Weapons of Mass Destruction

Politics International Politics
61

[quote=“Rascal”]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[/quote]

No, Rascal… The US is not the only nation that does that. Germany does it also, as does every other nation.

Anyway, I was referring to your imprudent “challenge” to illustrate why it is that the UNSC did not reserve for itself the authority to sanction the use of force to enforce the UNSC resolutions (UNSC res. 1441) against Iraq.

Your trust in “international law” is sadly misplaced. There is no such thing as “international law”. I know some people will gasp at this notion and may even disagree

62

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 … :unamused:[/quote]

I have never at any time claimed it freed the United States of anything, you witless Kraut.

You don’t make arguments. You make unsubstantiated and outrageous claims which you then twist and contort to suit your agenda.

The facts are that the U.S. was a minor contributor to Iraq’s military development in the 1970s and 80s, paling in comparison to the Soviets and the Western Europeans. This is true whether looking at both conventional weapons or WMD.

63

So what did pose a threat then? Just the claim of having WMD? - It’s no proof as such, or in other words there can only be a threat if there are indeed WMD. As such it remains an issue.
Said claim is no proof and you have also said the Iraqis were not to be trusted, so why do you now believe that this claim is correct while in fact your very own intelligence agencies stated the opposite prior to the war?

[quote]I do not see any other nation adhering to your notions of “international law” when doing so inconveniences them.
…
Please answer.[/quote]
This is all pretty much undisputed but, in short, the failure by others to adhere to the laws does not proof that it does not exist or that there is no need for it.

I think this question directly relates to the current status of Taiwan and would be off-topic here but Germany does have relations with Taiwan, perhaps not to the extend you want them to be though (for the sake of your argument).

Yes, but that’s the point. If you want to be better you have to play by the rules - at all times. Because it is also hypocritical to claim to do this “for the best of us” while violating the rules at the same time, no matter your good intentions (so you claim).
If you are not happy with the UN or enforcement of resolutions than perhaps it’s time that the UN needs a make-over, but just ignoring them (or the int. laws) can’t lead to no good …

64

Why don’t you stop misstating the facts. You act like ALL intelligence indicated a lesser threat, when in fact, the intelligence was conflicting. Bush rightly, IMO, chose to act on the worst case scenario.

65

The questuion is one that concerns the issue of whether States should, as you argue, adhere to “international law”. Under “international law”, Taiwan is indeed a state. Thus, it is fair, and on-topic, to ask you why Germany does not follow “international law” in this case.

Its not the sake of MY argument that is at stake here. You are the one claiming that the US must adhere to “international law”. So why is Germany, in your opinion, not required to adhere to “international law” as it applies to sovereign nations? Please answer.

Pardon me, but who said anything about the US “wanting to be better”? And, “better than what”? In any event, does “international law” only apply to the US?

66

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)[/quote]

If you don’t like my condescension, then stop repeating yourself as if this ground hasn’t been covered with you before.

Your arguments on the effect of war on an economy is largely incomprehensible and, of what little I can make out of it, without merit. Of course, specific industries might benefit from war, but on a national level, wars are rarely helpful to an economy. I doubt the U.S. oil industry makes up more than 1 to 2% of the national economy. The defense industry is larger, but still probably no more than 5% of the U.S. national economy. That leaves well over 90% of the U.S. economy outside the hands of those whom you think might personally benefit form this war. You think any leader is going to go far in a democracy on those kinds of percentages?

Wars have helped national economies in the past, but largely as an incidental effect. It was not so much war as the massive deficit spending for WW2 – politically impossible in peacetime – that boosted the U.S. economy out of the Great Depression. The U.S. Civil War had a similar effect on infrastructure in the north. But Vietnam War and the Korean conflict did not help the U.S. economy, nor in the short run, did the first Persian Gulf War. Vietnam, for example, combined with the spending of the Great Society heavily contributed to inflationary pressures of the 1970s.

67

Actually, it does. Laws change as customs change.

68

I’m hardly surprised, for you would surely argue black is white and vice versa if the only alternative open to you was to concede your being in error. Allow me to feed your you words (again). Let’s keep it simple. Your original statement (A) was,

This is complete nonsense. Do you honestly imagine there is anything the whole world would all agree on, let alone the accusation that Saddam was developing WMD? As I said, you grossly misrepresent the facts, and a gentleman would concede or modify his statement.

