How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 WMD's and Immediate Threats   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

WMD's and Immediate Threats

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


0 posted 04-29-2003 02:56 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

http://nytimes.com/2003/04/29/opinion/29KRUG.html

quote:
A British newspaper, The Independent, reports that "intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic were furious that briefings they gave political leaders were distorted in the rush to war." One "high-level source" told the paper that "they ignored intelligence assessments which said Iraq was not a threat."

Sure enough, we have yet to find any weapons of mass destruction. It's hard to believe that we won't eventually find some poison gas or crude biological weapons. But those aren't true W.M.D.'s, the sort of weapons that can make a small, poor country a threat to the greatest power the world has ever known. Remember that President Bush made his case for war by warning of a "mushroom cloud." Clearly, Iraq didn't have anything like that ?and Mr. Bush must have known that it didn't.


This doesn't bug me as much as it bugs Paul. I never bought the immediate threat bit, but I wonder if those who really did believe that Iraq was an immediate threat feel betrayed?

[This message has been edited by Brad (04-29-2003 03:00 AM).]

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


1 posted 04-29-2003 06:21 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

This entire "war" pissed me off.

and the only thing that pissed me off more was my silence.
morefiah
Member
since 03-26-2003
Posts 156
Spanish Town, Jamaica


2 posted 04-29-2003 09:46 AM       View Profile for morefiah   Email morefiah   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for morefiah

Brad, (butt-kicking risk here) I bet you two bits that WMD's will be found, whether or not they are found. Call me cynical, but I am one of those who find it veeeery strange that the UN inspectors are suddenly being seen as 'ineffective'. Am I to assume that they all are part of the pro-Saddam gang? Those of us who are sufficiently 'cynical' enough, understand that the Coalition forces NEED to find those WMDs. So I bet you they will. Don't tell me you are not a gambling man. C'mon!
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


3 posted 04-29-2003 10:26 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

If no weapons are found and/or no evidence of their destruction can be proven - it will not look good for the U.S. and the Bush administration.

Explanations will have to be given.
WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 07-23-2002
Posts 3310
somebody's dungeon


4 posted 04-29-2003 11:26 AM       View Profile for WhiteRose   Email WhiteRose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for WhiteRose

morefiah...I bet you two bits that WMD's will be found, whether or not they are found.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard this remark on the internet lately. I can tell you though, how infuriating it is to hear it, each and every time.

I can't for the life of me understand how people looked the other way when hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people disappeared off the face of the earth. How they looked the other way when the rape and torture of human beings was going on in Iraq under Saddam. How they simply put their heads in the sand when 3,000 people were senselessly killed on 9/11 by terrorists that it has now been proven did in fact have ties to Saddam.

And it is now these same people who question the actions of the very people who are trying to make this country as safe as it possibly can be, considering the state of the world today!  

Do you not realize the amount of people that would have to be involved in this sort of fiasco (such as planting WMD, or stating they are there, when in fact they are not)?

It would take a major cover-up, or collusion, involving many people, including soldiers that put their lives on the line for the very freedom you utilize to make such a claim.

It's nice to know you took your head out of the sand long enough to make such a statement, but it will take a lot more than what you have offered to make this American believe that the coalition forces and the governments involved are capable of, or would even consider, what you suggest.


I think it's also interesting that the same crowd that screamed "give the inspectors more time to find the WMD", is the same crowd that is now screaming, "we want the WMD found, RIGHT NOW".


[This message has been edited by WhiteRose (04-29-2003 11:56 AM).]

morefiah
Member
since 03-26-2003
Posts 156
Spanish Town, Jamaica


5 posted 04-29-2003 12:36 PM       View Profile for morefiah   Email morefiah   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for morefiah

Au contraire my sweet Rose, all (maybe most) of us did NOT bury our heads in the sand when all the atrocities you named took place. But let me ask you: Before 9/11 how many letters to the editor did YOU write demanding that the US take a stand on Iraq, or North Korea, or Somalia, or (way back in the 80's) South Africa, or anywhere else in the world where people are being tortured? How many times have you taken a stand on the proliferation of WMD's in ANY country, including your own? How many questions about the need for biological, and, or chemical weapons have you asked of your government? If you cannot truthfully say that you have been vigorously active on the issues of human rights, Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction, children starving in the dark corners of the world, racism, communism etc. etc., then you are really being disingenuous.

