No, I disagree. World trade center? USS cole? Terrorist financial network? US Embasy bombings? Read the David Kay report. Do a search for "greenpeace yellow cake" on rueters. Saddam was posing a threat, the size of his threat is argueable, but he was financing terrorist networks and providing a safe heaven for terrorists.
Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
of course your forgetting the 40 acre hidden chemical factory(that was found washed clean for SOME reason), the mobile chem labs, missiles that were tracked in flight exceeding the 90km limit imposed by the UN, and his same MO of the past 13 years of stonewalling inspectors while the stuff they were looking for was trucked away...of course he had nothing to hide!
I Iraq posed such an immediate threat that it warranted the war, why haven't we found an ounce of chemical/biological weapons?
The truth is, we only found the labs, which were washed clean because the weapons were destroyed before the war.
or perhaps it was a ruse to make it look like they destroyed the weapons before the war.
Read the David Kay report. Saddam has a ton of factories that were dual purpose. Basically using super expensive medical grade equipment in a baby food factory. Why? Because bacterial culture equipment and baby food factories use similar equipment. Just upgrade the quality of the equipment to super high, and you can easily shut down the massive baby food factory and grow anthrax at a moments notice. Within a month, you could have enough anthrax to kill the world. I'm just glad Saddam didn't have the anti-static and micronized technology for anthrax dispersal.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,101
- 5,640
- 126
Originally posted by: wacki
Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
of course your forgetting the 40 acre hidden chemical factory(that was found washed clean for SOME reason), the mobile chem labs, missiles that were tracked in flight exceeding the 90km limit imposed by the UN, and his same MO of the past 13 years of stonewalling inspectors while the stuff they were looking for was trucked away...of course he had nothing to hide!
I Iraq posed such an immediate threat that it warranted the war, why haven't we found an ounce of chemical/biological weapons?
The truth is, we only found the labs, which were washed clean because the weapons were destroyed before the war.
or perhaps it was a ruse to make it look like they destroyed the weapons before the war.
Read the David Kay report. Saddam has a ton of factories that were dual purpose. Basically using super expensive medical grade equipment in a baby food factory. Why? Because bacterial culture equipment and baby food factories use similar equipment. Just upgrade the quality of the equipment to super high, and you can easily shut down the massive baby food factory and grow anthrax at a moments notice. Within a month, you could have enough anthrax to kill the world. I'm just glad Saddam didn't have the anti-static and micronized technology for anthrax dispersal.
Your local High schools Chem/Bio lab is dual use!
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
of course your forgetting the 40 acre hidden chemical factory(that was found washed clean for SOME reason), the mobile chem labs, missiles that were tracked in flight exceeding the 90km limit imposed by the UN, and his same MO of the past 13 years of stonewalling inspectors while the stuff they were looking for was trucked away...of course he had nothing to hide!
I Iraq posed such an immediate threat that it warranted the war, why haven't we found an ounce of chemical/biological weapons?
The truth is, we only found the labs, which were washed clean because the weapons were destroyed before the war.
iraq did pose a threat, that has been well documented. "only" the labs... kind of like "only" finding a gun but no bullets in the hands of a murderer. they were recently cleaned because they had to, otherwise evidence of what they were doing would still be there.
common sense tells (some of)us if that facility was being used to make legitimate chemical compounds, there would be A. no reason to hide the production facility. B. no reason to clean it, evidence in and on machinery would indicate what last was produced...if i were making legimate chemicals, i would leave it there as proof of innocence...i also would not be inclined to hide my legitimate factory, things that are legal do not have to be hidden.
WMD is a moot issue anyway. if some is found ,the same people obcessed with it would be the same ones crying "fake" and planted evidence" the moment any is found anyway. many of these people really do not care about WMD, they have a political agenda to pursue and the WMD issue is merely one of the tools they use.
saddam is captured! the iraqi's are celebrating in the streets! soldiers here where i live (Fort Hood Texas where 1st cav and 4th id are based) are celebrating! and as usual the libs are bitching, whining, and complaining, i sometimes wonder if that is all they know how to do.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
(By the way, fewer than 3,000 people died in the WTC. The number could have been much, much higher if they'd waited an hour when everyone was in their offices.)
In my opinion, the war on terror has been "overdone" in the sense that we've made a much bigger show of it than we have actually fighting terrorism. We send a massive invasion force to Iraq -- where the 9/11 terrorists weren't -- and leave only a token force in Afghanistan -- where they were. We do nothing about Saudi Arabia who funded the terrorists; indeed Bush buried the portion of the 9/11 report addressing Saudi Arabia. Bush wants to get to the bottom of 9/11, but not enough to provide information sought by the investigators. We pass oppressive legislation to "get the terrorists", then use it to target a strip club. We ban nail clippers from airplanes and implement intrusive -- but showy -- security screening for passengers, but do nothing about air cargo and try to cut back air marshals. The War on Terror is like the War on Drugs, all politics.
