And the Search ends for WMD
 

Well it looks like the search is over, and surprise, surprise we have no WMD.

Officials: US Ends WMD Search
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...53.htm&sc=1107

Comments?
Thoughts?
Speculation?
Partisan ranting? (by both sides)

I never believed that the "evidence" given by The President and Administration came anywhere close to supporting a case for WMD's. But when I saw this earlier today I decided not to post it because I didn't need the brain damage and there's nothing to be done about it now anyway.

My opinion was and is that The President was determined, for whatever reason, to invade Iraq and was looking for reasons -- with WMD being his strongest card.

One way or another, he was bound to go to war.

Re: And the Search ends for WMD
 

how bout one word:


geopolitics





now you respond to that one.

Re: Re: And the Search ends for WMD
 

How about the history of evading inspections and a desire to restart a WMD program Rob? Don't you ever think about these things Rob? We should wait until they have nukes like North Korea Rob!

-Rudey

Re: Re: Re: And the Search ends for WMD
 

You make me laugh. Just thought you should know. :D

Re: Re: Re: And the Search ends for WMD
 

It was said before we even went in that they didn't have them. There was NEVER a case that they have them. Just speculation because it was a country that wouldn't kiss our arse anymore.

The War Hawks came up with every angle that we could possibly find to go to war. Both of the main ones (ties b/w Bin Laden and Saddam and WMDs) have been proven wrong.

Alot of people died behind these "unproven" allegations. Don't you think it's time for somebody to come clean?

Re: Re: Re: Re: And the Search ends for WMD
 

1) So honestly should we wait until a country has bombs to attack? How in the world can we ever touch the North Koreans?

2) The region, not just Iraq, is a hot bed for terrorism, correct? Shouldn't a transformation in the region follow from changes in Iraq because of it's literal location within the middle east? My only issue with regional transformation is that instead of really devoting themselves to it, America is stretched thin in Iraq and Iran has now become the regional super power and is financing so much of terrorism from Syria to Iraq to Lebanon to Israel.

3) There was evidence that the food for oil program and other restrictions were being skirted and Europeans and Saddam pocketed quite a bit (to be fair, so did some filthy Americans). Combined with an interest to restart his program...and then what? When do we interfere?

4) Someone should come clean? Who? So many people across the political spectrum wanted to go in. There was intelligence that they relied on that they felt it was the right thing to do.

5) Come clean only concentrates on the negative and not the positive. What if real change does come about? I know we're dying in there. It upsets me. But the what if is all about faith and I will wait and see what happens after the election to see whether my faith really shouldn't be there.

-Rudey

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the Search ends for WMD
 

1. No we shouldn't, I understood after 9/11 that this was going to be tough. I also thought that Bin Laden was the big fish at the moment. After he was taken care we could venture into Iraq. Trying to do both (where both enemies could blend into the background) was suicide.

2. I agree with that but 1) I don't think war was necessary to achieve that goal and 2) yes you do stretch yourself thin, especially if you go in unprepared.

3. Food for Oil, should've been better monitoring of that program period. no excuse for what went down with that. That was UN affair and we went in w/o UN approval. We interfere when we have a strong case. Any local drug dealer can get off with the case that we had against Saddam. It was weak from the get go.

4. That intelligence also wasn't 100 percent accuate. I think the intelligence might have been half-arse at best but somebody in the White House should have enough knowledge to see it as that and to say "Look this isn't enough" Suspicion isn't enought to start a war.

5. What are the positives? A mistake can't be fixed until it's recognized. Sometimes you got to acknowledge the negatives before you can build upon the positives. If not you're living in a false sense of reality. I agree, I pray real change will come about and I BELIEVE real change will come about because those poor Iraqis deserve that much. I just question the methods.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the Search ends for WMD
 

Sorry Rudey, but you are not the president and you are not in his administration or on his staff so why are you trying to make excuses for THEM and create a reason for the war?

The point is, Bush and those around him lied to us. What is going to be done about it? If nothing, then I think that is really sad.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the Search ends for WMD
 

Sorry Phasad1913, but you are not the president and you are not in his administration or on his staff so why are you trying to blame THEM and their reasons for the war?

Again, if you can find how he knew something different and lied please show us. And again, people across the spectrum supported the war.

And I do consider myself an active citizen and elect a leader and also do convey my desires to them often. I doubt Bush ever reads any of my messages but hopefully some low-level secretary might lump mine in with others and convey a summary of them.

