WMD Weapons of Mass Deception

[Wilhuf]

Yay! :atat:

Denmark was my first guess actually when I noticed your Scandinavia reference in your tag, but you gave me bad directions!

[Breton]

Originally posted by Wilhuf

If your belief is that Americans are ignorant and are imperialists, then yes I do NOT agree, and I do believe it is an anti-American attitude.

 

That is not my beliefs. I disagree with the American foreign politics, and that's all.

 

This kind of thinking IS anti-American.

 

1. I do NOT think we should attack the US.

2. Why? Is it anti-Iraqian to think that Iraq should be attacked?

 

Is that the kind of thinking that is popular in Europe? No sarcasm intended in this question. Do Europeans truly fear US domination?

 

Not really. But no country in Europe has ever feared Saddam either.

 

From your clues I am trying to figure out your country of nationality...

Norway?

 

What's wrong with Norway then?

[Wilhuf]

If there is no real threat from the US taking over the world, why waste bandwidth complaining about the possibility? :quesyel: This is complaining about America for complaining's sake...

 

Is it anti-Iraqian to think that Iraq should be attacked?

 

To a limited extent, yes. After all, destroying the Baath regime would mean that some, even many Iraqis in the Baath regime would have to die. Obviously the US knew that going in, and CENTCOM established measures to minimize Iraqi civillian casualites.

 

There were a few British citizens who may have feared Iraq, btw. Last I read, five percent of UK citizens approved of the US operation in Iraq

 

I think it was foolish to pretend that Hussein wasn't really a problem. And it was even more foolish to do nothing about it. That seems to be a core difference of opinion at the UN.

 

Equally foolish is the failure of this forum to recognize the French and Russian economic interest in preventing US intervention in Iraq. You must realize the French and Russians had $BILLIONS invested in the Iraqi food for oil program.

 

While many complain that the US conducted operation Iraqi Freedom in order to profit (which basic accounting disproved), they failed to recognize how much the Russians and French had to GAIN by maintaining the status quo by blocking intervention through the UN. The UN is just another TOOL which countries use to advance their own national interests. The US is not the only party involved in this game.

[SkinWalker]

First, Wilhuf, I've no interest in mounting any attacks against others here in this forum, pre-emptive or retaliatory. I merely wanted to point out the problem with making statements of "anti-Americanism" based on the position one takes in the matter of one United States policy. I (and others here) are decidedly very much behind many of the US policies and against some others.

 

My main point with my poor attempt at irony was that one cannot judge based upon limited information. I don't actually believe you to be a fascist.

 

Second, one thing that I notice about Americans is that when most people display the flag, they do so as hard working truck drivers, waitresses, construction workers and the like. To them, this is a good part of what the flag represents. To others of the world, however, our flag represents the things I pointed out in my previous post.

 

This is why I think how we do things in the world is just as, or more, important than why.

 

I don't disagree that Saddam was brutal and needed to be removed for the sake of the Iraqi people. But I also think that we cannot ignore the precedent that the action creates. If we don't take action in the future against poor rulers, then we look hypocritical. If we do, we look like a bully. This is why I think the WMD question was more of a justification than an actual reason. I think that by catagorizing the brutality and evil deeds that Saddam conducted, we might have been able to rally support of the world's public in an outcry that the UN could not ignore.

 

How many people know of the plight of the Marsh Arabs, for example? Saddam drained the wetlands that provided their way of life and mounted helicopter attacks against the people on a regular basis to drive them out. He didn't like them, because he couldn't control them.

 

Instead, the rest of the world sees the Halliburton scandal, Bush's heavy hand, callous disregard for UN decisions, etc., etc.

 

I don't think any of the people in this forum who are critical of the way the Bush admin handled the Iraqi crisis believe for a minute that Saddam deserved to stay in power. But you have to admit, the Bush admin has made a few public relations blunders in the past two years in regard to world opinion.

 

World opinion is vital. The way the world views our country is important for every American traveling abroad. It is largely what fuels the terrorist mandates against the U.S.

 

Terrorism is the symptom, not the disease.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Oh yeah, but we sent a submarine and a warship!!!

