's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

A reasonable arguement(19 posts)

A reasonable arguementLive Steam
Jan 30, 2004 8:32 AM
I am sure most of you radical leftists won't see it that way, but try!
Sorry about the typo nmLive Steam
Jan 30, 2004 8:40 AM
pointless speculationColnagoFE
Jan 30, 2004 9:27 AM
he says
"Who knows what it [SH regime] might have done in the coming decade?"

That's my point...nobody knew or knows what SH MIGHT have done given time. Nowhere in that article does it say SH was an IMMINENT threat to the US. Heck lots of countries are ,uch closer to being a imminent threat that Iraq--even if they did have chemical weapons. North Korea has nukes for gods sake! Intelligence was flawed and I don't buy that just because the CIA gave Bush bad info that the war was justified. He can't pass the buck that easy. Maybe we should have waited a while to gather some more convincing and accurate information before going in with guns blazing?
You're right 10 years wasn't long enoughLive Steam
Jan 30, 2004 10:02 AM
Every intelligence agency from the CIA to MI6 to the KGB was convinced for years that Iraq possessed WMD. If the intelligence was flawed, it has been flawed for many more years than bush has been in office. The events of 9/11 changed the way any reasonable person looked upon Iraq as a threat.

The article makes complete sense. Saddam thought he had possession of WMD and that is the reason he didn't allow unimpeded inspections. Why else would he not have given into the inspections considering he knew the US was coming to depose him? He thought the illegal money he was getting from the corrupt food for oil program was buying WMD. He didn't think his scientists were as corrupt as he, and would steal from him.

Yes you are correct. NK has nukes. Thank your buddy Bubba for that. China will deal with them. The threat from the ME is obviously more pressing considering that the US has already been attacked on home soil by agents of ME countries, and they have pledged more attacks. NK has not directly threatened the US with immanent attack.
But a reasonable argument shouldn't have...Dwayne Barry
Jan 30, 2004 9:41 AM
to rely on half-truths, exaggerations, or implications.

To take but a couple examples from that piece. "Long-range" missles, maybe not to you or I, but to a lot of people that means the potential of a bomb dropping on their head, but of course Saddam had no where near that capacity. He could hardly hit anything outside of Iraq in GWI.
And I'm sorry but you can't hold it against Saddam for using WMD on the Iranians when we supported him in that war and possibly supplied him with manufacturing and targeting intelligence. I think this is why the adminstration rarely mentions the Iraq-Iran war in this context and focuses on the Kurds.

The best reasonable arguments for the war concern the advancement of our strategic interests in the middle east but people generally don't like to think of their sons and daughters being killed for strategic interests, so you have to tell them "they're defending our liberty" or even absurdly, "they're there for the benefit of the oppressed Iraqi people".
But a reasonable argument shouldn't have...bill105
Jan 30, 2004 10:02 AM
David Kay, who resigned last week from the CIA-sponsored Iraq Survey Group, went further. Kay said Iraqi officials told his investigators that WMD was sent to Syria before the war in Iraq.

"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," Kay told the London Daily Telegraph. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."
That's reassuring!Dwayne Barry
Jan 30, 2004 10:25 AM
Based on the above, couldn't you argue that the war in fact has made us less safe if it forced Saddam et al. to ship stuff out of the country to God knows where? Possibly into the hand of fundamentalist terrorists that might actually use it against us!

So why do you think the war drums aren't beating for an invasion of Syria now?
In that case lets invade Syria right now!bboc
Jan 30, 2004 10:27 AM
To delay puts us all in danger of being dead. We must act or the terrorists will have won. Be afraid, Syria wants to rape your sister and kill your daughter. If you dissent you will be sent to Gitmo as a traitor for aiding and abetting the terrorists. We must ACT NOW or the nuclear bombs that Syria received from Iraq will be found as a mushroom cloud over LA.

