• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

WMDs & The UN Inspectors...

Welcome...G-Man...boy...talk about Deja-vu?!

Well written post and right on the money.
 
FinnMacCool said:
Until I actually see some evidence that Saddam actually had wmds then maybe I'll believe it.


CHEMICAL WARFARE IN THE IRAQ-IRAN WAR

THE POISON GASES IDENTIFIED BY THE UN TEAM

Iraq WMD Dossier Statement


Conclusion


In conclusion, war, sanctions and inspections have reversed and retarded, but not eliminated Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and long range missile capacities, nor have they removed Baghdad’s enduring interest in developing these capacities. The retention of WMD capacities by Iraq is self-evidently the core objective of the regime, for it has sacrificed all other domestic and foreign policy goals to this singular aim. It has retained this single objective, and pursued it in breach of the ceasefire and UN Security Council Resolutions that brought a conditional end to the 1991 Gulf War. Over more than eleven years the Iraqi regime has sought to evade its obligations and undermine support for the sanctions and inspections regime meant to eliminate its WMD capacities and contain its ambitions. Iraq has fought a relatively successful diplomatic war of attrition.



When you say you are down to your last dollar do you really mean you have no money and no way to get some in the future? Unlikely.
 
Hoot said:
Saddam did not kick the inspectors out before the war...Bush kicked them out because he wanted to start the bombing...the inspectors, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, were on the ground in Iraq doing their job and..reported no WMD, and asked for two lousy stinking months to finish their inspections, but Bush didn't want to wait for truth that would not support his attack plans...plans that had been in place for years.

There's some real truth for ya.

Quite an example of leftist hack truth but still the sematics are in place.




"UNSCOM and Iraqi authorities reached a point of confrontation in August 1998, when Iraqi authorities decided to cease all cooperation with UNSCOM, thus preventing its members from doing the inspections work they were in the country to do. In response to this noncompliance the United States and Great Britain threatened to -- and eventually did -- carry out a punishing series of airstrikes to compel Iraqi cooperation. UNSCOM head Richard Butler evacuated the inspectors from the country to get them out of harm's way.
When Iraq stiffed the weapons inspectors and ended their work in the country, it was violating U.N. resolutions. It was, effectively, not allowing them to do their job; Saddam gave them no alternative but to leave. The particulars of who ordered them to get on a plane is a side detail that Saddam -- and, frankly, some of those who make this argument -- are using to obscure the reality of what happened. "
Joshua Micah Marshall


And the facts of the matter in a rather large nutshell.
The 1997 and 1998 section are quite interesting and illuminating if you take your sunglasses off for a moment.

The Iraq Crisis
 
FinnMacCool said:
Until I actually see some evidence that Saddam actually had wmds then maybe I'll believe it.

But you ignore the fact that Bush has completely changed his focus and is now going on about liberation and freedom instead of wmds.

You know, in the beginning, the mere fact that Sadam failed to live up to the resolutions set for him 17 TIMES was enough for me to say he needs to be ousted. The fact that we he is a murderer of his own people, and his sons were psychotic was enough for me to support the war.

However, I agree with Finn that the way Bush has changed his focus of the war shows that he has little confidence in the existence of WMD's. Had he stuck with his original reasoning for going to war he may have more support now. Had he pronounced his belief that there were in fact WMD's out there we may be in a better position than we are presently in.
 
Welcome to Debate Politics G-man!::2razz:
 
G-Man said:
Indeed it was Iraq's lack of such WMD and resulted weakness which led to its downfall. If ,like N Korea Pakistan or Israel, Saddam had obtained a WMD capability, no country (including the US) would dared to have launched a military campaign against him.
The war is about oil and profit - pure and simple.

If the war is truly about oil, how come I am paying three bucks at the pump for a gallon of gas? We should be swimming in the ****.
 
mistermain said:
If the war is truly about oil, how come I am paying three bucks at the pump for a gallon of gas? We should be swimming in the ****.

Yes, I doubt it was only about oil. Sure, oil's a major factor, hell Iraq is the 2nd world's largest oil spigot for cryin out loud. I think some of it was about an America that would show to the world it's unrivaled military strenght, not to mention, feel free to exersize it, especially to strike first, where and whenever we want. And Iraq would be a guinea pig. Iraq would demonstrate what fate awaits other rogue regimes.
 
Hoot said:
Haven't any of you right wingers read one word about Saddam Hussien that is NOT reguritated by right wing pundits?
first off, I am FAR from right-wing, and I find that insulting...If there are coincidental points that I may have with your "right-wing", that doesn't make me a card-carrying member, just as much as saying black people are just like the KKK because they may both fear "God".:roll:

Hoot said:
It's been widely reported that Saddam made a habit of showing "false" WMD plans to scientists...and whoever...knowing that some of them would defect, and/or be captured and swear, under foreign interrogation techniques, that Saddam had WMD...because they saw the plans!

