Preemption...

[Cruentus]

I copied a post that I had in another forum for your reading pleasure:

http://www.uechi-ryu.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12027&sid=783a0fea4e427dde72f1218f83000297

Cool. I'm glad you'll defend that, as will I, so we are on the same side of the table in that regards. Yes, I see the problems in a socialist society; and that problem is that the rights of the individual are taken away. This is also the problem in a communist society.

The problem that America is facing right now is that we have created a fascist republic under the guise of patriotism, capitalism, and a free-market society. A definition of fascism is, "When business interest and government interest merge to control the populous through propaganda and force." (American heritage dictionary). A definition of republic is, "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." (marriam-webster dictionary). The republic part is a good thing, but obviously the fascism part is not. If your interested in learning about how the lobbying process and the campaign financing process works, then you'll learn how business interests and government interests are able to be one in the same at times. If you’re interested in learning about things like how PR groups operate and how things like "packaged news stories" get to the public, then you'll learn about how corporate/government propaganda works. I could list more and more things. Yet, if electronic voting machines become more prevalent, then we may not even be a republic any more; as we will have essentially lost our right to vote.

The loss of individualism is just as prevalent in our country as a socialist government system. Certain concepts that make capitalism a good idea has eroded over the years; namely the concept of free and fair competition in business. Our civil liberties erode away more and more with each election, as more and more gun control laws, laws against victimless crimes, and laws against basic human rights are passed, such as our recent patriot act.

Our founding fathers of the U.S. designed our system to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals. Our current system does not protect these rights. Neither would a socialist or communist system. So...solution? The only solution is to create something unique that concerned for individual rights, a social conscience, and an economically free environment.

Now, in regards to foreign policy, the way our current administration has handled the terrorist situation is abhor able, in my opinion. They have set a dangerous precedence of preemption based on 4 basic premises. This administration has essentially set the precedence that we can go in, attack, and essentially take over a country based on any one of these 4: #1. They are "harboring terrorists" #2. They have weapons of Mass destruction (nuclear, biological, or chemical) #3. They violate human rights #4. They aren't a democracy.

The problem with this as the standard for preemption is that you can't name one country that doesn't do one of those 4 things. Let's look at us (the U.S.) for example. It could be argued that we harbor terrorists (look at the McVeigh's or the world), it could be argued that we violate human rights (look at the prison scandal, as well as the search and seizure process under the patriot act), we have WMDs (nukes and god-knows what else), and a majority did not elect our president. Now...we may have justifications for all of this, but none of this matter. If another country was ballzy enough, they could pre-emptively attack us on the same premises that we used to attack Iraq. And...you could say, "wait, we DO have a democratic process!" before they attack us, just like Iraq said, "wait...we don't have WMD's!"

So, you see, in regards to foreign policy, our standard for preemption is far too broad. So, what does this allow? It allows us to go into any country on the premise of one of those 4 things; but because of our capitalistic structure, we will only go into those countries that will benefit our U.S. companies and government financially (it is more beneficial to attack Iraq for their oil, then Korea, for example). So, essentially, this precedence that our administration has created allows us to attack anyone we want preemptively on the basis of 4 things, when the true motive is profitability. This is very dangerous, as under this precedence, we become the terrorists, not them.

Now, don't get me wrong, Saddam was a horrible dictator and I am glad he is out. Bin Laden is an evil person and I hope he is captured (as I predict he will right before November). However, we could have done this without setting dangerous standards of preemption, just as we could protect our soil from terrorism without civil-rights intrusive laws like the patriot act, and just like we can prevent and catch murders without overbearing gun control and weapon control laws. You see, the ends rarely justify the means when you are dealing with politics and policy.

Sorry for the ramble. I hope you didn't find my above comments or my original post intrusive or accusatory. Again, that is not my intent. I just thought I'd offer a different point of view. My main point in my original post was to say that just because someone may not be in agreement with you, or just because you don't understand someone’s viewpoint, that doesn't mean that they are wrong, or stupid, or (fill in negative statement here). I am not accusing, and saying that is what you or anyone was doing; I am just reminding, because I was not sure of the tone here.

And really, all I am saying, is give peace a chance.
Thank you,

John Lenin

Now I want to focus on the precedence we have set for preemption. This administration has essentially set the precedence that we can go in, attack, and essentially take over a country based on any one of these 4: #1. They are "harboring terrorists" #2. They have weapons of Mass destruction (nuclear, biological, or chemical) #3. They violate human rights #4. They aren't a democracy.

