"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
Posted by bdgee on :
One needs to point out that the statement made by Democrats you cite were all made based on "intelligence reports" provided by the Bush, members of his Administration, and or the White House Staff.
Moreover, the Congressional autority that Bush claims was a complete free hand to invade another country at will, was NOT so declared by Congress. The Congress voted to allow Bush the authority to use what means were necessary to stop whatever weapons of mass destruction programs and programs of terrorism relating to Al Queda that were at the disposal of Hussain or would come under his control to use against the US and to do so "only after" it was absolutely certain such programs existed and "every other means of stoping them was exausted"!
Bush ignored the limiting clauses.
So get off this crap that Democrats oked Bush's invasion of an independent Nation that had committed no act of war against the US. Posted by RiescoDiQui on :
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 |
You were saying.... If memory serves GW wasn't president in 98 or 99... Try again?
Posted by bdgee on :
You again abuse logic and mistate facts.
"If memory serves GW wasn't president in 98 or 99... Try again?"
TRUE!
And it is a fact that Congress was not aaked for permission to engage in war in either of those years, based on any sort of "intellegence" or for any reason! But later, it was asked for such permission by Bush, based on fictions created buy him and his Administration (and apparantly with the help of several congressmen) and granted it "with strict provisions" which Bush ignored.
Posted by RiescoDiQui on :
If memory serves... we did bomb Iraq in 98... so I am sure congress was asked for permission to act in those years... Clinton also said he wasn't sure if we got everything or not. Understandable from the man who blew up an aspirin factory in response to a terrorist attack.
Posted by 4Art on :
If we're comparing administration failures here, let me know. The Bush Administration has a loooooooong list.
Posted by RiescoDiQui on :
4art... focus on the topic... trying to change it only proves you can't compete on the current one....
Posted by 4Art on :
By discussing Clinton's failures, you're actually the one that went off topic, RiescoDiQui.
I don't support "liberals" who are for the war.
I do support the growing number of conservatives who are finally speaking out against this unjust war.
Posted by RiescoDiQui on :
I said nothing of failure... I posted an article with quotes from popular democrats expressing fear of Iraq's WMD projects and asperations. As I said before... focus that nuclei upon the topic at hand.... trying to spin away from it only shows how beaten you are.
Posted by RiescoDiQui on :
Before Bush was even in office democrats were declaring that saddam had WMD's and had dreams of even more.... FACT
Posted by 4Art on :
Like the Republicans, some Democrats were wrong and some were not.
And your point?
Posted by RiescoDiQui on :
Point is that the same ones yelling about inquiries now were the same ones then declaring that saddam was a "threat" to this country. Point is that the modern communist democratic party is the epidomy of hypocrosy in this country.
Posted by 4Art on :
1. Bring the inquiries on! Maybe we'll actually find the truth.
2. I wouldn't classify any war-mongering Democrats as communists.
3. Many based their pro-war opinions on Bush's pre-war intelligence, many didn't. And your point?
4. What's an "epidomy"?
Posted by RiescoDiQui on :
Inquiries I don't mind... aslong as they are done without bias or prejudgement... that is a tough one as the ones calling for inquiries are quite biased. Epidomy is the greek latin romanic hebrew chineese word for epitomy.... very complex... leave that one alone.
Posted by bdgee on :
Then you disapprove of the Phase one Senate report.
Excellent!
Now write your Republican Senator and demand a rework and insist this time it will not be a Republican cover-up of the lies the Administration used to justify invading Iraq.
Posted by 4Art on :
"Epitomy" isn't a word either. LOL
quote:Originally posted by RiescoDiQui: Epidomy is the greek latin romanic hebrew chineese word for epitomy.... very complex... leave that one alone.
Posted by bdgee on :
Complex....nah, not if you know how to use a dictionary. Here's the official entries for a couple of entries:
epidomy: The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary.
epitome: Main Entry: epit·o·me Pronunciation: i-'pi-t&-mE Function: noun Etymology: Latin, from Greek epitomE, from epitemnein to cut short, from epi- + temnein to cut -- more at TOME 1 a : a summary of a written work b : a brief presentation or statement of something 2 : a typical or ideal example : EMBODIMENT 3 : brief or miniature form -- usually used with in
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
You guys fail to recognize the truth. The truth is that intelligence on Iraq was a constant. The investigations went on continuously from the first Gulf War to the second and were built upon the intelligence of the past.
Bush and his administration did not create these "fictions" of Iraq. They existed since before he took office and were reinforced by intelligence that took place after he took office by individuals in the intelligence field placed there long before he took office. They were also known and accepted by both Republicans and Democrats before Bush took office.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: You guys fail to recognize the truth.
you are hopeless strider... you'll be saying they were innocent when they get found guilty....
the "intel" you hear on the news is proven crap, and if you bother to do any real research you'll see that people like Judith Miller and others were in it up to their eyeballs too....
i've been presenting the links here for a year, and the truth is? Iran fed this stuff to few operatives and the intel was chosen from a larger set of intel because these guys wanted an excuse to go take iraq, an iran wanted them to do it too... the neo-cons were duped by the ayatolah.... and that is the truth...
