WMD found in Iraq...

[tigerfan1234 0]

Why does everything always have to be about Republicans and Democrats on here? I could give a s**t what party anyone is for, all politicians are the same. We are fighting the wrong war. The right war is in Afghanistan to root out the Taliban and find Al Queda, but our troops are far outnumbered by the freakin' NATO troops there. Meanwhile Bin Laden is still giving blessings and we have 1000 times more enemies than we did before invading Iraq. So if you think we are fighting the right war, give your reasons? If we are doing such a great job, why are Bin Laden and his top people still alive? Why do we have countless more terrorists than before? Why is there a new Al Queda in somewhere springing up just about everyday? We already took out Hussein and his sons and replaced them with a democracy so why is Iraq more unstable than it was when he was in power? This was supposed to be the great moment in world history, America sweeps in and converts the middle east to a democratic society and everyone lives happily ever after. If we are fighting the right war, why does the majority of the American public and a much larger percentage of the world public find what we are doing is wrong and only intensifying the situation? When it comes to political loyaties, I am apolitical so don't group me in as a democrat or bleeding heart liberal, actually I don't care what anyone thinks I am, but this war is wrong and ultra-conservatives need to get their heads out of their a***s and see what is really going on. We are stuck in a quagmire much more volatile than Vietnam ever was and the only thing I hear Republicans who back Bush say are we must stay the course. Well, what the hell is the course?!? That's right we don't have a plan and never really did. So now everyone knows it and the only thing Republicans who back Bush say are we must stay the course because they don't want to admit that this whole deal is one big cluster-****. This war was announced as shock-and-awe, the first reality t.v. war. Shock-and-awe. How sick is that? Oh wow mommy, I can't wait to get home tonight for the first episode of shock-and-awe. We'll make it a family affair. We are on like episode 200 and shock-and-awe isn't so awesome anymore.

[Tiger Al 0]

I could gove $hit less how the war is seen as long as the terrorists are fighting there and not here. If we had not gone and there were more terrorists attacks on our soil, you would be the ones second guessing that. If we had done this to Hitler, the world could be saying the same thing about that war still today. Right war, right time, and once again the US has to have the balls to step in before another world war takes place. We shoulder 90% of the worlds burdens anyway. What's the difference? I'm thinking a few more of you needed to be closer to those terrorist attacks. Some see the writing on the wall and actually read it. For others its in different language. When told what it says, they don't believe. UNTIL THE BOMB DROPS ON THEIR OWN A$$.

Weak, weak, cushy little Americans. Ever since Viet Nam, the worlds insurgents have figured out how to beat us...by joining you....And now you are the party that has voted one in. God help us. Or rather in dim's new terms...Allah help us......

You always "prove" your point by trying to paint this as an either/or proposition, as if there are two, and only two, choices. Choice one being to fight terrorists in Iraq and choice two being to fight them in the US. What was wrong with fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan? We were there and our being there carried the full support of the world.

[channonc 466]

I could gove $hit less how the war is seen as long as the terrorists are fighting there and not here. If we had not gone and there were more terrorists attacks on our soil, you would be the ones second guessing that. If we had done this to Hitler, the world could be saying the same thing about that war still today. Right war, right time, and once again the US has to have the balls to step in before another world war takes place. We shoulder 90% of the worlds burdens anyway. What's the difference? I'm thinking a few more of you needed to be closer to those terrorist attacks. Some see the writing on the wall and actually read it. For others its in different language. When told what it says, they don't believe. UNTIL THE BOMB DROPS ON THEIR OWN A$$.

Weak, weak, cushy little Americans. Ever since Viet Nam, the worlds insurgents have figured out how to beat us...by joining you....And now you are the party that has voted one in. God help us. Or rather in dim's new terms...Allah help us......

You always "prove" your point by trying to paint this as an either/or proposition, as if there are two, and only two, choices. Choice one being to fight terrorists in Iraq and choice two being to fight them in the US. What was wrong with fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan? We were there and our being there carried the full support of the world.

Its obvious he's bought into the Administration scare tactic-- if we aren't in Iraq, we will have another terrorist attack on US soil!!

