Can this guy get any dumber? As it turns out, yes.

[DukeLeto]

We've all heard time and time agin about the classic "Bushisms":

[ordos45]

My favorite "We are here to bring chaos to the country".  What he corrected himself afterwards with was "We are here to bring peace to the country in chaos".  At least he caught himself that time.

[Wolf]

I think the only valid statements made on Iraqi WMDs will be made 25 years from now. Right now, no one has any supporting evidence for either side. I remember from the Clinton days, it was suspected that Saddam had WMDs, and, indeed, in the early 90s, he admitted to this. Although his stockpiles were reputed to have been destroyed by 1996, there remains the question of whether or not this was done. Knowing Saddam Hussein's history, this is unlikely. Therefore, it is, indeed, possible that the evidence that would have shown this has either been too far destroyed to be recognizable, or too well hidden to be found. Rather, I believe US forces are concentrating on stabilizing the country, rather than hunting for WMDs -- as they should be. Many years from now, we will know the whole story, and only then should we make judgments. It could also go the other way, mind. It is possible that Saddam Hussein lived up to his promises and destroyed all of his weapons by 1996. Knowing his regime's lack of technical skill and general mismanagment, it is probable that he was unable to restart his WMD program after Iraq's disastrous exploits of the 1990s. Then again, the exact opposite is also likely. Only time will tell.

For now, we must concentrate on the issue of stability, and elect the president best able to accomplish that goal.

[ordos45]

I remember from the Clinton days, it was suspected that Saddam had WMDs

If memory serves, wasn't that the reason Clinton hit Iraq with 400 cruise missiles in the late 90s?  (And you all thought I could only go after Bush...)

[Wolf]

Nah, its alright, Ordos. I like to attack everyone, too. I remember that Clinton bombed Iraq, but I forget what for. Was it the human rights thing, or the WMD thing? I'm sure the UN was involved, too...

[ordos45]

Yeah Human Rights or WMDs, but if Clinton bombed after 1996 when they were thought gone, then he kinda didn't hit any... 

At least Bush isn't as clutzy as Gerald Ford.  Sure he fell off a segway, fell a few other times, choked on a pretzel...but Ford fell down the steps of Air Force One!  He also had a habit of injuring people in his bad golfing. 

[exatreide]

Bush fell of a skooter to :)

[Wolf]

That strikes me as odd, though. Wasn't Ford a football player? An athlete, as it were? Why would he be such a clutz?

[GUNWOUNDS]

i read where some iraqi soldiers stated that they had taken biological weapons to an all-girl's school .... then they went to the basement and broke up the concrete floor...then they buried the missiles/warheads/whatever

[exatreide]

Yea bush did put 2 and 2 together...and he got 5.123

The 9/11 commision prooved that there was no link between alqauda and Saddam. If a commision can prove it in a month, couldn't the CIA prove it in 10?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Yea bush did put 2 and 2 together...and he got 5.123

The 9/11 commision prooved that there was no link between alqauda and Saddam. If a commision can prove it in a month, couldn't the CIA prove it in 10?

Well

[exatreide]

No then we would be the agressers and no different from Nazi Germany...

But we got there and found out that Apparently Saddam didn't want weapons of mass destruction..That there were no mobile weapons labs or secret underground stockpiles of anthrax or small pox...

You forget the fact that we gave him WMD which he used. And we could not even find the weapons we gave him...

[GUNWOUNDS]

No then we would be the agressers and no different from Nazi Germany...

But we got there and found out that Apparently Saddam didn't want weapons of mass destruction..That there were no mobile weapons labs or secret underground stockpiles of anthrax or small pox...

You forget the fact that we gave him WMD which he used. And we could not even find the weapons we gave him...

You are jumping to conclusions..... its far from over.

[GUNWOUNDS]

No then we would be the agressers and no different from Nazi Germany...

But we got there and found out that Apparently Saddam didn't want weapons of mass destruction..That there were no mobile weapons labs or secret underground stockpiles of anthrax or small pox...

You forget the fact that we gave him WMD which he used. And we could not even find the weapons we gave him...

Attacking a rogue state is not the same thing as nazi Germany.. i find it funny how everyone equates military agression with nazi germany at the drop of a hat.

