Political Motivation

[Pannonian]

The Iraq war is stupid. Rebut that. Never mind about lies and counterlies - they're irrelevant. If the Iraq war is a good idea, then that justifies lies and deception. Just show that the Iraq war is a good idea, and you'll win the argument.

[Spartan198]

The Iraq war is stupid. Rebut that. Never mind about lies and counterlies - they're irrelevant. If the Iraq war is a good idea, then that justifies lies and deception. Just show that the Iraq war is a good idea, and you'll win the argument.

That's not the point I'm trying to make. War is terrible,and I'm not disputing that.
As far as WMDs go,we already know Saddam had the technological capability to make them. And when it comes to national security,having the ability to make a thermo-nuclear weapon is no different than having one currently in posession.
Would you rather let Saddam stay in power and murder innocent Iraqi civilians on a daily basis?
When was he next going to invade one of his neighbors like he did Kuwait in back in 1990?
Or would you rather have waited until he initiated a nuclear strike on Israel or Kuwait?

The world is a lot safer with him out of power. That's my justification.

[Pannonian]

That's not the point I'm trying to make. War is terrible,and I'm not disputing that.
As far as WMDs go,we already know Saddam had the technological capability to make them. And when it comes to national security,having the ability to make a thermo-nuclear weapon is no different than having one currently in posession.
Would you rather let Saddam stay in power and murder innocent Iraqi civilians on a daily basis?
When was he next going to invade one of his neighbors like he did Kuwait in back in 1990?
Or would you rather have waited until he initiated a nuclear strike on Israel or Kuwait?

The world is a lot safer with him out of power. That's my justification.

Point 1: Saddam had the tech capability to make WMDs.
So? Any reasonably technologically advanced country has the capability to produce them. Any country that can produce drugs for its own people will have the know how to make WMDs. Any advanced chemistry class in any university will have the capability to produce WMDs. How am I supposed to be especially alarmed by this?

Point 2: Having the ability to produce a thermo-nuclear weapon is no different from having one currently in possession.
Firstly, where's the evidence showing that Iraq had the ability to produce a thermo-nuclear weapon? They're slightly different from chemical weapons, you know, and require rather more infrastructure. Secondly, having the ability to produce one and actually having one is definitely different. That's why Germany, Japan, and other advanced westernised countries aren't nuclear powers.

Point 3: Saddam should be stopped from murdering innocent Iraqi citizens on a daily basis.
Why should it be any business of mine? They're Iraqi citizens, not British citizens, and their welfare doesn't affect me.

Point 4: He's going to invade another of his neighbours.
Is there any evidence he was going to do that? Don't point to 1990, that's 18 years ago (13 before the start of OIF), show me how he was going to invade anyone now (or in 2003).

Answer the above points. Also, don't talk about nuclear strikes if you can't answer point 2.

[Tribesman]

I chose to support the war because Saddam Hussein was a war criminal in addition to being a general madman. So I'm not having any trouble here.

I chose to oppose the war because Bush was a war criminal in addition to being a general madman. So I'm not having any trouble here.

[Spartan198]

I chose to oppose the war because Bush was a war criminal in addition to being a general madman. So I'm not having any trouble here.

Nice rebound. Really well thought out.
Remind me,when was the last time Bush ordered the wholesale killing of Americans with chemical weapons? Oh,right... NEVER.

[Spartan198]

Point 1: Saddam had the tech capability to make WMDs.
So? Any reasonably technologically advanced country has the capability to produce them. Any country that can produce drugs for its own people will have the know how to make WMDs. Any advanced chemistry class in any university will have the capability to produce WMDs. How am I supposed to be especially alarmed by this?

Exactly. All it takes is one nutcase with the knowledge to bring on a nuclear cataclysm.

Point 2: Having the ability to produce a thermo-nuclear weapon is no different from having one currently in possession.
Firstly, where's the evidence showing that Iraq had the ability to produce a thermo-nuclear weapon? They're slightly different from chemical weapons, you know, and require rather more infrastructure. Secondly, having the ability to produce one and actually having one is definitely different. That's why Germany, Japan, and other advanced westernised countries aren't nuclear powers.

