• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Why you SHOULD care if they don't find WMD's

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
23,003
770
126
You know, it's absolutely amazing how the warmongers on this forum completely miss the point. They keep on saying stuff like, "Well, it doesn't matter if we find WMD's or not, we freed the Iraqi people and that's justification enough.". WAKE UP FOLKS, that is a completely different argument than what everyone else is arguing. You can argue whether iraq is better off or not, but the fact remains that the COMMANDER IN CHIEF MAY HAVE LIED TO GET US INTO WAR. If it turns out that Bush lied and we don't punish him and his accomplices, WHAT KIND OF EXAMPLE DOES THAT SET FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS and other government officials? Ask yourself this: Do you want the government to see this as an example of how they can do as they please because the people are indifferent to what they do? SET ASIDE YOUR POLITICAL BIASES; If it turns out that Bush lied, BE A MAN AND ADMIT THAT YOU WERE WRONG AS WELL. What's more important, your pride or freedom from tyranny?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,408
2
81
I don't care if they find them or not. America has bankrupted itself by attacking a county who did'nt attack them. This is where the problem lies. Speaking of lies, they were nessesary to carry out this attack without provocation.

What most disturbing about the left "anti-war" protestors is they would have been OK with the war if it had been officially sanctioned by the United Nations, which has always been a conduit for left-wing, new-world-order, kum-ba-ya interests. Sorry. But the Consititution and founding fathers and fore-bearers policies is all we should care about as Americans.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,497
3
0
Originally posted by: Phokus
You know, it's absolutely amazing how the warmongers on this forum completely miss the point. They keep on saying stuff like, "Well, it doesn't matter if we find WMD's or not, we freed the Iraqi people and that's justification enough.". WAKE UP FOLKS, that is a completely different argument than what everyone else is arguing. You can argue whether iraq is better off or not, but the fact remains that the COMMANDER IN CHIEF MAY HAVE LIED TO GET US INTO WAR. If it turns out that Bush lied and we don't punish him and his accomplices, WHAT KIND OF EXAMPLE DOES THAT SET FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS and other government officials? Ask yourself this: Do you want the government to see this as an example of how they can do as they please because the people are indifferent to what they do? SET ASIDE YOUR POLITICAL BIASES; If it turns out that Bush lied, BE A MAN AND ADMIT THAT YOU WERE WRONG AS WELL. What's more important, your pride or freedom from tyranny?
I agree 100%. We have been sliding down a slope for a long time, and if this gets a pass from the American people then I am afraid it will never stop. Government will continue to lie to, take from, and use the citizens of this country, and when it gets to the point where most wake up and realize it's gone too far, it will be too late to do anything about it.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't care if they find them or not. America has bankrupted itself by attacking a county who did'nt attack them. This is where the problem lies. Speaking of lies, they were nessesary to carry out this attack without provocation.

What most disturbing about the left "anti-war" protestors is they would have been OK with the war if it had been officially sanctioned by the United Nations, which has always been a conduit for left-wing, new-world-order, kum-ba-ya interests. Sorry. But the Consititution and founding fathers and fore-bearers policies is all we should care about as Americans.
I agree, to the extent that no matter who sanctions a wrong, it is still wrong. The UN, with whom I do have some issues to the suprise of many, I am sure, did not sign on because the threat of Saddam did not warrant the remedy given by Bush. I know that there will be knee jerk reaction to this because of perceived financial interests of the French, and that may be true to some extent. The people of those countries were not thinking of contracts, but of casalties though. If Saddam were proven to be a threat beyond a reasonable doubt, then others might have signed on. We will never know, because that was not allowed to happen.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: Nitemare
America = safer
Iraq = Better place to live

<---does not care about finding WMD
Of course you don't. These things involve honor, trust, principle. They do not concern you.

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
I think the motivation behind the opposition in the UN is well known, and it has little to do with Saddams compliance with the UN.

I am not worried that Bush may have overstated some intelligence, we know some of it was right on the money. We already know the most outrageous claim of a 45 minute window to use WMD came from the UK, granted, I am sure Bush knew that was BS, but he is not going to sell Blair out after he went to bat for him and is taking serious heat right now.

My biggest concern if they don't find them is simple, where are the unaccounted for WMD?
If they gave them all to syria, I can live with that, they have them already and have been responsible with them, even with the ties to terrorism I don't see them turning those materials over to terrorists. It would be rather ironic if Saddam handed some over to terrorists to get rid of them once he knew the US was coming, Bush would have driven him to do exactly what he wanted to stop.

I really don't think anyone in the UN or the international community believed Iraq did not have WMD anymore. This is from the last report submitted to the UN security council on march 6th, 2003 by inspections teams:

"As it has proved impossible to verify the production and destruction details of R-400 bombs,
UNMOVIC cannot discount the possibility that some CW and BW filled R-400 bombs remain in
Iraq." (chemical weapon. biological weapon)

If the UN arms inspectors could not discount that possibility, how can you? There are many other unresolved issues as far as the UN ws concerned. Do you realize one of the major hang-ups was that Saddam would not release a listing of over 500 suppliers for his missille systems programs? We found German and French models, along with Chineese silkworms....

Bush or anyone else saying Iraq has WMD is hardly a reach or some completely fabricated tale, when he tells me he needs to invade Italy because they are growing tomatoes that have been modified genetically to attack the US gene pool and turn us all French, then I will want a little more evidence up front. Iraq has WMD, McDonalds sells burgers, common knowledge.
 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
I just want to know if they had them and destroyed them or if they had them and moved them out. Or if they never had them at all. I'm getting more and more impatient every day.
 

mastertech01

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Nov 13, 1999
11,631
0
76
If it is PROVEN he flat out lied, Ill join in the crowd to say he was wrong to lie. I still wont be unhappy the Iraq regime has fallen. And I hope if he is PROVEN NOT to have lied, that you likewise will be MAN enough to admit you were wrong, even if you are a little boy (as many of the posters here on either side of the fence ARE indeed)
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
They say they destroyed them all, yet kicked inspectors out in 1998 and never allowed even unannounced fly-overs of areas to be inspected. Most of the evidence they gave as proof was either obviously fabricated, or incomplete, or were not scientifically tenable.

I linked the 175 page report which was given to the UN, Unresolved Disarmament Issues.

UNMOVIC Working document 6 March 2003 UNRESOLVED DISARMAMENT ISSUES IRAQ?S PROSCRIBED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES

If you want to really know what Saddam claimed and what the UN found, take a look. Everything is in there, the complete history from 1991 to march 6th, 2003, what was found, destroyed, what evidence backs his claims, what doesnt, and includes WMD that were destroyed in Jan. of 2003.....
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: mastertech01
If it is PROVEN he flat out lied, Ill join in the crowd to say he was wrong to lie. I still wont be unhappy the Iraq regime has fallen. And I hope if he is PROVEN NOT to have lied, that you likewise will be MAN enough to admit you were wrong, even if you are a little boy (as many of the posters here on either side of the fence ARE indeed)
I concur, and will also happily join the "lynch mob" IF he is conclusively proven wrong.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
United Nations Security Council 30 May 2003 Thirteenth quarterly report of the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in accordance with paragraph 12 of Security Council resolution 1284 (1999)

13. Again, with respect to anthrax, the Commission, as it reported, had strong
indications ? but not conclusive evidence ? that all the quantities produced had
not been destroyed, and that hence even today such quantities could remain.

14. By the time inspections were suspended, the Commission had performed a
number of inspections to try to verify, as described in the present report, intelligence
information that Iraq had mobile units for the production of biological weapons. The
Iraqi side denied that any such units existed and provided the Commission with
pictures of legitimate vehicles, which they suggested could have been mistaken for
mobile units. However, none of the vehicles in those pictures resembles the trucks
recently described and depicted by the Coalition.

118. During an inspection on 7 January 2003 of the Al Mamoun site, UNMOVIC
inspectors observed two large propellant casting chambers. Iraq declared that those
casting chambers had originally been acquired for the Badr 2000 project. That was a
proscribed project, and although UNSCOM had supervised the destruction of the
two casting chambers in 1991 Iraq had managed to refurbish them for use in their
current solid propellant missile projects.

119. The destruction of the chemical weapons agent mustard gas, which had started
at the end of February, was completed in March 2003. Under UNMOVIC
supervision, Iraq destroyed the 155 mm shells and the mustard gas contained in
them. The shells found in 1997 were stored at a declared location ? the former
Muthanna State Establishment. In total, there were 14 shells, containing
approximately 49 litres of the agent ? four of them had been earlier emptied and
sampled by UNSCOM. The agent was destroyed by chemical reaction and the empty
shells with explosives. Samples taken from the shells showed that mustard gas
produced over 15 years ago was still of high quality ? 97 per cent purity.

E. 122 mm chemical warheads
122. An UNMOVIC inspection team found 12 undeclared 122 mm chemical
warheads and motors at the Al Ukhaidar ammunition depot (11 of them were
unfilled and 1 filled with water). Iraq notified the Commission on 20 January 2003
that four more warheads had been found at the Al Taji ammunition depot. In
February 2003, an UNMOVIC team discovered an additional two undeclared 122
mm chemical warheads at the same depot (one of the six warheads discovered at the
Al Taji depot was filled with liquid that was subsequently identified as water). In
total, 18 chemical warheads were tagged by UMOVIC for destruction.

Theres some undeclared WMD found in Feb. 2003.

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
In 1996, UNSCOM found new evidence of chemical production and analytical
equipment and precursor chemicals acquired for chemical weapons purposes still
remaining in Iraq. Many of those items had been exempted from destruction by the Commission in 1995 on the basis of false Iraqi declarations as to their past use or intended purpose. In 1997, UNSCOM designated for destruction and supervised the
disposal of the following newly identified items and materials (see S/1996/848):
? 325 pieces of production equipment (of those, possession of 120 pieces was
only disclosed by Iraq in August 1997);
? 125 pieces of analytical instruments;

? 275 tons of precursor chemicals.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: mastertech01
If it is PROVEN he flat out lied, Ill join in the crowd to say he was wrong to lie. I still wont be unhappy the Iraq regime has fallen. And I hope if he is PROVEN NOT to have lied, that you likewise will be MAN enough to admit you were wrong, even if you are a little boy (as many of the posters here on either side of the fence ARE indeed)
I concur, and will also happily join the "lynch mob" IF he is conclusively proven wrong.
You will have to show me where top administration officials seriously overstated the intelligence, as in the British case with the 45 minute assessment. Do that he will get the same thing from me he did last election, snubbed at the ballot box. Yes, I did not vote for Bush.
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7

I really don't think anyone in the UN or the international community believed Iraq did not have WMD anymore. This is from the last report submitted to the UN security council on march 6th, 2003 by inspections teams:

"As it has proved impossible to verify the production and destruction details of R-400 bombs,
UNMOVIC cannot discount the possibility that some CW and BW filled R-400 bombs remain in
Iraq." (chemical weapon. biological weapon)

If the UN arms inspectors could not discount that possibility, how can you? There are many other unresolved issues as far as the UN ws concerned. Do you realize one of the major hang-ups was that Saddam would not release a listing of over 500 suppliers for his missille systems programs? We found German and French models, along with Chineese silkworms....

Bush or anyone else saying Iraq has WMD is hardly a reach or some completely fabricated tale, when he tells me he needs to invade Italy because they are growing tomatoes that have been modified genetically to attack the US gene pool and turn us all French, then I will want a little more evidence up front. Iraq has WMD, McDonalds sells burgers, common knowledge.
So the UN's position was that Iraq could have some WMD (stuff was unaccounted for), but the inspections process (under Blix) yeilded no WMD findings. The justification for war was that Iraq had WMD and was posing a threat to the security of the US and the world. Just ask Bush himself:
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.
The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.
There you have it, Bush stating that Iraq has WMD, so we have to go to war to protect ourselves. That's alot different than the stance of the UN. Its one thing to say Iraq might have WMDs, so inspections should continue as they were, but its a big leap to say we know Iraq has WMDs so we need to invade their country.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Why not take a few hours, read both reports front to back with an open mind and come back to talk to me, then you will at least be able to follow along....
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Nice quote in your sig:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Dick Cheney
August 26, 2002



From the report by UN Inspections teams on March 6th 2003:


"In
February 2003, an UNMOVIC team discovered an additional two undeclared 122
mm chemical warheads"

looks like Dick was right, they were there in Feb. 2003, they were there in Aug. 2002, unless they were new, take your pic....
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
0
0
Wake up, Phokus. This isn't 1908. Our greatest fears are no longer slow moving armies bearing rudimentary firearms. The destruction a small group of terrorists can level on the world with WMD is FAR more devastating than a million Soviet infantry. If unleashed, WMD won't discriminate between civilian and military targets. It won't recongize national borders. It won't sign a peace treaty. And, as we've SEEN there are actually people in this world crazy enough to use them and, guess what, they're being bred by the tens of thousands under dictatorial regimes every day in the Middle East.

The bottom line is that we CAN'T just sit back and wait for someone to administer the first blow because finding the culprit may not be possible or, even worse, it may just be a knockout blow. We CAN take preventative measures to decrease the possibility of the currently existing WMD falling into terrorist hands.

I'm all for letting the other guy swing first. But I'm not as likely to do so if he's carrying a knife. I'm gonna bust him up or run the second I see he has a knife and I'm not sure where America has to run to.
 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
i know, it's called a "straw man", almost every bush speech has one. it's used when you can't support your own argument so you totally exaggerate and distort another person's viewpoint.

Examples of Straw Man

Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
BUSH: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
BUSH: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

BUSH: "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
BUSH: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
BUSH: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Nice quote in your sig:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Dick Cheney
August 26, 2002



From the report by UN Inspections teams on March 6th 2003:


"In
February 2003, an UNMOVIC team discovered an additional two undeclared 122
mm chemical warheads"

looks like Dick was right, they were there in Feb. 2003, they were there in Aug. 2002
ohhhhh nooooo not warheads capable of holding chemical weapons!! Add that to the dreaded "mobile chemical factories" and the high strength aluminum tubes that when added with thousands of other components and some uranium could possibly make a nuke (the purpose of these tubes has been disputed....looks like they're not for a reactor).
They all sound like the "most lethal weapons ever devised" as Bush put it.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
can you run from airborne ebola?

remember when the health minstry was "looted", polio, all kinds of nasty things taken. Never been found, people are not getting sick, so who took them? Someone who can handle, transport, and store them properly. Remember some were not even known exactly what they were. Another reassuring thought.

just popped an AQ operative in my home state of Ohio. How much damage could he have done with a ton of nerve agent or anthrax?
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
not warheads capable, but actually FILLED. Huge difference I am sure is not lost on you.

Those were ready to fire, and were identical to some used on the Kurds.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Dick Cheney
August 26, 2002


absolute fact as proven by UN inspections.....
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
118. During an inspection on 7 January 2003 of the Al Mamoun site, UNMOVIC
inspectors observed two large propellant casting chambers. Iraq declared that those
casting chambers had originally been acquired for the Badr 2000 project. That was a
proscribed project, and although UNSCOM had supervised the destruction of the
two casting chambers in 1991 Iraq had managed to refurbish them for use in their
current solid propellant missile projects.

what about those "tubes" straw men? I will wait patiently for your direct answer to this question.
 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Wake up, Phokus. This isn't 1908. Our greatest fears are no longer slow moving armies bearing rudimentary firearms. The destruction a small group of terrorists can level on the world with WMD is FAR more devastating than a million Soviet infantry.
<B>GRAND PRIZE FOR THE OVERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR</B>

If unleashed, WMD won't discriminate between civilian and military targets. It won't recongize national borders. It won't sign a peace treaty.
<B>I FOUND THIS TO BE VERY FUNNY FOR SOME REASON (DO CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN CIVILIAN AND MILITARY TARGERS? DO THEY SIGN PEACE TREATIES?)</B>

And, as we've SEEN there are actually people in this world crazy enough to use them and, guess what, they're being bred by the tens of thousands under dictatorial regimes every day in the Middle East.
<B>SECOND PRIZE FOR OVERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR</B>

The bottom line is that we CAN'T just sit back and wait for someone to administer the first blow because finding the culprit may not be possible or, even worse, it may just be a knockout blow. We CAN take preventative measures to decrease the possibility of the currently existing WMD falling into terrorist hands.

I'm all for letting the other guy swing first. But I'm not as likely to do so if he's carrying a knife. I'm gonna bust him up or run the second I see he has a knife and I'm not sure where America has to run to.
How many Americans have died because of WMDs, even before 9/11? Iraq and all these other countries have had WMDs for many many years, and yet the only casualty that I can think of from a WMD substance was from an American Army Lab and most likely perpetrated by an American.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
how many died from planes being intenionally crashed into buildings before 9/11? If we could have avoided that should we have?

That's about how much warning we will get in the event of a WMD attack,....


how much time wil you waste assuming your perception is real when you have the only two relevant and impartial documents linked right here? Read the damn reports already, what was the point in the UN spending 12 years inspecting if you are just going to ignore their findings?

Who cares who said what when you wont even acknowledge the facts?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY