David Kay's Recent Report On Iraq
Forlorn
Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2634Banned
Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2634Banned
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">I can't find it, and it's very recent...</div> I remember things along the lines of there being a 130 sites where there was possible WMD, however, so far, only 10 of them have been searched, and as turned up a vial containing a deadly virus...
The topic of this thread:
Find David Kay's report. I tried on google, but to no success. Perhaps you can find it. The only report I found of Kay that was online was: "There is no smoking gun..." A report he made back in January. I want the one that was released very recently.
Next, does his report change your oppinion on anything?
The topic of this thread:
Find David Kay's report. I tried on google, but to no success. Perhaps you can find it. The only report I found of Kay that was online was: "There is no smoking gun..." A report he made back in January. I want the one that was released very recently.
Next, does his report change your oppinion on anything?
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What have we found and what have we not found in the first three months of our work?
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. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the U.N
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
READ BEFORE COMMENTING
Kay's discoveries, had they been made before the war, would have been earth shattering news. Hidden missle systems, lab networks, stored viruses. All the media is focusing on is "OMG N0 WMDS!!!!1" when we've found so much more to justify this war.
ahhh. I feel better. I like this Kay guy. I saw him with George Will last week on Sunday. Best part of the whole discussion was his description of the people working for him. He mentioned that none of the U.N. weapons inspectors could work with him directly because he wants every team member to be trained with and carry small arms. Something along those lines anyway.
Yes, he's found quite a bit. And he'll find more. But it won't matter. Judgements were passed long before his team set foot in Iraq.
The Kay report sounds like a man trying to make the best of his situation. What he's found so far, he knows isn't close to what his government claimed Iraq had prior to the war. Yes, he's found evidance for R&D programs. I mustn't be the only one saying: so what? I can sit here in my room and research how to make sarin gas, even build a small lab that has the potential to produce it, but if I don't produce the stuff, I'm not doing anything wrong. I believe that what has been found so far collaborates perfectly with the notion that Saddam had been fully prepared to restart his WMD programs: as soon as sanctions were dropped. Prior to that possible event, (and the Kay report would seem to support this) Saddam kept everything at a purely R&D level. Heck, even Kay himself writes that in his report:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
1. Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any ongoing prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course, people like Spooge have already made their judgements prior to Kay's team even setting foot in Iraq. He is completly convinced that there are weapons to be found, and even if none are found, he and others like him will insist until doomsday that the weapons were either hidden or smuggled out. Whereas myself, if Kay's team tommorow cracks open an underground warehouse filled to the brim with anthrax missiles, I will openly admit that Saddam was illegally producing WMD. However, I do require this funny little thing called <i>proof</i> before I make such a statement.
"The possibility," "potential," "-related," etc...
What exactly is a "WMD-related activity?" That's pretty vague term... he could have put down "growing anthrax spores" or something, but he <b>didn't</b>, because that was as close as the evidence came to anything wmd.
Oh, and the vial of deadly viruses - it's wasn't a vial of deadly viruses. Apparently it contained an organism <b>capable</b>, or <b>potentially able</b> (more subjunctives) to produce the prerequisites for botulism toxin... guess what the famous Botox (news anchor facial muscle suppressant) is .... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Balancing all the facts: You have an Anti-American stablity threat with ties to terrorism who never really gave us the whole story on his weapons development. If Bush didn't act, Saddam could have been the next N. Korea. The whole idea of the Bush Doctrine is to remove threats before they become imminent. If you were to err in the situation, its safer to say "Whoops, turns out he wasn't a threat" than to say "Whoops! Looks like he was a threat!" 5 years down the line.
And does anyone honestly beleive we did a BAD thing free Iraq?
Anyhow, back to the main topic:
Does David Kay's report on Iraq change your oppinion of anything? If so, then what does it?
It never changed my oppinion, as I already knew beforehand that Iraq indeed possesed WMD's of some sort, and the slow progress at finding them is due to other tasks at hand, such as getting food into the newly liberated peoples of Iraq.
And does anyone honestly beleive we did a BAD thing free Iraq? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is it really?
We just killed 100000+ Iraqi people in this war! Just because they were Iraqi doesn't mean they're worthy of being forgotten, or that their lives meant nothing. "Whoops" is an awfully impersonal word to be used in describing an outright slaughter (not a massacre, but yes it was a slaughter).