Re. the Kay report, read it yourself. In spite of the YABA's spin, it mostly documents all the stuff we did NOT find. We found labs that might be used for WMD, but NO evidence they ever were. We found factories that might have dual-use capabilities, but not one shred of evidence even one factory had been. We found trailers that might be used for WMDs, but no evidence they were. The more likely explanation is they were used to produce hydrogen, a fact Kay acknowledges in his report. We found one, twenty-year old vial of botulinum bacteria -- not the toxin -- purchased from a U.S. lab. It is a less virulent strain that has NEVER been successfully weaponized. Yes, Kay found that Hussein still wanted WMDs someday. Duh. That's hardly newsworthy.
I am glad we captured Hussein. I do not accept that removing him from power will stabilize the Middle East. It might. I hope it does. But I also recognize that the initial effect was pouring gas on a fire, inflaming anti-U.S. sentiment and opening the door for other, unfriendly forces to vie for control of Iraq. Much of Bush's legacy will rest on his success -- or failure -- in installing a stable and progressive democracy in Iraq. Our mission isn't accomplished yet.
The soldiers were prepared for chem/bio agents using suits they were given. Its also possible we disabled the ability for them to use them. Or he simply rather hide them and prove the world he supposedly got rid of them.
"If your country was being invaded and you could use WMD's to protect it... would you?"
Ya if i had the upper hand. Its obvious that the US has bigger and more deadly WMD's then Iraq. By far
Think saddam would have done much more damage to the US by fooling the world that he had wmd's instead of him actually having them or using them. Just look at that unity that was all over the world before this all started, western and eastern Europe were comunicating better than ever, everyone wanted to help in Afghanistan and so on. Then this starts and it all breaks down.
The best way to break up a group is infighting, attacking from the outside only strengthens the group
The best way to break up a group is infighting, attacking from the outside only strengthens the group
links to this claim please. and make sure it was US soldiers/weaponry that killed the civilians and not insurgent suicide bombers and the likes.
Most likely if there is no evidence of WOMD found, and he really had destroyed them all in 1991 there should be something happening. The world should put on tiral Mr Bush for war crimes, and assaulting the nation that hadn't the technology as he stated. Starting a war and killing people in the name of democracy. We have more weapons than just about everybody else in the world, and have a lunatic with the hand on the red button. The world should step up and grow a set. Interpol should drop a ship and collect up all the real bad guys, the ones that spin the truth into thier own self serving ideas. The real scumbags in the whitehouse that have filled the general consesus with loads of BS.
There are several reasons that he could have wanted the shroud of secrecy around his weapons, Iran right next door IS developing those same weapons as the world sits back and does nothing.
There are several reasons that he could have wanted the shroud of secrecy around his weapons, Iran right next door IS developing those same weapons as the world sits back and does nothing.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
There are no hard numbers. The US deliberately does not count casualties.
Is your estimate that the number of Iraqis killed by the US and Co from the beginning of the war is less that that of the WTC?
Are you claiming that "insurgent" suicide bombers killed more Iraqis than the entire US armed forced during the war?
i cannot make a claim one way or the other, but exaggerating like that is total crap.
and keep in mind we are talking about Iraqi civilians, not Iraqi military or Iraqi resistance fighters.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
I would agree that we did not set out to deliberately shoot Iraqi civilians. In the course of managing the country, and the consequent collateral damage (which I understand was made as minimal as possible consistent with military goals) was still substantial.
Also, it is curious that no numbers of casualties are available, no?
Wolf, you sound like an idiot. Why would you put Bush on trial for war crimes even if it WERE true that they destroyed all their WMD's in 1991? I'll tell you in no uncertain terms: I don't care if Saddam EVER had WMD's. The FACT of the matter is that he was a brutal dictator with brutal sons running a brutal regime responsible for the MURDER and PERSECUTION of MILLIONS of his own citizens. Ousting Saddam Hussein for these reasons ALONE is all the justification that is needed for this particular war in Iraq.
If you want to deal with overal theory, I'll agree that this war never should have happened: We should have ignored those B@stards at the UN in 1991 and nailed Saddam THEN.
Maybe we wouldn't be digging up mass graves with hundreds of thousands of unidentified corpses today if we had acted in 1991, and maybe those people would be raising the first generation of Free Iraqi People now.
Jason
Yeah I think its crap too when death numbers are exaggerated... where were your complaints when 2800 American deaths were turned into 6000?
But its total crap if conservative estimates of nearly 8000 get turned to "10,000 or so"
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Sorry, don't have the links handy any more. If you really care, I documented it in one of Galt's Chirac-bashing threads, the ones where Galt claimed only 300 people died in our attack on Iraq.
This is the number widely used by media at the time. It is an estimate which is why I added "or so". There are people who believe it is too high; there are others who believe the correct number is 15,000 or more. In this context, the exact count is unimportant. It is certainly well above 2,800.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 8,999
- 109
- 106
Its nice that a few people understand around here what I see. The fact of the matter is that most people I know that support the war could care less what Bush said or put forward as to the reasons for war. That issue is moot. Saddam had to go anyway because of who and what he was. We should have taken care of him in Gulf War 1 and done it right the first time instead of having to fix this mistake. Leaving Saddam in power after we knew what all he had done was the true mistake. Sanctions? Ceasefire obligations? Multiple UN resolutions? The lives and well being of his own people? Why would any of that matter to a man like Saddam at the helm of an entire nation? It would have only been a matter of time before we had to either get rid of him (or an equally cruel successor) or accepted Baathist Iraq back into the world as a legitimate and respected nation.
