WoMD ... so where are they?
by Simon 865 Replies latest social current
-
-
Valis
rebbies...thanks for handling this debate reasonably...you are and will be one of my faves..I have tried so hard to stay out of most of all the war talk and seeing as I just got back from an area full of FT Stockton, Bliss, and other bases it is sometimes hard to resist fucking with such a volatile subject...to add to your point, I would just say that the millitary people I ran into were just wanting to have a good time and didn't give a fuck if they only had a short time to spend maybe buying the chica some Chico's Tacos before he had to go back, getting laid, buying things for friends, taking family to dinner, seeing the moms and so forth after more than two or three years.. etc..
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
-
Trauma_Hound
Valis sez:
Drama Hound...you are still a snit that couldn't have his arguments stand on thier own merits if you tried... shit for brains.....you have to get backup so someone doesn't just call you an asshole right off the bat...sad and yet terribly true...volatile idealistic assholes don't do anything to change opinion...maybe someday your stupid ass will get a clue.
Ahh poor valis has a hard on for me, what's the matter valis, I control you that much. LOL Just love it when people get they're undies in a snit over me, it means I have that much control over them.
Jayzun: You do not have a clue as to what happened between me and bill, I actually defended bill when he was being an asshole to people, until he turned on me. So history shows, again your a braindead crank whore.
-
Simon
If people are going to resort to using bad language and making personal insults then I will resort to deleting their posts. Note, not edit ... delete. I am not going to spend my valuable time sorting out who said what and clearing up each snippet from posts.
Please debate THE TOPIC or don't debate at all.
-
Abaddon
Realist;
first of all, would you agree that powell lied to the UN when he showed the satellite pictures and presented the 12 year old student report as up to date CIA info??? how much creadibility does this leave the
Powell certainly seems to have lied. The entire thing was a PR debacle. Remember the Chinese Embassy in the former that got blown up because “they used an out-of-date map”? I have a guy who grew up in the neighbourhood sat right in front of me who knows that the only thing that has appeared on maps in that location is the Chinese Embassy. Prior to that it was open ground he played on as a child. And that was a Democratic President, wasn’t it?
Case such as those, and similar ones, mean the USA’s government has very very low credibility beyond their own shores, and only have their media, institutional honesty and foreign policy to blame. Within their own shores there is a deep divide over the credibility of the government.
why are you so sure had WMD? why would they have kept them?
I’m not so sure, but not convinced not, and think the ‘why’ question with a guy like Saddam probably transcends the bounds of logical extrapolation. Please understand my past few posts on this thread have been a little ironic at times (the ingenious Iraqi’s bit especially), as I see no point in oppositional debate when a more tactful and even-handed approach can result in open and constructive dialogues with someone like dubla.
hussein's only chance was to convince the world that he had destroyed all WMD...why keep them? the only reason to keep them would have been to use them in case of an attack...did he use them? no....only possible conclusion imo...he indeed didn'T have any left.
It’s a very good point. For years the Arab neighbours of have known that if it goes tit-up in , they’ll take out a few cities in the Arab world when they go down. They have the WoMD to do it. keeping WoMD only made sense in a back-against the wall scenario, their backs were manifestly against the wall, and they didn’t get used. One cannot even argue convincingly that the infrastructure and train of command feel apart so they weren’t used, as none have been found discarded or abandoned thus far, and they would have had to have been in positions where they could have been used in a backs-against-the-wall scenario, rather than hidden so well you can’t find them after a month of peace. But this is conjecture.
would it be credible if US troops claim to have found WMD without UN inspectors being allowed to verify the finding? absolutely NOT imo.
Oh, I agree with you, subject to the scale of the find. Any big find will likely be genuine. However, the USA ’s poor credibility will means even if it’s genuine, people will doubt them with reason.
however, die hard believers in justice like thichi or Yeru would find anything that the bush admin utters as credible. ....so i am pretty sure eventually the US will come up with some BS evidence for WMD and 70% of americans will believe the lie without asking for independet verification.
Well, lots of people swallowed Colin’s ‘evidence’, thanked him nicely and wiped their lips, and will do just the same when the evidence that gets the US. I’m not really inclined towards the Bukakke approach to government sourced information. As I think dubla shows, many people have a far broader viewpoint than the narrower ones demonstrated by some of the most vocal people on either side of the debate.
