TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- I can't believe they haven't found any WMDs yet
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

I can't believe they haven't found any WMDs yet

you would think they would have at least planted a few by now...

PREDICTION:

One month before the 2004 general presedential election the Bush administration reveals that WMDs have just been found in a dark underground tunnel in HoASDfhkdkfj, Iraq.

duh!

we can see it coming from 20 miles away!

Good points Vesa. Not to mention that if and when the inspectors over there find something, it's not going to be covered by the media right away. It's not like Fox has a news crew over there with all of the inspectors ready to broadcast the second they find something--it's very sensitive material that will likely be very guarded until investigations and tests are completed. I'm sure that there will be a comprehensive report published at some point that shows one way or another what they've found. The timing of the publishing of such a report would be a different issue.

And let's not forget that Iraq repeatedly violated the terms of UN resolution 1441, which IMO, was reason enough to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein and hopefully replace him with someone else who can be held more accountable for their actions or lack thereof.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Many Anti-War people think that they can use the missing WMD to prove that Bush's administration was misleading the public. Unfortunately, non-existence is much harder to prove than existence. In my opinion, Anti-War people have overemphasized the WMD issue, and thereby risked their Anti-War cause. After all, Bush's administration is not a threat to world peace because of their WMD claims, but because of their hostile future plans.

Im one of those anti-war people. missing wdms is nothing, bush said iraq was a threat to my country. even if saddam did have wdms, he was and never would of been a threat to the US. this war was basicly for bush's corporate buddies, and the protection of israel. i dont why bother protecting israel, they can do their own terrorism with out americans getting killed. Its all there if you read PNAC. Im actually amazed we didnt find any wdms (or biological weapons so far, especially since we gave him so much in the 80s). i guess iraq did destroyed them or were given to terorist or got stolen, seeing how all we did was protect the oil fields once we got into iraq. we should of secured these wdm places that colon powell presented to the UN, he did say we knew exsactly where they were at, now we cant find them? WTF?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka And let's not forget that Iraq repeatedly violated the terms of UN resolution 1441, which IMO, was reason enough to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein and hopefully replace him with someone else who can be held more accountable for their actions or lack thereof.

yeah but the UN didnt go in, the US and this joke so called coalition of the willing went in. we pretty much did an illegal invasion seeing how iraq never declared war, attacked or was even a threat to my country. you want to know who should be forcibly removed? that ass ally of ours from uzbekistan, his far worse than saddam.

oh and trust me, if we find wdms, Fox and every other right wing echo machine will be all over this in a second.

I read this very interesting article of why o some people hate bush so much.. I should post it

saddam himself is a weapon of mass destruction, just how many people, his own people he killed...

>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by JM saddam himself is a weapon of mass destruction, just how many people, his own people he killed... >JM<

and killing 100,000 people (directly or indirectly) is a perfect solution to get rid of him

Unless you were there it's all hearsay and innuendo.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0218/trilling.php

It's hard to know how informed or misinformed we really are about the whole thing.

Here's our military's view of it. Of course they wouldn't be in any way biased.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan..._200301234.html

http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960702/72566_01.htm

I do like the coincidence of how George Bush Sr. was once the head of the CIA. I'm sure that the CIA would never lie to or decieve anyone *cough* Nicaragua *cough* Honduras *cough* Iran-Contra Affair *cough* Operation Condor *cough* Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War *cough* Air America *cough*

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0141/gray.php

This one really doesn't fit but I thought I'd throw it on anyway:
http://www.faqs.org/docs/factbook/print/iz.html

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King and killing 100,000 people (directly or indirectly) is a perfect solution to get rid of him

And what about all the people that Saddam has killed already and would undoubtedly kill in the future. Can anyone argue that the world is not a better place after this war. Even if Saddam is not dead he is no longer in a position to seriously endanger anybody again, a positive thing by anyones outlook!

