BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 05:39 PM

Well, I guess that I'll never get an answer from any Bush apologist about how many Iraqis Saddam was killing on a daily basis in the year leading up to the invasion... Seems all I get is an average which can be very misleading... It is entirely fiesable that he didn't kill anyone but like no one here know that fir sure... Alll they have is this average which is speread over how many years???

Okay, if we take the United States and want to do an average with the beginning time line being the day that Hiroshima was bombed and throw in Korea, Vietnem and now Iraq it might provide an interesting stat???

But lets firget stats fir now and go back to the summer before the invasion... Remember that dreaded August where Bush was beginning to try to sell the war to the American people and havin' to admit that it was a bad month to market a war??? I remember thinkin' that entire summer while arguin' with folks here, "Hey, even Bush ain't this dumb..." as probably most folks around the world were thinking as well...

Well come September when he got that big old war drum out it became apparent that the man was act5ually "mad" enough to do it and in that current of fear that he was gonna do it no matter, yeah, alot of countries came on board to support the inspections... Anything but a friggin' invasion!!!

And jsut as Hans Blix started making some positve progress and saying so publicly, Bush turned the amp up on the War Drum to 10 and drowned out all reasonable thought... He was gonna invade no matter... Yeah, he was gonna give his cheering section something to hoop and holler about... It was no longer about intellegence... But a testeserone and politically driven decision that had nuthin' to do with intellegence...

So, it's no wonder that evn today when I, or others, print the exact words of Hans Blix that folks don't remember it that way... Like, unless they were deaf and couldn't hear4 the incessant 24/7 pounding of the Wra Drum, hey, it was purdy hard to hear much of anything else...

But Blix said in his report to the UN, "the most important" aspect of this report is the Iraqi "cooperation"!!! Like what is so difficult with comprhending what the word "most" means here, folks... Most means exactly that.... MOST, fir gosh sakes...

And now the Bush apologists say that it is the anti-war folks who are trying to revise the story???? What a joke...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 04:57 PM

My apologies I hit the submit button by mistake in that last post of mine.

Arne was telling us that he didn't have any trouble putting inspectors in. Remarkable achievement the UN had been trying for the best part of five years without success and George W Bush had to park an American Army on Iraq's border before Saddam caved in and invited them back - we should have left it to Arne, who no doubt can provide some evidence of his "pushing" to get inspectors into Iraq. But Arne said "we" now he could not have meant the likes of Jacques (The Crook) Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, Vlad Putin, because with regard to inspectors returning to Iraq there was not a peep out of them between 1998 and summer 2002, not surprising they were making too much money out of Saddam. It was GWB that got them back in - The good Doctor acknowledged that to the UNSC and to the world's press.

Now I don't know what business or profession you are/were in Arne, considering your later mail possibly a vet, whatever, it seems to require a rather twisted brand of logic. You see Arne would have us believe that he, along with the UN and a whole bunch of allies go to war to drive an aggressor out of a UN member state that the aggressor has invaded and plundered. Having been expelled from that country the aggressor aggressor agrees to "Ceasefire" conditions formalised by The UN that requires in no uncertain terms that the aggressor does:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.

No sooner than the ink is dry on the page along comes Arne and tells the Aggressor not to worry, don't bother complying with B, D and F, as in the scale of things they could be considered immaterial.

Arne tells us that with regard to newspapers he takes everything he reads with agrain of salt. Not surprising when his font of all truth with regard to what is happening in Iraq is Aljazeere, that was one of two sites Arne linked to. Aljazeere.net says nothing about what Arne orginially contended - 99% of Sunni's in some places voting for the new Iraqi Constitution, and shock and surprise neither does the other link BBC News. Arne then must have read those links for he goes on to say - "Granted, I didn't find the explicit claims about the very high "Yes" votes in Sunni areas, but that may have been early reports; but these here indicate similar if not identical problems." - Well Arne in fact no they didn't, go back and read them, I know that you have problems with English Comprehension.

Arne....."The number of deaths is vastly greater than under Saddam's regime."

Well Arne Saddam was in power for a fair old time, depending on what figures you believe Saddam's 'average' per day in office amounted to somewhere between 154 and 282 of his own citizens. They of course are the ones who until recently inhabited over 300 Mass Grave Sites dotted around the countryside of Iraq.

One thing is for certain Iraq doesn't have any WMD now, and has no plans to acquire them, and the world and its dog KNOW that.

I am NOW quite prepared to accept that he didn't have them before. Nobody KNEW that AT THE TIME - but we do now, because the President of the United States of America made sure that he did not have them.

Yes the US Constitution took time to put together, what about The Declaration of Independence, upon which the Constitution is based, when did they go into print with that? It gave enough heart and hope for the people to fight and gain that independence.

The world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before. Go to http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/17/war.un.ap/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 03:34 PM

Arne,

"simply declaring somethign doesn't make it so"
"You really do have a perverse idea of the way things work in the real world. Or you're just intentionally intellectually dishonest....."


I agree with these statements, entirely- in reference to your presentation of evidence and/or UN reports... ie, NONE.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 03:30 PM

Arne,

Does it really matter whether there were wmd?

Firstly, the 'reason' of wmd wasn't the real reason we invaded Iraq.

Secondly, if it were the real reason it would not have mattered. If you believe in UN (which I don't) and are willing to give up sovereignty, then you must enforce its rules. Name one credible organization that did not believe that Iraq had wmd before the invasion?

So I ask, does it really matter whether there were wmd?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 03:24 PM

Teribus:

Yep, it was me (don't always remember to fill in the "From" field...)

Any mention of the word search there Arne?

You weren't on Clinton's legal defence team, were you? Well, let me tell you, Scooter and ROve might be able to use your "talents" right now....

Oh Arne, NOW, in the light of inspections subsequent to March 2003,....

Ummmm, Saddam certainly wasn't "co-operating" with these "inspections".    Or perhaps you misspelled "searches".

Pretty d*** lame excuse-making here. And just a FYI, it wasn't me that wanted the U-2 overflights; it was Blix, so if you want to argue about the efficiency of such (as if that makes any difference to your evasions here), go argue it with him. But don't think you're making any useful points here with your "red herrings". Rather than try and tell me that Blix is an eedjit, try and figure out for yourself why he asked for all that stuff. He asked for this sutff and he got it, so plenty of pretty smart people thought it a useful thing to have....

Yes, Blix (and the U.N.) thought that a detailed and accurate report on the alleged disposition/destruction of any suspected WoMD or materials would help them to verify those cases where the weapons actually had been disposed of (and in fact, as I pointed out, this was used to verify to a reasonable degree that the stories matched the evidence). In cases where the stories matched what the inspectors found, the inspectors could at least provisionally cross off specific items of concern. But as everyone here (and elsewhere) but you seems to have figured out, that was only half the job (a half made easier by specific information about positive evidence that could be checked out). The other half, necessary (at least I'd think so to you, who seem overly concerned with the slightest possibility of a hint of the tiniest amonts of "weapons related program activities" so as to ward off your nightmares about muchroom clouds), was to check to make sure there weren't any other WoMD that might not have been suspected or known about, new programs, hidden facilities, oh, say, things like "mobile bioweapons labs" that the U.S. knew he had, but which he disclaimed any knowledge of. For that, you have to jus go search. It's not too hard to understadn, Teribus. You ought to at least make the effort....

Nobody was prepared to believe that [Saddam no longer had weapons] back in 2002, on the totally reliable evidence and reporting of the UN (AT THAT TIME).

Not true (and more so when you include the early months of 2003). Quite a number of people thought there was little chance he had any significant weapons, and a lot of people thought that the U.S. 'intelligence' to the contrary was in fact far more full'o'sh***.

If you want my take, I've been in business long enough to know a "dog and pony show" when I see one, and Powell's presentiation at the U.N. was just that. I criticised the U.K. dossier when it first came out (and then there were the subsequent revelations that the U.K dossier was largely plagiarized from a pre-GW1 grad stundent's paper, leading to even greater scepticism as to its value).

When these things start becoming apparent, you have to take a step back and say that your "worst case" analysis might be just that ... but in a quite unintended sense ... and that you might need to reconsider what a reasonable course of action is under the circumstances. OF course, this was never done, and this will become more and more apparent over time (as Dubya's honesty ratings go down the toilet).

Pretty sad, Teribus, but you'd do yourself a favour if you'd show the intellectual honesty and intelligence to jump the sinking ship before the patent dishonesty of your position becomes so obvious as to permanently stain your reputation. Lots of folks are doing it, certainly the Democrats who have seemingly evolved a backbone, and now even Republicans who are more and more worried that they personally will be taken down in the sucking whirlpool when the good ship Dubya slips under the waves....

