samboct
Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline
|
OK, Lucky Dog, here's what I came up with off the top of my pointy head.
1) GWB claimed that there were WMD in Iraq that posed a grave threat to the safety of the USA.
2) We invaded a sovereign nation as a preemptive strike under the pronouncement that our security was at stake.
3) No WMD were found.
What kind of sloppy nonsense thinking are you talking about? Here is some of the text from your link- excerpted:
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
This isn't saying that Iraq has WMD- which was my liberal logic's first point? 1) GWB claimed that there were WMD in Iraq that posed a grave threat to the safety of the USA.
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
And their eventual return-or was Hans Blix someplace else? Also- it’s very hard to find something that isn’t there.
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);
Gee- economic sanctions anyone?
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
In fact- Iraq’s nuclear weapons research ended with the Israeli raid on Osirak in 1981. No domestically produced (in Iraq) chemical weapons were ever used and its unlikely that they ever existed- Iraq didn’t have this capability (see below). No one has made successful biological weapons other than the infected cows used in the Middle Ages, and the sale of blankets used by smallpox victims to American Indians.
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
No- they used chemical weapons- which were developed and supplied by American and UK chemical firms such as Dow, DuPont, and ICI. Also US supplied munitions.
As an aside- as a chemist, I find the characterization of chemical weapons as WMD to be wildly inaccurate and inflammatory. On a per gram basis, chemical weapons proved to have similar lethality as conventional munitions when used in WWI. WWII wargases such as Sarin did not have dramatically improved lethality. The only demonstrated WMD are the nuclear weapons which were exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where on a per gram basis, these weapons packed approximately 10E3 more lethality than conventional munitions.
In terms of bioweapons- this requires Biosafety Level 4 containment- or your own people get wiped out. Contrary to the BS running around the Pentagon masquerading as intelligence-it is NOT possible to do this in a semi-trailer. If a company claimed that they manufactured it and that it worked- well, let me show you a bridge in Brooklyn.
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
What- a bunch of towelheads armed with box cutters constitutes WMD?
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
If Iraq had nuclear weapons, that would justify the above statement. Without nuclear weapons-it’s BS as noted by the reasons above. Isn't this my point? 2) We invaded a sovereign nation as a preemptive strike under the pronouncement that our security was at stake.
So, I’m still not sure why you think that I didn’t accurately summarize these statements above- yes- it was a lot shorter, but “sloppy thinking”? What- WMD were found? I’ve already responded to some of the other points in this document. So I'm really confused as to where the sloppy thinking comes in.
Lest you think I’m just pointing this out after the fact- on another board I offered a $100 bet to anyone that Saddam DIDN’T have WMD- other than the chemical weapons which had been provided by the US and the UK- prior to the invasion. I was confident in this wager because my industry contacts confirmed that Iraq didn’t have the capability. Producing large volumes of chemical weapons requires a chemical plant of reasonable size- rather hard to hide. Note also that Saddam had no delivery mechanism of chemical weapons to the US should he try and employ them. (or bioweapons either.)
So let’s summarize shall we?
GWB has done the following:
1) Made a series of claims concerning WMD which haven’t been factual.
2) Invaded a sovereign country.
3) Is responsible for the deaths of thousands.
4) Ran up a crippling national debt.
5) Has no real plan for disengagement from Iraq- a problem his Daddy also faced.
6) Has tortured people, falsely imprisoned US citizens and foreign nationals, and has murdered people.
7) Has subverted the Constitution with the Patriot Act -oh, spare me the legalistic mumbo jumbo that it’s Congress. I know that it’s Congress’s responsibility as well to provide a check on this guy, and they’ve failed miserably. That doesn’t make GWBs actions correct, any more so than your claims that Clinton originally came up with some of the ideas about WMD in Iraq. There is a world of difference between thinking that Iraq has WMD and keeping an eye peeled, and then invading the country on a false pretext- to whit 9/11.
We won’t get into the disaster of his domestic policies- or how his caving in to the religious right on stem cell research has needlessly prolonged the suffering of thousands and moved the US into a second rate country in this field.
GWB gets hated by most (despised by me) on the basis of his actions to subvert the Constitution and remove our personal freedoms. This is beyond the pale of presidential actions- and why hatred is not unreasonable. Freedom is not to be surrendered lightly and deserves a passionate response.
Even if you think GWB has just made a bunch of mistakes- doesn’t it alarm you that we’re sacrificing important freedoms to defend against a bunch of people who can’t mount a serious military threat? You want to start the healing process and resume polite debate? Then a good first step would be to join in calling for a repeal of the Patriot Act, a halt to domestic spying, and restoration of habeus corpus. Oh yeah- suing the telco companies for caving in to unreasonable gov’t demands wouldn’t be a bad idea either. Only until constitutional freedoms are restored can reasonable debate resume.
Sam
< Message edited by samboct -- 11/18/2007 6:40:20 PM >
|
RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread