[quote]The response of some cynics is that governments are always economical with the actualité, especially when selling a controversial policy
Oh, you know you shouldn’t have done that, i.e. call me to the game:
What Dr. Kay doesn’t tell us:
fda.gov/fdac/features/095_bot.html
neurologychannel.com/botulinum/index.shtml
Of course you do recall that I always said the evidence to support the WMD claims (and thus justify the war) was weak to non-existent and if I remember Dr. Kays report correctly (I read it a few days ago) it mentions a lot of “if, but, possible” but no conclusive proof of an active WMD program. And of course no WMD at all.
Scream all you want about Bush speeches, UN resolutions and your imaginary threats, but the facts speak otherwise - the Bush administration claimed there were WMD en masse, yet the great Dr. Kay can’t find them either. Well, go and blow another USD600mil on searching for something which probably isn’t there - because you will just dig your own grave a bit deeper. Not that I care though.
As for Blix - you are such a ignorant asshole: it’s a fact that Blix searched for WMD for the USG, no matter what any resolution in this world ever said.
Your failure to acknowledge/admit that puts you into the 'extremely-biased-I-deny-the-truth" corner. Congratulations, you have good chances to become the next president of the great US of A.
Perhaps for his wife’s skin care? 
DIY - We construct ourselves a threat:
[quote]SNOW: Biological weapons, you have found some strains; you think you’re going to find more based on the testimony you’ve received?
KAY: Based on information leads, we have no reason to believe that we will not find more. But we’re searching still.[/quote]
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99151,00.html
One should also note the last statement by Dr. Kay.
No? What about your (the pro-war crowd) predictions and those by Bush mentioned in his, excuse my French, fucking speeches?
Saddam gone, no 25k to suicide bombers, no more attacks against Israel? You were proven wrong only a few days later.
And Iraq being crucial to peace in the ME but meanwhile Israel attacks Syria? (Justified or not, but what has Iraq to do with the current situation? - Nothing much.)
Yes, because WMD were the primary reason used by the Bush administration and if none will be found (see, I grant you some slack here) it will just proof that all your evidence was poor/shit or a construction (read: a lie). So no surprise that they later argued ‘WMD program’, then said it was a ‘bureaucratic reason’ only and now try to excuse the invasion with any other argument they can come up with.
And btw, the COWs also claimed that Saddam will attack with WMD in case they start an invasion, so stop pretending that the others are always wrong only. 45 minutes anyone?
No, I leave that to you because that’s what you guys are experts in. 
There would perhaps be no potential (future) threat if the UN inspectors had been allowed to complete their job and a watchdog would have been established as planned.
Which is an accusation the pro-war crowds makes themselves, and of course they (still) conveniently overlook that this figure only applies to conventional weapons but is always cite it when talking about WMD to show how “innocent” the US were - while in fact absent details about WMD materials does not allow such a conclusion. (Though we do know that the US and many others sold that stuff to Iraq before 1990.)
Duh. Noone ever said that if Saddam was taken out of Iraq, homicide Palestinian bombers would immediately cease in Israel. It was argued, correctly, that Saddam had links to terror and one of his links was demonstrated in his paying stipends to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. It was further argued that everyone in the middle east had to cease cooperation with and support and encouragement for terrorists in Palestine-Israel… Saddam was only one of those singled out.
Here are some excerpts from a relevant speech by Bush… I guess you missed it, eh?:
[quote=“President Bush, 30 March 2002 Speech and follow-up answers”]We are at this point because there has not been enough done to fight off terror. All the leaders in the world must stand up against terror, must do everything in their power to cut off the funding to terrorist organizations, to prevent terrorist organizations from finding safe haven.
And that especially applies to Chairman Arafat. I believe he can do a lot more to prevent attacks, such as the one that just occurred in Tel Aviv.
Last night the administration supported a U.N. Security Council resolution that urges there to be a cease-fire, start a process that will end this cycle of violence… And I urge all parties to recognize that there are terrorists in this world who can’t stand the thought of peace and all of us – all of us – must work together to condemn, find and stop terrorist activities.
I’ll be glad to answer a few questions.
