WMDs in Iraq ?

[A-con]

Just what is the definition of “weapons of mass destruction”?
We’ve all heard the chant by the press and anti Bush crowd,
No WMDs found in Iraq, no WMDs found in Iraq, over and over until it’s mind numbing.
In fact, small amounts of sarin and mustard gas were found, but not near as much as Bush/Cheney/Rice led us to belive we would find.

What about the 300 tons + of high explosive that came up missing ? Doesn’t this qualify as WMDs ? And if not, why not? It isn’t nuclear, or a nerve agent, but it certainly was a weapon capable of producing some serious mass destruction.
I’m not asking this to start an argument, it just seems to me if Sadam had an explosive so powerful that a few ounces could bring down an airliner, and a suitcase full could bring down a skyscraper, killing thousands in a few seconds, that we have indeed found WMDs in Iraq? Obviously, I’m wrong, so somebody tell me why I’m wrong.

 

[cjcj]

Well A-con your not really wrong.... remember when the "liberals" bitched about the tons of missing explosives? they hated it when someone refered to that stockpile as WMD`s........But i do think Bush was talking more in terms of Biological/Nukes etc.

 

[BuzzH]

cjcj, you THINK dubya was talking about nukes?

He WAS talking about nukes...remember how his now secretary of state (Dr. "puppet" rice) told us all that, "we have to act now or we will see a mushroom cloud over a major U.S. city".

Thats not talking about conventional explosives...thats pretty much cut and dried English, last I checked.

A-con, play the "what is a WMD" all you want, it was intuitively obvious, even to a casual observer, that Shrub didnt mean conventional explosives. A commercial AIRLINER could be considered a WMD, an automobile could be a WMD, a frickin' rock could be a WMD...but I think most people were pretty clear on what shrub and his cronies were talking about during his war speech.

 

[Nemont]

WMD's are Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons. Those used to kill and or injure large numbers of people when weapons are deployed. Weapons used to demoralize enemy combatants and terrorize civilian populations.

Nemont

 

[Hangar18]

One question - Before the invasion of Iraq, whos besides Saddam Hussein said there were no WMD's in Iraq?

UNSCR 1441 says in part "...Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,..." and was adopted unanimously Nov 8, 2002.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

 

[cjcj]

Everyone thought he [saddam] had them... Except Buzz/Gunner/ and Matt... they had better intel than the rest of us.

 

[BuzzH]

cjcj,

Wrong again...a good portion of the weapons inspectors also didnt think Sadam had them...but hey, why listen to those guys?

I think its pretty irresponsible to wage war without proper intelligence...but thats just me. Maybe to you its a good idea to run a country half-cocked and cost us a bunch of American lives and a bunch of money for nothing...

 

[cjcj]

Well Buzz your using terms loosely like [a good portion] How much is a good portion?

Yes it is irresponcible to wage war without proper intel.....Did we know that?.....Now don`t make me have to agree with you....I can`t stand the pain......But you have to be fair and balanced....all of this is Hindsight.....if we all knew today what would happen next week we would "all" be millionaires.





uch is a good portion?

 

[danr55]

Seems that a couple of senators from Mass stood on the floor of the Senate in 1998 and talked about the threat of WMD from Saddam....

 

[JoseCuervo]

A-Con,

What was wrong with Iraq having weapons? They were a Soverign nation. They had enemies, they need a defense. They were a nation that never attacked an American Soldier, never attacked American Soil, so why was it our concern that he had weapons?

Doesn't Dubya have WMD's??? Why should Dubya have them, but not Saddam? Has Dubya attacked other Soverign Nations?

 

[Nemont]

What was wrong with Iraq having weapons? They were a Soverign nation. They had enemies, they need a defense. They were a nation that never attacked an American Soldier, never attacked American Soil, so why was it our concern that he had weapons?

Doesn't Dubya have WMD's??? Why should Dubya have them, but not Saddam? Has Dubya attacked other Soverign Nations?

I think the administration said that the reason we wanted to take out Saddam's weapons was that they didn't want him to someday threaten America. Hence they used the word preemption. Every president since Truman have had WMD's and nearly all of them have attacked a sovereign nation while they were president. Let's see Eisenhower did, LBJ did, Nixon did, Carter did, Reagan did(at least three times), GHWB did (twice), Clinton did( at least three times), and now GWB has. What does that prove?

Big difference with Saddam is that he was the only one in control. No legislative body to reign him in, no electorate to vote him out of office, no supreme court to say stop. No telling what he would do with such weapons nor whom he would share them with. He was wanted to be the leader of the Arab world. I think that is a pretty weak argument.
Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

Big difference with Saddam is that he was the only one in control. No legislative body to reign him in, no electorate to vote him out of office, no supreme court to say stop. No telling what he would do with such weapons nor whom he would share them with. He was wanted to be the leader of the Arab world. I think that is a pretty weak argument.
Nemont

Let's see.... Dubya was installed by the Supreme Court (remember Florida?) and will be naming more of his campaign workers to the Bench when Justice Rehnquist steps down... Do you really think the legislative body will reign Dubya in??? Why would any GOP Senator step up and criticize Dubya/Rove? That is a sure ticket to the unemployed line to be replaced by some bible banging right wing zealot of Rove's choice. :MAD

How many hundreds of nations have signed the treaty to ban land mines (anti-personnel), but Dubya won't? But Dubya wants to "bring Freedom" to all corners of the world....

Help me out on my Ancient History.... Who did Nixon and Carter attack???

 

[A-con]

Nemont, while the explosives are not “nuclear, chemical or biological“, the certainly fit the description you gave. Who set this definition of WMDs, was it Bush, the press, or the military ?

Buzz, I don’t know where to start. If “W” wanted to say nuclear, he would have said nuclear, it’s certainly easier to say than “weapons of mass destruction”. I think he was using the term on purpose, to give himself a bit of leeway regarding what might be found, like these explosives.

Elkgunner, I guess if you believe that Sadam was not a threat to innocent people everywhere, and the free world as a whole, then there is no reason that he shouldn’t posses WMDs. Never mind what the U.N., Kerry and even Hillary said about how much of a threat he was.

CJCJ, thanks, yours was the only response that tried to respond to my question.

 

[FAIRCHASEBEN]

Elkgunner ,
"what's wrong with Iraq having weapons ?"
Great question thinker , let's kick that around for a while , then we'll discuss ;
"what's wrong with Ted Kennedy driving us home from the party ?"
or
"what's wrong with Micheal Jackson babysitting our kids ?"
or how about
"what's wrong with George Taulman setting our non-resident tag quotas this year ?"

 

[Erik in AK]

Why, in 1981, did Israel sneak a 4-ship of F-16's across Syria, into Iraq to bomb a nuclear "research" facility? Because they (as in Israel) had determined that nuclear technology in the hands of Saddam was bad juju for the continued existance of Israel. As it turns out the Iraqi's were trying (with the aid of our best-est buddy France) to figure out heavy water, which is essential for power plant coolant, ergo the ability to enrich uranium.

How did all them Kurds (1992?) end up with blistered, pus filled lungs?

Why is it that "Gulf War Syndrome" victims tend to share symptoms that correlate to exposure to VX gas (worlds most common and widely distributed nerve agent).

Why is it that besides trusted our ally France, North Korea is Iraq's top trading partner. I mean, besides killer kimchi, what could North Korea possibly offer Iraq? Oh yea...the worlds largest (besides us) chemical weapons stockpile.

Why is it so difficult to comprehend that satellites and their hair-on-a-gnat's-ass cameras can be countered and/or that the Iraqi's had literally months to move whatever WMD's they had stockpiled. After all did we not posture and gesticulate and come right out and say that we would attack Iraq to effect a regime change on the basis of such change was the only sure means of terminating an ongoing Iraqi pursuit of nukes. Did we not also dance the effing minuette with the chimps in the UN.

And I won't even touch Oil-for-Food

Iraq's WMD's are in Syria and/or Lebanon. Maybe Khazakstan or Turkmenistan --Putin talks the talk but he's an old school Commie at heart and could be complicent but that's a long shot and a WAG on my part (that USAF for wild ass guess).

Saddam is a good 'ol fashioned Hitleresque tyrannical scumbag dictator--His removal was good for the world. The political/public support play--i.e. WMD's and betting on them being recovered? Well that was just plain dumb insofar as it was unnecessary and is an example of what you get when you pander to pantywastes.

Granted this is hindsight but I would have told the Chirac and the UN that when Paris gets bombed then you can have an opinion on how the United States deals with threats to our safety.

Bush ain't the greatest guy thats ever held the job but he's got the stones to stay the course on this which is exactly what must happen. The "problem" with Iraq is Americans not America. We were born in the land of instant gratification and no longer have the collective national balls to ride out anything inconvenient much less difficult. Operation Overlord (Normandy) would have failed had it been launched in 2004 instead of 1944.

While I'm up here--every dollar you spend at Wal-Mart helps build a Chinese war machine that will eventually set itself upon this country (around 2065 with the help of the EU) but thats a topic for another thread.

 

[cjcj]

Anyone remember Bill Clinton`s speach? when he was leaving office.. He said flat out that Saddam had WMD`s and if we didn`t do something about it... it was "inevitable" that Saddam would use them on us... Liberals just seem to forget that speach. [ its public record] hump

 

[JoseCuervo]

Elkgunner, I guess if you believe that Sadam was not a threat to innocent people everywhere, and the free world as a whole, then there is no reason that he shouldn’t posses WMDs. Never mind what the U.N., Kerry and even Hillary said about how much of a threat he was.

A-Con,

Your lack of education at "collage" shows... Where did I comment on Saddam having WMDs? You question was about having enough explosives for a pair of shoes to take down an airliner and other such conventional weapons. You were grasping around trying to find some type of justification for the colossal failure of intelligence on Dubya (is that an oxymoron, Dubya and intelligence?).

Is Dubya now going to play God and determine which countries around the world are allowed to have a standing military? And those he determines are not allowed, he will commit US troops to being their security, like in Iraq?

CJ and Acon,
I love you guys using Hillary, Bill, and Kerry as proof of the WMDs. Do you typically look to their speeches for justification of other actions?

 

[ELKCHSR]

LOL gunner...
Nothing like turning words and finding arguments wherever possible. Even if they are mute points...
I think it was summed up very well by Eric, exactly what it is all about. But then again, we better not try and attack those around us with a very good grasp of what is going on...

 

[A-con]

Elkgunner, your comment;

“A-Con,

What was wrong with Iraq having weapons? They were a Soverign nation. They had enemies, they need a defense.”

Was in direct response to my question about WMDs.
Of course, your getting tired of losing debates, so you resort to twisting the words of others.

 

[cjcj]

Gunner i`m not using Bill Clinton to prove there were WMD`s... Not at all [ how did you get that?] But i am using Him [Clinton] as an example for you Buzz/Matt and others that Everyone in "high office" believed that he had them [WMD`s] there is a big differance between the two arguments [proof] and [suspicion].... You guys act like you "knew" that there were no WMD`s [after the fact] and you didn`t know,Buzz didn`t know,and i didn`t know,,,,, We made a Mistake concerning WMD`s and i have to give GW Bush credit for being a MAN and admitting it....That shows guts and honesty.[no coverup] or planting fake evidence.... give him some credit.