How can this be?

[The Ressurrected One]

U.N.: Weapons equipment missing in Iraq (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8080407/)

Just curious...because, well, I thought Iraq had no WMD capabilities.

[ChumpDumper]

No, you thought they had actual stockpiles of WMDs. We already knew the equipment was there -- how else could the UN say they were missing? BTW, wouldn't it be a good idea to actually let the inspectors back in the country so they can give us a complete list of what they think is missing?

[The Ressurrected One]

No, you thought they had actual stockpiles of WMDs. We already knew the equipment was there -- how else could the UN say they were missing? BTW, wouldn't it be a good idea to actually let the inspectors back in the country so they can give us a complete list of what they think is missing?
No, no, no...it was asserted that Saddam Hussein did not have the capability to make weapons.

Capability + 5 years (1998-2003) = High likelihood He was making them.

You're the ones demanding that stockpiles be found...

[ChumpDumper]

No, no, no...it was asserted that Saddam Hussein did not have the capability to make weapons.By whom? Not the UN. Not by me. Certainly some of the ignorant out there have, but even a cursory knowledge of this subject would preclude that.
Capability + 5 years (1998-2003) = High likelihood He was making them.

You're the ones demanding that stockpiles be found...Yes I am, since this was the main selling point of going to war in the first place.

[The Ressurrected One]

Yes I am, since this was the main selling point of going to war in the first place.
Well, it's a big country and he had some pretty unsavory allies during the run up to the war (not least of which were France, Germany, Russia, and the UN)...so, it's possible they were there and either destroyed, disposed, or hidden.

I think the truth will be known before President Bush leaves office.

I also believe it's the ultimate stupidity to believe Saddam Hussein had the capability to produce Weaponse of Mass Destruction and that he wasn't either a) doing so or b) situating himself to do so on a very short time frame (as has been suggested by some of his former generals).

Personally, I believe the WMD's existed. At the very least, Saddam Hussein could have constituted enough to do great harm given the chance...which WAS by the way, one of the main justifications for war; not that he had them but that if he did, by the time we found out, it would be too late...there'd be another smoldering hole on U.S. soil.

And another thing. I also personally believe Saddam Hussein was completely flummoxed by the U.S. invading without U.N. approval. I'm equally certain that he'd be assured by France, Germany, Russia, and Kofi Annan that the U.S. could be reined in...which is the only explanation for why we felled Bagdhad so easily and in only 21 days.

I cannot fathom the ignorance it must take to continue holding onto your anti-Bush conventions in light of the corruption of the U.N. OFF program and the implications it has for conspiracy between France, Germany, Russia, and the U.N. to posture Iraq in a more favorable light so the gravy train could continue.

[ChumpDumper]

At the very least, Saddam Hussein could have constituted enough to do great harm given the chance...which WAS by the way, one of the main justifications for war; not that he had themTell that to the administration....
But make no mistake--as I said earlier--we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.I know Saddam had the components, but there is no evidence that he was going to put them together and use them against the US -- he had two chances to do so. You can speculate all you like about what might've happened, but it's just that: speculation -- and from what we've discovered after the invasion, not terribly well-based speculation. We went to war on a bad hunch.
I cannot fathom the ignorance it must take to continue holding onto your anti-Bush conventions in light of the corruption of the U.N. OFF program and the implications it has for conspiracy between France, Germany, Russia, and the U.N. to posture Iraq in a more favorable light so the gravy train could continue.One doesn't make the other look any better. The contempt I hold for both is mutually exclusive.

[The Ressurrected One]

Tell that to the administration...
But make no mistake--as I said earlier--we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.
"High confidence and certainty are not the same.

I know Saddam had the components, but there is no evidence that he was going to put them together and use them against the US -- he had two chances to do so. You can speculate all you like about what might've happened, but it's just that: speculation -- and from what we've discovered after the invasion, not terribly well-based speculation. We went to war on a bad hunch.
Well, if that were the only justification for the invasion, you might have a point...but, it wasn't. In fact, the principle justification was 12 years of defying UN Resolutions, violation of the '91 cease fire agreement, continuing hostility against coalition military assets in the no-fly zones, humanitarian offenses against Shi'ites and Kurds, environmental crimes in the South wetlands of Iraq, etc...

I also happen to believe the U.S. was fed up with the U.N. Oil-for-food charade and saw it leading only to the lifting of sanctions on a more powerful, more secretive, and more deadly Iraq.


One doesn't make the other look any better. The contempt I hold for both is mutually exclusive.
Then what do you believe?

Would it be better with Saddam Hussein in power today? With no sanctions (which is where it was headed) and a WMD capabilities with or without the inept UN inspectors?

Sorry, I have no sympathy for Hussein and no remorse for backing the invasion of Iraq. It was necessary and justifiable.

[ChumpDumper]

High confidence and certainty are not the same.
There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us
Well, if that were the only justification for the invasion, you might have a point.No, I have a very good point, because it's clear the administration misled the public about the WMDs because that was the main selling point that was meant to scare them into approving the action.
Then what do you believe?That both are full of shit.
Sorry, I have no sympathy for Hussein and no remorse for backing the invasion of Iraq. It was necessary and justifiable.Yes the ends justify the means argument - you prefer being lied to as long as you get the chance to wave a flag. I understand.

[The Ressurrected One]

No, I have a very good point, because it's clear the administration misled the public about the WMDs because that was the main selling point that was meant to scare them into approving the action.
I disagree. Me and a whole bunch of other Americans do not feel misled in the least. I've always believed the justification for invading Iraq and dismantling the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein was inevitable for the security of that region and this country to be insured.

