WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon 865 Replies latest social current

  • Reborn2002


    A Stupid War by Scott McPherson, April 25, 2003

    President Bush and his allies claimed emphatically during the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein was an evil madman in possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), requiring an immediate preemptive invasion to topple his dictatorial regime and avert a nuclear, biological, or chemical (NBC) attack on the American people. An invasion of Iraq, we were told, would make us safer.

    Far from providing meaningful conclusions on Iraq’s actual intentions towards the United States, however, this war’s swift conclusion simply raises more questions.

    For instance, if Iraq did in fact have WMDs, why were they never used on the battlefield? Certainly, if we’re to believe that Saddam Hussein was so unstable that given half a chance he would fire a chemical warhead at the United States — knowing he would be devastated by the inevitable counterstrike — then surely we could at least have expected a comparable attack on U.S. and allied forces who were trying to destroy him. This point by itself raises serious doubts about U.S. claims of the Iraqi “threat.”

    Now, a student of Soviet battle doctrine may counter that if Hussein was killed, seriously injured, or otherwise held indisposed in the first few days of fighting, his army would have been like a headless body awaiting orders.

    Aside from being pure conjecture, this rebuttal doesn’t address the likelihood that such orders would have been given in advance. Allegedly, Hussein had been preparing to carry out just such a cataclysmic attack for months or years anyway, long before U.S. soldiers started heading towards the Persian Gulf.

    And on that note, why didn’t he just order a preemptive NBC-type strike against the hundreds of thousands of troops massing in the Kuwaiti desert, before they had a chance to press forward across his border? It’s not as if the names and locations of U.S. and allied camps were kept secret — they would have been sitting ducks in the sights of this unstable dictator supposedly with his finger on “the button.”

    Logically considered, the failure of Saddam Hussein to deploy WMDs of any type against invading American, British, and Australian forces makes the Bush administration look like Chicken Little with a cruise missile.

    Which leads us to another, albeit most disconcerting, possibility: What if Iraq didn’t have any WMDs? This may seem unlikely, given Hussein’s past behavior, but if no smoking gun is ever found, the U.S. government will have a whole lot of explaining to do. President Bush, Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfeld can insist all they want that the weapons just can’t be found or were smuggled to a neighboring state (“Operation Syrian Freedom,” anyone?), but millions around the world will seethe with anger and pray for America’s demise more than they already are — not an altogether comforting thought.

    Another explanation may be that Saddam Hussein hates the United States so much that, knowing he couldn’t stand up to American tanks on a battlefield, he decided to hand over any WMDs he may have had to an organization like al-Qaeda. Pro-Bush types will claim that he probably had already done so, but this assertion has serious practical inconsistencies, the most pronounced being that it was box cutters and our own commercial airliners, not dirty bombs, that were the weapon of choice for the September 11 terrorists. Hussein had more than 10 years between the Gulf War and the September 11 attacks to launch a WMD attack on the United States, and it didn’t happen.

    Moreover, Hussein and Osama bin Laden are hardly a good fit. Hussein was a secularist dictator; bin Laden is a radical Muslim extremist. The Taliban government of Afghanistan was more to al-Qaeda’s liking, which is precisely why they were hosted there and not in Iraq. Osama bin Laden armed with WMDs might have forced regime change in Baghdad even more quickly than the U.S. Marines did.

    Ironically, Saddam Hussein would have feared this prospect before the United States started threatening his control, but with nothing left to lose ...? As Norman Mailer warned in Why Are We at War? published on the eve of the invasion, “We might vanquish Iraq and still suffer from the catastrophe we claimed to be going to war to avert. Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction could yet belong to bin Laden.”

    The conclusion of this latest foreign-policy drama, cooked up by empire-driven hawks in the U.S. government, is still unfolding, but we do have certain facts available which allow us a highly principled condemnation of the invasion of Iraq. We know no WMDs have ever been used by Iraq against the United States. We have also yet to prove conclusively that Iraq even had such weapons. In the event none are ever found, what then will justify U.S. troops on Iraqi soil?

    Yet, should WMD stashes eventually be located, rather than lend credibility to the president’s warnings, it will actually make a mockery of them. How exactly do you explain a threat from weapons that have never been used, even under ideal circumstances?

