TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Iraqi WMD trucks turn out to be hydrogen-production facilities
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

It also might be worthy to note that upon visiting Hitler in the 1930's, Winston Churchill concluded that he was a pretty harmless man who posed no immediate threats...shortly after Hitler invaded Poland and not to soon after that over 6 million Jews had been destroyed in manners not to dissimilar from some of the things Saddam did to his own people. Did you happen to read about the man who lived in a false wall hideout for 22 years for fear of Saddam?? 22 friggin years, man! He was 27 when he went into hiding and now is 49 and all of his teeth have fallen out! This says nothing good about Saddam Hussein and the ruthless regime he led. Do not allow yourself to be deceived by the media. Read the information, glean the pertinent facts, and come to the logical conclusions.

Here's a link to the article about the Iraqi:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/3942304.html

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka It also might be worthy to note that upon visiting Hitler in the 1930's, Winston Churchill concluded that he was a pretty harmless man who posed no immediate threats...shortly after Hitler invaded Poland and not to soon after that over 6 million Jews had been destroyed in manners not to dissimilar from some of the things Saddam did to his own people. Did you happen to read about the man who lived in a false wall hideout for 22 years for fear of Saddam?? 22 friggin years, man! He was 27 when he went into hiding and now is 49 and all of his teeth have fallen out! This says nothing good about Saddam Hussein and the ruthless regime he led. Do not allow yourself to be deceived by the media. Read the information, glean the pertinent facts, and come to the logical conclusions. Here's a link to the article about the Iraqi: http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/3942304.html

It's a little too much to compare Saddam to hitler ... however I'm against justifying the invasion based upon the merits of ousting saddam hussein. If that were the case than the intent to oust him for humanitarian reasons should have been presented from the get go. However, the WMD issue was not as cut and dry back then as it is now. It was Saddam's responsibility to eliminate all doubts about his country's possessions of wmds.

It is also the duty of the US gov't not to mislead its people.

quote:

Originally posted by Wurm It is also the duty of the US gov't not to mislead its people.

That's very true and I agree 100%. That's why senate committee hearings are being held upon data that the CIA and the NSA had. If reports were completely fabricated then there needs to be some accountability.

To accuse the CIA of providing incomplete information is not the same as accusing Bush of intentionally starting a war, regardless of the reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider That's very true and I agree 100%. That's why senate committee hearings are being held upon data that the CIA and the NSA had. If reports were completely fabricated then there needs to be some accountability.

Yeah, in CLOSED DOOR SESSIONS, I might add, thanks to my dildo state Senator Pat Roberts. Sure, I guess there is a small means of "protocol" that needs to take place before open-session meetings take place, but the beans have already been spilled. The supposed pursuit of uranium deposits in Niger proven to be false, the fact that Cheney himself and others in the Bush Co. knowing about this fruitless pursuit a full year before Bush's State of Union address, other documents used in Powell's "evidence" to the UN proven to be forged documents from a student's thesis written in 1992, claims that Saddam could have WMD deployed within 45 min. proven to be highly distorted and grossly inaccurate, manless planes that could only fly at most 5 miles in the air, the evidence against our Administration is there. What more is really needed here? Are they really going to attempt to cover these things up behind closed doors? For their sake, they had better not. There is much to answer to, and the Neo-Cons and GOP had better be careful not to attempt to smokescreen the public for much longer.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka To accuse the CIA of providing incomplete information is not the same as accusing Bush of intentionally starting a war, regardless of the reasons.

In case you didn't know, the CIA had provided Cheney as well as the State Dept. proof that Iraqi's pursuits of uranium in Niger were false. Cheney knew about this a full year before Bush's State address, from February 2002. Are you going to try to justify to me that Cheney didn't tell our president now?

quote:

