Bush comment...

[ThreeCircles]

I'm saying that it is yet another weak attempt at justifying w and his war.

The fact remains, no WMDs have been found more than a year after the invasion of Iraq.

First you say that Saddam was a bad man and needed to be removed for all of his misdeeds in the past. Now you say that the weapons were in Iraq but have been moved.

It's almost dizzying trying to keep up with which justification we're using from day to day, hour to hour!

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Oh! I get it!

So, this new Iraq Security Advisor, who was no doubt installed by the U.S. pupet government in Iraq before they left the country, has better intelligence than the U.S.?

Hmmmm... No WMDs have been found more than a year after the invasion of Iraq.

Sounds like you and your source are kinda grasping at straws.

Grasping at straws???

"Artillery shells found by Polish troops in Iraq in June contained the deadly nerve agent cyclosarin, the Polish army said last week.'

BTW --- If you would read U.N. Resolution 1441 you will understand that these weapons should have been accounted for and destroyed, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[ThreeCircles]

I guess you should report your findings to the CIA and the 9/11 Commission.

Better hurry!

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by bsears
I am confused as to why people are arguing about whether or not WMDs existed. We went to war because Iraq had WMDs. We now know that was a false premise. Why bother to continue this argument? Even if WMDs are some day found some place.......we never had any legitimate reason to believe they were there in the first place, so who would be vindicated?

Well, there are some that say we went to war for cheaper oil. However, based upon the gas prices I'm sure this was not the reason.

Some say we went to war because of WMD. However, these weapons have not be found and may never be found.

However, I believe we went to war because Saddam had not followed the U.N. resolutions. When President Bush gave his speach in March 2003, he indicated:

"... we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror. In New York tomorrow, the United Nations Security Council will receive an update from the chief weapons inspector. The world needs him to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?"

There are individuals in this world that believe we went to war, based solely on WMD. This is one of the reasons, along with Resolution 1441, Saddam raping, murdering and torturing his people. It's sad to see that people only dwell on the WMD.

 

[ThreeCircles]

And reports also indicated that the TWO warheads found (originally) were from as early as the first Persian Gulf War and were not in any usable condition.

Wow! We were on the brink of being attacked and destroyed!

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
"... we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror. In New York tomorrow, the United Nations Security Council will receive an update from the chief weapons inspector. The world needs him to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?"

There are individuals in this world that believe we went to war, based solely on WMD.

Are you even reading your own posts? Seems w made it pretty clear that Iraq "had WMDs" and that's why we were going to war.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
I guess you should report your findings to the CIA and the 9/11 Commission.

Better hurry!

Again, with your opinions. If you would like to debate a topic may I suggest you support your opinions with facts. I've supported all my opinions with facts, but it seems you are unable to do the same.

Have you even read the U.N. resolutions? There were so many conditions put upon Saddam and his regime, which he never followed. Prior to the war the U.N. inspectors found missles that exceeded the maximum limit (miles). He was never to have these weapons and the U.N. was in the process of destroying the weapons before the war started. After the war, I do believe, more of the missles were found, which were not accounted for.

So, based upon these FACTS, it is possible that Saddam and his regime did send WMD to other countries.

So, I'll ask again ----- Are you saying that the scenario of not transferring weapons to other countries is not plausible?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
Again, with your opinions. If you would like to debate a topic may I suggest you support your opinions with facts. I've supported all my opinions with facts, but it seems you are unable to do the same.

Have you even read the U.N. resolutions? There were so many conditions put upon Saddam and his regime, which he never followed. Prior to the war the U.N. inspectors found missles that exceeded the maximum limit (miles). He was never to have these weapons and the U.N. was in the process of destroying the weapons before the war started. After the war, I do believe, more of the missles were found, which were not accounted for.

So, based upon these FACTS, it is possible that Saddam and his regime did send WMD to other countries.

So, I'll ask again ----- Are you saying that the scenario of not transferring weapons to other countries is not plausible?

