We've been over this territory before, multiple times in fact. At some point between 1998 and March 2003, very probably much nearer the end of that period, SH appears to have reached the reasonable conclusion that use of WMDs would be of little practical value against the US military, but would lead to the collapse of his political strategy.
I would suggest that he made a decision not to use WMD against the USA directly (indirectly is in question) as early as the Gulf War.
It's harder - in my opinion it's impossible - to answer the question of why SH did not extend full cooperation and offer evidence to the world, if he not only had destroyed his weapons but intended to allow the permanent eradication of his WMD programs. The reason answering this question is impossible appears rather obviously to be that SH never did intend to extend full cooperation and allow the permanent eradication of his WMD capacities.
Yes, difficult to understand what his plan actually was, if any. What we do seem to accept as fact though is:
1. Saddam has not been caught or verified as dead.
2. A reward has been issued, so the U.S. government considers him a continuing threat.
3. WMD that were though to exist have yet to be found.
4. The leader of Al Queda is missing and presumed to be alive.
One wonders if we are today, actually safer from Hussein and Bin Laden, and the threat of them potentially using WMD against the USA or our interests, either directly or indirectly.
Wasn't an objective of the war to increase national security, rather than increase national insecurity? True, people may "feel" safer, but are they? We certainly felt secure on 9/10.
Which is easier to control: A enemy whose location is known and managed, or an unknown enemy who has a stronger motive for revenge and destruction to those who dethroned him than he had previously?
[/i]The evidence of terrorist ties is actually rather open and shut - and includes the presence of AQ-linked groups and individuals in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, open support for anti-Israel terrorist groups like Hamas, the captures and deaths of terrorists like Abu Nidal and leaders from the PFLP (one of whom was killed on the first-night attack on SH's leadership compound), the presence of large numbers of foreigners using terrorist tactics against the US military and Iraqi civilians, and the discovery of terrorist-training facilities with documentation, such as the large camp already described before the war at Salman Pak. During Gulf War I, the Iraqi regime also explicitly threatened to use terrorism internationally, a fact noted with "alarm" by the UNSC in its post-war resolutions. It also appears that exploratory discussions, including the exchange of visits, were held between Iraq and AQ. That those particular discussions may not have led to actual joint operations does not alter the fact that both the intention and the danger were established. The AQ testimony is that the alliances were rejected on OBL's side, but the decision could have been - or may even still be - revoked at any time.[/i]
I don't know if there is as much consensus to an open and shut case as you suggest.
I suspect that if truth be told equivalent Al Queda support facilities could be found in other countries that we have decided not to attack yet.
However, since most of this information is "classified" we don't really know at this time.
As for the evidence of WMD programs, ambitions, and so on, it is plentiful and undeniable. In addition to the previously observed WMD stockpiles and WMD usage, after the war elements critical to WMD programs, including the nuclear program, have been uncovered - items and extensive documentation held in contravention of disarmament agreements and resolutions. The only things still lacking in the picture, and the subject of so much anti-Bush focus, are deliverable battlefield munitions and large quantities of precursor chemicals and toxins. These may have been destroyed or securely hidden: Even if held intact, the core elements would not take up much space, could be made very difficult to find, and could even have been transported outside the country.
That he had WMD is not a question. Nor is it a question that he had a chance to use them twice in direct conflict with the USA and decided not to....yet our concern was that he would use them in the future against the USA?
Yes, you make a case that the WMD were likely contained within the borders of Iraq prior to the most recent war, and now are likely dispersed into the hands of who knows how many terrorists.
Logically:
1. There were massive amounts of WMD that were an immediate and sufficient threat to National Security to justify pre-emption.
2. There were not massive amounts of WMD, hence no immediate threat to National Security, hence questionable need for pre-emption.
3. There were massive amounts of WMD, but Saddam made a choice to destroy them.
4. There were massive amounts of WMD, but Saddam made a choice to hid them within the borders of his country.
5. There were massive amounts of WMD, but Saddam made a choice to move them out of Iraq into neighboring countries and into the hands of terrorists
Winning the war on terrorism? I am not so certain.
Tell me you would not feel safer if we found the WMD, and we actually destroyed them ourselves.
Your analysis is based on misreading both of the evidence and of my statements. What may confuse you is that I also believe that, independently of such items as those outlined above, SH's refusal to remove any uncertainty about them and his flagrant violations of ceasefire agreements, related resolutions, and other norms of international conduct already provided more than adequate grounds for war at whatever time and under whatever circumstances we chose.
Believe it or not, my argument is not about what you think was right, but what actually was right for Bush to do. I accept your opinion, but that doesn't make it factual, nor correct....nor does it make my opinions factual or correct. It simply means that I have doubts and questions, and you have none....based on the information in front of you that you deem to be complete.
Regarding your comments that I misread your statements, we get back to he said, she said. From your perspective, I always misread your statements, yet you never think that perhaps you have been less than clear.
What is it like to always feel blameless when someone doesn't agree with you?
Uh... you're worried we might pre-emptively attack the remaining Cherokees?
As worried as I am about the loony left or people who are writing columns exercising there right to free speech concerning the administration and their exercise of power and their policy.
I would suggest that he made a decision not to use WMD against the USA directly (indirectly is in question) as early as the Gulf War.
It's harder - in my opinion it's impossible - to answer the question of why SH did not extend full cooperation and offer evidence to the world, if he not only had destroyed his weapons but intended to allow the permanent eradication of his WMD programs. The reason answering this question is impossible appears rather obviously to be that SH never did intend to extend full cooperation and allow the permanent eradication of his WMD capacities.
Yes, difficult to understand what his plan actually was, if any. What we do seem to accept as fact though is:
1. Saddam has not been caught or verified as dead.
2. A reward has been issued, so the U.S. government considers him a continuing threat.
3. WMD that were though to exist have yet to be found.
4. The leader of Al Queda is missing and presumed to be alive.
One wonders if we are today, actually safer from Hussein and Bin Laden, and the threat of them potentially using WMD against the USA or our interests, either directly or indirectly.
Wasn't an objective of the war to increase national security, rather than increase national insecurity? True, people may "feel" safer, but are they? We certainly felt secure on 9/10.
Which is easier to control: A enemy whose location is known and managed, or an unknown enemy who has a stronger motive for revenge and destruction to those who dethroned him than he had previously?
[/i]The evidence of terrorist ties is actually rather open and shut - and includes the presence of AQ-linked groups and individuals in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, open support for anti-Israel terrorist groups like Hamas, the captures and deaths of terrorists like Abu Nidal and leaders from the PFLP (one of whom was killed on the first-night attack on SH's leadership compound), the presence of large numbers of foreigners using terrorist tactics against the US military and Iraqi civilians, and the discovery of terrorist-training facilities with documentation, such as the large camp already described before the war at Salman Pak. During Gulf War I, the Iraqi regime also explicitly threatened to use terrorism internationally, a fact noted with "alarm" by the UNSC in its post-war resolutions. It also appears that exploratory discussions, including the exchange of visits, were held between Iraq and AQ. That those particular discussions may not have led to actual joint operations does not alter the fact that both the intention and the danger were established. The AQ testimony is that the alliances were rejected on OBL's side, but the decision could have been - or may even still be - revoked at any time.[/i]
I don't know if there is as much consensus to an open and shut case as you suggest.
I suspect that if truth be told equivalent Al Queda support facilities could be found in other countries that we have decided not to attack yet.
However, since most of this information is "classified" we don't really know at this time.
As for the evidence of WMD programs, ambitions, and so on, it is plentiful and undeniable. In addition to the previously observed WMD stockpiles and WMD usage, after the war elements critical to WMD programs, including the nuclear program, have been uncovered - items and extensive documentation held in contravention of disarmament agreements and resolutions. The only things still lacking in the picture, and the subject of so much anti-Bush focus, are deliverable battlefield munitions and large quantities of precursor chemicals and toxins. These may have been destroyed or securely hidden: Even if held intact, the core elements would not take up much space, could be made very difficult to find, and could even have been transported outside the country.
That he had WMD is not a question. Nor is it a question that he had a chance to use them twice in direct conflict with the USA and decided not to....yet our concern was that he would use them in the future against the USA?
Yes, you make a case that the WMD were likely contained within the borders of Iraq prior to the most recent war, and now are likely dispersed into the hands of who knows how many terrorists.
Logically:
1. There were massive amounts of WMD that were an immediate and sufficient threat to National Security to justify pre-emption.
2. There were not massive amounts of WMD, hence no immediate threat to National Security, hence questionable need for pre-emption.
3. There were massive amounts of WMD, but Saddam made a choice to destroy them.
4. There were massive amounts of WMD, but Saddam made a choice to hid them within the borders of his country.
5. There were massive amounts of WMD, but Saddam made a choice to move them out of Iraq into neighboring countries and into the hands of terrorists
Winning the war on terrorism? I am not so certain.
Tell me you would not feel safer if we found the WMD, and we actually destroyed them ourselves.
Your analysis is based on misreading both of the evidence and of my statements. What may confuse you is that I also believe that, independently of such items as those outlined above, SH's refusal to remove any uncertainty about them and his flagrant violations of ceasefire agreements, related resolutions, and other norms of international conduct already provided more than adequate grounds for war at whatever time and under whatever circumstances we chose.
Believe it or not, my argument is not about what you think was right, but what actually was right for Bush to do. I accept your opinion, but that doesn't make it factual, nor correct....nor does it make my opinions factual or correct. It simply means that I have doubts and questions, and you have none....based on the information in front of you that you deem to be complete.
Regarding your comments that I misread your statements, we get back to he said, she said. From your perspective, I always misread your statements, yet you never think that perhaps you have been less than clear.
What is it like to always feel blameless when someone doesn't agree with you?
Uh... you're worried we might pre-emptively attack the remaining Cherokees?
As worried as I am about the loony left or people who are writing columns exercising there right to free speech concerning the administration and their exercise of power and their policy.
