Ok... war's over, now where are the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration assured us existed? Where are all the weapons that were supposed to be the entire justification for this war? It just pisses me off that they were able to deceive people so easily, that it was so easy for them to generate mass paranoia with tales of mushroom clouds and chemical attacks. And now its like no one even cares. If Bush waged a war based on false accusations, shouldnt he be held accountable?
So where are the WMD?
- Thread starter 911
- Start date
The Bush government is already trying to weasel it's way out of it, and most of the American public (according to polls) does not even care if they find any WMD, hence there PR is working.
The problem is the this war might have created more extremists that are willing to commit attacks against the west. Also what kind of credibility will the US have, in the world, if they never do find any WMD.
The problem is the this war might have created more extremists that are willing to commit attacks against the west. Also what kind of credibility will the US have, in the world, if they never do find any WMD.
That's the problem. Bush has got away with it. Once the war started the justifications became far less important and now it's done they are completely irrelevant. It's a fait accompli.
Bush won't be held accountable, history is written by the victors. As for the WMDs, well they may still find some stuff but they probably won't. Anyway at the moment you'd hope the invaders would be fully occupied making sure the Iraqis have all the necesseties of life (you know trifling things like fresh water, food etc) rather than going on potential wild goose chases for WMDs.
The conservatives, predictably, will come back with "but Baghdad's free" (woo hoo, I've been drunk for a month
). Free to do exactly what I don't know, but hey, free is free I guess, just like the Afghans, those guys are so free it hurts. You all remember the Afghans right? Those were the guys we fought last year, the ones we promised we wouldn't forget about. Sure you remember, don't you????
Anyway, they're free (except for the ones that are under the control of the warlords which is just about everybody outside of Kabul), just like the Iraqis are free.
Anyway, I've had a gutful of these Iraqis and Afghans, what I wanna know is, who's next? After all there's a war on terror to be fought don't ya know.
From the look of things yesterday, Iran is next on Bush's hit list. some claim about "war on terror" has been made to back up the aggresive talking/posturing but yet again no concrete evidence exists.
Bingo... the irony about this 'war on terror' is that it only serves to deepen the anit-american sentiments that are at the root of the very terror were trying to stop. We already have to deal with an Islamic world that views America as a bully, by increasing tensions its likely created more angry young Muslim men who would be more than willing to wage Jihad against the US. Although Bush tried to convince us otherwise, Iraq wasnt the source of the terrorism, so in defeating them we really accomplished nothing aside from increasing what was an already high level of anti-american tension in the region, and around the world.
Holy sh!t, that's the most intelligent comment I've read in this forum. If you're not careful, you'll be forced to post wherever the smart people post.
As for the missing WMDs. I don't understand you retards. Iraq DID have them. They were charged by the UN to dismantle them. Period. It doesn't matter if they are found or not since itwas only used to justify something that should've been done a long time ago... when the first Bush failed to finish the job. Granted, he didn't cuz he respected the UN... so, it ain't B&W.
I do have my moments of clarity but mostly I just dribble a lot and drop dandruff on the keyboard
Nobody doubts that they DID have WMD in the past, the US sold most of them to Iraq, the question should be does Iraq have them now? or even at the start of the war.
Remember this war was about them PRESENTLY having WMD, which could be given to terrorists which then might attack the West. Gulf war 1 was about freeing Kuwait, there was not talk about the fear of WMD and the threat it might pose to the WEST.
Ack! Acking! Ackerson! Arrrrg!
That's NOT the question!
Why did the UN send all those inspectors? It doesn't matter whether they have them, sold them or destroyed them... they were ordered to report the current status of the weapons. Failure to do so was a breech of the UN's orders! Why is it so hard to understand -- they had them, the didn't prove they don't have them any more.
Ack!
If your g/f cheated on you, you forgave her, but she admitted to having an STD... would you accept her word that she saw a doctor and had it cleared up -or- would you like to see the test results from the doctor saying she no longer had the STD?
Ack... i just read your mind... you'd eat a moldly box lunch!
You're right. That is a very good question. A question that Iraq could not answer.
From Yesterday its seems that the hunt for WMD is turning up a little here and a little there.
Iraq didnt simply destroy their WMD, or they'd be able to prove that, which leaves only 2 options. They are hidden within Iraq, or they've moved outside the country. Either would be enough justification for me. Oh, and the fact that they had a genocidal maniac as a leader
.Are you charging the saddam should still be in charge? That we were wrong to depose him?
