Iraq war just afterall?

[Cowperson]

They were wrong. They've admitted it. They have said they were wrong. How much more obvious can it be? They have admitted to being wrong and what you are now saying is "no, they weren't wrong". I mean come on

I agree. They were wrong. They admitted they were wrong. I'm not one of those clinging to hope of something showing up.

On the other hand, I believe my exact words before the conflict were: "I don't know if he has them and I don't know if he doesn't have them but its time to end this 12 year charade and find out."

I didn't really have a big problem with nothing being there although, as I noted a few years ago on this board, in all of our debates, pretty much everyone opposed to the conflict never actually supposed that Saddam had absolutely nothing (ZERO).

Most people here objecting to the invasion, if they were honest with themselves, did so on moral grounds or some other pretext but ZERO was usually not one of the reasons given in this forum.

In other words, pretty much everyone on both sides seemed pretty surprised absolutely ZERO was there . . . . that's one argument only Scott Ritter was making.

I suspect Sada will start turning up on various talk shows and news programs in the next few days.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Most people here objecting to the invasion, if they were honest with themselves, did so on moral grounds or some other pretext but ZERO was usually not one of the reasons given in this forum.

That's true. I don't remember anybody saying Iraq had ZERO either. I was against the war and I know I didn't believe that.


I also remember the frantic lead-up to the war though. The talk of "activated in 45 minutes", gathering dangers, potential nuclear capabilities, comparisons to Hitler, the rattling of a vial full of icing sugar at the UN.. A few people in here and in the real world said it was all a bunch of bull****. Turns out they were right.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

A few people in here and in the real world said it was all a bunch of bull****. Turns out they were right.

Weren't those the same people who were labelled "conspiracey theorists"?

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Most people here objecting to the invasion, if they were honest with themselves, did so on moral grounds or some other pretext but ZERO was usually not one of the reasons given in this forum.

In other words, pretty much everyone on both sides seemed pretty surprised absolutely ZERO was there . . . . that's one argument only Scott Ritter was making.

You're right that virtually no one was making the ZERO argument, but one argument that was made was that the sanctions and the monitoring of Iraq were sufficient to keep Saddam from constituting the international threat that they supposedly went to war to stop.

Now it's clear that the Oil-for-Food program was as crooked as a three dollar bill, but the fact that Saddam couldn't turn the billions of dollars he skimmed into WMDs, or even a credible army, certainly backs up that argument.

[Cowperson]

but the fact that Saddam couldn't turn the billions of dollars he skimmed into WMDs, or even a credible army, certainly backs up that argument.

Yet he could certainly turn billions of ill-gotten gains into fine French and German workmanship in something like 11 new palatial palaces dedicated to himself, all while his own people starved and, the favourite argument of the left, hundreds of thousands of children perished through lack of medical supplies.

The fact he chose to dedicate those monies in one way and perhaps not another shouldn't obviate the obvious . . . . that he could have done pretty much anything he wanted if he'd had the will, something he had demonstrated in the past he didn't lack.

We certainly saw that Pakistan's chief nuclear scientist was doling out bomb-making know-how to fellow Muslims like they were party favours, all without the evident knowledge of western watchers.

The behaviour of Saddam remains one of the great mysteries leading into this conflict and it should be obvious to any observor that he might still be in power today had he co-operated fully with UN weapons inspectors at an earlier date.

He bluffed right to the very end.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

the obvious . . . . that he could have done pretty much anything he wanted if he'd had the will, something he had demonstrated in the past he didn't lack.

Why is that so obvious? We don't know that he could have done anything he wanted if he only had the will. On the contrary, I'd say the evidence points directly to the fact that he couldn't do whatever he wanted because it turned out he didn't have an army to defend his regime or WMD to kill the invaders with. His track record doesn't exactly lend itself to the idea that he just didn't want to have a military anymore.

[Cowperson]

Why is that so obvious? We don't know that he could have done anything he wanted if he only had the will. On the contrary, I'd say the evidence points directly to the fact that he couldn't do whatever he wanted because it turned out he didn't have an army to defend his regime or WMD to kill the invaders with. His track record doesn't exactly lend itself to the idea that he just didn't want to have a military anymore.

Since he's still alive, it would be very convenient if he would just tell us. Then we wouldn't puzzle about it anymore.

Unfortunately, he doesn't seem very co-operative.

Interestingly, some opponents of America's role in the world felt his trial would provide him with a platform to expose all sorts of secrets vis-a-vis the USA and prior administrations . . . . but so far he hasn't said squat about that either.

Or much of anything.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Why is that so obvious? We don't know that he could have done anything he wanted if he only had the will. On the contrary, I'd say the evidence points directly to the fact that he couldn't do whatever he wanted because it turned out he didn't have an army to defend his regime or WMD to kill the invaders with. His track record doesn't exactly lend itself to the idea that he just didn't want to have a military anymore.

Since he's still alive, it would be very convenient if he would just tell us. Then we wouldn't puzzle about it anymore.

Unfortunately, he doesn't seem very co-operative.

Interestingly, some opponents of America's role in the world felt his trial would provide him with a platform to expose all sorts of secrets vis-a-vis the USA and prior administrations . . . . but so far he hasn't said squat about that either.

Or much of anything.

Cowperson

Yeah it would be nice to hear what he has to say. You'd think he'd be vindicitive enough to burn a few guys if he can. Especially some of Reagan's flunkies who still happen to be around.

