Where are the WMD? Well.... - Page 2  

It's the way he's always been with me when I try to pin him down so I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you. Unless you like the color blue that is.

Sammi has a pretty good point.

It's gonna be pretty hard to make any nation comply with UN sanctions / resolutions after this. Iraq was actually pretty compliant in the end, and did just about anything the UN said, and still got invaded.

Saddam would have been better of not disarming. Not very inspiring.

There is an Arab proverb for situations like this: "No answer is in itself an answer."

With all the respect in the world SDW2001 can you answer these questions:

1.) Do you honestly believe the war in Iraq was about WMD?

2.) Do you not believe the Baker Report handed to Cheney in April of 2001 calling for war in Iraq had anything to do with this war?

3.) Do you not find it odd that after 911 we go to Iraq when most of the thugs on the planes were from Saudi Arabia?

4.) Do you not find it possible that we are in Iraq because it has one of the largest supplies of Sweet Crude available?

5.) If Bush is so concerned about WMD as you seem to imply why then not did we kill or put away for life A.Q. Kahn of Pakistan? Why is he a free man today keeping his tens of millions made from sales of WMD info / supplies / plans??????

He was pardoned?????

Please answer each of these 5 questions.

If you can not answer them please don't bother posting threads like this one.

Have some integrity. Stop just acting as a cheerleader for some dip of a leader you seem to support.

Integrity means you will try to answer the above 5 questions with honesty and reflect over the points I am making by proxy contained within each.

Fellowship

1) Iraq, technically speaking did not 'disarm' -- there may have only been residue hither, thither and yon, but they did not 'disarm'. If the UN saber rattling, the missile strikes, no fly zones, Gulf War I, and half a million children, more children murdered because of UN sanctions than died in Hiroshima, then this was serious enough for an invasion.

technically speaking

Iraq was the weak link in the region -- if there actually is one. -- this has as much to do with Syria, Iran, Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi, etc, etc, as it does anything else.

2) *with respect* this is were Micheal Moore logic enters the discussion. Fellowship, that man used every deceitful propaganda tool in the book to make his points, I would be VERY SUSPICIOUS of being anywhere in the same proximity of his arguments. Also, Trying to compare pre/post 9-11, and still attempting to remove the attacks and their political ramifications from the equation is not sound reasoning.

3) This is the art of The Possible, in many ways the US is not capable of pulling a John Wayne anywhere it wants to. Saudi Arabia is not the country to attempt to backhand into submission. They could make things rather unpleasant if they chose to.

4) Obviously this has some bearing on the situation, but is something of a truism. Iraq is what it is becuase of it's resources. How can you remove any part of its context, and only add in 'and they have oil' at the very end?

5) I think it's pretty clear that SOMEHOW we got Pakistan 'on board' with this 'war on terror' I'm not going to pretend to fathom that situtation, except to say that it is probably an arrangement that follows the rules of the art of the possible.

It should be very clear that AT LEAST Syria, Russia, and Iran are/have been active players in this equation, both in harboring the previous government, supplying arms, equipment and training, and attempting to disrupt the new government. We know about 'things' going over the boarder, we know that Russia supplied GPS jamming technology etc, etc., and it is believed that, as Iraq's main source of weapons, they also sold RDX to Iraq -- why wouldn't they want to get their material back -- especially if they were trying to good-cop/bad-cop [or pick some other ulterior motive] Hussein? There is extensive foriegn involvement and regoinal interest by players who have much to both gain and loose -- reducing this to Oil is an incorrect conclusion. Yes, there are financial targets of opportunity -- blaming the only (yes, American) companies big enough to service post war Iraq for profiteering is, again, something of a truism. This is a political situation that probably changes week-to-week in loyalties, and other factors -- trying to fit something this complex and fluid into a static conspiracy-for-money mold is not workable.

This is bigger than money, it is about regional influence. Also, Acts 23:5 may apply here.

More like Matthew 7:23 I think.

maybe -- don't get me started on the excesses of capitalism


I just have trouble with "oh just find OBL and this whole thing will end overnight". That and 'GWB is a baby killer who personally rigged the WTC for demolition and then used GlobalHawk technology to fly the planes to further the Necon agenda of world colonialism and mandatory attendance of Britany Spears concerts and Texas Rangers home games'.

I think we will all have fairly good sketchy deatails on this in about 20 years.