Forged Evidence By Rep. Henry Waxman Tuesday 10 June 2003 The Honorable Condoleezza Rice Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs The White House Washington, DC 20500 Dear Dr. Rice: Since March 17, 2003, I have been trying without success to get a direct answer to one simple question: Why did President Bush cite forged evidence about Iraq's nuclear capabilities in his State of the Union address? Although you addressed this issue on Sunday on both Meet the Press and This Week with George Stephanopoulos, your comments did nothing to clarify this issue. In fact, your responses contradicted other known facts and raised a host of new questions. During your interviews, you said the Bush Administration welcomes inquiries into this matter. Yesterday, The Washington Post also reported that Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet has agreed to provide "full documentation" of the intelligence information "in regards to Secretary Powell's comments, the president's comments and anybody else's comments." Consistent with these sentiments, I am writing to seek further information about this important matter. Bush Administration Knowledge of Forgeries The forged documents in question describe efforts by Iraq to obtain uranium from an African country, Niger. During your interviews over the weekend, you asserted that no doubts or suspicions about these efforts or the underlying documents were communicated to senior officials in the Bush Administration before the President's State of the Union address. For example, when you were asked about this issue on Meet the Press, you made the following statement: We did not know at the time -- no one knew at the time, in our circles -- maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course, it was information that was mistaken. Similarly, when you appeared on This Week, you repeated this statement, claiming that you made multiple inquiries of the intelligence agencies regarding the allegation that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from an African country. You stated: George, somebody, somebody down may have known. But I will tell you that when this issue was raised with the intelligence community... the intelligence community did not know at that time, or at levels that got to us, that this, that there were serious questions about this report. Your claims, however, are directly contradicted by other evidence. Contrary to your assertion, senior Administration officials had serious doubts about the forged evidence well before the President's State of the Union address. For example, Greg Thielmann, Director of the Office of Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Issues in the State Department, told Newsweek last week that the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) had concluded the documents were "garbage." As you surely know, INR is part of what you call "the intelligence community." It is headed by an Assistant Secretary of State, Carl Ford; it reports directly to the Secretary of State; and it was a full participant in the debate over Iraq's nuclear capabilities. According to Newsweek: "When I saw that, it really blew me away," Thielmann told Newsweek. Thielmann knew about the source of the allegation. The CIA had come up with some documents purporting to show Saddam had attempted to buy up to 500 tons of uranium oxide from the African country of Niger. INR had concluded that the purchases were implausible - and made that point clear to Powell's office. As Thielmann read that the president had relied on these documents to report to the nation, he thought, "Not that stupid piece of garbage. My thought was, how did that get into the speech?" Moreover, New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof has reported that the Vice President's office was aware of the fraudulent nature of the evidence as early as February 2002 - nearly a year before the President gave his State of the Union address. In his column, Mr. Kristof reported: I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged. The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade.... The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted - except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway. "It's disingenuous for the State Department people to say they were bamboozled because they knew about this for a year," one insider said. When you were asked about Mr. Kristof's account, you did not deny his reporting. Instead, you conceded that "the Vice President's office may have asked for that report." It is also clear that CIA officials doubted the evidence. The Washington Post reported on March 22 that CIA officials "communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence." The Los Angeles Times reported on March 15 that "the CIA first heard allegations that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger in late 2001," when "the existence of the documents was reported to [the CIA] second- or third-hand." The Los Angeles Times quoted a CIA official as saying: "We included that in some of our reporting, although it was all caveated because we had concerns about the accuracy of that information." With all respect, this is not a situation like the pre-9/11 evidence that al-Qaeda was planning to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. When you were asked about this on May 17, 2002, you said: As you might imagine... a lot of things are prepared within agencies. They're distributed internally, they're worked internally. It's unusual that anything like that would get to the president. He doesn't recall seeing anything. I don't recall seeing anything of this kind. That answer may be given more deference when the evidence in question is known only by a field agent in an FBI bureau in Phoenix, Arizona, whose suspicions are not adequately understood by officials in