NO! Chemical weapons in Iraq???

[FEJ]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

.. Mabe we should have one big thread where people can post their generalities about posting habits and content.

Isn't that called "The Parking Lot?"

[FEJ]

Have they found these yet?

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by ubergeek42

Have they found these yet?

No, but they know where they are.

Spoiler:

They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

[Alex]

Quite simply these weapons in this condition do not support Bush's case for going to war. The case he made was based on Iraq actually being an imminent threat for being in possession of usable WMDs and in active development of more effective WMDs.

My case for the war didn't really care whether he had them or was persuing them but rathre that we simply couldn't take the chance that he had them or was persuing them. Turns out he didn't (though he may have believed he did) really have either. So long as Iraq was stonewalling efforts to definitively establish their capacity, they posed an unacceptable threat. Even though the threat, in hindsight, was pretty close to nil, I still think the war was justified on my grounds but unjustified on Bush's grounds.

As I said above, if these finds strongly supported Bush's case for the war do you really think it would have taken this long for word to get out and
that Rick Santorum would have been the mouthpiece of choice?

I'd still like to hear more about the insurgents apparently using mustard and sarin gas as that would be a major story.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

My case for the war didn't really care whether he had them or was persuing them but rathre that we simply couldn't take the chance that he had them or was persuing them. Turns out he didn't (though he may have believed he did) really have either. So long as Iraq was stonewalling efforts to definitively establish their capacity, they posed an unacceptable threat. Even though the threat, in hindsight, was pretty close to nil, I still think the war was justified on my grounds but unjustified on Bush's grounds.

This was the final straw in Bush's arguments. What were the 17 UN resolutions about, including the final one immediately prior to the invasion? It was ALL about the fact that Saddam would not allow verification.

Yes, Bush (and many other intelligence services throughout the world) thought he had a much larger capacity. But the fact is that the invasion happened because Saddam would not comply with inspection requirements from the first cease fire, supported by numerous UN resolutions.

To say war was unjusitifed on Bush's grounds and then to recite the very reason the invasion happened seems strange.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

This was the final straw in Bush's arguments.

If you need more than one straw to justify going to war, you shouldn't be going to war.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

To say war was unjusitifed on Bush's grounds and then to recite the very reason the invasion happened seems strange.

That's not true. All of those other reasons that could have been used to justify restarting the war existed for 13 years. The reason given for why it had to be done now was that he possessed the weapons and was actively developing new weapons that we could not allow to get into the hands of terrorist organizations that wouldn't hesitate to use them.

The reasons from which Bush hung his assertion that war in 2003 was necessary were unfounded. Now, I believe that the case they'd have liked to make is very similar to the reasons I believe the war needed to be prosecuted (and would have been legally justifiable prior to 9/11 and became more imperative after) but that they chose not to present that justification because they didn't think it would sell enough of the population. So, they chose instead to present an imminent threat that turned out not to exist rather than the unacceptable risk that did. I have no doubt that they believed their case to be strong and valid but they were still wrong.

It is only after they failed to find the massive WMD caches they expected that the administration began to present alternate justifications and that was rightly perceived as desparation on their part, even if some of the altnerate justifications are actually pretty valid reasons.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

That's not true.

But it is. Regardless of the intelligence, believed or not, correct or not, the invasion itself came down to the final UN resolutions with Saddam refusing to allow inspections to verify or debunk the intelligence. All he had to do was agree and there was no invasion. It's that simple.

[SacTown Chronic]

Oh, you're talking loophole, Leo. Yes, the UN sanction violations gave Bush the loophole he needed to justify invading Iraq. And fvck the irony of Bush hiding behind an international body he doesn't even believe in in order to wage his war...it's not funny.

You don't actually mean that Bush's for true reasons for invading Iraq begins and ends at violated sanctions, right?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Oh, you're talking loophole, Leo.

I've never considered giving Saddam repeated chances to comply and his refusal to be a loophole.