Originally posted by giant
I'm playing games? Which chemical, biological or nuclear weapons? If you are so sure that Iraq had 'CBN' weapons, then you must know what he had.
And remember this: if you put a hamburger in your backyard, it stays there and rots, then ten years later someone asks you if you have a hamburger, do you?
Proving that the weapons had been destroyed was a matter between the UN and Saddam's government. Yes, it was up to Saddam to prove they were destroyed. And the UN wanted more inspections, for reasons that become clear when you look at the details of the inspection process.
But the US said that Iraq was an 'imminent threat' and that the need for war was 'urgent'. This is why we went to war.
If there were no weapons that were an 'imminent threat' to the 'american people,' then the war was not justified. Period.
All day I have been asking in just about every post for someone to point out what saddam had that was an 'imminent threat' to the 'american people' yet everyone refuses to answer. If you believe that he had certain chemical weapons that were a threat to the US that justified war, just ****ing name them already. If you are so convinced his weapons posed a threat to US national security, this should be the easiest damn question in the world for you.
OK. Since you are obviously going to divert time and energy this semantical point, I'll respond. For the sake of this discussion, I'll define "WMD" as any usable weapon or weapon that was produced recently (say, 5 years). This would serve as proof that Saddam did have a fairly current program when he said he didn't. Remember, the line of the Iraq regime was that Saddam gave up his program in 1991. We already know that wasn't true. You are correct that I don't know the specifics are of a usable chem weapon. I'm not sure I need to know that, though. Any evidence found must be dealt with in a reasonable manner. For example, if we found Anthrax that was, in "weapons expert's" opinions, 20 years old and non-toxic, I'd say that wouldn't qualify. However, when we find Mustard Gas produced within 4 years, I'd say that's a major find. I'm not sure if that answers your question. I don't think it is important for me to know the shelf life of some of this stuff. The real point is that Saddam was not even supposed to have a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs at all. If he did, I say war was completely justified for the reasons I posted earlier.
All I'm saying is that in my opinion, Saddam had a weapons program AT LEAST right up until the inspectors came back in. It's also my opinion that even if he DID discontinue it, he still hadn't destroyed the weapons themselves. He was supposed to not only discontinue such programs, but lead inspectors to sites where he had destroyed weapons, had weapons that needed to be destroyed and account for any materials that could have been used to build such weapons. In looking at all the evidence, it is clear that there were simply too many questions about all of this. The inspectors were "played with" for years in Iraq. They never
got the cooperation they needed. In short, they never were able to reconcile Iraq's verbal and written declarations with hard visual evidence or even, documented evidence of the discontinuation of such programs. This went on for 12 years and seventeen resolutions, all of which had the goal of bringing Iraq in to compliance. They were even punished for non-compliance in 1998 by joint military attacks by the US and Britain. It STILL didn't work. In fact, it is my belief that there simply was NO other way to disarm this madman. Had there been another way, I'd have supported it. No one wants a war, bu really...there were no other alternatives. Containing Saddam (even if that was possible) was NOT acceptable. The only acceptable course of action was for Saddam to disarm. Can anyone really tell me there was another way for this to be accomplished?
Sorry that was so long, but now your big question: The imminent threat? The problem, I think, is that we are talking about two different versions of what a "threat" is. (how Clinton-esque!)I have already stated that I think the biggest threat was Iraq giving even small amounts of WMD to a terrorist group.
There is mounting evidence that Al-Queda was in Iraq. This was "the straw that broke the camel's back" for the President and his team, if I had to guess. As the President said, imagine the possibility of a 9/11 with planes full of compact, but deadly chemical weapons or biological weapons. Now imagine you are George W. bush in the days, weeks and months after 9/11. I can't see how any reasonable person could deny this very real possibility. I for one wouldn't be willing to accept this threat, and would be willing to do anything, really, ANYTHING to prevent it. Of course, if you're of the mentality that there were absolutely NO WMD in Iraq, you probably feel differently. As I said though, I can't see how anybody could believe that. I really can't. No offense, but for reasons I have already stated, it is completely and totally IDIOTIC to think there were NO weapons of mass destruction anywhere in Iraq. Perhaps there weren't "massive" stockpiles, but I'm of the mentality that if this man had ANY WMD or current capacity to produce it, then it was worth going to war.
That's what the threat was, IMO.