| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| someone had to post it........... | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 24 2003, 04:40 PM (1,011 Views) | |
| Dandandat | Oct 4 2003, 01:39 PM Post #31 |
|
Time to put something here
|
What if this where ture - would the action to go to war be wrong? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Oct 4 2003, 02:06 PM Post #32 |
|
Time to put something here
|
You know what I find wrong with many of the arguments in this thread, and since the beginning of this situation? Its that they have not changed (not even a little). The same arguments used at the every onset of the situation are still being used today. Why do I think this is bad you say? Well to me it looks like a lot of people are just being close minded. They have their preconceived notions and are basing there arguments on them rather then the facts. Anti war people will not even considered the evidence that points to war being a good idea, war advocates will not even consider evidence that points to war being a bad idea. When in reality the evidence doesn’t clearly point in any direction yet. ImpulseEngine said it best
Give it time people before we declare it an utter mistake or our greatest accomplishment. For the fact is we did the dead and there is no going back. There will be plenty of time to shake the hands of the heroes or through the criminals into the brig. Let the evidence speak for its self, hold off claims and accusations until you dont have to find some obscure web page to back up what you are saying. But to add the to the argument - yes the argument of “he had them in the past” maybe a little thin, but it is just as thin as believing that government must give you unequivocal proof to the point of bringing the WMD to your door step for inspection ( a little exaggerated, but many here want nothing less). Our Government is going to keep things from us, they have to. They cant just come out with everything you might want to see – its just impossible. We elect our governments to do just that, make the hard deceptions, keep things that have to be secret, secret. This is not sheep following the shepherd - at any time we can elect a new shepherd. But it’s a little silly to demand “all” the proof and reasoning behind why the shepherd chose the direction he did. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| qubed | Oct 4 2003, 04:00 PM Post #33 |
|
Ensign
|
Well I most certainly agree that the arguements are pretty much all the same. But I think this has to do more with 2 issues. 1. How people interpret "evidnece". - Obviously pro-war people are much more willing to accept certain findings on faith then are the rest of us. All of the evidence in the past that was at first widely accepted amongst the war crowd inevitably panned out to bunk yet everytime a whiff of new information comes to light they jump on it whole-heartedly. For example, people have even jumped to the conclusion that this vial of bacteria MUST be evidence of illegal activities yet there are several other possible reasons for them having it and from onw account I read the inspectors knew they had it in the first place. This also doesn't mean that the culture was NOT used for WMD programs but to say it must be is obviously jumpin the gun. 2. Whether or not your the kind of person to (cleaned up for diplomacy) support your leaders based on what they tell you. Nobody here realy knows my opinions of Clinton but I had plenty of issues with his policies too. Granted not as many Bush by a long shot. - My problem with the WMD arguement is that none of the actual evidence pointing to realtime weapons existing or programs has ever panned out. The evidnece has either been totally discredited (a good portion of it pre-war) or has been built out of allegation or specualtion. Such as "We think he has weapons because he had weapons" or since there are scientists within his country tied to his government who are capable of producing weapons programs they ARE producing weapons programs. For a more up-to-date argument: at the moment we can specualte that Iraq had an illegal missle program because Kay said there was but we weren't given enough information, nor was the media or 3rd party reveiwers, to make any kind of real judgement either way. I have heard the IAEA is looking into it. It seesms to me we've glossed over this whole public reveiw becoming a classified reveiw thing a little too quickly. Information that was suppose to be shared with us was changed to protected status less then a month before the report was given to our elected leadership. This isn't how democracies are suppose to function. You can't be an informed electorate without information. And I have a hard time buying the "its to protect national security" which is the "my dog ate my homework" excuse of government. Especially when for months the plan was to make the reveiw public. At the moment the pro-war side really has nothing in the way of hard evidence and nothing anywhere close to proof and it simply baffles me that some still defend it so ademently as if there is nothing suspicious about the whole thing. Its one thing to cautiously support a position which on the moment is built on beleif its another to say the sinking ship ain't going down when you feet are gettin wet. And I know that plenty of anti-war people will give y'all hell if you break for even a second with I told you sos but I for one would not. I don't think arguements like this should be about dominance especially when it comes to issues of war, death and officials credibility. Its too important to let our petyness get in the way. But that is much more easily said then done and when people throw down gauntlets or take shots I'll be the first to come out swingin. Which probably isn't a good thing .