You then offer a new argument (B) to amend your erroneous (A)

I agree the “issue” was on his (Saddam’s) perceived threat to the world, but this is an amendment to your original statement (A). There is no misrepresentation or accusation of misrepresentation in your (B), it is your former argument that is misrepresentative as evidenced by your offering an amendment to it. So please either concede that, or provide evidence that your statement (A) is true.

Logically speaking, if one does not accept that Saddam had WMD (whatever they may be), this precludes one’s entering into a discussion of any threat they may pose.

69

OK, OK… but you must have known what I meant. Virtually the entire world agreed that Saddam had WMD. Iraq admitted that it possessed WMD after Gulf War I and the entire sanctions regime and series of UNSC resolutions was aimed at forcing Saddam’s Iraq to account for its disposal and or destruction of its WMD. That was all subsequent to the UNSC cease-fire resolution… which virtually all of the world agreed to.

More over, I did NOT state that the whole world agreed that “Saddam was developing WMD”. I stated that “the world all believed that Saddam’s Iraq had and or was developing and or seeking to develop WMD”. Notice the use of “and or” in that statement.

That argument B is merely a logical continuation of my argument A.

Statement A was true, for all intents and purposes, as I explained above.

How logical is it to assume that Saddam did not possess WMD when Iraq admitted that it did indeed possess WMD and had not yet provided a comprehensive accounting of what was admitted, let alone what was not even known?

70

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)[/quote]

If you don’t like my condescension, then stop repeating yourself as if this ground hasn’t been covered with you before.

Your arguments on the effect of war on an economy is largely incomprehensible and, of what little I can make out of it, without merit. Of course, specific industries might benefit from war, but on a national level, wars are rarely helpful to an economy. I doubt the U.S. oil industry makes up more than 1 to 2% of the national economy. The defense industry is larger, but still probably no more than 5% of the U.S. national economy. That leaves well over 90% of the U.S. economy outside the hands of those whom you think might personally benefit form this war. You think any leader is going to go far in a democracy on those kinds of percentages?

Wars have helped national economies in the past, but largely as an incidental effect. It was not so much war as the massive deficit spending for WW2 – politically impossible in peacetime – that boosted the U.S. economy out of the Great Depression. The U.S. Civil War had a similar effect on infrastructure in the north. But Vietnam War and the Korean conflict did not help the U.S. economy, nor in the short run, did the first Persian Gulf War. Vietnam, for example, combined with the spending of the Great Society heavily contributed to inflationary pressures of the 1970s.[/quote]

Yes but oil is one thing the US ABSOLUTELY NEEDS to maintain economic performance and stability. Any decrease in oil supply add massive costs to every oil-deficient economy. Oil and energy are critically important for getting votes in elections. People feel oil hikes directly and very quickly, especially in the US with big engines. If you get queues to the gas station mr. joe average will be thinking ‘what the hell is that fella doing in the white house’.
Electricity costs and energy blackouts will quickly lose a man his job (Mr. Davis may be getting out very soon…).

So oil is certainly more important than its basic contribution as an industry. It’s literally the grease that helps keep economies turning. Oil propped up Saddam and other tin pots and it propped up a war against the tin pots too. If oil is taken off economic equations for reconstruction of Iraq the US will have a huge weight on its budget for the next few years. I don’t think the president of the US would go to war with this weight unless he thought it could be counterbalanced by helping to control oil supply and prices and the promise that Iraq can at least be self sufficient in the medium term. The financial markets certainly wouldn’t take too kindly too it.

71

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)[/quote]

If you don’t like my condescension, then stop repeating yourself as if this ground hasn’t been covered with you before.

Your arguments on the effect of war on an economy is largely incomprehensible and, of what little I can make out of it, without merit. Of course, specific industries might benefit from war, but on a national level, wars are rarely helpful to an economy. I doubt the U.S. oil industry makes up more than 1 to 2% of the national economy. The defense industry is larger, but still probably no more than 5% of the U.S. national economy. That leaves well over 90% of the U.S. economy outside the hands of those whom you think might personally benefit form this war. You think any leader is going to go far in a democracy on those kinds of percentages?

