You can't possibly believe there were WMD's in Iraq

[DrewKaree]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40777

Even the evidence that comes out daily flip flops!

So tomorrow, we'll hear from more "experts" who aren't biased   about how the U.S. will never find WMD's, because they just don't exist in Iraq....well, after 1998, that is  

Why don't we have "weather balloon filling trailers" like this story says?

[shmokes]

Christ, Drew.  I agree.  The weapons are there.  They just have to be.  It's that simple.  That's all there is to it.  Evidence be damned.  They're there.  My gut tells me so and so it is.  Yee Haw!!!!

[TA Pilot]

Where are the WMDs that UNSCOM said were there in 1998?

If there were no WMDs or WMD programs, then what did Clinton bomb the crap out of in december 1998?

If there are no WMDs or WMD programs, does this mean Kerry lied?

[patrickl]

Where are the WMDs that UNSCOM said were there in 1998?

Ehm, is it perhaps possible that they (or actually you) were wrong in 1998? Besides they (as a whole) never said there were WMD, but only some of them said they assumed there might be some WMD left. In fact there were also inspecters who said they assumed there were no WMD left.

Maybe you can remember they were kicked out back then because the CIA had basically taken over the whole operation and was more like spying on Iraq and unfortunately they were exposed. These people HAD to say there were WMD since otherwise they could spy no further.

[fredster]

Here's the reasons for Iraq as I see 'em.  It's a kinda broad vision, so I understand why it's hard for some people to comprehend.

It's very simple in concept, difficult to achieve in the real world- Stop terrorists from having the organized ability to strike at the US.  AKA the "war on terror"

State sponsored terrorism is where the Government of the country allows the formation of active militia to train within their borders.  The State sanctions the import / export of weaposn and provides a safe haven for these people to live and train without interference.

Bush's policy is to distrupt this type of government sanction and individual group activity.  If the government shields the terrorists, then the govenment is a terrorist.

First Bush looked at the organization that enabled the 9/11 terrorists to achieve their goals.  He found and killed most of the leaders, the other leaders are harder to find.  He has actively been seeking these terrorists all through the middle east and in some areas of Africa.  Further, the dictators that had the ablity to constitute weapons and with a history of terrorist acts (ie: Lybia, Iraq, Syria, and Iran) were put on notice that we would take action.

Used to empty threats and rethoric from democratic Presidents,  most disregarded Bush's warnings.  

So, faced with information that indicated Saddam still had weapons and Iraq could now be a safe haven for the remnants of the Taliban and Al-Queada, coupled with the long brutal history of the regieme, Bush made a call.  He brought his case to the UN and to the US congress.  Congress had access to the same information sources both public information and other clandistine information that still isn't released.  The evidence from the CIA and outside sources like Russia and the UK painted a picture of a country with even more capablity to provide WMD to the terrorists and strike a blow to the US and score points with the Middle East's Isamic Fundamentalists.  

Congress approved the measure, overwhelmingly. Including those who say now it was a "diversion".

The UN Security councel didn't get a chance to vote, and principal members indicated a sure veto.  So Bush had a decision to make.  Either sit back and wait for the threat to develop fully or take decisive action.

Bush took the historic move, and politically risky and bold move, to take out a manical dictator.  

After this war, Lybia gave up the weapons and weapon programs they had.  The Middle eastern countries are falling under a magnifying glass to see what other spiders are hiding in the sands there.

If we are fully successfull with Iraq, we can transform the heart of the Middle east back to  a peaceful and productive member of the world community.  Afgahnistan and Iraq will join with Turkey and Pakistan as a functioning center of culture and hopefully a powerful example of democracy and wealth.  

Being fully successfull will create new allies where we need them most, where the fundamentalists live and train.  The new culture can then remove the fundamentalist schools and a generation of Arabs can be raised in a country that promotes free exchange of ideas instead of suppression by either tyranical rule or fundamentalist dark age tactics and hate.

If successfull, the US will have transformed the Middle East like we have Europe and the communist block.

[patrickl]

I thought the question here was for WMDs "to be or not to be" in Iraq, but if you want to talk terorism, just remember terrorism comes from angry poor people and wars create angry poor people. Besides, the US will not be sucessful in the way you envision. So far the violence only seems to increase. It might perhaps have been sucesful if it would have been a truly alliedventure, but now the US has shown itself to be the bad guys again in the eyes of the middle eastern population (and to be honest probably all over the world outside of the US).

The only way to solve the problems in the middle east is to solve the Israeli conflict. Or perhaps to nuke the whole area into a "huge parkinglot" as american soldiers like to say.

[TA Pilot]

Ehm, is it perhaps possible that they (or actually you) were wrong in 1998? Besides they (as a whole) never said there were WMD, but only some of them said they assumed there might be some WMD left. In fact there were also inspecters who said they assumed there were no WMD left.

Incorrect.
UNSCOM had a list of known WMDs that had not yet been destoryed.  An actual inventory. Not just a list of "unaccounted for" items, but a list of shells, cannisters, bombs, etc.

[DrewKaree]

Or perhaps to nuke the whole area into a "huge parkinglot" as american soldiers like to say.

The term is "Glass Factory".

[DrewKaree]

That would explain jailing Manuel.

That also means that Red Foreman from "That 70's Show" is a terrorist, since he's always threatening to put his foot in Eric's ass....he's looking for a place to plant a bomb!

[DrewKaree]

So far, everyone seems willing to pin the blame for going to war in Iraq on Bush, as if he put on his cowboy hat, hitched up his chaps, and said "Let's mosey on in there boys and kick some @$$".  It's not conceivable that he did what Democrats asked, went to the U.N. and begged them, yet again, to do something about Sadaam Hussein.  

Why on EARTH would Bush want to do ANYTHING about Sadaam Hussein, since he posed no threat, since the War on Terror was specifically about Afghanistan, and since everyone "knew" that he didn't possess WMD's?  

Maybe he was listening to the people who, at the time, weren't wringing their hands like they are now.  Maybe he was listening to the people who wanted to talk and sound tough towards the War on Terror.  Maybe he was foolish to listen to those people, but you'd have to disagree with what was said by his opponents, both prior to his administration AND during his administration.  

The "I've always had one position" seems a bit trite after looking through the glasses of hindsight that Bush's opponents want to see him through, but always fail to acknowledge he wasn't alone in his opinion.

Let's take a looksee at what they had to say....sources are given, if you wish....and if you need more, don't worry, read all you want, I'll get more!

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
   - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
   - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
   - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
   - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source


"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
   - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
   - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
   - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
   - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
   - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
   - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
   - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
   - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
   - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
   - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
   - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
   - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
   - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

[TA Pilot]

Where are the weapons UNSCOM knew to be in Iraq in December 1998?

I never seem to get an answer to this question.

[DrewKaree]

Where are the weapons UNSCOM knew to be in Iraq in December 1998?

I never seem to get an answer to this question.

While I don't have an answer, only a guess, and I agree with your point, this probably will be pooh-poohed by the intellegensia here.

I believe two things happened to those weapons

1)  They were hidden, and the people who knew their whereabouts were killed in combat

2)  They were moved to a country friendly to Iraq, to be held until we moved out again, as Sadaam probably expected us to do like the last time.

I believe a combination of BOTH things happened, because Sadaam would need a few weapons to threaten the country holding his weapons, should they not want to give 'em back.  

Anyone else care to give TA their opinion. or do you perhaps think he's setting you up?  

[TA Pilot]

Anyone else care to give TA their opinion. or do you perhaps think he's setting you up?  

In case you're wondering, here's the disposition of Iraq Chem weapons, according to UNSCOM, JAN 1999:
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-chem.htm

Example:
-155-mm artillery shells (mustard):  13,000
-12,792 shells were accounted for by UNSCOM. They were destroyed by Iraq under UNSCOM supervision in the period 1992-1994.

Where are the remaining ~200 mustard gas rounds?
(Mustard gas doesnt degrade, kids....)

-122-mm rockets (sarin): 6,610
-6,454 rockets were accounted for by UNSCOM. They were destroyed by Iraq under UNSCOM supervision during 1992 and 1993.

Where are the remaining ~150 rocket warheads?
(While Sarin degrades, its precursors dont.  122mm CW rocket warheads are binary rounds, where the precursor chemicals are mixed to form sarin upon detonation)


The remaining quantities are small...  but the questions are still valid.

Where are they?

