Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Declassified Docs: WMDs Found in Iraq (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Declassified Docs: WMDs Found in Iraq
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

It actually leaves me wondering why Santorum feels it politically necessary to blow smoke at this precise moment. Anything else going on, scandal-wise?

That's simple to answer. Santorum has made (vague, non-commital) statements about maybe running in the 2008 Republican primaries. However, he's spent much of 2005 and 2006 with the lowest public approval rating of any senator, Republican or Democrat, and is considered one of the Republicans least likely to survive the '06 primaries. And losing in '06 will make it pretty hard to convince the party faithful of his ability to win in '08.
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To say these shells are real WMD is kinda like saying O'Doul's is real beer because it has 0.5% alcohol.

Sure, someone somewhere may have said ZERO WMD, but not reasonable people. Most meant "enough to justify an invasion"

As far as violating a cease fire, it may justify a war in a legal sense, but not in a moral or political sense. If an Iraqi private fired a pistol across the border into Kuwait, would anyone honestly say that a full scale invasion, costing thousands of lives, was really justified?

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't suppose anyone's going to actually respond to my post...
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, WP, I'm done with this thread for now - I don't have anything nice to say, because I can't imagine any good or okay motivations for some of the posts of "facts" that have been done here, recently.

As soon as I can clear up my personal problem on that issue, and take the time to do the research I see so lacking here, I'll jump back in.

Please understand - I know I'm misunderstanding something here - I just got to figure that out - I am NOT accusing anyone of anything.

[ June 25, 2006, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
maniacal_engineer
Member
Member # 116

 - posted      Profile for maniacal_engineer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
just reviewing old stuff, but had to post this
the president never said that Iraq was an imminent threat. what he said was that post 911 we could not wait until they became an imminent threat. I believe that their violations of the ceasefire, plus the stonewalling on WMD's, plus a need to pressure everybody else, influenced the decision to go into Iraq.

Its like achilles when he first got his group into line in rotterdam, he didn't take out the top bully - that would have been too much of a threat and would have made him have to fight all the bullies simultaneously. Instead he took out a mid level bully, masking the real threat to the others. We took out decadent secular Saddam with whom we were already at war, so while the neighbors might object, they won't do anything until it is too late and democracy has a toehold.

Its actually quite brilliant. Like Inchon. Or artificial harbors at normandy while decoying at calais

Posts: 962 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by maniacal_engineer:
just reviewing old stuff, but had to post this
the president never said that Iraq was an imminent threat. what he said was that post 911 we could not wait until they became an imminent threat. I believe that their violations of the ceasefire, plus the stonewalling on WMD's, plus a need to pressure everybody else, influenced the decision to go into Iraq.

Its like achilles when he first got his group into line in rotterdam, he didn't take out the top bully - that would have been too much of a threat and would have made him have to fight all the bullies simultaneously. Instead he took out a mid level bully, masking the real threat to the others. We took out decadent secular Saddam with whom we were already at war, so while the neighbors might object, they won't do anything until it is too late and democracy has a toehold.

Its actually quite brilliant. Like Inchon. Or artificial harbors at normandy while decoying at calais

Actually I'd say it was quite stupid because it allowed real threats like Iran and North Korea to use that time to gain nuclear weapons, which makes them unassailable from a sane point of view.
Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NK claims to have already had them (Thanks Bill!)

Iran...is anyone seriously stating that the Iranian program is new, or that their so called compliance was anything more then giving them time to build these dispersed, bomb proof facilities which just "popped out of nowhere", waiting for the closed labs to have their contents distributed?

I suppose Lib would have signed onto an invasion of Iran if offered the choice? Didn't think so.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There was no need to have invaded Iran if we didn't invade Iraq (see the "They said what??" thread). We were in a unique position of influence, sympathy and strength and we squandered it.
Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, they sent that fax in the wake of the Iraq invasion, did they not? Fearing we'd do to Tehran what we did to Baghdad, perhaps?
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually I'd really like to see that, because I'd imagine a fax in the wake of Iraq that said something like "you shot your chamber at the wrong target, and we know you'll take years and years to reload. Thanks for the time to get nukes" and signed with a raspberry.
Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table — including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hrm, then I guess that's the outward version of the internal memo of "oh &*#^, they're almost done with iraq and our nukes aren't done yet!"
Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The fax WP mentioned is intriguing. We seem to have ignored whatever overtures they made. No dialogue. Now we're mired in Iraq with a war-weary citizenry at home. Thus, the fax makes for a nice 'See? I TOLD You So?' wall-hanging, but subsequent action in response to said fax makes for less options rather than more.

