Question for Iraq war supporters

[RetiredGySgt]

stop your posing and respond to #275 with some of your highly tauted intellect.

I wouldn't respond to your idiotic content even if it had any truth to it. It is nothing more than your memorized talking points with no evidence to back it up.

 

[maineman]

I wouldn't respond to your idiotic content even if it had any truth to it. It is nothing more than your memorized talking points with no evidence to back it up.

Blix did not go back in Iraq in November of '02? That was NOT a major diplomatic victory for Bush? Do I really need to provide you links for that?

 

[doniston]

Your an ignorant moron, but then we already knew that didn't we?

what do you hsve available to disprove his point? Insults certainly don't do it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

what do you hsve available to disprove his point? Insults certainly don't do it.

Insults are all he understands, he wants to call me names, I too can play his silly game. As for any point he had, it all ends up with "Bush is to blame and is a liar" something he knows he can not prove, he has admitted as much, yet he continues to post his drivel like someone is suddenly going to forget he has no proof.

As for you? Have you taken your pills today to help with your senility?

 

[Warner]

I disagree. From the UN, we know that Saddam did in fact possess WMDs that as of this date have yet to be accounted for. It is also fact that the US sold dual-use precursors and material that could be used to manufacture WMDs.

Gunny,

Would you please stop with this "dual use" drivel?

Anthrax and other pathanagen and many other technologies transfered to Iraq in the mid-late 80's were clearly to be used to produce WMD's. In many cases they really have no other use, and even when they do have some other possible use it was clear what they were to be used for.

Denying this is just cheap amature lawyering and it is not fooling anyone. The point that the USA willingly supported Saddam's WMD program is undeniable. The fact that when he did produce and use these weapons the USA did nothing about it and continued to support the regime is likewise undeniable.

Please stop obfuscating the discussion with obvious BS and stick to your points which actually have some validity. You and everyone here will be better served if you would do so.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Gunny,

Would you please stop with this "dual use" drivel?

Anthrax and other pathanagen and many other technologies transfered to Iraq in the mid-late 80's were clearly to be used to produce WMD's. In many cases they really have no other use, and even when they do have some other possible use it was clear what they were to be used for.

Denying this is just cheap amature lawyering and it is not fooling anyone. The point that the USA willingly supported Saddam's WMD program is undeniable. The fact that when he did produce and use these weapons the USA did nothing about it and continued to support the regime is likewise undeniable.

Please stop obfuscating the discussion with obvious BS and stick to your points which actually have some validity. You and everyone here will be better served if you would do so.

Ya isn't just heart breaking when YOUR point fails because someone else has you by the short hairs, now your gonna resort to that " gee stop that cause it makes me cry " Ploy.

 

[Warner]

Ya isn't just heart breaking when YOUR point fails because someone else has you by the short hairs, now your gonna resort to that " gee stop that cause it makes me cry " Ploy.

Say what?

Gunny's argument is so clearly false that even a child can see it. I'm just asking him to please not use childish debate tactics to derail the conversation when his arguments are clearly false.

My points did not fail. Name one point I've made in this thread that failed. You can't! All you can do is throw up a smoke screen to try to shut down the discussion rather than actually addressing the topic in an open and honest manner.

 

[Gunny]

Good post Gunny.

I'll accept most of what you just said. But that is NOT what we were told by the Bush administration. If what you said were the facts, the American people were lied to as we were sold the war. You said "it was logical to assume" in one of your most important points, and you know what happens when you assume...

All of this treats whether a sufficient threat existed, that the US had to do something about. What is debated less frequently, but should be debated more, is, if we accept the situation as GunnyL described it just now, which is NOT what we were told by the Bush administration, WHAT SHOULD WE HAVE DONE ABOUT IT?

There seems to be some presumption that the truth, which Gunny is much closer to than what we were told by Bush & Co., justified going to war. The situation Gunny described clearly did not justify going to war, by default. There are many other options, short of going to war. We just had Hans Blix and a team of UN inspectors go through in October 2002, so we knew we could put inspectors back in. That would eliminate the threat from WMD, and it would do it much cheaper in $ and lives than taking over the whole nation. There were good reasons why Bush I did NOT go on into Baghdad, and they were still valid in 2003.

Fighting smart is achieving your objective at a low cost to yourself, provided you've determined the objective is worth achieving. Eliminating Iraq's WMD threat was achievable at a much lower cost, and those options were not pursued. This leads me to believe, and I do not think the Bush admin are total idiots I know they have some very smart people, it leads me to believe the real objective was not to neutralize the WMD threat. We did not have to go to war, spend a half trillion dollars, lose over 4,000 dead, 30,000 wounded half of which cannot return to combat status.

I'm not sure where my argument differs much from what you say you were told. They are basic facts that have been widely known for years.

