Why do we even bother with the UN?

[Yomar]

here is an article from the National Review I think you will like Art. Its along the same lines, and if we hesitate and the smoking gun everyone is looking for does end up being a mushroom cloud over a US city, history will judge us harshly, as the author says. But ultimately, all its a war based on the prevention of one nightmare scenario, a hypothetical, and while its terrifying enough to be nearly persuasive, I can't support a war based on a hypothetical.

Why Invade?

The truth about Iraq.

Let me tell you the truth about our reasons for invading Iraq. We are not invading Iraq to protect the credibility of the United Nations. We are not invading Iraq to bring democracy to the Arab world. We are not invading Iraq to save the Iraqi people from poverty and oppression. The reason we are invading Iraq is to prevent Saddam Hussein from obtaining nuclear weapons.

It is true that Saddam's defiance of the United Nations is important. That defiance does help to undermine the credibility of international agreements. But what really destroyed the credibility of our multilateral agreements was the willingness of countries like France, Russia, and China to violate international trade sanctions against Iraq that they themselves had agreed to. Quite simply, these countries — supposed pillars of multilateral legality — allowed themselves to be bought off by Saddam's oil. The real importance of Saddam's defiance of the international sanctions is what it reveals about Saddam's intentions. In fighting the sanctions, Saddam Hussein has sacrificed $180 billion dollars in oil revenue, thrown his people into impoverishment, and even allowed his conventional military forces to deteriorate, all in an effort to obtain a nuclear bomb.

It is true that after we conquer Iraq, we may succeed in bringing the Iraqi people a measure of democracy and prosperity. Many cultural barriers stand in the way of that goal, and the speed and direction of the transformation cannot be predicted. In other circumstances, the sacrifices and dangers of trying to remake an alien society from the bottom up would speak against conquest and transformation. But we now need to take on the task of gradual democratization and economic liberalization. We must do so because, in a world filled with weapons of mass destruction, it is no longer safe to allow an aggressively anti-Western or anti-American rogue state to survive.

But why can't we allow Saddam Hussein to obtain nuclear weapons? After all, the Soviets had nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War, yet none were used. The reason we cannot allow Saddam Hussein to obtain nuclear weapons is that Saddam cannot be deterred. That is proven beyond any reasonable doubt in Kenneth Pollack's vitally important new book, The Threatening Storm. Saddam has a nearly 30-year history of defying the logic of deterrence. Saddam regularly and radically miscalculates the dangers of his aggressive actions. He is ignorant of the outside world, and punishes or kills those who come to him with bad news. He is apt to seek revenge (as in the assassination attempt on former president Bush), even when revenge could cost him his life. And Saddam is possessed by a driving wish to dominate the Middle East. He also holds a vision of taking down his enemies when he goes, if go he must, with a terrible act of destruction that will permanently impress his "glory" into the pages of history.

These propensities are real, not some caricature devised for political purposes by a war-obsessed Bush administration. Read The Threatening Storm, and you will believe.

There are two reasons why Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons: First, because he may pass them to terrorists, or his own intelligence agents, for use against the United States. Second, because once in possession of nuclear weapons, Saddam will move to take control of the Gulf and subject America to nuclear blackmail. Some believe that Saddam's fear of nuclear retaliation will make him hold back from another move on Kuwait. But Saddam sees the matter in reverse. If he takes Kuwait before we can stop him, he will force the United States to decide between ceding him control of the region's oil supplies, and an invasion that would surely result in a nuclear strike by Saddam against either our troops, our cities, the Saudi oil fields, or all of these. Thus threatened, the United States may indeed be forced to back down and grant Saddam control of the world's oil. This is why Saddam has sacrificed all in pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

But wouldn't Saddam know that if he were to strike the Saudi oil fields with a nuclear weapon, we would surely wipe him out with our own nuclear arsenal? That is precisely the kind of gamble that Saddam has been willing to take. What would you do if you were forced to choose between saving the populace of New York City from a possible nuclear strike, and ceding control of the world's oil to Saddam Hussein? Saddam knows that you would hesitate to risk New York, so he is willing to gamble that he can get away with an invasion of Kuwait. In fact, he has already told his aides that his big mistake in Kuwait was not waiting until he had a nuclear device to invade.

