No WMD in Iraq

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Does anyone think Saddam shouldn't have been toppled in 1991?

If that's the case, when in the intervening time did he become a nice man?

[Victor Galis]

What gives any country the right to invade another country and topple leaders it doesn't like?

[Myrddin]

A permanent seat on the Security Council

[Agathon]

You forget the "Drone of Death" - that could have killed millions!!!!

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Traces can be hidden pretty well if you have ruski, syrian and iranian experts helping you.

Remeber: If you get on Bushs bad side...."Traces can be hidden pretty well if you have ruski, syrian, iranian, and israeli experts helping you."

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I'm sure Iraq had excellent tools lent to them by the Ruskis. I'm also sure that 2 years of cleaning started around sept 11, got Iraq pretty clean.

Why would they have started at 9/11. If they were involved, they could have started earlier, if they weren't, they needn't have done anything... At least not until Bush's "axis of evil" speech.

The weapons were reported to be dispursed, hidden in small quantities all around the country. A missile in a farm. A box in a far village.

And they were still able to assemble and deploy that in 45 minutes? Impressive!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Mercator

The weapons were reported to be dispursed, hidden in small quantities all around the country. A missile in a farm. A box in a far village.

And they were still able to assemble and deploy that in 45 minutes? Impressive!

The pro - war people are getting soooooo desperate.

[Wiglaf]

The WMD will be FOUND IN TIME, much like my old U2 in concert cassette. And guess what, Iraq's UN REPORT had loopholes, loopholes that they agreed not to create when they lost the first gulf war. That right there equals invasion, added to the fact that they are just a plain evil country that will eventually turn into a north korea, and it's now a no-brainer. THANK GEORGE BUSH that you are safe, do not vote in Wes "WWIII" Clark, silly LIBERALS.

Oh, I forgot to mention - Iraq vowed to defend itself if attacked, meaning they were okay with killing U.S. troops, which is ridiculous, no one kills U.S. troops. Historically they are like angels saving the world from certain distruction, can anyone say second world war. Only the devil's witches would vow to fight them. Saddam should be burned at stake.

[Sirotnikov]

How do you prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist?

That's a fallacy. Let me go over that, as I remember it.

1. There existed great numbers of chemical and biological substances, and they were known to the UN.

2. A bunch of those became unaccounted for.

3. When asked, Iraq claimed that they don't exist.

4. The UN decided that Iraq should show evidence of the weapons being destroyed, otherwise it would be reasonable to assume they are simlpy hidden.

5. Iraq refused to show any evidence, simply claiming that the unaccounted for weapons "don't exist".

And they were still able to assemble and deploy that in 45 minutes? Impressive!

The original report talks about tactical level munitions, and speaks about the time they can be made ready to use.
This doesn't mean that they will be in range. DUH.

[GePap]

With time the assertion that Saddam had any WMD's as of january 1st of this year will be more and more difficult to make: it is already wearing thin. Luckily for the pro-war people, they can count on memories being short.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
With time the assertion that Saddam had any WMD's as of january 1st of this year will be more and more difficult to make: it is already wearing thin. Luckily for the pro-war people, they can count on memories being short.

Mine's not. While I believe that the war was a very good thing for a whole host of reasons (all of which I argued before the war), even I am beginning to doubt the existence of the WMD's. I promised to give it 6 moths from the cesation of hostilities and I will stick with it, but time is growing short. It is very hard to believe that Sadaam, the master of deciet, had complied with the destruction of his most favoured weapons.

[Jaguar]

Some facts:

-Saddam, for whatever reason, preferred to taking on an international coalition spearheaded by the two most high-tech armies in the world over complying with UN inspections.

-No WMDs have been found in Iraq, and even if some eventually are, they won't be massive conspicuous stockpiles.

-Most "WMDs" have a very short shelf life and are too expensive to maintain for a small country to keep a stockpile.


What this suggests to me is that Iraq had the capacity to produce WMDs, and Saddam felt that with enough inspections, one of the "Baby Formula" factories would look a little too multipurpose for the inspectors, and he would then have to face a much larger coalition.

Either that, or his scientists, under pressure to create WMDs on a low budget, lied about having WMDs to him because they had no other options.

I do not believe that there was a mass exodus of WMDs to Syria, or any other ludicrous theories. Saddam, on the other hand, could very likely be there. But that's not really on topic.

I guess I'm not really posting here to prove that Iraq had WMDs. I really couldn't care less.

How about the compensation for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers? Even the Palestinian government doesn't directly and blatantly support terrorism. The Iraqi government did. Hence I view the Iraq war as a logical extension of the war on terrorism. With two countries down now, things are a lot quieter. North Korea has become much tamer than it was one year ago. Nobody wants to be next.

[Verto]

Saddam himself was a WMD! We just have to find him - dead or alive!

[Victor Galis]

I don't think North Korea fears being next. That's not a war any sane person would want to fight.

[Whaleboy]

The war was still just on humanitarian grounds.

A contradiction in terms. No war is ever just on humanitarian grounds, that latter term is so ambiguous and so faulty that we're better off without it.

The Iraqi government did. Hence I view the Iraq war as a logical extension of the war on terrorism. With two countries down now, things are a lot quieter. North Korea has become much tamer than it was one year ago. Nobody wants to be next

So anyone that supports the terrorists is a legit target? There is no evidence of a link between OBL and Saddam Hussein, between AQ and Iraq. Iraq in supporting the aims of the terrorists was somewhat representative of the views of much of the Muslim world, but the Muslim world is not our enemy, unless we want a clash of civilisations here, which is a completely different can of worms. There was no, to my knowledge, material link between terrorists and Iraq.

Why is that they are now saying that AQ is a far bigger risk now than it was since this time a year ago?