NEWS: Saddam Talked Of WMD Attack in US

Holy Spin-Machine Batman!

Let me attempt to get to the heart of the matter and see if BOTH sides don't blow a gasket on me.

1. Saddam did not cooperate with disarmament in a transparent manner. There was cause before the invasion to believe that he might be a threat.

2. Incriminating evidence has been found after the fact, and there is no compelling evidence that this material is not authentic.

3A. Even still, we didn't find what we were expecting to find, and this can only mean one of two things: 1. We were wrong about the threat. 2. Somehow Iraq managed to slip something out under the nose of the most battle-field aware army in the world.

3B. If the later is true, then I can only see two ways it could have happened; 1. We have serious deficiencies to correct that to my knowledge are not being addressed. 2. We weren't primarily interested in catching them.

4. Any capacity to threaten the United States that Iraq may have had or aspired to have was completely undone in 2003. The fact that we are still in Iraq in 2006 represents a failure to tie up loose ends in a timely fashion so that we could leave. Again I see two possible reasons: 1. A grevious failure that does not appear to be in the process of being corrected. 2. A lack of interest in leaving. If the later is true, and I think it could be, it is nothing short of a bloody and treasonous theft.
*Note, I am not talking about the war itself, but about the management of the occupation.

5. In the final analysis, this war neutralized a threat. Whether the threat was imminent or not is dependent upon how you assess the reliability and implications of evidence, and this of course is unfortunately shaded one way or another by partisan beliefs in most cases, and so that will probably remain a matter of debate.

Never the less, the war was fought, it was won, we are to one degree or another relieved of a potential threat, and now all there is to do is accomplish a safe exit as soon as can be accomplished without jeopardizing the people of Iraq.

With this being the case, the WMD debate is not very important. Whether or not it is intended to be one, it is in fact a destraction from the discussion that Americans should be having: the discussion of how to more quickly get Iraqi forces in place and get the heck out of their country.

One littler detail that seems to be missing on all these Vagabond.

The fact that it was never a war, yes it was never a war, US didn't declared war to Iraq and Iraq never declared war to the US.

The War on terror was after the invasion issue to fight insurgency and possible Al-qaida foreign fighters.

So why so many still called the liberation, invasion and occupation of Iraq a war?

US in Iraq is also considered foreign fighters due to the fact that US is not located in the middle east.

Why it seems that everybody is so confuse about Iraq to the point that still many are looking for excuses of the US present in the area and in that country.

that is what I say, Marg. Why is it so confusing to some?
Why is it so hard to understand that authority was given to the president by Congress? I know, this seems easy to understand, but it seems that many don't get it.

Another thing difficult to grasp by some is the fact that Hussein violated the terms of the first cease fire numerous times. Long before, the job should have been completed, but there were U.N. members who were making gobs of money at the expense of the Iraqi citizens.

Yes, it seem many things are hard to understand!

Originally posted by marg6043
The fact that it was never a war, yes it was never a war, US didn't declared war to Iraq and Iraq never declared war to the US.

Funny, a Congressional Declaration of War with Iraq isn't a declaration of war?

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. It passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23

Do you honestly believe that because the President didnt get on the podium and make a big ol broohaha speech about going to war with Iraq, that the United States never declared war on Iraq?

I believe the above resolution states firmly we were going to war.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Why it is so hard to understand that authority was given to the president by Congress?

Well you are right on that one US congress can challenge any Sovereign country in the world when they are not to its liking, right?

I guess not wonder other countries in the world are so happy to know that they can be the next target of the US mighty congress.

But not to fear we know who are the countries US would love to add in their list.

but there were U.N. members who were making gobs of money at the expense of the Iraqi citizens.

Yes UN but are you sure it was only UN? the food for oil scandal the way in which US and Britain controlled the oil flow from Iraq so they could dictate how much food people were to receive in that country.

Occurs the amount of people that die from starvation was Saddam's fault. Right? He was smuggling for his own benefit.

The hypocrisy of the whole issue for the benefit of the American people opinion while keeping them blind of how the games of politics are play.

Meanwhile US knew that the smuggling was going on and did nothing about it.

According to the report, the firm imported more than 200 million barrels to the US between 2000 and 2002, selling it to US companies and in the process paying $37m in illegal kickbacks to Baghdad.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Are we a nation made of a whole bunch of hypocrite in the White house that their sole purpose is to sell our nation and its soul to the devil for profits?

Tell me Thomas what you think.

