The weapons you're referring to may be the missiles that had a greater range than those permitted by the peace treaty at the end of the first gulf war. Those weapons were found by the weapons inspectors.

Bush kept insisting that Sadam disarm his WMD, and was getting impatient. The irony is that Sadam had no WMD to disarm from, thus showing that Bush had determined to invade regarldess of the outcome of the weapons inspectors, which is probably why he decided to unilaterally invade. I'm sure if Bush's daughters were required to be fighting on the ground in Iraq, he'd have shown more caution before wrecking over 1000 U.S. families who's loved ones won't be returning home alive.

Most of the evidence the CIA, MI5 etc.. gave to the governments was flimsy, unsubstantiated, uncorroberated and most definately not certain. That is fine. Most intelligence is. That is their job.

The problem is that somewhere between it leaving the spies and exiting bush's mouth it got converted frompossibilities to certainties.

Nothing is ever certain in intelligence, but this was certainly far less certain than usual (:D ) and shouldn't have been taken as fact.

If you actually look into the evidence you find that it was from a very few "compromised" sources who played the US to their own advantage, but the contradictory evidence from more reliable sources somehow never got the same emphasis. Almost as if they had already made up their mind, and were now just looking for evidence that backep up their conclusion. hmmm... oddl that that is exactly what a whole lot of us SAID they were doing. Silly old us...

Its like me telling Vagabond that "i think i heard somewhere that ZDawg may be ugly" and him standing up and telling everyone "ZDawg is ugly!".

----------
PS/ Evidence is comping to light today that all the stuff in saddam's nuclear power programme that was BEING tagged and monitored by observers BEFORE bush ordered them out disappeared during the war when the facilities were looted. SO instead of a few nuclear tools we knew the location and use of we now have a few nuclear tools that we don't know anything about. Way to improve our safety there georgie...

This just confirmed from a reliable source - ZDawg is ugly! :cool:

Hasn't the White House come out as saying that there were no weapons of mass destruction?

That being said, I am in fact, pro-war. I feel that the removing of the Saddam Hussien regime is an important change. Maybe he was not as dangerous as some other dictators, but his location is able to have a huge impact. As far as presenting possibilities as fact. It goes a lot farther to rally a nation to say that "This guy has weapons, we need to get him!" than to say "erm... well... maybe?" Basic debate training says to never use qualifiers. As for humanitarian issues, the war can have a dominoe effect if it is treated properly, where bringing democracy can be spread farther than just Iraq.

What you've just stated is defined as "lying". So much for bringing integrity back to the White House.

And if you're so gung-ho on Iraq, why don't you volunteer to go fight? Nothing's stopping you.

so we are now on bush's crusade to bring democracy to these countries, whether they want it or not?

Tony Blair publicly said that Saddam could stay IF he turned over his weapons... so (at least on the british part) bringing democracy and humanitarian reasons were never the reason.
He NOW says that, even though we didn't find WMD the war was right because it brought democracy and for humanitarian reasons.

Is it any wonder people don't trust politicians and their ever changing excuses for the reason for the war?

I think i said before the war that
(a) I didn't believe WMD was the reason for the war.
(b) If they came right out and said it was for humanitarian reasons then i MIGHT support it
(c) However, it would undermine the authority of the UN
(d) and increase the risk of terrorism and tension in the region
(e) and these might not be worth the humanitarian benefits

I'd still stand be ALL of that now. Now either i was psychic, or i have access to classified documents, or it was obvious to anyone who cared that the WMD was an excuse. And i'm pretty sure it wasn't the first two.

On the whole (so far) i don't think that the humanitarian benefits have outweighed the damage to the UN, the increase in terrorism and the increase in anti western feeling that the war has caused.

Kofi Annan said in an interview that the UN is its member states, it is only as good or bad as they make it. This is true and is something you have to accept about democracy. Does the UN need reform? Yes. Is it the only thing we have? yes. Is it better than unilateral action? definately.

Did you know that the Iraqis only obstructed 4% of weapon inspector visits. Those were all in palaces or other places of government.
The reason they gave was that they felt CIA agents were using the trips to spy on them. The US head of the survey teams has confirmed that CIA agents were using the trips to spy on them. Hmmm...
The inspections were supposed to prevent the development of WMD. The inspections seem to have prevented the development of WMD. Hmmm...
Inspectors were monitoring nuclear power plant material before they were ordered out by GW... it is now looted and "in the wild".

