They chose to reject a proposal that may have prevented the war

Originally posted by Leveller
Oh look!!! Another 49 instances where Iraq used chemical weapons.

projects.sipri.se...

Iraq never had WoMD?
I laugh in your face.

I recommend that you go back through this thread and thoroughly READ the previous posts. Nobody said he NEVER had any WMDs. The UN and US inspectors haven't found any since 1994. Your link is to the atrocities committed in 1984 and Leveller's is about the 15th anniversary of the chemical attack on the town of Halabja. Neither of these have any bearing on current events. If it did then, as Jakomo said earlier, "maybe we should re-bomb and re-occupy Japan because they were such dicks during WWII? Invade Italy because of the ancient Roman custom of killing Christians?"

Here are some earlier excerpts that apparently weren't read.

There is no UN report after 1994 that claims that Iraq continued to possess WMD's. UN inspectors had not found any nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in Iraq since at least 1994, aside from a dozen abandoned mustard shells, and that the vast majority of any weapons produced before 1991 would have degraded to the point of uselessness within 10 years.

US and British leaders repeatedly referred to the UN inspectors' estimate that Iraq produced 1.5 tonnes of VX before 1990. But in March Unmovic reported that Iraq's production method created nerve agent that lasted only six to eight weeks.

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001
QUESTION: The Egyptian press editorial commentary that we have seen here has been bitterly aggressive in denouncing the U.S. role and not welcoming you. I am wondering whether you believe you accomplished anything during your meetings to assuage concerns about the air strikes against Iraq and the continuing sanctions?
SECRETARY POWELL:
...We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction...And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."

by astrocreep:
But all this crap which I know doesn't make me want to side with my enemy. If you don't realize that it is the goal of the Jihad to exterminate all non-muslims on the planet, where the hell have you been?

I guess the government bait 'n' switch "al-Qaeda=Iraq" propaganda worked. Saddam did not call for a Muslim jihad on the US, Osama did. Saddam's regime was a secular government. If we were concerned about the jihad against us, we would be waging war on al-Qaeda, not Iraq. Like I said before, go through and read every post in this thread entirely, then come back and offer a legitimate rebuttal, if you have one.

Originally posted by jezebel
Nobody said he NEVER had any WMDs. The UN and US inspectors haven't found any since 1994. Your link is to the atrocities committed in 1984 and Leveller's is about the 15th anniversary of the chemical attack on the town of Halabja. Neither of these have any bearing on current events. If it did then, as Jakomo said earlier, "maybe we should re-bomb and re-occupy Japan because they were such dicks during WWII? Invade Italy because of the ancient Roman custom of killing Christians?"

Well duh.
Italy and Japan were disarmed after the 2nd World War. Iraq was not. Do you reckon we should have signed the surrender form and left Japan untouched without checking all of it's military capability had been destroyed afterwards?
As for this not being current enough for you. Well duh again. Really, do you keep your brain under your pillow? Maybe bring it out and wear it on special days?

Let's look at it this way shall we? Let's try to keep it as simple as possible so we avoid more duhs.


Country A has chemical weapons.
Country A uses chemical weapons.
Country A is told to get rid of chemical weapons.
Country A is told to prove that it has done so.
Country A tells everyone to # off.

Simple enough for you?

Damn doesnt anybody know that the us and britain along with alot of other countries western and eastern helped establish his regime. Good riddance i say and they should let the iraqis sort themselves out, and anyway remember matrix churchill!!!!!!

Damn dont believe the media at all!!

Leveller: "Well duh.
Italy and Japan were disarmed after the 2nd World War. Iraq was not. Do you reckon we should have signed the surrender form and left Japan untouched without checking all of it's military capability had been destroyed afterwards?
As for this not being current enough for you. Well duh again. Really, do you keep your brain under your pillow? Maybe bring it out and wear it on special days?"

Firstly, save your insults for when you're not making a dick of yourself. Go over and re-read every post of this thread. Nobody is saying he NEVER had WMD's (in fact, the US sold Saddam a fair amount when he was fighting the Iranians).

What Bush and his cronies were saying is that HE STILL HAS WMD. Which is what you seem to be claiming, in your brief little spurts of coherence. And which is false.

