The Iraq / war on terror thread

[Charity Case]

I apologize if I cover anything that is already been covered int his thread whereas I have only read the last page of it just now.

Well, if Tierney's is accurate, you have a first hand account (and a much better opinion than anyone here) of the existence of WMDs in Iraq.  I guess the left will call it heresay, but this guys who was on the ground in the inspections has better knowledge than us...that's for sure.

You also have President Clinton attacking Iraq in 1998 (i think that was the year) and going on the american airways claiming Iraq had wmds (the intelligence he was going on was strong enough to warrant a liberal to attack without provocation).  There are all the votes by all the senators who, after inspection of the intelligence, voted for going in (now they are claiming it was a lie mostly because they are positioning for the 2006 elections).  You have britian's participation and the participation of other countries.  You have France (the primary opponent) having had their votes bought and paid for by Hussien (why do you suppose?).

There is plenty of compelling evidence to support that there was reason to believe that Hussien had wmds.  And I would further state that the amount of evidence needed to support action (war in this case) was/is significantly lower now than it was prior to 9/11. 

Could things have been handled better.  Sure, you can say that about alot of operations.  But to flat out call Bush a liar is irrespoinsible on a number of fronts, not the least of which is the signal it sends to the terrorists.  I guess it is politics as usual, but it is irresponsible nonetheless.

And slc, no one is dodging anything here.  We'd like to know which it the correct statement.  (1) You want us to leave Iraq immediately, or (2) you care about the Iraqi people?  Because the two cannot coexist.

[pilferk]

I have bad news for ya Berkeley...

Tierney's widely regarded as not credible. ?He's someone the right wing pundits trot out with alarming regularity to say what they want him to say. ?But, all things considered, his statements on the subject are basically unfounded, uncoroborated garbage.

Scott Ritter accuses him of actually mucking up and bascially compromising the entire inspections process.

His statements are in polar opposition to EVERY other inspector who was on his team, including the lead inspectors. ?And that was back in the 90's. ?He was in NO WAY involved in the inspections process imediately prior to the invasion.

The man accused the French of actually SPYING on the inspection process and passing along lists of possible inspection sites to the Iraqis.

He's claimed that, for sure, the Iraqis had nuclear weapons IN THEIR POSSESSION. ?We know that to be absolutely untrue...not just through our own intel, but from the documentation we've gotten from the Iraqis, themselves, after the invasion.

Edit: And to shed some light on his politics (and strength of conviction on those politics), he was one of those leading the protests during the Terry Shiavo "stuff" on the side of the religious right.  The man definitely has a very strong, right wing, political "agenda" driving him.

[pilferk]

I apologize if I cover anything that is already been covered int his thread whereas I have only read the last page of it just now.

Well, if Tierney's is accurate, you have a first hand account (and a much better opinion than anyone here) of the existence of WMDs in Iraq.? I guess the left will call it heresay, but this guys who was on the ground in the inspections has better knowledge than us...that's for sure.

Tierney's not credible.  Not at all. Other inspectors accounts are drastically different than his...

You also have President Clinton attacking Iraq in 1998 (i think that was the year) and going on the american airways claiming Iraq had wmds (the intelligence he was going on was strong enough to warrant a liberal to attack without provocation).?

Read Clinton's speech again.  His claim is that the strikes were to ensure that Iraq COULD NOT make WMD's...not that they were made because they had them.

There are all the votes by all the senators who, after inspection of the intelligence, voted for going in (now they are claiming it was a lie mostly because they are positioning for the 2006 elections).?

Except ALL the intel was not given to them..that's the problem.  And we now KNOW that to be the case.  Powell has even said it.

You have britian's participation and the participation of other countries.?

On our say so....and again, only seeing the intel we were giving them, and not having any of the of the contradictory intel presented to them (as far as we know)

You have France (the primary opponent) having had their votes bought and paid for by Hussien (why do you suppose?).

That's an unfounded accusation, at best...and a convenient excuse when it turns out they were right.