[Wolf]

"And we could not even find the weapons we gave him..."

Wait a second, doesn't that help Gunwounds' case, though? The fact that we gave Saddam some of his stockpiles of weapons means that we know beyond any doubt that he had at least those weapons. If we couldn't even find the stuff we were 100% sure he had, like, we frickin' saw the crates of it go into Iraq, then what makes you think we can find the stuff that Saddam created in secret and meant to stay hidden?

I think the real problem with this is that you can't justify a pre-emptive strike. Because a pre-emptive strike's justification comes from something that hasn't happened yet. You are working to prevent a Pearl Harbor, you say. So, the atrocity of Pearl Harbor justifies war with Japan. But, when you think a Pearl Harbor is going to happen, and attack first to prevent it from happening, you work on the same justification -- that a Pearl Harbor justifies the war -- only, that justification has yet to happen. Now, its too early in the morning for me to argue the finer points of morality here, becuase I understand that allowing an atrocity to happen on your own people that could have been prevented with military force just because you're philosophically nitpicky won't make anyone like you. And no one will gave a damn when you say, "Well, pre-emptive strikes are never justified..." when the enemy hits first.

About Saddam and al Qaeda... well, we know that Saddam had Ansar al-Islam http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm

in Iraq to do its dirty work. Now, check this out;

"PUK officials have repeatedly accused Ansar al-Islam of having links with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, and that its members included Arabs of various nationalities who had received military training in Afghanistan. The PUK also said some fifty-seven "Arab Afghan" fighters had entered Iraqi Kurdistan via Iran in mid-September 2001. While Human Rights Watch did not investigate these alleged links, the testimonies of villagers who had fled Biyara and Tawela and were interviewed in September 2002 appeared to support this contention. A number of them, including former detainees, said that there were foreigners among Ansar al-Islam forces, that on occasion they were interrogated by non-Iraqis speaking various Arabic dialects, and that they had heard other languages spoken that they did not recognize."

So, forget the whole common enemy deal. Saddam Hussein had a friendly terrorist group in Iraq that was trained and equipped by al Qaeda. Should the two ever need anything, anything t'all, they knew who to go to.

For me, saying that the Saddam-al Qaeda link has been disproved is a bit silly. It's like saying that the WMDs were found.

[GUNWOUNDS]

"And we could not even find the weapons we gave him..."

Wait a second, doesn't that help Gunwounds' case, though? The fact that we gave Saddam some of his stockpiles of weapons means that we know beyond any doubt that he had at least those weapons. If we couldn't even find the stuff we were 100% sure he had, like, we frickin' saw the crates of it go into Iraq, then what makes you think we can find the stuff that Saddam created in secret and meant to stay hidden?

I think the real problem with this is that you can't justify a pre-emptive strike. Because a pre-emptive strike's justification comes from something that hasn't happened yet. You are working to prevent a Pearl Harbor, you say. So, the atrocity of Pearl Harbor justifies war with Japan. But, when you think a Pearl Harbor is going to happen, and attack first to prevent it from happening, you work on the same justification -- that a Pearl Harbor justifies the war -- only, that justification has yet to happen. Now, its too early in the morning for me to argue the finer points of morality here, becuase I understand that allowing an atrocity to happen on your own people that could have been prevented with military force just because you're philosophically nitpicky won't make anyone like you. And no one will gave a damn when you say, "Well, pre-emptive strikes are never justified..." when the enemy hits first.

About Saddam and al Qaeda... well, we know that Saddam had Ansar al-Islam http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm

in Iraq to do its dirty work. Now, check this out;

"PUK officials have repeatedly accused Ansar al-Islam of having links with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, and that its members included Arabs of various nationalities who had received military training in Afghanistan. The PUK also said some fifty-seven "Arab Afghan" fighters had entered Iraqi Kurdistan via Iran in mid-September 2001. While Human Rights Watch did not investigate these alleged links, the testimonies of villagers who had fled Biyara and Tawela and were interviewed in September 2002 appeared to support this contention. A number of them, including former detainees, said that there were foreigners among Ansar al-Islam forces, that on occasion they were interrogated by non-Iraqis speaking various Arabic dialects, and that they had heard other languages spoken that they did not recognize."

