Listen Brian are you serious?. Please, at least you need to accept the fact that the United States of American HAVE NOT found any weapons of mass destructions on Iraq...they need to admit that!!!! and let me remind you that THAT was the reason they launch an attack against them in the first place. Even Powell made this 'impressive' presentation to the UN with EXACTLY locations where these weapons were....Now what?? where are they Brian? Tell me!!!. Yeah, they hide it ::) they may destroy them before the attack ::) or even better like Rumsfield said 'WE DON'T KNOW!' ::) You mix politics and religion too much.
The point in here is not whether Bush is bad or good...the point in here was they didn't have enough evidence about the weapons of mass destruction in the first place! and they look dumb now in the eyes of the people! you all need to accept that fact.! Now, personally, I don't have doubts that Saddam in fact had or have those weapons but at the same time if I was a polititian and even a President I'm not going to be so stupid to launch an attack against a country knowing that maybe the weapons wil never be found and I will look as the dumbest President ever!. That's common sense, I think Bush count on his team and his team let him down.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 1086 100%
[quote] Listen Brian are you serious?[/quote]
I think he is... ::)
Next on 'axis of evil' hit list?
The air is full of official chatter about the iniquity of the Iran
regime. By Daniel Schorr
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 2303 100%
Nope, I'm not going to admit it because it is a liberal jouranlistic cover up. Nerve agent has been found, do you deny that?
"You mix politics and religion too much. "
Correction, I mix truth with truth and say exactly as I believe no matter if my viewpoint comes out as a religious viewpoint or a political viewpoint, or whatever, my religion requires that I accept all truth, not just truth over a pulpit in my church. Rest assured that no matter the case, it is my full viewpoint being shared. And for that I will give you this, the ones that will look dumb are the ones that oppose George W. Bush. I mean this was suppose to be a bloody war, American soldiers were suppose to slaughter a bunch of innocent Iraqui children in their bloodthirsty effort to get Saddam and Bush turned out right about that one too. It was the Bath party that shoot innocent children and women, it was Saddam's regim that the Iraqui's hated, not us. The least the anti bush bunch can do is be honest and admit that they do not speak for the innocent Iraqui people, heck I won't pretend to speak for them either, don't have too.
"Even Powell made this 'impressive' presentation to the UN with EXACTLY locations where these weapons were....Now what??"
What Powell said was common knowledge to the UN inspectors, he also pointed out that they were not there when the inspectors got to those locations because those chemical weapons were being moved.
Since you brought up the Powell Speech, are you willing to admit that Saddam's people had nerve agent even while the inspectors were starting their inspections?
Here is an article found on MarkTalk.com:
Iraq: U.S. Says Tractor-Trailers Prove Hussein Had Weapons Program
By Andrew F. Tully
Did the United States finally find the so-called "smoking gun" in Iraq? The White House says two mobile laboratories found recently provide "proof positive" that Saddam Hussein had illegal weapons programs. RFE/RL reports from Washington.
Washington, 30 May 2003 (RFE/RL) -- The White House says two tractor-trailers recently found in Iraq provide irrefutable evidence that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein meant to continue producing biological weapons.
Officials say the mobile chemical laboratories were found on two separate occasions last month. They say initial examinations found them to have been capable of producing somewhat small amounts of poisons like anthrax. Hussein's government said they were meant to generate hydrogen for weather balloons.
An initial inspection found no trace of any chemicals -- dangerous or benign -- on the trucks. U.S. officials said they had recently been cleaned with a strong solvent. The vehicles were then studied by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
The CIA issued a report on 28 May declaring them to have been designed only to produce biological weapons. It called their discovery the "strongest evidence to date" that Hussein had a clandestine, mobile biological-warfare program.
Yesterday, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked about the report, and he replied unequivocally. "There is now proof positive that he [Hussein] had these biological mobile trucks for the purpose of producing biological weapons."
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld echoed the statement, saying in an interview yesterday the United States had "good intelligence" about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction and says he believes they will still be found. Earlier this week, Rumsfeld said Iraq may have destroyed its weapons before the war began.
There is growing controversy over why the U.S.-led coalition forces have not yet found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Some Western media recently have alleged that Hussein's regime did not have such weapons. Furthermore, they say Western intelligence knew this to be true but nevertheless used the weapons to justify the need for military action.
Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction was a key reason cited by the United States and Britain in urging the United Nations to support a war against Iraq. Specifically, U.S. President George W. Bush said Hussein posed an imminent threat to his neighbors in the Middle East, and to other countries.