It is this broader viewpoint that will win over time.
dubla:
We’re in agreement over many things; Pro-war doesn’t equal pro-Bush, Anti-war doesn’t equal pro-Saddam. The amount of fallacious logic used by some people is startling.
The refusal of many Americans to recognise the share of blame the must take for the problems caused by their bias regarding is worrying. No wonder the real nut-jobs think there’s a Zionist conspiracy.
Likewise, the ‘my country right or wrong’ viewpoint is moronic. Non-UN approved invasions set unhealthy precedents. India-Pakistan and North Korea-South Korea are two good examples where this could bite world politics on the ass so hard it wouldn't sit down for a decade.
I’m am trying to be objective, or at least objective enough not to alienate people who also want to try to be objective, like you.
I don’t really think that a belief in the government having WoMD (if none are found) is likely to be a ‘genuine’ mistake… but it’s possible that it is. I’d say it is equally possible that some elements of the US government are playing with others and many people genuinely though there were WoMD due to deliberate misinformation by other elements of the government. Stuff like this has happened before. Likewise I think anyone approaching the ‘ government are bad’ argument had better get their own governments failings in mind first, or their argument risks only being one of scale.
As regards the election, I think anyone who lives in a country that doesn’t use some form of proportional representation (like does, and the and doesn’t) is silly if they are happy accepting that as something that should not be changed.
Any other form of voting leads to polarised, bipartisan, oppositional, inflexible, despotic, monolithic and unrepresentative government. Groups of peoples' beliefs are spectrums of colour. Two party systems only allow black and white, and concentrate too much power in too few hands.
Proportional representation is representative of the people by its very operation, flexible, cooperative. Its apparent weakness (getting a consensus of opinion) is its actual strength.
If you’re afraid of the more extreme elements of society (the most diligent voters and the loudest voices), proportional representation is the best way to muzzle the dog, as it prevents such polarised political situations. With the increasing ‘greying’ of voters due to demographic change, the tendency of voters to become more conservative with age, and the vocal and highly financed nature of right-wing groups, I think unless there is voting reform American politics will become more right wing and isolationist.
Scary scary very very scary, that’s very scary…
-
Trauma_Hound
If people are going to resort to using bad language and making personal insults then I will resort to deleting their posts. Note, not edit ... delete. I am not going to spend my valuable time sorting out who said what and clearing up each snippet from posts.
Please debate THE TOPIC or don't debate at all.
Simon, since I said absolutely nothing to valis, or even mentioned him in my post, this is my last warning, to him, to stop harasing me.
-
Valis
We’re in agreement over many things; Pro-war doesn’t equal pro-Bush, Anti-war doesn’t equal pro-Saddam.
nice way to put it..
Simon, since I said absolutely nothing to valis, or even mentioned him in my post, this is my last warning, to him, to stop harasing me.
you are a joke...*LOL*
I find it odd that no WMD have been found, but if we go back and look at the weapons inspectors from the UN and thier work previous to the war, its fairly obvious they didn't have free reign to go wherever they wanted in Iraq. They had minders with them the whole time. Hans Blix used his office to postpone the inevitable attack and even reported to the UN that Iraqi compliance and cooperation was not satisfactory. Why is that? As well, why is it that no one ever mentions the mass graves that are still being found? One can say easily that the Bush administration screwed up big time and didn't give too much thought as to the credulity for why the coalition forces ousted the Hussien regime, however for some this will never be good enough. It becomes just a minor road bump for most reasonable folks, but for some it is the platform to foist ill thought politics on the board What is even more scary is the looting of nuclear waste by the Iraqi people...knowingly/unknowingly carting away radioactive material, which in turn could be used as dirty bombs by simple disseminating it via explosion, or insertion into a water supply. Since the fall of the USSR this kind of threat has been prevalent because of the accountablity system collapsed. One might think that the Hussien regime had a very strict system of accountability for thier WMD program, as seen by thier handling of the weapons inspectors. They also supplied no documentation for the destruction of the gases and nerve agents they claimed to have destroyed after the first conflict. It might also be noted that it wasn't previous UN attempts to find WMD didn't uncover the use WMD on the Kurds or Shias...It was invasion of Iraq the first time that lead to that. Why is it so hard to make the connection between lots of dead Iraqis then, and the potential for Saddam to have done the same thing in the future? So what do we talk about now? Complain about the war? Complain about Bush? Lets maybe talk about all the torture victims and the mass grave found in Mahawil. All those dead Iraqis, possibly 15,000, deserve more discussion than the political screw up by the Bush admin any day. He will be gone and the complainers will find new reasons to whine about the government when the next president rolls in.