Thoughts? Do you think that this is as dangerous as I think it is?

Wondering....

Your friend,

Condiliza Rice

 

[Flatlander]

Of course its scary Paul, on a number of levels.

Who's next on the list?

What other country will use the precedent to act on their own behalf?

With no-one to answer to, where are the checks and balances?

 

[shesulsa]

Now I want to focus on the precedence we have set for preemption. This administration has essentially set the precedence that we can go in, attack, and essentially take over a country based on any one of these 4: #1. They are "harboring terrorists" #2. They have weapons of Mass destruction (nuclear, biological, or chemical) #3. They violate human rights #4. They aren't a democracy.

Thoughts? Do you think that this is as dangerous as I think it is?

Hmm...let's take one of our games and see if we can see this turn this around to help prove your point, Paul:

#1. They are "harboring terrorists".
"Harboring Terrorists" = Protecting people who have different ideals than the general population and that could have devastative effects without regard to human suffering = mandated testing, medications, wire taps, etcetera in violation of basic civil rights in the guise of protecting us from terrorism = current USA regime.

#2. They have weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, or chemical) = yes, yes and yes = current USA regime.

#3. They violate human rights = see last part of #1 = current USA regime.

#4. They aren't a democracy = we are a republic = current USA regime.

Gee, does this mean we should just pre-empt ourselves? Hmmm....

Paul, I like you. We could be friends, really!

 

[Baytor]

I'm going to throw in a couple of points here. Right up front, I am issuing the "it's just my opinion" disclaimer.

#1 - I don't think we are harboring terrorists. The deffinition of terrorism (dictionary.com) is as follows:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
People who do this in the US face criminal charges. They often get away with it because of their organization (elf/alf), but they are not sanctioned or ignored by the government (law enforcement).

#2 - They have weapons of mass destruction - I don't think that the fact that a counry has them is really the issue here. I think that the issue is a) are they a rouge nation actively supporting terrorism? b) are they in compliance with the various UN treaties. For example, France and England also have nukes but we don't talk about them. We have been hearing a lot about Iran though. The issue seems to be thier compliance with the treaties ect.

#4 - They aren't a democracy - I think the issue resolves around a democratic election process, not whether the country is a republic, democracy or some form of monarchy.
Now, having said all that, does our government do things that we think only other countries do? Yes. Does our government violate peoples civil rights. Yes. Do I trust the government? No. Does the dropping of the A bombs on Japan fall under "terrorism"? I don't want to touch that one, but it sure is an interesting thought.

 

[lvwhitebir]

I personally don't think we attacked Iraq due to any of those 4 points. Our first argument for going in there was to enforce a UN resolution put in place in 1992. For the past 12 years, Iraq has repeatedly violated that resolution with some recourse from us (occassional bombings under Bush Sr. and Clinton). After 9/11, we figured we had enough and said we're going in to enforce it. When the UN disagreed, we had to come up with other options, with WMD being the most prevalent because it had to do with a UN-banned weapon and terrorist actions were already showing a desire to have and use those weapons.

As far as I'm concerned, we didn't invade because we had business interests; we didn't invade because Saddam was a dictator; we didn't invade because of his human rights violations; we didn't invade because they weren't a democracy; we didn't invade because they harbored terrorists. We invaded to rid him of weapons that he wasn't supposed to have that we believed he had. Had he been forthcoming and open during those 12 years (the original estimate by the weapons inspectors was 1 year), we probably would never have gone in.

Is it a sad precedent that we had to invade without the UN blessing? Yes. Was it the right thing to do? I still think so. The coalition gave some bite to the UN and not just a bark.

WhiteBirch

 

[Flatlander]

The coalition gave some bite to the UN and not just a bark.

Had the operation been done with the blessing of the UN, I would agree with you. However, it was not, and therefore reflects in no way on the 'bitiness' of the UN at all. In fact, I would counter that the unilateralist actions usurped the UN's authority, and in turn, took the teeth right out of the institution. But do I think it was justified? Absolutely. Ask any Iraqi who lived under Saddam if they're glad he's gone. He was a criminal of international scale, and the people of Iraq were powerless to oust him. I think that this was the only way.