Sorry, I believe I did support my post with facts. You posted an incomplete article to suggest that WMDs were found in Iraq when they were not. The complete articles show that TWO warheads were (originally) found in Iraq. These warheads were determined to be as old as the first gulf war and, from analysis, were not in any useable condition. So, THESE were the WMDs that were a threat to us? These are the FACTS that you use to justify the war?

Isn't it quite odd that we were SO sure of WMDs prior to attacking and invading Iraq and now that none have been found more than a year after we all of a sudden know that "they've moved them to other countries."

Like I said, it's grasping at straws, changing stories after-the-fact, and a weak attempt at justifying the war.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
First you say that Saddam was a bad man and needed to be removed for all of his misdeeds in the past. Now you say that the weapons were in Iraq but have been moved.

It's almost dizzying trying to keep up with which justification we're using from day to day, hour to hour!

You're wrong! I never said Saddam was a bad man. I said he was an evil man.

Do you believe that it's not possible to move WMD to other countries? Hell, he backed in tractor trailors and robbed his own banks. What's to say he didn't move the WMD before the war started?

Well I'm sorry that you feel dizzy. It may be your tunnel vision. May I suggest you look at the entire picture and history of Saddam, this may help with your problems. If not, I suggest you make an appointment with your doctor. It may be something more serious than the facts I'm providing.

 

[ThreeCircles]

And, lets not forget, the CIA report and the 9/11 Commission report both support the fact that the reasons given by w for the war were misleading, based on incorrect information, and unfounded.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
You're wrong! I never said Saddam was a bad man. I said he was an evil man.

Bad as opposed to evil? You feel compelled to point out that I mis-quoted you and said "bad" instead of "evil."

I'm not too sure this is that big of a deal...

As far as the "facts" that you're providing: Um, where is this proof that the WMDs are now at another location? Have you bothered to look at the CIA and 9/11 reports?

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Are you even reading your own posts? Seems w made it pretty clear that Iraq "had WMDs" and that's why we were going to war.

Yes, I'm reading my posts. President Bush said, "weapons of terror." He also said, "The world needs him to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?"

Based upon the missles they found prior to the war, Saddam did not disarm.

 

[lucky_bunni]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
You're wrong! I never said Saddam was a bad man. I said he was an evil man.

Do you believe that it's not possible to move WMD to other countries? Hell, he backed in tractor trailors and robbed his own banks. What's to say he didn't move the WMD before the war started?

Well I'm sorry that you feel dizzy. It may be your tunnel vision. May I suggest you look at the entire picture and history of Saddam, this may help with your problems. If not, I suggest you make an appointment with your doctor. It may be something more serious than the facts I'm providing.

There's a theory - The simpliest explaination is usually the right one - Is the simpliest explaination that he moved a bunch of WMD leaving no trace or that he never had any to begin with? Is the simpliest explaination that OJ killed Nicole Brown or the "real killer" is still out there?

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Sorry, I believe I did support my post with facts. You posted an incomplete article to suggest that WMDs were found in Iraq when they were not. The complete articles show that TWO warheads were (originally) found in Iraq. These warheads were determined to be as old as the first gulf war and, from analysis, were not in any useable condition. So, THESE were the WMDs that were a threat to us? These are the FACTS that you use to justify the war?

Isn't it quite odd that we were SO sure of WMDs prior to attacking and invading Iraq and now that none have been found more than a year after we all of a sudden know that "they've moved them to other countries."

Like I said, it's grasping at straws, changing stories after-the-fact, and a weak attempt at justifying the war.

Here are the facts. It was not 2, but a total of 19. Yes, they were old (I did indicate that in my post), but they were still banned weapons and Saddam had them and didn't notify the U.N. I wonder why? Any idea?

I don't know about you, but I would'nt want to be sniffing this nerve agent.

Polish Army Says Iraq Shells Had Deadly Cyclosarin

Fri Jul 2, 7:16 AM ET Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!

WARSAW (Reuters) - Artillery shells found by Polish troops in Iraq definitely contained the deadly nerve agent cyclosarin, Poland's military said on Friday.

