Apparently not.

Inspector: Iraq had no WMD before invasion This is why I wish we archived old posts. I'd spend hours finding incriminating quotes from forum members about their unshakable certainty that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And then I would mock them. Mercilessly. It would have been awesome.

Discuss.

Also, I told you so.

It's funny how in February of 2001, Powell admitted the same thing.

Yup.

Hmm, if only we had listened to the UN inspectors who said the exact same thing. Or if only Bush had been a little more cautious.

Oh well, no big deal, only the lives of a thousand or so of our troops, countless thousands of Iraqis, and a couple hundred billion dollars..

Saddam was a threat regardless, he had WMD's before, he didn't comply with UN sanctions. Nough said. Someone will quote me and make up some bs no matter how much I write so I'm gonna finish my lemonade instead.

I believe it's just one more thing they messed up with during this war.

If they actually had planned better about 1,000 or so families would still have sons/fathers/daughters etc...

Saddam has ties with Al Queda - False.
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction - False.
Saddam attacked america on September 11th 2001 - False.
This war was justified - False.
This war was used as a LAST resort - False.

The war was piss planned. This 'war' could have been more of an 'operation' if we had just let the UN Inspectors do their jobs, and didn't rush things. Our main target was Osama Bin Laden, funny that I haven't heard his name in the news or on TV for a very very long time.

Instead of sending in the best of the best to capture Osama Bin Laden we give the job to Afgahn war lords? Wait, you mean the guys who were against us just a while before?

We didn't need a war. We needed a plan.

We set out to stop Osama Bin Laden, and we end up turning Iraq into a democracy? What the hell is wrong with people.



He didn't comply with UN sanctions, so we go to WAR? You need a check-up from the neck-up if you think thats right. When you can give me justification for this war in Iraq, then we can talk.

Bush talks about Kerry and his flip-flops. Who is the one flip-flopping the justification of the war, flip-flopping what we need to do in this war? Bush is.

When was that claimed?

Dude you are just like Kerry. You state that everything someone with an opposite view says is a lie without any sort of justification. You make up stuff and present it at facts.

You also choose choose sections of a quotation, taking it out of context then argue a point that makes no sense because you don't even show you have the patience to read a full sentence.

I definately remember hearing about nuclear weapons being found in a bunker under 6' or so of concrete some ways outside of Baghdad.

Wolfy, It wasn't claimed, but it's amazing how Saddam magically gets pulled into this whole thing. I was pointing out random false things. The way we suddenly changed courses from Bin Laden to Saddam and Iraq is amazing.

The next to last option should be "I support the war despite the fact that no WMDs have yet been found"

Yes they've only been over the country 3 times with a fine comb already. DAMN THOSE GUYS HIDE THEM WELL! QUICK CHECK THE TOOTHPASTE NEXT!

I chose the comedy option so that my IP address would provide a useless opinion in a poll.

I think this whole war iraq thing is a waste of time... i mean nobody gained much did they?

You are absolutly right... it accomplished and is accomplishing nothing... just burning a hole in the pants of the American tax payers.

No justification? Like I said before Saddam has no ties with Al Queda, and Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. Those are facts. Where is my lack of justification? Bush does keep changing his justification of the war, and more people would be alive with better planning.



I didn't make anything up.



What? I quoted what you said exactly. You said "Saddam was a threat regardless, he had WMD's before, he didn't comply with UN sanctions. Nough said." Then you went on to say "Someone will quote me and make up some bs no matter how much I write so I'm gonna finish my lemonade instead." Well you are right about someone quoting you, but wrong about the bs. I read what you said, I responded. I don't see what you are talking about.

We don't still don't know if he had them or not. Their is no way to tell. We do know that he was working on them. It is better to take care of him before he blows up all our major cities, and contaminates our water, not after.

and burning holes into the faces of people in Iraq.

*switches on the news*

oh well, i guess it does look a bit like a movie.

Obi, you're wrong. The inspector said his weapons capability weakened during the UN sanctions. So he was no threat whatsoever. And whether we want to admit it or not, we were better off with Saddam in power. Which would you rather have? A dictator? Or mass chaos?

Good point Bill, what they have now is anarchy

SAJN, name one war that had ever went "as planned"

Also, I think that if Saddam was left in power, he probably would have built WMD's anyway. Better rid of him now, then when he had them and the death tolls could have been higher in my opinion.

You forget, sir, all the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Everyone who still holds out hope: It's over. The UN inspectors are done looking, the US inspectors are done looking, every other concievable group is done looking. There is no more looking going on. Now, all those people were looking for months and years and couldn't find anything. How can you expect WMDs to be found when everyone who has has concluded that there are none and given up?

Wookie, you said a while back "I guess I would be willing to conclude no WMDs when the situation stabilizes, former regime members feels comfortable infomring, and we finally get information on what Iraq had, what they did with what they had, and what they were planning on getting." Well, this is the all-American concluding report. We've gotten the information on what Iraq had (diddly), what they did with it (diddly), and what they were planning on getting (whatever they could get their hands on, then they were going to totally kick our *** with huge nuclear bombs).

What Outlaw said.

He could have built them. Maybe he didn't have them when we went over -- it doesn't matter. If it is true that our inspections weakened Saddam to no threat and he wasn't able to make them, then that is an advantage; we don't need to worry about him unleashing WMD's in the future when he does have them.