Point 1. The unilateral and unauthorised destruction of WMD weapons, agents and materials was forbidden under UNSC Resolutions and by the agreement reached at Safwan.

They did it right after the war. Maybe a bad idea, but it's a hard thing to undo (and kind of pointless to try). You really gong to hold it against them that they destroyed stuff in an unauthorised manner?

NOW COMPLETE WHAT DR: BLIX STATED IN HIS REPORT - but those results were inconclusive with regard to the amount destroyed.

Indeed. Which is why Blix had no problems with searching elsewhere to make sure none had been squirreled away.

The UN Security Council unanimously decided that Saddam's co-operation was essential to the success of UNMOVIC's mission in Iraq. FACT.

Once again, simply declaring somethign doesn't make it so. Perhaps you think that Russia needs to invade Iraq now to make sure that there's no WoMD hidden there, seeing as we never got the "co-operation" of Saddam in doing our survey. Maybe they can go do it "right" and trot him along and do it the way you insist. Then we can finally sleep peacefully, eh?

You really do have a perverse idea of the way things work in the real world. Or you're just intentionally intellectually dishonest.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST,Just Curious
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:50 PM

Who is Teribus anyway, and how does he have so much time to devote to this? And what's his motivation?

I get the impression that he may very well be about five or six staff members working for a neo-conservative think-tank. Lots of what he posts appears to be cut-and-paste from a library of right-wing tracts.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 11:24 AM

I am assuming that GUEST 15 Nov 05 - 10:10 PM is Arne Langsetmo, if not I apologise Guest.

So Arne - with your outstanding command of the English Language you tell us that - To verify is to search - or at least you try to

Well Arne I have no trouble with the English language, and I have no trouble in the comprehension of it, as you appear to.

Source - Websters
Monitor:
1 a : a student appointed to assist a teacher b : one that warns or instructs c : one that monitors or is used in monitoring : as (1) : a cathode-ray tube used for display (as of television pictures or computer information) (2) : a device for observing a biological condition or function
2 : any of various large tropical Old World lizards (genus Varanus of the family Varanidae) closely related to the iguanas
3 [Monitor, first ship of the type] a : a heavily armored warship formerly used in coastal operations having a very low freeboard and one or more revolving gun turrets b : a small modern warship with shallow draft for coastal bombardment
4 : a raised central portion of a roof having low windows or louvers for providing light and air

Inspect:
1 : to view closely in critical appraisal : look over
2 : to examine officially (inspects the barracks every Friday)
intransitive senses : to make an inspection
synonym see SCRUTINIZE

Verify:
1 : to confirm or substantiate in law by oath
2 : to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of
synonym see CONFIRM

Any mention of the word search there Arne? I can't see it. Any time that you do want a lesson on English Comprehension just let me know.

Arne...."I really am serious here, Teribus: Are you just daft, or do you really think that the job of the inspectors is to sit sipping tea at the Palestine Hotel while the Iraqis trundle the stuff in for approval? Or perhaps you're just being intellectually dishonest. Care to explain why they needed U-2s, radiation monitors, earth-penetrating radar, helicopers and other vehicles, and a whole raft of other stuff? C'mon, fess up, you were just funning me there, right?"

These guys with all that stuff were who again Arne - UNMOVIC - any idea what that stands for? If you don't then your skills in relation to comprehension are even worse than I thought, but we'll go through your list of 'search' stuff shall we:
- U-2's (liked their music maybe, and Bono does give ones organisation a certain Je ne sais quios - naw only takin' the piss Arne) The infamous Gary Powers Spy Plane, very difficult to fly and with an appalling safety record - most that were built crashed. Now why did the good Dr. Blix need those and why did Saddam do his best to stop them. Well UNMOVIC stands for United Nations MOnitoring Verification Inspection Committee. Spy planes are very good at monitoring - it is what they built for - not so good at searching, which is why SAR organisations don't fly U-2's, they use other types of aircraft far better suited to the task.

Radiation Monitors - Inspection, verification and safety, or is that a little too prosaic for you Arne (Prosaic doesn't mean search either Arne - Relax)

Earth-penetrating radar - Used to verify the extent of sites inspected.

Helicopers and other vehicles - Eh? Transport maybe?

AND- "a whole raft of other stuff" - well you got me there Arne I suppose that includes St.Bernards Dogs, they're used to search for things. Is this really the best you can do Arne???? Pathetic!!!

So Arne you'd like to play poker would you, judging by your skills of reasoning you would play it just about as well as Saddam Hussein did - He lost and so are you, if this sort or tripe is the best arguement you can muster.

Now at what point did I say that "Blix should have just took them at their word as longs as they were "co-operating full[y]"? I certainly didn't and the good Doctor's organisation's procedures were pretty specific remember - Inspect, critically appraise, examine officially, scrutinize - Verify, confirm, substantiate, establish the truth, accuracy and reality of any given statement, situation or event.

Oh Arne, NOW, in the light of inspections subsequent to March 2003, I am perfectly prepared to believe that he didn't have the stuff. Nobody was prepared to believe that back in 2002, on the totally reliable evidence and reporting of the UN (AT THAT TIME)

On this following one Arne you are being rather selective:
"Saddam did say they'd destroyed a bunch of CW previously unaccounted for, but the good doctor, being a much wiser man than you, went anyway to the site in question, and they checked and indeed found residue consistent with the Iraqi claims. But that still leaves Blix to go check wherever else he wants to make sure that there's nothign squirreled away. That what's called "inspection".

Point 1. The unilateral and unauthorised destruction of WMD weapons, agents and materials was forbidden under UNSC Resolutions and by the agreement reached at Safwan. UNSCOM was supposed to supervise, authenticate and verify the destruction of ALL such material - So Saddam ended up getting shafted for jumping the gun, for having destroyed these items without the presence of UNSCOM to authenticate it he could not prove that he had done it - pity he thought it best to kill the poor beggars who had destroyed them as they could not be questioned by the good Dr. Blix. The good Dr, Blix and his merry men did check and indeed found residue consistent with the Iraqi claims - NOW COMPLETE WHAT DR: BLIX STATED IN HIS REPORT - but those results were inconclusive with regard to the amount destroyed. Sure they could say something had been destroyed there but no definitive what and no definitive quantity.

Arne - an easy sentence for you to comprehend the meaning of - The UN Security Council unanimously decided that Saddam's co-operation was essential to the success of UNMOVIC's mission in Iraq. FACT.



"That's why WE pushed.." Who are the WE Arne? Only person I can remember pushing to get inspectors into Iraq in the summer of 2002 was George W Bush

I had no problem with putting inspectors in ... in fact I think it was a good idea. Dubya's first inclination was to invade ... and then public pressure made him go to the Security Council, and the reinstitution of inspections was deemed the best action. The entire Security COuncil agreed on this, and in fact, in March 2003, most nations thought that this was producing results, and was still the best course of action. Not so, Dubya, who needed a war for reasons best known to himself and the PNAC....

Not all intelligence was garbage - The evaluation of Iraq's missile testing and development programme was 100% correct....

And pretty much immaterial. The stated limit on missile range was 150 Km. Perhaps a couple of the Al Samoud missiles had exceeded that nominal range by a few Km (but the Iraqis claimed only with no actual warhead). But the 150 Km is a pretty arbitrary limit; those less that 150 Km were legal, but those over illegal, but there ain't a heack of a lot of difference with a few extra Km in terms of significance as "WoMD". Nonetheless, rather than give the Dubya gunslingers something to yell "Gotcha" for, the Iraqis agreed to destroy the Al Samoud missiles, and Blix was supervising this very effort when Dubya got his panties soiled and started screaming for a change.

But as to missile intelligence, it wasn't all that good, either, really. The U.S. had claimed that Saddam retained SCUDs, but the U.N. teams, checking the 'intelligence', found a load of chickens*** ... literally; at one site supposedly a secret SCUD site, they found a chicken farm. Dem's da facts, ma'am.

- About 10,000 additional liters of anthrax were not destroyed...

Actually, IIRC, it was growth media for said quantitites, and was unaccounted for, but not at all certain that it wasn't destroyed or decayed...

... and may still exist.

No. Do pay attention.

On VX Nerve Agent UNMOVIC's concludes:

Ummm, so where's the VX? Dubya been hiding it?

Aw well there you go then, must be! The newspapers Arne reads never tells lies, never shows any bias and is always completely truthful - well at least to their certain knowledge. Arne what goes into to newspapers is what the editor thinks will sell them.

