Fear and Anger over Iraq
Though the American people are fed up for a lot of legitimate reasons, almost all polls show the mess in Iraq leads the list of why the anger is so intense.Short wars, with well-defined victories, are tolerated by the American people even when they are misled as to the reasons for the war. Wars entered into without a proper declaration tend to be politically motivated and not for national security reasons. These wars, by their very nature, are prolonged, costly, and usually require a new administration to finally end them. This certainly was true with the Korean and Vietnam wars. The lack of a quick military success, the loss of life and limb, and the huge economic costs of lengthy wars precipitate anger. This is overwhelmingly true when the war propaganda that stirred up illegitimate fears is exposed as a fraud. Most soon come to realize the promise of guns and butter is an illusion. They come to understand that inflation, a weak economy, and a prolonged war without real success are the reality.
The anger over the Iraq war is multifaceted. Some are angry believing they were lied to in order to gain their support at the beginning. Others are angry that the forty billion dollars we spend every year on intelligence gathering failed to provide good information. Proponents of the war too often are unable to admit the truth. They become frustrated with the progress of the war and then turn on those wanting to change course, angrily denouncing them as unpatriotic and un-American.
Those accused are quick to respond to the insulting charges made by those who want to fight on forever without regard to casualties. Proponents of the war do not hesitate to challenge the manhood of war critics, accusing them of wanting to cut and run. Some war supporters ducked military service themselves while others fought and died, only adding to the anger of those who have seen battle up close and now question our campaign in Iraq.
The bickering and anger will not subside soon, since victory in Iraq is not on the horizon and a change in policy is not likely either.
Further, on the matter of the mammoth myopia of Iraq war supporters:
Due to the psychological need to persist with the failed policy, the war proponents must remain in denial of many facts staring them in the face.They refuse to accept that the real reason for our invasion and occupation of Iraq was not related to terrorism. They deny that our military is weaker as a consequence of this war.
They won’t admit that our invasion has served the interests of Osama Bin Laden. They continue to blame our image problems around the world on a few bad apples.
They won’t admit that our invasion has served the interests of Iran’s radical regime.
The cost in lives lost and dollars spent is glossed over, and the deficit spirals up without concern.
They ridicule those who point out that our relationships with our allies have been significantly damaged.
Radicalizing the Middle East will in the long term jeopardize Israel’s security, and increase the odds of this war spreading.
War supporters cannot see that for every Iraqi killed, another family turns on us-- regardless of who did the killing. We are and will continue to be blamed for every wrong done in Iraq: all deaths, illness, water problems, food shortages, and electricity outages.
And near the end of the speech, some lucid words on The Just War Theory.
My beliefs aside, Christian teaching of nearly a thousand years reinforces the concept of “The Just War Theory.” This Christian theory emphasizes six criteria needed to justify Christian participation in war. Briefly the six points are as follows:
- War should be fought only in self defense;
- War should be undertaken only as a last resort;
- A decision to enter war should be made only by a legitimate authority;
- All military responses must be proportional to the threat;
- There must be a reasonable chance of success; and
- A public declaration notifying all parties concerned is required.
The war in Iraq fails to meet almost all of these requirements. This discrepancy has generated anger and division within the Christian community.
Wow, what an incredible statement by a principled legislator, one that stands in stark constrast to his spineless colleagues who continue to support an illegal, immoral invasion of a country that posed no threat to the United States.
Comments
scott, if you're out there, you are missed!
Note the absence of defense of ones allies, one could argue that to fight for ones allies, with political and economical ties to ones nation would be an act of self-defense. It could also be stated that someone who gives aid and support to ones enemy is also a direct threat. Both of these are true about Iraq. Not to mention the direct threat from Iraqis, firing on our planes manning the no fly zone, or the attempted assassination of a former president. WMDs even out of the equation Iraq was a threat. Now with all the evidence that there were WMDs in IRAQ, and that IRAQ intended to reactivate all his wmds and NUCLEAR endeavors after sanctions were lifted, remember France Russia and Germany all called for a lifting of sanctions in 1999, eventually it is conceivable that they would have been lifted and the threat would have then been immeasurable.