It not official yet, but I love to be a " I TOLD YOU SO."


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/politics/13arms.html?oref=login)

can i be a "ME TOO!!"??? :D

Yeah, no WMDs found.

Oh, BTW the turnout rates for the 30 January election in Iraq were higher than many localities in the 2004 US presidential election. This is true even in the 'non-participating' Sunni areas of Iraq.

I can't imagine anyone unwilling to risk their own life to win another person's freedom would ever really understand the implications here.

No anti-war/isolationist can say 'oh yeah, well, Iraq could have had free open elections with better turnout than in the US without US intervention to back it up.'

Flame on...

Originally posted by Wilhuf
Yeah, no WMDs found. They're all in Syria.

Evidence?

And, yes, the Iraqi election turn out was better than could be expected.

The same way we, the U.S. and Europe, stood by and watched (and are watching) a dozen or so other ruthless regimes commit attrocities and tolerate inhumane conditions for their citizens. Iraq was no more or less significant than most of them. Indeed, the Iraqi invasion was a good idea for the wrong reasons at the wrong time.

All but abandoning our war on terrorism in favor of a military ground war equates to treason from my perspective. Over 1500 American lives and untold billions of dollars would have been better spent in subduing Al Qaeda rather than giving them a reason on increase their membership as well as a place to call a battleground. All we did was legitimize these cowardly terrorists to many of the world who are fed up with what they see as Western domination and threat.

I stand by everything I've ever said in this and other forums: George W. Bush is a traitor to the American people and has dishonored the American Flag. His grasp on power in this nation is rooted not in the popular faith that he is competent, but rather the need to live up to perceived religious obligations of the so-called religious right.

There are a lot of people that think the last election was mostly about the war on Iraq, but I believe it was mostly about religion. And GW Bush is one of hteir cult leaders.

Bush supporters remind me of believers in UFOs, alien abductions, ESP and all that sort of thing. They suffer from severe confirmation bias and as soon as physical evidence cannot be demonstrated to support their core claims, they invent hypotheses that avoid testing.

The Bush administration is nothing but an embarrassment to over 200 years of American spirit and true patriotism.

All but abandoning our war on terrorism

The war in Iraq is an extension of the war on terrorism, wether you want it or believe it or not. Don't you realize that US Task Force 626 is engaged directly in a battle against Al-Qa'ida elements in Iraq?

The premise that fighting terrorists in Iraq causes them to somehow spontaneously generate is erroneous and inconsistent. Talk about ' inventing hypotheses that avoid testing!'

The successful turnout at the 30 Jan election demonstrated that the Iraqi public did not accept the legitimacy of Iraqi terrorist goals. The majority of Iraqis bought in to the idea of self-determination through an electoral system, brought by the US, rather than the rule of the gun. And they did so under constant threat of attack from cowardly terrorists who would do anything, and fortunately failed, to destroy the election.

The US isn't forcing naive terrorists to drive car bombs into groups of school children who have flocked to get candy from US soldiers.

When would an invasion of Iraq have been 'good'?

The same way we, the U.S. and Europe, stood by and watched (and are watching) a dozen or so other ruthless regimes commit attrocities and tolerate inhumane conditions for their citizens.

If you are refering to Iran, Sudan, North Korea and Somalia yes, it's regretable. I'm sure there are other regimes that should be on the chopping block. Why for instance does the US tolerate the blatant lack of free politics in Saudi Arabia? All Saudi has managed to do is elect a few local neighborhood politicians. Whoop-de-doo!! It's really inconsistent. But the US cannot fight this many villains all at once, in my opinion. One-regime-at-a-time. Maybe two. Especially if the continental European powers refuse to commit militarily.

As to Bush somehow representing a religous cult, I doubt it. I think his campaign were successful in packaging him as somehow 'compatible' with conservative religious ideals. I don't believe he is actually religious to the point of culthood. Years ago, the man was pulled over for drunken driving for crying out loud.

And I can guarantee you that Condi Rice and Don Rumsfeld do not believe in UFOs and ESP.

