WMD material found!

[Malachi151]

US finds evidence of WMD at last - buried in a field in Maryland

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,965319,00.html

The anthrax was a non-virulent strain, and the discoveries are apparently remnants of an abandoned germ warfare programme. They merited only a local news item in the Washington Post.

But suspicious finds in Iraq have made front-page news (before later being cleared), given the failure of US military inspection teams to find evidence of the weapons that were the justification for the March invasion.

Even more embarrassing for the Pentagon, there was no documentation about the various biological agents disposed of at the US bio-defence centre at Fort Detrick. Iraq's failure to come up with paperwork proving the destruction of its biological arsenal was portrayed by the US as evidence of deception in the run-up to the war.

In an effort to explain why no chemical or biological weapons had been found in Iraq, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said yesterday the regime may have destroyed them before the war.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

The fact still is Saddam was sold a number of weapons. A good number of that was never found or recovered, where did it go?

Secondly, Saddam violated UN orders for almost a decade.

Lastly, who cares? Are you saying that Iraq would have been better off without Saddam? That in time this brutal dicatotor wouldn't have created more problems for the US?

I really don't care if they never find any WMD's. I just wanted the guy, with his totalitarian, anti-american, fascist, regime out of there. I know to some people wanting to remove totalitarian governments is an evil act. And those people can spend all the time they want complaining about WMD's not being found and such (because we all know that is the only compelling reason for the US to invade a nice upstanding country like Iraq), I however see the entire thing as something that should have been done a long time ago: WMD's or not.

 

[toddjh]

The fact still is Saddam was sold a number of weapons. A good number of that was never found or recovered, where did it go?

Secondly, Saddam violated UN orders for almost a decade.

Lastly, who cares? Are you saying that Iraq would have been better off without Saddam? That in time this brutal dicatotor wouldn't have created more problems for the US?

I'll never understand this type of response. The issue here isn't Saddam, it's the U.S. The situation is equivalent to the police beating a confession out of a guilty suspect. Maybe the end result has some positive aspects, but at what cost? What damage has been done to personal freedom along the way? And, in the case of Iraq, what damage to our country's credibility and international status?

If our goal in Iraq was to take out Saddam on humanitarian grounds, then we should've made a case for that -- it wouldn't have been hard -- and had the courage of our convictions. I would like to see our country keep its hands clean.

Jeremy

 

[Crossbow]

The fact still is Saddam was sold a number of weapons. A good number of that was never found or recovered, where did it go?

Secondly, Saddam violated UN orders for almost a decade.

Lastly, who cares? Are you saying that Iraq would have been better off without Saddam? That in time this brutal dicatotor wouldn't have created more problems for the US?

I really don't care if they never find any WMD's. I just wanted the guy, with his totalitarian, anti-american, fascist, regime out of there. I know to some people wanting to remove totalitarian governments is an evil act. And those people can spend all the time they want complaining about WMD's not being found and such (because we all know that is the only compelling reason for the US to invade a nice upstanding country like Iraq), I however see the entire thing as something that should have been done a long time ago: WMD's or not.

Who cares do you say?

I sure care! And anyone else interested in the proper exercise of US Foregin Policy should care as well!

What do you think will happen the next time the USA brings a case before the world about some other brutal dictator that they want to get rid of?

I can tell you what will happen, they will say something like "Well gee whiz guys, you said all those nasty things about Saddam having nukes, anthrax, mustard gas, supporting terrorism, and so on and even after you invaded their country, you could not find any real evidence to support these claims. So how can you possibly expect us to support you now? You all just might be lying again in order to get your own way."

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

What do you think will happen the next time the USA brings a case before the world about some other brutal dictator that they want to get rid of?

I can tell you what will happen, they will say something like "Well gee whiz guys, you said all those nasty things about Saddam having nukes, anthrax, mustard gas, supporting terrorism, and so on and even after you invaded their country, you could not find any real evidence to support these claims. So how can you possibly expect us to support you now? You all just might be lying again in order to get your own way."

Because they helped us soooo much this time.....

So I guess for them, simply doing the moral thing and removing evil regimes and future threats isn't enough....they only act under WMDs....how upstanding.

 

[Frostbite]

Who cares do you say?

I sure care! And anyone else interested in the proper exercise of US Foregin Policy should care as well!

What do you think will happen the next time the USA brings a case before the world about some other brutal dictator that they want to get rid of?

I can tell you what will happen, they will say something like "Well gee whiz guys, you said all those nasty things about Saddam having nukes, anthrax, mustard gas, supporting terrorism, and so on and even after you invaded their country, you could not find any real evidence to support these claims. So how can you possibly expect us to support you now? You all just might be lying again in order to get your own way."