[AURaptor 1,126]

Yes, I know about the 'Oil For Food' scandal. You can take steps to deal with that problem that don't involve diverting our attention from Afghanistan.

And in this case, it wasn't a matter of taking the gun from the maniac. It was taking away the plans to possibly build the gun if he ever got his hands on the hard to acquire raw materials.

Were we REALLY diverted from Afghanistan? We went in there a full year before Iraq. Troop #'s stayed about the same even after the Iraq war, so we didn't leave on theatre to go into another.

Possibly. But taking a more deliberate approach rather than the bullheaded one we chose might have resulted in us not shouldering the burden for 90% of the money and manpower.

You lose me on the semantics again. Bullheaded vs deliberate. Either way, a choice has to be made, and it was. We got what we were going to get, in the way of manpower, etc...

Then Donald Rumsfeld and everyone in the administration that parroted the line that it had "literally nothing to do with oil" are either naive, stupid, or liars. Take your pick.

That's your opinion.

You keep acting like this was some foregone conclusion that us poor saps are missing when we're just taking the administration at its own word. And point of fact...the deciding factor wasn't just "the threat" of WMDs. It was blatantly stated that they possessed significant quantities of WMDs with plans to acquire even more. The facts on the ground have yet to bear that assertion out.

Going back to Clinton's admin, it was well established that Saddam had WMD, and was refusing to abide by UN sanctions. I think he DID possess WMD, and much of it was shipped out of the country, or is buried in the sand. There doesn't need to be a warehouse full of this stuff to be a problem. A suitcase full of this stuff would be enough to take out a city. Try finding a suitcase in an area the size of California.

And this is where I get pissed because I'm sick and tired of being painted as someone who simply doing some "political jockeying" because I can't believe the bulls**t anymore. I supported the war initially. I believed the administration. Hook, line and sinker. But it is apparent to me now that someone in the administration...not saying Bush specifically (in fact, I tend to believe he was lied to as well)...knew better. Or should have. They knew the intel was sketchy as to the existence of these weapons...either that or their ideological blinders would not allow them to give proper consideration to other views. They should have known that the post-invasion situation would not be candy and roses but ethnic vendettas, radical Islamic terrorism and sabotage and rampant Arab hyper-nationalism and that it would be a completely mess unless you had the manpower to crush it early.

When your CIA director tells you it's a SLAM DUNK.... we've been over this a billion times. Bush knew what everyone else told him, that Iraq did have WMD. Every top Democrat said EXACTLY the same thing, before and after the 2000 election. THEY had as much intel as Bush, and then come out and try to tell us that Bush lied. That's HORSE$HIT . It's blatent political double talk. I can see how some folks might think... " this is become too hard, we're not gonna win this" . Fine, but don't ever try to tell us that we were mislead or that it was all a wild goose chase. That's simply not true.

Blame Bush et al for not managing the post war better. That's fair game. There's only so long we, the American people, will buy 'stay the course' when we see our soldiers dying each day. Even if the media is actively refusing to show the positive signs coming out of Iraq, the President is responsible for keeping us informed. Bush failed to make the case for why we're there, failed to sell us the war some 3 1/2 yrs after it started.

[CCTAU 3,349]

I could gove $hit less how the war is seen as long as the terrorists are fighting there and not here. If we had not gone and there were more terrorists attacks on our soil, you would be the ones second guessing that. If we had done this to Hitler, the world could be saying the same thing about that war still today. Right war, right time, and once again the US has to have the balls to step in before another world war takes place. We shoulder 90% of the worlds burdens anyway. What's the difference? I'm thinking a few more of you needed to be closer to those terrorist attacks. Some see the writing on the wall and actually read it. For others its in different language. When told what it says, they don't believe. UNTIL THE BOMB DROPS ON THEIR OWN A$$.

Weak, weak, cushy little Americans. Ever since Viet Nam, the worlds insurgents have figured out how to beat us...by joining you....And now you are the party that has voted one in. God help us. Or rather in dim's new terms...Allah help us......

