US Ends WMD search

[Narith]

Not true at all, but you will never see otherwise!

Conservatives have been saying this for almost two years now, technically longer since it was the main excuse for starting the war. When we invaded and found none you all said, just wait they are there, a few months later you said just wait Bush found them he is just waiting to use it as a last month supprise in the elections, elections passed and you still claim it is not true that we have never found any that we still will find some.... Good lord get a fricken clue, have your lips surgically removed from Bush's ass, and take your hands off your eyes.

The main reason we invaded was because Saddam had sanctions pressed against him and the UN. told him they would invade and remove WMDs themselves if he did not comply and remove them himself. He did comply, but Bush wanted to invade so badly for some reason that he told all of America that Saddam was lying and we must invade, Bush claimed he had intelligence proving this... Most of us (apparently not all of us Rsak) knew that Bush lied after the first month, but no one seemed to care enough that Bush lost thousands of American lives and killed tens of thousands of Iraq citizens and military, countless civilians, and created a terrorist problem where none exsisted. Not to mention that the majority of resources were drawn away from finding Osama who actually had attacked and killed our civilans en masse.

Basicly most of us who's lips aren't part of Bush's ass are pissed that he basicly all but quit the attack on afgahnistan which allowed Osama to escape elsewhere, he lied to the entire American public either that or he is a complete moron and horrid leader for not realising the information he had was fake (hey didn't 3 people just lose thier job for simply making a news report on false information? Bush actualy started a war and cost countless numbers of lives), he cost thousands of American lives and god only knows how many non-american lives were lost under this lie.

What's even sadder is that this isn't a public aknowledgement that Bush lied, they still insist there are WMDs when we have owned the country for how long now?

So really, what will it take for you all to stop going "Oh, there are WMDs, just wait you will see!"? 50 years of Iraq? 100? 200?

[Aabe]

Bush claimed he had intelligence proving this... ?

Well, as I recall the French, the Brits, we and most other countries agreed with that intelligence assessment until AFTER we invaded. I am unsure how you are going to prove he lied, if the other contries were mostly saying the same thing at the time.

[Rsak]

Narith get a clue.

We invaded Iraq because we believed that they had WMD and they had much closer relationships with terrorists then was safe.

Just because we have not found them does not mean they did not exist. They did exist since this points is not in contention. What was unknown is what happened to them. From what we can find they are not in Iraq now. They may have been destroyed or moved. I don't know or care at this point since it is immaterial to our topic.

The part that we should care about is that by all evidence we honestly believed there were WMD in Iraq and that we would find them. That non-bogus belief was our reason to go to war. Being wrong does not invalidate the reasoning.

While you still have your head up your ass let me remind you that the United States was the only ones that pushed for this war. Iraq itself falls into that category. Iraq was not only obligated to destroy the weapons but they were obligated to prove they had done so. They failed in that obligation.

But don't let that stop you from calling Bush a liar when no one has been able to prove any such lie occured. You need to stop confusing being wrong and lying.

[Kulaf]

I consider myself a "Conservative". I never posted anything like you are accusing me by proxy of posting. I said there were likely WMD's in Iraq. But the main reason I have always contended for invading Iraq was years and years of Iraqi refusal to allow unhindered inspections of their country as demanded by the surrender agreement they signed. They showed no sign whatsoever of abandoning their WMD programs in the event the inspectors ever left. So unless the UN was willing to have permanent inspectors in Iraq inperpetuity, something needed to be done to eliminate that regime.

I fully supported that conclusion and still do. We did the right thing and I think time will bear that out.

[Narith]

Narith get a clue.

We invaded Iraq because we believed that they had WMD and they had much closer relationships with terrorists then was safe.

Just because we have not found them does not mean they did not exist. They did exist since this points is not in contention. What was unknown is what happened to them. From what we can find they are not in Iraq now. They may have been destroyed or moved. I don't know or care at this point since it is immaterial to our topic.

Well you are right on one point, Iraq HAD the weapons, the UN told Saddam to destroy them or be invaded, Saddam did, the UN said let us inspect your country to make sure, which of course he objected to, the US. would have done the same thing if other countries demanded unlimited access to secure areas (IE. if the UN demanded full access to area 51 in the 50s when the government was in denial that it exsisted). Eventually and begrudgingly Saddam allowed access, no WMDs were found, Bush took it upon himself with a personal vendetta to press the issue and claim that Saddam did. It turns out that Saddam had done exactly what the UN demanded and destroyed all of his WMDs but Bush using false intelligence (again this happens in journalism and people get fired it happens to cost tens of thousands of lives and it is a boo boo?) or just out and out lying sends in troops creating a terrorism problem where there wasn't one, there were no ties to terrorists, it took an entire commision to figure that out though you still do not accept that, so you have no WMDs no ties to terrorists would you like to think up a third lie to convince yourself of or will you just maintain the current ones?

