[Shaddim]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I guess I took you to be more intelligent than you are then. We've made a clear distinction here, yet you keep ignoring it. We're not talking about banned weapons here. These buildings and machines were not illegal. Your government's argument for war was not based on the existence of these infrastructures but on actual 'evidence' that Iraq was using them to develop WMD and had WMD in existence.

and I thought you were smarter kitten. If Saddam had the capacity, of course he would implement it towards WMD. He's a sick bastard who tortured his own people, what makes you think he'd restrain himself?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
and I thought you were smarter kitten. If Saddam had the capacity, of course he would implement it towards WMD. He's a sick bastard who tortured his own people, what makes you think he'd restrain himself?

Except he wasn't making any moves to re-start a WMD program. Ever thought about why Saddam suddenly became an integral part of Bush's agenda in 2003? Saddam hadn't done anything that was out of the ordinary, there was no evidence to suggest he was getting ready to attack.

As for him being a 'sick bastard who tortured his own people', everybody knew that already. This same old mantra was only brought up and extensively highlighted when it suited the US government's agenda.

[MATTRESS]

ROTFLMMFAO! This gets crazier by the post.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Except he wasn't making any moves to re-start a WMD program. Ever thought about why Saddam suddenly became an integral part of Bush's agenda in 2003? Saddam hadn't done anything that was out of the ordinary, there was no evidence to suggest he was getting ready to attack.

As for him being a 'sick bastard who tortured his own people', everybody knew that already. This same old mantra was only brought up and extensively highlighted when it suited the US government's agenda.

You've got to be kidding me? He was waiting for the heat to let up, just a bit, to jump right back into it again. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

FWIW, we should have taken him out long ago. Why do people keep making excuses for him?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
FWIW, we should have taken him out long ago. Why do people keep making excuses for him?

No one is upset that Saddam was "taken out". What bothers us is how it was done: lying to the world and American citizens about why; poor planning of the "taking out" beyond actually getting Saddam; distraction from the actual war on terror and aprehending those responsible for 9/11 while keeping the invasion under the guise of being part of the WoT (see above to "lying")

[angaq0k]

WANTED!

$50

REWARD

For whoever finds

the infamous WMDS

of the now FAMOUS

Saddam HUSSEIN!!!


See the Sheriff (in the Saloon) for details!

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
No one is upset that Saddam was "taken out". What bothers us is how it was done: lying to the world and American citizens about why; poor planning of the "taking out" beyond actually getting Saddam; distraction from the actual war on terror and aprehending those responsible for 9/11 while keeping the invasion under the guise of being part of the WoT (see above to "lying")

hat's right, because there has been absolutely NO GOOD whatsoever to come of any of this. None. NONE, I SAY!



Maury

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Are you able at all to distinguish between materials that are legal but can be used to build nasty things, and materials that are illegal because they can be used ONLY to build nasty things?

Since you still think the invasion was justified, I'd venture the answer is "no".

I expected my president to do whatever was necessary to negate the threat or even a possible threat by Saddam (or through unnamed FOREIGN AGENTS) of another 9/11 type of attack.

If that meant a pre-emptive attack based on "materials that are legal but can be used to build nasty things," or "materials that are illegal because they can be used ONLY to build nasty things" I don't much care. That threat was addressed.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
No one is upset that Saddam was "taken out". What bothers us is how it was done: lying to the world and American citizens about why; poor planning of the "taking out" beyond actually getting Saddam; distraction from the actual war on terror and aprehending those responsible for 9/11 while keeping the invasion under the guise of being part of the WoT (see above to "lying")

And what the President's supporters probably feel is that we don't care what reasons may have been or may not have been true.

Saddam's threat is gone. Whatever reason(s) it took to justify actions to remove the threat is OK by me. The "poor planning" is lamentable but it wasn't as important at the time as was the expedient of removing the threat. Setting up a ME democracy helps the WOT by removing a possible safe haven and sponsor for terrorism. The WOT wasn't going to end with OBL's death or capture anyway and al Qaeda is now 75% gone. The WOT was recognized as being a long war. It continues.

