OK, so we found WMDs

[usarmy18]

Didn't it say they were forgotten weapons? I consider that unusable if the government deosn't know they are there, not exactly a threat, and anyway WMD was meant to mean nukes and we all know it, which is another reason this crap is just a strawman.

I think I'm pretty sure I pointed out earlier in this thread when Neomega was trying to make the argument that the WMD's that were talked about were just Nukes that Bush was actually talking about Chemical and Biological weapons more. I also didn't see anywhere in the report where it said they were forgotten.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Sarin is classified as a Weapon of Mass Destruction by the UN.

As well as the USMC and thw DoD. That good enough for ya?

 

[usarmy18]

Since when does the US care what the UN thinks vis-a-vis Iraq?

When it fits our goals.

 

[usarmy18]

As well as the USMC and thw DoD. That good enough for ya?

Yep, I'm just pointing out that the favorite world body also classifies Sarin as a WMD.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Must have been Lybia on that human rights comission I tell ya. I feel safe now.

 

[Sidhe]

I think I'm pretty sure I pointed out earlier in this thread when Neomega was trying to make the argument that the WMD's that were talked about were just Nukes that Bush was actually talking about Chemical and Biological weapons more. I also didn't see anywhere in the report where it said they were forgotten.

Oh forget about it wake me up when they find what they were looking for, nukes or links to 9-11, It's not worth the effort to go through this thread really trying to make sense out of what the original report says, and the extra stuff people seemed to have read into it, does it say sarin or mustard gass in that report, I couldn't see it but I just skimmed it, it's all just semantic BS this thread anyway IMO. The public believed Iraq had nukes, or was lead to believe that, so chemical weapons are meaningless surely? they used them in the Iran / Iraq war, what are we being convinced of here, something we already knew? Very strange?

 

[skadistic]

Oh forget about it wake me up when they find what they were looking for, nukes or links to 9-11, It's not worth the effort to go through this thread really trying to make sense out of what the original report says, and the extra stuff people seemed to have read into it, does it say sarin or mustard gass in that report, I couldn't see it but I just skimmed it, it's all just semantic BS this thread anyway IMO. The public believed Iraq had nukes, or was lead to believe that, so chemical weapons are meaningless surely? they used them in the Iran / Iraq war, what are we being convinced of here, something we already knew? Very strange?

The public was never lead to believe Sadam had nukes. There is not one speach Bush gave that even implied that Iraq had nukes. Was Sadam looking to get them? You bet your ass he was. Any one who believed we went to war to find nukes is an idiot.

 

[Sidhe]

The public was never lead to believe Sadam had nukes. There is not one speach Bush gave that even implied that Iraq had nukes. Was Sadam looking to get them? You bet your ass he was. Any one who believed we went to war to find nukes is an idiot.

I'm an idiot then and so are all my friends because that's precisely what we and all the newspapers in this country took it to mean. Pull the other one.

We assumed that by saying WMD he didn't mean the chemical weapons we had know they'd had for years, they used them on the khurds a few years before the first Iraq war for crying out loud!

 

[IglooDame]

Okay, I'll concede that in the eyes of the experts, Sarin itself is a WMD.

I just can't get around, though, that the push to invade Iraq wasn't "Saddam has WMDs" but rather "Saddam has WMDs and is developing more". Pre-1991 sarin artillery shells, in that respect, may meet the letter of the law but really don't meet the spirit of what we were being told at the time.

I mean, we knew he had those arty shells when we were rolling north from Kuwait in 1991 (and by the way, why didn't he use them then?) and yet we didn't regime-change his country at that time for the crime of possessing them.

 

[MobBoss]

Sure, and I bet they made nice replacements for the F-14s THAT WE GAVE IRAN.

Come on Igloo, thats a really really poor reply on your part. Was Saddam embroiled for years in a bitter war with Iran that cost over 1 million lives? Yes.

Were we ever at war with Iran prior to us selling them the F-14s? No. They were considered our allies at the time werent they? Yes.

Now...why would Saddam send his jets to his enemies...unless of course you think the Iranians all of a sudden became their allies because of the war?

Did "Saddam give Iran fighter jets" or did "Iraqi pilots flee to Iran in their jets knowing they'd get blown out of the sky in a heartbeat if they went up against allied airpower"?

Sooo...why would Iraqi pilots flee to their bitter enemies in Iran?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Sooo...why would Iraqi pilots flee to their bitter enemies in Iran?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

[skadistic]

Okay, I'll concede that in the eyes of the experts, Sarin itself is a WMD.

I just can't get around, though, that the push to invade Iraq wasn't "Saddam has WMDs" but rather "Saddam has WMDs and is developing more". Pre-1991 sarin artillery shells, in that respect, may meet the letter of the law but really don't meet the spirit of what we were being told at the time.

I mean, we knew he had those arty shells when we were rolling north from Kuwait in 1991 (and by the way, why didn't he use them then?) and yet we didn't regime-change his country at that time for the crime of possessing them.

I'm an idiot then and so are all my friends because that's precisely what we and all the newspapers in this country took it to mean. Pull the other one.

