----oh come on!! What's the alternative if there were no WMD after '91?
The only other option is that SH actively pissed off the UN to the point where he had no-fly zones up his butt and getting bombed, literally, almost on a daily basis--to the point that the press stopped making it "news".
Seriously--what else could it be? Were the 90s good for SH? I actually wouldn't put it past him but I just can't see it.
Allow me to throw this on the fire. I was worried less about Iraq being stupid enough to use any WMDs than about Iraq making and selling WMDs to the highest bidder. If they can't find the weapons, and they can't find the means of maiking the weapons (though the trucks seem to be fairly credible if circumstantial evidence), could they at least find the paper work or find intelligence anywhere else to suggest they uloaded any of this stuff.
The Bush admin screwed up by barking about the wrong reasons to oust Hussein. Blair picked up on the real reason, but no one listened or believed him. Problem is of course is that there are many like Hussein that deserve to be ousted, so I guess they had to find a more pressing reason for this guy in particular.
You allow the inspectors what they ask for and the whole thing is over in a few months or weeks.
Ha! The inspectors went every which where...nowhere was off limits, even the presidential palaces. All the "best" (!) intelligence was denounced by the inspectors as "garbage upon garbage upon garbage"...constantly on wild goose chases.
So, the inspectors asked for "more time". Bush rolled his eyes and said "no". Now guess what: the US military, under the gun and desperate to find these fictitious WMD are now askign for...yes..."more time".
Bush and Blair (just like Saddam et al) are damned liars who spent $Billions of $ and £ in a protracted campaign of international terrorism, masquerading as "war"...the world will be dancing in the streets when they get kicked out of office and hopefully end up behind bars for a very long time.
Allow me to throw this on the fire. I was worried less about Iraq being stupid enough to use any WMDs than about Iraq making and selling WMDs to the highest bidder. If they can't find the weapons, and they can't find the means of maiking the weapons (though the trucks seem to be fairly credible if circumstantial evidence), could they at least find the paper work or find intelligence anywhere else to suggest they uloaded any of this stuff.
The Bush admin screwed up by barking about the wrong reasons to oust Hussein. Blair picked up on the real reason, but no one listened or believed him. Problem is of course is that there are many like Hussein that deserve to be ousted, so I guess they had to find a more pressing reason for this guy in particular.
The Bush Admin was changing its reasons with every shift in the political wind. Regime change, WMD, liberation of Iraqis, connection with al Qaida, terrorism,..etc etc. The real reasons (oil wealth, control in the region, big US corporate contracts, security for Israel, the PNAC agenda, etc etc... probably wouldn't have sat very well, even for conservative Americans, given any (Clear Channel etc) media publicity of course.
I can still hear the faithful poodle Blair's mantra, parroting every sentence uttered by his master in the White House: "we will disarm Saddam: this is all about disarming Saddam". Since he was such a horror story, then just what the hell were we doing, funding, arming and generally supporting his regime for four successive administrations: Carter, Reagan 1 and 2 and Bush Sr.??????
So, the inspectors asked for "more time". Bush rolled his eyes and said "no". Now guess what: the US military, under the gun and desperate to find these fictitious WMD are now askign for...yes..."more time".
This was my point. I can't even fathom the idea that conservatives would ask for more time to inspect for weapons.
When the UN was in there, they were hindered by the Iraqis. That would be reason to need more time to search. Now that the US has free reign to search high and low, they can't find squat. There's absolutely no reason they can't find a scrap, other than it was all a big lie.
If anyone here was for an attack, but is now for more time to search, you're a hypocrite. At least have the decency to admit that.
...Mr Blair predicted that the next US-UK intelligence dossier on Saddam Hussein's arsenal would make sceptical voters "very well satisfied" that he was right.
Expressing frustration about what he sees as his critics' attempt to refight the war by other means, Mr Blair insisted for the third time in as many days that intelligence reports had not been doctored under political pressure and would be vindicated.
Appealing for voters to be patient, he declared: "I have said throughout that when this is put together, the evidence of the scientists and witnesses, the investigations from the sites, people will be very well satisfied."
The new dossier on which Downing Street pins its hopes will be produced by US intelligence and weapons inspection teams which are now fanning out over Iraq while colleagues work on humanitarian aid and reconstruction.
