We may have Iraq's WMDs - Page 3

Sorry, it's over. This thread should potentially be locked even, as it's a non-topic.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606230005

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606230008

I really dig mediamatters. GREAT site.

All they do is record and re-broadcast. Fox News and the neocons take care of the rest, making themselves look like the greedy, transparent dunces they are.

I still think it's a non-story because of the condition of the shells. I do think it shows Saddam was not in compliance as we claimed. IF these were active post 1991 shells, then it would be a story.

Wow it appears we have some real experts on this board in logic. Why don't you guys get off your ass, stop wasting time here, take an LSAT, and go to law school?!?

Those logic games make my head hurt. I'm jealous of moe/chris/occam's superior reasoning abilities.

Geez SDW!

This is a nonstory where justifying the war is concerned.

Saddam was in compliance. These were old shells that everybody forgot about. That's pretty obvious. They couldn't be used and weren't a threat.

So still no " imminent threat ".

Clinging to noncompliance isn't going to make the first and only reason that got this war off the ground real.

One again your ability to make words mean nothing is demonstrated.

Saddam was not in compliance. The "imminent threat" argument is a wholly separate issue. In other words, Saddam did not have to pose an immediate threat to be out of compliance.

It wasn't a seperate issue at all. It was at the heart of the issue SDW!

Your trying to twist reality won't chage a thing.


If Saddam was not in compliance ( but he was of course ) then he might of been a threat in some impossible way because he had no way to deliver them to us in the U.S. in numbers. Which is what the Bush administration implied as a way to gain support for this war. Please it wasn't all that long ago.

No, it was not and is not. Saddam was not an imminent threat. Saddam was also out of compliance. If you cannot accept that, you're showing how intectually dishonest you are.

"Out of Compliance" or not "out of compliance" - what sane person gives a fuck?

Fact is that this is just a device the wingers - ie you - use to justify what they already plan to do. in this case slaughter Iraqis.

You can see the same thing with Iran now - first the phoney 'resolutions' then the justification of slaughter to all the other hapless morons who don't have a brain cell between them.

And you can see the same thing in your posts: justification. When are you just going to say: we did it because we wanted to do it?

Fact is you can't - you inwardly know you are wrong - inwardly know you are betraying everything your country ever stood for. So you frantically justify years after the fact even with laughable attempts like this.

That is why you will lose your 'war'. You believe inside that the way you act is wrong.

In a way that's a good thing and your possible salvation - because it is wrong. Everybody knows that - even you - it's just that some have a psychological need to keep finding 'reasons' why it is right.

There are none. Give it up. Come over to the light.

It didn't matter that Saddam was out of compliance? Really? I guess it doesn't matter if you fail to comply with the law fully as well?

As for me acting wrongly, I frankly don't know what you're talking about. I've made a simple statement that any thinking person who wasn't utterly polarized against everything the Bush administration does would have no problem agreeing with. Saddam was not in compliance with multiple UN resolutions. If you want to disuss what consequences that should have had, that's fine.

Hey Bucko!

This war was started because of the implication that Saddam was threat. Stop lying!

I remember what was said and I remember how parinoid people were at the time. Bush used this situation to gain support. There was no way Saddam could have attacked us in the way that was implied ( one poster on AI : " Just wait until the mushroom clouds start blooming in your backyard " ).

What a load!

That and the fact that Bush mentioned 911 and Saddam in the same sentence so many times people started to think that way.


If it was a just a matter of compliance this war wouldn't have got off the ground and you know it. The " Threat " was the only real reason we're there at all. While your at it quit making excuses for Bush as well.

No, it didn't, because the US isn't the World Police.

The UN security council is, to an extent, but the UN security council did not see an immediate threat. And that should have been the end of the story. But the US _despite having been the creator of the UN and its predecessor, originally _decided to ignore matters.

And yes, Saddam misbehaved. France and Germany and all sorts of other war opponents agreed with that. But what they didn't agree with is that it was any of the US's fucking business what Iraq does or doesn't do.


