Dixie, are you delusional, a liar, or just wrong?

"Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq: was -- the main reason we went into Iraq: at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction."

GEORGE W. BUSH, AUGUST 21, 2006 Press conference!


How is that a carefull parcing of his words? And I dont disagree that Saddam ONCE HAD WMD.... He did not at the time we invaded, I agree with Bush on this one!

Reminents of old WMD are not WMD....
 
uscitizen said:
That article also had a military person stating "these are not the WMD's we were looking for".
Click to expand...

Again, the argument was NOT whether certain specific WMD's were there, it was whether WMD's existed in Iraq or not... I think we've settled that matter, they WERE there, we found them. Now, you can argue about whether they were the right ones, or if they were dangerous, that's valid... but to try and say they didn't exist, when the reports contradict you, is absurd.
 
Dixie said:
Again, the argument was NOT whether certain specific WMD's were there, it was whether WMD's existed in Iraq or not... I think we've settled that matter, they WERE there, we found them. Now, you can argue about whether they were the right ones, or if they were dangerous, that's valid... but to try and say they didn't exist, when the reports contradict you, is absurd.
Click to expand...



I guess to DIXIE it all depends on what the defination of "is" is!
 
Jarod said:
"Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq: was -- the main reason we went into Iraq: at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction."

GEORGE W. BUSH, AUGUST 21, 2006 Press conference!


How is that a carefull parcing of his words? And I dont disagree that Saddam ONCE HAD WMD.... He did not at the time we invaded, I agree with Bush on this one!

Reminents of old WMD are not WMD....
Click to expand...

No, I am sorry, WMD's are WMD's, whether they are old or new. The whole point was Saddam's defiance of international law and UN mandates. These WMD's were supposedly destroyed, you all swore that Saddam had been forthright about this, and had destroyed them like he said. A few of you even claimed the Clinton bombing runs in 1998 had eliminated all of these WMD's. You were wrong about it, they existed, just as you were told.

And just because we didn't find new freshly made WMD's inside of Iraq, 14 months after telling Saddam we were not going to be satisfied until he proved he had no WMD's, doesn't mean that they weren't there at some point, any more than the old WMD's that were supposedly not there. We know that something went out of Iraq in dozens of transfer trucks, into Syria, shortly before we invaded. It's not out of the realm of possibility, that these were freshly made WMD's that Saddam didn't want to be found inside of Iraq, since that would have instantly given Bush all the justification needed to invade.

Again, the Pinhead argument was always... No WMD's in Iraq! Well, you were wrong. Sorry!
 
Dixie said:
No, I am sorry, WMD's are WMD's, whether they are old or new. The whole point was Saddam's defiance of international law and UN mandates. These WMD's were supposedly destroyed, you all swore that Saddam had been forthright about this, and had destroyed them like he said. A few of you even claimed the Clinton bombing runs in 1998 had eliminated all of these WMD's. You were wrong about it, they existed, just as you were told.

And just because we didn't find new freshly made WMD's inside of Iraq, 14 months after telling Saddam we were not going to be satisfied until he proved he had no WMD's, doesn't mean that they weren't there at some point, any more than the old WMD's that were supposedly not there. We know that something went out of Iraq in dozens of transfer trucks, into Syria, shortly before we invaded. It's not out of the realm of possibility, that these were freshly made WMD's that Saddam didn't want to be found inside of Iraq, since that would have instantly given Bush all the justification needed to invade.

Again, the Pinhead argument was always... No WMD's in Iraq! Well, you were wrong. Sorry!
Click to expand...



It sounds like they were destroyed to me... Your own cite even says they were unusable as WMD...

You are pittafull~!
 
"Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq: was -- the main reason we went into Iraq: at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction."

GEORGE W. BUSH, AUGUST 21, 2006 Press conference!


How is that a carefull parcing of his words?
 
Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld say we haven't found WMD

The munitions that were found, were abandoned on the field of battle and scattered around the country after the 1980s Iran War. Bush's own chief inspector said Saddam probably didn't know they existed. Its not like they were hidden in secret bunkers. They were battlefield remnants of a war that happened almost 20 years ago.
 
