Liberals have lost the Iraq argument, so please stop whining...

by dolphman 104 Replies latest social current

  • Simon

    Yes, they have failed to protect the important things like the hospitals (a breach of the Geneva convention as it is their duty) but the oil wells are very well cared for.

    I want to know how Saddam could be described as a threat to the world if they did not use WoMD even when they were being invaded?

    Also, we heard a lot about the proof that the USA and UK claimed they had of WoMD and satellite photos of bakeries chemical factories and such. Surely, finding them is just a case of driving up there? Maybe I'm being too naive?

  • Realist


    good points!

    by the way...has anyone seen WAG THE DOG? its running on TV right now and several aspects fit so well to the current situation.

  • William Penwell
    William Penwell

    I understand the US wants to send in their own WMD inspectors, which will be a big mistake because any findings will be suspect. They have to work with independent inspectors to have any credibility at all.


  • William Penwell
    William Penwell


    I think it was a very poor move on the US military part putting all their efforts into guarding the oil wells. I mean at least make it look like you actually care for the welfare of the Iraqi people for a few months. The truth always comes out in the end


  • dubla


    I want to know how Saddam could be described as a threat to the world if they did not use WoMD even when they were being invaded?

    its quite possible that we eliminated most of their capabilities to use these weapons early on in the war.....if saddam indeed had a "red line" drawn in the sand, where wmd were to be used once we crossed it...its highly probable that the leadership had been dismantled before we ever reached that point, not to mention the ground forces that would fire these weapons were mostly wiped out by that time. consider this possibility also: saddam could have been delusional enough to believe that he could drag this war out for a long period of time, getting bloodier by the day, with civilian casualties piling up, thus increasing world opinion and protests against the war, and forcing some sort of cease fire. in this highly unlikely (but possibly believable if youre a madman, or just a really poor military general) scenario, saddam wouldnt have wanted to use ANY wmd, as he could then maintain world support for his stance after the war, and also maintain the world opinion that the coalition actions in iraq were completely unjustified.

    Also, we heard a lot about the proof that the USA and UK claimed they had of WoMD and satellite photos of bakeries chemical factories and such. Surely, finding them is just a case of driving up there? Maybe I'm being too naive?

    youre not being naive in thinking that it is a simple case of searching the suspected sites....but you might be naive in thinking this could or should have been done by now. weve got quite a lot to do over there, which now includes policing the cities (which you and others have pointed out should be a priority....btw, we have police forces in route to iraq), and of course maintaining control over the cities, airports, roads, bridges, etc, that we have captured, not to mention keeping up the supply lines, and staying on top of humanitarian aid.....and then we have to look for wmd on top of all that, and its only been 3 weeks! the 125,000 troops in iraq are too few to accoplish all of this as quickly as some would like......i find it completely absurd that anyone makes the implication that these weapons should have been unearthed by now. so, can we just "drive up there" and search them? you know how many sites we have to "drive up" to? here you go (bold/italic mine).......

    As combat winds down in Iraq, the hunt for chemical and biological weapons or nuclear materials is rising on the priority list for American troops. There are more potential nuclear, biological or chemical weapons sites in Iraq than U.S. military teams to check them, Pentagon officials said Sunday.

    U.S. forces have a list of 2,000 to 3,000 sites in Iraq that need to be checked, and weapons teams are checking up to 20 sites a day, said the war's commander, Gen. Tommy Franks. Iraqis ranging from common citizens to high-ranking officials have suggested other possible hiding places to be searched, Franks and other military officials said.,2933,84097,00.html

    now, we are searching constantly, and new finds are being reported almost daily...but nothing is set in stone until extensive and conclusive tests are run by u.s. experts, as well as outside experts. i think the "smoking gun" will be confirmed soon, but its going to be some time before all the wmd are discovered.


  • Realist


    do you agree that hussein obviously didn'T pose a military threat to anyone?

    also you did quite a bit of speculation in your last post as to why hussein didn't use his WMD. how about the obvious...he didn'T have any? you consider FOX news a neutral source of information?

    PS: just wanted to add this article about the search for WMD...its from today's NYtimes

    U.S. May Have to Allow Others to Inspect Iraqi Arms


    The Bush administration may be legally bound to let independent inspectors confirm any findings of unconventional weapons in Iraq, administration and independent arms experts said. But they added that the White House, which has resisted help from the United Nations in the search for weapons, may decide to ignore such legalities.


    The administration is debating its obligations under arms control treaties that govern chemical, biological and nuclear arms, an official involved in the discussions said in an interview.

    "If we gain control, then theoretically they're ours," the official said of Iraqi unconventional arms. "Someone could argue that because we now own them, we have to meet all the requirements" of the weapon treaties, which predate recent United Nations inspections of Iraq.

    The official added that the Pentagon, which has responsibility for any discovered Iraqi arms, wants no outside help. "But people are thinking about that," he added. "Although the current guidance is not to plan to operate with an international organization, that doesn't mean that won't change."

    Last week, when asked about possible doubts about chemical finds, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said measures had been put in place to diminish the chance that someone might tamper with battlefield evidence or exploit a murky situation to charge fraud, incompetence or self-deception. "We've got people who have been alerted to the importance of chain of custody," Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters.

    A White House official said the White House would have no public comment on the debate over independent inspectors.

    Outside the government, weapon experts have argued for the United States to let international inspectors help identify and destroy any discovered unconventional weapons in Iraq. They say that independent confirmation would help convince skeptics that the war was just.

    Washington cited the need to disarm Iraq as the main reason for the invasion. Yet, so far, no unambiguous evidence has come to light demonstrating that Iraq possessed such prohibited weapons.

    "Bush's credibility is hanging in the balance," said Dr. Elisa D. Harris, a Clinton administration arms control official now at the University of Maryland.

    For weeks, advancing troops have reported signs of chemical arms: gas masks, protective suits, nerve gas antidotes, training manuals, barrels of suspicious chemicals and a cache of mysterious shells. While the military has undertaken many tests and inspections, none of the chemicals have been proven to be warfare agents, rather than pesticides or other legitimate chemicals they can closely resemble.

    Administration and private experts said one treaty that may require letting independent weapon inspectors into Iraq is the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, which 150 nations, including the United States, have signed.

    The treaty bars the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical arms. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague and known as the O.P.C.W., polices the treaty around the globe and in the United States, which is slowly destroying its old stockpiles of chemical arms.

    Though Iraq did not sign the treaty, several leading experts said the United States, by taking possession of Iraqi chemical arms, would fall under its provisions even though the treaty makes no explicit reference to the responsibilities of a victor in war.

    "The spirit of the treaty is that the destruction of chemical weapons globally is up to the O.P.C.W. to verify," said Barry Kellman, director of the International Weapons Control Center at DePaul University in Chicago and co-author of a book on how states can meet treaty duties. "If we find chemical weapons, the O.P.C.W. should supervise their destruction."

    Mary E. Hoinkes, general counsel of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during the Clinton administration, said the crucial issue was who determines the fate of captured chemical weapons. "If we're talking about destroying them after hostilities are over, collecting them and destroying them, that's when the obligations kick in," she said.

    Experts said the reverse might also be argued. Under international law, some noted, obligations usually run to states rather than particular governments or controlling forces. The nuclear issue is clearer, legal experts agreed. That is because Iraq signed the 1968 Nonproliferation Treaty, which aims to bar the spread of nuclear weapons. The treaty's enforcement arm, the International Atomic Energy Agency, based in Vienna and known as the I.A.E.A., has teams of inspectors that regularly checked Iraq's nuclear facilities before the war.

    Thomas Graham Jr., general counsel of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during the Carter, Reagan and first Bush administrations, said there was no question that the United States had to let in I.A.E.A. inspectors. "If we didn't," he said, "we'd be accessory to a violation."

    Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the I.A.E.A., has publicly called for the Bush administration to let his inspectors into Iraq when the fighting stops. Late last week, an agency spokesman in Vienna said it had so far received no reply.

  • teenyuck
    teenyuck you consider FOX news a neutral source of information?

    Yes. They would not be beating the pants off the competion if they were too far in either direction.