What a strange trial though. I haven't followed too closely but I read today that he stormed out of the courtroom. I didn't think he'd be in a position to be storming out of anywhere. What, no shackles? Where is the trusty bailiff?

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

but the fact that Saddam couldn't turn the billions of dollars he skimmed into WMDs, or even a credible army, certainly backs up that argument.

Yet he could certainly turn billions of ill-gotten gains into fine French and German workmanship in something like 11 new palatial palaces dedicated to himself, all while his own people starved and, the favourite argument of the left, hundreds of thousands of children perished through lack of medical supplies.

The fact he chose to dedicate those monies in one way and perhaps not another shouldn't obviate the obvious . . . . that he could have done pretty much anything he wanted if he'd had the will, something he had demonstrated in the past he didn't lack.

Echoing what Rouge said, are you adopting the view that Saddam could have rebuilt his WMD program at will but just decided not to? I have a lot of respect for your ability to build an argument, but I don't think even you could give that position much credibility.

And even if you could, isn't it self-defeating? A Saddam who could build WMDs and chooses instead to just build palaces is even less of a threat that a WMD hungry Saddam kept in check by sanctions and monitoring.

[Flame On]

Also there's the issue of being morally just and politically just. The fact that

hundreds of thousands of children perished through lack of medical supplies.

was not the reason given for going to war. If it were, there would be no US troops left back in the States, as the numbers of children perishing around the world is gargantuan.
I'm not saying it was for Oil or anything, but when they're self admittedly wrong and Cowperson goes down the checklist for other reasons to justify the war for them...well Scott McClellan has been in his position for longer than usual for recent White House Press Secretaries.

[Cowperson]

Also there's the issue of being morally just and politically just. The fact that Quote:
hundreds of thousands of children perished through lack of medical supplies.
was not the reason given for going to war.

I never said it was. Not sure where you got that from.

I merely pointed out the left was using that as an argument as to why the big bad USA should stop picking on Saddam and lift sanctions. I don't think anyone on the right ever used that as a justification for war.

Echoing what Rouge said, are you adopting the view that Saddam could have rebuilt his WMD program at will but just decided not to?

I inferred that obliquely . . . . then said it would be wonderful if he would just tell us, as an example, why he barred UN weapons inspectors entirely from his country for years while under sanction OR why even to the very end he refused to allow his atomic scientists to be interviewed outside the country.

In the end, we've learned he apparently had nothing to hide yet he kept quacking like a duck. Why?

Also, when you have billions to throw around in this world, and where the chief nuclear scientist of Pakistan is demonstrateably dispensing nuclear technology in an organized ring to rogue Muslim nations, we can't really say Saddam couldn't have . . . . .

It would just be interesting for him to settle the argument and simply tell us his various motivations and rationale and how effective sanctions really were . . . . and that's just my curiousity and not an attempt to build a case one way or the other.

A Saddam who could build WMDs and chooses instead to just build palaces is even less of a threat that a WMD hungry Saddam kept in check by sanctions and monitoring.

That would be obvious.

Since he refused to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors and gave every appearance of hiding something, you didn't really know that at the time.

I'm not saying it was for Oil or anything, but when they're self admittedly wrong and Cowperson goes down the checklist for other reasons to justify the war for them

My justification for the war at the time was that "I didn't know if he had them and I didn't know if he didn't have them but the world was too small a place for this crap and that it was time to end the 12 year charade and find out one way or the other."

That's it. That's all. The consequence of that would be a convenient "sticking of a fork" into a region that badly needed it.

So really, I've never been put out at all that nothing was there - although I'm surprised like anyone else that its ZERO - and I'm not looking for any other justification nor have I offered one.

I also said in this forum before the conflict that bringing democracy to Iraq was probably a distant fifth on the list of justifications for GW Bush . . . . . there are lots of places in the world one could invade with less trouble if it was only about democracy.

I view democratization in the Middle East as a wonderful, obvious, consequence if a conflict ever came about but didn't offer it as a justification, even if those on the right are now putting it front and center as though the WMD issue never existed.

Below, another columnist on the left who appears to be scoffing at the concept of the Middle East taking to the ballot box . . . . but then he appears to end his column in favour. Confusing times for that side as well.

http://www.slate.com/id/2134928?nav=nw

Iraq threads make Dowbiggin threads cry.

Cowperson

[Lurch]

My justification for the war at the time was that "I didn't know if he had them and I didn't know if he didn't have them but the world was too small a place for this crap and that it was time to end the 12 year charade and find out one way or the other."

Not sure where you stand on Kyoto and GHG, but this echoes my support for reducing emissions, even if it costs someone a few $1000 more to drive a Hummer.

As for Iraq, I can respect your position, unlike many of those that are still trying to justify the invasion under one pretense or another. I could even respect Bush if he came out and said regime change for the greater good was his motivation. I don't agree with the assessment that invading Iraq sets any positives in motion though - I see it as the best recruiting tool ever provided to extremists unless the US succeeds in dramatic fashion. Unfortunately, I just don't see how foreign occupiers, seemingly unwanted by the population and making countless mistakes, will end up succeeding when the deck is so heavily stacked against them.

[La Flames Fan]

Interesting little tidbit about this story I heard today...Seems those "passenger flights" with WMDs happened in...

1985.