Valhalla Legends Archive

arta... what about that no fly zone crap that saddam was pulling for years. Remember that puny deasert fox campaign that clinton did? Yes I suppose saddam was just sitting minding his own business, thats why clinton did that. Please....

Btw, inspectors came back from iraq the first time because they were kicked out (this was under clinton), and saddam wasn't screwing around?

You say kerry has not had a chance to waver? Yeah thats why he can vote in faver of a war, but then vote against the munitions needed for one. Kerry has been so insanely evasive. He says things like he is going to do a better job then bush, but he never says how he plans to do so. His speaches will leave you with no more information then you started with. He basically says nothing, its all fluff.

http://www.news-register.net/edit/story/0318202004_edt02.asp

Arta I am curious why you have responded to everyone except Kp?

Quote from: Tuberload on August 02, 2004, 01:44 PM
Arta I am curious why you have responded to everyone except Kp?

And Stealth.

QuoteEven when his decisions are wrong, and shown to be so?

I don't think his decisions were wrong, it's a matter of opinion.

QuoteHow do we know if Kerry is going to waver? He hasn't had a chance yet!

Because he said it?

QuoteWhat about his track record in the senate disturbs you?

He has the most liberal voting record in the Senate..

I personally don't trust somebody who's going to vote for the war, and then criticize Bush for going to war, vote against more funding on the war, and say he's against the war..

Guess what country supplied Iraq with chemical weapons to use in the Iran-Iraq war?  Bonus question -- who was the defense secretary at the time?

HINT.

I think Bush was right in claiming Saddam had WMDs. When his Daddy was VP, we sold them to him.  

Quote from: K on August 02, 2004, 03:56 PM
Guess what country supplied Iraq with chemical weapons to use in the Iran-Iraq war?  Bonus question -- who was the defense secretary at the time?

HINT.

I think Bush was right in claiming Saddam had WMDs. When his Daddy was VP, we sold them to him.  

We did about the same thing in afganistan to keep the soviets out. We basically fought communism with fashism because we thought it was the lesser of two evils back then. Now it has come back to bite us in the ass. That does not make the weapons we supplied any less of a threat to us, nor does it mean saddam didn't use them correctly.

But it's still all Bush's fault, in the end. Doesn't matter who did it or when, it's still his fault.

Quote from: $t0rm on August 02, 2004, 04:43 PM
But it's still all Bush's fault, in the end. Doesn't matter who did it or when, it's still his fault.

Duh! Along with the presidency comes automatically becoming America's scapegoat.

Quote from: Arta[vL] on August 02, 2004, 12:17 PM
What?!

Quote from: peofeoknight on August 02, 2004, 11:29 AM
Under clinton we tried that whole support the insurgents, pray for a coup crap, and it did not work at all.

Howso?

He is correct.  Thousands of Iraqis tried to coup against Saddam when former President Bush (daddy) promised them support if they would.  They were slaughtered and tortured and the USA did nothing.

The next person that says anything about Bush "just finishing what daddy started" will be hunted down and shot in the face. It's bullshit leftist propaganda and nothing more.

Quote from: Hazard on August 02, 2004, 08:00 PM
The next person that says anything about Bush "just finishing what daddy started" will be hunted down and shot in the face. It's bullshit leftist propaganda and nothing more.

I aggree, iraq was not about that. Its almost michael moorish. That carlyle group bs.

Quote from: Hazard on August 02, 2004, 08:00 PM
The next person that says anything about Bush "just finishing what daddy started" will be hunted down and shot in the face. It's bullshit leftist propaganda and nothing more.

Haha that's the first thing I said when I heard that Dubya wanted to start a war with Iraq.  I didn't need any leftist propaganda to tell me the obvious

Quote from: iago on August 02, 2004, 09:56 PM

Quote from: Hazard on August 02, 2004, 08:00 PM
The next person that says anything about Bush "just finishing what daddy started" will be hunted down and shot in the face. It's bullshit leftist propaganda and nothing more.

Haha that's the first thing I said when I heard that Dubya wanted to start a war with Iraq.  I didn't need any leftist propaganda to tell me the obvious

a war that probably should have been waged under clinton.

Quote from: Grok on August 02, 2004, 06:06 PM
He is correct.  Thousands of Iraqis tried to coup against Saddam when former President Bush (daddy) promised them support if they would.  They were slaughtered and tortured and the USA did nothing.

Ah, ok, yes. I remember that.

Kp makes some good points - in fact the only good points in my opinion. The question remains, though: does paying suiciide bombers' families and providing them medical care (such as it is) really consititute grounds for war? I don't think so.

This chemical weapons thing is really quite annoying.

It is a physical impossibility for Saddam to have stockpiled chemical or biological weapons from before the first Gulf war. It was verified by UNSCOM that Saddam had produced 3 chemical agents: Sarin, Tabun, and VX. Sarin and Tabun have a shelf life of about 5 years, so for people to claim that he had, before the war, stockpiles of those weapons is silly. That's not to mention the fact that 95% of Iraq's WMD capability was verifyably eliminated by UNSCOM after Gulf I.

