Well, I guess the CIA officially confirmed that no weapons of mass destruction were found Iraq. It must blow for Bush to realize that the strongest argument for going to war is now null.

You're about as behind on this as the Bush administration.

Richard Dawkins(interview on PBS): "Mind you, I just read recently that a substantial number of people who voted Republican this time believe that there is evidence that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

They believe they were actually found in Iraq. It's one thing to say, "I believe there were weapons of mass destruction. But they were spirited over the Syrian border or something. They were smuggled away."

That's not what they're saying. They're saying they believe they have been found. Which contradicts everything that the evidence shows. I'm worried about people who are so out of the real world, that they delude themselves about evidence. Not about their opinions. But about evidence. "

Whoohoo! Two birds with one stone: religious and republicans (although there's obviously a massive positive correlation).

that was great.

you = win

I would blame all of the media for that. I remember when WMD's would be reported as being possibly found and each and every media source I looked at (CNN, CBS, Fox, etc.) did an absolute **** job of emphasizing the word "possibly." And then after the possilities were ruled out, I never once saw any news source report on TV the fact that it was false alarm.

Of course I could have just missed those reports but I watch/check the news a lot.

/me humps

To me the bigger concern is what happened to them. Everyone knows he had them. The whole thing is a moot point to me, though.

TimeWolf: You rock.

Morf: You're right, although it's curious that Fox viewers were more deceived than those of any other network. Well, not really.

Wookie:

Oh. My. God. GIVE IT ****ING UP.

Well, it's a fair point. The reason the US knows so much about Saddam Hussein's arsenal is that pretty much all of it was provided by the US. They know he had weapons of mass destruction because they sold them to him.

So we're trying to be a bunch of Indian-givers?

You forgot Russia.

There's nothing for me to give up. Like I said in the other thread, I got my way. I'm just wondering where all the crap is that the whole world knew/thought he had. He never came clean on the issue. I find it hard to believe he destroyed them because if he had then why not show UN inspectors the truth. I don't know what he had or what may have happened to anything he may have had. I do think there is valid reason for logical, clear thinking people to be concerned that something might be in the wrong hands but don't you worry about that. Just leave it to the logical, clear thinking people. :p

That was pretty funny. I didn't LOL or anything but it's still kind of funny.

And France.

i'm behind the bush administration 100%...

By which i mean I'm behind Bush with my pants down b***ering him over his desk in punishment for being such a loser.

Banned for 2 days thank you but I made my point

Ps. I'm drunk

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Its funny, before the war French and Soviet troops were in Iraq helping move trucks. Then during the Kerry/Bush race, both French prime minister and Putin were magically behind Bush calling him better than Kerry, maybe to cover their tracks or something.

And a queen in her underpants.

"So Kim Jong Il, the gentlemen who leads North Korea and looks like the winner of the Asian Evlis impersonator contest, comes out before the war and goes "WHAOAOWA WE'VE GOT NUCLEAR WEAPONS SUCK MY [wow, I'm suprirsed that word hasn't been added to the censor list] KISS MY ***" so our government says, well...we'll negotiate with you. So...we're negotiating with the guy who has the weapons and going after the guy where...we can't find the weapons."

<3 Lewis Black

I can't believe I didn't catch that before. The thing is, the CIA officially said there wasn't enough evidence of WMD in Iraq. They were never for the war to begin with. It was unofficial "intel" coming out of its ranks that the Admin used.

If you consider being on the 'side' that goes to war either on false pretenses or downright illogical pretenses a victory, then yes, you're one hell of a winner.



The UN never expressed concern worthy of an invasion. Yes, they had trouble gaining access to some of the top security palaces, which is sort of understandable really. Having the UN walking all over everything was humiliating for the Ba'ath party. There's plenty of places the US would be hesitant to allow inspectors.
No, don't even try to bring the UN into this, the UN never supported the invasion and the inspectors still had work to do. There is no evidence of any clear and immediate danger, there was no reason to act so hastily.

The sad thing is that this probably isn't the last time this sort of thing is going to occur. I predict at least one more such invasion.