Here's my answer.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/na...ty/disarm.html

Point 3: Saddam should be stopped from murdering innocent Iraqi citizens on a daily basis.
Why should it be any business of mine? They're Iraqi citizens, not British citizens, and their welfare doesn't affect me.

Why does caring about my fellow human beings make me a bad person. The Iraqi people are no less human than us Yanks and Brits. If you don't care about them,that's your choice. It doesn't hurt me.

Point 4: He's going to invade another of his neighbours.
Is there any evidence he was going to do that? Don't point to 1990, that's 18years ago (13 before the start of OIF), show me how he was going to invade anyone now (or in 2003).

We didn't know Nazi Germany was going to invade Poland prior to 1939,either,did we? Okay,now apply that answer to the above question.
And in case you try to rebound back by saying "Saddam isn't Hitler",Saddam's Baath Party was actually modeled after the Third Reich.

[Pannonian]

Exactly. All it takes is one nutcase with the knowledge to bring on a nuclear cataclysm.
Erm, the WMDs I was talking about was chemical weapons, which any university chemistry lab can produce. Heck, people can download instructions from the internet and make their own using products available off the shelf. A nuclear weapon requires huge intellectual and physical infrastructure to produce, which Iraq lacked.


Here's my answer.
http://wnww.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ationalsecurity/disarm.html
Hang on. Isn't that the stuff that was discredited long ago?


Why does caring about my fellow human beings make me a bad person. The Iraqi people are no less human than us Yanks and Brits. If you don't care about them,that's your choice. It doesn't hurt me.
It hurts me to have to pay for a war that we did not need. Perhaps you wish to bring your liberal dream to all the peoples of the world, but my first concern is the bottom line.


We didn't know Nazi Germany was going to invade Poland prior to 1939,either,did we? Okay,now apply that answer to the above question.
And in case you try to rebound back by saying "Saddam isn't Hitler",Saddam's Baath Party was actually modeled after the Third Reich.
I don't really care what it's modelled on, I only care about its capabilities and known intentions. I don't really wish to make war on every two-bit neo-Nazi in the UK, because I know their capabilities are ridiculously low and they can be safely ignored. Show me how Iraq was a threat to anyone in 2003.

[Tribesman]

don't really care what it's modelled on

Oh please care Pann , if only to care that is modelled on the social democratic party not the socialist workers party , now of course such little things shouldn't get in the way of ludicrous claims being made , but I do wonder how the Baath party can be modelled on the third reich when the third reich banned the party that it is modelled on

First off,I don't watch the damn news anymore because it's just as biased as everyone else seems to be.

Xiahou has a new disciple

The media is destroying more and more public support everyday because all they can report is the bad stuff.

woud you like more cutesy fluffy bunny stories ?
Hey Spartan , perhaps if there was any good news about Iraq the media might be able to report it more...but you see they have been stung rather badly by repeatedly doing "good news " stories they were fed that turned out to be complete bollox .

And if documents like that from my government are rubbish,how can the Downing Street Memo (of which the authenticity is disputed) or the Bush-Blair 2003 Iraq Memo (which,if authentic,proves the UK was just as intent on invading as the US was and should implicate the UK Prime Minister,as well) not be considered the same thing?

Sorry , that appears to make no sense ...can you explain it please ?
If the downing street memo is disputed then how can you explain that Blair does not dispute its authenticity ?

Exactly right. Just means that those in power expected him to attack a neighbor in the near future.

Whereas Saddam had been neutered and they knew that he couldn't attack any of his neighbours any more .

[Pannonian]

It's certainly interesting to read a diehard neocon at a time when even the original diehard neocons had already abandoned their original stories as untenable.

[Spartan198]

Oh please care Pann , if only to care that is modelled on the social democratic party not the socialist workers party , now of course such little things shouldn't get in the way of ludicrous claims being made , but I do wonder how the Baath party can be modelled on the third reich when the third reich banned the party that it is modelled on

The Third Reich banned Saddam Hussein's Baath Party?

woud you like more cutesy fluffy bunny stories ?
Hey Spartan , perhaps if there was any good news about Iraq the media might be able to report it more...but you see they have been stung rather badly by repeatedly doing "good news " stories they were fed that turned out to be complete bollox .

