It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WMD: The Burden of Proof cont...and the Supposed Lie of Bush...

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 08:48 PM
Some very good reading and a free pdf you will gain a new perspective on things......some of the big picture. More lies? Well read this and you can see that there was a legitimate reason for war in Iraq. Plus its downloadable to read at your leisure.

WMD: The Burden of Proof Part II

Iraq: The Failure of Containment and the Strategic Necessity of War - Part I

Executive Summary
Far from being a war of choice or a strategic distraction, military action against Iraq was an American and international strategic imperative. The U.S., in particular, could not fi ght the war against terrorism while allowing Saddam Hussein’s regime—in the heart of the Middle East—to break out from containment as was happening on the eve of the war. The Iraq campaign was not a preventive war. U.N. resolutions foresaw the restoration of stability in the Middle East through the use of force against Saddam’s outlaw regime—if that regime continued torefuse to account for the Weapons of Mass Destruction it was known to have possessed, and would not verifi ably disarm. Other mechanisms for restraining Saddam—economic sanctions and arms inspections—had already been successfully subverted by theIraqi dictator.

Some quotes:

The alternative is to carry on with the sanctions regime, which has resulted, because of how Saddam implements it, in thousands of people dying needlessly in Iraq every year. In addition, of course, many thousands of people are political detainees or are executed as a result of their political views.—Tony Blair

After spending 1995 to 2000 criticizing Iraq sanctions, the Germans and French fell in love with containment. —Jamie Rubin

It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of “catch as catch
can.”—Hans Blix

Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly.—Bill Clinton

WMD: The Burden of Proof Part II

Introduction: Record Criticism The war in Iraq is portrayed by its critics as a gratuitous act, an unnecessary and costly war of choice. The most blistering criticism has come from strategists who regard operations in Iraq as a diversion from the war against terrorism. Some, such as Brent Scowcroft, a former National Security Advisor, opposed military action before the fi ghting began.1 Others, particularly opposition politicians in the U.S. and Britain, have formed a post-war antiwar movement.
The strategists’ critique of the Iraq war has been best summarized by
Jeffrey Record, a professor at the Air War College. In a paper for the U.S. Army War College that The Washington Post called “scathing,”2 Record lambastedOperation Iraqi Freedom as:an unnecessary preventive war
of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al Qaeda. The war against Iraq was not integral to the GWOT [Global War on Terrorism], but rather a detour from it.3 By calling the Iraq war “preventive,” Record and The New York Times,4 which has echoed this view, are in effect, terming it a war of U.S. aggression. The U.S. Department of Defense defi nes a preventive war as “A war initiated in the belief that military confl ict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk.”5 Historically, it has been militarist states that have fought preventive wars, such as the war initiated by Germany
in 1914, the German offensive against the Soviet Union in June 1941 and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.6 Democracies, by contrast, do not believe in “inevitable” confl ict. Instead, they seek alternatives to using force, which they regard as an option of last resort.

Link to grab the rest here: PDF

[edit on 18-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 18-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 18-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 19-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 19-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 19-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 1-11-2004 by edsinger]

posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 01:44 PM
WMD: The Burden of Proof

The onus was always upon Iraq, not upon the U.N. or U.S. to explain the disappearance of the WMD stocks. The U.N. demanded in 1991 that Iraq verifi ably surrender the lethal agents that it had repeatedly used. UNSCR 687/1991 required that Iraq “unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision.”43
UNSCR 1441/2002 ordered “that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively” with the inspectors.44 Blix told
the U.N. Security Council on January 27, 2003 that:
It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of “catch
as catch can.”45 Unverified unilateral WMD stock destruction was a serious breach of Iraq’s obligations. Verification is a standard disarmament mechanism, particularly when dealing with a regime with a record
of deception and falsehood

posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 09:29 PM
So here it is the night before the election and the Left claims Bush is in Iraq for oil and that he lied about WMD.

Well as I have argued many times, then a #pile of folks lied.

Here is a decent arguement as to why the war was nessesary anyway.

Please dont take my word for it, read it for yourselves!

Any why do troops do these things? Are you thankful?

new topics

log in