Rules
Terms of Use

Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#169362 - Wed Apr 23 2003 04:53 PM Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
valois Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Mon Feb 04 2002
Posts: 393
Loc: Pennsylvania USA
WASHINGTON (AP) - American forces are changing their search strategy after coming up empty at most of the top suspected weapons sites in Iraq, officials said Wednesday.

And the White House appeared to be trying to scale back expectations that weapons of mass destruction will be found.

Troops on the ground have searched more than 80 sites that prewar U.S. intelligence judged the most likely hiding places for chemical and biological weapons as well as evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program, Defense Department officials said on condition of anonymity.

There are more than 1,000 suspected sites but 100 or so were the searchers' top priority.

Some analysis is pending on some substances found. But finding no stockpiles of chemical or biological agents after more than a month into the campaign, teams are now setting aside the search list and deciding where to go more on the basis of new information from Iraqis, three defense officials said Wednesday.

``We did have several hundred sites that we had some history of intelligence on that we were going to exploit,'' said Lt. Gen. David McKiernan, commander of land forces in Iraq. ``This regime over the last decade has been pretty good at hiding material and moving it around, so it was no surprise to any of us that many of these sites that we've already exploited have not necessarily turned up the material.''

Two other officials said that in recent days officials have realized the list is of questionable value because of the ability of the Iraqis to destroy or remove weapons and equipment.

Although U.S. officials say the war is not over, more forces are headed home. The aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman and its battle group of 11 ships has been released from wartime duty and is scheduled to arrive at its home port of Norfolk, Va., in May, officials said Wednesday. The Truman left Norfolk Dec. 5 and originally was to complete its sea duty in early June.

The Truman is now in the Mediterranean Sea, along with the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier battle group. Two other carriers, the USS Kitty Hawk and the USS Constellation, left the Persian Gulf last week. The only carrier now in the Gulf is the USS Nimitz.

Also, two of the three Marine Expeditionary Units that fought in Iraq are preparing to head home. The 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit will soon be headed back to Camp Lejeune, N.C., and the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit will follow a short time later en route home to Camp Pendleton, Calif., officials said. Both units have about 2,200 people.

The sites in Iraq searched for chemical and biological weapons have included mosques, homes, factories and government ministries. In some cases teams arrived to find buildings completely empty - swept of any evidence, one official said.

One search team also interviewed an Iraqi scientist last week who said some weapons were moved to Syria and others were destroyed before the war. His account has not yet been verified.

McKiernan called the search ``ad hoc'' now, meaning troops will move on information culled from various intelligence, which could include captured Iraqis, documents and other sources.

Another official said the Pentagon still intends eventually to search all of the more than 1,000 possible sites, which he called ``guesses'' based on satellite data, other surveillance, information gathered by United Nations weapons inspectors over the years, from Iraqi defectors and elsewhere.

The prewar list did not reflect an intelligence failure, he said. But rather, moving to the new system is a natural evolution of the hunt, now that American officials are inside Iraq and can speak to Iraqis who have knowledge of weapons programs.

The existence of weapons of mass destruction - and goal of disarming Iraq - were the mains reasons given by the administration for the war, which did not get U.N. approval.

Hans Blix, the U.N.'s chief weapons inspector, commented Tuesday on the lack of U.S. findings.

``It is conspicuous that so far they have not stumbled upon anything,'' he said in New York.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Tuesday there was ``no question we remain confident that WMD (weapons of mass destruction) will found.''

On Wednesday he said the president still believes weapons exist there. Asked what will happen if none are found, he said ``the chances of success depend not on finding something by bumping into it,'' but on information provided by Iraqis involved in the programs.

Asked if he meant searches might not find the weapons but rather some kind of evidence they previously existed, Fleischer said: ``There are no changes in the American position. We have high confidence that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction ... that indeed will be found in whatever form it is.''