"...will be produced by US intelligence and weapons inspection teams"??????????? Anyone who fails to see the problem with this is a gullible stooge.
What a complete and utter joke. Instead of this farce, send in independant inspectors and let us see if there actually were any WMD.
appealing for voters to be patient, he declared: "I have said throughout that when this is put together, the evidence of the scientists and witnesses, the investigations from the sites, people will be very well satisfied."
What's Blair waiting for...and how come he's so certain that "WMD will be found", specially considering that first inspectors, now the US and UK miltary have been combing Iraq and found precisely nothing.
Who's monitoring the inventory at the literally hundreds of chemical and biological weapons plants and repositories in both the US and the UK??? Yes, you got it...the US and UK Governments and military establishments. Who's going to notice that a few dozen barrels of anthrax, botulinum, ricin or sarin have mysteriously gone AWOL...and who's going to care?
I can see this scenario happening in the near future with all the news media suddenly blaring this story: "Huge stashes of chemical and boilogical weapons found at xxxxxxxx in Iraq: President Bush and Prime Minister Blair vindicated". Right now, the US military is refusing the presence of independent parties, namely UN inspectors, to help with the search. I wonder why?
Who's monitoring the inventory at the literally hundreds of chemical and biological weapons plants and repositories in both the US and the UK??? Yes, you got it...the US and UK Governments and military establishments.
I guess they could get some unemployed Kmart employees to monitor those inventories.
Besides, after the alien invasion force uses all as hood ornaments and slave labor on military spacecraft, it won't matter.
If you're trying to imply that it is an impossibility that Blair and/or Bush would plan WMD in Iraq in order to 'save face' in the international community, just come out and say it. If you do, probably no one here will agree with you.
Of course there's a 'connection', and that is a credible threat. It's a credible threat if we act on that threat or not.
There's a connection between Bush's push to war and the lack of WMD? Please explain that, the world is waiting to hear this ground-breaker.
Quote:
That means the threat, prior to the war, was enough to force compliance. That means the war was unnecessary.
If the weapons were destroyed in 1991 as claimed above, how the hell did Dubya's push to war mean anything either way?
Either the lack of WMD takes both of us down or it neither of us. You said we could get him to disarm without war, and if he doesn't have anything to disarm it's kind of tough to disarm him, eh?
But how would we ever have known that he didn't have anything? Do we even know now?
You can't pick and choose which way the knife cuts.
If the weapons were destroyed in 1991 as claimed above, how the hell did Dubya's push to war mean anything either way?
Either the lack of WMD takes both of us down or it neither of us. You said we could get him to disarm without war, and if he doesn't have anything to disarm it's kind of tough to disarm him, eh?
I think, although you don't realize it or wouldn't admit it, you're saying that even if Saddam disarmed in 1991 we still needed to go to war in 2003 to disarm him. I don't think you'll get anyone to agree with you.
If this situation is true, that he disarmed in 1991, then my point is and was 100% correct. Conversely you were 100% incorrect.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
But how would we ever have known that he didn't have anything? Do we even know now?
No, we don't know for certain. We're talking about hypotheticals.
''We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories,'' Bush said in an interview conducted Thursday. ''They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.
''And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.''
So, Bush says "we found the weapons of mass destruction." Uh, no we haven't, Mr. President sir. We've found two RVs that could be biological weapons laboratories, but we didn't find any evidence of weapons in them.
This is an excellent article in the UK's Sunday Herald. Echoing the row between the Pentagon/White House and the US intelligence community is a similar fracas brewing between Downing St. and MI6.
re. Planting WMD Evidence. Both Bush and Blair stand to lose face in a huge way: they cited WMD as the reason to go to war. Both men have very large egos and they will never admit either to being wrong re. WMD in Iraq, or lying about it.
Political careers are at stake for both men. So...what is it to be? Planting the "evidence", then beating their chests and yelling to the world: "TOLD YOU SO", or recognizing that getting caught doing that is too big a risk, and hoping the American and British people (and the rest of the world) have a short enough attention span.
Then...there always the chance that *genuine* WMDs may be found in Iraq. But these two have lied about so much in such a short period of time...will anyone believe it?
Comments
Originally posted by sammi jo
Tell me: how do you give up weapons that you dont have????
You allow the inspectors what they ask for and the whole thing is over in a few months or weeks.