And Saddam might be right. He just might be able to get away with invasion and nuclear blackmail. You can bet he's three times more confident that he can safely pull it off than he ought to be. That is exactly why we must fear him.

If we do attack and attempt to throw a nuclear-armed Hussein out of Kuwait, the least bad response we could expect would be a nuclear strike on the Saudi oil fields. Saddam might refrain from a nuclear attack on our troops or our cities, in hopes that we would withhold nuclear retaliation on Baghdad. But a nuclear strike on the Saudi oil fields would destroy and contaminate the world's main oil supply, precipitating a world-wide depression, and leaving Saddam's own oil wealth that much more valuable. Again, read The Threatening Storm, and you will believe.

The real reason we are invading Iraq is to prevent Saddam from carrying out this scheme — to prevent him from attempting to seize control of the oil resources of the Persian Gulf, and a subsequent attempt to hold us off with nuclear blackmail. (Again, the somewhat lesser likelihood of Saddam's passing a nuclear device to terrorists for use against an American city is also a key concern.)

Yet the American public does not really understand this. We are in the middle of a great national debate on a war against Iraq, yet the public does not have a clear understanding of the reasons for the war.

There are several reasons for this. Had the president gone to the United Nations and spoken openly of the need to prevent Saddam from moving on the Gulf and subjecting the United States to nuclear blackmail, he would have been derided as a paranoid, oil-hungry cowboy willing to sacrifice the peace of the world to his nation's selfish interests. (Even though, in truth, the entire world, and not just the United States, could easily be plunged into a lengthy depression by Saddam's aggressive schemes.)

So instead the president, in a judo move, turned the U.N.'s own multilateral principles against its hesitations. That worked brilliantly for a while, but at the cost of the whole truth about our reasons for invading Iraq. And the desire of many Democrats to frame our attack in terms of international law, rather than national interest or balance of power calculations, continues to make it difficult for the president to place the real issue before the country.

Another problem is the connection between the need to remove Saddam and the war on terror. The truth is, the need to remove Saddam is both related to, and independent of, the war on terror. If Saddam believed that he could pass weapons to al Qaeda for use against American cities, then he just might do so. And as I argued in "Beyond Deterrence," Saddam has every reason to think that detection of his role might fail. So the connection between the need to oust Saddam and the war on terror is real.

In the short term, however, Saddam is more interested in conquest in the Gulf, under the umbrella of nuclear blackmail, than in a direct nuclear attack on an American city. Yet, because the political momentum for an invasion of Iraq comes from 9/11, the administration has tended to frame the threat from Saddam more in terms of the war on terror than in terms of Saddam's designs on the Gulf.

It's not as though the administration has remained entirely silent about the core reasons for an invasion. In his recent appearance on Meet the Press, for example, the vice president noted how difficult it would have been to plan the Persian Gulf war had Saddam been in possession a nuclear device. And the president himself has said on a number of occasions that he will not have the United States subjected to nuclear blackmail. But between the pressure from the United Nations and the Democrats to speak in multilateral terms, and the critical political momentum provided by the war on terror, the true nature of the threat from Saddam has gotten lost.

That is why intelligent Democratic opponents of the war, from Stanley Hoffman to Michael Kinsley, seem genuinely puzzled by the need for an attack. The Democrats complain about the "constantly shifting" justifications for an invasion given by the administration. The implication is that there is no real reason for an attack — that the whole invasion idea is nothing but a scheme cooked up for political reasons. Nothing could be further from the truth. But rhetorical traps laid by people and events have made it difficult to speak frankly about the reasons why we must invade.

As I have said before — and will say again — Kenneth Pollack's extraordinary book, The Threatening Storm, does tell the truth about the need to invade Iraq. Pollack himself, I think, slightly underplays the danger of Saddam handing a nuclear weapon to terrorists for use against the United States (although Pollack certainly doesn't entirely neglect this issue). Pollack's focus is on how Saddam's regional ambitions are likely to escalate to a nuclear exchange. Of course, as the previous administration's chief expert on Iraq, Pollack has realized for years — long before September 11 — that an invasion of Iraq may be necessary for reasons that have nothing to do with terrorism, per se.