Saddam felt this would further his identity in the Middle East as "one bad dude' and someone not to be messed with, thus further strengthening his hold on power.
I was not saying that the scientists WERE believable...although you claim they were sincere...wonderful....I was pointing out that someone on this thread had no problems questioning those scientists...WHETHER or not they were truthful(Notice my "bad intelligence" remark?)...but NOT questioning the 2 Al-Quaida members who were caught and said there were no connections...

Hoot said:
Even U.S. intelligence, as bad as it was, now knows that any Iraqi scientist, and what they say, has to be taken with a grain of salt, and not believed to be the Gospel. This was always Saddam's way...deceive your enemies.
"Now knows"...what a wonderful thing to say...can I say it, please?

"NOW KNOWS"...

Hey!...This archair quarterbacking thing feels pretty good!...I don't know why I wasn't acting more like you all this time!:roll:
 
kal-el said:
Support for terrorism? Please, Iraq had the least terror connections of any Mid East country.
nkgupta80 said:
people will try to refute this by saying that Iraq had some vague connections with Al Queda abck in the day. I mean if this accounts for Iraq being a terrorist friendly nation, then hell when we helped the muhajideen in Afghanistan, we MUST have been a terrorist nation too.

Its a well known fact in all nations who have been fighting terrorism for a long time that Iraq had the least connections. The greatest Iraq probably did in promoting terrorism was giving money to the families of suicide bombers.
Saddam supported the Mojahedin-e Khalq in a major way. Now the US is harboring members of this terrorist organization and members of Team Bush are helping them raise funds.
 
gdalton said:
Mr. David Kay, Iraq Survey Group

We have discovered ... program activities and ... equipment ...
• A ... laboratory complex ...
• Reference strains ...
• New research ... and continuing work ...
Re-examine the nouns more closely. As excited and breathless as these things seem to make some folks, none of these things are weapons.
FYI Brucella and CCHF are endemic to Iraq. Try again.

gdalton said:
(Nuclear)
• Documents and equipment ...
This information which may or may not also be available from public sources is not a weapon either. The buried piece of a centrifuge was not even an entire centrifuige. Further, even if it had been, it would have taken several thousand of them to get things going. Further still, the guy that hid it did so of his own volition. Keep trying again.

gdalton said:
(As Simon puts it “venomous-flying-robots-of-terror-from-Iraq “)
• A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
Ah yes, the venomous-flying-robots-of-terror-from-Iraq that the Airforce experts said were not at all suitable to be fitted w/ B or C weapons but still made GWB "concerned" nonetheless.
They are not weapons either.
Keep trying.

gdalton said:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair..._10022003.html
This is David Kay, chief weapons inspector, ISG
"Kay clearly admires Bush, and believes he went to war in Iraq in good faith because he thought Baghdad was a threat to the American people…… Before the war, Kay was one of the most fervent supporters of military action."
Kay says he thinks that Bush believed Baghdad was a threat. So what?
Bush is not, by any probable stretch of the definitions one of the "professional intel agencies" that I mentioned. Better luck next time.

gdalton said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...160916,00.html
This is David Kelly, British Weapons Expert, former UN weapons inspector
"British weapons expert David Kelly, who died in July 2003 from cuts to his wrist, said in October 2002 that Iraq had banned weapons and posed an immediate threat"Yes there is," Kelly responded to the question of whether there was an immediate threat. "Even if they're not actually filled and deployed today, the capability exists to get them filled and deployed within a matter of days and weeks. So yes, there is a threat.""
http://www.atsnn.com/story/30448.html\
David Kelly is not a "professional intel agency" either. Nor did he say that Iraq was likely to use them offensively against the US (either directly or by proxy).
Hang in there. Keep trying, g.

gdalton said:
CNN posted an article on their web site back in 2002 which had this to say, "”Iraq continues to possess several tons of chemical weapons agents, enough to kill thousands and thousands of civilians or soldiers," said Jon Wolfsthal, an analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/02/iraq.weapons/index.html
Alas and alack, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is not a "professional intel agency" either. Nor did they say that Iraq was likely to use them offensively against the US (either directly or by proxy).

gdalton said:
Sounds like a few “professional intel agencies” believed Saddam had the weapons and was a threat.
Last I checked, none of the folks you mentioned constituted an agency all by their lonesomes, nor, were they listed here Members of the Intelligence Community (IC).
For the life of me, I can't figure out why you would think that the CEIP was a professional intel agency.