I understand the reasons we did not go into Baghdad in 91, and I am aware they were as relevant in 2003 as they were in 91. You haven't seen me argue that it is my position that invading Iraq was the right decision, and you won't. I in fact did not agree with the decision.

That does not negate the justification for removing Saddam from power. It just means I believe Saddam was the lesser of two evils.

We spent 12+ years playing a shell game with Saddam and WMDs. If he had nothing to hide, he was all the more a dumbass for running such a bluff.

Sometimes decisions are made on assumptions based on far less circumstantial evidence. The process of logical conclusion is right more often than wrong.

And we'll just have to agree to disagree because IMO, Saddam's action did lead to the conclusion that use of force was justified.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny,

Would you please stop with this "dual use" drivel?

Anthrax and other pathanagen and many other technologies transfered to Iraq in the mid-late 80's were clearly to be used to produce WMD's. In many cases they really have no other use, and even when they do have some other possible use it was clear what they were to be used for.

Denying this is just cheap amature lawyering and it is not fooling anyone. The point that the USA willingly supported Saddam's WMD program is undeniable. The fact that when he did produce and use these weapons the USA did nothing about it and continued to support the regime is likewise undeniable.

Please stop obfuscating the discussion with obvious BS and stick to your points which actually have some validity. You and everyone here will be better served if you would do so.

You CAN read, right? I notice you conveniently left my comment to the effect that we probably knew what Saddam was going to use the stuff for.

That does not negate the fact that it was provided officially as dual-use; therefore, it is not drivel. That as opposed to your opinion that we in fact did know.

 

[Gunny]

Say what?

Gunny's argument is so clearly false that even a child can see it. I'm just asking him to please not use childish debate tactics to derail the conversation when his arguments are clearly false.

My points did not fail. Name one point I've made in this thread that failed. You can't! All you can do is throw up a smoke screen to try to shut down the discussion rather than actually addressing the topic in an open and honest manner.

I am addressing it in an open and honest manner. You, on the other hand, are addressing it from a one-sided point of view. I have provided facts. You don't like them? Sorry.

Kind of hard for my "argument" to be false when I haven't really taken a stance on the issue, isn't it? That would be one failed point.

Your point also fails because you are presenting your opinion as absolute fact.

 

[finebead]

I'm not sure where my argument differs much from what you say you were told. They are basic facts that have been widely known for years.

I understand the reasons we did not go into Baghdad in 91, and I am aware they were as relevant in 2003 as they were in 91. You haven't seen me argue that it is my position that invading Iraq was the right decision, and you won't. I in fact did not agree with the decision.

That does not negate the justification for removing Saddam from power. It just means I believe Saddam was the lesser of two evils.

We spent 12+ years playing a shell game with Saddam and WMDs. If he had nothing to hide, he was all the more a dumbass for running such a bluff.

Sometimes decisions are made on assumptions based on far less circumstantial evidence. The process of logical conclusion is right more often than wrong.

And we'll just have to agree to disagree because IMO, Saddam's action did lead to the conclusion that use of force was justified.

I'm curious, why did you disagree?

Beyond that, your statement differed dramatically from what we were told. Compare your statement to Colin Powell's presentation to the UN, where he showed pictures of the chemical weapons labs.

But many on the inside knew that Iraq did not have WMD. I have presented press clips with Colin Powell stating in 2001 that Iraq did not have WMD and could not even mount a conventional attack on their neighbors. I presented an interview in Time magazine with Scott Ritter, former head of UNSCOM weapons inspection in Iraq from 91-98, and in 2002 he said Iraq had no WMD, and we had the technology to detect if he brought any into the country. I presented a clip from John Keisling, 20 year diplomat that resigned prior to the war and complained the intelligence was manipulated the worst since Vietnam. I presented a White House press briefing transcript with Ari Flescher, Bush's press secretary, and in early 2003, Helen Thomas from the White House press corp TOLD him, she didn't ask him, she TOLD him there was no imminent threat, a point with which HE DISAGREED. But Helen Thomas was right. Now if a white house correspondent can get that information, the presidents people knew what really was going on.

People on the inside knew there was no case for going to war, and some of them said so. The president just wouldn't listen.

All we had to do was put the inspectors back in to neutralize the WMD threat, and we could do that because we had done it in Nov. 2002.

What would that have cost, compared to the war and the occupation? Little of nothing.

Strategically, for our half trillion dollars, 4,000 dead, 30,000 wounded, what have we gained that re-inserting the inspectors would not have accomplished? That's the question. What did we gain, and what has it cost so far, and what will it cost in the future? All I see is the 30 year oil production agreement with Exxon, Shell, and BP to produce Iraqi oil, and contracts with the defense contractors to rebuild all the equipment we lost or just wore out idling in the sand.

 

[Gunny]

I'm curious, why did you disagree?

