Saddam and Weapons of Mass Destruction

[chess9]

Wacki:

2801 x 2 = 5602. You still haven't gotten it right!

Anyway, we've been down this road a thousand times here an no one has produced ANY evidence of an imminent threat to the U.S. from S.H.

-Robert

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: chess9
Anyway, we've been down this road a thousand times here an no one has produced ANY evidence of an imminent threat to the U.S. from S.H.
-Robert

Exactly. Now did Bush not say we couldn't wait until the threat became imminent? You people still haven't understood that yet? Sheesh.

Saddam didn't hold up his end of the agreement. I guess he should have - no?

CkG

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: chess9
Wacki:

2801 x 2 = 5602. You still haven't gotten it right!

Anyway, we've been down this road a thousand times here an no one has produced ANY evidence of an imminent threat to the U.S. from S.H.

-Robert

Robert, yes we have been up and down this road and one should not wait until a threat is imminent before acting.

 

[kandarp]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I agree . . . bullets have never been very discriminating. Of course cluster bombs are even worse but we don't use such weapons.

In fact, I bet the US will lead an effort to remove all landmines as well.

hahahahhahaha....the US withdrew from the International Treaty banning landmines under GWB

 

[wacki]

Originally posted by: boran
man, when ali gassed half the kurd populace in the north (I think it was north, might be wrong)
nobody even lifted a finger.

so dont gimme any of that ideologic crap about he being a weapon of mass destruction and needing to be removed, lets face it, if this would have been a country without oil, and if yer gouvernment would not have shouted WMD WMD all over the place, just squat would have happened (only time will tell wether they were right or wrong), and you'd have finished the job in afghanistan. after 9/11 US was punching like a blind boxer to whatever enemies they could find. (and could take on, I dont see N-korea getting attacked anytime soon)

Another oil claim. Look Iraq only produces a million barrels of oil a day. And considering we have spent well over a hundred Billion dollars fighting Saddam and reconstructing Iraq, it would have been much cheaper for us to just of let Saddam keep on going as he pleased. That is, if oil was our only concern. So that oil claim holds no water. Even if Iraq gave us all of their oil for free, and I do mean absolutely free by waiving all production costs, it would take Iraq 20 years to pay us back for the second Gulf War only! Add in interest and the cost of the first Gulf war, Bush and probably many of the people in this forum will be long dead before Iraq pays us back. And as far as North Korea goes, the reasons behind us attacking Iraq first and not North Korea are well outlined in a book called "The Prince" by Niccolo Makaveli. The difference between North Korea and Iraq is that Iraqi's people actually knew what freedom was 20 years ago. Since a significant portion of the people still have memories of what freedom is like, it will be much easier to remove a tyrant and give freedom back to them. None of the North Koreans that are alive have any memory of freedom. Therefore it will be much more difficult to get their own population to either lay down their arms or rise up against a tyrant. They simply do not truly understand the concept of freedom because they have never tasted it. Read "The Prince" for a more detailed explanation and examples throughout history where people have learned this lesson the hard way.

The war on Iraq, in my opinion, was very well executed. Iraq, being a desert, was fought like a naval battle, instead of a ground war, which is one of the reasons why we won it so quickly. Also the war was executed before Iran and North Korea actually produced weapons grade plutonium. Shortly after the war, both North Korea and Iran quickly submited and said they were willing to open negotiations because for the first time, our threats had credibility. Unfortunately, Japan, the country North Korea has been illegaly firing "test" missiles over to aggrevate, simply doesn't have the will to stand up and put pressure on North Korea. France, being the major pain in the ass that they are, couldn't be doing more to screw everything up. Russia, just loves selling weapons to communist countries and ruthless dictators. And Germany hasn't been much of a help either. I could understand, although not agree, why those countries were against us going into Iraq. They were getting dirt cheap oil with the food for oil program, as well as violating the UN's Food for Oil Program by smuggling oil. Yet, even with that gasoline still cost them $4 - 5.50 a gallon. They were also getting rich off of many other illegal deals with Saddam. A few companies in the U.S. made illegal deals with Saddam as well, but they all have been to, or are going to court. The punishments were not light.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Bush iterated and reiterated (re:covered his ass) how you can't trust anything Saddam says in his press conference today, so Saddam's capture isn't going to resolve this issue. And for anyone who missed it, Bush had two real laugh out loud moments: he said how by the actions of his administration thus far it was evident that war is always his last resort, and how congress needs to continue their responisble spending in 2004. I wonder if these are going to make on Letterman as Bush jokes that weren't meant to be jokes.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: wacki