(PS - We also want to liberate those poor Syrians)
You're a war monger! nmNo_sprint
Jan 30, 2004 10:32 AM
jesus! there's a huge difference betweenrufus
Jan 30, 2004 1:16 PM
"WMD's" which you are claiming kay said were sent to syria, and "some components of WMD programs" which is what he actually said.

what are "components"? plans for a centrifuge? samples of anthrax? incubators? sketches of proposed missiles?

the way you twist phrases, you should seek a job in the administration.
i didnt twist or say anything.bill105
Jan 30, 2004 1:34 PM
its a total cut and paste. like it says, theye arent sure what went to syria. live with it.
fact is your man lied and has lost credibilityMJ
Jan 30, 2004 1:39 PM
and the people he appointed aren't saying what they were supposed to...
Jan 30, 2004 1:41 PM
big picture - Iraq didn't have WMD's - we invaded because of a Bush lie

Iraq Illicit Arms Gone Before War, Departing Inspector States

ASHINGTON, Jan. 23 — David Kay, who led the American effort to find banned weapons in Iraq, said Friday after stepping down from his post that he has concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons at the start of the war last year.

In an interview with Reuters, Dr. Kay said he now thought that Iraq had illicit weapons at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf war, but that the subsequent combination of United Nations inspections and Iraq's own decisions "got rid of them."

Asked directly if he was saying that Iraq did not have any large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the country, Dr. Kay replied, according to a transcript of the taped interview made public by Reuters, "That is correct."
then you lack the discernment to dterminerufus
Jan 30, 2004 1:55 PM
when an article is correctly repiorting, and when it is putting a spin on a statement in order to support an agenda. face it, "WMD's" are not the same as "components of wmd programs". kay said nothing about wmd's being exported to syria, and instead mentions "components of programs", which the way the article phrases it, mean the same things. but they don't. if you aren't sharp enough to discern that, then you shouldn't be repeating these things as if they were truth.

it's kinda like pre war "WMD's" and the state of the union "dozens of wmd related program activities". WTF does that mean, anyway?
"Strategic interests" is pretty much the same as ...Live Steam
Jan 30, 2004 10:09 AM
protecting the US from enemies bent on inflicting damage both here and abroad. You are incorrect on the long range missles. Iraq was building missles that had a much greater range than was allowed by UN sanctions. They were discovered by the UN inspectors. Though they were not capable of striking the US, they may have been capable of striking US targets in the ME or striking targets of friendly nations - which would be the same thing.
I don't understand...Dwayne Barry
Jan 30, 2004 10:35 AM
how if I assert many American's would interpret "long range" as the ability to hit us and Saddam didn't have those I'm wrong!

I don't mean by "strategic interests" protecting us from Saddam because I don't think Saddam was a threat to us directly or via transfer of WMD to islamic terrorists.
Long range according to the UN ...Live Steam
Jan 30, 2004 10:54 AM
resolution 1441, Iraq's missiles were to be capable of travelling no further than 150k. Their al-Samoud 2 missiles, that were discovered during the inspections were modified to travel much farther than that. In fact they could have hit targets within Turkey, Saudi Arabi and Israel - each of which have US bases and US interests. An attack on a US base in Turkey is the same as attacking US soil.

Why don't you believe that Saddam was a threat to pass off intelligence, money, technology and WMD to terrorists who would use them against the US? Can you say for certain that he didn't do any of those things? He was the one who needed to prove to the international community that he was no longer a danger to it. It was not the other way around.

The intelligence showed that he ordered reinstituting WMD programs. His problem and ours was his scientists didn't cooperate. I guess we were monitoring the wrong people.
Follow along here...Dwayne Barry
Jan 30, 2004 11:39 AM
long-range in an editorial piece supporting war in an American newspaper implies that the missles could be used against us in America regardless of the UN definition of long-range.

So why did we invade Iraq based on the possibility that Saddam might help terrorists against us (when logically I think you could argue he would be disinclined to and there was no proof he did) and not a country like Iran that we KNOW aids and supports terrorists groups and certainly is of a ideology that would be more opposed to us?
when logically I think you could argue he would be disinclined tLive Steam
Jan 30, 2004 12:22 PM
What can you cite to support this thesis? I can postulate equally that Saddam would do just that. He did try to have a US president assassinated. He did pay the families of martyrs stipends for their terrorist acts against innocent civilians in Israel - some of which where American citizens. I would suspect he would pay the same to those willing to do harm to Americans not matter what soil they were standing on.

Also your interpretation of "long range" is not what was at issue here. It was always stated what "long range" meant in this instance. You would only get that if you read beyond the headlines. Long range for Saddam was anything that could surpass 150k and reach well beyond Iraq's borders. He was building missiles that could do just that. The British had the same concerns about the missiles because of their strategic bases vulnerability to attack with these weapons.