DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> U.S. ends search for WMD in Iraq having found none
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 201 - 225 of 367, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/04/2005 12:06:42 PM · #201
Originally posted by ericlimon:

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Why don't you tell me what your beliefs are about the administration bringing us to war in iraq. Providing, if you would - any evidence can you offer to support your thinking, and any evidence that justifies a war. I'd be interested to know if you believe what was told to us, and why.


what's so "broad" about asking what your beliefs are? and asking to provide any evidence you can to support your beliefs? Or providing any evidence to support a war? Just answer the question if you can, so you can help me understand where you are coming from. Who knows, you might be able to provide the "smoking gun".

Entire Senate committees spent days asking the Bush administration to make a case for the use of military force against the Hussein regime, and to provide evidence to support their case. And you are asking me to do what took the administration thousands of man-hours to do in just a few minutes in a rant forum? Yes, I maintain that asking me to provide "evidence to support a war" is a very broad charge.
02/04/2005 12:08:27 PM · #202
As for evidence (not necessarily for going to war over), we can be pretty sure that Saddam did have WMD's. 50 to 100 thousand Kurds would confirm this--if they were still alive to do so. I'm not saying that was a reason to go to war, because I have not entirely made up my mind on that, but I am sure that I am tired of hearing he never had any weapons of mass destruction.
02/04/2005 12:11:30 PM · #203
yeah, i figured that would be your answer.
02/04/2005 12:16:08 PM · #204
Originally posted by NovaTiger:

As for evidence (not necessarily for going to war over), we can be pretty sure that Saddam did have WMD's. 50 to 100 thousand Kurds would confirm this--if they were still alive to do so. I'm not saying that was a reason to go to war, because I have not entirely made up my mind on that, but I am sure that I am tired of hearing he never had any weapons of mass destruction.


You mean back in the 80's when the US was on friendly terms with Iraq?
02/04/2005 12:16:23 PM · #205
Honest question (for anyone) with no hidden motive.

Has the Bush administration ever apologized or indicated regret that they made strong statements vowing to find the WMD's in Iraq?
02/04/2005 12:20:48 PM · #206
Originally posted by NovaTiger:

As for evidence (not necessarily for going to war over), we can be pretty sure that Saddam did have WMD's. 50 to 100 thousand Kurds would confirm this--if they were still alive to do so. I'm not saying that was a reason to go to war, because I have not entirely made up my mind on that, but I am sure that I am tired of hearing he never had any weapons of mass destruction.


No one has said that Saddam "never" had WMDs. What's been said is that Hussein did not possess WMDs that presented and immediate danger to the US, as the administration contended just before the invasion.

Remember, Bush and Co. talked of mushroom clouds, and chemical weapons that could wipe out whole US cities -- and the cities of our allies.

I say bullshit... the administration knew better, because the UN inspectors told the world at the time that Iraq's WMD programs had been destroyed after the first Persian Gulf War. The administration lied, and proceeded to make the case that Hussein presented an immediate threat to the US.

All of this has been covered by various sources, including Hans Blix recounts the whole sordid story in his memoir -- by the why, Hans Blix was the lead in the UNs inspection team.

As for the illegal disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity, not only was it unethical, it's illegal -- and you're damn right it was done for political reasons. Now, hopefully the federal investigation that's underway will continue unmolested, and we'll get to find out who in the executive branch leaked the name of a CIA agent -- which not only put her life on the line, but the lives of other undercover operatives.
02/04/2005 12:25:54 PM · #207
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Honest question (for anyone) with no hidden motive.

Has the Bush administration ever apologized or indicated regret that they made strong statements vowing to find the WMD's in Iraq?


No, in fact Bush & Co. make it a point to never apologize -- gives'em an air of authority to never admit to a mistake... or so they think.

Oh, and Bush is not very good at sticking to his promises, remember, at one point Bush wanted Osama Bin Ladin Dead or Alive... a year later Bush said that he didn't spend that much time thinking about Bin Ladin, and that he didn't worry about where Bin Ladin was.
02/04/2005 12:27:46 PM · #208
Originally posted by ericlimon:

yeah, i figured that would be your answer.

