Troops chat with Bush — after rehearsal

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

i think the only nation so far to have used nuclear weapons on people is....erm........ Wink you

so, i think its YOU who should have WMD's taken off you, you've proved you can't be trusted not to use them

Actually "WMD" refers to not just nukes, but also biological and chemical weapons. And Saddam definitely did use chemical weapons.

2nd, the fact remains that, unlike Iraq,the USA has never been put in a position where anyone could demand that we give up our WMDs. neither has the UK for that matter.

Iraq specifically signed a document promising to give up their WMDs. The USA (& its allies) did not.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[IanHarrop 42]

Quote

the USA has never been put in a position where anyone could demand that we give up our WMDs. neither has the UK for that matter

The winners make the rules

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[artistcalledian 0]

Quote

USA has never been put in a position where anyone could demand that we give up our WMDs

not that you would anyway

________________________________________
drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police

[ViperPilot 0]

Ok, here's non-circumstantial evidence....

we gave him chemical weapons in the 70s, it was proved he used them on his own poeple in the 80s. Plus, we know he had x amount of anthrax, but when files were produced, they found a massive amount were just "missing." Explain the "missing" anthrax. That's good enough reason to go in. So yeah, the guy had WMDs, it's just a question of when and where he moved them.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

why is it ok for us to have WMD's, yet its not for other countries?

It's not ok for SOME countries to have WMDs. We don't give a shit that GB, France, et al have them. We do care that dictators like Saddam have/had them. It's just the simple principle of survival...we don't want our crazy enemy to have them; nothing wrong with that.

[ViperPilot 0]

Doesn't matter how it was sold. The president has to try and justify war to the people, so he did so, probably not w/ the best avenue. Oh well, moot point. There's no law, international or domestic, that says the president has to justify war to the people and has to be 100% correct about that justification.

Saddam gave up his rights under international law after his continuance of defiance of international law, dismal human rights, and just plain carrying on a terrible situation for his people and country. Because of that, and the threat to other sovereign nations, a coalition did have a right to go in and stop him.

[ViperPilot 0]

It may have been better in 2003, but you're completely discounting the previous 10 years of weapons inspectors be given the middle finger. We shouldn't forget about that.

In 2003 I believe it was, the govt spoke with several Iraqi scientists who discussed how Saddam had paid them/their "companies" several million dollars to produce chemical/biological weapons. So yes, there's solid proof that he was at the very least doing his best to produce said weapons.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

It only takes a bit of critical thinking to suspect foul play

It's not foul play to go in to stabilize a region important to us and the world, while at the same time helping innnocent people have a life worth living and not one of dispair.

[SudsyFist 0]

Holy crap, dude... long break?

Quote

when files were produced, they found a massive amount were just "missing." Explain the "missing" anthrax. That's good enough reason to go in.

Typo? Improper recordkeeping of destruction? A number of reasons, perhaps?

Weren't they investigating this exact issue when the U.S. invaded?

The only conclusion that we can draw from that "evidence" is that there was some (I don't know the amount) anthrax unaccounted for, and the reasons behind the lack of accounting were being investigated. That does not equal "have WMD's".

Next?

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Saddam gave up his rights under international law after his continuance of defiance of international law, dismal human rights, and just plain carrying on a terrible situation for his people and country. Because of that, and the threat to other sovereign nations, a coalition did have a right to go in and stop him.

Spare me the litany about the moral reasoning; I questioned the legality. Can you cite under which international law the coalition was justified to invade the soverign nation of Iraq? I have a feeling you can't find it. In fact, if you look real hard, you may find that the invasion might have been in violation of some of those.

[ViperPilot 0]

Yeah, I was pretty busy.

Don't remember the exact number, but is was extremely ludicrous. Here's a good link to read, it's from a US govt report, talks about Iraq telling what they were researching and producing.

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/leitenberg.html

International Law...

It's intl law that a sovereign state can intervene in another for humanitarian reasons. So just on that basis, WMDs aside, we were legal to invade due to humanitarianism being one of our objectives. It does not say that humanitarianism has to be the sole objective, just one of them. Also, it is widely known today that preemtive strike is becoming more necessary in a terrorism-rich world. With the knowledge of Hussein's inhumane practices against his own people and will to research and create WMDs, there was both a humanitarian reason and a credible threat against other sovereign states. Thus, it was legal to send a coalition into Iraq.

[billvon 3,109]

>Explain the "missing" anthrax.

We bombed the crap out of his military for 10 years. Sometimes when you bomb things you destroy them. Sometimes it's even hard to produce the records of that destruction; inconsiderate US bombers sometimes neglect to print receipts.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/leitenberg.html

Thanks for the linkage. I'll check it out over the next couple of days.

Quote

It's intl law that a sovereign state can intervene in another for humanitarian reasons.

I've heard of this, but I recall there being criteria, however subjective. I wasn't convinced that we had taken that approach to begin with, but I'll have to look into it in more detail.

