Absolutely.

Iraqi missile engines and dual-use equipment were found, not WMD components or whole missiles.

Show me where Kay definitely concludes that there was an ongoing bio/chem program and that Hussein attempted to acquire nukes. Foreign intelligence, whether Russian or Israeli, is not reliable, so I'd be interested in another source for the Iraqi-Syrian shipments. I'd be similarly interested in a news story about al-Qaeda's acquisition of 20 tons of deadly chemicals.

Char, we took action based on false and distorted evidence that most of the world didn't believe or back. I had arguments at Massassi before the war even started where I pointed out that the administration's case was broken.

From Kay's report:



Keep in mind, I'm not saying there were stockpiles, because I think that both Bush and Clinton were given a lot of bad intell on the subject (I can get a Clinton quote from after he was out of office that supports the WMD claim, if you'd like). I'm just saying I believe Saddam *was* a threat because of a)terror ties (there's a new report out today that deals with Bin Laden specifically requesting help from Saddam, if you want that link too) and b)his continued drive for WMD and the potential for them to end up in terror hands, not just Al-Qaeda. Kay deals with nukes in the report as well, and comes to the conclusion that Saddam had begun minor projects that would help quicken his attainment of nukes once he moved back into the program full swing.

I think that all the evidence we had over the last 6 years pointed to the conclusions Bush's team reached, and the reason I think that is because people on the other side of the aisle reached the same conclusions using the same evidence, including Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Daschle and Co. The claims Bush made were nothing new at all. He just acted on them.

Like I said, the evidence on WMD may end up totally wrong, and there may not be any stockpiles. We may be wrong, but at the same time, I think we were right, as strange as that may sound. Given the evidence that I believe Bush was faced with, I'm glad he took action.

Just one man's opinion, though.

Edit - This is the actual article that came of the United Nations (I guess an internal UN papaer): http://www.iraq.net/displayarticle4166.html

It discusses dual-use in terms of bio/chem weapons.

[This message has been edited by Charoziak (edited June 25, 2004).]

That is nothing to make an invasion remotely legitimate or legal. I'm very dubious of links between Al Queda and Saddam. Osama bin Laden never liked Saddam Hussein or the Ba'ath party and there are plenty of other people he would go to first for support, and Saddam would be probably be too afraid that Al Queda would turn and attack him. They're not exactly reliable allies, certainly not when Saddam himself is one of the many grievances of Osama bin Laden.
There may have been ties with Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, that wouldn't surprise me. HAMAS or Hezbollah I think is unlikely.

But things like that could easily be sorted out by diplomacy. It could be likely that there were organisations in Iraq that the Ba'ath party didn't even know about; the Americans do have satellite resources that Iraq wouldn't have, and America could help Iraq locate the cells and they could take them out.

Kay is using a lot of words to say very little in that quote.

You're going to have to actually make a case for a). As for b), every tinpot dictator wants WMDs. Short of WMDs or WMD programs, it's not enough justification for sanctions. Invasion is right out.

From Kay's telephone interview:


People made from all over the political map made all sorts of claims about Iraq and WMDs, but no one other than Bush decided to invade on false pretexts.

You see, Bush sought and found completely fabricated or distorted evidence that claimed that Iraq had hundreds of tons of biological and chemical weapons and an active nuclear program and so on and so on. How can you be glad Bush was duped into sacrificing over 850 US soldiers and thousands of Iraqis for no good reason? He was played like a fool. Iran and others are practically laughing in our face and the rest of world thinks we're gullible idiots.

[This message has been edited by Ictus (edited June 25, 2004).]

Well, you certainly wouldn't limit criticism just to Bush would you? For years Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry (to name a few) have made equally strong arguments, if not stronger, against Iraq and their WMD and Al Qaeda ties.

I do find it interesting that so many people are so willing to jump the gun and say that the evidence is distorted etc. when in the same breath they cite the discovery of "dual use" components. So we're just supposed to assume no WMD evidence from that.

Personally I think it's just going to take time. I'm a little surprised that nothing "shocking" has been discovered after listening the past three administrations and the UN rhetoric for over the past decade. I'm also one of the few people here that seems to realize that we didn't go to war because of WMDs anyway. We went to fight terrorism. WMDs was just one piece of the whole.


------------------
Have you forgotten ...

Wookie: "People made from all over the political map made all sorts of claims about Iraq and WMDs, but no one other than Bush decided to invade on false pretexts." Politicians routinely deal in rhetoric and polemic but relatively rarely in action. A double standard is very appropriate.

Um. The American people were promised hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons, not tiny quantities of dual-use equipment used for legitimate purposes. Of course, until information is provided that proves otherwise. Negative claim, yadda yadda. Give us a date by which you'll be willing to admit that Iraq didn't have stockpiles of WMDs or active WMD programs after all. I'm still waiting for someone to credibly link Hussein and anti-US terrorist groups.

That isn't a legal reason to go to war.
One country can only invade another if it clearly poses a threat to them.
Bush might have played the 'liberating' card successfully, but Blair was relying on the WMD evidence.


I don't think that's too hard. But I don't think any credible links will be found between Iraq and Al-Queda.

