RED DAVE

From David Payne:

The question is, then, why in some way do you align yourself in any way with the power represented by Bush? Even in your disagreements and quibbles with my arguments, you recognize the corruption of the Bushies. Nothing good will come of what they have done. The elimination of the dictatorship of Hussein is replaced by chaos, social destruction on a mass scale and the rise of fundmentalism. Now credence can be given to
Bush's motives whatsoever!

(With regard to Bush Sr. and the invasion of Kuwait, here is a source.)

Bush Sr. and the Invasion of Kuwait

I'll do a point by point later on.

RED DAVE

RLV

Completely agreed. Yet the question is if he had any WMD that he could use in '03, not in '90. Evidence found so far points strongly towards a negative answer:
- WMDs are perishable. They have to be stored and treated correctly or they will be unusable after some time.
- UN inspectors didn't find any trace of current production or storage of WMDs.
- WMDs were not used during the invasion, even when Saddam clearly didn't have anything to lose.
- The US, despite having occupied the country and captured many of Saddam's people, has not found any WMD.

If Saddam had WMDs, what did he had them for? They were not ready to be used, they were not used, they are so well-hidden that he couldn't have used them even if he wanted!

Actually, the only way they will be found is when/if somebody from the US plants them there. Possibly shortly before the election, if Bush feels that he needs it to be reelected.

Er... the US have these people under custody. They can reward handsomely anybody that would lead them to WMDs. They can offer residence in the US and protection, along with a nice amount of money. And you believe that all the people that knew about WMDs (not a few people, if they had to be ready to be used) are not telling because of loyalty to Saddam or fear of reprisals?
Unlikely.

Unlikely. There was no nuclear program, neither any facilities that would allow it. The 'evidence' produced by Colin Powell in the US in that regard was a fake. The parts found recently would be of no use for any nuclear program (it's been discussed here recently). And Iraq was under surveillance by UN inspectors and US intelligence systems.

Also unlikely, considering that if these were used he would have been killed in a very short time. Saddam may have hated the US, but most certainly he was not suicide.

Actually, if there were WMDs, the invasion was the surest way to put them in the hands of terrorists. First, because it gave an incentive for Saddam or his people, in order to get revenge. Second, because the country now is in disarray, so somebody may just have sold them to a terrorist without Saddam being able to prevent it.

True. But when he did most of that killing he was left alone, or even supported, by the US. He was fighting Iran, so he was one of the 'good' guys for the US, and he received help even while he was actually using WMDs against Iranians or Kurds.
WFT, the US even looked the other way in '91 when he was massacring the Shiite people that the US themselves had encouraged to rebel against Saddam!

Then there would have been a justification for such a costly and damaging invasion, because worse things would have been prevented. But not in '03. In '03 Saddam was just a run-of-the-mill dictator, mostly interested in keeping himself comfortably in power. Evil, yes, but not nearly as dangerous as he was when he was a friend of the US. Political opponents were still suppresed ruthlessly, but there were no massive massacres like those you describe. There are no hard numbers, but it's most likely that the invasion and the post-invasion will cause many more deaths among the Iraqis than those Saddam would have killed during the rest of his natural life, had he been left in power.

It's already a much worse disaster for the Iraqis, you know.

Not at all. Not doing anything would have been far better than this deranged invasion. And there were other possibilities that were not even explored.
An invasion was the most benefical choice for:
- Bush reelection
- Bush friends' benefits (weapon, oil and rebuilding contracts)

And the worse could be a fanatical Islamic Shiite state in most of Iraq, with a hatred towards the US. Or maybe there is something even worse, who knows?

Not by a far shot. This comparison could have made some sense in '91. After that war, Iraq was not a serious danger to their neighbours (with the US presence more than enough to keep him in check) much less to the rest of the world.

No, it's fundamentalist West against fundamentalist Islam. Bush & co. agaist Bin Laden & co. The West and Islam can coexist peacefully, if only fanatics can be kept in check. This is hardest to do than launching invasions around, but it's possible and far more effective in preventing terrorists attacks.


RLV

RLV

It is very tempting to pick at your answers to RD's points, but as he's expressed his desire to do so himself, I'll let this task to him.
I'd only recommend you to update your news on the current state of Afghanistan, for instance.

OK, we are agreed that Bush & co. are a bunch or nuts and/or extremelly selfish individuals, who have no respect for the lives of the Iraqi people or even their own countrymen.

We are also agreed that Saddam was an evil dictator who didn't deserve to be out of prison, much less to rule a whole country as his fiefdom.

