Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hubble head · 05-20-2003, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lamma
O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc will never apologize or admit they were wrong. Hannity's spin (see "No Spin Zone") is that they washed all the mobile labs down and destroyed all the WMD's right before the U.S. invaded. It's flimsy at best.

However, in the circles I socialize in nobody really cares if they find WMD's or not. I feel the same way. Same with the people I do business with.
Some people like to say that Americans have short memories but that just isn't the case. I've heard people talk about the 1972 Munich Olympics, the Iranian taking of American hostages, Pan Am flight 103, Qaddafi's shennanigans in the 80's, the first WTC bombing, the continuous suicide bombings in Israel, and of course 9/11. What it basically adds up to is that the American people are sick and tired of Arab sponsored terrorism. Call it a tiny minority of Islamic terrorists, religous fundamentalism gone haywire, or whatever you like. But Americans are and have been fed up for a long time. If being fed up results in the ouster of Saddam Hussein then so be it. Most people in the U.S. are just fine with it and they don't care to see things from radical Islam's point of view.

It's futile to ask "what do all those historical events have to do with invading Iraq?". It hasn't been just one event or one leader that's made the American people have ill feelings towards the ME.

Yes, fuzzy logic it is. Sad, actually. Can't get the one who is really after you so you go for the one who you can get. It's like pulling a convicted rapist out of a line up for armed bank robbery and saying "he will do". Its wrong but who really cares in this country? Just kill em all and let god sort em out, right?

Some day I will have to learn how to not give a shit about other people -especially ones who are under the control of an abusive, aggressive, overzealous Gov't. that abuses its power.

Loren Pechtel · 05-20-2003, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Danya
You may not have been aware then...the inspections had ended four years prior. They had only weeks and most of that was spent chasing down bogus leads from Washington. They asked for three additional months but Bush wouldn't give it to them.

After 12 years why couldn't he wait 3 more months? If he had we may have gotten support. Whatever his rush was it wasn't worth losing the legitimacy and support of the UN.

Maybe because three more months may have been enough time to discredit all of Bush's allegations about the chemical and biological weapons as the inspectors did his claims about the nuclear program.

They asked for 3 more months *NOW*. 3 months later they would have been back for more time.

Time wasn't the issue. The most critical thing the inspectors needed was private interviews. They weren't getting them. More time was simply a stalling tactic and Bush did the right thing in ignoring them.

Calzaer · 05-20-2003, 09:32 AM

Quote:

last I checked 12 years is much longer than one month. Unless my sense of time is all distorted of course.

I mention this because I am always confused by people who said that the UN process wasnt given enough time.

Inspectors also aren't allowed to blow up the buildings they want to inspect. Nor are they allowed to blast their way through barricades to get into them. Plus, they have to deal diplomatically with the authorities, rather than just shooting the authorities.

With all those advantages, it shouldn't take a whole lotta time for troops to find the stuff, if it's there.

theyeti · 05-20-2003, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
They asked for 3 more months *NOW*. 3 months later they would have been back for more time.

That's just a tad bit presumptuous, don't you think? How exactly do you know what they would have done? Have you suddenly gained powers of precognition?

Quote:

Time wasn't the issue. The most critical thing the inspectors needed was private interviews. They weren't getting them. More time was simply a stalling tactic and Bush did the right thing in ignoring them.

And now that we have private interviews, the scientists are saying the same thing they said before: There were no WMD. Now it's possible that they're lying, although they don't have nearly as much of a motive to lie as they did before, but this is another likely indicator that there never were any WMD in the first place. So how could Bush have possibly done the right thing if there never were any WMD?

The sad thing is that even if there were WMD, and we know that there were lots of radioactive materials sealed by the IAEA, we at least had them on lock-down with the inspectors present. Now we don't know where they might be. And the radioactive materials that had been sealed by the UN have now been looted. I simply can't see how any reasonable person can conclude that we did the right thing here as pertains to WMD. Even if they do exist, they're now far more of a threat to us than they've been at any time in the last several years.

theyeti

PassingFair · 05-20-2003, 10:29 AM

Fithy dirty lies. Time for shrub removal...

Vote Dean '04

Blixy Sticks · 05-20-2003, 11:10 AM

Bring me a Herring...

Godless Dave · 05-20-2003, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ex-idaho
What will have to happen before people realize what a dirt bag this guy is, a blowjob?

Nope, Tony Blair has been sucking Bush's dick since last year, and no one seems to mind.

HaysooChreesto! · 05-20-2003, 12:17 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ex-idaho
[B]Lamma, Ameicans wouldn't give two shits about any of those other events if not for 9-11. There have been terrorist acts carried out against non-American targets for years and there was never any outrage from the US public. We don't care if a brown people in a far away land are blowing themselves up and taking other non-Americans with them. We didn't even really care about the first attack on the WTC.

I don't buy this. Americans have demonstrated moral outrage many times over what's happening in a foreign land. Anyone who was 10 or older in the 1980's witnessed that.
And it has nothing to do with race. Every day in America there are caucasion people who die tragic deaths and once in a while it will get some press coverage. But the interest fades quickly and like all human beings we go back to living our every day life.
It's also quite normal for people to react differently when things like 9/11 happen on their own soil rather than somewhere else. It would be abnormal if it weren't true.
Comparing the first WTC attack to 9/11 is apples and oranges. The primary suspects were caught and sentenced and the death and injury toll were dramatically different.

I believe the reason Bush has received so much support from the public is because he has managed to transfer his policy into public outrage. If we had a different man at the helm, a man that was more interested in long term goals instead of short term military victories I beleive the US public would not be so bloodthirsty as they are now.

Bush recieved so much support because the American people were outraged on their own. They expected action to be taken and Bush has fulfilled their expectations.
Bloodthirsty? Hardly. The average person doesn't want war for the sake of war. It would indeed be hard to find a sane person who believes that the world is a better place since 9/11.