But in the weeks since the major fighting ended in Iraq, no such weapons have been found. Some critics of the Bush administration have questioned the quality of the intelligence used by Bush and his chief ally in the war, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, to warrant an invasion.
Blair, speaking today in Poland, said accusations that intelligence agencies might have fabricated evidence of Iraqi weapons programs were "completely absurd."
"The evidence that we had of weapons of mass destruction [in Iraq] was evidence drawn up and accepted by the joint intelligence committee. That evidence of weapons of mass destruction is evidence of which I have absolutely no doubt about at all," Blair said.
Both Blair and Bush have urged patience, noting that Iraq is a huge and largely rugged country where weapons could elude discovery for months. So it is not surprising that the CIA quickly issued its evaluation of the mobile laboratories.
But not all observers agree with the CIA that the tractor-trailer trucks can be used only to produce biological weapons. One is John Wolfstahl, the deputy director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a private policy-research center in Washington.
Wolfstahl told RFE/RL that the CIA report undercuts its own conclusions by saying the equipment in the trailers could be used for generating hydrogen, as Hussein's government had contended.
The report goes on to say that the equipment was designed with more exacting specifications than are necessary for such non-military work. But Wolfstahl says manufacturers routinely design such equipment to be "over-engineered," as he put it, in order to impress their customers.
"I have no question that these labs were most likely intended for BW [biological weapons] production, but I think the CIA's assessment isn't solid enough to win over critics of the [Bush] administration or people who believe that the U.S. is biased and not able to give an objective assessment," Wolfstahl says.
Responding to Rumsfeld's earlier allegation that Iraq had destroyed its weapons ahead of the U.S.-led war, Wolfstahl says this scenario is unlikely for two reasons. The first reason, he says, is strategic: Hussein would not deny himself what might be his most effective weapons as he was facing an imminent war that could lead to his downfall or even death.
The second reason, Wolfstahl says, is more practical: "It is not feasible for Saddam Hussein's regime to have destroyed these weapons on the eve of the war without us [U.S. and British intelligence services] either detecting it during the process or uncovering the evidence now. This is not like dumping one 55-gallon (115-liter) drum in the desert. These are hundreds of tons, thousands of liters, of material that, if they were dumped or destroyed, there would be evidence of. And we have yet to come up with that evidence."
Still, Wolfstahl says finding a significant illegal weapons cache in Iraq has become important to the credibility of Bush and Blair -- and of their intelligence services -- because of the importance the two leaders placed on what they characterized as Hussein's threat.
For his part, Wolfstahl says he does not question the quality of the intelligence, saying that it is more an art than a science. But he adds that to justify the war, Bush and Blair may have chosen to publicly declare the size of Hussein's arsenal as being at the higher end of the range of intelligence assessments.
"I think it's very possible that these weapons didn't exist in the amounts that the administration believed that they did exist in, and that there are a lot of questions that have to be asked not just about the intelligence-collection process, but also [about] the way that the intelligence was presented, massaged, and used," Wolfstahl says.
To Anthony Cordesman, however, there is no reason for Bush and Blair to point to the recently discovered mobile laboratories to vindicate their decision to invade Iraq and depose Hussein. Cordesman is a former high-ranking intelligence officer at the U.S. defense and state departments and has written extensively on military and intelligence issues.
In an interview with RFE/RL, Cordesman says Hussein's program to develop weapons of mass destruction was confirmed in the 1990s by the weapons inspectors of the UN Special Commission for Iraq (UNSCOM). Even the more recent inspections conducted by the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), found Iraq may have been trying to conceal weapons production, although chief inspector Hans Blix stopped short of confirming that work on weapons programs was ongoing.
"The UNSCOM effort made it quite clear that Iraq continued to violate the terms of the cease-fire by importing the equipment to produce weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq was not accounting for its research-and-development effort, it was not accounting for the destruction of its weapons, and it was not accounting for supplies. You've got basically the same conclusion by UNMOVIC," Cordesman says.
To Cordesman, the only debatable issue at the moment is whether Bush and Blair overestimated the amount of weapons Hussein may have possessed, and if so, by how much.
"What we are really talking about is not whether Iraq was a proliferator, because the UN had basically answered that question before the war began. It is really whether the United States and Britain took what was a UN estimate that Iraq had capabilities that couldn't be accounted for and translated that into a false estimate that Iraq was actively developing and producing weapons for immediate deployment," Cordesman says.
