The premise behind the war was that Saddam had a weapons program up and running and this was a pre-emptive strike to eradicte the threat.
Here is a quote from Tony Blair justifying the war:
Quote:
"It [the intelligence service] concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability..."
Do you REALLY think that those antique aged and decaying chemical devices are the ones that pose a "45 minute threat"? Do these antique weapons show that he had an active weapons program at the time of the invasion?
Of course not. Absolutely not. These statements were based on falsified intelligence and this insignificant finding does absolutely nothing to change that.
__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
I have to say that I agree with you Howard2k, I'd say completely except for your quote at the bottom which may be intentionally ironic since last time I checked we still have the largest stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in the world.
The Defense Department today said that the (useless) chemical weapons that were found 3 years ago in Iraq, were NOT the WMD we went to Iraq for. Here's a video clip from FOX NEWS of all places. http://images1.americanprogress.org/...od.320.240.mov2006/santorumdod.320.240.mov
If you want more, and in much more detail, watch tonights reruns any of the prime time cable news outlets (situation room, harball, countdown, etc.). These are not the weapons we went to war for, we knew he had these very same weapons before going in, we knew these same weapons were not a threat because the chemicals within the shells breaks down and becomes inert within 3 months of making it.
JMJSELECT... I used to think the same thing as you. This was back in the day when I watched Fox News everyday. I actually believed there were terrorists right around the corner waiting to kill me. But, after having my eyes opened I realized these same people were telling me this crap in order to stay in power. Sure, there are bad people out there, maybe even the occasional terrorist, but if you think 'fighting them over there' has made you safer then I have some water front property to sell you. Look at what you have mixed together in your posts... Fear of terrorism with Loyalty to Bush and the Republican Party. You have bought a bill of goods that terrorists are everywhere, and Bush is the only thing that will save you. Its sad to see an American so deeply deceived. Bush has become your God, the only person that can save you from the boogymen.
1. why does this document say that the material is still hazerdous and potentially lethal?
2. bush has been really pathetic lately, and no i'm not a republicrat. what I am loyal to is the idea of bringing the war to them and not sitting back and waiting for it to come to our shores.
honestly Im mad at bush for the way he has handled this war as well. we are fighting a politically correct 17th century guerilla war while we have the technology, man power, and will to fight to fight a 21st century war.
we didn't go in hard enough
we didn't drop more bombs
we didn't make enough noise in the region.
terrorists around the corner huh? well there's some more breaking news.... and this is unfolding right as i type this.
terrorists were caught in miami and 1 in atl(my home) for plotting to bring down the sears tower. if this isn't close enough to you then i don't know what to say to you.
1. 911
2. antrax attacks(who had the largest supple of antrax at that time????? yes that's right saddam)
3. the islamic prisoners who robbed and killed convience stores to fund terrorist activites in the US
4. the muslim who went out and rented the largest suv he could find to go run over as many people as he could in the name of islam
5. a muslim who murdered a jew in a movie theater in the name of islam
6. the recent news that al queda planned sarin gas attacks on new york subways and decided to not go thru with the attack, what was it by 60 days
7. todays news that terrorists were caught in miami and atl who were planning to bring down the 2nd/3rd(whatever it is) tallest building in the world in the heart of the 3rd largest city in america, the sears tower(america's tallest building).
does none of this concern you? yes bush has lie, he has said that there hasn't been any terrorist attacks since 911, he lied there has been. your not concerned? al qaude(however you spell it) has declared war on america, they want 5 million americans dead and the country converted to islam, none of this concerns you?
the countless mutalations and beheadings, suicide attacks, ieds, senseless killing,..... none of this concerns you?
The premise behind the war was that Saddam had a weapons program up and running and this was a pre-emptive strike to eradicte the threat.
Here is a quote from Tony Blair justifying the war:
Do you REALLY think that those antique aged and decaying chemical devices are the ones that pose a "45 minute threat"? Do these antique weapons show that he had an active weapons program at the time of the invasion?
Of course not. Absolutely not. These statements were based on falsified intelligence and this insignificant finding does absolutely nothing to change that.
hypothetical: you run a crack house. you get a note from the police saying that they know what your doing(running illegal drugs out of your house). one day they come to your home and say HEY HOWARD WE KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING, AND IN 3 MONTHS WE'RE COMING IN AND SEARCHING YOUR HOUSE.
what would you do??????????????? hide the stuff? go take it to the neibors? flush it(destory it)? how can you explain the whole entire's world intelligence in the 21st century being absolutely completely wrong?
now why does the document say "hazardous and potentially lethal"
I don't care what you respond with, this is what I want to know:
is a chemical munition that is hazardous and potentially lethal a wmd? a simple yes or no is all i want, none of this yeah but....... yes or no.
if yes then saddam had wmds wether or not it is 2 years old or 200.
if no then saddam did not have wmds.
now i all these discussions here on aximsite.com the question you guys have brought up is "where's the wmds?"