Everyone, from the UN to the Democrats to the President believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs IN ADDITION to all the other offenses he had perpetrated since the end of the Gulf War in '91. In fact, there still isn't a definitive reason to believe he didn't have them...absence of evidence isn't evidence of absense.

Given all the complicity and conspiracy between Iraq and our alleged allied on the runup to the war, it's entirely possible he was given a hand in hiding, destroying, or relocating whatever WMDs he did have.

And, the fact is that since 1998 there has been no way to verify, with any certainty that he didn't have them. However, given all the circumstantial evidence absent the opportunity for verification, I think it was a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw that he was reconstituting a WMD program he was known to have in the past and from which he used weapons in the past.

His capabilities were never completely destroyed and he was funneling money from the OFF scandal into rebuilding the WMD program capability; these points aren't argued.

Again, I ask you, would you prefer the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein to still be in power?

That both are full of shit.Yes the ends justify the means argument - you prefer being lied to as long as you get the chance to wave a flag. I understand.
I'm not arguing an "ends/means" scenario. I'm arguing that with all we knew about Saddam Hussein and what he had done since signing the cease-fire agreement that stopped hostilities in 1991, it was reasonable to conclude he would, if within his power, use WMDs against the US or it's allied or, worse, make them available to rogue nations and terrorists. That couldn't be allowed and there was enough OTHER justification for invading to insure that didn't happen.

He was indiscriminately killing Kurds and Shi'ites.
He was supporting Terrorists in Israel.
He was draining the wetlands of South Iraq (as a punishment to the Shi'ites).
He was allowing Iraqi children to starve by diverting funds from the OFF program to build weapons and palaces.
He was shooting DAILY at coalition military assets in the no-fly zones.
He was ingoring and defying 12 UN resolutions born out of the illegal invasion of Kuwait and pursuant to the cease fire agreement he signed to save his own bacon.
He was taunting his neighbors.

This guy was a growing threat, just as the President said. And, it needed to be dealt with.

If there was any misleading going on it surrounded the motivations for France, Germany, Russia, and the UN objecting to the invasion on grounds that now seem rather vacant in light of their dealings with Saddam Hussein in the oil-for-food program.

You can keep gnashing your teeth over it or you can appreciate that the evil bastard is out of power and no longer running innocent Iraqis through plastics shredders or pushing them off 5 story buildings for sport.

[ChumpDumper]

In fact, there still isn't a definitive reason to believe he didn't have them...absence of evidence isn't evidence of absense.Nor is it evidence -- I'll believe it when I see it. Not before.
I think it was a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw that he was reconstituting a WMD program he was known to have in the past and from which he used weapons in the past.That's not what they said. They had no doubts -- they said there were between 100 and 500 tons of chemical agents.
Again, I ask you, would you prefer the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein to still be in power?I ask you, is it up to us to get rid of every bad regime in the world, or just the ones we supported a couple of decades before?
He was indiscriminately killing Kurds and Shi'ites.That was fine when he was our buddy though, if the Shi'ites were Iranian he was our hero.
He was draining the wetlands of South IraqIs this an environmentalist argument? That's rich.
He was taunting his neighbors.LMFAO! I can't believe you just listed draining swamps and taunting as reasons for going to war. Your threshold is clearly pretty low for sending Americans off to die.
You can keep gnashing your teeth over it or you can appreciate that the evil bastard is out of power and no longer running innocent Iraqis through plastics shredders or pushing them off 5 story buildings for sport.Again, it's not like he didn't do that when we supported him. Can't take the moral high ground now if we didn't then.

Is there a No-Taunt Zone around North Korea too?

[The Ressurrected One]

Nor is it evidence -- I'll believe it when I see it. Not before.
That's like saying "I'll believe Jimmy Hoffa is dead when I see the body."

That's not what they said. They had no doubts -- they said there were between 100 and 500 tons of chemical agents.
Well, apparently they were gone when we got there. Oh well.

I ask you, is it up to us to get rid of every bad regime in the world, or just the ones we supported a couple of decades before?
No, just the ones that violate conditions of a decade-old cease fire. Just hte ones that are capable of destabling a region of the world that jeopardizes our own national security. Just the ones that have proven, in the past, a willingness to use WMDs on its neighbors and its own citizens. Just the ones that videotape the brutal murder of its own citizens and sit around watching them as entertainment. Just the ones defy the global community (even if three of the leading members and the Secretary General of that august body were in collusion with Iraq). Just those.

That was fine when he was our buddy though, if the Shi'ites were Iranian he was our hero.
Well, you have to pick your battles. Global diplomatic and relational dynamics change. There was a big change when he invaded Kuwait.

You know, I might give my crazy cousin a loan and a helping hand but, when he starts shooting at my neighbor and my friends, I'm probably going to stop the support. I might even come to the aid of my neighbor.

Do you really believe all relationships are static and unchanging?

Is this an environmentalist argument? That's rich.
What he did to the wetlands of South Iraq and the oil fields in Kuwait rank as two of the most horrific environmental crimes in history.

LMFAO! I can't believe you just listed draining swamps and taunting as reasons for going to war.
Again, considering the magnitude of his environmental crimes and that his taunting was against people he had previously been an aggressor, and yeah, that's fairly consistent with the rest of the argument for invading.

Your threshold is clearly pretty low for sending Americans off to die.
You're cherry-picking and refusing to look at the totality of the threat posed by a Ba'athist Iraq.

Again, it's not like he didn't do that when we supported him. Can't take the moral high ground now if we didn't then.
As I've stated he wasn't a security threat to the United States or a destablizing influence to region vital to our economic and security posture until he invaded Kuwait.