Originally posted by: boran
man, when ali gassed half the kurd populace in the north (I think it was north, might be wrong)
nobody even lifted a finger.

so dont gimme any of that ideologic crap about he being a weapon of mass destruction and needing to be removed, lets face it, if this would have been a country without oil, and if yer gouvernment would not have shouted WMD WMD all over the place, just squat would have happened (only time will tell wether they were right or wrong), and you'd have finished the job in afghanistan. after 9/11 US was punching like a blind boxer to whatever enemies they could find. (and could take on, I dont see N-korea getting attacked anytime soon)

Another oil claim. Look Iraq only produces a million barrels of oil a day. And considering we have spent well over a hundred Billion dollars fighting Saddam and reconstructing Iraq, it would have been much cheaper for us to just of let Saddam keep on going as he pleased. That is, if oil was our only concern. So that oil claim holds no water. Even if Iraq gave us all of their oil for free, and I do mean absolutely free by waiving all production costs, it would take Iraq 20 years to pay us back for the second Gulf War only! Add in interest and the cost of the first Gulf war, Bush and probably many of the people in this forum will be long dead before Iraq pays us back. And as far as North Korea goes, the reasons behind us attacking Iraq first and not North Korea are well outlined in a book called "The Prince" by Niccolo Makaveli. The difference between North Korea and Iraq is that Iraqi's people actually knew what freedom was 20 years ago. Since a significant portion of the people still have memories of what freedom is like, it will be much easier to remove a tyrant and give freedom back to them. None of the North Koreans that are alive have any memory of freedom. Therefore it will be much more difficult to get their own population to either lay down their arms or rise up against a tyrant. They simply do not truly understand the concept of freedom because they have never tasted it. Read "The Prince" for a more detailed explanation and examples throughout history where people have learned this lesson the hard way.

The war on Iraq, in my opinion, was very well executed. Iraq, being a desert, was fought like a naval battle, instead of a ground war, which is one of the reasons why we won it so quickly. Also the war was executed before Iran and North Korea actually produced weapons grade plutonium. Shortly after the war, both North Korea and Iran quickly submited and said they were willing to open negotiations because for the first time, our threats had credibility. Unfortunately, Japan, the country North Korea has been illegaly firing "test" missiles over to aggrevate, simply doesn't have the will to stand up and put pressure on North Korea. France, being the major pain in the ass that they are, couldn't be doing more to screw everything up. Russia, just loves selling weapons to communist countries and ruthless dictators. And Germany hasn't been much of a help either. I could understand, although not agree, why those countries were against us going into Iraq. They were getting dirt cheap oil with the food for oil program, as well as violating the UN's Food for Oil Program by smuggling oil. Yet, even with that gasoline still cost them $4 - 5.50 a gallon. They were also getting rich off of many other illegal deals with Saddam. A few companies in the U.S. made illegal deals with Saddam as well, but they all have been to, or are going to court. The punishments were not light.

Hmmm, check facts before posting please. Iraq is sitting on the World's 2nd largest Oil Reserve.

They are struggling to crank a million barrels out a day because the pumps, refineries and pipes have been getting sabotaged on a dialy basis since before the War began and continues today.

 

[boran]

I'm not claiming they did it for oil, but oil was an added factor in choosing iraq,

and I'd like to know the real reasons bout attacking saddam, and dont give me strike before he can endanger us, he didnt even have middles that could reach over 300 Miles, that's a far strech from the intercontinental ones he'd need to even get to the US,
I stay with my point, that the US had a need "to set an example" and that saddam was the unlucky one, as allways the US decides who rules and who falls.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: Gravity
Sadaam WAS the weapon of mass destruction. Remember the mass graves? The ones that they are still sifting through? Regardless of whether or not they discover chemicals, they just found the largest WMD since Hitler.

