Bush comment...

[we3luvdisney]

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

May I suggest you continue to read past the first sentence. However, please remove your blinders you'll be amazed at the things you'll see. Also, try looking at the BIG picture.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
He was never to have these weapons and the U.N. was in the process of destroying the weapons before the war started.

If the UN was in the process of destroying them, maybe we should've left the U.N. alone to finish the job thereby saving billions of dollars and nearly 900 American lives.

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
So, based upon these FACTS, it is possible that Saddam and his regime did send WMD to other countries.

It's also possible the WMD's were abducted by aliens. Since your belief that Saddam Hussein sent the weapons to other countries is nothing more than a cherished belief based on nothing, can you prove the WMD's were not abducted by aliens?

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
So, I'll ask again ----- Are you saying that the scenario of not transferring weapons to other countries is not plausible?

About as plausibe as alien abduction.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
Some say we went to war because of WMD. However, these weapons have not be found and may never be found.

Finally, something we agree on.

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
However, I believe we went to war because Saddam had not followed the U.N. resolutions.

Suuure, we went to war to enforce U.N. resolutions. Oh, yeah, that was the reason.

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
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.

Btw, regardless of what Bush was peddling, the fact is Saddam Hussein did not have the WMD's and nor was he a threat to the U.S.

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
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?"

Like Bush ever gave a crap about U.N. resolutions other than when it suited his purposes.

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
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.

We went to war because Saddam Hussein had WMD's which were a threat to the U.S. Period. Any other reasons were just filler to justify the desire to go to war.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
Have you forgotten about Resolution 1441?

Oh puhleeeze, we did not go to war to enforce U.N. resolutions regardless of what bull**** Bush peddled.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Oh puhleeeze, we did not go to war to enforce U.N. resolutions regardless of what bull**** Bush peddled.

But you know the real reason. Ok spill the oil, I mean beans.

So, you've been in all the secret meetings and know for sure that they were all sitting around drinking beer and smoking cigars with all his oil buddies and dreamed up this plan to get the oil?

If so, where's the oil?

Oh, I get it. They're secretly pumping out using a secret pipeline to secret ships. Have I got that right now?

 

[Viking]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
But you know the real reason. Ok spill the oil, I mean beans.

So, you've been in all the secret meetings and know for sure that they were all sitting around drinking beer and smoking cigars with all his oil buddies and dreamed up this plan to get the oil?

If so, where's the oil?

Oh, I get it. They're secretly pumping out using a secret pipeline to secret ships. Have I got that right now?

No, but they would like to, unfortunately one year after the victory there's still so much unrest in the country with sabotage of the pipelines and other oil-infrastructure that it will be a long time before any oil gets out of the country.
First no WMD, then no links to Bin Laden, now no oil - No wonder that Google brings up GWB's biography as best hit when you type in 'miserable failure' and hit the search-button

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
If the UN was in the process of destroying them, maybe we should've left the U.N. alone to finish the job thereby saving billions of dollars and nearly 900 American lives.

I think after 10 years of U.N. inspections, all banned weapons would have been destroyed. Does it even matter that the inspectors found banned weapons prior to the second gulf war?

It's also possible the WMD's were abducted by aliens. Since your belief that Saddam Hussein sent the weapons to other countries is nothing more than a cherished belief based on nothing, can you prove the WMD's were not abducted by aliens?

Moving weapons to other countries are more plausible than alien abductions. However, if you believe aliens abducted the weapons ---- run with it!

About as plausibe as alien abduction.

I forgot, Saddam was an honest man. He was forthcoming with information that the U.N. requested. It's a shame you won't remove your blinders.

 

[jrydberg]

Just a side note, the administration knew full well that any operation in Iraq would cost far more than we could ever hope to recoup *and* drive oil prices up. Certainly the fact that Iraq has oil lends added importance -- I'm not denying that. But that doesn't mean this war is about oil. Really, it's easy to make the case that it can't be about oil.

The best thing to have done to assure cheap supplies of oil would've been to become Saddam's buddy. There's plenty of cause to criticize the war. But it's not a war for cheap oil.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Suuure, we went to war to enforce U.N. resolutions. Oh, yeah, that was the reason.

