Rumsfeld 'led Bush to war'?

[Ziggurat]

Is there ANY other realistic way to make sure that the next government in Iraq will never get their hands on nukes? How about Saudi Arabia? Tanzania? Sweden? Brazil? Afghanistan? Indonesia? Columbia? How about Pakistan and India?

None of the countries you listed are run by despotic dictators who invade their neighbors. Oh, but you've forgiven Saddam for that, haven't you? Muslim on muslim violence is OK, as long as it stays in the family. I notice you didn't actually try to answer my question, either. Should I take that to mean you wouldn't mind seeing Saddam with a nuke?

"Well, they might perhaps at some indeterminate point in the future have become a real threat again" isn't really a strong argument for agression against another state. It's a particularly weak argument when you consider the weak reaction from both the US and the rest of the world when India and Pakistan performed their first nuclear tests.

Ah yes, Iraq was just like any other country. You've become a Saddam appologist. You have no moral authority anymore. I notice when you tallied up your casualty figures, you didn't include the 375,000 Iraqi's and 300,000 Iranians who died in the Iran-Iraq war. Oh, but that might make Saddam look like a bad guy. You're a tool.

I suspect that USA's actions in Iraq might have made it more alluring for nations to get hold of nuclear weapons. How else to deter the US from putting military force to bear against them?

North Korea is the only other country we need to worry about in this respect. But do you seriously believe they weren't completely intent on that already? Of course not. Rogue nations want weapons to threaten their neighbors, not just to defend against the US. And several factors make the invasion of Iraq a good thing for dealing with North Korea. For one thing, it shows them we mean business. For another thing, it means that North Korea can never sell a nuke to terrorists anywhere down the line, because we will know if a terrorist ever detonates a nuke, it must have come from North Korea, and we will wipe them out in response. If both Iraq and North Korea were possible sources for a terrorist nuke, we would be unable to respond. So now we have a great deterent for the long term. Why didn't we invade North Korea instead? Aside from the fact that it would have been much bloodier, there's also the fact that we have other means of applying pressure. Saddam could outwait us, his illegal oil trade and smuggling made it impossible to apply economic pressure to his regime. North Korea is dependent on foreign aid (including from the US) for its survival, that's a pretty big lever we have there.

You're trapped by your own ideological blinkers. Bush is a bad man (sure, I agree), therefore everything he does should be opposed. That's grade-school logic.

 

[Diamond]

$ 77 Billion would make a pretty good down-payment, but that is just the beginning.

The war preperations alone cost nearly $ 70 billion,
the war itself about $ 20 billion,
current security is costing $ 4 billion per month, and

by the time it is all done, the whole war could wind up costing over $600 billion!

Yes, but don't you feel safer now all that money is being spent on your security?

 

[Leif Roar]

None of the countries you listed are run by despotic dictators who invade their neighbors. Oh, but you've forgiven Saddam for that, haven't you? Muslim on muslim violence is OK, as long as it stays in the family. I notice you didn't actually try to answer my question, either. Should I take that to mean you wouldn't mind seeing Saddam with a nuke?

I'm saying that there is a difference between a potential threat and an actual threat. The mere possibility of someone becoming a threat at some indefinite point in the future is not grounds for a preemptive strike.

Ah yes, Iraq was just like any other country. You've become a Saddam appologist. You have no moral authority anymore. I notice when you tallied up your casualty figures, you didn't include the 375,000 Iraqi's and 300,000 Iranians who died in the Iran-Iraq war. Oh, but that might make Saddam look like a bad guy. You're a tool.

You're confusing me with someone else. I haven't said anything about casualty figures. All I've said is that the "but he might try to get nuclear weapons at some point" argument doesn't hold water.

North Korea is the only other country we need to worry about in this respect.

I disagree. In addition to North Korea, we already have to worry about Pakistan and Iran. For the long term, the view gets even bleaker. I am seriously worried that USA's strong-arm way of handling the Iraq situation will result in other nations seeking to gain nuclear weapons to deter the super-powers from similar actions against them.