[DrewKaree]

Oh, and then there's the report that just came out...check it out here, but beware, you'll have to register with the N.Y. Times! (Don't worry, TA, it's worthwhile)

And why couldn't we find out about this earlier, like when the Clinton administration was working on resolution 5 million    Is THIS the information Bush was supposed to use when deciding to go to war?


Oh, and that silly little link between Al Qaeda and Iraq...I'm wondering if this article will come up in the debates this week

[patrickl]

Where are the weapons UNSCOM knew to be in Iraq in December 1998?

I never seem to get an answer to this question.

I already answered that one. They did KNOW the assumed there MIGHT be some. Most inspectors actually reported they didn't think there were any. Only the CIA appointed guy said there were some

[TA Pilot]

I already answered that one. They did KNOW the assumed there MIGHT be some.

Thats odd, because the source I posted specifies weapons that were KNOWN to still exist seperate from the weapons that they could not account for.

Where  are  they?

Where are the remaining ~200 mustard gas rounds?
Where are the remaining ~150 sarin rocket warheads?

[Grasshopper]

Where are the weapons UNSCOM knew to be in Iraq in December 1998?

I never seem to get an answer to this question.

While I don't have an answer, only a guess, and I agree with your point, this probably will be pooh-poohed by the intellegensia here.

I believe two things happened to those weapons

1)  They were hidden, and the people who knew their whereabouts were killed in combat

2)  They were moved to a country friendly to Iraq, to be held until we moved out again, as Sadaam probably expected us to do like the last time.

I believe a combination of BOTH things happened, because Sadaam would need a few weapons to threaten the country holding his weapons, should they not want to give 'em back.  

Anyone else care to give TA their opinion. or do you perhaps think he's setting you up?  

Lol, I find this theory about as plausible as the theory that the moon landings were faked!

The trouble with these convoluted conspiracy theories is that so many people have to be in on the game.

The Americans have captured Saddam and most of his henchmen, and have had over a year to interrogate/bribe them. Yet NOT ONE of them have spilt the beans.

Also, no one from this mysterious 'friendly' country has spilt the beans either.

Don't you think this is odd? Oh sorry I forgot they all died in combat.

[fredster]

The Americans have captured Saddam and most of his henchmen, and have had over a year to interrogate/bribe them. Yet NOT ONE of them have spilt the beans.
 

So what, and how do you know?  Just because it isn't on the evening news doesn't mean we don't know more information.

Fallen dictatorships don't often have people revealing all of their secrets after they have been defeated.  Saddam is still calling for his people to save him too.

Don't go thinking so 9/10 man. When you live in an age of terrorism with increasingly available weapons of mass destruction, it is the absence of fear that is utterly irrational.

[shmokes]

The Americans have captured Saddam and most of his henchmen, and have had over a year to interrogate/bribe them. Yet NOT ONE of them have spilt the beans.
 

So what, and how do you know?  Just because it isn't on the evening news doesn't mean we don't know more information.

Fallen dictatorships don't often have people revealing all of their secrets after they have been defeated.  Saddam is still calling for his people to save him too.

Don't go thinking so 9/10 man. When you live in an age of terrorism with increasingly available weapons of mass destruction, it is the absence of fear that is utterly irrational.

We're now living in the "Age of Terrorism".  Ooooooooohhhhhhh!  Scary.  Maybe that can be a sequel to Age of Empires.  

Fredster, comments like that shed a little bit of light on why non-Americans have a tendency to find Americans obnoxious.  Perhaps before you start talking about 9/11 ushering in a new paradigm you should take a look at the rest of the world over the past 50 years.  Maybe you should give israel a call and ask them what life is like post-9/11, now that they're living in the age of terrorism.

You make no sense to me Fredster.  Your support for the Patriot Act.  Your support for cops randomly taking your friend into custody for supposedly being "out of place".  Where does all this trust come from for your government?  Why is it that someone with so much trust for his government is so intent on owning weapons in case he needs to overthrow it?  

[patrickl]

I already answered that one. They did KNOW the assumed there MIGHT be some.

Thats odd, because the source I posted specifies weapons that were KNOWN to still exist seperate from the weapons that they could not account for.

Where  are  they?

Where are the remaining ~200 mustard gas rounds?
Where are the remaining ~150 sarin rocket warheads?

The report is simply wrong. It's not hard evidence, but a good guess of how many might be around.

For instance:
122-mm rockets, quantity 6,880 and 7,305 accounted for.  