Well, actually your news source is suspicious.Originally posted by BurlySurly
You're right. That is a very good question. A question that Iraq could not answer.
From Yesterday its seems that the hunt for WMD is turning up a little here and a little there.
Iraq didnt simply destroy their WMD, or they'd be able to prove that, which leaves only 2 options. They are hidden within Iraq, or they've moved outside the country. Either would be enough justification for me. Oh, and the fact that they had a genocidal maniac as a leader
Are you charging the saddam should still be in charge? That we were wrong to depose him?
Fox news is as unreliable as the american intelligence community. However, the fact is that the U.S. cannot prove the existence of a WMD program. While some circumstantial evidence has turned up, i.e. two mobile labs, there is no smoking gun. Iraq said they accounted for their weapons. The U.S. said that their intelligence says they did not. Now the U.S. cannot find any weapons based on the same intelligence that they used to justify the war. And it is hardly due to a lack of trying. There were several groups that looked. These groups were surpised they could not find anything. Even the american government has admitted that Saddam may have gotten rid of his WMD. How can you trust the government to be truthful and honest if it starts a war based on false evidence and intelligence. I too believed Saddam had WMD before the war. Why, because Uncle Sam said so. Uncle Sam claimed it had irrefutable proof. Now, months afterwards, this proof is insufficient to lead trained investigators to the WMD. Everyone should be disturbed if America actually attacked Iraq under false pretenses. Admittedly, Saddam was an abomination, but there are a lot of other dictators out there. The U.S. never tried to justify its War solely based on Saddam's evil persona. Why? Because it would not have been sufficient in the eyes of the world. Am I going to cry that Saddam is gone? No, of course not. Do I think I have a right to demand that our government doesn't lie to us? Yes, of course. Do I think the government has an obligation to make sure that it doesn't start a war based on allegations it cannot support? YES! That is the reason I am pissed. I don't like the idea of a liar leading this country!
Could noit have said it any betterOriginally posted by the law
Well, actually your news source is suspicious.
The Washington and London grossly overstated the WMD threat which was the presumably our only interest in Iraq. Incompetence or deceit appear as the only explanation.
The Law summed up the implications pretty well.
The Law summed up the implications pretty well.
Yup, that is what you'd hope for, but of course only after the oil has been secured. In fact the oil fields were secured before Nasiryah (iffy spelling) had their water supply restored, but then they had only been without it since the 3rd day of the war.
Yeah!
Nevermind the enviromental and economic disaster that would result from a bunch sabatoged oil wells
Come on guys. Remember Iraq part 1?The Law,
My news source is suspicious, fine, i can live with that, but just about every news source on the planet reported this story, that just happened to be the first link i came across.
And remember, it wasnt just the US who says Iraq didnt prove their disarmament, it was the entire UN, who also said that Iraq was not fully cooperating. If you have a problem with US intelligence, than you also have a problem with UN intelligence.
The only disagreement there was whether or not to go to war over the WMD that we all knew they have or had. There's no question of there existence...its just...where are they?
I actually agree. You always have to doublecheck everything you read. Just think of the recent Times scandal about false reporting. I personally tend to think that Fox news, just like other more politically motivated news stations on both sides of the political spectrum, is more willing to stretch and interpret the truth.
Actually, the UN wanted to give the Inspectors more time to verify that Iraq had disarmed as it had claimed. There was disagreement about whether Iraq still had WMD. Its just that the US media downplayed that part. [/u] To say that the disagreement was solely about whether to go to war or not is simply false. [/u] Countries other than the U.S. and Britain, et al, were not fully convinced that Iraq still had WMD. (disclaimer-I will also admit that France and Russia also had oil interests in iraq which contributed to their stance. It is sad, but the world is run by pragmatists.) Furthermore, the UN intelligence did not say that Iraq still had WMD. The UN relied on its inspectors who seemed to think (disclaimer: at least as of the month before the war) that Iraq was cooperating. They did not find any proof of WMD. (again a disclaimer-yes, they found a rusted shell or two-but now it seems plausible that they were a mere oversight). The US and Britain on the other hand argued that they had evidence that Iraq still had WMD. Even then they did not name sources or provide real support for their accusations. I, along with others, trusted them. Now, however, they cannot prove what they claimed was the "irrefutable truth." In my opinion, now IT IS THE BURDEN of the "Coalition of the willing" to prove that those weapons actually existed. Is it really a surprise that I should feel betrayed?
