The U.S. has finally called off the hunt for the phantom WMD in Iraq, that led to this war that seemingly has no end, and that should never have been fought.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/index.html

And for those few souls who insist we find anything, a paragraph from the article, quoting Charles A. Duelfer, who headed the U.S. Survey group looking for WMD in Iraq.

In October, Duelfer released a preliminary report finding that in March 2003 -- the United States invaded Iraq on March 19 of that year -- Saddam did not have any WMD stockpiles and had not started any program to produce them.

So, we went to war over nothing-a figment of George Bush and Dick Cheney's imagination. And please, B757300, and anyone else, spare us the diatribe that the Dems and Clinton and Kerry believed it. Bush acted on it. He is responsible for this mess, no one else.

And Captoveur, it's OK, I need a new bottle of Obsession anyway.  

So now, we're looking at least 160 BILLION dollars spent or going to be spent in Iraq, yet the administration is looking to cut Medicaid benefits for the elderly....

DISGUSTING & SHAMEFUL.

But Saddam has been dismounted, and the people of the nation freed...moreover, the Arab world sees what happens when America's military is put to use. You all may find this to be funny, but I think it still served a purpose, costs aside.

How bout, try looking in Syria? You can't be dumb enough to believe that Saddam wouldn't hide his weapons elsewhere before we came barging in? I think his use of chem/bio weapons in the first Gulf War was proof enough.

DeltaGuy

"So, we went to war over nothing-a figment of George Bush and Dick Cheney's imagination. And please, B757300, and anyone else, spare us the diatribe that the Dems and Clinton and Kerry believed it. Bush acted on it. He is responsible for this mess, no one else."

So tell me again how the entire civilized world's intel agencies believing he had them has no bearing on the situation? I really like the part how this "figment" was shared by almost everyone in the current and previous admins but somehow that is a "diatribe" and should not even be mentioned...much less discussed.

It is a shame too how the US/UN did not know this prior to the war, as they were removed for some time at the behest of Saddam, and then not allowed to inspect until there were troops at the border...and even then not allowed to move freely about to inspect.

But you keep living the past through present eyes, it is much easier that way.

I won't get into the merits of why we are in Iraq or anything else - plenty of you other a-netters will take up that fight and beat it to death over and over.

But I will throw this thought out there . . . .

Wonder if those WMDs might not be in Syria? I mean, shit, we gave Saddam plenty of notice that we were coming! Just like Fallujah . . . advertise and attack and all the bad guys are gonna be gone!

That's my theory. Have at it boyz and girlz . . .

>>But Saddam has been dismounted, and the people of the nation freed...moreover, the Arab world sees what happens when America's military is put to use. You all may find this to be funny, but I think it still served a purpose, costs aside. <<


Oh it served a purpose alright... and at what cost?? Our military is completely stretched, our budget is fucked up, the world hates us, in many ways Iraq is worse off than it was prior to the invasion (revived ethnic rivalries, insurgents, major civilian casualties), important domestic issues have been ignored....

Hope it turns out for the best in the end, but it sure doesn't look that way right now.

Of course it's good that Saddam is disposed, but there were other options for that other than a full-scale invasion.

And if the theoretical WMD's were moved to Syria... that doesn't serve to justify the invasion, it serves to confirm that the whole thing was a failure! Blowing the purported purpose of the invasion and the wasting of 160 Billion dollars by giving Iraq enough advance warning to move the arms, yet not have adequate intelligence and spying capability to catch the movement of such arms to Syria would be a COMPLETE EMBARRASSMENT. So we better hope to high heaven they're NOT in Syria... or we look like even bigger idiots, and on top of that, then the decision is: Do we invade Syria? Iran? Where does it end??????

Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction.

He also possessed space capabilities and was able to hide the WMD on the far side of the moon immediately before the U.S. invaded Iraq.

RT514: I heard he has a third nipple too...

But Saddam has been dismounted, and the people of the nation freed

appart from the 16 thousand odd men women and children you murderd with the ever so friendly fire...

Where does it end??????

when bush gets assinated? (that would be when does it end not where but nevermind its a nice thought)

Jamesag96:

"So tell me again how the entire civilized world's intel agencies believing he had them has no bearing on the situation?"

US & UK = entire civilized world?

"t is a shame too how the US/UN did not know this prior to the war..."

