The Search for Banned Weapons in Iraq . . .

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
There is still no accountability of what they admistted that they had and did not destroy.

Big concern there. Where did that stuff go and who controls it.

Read the reports from Blix and Kay. The WMDs were destroyed during inspections and the programs dismantled.

The only thing Saddam is guilty of is not keeping up-to-date on his paperwork.

 

[EXman]

Paperwork :roll: yea right

The only thing Saddam is guilty of is not keeping up-to-date on his paperwork.

please read this again and see how foolhardy it is! Yea he was a stellar guy!!!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EXman
Paperwork :roll: yea right

Then where are the WMDs this administration said they knew existed and knew where they were? That wouldn't have been a.....lie, would it?

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EXman
Paperwork :roll: yea right

Then where are the WMDs this administration said they knew existed and knew where they were? That wouldn't have been a.....lie, would it?

No they did exsist they used them NOBODY can confirm that they were all destroyed. Not Blix Not Kay. If they were so sure they were all destroyed and hunky dory and they wouldn't have them then why did they keep inspectors over there? I'm going to work now see y'all later.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EXman
Paperwork :roll: yea right

Then where are the WMDs this administration said they knew existed and knew where they were? That wouldn't have been a.....lie, would it?

No they did exsist they used them NOBODY can confirm that they were all destroyed. Not Blix Not Kay. If they were so sure they were all destroyed and hunky dory and they wouldn't have them then why did they keep inspectors over there? I'm going to work now see y'all later.

Then you haven't read their reports.

Oh wait...yeah...there were those EMPTY shells found and those two shells with sarin precursor that caused no damage.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: umbrella39
*crickets* from the Bush Fanbois. Par for the neocon course. Yawn. Dinosaurs became extinct, too, so will you.

Funny did you look at the last election results? Who made gains? "Da Nile" is not only a river in africa! 😛

Libs are even losing their Evening newsdesks.

I'd rather lose with truth than win with lies.

" I'd rather lose with truth than win with lies " :thumbsup:

 

[Engineer]

3 Reasons (shifting of course) to invade Iraq...

1. WMD's - None found. Mission accomplished
2. Topple Saddam - Toppled. Mission accomplished
3. Liberate Iraqi people - Liberated. Mission accomplished.

Time to come home yet?

If not, why? Mission not accomplished?

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EXman
Paperwork :roll: yea right

Then where are the WMDs this administration said they knew existed and knew where they were? That wouldn't have been a.....lie, would it?

No they did exsist they used them NOBODY can confirm that they were all destroyed. Not Blix Not Kay. If they were so sure they were all destroyed and hunky dory and they wouldn't have them then why did they keep inspectors over there? I'm going to work now see y'all later.

Ok stop with Iraq using them crap. Saddam used them in the 80's!

Let me ask you a question, if Bush came on TV prior to the invasion and said ?I am going to order the deaths of 1300 of our troops in order to confirm the WMD?s are not there? Would you have supported his decision?

 

[CaptnKirk]

I choose not to reply directly to X-Man's slander.

It serves no purpose to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: EXman
On to Syria Captain Krank!

Reading a post from you on this subject is a laugher! SO I guess you know where teh WMD's went that he had and already used? No I didn't think so. Logic was on the Iraq had WMD side but you are are only concerned with logic if it is working in your favor.

Paid liars = many many other governments I think the # was at least 7. yea right. 😀

Go apply for Dan Rathers Job He'd Love you!

Oh the humor abounds in this forum. Please explain how exactly " Logic was on the Iraq had WMD side", I'd really like to hear your argument. Perhaps you are a broken record stuck on the time when Bush made that speech with all those magnificent claims about Iraq's WMD, repeating that speech over and over in your head, while ignoring how the majority of those claims were systematically debunked over the following months?

Oh about your Syria comment:

Bush has expressed disappointment that no weapons or weapons programs were found, but the White House has been reluctant to call off the hunt, holding out the possibility that weapons were moved out of Iraq before the war or are well hidden somewhere inside the country. But the intelligence official said that possibility is very small.

Oh but you're alot smarter than these silly intelligence officials right? I mean, you've been to Iraq and have done a thorough, comprehensive study of the situation and have considered all the possibilities, and have mountains of evidence which conclude without a shadow of a doubt that Syria has Iraq's ever-so-elusive phantom WMDs?