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ANOVA | Oct 4 2003, 05:08 PM Post #34 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
HEY QUBED!!!! Iraq used WMD against his own people. THEREFORE: THEY DID HAVE WMD AND THE MEANS TO MAKE THEM!!! Iraq refused to abide by the UN inspection protocols and make a full disclosure. THEREFORE: NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE EVER DISTROYED. The UN came out recenlty with a list of WMDs not accounted for. THEREFORE: MAY STILL HAVE THEM Iraq disclosed its WMD program shortly before we enforced UN resolutions (war) THEREFORE: STILL HAD THE ABILITY AND DESIRE TO PURSUE WMD. You do the intellectual calculus and tell me where the proof Iraq being an innocent comes from. Only star your post with once upon a time It'll be more beleivable that way. The Iraqi government was under prabation (a cease fire) for thier guilt and refused to abide by the terms of the agreement. ANOVA Pro-war?! try the less biased Pro defence. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| qubed | Oct 4 2003, 05:22 PM Post #35 |
|
Ensign
|
Anova, None of these arguements equal weapons or programs or really even evidence but this was the primary cause for war. I don't disagree with any of your points but I can't beleive that any of this actually equals proof since none of it actually points to known weapons or programs and it most certainly is not backed with curretn evidence. I am most certainly biased, to this I make no apologies. But I'd be happy to admit fault if there was any to admit. But I can't be swayed by accusations, suspicions and speculation. Put some evidnece in front of me and lets argue that, which at the moment simply isn't possible. Maybe in the future there will be, but at the moment there is not. "Pro-war?! try the less biased Pro defence" - Pro-Defence? Thats a new one to me but if thats what you want then fine. If you'd like to argue that this action has some how made our situation better, in terms of defense, I'd be happy to speak with you on it. But creating mass fear and hatred to the US throughout the world in more then just Arab countries, legitamizing unilateral action and toppling a stunted dictator without the capacity to even slow the roll of enemy forces through his country doesn't make me feel safer. I realize the idea is long-term goals but that will remian to be seen and I have never seen any evidence supporting the Iraq-Al Queda connection which I found strange in the first place since Bin Laden hated Saddam and publicly spoke out against him. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Oct 4 2003, 05:48 PM Post #36 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Of cores and obviously anti-war people are much more willing to reject certain findings on faith then are the rest of us. As for your number 2 argument (trying not to sound pro war, because my comment is not coming from that point of view. Even though I am pro war). There have been many arguments to suggest other wise, from what you have said. And they have been made in intelligent ways by intelligent people, not just mindless followers. Yet you defend your argument with no equivocations as if you know better then all these people. In other words (with no offence) you seem just as arrogant and kno-it-all in your anit-war arguments as some in their pro-war arguments. Listen I can sit here (as many have) and run though each one of your arguments, giving the other side of the story, but will you even listen (that’s my point, as I think not. and that is where people are wrong pro or anti war). I’m sorry as much as you would like to dismiss the "its to protect national security" point, it is a valid one. You have a right to be suspicious (people should be supposes of everything) but just as pleading the fifth does not automatically mean you are guilty, nether does pleading national security. Secrecy for national security is a vital part of our country (as with many countries) we can not change that because we wish to. We must trust our elected officials to make the right chooses (that’s why we have so many of them, Bush is not the only one in charge). If for any reason you do not believe an elected official should hold that right, then oust him at the next election. That’s the power of the vote. Believe me when I tell you this. I am a pro-war person. I believe we did the right thing. I have seen and read much of the same things you have and I'm sure we are both of the same intelligent level. I do not align my self with any politcal group, person or agenda. I am not sticking to my opinion because I am afraid some one will say I told you so. I do not have a problem when it comes to admitting I am wrong. And while I find validity (not so much in being right, but being worthy of listening to) in your arguments. Nothing as of yet has convinced me that I am wrong in my opinion. So yours cannot be as sold as you think it must be (even if you turn out to be right). Some one in this thread said that this situation should be looked at as a trial, the pro-war people need to convince the anti war people with proof and the anti war people just need to sit back and make a decision. I do not believe this to be the case. This situation is much to dynamic, there are to many rules and to much at stake to simply say "you need to convince me and that’s it, because I chose the virtue rather then the sin". While saying "no war" is a timeless virtue - in action can be an even bigger sin then war. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ANOVA | Oct 4 2003, 07:51 PM Post #37 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