You seem to have 'forgotten' that the UN was actually in the process of finding this out, prior to the war. It was the US, with its ally, that though there was enough info available to justify a pre-emptive strike. That proved to be wrong.

"But you keep living the past through present eyes, it is much easier that way."

And you keep ignoring, for the sake of your arguments (past and present) that a large majority of the World did NOT believe Saddam was a threat.

I rarely participate in these political threads, but I am curious as to why people think Iraq's WMD were moved to Syria. If Iraq had enough WMD that worried the Admin. and made Iraq an imminent threat, wouldn't we have known Saddam was moving these weapons into Syria? I imagine it would've taken more than a simple truck load to deliver these weapons. Couldn't our spy satellites have picked this up? Or some random Intel. Agency from the US or any other country for that matter?

-Matt

RT514: I heard he has a third nipple too...

LOL! Yep, he sure does! It's his multi-purpose nipple.


...a large majority of the World did NOT believe Saddam was a threat.

Exactly. Saddam is a pathetic loser. As a justification for invading Iraq, however, he was made out to be a powerful dictator who possessed a weapon arsenal that was so big and imminently threatening, there was no choice but to take him down.

We won't even get into a discussion about how the Western world is no safer today than it was before Saddam's removal, how strong Iraqi resistance is to invading forces, or that there still exists no credible evidence that Iraq had or has any link to the 9/11 attacks.

The "War on Terror" will never ultimately be won because you have to know who your opponent is before you can possibly defeat them.

But Saddam has been dismounted, and the people of the nation freed...moreover, the Arab world sees what happens when America's military is put to use. You all may find this to be funny, but I think it still served a purpose, costs aside.

Hey, it's a typical 'Dubya rational! lol. Yeah, we sure showed those Arabs! We showed them how to go in there without a plan, and get tens of thousands of soldiers killed.

So tell me again how the entire civilized world's intel agencies believing he had them has no bearing on the situation? I really like the part how this "figment" was shared by almost everyone in the current and previous admins but somehow that is a "diatribe" and should not even be mentioned...much less discussed.

I see. well it's all ready been said....What entire civilized world? If there's one thing we've learned about Bush, is that fear is a powerful way to rule. If you run around the world screaming "Sadam has them! He's going to attack!" Sure enough, a few gullable countires might actually buy it, and jump on board! It's the same way he's governed in the US. It's always interesting to see that every single time Bush's approval ratings come into the media, or every time a large group question Bush, the terror level jumps up. Want people to think your doing your job?? Release another "rumor" the US will be attacked in the next few weeks! Raise the terror level. The threat doesn't even have to come from a credible source...just elevate the terror level, and everyone will think we caught the bastards before they could act on the threat!! AMAZING!!! Has anyone stopped to wonder why the terror level has never been down at green????? Does anyone ever wonder why??? And, no, it's not because we're never safe from terrorists. We've always known terrorists can strike at any time. Why put green on the chart? Because you always want people scared. Always want them thinking "My God! We could be struck! It's a good thing that 'ol Georgie is doin his job!!"

Sooner or later it's going to come out once and for all that Bush never had any reliable intelegence(Now there is an oxymoron...Bush, intellegence...) that there were EVER any WMD's in Sadam's possetion post 9/11. Yes, there were at some point. And, yes, he did have those chemical trucks. But I think it's going to eventually come out that all those trucks were from past times when we had to go in there and dis-arm him. And, sooner or later, this country is going to grow very tired of Bush and his bull s**t lies. He's wanted to go into Iraq and take care of Sadam since before he was elected. He had plenty of reason to. By half way through his second term, Bush is going to have alot of tough questions to answer as the nation grows sick and damn tired of watching him kill innocent men and women over there on his little personal vandetta.


And, hell, we may even start to see some sort of exit strategy for Iraq when he's out of office!!

How bout, try looking in Syria? You can't be dumb enough to believe that Saddam wouldn't hide his weapons elsewhere before we came barging in? I think his use of chem/bio weapons in the first Gulf War was proof enough.


LOL

That's a good idea. Let the US army attack a few other countries, just for fun !

But Saddam has been dismounted, and the people of the nation freed...moreover, the Arab world sees what happens when America's military is put to use. You all may find this to be funny, but I think it still served a purpose, costs aside.

I finally stopped laughing long enough to respond to this...

