For all the Bush-bashers

Moi

Active Member
Sep 2, 2003
1,859
13
36
The ONLY GOOD place
No one can argue that the inspectors have found a nuclear warhead nor have they found everything they were searching for. However, they have found enough evidence to suggest that the government of Iraq indeed had the intent, capability and subterfuge enough to be a threat to the rest of the world, the US in particular. The President of the United States did not make the decision alone- the Senate and House also voted to enter this fight based upon information from many sources. I'm sure that none of those people heard President Bush say that Iraq was a threat and took him at his word. They saw the same evidence and heard the same counsel as the President. Each of them, over 200 people, believed the same thing- that Iraq was a threat and that the only way to contain them was to invade.

Challange that assertion after the fact if you will- hindsight is 20/20 you know. But lump them all in the same boat then. None of the people who voted to invade Iraq had a gun to their head and presumably since they were popularly elected they are the voices of the people.

As far as the evidence, here it is. Attached are some excerpts from the report given to congress regarding the search for weapons in Iraq. The report is dated 10/2/03 so the information contained in it is relatively current. Read the whole report on the internet at the following site:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/kay-20031008.html


"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002

In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence - hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use - are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts.

With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information - including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents.

Debriefings of IIS officials and site visits have begun to unravel a clandestine network of laboratories and facilities within the security service apparatus. This network was never declared to the UN and was previously unknown. We are still working on determining the extent to which this network was tied to large-scale military efforts or BW terror weapons, but this clandestine capability was suitable for preserving BW expertise, BW capable facilities and continuing R&D - all key elements for maintaining a capability for resuming BW production. The IIS also played a prominent role in sponsoring students for overseas graduate studies in the biological sciences, according to Iraqi scientists and IIS sources, providing an important avenue for furthering BW-applicable research. This was the only area of graduate work that the IIS appeared to sponsor.

One noteworthy example is a collection of reference strains that ought to have been declared to the UN. Among them was a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B. from which a biological agent can be produced. This discovery - hidden in the home of a BW scientist - illustrates the point I made earlier about the difficulty of locating small stocks of material that can be used to covertly surge production of deadly weapons. The scientist who concealed the vials containing this agent has identified a large cache of agents that he was asked, but refused, to conceal. ISG is actively searching for this second cache.

Let me turn now to chemical weapons (CW). In searching for retained stocks of chemical munitions, ISG has had to contend with the almost unbelievable scale of Iraq's conventional weapons armory, which dwarfs by orders of magnitude the physical size of any conceivable stock of chemical weapons. For example, there are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage Points (ASP), many of which exceed 50 square miles in size and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordinance. Of these 130 ASPs, approximately 120 still remain unexamined. As Iraqi practice was not to mark much of their chemical ordinance and to store it at the same ASPs that held conventional rounds, the size of the required search effort is enormous.

With regard to Iraq's nuclear program, the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons. They have told ISG that Saddam Husayn remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point. Some indicated a resumption after Iraq was free of sanctions. At least one senior Iraqi official believed that by 2000 Saddam had run out of patience with waiting for sanctions to end and wanted to restart the nuclear program. The Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) beginning around 1999 expanded its laboratories and research activities and increased its overall funding levels. This expansion may have been in initial preparation for renewed nuclear weapons research, although documentary evidence of this has not been found, and this is the subject of continuing investigation by ISG.

Starting around 2000, the senior Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) and high-level Ba'ath Party official Dr. Khalid Ibrahim Sa'id began several small and relatively unsophisticated research initiatives that could be applied to nuclear weapons development. These initiatives did not in-and-of themselves constitute a resumption of the nuclear weapons program, but could have been useful in developing a weapons-relevant science base for the long-term. We do not yet have information indicating whether a higher government authority directed Sa'id to initiate this research and, regretfully, Dr. Said was killed on April 8th during the fall of Baghdad when the car he was riding in attempted to run a Coalition roadblock.

Despite evidence of Saddam's continued ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material. However, Iraq did take steps to preserve some technological capability from the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program."
 
Originally posted by SLClemens
This was worth 500 coalition and thousands upon thousands of Iraqi deaths? How terrible could it have been to allow the inspectors to finish their work, Iraqi obstinacy and all?

Yes, it unfortunately sometimes requires loss of life in war to save lives. How many people were dying daily because of Saddam? Weekly? Yearly? How many Iraqi lives should have been lost before removing Saddam?
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
Yes, it unfortunately sometimes requires loss of life in war to save lives. How many people were dying daily because of Saddam? Weekly? Yearly? How many Iraqi lives should have been lost before removing Saddam?

