Remember those WMDs?

[kapkomet]

Kapkomet, stop your BULLs*** speculation.  You or ANYONE else don't even know whether Saddam had actually moved them to Syria.  It's all speculation.  So STOP pretending as if you actually know it.

 

Answer me this question: When you are being attacked, when your own sons had been killed by your enemy, if you actually have those WMDs, would you have released them to kill your enemy?

 

You want to know why we attacked Iraq USING WMDs as alibi?  Because we knew damn well that Iraq's WMDs were already destroyed by all the bombings we had on that country.  Let's see if we will use WMDs justification on Iran or North Korea to attack them.  The world knows they have them.  I don't see us attacking them!

And stop YOUR BULLs*** saying you know that they were destroyed. No one knows what happened. But people who want to pour water all over the current administration want him to get hung so bad, they keep ginning this s*** up. I also think it's more likely then not that Syria has some of the s***. Not all, but some. There's been other collaborated evidence that there were shipments to Syria before the UNSCOM people were let back in the second time. Coicidence? According to BULLs***, I guess so.

[Balta1701]

And stop YOUR BULLs*** saying you know that they were destroyed.  No one knows what happened.  But people who want to pour water all over the current administration want him to get hung so bad, they keep ginning this s*** up.  I also think it's more likely then not that Syria has some of the s***.  Not all, but some.  There's been other collaborated evidence that there were shipments to Syria before the UNSCOM people were let back in the second time.  Coicidence?  According to BULLs***, I guess so.

I'm sorry, but that is simply wrong. Go read the Duelfer report. Up and down the list, it says over and over...Saddam's weapons were destroyed by a combination of his own regime after 1991 and the UNSCOM team. Saddam was hoping that he would be able to restart something if the sanctions regime fell apart...but let's for a moment think about what the cost would be of maintaining a constant inspections regime in Iraq compared to the $400 billion we've arleady spent and the $1-$2 trillion estimates say the war will cost in total.

 

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered...

 

In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes.

Mr. Duelfer was not lying when he said we were "Almost all wrong". Saddam kept a few things around to restart the programs if sanctions ever fell apart, but these stockpiles you think are there simply weren't. UNSCOM, UNMOVIC, and the ISG all agree on that singular point. Every single piece of evidence out there other than the garbage deliberately leaked out of Feith's clearly politically driven group has shown exactly the same thing.

[kapkomet]

And any UN report supporting anything has to be weighed by the fact that they were desparately trying to hide the oil for food fiasco.

 

I don't believe any of it. I think no matter what documents you quote, refer to, say is the gosphel, is somehow politically manipulated. What motives did Saddam have to destroy that stuff? None. Absolutely none.

 

I think some of it did get destroyed when Clinton lobbed a few missles Iraq's way. I think some of it did get destroyed by our no-fly zone missions and subsequent attacks. I think some of it naturally degraded into a harmless state. I think some of it did get buried in the desert sand and we haven't found it. And last, I do think some of it got moved to Syria.

 

No one KNOWS what happened to it but Saddam and his two dead sons, and they ain't talking anymore. To reempahsize, ANYONE could have made s*** up to protect the UN and make it look like things were "working"...

[Steff]

You want to know why we attacked Iraq USING WMDs as alibi?  Because we knew damn well that Iraq's WMDs were already destroyed by all the bombings we had on that country.  Let's see if we will use WMDs justification on Iran or North Korea to attack them.  The world knows they have them.  I don't see us attacking them!

 

 

Speculation...?

[S720]

And any UN report supporting anything has to be weighed by the fact that they were desparately trying to hide the oil for food fiasco.

 

I don't believe any of it.  I think no matter what documents you quote, refer to, say is the gosphel, is somehow politically manipulated.  What motives did Saddam have to destroy that stuff?  None.  Absolutely none.

 

I think some of it did get destroyed when Clinton lobbed a few missles Iraq's way.  I think some of it did get destroyed by our no-fly zone missions and subsequent attacks.  I think some of it naturally degraded into a harmless state.  I think some of it did get buried in the desert sand and we haven't found it.  And last, I do think some of it got moved to Syria.