Anyone who considers Iraqis any more "free" than they were before the US onslaught is kidding themselves.

The only thing the Arab world has learned is that George W. Bush is an idiot and that America is the enemy. Except of course the Saudis who are the ones who should have been his focus in the first place.

This is one major screw-up that will embarass America for centuries in the history books....

Should this have come as such a huge surprise?

But Saddam has been dismounted, and the people of the nation freed...moreover, the Arab world sees what happens when America's military is put to use. You all may find this to be funny, but I think it still served a purpose, costs aside.

DeltaGuy, you must like being misled since you seem to look at this whole thing with rose colored glasses. While we have entered a low point of respect in the world and pissed away billions on a war that shouldn't have been fought, the real criminal and perpetrator of 9/11 still remains at large.

This is one major screw-up that will embarass America for centuries in the history books....

Don't bet on it. There is no longer much embarassment from Vietnam...and how long ago was that?

The American public has moved on to new and exciting issues, issues they can understand.

Like Brad and Jen's impending divorce.

One day some of these geniuses will wake up and realize that we've created an Islamic theocracy in Iraq.

I rarely participate in these political threads, but I am curious as to why people think Iraq's WMD were moved to Syria. If Iraq had enough WMD that worried the Admin. and made Iraq an imminent threat, wouldn't we have known Saddam was moving these weapons into Syria? I imagine it would've taken more than a simple truck load to deliver these weapons. Couldn't our spy satellites have picked this up? Or some random Intel. Agency from the US or any other country for that matter?

Thats what I was thinking. We have satellites that can read a newspaper from space, and you can damn well bet we have had a bunch of them focused on the Middle East, ESPECIALLY IRAQ. We have all kinds of spy planes and spy equipment. Does anyone think that Saddam could have actually moved WMD's without us knowing????

It is generally believed for a while now that the sources of info as to Iraq having WMD avilable were false propaganda by anti-Saddam Iraqi's and the US/UK governments swallowing it whole, without sufficient verification. It was also near impossible for the UN inspectors to really verify their existance either as they were limited in where they could go, the huge area to be covered and their own political issues. You had the need in the eyes of many to deal with the 12+ years of failing sanctions upon the Iraqi people and how much longer should it be continued. This was further compounded by the goals of Bush and his neocons supporters to 'finish' the Gulf war the way they wanted it to end, not the UN way it did.
Until his fall, Saddam STILL had the people and documents with the knowlege and probably the equipment (via 'dual use' facilities) to restart a WMD program sometime when the heat was off him by the USA. There has been several stories that some metal equipment stolen by the Iraqi's in the early days of the initial military actions of the US/UK in Iraq was later sold to scrap dealers locally who in turn sold it to Europian companies. When it arrived in Europe, at metal recycling facilities, their radiation detectors went off, so some possible nuculear weapons (or more likely nuculer medical equipment) was stolen. To me now the real worry is that the information and people with the knowlege to make WMD's either left or shipped to neighboring countries (Syria, Iran) may be used by terrorists groups like Al Quada to make WMD's for terror acts. Had the USA/UK taken different tacticts as to Iraq, maybe the risk of WMD's being used by terror groups would have far less.

While the Syrian government are no angels, most of you guys seem to have forgotten that Saddam Hussein and late Syrian President Assad hated each others guts. They represented two rivaling wings of the Baath party, in which each of them dreamed to be the leader of a unified Arab nation. They both tried to kill each other. And in 1990, Syria was a partner in the US lead UN coalition to drive the Iraqis out of Kuweit. Yes, correct, Syrian troops were fighting under American command against Saddam Hussein. So it doesn´t make sense why suddenly Saddam Hussein should ship his goodies and negotiating power to his arch enemy.

Jan

[Edited 2005-01-12 19:48:56]

Does anyone think that Saddam could have actually moved WMD's without us knowing????

Then again, back in 1998, India managed to conduct nuclear tests without the US finding out.

But Saddam has been dismounted, and the people of the nation freed

appart from the 16 thousand odd men women and children you murderd with the ever so friendly fire...

Where does it end??????

when bush gets assinated? (that would be when does it end not where but nevermind its a nice thought)

Actually it wouldn't end there considering Cheney would be made president and I'm sure he'll continue the campaign.
But since you wanna assassinate world leaders, why not kill them all for NOT doing anything? More have died from our inaction than action, whether in Rwanda, Sudan or Iraq.