But then again, what keeps the US from planting the proof themselves to prove their point? Is there any way to know for sure?

 

[Malachi151]

I'll never understand this type of response. The issue here isn't Saddam, it's the U.S. The situation is equivalent to the police beating a confession out of a guilty suspect. Maybe the end result has some positive aspects, but at what cost? What damage has been done to personal freedom along the way? And, in the case of Iraq, what damage to our country's credibility and international status?

If our goal in Iraq was to take out Saddam on humanitarian grounds, then we should've made a case for that -- it wouldn't have been hard -- and had the courage of our convictions. I would like to see our country keep its hands clean.

Jeremy

*applause*

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Great analogy, yeah accusation of WMD's, is exactly like forcing a confession from a criminal....


Well I don't know but if this "criminal" was commiting MASS murder, having thousands executed, opressing/enslaving millions of people, having people thrown in baths of acid, killing kids in front of there parents and hiring a professional rapist to "take care" of women who didn't agree with him: the forced confession might not be so bad.

 

[toddjh]

Great analogy, yeah accusation of WMD's, is exactly like forcing a confession from a criminal....

Well I don't know but if this "criminal" was commiting MASS murder, having thousands executed, opressing/enslaving millions of people, having people thrown in baths of acid, killing kids in front of there parents and hiring a professional rapist to "take care" of women who didn't agree with him

Then why did we need to make up a bunch of nonsense about weapons? Those all sound like pretty good reasons to go ahead to me.

If we had said "Saddam is violating basic human rights. Our country stands for defending those rights, so we will not allow him to continue," that sends the message that we have some moral character and the willingness to stand up for it. But since we said "He has weapons of mass destruction! No, he has links to al Qaeda! Well okay, not really, but...he's violating U.N. resolutions! No wait! He's oppressing his people!", the only message we're sending is that we'll come up with a reason -- any reason -- to do whatever we want.

Why is it that you prefer the latter over the former?

Jeremy

 

[Malachi151]

Great analogy, yeah accusation of WMD's, is exactly like forcing a confession from a criminal....


Well I don't know but if this "criminal" was commiting MASS murder, having thousands executed, opressing/enslaving millions of people, having people thrown in baths of acid, killing kids in front of there parents and hiring a professional rapist to "take care" of women who didn't agree with him: the forced confession might not be so bad.

Well, the issue is that if he's doing all that, then why fabricate evidence of other things instead of making that argument?

The issue is that if we claim that X is a condition for war, and that war can be made soley on conditon X, but yet we also meet that criteria, then how can condition X really be a conditoin for war?

To say, well if he has a report that fails to account for just one littel thing then thats cause for war, yet every country could fit that criteria, and in fact we fit that criteria. Every country has weapons that aren't accounted for I'm sure, as we do.

The point is, don't make stupid aguments cause in the end you just end up losing credibilty, and its the reason WHY so many criminals who really were gilty get off, beuase of these kinds of things.

Let's face it, if this weere a court room case it would have been thrown out long ago and Saddam would be back on the streets with an apology.

Now, the thing is, Saddam is a "bad guy" yes, but the way thet case was biult only undermines its credibility.

If we can't make a REAL case against him then what exactly does that mean? The issue is that we all know he was a bad guy. Are we saying that just being a bad guy is not cause for war? Let's say that they had been honest from the start, would we have gone to war? If not, and if we now think the war ws good, then why wouldn't we have gone to war using an honest case? Maybe we need to look at that.

All this does is reinforce lying and deception as a way to achieve goals.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Then why did we need to make up a bunch of nonsense about weapons? Those all sound like pretty good reasons to go ahead to me.

If we had said "Saddam is violating basic human rights. Our country stands for defending those rights, so we will not allow him to continue," that sends the message that we have some moral character and the willingness to stand up for it. But since we said "He has weapons of mass destruction! No, he has links to al Qaeda! Well okay, not really, but...he's violating U.N. resolutions! No wait! He's oppressing his people!", the only message we're sending is that we'll come up with a reason -- any reason -- to do whatever we want.

Why is it that you prefer the latter over the former?

Jeremy

Brilliant. This would seem to encapsulate the entire pre-war fishing-around-for-reasons process. One of the things that has embarrassed me greatly about this administration.

 

[aerocontrols]

Then why did we need to make up a bunch of nonsense about weapons? Those all sound like pretty good reasons to go ahead to me.