"where's the wmds?" here it is, 500 chemical munitions have been found in iraq since 2003.
you guys have asked this question countless times. there it is.
---------------------------------------
now you'll respond: yeah but.....
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
I have to say that I agree with you Howard2k, I'd say completely except for your quote at the bottom which may be intentionally ironic since last time I checked we still have the largest stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in the world.
It's intentionally ironic :)
__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
I don't care what you respond with, this is what I want to know:
is a chemical munition that is hazardous and potentially lethal a wmd? a simple yes or no is all i want, none of this yeah but....... yes or no.
if yes then saddam had wmds wether or not it is 2 years old or 200.
if no then saddam did not have wmds.
now i all these discussions here on aximsite.com the question you guys have brought up is "where's the wmds?"
"where's the wmds?" here it is, 500 chemical munitions have been found in iraq since 2003.
you guys have asked this question countless times. there it is.
---------------------------------------
now you'll respond: yeah but.....
is a chemical munition that is hazardous and potentially lethal a wmd? a simple yes or no is all i want, none of this yeah but....... yes or no.
The answer is no.
US Military definition:
Quote:
Weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. Weapons of mass destruction can be high explosives or nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons, but exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part of the weapon.
"A chemical munition MAY qualify as a WMD" would be correct.
"A chemical munition MUST qualify as a WMD" would not be correct.
However - it's moot.
These are clearly not the WMDs that the war was started for.
__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
is a chemical munition that is hazardous and potentially lethal a wmd? a simple yes or no is all i want, none of this yeah but....... yes or no.
The answer is no.
US Military definition:
"A chemical munition MAY qualify as a WMD" would be correct.
"A chemical munition MUST qualify as a WMD" would not be correct.
However - it's moot.
These are clearly not the WMDs that the war was started for.
see I told you, yeah but...... not the wmds... bla bla bla......
the answer is no huh. so saddam had no wmds.
okay there you go saddam had NO wmds.
I don't know how old you are howard but in my older years(like 40 years from now) history will be written from facts(this kind of document being one of them) and not from moot arguments like this one on aximsite. history will be on america's side on this one.
i'm done with this, for whatever reasons you guys don't want to believe that saddam had wmds. your sent in your minds and the facts are out there, my advice to you is to continue on your ways but be mindfull with the knowledge that terrorism is a global war and it will hit your corner of the world one day(like it almost did in your parts howard)
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
I really don't care if they are there are not but if this document was real, don't you think the White House would be trumpeting this? Being Canadian I have no stake in this but I doubt the veracity of the document.
I really don't care if they are there are not but if this document was real, don't you think the White House would be trumpeting this? Being Canadian I have no stake in this but I doubt the veracity of the document.
you know I don't know. I don't know who classifies these documents but alot of people down here are saying that they were classified so that the people wouldn't find out.
bush obviously knows about this(he running the thing) I don't know why he doesn't ever mention it.
and those documents found over in iraq that are being translated, he hasn't mentioned any of this.
i don't know
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
see I told you, yeah but...... not the wmds... bla bla bla......
the answer is no huh. so saddam had no wmds.
okay there you go saddam had NO wmds.
I don't know how old you are howard but in my older years(like 40 years from now) history will be written from facts(this kind of document being one of them) and not from moot arguments like this one on aximsite. history will be on america's side on this one.
i'm done with this, for whatever reasons you guys don't want to believe that saddam had wmds. your sent in your minds and the facts are out there, my advice to you is to continue on your ways but be mindfull with the knowledge that terrorism is a global war and it will hit your corner of the world one day(like it almost did in your parts howard)
I'm 31.
It's naive to think that history is based solely on fact. History is based on "fact" from the perspective of the winners.
There's NO doubt that in the past, Saddam has WMDs. He used them.
The issues is whether the WMDs that the coalition went to war for are these aging warheads that were found.
Your argument (I believe) is that even if they're not, it still shows that he had something. And to be honest I do understand your point of view. But the fact remains that these are NOT the WMDs that were used as the catalyst for the war.
Rumsfeld said:
Quote:
"With each passing day, Saddam Hussein advances his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and could pass them along to terrorists. If he is allowed to do so, the result could be the deaths not of 3,000 people, as on September 11th, but of 30,000, or 300,000 or more innocent people."
Quote:
"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore."
Quote:
"And he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons."
Quote:
"They have amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons including VX and sarin and mustard gas."
And there is Blair's "45 minutes" claim that I already posted.
The war was not started over 500 archaic and possibly useless warheads.
__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
Actually, the defense department today clarified what they meant by these weapons being hazardous... They meant that the broken down chemicals within the shells could irritate the skin if skin contact was made.
So now your WMD has been reduced to a potential skin 'irritant'. Non lethal.
I've got stronger chemicals under my sink than whats in any of the 500 inert shells.
If we suck any more air out of this argument, it'll become a vacumm. :love:
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Addicted Member