Wars have helped national economies in the past, but largely as an incidental effect. It was not so much war as the massive deficit spending for WW2 – politically impossible in peacetime – that boosted the U.S. economy out of the Great Depression. The U.S. Civil War had a similar effect on infrastructure in the north. But Vietnam War and the Korean conflict did not help the U.S. economy, nor in the short run, did the first Persian Gulf War. Vietnam, for example, combined with the spending of the Great Society heavily contributed to inflationary pressures of the 1970s.[/quote]

Yes but oil is one thing the US ABSOLUTELY NEEDS to maintain economic performance and stability. Any decrease in oil supply add massive costs to every oil-deficient economy. Oil and energy are critically important for getting votes in elections. People feel oil hikes directly and very quickly, especially in the US with big engines. If you get queues to the gas station mr. joe average will be thinking ‘what the hell is that fella doing in the white house’.
Electricity costs and energy blackouts will quickly lose a man his job (Mr. Davis may be getting out very soon…).

So oil is certainly more important than its basic contribution as an industry. It’s literally the grease that helps keep economies turning. Oil propped up Saddam and other tin pots and it propped up a war against the tin pots too. If oil is taken off economic equations for reconstruction of Iraq the US will have a huge weight on its budget for the next few years. I don’t think the president of the US would go to war with this weight unless he thought it could be counterbalanced by helping to control oil supply and prices and the promise that Iraq can at least be self sufficient in the medium term. The financial markets certainly wouldn’t take too kindly too it.[/quote]

Thank you HHII. The oil industry, as CF alleges, might be 1-2% of the national economy (and you don’t say what percentage of what…rental space?), but its effects spill into a large amount of other industries e.g. the petrochemicals like DOW, as well as being the source of energy that powers industry as HHII says. and if tomorrow people run out of pencils and clothes and nike shoes and mobile phones to buy, they’re not gonna be as angry if they run out of oil to power their SUV, their station wagon, their C class Benz. (and all those consumer goods too require planes, ships, trucks, and trains to bring them to your mall or store, and they ain’t powered by solar panel or fusion you know)
And yet again, you preach this macroeconomic, broad national overview spout when it is irrelevant to my argument. What does it matter if the economy overall is bad, but the government is still buying tomahawk missiles at a few million a pop by the dozen. What does it matter if there’s a 5% unemployment rate when it doesn’t affect the bottom line of certain companies and individuals?

Let’s take another example. Consider an engineering giant like Bechtel. Are they going to have bigger profits in a peaceful, but in an economic doldrum US that already has a built-up infrastructure, or in Iraq where everything has already been blown to bits, the US govt is there holding the pursestrings, and the company, through some good connections and wining/dining, can guarantee it can be earmarked a hundred million for the rebuiliding effort. Does it matter that the US economy is shit on the home front? Does it matter than Joe Schmuck is living on unemployment? Does it even matter if he had a job, because Bechtel is not going to be coming to him for a multi-million dollar contract.
Ridicule all you like, but instead of spouting this theoretical bullshit, statistics about the GNP, and macroeconomic theory, why don’t we get into the meat a little. get CONCRETE (add a little aggregate and sand to this argument will you!)

72

Can’t do without these kind of offensive insults, can you? You bear a striking resemblance to MaPoDoFu … :x

Anyhow, I clearly mentioned that others also supplied and never said the US is responsible alone nor did I make any judgement on who is more responsible, pointing out the missing details about WMD sales.
The figure you quoted is from conventional weapons sale, so it doesn’t prove anything (neither for/against the US nor for/against Germany) when talking about WMD.

You started it by construction an accusation: no one claimed, mentioned or implied what you questioned (see also the reply you got from the original poster) and you cited a figure from conventional weapons sale years ago while in fact we were clearly talking about WMD and recent issues/developments - so your whole ‘argument’ was meaningless in the context of the discussion.

Anything to back up the part about the WMD?

It’s a public record that e.g. CIA and DIA were in doubt or thought otherwise, the same applied to other ‘institutions’ (not necessarily American). That’s what I said and it’s a fact, so stop accusing me of misstating anything. I can’t help it if you continue to read things I didn’t say (and you could always ask me to clarify).

The above statement does not equal ALL though I can hardly think of anyone who did actually have hard, verifiable evidence and proof to support the opposite.
Don’t refer me to Bush speeches (or others) because those ‘evidence’ presented wasn’t necessarily correct as we have seen (partially) and a lot could not be proven (yet).
So if there was doubt than perhaps this does support the view that the WMD argument was wrongly used and it was even more wrong to claim (as the USG did) that Iraq did have WMD, stating it as a fact and nothing less.

And Bush choose to act on who’s worst scenario again? Something his hawks constructed. Besides, “worst case scenario” is not a fact, is it!?