The United States Republican Party's campaign platform in the U.S. presidential election, 2000 called for "full implementation" of the Iraq Liberation Act and removal of Saddam Hussein with a focus on rebuilding a coalition, tougher sanctions, reinstating inspections, and support for the pro-democracy, opposition exile group, Iraqi National Congress then headed by Ahmed Chalabi. [24] Upon the election of George W. Bush as president, according to former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, an attack was planned since the inauguration, and the first security council meeting discussed plans on invasion of the country. O'Neill later clarified that these discussions were part of a continuation of foreign policy first put into place by the Clinton Administration. [25]
In the wake of the September 11 attacks and the seeming relative success of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Bush administration felt that it had sufficient military justification and public support in the United States for further operations against perceived threats in the Middle East. The relations between some coalition members and Iraq had never improved since 1991, and the nations remained in a state of low-level conflict marked by American and British air-strikes, sanctions, and threats against Iraq. Iraqi radar had also locked onto and anti-aircraft guns and missiles were fired upon coalition airplanes enforcing the northern and southern no-fly zones, which had been implemented after the Gulf War in 1991.
Throughout 2002, the U.S. administration made it clear that removing Saddam Hussein from power was a major goal, although it offered to accept major changes in Iraqi military and foreign policy in lieu of this. Specifically, the stated justification for the invasion included Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction, alleged links with terrorist organizations, and human rights violations in Iraq under the Saddam Hussein government. Saddam Hussein refused to allow weapon inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction and prove that Iraqi government had nothing to hide. Because Hussein reneged his promise to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors for a second time, the United States and Great Britain began planning airstrikes.
"The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and--as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning"
--Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98
"What Mr. Bush is being urged to do by many advisers is focus on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein signed a piece of paper at the end of the Persian Gulf War, promising that the United Nations could have unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq. It has now been several years since those inspectors were kicked out."
--John King, CNN, 8/18/02
In March 2003 the US government announced that "diplomacy has failed" and that it would proceed with a "coalition of the willing" to rid Iraq of its alleged "weapons of mass destruction". The 2003 Iraq war officially started a few days later.
Prior to this decision, there had been a good deal of diplomacy and debate amongst the members of the UN Security Council over whether there should be a war in Iraq.
Prior to 2002, the UN Security Council had passed sixteen resolutions on Iraq. In 2002, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1441 on Iraq unanimously. In 2003, the US, UK, and Spanish governments proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the "eighteenth resolution" and others called the "second resolution". This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn because not enough countries would have supported it, making it a political mistake for its sponsors.
On November 9, 2002, at the urging of the United States government, the UN Security Council passed United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolutions 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, and 1284), notably to provide "an accurate full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by Resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles". Resolution 1441 threatened "serious consequences" if these are not met and reasserted demands that UN weapons inspectors that were to report back to the UN Security Council after their inspection should have "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to sites of their choosing, in order to ascertain compliance. Significantly, the Resolution stated that the UN Security Council shall "remain seized of the matter" (United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441).
The President is the military's Commander-in-Chief. Article One of the U.S. Constitution, however, provides that Congress, not the President, may declare war. Often, the President has deployed troops with Congressional authorization, but in the absence of an explicit declaration of war.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114, it passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
Many Liberals and hindsight experts say we didn’t have enough troops in IRAQ to begin with, Even though the original goal of defeating the IRAQ military and unseating the Saddamists from power was a tremendous success. The OCCUPATION that follows has seen it’s high and low points. The fact is the “insurgents” have been little more than an irritant to our forces in IRAQ, and to the rebuilding of the nation, every attempt they have made to derail this process has met with failure. Iraq strides on toward a new future, which though now still might be a question whether it will succeed, the fact is it has been and will be if we continue with our support and aid to iraq.
Approximately 100,000 soldiers and marines from the United States, and 26,000 from British , as well as smaller forces from other nations, collectively called the "Coalition of the Willing," were deployed prior to the invasion primarily to several staging areas in Kuwait. (The numbers when naval, logistics, intelligence, and air force personnel are included were 214,000 Americans, 45,000 British, 2,000 Australians and 2,400 Polish.) Plans for opening a second front in the north were abandoned when Turkey officially refused the use of its territory for such purposes. Forces also supported Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 50,000. Despite the refusal of Turkey, the Coalition conducted parachute operations in the north and dropped the 173rd Airborne Brigade, thereby removing the necessity of any approval from Turkey. (Later on, during the invasion, it was rumored that Turkey itself had sent troops into the Kurdish part of Iraq.)
