Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   For The Record, Here's What They Said (Justification for Iraq War)
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6268 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 1 of 47 (176972)
01-14-2005 11:10 AM


For a nice history of the rhetoric used to justify the Iraq war, check out:
Daily Kos: Access Denied (403)
Here's a few choice nuggets, go to the link above to see the entire extensive list:
But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
George W. Bush, President
Interview with TVP Poland
5/30/2003
Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have
George W. Bush, President
Radio Address
10/5/2002
We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas
George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
12/2/2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
1/9/2003
Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty. Robert Kagan, Neocon scholar
Washington Post op-ed
4/9/2003
And my favorite:
But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Nighttrain, posted 01-14-2005 9:23 PM Zhimbo has not replied
 Message 3 by DBlevins, posted 01-15-2005 3:49 AM Zhimbo has not replied
 Message 4 by Abshalom, posted 01-15-2005 6:49 AM Zhimbo has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 4250 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 2 of 47 (177150)
01-14-2005 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zhimbo
01-14-2005 11:10 AM


Hi,Zhim, loved the last par best of all
(I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
7/9/2003 ) Lol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zhimbo, posted 01-14-2005 11:10 AM Zhimbo has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 4032 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 3 of 47 (177203)
01-15-2005 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zhimbo
01-14-2005 11:10 AM


Straight talk from the horses mouth...
I personally like this one taken from a clip from Face the Nation.
Rumsfeld caught lying
This message has been edited by DBlevins, 01-15-2005 03:50 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zhimbo, posted 01-14-2005 11:10 AM Zhimbo has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 47 (177217)
01-15-2005 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zhimbo
01-14-2005 11:10 AM


Rummie's Specificity Is Something Knowable
Zhimbo:
Thanks for providing the link to the long list of lies the current adminstration foistered on us to validate their war.
My favorite is Rummie's characteristic vaguerism by which we certainly know what he knows is only knowable by its unknowledgable knowability:
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; ABC Interview, 3/30/2003.
Thank goodness he's not a mass media meteorologist!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zhimbo, posted 01-14-2005 11:10 AM Zhimbo has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5934 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 5 of 47 (177218)
01-15-2005 7:02 AM


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
You guys make it too easy.
This message has been edited by Tal, 01-15-2005 07:03 AM

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Silent H, posted 01-15-2005 7:45 AM Tal has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6076 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 6 of 47 (177224)
01-15-2005 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tal
01-15-2005 7:02 AM


You guys make it too easy.
You understand that your quotes...
1) Do not change the fact that the case for war presented by the Bush administration was false, and has changed over the course of time,
2) Do not necessarily require anyone to agree with the analyses presented in all of them, just because they are democrats (or non US) does not mean that they must be believed by someone that disagrees with Bush,
3) Actually argue for resumption, strengthening, and strict enforcement of inspections regimes, and that was in fact what was achieved before we stopped them in order to invade, which is not what all these quotes advocate,
4) Include quotes from those who actively opposed Bush's choice to go to war and in their quotes you can seem them mentioning the tentative nature of our information, which Bush and co argued was solid (which was a lie).
It is really quite easy. The facts are in and hindsight should be 20/20.
This message has been edited by holmes, 01-15-2005 07:48 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tal, posted 01-15-2005 7:02 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Tal, posted 01-15-2005 7:55 AM Silent H has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5934 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 7 of 47 (177226)
01-15-2005 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Silent H
01-15-2005 7:45 AM


Whatever makes you sleep at night holmes.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Silent H, posted 01-15-2005 7:45 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 01-15-2005 8:19 AM Tal has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6076 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 8 of 47 (177230)
01-15-2005 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tal
01-15-2005 7:55 AM


Whatever makes you sleep at night holmes
???? Where was I wrong? While your quotes do add up to certain democrats not being in a place to throw bricks at Bush, my points were sound.
Is it not true that some of those quotes are specifically about resuming inspections, and not positive about the quality of evidence? Is it not true that just because these people said what they did, changes what Bush and Co said?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tal, posted 01-15-2005 7:55 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Tal, posted 01-15-2005 8:29 AM Silent H has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5934 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 9 of 47 (177231)
01-15-2005 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Silent H
01-15-2005 8:19 AM


You do have a strong argument for the lack of WMD, but that is not the only reason we came to Iraq. It was just one reason.
Are the WMD here in Iraq like we thought? No. Score one for you.
Are/were there some WMD and the means to deliver them? Yes. One for me.
Have the inspectors left and found nothing? Yes. Chalk one for you.
Is that the final say in the WMD drama? No. More info will come out on where they went. But I know you guys are jumping all over the headline that the inspectors have now left and found doodle. Keep that in mind for the future, because I'm going to come back and post a big "see I told you so" when they find somemore, use some on us, or finally decide to declassify intel reports (which won't happen with the insurgency going on).