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
-
Reborn2002
I find it odd that no WMD have been found, but if we go back and look at the weapons inspectors from the UN and thier work previous to the war, its fairly obvious they didn't have free reign to go wherever they wanted in Iraq. They had minders with them the whole time. Hans Blix used his office to postpone the inevitable attack and even reported to the UN that Iraqi compliance and cooperation was not satisfactory.
I agree with you. Iraq did stall and hesitate as much as possible, and they may indeed possess WMD. I am not some extremist as the poster Jayson likes to insinuate foolishly. However I find it extremely odd that no WMD have been found, when that was the primary justification for the war, and the "coalition of the willing" has free reign to travel and inspect anywhere they like in the country of Iraq. Despite possessing the most advanced intelligence in the world, the CIA (with aid from Britain's MI5 and Israel's Mossad, both assisting US intelligence, and many other nations in the coalition), they have not found any WMD. Is it not also peculiar that if Hussein did possess WMD, NONE were used against American forces (whom he and others vehemently HATE) in order to defend his stranglehold on power? He did not hesitate using chemical weapons on his own people, but did not use any on US forces (more importantly if you discuss the Islam perspective, infidel invaders of holy land) and allowed the country (Baath party rulership) to be conquered? Any logical person would question that.
As well, why is it that no one ever mentions the mass graves that are still being found? One can say easily that the Bush administration screwed up big time and didn't give too much thought as to the credulity for why the coalition forces ousted the Hussien regime, however for some this will never be good enough. It becomes just a minor road bump for most reasonable folks, but for some it is the platform to foist ill thought politics on the board
Yemen, Libya, Chechnya, Iran, Yugoslavia, Jordan, North Korea, Uganda, etc. There are countless examples of countries with tyrannical dictatorships that conduct inhumane murders and mass grave burials. You want to talk about mass graves? We can discuss at length the nations I mentioned above, or how about more recently the intifadeh where PLO forces kill Israeli citizens and then in turn the Israeli Army kills suspected Palestinian terrorists and dumps bodies in graves? The issue at hand for America's credibility is did the Bush Administration invade Iraq under potentially false pretense? Other countries have dictators and regimes just as vile as Hussein. To date I do not see the United States rushing to invade those nations. Even nations that knowingly are infinitely more advanced in developing nuclear weapons and within proximity to strike the United States (North Korea). Nope, the US isn't rushing in there. Is it not logical to question the course of action taken by our own government? Instead I am labeled as anti-American, antifreedom, and unpatriotic.
When you take into consideration the past history regarding Bush and oil (recent news events with Halliburton Oil receiving Iraqi contracts), Bush and Hussein, etc., it becomes even more peculiar. George W. Bush had ability, he had motive, and he had opportunity.
Lets maybe talk about all the torture victims and the mass grave found in Mahawil. All those dead Iraqis, possibly 15,000, deserve more discussion than the political screw up by the Bush admin any day. He will be gone and the complainers will find new reasons to whine about the government when the next president rolls in.
I agree to an extent. Suffering should be prevented wherever possible. What about women who are denied any rights whatsoever in primitive fundamentalist countries like Iran? Don't hear about that. I don't hear many people complaining about bloodshed and suffering in other countries. What I DO see is many Americans blindly supporting a President and his agenda simply because he is our President, and they are afraid of being considered unpatriotic if they do not do so, and therefore do not take into consideration the motive or morality of the actions taken.
Do American taxpayers have to eternally bear the burden of the entire world? I realized circumstances changed after 9/11, but I distinctly remember George W. Bush adamantly stating he was against "nation-building", and now we have US funds supporting Afghanistan and Iraq while American citizens lose jobs in a flailing economy.
Sorry, I have a problem with that.
All in all I agree with you on many points, and enjoy reasonable debate and discussion. Thanks Valis for your comments.
-
ThiChi
Realist:
Realist:
"so let me get this straight...the arabs have to remain peaceful while the israelis seize their land?"