You always "prove" your point by trying to paint this as an either/or proposition, as if there are two, and only two, choices. Choice one being to fight terrorists in Iraq and choice two being to fight them in the US. What was wrong with fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan? We were there and our being there carried the full support of the world.

Its obvious he's bought into the Administration scare tactic-- if we aren't in Iraq, we will have another terrorist attack on US soil!!

I propose you and yours sign up as the first to get bombed. Your kind is always willing to take chances with others safety. I prefer 0 chance, you prefer to gamble. Has nothing to do with "scare tactics". Has everything to do with accepting that you are and always will be a victim and living your life that way. I refuse to accept that. You are the type that will try to negotiate with the guy that breaks down your front door. I, and those like me, are the kind to shoot them ASAP. Gotta stop it before it gets a chance. A DEAD TERRORIST IS A GOOD TERRORIST. I will always advocate taking the fight to them instead of letting it come to us. You and our dim buddies time and again propose the latter. UNACCEPTABLE.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

I could gove $hit less how the war is seen as long as the terrorists are fighting there and not here. If we had not gone and there were more terrorists attacks on our soil, you would be the ones second guessing that. If we had done this to Hitler, the world could be saying the same thing about that war still today. Right war, right time, and once again the US has to have the balls to step in before another world war takes place. We shoulder 90% of the worlds burdens anyway. What's the difference? I'm thinking a few more of you needed to be closer to those terrorist attacks. Some see the writing on the wall and actually read it. For others its in different language. When told what it says, they don't believe. UNTIL THE BOMB DROPS ON THEIR OWN A$$.

Weak, weak, cushy little Americans. Ever since Viet Nam, the worlds insurgents have figured out how to beat us...by joining you....And now you are the party that has voted one in. God help us. Or rather in dim's new terms...Allah help us......

You always "prove" your point by trying to paint this as an either/or proposition, as if there are two, and only two, choices. Choice one being to fight terrorists in Iraq and choice two being to fight them in the US. What was wrong with fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan? We were there and our being there carried the full support of the world.

Its obvious he's bought into the Administration scare tactic-- if we aren't in Iraq, we will have another terrorist attack on US soil!!

I propose you and yours sign up as the first to get bombed. Your kind is always willing to take chances with others safety. I prefer 0 chance, you prefer to gamble. Has nothing to do with "scare tactics". Has everything to do with accepting that you are and always will be a victim and living your life that way. I refuse to accept that. You are the type that will try to negotiate with the guy that breaks down your front door. I, and those like me, are the kind to shoot them ASAP. Gotta stop it before it gets a chance. A DEAD TERRORIST IS A GOOD TERRORIST. I will always advocate taking the fight to them instead of letting it come to us. You and our dim buddies time and again propose the latter. UNACCEPTABLE.

I shoot the guy that breaks down my door. You go to the next town, bomb the house of someone you don't know, kill his family and then when he's mad at you and wants to kill you, you convince yourself that you've taken preemptive action.

[Tiger Al 0]

I could gove $hit less how the war is seen as long as the terrorists are fighting there and not here. If we had not gone and there were more terrorists attacks on our soil, you would be the ones second guessing that. If we had done this to Hitler, the world could be saying the same thing about that war still today. Right war, right time, and once again the US has to have the balls to step in before another world war takes place. We shoulder 90% of the worlds burdens anyway. What's the difference? I'm thinking a few more of you needed to be closer to those terrorist attacks. Some see the writing on the wall and actually read it. For others its in different language. When told what it says, they don't believe. UNTIL THE BOMB DROPS ON THEIR OWN A$$.

Weak, weak, cushy little Americans. Ever since Viet Nam, the worlds insurgents have figured out how to beat us...by joining you....And now you are the party that has voted one in. God help us. Or rather in dim's new terms...Allah help us......

You always "prove" your point by trying to paint this as an either/or proposition, as if there are two, and only two, choices. Choice one being to fight terrorists in Iraq and choice two being to fight them in the US. What was wrong with fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan? We were there and our being there carried the full support of the world.