This is also more like a case of guilty until proven innocent:
Iraqi - "We don't have any more WMD"
Inspector - "OK then show me the receipt of the destruction company"
Iraqi - "Ehm... say what?"
Inspector - "OK so they stay on the list"
Iraqi - "Whatever"

[Crazy Cooter]

Where are the weapons UNSCOM knew to be in Iraq in December 1998?

Next to my socks that keep disappearing from the dryer.

In all seriousness, if (and that's a big if for me) there are/were chemical weapons in Iraq, we're not going to find them.  It's like asking where all the Nukes are in the US.  Buried mostly, probably no one person even knows.  Maybe sold by some nutjob general from Saddams army after he was captured.

I don't think Saddam himself ever would or did sell anything to a terrorist group though and here's why:
1- He had enough scratch.  Second largest oil reserves in the world.  Gold crappers...
2- Nobody liked him.  Pure and simple.  He was the dork of the playground and his only way to survive was through fear & intimidation.  Had he sold something like that to a terrorist group, they could have used it against him.  He had some pretty pimp cribs you know.  If I was some nutjob with a small crowd of equally nuts... nutjobs following me around, I'd be all over that stuff.  Take out Saddam.  Rule with an iron fist.  Live large.  It just wouldn't make sense to sell your enemy something like that.  What could someone give him that would warrant the risk?

Now that Saddam no longer rules the land, you've got insurgents taking it to the streets.  I would think if they had something they would use it now.  Unless they start hiding out and become terrorists...

[Mameotron]

It's like asking where all the Nukes are in the US.  Buried mostly, probably no one person even knows.  

FYI concerning the US nukes: (not intended as a flame, just info for anyone interested)

I can only speak for the Air Force, but I assume similar policies also apply to other services.

Every single round of ammunition is accounted for.  Every bullet fired on the firing range, every blank round used at a funeral, every dummy round issued for training.  There is a paper trail, and someone is held accountable every step along the way.  This is done to ensure nobody steals them or uses them for any unauthorized purpose.

Nukes are treated with much more care and scrutiny.  Believe me, the commander of a bomber wing knows EXACTLY where all his nuclear bombs and missiles are at every single moment.  His supervisors know it, too.

All nuclear warheads are LOANED to the armed forces from the Department of Energy.  The DOE conducts regular inspections to ensure that the nukes are handled properly, stored properly, and documented properly.  If they find any gross errors they have the authority to take them all back.

There are many people who know exactly where all our nukes are.  Probably the KGB (when the USSR existed) knew all this, too.  The big deterrent with nukes has always been retaliation.  We know they can't knock out all of them at once, so where they are located isn't such a big deal.  

[fredster]

Danny,

The stakes are higher now than in the past.  There has been local terrorists through history for sure.  But these people are taking huge risks.  In Russia two planes down, a school with 300+ dead.  3000 dead in the streets of New York and Washington DC.  In your area of the world 100's killed in bombings.

Not to mention Israel.  1000's have died.  Car Bombs in Saudi Arabia and Africa.

It's not going to go away unless the root of the problem is removed.  The reasons for the terrorism.  The organization of the terrorists has to be removed or they can grow in strength to the point they can take out millions at a time instead of 1000's.  

The vision is to remove the governments that work with these terrorists.  Create new governments that can openly discuss these issues among themselves and keep these terrorists from growing into a multinational force with international influence.

[patrickl]

"age of terrorism"? when in our history has there been a time when people WEREN'T terrorised?

For Americans (who don't look beyond their borders) terrorism is something relatively new.

[Crazy Cooter]

No problem here, that's why i asked (and used South Dakota instead of an "important" state.  

- edited -

[fredster]

Cooter,

I have reported it to the FBI.

Look for white vans.

[TA Pilot]

The report is simply wrong.

Hold on.   I have to pick myself off the floor.

HOW, exactly, is it "wrong"?
Where are the errors?



It's not hard evidence, but a good guess of how many might be around.

There are numerous instances of specific numbers of weapons and the disposition of some of them.  Thats "haed evidence".



This is also more like a case of guilty until proven innocent

No.  Its not.
In most isntances, the report says something to the effect of "claimed to have been destroyed by Iraq".

Whenever thats the case, requring Iraq to support the claim is NOT requrinbg them to prove their innocence.