You can't make analogies to WWII when talking about Iraq. Japan and Italy were disarmed through international consensus. It was a WORLD WAR. Iraq is a single illegal military action. Like Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland to start off his invasions.

"As for this not being current enough for you. Well duh again. Really, do you keep your brain under your pillow?"

No, surprisingly there's been at least a few things that have changed dramatically in the world since 1945, so your comparison to Japan and Italy is misdated and inappropriate.

"Let's look at it this way shall we? Let's try to keep it as simple as possible so we avoid more duhs.

Country A has chemical weapons.
Country A uses chemical weapons.
Country A is told to get rid of chemical weapons.
Country A is told to prove that it has done so.
Country A tells everyone to frock off.

Simple enough for you"

Except that there is about 30 years from point 1 to point 5. But let me continue your exercise.

So Country B invades Country A. 6 months later, after hundreds of casualties and billions of dollars spent, Country B says "Yeah well we can't quite find ANYTHING, but we're still looking".

Countries C through Z burst out laughing.

Country B is quiet, as it's citizens realize that their own government lied to them to get them into Country A. They try to ask all the other countries for help, but all the other countries ignore them, or toss them some pocket change.

And the cheese stands alone.


j

Originally posted by Jakomo
=Firstly, save your insults for when you're not making a dick of yourself. Go over and re-read every post of this thread. Nobody is saying he NEVER had WMD's (in fact, the US sold Saddam a fair amount when he was fighting the Iranians).

What Bush and his cronies were saying is that HE STILL HAS WMD. Which is what you seem to be claiming, in your brief little spurts of coherence. And which is false.

Your first "dick" statement seems to about sum you up. Like the rest of your whinging cohorts you call somebody a nane, follow it up with insults of your own and then are blind to the hypocrisy of your own argument.

Yes, there is a 30 year timespan. But do you think weapons programmes like Saddam's don't last for 30 years? Well, tell me Einstein, where are those weapons? Destroyed? When? Where? How?
Let's get this straight: Saddam had used them before. You were prepared to take his word that he had destroyed them without the necessary proof that was required by the world community?
Just on his word?

You're either very trusting or very stupid. I reckon the latter.


And you're the person who blatantly cannot read. It was the UN who said that they wanted proof of the destruction of WoMDs. Not the US.
It matters not a speck of # what the US said. The UN called the shots with it's resolutions over this one. It was the UN sent their inspectors in. It was the UN which your buddy Saddam kicked out. It was the UN who kept coming back and saying that their inspections were being impeded before the war. It was the UN which used the US to do it's dirty work for it.

You've already admitted that Saddam HAD WoMD. Now just take that tiny step and admit that the UN said that he had to destroy them under terms of inspection.
Once you've taken that step you'll see that you've been talking blatant bull# here
.
By the way, if you take that as an insult - tough #.
I like being a dick. Thing is, I like being a dick who tells the truth. Not a dick who refuses to see facts purely because he doesn't have the balls to face up to tyranny and dictatorship when he sees it. That is apart from if you're a whining Bush-hater fighting your "crusade of truth".
Personally, I couldn't give a # about Bush either way. But I do wish that some of you whining Americans had Saddam as your president. Then you really would have something to whine about - thing is, by the time you opened your mouth? You would already be dead.

Leveller: "Your first "dick" statement seems to about sum you up. Like the rest of your whinging cohorts you call somebody a nane, follow it up with insults of your own and then are blind to the hypocrisy of your own argument."

AND THEN YOU FOLLOW IT UP WITH:

"You're either very trusting or very stupid. I reckon the latter. "

Haha, practice what you preach. And who exactly are my "cohorts"?

"Yes, there is a 30 year timespan."

Actually, WWII ended in 1945, and it's now 2003. That's closer to 60 years. Most computers have a Calculator feature in Accesories, give it a whirl.

"But do you think weapons programmes like Saddam's don't last for 30 years? Well, tell me Einstein, where are those weapons? Destroyed? When? Where? How?
Let's get this straight: Saddam had used them before. You were prepared to take his word that he had destroyed them without the necessary proof that was required by the world community?
Just on his word?"

No, actually based on the words of his own defectors. And Newsweek.

www.fair.org...

In this transcript of the interview Hussein Kamel gave he SAYS : "after the Gulf war, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them".

