Guys, you disappointed me!  I thought the boards would be full of this report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722306.stm

The report makes it clear that, at the time of the invasion, Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction.  They were all destroyed in the '90's.  However he did intend to build/buy more of these in contravention of the UN.

Does the fact that Saddam intended to have WMD's still justify the war?

It's not exactly news, though, is it?  I mean, anybody with any critical faculties was pretty sure of that before we invaded.

And his intention to get them might have been justification, if it wasn't for the fact that he was completely hemmed in and unable to do anything on any serious scale without someone noticing: and if that intention really justifies invasion, then look out world...

It's not exactly news, though, is it?  I mean, anybody with any critical faculties was pretty sure of that before we invaded.



Philbo

The report wasn't a surprise to me but some people here on the boards were very insistent that it was only a matter of time before the inspectors found WMD's.  Even several months (a year maybe) afterwards they just said that the inspectors hadn't looked in the right places  ::)

It was really these people who I thought would be talking about it.

Philbo

The report wasn't a surprise to me but some people here on the boards were very insistent that it was only a matter of time before the inspectors found WMD's.  Even several months (a year maybe) afterwards they just said that the inspectors hadn't looked in the right places  ::)

It was really these people who I thought would be talking about it.


You will find that there are those for whom facts are just messy little details, not to be taken seriously.

I think the fact that he was planning to build them was justification to go in and kinda spoil his party. Really though i am beginning to think that kicking Saddam out of power was a bad idea.

Ok Ok he wasn't a nice chap but face it, he kept the majority of his people under control (granted through execution.. then again Dubyah has a few scalps on his belt) but he kept the country as a secular state. I guaren'damn'tee that within the next 5-10 years Iraq will be another radical Islamic state and we'll have to go in there and kick ass again

I watched Nightline last night. They covered stories about soldiers who came back from the war damaged and scarred for life; not only on a physical level (loss of limbs, part of head/scalp missing...) but also on the mental/emotional level.

I'm sure many of these families are absolutely irate (words fail me) about the fact that Bush sent their sons, daughters, siblings, husbands and wives to war for invalid reasons, unnecessarily.

Another point -

Why Iraq again? Iran and North Korea did and still do have nukes. They weren't pursued. Why Iraq, really? I forget. It seems like it's been an eternity. So much death over there, so many beheadings, car bombings, so much chaos...

The point is that regardless of whatever positive outcome eventually results from this catastrophe of a war, those one thousand six hundred plus American men and women didn't have to die, at least not in Iraq, not while pursuing Sadaam instead of the person who actually orchestrated the acts of September 11; Bin Laden.

Bush's distraction from the original objective has cost more than America can bear.

I agree there needs to be resolve there now and accomplish/finish the present objectives.

As far as the horrible misjudgments of this administration and poor decision-making, No MORE!!! Please, no more. :\'(

No more Bush. >:(

Disclaimer: My opinion does not reflect the opinion of the site or its other administrators.

I watched Nightline last night. They covered stories about soldiers who came back from the war damaged and scarred for life; not only on a physical level (loss of limbs, part of head/scalp missing...) but also on the mental/emotional level.

I'm sure many of these families are absolutely irate (words fail me) about the fact that Bush sent their sons, daughters, siblings, husbands and wives to war for invalid reasons, unnecessarily.

Another point -

Why Iraq again? Iran and North Korea did and still do have nukes. They weren't pursued. Why Iraq, really? I forget. It seems like it's been an eternity. So much death over there, so many beheadings, car bombings, so much chaos...

The point is that regardless of whatever positive outcome eventually results from this catastrophe of a war, those one thousand six hundred plus American men and women didn't have to die, at least not in Iraq, not while pursuing Sadaam instead of the person who actually orchestrated the acts of September 11; Bin Laden.

Bush's distraction from the original objective has cost more than America can bear.

I agree there needs to be resolve there now and accomplish/finish the present objectives.

As far as the horrible misjudgments of this administration and poor decision-making, No MORE!!! Please, no more. :\'(

No more Bush. >:(

Disclaimer: My opinion does not reflect the opinion of the site or its other administrators.




http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gif





Cat

Hear Hear (y)

I think this was no surprise. However, I am still disappointed, and that the damage has already been done. Bush and Cheney's debating hasn't help matters.

I disagree, cheerleader. I think Bush should have concentrated on finding bin Laden and the al-Queda, then attack North Korea and Iran. Call it stupid. I call it defending our country. What Bush is doing to Iraq isn't.  :(

I think you hit the nail on the head with your second sentence.  Even Bush isn't stupid enough to attack a country with the nuclear capabilities of these 2.  In doing so, he would guarantee another attack on American soil.  However, a nuclear attack would be much worse than 9-11.   By going after Saddam, he fulfills his fantasy of being a "war time" president.

And, I agree, why so much time/effort spent on Saddam/Iraq?  It has been proven that neither had anything to do with 9-11.  I still predict that by Nov, we will have "captured Bin Laden", though ;)

I disagree, cheerleader. I think Bush should have concentrated on finding bin Laden and the al-Queda, then attack North Korea and Iran. Call it stupid. I call it defending our country. What Bush is doing to Iraq isn't.  :(



  George won't bang North Korea.  More to the point, China won't let him.  I think they'd rather annex the place than the US get their hands on it.