_________________________
People try to change the world, instead of themselves. John Cleese

Top
#169363 - Wed Apr 23 2003 05:06 PM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
sue943 Offline
Administrator

Registered: Sun Dec 19 1999
Posts: 36732
Loc: Jersey
Channel Islands    
Hmmph! I think I would be more surprised if they find any than if they don't. Then we don't have access to the intelligence that the US government has access to, to me the fact that they couldn't find any WMD just might mean that there were none to be found. We shall just have to wait and see.

Just as well those animal rights people don't decide to attack me because they can't find a fur coat in my house, I don't have one - same sort of thing.
_________________________
Many a child has been spoiled because you can't spank a Grandma!

Top
#169364 - Wed Apr 23 2003 05:25 PM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
ace_sodium Offline
Prolific

Registered: Mon Sep 16 2002
Posts: 1168
Loc: India
Quote:

....some weapons were moved to Syria



so,
lets ATTACK.....

_________________________
5......

Top
#169365 - Thu Apr 24 2003 06:35 AM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
valois Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Mon Feb 04 2002
Posts: 393
Loc: Pennsylvania USA
I don't think that weapons of mass destruction of any significance will be found. Since this was the reason for the invasion (I mean liberation), America will have some explaining to do. I feel a growing sense of shame for my country and the lives lost for a war that appears to have been based on a false premise.
_________________________
People try to change the world, instead of themselves. John Cleese

Top
#169366 - Thu Apr 24 2003 12:14 PM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
DieHard Offline
Prolific

Registered: Wed Oct 10 2001
Posts: 1127
Loc: Louisiana USA
The very people who were demanding that the weapons inspectors be given more time to find these weapons that have been expertly hidden for a decade ( and that's the only job the inspectors had) are now demanding the US show immediate proof of such weapons while the military has their hands full with other tasks that have more urgency at this time. Clinton knew Iraq had WMD, Bush knows it, Blair knows it, Annan knows it, Chirac knows it, Hussein admitted as much,.....
_________________________
In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved. - FDR

Top
#169367 - Thu Apr 24 2003 09:02 PM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
bloomsby Offline
Moderator

Registered: Sun Apr 29 2001
Posts: 3940
Loc: Norwich England UK            
It's early days ... and in the present circumstances restoring essential services surely must have the highest priority. Obviously, if in the course of the next few weeks or so no weapons of mass destruction or only a few unimportant 'bits and pieces' are found it will be embarrassing in the extreme. Some people are already making jokes about the Coalition having to plant some if none are found ...

However, why did just about everyone assume that the Saddam régime had at least some weapons of mass destruction? Surely, the assumption underlying the UN inspections was that there were indeed such weapons in Iraq.
Moreover, if Saddam had nothing to hide, why were the UN weapons inspectors not allowed to inspect freely?

Top
#169368 - Fri Apr 25 2003 06:30 AM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Coolupway Offline
Prolific

Registered: Mon Aug 26 2002
Posts: 1131
Judith Miller broke the story in the NY Times a few days back that an Iraqi scientist now in coalition custody has advised that Saddam destroyed some of his WMD arsenal four days before he was invaded, and sent much of the rest of it to Boy Assad in Syria, leaving only bits and pieces buried at undisclosed locations within Iraqi borders. To my knowledge no one has since denied this officially or otherwise.

Top
#169369 - Fri Apr 25 2003 07:14 AM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
snm Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Thu Jan 30 2003
Posts: 901
Loc: Israel
I was about to post almost the same thing, but then the computer got stuck and you beat me to it!

The Iraqi WMDs will be pretty difficult to identify in Syria, since they've probably already been incorporated into Syria's own rather large Chemical arsenal (believed to be the biggest in the world). Sharon announced months ago that Saddam was sending weapons to Syria, but no one took him seriously at the time.
_________________________
"Talk is cheap, arms are not"- Victor Davis Hanson

Top
#169370 - Fri Apr 25 2003 11:18 AM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
sue943 Offline
Administrator

Registered: Sun Dec 19 1999
Posts: 36732
Loc: Jersey
Channel Islands    
That ought to give Bush a good reason to flatten Syria too, then where can he go afterwards, toss a coin.
_________________________
Many a child has been spoiled because you can't spank a Grandma!