So why did Saddam Laugh at the sanctions? If he didn't have them his country would have been better off. Is that so hard to understand?

Even your quote leaves the door open to weapons going to Syria. Remote or not it was possible hell they still had Oil and 18 wheelers with cash going in as the war begun.

Maybe because he didn't want some of his good buddies in the Mid East (i.e., Iran, a nation that loves showing itself as a threat) to know what he did and didn't have?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: EXman

So why did Saddam Laugh at the sanctions? If he didn't have them his country would have been better off. Is that so hard to understand?

What are you trying to say? That if Saddam was fully cooperative that sanctions would get lifted? My oh my are you dillusional? Our government was intent on one thing: replacing Saddam's regime wtih one that will kiss up to us and allow us to exploit their resources (Ok sorry, part of that was subjective. But the fact is the only way sanctions were ot be lifted is if there was a regime change.

These are the messages Saddam got loud and clear regarding sanctions:

"Do I think the answer is now for Saddam Hussein to be kicked out? Absolutely because there will not be - may I finish, please? - there will not be normalized relations with the United States, and I think this is true for most coalition partners, until Saddam Hussein is out of there. And we will continue the economic sanctions."
- President George H. Bush, 16 April 1991.

"Saddam is discredited and cannot be redeemed. His leadership will never be accepted by the world community and, therefore, Iraqis will pay the price while he remains in power. All possible sanctions will be maintained until he is gone. Any easing of sanctions will be considered only when there is a new government."
- Robert M. Gates, Deputy National Security Adviser, on 7 May 1991

"President Bush said today that the United States would oppose the lifting of the worldwide ban against trading with Iraq until President Saddam Hussein is forced out of power in Baghdad".
- "Bush Links End Of Trading Ban To Hussein Exit", The New York Times, 21 May 1991.

So from the beginning, we made it clear that sanctions are not just there because of weapons inspections, it's for the purpose of regime change.

Originally posted by: EXman
Even your quote leaves the door open to weapons going to Syria. Remote or not it was possible hell they still had Oil and 18 wheelers with cash going in as the war begun.

Now that is highly irrational. It's this "remote possiblity" crap that got us into this mess in Iraq in the first place, and you want to continue with such a half-assed doctrine? How about a new doctrine where we don't let our bias get in the way but instead rely upon actual evidence ? Is that too extreme?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: EXman
On to Syria Captain Krank!

Reading a post from you on this subject is a laugher! SO I guess you know where teh WMD's went that he had and already used? No I didn't think so. Logic was on the Iraq had WMD side but you are are only concerned with logic if it is working in your favor.

Paid liars = many many other governments I think the # was at least 7. yea right. 😀

Go apply for Dan Rathers Job He'd Love you!

Oh the humor abounds in this forum. Please explain how exactly " Logic was on the Iraq had WMD side", I'd really like to hear your argument. Perhaps you are a broken record stuck on the time when Bush made that speech with all those magnificent claims about Iraq's WMD, repeating that speech over and over in your head, while ignoring how the majority of those claims were systematically debunked over the following months?

Oh about your Syria comment:

Bush has expressed disappointment that no weapons or weapons programs were found, but the White House has been reluctant to call off the hunt, holding out the possibility that weapons were moved out of Iraq before the war or are well hidden somewhere inside the country. But the intelligence official said that possibility is very small.

Oh but you're alot smarter than these silly intelligence officials right? I mean, you've been to Iraq and have done a thorough, comprehensive study of the situation and have considered all the possibilities, and have mountains of evidence which conclude without a shadow of a doubt that Syria has Iraq's ever-so-elusive phantom WMDs?

So why did Saddam Laugh at the sanctions? If he didn't have them his country would have been better off. Is that so hard to understand?

Even your quote leaves the door open to weapons going to Syria. Remote or not it was possible hell they still had Oil and 18 wheelers with cash going in as the war begun.

Maybe because he didn't want some of his good buddies in the Mid East (i.e., Iran, a nation that loves showing itself as a threat) to know what he did and didn't have?

WINNAR!

 

[jpeyton]

Finally, most of America can pull the wool off their eyes.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: jman19
Maybe because he didn't want some of his good buddies in the Mid East (i.e., Iran, a nation that loves showing itself as a threat) to know what he did and didn't have?