So, forget the whole common enemy deal. Saddam Hussein had a friendly terrorist group in Iraq that was trained and equipped by al Qaeda. Should the two ever need anything, anything t'all, they knew who to go to.

For me, saying that the Saddam-al Qaeda link has been disproved is a bit silly. It's like saying that the WMDs were found.

Excellent points....

yes you are correct.... Rookie's statement about us not being able to find the weapons *WE* gave him only strengthens my point i was trying to make... that Saddam must have cleverly hidden/dismantled/destroyed the weapons.

Quote Wolfwiz:

Saddam Hussein had a friendly terrorist group in Iraq that was trained and equipped by al Qaeda. Should the two ever need anything, anything t'all, they knew who to go to.

Wow.... thanks for pointing out that Saddam was supporting terrorists. Nice info gathering in your above post... Just goes to show that the people who are bashing Bush and calling him a liar/idiot dont take the time to dig up and analyze the facts before they go shooting off at the mouth.

This is why i would discourage people from making anymore

[Edric O]

I hope you do realize that PEARL HARBOR ITSELF WAS A PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE.

That was the official Japanese justification for it. They said that the USA's growing hostility towards the Axis was a clear sign that the Americans were planning to declare war, so they decided to attack the American navy and cripple it before it could attack them.

The problem with pre-emptive strikes is that you can never know whether you were right or not. You'll never know for sure whether you actually prevented an enemy invasion or whether you attacked an innocent country.

Look at it this way: Would a "pre-emptive strike" stand up in court? If you go and kill your neighbor, and then tell the judge that your neighbor also had a gun and you were afraid he was planning to kill you with it, should you walk free?

[Edric O]

Attacking a rogue state is not the same thing as nazi Germany...

What the hell is a "rogue state"? A country whose government says "f**k you" to the US? Well, I'm sorry, but you can't kill people just because they don't like you.

Attacking the Taliban and Saddam is NOT the same thing as attacking innocent democratic nations like France, Poland, England, etc, etc,  thats absurd.

Poland wasn't a democracy in 1939. It had a moderately authoritarian semi-dictatorship. Czechoslovakia, however, WAS democratic when the nazis occupied it.

I mean seriously.... if you were the leader of a country.... and you knew that the leader of another country hated your guts and would love to see your country get nuked ... would that not disturb you just a little?

Of course. But like I said before, you can't go around killing people just because they don't like you. And you can't go around invading countries just because their leaders don't like you.

If you're really afraid that another nation might attack you, station troops at their borders and tell them not to try anything funny. That's how things have always been done.

[nemafakei]

"I mean seriously.... if you were the leader of a country.... and you knew that the leader of another country hated your guts and would love to see your country get nuked ... would that not disturb you just a little?"

Are you talking about Bush hating Saddam or Saddam hating Bush here? I mean the only difference really is that only one of them had the capability to do anything about it...

As to the WMD issue, the most interesting question I always found was "How come Blair and Bush were surer than Blix?" If the US/UK intelligence agencies were in possession of real, credible evidence, surely the most sensible thing would have been to pass it on to Blix, so he could use it, no? Especially if they wanted a UN resulution to back them. But just as Blix, who ought to have known most accurately the most damning of any evidence, was saying that there was almost 100% co-operation, and calling for more time, the inspectors were forced out by the invasion.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but nothing has been found since.

I agree that the american forces are not there to look for weapons: they have more important jobs (like learning to speak rudimenary Arabic). But why haven't UN or other inspectors been invited in - or if they have (I've not found accounts either way, please inform me if you know), they haven't found anything. If the former, then this seems to be a shocking and political omission, comparable perhaps to sending lawyers to a crime scene before policemen. If the latter, then I ask why the 'evidence' we had before is not borne out by the evidence we have now the inspectors have full access and no-one with any real motive to hide anything.

[ordos45]

Fact:  Osama has enuf cash to buy weapons from Saddam.

Yeah, but why does he need to?  He already stated he bought suitcase nukes from Russia for $30 million a piece.  Really, Russia will equip anyone for hard cash.  Well almost anyone, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn some officer has embraced the dark side of capitalism and is selling weapons to Chechen Rebels.

