No WMD!

[PLATO]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Now Plato, that was a very nasty thing to do - you only reveal such secrets under strict scrutiny of one or more highly educated shrink.

I stand corrected.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by PLATO
So, Mobius' point is that when CIA anaylisis disagrees with him then they are liars, but when it agrees with him then they are hard evidence...

...very interesting.

Moby has a point?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by PLATO
So, Mobius' point is that when CIA anaylisis disagrees with him then they are liars, but when it agrees with him then they are hard evidence...

...very interesting.

Of course, there's this little matter of lots of other sources have been saying there weren't any BCN weapons in Iraq. You know, them UN weapons inspectors for one.

[Ted Striker]

Well we kicked out Scott Ritter when he said there wasn't any weapons

Then we got Hans Blix and he said the same thing

I think we should have hired Michael Bolton for the job

EDIT: I meant John Bolton

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
so, where is everyone who said that iraq had WMDs? it is you guys who are unamerican. real americans distrust their government. it says so in the declaration of independance. unamerican traitors swallow everything that their politicans said. i think we should have a witch hunt and post the names of everyone in a thread who thought there were WMDs and shame them into admitting their were wrong. who is with me? because I am sick of being called unamerican, unpatriotic, a traitor, and guess what guys, you are reaping what you sowed.

Well that group includes the Bush and Clinton administrations, the CIA, MI6, the Mossad, the Russian FSR as well as the German, French, and Jordanian intelligence services, solid majorities of the American population as well as majorities in most European countries and last (and probably least) a firm majority of people on this board. Even those who were less than convinced by the "proof" offered up by the intelligence services were at least suspicious because Hussein refused to cooperate with inspectors despite the huge toll that it had on his country and ultimately his regime.

As for your unpatriotic, unamerican and traitorous ways why don't you quit behaving like that or at least cut down a little? Maybe then people wouldn't characterize you that way.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Well we kicked out Scott Ritter when he said there wasn't any weapons

Then we got Hans Blix and he said the same thing

I think we should have hired Michael Bolton for the job

EDIT: I meant John Bolton

I liked your first idea better.

[atomant]

Hear is a thought.

the Bush government said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi government said they didn't.

The North Korean government says they have nukes. The American government does not think this likely.

So who are you going to believe?

[Qilue]

Originally posted by atomant
Hear is a thought.

the Bush government said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi government said they didn't.

The North Korean government says they have nukes. The American government does not think this likely.

So who are you going to believe?

Nth Korea stole Saddam's WMDs

[Robert]

Most 'pro-war-in-Iraq' people stopped responding to this kinda threads because are valid arguments were never addressed anyway, and most 'anti-war-in-iraq' didn't come much further then "You stupid ***** suck big time there are no WMD" kind of argumentation.

I'll sum up my aguments again,
perhaps there's one intelligent anti-war guy or gal who can finally address them.

1. Sadam has had WMD, he's used WMD, he acted as if he stlil got WMD. He never proved he got rid of his WMD, not even when the UN (including Germany, Russia, France and China) told him to do. years long Sadam frustrated the inspections, somtimes by not letting the inspectors enter at all, sometimes by handling wrong information, and all the time by not cooperating at all. (eventhough the UN (including Germany, Russia, China and France) told him so.

If we know he has used them twice (Iran, Kurds) and we cannot be sure he doesn't have them, we cannot take the risk.

2. Sadam supported terrorism. We cannot be sure if there were bounds between Al Qa'ida and Sadam. Though there were contacts in the past, and we cannot be sure that these contacts may not be remade in the future. More since we are sure that Sadam supported terrorism in Israel by donating $25000 to the family of every suicide bomber.

For sure since we couldn't be sure about #1, #1 in combination with #2, for sure after 9/11, is a good reason to take away the risk.

3. Last year a CIA rapport was made about the WMD. The conclusion was indeed that there were no WMD left over in Iraq when America invaded it in 1993.
That's the passage all people focussed on.

Though the rapport said more, it said that Sadam was very eager to continue working on these programs as soon as the oil-for-food program would have ended and all UN resolutions would have stopped.

Therefor either we must chose to continue with these sanctions untill Sadam died (and most obviously would be succeeded by one of his sons), including the horrible concequentions for his people. Or we must indeed take away the UN resolutions, and face Sadam building new WMD again. If you embrace the part of the rapport that says there were no WMD, also embrace the part that says that Sadam had the very intention to build new weapons.

4. Another reason for Sadam to stop invading countries (Iran, Quweit) or the kurds since 1992 / 1993 is the presence of american and british troups in Saudi Arabia and both no-fly zones in Iraq. (there were no Russian, german, french or chinese troups to maintain peace for 12 long years!!!!)

We all know that the presence of the americans in Saudi Arabia (the holy land for muslims) was the #1 reason for Osama Bin Laden to attack america on 9/11.

It was no option to let the troups stay in Saudi Arabia untill Sadam died. Though removing these troups would most certainly result in new attacks on Sadam's neighbours.