We don't know for sure, but it would not have been 500 coalition citizens and the numbers of Iraqis we've seen die as unwilling conscripts in the wrong place, collateral damage, and in civil disorder. Perhaps over a long time it would have amounted to more. We'll never know, and we'll only know in many years whether life turned out better for the average Iraqi.
 
Originally posted by SLClemens
We don't know for sure, but it would not have been 500 coalition citizens and the numbers of Iraqis we've seen die as unwilling conscripts in the wrong place, collateral damage, and in civil disorder. Perhaps over a long time it would have amounted to more. We'll never know, and we'll only know in many years whether life turned out better for the average Iraqi.

It's extremely doubtful that the number of fatalities will even come close to the claimed number of deaths under Saddam's rule. Those numbers range between 500,000 and 1 million.
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
It's extremely doubtful that the number of fatalities will even come close to the claimed number of deaths under Saddam's rule. Those numbers range between 500,000 and 1 million.

How many of those deaths (pick your estimate, they vary so much) happened after 1992?
 
Originally posted by SLClemens
Where is this from?

I'd highly recommend the following interview: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article4868.htm

This was worth 500 coalition and thousands upon thousands of Iraqi deaths? How terrible could it have been to allow the inspectors to finish their work, Iraqi obstinacy and all?
I suggest you ask the families of the people killed on September 11th how many Iraqis it would be worth. I'm sure you'd get a different answer to that question than if you asked me. But I'll answer it anyway. Yes, freedom from the threat of Iraq is worth whatever it takes. Let me remind you that if you do not agree with the policies of this country you have the right to relocate to a country who consistently conducts themselves according to your ideals. But let me guess why you stay? Economic security, the ability to say and do whatever you want, freedom from relgious persecution. The types of things you cannot get as readily in other countries.
 
Originally posted by Moi
I suggest you ask the families of the people killed on September 11th how many Iraqis it would be worth. I'm sure you'd get a different answer to that question than if you asked me. But I'll answer it anyway. Yes, freedom from the threat of Iraq is worth whatever it takes. Let me remind you that if you do not agree with the policies of this country you have the right to relocate to a country who consistently conducts themselves according to your ideals. But let me guess why you stay? Economic security, the ability to say and do whatever you want, freedom from relgious persecution. The types of things you cannot get as readily in other countries.

I've heard very different things from the families of those who lost loved ones in in 9/11. One thing I hear from them on which there seems to be unanimity is that they would like better answers from investigations into why it happened, with fuller disclosures of information.

9/11 would have happened regardless of whether Saddam was in power. Removing him will not prevent another one. What a terrible legacy to those massacred to use their deaths as justifcation for such an invasion.

I recently read of one story of a group of incredibly brave Americans doing something to help prevent terrorism that did not involve war. How nice to see it reported in the Arab press at: http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-01/18/article55.shtml . I'm confident that if people in the Middle East see more of this and less of our 500lbs bombs exploding there will be less anti-American terrorism in the future.
 
Originally posted by SLClemens
How many of those deaths (pick your estimate, they vary so much) happened after 1992?

Estimates are around 500,000, mostly children under the age of 5.

Saddam's refusal to abide by resolutions was rather costly. He put his personal well being above his entire country and cost the lives of an unimaginable amount of people.
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
Estimates are around 500,000, mostly children under the age of 5.

Saddam's refusal to abide by resolutions was rather costly. He put his personal well being above his entire country and cost the lives of an unimaginable amount of people.

So why not try to negotiate a deal whereby he allows human-rights inspectors in, in exchange for a lifting of sanctions. This many children were not dying before 1990 - though kurds were getting massacred and Iraqi and Iranian troops were committing mass suicide - but only after sanctions. Even if Saddam had spent all the money he did on palaces on childrens health the increase in deaths would have been horrific.

Yet, there are places in the world that have infant and child mortality rates just as high as Iraq has had over the past decade. Why are we not so interested in them?
 
Try reading about what Iraqi doctors had to say about who is responsible for the deaths.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/23/1053585696870.html

" Now free to speak, the doctors at two Baghdad hospitals, including Ibn al-Baladi, tell a very different story.

Along with parents of dead children, they said this week that Saddam turned the children's deaths into propaganda, notably by forcing hospitals to save babies' corpses to have them publicly paraded."

"Under the sanctions regime, "we had the ability to get all the drugs we needed", said Ibn al-Baladi's chief resident, Dr Hussein Shihab. "Instead of that, Saddam Hussein spent all the money on his military force and put all the fault on the USA. Yes, of course the sanctions hurt - but not too much, because we are a rich country and we have the ability to get everything we can by money. But instead, he spent it on his palaces.""