Chalabi admitted as much publicly before last years election...follow Chalabi, that IS the key to understanding the truth here...
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
I'm not relying on intel from the news. I'm relying on a continuous stream of intel which began immediately after the end of the first Gulf War. This includes UN weapons inspection teams which entered Iraq, inspected many WMD's, inventoried them, marked them for destruction with little tags and reported the findings to the UN. It also includes many public statements by the leaders of the worlds verifying their nations intel on Iraq's WMD programs.
The truth is WMD's did exist, they were documented. Said WMD's were never destroyed in accordance with the cease fire agreement and the UN nations resolutions. There are two instances of WMD's being used against coalition forces since the occupation began.
The truth is the abscence of evidence does not mean the evidence does not exist. It isn't difficult to hide a small stockpile of munitions or a few barrels here and there in a desert nations. They hid a good portion of their airforce in the sand at an airfield and it wasn't found for months after coalition forces occupied that airfield.
The WMD's did exist. The concern should be where are they now.
Posted by glassman on :
LOL, so suddenly the UN didn't matter anymore and we needed to invade Iraq on our own.... more faulty logic on your part....
guess what? the UN reports were altered too...and that is also in the public domain...
keep digging...you'll eventually see how badly you been duped... there was a time when i thought we should invade Iraq too....
the worst part? is that there were a whole lot of greedy individuals that worked together knowing or unknowingly to bring us to this point....
the saddest part of all? the only people standing behind Bush anymore are the religious evangels... faith based politcs is a fools game.... Bush isn't going to be THE ONE.... so move on....
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
No faulty logic. The UN said the WND's existed and were there. The UN said Iraq was in violation of its resolutions which had consequences. The UN balked at doing what needed to be done. When a parent threatens a child yet never actually punishes them or even worse starts rewarding them in hopes this will get the child to behave, the child does not learn that the original act was wrong, but that they can get away with it and even get rewarded for it in some instances.
Appeasement never works.
Posted by glassman on :
yes it is faulty logic
Posted 3/17/2003 5:40 AM Updated 3/17/2003 1:16 PM
.....So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word. The inspectors find themselves caught between the Iraqis, who are masters at the weapons-hiding shell game, and the United States, whose intelligence they've found to be circumstantial, outdated or just plain wrong. .... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml
it's all out there....
and it always was...
Posted by glassman on :
what do you think about this revelation? Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed Bombshell revelation from a defector cited by White House and press
2/27/03
On February 24, Newsweek broke what may be the biggest story of the Iraq crisis. In a revelation that "raises questions about whether the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist," the magazine's issue dated March 3 reported that the Iraqi weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995 told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims.
Until now, Gen. Hussein Kamel, who was killed shortly after returning to Iraq in 1996, was best known for his role in exposing Iraq's deceptions about how far its pre-Gulf War biological weapons programs had advanced. But Newsweek's John Barry-- who has covered Iraqi weapons inspections for more than a decade-- obtained the transcript of Kamel's 1995 debriefing by officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.N. inspections team known as UNSCOM.
Inspectors were told "that after the Gulf War, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them," Barry wrote. All that remained ere "hidden blueprints, computer disks, microfiches" and production molds. The weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday resuming production after inspections had finished. The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Barry reported, and "a military aide who defected with Kamel... backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks."
But these statements were "hushed up by the U.N. inspectors" in order to "bluff Saddam into disclosing still more."
this is a BS publication.... but there are small hints all over the palce that this is what really happened and the Oil For Food scandal is probably only one of the reasons the intel was destroyed.... a lot of people were making a lot of money off that, so they didn't WANT it to stop......
the truth is stubborn...
people believe what they want to believe... usually for different reasons.....
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
Yes, we warned them to get out since we did not want them to come to harm. The later inspections were too little, too late. Hussein had already hidden anything he had to hide
It also makes no difference whether Iraq destroyed the weapons or not, they did not do so in the presence of the UN which was a requirement. There was no proof and still is no proof that the weapons were destroyed. While we have been unable to find large stockpiles of WMD's we also have not been able to confirm any site of destruction.
Yet we have had two seperate attacks against coalition forces with WMD's since the occupation began. So it is apparent that WMD's did exist and were not destroyed as claimed.
Posted by bdgee on :
You are dreaming! The UN weapons inspector said repeatedly they could find NO TRACE of illegal weapons or any WMD programs. The balking was done by the US when they constantly tried to undermine the efforts of the UN inspectors.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
bdgee,
The UN documented the WMD's in 1991, inventoried them, put little tags on them. They even took photos of them. Neither the weapons or the tags have turned up.
Posted by glassman on :
Yet we have had two seperate attacks against coalition forces with WMD's since the occupation began. So it is apparent that WMD's did exist and were not destroyed as claimed.
you are clinging to a turd to try to keep from being flushed..... those "two incidents" were insignificant...
CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq Recommends freeing detainees held for weapons knowledge U.S. SOLDIER LOOKS FOR LOOTERS AT AN AMMUNITION BUNKER IN TIKRIT
Updated: 9:24 p.m. ET April 25, 2005
WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.
“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.
to add insult to injury? abu-graib was ABOUT interrogating prisoners on the WMD issue...and that just made everything worse.....
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
Insignificant? According you you, the WMD's didn't exist, they were all destroyed. Obviously they did exist and not all were destroyed and the proof is in the two attacks.
Posted by glassman on :
strider? maybe you could give US a link to something about those "two separate attacks" that shows they were something more than trumped up media reporting... i've never seen any scientific analysis that documented they were what they were purported to be...
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: Glassman,
Insignificant? According you you, the WMD's didn't exist, they were all destroyed. Obviously they did exist and not all were destroyed and the proof is in the two attacks.
you are once again cognitively deficient.... it's not according to me: it's according to EVERY single branch of the US government involved....
Posted by glassman on :
what no links? thought so... you see, the reports were all "preliminary" field tests.... sometimes they give false positives...
the biggest "cache" of anything close to WMD found in Iraq was stuff found recently set up by insurgents
Posted by MasterQuinn on :
quote:Glassman, Insignificant? According you you, the WMD's didn't exist, they were all destroyed. Obviously they did exist and not all were destroyed and the proof is in the two attacks.
First, what you said lacks sense and credibility and I after looking through this post I still don't see where these 2 attacks were cited using WMD (nuclear or chemical or what?).
This is what I will say about the whole WMD thing.
Saddam is supposidly a lunatic yet, he supposidly had weapons he could use to blow up most of his country or gas half the place, Or at least have a finger on the trigger. The US invades him and he doesn't use them?
Why not, he supposidly is a brutal monster who killed his own people, why wouldn't he use these on the US?
To say that he hid them or moved them doesn't make sense for a crazy man.
Why would he do that? Why wouldn't he use them and kill hundreds of thousands of US troops or isreal or iran?
He was so scared to get caught? Most people who are so "ruthless" don't ft the profile of wanting to hide things because they are scared. (this is the same guy that tried to invade saudi arabi and iran, he wasn't hiding anything!)
Posted by glassman on :
logic is the first thing to go when faith takes over...
there was ONE SINGLE sarin shell reported to have been used in an IED... but it was never scientifically verified that i could find... the sarin shell was detonated, and no-one was poisoned by it..it was a feild test that claimed it was sarin and it was widely reported by the media... but never verified... i can find no other "WMD attacks" nor did i ever hear of any...
Posted by glassman on :
the most logical way to deduce that there were no WMD's is to look at the actual behaviour of the forces involved... Quinn points out sadam woulda used 'em if he had 'em; i agree.
ALSO?
our own troops were not deployed in such a way as to protect the KNOWN weapons caches, and many of sadams conventional stuff was/is being used by the insurgency now because our forces were not deployed in such away as to effectively protect them from being looted.... just logical deduction, but sometimes common sense actually works...
Posted by 4Art on :
That's a great point, Glass.
Posted by glassman on :
i see there is also another shortage of reliable data to back up some of the claims made in this thread
Posted by RiescoDiQui on :
Speaking of that same logic, glass, why was it that the Iraqi troops were equipped with chemical warfare gear? It is widely known we don't use gas on our foes.... anymore .
Posted by 4Art on :
I dunno, RiescoDiQui,
Maybe to protect themselves from our use of white phosphorus and/or MK 77?
That's gotta create toxic fumes on some level.
Posted by RiescoDiQui on :
Gas... not MK77 Every weapon we have uses the reaction of chemicals at some level. Man can you stop this idiotic spin for just a moment and just be a real person... I don't mind discussing politics with commies or even idiots but you are trying too hard to "win"
Posted by RiescoDiQui on :
even the stupid flick you posted earlier stated that chem gear was pointless when covered in lit white phospherous.
Posted by 4Art on :
Chemical protection is not a bad idea in any war situation.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
Your "most logical way to deduce that there were no WMD's is to look at the actual behaviour of the forces involved... " isn't logical at all. He had them in 1990. That is known and documented. He didn't use them then even though at that time they were fully ready for deployment. In the second instance, he did not have access to them as he had them hidden away where the inspectors could not find them.
I posted the links on other threads. You discounted them then so I'm not going to bother looking them up again. There were two seperate incidents, one by US troops, one by Polish troops. One involved a Mustard Sarin mix, the other Sarin. Both were positive field tests with no confirming lab test results released on either. As the chemicals degrade very quickly in a desert environment, by the time they were returned to the lab for verification, they would probably get no reading.
But we covered that already on the other threads as well.
Logically, you could ask why if they used two already why have they not used more. The answer to that question also has a logical conclusion. As the chemicals are very dangerous and not typically stored in warheads as used in the roadside attacks, the idiots trying to arm them probably killed themselves in the process.
Posted by 4Art on :
Years of listening to AM Talk can no doubt make it tough to argue facts....
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i see there is also another shortage of reliable data to back up some of the claims made in this thread
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Chemical protection is very bad in any wartime environment except a chemical one. It is heavy, it is cumbersome. It restricts movement and vision to a very high degree. It restricts communication and leads to very high heat illness casualties. It is not carried unless there is a known requirement for it.