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 01-15-2005 8:19 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 01-15-2005 11:30 AM Tal has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6076 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 10 of 47 (177252)
01-15-2005 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tal
01-15-2005 8:29 AM


Don't confuse me with everyone. My position is pretty refined. I am not merely anti-war, and I was not pro Gore in 2000. I am not against the military and have a very strong interest in good intelligence.
When you want to criticize my position, make sure you get it right and don't slide into generic arguments.
that is not the only reason we came to Iraq. It was just one reason.
I agree that in reality there were more reasons. The problem is that WMDs were the major rationale for war, and pretty much the only one which would allow us to invade according to international law. Remember that until the WMD search went sour we referred to this as a preemptive invasion. There was a threat and it was imminent, or potentially imminent. Without that it was not pre-emptive, it was simply an invasion. That is against international law.
Are the WMD here in Iraq like we thought? No. Score one for you.
The real question is were the assertions that we actually knew, that we had definite evidence of WMDs and where they were, real? The answer is no.
That is not only a point for me (and all of the other war critics, including some top US intel officers) which pointed out that our intel was not as strong as was being made out, but an actual indictment for those that said we were wrong and the US had hard data to back up claims. It simply didn't. That means they lied.
Are/were there some WMD and the means to deliver them? Yes. One for me.
This is actually a point for me as well. War critics stated that there was a definite possibility that old stock did exist, and it could be a large amount. That is why inspections were needed. We did not know how much and in what condition they were in.
The claim from the administration is that we knew exactly how much and where, as well as a potential for more, and that in addition to a general "means to deliver them" had the capability of using those means in a rapid basis.
As it turns out there are scraps of the old stock WMDs, which is NOT against what many war critics advanced as a possibility. The problem for "your side" is that they were not in the quantities and qualities and deliverable by means as had been suggested.
Remember your argument was that Hussein was a madman with all of this stuff at his disposal and was readily willing to use it. Yet he did not use it when his very regime and life were coming to an end? Does that make any common sense to you?
The only way it makes sense is that he simply did not have the vast amounts of WMDs being discussed, nor had the ability to deliver them, at least not in any rapid and useful (for him) degree.
The fact that he had rockets here, or artillery there, and then way over some other places he had some remnant stocks which were degraded material, some just forgotten shells with chemicals so weak they were no longer lethal, is a far cry from a nation with WMDs and the capability to deliver them.
I will point out once again, even the insurgents have been misusing them in the cases when they use shells with degraded chemicals.
None of this has been outside the parameters of the threat discussed by the UN, France, Russia, etc etc... and that includes me. What it seriously falls beneath is the parameters of the threat discussed by Bush an co.
Have the inspectors left and found nothing? Yes. Chalk one for you.
Nothing is not exactly correct. Nothing along the lines of any claims that Bush and Co advanced to the world and the nation in a way that justified a "pre-emptive" invasion, is more accurate.
Is that the final say in the WMD drama? No. More info will come out on where they went. But I know you guys are jumping all over the headline that the inspectors have now left and found doodle. Keep that in mind for the future, because I'm going to come back and post a big "see I told you so" when they find somemore, use some on us, or finally decide to declassify intel reports (which won't happen with the insurgency going on).
There may be more remnant stocks found and used. That does not fall outside the parameters of the critics. Even if another shell, or lets say a barrel, of chemical toxins gets used against US troops that will not vindicate anything, and I am confused why you think it would.
No one is arguing that there could have been chemicals at all, or that chemicals could be used at all. The whole point is if there were enough and with delivery systems capable of Iraq posing an imminent, or potentially imminent threat to the US or its neighbors such that the ONLY method of dealing with the situation was an invasion which would invariably kill thousands of innocent people.
The small scale attacks which may occur will be by insurgents and not the Iraqi army, which proves beyond a doubt that the Iraqi army did not pose a WMD threat, even within their own nation as the regime was falling and the lives of the leaders were at stake.
That said, if what gets declassified is that there were humongous stocks of WMDs which everyone knew about and deliberately lied about in order to protect insurgents from getting at them, or insurgents using the stocks they found of WMDs just waiting to be used manage to take out half the nation, or a surrounding nation, then we can start talking points for your side.
Someone setting off a shell, or a barrel with chemical or radioactive material, or pouring such a thing into a local water supply simply does nothing but score more points for my side which said that such a thing was more likely to occur after an invasion than if we just use new and more robust inspections.
Remember the claim was WMDs gave him global strategic possibilities, not insurgents local tactical possibilities.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tal, posted 01-15-2005 8:29 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Tal, posted 01-15-2005 4:17 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 24 by contracycle, posted 01-18-2005 5:46 AM Silent H has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5934 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 11 of 47 (177296)
01-15-2005 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Silent H
01-15-2005 11:30 AM