Dixie said:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060621-114414-3312r.htm

Chemical arms found in Iraq, report reveals
June 22, 2006

From combined dispatches
U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq have found about 500 chemical weapons since the March 2003 invasion, with more thought to exist, according to portions of an intelligence report made public yesterday.
"Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent," said an overview of the report, which was declassified at the behest of Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, and Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Republican and head of the House intelligence committee.
"Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf war chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf war chemical munitions are assessed to still exist," according to the report.
====================================


Now, are you so dillusional that you think this didn't happen? Or are you lying and saying that it didn't happen? Or are you just plain wrong about this like you are about everything else in your retarded life?
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, the group that has found these weapons is not someone anyone has ever heard of. In addition, the report whose veracity is still as far as I am concerned open to question is in an article in the Washington Times which also contains this snippet:

"A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings to Agence France-Presse that all the weapons were pre-1991 munitions "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for." The official, who asked not to be identified, said most were 155mm artillery projectiles with mustard gas or sarin of varying degrees of potency."

Maybe I'm missing something but the first sentence seems to be incomplete perhaps a "said " before "that" is what is missing here, I don't know for sure, but as written the sentence is certainly questionable. In any case not all of the weapons were sarin. but if they were pre-1991, just how effective could they still be? The CIA has said that sarin begins disintegrating after 3-6 months. In other words it doesn't seem to have the half-life of plutonium, as Dixie and Santorum would have us believe. Another thing I still don't understand is how did 500 so-called WMDs become 700 in another Dixie post. Then inexplicably the article contains this sentence:

"But a counterterrorism adviser to the U.S. government told The Washington Times that even imperfect chemical munitions could be rigged for improvised use, as Iraqi insurgents have used artillery shells as roadside bombs."

Yes of course these unexploded artillery shells could be rigged to go off, since the explosive part doesn't disintegrate like the chemical part does, but even if these did explode, it would be the explosion that killed you not the chemicals. So is any old unexploded artillery shell now a WMD? Is the sarin or mustard gas in these able to cause any harm? Evidently not since we have read not once of anyone dying in Baghdad or elsewhere in Iraq from gas or sarin poisoning after being near a roadside bomb attack. Instead we hear of them being blown apart when a roadside bomb exploded. It would appear that this report was a lot of hype with very little substance or veracity. These three ending sentences are telling for their hyper-insistence that there is more here than meets the eye or that good science can substantiate.

"The two-month-old report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a military intelligence agency that started looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when the Iraq Survey Group stopped doing so in late 2004, stressed that the pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market.
"It has been reported in open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons," the report said.
The counterterrorism adviser noted that Saddam needed fewer than 20 such munitions to kill an estimated 5,000 Kurds in Halabjah in 1988."

In the first sentence we are given no information about this so-called agency, in additon the fact that these depleted artillery shells could be sold on the black market if still explodable says nothing whatsoever about the viability of their chemical components. Since it has already been established that they could be used for roadside bombs, they could also be sold for roadside bombs, without any chemical viability at all. The fact that "Iraqi groups desire...chemical weapons" is also irrelevant. And it's placement in this context as if they writers are trying to say by inference what the evidence does not support. The reasoning that the writer seems to be trying to engender in the reader goes something like this: These artillery shells can be used for roadside bombs; the Iraqis want chemical weapons and they want these artillery shells, therefore these artillery shells must be chemical weapons. And then in the last sentence comes the real lie: "Saddam needed fewer than 20 such munitions to kill 5,000 Kurds." Wrong. If these weapons were still capable of causing death by deadly gas, then thousands of people should be dying of exposure to such gas in Baghdad, and greater Iraq but they aren't. Nor have there been any reports of American soldiers who are more often the targets of roadside bombs than any other group in Iraq being gassed by such bombs, nor have the soldiers (I am using this term loosely to refer to all military personnel in Iraq) in Iraq begun wearing gas masks or other protective clothing while on patrol, which is what one would expect if there were viable chemical weapons in Iraq that might be getting into the hands of the insurgents, no???

Since we haven't seen or witnessed anything like these scenarios, this report like the weapons it purports to have found, seem to me to lack the veracity that common logic would demand. Therefore I say this report and the weapons it claims to have found are depleted and unviable...Nothing more than hype for the hypable. I'm not sure that anyone except Santorum and Hoekstra even know about this report. Surely Dixie is not suggesting that this report was so important that the President received a briefing on its contents and is lying when he says that no WMD were found in Iraq is he???? And if the President wasn't briefed on the report's contents then how important could this report be????

