Saddam Captured

[razorace]

Anyway, it's getting way too serious in here. I suggest some bipartisan political cartoons about the capture of Saddam.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by razorace

What does that question have to do with anything we're talking about? You just trying to bait me into a trap with that loaded question.

 

If you saw that question ("So are ignorant citizens less deserving of quality government than informed ones?") as anything but rhetorical, then I'm not sure what to think. It certainly was not bait, nor was it loaded. You suggested that the President might be allowed to deceive the public as long as "the average American is stupid." I gave an opposing argument in the form of a rhetorical question in the assumption that you didn't believe that "ignorant citizens" were less deserving of quality government.

 

Originally posted by razorace

However, we did not put the "war on terror" on hold for the invasion of iraq. The intel agencies and the military have continued to work on battling terrorism during the this whole Iraq thing. Remember that the military and CIA/FBI are always multiple "balls in the air" at once.

 

True. Perhaps "on hold" was a poor choice of words, however, I would argue that significantly more could have been done with the War on Terror if we weren't also fighting the War on Saddam, which consumed over $160 billion and 474 American lives to date.

 

Originally posted by razorace

We also know for a fact that Saddam was publically supporting suicide bombers with payments to the bomber's families.

 

But these suicide bombers are not a threat to the United States, nor is it likely that Saddam's removal will reduce the frequency of suicide bomber attacks. Moreover, the label of "terrorist" on suicide bombers is a Western one (which I happen to agree with). From a Islamic point of view, these are "Freedom Fighters." Interestingly enough, they use many of the same tactics and amount of brutality that we taught Bin Laden to use in Afghanistan as the Mujahadeen terrorized the Russians.

 

Originally posted by razorace

Have you considered that they might mention 9/11 a lot because it's the chief motivator behind the war on terror?

 

Absolutely. And I agree that that would account for a few mentions of 9/11. But I cannot recall a single public address of President Bush where he discussed Saddam Hussein that did not include mention of 9/11 and/or Al-Queda.

 

Originally posted by razorace

It's pretty obvious that the statements were meant to be taken figuratively to make a point. There's also the "threat" that the moon might suddenly crash into Earth and "bring sudden terror and suffering to America" but it doesn't mean that we're going to declare war on the moon. In addition, he makes no comment in terms of timeframe or what he defines "confront" as.

 

Actually there is very little threat from the Moon as compared to N. Korea. It's orbit is stable and the tides created by its gravity predictable. The point I was making was two-fold: first, that Bush did, indeed, make comments regarding Iraq which were immediately punctuated by a reminder of 9/11; and, second, to show that we've set precedent that we cannot hope to live up to.

 

There are many equal, even more significant, threats in the world than Iraq that can affect the United States. If we do not act on each or at least many of them, we prove that our intentions were not as we stated. If we do act on each or even some of these threats, we will spend ourselves to death in defense budget and servicemember lives.

 

Originally posted by razorace

Clarify "good" evidence,

 

The kind that exists due to tested hypotheses and verifiable facts, not spurious anecdotes.

 

Originally posted by razorace

Sure, he's Palestinian, but what does that have to do with anything? A terrorist is a terrorist. You can't just say, "Oh, he's a Palestinian so he's not really a terrorist."

 

He wasn't Al-Queda. He was (from the Muslim perspective) a rewarded "Freedom Fighter." Al-Queda has targeted the United States, among other western countries & interests. The PLF targeted the occupying force in Palestine, Israel. Their motivation for the Achille Lauro takeover was to free some PLF prisoners in Israel. Terrorists to be sure, but not the same bunch we want.

 

Originally posted by razorace

They did make a big deal out of the mobile labs in the presentation they made to Congress on the progress in the search for WMDs. However, everyone that's on the anti-war track just brushed it off because the labs (like most things in life) had potential non-violent uses.

 

That is a fact. In his October 2, 2003 briefing to the U.S. Senate, David Kay stated the following:

 

Q Are you convinced that that the two mobile labs were weapons labs?