VX is a slightly different story. It has a much longer shelf-life than Sarin and Tabun, but the Iraqis had only just managed to weaponise it when the first gulf war started. They did manage to produce a small amount before they were invaded, but their VX factories were destroyed both during the war, and during the subsequent inspection. There was not enough time for the Iraqis to have made enough VX to have it in enough quantity for it to be a significant threat. Even if they had, significant questions remain about the Iraq's stabilisation process. To stabilise VX is extremely complicated - even minor imperfections in the process creates proteins that break down the VX nerve agent in a matter of months.

As for Biological weapons, Iraq managed to prodce 2 in quantity - Anthrax and Botulinum toxin. There is no evidence at all that they ever produced, or tried to produce, smallpox, ebola, or any of that kind of thing. However, Biological weapons suffer from the same kinds of problems as chemical weapons. Anthrax, even if stored in perfct conditions, would have germinated after about 3 years and has now been useless for quite some time. I'm not sure about the details for Botulinum, but it also would have destabilised by now and become useless.

Given all this, it seems obvious that old weapons made by Saddam before the first Gulf war are absolutely not a factor. The question then becomes, could Saddam have created more weapons since UNSCOM left Iraq in 1998? The answer is, it's possible, but very unlikely. There's a period of 3-4 years when Iraq could possibly have restarted its WMD program. The problem for the pro-war lobby is that they would have had to start again, from scratch. There is no possibility that UNSCOM missed enough equipment and materials for Iraq to have been able to produce WMD without a lot of rebuilding and acquisition of materials abroad. There's really no chance that every modern Intelligence organisation in the west would have missed Iraq buying *that much stuff* from other countries - we're talking about vast amounts of money and equipment here. Even if they had, the production of these weapons produces vented gasses that are readily detectable. Iraq was watched by the US and others during that time, by satelite and other means, and the bottom line is - if Iraq had built a weapons factory, we'd have known about it. There would be definitive proof, and we would have acted at the time. Indeed, we *did* act at the time - Iraq was subject to intermittent bombing for the entire Clinton administration... so I don't know where people get these Clinton=wuss ideas. In fact, the US was quite heavily critisised for these raids at the time.

Finally, even if everything I have mentioned here was wrong and we'd missed something, we would have found it by now. We've been occupying Iraq for over a year now... we've had the opportunity to pore over every shred of the evidence in every facility in Iraq - There's no one left to deny us access or kick us out, now! And what has been found? Nothing. No substantial evidence, in fact, no evidence at all. There is no doubt anymore. Iraq did not, and does not, have any WMD capability.

I can go into nuclear capability if people want, but everyone has admitted Iraq never managed that, although they did try.

As for a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq... well, that one's just patently absurd. No one has ever presented any evidence of it, Bush just says it in his speeches and for some reason people believe it, even though it flies in the face of reason. Saddam has a long history of hating Islamic fundamentalism. he spent 30 years eradicating it in his country. He had laws on the books providing for summary execution of those found proseltysing islam, in particular Wahabbism, which is a particular branch of islam. Guess what religion Osama bin laden follows? He's a Wahab. Bin Laden has called Saddam an apostate, and said he needs to be killed. Saddam faught a war with Iran in part because of its fundamentalism. There are just no facts to back up any link between Iraq and terrorists, other than their assertions to pay the families of suicide bombers. To that I say - so what? Sure, it's pretty bad, and something should probably have been done about it, but a full fledged invasion?? I think that would be overkill.

Congratulations if you read all that. I didn't really mean this thread to turn into a debate on the merits of Iraq, so hopefully we can put that to bed and get back on topic

PS: My source for most of this is an excellent book by Scott Ritter (A former UNSCOM inspector) and William Rivers Pitt. Despite the stupid title, it's not very partisan and it's an informative look at the situation from the perspective of someone who's been there and knows what they're on about.

Lets see now, no one doubted the fact that Iraq had WMD before the war.
Blix the leader UN weapons inspector said that Iraq's declaration of what it had was incomplete.

QuoteOn Thursday, Blix reiterated that Iraq's weapons declaration was incomplete. "We think that the declaration failed to answer a great many questions." ElBaradei said Monday that after two months of inspections it was still too early to determine whether Saddam Hussein's regime was trying to develop nuclear weapons. "We are not certain of Iraq's (nuclear) capability," he said. Blix has called on Iraq to answer outstanding questions in the declaration on Iraq's chemical, biological and missile programs, which is required under Resolution 1441, adopted Nov. 8. "Iraq may have more to say. I hope so," Blix said.

The above quote is from http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0109blix.htm

Then we have an incident in Iraq that calls into question most of the rest of your post. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html . Now given what quoted about it having a 5 year shelf life is either clearly wrong which calls into question if this guy really has a clue what hes talking about or Iraq has WMD and made them in the 3 year period that the inspectors were gone.  Take your pick, they both work for me :p