Yet he did not use it when his very regime and life were coming to an end? Does that make any common sense to you?
He didn't use them in the Gulf War, and he definately had them then.
The only way it makes sense is that he simply did not have the vast amounts of WMDs being discussed, nor had the ability to deliver them, at least not in any rapid and useful (for him) degree.
I'll answer that with a quote from President Bush.
"I think he dispersed them. I think he is so adapted at deceiving the civilized world for a long period of time that it's going to take a while for the troops to unravel. But I firmly believe he had weapons of mass destruction. I know he used them at one time."
The fact that he had rockets here, or artillery there, and then way over some other places he had some remnant stocks which were degraded material, some just forgotten shells with chemicals so weak they were no longer lethal, is a far cry from a nation with WMDs and the capability to deliver them.
Just a point of clarification. Most of the shells we've found and/or were exploded as IEDs are artillery shells. They could have been fired out of any of his artillery pieces. The rounds are designed to airburst, but detonating them on the ground will have a much less dramatic effect. I'm fairly sure the guys exposed to nerve agent can tell us how weak the chemicals were.
The whole point is if there were enough and with delivery systems capable of Iraq posing an imminent, or potentially imminent threat to the US or its neighbors such that the ONLY method of dealing with the situation was an invasion which would invariably kill thousands of innocent people.
You mean like he had already done before?

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 01-15-2005 11:30 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 01-15-2005 4:22 PM Tal has replied
 Message 13 by Rrhain, posted 01-15-2005 7:56 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 01-16-2005 5:46 AM Tal has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1723 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 12 of 47 (177297)
01-15-2005 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tal
01-15-2005 4:17 PM


He didn't use them in the Gulf War, and he definately had them then.
Doesn't that rather undercut the position that "he would definately have used them if he had them?" I mean, if the guy doesn't use WMD's on us even when he has them and we're right at his doorstep, how much of a threat to us could he have been?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tal, posted 01-15-2005 4:17 PM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Tal, posted 01-16-2005 9:39 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 264 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 13 of 47 (177335)
01-15-2005 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tal
01-15-2005 4:17 PM


Tal writes:
quote:
He didn't use them in the Gulf War, and he definately had them then.
But that's just it. It seems he didn't even really have them then, either. There was work in dealing with production facilities, but he didn't really have much in the way of actual results.
Didn't you read the report?
quote:
I'll answer that with a quote from President Bush.
"I think he dispersed them...."

But that's just it: He didn't. You can't disperse what you don't have. They were all gone by 1991. Didn't you read the report? Iraq didn't have any WMDs, hadn't had any for 10 years, and didn't disperse them to any other country.
[more from the Bush quote]
"But I firmly believe he had weapons of mass destruction. I know he used them at one time."
Yes. He used them against Iran and against the Kurds. And then he didn't have any anymore. And he used them in the 80s during Bush, Sr.'s regime. By the time the first Gulf War came around, he didn't have any.
Didn't you read the report? Every single statement out of the Bush Administration regarding Iraq and WMDs turns out to have been wrong. Iraq didn't have any, we certainly didn't know where they were (which only makes sense since there weren't any), they weren't scattered to the winds (again, which only makes sense since there weren't any), and the idea that Iraq as an imminent threat (which Rumsfeld said) was a lie.
quote:
You mean like he had already done before?
Nearly 20 years ago! We invaded not in the 80s when he had these weapons and were using them against the Kurds. We invaded in 2002 when we had absolutely no indication that he had anything! And he didn't even have them in 1991 when we invaded the first time!