What exactly do you think that the phrase “professional intel agency” means?
Further, the essential part of the point that you're pretending you're refute is this:
"... likely to use them offensively against the US (either directly or by proxy);"
not this:
" ... had the weapons and was a threat."

g, don't give up. Just double check what you're arguing against and stay at it. You're bound to get something.
 
First let me say I like Simon, this man takes time to show real evidence to support his argument and is very adapt at picking apart his opponents arguments at angles his poor opponent never thought of when stating their original argument. I like that because when we lock horns he makes me double check everything and then shows me how the other side can be argued in a very coherent and intelligent manner without resorting to name calling or out right lies. So three cheers for Simon, I may not agree with him, but at least he gives me pause to consider what I believe to be true. So let’s see what I can do to defend my stance.

Simon-“Alas and alack, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is not a "professional intel agency" either. Nor did they say that Iraq was likely to use them offensively against the US (either directly or by proxy).”

Well can we agree that the U.S. Department of Defense probably makes it a habit of getting it’s info from a "professional intel agency"?

“A Defense Department paper for the Camp David briefing book on the strategic concept for the war on terrorism specified three priority targets for initial action: al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iraq. It argued that of the three, al Qaeda and Iraq posed a strategic threat to the United States. Iraq’s long-standing involvement in terrorism was cited, along with its interest in weapons of mass destruction.”65

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

I believe the statement “Iraq posed a strategic threat to the United States” qualifies as a "professional intel agency" stating that they believed Iraq to be a threat. But the report only said Iraq had “interest” in WMD’s so we mustn’t believe that this “interest” is proof of possession nor does it show the threat being WMDs.

Then again maybe we can’t rely on the DOD using “professional intel agency” so instead lets turn our attention to the UN, now maybe, just maybe they used a “professional intel agency” to gather the information needed to make this statement; “U.N. weapons experts have said Iraq may have stockpiled more than 600 metric tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, VX and saran. Some 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells with chemical agents are also unaccounted for, the experts said.”

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/02/iraq.weapons/index.html

Simon-“Re-examine the nouns more closely. As excited and breathless as these things seem to make some folks, none of these things are weapons.
FYI Brucella and CCHF are endemic to Iraq. Try again.”


Did the last statement there provide the nouns you requested? Are these agencies known to use “professional intel agencies”?

Let’s continue.

So the UN believed in 2002 that “Some 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells with chemical agents are also unaccounted for” well according to that statement we had knowledge of these weapons existing and when they tried to find them again they were gone. Damn those mirages. But again unless we use the two reports together we can not make a connection between the threat identified by the DOD and the WMDs identified by the UN, neither while viewed alone shows a threat of WMDs. So if you only take each at its face value and do not play connect the dots you will never see a threat of WMDs being used. I would prefer to gather all info and make the correlations between the gathered intelligence to form my conclusion, but then again that might make to much sense to some and too little to others.

As Simon points out none of this is actual proof, I mean we know they had the weapons, we know that Saddam could not show proof that the weapons that were tagged for destruction were in fact destroyed, and we know at least a few “professional intel agencies” agreed that there was a possibility of WMD’s, but until we find the materials in sufficient amounts, and those materials having been made into finished weapons, then all of this evidence is inadmissible on the grounds that it only shows what we knew and does not contain a stockpile of physical evidence.

So lets run through this one more time for clarity,
“We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002”. All of this is just mumbo jumbo in no way is it proof because the ISG is not a “professional intel agency” and we never found the weapons that were concealed only the factories, scientists, reference material, Reference strains of biological organisms, areas that could be used for human testing, a few left over vials of sarin and mustard gas armed artillery shells buried in the sand. None of this is proof that Saddam could have had WMD’s because we didn’t find an entire bunker full of armed missiles pointed at our allies, maybe we should have given him those three months to finish up his work.

Simon-“David Kelly is not a "professional intel agency" either. Nor did he say that Iraq was likely to use them offensively against the US (either directly or by proxy).
Hang in there. Keep trying, g.”


"Even if they're not actually filled and deployed today, the capability exists to get them filled and deployed within a matter of days and weeks. So yes, there is a threat." David Kelly, again not a “professional intel agency” just simply one of the worlds leading experts on weaponry and Iraq. You see when Kelly said “yes, there is a threat.” He didn’t mean that anyone was in any danger, no he used the word “threat” to demonstrate that we all were indeed safe.:roll:

Simon-“Further, the essential part of the point that you're pretending you're refute is this:
"... likely to use them offensively against the US (either directly or by proxy);"
not this:
" ... had the weapons and was a threat."


Please remind me to hire you as my lawyer if I find myself in need of a great defense.