Magnificent! How to enslave and silence a population behind evil by using the fear of God. I wonder if the SS quoted the Bible on Hitlers orders?

In reply to:

1.) I still believe this war was about anything other than WMD. I respect your reply.

2.) This is not about Mr. Moore. I have done hours of my own research reviewing sites all across the internet. Judicial Watch.Org for just one example. I would encourage people not to be afraid to question our government when they hold "behind closed door" meetings with energy execs. Judicial Watch had to take the gov't. to court using the FOIA "Freedom of Information Act." I believe you stepped around this question and may or may not have reasons to address the information about Cheney and James Baker III but that is for reasons beyond my knowledge. I respect your reply but walk away without a feeling that you fulfilled any real due dilligence.

3.) If I may put your reply into other words you are saying essentially that "we can not just bully anyone in the world" "Saudi Arabia has us in a fix and we just let certain things slide because of this"

That is what it sounds like you are saying. I believe this is where the Integrity of the US, our leadership and our policy goes flying out the window. Integrity and justice must be universal. Your reply here while I respect it seems to adhear to the acceptance of this status quo which is geared in a context outside of integrity. I would ask you to do more research concerning business deals between high ranking officials in the US and within Saudi Arabia. In review of your findings you may have to explain some conflicts of interest between the multiple parties.

4.) I am fully aware of the total of Iraq. I was trying to see if you noticed the level of "sweet crude" in Iraq and if you thought this had something to do with us being over there. Some suggest that oil at full capacity is becoming strained. This is due to many factors, China of which is no small player with their increasing thirst for oil. Many in the know realize that Saudi Arabia is reaching a "full production rate" and the oil is harder to obtain as time goes on where as in Iraq "sweet crude" is on hand and being sweet crude it is much less expensive to obtain. I am not sure if you just skipped over this real question or if you did not understand the question. I do not feel that you answered it. I respect your reply regardless but I walk away without anything with what you left.

5.) You keep making mention of "what is possible" May I suggest to you that Integrity is a concept that is supreme to just "what is possible". If America can not act in a way which adhears to a policy of integrity and honesty may I suggest that America actually creates more problems than it solves. Action "just because you can" is no justification for any cause when performed void of justice and integrity. I feel you are slipping from the idea of integrity in your reply. I respect your reply but it is very sad to see the mindset of "what is possible" become the mantra and basis or justification for actions. All actions should be rooted in Integrity. Actions based outside of integrity are unwise actions.

Thanks for your reply

I would like to see SDW2001 reply

Fellowship

Apparently they did.

Hitler was a very devout Christian as it happens - in his own view but than isn't that always the case ?

When I get bored enough I may post some quotes from him and current world 'leaders' (allright - one current world 'leader') and we can play spot the difference......

Yes, of course. Paul certainly kept his mouth shut.

Jesus' actual disciples were certainly of the opinion that he should have done.

Maybe we wouldn't have Grisham's law if he really had.

Back OT - surely the issue is not really one of WMD as such, or even the reasons for going to war (which will be happening again shortly so we can do this all again ad infinitum) but rather: what do we do when our elected leaders are liars ?

Anyone can have whatever opinion they like about Iraq and we all have the right to those opinions - but when our leaders (of whatever stripe or persuasion) deliberately lie to us then that's a different story - it should be an issue that unites across the political divide.

The fact that it isn't speaks volumes about Bush's claims to be a 'uniter'. Typically, that's just another lie - from where I'm sitting I'm seeing nothing but division and more chasms increasing every day.

1) yes, but I think the administration covered themselves in a legalistic sort of way.

2) as to the Baker issue, no this would not have overidden GWB's seemingly isolationist POV. I don't think popular support would have been available either. Without 9/11, this would put this proposal back with many others that are shopped around by the various players in Washington. There many agendas and subcurrents that exist in that culture -- I see this as singling out one particular fanatasy of one particular interest group, whose wildest dreams came true.

3) this is alot of truth there, America is not the country it once was, so yes it is at the mercy of some countries and is becoming even more so year-to-year. As to integrity, the international situation is so out-of-control that this is a game of damage control. Also, inegrity at chess would not involve giving away your strategy either. As to justice, we do not have justice at home, it would not be reasonable to see this consistantly applied abroad. As to closed door meetings, that is how government operates -- and I'm not saying it's right at all -- but to single out one set, and essentially point to it and say 'hey! they had a secret meeting' is not realistic. Also, you are told what is usefull for you to know, the reports of collusion in various forms that are "tracked' by certain groups are a victim of the very political nature and environment that spawned them.

