Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 26 Posted (10 years 6 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1396 times:
These are statements made about Iraq by The President Of the United States, they state the reason for removing Saddam. "Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.
For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.
Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?
It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.
And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.
As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.
Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. "
and this is good too.
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability."
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 24 Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1287 times:
Here are a few interesting quotes to think about. Now some of these same people for purely political reasons are saying the exact opposite.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
N766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8039 posts, RR: 25 Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1278 times:
Ok, let me pose a question here. If Saddam did NOT have weapons of mass destruction, then why did he put up such a fight with the UN inspectors? If I were in charge of an ENTIRE country, were filthy rich, and had God knows how many palaces, I'd do ANYTHING to stay in power. Saddam knew that if those weapons were found, he'd be removed. But if he didn't have them, and I mean really didn't, wouldn't he have invited, even forced inspectors to search his country? I would have. His non-compliance has got to tell you something.
Sabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1257 times:
LY744: don't compare an elephant with a fly.
N766UA: you make an interesting remark!
Let me answer it from the logic of SH: he knew that wardog bush was going to attack, no matter if the UN agreeed or not. He knew that he would be removed from power. So why didn't he invite the UN weapon inspectors? Very simple: he wanted that America would look stupid! And for god sake he was right! Look how stupid America looks now now that no WMD's are found! He made the biggest gap between Europe and America ever, Europe was never as divided as before, this is exactly what he wants!
He is laughing his a$$ off now somewhere (if he is still alive) with how stupid bush dealt with this whole situation!
Another example is the big bunker the 'intelligence' told us about in which Saddam was staying. We got a whole explanation how solid it was etc etc, now apparently IT DOES NOT EXIST!!!!
Are you actually aware what for a stupid dictator is currently in the white house?
B747forlife From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 392 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1240 times:
Sabena 690 - Saddam doesn't give a crap about the divide between Europe and the US. Plus, Saddam would've made Bush like an even bigger idiot if immediatly after Powell's presentation he brought out all of those things and showed their non-WMD related purpose. He didn't, and if what you say is true and he is trying to make Bush look like a fool, that would have been the best way to do it.
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10 Reply 18, posted (10 years 6 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1237 times:
Aloges and Sabena 690, you are both very much correct, of course. Saddam would seem to be much, much easier to find then the WMD's, he's the one whose face is painted on every freaking building in the country afterall.
Schoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 27 Reply 19, posted (10 years 6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1233 times:
"Ok, let me pose a question here. If Saddam did NOT have weapons of mass destruction, then why did he put up such a fight with the UN inspectors?"
Because Saddam knew the WMD's never were the real issue. He knew, because the US stated so on many occasions, that even when he complied with ALL UN resolutions, the US and the UK would still veto any resolution regarding the lifting of the sanctions. Mind you, the sanctions were put in place to get Saddam to comply with the resolutions in the first place but these two nations were keen on getting a regime change by using the UN sanctions.
Go over the UN Security Council's meetings of the past 12 years and see for yourself how the US/UK have tried over and over again to use the UN to accomplish objectives of their own Foreign Policies. Mind you, I do believe a regime change is good, but why the hell did they tell us about this IMMINENT THREAT of WMD's when all they wanted was Saddam out of power?
" Where is Saddam Hussein? They can't find him either, does that mean he was an invention of the Bush administration? Just wondering..."
This is so pathetic... I do hope not every Republican thinks the same,... for the sake of the Mental Health of the Republicans in general.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
Delta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7 Reply 21, posted (10 years 6 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1225 times:
Just because we haven't found the WMD's does not mean they do not exist. Be patient, Iraq is big, and the WMD's can be quite small - a few jars of anthrax here and there, a few barrels of chemicals, it doesn't take a lot of real estate.
The fact is, all the evidence that exists today is curcumstantial -- and there is a pretty good bit of that. There is no proof that the WMD exist nor that they do not exist.
I trust Colin Powell, and I accept the evidence he presented to the UN just before the war. I have no doubt that Saddam had WMD, and I have no doubt that today much of them have been spirited away to other Arab countries for future use.
