How many people here still refute WMD's in Iraq?
 

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...and_weapons_dc

So yeah, I don't know what to make of it really. Do people honestly still believe Saddam had no WMD's? How will this be spun so that it doesn't matter to the Anti-Bush/Anti-War crowd? I hope this isn't misinterpreted as a troll, just seems many people on this board are still holding on to the notion that there were no WMD's.

Also I realize this is not a massive stockpile, but whether it is 2 or 17 122mm rocket heads with Sarin, its still something.

I still dont think that is justifiable though.

It was just a matter of time. Saddam (and his boys) believed they were above the will of the UN. Wait until we find one fo the huge stashes. Again, just a matter of time. I disagree with alot of the reasons that we are there and how, but I firmly believe he is a lying pig. What next, nukes, a harem of slave girls, dungeons, torture chambers and the list of atrocities can go on and on?

This is not at all surprising. Saddam had 12 years to perfect his concealment and deceit.

To be honest, that sounds kinda small amount of chemical agent - doesn't seem very probable that Saddam was laughing evilly and hiding this arsenal of 2 - 17 rockets in order to have his retribution later.

It is very unlikely that a finding of this caliber is going to make many people think that "Gee whizz, there was WMDs after all."

Please refer me to the UN Resolution which authorized Saddam to have a kinda small amount of a chemical agent. I was not aware that he was allowed to keep any.

Did he even know he had these?

But if we forget my opinion on this, do you think that this finding will be the great breakthrough?

It depends upon the agenda of the reader. There are some people who will not believe that any amount of WMDs are enoug proof.

If the claim that these weapons were hidden from UN inspectors hold up, then this is all the proof that I require.

Probably, probably. Still - I would hardly qualify that finding as a tangible threat. I'm also very sceptical that this will really change many opinions on this matter.

But rest assured, I'm personally ready to admit that Saddam was a threat and had true WMD capabilities if a stash more substantial than some rusty artillery shells is found.

Sadly, i dont think this will change anyones minds. With that number, he only broke the resolution a little. I think at this point its kinda obvious that the people that need proof wont ever be satisfied. Also, at this point, whats one more broken resolution anyway? If all the others weren't enough for teh war, how will this one change that?

Isn't that a bit exaggerating? I'm sure that most people who don't necessarily agree that couple of rusty artillery rockets with some small traces of sarin are a tangible proof that Saddam was a threat may very well admit it if a larger stash was found. The problem is that there is no exact number what this amount is, but the media blare will surely tell us if it happens.

My common sense might be flawed, but I still find it absurd if these rockets would be the WMDs behind Iraq war.

This falls FAR short of the tons and tons of chemical weapons that Colin Powell named in his appearance before the UN. As has already been stated in this thread, a few warheads doesn't quite vindicate the WMD intelligence that we heard before the war. The war is over now, though, so we will eventually know the truth.

If we are so concerned about the integrity of the UN, why did we invade in defiance of UN opinion?

Because the rampant corruption that rules the UN was so ridiculous, they wouldn't even enforce their own resolutions, nor were they attempting to take any steps to handle the situation as it needed (at least in our view).

It's just the slightest bit disingenuous to claim that you defy the UN to support it.

But as far as i have heard, the resolutions didn't stipulate it was only illegal if he had "tons and tons" of them. My understanding is that even the small amount we have found is more than was allowed. How badly does he have to break the rules for us to recognize they were broken?

Everyone recognized he was breaking rules. We disagreed on what to do about it.

A large number of people felt that Saddam's regime posed no (or minimal) threat to US soil and interests without diverting our attention and sizable resources from Afghanistan to Iraq.

The fact that the discovered WMDs have fallen so short of the numbers projected by the US Administration highlights the notion that the intelligence used may have been fudged or selectively chosen to inflame public sentiment rather than for it's truth. This is an important point when discussing the validity of the Administration's justifications for our invasion. the invasion may now be over, but the election makes such question very relevant.

As I was saying earlier, if we were so concerned with the integrity of the UN, why did we invade in defiance of it?

Amazing how the story changes.

Powell had pretty pictures showing the UN and the world exactly where these stockpiles and labs were. Rummy said at a press conference that they knew where everything was, it was just a matter of getting the green light to get in there. Did the US satellites blink long enough for Saddam to make everything vanish? Copperfield would be proud. I don't buy it.

Now two 20 year old shells is enough for people to yell "told ya so?" Was this that imminent threat you were talking about? Is it really possible to find something so far after the fact that would vindicate the "imminent threat" claim?



SLM3

Did anyone else find that story rather utterly worthless? At one point the Polish troops are showed the rockets by an Iraqi and then they buy them on the black market? Buying weapons on the black market does not make a WMD cache. Those could have come from anywhere. And why were they buying them? Why didn't they just take them? Especially since they're considered contraband.

And what was with the constant see-sawing of the article. It seemed like the Poles were making baseless statements about WMDs and then in the next paragraph some US official would completely denounce the Polish claim.