" �We gave instruction not to produce chemical weapons. I don�t remember [the] resumption of chemical weapon production before the Gulf war. Maybe it was only minimal production and filling. But there was no decision to use chemical weapons for fear of retaliation. They realised that if chemical weapons were used, retaliation would be nuclear.�

"�I ordered the destruction of all chemical weapons�biological, chemical, missile nuclear were destroyed.�

And as for your question as to how long biological weapons last:

Most biological agents degrade rapidly, although dry agents such as anthrax spores and some toxins, are persistent. But the "weaponisation" (storage and delivery) of biological agents also poses huge technical hurdles and drastically reduces their half-life.

You can't keep sarin gas in a fridge and expect it to be effective even after 3 months, never mind 3 years.

Look for yourself online, it's all out there.

And to go to WAR on an ASSUMPTION that a country has WMD's (and that's what it is, despite what the administration said, they HAD NO PROOF), is WRONG. Ask the families of dead US servicemen what they think.

"It was the UN who said that they wanted proof of the destruction of WoMDs. Not the US. "

A lie.

"It was the UN sent their inspectors in. It was the UN which your buddy Saddam kicked out."

Another lie. Saddam never kicked out the inspectors. They left at the insistence of the US government and to avoid getting freakin bombed.

"It was the UN which used the US to do it's dirty work for it. "

How do you figure that, when most of the world was against this war. Coalition of the Weinies and all that. Bush had to IGNORE the U.N. in order to invade. Where do you get this stuff?

"You've already admitted that Saddam HAD WoMD. Now just take that tiny step and admit that the UN said that he had to destroy them under terms of inspection. "

Once more, this war was based on the assumption that Saddam HAS WMD, not HAD. Repeat, HAS not HAD.

"I like being a dick. Thing is, I like being a dick who tells the truth. "

Well, you're half right, anyway.

And you are what you eat.

"Not a dick who refuses to see facts purely because he doesn't have the balls to face up to tyranny and dictatorship when he sees it. "

Then why do you refuse to see the facts if it's not something testicular? Lack of education? Laziness?



jakomo

Originally posted by Jakomo

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Yet again you can't even read black and white. I never said I wasn't insulting you. You're a dick. There you go. Let's make it absolutely clear. There. Dick. Now you can burble on about how I may or may not have insulted you, but in my mind it's clear that I've insulted you and that any attempt by you to muddy the waters is just another one of your ill conceived arguments.

Right. Let's get down to your post (it's tiresome but I suppose it has to be done).

Bio weapons are degradable. Well duh Einstein. How many times are you going to twist my words? Yes bio weapons are degradable. But bio programmes? You know - the research and technology, the twiddling of knobs and the mixing of nasty little things that make you go boom? That is not degradable.

As for your inane drivelling about wether or not Saddam had WoMD, why keep bringing Japan into this? I don't know if you noticed but Japan was disarmed and occupied after WW2. No doubt you would have been whining about that too.

And even if Saddam had WoMD at the time of the invasion or didn't, which you base your whole flimsy argument on, I've already asked you where they are now. Do you think maybe he poured them down the drain? Or maybe aliens took them? Maybe the tooth fairy picks them up as a part time job. Money is tight after all.

You didn't answer my question.
Here it is again:

Saddam had (or HAD) bio weapons, would you take his word that he destroyed them?
(Placing your faith in his son in law is much the same as placing it in Saddam by the way.)

Answer that question and then maybe I'll give you some credibility.



In the meantime, I notice that you're Canadian. Didn't you guys invade that country and displace and murder it's indigenous population?
Tut tut. Shame on you.

This is interesting with its old arguments and new and all manner of personal vehemence of the Mudpit variety thrown into the mix.

I think this is how it started:

1. Idiot Rumsfeld visits Saddam Hussein, 1984, to appoint him as US middle east watchdog puppet, Arabic division.

2. On the way out, Rumsfeld quietly calls Hussein a "dick" to a colleague. He is overheard.

3. Hussein requests translation after Rumsfeld departs.

That's how it started. It's Rumsfeld, as useless then as now. Except now he is one of the neo-con crazies closer again to the corrupt Whitehouse.

Leveller: Sorry to do this.

"Bio weapons are degradable. Well duh Einstein. How many times are you going to twist my words? Yes bio weapons are degradable. But bio programmes? You know - the research and technology, the twiddling of knobs and the mixing of nasty little things that make you go boom? That is not degradable. "

And yet your original question to me WAS "Well, tell me Einstein, where are those weapons? Destroyed? When? Where? How?"