If we show Saddam as holding a favorable view of the terrorist who have attacked America, and we show Saddam had the intention, ability, and means to produce weapons (and that little fact of the known weapons that were not shown to be destroyed) that are not defensive in nature, then we must conclude that in this time of war (remember the war began before Iraq) Saddam was a legitimate threat and there for a legitimate target.


Simon-“g, don't give up. Just double check what you're arguing against and stay at it. You're bound to get something.”


Just let me know what you think. :2wave:
 
Oh I almost forgot, what we are arguing now is a little off topic from the original point made by the red man, which was the fact that Saddam didn't give sufficient proof of dismantling his arsenal of WMDs that was found by inspectors on previous visits so there for no one can use the argument no WMDs. His point has yet to be disproved. So I apologize to cnredd for moving so far off topic.
 
If we show Saddam as holding a favorable view of the terrorist who have attacked America, and we show Saddam had the intention, ability, and means to produce weapons (and that little fact of the known weapons that were not shown to be destroyed) that are not defensive in nature, then we must conclude that in this time of war (remember the war began before Iraq) Saddam was a legitimate threat and there for a legitimate target.


Simon-“g, don't give up. Just double check what you're arguing against and stay at it. You're bound to get something.”


Re: the above (which was a good post) i would like to add a few points.
Saddam was a power mad, war-mongering dictator, of that there is no doubt but to constantly draw the inference that he was in cahoots with Osama or Al-Q is not in accordance with the facts. No hard evidence has ever been put forward and even the CIA,NSA have admitted such. This seems to be a good example of 'if you tell a lie often enough (thanks G W + Rumsfield) people will believe it' - even if you have nothing to substantiate it.
I fail to see what benefits Saddam would have obtained from the widespread introduction of extremist Islam in the middle east. Indeed to encourage such would have been the surest way for him to lose power to religious authorities.

On the 2nd point - that Saddam had the intention, ability and means and was therfore a legitimate threat and legitimate target I would have to disagree. Firstly, legitimate according to whom?? Not the UN it would seem as they were unable to pass a new resolution authorising force and the US had to resort to some highly favourable phrasing of resolutions from many years ago. As things presently stand I understand no court has ruled on the legitimacy of the Iraq war and whether it was 'legal' is still a matter of debate for many. Secondly, I would not agree that we are in a time of war. D Rumsfield estimated the insurgency in Iraq could last for over 10yrs whilst many believe the complete elimination of terrorist attacks is impossible. Exactly how long is G W gonna keep saying we are at 'war' for? 10, 20, 30 years? With that sort of logic we will always be at war!
Finally, to attack another nation because it has the intention, ability and means to constitute a threat opens the floodgates for multiple military actions. I could plausibly argue that we have the intention, means and ability to attack Iran at a moments notice. Would it therefore be legitimate for Iran to launch a 'pre-emptive' attack on the US before Iran itself was attacked? I for one seriously hope that would not be the case.

I am more than happy to accept all comments that Saddam was a madman, murderer and worse and I was as happy to see the back of him as all who are on this post. However I will not accept the lies and half-truths put forward to justify the war. G W would have us believe that we did all this for the benefit of the Iraqis but that is just pure folly. I would love to see a world where all nations unite to oust dictators, promote freedoms and eliminate hunger but that ain't gonna happen. We will spend trillions to 'save' a few million in Iraq but spend next to nothing (in comparison) to save the hundreds of millions living in fear and poverty in Africa. I wonder why that would be??
 
G-Man said:
If we show Saddam as holding a favorable view of the terrorist who have attacked America, and we show Saddam had the intention, ability, and means to produce weapons (and that little fact of the known weapons that were not shown to be destroyed) that are not defensive in nature, then we must conclude that in this time of war (remember the war began before Iraq) Saddam was a legitimate threat and there for a legitimate target.


Simon-“g, don't give up. Just double check what you're arguing against and stay at it. You're bound to get something.”


Re: the above (which was a good post) i would like to add a few points.
Saddam was a power mad, war-mongering dictator, of that there is no doubt but to constantly draw the inference that he was in cahoots with Osama or Al-Q is not in accordance with the facts. No hard evidence has ever been put forward and even the CIA,NSA have admitted such. This seems to be a good example of 'if you tell a lie often enough (thanks G W + Rumsfield) people will believe it' - even if you have nothing to substantiate it.
I fail to see what benefits Saddam would have obtained from the widespread introduction of extremist Islam in the middle east. Indeed to encourage such would have been the surest way for him to lose power to religious authorities.