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX I read this very interesting article of why o some people hate bush so much.. I should post it

post it then.

anyways if someone asked bush about the wmd's in a few years it would probably sound like this:

person: so what exactly did happend to those wmd's?
bush: what wmds?
person: you know, the ones used for supporting terror and anti-americanism
bush: oh! those wmds! well there... uh... somewhere...

quote:

Originally posted by fuct4less post it then. anyways if someone asked bush about the wmd's in a few years it would probably sound like this: person: so what exactly did happend to those wmd's? bush: what wmds? person: you know, the ones used for supporting terror and anti-americanism bush: oh! those wmds! well there... uh... somewhere...

Sprryy.. forgot bout it, here it is. From times.com

quote:

What makes the Bush-haters so mad? By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER First, it was how he got the job. Now it's how much he's doing with it Bill Moyers may have his politics, but his deferential demeanor and almost avuncular television style made him the Mr. Rogers of American politics. So when he leaves his neighborhood to go to a "Take Back America" rally and denounces George W. Bush's "government of, by and for the ruling corporate class," leading a "right-wing wrecking crew" engaged in "a deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States way of governing," you know that something is going on. That something is the unhinging of the Democratic Party. Democrats are seized with a loathing for President Bush � a contempt and disdain giving way to a hatred that is near pathological � unlike any since they had Richard Nixon to kick around. An otherwise reasonable man, Julian Bond of the N.A.A.C.P., speaks of Bush's staffing his Administration with "the Taliban wing of American politics." Harold Meyerson, editor at large of The American Prospect, devotes a 3,000-word article to explaining why Bush is the most dangerous President in all of American history � his only rival being Jefferson Davis. The puzzle is where this depth of feeling comes from. Bush's manner is not particularly aggressive. He has been involved in no great scandals, Watergate or otherwise. He is, indeed, not the kind of politician who radiates heat. Yet his every word and gesture generate heat � a fury and bitterness that animate the Democratic primary electorate and explain precisely why Howard Dean has had such an explosive rise. More than any other candidate, Dean has understood the depth of this primal anti-Bush feeling and has tapped into it. Whence the anger? It begins of course with the "stolen" election of 2000 and the perception of Bush's illegitimacy. But that is only half the story. An illegitimate President winning a stolen election would be tolerable if he were just a figurehead, a placeholder, the kind of weak, moderate Republican that Democrats (and indeed many Republicans) thought George Bush would be, judging from his undistinguished record and tepid 2000 campaign. Bush's great crime is that he is the illegitimate President who became consequential � revolutionizing American foreign policy, reshaping economic policy and dominating the political scene ever since his emergence as the post-9/11 war President. Before that, Bush could be written off as an accident, a transitional figure, a kind of four-year Gerald Ford. And then came 9/11. Bush took charge, declared war, and sent the country into battle twice, each time bringing down enemy regimes with stunning swiftness. In Afghanistan, Bush rode a popular tide; Iraq, however, was a singular act of presidential will. That will, like it or not, has remade American foreign policy. The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy is the subtitle of a new book by two not very sympathetic scholars, Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay. The book is titled America Unbound. The story of the past two years could just as well be titled Bush Unbound. The President's unilateral assertion of U.S. power has redefined America's role in the world. Here was Bush breaking every liberal idol: the ABM Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, deference to the U.N., subservience to the "international community." It was an astonishing performance that left the world reeling and the Democrats seething. The pretender had not just seized the throne. He was acting like a king. Nay, an emperor. On the domestic front, more shock. Democrats understand that the Bush tax cuts make structural changes that will long outlive him. Like the Reagan cuts, they will starve the government of revenue for years to come. Add to that the Patriot Act and its (perceived) assault on fundamental American civil liberties, and Bush the Usurper becomes more than just consequential. He becomes demonic. The current complaint is that Bush is a deceiver, misleading the country into a war, after which there turned out to be no weapons of mass destruction. But it is hard to credit the deception charge when every intelligence agency on the planet thought Iraq had these weapons and, indeed, when the weapons there still remain unaccounted for. Moreover, this is a post-facto rationale. Sure, the aftermath of the Iraq war has made it easier to frontally attack Bush. But the loathing long predates it. It started in Florida and has been deepening ever since Bush seized the post-9/11 moment to change the direction of the country and make himself a President of note. Which is why the Democratic candidates are scrambling desperately to out-Dean Dean. Their constituency is seized with a fever, and will nominate whichever candidate feeds it best. Political fevers are a dangerous thing, however. The Democrats last came down with one in 1972--and lost 49 states. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright � 2003 Time Inc.

