Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

Boo Radley · Nov 17, 2010

buck said:
I guess that's fine - as long as you completely ignore North Korea's histroy prior to the iraq war. You miust be one of those that believe history started with Bush and Iraq.

Behavior of what exactly? Sure, he tried to get as much as he could, and continues to do so, but nuclear weapon development was under Bush.

buck · Nov 17, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Behavior of what exactly? Sure, he tried to get as much as he could, and continues to do so, but nuclear weapon development was under Bush.

And somehow ridiculously believe that N.Korea's nuke program only took 2 years to complete. Probably even shorter, since it was believed they had nuclear weapons before they finally declared themselves a nuclear power.

I should join you in the clouds. I've always enjoyed far out trips.

Boo Radley · Nov 17, 2010

buck said:
And somehow ridiculously believe that N.Korea's nuke program only took 2 years to complete. Probably even shorter, since it was believed they had nuclear weapons before they finally declared themselves a nuclear power.

I should join you in the clouds. I've always enjoyed far out trips.

Who said it was complete? And who siad there wasn't something there before. There was actually work before Clinton. Again, it helps to be fully informed. Am I responsible for catching you up on this?

buck · Nov 17, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Who said it was complete? And who siad there wasn't something there before. There was actually work before Clinton. Again, it helps to be fully informed. Am I responsible for catching you up on this?

Ah, so now you claim that actions taken by the Clinton admin did have something to do with them obtaining nukes.... Got it.

Was this activity that took place under the Clinton admin occuring while they were proclaiming to the world that N.Korea was isolated and just posturing?

Boo Radley · Nov 17, 2010

buck said:
Ah, so now you claim that actions taken by the Clinton admin did have something to do with it... Got it.

Was this activity that took place under the Clinton admin while they were claiming that N.Korea was isolated and just posturing?

No. I make no such claim. I said before Clinton. Agreements put the program on hold. Bush's actions restarted them. However, I would also argue that a combination of Bush and Clinton would have been a better policy than either by itself. Clinton engaged and got concessions, and Bush involved more countries. Together would ahve produced better results all around.

scourge99 · Nov 17, 2010

Boo Radley said:
With reason and logic.

you've already conceded that you have no degree (philosophy or otherwise), credentials, or claim to fame in regards to "reason and logic". Thus your appeal to "reason and logic" is highly suspect and rejected as nothing more than a differing opinion.

Boo Radley said:
We factually increased the death rate by invading.

the death rate over what time frame?

I agree that invasion increases the death rate locally. But over time the invasion may have saved lives. E.G., if Geremany was invaded before it gained power for WW2 then the holocaust may not have happened and perhaps (but not certainly) more lives would have been saved in the long run (but perhaps that would cause other even worse events to unfold).

Boo Radley said:
All the problems with the sanctions were magi nified with war, and those deaths are not counted in the current death totals. We certainly wouldn't have spent the billion, trillions we've spent. Hard to argue otherwise. Nor would we have spent as many resources, espeically in lives.

And how are you so certain that in the long run this is more expensive than the alternative?

Do you understand how compound interest works? Do you understand why putting more money in an account early is exponentially better than spreading out deposits into that account over a long time, even if you put more money in for each deposit?

Boo Radley · Nov 17, 2010

scourge99 said:
[you've already conceded that you have no degree (philosophy or otherwise), credentials, or claim to fame in regards to "reason and logic". Thus your appeal to "reason and logic" is highly suspect and rejected as nothing more than a differing opinion.

So only those with a degree can use logic. Interesting. False and wrongheaded, but interesting.

the death rate over what time frame?

Eight years of war would be a good time frame.

I agree that invasion increases the death rate locally. But over time the invasion may have saved lives. E.G., if Geremany was invaded before it gained power for WW2 then the holocaust may not have happened and perhaps (but not certainly) more lives would have been saved in the long run (but perhaps that would cause other even worse events to unfold).

I see nothing that would support that. Much of the effects of war last much longer than the war itself, and are often more devestating than sanctions in the long run. And nothing about Iraq resembles Nazi Germany and holocost. There was no likleihood of genocide. In fact, that type of killing had already been done.