 

MR. KAY: The mobile lab program, as you'll see when you look at the unclassified summary of the statement, is still something that's very much being examined. It was equally unsuitable for biological weapons, hydrogen, as well as rocket fuel regeneration. That is, it could have done either of those three; it would have done all of them almost equally unsuitable. We simply are continuing our investigation.

 

Interestingly enough, Kay chose the word "unsuitable."

 

Source is the Federal News Service Transcripts On-line, found via Lexis-Nexis (use search parameters "David Kay," sort by date, then choose item # 88.

 

Originally posted by razorace

Of the evidence that has been shown so far, we've seen that Saddam had been hiding components specifically required to create new biological and nuclear weapons (uraninum refinery parts, virus cultures, etc).

 

The former could also be used for nuclear energy, but it's a moot point. I fully expect that the former Iraqi government did hide whatever they could for future use. What government wouldn't? I don't believe the latter, however. Not for bioweapons purposes at any rate. The reason is that these types of cultures are difficult to maintain, particularly if one wishes to keep them discrete. I do expect that the technology to process them as well as the data necessary for it would be stored... again, what government wouldn't?

 

Originally posted by razorace

We just haven't found actual weapons grade WMDs yet.

 

And this brings us full circle to the meat of the argument. Until now, we've been bickering over the little crap, but overlooking the big sh**.

 

There is no real evidence of WMDs in over a year of inspection and occupation. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The Bush admin's reasons for going to war with Iraq hinged on these reasons, not the potentially valid ones of human rights violations.

 

Hussein is caught. But it has absolutely no bearing on American safety beyond, perhaps, the quicker withdraw of American troops from Iraq.

 

Hussein's a bad guy and deserves whatever fate awaits him. But that's an Iraqi victory... not an American one.

[obi]

Originally posted by razorace

Anyway, it's getting way too serious in here.

 

Agreed.

 

Can you guys debate here: http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=119782

 

 

Thats the Senate Chambers, and it's normally used for serious discussion(for those who weren't aware). The swamp is for layed back, relaxed threads.

[toms]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Hussein's a bad guy and deserves whatever fate awaits him. But that's an Iraqi victory... not an American one.

 

Thats what I said. THis war was a good one for the people of iraq, but a pretty bad one for the rest of the world.

 

I still can't believe that after all this there is still NO talk in american politics of actually attempting to solve the biggest threat to the US, which is the continuing Israel/Palestine conflict.

There is a reason that both Saddam (a secular leader who didn't like extreme religious beliefs and didn't get on with the rest of the Arab world) and a lot of people in Saudi Arabia (our allies) and in Iran (a religious state the opposite of iraq) and Osama Bin Ladin (US trained anti russian) all support palestinian "freedom fighters" even though they probably couldn't agree on a single other thing.

 

While US presidents keep backing off this issue every time it gets close to an election there is little to no hope of the US ever being safe from terrorists. Although, ironically perhaps, about the only terrorists in the world who ARENT going after the US are the ones from palestine that Saddam was supporting.

[toms]

various comments from the Independent newspaper today:

 

"David Kay, the CIA advisor who headed the US-led hunt for WMD, is to quit, before submitting his assessment to the US President in February."

 

"Fewer than 40 of the 14,00 inspectors are still in the field"

 

George Bush: "So what's the difference [if he has WMD]? If he were to aquire weapons, he would be the danger"

 

Of course, the independent is a slightly left wing paper, but it does seem that they are trying to shift the focus away from WMD (and pretty much giving up the hunt for them) to concentrate on Saddam himself being a bad guy and preventing attacks on US soldiers.

[SkinWalker]

Hey Obi... if you want to move the thread to the Senate, I'll merge it with the other one...

 

LeXX started to move it, but then noticed the Senate already had one....

 

Anyways... just so you know, I only got into debate mode after I saw it in the Senate. After I hit "submit," I ended up back in the Swamp (LeXX moved it back )

[El Sitherino]

*pulls out senate thread merge sign*

perhaps we should just merge the debate part to the existing thread.

[obi]

I don't think Rhett intended for this to turn into a debate, but since it did, I'll make a copy of this thread into the senate, and keep this one here, so Mr. Skinwalker can merge it with the other Saddam thread, which I think is a better Idea.