Weapons of Mass Destruction

Politics International Politics
1

So where is the so-called “WMD” now? Suckers!!!

To those who were pathetic enough to have believed the lies and misinformation Bush & Co. spreaded via American mass media, the lack of WMD discovery is just so in-your-face. And now they are trying to “focus” on the “reconstruction” of Iraq and undermining the whole purpose of going to war in Iraq (which was to find WMD and declare war on terror)…

Worst yet, no major U.S. mass media is questioning this non-discovery of WMD… How stupid and arrogant can this “model democracy” be? Idiots.

2

You got the stupid and arrogant part right scchu. I will also agree one hundred percent with your remark on idiocy. Of course, we just will not agree on the object of the descriptions, if you get my drift…

3

10-4.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3157246.stm

We won’t. Will we…

I do not know how those Americans who blindly believed in Bush & Co. can call themselves patriotic when the least patriotic thing to do is not asking what your government is doing when others (e.g. the rest of the world) are.

The fall of democracy in America began with the American invasion of Iraq.
The fall of balance of world power began with the American invasion of Iraq.
The fall of idealism in democracy began with the American invasion of Iraq.

4

I feel the ghost of Richard Nixon in the Oval Office…

5

[quote=“scchu”]So where is the so-called “WMD” now? Suckers!!!

To those who were pathetic enough to have believed the lies and misinformation Bush & Co. spreaded via American mass media, the lack of WMD discovery is just so in-your-face. And now they are trying to “focus” on the “reconstruction” of Iraq and undermining the whole purpose of going to war in Iraq (which was to find WMD and declare war on terror)… [/quote]

Funny, I don’t feel like a “sucker” at all. I was paying attention to Bush’s speeches from just after 911 until the invasion of Iraq. WMD was only one of the many reasons to go into Iraq. And even if they don’t find WMD, it was in our vital interest to ascertain once and for all what exactly the status was of Saddam’s WMD stockpiles and programs. To crow now that no actual WMD have been found, is IMO, simply looking for something to bash Bush with… the fact is, Saddam did have WMD and did use them in the past. He failed to account for all of the WMD and programs that he had and he played a shell game with the UN. While no WMD stockpiles have been found, per my understanding, the means to restart WMD programs have been uncovered. Only idiots fail to see the significance of this threat, coupled with leaving Saddam in power. IMO, the administration was wrong about the existence of WMD stockpiled in Iraq… and they perhaps should not have made some of the statements that were made.

However, along with some of those statements were also statements describing the Iraqi situation as a “growing” threat. Bush explicitly stated that we would not allow that threat to progress to the point where dealing with it would have been much more costly than dealing with it early was/is.

Its obvious to me that those who opposed the war on numerous raesons and dire predictions have latched on to this one aspect of Bush’s plan that hasn’t gone as planned. None of the other dire predictions voiced by the anti-war crowd have come true… None.

Thus, the only thing “pathetic”, IMO, is seeing some people grasping at something in a desperate attempt to discredit an astoundingly successful action.

These critics, now crowing about the failure to find WMD, (even though they warned before the war that US soldiers would be at risk of bio-chem attacks during the invasion… as one of their dire predictions) somehow believe that this failure completely discredits the invasion.

When I have argued that Saddam had so thoroughly violated the UNSC cease-fire resolution, and the 17 resolutions subsequent… I was not referring merely to his failure to immediately provide a comprehensive accounting of his WMD stockpiles and programs… no, the resolutions also called on Saddam to cease all human rights violations perpetrated against the Iraqi people.

Saddam obviously did not cease such HR violations, as mass graves and torture chambers have been discovered since the end of the invasion. Saddam also abused his power with respect to the oil for food and medicine program, also a matter of UNSC resolutions. But even after Saddam had been ousted, the UN was reluctant to end the oil for food/medicine program as several members administering the same were profiting from it.

No, it isn’t “pathetic” that some of us believed that there were WMD in Iraq… what is not only “pathetic”, and IMO, “disgusting”, is that some people have been bending over backward seeking a rationale for leaving the monster Saddam in power to abuse his own people and threaten the region and the US.

What are you talking about? Who’s the idiot? The matter has been the subject of news reports ever since the end of the invasion! May I suggest that you tune in.

