Rice: Inspectors' Iraqi findings justify war

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-10-08 11:34pm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/weekl ... 003-15.htm

Inspectors' Iraqi findings justify war: Rice
The United States national security adviser Condoleezza Rice claims inspectors in the American-led search team have already found enough proof of weapons of mass destruction to justify the war in Iraq.

Dr Rice has told the Council on Foreign Relations in Chicago, the search led by chief inspector David Kay had found indisputable evidence that would have forced the UN Security Council to take the very action taken by the US to forcibly disarm Saddam Hussein.

Dr Rice claims the discovery of dozens of WMD-related programs and equipment proves the US case that Iraq posed an immediate threat to world security.

Critics of the Kay report say inspectors failed to find the 'smoking gun' in Iraq.

However all criticism was brushed aside by Dr Rice, who claims there is now no dispute the US was right to launch the war in Iraq.

"The building of a new Iraq would now provide an opportunity to re-shape the entire Middle East," she said.

As the search for more evidence of banned weapons continues in Iraq, so too does the unrest there.

An Iraqi policeman has been killed and another badly wounded, when unknown gunmen fired a rocket-propelled grenade at their checkpoint in the northern city of Kirkuk.

Iraqi police say the the attack has occurred mid-evening, local time.

And a US soldier has been wounded in a rocket-propelled grenade attack on a convoy near the city of Tikrit, about 175 kilometres north of Baghdad.

A spokewoman says the wounded soldier is in a stable condition, but has given no further details.

Interesting, if vague, comments...

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-08 11:44pm

It's legally true; violations did exist. I'll leave it for others to debate the merits of strict legality.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-08 11:44pm

So Rice can't point to a single WMD, but she says that there's incontrovertible evidence anyway? Sounds like the Bush Administration has its own version of Baghdad Bob.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-08 11:45pm

Stinks of rotten meat. Violations, sure, but there's nothing solid enough that they're jumping and pointing to. Let's be serious: To justify invasion you need something solid enough to show people, and we know they'd show it off if they had it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-09 12:04am

Pissy violations of treaty stipulations within their own territory don't sound quite as impressive as the "clear and present danger to the security of the United States" bullshit that they were peddling before the war.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-09 12:09am

SirNitram wrote:Stinks of rotten meat. Violations, sure, but there's nothing solid enough that they're jumping and pointing to. Let's be serious: To justify invasion you need something solid enough to show people, and we know they'd show it off if they had it.

Oh, the violations are cause for the resumption of hostilities, at least in a strictly legal sense. (though the ability of the U.S. to act on this outside of the U.N. is debateable depending on one's position toward the exact powers of the U.N., I grant. Namely, how much control over the progress of a war it has sanctioned to the engagement of member states once it has begun.)

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-09 12:22am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Stinks of rotten meat. Violations, sure, but there's nothing solid enough that they're jumping and pointing to. Let's be serious: To justify invasion you need something solid enough to show people, and we know they'd show it off if they had it.
Oh, the violations are cause for the resumption of hostilities, at least in a strictly legal sense. (though the ability of the U.S. to act on this outside of the U.N. is debateable depending on one's position toward the exact powers of the U.N., I grant. Namely, how much control over the progress of a war it has sanctioned to the engagement of member states once it has begun.)

In other words, you can prove the UN had every cause to resume smack Saddam upside the head with a 2x4, but going Cowboy on his ass without the UN is terribly shakey.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2003-10-09 03:27pm

They have to claim that it shows they were justified, regardless of what it says.

Its the same as Blair refusing to admit the Niger Uranium claims were false. Politicians can't admit failure, especially not on matters like this,

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-09 04:30pm

Well, they don't have to HAVE WMD, they just have to have attempts to manufacture them. That is probably what she is saying. Having WMD is very bad...building or having development programs is also bad.

If they even have a program to build them, what you think they are gonna do with them, clear parking lots for mini malls?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-10-09 04:41pm

Strate_Egg wrote:Well, they don't have to HAVE WMD, they just have to have attempts to manufacture them. That is probably what she is saying. Having WMD is very bad...building or having development programs is also bad.

If they even have a program to build them, what you think they are gonna do with them, clear parking lots for mini malls?

Under this logic, you can justify invading just about any country, including many of our allies. I'm sure you can see how that logic is rotten, right?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-09 04:43pm

SirNitram wrote:but going Cowboy on his ass without the UN is terribly shakey.

Uhm, were you in the same universe that the rest of us are in? Did
you somehow miss the endless UN negotiations and attempts to
build a coalition that delayed the war for months and months?