-Rudey

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the Search ends for WMD
 

Why limit ourselves to terrorism? How about things like oppression, poverty, and general civil unrest? How about 'westernized' medicine and education?

If you honestly can't see the positives possible from this situation, you're only looking at the end of your nose. Now, I understand this shortsightedness if you have family or friends fighting the battle - your priorities and concerns lie with them. However, this was an opportunity to make real change in a region that has been backsliding for a decade.

The fact that this backsliding may have led to WMD is largely important, especially when combined with the destablization in the region, although the specific lack of findings I find to be relatively irrelevant.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the Search ends for WMD
 

But we have countries in our own back yard that suffer from oppression and lack of westernized medicine and education? Do we load up the tanks and bomb them? Help me understand.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the Search ends for WMD
 

Can you give examples? Perhaps the countries need different approaches.

And would you be ok if we did go help other countries?

-Rudey

off the top of my head, I can say Hati. It's really bad down there with the coup and all. People having to walk by dead bodies and all. I could go on and on but my point is made.

I think we're better off helping those near us and spreading out.

We did help. We also sent the guy in charge out of there on a plane. From there the UN stepped in right? And I would think France, Haiti's lovely colonial supervisor, is the most responsible for the country and probably stepped in.

-Rudey

I can BLAME them because what they said was not true. I couldn't think of a better cause for blame.

That doesn't mean a hill of beans to me. Masses of people thinking a certain way have been WRONG before.

So they were wrong. They didn't lie. But again, I supported the president and he represented my views. Kerry and Clinton did as well. We're all good citizens.

You need a big ass hug is what you need now!

-Rudey

You are right, I really do need a hug... but that is a WHOLE other issue.

You can try to say that they were wrong, but we all know that they covered their ears when people tried to lay out the truth behind the WMD theory. They wanted to go to war that badly.

Anyway, what's done is done. Too late to do anything about it now.

pssst- the WMD are in my pants.

The IEAE inspectors took a trip there and said the area was a barren wasteland.

-Rudey

While everyone is bickering over the end of this search there still is one lingering question left unanswered in my mind. In the Iraqi-Iranian war, there were many biological and chemical weapons used on both sides. So much that there were stockpiles even after the conflict ended abruptly. If weapons inspectors couldn't find any WMD's, then where in the world are those unused weapons?!?

My opinion, already in the possession of Syria, Iran, and probably Saudi Arabia. And no, I don't accept that they were all used up or never existed as an explanation...

That's possible. It's also possible that the wepons and their attendent equipment were destroyed after the first Mid-East war as Iraq has claimed all along.

They don't have a whole lot of credibility, but it's not out of the question.

We haven't been able to prove otherwise.

Re: Re: And the Search ends for WMD
 

I'll respond. That's exactly why we went in.

Lets take a look at the map:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middl...t_pol_2003.jpg

If you know anything about the region, its extremely clear.

Russ,

I'm curious as to why you deleted your post alleging that there was "never" any attempt by the Administration to tie Bin Laden, etc. to the arguments to go to war?

The fact is that, even if they weren't cited as official reasons, the inferences were certainly strong.

We haven't found evidence of their destruction.

-Rudey

Because I didn't want to jump into the thread with 8,000 different angles. I decided that I wanted to post about why we went in, not about why we didn't.

The Administration gave multiple arguments about why we went in, and bin Laden was not one of those reasons.

The media chose to ignore the other reasons. For example, Eli Weisel, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, and authority on genocide, met with President Bush in the first week of March, 2003. He urged President Bush to proceed with the regime change, but not because of WMD. Mr. Weisel urged President Bush to remove Saddam Hussein because the regime was persistently genocidal. The Bush administration held a press conference to discuss this meeting. It was one day news.

Sorry, but I don't recall many speeches by President Bush, Vice President Cheney or Secretaries Powell or Rice that didn't strongly infer connections between Bin Laden, 9/11, WMD and other reasons given for going to war.

I said that before the conflict started, and I haven't seen anything to change my mind to date.

Edited for typo

Iraqi ties to Al Queda (a org that Bin Laden "leads") doesn't ring a bell to you. If you're looking it was right around the first time whether WMDs were actually there or not. You might want to check up on that.


About WMDs, of course they were there during the Iran-Iraq war, because they were supplied by the US and Great Britain. Could they all been used up? Doubt it. Moved possible but I'm willing to bet these were moved a LOOOONGG time ago. Another possiblilty could be that the bombings by Clinton and the Persian Gulf war successfully destroyed MOST OF THE WEAPONS .

ROFLMAO!!!