But America is the most hated country in the world. If you're going to invade every country that dislikes America, you've got a whole lot of invading to do.

I guess it's just another example of Americans trying to fight non-conventional warfare using the old conventional methods, and it clearly isn't working.

How exactly do you think invading Iraq has stopped "terrorism"? Yes, perhaps cut off funding to some groups in Palestine, but they will find another source easily.
But imagine all the children growing up now, in a destroyed Iraq. How many of those are going to grow up hating America? How many of those are going to grow up to be suicide bombers?
The invasion of Iraq has only fueled anti-American sentiment and strengthened the causes of anti-American organisations.

That's funny because the infamous 9/11 commission here found that there was.

To answer Ictus' question, I guess I would be willing to conclude no WMDs when the situation stabilizes, former regime members feels comfortable infomring, and we finally get information on what Iraq had, what they did with what they had, and what they were planning on getting. But, like I infered, the whole WMD thing is a non-issue to me. I don't care if they had them or not. We took out Saddam and there is nothing bad about that.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

Everyone should see this movie. There's something in it for everyone to learn.


------------------
Pissed off?

Nations are sovereign entities; there is no international law that has true merit and consequence. For this reason, invading a country is never illegal.

------------------
Ω of 14

If you want to learn propaganda, yes. Apparently there's more of the same Moore BS in this movie: interviews that never happened, made up facts, etc. One guy interviewed in the movie has never even talked to Michael Moore.

------------------
Ω of 14

Here's my theory on Bush's hidden agenda for Iraq:

1) Smack a middle east country around to prove we're serious about stopping terrorism. Many of the governments collaborate or otherwise tolerate the existance of terrorist groups. Iraqi intellegence, for instance, met many times with al-Qaeda leaders. This will hopefully show them that we are not playing around, and they need to clean up their houses.

2) Create a stepping stone of democracy in the mideast. This is very risky. If it fails the world will blame America. If it succeeds, however, it will have been extremely worthwhile. A free society in the mideast could serve as an example and encourage other countries to rebel to have what Iraq has.

------------------
Ω of 14

United Nations.

The U.N. is only as powerful as its constituents. It is not a governing authority by any means. It's more of a meeting place for the big countries to get together and talk.

[This message has been edited by oSiRiS (edited June 26, 2004).]

Wookie: No. The 9/11 commission found that there were minor contacts in the nineties that never resulted in a collaberative relationship. (1) By the way, do you still believe that the Iraqi government didn't cooperate with UN inspectors in the years leading up to the war?

Mort-Hog: I didn't expect it to be hard, which is why I'm surprised no one has bothered to call me on it.

oS one day you will understand the true definition of propaganda. Moore's propaganda is only as deep as Bush's (or the US government's) and Iraq's and China's and Canada's and...

There ARE things in this movie that everyone will learn something from. Whether you think it's propaganda or not, there are some facts that either side will admit to.

The only difference between Moore's crap and the governments crap is that Moore's crap is available for you and me to investigate ourselves. Bush's crap you'll have to take his word on (unless you have your own intelligence team that you can drop into Iraq and gather info yourself).
No thanks.

------------------
Pissed off?

Well you can't really compare "Moore vs. Reality" to get propaganda vs. objectiveness to see how propagandaic (or whatever the appropriate comparative is) it is. You can only do "Moore vs. Bush", and propaganda vs. propaganda isn't really very useful.

Probably going to see it today, but I have mixed feelings about BfC. It showed some interesting views, but a lot of it was Moore beating up and abusing run of the mill security guards (who aren't in on the vast right-wing conspiracy) and bringing up superemotional subjects and just letting the camera roll.

*shrug*

------------------
[16:38] Correction: dick tracy was a real man
[16:38] happydud: Actually... He wasn't.
[19:08] Dormouse: hi, my name's happydud and i'm passive-aggress.. SHUTUP!! *stabs nearby orphan*
[You have gained 3 Dark Side Points]

It's coming to Britain on the 9th of July, in case anyone is interested.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3815071.stm



What are prints?

I think you missed the point. Fahrenheit 451 was about censorship and whatnot. F9/11 is about Bush lying to the people about Iraq and whatnot. The title itself has nothing to do with Moore's film, yes, but he was alluding to the subject matter.

Charoziak- We didn't carpet bomb anything. Carpet bombing was used in WWII because the bombs were largely innaccurate and couldn't hit anything if you just dropped one, so they just flattened areas to ensure they hit the target.
That, and it did massive amounts of damage, in attempt to demoralize the people.

And oS, before you peg me as a left wing, pot smoking, liberal, Moore loving, Bush hating hippy (go hippies!), I am liberal and somewhat democratic (though both parties disgust me), I don't like Moore or Bush.

Moore always seemed to kind of bully the people who had no say, (security guards, ect.) and he bends the facts. He doesn't out right lie, he just bends and twists facts. (Example: "I've heard reports saying that hte Saudis control as much as 780 billion ..." "So the Saudis control 7-8% of the American Economy!" He used the biggest number, instead of the average, blowing things out of proportion.)