Beyond that, your statement differed dramatically from what we were told. Compare your statement to Colin Powell's presentation to the UN, where he showed pictures of the chemical weapons labs.

But many on the inside knew that Iraq did not have WMD. I have presented press clips with Colin Powell stating in 2001 that Iraq did not have WMD and could not even mount a conventional attack on their neighbors. I presented an interview in Time magazine with Scott Ritter, former head of UNSCOM weapons inspection in Iraq from 91-98, and in 2002 he said Iraq had no WMD, and we had the technology to detect if he brought any into the country. I presented a clip from John Keisling, 20 year diplomat that resigned prior to the war and complained the intelligence was manipulated the worst since Vietnam. I presented a White House press briefing transcript with Ari Flescher, Bush's press secretary, and in early 2003, Helen Thomas from the White House press corp TOLD him, she didn't ask him, she TOLD him there was no imminent threat, a point with which HE DISAGREED. But Helen Thomas was right. Now if a white house correspondent can get that information, the presidents people knew what really was going on.

People on the inside knew there was no case for going to war, and some of them said so. The president just wouldn't listen.

Besides Powell, I see nothing but media opinions in your references, and a UNSCOM weapons inspector who I wuoldn't trust to tell me I don't have any hair without looking in the mirror.

That in contrast to the fact that Saddam was known to manufacture, posess and use WMDs, and to date is accountable to the UN for bio and chemical weapons/components that are not accounted for.

Hindsight is 20/20. When the info at the time was varied and conflicting, my bet is going to be on the side of caution and KNOWN fact.

All we had to do was put the inspectors back in to neutralize the WMD threat, and we could do that because we had done it in Nov. 2002.

What would that have cost, compared to the war and the occupation? Little of nothing.

As I stated before, weapons inspectors had been getting the runaround for a dozen years. Why would one assume any future attempt would be any different? What did we have to show for their previous efforts? That there were no WMDs/manufacturing capabilities where Saddam let them look.

Strategically, for our half trillion dollars, 4,000 dead, 30,000 wounded, what have we gained that re-inserting the inspectors would not have accomplished? That's the question. What did we gain, and what has it cost so far, and what will it cost in the future? All I see is the 30 year oil production agreement with Exxon, Shell, and BP to produce Iraqi oil, and contracts with the defense contractors to rebuild all the equipment we lost or just wore out idling in the sand.

This is a separate topic, IMO. The WMDs would fall under justification for war. Overall strategic gain/loss would be the big picture of which WMDs are a factor.

I don't know that we have gained anything more than what was predicted in 91 we would. A civil war amongst historical tribal rivals and a struggle for control of the Middle East between Shia and Sunni extremists.

As previously stated, looking at the overall big picture, I would not have made the decsion to invade. Saddam, if nothing else, stood between the rival factions and kept the balance of power off kilter.

At the same time, how long did we babysit? He was already manipulating France's vote in the UN with promises of future oil contracts, and we've already seen France was not above turning around and purchasing votes itself. He wasn't a problem that was just going to go away.

 

[finebead]

Besides Powell, I see nothing but media opinions in your references, and a UNSCOM weapons inspector who I wuoldn't trust to tell me I don't have any hair without looking in the mirror.

Nothing but media opinions? That's wrong. Besides Powell, John Keisling was a state department diplomat who'd served 20 years, mostly in the middle east. He was on the inside of the govt. and was not media. Scott Ritter was the lead UNSCOM inspector, was a 12 year US marine with experience with unconventional weapons. He was not media. Helen Thomas was media, that's 1 out of 4. The statement that "besides Powell, I see nothing but media opinions" is clearly false.

That in contrast to the fact that Saddam was known to manufacture, posess and use WMDs, and to date is accountable to the UN for bio and chemical weapons/components that are not accounted for.

Iraq manufactured WMD in the late 80's and he certainly was not known to be manufacturing anything at the time of the invasion. Same for use of WMD, that was a decade old info and not relevant to the invasion. As far as unaccounted for materials, they were judged so small in 1998 when the UNSCOM team left, that they judged that Iraq had been "effectively disarmed of WMD".

Hindsight is 20/20. When the info at the time was varied and conflicting, my bet is going to be on the side of caution and KNOWN fact.

What were the known facts? Iraq's manufacture and use of WMD over a decade before is irrelevant to a decision to invade, unless we knew he had rebuilt his manufacturing capability, which we did not know. As far as material unaccounted for, there was not much of it, as reported by the UNSCOM team in 1998.

What you have omitted is any analysis on the cost of executing the two plans, invade or insert inspectors which we had just done.

As I stated before, weapons inspectors had been getting the runaround for a dozen years. Why would one assume any future attempt would be any different? What did we have to show for their previous efforts? That there were no WMDs/manufacturing capabilities where Saddam let them look.