73

Headhoncho and Kenny –

You two need to keep the arguments straight. Kenny originally wrote:

So we are talking about the profit motive for individual industries, not the spillover effects of cheap oil on the nation’s economy. And the profit motive for the oil industry is not cheap oil, but expensive oil. When the price of gas is high, the oil industry is generally happy, even if the rest of the country’s economy is not.

So for the Headhoncho to write “Yes but oil is one thing the US ABSOLUTELY NEEDS to maintain economic performance and stability. Any decrease in oil supply add massive costs to every oil-deficient economy”, he is talking macroeconomics, not the microeconomics of oil firms that Kenny was emphasizing as the cause of the war.

You need to keep the two things separate, since they are not the same and can be at odds with another, as they are in this case.

Good times for an industry can have beneficial effects on other industries that are related to it, but in this case it’s not as likely, for if the oil industries are to do well, the price of oil must go up, and if oil goes up, the cost of business and the cost of living also goes up – for everyone.

The U.S. had no shortage of oil before the war nor was a shortage looming. To the extent that gas prices are high, that’s good not bad for the oil industries.

My arguments are far better informed about reality than yours will ever be. You are making silly arguments about industries you have not a clue about, and what’s more you can’t even keep your own points straight.

74

Can’t do without these kind of offensive insults, can you? You bear a striking resemblance to MaPoDoFu … :x[/quote]

Perhaps when you stop gratuitiously insulting our country, we will stop gratuitiously insulting you.

[quote=“Rascal”]Anyhow, I clearly mentioned that others also supplied and never said the US is responsible alone nor did I make any judgement on who is more responsible, pointing out the missing details about WMD sales.
The figure you quoted is from conventional weapons sale, so it doesn’t prove anything (neither for/against the US nor for/against Germany) when talking about WMD.[/quote]

The exact percentage is not important. Is it two percent? Is it three percent? Is it a half-percent? In any case, it’s obviously pretty negligible. The same with WMD. Who cares what the exact percentage is? The obvious point in looking at the various strands of information out there is that the U.S. was far behind Europe in supplying the Iraqis with what they needed in their WMD programs.

I already provided one link which gives a good deal of detailed information about the sources. During the first Gulf War, these was a chart I saw that showed a country’s flag next to every major type of WMD Iraq possessed. Germany’s flag was all over the poster; the U.S. flag was in just a few spots. This is not news to people who closely follow the news.

75

Can’t do without these kind of offensive insults, can you? You bear a striking resemblance to MaPoDoFu … :x[/quote]

Perhaps when you stop gratuitiously insulting our country, we will stop gratuitiously insulting you. [/quote]
Rascal insulted “your” country? I didn’t read any of that…

And if he did, it sure is an adult (and maybe “American”?) thing to do to insult right back?!

76

No, there WAS conflicting evidence. And, a fact you seem intent to gloss over… the Iraqis admitted to possession of WMD after the first Gulf War… and they never accounted for a portion of the same.

[quote=“Daniel Pipes”]Defectors and other Iraqi sources nearly all agreed on his WMD program. The actions of Saddam’s government - fending off United Nations weapons inspectors tooth and nail, hiding evidence, forgoing opportunities to have the economic sanctions lifted - all confirmed its existence.

Nor is that all: Rich Lowry of National Review has shown that the entire Clinton administration leadership - as well as the United Nations and the French and German governments - believed in the existence of Iraqi WMD.[/quote]

nypost.com/postopinion/opedc … s/7424.htm

So stop pretending that Bush was lying when he obviously believed the same as everyone else (for soddom, virtually everyone else).

77

Tigerman:

Leave off with Rascal. Even if and when they do discover such weapons, he will have another theory or excuse as to how the US is wrong regardless. I believe the threat was real. I also believe that it is most likely direct proof will never be discovered. Do I care? Not one fig or should I say date?

Iraq is so much better off now as is the Middle East. For those still debating these ridiculous minor points when the Iraqi people are finally free and fast moving torward a better future, we have to wonder why they seem so peevishly stubborn in their views? Do they want Saddam back? Do they think that Saddam was not a threat? Do they think that the Middle East is worse off now? These are the main issues and this debate back and forth is becoming pointless. Can they positively have such a poor understanding of historical events that they believe this particular episode represents the first time pre-emptive action was taken? that the US wants to be a hegemon? that this is breaking international law? Quel idee!