In the end they found one or two twenty year old rockets that contained enough cyclosarin to be completely ineffective against anyone. That is not a Weapon of Mass Destruction. It's a twenty year old piece of junk that some guy found in a sand dune and managed to sell to the Polish army. It would be like me finding an old rusted out musket in a field and then getting busted for gun possession without a permit.

This is the stuff that we (the US) gave him and allowed him to use 20 years ago. A worker in a chemical weapons plant could have put a few in his trunk and sold them off to get some stuff for his family when Saddam started disarming. A black market sale does not prove that he was in violation of UN mandates. I'll wait until we find some stuff that can be confirmed as a hidden stash in posession of the Iraqi government that could have posed a real thread to the US before I change my mind and decide that the pre-war intelligence was anything other than a complete fabrication or gross exaggeration of outdated information.

i don't see how this is really proof of saddam being a threat to the USA -- did we really go to war over 17 spent shells with traces on sarin gas? if so, has it been worth it? I realize that it's possible that there are more weapons out there which *could* prove that saddam posed some threat to the USA. however, before the invasion the bush administration claimed numerous times that they knew exactly where large stockpiles of weapons in iraq were located -- this is clearly not the case and i'm not willing to forgive that lie, misrepresentation, or bad intelligence just because we've found a very small number of questionable weapons.

to argue that every country that breaks a UN mandate deserves to be invaded is a bit much -- by that standard very few countries would still be sovereign nations.

Suddam had weapons but not of mass destruction as Bush claims. If he did he would of used them before the US invaded.

face it--the bush administration's jutifications for war were a joke. this falls well below any standards that were set by the un itself--including the americans before bushworld took hold---the un inspectors might well have done their jobs--the un might well have been right--the accusations of corruption might well turn out to be the john birch society crap they are (show me the proof of un corruption--seriously, show the proof) and have always been--and bushwar may well have been in fact the illegal, unjustified, immoral colonial war that its critics have maintained it was from the start.

geez...how about that?

I do believe that America is guilty more than any other country of breaking UN mandates. Hell it was just until the last couple of weeks that US soldiers were unable to be charged with war crimes. Because we wrote the rules and then exempted ourselves from them.

I love America, but the hypocrisy sometimes makes me wanna puke.

You probably mean the stuff that Germany made the factories for, which Saddam then produced by himself...

(Knows all about biological agents the US supplied, and has seen the lists of banned WMDs being shipped to Iraq, so don't bother to declare me ignorant.)

I think it's funny that, as is fairly typical of this kind of thread, the conservatives were the main posters in the beginning, and a barrage of liberal posts come in later in the thread life.

Somewhat like talk radio, when you think about it (what points does Air America make - that's if anyone can actually still pick them up - other than "We Hate Bush?").

At any rate, you wanted proof? As cthulu23 says early on, slanted though it was, Colin Powell said that, based on our intelligence findings, we knew where the WMD's were. You know why he said that? . . . Because we did . . . we had them on satellite. Satellite photos showed them three weeks before we got to their location, and as we moved across Iraq, they were loaded into convoys and moved away, which was also shot on SAT photos. Know why you've never heard about it? Because you watch CNN or Entertainment Tonight for your news. Take a little from both sides. Oh, and if you want the typical verification of that, check out Neal's liner notes from a while back (searching WMDs might do it) at boortz.com. I'd do it myself, but, frankly, I don't care that much. Y'all have a nice night.

Oh, and it wasn't 'traces'. If used to its maximum efficiency, we've found enough Sarin to kill over 600,000 people. That number's also in Neal's Nuze, but again, I don't care enough to go find it; have fun hunting on a Libertarian site :).

600,000 people. That's not enough? What is, a million? Two? Ten? Pick your number . . . At first, it was a matter of not having anything at all and calling Bush a liar. Now, it's a matter of saying that, while we found some, it's just not enough . . . and still calling him a liar, this time with even less to stand on. I'm sorry, but, as a liter of sarin has the ability to kill tens of thousands of people, and as it has been shown that these Muslim terrorists are willing to hunt down Americans to kill them, what's to stop them from sneaking a two-liter canister of sarin into the US and opening it up inside a city building's ventilation system or a shopping mall? This is one thing that we're effectively slowing, if not stopping altogether.

I wonder what the argument is going to be later on, should we find any more . . .

Dragonlich you ignorant fool! ;) Haha j/k

But I wouldn't be surprised if it were either from Germany or from the U.S. or anywhere else due ot the times

And at any rate since the story has fallen off the table all of a sudden I'm not too sure what to make of it - black market after all, reminds me of where terrorists are getting things, so who the hell knows right now?

Certainly not any of us.

Where did you find this claim that the traces of sarin could have been used to kill 600,000 people? You don't think FOX news would have jumped on that number. 600,000 is a lot of dead people to go ignored.

Maybe we should go ahead and invade every country that has a trace of chemical weapons somewhere.

Man, Deon Sanders in his prime couldn't keep up with the liberals carrying these goalposts down the field.