Originally posted by QuietSoul

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. It passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23

My bad I forgot that the US can declare war to any sovereign country with disregard of Geneva convention laws, our mighty congress can overrule anything it wants.

You are right US declared war to Iraq because Bush didn't like Saddam.

Stay with the tour, Marg; you said it was never a war, an I am correcting you. It was a war, ok'd by Congress, and also, as I said, it was a continuance of the first war that had a cease fire agreement that Hussein broke. Now, on to the other point you seem to have missed:

The French and the Germans and the Russians, as countries, refused to assist in thed overthrow of Hussein, and these countries made these decisions due to financial reasons. We made the move, yet you forget this. You seem to want to have the cake and eat it, too.
What you also fail to notice is that our sin is found, where? A U.S. Senate Report? What is that to say? Maybe, that we try and find our own faults and deal with them? Hmmm.
Seems it is easier to whip a more honest bunch than it is the ones who aren't as forthcoming, huh?

Originally posted by marg6043
My bad I forgot that the US can declare war to any sovereign country with disregard of Geneva convention laws, our mighty congress can overrule anything it wants.

You are right US declared war to Iraq because Bush didn't like Saddam.

To the best of my knowledge, the Geneva Conventions do not regulate declarations of war.

The UN Charter does if I recall correctly, but unfortunately that's basically a dead letter. Can anyone here think of any time that the UN prevented unilateral action by any member of the security council?

The UN has no moral standing either. Here's an objective history of that "noble" institution.

For over 500 years, the major powers of Europe took turns kicking eachother's teeth in over control of Central and Eastern Europe.

The two largest wars in this pattern emerged as the result of Germany being unified under Prussia and allying with neighbors against the outlying nations that had traditionally battled for control fo that land. In short- Central and Eastern Europe tried to outgrow those who had so long waged wars over their territory.

The first war stalemated and ended in a 20 year armistice, then resumed again in the second world war. The outsiders won that war, gaining unquestionable dominance of the Western world. To secure this influence, they attempted to make their alliance permanent, declaring themselves the Security Council of the UN, unable to go to war without eachother's mutual consent, and entitled to intervene in any dispute in the world and compell any nation in the world to participate.

Unfortunately, this did not work. The government of mainland China was not immediately recognized. Then Russia left a meeting in protest in 1950, and the other 3 members committed forces to the Korean War without China or Russia. 3 of the Security Council Members fought directly against the fifth, and the 4th stayed out, and infact gave equipment and pilots to the Koreans and Chinese.

Afterwards, although the treaties were never officially nullified, they were almost completely ignored in practice by all participants as a cold war continued to rage between the two factions of the alliance which had once hoped to rule the world together. And a second split in one of the factions even led to minor bloodshed between China and the USSR.


So, you can see that it is foolishness, and in fact national suicide, to be decieved into the belief that this grand alliance still governs the world in solidarity. This world is still orderless, and ruled by force. Whether or not the bullets are flying, a strategic cold war is always being fought. It is the right and the necessity of every nation to guard its own interests by whatever means are necessary, whether the decision is made by a Congress, a Parliament, or a Duma- that's just the world. If you don't like it, you'll have to invent something better and make it work. Nobody has yet.

It amazes me that all of these "leaders" that are supposed threats to the world would put all of their plans on tape. Sounds like a plot to a bad movie...ya know, where the bad guy always tells the good guy his plans before he kills him, but then doesn't, and then the good guy looks that much better afterward because he "saved the day".

And, if they've had these tapes all along, why wait til now to release them?

And, where the hell do they find these tapes that magically turn up?

Originally posted by elderban
It amazes me that all of these "leaders" that are supposed threats to the world would put all of their plans on tape. Sounds like a plot to a bad movie...ya know, where the bad guy always tells the good guy his plans before he kills him, but then doesn't, and then the good guy looks that much better afterward because he "saved the day".

Politicians often tape and videotape when they have meetings, in case the other politician says anything which can be used for blackmail.

Originally posted by elderban
And, if they've had these tapes all along, why wait til now to release them?

Well, if you could have gone throught tons of documents and other tapes in Arabic faster than 2 years then perhaps you should be in charge of translating texts for the intelligence community....

Originally posted by elderban
And, where the hell do they find these tapes that magically turn up?

The regime of Saddam was ousted....remember?..... Most of the documents they had, those that the Iraqi regime wasn't able to destroy, is in the hands of the coalition.

[edit on 21-2-2006 by Muaddib]