    And finally, we have to wonder at the probability that, facing his own inevitable downfall, Saddam Hussein simply threw caution to the wind and gave weapons capable of merciless devastation to Osama bin Laden, for use against their shared nemesis, the United States. When we consider that this most likely would not have taken place had our government minded its own business and stayed out of Iraq, then the grand total of the possible consequences and connotations of the U.S. government’s invasion of Iraq makes this the stupidest and most unjustified war in our nation’s history.

    Scott McPherson is a policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation.

  • Reborn2002


    Did Bush Deceive Us in His Rush to War?
    * The 'threats' that Hussein posed to the United States are nowhere to be seen. Now that the war has been won, is it permissible to suggest that our emperor has no clothes? I'm not referring to his abysmal stewardship of the economy but rather the fig-leaf war he donned to cover up his glaring domestic failures.

    President Bush went to war with Hitler's Germany and found another Afghanistan instead. After comparing the threat of Hussein to that of the Führer, it was odd to find upon our arrival a tottering regime squatting on a demoralized Third World populace

    Now the pressure is on for Bush to find or plant those alleged weapons of mass destruction fast or stand exposed as a bullying fraud.

    Of course, our vaunted intelligence forces knew well from our overhead flights and the reports of U.N. inspectors freely surveying the country that Iraq had been reduced by two decades of wars, sanctions and arms inspections to a paper tiger, but that didn't keep the current administration from depicting Baghdad as a seat of evil so powerful it might soon block the very sun from shining.

    And while Emperor Bush piled on the fire-and-brimstone rhetoric, his bespectacled vizier for defense presented a mad-hatter laundry list of Iraq's alleged weapons collection, as long and specific as it was phony and circumstantial.

    Secretary of State Colin Powell's now infamous speech to the U.N. Security Council employed "intelligence" cribbed from a graduate student's thesis, documents later acknowledged as fakes, and a defector's affirmation of the existence of chemical weapons while excluding his admission that they had subsequently been destroyed.

    Having taken over the country, we now know with a great deal of certainty that if chemical or biological weapons were extant there, they were not deployed within the Iraqi military in a manner that threatened the U.S. or anyone else.

    Likewise, Bush's fear-mongering about Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons program has proven baseless. There was no reason to hurriedly yank the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq.

    Even Bush's only real ally outside of Washington, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, is worried that the fearsome weapons will not turn up — or that a skeptical world will believe they were planted as an afterthought. "Some sort of objective verification" of weapons finds would be a "good idea," he said last week.

    However, the refusal of the U.S. to permit the return of U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and his team to continue their work is damning evidence of our fear that the weapons simply do not exist, at least in any usable quantity or form. It also raises the suspicion that Iraqi scientists now held incommunicado in U.S. captivity will be squeezed until they tell us what we want to hear. Whatever happened to the prewar demand that those same scientists be given the freedom to tell their story in a non-intimidating environment?

    Bush may fear the truth because the still-AWOL weapons are a potential tar baby for this administration. Undoubtedly the U.S. will find mixed-used chemical precursors for weapons, as was claimed only this week, but that is a far cry from being an "imminent threat."

    As Joseph Cirincione, a top weapons expert at the Carnegie Endowment, put it, the purported existence of those weapons "was the core reason for going to war with Iraq and the reason we had to go now If we don't find fairly large stockpiles of these weapons, in quantities large enough to pose a strategic threat to the United States, the president's credibility will be seriously undermined and the legitimacy of the war repudiated."

    That concern is largely absent in the U.S. media, where "liberation" is now a code word that smoothes over any irritating questions one may ask when a Christian superpower invades the heart of the Muslim world. Its partner phrase, "the building of democracy," is also all the rage, as if real democracy was something you could create with Legos or SimCity software.

    At this point, though, we can only hope it will all turn out for the best, and that a retired U.S. general will figure out how to use the country's natural resources to end poverty, build excellent schools and provide crime-free streets and an electoral system where positions of power don't go to the highest bidder. Then he can come back and apply this genius at home, where we've got plenty of unwelcome violence, poverty and on-the-take politicians.

    However, in the unlikely case this fantasy comes true, albeit at an untold price in money, lives and human suffering, it should be remembered that this was not the justification for war given to the American people.

    And, in a more sober mood, one must still ask the embarrassing yet essential question: Did our president knowingly deceive us in his rush to war?

    If he did, and we are truly concerned about our own democracy, we would have to acknowledge that such an egregious abuse of power rises to the status of an impeachable offense.