Whether or not the war is being effectively managed now is irrelevant -- we can't simply leave the Iraqis in anarchy; we need to finish what we started...

I wouldn't quite say the situation is stabilized though either. There is no proving something does not exist because you can not see it. Likelihood or not, there is no final tally against the possibility until all time has stopped. That's more of a joke/philosophical look than a political one saying OMG we'll find them.

Noted how Ictus revels in the fact that the US was wrong

I told you so!

Uh, any country in the world might possibly get weapons of mass destruction. Invading a country based on what the leader might possibly do is ridiculous.

And if you're certain that a country does have weapons of mass destruction, then invading it seems like the worst possible idea. If you leave him be, start negociations, he might use them, he might not. If you invade, he definitely will use them. If a leader knows his country is to be conquered, his government overthrown, what has he got to lose? He'll use them regardless.

But the whole point of having weapons of mass destruction is the economic leverage. If he felt he has something to gain by threatening to use them, he won't use them. Using them will only mean that he'll lose his leverage and be invaded. If a country has weapons of mass destruction, then diplomacy seems to be only possible option.



As for the whole "Oh well, never mind, we got rid of Saddam Hussein and everyone's happy now anyway"

First of all, just going around and throwing down governments simply because you disagree with the methods or ideology is completely ignoring the whole concept of sovereignty.

But most importantly, perhaps the Iraqis didn't want to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

In the West, the word 'democracy' is thrown about like a fantastic compliment, total plus points, it's definitely a good thing. 'Dictatorship' is a cussword, bad horrible, it's definitely a bad thing.

And it's that sort of thinking that led this mistaken invasion.

Dictatorships are often very useful in getting things done. Look how much time, and more importantly money, is spent on working on re-election campaigns. Pretty much an entire year is wasted trying to convince the population to vote for you, tossing out the occassional tax break to make people happy. A dictatorship doesn't have that problem, they can focus on what needs to be done, and then do it. A dictatorship can implement long-term plans that will be beneficial to the country, regardless of how unpopular they might be in the short-term.
Yes, a democracy might very well be on the "to do" list, but it certainly isn't at the top. There's plenty of things that need to be achieved first, like security, stability and welfare. Once those things have been achieved, pushing for democratisation is probably going to occur.

Another thing you have to remember is that 'democracy' is very much a Western concept. How many countries in the Middle East can you think of that are truly democratic, other than Israel? How many countries in Africa? How many countries in Asia?

Perhaps Iraqis simply don't value democracy. Perhaps Iraqis value other things. Like a strong leader. A leader that will unite, or oppress, the extremeist factions. A leader that people will respect, and be afraid of. Perhaps these are things that Iraqis value.
And it may well be so, as Saddam Hussein is still in the top 5 most popular politicians amongst Iraqis, and the current leader isn't in the list at all, nor is Bush or Blair.


Also, democracy is quite a modern concept too. Both Britain and America have only had democracies since the 1920s or thereabouts (when women got the vote. I'm not sure when blacks got the vote in the US, but I'm assuming it was before then).

You might see it as 'giving' them democracy, but really it is thrusting democracy upon them. It is democracy that they're probably not ready for, might not even understand, and perhaps don't even want.


Making the assumptions that:
- Iraqis wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein
- Iraqis wanted democracy
- Iraqis had the values as Americans
- Iraqis would welcome the Americans

these were mistaken assumptions. And that, the whole 'Americanising' Iraq is probably the biggest mistake there is.

Sine, the US was not wrong. I'm gloating because this administration was wrong.

Also, when did you become an unfunny jerk?

Edited to say I still love you.

North Korea has Nukes. Why aren't we invading them?

Cause they've got nukes.

Yes with the range to nuke South Korea... see the fault in their logic?

That would pretty much sum up how I feel about the whole thing. Not to mention it's what I've thought the whole time.

Ictus, is that a quote or a summation of things I've posted? I ask like that because I don't remember exactly either way and actually don't have the time to research or respond right away. Regardless, I'll address your post fairly soon.

Err, so even if Saddam did have WMD, why would he ever have attacked us anyway? It would've been suicide for him.



If he had WMD, why didn't he use them on us when we invaded?

Saddam was an enemy, yes, but not a threat.

If he didn't have WMD's, why did we have trouble getting him to cooperate? If he didn't have them, what did he have to hide?

There obviously was something going on.

Saddam was a potential threat, just like N Korea an Iran may become one...

Ictus wins. Again.

Maybe because he didn't feel the need to say "how high" when George Bush and company told him to jump...

I ended up voting the 2nd option. I can't say honestly that I would appose the war anyway because it would depend on a lot of factors like whether or not they were going to deploy the WMD's.


That would have been utterly, utterly glorious. They did that on another forum I visit.

There's this really informative study I've been wanting to pull out for a while. I guess this is as good a place as any.
Misperceptions, Media, and the Iraq War
A lot of Americans are totally wrong about Iraq. And take a wild guess which ones have the most misconceptions.
The ones who watch Fox News. It gets to the Fox News part at about page 14.

That's what the latest report coming from Charles Duelfer said. He said Saddam was waiting for the UN to lsoe interest before starting up any WMD programs again.

OMG Avenger's first period finished sentence!