The truth my dear, is that most human beings, while maybe having strong opinions on certain issues, really don't do much in the way of advocating their beliefs on those issues. Is that the same as burying heads in the sand? I think not. I think one buries ones head in the sand if one cannot seem to acknowledge that there is a problem, no matter how glaringly obvious it is. Interestingly, the pro-war, pro-Bush people are, in my view, burying their heads in the sand. Let me sum up the events to date:

1. The US vehemently insisted that there were WMDs in Iraq.

2. On that basis, they demanded that Saddam/Iraq disarm.

3. Saddam insisted that he had disarmed.

4. The US (and in all fairness, many other countries such as France, Germany, and Russia) continued to insist that they needed more proof of the disarmament.

5. It was demanded that UN arms inspectors be allowed to go into Iraq, and after initially refusing, Saddam, under intense pressure mainly from the US, relented.

6. In 5 months, these expert arms inspectors who everyone, INCLUDING the US, accepted as being competent to do the job, could find no WMDs.

7. The US continued to insist that the weapons were there, even in the face of mounting evidence that they were not.

8. The US and Britain claimed to have evidence that the weapons were there, but either DID NOT share this evidence, or shared what later proved to be false evidence.

9. Notwithstanding all of the above, a minority Coalition, led by the US, ON THE STATED BASIS OF SURE KNOWLEDGE  that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and without the backing of the UN, invaded Iraq.

10. To date, after weeks of conflict, in which Iraq was subdued/defeated, there are still no credible signs of the elusive WMDs. In fact, given that the Coalition forces are in almost total control of the country, it should be fairly easy to find the weapons that there was such sure knowledge of.

11. PEOPLE have died!! Women and children (Iraqi), Young soldiers (on all sides) have died! In the name of finding and getting rid of weapons of mass destruction (It was comical to see the way the US attempted to switch the focus from 'finding the WMDs' to one of Liberation when that was never the original focus. In fact, in all the months leading up to the war, Liberation was very rarely, if ever mentioned. I dare say it was not) These weapons have NOT been found but MANY HUMAN BEINGS HAVE DIED!!!!!

All of a sudden it is ok to talk about the suffering of the Iraqi people under Saddam, while no one seems concerned about the blood that has been shed, the many lives that have been lost, the armless,legless children who will suffer for the rest of their lives because of THIS war. And you talk about burying heads in the sand? What have I outlined above that is untrue?

So many think it is anti-American to be against the war. Anti-war advocates such as myself are accused of being pro-Saddam; cowards; ostriches; and yadda yadda yadda. All we are saying is that dishonesty was exhibited by the US government in the interest of starting a shooting war which has resulted in human lives being lost. A people have lost all the artifacts of their heritage and culture and insensitive remarks like "it happens" are made. The primary focus the whole charade was not realized and it stinks to high heaven!! So you go right ahead thinking that it was all justified. Go right ahead thinking that "WE" are all hiding our heads in the sand. You are still alive and have the ability to sleep, laugh, write, and accuse, among so many other things. Too many though, will never again have those opportunities. Are you satisfied? Who is burying their heads here? Think about it.
morefiah
Member
since 03-26-2003
Posts 156
Spanish Town, Jamaica


6 posted 04-29-2003 12:47 PM       View Profile for morefiah   Email morefiah   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for morefiah

BTW, Saddam has WMDs, the US invades Iraq, defeat is imminent, he is being literally driven out of his cushy position and firced into hiding and he doesn't use his WMDs?? Puhleeeze!! Is the Saddam that we have come to know and fear?
WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 07-23-2002
Posts 3310
somebody's dungeon


7 posted 04-29-2003 01:35 PM       View Profile for WhiteRose   Email WhiteRose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for WhiteRose

morefiah,

I did in fact care, and have had discussions about, and questioned the atrocities that happen all over the world, everyday. I've never been one to have my head in the sand.

I'm just too much of a big mouth for that. I questioned the politicians that I could, those I came in contact with, and wrote letters that of course went unanswered.

I was not taken by surprise when 9/11 happened. Terrorists were getting closer and closer to american soil. The hatred for the United States by a great majority of the Middle East was no secret.

I'm not one who lobbied for this war on the premise that Saddam had WMD. So I can't answer for those people. I have always felt that terrorism has got to STOP! In every corner of the world, it must cease. But it wasn't until it came to America that most people even cared about the issue of terrorism. There have been people dying everyday in Israel and in the Middle East in general, for years now, due to terrorism. I say again, it literally has got to STOP!

When it blasted itself upon our soil, the higher ups just decided it was time to stand up and take notice and do something about it. It should have been done long before 9/11.

The fact is, we are a super power. We have the wherewithall to do something to stop the reign of terror, so we are. I don't really care if they ever find WMD in Iraq.

There is already proof they had them. There have already been statements made my those in custody what happened to them, (before the war, when the inspectors were walking around with blinders on) and so forth.