Its obvious he's bought into the Administration scare tactic-- if we aren't in Iraq, we will have another terrorist attack on US soil!!

I propose you and yours sign up as the first to get bombed. Your kind is always willing to take chances with others safety. I prefer 0 chance, you prefer to gamble. Has nothing to do with "scare tactics". Has everything to do with accepting that you are and always will be a victim and living your life that way. I refuse to accept that. You are the type that will try to negotiate with the guy that breaks down your front door. I, and those like me, are the kind to shoot them ASAP. Gotta stop it before it gets a chance. A DEAD TERRORIST IS A GOOD TERRORIST. I will always advocate taking the fight to them instead of letting it come to us. You and our dim buddies time and again propose the latter. UNACCEPTABLE.

There you go again! We were taking the fight to them in Afghanistan, weren't we? You're constructing strawmen.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Were we REALLY diverted from Afghanistan? We went in there a full year before Iraq. Troop #'s stayed about the same even after the Iraq war, so we didn't leave on theatre to go into another.

I didn't say we diverted troops, we diverted our attention. While we've been stuck in Iraq chasing phantom WMDs and dodging IEDs, Afghanistan has fallen largely back into the hands of the Taliban. We don't have enough troops there to do the job properly. We could have made Afghanistan the shining beacon of freedom and democracy in the Middle East if we wouldn't have been pouring so much manpower, time, money and attention into Iraq. Karzai's government is largely ineffective outside of Kabul and a couple of other places where US troops are able to be. This was a wasted opportunity.

You lose me on the semantics again. Bullheaded vs deliberate. Either way, a choice has to be made, and it was. We got what we were going to get, in the way of manpower, etc...

Semantics? You don't understand the difference between deliberate and bullheaded? "Deliberate" means that you don't act hastily, you plan throughly, you go through specific steps and work to make sure you're thinking of all the eventualities. A more deliberate approach may have taken longer, but it could have resulted in more consensus and thus less of a burden on the US. We didn't have to go in and take on the vast, vast majority of the costs (both monetary and human) in this conflict.

Then Donald Rumsfeld and everyone in the administration that parroted the line that it had "literally nothing to do with oil" are either naive, stupid, or liars. Take your pick.

That's your opinion.

No, Raptor, it's not "opinion", it's logic. Let me break it down for you:

• You say that oil was always part of the reasoning to go to war with Iraq and to think otherwise is naive.

• The administration insists on multiple occasions, despite accusations from some leftist groups, that the war has "literally nothing to do with oil."

If both of the above points are true (and we know they are since the first point came directly from you on this board and the second came directly from the Secretary of Defense), there are only three possible conclusions:

1. The administration itself believed it wasn't about oil, so according to you they are naive.

2. The administration didn't realize it was about oil, when according to you it actually was, so they are stupid.

3. The administration knew it was about oil, told the American people it wasn't about oil, and are therefore liars.

No opinion there. Just the facts.

Going back to Clinton's admin, it was well established that Saddam had WMD, and was refusing to abide by UN sanctions. I think he DID possess WMD, and much of it was shipped out of the country, or is buried in the sand. There doesn't need to be a warehouse full of this stuff to be a problem. A suitcase full of this stuff would be enough to take out a city. ry finding a suitcase in an area the size of California.

You think, I thought, but the facts haven't borne that out. The inspections prior to us going in didn't bear that out. We weren't told they had a suitcase of stuff, we were told of large quantities of several things. There were pictures and reams of "proof" that turned out to be vapor. How many countries that we have reasonable suspicion of having a suitcase full of chemical or biological weapons are we going to send 100,000 troops to? It's like breaking out a sledgehammer to kill a cockroach. Only you put 87 holes in your floor and the walls and the cockroach was never confirmed to have actually existed.

When your CIA director tells you it's a SLAM DUNK.... we've been over this a billion times. Bush knew what everyone else told him, that Iraq did have WMD. Every top Democrat said EXACTLY the same thing, before and after the 2000 election. THEY had as much intel as Bush, and then come out and try to tell us that Bush lied. That's HORSE$HIT . It's blatent political double talk. I can see how some folks might think... " this is become too hard, we're not gonna win this" . Fine, but don't ever try to tell us that we were mislead or that it was all a wild goose chase. That's simply not true.