Well, that's not the only reason. However, since you are the individual with all the answers please inform this thread why we went to war?

Btw, regardless of what Bush was peddling, the fact is Saddam Hussein did not have the WMD's and nor was he a threat to the U.S.

Resolution 1441, which was approved unanimously by the 15-member security council indicated, "Iraq's noncompliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security...."

Like Bush ever gave a crap about U.N. resolutions other than when it suited his purposes.

The U.N. doesn't give a "crap" about their own resolutions. If they aren't going to enforce them, then way have them?

We went to war because Saddam Hussein had WMD's which were a threat to the U.S. Period. Any other reasons were just filler to justify the desire to go to war.

What are weapons of mass destruction? I'm sure the majority of the people would agree that these are weapons that have the potential to do mass destruction. What about the shells the Polish army found? Why weren't these weapons declared by Saddam?

Just a little background on the nerve agent found:

"The organophosphate nerve agents tabun (GA), sarin (GB), soman (GD), and cyclosarin (GF) are among the most toxic chemical warfare agents known.'

"A barrage of such rockets can rapidly establish a lethal concentration over a large area, representing great danger to personnel not wearing respirators. Cyclosarin can also be a more persistent threat than sarin and is a greater percutaneous hazard."

Remember, the U.N., President Bush and their allies stated, "weapons of mass destruction," not "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction." Even one warhead found would be classified as a weapon of mass destruction.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Oh, I get it. They're secretly pumping out using a secret pipeline to secret ships. Have I got that right now?

Elwood, you're wrong! Aliens abducted the oil!

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
Moving weapons to other countries are more plausible than alien abductions. However, if you believe aliens abducted the weapons ---- run with it!

Well, here's your chance to shine. Back up your belief the weapons were moved to another country with at least 1 little fact. Just one itty bitty little fact.

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
I forgot, Saddam was an honest man. He was forthcoming with information that the U.N. requested. It's a shame you won't remove your blinders.

Who said he was an honest man? Stop refuting arguments no one's making.

However, you might enjoy this little photo-op.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

Followed up by this story:
http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html

And ending with this little tidbit:
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

Of course lest we forget, next time you use the argument "but he gassed his own people", remember this occurred during the Reagan administration.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
But you know the real reason. Ok spill the oil, I mean beans.

So, you've been in all the secret meetings and know for sure that they were all sitting around drinking beer and smoking cigars with all his oil buddies and dreamed up this plan to get the oil?

If so, where's the oil?

Oh, I get it. They're secretly pumping out using a secret pipeline to secret ships. Have I got that right now?

Actually, you've got it all wrong. I never once claimed this war was about oil.

Ideology, yes.

Neo-con belief that American military might should be used to mold the world, yes. Here's something that might shed some light on "why":

http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

But, not oil.

Since you've only been around for about a month or so, you're forgiven for jumping to conclusions. But, not forgiven for not checking your facts.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
What about the shells the Polish army found? Why weren't these weapons declared by Saddam?

And question #3, if these are the smoking gun WMD's the Bush administration talked about, why isn't this White House proclaiming it from the rooftops?

Hmmmmmmmmmm.....................

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
Remember, the U.N., President Bush and their allies stated, "weapons of mass destruction," not "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction." Even one warhead found would be classified as a weapon of mass destruction.

Well this begs the question, do you mean to say when the Bush administration talked about WMD's they only meant a few shells?

Nevermind, your "stockpile" comment is dead wrong.

They most certainly did say "stockpile".

Here's what Bush said on October 5, 2002:

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have George W. Bush, President
Radio Address
10/5/2002

And as to the reasons for the war, here's Ari Fleisher's explanation:

"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003 "

I don't recall any report from the White House that Ari Fleisher was infected with the "misspoke" disease. Do you?