*sigh* Bush himself could come out and tell you "I lied, you are all suckers, there were no WMDs I just wanted to kick Saddam's ass to show no one screws with the US." and you would STILL believe there were WMDs we just haven't found.

Seriously, what will it take for you to admit you were wrong and that we went to war under lies and thousands of Americans paid with thier lives because you made a bad choice when you voted?

[Embar Angylwrath]

What WMD did Japan use??

Japan dropped bombs on China carrying Plague infected fleas..killed hundreds of thousands..

My information has the count at about 600-1200 dead from that incident. Not that it wasn't heinous, but the numbers you cite are more indicative of the numbers of people killed in Japan's Unit 731 human experiments (and I loathe to use the word "experiment" in this context), not of the actual bombing.

And in all honesty, there is scant corroborating evidence of that accusation. Some "confessions" at the hands of the Soviets, and a couple of researchers. But I will say Japan's collective mentality at the time would allow them to do this without blinking.

[vaulos]

We are still uncovering some of the attrocities done by the Japanese to China, Korea, etc. What we do know is that millions were dead as a result. The lesson learned is that we shouldn't let crazy dictators and totalitarian regimes remain in power. =P

OK, so we haven't learned that lesson.

[Embar Angylwrath]

We are still uncovering some of the attrocities done by the Japanese to China, Korea, etc. What we do know is that millions were dead as a result. The lesson learned is that we shouldn't let crazy dictators and totalitarian regimes remain in power. =P

OK, so we haven't learned that lesson.

Some of us have... Saddam is gone.

Others on this board would have rather had him dropping poison gas on his own people though.

[vaulos]

In part perhaps, but I would point out that N. Korea still "enjoys" crazy regime status.

[Embar Angylwrath]

In part perhaps, but I would point out that N. Korea still "enjoys" crazy regime status.

The US is righteous at times, but not stupid. Not risking a nuclear conflict that could ostensibly cause more harm than good is the wiser course of action at the present.

[vaulos]

Actually, I would imagine that NOT risking nuclear war will cause even more problems down the road as countries (such as Iran) learn that having the bomb makes you untouchable/uninfluencable.

[Relbeek Einre]

Just as a little point...

It's clear that WMDs are not particularly important to warfare but for their cost/damage ratio. It's for stealth attacks, big bangs in small packages, that it matters.

It's not Saddam you need to worry about when it comes to WMDs because he has something to lose (or rather had) - his country. It's the Osamas of the world.

[Partha]

We are still uncovering some of the attrocities done by the Japanese to China, Korea, etc. What we do know is that millions were dead as a result. The lesson learned is that we shouldn't let crazy dictators and totalitarian regimes remain in power. =P

OK, so we haven't learned that lesson.

Some of us have... Saddam is gone.

Others on this board would have rather had him dropping poison gas on his own people though.

No, we contended that it was better to force him out of power without declaring war on the entire country, with all the attendent loss of life and problems that will occur now.

Furthermore, much of the 'intelligence' that was used to justify this war did NOT say Iraq had verifiable WMD.....they said they couldn't PROVE that he didn't. That's two different things to say, and Bush et. al. took the one thing to say that the evidence DID NOT SUPPORT.

Of course, we had absolute proof of mobile labs - but the people who claimed to have seen them, or built them, or ordered their construction - couldn't seem to come up with any concrete evidence of their existence. Same thing with the stationary labs, come to think. Lists and lists of all the places that we 'knew' Saddam had researchers working on WMD - and every single one comes up with zero evidence once we get boots on the ground.

Of course, now someone will mention Syria. Well, I tell you what. As it stands right now, 44 of the 55 'Most Wanted' deck are captives. We have had access to and interviews with every single scientist that lived through the invasion. We had special forces units running all over the western Iraqi desert for weeks before the invasion. We had satellites making routine orbital passes over Iraq every day. We've had physical control of the country *cough* for more than a year, with inspectors running hither and yon from pillar to post looking. You've had three years to prove this preposterous, silly claim that Saddam 'had biological and chemical weapons and an active program to make nuclear weapons', and you've found zipsquat. Give up the fucking charade.