The mass graves don't count to people who hate Bush. It's not sexy enough. Estimates range from 300,000 dead Iraqis on the low end to over a million on the upper end. One link, you can find more if you care to look

Saddam also financed terrorism. Payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers qualifies as financial support. Saddam was not a positive influence. And despite whatever reason they said for starting this war action in Iraq the simple fact remains that we are now committed and continuing to say "Where are the WMD's?" over and over does nothing to change this. We cannot leave now with no government in place or perhaps we should leave and allow Iran or even Osama Bin Laden to take over the job of finding a suitable replacement government? This obviously is not acceptable.

I'm just glad we finally have a leader that has the balls to take on a dirty little dictator like this. As Lieberman put it about Dean... if it was up to Dean, Saddam would still be in power and the world would be a less safe place. It's not even a Republican versus Democrat issue anymore you squawking Bush-hating "What about WMD?" parrots.

Hitler came to power with this whole "It's not our business" philosophy and the world still got dragged into it. State sponsored terrorism cannot be allowed to exist in the modern world.

So I guess Bush had his fingers crossed whne he pledged during his campaign that if elected the US would not get into the business of Nation Building and become the World's Policeman. When he actually pledged that I took execption to it but when he loaded up his cabinet with Neocons I then knew that he was just BS'ing when he made that pledge.

As terrible as the 9/11 attacks were it did help him and he Neocon handlers fullfill their agenda which it turn made Crazyfools and others like him proud that their President had the balls to take out evil little dictators

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

So I guess Bush had his fingers crossed whne he pledged during his campaign that if elected the US would not get into the business of Nation Building and become the World's Policeman.

...wonder which is worse: promising not to rebuild a country that we have caused damage to (and then doing it), or promising "the most ethical administration in our nation's history," only to shove cigars up interns' crotches...tough call.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

So I guess Bush had his fingers crossed whne he pledged during his campaign that if elected the US would not get into the business of Nation Building and become the World's Policeman.

...wonder which is worse: promising not to rebuild a country that we have caused damage to (and then doing it), or promising "the most ethical administration in our nation's history," only to shove cigars up interns' crotches...tough call.

If the best the Bush fans can say about his Admin that it was more ethical the Clinton's then that really isn't saying much about Bush. That's like saying Carter's Administration was better than Fords

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Hmmm, check facts before posting please. Iraq is sitting on the World's 2nd largest Oil Reserve.

They are struggling to crank a million barrels out a day because the pumps, refineries and pipes have been getting sabotaged on a dialy basis since before the War began and continues today.

Hmm - yes please do check the FACTS before posting please.

Iraq's current oil output is about 2.5 million barrels per day.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Gravity
Sadaam WAS the weapon of mass destruction. Remember the mass graves? The ones that they are still sifting through? Regardless of whether or not they discover chemicals, they just found the largest WMD since Hitler.

Then why didn't the Dub use that argument to sell the war to the American Public instead of WMD's, Direct ties to Al Qaeda and an Advanced Nuclear Weapons Program? I'll tell you why, because the American Public wouldn't have supported the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq if he did!

He was asked a similar question at today's press conference. And of course, a lot of words were spoken, but no answer given.

link

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, it's been nine months now, and still there is relatively little evidence of WMD in Iraq. In retrospect, if you think back over the year, would you have been better to make more of your -- of the argument that you've made in recent times, that democratization in the Middle East was the reason to go to war, rather than WMD?

And since the CIA has been telling you that North Korea does have two or more weapons, what lesson should Kim Jong-il draw from the capture of Saddam Hussein?

THE PRESIDENT: Very deft at weaving in two questions. Here's what I took away from September the 11th, 2001 -- that any time a President sees a gathering threat to the United States, we must deal with it. We can't pick or choose like we used to, could in the past. In the old days, oceans protected us from harm's way, and a President could stand back and say, well, maybe this gathering threat is an issue, maybe it's not. After September the 11th, that complacency, I guess may be the right word, no longer is relevant. And, therefore, I began to assess threats.

And the threat of Saddam Hussein was a unique threat in this sense: the world recognized he was a threat for 12 years, and 17 resolutions, I think it is -- I believe it was 17 resolutions -- for the resolution counter, give me a hand here -- 17? Seventeen resolutions. And he ignored them. He just treated the U.N. as an empty debating society, as if their resolutions meant nothing. This is a person who has used chemical weapons before, which indicated to me he was a threat. He invaded his neighbors before. This is a person who was defiant, he's a deceiver, and he was a murderer in his own country. He was a threat.