Btw, read through these quotes and then tell me and the rest of the good folks here a U.N. resolution was the reason we went to war.

http://lunaville.org/WMD/billmon.aspx

 

[wvrevy]

Reposted:

Wow, We3...I don't know that I've seen someone posting so many incomplete and incorrect items and claiming them as "facts" since the old DB was taken down

1 - The "shells" that were found by the polish military weren't even necessarily IRAQI in origin...They were relics from the Iran Iraq war, and represented not the slightest threat to the US or our allies.

2 - It always amazes me to see people saying that they still believe he had WMD's...all the while referring to how evil and psychotic Saddam was. This, to me, is a major flaw in your arguments. If he'd had WMD's, don't you think he might have used them ? Nah...Why would a psycho like him use everything in his power to avoid capture

3 - By the time Saddam would have been able to move weapons out of the country "just before the war", every friggin intelligence agency and resource at our disposal was watching that country. Do you seriously think nobody would have noticed ? If you really believe that, I've got some ocean-front property for sale right here in West-by-God that you might be interested in

4 - Yes, Al Zarqawi is Jordanian....but the VAST majority of insurgents are Iraqi people that want us out of their country. What, you mean terrorists might have gone into the region trying to recruit people after we invaded ? Nah...Who could have seen that coming

5 - You can't blow off the UN, then use the UN as an excuse to justify the war. The uN would have voted AGAINST this action, and you and everybody else knows it (particularly the Bush administration, since they were spying on the other UN diplomats to find out). Frankly, it just makes you look like a hypocrite.

Oh, and I WASN'T "just a child" during the gulf war, so I'm afraid you'll have to come up with some other ridiculous reason for claiming I'm wrong. But how about actually backing it up with facts this time, instead of just claiming to do so.

 

[wvrevy]

And oh, by the way:

Vote Republican: It's easier than thinking !

Just thought I'd share the original version of your "oh-so-clever" little signature.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by wvrevy
but the VAST majority of insurgents are Iraqi people that want us out of their country. What, you mean terrorists might have gone into the region trying to recruit people after we invaded ? Nah...Who could have seen that coming

The Iraqi's that want the US out of "their" country are killing their own citizens for exactly what purpose? It couldn't be that they want to restore things back to the way it was before we got there? Even without SH? Naw, that couldn't be what they want. Could it?

5 - You can't blow off the UN, then use the UN as an excuse to justify the war. The uN would have voted AGAINST this action, and you and everybody else knows it (particularly the Bush administration, since they were spying on the other UN diplomats to find out). Frankly, it just makes you look like a hypocrite.

Ok, then please explain why so many other intel agencies around the world got it wrong too. I mean they didn't use the wrong info to go to war, but they still believed their own intel. You seem to think that we (the US) did all of this in a vacuum with no one else agreeing with us on the intel. Even BEFORE Bush go into office, there were many in the US gov't (on both sides) that believed the intel. Yea yea yea, but "they" didn't use it to start a war. So what. We went in based on what we felt was right at the time. So rather than trying to help and support those Iraqi's that had lived under oppressive rule for decades and those that truly want to self govern (and no one said it would be a copy of the US), you'd rather continually bash on the administration (and hopefully you'll bash the previous one) for getting it wrong.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Well, here's your chance to shine. Back up your belief the weapons were moved to another country with at least 1 little fact. Just one itty bitty little fact.

Saturday, April 17, 2004 2:10 p.m. EDT
King Abdullah: Al-Qaida WMDs Came From Syria

Jordan's King Abdullah revealed on Saturday that vehicles reportedly containing chemical weapons and poison gas that were part of a deadly al-Qaida bomb plot came from Syria, the country named by U.S. weapons inspector David Kay last year as a likely repository for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

"It was a major, major operation. It would have decapitated the government," King Abdullah told the San Francisco Chronicle. Jordanian officials estimated that the death count could have been as high as 20,000 - seven times greater than the Sept. 11 attacks.

King Abdullah said that trucks containing 17.5 tons of explosives had come from Syria, though he took pains not to implicate Syrian President Bashir Assad in the al-Qaida plot, saying, "I'm completely confident that Bashir did not know about it."

In his testimony before Congress last year, weapons inspector Kay said U.S. satellite surveillance showed substantial vehicular traffic going from Iraq to Syria just prior to the U.S. attack on March 19, 2003.