Top
#169371 - Fri Apr 25 2003 03:10 PM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Coolupway Offline
Prolific

Registered: Mon Aug 26 2002
Posts: 1131
Whatever he does there, it won't be as nearly as bad what Hafez al-Assad inflicted on his OWN people at Hama, in 1982, when he attacked the Syrian city by land and air, killing between 10,000 and 25,000 according to Amnesty International.

And from there Bush would do well to dump the Saudis. We Yanks can cut back a bit on our SUV use without anyone being much the worse off for it.


Top
#169372 - Fri Apr 25 2003 05:31 PM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
chelseabelle Offline
Star Poster

Registered: Thu Oct 07 1999
Posts: 10282
Loc: New York USA
Coolupway, did I read you correctly? Were you citing that notoriously inaccurate paper, The New York Times, as a reliable source for information?

Not having found any WMD really invalidates our only legitimate reason for invading Iraq.
And now the U.S. and Britain are being criticized for using falsified documents to prove the existence of WMD, which makes us appear doubly suspect.

1. We haven't found WMD.

2. We haven't found Saddam Hussein.

3. The Shiites want us to get out of Iraq so they can form their own government along religious lines.

4. Those we "liberated" have made it clear that they don't want us in charge any more than they wanted Saddam. Cries of, "U.S. Get Out", certainly drowned out any "Thank You" from these grateful folk.

5. U.S. taxpayers will be paying hefty bills for the rebuilding of Iraq, and for keeping the peace, for many years to come.

So, what on earth did we accomplish with this war--apart from establishing a precedent with regard to pre-emptive strikes against countries who have not yet attacked us?

And I suppose that precedent would be invoked to justify attacking Syria...or Iran...or anywhere else we felt like invading.

I can't really see any victory, for us, in this war thus far. What was the point of it all? To prove that the world's greatest super power could invade a small country and rout out the existing government? So we flexed our considerable muscles and brought down Saddam's regime--at least for now. But does that limited accomplishment justify the morality of our pre-emptive strike, in view of the fact that WMD were not found? Or doesn't the morality of our actions matter any more?
_________________________
Still Crazy After All These Years

Top
#169373 - Fri Apr 25 2003 06:17 PM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Coolupway Offline
Prolific

Registered: Mon Aug 26 2002
Posts: 1131
Not just the Times, CB... Judith Miller. There are lots of reporters bouncing around the Middle East (and in fairness to the Times, they have another good one, John Burns), but who could possibly have greater credentials for covering the Muslim world than a woman whom Muammar Qaddafi himself actually tried to seduce?? Seriously, Miller's "God Has 99 Names" was an excellent book, and as for the Times... well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

A voice from the right articulates a somewhat broader view of the recent events in the Middle East.






Top
#169374 - Fri Apr 25 2003 07:14 PM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
chelseabelle Offline
Star Poster

Registered: Thu Oct 07 1999
Posts: 10282
Loc: New York USA
I think I share the more cynical view of this NY Times columnist:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 21, 2003
What Is it Good For?
By BOB HERBERT


Somewhere George Shultz is smiling.

Mr. Shultz, whose photo could appropriately appear next to any definition of the military-industrial complex, was secretary of state under Ronald Reagan and has been a perennial heavyweight with the powerful Bechtel Group of San Francisco, where he previously reigned as president and is now a board member and senior counselor.

Unlike the antiwar soul singer Edwin Starr — who, in an ironic bit of timing, went to his eternal reward early this month just as American ground forces were sweeping toward Baghdad — Mr. Shultz knows what war is good for.

And he wanted this war with Iraq. Oh, how he wanted this war. Mr. Shultz was chairman of the fiercely prowar Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which was committed to moving beyond the mere political liberation of the oil-rich country to the all-important and conveniently profitable "reconstruction of its economy."

Under the headline "Act Now; The Danger Is Immediate," Mr. Shultz, in an op-ed article in The Washington Post last September, wrote: "A strong foundation exists for immediate military action against Hussein and for a multilateral effort to rebuild Iraq after he is gone."

Gee, I wonder which company he thought might lead that effort.