Q Mr. President, with this latest terrorist attack on a Tel Aviv cafe tonight, with many apparent casualties, does Chairman Arafat in your opinion really have any control over these suicide bombers?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I think [b]Chairman Arafat can do a lot more. I truly believe that. I believe he needs to stand up and condemn, in Arabic, these attacks.
And they have got to do a much better job of preventing people from coming into Israel to blow up innocent people. The leaders in the region must do the same thing[/b]. Again, I was pleased that Crown Prince Abdullah spoke out so forcefully for what he called normalization. We support that.
But there is no normalcy when, day after day, killers destroy innocent lives. All the leaders must join with governments such as ours to strongly condemn and stop terrorist activities.
I spoke Jose Maria Aznar, he’s the head of the EU now, and he told me, he said, you know, the world must fight off these terrorists, and the region can do more, in my judgment. The Iranians must step up and stop sponsoring terrorism. The Syrians must participate. If people want peace in the region, there has got to be a united effort against terror, and I do believe Mr. Arafat can do more.
… And every phone call I make, I remind people that if you’re interested in peace – and the leaders I’ve talked to are interested in peace – we have all got to come together to stop terror. Our role is very visible and our role is very active. And I firmly believe that we can achieve a peace in the region, but not until – not until – there is a concerted, united effort to rout terror out.
And, therefore, the best way to make sure that we can get some meaningful dialogue going is to secure the – is to help secure the region, in particular, Israel’s homeland, by a united front against terror. It’s essential that we lead – meaning those who long for a peace – and, again, I repeat to you every leader I’ve talked to said, we need peace.
Q You mentioned a moment ago that Iran and Syria need to do more.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, I believe they do.
Q Can you identify other countries in the region who need to do more than they’re doing now?
PRESIDENT BUSH: All the countries in the region must condemn terror, speak clearly about terror. I appreciate the fact that the Saudis have spoken about a vision for peace.
Q On Iran and Syria, do you have any evidence that those countries are directly involved in the latest series of bombings?
PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I do not have evidence. But I saw, for example, the Syrians once again walk out of the U.N., when there was a reasonable resolution put forward. That should say something.
… Nevertheless, I do know their influence in the region. And if they are interested in a peaceful resolution, they too need to be active about cutting off funds. And, as you may recall, there was a ship, that was intercepted by the Israelis, that came from Iran full of weapons.
I fully understand the frustrations of the Israeli people. I sympathize. And I sympathize with the frustrations of the Palestinian people, those who long for normalcy, those who want to send their kids to school and go to work. There’s got to be a much more concerted effort by Chairman Arafat and others to stop terror.
Terror is – so long as there’s this reign of terror, there will be no peace. So, therefore, stopping terror makes conditions ripe for peace.[/quote]
Maybe Rascal should read those “fucking” speeches to see what the arguments and hopes really were/are. Bush NEVER stated that terrorism would immediately cease with Saddam’s ouster. Bush consistantly stated that everyone needs to work together to prevent terrorism. Saddam is merely one important piece of the puzzle.
That’s because underneath all that mumbo jumble legal talk “material breach” blah blah, ie smokescreen, this invasion is about [show of] power and money and oil. u think if the us discovered a replenishable free energy source in oklahoma, a miracle to be sure, they would give a rat’s ass about some desert hole? bye bye sauds. bye bye kuwaitis. maybe… but a hell of a smaller chance at that. this is not about UN and international law. Bush has said himself he will forego the UN if things don’t go his way. This is about realpolitik.
Look, Rascal is the one who wants to beat the international law drum. If that’s his game, I can play it and beat him at it.
Noone ever said that the middle east was not important because of its oil reserves.
I cannot get over how so many of you fail to see that 911 changed everything.
Some of the arguments against invading Iraq might have been reasonable, pre 911… but after 911, most of the anti-war arguments are stupid, IMO.
Its as if you guys argue without the knowledge that 911 ever happened.
Run a search looking for your gang members only and tell me again I was wrong.
I remember to have challenged you on this one before but instead you have kept silent on the issue, beside constantly bragging you could but have not provided anything to back up what can (until then) only be considered your opinion.
