On 2022-05-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-05-25 7:19 p.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2022-05-25, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-22 8:03 a.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-20 1:54 p.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-20 12:01 p.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-20, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-18, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 6:24 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 3:52 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is time for the USA to leave NATO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a very expansive answer. Why not ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's send your kids then. Mine went to Iraq already. Twice. He was
>>>>>>>>>>>> smart enough to refuse to volunteer to go to Afghanistan after that. He
>>>>>>>>>>>> and his First Sergeant had a four hour talk about his lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering skills during that talk.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Lynn, Iraq had nothing to do with NATO. That was the US GOP that invaded IRAQ
>>>>>>>>>>> specifically Dick and George after lying through their teeth about the
>>>>>>>>>>> causes belli.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that Bill Clinton supported the war declaration and has
>>>>>>>>>> stated that Bush went to war out of a genuine belief that large quantities
>>>>>>>>>> of weapons of mass destruction remain unaccounted for.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bill Clinton wasn't president and didn't make any of the decisions leading
>>>>>>>>> to the ill-considered and arguably illegal incursions into either Iraq
>>>>>>>>> or Afghanistan.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What he said, or not, is an irrelevant diversion. Bush lied, and he
>>>>>>>>> knew it was a lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see. So the opinion of an ex-President who had access to the classified
>>>>>>>> information about WMDs and Iraq for almost a decade is irrelevant compared
>>>>>>>> to the opinion of a random person on the internet. Silly me...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, but he had access to what the administration at that time wanted
>>>>>>> to let him know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't say Clinton had access in 2002. My "almost a decade" was what
>>>>>> Hussein did (rather, what the intelligence agencies thought he did!)
>>>>>> with WMDs post Gulf War. That was just short of 10 years when Bush
>>>>>> took over. Note that Clinton launched a massive bombing campaign in 1998
>>>>>> because of WMDs (as well as bombing other places in Iraq at least
>>>>>> once a week afterwards while enforcing the no-fly rules.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Ummmmm.... ...no.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The bombing campaign was not by any stretch of the imagination
>>>>> "massive". It was conducted over just 4 days.
>>>>
>>>> You do have a pretty unique idea of word definitions. I can guarantee
>>>> you that even now if Russia suddenly attacked 97 separate sites in
>>>> Ukraine with over 1000 bombs/missiles over a 4 day period, it would be called
>>>> massive.
>>>>
>>>>> 2. The campaign took place not because there was evidence that Iraq had
>>>>> WMDs, but rather because Iraq was refusing to allow access by UN
>>>>> inspection teams into certain facilities.
>>>>
>>>> All I said was because of WMD, which you agree with here since the
>>>> UN teams were looking for WMD.
>>>>
>>>>> 3. Even that was a bit of a sham as several details of the supposed
>>>>> rationale for the campaign were false. The inspectors weren't kicked out
>>>>> by Iraq for instance: the US embassy in Iraq suggested they pull out
>>>>> because of forthcoming US and British airstrikes. Kind of puts the cart
>>>>> before the horse, don't you think.
>>>> So?
>>>>
>>>>> 4. According to some, the operation was mostly an attempt to destablise
>>>>> the Iraqi regime and degrade Iraq's ability to defend itself against
>>>>> anyone in a future conventional war.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Former U.S. Army intelligence analyst William Arkin contended in his
>>>>> January 1999 column in The Washington Post that the operation had less
>>>>> to do with WMD and more to do with destabilizing the Iraqi government.
>>>>
>>>> So? It still was because of WMD (along with other reasons).
>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Only 13 targets [out of 100] on the list are facilities associated with
>>>>> chemical and biological weapons or ballistic missiles,"'
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_bombing_of_Iraq>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One more tidbit from there:
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Dr. Brian Jones was the top intelligence analyst on chemical,
>>>>> biological and nuclear weapons at the Ministry of Defence.[25] He told
>>>>> BBC Panorama in 2004 that Defence Intelligence Staff in Whitehall did
>>>>> not have a high degree of confidence any of the facilities identified,
>>>>> targeted and bombed in Operation Desert Fox were active in producing
>>>>> weapons of mass destruction.'
>>>>>
>>>>> So your argument that Clinton had knowledge of the situation is correct
>>>>> in general...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...but the reality is that what he would have heard is almost the exact
>>>>> opposite of what you WANT him to have supposedly known.
>>>>
>>>> What a silly statement (by you, not Jones). Of course they would not
>>>> have a high degree of confidence of active WMD! If they had solid
>>>> evidence, they would be directly deposing Hussein rather then just
>>>> pressuring him (and destroying the evidence). As you said, they
>>>> strongly wanted him gone.
>>>>
>>>> And all of your inaccurate quibbles still don't offer any evidence
>>>> against Clinton believing that Iraq had WMDs.
>>>
>>> You presented those strikes as evidence that the US administration of
>>> the day believed that Iraq had WMDs...
>>
>> I agree with that. And you haven't denied my claims at all.
>>
>>> ...and I showed a lot of other interpretations...
>>
>> You missed others that are equally likely. For instance, all our
>> recent memories could be due to a simulation, and Iraq never invaded Kuwait.
>
> Yeah... ...you're making a serious rebuttal....
>
> (How do I sneer in text?)

And I thought my reply was a pretty good sneer... Oh well.

>>
>> Just saying someone has not 100% proved their argument is to say nothing -
>> 100% proof in arguments about reality doesn't exist.
>
> Your "proof" isn't prove.
>
> On the contrary, it appears that the existence of WMDs was hardly a
> factor at all.

I assume you do agree that Clinton's entire speech announcing the
operation was aimed at reducing the ability of Hussein to attack with
WMDs?
https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

>>
>> If you are going to argue, then have the courage to take a position.
>> State what you think and why you believe it. You have not done so here.
>
> I believe that the Clinton administration acted in support of a UN
> initiative to punish Iraq and reduce their ability to defend themselves
> in any future military action.

As has been said, that's obviously false since there was no
UN initiative to punish Iraq - not even close to one.
And to deny Clinton's speech...

> You have presented zero evidence that they acted due to a belief that
> Iraq actually had an WMDs when they initiated the strike.
>
> Literally none.

Baloney. If you want more: for example the speech cited above:
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to
retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear
weapons programs in months, not years.
Note the "retain."

Another quote in support the same day (from your favorite source!)
Pelosi:
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the
region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to
eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our
troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people.

Bill Clinton and his cabinet had made clear their belief that Iraq had WMD
earlier that year. Eg
Clinton:
The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of
chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type
missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production
program and build many, many more weapons.
Albright:
No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done,
or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass
destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different
from other dictators.

Other evidence of belief in WMD (aimed more at Scott Lurie's original
statement of GOP conspiracy than you, Alan). Many from
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/words-of-mass-destruction/

Al Gore (vice president at time of bombing) Sept 2002:
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country.

Carl Levin (Dem Senator, Chair of Armed Services Committee) Sept 2002
We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored
the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them.

Robert Byrd (Dem Senator) Oct 2002:
The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical
and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash
course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability.

Henry Waxman (Dem Representative) Oct 2002:
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy
towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about
Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course
of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has
demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological
weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.

John Kerry (Dem Senator) Jan 2003
We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence
that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a
developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction.

Hillary Clinton (Dem Senator) Oct 2002:
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently
no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September
11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological
and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear
weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the
political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we
know all too well affects American security.
_Now this much is undisputed_. The open questions are: what should we
do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Scott, do you have any comments???

Chris