Unilateral? That would mean by ourselves. which is a false statement. Great Britian and Australia committed troops. Trilateral? Well, maybe, if you dismiss support from Italy and Spain, Kuwait and Quatar. Please use the language appropriatley. If you mean without UN sanction, say so. But we certainly weren't unilateral. The statement is thoughtless at best.
No, the documentation from Iraq, some of it volunteered before the war, shows that only the nuclear program had been (partly) curtailed. Hussien's actions are viewed under a presumption of continued guilt becuase he refused to sbide by the ceasefire provisions that would have given us resonable assurances of his compliance with disarmement. Remeber there are to types of evidence used in court. Hussein and his regime are guilty through overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Actual physical evidence is just icing on the cake. Ecept for those who need to be beat over the head with a sarin canister. all in good (its all) fun (until someone puts an eye out) ANOVA |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| qubed | Oct 5 2003, 02:42 AM Post #38 |
|
Ensign
|
"Some one in this thread said that this situation should be looked at as a trial, the pro-war people need to convince the anti war people with proof and the anti war people just need to sit back and make a decision. I do not believe this to be the case. This situation is much to dynamic, there are to many rules and to much at stake to simply say "you need to convince me and that’s it, because I chose the virtue rather then the sin". While saying "no war" is a timeless virtue - in action can be an even bigger sin then war" - Well I whole heartedly disagree with this idea. First of all it is the responsibilty of the Bush administration, not the posters here by any means, to justify the war to me beacuse they quite frankly went in under the pretext that the justification would follow and Bush had all the info and is my government. Nor was my point that I expect anyone to convince me. My point was really to question WHY people continue to back an arguement that can point to no real evidence. Specificaly the WMD arguement. There is plenty of speculation but no on-the-ground backing for this arguement months after the invasion began, yet this doesn't seem to bother many. Its not that I expect people then to be utterly anti-war and roast Bush alive, but to toe the line of an arguement that has so far failed to yeild any evidence is baffeling. There really isn't even any retreating by some yet a signifigant part of their party has gone to great strives to retreat from its original steadfastness. Its one thing to think the invasion was ok for some other rational but to beleive its justified becasue of pre-war weapons claims is pure faith. And since I have no faith in ay party I find it very strange. Maybe thats the problem. Anova, The drive and decision to go to war was Bush's. Blair and Howard simply followed the leader. = uni-lateral. I would agree with your tri-lateral statement if I could be convinced Blair or Howard would have gone in without the US lead, which I seriously doubt (or) if I could be convinced that Blair and Howard would have been the driving force behind the drive to war, which I also seriously doubt. "Actual physical evidence is just icing on the cake" - This is where I most certainly disagree with you whole-heartdly. First off I think the drive to war would have gone much differently if the Bush administration had addressed physical evidnece in such a way. Secondly, all the circumstantial evidnece in the world can lead you to BELIEVING or THINKING he has weapons. But this was not the language of the Bush admin nor should we veiw justifying a war as a legal arguement. Their language was of utter assurance of KNOWING he had weapons. You can't know someone has weapons through speculation. Not that I beleive the specualtive arguements are all that good either. "No, the documentation from Iraq, some of it volunteered before the war, shows that only the nuclear program had been (partly) curtailed" - ? . So far the evidnece that has been made public, unless you've seen stuff that I haven't, says there were no signifigant