Afghanistan.. clear objective and exit strategy?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So you really want me to believe that an incompetent and corrupted organization could eliminate all traces of an active WMD program and stockpiles of weapons while under US/UN scrutiny?

That simply defies reason.

Saddam's organization was not incompetent, nor were his scientists. They certainly weren't under UN/US scrutiny much of the time. What are the differences between the traces of an "active" or a recently become "inactive" WMD program? If no traces were found, that STRONGLY, suggests elimination of traces.

Read the Duelfer report. I believe they were payed a government paycheck and nothing more.

So we've established that Duelfer WAS paid. So, then, his whole report is tainted. Is his report the total of the "tons" that you've read? Were the other sources also paid? Were any of the sources BOOKS published for public PURCHASE? If so, then those, must also, by your disdain, be tarnished.

As for what's in this tainted Duelfer Report--the key findings summary states that Saddam"wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his WMD when sanctions were lifted." Further, the summary states "Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the regime . . ." by balancing "the need to cooperate with the UN inspections . . . gain support for lifting the sanctions . . . to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD." Further, Saddam saw that the Oil for Food Program "could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." The report further states that Saddam focused on three permanent members of the security council, France, Russia, and China, bribing Government officials and business executives with billions skimmed from Oil for Food. "AT A MINIMUM" the report says, "Saddam wanted to divide the 5 permanent members [of the security council] and foment international public support . . . by 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to . . . undermine international support for the sanctions." Before Duelfer succeded Kay as head of the ISG, Kay's team found evidence of "WMD-related program activities" but no actual weapons. They also found WMD programs BANNED by the UN and CONCEALED during the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections. David Kay said that "what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war." His team established that the Iraqi regime had the production capacity and know-how to produce WMDs if sanctions were lifted. Kay BELIEVED some of Saddams WMD program components had been moved to Syria before 2003. Duelfer later reported there was no EVIDENCE of this. A lot of evidence was interviews with various Iraqis--He evidently didn't interview General Saya.

As for evidence Sada is lying, you're just playing the old game argumentum ad ignorantiam!-spence

You don't have evidence that Saya is lying, you're only depending on so called LACK OF EVIDENCE to support the argument for no WMD, which turns your "argumentum ad ignorantiam" right--back--at--YOU!!

As for an interesting argument for WMD, google "Kenneth Timmerman Saddam's WMD have been found."

Sorry Buckman, we seem to have highjacked your thread by rehashing old WMD stuff. There is no PROOF in any of this, just EVIDENCE or lack thereof. Again, I apologize, we should be discussing Obama's clear exit strategy. I guess, since no one has opined what that strategy is, no one thinks he has one.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Saddam's organization was not incompetent, nor were his scientists. They certainly weren't under UN/US scrutiny much of the time. What are the differences between the traces of an "active" or a recently become "inactive" WMD program? If no traces were found, that STRONGLY, suggests elimination of traces.

No, it strongly suggests the threat was not as characterized and that sanctions appeared to be working. He didn't just shut things down, the WMD appear to have been destroyed a decade earlier.

Would you expect a tyrant like Saddam to stop everything cold turkey? Of course not, but this is a looooonnnngggg way from having a functional weapons programs, or more importantly, the vast stockpiles the Administration argued were there.

So we've established that Duelfer WAS paid. So, then, his whole report is tainted. Is his report the total of the "tons" that you've read? Were the other sources also paid? Were any of the sources BOOKS published for public PURCHASE? If so, then those, must also, by your disdain, be tarnished.

Weak...

As for what's in this tainted Duelfer Report--the key findings summary states that Saddam"wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his WMD when sanctions were lifted." Further, the summary states "Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the regime . . ." by balancing "the need to cooperate with the UN inspections . . . gain support for lifting the sanctions . . . to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD." Further, Saddam saw that the Oil for Food Program "could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." The report further states that Saddam focused on three permanent members of the security council, France, Russia, and China, bribing Government officials and business executives with billions skimmed from Oil for Food. "AT A MINIMUM" the report says, "Saddam wanted to divide the 5 permanent members [of the security council] and foment international public support . . . by 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to . . . undermine international support for the sanctions." Before Duelfer succeded Kay as head of the ISG, Kay's team found evidence of "WMD-related program activities" but no actual weapons. They also found WMD programs BANNED by the UN and CONCEALED during the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections. David Kay said that "what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war." His team established that the Iraqi regime had the production capacity and know-how to produce WMDs if sanctions were lifted. Kay BELIEVED some of Saddams WMD program components had been moved to Syria before 2003. Duelfer later reported there was no EVIDENCE of this. A lot of evidence was interviews with various Iraqis--He evidently didn't interview General Saya.