But do you seriously believe they weren't completely intent on that already? Of course not. Rogue nations want weapons to threaten their neighbors, not just to defend against the US.

I don't think that's the case. Nuclear weapons have a political value that far surpasses their military use - as the cold war showed, they are in many ways of limited military use precisely because of their political value. I think the reason why any nation would try to get hold of nuclear weapons is to act as a deterrence towards the super-powers to "meddle in our afairs" or as a direct deterrence towards their neighbours.

And several factors make the invasion of Iraq a good thing for dealing with
North Korea. For one thing, it shows them we mean business. For another thing, it means that North Korea can never sell a nuke to terrorists anywhere down the line, because we will know if a terrorist ever detonates a nuke, it must have come from North Korea,

Unless, of course, it comes from the ex-Soviet union, Iran, Pakistan or India.

and we will wipe them out in response. If both Iraq and North Korea were possible sources for a terrorist nuke, we would be unable to respond. So now we have a great deterent for the long term. Why didn't we invade North Korea instead? Aside from the fact that it would have been much bloodier, there's also the fact that we have other means of applying pressure. Saddam could outwait us, his illegal oil trade and smuggling made it impossible to apply economic pressure to his regime. North Korea is dependent on foreign aid (including from the US) for its survival, that's a pretty big lever we have there.

Cut off the foreign aid to North Korea and see how long it takes before they do something drastic? Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me.

You're trapped by your own ideological blinkers. Bush is a bad man (sure, I agree), therefore everything he does should be opposed. That's grade-school logic.

Eh, I have made no comment about Bush in this thread. I have enough opinions of my own, so there's really no need for you to give me more.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm saying that there is a difference between a potential threat and an actual threat. The mere possibility of someone becoming a threat at some indefinite point in the future is not grounds for a preemptive strike.

It was not a possibility that Saddam would have obtained nukes. It was a certainty, it was only a question of time. And what you haven't addressed is how you could EVER take action in the future - once he has nukes it's too late, and you might never know that it was about to happen. There would never be a point where future threat turned into immediate threat until it was too late. That's something you still haven't addressed.

I don't think that's the case. Nuclear weapons have a political value that far surpasses their military use - as the cold war showed, they are in many ways of limited military use precisely because of their political value. I think the reason why any nation would try to get hold of nuclear weapons is to act as a deterrence towards the super-powers to "meddle in our afairs" or as a direct deterrence towards their neighbours.

The deterence idea works with rational oponnents. Saddam was not a rational man. He would not have used it merely for deterence, but as cover for more agressive action. He already displayed a willingness to invade his neighbors. If Saddam had nukes, and invaded Kuwait again, what would we have done? Not only is responding more difficult, but since Saddam is the sort of man who thinks nuclear weapons would provide him immunity to response (even if they didn't), he would be much more likely to attack his neighbors if he had a nuke, even if he didn't plan on using a nuke in that attack. Saddam had absolutely no concept of how the west operates (he evidently thought we were bluffing, or that France and Russia's support would save him), and there's no way to know or reason to think that deterence alone could contain him once he had nukes.

Unless, of course, it comes from the ex-Soviet union, Iran, Pakistan or India.

Iran's the only serious problem there, none of those other countries are hostile to us. And we're not going to sit still on Iran either, but we still have negotiating options with Iran that weren't available with Iraq.

Cut off the foreign aid to North Korea and see how long it takes before they do something drastic? Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me.

No, and that's not the plan. But when you have a serious threat you can bring to the table, you have bargaining power. We had absolutely no threat other than military power against Saddam. And he was pretty much ignoring that, hoping to call our bluff. But we weren't bluffing. Again, that helps us with North Korea - if they know we're willing to be serious, they're less likely to try to bring the situation to the brink.

On a slight tangent, I was posting too fast and confused you with Ion. I appologize. But I don't think you've answered the fundamental questions about what to do to prevent Saddam from getting nukes. You've essentially said that it wasn't a big problem, and that's not a proposition I can take seriously.

 

[Ion]

I don't agree with this:

It was not a possibility that Saddam would have obtained nukes. It was a certainty, it was only a question of time...
...

