I'm going to correct this post too.

The UN wanted more time to find out WTF Saddam was up to. GWB couldn't wait, because he had bad intelligence that suggested that Saddam had increased his WMD behaviour.

The US ran on in there half-cocked. You've now been caught with your pants down. Your pants look even further down now it has become apparent that while Rumsfeld's "lean mean" military is good at war it is bad at occupation - despite him being warned otherwise.

Mark says: The only thing you guys have to hang your hat on in this discussion is that no WMD's have been uncovered in Iraq. I guess the families of the 5500 gassed and dead Kurds from 1988 may be able to prove you wrong.

Who is arguing that Saddam never had them? He was made to destroy them - see above - his non-compliance with UN inspectors eventually leading to a unilateral invasion.

Maybe you're right and we just enjoy killing people. But I doubt it.

By the way he was TOLD to destroy them, not made to. Big difference.

I think it is just over-zealousness. I actually think Bush has behaved relatively honestly - he has just allowed his reason to be overcome by his emotions.

Actually, speaking of "him" - I wonder where Saddam is now, and what he is up to. One tends to forget he was captured, in all the other excitement.

There seems to be a problem with lendaddy and Fintstone being *unstuck in time* as Vonnegut put it.

We gave the guy WMDs. He used them. He built facilites and made them; used a little bit and had his hat handed to him in the Gulf War, when, by intelligence estimates, 90+% of his facilities were destroyed.

UN inspectos supervised the destruction of additional stockpiles.

Bush sid there were WMDs in 2002, and some people agreed. most informed people said 'if he does, it's nothing serious.'

Still others like me, said 'he probably doesn't have 'em, but he *for sure* does not have the ability to deliver them over 600 miles. So leave him be. He's been passive for 12 years.'

So now, at great expense we've removed the 'mayor of Baghdad' -- the guy we put there in the first place. No WMDs, No WMD factories.

So we find he wasn't a threat, just like 80% of the world said. (The Cons like to pretend it was only France, but there were about 90 countries *not actively supporting* us. And among those supporting? 31 troops from Canada, a couple hundred from Poland...? Only our lap dog Blair really stepped in it.

If we could harness all the power of spinning and backpedalling done by the Cons, we'd have no gas crisis.

I paste text, you paste links - it's the same thing. As far as answering questions, well the only valid question your side asks is about WMD's. They were there, most democratic leaders agreed they were there, the President acted with the best information he had at the time for the best interests of the US. People like you will second guess him for the remainder of his terms. I believe he is doing a good job in some of the worst times.

Oh, and I have owned cattle and I wear a Resistol.

What you may or may not believe is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

I hope you are a better cowboy than you are an advocate, but at least you will always have your hubris. Thanks for playing.

stuart

well, I've eaten cattle and the Akubra is my lid of choice ;)

I would like proof that was US ordnace that did that damage and not a terrorist bomb.

The BIG lie was in the state of the union address when Bush asserted that Iraq was seeking nuclear materials.

That was the trigger for the attack, not the prior 12 years of suppositions.

Up to that point, everybody was being fed bad intel that claimed there might be some WMDs and there *were* "WMD programs." Based on that info, you got all the bellicose quotes.

But it's one thing to signal Saddam that we're serious by making speeches. It's another to actually authorize an attack based on false information -- especially when it's fairly well known the information was false.

Sure. Write to your Congressman and ask him about all the these other folks pictured here, while you are about it. (Iwont post anymore pictures to protect delicate sensibilities.)

http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_page1.htm

Also ask him how many Iraqis have been killed Iraq since we invaded. Its a trick question and he wont be able to answer. Know why? No one is counting. At best, there are only estimations.

And a question for you. Why are Iraqis resisting US occupation in their own homeland called "terrorists"? In France, Yugoslavia, Holland, Poland in the 40s this was called "Resistance". Only the Wehrmacht called this "Terrorism". How come?

stuart

Where do you guys get this stuff?

We did not put Saddam in power.

We did not give him WMDs.