Kay was referring to WMD parts rather than stockpiles of weapons.

But all this "Saddam was a sneaky bad guy" stuff is really moot. At what point does it justify war? Remember the war? Remember the Saddam -> stockpiles of WMD -> Bin Laden connection that was the justification for a massive and urgent action?

The intent or ability to restart programs if sanctions are lifted doesn't provide the justification for urgency, in fact it blows a rather large hole in the Administrations argument.

Remember, the Blix team before the war was essentially turning up the exact same information.

You don't have evidence that Saya is lying, you're only depending on so called LACK OF EVIDENCE to support the argument for no WMD, which turns your "argumentum ad ignorantiam" right--back--at--YOU!!

If you read the Duelfer report it's clear the "evidence" indicated Saddam destroyed his WMD in 1991, the last biological weapons facility in 1996 and that his production capacity had eroded dramatically since then.

I guess, since no one has opined what that strategy is, no one thinks he has one.

You don't actually read my posts do you?

-spence

[Fly Rod]

Fuel to the fire.
Saddam did have WMD'S

Some like to over look the fact that Saddam ordered the killing of thousands of Kurds in the north. And how did he do this? In 1989 or there abouts take or give a year he ordered his air force to bomb a kurd village knowing that the kurds would go to their bomb shelters dug in the earth. He was correct and the air force dropped mustard and other nerve gases that lays on or finds its way into low ground levels. Over 60,000 Kurds mostly women and children were killed. Killing 60,000 people is mass destruction and he used bombs filled with these gases, therefore becomes weapons of mass destruction.

You will always have the dis-believers as you have people who believe that there was no holocaust.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Fuel to the fire.
Saddam did have WMD'S

Some like to over look the fact that Saddam ordered the killing of thousands of Kurds in the north. And how did he do this? In 1989 or there abouts take or give a year he ordered his air force to bomb a kurd village knowing that the kurds would go to their bomb shelters dug in the earth. He was correct and the air force dropped mustard and other nerve gases that lays on or finds its way into low ground levels. Over 60,000 Kurds mostly women and children were killed. Killing 60,000 people is mass destruction and he used bombs filled with these gases, therefore becomes weapons of mass destruction.

What fuel? Those events took place two years before the Gulf War. At the completion of which the WMDs were destroyed.

No one is arguing that Saddam possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction at one point in time, but that supposed concrete proof (with pictures) of WMD manufacturing facilities and pictures of the actual weapons was horribly incorrect and possibly fabricated.

You will always have the dis-believers as you have people who believe that there was no holocaust.

It's one thing to agree with substantial proof of Saddam not possessing any weapons. It's another for a quack job to turn a blind eye to the massacre of millions because he thinks everyone of a certain religion should be vaporized. Your relationship of the two situations is appalling.



As a note, the Wikipedia page on the Gulf War has a quote from #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney, United States Secretary of Defense during the conflict, at the end of the war in 1992 (my emphasis added):

I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.

Oh how the times have changed. If he had only taken his own advice, we wouldn't be in this mess, over 4,250 supremely honorable service members would still be alive, 30,000+ wouldn't be injured and the US wouldn't have spent almost $700billion dollars.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

No, it strongly suggests the threat was not as characterized and that sanctions appeared to be working. He didn't just shut things down, the WMD appear to have been destroyed a decade earlier.

"suggests . . .appeared . . . appear"--As I apologized to Buckman, we have hijacked his thread with an old rehash consisting of no proofs, but suggestions, appearances, agendas.

Weak...

Exactly as weak as your disregard of Saya's book.

Kay was referring to WMD parts rather than stockpiles of weapons.


So?

But all this "Saddam was a sneaky bad guy" stuff is really moot. At what point does it justify war? Remember the war? Remember the Saddam -> stockpiles of WMD -> Bin Laden connection that was the justification for a massive and urgent action?
The intent or ability to restart programs if sanctions are lifted Doesn't provide the justification for urgency, in fact it blows a rather large hole in the administrations argument.

