Where are the WMDs then?

Originally posted by noangels2006
common sense and decency!!

You my warmongering friend are a minority in this world sunshine,so dont say you small lot have common sense and decency

open you eyes It man

Warmongering? Can't you do any better than that? I've previously been called an "Ultranationalist neoconservative warmonger with a need to hate." You aren't even able to hurl a good insult!!

Anyway, Agit8d said ONE true thing in his last post - this thread has degenerated beyond recovery. (snip)

Agit8d - No comment on the "Al Gore Mood Ring?"

Mod Edit: Inappropriate text removed.

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory -- Please Review This Link


[edit on 5-8-2007 by chissler]

Originally posted by Dan5647
Since Saddam had the potential to recruit terrorists in his country and send them over here with WMDs, it became a major threat to the U.S. That is the main reason we invaded Iraq. We didn't go there for oil or imperialistic power, which many people choose to believe.

I guess my point is is that Saddam was an evil man and removing him from power and removing the WMD/terror threat was the first step towards fighting terrorism in the Middle East after 9/11.

There are several countries we could apply that standard to, but haven't invaded. Countries we know for certain currently have WMD stockpiles, and consider us an enemy.

The difference? They're not sitting on the world's second largest oil reserves, and/or they're far more difficult targets than Saddam's gutted post Gulf War military was.

I know how badly you want to believe we're "the good guys" - I want to believe it too, and in fact I used to. Sadly it just doesn't square with the facts.

The invasion of Iraq was a resource war, pure and simple.
One of many we are likely to see in the coming century.

[edit on 8/3/07 by xmotex]

Originally posted by xmotex
There are several countries we could apply that standard to, but haven't invaded. Countries we know for certain currently have WMD stockpiles, and consider us an enemy.

How would you know which countries have WMDs or not. And even if you knew, which countries would those be? If you are thinking North Korea then you would start another Korean War? If you are thinking of Iran, you would start a war with Russia or China? Think about it. Iraq and Afghanistan are the right places to start our offense on the war against terror.

Originally posted by xmotex
The difference? They're not sitting on the world's second largest oil reserves, and/or they're far more difficult targets than Saddam's gutted post Gulf War military was.

Saudi Arabia is a major oil reserve country too and you suggested of invading them?

Originally posted by xmotex
I know how badly you want to believe we're "the good guys" - I want to believe it too, and in fact I used to. Sadly it just doesn't square with the facts.

You make it sound like we OWN the country. Actually the Iraqi government , which I disapprove of, owns the country. We are not barbaric savages that kill civilians for the fun of it. If you are talking about bad guys, you are talking about terrorists, Saddam's former administration, North Korea(maybe), Iran, Syria, and Venezuela.

[edit on 3-8-2007 by Dan5647]

[edit on 3-8-2007 by Dan5647]

I wasnt hurling an insult at you IT guy as its against the rules sunshine-if it was in the rules i would

Wow the ignorance is thick in this thread.

Syria denies WMD were moved there before war

www.usatoday.com...

U.S. found no evidence WMD moved from Iraq
..... intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never “a piece,” said one — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Most reports indicate that it was Syria the weapons were transferred to. Even the Iraqi's themselves have admitted to it.

Most reports huh?
Even the Iraqis huh?

We actually have satellite footage of the weapons and caravans of cargo being shipped to Syria.

Actually have satellite footage? Are you the only person to see this satellite footage?

ITGUYSRULE? Ok, whatever.

I can tell you from personal experience that he is not a monster nor is he evil incarnate. He is a patriotic American who has served his country for many years

So you shook Cheneys hand and now you can tell me from personal experience that he is not a monster?
You must not know people very well, because many-a-monster has come across as kind and caring.
Dick Cheney is, well, a dick, and his history of 'public service' that you claim makes him patriotic looks more like a revolving door between politriks and business.
What about his TWO drunk driving convictions withing 8 months of each other. That shows me that he doesnt care about other Americans, if he is willing to drive drunk and put us all at risk.
What about his FIVE deferments during Viet Nam?
He is a chicken hawk, just like the vast majority of the Republican party, they dont want to go to war themselfs but are very happy to send others into conflict.
Cheney, Halliburton. Halliburton, Cheney.
Its your money they're spending.