Except my side never went to war on false pretenses.

Hahaha.

* We will never allow them anywhere.

* But you can't keep the UN out of it.

* Hopefully.

Then why do you expect the Ba'ath party to allow them everywhere?



You can't cling to this illusion for much longer.

The reason for going to war was:
Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States. They had weapons of mass destruction they could use at any time. They had to be invaded this very second to prevent them from using them. They were an imminent threat.


It's becoming more and more apparent every day that Iraq was never an imminent threat.
Having 'mobile factories capable of developing weapons' is not an imminent threat.
Having the desire to obtain weapons of mass destruction some time in the future is not an imminent threat.

Iraq may have been a 'threat', but not an imminent threat. Iraq was no more of a threat than any other country in the Middle-East. Iraq was not any different.
And if it was certain to have weapons of mass destruction, then invading seems to be the worst idea there is. If they're left with the weapons, they might use them. If they're invaded, they almost certainly will[i/] use them. This is probably the reason why North Korea was never invaded.

The Ba'ath party was always extremely beurocratic, everything about the party and the country can be inferred from masses of documents about the place. If there was some sort of chemical weapon system in place in Iraq, it would be well documented. It's certainly a very important piece of weaponry, so you'll want the top people to know about it.
There simply isn't any evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
There was no evidence that Iraq was an imminent threat before the war, and there is even less after.

That is false pretenses.

Alright, for the idiots among us (read: me), why did we go and invade a county again?

I mean, it's not a small thing. So yeah, reasons...

THEY ARE A THREAT TO THE SECURITY OF OUR COUNTRY!!!11

But not because they have WMDs. For...other reasons. They look like they could be terrorists if they wanted to be.

Also: Saddam tried to kill the President's daddy.

Define WMDs. He technically did have enough sarin gas to kill 40,000 people, but in reality it probably would have only killed 20,000, because not all of it would be spread evenly. He didn't have it in mass quantity... yet. Oh well, mistake or no, no tears for ol' Sadam. Let's get on with life shall we?

Nobody's stopping you.

Yes, tell that to the Iraqis that are dying every day from attacks. This is not going to 'go away', and it certainly shouldn't.

I wish there was a strange command, where you could throttle people who don't think before they speak. Go on with our lives eh? Well, we can, sitting here all comfy, but the people that are decapatated/blow up/ect uh... are going on with their deaths.

So, no real compelling argument? Jeeze, sounds like another war. You know, what that started with a "V". Vietcaw...Villynaw... beats me...

It's completelly legal for a country to own mustard gas. That's like blowing up my house because I have a pistol. It's completelly legal for me to own it. Besides, the 'mustard gas' you speak of was a remnant of desert storm, and was found barried in the sand, broken, and half used. What was in it was just diluted, and all but dangerous residue from when it was first dropped as a dud a long time ago; by us.

JediKirby

The civilians are mainly killed by the insurgents, U.S. might make an occasion mistake like the one house that was targeted instead of the intended target, but thats unavoidable and tragic consequence any war will have :/

Think about what you type, it will serve you well.

Fact: With no war, insurgents would not exist! And therefore. would be killing no one!

And with no war, there'd be no 'intended target' at all, so the 'tragic consequences' would be totally avoided.


Still, I do get Wookie's point in that regardless of whether it was right to go to war in the first place, what we do now is a more important issue. But that first question isn't going to go away.

You know, if they hadn't done a botch job on justifying the war and if they hadn't done a botch job of occupying Iraq I can certainly see me agreeing with some form of invasion of Iraq.

As it stands though there has been just a wee bit too much stupidity.

Obi, you're lying or misinformed. Find a source or retract. An apology would be nice too, since, you know, you do this a lot.

Wookie:

Anyone who knows something about intelligence work knows that it is NOWHERE NEAR a perfect science. Even if there were no WMDs, there were still many reasons to get rid of Hussein and his government. *cough*genocide*cough*

The US military kills far more than american media would have you believe. And like kuat said, those insurgents exist because of foreign intrusion.