"Doctors said they were forced to refrigerate dead babies in hospital morgues until the authorities were ready to gather the little corpses for monthly parades in small coffins on the roofs of taxis for the benefit of Iraqi state television and visiting journalists"

"The parents were ordered to wail with grief - no matter how many weeks had passed since their babies had died - and to shout to the cameras that the sanctions had killed their children, the doctors said. Afterwards, the parents would be rewarded with food or money."

Yet, there are places in the world that have infant and child mortality rates just as high as Iraq has had over the past decade. Why are we not so interested in them?

Which countries? And are they directly attributable to their leaders failure to abide by resolutions?
 
Originally posted by SLClemens
I've heard very different things from the families of those who lost loved ones in in 9/11. One thing I hear from them on which there seems to be unanimity is that they would like better answers from investigations into why it happened, with fuller disclosures of information.

9/11 would have happened regardless of whether Saddam was in power. Removing him will not prevent another one. What a terrible legacy to those massacred to use their deaths as justification for such an invasion.

I recently read of one story of a group of incredibly brave Americans doing something to help prevent terrorism that did not involve war. How nice to see it reported in the Arab press at: http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-01/18/article55.shtml . I'm confident that if people in the Middle East see more of this and less of our 500lbs bombs exploding there will be less anti-American terrorism in the future.
You cannot know for certain that by being in power Saddam was not responsible for 9/11 nor can you know that by defeating his rule we can't prevent further attacks. Your statement about the legacy of those who were massacred being "justification for such an invasion" is just plain rhetoric. The legacy of these people is the hope and eventual freedom for more of the world. I certainly don't believe President Bush nor those who believe Iraq had to be dealt with sits down to dinner and says thanks that people died today. You may not agree with how President Bush and congress have chosen to deal with Iraq, but please don't presume that the majority of those who agreed to the solution wanted the outcome of this situation to be anything different than the protection and safety of their people and the belief that by getting rid of Saddam's government the Iraqi people would benefit as well. You are not a senator, nor congressman, nor are you President Bush. You cannot ever know why they did what they did and to continuously just challenge their reasons with no proof whatsover is simply not persuasive.

If the only reason that this war was declared is for oil, than you would have to blame all the people in this country who were in favor of it: citizens, senators, congressmen/women, the president, the vice president, all the other politicians who lobbied for it. I just dont' see that as realistic given that President Bush had never uttered one word about declaring war on Iraq until September 11th happened. And, if one of the results of the war is that his "cronies" get richer, that doesn't make the legitimate reasons above any less valid.
 
This map is from http://www.developmentgoals.org/Child_Mortality.htm#mapcm.

Child mortality rates in various countries are high for a variety of reasons. If we want to use our vast wealth to help to save children, as we should, wouldn't it make sense to start in the places where success will require the least amount of resources and provoke the least amount of hostility toward us?

There's no doubt that Saddam used dying children as propaganda. It was a big mistake to play into his hands at the expense of children when at the very least we could have shipped in massive amounts of badly needed medicines. Also, if we had made the plight of Iraq's children a reason for war instead of mythical WMDs we may have actually got some more world support.
 
Where is the data that shows that "there are places in the world that have infant and child mortality rates just as high as Iraq has had over the past decade."?

There's no doubt that Saddam used dying children as propaganda. It was a big mistake to play into his hands at the expense of children when at the very least we could have shipped in massive amounts of badly needed medicines.

They were given what they needed, he used the resources for his own gain instead of helping the children.

Also, if we had made the plight of Iraq's children a reason for war instead of mythical WMDs we may have actually got some more world support.

This was a reason, in addition to other atrocities and failures attributed to Saddam. It's been CONTINUALLY stated that we went to war for many reasons, yet you'll continue to harp on one reason to support your claims.

Spin, spin, spin! It doesn't help though!
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
Where is the data that shows that "there are places in the world that have infant and child mortality rates just as high as Iraq has had over the past decade."?



They were given what they needed, he used the resources for his own gain instead of helping the children.



This was a reason, in addition to other atrocities and failures attributed to Saddam. It's been CONTINUALLY stated that we went to war for many reasons, yet you'll continue to harp on one reason to support your claims.

Spin, spin, spin! It doesn't help though!

No matter what various reasons are spun, none look very valid. This one is no different.