And slc, no one is dodging anything here.? We'd like to know which it the correct statement.? (1) You want us to leave Iraq immediately, or (2) you care about the Iraqi people?? Because the two cannot coexist.

He's answered the question before.  Why should he have to repeat himself...especially when the thread where he answered the question has the EXACT same posters in it? 

[Charity Case]

All I'm saying is there was plenty of evidence to support action against Iraq.  Hell, post 9/11, I want to be on the offensive anyway, but regardless of my opinion of how things should be run, it seems that there was plenty of evidence to support the decision that was made by a lot of people not just Bush.

As for France...are you seriously saying that they were not on the take and hip deep in the oil-for-food scandel?  Please.

[fesxine]

i heard that the American military have admitted to using chemical weapons in Iraq, what a bunch of 2 faced bastards - its alright for them to develop, store and use chemical weapons but if anybody else (especially muslims) go near them they are evil! wtf?

[Charity Case]

i heard that the American military have admitted to using chemical weapons in Iraq, what a bunch of 2 faced bastards - its alright for them to develop, store and use chemical weapons but if anybody else (especially muslims) go near them they are evil! wtf?

?

You better provide some evidence before making an accusation like that.  And you better not be calling tear gas or flash bangs "chemical weapon".

I bet we do have chemical weapons, but I have not heard of us using them in Iraq.  There is a difference between having the wepons in place to use during a war, and having them in place to use on your own people or as a weapon of terror.  Are you even living on Earth?

[sandman]

i actually agree with Hillary on all this. she was clear in her belief that we cannot take the chance that saddam either has weapons or will have them in the future.

the possibility of saddam acquiring weapons is enough reason to remove him.

(wow, maybe i'm wrong, the lefties might NOT nominate hillary to run for prez. she's actually made alot of sense when it comes to fighting terrorism.) 

[Charity Case]

They won't nominate her because they need to win next time.  She has no chance on winning any state on the interior of the country (which the last election proved you need to do).  Problem the dems have is that they don't have any real good candidate.  I think if the Republicans nominate McCain, you can lock it up.

[pilferk]

All I'm saying is there was plenty of evidence to support action against Iraq.? Hell, post 9/11, I want to be on the offensive anyway, but regardless of my opinion of how things should be run, it seems that there was plenty of evidence to support the decision that was made by a lot of people not just Bush.

Again, there was enough contrary evidence to call into question taking action.  That's the fact.

As for France...are you seriously saying that they were not on the take and hip deep in the oil-for-food scandel?? Please.

No, I'm saying that your assertion that the "oil for food" scandal had bearing on their decision on whether or not to support the war isn't supported by fact.  It's insinuation and rumor.  And it's a convenient excuse to use when, in hindsight, the French were right.

[Booker Floyd]

?

You better provide some evidence before making an accusation like that.? And you better not be calling tear gas or flash bangs "chemical weapon".

I bet we do have chemical weapons, but I have not heard of us using them in Iraq.?

US used white phosphorus in Iraq ?

US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said.

"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.

The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.

BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.

Col Venable denied that white phosphorous constituted a banned chemical weapon.

Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians.

The US state department had earlier said white phosphorus had been used in Falluja very sparingly, for illumination purposes.

Col Venable said that statement was based on "poor information".

'Incendiary'

The US-led assault on Falluja - a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency west of Baghdad - displaced most of the city's 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed.

Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases.

"However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."

WHITE PHOSPHORUS
Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
Protocol III not signed by US

And he said it had been used in Falluja, but it was a "conventional munition", not a chemical weapon.

It is not "outlawed or illegal", Col Venable said.

He said US forces could use white phosphorus rounds to flush enemy troops out of covered positions.

"The combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said.

San Diego journalist Darrin Mortenson, who was embedded with US marines during the assault on Falluja, told the BBC's Today radio programme he had seen white phosphorous used "as an incendiary weapon" against insurgents.

However, he "never saw anybody intentionally use any weapon against civilians", he said.

'Particularly nasty'

White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.

Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful... These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears... it could burn right down to the bone."