Here's a hint: not very!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, the group that has found these weapons is not someone anyone has ever heard of.

Who hasn't ever been heard of? The U.S. led coalition forces? Sure they have! This is a combination of forces from our coalition partners, as well as Iraqi security, led by the U.S. Military.

You go on to argue about the condition of the WMD's, which was not the argument, nor has it ever been, it's the existence of WMD's, remember? The argument from Pinheads has been, "There were no WMD's in Iraq, Bush lied!" The fact is, there were WMD's in Iraq, you are currently arguing about their condition, so even you admit there were WMD's in Iraq.

We already knew that Saddam had 80,000 liters of Sarin, VX, Anthrax, and Botchulin toxins, ready to be weaponized, as well as the empty artillery shells to be filled. How do we know? Because, in 1996, the United Nations put little blue UN seals on them, and documented every single one, and Saddam signed a paper claiming and declaring them. Only a delusional person would argue that these didn't exist.

In pressing for compliance with Iraq's cease-fire agreements from GWI, and increased pressure of sanctions on Saddam, he continued to insist that he had destroyed all these WMD's. This is how the Pinheads obtained the line... "There were no WMD's in Iraq, Bush lied!" They believed Saddam when he claimed he had destroyed the WMD's. Incidentally, everyone in the UN, including France, believed he had WMD's.

Now, let's move ahead to the current geopolitical environment for a moment, we are now in a global war on terror... (we can debate what that term means later, if you lack understanding.) The important thing to remember is, we are very concerned with our security against radical Islamist terrorists, who are crawling all over the middle east, Europe, and even America. Iraq happens to be sitting in the midst of ALL the radicalism, and is indeed important to the radicals in the realization of their Caliphate objectives. Are you with me so far? If not, I suggest you go look up "Caliphate" and see what I'm talking about, and then continue on. In short, alQaeda and the radical Islamist terrorist groups aligned with them, will ultimately have to rule over Iraq, in order to achieve their goals. Saddam knew this, and was very leery of dealing with them, but Arabs against the US within Iraq, would be the problem. Just as your Koolaid Servers will inform you that Saddam didn't control the northern part of his country, where alQaeda prince Zarqawi trained, Saddam couldn't be expected to control the poisons, toxins, bacteria starter strains, and munitions, which were spread out all over his country. So, we have Saddam's dysfunctional regime, alQaeda, and chem/bio materials, all out of control and running lose in the country of Iraq. While we are engaging in a global war on radical Islamist terror. You don't have to be a genius to understand why we had legitimate national security concerns, or considered Saddam and Iraq as a problem that had to be dealt with.

Our concern, was never over the threat that Saddam Hussein and Iraq posed directly to the United States. It was the nexus between Saddam's defiance and deception, support for terrorism, possession of materials and technology to produce massively lethal quantities of WMD's, and the presence of radical Islamist terrorists within his country. When you also factor in the strategic significance of Iraq, the strategic military significance in combating radical Islamofascists, as well as the ideological strategery of planting democracy in an Arab country with the least difficulty... (think of trying to establish a democracy in Iran or Pakistan, as opposed to a secular Iraq) The war in Iraq becomes a very logical move, and vital to the war on terror.

Now, the United States, can not go to the United Nations and say... We want to go to war in Iraq, so that we may establish a base to fight Islamofascism, and plant a counter-ideology to the radical Islamists. There is no reasonable justification for this, as far as the United Nations is concerned, and there would be no support for such an idea. Yet, this is what we need to do to protect our own interests and effectively combat the enemy we are at war with. So, the focus became, Saddam's WMD's and non-compliance with the UN resolutions, and cease-fire agreements. This is the "legal" justification that was made for war, to the UN. And the UN agreed with that justification unanimously. When it came time to act, they failed to back their word with action, largely due to the dissenting votes from France, Germany, and Russia on the UNSC. We would later learn that all three countries were economically tied to Iraq, and had received billions of dollars from the Oil For Food program. In other words, they were bribed by Saddam.

The issue has never been about WMD's. You have all parsed out sentences from Bush or Cheney, clipped out misinterpreted lines from Powell and Rumsfeld, and convinced yourselves to believe that this war was all about some bulging warehouse full of armed WMD's, ready to launch on America. It never was about the direct threat Saddam posed to the US, it was the danger in allowing Saddam to remain in power, and Iraq to remain a breeding ground for the radical terrorist movement, as well as a candy store of deadly materials.
 
