Posted on 12/27/2003 8:20:35 AM PST by Chi-townChief
So the information we have now made the statements in 1998 inaccurate? Unless someone has a time machine I'm not aware of, I can't see how that works.
The chemicals have a short shelf life and need to be made fresh regularly.
That is a patently false statement. Mustard gas has a shelf life of many years, and many of the other chemical weapons are "binary munitions", which are mixed immediatly prior to use, using two precursor chemicals, making the shelf life problem a moot point.
I also noticed you conveniently left out biological agents from the discussion.
If follows that all the stories we were told, giving quantities of this and that chemical weapon were fairy tales, without any factual basis.
You were asked for proof of that statement earlier. I'd like to see it too.
The chem/bio stories were not obvious lies before the war, they were in the realm of possibility based on public information.
So how do you justify your original statement "We still need to know did the president lie to us or was he fooled by his advisors?" If the information was "in the realm of possibility", it seems your allegation is grossly unfair.
The nuclear stories were clearly false from public information.
So "public information" is better than intelligence developed by British and American agencies? What "public information" is so strong that Bush should have disregarded his own?
The post war facts tell us that the chem/bio stories were false as well.
Oh really? What "facts" are those? Less than a year after we invaded you are ready to state unequivocally that there are no WMDs? You must be privy to a lot more info than the rest of us.
But YES, he did have them, using the past tense. It just makes a really big difference when. It makes absolutely no difference who else was making the claims, unless you are claiming mass psychosis as an excuse.
Huh?
First you say they were lying, then you say the chem/bio weapons were a possibility, and now you claim it was "mass psychosis. What is it?
And you never did address the "illegal war" meme. Either defend it or retract it.
OK, I will do this again. The UN charter includes a very useful provision that says that all member states promise not to attack any other member state except in two instances: self-defense or permission of the Security Council. Neither exception applied in the case of the US invasion of Iraq.
Would you like to go over the details again?
Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. It was someone else.
The Secutiry Council (SC) did not approve the use of force. When we asked for that approval, the debate did not go well and it appeared that it would be a vote of 4 of 15 for, so the US withdrew the request and "went it alone". That makes the invasion illegal.
All the previous resolutions were directed to Saddam and did not actually authorize force. When the force question came up independently, it failed.
Now let me help you with my other statements. Before the war, based on knowledge that the public had, Chem/bio weapons were in the realm of possibility. I assume that the govt had better info. Since after the fact, there were none, I am wondering how the better information could not have foretold that. There was enough public information on the nuclear issue to know that there was NONE. The few pieces of evidence presented were patent lies. (Uranium purchase from Niger, high stength aluminum tubes)
And, ONCE AGAIN, you completely ignore the point. We were ALREADY AT WAR WITH IRAQ! The signed a cease-fire agreement ending hostilities in the first Gulf War. They then violated the terms of that agreement, thus breaking the cease fire. We needed no other justification than that.
I assume that the govt had better info.
Oh, you "assume"? So you label the President or his advisors liars because you "assume" there "better info"?
Since after the fact, there were none, I am wondering how the better information could not have foretold that.
And now you "wonder"? You have been asked to support your allegation that "there were none", and so far all we've gotten is hand-waving. How can you explicitly say that no WMDs exist?
You can never prove a negative to an absolute certainty but two facts point very strongly to there being none.
1. None have been found after many months of searching and several hundred million dollars spent looking.
2. None were used to repel the invasion.
Unbelievable.
You go from the definitive "there were none", to the wishy-washy "point very strongly to there being none" in one post.
I wish you'd make up your mind.
And ONCE AGAIN you completely ignore the war justification.
Yes, I am personally sure that there were none after this much search time, BUT, if you want to hold out hope that somewhere in the desert, there is a secret stash of those weapons, go ahead and hope. You can keep on hoping for the rest of your life, if you like. But most rational people have already given up or will in the next few months, certainly by November 2004.
Most rational people have also realized that the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war is not too useful. There is great risk of erroneously attacking a harmless nation. On its first try, that is exactly what happened.
And ONCE AGAIN you completely ignore the justification for war!
We didn't attack a nation - we attacked the Hussein regime.
And once again, there was none. That is the point I am trying to make.
If the only remaining reason is to free another nation from a local dictator who is no threat to us, it is not worth putting our boys at risk. If we let that be a good reason for a war, there will be no end to the wars we will be fighting.
Now you are running away from what you originally said. We were talking LEGAL justifications. Let me help....
In post 147 you made this comment:
It makes the US invasion of Iraq illegal.
I pointed out, and you continue to ignore, that Iraqi leaders signed a cease-fire agreement at the end of the first war, they then repeatedly violated the terms of that agreement, and that put us in a de facto state of war. We needed no other justification to make this war LEGAL.
OK, one more time. The war was wrong on multiple counts.
It was illegal under our agreements within the UN charter.
It was not justified by a risk to us. Iraq was harmless to us.
If we allow the excuse that freeing others from a dictator (not a danger to us) is an excuse for a war, there will be many wars.
It has accomplished nothing positive in the war on terror. It has probably worsened our situation.
It has weakened us since it is tying up much of our military resource pool that we might need in the near future. (No I don't know where or if we might really be at risk in the future, but it was foolish to tie up so many soldiers on Iraq.)
No contradiction, just multiple reasons that the war should not have happened.
Just repeating your talking points won't change the facts. Are you even reading what I'm writing? Because you keep ignoring my point.
Now, PLEASE, address SPECIFICALLY why the violation of the cease-fire agreement wouldn't be a legal justification for war.
It was to the UN that those cease fire promises were made and it was the UN that was dealing with Saddam. The Security Council had the responsibility to use force to enforce those provisions. They wisely decided against that course of action.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.