Like those GPS scramblers of Russia's in Iraq.  You go anywhere in the world, and you can find Russian weaponry for sale.  (You go about half the places in the world and find American weaponry for sale.)  Bin Laden did not need Saddam to sell him weapons, there were others who could easily.

[DukeLeto]

Here's something a lot of people miss: Even IF Saddam were to have acquired WMDs, he would't use them against the US.

[Wolf]

Edric: That is an excellent description of the Problem with Pre-emptive strikes. I was trying to get at that point earlier, but was unable to articulate it as well as you. The whole problem with pre-emptive strikes is that the very thing that would justify the strike has not happened yet.

Nema: What a great question. Why isn't our prewar evidence borne out by our postwar evidence? There are, of course, two possibilites. The evidence, for whatever reason, has not been found (it has been hidden, disguised, destroyed, we're not looking for it, etc.), or it was never there in the first place. I think that's been the whole problem with this scenario all along; not enough UN involvement. Even if the UN wouldn't grant the US a resolution to invade, the least the US could have done would have been to ask the UN for additional peacekeeping forces, or perhaps humanitarian aid, or even perhaps for inspectors to go hunting around in Iraq. It's possible that the Bush administration just simply doesn't trust the UN to do anything, which would account for a great deal, and allows me to segway into my next point...

DukeLeto: Besides the US not-liking Iraq a lot more than it not-likes North Korea, I think there is a huge difference between Iraq and the China-DPRK situations. Iraq was, more or less, alone. China is nominally an ally of the DPRK. If we invaded North Korea, whose leader is just as much of an international a-hole as Saddam is(was), China would be furious. Since China and the US are huge trade partners, it makes sense to me that Bush would not endanger US interests in the Pacific. Further, I think Bush also realizes that the Chinese do not want the DPRK screwing up their trade relations with America! China and the United States are acting in the exact same way with the exact same interests with regard to North Korea. Neither power wants to piss off the other power, so, when the DPRK beats the war drum, China near-disowns Kim Jong Il, and the US and China simultaneously call for trilaterial talks. It's almost funny.

Ordos45: Where did Saddam say he bought suitcase nukes? It would be considerably hard to find a few nondescript suitcases in the whole of Iraq. And the fact that they have not been found -- with, again, the possibility (Saddam's own admission) that they might have existed -- seriously worries me.

Now, back to sleep for me.

[exatreide]

But the point exists that we still dont know for certin that Iraq had links to al qauda.

We dont know for certin that they didn't blow up there WMD in 1996.

And saying.

"We think they may have links to terrorists and they might could be maybe thinking about making WMD." IS NOT PROOF ENOUGH TO GO TO WAR.

You were talking all about your satlites in the china thread, but With all our servalince we could not detect one convoy of WMD we could not find anything like it.

Pakistan is a Fundamentalist Islamic country led by a dictatorship.

We let them have weapons of mass destruction with out any question, why? Becouse this month they like the US. If next month they turned there plan around and started hating America and all this. Would we have the right to invade them to? To launch another strike?

[Wolf]

EDIT: Comment removed, I'll let Guns speak for himself.

About al Qaeda and Iraq; as I quoted above, the Human Rights Watch long suspected the Iraq-based terrorist group of Ansar al-Islam of having links to al Qaeda. Read more about it, I believe that they stated that this group was friendly with Saddam Hussein as well. I suppose no one found any direct Hussein-bin Laden link, but, then again, if you were either of these men, would you establish a direct link with the other?

That's really the whole problem I have with this entire situation. I understand that the Bush Administration's evidence is flimsy, their reasons suspect, their methods morally ambiguous or wrong -- but I cannot bring myself to give men such as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden the benefit of the doubt. The cynical side of myself tells me that, yes, these men probably tried doing everything that they were accused of. Yet, the way the Western world went about punishing them was wrong. I suppose I simply do not know who to trust, but at the same time, I sure do know who I can't.

[Dante]

i read where some iraqi soldiers stated that they had taken biological weapons to an all-girl's school .... then they went to the basement and broke up the concrete floor...then they buried the missiles/warheads/whatever  in the ground and then paved back over it.

I think you'll find that that was Britain...

Or at least, that's what the rumours say. I wonder which one has more credibility? I'm not going to bother sending anything else up because Nema ia pretty much saying it all for me. Thanks Nema.