It was such "...a certainty..." that Bush broke with U.N. and its inspections, warred and killed in order to find his certain WMDs, but found nothing.

The reality of the weapons not found is that:

Hussein was being contained under U.N..

 

[Ziggurat]

Hussein was being contained under U.N..

Yes, he was being contained. But do you honestly believe that was going to continue indefinitely? Not a chance, and you've provided no evidence or argument to suggest they could have. France, Russia, and China essentially all opposed the sanctions. Inspectors are only any use when they're on the ground, we couldn't keep them there forever, and Saddam could wait as long as it took for them to leave. Sanctions were also becoming a joke - Saddam was making billions in illegal oil trade through Syria and skimming off the top of the food for oil program, and the UN did nothing to stop it. The sanctions couldn't have stopped him long-term, they just slowed things down. So while Saddam was skimming food off the top and selling it to Syria and giving money to Palestinians to encourage suicide bombers, he starved his own people. And the world got mad at us for what HE was doing to his own people. He was a master propagandist, and otherwise sane people were falling over themselves to defend this tyrant from being ousted.

Yes, I'm upset that Bush twisted the evidence about the current state of Iraq's WMD program. I have no plans to vote for the man, and would love to see him replaced in 2004. But if you think for a second that Saddam didn't want to build nukes as soon as he could have, you're a fool. The UN was not going to stop him. He knew that. The UN was bluffing when it said there would be "serious consequences" for non-compliance (he was required to account for weapons we know he once possesed but never did). Saddam called them on it, and they did nothing. If they didn't do anything this time, why should Saddam, or anyone else, think they were going to ever do anything but pay lip service to the issue?

So you still haven't come up with any argument for what realistic alternatives there were to making sure Saddam never got nukes. That, for me, is the central question, and nobody on the anti-war side has really answered it yet.

 

[Ion]

U.N. sanctions and inspections get results with Lybia which I see today in The San Diego Union Tribune, after Lybia attacked airplanes in 1988 and 1989.

Similarly, it was getting strong results with Hussein.

Better than the killing performance I point out that Bush gets with his 60 civilians murdered per day since September 11, 2001 in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[Ziggurat]

U.N. sanctions and inspections get results with Lybia which I see today in The San Diego Union Tribune, after Lybia attacked airplanes in 1988 and 1989.

Similarly, it was getting strong results with Hussein.

Oh boy, that's rich. What "strong" results, exactly, did it get with Saddam? Did it get compliance? No, I don't think so. Did it get him to hand over everything he had about his nuclear weapons program? Nope, didn't do that either. Did it keep him from making billions off illegal oil sales? Nope, wrong again. Why, after more than ten years, do you think that Saddam would be at all interested in bowing to sanctions? He was doing perfectly fine with sanctions in place, since they weren't even working. So why on earth would anyone think that sanctions could possibly ensure that Saddam would never get the nukes we know he wanted? The only thing that EVER worked against Saddam was the credible threat of force. And the French and Russians were doing their damnest to undermine that threat through the UN. No wonder Saddam thought we were bluffing and tried to call us on it.

With Lybia, we could afford to wait. Other countries weren't trying actively to undermine the sanctions like what was happening with Iraq. That's an inconvenient little fact that the anti-war croud likes to ignore. And as far as we know Lybia never tried to get nukes. We know Saddam was, and have every reason to believe he would try to again. Lybia is not Iraq.

 

[Earthborn]

Ziggurat

Saddam wanted nukes, anyone who says differently is either stupid or a Saddam apologist. Given enough time, he WAS going to aquire them eventually.

Let's look into that for a moment...

How long has Saddam wanted nukes? 20-30 years?
One day long ago when the US wanted nukes, they were able to get them in, what 4-5 years? And they had to invent them first! They had much more primitive technology than Saddam can now buy in an electronics shop for a few bucks. Nobody even knew how to build such a thing. Now Saddam can download how to build a nuclear device from the internet. The americans had to invent ways to mine for uranium. Saddam could have bought some somewhere in Africa, he just didn't.

