The onus of proving the existence of WMDs

[honeybee]

lies with the US and the UK (call it the "coalition of the willing" if you want ;) ) now that there's no Iraqi government.

.

[Arc]

We dont have to prove anything. The U.N. Proved IRAQ had the weapons, IRAQ never proved they destroyed them. THey may have destroyed them, they may have shipped them out to other countries, they may have them hidden in deep underground bunkers.. who knows... The point is, whether we find them or not does not matter, the U.N. found them and the U.N was never shown proof that IRAQ got rid of them.

[plenderj]

The US legitimized this war by saying that the UN couldn't back up its resolutions with force, so the US decided it would prove the weapons were there in the first place.

But now they can't. So that's the legitimization of the war out the window.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by plenderj
The US legitimized this war by saying that the UN couldn't back up its resolutions with force, so the US decided it would prove the weapons were there in the first place.

But now they can't. So that's the legitimization of the war out the window.
Actually if Iraq destroyed their WMD all because the coalition forces were invading their country then I have to say that’s a great legitimization. Had the coalition not had 300,000 troops parked on Iraq's borders and ready to go in I highly doubt Iraq would have destroyed anything given their past track record with UN inspectors.

However Im sure they didn’t destroy everything and didn’t manage to ship all of it out of the country. I am still certain that there are WMD's to find in the country. Given the inept management of the Iraqi government I’m sure someone screwed up somewhere. And the attempted cover-up of their weapons programs is still to be found.

I honestly don’t believe that anyone can still think Iraq was not hiding or manufacturing WMD. Its still only a matter of time before more and more evidence is uncovered. This will include documents and eyewitness accounts by Iraqi officials and scientists themselves. So be patient. You naysayers and doubting Thomas's will have your proof soon enough. :)

X

[plenderj]

Irrespective of whether they had them or not - that's no reason to goto war. Granted perhaps the UN resolutions didn't specify what action would be taken, but its so typical that the US resorts to war to resolve things.

So if the Iraqis had so many weapons - how come no-one seems to know where they were.
I don't doubt that they have illegal weapons, but I doubt the sincerity of the US's cause.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by plenderj
Irrespective of whether they had them or not - that's no reason to goto war. Granted perhaps the UN resolutions didn't specify what action would be taken, but its so typical that the US resorts to war to resolve things.

So if the Iraqis had so many weapons - how come no-one seems to know where they were.
I don't doubt that they have illegal weapons, but I doubt the sincerity of the US's cause.
What about the cause of freeing the Iraqi people from the most brutal dictatorship on the planet? Saddam is in a select few of dictators and despots that are responsible for the deaths of over 1 million people. He used torture, rape, and murder to keep himself in power. He and his cronies lived in opulence while the rest of his population starved. That alone to me is worth it. You have to admit that it's good that Saddam and his cronies are no longer in power even if you didn't agree with the war.

X

[plenderj]

I don't think war was the way, and I don't believe that freeing the Iraqi people was the original intention.
It was this stupid idea of a war on terror - and the fact that you're freeing the people is an added bonus.

So flash that to the public and there you have it.



What also strikes me as odd, and nearly amusing, is that a country where half the population has never travelled outside the country itself, and don't own a passport, feel as though they are mature enough to make decisions on how other countries should be run...

[OrdinaryGuy]

Originally posted by plenderj
I don't think war was the way, and I don't believe that freeing the Iraqi people was the original intention.
It was this stupid idea of a war on terror - and the fact that you're freeing the people is an added bonus.



NO. Freeing the Iraqi people and clearing the country of WMD were the intentions of this war.

Originally posted by plenderj
What also strikes me as odd, and nearly amusing, is that a country where half the population has never travelled outside the country itself, and don't own a passport, feel as though they are mature enough to make decisions on how other countries should be run...


And what I find amusing is that u brought up a ridiculous point. Firstly, the US is not going to make any decisions for Iraq. Whatever decisions that would be made would be in the short term while the US tries to setup some administration. Secondly, short term decisions for Iraq wouldn't be made by nation-wide polls, if that is what u are thinking. Decisions would be made by an interim council that is made up of Iraqis and americans.

[simonm]

Arc
We dont have to prove anything. The U.N. Proved IRAQ had the weapons, IRAQ never proved they destroyed them. THey may have destroyed them, they may have shipped them out to other countries, they may have them hidden in deep underground bunkers.. who knows... The point is, whether we find them or not does not matter, the U.N. found them and the U.N was never shown proof that IRAQ got rid of them.
Bullsh*t!

How exactly could Iraq have proved they had destroyed any weapons (whether or not you think they did)? They claimed that they no longer had any WMD's and America claimed they did. Unless we actually find WMD's in Iraq, why should anyone ever believe America again when it makes such claims?