You can take your bunnies,skin them,and eat them!
Take this as an example: The media is in love with IEDs. They go on and on about them... Soldier killed by IED today,over and over again seemingly every week. Why don't they talk about how the rest of those fallen warriors' 8 - 10 man squads are still alive thanks to his / her sacrifice? Or how 8 out of 10 IEDs are safely disarmed on a regular basis without injury to troops or civilians? Why don't they talk about the Medals of Honor or Silver Stars that have so far been awarded for bravery,selfless action,and service beyond the call of duty? Why don't they talk about that?

Sorry , that appears to make no sense ...can you explain it please ?
If the downing street memo is disputed then how can you explain that Blair does not dispute its authenticity ?

Well,since everyone seems to be throwing Wikipedia at me,this is taken from the article on the memo itself (I left the heading in so its easy to find in the article itself:

Veracity of the memo
Following the advice of company lawyers, Michael Smith, the journalist who first reported on the Downing Street Memo, has said that he protected the identity of his source by reproducing all documents and returning the 'originals' back to the source. In some cases, a document was retyped from a photocopy, and the photocopy destroyed.[46] This has led some to question the document's authenticity, but no official source has questioned it, and it has been unofficially confirmed to various news organizations, including the Washington Post, NBC, The Sunday Times, and the LA Times

And this from the article on the Blair-Bush Memo:

It has become controversial for its content, which shows Bush floating the idea of painting a U-2 spyplane in UN colors and letting it fly low over Iraq to provoke the then-leader Saddam Hussein to shoot it down, providing a pretext for America and Britain's subsequent invasion. It also shows the two making a secret deal to carry out said invasion regardless of whether weapons of mass destruction were discovered by UN weapons inspectors, in direct contradiction with statements Blair made to Parliament afterwards that Saddam would be given a final chance to disarm.

Whereas Saddam had been neutered and they knew that he couldn't attack any of his neighbours any more .

Nazi Germany had been "neutered" after their defeat in WWI,too.

[ajaxfetish]

Why does caring about my fellow human beings make me a bad person. The Iraqi people are no less human than us Yanks and Brits. If you don't care about them,that's your choice. It doesn't hurt me.

Do you support an immediate US invasion of Yugoslavia, North Korea, Indonesia, Algeria, Libya, Columbia, Egypt, Israel, China, and Iran? How about Turkey, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, South Korea, or India? If not, what makes the Iraqi people so special to you?

Ajax

[Redleg]

Do you support an immediate US invasion of Yugoslavia, North Korea, Indonesia, Algeria, Libya, Columbia, Egypt, Israel, China, and Iran? How about Turkey, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, South Korea, or India? If not, what makes the Iraqi people so special to you?

Ajax

Oh boy now we are really getting full of hyperbole.

Now lets answer.

Yugoslavia has been broken up into several nations - so which new republic should we invade. That is besides the ones that alreadly have some sort of NATO or UN presence?

North Korea - since a state of war alreadly exists between North Korea and South Korea, with the North Korean government counting the US as still part of that conflict, I think your point is rather mute here.

Indonesia - Hmm tough question on that one, do they have nuclear or chemical weapons? Or are we to invade the largest Islamic nation just because of their religion?

Algeria - that seems to alreadly be settled by themselves - or are they deciding that its all France's fault again?

Libya - alreadly bombed in the 1980's, and he learned his lesson.

Columbia - At last I heard the United States alreadly as at least a law enforcement agency in country.

Egypt - the United States used to send a rotation to Egypt to monitor the cease fire between Egypt and Israel. Last I heard Egypt is not attempting to invade its neighbors, nor is it developing nuclear or chemical weapons. Or are you just picking on them because of their religion.

Israel - an ally of the United States. However they have sent spies into the US to steal secerts once again. Would make all the Islamic fundmentalist happy though - a good possiblity to conduct such an operation to bring about world peace.

China - we would lose all those jobs cheap consumer goods. Good capitialists dont destroy their cheap labor source.

Iran - Hillary alreadly took care of that requirement.......

Turkey - I see your picking on Muslim nations again.....

Mexico - population assimlation soon to be accomplished. No need for an invasion by the United States, since an invasion is alreadly happening......