In other words, you are unwilling or unable to articulate a single question about my stated belief that I should be able to defend - in the same way that I "played the game" with your statement.
I confess that I'm not surprised.
02/04/2005 12:28:28 PM · #209
Ron, the kind of proof that you are asking for is gotten from a court of law. Until then, what we are dealing with on both sides is speculation and analysis. Bush had to also use speculation and analysis for his decisions and it's my opinion that he, and others in his administration, chose the course they did based on selective information. They did not want to hear others with dissenting views. As Paul O'Neill has already stated, along with others, there was an urgency to go to war with Iraq early on in the Bush administration.

This is why the Nuremberg trials took place and why there is an International Criminal Court and the Geneva Conventions to supply standards for which to fight a war. Probably the reason that the United States refuses to join the ICC and to uphold the Geneva conventions is that don't want their actions to be exposed to such legal scrutiny. It's most likely the reason why Donald Rumsfeld had to cancel a trip to Germany earlier this month.

PS In case you haven't seen it, I did revise my post on page 31 as you requested.
02/04/2005 12:29:30 PM · #210
Originally posted by bdobe:

Oh, and Bush is not very good at sticking to his promises, remember, at one point Bush wanted Osama Bin Ladin Dead or Alive... a year later Bush said that he didn't spend that much time thinking about Bin Ladin, and that he didn't worry about where Bin Ladin was.


here's the video showing bush talking about bin laden
02/04/2005 12:47:41 PM · #211
Originally posted by ericlimon:

Originally posted by NovaTiger:

As for evidence (not necessarily for going to war over), we can be pretty sure that Saddam did have WMD's. 50 to 100 thousand Kurds would confirm this--if they were still alive to do so. I'm not saying that was a reason to go to war, because I have not entirely made up my mind on that, but I am sure that I am tired of hearing he never had any weapons of mass destruction.


You mean back in the 80's when the US was on friendly terms with Iraq?


...Your point is?
02/04/2005 12:52:10 PM · #212
Dude, he's a national politician. It's in the job description.

Message edited by author 2005-02-04 16:05:05.
02/04/2005 12:52:37 PM · #213
This is interesting, from CNN:

Rice: Attack on Iran 'not on agenda'

The drums of war are being beat once again... we'll see how close to the precipice we'll come.
02/04/2005 12:58:32 PM · #214
the US refuses to take part in negotiations with the European Union and Iran (despite the EU begging the US to take part). The US shuns diplomacy and will only consider military action. It's their agenda.
02/04/2005 12:59:58 PM · #215
Why not North Korea? or better yet (and more facetiously asked), why not China?

Message edited by author 2005-02-04 13:00:23.
02/04/2005 01:30:38 PM · #216
Originally posted by NovaTiger:

I am sure that I am tired of hearing he never had any weapons of mass destruction.


Where exactly are you hearing this?

I've never heard this before, it's a well documented fact that he had WMD's back then. What I don't understand, is why was the US on freindly terms with him, when it was KNOWN that he was using these weapons? Then, fast forward to 2003, and the US is Iraq's enemy, based on the USSUMPTION that he has these weapons, or MIGHT use these weapons.
02/04/2005 01:35:54 PM · #217
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Ron, the kind of proof that you are asking for is gotten from a court of law. Until then, what we are dealing with on both sides is speculation and analysis. Bush had to also use speculation and analysis for his decisions and it's my opinion that he, and others in his administration, chose the course they did based on selective information. They did not want to hear others with dissenting views. As Paul O'Neill has already stated, along with others, there was an urgency to go to war with Iraq early on in the Bush administration.

This is why the Nuremberg trials took place and why there is an International Criminal Court and the Geneva Conventions to supply standards for which to fight a war. Probably the reason that the United States refuses to join the ICC and to uphold the Geneva conventions is that don't want their actions to be exposed to such legal scrutiny. It's most likely the reason why Donald Rumsfeld had to cancel a trip to Germany earlier this month.

PS In case you haven't seen it, I did revise my post on page 31 as you requested.


Olyuzi, even in courts of law there allowance is made for conviction without PROOF - it's called either a preponderence of the evidence ( in civil cases ) or beyond a reasonable doubt ( in criminal cases ). Evidence to be considered, however, must be relevant to the case. Entering into "evidence" a weapon registered to a defendant is insufficient to prove that the defendent is the one who used it in the commission of a crime. At a minimum, there must either be evidence that shows him at the scene of the crime, or testimony showing that he had motive and opportunity. Without such minimal evidence, a grand jury won't even permit the prosecution to bring the case to trial.