Meanwhile, it's axiomatic that Iran has been given several more years (and several more motivations) to develop nuclear weapons.

Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
maniacal_engineer
Member
Member # 116

 - posted      Profile for maniacal_engineer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think warsaw's post sums it up nicely, and NK was cheating while madeline not-bright's champagne glass clinking was still echoing in the sepulchural calm of north korea.
Posts: 962 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NK is not unasailable. We could, and if they keep threatening us should, assail them. Why should we live in fear of these two-bit dictators when we have the military might to eliminate them as a threat? The world should be thanking us for not being an imperalistic force (as every other superpower in the history of man has been). Well, we may not have that choice much longer. With the proliferation of nuclear arms and their destructive capability we may be forced to start destroying countries like Iran and NK. Eliminate the threat they pose and send a warning to other countries considering building weapons with which to threaten the US and our allies. Show that since they can't beat us they better join us.

KE

[ June 30, 2006, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JohnLocke
Member
Member # 68

 - posted      Profile for JohnLocke   Email JohnLocke   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why should we live in fear of these ... when we have the military might to eliminate them as a threat?

The world should be thanking us for not being an imperalistic force...

...Show that since they can't beat us they better join us.

:-/

Posts: 663 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
John,

Judging from your "post", it appears that you aren't capable of distinguishing what is from what I'm positing should be.

We haven't been an imperalistic force and it has cost us. We are unappreciated and should start doing what is best for us.

We can no longer afford to be so benevolent. [Frown]

KE

[ June 30, 2006, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess this makes me a pragmatic liberal. Hey, if there can be compasionate conservatives...

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KE - That's funny, I'm a pragmatic liberal... how did you end up over here?
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JohnLocke
Member
Member # 68

 - posted      Profile for JohnLocke   Email JohnLocke   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aren't capable... well aint that a kick in the pants. I was just showing you where your rhetoric doesn't match up against itself.

Pragmatically speaking, with-us-or-against-us has, by definition, a fifty-fifty chance...

Posts: 663 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Pragmatically speaking, with-us-or-against-us has, by definition, a fifty-fifty chance..."

The heavens pause in admiration of JL's succinct reinstallation of basic logic into this matter.

"We haven't been an imperalistic force and it has cost us. We are unappreciated and should start doing what is best for us. We can no longer afford to be so benevolent."

My impression is that the logic on which this is based is the same as that invoked when our children say, "But Dad, everyone ELSE is doing it!?!"

We are not everyone else. We are whom we are. Whether or not we were "so benevolent" in the past, one thing on which we've prided ourself as a a nation has been that We Are Whom We Are. A nation whose immigrants proudly put aside their native identity and proclaim themselves 'American'. (I do phone surveys to augment the family income. Almost 50% of my respondents answer 'American' to the profile question asking their ethnic background. I often hear a touch of defiant hubris in their voice, as if daring me to reply that 'American' is not an ehtnic designation, as if they are claiming a metaphysical ethnicity the essence of which is not genetic but constitutional. Hear-hear!)

Can we afford to be "so benevolernt"? Putting aside the question of how benevolent we've been (Chomskyites over here, Fukuyamaians over there, please; no stone-throwing, please), I ask: Can we afford to use the failings of others as justification to lower ourselves? I mean, last I looked, we ARE the overwhelmingly powerful sole global superpower.

As for being unappreciated: these *are* realpolitiks of which we speak, yes? Not performance art or marital relations? Appreciation in such matters is a matter of foreign relation bloviations at photo-op moments of diplomacy, not a fellow's sense of whether or not *the world* feels sufficient gratitude for how we behave.

