullikin wrote: From a purely human rights perspective the world failed the Iraqis specifically and the middle east in general. Saddam seized ultimate power in 1978, executed dozens of his political rivals within days and went to war against Iran less than 2 years later. Eight years and 400,000 lives later the war ended with no significant territorial or political change. Two years later he invades Kuwait and shoots SCUD missles into Israel. Upon surrender after the first Gulf War he should have been removed from power (forcefully). The world was too soft on him and our failures then have caused our grim situation now. During his reign Saddam and his minions killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. His secret police ran state sponsored torture/rape centers while spending the nation's oil riches on opulent palaces. Iraqi "elections" were a farce. Intelligence (flawed or not) indicated his pursuit and/or posession of WMD's and his support of terrorism. Given his past and the constant games with UN inspectors, both seemed likely. IMO - Saddam was the poster child for cruel dictators who need to be brought down. I agree with almost all of this and there is no doubt that if the "world order" was as it should be, then the international community would have united in ensuring that Saddam Hussein was removed from power and that his regime was replaced with a democratic one that respected human rights, just as it would have done with a few dozen other regimes. But, just as with the production of bug-free software, merely thinking that it should happen doesn't constitute a plan for making it happen. I believe that the US wanted Saddam out and didn't think much about what was going to replace him. As has been remarked many times, winning the war in this instance is a lot easier than winning the peace. Establishing democracy in some places may be sufficiently easy for the motives and competence of those seeking to establish democracy not to matter very much. But really difficult tasks are only accomplished by those who are utterly committed to them and who put in the