Last week Mr. Shultz's Bechtel Group was able to demonstrate exactly what wars are good for. The Bush administration gave it the first big Iraqi reconstruction contract, a prized $680 million deal over 18 months that puts Bechtel in the driver's seat for the long-term reconstruction of the country, which could cost $100 billion or more.

Bechtel essentially was given a license to make money. And that license was granted in a closed-door process that was restricted to a handful of politically connected American companies.

When the George Bushes and the George Shultzes were banging the drums for war with Iraq, we didn't hear one word from them about the benefits that would be accruing to corporate behemoths like Bechtel. And we didn't pay much attention to the grotesque conflict of interest engaged in by corporate titans and their government cronies who were pushing young American men and women into the flames of a war that ultimately would pour billions of dollars into a very select group of corporate coffers.

Now the corporations (not just Bechtel by any means) have a lock on Iraq, and U.S. taxpayers are obliged to pay the bill.

Among those in Congress who are beginning to challenge this loathsome process is Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who is one of the lead sponsors of a bipartisan bill that would require a public explanation of any decision to award Iraqi reconstruction contracts without a "fully open, competitive bidding process."

In an interview, he said, "You look at this process, which is secret, limited or closed bidding, and you have to ask yourself: `Why are these companies being picked? How's this process taking place, and is this the best use of scarce taxpayer money at a time when seniors can't afford medicine, kids are having trouble getting access to a quality education and local communities are just getting pounded? The administration has been keeping the taxpayers in the dark with respect to how this money is being used, and that information ought to be shared."

The blatant war-mongering followed immediately by profiteering inevitably raise questions about the real reasons American men and women have been fighting and dying in Iraq. President Bush told us the war was about weapons of mass destruction and the need to get rid of the degenerate Saddam. There was also talk about democracy taking root in Iraq and spreading like spring flowers throughout the Arab world.

The two things that were never openly discussed, that never became part of the national conversation, were oil and money. Those crucial topics were left to the major behind-the-scenes operators, many of whom are now cashing in.

The favoritism, the secretive method by which the contracts are being awarded and the arrogant and unconscionable exclusion of the United Nations and even close U.S. allies from significant roles in the administration and reconstruction of Iraq all contribute to the most cynical interpretation of American motives.

The men and women who fought bravely in Iraq, for reasons they felt were noble and unassailable, deserve better.

http://nytimes.com
_________________________
Still Crazy After All These Years

Top
#169375 - Sat Apr 26 2003 09:50 PM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
DakotaNorth Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Tue Jul 10 2001
Posts: 6168
Loc: Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA
Not finding WMD only proves that Bush was dead wrong about Iraq having them, which makes Bush and his administration look like a bunch of war-mongers.

Bush's sole reason, the one that he admitted, for this unnecessary war was WMD. His true reason, oil, was never mentioned.

Since when is a war generated because of an assumption? Assuming Iraq had WMD is not a good reason to invade and conquer.

How would Bush like it if another country demanded that he step down, and demanded that he destroy our WMD? America does have WMD, so what makes us special that we can have them and other countries can't? Because we're a super power? That's not a good reason. If anything we should be setting an example to other nations.

What gives America the right to force democracy on any nation? If Bush forces democracy on Iraq, he will be no better than the person whom he so desperately wanted dead, Saddam.

Forcing another nation to abide by American laws is just like Hitler forcing other nations to abide by Nazi laws.

Is Bush another Saddam, or at worst another Hitler? This remains to be seen. This war on Iraq certainly doesn't endear him to many. In fact, all it does is make him out to be a war-monger, eager to force another nation to abide by his laws.
_________________________
“In a world where you can be anything, be yourself.”