I take everything I read with a grain of salt. But there's certain things that are pretty d*** certain, such as the attacks on troops, suicide bombings, slayings of high Iraqis, lack of power, water, etc., just the freaking' airport-Baghdad dash, the thousands of tonnes of explosives and weapons the U.S. allowed to be looted, the horrible and climbing toll of Iraqis dead, anonanonanonanon....

If what you state above is an example of what you read in your newspapers Arne start listening to the news. The only reference I got to your Sunni 99% figure was this - ....

Just a quick Google shows this and this.

Granted, I didn't find the explicit claims about the very high "Yes" votes in Sunni areas, but that may have been early reports; but these here indicate similar if not identical problems.

Well as we've seen all those troops really influenced the results in the Sunni areas. By and large those 140K troops, their MNF partners and the Iraq forces are actually managing to keep the vast bulk of Iraq's 25.4 million people from quick gruesome deaths, or at least they were the last time I checked. I'd say that counted as being pretty benevolent.

The number of deaths is vastly greater than under Saddam's regime. Maybe most people are not being killed, but methinks you set the bar a bit too low....

Arne asks - out of the blue - "What does that have to do with WoMDs?"


Well, this thread is about whether Dubya's invasion of Iraq was justified by the WoMD rationale he put forth, not whether a post facto nation-building excuse could be cobbled together to save his sorry ass...

To which I can only reply - ? But one thing is for certain Iraq doesn't have any WMD now, and has no plans to acquire them, that's a change for the better.

He didn't have them before. He doesn't have them now. And we have 2000+ dead U.S. soldiers and many more Iraqis. Not to mention a couple hundred billion down the drain killing people. Don't knwo where you side on that equation, but I know which side I think is the dead weight. . . .

Maybe so Arne - but having one [a constitution] gives a reasonable indication.

Balderdash. A constitution without a functioning civil government or even society is probably best used to replace the toilet paper that is impossible to find. I'd note that it was quite some time before the United States put together a constitution after the Revolutionary War ... and even then they deferred the Bill of Rights that some champions of all that is good and great in a constitution seem to think is the fundamental thing there. Not to mention, we're in the process of dismantling the Constitution here purportedly under the rationale that "being in a war changes things".... But we don't have rampant lawlessness, daily mortar attacks here, fighting in the streets on a daily basis, no jobs, no security, random slayings, food and power shortages (yet, it's still imperative that the Great Writ be suspended here, as well as our Fourth and Fifth Amendment privileges). But you think the constitution (which isn't all that great a harbinger of good things to come in Iraq even as written is a great thing? To me, it's smearing the lipstick pretty think on a pig.....

The world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before.

Here I'll agree with you, strangely enough. It never was in danger from terrorists. Terrorists don't win; they use terror because it is the weapon that they do have (one Palestinian, IIRC, had said something to the effect of "sure, give us the F-16s and Cobra gunships, and we'll forgo the suicide bombings", or somethig to that effect). Their fondest hope is to make you lose your cool. But you have the power over that; you can refuse to be cowed by the terrorist and you can refuse to over-react. If you do the moral thing, they may even lose their support from the vast majority of people that think that terrorism is intrinsically wrong, and they may give up or just dissipate. Or the may not. But in either case, you've at least kept your own morals ... but that is something that it seems is less and less a consideration for Republicans and their supporters that have little left to lose in this respect.

But AAMOF, terrorist attacks are on the rise. Thought you might want to know that.

In matters relating to security or defence it is normally prudent to adopt 'Worst' case - that way you tend not to get caught out......;-)

Nonsense. But it's easy to see you don't get out much.   ;-)

And with that, I have a sweetie to go home to. Ciao.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 07:52 AM

Ake,

In your reply to T: "In your last post all you've done is bluster, patronise and name call."

He brings out facts, and the UN report, and YOU "bluster, patronise and name call"

" the use of "chemical weapons" "

If you want to insist that any weapon with chemicals is a "chemical weapon", YOU have to concede that any weapon with atoms is an "atomic weapon"- THUS Saddam not only had them, but used them, and ALL of your comments are worthless. Think again, unless you want to make this concession and admit you are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:27 AM

Teribus, you say, "Iraq no longer sponsors international terrorists, or pays Palestinian children to blow themselves up - If you want to see the effect of that take a look at the dip in the incidents in Israel before and after March 2003 - probably just a coincidence, eh Arne?"

The incidents in Israel may or may not have decreased but the terror in Iraq is ongoing. Didn't the U.S. overthrow Saddam because he incarcerated without trial, he tortured and he killed his own people?
With the help of the U.S. government, it looks as if the new Iraqi govt. is guilty of the very same thing. They have recently discovered torture chamber in the interior ministry. The Wolf brigade and many other paramilitary groups are springing up everywhere.

Answer this question teribus, "Are the lives of Israelis more important than the lives of Iraqis?"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 10:50 PM

Ake,

No disrespect intended but T's worst enemy is T!!!

Yeah, he is incapable of discssing ideas... I have asked him on countless occasions about why Bush didn't have Saddam assinated...

No answer....

I have asked him why the US went to war when the majority of the UN was against it...

No answer....

I've asked why ther big hurry with the invasion when Hans Blix was sayin' the the Iraqia were cooperatin'...

No answer....

No, what I continuely get is being called a "fu*k" 'er given a "War'n Peace" length rebuttal with a lot of meaningless crap...

So, this evening I have challenged Terrible to a battle of bands... When he looses then he has to stop this blind allegence to George Bush...

Plain and simple challenge here...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 10:10 PM

Teribus:

... reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification; ...

and:

Now then Arne, where in the above text is UNMOVIC's instruction to search for proscribed weapons and materials...

I'm having no problems with the English. Are you perhaps not a native speaker?

I really am serious here, Teribus: Are you just daft, or do you really think that the job of the inspectors is to sit sipping tea at the Palestine Hotel while the Iraqis trundle the stuff in for approval? Or perhaps you're just being intellectually dishonest. Car eto explain why they needed U-2s, radiation monitors, earth-penetrating radar, helicopers and other vehicles, and a whole raft of other stuff? C'mon, fess up, you were just funning me there, right?

Arne - "Because they brought a lot of equipment and instrumentation in to do precisely that, and in fact that's what they were doing."

Well now Arne having waded through the UN text bringing UNMOVIC into existence we now all know that they were not there to search for WMD.

Ummm, maybe not. Which leave pretty much the earlier possibilities I mentioned. Clue us in, Teribus, which one is it? Daft, Dumb, or Dishonest, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis....

Now Arne IF UNMOVIC are getting IRAQ's full co-operation, they wouldn't have to search would they?

I'll play you some poker any day, Teribus. I have a royal flush. OK, now just push that money my way, and no, you can't see it. Why do you insist on repeating your stoopidity? Do you really think that Blix should have just took them at their word as longs as they were "co-operating full[y]"? I certainly don't and I doubt that Blix did either.

By Christ Arne, I do believe you are beginning to get the gist of it. Saddam and his lads tell the good Dr. Blix what they've got then the good Dr. and his team go down there to check it out.

You missed the part where Saddam didn't have the stuff. So he trots out the stuff he doesn't have and Blix doesn't destroy it. BTW, that's not too far from what happened; Saddam did say they'd destroyed a bunch of CW previously unaccounted for, but the good doctor, being a much wiser man than you, went anyway to the site in question, and they checked and indeed found residue consistent with the Iraqi claims. But that still leaves Blix to go check whereever else he wants to make sure that there's nothign squirreled away. That what's called "inspection".

Arne - "But Saddam's co-operation was hardly necessary for the success of Blix's actual mission"

Oddly enough Arne the UN Security Council unanimously decided that Saddam's co-operation was essential.

Whether "co-operation was essential" is a factual issue. Declarations (care to trot out a reference to such?) don't change facts.

"That's why WE pushed.." Who are the WE Arne? Only person I can remember pushing to get inspectors into Iraq in the summer of 2002 was George W Bush

I had no problem with putting inspectors in ... in fact I think it was a good idea. Dubya's first inclination was to invade ... and then public pressure made him go to the Security Council, and the reinstitution of inspections was deemed the best action. The entire Security COuncil agreed on this, and in fact, in March 2003, most nations thought that this was producing results, and was still the best course of action. Not so, Dubya, who needed a war for reasons best known to himself and the PNAC....

Not all intelligence was garbage - The evaluation of Iraq's missile testing and development programme was 100% correct....

