BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: Strick
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 06:46 PM

"Do you think 12 constitutes a weapon arsenal for a nation, or an afterthought? Even as many as 50? In these numbers they are at best a token arsenal."

So you've forgotten how close Iraq came putting the Middle East in flames with not quite that many SCUDS?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 07:10 PM

Refresh my memory, Strick. How close did Iraq come to putting th Middle East in flames with however many SCUDS? And when exactly did this happen?

Oh, I remember the first Gulf War. That was Hussein trying to grab Kuwait because he thought it belonged to Iraq anyway, and he was under the impression (for some strange reason) that the U. S. and the rest of the world would just look the other way. He didn't start lobbing SCUDs at people (and a SCUD, unless carrying a nuclear warhead, which I'm not sure they can do, is not a "Weapon of Mass Distruction," it's just another kind of bomb) until everybody started screaming and throwing things at him. I presume that's not what you're talking about.

Just what are you talking about?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:27 PM

Don:

let me rewrite some of your last statement...

WWII? That was Hitler trying to grab Europe because he thought it belonged to Germany anyway, and he was under the impression (for some strange reason) that the U. S. and the rest of the world would just look the other way. He didn't start lobbing V2s at people...

Do you understand my point? Or is it too subtle?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:30 PM

Amos:

"The paper referred to as I recall was later found to have been composed by an undergraduate college student, primarily. Or isn't that the same one?"

and where is your supporting evidence for this? Or is this another statement to be taken entirely on faith, since we know you have no agenda or point of view on the subject?




" In any case rhetoric is not fact. " TRUE


So talk about the facts, not give us rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:39 PM

BillD:


"says right at the top, bruce, that this was dated Sept, 2002...lots of the guesses and info in the article were simply inaccurate, and much of the rest has changed."

As for the accuracy, I do not know if the information that those opposed to the war are giving is any more accurate- they do not seem to be able to understand that a WMD is a WMD is a WMD. AND prohibited to Iraq by the UN.

So, the idea that he had the weapons in Sept 2002, and the intent, after how many years of UN inspections and prohibitions, and did not account for them between then and the recommencement of hostilities does not mean anything?


"Wile E. Coyote often clawed madly at the empty air, trying desperately to find something to grab onto as he hurtled toward the floor of the canyon."
"and it makes little difference how many times that coyote *splats' on the floor of the canyon...he is back at the eternal game of chasing the impossible again. I suppose tenacity IS sort of admirable. "


I think that this applies very well to the people saying that Iraq had no WMD. Maybe you coyotes need to stop denying the obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:44 PM

Beardedbruce, you are a piece of work. Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:47 PM

Don:



"and a SCUD, unless carrying a nuclear warhead, which I'm not sure they can do, is not a "Weapon of Mass Distruction,""


Or a chemical one, as they did, or a biological one... And yes, they CAN carry a nuclear warhead. There are man-portable backpack nukes.

So, the ones he sent at Israel WERE WMD, by the definition the US has used since the end of WWII. Maybe you need to look at the rest of your "facts", since you are wrong about this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 12:02 AM

SRDS:

" Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument. "

I HAVE noticed that this is your method of discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 12:34 AM

Bruce:

I am not about to go delving in to the records from 2002 because you want to repeat the tactic of disingenuous disinformation which justified the nation going into the war in the first place. If you cannot remember the history of these claims, go back and do your own homework. Don't go resurrecting bogus news stories and starting debates long since closed over again.

The claims about WMD were false and intentionally exaggerated to provide a casus belli in the absence of any other acceptable one.

Get used to it. Your furless leader has feet of clay, and brains to match.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 12:43 AM

from my "bogus" news story- which is the text of a report of the British Government, in case you did not bother to even look at something you might disagree with:



"FOREWORD BY THE PRIME MINISTER, THE RIGHT HONOURABLE TONY BLAIR MP

The document published today is based, in large part, on the work of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC). The JIC is at the heart of the British intelligence machinery. It is chaired by the Cabinet Office and made up of the heads of the UK's three Intelligence and Security Agencies, the Chief of Defence Intelligence, and senior officials from key government departments. For over 60 years the JIC has provided regular assessments to successive Prime Ministers and senior colleagues on a wide range of foreign policy and international security issues.