Top
#169376 - Sun Apr 27 2003 01:03 AM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
damnsuicidalroos Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Mon Feb 10 2003
Posts: 2167
Loc: Sydney
NSW Australia
Yes I guess the only people happy with Bush,Blair and Howard at the moment are those that dislike murderous dictators.Bet the Iraqi people are happy to be rid of Saddam and his gang though,I would also bet that the Nth Korean majority would like to be rid of the leaders that have led them to such a depth.What a miserable world it would be if no countries peoples came to assist another countries peoples when they were in distress,the Red Cross would never have been formed,the U.N would have never been formed[they have done some good after all]the Salvation army and Amnesty International would not exist.Countries afflicted by fires,droughts,famines,floods and murderous dictators should all be assisted by those that can,if this help comes in the form of food,financial aid,medicines to fight diseases or guns and bombs to kill filth like Saddam there is no difference.It`s still far too early to state that there are no weapons of mass destruction,Iraq is a large area to search and Saddam has had plenty of time to hide such things.In a perfect world the United States would have no need to have such weapons themselves,maybe a world in which everyone believed in live and let live,until such a world exists the non-violent and honest peoples of the world should be grateful that they have the possibility of living in freedom and security because of the existance of countries like America that are prepared to take practical action against those that would take that security from them. [ Oops I thought this thread was in controversial issues]


Edited by damnsuicidalroos (Sun Apr 27 2003 01:14 AM)
_________________________
Responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones.

Top
#169377 - Sun Apr 27 2003 03:14 AM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
snm Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Thu Jan 30 2003
Posts: 901
Loc: Israel
Quote:

Forcing another nation to abide by American laws is just like Hitler forcing other nations to abide by Nazi laws.




Dakota, I just have to ask since I've seen you make comparisons between Bush and Hitler on so many occasions, how much do you actually know about Hitler and Nazi Germany?

Quote:

Is Bush another Saddam, or at worst another Hitler?




Are you implying that Saddam was/is worse than Hitler? I guess that answers my first question...
_________________________
"Talk is cheap, arms are not"- Victor Davis Hanson

Top
#169378 - Sun Apr 27 2003 07:08 AM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
DakotaNorth Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Tue Jul 10 2001
Posts: 6168
Loc: Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA
SNM, this is my second occasion comparing Bush to Hitler, so I don't see where you can say "so many occasions."

Also, I asked "is Bush another Saddam, or at worst another Hitler," which implies that Hitler is worse than Saddam. A question is just that...a question.

I also said that "it remains to be seen" and gave my reason for stating what I did.

And...I do know quite a bit about Hitler and Nazi Germany, after all I did have history in school. I'm not a fanatic about the subject, but I do know about it.
_________________________
“In a world where you can be anything, be yourself.”

Top
#169379 - Sun Apr 27 2003 07:23 AM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Coolupway Offline
Prolific

Registered: Mon Aug 26 2002
Posts: 1131
Israel has no oil.

Israel in the United States's strongest ally in the Middle East.

If the US' Middle East policy were guided solely or even largely by oil concerns, no President since Truman would have given the slightest support to Israel, a country of which I believe it is fair to say many OPEC members are not particularly enamored. (Anyone remember the gas lines in 1973 and succeeding years after the US backed Israel in the Yom Kippur War?)


Top
#169380 - Sun Apr 27 2003 08:04 AM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Jax Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Mon Jun 11 2001
Posts: 724
Loc: Okla
Hello Lisa.,, Your opinion represents a considerable group. Even though the president's approval rating has gone up substantially, Strangely enough, polls show little or no change in the "Should we invade Iraq" before and after. Those who believed it was the right thing, still do and those opposed still are. And if we find WMD I suspect it will do little to sway the opinion. After all there are a number of nations that do have WMD.
Fact is I believe the course was right on many different levels, and it would take considerable evidence to convince me otherwise.


Why you ask, should we care about another nation that has WMD?
Saddam had proven his recklessness in using gas against his own people. And he had proven his ambitions by his invasion of Kuwait. He was a ruthless totalitarian dictator who ruled everything in the country with an iron hand of torture and death to any who would simply disagree. These conditions make for a very volatile and unstable country.
He had known connections with terrorist through training and harbor.
Sadddam had agreed to destroy all WMD and allow verification, in his cease fire agreement of 91,after his invasion of Kuwait. He never lived up to his agreement in the 12 year after.
The war was waged because Saddam refused to comply. He never allowed weapons inspectors to do their job. There is a list of violations, including quite a bit of missing anthrax that was never accounted for. As a results of his failure to comply, we took the appropriate action to insure our safety.