The number of personnel in the Iraqi military prior to the war was uncertain, but it was believed to have been poorly-equipped. [34] [35] [36] The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimated the Iraqi armed forces to number 389,000 (army 350,000, navy 2,000, air force 20,000 and air defence 17,000), the paramilitary Fedayeen Saddam 44,000, and reserves 650,000 [37]. Another estimate numbers the army and Republican Guard at between 280,000 to 350,000 and 50,000 to 80,000, respectively [38], and the paramilitary between 20,000 and 40,000 [39]. There were an estimated thirteen infantry divisions, ten mechanized and armored divisions, as well as some special forces units. The Iraqi Air Force and Iraqi Navy played a negligible role in the conflict.
see the last answer for that as well.
Notes from aides who were with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center one year later, on the day of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack, reflect that he wanted, "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit Saddam Hussein at same time. Not only Osama bin Laden." The notes also quote him as saying, "Go massive," and "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."[26] Shortly thereafter, the George W. Bush administration announced a War on Terrorism, accompanied by the doctrine of 'pre-emptive' military action, termed the Bush doctrine. From the 1990s, U.S. officials have constantly voiced concerns about ties between the government of Saddam Hussein and terrorist activities, notably in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Through the Palestinian Arab Liberation Front (PALF), Saddam had offered $10,000 USD for families of "civilians killed during Israeli military operations" and, $25,000 USD for "families of suicide bombers."[27]
Coalition forces managed to topple the government and capture the key cities of a large nation in only 21 days, taking minimal losses while also trying to avoid large civilian deaths and even high numbers of dead Iraqi military forces. The invasion did not require the huge army build-up like the 1991 Gulf War, which numbered half a million Allied troops. This did prove short-sighted, however, due to the requirement for a much larger force to combat the irregular Iraqi forces in the aftermath of the war.
The Saddam-built army, armed mainly with Soviet-built equipment, was overall ill-equipped in comparison to Coalition forces. Missiles launched from Iraq were either interdicted by U.S. anti-air batteries, or made little to no strategic impact on their targets. Attacks on Coalition supply routes by Fedayeen militiamen were repulsed. The Iraqi's artillery proved largely ineffective, and they were unable to mobilize their air force to attempt a defense. The Iraqi T-72 tanks, the heaviest armored vehicles in the Iraqi Army, were both outdated and ill-maintained, and when they were mobilized they were rapidly destroyed, thanks in part due to the Coalition's air superiority. The U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps and Naval Aviation, and British Royal Air Force operated with impunity throughout the country, pinpointing heavily defended enemy targets and destroying them before ground troops arrived.
cont...
The main battle tanks (MBT) of the Coalition forces, the U.S. M1 Abrams and British Challenger 2, proved their worth in the rapid advance across the country. Even with the large number of RPG attacks by irregular Iraqi forces, few Coalition tanks were lost and no tank crewmen were killed by hostile fire. The only tank loss sustained by the British Army was a Challenger 2 of the Queen's Royal Lancers that was hit by another Challenger 2, killing two crewmen. All three British tank crew fatalities were a result of friendly fire.
The Iraqi Army suffered from poor morale, even amongst the elite Republican Guard. Entire units disbanded into the crowds upon the approach of Coalition troops, or actually sought Coalition forces out in order to surrender. In one case, a force of roughly 20-30 Iraqis attempted to surrender to a two-man vehicle repair and recovery team, invoking similar instances of Iraqis surrendering to news crews during the Persian Gulf War. Other Iraqi Army officers were bribed by the CIA or coerced into surrendering to Coalition forces. Worse, the Iraqi Army had incompetent leadership - reports state that Qusay Hussein, charged with the defense of Baghdad, dramatically shifted the positions of the two main divisions protecting Baghdad several times in the days before the arrival of U.S. forces, and as a result the units within were both confused and further demoralized when U.S. Marine and British forces attacked. By no means did the Coalition invasion force see the entire Iraqi military thrown against it; Coalition units had orders to move to and seize objective target-points, and could only fire upon regular Iraqi military units if first fired upon. This resulted in most regular Iraqi military units emerging from the war fully intact and without ever having been engaged by US forces, especially in southern Iraq. It is assumed that most units disintegrated to either join the growing Iraqi insurgency or returned to their homes.