Denmark has a warship:eek:?? What'll the next thing be, that Sweden has an army?

 

If by "you", you mean me, it's not my fault! If by "you", you mean the United States, just look at Germany. In 1939 German Blitzkrieg set a precedent for preemptive strikes back when premption wasn't cool! Even World War I had pre-emptive strikes (interlocking international allegances, for example, requiring Germany to preemptively attack France).

I don' think anyone pre-emptively attack anyone toady thanks to Nazi-Germany.

 

What he meant was that according to global rules since WW II, Pre-emptive strikes have been banned. Now that the US has done it, others can do it to, as in "starting to do it again". If Syria finds a legal loophole and invades Israel pre-emptively, that's okay to you?

 

But they wouldn't have killed thousands of people, either.

If by "they" you mean Pilgrims, I have no idea what you mean. If by "they" you mean Americans, I have to say, the Iraqis, led by the Baath regime would be the ones doing the killing.

What I meant was that no, of course the UN weapon inspectors would never have toppled Saddam's regime. You're right at that. But freeing Iraq was not their intention in the first place, so you can't say their mission was unsuccessful because of that.

 

To re-phrase.

The Weapon Inspectors didn't free Iraq, but they [the Weapon inspectors] never killed thousands of Iraqis, either.

 

There were a few British citizens who may have feared Iraq, btw. Last I read, five percent of UK citizens approved of the US operation in Iraq

Hardly out of fear. The Iraqis don't have missiles that can hit the UK, and if they were to try to invade the UK, they'd fail miserably. They *might* try terrorism, but increased security could ward off terrorism.

[Wilhuf]

we cannot ignore the precedent that the action creates. If we don't take action in the future against poor rulers, then we look hypocritical. If we do, we look like a bully. This is why I think the WMD question was more of a justification than an actual reason. I think that by catagorizing the brutality and evil deeds that Saddam conducted, we might have been able to rally support of the world's public in an outcry that the UN could not ignore.

 

I agree 100 percent.

 

I hope I've made it clear why I support operation Iraqi Freedom. The justification is the end of the Baath regime and its tyranny, plain and simple. I wish it were only so easy for the US to approach the UN and say : hey, Iraq has a horrible human rights record, the time to act is now.

 

Unfortunately that is not the way the UN works. As you've outlined, the UN meets this kind of thinking with great skepticism. "Why should we, the UN, whose very members represent countries whose governments are atricious violators of human rights, do anything to support this precedent? The UN can't just intervene every time some local despot cracks a few skulls." I just don't see the UN lining up to rally against one of its own. I wish they would, but they don't. (Let us not forget for example how our European Allies did not want to intervene in Bosnia in the early 1990s because of Human Rights.)

 

Clearly the US had to use WMD as a reason for wiping Saddam. A precedent was already established in 1991 as part of the cease-fire. Besides, at the UN, Human Rights violations really aren't sufficient grounds for intervention. Although they SHOULD be.

 

In the case of Iraqi Freedom, the ends DO justify the means, even if no great stockpiles of CBRN are found. (Although as I've demonstrated earlier, Iraq does have a CBRN capability.)

 

Actually the message the US has sent is a good one : fly straight and narrow, or you're next. The era of the US turning the other way while civillians suffer is coming to a close.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Wilhuf

Actually the message the US has sent is a good one : fly straight and narrow, or you're next. The era of the US turning the other way while civillians suffer is coming to a close.

 

In a way, I hope you're right.

 

Do you believe the humanitarian reasons was the justification used by the Bush administration all along? They didn't start using it until the very end, you know.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Now humanitarian aid is important to Bush?

 

Then why doesn't the States give more in financial aid to other countries? There's some percentage number estabilishing how much a country should give in humanitarian aid. The USA is still below that percentage.

 

If humanitarianism (is that a word?) matters so much to Bush, why doesn't he give more money to developing countries?

[Wilhuf]

The US was the number one donor of financial aid to Afghanistan before September 11th. But that didn't stop Usama Bin Laden (a very wealthy Saudi) from launching terror attacks from Afghanistan. Nor did it stop the Taliban from giving Al-Qa'ida safe harbor. Financial aid only goes so far to combat terror.

