Where are all those WMD that Bush, Powel, Rice & Cheny said where in Iraq? It's like that old game, "Where's Waldo?" Still looking after 9 months? Could it be, no really, that they haven't been there since, oh, maybe 1999? Where are those pesky WMD? Hiding behind a Bush, maybe?
sort of like some peoples' genitals... it's in the bush.. but it's so damn hard to find it cause it's so damn small... but keep looking, u'll find it eventually Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In all fairness to Bush we do know that Saddam did have chemical weapons. It's not his fault that Saddam just used them all up already, no one could have completely predicted that. Lets be frank, Saddam had WMDs because WE GAVE THEM TO HIM! American corporations, with the ok from Regan sold him tons of chemical weapons, and helicopters to spray them, during the Iraq/Iran war. The chances were pretty damn good that Saddam still had at least some of those still sitting around, but it turns out he either used 'em all up, or sold what he didn't use to someone else. As for making his own WMDs, of course, well that was all BS. Turns out he never was manufacturing anything, and now, after Bush was positive that he was, the best we can pull out of him is "Well he had programs". Well how about an apology to the nation for leading us to war, and asking some of our brave young boys to die on false pretenses. I sure think that is in order. On a side note, somewhat related, did you happen to see the faces of any of the soldiers that were present at Bush's State of the Union Address tonight? They didn't look too thrilled with him, one of them looked like she downright had murder in her eyes, it was absolutely horrid. But then who can blame them? I wouldn't be too pleased with Bush myself if I were in their shoes.
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/WMD7.jpg WMD's will be the excuse to topple nation after nation until we reach Pakistan.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98995,00.html A good read if you are truly serious about WMD's and where they may or may not be. And forget that I got this from FOX news, it was published by almost every mainstream media outlet.
Everyone knows that Saddam had WMD. That's not even the question. The question is whether he was preparing to use them against the United States. Bush sent Powell to the UN to say that our intelligence showed that Saddam was a "clear and eminent" threat. This, of course, was an absolute fabrication. Saddam had the means and the motive to use WMD against the coalition forces during the First Iraq War (Desert Storm). For all he knew we were coming to get him back then in 1991. But he never used his WMD. So what happened in 2003 to push Saddam to strike-out against America with his WMD? Iraq was at that time being turned upside-down by UN weapons inspectors. The American led embargo was still intact. The eyes of the world were on Saddam. Was it worth the lives of over 10,000 Iraqis to replace UN weapons inspectors with US weapons inspectors? Bush was a liar then, and now he's a mass murderer. In a just world he'd be behind bars. In a just world with a Texan sense of punishment he'd be on death-row. Michael
Actually, the question is whether he had them at all when Bush was standing up this time last year and saying Iraq had to be invaded because of them. The answer, as we now know for sure, and then only had the UN inspector's decade of reports as evidence for, is that no, he didn't have anything.
Hey Sparks, When I say that everyone knows that he had WMD, I’m referring to the time period of the Iran-Iraq war. By the time Bush sent Powell to the UN all I knew was that Blix & Co. had not located WMD. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Bush demanded that the American people give him a carte blanche to go to war, not because Iraq had WMD (which few Americans were in a position to say), but because Saddam was preparing an eminent attack against us with his (albeit, hypothetical) WMD. I cared less then, as I do now, that he actually had WMD. Everybody and their brother has WMD these days. I based my decision to actively oppose Bush’s war (to protest in the street) not on the basis that Saddam did not have WMD, but even if he did it seemed highly unlikely that he was preparing to use them in an attack against the United States or our Allies. Of course now it’s beginning to look as if Saddam hasn’t had WMD for some years. On the other hand, tomorrow they might dig up an old storage dump buried out in the desert. It doesn’t matter either way to me. My opposition to Bush’s war was never based on the existence of WMD, but on his boldfaced lie that Saddam was preparing to attack us. Michael
I disagree. I think the question is: "Was Saddam sympathetic to people who would use WMDs against the US or US allies?" I don't think Saddam was stupid enough to use them directly, the fear was that he was a prime enabler.
why stop at Pakistan?? ooh because Pakistan could take the US down.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Keep Pak at the end of the list!! Because there will be trouble if the US ever invades that dear country on the pretense of imaginary WMDs. This topic's been discussed in other threads already. . somewhere.. There are no WMD in Iraq. There haven't been for years. The President's just paranoid and picking on Iraq.
The problem is that that question demands the existance of such WMDs as a prerequisite. Ten years of UN records, an active investigation and the basic technical facts regarding those weapons all said that he didn't have them, which even at the ultimate neocon paranoia level requires that that prerequisite be considered to be an open question.
That must have been why the UN unanimously approved 1441, which found Iraq in material breach of 687. Oh wait. Don't kid yourself. Everybody thought he had at least something. The point of contention was how to go about getting rid of them. I'll buy that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat and that the Bush admin did a lousy job of assembling their pretext, but absolving Saddam's Iraq of all their past chicanery is impossible.
That's either a case of insufficent news being available to you at the time, a faulty memory or an outright bare-faced lie. Several people were saying he had nothing, including Hans Blix, who was the one person that actually had any credibility in the entire fiasco.
