That's not the point, the point is we live in a democratic society in which I do not like being misled or terror being exploited in order to start a war. If the reason given was to free the Iraq people and dispose of saddam not even bringing up WMD's, there was a good plan and we had already taken care of afganistan fully I more than likely would have fully supported the Iraq war. However when our country is already fighting one war, to take soldiers from the real war on terror to fight another war built on lies and fabrications does not make me as a US citizen confident in the administration and makes the war that much harder to swallow. Sorry but in my patriotic spirit yes it is as I care more for my countrymen living than others, sure I'll get flamed for this but I realy don't care.
Now Willy how does race have anything to do with countrymen? Or do you not accept whites, blacks, hispanics, asians and all others who are US citizens as US citizens? Please take your meds before posting, would be nice if you actually had something constructive to say for once.
so gtech which is it? 1) There were no WMD stockpiles or 2) We let the wmd cross the border, into some other assholes hands, essentially defeating the whole stated purpose of the war
Bleh. Intel is always sort-of-bad and sort-of-good. It's the nature of the beast. Read up on the declassified stuff from the Cold War or talk to any professional in the field. Intel is difficult by its very nature -- because the enemy is actively trying to make it difficult. You will never get "good intel". To bring this home for you... intel is like trying to guess the Google algorithms. What percentage of the Google algorithm set would you say you know? 10%? 20%? 25%? Iraq had 'em before and now Syria and Iran have them now. No real change on the WMD front -- major changes on the democracy-in-the-middle-east front. Reality sucks, but it's the only reality we have. Here's a thought to cheer you up. Does it suck for YOU or does it suck for those poor folks that are being murdered in an attempt to frighten them into submission to an authoritarian Islamic regime?
But Will , I thought we went to war to get those WMDs, out of the terrorists hands, your not saying the governemnt lied to the country, to justify invading a country, to set up a democracy are you?
Which islamic regime, the one that we support or the one that is against us, they both seem to be corrupt islamic regimes? Well saying that iraq has massive stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, then not finding any seems a little more the sort-of-bad Didn't they have satellites watching the "stockpiles" to see they take them anywhere?
How does this argument work in the cases when the top experts were telling the president and the world the exact opposite of what the president said exactly?
HUH??!??!?! I want to see the news release of that. One with Bush saying one thing and the top experts saying the opposite during the same time period, not 1 year later please.
Follow some of my links #1 and I take it you did not watch the prewar build up? The aluminum tubes were discredited immediately by experts both in the federal government and outside, the yellow cake was also disproven at the same time line, so were iraq alqeada connections as were the 'mobile weapons' labs, many items were. --edit-- iraq alqeada connections still somewhat of a debate on this issue so I will withdraw this from the statement above, the other 3 items however were in the same timeline as White House administrators stating A while experts stated B including other areas of our federal government, the UN, private sector experts and other foreign experts of the situation.
PaleSpyder, While most of idiots that give red rep don't have the courage to sign it or anything to say about why, I got this red rep from paleSpyder: "Don't call people nazi's that's not cool man. State your point and get on with it. - PaleSpyder" I suppose this was in regard to my posting about Gtech but you are mistaking since this was not name calling. The definition of fascism is: exalts the nation and party above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme. stresses loyalty to a single leader, and submission to a single nationalistic culture. If you read Gtech posts, you will find the same ideology, lack of respect for individual rights, accepting the superiority of state and loyalty to single leader and nationalistic culture in most of his postings. If he is aware that his thoughts are based on fascist ideology or not, I don't know but it does not change the nature of his ideology. Fascist or fascism is not a bad word, it is just a word to describe a certain way of thinking and ideology. Anyway, thank you for giving a reason and signing your red rep.
