Chemical Weapons in Iraq??Follow

Joph. I think your problem is that you are trying to apply an absolute to a world that's full of grey area.

Congress was "accurately informed" about the status of WMD in Iraq. They were given all of the relevant intel we had at the time. That intel showed that Iraq possessed WMD. What more do you want? We were as sure about the existence of WMD in Iraq as any administratin can be sure of anything learned purely via intelligence gathering means.


You keep saying that since we didn't find WMD, that that somehow means that Congress was not accurately informed. How can that be? They were given all the information we had. I'd also still like to point out that just because we haven't found chaches of WMD in Iraq, does *not* mean that they weren't there at the time the intel was gathered. You're trying to mix past, present and future and ignore that the world changes while you are gathering information and deciding what to do.


And what good would a month have done us? One month? It can be argued that the year we spent between when the UN first started working on removing sanctions and when we finally declared war on Iraq was too long. One could argue that that gave Iraq plenty of time to make what we found not match what our (now 2+ year old intel) incorrect after the fact. One month wouldn't have made any difference (except we'd be a month farther back I suppose).

Heh.. I'm not sure why I said "month" either.

Can't prove a negative. Bush & Co. were the ones saying the stuff existed. I wasn't going around before Congress and the United Nations claiming to have evidence, now was I? I'll tell you what -- next time I claim a nation has WMDs and I can't turn them up, you can "turn it around" on me. Deal?

I'd like to see the basement they hid everything else in. Did they put it under a big blanket? That's the excuse for turning up basically nothing in the past year? It's all cleverly hidden? Every last bit? Maybe we should have used some of those spy satellites Powell said were proving WMD movement to.. I dunno.. see where they moved them to. Shame on us for letting them cover an entire WMD program and ******* in a basement.

Edited, Wed May 19 16:14:23 2004 by Jophiel

One we have yet to account for, as well.

This is going in circles, so I'll finish up my contribution to the thread by saying what I said before. I never denied that any WMDs existed in Iraq. I do, however, feel that Iraq didn't pose a significant threat to the United States (certainly less of one than other nations) nor do I feel Bush needed to invade when he did, to the complete detriment of our anti-terrorism efforts and nation building in Afghanistan (which I completely supported, though I admit I thought the initial war there would go harder than it did).

It is not my job to "prove" anything to anyone. I have not stood before any members of national or global government and claimed to have evidence. Bush & Co., however, did. So far, his efforts have turned up very, very little. When his efforts prove otherwise, I'll consider changing my position then.

Edited, Wed May 19 16:55:29 2004 by Jophiel

He won't see the difference. His and many others have the blinders on, that don't allow them to see past party lines.

Joph. Bush made his statements based on the same intel.

I'm not so much saying: "Look. The democrats in congress voted for the war", as "Look. Both the republican president, and the democrats in congres (and I suppose the republicans in congress as well!) looked at the same intel and came to the same conclusion".

I'm simply saying that any "blame" you place on Bush for the choice to go to war in Iraq must also be placed on congress. If you are blaming Bush, you have to blame Congress as well. Whether the intel was faulty or not is completely irrelevant. Both recieved the same information. Both made the same decision based on that information. Both are *equally* responsible.

I'm not trying to place blame here. I'm trying to point out to those who are, that the "blame" lies on more shoulders then just the President's. Personally, I don't place any blame on either group. Based on the information they recieved, the decision they made was a logical and reasonable one to make. Since that was the "best" information we could get at the time, it's kinda silly to second guess it. They did not have the luxury of a time machine that would allow them to see what would happen. They had to make a choice, and they made it. I can respect that choice and the responsibility for that choice. What I don't understand is when people point their fingers at just one part of the equation, or one part of the intel, or one person involved in the decision making process. Lots of people were involved in this. Lots of intel from many different sources was used in making the decision. Lots of people were responsible for taking that information and making a decision based on it. Why blame just one of them?

Have to love sarcasm when it is done the right way.

------ quote

I guess you're right. Apparently Iraq changed from an dangerous, immediate threat with hundreds of tons of chemical weapons, unmanned drones, a reactivated nuclear program ready to build a nuclear weapon within a year, anthrax labs, mobile weapon labs roaming the desert on roads and rails all ready to explode in a mushroom cloud into a big desert with an artillery shell from the mid 80's and some cans of pesticides. I stand corrected.

-------

That's the right way. =)

WMD still have to be found or to prove they don't exist. At some time it is going to be like proving there is a God... (yeah, they are there! You just can't see them). Besides, with the technological advantage of the Irakis, it is almost sure they have a huge, undetectable, state of the art bunker, hidden, guarded, with access to frontier and known to the Irak army, and the tons of WMD are there, waiting to be used... oh wait... where did they find Mr Irak-President? In a hole in the ground? Disguised as a beggard? Nooooo!

err.. Ok, enough sarcasm.

So bassically, just to recap. A 155 mm shell (half a foot) which is designed to explode in the air was rigged on the roadside, and it exploded. It may be one of millions of shells around the world that are left behind after a war. This one just happened to be in Irak, and used to try to kill some soldiers. Useless without a very big gun, unless of course some bomb squad tries to deactivate it and actually detonates it, causing some kind of 'minor exposure' to themselves.

(Switching to Iraki rebel mindset: Oh, I found a shell of some type. I think it is a bomb, since it is too small to be a bowling ball... I hope it is a bomb. Let's put it on the side of the road to kill the intruders that came to bomb us, and killed our soldiers, our families and children. I don't care if they came for freedom or whatever, they came to our country and killed my family and I found this I-hope-it-is-a-bomb and will try to kill some of them...yes...---Switching back)

So... would this prove WMD?.. as stated before in this forum, under a Bush-friend set of eyes, even rat poison could be seen as WMD. Even oil could be lethal if you know how to use it. Oil? Mmhh... maybe that's the WMD they are looking for! And yes! Irak has tons and tons of it!!!! Now I understand the war...

But under a Not-Bush-friend set of eyes.. this is probably only... a shell built 20+ years ago, which "doesn't speak to the issue of whether weapons of mass destruction were still being produced in Iraq in the mid-1990s."

If today I go to visit one old enemy, and find a 22mm bullet in the chair... I'd say yes, probably someone hates me and is trying to cause me harm... but obviously doesn't really now how to do it. What would I do? Get the hell out of his house before he actually does it. I was not invited in the first place.

I am totally against the war. Can you tell? ^ ^

-----
You make it sound like some farmer found this thing and didnt know what it was and just set it by the side of the road hoping it would go off. Significant difference there in my opinion.
----

True... Sorry, I just can't help it. I've been told that I'm too ironic some times... but just can't help it. Yes, definitely I don't think the way I posted it is the actual way it happened... but the idea is the same. None of these people in such small group had the vision (probably not even the command) to plan a good attack on the soldiers (I have to add... fortunately!). I believe they are mostly moved by anger and hate with very little thinking. I guess that's where they are not to far from my virtual farmer.

---
If you read the whole thread Joph posted the definition of what a WMD is, this shell was a WMD...
---

Indeed, I agree, too. According to that same definition, rat poison could be considered WMD. Oil could be considered WMD. Cigarrets could be considered WMD. (/bow to Truth, by the way... I love their campaign). Man, I probably have a decent amount of WMDs in my home. Fortunately I don't have any oil.


---
...intelligence and how everyone (not just the US) thought that Iraq had WMD stockpiles and weapons programs...
---

I think I have to disagree on this one. How many countries are in the world? 144 or so? (Hard to tell, it seems the number changes faster than I can learn it...) How many countries approved the attack on Irak because they were convinced of such WMD existence? Ok, lets forget about the 144... Lets stick to the few members of the United Nations Security Council... how many approved? you can count them with one hand. And you still have some fingers free.

Anyway, I think that's history now.

Now... I only wish every day... that those soldiers come back home soon... they say the war is over, but they keep dying.
In Spain elections, short after the Madrid bombing, the people ordered to the goverment to stop fooling around and send back their soldiers... it happened really quick. Man, I wish things were that easy here... that soldiers could be brought home by not relecting Bush...

And no... I'm not democrat nor republican.
I'm just totally against the war.

bleh, any us news company is biased. If they started flaming the us, dnt youthink the gov would shut them down? Same with iraq news, do they cheer the us on?