Weapons of Mass Destruction and Iraq

[Jazz]

Are you saying he is paying homage by calling him Hitler?

[cystic crypt]

@Jazz:

Are you saying he is paying homage by calling him Hitler?

no, i was suggesting that he was paying homage to Hitler by saying that he began this seizure of the world’s resources.

[Jazz]

so a comparison between the two is being made?

[DeviantScripter]

Yanny,

First of all, if there are no WMD’s found in Iraq (highly unlikely, but still a sliver of possibility) that does not neccessarily equate to Bush creating a pre-meditated lie to feed to the American people. Can anyone say “intelligence failure”? Bush doesn’t look over the intelligence and interpret the relative danger it poses to our country. The CIA does that, and they inform Bush of their findings. Do you realize how unlikely and absurd it is that both Bush and Blair would conspire against the rest of the world simply to start a war against Iraq?

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone made the rediculous comparison to President Clinton. Tell me Yanny, is it illegal to lie in this country (not that Bush did), or is it illegal to lie in a courtroom testimony in this country?

Okay, now onto the real issue here. That is, weapons of mass destruction. Now, let’s analyze this for a minute. If Saddam really had no weapons, he could have easily embarassed the United States and put an end to our credibility in the region by simply letting us in. Yet he didn’t. He gained the popular support of countries like France which tied our hands for six months while Saddam took his merry time to either hide the weapons or distribute them to neighboring countries.

The ironic thing is, the same people we see yelling here wanted to give the weapons inspectors another year, yet won’t give the military a month.

[cystic crypt]

Yanny, if i may . . .
@Deviant:Scripter:

Yanny,

First of all, if there are no WMD’s found in Iraq (highly unlikely, but still a sliver of possibility) that does not neccessarily equate to Bush creating a pre-meditated lie to feed to the American people. Can anyone say “intelligence failure”? Bush doesn’t look over the intelligence and interpret the relative danger it poses to our country. The CIA does that, and they inform Bush of their findings. Do you realize how unlikely and absurd it is that both Bush and Blair would conspire against the rest of the world simply to start a war against Iraq?.

And yet much of the world views this scenario this way.
Bush may not have created a pre-meditated lie, however he took a situation which was never proven to exist, stated emphatically that it DID exist, and used it as an initial screen to go to war. So i guess technically he is not guilty of “lying”, but he is guilty of being duplicitous at the very least. And i think that you’re being naive to believe that this scenario is “unlikely and absurd” but rather just the thing that we’ve come to expect from Bush (“we” being non-Americans).

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone made the rediculous comparison to President Clinton. Tell me Yanny, is it illegal to lie in this country (not that Bush did), or is it illegal to lie in a courtroom testimony in this country?

it is ridiculous. One person lying about his sex life (which in this instance the court had no business inquiring about), the other lying about something it was invading a sovereign nation about. (Although both instances we’re squabbling a bit about terminology)

Okay, now onto the real issue here. That is, weapons of mass destruction. Now, let’s analyze this for a minute. If Saddam really had no weapons, he could have easily embarassed the United States and put an end to our credibility in the region by simply letting us in. Yet he didn’t. He gained the popular support of countries like France which tied our hands for six months while Saddam took his merry time to either hide the weapons or distribute them to neighboring countries.

LMAO
Right. That’s easy for you to say. I’m certain that the U.S. would let any nation with any claim against it inside to check things out and prove itself wrong. Much less an “enemy of the U.S.”. Give me a break.
And “garnering popular support” is a crime these days? Just because the US couldn’t do it. And France hardly tied your hands for 6 months. Really - if they had that power, they would have done so for much longer.

The ironic thing is, the same people we see yelling here wanted to give the weapons inspectors another year, yet won’t give the military a month.

the ironic thing is that Hans Blix said “have patience with us” and the U.S. didn’t. Now the U.S. is saying “have patience with us” and we are supposed to?
How long will it take Bush et al. to plant WMD inside Iraq to make itself look credible anyway?

[Jazz]

How long will it take Bush et al. to plant WMD inside Iraq to make itself look credible anyway?