[vaulos]

Keebler- WMD are a good way to threaten "mutually assured destruction", without having to keep around the sorta of conventional firepower that the US does (we really don't need nukes anymore). As such, regimes that keep these kinds of weapons around are able to keep themselves from the creeping embrace that is globalism (and with it all those nasty little rules around "rule of law", "equal rights", etc). As such, these nations become a breeding ground for Osama types. So, while we might feel more directly the impact of Osama having a nuke, WMD in the hands of nation-states could potentially allow Osama-type entities a safe haven. Sort of a chicken and egg scenario.

Partha- I will agree with you that the Bush administration did a rather shitty job of selling the war against Saddam. But to suggest that Saddam could be forced out of power by any mean other than invasion is wishful thinking. That sort of thinking it what has lead to our current standoff with N. Korea. What is our plan for forcing him out of power without invasion? Waiting for him to die! Nice plan eh?

[Ddrak]

The problem with the invasion of Iraq was that it was rushed, beyond all rhyme and reason. Saddam was never an imminent threat to anyone outside of Iraq since GHWB annihilated his forces back in 91. The fact that there was the luxury of time means it would have made more sense to try less confrontational approaches. If the problem was simply that of inspections (which in my mind is the more important question than the humanitarian issue) then sending in armed forces to accompany the inspectors would have been the next logical step.

For an invasion to work you need universal buy-in from the people of the country. It was relatively obvious from the beginning that Iraq was a fragmented nation that wasn't going to accept a US occupying force well in all quarters.

The amusing thing is you still have die hards that believe the only option to not having an all-out invasion was appeasement. People who maintain that belief are either wilfully ignorant, or just don't have the intelligence to comprehend the wide range of options between invading right the hell now and patting Saddam on the back.

Before the invasion, all the real intelligence (that wasn't propoganda from exiled Iraqis masquerading as intelligence) said that we needed better intelligence to make a decision. The history of Iraq showed that a US force would not be a stabilizing one. The dissent in the UN showed that the US was going to be footing the bill while other nations waited for failure (to laugh), or success to move in and reap rewards.

Before the invasion, cost estimates topping 2 trillion dollars were scoffed at and "smaller" numbers like 50 billion were tossed around. It was said that Iraq as a whole would welcome the Americans with open arms. It was said that troops would probably be leaving in a year. None of these claims made any sense to anyone with even the briefest history of middle eastern politics.

So now we have Iraq... Personally I would have been a lot happier if those supporting the war were required to pony up the cash to support it themselves - that would quickly sort things out on the side of sense.

Dd

[Burz]

It's official: We went into Iraq for bogus reasons.

Correction: Valid reason. Head out of the sand please.


Doesn't take a genius to know he had them and possessed them. However, in the sluggish lead up to the actual invasion he had plenty of time to either: blow them, bury them, or...where's the big winner...transport them elsewhere (hi Syria(who we should start bombing next)).

Also might I suggest this. It is because of the invasion that the Coalition will not find the weapons.

[Partha]

You're going to claim not only that these thousands of liters of chem and bio weapons and all the nuclear technology not only managed to cross the border into Syria, but that we can't find one single Iraqi who can substantiate these claims.

Not one member of the 'Most Wanted' deck.

Not one scientist.

Not even one guard who might have moved truck X from Baghdad to Syria.

I read better fantasies, but they cost $6.99 at Waldenbooks.

[Narith]

No no I think he is saying that they burried them, because as we all know we have no way of finding metals undeground that might be trucks for portable chemical labs, or any sort of ground penetrating radar or x-ray device that might show large quantites of material burried. I mean this isn't the future my god we are working with sticks and stones here!

And the not finding any single human being who can coraberate these fantasies about burried WMDs or transporting them to Syria, well I am sure you know by now they were all abducted by aliens or captured by faries.

Sarcasm is fun =)

[Partha]

Partha- I will agree with you that the Bush administration did a rather shitty job of selling the war against Saddam. But to suggest that Saddam could be forced out of power by any mean other than invasion is wishful thinking. That sort of thinking it what has lead to our current standoff with N. Korea. What is our plan for forcing him out of power without invasion? Waiting for him to die! Nice plan eh?

vaulos, what do you think would have happened had we instituted a second nofly zone south of Baghdad? We saw what it did for the Kurds.

[Relbeek Einre]

Burz apparently didn't read the article.