So originally you asked what happened to those Bio-Weapons. Once I told you, (that FAIR.org article, originally appearing Newsweek), you say you meant bioweapon PROGRAMMES. This war was NOT fought because Saddam had PROGRAMS, it was fought because he had ACTIVE WEAPONS. How many tons of sarin did they say he was hiding?

They've found no evidence of either weapons OR the technology to weaponize them in Iraq, by the way. So no weapons or programs (and some scientist keeping a vial of botulinum in his fridge for 8 years is NOT an active weapons program).

"And even if Saddam had WoMD at the time of the invasion or didn't, which you base your whole flimsy argument on, I've already asked you where they are now. Do you think maybe he poured them down the drain? Or maybe aliens took them? Maybe the tooth fairy picks them up as a part time job. Money is tight after all. "

READ MY POST. They WERE destroyed, his crony Hussein Kamel said it, as did many others. Where are they now? They're GONE, either destroyed or degraded to useless slop.

"Saddam had (or HAD) bio weapons, would you take his word that he destroyed them?
(Placing your faith in his son in law is much the same as placing it in Saddam by the way.)

Answer that question and then maybe I'll give you some credibility. "

Would I take his word that he destroyed them? If he knew it would save his ass, yes. If it cost too much money to keep weapons factories running, yes. If the UN couldn't find jacksquat after months of searching, yes. If after 7 months of Occupation nothing had been found, yes.

And since they HAVEN'T been found, I prefer to take the logical approach. If you are looking for something that might not exist, and you can't find it, that might be because it's not there.

But it's your government that is spending 300 million dollars to search for the same weapons that they claimed they KNEW to be there, and used those "facts" to launch a military invasion that has cost thousands of lives.

How's that, Richard?

"In the meantime, I notice that you're Canadian. Didn't you guys invade that country and displace and murder it's indigenous population?
Tut tut. Shame on you.

I'm Hungarian, not born in Canada. Nice try.


MaskedAvatar: LOL


j

Originally posted by Jakomo


And yet your original question to me WAS "Well, tell me Einstein, where are those weapons? Destroyed? When? Where? How?"

Very sly of you. But also totally misleading.
Why didn't you quote the whole thing?

Let me do that for you:

"Yes, there is a 30 year timespan. But do you think weapons programmes like Saddam's don't last for 30 years? Well, tell me Einstein, where are those weapons? Destroyed? When? Where? How?"


Notice the words "weapons programme"?

I'm sure you did. You skipped over them to make your disingenious point though didn't you?
And I take it that by your quoting of Saddam's son in law, it points to your being prepared to take the Saddam family word for it - even though you plainly don't have the balls to answer the question outright but instead spout yet more sidestepping drivel.
Therefore I'm afraid your credibility is zero. Zilch. Nada.


Richard? I think you've just proven that my labelling you as the Richard in question was the right choice to make.


By the way> Hungarian and not Canadian. Then you've personally invaded another country and can't even blame it on your ancestors.
Even more shame on you.



[Edited on 14-11-2003 by Leveller]

Leveller: "I'm sure you did. You skipped over them to make your disingenious point though didn't you?
And I take it that by your quoting of Saddam's son in law, it points to your being prepared to take the Saddam family word for it - even though you plainly don't have the balls to answer the question outright but instead spout yet more sidestepping drivel"

? Are we actually reading the same thread? I proved to you that Saddam got rid of his weapons. The person who said it was a DEFECTOR, therefore he didn't have to worry about any of Saddam's "security forces" ventilating him for talking.

No weapons programs have been found, and yet you still continue to crow that they exist. Wake up and look around. If they were there, they would be found.

And for the record, your question was "Well, tell me Einstein, where are those weapons?". You pasted it yourself. No programs in that sentence, and it's a direct question.

I ANSWERED your question, and yet you refuse to see it or read it. Everyone else can see it, it's right there. R-E-A-D.

"By the way> Hungarian and not Canadian. Then you've personally invaded another country and can't even blame it on your ancestors.
Even more shame on you. "

Let's try to make some sense rather than slander anyone's ancestors, m'kay?