Saddam had some chemical agents that we sold him in the eighties.
He used them. (nothing lasts forever, just like everything else WMDs have a shelf life)
He didnt have anything else. Nothing.
IF HE DID have any WMD when we invaded, he would have USED THEM you knuckleheads.

You radical righties are as bad as the loopy lefties.
Hold fast to what your heros tell you, even when it flies in the face of logic reason and facts.


[edit on 3-8-2007 by 11Bravo]

[edit on 3-8-2007 by 11Bravo]

Originally posted by 11Bravo
He is a chicken hawk, just like the vast majority of the Republican party, they dont want to go to war themselfs but are very happy to send others into conflict.

So you are saying send in the politicians into war? You must be out of your mind! The military should be able to control what they want to do, not by some politicians who know nothing about war.

Originally posted by Dan5647
So you are saying send in the politicians into war? You must be out of your mind! The military should be able to control what they want to do, not by some politicians who know nothing about war.

Nope, Im saying as a general rule, Democrats are more likely to have served in the armed forces of the United States.

DEMOCRATS-
Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) -- rifle platoon and company commander with the Fifth Marine Regiment in the An Hoa Basin west of Danang; was awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star Medal, two Bronze Star Medals, and two Purple Hearts
Representative Tim Walz, D-MN - Twenty-four years of service in the Army National Guard, retiring in 2005.
Representative Joe Sestak, D-PA - 31 years of service in the Navy, rising to the rank of Vice Admiral.
Representative Chris Carney, D-PA - Lieutenant Commander in the United States Naval Reserve, Carney served multiple tours overseas and was activated for Operation Enduring Freedom, Noble Eagle, and Southern Watch.
Representative Patrick Murphy, D-PA - extensive career in the U.S. Army from 1993-2004; earned Bronze Star and Presidential Unit Citation.
Representative Phil Hare, D-IL - Served in the United States Army Reserve for six years.
Representative Jack Murtha (D-PA) - distinguished 37-year career in the U.S. Marine Corps, Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, retired from the Marine Corps Reserve as a colonel in 1990.
Former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt - Missouri Air National Guard, 1965-71.
Representative David Bonior - Staff Sgt., United States Air Force 1968-72
Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle - 1st Lt., U.S. Air Force SAC 1969-72
Former Vice President Al Gore - enlisted August 1969; sent to Vietnam January 1971 as an army journalist.
Former Senator Bob Kerrey... Democrat... Lt. j.g., U.S. Navy 1966-69
Senator Daniel Inouye, US Army 1943-'47; Medal of Honor, World War Two
Senator John Kerry, Lt., U.S. Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three awards of the Purple Heart for his service in combat
Representative Charles Rangel, Staff Sgt., U.S. Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea

Former Senator Max Cleland, Captain, U.S. Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam Cleland was originally appointed to serve on the 9/11 Commission but resigned shortly after, claiming that the Bush administration was "stonewalling" and blocking the committee's access to key documents and witnesses
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - U.S. Army, 1951-1953. (1)
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) - Lt., U.S. Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74. (1, 2)
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) - U.S. Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91 (1)
Former Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - served as a U.S. Army officer in World War II, receiving the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
Representative Leonard Boswell (D-IA) - Lt. Col., U.S. Army 1956-76; two tours in Vietnam, two Distinguished Flying Crosses as a helicopter pilot, two Bronze Stars, and the Soldier's Medal. (1, 2)
Former Representative "Pete" Peterson, Air Force Captain, POW, Ambassador to Viet Nam, and recipient of the Purple Heart, the Silver Star and the Legion of Merit. (1, 2)
Rep. Mike Thompson, D-CA: Staff sergeant/platoon leader with the 173rd Airborne Brigade, U.S. Army; was wounded and received a Purple Heart.
Bill McBride, Democratic Candidate for Florida Governor - volunteered and served as a U.S. Marine in Vietnam; awarded Bronze Star with a combat "V."
Gray Davis, former California Governor, Army Captain in Vietnam; received Bronze Star.
Pete Stark, D-CA, served in the Air Force 1955-57
Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate - 38-year career of public service in the Army, culminating as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO

REPUBLICANS
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY - did not serve
Senate Assistant Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-MI - avoided the draft, did not serve.
Senate Republican Conference Chairman Jon Kyl, R-AZ - did not serve.
National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair John Ensign, R-NV - did not serve.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-OH - did not serve.
House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-MO - did not serve.
House Republican Conerence Chair Adam Putnam, R-FL - did not serve.
House Republican Policy Committee Thaddeus McCotter, R-MI - did not serve.
National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Tom Cole, R-OK - did not serve.
Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve.
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey - avoided the draft, did not serve.
Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve
Former House Majority Whip Roy Blunt - did not serve
Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist - did not serve
Rick Santorum, R-PA, formerly third ranking Republican in the Senate - did not serve.
DICK CHeney FIVE deferments DID NOT SERVE
John Ashcroft SEVEN deferments DID NOT SERVE
Karl Rove did not serve
Jeb Bush did not serve
Newt Gingrich did not serve
And the exceptions to the rule are.......
Senator John McCain - McCain's naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross
Former Senator Bob Dole - an honorable man
Chuck Hagel - two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, Vietnam.
Duke Cunningham - nominated for the Medal of Honor, received the Navy Cross, two Silver Stars, fifteen Air Medals, the Purple Heart, and several other decorations Recently entered plea bargain on felony charges of bribery.
Senator Jeff Sessions U.S. Army Reserves, 1973-1986
Representative Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), served in USMC in Vietnam; wounded in action
George HW Bush- Did he serve? Thats debatable.


Source

[edit on 3-8-2007 by 11Bravo]

Dan5647,I believe 11bravo was refering to the cowards in power now who didnt serve their country during Nam.We dont expect these disgusting individuals to go to war now

Now i know you will say bush did the avaition national guard thing but we all realy know he was off his head on drugs

just face the facts,your commander in chief is nothing but a gutless coward who isnt fit to lace the shoes of any of our service men out there

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Dark Blue,
Condoleza, Powell both stated, prior to 911 that saddam had been contained, and had no ability to resurrect his wmd capability.

Or have you completely forgotten that WELL KNOWN FOOTAGE!

..... Have you forgottten that all the world believe that Saddam had wmd before the war?.... Half of the world just wanted for the sanctions to continue meanwhile they kept getting rich and 500,000 more Iraqi children under the age of 5 would have died from those same sanction as what had happened....and that's not counting the people murdered by Saddam, his son and his regime...

Originally posted by princeofpeace
NO, not at all im talking about the biological and chemical weapons that were transferred from Iraq to Syria. What does that have to do with condoms? Or are you just 12 years old like a lot of others on here and penises are all you can think about?

Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coattails. Fear grows in darkness; if you think there's a bogeyman around, turn on the light.

errr wrong.
Blair admitted prior he believed none would be found.
The French and Germans cast MANY doubts over the wmd reports.
The UN Said nothing was found.

how can you say the whole world?

Iraq was an illegial war, because they didnt threaten the States.
They didnt ATTACK the states.
They WANTED an audience for dialouge when the US refused.

Powell, and Rice both said prior to 911 that saddam had NO capability.

Like, far out...
The only nations whom said the same bs, were the smalll nations that followed the US.
IE, Australia

The only reason WE Joined in, wasnt for WMD's..
it was because J. Howard wanted a kodak moment with bush on the whitehouse lawn.

The realities of Iraq are so clear, I question anyone who still follows the WMD story.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop


1. WE FOUND NONE
2. We had undeniable evidence of WMD's... obviously they lied when stating this, because you cant have undeniable evidence without wmd's

Riiiight, and the empty chemical warheads that were found in iraq mean nothing. i mean Saddam had plans to fill them up with candies... the name CHEMICAL WARHEAD means nothing...they could have outfitted it with candy or cartoons of milk.... i guess "the smartest people in the world" would see it that way huh?......

How about the tons of documents found which dealt with building WMD?.... Saddam just had them as a souveneir right?....

Or the nuclear centrifuge parts which an Iraqi scientist said he was told to hide?

Or the fact that Iraq still had banned weapons and parts they were not supposed to have?....

Wouldn't "the most naive person in the world" see that "if it walks like a duck, if it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it has to be a duck"?.......

[edit on 5-8-2007 by Muaddib]

A few emtpy warheads, are not stockpiles.
He made thousands of munitions in the 80's... of course there's something lying around.

He didnt have vatts full of toxins did he?so obviously he had NO PLANS to fill up those warheads.

tonnes of documents?
Of course he did, im not denying once upon a time he had wmd's and made them, hell we assisted him...

