The WMD Cult

Springer...not taking sides but if you say your discussion with MA is long over.. why continue..let it be over and continue on with something else.

For the same reason he said HIS was, and then slammed me again immediately after saying it... The post before mine that claims the end...

P...
m...

Tracer

Thanks for your observation. I care nothing for Springer or his style of argument at all. He is a disgrace to himself and ATS.

And yet, if he were able to bring facts to a discussion and to marshall an argument rather than going off at tangents and dealing in personal attacks on many members (in lieu of having anything else to say), he could have been a poster with some potential.

The foregoing is a full record of many people's contributions to the discussion on whether WMDs are in Iraq, and what makes people believe that.

I enjoyed Seekerof's and Leveller's contributions of different views to my own.

But there will always be those with less wisdom, who need to rely on personal labels to demean those with different views. They are the rabble, the unfit and unworthy.

I'm not one of them, but I can play that stupid game with the worst of them. There are a few around.

MA and Springer....I feel that a disscusion can only go so far and many people will have different theories and
for sure not agree..so be it. Being fairly new here I just see so much animosity on the boards and I can't really see how that can be of any benefit to any of us here. At the same time I see much potential here in the sharing of everyones thoughts and ideas. Anyway, just my thoughts for what they may be worth.

Good stuff.

I agree with you. You will never see me go off topic and into the insults that some others do, unless they elect to do it first out of spite or stupidity or simply having nothing worthwhile to say.

What I find interesting is to imagine some of the people taking their personal style as displayed here into the real world, and having any success with it.

Unfortunately, there are some in the most senior positions of international affairs who have no more nous than the most clueless and one-eyed individuals to be found at ATS. I point at no-one in particular at all in making that statement, only to say that it is not always the cream that rises to statesmanship.

Keep up your attitude to healthy discussion, may it serve you well.

By the way it is my opinion as to WMD...they were there in the past, however I truly believe that the Bush administration falsely used them to go to war in Iraq and there will be no WMD found unless they are secreted in and planted.

MA. Springer.

Lighten up dudes.
You're both intelligent enough to put your points across without insulting each other.

It doesn't matter that you disagree with each other. The whole point of this forum is so that we can all debate logically with each other.

When you start with the name calling, the debate gets forgotten and we forget what it was all about in the first place. Then you end up disliking someone so much that when he does actually come out with a gem of truth, you can't see it because you don't want to.

Originally posted by Leveller
What do you think "serious consequences" are Skadi?
Every single nation that signed up to 1441 knew that to mean the use of force. To deny otherwise is to bury ones head in the sand and deny the truth.
The only "serious consequence" that COULD be taken was military action. Every other means of punishment had already been used.

Nobody from the UN has ever denied that 1441 was NOT breached. Quite the opposite. It isn't even pertinent to the argument as it has never been questioned by any nation which signed it.

The legal question of wether the war was legitimate was based on the fact that some people argued that a full further concensus from the Security Council was needed before the "serious consequences" could be taken.

This whole statement is incorrect. France and Russia only signed up to 1441 after it was agreed that it did NOT authorise force. The US representative to the UN made this perfectly clear in his speech prior to the agreement.

Leveller you are from the UK, like myself, you seem interested in this topic, I find it difficult to believe that you do not remeber hearing/seeing the video of the US rep clearly stating that 1441 was not justification for war, I saw it many times on the BBC and ITV. It was an important point in my personal case that 1441 didn't justify an invasion.

Originally posted by Peace



This whole statement is incorrect. France and Russia only signed up to 1441 after it was agreed that it did NOT authorise force.
I find it difficult to believe that you do not remeber hearing/seeing the video of the US rep clearly stating that 1441 was not justification for war, I saw it many times on the BBC and ITV. It was an important point in my personal case that 1441 didn't justify an invasion.

Firstly, the Russian and French signed a proviso in 1441 which has no status under international law and it did not state that there should be no use of force. It stated that there should be no "automatic" use of force. Big difference. Especially when you are reminded that 10 other nations on the Security Council would not sign this proviso and they understood fully what "serious consequences" meant.
The Russians, Germans and the French knew damn well what they were signing up to. They wanted it both ways though - they wanted the job done and to cover their own asses.

Secondly, the BBC and ITV? Believe what you want to in the media. The plain fact remains that the UK Attorney General stated that under 1441 the use of force was legal. I'm pretty sure that the AG outranks the UK media when it comes to matters of law.

