Kay: "Iraq had no WMD"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mystic, in a corrupt regime, where people invoice for more than the delivery, and then pocket the change, it's going to be hard to destroy everything that there's an invoice for.

I dunno about the missiles, and a lot of what was supposed to be there.

It looks like a part of their nuclear programme that was destroyed in the late '90s just made it to a recycling centre in Europe.

I'm hoping that everything was destroyed, and in a hurry, and it's the paper chase that's wrong.

If Syria has the missing stuff, then that's not good at all.
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mystic:
I will send you a private message on some of the sites and stuff I have discovered and see what you think, if you don't mind.
Click to expand...
I'd appreciate that.

Thanks
 
Has everyone forgotten that ol' Sadaam had the chance to show the world, beyond any doubt, that he was clean? There is still the little matter of some U.N. resolutions which he blatently ignored and defied. The former cheif of the U.N. led wepaons inspections testified that Sadaam was in violation of resolution 1441 (and every single other resolution the U.N. had passed over a 10 year period) and had made a mockery of the those resolutions and insepction programs. This was over a 10 year period! The U.N response to having their resoltions ignored? Pass another resolution. LOL Oh and maybe do away with the sanctions as an incentive to adhere to our resolutions. What a friggin' joke. The U.N. as it is today with its current leadership has become irrelevant on anything except humanitarian needs.

BTW....anyone recall him sending a few scuds over the Kuwait border when we started massing troops there this time around? Why didn't Brokaw, Jennings et all seem to care about that? Sure looks like he had some weapons lying around eh?

Anyone actually read U.N. Resolution 1441? I have. Not only does it state specific violations but it goes on to list every single past resolution that Sadaam ignored and wilfully violated. Anyone also recall he kicked out the insepction crews 5 years ago? Boy the U.N. folks really stuck it to him for doing that right? Wonder why he wouldn't want them around?Give me a break.

Here's a link. Why not read it before passing judgement on your own President (like him or not)in defense of one of modern days most brutal regimes.

http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm

Mikep
 
If the administration had started this course based on lies and deception, my guess is that WMDs would have been planted and found by now.

If this course has started on the basis of faulty intelligence, then my guess is that we are where we are now.
 
quote:
Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX:
If the administration had started this course based on lies and deception, my guess is that WMDs would have been planted and found by now.

Click to expand...
Cheney is very confident they will be found. Don't rule out a plant job yet.
 
I guess if they are found, some will insist it was a plant job.

There is no stopping what people will think. Again, why would someone endure the embarrassment of failure, if it was known in advance that there were no WMDs? It just makes more sense to ensure the result you want at the very beginning and take no chances.

If it was faulty intelligence, the pieces fit. Our intelligence has been known to fail and be incompetent. JMO
 
Lord I hate it when I don't proof read my posts! The combination of fat fingers, rushing so nobody sees me posting while at work and the fact that I really need a spell checker makes for a lot of mistakes.
pat.gif


Mikep
 
I personally believe that the Bush administration thought that WMD's were present in Iraq. But let's face it........Saddam had plenty of notice, and could have disposed of them quite easily. It could have been bad intelligence, and perhaps there were none to find. But also remember that we had a RIGHT to go in there, as Saddam broke the peace treaty enacted after desert storm.

The bottom line is, that is was a judgement call. If Bush had done nothing with the pitiful circumstantial evidence of WMD's in iraq, then 2 years from now, if an Iraqi made WMD were to be used against america,..........then the liberals/bush-haters, would be calling for G.W.'s head because he didn't do something with the pitiful circumstantial evidence.

Is it better to hide in a corner, do nothing, and let the world go to hell around you,........or stand up and do something, even if it might be wrong?
 
I see Powell just let slip that there were none in similar words. Tony Blair wil know in a few hours if he's a goner too after the Hutton enquiry report. The 'pack of cards' is well and truly collapsing.
 
sbc350gearhead,
I think that this concept of pre-emptive strikes, that is retaliating before the first blow occurs leaves the way open for this kind of error.

Then you are relying solely on intelligence that someone is planning to do something....gets messy, and mistakes will be made.
 
quote:
Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX:
I guess if they are found, some will insist it was a plant job.