And pretty much immaterial. The stated limit on missile range was 150 Km. Perhaps a couple of the Al Samoud missiles had exceeded that nominal range by a few Km (but the Iraqis claimed only with no actual warhead). But the 150 Km is a pretty arbitrary limit; those less that 150 Km were legal, but those over illegal, but there ain't a heack of a lot of difference with a few extra Km in terms of significance as "WoMD". Nonetheless, rather than give the Dubya gunslingers something to yell "Gotcha" for, the Iraqis agreed to destroy the Al Samoud missiles, and Blix was supervising this very effort when Dubya got his panties soiled and started screaming for a change.

But as to missile intelligence, it wasn't all that good, either, really. The U.S. had claimed that Saddam retained SCUDs, but the U.N. teams, checking the 'intelligence', found a load of chickens*** ... literally; at one site supposedly a secret SCUD site, they found a chicken farm. Dem's da facts, ma'am.

- About 10,000 additional liters of anthrax were not destroyed...

Actually, IIRC, it was growth media for said quantitites, and was unaccounted for, but not at all certain that it wasn't destroyed or decayed...

... and may still exist.

No. Do pay attention.

On VX Nerve Agent UNMOVIC's concludes:

Ummm, so where's the VX? Dubya been hiding it?

Aw well there you go then, must be! The newspapers Arne reads never tells lies, never shows any bias and is always completely truthful - well at least to their certain knowledge. Arne what goes into to newspapers is what the editor thinks will sell them.

I take everything I read with a grain of salt. But there's certain things that are pretty d*** certain, such as the attacks on troops, suicide bombings, slayings of high Iraqis, lack of power, water, etc., just the freaking' airport-Baghdad dash, the thousands of tonnes of explosives and weapons the U.S. allowed to be looted, the horrible and climbing toll of Iraqis dead, anonanonanonanon....

If what you state above is an example of what you read in your newspapers Arne start listening to the news. The only reference I got to your Sunni 99% figure was this - ....

Just a quick Google shows this and this.

Granted, I didn't find the explicit claims about the very high "Yes" votes in Sunni areas, but that may have been early reports; but these here indicate similar if not identical problems.

Well as we've seen all those troops really influenced the results in the Sunni areas. By and large those 140K troops, their MNF partners and the Iraq forces are actually managing to keep the vast bulk of Iraq's 25.4 million people from quick gruesome deaths, or at least they were the last time I checked. I'd say that counted as being pretty benevolent.

The number of deaths is vastly greater than under Saddam's regime. Maybe most people are not being killed, but methinks you set the bar a bit too low....

Arne asks - out of the blue - "What does that have to do with WoMDs?"


Well, this thread is about whether Dubya's invasion of Iraq was justified by the WoMD rationale he put forth, not whether a post facto nation-building excuse could be cobbled together to save his sorry ass...

To which I can only reply - ? But one thing is for certain Iraq doesn't have any WMD now, and has no plans to acquire them, that's a change for the better.

He didn't have them before. He doesn't have them now. And we have 2000+ dead U.S. soldiers and many more Iraqis. Not to mention a couple hundred billion down the drain killing people. Don't knwo where you side on that equation, but I know which side I think is the dead weight. . . .

Maybe so Arne - but having one [a constitution] gives a reasonable indication.

Balderdash. A constitution without a functioning civil government or even society is probably best used to replace the toilet paper that is impossible to find. I'd note that it was quite some time before the United States put together a constitution after the Revolutionary War ... and even then they deferred the Bill of Rights that some champions of all that is good and great in a constitution seem to think is the fundamental thing there. Not to mention, we're in the process of dismantling the Constitution here purportedly under the rationale that "being in a war changes things".... But we don't have rampant lawlessness, daily mortar attacks here, fighting in the streets on a daily basis, no jobs, no security, random slayings, food and power shortages (yet, it's still imperative that the Great Writ be suspended here, as well as our Fourth and Fifth Amendment privileges). But you think the constitution (which isn't all that great a harbinger of good things to come in Iraq even as written is a great thing? To me, it's smearing the lipstick pretty think on a pig.....

The world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before.

Here I'll agree with you, strangely enough. It never was in danger from terrorists. Terrorists don't win; they use terror because it is the weapon that they do have (one Palestinian, IIRC, had said something to the effect of "sure, give us the F-16s and Cobra gunships, and we'll forgo the suicide bombings", or somethig to that effect). Their fondest hope is to make you lose your cool. But you have the power over that; you can refuse to be cowed by the terrorist and you can refuse to over-react. If you do the moral thing, they may even lose their support from the vast majority of people that think that terrorism is intrinsically wrong, and they may give up or just dissipate. Or the may not. But in either case, you've at least kept your own morals ... but that is something that it seems is less and less a consideration for Republicans and their supporters that have little left to lose in this respect.

But AAMOF, terrorist attacks are on the rise. Thought you might want to know that.

In matters relating to security or defence it is normally prudent to adopt 'Worst' case - that way you tend not to get caught out......;-)

Nonsense. But it's easy to see you don't get out much.   ;-)

And with that, I have a sweetie to go home to. Ciao.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 10:04 PM

Yes Bobert and with the latest revelations regarding torture and the use of "chemical weapons" against the people we were supposed to liberate, there will be many more questions for Teribus, Hubby and Bruce to avoid.

Its all gone horribly wrong for our "warriors", but we shouldn't feel too sorry for them, they're fortunate compared to the Iraqis.
Teribus's biggest nightmare is Arne.... not white phospherus

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 09:48 PM

Well, Ake... Seems that the once great T has been freduced to T-Bluster and T-Patronize so, yeah, I'd have to agree with you that Arne is chippin' away at T's stature...

I keep askin' the same question that T-Distration has never answered about offin' Saddam if he was Bush's big problem... But to date, Bush has off'ed tens upon thousands of innocent women and kids in Iraq and Saddam is quite comfy???

Hmmmmm? Talk about avoidin' one single questoion??? I've asked it now maybe 20 times and all I get from the Bush apologists is......ahhhhh, friggin' silence...

No, occasionally they will point out my bad spellin' whe I ask it but I will guraentee you, Ake, that T-Avoid will never answer it other than in a "War 'n Peace" lenght about international law, which he loves when it suits his purpose, but he'll ignore if his boy, Bush, is in conflict with....

Noraml, fir T-Distract... He want's to kepp the discuassion well in in ***his*** comfy zone... Proble is that the real world ain't got nuthin' to T-Distratc's comfy zone...

Oh yeah, he won't answer this question... I guarentee he won't even think about answering this questionj... What T-Shift will do is try to shift the question back on me... He'll make fun of my spellin' 'er typin' but he won't come right out and answer this question...

Why?

Because he can't... If he were to got there then he coul;d no longer hide behind his stone wall and have to actaully discuss ideas... You notice that T-Machine has no real ideas... Just endless. UN crap...

Like who cares about the UN??? Bush doesn't so why, all of a sudden, should we???

The UN didn't want Bush to invade Iraq. Busgh invaded Iraq. End of UN story...

Time to get some new material on the juke box...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 09:26 PM

I think you better give up Teribus, you've at last met someone who's prepared to play you at your own game...and beat you.

In your last post all you've done is bluster, patronise and name call.

Like Blair and Bush your time is up sonny...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:54 PM

Here we go Arne,

Just for you - THE BIRTH OF UNMOVIC - Otherwise known and loved as:

UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1284 (1999)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 4084th meeting,
on 17 December 1999

The Security Council,
A.

1. Decides to establish, as a subsidiary body of the Council, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) which replaces the Special Commission established pursuant to paragraph 9 (b) of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides also that UNMOVIC will undertake the responsibilities mandated to the Special Commission by the Council with regard to the verification of compliance by Iraq with its obligations under paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of resolution 687 (1991) and other related resolutions, that UNMOVIC will establish and operate, as was recommended by the panel on disarmament and current and future ongoing monitoring and verification issues, a reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification, which will implement the plan approved by the Council in resolution 715 (1991) and address unresolved disarmament issues, and that UNMOVIC will identify, as necessary in accordance with its mandate, additional sites in Iraq to be covered by the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification;

Now then Arne, where in the above text is UNMOVIC's instruction to search for proscribed weapons and materials - Remember the Iraqi's are required to co-operate fully.

Now then what were the other points you wanted to draw my attention to:

Oh yes a return to the searching for WMD thing.

Arne - "Because they brought a lot of equipment and instrumentation in to do precisely that, and in fact that's what they were doing."

Well now Arne having waded through the UN text bringing UNMOVIC into existence we now all know that they were not there to search for WMD. This was further reinforced in UNSC Resolution 1441 which called for Iraq's full co-operation. Now Arne IF UNMOVIC are getting IRAQ's full co-operation, they wouldn't have to search would they? But you state above that UNMOVIC were having to search - In which case Iraq by your observation is in Material Breach of UNSC Resolution 1441 knowing full well that such a breach would result in 'serious consequences'

Arne - "What you're quoting is a bit of politicking, a bit of fluff that was intended to nudge Saddam into fuller co-operation and trotting out any WoMD (which he didn't have)."

A bit of politicking? Clearly stated requirements outlined in a UNSC Resolution, 'a bit of politicking?' Iraq's full and pro-active co-operation was required by the UN from DAY ONE - without any nudging, Saddam sent the UN a nice letter agreeing to do that very thing - Didn't he Arne?

Arne - "But make no mistake, Blix wasn't as stoopid as you seem to be here, and wasn't going to settle for Saddam to come rolling the WoMD up to the Hotel Palestine for him to bless; he was going to check on his own to make sure that Saddam was being forthright."

By Christ Arne, I do believe you are beginning to get the gist of it. Saddam and his lads tell the good Dr. Blix what they've got then the good Dr. and his team go down there to check it out. That is more or less what "a reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification," does - still not having to search you see Arne - are you quite clear on that simple point - or do we have to go over it again.

Arne - "But Saddam's co-operation was hardly necessary for the success of Blix's actual mission"

Oddly enough Arne the UN Security Council unanimously decided that Saddam's co-operation was essential.

The 'Worst case Scenario' Thing

Arne - Well here Arne doesn't actually have any point to make at all. He just witters on about absolutely nothing, which I suppose is fairly reasonable because in doing so he is talking about something he knows alot about - Nothing.

Point being made Arne was as follows. The function of the Joint Intelligence Committee when tasked to make an evaluation is to address the subject matter, review the intelligence and make an assessment that outlines the situation viewed from the perspective of 'Worst' and 'Best' cases. It is then a Cabinet decision which to adopt in order to formulate Government Policy. In matters relating to security or defence it is normally prudent to adopt 'Worst' case - that way you tend not to get caught out.

Was the intelligence 'doctored'

Arne - "The best evidence was on the ground. Hell, that's why we pushed to get the inspectors in there."

"That's why WE pushed.." Who are the WE Arne? Only person I can remember pushing to get inspectors into Iraq in the summer of 2002 was George W Bush - everybody else seemed to be decidedly cool towards the idea.

Not all intelligence was garbage - The evaluation of Iraq's missile testing and development programme was 100% correct. The following are UNMOVIC's conclusions on a couple of points as of 7th March 2003

On Anthrax UNMOVIC concludes:
- About 10,000 additional liters of anthrax were not destroyed and may still exist.

On VX Nerve Agent UNMOVIC's concludes:
- Iraq provided false and misleading declarations in order to retain production equipment specifically modified to produce VX.
- Direct physical evidence contradicts Iraq's claim that it never weaponized VX.
- Iraq failed to provide any credible evidence to support its claims of unilateral destruction of VX and VX precursors.
- UN inspectors reported to the UN Security Council that "UNMOVIC has information that conflicts with [Iraq's] account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problems of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared."

THE DISASTER according to Arne Langsetmo:

Arne - Its a disaster "..if you bother reading a newspaper...."

Aw well there you go then, must be! The newspapers Arne reads never tells lies, never shows any bias and is always completely truthful - well at least to their certain knowledge. Arne what goes into to newspapers is what the editor thinks will sell them.

Iraq's Constitution:

Arne - "My, the U.S. woudl have had quite the constitution with Tories installed in power and a spate of recoats in every town...."

I dare say that they would Arne, there wouldn't be so many guns floating about as a right and fewer of the country's citizenry would be getting shot because of them. Apart from that your comment signifies what exactly? Are you implying that the presence of US troops influenced the vote? Have you got any proof of that? Or is it mere conjecture on your part - Just stirring the mud up Arne because you've run out of any facts to counter the points made.

Arne - "But I'd note that the success of the constitution was remarkable ... with some Sunni areas reporting that 99% or so of eligible voters were in favour of it. Will miracles never cease?"

If what you state above is an example of what you read in your newspapers Arne start listening to the news. The only reference I got to your Sunni 99% figure was this -

"In Falluja, where thousands of insurgents battled US troops a year ago, some 90 per cent of registered voters turned out, local election chief Saadullah al-Rawi said, and 99 per cent of them voted "No" to a constitution that Sunni leaders say may tear Iraq into powerful Shi'ite and Kurdish regions."

Eh? Arne, they voted NO to the constitution - that's them voting in favour of it?

The Forthcoming Elections on 15th December:

Arne's worried that these elections will take place - "Under the benevolent eye of a force of 140K foreign troops which are the only things keeping the polliticans and candidates (or at least a substantial portion of them) from a quick and gruesome death...."

Well as we've seen all those troops really influenced the results in the Sunni areas. By and large those 140K troops, their MNF partners and the Iraq forces are actually managing to keep the vast bulk of Iraq's 25.4 million people from quick gruesome deaths, or at least they were the last time I checked. I'd say that counted as being pretty benevolent.

Arne asks - out of the blue - "What does that have to do with WoMDs?"

To which I can only reply - ? But one thing is for certain Iraq doesn't have any WMD now, and has no plans to acquire them, that's a change for the better.

Arne - "And I'd note the ultimate silliness of a constitution as the hallmark of legitimacy, human rights, or a stable and just state"

Maybe so Arne - but having one gives a reasonable indication. Your example Arne, of Stalin in the USSR. Did the Communist Party of the Soviet Socialist Replublics have an opposition party to contend with? If my memory serves me correctly the USSR, like most Communist countries at the time was a One Party State - so it doesn't matter who counts the votes under that system you will end up with a Communist Government - Even if the votes remain uncounted - TRUE?

The world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before:

The advice of Arne the wise - "just go read the latest State Department report on world terrorism."

Oh latest State Department Report - now on that topic if they operate along the same lines as the JIC in the UK they will address the subject matter, review the intelligence and make an assessment that outlines the situation viewed from the perspective of 'Worst' and 'Best' cases. In matters relating to security or defence it is normally prudent to adopt 'Worst' case - that way you tend not to get caught out......;-)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:16 PM

It appears that there were no Biological or nuclear weapons in Iraq, but there were chemical weapons. The problem with finding them is that nobody was looking for them among coalition ordnance which was where they were.

"We only used white phosphorus as an illuminant or as a smoke screen", they said. Well it now seems that it lit up a number of Iraqis quite effectively, and they'd probably still be burning quite brightly if they hadn't then been blown out with HE.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:00 PM

BB: You can't even get a direct quote on the same thread accredited to the correct poster.

OK, I made a mistake. My sincere apologies to you (although I suspect that you aren't too far from the same opinion ... but I'll let you speak for yourself if you'd care to chime in). See, that was easy. You oght to try it.

OBTW, that would be "credited", not "accredited". Always glad to help with accuracy around here, as long as we're being helpful.

Susu's Hubby: The fact that so many of you are trying to justify Clinton's PROVEN lying, just because "no one died", to a Grand Jury speaks volumes about your own ethical belief structure.

That you think that actions that result in the death of innocents are somehow in a category with all the rest speaks volumes about you ethical belief structure. But FWIW, there was no "PROVEN lying", and furthemore, there is a legal distinction between lying and perjury even if there were any lies shown in Clinton's testimony. There's two other legal requirements for perjury, namely, that the lie be under oath and that it be material. It's the third one here that really is at issue in the "When Clinton lied, no one died" phrase. It's legally permissible to aver falsely that the moon is made of blue cheese in a courtroom ... if this particular bit of information is of no moment to the proceedings. And it is there that Clinton's alleged lies fail the perjury test (and IMNSHO, why Ray settled for the admission he got instead of pursuing a perjury charge). While embarrassing, the fact of whether Clinton did or didn't have "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky had no bearing on Paula Jones's suit (and in fact Wright excluded the Lewinsky stuff from the case).   One of the rules of evidence says that things that are intended to embarrass or prejudice a case can be excluded even if relevant based on a balancing of interests. In addition, because of the inflammatory nature of such digging into sexual histiry, there's a set of rules (FRE412-415, IIRC) having to do with when such evidence can be considered (and when such should be left out), and the Lewinsky evidence did not meet any of the criteria for inclusion. This makes this line of testimony, while tittilating for panty-sniffers such as Starr, legally immaterial. As such, not only did Clinton's alleged lies not get anyone killed, they were legally permissible because they wre of a sort that is normally NOYB (and certainly none of the court's business). The consequences of Clinton's lies didn't matter at all, really, much less get someone killed. HTH.

