Hubble head

Yeah. This thread made my head hurt. But I have to agree with Debate10 on a few minor issues. Some from the anti-war, anti-bush & co. crowd have such a low tolerance for opposing ideas (or lies) at this point they seem to attack and dismiss before breaking counterpoints down. It doesn't really stick to the basis of collective, mature debate the forum is usually so good at. But to others' defense, this shite in Washington and the American 'kid gloves on' media is getting old fast. REAL FAST.

Back to the topic, Debate10, I think I understand where you're coming from on the war thing. It was, in effect, a self-defense move on one hand, right? Get him before he figures out how to get at us? On another hand it was necessary to do it quickly before France and Germany managed to get a bigger economic foothold with Saddam and Iraq, as more diplomacy would have possibly led to. (Even if 8.8 billion to France is like $1 to you or me.) They must have had other selfish reasons to stall and block our attempt to wage war on Iraq, right? Prevent us from proving that military might still makes right? I might buy a little of that.

But with the WMD, of course he got rid of them before he was attacked so no one would ....uh....uh...(this is where I must really break some rules of logic in my brain housing group) He destroyed them without telling anyone because....uh..well, I still can't put that one together. He must have wanted us to attack him. Plain and simple. Yeah, that's the ticket. "He actually wanted us to attack him and that's why he destroyed them without telling anyone".

I can see why none were used even if he did have them. I've had some experience in the military with N-B-C training on the more common chemical substances and how they behave in an environment like Iraq-especially hot and windy Iraq. Even if they're a fresh batch, they ARE 95% USELESS and ineffective on a battlefield 95% of the time. Trust me. A 120mm HE artillery shell is 10x's more useful and destructive and costs about the same as a chemical shell. It was also legal for him to posses. That's what he would protect his own cities with if he could afford them.

Don't even bring up bio weapons. Besides local isolated flu bugs and misc. stuff that the local population is already acclimated to, (which our troops would be vaccinated for before deployment) no one is stupid enough (not even Saddam) to use the really effective ones -especially their own backyard. They carry a lot of the same stigma as nukes for good reason. Some are worse than nukes on many levels. The US knows this as well as I do or the rest of the world's military and probably better since we invented/isolated so many of them.

In a nutshell, IMHO, all the US has to argue here is self-defense(weak considering our overall strength) and as an end around to controlling the economic power of Iraq's oil. So in creative text, we beat a 5-year-old bratty shitheaded kid to death for kicking us in the shin and not doing what we told him to. Ten we took all his candy so no one else would get it all while we were supposed to be babysitting him. If anyone complains we'll just say he said he had a machine gun. Swell plan. :banghead:

Iraq, led by just one of dozens of evil dictators in the world currently ruling by oppression and violence, who attacked Iran at our encouragement and Kuwait for illegal slant drilling; the same country that knew it needed to be able to defend itself considering they are the #2 world supplier of the blood that flows through the world's economies' veins, was a big threat to our freedom? (shakes head) It was a big threat, I assure you of that. But to whom, and why is at the heart of this entire BS few pro war people seem to be able to comprehend.

debater10

France chose to ignore the human rights violations in Iraq just to get more money and oil. Bush took steps to eliminate the threat to the Iraqi people. That makes France criminal enough for me.
And it is no surprise that that is all you chose to address on the earlier comments about France. They're not the saints some would have us believe, and the evidence proves it. They are guilty of the crime of actively preventing a resolution to human rights abuses in Iraq.

Also, Bush made it clear form the get-go his intents in Iraq. Ending human rights abuses was one of the more important goals that he stressed. You choose to ignore that, though, and insist that he fabricated the entire war. AGAIN, I am NOT justifying Bush as a saint. But if you are on some mission to stereotype all conservatives as warmongerers and liars, then there is not much I can do to aleviate you of your ignorance.

When France starts ponying up for the security guarantee that they are getting from NATO by freeloading right now, I might start caring about their moral qualms with US policy.

Ion

I want this to stay on focus:

Bush, not France, fabricated at 100% the war in Iraq, killing thousands and looting oil.

What the motives of the other than Bush players (France, Germany, Russia) were with Iraq in time of peace and 'free-enterprise', are superseded by the fact that:

Bush fabricated at 100% the war in Iraq, killing thousands and looting oil.

There was no war in Iraq before Bush fabricated the war, killed thousands and loots oil.