If we never find any WMD, the war was wise and just. It does not mean he did not pass WMD off to terrorist.
We have eliminated one more threat.

The war has shown that the president was serious when he said " either you are for us or you are against us in the war on Terrorism.
_________________________
Zebra

Top
#169381 - Sun Apr 27 2003 08:46 AM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
DakotaNorth Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Tue Jul 10 2001
Posts: 6168
Loc: Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA
Jax, I thank you for replying to my post, and for not taking my words out of context.

I've read your post and I must say that you have answered my questions, all of them except for one.

Shouldn't the US be setting an example to other nations who have WMD?

If we tell other nations to destroy their WMD, and we don't destroy ours, how does that look to the other nations? Something as important as this cannot be a "do as I say not as I do" sort of thing.

Also, you said The war has shown that the president was serious when he said " either you are for us or you are against us in the war on Terrorism.

But that statement is basically saying that if you oppose the US, then your country will be invaded and conquered because you disagree with the US. And, that statement can be misconstrued and make the President look like a dictator himself.

The US is a super power, but we don't have the right to make other countries abide by our wishes or laws.
_________________________
“In a world where you can be anything, be yourself.”

Top
#169382 - Sun Apr 27 2003 09:11 AM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
snm Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Thu Jan 30 2003
Posts: 901
Loc: Israel
Dakota, Hitler is generally considered to have been the worst dictator in history. The Nazi regime is generally considered to have been the worst regime in history.
Before making comparisons between Hitler & the Nazis and anyone else you should not know "quite a bit about Hitler and Nazi Germany", you should know a considerable amount about them, otherwise you're not only frivolously demonizing a group of people who are in no way deserving of such vilification, you're also completely underestimating the reality of Hitler and the Nazis. You're not just making Bush seem worse than he is, you're making Hitler seem not as bad as he was.
Before you make historical comparisons you should know exactly what you're talking about. That goes for everyone who makes these comparisons from time to time.
_________________________
"Talk is cheap, arms are not"- Victor Davis Hanson

Top
#169383 - Sun Apr 27 2003 09:22 AM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
DakotaNorth Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Tue Jul 10 2001
Posts: 6168
Loc: Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA
SNM, thank you for telling me what I should and should not say or believe. However, I am allowed to voice my opinion, and that is what I did, voice my opinion.

In no way did I say that Hitler was not the worse dictator in history, and in no way did I say that Saddam was worse than Hitler.

I asked a question...that is all I did. My question was not a crime...it was just that...a question.

Thanks again for your opinion, as you are entitled to your opinion just as I am.
_________________________
“In a world where you can be anything, be yourself.”

Top
#169384 - Sun Apr 27 2003 10:36 AM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
snm Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Thu Jan 30 2003
Posts: 901
Loc: Israel
I give up. If anyone doesn't understand why they should research their facts before posting an opinion which is not only inflammatory but also potentially offensive to anyone whose family was affected by Hitler's actions, then far be it from me to explain it to them.
_________________________
"Talk is cheap, arms are not"- Victor Davis Hanson

Top
#169385 - Sun Apr 27 2003 10:46 AM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
DakotaNorth Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Tue Jul 10 2001
Posts: 6168
Loc: Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA
My post was not offensive to individuals whose families were affected by Hitler...in fact my post had nothing whatsoever to do with Hitler.

I questioned whether or not Bush is becoming like Saddam, or at worst Hitler.

Now, how is that offensive?
_________________________
“In a world where you can be anything, be yourself.”

Top
#169386 - Sun Apr 27 2003 01:50 PM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
ericaC Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Tue Mar 18 2003
Posts: 309
Loc: Minnesota / Iowa USA
The problem with a comparison between Bush and Saddam/Hitler is that it distorts the issue at hand. Comparisons like that are used to justify actions, and suggesting that Bush will become an evil dictator soon is laughable. At worst, the man will be out of office in 5 years- not enough time to forge a world-dominating superpower with Bush as lord and master of the universe.
_________________________
Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego?