:beam2:

Originally posted by Wilhuf
The war in Iraq is an extension of the war on terrorism, wether you want it or believe it or not.

This point isn't a matter of belief, that's the problem. Supporters of Bush and his cronies believe in all sorts of things. The fact is that the terrorists we are engaging 1) didn't exist prior to the United States invasion, and 2) the vast majority of the anti-coalition aggressors in Iraq do not consider themselves Al Qaeda.

I find it utterly amazing that there are people who willingly accept the claim that the Iraqi invasion is "an extension of the war on terrorism." It clearly is not.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
Don't you realize that US Task Force 626 is engaged directly in a battle against [b]Al-Qa'ida elements in Iraq?

The premise that fighting terrorists in Iraq causes them to somehow spontaneously generate is erroneous and inconsistent.

"Spontaneously generate?" I think you've been playing far too many first-person shooters. As I remember the regions of Eastern Iraq and Kuwait, it is very easy to travel without coming into contact with anything or anybody. I would think that this applies to much of the region. Couple this with borders that cannot be secured at Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran, even Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and it's easy to see that "spontaneous generation" need not apply. Particularly when they've had two full years to migrate to this new Meca of a battlefield with the Devil of the West.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
[B]Talk about ' inventing hypotheses that avoid testing!'

That many of the insurgents our troops are facing are from outside Iraq and that few are confirmed to be Al Qaeda is an observation, not an hypothesis.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
[B]The successful turnout at the 30 Jan election demonstrated that the Iraqi public did [b]not accept the legitimacy of Iraqi terrorist goals.

I wouldn't disagree with that. Not a bit. It's clear that the insurgency in Iraq is a minority, albeit a very vocal one. It's clear that they are being incouraged by Al Qaeda connections, the vast majority of which did not exist prior to the U.S. invasion. It's clear that our failure to properly secure the borders and properly obtain international support vis-a-vis a larger percentage of non-American troops but an unnecessary burden on the United States people -in money and lives. It's clear that a successful vote among the people is going to be a Pyrrhic victory.


Originally posted by Wilhuf
When would an invasion of Iraq have been 'good'?

After we completed the retaliation and extermination of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden was stopped. Surely you wouldn't argue that if we had applied the troops and money that we did to Iraq against Al Qaeda and its supporters that we would have done two things: 1) terrorism as we know it would have all but stopped; 2) international support for the United States would still be at the heights it was just after 9/11/2001.

Bin Laden must have been extremely happy that Bush and his cronies chose to put the majority of U.S. military in Iraq. If I were Bin Laden, I would have sent everyone I could spare to Iraq to act as agent provoceteurs and mobilize as many insurgent cells as possible. I would have disseminated word to Muslim radicals all over the middle east to encourage them to travel to Iraq, just as they do to Meca, but to engage the Infidels on holy ground.

Indeed, this appears to be what has happened. And you maintain that these terrorists were stockpiled by Saddam instead of the WMDs?

Belief.

But anticoaltion units in Iraq use terrorist tactics techniques and procedures against civillian and coalition military targets: car bombs, mortar attacks, roadside bombings, kidnappings, beheadings and assassinations. That makes them terrorists. Some of them are Al-Qa'ida, some of them are Baathists, some of them are just stupid kids who were enticed by the cash and have no ideological commitment. The war waged against these units is a war against terrorists.

Abu Zarqawi, the man villain in Iraq, was a terrorist before terrorism was cool. The war in Iraq didn't make him that way.

Now, the idea that terrorists migrate into new locales to wage Jihad is nothing new. It is certainly not a problem the US has somehow engendered.The terrorists in tribal northwest Pakistan are not indigenous to the safehavens they enjoy there.They infiltrated from around the globe.

We're on a spin cycle here. Same sh*t, different day.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
As to Bush somehow representing a religous cult, I doubt it.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/images/1808324.jpg)

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=808)

"During his presidential campaign, George W. Bush said he'd been `called' to seek higher office and talked openly about his faith"

"The atmosphere inside the White House, insiders say, is suffused with an aura of prayerfulness. There have always been Bible-study groups there; even the Clintonites had one. But the groups are everywhere now."

Originally posted by Wilhuf
I think his campaign were successful in packaging him as somehow 'compatible' with conservative religious ideals. I don't believe he is actually religious to the point of culthood.

