You cant kill a feeling Options

[Noodles]

Well we call it a war on terror, but it will never end. terror is a feeling people recieve therefore it wont go away so i believe this is a pointless war, or as I like to call it Vietnam 2. there have been more deaths over there since weve been there. there wouldve been way less if we just kept to our selves. countries need to help themselves before they can help others.

[Genocide Junkie]

First let me say that I hope you don't take our discussion personally as I do not. I won't be calling you names and even though we may not agree I'll still treat you with respect. I enjoy open discussions about things. Now.

I don't believe that the media can turn anyone into squeamish cowards. I believe it is human nature to have a disdain for death and destruction. The U.S. didn't get into WWII because it saw facism on it's door step. They actually were isolationists who only entered the war after being attacked by Japan and then having Germany declare war on us.

Regarding Iraq and 9/11 there was no connection made by Bush before the war. In fact he made sure to clarify that there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

Hellfighter Quote: "Saddam [due to hang very soon] was reluctant to let in UN Inspectors, there was some tension leading to a hasty all systems go into Iraq. "

Sadam was a little more than reluctant to let UN Inspectors in. In fact inspectors were removed due to being denied access in 1998. At this time we mounted an attack for 3 days by air and inspectors were not allowed to return to Iraq for 4 yrs.

Quote From Henry Waxman (D-CA) Sept 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.

And now, time has run out. It has been four long years since the last UN weapons inspectors were effectively ejected from Iraq because of Saddam’s willful noncompliance with an effective inspection regime."

For some reason I have a hard time believing in that 4 years Sadam was kniting us a quilt. There were intercepted communications dicussing movement of banned items. In addition there are tapes of Sadam and his buddies discussing weapons, deception, and how to hide their programs.

Everyone points to WMD's and says that because we have not found them we have not met the burden of proof to justify the war. However, the UN resolutions were not mandates for inspectors to scour Iraq to find weapons. They were mandates for Iraq to disclose fully and completely any and all weapons and abilities. The burden was on Iraq to show that they were in fact complying with the mandates. Inspectors were not detectives. Similar cases in South Africa and the Baltics were examples of how to disarm and showing a governments intentions to follow UN resolutions. Sadam did the opposite of this doing his best to deceive the UN and hide programs and intentions.

In my opinion the UN was in danger of (and possibly still is) becoming an irrelevant organization. In Feb'03 Hans Blix reported that Iraq had not accounted for huge stocks of WWMD's and that they had missles that exceeded the limits impossed by the security council. This was in direct defiance of Resolution 1441 which was to be one final last chance for Iraq. This was not the first resolution ignored, nor was it the second. This was the SIXTEENTH resolution broken by Iraq. This was a pattern of behavior and defiance for 12 years. Hardly a rush to action.

How many more resolutions can the UN ignore? They are now showing that they are willing to do nothing yet again. Iran is still in defiance of yet another resolution to hault it's nuclear program. They have been in violation of this for several months and show no signs of ending their defiance. Why would they? The UN has proven that they are unwilling and unable to act.

The next thing everyone is going to say is "Bush lied" to everyone to start a war. There have been three independant bi-partisian councils who have looked into this and all came to the same agreement: "That the intelligence was not manipulated or cohearsd (sp?) to meet specific needs." Others say that the rest of the world was saying our intelligence was wrong. To them I offer these quotes:

French Foreign Minister Dominique De Villepin: "Right Now, Our Attention Has To Be Focused As A Priority On The Biological And Chemical Domains. It Is There That Our Presumptions About Iraq Are The Most Significant. Regarding The Chemical Domain, We Have Evidence Of Its Capacity To Produce VX And Yperite. In The Biological Domain, The Evidence Suggests The Possible Possession Of Significant Stocks Of Anthrax And Botulism Toxin, And Possibly A Production Capability." (United Nations Security Council, 4701st Meeting, New York, 2/5/03)

German Ambassador To The United States Wolfgang Ischinger: "I Think All Of Our Governments Believe That Iraq Has Produced Weapons Of Mass Destruction And That We Have To Assume That They Still Have That They Continue To Have Weapons Of Mass Destruction. We Have Not Yet Seen Evidence Produced By The Inspectors." (NBC's "Today," 2/26/03)

These were not simply made up assumptions. Other nations (the two above) actually opposed deposing Sadam. Yet still confirmed the intelligence. Again I ask "Why would they oppose this if they believe there are weapons there?" I still say it goes back to money.