Afghanistan just held a free election. The Taliban is history. The American continent has been free from terrorist attack. We have secured a vital national interest. The day is approaching when the Iraqi people will hold their first free election.

Saddam is behind bars.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Except he wasn't making any moves to re-start a WMD program. Ever thought about why Saddam suddenly became an integral part of Bush's agenda in 2003? Saddam hadn't done anything that was out of the ordinary, there was no evidence to suggest he was getting ready to attack.

As for him being a 'sick bastard who tortured his own people', everybody knew that already. This same old mantra was only brought up and extensively highlighted when it suited the US government's agenda.

Saddam intentionally misled the WORLD into believing he was a threat. It worked.

Saddam, the Bomb and Me
By MAHDI OBEIDI

Published: September 26, 2004

Saddam was ready to start up his WMD program in a second.

Was Iraq a potential threat to the United States and the world? Threat is always a matter of perception, but our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein's fingers.

So, how could the West have made such a mistaken assessment of the nuclear program before the invasion last year? Even to those of us who knew better, it's fairly easy to see how observers got the wrong impression.

The United States invaded Iraq in part to end what it saw as a nuclear danger.

BTW, will I see you sometime in the future, in another thread once again arguing THIS same point? If you read this article and remain unconvinced, let me know and I'll do whatever it takes to remove the threat of your using this as an excuse for attacking Bush's removal of Saddam.

[aberdeenwriter]

In a pre-emptive move designed to protect the thread from anyone else saying Saddam should not have been considered a threat, I post this link to an article published before the invasion:

Middle East Review of International Affairs
March 2003
How Iraq conceals and obtains its Weapons of Mass Destruction

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2003/issue1/jv7n1a5.html

Some of the footnotes to this article refer to magazine articles and essays from that time with titles suggesting the world was very much convinced of Saddam's threat.

It is so strange to have to remind someone of this as though it is ancient history or as though you were in a coma at the time or something.

[aberdeenwriter]

In my garden shed I have 50 kilograms of fertiliser. This fertiliser could be used to make a nifty little bomb if someone added some chemicals and had the skill to turn it into a bomb. For the moment, it's just fertiliser. If it were stolen tomorrow by someone who had the other chemicals required and the knowledge required, it might be turned into a bomb.

If it is not dangerous then why are you upset that it is missing?

Isn't your real problem that your FUZZY FILTERS need cleaning??

Fuzzy logic
Inability to interpret accurately

[placebo1969]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Saddam intentionally misled the WORLD into believing he was a threat. It worked.

Saddam, the Bomb and Me
By MAHDI OBEIDI

Published: September 26, 2004

Saddam was ready to start up his WMD program in a second.

Was Iraq a potential threat to the United States and the world? Threat is always a matter of perception, but our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein's fingers.

So, how could the West have made such a mistaken assessment of the nuclear program before the invasion last year? Even to those of us who knew better, it's fairly easy to see how observers got the wrong impression.

The United States invaded Iraq in part to end what it saw as a nuclear danger.

BTW, will I see you sometime in the future, in another thread once again arguing THIS same point? If you read this article and remain unconvinced, let me know and I'll do whatever it takes to remove the threat of your using this as an excuse for attacking Bush's removal of Saddam.

I made to references to that guy on the first page. Saddam was working on nukes. And he hid the guy from the UN inspectors.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
Yet another thread where I suspect people are purposefully acting dense, but the sad part is that such ignorance is contagious. I'll make it simple for you by displaying a formula: rocket boosters != nuclear weapons. The materials in question were tagged and monitored by the IAEA, and though they could be parts of a weapon or equipment for manufacturing weapons, the IAEA has found no evidence of an active program in Iraq. Many of these materials are also dual-use... But no, no, they're WMD! A hard drive IS a computer! Chromosomes ARE a human life!

An example of your Fuzzy Filter at work. You THOUGHT you were going to make it simple. You may have INTENDED to make it simple.

Your explanation is not simple.

Oh, I understand it. But it ain't simple.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by placebo1969:
I made to references to that guy on the first page. Saddam was working on nukes. And he hid the guy from the UN inspectors.

