The WMD's May Have Been Found

[KelvinG]

Some of us consider a 5-minutes worth of blister agent buried in a hole for ten years to be less than compelling. I don't see why that is hard to understand.

Because when you are incredibly desperate to find even the faintest evidence of WMDs in order to save face, this find will be ballyhooed by the pro-war crowd like nobody's business. Kind of sad actually.

 

[Zero]

Because when you are incredibly desperate to find even the faintest evidence of WMDs in order to save face, this find will be ballyhooed by the pro-war crowd like nobody's business. Kind of sad actually.

Yeah, it is like mobilizing a huge DEA team, raiding a suspected drug dealer's home, killing one of his kids, and finding half an ounce of weed and some papers. Sure, he was breaking the law, but are we supposed to be impressed?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

No one, as far as I can see, is arguing over whether Bush had the authority to invade or not.

Then you didn't read the post I put on the top of page 3. Maybe I used too many big words like 'imminent threat'. Maybe you could get someone a little brighter than you to explain it to you in words you understand.

 

[RussDill]

Yeah, it is like mobilizing a huge DEA team, raiding a suspected drug dealer's home, killing one of his kids, and finding half an ounce of weed and some papers. Sure, he was breaking the law, but are we supposed to be impressed?

You're assuming that it's easy to find all the buried weapons. What happened to the other chemical weapons Saddam had in his arsenal then?

I would liken it more to police showing up at a released murderer's house, the guy coming out, point his gun at the cops, the cops filling him full of holes, then the cops examine his gun, and find that there are no bullets in it.

 

[Zero]

You're assuming that it's easy to find all the buried weapons. What happened to the other chemical weapons Saddam had in his arsenal then?

I would liken it more to police showing up at a released murderer's house, the guy coming out, point his gun at the cops, the cops filling him full of holes, then the cops examine his gun, and find that there are no bullets in it.

Actually, it is more like his ex-roomate says he had a gun 5 years ago.

 

[ssibal]

Then that would mean that the UN would have the say-so to invade, and not the U.S.

Which they already had by Resolution 678, it gives them the power

to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Which they already had by Resolution 678, it gives them the power

One other thing some people have a hard time understanding is that 678 doesn't mean the US can do what she wants to Iraq, when she wants. She still needs UN approval before invading.

I think I understand why a few on this forum so desperately need to feel that the war was justified. It's because no-one wants to feel like a dupe. They believed what Bush said, trusted him, and now they look like a bunch of jackasses because they were lied to.

 

[ssibal]

One other thing some people have a hard time understanding is that 678 doesn't mean the US can do what she wants to Iraq, when she wants. She still needs UN approval before invading.

Resolution 678 IS the UN approval!

I think I understand why a few on this forum so desperately need to feel that the war was justified. It's because no-one wants to feel like a dupe. They believed what Bush said, trusted him, and now they look like a bunch of jackasses because they were lied to.

That is stupid, I do not care what Bush said I supported overthrowing Saddam before I ever knew who Bush was. If you do not feel that removing Saddam is justification enough then I feel sorry for you.

 

[Troll]

One other thing some people have a hard time understanding is that 678 doesn't mean the US can do what she wants to Iraq, when she wants. She still needs UN approval before invading.

I think I understand why a few on this forum so desperately need to feel that the war was justified. It's because no-one wants to feel like a dupe. They believed what Bush said, trusted him, and now they look like a bunch of jackasses because they were lied to.

Not to bust your bubble but I felt it was justifiable to in before Bush was president. I was a little disappointed with being sent over there the first time and just making the guy move out of Kuwait. I mean if someone breaks into your house do you want the cops to arrest him or just make him leave?

And I read your infamous "top of page 3 " post. It had little to do with defining chemical weapons or wmds. But if you look at the site you linked to to start this whole thing off, you and possibly shanek would see the following:

"The United States launched its war to oust Saddam on March 20 saying the Iraqi leader violated United Nations resolutions by developing weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons. "

So chemical weapons were included in the description of wmds that we felt he had.

 

[WildCat]

Then you didn't read the post I put on the top of page 3. Maybe I used too many big words like 'imminent threat'. Maybe you could get someone a little brighter than you to explain it to you in words you understand.

Just poking my head in here after one of the best NFL playoff weekends ever, to see that Manifesto is doing his usual spin doctoring. Manifesto, you may have used the phrase "imminent threat", but Bush never did. From the 2003 State of the Union Address:

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.

Bush said quite the opposite! Don't let those facts stand in your way though, Mr. M. Just keep on spinning.

And one doesn't have amnesia if one doesn't remember what hasn't been said. In your case, Manifesto, when you remember what hasn't been said, it's called delusional.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Yeah, Bush said there wasn't an imminent threat while painting the picture of an imminent threat the whole time. Why the imagery of WMD's dropping out of the skies? Why the references to rescue workers helping Americans on their own soil? He was trying to say that Iraq had this capability now.

All the quote demonstrates is that Bush knew Iraq wasn't a threat, but he had to sell the war to demonstrate that it was.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Not to bust your bubble but I felt it was justifiable to in before Bush was president. I was a little disappointed with being sent over there the first time and just making the guy move out of Kuwait. I mean if someone breaks into your house do you want the cops to arrest him or just make him leave?

And I read your infamous "top of page 3 " post. It had little to do with defining chemical weapons or wmds. But if you look at the site you linked to to start this whole thing off, you and possibly shanek would see the following:

"The United States launched its war to oust Saddam on March 20 saying the Iraqi leader violated United Nations resolutions by developing weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons. "

So chemical weapons were included in the description of wmds that we felt he had.