Here is the truth. While September 11 was a horror that ought never to have happened, something good has come of it. Prior to September 11, Saddam was moving ever closer to nuclear capability, yet there was almost no political prospect of an American president being able to mount an invasion. A number of American observers (like the Clinton administration's Pollack, and like Paul Wolfowitz, now of the Bush administration) understood the mounting danger of a nuclear armed Saddam. Yet these men had little chance of waking the country up to the need to invade. September 11 has woken all of us up.

But the (partial) distinction between the threat from Saddam and the threat from al Qaeda has sewn confusion and skepticism. If the invasion of Iraq is part of the war on terror, ask the critics, why not attack Iran — an even greater sponsor of terror? Or why not wait till we find Osama and destroy al Qaeda? Or why not produce a "smoking gun" of cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda? All of these questions miss the point — a point that the administration has not been entirely free to emphasize. We need to invade Iraq regardless of all these other considerations. Even for a moment, we cannot allow Saddam Hussein to obtain atomic weapons, because aggression and nuclear blackmail will quickly follow.

Last Saturday, Turkish police reportedly seized a cache of weapons-grade uranium from two men smuggling the material — perhaps into nearby Iraq. We need to understand that time is running out. Saddam knows that we are coming for him. No doubt he has stepped up his effort to commandeer material for a bomb. Even if these smugglers were not headed for Iraq, or if the uranium turns out to be less threatening in quality or quantity than feared, Iraqi agents with greater prospects for success are certainly in the field. The hour grows late. Our lives, quite literally, are at stake. Even the risk of isolated wartime chemical or biological attacks by Saddam's agents on U.S. territory is nothing compared to the danger of a fight after Saddam has obtained his bomb.

The Democrats are right about one thing, though. We must now put party aside. But to do so, we must unite around the president and unite against Saddam Hussein. History will judge harshly those who hesitated at this moment. We must arm ourselves with the truth — and strike quickly.

— Stanley Kurtz is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

[Yomar]

Originally posted by Art

could you send me the quote of Powell saying we didn't have a smoking gun?

he seems confident that there is one there, but the implication from the interview is that we don't have one currently. He then goes on to say that we may not even need one.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/857312.asp?cp1=1#BODY

Jan. 9 — NBC’s Tom Brokaw sat down with Secretary of State Colin Powell to ask about the importance of a “smoking gun” in the search for weapons in Iraq, and a possible timetable for military action. Powell repeatedly referred to the importance of Saddam Hussein’s cooperation under the terms of U.N. Resolution 1441, which set the terms for the renewed U.N. weapons inspections.

BROKAW: We now know that the United States is providing additional intelligence to the inspectors. Are you going to be able to provide the intelligence that could produce the smoking gun between now and January 27?

Powell: We are doing everything we can to give Dr. [Hans] Blix, head of UNMOVIC, and Dr. [Mohamed] ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, all of the information that we can to allow them to do their work well. Whether or not it produces a “smoking gun” or not by the 27 of January, I can’t answer. But the fact of the matter is that because he says so far there’s no smoking gun does not mean there is not one there.

Brokaw: But practically speaking, Mr. Secretary, remembering your old military hat, don’t you have to have irreparable evidence, what people in the country are calling a photo of a smoking gun, of some kind, before you can go to war against Saddam Hussein and expect international cooperation?

Powell: No. If the international community sees that Saddam Hussein is not cooperating in a way that would allow you to determine the truth of the matter, then he is in violation of the U.N. Resolution 1441. So, you don’t really have to have a smoking gun.

Brokaw: You told The Washington Post that January 27 is not an absolute deadline. Does that mean that if Hans Blix goes to the U.N. on January 27 and says, “Look, it’s not a perfect process, but there is still room for us to do additional work there,” that it will go on for what, another 30 days or so?

Powell: The 27 of January is a date that these two gentlemen, Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei, have been asked to report to the Council. That’s all it is. It’s a date that they are reporting to the council. So, it is an important day. But it is really a day for them to report, not a D-day.