Quote

and a credible threat against other sovereign states.

That's untrue, however. Their military was reduced to virtual harmlessness. Any WMD threat's credibility was directly attached to the ongoing investigations going on in-country, the results of which never came to fruition. So I don't buy that argument; my apologies.

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

We don't give a shit that GB, France, et al have them. We do care that dictators like Saddam have/had them. It's just the simple principle of survival...we don't want our crazy enemy to have them; nothing wrong with that.

Except when you use that as justification for war AND YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG!!!

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/leitenberg.html

Thanks for the linkage. I'll check it out over the next couple of days.

Quote

It's intl law that a sovereign state can intervene in another for humanitarian reasons.

I've heard of this, but I recall there being criteria, however subjective. I wasn't convinced that we had taken that approach to begin with, but I'll have to look into it in more detail.

Quote

and a credible threat against other sovereign states.

That's untrue, however. Their military was reduced to virtual harmlessness. Any WMD threat's credibility was directly attached to the ongoing investigations going on in-country, the results of which never came to fruition. So I don't buy that argument; my apologies.

Not a lot in the following about humanitarian reasons:

The reasons for invading Iraq, by G.W. Bush, Jan 29, 2003 (SOTU Address to Congress)

"Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country.

Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world.

The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming.

It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.

From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves.

Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.

Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say.

Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why?

The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies.

The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.


Of course, we now know that the information Bush used to justify his misadventurous war was faith-based intel.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[artistcalledian 0]

i agree that the reasons given before the war were probably not true... BUT.... what you can't deny is the vast majority of Iraqi citizens will be glad the coilition forces actually went and got rid of him.... ask them if they have a better life and i'll put my house on the fact they will say yes. So, its ok us all saying that its either right or wrong... but to the people who it REALLY matters to, it was right

________________________________________
drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police

[IanHarrop 42]

Quote

i agree that the reasons given before the war were probably not true... BUT.... what you can't deny is the vast majority of Iraqi citizens will be glad the coilition forces actually went and got rid of him.... ask them if they have a better life and i'll put my house on the fact they will say yes. So, its ok us all saying that its either right or wrong... but to the people who it REALLY matters to, it was right

Doesn't this statement basically boil down to, "The end justifies the means."

If we start relying on this argument to justify things then we are opening the door to a whole host of abuse of power.

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

i agree that the reasons given before the war were probably not true... BUT.... what you can't deny is the vast majority of Iraqi citizens will be glad the coilition forces actually went and got rid of him.... ask them if they have a better life and i'll put my house on the fact they will say yes. So, its ok us all saying that its either right or wrong... but to the people who it REALLY matters to, it was right

What's this "probably not true"? They were lies. Intel conflicting with "the faith" was ignored.

I wonder how the families of the Iraqis killed in the war and its aftermath feel about being better off now?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[artistcalledian 0]

Quote

I wonder how the families of the Iraqis killed in the war and its aftermath feel about being better off now?

probably the same as the families of people killed in WWII feel

________________________________________
drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police

[artistcalledian 0]

and the families of Vietnames killed by Americans in Vietnam

________________________________________
drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police

[artistcalledian 0]

what amazes me more than anything is how the hell George "dubya" Bush got elected in the first place... the man can hardly string a sentence together without forgetting what he's talking about who voted for him? was it just red neck retards from the mid west? gun toting yee haaa fools who think having a retard as president is just about on their level? the man is an international joke, and yet somebody as obviously stupid as he is, STILL gets voted to be president of supposedly the most powerful nation in the world....

________________________________________
drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police

[SudsyFist 0]

I'm really starting to like you.

[billvon 3,109]

>the man can hardly string a sentence together without forgetting what
>he's talking about . . . who voted for him?

People who were like him who felt 'connected' to him. They liked his unwavering stances in the face of new conflicting information; they saw that as being stalwart and not waffly. "I don't care what 'science' you bring up; God created the earth in seven days, period!" Many people see such faith in their convictions as a worthy attribute in a leader, even if those convictions are not backed up by thoughtful consideration.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

what amazes me more than anything is how the hell George "dubya" Bush got elected in the first place... the man can hardly string a sentence together without forgetting what he's talking about who voted for him? was it just red neck retards from the mid west? gun toting yee haaa fools who think having a retard as president is just about on their level? the man is an international joke, and yet somebody as obviously stupid as he is, STILL gets voted to be president of supposedly the most powerful nation in the world....

Here's the breakdown.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Quote

what amazes me more than anything is how the hell George "dubya" Bush got elected in the first place... the man can hardly string a sentence together without forgetting what he's talking about who voted for him? was it just red neck retards from the mid west? gun toting yee haaa fools who think having a retard as president is just about on their level? the man is an international joke, and yet somebody as obviously stupid as he is, STILL gets voted to be president of supposedly the most powerful nation in the world....

Here's the breakdown.

WTF?!? Where's Hawaii? Don't they belong to the USLE, as well? Don't forget Hawaii!