  • Reborn2002

    It amuses me that some people pride themselves on being so patriotic that they fail to realize they are blindly supporting a corrupt Administration.

    I notice dubla never DENIED any of the facts I presented regarding the hypocrisy of United States politics. He instead chose to brush FACTS aside and ignore them, dismissing them as "simply anti-war arguments that someone else can pick apart because it is too easy for him"... all the while continually supporting Bush on the pretense of WoMD that have not even been found. No facts, only promises without result at this point.

    It amazes me how people exposed to the mind control and manipulation of the Jehovah's Witnesses allow themselves to be deceived both by the government and media in so many instances.

    Politics. Let us discuss that for a moment shall we? Politics is a dirty business. A dirty business, a rough business, a nasty business. Most Americans accept that as though it makes sense, as though it's normal and right and proper. But it's not. For years, decades even, Americans have accepted the fact that politics - wait, let's define politics shall we? The political system is the way we govern the country, pass the laws we all have to follow, levy taxes. These are important things aren't they? But at the same time we accept people into that system whom we would not willingly invite into our homes, whom we would not trust to baby-sit our children. Does this strike you at all as odd?

    We allow people into the political system who routinely distort facts, who twist laws in order to suit patrons who give them campaign money. Some of whom just plain lie. And we accept this. The media does. They report anything the government tells them and most of the time project it as fact. You or I would not accept that sort of behavior in your own profession would you? Medicine or science? Business or law enforcement?

    There is something wrong here. This is our country we are talking about. The standards of behavior we demand from our representatives shouldn't be lower - they should be higher. We should demand intelligence and integrity, and politicians (both Republican and Democrat) fall short in this regard.

    George W. Bush was arrested for drunk driving in 1976. He ran for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1978 and lost. The same year, he started his own oil and gas company, Arbusto, with $17,000 from his education trust fund. Arbusto lost money when oil prices fell. It was rescued from bankruptcy when another energy company, Spectrum 7, bought it out. Bush was named CEO, given Spectrum 7 stock and a $75,000 annual salary. Spectrum 7 lost $400,000 in two years under Bush's tenure and was later bought out by Harken Oil. Bush was named to that company's board of directors and was paid $80,000 a year as a consultant. (This is a man you want in control of and determining policy which manages the economy? When his track record clearly demonstrates that he is a failure as a business executive and everything he has ever touched has lost astronomical amounts of money?)

    In 1989, he bought a 2 percent stake in the Texas Rangers baseball team with a $500,000 loan from a Midland, Texas bank where he once served on the board of directors. In 1990, he sold his Harken stock for a 200 percent profit one week before the company announced a $23 million loss. (This is the same man who harshly denounced the immoral accounting practices of Enron and Worldcom? This when he committed the same practices 12 years prior by selling stock for gargantuan profit before a plunge with insider information? You support this type of hypocrite running the country?)

    Bush worked on his father's presidential campaign in 1987 and his re-election campaign in 1991. In 1994, he was elected Governor of Texas. In 2000, the Supreme Court declared him the President of the United States, though he lost the popular election to Al Gore. (For interesting commentary on this subject, please visit:

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/45262/3.ashx (note my post on page 3 of this thread towards the middle of the page)


    Bush's budget cuts taxes for the wealthy and shifts the burden of social services to states, putting childrens program's like Head Start, Medicaid, foster care and housing assistance for families in jeopardy. He preemptively declares war on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein without proof of WoMD, only promises and assurances (as yet unsubstantiated) that they possess it.

    How can you defend the policies of a man like this? Partisan politics aside, be it Republican, Democrat, Libertarian.. it does not matter.

    I am simply discussing the history of the man currently holding the most powerful office in the world.

    Your willful ignorance is beyond me.

  • Jayson

    Has anyone read even one book of scholarly value on this topic? Why does it seem that so many people are so sure that they have everything all figured out (Like the "Bush is bad" group needs to think very hard) not post of one book of value. Only bullshit. I know Simon has made it clear as mud that I have slandered him and his point of view and he refuses to play with me for now. I have that effect on closeminded people.

    Really has anyone done any of their own research? Has anyone taken the time to explore outside of the oracle (TV) and the internet nonscholarly sites? For ex cult educated people you all seem to have it all figured out. There was no problem before Bush. So, that logic reasons that when he is gone everything will be perfect? Somehow I doubt it. All this hate just surfaced with Bush becoming President. No, somehow I think that the prejudice views were alive and well long before him.