Yeah, well you've gotta get your priorities right don't ya mate
I mean this was done to prevent an ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHE after all BTW, anyone know if you can eat oil?
I think the inspectors stated that they were never given "full cooperation, even though they were making progress" And, if you remember, Hans Blix appeared to be against any action in Iraq, when he should have taken a neutral standpoint and done his searches. I think it hurt his credibility.l
Now, the US and Britain never revealed their sources, but we may have to accept that. Imagine if their intel came from a spy inside the French or Russian government that knew of something going on. It would be impossible to name the source without jeapordizing the info source (this is just a scenario of course, but it could be anything like this)
In my opinion, the US and Great Britain have quelled the fears of Iraq's ability to produce and distribute WMD, and in doing so, have accomplished the mission.
Did you know that the burning oil wells in the first gulf war created 100x the environmental disaster than the exxon valdez crash.Originally posted by valve bouncer
Yeah, well you've gotta get your priorities right don't ya mate
BTW, anyone know if you can eat oil?
And tell me, if the iraqi people dont have oil to support their economy...what do they have? Sand? Camels?
What are they doing with North Korea? IMO a much bigger threat then Iraq was.
Getting back to the mission, maybe they found no WMD of destruction, but at what cost? how many Iraqi lives? how many coalition troops? Remember the UN had inspections to find WMD, if they were given more time they would have come to the same result.
Re the failure to reveal sources
I agree that they may not want to reveal their sources. Usually I would accept that. I understand the need for secrecy. But if they chose not to reveal their sources, the sources better be right. Otherwise it is embarrasing to the United States and destroys our trust in the government. After all, our government implored us to trust them and told us that what they were saying was the unassailable truth.
Re inspectors
Actually, the story differed over time. My recollection is that near the beginning of the war, the inspectors actually seemed to think Iraq was cooperating. Obviously, cooperation was only a part of the issue. In part Iraq was accused of non-cooperation based on the fact that Iraq did not admit to having WMD. In part it was because of his shotty accounting of past WMD. However, the real point is that the US started the war based on American intelligence that stated they had WMD. The basis for the war was not a suspicion that WMD may exist and that Iraq failed to account for them properly, but an explicit declaration that they did exist.
Whether Hans Blix should or should not have taken sides is a different issue. I think he had every right to. Not everyone has to agree with the U.S. perspective. If from his perspective and his experience in Iraq, war was not warranted why should he not say so. In your eyes would his credibility be lost if he had supported the war? I can't know for sure, but I think probably not. if that is the case you are not upset at him voicing an opinion because of his position in the U.N., but merely because of the content. But that is mere conjecture.
Lastly, Iraq may have had WMD. I can't know. However, I would think you, Burly Surly would be able to admit that America's failure to find them is at least indirect evidence that they no longer exist. America's strong prior declarations that they did exist, that America knew where they were (remember the satellite pictures?) are obviously wrong. Otherwise we would have them by now. (Right?) In fact, even before the war, european newspapers quoted the UN inspectors as saying that U.S. intelligence was useless and hopelessly outdated. Burly Surly, do you think the governement may have lied about actually knowing whether those WMD existed? Why not? I just want to create some discussion and thought about these topics.
The North Korea problem "is" being dealt with. Just not in such a fashion.
I disagree that inspections would have achieved the same result, as they would have left a power-mad, terrorist harboring, anti-western government in charge. Remember, the inspectors were there so iraq could prove it had disarmed, which they didnt. They were not there to search every nook and cranny for anthrax. It takes a huge number of people to do that over an entire country. It would take an army
We can say that some initial intel projections of where WMD were supposedly stored were false. I'll give you that (wont get into the fact that they could have been moved) for arguments sake. Because, in reality, it is widely known that Iraq "had" WMDs. Right? (regardless of where they got them)
Ok, so, if they were not used, and they were not sold to terrorists..they were either destroyed or hidden...right? When these weapons are destroyed there is always clear evidence of the event. ie..residues from torched bio weapons and whatnot. So, either...where are the weapons or where is the evidence? One would think iraq would keep records of such an event. (remember the UN saying records were incomplete right?)
We asked for both and were provided with neither. We were also provided no real choice, other than to go to war, or show the world that the US and UN does not follow through with the rules it makes.
Hans's credibility would have been equally marred if he'd supported the war cause. He shouldnt try and effect policy, he should bring forth an unbiased report of facts, and let world leaders draw their own conclusions that arent swayed by his personal feelings.
