And the Search ends for WMD

[RACooper]

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)

[DeltAlum]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by RACooper
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)

how bout one word:


geopolitics





now you respond to that one.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by KSig RC
how bout one word:


geopolitics





now you respond to that one.

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

Originally posted by Rudey
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

You make me laugh. Just thought you should know.

[Shortfuse]

Originally posted by Rudey
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

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?

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Shortfuse
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?

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

[Shortfuse]

Originally posted by Rudey
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

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.

[Phasad1913]

Originally posted by Rudey
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

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.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Phasad1913
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.

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

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Rudey
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.

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.

[Shortfuse]

Originally posted by KSig RC
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.

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.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Shortfuse
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.

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

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

-Rudey

[Shortfuse]

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.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Shortfuse
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