Washington. But it is simply not credible here. Contrary to your public statements, senior officials in the intelligence community in Washington knew the forged evidence was unreliable before the President used the evidence in the State of the Union address. Other Evidence In addition to denying that senior officials were aware that the President was citing forged evidence, you also claimed (1) "there were also other sources that said that there were, the Iraqis were seeking yellowcake - uranium oxide - from Africa" and (2) "there were other attempts to get yellowcake from Africa." This answer does not explain the President's statement in the State of the Union address. In his State of the Union address, the President referred specifically to the evidence from the British. He stated: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Presumably, the President would use the best available evidence in his State of the Union address to Congress and the nation. It would make no sense for him to cite forged evidence obtained from the British if, in fact, the United States had other reliable evidence that he could have cited. Moreover, contrary to your assertion, there does not appear to be any other specific and credible evidence that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from an African country. The Administration has not provided any such evidence to me or my staff despite our repeated requests. To the contrary, the State Department wrote me that the "other source" of this claim was another Western European ally. But as the State Department acknowledged in its letter, "the second Western European government had based its assessment on the evidence already available to the U.S. that was subsequently discredited." The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also found no other evidence indicating that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from Niger. The evidence in U.S. possession that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium from Niger was transmitted to the IAEA. After reviewing all the evidence provided by the United States, the IAEA reported: "we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq." Ultimately, the IAEA concluded: "these specific allegations are unfounded." Questions As the discussion above indicates, your answers on the Sunday talk shows conflict with other reports and raise many new issues. To help address these issues, I request answers to the following questions: 1. On Meet the Press, you said that "maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency" that the evidence cited by the President about Iraq's attempts to obtain uranium from Africa was suspect. Please identify the individual or individuals in the Administration who, prior to the President's State of the Union address, had expressed doubts about the validity of the evidence or the credibility of the claim. 2. Please identify any individuals in the Administration who, prior to the President's State of the Union address, were briefed or otherwise made aware that an individual or individuals in the Administration had expressed doubts about the validity of the evidence or the credibility of the claim. 3. On This Week, you said there was other evidence besides the forged evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Africa. Please provide this other evidence. 4. When you were asked about reports that Vice President Cheney sent a former ambassador to Niger to investigate the evidence, you stated "the Vice President's office may have asked for that report." In light of this comment, please address: (a) Whether Vice President Cheney or his office requested an investigation into claims that Iraq may have attempted to obtain nuclear material from Africa, and when any such request was made; (b) Whether a current or former U.S. ambassador to Africa, or any other current or former government official or agent, traveled to Niger or otherwise investigated claims that Iraq may have attempted to obtain nuclear material from Niger; and (c) What conclusions or findings, if any, were reported to the Vice President, his office, or other U.S. officials as a result of the investigation, and when any such conclusions or findings were reported. Conclusion On Sunday, you stated that "there is now a lot of revisionism that says, there was disagreement on this data point, or disagreement on that data point." I disagree strongly with this characterization. I am not raising questions about the validity of an isolated "data point," and the issue is not whether the war in Iraq was justified or not. What I want to know is the answer to a simple question: Why did the President use forged evidence in the State of the Union address? This is a question that bears directly on the credibility of the United States, and it should be answered in a prompt and forthright manner, with full disclosure of all the relevant facts. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka It also might be worthy to note that upon visiting Hitler in the 1930's, Winston Churchill concluded that he was a pretty harmless man who posed no immediate threats...shortly after Hitler invaded Poland and not to soon after that over 6 million Jews had been destroyed in manners not to dissimilar from some of the things Saddam did to his own people. Did you happen to read about the man who lived in a false wall hideout for 22 years for fear of Saddam?? 22 friggin years, man! He was 27 when he went into hiding and now is 49 and all of his teeth have fallen out! This says nothing good about Saddam Hussein and the ruthless regime he led. Do not allow yourself to be deceived by the media. Read the information, glean the pertinent facts, and come to the logical conclusions. Here's a link to the article about the Iraqi: http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/3942304.html