I have a mouse's eye view on a very small slice of politics and it literally makes me fear for our governments ability to exist. Fellowship you DO NOT live in a democracy, you live in a oligarcy/aristocracy of some sort, and it's not just the bad guys that are doing it.

4) the situation of Iraq's resources is neither here nor there, yes it WILL be used to every advantage, but none of this will 'drain the swamps' of terrorist nations, which is, I believe the essence of the Iraq situation.

5) You're using the Justice and Integrity, but both of those terms derive their meaning from God. Justice comes from God, Integrity is not a concept, integrity was essentially a person, the Person of Jesus Christ. These are not priniciples that are not being observed by essentially anyone in any of this, whether from profiteering Oil companies to the flawed responses from everyone from the UN's hideous sanctions murdering children, to using legalese to perform an takeover of Iraq. Integrity would have been GB I going all the way to Baghdad, or the UN acting with conviction, but agian, Justice is god-given so even those responses would be problematic.

Yes, it is very bad. But--do you have a solution, could you take this situation and make it better? Or can you look at the ME and see another way to drain the swamps without removing tyranical governements? Could you remove tyrannical governments using a 'love your neigbor' approach? With justice? With Integrity? Who? What? When? Where? and How? I honestly don't know.

In the end, I 'see' the Iraq issue -- the way it is played on these forums -- as a tool to make all of our corruption, greed, malice, and hate, and pin it on one man, one nation, and one industry. Those sorts of solutions are simplistic, they place blame on an 'easy' target, but in the end it only turns into a lynching. You pull on one string and the whole thing is connected, and in the end, not even the leaders are in control.

Anyway, I'm blowing my schedule. I do see you point, though.

Peace.

Edit: Maybe it would better to put it this way --GWB is being protrayed here as a guy whose first/only thought after 9/11 is "good, now we can go get Iraq's oil". I can't believe that. This guy is either a half-assed Christian (as he seems to be -- I don't exclude myself in that description), or he is the Devil himself.

Hey, have you noticed that the GWB administration continues to lie about nuclear weapons? Looky here:


U.S. misled allies about nuclear export
N. Korean material landed in Pakistan, instead of Libya

... In an effort to increase pressure on North Korea, the Bush administration told its Asian allies in briefings earlier this year that Pyongyang had exported nuclear material to Libya. That was a significant new charge, the first allegation that North Korea was helping to create a new nuclear weapons state.

... But that is not what U.S. intelligence reported, ... North Korea, according to the intelligence, had supplied uranium hexafluoride -- which can be enriched to weapons-grade uranium -- to Pakistan. It was Pakistan, a key U.S. ally with its own nuclear arsenal, that sold the material to Libya. The U.S. government had no evidence, the officials said, that North Korea knew of the second transaction.

... Two years ago, U.S. officials told allies that North Korea was trying to assemble an enrichment facility that would turn uranium hexafluoride to bomb-grade material. But China and South Korea, in particular, have been skeptical of those assertions and are becoming increasingly wary of pressuring North Korea.

...now stop it, Sergovious, that last statement was redundant!


(the Paul thing was pretty funny)

We've been through this (nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in Iraq) on AI for many many times already. Not sure why we should rehash it.

1. I think GWB invaded Iraq primarily domestic political advantage, secondarily to that is probably his liking of doing things that everyone thinks that he shouldn't. It doesn't go any deeper than that.

2. It's obvious now that there were not any nuclear, biological or chemical weapons of any consequence in Iraq for awhile. Administration supporters would rather believe in the lie than the truth. That's not surprising.

3. And since supporters would rather believe in the lie than the truth, there will be no consequences to GWB nor Tony Blair.

Or maybe not better to put it that way.....look, you got to stop this reductionist thinking.

Here's my take on Bush (and it is nothing like either of your melodramatic pendulously extreme polaristions):

Bush is a product of the Zeitgiest - nothing more, nothing less. The wind is blowing towards a 'dumbed down faith based' decaf ersatz spirituality (despite the fact that it masquerades as 'Muscle Christianity' - or perhaps because of it, I'm talking about brains and as is well known, that is seldom found with brawn) and Bush was just in the right place at the right time. If he hadn't have been, someone else would have stepped up to the plate.