However, the choice it's not only between an Iraq between Saddam and an Iraq with him. It's between an Iraq with Saddam in power that was under a dictatorship but otherwise a reasonable place to live, and the Iraq that the invasion has produced: a chaotic place, without basic services, with insecurity, shootings on a daily basis and not a small danger of falling into civil war, partition and/or a fundamentalist islamic regime.

To achieve this 'improved' situation tens of thousands of Iraqi people died, many more were wounded or mutilated and several dozens UK and US soldiers died.

Mind you, if all that had been done to remove Saddam's regime had been to kill him and at most his most trusted followers, I could have approved such a measure (even if I'd have some ethical problems with murder, it could prevent greater evils).
But the fact is that it was not just to kill Saddam and a few other criminals, but rather tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi people. This is a huge price, way too much for such a risky bet.


RLV

David M. Payne

RD, I don't align myself with Bush, as I made pretty clear in my last story linked above, I think his kind are just about as bad long term for humanity as Saddam was. I just agree with him that Saddam was a bad man and needed to be removed from power. I guess one can say that, "well he kept Iraq from falling into the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists, so all the hundreds of thousands of people he killed and tortured was a small price to pay to keep him there." But that�s not an argument that I favor. I wish we had helped his enemies after the first war toss him out, but we didn't. The bigger problem here is the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, and more to the point the power it may wield to attack the west through the acquisition of WMD in the future, if it hasn't already done so by now.

David M. Payne

David

acronos

I supported the war, so I guess I should respond to this thread.

I haven't publicly retracted my opinions here because I don't think the fat lady has sung yet. All through the war people on this forum were declaring that we were stagnated militarily and didn�t have enough troops. However, a few weeks later we were in Baghdad. There has been a constant trend here to jump to conclusions that make Bush and crowd look bad. You are doing it again.

I will post my retraction if we haven't found WMD in two years. That should be enough time for things to fully pan out. Those who will then say that we planted those weapons would have said that no matter what had happened. I believe that if we were going to plant them, we would have already done it.

However, WMD were only a very small part of why I supported the war.

A lone centrist voice in a sea of far left liberals,
Brian

Optional

Really? But that was the REASON for the war, or at least the only reason that was not either morally reprehensible, internationally illegal, or both.

If the actual cause of the war was only a small part of why you suppported it, what was the rest?

As for the two years dealie, I wouldn't even bother were I you. The question is not now nor was it ever whether or not Saddam possessed ANY WMDs in ANY quantity whatsoever... The question is and was much more complex than that, and for any scenario where the presence or absence of WMDs actually makes any difference whatsoever, PLENTY enough time has passed already. Two days, two months, two years, it doesn't MATTER now, anything found or not found will be of historical interest only, NOT poolitical.

-me

Optional

As has been mentioned elsewhere, what was found under the rosebush was simply parts of a gas centrifuge (sp?) Not the whole machine, just parts. And even if the whole machine was there, it would require 2500 others just like it and a year's time processing PLUS the actual raw materials to process in the first place in order to get enough processed material for one nuke.

So, yes, it would have been helpful in getting a nuke program started up... In very much the same way that a crisp new one dollar bill would be helpful in buying myself a new house...

Plus, who says he would have EVER gotten out from under that intense surveillance? He was a leader who had displayed aggressiveness in the past and who had a nuke program in the past. Why would the world community STOP watching him carefully?

-me

RLV

In my opinion, it's because the article bears no relevance at all to the matter of wether Saddam had biological weapons or not. Actually, it even points out to the futility of invading Iraq to destroy Saddam's alleged biological weapons, when they are so easy to make that nearly anybody could (according to the article). Any terrorist didn't need Saddam to produce biological weapons for them: they could make them themselves.

Anyway, contamination of an area is not akin as an usable weapon. And biological weapons do not have such a long shelf life, experts say.

"He would have validated our point"
So what? Do you argue that Saddam didn't use his WMDs out of spite to make the US appear as liars?
Well, if this were a valid reason, then he would never have used them, since it would have validated your point. Would he?

"as well as lost whatever creditability he had in most of the Arab world"
Methinks most of the arab world would have cheered if he had used his WMDs to kill US soldiers (using them against civilians would probably be another matter, imo). The arab world, at least quite a substantial part of it, wanted Iraq to win and viewed the US as lawless invaders and murderers of Iraqi civilians. Using WMDs against such invaders would not cause Saddam to lose anything.

It's hardly credible that Saddam could have used these WMDs in 45 minutes (as Blair said) if they are so well-hidden, don't you think so? Even a less quick response would have required them to be far more available than they seem to be.