Man, History is just not on your side.........
MYTH
“Palestine was always an Arab country.”
FACT
The term "Palestine" is believed to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th Century B.C.E., settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of what are now Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the second century C.E., after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palaestina to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arabic word "Filastin" is derived from this Latin name. 3
The Hebrews entered the Land of Israel about 1300 B.C.E., living under a tribal confederation until being united under the first monarch, King Saul. The second king, David, established Jerusalem as the capital around 1000 B.C.E. David's son, Solomon built the Temple soon thereafter and consolidated the military, administrative and religious functions of the kingdom. The nation was divided under Solomon's son, with the northern kingdom (Israel) lasting until 722 B.C.E., when the Assyrians destroyed it, and the southern kingdom (Judah) surviving until the Babylonian conquest in 586 B.C.E. The Jewish people enjoyed brief periods of sovereignty afterward before most Jews were finally driven from their homeland in 135 C.E.
Jewish independence in the Land of Israel lasted for more than 400 years. This is much longer than Americans have enjoyed independence in what has become known as the United States. 4 In fact, if not for foreign conquerors, Israel would be 3,000 years old today.
Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not." 5
Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:
We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds. 6
In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria." 7
The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said "Palestine was part of the Province of Syria" and that, "politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity." A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria." 8
Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank.
-
ThiChi
Realist:
History is just not on your side:
MYTH
“The 'traditional position' of the Arabs in Palestine was jeopardized by Jewish settlement.”
FACT
For many centuries, Palestine was a sparsely populated, poorly cultivated and widely-neglected expanse of eroded hills, sandy deserts and malarial marshes. As late as 1880, the American consul in Jerusalem reported the area was continuing its historic decline. "The population and wealth of Palestine has not increased during the last forty years," he said. 12
The Report of the Palestine Royal Commission quotes an account of the Maritime Plain in 1913:
The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track suitable for transport by camels and carts...no orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached [the Jewish village of] Yabna [Yavne]....Houses were all of mud. No windows were anywhere to be seen....The ploughs used were of wood....The yields were very poor....The sanitary conditions in the village were horrible. Schools did not exist....The western part, towards the sea, was almost a desert....The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many ruins of villages were scattered over the area, as owing to the prevalence of malaria, many villages were deserted by their inhabitants. 13
Lewis French, the British Director of Development wrote of Palestine:
We found it inhabited by fellahin who lived in mud hovels and suffered severely from the prevalent malaria....Large areas...were uncultivated....The fellahin, if not themselves cattle thieves, were always ready to harbor these and other criminals. The individual plots...changed hands annually. There was little public security, and the fellahin's lot was an alternation of pillage and blackmail by their neighbors, the Bedouin. 14
Surprisingly, many people who were not sympathetic to the Zionist cause believed the Jews would improve the condition of Palestinian Arabs. For example, Dawood Barakat, editor of the Egyptian paper Al-Ahram, wrote: "It is absolutely necessary that an entente be made between the Zionists and Arabs, because the war of words can only do evil. The Zionists are necessary for the country: The money which they will bring, their knowledge and intelligence, and the industriousness which characterizes them will contribute without doubt to the regeneration of the country." 15
Even a leading Arab nationalist believed the return of the Jews to their homeland would help resuscitate the country. According to Sherif Hussein, the guardian of the Islamic Holy Places in Arabia:
The resources of the country are still virgin soil and will be developed by the Jewish immigrants. One of the most amazing things until recent times was that the Palestinian used to leave his country, wandering over the high seas in every direction. His native soil could not retain a hold on him, though his ancestors had lived on it for 1000 years. At the same time we have seen the Jews from foreign countries streaming to Palestine from Russia, Germany, Austria, Spain, America. The cause of causes could not escape those who had a gift of deeper insight. They knew that the country was for its original sons (abna'ihilasliyin), for all their differences, a sacred and beloved homeland. The return of these exiles (jaliya) to their homeland will prove materially and spiritually [to be] an experimental school for their brethren who are with them in the fields, factories, trades and in all things connected with toil and labor. 16
As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers.
Mark Twain, who visited Palestine in 1867, described it as: “...[a] desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds-a silent mournful expanse....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action....We never saw a human being on the whole route....There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.”17