So much for the 'faith based' side of things. Let's look at the 'political'.

Imo, Bush is a puppet - simple as that. yes, he may be sincere (sincerely wrong imo) but I don't believe he actually plans and creates the lies he tells - rather, that his bulb is somewhat energy compliant and he trusts people (perhaps this is indeed a Christian trait - seeing the good in others) and believes them, supports them. So it is easy for them to channel their lies and machinations through his person - which is a believable and sympathetic one (awe inspiring even judging by the extremes w regularly see here) - to their target audience. Indeed, that's probably why they chose him.

So, he is not 'evil' no - and not just because there is no such thing. The people behind him are a different story and by definition, they do not have the same values as he does - or else they would not need him as a 'buffer'.

In may ways I think he is ok - merely riding the tiger and just can't get off....I often feel sorry for him. But in the end it matters not - like he said when he laid down the rules: you're either with us or against us.

Unfortunately, given the ultimatum, I'm gonna have to say against.

From your link:

Have I mentioned Integrity in this thread???

Fellowship

segovius it is all about power, greed and business. End of story.

For leadership of any nation to abuse their people for the ends of further business and greed the public of that nation must be a distracted, lazy and ignorant group.

America is full of just that.

This is not about faith.

This is about abuse.

Those who seek the truth can spot a lie from light years away.

Be careful when you speak of Christians and Faith. Don't be a George W. and abuse us.

America may not be full of many Christians who truly practice due dilligence and hold Integrity supreme but don't piss on the few of us who do stand for justice and integrity.

Fellowship

Yes, Fellowship I completely agree. The real Christians are out there and I think their example is all the more impressive in these times so don't get me wrong.

I was just reading this article in relation to this - I wasn't going to post about it and I will still refrain from comment but I found it moving and full of hope of how things could still be if we have 'integrity' as you say. Anyway, I post it for you in case you haven't read it.

There is a lot of reality there.

I'd be willing to trade you one well-intentioned-but-flawed ME peace solution for one systemically corrupt political system. (shaken, not stirred)

Yeah but we aren't even remotely close to that yet. And isn't that solving a problem by accepting another ( and closer to home )?

(deleted dumb post)

So in other words, you're defending Bush's right to plausible deniability and nothing more.

"I look at it as a problem with the management of the conflcit itself."

And who was in charge of management of the conflict?

Think about the likelyhood of the following possibilities:

1) The US, who after years of surveillance had multiple "weapons sites" under strict observation, allowed those sites and weapons from those sites to be smuggled out of Iraq.

2) Saddam had destroyed all of the WMDs as he claimed, and as the UN inspectors agree is likely.

Which one is more likely?

Honestly, I don't know how you can overlook the irony in the theories you throw around while you call Sammi Jo a wacko conspiracy theorist.

Both sides can theorize. And both sides can be wacko.

But all this doesn't matter. We know the war was a failure regarding weapons of mass destruction.

If the US allowed the WMDs to be smuggled out of Iraq, then the US failed.
If there weren't any WMDs to be found, then the US failed.

Now it's time to take responsibility for such failure.

Regime change where it's most needed, please.

Nice backpeddaling!


It's done........it's over so let's just sweep it under the rug........

We don't know......we just don't know.......

and maybe the real saddam is cryogenically frozen in an orbiting big boy. And maybe the word 'maybe' is just a way for you to convince yourself of your predetermined beliefs. After all, maybe clinton's a serial killer. just ask naples

Bullshit. Every major intelligence service in the world except the US and UK said "there is not enough evidence of weapons to invade". They were right. The US was wrong. And the UK played along.


A man can dream. A man can dream...


That's funny, I didn't mention Clinton.

But now that you mention it, I think you forget the fact that Clinton, also, did not invade.

Only the invaders and those that fucked up that invasion are responsible for that invasion. No one else.

Just a favor. When faced with the failures of Bush, try not to knee-jerk and say, "But Clinton..." because not only do your comparisons generally not compare, they make you look like a dumb apologist as well.

Clinton made some mistakes. So did Bush. Worse mistakes, by all accounts. Own up to those mistakes, and stop excusing yourself because "Bill was bad, too!".

