cthulu23

We both looked over the Duelfer report, and there were lots of materials mentioned in there that were already declared to the UN weapons inspectors. I think that the sealed chemical weapons bunker is exactly what this giant explosives cache was...a known quantity.

daswig

Saddam had taken 35 tons of RDX from the sealed site while the inspectors were gone (this was NOT in the month before the war, but 2002, IIRC). If he could do that, what would have prevented him from breaching the WMD bunker if he wanted to give them to terrorists? It's not like he was concerned about the safety of his own people or the terrorists like we are concerned about our troops, is it?

Why were those WMDs not destroyed in the TWELVE YEARS between gulf war 1 and 2?

Flyguy

And (if true) this is worse thatn Bush's 200 billion dollar lie??

cthulu23

No one is claiming that Saddam was acting in "good faith" but, as I've always said, the fact that Bush isn't jumping on this is a pretty good indication that it isn't very exploitable. Really, he could have breeched it, but he didn't.

We hear that Saddam just wanted to shake the sanctions as soon as possible. Why would he touch the chemical weapons that he had given up to the UN? Of course, we're both just reading tea leaves here. I don't claim to have very much insight into the mind of Saddam Hussein.

daswig

Dude....Bush is as stupid as a bag of rocks, and I'm STILL voting for him because IMHO Kerry is such an evil little f*cker. His stupidity is not necessarily a bad thing, but still, it exists. Bush's lack of intellegence doesn't mean the opportunities he's passed up were bad opportunities.

loganmule

Dane Bramage, if you read post #6 of this thread, you'll observe that you are preaching to the choir. It's easy enough to identify the problem, endemic generally to our system of government and in particular to the candidate selection process, that we generally don't get one good presidential candidate, much less a choice between two good ones. The tough part is to come up with something better and then to implement it over the strenuous objections of those with much money and power who like things the way they are. Good luck with that. Regrettably, my vote will be cast on the basis of my conclusion about which is the lesser of two evils.

loganmule

mmmm...wonder who you're voting for Flyguy. Your sweeping statement is innacurate on a number of grounds, albeit that you correctly recited a Kerry talking point...moreover, it doesn't address my comment that Kerry will say or do anything to be elected (I know, this can be said of Bush too), and that I find this to be scary.

Flyguy

Bush spending 200+ billion on a bogus war (that has been proven more than once, by the CIA, Rumsfield, and others under Bush's wing) is inaccurate?

Seeing that the only words coming out of Bush's mouth are terrorism, 9/11 and the Patriot Act, and all of us pretty much knowing that this is the ONLY thing he has to run on and that he has to depend on the gullibility of the right who need everything spoon fed to them because apparently they can't think for themselves, I'm seeing from my end that Bush is the one who will say anything to get elected.

I want someone who will tell me how he wants to make the county better. Not try and scare me to death and say "vote for me or die by a terrorist’s hand."

cthulu23

Come on now...it's not like he doesn't have a cast of wacky conservative cut ups to prop him up. Wasn't he elected partially on the strength of his advisors?

Booboo

Does anyone else here think that Kerry's lie, miststatement, or whatever the hell you want to call it, is really unimportant in the whole scope of things? And that there are much bigger issue's right now than the fact that he said all when he forgot/lied that he met all of the SC when he missed 4(?) out of at least 15 members? Both candidates lie or mislead people to make themselves look better... thats how this stuff works. Hell... just watch any comercials for either candidate, most of them tell only one side of a story.

For instance, the only one that comes to mind at the moment is the one that accuses Kerry of Voting against giving our troops better armor. (this is the one i see the most) But what they dont tell you is that the money that was going towards new armor for troops was only 1/3 of 1% of the $87 Billion that was being voted for (about 300 million). And that over 40,000 troops were sent without the best-grade body armor in the first place. In addition, they also make it look like Kerry voted "No" on seperate points, but there was only ONE vote.

I Have no doubt there are similar instances where Kerry does that same kind of thing, I just havn't seen any. The point being that there ARE more important issues.

__________________
"Your life is yours to live, go out and live it" - Richard Rahl

Mephisto2

WHAT?!!!

A biased political advert?!


Aren't both sides guilty of this?


Mr Mephisto

Booboo

Umm... thats what I was getting at =P I said both parties use those tactics. I just used that one as an example as it stuck in my head the most.

__________________
"Your life is yours to live, go out and live it" - Richard Rahl

loganmule

The war against Iraq (and the cost of it, which isn't 200 billion yet) can only be criticised with the benefit of hindsight, and Kerry admitted as much in one of his several positions taken on that issue. The simple fact is that in a post 9-11 environment, ANY sitting president could not ignore the intelligence that Saddam had WMD's, or run the risk that the intelligence was innacurate. I think I stand with most of the electorate in holding the opinion that the war of terror is better fought offensively elsewhere rather than defended here. You can justify a failure to have a plan to "win the peace", but any plan would have been problematic, since it could not have effectively been carried out quickly enough for us to be seen as liberators instead of occupiers.

As for the campaign of fear, I'm still trying to shake off Kerry's statement that our soldiers are being killed with the 380 tons of missing munitions...a frightening mantra we'll no doubt here ad nauseum until election day...when the fact of the matter, as discussed at length in another thread, is that the munitions likely went missing before our G.I.'s first arrived at the storage facility, any responsibility for this is with the commander of the ground forces, and no amount of troups or strategy could ever have eliminated the threat of diverted munitions in the first place.

cthulu23

There were plenty of people who criticized the war prior to it's commencement, myself included. Some of us didn't buy that Saddam Hussein was a real threat to the security of the US. The idea that invading a secular middle eastern country actually increases our security is also debatable. Some would say that the US government has been a pretty effective recruiter for Islamic extremists.

Of course, this has been debated over and over and is more than a little off-topic.

loganmule

OT, as you point out, and two sides to the story. As with Reagan's controversial strategy to end the Cold War, only time will tell whether or not we are better off for having gone to war in Iraq.