programs in bio, chem or nuke weapons. But then again I'm not entirely sure what your trying to say. - I don't mean to pick on people or, as I think Dadadant was suggesting, over-intellectualize my opponents. Which is not something I think I'd be good at anyways. I just wanted to ad my opinion that I find it very akward that people are willing to defend a position for months that has so far provided no evidence to support it. Especially now in the face of the sudden classified status of the weapons report. But there is a whole new round of untested allegations to keep hopes alive for them. We'll have to see if any of them pan out I guess. But then there will just be more to follow if they don't I'm sure. - nice talkin with y'all and I'd be happy to get more comments. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Oct 5 2003, 06:50 AM Post #39 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Because people don't necessarily agree with you that there's "... no real evidence". Throughout this whole period, over and over, every "discovery" has been simply dismissed .... "the personnel aren't trained to do that", "the testing materials aren't sophisticated enough", "there's other reasons that could account for that result", "that can't go far enough to reach the US", "it couldn't possibly still be viable" ..... Some of the people who need to be convinced aren't looking for the "smoking gun" - they are looking for the perfect "smoking gun". In doing so they are ignoring a significant "body of evidence". (see Anova's post) If a man has a demonstrated history of killing others with his bare hands, it doesn't mean you are safe because all you find in his possession are a collection of kitchen knives. He will adapt - he doesn't need to wait for a sophisticated rifle. I have grimaced more than once when reports have come back "oh, it's not a chemical weapon - it's just farm chemicals (and old ones at that)". Being from farm country, I can tell you it doesn't mean it the chemical can't be used as a weapon. (Doubt me? - remember Oklahoma City.) As I recall, during the war, water tests indicated a significantly high level certain banned substances. Because the substances can be produced as by-products in industry, the issue was dismissed - despite the dearth of the industries that would account for the by-product. Despite being told any number of times what "to think" (and what "I thought") by "anti" crowd on this board, I believed that the action was necessary to protect the people of Iraq. WMD's weren't then or are now my primary consideration. I don't buy the argument that you should pass up a cure for MS just because you can't also cure cancer. The UN and the world community of nations passed on the situation in Rwanda and a million people were hacked to death. (And not a WMD in sight ... ) This could have been far worse. Having said that, I still don't see how you can say it is a done deal "that there are NO WMD's". This nutjob carved an oil refinery into a mountain - he buried his airplanes - while he had warehouses full of generators (according to the British Army, post fall of Bahgdad), he allowed children to die for lack of care in hospitals - he blew off the UN for over 12 years (which is what weakened its influence far more than anything the US has been blamed for). There is no telling what he was capable of doing or does there have to be a sensible reason for his doing it. Nor do I believe that there are only two choices to explain the state of Hussein's WMD program. I think that anytime you limit yourself to investigating "the intel was bad" or "Bush lied"only, you risk not finding the truth. ALL options should be investigated. This past week, prior to class, I was discussing the Iraqui scientist story with a couple of students. One mentioned a slightly different viewpoint from what the story said. At the time we moved on to class, but I started thinking about it later. His idea could very well be THE TRUTH - it would show that someone (a group of people) looked at political reality, learned from the lessons of history, and took exeptionally bold action that would appear, up to now, to have worked. But, since it isn't one of the TWO choices, the pro-torture crowd is willing to look at, there's not point in mentioning it. "Pro-torture" you ask, Qubed? Since you have been using the term "pro-war", I have decided to use "pro-torture". As you know full well, "pro-war" is an inflammatory term, but you can get away with it because of the element of truth involved. Well, since some people have acknowledged that Hussein committed human rights abuses, but don't think it justifies a war, then there must be an element of truth to they're being "pro-torture" right? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Oct 5 2003, 09:17 AM Post #40 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