I only commented on your statement because it suggested collusion on the part of the coalition. I think that stinks. I've heard too many people make this statement with no more ado than they say "Good Morning".

I'm running low on pennies now, darn it. I'll have to break into the piggy bank if this keeps up.

By the way, I hold no ill feelings against you for your views. I just found the statement to be a bit preposterous. I speak my mind, you speak yours. That's as far as it goes with me.

[This message has been edited by WhiteRose (04-29-2003 01:35 PM).]

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


8 posted 04-29-2003 02:43 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

My dear? My sweet? Morefiah, that's some pretty polarizing dialogue... not that you'd, say, criticize the government for doing somerhting like that, right?

I agree with a lot of what you've said... but I have to make a couple of comments:

'(It was comical to see the way the US attempted to switch the focus from 'finding the WMDs' to one of Liberation when that was never the original focus. In fact, in all the months leading up to the war, Liberation was very rarely, if ever mentioned. I dare say it was not)'

This is an excellent, excellent point.

'while no one seems concerned about the blood that has been shed, the many lives that have been lost, the armless,legless children who will suffer for the rest of their lives because of THIS war.'

This is not. People care... and I think the vast majority of war supporters in the general public care. While I'm not going to rally behind the Liberation rhetoric (because as you pointed out, it wasn't our original intent of going in there) there's no denying that people were suffering under Saddam as well.

'A people have lost all the artifacts of their heritage and culture and insensitive remarks like "it happens" are made.'

Um, is it just me? I thought they looted the museums on their own accord.

Okay, I'm late for school, so that's it for now.
morefiah
Member
since 03-26-2003
Posts 156
Spanish Town, Jamaica


9 posted 04-29-2003 04:35 PM       View Profile for morefiah   Email morefiah   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for morefiah

Pssst!... Rose.... Guess what? I love to argue... love it... especially about things I feel strongly about. I will go to the ends of the earth for a view I hold dear but...
I very, very rarely take it personal. You have your views, I have mine. I respect your views even if I do disagree most vociferously. But if you are able to counter what I say with verifiable facts I will shut up and concede. So don't worry about me taking it personal. I won't unless you do get personal, and you have not. I do enjoy these exchanges.

[This message has been edited by morefiah (04-29-2003 04:37 PM).]

WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 07-23-2002
Posts 3310
somebody's dungeon


10 posted 04-29-2003 04:38 PM       View Profile for WhiteRose   Email WhiteRose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for WhiteRose

morefiah, you have no idea how much better that makes me feel. I also like a good debate, but have managed to put off quite a few in other forums with my very conservative viewpoint.

I'm glad you didn't take anything I said personal, for I did not mean for any of it to be.
JP
Senior Member
since 05-25-99
Posts 1391
Loomis, CA


11 posted 04-29-2003 06:53 PM       View Profile for JP   Email JP   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit JP's Home Page   View IP for JP

Maybe the country would have been better off if the President followed precedent and spent his time getting hummed in the oval office, while calling his buddies to sell time in the Lincoln bedroom and then just to make it seem he was doing his job he could have sent soldiers to Somolia or somewhere without a plan, without proper tools so they could get killed and dragged through the streets...

Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn.
Nil Desperandum, Fata viem invenient

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


12 posted 04-29-2003 09:41 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Ahhh, the, well, at least he's better than Clinton argument.

One can be appalled at the failure in Somalia and question the motivations of this administration without danger of contradiction, you know.

But here's the problem:

1. If you argue that we shouldn't question Bush because he knows more than we do, why did he lie?

2. If this was done for the sake of American safety and Bush was sincere (he really thought he was saying the truth), why wasn't he listening to intelligence reports as mentioned in Paul's article?

It's a choice between sincerity and competence.

I choose 2 and call it incompetence in the enacting of a noble goal.

Opeth,

It is a problem, isn't it? As much as I supported the war and was, well, numb to this particular argument, don't we have to, at some point, start matching what the stated goals, the not so hidden goals (the one's I support), and why people think we actually did this?

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


13 posted 04-29-2003 09:50 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Yeah... and maybe if G.W. was getting hummed in the Oval Office, he wouldn't be so trigger happy.

But I doubt it.

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


14 posted 04-29-2003 10:17 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

an op ed referring to an op ed based on unnamed sources.  Over the last several months, in a variety of locations I have read statements of prediction and fact in relation to both dire consequences and glorious outcomes that later would not appear to have occured or to be fact.  From my limited perspective, it appears to occur across the spectrum, on both sides of the fence.  The world is not black and white, but a very murky grey which hopefully at times will allow a bit of light to filter through. I am still waiting for the fat lady to sing.  The key question in my mind is whether Iraq is going to go the way of unity or division, freedom or return to a despotic dictatorship? We shall see.  