I was going through the thread from the latest post to the earliest and I just saw your reference.



In addition to hiding the guy, Saddam was afraid that if Iran knew he had no WMD's that Iran would attack.

So, Saddam planted the seeds of doubt in EVERYONE'S mind.

Though the ruse protected him from Iran, it made GWB fearful.

Thus, the invasion.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
And what the President's supporters probably feel is that we don't care what reasons may have been or may not have been true.

Saddam's threat is gone. Whatever reason(s) it took to justify actions to remove the threat is OK by me.

And that's the world many of us are afraid of; a world where the leader of the most powerful nation in the world can do whatever he/she wants, even if those actions are illegal, without concern of being held accountable for his/her crimes.

Your statement writes the President of the United States a blank cheque. It's ok for him/her to lie to Congress, it's ok for him/her to lie to you (as long as it isn't about such earth-shattering things as getting a blowjob from an intern and as long as he/she isn't the one doing the actual lying)

Do you really want an America where the President can lie to the American people ... keeping in mind that, sooner or later, there will be another Democrat in the White House of who's lies liberals may be equally accepting, once the precedent has been set.

[itai195]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
An example of your Fuzzy Filter at work. You THOUGHT you were going to make it simple. You may have INTENDED to make it simple.

Your explanation is not simple.

Oh, I understand it. But it ain't simple.

Um, okay.

Personally I never disagreed with the idea that Saddam was a threat, but I didn't support this war. I think there's a greater threat now that these materials have been lost, under our own watch no less.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
Um, okay.

Personally I never disagreed with the idea that Saddam was a threat, but I didn't support this war. I think there's a greater threat now that these materials have been lost, under our own watch no less.

So the materials WERE dangerous?

[itai195]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
So the materials WERE dangerous?

I thought you said you understood my earlier post, I guess not!

[maxx9photo]

Don't be fooled, WMD,They're still there!!!! US Military and gangs!!! Killing Iraqi people!!!

[maxx9photo]

Price of WMD

Cost of US military and rebuilding Iraq :$120 billion
Cost of life on US and friends : 1200 and counting.....
Cost of life on Iraqi people : Countless....

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
And that's the world many of us are afraid of; a world where the leader of the most powerful nation in the world can do whatever he/she wants, even if those actions are illegal, without concern of being held accountable for his/her crimes.

Your statement writes the President of the United States a blank cheque. It's ok for him/her to lie to Congress, it's ok for him/her to lie to you (as long as it isn't about such earth-shattering things as getting a blowjob from an intern and as long as he/she isn't the one doing the actual lying)

Do you really want an America where the President can lie to the American people ... keeping in mind that, sooner or later, there will be another Democrat in the White House of who's lies liberals may be equally accepting, once the precedent has been set.

No, I really don't.

I wish he had felt the ablity to say, "we suspect Saddam is up to no good. We can't really be sure what he has or hasn't in the way of WMD's but, because he's been a continual pain in the ass to US, his own people and his neighbors, he's continually violated the terms of the UN resolutions and he's shown a willingness to support terrorism (the $25,000 payments) we feel the only safe course of action is to topple his regime."

The American people might not have gone along with that rationale for war, however.

But if they hadn't, we'd REALLY be in trouble.

You NEVER disclose to potential enemies what you are NOT going to do. (You may have noticed NO ONE in Gov't. EVER rules out the use of Nukes when talking about military actions.)

If the US congress denied him the ability to go to war in Iraq, any nation with designs on Iraq would have been emboldened knowing they wouldn't have to worry about the US.

And what scenarios might that have prompted?

Let's just say, for grins and giggles, that Iran used that fact in deciding to pre-emptively invade Iraq.

So, rather than the world's protest and dissent being directed at OUR Iraq invasion, it would instead be directed at Iran's invasion of Iraq!

Would any dissent have an effect on Iran?

Would the current dissenters feel better with Iran in control of Iraq and in control of the flow of oil?

Would the threat of terror have been lessened?

Wouldn't the US and the world have a bigger problem on it's hands?

Wouldn't the ME be more unstable than it is?

