] all over the place. People seize on "no evidence of WMD
] stockpiles", and ignore everything else he said, such as the
] fact that he still thought the war was a good idea, and that
] it was still essential to keep looking, and that just because
] we haven't found stockpiles, does not mean that they didn't
] exist. It *was* confirmed by the U.N. that Iraq at one point
] had over 8000 liters of anthrax, and multiple tons of VX, but
] it's still uncertain as to just what exactly happened to those
] stockpiles.

I agree. I also watched him on Frontline the day before he resigned saying backpedeling like no tomorrow.

I think we can both say Iraq has had WMD. Not only the ones we gave him, but has the sought them as well. However unless new WMD's have been made since 1994, none of them are still weaponizable. Scientific American had an article on that last month. What happened to though weapons, while interesting to know, doesn't necessitate a war when we are lied to and told Iraq can launch WMD on 45 minutes notice. That what Bush said, and that was a lie.

Acidus wrote:
] What happened to though weapons, while interesting to
] know, doesn't necessitate a war when we are lied to and told
] Iraq can launch WMD on 45 minutes notice. That what Bush said,
] and that was a lie.

Well, perhaps we're disagreeing on what "a lie" is. When I say that someone is lying, I mean that someone knew one thing as fact, but deliberately distorted or falsified what they said in order to say something different than what they knew as truth.

On the other hand, a case could be made for "a lie" being a statement that though you believe it to be true when you say it, it is later found out that what you said was not true. Personally, I don't call that a deliberate lie, I call that being mistaken.

For example, in your meme, you said that Bush claimed Iraq could launch WMD on 45 minutes notice. In actuality though, Bush didn't say that, Blair did:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/29/MNG8F4K9D81.DTL

So, since your meme was incorrect, should I go around saying that Acidus lied?

] So, since your meme was incorrect, should I go around saying
] that Acidus lied?

Good point. I hope you know I am not misrepresenting things I know to be false :-).

Lets chill and stop splitting hairs on this one. I think we can both agree that Bush while not using Blair's "45 minutes" words exactly, certainly lead people to believe that Iraq could launch WMD in a very short interval if need be. This is not something to argue over.

My point is 2 fold, and sadly I think we disagree on both part.

1-That all these other reasons (Women's rights, not a democracy, etc) are no way an excuse for a preemptive war.

2-That Bush knowing lied.

I gladly share my logic behind both, but I feel at this point we will not find any agreement.

Elonka wrote:

] I would also point out that Kay himself said plenty of
] evidence of WMD programs were found in Iraq, *including* an
] active Ricin program that was only interrupted by our invasion
] last March. However, Kay's report continues to be misquoted
] all over the place. People seize on "no evidence of WMD
] stockpiles", and ignore everything else he said, such as the
] fact that he still thought the war was a good idea, and that
] it was still essential to keep looking, and that just because
] we haven't found stockpiles, does not mean that they didn't
] exist. It *was* confirmed by the U.N. that Iraq at one point
] had over 8000 liters of anthrax, and multiple tons of VX, but
] it's still uncertain as to just what exactly happened to those
] stockpiles.

If you remember, Bush gave Suddaam a 3 day ultimatum to surrender the weapons of mass destruction he *knew* had to be in Iraq. The evidence that was based on was described by some to be child-like forgeries. Most of Suddaam's atrocities were committed while we still supported him. The reasons why went to war likely had little to do with WMD or whether or not we thought Suddaam was a nice guy. The biggest issue here is that no matter what our government does, the people largely cannot accept that we might have been the bad guys. The clear reasons for this "war" have yet to be stated publicly, and where these forged documents came from, why, and who made them aren't even seriously being asked. Blatently, the reasons we're in Iraq were not publicised by those who made the decision and we are forced to swallow a bucket of horse-shit. We gained stratigic positioning, but that seems like a pretty selfish reason to take over a country. If the general American idiocy accepts the answers we've been given, "because God told me to,""because its in your best interest,"and"because I said so" become valid explinations in the future.

Terratogen wrote:
] If you remember, Bush gave Suddaam a 3 day ultimatum to
] surrender the weapons of mass destruction he *knew* had to be
] in Iraq.