Things change.

Is there a No-Taunt Zone around North Korea too?
Yeah...there is.

[ChumpDumper]

That's like saying "I'll believe Jimmy Hoffa is dead when I see the body."More like "I'll believe OJ when he finds the real killer."
Well, apparently they were gone when we got there.Or they didn't exist -- the story changes every few weeks or so.
Just the ones that have proven, in the past, a willingness to use WMDs on its neighbors and its own citizens. Just the ones that videotape the brutal murder of its own citizens and sit around watching them as entertainment.But he did that when he was our hero too....
Well, you have to pick your battles. Global diplomatic and relational dynamics change. But Saddam didn't, that's the sad part. If you're going to call him Satan, what does that say about us when we rooted for and supported Satan?
is taunting was against people he had previously been an aggressorNo blood for taunts!
You're cherry-picking and refusing to look at the totality of the threat posed by a Ba'athist Iraq.You listed them. And considering the administration's appraisal of Iraq before 9/11, I don't think Saddam was as big a threat as was sold to us a couple of years later. The ease with which his forces were defeated supports that.
As I've stated he wasn't a security threat to the United States or a destablizing influence to region vital to our economic and security posture until he invaded Kuwait.And once he was kicked out and lost control of half his land and all his airspace, he wasn't much of a threat -- that is what the Bush administration said as late as July 2001 -- until we decided to skew existing intelligence and make up stories about nuclear aluminum tubes and buying uranium in Africa. There's a bunch of lies that were told to get us into the war, you have to acknowledge that.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah...there is.Funny how it isn't enforced then -- because lil Kim has done everything Saddam did and worse -- AND he really does have WMDs. When do we attack? Isn't it the good and moral thing to do as the infallible world police you are playing us off to be? I'm sure Kim is draining a swamp as we speak. He must be stopped right now.

[The Ressurrected One]

Funny how it isn't enforced then -- because lil Kim has done everything Saddam did and worse -- AND he really does have WMDs. When do we attack? Isn't it the good and moral thing to do as the infallible world police you are playing us off to be? I'm sure Kim is draining a swamp as we speak. He must be stopped right now.
I'm all for it.

[Nbadan]

I'm all for it.

Uzbechistan...

Saudi Arabia...

Pakistan...

Some of our biggest supporters in the war on terra are torture regimes and confirmed to possess WMDs. When do we invade?

[ChumpDumper]

Hell, China too then.

We've found the level of the room.

[mookie2001]

TRO you got dumped chump.

[Bandit2981]

TRO =
http://www.plasticnipple.com/images/forums/damn_owned.jpg

[Gerryatrics]

Is this an environmentalist argument? That's rich.

A big reason Saddam drained the wetlands was to try to wipe out the Marsh Arabs, who didn't support his regime. So on top of one of the world's worst Ecological disasters, the act was attempted genocide. I guess that's rich.

[ChumpDumper]

A big reason Saddam drained the wetlands was to try to wipe out the Marsh Arabs, who didn't support his regime. So on top of one of the world's worst Ecological disasters, the act was attempted genocide. I guess that's rich.And you suddenly care because we're told to? You called for regime change way back during the Iran/Iraq war when Saddam gassed Iranians and Kurds right?You're ready to send troops into the Sudan right now aren't you? They're chopping folks up, not draining swamps. You were ready to go to Rwanda too, right?

You can try wearing the white hat all you want, just be consistent.

[Gerryatrics]

Uhhh, what the hell are you talking about? I point out that the event you were mocking included thousands of deaths and the near destruction of an entire culture, and you respond with a small list of conflicts and accuse me of trying to wear a white hat? With your little fan club backing you up, I would have expected a response with at least a little substance, not that mangled hackjob you posted there.

I was -4 when the Iran/Iraq War started, so I didn't really have much of a position on the conflict at the time. I've said on here before that I would support sending troops to the Sudan to help protect the inhabitants from the Janjaweed. Again, I think I was about 10 during the worst of Rwanda, so sorry I didn't start an awareness group or raise a mercenary army to try to put an end to the bloodshed. I would further address your point but, well, I'm not sure exactly what your point was. Sorry.

[Bandit2981]

I point out that the event you were mocking included thousands of deaths
Was it funny to you when Bush was mocking the reasons he sent our troops to war? Do you even remember the whole "Lemme see if theres any WMD's under this table here! Hehe!" bit he did at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association Dinner? Thousands, including civilians, have died over that knee-slapper.

[ChumpDumper]

My point with the person I was actually addressing was that these things happen all the time and he only makes a fuss when politicians he favors does likewise. Your point is people died. I neither doubt nor mock the event. Someone always dies when Saddam does something. That has been the only constant here, not our moral superiority since we were all for it when he killed the folks we thought it was ok to kill, be it by bullet, gas or sump pump.

I commend you for saying you'd commit troops to these other situations, you are much more consistent than others here.

[scott]

I haven't read this thread or the article, but I'd just like to point out that Weapons != WMDs

[Nbadan]

Uhhh, what the hell are you talking about? I point out that the event you were mocking included thousands of deaths and the near destruction of an entire culture, and you respond with a small list of conflicts and accuse me of trying to wear a white hat? With your little fan club backing you up, I would have expected a response with at least a little substance, not that mangled hackjob you posted there.

Saddam was an SOB. He should have been overthrown in the 80's by the Reagan Administration when they learned that he possessed mustard gas and other chemical and biological weapons - some of the stuff he mass produced thanks to us, but thats a different story. There is some legitimate controversy over who really gassed the Kurds, Iraq or Iran, but there is little doubt that Iraq turned the tide of the Iraq-Iran war by abusing these banned chemicals.