 

[Baytor]

I just wanted to add one thing about our being a democracy...

How is it that we choose from 50 canidates for who is Miss USA, but from 2 or 3 old guys for Mr. President? Not only that...2 or 3 guys who are out of touch with most americans.

That said, I still think we have the best country in the world.

 

[Phoenix44]

Yes, we should definitely pre-empt ourselves. It's called "voting."

 

[Cruentus]

Hmm...let's take one of our games and see if we can see this turn this around to help prove your point, Paul:

#1. They are "harboring terrorists".
"Harboring Terrorists" = Protecting people who have different ideals than the general population and that could have devastative effects without regard to human suffering = mandated testing, medications, wire taps, etcetera in violation of basic civil rights in the guise of protecting us from terrorism = current USA regime.

#2. They have weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, or chemical) = yes, yes and yes = current USA regime.

#3. They violate human rights = see last part of #1 = current USA regime.

#4. They aren't a democracy = we are a republic = current USA regime.

Gee, does this mean we should just pre-empt ourselves? Hmmm....

Paul, I like you. We could be friends, really!

heh...I did the same thing in my quote.
Yup...I think we could be friends!
:asian:

 

[Cruentus]

I personally don't think we attacked Iraq due to any of those 4 points

Well, actual media coverage and sources don't care what you or I think.

The 1st justification was "They've got WMD's!!" Also, "They violate Human rights!" Also "Saddams a Dictator!" And finally, "Saddam is linked to Al Queda!"

Sorry..all 4 reasonsings exist. As it turns out, they had no WMD's. Also, the 9-11 commission proved there to be no link between Saddam and Al Queda (although, we knew that before). And...the main people who were "democratically" elected, low and behold, haven't lived in Iraq for 20-30 years, and (suprisingly I know) are quite open to "trade."

And now...after all is said and done, american companies are profiting from the war efforts.

And your going to tell me that these 4 things weren't used to justify our capitalistic agendas?

Sorry, but I don't believe it.

Yours,
Noam Chompsky

 

[Cruentus]

I just wanted to add one thing about our being a democracy...

How is it that we choose from 50 canidates for who is Miss USA, but from 2 or 3 old guys for Mr. President? Not only that...2 or 3 guys who are out of touch with most americans.

That said, I still think we have the best country in the world.

I agree. Love or hate the guy (as I won't be voting for him this election) but Ralph Nader makes a good point about that. He believes that with only 2 choices by 2 parties who are married to corporate and special interests, it is impossible to get someone in office who's concerns are for the american people over profit.

Love or hate him...he has a good point.

Sincerely,

Wanona Laduke

 

[michaeledward]

We invaded to rid him of weapons that he wasn't supposed to have that we believed he had. Had he been forthcoming and open during those 12 years (the original estimate by the weapons inspectors was 1 year), we probably would never have gone in.

You are wrong on this. The United States and England, and the coalition of the bribed, invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein had 'stockpiles' of weapons of mass destruction, and the alliances with al Qaeda to deliver and detonate a nuclear weapon without leaving any finger prints. Please review the past 3 years of history to understand this causation.

However, let's consider your argument. You are saying that we invaded because of a 'Belief'.

We did not invade because we had any facts. The United States would not allow the United Nations weapon inspectors complete their work. The Adminstration did not read its own National Intelligence Brief that explained a very low likelyhood that Hussein would deliver weapons of mass destruction to an al Qaeda like organization unless he felt cornered by an imminent invasion. This means the US Invasion actually increased the likelyhood of a WMD attack from Iraq.

Personally, I would rather that United States policy was based in REASON, rather than BELIEF.


As for "PreEmptive War", it is immoral and dangerous. The best analogy is that the United States is the schoolyard bully and 'Might Makes Right'.


Mike

 

[Cryozombie]

As for "PreEmptive War", it is immoral and dangerous. The best analogy is that the United States is the schoolyard bully and 'Might Makes Right'.


Mike

The only issue I have with that is if the schoolyard bully was picking on my friends and I thought my turn was coming... I might just go up to him and hit him with a stick to pursuade him to choose a different victim.

That of course, wont work in world politics, so that analogy might be a bit off... unless we could convince Bush and Saddam to "duke it out"

Hmmm. Hmmm.

Nah, it would never happen.

