Originally posted by TourDeForce:
Iraq was viewed as a rogue nation in the ME. Remember the Quaiti invasion? After the first gulf war, in light of 9/11, Iraq were viewed as a potential bio-chem weapon source for the terrorists.

Yes, I think we all understand that. We all understand that it was possible that Saddam might give terrorists some chemical weapons. And it was possible that those terrorist might then use those chemical weapons on us.

Now we get to the real issue: is that speculative possibility a sufficient basis for going to war? I say no. There are dozens of irresponsible or "rogue" regimes. Those regimes have access to uncountable tons of weapons. If would be insame for us to launch a war every time one of them refuses to account for all of its weapons. Unless we have REALLY GOOD intelligence (and UN support), such an attack would make US a rogue nation.


Originally posted by TourDeForce:
That's when the UN sanctions & inspections became of particular importance to the US. Not Iraq as a military threat.


Yes. We all agree that the only arguable threat to the U.S. was that WMDs from Iraq might somehow be smuggled into the U.S. and detonated here. No one was arguing that Saddam could attack the U.S. with conventional forces.

So, we are discussing whether there was a plausible threat to the U.S. from Saddam's WMDs. The crucial point is that there was no real evidence that such an attack was forthcoming. No solid evidence of a prospective WMD attack on the U.S. was ever found. Based on the information Bush used to go to war, a WMD attack on the U.S. was no more likely to originate from Iraq than from Pakistan, Yemen, North Korea, Venezuela, Sudan, or any one of a dozen other places. That's what makes Bush's war so clearly contrived for the gain of Bush and his political and corporate cronies.

Originally posted by TourDeForce:
That is why the discrepencies in UN declarations were so disturbing, & the Iraqi compliance with the inspectors was so important.


Yes, the dicrepancies were disturbing. Yes, the discrepancies were important. But a case for war has to be built on firmer ground than our discomfort about some hypothetical possible attack. We should never start a war based on conjecture.

I can hear your response already: "But all those discrepancies! And Iraq's refusal to allow inspections! And Saddam's history of using poison gas! Those are not conjecture!" No, those are not conjecture. Those are facts. But do those facts somehow demonstrated the existence of WMDs? No, they do not. If you think those facts showed the existence of WMDs, you are just engaging in conjecture. If you think those facts add up to a probable attack on the U.S., you are engaging in conjecture.

And please, do not claim the yellowcake uranium, the aluminum tubes (and the Iraqi exiles' rumors about a "reconstituted WMD program", etc. etc.) are additional "facts." If you feel the urge to do so, please go back a few pages and answer my post about how the Bushmen ALREADY KNEW that "evidence" was false (or terribly weak) before they even told us about it.

Originally posted by TourDeForce:
After a dozen resolutions & ample opportunities to come into compliance by allowing inspections, justification established IMHO.


Are you guys just going to continue to ignore the fact that the UN mandated inspections were based solely on the authority of the UN? The U.S. is not the UN, it is a separate entity. It has no authority to claim UN resolutions as justifications for its actions, absent the approval of . . . YES THAT'S RIGHT! THE UN!

WE HAVE NO LEGAL OR MORAL RIGHT TO CLAIM THE UN RESOLUTIONS AS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WAR, WHEN THE UN ITSELF SAID THE RESOLUTIONS DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE WAR.

You guys can't keep ignoring this. This "UN resolutions" argument makes no more sense than Gov. Schwarzeneggar saying that he is allowed to chop off the hands of a convicted thief under the authority of Saudi Arabian law. When you have to twist and pervert such fundamental principles or law and morality, isn't that a signal to you that something is wrong with your argument?