Posted by RiescoDiQui on :
the major difference is that I'm coherent where as you are quite obviously grasping at straws... trying to make conclusions where none should be made... you are losing and you are getting desperate... trying to say that MK77 is a chemical weapon in the same category as say ricin is just wrong. The implication was made... It was an atempt at flashy advertising... The problem is that it was misleading, which results in you looking amateurish at best. Just argue the points with honesty and no spite... Relax... breathe
Posted by 4Art on :
I would hope that it is always available to our troops.
I didn't say they were wearing it.
Posted by glassman on :
uhhh??? i dunno brain, maybe because everybodyhas bio hazzard defense???? they did have a few enemies in the region....
as far as our stuff? i'll believe it when i see more evidence. i hope we didn't, but if we did? the only accountable party(ies) are the SecDef and up IMO....
there may be good reasons...
i've been saying all along that the "insurgency" could not be doing nearly as well as it has been without a LOT and mean a A LOT of civvie support...where do you draw the lines? i dunno, i'm not on the ground... i do know that you don't go into war to lose men/women for no reason, and we can't leave till we finish getting a new govt setup...
and maybe we'll need some US trials to find out what is/was Just and what isn't... IMO? right now isn't the time to be raising hel about it....
Posted by 4Art on :
This from the guy who calls me a name in every other post and calls himself an "agitator." [sic] LOL
quote:Originally posted by RiescoDiQui: Just argue the points with honesty and no spite... Relax... breathe
Posted by HILANDER on :
Not the new stuff. Way way better than the old system. Easy and quick to clear, and realy light weight. Kind of like a wind breaker, just a little heavier. PLus the top has an integrated hood on it.
Posted by 4Art on :
Thanks, Glass.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: uhhh??? i dunno brain, maybe because everybodyhas bio hazzard defense???? they did have a few enemies in the region....
as far as our stuff? i'll believe it when i see more evidence. i hope we didn't, but if we did? the only accountable party(ies) are the SecDef and up IMO....
there may be good reasons...
i've been saying all along that the "insurgency" could not be doing nearly as well as it has been without a LOT and mean a A LOT of civvie support...where do you draw the lines? i dunno, i'm not on the ground... i do know that you don't go into war to lose men/women for no reason, and we can't leave till we finish getting a new govt setup...
and maybe we'll need some US trials to find out what is/was Just and what isn't... IMO? right now isn't the time to be raising hel about it....
Posted by glassman on :
strider you have no proof...at least you admit that...
i have shown you dozens of YOUR own govts statements that sadam was disarmed and you discount them and say i am ignoring data...LOL.... i know sadam HAD them during iran-iraq... BUT i also know there werent as many iraqis "murdered" by him as you claimed.... you grasp onto the worst possible propaganda and cling to it..
you need to be more critical of all data...
i don't take 4art's stuff at face value either....
Posted by RiescoDiQui on :
We went into Iraq because saddam would not voluntarily prove he had disarmed... Argue as you might... that is the fact.. He was in violation of a CEASE fire agreement... What happens when one VIOLATES a CEASE fire agreement?
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
I do have proof, I've already posted it several times. As you saw it then, I see no need to continue reposting it over and over.
What statements were made by the Government of the United States that said Sadamn was disarmed? OFFICIAL documents. Are you sure they aren't statements by individuals in the government, individuals that might have a political agenda?
How is it you "know" that there weren't as many iraqi murdered by Sadamn as I've claimed? (not my claim by the way, the claim of half a dozen world organizations and Tony Blair). Did you personally count them? Do you know for a fact that they found them all and the totals are less?
Posted by 4Art on :
Please don't! By all means, read/view it and judge for yourselves.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i don't take 4art's stuff at face value either....
Posted by 4Art on :
Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.
After September 11, 2001 and prior to the war, both Powell and Rice strongly advocated war. Things change with time.
Posted by 4Art on :
Of course they did! It was pre-planned.
The Iraq invasion, that is. Not 9/11, as far as I know.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: Glassman,
Your "most logical way to deduce that there were no WMD's is to look at the actual behaviour of the forces involved... " isn't logical at all.
i think you don't understand logic strider...
i'm glad you are no longer in a chain of command too..
battle plans are drawn on intel available... the battle plans that were followed indicated NO WMD were going to be used... it isn't anything more than common sense which seems to be a luxury these days...
i stated this on: posted March 17, 2004 11:22 I do not buy the buried deep in the desert story as an explanation for why we have not uncovered the supposed WMD. I think Iraq has been under a microscope since the Gulf War. We probably know more about the surface movements of the Iraqui's over the last ten years than ANY other group of people--including our own. So I admit I am confused here. All of the peices of the puzzle were carefully placed on the table over the period of a year or more. The question becomes SERIOUS because some of the most influential and intelligent people in our country (and other coumtries) were apparently conned. This may have been one of the biggest hoaxes ever pulled off. Who did it? Saddam said--I quote very loosely--"I can't disarm. I have no WMD anymore. I won't leave my country just because you tell me to." We Americans enered the Iraqui war believing we were going to stop a BIG WMD buildup----very shortly it became a "humanitarian" mission. That would be laughable if it is possible to laugh about any war being "humanitarian". http://www.allstocks.com/stockmessageboard/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/ubb/get_topic/f/2/t/002774/p/1.html?
i DEDUCED this using logic a long time ago...... and you are still refuting the govt's own findings......