Top
#169387 - Sun Apr 27 2003 02:42 PM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
DieHard Offline
Prolific

Registered: Wed Oct 10 2001
Posts: 1127
Loc: Louisiana USA
Dakota, I know you are a big fan of Bill Clinton and since you don't trust Dubya perhaps you will consider Clinton's view of Iraqi WMD. As you will see, he knew Hussein had them, he just lacked the moral strength and intestinal fortitude to do anything about it.

First, from a May 10, 2002 briefing by chief weapons inspector Hans Blix (no fan of Bush)

"Although no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were used by Iraq during the Gulf War, their existence in Iraq is well known."

Even Clinton agreed Saddam had to go:Ultimately, neither inspections nor sanctions get to the core of the problem, which is the nature of the Iraqi regime. At his November 15 press conference, President Clinton identified the only solution: installing a new regime in Baghdad that has democratic legitimacy and respects human rights. From the “New Republic” Dec 7, 1998 http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/clawson/farce.htm

Or how about this from Clinton:
EXCERPT: CLINTON REPORT TO CONGRESS ON NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY
(Outlines U.S. policy for the Middle East, No. Africa, South Asia)

January 11, 2000


Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 successfully degraded the threat posed by Iraqi WMD in the wake of Baghdad's decision to cease cooperation with UN weapons inspectors. In December 1999, the United Nations Security Council passed UNSCR 1284, a new omnibus resolution on Iraq. The United States supports Resolution 1284 because it buttresses the containment of Iraq. This resolution reflects the consensus view of the Security Council that Iraq has still not met its obligations to the international community and, in particular, has failed to disband fully its proscribed WMD programs.
http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/peace/archives/2000/january/me0111a.html

Clinton drew the line in the sand, Bush is carrying out the policy Clinton initiated
The Clinton administration is expressing fresh worries that Iraq - after a year without United Nations weapons inspections - may have resumed its illicit arms-development programs.
"Saddam Hussein has shown no hesitation in developing WMD in the past, and it is prudent to assume that he is still intent on such development," says the report, a copy of which was obtained by the Monitor. The report was sent to Congress Aug. 25 as required by a 1999 spending bill.
Any attempt by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to "reconstitute" prohibited weapons programs would cross one of several "red lines" for US military action set by President Clinton following Anglo-American airstrikes on Iraq last December.
http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/08/30/p1s1.htm
Apparently, if you disagree with Clinton he supports invading your country and forcing you to live under our laws. Who is worse, Clinton or Hitler?

From a 1999 letter from Congress to Bill Clinton , co-signed by Democrats Joe Lieberman and John Kerry:
If international security could be assured by waiting until we find evidence that Saddam- has developed weapons of mass destruction and responding to the threat at that time, there would have been no need for Operation Desert Fox.
http://www.nci.org/c/c81199.htm

On a side note, this interesting letter to Clinton signed by some who are now in the current administration.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
_________________________
In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved. - FDR

Top
#169388 - Sun Apr 27 2003 03:04 PM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
DakotaNorth Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Tue Jul 10 2001
Posts: 6168
Loc: Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA
DieHard, thank you for the information about regarding Former President Bill Clinton's view on Iraq.

You are correct in that I am a big fan of Clinton's and that I don't trust Bush. I must say that if Clinton said it, then I have to believe it.

However, maybe the reason that Clinton didn't invade and conquer Iraq, was not because he lacked the intestinal fortitude, but that he didn't have clear and concise proof that Iraq had WMD.
_________________________
“In a world where you can be anything, be yourself.”

Top
#169389 - Sun Apr 27 2003 08:04 PM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Jon_Defined Offline
Participant

Registered: Wed Oct 16 2002
Posts: 31
Loc: Arlington, Texas
Quote:

However, maybe the reason that Clinton didn't invade and conquer Iraq, was not because he lacked the intestinal fortitude, but that he didn't have clear and concise proof that Iraq had WMD.