It amazes me how many people believe that Bush claimed Iraq was connected to 9/11. Or that he lied about the intelligence. It goes to show that the media does have a huge influence on what people think and believe. Perhaps if they looked for something good to report we might have a different perception. And don't tell me they havent done anything right to report on.

Enough of this I'm getting a headache. Time to go shoot some people on the aim server.

Junkie

[Hellfighter]

.............
Enough of this I'm getting a headache. Time to go shoot some people on the aim server.

Junkie

Trust me Junkie my chum, I don't take this personally or any discussion I get into in these forums.
I for one am not getting a headache from this- I look forward to seeing your concise viewpoints in this thread.
If you already know how much I ramble in these forums you know I love debating things and I'm not intentionally out to make enemies- I express my views and see if there's something new I can learn from others, or see if there are plausible disputes to my own point of view. It's a pleasure discussing this issue with you.

Like I said I agree with quite a few of your points. Bush was somewhat of a fall guy for Cheney and other neo-cons, and I think the stubborness trait in his personality was taken advantage of. It didn't help that exiled Iraqi dissidents were swearing there was a threatening WMD program going on in Iraq either. I agree the UN council are too laid back in many cases too ;namely Darfur and Rwanda, and they are corruptable too.


To me, the whole fiasco would have been averted if Sadam simply let in the Inspectors to show nothing was amiss. Instead his 'game of bluff' has been catastrophic. My whole point in this thread of Noodle's is reminding some respondants that the ongoing Afghanistan War was in direct response to 9/11. With the exception of Cheney even most repubs in Bush administration stated that . Like you, I think that it's about time to stop those ongoing misconceptions.

Anyways Junkie I hope we get to chat in a future topic

This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 12/28/06 10:14am

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

.............
Enough of this I'm getting a headache. Time to go shoot some people on the aim server.

Junkie

To me, the whole fiasco would have been averted if Sadam simply let in the Inspectors to show nothing was amiss. Instead his 'game of bluff' has been catastrophic. My whole point in this thread of Noodle's is reminding some respondants that the ongoing Afghanistan War was in direct response to 9/11. With the exception of Cheney even most repubs in Bush administration stated that . Like you, I think that it's about time to stop those ongoing misconceptions.

Anyways Junkie I hope we get to chat in a future topic

I disagree with that, because Saddam did eventually let them in and despite 6 months of intrusive inspections and the UN inspectors begging for more time to finish the job, the war went ahead. It did not matter what inspectors said or did, the Bush administration was ignoring every one of their discoveries and recommendations. If the UN had come out and said definitively there were no WMD's, it looks pretty obvious to me the Bush team would have just said those dumb inspectors were too dumb to find them and attacked anyway.

Oh, and one more point. Saddam didn't kick inspectors out. they left when the US did it's frst bombing campaign in 1998, back when the US inspectors who worked for the UN were arguing Saddam was hiding stuff, which we now know he wasn't. Saddam didn't let them back in, but is that much of a surprise when you get bombed anyway, and there wasn't anything being hidden?

Saddam was a bad guy, but on this WMD situation, he could not win. One cannot prove a negative. One cannot prove that one does not have something. That's why the WMD was used as the excuse for the war. No matter what happened, you could launch it by claiming Saddam's WMD's just had not been discovered yet, which is exactly what happened. In the end, he had nothing. He had nothing in 1998, and nothing in 2003. But even in this little debate, GJ can still express his doubt and voice concern that Saddam MUST have been up to something, just because that was his nature. But just because something could happen, or because someone would have liked something to happen, does not mean it did happen.

Anyway, I congratulate you both on a respectful debate.

This post has been edited by M@ster of Dis@ster: 12/28/06 5:55pm

[Genocide Junkie]

I disagree with that, because Saddam did eventually let them in and despite 6 months of intrusive inspections and the UN inspectors begging for more time to finish the job, the war went ahead. It did not matter what inspectors said or did, the Bush administration was ignoring every one of their discoveries and recommendations. If the UN had come out and said definitively there were no WMD's, it looks pretty obvious to me the Bush team would have just said those dumb inspectors were too dumb to find them and attacked anyway.