I would have to disagree, Leveler, on serious concequences.

I have heard that term used before over and over for different situations, and none of them meant "invasion". Usually, sanctions, demands, ect. The term gets thrown around alot, and I myself laugh at its usage, because the concequences seldom tend to be serious enough.

Was the US/UK honest when presenting the case against Iraq, and the possible punishment, when they lobbied the UN for action? I do not know exactly how they marketed 1441, theres something to look at.

Was the security council aware of the use of force? If so, then why did they later oppose the threat of a war? Not just France, Germaqny, and Russia, but others.

The resolution did state that the UN was to go in and search, then, if something was found, then it was time for "serious concequences, yet the US basically gave the inspections no time to work. We drafted and presented the resolution, signed it, and barely after that....we start building up like mad over there. Not even giving the UN inspectors any time.

The UN inspectors said they were making progress. What this means I know not, since I distrust the UN and its ability to do anything right really, but, we started this out formally, we were hypocrites to end it like we did.

This of course, is not the body of my opposition of the war in Iraq, just looking at a technicality as to the legality of it or not. My opposition of the war stems from many other things. believe me, if I thought Saddam was a real threat to US security and safety, Id say # the UN and grease his sorry ass off the planet.

But, sadly, he was not a threat. He never was a threat. Maybe to israel. But not to the US. The war was fought for oil. It was fought for Israel. It was fought for oil currency. It was fought to set up a govornment that would insert its tounge in the US sphincter. It was a terrible lie, a waste of money and lives, we gained nothing, but more problems, spread our military even thinner, wasted resources, and now, as if I thought it never possible, the world hates us twice as much as they did before.

Illegal war? It appears that way, but then again, the boundaries of legal and illegal are pretty hard to draw. But the morality, and the logistics of the war, has saddled us with a great burden. In the end, it was not worth it, no matter how you look at it.

And it set up a very bad precident. Now, we are hypocrites and obvious liars. Theres worse and more dangerous regimes in the world with WMD that we ignore.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I would have to disagree, Leveler, on serious concequences.

The resolution did state that the UN was to go in and search, then, if something was found, then it was time for "serious concequences, yet the US basically gave the inspections no time to work.

Well what do you suppose serious consequences were then? Every other action that could be taken had been taken. Use of force was the only "serious consequence" that was left on the board. It's OK saying that we didn't understand "serious consequences" to mean the use of force but what are you going to offer as an alternative explanation then? You've just signed a UN Resolution that advocates "serious consequences" use and if the 10 other members of the Security Council understand the words meaning to be "use of force" what is your alternative explanation? Wouldn't you think that you would at least explain to your population what those "serious consequences" might be if they weren't use of force? Why sign the Resolution if the only meaning behind the words "serious consequences" could be use of force? If there is even a doubt that "serious consequences" might mean force (which there isn't) wouldn't you refrain from putting your signature to the document at all?

And as for more time? Bah. Call yourself a soldier? How long do you think that the coalition could have kept their forces in a state of readiness for? The time slot for an invasion was was before summer came when it would have been impossible to fight - both financially and physically. Do you reckon that the coalition could afford to keep those armies their indefinitely. It took months to form those forces - Saddam could see exactly what was happening yet he still refused to immediately comply with the UN resolutions - even when they stated that immediate complicity was a must.
UN inspections were never given enough time? Time must pass really quickly in your life then. Twelve years is a helluva long time in my book. That was when the first Resolution was laid down that stated that he must cooperate. Which he didn't.
And to cap it all, we even had UN inspectors (specifically Hans Blix) saying 7 days before they pulled out that Iraq was NOT fully complying with it's obligations under 1441.

So what do you want? You sign a UN Resolution that says Iraq must IMMEDIATELY comply with it's demands. Do you then turn around and say that IMMEDIATE means 12 years? Or do you turn around and cover your ass with a proviso that has no foundation in law, when you could just have easily not signed the resolution in the first place?

Pah!!! The Europeans knew exactly what "serious consequences" were. A bloody great army on a country's border is a big enough clue in any man's book. Even Stevie Wonder could have told you that.

Why is somebody that is obviously socialistic in their life outlook discussing the merits of the old canard:

the outcome justifies the means?

lefties should re-read Marx and remember where they come from.