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tal, posted 01-15-2005 4:17 PM Tal has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6076 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 14 of 47 (177479)
01-16-2005 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tal
01-15-2005 4:17 PM


Other people have already addressed this, but I will repeat the points...
He didn't use them in the Gulf War, and he definately had them then.
This really does undercut the theory that he was a madman willing to use them anytime anywhere. However lets forget that for a second, or the implications that he may not have had sufficient WMD munitions at that time.
Let's assume that he had full WMD stocks at the time and was willing to use them. There is still a huge chasm between the first gulf war and this war. And I am not just talking about time.
The first gulf war did not put his nation or his regime in direct threat. He annexed Kuwait and then was thrown out of Kuwait. There was no drive toward his seat of power, and he managed to get some of his forces back intact.
This war was it. It was the end. The outcome of this war determined whether his regime stayed in power and even whether he would stay alive. There would have been no reason to hold back, none at all. Yet not one chemical munition was used, or indicative of having been prepared for use.
That should tell you something, about his having them in strength and/or his madman attitude toward using them. As Rumsfeld himself said: The proof is in the tasting of the pudding. We took a heck of a big bite. Bush's pudding did not live up to its billing.
I'll answer that with a quote from President Bush.
This will not help. He is discussing what everyone knew, and then speculates what happened to them. Others disagreed and it is turning out that they are right. Even Bush has backed off such speculations. You do know that right?
That's the thing I don't get, Bush and Co (with the exception of Cheney and FoxNEWS) are readily admitting they were wrong, then passing the buck as to why.
Most of the shells we've found and/or were exploded as IEDs are artillery shells. They could have been fired out of any of his artillery pieces. The rounds are designed to airburst, but detonating them on the ground will have a much less dramatic effect. I'm fairly sure the guys exposed to nerve agent can tell us how weak the chemicals were.
Again, woulda coulda shoulda. If he could, but he did not, then your argument he was a madman that would is proven false. That he did not is evidence of at least that, if not that he simply had no serious stocks to use.
It is current theory (as far as I understand) that the Iraqis were not even sure that those were chemically filled shells and were not being stored with ammo for ready use. That again, makes the point that they could be fired, moot.
It had also been stated that the chemicals were in a degraded state due to poor storage (which chemical rounds need). That means it was unlikely to be a vast danger.
And unfortunately whether they are for use at altitude or not, has no impact on whether it would be effective at short range on the ground. The reason they are meant for detonation at altitude is so that it can spread around to reach as many people as possible. It diffuses. A short range release means a more concentrated release, unless not all got out.
The men exposed did not die, they became sick. If that is all that was to happen, then they would be better classified as WMSs.
You mean like he had already done before?
Again, there is no dispute that he killed a lot of people a long time ago. He had purges to secure power (which we helped him with), and he had a war against the Iranians (which we also helped him with). The mass graves are primarily from when we were helping him and defending his actions. This is a matter for public record and I can't believe you have missed the infamous photo of a smiling Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein. This was around the time of the gassings of his own people and we defended him from human rights groups.
Since the Gulf War, he continued purges and smaller scale actions against insurgents, but then you must realize that is EXACTLY what we are doing now. We are securing our power base, or should I say the power base of the representative democracy we want to see rule the nation. We are also creating mass graves.
However, since the first GulfWar he was not active in the mass killings and invasions he had been engaged in before. This isn't to argue he was a nice guy. He was a bastard. Just you can't point to a long time ago and then say that proves he is a grave threat right now.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tal, posted 01-15-2005 4:17 PM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Tal, posted 01-16-2005 9:47 AM Silent H has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5934 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 15 of 47 (177502)
01-16-2005 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by crashfrog
01-15-2005 4:22 PM


Doesn't that rather undercut the position that "he would definately have used them if he had them?" I mean, if the guy doesn't use WMD's on us even when he has them and we're right at his doorstep, how much of a threat to us could he have been?
If he had used them we wouldn't be having this discussion. Using the WMD on the US, or any of his neighbors, would simply have solidified everybody against us.
It's the same logic for N. Korea. They have nukes, but if they ever launch one, against anybody, we'll turn N. Korea into a glass parking lot.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 01-15-2005 4:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 01-16-2005 2:01 PM Tal has replied
 Message 18 by Rrhain, posted 01-16-2005 10:02 PM Tal has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024