 

Besides, why should the US pay tribute to petty dictators like Saddam Hussein?

 

The US did bring up the Baath human rights record, but certainly could have made it a more prominent centerpiece in their case at the UN.

 

As I said, I doubt the UN particularly cared enough to actually take out the Hussein leadership because of their human rights record.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

The US was the number one donor of financial aid to Afghanistan before September 11th. But that didn't stop Usama Bin Laden (a very wealthy Saudi) from launching terror attacks from Afghanistan. Nor did it stop the Taliban from giving Al-Qa'ida safe harbor. Financial aid only goes so far to combat terror.

 

Besides, why should the US pay tribute to petty dictators like Saddam Hussein?

You got me wrong here. I'm talking about humanitarian aid in general, such as fighting HIV in other countries, for example. You do realize that you could probably save as many lives that way as you claim to be saving in Iraq?

 

Let's say 1000 people die a month under Saddam. So if your argument to invade Iraq is that youo save 1000 people per month, why don't you just give aid to Ethiopia and save 1000+ people per month?

 

You still save 1000 lives per month, but without killing anyone. But then again, most people are convinced humanitarian reasons were not the driving force behind the invasion of Iraq (neither was WMDs, most likely, as Bush should have figured Saddam didn't have too many of them).

[Breton]

Originally posted by Wilhuf

The US was the number one donor of financial aid to Afghanistan before September 11th. But that didn't stop Usama Bin Laden (a very wealthy Saudi) from launching terror attacks from Afghanistan. Nor did it stop the Taliban from giving Al-Qa'ida safe harbor. Financial aid only goes so far to combat terror.

 

Besides, why should the US pay tribute to petty dictators like Saddam Hussein?

 

We were never talking about giving money to dictators and bad regimes. But refugees and people who are starving, or people dying of diseases due to dirty drinking water, they need help, don't you think?

 

BTW, USA has to increase their foreign aid by seven times to reach the UN target.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

USA has to increase their foreign aid by seven times to reach the UN target.

That's what I'm saying. My point, again, is that if the USA took the money they spent on invading Iraq and spent it on humanitarian aid to developing nations, they'd save far more lives and not even kill anyone.

 

Which they didn't, which rules out humanitarianism (if that's a word:rolleyes:) as the primary reason for invading Iraq.

 

So the reasons are:

 

• WMDs: Which he didn't have. Invalid statement.
  
• Humanitarian aid: Which could be applied to other countries instead of Iraq, and a lot easier too. I guess the reparation costs ($80 billions?) could have saved, what, houndreds of thousands from starvation by planting crops, digging canals and wells for water supply, and building hospitals and schools to make the inhabitants self-sufficient. Courtesy of GWB, with no foreign protests.
  
• Arresting or killing Saddam: Which is hardly a reason for going to war. If a desperado is holed up in a saloon with 40 people and you know 10 of them are going to get killed when you storm the saloon, will you still do it, or try to come up with an alternative solution?
  
• Democracy: But this, neither, was the main reason, was it? This, however, comes the closest to being a good reason for an invasion.
  
• Other reasons (oil, revenge, etc.): These are, to me, conspiracy theories and don't hold true.
  

[Breton]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

[*]Democracy: But this, neither, was the main reason, was it? This, however, comes the closest to being a good reason for an invasion.

 

But is it fair to invade another country only because they have another ruling system than your own? Even dictatorship has its good sides. It isn't fair to occupy another country because you don't like the way they are ruled in this country.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I said it was ALMOST a reason to invade, not an actual reason.

 

We need more pro-war people in these forums. This debate is like "5 posts against war, 1 for war, 5 posts bashing the 1 post for war, then 2 more against war, 1 more for war...":)

[munik]

Hey, I'm for war. But I don't see much use in the debate.

 

Right or wrong, it doesn't matter. We do it because we can, and because no one can stop us. I can't really articulate that statement into 5 different essay replies, so I don't try.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

• Other reasons (oil, revenge, etc.): These are, to me, conspiracy theories and don't hold true.
  