The truth of the matter is no one (here) knows for sure one way or the other because the information is not and probably will never be made public (especially if it contradicts the "desired" findings). What have the coallision have to fear by being open and transparent in this matter ? Time for everyone to THINK about this and not let emotions, dogma or political affiliations bias their personal considerations. The case posed by Bush, Blair, Rice, Powel, Howard and the intelligence agencies including the CIA, MI (what-ever), and the "hawks" was based on hearsay, speculation, outdated intelligence, fear, and lots of spin-doctoring. Iraq was invaded, occupied and is now under the military control of the USA and will likely remain that way whilst there is money and oil to had and while the USA deems it necessary to stay there (others can allucidate the reasons and motives behind this) for the forseeable future. There have been close to 200000 coalision troops as well as nearly 2000 specialist inspectors on the ground and going over the country with a fine toothed comb for 6 months and the result of all this searching and investigating has been ZIP WMD . All finds so far have all be found to be old stuff that was rendered impotent, civil equipment (industrial or farming) and anything else other than what it has always been represented by the US or UK military to be and anything other WMD , or WMD infrastructure. The case made for war was weak, and is not getting any stronger, and this has had a significant effect on the credibility of "our" leaders. Little wonder they are on the back foot and grasping at straws no in desperate attempts at damage control. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Oct 5 2003, 09:54 AM Post #41 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
According to the article the number of specialists is closer to 1200. As to the "200,000 coalistion troops" (taking your word for the number), I do believe they have been guarding installations, training civilians to take over control of their country, and building and rebuilding schools, sanitation facilities, hospitals, soccer fields, and so on. (And occasionally sleeping). Iraq is a big country. Given the guy has proven he buries weapons, 1200 is not a big number to search above and below ground. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ANOVA | Oct 5 2003, 10:26 AM Post #42 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
according to whom? not according to the greeks from whom the concept of virtue was coopted. Read Aristotle and find the passage where pacifism is mentioned. every nation every belief system has its just wars. The hindu's Darhma was a warrior. If anything it is a modern "value"
Talk about hearsay and suposition. Never, has the American government gone in as the conquerer. Seven to ten years would be just about right for complete stabilisation of the country. Given that jihadists are coming from syria and Suadi arabia the process will be long and hard. We invaded and occupiued Japan and Germany, yet we did not remain until we had exhusted their resources.
You demand evidence then dismiss overwelming circumstatial evidence. Gee a murder trial can be "Too Dynamic" for someone who refuses to see. The present cousre is part of the war on terror and will help contain the jihadist in the near east rather than in the US. ANOVA |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Oct 5 2003, 10:29 AM Post #43 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Botulinium strains found in Iraq... check it out. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34917 or here: http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0...55E1702,00.html By the way, Somerled, the number of coalition troops, about 180,000, are NOT looking for WMDs. Rose (Wichita) is right in that only David Kay's team are. Imagine taking 1200 people and searching California for something. Given Saddam's propensity for burying things, is it any wonder more hasn't been found. I still think that some of this has been smuggled to the Bekaa Valley. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Oct 5 2003, 05:56 PM Post #44 |
|
Lieutenant
|
Hi Bill - I for one have said MANY times that I would apologise as soon as any WMD are found - I don't recall you, or anyone else actually, saying that you'all would apologise if in fact, none are found. And anyway, watch this space for the TRUTH about Iraq WMD which, the Bush administration - which I am growing to despise in increasingly large and intracite terms - have completely sold down the river to an ever blinkered and benign American public. I'll post something quite startling in an hour or two. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Oct 5 2003, 05:59 PM Post #45 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Try looking up to the previous post. In addition, check out my final post in the David Kay thread. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


.

2:30 PM Jul 11