Brokaw: If the idea is to keep Saddam Hussein in a box, why not extend the inspections? He’s got people poring all over his country, lots of Western press in there. He’s not able to do anything. Why not extend it out two, three, four, five months?

Powell: Well, I’m not saying that isn’t going to happen. I don’t know what will happen. We will see what Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei report.

Brokaw: In August of last year, Vice President Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was amassing weapons of mass destruction. He thought that the U.N. weapons inspection process would be futile. After the Iraqis filed their initial declaration on December 8 of this year, you said there was a material breach. Don’t those meet all the criteria the president has set out to go to war against Iraq?

Powell: Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and myself and the president have always expressed skepticism about the inspection process. That skepticism is still there. The United States is renewing all of its intelligence holdings. And we will have a presentation to make to the international community, probably through the Security Council, in due course, as to whether or not we believe Saddam Hussein is cooperating and what additional evidence we have that might not be immediately a product of the inspection process.

Brokaw: Will that be an overwhelming case?

Powell: We will see. Overwhelming is in the eyes of the receiver. We think there is a case that will be made, and it will be persuasive, in the absence of Iraqi cooperation.

[Art]

Eventually, Yomar, we must wake up to the reality that the world has changed and the enemy no longer wears orange suits and marches in a straight line expecting us to do the same. War has changed. We are no longer in a world where the enemy is a major nation state with a trenched army and clearly outlined goals to prosecute during combat.

We are in a world of four guys in a basement, waiting to take pot shots at innocent people, and nations that support them with funding, training and weapons. Iraq is just a bigger version of the four guys. At some point you have to allow yourself the realization that all we have left is hypotheticals based on reams of evidence and years of observed behavior to base our actions on anymore.

Iraq's never going to deploy a missile silo. They are going to put a nuke in a diplomat's luggage and blow up New York City because a pissant like Saddam will want to do it. He doesn't care enough about his people to stop himself from our response. We care more about his people than he does, which is why we continue to develop ways to limit civilian death in war even while our new enemies deploy the targets of war in grandma's house.

We're not talking about a hypothetical that an elephant can hang off a cliff by its tail wrapped around a daisy. We know what Saddam is and what he's done and what he's sought. We know time is the only thing preventing that bomb in New York. You seem to think it's better to wait than to end the wait. I'd prefer to end the wait before it's too late.

[Yomar]

I don't prefer to wait and do nothing, I just don't think the choice is limited to war. If you want to build a nuke, you can't help but leave a trail, it might not be easy to find, but I believe its there, and I would prefer that we find it first.

[Art]

Yomar,

Could you please post the link of Powell saying we didn't have a smoking gun. Not a link where a left leaning journalist asks about the importance of the inspection team finding a smoking gun and then has Powell saying it's not necessary for them to. No where does it say we don't have a smoking gun. It does say the inspectors don't have one. He even says even if the inspectors say there's no smoking gun it doesn't mean there isn't one.

I doubt we have a specific bit of information that would qualify as a smoking gun. The reason I asked you to post a statement where Powell acknowledges that "we" don't have a smoking gun, as you've stated, is because no such statement exists. He even hints that "we" do have a smoking gun, whether "they" with they being the inspectors of others in the world do or not.

[Yomar]

This seems a bit silly, as you alluded too, Rumsfeld said "There isn't a smoking gun." Would it make a difference if I quoted him instead? I saw the interview on TV and came away with the impression that we didn't have a "smoking gun" That Powell didn't use that exact phrase is true, but I don't think its a reach to conclude that we don't have one. That being said, lets just replace Powell with Rumsfeld and move on.

[Yomar]

I just want to say I'm glad we had this discussion, even you fansince62, I have a better understanding of the viewpoint that supports going to war and while I may not agree with it, I respect it.

[Art]

Fair enough Yomar. I happen to agree there is no nuclear "smoking gun" though we know they have and are pursuing the building of a nuclear weapon. For the record though, the closest Rumsfeld ever came to saying there was not a smoking gun as a generic statement was in September of last year.

"What will be taking place in the Congress in the next few weeks will be to connect the dots before a tragedy happens, not after," he said. "The goal is to take the pieces and make people understand it isn't simple... There is no single smoking gun. If we wait for a smoking gun you'll find it will come after the fact, after weapons of mass destruction have been used against the United States or its allies," Mr Rumsfeld said.