A spokesman at the UK Ministry of Defence said the use of white phosphorus was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area.

But Professor Paul Rogers, of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.

He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."

When an Italian TV documentary revealing the use of white phosphorus in Iraq was broadcast on 8 November it sparked fury among Italian anti-war protesters, who demonstrated outside the US embassy in Rome.

 

[Guns N RockMusic]

You really are clueless aren't you Booker?  It's a hand grenade used to burn through machinery.  It's isn't a "chemical weapon" like VX Gas.  I mean, I'm more than glad to give some leaway, but this is really stretching it.  I think you guys have enough conspiracy theories on your hands, you don't need to create more.

[Surfrider]

It all dependson how you use the term "chemical".  Technically, all bombs are chemical weapons.  Where you draw the line depends on whether you support the war or seek to embarrass the military.

[fesxine]

didn't the US, Uk and France supply Saddam with the chemical weapons in the first place? it was during the Iraq / Iran war when Iraq tried to invade Iran, Saddam used the chemical weapons during that war.  I think there's a picture of rumsfield shaking hands with saddam after the agreement had been made..i'll try to find it.

[Surfrider]

didn't the US, Uk and France supply Saddam with the chemical weapons in the first place? it was during the Iraq / Iran war when Iraq tried to invade Iran, Saddam used the chemical weapons during that war.? I think there's a picture of rumsfield shaking hands with saddam after the agreement had been made..i'll try to find it.

Roosevelt also shook hands with Stalin.  I am not sure how this justifies letting an evil dictator have chemical weapons?

[fesxine]

i think your missing the point they actually gave him the weapons.

[Surfrider]

i think your missing the point they actually gave him the weapons.

No, I understand your point.  However, I don't think it holds much water.  So we made a mistake.  Is that an argument against correcting it?

[fesxine]

i think your missing the point they actually gave him the weapons.

No, I understand your point.? However, I don't think it holds much water.? So we made a mistake.? Is that an argument against correcting it?

its more than a mistake and who says it won't happen again? america has no problems with dictators as long as they are on america's side.

no wonder iran hates the US

[Surfrider]

i think your missing the point they actually gave him the weapons.

No, I understand your point.? However, I don't think it holds much water.? So we made a mistake.? Is that an argument against correcting it?

its more than a mistake and who says it won't happen again? america has no problems with dictators as long as they are on america's side.

So should we not take care of any problems in the world because we have made mistakes in the past?  Should we not try to prevent Al Qaeda from getting Nukes because we dropped Nukes on Japan?

no wonder iran hates the US

No wonder Hitler hated us, we supported Stalin in a war against him.

[D]

All this wouldnt be happening right now had Bush 1 not listened to the UN back after Desert Storm.

We were marching into Baghdad, France everyone wanted to go ahead and overthrow Sadaam, But Bush 1 gave in and allowed the UN sanctions and all that instead.

So basically George 2 is cleaning up the mess George 1 left.

My only problem with the Left is this:

They keep beating a dead horse on how the war is bullshit.

I dont know too many people who dont agree that we were wrong, I totally agree with that BUT I never hear any solutions come from the left, only criticisms.

If u note John Kerry during the presidential debates, he even said if he won president that he would finish the job in Iraq.

So on one hand he said the war was bullshit but yet would still fight it. that statement turned me against Kerry.

u cant call a war bullshit and pointless but yet say u are still gonna make the soldiers die for it.

People in the media or abroad who think we can just pull out arent being realistic either.

Its possible we were mislead into war by the evil Bush, I really dont want to believe he could be that evil, but even if he is, still yet, we are in limbo now where simply pulling out isnt an option.

I think they need to up the number of troops, get super aggressive, wipe out as many insurgents as possible and get this war over with.

Its one thing for soldiers to die in battle, but to be killed just because they are sitting ducks is unacceptable.

[sandman]

D - good post. i may not always agree with you 100%, but you keep an open mind on things. your common sense approach is a fresh departure from the norm on these boards.



by the way, the house voted 403-3 against a pull out in iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10097801/