Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says

[Justify]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

The same applies to me, I too would fight with any means possible against a dictator if I lived in a dictatorship, but ... and that's a big but, I would not force anyone to fight with me of for me, it should be everyone's own personal choice if freedom is worth the pain of physical harm or even death that could fall upon you.

In this case the USA took away that choice from the Iraqi people and put them in harm's way without giving them any choice in the matter.

Oh yeah... That explains all those Iraqi's who were so excited to tear down Saddam's statues. And all those Iraqi's who were so excited to actually be able to vote for their own government. I totally see your point. It was totally against their will. Do you think those people actually felt safe from physical harm or death under Saddam? No, they were worried for their lives under Saddam. So your point about their personal choice if Freedom is worth death is pointless. Those people were more worried that we would not stay and finish the job this time than they were that we were actually coming to take Saddam out of power. The people fighting against us now in Iraq are not the Iraqi's but the terrorist who think they can destroy our will. I say it is better to fight the terrorist on their own turf than it is to fight them here.

[eusebioCBR]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Justify)

Oh yeah... That explains all those Iraqi's who were so excited to tear down Saddam's statues. And all those Iraqi's who were so excited to actually be able to vote for their own government. I totally see your point. It was totally against their will. Do you think those people actually felt safe from physical harm or death under Saddam? No, they were worried for their lives under Saddam. So your point about their personal choice if Freedom is worth death is pointless. Those people were more worried that we would not stay and finish the job this time than they were that we were actually coming to take Saddam out of power. The people fighting against us now in Iraq are not the Iraqi's but the terrorist who think they can destroy our will. I say it is better to fight the terrorist on their own turf than it is to fight them here.

WELL SAID

[metalchris25]

yup

[Prog]

I'm not a pro-war activist (do those really exist? I don't think anyone is "pro-war", just like people aren't pro-abortion/pro-death, they are "pro-choice"), but I will halfway answer your question Ralphy. Saddam murdered his own people, hurt his own people, and has proven to be dangerous in the past (for example, by invading Kuwait). So, in that sense, can one logical try to reason why Saddam didn't use WMDs if he had them? He is obviously a very illogical person, or at least he is to me.

And to Steve, you are very right. Russian Intelligence, Lord Butler's investigation in Britain, and our own intelligence concluded that Iraq had WMDs. And new evidence has even shown that Saddam's top generals thought he had WMDs. So, to say Bush lied is highly irresponsible, uniformed, and, well, hateful.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Prog)

Saddam murdered his own people, hurt his own people, and has proven to be dangerous in the past (for example, by invading Kuwait). So, in that sense, can one logical try to reason why Saddam didn't use WMDs if he had them? He is obviously a very illogical person, or at least he is to me..

Nonsense, you named the list yourself, murder, invasion, genocide, torture ... No atrocity was too extreme for Saddam to stay in power, expand his influence, wreak his havoc or vengeance upon his enemies. Is this all cruel and inhuman? Ofcourse, but not illogical, the logic is that he always did whatever needed to stay in power, he wasn't a leader of the empty threat, he had no remorse about doing the unthinkable whenever it was required in his (granted) twisted mind, but that was the logic of his actions. You could depend on him doing that, just like he attacked Israel with scuds in the first gulf war, so if he truly would have had any WMD's he would have used them.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Prog)

And to Steve, you are very right. Russian Intelligence, Lord Butler's investigation in Britain, and our own intelligence concluded that Iraq had WMDs. And new evidence has even shown that Saddam's top generals thought he had WMDs. So, to say Bush lied is highly irresponsible, uniformed, and, well, hateful.

Well, I'm not in uniform , but I'm calling b.llsh.t in regard to Bush's pre-war statements. By now it is obvious that the American government disregarded and even set aside any possible intelligence that stated that Iraq might not have WMD's and they did state that they did have them as a matter of certainty, in my opinion that makes you a liar.

[Prog]

Well, like I said, I was only halfway answering your proposition, and I stand by what I said and disagree with your rebuttal, but because opinions are just opinions, I'll leave that part at that. Now, is it not possible that Saddam had WMDs and hid them from the inspectors, and by the time we were getting ready to attack them, he didn't have time to recover them and use them? That sounds highly possible to me. Of course, this is only speculation, but it isn't a half-answer. :P

So, you think that the US may have disregarded any possible intelligence that Iraq didn't have any WMDs. That's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but let's look at the facts. Like I stated, we had intelligence that said Iraq did have WMDs, so were we to disregard that intelligence, which possibly outweighs intelligence that says they didn't?

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Prog)

Well, like I said, I was only halfway answering your proposition, and I stand by what I said and disagree with your rebuttal, but because opinions are just opinions, I'll leave that part at that. Now, is it not possible that Saddam had WMDs and hid them from the inspectors, and by the time we were getting ready to attack them, he didn't have time to recover them and use them? That sounds highly possible to me. Of course, this is only speculation, but it isn't a half-answer. :P

So, you think that the US may have disregarded any possible intelligence that Iraq didn't have any WMDs. That's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but let's look at the facts. Like I stated, we had intelligence that said Iraq did have WMDs, so were we to disregard that intelligence, which possibly outweighs intelligence that says they didn't?

Exactly. Just reiterate what you said... it wasn't just President Bush and the CIA who came to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Russia, Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, Ukraine, Bulgaria, South Korea, Japan, the NETHERLANDS... as well as some others. Therefore, to sit there and call Bush a liar for acting on what a conglomerate of nations concluded is rather biased and spiteful. A lot of nations contributed to the removal of Saddam Hussein, the United States just led the way. Perhaps the intelligence was flawed, but if the global community believed that Saddam Hussein was a greater threat than he actually was... I don't blame President Bush for using the resources that he had as Commander in Chief of the most powerful nation in the world. Like or not, the United States, as the lone superpower, should have an obligation to assist those in need throughout the world and to participate in establishing stability in problematic regions like the Middle East.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Prog)

Now, is it not possible that Saddam had WMDs and hid them from the inspectors, and by the time we were getting ready to attack them, he didn't have time to recover them and use them? That sounds highly possible to me. Of course, this is only speculation, but it isn't a half-answer. :P?