He's saying the same thing I've said here and that makes sense. It's not simple. There's not going to be a huge eureka upon finding any single particular thing. Even if the 12 warheads found had live chemical agents in them, it wouldn't be a "smoking gun". Rumsfeld has said for months that you do not want to find a smoking gun in the case of a weapons of mass destruction because that means it's gone off, here on Nov. 15 of last year, ""Our task, your task ... is to try to connect the dots before something happens. People say, 'Well, where's the smoking gun?' Well, we don't want to see a smoking gun from a weapon of mass destruction."

He has stated clearly that we know they have chemical and biological weapons. Here, on Jan. 15 of this year, ""The fact that the inspectors have not yet come up with new evidence of Iraq's WMD program could be evidence, in and of itself, of Iraq's noncooperation," Rumsfeld said. "We do know that Iraq has designed its programs in a way that they can proceed in an environment of inspections and that they are skilled at denial and deception."

Iraq is very good at hiding what it needs to hide says Rumsfeld, "What it would prove would be that the inspection process had been successfully defeated by the Iraqis," the secretary said. "There's no question but that the Iraqi regime is clever, they've spent a lot of time hiding things, dispersing things, tunneling underground."

Earlier in this thread you wrote that if there was even the hint of speculation that Iraq and Al Queda were linked it would be all over the news. Yet, Rumsfeld did say this about that link, "That our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda is still developing, that there is no question but that there have been interactions between the Iraqi government, Iraqi officials and al Qaeda operatives, they have occurred over a span of some eight or 10 years to our knowledge, that there are currently al Qaeda in Iraq." Our Secretary of Defense said this and I guess it doesn't rise to the level of speculation else the press would be all over it, right?

But, it is time to process the change in the world, says Rumsfeld, "On Sept. 11, we were awakened to the fact that America is now vulnerable to unprecedented destruction," he said. "That awareness ought to be sufficient to change the way we think about our security and the type of certainty and evidence we consider appropriate."

And, tellingly, about Sept. 11, "Was the attack then an imminent threat two, three, or six months before? When did the attack on September 11th become an imminent threat, when was it sufficiently dangerous? Now transport yourself forward ... if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass destruction and transfer them, or use them himself, or transfer them to the al Qaeda, and some of the al Qaeda were to engage in an attack on the United States or on U.S. forces overseas with weapons of mass destruction, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" Rumsfeld asked.

The point is, I've no problem with you saying Rumsfeld said there's no specific smoking gun I guess. I just ask that you also accept the reams of other quotes the man has that may be substantially telling as well.

[luckydevil]

Actually, India did a pretty damn good job of hiding its nuclear program. I recall the Clinton adminstration in shock when India tested its first nuclear bomb. Many lost faith in our intelligence after the incident

[fansince62]

Yomar....I knida thought you would misinterpret one of my comments: the reference to sympathies. You have adduced no evidence for your position other than that the NSA, CIA, DIA, FBI, CI communities, White House, State Department, and on, haven't materialized at your door to personnaly explain to you, the voter, the whys and wherefores; or why thae same hasn't happened with your adpoted proxies: the national media.

1) the reference to sympathies was an assumption on my part that your position is due in part to an identification with the innocent victims who are going to be on the receiiving end of some of the violence that is going to happen. opponents of the war are correct in drawing attention to this. perhaps I was giving you too much credit. your response was notable only for its indications irt your sexual preferences whether the deliverer be male or female.

2) There is a lot of intelligence out there. There is a track recoerd. It is not the case, as you argue, that there is zero evidence. Sen Allard (R-Colo) was on the radio last week. He is a memeber of selct intelligenece committee. He stated that there is very credible primary evidence that he has seen. he stated that the evidence comes from sensitve sources in iraq and cannot be revealed due to the risk of life. its your choice todecide whether you think he is lieing.

3) Amb Richard Holbrooke was on Fox last night. He flatly stated that Hussein is "an extremely dangerous man" and needs to be removed. He went on to explain, should you like to know, that he believes the Bush administration has mishandled the coorsination of international cooperation/support - a distinct issue from whetehr or not Saddahm needs to be removed.