As for child mortality rates - please do yourself a big favor and do some research on the plight of the world's poor. According to http://www.db.idpproject.org/Sites/...iewCountries/E1D4D23593E023E2C12569E500328FA0

"In government-controlled Iraq infant mortality increased from 47 to 108 deaths per 1000 live births, while child mortality (under five years of age) increased from 56 to 131 deaths per 1,000 live births between the 1984-89 and 1994-1999 periods"

Do I have to spoon-feed you country-by-country statistics for where else child mortality rates are around 131 or higher and infant mortality is at or greatly exceeds 107? Are you so ignorant of the rest of the world that you even have to ask for this? "Where is the data" for this? It's everywhere, for those who care to concern themselves with such matter.

Here, then, take a look at Africa: http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/Health/mortality/infant_mortality/africa.html
 
Do I have to spoon-feed you country-by-country statistics for where else child mortality rates are around 131 or higher and infant mortality is at or greatly exceeds 107? Are you so ignorant of the rest of the world that you even have to ask for this? "Where is the data" for this? It's everywhere, for those who care to concern themselves with such matter.

Apparently so, because I still haven't seen you back up your claims. You were questioning why we attacked Iraq and stated it wasn't because of the children - that other countries had the same rates. I've seen nothing yet that shows any of those rates directly attributable to their leaders failure to abide by resolutions - for 12 years - while the citizens continued to die as a result.

For arguments sake:

2 countries, both with citizens suffering and extrememly high death rates. One is while their leader thumbs his nose at the UN while building up his own wealth and resources. The second is due to poor conditions and resources. Which do you help first? No explaining or extra words needed. Just one word response needed "first" or "second".
 
Here's my problem with this debate... As soon as this war started, Bush-backers suddenly developed this huge compassion for the Iraqi people. Jim, not to call you out personally, but I never once heard you mention anything about how sorry you feel for the people of Iraq. However, as soon as the started, suddenly all the Republicans were saying how great it was that we were "liberating" them. All I'm saying is, all the supporters of the war are scared to come out and say that this whole thing was done with our best interests in mind. Actually, when the war first started, people were saying that, now all of a sudden, we're trying to look like the beautiful humanitarian saviours of the Middle East.

But let me guess why you stay? Economic security, the ability to say and do whatever you want, freedom from relgious persecution. The types of things you cannot get as readily in other countries.

True, but freedom of speech would be entirely pointless if it weren't for people speaking out against what the government is doing.
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
Apparently so, because I still haven't seen you back up your claims. You were questioning why we attacked Iraq and stated it wasn't because of the children - that other countries had the same rates. I've seen nothing yet that shows any of those rates directly attributable to their leaders failure to abide by resolutions - for 12 years - while the citizens continued to die as a result.

For arguments sake:

2 countries, both with citizens suffering and extrememly high death rates. One is while their leader thumbs his nose at the UN while building up his own wealth and resources. The second is due to poor conditions and resources. Which do you help first? No explaining or extra words needed. Just one word response needed "first" or "second".

The second. It would cost far, far less and the resources needed to deal with the first could be used to save far more lives in many more places that fall into the category of the second. Do you have any idea how many lives several hundred billion dollars worth of resources could save if poured into Africa, and what that would do for our reputation abroad?

And many world leaders enrich themselves at the expense of empoverished citizens. Why does someone have to be in breech of UN resolutions before we care about using our resources to fix this? Zimbabwe, Angola, and Uganda have been in breach of UN resolutions to withdraw forces from the Congo - why didn't / don't we invade them to save their children from greedy rulers? South Africa in the 80s was in breach of UN resolutions and its ruling class retained wealth that could have been used to feed the poor there (though I don't think its child mortality was quite as bad as Iraq's in teh mid-90s).
 
On behalf of the Iraqi citizens I thank you for not being the one to make the decisions! Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's have been saved from being slaughtered and starved because people don't think like you. Meanwhile, organizations are putting billions of dollars in aid together for the countries who aren't in imminent danger from their very own leader.
 
Here's my problem with this debate... As soon as this war started, Bush-backers suddenly developed this huge compassion for the Iraqi people. Jim, not to call you out personally, but I never once heard you mention anything about how sorry you feel for the people of Iraq.

How many times have we spoken in the past 5 years? Maybe 5 or 6? How many times since March of this year? Maybe twice? So how do you have the first clue where my stance was pertaining the Iraqi people before or after the occupation? All you know is what I've typed on these very message boards.

True, but freedom of speech would be entirely pointless if it weren't for people speaking out against what the government is doing.

Please tell me you don't seriously believe that's solely what freedom of speech is all about? It would be pointless, except for speaking out against government? :rolleyes:
 

Forum List

Back
Top