That's what the police is for. The world doesn't have a police. The world doesn't have law enforcement.

And war isn't law enforcement. War is also not a replacement for law enforcement.

The threat item was added to padd Bush's argument.

The UN at the time said invasion wasn't necessary. But Bush took the law ( to use SDW's idea ) into his own hands and went ahead anyway. The last report before the war from the inspectors said Saddam was in compliance. But Bush went ahead anyway. And what did we find afterward? No WMD!

Bush got some support ( for fear that he might be right ) from a phoney report that turned out to be nothing.

So after the fact the Bush supporters changed their reason for the attack to " We freed the Iraqi people ". Which is just as stupid because how many countries in world need freeing from a dictator?

Very convenient, very stupid, very untruthful, very deceptive, and very costly.

That's it in a nutshell.

SDW. Please don't try to tell me these dead shells ( that couldn't be used by anyone and had obviously been forgotten since the early 90's ) is the excuse now for this stupid war?

Jesus Christ! Are you really this dense?

Even if your argument about a lack of imminent threat and Bush lying and what not is a GIVEN, there are still TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.

There was nothing in the UN resolution about an imminent threat. Saddam was required to verifiably disarm and account for his WMD materials. He did not do that. Period.

As I said, if you want to argue about what consequences disobeying the UN should have had, that's fine. But please try and ccomprehend rather than screaming "Bush lied...we've been over this already!"

Uh, news flash. We are the World Police because no one else has the resources to be. Who do you think militarily enforces UN resolutions? France? Belgium? Spain?

The UN resolutions, once again, had nothing to do with any imminent threat. They were about Saddam cerifiably disarming. Resolution 1441 recognized Saddam's previous non-compliance and offered him "one final opportunity" to comply, lest he face "serious consequences."

You can't rewrite history. If you want to attack Bush for portraying an imminent threat when there wasn't one. go ahead. But you can't change what the UN resolutions were about.

First, I have clearly stated that these shells really don't change anything about the lack of imminent threat. I said that clearly in my opening post.

Secondly, if Bush was "using an imminent threat to pad his argument," I guess that means that the crux of the argument was in fact UN 1441?

Third, the UN did not say an invasion wasn't neccessary. They offered Saddam one final chance. He did NOT comply. The UN then refused to back it's own resolutions. More specifically, France and Germany refused to. None of that changes what the UN said and didn't say.

Yes we have and I almost said that myself.

Well if you're going to deny reality and history then you really must be insincere or crazy. But the threat, the phoney uranium report, and the implied connection to 911 is the only reason Bush got any support for this war. Without it we wouldn't be there right now.

It's as simple as that.

Bush lied.

Go read Feb 14 and then go sit in the corner with a pointed hat.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/s...h=on&search=Go

Here's a sample :

-----------------------------------------------------------

" United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix and IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei present an update to the UN Security Council on the progress of weapons inspections in Iraq. The content of their presentation includes no evidence to substantiate US and British claims that Iraq poses a serious threat to the US or Europe. After the report is presented, the majority of the UN Security Council members feel that the use of military force will not be needed to effectively disarm Iraq. [United Nations, 2/14/2003; Financial Times, 2/14/2003]
UNMOVIC report by Hans Blix -
After conducting some 400 inspections at over 300 Iraqi sites since December 2002, the inspection teams still have not found any evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or that Iraq has programs to develop such weapons. [United Nations, 2/14/2003; Financial Times, 2/14/2003; Guardian, 2/14/2003; Inter Press Service, 2/15/2003]
The inspectors are unaware of any reliable evidence that the Iraqis have had advanced knowledge of the timing and locations of weapons inspections. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming, Blix says. [United Nations, 2/14/2003; Guardian, 2/14/2003; Guardian, 2/15/2003; Financial Times, 2/14/2003; Associated Press "

-----------------------------------------------------------

So your saying ( now ) that Bush attacked because Saddam didn't show compliance for something that he really had already complied?

At least the U.N. had some common sense ( and maturity ) and wanted to show restraint!