Not only this, but the entire Arab world, plus the Europeans, hate us... actually, the whole world hates us. <b>Now</b> the threat might materialize for real. gg...
I can say with certainty that N. Korea was a much more concrete threat (as in the amount of actual, real knowledge we had dealing with their WMD program) before we invaded Iraq... very dubious to me why we would invade Iraq first...
And finally, do the ends justify the means? When we are talking about 100,000 -- (more? I don't know how many Iraqis were killed even) lives? Lives are not livestock.
I'd love to know how exactly you <i>knew</i> that Iraq had WMD. Perhaps Mr Kay would love to hear your evidance. Might help him greatly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And does anyone honestly beleive we did a BAD thing free Iraq? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Honestly? Yes. For the following reasons:
1. Regional instability. The nature of the campaign (We don't care what the rest of the world says we're going in anyway) has resulted in Iran running to restart their nuclear program and a spiralling series of attacks on soldiers and personell in Iraq. Unquestionably some of these people in Iraq will be now more than willing to join terrorist factions or support their activities. Which leads to point 2:
2. Increased support for terrorist groups. Not every Muslim is a religious fanatic bent on giving their life to hurt "The Great Satan". The vast majority of Muslims are quite moderate. At least, they were. Now, with the Iraq conflict, we can expect a large scale shift of many moderate Muslims towards fundamentalism and extreamist actions. The forced occupation of one of the world's cradles of Islam cannot have had any other effect. With this shift of opinions, terrorist groups will now have much more overt or covert support, along with many more willing members.
3. Financial and Humanitarian Cost: Speaking as an Australian, I can look at our battered health care system or public schools and say without doubt that there are places where the money spent on the Iraq war could be spent better. "Liberating" a people in some far off place is not and should not be the primary concern of any government, be they Australian, US, British or Russian. Nor is placing our people at risk of death to take part in this "liberation". Hundreds of US soldiers are dead and more are dying. Why should they be dying at all? Why should the money being poured into Iraq not be spent on needy Americans?
4. Shift of World Opinion: With the S-11 terrorist attacks, almost the entire world got behind America. Remember the Afghanistan campaign? It was hard to find countries that opposed it. Support from all across the world was plain to see. Turn the clock forwards to the Iraq conflict and now most of the world can't stand the US. The reasons for this can all be boiled down to Bush's gung-ho attitude and blatent walking over the UN to get his war. Instead of drawing on the huge international support generated from S-11, the US government has now succeeded in destroying almost all of that support. And not only that, but the nations that joined with the US are shunned as well. Australia has had a steady cooling of relations with South East Asia since the start of the Iraq war.
5. Removal of the UN and the establishment of US hegemony: With the UN's last vestiges of power gone, the only international organisation that provided some measure of safeguards and checks is now extinct. The new doctrine is: biggest guns win. Might makes Right. Any nation can now say: "Well I think my neighbour is going to be a threat soon! I'm going to attack him". What if China thinks that Taiwan will be a threat soon? Under the new Bush doctrine, they are justified in attacking. The US, thanks to Iraq, has demonstrated that if you have enough power, you can get away with anything. Just garnish it with a few words like "suspected WMD" or "terrorist threats" and bang: legitimate war.
So yeah, I think that going into Iraq was a bad idea. It's not our job to intrude into the problems of another people. They're ruled by an oppressive tyrant, let them. If they really don't want it let them rise up and overthrow him. Otherwise it's none of our concern. Now if that nation actually posed a threat, in the form of WMD weapons that were going to be used against us, then there is justification. But I'm tired of people doing just what Bush is doing: dodgeing the very real facts that nothing has been found whilst shouting to the heavens about all the "good" work going on in Iraq.
Kay's report changes nothing in my mind; as I've said, it simply re-enforces a very plausible theory that I heard some months ago. If Kay's report had said: "At site 275 we found a giant chemcial production plant that was churning out sarin gas shells. Nearby vast warehouses were filled with the gas" then I would have accepted that Iraq actually had WMD. But it didn't. It glossed over the utter failure of the US inspectors to find anything of the sort.
USA sold Iraq their first WMD. I'm sure we still have the sale of purchase transcripts.
Next, the UN confirmed it as well.
Next, the only way China could invade Taiwan is if Taiwan admitted they want to kill every last Chinese citizen... Get my drift?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->With the UN's last vestiges of power gone, the only international organisation that provided some measure of safeguards and checks is now extinct. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't be naive. The UN never had any power.