Originally posted by ena
You allow the inspectors what they ask for and the whole thing is over in a few months or weeks.
Um...
Originally posted by bunge
Um...
----oh come on!! What's the alternative if there were no WMD after '91?
The only other option is that SH actively pissed off the UN to the point where he had no-fly zones up his butt and getting bombed, literally, almost on a daily basis--to the point that the press stopped making it "news".
Seriously--what else could it be? Were the 90s good for SH? I actually wouldn't put it past him but I just can't see it.
Somebody?
ANYBODY?
The Bush admin screwed up by barking about the wrong reasons to oust Hussein. Blair picked up on the real reason, but no one listened or believed him. Problem is of course is that there are many like Hussein that deserve to be ousted, so I guess they had to find a more pressing reason for this guy in particular.
Originally posted by ena
You allow the inspectors what they ask for and the whole thing is over in a few months or weeks.
Ha! The inspectors went every which where...nowhere was off limits, even the presidential palaces. All the "best" (!) intelligence was denounced by the inspectors as "garbage upon garbage upon garbage"...constantly on wild goose chases.
So, the inspectors asked for "more time". Bush rolled his eyes and said "no". Now guess what: the US military, under the gun and desperate to find these fictitious WMD are now askign for...yes..."more time".
Bush and Blair (just like Saddam et al) are damned liars who spent $Billions of $ and £ in a protracted campaign of international terrorism, masquerading as "war"...the world will be dancing in the streets when they get kicked out of office and hopefully end up behind bars for a very long time.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Allow me to throw this on the fire. I was worried less about Iraq being stupid enough to use any WMDs than about Iraq making and selling WMDs to the highest bidder. If they can't find the weapons, and they can't find the means of maiking the weapons (though the trucks seem to be fairly credible if circumstantial evidence), could they at least find the paper work or find intelligence anywhere else to suggest they uloaded any of this stuff.
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/002879.html
Quote:
The Bush admin screwed up by barking about the wrong reasons to oust Hussein. Blair picked up on the real reason, but no one listened or believed him. Problem is of course is that there are many like Hussein that deserve to be ousted, so I guess they had to find a more pressing reason for this guy in particular.
The Bush Admin was changing its reasons with every shift in the political wind. Regime change, WMD, liberation of Iraqis, connection with al Qaida, terrorism,..etc etc. The real reasons (oil wealth, control in the region, big US corporate contracts, security for Israel, the PNAC agenda, etc etc... probably wouldn't have sat very well, even for conservative Americans, given any (Clear Channel etc) media publicity of course.
I can still hear the faithful poodle Blair's mantra, parroting every sentence uttered by his master in the White House: "we will disarm Saddam: this is all about disarming Saddam". Since he was such a horror story, then just what the hell were we doing, funding, arming and generally supporting his regime for four successive administrations: Carter, Reagan 1 and 2 and Bush Sr.??????
Originally posted by sammi jo
So, the inspectors asked for "more time". Bush rolled his eyes and said "no". Now guess what: the US military, under the gun and desperate to find these fictitious WMD are now askign for...yes..."more time".
This was my point. I can't even fathom the idea that conservatives would ask for more time to inspect for weapons.
When the UN was in there, they were hindered by the Iraqis. That would be reason to need more time to search. Now that the US has free reign to search high and low, they can't find squat. There's absolutely no reason they can't find a scrap, other than it was all a big lie.
If anyone here was for an attack, but is now for more time to search, you're a hypocrite. At least have the decency to admit that.
...Mr Blair predicted that the next US-UK intelligence dossier on Saddam Hussein's arsenal would make sceptical voters "very well satisfied" that he was right.
Expressing frustration about what he sees as his critics' attempt to refight the war by other means, Mr Blair insisted for the third time in as many days that intelligence reports had not been doctored under political pressure and would be vindicated.
Appealing for voters to be patient, he declared: "I have said throughout that when this is put together, the evidence of the scientists and witnesses, the investigations from the sites, people will be very well satisfied."
The new dossier on which Downing Street pins its hopes will be produced by US intelligence and weapons inspection teams which are now fanning out over Iraq while colleagues work on humanitarian aid and reconstruction.
"...will be produced by US intelligence and weapons inspection teams"??????????? Anyone who fails to see the problem with this is a gullible stooge.