Iraqi - "We don't have any more WMD"
Inspector - "OK then show me the receipt of the destruction company"
Iraqi - "Ehm... say what?"
Inspector - "OK so they stay on the list"

Thats exactly right.
because there is absolutely no reason to believe the cunsupported claim is true.

I mean, if you're going to take their word for mit - why bother with inspectors in the first place?


So, I ask again:
Where are the WMDs that UNSCOM knew to be in IOraq in 1998?

[patrickl]

The report is simply wrong.

Hold on.   I have to pick myself off the floor.

HOW, exactly, is it "wrong"?
Where are the errors?

Who knows where the errors are. That's the problem with estimates. Asked Rumsfeld, he seems to know what we don't know.

Maybe they even used them on the Kurds or the Iranians. I doubt they left a receipt for that.

Perhaps the fact that after spending a few million (or was it billion?) dollars the US was unable to find these remaining WMD's is a hint that the report was wrong. "Innocent until proven guilty" and since there is no proof they are not guilty.

So, I ask again:
Where are the WMDs that UNSCOM knew to be in IOraq in 1998?

So I say again:
They didn't say they KNOW, only that they ASSUMED there MIGHT be.

And I'll also repeat that that whole report is simply a CIA/Washington ploy. The CIA spy that left UNSCOM blew the lid on that whole scam. Then there were several defectors who also stated there were no WMD (I forgot who they were but IIRC at least a relative of Saddam and a senior military). These people would have gotten money if they could show some of these weapons!

[saint]

This web site will comply with the laws of the United States of America.  If the laws do not prevent an image like this from being displayed then I will not require it to be removed. If at such time the Patriot Act II requires the removal of this image, down it goes without discussion.

However, I would prefer it not be published here at all -- not because I am in favor of the Patriot Act (I/II), but because I do not wish to be part of making it easier for the enemies of our country to gather information that can be used against us. I acknowledge that this information is readily available elsewhere, but we do not have to make it easier on them.

My belief in the first amendment is stronger, at the present time, than my wish to remove the image. I leave it up to you.

--- saint

IMPORTANT - SAINT: FYI, this information will no longer be allowed to be distributed if Bush passes the "Patriot" Act II as drafted and this picture will fall into the realm of "material support" under Section 121: "Definition of Terrorist Activities" and Section 202: "Distribution of Worst Case Scenario" Information.  Currently, this is public under the Freedom of Information Act.  If you don't want it here, it can be removed.  We don't want you to "disappear".

[edit] I hit the "report to moderator" button to make sure Saint sees the disclaimer.  Heheh, turning my self in.  We'll see what he says about the pic.

[Crazy Cooter]

Cooter,

I have reported it to the FBI.

Look for white vans.

Haha, they'll just add it to "my file".

TA, how are we looking for them?  I mean do we have to visually see them or do we have some kind of sniffer?  If we do have a sniffer how well does it work range-wise?

[TA Pilot]

Who knows where the errors are. That's the problem with estimates. Asked Rumsfeld, he seems to know what we don't know.

You dont get it - these arent estimates.  They are eyes-on numbers from the 7 years of inspections by UNSCOM.

[patrickl]

Who knows where the errors are. That's the problem with estimates. Asked Rumsfeld, he seems to know what we don't know.

You dont get it - these arent estimates.  They are eyes-on numbers from the 7 years of inspections by UNSCOM.

You don't get it. These ARE estimates (especially on the "how many are still there" part) Even worse, they were obtained by the CIA infested UNSCOM, so the whole report is unreliable.

[fredster]

We have a reliable report now.  We didn't before the war. We are doing inspections.

We found missles from France that could hit Israel, we found planes buried in the ground.  We found the will and determination of Saddam to rebuild his weapon systems when he had the chance.

We found he was paying off the UN and giving out millions to individuals to remove him from UN sanctions, and it was working.  We found he had made new aliances with terrorists, had a camp with a 747 for training in Iraq.  We found terrorists living in Iraq.

We find new mass graves every week.  We find evidence of horrible human rights attrocities that make past war crimes pale in comparison.  

Saddam was a madman with potential.  He killed without any care, and he was showing no signs of stopping.  The US did the world a great service taking this guy down.

We took out the potiential successors (his sons) that shot people on the street, raped children, threw people in shreaders, and had iron madens (not the rock band) to help train their athletes.

