WMD's: Do They Matter?

[Bern80]

There are many threads on this board debating whether or not Saddam has/had/attempted to get/had a program for/has hidden or hidden in other countries WMD.

Sure WMD's pose a serious threat in the wrong hands and if Saddam had them it certainly makes our case against him stronger.

The one thing I would crticize Bush for is using WMD's as the excuse to go to war. There were plenty of other provable reasons to remove Saddam from power. The most obvious being human rights violations. I think this would have sold better to the public.

My point is does it matter what reason Bush gave us for going to war as long as what you personally feel needs to be done is done? In my case that would be putting the Iraqi people on a road toward freedom and removing Saddam from power.

 

[wonderwench]

The WMDs were only part of the justification for the war - and the liberal-biased media entities have played this up.

The major justification for the war involves Saddam's violation of the settlement of the 1991 Gulf War. Umpteen UN resolutions and 12 years later - it still could not be confirmed that he had complied.

The existence of plans for and capabilities to produce WMDs is a violation of that agreement. The U.S., as a party to the settlement, has every right to see that it is enforce. The UN (an obsolete organization which currently serves the dual purpose of enabling former world powers hold onto a shadow of their former glory, ie France, and legitamizing totalitarian regimes by making them peers of democracies (too numerous to name)) failed to enforce its own resolutions. They had their chance and they muffed it.

So, the Coalition of the Willing had to do the job instead.

 

[RightyRightOn]

They don't matter to me. There are so many good reasons for us to be in Iraq. WMDs are near the bottom of my list.

Saddam did have quite a long time to hide them.

Consider the possibility that WMD's are found before the election (a real possibility). That would make Dean and many others look pretty bad.

 

[Bullypulpit]

...The US military team sent in to find WMD's have been scattered to the four winds and their civilian head has resigned, I think Howdy's given up on the WMD angle. He's been caught in so many lies on that one that he's crawdaddin' away from it as fast as he can anyways.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
...The US military team sent in to find WMD's have been scattered to the four winds and their civilian head has resigned, I think Howdy's given up on the WMD angle. He's been caught in so many lies on that one that he's crawdaddin' away from it as fast as he can anyways.

Caught in so many lies? Can you please tell us what lies you speak of? And no, not what you think are lies, but what has been proven to be an outright lie by Bush.

 

[5.10 leader]

I think it should be considered that WMD's have, in fact, been found.

Admittedly they were obselete, remnants of the Iran/Iraq war. But if it has taken this long to find 25year old weapons who's to say that usable WMD's aren't buried. There is one hell of a lot of desert in which to hide a comparatively small arms cache.

And I agree with WW et al, whether or not WMD's exist, that was only part of the reason for taking action against Iraq.

Saddam deserves everything he gets. It is unfortunate, of course, that innocent people are casualties of the action, but that is inevitable. I just cannot understand the sympathy that is being generated for the tyrant by the liberal media in this country.

 

[sss]

Originally posted by wonderwench
The WMDs were only part of the justification for the war - and the liberal-biased media entities have played this up.

The major justification for the war involves Saddam's violation of the settlement of the 1991 Gulf War. Umpteen UN resolutions and 12 years later - it still could not be confirmed that he had complied.

The existence of plans for and capabilities to produce WMDs is a violation of that agreement. The U.S., as a party to the settlement, has every right to see that it is enforce. The UN (an obsolete organization which currently serves the dual purpose of enabling former world powers hold onto a shadow of their former glory, ie France, and legitamizing totalitarian regimes by making them peers of democracies (too numerous to name)) failed to enforce its own resolutions. They had their chance and they muffed it.

So, the Coalition of the Willing had to do the job instead.

Bush only gave 5 reasons for going to war with Iraq

"PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving"

Coalition of the Willing
Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

lmfao

 

[bamthin]

I think to, to some Americans, the lack of WMD or clear Bin Laden/Al-Queda >> Saddam links are of no consequence after the fact. These people would have sent their own sons/daughters to Iraq to be killed to remove Saddam for humanitarian reasons alone.

But you need to expand your view a little and consider the people that really needed more than just Saddam's human rights record as a reason to lose their life or their loved one's life. Many nations are in breach of UN resolutions. There are many tyrants in the world who torture and murder anyone who rises up against them. People needed to have other reasons to believe a full scale military incursion was required.

Many were swayed by the specter of WMD in the hands of the terrorists that flew planes into the WTC on September 11. The images of the crumbling buildings were still fresh in their minds and they were vulnerable to being misled. After the dust of Iraq settled and the proof they were expecting to see, the stockpiles of recently produced WMD and the definitive evidence that Saddam was coordinating his efforts with Al-Queda to bring death and destruction to the US mainland, did not materialize, the anger and mistrust begin to well, like bile in the throat, of the "other" Americans. These are the Americans who despise war. They know how brutal it is and how much pain and suffering it brings to innocent people. They have a conscience about it. They know that it is their tax dollars that are littering Iraq with unexploded cluster weapons, that will kill and and dismember innocent children. It is their tax dollars spreading depleted uranium all over Iraqi neighborhoods, where children will play someday.