Among other "justifications" for war:
Failure to cooperate with arms inspecters
Threat to our security
Had pursued and used WMD
Sponsored terrorists
Ordered his military to shoot at Brit & US pilots patrolling no-fly zone
Had invaded his neighbors
Declared the US an enemy
Refused to comply with more than a dozen UN resolutions including demands that he respect the rights of the Iraqi people, disclose his weapons, abide by cease fire.
The action was not urgent, it took 14 months to start the war. In that time as the Duelfer report states, Saddam was working, EFFECTIVELY, to create an international environment to lift the sanctions. If he had been allowed to succeed, then he would produce the WMDs, and the war would have to take place later with a stronger Saddam with weapons to do immensely worse damage than our troops and Iraquis suffered. Waiting to take Saddam out could only WORSEN the final outcome. Some have argued that we should have gone in SOONER, even immediately, rather than wait the 14 months "diplomacy", which, as it was occurring, some were exactly saying that the diplomatic gap WAS GIVING SADDAM TIME TO HIDE OR REMOVE HIS WMDs. As for evidence that there are traces of an existing program, google the Kenneth Timmerman reference that I mentioned above. And, of course, there is the Saya book.



You don't actually read my posts do you?
-spence

Your posts stated that Obama has pretty much continued Bushes flawed policy then depends on NATO for 10 years. Is that a clear objective and an exit strategy?

[detbuch]

As this thread is winding down, I would like to more clearly reply to JohnnyD and Spence re: "modern day imperialsm" and "somewhat imperialistic" describing our invasion of Iraq.

Classical empires, though brutal (what wasn't in their time), hastened the uniting of people and created good as well as ill. The 400 years of Pax Romana was beneficial. The British Empire brought progress and union, and the U.S. is a direct result. In the 1960s the radical left saw opportunity to influence the counter-cultural revolution and anti-Vietnam war sentiments in its direction. Its only real power to influence a generation of youth was through words, especially by the politicization of words. One of the most influential words was IMPERIALIST. The nasty trick of slick, politicized language is to slide a word away from its original meaning and use it to describe a loosely similar entity--sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. The dictionary definition of imperialism (the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other natioins) didn't quite fit but was close enough, so America was described by the hard left as an imperialist, capitalist running dog pig. This also had the effect of erasing any positive connotation. Imperialism was now thoroughly bad. The radical view could not survive but politicized words did. And imperialism evolved into the many modern day imperialisms--economic imperialism, cultural imperialism, military imperialism, religious imperialism, political imperialism, ACTUAL imperialism, or, now any new imperialisms we wish to create. How about new ones like, say, family imperialism, relational imperialism, baseball imperialism, gender imperialism, sexual imperialism, racial imperialism, insurance imperialism, and on and on. Obviously, this destroys any connectioin to the original definitions of imperialism except for a shadowy similarity. The word, essentialy, loses any intrinsic meaning, This is similar to what George Orwell says in his essay "Politics and the English Language" about the word "fascism" no longer having any meaning other than signifying "something not desirable."

Certainly, it is good to criticize us when we do bad. But can we think of a better word than imperialism or imperialistic? We are not an empire. We don't have an emperor. We haven't territorially acquired Iraq nor established economic or political hegemony over it. Saying that our action in Iraq is modern day imperialism is using a politicized word that has lost all meaning and retained only some vague inflamatory connotation. It sounds authoritative to say that invading Iraq is modern day imperialism, but what does that mean? It is convenient to use the phrase because it excuses you from saying what that "something not desirable" actually is. And when one cannot find words to describe a supposed concept, that often implies that the concept does not actually exist--at least not in some well thought-out thesis. Unmuddle your thinking, then you can give us the hell we deserve. And saying that the invasion was "somewhat" imperialistic is not only hedging on whether it was or not, but it is qualifying a meaningless dead metaphor. What really does "somewhat imperialistic" mean? The hard left, on the other hand, is happy to throw a politicized metaphor that means "something not desirable" at America to influence the uninformed masses who are easily persuaded by the sound of words regardless of their lack of substance. For those with some historical insight, however, such phrases are an insult to our intellilgence.