Bush's own Chief WMD Inspector, Charles Duelfer:

-CHARLES DUELFER: "No, these do not indicate an ongoing weapons of mass destruction program as had been thought to exist before the war. These are leftover rounds, which Iraq probably did not even know that it had....They are almost 20 years old, and they are in a decayed fashion. It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard."
 
"Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq: was -- the main reason we went into Iraq: at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction."

GEORGE W. BUSH, AUGUST 21, 2006 Press conference!
----------------------------------------

How is that parcing words?
 
Dixie said:
Unfortunately, the group that has found these weapons is not someone anyone has ever heard of.

Who hasn't ever been heard of? The U.S. led coalition forces? Sure they have! This is a combination of forces from our coalition partners, as well as Iraqi security, led by the U.S. Military.

You go on to argue about the condition of the WMD's, which was not the argument, nor has it ever been, it's the existence of WMD's, remember? The argument from Pinheads has been, "There were no WMD's in Iraq, Bush lied!" The fact is, there were WMD's in Iraq, you are currently arguing about their condition, so even you admit there were WMD's in Iraq.

We already knew that Saddam had 80,000 liters of Sarin, VX, Anthrax, and Botchulin toxins, ready to be weaponized, as well as the empty artillery shells to be filled. How do we know? Because, in 1996, the United Nations put little blue UN seals on them, and documented every single one, and Saddam signed a paper claiming and declaring them. Only a delusional person would argue that these didn't exist.

In pressing for compliance with Iraq's cease-fire agreements from GWI, and increased pressure of sanctions on Saddam, he continued to insist that he had destroyed all these WMD's. This is how the Pinheads obtained the line... "There were no WMD's in Iraq, Bush lied!" They believed Saddam when he claimed he had destroyed the WMD's. Incidentally, everyone in the UN, including France, believed he had WMD's.

Now, let's move ahead to the current geopolitical environment for a moment, we are now in a global war on terror... (we can debate what that term means later, if you lack understanding.) The important thing to remember is, we are very concerned with our security against radical Islamist terrorists, who are crawling all over the middle east, Europe, and even America. Iraq happens to be sitting in the midst of ALL the radicalism, and is indeed important to the radicals in the realization of their Caliphate objectives. Are you with me so far? If not, I suggest you go look up "Caliphate" and see what I'm talking about, and then continue on. In short, alQaeda and the radical Islamist terrorist groups aligned with them, will ultimately have to rule over Iraq, in order to achieve their goals. Saddam knew this, and was very leery of dealing with them, but Arabs against the US within Iraq, would be the problem. Just as your Koolaid Servers will inform you that Saddam didn't control the northern part of his country, where alQaeda prince Zarqawi trained, Saddam couldn't be expected to control the poisons, toxins, bacteria starter strains, and munitions, which were spread out all over his country. So, we have Saddam's dysfunctional regime, alQaeda, and chem/bio materials, all out of control and running lose in the country of Iraq. While we are engaging in a global war on radical Islamist terror. You don't have to be a genius to understand why we had legitimate national security concerns, or considered Saddam and Iraq as a problem that had to be dealt with.

Our concern, was never over the threat that Saddam Hussein and Iraq posed directly to the United States. It was the nexus between Saddam's defiance and deception, support for terrorism, possession of materials and technology to produce massively lethal quantities of WMD's, and the presence of radical Islamist terrorists within his country. When you also factor in the strategic significance of Iraq, the strategic military significance in combating radical Islamofascists, as well as the ideological strategery of planting democracy in an Arab country with the least difficulty... (think of trying to establish a democracy in Iran or Pakistan, as opposed to a secular Iraq) The war in Iraq becomes a very logical move, and vital to the war on terror.