"There's no question this is the most receptive White House to our concerns and to our perspective of any White House that I've dealt with, and I've dealt with every White House from Reagan on." --Rev. Richard Land a fanatic of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
Years ago, the man was pulled over for drunken driving for crying out loud.

During the 2000 election campaign when asked at a GOP candidate debate what philosphical or political thinker he looked up to, GW replied with Jesus Christ, "because he changed my heart." When asked to elaborate on the implications of this, Bush chose not to. In fact, he confessed that he could not say much more. "It's going to be hard to explain. When you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as the Savior, it changes your heart. It changes your life. And that's what happened to me."

This is one of the many things that Rove and the Bush campaign did to secure his position with the majority of Americans who consider themselves christians. These people were also told in their cult centers what candidates they were to vote for if they wanted god's favor. Bush won both elections on religious issues like abortion, not his ability to lead or his powerful insights in world politics.

He won on belief.

See this Frontline Special (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/view/)

Originally posted by Wilhuf
And I can guarantee you that Condi Rice and Don Rumsfeld do not believe in UFOs and ESP.

You obviously either didn't actually read what I wrote closely, or you don't understand the concept of analogy. Or, more likely, you're attempting to divert from the analogy itself.


That you're still arguing the fallacy that the Iraqi Invasion is an "extension of the war on terrorism" is a testiment to the power of belief. The whole premise is petitio principii, a circular argument in which the so-called "war on terror" is used to justify the U.S. involvement in Iraq and the Iraq invasion is used to justify the so-called "war on terrror."

Terrorism against US Forces clearly did not exist prior to the invasion. Alleged terrorist camps that did exist in Iraq then were in the Kurdish controlled north and out of Saddam's influence. While a high-level Al-Qaeda member sought medical attention at an Iraqi hospital, it hardly demonstrates that Saddam was a supporter of Al Qaeda.

In the end, there was no justifiable reason for the United States to invade Iraq, particularly when we had another war to fight. The real war on terror.

I did not use the intervention in Iraq to 'justify' a war against terror. I stated that the global war on terror is now being waged in Iraq. The attacks of September 11th 2001 justify in my mind the war against terror. But I will not choose to ignore the acts of horror that terrorists in Iraq have committed.

I used concepts of democracy, self-determination and liberation as moral justification for the initial intervention in Iraq.

That terrorists have chosen to flock to Iraq has changed the political and ethical dynamic of the conflict. Once the 'insurgency' gathered steam after the coalition destroyed the core of the Iraqi military, the war in Iraq indeed evolved into a war against terror.

(Actually, I could imagine that removing Hussein from power was an act of anti-terror. Especially from the view of those who had been terrorized by him and his supporters.)

The notion that the US intervention caused the insurgency is flawed. Surviving Baath regime, Al Qa'ida, Al-Sunna, and foreign elements that prey on Iraqi nationalist sentiment have created the insurgency in Iraq. The insurgency exists because the surviving elements of an absolutist regime and foreign terrorists provide indoctrination, arms, supplies, funding, training and safehaven to conduct terrorist activities against the coaltion and civillians.

In 2003 I would not have fully accepted the idea that the war in Iraq was part of the war on terror. Today, to me, there is no doubt that current US operations in Iraq are part of the war on terror.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
I did not use the intervention in Iraq to 'justify' a war against terror.

Actually, I wasn't necessarily referring to you directly but proponents of the invasion in general -though it does seem that you use the invasion to justify the so-called 'war on terror' even in your very last post above.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
I stated that the global war on terror is now being waged in Iraq.

Global? It seems localized to Iraq.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
The attacks of September 11th 2001 justify in my mind the war against terror.

Indeed. And that's what we should have done, waged a war on terror. Instead, we waged a war on Iraq, thus inspiring more guerrilla/terrorist attacks on U.S. interests there.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
But I will not choose to ignore the acts of horror that terrorists in Iraq have committed.

I wouldn't ignore any of the horror that anyone in Iraq has committed. To do so would demonstrate a willingness to overlook bad deeds of others.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
I used concepts of democracy, self-determination and liberation as moral justification for the initial intervention in Iraq.