Still, what we are really talking about here is did the means justify the end? Was toppling Saddam at all costs worth the price to our, once proud, but now disintigrating military, to our Nations reputation around the world, and to our self-appointment as the world's moral authority? Can other world leaders ever trust the W administration again in light of the Downing Street minute revelations, and its insistency to put a pit-bull who knows nothing about diplomacy in charge of the U.N.?

[Clandestino]

disintegrating military? stfu... the u.s. has been the world's moral authority since the early 1900's... world leaders have never trusted the u.s. administration(dem or rep)...

[The Ressurrected One]

Saddam was an SOB. He should have been overthrown in the 80's by the Reagan Administration...
Better late than never.

Besides, all you whiners wouldn't let Stormin' Norman do it in 91.

[ChumpDumper]

I was all for it back then, though I understand the reasoning against it--much of it is playing out now. Much more difficult sell this time around.

[The Ressurrected One]

I was all for it back then, though I understand the reasoning against it--much of it is playing out now. Much more difficult sell this time around.
Why? If he need to go then, why not now? Did he redeem himself somehow?

[ChumpDumper]

why not now?Precisely because we didn't do it then. It's certain there wouldn't have been as much internal and external resistance to removing him after Gulf War I. We had the chance then and blew it. Notice I said it was a tougher sell.

[The Ressurrected One]

Precisely because we didn't do it then. It's certain there wouldn't have been as much internal and external resistance to removing him after Gulf War I. We had the chance then and blew it. Notice I said it was a tougher sell.
But, it's done. He's gone. Why are you still opposed?

[Mark in Austin]

Better late than never.

Besides, all you whiners wouldn't let Stormin' Norman do it in 91.


Are you kidding me? You might want to read what Bush and Powell have to say about that decision.

[ChumpDumper]

Why are you still opposed?I'm opposed to being lied to.

[The Ressurrected One]

I'm opposed to being lied to.
Well then, just because you believe you were lied to, let's allow a murderous dictator continue to reign and terrorize an entire region of the globe.

Because, it's all about you, isn't it?

[NameDropper]

Rumor has it this administration's credibility is toast.

[ChumpDumper]

Well then, just because you believe you were lied toI was. You can't be that naiive.
let's allow a murderous dictator continue to reign and terrorize an entire region of the globe.We already did. Gave him all kinds of support while he did it too. Hooray for us, we're always right.
Because, it's all about you, isn't it? No it's all about all those folks who have died on both sides. I know you don't give a shit about them, so wave your flag and support whatever your party tells you to.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

BTW dumbass aka "reserected one" the conflicts in Sudan and Rawanda that chump pointed are the two most horrendous genocides since the holocaust. In Sudan 98.7 percent of black african girls are raped before they are.....12.

Bitch, Chump and NBAdan OW3NED YOU

[The Ressurrected One]

BTW dumbass aka "reserected one" the conflicts in Sudan and Rawanda that chump pointed are the two most horrendous genocides since the holocaust.
Okay, 1) There is no U.S. interest in those countries...and 2) do you think we could stop the genocide?

In Sudan 98.7 percent of black african girls are raped before they are.....12.
Probably by UN workers too...

Bitch, Chump and NBAdan OW3NED YOU
Oh well...I'm crushed.

[ididnotnothat]

I thought The Almighty Bush and his conservative agenda placed human life on the top of their priorities....does that only count when it benefits their wallets?

[ChumpDumper]

He's just saying it's about oil.

Why not say that in the first place and leave out all this "Saddam did bad things to his people so we must stop him" crap?

As you said, better late than never.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

hell yeah i think we could stop the genocides, stop giving the sudanese government the f-16 they use to bomb their people, now there is a place to start, and second go in and stop the Janjaweed from entering the concentratgion camps they put the Darfurians in.

[RandomGuy]

No, you thought they had actual stockpiles of WMDs. We already knew the equipment was there -- how else could the UN say they were missing? BTW, wouldn't it be a good idea to actually let the inspectors back in the country so they can give us a complete list of what they think is missing?


Why? They already did a survey. The "Duefler Report" detailed pretty much everything.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

[RandomGuy]

U.N.: Weapons equipment missing in Iraq (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8080407/)

Just curious...because, well, I thought Iraq had no WMD capabilities.

Read the link you gave. A lot of this stuff is "dual use", meaning that the same equipment than can be used to may say, fertilizer or beer or whathaveyou can be retooled and used to make chemical or biological weapons.

[RandomGuy]

Lets get a few things straight:

Saddam didn't really have much of any program to develop weapons. Read the link I gave to the report that Duefler did. It is the most comprehensive look into what Saddam had, what he didn't have, and what he wanted.

It basically said:

1) We couldn't find a stockpile or any evidence of one, but can't conclusively rule out the existance of such a stockpile.

2) Saddam had every intention of restarting WMD programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted, but was genuinely afraid to have WMD's or start the programs for fear of reprisals.

3)The sanctions grip were loosening over time.

This says that the sanctions were indeed working. I would go further to say that instead of a costly and prolonged invasion/occupation, we could have simply re-emphasized the sanctions regime and accomplished the same goal of keeping WMD's out of his hands without 1200+ and climbing US servicemember deaths, 10,000 wounded and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths. I was advocating this before the invasion, and the data suggest that I was right. Small comfort.

[Clandestino]

and imagine how rich kofi's son would have been if the u.s. hadn't ruined it for him. 12+ years of violating the un laws and attacking u.s. and british planes was too long.

