Post #105,960
6/13/03 8:44:11 AM
|
Main response
First, it is now failing to make clear that prior to the war the administration did not have the burden of proving that there were, or were not, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That burden fell on Saddam Hussein. (This simple conclusion should have always been clear to all, since the U.N. inspectors never carried the burden of proof either.) I'll get to the other parts later, but that bit has an obvious and clear cut response. The US did not have the burden of taking down Saddam either. When we took up that task, we also took up the task of providing a reason. Jay
|
Post #106,017
6/13/03 1:00:19 PM
|
Re: Main response
When we took up that task, we also took up the task of providing a reason.
Yup. And that reason was that Iraq was in violation of numerous declarations regarding WMDs from the [link|http://www.themoderntribune.com/un_resolution_687_1991_cease_fire_conditions_gulf_war_full_text_un_united_nation_resolution_871_-_iraq_wmd.htm|original cease fire] to the [link|http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/iraq-110702-1198.pdf|last resolution]. And the reason we took up the task to enforce these was that, in a post 9/11 world where we are at war with terrorists, the fact that there are unaccounted for WMDs is a clear and present danger to our country.
The point from the story was that the Bush admin has failed to make this clear and is now dealing with ramifications of that.
|
Post #106,023
6/13/03 1:11:27 PM
|
Not the US responsibility, but UN responsibility
that reason was that Iraq was in violation of numerous declarations regarding WMDs from the original cease fire to the last resolution.
Bush implied that Iraq had WMD and was imminent threat to US safety. That Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions is/was/should have been an UN issue.
Vigilante actions should not be encouraged.
When they took the Fourth Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the Fifth Amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the Second Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the First Amendment, and I can't say anything about it.
|
Post #106,073
6/13/03 7:46:50 PM
|
Except
Except of course, that the US could not convince the UN that those violations where sufficent to justify an attack. The US took it upon itself to launch an attack that is just as much a violation of UN law as the rules you are pointing to.
Nor where those violations the reason the White House used to justify an attack in the US. In the US, the reason was that Saddam had ties to terrorists and was an immediate threat to the US because of his weapons of mass destruction.
Heck, if unaccounted WMDs are ground for invasion, then the rest of the world would be justified in attacking the US. We have refused to account for our own chemical weapons and we have a proven record of giving them to dangerous dictators.
Jay
|
Post #106,077
6/13/03 8:08:48 PM
|
The line by line
Since Iraq was known by U.N. inspectors to have had many such weapons until 1998, and since the disposition of these weapons after that time was not known, as by international obligation it ought to have been, the United States had no practical choice but to assume that they were still in existence. The disposition of those weapons where what the inspections where working on. It's exactly because the inspections where working, very slowly but working, that the US had to disrupt the process. The US had already made the decision to invade, the UN inspection teams where sent only to provide a justification. When it became clear that they where liable to remove the US excuse for going to war, the process was bypassed. Second, the public has not been made aware of how small a set of objects the U.S. is now looking for. In January, Hans Blix said that, among other things, 8,500 liters of anthrax were unaccounted for. How much space do 8,500 liters occupy? That's about 45 drums \ufffd the size of oil drums \ufffd probably spread out in several different hiding places. Along with the envrionmental control machinery to keep that stuff safely. Anthrax isn't the sort of thing you put in tupperware and stash at the back of the fridge after all. If one contemplates how much damage a single teaspoon of anthrax caused in Washington, D.C., when it was spread through the mail in October of 2001, the United States was right to be worried about the enormous damage that a suitcase full of anthrax delivered by a small cell of terrorists might wreak. Anthrax is actually quite hard to deliver effectivly. The reason Saddam needed large amounts in the first place is that while a minute dose might be deadly, saturating an area to reliable effect people in that area requires over dosing the area heavily. Many other biological and some chemical weapons have the same problem. That is why our troops in the field are not expecting to find huge warehouses or enormous storage spaces. They are looking for materials that may be hidden in somebody's basement, behind a false wall, in a space the size of a clothes' closet. Not for the chemical weapons anyway, but biological weapons take quite a bit more space to handle effectivly. Not to mention of course that Saddam being on the verge of deploying nuclear weapons was one of the reasons for going to war. A primitive nuke is not something that can be hidden effectivly. THREE FURTHER POINTS