6

CNN reporting today that two Iraqi scientists assisting the US in WMD investigations were shot… one was killed by a bullet to the back of the head, the other one survives six bullets.

Iraqi scientists apparently do have something to fear.

You may draw your own conclusions.

7

The subject of news reports is distinctly different to semi-decent investigative journalism. If CNN is anything to go by on the quality of US journalism -well enough said. Even there star reporter Christian … (the woman with the goofy hair do and designer safari suits) said as much herself regarding the build up and coverage of the war on Iraq. Was that ‘on’ oh no sorry we mean ‘in’ Iraq?

There is almost universal agreement on the value of toppling Saddam. If Bush could have made those arguments convincingly and got the support of the international community then people might have gone along with it. Instead the world community became more concerned with the Bush administrations desire to marginalize the UN, and go it alone internationally.

12 years ago the US’ current foreign policy agenda was considered lunatic fringe, and in most of the world it still is.

While tigerman you have argued that foreign policy agenda adnauseum and with a fair degree of aplomb its lunacy still hangs in the air like the toxic mists of sarin gas.

8

[quote]We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld, ABC Interview March 30, 2003[/quote]

The piper has changed his tune so many times now that the sceptical are quite justified to lambast the Bush administration despite Republican carping about schadenfreude.

First we were told Saddam definitely had WMD, then there were

9
  1. Blix had reported said his team needed just a little more time to get to the bottom of the WMD claim; he also repeated stated that he didn’t think WMD would be found in Iraq. Bush & Co. elected to ignore him, the chief of UN weapons inspection team
  1. Com’on, tigerman… just because a country, no matter how dangerous it may be, has WMD, it does not justify an action like one taken by the United States. Granted, Saddam has been a pain in the neck to the United States, his neighbors and his own people, storming into Iraq and taking a presiding leader out of rule was the last thing the world needed from the U.S. – a “role model” of democracy and leadership. It was just plain irresponsible.

China, N. Korea, Pakistan and, heck, Isreal all have WMD… And they all “could” be threats to the United States. U.S. is not lobbying to go in to those countries and remove WMD themselves!

In addition, the very definition of WMD has been redefined in light of 911. Would the U.S. Dept. of Defense now consider Boeing and other aireliners as WMD manufacturers, thus should be under sanction?? Illogical. What happened on 911 had nothing to do with WMD (in the definition of the US DOD anyway)… The connection of Iraqi government to 911 had always been a weak one to begin with.

  1. I agree. Not just “some” statements… many statements. One of the primary reasons given to the UN, US allies and the American public was precisely that of Saddam’s WMD. Bush & Co. wanted to move in there and do the job that they claim UN’s weapon inspection team was supposedly failing to do. But as it turns out, Blix has been right all along. Those statements, tigerman, misled the American public and the world.
  1. How could the best trained and equipped army attacking one of the worst equipped and trained army in the world not be successful? Rumsfeld did an excellent job planning the war. But Bush & Co. failed miserablely on post war planning.

(Now the invasion of Iraq morales aside) — Yes, post war construction of a country, any country is not easy… as U.S. did to Japan, Germany and a few others. I can’t even grasp the notion of “reconstructing a nation from scratch”. But how can Bush & Co. not foreseen the costs and logistics involved in doing so… U.S. has done it before… and it’s good at it. Almost $100 billion worth of ADDITIONAL fund not planned for post war reconstruction is just outragous. Imagine a CEO executes a project successfully but fails to accurately project support logistics for product launch by a few million dollars… Board members would be asking for his resignation. Non-sense.

  1. Just like Bush & Co.'s buddies won bids to reconstruct Iraq, making those corporate execs even richer, throgh money paid for by the American people.
  1. Prior to war on Iraq, all major US media repeatedly broadcasted the messages of Bush & Co. very very few criticism, investigation and asked very few questions (as it’d be preceived as unpatriotic). And when tough questions DID get asked, the media DID NOT follow up after Bush’s poorly rehearsed speech. The media covered the pre-war, duration of war and winning of the war religiously. Again, very few asked important questions that American people needed to know.