[This message has been edited by Tim (04-29-2003 10:22 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


15 posted 04-29-2003 10:40 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Tim,

A little surprised that you responded to this one as I thought we were in agreement that WMD's and immediate threats were not the reason for invading Iraq.

But oh well:

quote:
an op ed referring to an op ed based on unnamed sources.


And still another op ed referring to an op ed about an op ed.

quote:
Over the last several months, in a variety of locations I have read statements of prediction and fact in relation to both dire consequences and glorious outcomes that later would not appear to have occured or to be fact.


What does that have to do anything? So all statements are now to be taken as equal. Mohammed the entertainer is just as viable as Colin Powell? Do you really want to go there?

quote:
From my limited perspective, it appears to occur across the spectrum, on both sides of the fence.


So?

quote:
The world is not black and white, but a very murky grey which hopefully at times will allow a bit of light to filter through. I am still waiting for the fat lady to sing.


Which has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked but I would say there are a very complex amount of black and whites out there, it only looks grey if you don't want to make a decision.

Are you saying it is still possible that WMD's will be found? Hmmmm, I suppose it is, we'll just have to see.

quote:
The key question in my mind is whether Iraq is going to go the way of unity or division, freedom or return to a despotic dictatorship? We shall see.


Which has absolutely nothing to do with my question.

If Iraq was not an immediate threat, does that mean that Bush intentionally misled the American people or that he ignored his own intelligence reports?

I think it was the latter.
  
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


16 posted 04-29-2003 10:47 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

And further, according to the BBC, the search for WMD's is seriously undermanned?

Now, that actually damages my position and leans more toward Morefiah's.

I would just say that the administration is changing their tune though.
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


17 posted 04-29-2003 10:55 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

Just goes to show you can read into someone's statement whatever you wish.  
Your question is predicated on the fact the weapons don't exist. I indicated I do not know at this point.  I will wait and see.  You can't answer your question without making the determination you apparently have already made.  I try and base my decisions based upon what I perceive to be facts.  I do not have enough information at this time.  I already indicated my position on WMD in another thread, those positions haven't changed.  Whether the weapons exist or not, a significant portion of the world is not going to believe they do or did.  Since that position in my view is not going to change whatever the facts are, we need to look to the future. Does a more democratic form of government have a chance in the Middle East?  Lebanon would seem to indicate yes.  I have the belief that all humans, no matter what their race or nationality, if given the chance would prefer freedom over tyranny.  The Arabs have had not had the opportunity. I view the entire world, including the U.S., at fault for complicity in allowing the continued existence of the despotic regimes that exist across the board in the middle east.   So if you want me to answer your question, first, I don't fall in the class you directed the question towards, secondly, I don't think the question can be answered at this point, and thirdly, of what benefit is there discussing your question?
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


18 posted 04-30-2003 12:03 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
So if you want me to answer your question, first, I don't fall in the class you directed the question towards,


That's what I thought.

quote:
secondly, I don't think the question can be answered at this point,


Well, when would it be okay to bring up this question?

quote:
and thirdly, of what benefit is there discussing your question?


Curiosity mostly. I want to know what people think, those that supported the war because they saw Iraq as an immediate threat, if in fact there is no evidence for that.

Morefiah believes that they will be found even if they aren't there (or if believes is too strong at least postulates).

Opeth accepts that this would be a problem.

You say you can't make a decision yet.

My response to you is then to see the question as a conditional or a counter-factual.

If I have a hidden agenda here, it's not a very strong one except that we should be in some sense held accountable for our stated beliefs. We should say we're wrong when we're wrong, say we've changed our minds when we've changed our minds, and realize that what we said a month or two ago still should have some relevance to the conversation today.

I don't have a problem with people being wrong (I'm wrong all the time), I don't have a problem with people changing their mind (I do that all the time -- maybe too much), but I'm uncomfortable with a kind of ahistorical, Orwellian shift in argument that seems to take place at times.    
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


19 posted 04-30-2003 12:21 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hayworth042903.asp

Here's still another take on the point.

Hayworth's take is interesting and I'll try to comment on it later.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


20 posted 04-30-2003 01:08 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Don't have time for the op-eds right now Brad but, my bellwether wouldn't be Bush at all -- but rather Blair and Powell.

I'm not of the opinion that Blair would risk the wrath of his own party on willy-nilly intel...

This kind of Monday morning quarterbacking is quite predictable.

There will be a slow, steady, release of evidence of WMD's, Terrorist ties, Human Rights abuses, and whomever would believe will and those who wouldn't won't.