I think it is fair to say - and disingenuous to suggest otherwise, that truly satisfactory evidence will only come from the finding of munitions factories, labs or possibly a significant stockpile of weapons (though really, at this late date, the state of the country being what it has been for the last year and 3 months that wouldn't stand up to most scrutiny).

The problem that would be faced would be similar to that of a police department taking out a warrant against a homeowner on the grounds he was a drug dealer, kicking the owner out for a year, letting all the neighbourhood junkies and gangbangers do whatever they want in the house, and then 16 months later find a piece of crack in the house under the couch and say "See, see! Crack dealer!". It just wouldn't fly in court, other than possibly the court of public opinion.

Looks like the initial reports were a little exagerated.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...iraqdig03.html

Deion Sanders carried goal posts down the field?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...and_weapons&ci

Another one that says the same.
They tested negative for chemical agents.

I didn't know people still believed he ever had any, considering nothing has ever been found to even lead to that conclusion, let alone any WMD's themselves be discovered. In my opinion, and from the way it looks, these are leftovers from an old war- nothing more. Suggesting anything more would be bullshit rhetoric to make the shrub look good.

This might have been an interesting cheap-shot against "liberals", if it made any sense. By the way... cheap-shots like this are not the way to debate, and we recommend against it.

Damn, this has been happening for that past year.

Preliminary report hyped all over the place, then rebutted (with real evidence) once the fur flies and settles.

No apology from the conservatives for bashing liberals who were skeptical (even though it turns out they were, again correct).

/smooth sets his heavy goalpost back down and ponders why he bothered picking it up to begin with--it's not like anyone's come close to it yet

What would constitute as a real significant WMD anaway? I would say, working missles with chemical or biological warhead, A factory that creates such things that has shown recent use, nuclear bomb/missle, A whole arsenal of thousands of shells and bombs with chemical or biological agents in them.

I got seven words for you:

"weapons of mass destruction related program activities"

-George W. Bush

This blog post has a good rundown. Some tfp members might have moved the goalpost a bit (from "no weapons at all" to the weaker claim of "not enough weapons to go to war over," which are sorta variations on each other), but the prime mover of goal posts lives at 1600 PA Ave.

analog noted that your post was a bit of a cheap shot, and that it was a poor argument. I tend to agree, but I think the whole issue of just where the goalpost lies is quite relevant. It might be the only meaningful question left in the thread now that we know the artillery shells are not loaded with chemical weapons.

In my mind, no amount of chemical weapons are worth going to war over. They are difficult to use, and are only likely to result in localized casualties. Just look at the Tokyo gas attacks a few years back. With those out of the way, we have three things to consider: biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons. Strong, communicable biological agents are second only to nukes in killing capacity. I would say that only in the case of working nukes or potent biological agents should we go to war.

I can't justify invading a country and causing plenty of certain deaths in order to mabye prevent a chemical/radiological attack that is rather unlikely to kill more than 1000 people.

If Saddam had WMD the U.S with all its sophiscated technology would have already found them. One would have thought they would of had 100% confirmation before they went in for no other reason than to look like a super power.

Secondly if WMD were on the agenda even if not already found ie,..know they are there, just haven't found them yet) , George Bush would be trumpeting that fact over and over in an election year, rather than constantly reminding the world how we are collectively rid of a tyrant and the Iraqi's are free.

If you read the article that was posted the US troops say:


Sarin has a life span of no more then 10 years. Case closed.

It’s pathetic that people are still jumping on these “discoveries”, especially a poorly contrived piece of gibberish as this article. How many lies must some one fall for before they learn their lesson…

As fearless leader said, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... ... ... ...wont get fooled again!"

I enjoy the whole, "What are the bush hating liberals gonna say to downplay this?" aspect that completely disappears once the intial story is downplayed. I long for the day where certain conservatives realize that liberals don't have a monopoly on irrational dogma. Maybe then we can all laugh at the irony.

How is it even rationally possible to use this story to bolster the idea that saddam had massive caches of wmd's poised to attack america with a mere 45 minutes notice?

Are you saying that these warheads did *not* contain Sarin? No, you don't; you're saying that they were rendered useless because of the limited life span. Now... what does this mean? It means that a) Saddam did have WMDs around at a time that he should not have had them. b) These WMDs are now no longer a threat.

But the point you seem to be making is that this article is lying about the WMDs, even though there were in fact (at one time) WMDs in those warheads. Therefore, there is no lie, period.

This pretty much goes to the heart of the argument, doesn't it? My interpretation of the positions:

- On the one hand we had a perfectly clear UN resolution, with a pro-war position that Saddam shouldn't have *any* WMDs, no matter how small the amount, no matter how deteriorated the material, no matter what. Any trace of WMD is therefore proof that they are right. Basically, it's not a matter of how much WMDs are found, it's a matter that they are found at all.