Its work, like the material it analyses, is largely secret. It is unprecedented for the Government to publish this kind of document. But in light of the debate about Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), I wanted to share with the British public the reasons why I believe this issue to be a current and serious threat to the UK national interest.

In recent months, I have been increasingly alarmed by the evidence from inside Iraq that despite sanctions, despite the damage done to his capability in the past, despite the UN Security Council Resolutions expressly outlawing it, and despite his denials, Saddam Hussein is continuing to develop WMD, and with them the ability to inflict real damage upon the region, and the stability of the world.

Gathering intelligence inside Iraq is not easy. Saddam's is one of the most secretive and dictatorial regimes in the world. So I believe people will understand why the Agencies cannot be specific about the sources, which have formed the judgements in this document, and why we cannot publish everything we know. We cannot, of course, publish the detailed raw intelligence. I and other Ministers have been briefed in detail on the intelligence and are satisfied as to its authority. I also want to pay tribute to our Intelligence and Security Services for the often extraordinary work that they do.

What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme. I also believe that, as stated in the document, Saddam will now do his utmost to try to conceal his weapons from UN inspectors.

The picture presented to me by the JIC in recent months has become more not less worrying. It is clear that, despite sanctions, the policy of containment has not worked sufficiently well to prevent Saddam from developing these weapons. "

******************

You state that "The claims about WMD were false and intentionally exaggerated to provide a casus belli in the absence of any other acceptable one. "

I now state that the claims you make about the causes of the attack on Iraq are false and intentionally misleading.

MY statement has been shown by the facts as know at the time, and determined since then. Your statement has been repeated, but never shown toi have any basis in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 12:53 AM

further, from the same report:

At the end of the Gulf War the international community was determined that Iraq's arsenal of chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles should be dismantled. The method chosen to achieve this was the establishment of UNSCOM to carry out intrusive inspections within Iraq and to eliminate its chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles with a range of over 150km. The IAEA was charged with the abolition of Iraq's nuclear weapons programme. Between 1991 and 1998 UNSCOM succeeded in identifying and destroying very large quantities of chemical weapons and ballistic missiles as well as associated production facilities. The IAEA also destroyed the infrastructure for Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and removed key nuclear materials. This was achieved despite a continuous and sophisticated programme of harassment, obstruction, deception and denial (see Part 2). Because of this UNSCOM concluded by 1998 that it was unable to fulfil its mandate. The inspectors were withdrawn in December 1998.

13. Based on the UNSCOM report to the UN Security Council in January 1999 and earlier UNSCOM reports, we assess that when the UN inspectors left Iraq they were unable to account for:

-- up to 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, including 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent;

-- up to 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, including approximately 300 tonnes which, in the Iraqi chemical warfare programme, were unique to the production of VX;

-- growth media procured for biological agent production (enough to produce over three times the 8,500 litres of anthrax spores Iraq admits to having manufactured);

-- over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents.

14. The departure of UNSCOM meant that the international community was unable to establish the truth behind these large discrepancies and greatly diminished its ability to monitor and assess Iraq's continuing attempts to reconstitute its programmes.

*****************


There is also a discussion of the SCUDs with a range of 1200 km, and the ongoing development of ones of 1200-1500 km range. Have you decided that those cities within 1500KM of any part of Iraq were expendable?

If you and those who agree with you decide that something is settled, without even looking at the facts, or being aware of what a WMD is, that does not mean that the rest of us have to accept your "bogus" statements. I am willing to listen to a reaonable arguement, based on facts- UNLIKE some of you. I have not been offered that- just personal insult and broad generalizations without backing.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 01:00 AM

"The claims about WMD were false and intentionally exaggerated to provide a casus belli in the absence of any other acceptable one."