We assumed that by saying WMD he didn't mean the chemical weapons we had know they'd had for years, they used them on the khurds a few years before the first Iraq war for crying out loud!

Both of you read into what was said instead of readiong what was said. Sidhe I have no doubt that your british rags told you over and over that it was all to find nukes, And IglooDude next time just listen to the words that are being said and not what the "spirit" is. When you try to find extra meaning in what a man says you find only what you are looking for.

 

[IglooDame]

Come on Igloo, thats a really really poor reply on your part. Was Saddam embroiled for years in a bitter war with Iran that cost over 1 million lives? Yes.

Were we ever at war with Iran prior to us selling them the F-14s? No. They were considered our allies at the time werent they? Yes.

Now...why would Saddam send his jets to his enemies...unless of course you think the Iranians all of a sudden became their allies because of the war?

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a justification that can be slapped on anyone who doesn't like the US now, because they're probably helping Al Qaeda?

Yeah, it was a dumb response, borne out of frustration regarding the dumb defenses being presented here and elsewhere for the decision to attack Iraq.

You know the max range of an arty shell even better than I do; finding these adds nothing to the evidence that Hussein intended to develop more WMDs, that he was assisting Al Qaeda, or that he was intending to attack the US, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Israel directly.

Sooo...why would Iraqi pilots flee to their bitter enemies in Iran?

I dunno, maybe because they prefer imprisonment to flying an AMRAAMed fighter into the Persian Gulf at 400mph?

 

[Mr. Do]

The context was that Iraq's WMD's were a massive threat to the west, our freedom, our way of life. Do we think that each and every one of these degraded, unusable shells is really worth the lives of 5 American soldiers?

 

[IglooDame]

Both of you read into what was said instead of readiong what was said. Sidhe I have no doubt that your british rags told you over and over that it was all to find nukes, And IglooDude next time just listen to the words that are being said and not what the "spirit" is. When you try to find extra meaning in what a man says you find only what you are looking for.

Oh, give me a break. You think the Bush Administration really was only referring to a bunch of sarin-warheaded artillery shells when they said we had to invade Iraq because they had WMDs?

To quote MobBoss,

 

[MobBoss]

I dunno, maybe because they prefer imprisonment to flying an AMRAAMed fighter into the Persian Gulf at 400mph?

In reply I will simply point out that the odds of them being killed on sight by the Iranians far greater than the chance of simple imprisonment considering how bitter the Iran/Iraq war was.

So...why not fly them to Syria, Jordan, Turkey of any other of the bordering states besides Iran? And since Iran was the only destination of all the jets fleeing the airspace, that tells me that it was coordinated in advance - not particularly an individual pilot choice. If it were a last minute decision, we would have seen jets flying for all the borders...but thats not what happened.

Oh, give me a break. You think the Bush Administration really was only referring to a bunch of sarin-warheaded artillery shells when they said we had to invade Iraq because they had WMDs?

No breaks for you. I think it is exactly what the UN was referring to when Saddam was ordered to destroy all his WMDs and allow inspectors to verify this or else face the use of force. In essence, the USA simply enforced the final UN resolution that Saddam had once again violated....these shells are a direct proof that Saddam did indeed lie and did indeed violate every single UN resolution against him from 1991 to 2003.

 

[skadistic]

Oh, give me a break. You think the Bush Administration really was only referring to a bunch of sarin-warheaded artillery shells when they said we had to invade Iraq because they had WMDs?

To quote MobBoss,

No I think the admin. was refering to WMDs. That would encompass all weapons of mass destuction including and not limited to bioweapons, chem. weapons and nuke weapons. At no time did the president expicitly say nukes were the reason or Sarin or VX or anthrax or anyother WMD that Sadam had under UN resolution illegaly. Is sarin a WMD? Yes. Did Sadam have sarin? Yes. Was that a violation of the cease fire and UN resolution? Yes. Did that UN resolution call for military action if Sadam did not comply FULLY? Yes. Did Sadam comply fully? NO.

 

[Ayatollah So]

and anyway WMD was meant to mean nukes and we all know it

Nah, the whole point of the phrase "WMD" is to obfuscate the difference between nukes and penny-ante weapons.

 

[Sidhe]

of course, but it doesn't change the fact that no one saw it as meaning penny ante weapons either why tell the world that Sadaam may have chemical weapons when we were made more than aware that he did in the first Gulf war, in fact it came as a shock that they were only used once IIRC.

 

[IglooDame]

No I think the admin. was refering to WMDs. That would encompass all weapons of mass destuction including and not limited to bioweapons, chem. weapons and nuke weapons. At no time did the president expicitly say nukes were the reason or Sarin or VX or anthrax or anyother WMD that Sadam had under UN resolution illegaly. Is sarin a WMD? Yes. Did Sadam have sarin? Yes. Was that a violation of the cease fire and UN resolution? Yes. Did that UN resolution call for military action if Sadam did not comply FULLY? Yes. Did Sadam comply fully? NO.

I'm going to take a training time-out here and review the UN resolutions themselves, because my recollection is that they did not authorize the use of force by the US due to WMD non-compliance on Iraq's part.

Also, I've found myself edging towards flaming on this thread and so I obviously need to take a breather.