- On the other hand we have the anti-war position that there weren't any useful weapons left, which is proven with every find. A small amount of working material can then justifiably be dismissed as useless/old/irrelevant, or in the more extreme cases as part of a US conspiracy (bush=evil, after all). Here, it's not a matter of that they are found, it's a matter of them being found in a large enough cache to justify the war to *them*.

In short, I'd say that there's no real need to argue, as both sides are promoting (and arguing for) another logical position.

Politics at work.. you can see the same thing but in a different tint.

I don't understand this.

The US did nothing to stop Saddam when he used them. AFAIK, the US did not say he was not supposed to have these materials at the time.

It's foolish to think that you can control every little thing in the country. Let's say it's illegal to have drugs. I have drugs at home. Should the president take the blame for that?

Unless they find stuff like hidden factories or storages that are the governments property that contains WMD's...

The above does not equal "Saddam had WMD's in his possesion, ready to use them".

i don't want to piss anyone off but isn't this a bit of a pointless argument?

my opinion, we went in for questionable reasons, now let's make the best of it

It's not a pointless argument in an election year.

Before commenting I wanted to ask if anyone saw what I saw:

On the third day of Iraqi Freedom I like so many others was glued to the TV watching all the entrenched reporting going on ( it still blows me away the way it wasa minute by minute live like that ); on FOX of all channels a journalist was present when some soldiers came across a huge cache of chemical drums. WIthin five minutes that broadcast was cut and there was no mention of it afterward. (Not the same incident where empty barrels were found) if you saw this you know what Im talking about.

I saw it on CNN and Wolf Blitzer was almost pissing himself. Last thing I heard was that CNN was waiting for confirmation as to the contents, which at that time was, just as the war started. Still waiting.

I find it amazing that people can still have enough of a vacuous lack of any understanding of current events that they think finding a couple of ancient, useless weapons out in the middle of a desert substantiates Bush's claims that the country was chock-full of weapons of mass destruction that could be used against us.

If finding two old, dead weapons that couldn't be used for anything but an interesting door stop proves that Saddam had WMD, then I guess finding a bottle of motor oil in someone's garage proves that they're a car thief.

Shakran, I take it you're the proof of my interpretation of the anti-war position. :)

How are these "two old, dead weapons" *not* prove that Saddam had WMDs? It's not a gray scale thing we're talking about, it's an Either-Or situation: either he had them, or he had none. IF these weapons are shown to belong to the Saddam-era Iraqi army, it proves that he did have WMDs.

Now, does this prove that he had a *substantial amount* of WMDs before the last war? No, it does not. That cannot be proven with isolated discoveries of long-lost weapons.

Actually, it proves that Iraq had delivery systems for WMDs, as the shells tested negative for chemicals.

No one is arguing that Saddam has had WMDs in the past...his use of them is well known. What is disputed is if the White House inflated the estimates of his present day stockpiles to sculpt public opinion towards war.

But Lich,

We didn’t go to war because at some point in time and space Iraq had WMDs. We all know they had them and used them mainly because we helped fund their development.

We went to war because we were told that Iraq had usable and deployable WMDs up to and including the date of March 20, 2003.

Actually, as I recall, you went to war because Saddam didn't comply with the relevant UN resolutions, which banned *any and all* WMDs. The US government tried to get public support by claiming that he had tons of dangerous WMDs; this does not mean that that was the *reason*, I'd say it was merely the method of gaining support.

This claim of imminent danger seemed reasonable at the time. There were many questions remaining about hundreds or even thousands of tons of WMD material, and little or no cooperation from Saddam to answer those questions.

That was never the concern. Saddam knew he couldn't attack the US directly.

The concern was that one WMD would be given by Saddam to a terrorist group, and that that terrorist group would use it against us.

Concern no more. Thanks, Dubya!

The funny thing is thinking about how loud the libs would be screaming right now if we'd never gone to Iraq....

I can hear it now...

"GEORGE BUSH ISN'T DOING ANYTHING TO PREVENT TERRORISM OMG WHY DOESN'T HE GO TO IRAQ! BUSH AND SADDAM ARE FRIENDS OMG OMG OMG!!!"

The Monday after Saddam was captured, I attended a small reception for Senator Feinstein. She made some quite interesting comments about the Iraq War. Sitting on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, she has a unique visibility into the intelligence and the analysis of the threat.

The major concern that led Congress to approve the war was the risk that Saddam could easily distribute batches of chemical and biological weapons to terrorist cells who could then use them within the U.S.

One of the mistakes made by the Anti-War League is to assert that the justification for war must be made beyond a reasonable doubt. The issue is not one of criminal law in which an individual's constitutional rights are in play; rather, it is one of national security. The standard is one of assessing if there is a reasonable risk.

So far, the record of Saddam's brutality, intent to manufacture or acquire weapons and hatred of the U.S. have not been refuted. He was a reasonable risk.

that possibility permanently exists, from any number of places---in part because the international weapons trade is so indiscriminate in where it sells to---you combine that with the looseness of usage of the word terrorist and you have a logic that would legitimate bushwar on everybody who has wmd-type systems at any point, and says nothing about anyone in particular at any particular time.

there was an interesting poll taken just after the start of bushwar--something like 70% (i dont remember the exact number--sorry) of respondants thought that iraqis had been on the planes that flew into the trade center etc.... the results were puzzling. the pollsters--i dont remember who they were, but only that the organization was not gallop etc.--concluded that people would rather lie to themselves than admit they have been lied to.

