Wow..I have been waiting FOREVER on my order of WMD.

[The Godfather]

I mean FOREVER, you would think the way Colin Powell and Bush nattered on about the ineffectiveness of the UN Weapons inspectors and how they had Satellite images of WMD factories(utter bull**** imo) and how they NEEDED to get in there and get the Baa'th out or it would be hell to pay.
You would think BY NOW they would have found something substantial, all they seem to have viable left is the confirmed forged documents on Iraq's uranium purchase from Niger.


SOMEONE GET ME MY GODAMN WMD.

 

[elmer fudd]

new yorkers would say - I GOT YOUR WEAPONS RIGHT HEEEEEEERE!

 

[elmer fudd]

if only i could have some wmd's i might have caught BUGS! eheheheheh!

 

[cgannon64]

I'd just like to say thats a great title.

 

[ERIKK]

Originally posted by cgannon64
I'd just like to say thats a great title.

hehehe

But of course it has been long now and we aren't hearing much of it (at least I havent). I heard they are going to let the weapon inspectors back in, right?

Maybe that will help?????

 

[Sh3kel]

We haven't found any evidence on weapons of mass destruction, but we sure as hell have found evidence of mass destruction taking place in Iraq. Doesn't really matter if he used anthrax, VX or Sarin if he still managed to take out 15,000 does it?

 

[Kinniken]

Originally posted by Sh3kel
We haven't found any evidence on weapons of mass destruction, but we sure as hell have found evidence of mass destruction taking place in Iraq. Doesn't really matter if he used anthrax, VX or Sarin if he still managed to take out 15,000 does it?

Yes it does. While Saddam's atrocities are nameless and abondant proofs have been found for them, they were not the reason the US invaded.
WMDs were - at least officialy. And that's why I supported the war.
Because of the problem was human rights and massacres of innocents, why are the US not in Congo, where the estimated number of people killed by the war is two-three millions in 5 years. And if you want atrocities, cannibalism is more and more frequent there, as well as the systematic destruction of whole tribes. Even Saddam cannot compete with that.

Even if getting rid of a blood-thirsty tyrant is certainly a good thing, the fact remains that the reason to do that was his violation of the UN's orders to destroy his WMDs.
If none are found, I'll be forced to conclude that Bush and his team were either incompetents in estimating Iraq's WMD and started a war on false assumptions, or that they deliberatly lied to the world on their reasons.
In either case, I shall never trust Bush again.

 

[JollyRoger]

We went to war based on the bluffing of the administration regarding Hussein's WMD capability, not based on "evidence of mass destruction." There is "evidence of mass destruction" in many countries around the globe, some to a much greater degree than in Iraq. If not telling the whole truth about a private consensual act is an impeachable offense, then lying to the American people for the purpose of sacrificing the lives of American soldiers for the benefit of Halliburton and Betchel should at least be looked into.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Kinniken
In either case, I shall never trust Bush again.

The fact you ever trusted him is in itself quite astonishing

 

[amadeus]

@JollyRoger -

I wonder how many Iraqis would agree with you.

I mean the ones that weren't killed by the nerve gas, or shot by Hussein's thugs, or raped by his sons, or had their bodies put in giant shredders or being thrown in baths of acid.

 

[JollyRoger]

Probably about the same % as those in the Congo who would agree with Bush that Iraq should have been a priority over the Congo.

 

[Peri]

Well RMS, what has that bit of polemic got to do with the allegation that Iraq was in possession of WMD and was an immediate threat to the world?

 

[Akka]

I'd call it an "attempt to avoid an embarassing subject".

 

[Peri]

Well that would explain why we only hear about how good it is that the Iraqis are free. It is to encourage people think that that was the reason for the war.

 

[Sh3kel]

You can't be everywhere at once, and I'm fairly certain if tomorrow Bush were to declare "we're going into the congo to stop the massacress" a lot of people would blame it into imperialism.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Originally posted by Sh3kel
We haven't found any evidence on weapons of mass destruction, but we sure as hell have found evidence of mass destruction taking place in Iraq. Doesn't really matter if he used anthrax, VX or Sarin if he still managed to take out 15,000 does it?

It does matter really the basis of the war was to find and destroy WMD... oh well there not there, civilians just died to be turned into a democracy........ is it really a democracy isnt it under the leadership of a retired US Army general is that really a democracy?

 

[Sh3kel]

Democracies take time to come into being. I have a cautiously optimistic view that it'll work this time.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Sh3kel
You can't be everywhere at once, and I'm fairly certain if tomorrow Bush were to declare "we're going into the congo to stop the massacress" a lot of people would blame it into imperialism.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Well, people were saying the same when he goes for Irak, did no prevented him to go to.

Freeing iraqi people was a nice side-effect, not the reason of the war. Deal with it.

 

[JollyRoger]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
@JollyRoger -

I wonder how many Iraqis would agree with you.

I mean the ones that weren't killed by the nerve gas, or shot by Hussein's thugs, or raped by his sons, or had their bodies put in giant shredders or being thrown in baths of acid.

The same ones who thought Reagan needed two more terms to continue actively propping up Hussein?

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Originally posted by Sh3kel
Democracies take time to come into being. I have a cautiously optimistic view that it'll work this time.

how much time? how long shall the iraqi people be under another un elected body of leadership......?