 

[Phoenix44]

When the Iraq War started, I believed the Bush administration about the WMD, and I supported the war. However, since then it's become clear that we were lied to by the Bush administration on many counts. Now, I no longer believe anything the administration says, unless I can see some other information confirming it.

For example, it isn't that we had "bad intelligence" on WMD. We had all kinds of intelligence, good, bad and indifferent. Some of it came from reliable sources, or from multiple independent sources. Some of it was clearly unreliable. Some of it came from Chalabi, whom even the CIA didn't trust. The problem was that Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld demanded the information that most closely supported their plans to go to war. And their war plans, incidentally, began before Bush was even inaugurated. Powell's attempts at a diplomatic solution at the UN were a smokescreen for the military build-up that was already underway, and the covert operations that had already reached a point of no return.

IMO, Bush is merely a fanatical fool. Cheney clearly had economic motivations. And overall, while the initial military operations (ala General Franks) went flawlessly, their post-war plans, which should have been handled by Rice, were inadequate to non-existent. I guess they really expected those flowers and sweets from the liberated masses.

What's my point? Don't rely on the administration, or any single source for your info. There are brilliant books on the subject, and some real journalists you can rely on to dig deeper.

 

[lvwhitebir]

However, let's consider your argument. You are saying that we invaded because of a 'Belief'.

We did not invade because we had any facts. The United States would not allow the United Nations weapon inspectors complete their work.

Here's what I base my opinion on. Even the weapons inspectors at the time believed that there was a lot more hidden than they had found. They had "no doubt" that the weapons existed and had even destroyed a lot. But they had been kicked out of the country for the past 3 years (1998-2001), so there was no belief that Iraq was going to cooperate this time around. I don't believe Saddam was going to do anything without a military confrontation to force his hand.

So let's see... Saddam invades a country and is repelled by an international force. The UN puts sanctions on him to make sure he doesn't do that again. He thumbs his nose at the sanctions and does everything he can to hamper them. After 12 years of slapping his wrist with numerous UN sanctions to force his compliance, destorying tons of weapons that should have been destroyed a long time ago (and not declaring weapons that we found) we say enough is enough and force his hand. Now we're the bad guys... I don't get it.

By the way, just because we haven't found any WMDs doesn't mean they don't exist. Even the weapons inspectors found evidence of WMD programs in the custody of civilians (not scientists). Therefore they can be hidden anywhere.

So, unless the weapons inspectors are lying and are in cohoot with the US administration and UNSCOM, I have no reason to 1) believe that weapons don't exist and 2) believe that the weapons inspectors had a chance to ever find them.



CNN 11/5/1997
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The United Nations' chief weapons inspector says that Iraq has tampered with U.N. surveillance cameras and moved sensitive material out of view at sites where illegal missile components could be manufactured.

On the same day that a U.N. diplomatic mission met with Iraqi officials in an attempt to defuse a tense situation over U.N. inspections, chief inspector Richard Butler said in a letter Wednesday to the Security Council that "significant pieces of dual-capable equipment, subject to monitoring by the (inspectors') remote camera monitoring system, have been moved out of view of the cameras."

...

"Furthermore, it appears that cameras may have been intentionally tampered with, lenses covered and lighting turned off in the facilities under monitoring," Butler said.




CNN 1/23/1998
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iraq has no intention of giving U.N. arms inspectors full access to potential weapons sites, chief weapons inspector Richard Butler told the 15-member Security Council on Friday.

The revelation, drawn from Butler's talks in Baghdad earlier this week, means the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) teams have little chance of fulfilling their duty to certify that Iraq has no nuclear, biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction.



CNN 4/24/1998
As described in the latest report, the criteria is threefold: "full declaration by Iraq, verification by the Commission, and destruction, removal or rendering harmless under international supervision."

Butler argued that while Iraq may claim to have fully declared all of its weapons, its "consistent refusal" to provide UNSCOM with needed information and materials to back up the claims fails to satisfy the second step -- verification. That makes the destruction of all of Iraq's prohibited weapons programs impossible, the report said.

...

In contrast, Butler's UNSCOM report said the group had made "virtually no progress" over the last six months in determining whether Iraq is holding long-range missiles and chemical and biological weapons.




CNN 10/26/1998
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- International arms experts validated U.S. tests indicating Iraq put the deadly nerve gas VX into warheads before the 1991 Gulf War, contrary to Baghdad's denials, according to a U.N. report.

The report, which was sent to the U.N. Security Council on Monday, also hinted that Iraq may have tried to decontaminate the samples between the first tests in the United States and those conducted later in French and Swiss government laboratories.

The report was submitted by 17 scientists from 12 countries who analyzed findings from the United States, France and Switzerland on samples, or swabs, of Iraqi warhead fragments.

"The experts as a whole said the whole picture is that Iraq put chemical weapons in these warheads," said Richard Butler, chairman of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM). "What's critical ... is that for years (the Iraqis) said they never did any such thing, so that blows this wide open."

Iraq has admitted putting sarin, a gas that causes spasms, nausea and possible death, into warheads but has denied it was able to load VX before the 1991 Gulf War.


CNN 9/9/2002
According to the terms of the 1991 U.N. cease-fire resolution that ended the Gulf War, Iraq was supposed to destroy all stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, along with the machinery and precursors to make them, and dismantle its entire nuclear-development program. By the time the U.N. inspectors left Iraq for the last time in Dec. 1998, sizable chunks of Saddam's weapons program were gone: 39,000 chemical munitions, 690 tons of chemical agents, 3,000 tons of precursors, 426 pieces of production equipment. The U.N. had also dismantled or accounted for 817 Scud missiles, which might have lofted toxic warheads at Iraq's neighbors.

...

Before the Gulf War, U.S. intelligence estimated that Iraq was five to 10 years away from building a nuclear bomb. When the International Atomic Energy Agency team went in after the war, it discovered Saddam was just six months from a crude device. Iraqi scientists had devised a workable weapon design, cobbled together tools and parts and had come very close to refining all of the 44 lbs. of highly enriched uranium necessary to fuel one bomb. But over the next seven years of intrusive watchdogging, Saddam's nuclear program was virtually wiped out, according to a broad range of U.N. and U.S. analysts.

Even so, in those seven years, the inspection teams were never sure of their accounting. While they were in Iraq, Saddam admitted to just a fraction of his missile and chemical stores and falsely denied the existence of a biological program. After Saddam finally quit cooperating in 1998 and the U.S. and Britain bombarded Iraq for four days, the inspectors were gone for good, immensely disturbed by what they had not found. Yet they knew, based on discrepancies in Iraqi documents they had seized, that Iraq still hid 6,000 chemical bombs. They discounted Iraq's contention that it had destroyed all of the 3.9 tons of deadly VX nerve poison that it admitted to having produced or the 500 tons of precursor chemicals to make more. They suspected Iraq retained 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

...

Saddam's biological-weapons program was the deepest black hole. Despite more than 30 searches for various unconventional arms, inspectors did not even know of its existence until mid-1995, when Saddam's defecting son-in-law Hussein Kamal revealed that secret labs buried in Iraq's security, not military, apparatus were cooking up deadly germs. Iraq subsequently admitted it made batches of anthrax bacteria, carcinogenic aflatoxin, agricultural toxins and the paralyzing poison botulinum. Iraqi officials reported they had loaded 191 bombs, including 25 missile warheads, with the poisons for use in the Gulf War. They said they destroyed them after the conflict, but they presented no proof, and Western officials don't believe them.


CNN 3/14/2003
The United Nations has been waiting for months for Iraq to provide information that could prove what happened to chemical and biological weapons it possessed in the 1990s.

As much as 1,000 tons of VX are unaccounted for. Iraq also cannot account for as much as 2,245 gallons [8,500 liters] of anthrax.
...

Iraqi Air Force documents found by inspectors in 1998 show that Iraq dropped more than 13,000 chemical bombs during the Iraq-Iran War that lasted from 1983-1988. Iraq previously claimed that 19,500 bombs were used, which could mean that 3,500 bombs -- with more than 1,000 tons of VX -- are unaccounted for.

In a report to the Security Council on January 27, Blix called VX nerve agent one of the most toxic ever developed.


10/30/1997
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- A U.N. official said Thursday that Iraq may have decided to expel American members of U.N. arms inspection teams because they were close to finding weapons Iraq was supposed to have destroyed.

"I think we're getting hot," said chief weapons inspector Richard Butler in an interview with CNN. "I think we were getting closer and closer."

Asked whether Iraq was still hiding illegal weapons, Butler replied: "Yes it is. That's the simple answer, but that's the clearest answer I can give you."