After September 11, given the character of Saddam Hussein and the variety of terrorist leaders who took shelter under him in Baghdad, from Abu Nidal to top people of al Qaeda, President Bush had to recognize a clear and worrisome danger. On any day that went by, terrorists seeking biological weapons might offer their clandestine delivery system in exchange for a supply of Saddam's weapons. Which Saddam would refuse outright, remember his primarly goal was survival. Saddam was the one least likely to launch a terrorist attack, because he would have to know that it would mean his death. Also, despite claims by the White House, Saddam had little contact with al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. Even Saddam's own records show that meetings where abortive because the ideology was to different. Again, as Stanley Kurtz has pointed out on NRO, several Iraqi villagers recently became ill after they broke into an unguarded nuclear facility at Tuwaitha (the one bombed by the Israelis years ago). In ignorance, they had emptied out barrels containing radioactive materials in order to use them as water containers. The New York Times now laments that these dangerous materials had been left unguarded, and so could have been seized by terrorists intent on manufacturing "an inestimable quantity of so-called dirty bombs." Here is the New York Times making Bush's prewar argument! What the Times is complaining about is that after the invasion, US troops should have been sent to secure those sites. This is obviously true, it is very likely that if any weapons did fall into terrorist hands it was do to incompetence in securing sites in Iraq. But the deeper argument is that those items would never have been open to being taken in the first place if we had not invaded. Our invasion has created the very risk that it was supposed to stop. And, by the way, 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium counts as a weapon of mass destruction, doesn't it? By itself? Not really. If mounted on a bomb it would be of course. A more interesting question would be, does our own use of uranium weapons count as WMD usage? Finally, Democrats in Congress should assemble all the evidence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction revealed by President Clinton and Vice President Gore right up till they left power in early 2001, and by the U.N. inspection teams both in 1998 and again in 2003. Then they should try to measure any daylight between this evidence and the evidence adduced by President Bush and his team. They may end up pointing fingers at themselves. Somehow I doubt it, since the only things Clinton ever talked about was the various finds by the UN inspection teams. Finds that where then destroyed. Jay
|
Post #106,136
6/14/03 3:22:17 PM
|
re: Anthrax in tupperware
Along with the envrionmental control machinery to keep that stuff safely. Anthrax isn't the sort of thing you put in tupperware and stash at the back of the fridge after all.
Who ever said Saddam wanted things done safely? He did not give a fudge about his grunts. He probably made prisoners move that stuff around after blindfolding them so that they did not know where they were.
While it is quite possible that W's group exaggerated their WMD evidence, and perhaps should be punished for that; in most likelyhood, Saddam does have WMD hidden somewhere. He would not have acted so cagey otherwise. His stories about how he destroyed his pre-90 WMD don't hold water. Thus, *both* Saddam and W should be punished perhaps.
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #106,166
6/15/03 10:33:24 AM
|
I am sure I read that wrong...
>>Thus, *both* Saddam and W should be punished perhaps.
OK, W's probably going to skate, and probably get re-elected to add insult to injury.
Sadam HASN'T been punished?
Lessee here..
We spent enough to endow several libraries just to plant explosives on his ass just to start a war.
The war started, we took from him, resources that beggar the imagination.
If he ever surfaces, his ass is toast and the entire world is a fondue dish.
God\ufffds bleeding cunt, man, what precisely what do you consider punishment? This is scarier than your OO rants.
Ok\ufffd. Let\ufffds bomb him directly\ufffdtake away any means of future wealth\ufffdbomb his home\ufffd bomb his cities\ufffd strafe that goat he was ogling\ufffd kill anybody who supports him\ufffd and if we missed and can\ufffdt kill him quietly later, we can try (judicially) him and hang him And he hasn\ufffdt been punished?
W is certainly looking at similar treatment, I\ufffdm sure.
