Originally posted by caltour:
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.



Show me some that are under UN restrictions, have shown hostility toward their neighbors & also possess these weapons, and I say they are also subject to some action. Additionally, please remember that many in the UN were being paid off with money from the Oil for Food program. Those links were known prior to invasion, though not thoroughly documented at the time. The administration was forced into a go-it-alone role. Don't even pretend the French weren't going to veto any sactions with teeth.


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


Originally posted by caltour:
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.



Maybe that's what you were discussing, but you specifically cited a military threat from Iraq was alleged, and it was not, so I responded appropriately. You're putting words in my mouth to help you skirt real issues.

As I understand it, an bio-chem attack from Iraq specifically was not one of the justifications for war, the FACT that those weapons existed in Iraq (by their own admission) and the possibility that they might fall into the hands of terrorists was the major concern. Lack of cooperation with UN inspectors & discrepencies in the Iraqi declarations to the UN prompted inspection compliance on Iraqs part or action on our part - Especially considering the UN payoffs that were going on.

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


Originally posted by caltour:
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.

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.



AGAIN I take you by the hand and walk you over to the Iraqi declarations to the UN of what WMD material, programs, & weapons they IN FACT had by their own admission. No conjecture there. In your fanciful world how do you define conjecture???

I will grant you that the possibility of a terrorist organiztion gaining access to such things was, at the time, a conjecture, however a very real posibility - Espcially given the non-compliance with UN resolutions, and open hostility & contempt toward the US. Further, given the declarations by the Iraqis, where do YOU suppose those materials, and weapons have gone? Will it take a mustard or sarrin gas attack on a major city to convince you that they were real? As for the aluminum tubes & such, I really don't know much about that, I've never used that info as a debate item. I have quoted a IAEA letter & subsequent report about yellowcake contaminated stainless steel that turned up in Europe for recycling. That same letter also referenced satellite images in which entire buidings within suspected facilities were dismantled & removed in the months leading to the invasion. In case you forgot, the IAEA is the UN nuclear watchdog organization.

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


Originally posted by caltour:
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.



I did you the courtesy of deleting the comparison you made. You surely would have kicked yourself if you actually read that a second time...

Nothing wrong with the argument when the UN was shown to be in Iraqs back pocket. It was shown time & again that the UN had no teeth, France was actively fighting US efforts to get a UN consensus on action in Iraq & they made it quite clear that France would veto any resolution with teeth. How short your memory...

Finally, I as an American, am glad that we don't put our national security solely in the hands of paper pushers like those in the UN. They've been proven to be ineffective, weak, spineless, and worst of all, despite their glorious proclaimations that they're lovers of world peace and wish good will toward all men, they're corrupt. The UN is nothing but a debate society & a money mill for spending US tax dollars.

The FACT of the matter is, we pushed for action by the UN and found some unexpected resistance after 12 years of broken promises & a regime that continued to refuse cooperation with mandated inspections. Digging deeper, the money trail in the form of oil contracts was leading to the sources of the resistance, particularly, but not solely, France. At that point, with the French having been paid for their veto power, the US was effectively blocked from gaining any assistance from the UN. If the WMD in the ME were to be secured, it would HAVE to be done without the help of the UN.


Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.