Your move.
Look, Rascal is the one who wants to beat the international law drum. If that’s his game, I can play it and beat him at it.
Noone ever said that the middle east was not important because of its oil reserves.
I cannot get over how so many of you fail to see that 911 changed everything.
Some of the arguments against invading Iraq might have been reasonable, pre 911… but after 911, most of the anti-war arguments are stupid, IMO.
Its as if you guys argue without the knowledge that 911 ever happened.[/quote]
well there’s a difference between accept the proffered government line about why america has to invade iraq and why american soldiers will die etc and the righteous v. the wicked bullshit v. the more viscereal reasons of why iraq and saddam had to go down. (as opposed to say, Saudi Arabia, where most of the bombers are from, and purportedly much funding is from too, and a stronger case for uprooting The Base could be made.)
yes, i am not unaware of 911 and how that changed the whole outlook and tenor of american foreign policy. Wolfowitz’s [modified] pre-emption doctrine is a testament to that change. but the fact that Bush chose Iraq (and it is well-known that Bush pushed for hitting Iraq before going after the Base in Afghanistan and considering that the terrorists, to the best of our knowledge are Al-Qaida agents and not Iraqi Baathist agents, Bush’s orginal plan seems misdirected at best and suspect at worst) over other countries which also support “terror” says much about Bush’s motivations on this invasion.
I just cited two of several actual speeches given by Bush that clearly demonstrate your idiotic statement to be incorrect. You run the search.
[quote=“Rascal”]I remember to have challenged you on this one before but instead you have kept silent on the issue, beside constantly bragging you could but have not provided anything to back up what can (until then) only be considered your opinion.
Your move.[/quote]
You argued that international law stipulates that only the UN can authorize the use of force. I showed you why you are incorrect. Then you tried to change the rules.
You argue that preemptive war is only permissible under international law when an imminent danger of attack exists.
I have explained to you that this is not necessarily true, and that a valid argument can be made that in the age of WMD and international terrorists organizations, which have not only voiced their intent to use WMD against the US but who have made concrete plans for the same, waiting for the first strike, which would not be predictable (as in the case of a traditional army massing aggressively on your border), is not only stupid but impossibly restrictive.
When circumstances change, the law changes with it… especially when the law is customary… that is, it changes with the customs of the time.
In the present case, the US and the world all believed that Saddam’s Iraq had and or was developing and or seeking to develop WMD. You can cry all you want about your opinion as to whether or not there was a real and or imminent threat of Saddam hooking up with terrorists. However, given the entire situation, the US was justified under the doctrine of preemption in taking Saddam’s regime down and out.
It had already been decided that Saddam had violated international law and that he continued the violations. Unless the international law (as stated in your beloved UNSC resolutions) were enforced, a situation unacceptable to the US (and indeed to any country facing the same) would continue. As far as the US was concerned, terrorists could (and would) attack at any time. The fear is that they will attack next time with WMD.
Only an idiot would sit back and wait for that to happen.
And only an idiot would sit back and not attempt to determine for certain the nature of the threat that it faced.
Are you such an idiot? Or are your rules only applicable when the US is at risk?
I disagree. There’s a whole host of reasons that invading Iraq made more sense than invading Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia. I’ve stated them on this forum before and I really don’t want to do so again.
You must be able to understand that revolutionary change is dangerous and can/should only be attempted when the potential risk is less dangerous than the risk of doing nothing.
IMO, arguments that the US should invade SA, Sryia, Iran or NK before Iraq are plain silly. The best argument, from all viewpoints, was to change Iraq.
By doing so, it was reasonably hoped that change could be encouraged in Iran, Sryia and Palestine-Israel… and eventually other Gulf states.
There were many reasons for invading Iraq…
But how would you argue for invading Saudi Arabia?
Tell me my English is really that bad - or you are just attempting to divert again: I didn’t say Bush said it, in fact I was clearly referring to one of your friends. Well, I thought it was clear … or did you again not read carefully enough!?
BS, I agreed that for instance in a self-defense situation (and that means an attack or an immediate threat like e.g. a troop build up at your border) you can use force without UN approval.