All you guys are doing is spinning. For months it was been "Iraq did not have WMD" and "Iraq destryed all their WMDs" and the omnipotent inspectors would have surely found any WMDs if they were there, "Bush lied" etc....well you were wrong on every count. Now you are adding all these qualifiers.."not much WMDs", "old WMDs," "Poor delivery capabilities of WMDs"...forgetting that we already discovered that Saddam had improved scud rockets and long-range motors that he did not destory either.,..of course those were dismissed at the time "because he had no chemicals". you will never see, because you refuse to. Liberal concerns have never been that we invaded Iraq and there were no WMDs...their agenda is to make Bush look bad and not be reelected at any cost. Well it didn't work! Even though the press is playing down the WMDs now that we found them (because they were wrong too), the voters willl know. Fortunately the dems soft money useage was approved by the court, so wait til the republicans start using their huge assets to do the same. It will be all over the TV!

All you guys are doing is spinning. For months it was been "Iraq did not have WMD" and "Iraq destryed all their WMDs" and the omnipotent inspectors would have surely found any WMDs if they were there, "Bush lied" etc....well you were wrong on every count.

Look, just agree to disagree - one shell with sarin in it does not WMD make.

It's not like I can prove it, but my view all along is that there will be some of this stuff around - just not enough to be dangerous to the USA, and hence not enough to warrant war. In this case, given it is old it may well just have mixed up with other non-gas shells. ie an administrative error by Saddam's highly inefficient military.

I realise by posting this you don't even consider changing your mind (hell, I probably just strengthened your argument as far as you are concerned). This is ok. You just need to understand how ~8 billion people who aren't ardent supporters of the Iraq war feel.

Of course I would. Next time North Korea:
1. uses chemical weapons on their citizens and to attack another country
2. then attacks another one of our allies
3. then we defeat them in the ensuing war
4. and they promise to get rid of their WMD
5. and promise to let us inspect to ensure they do
6. then refuse to let us verify as per the terms of their surrender...
...Then I would certainly apply the same standard...

Heck, they planted this bomb with sarin gas in it last week..how much more "imminent" or "current" do you get? The only thing that saved hundreds of lives is the fact that they did not deliver it properly. It was clearly designed for an airburst after being launched from an artilllery piece. Can we assume they will screw up as badly next time?

That is easy. Soldiers identify themselves as such and follow the laws of war. Terrorists know no laws except that of their cause. Terrorists dress in civilian clothes and hide among women and children hoping to shoot a real soldier in the back when he is delivering food or building a school. They use ambulances, schools, and mosques to shoot from and hide weapons in....because it gives them an advantage....because they know a real soldier will follow the laws of war. A real soldier will hesitate when shooting at terrorists hiding behind civilians..and risk his own life to fight honorably. A terrorist plants bombs which indicriminately kill civilians. A terrorist doesn't hesitate to take hostages..and cut their throat for propaganda.

Sad how many in our nation rally behind the terrorists instead of their own soldiers.

As they apparently had no idea it had sarin in it, yes - they should "screw it up" again.

It is interesting - I just searched for the FIRST thread i posted in on WMD. I said this:

The context was whether France was justified in using its veto in the UN to stop the US invasion. 15 months on - nothing has changed....

To be clear - I repeat that I don't consider the sarin shell to be "Saddam's WMD".

1. Why dont you wait and see whether its got Sarin in or not.
2. If does have Sarin in it, where the shell came from will beocme clear in due course.
3. If you think an obsolete artillery shell, or 1000 or 10,000 such shells, in constitutes a "clear and present" danger from WMD, may I suggest to you that had Coalition forces not invaded Iraq, they would be in no "clear and present" danger from a tactical, battlefeild artilllery shells.
4. Such shells were not used as battlefield weapons in either conflict.


"The only thing that saved hundreds of lives is the fact that they did not deliver it properly." Give it a rest. How, pray, do you know this? I'll wager the bomber didnt even know it had Sarin in it.

You, collectively, are apparently so desperate to legitaimise the actions of this Govt you will beleive any piece of rubbish that comes off FOX.

stuart

You're confusing things. A guerilla or insurgent does many of those things. They are only terrorists to the extent it is not targeted at authority. Think it through.