NO! Chemical weapons in Iraq???

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

You're equating the method by which Iraq could have avoided the war with the argument by which Bush pressed for it.

The argument was not that we needed unfettered access so that we could find out whether Iraq had them and was developing them but that we needed unfettered access so that we could find what he had and was developing and destroy them.

I can see your logic, but still disagree. Bush did present arguments that said he was in possession and was trying to get more. However, he also said (indirectly through the resolutions sought and passed in the UN) that should Saddam allow for the inspections, there will be no war. So rather than equating, I am linking as inseparable.

Condition of cease fire
+ lack of compliance
+ wide spread intelligence claiming WMDs
- Saddam allowing inspection access
= war.

Whether full inspections allowed by Saddam would have led to cries that he was just hiding them effectively....what ifs can go any and every direction. I could say "What if we went into Iraq prior to the last UN resolutions and delays and had found Russian, French, and Chinese equipment?". Lots of scenarios to theorize about.

Edited to add - I do like your speech.

[Alex]

We'll have to disagree. I see what you're saying as fundamentally flawed but if the posts I've already made haven't made my view clear then I don't have it in me.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Whether full inspections allowed by Saddam would have led to cries that he was just hiding them effectively....what ifs can go any and every direction.

That isn't a what if, that is a reality.

Shortly following the beginning of the war a program of unrestricted inspection began. Nothing was found. The general response from certain circles was "well he hid them pretty good then."

It isn't a hypothetical.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

That isn't a what if, that is a reality.

I can accept that. However, it does appear that some pretty good hiding had been going on if they are still uncovering the old ones.

Disagreement is fine. I don't see your argument as "fundamentally flawed", just incomplete in that you don't allow for the fact that an out was given that would have allowed Saddam to disprove the arguments being presented.

My summary of the road to war:
"I think A. You say B. I will continue to think and act on A until you allow me to pursue the path that will prove B."

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

"In a climate where we are actively at war with a certain strain of Islamic fundamentalism the prevarications of Saddam Hussein can not be left sitting on our flank.

Would have been worth it just to hear Bush say "pervarications".

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

My summary of the road to war:
"I think A. You say B. I will continue to think and act on A until you allow me to pursue the path that will prove B."

Ah crap. I've never been good at stopping when I say I'll stop.

The summary you provide there is approximately my road to war. The summary that would be Bush's road to war is:

"I know A. You say B. I will continue to act on A until you allow us to dismantle A."

A turned out to be wrong. In your summary (that is closer to my justification than Bush's) it isn't so important whether A is actually true or not. In the Bush version is is extremely important.

You view the U.N. resolutions as a trigger. I view them as a convenient excuse for doing what they were going to do anyway (and Bush has said as much, that while the support of the U.N. was important it wasn't necessary).

[innerSpaceman]

Just why is it so important to have a war against international terrorism anyway? Is it really so dangerous? Al Queda has inflicted exactly one successful attack on U.S. soil, killing around 3,000 people.

To date, around 2,500 American soldiers have died, and approximately 80,000 Iraqi civilians, in the war that became "necessary" from the 3,000 deaths. This is to say nothing of deaths in Afghanistan. And yet, international terrorist casualties in America remain at that same 3,000.

If the U.S. is being successful at preventing further terrorist attacks in America, I congratulate it ... but none of it is being done through warfare.

Why war?

Luckily, I won't be around to read more of scaeagles very loose rationale for bloody, murderous war. I was beginning to like the guy, he's very nice in person ... but it kills me to read how cavalier he is with other peoples' lives and misery.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

You view the U.N. resolutions as a trigger. I view them as a convenient excuse for doing what they were going to do anyway (and Bush has said as much, that while the support of the U.N. was important it wasn't necessary).

It was the trigger. One that Saddam pulled. No one forced him to do so. So I cannot see it as an excuse, because Saddam held the power and no one else.

Another modification then -
"Most of the world knows A. You are pretty much the only one saying B. Show us B is not true and we will not be forced to dismantle and dispose of B."

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Just why is it so important to have a war against international terrorism anyway? Is it really so dangerous? Al Queda has inflicted exactly one successful attack on U.S. soil, killing around 3,000 people.

Luckily, I won't be around to read more of scaeagles very loose rationale for bloody, murderous war. I was beginning to like the guy, he's very nice in person ... but it kills me to read how cavalier he is with other peoples' lives and misery.

Why was it so important to have a war on Japan? Were they really so dangerous? The attack on Pearl Harbor killed just over 2700 people.

To answer my own question, it was because they had designs on much more than Pearl Harbor. Radical islamic terrorists have their agenda as well.

If disagreement or my "cavalier attitude" causes you not to like me, so be it. I will not lose sleep. I do fail to see anything suggesting I am cavalier. All I am suggesting is that Saddam was the one who chose war and no one else.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

All I am suggesting is that Saddam was the one who chose war and no one else.

So Bush didn't choose to ignore the prewar intelligence that indicated that Iraq's chemical and nuclear capabilities were moving backwards? He didn't choose to set an agenda from the beginning of his presidency to find a justification for war? Powell didn't choose to ignore his own missgivings and present spun intelligence to the UN? Rice didn't choose to identify a photograph of empty tubes as parts for nuclear missiles when in fact the intelligence report she had said that they could be used for nuclear missiles in a pinch, but weren't designed for it? Wow, Sadaam had more power than I thought if he made all those people do that.