Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:28 pm
[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] Troller's logical fallicy #1, Ad hominem attack. Attack the messenger, pay no attention to the message.<br />
[/QUOTE]<br />
Dr Caleb fallacy #1 don’t read the article, rather insist that it’s accurate and giving the honest story. And fail to recognizes the obvious clues, that this article is dishonestly bios. For example:<br />
The quote of Paul Wolfowitz reads:<br />
"The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for bureaucratic reasons<b>....</b> [T]here were many other important factors as well." <br />
Note how he intentionally left out the key reason given.<br />
In this respect Paul Wolfowitz was right, the main reason for the Iraq war was not, WMD, that was just the legal reason given to the UN, for a very good reason too. The main reason was Saddam’s Connections to terrorism. an the whole bit about the failure ot find connections to al Qaeda is tottal nonsences. in any case it wasent just about al Qaeda, it was about all the international terrorist orgizations saddam was Support, and the list is quite extenive. as this is a war against Global Terrorism, not just al Qaeda.<br />
need sources?: <br />
<br />
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200410%5CSPE20041004a.html<br />
<br />
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html<br />
<br />
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133<br />
<br />
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110005011<br />
<br />
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132682,00.html<br />
<br />
The media has been playing you for fool's and like the blind little anti-war idiolgical sheep you are you believed them. <br />
<br />
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=230710&attrib_id=7378<br />
<br />
http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/3584/index.php<br />
<br />
ect…<br />
<br />
anyway this reason was used for a very simple but fundamentally basic reason. As of yet the UN still cant even define terrorism, much less put together a plain to fight it! so trying to get the UN to deal with Iraq on the account to terrorist connections, is a futile effort!<br />
On the other hand Saddam had 13 UNSC resolutions against him, all of which he refused to fully comply with, regarding his failure to fully comply with the terms of the 1991 golf war ceases fire agreement. And the real point of the matter is and was simple, it didn’t really matter whether or not Saddam Hussein still had Weapons of mass Destruction, the real point was he refused to comply with the terms and fully verified that he did not. That included fully accounting for all the weapons he did have before the 1991 golf war. He never did. From an enforcement point of view this means you have to assume he still has weapons of mass dictation because he would not do what was required of him, by the terms of the ceases fire agreement sighed both with the US individual and with the UN.<br />
Add on top of this that there were significant evidences, that every major intelligences service in the world backed up that Saddam did indeed have WMD. And now we’ve even found even more documents in Iraq indicating to the same effect. We also have evidences Indicating that just before the war Saddam had ship a whole lot of covered up stuff into Syria, by the testimony local Iraqi who live their. We can’t prove what happen, as Saddam deliberately covered up his tracks too well, and so far most of the media seem to incnored the obvious clues, instead rather focusing on other things going on at the same time such as US casualties. As it is based on the evinces I’ve been able to gather from various souses it seems, and based upon the fact that Saddam Hussein has a long documented history of “poisoning the chicken rather than giving his victors their price” he did this when he was a kid, he did this in the 1991 golf war when he sent his jet to Iran, and it seems he has tried to do this once again in Iraq. To be honest I wouldn’t be at all surprised, in fact I am convinced those WMD did in fact exist and did just get shipped to Syria this time, who of course would never tell us! Just as all the reliable intelligences sources around the world said they did, as well as the basic logic if they didn’t why didn’t Saddam tell us what happened to them? And why did he keep playing games with the inspectors? Clearing out sites just before they arrived? Having their rooms bugged?<br />
<br />
But of course in the end, it didn’t really matter as to weather or not Saddam had the weapons if he did, he send them to other country, long before the War effort had started. Call that a tactical blunder, but the reality is that’s inevitable, we have no influences or control over Syria or Iran, much less the ability to get them to tell us if they were reserving any weapons transfers from Iraq. This would have been of course very much against their interest.(having 100 thousand US troops and a free arib democracy next door is not exactly something many oppressive arib dictatorships aspire to, which is exactly why both of them are sponsoring the insurgency now) and of course we couldn’t put troops on the ground, at least not enough to actual come even close to remotely monitoring their entire border, certainly not enough to stop him from transferring anything before the war without them being noted, which is almost a joke in it self. And being condemned by the rest of the world as a overly aggressive action, indicating the US was intend on doing Iraq anyway. And effectively condemning what Bush very much wanted, the UN to actually do its job in this case.<br />
<br />
In all honest, the real mistake, was going to the UN in the first place. Practically unprecedented except by his father, to start any military activity. As pretty much any politics in world knows the US is never going to do anything meaning full regarding it's real propose. If you have a military matter you don’t ever ask the UN! You just build up your alliances and go do it. that’s what pretty every other world leaders in history has does, with very few exception. But Bush like this father, is a naive internationalist who wants to believe that the United Nations can or will ever do its job. He wanted to be as you guys have made up this term “multi lateral” and he was technical as we went into the Iraq war in spite of the United Nation’s predicable failure to take even the most obvious actions to enforce any of their security counsel resolution. <br />
<br />
To be honest I sincerely hope we as a nation never make that dreadful mistake of actual trusting the UN to do what it was founded for again.<br />