There have been numerous reports come out since then that demonstrated the administration had good reason to suspect that key elements of the intelligence were on shaky ground. They chose to discount or ignore them. Why? Only Bush and the other key decision makers know for sure. I could speculate but that would be pointless. In the end, we knew enough to have held off longer, let the inspections continue, gather more and better intel and possibly get world opinion more on our side so that if war did happen, it wouldn't essentially all be on us. And we could have taken better care of business in Afghanistan.

Blame Bush et al for not managing the post war better. That's fair game. There's only so long we, the American people, will buy 'stay the course' when we see our soldiers dying each day. Even if the media is actively refusing to show the positive signs coming out of Iraq, the President is responsible for keeping us informed. Bush failed to make the case for why we're there, failed to sell us the war some 3 1/2 yrs after it started.

I don't doubt that many good things have come out of a bad choice. There are multiple layers to any large scale situation like this and people have a way of making the best out of the circumstances they are handed. But I'm not an end justifying the means kind of guy. So, I'm critical of Bush not only for managing the war terribly, but for the choice to go in the way we did when we did to begin with. I'm critical that we didn't devote more attention and manpower to really take care of business in Afghanistan. I'm critical that the same attention diversion may have cost us our best chances at capturing Bin Laden early on. I could go on for a while. I just think the Iraq war was a huge screw up on the part of the administration.

[AURaptor 1,126]

TitanTiger

We saw what sanctions DIDN'T do for the situation in Iraq. 10+ years of diplomacy and UN involment yielded absolutely nothing. All along, with the U.N. and the cease fire agreement, the threat of using miiltary force was always present, should Iraq fail to play along and give up their WMDs. How long would you allow for this to go on? Add to the equation that the U.N. members were subverting their own sanctions, making the peaceful option all the more useless.

So, if diplomancy was failing, and the UN was essentially not doing its job, where else does that leave us if Iraq refuses to play ball? Then we have 9/11. The rules change. Complacency is no longer an option. And remember, Iraqi children and the elderly are suffering from these sanctions which are imposed to get Saddam to comply. Under the table dealings are going on which could keep Saddam in power indefinatly, while the rest of Iraq pays the price. Meanwhile, we have humanitarian groups accusing the U.S.A of being behind the suffering in Iraq, when we're the only ones involved doing the RIGHT thing.

You tell me what other course of action gets the job done, if it's not going to war to force Iraq to comply and remove Saddam. ( Which actually was US policy , under Clinton. )

[Tiger Al 0]

TitanTiger

We saw what sanctions DIDN'T do for the situation in Iraq. 10+ years of diplomacy and UN involment yielded absolutely nothing. All along, with the U.N. and the cease fire agreement, the threat of using miiltary force was always present, should Iraq fail to play along and give up their WMDs. How long would you allow for this to go on? Add to the equation that the U.N. members were subverting their own sanctions, making the peaceful option all the more useless.

So, if diplomancy was failing, and the UN was essentially not doing its job, where else does that leave us if Iraq refuses to play ball? Then we have 9/11. The rules change. Complacency is no longer an option. And remember, Iraqi children and the elderly are suffering from these sanctions which are imposed to get Saddam to comply. Under the table dealings are going on which could keep Saddam in power indefinatly, while the rest of Iraq pays the price. Meanwhile, we have humanitarian groups accusing the U.S.A of being behind the suffering in Iraq, when we're the only ones involved doing the RIGHT thing.

You tell me what other course of action gets the job done, if it's not going to war to force Iraq to comply and remove Saddam. ( Which actually was US policy , under Clinton. )

You keep regurgitating the line that UN sanctions and resolutions weren't working as if it's a foregone conclusion. The fact that UNMOVIC used the same intel that Colin Powell presented to the UN and found nothing coupled with the fact that Saddam never used WMD during the invasion proves that sanctions/resolutions did indeed work. Whatever was said by ANYONE before UNMOVIC went in between 12/02 and 3/03 was speculation based on intel from 1991 and 1997. Hans Blix provided the freshest intel and it was ignored and squelched. The bottom line is that Iraq had been disarmed, contrary to the administrations assertions, and we knew this before we attacked.