Er... a bit late, isn't it? People has already died over some WMDs that, if ever existed, were not in a position to be used, and thus were not a threat.

Of course. I haven't the means to check it. I'm only pointing to the most logical explanation of the US attitude regarding the search. What other more plausible explanation can you offer?

No. If the US had allowed independent UN inspectors to enter the country as soon as the military situation allowed it (quite some time ago) and had let them search for WMDs, its credibility would have been far greater. On the contrary, the US banned the entry to UN inspectors.
Apply to the US the same logic you are applying to Saddam: if they don't have anything to hide, why don't they allow independent inspections?

Do you mean that only Saddam and his sons knew where the WMD were? This would mean that they were completely unusable.
You know, WMDs are not some kind of magic wand that Saddam can pick and waive and, behold!, people starts to die. They require production facilities, storage, maintenance and means to use them in an attack. Having them hidden in a lonely bunker under the sand, nobody save a very few knows where, is akin to not having them at all.

Some of the prisoners the US has are people who worked in the past with Saddam's WMDs. They have declared that they were not produced anymore, and that they had none left. They have done so when they had all the incentives (money, freedom) to reveal the WMDs if they existed. Do you have any explanation as to why they act in such a way?

If an independent expert can verify that he's the real Saddam and that he is not under any duress and that the WMDs were really Iraqi, yes, I'd believe it. If I'm to trust any purely US source, no, of course not. Do I have any reason to believe a government that has been proven to lie repeatedly?

Yes. I don't remember the date, but it was before '91 war. Precisely, the reactor was destroyed. End to any nuclear program.

As somebody else pointed out, assuming the parts worked after being 12 years buried (quite an assumption), they would have needed 2.499 more only to produce some enriched uranium, which is only one step of the process to produce a nuclear bomb.

As somebody said, the roses were more dangerous that the material hidden under them.

The exact causes as of why Saddam was allowed in power in '91 are unclear. But never mind, the fact is that NOW invading Iraq made these WMDs (if they ever existed) MORE dangerous, not less.
Another reason NOT to invade Iraq in '03.

But, of course, the situation is difficult and there are dangers ahead. One of the ways to reduce these dangers is to avoid foolish adventures such as the invasion of Iraq, and to remove the madmen currently in charge in the US. And one way to advance this goal is to expose how they lied so relentlessly to fool the US people into buying an invasion of Iraq for reasons that didn't exist.


RLV

acronos

Well, we disagree here, and I don�t expect that we are going to agree. If you will remember, one of the complaints of the anti-war crowd was that Bush couldn't make up his mind why we were going to war. This was a distortion of the actual point that to Bush there was more than one reason.

A few of my reasons for supporting the war:

1) The legal justification for the war was that Sadam violated the terms of the cease-fire. For example:
a) he continued to fire on US planes right up to the beginning of the second conflict. This alone was enough legal justification for the war for me.
b) The first weapons inspection team did discover that he hid WMD�s. He also did gave the appearance that he continued to hide these weapons to the second inspection team. I still suspect WMDs will turn up. Regardless, the first inspection team proved that he was lieing about WMD's and that was a clear violation of the cease-fire.

2) It was costing us money and it was a political pain to keep our troops in Saudi Arabia to enforce the cease-fire.

3) 911 changed my view of the world. Pre-911 I held an isolationist stance and believed that we should sit on the sidelines and wait for the Middle East to mature enough to eventually become a healthy member of world society. Post-911 I changed to a fix the Middle East stance. Whether we want to admit it or not, we are now in a culture war. Just as Christians are threatened by atheism, the Middle East is threatened by democracy over theocratic rule. It is a war of ideas that has become a war of guns. Yes, I know you disagree. However, 911 made it clear to me that the ME was a threat to the US. All options that I can think of to address this threat are risky and ugly. One of the worst options, IMO, is to do nothing. Of the available options, nation building an Arab democracy in Iraq and/or Afghanistan to demonstrate the value of democracy was the least ugly and most hopeful. I am fairly confident that you will believe me na�ve to consider that we might set up a democracy. However, I find all the options posted by the anti-war crowd(there aren't many) and attitude to always attribute the most evil of the available motives to Bush and the US to be na�ve, so we are not likely to find any common ground here.

4) Sadam was bad for his people. Anything the US government brought could only be better than what was already there.

Reason #1 was adequate legal justification for the war, however not enough to me to justify the commitment of resources. However, when reason #1 was combined with the other reasons listed here and a few others not listed, it became convincing to me that we should finish the war in Iraq.