4) The Washington Post editorial pages - of all places - this morning has an editorial that essentially states that whether or not 1441 draws support from France/Germany/Russia or not...the US needs to act.

Hussein is responsible for the deaths of something in the neighborhood of 1.5 million deaths by some accounts. he is dangerous and destablizing.

you are to be commended for the strength of your convictions - and I'm not talking down to you. but you are flat wrong on this one. there is a lot of inteeligence on this guy and there is a track record.

have a nice day and I hope you do something beneficial, however small, for your fellow man today: give a buck to a homeless person, say hello to someone passing on the street....I don't care. do something!!!

[Kilmer17]

We found 12 Chemical warheads last week and 4 more this past weekend. What more do you want? Or are only Nukes the problem now. DOnt worry about the 4 tons of VX gas that IRaq has still failed to account for.

Everythings peachy keen in the Libs minds.

Ive asked numerous times and (shocking) no-one has answered the question about the concrete proof of chemical weapons. If you want to ignore the IRaqi scientists who claim they worked on Saddams nuclear program fine. If you want to ignore former weapons inspectors who saw it and state he is within a year (some say six months) of having a working bomb, fine. But you CANNOT ignore the proof we have found regarding chemical weapons.

So???? Anyone???????

[Art]

Chemical weapons of the sort we found are not, strictly speaking, weapons of mass destruction. They are chemical weapons, of the variety Iraq isn't allowed or supposed to have. By itself, any of these types of bombs we find isn't a "smoking gun" with regard to Iraq having a weapon of mass destruction. It is proof they have violated the U.N -- which I care nothing about as the U.N. is impotent and unimportant -- and they have weapons they aren't allowed to have.

But, the agents like anthrax and small pox and the like are those that would qualify as materials that can produce weapons of mass destruction. Having chemical agents is something everyone knows they have and have had and liberals may tell you it's not enough to go to war over. It is enough for me .

[Kilmer17]

Chemical warheads+Missing VX Gas= WMD in my opinion.

[codeorama]

What we need is Nicholas Cage and Sean Connery.... they can take care of it....

[Tarhog]

Nicholas Cage can't even keep Priscilla Presley in line :laugh:

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Tarhog

Nicholas Cage can't even keep Priscilla Presley in line :laugh:

:laugh: :laugh:

[Yomar]

fansince62,

First of all, I'm not quite sure what you are talking about all the time, but you are right to say that I am interested in the solution that minimizes loss of innocent life, as are you I am sure. That’s why I said I respect yours and Art's and Kilmer's argument, even if I disagree, I realize that at its base we are all interested in the same thing, it’s just the course of action that we drastically disagree on. As for you, you are a serious weirdo, but that’s ok, that’s the beauty of the message board I guess, I get to meet all kinds of people, and that would seem to include condescending, patronizing bores.

I wouldn't say there is zero evidence to suspect Saddam, I wouldn't clutch my heart and drop to the floor if it turned out he did have WMD, but I think its important to have enough evidence to build a credible public case when war is the agenda.

As I'm sure you are aware, there have been several different tenors emanating from the Intelligence Committee since the Iraq situation began to pick up steam. If there was one unanimous voice coming from the committee that would be one thing, but that’s not the case, although Shelby is now off the committee and that might make things a little smoother, we'll see.

I have no doubt that Saddam is a dangerous man, the question is, does he present such an immediate and pressing threat that war is called for. And if so, how about a little explanation as to why? If this administration is going to lead us into war, they should not be surprised to face dissent if they don't feel obliged to offer a compelling case as to why, maybe its sad that we live in a cynical world, especially when it comes to government, but skepticism is healthy, its the administration's responsibility to allay any reasonable questions or doubts, and if they do not do so, it only raises more questions, like, "what the hell is going on here?"

I too bid you a good day, although I won't presume to tell you what to do

[Kilmer17]

Proof-we found 12 chemical warheads.

Proof- they had tons of VX gas that is now unaccounted for.

How much more do you need?

[Yomar]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Proof-we found 12 chemical warheads.

Proof- they had tons of VX gas that is now unaccounted for.

How much more do you need?

