reason on the War.

Wednesday, March 19th, 2008

reason staffers (including yours truly) look back at five years of Iraq.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

13 Responses to “reason on the War.”

  1. #1 |  Keith Panik | 

    I just read the article. I have comment on a statement in your piece.

    >>Like most people, my positions were based on the assumption that there were actually weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
    >>

    Thinking back on my thoughts during this time, I remember always going back to the fact that UN inspector Scott Ritter was stating unequivocally that there were NO WMD’s. I must say that I never had a hard time believing HIM (Scott). Instead the government made him out as a traitor.

    If nothing more, it was a sign of things to come.

    Keith

  2. #2 |  Jim Henley | 

    No Cathy Young? Tragic.

  3. #3 |  Dog's New Clothes | 

    Mr. Henley,

    Why are you not a fan of Cathy Young?

  4. #4 |  TGGP | 

    Michael Young’s portion was idiotic. Like swimming back half an ocean? Hardly.

  5. #5 |  Alex | 

    Keith,

    I used to work for a company that had another division that did weird gov’t biochemical (I assume) research. Scott Ritter was somehow involved in this, and I heard from several people that he was a bright straight-shooter. I didn’t know exactly how serious to take that, but history is sure on his side.

  6. #6 |  Mike Schneider | 

    > Like most people, my positions were based on the assumption
    > that there were actually weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    I don’t know anybody who “based” their support decision (when they wouldn’t have supported otherwise) upon the prospect of WMDs (as they were just one reason tossed out among many). WMDs are merely the one backpeddling liberals now like to claim was the major selling-point which “fooled” them.)

    (Of course the real reason why Saddam’s stockpiles of WMDs weren’t found in Iraq is because they were sent to Syria and Russia before the invasion.)

  7. #7 |  Alex | 

    Those weapons have a very short shelf-life and would be worth absolutely nothing today.

    Also, I was against the war from the getgo mainly because I talked to officers I knew from my Army days, and they, to a person, said the war plan wasn’t worth a damn. I remember almost everyone being for it because of the weapons and the Al-Qaeda connection. I have no philosophical objection to war in general, or this war really, but I am realistic enough to acknowledge what I lived through only a half-decade ago.

  8. #8 |  Mike Schneider | 

    > Those weapons have a very short shelf-life and would be
    > worth absolutely nothing today.

    “Worth absolutely nothing” to whom

    Saddam Hussein was sufficiently impressed with the lethality of World War I-era mustard-gas that used it to exterminate thousands of Kurds.

  9. #9 |  Alex | 

    “Saddam Hussein was sufficiently impressed with the lethality of World War I-era mustard-gas that used it to exterminate thousands of Kurds.”

    I can’t believe I actually have to explain this.

    You see, Mike, the mustard gas was not literally from WWI. Yes, it was WW1 technology. No, it was not actual mustard gas from WWI.

  10. #10 |  Mike Schneider | 

    Alex, I can’t believe I have actually have to explain this:

    You see, Alex; I am perfectly well aware of that, and furthermore do not think that the grammatical construction of my post above could potentially confuse anyone with more than one marble rolling around upstairs.

    (Yeah, I can see it now: The French shipping corroded, leaking dud shells fresh-dug from the soil of Bois de l’Abbe, and shipping ‘em straight to Saddam.)

  11. #11 |  Alex | 

    I say that 20 year old BC weapons are worthless and you counter by saying that brand spanking new ones can be quite effective?

    Is that seriously what you’re saying?

  12. #12 |  Mike Schneider | 

    > I say that 20 year old BC weapons are worthless….

    Then you’re an idiot.

    There are many types of chemical compounds with extraordinarily long shelf-lives. (Dud WWI mustard gas shells are still recovered in France to this day, with their contents still capable of maiming those who mishandle them.)

    The fact that, say, the US is capable of shooting down Scuds with chemical warheads, or that a Scud’s warhead isn’t big enough to hold a great deal of the stuff, isn’t relevant at all since there are considerably more lethal ways of spreading poisons over hapless populations (the aforementioned Kurds).

  13. #13 |  Alex | 

    “There are many types of chemical compounds with extraordinarily long shelf-lives. (Dud WWI mustard gas shells are still recovered in France to this day, with their contents still capable of maiming those who mishandle them.)”

    There are many types of chemical compounds with long shelf lives. Nerve gas and blister agents are not them. I say this as an ex-soldier and chemical engineer.

Leave a Reply