WMD finder

[ERIKK]

http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

Dont click it away, read the response first!!

[Nightfa11]

Very funny. You get that same link if you type "weapons of mass destruction" (including quotes) in google and click I'm feeling lucky.

I love the links to appropriate web pages.

Hrmm, I wonder if we'll really find anything in Iraq at all or if they got it all out first.

[anarres]

Nightfa11, that does assume that they existed in the first place.

Do you think the war was still legitimate if no WMD are found, on the assumption that he did have them??

[Taurendil]

I don't really want to start this old discussion again, but do you think finding WMD now changes anything about the war being legitimate Anarres? We all know what country has the most such weapons, and we are not attacking them are we?

[ERIKK]

[lol]

[anarres]

Yeah, sorry. I will shut up.

[Nightfa11]

Probably shouldn't do this but....

It's not a matter of assumption it's a matter of knowledge. At least in regards to Anthrax et al. I think the nuclear stuff was a bit on the paranoid side...possible but unlikely. FYI, banned substances have been found (in "insignificant" quantities, but banned and found nonetheless)

Two additional points:

1. The HUNDREDS of violations of the no fly zone were enough for the US to do what it did...WMD notwithstanding

2. I don't believe Saddam was a particular threat to us as Bush did. I'm not sure that the attack was necessary from that point of view. However, I think it was the best thing (whether justified or unjustified) for the Iraqis. Probably not the best thing for Americans, however.

[DrAlimentado]

quote:Originally posted by Taurendil

I don't really want to start this old discussion again, but do you think finding WMD now changes anything about the war being legitimate Anarres?


LOL, but... but... you HAVE started this discussion again!

quote:Originally posted by Nightfa11

Probably shouldn't do this but....

It's not a matter of assumption it's a matter of knowledge. At least in regards to Anthrax et al. I think the nuclear stuff was a bit on the paranoid side...possible but unlikely. FYI, banned substances have been found (in "insignificant" quantities, but banned and found nonetheless)

Two additional points:

1. The HUNDREDS of violations of the no fly zone were enough for the US to do what it did...WMD notwithstanding

2. I don't believe Saddam was a particular threat to us as Bush did. I'm not sure that the attack was necessary from that point of view. However, I think it was the best thing (whether justified or unjustified) for the Iraqis. Probably not the best thing for Americans, however.


hehe, well anarres hasn't taken the bait yet so I'll jump in with my not so humble opinions.


No doubt Iraq had (and used) chemical weapons in the 80's (after all we supplied him with chemical and biological reactants and turned a blind eye to how he used them). After that... who knows. If he did have stuff (and delivery systems) recently then I am very curious about where it has gone... Seems to me that at some point in the last few years he dismantled his WMD program to the extent that it posed no immediate threat to anybody, centrifuges buried in gardens notwithstanding.

As for '45 mins' claim - bullshit, just political spin imo. And I reckon saddam would have loved to have had a nuclear capability, I agree with you that I don't think he ever got too close to it though. Just more political spin (replace 'spin' with 'lies' if you want, as it's the same thing.)

1) The no-fly zone was just a means to carry on a low-intensity war vs iraq over the last ten years without raising too much interest in the western media. The justification for creating the NFZ's was UN resolution 688, but it is a very tentative interpretation of that resolution (which allows for the protection of civilians in iraq.)
The resolution did not say the Security Council was acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which provides for enforcement action, and the UN has never sanctioned the NFZ's specifically, or sanctioned the use of force or 'any means' etc. to enforce 688. The US/UK decided that interpretation themselves.

Did the NFZ's protect civilians? it's debatable, it didnt stop saddam retaking certain areas in the north, mainly because the US/UK chose to ignore it and create a southern NFZ instead. Oh, and the kurds who the northern NFZ was meant to protect were of course also unprotected from turkish air strikes flown in the NFZ, because the turks are our friends. In the south the NFZ also failed to prevent ground attacks on the rebels... the US state department itself acknowledged some years ago that the NFZ's only prevented iraqi air strikes, not ground attacks.

What it actually did was turn the public opinion in southern iraq more strongly anti-west than ever, repeatedly bombing the areas where the strongest anti-saddam factions lived was stupid. Of course by this time the rebels had already been bitterly betrayed by bush the first at the end of GW1 so maybe the jig was up with them anyhow.

Even if you accept that the no-fly zones were 'just' or acceptable (and not just a way for 2 belligerant western militaries to keep the pressure on saddam by whatever trick possible) an infringement of the no-fly zone was hardly a cause for war. By what UN resolution? Again, the NFZ's were an invention of the US/UK justified in rhetoric by UN resolution 688, but not endorsed by the UN in any way.

2) I also don't think saddam was a threat to us. I suspect GWB knew that as well, but I am prepared to believe he really is stupid enough to believe his own rhetoric - it's hard to tell.

The best thing for iraqi's? Hmmm.... well, no doubt saddam was a brutal dictator. And if you were a victim of his security forces then I'm sure you're better off now than you were being tortued and killed in a police cell. But for the rest of the population? I agree that everyone in iraq was affected by living in a represive and brutal regime, but i have serious doubts as to whether they will be better off living under a capitalist regime. Freed from a dictator to live without amenities under an american regime in the short term. In the long term? Maybe free to work in sweatshops, I honestly believe that western companies (under the banner of democracy and morality) will do their level best to suck as much as wealth out of iraq as possible - to the detriment of the population. Why else was the war fought? It certainly wasn't for the benefit of iraqi's - it was for the benefit of a very elite group of mainly US buisnessmen (I believe some UK companies have been thrown a few bones too.) Not the best thing for the US public either, but if you really believe that western governments serve the public well... needless to say I disagree!



quote:Originally posted by Taurendil

We all know what country has the most such weapons, and we are not attacking them are we?


and, um, I couldn't resist this ;), you mean the USA right?


peace, DrA.

[Nightfa11]

Dr. A. I agree w/ most of what you said, but have two nits to pick:

RE: NFZ
Whether the NFZ was justified or unjustified, it was there and it was violated. That is enough cause for ME anyways, if not for you. I think the NFZ was abused by the USA, but that doesn't take away the validity of it (in light of silence from the UN, who will take ANY opportunity to bash the US...don't get me started on the UN). The NFZ should have been used to protect the Kurds, who go NO stick (not even the short end of it) from the US.

RE: Reason for the war

The war cost 48 BILLION so far. Probably at least 70-80 billion by the time all is said and done. I don't see an economic reason to effect a regime change. I would have to see an economic model for american interest in Iraq that takes into account that chunk of change. I haven't seen one yet.

I think Dubya went to war for two reasons.
1. To finish what his daddy started
2. Reaction to 9/11 (even if misguided)

What I want to happen in Iraq:

I want Iraq to become the Japan of the 21st Century. I want american rebuilding to help the economy and the welfare of the Iraqi people. Will it happen? I doubt it (think snowballs in hot places). But one can hope.