    Simon claims I misrepresent him and misinterpret him by taking what he says and commenting on it. Well here is mine. Same way from 1 to 9 minus one post that would not take on the last page. I have some constant questions that Simon refuses to answer. Not that he has to but it is his thread and I have to wonder if he started it to be right or to find out if he is right. He keeps saying that America was lied to. Not me, WMD being found was not the soul issue, never. But for the anti Bushies over seas it is all that is left. The UN is the mother government and I see it like the WT. I have no respect for it. A bigger issue is the new challege of justifying a preemptive war; when is it just to attack on the premise of what someone might do? I think that Iraq is a case that can be shown to be an anomaly. Simon thinks he was lied to by Bush & Co. But I see him as more so WANTING to have been lied to by them. For me I knew what this war was from the start. And I am so thankful that finally we have a leader that was willing to put a stop to the Iraqi maddness.

    Jayson says;

    Simon even Blix said it is early in the game. I have also heard snips that chemical weapons were done away with just prior to the war via captured Iraqi most wanteds. (But would/will there not be evidence of this? We will see.)

    Personaly I think some better questions could be does Blix have the right to force his possie on the scene? Many say he could help. But for now the US says no thanks. If they don't find anything then its their butts. But if they do will the world just dismiss it?

    Which is more important about this C.W.P. that Saddam is gone (which everyone is glad..Yes) Or that Bush's crediblity with much of the world hinges upon finding WMD in Iraq?

    I'm just glad Saddam's murderous regime is dead. If Bush gets his WMD validation good for my team; if not and he looses in 2004 then I am still glad that this was done. May it help to end the suffering in Iraq. If relations with the world and the US is damaged beyond repair forever but, 5,000 children in Iraq don't have to die every month anymore I can live with that.

    You know....The Middle East is such a hole

    Simon I hope you can see that many people here are trying to be very polite and rational. I fail to see how this thread is full of ugly tone. (Some kodos are in order?)

    As you say that I (speaking as probushusa) consider WoMD are of no consequnce? I wonder how you can think that? Of course they are! Maybe more now than before. I the book I keep prostituting in goes to great lengths about how Saddam is probably no likely to give his prize to Terror organizations because he can't be sure if they will use them as he wanted them used. So now finding them my be more important than before. Because a desperate Iraqi most wanted might do anything to get the hell out of there. You are right! And, I as well as any rational thinking person want the WMD found! I believe they do exist and always have. They need to be found; They must be found. Not because of petty politics and who is right and who is wrong, but because these are very bad things. It seems that no matter what is done the bad is X10 and the good is outright dismissed or not even commented on. Lets say that they exist and are not found. At some point would they not leak and become a contaminant? If they exist we need to find them. If we can't do it then we need the UN's help. But it's been days please simon give us a chance. Have a penny of faith, please give us a reasonable chance to fail.

    Do you get most of your info from the BBC? Are you aware that they admit that they have been telling half truths about Iraq. They had too in order to say in Baghdad. CNN has told such horrible stories of what their reporters went through; About the minders everywhere and the torture and executions of anyone who said the wrong thing. At Easter my brother's girlfriend was positive that if Iraq had WMD we know exactly where they are. If they moved them to Syria at any point in 12 years we would know about it. When I asked her what she knows that I don't she just said "I refuse to believe that Saddam or anyone can do anything and us not know about it." I only wish I had that much confidence in Bush and the US defense team. I just don't think that they are that smart or powerful. I wish they were. What I don't understand is if it is true that the BBC has been less than truthful how can they still have the moral high ground with their viewers? The Reporters name was Woods and I will see if I have info if you want it.

    Simon have you read some books on Middle Eastern politics or even the whole history of the region? I mean the big picture and not just the last year or two. You should.

    Last on WMD, to a terrorist conventional weapons have proven time and time again to be more effective for their purpose.

    With the right technology WMD have a different tone which is what Saddam was building with missle delivery systems that had upgraded guidance systems. This could have amounted to State sponcered terror and blackmail. Saddam said that his mistake was not having nuclear capablities before invading Kuwait. This was a 12+ year war and not a three week one. If WMD are found will you feel that you have been wrong about my team? What would be the turning point where you would or could ever consider this conflict (regarding US/UK) right?