quote:

Originally posted by Acid Circus And what about all the people that Saddam has killed already and would undoubtedly kill in the future. Can anyone argue that the world is not a better place after this war. Even if Saddam is not dead he is no longer in a position to seriously endanger anybody again, a positive thing by anyones outlook!

You obviously dont see my point. TWO WRONGS DONT MAKE A RIGHT!

This war has MURDERED many people, just like Saddam has MURDERED many.

And do you honestly think this world is far better than it used to be before the war. The middle east is in chaos. Afghanistan is not doing so well, and Iraq is in shambles. The world is split apart with this decision, and billions of people are pissed off at the US. Not to mention that Terrorist attacks have increased since then in Indonesia, Suadi Arabia, Israel and Iraq and Afghanistan.

And WHAT DANGER was Saddam right before the war? People in Iran and Kuwait, who are neighbors with Iraq, werent shouting WAR! But the US and Britain, who are far from that part of the world, claimed to have been threatened...give me a fucking break.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King And WHAT DANGER was Saddam right before the war? People in Iran and Kuwait, who are neighbors with Iraq, werent shouting WAR! But the US and Britain, who are far from that part of the world, claimed to have been threatened...give me a fucking break.

what danger?maybe his annual "i will bomb israel with chimical weapons this year" sayings,do you have any idea how much money he gave to terror?!he is the one who gives the money to arafat and arafat takes it to himself and the rest is for the terror org.,and we are talking billions over here,

but you live far from the middle east so i guess you really dont give a shit

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka And let's not forget that Iraq repeatedly violated the terms of UN resolution 1441, which IMO, was reason enough to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein and hopefully replace him with someone else who can be held more accountable for their actions or lack thereof.

You are mistaken here. Iraq didn't violate the resolution 1441. It complied with it in almost all respects, and Hans Blix rated Iraqi cooperation as relatively good. And let's not forget Iraq also succumbed to the wishes of the US that were not in the resolution, like allowing the U2 spy planes to fly over Iraq and to freely take pictures. Up until the attack, inspectors were allowed to examine any site they wanted. The only thing they found were several missiles whose range was a little over the allowed limit, and those missiles were then destroyed by the Iraqis themselves. The US attack had therefore no legitimacy in the UN whatsoever.

Iraq has attempted to obstruct investigations prior to 1998, when Clinton decided to withdraw the inspectors. This time, however, Iraq did cooperate. And let's also not forget it was the US who refused the initiative to triple the amount of inspectors claiming Iraq had mobile WMD factories that were fleeing from the inspectors (the later discovered hydrogen producing trucks).

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 You are mistaken here. Iraq didn't violate the resolution 1441. It complied with it in almost all respects, and Hans Blix rated Iraqi cooperation as relatively good. And let's not forget Iraq also succumbed to the wishes of the US that were not in the resolution, like allowing the U2 spy planes to fly over Iraq and to freely take pictures. Up until the attack, inspectors were allowed to examine any site they wanted. The only thing they found were several missiles whose range was a little over the allowed limit, and those missiles were then destroyed by the Iraqis themselves. The US attack had therefore no legitimacy in the UN whatsoever. Iraq has attempted to obstruct investigations prior to 1998, when Clinton decided to withdraw the inspectors. This time, however, Iraq did cooperate. And let's also not forget it was the US who refused the initiative to triple the amount of inspectors claiming Iraq had mobile WMD factories that were fleeing from the inspectors (the later discovered hydrogen producing trucks).