On the 2nd point - that Saddam had the intention, ability and means and was therfore a legitimate threat and legitimate target I would have to disagree. Firstly, legitimate according to whom?? Not the UN it would seem as they were unable to pass a new resolution authorising force and the US had to resort to some highly favourable phrasing of resolutions from many years ago. As things presently stand I understand no court has ruled on the legitimacy of the Iraq war and whether it was 'legal' is still a matter of debate for many. Secondly, I would not agree that we are in a time of war. D Rumsfield estimated the insurgency in Iraq could last for over 10yrs whilst many believe the complete elimination of terrorist attacks is impossible. Exactly how long is G W gonna keep saying we are at 'war' for? 10, 20, 30 years? With that sort of logic we will always be at war!
Finally, to attack another nation because it has the intention, ability and means to constitute a threat opens the floodgates for multiple military actions. I could plausibly argue that we have the intention, means and ability to attack Iran at a moments notice. Would it therefore be legitimate for Iran to launch a 'pre-emptive' attack on the US before Iran itself was attacked? I for one seriously hope that would not be the case.

I am more than happy to accept all comments that Saddam was a madman, murderer and worse and I was as happy to see the back of him as all who are on this post. However I will not accept the lies and half-truths put forward to justify the war. G W would have us believe that we did all this for the benefit of the Iraqis but that is just pure folly. I would love to see a world where all nations unite to oust dictators, promote freedoms and eliminate hunger but that ain't gonna happen. We will spend trillions to 'save' a few million in Iraq but spend next to nothing (in comparison) to save the hundreds of millions living in fear and poverty in Africa. I wonder why that would be??

Ohh my gosh, you aren't an FBI Agent are you? Or are you can going to legally lie and say you are not? heh heh. I am just curious and joking around.
 
G-Man said:
Re: the above (which was a good post) i would like to add a few points.
Saddam was a power mad, war-mongering dictator, of that there is no doubt but to constantly draw the inference that he was in cahoots with Osama or Al-Q is not in accordance with the facts. No hard evidence has ever been put forward and even the CIA,NSA have admitted such. This seems to be a good example of 'if you tell a lie often enough (thanks G W + Rumsfield) people will believe it' - even if you have nothing to substantiate it.
I fail to see what benefits Saddam would have obtained from the widespread introduction of extremist Islam in the middle east. Indeed to encourage such would have been the surest way for him to lose power to religious authorities.

Yep. Exactly. Bin Laden detested Saddam. Saddam had no apparent use for any extremeists or fundmentalists in Iraq that could destabilize his regime. He was the sole head-chopper there. I don't know who said they were working together,but they must be spitting back out stupid, half-truth soundbytes, that they heard from guess who?

On the 2nd point - that Saddam had the intention, ability and means and was therfore a legitimate threat and legitimate target I would have to disagree. Firstly, legitimate according to whom?? Not the UN it would seem as they were unable to pass a new resolution authorising force and the US had to resort to some highly favourable phrasing of resolutions from many years ago. As things presently stand I understand no court has ruled on the legitimacy of the Iraq war and whether it was 'legal' is still a matter of debate for many. Secondly, I would not agree that we are in a time of war. D Rumsfield estimated the insurgency in Iraq could last for over 10yrs whilst many believe the complete elimination of terrorist attacks is impossible. Exactly how long is G W gonna keep saying we are at 'war' for? 10, 20, 30 years? With that sort of logic we will always be at war!
Finally, to attack another nation because it has the intention, ability and means to constitute a threat opens the floodgates for multiple military actions. I could plausibly argue that we have the intention, means and ability to attack Iran at a moments notice. Would it therefore be legitimate for Iran to launch a 'pre-emptive' attack on the US before Iran itself was attacked? I for one seriously hope that would not be the case.

Yea, the stupid arguement that Saddam was in any way, shape, or form a threat, is totally bogus. Yes he was a control-freak,brutal dictator-madman, but he was a contained madman. Hence the 11 years of UN sanctions.


I am more than happy to accept all comments that Saddam was a madman, murderer and worse and I was as happy to see the back of him as all who are on this post. However I will not accept the lies and half-truths put forward to justify the war. G W would have us believe that we did all this for the benefit of the Iraqis but that is just pure folly. I would love to see a world where all nations unite to oust dictators, promote freedoms and eliminate hunger but that ain't gonna happen. We will spend trillions to 'save' a few million in Iraq but spend next to nothing (in comparison) to save the hundreds of millions living in fear and poverty in Africa. I wonder why that would be??

Maybe because saving Africans will pose no benefit to the Bush Administration? But yea, right from the inception, he exaggerated everything, and manufactured al-Qeada/Saddam ties, and spoonfed the public into believing that Saddam was behind 9/11. As I recall, he didn't deny it till he was pressed about it.
 
cnredd said:
"Now knows"...what a wonderful thing to say...can I say it, please?

"NOW KNOWS"...