Add to it that more killing will take place in the battle for power in iraq, and that much of the abuses during Saddams rein still take place today, and there is little reason to accpet your belief.

And how are you so certain that in the long run this is more expensive than the alternative?

Do you understand how compound interest works? Do you understand why putting more money in an account early is exponentially better than spreading out deposits into that account over a long time, even if you put more money in for each deposit?

I understand fully, but this isn't a savings account. This is smashing something and hoping someone picks up the pieces. Human beings are far more unpredicitable than a savings account. We can't control what will happen and too often things go contrary to plan. At the end of the day, and there are already idications of this, we could end up with worse than we had. Iran is in a better position with Iraq for example. Millions have been displaced. Iraq has serious division, and American style divisions, but take up arms divisions. If Iraq ever settles into something better, it will be earned by Iraqis.

scourge99 · Nov 17, 2010

buck said:
And somehow ridiculously believe that N.Korea's nuke program only took 2 years to complete. Probably even shorter, since it was believed they had nuclear weapons before they finally declared themselves a nuclear power.

I should join you in the clouds. I've always enjoyed far out trips.

When you are dealing with members who refuse to admit mistakes and claim to "know-it-all" about an issue, then the best you can do is show how silly they look when they eventually slip up. Then enjoy the show as they dance about their mistake in an attempt save face.

Boo Radley · Nov 17, 2010

scourge99 said:
When you are dealing with members who refuse to admit mistakes and claim to "know-it-all" about an issue, then the best you can do is show how silly they look when they eventually slip up. Then enjoy the show as they dance about their mistake in an attempt save face.

That may be true, but go back and read, I never made the claim he states.

buck · Nov 17, 2010

Boo Radley said:
No. I make no such claim. I said before Clinton. Agreements put the program on hold. Bush's actions restarted them. However, I would also argue that a combination of Bush and Clinton would have been a better policy than either by itself. Clinton engaged and got concessions, and Bush involved more countries. Together would ahve produced better results all around.

Well, if you actually know the history, then you realize that some development occured while they were being declared isolated by the Clinton admin.

But, just like you can't admit that, like bush, Clinton lied when he declared Iraq had WMD programs and stockpiles during the run-up to Operation Desert Fox, I can hardly expect you to admit some NK nuclear weapons and enrichment development took place under the Clinton admin.

It must be nice to have your little hero to worship.

Boo Radley · Nov 17, 2010

buck said:
Well, if you actually know the history, then you realize that some development occured while they were being declared isolated by the Clinton admin.

But, just like you can't admit that, like bush, Clinton lied when he declared Iraq had WMD programs and stockpiles during the run-up to Operation Desert Fox, I can hardly expect you to admit some NK nuclear weapons and enrichment development took place under the Clinton admin.

It must be nice to have your little hero to worship.

Actually, that's more claim than proven truth, which is why I mentioned the NYT's article before we started. I took a lot of heat because I doubted the claims back then, and the CIA admitted they didn't actually know what they claimed in that article. So I posted it several times back then, ending threads at the time without comment. But I won't dig for it again.

And I never said Clinton didn't lie. Nor did I support Clinton's bombing. This is why I mention what appears to be a reading problem. What I do say is that Clinotn was less outrageious in his claim, and that his people said that threat was over after the bombing. So, you can't use what Clinton said to justify Bush years later.

So, misrepresenting what is said is not good for civil discourse. So, don't do it.

buck · Nov 17, 2010

Boo Radley said:
What I do say is that Clinotn was less outrageious in his claim, and that his people said that threat was over after the bombing.

…Our objectives in this military action were clear: to degrade Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program and related delivery systems…

…So long as Saddam remains in power he will remain a threat to his people, his region and the world…

I don't see Clinton stating that the threat was eliminated, do you?

Boo Radley · Nov 17, 2010

buck said:
I don't see Clinton stating that the threat was eliminated, do you?