This is a:

fact.

debater10

Not that he wanted us to attack him. He knew that the attack was inevitable. He was cutting his losses, hoping to have an ally in one of the non-coalition members after the dust settles and the US doesn't find what it was looking for.

Ion

That's the problem:

.) the U.N. Security Council didn't want to attack Iraq;

.) Bush fabricated the "...inevitable." reasons to attack Iraq by lying, then warred, killed and is looting now.

debater10

I'm afraid you must have a very distorted view of reality. First, what you are saying is DEFINITIONALY incorrect. Bush did not fabricate the war. You would be hard pressed to prove that the war did not occur. I believe what you mean to say is that Bush fabricated the evidence that he used to convince the world of the necessity for war.
This, though a better argument than some "wag-the-dog" scenarion that you were mentioning earlier, is also wrong.

We knew Saddam had the dual-use technology for the establishment of a WMD program. We knew that Saddam was not being completely compliant with weapon's inspectors. We knew that Saddam was conducting massive human rights abuses against his people. We now know that Saddam did, indeed, have a WMD program and, therefore, posed a threat to its bordering countries and the people internal to Iraq (this is in reference to the articles at the beginning of this thread).

The fact that you see France's complacency to the torturing countless innocent Iraqis just to maintain a secure oil line as secondary to the US efforts to eliminate the threat of Saddam's regime calls into serious question your judgement as a whole.

I would also like to point out that the US has decided NOT to use Iraqi oil to reconstuct the country. They are giving control of the fields to the Iraqis and are searching for other sources for rebuilding.

debater10

The UN Security Council doesn't matter. Saddam knew that the American resolve was strong enough so that the military action would occur regardless of UNSC approval.
About the fabrication, see above...

debater10

By the way, if we are on the topic of fabrication, let's talk about Clinton's action against Yugoslavia. I would like to point out the following:

1. the "massacre of 45 Albanian civilians" never took place � it was a lie, based on a criminal fabrication;

2. President Clinton made use of this criminal fabrication to persuade NATO to attack Yugoslavia because thereby he successfully diverted public attention from his impending impeachment and its causes; and

3. Milosevic had been framed by the International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague as brazenly as Stalin's rivals were in Stalin's Russia, and in terms of justice, it was President Clinton and other heads of NATO governments as well as members of the International Criminal Tribunal who should be put on trial.

But that never seems to get mentioned by the righteous opponents to Bush.

Ion

I read your posts, and I focus them again:

.) the U.N. Security Council ensures that no predator like Bush, wars;

.) Bush fabricated at 100% the reasons for the war, not France, and Bush not France is a predator in Iraq, killing and looting.

Bush fabricated the resons for the war, by lying about:

1) knowing of 'immediate' WMDs in Iraq;

2) Hussein linked to al-Qaeda;

3) Hussein link to September 11;

3) Hussein link to nuclear material from Niger;

4) 'liberating' Iraq, which the guerilla war disputes.

What Bush doesn't say but it's in the news, are the contracts for Iraq's oil by U.S.' Exxon, BP, Bechtel, Halliburton.

debater10

You may have read, but you clearly ignored at the same time. I'll try to keep this to the format you have chosen in hopes that it may be easier for you to actually understand it.

.) The UN Security Council is a joke. Anyone who thinks that Bush was not willing to go it alone is suffering from severe dillusions.

.) For the sake of not re-typing everything I just posted, your second point is flat out WRONG. I would also like to point out that you have been making thisa point more and more conservative in your responses. It was first that Bush fabricated 100% of the war... now he is just fabricating 100 % of the reasons. The truth is that France and Germany had no reasons to fabricate reasons for war. They were both to busy profiting off of the abuse of thousands of Iraqi civilians. In order to win that Bush fabricated 100% of the reasons for going to war, you MUST be saying that human rights abuses were not occuring. I would only hope you are not as ignorant as that. You also have yet to point out WHAT he fabricated, while I have been listing tangible and factual reasons as to why he went to war. I apologize if my responses have seemed non-responsive. You have given me nothing to refute. Repeating yourself to no end doesn't help much.

As a side note, it would seem that what the UNSC DOES do is ensure that preadators like Saddam are allowed to slaughter his people with its legal endorsement. If that is what Bush had to bypass to stop it, I am glad he did.