The UNSCOM team reported they had difficulty getting into the sites they wanted to inspect, but eventually they got in. What we had to show for it was a disarmed Iraq, at a cost of 1,000 full time inspectors in Iraq, and no killing, none. There was no WMD threat from Iraq. That's what we got. Was it frustrating? Yes. Was it relatively cheap and effective. Yes.

This is a separate topic, IMO. The WMDs would fall under justification for war. Overall strategic gain/loss would be the big picture of which WMDs are a factor.

I don't know that we have gained anything more than what was predicted in 91 we would. A civil war amongst historical tribal rivals and a struggle for control of the Middle East between Shia and Sunni extremists.

As previously stated, looking at the overall big picture, I would not have made the decsion to invade. Saddam, if nothing else, stood between the rival factions and kept the balance of power off kilter.

At the same time, how long did we babysit? He was already manipulating France's vote in the UN with promises of future oil contracts, and we've already seen France was not above turning around and purchasing votes itself. He wasn't a problem that was just going to go away.

Correct. We did not gain anything strategically, except control of oil production by Exxon, BP and Shell for the next 30 years, and a lot of worn out equipment that will let the MIC CEO's grow their business for the next decade or two. But the price of purchasing that option on Iraqi oil has turned out to be very high because the planners of the war were incompetent. At the time of the invasion, there was no phase 4 plan for the occupation.

Invading was the wrong decision, and at least the two of us know it, in addition to the majority of Americans.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Read my post, #265, just above. Mr. Kiesling, 20 yr. diplomat, resigned in protest, stating the intel was "manipulated". You did not repond to that. When insiders say the intel was manipulated, he is telling us the ADMINISTRATION IS LYING TO US.

One man's statement means the administration was lying?
Can you show that this man was not wrong, or, perhaps, laying a false claim?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Scott Ritter was right, John Kiesling was right, Colin Powell was right in 2001,

How do you know this?

And... what happened to the WMDs we knew were there in 1998?

 

[Dr Grump]

And... what happened to the WMDs we knew were there in 1998?

What do you think happened to them?

 

[MasterChief]

I read somewhere that he got rid of them but played cat and mouse with the international inspectors so that he appeared strong to Iran. Did anyone else hear that.

 

[maineman]

I read somewhere that he got rid of them but played cat and mouse with the international inspectors so that he appeared strong to Iran. Did anyone else hear that.

it would certainly make sense. the concept of "street cred" would make it such that appearing tough to the US would be more important than actually possessing stockpiles of WMD's....

it was about being the tough guy in THAT neighborhood...not necessarily being tough enough to go after us.

 

[finebead]

How do you know this?

And... what happened to the WMDs we knew were there in 1998?

How do I know it, because what they said was true, was verified by the Kaye and Duelfer reports after the war.

What happened to the WMD's from 1998? First, there was material that was not accounted for when the inspectors left, but there was not the documented existence of WMD's that we just left behind. And some of those WMD left over from 1991 were found, about 500 old artillery shells. But that is not what we said we were going to go to war over.

 

[Gunny]

How do I know it, because what they said was true, was verified by the Kaye and Duelfer reports after the war.

What happened to the WMD's from 1998? First, there was material that was not accounted for when the inspectors left, but there was not the documented existence of WMD's that we just left behind. And some of those WMD left over from 1991 were found, about 500 old artillery shells. But that is not what we said we were going to go to war over.

Which does not answer the question of where the WMDs/WMD components Saddam was factually known to possess went. THAT is what we went to war over.

They were KNOWN to exist and be in his possession. Your argument that because they could not be found they do not exist is not logical.

I suppose one can assume by your post that "verified after the war" is your preferrable option to them being verified by being dropped on some unsuspecting people's heads resulting in another Halabja?

There's a thread in the military forum discussing the fact that the US government has pinpointed Gulf War Syndrome to the blowing of an unmarked chemical weapons depot. Where does THAT fit in to "no WMD's"?

All of this could have been avoided had Saddam simply complied with UN inspectors and allowed them to look where they wanted, and accounted for the weapons/components that were missing. He did not.

People are judged guilty every day in this nation on far less circumstantial evidence. Monday morning quarterbacking does not negate the facts at the time, nor does it account for missing WMDs/WMD components.

As far as your references above that you made comment on that my statement was clearly false ... the fact is, you presented opinions as facts; whether or not those opinions were presented as media sourced.

Of the ones presented, the only one I consider credible is Powell's. I most certainly do not and will not accept the opinions of anyone representing the UN. Neither does a state department diplomat (spelled: bureaucrat) impress me much.

That against the overwhelming presumption of guilt held by most of the world at that time.

Y'know, if you don't have a gun but reach inside your pocket when told to freeze, a cop WILL shoot you.