[RandomGuy]

I also believe it's the ultimate stupidity to believe Saddam Hussein had the capability to produce Weaponse of Mass Destruction and that he wasn't either a) doing so or b) situating himself to do so on a very short time frame (as has been suggested by some of his former generals).

Personally, I believe the WMD's existed. At the very least, Saddam Hussein could have constituted enough to do great harm given the chance...which WAS by the way, one of the main justifications for war; not that he had them but that if he did, by the time we found out, it would be too late...there'd be another smoldering hole on U.S. soil.

And another thing. I also personally believe Saddam Hussein was completely flummoxed by the U.S. invading without U.N. approval. I'm equally certain that he'd be assured by France, Germany, Russia, and Kofi Annan that the U.S. could be reined in...which is the only explanation for why we felled Bagdhad so easily and in only 21 days.

I cannot fathom the ignorance it must take to continue holding onto your anti-Bush conventions in light of the corruption of the U.N. OFF program and the implications it has for conspiracy between France, Germany, Russia, and the U.N. to posture Iraq in a more favorable light so the gravy train could continue.


A bit right, a bit wrong.

Yes, as I stated in my previous posts, he would have continued his WMD programs.

No, he would not have given them to terrorists.

Yes, he probably was flummoxed. Not sure how relevant this is. We are talking stategy, not tactics.

[RandomGuy]

Better late than never.

Besides, all you whiners wouldn't let Stormin' Norman do it in 91.

It wasn't "whiners", it was a decision by George Sr. not to go in because he didn't really believe he had the justification to do so. He has since changed his mind about that decision, but "whiners" had nothing to do with it.

[RandomGuy]

Simply put the invasion wasn't justifiable.

Would Iraq have been better off with Saddam? The jury is still out on that one. If Iraq slides into a civil war, then yes.

Do I think Saddam is a great guy? No. Give him a trial, and I will shed no tears for his lifeless swinging corpse.

The fact that the war wasn't justifiable doesn't bother me as much as the sheer incompetance displayed by the administratio in running the occupation afterwards that bugs me. Bush should be impeached for every single one of those flag draped coffins, as his administrations lack of foresight and realistic planning are directly responible for them.

[RandomGuy]

Well then, just because you believe you were lied to, let's allow a murderous dictator continue to reign and terrorize an entire region of the globe.

Because, it's all about you, isn't it?

We prop up a lot of murderous dictators, and put up with a lot more, what would have been any different about letting Saddam stay.

Two words, Nukular (freaking) Weapons. These bastards can have all the WMD's they want and at the end of the day we can still leave their countries a sea of black, radioactive glass and not break a sweat. MAD kept us from WW3 and it keeps idiots from thinking they go the nut to take us on now. Brutal dictators aren't stupid. They got to power by being the evilist SOBs in their neighborhood, but know that they could be easily snuffed out if the US ever felt the justifaction to do so.

This is what would have kept Iraqi WMD out of hte hands of Al Qaeda (among ohter things).

[Bandit2981]

and imagine how rich kofi's son would have been if the u.s. hadn't ruined it for him
having kofi's son getting rich instead of over 1000 of our troops losing their lives is a trade-off i would gladly make

[Nbadan]

This is what would have kept Iraqi WMD out of hte hands of Al Qaeda (among ohter things).

This is too much logic for this forum. Saddam was a Muslim, a secularist Muslim, but still a Muslim. The Al-Queda boys, they are Muslims too. They had to be in cahoots!

:hat

[The Ressurrected One]

It wasn't "whiners", it was a decision by George Sr. not to go in because he didn't really believe he had the justification to do so. He has since changed his mind about that decision, but "whiners" had nothing to do with it.

Actually, I was being facetious and you're wrong.

The U.S. Military stopped at the border because of an agreement reached with the Saudis that we would not invade and conquer Iraq (because of the destablizing consequences) and they would allow us to operate from kingdom soil.

Further, all the UNSC Resolution called for was the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait (along with other ancillary demands that, at the time, did not warrant chasing his ass all the way to Baghdad.)

So, the '91 war achieved (in record time -- until the '03 invasion that is) its immediate objective and hostilities were ceased when Saddam Hussein sat down at the table (well, one of his generals anyway) and signed an unconditional surrender and ceasefire agreement that, among over a dozen proceeding UNSC resolutions, he immediately set about breaking or defying starting with the genocide Shi'ites in the South.

[The Ressurrected One]

A bit right, a bit wrong.

Yes, as I stated in my previous posts, he would have continued his WMD programs.
Agreed.


No, he would not have given them to terrorists.
You have absolutely no basis on which to make that claim. He was bunking Abu Nidal at a government-owned Chateau' in Baghdad -- until, that is, Nidal killed himself with 5 bullets to the head. He was supporting "Palestinian" terrorists to the tune of 25,000 for each martyr. Elements in his government had ongoing communications with al Qaeda.

Yes, he probably was flummoxed. Not sure how relevant this is. We are talking stategy, not tactics.
It's relevant because had he actually believed the U.S. would invade he may have actually staged some WMD's and regular army divisions and it would have taken more than 21 days and we would have lost a lot more troops than we did. As it stands, I happen to believe he spent the run up to the war in preparation for some "compromise" agreement where sanctions would be lifted in exchange for more UN inspections and that this could explain why the "stockpiles" were not found even though the means and tons of precursors were.

I know it's forgotten, but who remembers the caches of French and Russian chemical warfare equipment (manufactured after 1998) found in that basement hospital South of Baghdad?