    It seems to me that the world is at a turning point. Will Nation-states still doiminate the global arena or will a new world order emerge. Many people see no difference between Saddam's Iraq and Bush's America. In fact they see America as the threat to them. The tie to WMD is that it would be this new world order that decides military might and nations would answer to this body exclusively. That just scares the hell into me. How many already see the UN as the world's government?

    Me thinkith they are on the same side. Me hopeth that they re read posts to see that generalization of IT information makes propaganda a choice in free countries. You don't have to listent to one source or one opinion but you also can choose too. Some countries like un IRAQ did not have freedom of anything accept to shut the hell up. I hope the US/UK fix that.

    We need to stop using Jecques Eullul's ideas of what propaganda is. Darn those French!

    Drudge is an example although I don't know what it/he says cause I don't read him.

    And yes Simon's question is a fair one. WoMD ... so where are they? Answer, Stand by.

    Simon a SCUD is a conventional weapon if it does not carry a WMD payload. Any missle that flies over 93 miles was banned. There were banned missles called Al-Samuse being distroyed right up until the war. Do they not report that in Europe? I understand that these missles do not constitute WMD but they were under the weapons banned in Iraq. Once there is a delivery system Iraq had the technological know how to produce the chemical weapons. Saddam has shown the will to use these weapons. They also fired on US/UK planes daily. This is enough for me and my country. It should be enough for you guys but your blind hate is getting in the way.

    Why are you guys resorting to namecalling. No one else it doing it. "Bush is a dumb ass" that is your response to Simons question? This is what people who have an indefendable stance do. Are you trying to get Simon to close this thread because you have nothing to say accept to call names and dismiss the facts of this case.

    Iraqis Ordered to Cover Up Suspect Materials in Advance of Weapons Inspections

    (Baghdad, Iraq-AP) -- Iraqi scientists say they were ordered to destroy or hide suspicious materials -- sometimes just hours before U-N weapons inspectors arrived. The scientists say the items were routine bacteria cultures and equipment -- nothing that could produce a chemical or biological weapon. But the stories indicate Saddam Hussein's regime had advance knowledge of some U-N inspections and that officials took steps to destroy some things that might raise suspicion. The U-S has long argued that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction from inspectors. Beginning last November, U-N inspectors toured hundreds of sites around Iraq and did not find anything. Iraqi graduate students and scientists say as the inspections began, officials ordered them to remove anything suspicious from their labs. University officials deny issuing such orders.

    I love you guys. Any source of information that does not fit into the "I HATE BUSH" catagory is government propaganda. Is plausable denial all you choose to believe? You are the ones giving no proof to your opinions or point of view. You should be ashamed.

    Simon if I understand your postion correctly because WMD have not been found in the few days that we have been in Iraq that is all the proof you need to give you all the proof you will ever need to convience yourself that this war was "illegal" in your mind. If so you don't need us to say anything. I find it very sad that so many people have become so bias against their governments which represents them while swearing allegiance to the UN which does not represent them at all. Why are you defending dictorships? Simon you say people come first. The UN does not represent people. Dictators represent themselves. You are so wrong on this one.

    I am still confused as to why soldiers are expected to find the existing WMD or their distruction. That is not their job. There is also massive evidence all though be it circumstantial that the weapons do or did exist. Why are some so eager to see the American and British coalition fail? Really how could the UN have done anything better? Better yet why didn't it?

    The UN was and is a pussy. Deal with it!

    Still wrong, and off topic. Simon asked about the exact location of WMD that the US claims Iraq had/has. That is this thread. Simon has let it continue and I want it to as well. If you want to talk the merits and legalities of the UN charter start a thread. I promise to try to behave. I will try to stay in line with your topic; But, when it comes to the UN acting for humanity where force is needed I stand by my post above.

    JH I can easily believe that. Just like the Iraqi Airforce that fled to Iran the enemy of Iraq in GW1. But still the same question that SImon asks stands. "Where are they?" The US rattled it's saber and all of a sudden those Iraqi officals who were not in Demascus showed up. But Iraqi officals are not WMD assholes yes but WMD no.

    Thichi you are being goated by the testosteroneless. They namecall because it is all they have.


    (Simon one word and I will cut this out or delete it: By your command)

    How did the Iraqi Freedom operation help the Bush ANWR program? Didn't it really kill any hope of it? How is guaranteeing dependence on foriegn Arab oil going to help with this agenda? How does it jive with your "Bushie greed for oil" dreamscape?

