] Although the insurgency has cooled, with suicide attacks
] against civilians now eclipsing armed clashes with
] American troops, American forces are still conducting
] daily raids, bursting into homes and sweeping up
] families. More than 10,000 men and boys are in custody.
] According to a detainee database maintained by the
] military, the oldest prisoner is 75, the youngest 11.
]
] Military officials say some of the detainees have been
] accused of serious offenses, including shooting down
] helicopters and planting roadside bombs.
]
] But the officials acknowledge that most of the people
] captured are probably not dangerous. Of a recent batch of
] cases reviewed by military judges, they recommended that
] 963 of 1,166 detainees be released.

The Detainees: As U.S. Detains Iraqis, Families Plead for News

The fun thing is that these pictures are so ambiguous they could mean anything! Here are a few interpretations.

Rand Mcnally as done by idiots.

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.

RE: Blair Defends War Decision

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) ]

RE: Blair Defends War Decision

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.

RE: Blair Defends War Decision