He had the time, the opportunity, the resources and the connections (France, Russia, US) to get nukes whenever he wanted.

Assuming he really wanted them, he must not have wanted them very badly...

Just a matter of time!
The correct English expression for that is 'when pigs fly', although with recent advances in biochemistry that may sound a bit unrealistic.

Clancie:

Well, here's another....

3. That the most avid war proponents (Rumsfeld-Bush-Cheney-Wolfowitz-Rice) wanted a war in order to deplete our existing weapons supply and therein justify a new wave of greater-than-ever military spending.

I can think of another...

4. There simply was no rational reason. Not even one out of evil motives. Perhaps it was just fear of terrorism resulting in poorly thought out decisions.

I think that is the best explanation. After all, which war was ever started on a rational basis? I think that war is the failure of people thinking critically.

Ion:

It looks like Hussein would have had to live another 25 years to kill as many Iraqis as Bush's U.S. did kill people since September 11.

Look at it this way: every innocent Iraqi civilian costs 10 million US dollars to be killed. The ancient Romans may have been more brutal, but they were a heck of a lot more efficient.

I got my number for the Iraqi deathtoll here

 

[Ziggurat]

He had the time, the opportunity, the resources and the connections (France, Russia, US) to get nukes whenever he wanted.

Assuming he really wanted them, he must not have wanted them very badly...

This shows a profound ignorance of what is necessary to create a nuclear weapon, not to mention a willful blindness towards evil. Yes, Saddam had the technology, and the raw materials. The hard part has always been, and will always be, refining the uranium till it is sufficiently enriched. That is a massive task requiring a lot of time and resources. Yes, the US did it back in the 40's, but we put in a HELL of a lot of resources to pull it off. And Saddam WAS engaged in plans to enrich uranium for a bomb before the first gulf war - or are you ignorant of that as well? He didn't manage to do it back then because he jumped the gun, invading Kuwait before he had a nuke ready. But given enough time he was going to restart his efforts, and eventually he would have succeeded. Come back when you actually know what you're talking about. You can't even get the basic facts straight.

 

[Tricky]

This shows a profound ignorance of what is necessary to create a nuclear weapon, not to mention a willful blindness towards evil. Yes, Saddam had the technology, and the raw materials. The hard part has always been, and will always be, refining the uranium till it is sufficiently enriched. That is a massive task requiring a lot of time and resources. Yes, the US did it back in the 40's, but we put in a HELL of a lot of resources to pull it off. And Saddam WAS engaged in plans to enrich uranium for a bomb before the first gulf war - or are you ignorant of that as well? He didn't manage to do it back then because he jumped the gun, invading Kuwait before he had a nuke ready.

The termination of Saddam's nuclear program had nothing to do with the invasion of Kuwait. It had a lot more to do with Israel bombing their research facility back in 1981, nine years before the war. This was combined with the CIA's program to disrupt Saddam's program even before that. Other than a single part, buried in someone's garden for twelve years, There is no evidence that he has had any nuclear capabllity since. The administration has provided no evidence to the contrary. If you have some "facts" we haven't seen, please provide them, along with sources.

But given enough time he was going to restart his efforts, and eventually he would have succeeded. Come back when you actually know what you're talking about. You can't even get the basic facts straight.

And if he had restarted, then we might have been justified in intervening again, but not because he had once done so. In spite of your proclaimed devotion to "the facts", there has been no evidence discovered either by the UN inspectors or the coalition that Saddam has had any nuclear capability in more than twenty years.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you have some "facts" we haven't seen, please provide them, along with sources.

Well, I have some facts you haven't mentioned. If you haven't seen them, then you haven't paid attention. Israel's bombing of their reactor stalled Iraq, it did not stop them. They had centrifuge refinement programs in the development stage during the period before the gulf war, and they tried to keep those going even after the gulf war.