|
Post #106,326
6/17/03 12:32:12 PM
|
Re: The line by line
The disposition of those weapons where what the inspections where working on. It's exactly because the inspections where working, very slowly but working, that the US had to disrupt the process. The US had already made the decision to invade, the UN inspection teams where sent only to provide a justification. When it became clear that they where liable to remove the US excuse for going to war, the process was bypassed.How many of Sadaam's WMDs did the UN team account for? How long would it take them to account for all of them? What are the chances Sadaam wouldn't throw them out again once the focus was on something else? Which Saddam would refuse outright, remember his primarly goal was survival. Saddam was the one least likely to launch a terrorist attack, because he would have to know that it would mean his death. Also, despite claims by the White House, Saddam had little contact with al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. Even Saddam's own records show that meetings where abortive because the ideology was to different.We do know there was a terrorist camp in northern Iraq. We also know terrorists had taken refuge in Iraq. You admit to his meetings with al Qaeda. Are you saying Sadaam would not try to slip some of his WMDs to terrorists who would like to use them against the US for fear of the US; but it was worth risking his death to refuse to account for his WMDs? Somehow I doubt it, since the only things Clinton ever talked about was the various finds by the UN inspection teams. Finds that where then destroyed.[link|http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/16/iraq.strike.03/|Remember operation Desert Fox?] If I remember correctly, this was after the inspecters where thrown out of Iraq in 1998: The activity occurred shortly after U.S. President Bill Clinton announced he had ordered a "strong, sustained" series of airstrikes on military and security forces in Iraq, designed to degrade Iraq's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction Regards, John
|
Post #106,368
6/17/03 5:34:34 PM
|
Memory
If I remember correctly, this was after the inspecters where thrown out of Iraq in 1998: Funny. My memory of that event was that the inspectors were pulled out. (from the same article) Butler late Tuesday ordered UNSCOM staff out of Baghdad. The entire staff was evacuated before dawn on Wednesday.
snip
"It made logical sense therefore to pull our people out, and we'll see where this goes in the future," he added. -----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
|
Post #106,378
6/17/03 6:06:01 PM
|
N. Iraq == Kurd territory. D'Oh. No Saddam-love there.
|
Post #107,172
6/24/03 7:38:36 PM
|
Nor most other places in Iraq.
But if you want to shed a tear for the poor oppressed Tikritis and Baathists who have lost their empire, I can't stop you. You'll have to provide your own beer to let it fall in, though.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEAL WITH IT.
Never mind all the mass graves. Where's the nerve gas?
I helped depose Saddam. Did you?
When the facts speak for themselves, only a fool insists on having a debate.
The future is leaving the station, the US is at the throttle, and the Left isn't on board.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
|
Post #107,175
6/24/03 7:59:41 PM
|
Back from your latest tour of duty?
Regale us with your tales of pitched battles.
-----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
|
Post #107,229
6/25/03 10:01:03 AM
|
Well, I had to fight off two
little old ladies to get the last free donut in the breakroom.
When they took the Fourth Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the Fifth Amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the Second Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the First Amendment, and I can't say anything about it.
|
Post #107,232
6/25/03 10:13:58 AM
|
Slack Hawk Clown
-drl
|
Post #107,980
7/1/03 1:29:35 AM
|
Children of the Corn
|
Post #106,394
6/17/03 8:25:33 PM
|
Re: The line by line
How many of Sadaam's WMDs did the UN team account for? How long would it take them to account for all of them? What are the chances Sadaam wouldn't throw them out again once the focus was on something else? How can the inspectors account for something that doesn't exist? Some of what the inspectors where investigating where inconsitancies in Iraqi records, where one would say they used 11,000 bombs and another would say they used 9,000. If that is just an error in records that where now 10+ years old, it's going to be real hard to fix a firm conclusion either way ever. Taken literally, the standard that Saddam must prove he doesn't have WMDs is impossible. Oh, and Saddam didn't throw the inspectors out, they left to avoid getting bombed. We do know there was a terrorist camp in northern Iraq. We also know terrorists had taken refuge in Iraq. You admit to his meetings with al Qaeda. Are you saying Sadaam would not try to slip some of his WMDs to terrorists who would like to use them against the US for fear of the US; but it was worth risking his death to refuse to account for his WMDs? Consider it from Saddam's perspective for a moment. If he admits he has weapons of WMD, the US would use that as a pretext to invades. If he says he doesn't and the UN inspectors say they didn't find any the US uses the refusal to come clean as a pretext to invade. For Saddam, the only real hope was dragging the inpection process on long enough for American interest to wander, this is true no matter if he had any WMDs or not. Remember operation Desert Fox? If I remember correctly, this was after the inspecters where thrown out of Iraq in 1998: And where in that article does it talk about the non-UN intelligence being used by Clinton? Heck, those air strikes may not have been against suspected WMD sites all. The real goal was to intimidate Saddam into removing restrictions he has placed on how the inspectors could operate and where they could go. It ended up failing, in large part because the spy scandle hit and the US didn't want to press the issue. Jay
|
Post #106,446
6/18/03 1:42:15 PM
|
Round and round
How can the inspectors account for something that doesn't exist?
This idea that Iraq's WMDs don't exist is hard for me to understand. We know they had biological and chemical weapons and quite a bit was unaccounted for when the inspectors left in 98([link|http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/981008.htm|UN report from 98]). I don't know of any solid evidence that the disposition of all those unaccounted for items has been found.