If we really were "Cowboys", we would have just said "fuck you" to
the UN and gone in months ahead of when we finally did.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-09 04:53pm

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031007 ... -9589r.htm

Found this interesting:

Digging for the evidence is a Herculean task. For instance, the inspectors have to go through Iraq's huge stocks of conventional weapons, as it was the Iraqi practice to mix unmarked chemical ordinance in with conventional. Now, Iraq has 130 known ammunition storage points, many of which are 50 miles square and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, bombs, etc. Of these vast piles, only 10 have been examined so far.

hmm

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-09 05:04pm

MKSheppard wrote:
SirNitram wrote:but going Cowboy on his ass without the UN is terribly shakey.
Uhm, were you in the same universe that the rest of us are in? Did
you somehow miss the endless UN negotiations and attempts to
build a coalition that delayed the war for months and months?

If we really were "Cowboys", we would have just said "fuck you" to
the UN and gone in months ahead of when we finally did.

Do you live in the same universe as us, Shep? Did you, or did you not, see where the discussion lead to 'The UN had the right..'? Or do you just blindly assume that because the UN has the right, it doesn't matter if they, as a group, disagreed with going to war?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-09 05:14pm

SirNitram wrote: Do you live in the same universe as us, Shep?

Yes, only in the Nitramverse does "cowboy" equal doing something
the UN doesn't want us to do, despite us arguing for MONTHS for our
position, which is the total opposite of the definition of Cowboy, which
is "reckless and irresponsible". We sat down at the UN for months, we
argued our position, we brought forth evidence and such, and we called
virtually everyone we could to build a coaltion, and this is "reckless"?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-09 05:16pm

MKSheppard wrote:
SirNitram wrote: Do you live in the same universe as us, Shep?

I'll take the snipping of what I said as a 'no', then.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-10-09 06:09pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Strate_Egg wrote:Well, they don't have to HAVE WMD, they just have to have attempts to manufacture them. That is probably what she is saying. Having WMD is very bad...building or having development programs is also bad.

If they even have a program to build them, what you think they are gonna do with them, clear parking lots for mini malls?
Under this logic, you can justify invading just about any country, including many of our allies. I'm sure you can see how that logic is rotten, right?

Thing is, most of our allies don't have UN sanctions against them, banning the development of NBC weapons.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-09 06:22pm

Nathan F wrote:Thing is, most of our allies don't have UN sanctions against them, banning the development of NBC weapons.

So? None of this changes the fact that Iraq was no threat to America and had no NBC weapons, nor does it change the fact that the Bush Administration knew more than it was letting on, and deliberately exaggerated its claims when selling the war to the American people. Lying to the voters is not cool, especially when the lie is used to justify something which causes a lot of those voters to lose sons and daughters.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-10-09 06:30pm

Normally I'd jump in and defend the war, but everytime the administration open's its mouth, that task gets even harder.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-10-09 06:49pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Nathan F wrote:Thing is, most of our allies don't have UN sanctions against them, banning the development of NBC weapons.
So? None of this changes the fact that Iraq was no threat to America and had no NBC weapons, nor does it change the fact that the Bush Administration knew more than it was letting on, and deliberately exaggerated its claims when selling the war to the American people. Lying to the voters is not cool, especially when the lie is used to justify something which causes a lot of those voters to lose sons and daughters.

That particular statement wasn't in defense of the war. It was pointing out a fallacious analogy by Gil.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-10-09 06:54pm

Strate_Egg wrote:Well, they don't have to HAVE WMD, they just have to have attempts to manufacture them. That is probably what she is saying. Having WMD is very bad...building or having development programs is also bad.

If they even have a program to build them, what you think they are gonna do with them, clear parking lots for mini malls?

Actually, it's more tenuous than that: they had a program to explore future possibilities for programs for developing CBWs after the end of sanctions.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-10-09 07:00pm

Well, we all know the WMD weren't really the reason Bush invaded, so the question is; what were they? I think the invasion was part of a larger plan involving the Middle East, and the WMDs were needed to drum up support for the war.

Embracer Of Darkness · Post by **Embracer Of Darkness** » 2003-10-09 07:15pm

I read the topic to mean that an inspection of rice in Iraq was proof enough for the war being justified. I thought "what, were they eating chemically and biologically hazardous rice?"

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-10 06:20am

If I were one of Condi's speechwriters, I wouldn't throw around the word "deception," and I'd avoid the whole subject of lying. Why remind people of how they were systematically deceived, in the rush to war, with tall tales of imminent danger?

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-10-10 07:10am

Well this is just great, not only does the US+ stooges, invade Iraq for less than adequete reason, but Rice comes out with this little gem

Condi Rice wrote:"The building of a new Iraq would now provide an opportunity to re-shape the entire Middle East," she said.

I bet this goes down like cod-liver oil

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-10-10 07:37am

Stuart Mackey wrote:Well this is just great, not only does the US+ stooges, invade Iraq for less than adequete reason, but Rice comes out with this little gem

Condi Rice wrote:"The building of a new Iraq would now provide an opportunity to re-shape the entire Middle East," she said.
I bet this goes down like cod-liver oil

Who else is thinking ... Crusade! With that statement?