Hey!...This archair quarterbacking thing feels pretty good!...I don't know why I wasn't acting more like you all this time!:roll:

[Moderator mode]

Yo!

We'll have NONE of that!

Personal attacks of this nature are WAY out of bounds for this forum...

If you feel you can't control your emotions, then I suggest you walk away from your PC for a few minutes or take your venting to the Basement and relieve yourself however you may wish...

But DON'T spew this in the public area where actual debate is encouraged.

[/Moderator mode]

What is your problem, cnredd? You're supposed to be a moderator..act like one. None of my comments were directed at any one individual, but were general comments about right wing pundits and this war. Instead you come on here and make light of my post? Or am I simply missing your wit by way of written word?

If you want to moderate, I suggest you take a gander at the dialogue between GYSGT and Robin in another thread.

I suggest everyone go back and re-read post #36 by Simon for a reasonable, intelligent and well represented argument...an argument that makes far more sense than anything I've read in this forum.

Thank you
 
Hoot said:
[Moderator mode]

Yo!

We'll have NONE of that!

Personal attacks of this nature are WAY out of bounds for this forum...

If you feel you can't control your emotions, then I suggest you walk away from your PC for a few minutes or take your venting to the Basement and relieve yourself however you may wish...

But DON'T spew this in the public area where actual debate is encouraged.

[/Moderator mode]

What is your problem, cnredd? You're supposed to be a moderator..act like one. None of my comments were directed at any one individual, but were general comments about right wing pundits and this war. Instead you come on here and make light of my post? Or am I simply missing your wit by way of written word?

If you want to moderate, I suggest you take a gander at the dialogue between GYSGT and Robin in another thread.

I suggest everyone go back and re-read post #36 by Simon for a reasonable, intelligent and well represented argument...an argument that makes far more sense than anything I've read in this forum.

Thank you
Nice attempt, but it's a no-go...

Haven't any of you right wingers read one word about Saddam Hussien that is NOT reguritated by right wing pundits?

This comment was pertaining to my last post, since YOU quoted it, implying that I am one of them...All of my posts in this thread, and indeed on this WHOLE FORUM, are backed up by legitimate sources and not these "right wing pundits" that you speak of. I have no use for them, and have mentioned on MORE than one occasion that I find them a disgrace...For you to place me in their column through the use of my post was an insult then as it is now...lashing back at me is a very strange way of apologizing...:roll:

If you consider being called "an armchair quarterback" insulting than I believe the issue is more with you than I...I think forum members are reading what you're so flustered over and are thinking they've heard worse than that at baptisms and bible readings...

As for me searching through other threads to find wrongdoings, I suggest you take a good look at the forum rules again...Specifically numbers 5 & 15...
 
You deserve much better responses than I'm able to muster in the limited time available to me these days.

gdalton said:
Well can we agree that the U.S. Department of Defense probably makes it a habit of getting it’s info from a "professional intel agency"?
First off the DoD has two main sections, the suits and the uniforms. The suits are primarily the civilian political appointees, like the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, who at the time was Paul Wolfowitz. The "Defense Department paper for the Camp David briefing" was Wolfowitz's memo. What it was was a policy paper. Subsequently, the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy set up it's own ad hoc intel office to sift through raw intel reports w/o regard to the analyses & vetting of these reports to come up w/ items to promote the invasion of Iraq. Hence the inclusion of reports from folks whom the CIA and DIA had previously labelled as "fabricators" and unreliable- folks who couldn't even pass polygraph tests.

The National Intelligence Estimate was the best judgment of the IC at the time.

Here're links to several different releases:
National Intelligence Estimate
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction
October 2002, Top Secret
Source: CIA declassification release under FOIA, June 1, 2004
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]National Intelligence Estimate - White House declassification release
Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction
October 2002, Top Secret (Extract)
Source: White House, July 2003
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]National Intelligence Estimate - CIA Unclassified version
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs
October 2002, Unclassified
Source: CIA public release, October 2002
[/FONT]

DCI Tenet Declassifies Further Information on the Iraq Threat
Congressional Record October 9, 2002
Page S10154


1. The 1 June 2004 release by CIA of the censored estimate.
2. The July 2003 release by CIA of the estimate's Key Findings and additional paragraphs.
3. The October 2002 unclassified presentation on "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs," with the seal of the Director of Central Intelligence on the cover.
4. The full text of the Senate Intelligence Committee report.