Do you think it is a good thing that Saddam is no longer President of Iraq?

This thing with liberals and GWB is like a cult, except instead of irrationally worshipping and agreeing with the leader, they irrationally hate and oppose ANYTHING he says or does.

Gas prices are a good example.. If they go up, it's "Why isn't Bush doing anything about oil prices? He doesn't care about the people, he only cares about lining the pockets of his rich corporate fat-cat Big Oil cronies!"

If they go down.. "Bush is letting oil prices go down as a re-election ploy so soccer moms can keep driving their huge fuel-sucking SUVs! He's raping the environment and we'll NEVER have alternative fuels at this rate!"

Anyway, back to the thread.. The UN stated that Saddam was not to have any chemical weapons. Saddam has chemical weapons. "Saddam cannot have chemical weapons" means "Saddam cannot have chemical weapons". Not "Well he can have some chemical weapons, as long as he doesn't have too many, or they're too new, or anything along those lines." This is not some weird far-out subjective thing that's open to interpretation. It's a clearly stated resolution, not an abstract painting.

Argue about whether or not you think we should have went to war with Iraq over WMDs if you want, but whether or not he violated the resolution by having them is no longer debatable.

actually, irseg, the counter argument is as it has always been: the un inspections regime had done its job--the wmd systems had been destroyed---the process worked--and that if there were more systems, the inspectors would have found them---therefore bushwar was unnecessary and illegitimate---and.that is the main reason so many countries did not support this ridiculous colonial war.

and it is funny to hear the word cult being attributed to people who opposed the war--there were lots of reasons to oppose it--nothing unifies the position--why exactly do you support bush?

and wonder--given the appalling american support for dictator and dictator worse that hussein ever was over the past 60 years, i dont think the question is relevant. if the americans acted for moral reasons, they would never have installed pinochet, for example, and looked the other way during the murder of many many thousands of people in chile. if the american position was based on morality, you would think that they would not have looked the other way at the time when the gas was used against the kurds--it was only later, when it was politically expedient, that there were objections. this is simply fact--there is no way to argue around it.

do i think hussein was a shithead--yes.
do i think that justifies bushwar--no.

it turns out that the reasons for war have all turned out to have been lies.

now you are reduced to this position.
why hold on to support of the war if the rationale is now this flimsy on the one hand, and this far from the actual positions outlined in the run-up to it on the other?

i can understand maybe if you have people in iraq---that is seperate...in which case the argument would be totally different, and has nothing to do with politics.

but in principle. i simply do not see how you can argue your position seriously.

You are incorrect that the reasons for war were false.

There were four main reasons:

- Saddam's failure to fully comply with the plethora of UN resolutions involving the settlement of the 1991 Gulf War.

- His demonstrated brutality towards other nations and the risk of future attacks on his neighbors.

- His demonstrated brutality towards his own people and violation of their human rights.

- Saddam's links to terrorists groups. (This is not an allegation that he supported AQ - there is plenty of evidence that he financially sponsored suicide bombers in Israel.)

From the 2003 State of the Union Address:

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States.

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail.

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom.

How would the UN Inspectors find the WMD's when they have stories of Iraqi's stepping up, driving them out into the desert, and showing them where WMD's were buried?

It's a hell of a lot easier to hide them then find them.

wonder----i have heard this litany several times before---i already made my main arguments:

1. as for the un--you have a selective amnesia--remember what was happening in the period just before bushwar--remember for example blix's report directly contradicting the american position.
nothing in what you say militates against it.

1a. more generally, if the americans are so worried in principle about wmd systems, they should stop private firms from selling them. remember that a significant percentrage of what he was accused of having (not all---a significant percentrage) came from american sources with the full support of the reagan administration.

on the second point---i assume you refer to kuwait---well that rationale--which is dubious--applied equally at any point and does nothing to support any particular timing of american actions.

3. i just talked about this third point of yours in the previous post--please read it. i get tired of repeating the same thing over and over. if you have something to say about the argument, then say it--it serves no purpose if you just pretend it was never mentioned.

4. the link that sold the war was to al qeada. without that, the argument about imanent threat to the us was not possible.
it was the threat to the us---NOT KUWAIT--that sold the war to those who supported it. what other country are you talking about? iran? the americans supported and armed iraq during that war--what are you talking about?

so the bush argument was false. period.

the matter of whether hussein did or did not supply financial support to palestinian resistance movements is irrelevant. i would be more surprised if he did not than i am that he did--but either way, it is irrelevant.

and what on earth would prompt you to post bush's state of the union speech as if it proves anything?

I posted it because he mentions the four reasons for going to war, which you are so diligently working to ignore.