This large group of people are waiting patiently for the proof that what they were told was the truth and that all the sacrifices that were made were worth it. Removing a dictator is not enough for them.

Perhaps, if Bush just came out and reminded the people of Saddam's human rights record before the war and did not put so much emphasis on WMD and Al-Queda links, these people may have been swayed. In this scenario, they would have the full reasons with no deception and could then weigh the options. But Bush chose to focus on the WMD and Al-Queda connections to whip up support from the squeamish.

This is manipulation and exploitation in the highest order. These people were deceived and they are not happy about it. In their mind, Saddam was a neutered leader crippled by a decade of sanctions. Saddam was being inspected again and no threat to the US. They trusted Bush that there was much more going on in Iraq than what common sense and common knowledge told them. They TRUSTED Bush to do the right thing and prove he was right later.


I hope this gives you a view from the other side.


-Bam

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by bamthin
I think to, to some Americans, the lack of WMD or clear Bin Laden/Al-Queda >> Saddam links are of no consequence after the fact. These people would have sent their own sons/daughters to Iraq to be killed to remove Saddam for humanitarian reasons alone.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is about the most ludicrous statement I have ever heard. First, of all parents don't send their kids to war, the gov't does. Second, even if they could do you honestly think those parents believe their children were sent there to be killed? Finally, don't you think removeing Saddam for humanitarian reasons is more honorable than on the basis of WMD.

__________________________________________________
But you need to expand your view a little and consider the people that really needed more than just Saddam's human rights record as a reason to lose their life or their loved one's life. Many nations are in breach of UN resolutions. There are many tyrants in the world who torture and murder anyone who rises up against them. People needed to have other reasons to believe a full scale military incursion was required.

After the dust of Iraq settled and the proof they were expecting to see, the stockpiles of recently produced WMD and the definitive evidence that Saddam was coordinating his efforts with Al-Queda to bring death and destruction to the US mainland, did not materialize, the anger and mistrust begin to well, like bile in the throat, of the "other" Americans. These are the Americans who despise war. They know how brutal it is and how much pain and suffering it brings to innocent people. They have a conscience about it. They know that it is their tax dollars that are littering Iraq with unexploded cluster weapons, that will kill and and dismember innocent children. It is their tax dollars spreading depleted uranium all over Iraqi neighborhoods, where children will play someday.
___________________________________________________

And that justifies having to live in fear and without freedom while we ifinitatley negotiate and make resolutions so you can sleep at night w/o any blood on your hands. While Saddam continues to silence those who disagree w/ in which case the blood realy would be on your hands. Meanwhile the innocent Iraqi's still don't have there freedom, but at least their alive, right? A wiser man than I once said a life w/o freedom isn't a life at all.
___________________________________________________

This large group of people are waiting patiently for the proof that what they were told was the truth and that all the sacrifices that were made were worth it. Removing a dictator is not enough for them.
___________________________________________________

I find this statement a little disconcerting. I always thougt human rights violations was all it took for liberal and that it was at the top of their list when it came to reasons for US intervention. You seem to be placing it at the bottom.
____________________________________________________

Perhaps, if Bush just came out and reminded the people of Saddam's human rights record before the war and did not put so much emphasis on WMD and Al-Queda links, these people may have been swayed. In this scenario, they would have the full reasons with no deception and could then weigh the options. But Bush chose to focus on the WMD and Al-Queda connections to whip up support from the squeamish.
___________________________________________________

Considerable attention was given to is HR violations, yet are wonderful media chose to focus on the WMD case.


___________________________________________________
This is manipulation and exploitation in the highest order. These people were deceived and they are not happy about it. In their mind, Saddam was a neutered leader crippled by a decade of sanctions.
____________________________________________________

They would be wrong. Whether or not intel on WMD was accurate, Bush believed it to be accurate and acted on it.
____________________________________________________

Saddam was being inspected again and no threat to the US.
____________________________________________________

I thought just being a threat to Iraq was enough.
____________________________________________________

They trusted Bush that there was much more going on in Iraq than what common sense and common knowledge told them. They TRUSTED Bush to do the right thing and prove he was right later.
____________________________________________________

Why did there have to be more than what we already know in the way of Human rights violations for these people you speak of to accept that Saddam needed to be removed from power. Bush did do the right thing and has proved it because many Iraqi's no longer have to live in fear.
____________________________________________________

 

[Bern80]

I still haven't figured out to seperate quotes so i did the best i could. If someone could give me hand that woudl be great.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Bern, is your lengthy post (no disrespect, it was just rather long) really trying to say 'the end justifies the means'?

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Bern, is your lengthy post (no disrespect, it was just rather long) really trying to say 'the end justifies the means'?

Actually, no. The means is how you solve a problem assuming there is more than one way to do it. If the end justified the means it would be okay to take our take negotiating Saddam out of Iraq no matter how long it takes.

What I am saying is that most of us what freedom for the people of Iraq and the removal of Saddam from power. We all have various different reasons why we think this should happen (i.e some think he has WMD, some against his Human Rights Violations and some believe in his possible link to terrorism, links to terrorism, etc.) What i am saying is if we all want the same thing for the people of that country do the reasons for doing, whether correct, based on false info or whatever, really matter?