 

No one KNOWS what happened to it but Saddam and his two dead sons, and they ain't talking anymore.  To reempahsize, ANYONE could have made s*** up to protect the UN and make it look like things were "working"...

 

And you are making s*** UP to protect the president's reason to go to war!

[kapkomet]

And you are making s*** UP to protect the president's reason to go to war!

What's your point? I've never once said that I was protecting 'the president's reason to go to war', you've SPECULATED that was what I was doing.

 

You could be making s*** UP that defends the UN. What's the difference?

[S720]

What's your point?  I've never once said that I was protecting 'the president's reason to go to war', you've SPECULATED that was what I was doing. 

 

You could be making s*** UP that defends the UN.  What's the difference?

 

I am not making things up to protect the UN. I don't give a s*** about the UN. All I'm saying is the US knew damn well that Iraq did not possess the amount of WMDs as Bush and Cheney stated for their reason to go to war. The world knows that North Korea and Iran have WMDs and even nuclear capability. Why don't we go and attack them?

 

As Colin Powell stated, "You better make sure that you really want to attack Iraq. Once you break it, you own it!" And that's exactly what the situation in Iraq is. Other countries would gradually and eventually leave Iraq. Our poor soldiers will once again be there to protect WHAT???

 

Kapkomet, do you know about a letter that was sent to President Clinton back in 1996 in regard to attacking Iraq even back then? Do you know whose signatures on that letter?

[kapkomet]

I am not making things up to protect the UN.  I don't give a s*** about the UN.  All I'm saying is the US knew damn well that Iraq did not possess the amount of WMDs as Bush and Cheney stated for their reason to go to war.  The world knows that North Korea and Iran have WMDs and even nuclear capability.  Why don't we go and attack them? 

 

As Colin Powell stated, "You better make sure that you really want to attack Iraq.  Once you break it, you own it!"  And that's exactly what the situation in Iraq is.  Other countries would gradually and eventually leave Iraq.  Our poor soldiers will once again be there to protect WHAT???

 

Kapkomet, do you know about a letter that was sent to President Clinton back in 1996 in regard to attacking Iraq even back then?  Do you know whose signatures on that letter?

Look, it's no secret that BushCo (thanks Flaxx) had a hard on for Iraq since the "job" didn't get finished in 1991. At the same time, though, my point is that there WERE weapons there - and to say that UNSCOM destroyed them all is lacking in thought at best to downright ignorant. That's all I'm saying. It's like Saddam became righteous, etc. and that is simply not true. That's the only reason I'm even debating this is because it's not as black and white as some folks would make it out to be.

[Controlled Chaos]

FACT - You people know absolutely nothing regarding Saddam's WMD's.

 

I don't know if he hid them or moved them and you don't know if he turned them all in and decided to be a nice boy. Nobody here knows any FACTS. Saddam didn't want us to know facts.

 

Instead of saying one guy is full of s*** and speculating, while you in turn do your own specualting....just debate your opinions. You don't have anything concrete over anybody else.

[Balta1701]

Look, it's no secret that BushCo (thanks Flaxx) had a hard on for Iraq since the "job" didn't get finished in 1991.  At the same time, though, my point is that there WERE weapons there - and to say that UNSCOM destroyed them all is lacking in thought at best to downright ignorant.  That's all I'm saying.  It's like Saddam became righteous, etc. and that is simply not true.  That's the only reason I'm even debating this is because it's not as black and white as some folks would make it out to be.

No one was suggesting that Saddam had suddenly become Righteous. Rather, that's why had Saddam not complied with the U.N.'s 2002 demand to allow inspectors back in with totally unfettered access, the war would probably have been justified. However, once the inspections regime resumed...and verified that Saddam was not only WMD disarmed but that there was 4 years worth of dust on all of the machines it would have taken for him to restart those programs, the fact that there were no WMD was painfully obvious to anyone willing to listen.