According to Cordesman, the existence of Hussein's arsenal of chemical and biological weapons was never in doubt. Therefore, deposing Hussein and routing his government was justified under the terms of the cease-fire that ended hostilities in the 1991 Gulf War.
Cordesman says the recent discovery of mass graves in Iraq is further evidence of the illegitimacy of Hussein's rule, and provides extra validation of the war.
Half my brain tied behind my back to make it fair now:
I have a question for all you Bush bashers and that is this, do you deny that Saddam ever had chemical and biological weapons?
We all agree to that
So where are they? It would seem logical that if Saddam did what he said he did, and he just dumped them or got rid of them somehow, we would have found evidence of it by now?
So I'm taking your arguement and applying it in a fair manner. You have been demading that George W. Bush present his evidence, now I'm demanding that you provide yours. If no wmd can be found according to your thinking, that must mean only one logical conclusion, he hid them. It cannot mean that he dumped them out in the dessert because he would have said were, he has not. Traces of the dumped chemical weapons program would be found in a heartbeat, ONLY weapons still hidden are weapons that cannot be found. The burden is on your shoulders now. Now you have to find traces of chemical and biological weapons, it is that simple, you throw garbage in a garbage can, it goes to a dump, it does NOT disappear, but leaves traces of itself as it decomposses, such traces can be left for years to come. Where is the chemical weapon dump? Do you see the logic of my arguement?
Brian, I gave up with you and the Religion and Politics thing ::) I already said what I think about it.
[quote]And for that I will give you this, the ones that will look dumb are the ones that oppose George W. Bush. I mean this was suppose to be a bloody war, American soldiers were suppose to slaughter a bunch of innocent Iraqui children in their bloodthirsty effort to get Saddam and Bush turned out right about that one too. It was the Bath party that shoot innocent children and women, it was Saddam's regim that the Iraqui's hated, not us. The least the anti bush bunch can do is be honest and admit that they do not speak for the innocent Iraqui people, heck I won't pretend to speak for them either, don't have too. [/quote]
Yeah, nobody was killed in this war right? only American soldiers ::) I don't really care who killed who, the point is that a lot of people have died. The point in the first place is that this would not happen if a war was not going on there! helloo??? ::)
[quote]You have been demading that George W. Bush present his evidence, now I'm demanding that you provide yours[/quote]
LOL you made me laugh with this one. First because YOU are demanding ME to provide such a thing LOL, ask that to your President!. That's HIS job!!!.
I do know Brian that find such a weapons is NOT an easy job, I do know that...my point is (and you still not getting it) is that when Bush launch this attack against Iraq didnt have enough evidence of such weapons because I don't think he will want to look like a fool knowing he will go to war against Iraq, not able to find the weapons he said were there and also having now to deal with unhappy iraqis that want to make the country a Muslim nation! ::)
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 1086 100%
I would suggest Iran get nukes quickly, before the US /Israeli pulls preempitive attack on their country. The israel/US media has been pushing hard for it.
Haven't you figured out.. France was right, because they saw the people of Iraq are having to bear, what the US is putting them through. 1,500 innocent Iraqis and more every day, 3,000,000 people out of work. Four mile long check points. No water ,no electric no propane. Executing innocent people at checkpoints, no security, government vacuum, not even frigging gas for the cars. They don't even have fuel for tractors to farm if they had electric for water pumps for irrigating. Take your head out of the sand or whatever dark place you have it. I think if the Iraqis new they were going to be occuipied like Palestine they would have been more aggressive. Maybe Saddam wasn't so bad compared to the "liberation"
I have a question for all you Bush bashers and that is this, do you deny that Saddam ever had chemical and biological weapons? Â [/quote]
That is never a question. The question is whether he still had them after the UN Inspectors left back in what, 1998?
[quote]So where are they? Â It would seem logical that if Saddam did what he said he did, and he just dumped them or got rid of them somehow, we would have found evidence of it by now? [/quote]
Remember after the Gulf War, the UN inspectors destroyed a whole bunch of them, if not all of them. And they were doing good until the US messed up by using the Chief Inspector to spy for them.
Question also is, why did Saddam allowed the recent UN Inspectors destroy the bulk of his missiles (operational ones, mind you) when Iraq was so imminently close to being attacked by the US/British forces? If he really has such dangerous weapons hidden, why did he not deploy them around Baghdad? There was not even a single one aorund, and the so-called Elite Guards did not even have anything operational other than pickups and guns to fight.
And now that Saddam is gone or no longer a threat, who will they decide as dangerous lunatic in Iran?
International Level: Senior Politician / Political Participation: 154 15.4%