Ericlimon, and others, are constantly stating their opinions as though they were facts. All I'm asking is 1) clearly separate opinion from fact, and 2) if you don't clearly show that your statement are opinion, be prepared to offer evidence to support your "facts". Is that too much to ask?

BTW. I believe ( note that intro that makes it clear that the following is opinion ) that the reason Rummy is avoiding Germany is because he/we cannot risk losing his focus on defense matters for the next year or so, or replace him with someone less knowledgable and less capable.

The Centre for Constitutional Rights filed a complaint last Nov. 30 charging that U.S. officials, including Rumsfeld, are responsible for acts of torture against detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.. Centre president Michael Ratner said "We believe that Donald Rumsfeld cannot escape accountability for his alleged crimes."

Oh, and I can't go without making one more observation - the Geneva Conventions specifically state that POWs fall under the Geneva Conventions only if

# they are being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
# they have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
# they carry arms openly;
# they conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Most of the detainees in Abu Ghraib did NOT meet those criteria - hence they do not fall under the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions, UNTIL an independent judge determines their status.
Please note that I am NOT making excuses for the abusive treatment they received, only pointing out the fallacy that they are automatically entitled to treatment in compliance with the Geneva Conventions.

SO, since you stated as fact, not opinion, that the US refuses to uphold the Geneva Conventions, could you please offer some evidence to support that statement?

Message edited by author 2005-02-04 13:44:44.
02/04/2005 01:39:45 PM · #218
Originally posted by bdobe:

This is interesting, from CNN:

Rice: Attack on Iran 'not on agenda'

The drums of war are being beat once again... we'll see how close to the precipice we'll come.


In that article, she also says this: "We have many diplomatic tools still at our disposal and we intend to pursue them fully"

Those statements kinda sounds familiar...

Oh yeah,

back in October 2002, Condi Rice announced "We're going to seek a peaceful solution to this. We think that one is possible"
Then in November 2002 she said " We all want very much to see this resolved in a peaceful way"
Then, in March 2003 she claimed " We are still in a diplomatic phase here"

Lets hope Iran isn't next.
02/04/2005 01:52:58 PM · #219
Originally posted by RonB:

Ericlimon, and others, are constantly stating their opinions as though they were facts.


Whatever ron, you'll read into anything anyone says and claim it's an "opinion", unless it suits you and your parties purposes. The FACT about it is:

1) HE HAD NO "STOCKPILES" OF WMD's
2) HE WAS NOT BUILDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS
3) HE WAS NOT MAKING CHEMICAL WEAPONS
4) HE WAS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH SEPTEMBER 11th
5) HE WAS NOT TRYING TO AQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS

So, why exactly did we go to war Ron? what exactly are the "facts" as you see them ron?
02/04/2005 02:13:48 PM · #220
Originally posted by ericlimon:

Originally posted by RonB:

I think Bush and colin powell were played by some people in the administration. I think they truely believed (at least at one time) that Sadam was a threat. But I think the intelligence WAS doctored. First, the US relied on intelligence from the British.


I just want to interrupt this to point out that the "they" in the last phrase refers to the British foreign service ( if my interpretation of your grammatical structure is accurate )

No, they "they" i refer to is GW bush and Colin Powell


I just wanted to point out that the above posting by ericlimon is completely inaccurate. The first sentence was NOT mine as he attributes it - in fact it was his. The second statement was not his, it was mine. The last statement was his. Also, he leaves out a quotation of mine then calls into question my response as though it were referring to a prior post ( twisting??? ). The posting should have looked like this

Originally posted by ericlimon:

I think Bush and colin powell were played by some people in the administration. I think they truely believed (at least at one time) that Sadam was a threat. But I think the intelligence WAS doctored. First, the US relied on intelligence from the British.