Even Kerry said to H*** with China. And I agree with that. We never should have given the Chinese "favorable trade status". And if we don't deal with NK, then the "dragon from the East" of the Revelation will have blood on its hands if the North Koreans attack us.


   George won't bang North Korea.  More to the point, China won't let him.  I think they'd rather annex the place than the US get their hands on it.

Duh!  Scott Ritter was saying exactly this for two years prior to the invasion of Iraq.  The Administration wouldn't listen to Ritter because he had some kind of "agenda."  In fact, the Administration wouldn't listen to ANYBODY that wouldn't back up their prejudice.  Now we have 1100 soldiers killed, and thousands more gravely injured.  What's going to gnaw the families of the lost and injured, and the veterans for the rest of their lives?  The question, "Did our sacrifice for America mean anything?"  We are looking at decades of suspicion, bitterness, rage, grief, and paranoia because our President rushed us into war under false pretenses.

THANKS A LOT MR. CHENEY, THANKS A LOT MR. BUSH!
>:(

Not only didn't he have WMD, he was also further from getting them than he was after the gulf war.  So why did he resist making that perfectly clear?  Think back - what was going on over there in the 1980's?  Like a war between Iraq and Iran (and we supported Iraq with WMD and intelligence)?  The report says he wanted weopons to use against Iran, and Iran, he knew, was building nukes, so he wanted to convince them that he DID have WMD as a deterant.  You gotta think in Herny Kissinger's mindset, in power politics, as obnoxious and distasteful as that might be.

The administration tries to shrug off the fact that there were no WMD, by saying well he was a bad guy and a threat. Well North Korea, Iran, Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia could be construted as a threat under Dubya's logic. There are so many nations led by dictators who are brutal to their people, are we going to go bomb them all? I can't believe they are still saying the reason they went to war was that Saddam wasn't disarming, disarming from what, there were no WMD. These clowns have to go.

The administration tries to shrug off the fact that there were no WMD, by saying well he was a bad guy and a threat. Well North Korea, Iran, Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia could be construted as a threat under Dubya's logic. There are so many nations led by dictators who are brutal to their people, are we going to go bomb them all? I can't believe they are still saying the reason they went to war was that Saddam wasn't disarming, disarming from what, there were no WMD. These clowns have to go.


But North Korea, and especially China, have nukes and Iran is either close or may have them, the Bush dynasty and the Saudis go WAY back, and who can believe that Cuba is a threat?  In fact, Castro offered to aid Florida hurricane victems, and also 9/11 victems.  He is at worst a "benevolent dictator", and besides, he has NO OIL.

But North Korea, and especially China, have nukes and Iran is either close or may have them, the Bush dynasty and the Saudis go WAY back, and who can believe that Cuba is a threat?  In fact, Castro offered to aid Florida hurricane victems, and also 9/11 victems.  He is at worst a "benevolent dictator", and besides, he has NO OIL.


They are still using the excuse, the inspections weren't working, Saddam wasn't disarming. How can they even use that as a reason? Our own inspectors and the CIA have now concluded that Saddam has no WMD, and the whole WMD story was anothing but a big exaggeration of faulty intelligence by the Bush administration. I guess the war was really about oil and halliburton. That explains the $7 billion no-bid contract.

http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gif



Cat



Thank you, Cat.

Hear Hear (y)



Thank you, Alchoholica.

I think you hit the nail on the head with your second sentence.

Thank you, Cheer.

They are still using the excuse, the inspections weren't working, Saddam wasn't disarming. How can they even use that as a reason? Our own inspectors and the CIA have now concluded that Saddam has no WMD, and the whole WMD story was anothing but a big exaggeration of faulty intelligence by the Bush administration. I guess the war was really about oil and halliburton. That explains the $7 billion no-bid contract.



As I have said many times in these threads, tell a lie often enough and people will believe it. 

Even Kerry said to H*** with China. And I agree with that. We never should have given the Chinese "favorable trade status". And if we don't deal with NK, then the "dragon from the East" of the Revelation will have blood on its hands if the North Koreans attack us.



  Why would NK want to attack us..?

 
  Me to myself:  Shut up self - you're going waaaay off-topic, silly...

  A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.


Naw, because a bush ain't worth s**t.

Ok Ok he wasn't a nice chap but face it, he kept the majority of his people under control (granted through execution.. then again Dubyah has a few scalps on his belt) but he kept the country as a secular state. I guaren'darn'tee that within the next 5-10 years Iraq will be another radical Islamic state and we'll have to go in there and kick a** again


This is interesting, inasmuch as I read a report last week that Iraq's minority Christian community has come under increased danger since the 'liberation', because the Islamic population see them as US apologists and colloborators, and are attacking, murdering and villifying them. There are 800,000 Christians in Iraq. Under Saddam, they lived as harmoniously as a community can under the rule of a dictator but, by all accounts, most of them are trying to get out of the place now.