Um I do, try again.

what about the arguments other than the last comment?
i dont think you can get around them.

it is sad, really, to find over and over that people who support this lunacy cannot or will not articulate their positions, cannot or will not open their assumptions up for debate, cannot or will not even look critically at their own views, that they rely too often on prepackaged responses from a variety of sourses and cannot or will not go outside that packaging to think for themselves.

or maybe better to give evidence that someone from the outside can recognize that, behind the repetition, they are doing so.

because it is hard to tell when the dominant ideology is being repeated what is going on behind the scenes.

it is usually frustration that prompts me to push at the borders, so see if there is an actual autonomous thinking person behind the repition--it rarely works---usually it just makes the thread snippy for a while, then i or others lose interest.

believe it or not, i am open to being persuaded on matters that i talk about---for example, my position on gun control has drifted considerably under pressure from discussions with others. but i am also more than willing to bring others under pressure--because i think that real discussion can be useful---however going round in tiresome circles is not, and as i have lots of other things going on around me, i do not have time to waste on it.

i think you are wrong.

i think bush lied.

i think the war was illegitimate and that it was and is a debacle.

i think hussein was a shithead, but i also know that the americans have supported lots and lots of bigger shitheads who were conveninent politically---so human rights arguments in a case like this hold no water a priori.
i can on the other hand imagine a military intervention on human rights grounds being legitimate--but not a unilateral action, not proactive---in consort with the community of nations, maybe--under the aegis of the un, maybe. under the tutelage of the mayberry machiavellians? not a chance.
all bushwar serves to do is increase cynicism about the idea of human rights being other than a cheap fig leaf placed over a war carried out on other grounds, for other reasons. and i do not think cheapening the language of human rights is a good thing.

if you or anyone else wants to actually discuss this difference of views, i'll come back into the thread actively. otherwise, i am done with it.

I see roachboy.

All you left out was "It Was All About The Oil."

Gee more generalizing. So what about those who aren't liberals and are conservatives and disagree?

Or maybe they can't?

Don't go about spouting off on a group when you might not even know who is who.

Oil is still the only motive that makes sense. Follow the money, it doesn't lie. The current American regime is packed with people who personally profit and thrive on the chaos and disorder of war. Refute that!

You mistake correlation for causality.

The rich and powerful generally profit, whether we are at war or at peace. It does not necessarily follow that we go to war just so they can profit.

Bush stated four reasons for war which hold up to scrutiny. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make him a liar.

You make the mistake of simply seeing the Bush admin. as "the rich and powerful." Not only are they rich and powerful, but they're also the people who have the most to gain SPECIFICALLY from invading Iraq. How many no-bid war contracts does Halliburton or the Carlyle group need to get before you start to see an association?

You make the mistake of correlating Iraq's past (largely U.S. supported) aggression with the causes for the U.S. invasion! Bush's stated reasoning for invading Iraq crumble under the slightest amount of scrutiny.

He lied, our soldiers died, and now it's time for him to vacate the presidency.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

i just think that the degree of polarisation is such that no-one is going to change their minds ... plus most people have probably got report fatigue... if this argument was a war it would be 1914-1918 with both sides firmly entrenched and lots of mud and sniping

PS: not election year in UK, we're stuck with our bastards for another year or two :(

I really don’t understand why this is still not a done deal, sadamn did not have massive stockpiles as the administration said he did. Sure there are some extra shells with trace amounts, but if I was to tell you to get rid of all the rat poison in your town, you would surely miss some. We still find large quantities of DDT in the US even though its use was banned a long time ago.

If Sadam had them he would have used them against our forces, it is silly for our administration to say he was willing to use them against our homeland but not against our troops in Iraq. It’s just Stupid.

We need to figure out now if it is our information gathering services that suck or is it something more sinister that we were purposely misled.

Funny enough, Halliburton has announced big losses. I guess these Evil Rich & Powerful folks are also incompetent and stupid.

What does a quote from a 1990 article prior to the 1991 ground war have to do with this?

Heh Heh, what really makes me laugh, is that out of the thousands of american troups in Iraq, we STILL had to rely on the POLISH troups to make any damn progress.

The discovery of some old-assed shells is way different than discovering an actual cache of WMD's. We all know that he had them at one point (the Republicans gave them to him), the "facts" posed to us was that he had enough to be a threat AT THE TIME OF INVASION.

This is more like finding traces of cocaine on someone's money than actually finding cocaine.

That's such a pointless question and is more suited to talk radio. It greatly oversimplifies the issue. Questions like this obviously go with the general BS like "liberals love Saddam and hate America" We've listed several reasons why we shouldn't have gone to war. If you don't understand them by now you haven't even tried.