As far as the post above, I believe Bam made some truly asanine points and i felt like telling him so.


P. S. Do you know how to break apart quotes so you can respond to them piece by piece. I know there is a better way to do it then they way i did.

 

[eric]

Bern,

Use your mouse to select the text you want to quote. Then hit the quote button and paste the text into the box. I hope this helps, if not just let me know !

By the way I would like to say that it is nice to have you here, you seem to be a good person !

 

[Aquarian]

bravo bam! Except for maybe going a little to far with the 'sending them off to die' part I think that is a very well stated peek into the views from that side. The world is better off with Saddam out of power, or will be when the dust settles, I think. Just have a problem with the way it happened. If I had an alternate solution that was better than either war or continued sanctions it would be worse but as it is all I have is a heartfelt conviction that it could have been handled better. Now just 13 more evil dictators to dethrone (number made up but I think there are that many out there as bad as saddam, seem to remember reading somewhere...)

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by Aquarian
[/B]Saddam out of power, or will be when the dust settles, I think. Just have a problem with the way it happened.

What other way could it have happened? Do you honestly believe their might've been a way to remove Saddam w/o the use of force?

 

[ANYONE-BUT-BUSH]

IF WMD ARE NOT FOUND BUSH WILL HAVE SOME PLANTED
ANYHOW! JUST LIKE THAT B@LL$HIT JESSICA LINCH STORY! THE WAR WAS ABOUT ONE THING AN ONE THING ONLY OIL! OIL! OIL! THINK ABOUT IT! IF IT WAS ABOUT ANY THING ELSE DONT U THINK WE'D BE GOING TO NORTH KOREA , BUT THERES NO OIL THERE!

 

[Bern80]

ooookay,
I guess I didn't think there was anybody left who actually believed that, but I'll bite. What evidence is there that this is about oil? If this was really about oil, there are about a hundred easier ways to get it then the way we are going about it.

Bush will have some planted?! I know you're a liberal and rationality is not in your vocabulary, but could ya maybe give it a try anyway. If still feel the need to spout such drivel at least have some form of backing for it.

Perhaps you should go say that to Jessica Lynch's face.

None of what you say makes one iota of sense. Iraq will probably beg us to buy their oil once everything is up and running because they will desperately need the money to kick start their economy. get with the program please and attempt to think before you speak.

Seriously though, You, me or anybody else is not going to convince anybody of anything if all you can do is post outrageous, baseless statements. You will come off as a lot more credible around here if you can actually make a case for what you say.

 

[nbdysfu]

Did anyone else find it odd that the name of the metal dealer which found the Iraqi yellowcake in Germany was named Jewo'metaal? Is that a little suspicious?:rotflmao:

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by ANYONE-BUT-BUSH
IF WMD ARE NOT FOUND BUSH WILL HAVE SOME PLANTED
ANYHOW! JUST LIKE THAT B@LL$HIT JESSICA LINCH STORY! THE WAR WAS ABOUT ONE THING AN ONE THING ONLY OIL! OIL! OIL! THINK ABOUT IT! IF IT WAS ABOUT ANY THING ELSE DONT U THINK WE'D BE GOING TO NORTH KOREA , BUT THERES NO OIL THERE!

All caps. Can't spell. Doesn't make a bit of sense. Can we expect Mommy to cancel your account when she finds out?

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by Aquarian
bravo bam! Except for maybe going a little to far with the 'sending them off to die' part I think that is a very well stated peek into the views from that side. The world is better off with Saddam out of power, or will be when the dust settles, I think. Just have a problem with the way it happened. If I had an alternate solution that was better than either war or continued sanctions it would be worse but as it is all I have is a heartfelt conviction that it could have been handled better. Now just 13 more evil dictators to dethrone (number made up but I think there are that many out there as bad as saddam, seem to remember reading somewhere...)

Thanks Aquarian. The "sending them off to die" was rhetorical, but, if you think about it, very true. Supporters of Bush and the human rights justification to oust Saddam do, in a manner of speaking, send people to die in Iraq. Here's how: This is a government by the people and for the people. We elect leaders and trust them to do the proper things. If they aren't doing the proper things, we protest or we remove our support for the thing the president is doing that we disagree with.

The people who support the Iraq war on humanitarian reasons alone are actually signing off on sending US troops to Iraq where they quite possibly will be killed. I am assuming that, since their convictions are strong enough to allow other people's children to go there and possibly die, that they would also send their own children there as well (less they be cowardly hypocrites).

In my opinion, if a person is not willing to have their brother/sister/child, or themselves for that matter, die in Iraq to build a democracy there, they should be against the war.

This is an important point in my mind because I feel many people would be more accepting of losing their son or daughter in Iraq if the cause was different. If Saddam was a credible threat to the US or if he was involved in 9/11 in some way for example.

The initial post here was "Did it really matter if there was WMD?" and I believe, if you put in that perspective, it creates a more compelling argument that, for some, it really does matter if there is WMD.

-Bam