WE DID NOT NEED a casus belli, under present international law. Saddam HAD violated the terms of the ceasefire, and the US was authorized AND REQUIRED to act under the 1991 ( and later) UN resolutions.

WHAT PART OF THIS do you not understand? I cannot believe that you are that stupid- this must be an intentional tactic to ignore what you don't want to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 01:32 AM

You really do need to have the last word on this thread, beardedbruce, but I thought I'd post this remark so anyone in the future who is nuts enough to read this entire thing will know that in the face of such mind-boggling idiocy, I decided to stop posting before you give yourself a stroke.

You just don't have it in you to try this critical thinking stuff, so give it up. Now say something else nasty and maybe the thread will drop off the bottom of the page.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 01:43 AM

SRS,

I have an aversion to your repeating your lies and opinions as fact, and refuseng to defend what you say.

"You just don't have it in you to try this critical thinking stuff, so give it up"

I am sorry that, rather than defend your warped worldview, you insist on attacking those who see something other than what you believe should be. It is a pity that you do not seem to believe in free speech, or even simple politeness.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 02:55 AM

"Saddam HAD violated the terms of the ceasefire, and the US was authorized AND REQUIRED to act under the 1991 ( and later) UN resolutions."
As I recall, the UN didn't REQUIRE us to go to war.

But in spite of all these peripheral issues, the bottom line is this was -- is -- not a just war.

Melinda Henneberger of Newsweek says it better than I could, so I'll quote her:
-----------
...A just war must also confront a danger that is beyond question. Even when Dick Cheney said we knew exactly where the WMDs were, even when Tony Blair said Iraq could deploy them within 45 minutes, even when Colin Powell said the evidence was good enough for him, the danger was never beyond question. It is true that, as Bush said in his address on Monday evening, Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror.

This was not the case, however, when we went in.

A just war must be a last resort. Which was not the case in Iraq, either. Remember the United Nations weapons inspectors who wanted just a few more weeks to do their work? Yet incredibly, on "Meet the Press" last Sunday, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, California Republican Duncan Hunter, suggested to Tim Russert that it was the U.N. inspectors who pushed us into Iraq. "We went to war … not on the statements of Mr. [Ahmad] Chalabi but on Hans Blix," head of the U.N. inspectors, "who talked about the 8,500 liters of anthrax that Saddam Hussein put together … all of which would fit, Tim, in one pickup truck with good sideboards." Here is what Blix actually said this of the possibility that there were chemical and biological weapons in Iraq when the war began: "One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, this possibility is also not excluded."

A just war also must be proportional, so that the harm inflicted does not outweigh the good achieved. Surely one of the saddest quotes I have read in recent weeks came from an American military reservist who works in a prison in civilian life and was allegedly involved in the abuses at Abu Ghraib: "The Christian in me says it's wrong," he purportedly told the soldier who reported the abuses. "But the corrections officer in me says, "' love to see a grown man piss himself'." I'd really like to think that none of us is enjoying any part of this—including, among those who opposed the war, any sense that recent events are some kind of vindication, if there is any such thing, which I also tend to doubt. But aren't we all a little bit like that man, who shocks us not only with his cruelty but with his honesty? In a democracy, we are all to some extent morally complicit in the acts of our government and those who represent it.
---------

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 03:12 AM

Just as well that most of the "fellow travellers" posting here never have any responsibility for the security of their nations. With their views as to what constitutes a threat, or more importantly a potential threat in being, the nations, whose security, they might be responsible for would be rendered impotent and vulnerable within a remarkably short time.

Also just for the record, the declared reason for the US regarding Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, as being a threat was not based solely on it being perceived as a direct threat to the US, but to the United States of America, the allies of the United States of America and to interestes regarded as being vital to the United States of America.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 03:21 AM

"Saddam HAD violated the terms of the ceasefire, and the US was authorized AND REQUIRED to act under the 1991 ( and later) UN resolutions."
"As I recall, the UN didn't REQUIRE us to go to war."