I dont think the US would consciously lie about such a huge event. As someone pointed out earlier, we'd lose way too much credibility in the world if we werent sure.
Burly-
I agree Iraq used to have WMDs. I also agree he must either have destroyed them or hidden them. However, he claimed he did account for them. The real point of contention was how he accounted for them. for example he claimed he got rid of some of the anthrax or other agents by dumping them in the desert. The inspectors and more accurately the U.S. were not satisifed with that account. neither you nor I can be sure whether those reports were true. Even biological agents will probably not leave a trace in the desert for years. The very nature of the desert will cause the traces to sink into the ground and/or disperse them with the wind. My instincts made me suspicious of this type of accounting as well. However, my perception is that after Saddam did account for them in that fashion, the burden fell on the U.S. to disprove it in some manner. Whether they did so using intelligence, inspectors or other means was not that important to me. However, a little publicized fact here in the U.S. was that much of the evidence presented by Powell to the U.N. had been proven to be hogwash by U.N. inspectors themselves.
Simialrly, while there should be some records kept of how the WMD would be disposed, there should also be records of how they were hidden. The U.S. has not found those either. Why not? Also, these WMD also leave traces if they are stored somewhere. Why did the UN fail to find those traces? Honestly neither you nor I can ever be sure of the truth. We are only presented a few carefully selected facts. I am just saying that the U.S. has not proven that these weapons existed. In my opinion they had to bear that burden because Iraq made a primae facie case to the contrary.
On another note, I don't have the same faith in the government as you do. I believe the government would lie. it has throughout history. Even if it didn't lie outright, it may have significantly overstated its own knowledge which is also disturbing.
I respect your opinion and I can see why we would disagree. There is no clear cut case either way. There is support for both positions. Unfortunately we will never know for sure.
I agree Iraq used to have WMDs. I also agree he must either have destroyed them or hidden them. However, he claimed he did account for them. The real point of contention was how he accounted for them. for example he claimed he got rid of some of the anthrax or other agents by dumping them in the desert. The inspectors and more accurately the U.S. were not satisifed with that account. neither you nor I can be sure whether those reports were true. Even biological agents will probably not leave a trace in the desert for years. The very nature of the desert will cause the traces to sink into the ground and/or disperse them with the wind. My instincts made me suspicious of this type of accounting as well. However, my perception is that after Saddam did account for them in that fashion, the burden fell on the U.S. to disprove it in some manner. Whether they did so using intelligence, inspectors or other means was not that important to me. However, a little publicized fact here in the U.S. was that much of the evidence presented by Powell to the U.N. had been proven to be hogwash by U.N. inspectors themselves.
Simialrly, while there should be some records kept of how the WMD would be disposed, there should also be records of how they were hidden. The U.S. has not found those either. Why not? Also, these WMD also leave traces if they are stored somewhere. Why did the UN fail to find those traces? Honestly neither you nor I can ever be sure of the truth. We are only presented a few carefully selected facts. I am just saying that the U.S. has not proven that these weapons existed. In my opinion they had to bear that burden because Iraq made a primae facie case to the contrary.
On another note, I don't have the same faith in the government as you do. I believe the government would lie. it has throughout history. Even if it didn't lie outright, it may have significantly overstated its own knowledge which is also disturbing.
I respect your opinion and I can see why we would disagree. There is no clear cut case either way. There is support for both positions. Unfortunately we will never know for sure.
WTF?? Astounding level of patience? Why? Because he is actually having a normal discussion of the issues? What about my patience? BS and I disagree, but we can have a polite and civil argument. This statement is merely provocative. How would you feel if I told you that in your advanced age you have become rigid, closed minded and unwilling to even consider another person's argument. Somehow that statement p*ssed me off. It seems that you really wanted to attack my position but were unwilling to do so directly. Sad!Originally posted by LordOpie
BurlySurly,
The funny thing about age is it's "supposed" to make you more mellow. I've got 13 yrs on ya and applaud your astounding level of patience.
opie;
If you are too impatient to argue, why are you even in this forum? Do you have ADD? Do you feel like you are not getting anything out of the discussion? Again, why are you in this forum. Maybe next time we can do this without personal attacks????
If you are too impatient to argue, why are you even in this forum? Do you have ADD? Do you feel like you are not getting anything out of the discussion? Again, why are you in this forum. Maybe next time we can do this without personal attacks????