 

I wouldn't have just magically trusted Saddam to not develop them on his own, just like you wouldn't. Which is why the UNMOVIC team needed to be in there to verify they weren't rebuilding any or using that equipment. But it is in no way ignorant to claim that when UNSCOM accounted for over 95% of what was built, and 2 separate teams since then have verified that Iraq was WMD disarmed through UNSCOM and Operation Rommel in '98, Iraq was actually WMD disarmed at the time of the invasion.

[Steff]

FACT -  You people know absolutely nothing regarding Saddam's WMD's.

 

I don't know if he hid them or moved them and you don't know if he turned them all in and decided to be a nice boy.  Nobody here knows any FACTS.  Saddam didn't want us to know facts. 

 

Instead of saying one guy is full of s*** and speculating, while you in turn do your own specualting....just debate your opinions.  You don't have anything concrete over anybody else.

 

 

Word...

[FlaSoxxJim]

Kapkomet, do you know about a letter that was sent to President Clinton back in 1996 in regard to attacking Iraq even back then?  Do you know whose signatures on that letter?

 

I believe I do. But unless there are two very similar letters I think the one you are referring to – and certainly the one that spelled the PNAC agenda out – was in 1998 and not 1996. That letter was sent in January and urged Clinton to use his upcoming SOTU address to state that regime change in Iraq was now the primary focus of US foriegn policy. The signatories and would-be "Pax Americana" architects (Perle, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Kristol, Bolton, Bennnet etc.) promised their full support of use of military force.

 

Four years before 9-11 and three years Before GWB's first day in office, the PNAC powerbrokers had pretty much already committed us to another Iraq war, scheduled to occur as soon as a malleable enough administration took office.

[kapkomet]

FACT -  You people know absolutely nothing regarding Saddam's WMD's.

 

I don't know if he hid them or moved them and you don't know if he turned them all in and decided to be a nice boy.  Nobody here knows any FACTS.  Saddam didn't want us to know facts. 

 

Instead of saying one guy is full of s*** and speculating, while you in turn do your own specualting....just debate your opinions.  You don't have anything concrete over anybody else.

You said it better then I could have.

[WCSox]

What motives did Saddam have to destroy that stuff?  None.  Absolutely none.

 

That's pretty much the way I see it. If Saddam was going to blatantly stone-wall UN weapons inspectors and risk military retaliation, there's no way in hell he was going to hand over WMDs to the UN. WMDs gave him power and leverage in the Middle East. And given that everyone pretty much knew that we were going to overthrow him back in 2002, Saddam would've had ample time to move them to a friendly nation. After the first Gulf War, he knew that he couldn't stand up to the US. So, if invasion was inevitable, why not ship off the weapons and make Bush look like an ass?

[Cknolls]

Um from 1991 to 1998, UNSCOM did the disarming. And their 1998 assessment says that Iraq was 90-95% disarmed.

 

 

Nans Blix for President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rex Kickass]

Hans Blix had nothing to do with UNSCOM in 1998.

[Rex Kickass]

That's pretty much the way I see it.  If Saddam was going to blatantly stone-wall UN weapons inspectors and risk military retaliation, there's no way in hell he was going to hand over WMDs to the UN.  WMDs gave him power and leverage in the Middle East.  And given that everyone pretty much knew that we were going to overthrow him back in 2002, Saddam would've had ample time to move them to a friendly nation.  After the first Gulf War, he knew that he couldn't stand up to the US.  So, if invasion was inevitable, why not ship off the weapons and make Bush look like an ass?

 

It's also just possible that Saddam Hussein was poor at brinkmanship games. Perhaps Hussein thought that the appearance of having WMD during this period of containment was a method of defense against other aggressive countries in the region, as well as a Kurdish regime that wanted independence, a hostile Shia population in the South and a United States that he hope would think twice before toppling him with WMD as a consideration.

 

The U.S. was never really fooled about Hussein's military capacity I don't think. Although public language may have been different, the regime that they had placed on Iraq following the 1991 war seemed to stay relatively constant and successful.