gdalton said:
I believe the statement “Iraq posed a strategic threat to the United States” qualifies as a "professional intel agency" stating that they believed Iraq to be a threat.
First, it is a judgment of a DoD civilian in policy paper, not a assesment from an intel agency. While Wolfowitz et al may have used Intel Community intel,qualified threats, strategic threats are dependent upon matters of policy that define the strategy. It also fails to state that Iraq was "likely to use WMD offensively against the US (either directly or by proxy)" [Which is more relevant to my actual contention. The word 'threat' is much more inclusive and much more vague.] Strategic interests can be challenged when a country obtains enough defensive leverage to thwart certain types of diplomacy.
While 'threat' could equal "likely to use WMD offensively against the US (either directly or by proxy)," 'threat' does not always equal "likely to use WMD offensively against the US (either directly or by proxy)."
Threat is a much larger and more vague term than a specific course of action.
The course of action that was deemed unlikely in the forseeable future by the best intel available at the time was for Iraq to use WMD offensively against the US (either directly or by proxy).
gdalton said:
Then again maybe we can’t rely on the DOD using “professional intel agency” so instead lets turn our attention to the UN, now maybe, just maybe they used a “professional intel agency” to gather the information needed to make this statement; “U.N. weapons experts have said Iraq may have stockpiled more than 600 metric tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, VX and saran. Some 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells with chemical agents are also unaccounted for, the experts said.”
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/02/iraq.weapons/index.html
It also fails to state that Iraq was "likely to use WMD offensively against the US (either directly or by proxy)" Which is more relevant to my actual contention.
gdalton said:
Did the last statement there provide the nouns you requested? Are these agencies known to use “professional intel agencies”?
Allow me to rehighlight the nouns:
“We have discovered ... program activities and ... equipment ...
• A ... laboratory complex ...
• Reference strains ...
• New research ... and continuing work ...
If you'll notice not a one of these nouns is or is even a synonym for 'weapon.'
gdalton said:
But again unless we use the two reports together we can not make a connection between the threat identified by the DOD and the WMDs identified by the UN, neither while viewed alone shows a threat of WMDs. So if you only take each at its face value and do not play connect the dots you will never see a threat of WMDs being used. I would prefer to gather all info and make the correlations between the gathered intelligence to form my conclusion, but then again that might make to much sense to some and too little to others.
You have not taken into account "all info" to make the correlations between the gathered intelligence to form your conclusion. First and least, that unaccounted for does not necessarily mean existing. That's why the report mentions merely that the items were unaccounted for.
Second, you have not accounted for Saddam's history of deterrability.

gdalton said:
“We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002”. All of this is just mumbo jumbo in no way is it proof because the ISG is not a “professional intel agency” and we never found the weapons that were concealed only the factories, scientists, reference material, Reference strains of biological organisms, areas that could be used for human testing, a few left over vials of sarin and mustard gas armed artillery shells buried in the sand. None of this is proof that Saddam could have had WMD’s because we didn’t find an entire bunker full of armed missiles pointed at our allies, maybe we should have given him those three months to finish up his work.
That's mighty fine looking strawman you got going on there.

gdalton said:
"Even if they're not actually filled and deployed today, the capability exists to get them filled and deployed within a matter of days and weeks. So yes, there is a threat." David Kelly, again not a “professional intel agency” just simply one of the worlds leading experts on weaponry and Iraq. You see when Kelly said “yes, there is a threat.” He didn’t mean that anyone was in any danger, no he used the word “threat” to demonstrate that we all were indeed safe.
While 'threat' could equal "likely to use WMD offensively against the US (either directly or by proxy)," 'threat' does not always equal "likely to use WMD offensively against the US (either directly or by proxy)."
Threat is a much larger and more vague term than a specific course of action.
The course of action that was deemed unlikely in the forseeable future by the best intel available at the time was for Iraq to use WMD offensively against the US (either directly or by proxy).
gdalton said:
If we show Saddam as holding a favorable view of the terrorist who have attacked America, and we show Saddam had the intention, ability, and means to produce weapons (and that little fact of the known weapons that were not shown to be destroyed) that are not defensive in nature, then we must conclude that in this time of war (remember the war began before Iraq) Saddam was a legitimate threat and there for a legitimate target.
A target for actions that were commensurate w/ the level of threat.
Your personal judgments aside...
The best estimate of the US Intel Community was that Saddam was drawing a line short of conducting attacks on the US and that he was unlikely in the forseeable future to ever initiate an attack on the US directly or by proxy
 
gdalton said:
Just let me know what you think.
I think I wish I had more time to devote to our dialogue. I'm very strapped for time these days. So please accept these hasty scribblings as an IOU for a real set of discourse. I think your debating deserves better than I can give it at this point in time.
Come Spring (fingers crossed) I'll have a little more time.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
I think I wish I had more time to devote to our dialogue. I'm very strapped for time these days. So please accept these hasty scribblings as an IOU for a real set of discourse. I think your debating deserves better than I can give it at this point in time.
Come Spring (fingers crossed) I'll have a little more time.