Also, Ryo: You basically think that Iraq was better off with it's people's being terrorized by it's own government... sad.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We just killed 100000+ Iraqi people in this war!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the hell? No. We. Didn't. Don't pull numbers out of thin air.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can say with certainty that N. Korea was a much more concrete threat (as in the amount of actual, real knowledge we had dealing with their WMD program) before we invaded Iraq... very dubious to me why we would invade Iraq first... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Balancing all the facts: You have an Anti-American stablity threat with ties to terrorism who never really gave us the whole story on his weapons development. If Bush didn't act, Saddam could have been the next N. Korea. The whole idea of the Bush Doctrine is to remove threats before they become imminent. If you were to err in the situation, its safer to say "Whoops, turns out he wasn't a threat" than to say "Whoops! Looks like he was a threat!" 5 years down the line.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah right, try and guilt-trip me. Won't work. I don't see why my tax dollars should be going into "liberating" these people. There's a thousand and one things back home that I'd rather see that money spent on.
So call me sad. I honestly don't care. Btw, I never said that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam. I said I didn't think the war was a good thing. If they don't like their leader, let them rise up.
You and I are fundamentally different.
[QUOTE]And does anyone honestly beleive we did a BAD thing free Iraq? [/QUOTE]
Honestly? Yes. For the following reasons:
[quote]1. Regional instability. [/quote]
Oh no! How could we destroy the pillar of international stability the Middle East! Please. The region is already screwed up. How will a strong, secular democracy 'hurt' regional stability? If ANYONE touches the new free Iraq, the US will destroy them. Iraq was also an example of what will happen to Iran should they fail to cooperate.
[/quote]
[quote]2. Increased support for terrorist groups. [/quote]
Theres no evidence of this. Has Al Qaeda strengthend since we destoryed their base? Its possible that some people become radicalized, but Iraq was the most secular of all Arab nations. They hate the fundamentalists in Iran, and they don't care about Palestine (because Saddam made such a show of supporting the Palestinians.) The vast majority of Iraqis are ready to move into the modern age. Same thing with Iran. The terrorist breeding age has become over run with idealist, pro-democracy students. True, other nations may radicalize but, as you stated, most Muslims are moderate and would be unlikely to become radical if they see the fate of other radicals.
[quote]
3. Financial and Humanitarian Cost[/quote]
This point does make sense I'm afraid. I've always beleived that governments have a priority to help their own citizens. Foremost should be the protection of life. The war against Islamic Fascism and terrorism cannot be won by reacting to them. Bombing only after letting your own citizens die is ineffective and negligent. Iraq was another step in the ultimate goal of freeing the Middle East from Facsism and opening the area up to Western ideas. Terrorism will only go away when the Islamo-fascist intellectual support for it crumbles before Western Civ. Do we force our culture on them? No. We only need to observe the facts that Western civ presents better ideas on the nature of man and exsistence and let the youth of the Islamic world champion them (ala Iran).
[quote]4. Shift of World Opinion: [/quote]
Not all nations have the interests of the US at heart. You said governments have a responsibility to their own people. Whats good for the US is not always good for France. If it was, they'd still oppose it just for the sake of being difficult. Its fine if the world doesn't like us. The government has an obligation to protect its citizens.
[quote]5. Removal of the UN and the establishment of US hegemony:[/quote]
Your argument is based on the idea that it was the US that was being irrational and the UN was right. Even if that were the case, the US was still obeying international law. There were prexisting documents (1991 UN Resolution) supporting an invasion of Iraq. Bush just decided that it was time to excercise that right. Plus, in the above argument, the UN does not have the best interests of the US at heart. As you said, governments have an obligation to their citizens and should not pander to needs of other countries. :-)
[quote]
So yeah, I think that going into Iraq was a bad idea. It's not our job to intrude into the problems of another people. They're ruled by an oppressive tyrant, let them. If they really don't want it let them rise up and overthrow him. Otherwise it's none of our concern. Now if that nation actually posed a threat, in the form of WMD weapons that were going to be used against us, then there is justification. But I'm tired of people doing just what Bush is doing: dodgeing the very real facts that nothing has been found whilst shouting to the heavens about all the "good" work going on in Iraq.