Susu's Hubby again: I'm sure Vince Foster, Ron Brown and Paul Wellstone would be right there beside you saying the same thing.

If they were able.

Now you're off in La-La-Land. Even your Republicans (more than one) looked at Foster, and say there's no "there" there. Brown, same thing (a tragic aircraft accident). As for Wellstone, are you suggesting the Dubya maladministration did him in (in 2002, ya'know???   ;-)

BB: IF those opposing action had spent half their effort in getting Saddam to comply, perhaps the war would not have been needed,....

A lot of Democrats have said that they approved the Iraq resolution so that the U.N./U.S. would have a strong hand in asking for Saddam's co-operation to resolve the issue (and that they hoped that with this strong hand, Saddam would comply and that hostilities would not be necessary). In fact, this is what happened; Saddam gave us the documents (as best he could, which effort the U.S. pooh-poohed), he let the inspectors in, and they were doing heir jobs and reporting that in fact, the U.S. 'intelligence' was "garbage, garbage, and more garbage" and that in fact, Saddam's account of his weapons and programs was reasonably accurate. Strangely enough, the one person clearly mistaken about what happenes was Dubya:

"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."

This is clearly hallucinatory behaviour, or outright lying ("honest mistake" is eliminated as a possibility [even for a doofus like Dubya] by the fact that Dubya repeated this absurd assertion a second time in another speech).

Please feel free to "explain" this behaviour of Dubya any way you want, but I would like you to address it....

...

So in fact, the war was not needed, except to people who value human life as cheaply as you, that seem to think that Saddam refusing to kiss Dubya's rosy is sufficient insult to spend the lives of 2000+ U.S. servicement (and counting) on.

There were no WoMD, and the U.N. inspectors would have found that (and were finding that. We got Saddam to accept inspectors. There's even reports that Saddam had offered to step down (although I'm not clear under what terms and how honestly).

Those apologising for Dubya's mistakes often make the fallacy of bifurcation that there were only two choices: Armed invasion, or letting Saddam do whatever he wanted. Not true, and in fact, there was a perfectly reasonable alternative (the U.N. inspections) that seemed to be working out. But that was unacceptable to Dubya for reasons that are not often examined. I'd like you to explain why.

Bottom line here, Teribus and BB: Lots of people had no problem with asking Saddam to comply, but thought that war should have been the last resort, not the first resort that it seems it was with Dubya, and were indeed quite happy that the threat of "serious consequences" did in fact work. They were even more pleased when it was seeming more and more like the sanctions and previous inspections did in fact do the job (as turned out to be the case), and that Saddam was indeed disarmed and that no armed invasion would be necessary to disarm him.

BB: Explain why YOU did not try to stop the war in the most direct manner- telling Saddam to comply.

Where have I ever said that I did such a thing?

But Dubya seems to have had a problme with taking "yes: for an answer....

Teribus: I didn't write it, I have read it and it clearly states that they were not there to search for WMD.

That's pretty strange. Because they brought a lot of equipment and instrumentation in to do precisely that, and in fact that's what they were doing. What you're quoting is a bit of politicking, a bit of fluff that was intended to nudge Saddam into fuller co-operation and trotting out any WoMD (which he didn't have). But make no mistake, Blix wasn't as stoopid as you seem to be here, and wasn't going to settle for Saddam to come rolling the WoMD up to the Hotel Palestine for him to bless; he was going to check on his own to make sure that Saddam was being forthright. But Saddam's co-operation was hardly necessary for the success of Blix's actual mission ... they could have sent Bolton, Cheney, or one of the other numbnuts in the Dubya maladministration if all they wanted was some formal turnover ceremonies; instead they sent an actual inspector. It's curious you can't figure this out ... or are you jkust being intellectually dishonest here?

Teribus: A decision had to be made and that decision had to reflect worst case scenario.

No wonder you have all this time to post! Your problem solving skills have you reduced to an irrational ability to leave your own house for fear of errant cricket bats, falling meteors, and the ubiquitous lightning bolt ... not to mention the far more common lorry with shoddy brakes....   ;-) "worst case scenario"   LOL....

Teribus: Was the intelligence 'doctored' - NO, far too many people were involved, they may not have all agreed on the conclusions and rcommendations reached, but, on any given subject, no large body of experts ever will.

The best evidence was on the ground. Hell, that's why we pushed to get the inspectors in there. And their evaluation of the U.S. 'intelligence' was pithily put as "garbage, garbage, and more garbage". It was kind of a case of "Who're you gonna believe, Chalabi's drunken thugs and crooks, or your lyin' eyes." Time for a reassessment, I'd say, but such seems to be beyond the cognitive skills of the Dubya maladministration (although in this, they were clearly below the peak of the bell curve, with most Security Council members urging a more cautious and patient approach).

Teribus: Now just because you say that we are 'in a disaster' is no reason at all for everybody to rush about like headless chickens believing it.

Oh, quite true. But if you bother reading a newspaper....

Teribus: Having just voted for the adoption of a document that will form their constitution, ...

My, the U.S. woudl have had quite the constitution with Tories installed in power and a spate of recoats in every town....

But I'd note that the success of the constitution was remarkable ... with some Sunni areas reporting that 99% or so of eligible voters were in favour of it. Will miracles never cease?

Teribus: ... in just over a month they will elect a new fully sovereign government of Iraq.

Under the benevolent eye of a force of 140K foreign troops which are the only things keeping the polliticans and candidates (or at least a substantial portion of them) from a quick and gruesome death....

What does that have to do with WoMDs?

And I'd note the ultimate silliness of a constitution as the hallmark of legitimacy, human rights, or a stable and just state (see, e.g. "USSR"; as Stalin said, it's who counts the votes that's important).

Teribus: You call Iraq a disaster, if you believed that everything would be all sweetness and light at the touch of a switch, then you are being particularly naive.

More fallacy of bifurcation (as well as a bit of "straw man" fallacy). See if you can spot your error.

Teribus: In general the world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before, don't take my word for it,...

... just go read the latest State Department report on world terrorism.   ;-)

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 03:56 PM

Well wait up a minute there Guest Arne.

Maybe you have, or have not, read the remit that the good Dr. Hans Blix and his troop of UNMOVIC Inspectors was given - I didn't write it, I have read it and it clearly states that they were not there to search for WMD. Now there happen to be one hell of a lot of people on this forum who believe that that was in fact their job - I am trying to point out that it wasn't, maybe I should refer them to Dr. Hans Blix - they might just believe him, but I doubt it.

FACT - UNMOVIC were not in Iraq to SEARCH for WMD

Now onto what I think:

Was the invasion of Iraq the right thing to do - YES, without any shadow of a doubt.

Were lies told to the House of Commons or to the British People - NO

Was the intelligence 'doctored' - NO, far too many people were involved, they may not have all agreed on the conclusions and rcommendations reached, but, on any given subject, no large body of experts ever will. A decision had to be made and that decision had to reflect worst case scenario.

Now just because you say that we are 'in a disaster' is no reason at all for everybody to rush about like headless chickens believing it.

Are you in a disaster Arne? - I certainly am not, nor are the bulk of the Iraqi population who are delighted that Saddam has been removed from power.

Having just voted for the adoption of a document that will form their constitution, in just over a month they will elect a new fully sovereign government of Iraq. Despite the threats and the bombings more Iraqi's have voted for their Government than UK citizens voted for theirs - that's a disaster Arne?

Iraq no longer sponsors international terrorists, or pays Palestinian children to blow themselves up - If you want to see the effect of that take a look at the dip in the incidents in Israel before and after March 2003 - probably just a coincidence, eh Arne?

Syria has finally ended it occupation of Lebanon and the people there are free to vote for who they wish - now that's a real mess isn't it Arne.

Libya has unilaterally renounced it WMD materials and programmes

You call Iraq a disaster, if you believed that everything would be all sweetness and light at the touch of a switch, then you are being particularly naive. At the end of the Second World War Greece was torn apart by civil war for a further four bloody years, Iraq is nowhere near that stage, no matter how you guys want to talk it up. This coming election is important, more so than the last one. Lets see what happens, I don't think that it's going to result in a disaster, quite the opposite.

In general the world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before, don't take my word for it, go read what OBL stated in 1996.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 02:59 PM

Kendall,

"My rep to congress was a bit unclear on it, but he implied that Halliburton got it to help pay their expenses! "


And I can quote him on this? ( the implication, not the unclear part...) Name and phone number of his office?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 02:15 PM

Arne,

You have ( as usual) not read the post- I did not make it.

"From: Susu's Hubby - PM
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 04:44 PM

.....
I'm glad you feel that way LH. If that's the way you truly feel then why continue supporting the dregs that the Democratic party continue to offer? .....

Hubby "



You can't even get a direct quote on the same thread accredited to the correct poster.




"Dubya didn't win the 2000 elections "

A point that can be debated, NOT one you can ex cathedra make pronouncements on.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 02:04 PM

BB: I'm glad you feel that way LH. If that's the way you truly feel then why continue supporting the dregs that the Democratic party continue to offer? Afterall, the "incompetent politician" in office today just happened to defeat a sitting VP and then in the next go around, one of the most liberal senators in office.

The ol' "Everyone loves a winner" thinking, eh? My, that's deep, Bruce. But I wouldn't go about advertising what a bad judge of character you are, if I were you. I'd take either of the Democratic candidates, with their military service (and in Kerry's case, medals for valour), over the AWOL "champagne unit" draft dodger, in terms of competence and selflessness. As for competence, hard to set the bar lower than the only Texas oilman never to have found oil in Texas....

But FWIW, Dubya didn't win the 2000 elections (and barely sqeaked out a victory in 2004). Worse for you, every week brings more and more people who are beginning to rue the day they ever voted the Dry-Drunk-in-Chief into office. You're gong to very lonely very soon ... and not too popular at parties yourself.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 02:02 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32195-2004Jul6?language=printer


Sorry, the SRS rule only applies when I say it does...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: kendall
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:54 PM

They showed it on the tv news...loads of money hauled out of Saddam's palaces being taken away in trucks. My rep to congress was a bit unclear on it, but he implied that Halliburton got it to help pay their expenses!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST,Digger
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:53 PM

Richard Miniter, quoted by GUEST,Geoduck above, is a Right Wing writer and commentator who appears frequently on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's radio program. The excerpt and statistics quoted above are also to be found on several other web sites, obviously cut and pasted all over the internet. One of these was "blogsforbush.com." Considering the source, and the lack of substantiation or reference data, well......'nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:47 PM

And Arne, for the record:

IMHO Saddam's non-complience with UNR 1441, his continued violations of the cease-fire accord, and his on-going efforts to obtain prohibited materials in violation of the letter and spirit of 14 years of UN resolutions was more than sufficient reason to go to war. IF those opposing action had spent half their effort in getting Saddam to comply, perhaps the war would not have been needed, BUT they chose not to.

Explain why YOU did not try to stop the war in the most direct manner- telling Saddam to comply.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Peace
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:46 PM

"And where are all the anti-war demands prior to the war for Saddam to comply?"

In Geneva?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:41 PM

Ake,

"Bruce for goodness sake give up the ghost."

Not until I have seen some evidence that I am wrong. Keep working on it.

And where are all the anti-war demands prior to the war for Saddam to comply?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:33 PM

Teribus: Therein lies the rub Akenaton, because you see under the terms of UNSC Resolution 1441 and the Mandate forming UNMOVIC there was never meant to be A SEARCH FOR WMD - Remember Iraq was supposed to have been co-operating fully and pro-actively. Hans Blix himself stated that UNMOVIC was not in Iraq to play "hide-and-seek" - the very words out of his own report.

Ahhhh, you're at it again, Teribus. Just once, for the record here, will you state plainly your opinion on the proposition:

Even if Saddam did not actually have any WoMD, his [alleged] non-cooperation and failure to follow to the letter all the UNSCR demands was sufficient casus belli for us to go in and invade with all the concomitants of such armed conflict (i.e.M, 2000+ U.S. servicemen's lives lost, many thousands of Iraqis, and the precedent of unilateral armed aggression as a solution to a perceived or alleged threat).

I just want to know if you indeed think that what (at least you think) Saddam did was sufficient reason for starting the disaster we're in. I think it would be right of you to also make such views known to the 2000 mothers that are grieving, the many thousands of wives whose husbands are broken.....

After that, we can get to the niggling practical points, such as whether there is any chance of any kind of "victory" in Iraq, and whether we've improved anything in starting that war, or rather, made things worse overall.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:32 PM

Bruce for goodness sake give up the ghost.

They could have made a hundred plans for the aftermath and it would still have been a disaster!!

The whole endeavour was ill conceived, they just failed to realise what they were getting into.

And now..... the world sees them as they really are for once. Thats whats important, not me winning a point, or you refuting one.

The Iraq war has given USA/UK pariah status.....And a very good thing too....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Peace
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 11:16 AM

What is most interesting about this to me is that when a Washington personage states the obvious--like DUH, we KNOW WMDs were not found, we herald it as a beacon of hope. Sttrange. Are we so used to lies that when the truth--which we know already--is verified, we then see it as something important?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:36 AM

Amos,

"There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."


True, and the failure of the administration to plan for that aftermath is one of the points where Bush did make a mistake. BUT that does not alter the fact that the original invasion was the right thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:13 AM

Kendall,

"I always decide the truth by a close examination of the evidence."

As should we all, which is why I am asking for your evidence of what you have stated here.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:07 AM

Kendall,

"The soldiers found millions of dollars in American money in Saddams palaces. Where did it go? to Halliburton of course. The facts speak for themselves."


To quote Amos, "Has anyone bothered to isolate the facts around this slander? Or are we just beating drums and dancing around the campfire here?"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:48 AM

WMDs Found in Iraq Nov 9, 2005

Contrary to ongoing reports by mainstream media outlets, WMDs have been found in Iraq, so reports New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter in his new book, Disinformation.


Consider these shocking facts:

• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas

• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs

• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

This is only a partial list of the deadly weapons Miniter reveals in his new book, Disinformation. Miniter systematically dissects the "No-WMD Myth" (how it started, and why it continues), as well as 21 other War-on-Terror myths perpetuated by the media.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=10101

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 08:42 PM

"The whole inspection proceedure was of course a red herring, as we had already decided we were going in legally or illegally..Ake"

"Hardly a red-herring Ake, it was only because of GWB and the US Goverments efforts that the UNMOVIC Inspectors were invited back into Iraq.   Teribus"

And why was the US govt so keen to get the inspectors back in!
To try to gain UN support for the invasion which had already been decided upon.
They didn't get that support but they went ahead anyway.

The US govt didn't want to go to the UN at all but "advice" from
Blair persuaded them to take the diplomatic road, as it would play better with the British voters. A pay back for Blairs support in the face of public hostility.

How lucky for you that Bush did not at first take the military option.

Then you would have had NO red herrings to throw into the debate...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 08:33 PM

Both Threads about finding and not finding WMDs are mute points really.
There are no WMD in Iraq. There were none when America Invaded and they haven't appeared there since!
Bush and his henchman lied to the People of America and to the rest of the World, a lie that 2 years later has caused untold deaths and continues to do so daily.
ANYONE who is still defending Bush Inc. actions on this are sad, twisted and frightened people that allowed their judgement to be clouded by over zealous Political views and who do not have the courage to admit, like the Man they support, that they were then, are now and always will be WRONG on this issue.
As for Bill Clinton and a Blowjob, well. lying about Sex vs lying to start a War is a no brainer when it comes to which is the most morally corrupt action!

The worst crime against Humanity in recent years was commited by 51% of Americans at the Polling Booths when they voted for Bush Inc.
Impeach THIS President. There are REAL reasons to do so.
As the Thread topper says "WMDs were NOT found in Iraq"
That is the disgusting, Amoral truth of it all.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Kaleea
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 08:12 PM

What alotta fuss about WMDs playing peek-a-boo & prez dubblepew this & prez clinton that. If you want to find the real weapons of mass destruction, then volunteer for diaper changing duty. The results will be clear--er, uh, well actually, sometimes a bit muddy.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: kendall
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:36 PM

By the way, SuSu's hubby, I never claimed to be the author of that quote. So, who died when Clinton lied about his "hummer"?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: kendall
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:30 PM

I always decide the truth by a close examination of the evidence. I believe it was an English newspaper that published the Downing Street memo exposing the lies that took us to war. Our own media are owned by right wingers like Rupert Murdoch who would rather die than print the truth about Bush.
Where do you get your information, Faux News?
What we have here is two groups who will never agree on what happened, and we have slipped into a pointless debate. The hounds are at his heels, finally, and the truth will out.
Meantime, I'm outta here with better things to do.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 06:26 PM

T-butt:

In July 2002, the 23d, the Prime Minister of England attended a meeting of high level British government wonks, among whom was the British Defence Secretary.

The minutes of that meeting included the following:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

The rest of that memo can be found here.

While this does not pre-date September 11th, it certainly predates any of the publicized panics about Saddam's WMD.