And please, where did you show anything except that you keep on repeating your unsupported argument?
It’s exactly what I said a bit earlier and you do it again right now - avoiding to backup your argument with facts, instead you are just repeating the argument over and over while throwing in some accusations.
Facts, quotes and nothing less I expect. Your move … still.
Yes, I argued this based on the facts, i.e. the relevant quotes of international law(s) and the definition of self-defense.
Which then is just your view/opinion/interpretation … but let’s listen, go on …
Now you are changing the rules: Saddam hasn’t threatened the US nor did he threaten to sell WMD to enemies (terrorists) of the US, hence no threat at all.
I would also like to see some quotes/links which back-up the accusation in bold.
Sure, as long as it’s in favour of the US it will change - just like that … 
Denial again. But of course, CIA and DIA were mistaken on this one, too. Which would make them be mistaken of the threat. Or both? Or everything?
You are contradicting yourself.
Yeah, I can cry and your administration can go on lying and exaggarating, twisting and perhaps inventing facts and so on. Fair game.
Strangely though that my “opinion” is shared by the UN and so many intelligence agencies including CIA and DIA.
Ha, now you said it: justified under the doctrine of the US - but justified under nothing else (moral reasons set aside).
Two different things given that Saddam did not have any WMD (as it seems) - so no imminent threat to the US or anyone else. There goes your argument.
Fear is certainly not a good reason to support that argument, anyone could just claim fear (of whatever) and strike pre-emptively against anyone.
[quote]Only an idiot would sit back and wait for that to happen.
And only an idiot would sit back and not attempt to determine for certain the nature of the threat that it faced. [/quote]
Yada yada yada … back to the on-going inspections and the planned watchdog. Your disregard for the inspections is a biased opinion and thus your argument about (just) ‘sitting back’ and ‘no action’ (as you claimed earlier somewhere) doesn’t stick.
I guess I don’t need to answer the first part since I guess you made up your mind already, but nevertheless the second part is again one of your baseless and absurd assertions/implications. Trying to divert again?
But hey, we are all anti-American and pro-Iraq/Saddam, just because we happen to disagree with your administration on the justification of this war … what’s new!?
I thought you had the answer for that: draw up your own conclusions on what we don’t know. I.e. we don’t need facts, just some assumptions, indications, assertions and a lot of imagination.
Certainly the fact that the US is hiding content from the report about SA is proof enough of their guilt!?
Which is an accusation the pro-war crowds makes themselves, and of course they (still) conveniently overlook that this figure only applies to conventional weapons but is always cite it when talking about WMD to show how “innocent” the US were - while in fact absent details about WMD materials does not allow such a conclusion. (Though we do know that the US and many others sold that stuff to Iraq before 1990.)[/quote]
The last thing I’m going to allow is some German to tell me about how responsible America is for the Iraqis’ WMD program, when German companies were at the top of the list in selling dual use components to Baghdad. Perhaps the Iraqis felt your useful experience in handling the Jews was a plus in their book.
Here’s a book review of The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq which touches upon the leading role Germany had.
The companies involved, according to Timmerman, read like a “Who’s Who” of international business. Timmerman makes the case that all were knowingly involved. Many of the affected companies will, surely, try to defend their actions.Americans had a role too, but frankly we could hardly keep up with you hypocritical Europeans.German companies involved in the arming of Iraq included the NUKEM nuclear consortium, and its parent company, Degussa, as well as Messerschmidtt-Bolkow-Blohm (MBB), Thyssen Rheinstahl Technology, and Preussag AG. All told, more than 100 German companies were involved – dozens of which maintained offices in Baghdad. The German connection was instrumental in creating Iraq’s poison gas and nuclear capabilities. And German companies and technology were used to extend the range of the Iraqi SCUD missiles which hit Israel and Saudi Arabia…
The German government of Chancellor Helmut Kohl faced and ignored specific information about illegal sales of German chemical capabilities. More than ignored – the German government issued a permit stating that “according to current rules, machinery, electrical equipment, regulation, measuring and testing instruments for a research, development and training institute with eight main sections, name: Project Saad 16, do not need an export permission.” Saad 16 is one of Saddam Hussein’s primary nuclear weapons research centers.