The other thing that's hard for me to understand is this idea that Bush lied and made up the whole WMD thing. There's plenty of others who believed Iraq still had them (including a number of high profile Democrats). A quick search on google brought up the following links containing evidence Iraq could still have WMDs:
[link|http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/leitenberg.html|http://www.isis-onli...q/leitenberg.html]
[link|http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iraq.htm|http://cns.miis.edu/...ch/wmdme/iraq.htm]
[link|http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2180237.stm|http://news.bbc.co.u..._news/2180237.stm]
[link|http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/pdf/Iraq/factsheet/Iraq-ChemBioFactSheet.pdf|http://www.ceip.org/...mBioFactSheet.pdf]
[link|http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1996/cbiac_apr96.htm|http://www.fas.org/n...6/cbiac_apr96.htm]
[link|http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/bw-unscom.htm|http://www.globalsec...raq/bw-unscom.htm]
[link|http://whyfiles.org/059bio_war/basics.html|http://whyfiles.org/...o_war/basics.html]
[link|http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/|http://www.isis-onli...ublications/iraq/]
[link|http://www.nci.org/sadb.htm|http://www.nci.org/sadb.htm]
Oh, and Saddam didn't throw the inspectors out, they left to avoid getting bombed.
You are correct. My memory was faulty on that one.
---------
We can go round and round on this a long time. In the end, we'll never know the truth until we have solid evidence of the exact disposition of those WMDs.
You can have the last word...
Regards,
John
|
Post #106,489
6/18/03 9:07:23 PM
|
Once again
An "imminent threat" did not exist no matter how it was trumpeted.
Bush lied. Thousands died.
-----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
|
Post #106,509
6/19/03 12:54:35 AM
|
We have solid evidence
Bush claimed there was substantial credible intelligence of WMD sufficient to pose a real threat to the US.
How credible is intelligence with no hint of location? Granted, a piece or two of credible intelligence may appear that lacks geographic references, but for the most part, credible intelligence is credible because it identifies places, names, objects, that can be verified either physicaly or by cross-checking with other intelligence. You would have to be a 21'st century "journalist" to bet on a source that can't be checked up on. You don't bet billions of dollars worth of equipment and the lives of US military people on unsubstantiated rumors. And in order to substantiate, you need places, names, and objects.
You don't honestly do that on the basis of not having records that don't balance regarding weapons that, if unmaintained, are unusable. I've worked for far less unreasonable bosses than Saddam, and the fact that he ordered the weapons destroyed would not have protected those who destroyed them from his wrath. It is quite possible that the weapons were destroyed and those responsible simply didn't want to expose themselves by reporting it. Or the records could be off due to errors.
Once you have that intelligence, and free run of the country, and no need to continue to protect sources now that the threat is neutralized, you go in and you find it (well, no, "find" is the wrong word - you know where it is, maybe "get" is the word) and take care of it.
We are talking about substantial weapons programs - chemicals, biological agents is quantity. Not the One Ring or something else tiny. Big, nasty stuff that is real hard to clean up. Not as big as a similar conventional weapons program, but much harder to clean up. And if we have reliable, credible intelligence, we know where at least some of it was at some point, because otherwise we don't have any way of either cross-checking the stories or getting some physical observations from sattelite or arial surveilance. If it was all mobile, reliable, credible intelligence would have warned us of that fact. Without cross-checking or physical observation, all you have is rumors.
There was a lie. Was it that the intelligence existed? Was it that it was credible? Was the intelligence an elaborate web of cross-checked lies that fooled the Bush team?
The absense of evidence is not evidence of absence - there may be a substantial WMD program. But I'm not saying there wasn't - I'm saying that Bush lied about having reliable, credible intelligence about one.
The evidence of a campaign of lies is far more solid than the evidence of a substantial WMD program.
As the Bush campaign was fond of pointing out, lies are a bad thing.
----
Sometime you the windshield, sometime you the bug...
|
Post #106,802
6/21/03 1:03:00 PM
|
Re: We have solid evidence
Bush is too stupid to blame. The blame lies with the puppetmasters.
-drl
|
Post #106,803
6/21/03 1:10:19 PM
|
I don't mean Bush the organism
I mean Bush the figurehead.
Kind of like saying "The Crown", when you aren't referring to a piece of headwear.
----
Sometime you the windshield, sometime you the bug...
|