If we had said "Saddam is violating basic human rights. Our country stands for defending those rights, so we will not allow him to continue," that sends the message that we have some moral character and the willingness to stand up for it. But since we said "He has weapons of mass destruction! No, he has links to al Qaeda! Well okay, not really, but...he's violating U.N. resolutions! No wait! He's oppressing his people!", the only message we're sending is that we'll come up with a reason -- any reason -- to do whatever we want.

Why is it that you prefer the latter over the former?

Jeremy

There was no debate about humanitarian grounds because everyone agreed about that.

Of course Saddam is a bad guy but...

The administration had to argue WMD over and over because that was the only claim they were challenged on.

Saddam's brutalization of his own people and his foreign aggression came up every time, but it didn't get dwelt upon because everyone agreed.

It's in Resolution 1441, by the way.

MattJ

 

[Frostbite]

There was no debate about humanitarian grounds because everyone agreed about that.

So the question is, are humanitarian grounds good enough reasons to invade countries? I'm only asking cause I don't really know. According to the UN, it isn't.

 

[toddjh]

There was no debate about humanitarian grounds because everyone agreed about that.

Were those reasons insufficient, then? I would question the legitimacy of an organization which did not consider intervention in those kinds of things justified.

Jeremy

 

[aerocontrols]

So the question is, are humanitarian grounds good enough reasons to invade countries? I'm only asking cause I don't really know. According to the UN, it isn't.

Right, the UN doesn't think so. The US/UK/Spain/Australia/Poland/etc. disagree.

As to who is 'right', I don't know, but I know who I agree with.

MattJ

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well, the issue is that if he's doing all that, then why fabricate evidence of other things instead of making that argument?

Like what? They said Saddam had bought weapons which were not yet found.

They also said Saddam was not cooperating with UN inspectors.

Saddam's brutality is already proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The issue is that if we claim that X is a condition for war, and that war can be made soley on conditon X, but yet we also meet that criteria, then how can condition X really be a conditoin for war?

They gave more then one reason for going to war. Bush mentioned Saddam's violation of UN resolutions and brutality as well. As did many who were for the war. Also Saddam was funding terrorism, another reason given.

Every country has weapons that aren't accounted for I'm sure, as we do.

But not every country is run by a totalitarian dictator....

Let's face it, if this weere a court room case it would have been thrown out long ago and Saddam would be back on the streets with an apology.

I doubt it. There'd be much eyewitness testimony to his brutality.

Now, the thing is, Saddam is a "bad guy" yes, but the way thet case was biult only undermines its credibility.

Not really. Only to someone fixated on the WMD issue.

If we can't make a REAL case against him then what exactly does that mean?

We already have. He funds terrorists, violates UN resolutions and is a brutal dictator.

Are we saying that just being a bad guy is not cause for war? Let's say that they had been honest from the start, would we have gone to war? If not, and if we now think the war ws good, then why wouldn't we have gone to war using an honest case? Maybe we need to look at that.

I think you are attacking a strawman Malachi. Nobody ever said Saddam's WMD's were the only reason for the war. Saddam's violations of UN resolutions,terrorist funding and totalitarianism were mentioned on a daily basis by pro-war advocates.
Even Bush explained how we were there to "liberate" Iraq. Implying the war was not merely about WMD's.

If anything I think yours and other radicals continued attack of this strawman amounts to a loss of credibility.

 

[aerocontrols]

Were those reasons insufficient, then? I would question the legitimacy of an organization which did not consider intervention in those kinds of things justified.

Jeremy

I would (and did) as well.

 

[OBgac]

Right, the UN doesn't think so. The US/UK/Spain/Australia/Poland/etc. disagree.

As to who is 'right', I don't know, but I know who I agree with.

MattJ

On behalf of Poland , let me suggest to you the only reason we agreed was to get some of those US bases moved from Germany to Poland and to increase the offset in the F16 tender you just won (BTW - offset increased USD 3bn, and Polish oil refineries are now in Iraq - but don't mention the oil)

 

[aerocontrols]

On behalf of Poland , let me suggest to you the only reason we agreed was to get some of those US bases moved from Germany to Poland and to increase the offset in the F16 tender you just won (BTW - offset increased USD 3bn, and Polish oil refineries are now in Iraq - but don't mention the oil)

Quite sad, if true.

What do you mean Polish oil refineries are now in Iraq?

 

[Frostbite]

Quite sad, if true.

What do you mean Polish oil refineries are now in Iraq?

I think he's talking about them new inflatable pop-tent oil refineries. Takes minutes to deploy.