Plenderj
Irrespective of whether they had them or not - that's no reason to goto war. Granted perhaps the UN resolutions didn't specify what action would be taken, but its so typical that the US resorts to war to resolve things.

So if the Iraqis had so many weapons - how come no-one seems to know where they were.
I don't doubt that they have illegal weapons, but I doubt the sincerity of the US's cause.
Make up your mind, either it matters whether Iraq had WMD's or it didn't.

Everyone

It seems that there are extremists on both sides of this debate.

Those on one side who will think war was justified whether or not WMD's are actually found or not. Such people take war lightly and care little for the innocent casualties of who get caught up in the process of America and Britain pursuing their political objectives.

Those on the other side will always say the war was wrong no matter what is found in Iraq. Even if they found a silo of nuclear missles all primed and aimed at America, they would still say the war was wrong. Such people will stick doggedly to their anti-war rhetoric in their belief that they occupy the moral highground.

The rest of us in the middle will be swayed according to what the actual consequences of this conflict are. The fact that the Iraqui people seem to welcome liberation helps. If they find conclusive evidence of WMD's, so much the better. It will be this kind of evidence that will ultimately dictate how this incident is judged by the history books.

That is why I believe it is absolutely critical that UN inspectors are re-admitted to Iraq to objectively verify the existance of any WMD's found. Without this objective verification, many people will disbelieve any claims America makes about what they find. If they do not readmit the UN inspectors, it will be clear that it's because America doesn't expect anything to be found.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by simonm
Make up your mind, either it matters whether Iraq had WMD's or it didn't.

It doesn't matter to me whether Iraq has WMDs or not.
I don't think they'd use them against anyone.
I think it would have been far easier to just leave them alone.

And I think that the US have a completely invalid reason for legitimizting this war.

[simonm]

It doesn't matter to me whether Iraq has WMDs or not.
I don't think they'd use them against anyone.
I think it would have been far easier to just leave them alone.
Easier perhaps. But more irresponsible?

It would have been easier to let Hitler storm freely over Europe. It's always easier to sit back on your laurels and do nothing. Doesn't mean that it's right.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by plenderj
It doesn't matter to me whether Iraq has WMDs or not.
I don't think they'd use them against anyone.
I think it would have been far easier to just leave them alone.

And I think that the US have a completely invalid reason for legitimizting this war.
So I suppose the time he used them on the Iranians was the last time? Ohhhh no wait he used them on his own people the Kurds after that.

Its funny how you left wing people embrace and believe dictators that has a history of lying, murdering their own people, torturing, raping, and warmongering before you believe respected and established democracies.

Yeah just leave poor old Saddam alone. After all he only killed 1 million people, starved his own people while he and his cronies lived in the lap of luxury, and raped and brutalized his own people.

For someone who claims to care so much about the Iraqi people during the war you seem more than willing to let them suffer another 25 years of Saddam murdering, torturing, and raping them.

X

[plenderj]

Originally posted by simonm
Easier perhaps. But more irresponsible?

It would have been easier to let Hitler storm freely over Europe. It's always easier to sit back on your laurels and do nothing. Doesn't mean that it's right.

Except hitler made it quite obvious to everyone he wanted to take over the world.
He also invaded quite a number of different countires.

Iraq on the other hand was urged by the US to attack Iran - which it did.
Then Iraq attacked Kuwait by itself.

Granted its not a nice thing to do, but it hardly justifies intervention in the government of the country.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Xanith
So I suppose the time he used them on the Iranians was the last time? Ohhhh no wait he used them on his own people the Kurds after that.

Its funny how you left wing people embrace and believe dictators that has a history of lying, murdering their own people, torturing, raping, and warmongering before you believe respected and established democracies.

Yeah just leave poor old Saddam alone. After all he only killed 1 million people, starved his own people while he and his cronies lived in the lap of luxury, and raped and brutalized his own people.

For someone who claims to care so much about the Iraqi people during the war you seem more than willing to let them suffer another 25 years of Saddam murdering, torturing, and raping them.

X

1) And after he used those weapons last, when did he use them again ?
When did he attack or threaten anyone since ?

The US has drummed up a big story about how Iraq could be a threat to them.

2) Who said I believe anything Saddam says ?
All I'm saying is that war isn't the solution to anything, and the "respected and established democracy" of the US lied and cheated its way to this war.
Not to mention the US president lying and cheating his way into office.
And then you ignore half the country that didn't want war, and declare anyone that opposes military action anti-american.
Yes... very democratic.