Personally, what do I need? Not that it matters a whole heck of a lot, but when you are talking about war, a little more. Essentially I want to know if this really is just the tip of an iceberg as Blix wonders, or if this is really a case of a couple of leftovers...I am cyncial, I would guess there is a lot more, but I also want to give the inspectors a chance to follow through now that there is some real headway being made.

[Art]

Yomar,

The entirity of your argument can be set aside by asking a very simple question. At what point, prior to Sept. 11, would it have been appropriate to take action? If you believe no information we had prior to Sept. 11 would have allowed us to go after Bin Laden and his folks until after they attacked us, then, it's not Al who is a serious wierdo.

What you are essentially saying is you need proof that is so substantial, and so uncontroverted and so without cynicism that, essentially, we have to be hit by a weapon before you'll sign off. As Rumsfeld asked, at what point prior to Sept. 11 did the threat against us become imminent?

"Was the attack then an imminent threat two, three, or six months before? When did the attack on September 11th become an imminent threat, when was it sufficiently dangerous? Now transport yourself forward ... if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass destruction and transfer them, or use them himself, or transfer them to the al Qaeda, and some of the al Qaeda were to engage in an attack on the United States or on U.S. forces overseas with weapons of mass destruction, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"

We know Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and agents to make far greater threats. We know they have sought for years to acquire nuclear weapons. We know they lied in their declaration about what they have. At some point PRIOR to the death of our innocent citizens the threat has to be compelling to you. If it never does, then, you haven't grasped the difference in the world today as opposed to it prior to Sept. 11. Reality has changed. The inspectors' job is to look for violations by the Iraqi government of sanctions imposed by the U.N. The President's job is to keep our innocent civilians alive. That's more important than any other concern. We are more important than them. At some point, we have to let ourselves embrace that.

[Kilmer17]

This is the problem Yomar. "A little more" is pretty vague.

Thats all we need to justify our attacks. He violated the 91 treaty as well as the current resolution he agreed to last fall.

These warheads were found in a bunker that is less that 5 years old, so at the very least they have known about them since they promised the UN not to possess such weaponry.

If that's not enough for you I doubt anything short of an outright attack would be.

[Yomar]

Art -

I don't know if this invalidates my argument or not, I'll leave that up to you, but it would have been appropriate to go after Al Qaeda before 9/11 because there were numerous attacks by Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 that would have justified retaliation.

You may have a point however, we may disagree on how drastically 9/11 has changed the world we live in, certainly it will never be the same, but I may not believe it has changed as much as you do.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Yomar

Art -

I don't know if this invalidates my argument or not, I'll leave that up to you, but it would have been appropriate to go after Al Qaeda before 9/11 because there were numerous attacks by Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 that would have justified retaliation.

That is basically the essence of this whole argument.

Until something tragic happens, you probably will not have the support of "everyone".

My ONLY concerns about this whole war thing is:

-Is this an excuse for the US to go in and secure their oil...

-Is this a way for Bush to raise his approval rating going into the election...(everyone knows that during a crisis like this, the president's approval rating usually goes up)

Don't blast me, I didn't say I believe those statements to be true, I am hoping they are not.

[Darth Tater]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Proof-we found 12 chemical warheads.

Proof- they had tons of VX gas that is now unaccounted for.

How much more do you need?

Proof is not truly relevent here:rolleyes: Most who do not support martial action claiming the 'case has not been made' had no intention of supporting such action in ANY CASE (whether because Bush was involved or they other reasons). Unfortunately for them, claiming they will puts them into the position where they have to argue against FACT. :gus:

----

If one accepts the argument that a case must be made, the case has been made. If, for whatever reason, one thinks we should not pursue military action, this argument must be abandoned and the case must be made as to why such action should not be pursued.

BTW, I can come up with a couple of possiblities for an anti-war case thesis off the top of my head.

Just saw code's reservations. Develop those arguments and you could have a case.

[Kilmer17]

code, Bush has the highest sustained approval ratings in history. Thats not a very good argument.

The facts are concrete. He has violated 91 ceasefires as well as current UN resolutions. It cannot be any clearer.

If someone is opposed to removing Saddam, please give a reason with some factual backing.