Liberal Slant articles

[Acriku]

I have been recently reading articles from www.liberalslant.com and came upon this very provoking article - http://www.liberalslant.com/lwt033003.htm It's called "Demons Of Necessity: Why Weapons of Mass Destruction Will be Found - Lisa Walsh Thomas"

A synopsis is as follows....

American and British servicepeople have died. Iraqi civilians have died. More will die. Dozens of mothers in the United States are weeping. Thousands of mothers in Iraq are weeping. The only thing that will "justify" these deaths is the discovery of vast amounts of dangerous weapons of mass destruction. It is NECESSARY, vitally necessary, to those who orchestrated the current happenings, that these weapons be found and shown to the world as evidence of Bush/Blair rightness. It is essential in allowing the U.S. to save any face left to be saved. So they WILL be found. And millions of people, those with yard signs that say, "Iraq today, France tomorrow," those who still confuse Iran and Iraq, those who don't know the difference between Osama and Saddam, those who believe Bush has a serious connect with God, those who think the nineteen alleged hijackers on 9-11 were Iraqis (documentation shows them to be primarily Saudi), all these people will trust their leaders that these weapons were there all along. This is how it happens. This is what necessity does in the hands of ruthless men. This is how the fine fabric of goodness turns to frayed gossamer, then rotted remnants of dirty threads. This is how a land of compassion, integrity and courage can become the most hated nation on earth...

What do you think? I don't know how true it is, but very interesing and provoking.

[TMA_1]

I know this war is about the present problem of saddam holding weapons of mass destruction (he has, that is extremely obvious). To me though it is a destruction of a guy who has in the past and now acts in horrible ways. The weapons are just a way of legally busting into iraq. Kind of like catching a serial killer by getting a warrent on him for unpaid parking tickets. a crude example, but it will suffice.

I have always been against the war, but I have the sense enough to know that some of the people who are against the war are just idiots who wish to further their own political agenda based on their principles. just selfishness.

[Anathema]

Attacking Iraq for his MDW is stupid, because there are dozens of regimes of wich we tolerate them having nuclear weapons, yet do nothing about. There's no question however that Sadam has MDW (no nukes though) and it's mostly idiots who think Sadam really disarmed. But he hasn't been causing any troubles as of late, and I see no reason to piss all over international law for it, except maybe some vengeance and electoral campaigning.

[Gobalopper]

Basically she is making the claim that no matter what will be found it must have been planted. How can you argue against someone like that?

In my eyes there already is enough proof of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and in the past aiding terrorists in attacking America. I don't think Bush and Blair would take the risks they are taking both politically and with the lives of so many of their own people unless they really believed in this. Leaders are elected for a reason to make the tough choices and we won't know the true outcome of this war until a year or so after and we see what has happened to the Iraq and the Iraqi people.

[Edric O]

If Saddam goes down without using any WMD's, then it's as clear as day that he DOESN'T HAVE ANY, no matter how much evidence the US government decides to plant.

[Acriku]

Who knows what motives he would have for not using them, but they aren't very conclusive that he doesn't have any. He could want to die as a good martyr - but using his weapons would lessen the martyr effect, for example.

[DjCiD]

That way people can say "well even though he had them he didnt use them, yea he's my hero" ::)

The man is evil, does he have to kill as much as Hitler and that Russian guy for everyone to go "Duh I should of had my V8"

So would you rather deal with before he uses the WMD or after?

[quoudam72]

I still do not think Iraq has WMD, I think in fact he (Saddam) was trying to get what was needed to produce such weapons. I mean is it not odd that the Saddam has SCUD missles that can do nothing, an airforce that can not get off the ground and other older military equiptment but then all of a sudden he has nuclear weapons?

http://www.movingideas.org/article/full_cite/108.html

[Gobalopper]

I don't think he would use them, it would basically turn everyone against him, even the French have said they would change their minds if he did. Although there is a pretty good chance he might, just look at all the gas masks and chemical suits they are finding.

[nemafakei]

I he's desperate enough, and if he thinks it'll do anything, he'll use them - if he has them.

The problem if there was no emphasis on WMDs is that the US would be morally obliged to hold the same treatment for people like Mugabe, who is starving Zimbabwe - but has no WMDs.

[Warlord Ripskar]

So far 3 of the lads from my corps have been killed. I rather doubt they'll be the last. This war would have happened at some point, Saddam's refusal to back down ensured that as much as Mullah Omar's refusal to back down ensured his own ousting.

Still I am uneasy about the damage done to international relations during this crisis. In the space of 2 years the US has gone from the high point in its relationship with the world to this.

Britain too has suffered damage in our relationships with Europe and the Middle East which will take a lot of work to repair. If you had asked me on Sept 12 2001 if the US could reach the point where it had lost the support of Europe, publicly ignored the UN and effectively ended career of the British prime minister I wouldn't have believed it.

The physical existance of weaponry breaking the terms of resolution 687 was proved by the inspectors in the form of the al Samoud missiles.

What really matters is the Iraqi people and how the US deals with them. This doesn't seem to be going too well at present as their checkpoint drill appears to be seriously flawed.

[quoudam72]

For anyone wondering if WMDs are just nuclear weapons here is some information on the definition of weapons of mass destruction.

1. The perceived threat from weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has become one of the most important issues on foreign policy and national security agendas. The WMD threat has, for example, profoundly influenced the Bush administration's national security and homeland security strategies. [1] For the United States and like-minded allies, Iraq's alleged possession of WMD has become a casus belli. The rise to prominence of the WMD threat raises questions about the role of international law concerning WMD in this new environment.

Traditional International Legal Approaches to WMD

In security and foreign policy analyses, "weapons of mass destruction" is a term that generally encompasses nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, with radiological weapons occasionally included. Contemporary international legal analysis generally follows this conventional definition of WMD, even though neither treaty law nor customary international law contains an authoritative definition of WMD. The reason such a definition does not exist is that states have historically used international law to address each category of weapons within the WMD rubric. International law specifically on WMD is, thus, composed of three different sets of rules for each WMD technology. General rules of international law, such as international humanitarian law, also apply to WMD; [2] but these general principles were not developed specifically to address WMD.

The dominant international legal activity on WMD has been the negotiation and implementation of arms control treaties. This arms control approach reflected three objectives-to deter the use of WMD by states (e.g., nuclear arms control treaties between the United States and the Soviet Union [3] ), to prohibit the emplacement and testing of WMD in certain areas (e.g., treaties prohibiting WMD in orbit or on the sea-bed or ocean floor [4] ), and to produce WMD disarmament (e.g., treaties prohibiting development and use of biological and chemical weapons [5] ). Although arms control treaties contributed to the development of customary norms restricting or prohibiting the use of WMD, development and possession of WMD was not, outside the treaty context, illegal under customary international law.

[1]-See, e.g., The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Sept. 2002), http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html and National Strategy for Homeland Security (July 2002), http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/index.html.

[2]-See, e.g., Advisory Opinion, Legality of the Use of Force by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, ICJ Reports 66 (1996), http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icases/iunan/iunanframe.htm.

This is a collection of urls and information with different but similiar views about WMD. http://debate.uvm.edu/handbookfile/WMD2002/020a.htm

@Warlord Ripskar sorry to hear about your fallen lads.

[Egeides]

Her arguments implicitly repose on "the US administration is bad". For anyone not believing so, her article is bogus.