It's degree. No one says there is absolutely not threat. Just not the type of threat that requires invasion. And remember, in regards to your first quote, Clinton's people declared that effort successful, his program degraded, his threat lessened. Again, you cannot justify Bush's statements are actions with Bill Clinton.

buck · Nov 17, 2010

I am hopeful that even with the trip you are on, you can see a difference between:

Boo Radley said:
and that his people said that threat was over after the bombing.

and

Boo Radley said:
his program degraded, his threat lessened.

Boo Radley said:
No one says there is absolutely not threat. Just not the type of threat that requires invasion.

Clinton's admin said the pretty much the same about N.K. How'd that prediction work out? That's the problem with constantly kicking the can down the road. Eventually the can slices your foot open.

ricksfolly · Nov 17, 2010

Boo Radley said:
With reason and logic. We factually increased the death rate by invading. All the problems with the sanctions were magi nified with war, and those deaths are not counted in the current death totals. We certainly wouldn't have spent the billion, trillions we've spent. Hard to argue otherwise. Nor would we have spent as many resources, espeically in lives.

Yeah, I'm pretty comfortable with my claim being likely.

All those things and then some, including reigniting the longtime Sunni/Shia blood feud, and forcing millions of Iraqi families to leave the country.

ricksfolly

Boo Radley · Nov 18, 2010

buck said:
I am hopeful that even with the trip you are on, you can see a difference between:

and

Clinton's admin said the pretty much the same about N.K. How'd that prediction work out? That's the problem with constantly kicking the can down the road. Eventually the can slices your foot open.

And NK is not that type of threat and we won't invade NK. It won't happen.

BTW, I'm not sure you're reading the things you quoted well. What do you think you see?

buck · Nov 18, 2010

Boo Radley said:
And NK is not that type of threat and we won't invade NK. It won't happen.

Of course not now. The time to do so was prior to them obtaining the nuke while Clinton was still president and claiming that NK was isolated and not a threat. Not necessarily an invasion, but definetly some form of action.

BTW, I'm not sure you're reading the things you quoted well. What do you think you see?

I see you claiming that after Desert Fox, the Iraqi threat was eliminated - "over".

and that his people said that threat was over after the bombing.

Then, after confronted with Clinton's actual quotes, you downgraded your comment to a degraded / lessened threat". Not quite the same things.

his program degraded, his threat lessened.

Boo Radley · Nov 18, 2010

buck said:
Of course not now. The time to do so was prior to them obtaining the nuke while Clinton was still president and claiming that NK was isolated and not a threat. Not necessarily an invasion, but definetly some form of action.

We weren't going to do it ever. China would never allow it, and we not going to fight China over this either.

I see you claiming that after Desert Fox, the Iraqi threat was eliminated - "over".

I'm claiming Clinton's people said that, so you can't use Clinton's claims as justification for Bush.

Then, after confronted with Clinton's actual quotes, you downgraded your comment to a degraded / lessened threat". Not quite the same things.

No, I continue the thought. I have never claimed "NO" threat. I've claim no threat justifying invasion, and that bush hyped the threat using doubted intell and mislead the American people.

buck · Nov 18, 2010

No, I continue the thought. I have never claimed "NO" threat. I've claim no threat justifying invasion, and that bush hyped the threat using doubted intell and mislead the American people.

Then we all (including Clinton's administration) acknowledge that Iraq was a threat. Wether you think the threat was invasion worthy or not.. Who cares? When you are president you will get to see all of the intelligence and make a determination. Until then, too bad.

I’m glad we finally had a president that was willing to do something about that threat before it grew into a threat that we could no longer confront. Saddam had every intention of returning to WMDs. Just like NK had every intention of returning to Nukes.

Boo Radley · Nov 18, 2010

buck said:
Then we all (including Clinton's administration) acknowledge that Iraq was a threat. Wether you think the threat was invasion worthy or not.. Who cares? When you are president you will get to see all of the intelligence and make a determination. Until then, too bad.

I’m glad we finally had a president that was willing to do something about that threat before it grew into a threat that we could no longer confront. Saddam had every intention of returning to WMDs. Just like NK had every intention of returning to Nukes.