I did say "act".

The topic of a just war is certainly one that should be discussed. Was WWI a just war? The US entered it on the basis of a torpedo attack on one ship- hardly a danger beyond question, or a last resort.
Was WWII? The US had been attacked by the Japanese- but we declared war on Germany as well. What danger did they present at that time to the US?


"Remember the United Nations weapons inspectors who wanted just a few more weeks to do their work?"

Yes, I do. They had stated that they could not get the REQUIRED cooperation from Iraq that was needed to insure the detection, location, and removal of prohibited weapons.
Korea? A UN mandated war, still unresolved over 50 years later.

Basically, wars are caused far more by treaty obligations than by "just" causes. How many of the countries in Europe wanted to go to war over the asassination of a single Grand Duke? But each had treaties, that required them to act. We have treaties now that may involve us in many conflicts- should we repudiate them all?

But, the original invasion of Kuwait was the cause- that had NEVER been "ended" by treaty, there was only a ceasefire. If one wishes to discuss other actions we could have taken, that might be useful- but the US was within the bounds of international law and UN resolutions when it resumed combat operations. All the comments here, and in the press about the "illegal" war are just so much BS. Specific actions, by both sides, during this conflict may be illegal under the rules of war- but the war itself is legal.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 03:29 AM

Teribus, are you calling me a "fellow traveller?"

Would that put me in the same category as Ronald Reagan, who did not attack the USSR in spite of it "being perceived as a direct threat to the US, but to the United States of America, the allies of the United States of America and to interests regarded as being vital to the United States of America"?

clint (anxiously waiting)

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 03:36 AM

bb

You said "act" indeed, but our act was to go to war which I believe was unjust. And I didn't say it was illegal; I said it was unjust.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 03:48 AM

clint:

You are certainly entitled to believe it is unjust. Some may disagree, but that IS one opinion.

But from what one knew in 1941, was the US decision to go to war against Germany a "just" war?



I am sorry if I implied that you had called it illegal- I was reacting to other posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 04:02 AM

Clint - ever heard of a certain period of the last century known as the "Cold War"?

During that period the US and the USSR squared up to each other on a number of occasions. In other instances, during that period, they did fight one another by proxy.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 04:52 AM

Teribus.

Yes. I remember the Cuba missile scare because I was in the reserves then & thought I'd have to go. I remember the Suez Canal flap because I was in the First Infantry Division then, and we were alerted, standing by to go. As I recall, we didn't go to war either time.

And as I recall, GWB didn't attack Iraq by proxy.

And to get to my point, as I recall, "fellow traveller" in those days -- when the term was first coined --meant "pro-Communist." What did you mean by it this time? "Pro Terrorist?" And were you applying it to me? If not, to whom?

I believe, sir, you are confusing dissent with disloyalty.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 04:57 AM

Bruce - the report you linked to is well known in Britain as "The Dodgy Dossier" and caused the Prime Minister severe embarassment when details of it came out. He tried to defend it, but ended up with egg on his face. Obviously you didn't follow the Hutton Inquiry into the Death of David Kelly - which while it limited its scope so that it didn't drw conclusions about the veracity of intelligence overall, plenty of evidence relating to this did come out at the enquiry.

Search the British press for terms like "Dodgy Dossier", "Hutton Report" and "45 minute claim" and you might find out a bit more about what you are talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:24 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:26 AM

I was showing what the governments had to base their decisions upon. IT DOES NOT MATTER if the report is flawed- it is what they knew at the time. Hindsight is always 20/20. The original topic of this thread was the WMDs which are being found TODAY. You are right in that I have not seen what of this report has been false. I would expect that, when the WMDs were not found ( or "acceptable" ones were not found) that all the governments involved would backpedal, and try to indicate they were given faulty inteligence. This does not mean that the weapons are not there, or are not being found- it is political spin to make themselves look better.