    Is it possible that I'm a brainwashed sucker Will? No, realisticly I have all information sources availale to me and make the best choices I can at the time. I am not afraid to turn on my current beliefs out of fear or pride. Hate is not existent in my heart. In fact I am full of hope. Are you?

    Someone said that they as skeptical of everyone and super skeptical of anyone in government. That does not make you smart, it makes you paranoid.

    Simon asked for the "exact location" of Iraqi WMD.

    Answer: Simon I don't know where they are. I have little faith that if I go to Iraq I can find them myself and bring you to them. So the answer is I do not know.

    You said that you are angry over the ever changing reasons for US reasons for invasion. The reason never changed the need for "regime change" was in play. The UN/Euro pact did not want this because a lot of money was being made just the was; And the US was too. I am angry that the UN made more than one BILLION dollars off the backs of starving Iraqis! Why aren't you? Why aren't any of you more angry over the UN taking a cut of the Iraqi oil trade and then not doing anything to stop the starvation. Why aren't you more angry over Saddam interfering with the UN inspectors for all these years. Saddam is the enemy here not each other.

    I have heard the argument that if the US has WMD then Iraq should be able to have them too. That is stupid.

    I'm glad that we did not wait. The potential for good outways the risk of rouge nations doing the same. I know the precident that this pre-emptive invasion sets. One's reasons for pre-emptive action will never be justified in the Euro mindset. Only they pre-emptively invade not the USA. And yes as a hawk I am willing to take the chance of a pandemic war. For once we are not going to wait until we are behind the 8 ball to fight back. I could give facts, statisitcs, quote from scholarly books, point out the fake BBC journalism in regard to Iraq (Which they admit to), to support my case; but in truth you people who are against what I say, your minds are closed. I am talking to the dead. Really you don't care...Do you....

    Thichi thank you for all of your information. I have read it and I want you to know that it is not wasted here. I am sorry that some people are so rude to you.

    So are all of the JWD Middle Eastern and military scholars in favor of the UN lifting the santions against Iraq or leaving them in place?

    Simon where are you going with your vendetta?

    1)Where are those weapons factories? You should be able to post exact GPS postions for me. Where are they right now? Tell me or you are lying. Tell me NOW, RIGHT now I want to know. WHere are those rolling doughnut makers? Where are they. Whatever they are they exist and you have to tell me where they are right now!

    2) Saddam's propaganda machine said that they distroyed all the missing WoMD agents. But they refused to say how or where they distroyed them. So now you have to give me proof that they were distroyed so do that while giving you information about the locations of the labs/bakery.

    3)Did you truly believe that Iraq never had a weapons program? Do you really believe that those forces and rouge nations in the middle east and elsewhere don't have them now? You ignore the missle. I guess delivery systems are irrelevent?

    4) That seems oftley Mulderish to me Simon but I'm glad you are on top of it. I feel much safer now. Any non internet anti US/Bush (Moorish) proof of that?

    5) It seems that you really believe that the Middle East & Iraq was toothless. That is scary that you could be so willfully stupid.

    Simon stop and think. Even if they find the stored WMD or of proof that it existed would that change your polarized postion that a preemptive war was unjustified? We know that Korea is in direct violation of WMD development. They admit it. So, do you believe that a preemptive war with them would be just?

    My stance on all this is so simple. Saddam and his henchmen must go. (And they did) WMD as the reason? Fine. Oil security? Fine. UN resolution violations? Fine. That we hate his hairstyle? Fine. I also think that the US owes Iraq a rebuilt nation, WMD found or not. I am angry that a small group of Mooreinites refuse to call the UN santions UN santions when that is what they were. They refuse to see that as long as countires continue to do business with Iraq outside of the UN then santions were useless. They refuse to believe anything that goes against what the TV says is reality. They refuse to read real books on the issues or learn the history of the region and the politics involved. (Which gives so much ammo to all sides) People were dying in Iraq before this war people. But, right now is the best chance to make some real changes for people over there. And the Iranian concept of an Islamic nation in Iraq would go against the direction that Iran is taking for itself. So anti-Amercian chanting in the south? So what...They have many reasons to be very angry. The US now says that UN santions should be lifted. If they are not then the US needs to continue on its own path.