Kay's report changes nothing in my mind; as I've said, it simply re-enforces a very plausible theory that I heard some months ago. If Kay's report had said: "At site 275 we found a giant chemcial production plant that was churning out sarin gas shells. Nearby vast warehouses were filled with the gas" then I would have accepted that Iraq actually had WMD. But it didn't. It glossed over the utter failure of the US inspectors to find anything of the sort.
[/quote]
Kay's report justifies the war legally. Was US intelligence wrong? I wouldn't say that <i>yet</i>. It appears to have overestimated Saddam's stockpile, but current findings (Nuclear parts, long range missles, labs in scientists home, mobile bio labs, etc) say to me "Saddam could make this stuff. Did he?" As you said, governments have an obligation to their citizens, and If I were faced with that evidence, I'd rather err on the side of safety.
Another unreported from Iraq:
Innocent Iraqi's killed by Saddam (not including his wars): 2 million.
Innocent Iraqi's killed by the US: 2000.
Thats .2% of what Saddam killed. And the US' goal wasn't to kill them. In the end, the US invasion will save more lives than it cost. Since when has it been bad to save lives?
And as you mentioned, governments have an obligation to their citizens. :-)
You really shouldn't have mentioned that. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Nothing in there on governments having obligations to their citizens... Kindly do not twist my words.
What I did say was that I felt the money spent on the Iraq war would have been better spent at home. The same logic applies to Saddam: I feel that the money he spent on wars could very well have been spent on the Iraqi people instead. Yet a government treats it's citizens how it chooses to. If you are saying that the US has the right to go and invade Iraq because Saddam wasn't helping his people enough then surely China would be justified in invading the US because Bush isn't helping his people enough.
What this of course all comes down to once again is the debate that we have had before Jammer: what is a legitimate government. We're never going to come to some accord over that. So I see no point in argueing it. What we can debate is whether or not Kay's report does prove that Iraq was a threat to the US that had to be taken care of. So on that note:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It appears to have overestimated Saddam's stockpile, but current findings (Nuclear parts, long range missles, labs in scientists home, mobile bio labs, etc) say to me "Saddam could make this stuff. Did he?" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And to me it says: "Saddam was waiting for sanctions to drop so he could restart his programs". All the evidence so far is in the form of R&D, which would seem to support this theory. What the Kay report does fail to produce is any actual products of said research.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And does anyone honestly beleive we did a BAD thing free Iraq? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Honestly? Yes. For the following reasons:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Regional instability. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh no! How could we destroy the pillar of international stability the Middle East! Please. The region is already screwed up. How will a strong, secular democracy 'hurt' regional stability? If ANYONE touches the new free Iraq, the US will destroy them. Iraq was also an example of what will happen to Iran should they fail to cooperate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Increased support for terrorist groups. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Theres no evidence of this. Has Al Qaeda strengthend since we destoryed their base? Its possible that some people become radicalized, but Iraq was the most secular of all Arab nations. They hate the fundamentalists in Iran, and they don't care about Palestine (because Saddam made such a show of supporting the Palestinians.) The vast majority of Iraqis are ready to move into the modern age. Same thing with Iran. The terrorist breeding age has become over run with idealist, pro-democracy students. True, other nations may radicalize but, as you stated, most Muslims are moderate and would be unlikely to become radical if they see the fate of other radicals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
3. Financial and Humanitarian Cost<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This point does make sense I'm afraid. I've always beleived that governments have a priority to help their own citizens. Foremost should be the protection of life. The war against Islamic Fascism and terrorism cannot be won by reacting to them. Bombing only after letting your own citizens die is ineffective and negligent. Iraq was another step in the ultimate goal of freeing the Middle East from Facsism and opening the area up to Western ideas. Terrorism will only go away when the Islamo-fascist intellectual support for it crumbles before Western Civ. Do we force our culture on them? No. We only need to observe the facts that Western civ presents better ideas on the nature of man and exsistence and let the youth of the Islamic world champion them (ala Iran).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4. Shift of World Opinion: <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not all nations have the interests of the US at heart. You said governments have a responsibility to their own people. Whats good for the US is not always good for France. If it was, they'd still oppose it just for the sake of being difficult. Its fine if the world doesn't like us. The government has an obligation to protect its citizens.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->5. Removal of the UN and the establishment of US hegemony:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your argument is based on the idea that it was the US that was being irrational and the UN was right. Even if that were the case, the US was still obeying international law. There were prexisting documents (1991 UN Resolution) supporting an invasion of Iraq. Bush just decided that it was time to excercise that right. Plus, in the above argument, the UN does not have the best interests of the US at heart. As you said, governments have an obligation to their citizens and should not pander to needs of other countries. :-)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
So yeah, I think that going into Iraq was a bad idea. It's not our job to intrude into the problems of another people. They're ruled by an oppressive tyrant, let them. If they really don't want it let them rise up and overthrow him. Otherwise it's none of our concern. Now if that nation actually posed a threat, in the form of WMD weapons that were going to be used against us, then there is justification. But I'm tired of people doing just what Bush is doing: dodgeing the very real facts that nothing has been found whilst shouting to the heavens about all the "good" work going on in Iraq.