Have a little read through the actual timeline of the inspections and see for yourself how Iraq continually tried to thwart the inspectors:

http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/chronology.html

In particular, check out (under 11 Apr 1996 date)
"IAEA's first consolidated report", which details some of the nuclear weapons development activity that occured before the first gulf war, including a centrifuge refinement program. Keep in mind that the IAEA report is information obtained directly from the Iraqis themselves. Here's two choice quote from the report (my comments in brackets):

"Iraq's nuclear weapons program, as planned in 1988, foresaw the production of the first weapon in 1991".

"However it is reasonable, based on statements made by the counterpart [ie, the Iraqi's], to suppose that the first device [nuclear weapon], produced from indigenous HEU [highly enriched uranium], would not have been available before late 1992."

In other words, you were wrong, the Iraqi's were working towards a bomb and would have gotten it (even if not as soon as they hoped), and this is all based on solid information the IAEA obtained from the Iraqi's. I'm not going to dig any more for you, you have the IAEA site now so you can dig for yourself if you want more info. Are these "facts" or are these facts? Will using quotes make them go away?

And if he had restarted, then we might have been justified in intervening again, but not because he had once done so. In spite of your proclaimed devotion to "the facts", there has been no evidence discovered either by the UN inspectors or the coalition that Saddam has had any nuclear capability in more than twenty years.

Well that all depends on how generous you want to be with the term "capability". See above. You're STILL ignoring the central challenge I posed. Saddam wanted nukes. You have provided no plausible plan to ensure he wouldn't obtain them, and seem to be in the dark as to what we know for certain he was actually up to prior to gulf war 1. You also provide no plausible mechanism to ensure that we would know if he restarted a nuclear program. Much of what we know was from defectors, critical information that inspectors failed to find. Without a smoking gun (which we cannot rely on seeing before he's got one), we'd be in the same position we were in before the invasion, facing the same arguments for why we shouldn't go in. The only time the anti-war argument might shift is when he's already GOT a bomb, but then it's too late.

 

[Earthborn]

Ziggurat:

This shows a profound ignorance of what is necessary to create a nuclear weapon

Okay, maybe you are right. I will rephrase:
Assuming he really wanted them, he must not have wanted them very badly, or he could not get the resources to get them...

All we can be sure of is that he didn't have them, and doesn't seem to have had a very active program to get them.

not to mention a willful blindness towards evil.

I don't believe in evil. I believe in 'stupid' or 'dangerous', even 'I profoundly disagree with'.

Yes, Saddam had the technology, and the raw materials.

Well, hopefully someone finds them then.

And Saddam WAS engaged in plans to enrich uranium

I could be too.

for a bomb before the first gulf war - or are you ignorant of that as well?

No, I heard about that. But I have no way to check it out to see for my self that it isn't propaganda.

He didn't manage to do it back then because he jumped the gun, invading Kuwait before he had a nuke ready.

If he was so interested in getting 'da bomb', why didn't he wait a little longer with his invasion until he got it?

And yes, that's a bit of a rhetorical question.

But given enough time he was going to restart his efforts, and eventually he would have succeeded.

Now since it is so difficult to obtain one, how long do you assume it might have taken him? 10 years? 20? 45 minutes?

 

[Ion]

This is a fact:

...
All we can be sure of is that he didn't have them, and doesn't seem to have had a very active program to get them.
...

So what is Ziggurat bickering about?

Probably about Bush indoctrinating Ziggurat that Hussein -when contained by U.N.- "...is evil..."?

Even though the statistics of murders since September 11, 2001 make Bush appearing the new undisputed champion of evils worldwide...

 

[Ziggurat]

All we can be sure of is that he didn't have them, and doesn't seem to have had a very active program to get them.

Again you display your ignorance on the subject. Look at my above response to Tricky. Follow the links to the IAEA report. Read the report. Then come back and explain why exactly you think the program he had in place prior to gulf war 1 wasn't an active program.

I don't believe in evil. I believe in 'stupid' or 'dangerous', even 'I profoundly disagree with'.

Then you're hopelessly naive. What, for example, would you call someone who enjoys torturing others? Is that just ignorance? Is that just stupidity? That is beyond these, and beyond merely dangerous. No, these words cannot explain the actions of some people.