I didn't say we diverted troops, we diverted our attention.

We actually DID send troops from Afghanistan to Iraq along with surveillance equipment.

In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.

The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it took specialists away from the Afghanistan effort to ensure Iraq was covered.

Those were just two of the tradeoffs required because of what the Pentagon and CIA acknowledge is a shortage of key personnel to fight the war on terrorism. The question of how much those shifts prevented progress against al-Qaeda and other terrorists is putting the Bush administration on the defensive.

Even before the invasion, the wisdom of shifting resources from the bin Laden hunt to the war in Iraq was raised privately by top military officials and publicly by Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and others. Now it's being hotly debated again following an election-year critique of the Bush administration by its former counterterrorism adviser, Richard Clarke.

"If we catch him (bin Laden) this summer, which I expect, it's two years too late," Clarke said Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press. "Because during those two years when forces were diverted to Iraq ... al-Qaeda has metamorphosized into a hydra-headed organization with cells that are operating autonomously, like the cells that operated in Madrid recently."

The Bush administration says the hunt for bin Laden continued throughout the war in Iraq. Officials say it's wrong to speculate that he would have been captured, or other terrorist attacks prevented, if the Iraq war hadn't happened. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, speaking on ABC's This Week, called the example of the Special Forces switch "simplistic."

But the Pentagon tacitly acknowledged a problem last year, after the Iraq invasion. It created a new organization, Task Force 121, to better oversee commando operations in the region and ensure a faster response when terrorists can be struck.

Now gaps in capability are being closed as the administration puts record amounts of money into military and spy agencies. More spy aircraft such as the Predator drone are arriving. More troops are getting Arabic training at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. CIA Director George Tenet said this month that the agency is filling shortfalls, especially among translators.

Still, the question lingers: Did opening a second front hurt the main effort to defeat terrorism?

Bob Andrews, former head of a Pentagon office that oversaw special operations, says that removing Saddam Hussein was a good idea but "a distraction." The war in Iraq, Andrews notes, entailed the largest deployment of special operations forces — about 10,000 —since the Vietnam War. That's about 25% of all U.S. commandos.

It also siphoned spy aircraft and light infantry soldiers. Iraq proved such a drain, one former Pentagon official notes, that there were no AWACS radar jets to track drug-trafficking aircraft in South America.

Saddam was not an immediate threat. "This has been a real diversion from the longer struggle against jihadists," especially in the intelligence field, he says.

Stan Florer, a retired Army colonel and former Green Beret, agrees that Iraq diverted enormous military and intelligence assets. But he argues that long-standing disputes with Saddam needed to be addressed: "This was tearing at us all the time. It was a bleeding wound with Saddam calling the shots in the Middle East."

LINK

[CCTAU 3,349]

I shoot the guy that breaks down my door. You go to the next town, bomb the house of someone you don't know, kill his family and then when he's mad at you and wants to kill you, you convince yourself that you've taken preemptive action.

If I have evidence that he is a danger and planning to do harm to my family, yes. We did not show up in Iraq unanounced. We gave Sadaam every opportunity to show that he was complying. And he kept up the curtain of mystery. He relied on his food for oil connections to save him. But guess what? The UN does not control our republican government. But we may see how they will control you dims. This will be one of our biggest challenges. Had the UN stepped up to the plate and did their job, we would not have had to do it ourselves. The inspectors said they cdould not find WMDs but also said that they were not given access to all the areas they needed. So its a 50/50 guess as to whether or not the places they could not go actually had WMDs. They guessed right, we guessed wrong. Better to know now than to be waiting in fear for the use of these chemical warfare weapons hidden underground awaiting the chance to be placed on top of the missles found to be equipped with chemical warfare delivery systems. But from the dim standpoint, we should do nothing until more people die. Probably just a few of those pesky jews.