They complied in "process" not in "substance" as reported by Blix. Translation: They continued the game of leading inspectors on wild goose chases while compiling a 12,000 page dossier of bullshit to deter attention from the fact that they still couldn't account for weapons they were already known to have just a few years prior. And I suppose that the taped phone conversations that Colin Powell presented to the U.N. were probably faked too, right?

Eitherway, Bush will be seeking UN's Help, ironic enough. I mean, the German, French Presidents, along with Puttin and probably the whole UN crew who was against this war, must be like.. ( Told ya, but you see, you didnt listen ) .. hehehe.. anyways, really, although the US had to do it in the first place, but it looks very hypocritical.

Well it does appear that the Germans are beginning to come around. I do agree that world involvement is important, but not at the expense of creating a beaurocrat state. There needs to be clearly defined leadership.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King and killing 100,000 people (directly or indirectly) is a perfect solution to get rid of him

i have no idea where you got that number.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ says that the minimum civilian casualties lie around 6131 and the max at 7849. And to add to it this is from the date of Jan 1 2003 up until today. all other indiciations also point somewhere in that range.

where you got 100k i have no idea, thats a really high margin factor.
furthermore, what Acid Circus said was correct. who's to say that those other deaths (starvation and such) are caused by the US, maybe those same deaths would have been ten fold under saddam and nobody would have known. for all we know "indirect" deaths may be happening a lot less then they were under the old regime, so to use this as an arguement is absurd.

the argument is simple on comparison
the human rights watch says "at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 persons, many of them women and children, were killed out of hand between February and September 1988," http://hrw.org/reports/world/iraq-pubs.php

most figures indicate around 5,000 civilians have died during the gulf war 2.

if we're talking about civilian deaths, the iraqi's are much safer under US control.

the US has a larger WMD program compared to Iraq. I think they should be looking around in their own yard for goodies.

The people dont want the US there, they should just leave.

I think the deaths mentioned is just part of all the mess that surrounds the US and Iraq subject. What one really have to look at is the future outcome, results, and what will happen to Iraq. Furthermore, how will people in Iraq live after this. Under Saddam Hussein, yes there was some ugly stuff that happened about a decade ago, but, like Ive said 10000 times, there was no problem with terrorists breeding there, or causing antyhing related. The 3 major religious groups lived great if we look at how bad this groups are with each other, or what their perspectives and beliefs are. So basically, whats more troubleing is what we all know, which is the way that the US has failed, as of now, on the postwar outcome. It really saddens me, because if one really takes that fold off one eyes, under Saddam people were living decent lives, it wasent as to what it was portrayed, people were getting education and working, it was decent country, and if all the sanctions would've been taken off IRaq, I definetly would say that Iraq would've been one of the leadering countries in that part of the middle east.

Overall, like Ive said, US has failed ( currently ) on the postwar issue, and I dont think that under the US command Iraq is better then what it was under Saddam, but by the own testimonies of the Iraqui people ( we are talking even people against saddam ) .. have said that Iraq was much better under Saddam, and that now all there is is just fear, no way to protect, and a new way of lifestyle emergin.. or other kinds of bad things. The black market is growing like never before there, and culture there is just a mess there. And yes, sucks to see people dieing by people that are usually there to free them, but thats no surprise, since is justifyable the trauma that all this american soldiers are getting, and will be coming back with. Even worst would be if they later see that going to Iraq for just presumtions, with no definite objective, and changing your life like that, its desagradable.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX like Ive said 10000 times, there was no problem with terrorists breeding there

that is not true. many hamas members have had training inside iraq for use of explosive devices. a hamas member was assasinated in baghdad by another palestinian orginization. colin powell reported of "al-qeada-esque" military camps in iraq. one can not say that terrorists did not breed or reside in iraq.

Its important to note that terrorists, such as those that overtook the planes on september 11th, train inside the United States.

