The Search For Weapons of Mass Destruction...

[s0nny80y]

...is officially over! And no weapons of mass destruction to show for a very costly (lives, not money you ignoramus') 'search', as Bush would call it.

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=2123

I'm just waiting for the 'No Official Link Found Between Iraq and Al-Queda' news to hit the wire straight from McClellan or some ignorant official.

 

[a6m5]

In my opinion, W.M.D. wasn't an valid excuse to invade Iraq anyway. North Korea had them, were willing to use them, were willing to sell them, yet U.S. went after Iraq, who might have possessed W.M.D.(they probably did though).

 

[Solid Fro]

Either they were smuggled into Syria and Iran or Saddam bluffed so well, even the UN were fooled.

The treat alone was valid enough to take down Saddam (UN resolution 1441).

 

[Ev0]

Well, either the Iraqis are very good at hiding/getting rid of WMDs, or they never had any to begin with.

And I'm not so sure if going after North Korea would be such a good idea. We invade them, and they could use nukes as a sort of last stand. Not good.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

When people say WMD most people think of nuclear weapons, but Iraqs nuclear program was not very advanced. They were trying to make weapons grade plutonium but it is thought they were not successful.

The WMD in question here were the thousands of tons of chemical and nerve agents that went missing after the 1991 inspection. They still have never been accounted for, maybe they were smuggled across the border, (as Iraq sent most of its airforce across to Iran after the Kuwait invasion to stop them being destroyed, and no surprise to learn that Iran refused to give them back ), maybe the chemicals were destroyed and the government "forgot" to document it. Either way, it is not a joke point, there were tons of banned gases in Iraq, and yes, now they have disappeared...

Well, either the Iraqis are very good at hiding/getting rid of WMDs, or they never had any to begin with.

And I'm not so sure if going after North Korea would be such a good idea. We invade them, and they could use nukes as a sort of last stand. Not good.

North Korea does not have nuclear weapons, it is true to say that they have admitted that they are actively pursuing a weapons program.
It is thought that they do indeed have enough weapons grade plutonium to make about 5-10 bombs, but as yet they have not been able to create a weapon.

 

[Anderton Prime]

Well, Saddam gone is a good thing, regardless of why the US really invaded. Also, I was trying to picture how in the hell you search an entire country for anything. It's got to be hard...

 

[Danoff]

And no weapons of mass destruction to show for a very costly (lives, not money you ignoramus') 'search', as Bush would call it.

You make it sound as though finding WMDs was the reason we went in... and as though the end of this "search" proves anything.

 

[Ev0]

It is thought that they do indeed have enough weapons grade plutonium to make about 5-10 bombs, but as yet they have not been able to create a weapon.

Hiding nukes in an isolationist country would be a very easy task. I'd wager they have nukes, but they just don't want to tell anyone for obvious reasons.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Hiding nukes in an isolationist country would be a very easy task. I'd wager they have nukes, but they just don't want to tell anyone for obvious reasons.

I'd take that bet with you

I think its the other way around, having the materials to make a nuclear device and actually building a working one are two completely different things. Many see it as an empty boast by N Korea to scare their neighbours.
They could end up playing that stupid game of bluff that got Saddam in so much trouble When the UN come knocking and demand to see their research, they might carry on with that game and end up with a few violations themselves.

The field of nuclear research is quite a small world, with most scientists knowing of each others work. It is widely believed in that community that the N Koreans do not have the technology to make a working bomb, some even doubt that the enriched plutonium is of suitable quality. Part of what made Saddams bluff so effective was that he was paying for recognised experts to come to Iraq and "pretend" to do research, he paid them highly so the CIA and others would see the paper trail. The experts were world known, and quite capable of building a bomb, N Korea seems to have no such experts.

You are right that the country is isolated, and we don't really know what is going on (except for the satellite pics of their plutonium enrichment plant), but it is common for power hungry countries to make unrealistic boasts about their military capabilities...ie Iraq

Luckily N Korea seem to have agreed to return to the negotiating table..( maybe they did find it too tricky to perfect the critical mass, implosion detonation technique...apparently its very very hard to make a nuke go bang )

 

[a6m5]

And I'm not so sure if going after North Korea would be such a good idea. We invade them, and they could use nukes as a sort of last stand. Not good.

I don't know how accurate this information is, but I read somewhere that President Clinton was pretty close to giving an order to strike the North Korean nuclear research/manufacture associated facility(somethink like that). Also, I do agree with you that North Korea situation is very unpredictable, even more so than the Iraq situation in my opinion. They could fall a part very easily, because their people can't be too crazy about their government and are starving, their forces are not well kept(no money for training/maintenance). Or they could strike South Korea, Japan, possibly U.S. with W.M.D. Maybe even starting an World War III.

As Tacet said, we are still not 100% sure on their nuclear capability. Tacet thinks the N. Koreans are bluffing, you think they might have it hidden, I just don't know. North Korea have threatened to test it though(officialy), so they probably got it, or are at least close.

 

[McLaren]

I don't know if anyone watched the latest Dateline (Boredom), but they claimed this one man considered the most dangerous man in the world, could possibly be helping Al Quedi closer to making a nuclear bomb...

Now I ask, why the heck isn't Bush trying to find this man? If he makes it easier for Al Quedi to have a nuclear weapon, then shouldn't we get him?

 

[the Interceptor]

You make it sound as though finding WMDs was the reason we went in... and as though the end of this "search" proves anything.

The existence of WMD was given as the official main reason for invading Iraq. And as the search has officially ended without finding WMD now, some people may lose their faith in the US government.

Personally I think Saddam Hussein at least planned to produce WMV, or even had some. But he was clever enough to hide them well, sell them or just take them out of the country before invasion.

 

[Ev0]

I don't know how accurate this information is, but I read somewhere that President Clinton was pretty close to giving an order to strike the North Korean nuclear research/manufacture associated facility(somethink like that).

It wouldn't surprise me if there was accurate intelligence indicating the location of North Korea's nukes, if the US would take out said nukes in a stealth airstrike (unless some nukes were in underground silos/bunkers which are very well protected from airstrikes. But, it would not surprise me at all if Bush ordered an airstrike against North Korea to take out their nukes. But I'd just hope that they would get every last one of them. Otherwise, a lot of people could be in serious trouble.

I don't know if anyone watched the latest Dateline (Boredom), but they claimed this one man considered the most dangerous man in the world, could possibly be helping Al Quedi closer to making a nuclear bomb...

Now I ask, why the heck isn't Bush trying to find this man? If he makes it easier for Al Quedi to have a nuclear weapon, then shouldn't we get him?

If this person truly is the most dangerous person in the world, and actually is trying to help Al Qaeda make a nuclear bomb, the CIA should be all over this jackass if they are doing their job properly. And besides, if Al Qaeda nuked anything, the entire world would come down on them, and they would likely lose support from more moderate Muslims who dislike the western world (not a full hatred for it).

 

[Solid Fro]

The existence of WMD was given as the official main reason for invading Iraq. And as the search has officially ended without finding WMD now, some people may lose their faith in the US government.

Wrong. Read UN resolution 1441.

Did anyone read this thing? I guess it gets skipped over a lot by the left.

Now I ask, why the heck isn't Bush trying to find this man? If he makes it easier for Al Quedi to have a nuclear weapon, then shouldn't we get him?

Bush is the president, it's not his job to look around a desert, but it is the job of the special force units that are looking for him.

 

[PublicSecrecy]

At the beginning of George Bush's election Condoleeza Rice and (the now fired) Colin Powell clearly stated that Iraq had NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. They went on to say HE IS UNABLE TO GET MILITARY WEAPONS, and IRAQ IS NOT A THREAT. Oh...all of a sudden he is? Alright lets all go and bomb a car factory or Tylenol plant and cover it up then. Oh, and let's go take those oil dereks too. And guess what the annogram of Opperation Iraqi Liberation is. As for it not being Bush's job...what is his job then? So far I haven't been able to tell.

 

[Solid Fro]

Looks like some people still haven't read the UN's resolution.

There is no Operation Iraqi Liberation under US military command. The official operation is named Iraqi Freedom, or OIF, in Liberal terms.

I would like to see quoted statements where anyone from the Bush administration said Iraq was not a threat to anyone from any credited news source, PublicSecrecy.

 

[PublicSecrecy]

I have it on film, Viper Zero. All I need is your home adress and you can have it for yourself.

[Edit] And don't forget to answer my question. After realizing what Operation Iraqi Liberation came across as, I'm absolutely positive they'd have changed it. They'd be stupid not to. And there are many instances where I've heard words come out of his mouth saying Liberation- not Freedom. [Edit]

 

[Solid Fro]

Why don't you send it to CNN? I'm sure they'll love it.

Operation Iraqi Freedom is a liberation and no, they never called it OIL, just something the Liberals came up with.

Bush's job is the chief executive of the federal government and the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.

 

[the Interceptor]

The existence of WMD was given as the official main reason for invading Iraq. And as the search has officially ended without finding WMD now, some people may lose their faith in the US government.

Wrong. Read UN resolution 1441.

Did anyone read this thing? I guess it gets skipped over a lot by the left.

I didn't before, but now I did:

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

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 so on.

The existence of WMD is the first actual reason for invading Iraq given in this resolution. Isn't that what I said?

 

[Solid Fro]

An UN reason. The US only complied and enforced the resolutions of the United Nations.

 

[the Interceptor]

An UN reason. The US only complied and enforced the resolutions of the United Nations.

Care to explain this a little more detailed?

 

[ledhed]

The UN along with a bunch of other organizations and governments thought that saddam , with his track record was a threat to use WMD 's . That and the fact that he refused to comply with weapons inspections ( after losing a war ! ) led everyone to believe he had them and was hiding them. It could have been a big bluff on his part...him thinking others would be scared to attack him if they thought he had a bunch of scary stuff to use...but in this case it got him put in a cage and his country occupied.. At any rate at the time the decision to attack Iraq was debated very few thought that on the basis of existing evidence and Saddams past USE of wmd that he didnt have them or would not build them and use them given a CHANCE....he never got the chance... and he never will...thats the whole point.

 

[PublicSecrecy]

Why don't you send it to CNN? I'm sure they'll love it.

Operation Iraqi Freedom is a liberation and no, they never called it OIL, just something the Liberals came up with.

Bush's job is the chief executive of the federal government and the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.

That's his position. What does he do?

 

[ledhed]

He wins elections.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

He wins elections.

That is indeed his job.

That's his position. What does he do?

Signs bits of paper...makes speeches


George W Bush is not a one man show, he is the figure head of the US government. There is a whole team of expert Whitehouse staff behind him. While he does take a responsibility for signing the final yes on any policy, it is very uncommon for any president to actually instigate any policy. They tend to leave it to more qualified personnel. Bush is not a military general, or a nuclear scientist, he is a politician...some would say quite a good one

To get re elected is no small feat. Back on topic...it was not Bush who said anything about WMD, he was acting on advice given to him by experts. Given the same evidence and possible threat, what would you expect any sane man to do...ignore it..hope it goes away...

He is there to be targeted by his opponents and take the flak ( that's his job ), but don't think he is actually alone up there in the Whitehouse making up random ideas about threats and nukes

 

[PublicSecrecy]

George Bush invests and does deals with warlords, criminals, and weapons manufacturers. He makes speaches...which are pretty much irrelevant to the good of the US people...and he signs bits of paper...but doesn't read them. What does he do? He golfs, fishes, goes boating, digs in the dirt looking for bugs, and rides the odd horse.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

What does he do? He golfs, fishes, goes boating, digs in the dirt looking for bugs, and rides the odd horse.

Not a bad life...

 

[PublicSecrecy]

Especially when you have a country to run. And others to bomb. And people's lives to ruin. And taxes to double. And benefits to cut. And pensions to eliminate.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Especially when you have a country to run. And others to bomb. And people's lives to ruin. And taxes to double. And benefits to cut. And pensions to eliminate.

And you know how having to double the tax rate can ruin a round of golf, what a pain

Oh well, you don't like Bush, no matter what he does, and I'm not even going to try and change that. What President didn't have any critics...that's the price they pay, they are hated and loved at the same time.

Don't make it personal...Bush doesn't run the country, he has a huge staff of advisors behind him, as I said earlier. It is not a one man show, the odd thing is in US government, is that the Whitehouse staff remains largely unchanged, no matter who wins the election..unlike UK where the whole house of commons changes sides.

It makes US policy very slow, as there are probably still things being put through from the previous administration.
It takes a long time for change to happen there, don't be so quick to condemn the figure head, as he is probably trying to deal with policy that he inherited If Kerry had won, do you really think anything would have changed?

Personally I'm glad things happened as they did. I would hate to see a weak US. It would only encourage further attacks. (I used to hate the Iron lady here in the UK, but her stance on terrorists during the Iranian Embassy siege has meant that we are not considered viable targets any more...god bless her Her exact words to the SAS were "don't leave any loose ends"...30 bullets per body...job done.)

To go on the offensive, maybe, over the top aggressive, is a wise move in the long run. There are absolutely no links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, in fact Saddam despised them, but even if the US get a sniff of your plot to use chemical or biological weapons against them, they invade you...now that's a big deterrent. Right or wrong, its a prudent move.

Lastly...just because they didn't find any weapons, doesn't mean there weren't any. X

 

[PublicSecrecy]

Bush makes decisions to do things, in 2015, without the consent of the senate or aything and assumes all will go through when he may not even be elected. His only reason for even running was to make money. Who do you think is the one profiting off of the war in Iraq?