Iraqi WMD's non-existence still confounding some buggers!
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, September 14, 2007 17:16
VIEWED: 19028
PAGE 11 of 27
I did not evade the question. A full investigation is warranted. It may be proven the officer had a grudge against the person, who might have threatened his father, for instance. It could be deemed that the action taken by the officer was in fact a crime of first degree murder. This isn't avoidance. I personally believe Bush was lying, and, if it can be proven, be given significant penalties; starting with but not limited to, removal from office. Is that sufficient answer?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So we invaded not because Saddam had WMD or posed an imminent threat but because he was a bad man with bad intentions and we didn't trust what he might do in the future?
That may have been the case. But if it was the case, it was only so because the US and the UK had an invasion force at Iraq’s doorstep, not because the UN or Saddam had changed their colors. At that point, it was a little too late for Saddam to play nice or for the UN to act professionally.
Quote:Not according to Blix, and since he was in charge of the inspections I guess he should know. He testified before the UN that he needed another 3 or 4 months. That's why I kept wondering about that urgency to invade. it's not as if Saddam had done anything new or different or more than before that posed an increased threat level to anyone- either us or that region. And in fact, with ongoing UN inspections that showed nothing upon nothing, the real threat was nil and the perception of threat should have been going down not up.
and there was no guarantee that weapons inspectors would be done any time soon.
---------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And we were already embroiled in aggression with Iraq, and Iraq had the UNSC in its pocket and was undermining UN authority, and we suspected Saddam had WMDs.
Originally posted by SignyM:
So we invaded not because Saddam had WMD or posed an imminent threat but because he was a bad man with bad intentions and we didn't trust what he might do in the future?
Quote:Do you suppose those who were in charge of the last round of weapons inspectors knew they would be guided around like dogs on a leash? The only credibly Blix had came from the invasion force in Kuwait.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not according to Blix, and since he was in charge of the inspections I guess he should know. He testified before the UN that he needed another 3 or 4 months.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And so what? What made an invasion so urgent that it couldn't wait until Blix was done? See my previous 10 posts.
And we were already embroiled in aggression with Iraq, and Iraq had the UNSC in its pocket and was undermining UN authority, and we suspected Saddam had WMDs.
And all that hyperbole- the WMD deployed east, west, north, south somewhat of Baghdad... the pictures of mushroom clouds... the uranium tubes and yellowcake... what was THAT all about? It was a bedtime story designed to stampede an unsuspecting public into thinking that Saddam posed an iimminent threat... which was not anywhere near true. I just shake my head that someone as bright as you can't look back and see that you were hoodwinked.
------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:We’re starting to go around in circles. I’ve already responded to this. Why wait for weapons’ inspectors if you don’t feel they have any credibility?
Originally posted by SignyM:
And so what? What made an invasion so urgent that it couldn't wait until Blix was done? See my previous 10 posts.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And I listed what they were doing and what they found. And then compare and contrast to the mushroom cloud talk, and the WMD deployed east, west, south, north somewhat of Baghdad... the yellowcake and aluminum tubes and all the other crap spewed out by the Bush Administration and than ask yourself WHO had better credibility? An administration that was increasingly strident to the point of hysteria? Despite NO INCREASED THREAT LEVEL? Or a team of experts- including American experts- who were doing a body cavity search of Iraq?
I think that's what really triggered my suspicion: The Administration was getting more and more insistent. The rhetoric was getting more and more overblown. But there was no reason for it. Saddam wasn't massing troops. He wasn't embarking on any new programs. There were no new building detected by satellite. No long-range missile tests. Under the aggressive inspection of the UNMOVIC it was unlikely that a new, higher level threat would be developing.
So why the urgent urgency? If you're dealing with a static situation... one that is either going nowhere or is being downgraded.... why froth at the mouth over a completely arbitrary timetable?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The last team of weapons inspectors were experts too. I don’t doubt any of their credibility individually, but I do doubt their ability as a UN team to deal with Iraq without direct US/UK military intervention. The fact remains that if Blix’s team had more credibility then the last, it was only because of the invasion force in Kuwait.
Originally posted by SignyM:
And I listed what they were doing and what they found. And then compare and contrast to the mushroom cloud talk, and the WMD deployed east, west, south, north somewhat of Baghdad... the yellowcake and aluminum tubes and all the other crap spewed out by the Bush Administration and than ask yourself WHO had better credibility? An administration that was increasingly strident to the point of hysteria? Despite NO INCREASED THREAT LEVEL? Or a team of experts- including American experts- who were doing a body cavity search of Iraq?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That may be so, but the fact is that they did have greater credibility... AND free access...
The fact remains that if Blix’s team had more credibility then the last, it was only because of the invasion force in Kuwait.
But you still haven't answered my question: What was the urgent urgency? When I ask "Why not wait?" your only answer is "Why wait?"
Well, waiting might show you that you might not actually HAVE to invade. Isn't THAT a good reason?
-----------------------
I think that's what really triggered my suspicion: The Administration was getting more and more insistent. The rhetoric was getting more and more overblown. But there was no reason for it. Saddam wasn't massing troops. He wasn't embarking on any new programs. There were no new building detected by satellite. No long-range missile tests. Under the aggressive inspection of the UNMOVIC it was unlikely that a new, higher level threat would be developing.
So why the urgent urgency? If you're dealing with a static situation... one that is either going nowhere or is being downgraded.... why froth at the mouth over a completely arbitrary timetable?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It wasn’t necessarily arbitrary. It is extremely expensive to keep troops idle in the desert. Its costly not only in dollar value but also in moral and political will. Kuwait, for instance, wasn’t going to accept an invasion force on the soil indefinitely. But the real reason was simply that the administration never had any confidence in the UN weapons inspectors, so why should they wait, when there had been 10 years of weapons inspections already?
Originally posted by SignyM:
So why the urgent urgency? If you're dealing with a static situation... one that is either going nowhere or is being downgraded.... why froth at the mouth over a completely arbitrary timetable?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think that there was a concern that the longer the wait the less political will there would be. I work with a guy whose always “almost done” with any project. He might spend three months being “almost done” if you let him. And that was the way weapons inspectors went in Iraq. For 10 years, the weapons inspectors just needed a couple more months. The more often Blix came out and said “almost done” the longer people would be willing to wait, and if people waited long enough, the US/UK would have to withdraw their forces because you can’t keep an invasion force indefinitely in a state of readiness. And Saddam wins yet another political victory on an increasingly week UN. So yeah there was an urgency, because the administration believed that weapons inspections were nothing more than an excuse to put off the inevitable, and given enough time the typical complacency of the UN and the craftiness of Iraqi agents would turn the whole thing into another debacle.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, waiting might show you that you might not actually HAVE to invade. Isn't THAT a good reason?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME