Weapons Found?

A “headline” on CNN’s Headline News this morning reported that a “bomb making factory” was discovered in Bahgdad…

That’s all I know. I’m not sure what it means – are liberals supposed to shove it now? Or, like I’ve said before, is it too late (considering the conviction with which they put forth the evidence of WMD’s, I think they should have been found nearly immediately)? Has the military happened upon this factory by chance? Or, ARE THESE THE WMD’s THAT THREATENED US AND THE REST OF THE WORLD?

We’ll see.

RSU, 3 non-rhetorical questions for you:

(1) Was the fact that Saddam was constantly IN PURSUIT of a nuclear weapon while Iraq was under sanctions (he thought he had bought one from the North Koreans, but they conned him!) a strong element of a case for war?

(2) Was the presence in Iraq of Jordanian terrorist al-Zaqari, whose goals and plots are international and include using WMD in the United States, something to be MORE concerned about with Saddam in power?

(3) Was the record of CONTACT between the Hussein regime and al-Quaeda (including a special plea from Osama Bin Ladan to assist al-Quaeda against Saudi Arabia) suggest a problem that had to be handled before it endangered the lives of American civilians?

Remember the 9-11 report said no “COLLABORATIVE record” but also noted that they had met amicably and discussed working together in the future.

Seems as though the weapons being produced were the source of the many car bombings and other attacks on our troopos from the anti-insurgents.

I gather these were NOT WMD’s.

U.S. Military Says Bomb Factory Found in Iraq
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: July 3, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) – Insurgents attacked an Iraqi checkpoint south of the capital on Saturday, killing five national guard soldiers and wounding five more, hospital officials said.

West of Baghdad, a U.S. Marine died of wounds suffered the day before during operations in Anbar province, the military said, giving no other details.

U.S. forces, meanwhile, said they uncovered a bomb-making facility in Baghdad and detained 51 people believed linked to an insurgent cell alleged to have been planting roadside bombs in the area.

Soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment discovered several assembled bombs and four vehicles they believed were to be rigged as car bombs at sites in southern Baghdad. Also found were several automatic weapons, ammunition, explosives and the Iraqi dinar equivalent of about $8,750.

U.S. troops and their allies are hit nearly every day by bombs planted on roadsides. Over a dozen car bombs in the country last month killed scores of people.

``These discoveries deal a blow to anti-Iraqi forces,‘’ 1st Cavalry spokesman Lt. Col. James Hutton said in a statement.

In the southern city of Basra, one British soldier was wounded and two military vehicles damaged when a roadside bomb exploded Saturday, a British military spokesman said on condition of anonymity.

The five national guard soldiers were killed and five others wounded at a checkpoint in Mahmudiyah, 20 miles south of Baghdad, said Dawoud Hussein, a local hospital director.

The U.S. Marine was the fourth to die this month in Anbar, a Sunni-dominated area that has been a hotbed of anti-U.S. resistance.

An angry crowd of Iraqis held a funeral procession in the streets of Ramadi, a volatile city in the province, carrying four wooden coffins containing they said were four Iraqi youths killed by U.S. tank fire. The U.S. military called the report ``unsubstantiated.‘’

With violence continuing, Iraq’s deputy Foreign Minister Hamid al-Bayati called on France and Germany, the chief opponents of the war in Iraq, to help build and train his country’s security forces.

We need to build a new army and we need to build security forces and police,'' al-Bayati said in an interview with Al-Arabiya television. We also need training for these institutions. The NATO countries, especially Germany and France, are important countries and we need the help from these countries.‘’

About 160,000 foreign troops, mostly American, have stayed on after Monday’s handover of sovereignty to the new interim government. The foreign troops are led by U.S. commanders with a U.N. mandate to help maintain security.

Bahrain’s king said Saturday that his country was ready to send a naval force to help safeguard Iraqi territorial waters, if asked by the new Iraqi government, the official Bahrain News Agency reported.

The announcement by Bahrain’s Sheik Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa followed offers by fellow Arab nations Jordan and Yemen to send troops to help shore up security in Iraq.

Also Saturday, a senior Yemeni government official clarified that country’s offer, telling the Saba news agency that the country would only send troops after coalition forces have left.

``Yemen is willing to participate in an international peacekeeping force … after the coalition troops withdraw and Iraq regains its full sovereignty, and if the brothers in Iraq ask us to,‘’ the unnamed official said.

No Arab nation has contributed soldiers to the U.S.-led coalition. Iraqi authorities have not comments on the offers.

At a summit last week in Istanbul, Turkey, NATO leaders offered military training to the new Iraqi government. However, France and Germany, which had strongly opposed the Iraq war, rejected the U.S. notion that an alliance training mission could develop into a NATO presence in the Iraq.

French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder insisted that any training must be outside Iraq.

Al-Bayati argued that help from the French and the Germans was more important for the Iraqis than for the Americans.

``We want balanced relations with all the countries of the world, and we are seeking the help of the international community to build a new Iraq built on democracy and respect for human rights,‘’ al-Bayati said.

An oil pipeline outside the southern Iraqi town of Zubayr was breached Saturday, but sabotage was not suspected and oil flow was unaffected, a British military spokesman said on condition of anonymity.

i Was the fact that Saddam was constantly IN PURSUIT of a nuclear weapon while Iraq was under sanctions (he thought he had bought one from the North Koreans, but they conned him!) a strong element of a case for war?

(2) Was the presence in Iraq of Jordanian terrorist al-Zaqari, whose goals and plots are international and include using WMD in the United States, something to be MORE concerned about with Saddam in power?

(3) Was the record of CONTACT between the Hussein regime and al-Quaeda (including a special plea from Osama Bin Ladan to assist al-Quaeda against Saudi Arabia) suggest a problem that had to be handled before it endangered the lives of American civilians?[/i]

I’m not RSU, but those look like interesting questions, so maybe I’ll blather on a bit myself.

#1) In pursuit. I’d say this is a consideration, but it may or may not have a lot of weight. For example, I’m in pursuit of various goals, but I may not have the means or ability to achieve them. However, given the fallibility of intelligence, it is certainly something I’d consider a factor – as long as it is something that could be realistically achieved.

#2) Bad guys present. This is a tricky issue. I know Saddam purportedly allowed terrorists haven in Iraq, but was it complicit support? For example, I’m sure there are “bad guys” in the US from time to time for various purposes whether or not the government is aware of it. It’s easy to say that a country should be able to harbor anyone they want, as they are a sovereign country and can have whatever laws and morals they decide upon. However, it’s also easy to see that harboring someone committing atrocities in other countries is going to piss off a lot of people.

#3) Contact. This one gets even more slippery. For example, Arafat who’s past includes some unsavory contacts and actions has met with many world leaders. Nobody would suggest those world leaders should have their countries expunged. It might even be necessary to talk with unsavory leaders in order to maintain or promote peace and goodwill. Osama may be somewhat of a special case, due to what he is the leader of. Personally, I don’t think contact is enough. Get out the spy gear and catch them actually doing something to establish guilt. Guilt by association will not stand in the US, why should it stand outside the US?

Anyway, not hard and fast answers… but consideration of the issues and some ways that I’d think on those questions. So, perhaps I see things differently than a lot of people, but there is nothing wrong with that.

[quote]vroom wrote:
For example, I’m sure there are “bad guys” in the US from time to time for various purposes whether or not the government is aware of it. [/quote]

Hmmm…I can think of 19-20 pretty deadly terrorists that spent quite a bit of time in the US, oh, say, in the early part of 2001. Can we be said to have been harboring them? Hardly. Should we have been on the mother fucker, considering the many warnings that went unacknowledged? I think so.

RSU, you’re an idiot - you didn’t even read the article you claimed “proved” the Iraq war.

[quote]Rumbach wrote:
RSU, you’re an idiot - you didn’t even read the article you claimed “proved” the Iraq war.

[/quote]
Why would I say anything “proved” the war? Does the war’s existence need to be proven? What are you talking about, then?

Which article did I claim did this?

Which article did I not read? The one above? Nope, read it.

Why am I an idiot?

I won’t address vroom and RSU’s responses fully at this time, however, I’d like to point out that it was quite amusing to see both of them compare the PRESENCE of the attackers of 9-11 in the United States with the PERMISSION TO ENTER the Baathist regime gave to terrorists already on Interpol’s most wanted list (and in some cases, financial support, as with Abu Nidal), for which providing safe harbor is an international crime.

I suppose they’ve loss the ability to discriminate between Bush and Saddam Hussein to the point that Saddam saying, “Abu Nidal, good job bombing those airports, come in and here’s some money so you can relax” is the same as America saying: “Arab vistors, feel free to attend our flight schools.”

I don’t think you really read my post Brian.

I did not suggest the two concepts you mentioned were similar nor did I discount the concept that official support was a different animal.

I know it is hard to see my responses through any lens other than “someone with leftist ideas has posted this” but give it a shot.

To think that Iraq could have posed a serious threat to the U.S. is laughable.

Your right Zep it is absolutly laughable that Saddam with a few WMD could possibly pose a threat to us untouchable Americans…
Just think a short while ago it was a laughable matter to most Americans that anyone could come into our invincealbe country and hurt us… oh yeah and then we all stopped laughing when a few small groups of men destroyed two land mark buildings, all the people in them and almost took out a key building for our goverment. Boy the things we laugh at these days.
DA

[quote]vroom wrote:
nor did I discount the concept that official support was a different animal.[/quote]

No in fact you did not “discount” (!), you called it “a tricky issue” and CAVILLED on the point ridiculously:

#2) Bad guys present. This is a tricky issue. I know Saddam purportedly allowed terrorists haven in Iraq, but was it complicit support? For example, I’m sure there are “bad guys” in the US from time to time for various purposes whether or not the government is aware of it.”

So “Saddam…allowed terrorsts haven in Iraq” may equal “‘bad guys’ in the US from time to time.” Hmmm…yes…definitely something to consider.

“It’s easy to say that a country should be able to harbor anyone they want, as they are a sovereign country and can have whatever laws and morals they decide upon. However, it’s also easy to see that harboring someone committing atrocities in other countries is going to piss off a lot of people.”

Gee, so you’re saying to us that it’s “easy to say” BOTH things, then?
You don’t seem to imply that either thing is stronger. Care to clarify now?

(BTW, from what you’ve written one can infer that because a tyranny is a “sovereign country” in the world community, it “can have whatever laws they decide upon,” they being the people in power I suppose.)

Sorry, vroom, but regardless of what’s good for your ego, you can’t drape yourself in the flag of leftism with me. Your #2 would give leftism a bad name.

By the way, I don’t stereotype you as a leftist, I stereotype you as a Canadian who writes as though he thinks he deserves a vote in our election.

[quote]Darkangel wrote:
Your right Zep it is absolutly laughable that Saddam with a few WMD could possibly pose a threat to us untouchable Americans…
[/quote]

Which WMD’s are these? The one’s we haven’t found yet or the one’s we haven’t found yet?

Brian, if you didn’t notice I really didn’t express an opinion. I merely showed the basis for some opposing viewpoints.

Some people feel that national sovereignty is an important concept. Nobody is arguing that Iraq was a model country or had a model government.

People honestly do see different things when they look at the same situation. Take a pill already.

I, for one, am worried about what the concept of preemption will mean in the long term. I am worried about the dichotomy of treatment between every other person in the world and a citizen of a country.

This isn’t just in the sense of the US versus the world, but all nations now consider non-citizens as second class people. Historically, this may have been a necessity. However, the world is a smaller place than it was in the past.

The concept of preemption combined with the concept of priority humans versus second class humans has the potential to lead us down a dark road. Is it a realistic isssue? I don’t know. I am not able to predict what might happen a hundred years from now becaue of the actions taken today.

I’m also not suggesting that the west can blithely open its arms and consider everyone in the world equally. Obviously, some people or factions are indeed enemies and they will have to be combatted.

So, contrary to your simple ploy of one thing having to be correct and the other to be wrong, I’m going to have to decline to choose which is the more important concept. History is going to have to be the judge of that, not myself.

I will say that alternatives were available to the current course of action. They also may or may not have been better. Once again, I’m refusing to be the judge and state unequivocally which course is better.

However, consider how many hundreds of years hatred and war existed between the French and the English. Is throwing the gauntlet down in Iraq going to fix the issue or is it just the start of the issue? Here is some history for you…

Anglo-French War, (1109-1113)
Anglo-French War, (1116-1119)
Anglo-French War, (1123-1135)
Anglo-French War, (1159-1189)
Anglo-French War, (1202-1204)
Anglo-French War, (1213-1214)
Anglo-French War, (1242-1243)
Anglo-French War, (1294-1298)
Anglo-French War, (1300-1303)
The Hundred Years’ War (1337-1453)
Anglo-French War, (1337-1360)
Anglo-French War, (1369-1373)
Anglo-French War, (1412-1420)
Anglo-French War, (1423-1453)
Anglo-French War, (1475)
Anglo-French War, (1488)
Anglo-French War, (1489-1492)
Anglo-French War, (1510-1513)
Anglo-French War, (1521-1526)
Anglo-French War, (1542-1546)
Anglo-French War, (1549-1550)
Anglo-French War, (1557-1560)
Anglo-French War, (1589-1593)
Anglo-French War, (1627-1628)
Anglo-French War, (1666-1667)

It is far far too early to tell whether or not the outcome of the issue of sovereignty versus preemption is going to be good or bad. One thing I do know, there is a lot of technology available today that wasn’t during previous periods of conflict.

Finally, if I hadn’t of moved back to Canada I would be casting a vote in the election. Anyhow, you should know that where one lives has little to do with having a brain or being able to have thoughts worthy of consideration. If you don’t know this… then it is just an example of first class versus second class humanity.

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Darkangel wrote:
Your right Zep it is absolutly laughable that Saddam with a few WMD could possibly pose a threat to us untouchable Americans…

Which WMD’s are these? The one’s we haven’t found yet or the one’s we haven’t found yet?
[/quote]

I think he was referring to the WMDs Saddam didn’t get yet.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Brian, if you didn’t notice I really didn’t express an opinion. I merely showed the basis for some opposing viewpoints.[/quote]

And I criticized the weakness of your judgment in your presentation and reaction to these “opposing viewpoints.”

I don’t think of you as “second-class humanity” (as Saddam treated the Kurds for example, and the Shiites). I think of you as a person who has difficulty in presenting his opinion clearly and upfront as a considerate suggestion from an armchair observer to our political process.

And I think of you as a relativist, not a leftist.

Iraq’s claim to “sovreignity” was compromised by 12 years of UN resolutions. “Preemption” as a doctrine and not a METHOD (thank you, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Brzezinski, etc.) is very bad for the reasons you mention. However, in the way it actually occured (the broken resolutions plus 1441), the invasion of Iraq does not live up to the Bush administration’s previous bluster of a doctrine of preemption. Bush did not have the support of many countries on the Security Council but 1441 still allowed the invasion.

Hopefully, we will not see a true exercise of what the Bush administration described as their preemptive doctrine. An example would be invading Iran at a moment’s notice when Iran obtains a nuclear weapon.

I think of you as a person who has difficulty in presenting his opinion clearly and upfront as a considerate suggestion from an armchair observer to our political process.

Heh, I am hardly someone who has difficulty presenting an opinion. Also, sometimes someone sitting in an armchair can get a pretty good view of things.

My opinion is that the current administration acted on evidence that supported their own preconceived notions.

My opinion is that the US should decide once and for all whether or not the UN is a binding authority. Picking and choosing which resolutions must be adhered to is nonsense. In such an environment they are meaningless.

My opinion is that trying to root out terrorism by violence is a very dangerous game. That doesn’t mean it cannot be played, but the consequences are severe.

My opinion is that religion and religious differences have been the cause of more suffering and evil than just about anything else. Ironic at the very best.

However, like everyone else, it doesn’t really matter what my opinion is.

This leads me to wonder what the next evolution will be in political systems… there is no point thinking the current incarnations of democracy are the best the world will ever see, even if they are the best it has ever seen to date.

As for whether or not bad leaders should be removed from power by force, on that I am not sure of my opinion. Is there some objective way to decide when this should be done? Is there some world body that can make that decision in a non-arbitrary and binding way? How do you tally votes? By population size? By “level of democracy” in the member countries? By financial and military power? How is one country one vote fair when some countries are tiny and powerless? I don’t know the answer.

Perhaps China should invent evidence that Tibet is trying to revolt and send in the tanks? Perhaps India should find evidence that terrorists seem to be hiding in Pakistan (with aid from some local muslims) and nuke them all into non-existence.

Pre-emption and sovereignty is not just a US issue, but an issue of other countries using the “same criteria” (if you can trust the country making the decisions). Do I trust Israel, Iran, North Korea, Libya, the Palistinians, China, Russia, France, Pakistan, India or Germany to exercise good judgement?

This is why I’m not willing to take a strong stance on the Iraq issue… because there are further ramifications I’d have to think through. Are we in danger of opening a pandoras box?

So Brian, if you can, forgive me, because I am trying to think instead of just pick one of two offered choices.

DarkAngel: First off the WTC disaster was carried out by Saudi’s who didn’t use WMD’s and who coincidently had no connection to Hussein. No one in the whole world - outside the U.S. - believed that Iraq was a threat to them let alone our country. If you take the time to read foreign news sources you can find this out. In addition Iraq’s forces were about 35% of what they were during the first Gulf War when he didn’t stand a chance against us back then so I stand by my original post.

vroom, you have the chutzpah to cavil and call it being sophisticated. You could have addressed the (in)significance of 1441 to your schema of the U.S. disregarding the UN except when appropriate and your nightmare scenario of every nation embarking on “preemptive wars” in its own interests.

What provoked my response to your first blatherings was their disregard of the law of the global community. It didn’t seem to mean much to you at the beginning of this thread, when the state succor of the likes of convicted murderer Abu Nidal in Iraq might fall within the rights of a country’s sovreignty.

What provoked my response to your first blatherings was their disregard of the law of the global community. It didn’t seem to mean much to you at the beginning of this thread, when the state succor of the likes of convicted murderer Abu Nidal in Iraq might fall within the rights of a country’s sovreignty.

Brian, perhaps you missed the part where I stated that such actions would certainly have a weight in the decision making process? I think perhaps you are misinterpreting my statements based on following statements that referred to them.

However, I’m not sure harboring Abu Nidal is justification for full scale invasion and regime toppling. Perhaps you are.

The law of the global community is a fickle thing. When it is in “your” favor it is very valuable, when it is not in “your” favor it is ignored. Don’t blame me for this little reality.