Good stuff Simon, I hope we bothe find the time to further this discourse. I will continue to plug away if you promise to do the same, who knows maybe one of us will change the others mind. I've seen stranger things happen.
:2wave:

Give me some time and I'll be back to answer the last post.
 
mistermain said:
If the war is truly about oil, how come I am paying three bucks at the pump for a gallon of gas? We should be swimming in the ****.


Hi, sorry took so long to get back mistermain but pressed for time at the moment. The price of oil is linked to supply and demand which depends on market forces. With the increase in demand ,particularly from China, the price has gone up.
I think however it is the resource itself which is more important that the price and any profit. The US energy programme is highly dependable upon oil and this causes two main problems. Firstly, there is a limited world-wide supply and secondly (perhaps most importantly) the US is a net importer of oil. It has the undesirable position of being entirely dependant upon a resource of which is does not have enough. What price would the govt. put on being in control of the worlds 2nd largest oil reserves??
On a seperate point I was in London recently and they pay the equivalent of almost $7 a gallon. We aint got it as bad as some!
 
I expect at leats $4/gal before Chinese New Years.
 
Hoot said:
Haven't any of you right wingers read one word about Saddam Hussien that is NOT reguritated by right wing pundits?

cnredd said:
This comment was pertaining to my last post, since YOU quoted it, implying that I am one of them

It was a simple question...sorry to upset you. As Shakespeare would say, perhaps you.."... doth protest too much?"

...
cnredd said:
All of my posts in this thread, and indeed on this WHOLE FORUM, are backed up by legitimate sources

Please go back and re-read how Simon has discredited everyone of your 'legitimate sources."

cnredd said:
I have no use for them, and have mentioned on MORE than one occasion that I find them a disgrace...For you to place me in their column through the use of my post was an insult then as it is now...lashing back at me is a very strange way of apologizing...:roll:

Sheesh....how long since you've had a vacation?

cnredd said:
If you consider being called "an armchair quarterback" insulting than I believe the issue is more with you than I...I think forum members are reading what you're so flustered over and are thinking they've heard worse than that at baptisms and bible readings...

I think your obvious derogatory statement..."I don't know why I wasn't acting more like you all this time," with the little smiley face with his eyes rolling was a personal attack, yes. You're a moderator, right? You're supposed to be above that. Believe me, I'm not flustered by anything anyone says in this forum...so let's just drop it...I'll live, and I'm sure you will, too.

I would like to ask you how you believe reports from 1998 justify attacking Iraq when we had inspectors on the ground in Iraq saying..."There's nothing here," 2-3 months before Bush invaded Iraq on 3/20/2003? You're talking 5 years...our own NIE ( National Intelligence Estimate) and the IAEA said they couldn't find any trace of WMD just weeks before Bush pulled them out of Iraq and attacked the country.

How does a report from 1998 justify invading another nation in March of 2003?
 
Hoot said:
I would like to ask you how you believe reports from 1998 justify attacking Iraq when we had inspectors on the ground in Iraq saying..."There's nothing here," 2-3 months before Bush invaded Iraq on 3/20/2003? You're talking 5 years...our own NIE ( National Intelligence Estimate) and the IAEA said they couldn't find any trace of WMD just weeks before Bush pulled them out of Iraq and attacked the country.

How does a report from 1998 justify invading another nation in March of 2003?
Once again the topic has veered off course...I will try to reign it in once more before giving up...

As per post #21....

Now...I understand your position and arguments about the war, but please keep this in mind...I will reference previous posts in this thread...

Post #5...

Not once on this thread did I say it was a good thing or not...

It is only to dispel the WMD fabrications & inaccuracies...

Debates are a lot easier when you have the correct information...That is all this thread is meant to provide...

Post #7...

Now before you start changing the subject to something about Bush or reasons to go to war or anything else, just realize that this thread is ONLY to refute claims that he never had them...

Your post, whether agreeable or not, is legitimately debatable...but this thread was only to dispel the myth that Iraq did not have WMDs, like some proclaim...There are many threads that discuss the reasons, or lack of, for war...or the circumstances leading to it...

This thread was just a "precursor" for members to get the information correct before entering into your debatable comment.



Catch it yet? You're asking how a 1998 report justifys something...I never said it did...It was only to point out a simple fact...a fact which Simon W. Moon CLEARLY states in his first sentence of Post #36...

It is factually inaccurate to say that Saddam never had WMD.

That right there sums up the whole thread...nothing more...nothing less...
 
Hoot said:
Please go back and re-read how Simon has discredited everyone of your 'legitimate sources."
Maybe you're confusing one of us for someone else.
 
Back
Top Bottom