No threat to US, No AlQaeda, No WMD, No liberation

Maxwell, so you think because Abd al-Khaliq Abd al-Gafar is afraid he would make a fool of himself by lying about Iraq's WMD that Iraq surely then wouldn't have any? Dude, I hope you�re being facetious, otherwise that�s just the most ridiculous thing I�ve heard today.

please read my post .. i posted three reasons and didnt come to a 100% conclusion ..

here it is again

Well, for one thing, Iraq's supreme science counsellor said there where no in public .. would he want to make a fool of himself ? Second, we were promised "hard evidence" in December. This hard evidence hasnt been provided. Therefore i think there is no hard evidence. Third, Blix said before the outbreak of the war that it is highly improbable Iraq had any WMD.

That's not "100% proof", but makes it very likely that there are no WMD in Iraq...

[Edited on 22-4-2003 by Maxwell Smart]

Panther, just because we haven't found any WMD to this date does not mean that there is no WMD at all. The point of the war was getting rid of the regime first, then finding the WMD. You must be patient.

Originally posted by Maxwell Smart

Well, for one thing, Iraq's supreme science counsellor said there where no in public .. would he want to make a fool of himself ? Second, we were promised "hard evidence" in December. This hard evidence hasnt been provided. Therefore i think there is no hard evidence. Third, Blix said before the outbreak of the war that it is highly improbable Iraq had any WMD.

That's not "100% proof", but makes it very likely that there are no WMD in Iraq...

You gotta remember how this regime works. Do you not recall the Iraqi Information Minister? He sure made a fool of himself.

MD,

Actually ... the point of the war was because Bush said he had evidence of WMD's. It was later changed quickly to liberating Iraq, and now back to finding those pesky WMD's again .... Bush went against the UN only because he had no proof to provide them when that's all they wanted for the go ahead ...

People seem to forget:

The US did fund Iraq during the Iran war. We funded this monster, so we are partly to blame. But needless to say, yes, Iraq did have and probably still has them soemwhere, tho maybe not within Iraq. People keep pointing to Syria. I say look north, not west..to Russia. Its well known Russians were cutting fat deals with Iraq before the war, its not inconcievable they hid thier stash with thier buddies. Of course, no one is gonna search Russia for anything really. So, no, we wont find anything in Iraq.

This war had nothing to do with Liberation, its really about the oil. Anyone who looks can see. Getting rid of Saddam? we kicked him out of power, thats it. Thats all we really want. We know where hes at. We have satelites in orbit that can look at the hair on your ass. Saddams whereabouts are known, but like bin laden, he still serves a purpose: keep the bad guys alive so we have justification for future endeavors.

Al Qaeda? Yeah it exists. Linked to Iraq? NO. Saddams regime was brutal enough, but its secular nature alienated Saddam from the rest of the Arab world. They often exchanged many unkind words. Bin Laden Hated saddam and his regime, but hated the US more. So in bed together, they were not. Much info in the news must always remain suspect until u can balance it out from other sources.

Iraq a threat to the US? Again. no, not an immiediate threat, like North Korea. they could become a problem in the future, but before we invaded, remeber that the Arab world was still at odds with Iraq, and inly when we invaded did they rally around Iraq simply because they hate the US even more. We may have thrown two traditional enemies in bed together, instead of keeping them divided and at each others throats. the middle east has been battling over stupid # for ages.....we should leave them to it, i think.

Is Iraq an innocent victim? NO. Is the US innocent liberator? NO.

Once people realize the simple truth: THERE ARE NO INNOCENTS then they can get off thier high horses and start making real progress instead of continuing the same spin over and over again.

A review of this particular forum would result in your becoming aware that yes we have discussed those issues.

I see no reason to not relate one man who supports terrorism to another. To be specific it seems strange to assess two people who both kill civilians to meet political goals as not having much in common. As well such conclusions as pertaining to a more closer relationship, like the end of a movie is something that we all just going to have to wait to see.