SHOW ME THE PROOF THAT SADDAM HAD WMDS (as the US government claimed) OR ADMIT DEFEAT.

I've shown you he doesn't (and the fact that none have been found particularyl underlines my position), now you show me he DOES, not DID. (Does as in at the time of the illegal invasion).

Thanks,
jakomo

Originally posted by Leveller
And I take it that by your quoting of Saddam's son in law, it points to your being prepared to take the Saddam family word for it

Maybe not, but I will take the word of three experts in the field, Greg Thielmann (the director of the Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Affairs Office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research), Gregory V. Treverton (who is now a senior analyst at RAND and former vice chair of the National Intelligence Council), & Joseph Cirincione (director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment)
I would suggest reading this entirely before coming to a conclusion.
www.armscontrol.org...
Joseph Cirincione
Three, it appears that Iraq may have continued programs of research on some weapons, trying to keep intact elements for restarting weapons programs after international inspections or sanctions had ended, but there were not programs involving the large-scale production of ready-to-use chemical or biological weapons or missile systems, nor the prospect that Iraq would soon have a nuclear weapon

Lacking any hard evidence on Iraqi programs, government officials seem to have developed an outline of a threat picture and then accumulated bits and pieces of information that filled in that picture. As National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice explained to George Stephanopoulos on June 8th, the White House did not have one single assessment but rather formed a, quote, "judgment." The judgment was, quote, "not about a data point here or a data point there, but about what Saddam Hussein was doing, that he had weapons of mass destruction. That was the judgment." Close quote. This, she said, was a picture that they developed when they, quote, "connected a lot of dots from multiple sources."

Not to mention the fact that Colin Powell stated in Feb. of 2001:
www.state.gov...
SECRETARY POWELL:
...We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist...for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction...And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."
QUESTION: (summarized) Minister Moussa, how big a threat is Iraq right now? It seems that the Secretary is trying to have it both ways. Either the country has been diminished by ten years of sanctions or it's still threat that we have to worry about.
FOREIGN MINISTER MOUSSA: For us, I don't see that threat, but if you ask the Gulf regions and countries of that area they will they would continue to feel that and they say it publicly. The question is not rhetorical. The question is not to have some headlines. It's a very serious situation. We will continue to deal with that situation in a way that ensures stability and justice. Therefore, we will have a lot to say after the round of talks ...
SECRETARY POWELL: May I just add a p.s. that if I was a Kuwaiti and I heard leaders in Baghdad claiming that Kuwait is still a part of Iraq and it's going to be included in the flag and the seal, if I knew they were continuing to try to find weapons of mass destruction, I would have no doubt in my mind who those weapons were aimed at. They are being aimed at Arabs, not at the United States or at others. Yes, I think we should...he has to be contained until he realizes the errors of his ways.

By the way> Hungarian and not Canadian. Then you've personally invaded another country and can't even blame it on your ancestors.
Even more shame on you.
[Edited on 14-11-2003 by Leveller]

How can an American ridicule ANYONE or insult another nationality for how they obtained their country? We massacred thousands & thousands of Native Americans in order to steal their land. The land now known as the United States of America. Our ancestors are no better than anyone else's in that regard.

Originally posted by Jakomo
Are we actually reading the same thread? I proved to you that Saddam got rid of his weapons. The person who said it was a DEFECTOR, therefore he didn't have to worry about any of Saddam's "security forces" ventilating him for talking.

The so-called DEFECTOR was Saddam's son in law. He then returned to Iraq where he was supposedly executed.

You've proven absolutely nothing.
Your whole argument rests on the word of Saddam.

Originally posted by jezebel
How can an American ridicule ANYONE or insult another nationality for how they obtained their country? We massacred thousands & thousands of Native Americans in order to steal their land. The land now known as the United States of America. Our ancestors are no better than anyone else's in that regard.

I dunno. I ain't American. You'd have to ask them.

Where do you live, to fight so vehemetly for a President that you do not live under?

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by Jakomo
Are we actually reading the same thread? I proved to you that Saddam got rid of his weapons. The person who said it was a DEFECTOR, therefore he didn't have to worry about any of Saddam's "security forces" ventilating him for talking.

The so-called DEFECTOR was Saddam's son in law. He then returned to Iraq where he was supposedly executed.