[WCSox]

It's also just possible that Saddam Hussein was poor at brinkmanship games. Perhaps Hussein thought that the appearance of having WMD during this period of containment was a method of defense against other aggressive countries in the region, as well as a Kurdish regime that wanted independence, a hostile Shia population in the South,  and a United States that he hope would think twice before toppling him with WMD as a consideration.

 

Would that be the same Kurdish region that he gassed in the late '80s and the same Shia population that he'd been terrorizing throughout his tenure? :rolly I agree with your main point, but let's be honest about who the "hostile" person is here.

 

The U.S. was never really fooled about Hussein's military capacity I don't think. Although public language may have been different, the regime that they had placed on Iraq following the 1991 war seemed to stay relatively constant and successful.

 

Saddam possessed chemical and biological weapons back in the '80s and also had a nuclear program going before the Israeli air force took it out. And he launched two unprovoked attacks on neighboring countries. And he committed horrific human rights violations against his own people. Even if his military capability was subdued in '91, he was still a threat to the region.

[Rex Kickass]

Would that be the same Kurdish region that he gassed in the late '80s and the same Shia population that he'd been terrorizing throughout his tenure?  :rolly  I agree with your main point, but let's be honest about who the "hostile" person is here.

 

I'm looking at this, or at least trying to, from what his point of view would be. The Kurds were hostile to his power and almost help to dislodge him in late 1991. This doesn't make Saddam Hussein any less of a terrible person, but it does make the freedom fighters in Iraq hostile to Saddam Hussein by definition.

 

Saddam possessed chemical and biological weapons back in the '80s and also had a nuclear program going before the Israeli air force took it out.  And he launched two unprovoked attacks on neighboring countries.  And he committed horrific human rights violations against his own people.  Even if his military capability was subdued in '91, he was still a threat to the region.

 

How was he a threat to the region? He couldn't even get any military close to any border he had. He didn't control the north of Iraq, he didn't have the military to challenge Iran, he couldn't get his military anywhere near Saudi Arabia or Kuwait without facing bombing on a daily basis and he was friends with Syria. Exactly what part of the region did he pose a threat to again?

[WCSox]

I'm looking at this, or at least trying to, from what his point of view would be. The Kurds were hostile to his power and almost help to dislodge him in late 1991. This doesn't make Saddam Hussein any less of a terrible person, but it does make the freedom fighters in Iraq hostile to Saddam Hussein by definition.

 

Yes, after Saddam killed 5,000 Kurds with sarin and mustard gas three years earlier, they were hostile towards him. The nerve of those insurgents!

 

How was he a threat to the region? He couldn't even get any military close to any border he had. He didn't control the north of Iraq, he didn't have the military to challenge Iran, he couldn't get his military anywhere near Saudi Arabia or Kuwait without facing bombing on a daily basis and he was friends with Syria. Exactly what part of the region did he pose a threat to again?

 

Well, let's start right in Iraq, where Saddam's regime ruthlessly murdered tens of thousands of Kurds, Shiites, and pretty much anybody else that he didn't like. Do you think that those atrocities suddenly ceased after the Gulf War? In addition, Saddam still possessed the technology for (and perhaps a stockpile of) nerve agents and missiles that could easily reach Israel. Given that he went out of his way to act like he was hiding such warheads from UN weapons inspectors, one had to at least consider him a threat to the region. Hell, he opened fire on Israel unprovoked back in '91. What was to stop him from playing the Islamafascist/anti-Israel/anti-American card and doing it again to drum up support in the Arab world? He was already giving $10,000 "rewards" to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. It seems to me that an attack on Israel (or a terrorist attack financed by him) would be the next logical step.

 

I can understand why some people are not fans of the current war in Iraq, but taking out a guy like Saddam is justice long-overdue.

[S720]

Yes, after Saddam killed 5,000 Kurds with sarin and mustard gas three years earlier, they were hostile towards him.  The nerve of those insurgents!

 

And guess who urged the Kurds to overturn Saddam, and then when Saddam used those deadly sarin and mustard gas bombs on the Kurds, who turned their back and allowed Saddam to do it?