Eehhh.. no way Saddam and Hitler can be compared hehehe.. they are two extremes. I think people compare Bush to Hitler though hehehe

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa CIA and NSA did not fabricate intelligence to get a pretext for war. CIA and NSA are not angels, but anyway they are Rightist patriots who like democracy ... the real American democracy of the founding fathers ... a democracy that US fought for in the 20th century. CIA guys have pride in their work, and they want to keep their intelligence truthful. Of course, there may be a few bad guys there, who fabricated things. Moreover, Saddam was a potential threat, so even the good guys in CIA took a careful look at Saddam, and reported the potential threats Saddam was causing. But in general, CIA reported that Iraq was not an urgent threat. But they couldn't simply go on TV talk shows or newspapers, and say that Bush was exaggerating. Instead, they had to report it by leaking it anonymously and speaking via ex-CIA intelligence analysts like Vincent Cannastraro. No. no, no ... CIA is not on the side of Bush and Neocons. That's why Richard Perle said that CIA's analysis "isn't worth the paper it's written on." Because CIA did not co-operate with Neocons to fabricate intelligence, Neocons instead set up their own miniature "intelligence agency" called Office of Special Plans (OSP) to provide suitable pretexts based on cooked intelligence from Chalabi and his INC opposition, who are long-time co-conspirators of Neocons: http://www.aerotechnews.com/starc/2...02/DOD_CIA.html Now when the WMD threats have proven to be pretexts, Bush and Neocons want to blame CIA for doing a bad job. It would be handy to Neocons if they could humiliate one of their opponents ... CIA. Neocons don't care about getting trutful intelligence in the future, anyway, so a rift with CIA is not a problem for them. So once again we see an example of Neocon anti-democratic tactics: they shift blame by making it look like invasion happened because of the Anti-War guys.

Well the closed hearings will then delve into whether Bush operated under assumptions or presented evidence contrary to CIA intelligence. If that is the case then shit will likely hit the fan because that extends beyond partisan loyalties. I doubt that the sessions will ever actually be fully open considering the nature of the CIA's intelligence gathering.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Eehhh.. no way Saddam and Hitler can be compared hehehe.. they are two extremes. I think people compare Bush to Hitler though hehehe

Also an extreme as I argued in another thread I believe

Nice Post Vesa.

True on the extreme thing Occrider.

Please define "Neoconservative".

thanks(no sarcasm)

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The true dumbass in all of this is Saddam ... why put up all the initial barriers when he had nothing? He should have just told the weapons inspectors to strip his country bare and demanded more inspectors. Why even get to the point where resolution 1441 was necessary ... something that was to be expected of a madman.

Ok, i understand how this can be partially Saddam's fault for not just coming out and telling the truth, but can you say it wasn't Bush's fault as well? Come on man, if Bush was half as intelligent as he thought he was he'd know that Saddam didn't have those weapons. If Saddam did have those weapons, why hadn't he used them? Why hadn't he attacked Israel or Iran? These are all things that Bush should have figured, but he's just a Republican war-monger. Plain and simple.

Haha war-monger.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka It also might be worthy to note that upon visiting Hitler in the 1930's, Winston Churchill concluded that he was a pretty harmless man who posed no immediate threats...shortly after Hitler invaded Poland and not to soon after that over 6 million Jews had been destroyed in manners not to dissimilar from some of the things Saddam did to his own people. Did you happen to read about the man who lived in a false wall hideout for 22 years for fear of Saddam?? 22 friggin years, man! He was 27 when he went into hiding and now is 49 and all of his teeth have fallen out! This says nothing good about Saddam Hussein and the ruthless regime he led. Do not allow yourself to be deceived by the media. Read the information, glean the pertinent facts, and come to the logical conclusions. Here's a link to the article about the Iraqi: http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/3942304.html

It was Chamberlain who wanted to compromise with Hitler, not Churchill.

Anyway, comparing Hitler to Saddam is rediculous since Hitler was in charge of probably the most powerful country in the world at the time, while Saddam's Iraq was a sort of little thorn in the side country which just babbles a lot but can't do anything.

As far as that guy goes, I knew about him, he was on TV, but nothing is being said about why he was under death threat from Saddam. The only thing it said was that he was a member of a shiite group, which coud very likely mean he was an islamic terrorist (Oh wait, aren't Saddam and islamists cooperating?). Anyway, the humanitarian issues weren't the primary cause for the war, because if that was the case, the US forces would have intervened in most of Africa prior to turning to Iraq.

Oh, and Vesa, thanx a lot for backing up my arguments.

quote:

Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 Ok, i understand how this can be partially Saddam's fault for not just coming out and telling the truth, but can you say it wasn't Bush's fault as well? Come on man, if Bush was half as intelligent as he thought he was he'd know that Saddam didn't have those weapons. If Saddam did have those weapons, why hadn't he used them? Why hadn't he attacked Israel or Iran? These are all things that Bush should have figured, but he's just a Republican war-monger. Plain and simple.

You heard wolfowitz ... wmds were one of many reasons to remove him from power, the administration simply picked this issue since it had some claim to legitimacy to it. The administration more or less knew that Iraq would not use his weapons in the current situation (who knows about in the future however). But how could the administration have justified war if 1441 were satisfied? That there was no dispute at all that Iraq didn't have wmds ... Saddam is a dumbass for actively putting up barriers such that Blix could not conclusively determine whether Iraq had wmds or not. In the eyes of many, it simply looked like Saddam was stalling for time and only agreed to additional concessions at the last minute.

Why the heck did the Americans looked upon Iraq in the first place...they should just stick their ass on searching for Al Quaeda.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Why the heck did the Americans looked upon Iraq in the first place...they should just stick their ass on searching for Al Quaeda.

Because the administration always had a hard on for Iraq. Probably a combination of a lot of things. Openly hostile dictatorship, possible terrorist financing, continual attacks against american and brit planes enforcing the no fly zone, a stabilization of the region and ultimately a removal of the massive number of troops in Saudi Arabia/Kuwait. Unlike Vesa, I sincerely doubt that force would be used in Iran. I posted news sources a while back which stated that Rummy ultimately wanted an extremely reduced presence in the region. And although the administration may be preaching a lot of anti-Iranian rhetoric, any breakthrough in achieving a revolution will be achieved from within rather than externally.

What's my main reasoning for this? Simple, Iraq was a very secular country with many religous persecutions as well as persecutions in general. Despite it being an Arab country, I'm sure a lot of neighboring countries secretely supported and wished for Saddam's downfall. Iran however, is an entirely different geopolitical climate. One that is based on a religous fundamentalist government. First, Iran has maintained relatively normal, peaceful relations with neighboring countries. Second, any attack from abroad upon Iran would be easily seen by the Muslim world as an attack against muslims or an attack against religion. Thus I really do not think that there will be any hostile use of force against Iran. And like I told Vesa ... I'm betting my hat on that one.

When this is all said and done (and who knows how long it will take), several of us will be proven wrong, and several of us will be proven to have been correct. If I am ultimately wrong, I will gladly admit it, however I fear that when and if the WMD's are finally found and/or accounted for, there will be an equal amount of BS rhetoric from opposition groups claiming evidence was planted/falsified or simply created for political and financial gain.

One of many things that bothers me as of late is how skeptical and critical people can be about the U.S. administration while at the same time casting such non-critical and trusting opinions of countries like Iraq and people like Saddam Hussein. What good can be said about a brutal dictator? What has history taught us about dictators? Certainly not much positive. At least Bush has to answer to the people, congress, and his cabinet. Hussein didn't have to answer to anyone. Let's say I'm Hussein--I have my own country. I call the shots, I can do whatever I want within the confines of my country without any fear of reprocussions for my actions--until someone else steps in. Why would a man have a nuclear reactor built in the 3rd most oil rich country on the face of the Earth?? The man always had ambitions for WMD's and factually posessed them when he kicked inspectors out in '98. Are we to believe that he proceeded to destroy said weapons after he kicked out the inspectors? Remember that Hussein pretty much answered to no one. I think it's far more foolish to believe he simply destroyed the weapons instead of perhaps suggesting that he concealed them VERY WELL once there were no inspectors there to monitor what he was doing? And let's also not forget (even though it's minor IMO) that the Al Samoud missiles he posessed violated UN sanctions as well and alone were a material breach.

Like I said, if I end up being wrong, then I'll admit that I was wrong, but at this point I'm not ready to say there aren't WMD's in Iraq. I think that as more and more of the higher ranking "deck of cards" members are found, we'll get closer and closer to the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Iran however, is an entirely different geopolitical climate. One that is based on a religous fundamentalist government. First, Iran has maintained relatively normal, peaceful relations with neighboring countries. Second, any attack from abroad upon Iran would be easily seen by the Muslim world as an attack against muslims or an attack against religion. Thus I really do not think that there will be any hostile use of force against Iran. And like I told Vesa ... I'm betting my hat on that one.

well I hope you are right man,but it seems like this Bush Administration isnt afraid of using milatary forces,but hopefuly they wont make that mistake,since there is alot of countries specially alot of European countries wont be happy if the Americans use forces against Iran,and that could make the US and Eu relations even worst.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider You heard wolfowitz ... wmds were one of many reasons to remove him from power, the administration simply picked this issue since it had some claim to legitimacy to it. The administration more or less knew that Iraq would not use his weapons in the current situation (who knows about in the future however). But how could the administration have justified war if 1441 were satisfied? That there was no dispute at all that Iraq didn't have wmds ... Saddam is a dumbass for actively putting up barriers such that Blix could not conclusively determine whether Iraq had wmds or not. In the eyes of many, it simply looked like Saddam was stalling for time and only agreed to additional concessions at the last minute.