Well, hopefully someone finds them then.

Hope is not a plan. That's simply not good enough when it comes to nuclear weapons.

No, I heard about that. But I have no way to check it out to see for my self that it isn't propaganda.

Yes you do, you're just not willing to educate yourself. Go read the IAEA reports, I linked to them above. Those reports are based on information given directly by the Iraqi's. If you think the IAEA reports are just propaganda, then you really are a Saddam appologist.

If he was so interested in getting 'da bomb', why didn't he wait a little longer with his invasion until he got it?

Because he's wreckless, he doesn't understand us, and he didn't think we'd try and stop him.

Now since it is so difficult to obtain one, how long do you assume it might have taken him? 10 years? 20? 45 minutes?

I would guess five to ten years. Which gets back to my earlier point: when, during any of that period, would we know it was the right time to take action? We could NOT depend on knowing how close he was during any of that period, and might never know until he actually had the bomb. What, then, could we use as a criterion for action that would ensure he never got a nuclear weapon? Nobody on this board has answered that question. Don't bother responding until you've got an answer.

 

[Ziggurat]

Probably about Bush indoctrinating Ziggurat that Hussein -when contained by U.N.- "...is evil..."?

Ah yes, now we enter the personal attack phase, because you have no answer to the fundamental challenge I posed. You still present no workable plan to ensure that Saddam never aquired nukes.

Hussein was not going to remain contained by the UN. France, Russia, and China were all opposed to the sanctions, and illegal smuggling through Syria was making them a joke anyways. The inspectors only worked as far as the Iraqi's were willing to cooperate - which they only did with the US army parked next door (something we could not sustain indefinitely). Saddam never took UN threats of "serious consequences" seriously at all - and why should he, when three of the five security council permanent members showed no intention of backing up that threat? The UN was not going to keep him contained, and showed little interest in doing so.

Even though the statistics of murders since September 11, 2001 make Bush appearing the new undisputed champion of evils worldwide...

Back to the Saddam appologist mode, I see. If you want to tally lives, why do you drop the 350,000 Iraqis and 300,000 Iranians killed in the Iran-Iraq war? Or does that not count because it's muslim-on-muslim violence?

Bush is an ass, but you've got your head on completely backwards if you see him as a greater evil than Saddam. Come back when you clue in to reality. Come back when you actually know something about how the Baathist ideology worked. Come back when you understand the kind of person Saddam was, and what his hopes for the region really were. Until then, you contribute nothing to this debate but empty rhetoric.

 

[Tricky]

Have a little read through the actual timeline of the inspections and see for yourself how Iraq continually tried to thwart the inspectors:

http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/chronology.html

I've visited that site, and it contains a lot of information. It also has a lot of stuff in .pdf format that keeps freezing my computer, so please understand if my quotes are not perfect. I can't cut and paste them.

It has never been contested that Iraq was surly and uncooperative. In fact the thirteenth consolidated report points out that they have not been able to carry out their mission since Dec 1998.

I examined the fifth consolidated report (from 1998), and it states quite clearly that they had no evidence that Iraq had any nuclear facilities. Now perhaps they were hiding them, though that seems unlikely given the constant surveillance of Iraq.

So you still haven't provided any evidence that Iraq had nuclear capability, only that they were obstinate. So it appears that the UN plan was working. Even though Saddam may have desperately wanted nukes, he didn't have them and he wasn't close to getting them. I feel that makes the UN inspection plan cheaper, less deadly, and less harmful to American interests. In short, better.

Now as to this quote:

Ah yes, now we enter the personal attack phase, because you have no answer to the fundamental challenge I posed.

may I remind the pot of this:

You're a tool.

and this

Come back when you actually know what you're talking about. You can't even get the basic facts straight.

and this

Then you're hopelessly naive. What, for example, would you call someone who enjoys torturing others? Is that just ignorance? Is that just stupidity?

If you debate in such a confrontatory style, do not be surprised if people reply in kind.