It is quite obvious to me that after september 11, Bush thought to himself..hmm what can I do to benefit from all these people that lost their lives, how can this travecty help me out. With america in shambles, he had everyone at his fingertips. He told the people that terrorists were plotting against us, and to always be cautious. He raised terror alerts to orange, and red, back to orange, down to yellow, and back up again. He was basically scaring this shit out of us. He knew that the people would trust almost anything he did, IF they thought it would help them, help them to be a safer country, help them to get rid of the fear, the fear that was given to them by the government themselfs.
So Bush announced they were going to invade iraq. They were going to invade them to find "weapons of mass destruction, to find chemical and biological weapons"...oh and to umm "help the people, from there opressed government..yeah thats right".
The people of course heard the word weapons of mass destruction and immidiatly thought, yah, we need to get allllll the weapons of mass destruction, hell send all our troops there, weapons of mass destruction can only lead to us getting nuked in the near future...please go in there, spare anything...just help us
So they did, he sent in thousands of troops, and so the war was started: They bombed palaces..missed a couple times..killed thousands of civilians yada yada yada...864 american troups were killed...yada yada yada...and oh umm no weapons of mass destruction, no chemical weapons, no biological weapons..but look what they did do, we got rid of sadaam and saved the people from the opressed government. Yes, they did do that...they now figured since we did do that, half america will think it is still justifyable, I mean we did help that nations people....we have to think though, there are so many countries with that same situations...even there good friends the saudis..but god forbid they would ever invade them...heh, them with there 17 percent of all money in the United States, no we would never invade them...but iraq, they are justifable, they do have the second largest oil reserves...and none of it is even ours...but if we can "invade" them, take away there government, put in our own "government" I think it might be a little easier to get this oil...yes, they can get lots of oil. Hell it costed us hundreds of troups, hundreds of civilians, many many lies to the american people..but in the end the oil is all ours.

Sorry for the book, but I just had to get afew things off my chest...

Edit: This is my own personal opinions..

matteo101, I suggest you try posting such nonsense in the Tilted Paranoia forum. In Tilted Politics, you're supposed to provide at least a reasonable point of view, open to discussion, and if possible, backed by proof of some sort.

IMHO your story says more about the type of person *you* are, than it does about President Bush.

Thank you for sharing Matteo.

I just don't buy the paranoid conspiracy theory.

Occcam's Razor applies. The simplest explanation is that we engaged in war for the stated purpose. The four reasons were justified based upon what has since been discovered. Nobody here has provided any evidence to contradict them - just opinions that what we have found is not "enough".

The discovery of mass graves filled with hundreds of thousands of corposes should be "enough". The discovery of torture and rape rooms should be "enough". The discovery of any WMDs should be "enough".

i don't see anything wrong with matteo101's post... mind you i'd tend to agree with him :) (not 100% but i think he's on the right track)

That's fine if you want to agree with his suspicions. He provides no proof - just accusations.

That's not enough for me.

Thats seems to be enough for the american people...

i have seen precious little proof of anything from anybody, so i've got to go with my suspicions for now... we knew Mr Hussein was an evil fuck before the war... i think the burden of proof is with US & UK governments though

even giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, he's lost a lot of trust with the rest of the world, which can't be a good thing

If it is a choice between protecting our national security and currying the favor of the rest of the world, I'll take the former.

Yes, but what threat did Iraq pose to The United States? They have never once invaded you, and had no plan to do so?

I've already addressed this point earlier in the thread, in my post about Senator Feinstein.

To reiterate:

Matters of national security involve assessing reasonable risks (as opposed to the legal treatment of domestic criminals, for which the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies.) In the case of Iraq, Saddam's history of aggression, brutality towards his own people, efforts to procure and make WMDs, and ongoing ties to terrorist organizations created a risk that he could pass chemical or biological weapons to terrorists cells to use within the U.S.

This is the reason that Congress approved the war.

Well if you think the war was justifable then I guess that is all that matters, it is not the young men and women from my country losing their lives... I just have to think is it justfiable enough..I mean 864 American troups have been killed for "risks" that Iraq posed...i'm sorry but for me atleast that does not justafy 864 human lives, and the pain that parents, kids, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives also have to experience...It just doesnt do it for me..

Thats just me I guess..

1 history of aggresion - check
2 brutality towards his own people - check
3 efforts to procure and make WMDs - kind of check
4 ongoing ties to terrorist organizations - mmmm

so it's the significance of items 3 and 4 that we're interpreting differently i guess... and i don't honestly see what 1 and 2 have to do with the US, unless you're trying to prove that he was an evil dangerous bastard?

...
 

i still don't quite see why this matters. What we did in Iraq, and what my fellow soldiers, marines and airmen in Iraq continue to do is right, important and useful.

Bush is a politician... politicians, in their very nature, lie. This is a known fact. Name a president who has not, at some point in their term, lied.

War sucks... people die. Sometimes innocent people die. But sometimes the ends DO justify the means. If that were not the case, then it was wrong that America ever gained it's independance in the first place. In the 18th century, when the Revolutionary War was fought what we did was reprehensible. A King's will was NOT to be questioned. That was abhorrant at that point in history. But today, nobody (notably) denies that it was the right thing to do... that America's revolution changed the face of the world.

Sometimes you have to look to the future. If the future is better because of an action today, that action is rightful in taking place, even if people don't like it.