 

Another thing, if Saddam had those same sarin and mustard gas bombs as well as others, why did not he use them when he was cornered? If your enemy are coming to kill you, and if you possess those WMDs, isn't it naturally for you to protect yourself.

 

NOBODY on this board tolerates Saddam. After the first Gulf War, Iraq's power has already dwindled to nothing. It's just the misleading justification the Bush administration has used to go to war. And this war has cost us tremendously.

[southsideirish71]

And guess who urged the Kurds to overturn Saddam, and then when Saddam used those deadly sarin and mustard gas bombs on the Kurds, who turned their back and allowed Saddam to do it? 

 

Another thing, if Saddam had those same sarin and mustard gas bombs as well as others, why did not he use them when he was cornered?  If your enemy are coming to kill you, and if you possess those WMDs, isn't it naturally for you to protect yourself.

 

NOBODY on this board tolerates Saddam.  After the first Gulf War, Iraq's power has already dwindled to nothing.  It's just the misleading justification the Bush administration has used to go to war.  And this war has cost us tremendously.

 

 

Well maybe because if he used weapons of mass destruction against our troops that we would of made Bagdad glow in the dark for the next 1000 years. Remember Saddam is a coward, and thought he would get away some how with this.

[Rex Kickass]

Yes, after Saddam killed 5,000 Kurds with sarin and mustard gas three years earlier, they were hostile towards him.  The nerve of those insurgents!

Well, let's start right in Iraq, where Saddam's regime ruthlessly murdered tens of thousands of Kurds, Shiites, and pretty much anybody else that he didn't like.  Do you think that those atrocities suddenly ceased after the Gulf War?  In addition, Saddam still possessed the technology for (and perhaps a stockpile of) nerve agents and missiles that could easily reach Israel.  Given that he went out of his way to act like he was hiding such warheads from UN weapons inspectors, one had to at least consider him a threat to the region.  Hell, he opened fire on Israel unprovoked back in '91.  What was to stop him from playing the Islamafascist/anti-Israel/anti-American card and doing it again to drum up support in the Arab world?  He was already giving $10,000 "rewards" to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.  It seems to me that an attack on Israel (or a terrorist attack financed by him) would be the next logical step.

 

I can understand why some people are not fans of the current war in Iraq, but taking out a guy like Saddam is justice long-overdue.

 

All I'm saying is that there are legitimate explanations to why Saddam Hussein might have wanted to create the appearance of having WMD.

 

And by the way, sending money to Palestinian families does not constitute a serious threat to Israel. And repressing his own people does not qualify as an act of aggression against another state. You said he was a threat to the region. And unless "the region" means ground entirely within the state of Iraq, he was not a threat to the region after 1991. His removal, in all actuality is doing more to destabilize the region than stabilize it.

[YASNY]

You speculate this. I'll speculate that. You speculate a response, then I'll do likewise.

 

People. Nobody here KNOWS a damn thing about what was or was not there and what our, and others, intellingence reports were saying. Saddam was a brutal dictator that was playing hardball with UN inspections and he was shooting at US planes assigned to enforce UN sanctions. He was giving the impression that he had WMD's. These things are facts. All this speculation is meaningless and petty.

[Texsox]

There's been a lot of speculation since before we went in that they moved the stuff to Syria.  But that can't be true, because Bush has to pay for the WMD's not being there like the liberals knew all along.

 

Damn those liberals for disagreeing. Thank God that conservative STFU when a Democrat was in the White House. No criticism there

 

BTW over 2,000 Americans dead >>>>>>> a b.j. to express concern and protest about.

 

And remember after they didn't find any, the official WH spin is a regime change was necessary to protect the Iraqi people. WMD was not the primary reason. It is tough to keep up with party spin.

 

I don't have an answer to this but, how many American lives and money to we invest to save a life of a foreign national? Have 10 soldiers die to save one? Do we go trillions in debt, possibly bankrupting this country, to save another? What is the limit to our generosity?