Of course Clinton knew about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Everyone knew about them after 1995 when Hussein's son-in-laws blew the whistle on him and Saddam admitted he had them.

Clinton knew about them when on Feb 18, 1998 in order to justify firing missiles into Iraq, he said that Hussein was a danger. "Those who forget history are compelled to repeat it."

This is a CNN report of Clinton's speech:

Clinton said Hussein and the Iraqi leadership had repeatedly lied to the United Nations about the country's weaponry.

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this (weapons inspections) operation since 1991 to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them and the feedstock necessary to produce them," Clinton said.

The president said that after the Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq admitted having a massive offensive biological warfare capability, including:

5,000 gallons of Botulinum (causing Botulism)
2,000 gallons of Anthrax
25 biological-filled Scud warheads
157 aerial bombs
Clinton said Iraq still posed a threat to the national security of the United States and the "freedom-loving world.
He accused Iraq of trying to thwart U.N. inspections by reinterpreting the meaning of Gulf War resolutions as to which sites can be inspected, for how long and by which inspectors.

Clinton, who has ordered military forces to the gulf region in case a military strike is needed, warned Hussein not to continue to delay or oppose the U.N. demands on weapons inspections: "He, and he alone, will be to blame for the consequences."

The president said the U.S. had the military means to achieve the objective and secure the "vital strategic interests" of the United States in the Gulf region.

"A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can, and will, leave him (Hussein) significantly worse off than he is now, in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors," Clinton said.
"Force can never be the first answer," he emphasized, "but sometimes it's the only answer.

And there is also this: Democrats for Regime change:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/607rkunu.asp

The sad thing is that everybody has known about Saddam's weapons. Al Gore even admitted that the democrats had a plan for regime change in Iraq, which became official U.S. policy in 1998. However, the protests only started when the President became a Republican. There were no mass protests over Clinton repeatly bombing Iraq (he bombed Iraq so much that they gave a nickname for it, but the name eludes me at the minute). There were no mass protests when Clinton decided on regime change in Kosovo and sent the marines in. No one holding signs saying "Think of all the little babies" and "baby killer." When Clinton bombed Iraq there were no signs of "No Blood for Oil" and think of all the little Iraqi babies being killled or maimed.

No they came later.

Interesting enough, mass organized protests cost huge amounts of money. They had to be financed. Guess where that money came from?


Top
#169390 - Mon Apr 28 2003 01:27 AM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Kuu Offline
Prolific

Registered: Mon Jun 03 2002
Posts: 1037
Loc: Hobart Tasmania Australia     
The time something should have been done about Saddam's WMD was when he was using them on people not 15 years later.

The message the US seems to be sending is 'you can gas you enemies, you can gas your own people - so long as you are our friend.'

We are now seeing the torture chambers used by the Iraqi Secret Police. The tortures that took place in them sound remarkably like what went on in similar places in Chile and Argentina while America was friends with President Pinochet of Chile and the military junta in Argentina. The American government turned a blind eye to such practices as they always have done when it suited them to.

Not that the Australian government is much better. It took us 25 years and the death of a quarter of million people before we went into East Timor and West Papua has suffered a similar fate in the last 40 years (and Australia, the UN, the US are all partly to blame for what has happened to West Papua)

Top
#169391 - Mon Apr 28 2003 03:28 AM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
snm Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Thu Jan 30 2003
Posts: 901
Loc: Israel
Better late than never.
_________________________
"Talk is cheap, arms are not"- Victor Davis Hanson

Top
#169392 - Wed Apr 30 2003 07:13 AM Re: Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Jax Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Mon Jun 11 2001
Posts: 724
Loc: Okla
Lisa,, In a perfect world we would all just disarm every nation and all citizens of any kind of weapon and be done with it.
Unfortunately we don't live in a utopian world, and must maintain weapons for self-defense because other nations have them too. But we do not want known criminals with offensive desires to possess WMD. And neither does other responsible nations.

We do have a right to stop emanate threats, and that is exactly what we are doing. And will continue to do whether our president is republican of democrat.
_________________________
Zebra

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Moderator:  ladymacb29, sue943