You've proven absolutely nothing.
Your whole argument rests on the word of Saddam.

Did you read the rest of my last post? I gave a link to 3 credible experts, who were involved in the WMD searches and intelligence. They all provide evidence that the threat posed by Saddam was not valid justification for going to war.

Regarding the statement by Saddam's son-in-law, there is now evidence to corroborrate it.

Hussein's son-in-law, who supervised Iraq's nuclear program before he defected in 1995, had told interrogators that Iraq's nuclear capability--save the blueprints--had been destroyed in 1991 at his order. (Documents given to the United States this week confirm that. The Iraqi scientists who provided them added that, even though the blueprints would have given Iraq a head start, no order was given to restart the program; and even had such an order been given, Iraq would still have been years away from producing a nuclear weapon.)

Here's an interesting letter to ponder:

We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. We must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.'

This declaration was made by US Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, America's senior representative at the 1945 Nuremberg war crimes trials, and the tribunal's chief prosecutor.

NEO,

Joe America, the fat lazy greedy belching beer gutted couch potato mental vegtable has already killed his country, he has already weakened it. Too late for that.

Anyway, I seriously cant believe people debate the rightness of the Iraq war like its even an issue, just like the imaginary WMD (only LEVELLER would still believe some crap like that).

First off, no WMD have been found. No evidence of an active WMD has been found, only old crusty remnants of the old WMD programs that everyone and thier hamster knew about 15 years ago and were totally hunky dory with.

Second, I dont see the Iraqi people feeling too liberated, I dont see Iraq any better off without Hussein. Have any of you NEO Con meatheads ever stopped tp consider that we may have kicked the stopper off the hornets nest?

Under Saddam, you had NO infighting because he kept his iron fist clamped down tight on both rebels and islamic extremists. Basically, Iraq was peaceful before because underneath the false notion of an actual nation called Iraq, there was a maelstrom of infighting and chaos that could only be kept dowsn with a strong, ruthless leader. When we removed Mr Cork stopper Hussein, do you think they were grateful? # NO! They simply were happy the stopper had been removed so they could release the hornets once again and continue thier wars and jihads against each other. We opened Pandoras box.

Iraq, the cradle of civilization, has survived civilized, despite the constant infighting, for thousands of years just fine. They have adapted a unique system of thier own that works for THEM. The system the US is trying to impose does not work for them. They are not Americans.

What about the wishes of the Iraqi people? If they desired an Islamic fundie regime, are you going to deny it? Deny the will and desire of the people to create thier own govornment?

HOW UNAMERICAN.

I know who my enemies are. They speak my same language, they live under my flag. They are the enemies within who have either sold this country out, have bought this country out, or who sit by smiling and cheering as our country gets sold.

My enemies are nationally suicidal Americans.

Skadi,

The point I am trying to make is that we are all joesixpack like it or not to some degree.

Only the clerics in Iraq want an islamic country that entirely rejects any sembelance of western values or ideals.

Lastly, the issue of WMD is like asking a classroom full of kids 'who ate the cookies?'

You seem to have a nice healthy dislike for people, Skadi.
Even your own countrymen.

Time and time again I've seen you whining on about how everything is everyone elses fault.
Yet you've openly bragged about your US army background here.

A tool of the very people whom you profess to hate. And yet you did it all freely.

"Final Offer
Why Iraq's last-minute peace overture was a sham."
Link:
slate.msn.com...

Excerpt:
"To avert an invasion, they were prepared to offer (and to offer in their dreaded leader's name) the following concessions:

1) proof that Iraq no longer possessed weapons of mass destruction, this proof to be confirmed by American military and civilian experts invited to see for themselves on the ground

2) the handing over of Abdul Rahman Yasin, indicted in the United States for his part in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and since that date a protected refugee in Iraq

3) support for an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement as sponsored by Washington

4) the granting to the United States of "first priority" with respect to the exploitation of Iraqi oil and mineral rights

5) elections in Iraq as soon as two years hence.

What a bargain! But those who complain that it was turned down by a war-hungry Bush administration have (yet again) shown themselves to have a mainly if not exclusively nincompoopish mentality. Observe the following obvious points:

1) The Iraqi approaches were specifically directed toward the world of Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith, all of them highly identified with the "regime change" policy. These approaches were also undertaken at a time when American and British forces had already commenced a serious deployment in Kuwait, Qatar, and elsewhere. This is clearly a tribute to the only force that was acting as a trigger or catalyst for change: the group that had decided that further coexistence with Saddam Hussein was at once ignoble and impossible. It wasn't a case of contacting the Carter Center in Atlanta and trying to buy some spurious time.