Wouldn't many more innocent Iraqi's be dead and dying.

Wouldn't the Iraqi's be much further from ever enjoying freedom?

No, I don't want to be lied to by anyone. However, in this case, I believe the end really did justify the means.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
I thought you said you understood my earlier post, I guess not!

Actually, I did and do. I was just being contentious. Imagine, ME being contentious!

Ha!!!

[itai195]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
You NEVER disclose to potential enemies what you are NOT going to do.

Never?

"The only thing that North Korea has said to us that they would like to see from the United States is a security assurance that we are not planning to attack them or invade them," Mr Powell said.

"We have said that and they wish to see this assurance provided in some form that they would have confidence in."

"I've said as plainly as I can say that we have no intention of invading North Korea," Bush told reporters during a meeting with Thailand's prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra.

Oops!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by maxx9photo:
Price of WMD

Cost of US military and rebuilding Iraq :$120 billion
Cost of life on US and friends : 1200 and counting.....
Cost of life on Iraqi people : Countless....

Sadly, the President can't tell us everything that may have gone into his decision. But, if you were to assume almost ANY scenario where the US did not invade Iraq and plug into those scenarios, the things we have learned about Iraq, Iran and organizations and individuals of terror since the invasion, you will immediately see how the costs (above) could have been very, very much greater.

Because of national security we can't know all the considerations that had to be taken into account when W decided to topple Saddam.

For example, do you know what Iran was actually doing in regards to Saddam's WMD ruse?

Did they believe him at first, but were preparing to call his bluff by taking military action against Iraq?

Do you know if the President had intelligence reports to that effect?

Do you know whether our Iraq invasion was the best possible course of action for the US and the world?

No. And neither do I.

This is why we can only speculate.

Your 'side' believes there were no such factors at play; that the President had/has only power and money and oil and empire building motives behind his actions.

I believe otherwise.

And if I'm mistaken, oh well.

We have: removed a possible threat to US homeland security who was a constant pain in the ass, have secured the flow of Iraqi oil (a vital national interest), taken steps to create a new democracy in a world trouble spot and given freedom to millions of Iraqis.

Priceless.

EDIT: BTW, if you doubt the possibility of Iranian mischief, check out this post by Cody Dawg in a thread starter:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=231396

[Nicko]

Originally posted by maxx9photo:
Price of WMD

Cost of US military and rebuilding Iraq :$120 billion
Cost of life on US and friends : 1200 and counting.....
Cost of life on Iraqi people : Countless....

And didn't they say 9/11 cost the terrorists the low low price of only about $10mil to pull off?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
Never?


Oops!

I wondered who would be first to jump on that statement.

itai195, you won!

When publicly discussing what the potential military response might be in a future possible engagement, you never rule out anything.

When negotiating you prepare to give things up in order to get concessions from your bargaining partner that you both can live with.

Powell's statement came after negotiating. He was saying that the US promised not to attack or invade in exchange for N. Korean nuclear concessions.

If the US had publicly announced we wouldn't attack of invade N. Korea BEFORE we started negotiations, we'd have given away an important bargaining chip and would have started at a disadvantage.

I steadfastly maintain the idea of the original assertion, that when the enemy knows your hands are tied, he gains an advantage. You try to deny him this advantage by not announcing ahead of time what you won't do.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Nicko:
And didn't they say 9/11 cost the terrorists the low low price of only about $10mil to pull off?

Heck, I thought it was even less than that. I'd heard $50,000!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by maxx9photo:
Don't be fooled, WMD,They're still there!!!! US Military and gangs!!! Killing Iraqi people!!!

Yeah, maxx9photo!

And for what reason?

[Troll]

It's absolutely unbelievable to me that partially intelligent people can not see the difference between pieces of a nuclear reactor and a nuclear bomb.

In fact, it's so unbelievable, that I don't believe it. I think you guys are pretending not to see. In fact I think the Bush Administration will pretend not to see. Because it's too late for Bush (and by his extension, his flock) to start admitting mistakes like this. It would be catastrophic for his campaign if he were to come out now and say we should have guarded the nuclear sites and we're sorry terrorists may have got this material. The only option he has is to keep repeating the mantra that Iraq was the right thing to do. "It's hard work," is about the only thing they can say now. The Bush Administration and its followers are forced to divorce themselves from reality because they have no answer to reality.