Just a few days after Powells speech to the UN, the british foreign service admitted that a considerable portion of it's Iraq dossier (which powell relied on heavily) had been lifted from dated sources, and even included a portion that was copied verbatim from a 12 year old college dissertation. They were using OLD intelligence

Originally posted by RonB:

I just want to interrupt this to point out that the "they" in the last phrase refers to the British foreign service ( if my interpretation of your grammatical structure is accurate )


No, they "they" i refer to is GW bush and Colin Powell


To which I can formulate a response - to wit: If the "they" refers to Bush and Powell, then how were THEY to be expected to KNOW that the intelligence was old AT THE TIME that they presented it? The British did not present it to THEM as "old" - in fact the British government called their report an "intelligence dossier" that described "up-to-date" information on Iraqi efforts to evade weapons inspectors.

Message edited by author 2005-02-04 14:19:26.
02/04/2005 02:24:47 PM · #221
keep grasping ron, you know i did not intentionally "twist" the quotes to make it appear as if you spoke them.

You obviously have nothing intelligent to say, so again, i really wish you luck in life.

Message edited by author 2005-02-04 14:25:12.
02/04/2005 02:30:10 PM · #222
Originally posted by ericlimon:

Originally posted by RonB:

Ericlimon, and others, are constantly stating their opinions as though they were facts.


Whatever ron, you'll read into anything anyone says and claim it's an "opinion", unless it suits you and your parties purposes. The FACT about it is:

1) HE HAD NO "STOCKPILES" OF WMD's
2) HE WAS NOT BUILDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS
3) HE WAS NOT MAKING CHEMICAL WEAPONS
4) HE WAS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH SEPTEMBER 11th
5) HE WAS NOT TRYING TO AQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS

So, why exactly did we go to war Ron? what exactly are the "facts" as you see them ron?

Here are the facts:
1) Intelligence reports from US and allied governments INDICATED that he had stockpiles of WMD's
2) Intelligence reports from US and allied governments INDICATED that he was attempting to gain access to or build nuclear weapons
3) Intellingence reports from US and allied governments INDICATED that he was maintaining the capacity to make chemical weapons
4) He denied unfettered access to inspectors
5) He would not produce evidence showing the destruction of the WMD's known to be under his control in 1991.
Those are facts.
The difference is that MY facts were known to be factual BEFORE the war. Yours are known only in hindsight.
Unfortunately, we cannot predict hindsight ahead of time with 100% accuracy. So we deal with the knowledge ( right or wrong ) that we have AT THE TIME.

I have OFTEN heard people say "I wish I knew then what I know now. I would have done things differently". But, having spent some time in these fora, I would have to surmise that none of them were liberals.
02/04/2005 09:57:06 PM · #223
Gee, RonB, I guess it's not just the "liberals" who believe Bush lied but some rather well-known folks from your side of the fence, too. Read it and weep.
02/05/2005 03:57:44 PM · #224
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Gee, RonB, I guess it's not just the "liberals" who believe Bush lied but some rather well-known folks from your side of the fence, too. Read it and weep.


Thanks for the post, Judith. Great to read that there are still some in the authentic American Conservative Movement -- unlike in Bush's right-wing Republican party -- that can look at all that Bush & Co. have wrought without partisan glasses. Perhaps Bush's legacy will be to unite the populist-Left with the populist-Right; after all, both camps recognize that Bush's pro-big business and invasion prone agendas are in fact hurting average Americans.

Not quite on the same topic of populism, since Christine Todd Whitman is not a populist, but there's clearly a lot of discontent amongst the moderate/traditional wing of the Republican party over the right-wing's take over that party. In her book, It's My Party, Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America, Whitman rails against the right-wing leadership of the Republican party and calls on moderate/traditional Republicans to fight back. I'll be interested to see how these two forces, a brewing backlash amongst moderate/traditional Republicans and a union between the Left and Right populists movements, shape the political landscape in the next two to four years.

Again, thanks for the article Judith.
02/05/2005 04:36:44 PM · #225
You're welcome, bdobe, and your point about the more moderate/traditional Republican backlash is a good one. I haven't read Whitman's book yet but have heard her talking about the extreme heavyhandedness with which the Bush administration deals with dissenters in the party. That kind of abuse, along with the disaster Bush has made of foreign policy and the economy, will hopefully produce some real opposition to whatever the Bush administration has in store for us next.

And thanks to all who have posted so many other interesting articles in this thread as well. It's a pleasure to hear so many well-reasoned arguments from informed people. :)

Message edited by author 2005-02-05 21:21:39.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 09/17/2021 01:05:25 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/17/2021 01:05:25 PM EDT.