 

I think that Oil is the simple reason. I didn't used to believe that, and if you look at some post I made back in February, I discounted it as a reason. Then I started looking into how the oil industry works. Then I started looking into past conflicts and disputes over oil. Then I started to understand how serious the governments, NGO's and transnational corporations see oil. Oil is more than just the crap that makes our cars go.

[C'jais]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1052251546682&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

[Breton]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

I said it was ALMOST a reason to invade, not an actual reason.

 

I know that, I just commented other's belief about democracy being an actual reason.

 

We need more pro-war people in these forums. This debate is like "5 posts against war, 1 for war, 5 posts bashing the 1 post for war, then 2 more against war, 1 more for war..."

 

I agree, we should get TheHobGoblin, Father Tourqe and CagedCrado in here, those would make the debate so much more fun.

[griff38]

Well it's been 11 weeks and no WMD.

 

Blair sighted as late as 72 hours before the war that Sadam could launch his WMD within 45 minutes. But now says they believe this info was wrong. Duh.

 

George Tenet CIA Director admits now they had no proof and were going on good "faith" from their international sources. Which they now admit were uh............. wrong.

 

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says all WMD were destroyed by the Iraqis on the eve of the war. Anybody got the balls to say they believe this idiot?

 

Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfelds step & fetch boy admitted on TV this week the only reason they pushed they WMD issue was because they needed a "good war banner" to inspire people.

 

I sure hope these fools at least, criminals at worst pay for this disaster.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Why do all the pro-war people diss the United Nations for not wanting to invade Iraq anyway? The United Nations were formed after World War II to promote peace, not "wars of liberation". The world was devastated by the destruction the 5-years global war had caused, and wanted an organization that could aqcuire peace by cooperation. Not by bullying of allies, violation of the unwritten freedom of speech laws, and general bashing of allies.

 

US Pro war: We want a war, for these reasons *lists reasons*

Anti-war: *Read reasons* We disagree, and these are our reasons. *Lists reasons*

US Pro-war: *Without reading AW's reasons* PANSIES!! *general bashing and totally wrong analogies, ie. 'we helped you during WW2 so you do as we tell you to'*

 

Sigh.

[munik]

Not finding any weapons still don't mean nuthin. If Twinkies were the current evil, we would use that excuse to attack another country. As it is now, we just replaced "communist" with "terrorist" as our current evil. WMD are bad in the terrorism sense, so that was our excuse. Do you think we could just say "because we want to"? Greed is unbecoming, so admitting to it as our reason to impose our will on others just isn't going to happen.

 

And the rest of the world can remember the truth for twenty generations, but no one in the States will give a sh*t. They can rub it in our face with one hand while the other hand continues to accept our money and achievements, and pray they aren't next.

 

If it was so terrible, such a wrongful act, then when can I expect the righteous retribution? What's that? Never? Ok, just let me pencil that in my day planner, "app: Country to defy the U.S. at Never o'clock, on the 10th day of Never, 200Never".

 

Sure, it sucks. I would empathize, but I have trouble with that considering I'm an American. Kinda hard to be mad at myself because I live in a country who follows the foriegn policy of "Do whatever the hell I want".

 

Is it right? Who knows? I'd say it's right for me, but it really isn't much of a factor in my life. It would be a factor if I lived in Iraq, but we've already covered my geographic location. So as it stands, it's just a passing news fad, maybe in five years I can watch informational war shows on the History Channel, or from here on out to eternity I can have it thrown in my face anytime I have a discussion with someone who resides in another country.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

If it was so terrible, such a wrongful act, then when can I expect the righteous retribution? What's that? Never? Ok, just let me pencil that in my day planner, "app: Country to defy the U.S. at Never o'clock, on the 10th day of Never, 200Never".

Hmm, the problem is that the rest of the world cannot do that. Sadly.

 

Sure, it sucks. I would empathize, but I have trouble with that considering I'm an American. Kinda hard to be mad at myself because I live in a country who follows the foriegn policy of "Do whatever the hell I want".

Why would you be mad at yourself? Unless you stereotype, you can't say all Americans are pro-war.