A permanent solution was needed to end the agression of Sadam. Just placing troups and sanctions had to come to an end one day.

5. Nuclear weapons were not available for Sadam. Fortunately! Though, what do you want? Another Kim Jon Il as in North Korea? Did the world not learn to invade the maniac-country BEFORE it has these weapons, since when it has the weapons invading is no option anymore?

Not to mention that Kim most probably will only use these weapons if he feels threatened. Sadam may use them just for the sake of it. As he already invaded his neighbours in the past, and attacked Israel (unprovoced by Israel!) during the 2nd gulf war as well.

6. Sadam has killed between 500000 and 1000000 people during his 30+ years reign. How is that not a reason for any pacifist to remove him?

7. What's the alternative? Is there any other option? Do you guys really prefer Sadam in Iraq above a free Iraq?
How much better would things have been IF Russia, France, Germany would have participated. If the world could've acted TOGETHER against Iraq, instead of powerplay by France (if Chiraq's not in charge, he will not cooperate. Everyone knows that it's France who's the actuall wannabe-important one.) (how can anybody prefer Chiraq above Bush, that's a true riddle to me)

Neither can I understand how people are proud and happy to be in the same camp as China, Russia.....
Can't you see that Schroder was against the war only because he knew he would win the elections (germany 2003) that way?

Have all you anti-war protestors voiced strong against the French militairy action Coast d'Ivoire? The Chinese actions in Tibet? Their hostility agains Taiwan?
Did you guys protest against the Russian actions in Tsjetsjenie? Against the actions of Sadam himself?
Did you go to the streets with tens of thousands to protest against the muslim-leaders in the middle east?

No, you only wasted your energy to protest against GW Bush, a democratic president who'd rather spend money to free the people of Iraq then make himself popualair by trowing those hundreds of billions of dollars into his own economy.

Retreating the soldiers from the ME and SA would've been the populair thing to do. On short terms. It may have lead to a real rampage in the ME.
But now Syrie, Sudan and even Iran have chosen the more democratic way. The ME is becoming a better place right now. IT's not that perfect place indeed, though everyone can see that things are being solved right now that would've stayed huge problems otherwise for decenia.


I cannot see how these reasons are invalid.
I cannot understand how all you wanna-be smart guys always fail to address them though you still claim victory.

Though nothing will change. One or two of you will respond to 1 or 2 issues I raised with vague arguments. And most of my message will be ignored.
And in 2 weeks another thread will pop-up, ignoring all of our arguments.

CyberShy

[centrifuge]

CyberShy Very well put.

[MOBIUS]

Which is why Cybershy is on the first flight to liberate Darfur...

The whole point is that if we are to believe our govts , we were solely after the WMDs - because taking out Saddam solely on the grounds of regime change is illegal.

Personally I'm happy he's gone - but we were LIED TO! You would have to be a prize moron not to realise otherwise...

The US doesn't care if he's killed all those people, f***, they even helped him do it over the decades he was their friend - one of the worst acts of betrayal in recent history IMO is the US encouraging the Shias in GWI to rebel and then stand by as Saddam massacred them!

Saddam is certainly no worse than many of the US' past and present allies, he may have killed more people than some - but then the US gave him more toys...

So don't get up on your soapbox and preach this morality BS, because if it was about getting the 'bad men'TM then Darfur (Rwanda II - aren't we supposed to learn from our mistakes!!?) would have been sorted out years ago!

I am not against military intervention when it is justified on human rights grounds, such as Sierra Leone, Afghanistan etc - but these interventions have to be consistent.

On the scale of human need, Darfur far outweighs Iraq - but yet nothing is being done as tens of thousands slowly starve to death or are butchered or raped as they are ethnically cleansed from their land...

You're supposed to be a compassionate christian type, get your priorities right because for the US to claim that they got rid of Saddam because he is a 'bad man'TM is pure hypocrisy!

[Robert]

MOBIUS, why don't you address my arguments instead of ranting the usual speech, preaching style?

it's easy, just address them one by one. I've even given them numbers to make it easier for you.
I'll always give in, and just start to reply to your arguments. But I want you to reply to MY arguments. Don't ignore them. That's to simplistic

Don't ignore them

[Kuciwalker]

The whole point is that if we are to believe our govts , we were solely after the WMDs - because taking out Saddam solely on the grounds of regime change is illegal.

Not really.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I seem to recall the causus belli being a whole litany of material breaches of UN resolutions only part of which were posession of WMD's.

[Robert]

Ogie is right about that.
There were 12 resolutions, Sadam didn't care about them.

The last one said that if Sadam wouldn't cooperate with the inspectors (which he didn't, as the inspectors said) he would face serious concequentions.
So far for the war not being legal. It's as legal as it can be under a UN resolution.

On another note: it was EUROPE that cared that much about the WMD. Paris and Berlin only want to stick out their head when their own country is being treatened.
The WMD were never the #1 argument for Bush.

Oh well, more arguments that will be ignored by the anti-war people.