Now fast forward to today… the same media has far more interest covering the California re-election than post-war Iraq. The airtime just doesn’t add up. Granted the news business is a competitive one; they constantly need fresh news to sell ads and papers. But the American media and the foundamentals of journalism has now evolved into a transmitter of what the government wants it to report… not to find the truth and report it to the very people that put this government into office.

I read more about what’s really going on in Iraq through BBC and various other European media (not that they are any better or worse, but you just know more and they do raise important questions).

The American people deserves to know more about what’s behind the scenes in the government that’s for the people and by the people. It disgusts me that John Ashcroft and Donal Rumsfeld dared to state that anybody questioning Bush & Co.'s actions are the one who should be questioned of their patriotism. In a “model” democtratic country like the United State, it is precisely the act of finding out what’s right and true patriotic.

ACLU has attempted to confront Bush & Co. serveral times on issues post 911, but the administration (especially Ashcroft) has purposely been avoiding debates with it. Worst yet, the administration has refused to publicly answer questions about those questions…

10

The piper was playing several tunes all along… but you guys only wanted to hear one tune.

[quote=“Soddom”]First we were told Saddam definitely had WMD, then there were

11

CNN is not the only source of reports. Time magazine just ran a story… and the point is, the original poster, scchu stated that no major US media was covering the issue. That simply is a ridiculous assertation. You may not like the way the story is being covered, but it certainly is being reported.

I found the arguments very convincing. If the world was more concerned about propping up the totally discredited and nearly worthless UN than it was in removing from power a monster of a dictator who oppressed his own people, continually violated UNSC resolutions and threatened the region and the US… well, I don’t see how that is Bush’s fault.

I’m not certain what you mean. 12 years ago, the entire world agreed with the US that Saddam was a menace and a security risk, and nearly the entire world agreed with Bush I that Saddam had to be dealt with… The entire world, including 18 Arab and mid east nations then agreed to the UNSC cease-fire resolution that called on Iraq to do the very things that the US has been demanding Iraq do for the past 12 years. I don’t see how this constitutes a consideration that US foreign policy is on the “lunatic fringe”. What I find amazing is that everyone agreed with the US 12 years ago… and by virtue of 17 subsequent UNSC resolutions, apparently continued agreeing with the US up to the period just before the invasion… It isn’t the US that faltered… its the rest of the world, other than a few notable exceptions, that never had the will to enforce its collective demand against a ruthless dictator.

I appreciate your kind words re my argumentation… but I respectfully disagree with your conclusions.

12

I’m way too hungover to get into this one, but I did find this article in the SMH today.

[quote]Bush ratings fall as weapons fail to show up
By Caroline Overington in New York, Tom Allard and agencies
October 4, 2003

A new poll saying Americans do not think the Iraq war was worth it has been released at the same time as a report that US weapons experts have found no evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

The New York Times/CBS News poll, released on Thursday, showed a sharp fall in public confidence in President George Bush and new lows for his foreign policy performance, which received only a 44 per cent approval rating. Fifty per cent of respondents lacked confidence in Mr Bush’s ability to handle an international crisis, and 53 per cent believed the Iraq war was not worth it.[/quote] . . .
more at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/03/1064988409807.html

I no longer give a toss for the whole WMD was/wasn’t, but I would like to see an optimal outcome for the people of Iraq. Suffice it to say, that were WMD’s the real focus, they would have been found and ‘neutralised’. The North Koreans who clearly have them seem to be happily munching on their lawn clippings with little fear of the WMD destroyers breaking up their Stalinist Commieland theme park.

HG

13

[quote]He didn’t have WMD? He didn’t have programs? There were no biological precursors? They were not seeking to produce WMD? Iraqi scientists are not being shot?
[/quote]

Apart form the last question (maybe the CIA didn’t like what they were going to say :wink: ), that’s just what the reports are saying now.

There were no WMDs, no program to build them and certainly no ‘nexus’ between an Iraq with WMD and terrorists who wanted to use them. There was no threat from Iraq Not only that, but all these things were pretty damn clear before the war. Only now they’re going to say there were ‘intelligence failures’, rather than outright lies.

Brian

14

Well, which way to these guys want it?

“He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”
Secretary of State Colin Powell
In Cario, Feb. 24, 2001

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of “containment” that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to “build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction” for “the last 10 years”.
America, he said, had been successful in keeping him “in a box”.