Uh, no. I did not. But I would love to know by what criteria that is based upon and what science was used to make the statement.
Here's what i came to on my first search. I dont remember where exactly i read the 100X worse thing at...but this should be enough for you.
News Release - March 18, 2003
ENVIRONMENTALISTS OPPOSE IRAQ WAR
Coalition Launches New Website
SAN FRANCISCO, CA - Environmentalists Against War, a coalition of
environmental organizations opposed to a U.S. attack on Iraq, has just
launched a new website to raise awareness of the ecological costs of a
second Gulf War. The site - www.EnvirosAgainstWar.org
<http://www.EnvirosAgainstWar.org> - contains dozens of
articles and reports, links to campaigns and organizations, and action
tools for the public.
"The first Gulf War was the biggest environmental disaster in recent
history," said Gar Smith, former editor of Earth Island Journal and a
spokesperson for Environmentalists Against War. "Unfortunately, with
advances in military technology, a new Gulf War has the potential to be
even worse."
Such a thought does not rest well, considering these facts about the 1991
Gulf War:
- More than 60 million gallons of crude oil - 6 times what the Exxon Valdez
spilled off the shores of Alaska - were released into the environment,
tarnishing 1,500 miles of coast and scarring the desert with 246 "lakes" of
congealed oil.
- More than 700 oil wells burned out of control for nine months, producing
toxic clouds that blocked the sun and spread for thousands of miles.
- U.S. forces fired nearly a million rounds of depleted uranium (DU)
bullets and shells, leaving 300 tons of DU scattered across Kuwait and
southern Iraq.
- Approximately 800,000 Iraqi civilians, mostly children, have died from
the lingering consequences of the war, including contamination of air, soil
and water, and destruction of vital infrastructure, such as water and
sewage treatment plants.
"As organizations and individuals working for the environment and
environmental justice, we have watched with increasing concern as the US
government moves closer to an all-out attack on Iraq," said China Brotsky,
a co-author of the 1991 report "War in the Gulf: An Environmental
Perspective." "During the first Gulf War there was considerable discussion
about its environmental impacts, but this time around the dialogue has been
virtually nonexistent. Our goal is to raise awareness and encourage
positive action."
A coalition statement titled "10 Reasons Environmentalists Oppose an Attack
on Iraq" has been endorsed by more than 80 organizations, including
Greenpeace, Earth Island Institute, The Ecologist and Rainforest Action
Network.
"All our signers realize that war will have devastating environmental
impacts," said Gar Smith. "We encourage people to visit our website to
learn more about the issues and what they can do."
Contact: info@EnvirosAgainstWar.org <mailto:info@EnvirosAgainstWar.org> or
(650) 223-3306
- END -
Dude, if only you could see...
This is the first time ive been in a good debate where someone didnt say "You only think that because you're a brainwashed jarhead idiot without two degrees"
Its kind of refreshing.
I just don't like discussing the same thing over and over again with different words.
However, I wasn't specifically refering to you, not really anyone in particular, but comments like, "Remember the UN had inspections to find WMD, if they were given more time they would have come to the same result." Come on, seriously? How long had it been going on? Saddam said in February, "No, really, this time I'm going to cooperate." And did the least possible. Why? Cuz he figured if he delayed until, say, June, that the USA, et.al. wouldn't do anything cuz everyone knows many, many more soldiers would've died in the evil heat of that desert.
Oh, the law... I don't remember seeing you much in here, so really, it doesn't apply to you. Like I said before, much of this has been discussed by others in other threads. I'm just surprised to see the same weak arguements being thrown back in by those who've already discussed it. I enjoyed reading your posts.
Someone's feeling a bit ego-centric
I think we take that for granted by now
No need to state the obvious.*****Disclaimer*******
For the sense of humour challenged and Burly Surly the above was a joke and not meant to be taken seriously....well not really seriously.
ok, who let the criminals off the island?Originally posted by valve bouncer
I think we take that for granted by now
*****Disclaimer*******
For the sense of humour challenged and Burly Surly the above was a joke and not meant to be taken seriously....well not really seriously.