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
I fully understand logic:
Your FULL statement:
"the most logical way to deduce that there were no WMD's is to look at the actual behaviour of the forces involved... Quinn points out sadam woulda used 'em if he had 'em; i agree."
He had them in 1990, didn't use them, faulty logic.
Our battle plans indicated no WMD's were not going to be used? Funny, they didn't tell the troops. The following link will take you to a photo page. Note the large olive green bag attached to the left hip in the photos. That is a chemical mask. There is even a photo of an individual in full MOPP gear, that's the entire chemical protection outfit for non-military types.
I'm still waiting on the OFFICIAL government documents.
Posted by bdgee on :
Glass...,
You have put you finger on it. Logically incabable. And I add, unwilling to learn.
Parts of my life have been spent, professionally, in the company of many sorld famous logicians and, as yet, I have never heard a one of them claim to "fully understand logic", in part because they were generally humble, but also because each of them knew that such a statement is trivally illogical and they were amongst people that understood and could proove that fact.
Logic is not something that can be entirely proved or settled, because there are logical systems that lie in direct contradiction to one another. Izaak Walton was quite correct in "The Complete Angler" when he said, "Fishing, like mathematics, can never be fully learnt".
Posted by glassman on :
srtider: carrying MOPP suits and chemical masks to theatre is not STRATEGIC it is TACTICAL...
how far in the mil did you go...
this is a little complicated i know, but the STRATEGISTS displayed their lack of respect for WMD in almost everything they did....
this is about as complicated as 'splainin' to you why evolution is not "just" a theory on the same scientific level as creationism... or that we know less about gravity than we do about evolution
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
I'm fully aware that gas masks in the field are tactical. Chemical weapons use in the field is also tactical. What's your point?
You said:
"the most logical way to deduce that there were no WMD's is to look at the actual behaviour of the forces involved... Quinn points out sadam woulda used 'em if he had 'em; i agree."
The first force involved is Iraq forces which did not use chemical weapons, using your "logic" above, they didn't have them. Not accurate. They had them in 1990 and did not use them then either. In fact in 1990, they were very readily availble for use and were not used. This disproves your "logic" that had he had them he would have used them. Using the first portion of the comment, you look at their behavior, didn't use them in 1990, didn't use them in 2003, no difference, no bearing on whether he had them or not.
The second forces involved were coalition forces primarily made up of US troops. Looking at the forces, they were deployed with MOPP gear and carried their masks on their persons. Using your "logic" that tells me the US had reason to suspect the possible use of chemical weapons. Again, this contradicts your statement that Saddamn would have used them if he had em. It also contradicts your other comments that Iraq had no WMD's and the US knew it. If we KNEW he didn't have them, we would not have had our troops carry MOPP gear and masks into the field.
They are the first things dropped when the threat no longer exists.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
You want to know why the strategics "displayed their lack of respect for WMD in almost everything they did...."? First, I've not seen anything to indicate they did. Overall strategy is not released to the public for security reasons so I'm curious as to your source.
Second, if they did display a "lack of respect" it is for a variety of reasons, the primary being we once again practically destroyed their ability to do anything with the shock and awe air bombardment. This eliminated command and control which was needed as Hussein did not delegate authority to his subordinates and the means of delivery.
Chemical weapons must have a delivery system. This is typically artillery or aircraft. No aircraft were capable of flying and the artillery was located destroyed or otherwise neutralized. That left the primary threat of chemical weapons at the source of storage where they could either leak or be rigged to explode when approached.
Posted by glassman on :
i already stated it, go back and read...
and you can't deny that i deduced correctly very early on...it wasn't wishful thinking on my part either..as a matter of fact?..it made me feel pretty bad, but i don't cling to my belief systems when they fail....
i was following the smallpox issue very closely...
finally? the strategy was broadcast on FOX and CNN every day as it unfolded.... and the strategy was NOT one of containmnet...
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
I have no idea what you already stated nor where to go back and read it.
I also can't deny what you deduced very early on as I have no idea what it is that you deduced. As for clinging to beliefs, I don't cling to beliefs either. I look at the facts. What I don't do is try to read things into the facts that are not there. Nor do I use the opinions of politicly motivated individuals and treat them as facts.
No strategic strategy was broadcast on either Fox or CNN as it unfolded. Very little tactical strategy was broadcast either. The media was strictly limited in what it could and could not release from the embedded reporters. What you saw on Fox and CNN were talking heads that were simply talking and giving their opinions on what they could see which was pretty much what everyone else could see.
The strategy of containment which you mentioned is one of preventing a foreign power/enemy from moving out of or transfering portions of it's military or weapons systems out of country. It can also be reversed into keeping said items from entering the country. That strategy was practiced by the United States and the United Nations against Iraq.
All this article says is that both the Democrats and the Republicans were lied to prior to the war.
Who did the lying?
That's something we're all going to know before too much longer, IMO.
Posted by glassman on :
Judith Miller knows.... she just quit the Times.....
keep looking aragorn, enough of it is in my anwsers to your questions already...