For the record, the final ultimatum was not a 3-day deadline to surrender WMD, it was a 48-hour ultimatum for Saddam and his sons to leave the country: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2857789.stm

] Blatently, the reasons we're in Iraq were not publicised by
] those who made the decision

I beg to differ. The world's unhappiness with Iraq was extremely well publicized and debated. The U.N. passed resolution after resolution condemning Iraq. Iraq wasn't a country that we were worried *might* use chemical weapons, Iraq was a country that verifiably *had* used chemical weapons, on multiple occasions, on thousands of people, military and civilian, including people in its own country. It wasn't a suspicion of something that Saddam *might* be capable of, it was a proven fact.

I supported the war in Iraq not just because I thought there were stockpiles of WMD there. I supported the war because there was a long history of Iraqi deception, U.N. resolutions were being blatantly ignored, and it was clear that Saddam had no intention of cooperating. I felt sure then, and I still feel confident now, that if left alone, Saddam would have continued to build arsenals, and would have done his best to build his empire by violent means. We already had military in Iraq from the last time he had invaded a neighboring country, Iraqis were regularly shooting at us over the no-fly zones, and I saw no circumstances on the horizon that would have allowed us to say, "Okay, things are better now, we can leave."

Now having said that, I will also agree that some of our intelligence was flawed, and that some things were said, by Bush and others, that later analysis has now shown was probably incorrect. I do not think that this means that they "lied", I think it means that they got their hands on some bad info. But there were still plenty of things that were said that *were* correct, and there were things that we had suspicions of, which have since been verified a hundred times over. Saddam really did have WMD at one point, and he was doing his level best to get more. Secrets really were being kept from U.N. Inspectors and from the world. Saddam had *not* given up on the idea of building an empire... He was just waiting for world scrutiny to go away.

So, I continue to stand by my original belief:

- The world's demand for the last many years, including in early 2003, was for Iraq to comply with U.N. demands to disarm.
- Iraq was clearly not complying with those demands.
- Something had to be done, and most countries didn't have the balls to do it.
- We did.
- The war was justified.
- And the world is a better place without Saddam.

Elonka

] - The world's demand for the last many years, including in
] early 2003, was for Iraq to comply with U.N. demands to
] disarm.

I believe Israel is still holding land the UN told it to give up more than 25 years ago. I'm not saying Israel is wrong, I'm just saying this is a bullshit reason and you know it is.

] - Iraq was clearly not complying with those demands.

Ditto

] - Something had to be done, and most countries didn't have
] the balls to do it.

Most countries respect the diplomatic process, and understand, unlike Mister Bush, that you can't have what you want right now

] - We did.

Violating 230 years of Policy, and severly, if not mortally hurting NATO in the process.

Taking power into your own hands, while effective, hurts you in the long run.

] - The war was justified.

Really? Because minus the immediate threat of WMD I see no reason for a preemptive invading of another country. I have discussed this in my memestream before. All reasons given are things we either do ourselves, or ignore when our allies do because it suits us best.

] - And the world is a better place without Saddam.

The fact that you, or even the entire human population feels "the world is a better place" because something occured is never proof that what occured was fair or just or right to do.

Elonka wrote:
] ] If you remember, Bush gave Suddaam a 3 day ultimatum to
] ] surrender the weapons of mass destruction he *knew* had to
] be
] ] in Iraq.
]
] Well, yes, I remember the circumstances extremely well, as I
] was heavily involved in researching Iraq's history and WMD
] programs during the time before we went to war. BTW, the
] final ultimatum was not a 3-day deadline to surrender WMD, it
] was a 48-hour ultimatum for Saddam and his sons to leave the
] country:
] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2857789.stm
You're right. I confused that ultimatum with this one:
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=231

] Also, it's worth pointing out that this was not a "U.S v Iraq"
] situation that boiled over into a war. This was a situation
] where the *entire world* was against Saddam. There wasn't a
] single one of his neighbor countries who wanted him to stay in
] power. They were all calling for him to resign. Further,
] every country's intelligence service believed Iraq to possess
] WMD stockpiles. Even France believed this. The only country
] that said Iraq didn't have WMD, was Iraq.

Thats interesting. Here are the reactions right after the ultimatum from the rest of the world. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2859485.stm
Its a mixed bag. Most other countries intelligence was still based on the same evidence(or lack of) which was still in question before we attacked. ( http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs/pdf_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_nuclear_evidence_march_17_let.pdf)
Not that it really made a difference. We're hesitant about going after North Korea precisely because they DO have WMD. Most of the world didn't see Suddaam as a serious threat to even his neigboring countries anymore. If Suddaam was released from the UN weapons inspectors, would he rebuild? Probably. Was he compliant with the UN inspectors? Yes- They were asking him to provide info for something which apparently doesn't exist. Thats not reasonable. Would we be able to continue the inspections indefinately? More than likely, if thats what we chose to do.