WHat exactly was proven to be false in this report? The fact that Iraq had used WMD? The fact that Iraq had long-range missiles? The fact that large amounts of prohibited materials were unaccounted for after 12 years of UN inspections?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:28 AM

bb :

We didn't have much choice; Germany declared war on the US on December 11, followed by Italy, and we felt it prudent to declare war in return.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:34 AM

Having no choice does not make it "just"


Iraq declared war on Kuwait, who had treaties with the US. Thus, we had no choice there. Are you now saying that this is a just war?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:46 AM

The whole point about intelligence is that you dont just believe everything that you come across. You have to consider the source and weigh up the veracity. Make up all sorts of scenarios and there will probably be some intelligence to back it up - doesnt make it true... The problem comes when you have governments asking for a report to support their case for war. In that case the people making the report will be under some considerable pressure (not all of it subtle) to select intelligence that supports the case and downplay that which undermines it. This changes the priorities regarding the veracity of the sources. there is also pressure to word it more strongly than they would if they were asked for an unbiased intelligence assessment of the situation.

As to the legality of the war - this is obviously still in doubt amongst many top lawyers in the field:

Iraq war illegal, says FO adviser who quit (Guardian)

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:59 AM

from the article:

"Ms Wilmshurst is set to appear as a witness for 14 Greenpeace activists who have been charged with aggravated trespass after chaining themselves to army tanks at the Marchwood military port near Southampton in the run-up to war.

In a previous statement, she revealed why she resigned in the run-up to war. "I did not agree that the use of force against Iraq was lawful, and in all the circumstances I did not want to continue as a legal adviser," she said."

*********************

Obviously, by the standards that SRS has established, I do not need to read this or pay any attention, since it comes from an obviously partisan source.

In actual fact, one has to remember that for any lawyer, ther is always and equal and opposite lawyer. I would agree there is debate on this: That does not make it illegal. If there was a real case for that, where are the actions brought under international law? I have not seen any that have stated a judgement about this being an illegal war- just a lot of statements that some individuals feel that it is. Well, I feel that I should win the lottery: That does not mean it will be so.

And what specifically in the report has been proven false?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 06:30 AM

Bearded Bruce - Maybe you should try informing yourself instead of relying on others to spoon feed you the information. Your breathtaking ignorance on the subject of this dossier (it was anything but low profile) shows that you really should take more of an interest in finding out about a subject before you rant on about it. Please do some research on the dossier yourself. Find out what Jack Straw said about it later, what the 45 minute claim refers to and the controversy surrounding it, where much of the material for it came from (whether it was credited) and when that part was written. It all should be easy to find and you may come out a little better informed to argue on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 06:33 AM

Clint - "fellow traveller" = those of a like mind. My useage of the description is not linked to anything in history.

GUEST 14 Jun 04 - 04:57 AM

Obviously you didn't read the findings of the Hutton Inquiry into the Death of David Kelly - or the findings of the House of Commons select committee. Both of which came to the conclusion that no political pressure was brought to bear on those tasked with the interpretation and evaluation of the intelligence information available at the time.

GUEST 14 Jun 04 - 05:46 AM

"The whole point about intelligence is that you don't just believe everything that you come across."

Very true - neither do you discount anything you come across without compelling reason.

"You have to consider the source and weigh up the veracity. Make up all sorts of scenarios and there will probably be some intelligence to back it up - doesnt make it true..."

Basic failure in understanding here. Intelligence information from as many sources as possible is subject to evaluation. Sources are weighted in terms of past performance, reliability and verification through comparison to other sources. While many scenarios are considered, only two are ever presented, best case and worst case. It is then a political decision on which is taken onboard in order to formulate the policy of the Government of the day.

