No Weapons in Iraq? 26 replies

Please wait...

NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago
JP(NL)

Flying Dutchman

50 XP

28th April 2003

0 Uploads

8,315 Posts

0 Threads

#2 14 years ago

all I can say is "I told you so."

I'm curious, what was his reason as to decide that "saddam was a bad man" and that "he was a threat to the US."

the only thing saddam could do to america after 10 years of UN sanctions is call them names and raise his fat finger at bush.




!moof

Note to self: Find pants.

50 XP

19th October 2002

0 Uploads

2,321 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago
ArticleBy Thursday, as Duelfer's upcoming report was broadly outlined to reporters in Washington, the focus had switched again, to Iraqi "intent" before the invasion — to what were described as hopes among Iraqi leaders during the Saddam regime of someday reviving Iraqi weapons-making. Duelfer's Iraq Survey Group, some 1,200 military and intelligence specialists and support staff, had focused much of its effort on Iraq's "dual-use" chemical and biological industries — factories and laboratories whose equipment and products might be converted quickly to making weapons. In March, in an interim report to U.S. senators, Duelfer gave an example: An agricultural center south of Baghdad that was researching bacteria potentially useful in developing anthrax weapons. But he offered no evidence of plans to use the material for anything but its standard commercial purpose, as a pesticide. As for chemical weapons, every industrial nation, rich or developing, has plants producing chlorine, phenol and other compounds with myriad commercial uses that also could help make sulfur mustard, sarin or other poison gases. An international watchdog agency, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, counts 4,000-5,000 such dual-use plants in scores of countries. Again, no evidence has emerged that the Iraqis planned to make weapons in theirs. Even if they did, it would not have been easy. "There was a very consistent creation of a virtual reality," Hans Blix now says of the U.S. attitude. "And eventually it collided with our old-fashioned, ordinary reality."

1. The truth is, many in Washington, including those at the highest rungs of power, ignored the daily reports by the UN inspectors in Iraq that said that WMDs were not to be found. They just knew that Saddam was dangerous. They have now decided that wanting to have the ability to create WMDs is grounds for invasion. Oy vey.

2. Saddam would have never attacked America if he thought doing so would threaten his hold on power in Iraq. Saddam would never have attacked America, because he knew that doing so would mean invasion and capture. Saddam was a bad man, but taking him out was a waste of valuable resources we require to win the war on terror. We could have used the political, human, and monetary capital expended to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, to beef up security procedures at home, but we didn't. And that is why invading Iraq was a bad decision. Not because Saddam was good or bad, but because it was not an effective way of securing America.




AzH

I'm too cool to Post

269,650 XP

17th September 2003

0 Uploads

24,050 Posts

0 Threads

#4 14 years ago
And that is why invading Iraq was a bad decision. Not because Saddam was good or bad, but because it was not an effective way of securing America.

but it was an effective method of securing essential oil supplies. to quote JP, "told you so".




Octovon

Spaceman

54,945 XP

5th August 2003

0 Uploads

5,317 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago
AzHbut it was an effective method of securing essential oil supplies. to quote JP, "told you so".

:nodding:

Of all the times to say, now is surely the best time in the past few years.

Told you so!

Now all we need is for someone like Kofi Annan to say that at the UN :p




AzH

I'm too cool to Post

269,650 XP

17th September 2003

0 Uploads

24,050 Posts

0 Threads

#6 14 years ago

this should be BIG NEWS. what's the money on it being swept under the carpet and ignored by the Bush Propaganda Agency aka Faux News?




Octovon

Spaceman

54,945 XP

5th August 2003

0 Uploads

5,317 Posts

0 Threads

#7 14 years ago
AzHthis should be BIG NEWS. what's the money on it being swept under the carpet and ignored by the Bush Propaganda Agency aka Faux News?

I'm waiting now for the "WMD Inspectors for Truth" ads to start popping up.

I like how Bush's reasons for war are slowly but surely being erased one-by-one. What's Bush's official reason now? Saddam was a big bully? I think its all being sorted away to just being the oil reason.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#8 14 years ago

It isn't big news. We have known for a while there wasn't any weapons. And anyway FOX news does not control the media. They have already been talking about this on FOX anyway though. Eh whatever, I don't really see this hurting the Bush camp that much so I could care less. I got bored with the Iraq war a while ago. I think we should have focused more energy on other countries, although I still think getting rid of Saddam wasn't really a bad thing.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#9 14 years ago
Octovon I like how Bush's reasons for war are slowly but surely being erased one-by-one. What's Bush's official reason now? Saddam was a big bully? I think its all being sorted away to just being the oil reason.

Erased? The media and the Bush critisizers have erased everything for Bush. This is why this story is not such a big deal, no one really cares that much. It has been hyped on the news for a year and a half now.




AzH

I'm too cool to Post

269,650 XP

17th September 2003

0 Uploads

24,050 Posts

0 Threads

#10 14 years ago

this is the thing with politicians which pisses me off. they think that they can get away with bullshitting the world. it just doesn't work.

WMD's

Regime Change

Threat to National Security.

how many times will they throw crap at us before they realise we are not stupid? this is, i really hope, a dashing blow to the Bush campaign. anyone gonna email Kerry? ;)