Is that a surprise?
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


21 posted 04-30-2003 08:37 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

without reading anyone else's comments,
here is my dollar's worth (inflation )

The WMD issue never mattered to this Administration, as they had already found a number of reasons to go after Saddam (legitimate or not).
The whole scenario was bogus (my opinion)
and in the long run, I think it will backfire on the USA. Of course, I could be wrong and be greatly misinterpreting the world circumstances. (Notice I did not say world opinions)
I still think its about resources, who controls them, and who gets to be King of the World and tell everyone else what to do.
And as for WMD's? who needs them?
The hands of one well-placed pissed off black belt karate expert can become a weapon of mass destruction given the right scenario.
  

[This message has been edited by Midnitesun (04-30-2003 08:39 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


22 posted 04-30-2003 09:38 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I think there are two points to consider...first, the news story broken by the Toronto newspaper about the confirmed relationship between Hussein and bin Laden and, second, the testimony of the captured deck of carders so far. Although no one has claimed that there are WMD's now existing in Iraq, some have conceded that there were and they were disposed of shortly before the coalition invasion which, of course, is an admission that WMD's did in fact exist at the time Bush was appealing to the UN for action.

   Personally I don't think any of this matters. If WMD's are not found, BUsh's actions will be damned. If they are found, many will say (a large majority fueled on by Muslim news agancies) that the US planted them there and Bush's actions will be damned. If one of Hussein's inner circle admits WMD's were being produced, many will say they are lies, or the speakers were tortured, or they were given fortunes in exchange for saying that...and Bush will be damned. It's going to be the same no matter how it turns out.

For those chanting "Where are the WMD's?" after barely more than a month of post-war searching, let's call it the way it is. You're not asking that for an answer but for a way to say you've never trusted Bush's intentions from the beginning and you will keep asking to drive that point home until something is found...and, even then, you may not accept it. That's ok. It's your choice.

Things have been a little busy over there and Iraq is not a small place. Not even the countries against the coalition action are demanding an answer to that question after such a short time. Why should you? If there is any fairness to your question then you will at least give some sort of reasonable time frame for WMD detection. If there is not, then you will continually keep reminding whoever will listen that nothing has been found.....
morefiah
Member
since 03-26-2003
Posts 156
Spanish Town, Jamaica


23 posted 05-01-2003 12:05 PM       View Profile for morefiah   Email morefiah   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for morefiah

Some of us do not have very complicated expectations. There is some consensus between both sides of the debate on certain things. Namely that:

1. Saddam is a homicidal maniac as he has demonstrated. And,

2. Iraq is better of without him.

What some of us have a problem with is that there have been too many inconsistencies coming out of the White House leading up to the war. It made accepting the too often changing reasons for the war hard to accept. We were bombarded with so many so-called reasons that somehow it all became blurred and confusing. This led to many (including me) concluding that there had to be some ulterior motive.

I would have supported action against Saddam in circumstance where there was majority consensus on it. The seemingly indecent haste in which the US went war continues to be very suspicious to me.

Now I have read in another thread about someone (can't recall who) who did not support an action but liked the outcome. The impression I got was that this person was viewed as being hypocritical. To this I say Rubbish!! No one likes being lied to. Many of us thought that we were being lied to about the reasons for war in Iraq. We therefore did not support the war (I really do not support wars in general, but they are at times, necessary evils) The fact that we did not support the war still does not preclude us welcoming the end of Saddam. We just do not like to be lied to. Which is why the questions are now being asked. Brad put it excellently when he spoke about admitting where there was wrong, or that mistakes were made. Where there is no admittance, questions will continue to be asked.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


24 posted 05-01-2003 01:32 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Morefiah,

Concluding that you were lied to is not the same as being lied to. I don't know what confusion you are referring to that leads you or anyone else to that conclusion, but I thought the justification for this war was the threat, on several different levels, that Saddam posed to the world, from the WMD's that he would not produce evidence of having destroyed, to evidence of his links to terrorists, to the torture and brutality of his own people, to the threat of same to surrounding countries, etc. The shame of it all is that the human rights violations, torture and murder alone were not a sufficient reason for action 12 + years ago.

I do believe that WMD's will be found, not that the finding of them will convince anyone who believes that they never existed in the first place. They'll just believe that the U.S. planted them there (which if that was their intent, they would have 'discovered' them by now, in my opinion). I think it speaks to the integrity of the U.S. that they haven't manufactured 'evidence'.

This is all becoming so tedious. It is quite clear to me that the 'anti' Bush/Administration/U.S. (fill in preferred category) folks are beyond convincing. So be it.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> WMD's and Immediate Threats   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors