WMD anyone?

[dd74]

Very interesting, but unfortunately, it's old news.

Fact is, the search for WMD, as important as it is, is waning as a story in the media. Time to turn attention elsewhere:

Where is that? Disgruntled Iraq in general. We invaded it with purpose of releasing its population from tyranny. Well, in some cases, more tyrrany is being imposed on the population now -- and not by our presence -- but by the infrastructure that is not yet in place four months after Bush declared the war "over."

Unfortunate aspects (collateral, fallout, caught in the crossfire - use whatever term you please) are our troops. They're being killed daily, and as I see it, forgotten daily by the Administration who sent them.

I cannot except the scheme of WMD and Saddam as being reason enough to go to war, but I've said this many times. I still want proof of WMDs, but it seems there is none as this article says.

Interestingly enough, however, is a poll of Americans conducted today which states half the population believe Saddam was linked with Al Queda, and that he retained WMDs at his disposal. Bush is lucky he has such gullibility at his behest.

[Aurel]

Countries who have a dictator usually have a good reason for that. Maybe a guy like Saddam was necessary to maintain order in a country like Iraq. Maybe democracy will do them more harm than good. Then, if this is the case, what will the USA do ? Pull out ? I don`t think so, because giving this country a democracy was not to true reason for the war either...But today, I went to DMV for having the 911 inspected, and I had to give up because the wait was huge. Reason: the state has no budget this year, state employees are not being paid, so DMV places are closing. Then I found out that how many states besides NJ, like CA, are basically bankrupt. The question then becomes: can the US still afford this war ? Are not there more important prorities at home to deal with ?

Aurel

[tabs]

This isn't about Liberal or Conserative...this is about the survival of the United States. How many terrorist attacks would it take to disrupt and then paralyze the economy of the USA. The economy is barely recovering from 911....further whenever the news wire even hints about a terrorist attack somewhere in the world let alone the USA... the stock market drops like a rock..So you guys can sit there smug and complain about whether there are WMD or not...but push come to shove you guys are gona be in the same bread line as everybody else in the world if the USA goes under.

Another question I pose is, If Gore were President what would he have done differently after 911...The Bureaucracy starting with the Treasury, DOD, State and various intelligence agencies would have told Gore either you act decisivily or there ain't gona be a country left..They would have foirced him to move.

Now Sodamn has been a sore point for 12 years...his time had come and it's a good thing he's gone...now even Hamas is talking.

what do you guys expect a free ride...how many Frenchmen died during WW1 defending Verdun??? Now you guys may not like it but it takes somebodies blood and guts to keep you safe at night...so you can get on your computer and whine on this message Board about how awfull it is...

[widebody911]

Originally posted by tabs
This isn't about Liberal or Conserative...this is about the survival of the United States.

As someone stated earlier, Bush is lucky to have such gullibility at his behest. There's no solid link between Al Queda and Iraq; moreover, there's more solid links between AQ and SA.

We're doing a great job of parylizing our own economy, thank you very much, what with all of the Corporate thievery (which, BTW, is linked to GW much more strongly than AQ is to SH), and rain of pink slips being handed out while our jobs are sent to India.

(jingoistic rant delted)
push come to shove you guys are gona be in the same bread line as everybody else in the world if the USA goes under.

Except India, 'cause they've got our jobs now.

now even Hamas is talking.

And this is relevant how? They've been talking all along - using calling up radio stations to take credit for bombings.

how many Frenchmen died during WW1 defending Verdun???

How many Frenchmen died storming the Bastille? It's about as relevant.

Now you guys may not like it but it takes somebodies blood and guts to keep you safe at night...so you can get on your computer and whine on this message Board about how awfull it is...
Are you still opining that the Iraq war was about American safety? Search this thread for the word 'gullible'. The history books will probably call this the "Haliburton War"

[Aurel]

Here is the latest about the weapons of mass destruction

Aurel

[Aurel]

Today, even the White house is back-pedaling:

The Bush administration acknowledged for the first time yesterday that President Bush should not have alleged in his State of the Union address in January that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Africa to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program

Source

Pretty soon, they will have to appologize to the rest of the world (and the american popele) for waging a war on false claims...well I know they will not, but they should.

Aurel

[JavaBrewer]

Appologize? That'll happen as soon as the French get some respect. Hell I'm waiting for them (Washington) to pull the trigger on the rest of the Middle East. Folks living in the stone age don't need the oil and so far have rejected the benefits of money other than to buy guns to kill the Jews.

[hoff944]

Okay, so mass graves HAVE been found in Iraq. Seems like I remember the US attacking another country because of genocide and ethnic clenseing, but you know what? I don't think any mass graves have ever been found there. I don't remember any criticizm of the US over that one.

[JavaBrewer]

WMD? Hell give me a week and I could hide a SUV in San Diego county that would take years to recover. Iraq had 10 years to hide/dispurse their forbidden weapons (the ones they admitted to in 91) and they never proved they destroyed them as mandated by the U.N. - not to us, not to Hans. Maybe they're in France - stuck in a cave under Mont Blanc - or perhaps on the L'Alpe d'Huez where they will be used just as Lance Armstrong kicks everyones ass again.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally posted by dmoolenaar
Maybe they're in France - stuck in a cave under Mont Blanc - or perhaps on the L'Alpe d'Huez where they will be used just as Lance Armstrong kicks everyones ass again.

No, they're in Chirac's garage; he's holding them as collateral against all the money Saddam owes him.

[speeder]

It's more likely that they are in Cheney or Rumsfeld's garage, they sold them to him in the first place, now they probably repossessed 'em for lack of payment.

[Isabo]

Go to Google

Type in the address bar "Weapons of Mass Destruction"

Click on "I feel lucky"

Enjoy the CIA's sources of information

[nostatic]

Originally posted by widebody911
We could have bombed and invaded Antartica...

Make that "should have" (or still should), and you've got a truly compelling argument. I'm so sick and tired of the Antarcticans screwing up the world. Clearly *they* are responsible. At least now we know where to go after Libya.

[dd74]

Bush said today that he still sticks by his decision on Iraq. Problem is, what "decision" was that? A lack of evidence, for me, is making this whole war muddier and muddier.

Mass graves? I believe they did find mass graves there. Unless the previous post was in jest.

Antartica? Home of Artesians, right? They're a dangerous and influential lot with the hardcore middle class American beer drinker.

In all honesty, weren't there strong elements within the CIA who were AGAINST this war? I.E., they could find no evidence of WMDs, but were finally supressed from saying as much?

[island911]

Originally posted by dmoolenaar
WMD? Hell give me a week and I could hide a SUV in San Diego county that would take years to recover. Iraq had 10 years to hide/dispurse their forbidden weapons (the ones they admitted to in 91) and they never proved they destroyed them as mandated by the U.N.
. . .

YEP
As I said before:
'Not to worry, what happened to Saddams WMD *will* be found out. What happened to Saddam will be found out. THEN we can say if Bush et al over stated, or not. Those whom are saying Bush DID overstate are premature, at best.'

The thing is that, Saddam HAD WMD; was to prove, to the UN, the destruction of these WMD! . . .and now the leftists are pretending (along w/ Saddam) that these WMD's never existed.

Peh-lease! . . talk about gullible.

[Aurel]

Did Saddam have WMDs 20 years ago? Yes. Best proof: he used them against his own people. Did he have anything significant now ? Nope. Best proof: he was given the best possible occasion to use them against US troops, and he did not. End of the story.
The whole WMD rethoric is simply playing with people`s fear and stupidity. How about the russian WMDs ? their programs were certainly more advanced than the iraqui one. The russians needed money, they still do. There is a much greater risk of WMDs beeing sold to terrorist groups by the russian mafia than by Iraq. Is the US doing anything about it ? Nope. For those who still don`t see that 9-11+anthrax letters was an inside operation designed to prepare the public opinion for all the wars to come, I say they got you !

Aurel

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally posted by Aurel
Did Saddam have WMDs 20 years ago? Yes. Best proof: he used them against his own people. Did he have anything significant now ? Nope. Best proof: he was given the best possible occasion to use them against US troops, and he did not. End of the story.

Please. Saddam using WMDs against US troops would have put the final nail in his coffin as far as the international community is concerned. Do you really think he's that stupid? Instead, he chose to play it canny, and now has all the bleeding-heart liberals of the world fooled into thinking he was the innocent victim.

Oh, and re: anthrax being a gov't inside job...maybe in France that happens a lot? Better adjust your tinfoil hat; Dick Cheney can still read your thoughts!

[Aurel]

lease. Saddam using WMDs against US troops would have put the final nail in his coffin as far as the international community is concerned. Do you really think he's that stupid?

There is nobody in the international community who has ever seen Saddam as a good guy. Not even the french.

Instead, he chose to play it canny, and now has all the bleeding-heart liberals of the world fooled into thinking he was the innocent victim.

Nobody thinks that. The ones who have been most fooled are the american, who are sending their children die for no valid reason, no proven threat.

Oh, and re: anthrax being a gov't inside job...maybe in France that happens a lot? Better adjust your tinfoil hat; Dick Cheney can still read your thoughts!

It just happens to be my opinion, which has nothing to do with me being french.
Beleive me: if terrorists really wanted to hurt the US inside, they would find a way to do it. This is just common sense ! You would see sneaky and repeated attacks like you see in Israel. Why is this not happening then ?

Aurel

[island911]

Originally posted by Aurel
. . .End of the story.
. ..

Hardly. I'm certain you would like "the story" to end with "no proof" . . . but get real. It's not over yet. Something happened to them. . . .or is "conservation of matter" a "physics story" for the gullible?

I hate to break it to ya Aurel -- Just because a guy like Saddam says he has no WMD, does NOT mean it is true. The best you can hope for is a Clinonian version: 'he (Saddam) does not contain (in his body) any WMD, therefore; he does not "have" any WMD.'

[Aurel]

Dr Island,

I would not especially like the story to end with no proof. Indeed, I would rather realize that I was wrong, and that Bush did something good for the world. After all, it would be much simpler for me to love the actions of the government of the country I live in. And beleive me, I am open to change, I have no issues admitting when I am wrong, because I know this what intelligence is all about.
Just show me those proofs.

Aurel