3) Again I never said leave him alone.
A coup that you don't actually walk away from might do the trick.
But its interesting how the US' solution to things is just war.
Bomb the country and figure out whats going on afterwards.

Yes he should have been gotten rid of morally speaking, but who's right was it to do that ?

4) Again, I never said don't get rid of Saddam.
Once again, you pro-war people can't see a difference between opposing war and supporting Saddam.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by plenderj
Except hitler made it quite obvious to everyone he wanted to take over the world.
He also invaded quite a number of different countires.

Iraq on the other hand was urged by the US to attack Iran - which it did.
Then Iraq attacked Kuwait by itself.

Granted its not a nice thing to do, but it hardly justifies intervention in the government of the country.
LOL I guess Chamberlain couldn't see the obvious when he proclaimed "Peace in our time" with the treaty signed by Hitler.

And LOL again. Not only has it never been proven that the US urged Iraq to attack Iran its been proven that socio and economic conditions of the time and Saddam's own ambition were the reasons for that war.

You really are blind. I actually feel sorry for people such as yourself who cant see the facts but instead choose to embrace unfounded rumor and blatant anti-American propaganda.

X

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Xanith
And LOL again. Not only has it never been proven that the US urged Iraq to attack Iran its been proven that socio and economic conditions of the time and Saddam's own ambition were the reasons for that war.

You really are blind. I actually feel sorry for people such as yourself who cant see the facts but instead choose to embrace unfounded rumor and blatant anti-American propaganda.

X

Yes it has been proven you supported the war.
You even provided satellite photographs of troops movements in Iran for them.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by plenderj
Yes it has been proven you supported the war.
You even provided satellite photographs of troops movements in Iran for them.
Supported yes. Told Saddam to attack Iran no. As long as you clairify that I'm fine with the fact that the US supported Iraq against Iran. At the time Iran was seen as more of a threat and I see nothing wrong with the support of Iraq at this time.

X

[simonm]

Plenderj
Except hitler made it quite obvious to everyone he wanted to take over the world.
And Saddam hasn't? His megolomaniac qualities have been apparent for a long time.
He also invaded quite a number of different countires.
Actually, Hitler had invaded only two countries before England and France declared war on him: the Czeck Republic and Poland (Austria doesn't count as he was welcomed in).

Funnilly enough, that's exactly the same number of countries that Saddam had invaded. Indeed, if you count Israel (which he fired scud missiles at in the last Gulf war and sponsors the famillies of suicide bombers), that's three.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing Saddam to Hitler. I'm just pointing out that it always seems easier to do nothing. Sometimes it takes a lot more guts to stand up and do something. Sometimes, it is more wrong to sit back and do nothing.
Iraq on the other hand was urged by the US to attack Iran - which it did.
Then Iraq attacked Kuwait by itself.

Granted its not a nice thing to do, but it hardly justifies intervention in the government of the country.
Well, it's not just that, is it? That is why I think they need the additional justification of a WMD find to prove Saddam's intentions.

[Xanith]

1) And after he used those weapons last, when did he use them again ?

The US has drummed up a big story about how Iraq could be a threat to them.

The guy has a history of using them that alone should send warning bells screaming in your head. And what you don’t understand is that development of such weapons makes Saddam a threat not only to the region but a threat to the US and other free countries through the use of terrorism. I would think 9/11 is proof enough that the US can be attacked and is venerable. It’s rather naive of you to think that it’s not possible when it just happened.

2) Who said I believe anything Saddam says ?
All I'm saying is that war isn't the solution to anything, and the "respected and established democracy" of the US lied and cheated its way to this war.
Not to mention the US president lying and cheating his way into office.
And then you ignore half the country that didn't want war, and declare anyone that opposes military action anti-american.
Yes... very democratic.

Well you are so sure Saddam will never use WMD again. You stated that emphatically. So you obviously believe Saddam over the US/UK and the other 50 or so odd nations in the coalition that he will never use WMD again.
You are wrong on so many levels its hard to know where to begin. The war was legitimized in my opinion and the opinion of many countries by Iraq disregarding all of the UN resolutions. Just because Iraq bought off France, Russia, Germany, and China with cheap oil and defense contracts shouldn’t impair the US/UK/Australia along with 50 other nations from seeing those resolutions through and doing the right thing.
And saying George W. Bush cheated and lied his way into office is just plain amusing :)

And yes it is very democratic….and I am proud of my country and what it has done in Iraq.

3) Again I never said leave him alone.
A coup that you don't actually walk away from might do the trick.
But its interesting how the US' solution to things is just war.
Bomb the country and figure out whats going on afterwards.