Hans Blix (the chief inspector) said on Feb 14 2003 (less than a month before the war) that "Such cooperation, as I have noted, requires more than the opening of doors. In the words of Resolution 1441, it requires immediate, unconditional and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions of disarmament, either by presenting remaining proscribed items and programs for elimination or by presenting convincing evidence that they have been eliminated. "

He further stated that

"Another matter, and one of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document which Iraq provided suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for. I must not jump to the conclusion that they exist; however, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

And Finally

"I referred, as examples, to the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX, and long-range missiles, and said that such issues -- and I quote myself -- "deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside," unquote. The declaration submitted by Iraq on the 7th of December last year, despite its large volume, missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions. This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions."

Is this what you are refering to as being ignored? He says clearly here that Iraq had not been forthcoming in presenting proof that they were in compliance. Again, the burden was not on inspectors to find proof that the weapons are still there. If anything Iraq had to present proof that if they were not there anymore where did they go?

In addition to what the weapons inspectors were saying I have pointed out in my previous post there were confirmations of the US intelligence by at least two other intelligence agencies (see quotes from France and Germany).

Oh, and one more point. Saddam didn't kick inspectors out. they left when the US did it's frst bombing campaign in 1998, back when the US inspectors who worked for the UN were arguing Saddam was hiding stuff, which we now know he wasn't. Saddam didn't let them back in, but is that much of a surprise when you get bombed anyway, and there wasn't anything being hidden?

While Sadam may not have "kicked" them out he anounced that he would not cooperate with inspectors. Actually he did kick them out but then let them return after we sent an armada towards him. This is a quote from Bill Clinton about this Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM.

Clinton also said this regarding Iraq:

"Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection."

You can read the rest here:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq....pt.1/index.html



Saddam was a bad guy, but on this WMD situation, he could not win. One cannot prove a negative. One cannot prove that one does not have something. That's why the WMD was used as the excuse for the war. No matter what happened, you could launch it by claiming Saddam's WMD's just had not been discovered yet, which is exactly what happened. In the end, he had nothing. He had nothing in 1998, and nothing in 2003. But even in this little debate, GJ can still express his doubt and voice concern that Saddam MUST have been up to something, just because that was his nature. But just because something could happen, or because someone would have liked something to happen, does not mean it did happen.

So was Clinton a lying Warmonger as well? You say they didn't have any WMD's in 1998 but we attacked them then. If they had the weapons to use against Iran and the Kurds and they never handed these over to be destroyed before 1998 (or submited proof they were destroyed) what makes anyone think Sadam got rid of these of his own accord without inspectors in the 4 years following 1998? Especially since he did his best to impede the inspectors and destroyed evidence and moved things in advance of inspectors coming. In the 4 years following these strikes I'm sure as I said earlier he was knitting us a quilt of peace. One thing I found from one of the inspectors (at least I believe he was an inspector) Ritter was his name I think. He said out of one side of his mouth that we destroyed everything and that there was nothing left. Then out of the other side would say that (one example among many) with VX gas (a deadly nerve agent) that Iraq said they had no program. Then they found a lab with the precursors. So they said they had a program but couldnt make it stable. Well guess what? You got it they found stable VX gas. So they said they couldnt weaponize it. Well guess what again? Yes you win the prize!!!! Munitions found with VX gas in them. It still was not an issue of can we find something to go after them about. It was an issue of they were NEVER forthright about disarming. This was a program that was continued until at least 1995 when they first found it. Another program regarding biological weapons was undeclared and was not found until around the same time. My point is that Sadam not only did not declare, disable, or destroy his weapons. He CONTINUED TO DEVELOP THEM. This is while inspectors were in Iraq. I've even shown you where at the last chance Iraq still was not forth coming (see quote from Hans Blix). In fact the report Iraq filed with the UN had sections that were copied verbatim from an earlier report the UN had given to Iraq.

I'm not really interested in if we were right or wrong to go into Iraq. What more bothers me is the common view that Bush lied and that the concervatives pushed us into war. I also tried to point out that the reasons we did not have international backing had as much with political and financial negatives to our "allies" as the threat did. I also gave you a link to see a transcript from Bill Clinton that basically calls for Sadam to be deposed. Had he not been neck deep in other self made problems he might have done more at the time to achieve this. You've demonstrated how popular belief has been influenced by what you hear and see in the media by saying that concervatives said Sadam was linked to 9/11 and that Bush lied about the intelligence we had. This is a common misconception because you've been beaten over the head with it. Had the media spent any of their time and effort covering any of the success that the US has achieved you might have a different outlook. I know one thing for a fact. The Iraqi people have one thing they didnt have when Sadam was in power. That is a chance at freedom and personal liberties they have never known.

Enough again. Time to go shoot some more ppl

Enjoyed the debate!

Junkie