That was just a joke... well, sort of
:devil:
I kind of agree with LO here, this subject has been argued out. Whether or not there was justification for the war (WMDs etc) is a moot point. The war has been run and won. The more important point imho is what's next for the people of Iraq. It seems they're already being forgotten and a disturbing level of, if not hate, then at least intense displeasure at the US occupation is being shown (4 US soldiers dead this week alone). It seems only a matter of time before some sort of guerilla operation gets under way. If the US are/were smart they would hand the running of the country over to the UN because it's obvious they are not set up to run the country properly. You have the situation where front line troops are playing policeman, not an ideal situation I would think. The post war administration seems to have been a bit of an afterthought. A properly thought out campaign would have seen contingents of troops more trained in the "hearts and minds" kind of work needed now to go in after the hard stuff has been done. Also a large group of trained Iraqi exiles needed to go in and take over important parts of the government instead of the situation now where the US is forced to rely on officials fron Saddam's regime to get things done.Originally posted by LordOpie
I just don't like discussing the same thing over and over again with different words.
However, I wasn't specifically refering to you, not really anyone in particular, but comments like, "Remember the UN had inspections to find WMD, if they were given more time they would have come to the same result." Come on, seriously? How long had it been going on? Saddam said in February, "No, really, this time I'm going to cooperate." And did the least possible. Why? Cuz he figured if he delayed until, say, June, that the USA, et.al. wouldn't do anything cuz everyone knows many, many more soldiers would've died in the evil heat of that desert.
Oh, the law... I don't remember seeing you much in here, so really, it doesn't apply to you. Like I said before, much of this has been discussed by others in other threads. I'm just surprised to see the same weak arguements being thrown back in by those who've already discussed it. I enjoyed reading your posts.
Someone's feeling a bit ego-centric
Unfortunately the US (and to be fair other western countries) don't have a good track record in this area. By Christmas I'm sure Iraq, like Afghanistan now, will be a distant memory. The more things change the more they stay the same. But hell we won the war right? Unfortunately you can't eat freedom.
Actually I escaped by crawling through a sewerage pipe. I think it shows sometimesOriginally posted by LordOpie
ok, who let the criminals off the island?
That was just a joke... well, sort of
:devil:
I don't read this fourm much so I'm sorry if this topic had already been over discussed. Anyway, the reason I posted this thread was because I feel cheated and dismayed that an elitist group within our government can simply carryout their own agenda despite massive public opposition from both the domestic and global community. It all boils down to this: war is a dangerous game and should be a last resort. Saddam and Iraq were largely contained by economic sanctions and UN inspectors. There was no hard evidence of WMDs and there was no evidence of terrorist ties to the Iraqi government. Fact of the matter was that war was not a necessity. I challenge anyone to tell me otherwise. Military aggression should be reserved for situations of absolute urgency
using it to establish our dominance in a region and further the agenda of a select few sets a dangerous precedent.
This is one of the reasons I get frustrated. How can you say that? Hell, we (USA) even sold them some! So did many other countries.
Ok, you want hard, definitive evidence -- despite that the UN and everyone else agrees that Iraq has various WMDs? That's not good enough for you...
Iraq is proscribed by UN Resolutions from possessing ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150km.
-- And yet, they've used missles of greater range in wars with US and Iran. Sure, they weren't carrying Biological or Chemical payloads, but they're not supposed to have missles with this range. Didn't they drop a SCUD on Israel in 1991 Gulf War killing three and injuring 73? Doesn't a SCUD have a range of 300km?
check out the timeline of events... http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline.htm
Iraq says they'll cooperate, then doesn't... again and again.
Even if they're lying, so what??!! But why would they lie? Oh, i'm sure some of you will make excuses for the wonderful Saddam.
See, this is why I'm frustrated with some of you people.
What would it take to convince you they have/had them?
This is turning into a philosophical discussion about reality. I think some of you are living in the Matrix.
LordOpie... yes we all know Iraq had these weapons, yet they said they destroyed them. Whether or not they actually did remains unclear... yet I think you're missing the point of I was trying to say. Aside from shreds of weak circumstantial evidence, the US could not put fourth any tangible data which clearly pointed to Iraq still possessing these weapons at the start of the war. And even if they did
what I was trying to say was that war should be an absolute last resort. Say Iraq did have some medium range missile capabilities or some low-level chemical program
they still posed no direct threat to the US. What angered me most is that Bush seemed to want no part of any sort of peaceful resolution. Like I said, weapons or not, Iraq was contained, they were not a threat to us. Given time diplomacy would have prevailed
yet we basically said screw it, were coming in with bombs. Showing off our military power as a quick remedy for international disputes sets a dangerous precedent... that's what I was trying to say.