While Kay said investigators couldn't be sure the cargo contained weapons of mass destruction, one of his top advisers described the evidence as "unquestionable."

"People below the Saddam-Hussein-and-his-sons level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to destroy and disperse," said James Clapper in comments reported by the New York Times on Oct. 29. Clapper heads the National Imagery and Mapping Agency.

Israeli intelligence has long believed that after the U.S. delayed invasion plans to allow U.N. weapons inspectors time to search for Iraq's WMDs, Saddam moved the banned weapons to Syria, the only other country ruled by the Ba'ath Party.

On April 1, Jordanian officials announced the arrest of several terrorist suspects, saying they were still hunting for two cars filled with explosives.

Five days later, the State Department revealed that the attackers were linked to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian-based terrorist considered to be one of al-Qaida's most dangerous. One of Zarqawi's targets was the U.S. Embassy in Amman.

By Saturday morning European news services were quoting an unnamed Jordanian official, who revealed that the al-Qaida plotters planned to use weapons of mass destruction in the foiled attack.

"We found primary materials to make a chemical bomb which, if it had exploded, would have made nearly 20,000 deaths ... in an area of one square kilometre," the official told Agence France-Press.

Another operation planned by the network was to use "deadly gas against the US embassy and the prime minister's office in Amman," he added.

A car belonging to the al-Qaida plotters, containing a chemical bomb and poisonous gas, was intercepted just 75 miles from the Syrian border.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
The Iraqi's that want the US out of "their" country are killing their own citizens for exactly what purpose? It couldn't be that they want to restore things back to the way it was before we got there? Even without SH? Naw, that couldn't be what they want. Could it?

I have no idea, you'd have to ask them. My point was simply to refute the claim that a bunch of foreigners are causing all of the problems with the insurgency, as that simply isn't true. Yes, there could be quite a few former baath party officials involved. Your point would be what ? That would make them enemy combatants, rather than "terrorists", right ? Why should anyone be surprised that they continue to fight to get us out of THEIR country ?

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Ok, then please explain why so many other intel agencies around the world got it wrong too. I mean they didn't use the wrong info to go to war, but they still believed their own intel. You seem to think that we (the US) did all of this in a vacuum with no one else agreeing with us on the intel. Even BEFORE Bush go into office, there were many in the US gov't (on both sides) that believed the intel. Yea yea yea, but "they" didn't use it to start a war. So what. We went in based on what we felt was right at the time. So rather than trying to help and support those Iraqi's that had lived under oppressive rule for decades and those that truly want to self govern (and no one said it would be a copy of the US), you'd rather continually bash on the administration (and hopefully you'll bash the previous one) for getting it wrong.

Again, I have no idea how they all got it wrong, but it appears that they did. Still, it's interesting that the other countries you are citing weren't exactly right beside of us in the invasion, save the Brits (who's intelligence was apparently worse than ours: remember the "yellow cake" fiasco ?). Sorry, but the fact that the previous administration didn't invade is a major difference. You may say "so what" to the death of nearly a thousand Americans, but I'm afraid I feel a little differently about it.

Oh and one more point to my previous post:

6 - The "radioactive materials" that were recently moved out of Iraq had been under UN lock-and-key since the first Gulf War...until our invasion allowed them to be stolen by Iraqi citizens. These weren't some grand new discovery...we knew right where they were at all times.

I also find it hilarious that people are quoting an article that twice in the initial sentence plainly says "might" or "probably"...No need for any kind of certainty when we're talking about a little thing like a massive military invasion

 

[Douglas Dubh]

Well, here's your chance to shine. Back up your belief the weapons were moved to another country with at least 1 little fact. Just one itty bitty little fact.

There's also this one:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aVeUQqEr_MeU&refer=europe "Iraqi Missile Engines Found in Netherlands, UN Inspectors Say"

 

[Douglas Dubh]

who's intelligence was apparently worse than ours: remember the "yellow cake" fiasco

Actually, that "yellow cake" scenario has been verified. Iraqi and Nigerian officials did meet; Iraqi agents did try to buy yellow cake in Africa.