DialecticMaterialist said:
Note: The Bold quotes are me quoting articles. The non-bold quotes are from ImpyTimpy.
Did you even read it? I will quote some passages:
<snipped passages>
Nowhere does Bush say that having WMD's was the only reason for war with Iraq.
Also this isn't even the delcaration of war, but a state of the Union adress.
The final warning reads:
<snipped>
I never said the only reason for war was WMD's, nice strawman... I said the original reason was WMD's, followed by other reasons. In the state of union address, the primary focus is on WMD's and the threat Saddam is because of them. Additional reasons are given which you qouted (well done) but they are just that - additional reasons.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/wariniraq/gwbushiraq31703.htm
There Bush does talk of opression and future threats. Again nowhere does he say the only reason for war with Iraq is WMD's.
Stop the strawmen already.
Lastly lets say Bush did used WMD's as a mere excuse to attack Iraq...what's your problem with that? In the end they took out a brutal dictator. The whole thing can be compared to getting Al Capone on tax evasion. With some people its not as important why they get them as much as that they do get them.
You're right, let's throw away the whole dual process, guilty until proven innocent from now on.
Such an in depth analysyes.
No actually it says this:
This is testimony and confirmed reports which amount to evidence.
Here is the actual excerpt, which you took out of context(it was in reference to one interview) here:
It's from a General that served Saddam for decades. How much more reliable of a source can you get?
Less then perfect does not mean unreliable.
Also PBS is actually being very honest by aknowledging its weak points as well as its strong points. The editors note was there, in large print for everyone to read. I hardly see how that is "being dishonest".
Or the guy is wrong, or the US government is conflicted? Or he has access to information the US government does not.
Did you even read my critique of the article? Yes, the editors are honest where they point out the man might be lying - he was after all given to them by an organisation sworn to dispose of Saddam. Enough said after that.
You are very much jumping to conclusions. Just because 1 captain says something that conflicts with US intelligence does not totally discredit neither party.
In this case we have a more reliable source such as the U.S. intelligence correcting a biased source... You do the math.
You know THAT was flat out dishonest, especially since he said:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
i.e. he was training troops, not just handing out ammo.
Also:
[/quote](bold added by me)
See the section where it says General Training?
Your point? In totalitarian nations some of even the highest ranking officials are forbidden from seeing certain sections activities which others, due to the fact that such activities need people can see. In the Soviet Union for example, Stalin's Generals couldn't just look into secret police files.
And even in the US the CIA I imagine just can't go through NSA buildings or just read through Pentagon files.
Oh yes, because Saddam couldn't just say "don't go there" or not tell his official about it.....
[/QUOTE][/B]
I don't know if you're ignorant on purpose or accidentally. Your own reply shows the man can't make up his mind as to what exactly he does at the camp. First he trains soldiers in weapons and combat techniques, next he hands out ammunition and does leaves. SO - either he works in Admin or he works as a proper trainer. He just can't seem to work out which it is.
What a reliable source!
How much more proper do you get then PBS and interviews with former Iraqi officials?
Nothing wrong with the article itself because the editors themselves point out the reliability of the source is very tainted. But you failed to see that didn't you...
Actually I have and he says Iraq is cooperating more in some areas but not enough.
Have you???? Then you're either blind or a liar. He urged more cooperation, that was
BEFORE (note the word - before) destruction of the banned missiles.
Second article.
I had read it. The man claims Iraq is cooperating in process but not in substance.
Also read the last paragraph, issue 73.(His conclusion)
Also 72 stated Iraq was to cooperate fully, without delay and Iraq has been delaying.
This is typical of Saddam. Now once again, the report was written
before the destruction of banned missiles and urged further cooperation from Iraq. This means Iraq was fully cooperating after the report was written.
Saddam has only called us Satan and said
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/synopsis.html
Did he have to? That's a ridiculous question and is not necessary to establish hostility to the US.
Ok, there's a big difference between blaming the ills of your country on something else and openly declaring your hostile intents. Since you can't find when Saddam actually stated that Iraq will go to war with America I note your most amusing attempt at reply - "it's not necessary".