Those concepts exist independent of military intervention and are not exclusive to Iraq and the people being oppressed by Saddam. I think we can agree that there are a dozen or so countries and cultures that face the same issue, even to degrees more significant than the people of Iraq. That the Iraqi people might have benefitted (and indeed appear to have so far) from U.S. military intervention isn't a debatable point. It's easy to see.

What is debatable is the timing. Abandoning the war on terror to the extent which Bush did to invade Iraq is treason. He's a traitor to the American people, particularly all those who lost friends & relatives in 9/11. He's a traitor to the servicemen and women who gave and are giving their lives in Iraq right now.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
That terrorists have chosen to flock to Iraq has changed the political and ethical dynamic of the conflict. Once the 'insurgency' gathered steam after the coalition destroyed the core of the Iraqi military, the war in Iraq indeed evolved into a war against terror.

You do see what you're saying, right? You're making my point for me.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
The notion that the US intervention caused the insurgency is flawed.

Really? Why didn't the insurgents and terrorists get busy during Saddam's regime? What caused them to want to start now? It doesn't take a degree in political science or military history to see that.

The insurgency exists because the surviving elements of an absolutist regime and foreign terrorists provide indoctrination, arms, supplies, funding, training and safehaven to conduct terrorist activities against the coaltion and civillians. [/B][/QUOTE]

If we would have "rid the world of terrorism" or at least destroyed Al Qaeda prior to going into Iraq, we would have had far less problem with insurgency for two reasons: 1) there wouldn't have been a terrorist infrastructure of funding and arms to supply with logistics and personnel; 2) the U.S. would have had considerable more credibility with the rest of the world community and thus far more troop strength and logistical support in the coalition.

Hell, I would have supported a war with Iraq unders such conditions. I'd like to see us be able to conduct other operations elsewhere in the world, Sudan comes immediately to mind. But it ain't happening until we can afford to do it.

The bottom line: U.S. operations in Iraq does not equate to the so-called 'war on terror.' The latter operation is barely hanging in there in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Abandoning the war on terror to the extent which Bush did to invade Iraq is treason.

But there are more US soldiers in Afghanistan today than at any point since 9/11.

What caused [the insurgents] to want to start now?

The surviving Baathist elements, as I said, provided indoctrination to insurgents. Simply put, the Baathists are pissed about being kicked out of their positions of power and prestige. So they resort to terrorism, and encourage Iraqis to resort to terrorism to retaliate. The US footprint in Iraq, Iraqi officials, and Iraqi civillians are their target. It's definitely not rocket science.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
But there are more US soldiers in Afghanistan today than at any point since 9/11.

And there could be oh so many more. There's about 17,000 right now... wasn't there more last year?

Originally posted by Wilhuf
The surviving Baathist elements, as I said, provided indoctrination to insurgents. Simply put, the Baathists are pissed about being kicked out of their positions of power and prestige. So they resort to terrorism, and encourage Iraqis to resort to terrorism to retaliate. The US footprint in Iraq, Iraqi officials, and Iraqi civillians are their target. It's definitely not rocket science.

Definitely not. Then we appear to be in agreement. The US invasion of Iraq created a situation of terrorism and insurgency that wouldn't have existed had we not invaded.

But there are more US soldiers in Afghanistan today than at any point since 9/11.
Yup, and there'd better be. Only 11,000 people were sent into Afghanistan originally, and that two whole months after 9/11. As Moore said,

Two months? The man who attacked America and killed 3,000 people was given a two months headstart?

Bush didn't do nearly half of what he should have done in Afghanistan.

But I will not choose to ignore the acts of horror that terrorists in Iraq have committed.
Listen to what SkinWalker said: Don't ignore any acts of horror. What about the US sanctions and bombing against Iraq? 500 000 civilian and military casualties. And do you know that in the war of 1991, the USA overthrew the government of Kuwait and installed a dictator? Did you know that when the USA "liberated" Afghanistan, they inserted a President instead of holding fair elections (a President who, "coincidentally", was an former high levelemployee in Dick Cheney's comany Unocal?). Did you know that the USA repeatedly before has invaded democratic countries and installed dictators (I'm not saying Afghanistan and Iraq are democracies, I'm saying that for example Chile was before the USA took them in the 1970's).

PS: I'm not sure if that was what you meant, SkinWalker, and I'm sorry if that sounded like I was putting words in your mouth.