If no WMD found; will Bush be made out to be a liar?

[LDiCesare]

The war was not to find WoMD but to find out if there were any, because inspections couldn't be trusted. That there be no WoMD doesn't change anything to the fact that Iraq failed to inconditionnally and immediately collaborate. They did collaborate , but not immediately, and tried to put some conditions (with little success, but they still didn't respect the 1441 resolution).
The problem with the war is that: Either there were no weapons, in which case Saddam was just silly not to cooperate, and that's all. Or there were weapons. If they are not found, that means they may have been (at best) hidden, or (at worst) smuggled away by people who no longer feared their dictator (who was about to fall), and so could safely sell these cans of mustard gas to some nearby terrorist. Just pray that such smuggling didn't happen.
The war didn't prove more efficient than inspections, so from that point of view, it was indeed useless. (Other reasons for the war not being discussed.)
Note that diplomatically, all the opposition was against the use of war to find out WoMD, not against freeing Iraq, and that if no WMD are found, then the U.S. will look like a bully to all countries which already want to see them that way. Those who want to see the U.S. as champions of liberty won't change their opinions because of a few facts.

[Sava]

Japher: uhhhh okay, explain your reasoning...

I didn't oppose military action in Iraq... I opposed Bush's use of it. For me, it wasn't about using the sabre, it was about using it in an intelligent matter. All non-military solutions weren't exhausted. Going into Iraq was on the agenda the day Bush put his hand on the Bible and lied to America. If anything, Bush was a stupid and inept politician for trying to use the WMD case. As Ivins' column explains, Tony Blair made the case that Saddam was bad. Once the war was inevitable, Bush changed his strategy to "let's make the war about liberation, etc" because he realized that the public was on the verge of pointing out his lies. That's where the revisionist version comes in.

In the end, getting rid of Saddam is the right move. I oppose the method that it was done in. The other thing I find interesting is that the US media didn't sufficiently report the alternative solution to war that consisted of 30,000 additional inspectors, the insertion of UN forces and increased scrutiny. But instead, it's omitted from the record. Had we gone down that path, the UN no doubt would have been on board for military action down the road. And perhaps my biggest complaint about this situation is that the US is being made the scapegoat for everything that goes wrong in Iraq.

There was an intelligent way of removing Saddam. But instead, Bush is a cowboy and decided to confirm the stereotype that the US is an imperialist nation that acts in its own interest. When Bush is gone, that stigma will still be hanging over our heads. And as an American, that offends me that Bush has run our name in the mud because people close to the administration benefitted from his war.

That's what my anti-war stance was about. You can continue to stereotype the left and act like an idiot, but perhaps if you turned off Rush and informed yourself, engaged in discussion rather than insults, you might learn what anti-war people were complaining about in the first place.

[Sandman]

WMDs will only have been found if nuclear weapons are found.

The 'precursor' chemicals consist of basic substances that every industrialised country needs for sanitation, healthcare, etc. I consider it entirely unreasonable for them to have been denied to Iraq in the first place.

[Dinner]

Sandman: WoMD includes Nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Further more it is not just any chemical that qualifies but a list of known compounds which have been used before as weapons of mass destruction. Lastly, stores of biological spores would certainly fill every reasonable definition of a WoMD and they would not have a nonmilitary use.

[Andrew1999]

If no WMDs are ever found no one will give a damn. Anything that happened before the last commercial break is ancient history.

[Japher]

You can continue to stereotype the left and act like an idiot

Thanks for the permission. Man, you ussually just call me an idiot and leave it at that...

To me it sounds like your just mad that we didn't continue to bend over and take it from the UN for another 12 years. Is that right? I'm sorry you think Bush is a cowboy and I am aware that many ppl feel that way, and his flying onto that carrier just proves it. Yet, in a world thwarted with terror surrounding us and invading us I would rather have a president that is willing to do something about these fears instead of letting the French tickle our fancy.

Perhaps Bush was grasping at straws to get the war on the way, perhaps promising WoMD was a bad move, but when your dog begs for a bone you gotta give them something or that dog will starve and bite you in the arse. The WoMD was just that bone to the UN.

And as an American, that offends me that Bush has run our name in the mud because people close to the administration benefitted from his war.

Yeah, and that suks. However, it is something that Bush decided to impose on us when we decided to go it alone. I feel bad that our ego had to get hurt in order to make Americans and the rest of the world feel a little safer now that the bstrd is out of power, not to mention stopping of the murders that was going on before we even got there (I am not indicating that we knew about them)... Oh well, I can do with a little humility or a little name calling if it means that freedom is to be dished out in large portions.

but perhaps if you turned off Rush and informed yourself, engaged in discussion rather than insults, you might learn what anti-war people were complaining about in the first place

Man, I wish I never told you I listened to Rush... Oh, yeah, I also read the papers and watch the news. I get my fair share of liberal media, so don't worry about all the brainwashing that is going on in my head, it sounds like you got enough of your own to deal with.

At least we agree that Saddam was bad, I also think Blair handled the situation a lot better, and I am greatful to our British friends from stalling or delaying Bush from making an even bigger error.