Are there WMDs? I'm sure... we SOLD some to them in the 80's. Does it matter? Not really... we ousted a dictator who commenced in genocide of the people who lived in his country. If a few hundred US soldiers (in a VOLUNTEER military) die, and a few Iraqi citizens die, but THOUSANDS of other innocents are saved, then the action is justified! I volunteered to enlist. I enlisted into an infantry-type MOS (Combat Engineer). I scored a 99 overall (percentile) on the ASVAB. I could've done anything. I'm an IT professional as a civilian. There are IT jobs that would wisk me safely out of harms way. But I chose to do something with my feet on the ground, risking myself for what I believe is right.

Americans have SoS (Shiney Object Syndrome). Things are as important, as good or bad, as the media allows them to believe. If more people formed their won opinions, without fear or religious, moral, or other grief, perhaps we'd have a stronger Democracy today. Form opinions with your hearts and your heads, not with your eyes and your ears.

Saving civilians is the UN's job..not a countrys to invade.

It is the combination that made Saddam remaining in power a high risk.

4 was proven by his sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel as well as by the fact that AQ operatives took refuge in Iraq.

Absolutely not.

The UN is not a global government to which sovereign nations cede responsibility for their national security.

Well, OK. If you wanna get technical, sarin has a shelf life of 10 years. These things were more than twice that old (assuming indeed that 2 (only 2) of them had sarin in the warheads). They therefore would not have worked. For a weapon to be a weapon of mass destruction it has to be capable of. . well. . causing mass destruction. These things were capable of denting whatever they fell on, and that's about it.

So no, it doesn't at all prove that he had WMD's at the time we claimed he had them unlawfully. It certainly (as you noted) doesn't prove what Bush & Co. led us to believe - that the country was crawling with the things. A key phrase used in the buildup to war was "STOCKPILES" of WMD's. 2 busted missiles does not a stockpile make.

Now, how do I know that there AREN'T stockpiles? Simple. I don't think the U.S. military is so inept as to be unable to find jillions of WMD's if the country really had them.



Really? That's not what Bush said. He said Saddam had WMD's and if we didn't go in and get them he would use them against us. Never mind the fact that Iraq's best missile couldn't even fly 1000 miles, much less cross an entire ocean to hit us even if he did have stockpiles of WMD's, which he obviously did not.

Even if we got into war for exactly the stated purpose, there are many who believe that purpose was bullshit to begin with when we found out there were no WMD's.

We have found nothing, I don't know why that's so hard for some people to understand.

Also, if you're going to use a method like Occam's Razor which is by no means an accurate "science" to measure anything, then its application should at least be followed correctly.

To assume that we went to war for the "stated purposes" must include the assumptions that the objects of the purposes exist. The simplest assumption, in this case, would be that the shrub is looking out for his own best interests, whatever they may be. That assumes only 1 thing: that he has personal interest in it.

So, I'm not really sure why you'd use Occam's Razor when it doesn't fit what you're trying to say.

I used it because the simplest explanation is we went to war for the reasons we stated for going to war - as opposed to the tortured conspiracy theories for which no proof has been offered.

You are in correct that we found nothing. To date we have located:

- Mass graves of civilians murdered by Saddam's regime.

- Rape and torture rooms Saddam & Sons used to terrorize their subjects.

- Small amounts of WMDs which are proof of violation of the UN resolutions.

Ignoring proof doesn't make it non-existent.

Well then, if that is the criteria to invade a country "to liberate people from an oppressive regime" well you guys better start getting busy. Now that you have already invaded Iraq to "free the Iraquis" you better damn well head over to Burma, Peru, Columbia, Sierra Leone, and then back to Afganistan. You guys are going to be very busy in the upcoming years..

WMD's were their main selling point, and all I was addressing.



Mass graves are not WMD's.

Quote:

- Rape and torture rooms Saddam & Sons used to terrorize their subjects.

Rape is not a WMD.

Quote:

- Small amounts of WMDs which are proof of violation of the UN resolutions.

Saying there are stockpiles, and that they can hit us within 45 minutes' notice at any time, is not justified by finding "small amounts" of weapons that are totally inoperable abnd have been for some time, that are about 14-24 years old, and a few containing trace amounts of chemical whose potency wore off 6 years ago.

And as for "tried to purchase uranium" is concerned, "tried to" and "succeeded in" are two very different things. Yes, attempting to was a bad thing, but we should not go to war over "tried to buy".

That's like someone trying to buy cigarettes and getting denied, and then you punch them in the face for trying to give you cancer from second-hand smoke.

Quote:

Ignoring proof doesn't make it non-existent.

Rhetoric about "proof" doesn't make it exist, or justifiable for war.

*edit- added "and" somewhere in there for clarity.

Liberation is not the full criteria. The justification was a combination of factors which led to an assessment that Saddam's regime posed a reasonable risk to U.S. national security.

That said, I am perfectly content that the Iraqi people have been liberated from the monster and his odious offspring.