"The problem comes when you have governments asking for a report to support their case for war. In that case the people making the report will be under some considerable pressure (not all of it subtle) to select intelligence that supports the case and downplay that which undermines it."

In the case of the recent invasion of Iraq that did not happen - lots would like to think it did - but that was not the findings of two inquiries, and I dare say that will be the findings of the third as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 06:35 AM

Also "Unfortunately, there is no international tribunal that can examine and prosecute those guilty of waging an illegal war. " according to the center for constitutional affairs. I am aware of court cases where the evidence for the illegality of was has been a focus for the defence, but has often been ruled inadmissable in court.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 06:41 AM

"center for constitutional affairs."

And what are the goals and membership of this center?


I am aware of court cases where the evidence for the illegality of was has been a focus for the defence, but has often been ruled inadmissable in court.

and therefore not proven. You admit that the courts do not even consider the "evidence " to be admissable.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 06:42 AM

Teribus, obviously you didn't see the looks of incredulity on the faces of practically everyone who heard the same evidence as Hutton when he published his findings...

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 06:54 AM

Guest,

Obviously you did not see the tears of mourning on the faces of the Iraqis after the mass graves were found. Present reports ( as per US News&World Report) are 5 to 7 million killed by Saddam.

But so what? The people who had decided that the war was a bad idea had looks of incredulity. That is what we should be focusing on.


"Maybe you should try informing yourself instead of relying on others to spoon feed you the information."

I was asking you to present "your" side of the story. What I read in the report matches the information of previous reports. I know that Saddam had WMD- and long range missiles. If he had destroyed them, why not just let the inspectors show that, rather than blocking them for 12 years?


Again, look at this from a reasonable standpoint: If it is unknown, and I assume he has them and plan accordingly, perhaps tens of thousands will die if I am wrong. If YOU assume he does not, and plan based on that, tens of millions will die if you are wrong.
I did not see enough doubt in the information to risk a thousand-fold increase in the number of deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 06:58 AM

By the bye, Clint, you mentioned that you were in the First Infantry in 1956 and in the Reserves in 1962.

What training were you given in the storage, handling and arming of chemical or biological munitions. Can you remember what the colour codings were for US/NATO Chemical/Biological weapons?

Also to Guest - When I first read the 45-minute claim - I knew exactly what they were referring to - the time it would take to arm a weapon, pure and simple. That weapon could be a missile warhead, bomb, artillery rocket, artillery shell or mortar shell.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 07:03 AM

Isn't it funny that the prosecution of Katharine Gun (if you dont know who she is and what she did Brucie, then find out before you reply....) was dropped when the defence announced that the illegality of the war would be part of the defence. This would have forced the government to publish in full the advice given by the attourney general about the legality of war (which up until now has been kept secret). There are strong suspicions with some evidence that he changed his advice in the run up to war under pressure from Tony Blair - because Admiral Sir Michael Boyce demanded such assurances before he would lead the country into war.

Bruce I admit that know nothing of the cener for constitutional affairs, however I didn't know what court might have jurisdiction over illegal wars and that was the only quote I could find referring to it. Are you aware of any court that would have jurisdiction? The nearest would be the International Criminal Court, but that could only be concerned with the conduct during the war, not the fighting of the war itself, and it would only have jurisdiction over the UK, not the US as they refused to sign up to it (and bullied other countries into agreeing not to hand over their soldiers to it if I remember correctly). Obviously the US was a bit more realistic about their future conduct than the UK was when it signed up to the treaty...

There will always be differences of opinion in law, but when the vast majority of international lawyers believe it to be illegal, and very few legal, and one of the ones who said it was legal was the one was asked to give advice to the government and probably changed his advice under pressure.... Starts to look a little fishy...


An article that discusses the attorney generals position

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 07:20 AM

Teribus - whether you knew what the 45 minute claim referred to is irrelevant, because didn't Blair and Hoon claim they didn't and when the press published stories based on what turned out to be false premises, nobody in the government or security forces saw fit to correct the notion. Surely that couldn't be because it was deliberately ambiguously worded so that the press would blow it up and scare people into supporting the war?