"The results of ... analysis confirmed that chemical agent GB-GF, cyclosarin, was found in the shells," the Polish-led unit of the multinational force in Iraq said in a statement.

"Beyond doubt these are shells from the 1980-1988 period, of the type used against Kurds and during the Iraq-Iran war."

Poland said on Thursday its soldiers found 17 Grad rockets and two mortar shells filled with chemicals in late June and that U.S. experts had carried out tests on the weapons. U.S. officials confirmed late on Thursday that such shells were being tested but said further tests were continuing because initial findings could be misleading. U.S. officials were not immediately available to comment on the Polish statement.

"Some of those warheads were old but it could not be ruled out some could still be used," Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski told Poland's Zet radio on Friday.

The statement from the Polish headquarters at Babylon said the shells had been hidden and that chemicals had leaked from one but the threat had been dealt with. Local people said unidentified individuals had offered the shells for sale.

"If these shells had been used, in a mortar attack on Camp Babylon for example, the results would have been unthinkable," the Polish commander in Iraq, General Mieczyslaw Bieniek, told TVN24 television.

Iraq said it produced cyclosarin munitions in the 1980s to fight Iran but was committed to destroying stocks and ceasing production by U.N. resolutions following the 1991 Gulf War.

President Bush accused then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of failing to give up chemical and biological weapons and invaded Iraq last year to depose him. Since then, occupying forces have found small quantities of banned weaponry.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
And, lets not forget, the CIA report and the 9/11 Commission report both support the fact that the reasons given by w for the war were misleading, based on incorrect information, and unfounded.

Please read Resolution 1441

 

[ThreeCircles]

Ah! So those are the WMDs that we went to war for! Those are the WMDs that over 1000 (mainly American) coalition troops have been killed for! Those are the WMDs that we were so threatened by here in America!

Here's just a bit of info from the CIA report:

In a scathing indictment of the nation's intelligence services, a Senate report concluded Friday the CIA provided false and unfounded assessments of the threat posed by Iraq that the Bush administration relied on to justify going to war.

Republican chairman said Congress might not have approved the Iraq war had lawmakers known the truth.

The committee's top Democrat said he had no doubt: There resolution authorizing war would not have gotten the sweeping approval, if the threat had been understood.

The CIA kept key information from its own and other agencies' analysts, engaged in "group think" by failing to challenge the assumption that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and allowed President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell to make false statements.

Wow. Look at all of those facts.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by lucky_bunni
There's a theory - The simpliest explaination is usually the right one - Is the simpliest explaination that he moved a bunch of WMD leaving no trace or that he never had any to begin with? Is the simpliest explaination that OJ killed Nicole Brown or the "real killer" is still out there?

As for OJ, he's guilty as sin!

Why should we not believe these weapons were not moved? Has Saddam always been honest with the U.N. inspectors? The weapons found by the Polish troops is a great example. These were old weapons that were used in the Iran/Iraq war. Iraq should have notified the U.N and then they should have been destroyed. Fifteen years later we are now finding these weapons, after 10+ years of the U.N inspection team trying to locate weapons. Why didn't the U.N inspection team find them? Do you think Saddam was playing cat & mouse, by moving the weapons before the inspection team arrived?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
Why should we not believe these weapons were not moved?

Ah, because there is no proof that they were.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Ah! So those are the WMDs that we went to war for! Those are the WMDs that over 1000 (mainly American) coalition troops have been killed for! Those are the WMDs that we were so threatened by here in America!

Have you forgotten about Resolution 1441?

RECOGNIZING the threat Iraq's noncompliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

RECALLING that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

FURTHER RECALLING that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

DEPLORING the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 km, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

DEPLORING FURTHER that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

DEPLORING the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

DEPLORING ALSO that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

RECALLING that in its resolution 687 (1991) the council declared that a cease-fire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein...

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Ah, because there is no proof that they were.

Gee, I guess I was wrong. Saddam should be the poster child for all things that are good