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
Yes enough incorrect information in your answers. I don't need to dig any further at all to see that.
Still waiting on the OFFICIAL government documents. Also waiting on your definition of containment since you so obviously got it wrong the first time around.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: Glassman,
Yes enough incorrect information in your answers. I don't need to dig any further at all to see that.
Still waiting on the OFFICIAL government documents. Also waiting on your definition of containment since you so obviously got it wrong the first time around.
it is difficult to be polite to you....
but i have answered many of your questions in which you refuse to acccept common sense... so i'm not surprised...
tough break on the dover school district for your intelligent design friends...
even now? you post an explanation of containment Foreign POLICY and claim that refutes my statement about the lack of containment strategy of the weapons that Sadam had... your reading comprehension is abyssmal...
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
I live by common sense, you however aren't providing any. You and I apparently have very different views on what is common sense and what is not. You have provided incorrect conclusions concerning our military tactics and observations. That is not common sense.
I have no intelligent design friends here or in Dover. It is great that the election process worked the way it is designed to.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
Your tactics in these discussions seems to be one of posting limited quotes, basically the portion that fits your view. That too is not common sense. It is ignoring the whole. You recently stated that Abraham Lincoln was not a Christian, yet that is not the whole truth is it.
For one, we don't know if he was or not. You can believe in Christ and not attend church. Lincoln was once questioned on the matter. His reply:
A charge having got into circulation in some of the neighborhoods of this District, in substance that I am an open scoffer at Christianity, I have by the advice of some friends concluded to notice the subject in this form. That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or any denomination of Christians in particular. It is true that in early life I was inclined to believe in what I understand is called the "Doctrine of Necessity" -- that is, that the human mind is impelled to action, or held in rest by some power, over which the mind itself has no control; and I have sometimes (with one, two or three, but never publicly) tried to maintain this opinion in argument. The habit of arguing thus however, I have, entirely left off for more than five years. And I add here, I have always understood this same opinion to be held by several of the Christian denominations. The foregoing, is the whole truth, briefly stated, in relation to myself, upon this subject. "I do not think I could myself, be brought to support a man for office, whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion. Leaving the higher matter of eternal consequences, between him and his Maker, I still do not think any man has the right thus to insult the feelings, and injure the morals, or the community in which he may live. If, then, I was guilty of such conduct, I should blame no man who should condemn me for it; but I do blame those, whoever they may be, who falsely put such a charge in circulation against me." -- Handbill Replying to Charges of Infidelity, 31 July 1846
When you are confronted by your incorrect assumptions, you ignore them, or as in this case refer the "offender" to some long ago post you made that we must find to get our answers. Again, not common sense. I've seen you refer to having similar debates to this one for over a year here on this board. Good for you. I've had the same debates concerning Iraq for 15 years on other message boards. Should I refer you to those? Or should I discuss it again, even though it is repititious to me. Common sense and simple courtesy says I must repeat it once again.
And then lastly, there is always the ever popular change of subject, and implying that in this case I have some sort of allegience to that topic because you have a faulty image of my position on that topic. In this instance the Dover school board and intelligent design. I'm not a proponent of intelligent design, I simply see no harm in it. Once again, common sense. The theory of evolution which I do believe in does not have all the answers. It remains a theory, just as intelligent design. Dover was not teaching it, they were introducing it as a posibility for individual research if interested.
Posted by glassman on :
strider? what is your point? Lincoln STILL didn't claim Christ in that handbill.... what is your problem? Lincoln was NOT a Christian... that's waht i said, and that is the truth... you got problems dude...
when i told you i had already posted an answer? it was in reciprocation to your response of the same manner when i politely asked you to document the TWO cases of Iraqi use of WMD...you responded the same way (shall i find the post?)... "i already posted it" you said or something very similar, and i don't think you did but i might have missed it)
I'm not a proponent of intelligent design,
hmmmmm... that's not the impression you gave a little while back..
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
You KNOW Lincoln was not a Christian? How, did you talk with the man?
Lincoln:
"but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures"
Sounds to me like he could be a Christian. The scriptures were "the truth".
So you were reciprocating my response of documenting the WMD's, something that the TWO OF US discussed the day before. You want me to waste time going back and digging up the information again. To what purpose, your memory that short?
I didn't give the impression of being a proponent of intelligent design. You chose to SEE me as a proponent of intelligent design. You see what you want to see and that is becomming more and more apparent.
Posted by LEO on :
Let's not forget, Lincoln was a politician...
Posted by glassman on :
strider: You KNOW Lincoln was not a Christian? How, did you talk with the man?
glassy: stupid question doesnt deserve a response... we both know negatives can't be proven... Christians claim Christ... he didn't...