Nor could the Iraqis provide the evidence. I have a feeling that right now, Saddam sure would have liked to have the evidence of the destruction of those weapons. He hasn't been able to murder an innocent in more than a year!

Re: Re: Re: And the Search ends for WMD
 

I'm going to quote this post to allow a second opportunity for coop to take a look and respond . . .

Well-put Russ.

Fine I'll take the bait... but bear with me I'm living out the song Comfortably Numb now on Codine...


If it was about Geopolitics why didn't they say that? Instead the administration tried to sell it on 9/11, WMD, genocide, freedom, democracy, etc..... but mostly WMD. Now when other countries (well most of them) voiced their concern that the arguement for WMD was exactly solid, they were critized or reviled.... I'm sorry no matter how you try and spin it the administration used WMD as their lead horse or main arguement, and now the press should be asking the questions they should have been years ago (without attacks on their patriotism or "American-ness).

And this is a fair point, but let's address it in two different ways:

1 - You don't feel there was the potential for some dangerous weapons systems if the Iraqi Ba'athist government was left unrestrained? I mean, between the lack of cooperation w/ the UN, and historical seeking out (and receiving) nuclear systems . . . I think that the danger was present, even if the preexisting weapons were removed or (most likely) relocated.

2 - Even if we 'sold' it as WMD-based, the geopolitical concerns alone make this a fairly justifiable course of action, no? So while the press derides the Bush administration, why not devote some time to the positives of regime change to the geopolitical texture of the region? If it would have been easy to explain this to the masses as justification by the Bush admin, surely the press will have no trouble breaking the story either . . . right?

It's pretty clear that's not going to happen . . .

-RC
--"The people is stupid." --alexander hamilton

You are all hippies and therefore you should be allowed to attend Mardi Gras.

Well I'd argue that technically the Iraqi Ba'athists were restrained, and that the UN sanctions and inspections while resisted were working - along with the bombing campaign. The arguement of the Canadian government (which I agree with) was that a pre-emptive war on Iraq based on the "possibility" of WMD would create more of a geopolitical mess and fuel terrorism in the region.

Well actually the geopolitical and legal implications of a pre-emptive war easily outweighed what percieved benifit there would be. See the legal arguement against pre-emptive war has been on the books since Nuremburg (ironically put there by the US) - the message that was sent was that the if a nation feels threatened, it can launch a pre-emptive war to "protect" itself... which is why it was declared illegal by the UN (even by the, well now former UN ambassador from the US - he didn't last to long after that vote).

It could be argued that initating a scenario that has led to the deaths of tens of thousands, probably over a hundred thousand people makes the finding of WMDs an important point.

Imagine a medium size town in the united states stacked with bodies like cord wood for a good visual.

Revisionist history aside, the primary reason given to the American people was the possibility of imminent mass death bv chemical or biological munitions given by Iraw to terrorists.

Now personally, I'm all about the USA kicking ass and taking names. As long as we win, almost anything is forgiveable.

You want to depopulate Denmark next week because they have a violent muslim population? Well as long as I don't have to fight, my quality of life isn't directly affected, and we win decisively . .. have at it hoss.

Damn . . offer me some direct profit and I'll start the war myself.

However, those of us that are arguing for the war based upon the premises promoted by the Admnistration are on shaky ground.

Not because those arguments don't have validity. Its that those arguments don't have enough impeteus to be an obvious goad to war.

And the clincher, the reason that gave teeth to the proposal, the infamous WMD's proved not to exist.

I find the argument that the intention or ghost-like possibility of WMDs justified our killing of tens of thousands of people to be both disturbing and . . well . . stupid.

Imagine having a pedophile in your neighborhood that lives there with an locator anklet. Your child goes missing. You assume he abducted her. So you go in all commando style and burn his house down wiping him and his familty out, only to find that your kid just forgot to tell you she was staying at her friends.

Some situations go beyond "my bad." Or, he was a piece of shit anyway, so even though I was wrong, the neighborhood is a better place now that i killed him and his family and torched his house.

So i think we need to stick with a simple argument: We did it because we could do it, and we wanted to do it, and no one could stop us. If you don't like it . . well Fuck You. IF you stick with this, no one can refute you.


"America, Fuck Yeah"

Two points I would like to make:

1. Doesn't anyone think that perhaps evidence of WMD could have been moved to, say, Syria before the United States got there?

and more importantly...

2. Enough about the WMDs, ok???? The real question is has James' penis been located yet? :D ;)

It's either hidden with the WMDs -- or he never had one.