I have heard this topic. People that is he doesnt find them or that he will plant them. Or that he should have planted some right away just to be sure. The thing that always bugged me about this is it isnt like planting a dime bag on some guy the cops drag in off the street (for lack of a better analogy). I would think that it would take quite a bit of people to pull off and the more people the harder it is to keep a secret.

I have been staring at the screen for the last 10 minutes trying to word this the right way and cant quite seem to put my thoughts together in a way that seems to make as much sence as I would like, so please bare with me.

There are people who no matter what happens or what is found will be against the Iraq war. Mabey they think he fought it because his dad asked him to or to settle old scores. Some will be against the war simply because they dislike the man, or did not vote for him. On the other hand there are those who will blindly follow because his party is that of Republican. Some will support it because they think the weapons were hidden or destroyed.

We all interpret the facts so that they help support what we beleive. Kinda like going to two seperate hospitals with the same symptoms and getting two different diagnosese. Part of what you think happens, or will happen, is based on what you think of the man.

I wish I could have worded that better, but that is the best I can do, sorry folks.

[DeviantScripter]

Eh, it still makes sense Jazz. :wink:

Anyways, I can’t say I agree with you CC. You’re laying out hypothetical situations that probably don’t have a shot in hell of actually happening. Planting WMD? Are you kidding? First of all, we all know that any findings that they make in Iraq will surely be validated with other countries’ intelligence services. With that, comes the fact that these such weapons can easily be traced as to where they came from, let alone what country they were produced in. Remember the anthrax attacks in the mail system, remember how they could pinpoint that to a specific lab? LOL, I wish I was brave enough to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt also. :)

[Yanny]

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone made the rediculous comparison to President Clinton. Tell me Yanny, is it illegal to lie in this country (not that Bush did), or is it illegal to lie in a courtroom testimony in this country?

So its ok for the President to lie to the world, if he’s not in court. Its ok for a CEO to lie to his stockholders, if he’s not in court.

Okay, now onto the real issue here. That is, weapons of mass destruction. Now, let’s analyze this for a minute. If Saddam really had no weapons, he could have easily embarassed the United States and put an end to our credibility in the region by simply letting us in. Yet he didn’t. He gained the popular support of countries like France which tied our hands for six months while Saddam took his merry time to either hide the weapons or distribute them to neighboring countries.

If he had no weapons, then the Iraq Information Minister was actually right about something! May I ask how Bush and Blair could name specific quanities of WMD but, three months later, not a drop of Anthrax has been found? What about them saying that Iraq could deploy and use WMD with just 45 minutes warning?

The CIA is not an institution of full of idiots. People from the agency have testified that they were pressured to find some evidence of weapons. If this isn’t lieing, then what is?

The Weapons Inspectors did not have thousands of people on the ground, in complete control of the country, scowering the desert looking for these things.

Planting WMD? Are you kidding?

I wouldn’t put it above Bush, hell I wouldn’t put it above half the politicians in Washington.

[cystic crypt]

@Deviant:Scripter:

Eh, it still makes sense Jazz. :wink:

Anyways, I can’t say I agree with you CC. You’re laying out hypothetical situations that probably don’t have a shot in hell of actually happening. Planting WMD? Are you kidding? First of all, we all know that any findings that they make in Iraq will surely be validated with other countries’ intelligence services. With that, comes the fact that these such weapons can easily be traced as to where they came from, let alone what country they were produced in. Remember the anthrax attacks in the mail system, remember how they could pinpoint that to a specific lab? LOL, I wish I was brave enough to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt also. :)

a) i do not see the U.S. allowing other intelligence agencies to verify or disavow these findings. They didn’t before they invaded, why would they afterwards?
b) i believe that the CDC as well as the level 4/5 lab on long island have the abilities and the resources (in addition to the variety of bugs) to do just about anything they want with regards to planting things. Also there is nuclear, chemical and other wmd - all of which the US has in spades . . . .
Also, it’s not a matter of giving SH the benefit of the doubt so much as casting doubt on other obviously self-serving nations.