Why in the world would he even WANT wmd's?
He wasnt going to invade neighbours
He wasnt going to give them to terrorists could they would of been immediaetly traced to him... thus meaning a glass parking lot.

walks like a duck talks like a duck?
Saddam was a bad egg.
Granted.

But 911 was used as a pretext to scrae the public into a war.
I sure as hell believed saddam to be your 'duck' too.
Especially when the government tells you they have undeniable evidence of STOCK PILES.

No one imaged the US government would lie on such a tremendous scale.
But there's got to be a moment when people stop looking for things to justify those lies.

a few emtpy mortar shells, some 1980's documents do not back up the administrations claims of undeniable evidence of STOCKPILES!

We found nothing, because he had nothing.
There was no POINT in saddam having anything, because they didnt benefit him or give him any power he didnt already have.

All anyone had to do, was grant Saddams request for open dialouge.
That would of solved this horrible mistake a long time before it occured, but being we out right REFUSED to talk to him, dictates specifically that we didnt care wether he had WMD's, we only cared about painting him as this horrible, lying, wmd wielding leader.

And obviously, you fell for it, and still fall for it.

errr...wrong....some people really have bad memories......I wonder why....

Let's see again what some of the world leaders, or influential people were saying before the war...

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
................
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
.................
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
..............
“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

patterico.com...

Some other comments made by journalists...

They were aided by the fact that if you go around the world to other intelligence services -- the French, the Germans, the British, the U.N. weapons inspectors -- there was a general consensus that, in fact, Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction. ...
.....................
In fact, we now know from Michael Gordon's book [Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq], his own generals believed that he had WMD, and they only learned it on the eve of the war ... that they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction to fend off the invaders with. ...
......................
A couple of reasons. Almost everybody whom we talked to, including Clinton administration officials, were convinced that there was WMD out there. Likewise, intelligence officials -- in the CIA, in the Defense Department -- they were much more nuanced and weren't coming on strong the way the administration was. They really didn't know what was going on in Iraq.

www.pbs.org...

So Muadib let me get this straight.
You are using empty shells as proof that there was something in the shell?
Then, to back that up, you say 'Yeah, and everybody said he had WMD so he must have.'
Is that your stance?

world leaders?
You have the french leader, and the rest are American politicans.
What about Blair?
Conveniently you missed how he said '' I believe no wmd's will be found ''
just like your HEAD wmd's searcher

The admission by the CIA’s top weapons adviser in Iraq, David Kay, that the country possessed no stockpiles of so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMD) nor related production facilities is a devastating refutation of the lies used by the Bush administration to justify its illegal invasion and occupation. The comments are all the more damning coming from someone who was one of the most rabid advocates of ousting Saddam Hussein as the only means of ending the alleged threat posed by Iraqi weapons.

Cant you see they HAD NONE?

No stockpiles?.... There were sites full of drums, which supposedly were monitored but even some of the investigations showed drums were missing even before the war started, which were full of chemicals for weapons....

No chemicals for weapons in Iraq......

If you come to my work, you'll find drums.
documents, computers, generators.

This does not mean I have, or HAD stockpiles.

Its this simple,
The BUSH admin would of used ANYTHING even REMOTLEY plausable as WMD's or capabilities to justify there outrageous claims in the leadup.

You remember that 'mobile labratory' we found in the early stages?
Was stated as being EVIDENCE.. but when we actually looked into it, it was nothing...

Drums, and empty mortar shells do not justify the claims of
'' Stock piles ''
'' Chemical and biological facilities ''

All the inspectors say this, the UN Says this, even Bush has said no wmd's existed.

So why are you trying to continue this witch hunt when its obvious enough for your LEADER to admit the witch doesnt exist?

Was trying to wiggle your memory, as well as that of some other members...

You want more statements from World leaders?... OK...

30 January 2003
Bush, Italy's Berlusconi Warn Saddam to Disarm
(Bush, Italian Prime Minister meet in Washington) (1410)
President Bush and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi issued
blunt warnings to Saddam Hussein January 30 during a photo opportunity
before their meetings at the White House.
The issue of Iraq's disarmament must be resolved in "a matter of
weeks, not months," Bush said, while Berlusconi stated that "the
moment has arrived to find out where all the weapons of mass
destruction that Saddam Hussein said he had, where they ended up."
The President expressed hope that "the pressure of the free world will
convince Mr. Saddam Hussein to relinquish power," but added that "no
matter how Mr. Saddam is dealt with, the goal of disarming Iraq still
stays the same, regardless of who is in charge of the government."

www.globalsecurity.org...