[Tiger Al 0]

I shoot the guy that breaks down my door. You go to the next town, bomb the house of someone you don't know, kill his family and then when he's mad at you and wants to kill you, you convince yourself that you've taken preemptive action.

If I have evidence that he is a danger and planning to do harm to my family, yes. We did not show up in Iraq unanounced. We gave Sadaam every opportunity to show that he was complying. And he kept up the curtain of mystery. He relied on his food for oil connections to save him. But guess what? The UN does not control our republican government. But we may see how they will control you dims. This will be one of our biggest challenges. Had the UN stepped up to the plate and did their job, we would not have had to do it ourselves. The inspectors said they cdould not find WMDs but also said that they were not given access to all the areas they needed. So its a 50/50 guess as to whether or not the places they could not go actually had WMDs. They guessed right, we guessed wrong. Better to know now than to be waiting in fear for the use of these chemical warfare weapons hidden underground awaiting the chance to be placed on top of the missles found to be equipped with chemical warfare delivery systems. But from the dim standpoint, we should do nothing until more people die. Probably just a few of those pesky jews.

You can say it till you're blue in the face, but, the UN did do its job. Hans Blix said that UNMOVIC was given unfettered access. Your assertion to the contrary is just not accurate.

Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.

LINK

[AURaptor 1,126]

You keep regurgitating the line that UN sanctions and resolutions weren't working as if it's a foregone conclusion.

They weren't

The fact that UNMOVIC used the same intel that Colin Powell presented to the UN and found nothing coupled with the fact that Saddam never used WMD during the invasion proves that sanctions/resolutions did indeed work.

No, Saddam not using them proves no such thing. It proves he either had already moved them out of country, or was too chicken sh*t to use them.

Whatever was said by ANYONE before UNMOVIC went in between 12/02 and 3/03 was speculation based on intel from 1991 and 1997. Hans Blix provided the freshest intel and it was ignored and squelched. The bottom line is that Iraq had been disarmed, contrary to the administrations assertions, and we knew this before we attacked.

Wrong. First of all, it wasn't up to Hans Blix to prove Iraq was WMD free. That burden of proof layed on IRAQ. Second, we've found plenty of WMD materials which clearly indicate Saddam still had goods he wasn't telling the UN. That's a violation. And that's just the stuff we've found.

Then there was the ugly matter of all those mass graves. Granted, they didn't fall directly under the UN order about WMD, but so f*cking what? We bombed Bosnia for far less. What's sad is that you've really bought into the Michael Moore lie, that Iraq was a peaceful, happy place where children flew kites in the parks.

Gawd, you're such a gullible tool .

[Bottomfeeder 244]

You keep regurgitating the line that UN sanctions and resolutions weren't working as if it's a foregone conclusion.

They weren't

The fact that UNMOVIC used the same intel that Colin Powell presented to the UN and found nothing coupled with the fact that Saddam never used WMD during the invasion proves that sanctions/resolutions did indeed work.

No, Saddam not using them proves no such thing. It proves he either had already moved them out of country, or was too chicken sh*t to use them.

Whatever was said by ANYONE before UNMOVIC went in between 12/02 and 3/03 was speculation based on intel from 1991 and 1997. Hans Blix provided the freshest intel and it was ignored and squelched. The bottom line is that Iraq had been disarmed, contrary to the administrations assertions, and we knew this before we attacked.

Wrong. First of all, it wasn't up to Hans Blix to prove Iraq was WMD free. That burden of proof layed on IRAQ. Second, we've found plenty of WMD materials which clearly indicate Saddam still had goods he wasn't telling the UN. That's a violation. And that's just the stuff we've found.

Then there was the ugly matter of all those mass graves. Granted, they didn't fall directly under the UN order about WMD, but so f*cking what? We bombed Bosnia for far less. What's sad is that you've really bought into the Michael Moore lie, that Iraq was a peaceful, happy place where children flew kites in the parks.

Gawd, you're such a gullible tool .

Annnddd???????????

[AURaptor 1,126]

Annnddd???????????

You're such a gullible tool pretty much sums it up.

You can choose your own opinions, but you can't choose your own facts.