Now, the United States, can not go to the United Nations and say... We want to go to war in Iraq, so that we may establish a base to fight Islamofascism, and plant a counter-ideology to the radical Islamists. There is no reasonable justification for this, as far as the United Nations is concerned, and there would be no support for such an idea. Yet, this is what we need to do to protect our own interests and effectively combat the enemy we are at war with. So, the focus became, Saddam's WMD's and non-compliance with the UN resolutions, and cease-fire agreements. This is the "legal" justification that was made for war, to the UN. And the UN agreed with that justification unanimously. When it came time to act, they failed to back their word with action, largely due to the dissenting votes from France, Germany, and Russia on the UNSC. We would later learn that all three countries were economically tied to Iraq, and had received billions of dollars from the Oil For Food program. In other words, they were bribed by Saddam.

The issue has never been about WMD's. You have all parsed out sentences from Bush or Cheney, clipped out misinterpreted lines from Powell and Rumsfeld, and convinced yourselves to believe that this war was all about some bulging warehouse full of armed WMD's, ready to launch on America. It never was about the direct threat Saddam posed to the US, it was the danger in allowing Saddam to remain in power, and Iraq to remain a breeding ground for the radical terrorist movement, as well as a candy store of deadly materials.
Click to expand...

How stupid are you? The condition of these shells determines whether they are, in fact, WMDs. Sorry, but nothing you have said here shows that Saddam had any weapons of viable, useable and dangerous WMDs in 2002-03 when Bush claimed he did and every senior member of the administration ran around like chicken little screaming "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." We know that Saddam had WMDs in the eighties and nineties, Rumsfeld was the one who sold them to him so that he could fight our little proxy war with the Iranians. But the point of Bush's invasion and propaganda in the run-up to the war wasn't that Saddam had twenty year old worthless WMD it was that he posed a threat to us now, in fact that he posed an "imminent threat." All those WMDs that Bush and Co. referred to where not twenty-year-old WMDs but fresh, robust, dangerous WMDs to suggest anything else is bunk but that would be nothing new to an old bunko artist such as yourself. Seems to me like you are doing nothing more than parsing to the ninth degree here, something you seem to find quite disagreeable when turned on your posts but fine when you do it. The so-called WMDs that you and Santorum are claiming were found are worthless, useless and as such not WMDs at all, if in fact you define a weapon by what it is capable of now not what it was capable of 30 years ago, and no "imminent threat" to anyone. I can't wait to see what you do with the slave sales I found, they probably aren't slave sales either.
 
It'a almost as if, you all have your fingers in your ears, and are content with muttering the same old shit over and over. If you want to debate what I have said, then let's have the discussion, if you just want to be defiantly ignrorant and pretend that I have spent this time articulating something with the sole interest of having you agree with me, let's just save ourselves the trouble and move on. You just keep rehashing the same old talking points about the condition of the weapons, and things that have already been addressed. I realize, Howard Dean hasn't told you how to respond yet, but this is ridiculous. Maybe we should give it a few days, and let Harry Reid and Ben Venista come up with some new rhetoric for you to spew here?

The lie you've been telling for 3 years, is that Saddam didn't have any WMD's, and there were no WMD's in Iraq. That has been proven inaccurate by your own argument over the condition of the weapons that weren't supposed to be there.
 
Dixie said:
It'a almost as if, you all have your fingers in your ears, and are content with muttering the same old shit over and over. If you want to debate what I have said, then let's have the discussion, if you just want to be defiantly ignrorant and pretend that I have spent this time articulating something with the sole interest of having you agree with me, let's just save ourselves the trouble and move on. You just keep rehashing the same old talking points about the condition of the weapons, and things that have already been addressed. I realize, Howard Dean hasn't told you how to respond yet, but this is ridiculous. Maybe we should give it a few days, and let Harry Reid and Ben Venista come up with some new rhetoric for you to spew here?

The lie you've been telling for 3 years, is that Saddam didn't have any WMD's, and there were no WMD's in Iraq. That has been proven inaccurate by your own argument over the condition of the weapons that weren't supposed to be there.
Click to expand...

The lie you've been telling for 3 years, is that Saddam didn't have any WMD's, and there were no WMD's in Iraq.

America's foremost expert on Iraqi weapons, Bush's own Chief WMD Inspector, Charles Duelfer:

CHARLES DUELFER: "No, these do not indicate an ongoing weapons of mass destruction program as had been thought to exist before the war. These are leftover rounds, which Iraq probably did not even know that it had....They are almost 20 years old, and they are in a decayed fashion. It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard."
 
I'm going to repost this for you, Prissy....

