The Return of Al Qaeda

[GaryC 7]

All that I stated was that Saddam did have WMD's--however, the question of it is "when?". Certainly, he did during Iran-Iraq war and afterwards at least up to Gulf War (1991). Admittedly, it cannot be said that he rebuilt his WMD program(s) after 1991 (when much of Iraq was trashed due to his intransigence on Kuwait--certainly chem factories were prime targets).

But that's where the problem is I think. That this was used as a justification to go to war... or I should say 'the' justification. And it all seems to be based on unsupported intelligence and hear-say. You would think that if there's a 'reasonable doubt' angle to this it would be reason enough not to do it.

Certainly I don't want to see this strategy continue if this is any indication of how it is to be prosecuted in future.

If the old Baathist regime had indeed hidden those functional bio and chemical weapons, you best believe that we would have seen some use of them by now.

Agreed. If that were the case you would expect that these would have turned up in a car bombing or something by now.

For the same reason Saddam didn't use it in either of the gulf wars or why Iran hasn't given a WMD to one of it's terrorists. Syria and Iran doesn't want to get the massive retaliation that would come if they gave them to a terrorist. In effect, the gloves would come off and they know it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

All that I stated was that Saddam did have WMD's--however, the question of it is "when?". Certainly, he did during Iran-Iraq war and afterwards at least up to Gulf War (1991). Admittedly, it cannot be said that he rebuilt his WMD program(s) after 1991 (when much of Iraq was trashed due to his intransigence on Kuwait--certainly chem factories were prime targets).

But that's where the problem is I think. That this was used as a justification to go to war... or I should say 'the' justification. And it all seems to be based on unsupported intelligence and hear-say. You would think that if there's a 'reasonable doubt' angle to this it would be reason enough not to do it.

Certainly I don't want to see this strategy continue if this is any indication of how it is to be prosecuted in future.

If the old Baathist regime had indeed hidden those functional bio and chemical weapons, you best believe that we would have seen some use of them by now.

Agreed. If that were the case you would expect that these would have turned up in a car bombing or something by now.

For the same reason Saddam didn't use it in either of the gulf wars or why Iran hasn't given a WMD to one of it's terrorists. Syria and Iran doesn't want to get the massive retaliation that would come if they gave them to a terrorist. In effect, the gloves would come off and they know it.

But again its all hear-say.

[GaryC 7]

But again its all hear-say.

There is no doubt that Iran has WMD's. And there is also no doubt that they fund and equip terrorists. I personally think the Syria has Saddams old WMD's and they also are known to fund terrorists. It's a version of MAD. They don't want to give us an excuse to wipe them out.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, we have finally arrived in territory of wild speculation. Good!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... there isn't much question that he had WMD's.

So Gary isn't the only one insinuating that the President is a liar. You're doing it too! Wow.

President Bush: Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't...

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...8/20060821.html

Gupt, we got you. Who gives a fukc what you think of Bush.

I think he is a man who tells the truth. You clearly think he is a liar.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

... there isn't much question that he had WMD's.

So Gary isn't the only one insinuating that the President is a liar. You're doing it too! Wow.

President Bush: Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't...

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...8/20060821.html

Gupt, we got you. Who gives a fukc what you think of Bush.

I think he is a man who tells the truth. You clearly think he is a liar.

Eh, you need to see Dean pronto for your delusion--you actually believe in a post-1900 pol who always tells the truth! :lol:

[GaryC 7]

So, we have finally arrived in territory of wild speculation. Good!

You don't think Iran has chemical and bio weapons? What, you think they destroyed them after we took out Saddam out of the kindness of their heart? And of course you think that their nuclear program is only for power also.

[smoke20 0]

gary they're just f***in w/ you now. nobody in there right mind would believe iran,syria or any other gov't that sponsers terrorist activities doesn't have wmd of some kind & wants nuclear weapons.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

gary they're just f***in w/ you now. nobody in there right mind would believe iran,syria or any other gov't that sponsers terrorist activities doesn't have wmd of some kind & wants nuclear weapons.

Especially when Iran was one of the countries on the travel itinerary of the mohajir Dr. Death (A.Q. Khan, who was born in Bhopal).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the old Baathist regime had indeed hidden those functional bio and chemical weapons, you best believe that we would have seen some use of them by now.

Agreed. If that were the case you would expect that these would have turned up in a car bombing or something by now.

not necessarily. why have them show up and show justification in our being there? :

Because the prescence of those agents alone wouldn't provide 'justification'. Remember - what was specifically claimed by the administration was the existence of an advanced research, design and manufacturing and delivery operation. To date a few musty old shells are all that have been uncovered. Anything else is hear-say - unproven and unsubstantiated conjecture.

[almaty 19]

... there isn't much question that he had WMD's.

So Gary isn't the only one insinuating that the President is a liar. You're doing it too! Wow.

President Bush: Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't...

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...8/20060821.html

Gupt, we got you. Who gives a fukc what you think of Bush.

I think he is a man who tells the truth. You clearly think he is a liar.

Eh, you need to see Dean pronto for your delusion--you actually believe in a post-1900 pol who always tells the truth! :lol:

brother sriniv, brother arijit has no showed his last 2 appointments..and still owes me $85 ...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, we have finally arrived in territory of wild speculation. Good!

You don't think Iran has chemical and bio weapons? What, you think they destroyed them after we took out Saddam out of the kindness of their heart? And of course you think that their nuclear program is only for power also.

I was referring to your almost religous belief that Saddam's WMD's have been shipped off to Syria. There's no proof of that. Mind you, none. Yet you keep speculating along those lines.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So, we have finally arrived in territory of wild speculation. Good!

You don't think Iran has chemical and bio weapons? What, you think they destroyed them after we took out Saddam out of the kindness of their heart? And of course you think that their nuclear program is only for power also.

I was referring to your almost religous belief that Saddam's WMD's have been shipped off to Syria. There's no proof of that. Mind you, none. Yet you keep speculating along those lines.

Again we're not only talking about finished products here, but the research and manufacturing infrastructure as well... None of which has been found. I'd suggest a few people re-read Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security council - about advanced delivery systems and mobile laboratories. None of that has yet been substantiated.

Gary may want it to be true however. But that is, of course, another matter.

[GaryC 7]

I do not believe that Saddam did away with his programs. He did nothing but delay the UN inspectors the whole time they were there. For a long time the inspectors were not even in country because Saddam wouldn't let them in. Why would he invite the invasion and his ouster if he didn't have anything? It makes no sense at all. The only logical conclusion is he had a program and was hiding it. He knew for a long time we were coming. He had pleanty of time to dismantel his facilities and move them to Syria. The fact that we didn't find anything means nothing. Your refusal to even consider the possibility just shows that you want your assumptions to be true because if it were found that Saddam did have WMD's your whole "illegal war" and your Bush is a mass murderer would go out the window.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I do not believe that Saddam did away with his programs. He did nothing but delay the UN inspectors the whole time they were there. For a long time the inspectors were not even in country because Saddam wouldn't let them in. Why would he invite the invasion and his ouster if he didn't have anything? It makes no sense at all. The only logical conclusion is he had a program and was hiding it. He knew for a long time we were coming. He had pleanty of time to dismantel his facilities and move them to Syria. The fact that we didn't find anything means nothing. Your refusal to even consider the possibility just shows that you want your assumptions to be true because if it were found that Saddam did have WMD's your whole "illegal war" and your Bush is a mass murderer would go out the window.

I choose to go by the facts that are on the table rather than descent into wishful thinking.

That aside, the war was illegal whether or not the weapons were there. Had there been a weapons program, then that may have lent legitimacy to the attack, legal it still wouldn't have been. There are really only two criteria under which a country can be legally attacked and neither was met.