"US & UK = entire civilized world?"

No...but when you include the intel services of France, Germany, and Russia...you get my point.

"You seem to have 'forgotten' that the UN was actually in the process of finding this out, prior to the war. It was the US, with its ally, that though there was enough info available to justify a pre-emptive strike. That proved to be wrong."

Hardly have I forgotten...perhaps you have "forgotten" that those same inspectors were not allowed back in-they had previously been kicked out-until troops were in the area.

"And you keep ignoring, for the sake of your arguments (past and present) that a large majority of the World did NOT believe Saddam was a threat."

Actually, a large majority of the world did believe he was...hence the UN resolution aiming to clarify the previous decades resolutions. And it is naieve to think that the inaction of a few notables like Russia, France, and Germany was because they didn't believe he was a threat.

In hindsight I would expect any President immediately post 9/11, equipped with the intel on hand, to do the same thing this President did...Clinton, Gore, Kerry, or whomever, I would expect the same and would have backed them accordingly.

Unfortunately though, it could be argued that the previous admin did not do nearly enough to counteract Rad-Islam terrorism, especially when you review the reactions to the numerous attacks directed at the USA.

Ltbewr: It is generally believed for a while now that the sources of info as to Iraq having WMD avilable were false propaganda by anti-Saddam Iraqi's and the US/UK governments swallowing it whole, without sufficient verification.

...and only the whole world telling them it wasn´t good enough!


Ltbewr: It was also near impossible for the UN inspectors to really verify their existance either as they were limited in where they could go, the huge area to be covered and their own political issues.

Actually, the Duelfer report has confirmed yet again that the UN inspectors have in fact found everything relevant that was there to find. They had a difficult job, yes, but they were up to it, as long as they had the backing of the UNSC.


Ltbewr: To me now the real worry is that the information and people with the knowlege to make WMD's either left or shipped to neighboring countries (Syria, Iran) may be used by terrorists groups like Al Quada to make WMD's for terror acts. Had the USA/UK taken different tacticts as to Iraq, maybe the risk of WMD's being used by terror groups would have far less.

Yes, it is a big problem; But when you put it into perspective, Iraq is outright harmless against the likes of Iran, North Korea and - most of all - Pakistan! Proliferation central, madrassa-infested, almost certainly harbouring the most wanted terrorists of the planet, precariously ruled by a dictator without much real backing in the population, ripe to be toppled at the first sign of weakening of the US protector´s support.

I fear we´ll see the day when you´ll wish Saddam´s Iraq would had been your greatest problem!

What ever Happened to the Forum rule About Dupe Post.....

https://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/715497/

My post was 2 hours ahead of this one.........

I saw this one first . . . .

When I saw yours I opened it . . . .read it . . . . closed it . . . . typical ranting from you . . . .

I'm sure others felt the same way -

Perhaps your reputation precedes you, Sir.

What you call a RANT I call the TRUTH........

Take a moment to prove any of my statements in my post are not true..


You Cant

>>I saw this one first . . . .

When I saw yours I opened it . . . .read it . . . . closed it . . . . typical ranting from you . . . .

I'm sure others felt the same way -

Perhaps your reputation precedes you, Sir. <<


OR, MORE LIKELY, perhaps the thread title didn't grab as much attention as this one did, the discussion started here and then snowballed whilst the other thread, with points just as valid as this one, moved further down the list.

Every time I listen to "Rockets and Penises in the Persian Gulf" by George Carlin, I get a bit confused - I know he was talking about the first war in Iraq, but he might just as well be saying the same things right now, and he'd be spot on.

Where are the forum cons now, no one jumping to GWB's defence? Come on, we need the fun!

Rockets and Penises in the Persian Gulf" by George Carlin

Carlin is great - no mater politicial beliefs - his material cracks me up! His delivery is great too . . . .

Jamesag96: No...but when you include the intel services of France, Germany, and Russia...you get my point.

Yeah. Your point is that you´re trying again to make a claim that has been smashed to bits in every earlier discussion already without you having anything to defend yourself.

The "other" intelligence services did not support the Dick Cheney perspective; They knew - and were actually able to distinguish! - that Saddam once had WMDs before Gulf War I. After that, they were destroyed and the sanctions were believed to be generally effective, but they weren´t entirely certain.