I bet we could find someone on here who would be more than happy to provide SDW with a ton of evidence that maybe Bush personally planned 9/11. Considering all of the websites on it, one has to wonder, right SDW?

God what a crock!

SDW all this thing you've posted is with regard to WMD is wishful thinking among rightwing Bush supporters. It has no real substance! But you were softening your tone and that's what I was talking about. As to the rest of it. Meaningless speculation.

The problem here is you seem to be treating it as if it was proof of something.

Look Saddam got rid of his WMD long ago. There was no threat. And yes I do know because it's been the most reasearched item in the middle east ever! Also if after all this searching and we still haven't found anything of substance at all don't you think Mr. Bush should have researched it a bit further before sending men to their deaths, bombing the hell out of Iraq, and putting us in a quagmire that will cost a lot of money and many years?

That's the real question here! And I can speculate with the best of them.


To follow this train of thought further is just silly ( even for you ). Come back when you have something real and save yourself the embarassment.

Indeed. Supporters will continue to believe in the lie rather than the truth. Other supporters do the smart thing and just ignore the weapons angle and say there were many other reasons for invading (UN resolutions, dictator, democracy), and that pretty much ends debate.


Just wanted to chime in that this viewpoint is part of GWB's propaganda as well. The GWB administration's language-fu is very good.

Iraq was never a threat even with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. We'd crush Iraq all the same if they had such weapons, if you could call them weapons. If Iraq had an actual air force, actual long-range ballistic missile capability, actual air defenses, actual naval power, actual ground power, and most importantly, actual industrial capability to support such a military, then they would have been a threat. As it stood before the invasion, Iraq was a threat to no nation.

Chemical and biological weapons were considered a weapon of "mass destruction" in the early 20th century, Great War era. Little did they know what air power could do and what a fully mechanized and industrialized infantry could do. Chemical and biological weapons are logistically very expensive and provide small gains. In short, they suck as weapons in today's world. Those nations spending capital on these weapons are wasting money.

Nuclear weapons are entirely offensive weapons. It is a "negative" weapon of sorts. It's "risky" to use them as a defensive weapon on native land. Use on foreign land means assured destruction with the USA as the top nuclear dog. So, nuclear weapons capability is an extension of geopolitics. In an actual nuclear exchange however, we win.

Iraq was a threat to no nation prior to the invasion. The "WMD" were terms of political art to frame the discussion. If we had a media that actually reported reality, WMD as cause for invasion should have been revealed for what it was, propaganda.

" UN resolutions, dictator, democracy "


And as we all know the war would have never gotten off the ground with just these items.

That is what the whole focal point of this matter is.

This war was sold to the world on a falsehood.

The only thing that swung others over to Bush's side was the nonexistent " threat ".

Now they want us to just forget about it and continue on as if nothing has happened. To sweep it under the rug.

Well I don't think we're going to.

The only question now is how to regard Mr. Bush in the future ( and anyone like him say around next election time )? I for one wouldn't trust him and don't want this kind of president. Half the country doesn't either. Even if this was a blunder on his part ( which I find difficult to swallow ) and not a bald faced lie it means he's incompetent as a president. No apology will change this.

Pretty much it in a nutshell.

Just like the UN weapons inspectors...(including Americans) on the ground, were telling us, there were no WMDs. But no, the threat was imminent! Mushroom cloud over NY! Mobile death labs! Unmanned drones! The Brits say 45 minute WMD attack capability. THE HORROR!!!!

By the way, the Germans and other intelligent services warned us pretty consistently about not believing the info. from "Curveball"/ Chalabi ( ).
So yeah, the intelligence was wrong in believing bullshit information it chose (was pushed to?) to believe.

This is another instance where your ignorance shows. It's not that we went there to have access to more oil or for lower prices of oil. That's the silly argument used by the Bush Fanatics to dismiss the argument from the "War for Oil" crowd.

There was a very powerful reason to invade for oil. The need to control the oil reserves because otherwise, then anyone (sanctions lifted) could negotiate with Iraq and buy from them. Paid for with a stronger currency even: the Euro.

Gilsch, I don't think, even with Iraq ramped all the way up it would reverse the fundamentals of the world commodity market for oil. (a weak reason for drilling in ANWR as well, BTW)


jimmac, once sanctions had ended, SH would have been back to his old tricks, with/without serious amounts of WMD in-country -- you've got to throw that in the pot as well.