"Most Americans believe that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

[Brazil4Worldcup2002]

When i said that comment about xpanda being open minded I was talking in general, not just about this thread.

Lots of people said there were WMD and lots of people have lost their jobs as a result and have had to apologize. It takes a brave man to admit that they were wrong. Im sure Iraq had some but not as many as the Americans and British made it out to be and certainly not enough to go to war over.
All in all, i dont think this debate has any standing now, its over and done with - purely academic...there are more pressing issues at hand.

 

[xpanda]

For what it's worth, I think the 'did he or didn't he have em' argument is more or less moot for a couple of reasons: First, the US has more than the rest of the world combined and therefore kinda loses its credibility on the 'peace' issue. My favourite saying: "fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity."

Second, even if Saddam had enough WMDs to take out half of the US, a very very dubious proposition even by the most optimistic of warmongers, there is no evidence whatsoever that he had the requisite intent to use them on the US to warrant a case of pre-emptive self-defense. Even Bush has admitted (in defense, too, if you can imagine that kind of audacity) that at no time did he claim that Saddam was an 'imminent' threat.

The Bush Doctrine is going to bite you guys in the ass some day. Already, Iran is publicly stating that it might 'pre-emptively' attack Israel out of fear that Israel may attack their nuclear facilities. Way to change the rules, guys. Good job.

 

[American]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
onus....... nor your fellow 'pro-' campers have managed to rebutt, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm seeing some Freudian slips now. I think I've got you thinking about those dykes and their ass-smacking. "onus" (sounds like"anus") and rebutt (self-explanitory).

 

[American]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:

... is going to bite you guys in the ass <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's another "ass" reference.

 

[Illini]

Xpanda- Then what did the resolution to the first Gulf War mean? What was it worth, if Saddam could just throw it away and say, nah, you know I really no longer like those agreements. It was a progression of defiance on his part, so when would it have been right to take him out? Not saying I agree with everything that has been done, but who am I to criticize and say that I have the answers?

 

[Brazil4Worldcup2002]

Illini: Israel, Iran, North Korea, Turkey are all in breach of UN resolutions. Are you suggesting that its OK to attack them as well?

 

[PatPatriot]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Already, Iran is publicly stating that it might 'pre-emptively' attack Israel out of fear that Israel may attack their nuclear facilities. Way to change the rules, guys. Good job. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The official rules changed on 9/11,And "us guys" weren't the ones to change them.

 

[xpanda]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Illini:
Xpanda- Then what did the resolution to the first Gulf War mean? What was it worth, if Saddam could just throw it away and say, nah, you know I really no longer like those agreements. It was a progression of defiance on his part, so when would it have been right to take him out? Not saying I agree with everything that has been done, but who am I to criticize and say that I have the answers? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that Saddam was being a total jackass, but as I state earlier, I don't think his defiance was because he wanted to hide the fact that he did have WMD but that he wanted to hide the fact that he didn't.

Further, using the UN-resolution argument doesn't wash given that the US tried to get a resolution to attack him, didn't get it, but went ahead anyway. Bush should never have bothered with the UN in the first place -- he was going to war no matter what was or was not done at that point. I think that is now perfectly clear.

Prior to the war, Canada, in a last-ditch effort to find a peaceable solution, offered up a proposal whereby a very very strict timeline could be laid out before Saddam and, if he did not meet that timeline, the coalition would then act. I believe it came down to an additional 30 days or so (which is fuckall considering that Saddam was not considered an imminent threat by anyone.) If memory serves, it received wide Canadian and European support. I don't think it even made your news. But the urgency to go to war was so strong that Bush was willing to piss off the international community and go it (practically) alone.

Off the top of your head can you think of any former American president who would make the same choice?

 

[xpanda]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Already, Iran is publicly stating that it might 'pre-emptively' attack Israel out of fear that Israel may attack their nuclear facilities. Way to change the rules, guys. Good job. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The official rules changed on 9/11,And "us guys" weren't the ones to change them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're flat out wrong. The rules of engagement did not change on 9/11. No nation-state attacked you. The rules are applicable to wars between nations, not nations against criminals. What changed on 9/11 was opportunity and the degree of permission the American public were willing to give Bush in the name of revenge.

Let's put it this way -- the invasion of Iraq was such a huge mistake it's got the Rapture freaks all giggly over the impending apocolypse.