You go on to argue about the condition of the WMD's, which was not the argument, nor has it ever been, it's the existence of WMD's, remember? The argument from Pinheads has been, "There were no WMD's in Iraq, Bush lied!" The fact is, there were WMD's in Iraq, you are currently arguing about their condition, so even you admit there were WMD's in Iraq.

We already knew that Saddam had 80,000 liters of Sarin, VX, Anthrax, and Botchulin toxins, ready to be weaponized, as well as the empty artillery shells to be filled. How do we know? Because, in 1996, the United Nations put little blue UN seals on them, and documented every single one, and Saddam signed a paper claiming and declaring them. Only a delusional person would argue that these didn't exist.

In pressing for compliance with Iraq's cease-fire agreements from GWI, and increased pressure of sanctions on Saddam, he continued to insist that he had destroyed all these WMD's. This is how the Pinheads obtained the line... "There were no WMD's in Iraq, Bush lied!" They believed Saddam when he claimed he had destroyed the WMD's. Incidentally, everyone in the UN, including France, believed he had WMD's.

Now, let's move ahead to the current geopolitical environment for a moment, we are now in a global war on terror... (we can debate what that term means later, if you lack understanding.) The important thing to remember is, we are very concerned with our security against radical Islamist terrorists, who are crawling all over the middle east, Europe, and even America. Iraq happens to be sitting in the midst of ALL the radicalism, and is indeed important to the radicals in the realization of their Caliphate objectives. Are you with me so far? If not, I suggest you go look up "Caliphate" and see what I'm talking about, and then continue on. In short, alQaeda and the radical Islamist terrorist groups aligned with them, will ultimately have to rule over Iraq, in order to achieve their goals. Saddam knew this, and was very leery of dealing with them, but Arabs against the US within Iraq, would be the problem. Just as your Koolaid Servers will inform you that Saddam didn't control the northern part of his country, where alQaeda prince Zarqawi trained, Saddam couldn't be expected to control the poisons, toxins, bacteria starter strains, and munitions, which were spread out all over his country. So, we have Saddam's dysfunctional regime, alQaeda, and chem/bio materials, all out of control and running lose in the country of Iraq. While we are engaging in a global war on radical Islamist terror. You don't have to be a genius to understand why we had legitimate national security concerns, or considered Saddam and Iraq as a problem that had to be dealt with.

Our concern, was never over the threat that Saddam Hussein and Iraq posed directly to the United States. It was the nexus between Saddam's defiance and deception, support for terrorism, possession of materials and technology to produce massively lethal quantities of WMD's, and the presence of radical Islamist terrorists within his country. When you also factor in the strategic significance of Iraq, the strategic military significance in combating radical Islamofascists, as well as the ideological strategery of planting democracy in an Arab country with the least difficulty... (think of trying to establish a democracy in Iran or Pakistan, as opposed to a secular Iraq) The war in Iraq becomes a very logical move, and vital to the war on terror.

Now, the United States, can not go to the United Nations and say... We want to go to war in Iraq, so that we may establish a base to fight Islamofascism, and plant a counter-ideology to the radical Islamists. There is no reasonable justification for this, as far as the United Nations is concerned, and there would be no support for such an idea. Yet, this is what we need to do to protect our own interests and effectively combat the enemy we are at war with. So, the focus became, Saddam's WMD's and non-compliance with the UN resolutions, and cease-fire agreements. This is the "legal" justification that was made for war, to the UN. And the UN agreed with that justification unanimously. When it came time to act, they failed to back their word with action, largely due to the dissenting votes from France, Germany, and Russia on the UNSC. We would later learn that all three countries were economically tied to Iraq, and had received billions of dollars from the Oil For Food program. In other words, they were bribed by Saddam.

The issue has never been about WMD's. You have all parsed out sentences from Bush or Cheney, clipped out misinterpreted lines from Powell and Rumsfeld, and convinced yourselves to believe that this war was all about some bulging warehouse full of armed WMD's, ready to launch on America. It never was about the direct threat Saddam posed to the US, it was the danger in allowing Saddam to remain in power, and Iraq to remain a breeding ground for the radical terrorist movement, as well as a candy store of deadly materials.



Now, will you please stop reposting the same thing over and over, I read it the first 15,000 times you posted it, and have no need for you to post it again. If you read what I posted in response, I addressed the issue of the WMD condition, and what you are posting is not anything new.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top