I agree with you 95 percent Tigerman. I think though that the UN was the ultimate decision maker for going to war with Iraq. It is a mere technicality where I think Rascal has a point but… who gives a shit in the grand scheme of things?

Iraq is better. The Middle East is better off. I am satisfied. Sorry if I sound callous but 340 deaths is not going to sway me. I am in this for the long term and the Middle East will be better if America sticks it out another five years. Too bad so many other nations are so narcissistically short sighted and amoral that they do not realize the importance of making this mission succeed.

Ah but eh bien the very basis for the EU today was established by the US. Ridiculous that most of Europe still imagines that America is on some divide and conquer mission.

I frequently discuss this with my German relatives but they are all from the older generation which agrees with me and are just as bewildered by the politics of Fischer and Schroeder as they were when the hippies first took to the streets during 1968.

I am happy to see that Germany is turning around but I despair for its future when populated with such nihilistic, self-serving, spoiled citizens. After all, Germany has a deep debt to pay to the world. This type of behavior is so neurotic as to beggar description.

Let’s hope they get distracted and focus on Tibet and Chechnya instead. Fat chance.

78

[quote=“Cold Front”]Headhoncho and Kenny –

CF. get off your high horse. You dismiss our arguments with a wave of a hand and sweeping statements, not “bothering” to constructively criticize, not “bothering” to respond to our counterexamples.

As I recall and as was pointed out to you specifically, your arguments in the Gay marriage: Legalize or no thread had, on more than one occasion, gaps in logic. Your conclusory statements and opinions, lacking a rational justification for barring gay marriages and full of mis-correlations, in an “argument” which would not pass muster in any U.S. district court, and not even with Rehnquist, merely reveals your biased, homophobic attitudes.

Despite your talk of national economy this and GNP that, you seem to forget that the US is made up of a diverse number of interests groups, and not some homogeneous population. Each group would more likely than not advance its own interests even to the detriment of others and perhaps even the nation as a whole. your talk might be fine in a classroom and a closed universe 3-hour exam though.

79

Nope, I don’t gloss it over because “evidence” can hardly be conflicting, only the interpretation of it can IMHO (say a satellite picture of a certain facility, some may see it as a production place for WMD but it can be a harmless factory).
But in any case, if there is such a conflict than it’s IMO wrong to stand up and make bold claims that Iraq has WMD while presenting so-called ‘evidence’ which they must have known to be conflicting.

Whatever they “admitted” to is no proof and neither is not accounting for it. Of course it doesn’t prove either that Iraq did not have WMD.

So we are back to the inspections which were to verify that … :wink:

I find it hard to excuse him (and his whole administration) with having a wrong believe. To start a war on a believe rather than facts is IMHO too serious to let him get away with it.
The Bush adminstration remains responsible for the claims, and that includes Bush. Of course we can’t expect him to verify the evidence himself, but giving all the resources the US has it is IMHO not understandable that such ‘mistakes’ were made.

If Bush had the balls he would make sure that this would lead to consequences rather than defending it/them without any proof (yet).
Of course he would loose credibility and “face” at home, but at least we could attest him honesty and veracity *) - though he would probably loose the next election. :wink:

I believe I have not insulted America, Americans or even Bush himself, at least I am trying hard to avoid that, while your comments are not only insults but also racist.

So much for unsubstantiated and outrageous claims. :unamused:

Perhaps if you (all) would stop interpreting any criticism / argument as anti-American or an insult the discussions could be more friendly & fruitful.
If I wanted to insult the US I would do so very clearly with a few sentences and wouldn’t need to waste my time for weeks or months arguing about the war …

*) Hope this is the correct word in the context (i.e. sincerity/frankness).

80

[quote=“fred smith”]Tigerman:

Iraq is better. The Middle East is better off. I am satisfied. Sorry if I sound callous but 340 deaths is not going to sway me. I am in this for the long term and the Middle East will be better if America sticks it out another five years. [/quote]

haha. that’s funny - “I” am in this for the long haul, but it’s their lives that are paying for this.
Easy for you to say when you’re not there doing the time in the desert, patrolling around, risking your life, when you’re not the son or daughter or wife/spouse of these soldiers etc.

How dear old Fredmeister, when you are safe behind you desk writing away or have a glass of chardonnay somewhere in Taipei or at least not in Iraq, are you exactly “in this for the long haul”.

old man. Please. toddle off to bed while the youth come home stone dead.