    The UN inspectors said they needed six months to a year to clear Iraq. In fact Blix said it will take as long as it takes. Everyone thinks he is the good guy on your side of the fence. Why is the US team given zero time and expects soldiers to be WMD inspectors as well as wave a magic wand and suddenly make decades of evil tyranical government rule all better? Your defense of your argument is so pathetic. Christ Simon I can make a better argument for your side than you are.

    I agree Simon this issue does show the lack of critical thinking that you have on topics such as this.

    Did you even take the time to look at any of the sources of information that I asked you to look at?

    Simon how I am misrepresenting you?

    You pretend to ask questions about the USA but clearly have drawn your own conclusions. The US embarrassed? Actually the majority of Americans consider this war nessesary. And, they are not real concerned with WMD being found. We/I want to fix the problem and not the blame. Saddam made this happen. We all are glad he is out of power. He is to blame or at least the cause. We should at least agree with that first. But we don't.

    Do you believe the military. Sheesh. Or the Government Or me that I am being sincere? Nope you don't. But you also refuse to look up the things that I ask you to which shows that you are afraid too. You even skate over the meat of what I say. Just keep listening to what the TV tells you. That is the real source of truth. And keep yelling at it. It will do your emotional and mental state a world of good guy.

    I think you have a good argument Simon. Your concern is valid but you are wasting it to appease the anti-bushies pride.


    I could get behind you on that, "Moveforward". I agree with your post 101%. Even if it was not directed at me.

    Thank you.

  • Reborn2002

    Jayson blabbers:

    Has anyone read even one book of scholarly value on this topic? Why does it seem that so many people are so sure that they have everything all figured out (Like the "Bush is bad" group needs to think very hard) not post of one book of value. Only bullshit. I know Simon has made it clear as mud that I have slandered him and his point of view and he refuses to play with me for now. I have that effect on closeminded people.

    Really has anyone done any of their own research? Has anyone taken the time to explore outside of the oracle (TV) and the internet nonscholarly sites? For ex cult educated people you all seem to have it all figured out. There was no problem before Bush.

    Yes. Read my last post on this page and then make a statement before blanket-categorizing everyone who speaks critically of your beloved President.

    I refuse to do all the work for you. Educate yourself. I have limited respect for people who are lazy and unwilling to examine the facts objectively from both sides.

    Bush has his good character traits (albeit limited) as well. Such as not being willing to cave in to pressure and (GASP) his principles (although I despise his interjecting his Christian faith into legislation and speeches, thereby violating seperation of Church and State with faith-based initiatives) his moral message is positive in nature in most aspects. However his bad traits FAR OUTWEIGH the good ones. Do you deny anything I have said in the previous post directed at dubla regarding the hypocrisy of the United States government or the background of George Bush?

    Didn't think so. People have no legitimate rebuttal when they are incapable of one.

    Why is this? No matter how hard they try to twist and distort things, you cannot discredit the truth.

  • Jayson

    Reborn you are a c u t e as a newborn puppy in your defense of Simon. What a great guy you are. And I blabber? (oh)Unlike your short and to the point posts. Bush is not a saint? He is not God? Oh you apostate! How dare you talk about my beloved in such a way. You heritic! <As I consult Mein Kampf for comfort>

    I love your most moving defense to my question "Has anyone read even one book of scholarly value on this topic?"

    Yes. Read my last post on this page and then make a statement before blanket-categorizing everyone who speaks critically of your beloved President.

    I refuse to do all the work for you. Educate yourself. I have limited respect for people who are lazy and unwilling to examine the facts objectively from both sides.

    Reborn you could have said "Yes I have read things but I won't tell you Jayson You are not worthy of my spritual food. Not until you hate America. Be like me Jayson say its not my fault I was born an American I am really a child of the w o r l d ."

    You stud you. The logic.<gasp> But still I fail to see how #1 it applies to Iraq. And #2 the point of anything in your posts. The rest is the rank and file anti bush crap has nothing to do with anything. When was there a "clean" administration without any faults? Sorry just not shocked that Bush got a DUI in fact I don't care that he did THREE FREAKING DECADES AGO! I am guilty of failing to see how removing Saddam is a bad thing. I fail to see how removing the santions now is a bad thing. I fail to see why I should expect WMD to be immediately found. I fail to see why I should expect Iraq to thrive in weeks after the war. I guess I am guilty of being realistic and of course of not having contempt for Bush or his choices. In fact I support them. And I am happy at the outcome thus far. I guess to ask if you about books of merit to this issue is quite insulting. Dubs hate that. But hey I don't care if I insult you, Not any more than any other dub you freak!