Well almost anything is possible, but is it likely? It's not like you didn't see the attack of the US coming, I personally remember the ultimate date for an attack being pronounced 2 months ahead of time on Dutch tv by military experts, so as I've stated before Saddam may have been cruel, but not a fool, he would also have known when he would have needed the WMD's. But let's assume for the sake of arguement he didn't have the time to recover them, how then did he find the time to ship them to Syria and what would he benefit from that, he must have realized that he would never survive an invasion as leader of Iraq. And if he didn't ship them to Syria, why haven't they been found. The only logical conclusion and I'm not the only one to have arrived at that, is that there were no WMD's (anymore).

Quote: (Originally Posted by Prog)

So, you think that the US may have disregarded any possible intelligence that Iraq didn't have any WMDs. That's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but let's look at the facts. Like I stated, we had intelligence that said Iraq did have WMDs, so were we to disregard that intelligence, which possibly outweighs intelligence that says they didn't?

I never said that they should have disregarded any evidence for WMD's, but they should have had a balanced view in regard to the evidence for and against, and there have been former members of the Bush-government as well as others in high security positions, who stated that Bush and his cronies were specifically looking (under a microscope) for anything that might connect Iraq with 9/11. In my humble opinion we have a case of finding the suspect first and than trying to tie him to the evidence and that's not balanced and I really wouldn't call it "intelligence".

And based on my conclusion in the first remark in this post, I find it rather troubling that 'intelligence' for WMD's outweighed that against them. It's like stating that before Christmas the evidence for Santa's existence outweighed that against his existence. And what troubles me even more is that if it was "faulty intelligence", it is brushed under the carpet with an attitude of 'oops, we did it again' (to quote miss Spears). "Sorry, slight mistake, we will make sure it never happens again, sorry for the thousands of casualties". I remember even Dubya beforehand stating that war should be a last resource, one of the few remarks of his I do agree with, but from his actions I never saw any support for that attitude. The whole Iraqi-war and especially the 'securing the peace'-part were more of an ''let's go the war now and worry about the consequences later"-attitude, in spite of many warnings, which predicted the situations that later did come into existence.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

Exactly. Just reiterate what you said... it wasn't just President Bush and the CIA who came to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Russia, Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, Ukraine, Bulgaria, South Korea, Japan, the NETHERLANDS... as well as some others. Therefore, to sit there and call Bush a liar for acting on what a conglomerate of nations concluded is rather biased and spiteful. A lot of nations contributed to the removal of Saddam Hussein, the United States just led the way. Perhaps the intelligence was flawed, but if the global community believed that Saddam Hussein was a greater threat than he actually was... .

Well I know for sure that The Netherlands did not have any independent research to the possibility of the existence or non-existence of WMD's in Iraq, and I bet that this was the case with most in the coalition of the 'willing'.

And let's not forget that there were those who doubted the conclusions beforehand, those who were regarded as cowards, France, Germany, Russia and maybe every other nation that did not participate in the coalition, which ofcourse numerically outnumber those who did participate heavily.

I do blame my government for taking part in these actions, based on false pretenses and without thoroughly researching the evidence against objectively.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

I don't blame President Bush for using the resources that he had as Commander in Chief of the most powerful nation in the world. Like or not, the United States, as the lone superpower, should have an obligation to assist those in need throughout the world and to participate in establishing stability in problematic regions like the Middle East.

Indeed with power does come responsibility (got this from Spider-man, I think), the responsibility to help those in need, but also the responsibility to use the power wisely. And the latter did not happen imho, just as I do not think that this war has increased the stability in the Middle East, it may have just done the opposite.

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

Well I know for sure that The Netherlands did not have any independent research to the possibility of the existence or non-existence of WMD's in Iraq, and I bet that this was the case with most in the coalition of the 'willing'.

And let's not forget that there were those who doubted the conclusions beforehand, those who were regarded as cowards, France, Germany, Russia and maybe every other nation that did not participate in the coalition, which ofcourse numerically outnumber those who did participate heavily.

I do blame my government for taking part in these actions, based on false pretenses and without thoroughly researching the evidence against objectively.




Indeed with power does come responsibility (got this from Spider-man, I think), the responsibility to help those in need, but also the responsibility to use the power wisely. And the latter did not happen imho, just as I do not think that this war has increased the stability in the Middle East, it may have just done the opposite.

The French (as well as the Germans), especially, had economic ties to Saddam Hussein... it's pretty obvious as to why they would oppose the war in Iraq. Vladimir Putin's intelligence told the U.S. that they thought that Hussein was developing WMDs. Nevertheless, the Russian's haven't really done anything to help the U.S. since World War II... so getting them to assist in Iraq would be rather tough. Them, as well as the Chinese, are the against the proposed U.N. sanctions against the nation of Iran. Go figure.

I think in time a free and democratic Iraq is better for the world. Like I've said in the past though... it's hard to fix such a problematic country or region overnight. Much of the insugency in Iraq is funded by Al Qaeda... and other foreign sources. It's not a real grassroots, Iraqi movement. Do you honestly think that Iraq would be better under Uday and Qusay Hussein? Overtime, I would think that Iraq and Iran would ally themselves against some common enemies in Israel, the United States, and Great Britain had Hussein (or his sons) been in power.