Kay's report changes nothing in my mind; as I've said, it simply re-enforces a very plausible theory that I heard some months ago. If Kay's report had said: "At site 275 we found a giant chemcial production plant that was churning out sarin gas shells. Nearby vast warehouses were filled with the gas" then I would have accepted that Iraq actually had WMD. But it didn't. It glossed over the utter failure of the US inspectors to find anything of the sort.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kay's report justifies the war legally. Was US intelligence wrong? I wouldn't say that <i>yet</i>. It appears to have overestimated Saddam's stockpile, but current findings (Nuclear parts, long range missles, labs in scientists home, mobile bio labs, etc) say to me "Saddam could make this stuff. Did he?" As you said, governments have an obligation to their citizens, and If I were faced with that evidence, I'd rather err on the side of safety.
Another unreported from Iraq:
Innocent Iraqi's killed by Saddam (not including his wars): 2 million.
Innocent Iraqi's killed by the US: 2000.
Thats .2% of what Saddam killed. And the US' goal wasn't to kill them. In the end, the US invasion will save more lives than it cost. Since when has it been bad to save lives?
And as you mentioned, governments have an obligation to their citizens. :-)
You really shouldn't have mentioned that. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think I fixed the tags.
Jammer, just click on the quote button, see the changes I made to your orginal post, copy them (ctrl+c), hit the back button, then go to your old post and click on the edit button, then highlight it all and paste (ctrl+v).
What this of course all comes down to once again is the debate that we have had before Jammer: what is a legitimate government. We're never going to come to some accord over that. So I see no point in argueing it. What we can debate is whether or not Kay's report does prove that Iraq was a threat to the US that had to be taken care of. So on that note:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It appears to have overestimated Saddam's stockpile, but current findings (Nuclear parts, long range missles, labs in scientists home, mobile bio labs, etc) say to me "Saddam could make this stuff. Did he?" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And to me it says: "Saddam was waiting for sanctions to drop so he could restart his programs". All the evidence so far is in the form of R&D, which would seem to support this theory. What the Kay report does fail to produce is any actual products of said research. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
To the invading China remark:
This doesn't make sense on 100 levels, but let's go over the basics:
China couldn't invade in your example because Chinese standard of living is way below ours. It would make sense therefore for the US to invade China.
And by the way, how can you say Bush isn't helping you? I know my family (I'm the minor in the family) just got back 1000 bucks in the mail due to tax cuts. That's a lot out of our federal taxes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What the Kay report does fail to produce is any actual products of said research.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahem.
Did you fail to see the part in the report which clearly states that out of 130 sites, only 10 have been searched, and have already turned up results? Don't be so hasty.
Gee the US must be really pumping a lot of energy into searching for those weapons! A whole 10! Btw, I could just as easily say that you are being hasty as well for assumeing there are weapons to find. Like I have said, if Kay finds stockpiles of WMD I will believe that Iraq was producing them. Until then, I will stand by the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
China couldn't invade in your example because Chinese standard of living is way below ours. It would make sense therefore for the US to invade China.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would it make sense for the US to do that? The Chinese government certainly actively tries to help out it's citizens, striving for full employment, education for all, free health care ect. Yeah, they have a lower standard of living but exactly why should this mean the US should invade. The response I wrote was with regards to the strange idea that we invaded Iraq because Saddam didn't spend enough money on his people. I was merely commenting that the US probably doesn't spend enough money on it's people either. Heck, neither does China most likely. I don't even know how we wound up here. Regardless, this particular part of the arguement is part of the old "Legitimate Government" debate, which we shouldn't be getting into. This is on Kay's report.