[ July 02, 2006, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: livermeer kenmaile ]

Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I like how former Senator Frank Church said it. (Church was the Senator after whom was named the famous 1976 Senate nvestigation that revealed COINTELPRO's domestic spying and other government arrogations of our Bill of Rights.) He said:

"Our tragedy in recent years springs from a leadership principally motivated by fear," he said. "Our Founding Fathers were a different breed. They acted on their faith, not their fear. They did not believe in fighting fire with fire; crime with crime; evil with evil; or delinquency by becoming delinquents. They set themselves against the terrors of a totalitarian state by structuring a government that would obey the law. They knew that the only way to escape a closed society was to accept the risk of living in an open one."

Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No Ken, that's way off.

It is based on the realities of the world we live in. Right now we can eliminate the threats nations such as NK and Iran pose to us, but if we keep doing nothing, as we are doing now, they will be able to do more and more damage in the future (kill more Americans).

Just as we could have eliminated Russia as a threat immediately after WWII. Instead we played the good guy, as always, and suffered through fifty years of fear and came very close to destroying the modern world. I wish we could continue to be the good guy, but in the real world good guys end up getting it in the end.

And as much as I hate to say anything good about Bush; we have the president we need to eliminate those countries as threats. Unfortunately he has so wasted his power that he and the GOP will be out of power for the next 8 years.

KE

[ July 02, 2006, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
God only knows, WP.

JL, yes I was positing a "change" in our policy. By definition the "change" wouldn't "match up" with what preceded it.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."


From Fox News article. So, Bush is still a liar. Whether intentional are not is all that is in question.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JohnLocke
Member
Member # 68

 - posted      Profile for JohnLocke   Email JohnLocke   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What if imperialism is not the most effective method of stabilization, KE?

Why do we fight for freedom instead of peace?

What good is a democracy that you haven't earned, one that you've been handed on a bloody platter?

Posts: 663 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's a little late for that debate in Iraq. We are already there. But if you are talking about NK and or Iran, I say prove it. And I want us to fight for our safety.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
NK is not unasailable. We could, and if they keep threatening us should, assail them. Why should we live in fear of these two-bit dictators when we have the military might to eliminate them as a threat? The world should be thanking us for not being an imperalistic force (as every other superpower in the history of man has been). Well, we may not have that choice much longer. With the proliferation of nuclear arms and their destructive capability we may be forced to start destroying countries like Iran and NK. Eliminate the threat they pose and send a warning to other countries considering building weapons with which to threaten the US and our allies. Show that since they can't beat us they better join us.

KE

Actually, North Korea is as unassailable as all get-out. You see my good man, North Korea is right next to China, and although China thinks Kim Jong Il is a raving lunatic, they'd much rather have a relatively harmless raving lunatic on their doorstep than see the United States step in, kick Kim's ass, and instal a US-friendly interim government while they go about trying to invent a democratic system that can be easily rigged to elect pro-American governments in North Korea. The Chinese might get a bit worried one day if NK ever develops a nuclear reactor that isn't held together by Radiation Hazard stickers and string, but for now they consider a bankrupt lunatic dictator a smaller threat to their interests than an increased US military and political presence in the region.

Which means that unless the US wants to piss off the closest thing they've got to a rival superpower these days, they'll probably continue to let a combination of diplomacy and starvation dictate events in North Korea.

Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KnightEnder, I partly agree with what you are saying. The United States could have destroyed the Soviet Union immediately after World War II. And possibly the United States could destroy Russia today, along with China and Iran and North Korea and every other potential threat to our security.

But the political reality is that the United States has a representative government. As General Maxwell D. Taylor remarked after Vietnam, a large number of voters - usually for religious reasons - have pacifist leanings; they will not support using United States military forces overseas unless this country has been attacked. Otherwise they will condemn the president who does so, and his political party, as enemies of God and war criminals.

And our presidents have to stand for election every four years. Bush may say that the United States will stay in Iraq until a democratic government has been established, but the next president could in theory decide to put Saddam Hussein back in power and withdraw from Iraq entirely. This will not happen; but the voters will in the long run elect a president who does what they want, not what experts think is good for this country. This may lead to disaster, if the voters refuse to sacrifice for a threat which really does demand action; but that is the country we have. And I much prefer this to a rational state like Germany under Adolf Hitler, which quite consistently followed its leader to destruction.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks Rallan, I own a globe. And Russia wasn't as scary as we thought they were and China needs us more than they need NK. I repeat we should stop letting every two-bit dictator with a big missile threaten us. At the very least we should arm Japan and SK.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1