There was more evidence this mad man was preparing to use WMD's than there is that Bush "lied" about them and, yet, the French, Russians, Germans, and Kofi Annan -- along with a significant number of Americans -- are willing to give HIM the benefit of the doubt and call our President an unprincipled liar.

Now, given the revelations about the UN OFF scandal and how it probably reached the governments of France and Russia, as well as the UN Secretary General's office, (I don't doubt Germany was in on it too), that explains their behavior and motivations.

It doesn't, however, explain your's and those of the people who persist in "Bush lied" canard.

[The Ressurrected One]

We prop up a lot of murderous dictators, and put up with a lot more, what would have been any different about letting Saddam stay.

Two words, Nukular (freaking) Weapons. These bastards can have all the WMD's they want and at the end of the day we can still leave their countries a sea of black, radioactive glass and not break a sweat. MAD kept us from WW3 and it keeps idiots from thinking they go the nut to take us on now. Brutal dictators aren't stupid. They got to power by being the evilist SOBs in their neighborhood, but know that they could be easily snuffed out if the US ever felt the justifaction to do so.

This is what would have kept Iraqi WMD out of hte hands of Al Qaeda (among ohter things).
Actually, it makes the argument for why it would result in WMD's getting into the hands of al Qaeda.

After all, if you were an enemy of the U.S. and you could convince some stateless terrorist group to take a nuke or biological or chemical weapons to the Empire State Building and detonate it, against whom would we retaliate? Particularly if the nation who "sneaked" the weapons to the group were successful in covering their tracks?

Please base your assumptions on a pre-9-11 posture when our enemies actually thought the U.S. was too meek to invade.

[The Ressurrected One]

having kofi's son getting rich instead of over 1000 of our troops losing their lives is a trade-off i would gladly make
How 'bout at the expense of tens of thousands of Iraq children dying of starvation as a result of this corrpution?

How 'bout at the expense of destablizing a region of the globe that, like it or not, is essential to our own national and economic security (unlike Darfur and Sudan -- which aren't the only differences).

How 'bout at the expense of an apparent collusion between our alleged allies (France, Germany, and Russia) to also gain at the expense of innocent Iraqis and without regard to our security as an ally?

It's much more than Kofi's son (and, really, you don't think Kofi wasn't getting some?)...

[Clandestino]

Simply put the invasion wasn't justifiable.

Would Iraq have been better off with Saddam? The jury is still out on that one. If Iraq slides into a civil war, then yes.

the jury voted a little while ago. remember the purple fingers?

[ChumpDumper]

I remember a large portion of the population didn't get to vote, and they'll have no say in the new government. I still have yet to see a rational explanation why they couldn't have waited until the entire country was pacified, especially when they keep claiming that will happen very quickly.

[The Ressurrected One]

I remember a large portion of the population didn't get to vote, and they'll have no say in the new government. I still have yet to see a rational explanation why they couldn't have waited until the entire country was pacified, especially when they keep claiming that will happen very quickly.
All they had to do was put down their weapons and vote. The Sunnis and Ba'athist remnants made the choice not to participate in the elections. Why reward their obstinence by waiting for them to "come around?"

[ChumpDumper]

The Sunnis and Ba'athist remnants made the choice not to participate in the elections.All of them? Give me a break. You can't tell me every Iraqi in these areas is an insurgent. You know many of them would've voted if they had the chance. Their disenfranchisement just gives them another reason to oppose a new government and support an insurgency. Still waiting for the explanation.

[The Ressurrected One]

All of them? Give me a break. You can't tell me every Iraqi in these areas is an insurgent. You know many of them would've voted if they had the chance. Their disenfranchisement just gives them another reason to oppose a new government and support an insurgency. Still waiting for the explanation.
I was speaking as a bloc. Indeed, many Sunnis and former Ba'athists did vote in the January election. In fact, there is a Sunni Defense Minister, if I'm not mistaken, along with at least 3 or 4 other Sunnis in the federal government.

Any disenfranchisement was self-imposed.

Oh, and by the way, the percentage of people voting in Iraq in January was higher than in our last election and the percentage of Sunnis and Ba'athists that did not vote in January's election is lower than the percentage of Southern State residents that voted in many of the U.S. elections subsequent to losing the Civil War and being readmitted to the Union.

[ChumpDumper]

Any disenfranchisement was self-imposed.Bullshit. You simply can't say that an Iraqi who wanted to vote but couldn't because he happened to live in an insurgent-heavy area took away his own vote -- nice attempt to blame the victim though.
Oh, and by the way, the percentage of people voting in Iraq in January was higher than in our last election and the percentage of Sunnis and Ba'athists that did not vote in January's election is lower than the percentage of Southern State residents that voted in many of the U.S. elections subsequent to losing the Civil War and being readmitted to the Union.And? That isn't relevant at all. Still waiting for the explanation.

[The Ressurrected One]

Still waiting for the explanation.
You won't be satisfied with any explanation...so, why bother?

[Bandit2981]

You won't be satisfied with any explanation...so, why bother?
LMAO, we've finally come full circle!

[The Ressurrected One]

That isn't relevant at all.
You're right, it doesn't address your specific concern. However, I do think it's relevant to those who chose not to participate in the elections.

On the matter of the areas where balloting was forestalled by hostilities. Go back and ask the legitimate residents of Fallujah -- or any other area that was too "hot" to set up a ballot box -- if they're happy with the outcome of January's elections, even though they were unable to participate.

Go ahead. I think you'll be surprised at the answer.

[RandomGuy]

Actually, I was being facetious and you're wrong.

The U.S. Military stopped at the border because of an agreement reached with the Saudis that we would not invade and conquer Iraq (because of the destablizing consequences) and they would allow us to operate from kingdom soil.

Not sure how I was wrong there. The only thing I said is that is wasn't Stormin' Norman's call to make, that kind of call is generally something for the commander in chief.



Further, all the UNSC Resolution called for was the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait (along with other ancillary demands that, at the time, did not warrant chasing his ass all the way to Baghdad.)

Again correct, but this does not make my assertion wrong. As is readily obvious, leaders can comply or not with UNSC resolutions at their descretion.



So, the '91 war achieved (in record time -- until the '03 invasion that is) its immediate objective and hostilities were ceased when Saddam Hussein sat down at the table (well, one of his generals anyway) and signed an unconditional surrender and ceasefire agreement that, among over a dozen proceeding UNSC resolutions, he immediately set about breaking or defying starting with the genocide Shi'ites in the South.

Correct again, but nothing in your post speaks to me being "wrong" about what I said. Please try to be a bit more specific in the future. No offense, but it is hard to address things in the abscence of lucidity.

[RandomGuy]

You have absolutely no basis on which to make [the claim that Saddam would not have given WMD to terrorists. He was bunking Abu Nidal at a government-owned Chateau' in Baghdad -- until, that is, Nidal killed himself with 5 bullets to the head. He was supporting "Palestinian" terrorists to the tune of 25,000 for each martyr. Elements in his government had ongoing communications with al Qaeda.

I have every basis to make that claim. There are two driving factors for any paranoid totalitarian dictator.
#1-->stay in power.
#2-->stay alive.
Let's wade through something unpleasant here and put ourselves in the mind of a paranoid psychopath. Saddam knew perfectly well that if he had ever given some form of WMD to a terrorist group and that had ever gotten back to him, he would have been killed by a very vengeful U.S. He misunderestimated our resolve in Quwait, but he would not make the same mistake a second time in this case.
The other thing you seem to miss is that Saddam was not a religious zealot. Being a paranoid secularist, he regularly killed religious leaders that got to powerful. Al Qaeda types hated him, because he was not religious enough.
There were NEVER any substantive contacts between Saddam and any terrorist groups. There was never ANY indication that he intended to give weapons to anybody, even were he to have them. Paranoid psychopaths do not give WMD's to people who hate them.
Lastly the "supporting Palestinian terrorists" claim is very thin. Giving death benefits to the families of suicide bombers is FAR from giving weapons/cash/intel to active terrorist cells. Shame on you.



It's relevant because had he actually believed the U.S. would invade he may have actually staged some WMD's and regular army divisions and it would have taken more than 21 days and we would have lost a lot more troops than we did. As it stands, I happen to believe he spent the run up to the war in preparation for some "compromise" agreement where sanctions would be lifted in exchange for more UN inspections and that this could explain why the "stockpiles" were not found even though the means and tons of precursors were.




I know it's forgotten, but who remembers the caches of French and Russian chemical warfare equipment (manufactured after 1998) found in that basement hospital South of Baghdad?

Provide a link to a news source, so we can know what we are talking about.

Along the same lines read the Deufler report. Here is the first chapter in html format. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html

I read the whole thing and the best they could come up with is that they had some equipment and the intent to start up programs AFTER the sactions were lifted, but NOT BEFORE. This is a bit of a strawman that is quite beside the point.



There was more evidence this mad man was preparing to use WMD's than there is that Bush "lied" about them and, yet, the French, Russians, Germans, and Kofi Annan -- along with a significant number of Americans -- are willing to give HIM the benefit of the doubt and call our President an unprincipled liar.

What evidence? Provid a link to support this assertion. I think you are talking out your ass on this one. Find one report that said Saddam was preparing to use WMD's. He had every intention of reconstituting his programs, but none of using them against the US or giving them to terrorists.
Our president is not an unpricipled liar. A cynical manipulator, yes. He played up the WMD angle for all it was worth to justify this. I think he genuinely thought that Saddam had WMD's, so I don't think he was a liar. But there was NEVER any evidence to support the thesis that he would have used or given them away. This means that he played on our fears to do something he wanted to do anyways.

An idiot who didn't have a plan for after the war, yes. It was obvious that he expected us to be welcomed there with open arms much like France welcomed us after ww2. ANYBODY with a clue was telling him otherwise.

Oops, gotta go for now. I will finish in my next post.

[RandomGuy]

the jury voted a little while ago. remember the purple fingers?

I do indeed, and it does give me some cause for hope. I really wish the best for the Iraqi peope. But I will not let blind optimism temper a rational analysis.

The recent escalations of violence there give just about as much cause to doubt that stability is just around the corner.

Answer me this one question, if you have the intellectual honesty to do so (most Bushies don't, so I'm not holding my breath).

IF WE WITHDREW OUR TROOPS COMPLETELY NEXT WEEK, WOULD IRAQ COLLAPSE INTO CIVIL WAR?

My answer to this question is: It is quite within the realm of possibility. No one can say for certain one way or another, anybody who claims they do know is full of shit. Iraq is far from a stable democracy.
This, by the way, is the reason I think we should stay. We owe a debt to the Iraqi people, and we need to see this through to the best of our ability.

[RandomGuy]

I remember a large portion of the population didn't get to vote, and they'll have no say in the new government. I still have yet to see a rational explanation why they couldn't have waited until the entire country was pacified, especially when they keep claiming that will happen very quickly.

There was a Sunni boycott of the elections, yes. But much to the Shia leadership's credit, they seem to understand that they need to leave a place at the table open for Sunnis if there is any chance of forming a stable government.
The quick election is one thing that I think Bush did right here. Getting as much legitimacy to the Iraqi government as fast as possible is the best way to pacify the country in the first place. Waiting until the country is completely pacified would play in the insurgents hands by allowing them to claim that we are simply an imperial christian power intent on killing muslims for their oil.

