<!--QuoteBegin-Ryo-Ohki+Feb 2 2004, 12:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Feb 2 2004, 12:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What is being disputing is what Bush, Blair and Howard said prior to the Second Gulf War: that Iraq still had WMDs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> People seem to continue overlooking statements from Clinton and others from his administration...
<!--QuoteBegin-killswitch1968+Feb 2 2004, 03:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (killswitch1968 @ Feb 2 2004, 03:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Sizer+Feb 2 2004, 02:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Feb 2 2004, 02:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> WMDs - Nope. Not there. Humanitarian- Negative. Refuted by past and current american policies. Also refuted by upcoming Sharia laws in Iraq. Prospect of future WMD attack - Duuuuurrr huuuuurrr. My neocon buddies told me that you were planning to break into my house and shoot me. Even though we don't have any evidence of such a thing, I'll glass your neighborhood just to play it safe. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not complying fully and completly with weapons inspectors - Yup.
Relevant point: "Because of Iraq's continued violation of the ceasefire's disarmament resolution, the ceasefire no longer exists." The Gulf War never ended. There was nothing inherently illegal about the Iraq occupation. Delaying the weapons inspectors was just one of his violations of this ceasefire.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
None of the UN resolutions (and don't give me any garbage about the UN not mattering - the US tried to use resolutions as an excuse to invade) allowed for an invasion.
The article also says the inspectors were "evicted" in 1998. Clinton had them leave, not the Iraqis.
To top it off, the author tries to portray his opinion...
"Because of Iraq's continued violation of the ceasefire's disarmament resolution, the ceasefire no longer exists."
... as fact, when it is not.
Your article is too ridiculous to be taken seriously.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sizer+Feb 3 2004, 03:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Feb 3 2004, 03:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> None of the UN resolutions allowed for an invasion.
The article also says the inspectors were "evicted" in 1998. Clinton had them leave, not the Iraqis.
To top it off, the author tries to portray his opinion...
"Because of Iraq's continued violation of the ceasefire's disarmament resolution, the ceasefire no longer exists."
... as fact, when it is not.
Your article is too ridiculous to be taken seriously. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, you are wrong. It seems you didn't enjoy reading that last article, here is another one reiterating the same. Iraq breaches the terms of the ceasefire on MANY MANY occasions. This allowed for "serious consequences", which definitionally includes invasion (the same wording was use for Desert Storm).
Want another article you can cursively dismiss? <a href='http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/18/1047749770373.html' target='_blank'>http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/...7749770373.html</a>
The UN is a sham, but that argument will be left for another thread.
<!--QuoteBegin-killswitch1968+Feb 3 2004, 06:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (killswitch1968 @ Feb 3 2004, 06:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Nepal is not a ruthless dictatorship. They do not have the kind of ire for the US that Iraq did. They have NEVER possessed WMDs at all. They've never started a war in the last few decades, do I need to go on? There is a certain degree at which, when all factors are combined, the threat becomes increasingly more dangerous and recourse must be taken. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> by that logic the current biggest threat to any other nation is.. uuhh? the United States.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but it is laughable to think Bush would risk war over something as petty as oil fields.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
whereas its perfectly reasonable to think he might invade for somthing as profitable as Iraqi freedom?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Stupid and ridiculous comparison. Utterly stupid. What I don't understand is why people bring up analogies that are startling different from the original topic. Honestly.... Ok I will spell it out for you:
Nepal is not a ruthless dictatorship. They do not have the kind of ire for the US that Iraq did. They have NEVER possessed WMDs at all. They've never started a war in the last few decades, do I need to go on? There is a certain degree at which, when all factors are combined, the threat becomes increasingly more dangerous and recourse must be taken. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thankyou for completely missing my point. Nuclear technology is not hard to come by. Virtually any nation on the planet could develop nuclear weaponry quite easily. Thus saying "We invaded Iraq because they had the potential to develop nuclear weapons" is a debunked arguement. I mentioned nations such as Nepal to illustrate my point that if the potential to develop nuclear weapons is grounds for invasion, then every nation around the world is a target.
Yes, Iraq started a war. Yes, it was run by a brutal dictatorship. The question that must surely be coming up here is "So what?". Saddam's army was in ruins after 10 years of sanctions; the fact that it crumbled in such a short time is evidance of that. His capacity to attack other nations was essentially zero, and any attack would have been instantly stopped by both the US and UN. Just because a country is a dictatorship does not automatically mean it is a threat, and a nation that has been almost totally disarmed is not "an increasingly more dangerous threat that forces recourse to be taken".