Considering Iran might have been rather eager to avenge the Iran/Iraq war knowing that Saddam was weak in that he had no WMDs, I'd say this has a high probability of being why Saddam was posturing and delaying inspections when he could.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Just as well, if any were found, the Bush admin would be accused of planting them😱

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Just as well, if any were found, the Bush admin would be accused of planting them😱

Well, the time when we could've had confidence that Iraq actually had WMD had past long ago, so there's some truth to that statement.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Many of you seem to overlook the fact that Saddam Hussein portrayed his regime as maintaining WMDs, or having the ability to resume a WMD program, as a means of keeping the neighbors in check...Hussein played a dangerous poker game and lost.

Not to mention the whole Oil for Food fiasco...while we did not have evidence of this scandal before occupying Iraq, the fact that it even exists highlights the failures of the UN and its "resolutions"...how can an organization claim to represent the will of the international community when said organization lacks the ability to enforce its own resolutions...and as much as the United States has used the UN in the past to further its own agenda, so have France, England, Russia, China and many other nations...we are not the only nation on this planet with blood on its hands, or have we already forgotten the age of imperialism imposed by the nation states of western Europe that are primarily responsible for the plight of the Third World today...or that the mess in the Middle East is strongly linked to western European nations arbitrarily carving up the former Ottoman Turkish Empire after WW1.

Iraq is America's mess, but the context of events leading up to Iraq are not entirely the fault of America.

I blame Bush for his handling of the war...particularly his failure to build a coalition and how we have conducted operations since occupying Iraq.

But I do not weep for the end of Saddam's regime.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EXman
On to Syria Captain Krank!

Reading a post from you on this subject is a laugher! SO I guess you know where teh WMD's went that he had and already used? No I didn't think so. Logic was on the Iraq had WMD side but you are are only concerned with logic if it is working in your favor.

Paid liars = many many other governments I think the # was at least 7. yea right. 😀

Go apply for Dan Rathers Job He'd Love you!

Try reading for a change. It's educational. You'll find many articles showing that the Gulf War, the inspections during the 90s destroyed the WMDs, and missile strikes during the Clinton administration destroyed the WMDs and the facilities where they were made.

I suppose you know what happened to the ones Rumsfeld knew existed and he knew where they were?

He obviously knows where they are and isn't telling. Hmmmm....perhaps he a terrorist just adding more fuel to the fire?? 😉

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Many of you seem to overlook the fact that Saddam Hussein portrayed his regime as maintaining WMDs, or having the ability to resume a WMD program, as a means of keeping the neighbors in check...Hussein played a dangerous poker game and lost.

I thought he kept telling us that he didn't have any, but we didn't believe him?

 

[dmcowen674]

More from the Whitehouse comment today:

McClellan said, referring to preliminary findings from last September.

Duelfer reported then that Saddam Hussein not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either.

Bush unapologetically defended his decision to invade Iraq.

Bush has appointed a panel to investigate why the intelligence about Iraq's weapons was wrong.

================================================================
I wouldn't be surprised if that "Panel" is made up of the FLL P&N Elite here.

 

[conjur]

He'll have Gonzalez head it up with Feith as an assistant.

Maybe they'll re-enlist the aid of Chalabi, too.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

But I do not weep for the end of Saddam's regime.

I don't believe anyone here cares about Saddam's fate. It's the innocent people and the country we destroyed getting to Saddam which I believe most of us have a problem with.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: conjur
He'll have Gonzalez head it up with Feith as an assistant.

Maybe they'll re-enlist the aid of Chalabi, too.

Wouldn't shock me.

 

Bush is making it really easy to make friends when i visit other countries.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
More from the Whitehouse comment today:

McClellan said, referring to preliminary findings from last September.

Duelfer reported then that Saddam Hussein not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either.



Bush unapologetically defended his decision to invade Iraq.

Bush has appointed a panel to investigate why the intelligence about Iraq's weapons was wrong.




================================================================
I wouldn't be surprised if that "Panel" is made up of the FLL P&N Elite here.

When in doubt, mumble. When in trouble, delegate. I don't think this issue is going away anytime soon, not while we have people over there dying every day.