DragonMasterAlex the point of the whole deal is going to war with no world support. If there is in fact no weapons, then why do we have people dying over there every day? To put it in basic terms when we went to war last year it was because Saddam had said weapons. If there are none, then Bush has perpertrated one of the greatest crimes against the nation. When it comes to killing thousands of innocent people we have to look no further than good old America. Most seem to have the basic feeling that if the US does it, it must be just and right. When another country does it, they are wrong and evil. Don't get me wrong, what Saddam did against his own countrymen was wrong. The fact of the matter is though that no one country has the right to overthrow another government without the burden of proof. We have overthrown governments at the drop of a hat, and armed the very terrorists that have struck at us. Whenever it is in the best interest of the US the truth is spun so the public doesn't feel bad about killing off numerous civillians. We were the first and only nation to detonate two nuclear bombs, killing and mortally wonding hundreds of thousands of civillians. Watch the live footage to see what attrocities we have perpetrated in the past. Skin falling off nuclear blast victims, hundreds of thousands dead. Not to mention the fallout which is still there today. Yet the irony in that is America still sees itself as being a righteous nation. There have been many instances that the US military has gone out of thier way in killing innocent people. Vietnam is a good example of that. Decimation of entire villages without remorse war crimes that have gone unpunished. Looking back into our history we have done the exact same thing that Saddam did. Look at the subjigation of a entire nation of Native Americans. We even used bioligical weapons against the native americans. Blankets with diptheria were used to eradicate populations. Killing off most of them before shipping them off to containment camps. There are verifiable accounts of US soldiers wearing the genitalia of native americans as hats. Yet nothing has/was been done about that. We brush the bad news under the rug and move on.
IIRC assasination and the attempt to do so is considered a war crime. Bush has perpetrated the killing of his two sons which were of holding political offices. Which would go against the Geneva convention. It seems like they also went to kill thier leader directly. There is to be no killing off of the elected officials in a time of war. There was no declaration of war from Iraq to us. So in a way we are no better than Germany invating syria when the Arch Duke was assasinated. Iraq couldn't defend itself in any capasity and looks to have no weapons at all. It makes me extra angry to see that we can't pave our own roads, feed our own people, and give affordable healthcare to our citizens, yet we are funding a war based on a lie over there. We can't take care of our own veterans here in the US, yet we are creating more.
Yet we still have thousands in Cuba without trial, which is also skating on the Geneva convention. Not to mention the very same laws that we have in the nation. Watching the interviews of Condeleeza Rice on CBS this evening I have the feeling that they will never have any hard proof that he ever did have the weapons. Nor do they care. To sum it up, if Bush and his comrades lied and falsified reports of WOMD then the war is illegal and he should be punished as such. There is no honor in a war based on half truths and lies. If there are no weapons that violated the UN resolution then the US is in the wrong. There is no room left in the world for wars without merit. If it was about his attrocities against his people then it should have been taken care of along time ago. We should take care of our own attrocities before going outward to other nations when we can. If it were about him helping terrorist groups then it would be different. They have no proof whatsoever than he ever helped Al Queda. Ousting another government just for the sake of war is asanine. The media has just reiterated what the government PR machine has told them to say. So who knows exactly what the real truth really is.
IIRC assasination and the attempt to do so is considered a war crime. Bush has perpetrated the killing of his two sons which were of holding political offices. Which would go against the Geneva convention. It seems like they also went to kill thier leader directly. There is to be no killing off of the elected officials in a time of war. There was no declaration of war from Iraq to us. So in a way we are no better than Germany invating syria when the Arch Duke was assasinated. Iraq couldn't defend itself in any capasity and looks to have no weapons at all. It makes me extra angry to see that we can't pave our own roads, feed our own people, and give affordable healthcare to our citizens, yet we are funding a war based on a lie over there. We can't take care of our own veterans here in the US, yet we are creating more.
Yet we still have thousands in Cuba without trial, which is also skating on the Geneva convention. Not to mention the very same laws that we have in the nation. Watching the interviews of Condeleeza Rice on CBS this evening I have the feeling that they will never have any hard proof that he ever did have the weapons. Nor do they care. To sum it up, if Bush and his comrades lied and falsified reports of WOMD then the war is illegal and he should be punished as such. There is no honor in a war based on half truths and lies. If there are no weapons that violated the UN resolution then the US is in the wrong. There is no room left in the world for wars without merit. If it was about his attrocities against his people then it should have been taken care of along time ago. We should take care of our own attrocities before going outward to other nations when we can. If it were about him helping terrorist groups then it would be different. They have no proof whatsoever than he ever helped Al Queda. Ousting another government just for the sake of war is asanine. The media has just reiterated what the government PR machine has told them to say. So who knows exactly what the real truth really is.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter