Do you believe there are/were WMDs in Iraq?

[Daemon688]

Do I think there were WMDs? Maybe. If there were any it would have been destroyed. Was it the only reason to go into Iraq? No. Was the timing of the invasion poor? Yes. Should we have finished Saddam in 91? Yes.

 

[ravinraven]

But if we had finished Saddam in '91...

...Bush the 1st would have been tarred and feathered for going beyond the UN mandate at that time. The tar job would have been done by the same clowns that now bad-mouth him for not doing it then.

Slickster, Hitlary, Algore and Notbright all said that Saddam had to go. If Dubya hadn't taken him out when he did imagine what sKerry would have said in the '04 election cycle. "President Clinton, Sec't'y Albright and Vice President Gore all have shown us that Saddam has to be out of there. Bush has done nothing! The Butcher of Bagdad is still there. If I am elected, Saddam will be gone."

The Swifties would have been sunk, Dan Ratherbered would still be on the job not having had to publish lies in a last ditch effort to dump Dubya and Hitlary would be fuming since her plans to wreck the country completely would have to be put off until '12.

Too bad we can't rewind time and run it the other way and prove the correctness of my scenerio.

rr

 

[Rebar]

Read all 19 pages of the summary report.

I did. Did you read the parts where they were relying on the inspectors reports? The same inspectors that were played like fools, where contaners were snuck out the back while there were coming in the front?

Please tell me that you do not believe... blah blah blah.

I believe weapons are unaccounted for. I believe something was loaded in the trucks and moved to Syria. I believe that something was the unaccounted for weapons. You can believe what you want.

Actually, the argument was over giving Blix sufficent time to complete his inspections and submit his report.

14 years wasn't enough time? What a joke.

So frankly, I'll take the lancet numbers

Well, if you're going to rely on made-up numbers, why not just say "a zillion kajillion civilians!"? That would have the same validity as the lancet numbers.

Which lead to airstrikes which destroyed the estimated 3% that was remaining of the Iraqi chemical weapons stockpiles.

Really? Where's you evidence of that? I presented far more evidence that WMD where in those trucks, yet you think just saying "airstrikes" accounts for all the missing weapons? Try again.

So the Israelis who consider Iraq a threat, the Turks who consider the Kurds a threat, and Syria, who's not any special friend of Iraq despite their similarities

Israel has the best intelligence in the region. And if the Turks are enemys with the Kurds, wouldn't they want Saddam to gas a few more tens of thousands? And of course anyone from Syria is a liar, it's a whole country filled with liar-liar pants on fire liars, right?

And you ignore the question - what was loaded in those trucks that was so important? But I already know why you won't touch it.

The bottom line is, if the unaccounted WMD were in those trucks, it means all the protests, all the Bush-hate, all the criticism of American policy, was wrong. So for folks like Sparks, who have built a fantasy world where Bush is the boogy-man and America is responsible for all evil in the world, there will never be enough evidence that Bush was right.

Sparks, I hope you bring better arguments when you defend you PhD, because your weak logic and pathetic reliance on made up "evidence" shown here, wouldn't cut it in a high school debating team.

 

[jefnvk]

I personally believe that China poses much greater

If I have any problem with the Iraqi war, it is that. There were other problems that probably should have been dealt with first. N. Korea is the one that immediately comes to mind.

 

[mack69]

There is alot of desert out there.....lots of places to bury materiel...but one thing for sure....Sadaam himself was a weapon of mass destruction...We all know of the murder and mayhem he caused and created in Iraq all these years...mack

 

[Northslope Nimrod]