Bah! Wolfowitz is a conservative dickhead. Some claim to legitimacy?

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa During this war, the Anti-War Camp joined forces with both American and European supporters of secular Realpolitik (that's how I became Anti-War ). Realpoliticians know that Saddam has been a deceiver and a potential future threat. They don't hesitate to play dirty themselves, and approve the use of Machiavellian methods when necessary. The problem for them has not been that the US Administration exaggerated the WMD situation. The main problem for them was Neocons' goal of an irresponsible American Hegemony.

Ahhhh a fan of Bismarck are we vesa? I'm starting to like you more and more every day

quote:

Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 Bah! Wolfowitz is a conservative dickhead. Some claim to legitimacy?

You missed the point of my post entirely ...

Bush would have had no legitmacy nor any reason to invade Iraq if Saddam had fully complied. Despite the administrations proven hostilities towards Iraq even before 9/11, it would have been virtually impossible for it to have invaded Iraq with absolutely no justification at all. So my primary argument still stands that Saddam is the biggest dumbass of them all ... simply look at his situation right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka When this is all said and done (and who knows how long it will take), several of us will be proven wrong, and several of us will be proven to have been correct. If I am ultimately wrong, I will gladly admit it, however I fear that when and if the WMD's are finally found and/or accounted for, there will be an equal amount of BS rhetoric from opposition groups claiming evidence was planted/falsified or simply created for political and financial gain. One of many things that bothers me as of late is how skeptical and critical people can be about the U.S. administration while at the same time casting such non-critical and trusting opinions of countries like Iraq and people like Saddam Hussein. What good can be said about a brutal dictator? What has history taught us about dictators? Certainly not much positive. At least Bush has to answer to the people, congress, and his cabinet. Hussein didn't have to answer to anyone. Let's say I'm Hussein--I have my own country. I call the shots, I can do whatever I want within the confines of my country without any fear of reprocussions for my actions--until someone else steps in. Why would a man have a nuclear reactor built in the 3rd most oil rich country on the face of the Earth?? The man always had ambitions for WMD's and factually posessed them when he kicked inspectors out in '98. Are we to believe that he proceeded to destroy said weapons after he kicked out the inspectors? Remember that Hussein pretty much answered to no one. I think it's far more foolish to believe he simply destroyed the weapons instead of perhaps suggesting that he concealed them VERY WELL once there were no inspectors there to monitor what he was doing? And let's also not forget (even though it's minor IMO) that the Al Samoud missiles he posessed violated UN sanctions as well and alone were a material breach. Like I said, if I end up being wrong, then I'll admit that I was wrong, but at this point I'm not ready to say there aren't WMD's in Iraq. I think that as more and more of the higher ranking "deck of cards" members are found, we'll get closer and closer to the truth.

I think that was pretty well said, Shakka, and I understand this point of view fairly well. I guess my point of view is that although he is a dictator, and although it's good to have one less crazy fool in charge of a country around, the means and justification for us to oust and invade that country is suspect. There are many dictators out there that are in need to being eliminated, but the justification of performing such actions need to be substantial, otherwise a backlash can result (which is what we are experiencing now).

The difference between your view and my own in regards to someone eventually being right and wrong is this: I sincerely hope I am wrong. I want to be wrong. Unfortunately, you cannot share that sentiment, because if your view is wrong and this war is not justified, we have a major scandal on our hands. I want WMD to be found, and I want there to be justification. I have always said that if Saddam was indeed an imminent threat to the world, then our stance for invasion is justified. So I really hope for our sake and for the sake of the U.S. and British credibility that there is evidence of Saddam being an imminent threat. As it stands now, however, given the evidence pointing to slant and forgery, that threat is seemingly exaggerated.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.