Strider:Lincoln:
"but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures"
Sounds to me like he could be a Christian. The scriptures were "the truth".
glassman: sounds to me like you are the only person in the US who is informed and would infer that...big deal... you could also infer that he was a Satanist by using the same logic..it is useless logic
strider: So you were reciprocating my response of documenting the WMD's, something that the TWO OF US discussed the day before. You want me to waste time going back and digging up the information again. To what purpose, your memory that short?
glassman: no, my memory isn't that short, you admitted you cannot prove your claim that Iraq used WMDs since our invasion... asked and answered... you can't prove it so you change the subject after implying that you had proven your point, which you hadn't....
strider: I didn't give the impression of being a proponent of intelligent design. You chose to SEE me as a proponent of intelligent design. You see what you want to see and that is becomming more and more apparent.
glassman: no i didn't see what i want to see...i saw that you don't really make any real points in your meanderings..on the one hand you said you weren't a proponent, but then you argue for religious rights of expression quoting the constitution in a very narrow frame of reference ignoring the whole body of rulings made by the US Supreme Court (and even misrepresenting them).... knowing full well that the intent of the intelligent design program is religiously based..
on several occasions you have conceded my points but then refuted them again in the same posting... i think that you think it shows some sort of skill at debating when in reality it just demonstrates that you have no ethical conviction....
Posted by RiescoDiQui on :
More and more scientists are starting to say there must be a god or higher power of some sort. As we scientifically unravel more secrets of how the universe was created or even exsists today the more it is apparent that there has to be some form of intellect behind it's creation. This being said. Teaching intelligent design as science in a federally funded school is going to be a problem because religios groups are going to throw a fit. For good reason. Federally funded schools cannot show prefference towards one religion or another.
Posted by bdgee on :
You are right with most of that, but theee are a couple of things I think you miss.
Most of those "More and more scientists are starting to say there must be a god or higher power of some sort" aren't reputable and there is a reason.
"Teaching intelligent design as science in a publically funded school is going to be a problem because religios groups are going to throw a fit. I changed from your "federally" to "publically" for obvious reasons.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
Not all Christians openly claim Christ. There are many ways, some might say countless ways to worship Christ. Do you know them all? Or are you only recognizing those you can see or want to see. You made the statement that Lincoln was not a Christian. You cannot prove that so it is an inaccurate statement. I'm not claiming he was a Christian, I do not know. I can infer however that he was a religious man who read the Bible and accepted the scriptures as "truth". He was also a man who did not hold men without religion in high regard. I can infer that from his own writings. That does not necessarly make him a Christian but it sure doesn't exclude him either.
I never admitted I can't prove WMD's were used in Iraq. They were used on two seperate occasions. We discussed it, you acknowledged the use in one of the two instances. I see no point in looking up the sources again. The point WAS made. Your memory does appear to be short.
I make points and support them with evidence. You see only what you want to see, then label everything else as "narrow" or "meandering" or some descriptive term that only shows that you are narrow and meandering.
My convictions do not change from post to post or even from day to day. I have been and am a very consistent person. My views on Iraq have not changed much since 1990 when they invaded Kuwait. The changes that occur are because of new information which is learned. Unlike you, I do still regard the OVERWHELMING evidence that existed and still exists that Iraq had WMD's. That has not changed due to some individuals who may be politically motivated to cover their behinds writing the occasional report that says they did not.
Again, you see only what you want to see. That is once again apparent if you see me as changing my views or positions in the same posting. I have very high ethical convictions and your failure to place my postings into the proper context does not change that.
Posted by glassman on :
I never admitted I can't prove WMD's were used in Iraq. They were used on two seperate occasions. We discussed it, you acknowledged the use in one of the two instances. I see no point in looking up the sources again. The point WAS made. Your memory does appear to be short.
yes you did....
posted November 08, 2005 20:19
http://www.allstocks.com/stockmessageboard/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/14/t/001319/p/2.html One involved a Mustard Sarin mix, the other Sarin. Both were positive field tests with no confirming lab test results released on either. As the chemicals degrade very quickly in a desert environment, by the time they were returned to the lab for verification, they would probably get no reading.
and we both know that field tests give false positives....
the CIA report clearly states: CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq Recommends freeing detainees held for weapons knowledge.
Field tests can give false positives. That they can does not mean these were false. The one had a combination of two agents unrelated to one another. The sophistication of the field tests is quite high these days. It's not just litmus paper anymore. They are set up to not only show an agent is present but what agent is present. False positives are minimized.
Once again, you don't read the entire article, it isn't a report by the way, just a small summary of what the Associated Press reporter felt was relevant.
"Another addendum also noted that military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons — most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War. In an insurgent’s hands, “the use of a single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives,” another addendum said."
"Continue to find." Continue means they are finding them and may do so in the future. They are "most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed", yet they still exist and "most likely" isn't much of a determining factor.
They don't KNOW where they are, where they are coming from.
Last I heard, the administration did not follow his recommendation to release those with known ties to the WMD programs. That indicates to me the administration doesn't agree with his recommendation
Posted by glassman on :
Once again, you don't read the entire article, it isn't a report by the way, just a small summary of what the Associated Press reporter felt was relevant.