Well, at least the troops found that missing videotape of “Weapons of Ass Destruction”. I also appreciate that they found those two trailer rigs that could, conceivably, be used to hold machinery that could make chemical or biological weapons.
Too bad we had to tie up a full 50% of the U.S. combat-ready troops for months in a place where they have to get shot all the time. I thought we were in a life-or-death struggle with the faceless forces of terrorism and couldn’t afford to screw around, but I guess taking over oil wells for Halliburton takes a priority over the American people’s real safety.
Perhaps a big, fat tax cut that actually affects the middle class would be a good way to take away some of the pain. Of course, that would just cause us to re-double our efforts to make our existing troops fight this war “on the cheap.” Perhaps Rumsfeld has some brilliant plan for cutting the soldier’s rations and equipment expenditures down to the point where they’ll start to win hearts and minds of the local populace out of pure sympathy.
That’s because underneath all that mumbo jumble legal talk “material breach” blah blah, ie smokescreen, this invasion is about [show of] power and money and oil. u think if the us discovered a replenishable free energy source in oklahoma, a miracle to be sure, they would give a rat’s ass about some desert hole? bye bye sauds. bye bye kuwaitis. maybe… but a hell of a smaller chance at that. this is not about UN and international law. Bush has said himself he will forego the UN if things don’t go his way. This is about realpolitik.[/quote]
I’ve already discussed this with you and explained the difference between the U.S.'s strategic interest in the region and its particular reasons for going to war. One should not be confused with the other. Your reductionism is silly. If you put on the right blinkers, every war the U.S. has ever participated in can be thought to have enhanced its economic interests. But markets generally don’t like wars – they are too unstable and too unpredictable.
I disagree. There’s a whole host of reasons that invading Iraq made more sense than invading Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia. I’ve stated them on this forum before and I really don’t want to do so again.
You must be able to understand that revolutionary change is dangerous and can/should only be attempted when the potential risk is less dangerous than the risk of doing nothing.
IMO, arguments that the US should invade SA, Sryia, Iran or NK before Iraq are plain silly. The best argument, from all viewpoints, was to change Iraq.
By doing so, it was reasonably hoped that change could be encouraged in Iran, Sryia and Palestine-Israel… and eventually other Gulf states.
There were many reasons for invading Iraq…
But how would you argue for invading Saudi Arabia?[/quote]
little hypo: if Colin Powell was unable to convince Bush meaning that Bush hit Iraq first before Afghanistan, would that change your opinion of the war on terror?
As for SA: reasons pro-
- the 9-11 bombers were mostly from SA
- it has been stated by the US govt that much terror funding comes from the SA
- Al-Qaida supposedly has larger/stronger movement in SA than in Iraq ie Al-Qaida links to Iraq are more tenuous than Al-Qaida links to SA
- you speak of mysterious connections of the bombers meeting with iraqi officials in various embassies. the same speculation could also apply to SA.
con:
site of Mecca - would truly invite a holy jihad against the US by many muslim countries
SA govt is a US ally.
I do understand why strategically and militarily, a strike on Iraq as opposed to other mideast countries is preferable.
but all this is academic… i agree, it’s not realistic for the US to invade SA. but i would like Bush to stop pretending that 911 somehow was the fault of the iraqis. but thats never gonna happen anyways.
It’s amazing how the Republicans pay so much lipservice to how they take care of military affairs so much better than the Democrats, but they’re the first ones to completely sell out our military.
While the soldiers are away, the Republicans cut their pension and disability benefits, so that if and when these guys get home they’ll have to learn new ways to get by – all so the wealthiest 1% can drive their new SUVs over to pumps full of cheap oil coutesy of Halliburton. Thanks to the Republicans, we can have a whole new generation of wounded veterans wheeling themselves around the train station begging for change.
WMD stands for “What’s Mine, Dammit!” – part of a sense of entitlement that has the richest 1% driving around in what amount to bloodmobiles.