There's no cone of silence secret intel out there. We all know effort to make judgements. Iraq simply didn't meet any reasonable standard. I can't go kill my neighbor for what he might do. Especially if I have limited his ability to do anything sginficant.

Nor can we know with certainty anyone's intention. No one can read minds. We can only address what is known and done. We may plan for possibilities, but we can't claim that possibilities are equal to actual acts.

buck · Nov 18, 2010

There's no cone of silence secret intel out there. We all know effort to make judgements. Iraq simply didn't meet any reasonable standard.

Based on what the intelligence community's of many different countries believed, even some against the war, Iraq did meet many individual's “reasonable standard”. Now, was that info mistaken? Possibly! We need to be proactive and will occasionally be required to act preemptively. You may not like it, but frankly, who cares wht you like?

Nor can we know with certainty anyone's intention. No one can read minds. We can only address what is known and done. We may plan for possibilities, but we can't claim that possibilities are equal to actual acts.

We do know that Saddam’s intention was to reconstitute his WMD programs once the pressure was off. He openly stated this under questioning by the FBI. Mind reading is not required. Many reasonable people knew that NK had the intention to reconstitute their nuke program. It’s why many were calling on Clinton to take a more aggressive approach. He didnt. Now NK has the nuke and is sharing the tech with many.

Boo Radley · Nov 19, 2010

buck said:
Based on what the intelligence community's of many different countries believed, even some against the war, Iraq did meet many individual's “reasonable standard”. Now, was that info mistaken? Possibly! We need to be proactive and will occasionally be required to act preemptively. You may not like it, but frankly, who cares wht you like?

Did they really? And how many are many? Acting preemptively is only viable if there is an imminent threat. Doing so on maybes and mights just doesn't reach a reasoanable standard. It fact, it only meets the same standard Saddam used to justify invading Kuwait.

We do know that Saddam’s intention was to reconstitute his WMD programs once the pressure was off. He openly stated this under questioning by the FBI. Mind reading is not required. Many reasonable people knew that NK had the intention to reconstitute their nuke program. It’s why many were calling on Clinton to take a more aggressive approach. He didnt. Now NK has the nuke and is sharing the tech with many.

I intend on winning the lottery one day, but until I actually buy a ticket, it isn't really going to happen. And no, no one can KNOW what hasn't happened yet. They can believe, think, suspect, even give a reasonable guess, but not know. To know, they need either actual evidence, or mind reading and and other supernatural and superhuman abilities.

buck · Nov 20, 2010

When you don't act on the intelligence that you have, you end up with N.K. You can claim that Bush lied about the intelligence prior to the Iraq war. However, those assertions are not quite as certain as you choose to believe.

Basically, I would rather the govt work on the intelligence that they have and be wrong, rather then not act because the intelligence has some doubters or is not 100.0% (as no intelligence ever is) and have the situation turn far worse.

USA_1 · Nov 20, 2010

buck said:
Basically, I would rather the govt work on the intelligence that they have and be wrong, rather then not act because the intelligence has some doubters or is not 100.0% (as no intelligence ever is) and have the situation turn far worse.

Even if it needlessly costs thousands of lives and a trillion dollars? If so, you should enlist or at least send the IRS more money to pay for it.

buck · Nov 20, 2010

USA-1 said:
Even if it needlessly costs thousands of lives and a trillion dollars? If so, you should enlist or at least send the IRS more money to pay for it.

I guess we disagree with the needlessly part of your comment. If we had taken care of N.K. "needlessly" way back when, it would be far less likely they would be nuclear. Had we "needlessly" gotten more involved in WW2 prior to PH, countless lives probably would have been saved. There are countless examples.

If we had not gone into Iraq, I have little doubt Saddam would have eventually obtained the WMD's he wanted. At that time we would all be able to look back and wonder why we didn't finish things up when we had the chance.

It's only needless until the consequences of not taking the action become known. And since we didn't take that route, we will never know what those consequences would have been. But, I would guess they would not have been good, and may have been worse then the path we took.