Loren Pechtel · 05-20-2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by theyeti
That's just a tad bit presumptuous, don't you think? How exactly do you know what they would have done? Have you suddenly gained powers of precognition?

The stalling tactics are obvious. France et al were happy to set time limits for Iraq but they wouldn't agree to one that actually meant anything. Obviously they didn't actually mean for the time limit to matter.

And now that we have private interviews, the scientists are saying the same thing they said before: There were no WMD. Now it's possible that they're lying, although they don't have nearly as much of a motive to lie as they did before, but this is another likely indicator that there never were any WMD in the first place. So how could Bush have possibly done the right thing if there never were any WMD?

There certainly was WMD in times past. Iraq *CLAIMS* to have destroyed the old materials but can't provide reasonable documentation of it.. Since they knew they would be expected to document it this failing is very serious.

What they are trying to do with the interviews is track down where the chain was broken, what might have happened to the stuff. They don't exactly expect the guys to say "It's there."

The sad thing is that even if there were WMD, and we know that there were lots of radioactive materials sealed by the IAEA, we at least had them on lock-down with the inspectors present. Now we don't know where they might be. And the radioactive materials that had been sealed by the UN have now been looted. I simply can't see how any reasonable person can conclude that we did the right thing here as pertains to WMD. Even if they do exist, they're now far more of a threat to us than they've been at any time in the last several years.

The alternative was to give up, forget the inspections (keeping that kind of force there for the long term was not practical and without the guns at his doorstep the inspectors would be out), keep the sanctions in place until either Saddam used his WMD to kick us out or he died. Either alternative would have a *FAR* higher death toll.

Calzaer · 05-20-2003, 02:52 PM

So how long are we going to have to search before you admit there are no WMDs? What's the date at which you'll admit you're wrong?

Or is this something where the soldiers have an infinite amount of time?

Or maybe you'll say the weapons were moved to Syria, so they're next on our hit list?

05-20-2003, 10:29 AM	#25
PassingFair Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Michigan Posts: 32	Filthy Dirty Administration Fithy dirty lies. Time for shrub removal... Vote Dean '04

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-20-2003, 11:10 AM	#26
Blixy Sticks Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Until recently, Baghdad Posts: 1,365	Bring me a Herring...

05-20-2003, 12:17 PM	#28
HaysooChreesto! Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: SoCal USA Posts: 7,737	[QUOTE]Originally posted by ex-idaho [B]Lamma, Ameicans wouldn't give two shits about any of those other events if not for 9-11. There have been terrorist acts carried out against non-American targets for years and there was never any outrage from the US public. We don't care if a brown people in a far away land are blowing themselves up and taking other non-Americans with them. We didn't even really care about the first attack on the WTC. I don't buy this. Americans have demonstrated moral outrage many times over what's happening in a foreign land. Anyone who was 10 or older in the 1980's witnessed that. And it has nothing to do with race. Every day in America there are caucasion people who die tragic deaths and once in a while it will get some press coverage. But the interest fades quickly and like all human beings we go back to living our every day life. It's also quite normal for people to react differently when things like 9/11 happen on their own soil rather than somewhere else. It would be abnormal if it weren't true. Comparing the first WTC attack to 9/11 is apples and oranges. The primary suspects were caught and sentenced and the death and injury toll were dramatically different. I believe the reason Bush has received so much support from the public is because he has managed to transfer his policy into public outrage. If we had a different man at the helm, a man that was more interested in long term goals instead of short term military victories I beleive the US public would not be so bloodthirsty as they are now. Bush recieved so much support because the American people were outraged on their own. They expected action to be taken and Bush has fulfilled their expectations. Bloodthirsty? Hardly. The average person doesn't want war for the sake of war. It would indeed be hard to find a sane person who believes that the world is a better place since 9/11.

05-20-2003, 12:29 PM	#29
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by theyeti That's just a tad bit presumptuous, don't you think? How exactly do you know what they would have done? Have you suddenly gained powers of precognition? The stalling tactics are obvious. France et al were happy to set time limits for Iraq but they wouldn't agree to one that actually meant anything. Obviously they didn't actually mean for the time limit to matter. And now that we have private interviews, the scientists are saying the same thing they said before: There were no WMD. Now it's possible that they're lying, although they don't have nearly as much of a motive to lie as they did before, but this is another likely indicator that there never were any WMD in the first place. So how could Bush have possibly done the right thing if there never were any WMD? There certainly was WMD in times past. Iraq CLAIMS to have destroyed the old materials but can't provide reasonable documentation of it.. Since they knew they would be expected to document it this failing is very serious. What they are trying to do with the interviews is track down where the chain was broken, what might have happened to the stuff. They don't exactly expect the guys to say "It's there." The sad thing is that even if there were WMD, and we know that there were lots of radioactive materials sealed by the IAEA, we at least had them on lock-down with the inspectors present. Now we don't know where they might be. And the radioactive materials that had been sealed by the UN have now been looted. I simply can't see how any reasonable person can conclude that we did the right thing here as pertains to WMD. Even if they do exist, they're now far more of a threat to us than they've been at any time in the last several years. The alternative was to give up, forget the inspections (keeping that kind of force there for the long term was not practical and without the guns at his doorstep the inspectors would be out), keep the sanctions in place until either Saddam used his WMD to kick us out or he died. Either alternative would have a FAR higher death toll.

05-20-2003, 02:52 PM	#30
Calzaer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 2,762	So how long are we going to have to search before you admit there are no WMDs? What's the date at which you'll admit you're wrong? Or is this something where the soldiers have an infinite amount of time? Or maybe you'll say the weapons were moved to Syria, so they're next on our hit list?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.