A

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:24 PM

THE BITS KENDALL RATHER CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT

"The UN demanded he get rid of his WMDs under the supervision of the UNSCOM Inspectors in order that such destruction of weaponised agents, stockpiles of agents, precursor chemical and cultures, munitions and delivery systems, could be documented authenticated and verified."

Iraq was also required to terminate all programmes linked to the development of WMD (CW, BW & Nuclear). Now in all this Iraq had to prove to the UN that they had completed those tasks under the supervision of the UNSCOM Inspection teams.

"7 years of inspections turned up some pesticides." The seven years of Inspections turned up much more than just some pesticides as Kendall would have us all believe. Those inspections were carried out against a background of deliberate hindrance and deception on the part of the Iraqi authorities. In 1995, Kemall's defection blew the lid on Saddam's secret programme to develope nerve agents. UNSCOM Inspectors acting on information gained from Kemall uncovered the programme and closed it down. Now this was something that post dated the First Gulf War.

So it was all done for oil but you can't tell us how much oil the good ol' US of A gets from Iraq - is it a secret Kendall? - Is it brought into the country at the dead of night in a clandestine fleet of super tanker submarines, that only you know about?

Tell us exactly what steps George W Bush had put in train prior to the events of September 11th 2001, that would lead anyone to conclude that he was intent on invading Iraq.

I have no trouble accepting that plans were in place to invade Iraq or that it was the declared foreign policy of the United States Government to effect regime change in Iraq - But Kendall all that was in place long before George W Bush was sworn in as President, and the proof of that can be easily verified.

In your last post Kendall you say let the facts speak for themselves,
now just for the sake of clarity could you highlight any facts that you may have posted, so far all I have read is unsubstantiated gibberish most of which was disproved months ago.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:14 PM

Hey, Susu's Hubby...just because I'm against Bush does not mean I have to be FOR Clinton. ;-) I regard the Democrats as an incompetent, lying, useless political party, which is just about as fond of making war as the Republicans are. My regard for the Republicans is equally low, perhaps even more so. If I lived in the USA, I wouldn't realistically HAVE anyone to vote for most of the time, because those 2 parties are the 2 arms of the same rotten $ySStem. It's a closed shop. They rule, you vote for a face who doesn't really represent you at all, but just pretends to. Clinton killed plenty of people too, in various places.

As long as they can keep Americans fighting each other over meaningless party line differences, they've got you exactly where they want you. Divide and conquer is the game. Matter of fact, your elections are just like a football game...a useless exercise in sound and fury, signifying nothing, intended to entertain and distract the public. It's the arbitrary creation of a "good guy" and a "bad guy" in your mind and every other American's mind, same as the standard plot of a TV drama. It's a tale told by an idiot, and believed only by those already hypnotized by the social status quo they grew up in. Real life just isn't that simple.

All people are the "good guy" in their own personal understanding of things, as best they can see it at the time. (Bush included, of course.)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 04:53 PM

"No one died when Clinton lied."

Kendall,

You're not the first one here to say that.

The fact that so many of you are trying to justify Clinton's PROVEN lying, just because "no one died", to a Grand Jury speaks volumes about your own ethical belief structure.

I'm sure Vince Foster, Ron Brown and Paul Wellstone would be right there beside you saying the same thing.

If they were able.

(Since you're trying so hard to prove a conspiracy, we too can play that game.)

Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: kendall
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 04:45 PM

His own chief inspector told him there were no WMDs. He branded him a homo. When we invaded Iraq we went straight to the oil fields while the looters cleaned out the museums and stole hundreds and hundreds of years of history in the form of priceless artifacts.
The soldiers found millions of dollars in American money in Saddams palaces. Where did it go? to Halliburton of course. The facts speak for themselves.
Bush lied...thousands died.
No one died when Clinton lied.
Spin this Mate.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 04:44 PM

"I wish George Bush would try to invade some country personally, just all by himself. It would be a very brief incident, and it would rid us of a very incompetent politician."


I'm glad you feel that way LH. If that's the way you truly feel then why continue supporting the dregs that the Democratic party continue to offer? Afterall, the "incompetent politician" in office today just happened to defeat a sitting VP and then in the next go around, one of the most liberal senators in office.


Doesn't say much about your heroes if that's the way you "truly" feel.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 04:19 PM

I bet any of us would be amazed by the number of plans the USA has drawn up to invade people, all right. ;-) So many enemies...so little time...

I still say we have got to do something to control the World's number one user of WMDs and terror tactics: the USA. My suggestion is, everyone stop buying Coke, Pepsi, and McDonalds hamburgers. That will bring them to their knees!

I wish George Bush would try to invade some country personally, just all by himself. It would be a very brief incident, and it would rid us of a very incompetent politician. Hopefully though, they would take him prisoner. I wouldn't want to see him get hurt.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:39 PM

kendall - 14 Nov 05 - 01:56 PM

"The UN demanded he get rid of his WMDs."

Now come along Kendall lets have the rest of it, you're good at remembering words and stuff, what was the rest of it, you valiant seeker and champion of the truth. If you don't, or can't I'll supply the rather important bits that you have left out of your statement.

"7 years of inspections turned up some pesticides." I'm sure they did Kendall, but then the classification and assessment of dual-use precursors is a little tricky. What about telling us what else the UNSCOM inspections and searches turned up, and against what background of evasion, obstruction and harrassment. Don't want to do that, well if you don't want to acknowledge those aspects of UNSCOM's time in Iraq I'll quote them chapter and verse as written by the inspection teams themselves and as reported to the UNSC.

"We invaded, there were no WMDs." Correct and because we invaded Iraq will now no longer seek to pursue the development and acquisition of WMD and means to deliver them. Now isn't that a lot better for everybody concerned, apart from Saddam & Co, still never mind, he'll soon get over it.

"We invaded to secure our supply of OIL." Now how much oil does the good ol' US of A get from Iraq Kendall ould son? It never got that much of it in the past, so why go for it now, if indeed America is buying Iraqi crude. Prior to 1990 most of Iraq's output went to the far east, to Russia and to France.

"George Bush planned to invade Iraq before 9-11. Prove me wrong."

I don't know if George Bush planned to invade Iraq before 9-11. Must be a terribly difficult thing that - a private citizen, a single man invading a country, it's a bit Quixotic, but I wouldn't have thought that that was in GWB's nature. But if you mean in the eight months after he was elected President in 2000 and inaugurated in January 2001 (had to put that bit in for the benefit of you, Kendall, Amos and Bobert) that might be different. Correct me if I'm wrong but around the same time didn't he also inherit the US Government's official foreign policy line on Iraq, yes you know the one, the one put in place in 1998 by that nice Mr. Clinton and his advisors, you know the ones Kendall, the same ones that GWB inherited when he entered the White House. Certainly in those nine months GWB didn't use his power as Pres of the US of A to move troops into Kuwait, or anywhere else along Iraq's borders. Kendall as I have said on another thread, you would be amazed at the number of invasion plans that the US Government has drawn up and keeps updating. You would be amazed at the countries and scenarios addressed by those plans. None of this means that the US Government has any intention of carrying out those plans. Your question? - oh yes! prove me wrong - about what?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:09 PM

So, Kendall, where is all this Iraqi oil you claim we went in to get? Last I heard, we were shipping refined oil products into Iraq to keep the population happy.

Try READING UNR 1441- 14 years of inspections turned up a lot more, including prohibited missiles and prohibited raw materials he did NOT have after the Gulf war, but somehow got hold of despite the UN sanctions that many were depending on to keep them safe.


Next time, the US should wait until the nuclear bombs are produced before trying to stop their production- Oh, wait, that's what we did in Korea. You must be a lot happier about that...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:04 PM

It seems to me that Bush was planning to invade Iraq even before they invaded Afghanistan...but 911 forestalled that.

I think it's the USA that needs to be inspected for WMDs. If they won't allow such inspection, and if they won't dismantle or surrender those weapons, then it is incumbent upon the rest of the World to impose santions. If the sanctions don't work, then we are going to have to invade the USA with an international coalition and bring about regime change. That's all there is to it. These guys have shown in the past their willingness to use WMDs to destroy innocent lives, and we have to stop them for the safety and security of the World. They can deny all they want, they can wriggle and twist and prevaricate, but they've GOT WMDs in the USA, and we will prove that if we have to by any means necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: kendall
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:56 PM

The UN demanded he get rid of his WMDs. 7 years of inspections turned up some pesticides. We invaded, there were no WMDs. We invaded to secure our supply of OIL. George Bush planned to    invade Iraq before 9-11. Prove me wrong.