In February 2003, The German Ambassador To The U.S. Said Iraq Had Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Ambassador Wolfgang Ishinger: “I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they still have - that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction.” (NBC’s “Today,” 2/26/03)

German Intelligence Services Predicted That Iraq Would Have Nuclear Bomb Capabilities Within Three Years. “A report prepared by the German intelligence services in December 2000, based on defectors’ reports, satellite imagery, and aerial surveillance, predicted that Iraq will have three nuclear bombs by 2005. But that may be too optimistic. Before the Gulf War no one had a clue how far advanced Saddam’s nuclear weapons program was.” (Robert Kagan And William Kristol, “What To Do About Iraq,” The Weekly Standard,
.............
"General Franks, you must be very, very careful. We have spoken with Saddam Hussein. He is a madman. He has WMD - biologicals, actually - and he will use them on your troops" Hozni Mubarek, President of Egypt - January 27, 2003

"General, from reliable sources, I believe the Iraqis are hiding chemical and biological weapons" King Abdullah of Jordan - January 23, 2003

French Foreign Minister Galouzeau De Villepin: “Right now, our attention has to be focused as a priority on the biological and chemical domains. It is there that our presumptions about Iraq are the most significant.” (United Nations Security Council, 4701st Meeting, New York, 2/5/03)

Villepin: “In the biological domain, the evidence suggests the possible possession of significant stocks of anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly a production capability.” (United Nations Security Council, 4701st Meeting, New York, 2/5/03)

French Intelligence Supports Parts Of Secretary Powell’s Address To The UN -- “Powell presented the Security Council with satellite images, intercepted phone conversations and other evidence which he said supported Washington’s claim that Baghdad was hiding mass destruction weapons. French Defense Ministry spokesman Jean-Francois Bureau said Thursday that French intelligence backed up parts of Powell’s presentation. ‘There are a certain number of questions evoked by Mr. Powell that we had information on.’” (Christine Ollivier, “Chirac Says U.S. Evidence On Iraq Does Not Change French Position,” The Associated Press, 2/6/03)

www.alternet.org...

LOL.....*taps his head*....

There were tons of chemicals in Iraq for use for weapons...they were put on sites which were supposedly locked and had "seals' in them and that was the way they were monitored.....supposedly....

Iraq looters exposed to radioactive yellow cake
I for one cannot believe this. From article: Iraq-Villagers looted a nuclear power facility here during the waning days of the war and instead of treasure, may have made off with death-drums filled with radioactive uranium oxide concentrate, also called yellow cake.... In what may prove to be deadly errors, they dumped the radioactive substance on land near their village and washed the drums in a local river..... One of the villagers who took part in the looting said he tasted the yellow powder in the drums because it looked pretty.

breakingwindows.com...

Iraq's Five Most Toxic Sites to Be Decontaminated

GENEVA, Switzerland, November 14, 2005 (ENS) - A polluted industrial site south of Baghdad is the first of five areas selected for cleanup by the Iraqi Ministry of Environment and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) following a study of Iraq's environmental hot spots.

The assessments of the five sites were conducted in April 2005, funded by a contribution from the Japanese government to the United Nations Development Group’s Iraqi Trust Fund earmarked for UNEP.

The five sites are part of the legacy of contaminated and derelict industrial and military sites left by the 2003 conflict and its ongoing aftermath and described in the new report, "Assessment of Environmental Hotspots in Iraq."

www.ens-newswire.com...

Anyways...does anyone even remember what were the conditions set for Iraq by the international community on it's wmd programs, which included it's chemical program of course?...

Let's see if this can refresh the memory of some...

UNSCOM - Report to the Security Council - 25 January 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANNEX B


THE CHEMICAL MONITORING SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION

1. The Plan for OMV addresses ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with its unconditional obligation not to use, retain, possess, develop, construct or otherwise acquire any chemical weapons (CW) or any stocks of chemical warfare agents or any related subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities.

www.fas.org...

There were tons of material and information dealing with the production of WMD which Iraq was not supposed to have, yet they did have them...

There were banned missile parts which Iraq was not supposed to have, yet they still had them and even used some banned missiles on the coalition at the beginning of the 2003 war....


[edit on 5-8-2007 by Muaddib]