There´s a world of difference between not being certain he might still have WMDs and telling the US population: "We know he has them. We know where they are! He´s a threat to the USA!"  

And you´re again trying to weasel out of your embarrassment by trying to intentionally confuse one with the other.

Sorry, but no cigar.  

Yet Again.  


Jamesag96: Hardly have I forgotten...perhaps you have "forgotten" that those same inspectors were not allowed back in-they had previously been kicked out-until troops were in the area.

UNSC pressure (backed, among others, by the USA), quite effectively helped the inspectors to do their job. Which they did successfully until they were pre-empted by Washington.


Jamesag96: Actually, a large majority of the world did believe he was...

Not one that would justify an immediate preemption of the UN inspections and an immediate invasion.

Sorry. See above.  


Jamesag96: In hindsight I would expect any President immediately post 9/11, equipped with the intel on hand, to do the same thing this President did...

Horse manure. And you know it. The case was not made, and only a completely panicking US population was gullible enough to swallow the bait.


Jamesag96: Unfortunately though, it could be argued that the previous admin did not do nearly enough to counteract Rad-Islam terrorism, especially when you review the reactions to the numerous attacks directed at the USA

Sure. It´s all Clinton´s fault. Of course.  

Ok -- here's an attempt to put a positive spin on Iraq -- difficult I agree.

Bush made it clear, in the wake of 9/11, that the U.S. would engage in pre-emptive strikes in order to assure US security. We think you're a threat? In we go.

That one foriegn policy plank (which remains now that Bush has been re-elected) is the most radical departure in big-power strategy since the end of the Second World War, and all by itself scares the bejeesus out of most other nations in the world. Just how threatening do you have to be to prompt an invasion? In Canada's case, would turning off the energy tap be sufficient?

But -- with Bush's abject failure to show that ANY of the reasons for the Iraq invasion -- WMDs, 9/11 connection, etc. were valid -- he'll never be able to pull off another one. Even if he shows, for example, rock solid evidence that Iran is in the nuke weapon business, that North Korea is ready to launch a missile -- who will believe him? Remember Colin Powell's fancy pictures and charts before the UN?

On a global level, Bush's credibility is so far into the tank that he'll never get it back. And the American people, I believe, will not let him pull them into another adventure like this again.

Best case scenario? Bush will never do this again. Worst case scenario would have been WMDs in Iraq and a Saddam 9/11 connection. He'd already be in two or three other countries by now if that had happened.

So -- look for the silver lining

This war didn't turn into a "Liberation Campaign" until after it was decided there were no WMD.

Just my 2 cents.

I guess we should put Saddam back in power since everyone seems so opposed against him being gone. At least the Iraqis would get what they want... death, torture and brutal dictatorship.

when bush gets assinated? (that would be when does it end not where but nevermind its a nice thought)

Wow for being a "peace loving individual" you sure know how to promote violence.

So? Read the report and it will tell you Saddam had the programs, personal, and intentions of rebuilding his stockpiles (most likely what he had before the invasion was either shipped to Syria or is buried out in the desert somewhere). This alone put him in violation of 13 U.N. resolutions. Oh, and I guess the dozens of shells filled with various chemical weapons, including binary nerve gas (something Saddam didn't have in 1991) weren't really WMD's. As I've always said when someone asks, "how many WMD's must be found to satisfy the left?" The Answer: One more than will ever be found.

The U.S. believed he had them (under both Presidents Clinton & Bush), so did the British, French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, and the organization liberals love the most, the U.N. Some of the most virulent anti-Bush Democrats in Congress believed that Saddam had the weapons and voted to use force to remove him.

President Bush did what he was elected to do. He used the information he had available at the time to make a decision regarding the national security of the United States. It was the right decision at the time, it is still the right decision today and the majority of Americans agree with that opinion and if you don't think that is so, just check the election results from November 2, 2004.

Oh and Alpha, there is no need to open a new bottle of obsession. You, Randy, and the rest of the anti-Bush/anti-U.S. members here have a bottle of obsession flavored koolaid so large you'll never run out.

[Edited 2005-01-12 21:56:35]

How can you Republicans still defend Bush on the War in Iraq?!?!

Can any of you Republicans just admit he f-ed up instead of making excuses?!?

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he's gone, there's a lot less suffering in Iraq. But there's suffering all over the world. We simply can't invade every dictatoral country and liberate the people.