These arguments comparing the other attrocities, ie:

how many people died in cambodia for instance...or jews during the spanish inquisition?

are pointless.

The US stood up and took him out.  We got one. There are more out there.

Do civilized people allow these things to happen and avoid war. Or peace at any cost?  Should we be involved in every conflict in the world or only the ones that threaten the free world or Just us?

The oil and the POWER is the issue.  Oil = Money = Power.

The US in second in the world in pumping oil.  Second only to Saudi Arabia.  We had mexico and russia we can buy oil from.

If the oil supply stopped comming from the Middle East, the US is in the unique position of being able to maintain almost whole it's industrial power without it.  Australia and the UK however wouldn't be able to survive.  (check my facts at nationmaster.com)

Patrickl, are you an American? What do you know of America? That we liked the Lord of the Rings trilogy? You have a very skewed view of Americans and what we stand for.  I don't know what goes on in New Zealand, probably I will never go there.  

People overseas seem to think we are all rich.  Probably because we do so much for other people.  90% of us are working class people who work to live. I personally know about 2 people who don't have to work, but that's it. I'm sure there are more around me.

The US shouldn't base it's foreign policy on somekind of global agreement.  We do what we think is necessary to protect the US first, then to protect our allies.  If the US is hit, we do respond.

[TA Pilot]

We have a reliable report now.  We didn't before the war. We are doing inspections.

Yes.
And it is in extreme contrast with the reliable report we had in January 1999 - from the inspectors that were there 1991-1998.

Where are the weapons we knew were there in December 1998?
Where are the facilities we knew were there in December 1998?

[Grasshopper]

The Americans have captured Saddam and most of his henchmen, and have had over a year to interrogate/bribe them. Yet NOT ONE of them have spilt the beans.
 

So what, and how do you know?  Just because it isn't on the evening news doesn't mean we don't know more information.

Oh I see. So Bush actually knows where all the WMDs are but is keeping quiet about it.

Presumably this is to ensure that the forthcoming election is a fair fight.

I must say that's very sporting of him. Perhaps he's not such a bad chap after all!

[fredster]

Here's another take on the situation out of London.  Even if he didn't have WMD like EVERYBODY believed since he threw out the weapons inspectors AGAINST international law.

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/14004914?source=Evening%20Standard

[patrickl]

Apparently some inspecters KNEW there was no proof for WMD in Iraq:
(statement changed, thanks Mameotron!)
Chief US inspector (David Kay) admits Iraq had no WMD stockpiles and 'No WMD in Iraq' - chief US inspector

[DrewKaree]

ps So I don't need to waste any more of my time please be so kind as to use the Claim vs Fact database (or even Google) before coming out with more unsubstanciated claims. They have some really interesting Iraq items. Thanks!

Hey patrick, so I don't need to waste any more of MY time, please be so kind as to read and use information from www.glennbeck.com or www.belling.com or lastly, www.rushlimbaugh.com  

Sorry to "waste" your time, but I'll help you solve that "problem".  Stop replying to political threads.  

The LEAST you could do is to post a site that has some semblance of fairness towards both sides, rather than a propoganda machine whose stated purpose is "a sister advocacy organization that will more actively promote progressive ideas and alternatives and counter right-wing policies"

You state there are "unsubstantiated" claims.  There are articles/links given.  You don't agree with them.  That doesn't make them unsubstantiated.  It makes them contrary to your opinion on the subject.

I can't believe you have the audacity to request we use your source because it's a "waste of your time".  

Here's the deal.  I'll gladly use your "infallible source"   ONLY if you use the three sites I listed above, using ONLY articles form those three sites to support your "unsubstantiated claims".  

I don't believe even MrC would be that disingenuous to request we use your site so as to avoid wasting his time!  

And to think, shmokes chastised me for USING a biased source.  Heck, at least I didn't request he refute my claims based on that biased article

[DrewKaree]

So I figured I'd do a cursory search and see the extent of the bias by your stellar "this'll refute unsubstantiated claims", patrick.

So are they the fair and balanced debate source we should all look to when researching our facts?  To quote from their site

This new database charts conservatives' dishonesty and compares it with the truth. Each conservative quote will be matched against well-documented facts, so users can get a more accurate picture of the issues. And we need your help. If we're missing a lie or distortion you know of, please submit an entry. If it checks out, we will gladly add it to the database.