Bruce, mass graves have nothing to do with it. The legal case for going to war was not based on Saddams atrocities. Atrocities like that occur around the world and we sit and do nothing about them. Why suddenly decide that these atrocities should lead to war in Iraq, but not in Burma, China, Indonesia, Zimbabwe and many other countries. Why do our countries in some cases even support the very regimes that commit these appalling crimes. Because it was only relevant to the governments when they realised they could use it to gain some extra support for the war. If they were actually reall going to war to protect people from further appalling atrocities why there and then? Why not attack Iraq immediately after the atrocities were discovered (many years ago)? Doesn't make any sense to me.

Also, if something is unknown, you have a duty to assess the liklihood of each scenario, if either one is going to lead to death. Not just assume one is true because it would lead to more loss of life if true.

You might have been asking for my point of view, but in your arguments, you displayed a breathtaking ignorance of issues of major importance. Thats why I told you to go and do some research.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 07:20 AM

"There will always be differences of opinion in law, but when the vast majority of international lawyers believe it to be illegal, and very few legal,"

And here I thought it was the JUDGES that made rulings of law. Silly me.

The vast majority of people in Asia feel that Taiwan is a part of mainland China- Does this mean that the US should throw away our treaty obligations to support Taiwan as an independent state?

Perhaps we should look to the UN- You know, the ones who put Sudan on the Human Rights commission?

I do not claim to have the answers to all the questions- Hell, I don't even know all the questions. But I know people who have had missiles with chemical warheads, WMD by the US definition, attacking them and their families. If there is a chance to prevent this from happening again, I do not think we would be morally right to sit back and allow it. I am sorry if that upsets some of you: Perhaps if it hits closer to home for you, you might think more about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 07:31 AM

GUEST 14 Jun 04 - 06:42 AM

Sorry Guest, on any subject, I will form my own opinion on the facts as they are available, as they are presented and as they stand up to full investigation. My opinion will not be affected by the looks of incredulity on the faces of anyone.

Lots of people in the UK and elsewhere, thought that the Hutton Inquiry, in particular, would vindicate the stand taken by Gilligan and the BBC - it resoundingly did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 07:33 AM

Bruce if you really are coming from a humanitarian perspective then thats great, but maybe you ought to look a little deeper in the issues and ask a few questions. For example, why Iraq? Why then? Why not some other country at some other time? If you can find me answers to them then I will be more inclines to listen to your point of view.

Or are you of the opinion that the real reasons and timing for Iraq being attacked are irrelevant to you as long as one of the tyrants is gone - you don't mind what the ulterior motives were as long as one of the bastards is taken out of action?

I really want to know, I find it helpful to know what premises a person is arguing from when I discuss issues with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 07:38 AM

"The legal case for going to war "

As I have stated, we were already AT war. The 1991 invasion of Kuwait ended with a ceasefire: When the terms of that ceasefire were violated, the state of war remained in place. All the posturing and resolutions in the UN were for political, not legal reasons.


"Also, if something is unknown, you have a duty to assess the liklihood of each scenario, if either one is going to lead to death. Not just assume one is true because it would lead to more loss of life if true."

I did not see enough doubt in the information to risk a thousand-fold increase in the number of deaths. I did not assume it was true- just more likely given the information available.


"You might have been asking for my point of view, but in your arguments, you displayed a breathtaking ignorance of issues of major importance. Thats why I told you to go and do some research. "

The research I have done indicates that the best estimates were that Saddam did have WMD. I was giving you the chance to present other information that I did not find. Since the "SRS information acceptability " rules state that any information that comes from a source that disagrees with one's opinions need not be looked at, I may just have missed something. I have seen nothing presented to indicate that.