And so I went to the United Nations, as you recall, September the 12th, 2002, and said to the United Nations, let's work together to disarm this man; you recognized he had arms, we recognize he's got arms, let's disarm him. And 1441 came about, it's when the world spoke through the United Nations Security Council with one voice, and in a unanimous voice said, disarm, or there will be serious consequences. In other words, they agreed that Saddam was a threat. And so we moved to disarm him. In other words, there were serious consequences because he was defiant.

Since then, David Kay has reported back that he had weapons programs that would have put him in material breach of 1441. What that means, of course, is that had David Kay been the lead inspector, and had done the work that he did prior to our removal of Saddam, he would have reported back to the U.N. Security Council that Saddam was, in fact, in breach of the Council resolutions that were passed.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: chess9


Anyway, we've been down this road a thousand times here an no one has produced ANY evidence of an imminent threat to the U.S. from S.H.

-Robert

"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."

So, who said anything about an imminent threat? Try literacy, k?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So I guess Bush had his fingers crossed whne he pledged during his campaign that if elected the US would not get into the business of Nation Building and become the World's Policeman.

...wonder which is worse: promising not to rebuild a country that we have caused damage to (and then doing it), or promising "the most ethical administration in our nation's history," only to shove cigars up interns' crotches...tough call.

If the best the Bush fans can say about his Admin that it was more ethical the Clinton's then that really isn't saying much about Bush. That's like saying Carter's Administration was better than Fords

. . . and claiming the Bush-lite administration is more ethical than Clinton's stretches credulity to the breaking point.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: chess9


Anyway, we've been down this road a thousand times here an no one has produced ANY evidence of an imminent threat to the U.S. from S.H.

-Robert

"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."

So, who said anything about an imminent threat? Try literacy, k?

Try sense.

By this criteria, anyone can be attacked for suspicion. Of course you probably applaud that, being the "hero" you are.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ZeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: chess9
Anyway, we've been down this road a thousand times here an no one has produced ANY evidence of an imminent threat to the U.S. from S.H.

-Robert

"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."

So, who said anything about an imminent threat? Try literacy, k?

One doesn't have to be literate to parrot a Bush-lite commercial. K?


(Anyone have a good Flash animation of a bleating parrot? )

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: chess9


Anyway, we've been down this road a thousand times here an no one has produced ANY evidence of an imminent threat to the U.S. from S.H.

-Robert

"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."

So, who said anything about an imminent threat? Try literacy, k?

Try sense.

By this criteria, anyone can be attacked for suspicion. Of course you probably applaud that, being the "hero" you are.

OMG! Yes, the Bush Administration is just attacking anyone and everyone at will for no reason. Dick Cheney himself led a strike force that abducted my sister from her piercing parlor. Both house next door to me have had bombs dropped on them for no reason. Your paranoia, (or is it exaggeration) is quite justified.

So far the targets of the administration have been ONLY strong and unabashed supporters of terrorism. Unless you have a different opinion of Saddam and Osama.

Keep trying scare tactics like that. It's pretty much the only hope of the Democrat party at this point. Unless you seriously feel that way in which case, oh my.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ZeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: chess9
Anyway, we've been down this road a thousand times here an no one has produced ANY evidence of an imminent threat to the U.S. from S.H.

-Robert

"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."

So, who said anything about an imminent threat? Try literacy, k?

One doesn't have to be literate to parrot a Bush-lite commercial. K?


(Anyone have a good Flash animation of a bleating parrot? )

Um, nice comeback? :shrug;

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: chess9


Anyway, we've been down this road a thousand times here an no one has produced ANY evidence of an imminent threat to the U.S. from S.H.

-Robert

"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."

So, who said anything about an imminent threat? Try literacy, k?

Try sense.

By this criteria, anyone can be attacked for suspicion. Of course you probably applaud that, being the "hero" you are.

OMG! Yes, the Bush Administration is just attacking anyone and everyone at will for no reason. Dick Cheney himself led a strike force that abducted my sister from her piercing parlor. Both house next door to me have had bombs dropped on them for no reason. Your paranoia, (or is it exaggeration) is quite justified.