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. “Saddam does not control the northern part of the country,” she said. “We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”

15

Excellent points as always Tigerman but I fear that you are wasting your breath. How some people can ignore the potential threat of Saddam Hussein leaves me “breathless.”

So, then how do we all feel about Iran and North Korea with nuclear weapons? Love to hear the answers on this. It will no doubt set my heart aracing. Try to be consistent though.

16

What threat?

There was no threat that was the point I and everybody else with any sense was making before the war.

Iran and Nth Korea you say. Want to see some consistecy huh? Well how about the US now goes after the most destabilising influence in the Middle East, the country who has broken countless UN resolutions, the country who it seems used chemical weapons on its own people, the country who doubtless has nuclear weapons, the country who trades weapons (and possibly nuclear) technology with dictatorships. Let’s go after Israel!

Brian

17

[quote=“fred smith”]Excellent points as always Tigerman but I fear that you are wasting your breath. How some people can ignore the potential threat of Saddam Hussein leaves me “breathless.”

So, then how do we all feel about Iran and North Korea with nuclear weapons? Love to hear the answers on this. It will no doubt set my heart aracing. Try to be consistent though.[/quote]
What are you talking about??? Are you serious about this statment you made?

As stated by official CIA repors and UN weapons inspection teams, Saddam posed little to no threat to the United States since the first Gulf War. Can’t you tell by the way U.S. forces swept through the country in no time with very little casulties? Can’t you tell by just how few and old any weapons were recovered from the Iraqi people?? Get serious, man.

N. Korea, now that’s a country U.S. is definitely feeling pussy about… You don’t see your mocho Bush smacking them around like the defenseless Iraqis, do you? Where’s the congressional debate to go after them?

In my opinion, Isreal posed more threat to every country in the region than anyone else. You don’t see U.S. trying to disarm this pseudo-democtratic state.

To tigerman and fred smith: I am not bashing U.S. becuase I hate it. I criticize it because I care. To quote Spiderman: “With great power comes great responsibilities.” Bush & Co. has great power. But it sure is irresponsible in excercising that power.

18

… Sigh…

As long as Saddam remained in power he remained a threat. Have you zero foreseeability? Do you actually believe that Saddam was going to turn into a model benevolent ruler at some mythical date in the future when the UN inspectors “completed” their work? Removing Saddam was the right thing to do, for everyone.

Are you really this stupid? If, as it is believed, the North Koreans have a bomb, or two… would it not be highly irresponsible to use force to effect regime change there? Even without a bomb or two, NK maintains an enormous military and Souel is only a few kms from the border.

Are you really ignorant of these conditions? Using force against the NKs would not necessarily place the US troops in harms way (if they are relocated as has been talked about)… but it would mean sacrificing Souel. Do you think the US is being “pussy” for not wanting to sacrifice Souel? You’re an idiot if that’s what you think.

How does Israel pose more of a threat than Iraq under Saddam? … that’s the fucking stupidest statement I’ve read in a long while. Saddam attacked Iran and Kuwait, and fired missiles into Israel, in an attempt to expand the first Gulf War… He sent oil down the Gulf in an attempt to defile Saudi Arabia’s desalinazation plants (you are aware, or aren’t you, that Saudi Arabia has oil, but precious little water?). Saddam’s trouble-making ways resulted in the US being invited to deploy forces in Saudi Arabia… and that was one reason given by al Qaeda for its attacks against US targets. Saddam also sponsored terrorism by Palestinians in Israel, thus destabilizing the region and he gave money to Abu Sayaff in the Philippines.

But you regard Israel as more of a threat to the region? That’s idiotic.

That’s your opinion… and absolutely nothing more. Go back to reading your Spiderman comics :unamused:

19

tigerman,

I did a speculative yahoo search titled wolfowitz lunatic fringe on yahoo and the frist 6 articles were on US foreign policy- the lunatic fringe variety.

20

[quote=“Fox”]tigerman,

I did a speculative yahoo search titled wolfowitz lunatic fringe on yahoo and the frist 6 articles were on US foreign policy- the lunatic fringe variety.[/quote]

That doesn’t answer my question, does it?