 

Is it right? Who knows? I'd say it's right for me, but it really isn't much of a factor in my life. It would be a factor if I lived in Iraq, but we've already covered my geographic location. So as it stands, it's just a passing news fad, maybe in five years I can watch informational war shows on the History Channel, or from here on out to eternity I can have it thrown in my face anytime I have a discussion with someone who resides in another country.

There are going to be discussions on it in USA to, believe me. I've been trough dozens.

[griff38]

Well it's been over a year since I started this thread.

 

Plenty enough time to find something. Can anybody site a single report of a WMD?

 

 

 

I swear you can hear a pin drop.

[Vagabond]

Well, Wilhuf and I had debated this topic privately before the U.S. invasion, and he's a good friend of mine. But on this topic we strongly disagree.

 

While I did agree at the time that Saddam was someone who the world could do without, it was the reckless way in which the lead-up to the invasion was carried that I so strongly objected to. Specifically:

 

1. That Bush had plans to invade Iraq before the attacks of September 11th, 2001.

 

2. That Bush's arrogance and lack of diplomacy toward our allies and the U.N. alienated the U.S. around the world.

 

3. That Bush unilaterally decided to invade before the weapons inspectors had completed their search for WMD.

 

4. That Bush did not invade Iraq with the overwhelming force needed, not only to conquer the Iraqi military, but to maintain security.

 

The concerns I voiced before the invasion were:

 

1. If no WMD are found, there will be an outcry of illegitimacy, that the U.S. illegally overthrew the government of a sovereign nation that posed no immediate threat to either the U.S., any of its allies, or any of Iraq's neighbors. This came to pass.

 

2. That the U.S. would find itself essentially going it alone in Iraq, with very little help from the rest of the world. This came to pass.

 

3. That the U.S. would find itself fighting a Vietname-style guerilla war, with no easy exit strategy. Thus far, this too has come to pass.

 

I know my comments may appear to some as hindsight, but this are the very concerns I pointed out prior to the invasion.

 

There was a right way to do this, and a wrong way. The best analogy I can think of is this: suppose you needed money from the bank to remodel your house. The right way would be to go to the bank, take the time to fill out all the paperwork, and obtain a loan. The wrong way is to march into the bank and shove a shotgun up the teller's nose and tell them to fill up a bag with cash from the vault - this is essentially what Bush did - do things the wrong way. And now that he's found himself in a mess in his remodeling project, he just can't seem to understand why no one from the bank will come over and help him out. Bush just seems to lack any social awareness. Leaders of nations are no different than anyone else - if you don't possess the interpersonal skills treat people respectfully, then those people aren't going to lift a finger to help you. Rather, they're going to enjoy sitting back and watching you fail, which is exactly what I would be doing were I the leader of one of the nations that Bush has alienated the U.S. from.

 

To make matters worse, now that Bush hasn't found any WMD in Iraq, his transparently obvious contingency plan was to try to make a vaporous connection between Iraq and Bin Laden, has been shown to not be true. Which leaves Bush with the only justification being that Sadam was a bad guy that needed to go. That's it. If we were just going to start invading countries with bad guys, I can think of more worthy candidates than some 3rd-rate dictator without WMD.

 

And as a result of all these events, particularly all of Bush's excuses for the reasons he invaded Iraq, and his failure to accept any of the responsibility for the rush to war, Bush's administration has virtually zero credibility with the rest of the world.

 

And sadly, the U.S., which once was perhaps viewed as more an ideal of democracy, success, and freedom around the world, is now loathed as the American Empire, invader and occupier, and hypocrite that holds other nations accountable to laws that it ignores. Bush has strongly lead the U.S. in the wrong direction.

[Elijah]

Originally posted by Breton

If they do not find any WoMDs in Iraq, Bush has made war on false reasons, he has also lied to his people and to the whole world. If there is no WoMDs in Iraq, the only right thing for Bush to do would be to resign.

The CIA, Clinton (who most of you democrats voted for) and many other people, TOLD Bush that Saddam had WMDs, bush didnt lie to anything, if anything, he was lied to. Bush acted on perhaps false information, but how was he to know it was false? and besides, they have already found weapons that were illegal to have according to the UN.