  • Simon

    Jayson. You really summed it up when you say "[we] are not real concerned with WMD being found"

    You may not be ... now - but it was the reason that was given for going to war and killing thousands of people.

    The whole thing just doesn't add up - Saddam and these WoMD were such a threat to the USA but even when being invaded by overwhelming forces they did not use them. How could they be said to be such a threat then I wonder?

    The simplest and most logical explanation given all the evidence (and lack of) is that , as the UN weapons inspectors found, any WoMD had been destroyed and Iraq was complying with the resolution.

    This was why the war was suddenly so immediately necessary for the USA - if they delayed and the UN inspectors finished their job then the reason or excuse for the war was gone. Away goes the chance for making money from Iraq, for having a major presence in the area and for having a secure source of oil.

    What I find inredulous is that people defend the excuses and half-truths that have been told to achieve the stated aims of the USA: maintain the control of 50% of the worlds resources for their 6% of the worlds population.

  • shamus

    It is pretty obvious that the states were looking for any reason whatsoever to get in there, and get hussein out. WOMD had nothing to do with it...

  • Simon

    Jayson, don't worry - out reporting is fair and factual. Not a bit like the 'facist' fox news. I have noticed a propensity in the US news agencies to tow the line and support the administration for fear of reprisals. How much coverage did the recent US troops shooting indescriminately into a crowd of Iraqi's get for instance? Very little. If something major happens, good or bad, then over here we will typically get an in-depth programme about it where both sides can contribute. This is news and reporting ... not flag waving.

    Simon a SCUD is a conventional weapon if it does not carry a WMD payload. Any missle that flies over 93 miles was banned. There were banned missles called Al-Samuse being distroyed right up until the war. Do they not report that in Europe? I understand that these missles do not constitute WMD but they were under the weapons banned in Iraq. Once there is a delivery system Iraq had the technological know how to produce the chemical weapons. Saddam has shown the will to use these weapons. They also fired on US/UK planes daily. This is enough for me and my country. It should be enough for you guys but your blind hate is getting in the way.

    a. Show me where I have expressed blind hate. You keep making rediculous claims

    b. Why shouldn't they fire at planes that are bombing them ?!

    c. No SCUD missiles were fired despite early claims by the military that they were.

    d. The Al-Samud misile went over the allowed 93 miles in testing without any warhead ... but only just. This came down to vague rules and they clearly were not any form of WoMD (interesting you choose this as an example on a topic about WoMD!). Even so, Iraq was willing to comply with the UN inspectors requests to have them destroyed.

    e. Is the claim now that we needed to bomb iraq because they had the know-how ... not any actual weapons themselves? Boy, this story just keeps on changing! If this is the case then will you be bombing every other country and US university soon?

  • Abaddon

    God man, in this bitch-fest some people are missing the bloody issues!!! You can whine and wail and bat from various ideological viewpoints that you don't really want to move from regardless of the facts, but please, would a pro-Bushy please react to these points, are are they too damn hard to come up with responses that make Uncle Sam look squeaky clean??

    1. It is a testament to the ingenuity of the Iraqs that even now the war is over, the Coalition Forces have not found anything that fits the description of the WoMD that they cited as one of the reasons for the invasion.
    2. Of course, it is a good thing that Saddam Hussain has been removed from power.
    3. It is a good thing that the USA is apparently making its weight felt in Isaeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.
    4. It is a good thing the USA are likely involved in efforts to keep Pakistan and India at peace.
    5. If India had followed the coalition's example and invaded a country with WoMD that represented a terrorist threat (and unlike Iraq, the USA and the UK, there is a common boader, active terrorist cells engaged in cross-boarder raids, and incontravertable proof thereof) and invaded Pakistan for the reasons that the coalition used to invade Iraq, we would have a war going on between two nuclear powers.
    6. This has not happened, but the risk is that even if India and Pakistan resolve the Kashmir question, there will be another situation where countries that cannot be trusted as much as the coalition will use the precident set by the coalition.
    7. If WoMD are not found, then the trust that the coalition does have will be severely compromised.
    8. The reason will be seen as a convenient excuse.
    9. All things being considered, I think it very unlikely they won't find something...

    Trauma Hound; hey, I wouldn't hold Bushy being a coke head against him; aparently drug addiction is something you can recover from...

Share this