Look at all the lives and money this cost for a situation that didn't exist!

There were no WMD to be found ( or complied with )!

There was no threat!

Get over it!

All there ever was : A greedy little man with an agenda that had little or nothing to do with his stated reasons.

He didn't care how much grief and trouble he caused to carry out this agenda.

The proof's in the pudding SDW!

God you are something else!

The world's Gestapo Brownshirts maybe - police, no.

That would take integrity, lack of corruption and a love of justice. Sense of justice even.

Well said. Sometimes it's more like the World Bully.

Have you heard of NATO? You might have, seeing as you are a member.

And no, you aren't "the World Police". You would like to be, but in reality, you are just a comedic repeat of the Middle Ages, with a TERRAH spin.


Why do you think any particular country should do this? How about, um, y'know, a group of countries? Which is all the UN is about?


Blah blah blah let's divert this thread to a completely different issue and ignore everything that's been said.

Hmm, sounds like a PR person to me.

This one was pretty good also!

Guess what document that is from.

PS: Hans blix does not speak and did not speak for security council. Nice try.

Who else in that region does not comply with UNSC Resolutions?

Uh, duh. What nation do you think provides 90% plus of the UN's military resources? Hmmm?

The one that doesn't pay its dues to the UN?

I was talking about dues.

" United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix and IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei present an update to the UN Security Council on the progress of weapons inspections in Iraq. The content of their presentation includes no evidence to substantiate US and British claims that Iraq poses a serious threat to the US or Europe. After the report is presented, the majority of the UN Security Council members feel that the use of military force will not be needed to effectively disarm Iraq. "

Guess which one that's from?

Bold print doesn't impress me.

Notice this part : " After the report is presented, the majority of the UN Security Council members feel that the use of military force will not be needed to effectively disarm Iraq. "

It's not just Blix talking!



Or this part : " The content of their presentation includes no evidence to substantiate US and British claims that Iraq poses a serious threat to the US or Europe. "


Yet another example of SDW's selective reading retention.

I knew I'd have to highlight it for you as you only see what you want to see.

You got caught with your pants down on this one.

You haven't an argumetative leg to stand on SDW!

Give up now while you still have a shread of integrity!

Ah! But there it is in black and white.

Sorry ( not! ).

Noncompliance when there's nothing to comply with isn't enough reason for dubbya to take matters into his own hands and start a useless war!

Hey SDW! Where's the WMD?

In other words it's ok for the U.S. to leave these matters to the UN except when we don't want to?

That's incredibly weak. It's not an offical statement. It's a recounting of an informal reaction after Blix's presentation. Get real.

Nothing to comply with? You don't really believe that, do you?

I repeat! Where's the WMD????????



No WMD. Nothing really ( worth starting a war over ) to comply with.

" The content of their presentation includes no evidence to substantiate US and British claims that Iraq poses a serious threat to the US or Europe. After the report is presented, the majority of the UN Security Council members feel that the use of military force will not be needed to effectively disarm Iraq. "


Sounds pretty official and straight forward to me.


Read this part again : " the majority of the UN Security Council members feel that the use of military force will not be needed to effectively disarm Iraq. "

How much more definite can you get?

HAHAHAHAHA. That's my new sig. At this rate I can write a book of jimmacisms by the end of a year. I'll donate the profits to the Republican Party just to piss you off.

It's not a security council declaration, which is all that matters. It's like talking about which way a Senator might vote...things he told you over coffee. It's meaningless. Show me a security council statement explicity stating that war was not necessary.

I agree these weren't the weapons we were looking for. I do think it shows Saddam wasn't fully and verafiably disarmed, which was required.

I agree. He carried a gun all the time. The bastard!!

As far as signatures go you really don't want me to really start on you do you? Besides wasn't there a recent new rule listed by site to not have intimidating signatures?

As far as the rest well that's easy for you to say ( that's all that matters ) but the fact is it's their position and a matter of record.

What you think or feel isn't a real issue outside of this forum. To say this shows anything but further confmation that there was nothing to find is a huge stretch of the facts.