So far the targets of the administration have been ONLY strong and unabashed supporters of terrorism. Unless you have a different opinion of Saddam and Osama.

Keep trying scare tactics like that. It's pretty much the only hope of the Democrat party at this point. Unless you seriously feel that way in which case, oh my.

Notice I said could.

Sorry, but the paranoia and exaggeration comes from the Bush camp. Saddam was no threat to the US, but that is why we went to war, or so it was claimed.

Where are the weapons the administration said it knew existed? Nothing. Nada.

When we went to war, Bush exaggerated the threat by Saddam and you haven't yet been able to show them. We get might maybe could have someday. That was not the bill of goods sold to us.

Want to convince me that Bush was justified in this war?
All you have to do is answer these two specific points. Just two.



Describe the weapons found, and were they were.
Demonstrate that Saddam was plotting with terrorists to attack the US. Please use names and targets.


The above is not hard to understand. How will you spin it, if you bother to at all?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Hmmm, check facts before posting please. Iraq is sitting on the World's 2nd largest Oil Reserve.

They are struggling to crank a million barrels out a day because the pumps, refineries and pipes have been getting sabotaged on a dialy basis since before the War began and continues today.

Hmm - yes please do check the FACTS before posting please.

Iraq's current oil output is about 2.5 million barrels per day.

CkG

From your same article:

"Oil and gas pipelines in Iraq have been sabotaged more than 80 times since the beginning of the war in April, slowing production."

All the other articles I've seen put production closer to 1 million barrels, Point is they are not getting enough going there to even fill the cars and trucks right there in Iraq (News clips of the long lines at the Gas stations everyday) nevermind ship off any excess off to the Markets such as the U.S.

Your'e getting as bad as a couple of other posters in here. Sheeze

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Hmmm, check facts before posting please. Iraq is sitting on the World's 2nd largest Oil Reserve.

They are struggling to crank a million barrels out a day because the pumps, refineries and pipes have been getting sabotaged on a dialy basis since before the War began and continues today.

Hmm - yes please do check the FACTS before posting please.

Iraq's current oil output is about 2.5 million barrels per day.

CkG

From your same article:

"Oil and gas pipelines in Iraq have been sabotaged more than 80 times since the beginning of the war in April, slowing production."

All the other articles I've seen put production closer to 1 million barrels, Point is they are not getting enough going there to even fill the cars and trucks right there in Iraq (News clips of the long lines at the Gas stations everyday) nevermind ship off any excess off to the Markets such as the U.S.

Your'e getting as bad as a couple of other posters in here. Sheeze

No Dave - what you are thinking about is the oil refinery issues Iraq has. Crude output has been over a million/day for a while. Yes there are pipeline issues for the crude but production has been up. Oil and gas are different issues here Dave.
Iraq produced 1.9 million barrels per day, up from 1.58 million in October.

CkG

 

[EXman]

It is NOT a trivial number. It is also a much, much smaller number than the 10,000 or so innocent Iraqis we killed.

Bowfinger you goober Saddam has killed 300,000 to 1,000,000 people more every day now he will never again

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent.

(Translation: We have no clue what's going on in Iraq.)

Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

(Well, Osama bin Ladin for one. He issued fatwas and formerly declared war on the U.S. If that's not putting us on notice, I don't know what is.)

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late."

(BOOM! Mushroom cloud, people. Did I scare you? Wammo! WMDs! Where did that come from?!?)

 

[Conky]

I sleep better at night knowing a man like our President, George Bush, is sitting at the wheel.

Despite the negative things so many politicallly motivated individuals say about him... he cares about this country and he doesn't want us attacked.

He is hugely rich from his private business before his political careeer and I don't see an "Oil" motivation like so many retarded people think... he is going to convert Iraq's oil reserves into his own private fortune? People that say things like this are no better than that sh!tstain Saddam who gets to live in a cage. I guess I am just stupid for believing that that this man is actually honorable... unlike that "it ain't a crime if you don't get caught" butthole who was president before him.

P.S. The ex-president dummy got caught and now his legacy is that of a man who cheated on his wife and encouraged Worldcom and Enron to follow his whole "it ain't a crime if you don't get caught" philosophy instead of being honorable. Thank God for honorable men like Bush.