How is THAT for a rational explanation?

[RandomGuy]

Bullshit. You simply can't say that an Iraqi who wanted to vote but couldn't because he happened to live in an insurgent-heavy area took away his own vote -- nice attempt to blame the victim though.And? That isn't relevant at all. Still waiting for the explanation.

Ok, let's get some perspective. There was a general sunni boycott of the elections, so a lot of them chose not to vote.
There was indeed probably a good number who did want to vote but were afraid to. Since then they have become increasingly involved in the process. We (they) are already on the second step of the process. If we had waited we would still not have taken step one.

[RandomGuy]

Lastly, let's get one thing on the table here.

I was in intel analyst in the US Army during the first gulf war. I know quite a bit about the middle east and am brushing up on my (admittedly poor) arabic this summer. Since 9-11, I have gone out of my way to talk to middle easterners when I meet them and ask them what they think and why. These conversations have taught me more than any cheerleading that passes for "news" on the Fox network. I read a lot from a variety of sources, and have a lot of free time this summer, as I am not taking any course work towards my masters degree in accounting. I have spent the better part of my adult life analysing information of one form or another, and always try to base my opinions on my analysis of what I read using good solid critical thinking skills.

You talk out your ass about shit that I know about, and I will call you on it. You make a claim, show me some data to prove it. I will do the same if asked reasonably. That said, please continue.

[The Ressurrected One]

Okay, I'll stipulate that President George H. W. Bush could have ignored the UN and could have violated the trust of our hosts in Saudi Arabia and had Stormin' Norman march on to Baghdad.

And, you're right about paranoid totalitarian dictators...to a point.

Consider the megalomaniacal paranoid totalitarian dictator who has been under the thumb of sanctions and an ever-present U.S. military (in the no-fly zones) for over a decade.

With nothing else to do but strike up illicit conspiracies with the UN Secretary General, France, Russia, and Germany in order to get cash and circumvent the sanctions -- might it be possible he also felt that 1) he was untouchable because felt he'd drawn 3 American allies and a world body to the "dark side" with him and 2) he was smarter than everyone else and could, without detection, secret WMD's to a terrorist group as retribution?

Desperation and visions of self-grandeur will make even the most paranoid totalitarian dictator do shit he normally wouldn't. I can actually envision a few scenarios where Kim Jung Il would nuke South Korea...and, he too, is a paranoid totalitarian dictator...a crazy one!

And, as far as evidence that he was preparing to use WMDs. You said it yourself. Combine a history of using them with -- at the very least -- a plan to re-constitute his programs post-sanction and I think you have enough make that statement.

And, as far as whether or not he actually possessed WMD's, given that Hitler was able to hide a good chunk of the Nazi military hardware under the East Berlin airport for about 50 years, before it was detected, could you at least admit that it wouldn't be too hard to hide a few tons of Chemical, Biological, or Nuclear weapons somewhere in Iraq?

And, while you're correct in saying Duelfer and Kay both state they didn't find any weapons...both also say it's possible they were there and were destroyed, hidden, or moved. They do not have enough information to draw a conclusion on the status of any weapons known to exist when inspectors left in 1998 and that are now simply gone...

[The Ressurrected One]

Thanks for the link to the Duelfer Report. I think you need to read the section titled, "Sorting Out Whether Iraq Had WMD Before Operation Iraqi Freedom."

I believe any reasonable person would read that information and believe it was entirely possible that, even though "no evidence" (as is the characterization of Duelfer) of WMD's was found it is entirely possible that Iraq possessed them.

[mookie2001]

i'm kind of tired of hearing about the WMDs, i guess they were taken in rapture

dam can you imagine if the US had FOUND these weapons, dam TRO's chode would exploded so bad he'd have to rapaint his walls

[The Ressurrected One]

Also, I believe the last section is the most telling...


If WMD existed, Saddam may have opted not to use it for larger strategic or political reasons, because he did not think Coalition military action would unseat him. If he used WMD, Saddam would have shown that he had been lying all along to the international community and would lose whatever residual political support he might have retained in the UNSC. From the standpoint of Regime survival, once he used WMD against Coalition forces, he would foreclose the chance to outlast an occupation. Based on his experience with past coalition attacks, Saddam actually had more options by not using WMD, and if those failed, WMD always remained as the final alternative. Although the Iraqi Government might be threatened by a Coalition attack, Saddam—the ultimate survivor—believed if he could hold out long enough, he could create political and strategic opportunities for international sympathy and regional support to blunt an invasion.


Asked by a US interviewer in 2004, why he had not used WMD against the Coalition during Desert Storm, Saddam replied, “Do you think we are mad? What would the world have thought of us? We would have completely discredited those who had supported us.”

Iraqi use of WMD would deeply embarrass France and Russia, whom has cultivated Iraq.

Use of WMD during Operation Iraqi Freedom would serve to justify US and UK prewar claims about Iraq’s illegal weapons capabilities. Such a justification would also serve to add resolve to those managing the occupation
In light of what we no know about Iraq's relationship with France, Germany, Russia, and Kofi -- do you doubt Duelfer's report would have given a little more treatment to this possibility?

Oh, and how can you fault the U.S. Administration's belief he had WMD's when as late as December 2002, all of his Senior staff thought they, indeed, did have WMD's? Even as late as March 2003 -- right before the invasion -- he was telling some that "if they could resist for a week, he'd take over." Many believed this to mean he was going to use WMD's.