Leveler......

Theres your answer, the wording for one. Youre trusting everyone to be bright and honest. Welcome to the real world.

The troops buildup didnt begin till after the resolution was signed. We already had a considerable force built up in Saudi Arabia from previous years. The presence of soldiers in that region is nothing new.

The fact that we were building up forces also showed we could care less how the resolutions worked. had Saddam complied, we still planned on invading period. The fact that we started building up and basically were giving the signal that regardless, we were going in.

Was The security council naive enough to think serious concequences meant otherwise? YES.

Was Europe naive enough to think it meant otherwise? YES. This is the same Europe nthat placated Hitler and gave him countries because they thought he could be rerasoned with. So, yes, I do believe that they thought it meant other things.

Youre assuming that everyone is capable of seeing the obvious. That is a very dangerous assumption to make. You can throw it in thier faces and beat them on the heads with it.

So, stop assuming that said reps and leaders are smart. Stop assuming they are honest. Look at how they voted.

And, the Un inspections were not given enough time. Period. The point here isnt rationality, but in technicality and going through formailities. What works in the real world and what works on papaer are two different things.

The whole resolution/ UN vote was a pure formaility, because the plans for invasion took [place long before. They just needed the paperwork and to go through the motions before they continued.

The build up of soldiers shows us no matter what the inspections revealed, Saddam was going out.

I do not feel better that saddam is gone, I do not feel safer, the world is no better than before. I am more worried about China and North Korea, threats that are FAR more serious than Iraq.

But Iraq was more dangerous because they had a #load of oil. How damgerouis a man is depends on how much goodies he sits on.

Speaking of violating UN resolutons.......

Israel ahs violated hundreds of them. Hmmmm........

North Korea continues to vio9late international treaties. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm..........

It would be obvious even to Stevie Wonder what bthe real motivation for this war was.

Leveller: "They went to war over 1441. Remember? Not WoMD.

Nope. Sorry. They went to war after they tried to get the 9 other members of the Security Council to sign up for the invasion and FAILED. Resolution 1441 does NOT sanction the use of military force. It says "serious consequences". If you're a bloodthirsty warmongerer then maybe that means war, for the rest of us it means serious consequences. Resolution 1441 did NOT sanction the US invasion, if you assert it you're either misinformed or you lie.

read it for yourself.

www.un.int...

"The US went to war on the simple fact that if it didn't act now, it would get screwed in the future. You could say that it is ONLY possible that this could happen but hell!!! Would you want to take the risk? 9/11 anyone? So Saddam wasn't directly responsible? No? Then who bred the people who flew those planes? Who gave them the hatred that fuelled their actions? We're not talking money or arms or even open support. "

?!?! Who bred the people who were in those planes on 9-11? Why, Saudi Arabia did, not Iraq. Who gave them hatred to support their actions? Why, the US did, by having military bases in Arab lands and supporting Israel no matter what.

Didn't you read Osama bin Laden's demands after 9-11 or did you just figure you could guess them?

" It's not just the Iraqis who hate you. A large proportion of the Arab population hate you. Why? They're bred to. It takes their mind away from the miserable lives they have to lead. It focuses the blame elsewhere"

Am I the only one who finds this hilarious? It's not OUR fault they hate us, it's THEIR fault. They are BRED to hate us.

One of these days come visit me, Leveller. I live on planet Earth, not sure where you hail from , but it ain't here.

"The invasion of Iraq was undertaken to free a people from an oppressive, murdering government which thrived on instability in the region by the promotion of hatred."

Hey what about Pakistan, who funds terrorists and is ruled by a general who took over the country in a military coup? Not a democracy and full of arabs, but not only do they not get attacked, the US government gives them money! That sound you heard was your argument fizzling out.

Springer: "To those who say this war was unjust I say, Go to New York City anmd spend some time with a Fireman who lost a friend/partner or a family who lost a loved one and ask them if we should give these types "a chance"...

Hey guess what, I have quite a few friends in New York. NONE of them think that we need to be in Afghanistan still. NONE of them were for the war on Iraq.

They're still all pretty pissed the Bush Administration lied to them about New York's air quality after 9/11. None of them think that we can make it better by killing other people.

"To think that there were no WMDs in Iraq flies in the face of reality

Yeah, you're right, I mean it's not as if there's been 1400 operatives scouring the country for 3 months or anything. Oh wait, that's exactly what's happening. And they're professionals. And it's costing hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

It seems almost divorced from reality to claim that THEY'RE THERE! None have been found, there was no evidence of any, and when faced with an invading force NONE WERE USED.

All the claims that the Administration based their info on have been debunked. Niger uranium? Ixnay on that. Aluminium tubes for a centrifuge? Nada. Mobile chemical warfare trucks? Oopsie, nope.

I guess I admire your tenacity for hanging on to the bitter end, even though you're clearly wrong.

And let me ask you something. How long does it take for a chemical weapon to degrade? If I have a vat of anthrax how long before it biodegrades? Guess how long. Do you even know?

And to all those who blab about all the dual use facilities, YOUR GARAGE IS A DUAL USE FACILITY. Your pantry! Your girlfriend's uterus!

That vial of botulinum (oooh, a whole vial) can also be used in various medical capacities (to deal with everything from Tourette's to wrinkles).


Never fear, turdknockers! Join the Cult of WMD, there is no skill-testing question, and no IQ minimum!



jakomo

And as an added note:

A frickin VIAL of botulinum is NOT a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

A WMD is something that has a DELIVERY system (missile, plane, etc.). A canister of mustard gas is not a weapon of MASS destruction. A missile fitted with a chemical warhead IS.

A missile fitted with a chemical warhead that WORKS and that has enough range to hit another country IS.

Saddam didn't even have any missiles with enough range to hit Israel this time, and you know he probably wanted to (he did in 1991).

So again, a WMD is a weapon capable of causing destruction on a massive scale, with the delivery system necessary to deploy it.

A test tube of anthrax found in a Dukes of Hazard lunchbox is not a WMD.


jakomo

Leveler,

Using 9/11 as an arguement kinda kills it right there.

Iraq had nothing toi do with 9/11, Bush even came out and said this. No links found.

Thus, go to New York and ask them if the war was just. They will say the same thing: those were supposedly SAUDIS flying thoise planes, not Iraq.

Saudi Arabia is under an oppresive regime that murders people, leveler. What have we done about them? Wer support them.

WMD in Iraq flies in the face of reality. Th reality is:

Weve been in that stinking filthy hellhole of a country for 6 months, and have turned up jack #. Hm.basically, weve been there longer than the time we gave the UN inspectors, and they managed to find more than we have.

The war was bull#, anyway you look at it.

Saddam wasnt the only murderous brutal dictator in the world. he wasnt anywhere near as bad as others.

Under saddams regime, women had more rights than they did in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Women there cant even drive, and have to walk around covered up. They ahd the choice in Iraq at least.

Removing a brutal dictator was not a just cause for the war. Period. WMD was a lie. US security was a joke.

The powers that be have run out of reasons for justification, and have only left three:

1. Money for special contractors who grease the fat cats palms
2. To placate and kiss Israels ass
3. Oil Currency and getting a pro us opec vote in there.

Any other reasons fall aprt when crutinized

I think Jakomo's very thoughtful contribution on the previous page is better than anything I could have said on this thread.

It was a really accurate perspective on the reasons for war from the US & UN Security Council perspective.

And, of course, the Leveller-Skadi Words of Meaningful Dialogue.

I am seeing at least a couple of American news programs per day with detailed analysis of the results and status of the WMD search process. They appear now to be a reflection of what was being discussed by sensible adult members of ATS about 45-60 days ago. While it is sad to think how long it takes for the reality and gravity of the situation to be picked up on by the more 'captive' media, at least it breaks down the nonsense that too many people have stored in their heads about WMDs in the non-ATS American community.

Originally posted by Jakomo
Leveller: "They went to war over 1441. Remember? Not WoMD.

Resolution 1441 does NOT sanction the use of military force. It says "serious consequences". If you're a bloodthirsty warmongerer then maybe that means war, for the rest of us it means serious consequences.

Then please, please explain to me what those "serious consequences" would be.

Leveller: "Then please, please explain to me what those "serious consequences" would be."

Glad to. What would be the "serious consequences" that Iraq would face if it were found in material breach.

Okay, the UN charter prohibits the transnational use of force unless you are acting in self defense or you are acting under authorization of the UN Security Council. That's pretty standard. So if they get Security Council approval, it's a go.