"Another addendum also noted that military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons — most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War. In an insurgent’s hands, “the use of a single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives,” another addendum said."
actually i did read it, even the first time i posted it several days ago and you should have caught it then, and i was waiting for you to read the article...
point: that article clearly says "most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed", this clearly says that they were not deliberately kept and stored.... i never denied there were some laying around, just asked you to provide some scientific data which you can't beyond a field test... and false positives are built into test systems in order to ERR on the side of caution.... just as munitions are built to have some that fail( duds) rather than have them too sensitive and go off accidently...
so once again you are grasping for data to prove your point instead of using an open minded research technique...
i always laugh when people say "research and development" in the same breath...they are separate and distinct things...research is DISCOVERY..development is using discovery to make something. yes, discovery should and almost always happens during development but rarely vice versa
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
I did read the article.
"most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed"
That does not clearly say they were not deliberately kept and stored, note "most likely".
Most likely clearly states they do not KNOW, if they did they would not use the term "most likely". It is an opinion of the probability of where they are comming from.
Open minded research doesn't misconstrue the wording of articles and reports to mean things they do not.
Posted by MasterQuinn on :
So do we all agree that Iraq was not a serious threat to the US?
Because after reading all these posts It seems that you can't really prove there was anything unless you go there and check yourself and you can't prove there wasn't for the same reason.
Therefor we all agree the war was a stupid idea and now lots of people are dead.
The End.
P.S. Putting more democracies in the middle of the middle east will surely call for war with EVERY islamic nation.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: I did read the article.
"most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed"
That does not clearly say they were not deliberately kept and stored, note "most likely".
Most likely clearly states they do not KNOW, if they did they would not use the term "most likely". It is an opinion of the probability of where they are comming from.
Open minded research doesn't misconstrue the wording of articles and reports to mean things they do not.
LOL, if in doubt? strider's word is gospel...
you crack me up (sometimes)..
of course you know more than Duelfer wink wink
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
MasterQuinn,
I do not agree that Iraq was not a serious threat to the United States.
Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement. That in itself was sufficient cause to renew the attack and remove Hussein.
Hussein failed to provide for the monitored destruction of the WMD's. He openly supported terrorism by paying a "bounty" to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He was working and succeeding in getting backing for the removal of the UN sanctions through the oil for food program.
The UN was trying to appease Hussein, it doesn't work. Had the UN united, as it should have, behind the cease fire agreement and the 18 or so resolutions, this war could have been easily been avoided. Hussein did not believe we would attack without the support of the UN. He felt he could get away with more and more because the UN had done nothing to stop him and he was getting more and more of them under his thumb with oil vouchers.
Posted by glassman on :
so do you think Deulfer didn't write that with the white house policy-makers in mind? or was he hinting that maybe the white house was right about the wmd but he was just looking for a way to embarass his boss?
on the UN issue? Bush coulda dealt with the UN had he so chosen... oooops wait, he did! that's right, he told them to leave so we could start the war before they finished their job...
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
I'm not going to speculate on why Deulfer wrote anything. For one, I haven't seen the entire report, just bits and pieces that a journalist at AP thought were important. For another, I don't know the man, never spoke with him and I have no clue what motivations he might have about walking his dog at a specific time, let alone why he used certain words in a report.
I don't look for things that I expect to see or want to see, or don't want to see for that matter. That is what I would be doing in answering your questions.
Posted by glassman on :
i suggest you read it and then come back and talk to me... i also suggest you read the presidents own report...
oh that's right you did when i posted the link for you, and you told me it was; what did you say? hindsight? or something like that? it's been a week or two, so i might have the wording wrong...
i read both awhile back, and you are way behind the times with your attitudes. i politelyt toldja that you were behind the times with this justification attitude a week or more ago... but you keep repeating the same thing...even tho the evidence is compelling that the only danger sadam represented was his intellect... russia and europe don't want terrorism EITHER.... they woulda worked with US had we asked...that wsn't how the gig went down tho..
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
It does sumarize Hussein's intent. It's pretty much what I've been saying all along as well.
Did you read this part?
Key Findings Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted. • Saddam totally dominated the Regime’s strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq’s strategic policy. • Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring. • The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development. • By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999. Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities. • Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi offi cials considered Iran to be Iraq’s principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and infl uence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary. • Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam’s view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi’a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fi re. • The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifi able group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but fi rm, verbal comments and directions to them.
Posted by RiescoDiQui on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: You are right with most of that, but theee are a couple of things I think you miss.
Most of those "More and more scientists are starting to say there must be a god or higher power of some sort" aren't reputable and there is a reason.
"Teaching intelligent design as science in a publically funded school is going to be a problem because religios groups are going to throw a fit. I changed from your "federally" to "publically" for obvious reasons.
Changing federally to public is wrong bdgee... the public as a part or a whole can fund whatever they want... government cannot... since much of school funds come from the federal government without any say so from the public schools are federally funded. I know that schools are not totally funded by the federal government but enough money comes from them that what they can and cannot teach is limited.
Posted by glassman on :
and the final statement? The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifi able group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but fi rm, verbal comments and directions to them.
once again we are left with no proof...
and? if you read the whole report? Deulfer clearly sates somewhere that he believes that the intel provided by "his lieutenants" was difficult to interpret for sure, because they had conflicitng needs...those needs were a) fear of sadam b) fear of US punishing them...
no, i'm not saying the conclusion is wrong, i'm saying we gathered no physical evidence at all... not even in writing...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
LOL