B757300: So? Read the report and it will tell you Saddam had the programs, personal, and intentions of rebuilding his stockpiles (most likely what he had before the invasion was either shipped to Syria or is buried out in the desert somewhere). This alone put him in violation of 13 U.N. resolutions.

No. It didn´t. The programs were stopped and/or buried; Not killing the specialists is hardly something your could seriously criticize; And intentions? Well, if it were for that, more than half the world leaders would sit in jail - your own president and half his cabinet probably included.  


B757300: The U.S. believed he had them (under both Presidents Clinton & Bush), so did the British, French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, and the organization liberals love the most, the U.N.

You still delude yourself that this was true, but you´ve got to squint so hard to even halfway twist reality your way, that you can´t distinguish anything any more.

The "other" intelligence services did not support the Dick Cheney perspective; They knew - and were actually able to distinguish! - that Saddam once had WMDs before Gulf War I. After that, they were destroyed and the sanctions were believed to be generally effective, but they weren´t entirely certain.

There´s a world of difference between not being certain he might still have WMDs and telling the US population: "We know he has them. We know where they are! He´s a threat to the USA!"  

You´ve got nothing to deny that there was a fundamental difference. Sorry, you should finally give up this ridiculous nonsense! It´s completely implausible, entirely inconsistent with everything happening on every level and its only benefit is that you seem to think that using yellow lighting would make people overlook the egg on your face!  


B757300: It was the right decision at the time

If that is the kind of decision you believe is the "right" one, I expect the ultimate demise of the United States of America in circa 2015.  

Fortunately, you´re an exception. Most americans know better by now.


B757300: it is still the right decision today and the majority of Americans agree with that opinion and if you don't think that is so, just check the election results from November 2, 2004.

Or simply check the polls where a majority indicated the opposite of what you were hoping for.

Sad.

How can you Republicans still defend Bush on the War in Iraq?!?!

Can any of you Republicans just admit he f-ed up instead of making excuses?!?

I'm not making any excuses. I am not afriad to admit that somebody f-ed up along the way.

But I'm also not living in a fantasy world of 1999 thinking everything is fine and dandy. We have no way of knowing for sure what would happen in 5-10 years down the road if we just sat on our asses and did nothing. Better to be safe than sorry...

People can bitch all they want but there is no turning back now. It's too late. The nutjobs thought that by protesting in the streets and burning American flags they would make a difference. Nope... they should have tried harder if they didn't want the war. They have nobody to blame except for themselves.

Solarix: People can bitch all they want but there is no turning back now.

The Bush administration still defendss and officially continues that same failed policy. And as long as that´s the case, expect the criticism to continue.


Solarix: It's too late. The nutjobs thought that by protesting in the streets and burning American flags they would make a difference. Nope... they should have tried harder if they didn't want the war. They have nobody to blame except for themselves.

Of course nobody could ever demand fron the president of the USA to just do his job peroperly, right?  

Klaus, use a dictionary  

OH I think he must have shipped off all his WMDs to a sandy beach in the Bahamas.

Quick let's all invade and, um - "liberate" some tequila.

QFF

Exactly. Saddam is a pathetic loser. As a justification for invading Iraq, however, he was made out to be a powerful dictator who possessed a weapon arsenal that was so big and imminently threatening, there was no choice but to take him down.

Well, we don't know how Saddam was, because none of us lived in Iraq during his presidency..so I don't think any of us here on a.net can make such a comment.

Iraq is still a mess, with suicide bombings etc etc everywhere..looks like nothing has been achieved by this "war". And, it's really sad to see so may coalition troops killed and the thousands wounded...all for what..to get rid of one "pathetic loser"?

However, having said all that...we don't know what would have happened 5-10 years down the road, if Saddam was still in power..maybe he would have gone after Kuwait again, or launch some Scuds against Israel. So, I guess, some good came out of this "war".

The "War on Terror" will never ultimately be won because you have to know who your opponent is before you can possibly defeat them.

This is the ultimate truth to the war on terror and something I hope the US government is working on or else this war will continue to be a deadlock and not ever improve.

RT514:

"The "War on Terror" will never ultimately be won because you have to know who your opponent is before you can possibly defeat them."

Not only that, one actually has to fight the real enemy instead of invading a country which had as much to do with 9/11 as Elbonia!