I also found it interesting how he didn't mention Guantanamo (s?) Bay even once.. Would seem a good thing to mention if he's trying to rip Bush apart.

Did anyone else notice the striking similiarities between this film and the propaganda scenes in Starship Troopers? Like (in moore) the Army commercial with the people becoming soldiers...

I thought that was rather funny.

------------------
[16:38] Correction: dick tracy was a real man
[16:38] happydud: Actually... He wasn't.
[19:08] Dormouse: hi, my name's happydud and i'm passive-aggress.. SHUTUP!! *stabs nearby orphan*
[You have gained 3 Dark Side Points]

We have proof that Sadam was buying enriched Uranium for Africa. We have seen his labs. He had two week and a big dessert, and neighboring counteries that would love WMD's, not to mention terrorists.

No, we don't and no, we haven't. Feel free to lay the links on thick.

Why would Hussein hide or give away his weapons instead of using them?

Well, hypothetically speaking, regardless of how evil somebody may be, there will always be someone that does everything possible to make sure that that person gets a fair trial. Let's assume he DID have WMD's and he DID kill innocent people. If Saddam ships off all the WMD's and all civilians are too terrified to testify because of loyalist threats, evidence is gonna be quite hard to obtain, right? With that in mind, it could be quite possible for him to get off with just a slap on the wrist. Why use the weapons when defeat is certain and when it would make guilt obvious? He could easily give them to some other anti-US nation that could inflict more damage in some way. Plus, he hid in a hole, so it is obvious he does not want to die or be imprisoned.

So, IMO, if he did have WMD's, he has more than enough reason to hide them or give them away.

Then what was the point of obtaining them in the first place?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/disarm.html
In the sixth point down there is the line: "He (Sadam) recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, according to the British Government. He has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons"


"For the last several years, Saddam has been free of the inspectors and able to resume development and production of WMD. Former UN weapons inspectors and Iraqi defectors have reported that Iraq did manage to build several implosion devices that need only the cores of enriched uranium to become fully operational nuclear weapons. Given the expansion of Iraq's black market ties during the post-war embargo and the numerous humanitarian relief flights to Iraq from Russia, the enriched uranium needed to complete the weapons may have already found a way into the country."
From: http://usconservatives.about.com/library/weekly/aasaddama.htm


http://edwardjayepstein.com/2003question/niger_uranium.htm
Even that Liberal site admits it, but his point (which is, that he didn't buy U235, the stuff needed for the bomb) is bad because later on he admits that it just needs to be enriched to make the bomb. He says that Iraq did not have the capacity to enrich it as of September 2002, but almost did earlier on in the 90’s. Now if Iraq, with all it's oil money was not YET ready to turn the Uranium into U235, then obviously Niger couldn't and even if it could it would be confiscated rather quickly. How ever, Iraq could have in the near future have been able to enrich it and that's all needed since HE ALREADY HAD EVERY THING ELCE FOR THE BOMB IN PLACE! So any way, I have done as you said and laid the links on thick. Next time use Google. That’s all I had to do.

As I recall, the African Uranium information has been proven to be wrong. Both the US and Britain have admitted it.

------------------
"This thread is still alive? Someone should kill it."

[This message has been edited by Nubs (edited June 28, 2004).]

So back it up with evidence. I backed my postition up. Yours, if true should be way eaiser to find info on. Plus, I mean if he was building the bombs, we know he was at least trying.

No, I don't think I'll be doing that. These debate are completely pointless. I post facts, someone says they aren't right. Someone posts facts, I refuse to accept them. No matter what I post or say or link, it doesn't matter. No one is convinced either way. Give in to apathy.

------------------
"This thread is still alive? Someone should kill it."

[This message has been edited by Nubs (edited June 28, 2004).]

Obi, there was a mini-scandal that streched out for weeks about those claims in the SotU address. The end result is the administration publicly retracted the first claim and the IAEA thoroughly debunked the second (long and drawn out, short and sweet).

Yeah. I'll do that.

Many people would take this opportunity to rip you and your credibility to very tiny shreds. It's good to make your case airtight before you publish it.

--------

Nubs:

Morf: I'm sorry, but there's no way I'm buying that. Hussein, egotist extrodinaire, is going to give all away his WMDs that have cost him a decade of crippling sanctions months before the war starts to some of his worst enemies using previously unknown cloaking technology to escape the intensive scrutiny and hope beyond hope a hardly impartial jury is going to let him off easy despite overwhelming evidence of numerous human rights violations because God knows when you're absolutely positive your country is going to lose you stick around in a hole in that very country instead of leaving. Somehow Hussein can smuggle thousands of tons of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons over the border but can't save himself.

Full stop.

It's an absurd fantasy. It's incredibly stupid. Also, what Mort-Hog said.

--------

In somewhat related news, I just saw Fahrenheit 9/11. Good movie. Not controversial enough to merit the conservative rancor. You people should get a first-hand impression instead of trusting unreliable observers.

[This message has been edited by Ictus (edited June 28, 2004).]

But, but it's still possible!
I was just throwing a thought out there.

Calling me an unreliable observer, are you? I know when I'm not wanted.