The only feasible way Iraq could have been a threat was through WMDs. But now that we look at the "evidance" that intelligance agencies in the US and Britian compiled, it has quickly fallen apart. The "nuclear material from Africa" was found to be nothing more than a fanciful myth. Reports that pointed to vast stockpiles of illegal weaponry have found nothing. If Iraq was a threat, where are the WMDs?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you're going to bring up analogies at least make them appropriate. Clearly, even you, a reasonable person I assume, must at SOME point realize that during some point of nuclear arms development something MUST be done before it is disasterously and irrevocably too late. When should you go in? 95% confidence? 99% confidence? 100% confidence? Waiting until Iraq actually nukes would have been too late, if you're wondering. Cheap politicking and media sensationalism are hardly the kind of preparation we need. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The evidance that was compiled was not 95%. Heck, it wasn't even 50%. There's a good reason why the UN general assembly voted against action on Iraq: the evidence simply wasn't strong enough. Here's an analogy for you: a murder trial. The prosecution must establish beyond resonable doubt that the man on trial committed a crime. They fail to do this, and the man is set free. Whereupon a member of the jury, convinced the man is guilty, shoots him outside the courtroom.
You seem to believe that the UN wanted Saddam to have WMDs. They didn't; they were sending in inspectors and trying to assess what was going on inside Iraq. Note that Saddam let them go everywhere this time, yet they found nothing. If the UN had found something, they would have voted to remove the weapons, by force if nessessary. But they didn't find anything, and thus they didn't see a case for war.
But let's assume that Iraq did aquire nuclear weapons, much as North Korea has today. What are they going to do with them? A huge misconception amongst supporters of this war seems to be that once dictators have WMDs, they will automatically use them. Kim Il Sung hasn't used his. Stalin never pressed the button. Neither did Mao. Why? Because if they ever used them, their nations would be instantaneously devestated by a reprisal attack. But what if they're crazy you say? Saddam wasn't anywhere near as unhinged as Stalin or Mao were. Look at the First Gulf War; Saddam had WMDs then, lots of them. He didn't use them against Coalition forces or Israel, because the reprisal would have destroyed everything he had.
<span style='color:red'>Moderator Announcement: If everyone here doesn't calm down, stop the personal attacks, and get their tiresome egos under control, this topic will be locked and violators will lose posting rights in Discussion for at least one week.
All I believe is that whether or not Iraq has/had WMDs, they have a chance to be free (with or without a puppet government... it doesn't matter... that's still better than Mr. Hussein)
Comments
I was pleasantly surprised by Jammer's response in all honesty, I expected a ranting invective, but got a calm reasoned answer.
WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REAL JAMMER?
People seem to continue overlooking statements from Clinton and others from his administration...
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/02/superbowl.jackson/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/02/superbowl...kson/index.html</a>
WMDs - Nope. Not there.
Humanitarian- Negative. Refuted by past and current american policies. Also refuted by upcoming Sharia laws in Iraq.
Prospect of future WMD attack - Duuuuurrr huuuuurrr. My neocon buddies told me that you were planning to break into my house and shoot me. Even though we don't have any evidence of such a thing, I'll glass your neighborhood just to play it safe. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not complying fully and completly with weapons inspectors - Yup.
<a href='http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/054_2003-02-06/han054_1330-E.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus...n054_1330-E.htm</a>
Relevant point:
"Because of Iraq's continued violation of the ceasefire's disarmament resolution, the ceasefire no longer exists."
The Gulf War never ended. There was nothing inherently illegal about the Iraq occupation. Delaying the weapons inspectors was just one of his violations of this ceasefire.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
None of the UN resolutions (and don't give me any garbage about the UN not mattering - the US tried to use resolutions as an excuse to invade) allowed for an invasion.
The article also says the inspectors were "evicted" in 1998. Clinton had them leave, not the Iraqis.
To top it off, the author tries to portray his opinion...
"Because of Iraq's continued violation of the ceasefire's disarmament resolution, the ceasefire no longer exists."
... as fact, when it is not.
Your article is too ridiculous to be taken seriously.
The article also says the inspectors were "evicted" in 1998. Clinton had them leave, not the Iraqis.
To top it off, the author tries to portray his opinion...