Not exactly. The problem is that the question had no firm answer and as everyone knows, he had WMDs. When and where was the question. Personally, I think that the risk that he did still have them and that his only feasible route to getting at the US was through terrorists and that he was strongly motivated to do so, was too high to risk allowing him to remain in power... especially considering that he would not cooperate with resolutions by the UN. Mind you, I realize that's not necessarily the case, but the RISK and realization presented in an age where the twin towers have been taken down.. rather, the sense of risk and urgency is increased immensely given the light of 9/11. (of course I realize the risk hasn't actually changed, but the perception thereof has greatly changed, and the seriousness of the responsibility to thwart this type of thing changed in a government that had previously not taken it as seriously as necessary) Well, the "active investigation" is questionable to me since damn I don't remember. The investigators had been kicked out of iraq since when? When were they let back in? When did Iraq actually fully cooperate (the last question is sarcastic)? IMO, saddam missed an opportunity to shame the US in not proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that didn't have WMDs of any kind. IMO, he could have gained MUCH international juice by dissing the US in that manner. Instead, he was as evasive as is possible. Well, it seems as if the US played a stronger game of paranoia in the end. Further, I'm still not wholly convinced that he didn't have them (not that it matters much at this point).
" I think the question is: "Was Saddam sympathetic to people who would use WMDs against the US or US allies?" The answer: Saddam was only sympathetic to Saddam. Saddam did not like any of the revolutionaries running around the mideast, Islamic, Kurdish, Turkomen, Marsh Arabs, Religioius nuts, Al-Qaeda, all the same to Saddam. He did not talk with them ever- He killed them every day. For Saddam so loved Saddam that whosoever displeased him had better not set foot in Iraq beyond the no-flies, or anywhere, or have family, especially cute sons. Very disturbing things could happen to your son. Do you understand what this mentality did to everyone who was caught in the wrenching inevitability of it it, dealing out or receiving such unbelievable cruelty for so long, wesmorris? If you can comprehend the basic Newtonian concept of potential energy, why can you not recognize explosive containments of Potential Payback? Do you understand that the Iraqi civil war is about to erupt between Sunnis and Shia? Do you understand this politically represents a powerful regional fracture line, shocking also an intertwined fracture line in Israel/Occupied Terrirories? Do you understand that these events contribute to the increasing likelihod of wider warfare, OPEC collapse, and geoeconomic tsunamis? Do you think the US economy is a healthy and resilient one? "the risk that he did still have them and that his only feasible route to getting at the US was through terrorists and that he was strongly motivated to do so..." Hogwash. UN inspectors proved exactly what Saddam had, and CIA knew that their assessment was correct. State Dept, White House, and CIA all tried to influence the UN reports, but the truth was put on record anyway. US leadership and people familiar with the countries involved knew very clearly that Saddam's armies and arsenals were gone: Not hidden (though scrapped in deserts with drifting dunes)- gone through attrition, demolition, and disrepair. Saddam was broke too, and could not buy like he used to before economic sanctions. I already disproved the bullshit about Saddam liking Al-Qaida, or any functional insurrection resembling Al-Qaida: Saddam liked to kill and torture any rebels, especially religious ones along with supporters, wives, and children, to keep Iraq unified through all trials. Understand I am not condoning it, but this was the mind of Saddam and his people. Saddam was vicious, but he was counterterrorism for us in Iraq, and the United States already has missed the opportunity to demonstrate that American integrity could substitute for brutality. From here on, wes, it just gets uglier until we leave. Do you understand that? "the "active investigation" is questionable to me since damn I don't remember." That's because at the time you were not paying attention. Maybe you still are not.
Bingo. Which, if he were not insane, he would have provided to the disgrace of america. It would also have resulted in relief of sanctions. If he had nothing to hide, he could have easily "exposed the American paranoia" (as he might have been able to spin it on the international scene) and relieved the suffering of his people. EDIT: So if that evidence is true, he's clearly not rational. If he's clearly not rational you circle back questioning his motive(s) for proving the US wrong, which gets cumbersome cuz you can't really know so you have to play out every scenario. Some of them play out where Saddam allows favor of those who could harm to US. In that situation you have to estimate the likelihood of that type of scenario and consider if it is within acceptable limits of risk considering your resources, etc. Apparently it was determined that the risk was not acceptable, and the myriad of related strategic gains from attempting to install democracy outweighed the risk of quagmire when put in the light of the potential long-term cost (monetary and human life) of what is viewed as terrorism by the US government.
So basicly, you're saying that you invaded a foreign country, killing ~10,000 innocent civilians and 55,000 people in total in the process, stamping all over the UN and the international community, triggering the largest civil protests the world has ever seen - and all because you weren't smart enough to know that the man who gave us "the mother of all battles" wasn't playing with a full deck?
I am saying that we invaded a foreign country in an attempt to minimize long term risk to a number of US interests. You can cite "largest civil protests" all you want but a slim majority of the US is in favor of the move. Would you like to discuss the relevance of public opinion in the strategy of war? It is a factor to consider. If your paranoid schizophrenic brother had the controls to a nuke in his house and all he had to do was fiddle with it sometime to kill a millions irishmen, and you probably had to kill 50,000 australlians to stop him.... and there was no other option, you either leave the risk alone or take the risk of killing the australians (even though you tell them you're coming so really none of them had to die by your hand, though if they would leave the australian government might kill them for abandoning something)... could you make the choice? I'm not saying that's perfectly analagous to the situation, as it was a lot more complicated, but I think it's somewhat analagous. Maybe there should be something about knowing that your brother purposefully set off smaller nukes before and had thousands of people in dungeons and stuff, and that he's starving a nation full of people, and that he has giant gold statues of himself everywhere, and blah blah blah.