I do not deny that this could of been handled better, but it wasn't being handled at all, and those that were suppose to be handling it were making excuses for why it wasn't being handled... It is that kind of delinquency that I can't stand.

If you want to talk about benefitting from the war I feel that Bush is completely in the wrong in his dealings here, awarding no-bid contracts to companies of his "friends". Point to note however, many dems do the same thing... Feinstein for one. This sort of thing, I am sure we can agree, is a travesty.

Snoochies...

[Sandman]

WoMD is a contrived term created for purely political purposes. Chemical weapons are of limited battlefield use, and I consider them fundamentally flawed as terrorist weapons. They have never been used as weapons of mass destruction.

Biological weapons have, to my knowledge, never been successfully used in a modern battlefield, and as a terrorist weapon they are, at best, unproven.

A suitcase nuke can vapourize a large building. A large nuke can obliterate a city. To group them with gases and germs is completely specious, since only nukes cause mass destruction.

As for precursor chemicals, these include things as basic as chlorine, essential for sanitation, plastics, paper etc but denied to Iraq because it can be used to make chemical weapons. Since chemical weapons are not a serious threat, the reasoning behind the ban is flawed.

[el freako]

Personally I think that WMD will be found.

If there are no indiginous ones found within 3 months then the US will 'import' some and 'discover' them.

[Dinner]

Sandman: When I entered the Army and went through basic training (1995) they were using the Term WoMD to describe NBC threats. The books and handouts we studied from were all printed during the Reagon and Carter administrations so it can hardly be said WoMD is a modern politically created word designed just for the current Iraqi situation.

Biological Weapons were used effectively by the Japanese against the Chinese in WW2 but the Japs only used them a few times and then gave them up because of the risk of sicking their own troops. As for chemical weapons not being effective... You must not have learned very much about modern nerve and blood agents. Both the Soviets and Americans had Chemical weapons that would go right through a gas mask or the commonly used MOP suites. That they were so effective, deadly, and long lasting is the main reason niether side had the balls to use them.

[St Leo]

BTW, have they gotten around to releasing the evidence that links the Al Qaeda to the WTC attack?

[SlowwHand]

"I didn't oppose military action in Iraq... I opposed Bush's use of it. For me, it wasn't about using the sabre, it was about using it in an intelligent matter. All non-military solutions weren't exhausted. Going into Iraq was on the agenda the day Bush put his hand on the Bible and lied to America......yada-yada"




Sava

[DinoDoc]

Feed the troll.

Originally posted by St Leo
BTW, have they gotten around to releasing the evidence that links the Al Qaeda to the WTC attack?

Yes. Quite a while ago, you poor isolated fool.

[HolyWarrior]

These were the same people urging George W. to allow the UN inspectors more time to find WMDs. Now they're caterwauling that no WMDs have been found.
Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by HolyWarrior
These were the same people urging George W. to allow the UN inspectors more time to find WMDs. Now they're caterwauling that no WMDs have been found.
Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.

Huh?! Uhm, brainiac, the desire to allow the inspectors to continue was to determine whether or not Iraq actually had them before going to war.

I suggest you look up "hypocrisy" before you start using such multisyllabic words again in the future.

[GePap]

President Bush will suffer no internal political reprecussions if WMD's are not found in quantity (it is not only having a shell that matters, it is having enough to cause the sorts of apocalyptic scenerios the WH keep feeding us). The American people would never have supported a war of Iraq based simply on "liberation". If in 2000 Bush had asked for a war, well, it would not have happened: it should be remembered that previous to 9/11 this admin. was speaking about modifying Iraq sanctions, making them "smarter", whatever that means. Only after 9/11, only after the American people felt unsafe, was a war in the ME acceptable. I bet, if we go back to the pre-war posts on this very board, and consider how many of them justified this war on purely threat-based claims, vs solely on humanitarian aims, which wins? Look at the presidents own speeches: look at what he said on moday before the war, or his state of the Unions speech: talk of "liberation" was always there, but aways secondary, with the "threat of Iraq" taking up twice, trice as much time. Colin Powells big UN day in feb. was not about the Ba'aths regime's actions in the HR area, but about WMD's, and all the "clear intelligence" we had.Only after the war begun was the Humanitarian aspect of this war emphazised, beyond the "Iraqi WMD threat" part. Now, there were alwyas people who backed this war for humanitarian aims, btu they were always a small minority: the vast majority backed this war cause they saw Iraq as a threat; now with 'victory', they will willingly forget those fears (specially if they turn out to be unjustified) and bask in the glory of 'victory'.

Beofre this war, I aways said the only two arguments that made snese about Iraq and a war were "liberation" and the idological arguemtns of the Wolfowitz type. Every time I said that, a bunch of people would argue how Saddam was a new Hitler, poised to take over the ME, or kill millions upon millions, blah, blah, blah. Well, I guess I was right.

And for all of those who "bask" in their own "self-santification" about thier "great love of man", pleas explain to me how you feel about Turkmenistan being part of our great "coolition of the willing"? If you don't know about Turkenistan, look it up, its one of our new clients in Central Asia, a place with plenty of statues of its own....