Ltbewr:

"There has been several stories that some metal equipment stolen by the Iraqi's in the early days of the initial military actions of the US/UK in Iraq was later sold to scrap dealers locally who in turn sold it to Europian companies. When it arrived in Europe, at metal recycling facilities, their radiation detectors went off, so some possible nuculear weapons (or more likely nuculer medical equipment) was stolen."

These materials, in exactly the same way as the tons of high-explosives 'missing', had actually already been found by the UN Weapons Inspectors and were being monitored by them, and the sites where they were stored were actually protected by the Iraqi Military, as demanded by the UN. These Iraqi guards left as soon as the US invasion began. The materials found in Europe (missile parts) were stolen after the beginning of the war.

" The missile engines and some other equipment discovered in the scrap yards had been monitored by UN inspectors because of their potential dual use in both legitimate civilian activities and banned weapons production. In his briefing to the Security Council, Perricos said UN inspectors do not how much material has been removed from Iraq that they had been monitoring." http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/06/mil-040610-shape01.htm#iraq

Unfortunately, some media reports, particularly those in favour of the war, gave their own particular 'spin' to this discovery:

"U.N. Finds Banned Missile Engines in Jordan" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122311,00.html

"United Nations inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after" http://cshink.com/united_nations_inspectors.htm


"To me now the real worry is that the information and people with the knowlege to make WMD's either left or shipped to neighboring countries (Syria, Iran) may be used by terrorists groups like Al Quada to make WMD's for terror acts."

Al Qaeda didn't use any WMD's on 9/11 nor before. It was this Bush Administration which linked Al Qaeda with WMD's and, in return, WMD's with Saddam. The neocons knew perfectly well how to play the minds of milions of Americans to be able to invade Iraq, by linking Terrorism with WMD's and accusing Saddam of having large quantities of the latter.

If you are really worried about the information and people with the knowlege to make WMD's, take a look at the former USSR: tons of WMD's and materials around virtually unprotected, many with the knowledge combined with extreme poverty and a very poor economic future.

Jamesag96:

"No...but when you include the intel services of France, Germany, and Russia...you get my point."

I'd really like to know where it says that the intel of these 3 nations had the same independent intel as the US and the UK.Nevertheless, since the governments of these 3 nations did NOT support the invasion of Iraq, one can imagine just how much confidence they had in their own intel.

"Hardly have I forgotten...perhaps you have "forgotten" that those same inspectors were not allowed back in-they had previously been kicked out-until troops were in the area."

Of course Saddam became alot more 'cooperative' as soon as there was a military build-up in the area. But stating that the UN did NOT know prior to the War that there were no WMD's, is not only one of the most idiotic statements I've read in years, it's also completely false!
Re-read what Hans Blix said in the UN Security Council just before the invasion. Re-read the opinions on the issue of other UN Security Council members that opposed the invasion. The UN was perfectly aware of the fact that Saddam wasn't such a threat as Bush proclaimed. That's why it simply wouldn't approve an eventual new Resolution for the invasion of Iraq for which the US/UK even prepared a draft in the days prior to the invasion.

"Actually, a large majority of the world did believe he was...hence the UN resolution aiming to clarify the previous decades resolutions."

??? This UN resolution you are pointing at was to demand from Saddam to let inspectors back into the country to continue the inspections-, monitoring- and disarming-process it had carried out successfully before. The resolution was adopted to get Saddam to comply, not because he was major threat.

"And it is naieve to think that the inaction of a few notables like Russia, France, and Germany was because they didn't believe he was a threat."

Give the hard fact that no WMD's have been found whatsoever, coupled with the hard fact that Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, I don't think that is so naive at all!

"In hindsight I would expect any President immediately post 9/11, equipped with the intel on hand, to do the same thing this President did...Clinton, Gore, Kerry, or whomever, I would expect the same and would have backed them accordingly."

Long before the war started, a large majority of the world did not believe it was a very clever idea of the Bush Administrastion to invade a large Muslim nation in an unstable Middle-East as a part of the "War on Terror", based on nothing but shaky intel and cheap accusations while describing doomsday scenarios about mushroom-shaped clouds and chemical weapons being sprayed from UAV's. That large majority saw how you got fooled and fell for the Bush Propaganda Machine and how you blindly followed your leader. Now who's been naive here...?