[ZimZaxZeo]

Unfortunately, the current administration has gained a reputation for mendacity, in other words: lying. This has been the case in both domestic and foreign policy issues. What really surprises me, at the least in my most cynical moments, is how they could have missed the chance (so far, anyway) to plant plenty of convincing material. The cynical me had always assumed they would go into the war with such follow-through all planned out and the stuff ready to plant! So, is the lack of evidence a sign of incompetence? On some level, it must be.

[cystic crypt]

@ZimZaxZeo:

Unfortunately, the current administration has gained a reputation for mendacity, in other words: lying. This has been the case in both domestic and foreign policy issues. What really surprises me, at the least in my most cynical moments, is how they could have missed the chance (so far, anyway) to plant plenty of convincing material. The cynical me had always assumed they would go into the war with such follow-through all planned out and the stuff ready to plant! So, is the lack of evidence a sign of incompetence? On some level, it must be.

or appropriate timing.
it might be more suspect if they walked in and presto there are all the weapons that 12 years of searching by inspectors missed.

[DeviantScripter]

In my opinion, you guys are simply setting up your excuses for disregarding any finding that Bush makes, whether you see it as legitimate or not.

[Guest]

@Deviant:Scripter:

Anyways, I can’t say I agree with you CC. You’re laying out hypothetical situations that probably don’t have a shot in hell of actually happening.

Like the Iraq possessing WMDs (hypothetic!)? Like the Iraq trying to buy Uranium in Africa (proven wrong!)? etc.etc.

LOL, I wish I was brave enough to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt also. :)

I believe you, it really takes some courage to defend one of the highest values of democracy and freedom.

[ZimZaxZeo]

I would not give SH the benefit of anything, any time anywhere!

Meanwhile, for my mind, the Bushies have just about used up any reservoir of trust or even of dispassionate consideration.

Think about the way they crowned Halliburton with an open-ended profit gusher with the exclusive, no-bid, middle-of-the-night award of fixing and running the oil biz in Iraq. Bechtel, with Reagan-Bush ties up the wazoo, got a similar deal.

The thing about Halliburton is that they have a demonstrated and well-documented pattern: get contracts with the U.S. Army, overbill the hell of you and me, get caught, pay the fine, do it again – and again – and again, including during Cheney’s tenure. Paying the fine is just a minor cost of doing business. What’s a $2 million fee when you are doing a $2 billion oil and gas deal? (the math says it is one-tenth of one percent)

[DeviantScripter]

You might as well start a new thread about Haliburton, cuz your just simply wrong about that, and it might take awhile for us to discuss it. :wink:

[cystic crypt]

@Deviant:Scripter:

In my opinion, you guys are simply setting up your excuses for disregarding any finding that Bush makes, whether you see it as legitimate or not.

And the opposite is true - i.e. the Bush admin has been setting up excuses for disregarding international law to invade a sovereign nation in light of not finding WMD.
My proplem is that although i used to think of and trust the US as an ally of countries that seek to do right in the world, it is increasingly more difficult to see the US in this way but rather as a bully who will push around who it might for lunch money while terrorizing others into being its friends (terrorizing might be an inappropriate word, however it fits - those who do not cow-tow get nailed with crippling trade penalties, do not get visits from the president, etc.).

[El Jefe]

Let me quote UN Rresolution 1441…

"U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441…

Para. 5…Recognizing the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Para. 9…Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material…"

The UN majority said Iraq had WMDs…
The UN would not act(recall Chirac’s promise of a “veto to any resolution.”

[cystic crypt]

what happened to all that documentation that the US confiscated anyway?

[DeviantScripter]

I think that documentation was proved irrelevant from the beginning, as the Iraq government never even mentioned the biggest concerns we were worried about.

[Guest]

@El:

"U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441…

Para. 5…Recognizing the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
…

The UN majority said Iraq had WMDs…

Actually, they do not say so. It appears that they do, but they don’t. Let me re-state the first, to make it clearer:
“Recognizing that as well Iraq’s noncompliance as any proliferation of WMDs pose threats”
So, they talk of 2 dangerous things … never expect that diplomats say something that could be used against them ;)