Unless it's self-defense. As in, they KNOW there's missiles lined up, all ready to fly, aimed at their country. I'm talking Bay of Pigs pictures of missiles being assembled here. Leaving no doubt.

Here's an excellent, relevant link that references an article in an Albany NY paper on February 25th, 2003 (which is after resolution 1441 was passed Nov 8, 2002):

www.globalsecurity.org...

"President Bush on Monday launched his diplomatic endgame to disarm Iraq by urging the divided United Nations Security Council to approve a new resolution that could clear the way for U.S.-led military action...

...But France, Germany and Russia introduced a counter-proposal that called for additional weapons inspectors to carry out a five-month, step-by-step schedule for Iraq to relinquish suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons materials.

The three countries' memorandum to the Security Council said that military action "should only be a last resort," adding: "So far, the conditions for using force against Iraq are not fulfilled." China endorsed the initiative. Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States have the power to veto Security Council actions...

...National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice left no doubt that the U.S.-backed measure, if approved, would be cited by U.S. officials as U.N. authorization to carry out military action.

"It is hard to imagine any other way, if he has failed to voluntarily disarm, to disarm him except forcibly," Rice said."

I love the way it is "hard to imagine any other way". Hard to imagine? Maybe a more peaceful way would be harder to DO, but hard to even IMAGINE? Yikes. National Security Adviser indeed.

"Eleven of the council's 15 members have voiced support for continued U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq. Only the United States, Britain, Spain and Bulgaria so far have endorsed threats to disarm Iraq by force...

...Key points of the U.S.-British-Spanish draft Security Council resolution on Iraq:
-Refers to previous Security Council resolutions on Iraq, including one passed in August 1990 after Iraq's invasion of neighboring Kuwait, and Resolution 1441, passed Nov. 8.
-Recalls that Resolution 1441 found Iraq in "material breach of its obligations" but afforded it "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations."
Citing the section of the U.N. Charter that allows for military enforcement, the draft asks the council to decide that "Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441."

The French, German and Russian memorandum:
Says "the Security Council must step up its efforts to give a real chance to the peaceful settlement of this crisis" and "the military option should only be a last resort."
Says "no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field" and that inspections "are functioning without hindrance."
Calls for a "clear program of action" for weapons inspectors to disarm Iraq peacefully.

Source: Associated Press "

So it's really not important what MY idea of serious consequences is, it's more important what 11 of the 15 Security Council countries had to say. And they had a pretty resounding NO FRICKIN WAY to the idea of an invasion.

Sorry if that kind of deflates your whole rant.

Way to snag Britain, Spain and Bulgaria, though. Dem Bulgarians is good fighters. How many are deployed in Iraq, anyway?

Oh, right.


jakomo

Leveler,

Serious concequences, again, depends on whose interpretting. To the French, that could simply mean more sanctions, or sending in a #load of buerocrats, defaulting on loans, ect.

leveler, again, you assume that people are going to be smart enough like you to figure out heavy sibtlies, but again, you make the mistake of assuming buerocrats and leaders are smart honest people.

Pure and simple: if the US UK really wanted to cover thier asses, in the resolution, they should have spelt it out in plain English and translated it into plain french, russian, ect.

They should have said:

If Saddam Hussein does not relinquish all his data and open up his entire misreable country to UN inspectors to monitor, we are going to bomb the living # out of him and raze his #ing country to ashes. In more diplomatic language of course.

Like, If Saddam doesnt comply, they will face a UN sanctioned invasion force which will amrch into his country, throw his regime out of power, and take over and put someone in who will comply.

Serious concequences does not necessarily sanction military action. It leaves an open blank page to what its true meaning is, and is open to interpretation.

The language should have been razor sharp and clear. What is obvious to you and stevie wonder is comepletely incomprehnisble tp say, Schroeder.

It also leaves the resolution open for debate, because it is not in bstark plain clear english that leaves NO doubts.

Thats the way you have to do it when playing beurocrats game You have to allow no loopholes, leave nothing open to doubt, and make it clear so even a 2 year old with downs syndrome will understand.

Thus, in the technicalities and formailities of the war, they failed. As I sated above, they should have said:

If Saddam doesnt comply with our demands, well grease his sorry ass and take his whole country by use of a massive military invasion of fully armed troops with guns, missles, polpanes, tanks, ect.