Gee the US must be really pumping a lot of energy into searching for those weapons! A whole 10! Btw, I could just as easily say that you are being hasty as well for assumeing there are weapons to find. Like I have said, if Kay finds stockpiles of WMD I will believe that Iraq was producing them. Until then, I will stand by the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps we should stop focusing on the terror attacks within the country, screw getting back up the power grid, and we might as well as forget helping the citizens all together, shouldn't we? After all, those WMD's sitting in a locked warehouse are a big giant threat to everyone, as opposed to sniper's that now use RPG's.
Some people just expect the impossible. The more detailed reports will flood in once the country is stabalized.
Some people just expect the impossible. The more detailed reports will flood in once the country is stabalized. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So let me get this straight. Now these supposed WMD arn't a threat?
Who is guarding this hypothetical warehouse? If there is a warehouse, someone must know about it. The people most likely to know about it arn't likely to be waving US flags. Thus there's a high chance that people who want very much to hurt the US occupiers know about this warehouse. You think an RPG attack is bad, wait until someone detonates a smallpox bomb in downtown Baghdad.
But let's say the people who did know about this hypothetical warehouse are dead or captured. That still leaves a warehouse somewhere that people could stumble across. Now given the current attacks on US forces and rising anti-US pressure in Iraq, there exists a good chance that if someone did find it they might be willing to use it against the US.
Thus, if the US believes that there are WMD to be found it should be their absolute top priority. How can it not be!? The chaos in Iraq right now would be nothing compared to a scenario where anti-US forces have biological and chemical weapons at their disposal. Defending against such weapons would be almost impossible and cause massive civilian and military casualties. So yeah, those mythical WMD are one hell of a big threat.
Of course that's supposing that there are WMD to find.
Some people just expect the impossible. The more detailed reports will flood in once the country is stabalized. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So let me get this straight. Now these supposed WMD arn't a threat?
Who is guarding this hypothetical warehouse? If there is a warehouse, someone must know about it. The people most likely to know about it arn't likely to be waving US flags. Thus there's a high chance that people who want very much to hurt the US occupiers know about this warehouse. You think an RPG attack is bad, wait until someone detonates a smallpox bomb in downtown Baghdad.
But let's say the people who did know about this hypothetical warehouse are dead or captured. That still leaves a warehouse somewhere that people could stumble across. Now given the current attacks on US forces and rising anti-US pressure in Iraq, there exists a good chance that if someone did find it they might be willing to use it against the US.
Thus, if the US believes that there are WMD to be found it should be their absolute top priority. How can it not be!? The chaos in Iraq right now would be nothing compared to a scenario where anti-US forces have biological and chemical weapons at their disposal. Defending against such weapons would be almost impossible and cause massive civilian and military casualties. So yeah, those mythical WMD are one hell of a big threat.
Of course that's supposing that there are WMD to find. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The WMD aren't a threat under US policy because Saddam isn't controlling it. As far as others getting to it, whom? If it was hidden enough so that most of the world could not see it, then you expect some smuck on the street to find it?
Although, hopefully the US gets cracken on these weapon stores soon (if they haven't already started).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok I am going to hide something in my house for you to find, only in certain rooms Im going to be shooting at you. How long do you think it would take you to find it. Yes the Weapon inspectors are taking their time, I dont think they want to be in a news report before they find anything. The military is probably insuring that each site is clear of hostile forces and booby traps before inspectors are brought in.
He isn't? Saddam is still at large for all we know, and if anyone knows where those supposed WMD are, it would be Saddam. He's still got supporters left, that much is clear. All it would take is Saddam saying to one of his loyalists: "There's some anthrax shells in (insert random location in Iraq here)" Then bang, a few days later Baghdad is hit.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As far as others getting to it, whom? If it was hidden enough so that most of the world could not see it, then you expect some smuck on the street to find it?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The chances of someone randomly finding them would be low, that I accept. But there are plenty of people in Iraq who would have known something about a WMD store, if indeed one exists. Many of these people would have been high in Saddam's regime and thus probably anti-US occupation. The chance of such people getting WMD is too high to ignore. If the US truely wishes to protect the Iraqi people, their number one aim should be to ensure that either the weapons are found or that there are no weapons to be found.