The Search For Weapons of Mass Destruction...

[ledhed]

no one was threatened by iraq...?? I guess all those people in the mass graves..the Iranians...the pilots getting shot at over the exclusion zones ...the anti Iraqi dictator exiles running from assasins...the secret service in the US charged with protecting the president from assasination ..the Kuwaiti's and anyone else saddam got mad at or he desired resourses or money from ...or just decided that thier country looked like a " province " of Iraq..the Kurds...the shiites...women who didn't like to be raped.....they are all imagining things....?
You bring a lot to the discussion.......yep...them poor old peace loving ..mind their own business Iraqis were just misunderstood. bizarre.

 

[Danoff]

There are far worse leaders than Saddam in the world... but Iraq has oil. Coincidence.

It's fun to try to read things in that aren't there. The US doesn't need Iraqi oil. We're just fine thank you very much. Gasoline here costs less than bottled water. Water - the most abundant substance on the earth. If that's not the free market at work I don't know what is.

I'll reiterate, the US doesn't need Iraqi oil. The Iraqis need it, they need it to sell to whoever will buy it so that they can get their economy going. The US is fine without it. What we do, however, need is a democratic presence in the middle east. We need some way of showing the non-free world what freedom can do. We need to change potential terrorist's opinions about our society and we need to make sure that these people have more to do than become terrorists. The kinds of opportunities that freedom brings is exactly the way to rid the world of terrorists. Bush recognizes this - I'm surprised you do not ('cause we all know Bush isn't really all that smart).

Bottom line:
We got attacked by terrorists
We decided freedom would help rid the world of terrorists.
We had diplomatic reasoning for invading Iraq (along with many other countries).
Iraqis were in the right location to influence future terrorists and needed freedom.


Oil isn't much of a motivation for US military action compared to the removal of terrorism. I applaud Bush for having a long term plan.

... too bad nobody will read this. I've said it before and nobody has refuted it and yet people keep showing up with the same old crap - "You just want oil! American SUVs are killing Iraqis! Bush only cares about oil!" It's really like I'm talking to myself.

 

[a6m5]

It's fun to try to read things in that aren't there. The US doesn't need Iraqi oil. We're just fine thank you very much. Gasoline here costs less than bottled water. Water - the most abundant substance on the earth. If that's not the free market at work I don't know what is.

I'll reiterate, the US doesn't need Iraqi oil. The Iraqis need it, they need it to sell to whoever will buy it so that they can get their economy going. The US is fine without it. What we do, however, need is a democratic presence in the middle east. We need some way of showing the non-free world what freedom can do. We need to change potential terrorist's opinions about our society and we need to make sure that these people have more to do than become terrorists. The kinds of opportunities that freedom brings is exactly the way to rid the world of terrorists. Bush recognizes this - I'm surprised you do not ('cause we all know Bush isn't really all that smart).

Bottom line:
We got attacked by terrorists
We decided freedom would help rid the world of terrorists.
We had diplomatic reasoning for invading Iraq (along with many other countries).
Iraqis were in the right location to influence future terrorists and needed freedom.

I don't think the oil/bottled water price comparison is really an good argument. Water is almost free in the United States and I have an choice to choose between the bottled water or tap water. With gas, I don't have that choice. I'm going to pay whatever the gas station says it's worth.

On U.S. not needing Iraqi oil, that might be true. However, U.S. needs for oil is far larger than any other country in the world. Oil being something that could run out in the near future, I'm sure the U.S. would like to secure as much of it as possible.

I do share your view on terrorists. They are cowards in my opinion, and are killing or destroying innocent peoples lives. Only thing that bothers me in the Iraqi terrorist situation is that, I can kind of see how they could be so upset. If some country I don't share the views with(like China, Former Soviet type) came to my town, take over, driving their military vehicles all over our streets, spreading their values and started to arrest & kill people & friends who fought to keep them out........
I'm not condoning what those terrorists do, but I'm just saying that I can kind of see why they do the things they do. Other terrorists, like from 9/11 type attacks are whole different story.

... too bad nobody will read this. I've said it before and nobody has refuted it and yet people keep showing up with the same old crap - "You just want oil! American SUVs are killing Iraqis! Bush only cares about oil!" It's really like I'm talking to myself.

danoff, I do read it and appreciate the input but just because some one doesn't share your view and agree in its entirety doesn't mean that he's an ignorant liberal(well, sometimes). I agree that United States had an right to take out the Hussein Regime, but I just think it was an bad move and was not necessary.

 

[a6m5]

no one was threatened by iraq...?? I guess all those people in the mass graves..the Iranians...the pilots getting shot at over the exclusion zones ...the anti Iraqi dictator exiles running from assasins...the secret service in the US charged with protecting the president from assasination ..the Kuwaiti's and anyone else saddam got mad at or he desired resourses or money from ...or just decided that thier country looked like a " province " of Iraq..the Kurds...the shiites...women who didn't like to be raped.....they are all imagining things....?
You bring a lot to the discussion.......yep...them poor old peace loving ..mind their own business Iraqis were just misunderstood. bizarre.

I think his point was the "There are far worse leaders than Saddam in the world... " part. Personally, I'd rather see United States rescue the African people from their dictators and AIDS. News from that continent bothers me way more than the stuff in Middle East.

 

[PublicSecrecy]

I think his point was the "There are far worse leaders than Saddam in the world... " part. Personally, I'd rather see United States rescue the African people from their dictators and AIDS. News from that continent bothers me way more than the stuff in Middle East.

Tru dat. Especially Nigeria. Slightly less lighter-coloured black people are enslaving darker-coloured black people. They raid villages and kidnap children and force them to work for families that beat, torture, and starve them. The only thing keeping them there is the fact that as soon as they don't do something they get their leg chopped off or they're head. One guy got out though, and he's now working for some international anti-slavery coalition, and he recalls a time where he was on a buggy and this little girl was crying and wimpering. When the guy told her to "STFU!!!111" she started crying even more and he just chopped her leg off without a second thought. It's really quite horrible what happens in Africa.

 

[s0nny80y]

It's all PR in my opinion. True, we're not pumping oil outta the war (obviously, prices are up), but I think this is an intimidation tactic by taking out the bully of the Middle East. It's a show of US taking a country by force. Therefore, the US is either intimidating the Middle East for oil if the US ever runs low on it or to get tributes from the nations in the middle east. I see this as an unnecessary war b/c of this. Bush must think soldiers are expendable to protect the US' PR in the long run in the Middle East. We should've liberated those people in Sudan/Africa so that way, no finger pointing over oil will be done. Plus, Sudan/South Africa/Africa is a far messier place, but of course, Bush has other interests to follow. PR runs a long way btw.

 

[Solid Fro]

It's all PR in my opinion. True, we're not pumping oil outta the war (obviously, prices are up),

Wrong. Oil prices are DOWN. http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/

I have posted that link three times already...

but I think this is an intimidation tactic of taking out the bully of the Middle East.

The bully who shoots SCUDs at civilians loaded with chemical agents? The bully who blows up school busses? The bully who cuts off the heads of women?

Therefore, the US is either intimidating the Middle East for oil

danoff already explained this. You don't listen well.

if the US ever runs low on it or to get tributes from the nations in the middle east. I see this as an unnecessary war b/c of this.

Wrong. The US has an oil surplus.

Bush must think soldiers are expendable to protect the US' PR in the long run in the Middle East.

You must be insane to think that any president thinks the fighting man is expendable.

We should've liberated those people in Sudan/Africa so that way, no finger pointing over oil will be done. Plus, Sudan/South Africa/Africa is a far messier place, but of course, Bush has other interests to follow. PR runs a long way btw.

It was the UN's responsibility in Sudan. As you can see now with the UN's failure, they were the ones tempted by Iraq's oil, not America.

 

[s0nny80y]

Prices at the pump are up versus 5 years ago. Plus what do you want to prove with the correlation of oil prices down and my statement of saying "it's true that we're not pumping oil out of the war?"

Also, credit is due to danoff. At least you {Viper Zero} made no argument/contradictory statement on the "intimidation of the middle east for oil by taking out the bully".

And the UN's responsible for Sudan so we should leave that mess alone!?!?!? Well, the UN was searching WMDs until a specific deadline, which the US launched a pre-emptive attack before the UN could finish their investigation and report (the UN team only had 10 days), so I guess we should have left that alone too before doing anything presumptuous, huh!?

DO you know what the UN report on WMDs in Iraq could've meant for the US???????? If the UN ever found any evidence of WMDs in Iraq, the US would have gotten more international support. Do you understand what more international support would have meant for the moratality rate of active US forces in the coalition? It would have been more. At least there would have been less deaths than what has been released up to this date. Released, as in there are also undisclosed deaths.

But of course, that, if the UN report ever turned out to be conclusive, we would have known of the existence of no WMDs. And based on the knowledge of no WMDs, no invasion would have been deployed.

Knowing that if the invasion was held back before the UN's inconlusive report was released b/c of the cat & mouse games run by Saddam, at least that would instill official reasonable doubt throughout the international community. And that would probably have had lead to a larger coalition force in the US. And as I said before, the workload would be more dispersed, lessening the chances of death in each ally army.

 

[Solid Fro]

Prices at the pump are up versus 5 years ago. Plus what do you want to prove with the correlation of oil prices down and my statement of saying "it's true that we're not pumping oil out of the war?"

Go talk to the Saudis, not the Americans.

Also, credit is due to danoff. At least there's you {Viper Zero} made no argument/contradictory statement on the "intimidation of the middle east for oil by taking out the bully".

Yeah, the bully dude who kills inicent people. I would love to intidate him into next Tuesday.

And the UN's responsible for Sudan so we should leave that mess alone!?!?!?

The UN continues to look away from Sudan. The US has a duty to bring it to the UN's attention, but the UN contines to stick it's head in the sand.

Well, the UN was searching WMDs until a specific deadline, which the US launched a pre-emptive attack before the UN could finish their investigation and report (the UN team only had 10 days), so I guess we should have left that alone too before doing anything presumptuous, huh!?

More like 10 years. The UN was denied access by Saddam for 10 years. The UN gave Saddam a 17th and final chance to coroperate and Saddam refused.

Read UN resolution 1441.

DO you know what the UN report on WMDs in Iraq could've meant for the US???????? If the UN ever found any evidence of WMDs in Iraq,

The UN did find WMD. Read your history books.

the US would have gotten more international support.

30 countries isn't International?

Do you understand what more international support would have meant for the morality rate of active US forces in the coalition?

Wrong. The morale rate in the US military is extremly high.

But of course, that, if the UN report ever turned out to be conclusive, we would have known of the existence of no WMDs. And based on the knowledge of no WMDs, no invasion would have been deployed.

You REALLY need to read UN resolution 1441. The only reason why we went into Iraq.

 

[s0nny80y]

Go talk to the Saudis, not the Americans.

Just ask Bush. Intimidation of the Mid-East, I guess it's working.

Yeah, the bully dude who kills inicent people. I would love to intidate him into next Tuesday.

It's not a bad thing taking out criminas, but if Bush wanted to take out the worst criminals of human atrocities, he should've directed his 'intimidation'
to Sudan.

The UN continues to look away from Sudan. The US has a duty to bring it to the UN's attention, but the UN contines to stick it's head in the sand.

Nice contradition. Even worse, Iraq has had the attention of the UN, but the far worse case that is Sudan is being ignored by the UN. The US butts into Iraq instead of the more horrible case of Sudan which is being overlooked. Oil, Oil, Oil.

The UN did find WMD. Read your history books.

The US invaded Iraq. Officially, no WMDs were found. Pay attention to the news.

Wrong. The morale rate in the US military is extremly high.

Mortality rate. My bad. Guess you can't edit morale with mortal in 'your' post huh?

UN resolution 1441

The US invaded Iraq. Officially, no WMDs were found. Pay attention to biased news organizations.

 

[Solid Fro]

I can't help Sunnyboi if he refuses to read why the US went into Iraq (UN resolution 1441).

 

[s0nny80y]

I can't help Sunnyboi if he refuses to read why the US went into Iraq (UN resolution 1441).

I can't help Viper O if he refuses to read the topic starter stating that the US has officially found no WMDs after invading the whole country of Iraq at the costs of hundreds of US deaths (White House Spokesman McClellan Officially Anounces That The War Is Over )

 

[Solid Fro]

Read or Die.

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

WMD is not the only reason. Liberals seem to forget that, a lot.

 

[a6m5]

30 countries isn't International?

Democrats kept attacking the President on this during the election campaign, and they are right on this, we don't have enough support. 100 countries wouldn't mean anything, it those countries are not going to take some pressure off U.S.

Dick Cheney did say something cool in the V.P. debate against Edwards. Cheney told Edwards that he's forgetting about our most important ally, the new Iraqi government.

 

[Danoff]

Nice contradition. Even worse, Iraq has had the attention of the UN, but the far worse case that is Sudan is being ignored by the UN. The US butts into Iraq instead of the more horrible case of Sudan which is being overlooked. Oil, Oil, Oil.

I didn't think you'd read my post. I guess I was right since I explained exactly why this crafty "Oil, Oil, Oil" argument doesn't hold water. But you go on believing what you want to.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

The UN did find WMD. Read your history books.

Correct.

18 Apr 1991 Iraq provides initial declaration required under resolution 687 (1991), declares some chemical weapons and materials and 53 Al-Hussein and Scud type long-range ballistic missiles. Iraq declares it has no biological weapons programme.

23-28 Jun 1991 UNSCOM/IAEA inspectors try to intercept Iraqi vehicles carrying nuclear related equipment (Calutrons). Iraqi personnel fire warning shots in the air to prevent the inspectors from approaching the vehicles. The equipment is later seized and destroyed under international supervision.

2 Aug 1991 Iraq declares to the first biological inspection team that it had conducted "biological research activities for defensive military purposes".

19 Mar 1992 Iraq declares the existence of previously undeclared ballistic missiles (89), chemical weapons and associated material. Iraq reveals that most of these undeclared items were unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991, in violation of resolution 687 (1991).

6-29 Jul 1992 Iraq refuses an inspection team access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture. UNSCOM had reliable information that the site contained archives related to proscribed activities.

1 Jul 1995 As a result of UNSCOM's investigations and in the light of irrefutable evidence, Iraq admits for the first time the existence of an offensive biological weapons programme but denies weaponization.

Aug 1995 Iraq provides the third Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited biological weapons programme.

Nov 1995 Iraq provides second Full, Final and Complete Disclosure of its prohibited missile programme.

13 Jun 1996 Despite the adoption of resolution 1060 (1996), Iraq again denies access to another inspection team.

22 Jun 1996 Iraq provides the fourth Full, Final and Complete Disclosure of its prohibited biological weapons programme.

13 Jan 1998 The Executive Chairman reports to the Council that during the first day of an inspection, Iraq announced that it was withdrawing its cooperation with the inspection team on the pretext that the team had too many individuals of US or UK nationality (S/1998/27 of 13 January 1998).

20-27 Mar 1998 The Commission and Iraq conduct a further technical evaluation meeting (TEM) in Vienna dealing with all aspects of Iraq’s biological weapons programme.

15 Dec 1998 The Special Commission reports to the Security-General concerning UNSCOM’s activities and the status of Iraq’s cooperation with the Commission in the period since 14 November 1998. The Executive Chairman concludes that Iraq did not provide the full cooperation it had promised on 14 November 1998 (S/1998/1172)

Those entries are from The UN's own website under departments UNSCOM. See how Iraq had lied about the existence of WMD and then revised their position on numerous occasions.

The US invaded Iraq. Officially, no WMDs were found. Pay attention to the news.

Where are they then? If you know what happened to the tons of chemical and biological agents maybe you could let UNMOVIC know.

 

[s0nny80y]

Where are they then? If you know what happened to the tons of chemical and biological agents maybe you could let UNMOVIC know.

And if any of the UN team actually recovered (by surgical force and not occupational masses) any fraction of the afformentioned stockpiles of weaponized biological weapons as concrete evidence other than verbal threats.......

 

[PS]

--edited--

**Inform me of any strange activity on this account, PLEASE.

 

[blargonator]

finally finished reading this malarky <8- P ok....since when was bottled water more expensive than gasoline?
personally i feel as if we walked into this war without exhausting all options. i don't like the war at all but remember to support the troops no matter what happens 👍 but anyways i think we should have finished what we began. where is Osama? if the U.S. was playing chess we have not won yet, its like announcing victory after getting the queen (queen being sadam, and no im not implying Osama and Sadam had any ties). what is happenening in afghanistan these days anyways?
people were talking about how we have made iraq a free country....well we are not exactly helping their economy by sending our own construction workers over tehre to do all the work. war is a economic phonomenon as Mos Def said. it really is because normally countries thrive while at war but this one seems to be a oddball.

someone said we should go help countries in Africa. im totally for that. im disgusted with some of the things going on in some countries. i read about a man being attacked with machettes and then he was fed to lions. in Sierra leone children are being taken as soldiers daily. their parents are usually slaughtered in front of them and after that they usually get a beating. the children are trained killers there now, they are being subjected to drugs to keep them "under control".
i went to a discussion with a priest who was there, he said there was a full grown man who was a missionary was hung upside down as torture and a 8 year old slashed his throat and sat under the man as he bleed on him.

 

[Solid Fro]

finally finished reading this malarky <8- P ok....since when was bottled water more expensive than gasoline?

Now. Bottle water is $2.00. Gasoline is $1.92 (octane 93) where I live.

personally i feel as if we walked into this war without exhausting all options.

Ten years and 17 different UN resolutions telling Saddam to disarm or face the consequences isn't enough?

You think there are other options? Please tell me! It will be the greatest finding in the 21st century.

but anyways i think we should have finished what we began. where is Osama?

Finish what we began? We were not the ones who flew 767s through buildings.

what is happenening in afghanistan these days anyways?

Maybe you should ask the Liberal Media... oh, wait. They don't want you to know.

Don't be a captive of the Liberal Media. You always have the Internet.

people were talking about how we have made iraq a free country....well we are not exactly helping their economy by sending our own construction workers over tehre to do all the work.

Work that the Iraqis do not have knowledge in. I suppose you would know how to repair a 100 mile oil pipeline? Do you expect a person in Iraq to know as well?

war is a economic phonomenon as Mos Def said. it really is because normally countries thrive while at war but this one seems to be a oddball.

Mos Def, an "indy" rapper, has credibility in... what exactly?

someone said we should go help countries in Africa.

Who was that? Or was it some made-up person? Was it some lefty loon who throw shoes at people?

im totally for that. im disgusted with some of the things going on in some countries. i read about a man being attacked with machettes and then he was fed to lions. in Sierra leone children are being taken as soldiers daily. their parents are usually slaughtered in front of them and after that they usually get a beating. the children are trained killers there now, they are being subjected to drugs to keep them "under control".
i went to a discussion with a priest who was there, he said there was a full grown man who was a missionary was hung upside down as torture and a 8 year old slashed his throat and sat under the man as he bleed on him.

Is this the same Africa the UN denied having racial cleansing in Sudan? The same Africa where French troops opened fire on unarmed civilians in Ivory Coast? The same Africa where UN peace keepers raped young girls in return for a couple of eggs or candy?

 

[blargonator]

Now. Bottle water is $2.00. Gasoline is $1.92 (octane 93) where I live.



Ten years and 17 different UN resolutions telling Saddam to disarm or face the consequences isn't enough?

You think there are other options? Please tell me! It will be the greatest finding in the 21st century.



Finish what we began? We were not the ones who flew 767s through buildings.



Maybe you should ask the Liberal Media... oh, wait. They don't want you to know.

Don't be a captive of the Liberal Media. You always have the Internet.



Work that the Iraqis do not have knowledge in. I suppose you would know how to repair a 100 mile oil pipeline? Do you expect a person in Iraq to know as well?



Mos Def, an "indy" rapper, has credibility in... what exactly?



Who was that? Or was it some made-up person? Was it some lefty loon who throw shoes at people?



Is this the same Africa the UN denied having racial cleansing in Sudan? The same Africa where French troops opened fire on unarmed civilians in Ivory Coast? The same Africa where UN peace keepers raped young girls in return for a couple of eggs or candy?

i don't have any other options. i think we should have allowed the U.N. to finish searching first as many have stated.
I never said we were the first to attack. finish what we started as in make afghanistan the main conflict.
who built the pipelines in the first place?
mos def does not have anything to do with this. i simply quoted him.
most people don't throw shoes so i don't know who that was directed towards. i said someone because i don't feel like sifting through 4 pages at 2:XX A.M. the someone was in this thread. i read all posts, do you? <8- )

edit~oops. i forgot to reply to the water. are you talking about plain water? that flavored stuff is another story. i rarely see a bottle of water for more than $1.60 i guess the jugs of water might be around 2 dollars.

 

[Solid Fro]

i don't have any other options.

Then why did you say we haven't exhausted all the options? You are just like a Democrat. You attack Bush about his strategy on terrorism, but you have no strategy of your own.

i think we should have allowed the U.N. to finish searching first as many have stated.

We (the US) never stopped the UN from searching for WMD, Saddam did. He denied UN access several times over the past 10 years (1991-2002).

Try reading a newspaper some time, not the talking points of the far left.

I never said we were the first to attack. finish what we started as in make afghanistan the main conflict.

We are done in Afghanistan. We destroyed the Taliban, liberated the Afghan people, help the Afghan people set up a government, and they held their free elections. The US is now in a peace keeping role in Afghanistan.

who built the pipelines in the first place?

Saddam's military.

most people don't throw shoes so i don't know who that was directed towards.

This guy did.

 

[blargonator]

Is this the same Africa the UN denied having racial cleansing in Sudan? The same Africa where French troops opened fire on unarmed civilians in Ivory Coast? The same Africa where UN peace keepers raped young girls in return for a couple of eggs or candy?

im hoping you are not saying they don't need any help, im probably misinterpreting this but yeah they have quite a few problems there. even the U.N. is screwing them its so horrible there though. the media should spend some efficient time telling people about that instead of telling us about "internet bullies" (speaking of "internet bullies" does anyone have that video segment? i heard about it and i want to see it). i heard about the food thing and i am disgusted. ok back on topic

he was the U.N.s problem at the time. he was not a immediate threat to us. either way its too late to change the past and we are already there. you won this one <8- P because A. i don't feel like looking anywhere and B. any sources i find would probably be unreliable.
if we destroyed the taliban where are all of its leaders?
i did not know the military made them.
cool story. they probably got him on a reverse case of cinderella (who does the shoe fit, and who is missing one.)