"Because of Iraq's continued violation of the ceasefire's disarmament resolution, the ceasefire no longer exists."
... as fact, when it is not.
Your article is too ridiculous to be taken seriously. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, you are wrong. It seems you didn't enjoy reading that last article, here is another one reiterating the same. Iraq breaches the terms of the ceasefire on MANY MANY occasions. This allowed for "serious consequences", which definitionally includes invasion (the same wording was use for Desert Storm).
Want another article you can cursively dismiss?
<a href='http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/18/1047749770373.html' target='_blank'>http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/...7749770373.html</a>
The UN is a sham, but that argument will be left for another thread.
by that logic the current biggest threat to any other nation is.. uuhh? the United States.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but it is laughable to think Bush would risk war over something as petty as oil fields.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
whereas its perfectly reasonable to think he might invade for somthing as profitable as Iraqi freedom?
Nepal is not a ruthless dictatorship. They do not have the kind of ire for the US that Iraq did. They have NEVER possessed WMDs at all. They've never started a war in the last few decades, do I need to go on? There is a certain degree at which, when all factors are combined, the threat becomes increasingly more dangerous and recourse must be taken.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thankyou for completely missing my point. Nuclear technology is not hard to come by. Virtually any nation on the planet could develop nuclear weaponry quite easily. Thus saying "We invaded Iraq because they had the potential to develop nuclear weapons" is a debunked arguement. I mentioned nations such as Nepal to illustrate my point that if the potential to develop nuclear weapons is grounds for invasion, then every nation around the world is a target.
Yes, Iraq started a war. Yes, it was run by a brutal dictatorship. The question that must surely be coming up here is "So what?". Saddam's army was in ruins after 10 years of sanctions; the fact that it crumbled in such a short time is evidance of that. His capacity to attack other nations was essentially zero, and any attack would have been instantly stopped by both the US and UN. Just because a country is a dictatorship does not automatically mean it is a threat, and a nation that has been almost totally disarmed is not "an increasingly more dangerous threat that forces recourse to be taken".
The only feasible way Iraq could have been a threat was through WMDs. But now that we look at the "evidance" that intelligance agencies in the US and Britian compiled, it has quickly fallen apart. The "nuclear material from Africa" was found to be nothing more than a fanciful myth. Reports that pointed to vast stockpiles of illegal weaponry have found nothing. If Iraq was a threat, where are the WMDs?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you're going to bring up analogies at least make them appropriate. Clearly, even you, a reasonable person I assume, must at SOME point realize that during some point of nuclear arms development something MUST be done before it is disasterously and irrevocably too late. When should you go in? 95% confidence? 99% confidence? 100% confidence? Waiting until Iraq actually nukes would have been too late, if you're wondering. Cheap politicking and media sensationalism are hardly the kind of preparation we need.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The evidance that was compiled was not 95%. Heck, it wasn't even 50%. There's a good reason why the UN general assembly voted against action on Iraq: the evidence simply wasn't strong enough. Here's an analogy for you: a murder trial. The prosecution must establish beyond resonable doubt that the man on trial committed a crime. They fail to do this, and the man is set free. Whereupon a member of the jury, convinced the man is guilty, shoots him outside the courtroom.
You seem to believe that the UN wanted Saddam to have WMDs. They didn't; they were sending in inspectors and trying to assess what was going on inside Iraq. Note that Saddam let them go everywhere this time, yet they found nothing. If the UN had found something, they would have voted to remove the weapons, by force if nessessary. But they didn't find anything, and thus they didn't see a case for war.
But let's assume that Iraq did aquire nuclear weapons, much as North Korea has today. What are they going to do with them? A huge misconception amongst supporters of this war seems to be that once dictators have WMDs, they will automatically use them. Kim Il Sung hasn't used his. Stalin never pressed the button. Neither did Mao. Why? Because if they ever used them, their nations would be instantaneously devestated by a reprisal attack. But what if they're crazy you say? Saddam wasn't anywhere near as unhinged as Stalin or Mao were. Look at the First Gulf War; Saddam had WMDs then, lots of them. He didn't use them against Coalition forces or Israel, because the reprisal would have destroyed everything he had.
Grow up.</span>
And Thank you Forlorn.
Two excellent points.
All I believe is that whether or not Iraq has/had WMDs, they have a chance to be free (with or without a puppet government... it doesn't matter... that's still better than Mr. Hussein)