If that is your analysis, I suggest you've put no more effort into and perhaps the same deception as gworld did. Perhaps it's a trait to glance over an article, see "medical material," then ignore the substance. Was it the report being reported on that said "dirty bomb?" See details above where gworld tried the same thing. Perhaps the bias is becoming to clear too soon? The old "sure let's discuss" followed by the "none of it is relavent because I say so" hit fast and furious! If it proved your point, I hope your point was the very first paragraph: The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003. Components, which can be assembled to make wmd, or disassembled to take out of the country. We're not talking about bathtubs and methlabs here. If it proved your point, I hope your point was: Weapons materials looted - http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2005/0313systematic.htm That's exactly the response I anticipated. The catch22. On one hand, "there were no wmds," on the other hand, the irresitable urge to proclaim fault with "why didn't bush guard the wmds?" It's an interesting observation, because you can't have it both ways. But it goes much further, because amidst the volume of information about what was looted, including the material and equipment: I think we are all aware of the infamous chemical weapons saddam created for peaceful purposes. As well, we are all aware of the centrifuges used for enriching uranian that he used for peaceful commercial jet turbines. Are these the "certain weapons" you were referring to? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158470,00.html That old catch22 bears it's ugly head again The "but there were no wmd" followed by the "but why didn't bush guard them." Commentary aside though, it's not about a prowar movement. It's about what is correct and isn't correct. To which I'm guilty of presuming, based upon previous posts, you were interested in discovering as well. But I have been wrong in presuming before. From the article: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04123/309356.stm So it's good I only provide one source initially. But of course, 20 tons of chemical weapons are not significant. And they were probably tortured into blaming zarqawi. Except that zarqawi claimed responsibility for it. http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1700195,00.html But in reality, 20 tons of chemical wmd that could kill 80,000 people in the hands of al qaida isn't anything to worry about. We should probably give them the benefit of the doubt, since they were probably on their way to a Martha Stewart white sale to insure everyone's linens were fresh and clean. http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm That was my point. I put the link there specifically because on one hand, we have the CIA saying it can't be ruled out and that there is strong evidence. On the other hand, we have the UN who has ruled they were. The point was, to see how you would react differently. In both cases, dismissal appears to be the preferred choice. Regarding the actual reply that, it must be personal opinion that wmd that was secretely moved to Syria was first inspected before it left, then again after it left. How does that work?
It looks like the U.S. Army killed sixty more innocent Iraqi's today. Wow, the people of Iraq are really going to hate us now, with us killing sixty more of them to prevent them from banking and shopping.
dude, there was no 20 tons of wmd, we covered this in earlier thread, 20 tons of explosives, hyrdrochoic acid etc and some wmd so basically what you are saying gtech, is the war is a total failure and we let all the wmds sneak out of the country into terrorist hands right?
Sorry sulfuric acid, hot hydroclochic Really don't understand you desire to distort the truth gtech, although 20 TONS OF WMD does have nice ring to it.
I fail to see how fox news making the head line dirty bomb makes the substance of what was taken any different? Umm but yet again you for some reason appear to take WMD components as absolute WMDs, components were not banned and many of them were in fact capable of being used for different projects other than WMDs. The UN inspectors also knew about much if not all of these so what exactly are you trying to say here? This does not prove WMDs nor does it prove Iraq shipping WMD's. I never said Bush was at fault for guarding the 'wmd's' that appeared not to exist. But answer me this if Bush was so certain WMD's were there why would he not make certain these sites were guarded immediately? Not to forget that these sites had already been inspected. Hmm I actually simply stated I had not read or heard any real proof on this but was interested in it if you had any other sources. Never said it was not a significant amount, or not something to worry about. Just that I'd like to see some actual proof, not terrorists who were tortured into it. Or do you believe anything that is posted on a website? I was honestly willing to look into this and was hoping to be informed if I was incorrect. The site was inspected before the satellite photo's were taken, it was also inspected after the fact I did not state the convoy itself was. As far as the cia report well lets see #1 they have no evidence that actual WMD's were shipped according to the page itself, sounds alot more like speculation. I personally remember it happening and following it including the site being inspected as soon as the inspectors got into Iraq and not finding ANY trace of WMD's including those 'traces' that are next to impossible to cover up when WMD's had been stored. #2 The same cia who's head is appointed by the current administration who has been wrong time after time isn't even saying that it's fact just that they can't rule it out. Yet you sure appear eager to take the CIA's stance that it can't be ruled out to be Iraq had WMD. Sorry but I find your entire arguments here pretty weak. I am honestly willing to listen, learn, etc however statements from a few pages when it appears you have never realy followed it makes it a bit hard for me. Especially when you try to rip on me for something I stated I wanted more info on, simply from the info I had read it wasn't enough for me as of yet.