2) The Iraqi side openly conceded that U.N. inspections as then being conducted were a farce and a sham. Hassan al-Obeidi, chief of foreign operations of the Iraqi intelligence service, is at one point reported to have offered to allow "2,000 FBI agents" to enter Iraq and look at anything they wanted. He had clearly got bored with the easy and transparent routine of thwarting Hans Blix.

3) The Iraqi side clearly dropped all pretense that it had not been involved, for a very long time, in helping the forces of international gangsterism and nihilism. And it offered up Abdul Rahman Yasin, after almost a decade of protecting him.

4) The Iraqi side conceded without embarrassment that its violent opposition to a settlement of the Israel-Palestine dispute (this opposition taking the admitted form of direct subsidy to suicide murderers) was sheer opportunism and unconnected to any matter of principle.

5) The Iraqi side offered its mismanaged and beggared oil and mineral sectors on a plate to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

In whatever order you take these points (the oil offer is especially good, given the widespread belief among our domestic nut bags that this has been a Halliburton war), they show that the core position of we the regime-changers was correct enough to be endorsed by the Baathists themselves. That's not the endorsement that one particularly or especially desired, but it must count for something........"


As to Saddam not having WMD:
"For those in still in denial, Saddam's WMD went to Syria..."
Link:
www.townhall.com...

"Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs
October 2002"
Link:
www.cia.gov...

"Bio-Chemical Weapons & Saddam: A History."
Link:
www.freerepublic.com...

"Pentagon Bombshell: U.S. Uncovers WMD Document 'Mother Lode'"
Link:
www.newsmax.com.../7/16/164802

Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard"
Link:
www.cnn.com...

"Iraq Resumes WMD Activities, New York Times Reports"
Link:
www.ceip.org...

"Weapons-Grade Plutonium Possibly Found at Iraqi Nuke Complex"
Link:
www.foxnews.com...

"Marines reportedly find cyanide, mustard agents in Euphrates"
Link:
www.usatoday.com...

"Suspicious Iraqi Drums"
Link:
abcnews.go.com...

"Terrorist devices, chemical weapons found in Iraq"
Link:
www.news8austin.com...

"Al-Qaeda chief told us Iraq supplied WMD material: US"
Link:
www.smh.com.au...

"Swedish researchers claim to have found proscribed weapons in Iraq"
Link:
blogs.salon.com...
www.expressen.se...

"Searching for weapons of mass destruction"
Link:
www.worldnetdaily.com...

"Iraq's Weapons & The Road to War"
Link:
www.danielpipes.org...

"Iraqi Scientist Links Weapons to 'Dual Use' Facilities, White House Says"
Link:
www.washingtonpost.com...

"Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert"
Link:
www.nytimes.com...

"Where are WMDs? Hidden in Syria"
Link:
worldnetdaily.com...


The point being made here is this.......
For every claim that the US and the Coalition had no "reasons" to goto war with Saddam and Iraq....there are claims to the contrary. This can be applied to 9/11 and the 'conspiracies' related to the US staging this....for all those so-called claims, there are just as many to the contrary.
Its all perception and ultimately, individual belief(s).


regards
seekerof

Seekerof: "For every claim that the US and the Coalition had no "reasons" to goto war with Saddam and Iraq....there are claims to the contrary. "

Yet ALL the claims of "the Smoking Gun" have all been proven wrong. Those "mobile chemical trucks" ended up being for weather balloons, the dual use facilities were seen as spin (your GARAGE is a dual use facility, as are any factories that carrying any ingredients useable in chemical warfare), the centrifuge found in the backyard of some Iraqis' house was seen to be so much fluff, etc.

The bottom line of all this IS:

You don't go to war, and sacrifice lives, based on conjecture. The Bush Administration has ADMITTED that they used "faith-based intelligence" in the lead up to the war, and this is absolutley proven by the fact that NOTHING HAS BEEN FOUND. If they weren't sure, they should have at least CONSIDERED a deal instead of dismissing it out of hand.


jakomo