The war was drummed up because Bush & Co. consistently attempted to make a tie-in between Saddam and al-Qaeda… 911 was just an excuse… So let’s review:
List of things Bush & Co. has failed to find thus far:
- Evidence of 911 ties to Iraq and Saddam
- Evidence of ties of Iraq and al-Qaeda
- The originator of the antrex mails
- Osama bin Laden
- Saddam
- WMD
- Budget to fund both Afganistan and Iraq reconstruction
- A sound plan to item # 7.
The first part of this statement is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. This is just your uninformed assessment for there never was agreement on the matter. I well remember the BBC Newsnight program (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/) aired a political discussion in which Tony Blair sought to persuade sceptical members of the voting public of the threat of WMD in Iraq. In the program Tony Blair states that people remain unconvinced about the WMD issue which is why he is entering such debates. He states
Many people were and remain unconvinced of the WMD issue in Britain, and by extension in other countries, too, which is why the preemptive strike you mention did not receive sufficient support.
[quote=“Soddom”]The first part of this statement is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. This is just your uninformed assessment for there never was agreement on the matter. I well remember the BBC Newsnight program (news.BBC.co.UK/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/) aired a political discussion in which Tony Blair sought to persuade sceptical members of the voting public of the threat of WMD in Iraq. In the program Tony Blair states that people remain unconvinced about the WMD issue which is why he is entering such debates.
Many people were and remain unconvinced of the WMD issue in Britain, and by extension in other countries, too, which is why the preemptive strike you mention did not receive sufficient support.[/quote]
I disagree, Soddom. My statement is NOT a misrepresentation of the facts. The issue was not whether there were or were not WMD and or WMD programs in Iraq… The Iraqis admitted that there were after the first Gulf War. The issue was whether the same posed a threat to the region and the US. I stand by my statement.
The reason the US did not receive more support is because not everyone agreed that Iraq posed a threat to the region and the US.
Yeah, here we go again: others sell dodgy stuff so it frees the US of any responsibility and thus it’s ok if they do the same, albeit selling less?
Dare you to criticize or even mention the US for that …
Frankly you didn’t understand the argument because you obviously don’t want to acknowledge the facts and that you were wrong.
Well, congratulate yourself for finding one vial with some strains in Iraq while your very own Pentagon is happily selling biolab gear to the public at bargain prices. So much for being hypocritical - bomb the US I say.
That’s because underneath all that mumbo jumble legal talk “material breach” blah blah, ie smokescreen, this invasion is about [show of] power and money and oil. u think if the us discovered a replenishable free energy source in oklahoma, a miracle to be sure, they would give a rat’s ass about some desert hole? bye bye sauds. bye bye kuwaitis. maybe… but a hell of a smaller chance at that. this is not about UN and international law. Bush has said himself he will forego the UN if things don’t go his way. This is about realpolitik.[/quote]
I’ve already discussed this with you and explained the difference between the U.S.'s strategic interest in the region and its particular reasons for going to war. One should not be confused with the other. Your reductionism is silly. If you put on the right blinkers, every war the U.S. has ever participated in can be thought to have enhanced its economic interests. But markets generally don’t like wars – they are too unstable and too unpredictable.[/quote]
if i am reductionist, then you are generalizing. i wouldn’t say every US. invasion ever was primarily out of economic interests (there is always of course more than one reason, some “weighing more” than others). but there have been a few where economics was a large factor (Monroe Doctrine… Hawaii… Meiji Japan… Cuba come to mind)
but your statement that markets generally don’t like wars… is way too generalist. yah, maybe if you’re taking macroeconomics 101. but if you’re in a specific industry or providing a specific resource like oil (or petro-related) or perhaps you’re lockheed or raytheon providing arms, then perhaps not. or what if you’re in a position that your intended gain or aims bring you more profits than the unstability of war? Greater profits can lead one to ignore the consequences of war.
and again, i’m not saying that this invasion was SOLELY based on oil. but oil is a major factor for SOME players. for OTHERS, it is POWER/SHOW OF POWER, and PROFIT (whether economic or otherwise)
your condescension, I can do without. (typically american-like i might add)