I have stated that the US SHOULD have gone into Iraq, and other places such as Rwanda and Sudan. But those people who now bemoan the loss of life in Iraq are the same ones ( with the exception of CarolC) that don't want the US to be the world's policeman, and prevent such atrocities. But Iraq and N. Korea are the only ones with "active" wars ( and the ceasefire in Korea has not been broken) We do not have the right under present law to invade a country without the UN resoluins ( that we had in Iraq) unless they attack us , or a country we have treaty commitments with.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 07:42 AM

crossposted- did my last paragraph help any?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 07:54 AM

But what if the information you were provided with was skewed by a government who wanted to go to war anyway for other reasons. And what if they skewed the information to get the support of you and others like you? Would that change your opinion at all? There seems little doubt that the impression you were given was wrong - since you seem to have the impression that he had working nuclear capability (capable of killing millions imminently). But why were you so convinced? Who convinced you? What info specifically were you told about that convinced you that it was so likely that it was worth killing around 10,000 innocent people to protect the millions you believed were imminently going to die if nothing was done?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 07:58 AM

I take it from you crosspost that you do believe that the ulterior motives of the governments dont matter as long as one bastard is taken out? Am I right?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 10:36 AM

Obviously, by the standards that SRS has established, I do not need to read this or pay any attention, since it comes from an obviously partisan source.

No, beardedbruce, I did not say that. I have pointed out many times that you must evaluate the source. If you investigate and find it is partisan but it is accurate, that is one thing. If it is partisan and there purely for misinformation (meant for non-discriminating folks like you to find and jump on), that is something else entirely.

FYI: There was a long and very detailed article on the suicide of David Kelly in The New Yorker a few months back.

Okay. Back to the nastiness. Guest is doing a good job of revealing your shortcomings, Bb. Go, Guest!

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 12:22 PM

beardedbruce, I terminate any further discussion with those take what I say and restate it to favor their own viewpoint, and then try to refute what I say on that basis. That is an illogical and irrational mode of debate, and the refuge of those whose own argument lacks foundation. Nor will I discuss things with someone who resorts to abuse when someone states something with which they disagree. I've splintered lances with a few who act that way, but I no longer play that game.

Besides, I was asking Strick, not you, and Strick chose not to answer.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 01:07 PM

I'm with Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 01:36 PM

Boy, the poster of this thread really knows how to get you lefties wound up. Even a suggestion that WMDs might have existed when we invaded Iraq and set the Iraqi people free causes great anguish and political constipation among the neo-lefties. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 01:48 PM

The research I have done indicates that the best estimates were that Saddam did have WMD

Unfortunately, those were not the best estimates, but the most flawed ones. They relied on underhanded Iranian agents and accepted their information without verification; they relied on undergraduate analytical skills and ignored assessments presented by professionals in UNMOVIC and others. Time and time again the facts were shoved to one side, distorted, mis-evaluated, altered or twisted ion order to provide a casus belli.

Those who treat war as a board game, without compassion for their own or the other side's human pieces, will argue that the technical interpretation of Hussein's position was sufficient to justify military enforcement. The UN did not appear to support this interpretation. The US decided (Bush decide,m anyway) that he could act without consensus. He unilaterally unleashed the violence and destruction of war for personal reasons -- meaning, to support his friends and family. He did not have a viable diplomatic excuse for war. He had not been attacked, nor was he under threat.   His disregard for human life in unleashing the massive forces of the US Armed Forces is equaled only by his dense inability to provide any adequate explanation for doing so.

As far as I am concerned it was premeditated assault with a blunt instrument, intentionally resulting in the death of individual human beings.

Absent legal process for the declaration of war and moral grounds for the prosecution of war, that spells murder.

As a result of his wooden-headed refusal to take counsel with anyone who had a brain, children have died in the sand. Mothers have been shot down by boys young enough to be their children. Fathers have been erased from their families. Poof, bang, zap. Good show, George.

And you have the unmitigated gall, or inconceivable density, to pretend that this is humanly justifiable?

Ptui.

A