That was simply the journalist's opinion. That opinion is quite simplistic, the other essential justification for the war was the imminent threat.

 

[WildCat]

Yeah, Bush said there wasn't an imminent threat while painting the picture of an imminent threat the whole time. Why the imagery of WMD's dropping out of the skies? Why the references to rescue workers helping Americans on their own soil? He was trying to say that Iraq had this capability now.

All the quote demonstrates is that Bush knew Iraq wasn't a threat, but he had to sell the war to demonstrate that it was.

!!!!!
Did you read the speech? The pic painted was what could happen through inaction!

You should really change your user name to "Rumpelstiltskin", you spin so well!

 

[Cain]

Just poking my head in here after one of the best NFL playoff weekends ever, to see that Manifesto is doing his usual spin doctoring. Manifesto, you may have used the phrase "imminent threat", but Bush never did. From the 2003 State of the Union Address:

Bush said quite the opposite! Don't let those facts stand in your way though, Mr. M. Just keep on spinning.

And one doesn't have amnesia if one doesn't remember what hasn't been said. In your case, Manifesto, when you remember what hasn't been said, it's called delusional.

The Bush administration has difficulty with words. They called this a "preemptive" war, and if you look up that term in a military dictionary, it will most likely mention an "imminent threat". (See the appropriate Oxford reference book for confirmation.)

Of course, we were fighting a "preventive" war.

Bush frequently said the threat posed by Saddam's regime was "significant" and "urgent". He also spoke of "grave danger" and invoked the image a mushroom cloud.

Jesus f*cking Christ, if you want to rant about spin, direct it at the White House.

 

[Troll]

That was simply the journalist's opinion. That opinion is quite simplistic, the other essential justification for the war was the imminent threat.

Well we can discuss what a threat or an imminent threat is if you'd like.

Would you consider someone who has openly stated he favors the destruction of you and has shown financial support for groups outside his country that kill others a threat to you? Would he supply someone with a weapon if they lacked one? I mean he's giving out the dollars, who knows what was being bought with them.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Well we can discuss what a threat or an imminent threat is if you'd like.

Would you consider someone who has openly stated he favors the destruction of you and has shown financial support for groups outside his country that kill others a threat to you? Would he supply someone with a weapon if they lacked one? I mean he's giving out the dollars, who knows what was being bought with them.

What was he going to supply others with? A mortar shell with mouldy mustard gas? Do you think Iraq is the only country in the world that can supply terrorists with this sort of weapon?

 

[Troll]

What was he going to supply others with? A mortar shell with mouldy mustard gas? Do you think Iraq is the only country in the world that can supply terrorists with this sort of weapon?

haha. Maybe the money to buy better quality stuff from another country? The dude openly stated his disdain for the US and openly supported terrorists and violated UN resolutions, thus showing disdain for international law as well.

And sure there's other countries that can supply terrorists with this type of weapon. And getting money from Hussein would make buying them easier. Lybia could have supplied terrorists and has in the past. But they changed their tune without the hassle Hussein went through.

 

[crackmonkey]

Manifesto - read this as slowly as you like. I'm not discussing reasons or rationalizations for invading Iraq. That's another discussion. I am merely pointing out that with regard to WMD in Iraq, and effectiveness of inspectors, you have been proved wrong.
I trust you can understand that this is a point quite distinct from any assertion or justification by the Bush administration; this is merely an affirmation that you and your self-righteous ilk were wrong on this issue.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Manifesto - read this as slowly as you like. I'm not discussing reasons or rationalizations for invading Iraq. That's another discussion. I am merely pointing out that with regard to WMD in Iraq, and effectiveness of inspectors, you have been proved wrong.
I trust you can understand that this is a point quite distinct from any assertion or justification by the Bush administration; this is merely an affirmation that you and your self-righteous ilk were wrong on this issue.

No, you are wrong. You are wrong because you don't know anything about the history of the weapons inspections.

When Ritter and co were conducting their searches of Iraq, the Iraqis made an ill-advised decision to destroy records of where records were kept. We can only speculate as to why they did this. Some think that Iraq was trying to hide the fact that she ever possessed them.

However, around '97 and '98, they endeavoured to cooperate as much as they could. Unfortunately, the US decided to use the inspections as an opportuinity to spy on Iraq, which Saddam didn't like. That was not the purpose of the inspections- once again the US jeopordised the cause of peace to further her own aims.

What this eventually left us with was an environment where about 5% of the WMD's were unaccounted for. The likely explanation is that no-one knows where they are. Maybe they were destroyed but the destruction wasn't recorded properly. Or maybe they were wrapped in plastic bags and buried, forgotten. As it has been pointed out, the American government wouldn't know where all of her stockpiles of weapons are, why did we expect a higher standard from Iraq?

 

[crackmonkey]

I know a fair bit about the inspections. The fact that you assert that Iraq was cooperating in '97 and '98 is evidence that you DON'T know as much as you boast... in '97 SAddam was still preventing inspectors from inspecting sites. His intransigence led to the bombing in '98 by Clinton. In fact, Ritter himself declared that at that time Saddam was avoiding cooperating as much as he possible.

In any case, you now do admit that the inspectors couldn't locate a sizeable quantity of WMD in Iraq (5% of all WMD is not a small amount) after all. This is prima facie evidence that relying on the inspectors to ensure Iraq had destroyed all WMD was foolish. As you admit, they couldn't be expected to find as much as 5% of the Iraqi WMD... so why have any confidence in them at all?
As I have been saying all along - Saddam had hidden WMD, just as I and many others asserted. We found some of them. You were wrong.

I don't know where you get your idea that the US loses weapon stockpiles, and I doubt you have any kind of source for this nonsense...