] ] Blatently, the reasons we're in Iraq were not publicised by
] ] those who made the decision
]
] I beg to differ. The world's unhappiness with Iraq was
] extremely well publicized and debated. The U.N. passed
] resolution after resolution condemning Iraq. Iraq wasn't a
] country that we were worried *might* use chemical weapons,
] Iraq was a country that verifiably *had* used chemical
] weapons, on multiple occasions, against a variety of targets
] including people in its own country. Iraq verifiably had
] already killed or wounded *thousands* of people with chemical
] weapons. It wasn't a suspicion of something that Saddam
] *might* be capable of, it was a proven fact. And anyone who'd
] try to ... [ Read More (0.5k in body) ]

terratogen wrote:
] Most of the world didn't see Suddaam as a serious threat to
] even his neigboring countries anymore. If Suddaam was
] released from the UN weapons inspectors, would he rebuild?
] Probably. Was he compliant with the UN inspectors? Yes- They
] were asking him to provide info for something which apparently
] doesn't exist. Thats not reasonable.

] He had no arms.

Thanks for the explanations. I'm still a bit confused though on how you can say that he had no arms, since it's clear to me that he did. Is the difference in opinion coming from the way we define "arms"? For myself, I've seen ample evidence that Saddam was in flagrant violation of the U.N. Resolutions that required him to disarm. For example, from Kay's report in October 2003, at http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

Kay: What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work?

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. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

Then follows a long list of weapon-related activities (such as research on ricin and aflatoxin) which clearly should have been disclosed to the UN, but were not. Clandestine networks of laboratories, reference strains of live toxins, this list (and many other items that have been discovered, which I can link if you would like), were a clear indicator that Saddam and his sons were continuing arms programs, and had no intention of cooperating with the UN.

Or is it that when you say "arms", you mean specific stockpiles of ready-to-fire weapons, and that until/unless those stockpiles are discovered, the war is not justified?

I guess I'm also curious... If we *do* find a stockpile of such weapons in Iraq, or learn that such a stockpile was stashed in a neighboring country such as Syria, would that change your opinion?

In Syria? That would be convienient as they're next in the crosshairs. So you're question here is: If Syria had Iraq's weapons, does that justify war in Iraq? Not that we have any real evidence of this. There is just as much conjecture as there was in the Iraq case (if not more). This lack of evidence is what led to this "Intelligence Failure," right? If we actually looked at the facts and the facts showed that Syria had the weapons...Why the hell would we attack Iraq and not Syria in the first place? But we haven't built this case on facts (we would have found the weapons if we did). Our efforts would have been better spent learning more before we rushed in and wasted not just life, but billions of dollars. That counts as a MAJOR fuck up. If we had the means to take over, we had the means to gain conclusive evidence to do so. We would have probably not have needed to act unilaterally by then. Instead, we get Bush, who knew that the intelligence was lacking, tell us it's a sure thing. There was no maybe. That's what makes it a lie, and not just wrong. There were maybes' that "they" were out to get us, but I don't see that as thought out reasons for war. Thinking might prevent future "Intelligence Failures." If we go into Syria (who offered us aid in Iraq) we had better have real evidence instead of paranoid delusions and unsubstantiated claims.
If there are any weapons, I say we should give Bush 48hours to produce them, else he and his family should leave the country.

] - The world's demand for the last many years, including in
] early 2003, was for Iraq to comply with U.N. demands to
] disarm.

I believe Israel is still holding land the UN told it to give up more than 25 years ago. I'm not saying Israel is wrong, I'm just saying this is a bullshit reason and you know it is.

] - Iraq was clearly not complying with those demands.

Ditto

] - Something had to be done, and most countries didn't have
] the balls to do it.

Most countries respect the diplomatic process, and understand, unlike Mister Bush, that you can't have what you want right now

] - We did.

Violating 230 years of Policy, and severly, if not mortally hurting NATO in the process.

Taking power into your own hands, while effective, hurts you in the long run.

] - The war was justified.

Really? Because minus the immediate threat of WMD I see no reason for a preemptive invading of another country. I have discussed this in my memestream before. All reasons given are things we either do ourselves, or ignore when our allies do because it suits us best.

] - And the world is a better place without Saddam.

The fact that you, or even the entire human population feels "the world is a better place" because something occured is never proof that what occured was fair or just or right to do.