It is true that since the war nowhere close to 100,000 people have died. However sanctions put on Iraq since 1990 are estimated to have killed many many more then that number. If I remember correctly the UN estimated that over 500 000 Iraqis died as a result of the U.S. sanctions. The number of people hurt by Saddam's regime was a small fraction of that. Iraq also had one of the highest living standards in the middle east prior to that time.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio Its important to note that terrorists, such as those that overtook the planes on september 11th, train inside the United States. It is true that since the war nowhere close to 100,000 people have died. However sanctions put on Iraq since 1990 are estimated to have killed many many more then that number. If I remember correctly the UN estimated that over 500 000 Iraqis died as a result of the U.S. sanctions. The number of people hurt by Saddam's regime was a small fraction of that. Iraq also had one of the highest living standards in the middle east prior to that time.

last time i checked the sanctions were not coming soley from the US.
futhermore you must respect a countries soviergn right to hold sanctions agiasnt which ever country they want and for what ever reason they want. you can't force two sides to do business.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa After one kills a person, one must take responsibility for it. Killing people and closing one's eyes afterwards is shameful. Therefore, it's critically important to establish a realistic body count, and then visualize what it means.

i agree with you completely.

quote:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily..._0167_db052.htm Beth Daponte made demographic calculations, and concluded that 13,000 civilians were killed directly as collateral damage, 70,000 civilians were killed indirectly due to the damage that bombs caused to the Iraqi infrastructure, and 40,000 soldiers were killed in action. These numbers shocked the US Administration, so that the report was rewritten to hide the numbers, and Daponte was fired with the attitude "kill the messenger". Later Daponte recalculated the casualties, and came up with an even higher total of 200,000 dead Iraqis. From these numbers, one can conclude that indirect civilian casualties are again the biggest factor, and may be near 100,000 if the damage to the Iraqi infrastructure in this second Iraq War has been near the same magnitude as in the first Gulf War.

this is where i lost you. in my opinion jumping from the casuality rate of Gulf war 1 to Gulf war 2 just because "the damage to the Iraqi infrastructure in this second Iraq War has been near the same magnitude as in the first Gulf War." i dont agree with. there is much to say about the differences.

Firstly, i doubt and civilian infrustructure was ever targetted beside the occasional bridge or road. there was no need to target water supply and even when the electricty went out in badhdad it was obviously not the intention of the US (as one could see by the chaos that insued).

secondly, i doubt that either of us have seen the actual 'war plan' to know exactly how much was targetted, there maybe have been a more consice attack plan this time as opposed to a broad bombardment in the first... i dont know... but it is an assumption to say they are equal in magnitude and in nature.

Next, targeting has evolved immensley in the 12 years since gulf war 1. I am a computer engineer (on hardware side) and from what i see around me the advancements that take place each year are outstanding let alone 12 years. A lot of military contractors come recruiting at my school (raytheon, Lockheed etc.) and from what i can tell, with all the funding that goes to these compinies, the military drives technology. they get it first and they get the best.

also, lets not forget that the US had a lot of ground troops and a FAR greater amount of journalist and media reporters this time in iraq to either confirm or discredit many reports, meaning i would trust more the accuracy of this war's numbers as opposed to the first. i still would be hesistant to judge how many civilians died just because of how intense the bombardment was. i'd rather look at hospital records and 'cause of death' reports and work my way up from there.

i can understand if you think 5,000 or 10,000 might be low but a factor of 10 is a big difference. i can understand if you think its twice as much, maybe three or four but times ten is a big jump.

quote:

Some might shed the responsiblity for these casualties partly to Saddam, who didn't try to minimize the number of killed Iraqis, but on the contrary forced conscript troops to fight and located military targets near civilians. But a body is a body, and because the Americans were the ones who dropped the bombs and attacked urban areas, they are the guilty ones in my eyes.

this is a big issue with me. although it may be morally wrong to some to attack an enemy who is hiding amoungst the innocent, we are entering a new stage of warfare when we have to confront cowards who use civilians as both targets and shields. Sometimes in confronting this enemy was must preform an evil for the greater good (ala Machiavelli)

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