...

"The chemical and biological (weapons), there is no ambiguity," Butler said. "They are able to produce those weapons."

A day after President Bush issued a stern warning, Iraqi government officials said Tuesday they will not let weapons inspectors back into the country until U.N. sanctions have been lifted.

Bush said Monday that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein "needs to let inspectors back in his country to show us that he is not developing weapons of mass destruction."

When reporters asked what would happen if the Iraqi leader did not, Bush said, "He'll find out."

U.N. compliance inspection teams pulled out of Iraq in 1998, frustrated over the lack of cooperation from the Iraqis. U.S. bombings of suspected weapons sites began a short time later.


CNN 7/18/1996
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Less than a month after promising U.N. inspectors unlimited access to possible weapons sites, Iraq twice blocked teams from making their rounds, diplomats said Wednesday.

The United Nations inspectors are responsible for making sure Iraq is destroying its weapons of mass destruction, and that it isn't building new ones.

U.N. spokeswoman Sylvana Foa said there were two incidents. In the first, a U.N. Special Commission team was threatened and its inspection of a site delayed; in the second, another team was physically prevented from taking the road to a site in question.


ABCNews.com
Inspector Intimidation
Former Iraq Inspectors Recall Tough Task That Could Get Tougher

By Robert Krulwich
Oct. 12 [2002] — As the world debates whether to attack Iraq or resume U.N. weapons inspections under new conditions, former inspectors tell ABCNEWS the inspections weren't easy the last time around — and might be even tougher now.

By the time the program ended in 1998, U.N. inspectors had destroyed tens of thousands of weapons in Iraq. But former inspectors say they might have found more if not for Iraqi attempts to hide weapons, mislead inspectors, lie, intimidate and physically obstruct inspection teams — and sometimes make their own scientists who seemed to be cooperating with the inspectors disappear.
"What they were looking for was for us to pull the bomb from the basement," said Tim McCarthy, a former inspector. "This was never going to happen. This was never a practical reality in Iraq. We were never going to find a nuclear weapon hidden somewhere. This is just completely impossible. That's fantasyland.

"What we could do is find some indications that there was a nuclear weapon or a biological weapon, find some indications that they were not telling the truth about the biological weapon. But finding the weapon itself, we were never going to do. It's completely impossible. It's their country."

 

[Cruentus]

lvwhitebr,

That's neat, but if you pay attention to todays news, you'll find that most of those stories were sensationalized, based on false information and false reports that the CIA based their information off of. (damn "liberal" media again). You'll find daily evidence of all sorts of things; like senior members of the CIA coming forward and saying that the administration immediately wanted to link Iraq to Al Queda regardless of evidence. Like the fact that Iraq didn't purchase large deposits of uranium. Like the fact that there is no link between Al Queda and Saddam prior to 9/11. These things are just a start. I guess how could we expect less when you let oil tycoons run our country, and when the country in question (Iraq) has the 2nd largest oil supply in the world?


Oh and by the way... we haven't found evidence of WMD's, or evidence of them so far.

Oh...and in case you didn't hear...Saddam Heussien was indeed captured.

Oh... and that silly bi*ch Fantasia Barrino won the last american idol...I'll get her yet! And Simon Cowell too!

Just filling you in on recent news
(as I know it is hard to keep up),

William Hung

 

[PeachMonkey]

lvwhitebr,

That's neat, but if you pay attention to todays news, you'll find that most of those stories were sensationalized, based on false information and false reports that the CIA based their information off of.

Let's not forget that *right before the war*, the UN's inspection regime under Hans Blix stated that even their most recent inspections had not discovered WMD's, and that invasion was not justified. Blix has gone on to say recently that the invasion was a violation of the UN Charter and international law:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/07/1060145783214.html

So, using violation of UN resolutions as a justification for invasion falls flat on its ears when the UN itself did not authorize said invasion.

Moreover, the idea that American intelligence believed that Iraq had WMD's so strongly that it justified overriding even the UN's weapons inspectors has been shown to be false on multiple occasions.

See: "What Intelligence Officials Knew About Forged Iraq Nuclear Evidence":
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdf...iraq_nuclear_evidence_knowledge_factsheet.pdf

and "The Administratoin's Use of Forged Iraq Nuclear Evidence":
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108/pdf_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_nuclear_evidence_use_factsheet.pdf