Click to expand...
It will be easy to tell. If the US gives foreign experts a chance to thoroughly examine any WMDs found, then they will have a high level credibility.

OTOH, if they use excuses of secrecy and security to keep others from examining the weapons and the evidence of how and where they were found, we will know it's a sham.

****
 
Wouldn't it have been a better choice to secure the borders, boost intelligence funding, secure Afghanistan first, while we pressure Sadamm more and allow the U.N. to fiddle around for another year, then go after Iraq? I mean, this guy didn't pose an imediat threat in my view and the intelligence was severly flawed it sounds like. We could have saved $100 billion dollars as well. It's more about the "rush" to war or urgency that was placed.
 
buster, I don't think the answer is too throw a lot of money into intelligence. Spending the money you get more wisely and sharing information more freely in our intelligence agencies would be better.

Everyone can't be a hero.

BTW, the Republicans won't necessarily be in trouble, but Dubya could be. This is a fickle country we live in.
 
Just looking at the latest US poll results and Kerry is 3 points in front of Bush if an election was to be held today. Blair will probably hang on but his unmitigated support for Dubya has finished him in the eyes of the people and his party may oust him. Mr. Teflon (Howard) hanging in there but he doesn't sound nearly so cocky these days. Remember the old saying "you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time".
 
Drew99GT, I did not get into what was an acceptable cost.

I do know Saddam had to go and kind of wish they had let him do something more first(hopefully unsuccesful I don't want to see death) so as to avoid all this debate, or better yet that SR. had done the WHOLE job over a decade ago. Once they had let him do as he pleased for so long the only way they would have had more firm support is if he had launched an attack of some sort, everyone was accustomed to watching him do whatever and then doing NOTHING. Do I think there will be Democracy and peace in Iraq, not for a moment. True Democracy would give power to a people repressed too long, and they will in turn repress the former ruling group, and the bloodshed will continue. From here thousands of miles away(I could be wrong) it appears that thier culture(not religion) will not allow Democracy and peace, too many wrongs done and too much call for revenge the cycle will continue. Sorry if I offended anyone that is not my intent.
 
sprintman, the way the president is elected the 3 points that Kerry has at this moment in one poll means nothing. Bush Sr. was behind Dukakis by 17 points in 1988 and beat him handily.

Bush could not get one vote from NY or California and still win because of the electoral vote. It's the states like Ohio, a swing state, that can cause him trouble.

By and large, Dubya's opponent better come off as tough. I don't think the American people are ready to take a few on the chin again just to look good in the eyes of the world.

JMO
 
Groucho Marx, I really agree big time with your reply to this post. If we were lied to, and the administration KNEW there were no WMD in Iraq, it is highly likely that something would be planted so that they could cover their tracks. Otherwise, the administration would look silly and they would KNOW they were going to look silly if they KNEW there was no WMD.

I figure the most likely possibilities is either very bad intelligence (and in that case we need major overhauls of the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA), or else a very crafty shell game is being played by our enemies, with WMD being moved from country to country, probably Syria and maybe even Iran.

Somehow I just can't see the administration deliberately lying to the American people-stretching the truth maybe, but not flat out lying. And intelligent people would know they would be caught in a lie. The lie would be bad enough, but planting evidence would be suicide.
 
Mystic, it seems that our intelligence agencies are horse$hit and have been for some time. Thay can probably tell you the size of Jacque Chirac's package but not who would be the most dangerous person in Iraq after the top ten of Saddam's henchmen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
  • Locked
Kay: Some weapons may have been moved to Iraq...
Replies
10
Views
1K
keith
C
  • Locked
Republican Senators Criticize Bush's Iraq Policy
Replies
2
Views
530
keith
buster
  • Locked
Howard Dean on the Sean Hannity show
2
Replies
31
Views
8K
wulimaster
D
  • Locked
John Kerry and the Magic Dragon
Replies
3
Views
776
joee12
A
  • Locked
Kerry Resume For President
2 3
Replies
47
Views
16K
motorguy222
Back
Top Bottom