Yes he should have been gotten rid of morally speaking, but who's right was it to do that ?
There you go again. You don’t want the US there now but you think they should help with a coup and overthrow a government when its not mandated by the UN then. Such an action would have you in a uproar. So don’t tell me you would have even supported such a thing because I know you wouldn’t. If you do then you are being a hypocrite and bending your beliefs to suit your opinion.

So you don’t remember the 12 years spent trying to disarm Saddam? If you ask me the US showed HUGE restraint and gave Saddam PLENTY of time to disarm. When diplomacy failed after 12 long years and 17+ UN resolutions sadly there wasn’t too much choice left but war.

And if someone wants to come in and get rid of a regime that has been oppressing me for 25 years I don’t care who it is as long as they give me a chance at freedom and leave afterwards, which the US is going to do.


4) Again, I never said don't get rid of Saddam.
Once again, you pro-war people can't see a difference between opposing war and supporting Saddam.
But don’t you see all through the war you supported Saddam. You words told me that you actually wanted the Arab world to rise up and the conflict to spread all to prove you were right. You wanted more civilian casualties to make you feel justified in your anti-war opinions. You wanted more US soldiers to die and Iraq to put up stiffer resistance to once again show those damn Americans how wrong it was it invade Iraq.

So you see you are pro-Saddam and pro-murder, torture, and rape. This is the impression I got from your words. I’m apologize if they are wrong but if you look inside yourself and find any of those to be true I think it might be time to rethink your opinions on a lot of things. Don’t let your anti-American feelings destroy your humanity as I have seen it do to others.

X

[Maven]

When you deal with weapons of this sort, you must prove that you destoried them. Just saying you did isn't good enough. If you think Saddam destoried these weapons in secret in such a way that he cannot provide any kind of proof, then you are a fool. Why would he do that? That is what he expected us to believe.

Of course the Iraqi ppl was happy about the liberation. We just got rid of a dictator that had patterns of Stalin. That is one good thing that has came out of this war.

The bad of this war mostly comes from this: Bush's "go it alone if we have to" comment. That was stupid stupid stupid!! We would have had UN backing if it wasn't for that dumb ass statment of his.

The result is that we are more then likely going to have problems with india and pakistain. Those 2 hate each others guts and our actions may make it more likey for them to nuke each other. But hopefully they'll get stuff sorted out, if they can get rid of that old fart.


Originally posted by simonm
Arc

Bullsh*t!

How exactly could Iraq have proved they had destroyed any weapons (whether or not you think they did)? They claimed that they no longer had any WMD's and America claimed they did. Unless we actually find WMD's in Iraq, why should anyone ever believe America again when it makes such claims?

Plenderj

Make up your mind, either it matters whether Iraq had WMD's or it didn't.

Everyone

It seems that there are extremists on both sides of this debate.

Those on one side who will think war was justified whether or not WMD's are actually found or not. Such people take war lightly and care little for the innocent casualties of who get caught up in the process of America and Britain pursuing their political objectives.

Those on the other side will always say the war was wrong no matter what is found in Iraq. Even if they found a silo of nuclear missles all primed and aimed at America, they would still say the war was wrong. Such people will stick doggedly to their anti-war rhetoric in their belief that they occupy the moral highground.

The rest of us in the middle will be swayed according to what the actual consequences of this conflict are. The fact that the Iraqui people seem to welcome liberation helps. If they find conclusive evidence of WMD's, so much the better. It will be this kind of evidence that will ultimately dictate how this incident is judged by the history books.

That is why I believe it is absolutely critical that UN inspectors are re-admitted to Iraq to objectively verify the existance of any WMD's found. Without this objective verification, many people will disbelieve any claims America makes about what they find. If they do not readmit the UN inspectors, it will be clear that it's because America doesn't expect anything to be found.

[Maven]

Originally posted by plenderj
Yes it has been proven you supported the war.
You even provided satellite photographs of troops movements in Iran for them.

Course you fail to mention that they stormed our embassy in Iran and took everyone of them hostage before the war began. Then a war broke out... Course we supported the one who was fighting our enemy. We got our people back 440 some days after they took them hostage.

[simonm]

Mavern
When you deal with weapons of this sort, you must prove that you destoried them. Just saying you did isn't good enough. If you think Saddam destoried these weapons in secret in such a way that he cannot provide any kind of proof, then you are a fool. Why would he do that? That is what he expected us to believe.
Well, if you believe that WMD's must still exist due the the failure of Sadam to prove he destroyed them, I eagerly look forward to the day that the coalition forces find them...

[hellswraith]

Originally posted by simonm
Mavern

Well, if you believe that WMD's must still exist due the the failure of Sadam to prove he destroyed them, I eagerly look forward to the day that the coalition forces find them...
I think we all do.