Tim Russert on HARDBALL

Last night (March 21, 2005), Tim Russert was on the Chris Mathew's Show - Hardball. Tim Russert, speaking on WMD's, named the intelligence agencies that concluded that WMD's were in Iraq. These included German, British, and Russian agencies. He then named individuals that concluded the same. These included, Pres. Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman and others. Russert also stated that he could not think of one person, "in either party," in our government, that did not believe WMD's were in IRAQ.
Now, while Pres. Bush is a good leader, I doubt these aforementioned people and agencies, just took HIS word for it. (excluding Gore - he is probably dumb enough to be lead anywhere....."he lied!.....He played on our fears!....Ahhhh!) Remember, some of these people were on the intelligence committee! Even though they may not have attended well (Uhmmm...Mr. Kerry), they would be privy to the intelligence and could/did draw their own conclusions.
Now, Please....let's stop believing that Pres Bush is our almighty daddy and that he lied to all of us..."played on our fears" and we innocently followed. To believe that...you have to be the most ignorant conspiracy theorist around. It would be impossible for little ol' Bushy, as dumb as the Demo's say his, to trick the whole world. They couldn't pull that one over, even if Dick Cheney thought it up. On the other hand...they DID lie to us about alien landings in the Nevada desert....so perhaps?......Hmmmm? Maybe their is a conspiracy here!? This goes way beyond the 'right winged conspiracy' where we placed a young intern in compromising positions with the leader of the free world and then planted said leader's bodily fluids on one blue dress. Man! We've really out done ourselves with THIS conspiracy. We pulled one over on the whole world...AND their intelligence agencies! Hey, "if you just put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything" - Mr. Mcfly

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I don't doubt that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

But what happend to them?

Are they now in the hands of unknown terrorists?

If so, we are in more danger now than when Saddam had them.

If the purpose of the War on Iraq was to eliminate Saddam's regime, then mission accomplished. If the purpose was to eliminate WMD, then its been a failure so far.

 

[RealGun]

Lone Gunman summed it up well. I didn't respond to the poll because I don't see any connection for a gun forum and believe there is a built in assumption that someone knew better but was lying to the public. Too tinfoil hat for me. If Bill Clinton and several other countries said the same thing, who are you going to blame?

 

[Rebar]

There were other problems that probably should have been dealt with first. N. Korea is the one that immediately comes to mind.

North Korea is a big problem for sure, but it's a tough one, for two reasons. First, it's a wholly owned subsidiary of China, so we can't just waltz in without provoking them. Second, Seoul is within artillery range of the North, and the rest of the country is within missile range. You can bet thousands, if not over ten thousand, artillery and missiles, loaded with chemical warheads, would fire at South Korean population centers if we took military action. So diplomacy is the only real option. Which we're persuing.

If the purpose was to eliminate WMD, then its been a failure so far.

We can blame the UN, the Europeans, and to a lesser extent the Turks, for that. It was the delay caused by the above which gave the time needed to get the weapons out. If they had all jumped aboard, we all could have swept through Iraq months sooner, and captured the weapons before they were moved. Remember, Bush wasted ten months trying to get them on board, if they honored their commitments, the operation could have started much, much sooner.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I agree UN delays probably helped Saddam get the weapons out.

Where did they go though?

Would he have sent them to Iran? That would seem doubtful to me, since Iraq and Iran haven't been too close since their war, and the theocrats in charge of Iran probably would not have much in common philosophically with the more secular Iraqi culture.

Syria? Maybe. I know there are stories of truck convoys heading that way shortly before the war.

If we think they are in Syria though, why are we not invading them?

 

[rick_reno]

They were moved to Syria. I hope they're next on our short list.

 

[Rebar]

If we think they are in Syria though, why are we not invading them?

Contrary to some people, Bush is not a "warmonger". He gave fair warning to Saddam to come clean. Saddam also knew how to run a police state, Stalin would have envied him, so there was no chance of internal regime change.

Syria (and Iran) is far more vulnerable to internal/external pressure. Do you think that the Lebonese kicking Syria out was an accident? And since the Syrian economy was a paracite on Lebanon, and with even the French leaning on them, they're in a tight enough spot where they'll have to play ball, or face a regime change.

I estimate in a matter of months, you'll see them make some sort of face-saving deal where they'll stop supporting terrorists, and the WMD will magically be "found" in a hole in Iraq near the Syrian border, having been dug up and transported there in a secret deal with the US.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I don't think Bush is a warmonger at all, I just think his first priority has always been to get Saddam out of Iraq (which is a good thing). The WMD was a just a good reason to use to do this.

I do not think he has any intention of invading Syria or anyone else. I think he has the good sense to know our military is already stretched pretty thin. National Guard use is becoming increasingly unpopular for foreign wars, and I don't think Bush will expend any more clout by widening the WOT. Now that Saddam is out of Iraq, I think his next political objective will be revision of social security and/or the income tax code here. I do not think we will see any other fronts opened up in the WOT until the next President takes office. I think Bush is done with that.

I think you are overly optimistic on what Syria will do. I think we will find the WMD eventually, but think it may be when a terrorist deploys one in the US.

 

[DRZinn]

his first priority has always been to get Saddam out of Iraq (which is a good thing). The WMD was a just a good reason to use to do this.

That's right. Lets see:

(in no particular order)
1. To stop the brutality of the Hussein regime.
2. To create a foothold for democracy in the Middle East.
3. To prevent Hussein from using WMD's.
4. To protect the flow of oil.
5. To protect the dollar, from which Hussein had recently switched (to Euros) in the oil markets.
6. [Am I forgetting anything?]

Now, presuming for the sake of argument that all these reasons were valid, based on solid intel, etc etc etc - which of them would be most politically successful? That's the one anyone with the political savvy to be elected President of the United States would tout to the public, while at the same time considering 1, 2, 4, and 5 as well.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

DocZinn,

Yes you are forgetting what may be the most important reason of all...

Saddam plotted to kill Bush the First.

 

[DRZinn]

I also forgot to mention that he fired on our planes every chance he got. That alone was enough reason.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I agree with ya Doc. There were plenty of reasons to attack Saddam, and I approve of the decision to do it. He was in violation of the cease fire, was firing on our planes, etc.

But I think when Bush entered the White House he may have had plans to take Saddam out.

 

[DRZinn]

Maybe not plans, exactly, but the desire, at least.

 

[buzz_knox]

But I think when Bush entered the White House he may have had plans to take Saddam out.

Well, hasn't that been the goal since 1998, when Congress passed legislation to that effect, and Clinton signed it into law?

 

[crucible]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,
John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless
using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam
is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Just in case they are willfully forgotten.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I'm not sure I know what law you are referring to Buzz...

Let me specific though in my opinion that Bush intended to get rid of Saddam, not just his weapons programs.

If he was planning it all along though, don't you think it would have been nice for him to have mentioned it during the campaign?

 

[RealGun]

If he was planning it all along though, don't you think it would have been nice for him to have mentioned it during the campaign?

I don't think he would have made it an election issue, but picking Dick Cheney was a strong hint. What was his father's (an Cheney's) unfinished buisness? There will always be the question about where the real motivation originated. GW had zero background in foreign affairs and most likely accepted advice.

 

[RevDisk]

I don't think he would have made it an election issue, but picking Dick Cheney was a strong hint. What was his father's (an Cheney's) unfinished buisness? There will always be the question about where the real motivation originated. GW had zero background in foreign affairs and most likely accepted advice.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Here's one example of Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al asking Clinton to invade Iraq back in early 1998. Project for a New American Century is a neoconservative think-tank, which has been advocating invading Iraq for a while now.

 

[Fletchette]

Has anyone seen this (sorry if it is a dupe):

http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/news/details?item_id=515662

US removes radioactive material from Iraq in secret airlift

The materials in question are not capable of creating a nuclear bomb, though some of the more highly radioactive sources could be packed around a conventional explosive to create a "dirty bomb."

Why doesn't this count as WMD?

 

[RevDisk]

Why doesn't this count as WMD?

Does depleted uranium count as a WMD? We used hundreds of tons of DU weapons in Iraq.

A lot of 'radiological' material is from relatively common applications. Hospitals crank out insane volumes of radiological waste. Most modern smoke alarms contain radiological material (very very small amounts). A lot of wrist watches and gun sights are radiological. (Tritium, also used in hydrogen bombs) Dual use material really is dual use. A lot of WMD has tons of civilian application that is used every day.

Imagine the biological weapon botulism bacteria being harvested. (Which we accused Iraq of possessing, which they probably did/do.) It is then killed, rupturing and releasing the chemical weapon botulinum toxin A. Dilute botulinum toxin A with saline and you have a popular cosmetic. BOTOX! Idiots inject it into their face to reduce wrinkles.

What is the difference between botulinum toxin A, a biochem weapon, and botox, a cosmetic? Nothing. Same product, just watered down.

Same thing goes for VX gas and a can of Raid insect spray. The difference is very slight. Insect sprays are simply formulated for insects instead of humans, but they both work the same way. They're made the same away also, with only a minor variance in production.