" Where is Saddam Hussein? They can't find him either, does that mean he was an invention of the Bush administration?"
- This is so pathetic...
Actually, I thought that was very clever
Cptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2916 posts, RR: 13 Reply 22, posted (10 years 6 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1220 times:
News Flash for everyone that that think they have the ultimate handle: The 'Iraq Restaurant' on Warren Avenue in Detroit (only 4 city blocks W. of Dearborn), after recently changing their name to the 'New Iraq Restaurant' just put up a new sign that sez 'Intermediate Iraq Restaurant'.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (10 years 6 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1219 times:
B757300, all those Democrats you posted-those you hate with such a passion, but now use to defend Mr. Bush with-did NOT make the decision to start a war on this issue. You're God, Mr. Bush, did that, not Daschle, not Cohen, not Pelosi, not Gephardt.
It's pretty amusing to hear you quote people that you hate with al oru being, to try to get your God off the hook. It doesn't work. All those people you quoted, they aren't the ones where the buck stops-it stops with Bush, and him alone, so again the question to Mr. Bush is:
WHERE ARE THE WMD'S? IF THEY WERE SUCH AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE U.S. WHY HAVEN'T THEY BEEN FOUND?
Inquiring mind (translations: those that don't lamely and regularly apologize for George Bush and everything he does) would like to know.
Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 26 Reply 24, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1195 times:
Hey Alpha ever consider some of those that dont neccesarilly go with the Democratic tide can sometimes agree with their points, Why cant you? Its so apparent that all you do is just hate the other party no matter what is said. At least some on here can be more subjective than you. I for one did agree on the points that Clinton made on Iraq, its just to bad he never followed through on them.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
25 Eg777er: I don't doubt that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (after all, we sold them to him, and he's been seen to use them) and maybe even had 'somethi
26 Alpha 1: I don't doubt that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction Neither do I. We know he HAD them. He used them on the Kurds and on Iran-but that was back i
27 NoUFO: Didn't Bush's spokesman said the real reason for removing Saddam from power was to pull American troops out of Saudi Arabia, thus helping to calm the
28 DAVID B.: Did they make that point before or after the failure to find WMDs?
29 B757300: "Saddam Hussein has stockpiled, weaponized, and used chemical and biological weapons. And he has made no secret of his desire to acquire nuclear weapo
30 777236ER: Quoting people doesn't prove anything. "The world is flat" -- 777236ER, 2003.
31 Alpha 1: B757300, again, quoting people who's guts you hate doesn't exonerate Bush of starting this war, over something that wasn't proven BEFORE he invaded Ir
32 Airworthy: But 777236ER is a worthless person compared to a world leader who is arguing for or against the use of military force to destroy an enemy that he thin
33 777236ER: But 777236ER is a worthless person compared to a world leader who is arguing for or against the use of military force to destroy an enemy that he thin
34 Delta-flyer: If the US public are this easy to brainwash, Bush will win 04 in a walk. Naturally, we are not as smart as you blokes across the pond. The world is d
35 VonRichtofen: "Be patient, Iraq is big, and the WMD's can be quite small" Funny, Hans Blix wanted more time, but the Bush admin wouldn't give it to him....Now the c
36 Cfalk: Alpha, and others, The point of B757300's quotes shows that Bush did NOT lie about WMD in Iraq. His information was the same information as everyone e
37 MD-11 forever: ..... But WHY not use them if you have them and fight a war? If the British intelligence or at least the prime minister) believe you're ready to use t
38 Cfalk: MD-11 Countries have had these weapons since the First World War, and since then have not used them against each other out of fear of retaliation. The
39 MD-11 forever: @CFalk Charles, you really believe there was no other possiblity to prevenzt those looting of nuclear material? IF US was so sure that there was a nuc
40 Murf: If Iraq's major product for export was broccoli would we have gone to war? I doubt it. WMD were an easy excuse for a war. They might actually find som
41 B747forlife: Alpha 1 - Do you think you could make your posts any more inflamatory, and still not get them deleted? 777236ER - Of course, because Bush has had a bu