 

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tricky
I examined the fifth consolidated report (from 1998), and it states quite clearly that they had no evidence that Iraq had any nuclear facilities. Now perhaps they were hiding them, though that seems unlikely given the constant surveillance of Iraq.

So you still haven't provided any evidence that Iraq had nuclear capability, only that they were obstinate.

There's a distinction here between what they had before the war and what they had after the war. Before the war they had a nuclear weapons program and facilities which were making progress towards enriching uranium - I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "capability", but I think that counts. After the war, the situation becomes much more complex, and certainly much of what they had was shut down. But the key point is that they still had the people there who ran the program before the war, and would have been able to restart the program in the future. Are you contesting that?

So it appears that the UN plan was working. Even though Saddam may have desperately wanted nukes, he didn't have them and he wasn't close to getting them. I feel that makes the UN inspection plan cheaper, less deadly, and less harmful to American interests. In short, better.

The UN inspections stopped completely after 1998. They only resumed because of the credible threat of US force. We could not maintain that threat indefinitely, because it required having much of our army stationed in the gulf. Saddam could outwait us. So I'm not sure why you say it WAS working - it worked (past tense), but it was falling apart. The UN had no intention of authorizing force (certainly not Russia or China, and not likely France either), and Saddam knew that.

If you debate in such a confrontatory style, do not be surprised if people reply in kind.

I'm not surprised at all. And I can take it as well as I dish it out. But my attacks have been based on what the people in question actually said - but seeing as how I didn't get the information I posted from Bush, that little accusation that I've been indoctrinated by him doesn't even make sense. If I have been too harsh, I can tone that down. But so far, I've been the one to actually provide the facts about Iraq's nuclear program, and the counterarguments have basically only consisted of wishful thinking about the UN's ability AND will to contain Saddam or conspiracy theories about right-wingers trying to take over the world. I'm a left-winger. But I've been paying attention. And the thought of Saddam with a nuclear weapon is a terrible thing indeed. The anti-war side never had a credible alternative to make sure that never happened. It was getting harder, not easier, to do the one thing we could do that would ensure Saddam never had nuclear weapons. Everything else was just a waiting game, and that simply isn't good enough.

Edit: P.S. the stupidity and ignorance labels were in reference to someone who enjoys torture, not to the poster. My point was that the poster's disbelief in the existence of evil (but only in stupid and ignorant people) was completely inadequate to comprehend the true horrors that some people commit. I was not being uncivil at all in that quote.

 

[Tricky]

There's a distinction here between what they had before the war and what they had after the war. Before the war they had a nuclear weapons program and facilities which were making progress towards enriching uranium - I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "capability", but I think that counts. After the war, the situation becomes much more complex, and certainly much of what they had was shut down. But the key point is that they still had the people there who ran the program before the war, and would have been able to restart the program in the future. Are you contesting that?

I don't get that at all from your links. I see where the INVO believed that Saddam had made some progress towards enriching uranium capabilities, but they admitted that they had no hard evidence for it. They think they could have found evidence had Saddam not been so obstinate. In light of what we now know, those beliefs were incorrect. If they had been correct, then INVO should have been able to steer us to said facilities once Saddam was out of the way.

The UN inspections stopped completely after 1998. They only resumed because of the credible threat of US force. We could not maintain that threat indefinitely, because it required having much of our army stationed in the gulf. Saddam could outwait us. So I'm not sure why you say it WAS working - it worked (past tense), but it was falling apart. The UN had no intention of authorizing force (certainly not Russia or China, and not likely France either), and Saddam knew that.

The credible threat of US force had apparently been enough to deter them ever since Gulf War I, although the sanctions probably had something to do with it too. I don't see where it was "falling apart". I see no credible evidence of Saddam having any success in acquiring uranium, even if he was trying. I cannot find a single thing that indicates that the combined sanctions and inspections were not working. Of course, I didn't trust him either. All the more reason to keep a very close watch on him. Not enough reason for an invasion.