Saudia Arabia - naw its just a big desert, beside been there not a pretty country at all. Or is it the Islam thing again for you....

Pakistan - seems someone is picking on Muslim countries as targets for invasion. Now they do have weapons of mass destruction all aimed at India....

South Korea - see answer for North Korea. Then again we also invaded both North and South Korea at least once alreadly. Inchon ring a bell.....

India - can't invade India we would lose all those jobs all that cheap labor....

[ajaxfetish]

Sorry to get you riled up, Redleg. Just grabbed a bunch of names from an online list of nations with high per capita records of human rights violations. I've got nothing personal against them, I just find it interesting that Spartan at one point used caring about the Iraqi people as his justification for the war. It seems strange to have so much care for the people of Iraq (does he know any personally?), without having a similar concern for oppressed people the world over.

Ajax

[ajaxfetish]

Yugoslavia has been broken up into several nations - so which new republic should we invade. That is besides the ones that alreadly have some sort of NATO or UN presence?

“Yugoslavia”: This country doesn’t exist any more. About old news...

“Yugoslavia has been broken up into several nations - so which new republic should we invade”: Considering NATO bombing, a Protectorate in Bosnia with several Foreign Troops on it territory, a Protectorate kind of Panama model in Kosovo "Self Proclaimed Country" helped by Foreign Troops, carved in a other State which refuses to recognise the spoil of war, we can consider that it is “mission accomplished”…

Just for the record, one of the nations resulting from the fragmentation of Yugoslavia goes by the name of . . . wait for it . . . Yugoslavia.

I've got close family friends that immigrated from Iraq in the late '80s and still have relatives currently living over there,plus ones that have died under Saddam's regime.
Is that a good enough reason?

That certainly makes a particular concern for the people of that nation more believable. Thank you.

Ajax

[Lemur]

Never mind. I was going to respond to the conflation of chemical, biological and nuclear WMDs, but I see others have addressed it, only to be dismissed by Spartan for reasons that passeth understanding. Carry on.

[Pannonian]

Friend, you seem to be mixing your biological with your nuclear WMDs. Also, having the "ability to make" something is a tricky declaration to parse. I can download instructions for building a thermonuclear device on the internet. Does that mean I have the ability to make it?

I especially liked the one that noted the need to have a centrifugal device to concentrate the material to render it weapons grade, and suggested putting the uranium into a bucket, attaching the bucket to a rope, then swinging the bucket around in the garden really, really, fast.

[Spartan198]

Friend, you seem to be mixing your biological with your nuclear WMDs. Also, having the "ability to make" something is a tricky declaration to parse. I can download instructions for building a thermonuclear device on the internet. Does that mean I have the ability to make it?

Valid point,but after 9/11 here in the US (I should really change my location as I'm not fooling anyone,am I?),even downloading the instructions can constitute a threat. Granted,that doesn't necessarily apply to Iraq,but Saddam did have an active nuclear weapons program prior to the '91 invasion. So there's no doubt that he had the capability to make nuclear weapons.

Also, please note that WMDs need delivery systems. A two-ton nuclear warhead isn't much good to you if all you've got is a Datsun pickup truck. As far as delivering biological weapons goes, check out the long litany of failures from the Aum Shinrikyo terrorist cult. Boy oh boy did they try to get bio-weapons up and running. It's harder than most people think.

You do make good points. But even without a sky-borne delivery system,all that's needed to transport a warhead as such is a triple-axel truck with a covering. With the similarity in ethnicity (I'm not a racist calling all Middle Eastern people the same,it's just that there's been a lot of inbreeding among the various nationalities over the generations. Believe me,my father is racist and I grew up hating that about him. That's the honest truth.),it'd be easy for a small group of soldiers to truck it into a major Kuwaiti city and set it off. Look how easy the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit and the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen (I think) was.

But regardless of being chemical,biological,or nuclear,a WMD is still a WMD,you know?

[Tribesman]

With the similarity in ethnicity (I'm not a racist calling all Middle Eastern people the same,it's just that there's been a lot of inbreeding among the various nationalities over the generations.

This just gets funnier and funnier , keep it up Spartan you are a real scream .

[Spartan198]

This just gets funnier and funnier , keep it up Spartan you are a real scream .