What a complete and utter joke. Instead of this farce, send in independant inspectors and let us see if there actually were any WMD.
appealing for voters to be patient, he declared: "I have said throughout that when this is put together, the evidence of the scientists and witnesses, the investigations from the sites, people will be very well satisfied."
What's Blair waiting for...and how come he's so certain that "WMD will be found", specially considering that first inspectors, now the US and UK miltary have been combing Iraq and found precisely nothing.
Who's monitoring the inventory at the literally hundreds of chemical and biological weapons plants and repositories in both the US and the UK??? Yes, you got it...the US and UK Governments and military establishments. Who's going to notice that a few dozen barrels of anthrax, botulinum, ricin or sarin have mysteriously gone AWOL...and who's going to care?
I can see this scenario happening in the near future with all the news media suddenly blaring this story: "Huge stashes of chemical and boilogical weapons found at xxxxxxxx in Iraq: President Bush and Prime Minister Blair vindicated". Right now, the US military is refusing the presence of independent parties, namely UN inspectors, to help with the search. I wonder why?
Originally posted by sammi jo
Who's monitoring the inventory at the literally hundreds of chemical and biological weapons plants and repositories in both the US and the UK??? Yes, you got it...the US and UK Governments and military establishments.
I guess they could get some unemployed Kmart employees to monitor those inventories.
Besides, after the alien invasion force uses all as hood ornaments and slave labor on military spacecraft, it won't matter.
I have to go to my bunker and listen to Drudge.
Originally posted by ena
Careful guys, it aint over till it's over. The question still remains why SH would go to all the trouble of sanctions, bombing, etc.
It gave him more control in Iraq and turned the muslim world against the US and in favor of Iraq.
Originally posted by ena
I have to go to my bunker and listen to Drudge.
If you're trying to imply that it is an impossibility that Blair and/or Bush would plan WMD in Iraq in order to 'save face' in the international community, just come out and say it. If you do, probably no one here will agree with you.
Of course there's a 'connection', and that is a credible threat. It's a credible threat if we act on that threat or not.
There's a connection between Bush's push to war and the lack of WMD? Please explain that, the world is waiting to hear this ground-breaker.
That means the threat, prior to the war, was enough to force compliance. That means the war was unnecessary.
If the weapons were destroyed in 1991 as claimed above, how the hell did Dubya's push to war mean anything either way?
Either the lack of WMD takes both of us down or it neither of us. You said we could get him to disarm without war, and if he doesn't have anything to disarm it's kind of tough to disarm him, eh?
But how would we ever have known that he didn't have anything? Do we even know now?
You can't pick and choose which way the knife cuts.
Originally posted by groverat
If the weapons were destroyed in 1991 as claimed above, how the hell did Dubya's push to war mean anything either way?
Either the lack of WMD takes both of us down or it neither of us. You said we could get him to disarm without war, and if he doesn't have anything to disarm it's kind of tough to disarm him, eh?
I think, although you don't realize it or wouldn't admit it, you're saying that even if Saddam disarmed in 1991 we still needed to go to war in 2003 to disarm him. I don't think you'll get anyone to agree with you.
If this situation is true, that he disarmed in 1991, then my point is and was 100% correct. Conversely you were 100% incorrect.
Originally posted by groverat
But how would we ever have known that he didn't have anything? Do we even know now?
No, we don't know for certain.
Originally posted by jimmac
I knew it was coming to this.
Sorry if I spoiled your Sunday evening.
''We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories,'' Bush said in an interview conducted Thursday. ''They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.
''And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.''
Here.
So, Bush says "we found the weapons of mass destruction." Uh, no we haven't, Mr. President sir. We've found two RVs that could be biological weapons laboratories, but we didn't find any evidence of weapons in them.
re. Planting WMD Evidence. Both Bush and Blair stand to lose face in a huge way: they cited WMD as the reason to go to war. Both men have very large egos and they will never admit either to being wrong re. WMD in Iraq, or lying about it.
Political careers are at stake for both men. So...what is it to be? Planting the "evidence", then beating their chests and yelling to the world: "TOLD YOU SO", or recognizing that getting caught doing that is too big a risk, and hoping the American and British people (and the rest of the world) have a short enough attention span.
Then...there always the chance that *genuine* WMDs may be found in Iraq. But these two have lied about so much in such a short period of time...will anyone believe it?