Why not just point us to MoveOn.org's website?  

[patrickl]

ps So I don't need to waste any more of my time please be so kind as to use the Claim vs Fact database (or even Google) before coming out with more unsubstanciated claims. They have some really interesting Iraq items. Thanks!

Hey patrick, so I don't need to waste any more of MY time, please be so kind as to read and use information from www.glennbeck.com or www.belling.com or lastly, www.rushlimbaugh.com  

Sorry to "waste" your time, but I'll help you solve that "problem".  Stop replying to political threads.  

The LEAST you could do is to post a site that has some semblance of fairness towards both sides, rather than a propoganda machine whose stated purpose is "a sister advocacy organization that will more actively promote progressive ideas and alternatives and counter right-wing policies"

You state there are "unsubstantiated" claims.  There are articles/links given.  You don't agree with them.  That doesn't make them unsubstantiated.  It makes them contrary to your opinion on the subject.

I can't believe you have the audacity to request we use your source because it's a "waste of your time".  

Here's the deal.  I'll gladly use your "infallible source"   ONLY if you use the three sites I listed above, using ONLY articles form those three sites to support your "unsubstantiated claims".  

I don't believe even MrC would be that disingenuous to request we use your site so as to avoid wasting his time!  

And to think, shmokes chastised me for USING a biased source.  Heck, at least I didn't request he refute my claims based on that biased article

Ok so now you are wasting my time too. Your reply is not based on the original statement. So in fact your reply is of no use, but I'll help you explain a bit further.

I was replying to TA pilot's statement that "they" KNEW there were WMD in Iraq in 1998. This is not a political issue (at least it isn't for me, but I'll concede that for TA Pilot it indeed seems to be a political issue). It's about facts and being able to use simple logic.

Actually they quote some of the same articles as I referred to.
Unfortunately, TA pilot seems unable to make the distinction between:
A) "no proof that there aren't any WMD in Iraq"
and
B) "proof that there are WMD in Iraq"

From A does not necessarily follow B. Otherwise your jails would be pretty full by now. Basically that closes the case already, but wait ... there is more

There is his claim that if the "remaining" in:
    "produced" - "witnessed" = "remaining"
is not zero that that proofs that WMD were still in Iraq in 1998. One may assume "witnessed" is correct, but there is no way of knowing that the figures for "produced" are correct. The records in Iraq weren't really that accurate anyway.

However, the function is actually:
    "produced" - "witnessed" - "destroyed" - "used" - "boasting" = "remaining"
Since there is no way to KNOW "destroyed", "used" or "boasting" there is also no way to "KNOW" the value of "remaining".

Ergo, from the report TA pilot mentioned noone could have KNOWN WMD's to exist in Iraq. They could have assumed there might be, but it's not proof.

So from that it's easy to see that the report is no proof, but did the inspectors say they knew? I have shown at least 4 people (most of them the head of the inspectors at the time) who state they did NOT know. Most importantly the head inspector at the end of 1998 (hell, if he doesn't "KNOW" then how could "they" KNOW?). So that easily refutes the claim that "they" knew.

What makes this into a political problem is the fact that most inspectors have been exposed to have been under instructions from the US about trying to provoke Iraq. If that is true then the whole report is bogus and I must admit there is plenty evidence for that. In fact "they" even admitted this.

Here are some more political quotes (these are not all facts):
Glenn Beck:
- White House Source: No WMD in Iraq
- Israel knew Iraq had no WMD
- David Kay's conclusion that Iraq hasn't had an active chemical-weapons program since 1991
- Inspector: No WMD In Iraq
- WMDs never Bush's main focus: Clinton
- Hans Blix, made the point that unaccounted-for weapons was not the same thing as proof of the existence of such weapons.
- Butler: The fourth logical possibility is that they haven't been found because they don't exist, and didn't (exist).
- Butler: "The only honest answer I can give to you, which of those four would I choose as the best explanation, is, I don't know. (thanks for this link since now I have even Butler telling that he DIDN'T know, so that completes the set)

Belling.com:(Complete waste of time, nothing on site)

Rushlimbaugh (man that site sux):
- The one thing the Duelfer report says that we all expected it to say, is that it would repeat David Kay's comment about there being no weapons of mass destruction
- further I gave up. There are no facts there, only opinions.