I read an interesting article in Le Monde this morning about the intelligence behind the claim in the Duelfer Report that Saddam intended to restart chemical and nuclear weapons programmes (apparently he had no biological ambitions at all). These claims came from interviews with his lieutenants and former officials exclusively. There has been no independent verification of the statements and there is no hard evidence on the ground of any manifestation of such intention. Former officials apparently said they "heard [Saddam] say or inferred" (OR inferred - so they can't remember?) that he "intended to resume" these programmes. They said they "understood from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments to them" that it was his goal. The report confirmed that Iraq had "no formal written strategy or plan to do so."

Now, bear in mind that it was on the eve of the US invasion that Saddam broke it to his military commanders that Iraq had no WMD and that they would have to fight without them. That announcement apparently broke their morale entirely. That means Saddam had been telling them or "letting them infer" that he still had WMD. Would it not be consistent for him to tell them or let them infer that would start programmes after sanctions even if he had no such intention? Of course it would. Saddam was playing games with everyone, not the least his own military.

The "evidence" Duelfer uses to back up his assertion is hearsay from ex-military who are not only reasonably vague about what might have happened, had been lied to before, but no doubt have vested interests in making those claims now. Given the history of US "intelligence", and the obvious faults with this, I think it's fair to say they should be taken with a pinch of salt!

Not that it's important. The fact is that Iraq had no programmes. It's capacity to build WMD had deteriorated since 1991. Nothing had been passed on to anyone at that stag.

[Troll]

"I think what is somewhat scandalous is that it's been sitting there under an occupation. It was sitting there controlled when the inspections were there. But when the occupation comes in, it disappears...

"All these things were tagged and they were visited by the inspectors, and in comes the United States with 200,000 people on board and occupies the country in order, ostensibly, to take care of weapons of mass destruction, and they lose control and the instruments and equipment that could be helpful in nuclear production disappears."
- Hans Blix

"Exporters could export almost all of this equipment today legally, for example, to Iran without any control.

"But.. that's not an excuse for what's happened to it. Losing control of it really is inexcusable."
- David Kay

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:

"The only thing that North Korea has said to us that they would like to see from the United States is a security assurance that we are not planning to attack them or invade them," Mr Powell said.

"We have said that and they wish to see this assurance provided in some form that they would have confidence in."

Scenario #1

North Korean
Negotiator : We would like to see from the United States a security assurance that you are not planning to attack or invade us.

US Negotiator: We will not attack or invade N. Korea if you give up your nuclear weapons development.

NKN: We wish to see this assurance provided in some form that we have confidence in.

USN: You have the word of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

NKN: Hmmm, let us think about it. (That Bush will say ANYTHING to protect the American people!)


Scenario #2

North Korean
Negotiator : We would like to see from the United States a security assurance that you are not planning to attack or invade us.

US Negotiator: We will not attack or invade N. Korea if you give up your nuclear weapons development.

NKN: We wish to see this assurance provided in some form that we have confidence in.

USN: You have the word of the President of the United States, John F. Kerry

NKN: Hmmm, let us think about it. (Haw haw haw! THAT FLIP-FLOPPER'S WORD? Wait til Kim hears THIS line!!!)

[Troll]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Scenario #1, Scenario #2

Neither is accurate. For the outside world, Bush's lies are attributed to the United States of America. We won't trust any leader of your country for a long time irrespective of whether you get rid of Bush. So, even if Kerry were elected, it's unlikely the Koreans (or anyone else) will take your President's word for anything.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
hat's right, because there has been absolutely NO GOOD whatsoever to come of any of this. None. NONE, I SAY!



Maury

If that were the point, we'd all be raving about how Hitler managed to reduce unemployment when he came to power.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Nicko:
And didn't they say 9/11 cost the terrorists the low low price of only about $10mil to pull off?

From what I've read, it was less than half a million.