If the hyperlink doesn't work, go to yahoo and find it in the news section.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=14&u=/usatoday/20040302/ts_usatoday/uniraqhadnowmdafter1994


This is Prisme reminding you that the only thing worst than being wrong is being wrong and causing a war over it. :D

iraq had never had any WMDs
it was all invented by Bushies and zionists to get cheap oil and kill arabs

True, many people were against the war due to lack of evidence, the political leaders involved wont stay in power though, not after that mistake.

We had no real way of knowing about Iraq's WMD's, they circulated false information, and we certainly could not trust Saddam to tell the truth. I'm glad to see Bush go down for this, though. I don't see the war as a way to either get cheap oil or kill arabs, more as a chance to create fear in the U.S.. Create fear, and the country will accept the patriot act, and other losses of rights. In an environment of fear, Bush's Christian Fundamentalist agenda can slip by unnoticed by most.

While I respect every American's right to voice their opinion, I also believe that your opinion should be backed up with fact. So I have four questions for everyone who wishes to debate the topic of Iraq and WMDs (or the lack thereof). (1) What level of security clearance do you hold? (2) How often do you attend intelligence briefings given by the NSA, CIA, NSC, J6, or other intelligence gathering organization? (3) How many classified reports have you read on the subject? (4) How often do you review classified satellite imagery of the Middle-East?

The mere fact that there was reasonable doubt should have not allowed this war to happen. Secondly President Bush said he would allow the inspectors to do their work until it was finished. Remember it was not Saddam who kicked out the UN inspectors it was Bush. Bush did not care about the WMD if he really did he would have let the inspectors verify his claims. Which lends reasonable certainty that the Americans knew nothing was there.

I also believe that your opinion should be backed up with fact.

Fact - Sufficient evidence has not yet been produced to back up the claims of the amount of WMD Iraq possessed.
Fact - The U.S. has invested alot of money and human lives in a war based on those claims.

Those are the facts that I will use to form my opinion. What the administration thought they knew going in to this is irrelevant. The toll on our soldiers and the amounts of money being spent and the integrity of our foreign policy, as far as I'm concerned, means the administration ~has~ to be right before going to war.

I beleive im speaking as the only british person in this thread (i apoligise if im not i just havnt noticed any posts on britain joining america in this war) and im very dissappointed that bush has a pet poodle called tony blair, neither country had evidence of any WMD's, just a fabricated intelligence document that they have yet to prove and are now trying to sweep under the carpet, theres a huge problem with the document the british were presented with, they claimed he could launch WMD's in 45 minutes, when even britain and america cant do that. Also im curious, he would need some kind of missile silo/launch pad to launch these WMD's, how comes we couldnt see that from aerial photos and satellite pictures? The great thing is, the british elections are next year, and the american election is pretty soon now i think aswel, they have limited time to prove the document before they are both voted out.

While I respect every American's right to voice their opinion, I also believe that your opinion should be backed up with fact. So I have four questions for everyone who wishes to debate the topic of Iraq and WMDs (or the lack thereof). (1) What level of security clearance do you hold? (2) How often do you attend intelligence briefings given by the NSA, CIA, NSC, J6, or other intelligence gathering organization? (3) How many classified reports have you read on the subject? (4) How often do you review classified satellite imagery of the Middle-East?

what are you talking about?
we don't need no stinken intelligence!
we know all the facts we need to know from our own intelligence:

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.rense.com
http://www.pna.org/

cause you know that those lying liars in the CIA are alwyas lying!

What scared me about the ignorance of some members of the US senate/congress, was when the administration was making it's case against the Iraqi's they said that the Iraqi's had UAV's that could attack the US! Hello not even the US right now has the capability to attack the Iraqi's from the US without in-flight refueling, forget about a UAV. Sad, really was quite sad.

(1) What level of security clearance do you hold? (2) How often do you attend intelligence briefings given by the NSA, CIA, NSC, J6, or other intelligence gathering organization? (3) How many classified reports have you read on the subject? (4) How often do you review classified satellite imagery of the Middle-East?

Well, the US President and his top advisors can meet your criteria satisfactorily, yet their assertions have fallen flat on their faces. Other individuals within the power structure (like David Kay or even Powell) have admitted the paucity of solid evidence. In the end, even the intelligence analysts don't know whether Iraq had weapons. Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt with regards to their sincerity, they made an educated guess. After nearly a year's passage, their guess seems pretty far from the truth. Now, considering and appreciating the resources, skills and effort that US intelligence community can muster, it just seems much more likely, that they knowingly misled and lied.

Originally Posted by TAF0708
(1) What level of security clearance do you hold? (2) How often do you attend intelligence briefings given by the NSA, CIA, NSC, J6, or other intelligence gathering organization? (3) How many classified reports have you read on the subject? (4) How often do you review classified satellite imagery of the Middle-East?

===========================

Although most people have diligently answered this question, I would like to add:


What is particularly frustrating, in this case, is that the public was litterally brainwashed by soundbites made by Bush and Blair stating: "We have with total certainty evidence of the existence of WMD". Now that we know that the last WMD that ever existed in the Iraq was destroyed in 1994... the public cannot but resist to critize both the secret services and those making the false claims of evidence.
Personnaly, I always thought it was odd that this "clear and undoubtable" evidence could not be shown to the public. But given that such evidence never existed, I guess that move is now understandable.
In any case, assisting to secret services meetings doesn't make anyone smarter when the head honcho (Bush) orders his chiefs to 'find WMD'. We all know that the reports falsifying the nigerian uranium connection were ignored and that other reports were litterally made up to make Bush happy.

So if meetings, reports and sattelite pictures are said to say what the boss wants them to say... it doesn't make any difference what the degree of involvement the public gets with respect with that information, for it was crooked from the get go.

Prisme