    FOX is the first station that is not totally left wing. Listening to Peter Jennings is like listening to Al Gore; without the charm and good looks-

    Between all the news stations, newspapers, news magazines and editorials anyone can twist the news anyway they desire.

    However, why is it OK to imply that someone who watches FOX is a right-wing, head-in-the- sand, Bush loving idiot?

  • dubla


    do you agree that hussein obviously didn'T pose a military threat to anyone?

    afa the capabilities of his regular armed forces in general (not counting any wmd), yes id agree that he doesnt scare anyone.

    also you did quite a bit of speculation in your last post as to why hussein didn't use his WMD. how about the obvious...he didn'T have any?

    i speculated because simons comment begged for speculation. he was basically asking, if saddam didnt use wmd while being invaded, when would he possibly use them? i speculated as to why he might not have used them while being invaded. of course if he "didnt have any" he couldnt use them, and many believe this is a possibility....i am not one of them, as you know. you consider FOX news a neutral source of information?

    it was an a.p. story, and i have no problem with statistics given by the ap on how many sites have to be checked for you? to answer your question, i think fox is definitely slanted to the right, as i have stated many times.....i try to refrain from using fox as a source on anything that could be construed as controversial, as i know the accusations of propaganda will follow almost immediately after a fox story is posted. as a matter of fact, ive used fox twice (i think) since the war began, and both times ive been called to the mat on it.


  • wednesday

    I watch FOX and find them to have very good reporting . And they are what most people are watching. I gave up on CNN, they focus only on negative things and are anti-american. The polls show 70% of american back the war and i i think most are watching FOX. i also watch MSNBC , but i rarely co to CNN. They are very bias against america.Their rating are through the roof, so we are watching them. there is only a 20% of americans who are still oposing the war and no one likes them. They deserve all the bad press they can get- want to talk about freedom-here it is in action-the american people give CNN the boot.

  • Realist


    maybe you are too close to the picture to see the overall image. murdoch is very close to bush and FOX is the propaganda channel #1 for the current admin. just make a google search for bush murdoch and will get plenty of info.

    Rupert Murdoch was very specific about his picks for his Fox News team, and it shows in their credentials. His choice of network president was Roger Ailes, a veteran of CNBC and MSNBC, who spent his earlier career as advisor to Presidents Nixon, Reagan and the senior President Bush. The network’s high-profile anchors, Brit Hume, Catherine Crier and Neil Cavuto were well-known conservatives at the major news networks. Crier, in fact, began her career as a Republican judge in Texas, a job description that impossibly inspires less faith in "fairness" than "Fox News Anchor."

    The network’s clear star, Bill O’Reilly, is an arch-conservative who made his career on the sleazy tabloid show Inside Edition. Murdoch also found room for Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol, the gruesome twosome of McLaughlin Group-ers who hail from Murdoch’s own conservative journal, The Weekly Standard. Other hires include Tony Snow, a syndicated columnist and former chief speechwriter for Bush the elder; syndicated columnist Monica Crowley, a former assistant to President Nixon; Newsday columnist Jim Pinkerton, a former staffer for Presidents Reagan and Bush; John Podhoretz, editorial page editor of the New York Post and a former Reagan speechwriter. Notice a pattern? And, oh yes, the network hired Bush cousin John Ellis as an election analyst and "number cruncher," who spent much of election night on the phone with his cousins, the governors of Texas and Florida, and was responsible for Fox News Channel’s being the first to declare George W. Bush winner of Florida’s electoral votes.

    One of these Moguls is Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corp, a huge Multi-Media Network which includes TV Guide, the New York Post, the Weekly Standard and the Fox Network. Roger Ailes, the Fox Network CEO under Murdoch, was VP George Bush's 1988 campaign media consultant.


    hmmmmmmmmm you made some scary statements!

    The polls show 70% of american back the war and i i think most are watching FOX. i also watch MSNBC , but i rarely co to CNN.

    don't you think it might be possible that 70% are pro war BECAUSE of most reports supporting (justly or unjustly) Bush's line? you put yourself in a dangerous circle of ignorance with your stand on the issue.

Share this