"Unfortunately though, it could be argued that the previous admin did not do nearly enough to counteract Rad-Islam terrorism, especially when you review the reactions to the numerous attacks directed at the USA."

Radical Islam still exists today. Heck, it has even increased since the invasion of Iraq. Yet you believe Clinton didn't do nearly enough about it! Yeah, right...

Solarix:

"I guess we should put Saddam back in power since everyone seems so opposed against him being gone."

Nice try. Perhaps you'd care to read the threat-title. This discussion is about WMD's, WMD's which were not found in Iraq. And this war started over WMD's, remember? The invasion of Iraq being a part of the "War on Terror"?

It's amazing how fast people forget these details...

B757300:

"Read the report and it will tell you Saddam had the programs, personal, and intentions of rebuilding his stockpiles...This alone put him in violation of 13 U.N. resolutions. "

Have you read those UN resolutions? No? 'Cause that what this is all about. UN resolutions about Saddam dissarming and the US/UK believing he still had huge amounts of WMD's with which he threatened them. No WMD's whatsoever found = Saddam being dissarmed, in my book!

"Oh, and I guess the dozens of shells filled with various chemical weapons, including binary nerve gas (something Saddam didn't have in 1991) weren't really WMD's"

After having been lying around for decades in the desert, one can assess this handfull of shells were no longer ussable as WMD's.

"As I've always said when someone asks, "how many WMD's must be found to satisfy the left?" The Answer: One more than will ever be found."

Please tell us, B757300, how many workable WMD's have actually been found to date? And please back up your undoubtfully very long list with real links! (I mean real WMD's, not the trailers they were supposedly transported with).

"The U.S. believed he had them (under both Presidents Clinton & Bush), so did the British, French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, and the organization liberals love the most, the U.N."

Yep, but the keyword you've left out is when they believed that.

"President Bush did what he was elected to do. He used the information he had available at the time to make a decision regarding the national security of the United States."

Despite the fact the most of the info he had available stated Saddam was NOT a threat. A pitty he apparently didn't read those memo's...

"It was the right decision at the time, it is still the right decision today and the majority of Americans agree with that opinion and if you don't think that is so, just check the election results from November 2, 2004."

The fact that the majority of the Americans agree with that opinion doesn't mean it was the right decision. The majority of Americans also believed Saddam was behind 9/11! Now how on earth could they have gotten that misperception?! /sarcasm

>>" 160 BILLION dollars spent "<<

It is called the business of defense, it is also good for the economy. Gotta spend money to get money, eh?

I maintain what I've said before, this war was not about terrorism or oil or WMD's, it was about supply and demand and it worked. This is capitalism, deal with it, even if it was in blood. It happens.

when bush gets assinated? (that would be when does it end not where but nevermind its a nice thought)

Gary2880,

That comment deserves a grade-A ass whipping. I don't talk violence often, but that..... You are the exception.

Sooner or later it's going to come out once and for all that Bush never had any reliable intelegence

S12PPL, what a bold prediction. May I ask what facts led you to form that? I am sure you had some....

Lastly, I really don't think anybody from France, Sebolino, should be participating in this thread. Seeing as how your country divulged details of talks that were held between the US and good 'ole France to Iraq.... I think it would be fair to say that your country could have been a factor in Saddam being able to move weapons.

[Edited 2005-01-13 00:54:36]

Yet, my fellow countrymen were stupid and blind enough to elect Bush AGAIN. I seriously don't know how you can so blindly support such nonsense in the White House. This administration makes the American people look pathetic on the international/political scene. This administration is looking out for no one but themselves. Just a bunch of people looking to make more money than they already have and to lead a nation, (obviously comprised of some idiots) to two wars, (albeit, I think the first one was fairly justified), thousands of soldiers dead, and thousands more of innocent Iraqis. When will the killing end? I'm no apologist for Muslim extremism, but hell, if we think we are so smart, we should be doing something else instead of repeating the same tactics that the extreme Muslims are using. Sad that after thousands upon thousands of years of human history, we are still murdering each other for ideals and not saving lives for the good of humanity. Sad and pathetic. People, go to school, travel abroad, or at least talk online to other people abroad. Realize that the US isn't the only place in the world and that junk yard cars shouldn't be used as planters in your front yard!

UAL

We invaded Iraq for their oil. Killed thousands of innocent people for oil. Who's the terrorist in the Arab world ???