That's improbable. The US has promised to free Iraq and help turn it into a democracy. Just as we are helping Afghanistan. A lot of these "what ifs" are getting tedious.
I really doubt a bigger psycho then Saddam could be found, and at the very least we've opened Iraq so it could improve itself.
Uhh, ok... What ifs is what you're left with after you remove something you know and leave it open to something you don't know...
Your analogy compared attacking Saddam under mistaken pretense to killing an accused "innocent" man. Ignoring the fact that what makes us so sympathetic to the accused is their actual innocence....
And you're just content to throw dual process of law out the window, shoot first and ask questions later?
Like I said, it's unlikely. First off I doubt the US would install one given its promise, values and track record with reconstruction after a war.
Secondly, I doubt the Iraquis would select a worst dictator.
Third, I doubt a worst dictator can be found.
But you miss the point, the important thing is Iraq is now free of a tyrant and ABLE to select a better leader.
Lastly, you don't know if Saddam is still alive. Nobody does. Unless you have some proof that is...
This is what
you think. Just because you think they'll select a better leader doesn't mean they will. There's a saying - better the devil you know.
Also track record of reconstruction after a war?? Are you trying to make a joke here?
Oh yes you are actually correct on that. Sorry for the confusion.
.
Thank you
Ah, but you are proving something. Your ability to simply dismiss credible sources(like PBS) on the basis of one or two inconsistencies between people who are interviewed(not like different sources can ever hold different opinions....)
Confirmation bias and ad hominid.
I didn't dismiss the article. I dismissed the person after showing you the errors they made. The article itself even points out the person interviewed may not be credible at all.
You're also incorrectly applying logical fallacies to a good argument.
Never said that. I said there are checks, and there is accountability. The rules usually imply that but I've also spelled it out. Again you attack a strawman with a red herring.
Strange that's an even weaker position then I presume. That is an extreme and unrealistic viewpoint. If no free country had WMD's like Nukes for deterence, more opressive countries like China and Pakistan would bully them. And what's to stop them? Harsh language? In respect to China
rotests? 
What would stop those oppressive countries from developing more nuclear arsenal? You get into another arms race, with everyone scared that someone might push the button.
Now do you understand my position?
Yes I did you simply did not except them on the basis of some rather small, nit picky reasons. example: The gy was *only* involved in administration.(Hardly a valid criticism.)
The guy's speech contained incosistent information, the guy's speech indicated one thing, then proceeded to indicate another, the editor himself noted the guy came from a purely biased source.
So once again, you showed no conclusive proof of Iraq's terrorism link.
No, you just said "report X shows Iraq to be cooperating" when it doesn't. It says Iraq cooperates, is cooperating in a sense. But not in the sense of following resolutions. Hence all you had was partial cooperation, which is insufficient.
Wrong again. The report was written before the destruction of the banned missiles. That is why it urges substance cooperation. After the report was written the missiles were getting destroyed. I
already said it but you selectively seem to ignore it (can't you argue your position without selectively using what I said?)
Yeah I mean a peaceful guy like that....proposterous.
Uhh.. So you're saying Saddam
was going to attack the US?
Do they? Which ones?
Isn't that a bit of an approximation?
And even if so, the reason for Saddam was not that a single thing he did made him a prime target but a variety of factors converged.
Ok, let's take a look at your factors...
Factors like not cooperating with the UN,
A) U.N. never gave go ahead for the war, so U.S. didn't cooperate with U.N. either...
B) Iraq was cooperating with the U.N. Already showed you the evidence for it.
having bad relations with the US in the past,
THAT is a laughable reason... Oooh, I don't like you so I'm going to attack you?
You can't even prove it...
, having WMDs at least in the past
Which it was attacked for before...
Quick fill out the application for JREF prize since you can see into Saddam's mind.
, human rights violations
Nobody denies that one but they weren't the only country. I hear the Saudi's are pretty good at torturing confessions out of innocent people.
and a weak army. As well as being in the ME where we currently have momentum.
That is the best reason of all...
They had a weak army, so why not hey?
P.S.
Apologies for not answering earlier.