You know,I was thinking I could bring this topic here and discuss it without being called stupid,but clearly I was wrong.

[Tribesman]

For all the nuclear weapons naysayers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../19/wirq19.xml
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz060903.asp

I really must ask again , where the hell have you been for the past 5 years ?

You know,I was thinking I could bring this topic here and discuss it without being called stupid,but clearly I was wrong.

Hey Spartan I didn't call you stupid, I said
you appear to be largely devoid of anything mildly relating to the thought process.

It only proves they're just biased,when their job is to be neutral.

Oh stop will you , for gods sake their job is to make money , plain and simple .

When I click on that,it tells me I have to download some program to view it.

Errrrrr...thats adobe , since you say you don't do media because it is clearly biased I wonder how you are getting your info since most lenghty government reports , documents from the UN about WMDs and a host of other really relevant material to what you are trying to talk about are presented in pdf. format .
Could it really be that you are attempting to make an arguement using years old inaccurate news articles and widely discredited claims by politicians without viewing any of the material that has long established them as being inaccurate and discredited .
That really does put your statement into a new light

You know,I was thinking I could bring this topic here and discuss it without being called stupid,but clearly I was wrong.

You know , you wasn't thinking at all was you

[Watchman]

But regardless of being chemical,biological,or nuclear,a WMD is still a WMD,you know?

And ? A lot of states have them. Saddam's, as it happens, were kind of past the "best before" date too.

And do I really even need to explain to you how dumb and surreal the whole "Iraqi suicide squad drives a ZOMG nuke into Kuwait!!1!!!!" is ?

[Spartan198]

And ? A lot of states have them. Saddam's, as it happens, were kind of past the "best before" date too.

True,but when have US or British troops used chemical or biological weapons in combat. Even freaking tear gas is illegal under international law. Tear gas? Come on,police use that stuff specifically to take felons and offenders alive. But a lot of chemical and biological agents can still cause severe damage to the environment and life itself,even way past the expiration date.

And do I really even need to explain to you how dumb and surreal the whole "Iraqi suicide squad drives a ZOMG nuke into Kuwait!!1!!!!" is ?

It does sound crazy,but it works nonetheless. Look again at the Marine barracks in Beruit and the bombing of the WTC back in '91 or '92,I think.
Siucide squad drives a bomb someplace in a truck or van and blows that someplace up.





I fear this is starting to become another pro-war/anti-war debate,which had nothing to do with my original motivation here.

[Watchman]

True,but when have US or British troops used chemical or biological weapons in combat.

The interwar period AFAIK, unless you count irritants like tear gas (saw some use in 'Nam AFAIK) and "collateral damage" effects from, say Agent Orange.

You know why armies don't normally bother even trying that gunk against each other ? Because since WW1 every single properly equipped and trained one made sure its soldiers knew the basic countermeasures and had at least rudimentary protective equipement, which by itself already pretty much negates the purely military usefulness of biochemical weapons. Quite simply, the results are not worth the trouble and effort that goes into deploying the stuff in combat.

Even freaking tear gas is illegal under international law. Tear gas? Come on,police use that stuff specifically to take felons and offenders alive. But a lot of chemical and biological agents can still cause severe damage to the environment and life itself,even way past the expiration date.

Did you know, the spiral into the nightmarish gas warfare of WW1 actualy escalated from the use of tear gas against bunkers...?

It does sound crazy,but it works nonetheless. Look again at the Marine barracks in Beruit and the bombing of the WTC back in '91 or '92,I think.
Siucide squad drives a bomb someplace in a truck or van and blows that someplace up.

Terrorist movements also have a lot easier time finding people to carry out such kamikaze attacks with than regular armies... Not to mention that it's *way* easier to put together enough conventional explosives "on scene" than drive them, nevermind now a damn nuke, over the bloody border - especially one as tense as that between Iraq and Kuwait.

The point of the exercise would also be very questionable anyway.

I fear this is starting to become another pro-war/anti-war debate,which had nothing to do with my original motivation here.

Given that your original topic was all about politics in general and those around the Iraq war in particular, I don't see where you get away trying to play martyr.
Don't tell me you're surprised the discussion soon veered this way, especially as IIRC you've been one of the main instigators of that.