But so far, I've been the one to actually provide the facts about Iraq's nuclear program, and the counterarguments have basically only consisted of wishful thinking about the UN's ability AND will to contain Saddam or conspiracy theories about right-wingers trying to take over the world

You have provided facts that we continued to distrust and look for WMDs. I thank you for providing that. But as your link indicates, the results of all of our searches has found virtually nothing, other than a recalcitrant dictator. That is a fact too.

The complete lack of any trace of WMDs is the strongest possible evididence that the plan in place was working. Every other scenario involves destroying vast weapon complexes, destroying all the uranium, killing or brainwashing every single person involved, and destroying all the documentation. And all this was done without a trace. I consider those scenarios unlikely.

I'm not surprised at all. And I can take it as well as I dish it out. But my attacks have been based on what the people in question actually said - but seeing as how I didn't get the information I posted from Bush, that little accusation that I've been indoctrinated by him doesn't even make sense. If I have been too harsh, I can tone that down.

You reacted strongly to a very minor insinuation, while using a number of pejoratives against others (not all of whom were posters here). That doesn't speak highly of your ability to "take it". However my point is that if you wish others to engage in non-incendiary debate, then you must do so as well.

Heck, that's what Flame Wars is for.

 

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tricky
I don't get that at all from your links. I see where the INVO believed that Saddam had made some progress towards enriching uranium capabilities, but they admitted that they had no hard evidence for it. They think they could have found evidence had Saddam not been so obstinate. In light of what we now know, those beliefs were incorrect.

Then you're not digging deep enough. In light of what we know now, all of the information about Saddam's activity prior to gulf war 1 is still correct. What is still at issue is what progress he made AFTER the gulf war, and it now seems like little or no progress was made. But you're completely wrong that he was not making progress prior to the first gulf war.

If they had been correct, then INVO should have been able to steer us to said facilities once Saddam was out of the way.

We already know some of these facilities, and inspectors DID check them out. Does the name Al-Tuwaitha mean anything to you?

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/tuwaitha.html

You're confusing one issue (what Saddam may have done after gulf war 1) with a separate one (what we KNOW he did prior to gulf war 1). Note also that the IAEA was ignorant about the weapons program at Al Tuwaitha before the war - what they know they found out only after the war. Their ability to detect hidden weapons programs is weak, and cannot be relied upon.

The credible threat of US force had apparently been enough to deter them ever since Gulf War I, although the sanctions probably had something to do with it too.

Yes, the sanctions did have something to do with it. But they were slipping. And the credible threat of force, and even the use of that force, didn't keep them from halting cooperation with inspectors in 1998.

The complete lack of any trace of WMDs is the strongest possible evididence that the plan in place was working. Every other scenario involves destroying vast weapon complexes, destroying all the uranium, killing or brainwashing every single person involved, and destroying all the documentation. And all this was done without a trace. I consider those scenarios unlikely.

It had him stalled, but what about that makes you think he couldn't have restarted his program in the future? Saddam could just wait a year, halt cooperation with inspectors again, wait for us to build up another force to threated him, start complying again, and keep yanking our chain until we couldn't keep it up. He did it once, and France and Russia were opposed to actually taking action against him. They would continue to oppose any forceful action. So Saddam would continue to wait, not cooperating when no army was at his doorstep, then backing down when we moved troops into position. Sooner or later we would be unable to continue parking our troops on his front door (it costs a hell of a lot of money, and it puts a strain on the countries who host our troops), and at that point he could restart his program. Do you see any way out of that trap? Because again, we cannot rely on having solid information about the current state of his nuclear program without actually invading. So the choices are

1) invade and rid the world of a terrible tyrant who oppressed his own people, threatened his neighbors, and spread violence throughout the region,

2) let him keep yanking us around until we can't keep the pressure on him anymore, or

3) give up and hope that countries like Syria won't act in their own self-interest by smuggling prohibited goods to Saddam for enormous profit.

That's it. Those were the options. And only option 1 actually ensures Saddam never got a nuke. If you want to question the timing, well, what makes anyone think that any time in the future woud have been a better time for an invasion? His neighbors were becoming MORE reluctant to oppose him, we could not rely on intelligence information about the current state of his weapons program, so the timing was getting worse, not better.