According to the declassified Pentagon report, "The largest contributing factor to the complete defeat of Iraq's military forces was the continued interference by Saddam." The report, designed to help U.S. officials understand in hindsight how Saddam and his military commanders prepared for and fought the war, paints a picture of an Iraqi government blind to the threat it faced, hampered by Saddam's inept military leadership and deceived by its own propaganda. [42] According to BBC, the report portrays Saddam Hussein as "chronically out of touch with reality - preoccupied with the prevention of domestic unrest and with the threat posed by Iran." [43]
6."A public declaration notifying all parties concerned is required"
In his March 17, 2003, address to the nation, U.S. President George W. Bush demanded that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay leave Iraq, giving them a 48-hour deadline.[11] This demand was reportedly rejected.[12] Iraq maintained that it had disarmed as required. The UN weapons inspectors (UNMOVIC) headed by Hans Blix, who were sent by the UN Security Council pursuant to Resolution 1441, requested more time to complete their report on whether Iraq had complied with its obligation to disarm (UN Security Council Resolution 1441; UNMOVIC).
On March 20, 2003 at approximately 02:30 UTC or about 90 minutes after the lapse of the 48-hour deadline, at 05:30 local time, explosions were heard in Baghdad. There is now evidence that various Special Forces troops from the coalition (including the U.S. Army's Delta Force) crossed the border into Iraq well before the air war commenced, in order to guide strike aircraft in air attacks. At 03:15 UTC, or 10:15 p.m. EST, U.S. President George W. Bush announced that he had ordered the coalition to launch an "attack of opportunity" against targets in Iraq.
1. No evidence of WMD ever in Iraq and even the Bush administration backed away such claims, publicly proclaiming after the invasion that no WMD existed. Recent claims by Santorum and others are laughable, and indeed the military has called them out for such silly statements.
2. Wrong, see Colin Powell and his assistant for your errors here.
3. Just because Congress abdicated its decision doesn't nullify the "legitimate authority" question.
As far as the aftermath, Iraq is not in any healthier state than it was immediately post invasion. In fact, it is in far worse shape as any objective analysis of events that have transpired will tell.
As a poster who is on the ground there put it:
http://www.comebackalive.co...
Right now Iraqis are fleeing by the thousands, Syrian passpots used to cost $50 and now are up to $400. its enough for most iraqis who have jobs to buy. Every single Iraqi I have met and chatted with is talking about making enough money to get their family out. Oddly, they don't want to go to America, but rather the UK or the nordic countries.
You might want to stop and think about exactly what the cooincidence of Iraqis being given military and police responsibility and the escalation of violence.
It simply means that Bush is cutting and running (ooooh I bet that hurts the neocon soul) by lowering the US casualty count by slowly restricting their activities and keeping more soldiers on the bases.
The bottom line is that insurgents have found a very successful tool to blow up anything up to tanks and they are using it in increasing amounts.
Bagdad is far more dangerous than anything in colombia. Th only parallels are Beirut in the 70's, Algiers in the mid 90s and Grozny in the late 90s. You have that lethal mix of internecine, criminal, religous and terrorist violence with a premiun on dead yanks. The only difference in all the other wars is that George stupidly inists on American civilians working in an active war zone.
Baghdad starts to collapse as its people flee a life of death
http://www.timesonline.co.u...
Actually 99.9% of what I posted was taken from wikipedia about the IRAQ WAR...all of it 100% fact.
1. No evidence "ever" it is a known fact that IRAQ had wmds...the Kurds and Iranians killed by these weapons would dispute you, if there were breath or voice for the dead to dispute the lies and blindness of the ignorant living who deny the truths of the past. So maybe there were NO WMDs when we went in, which I do not believe, or maybe there were none the few years before we invaded, which I also do not believe, or maybe they were there, were moved, or destroyed, or are still there, either way the fact is that following Desert Storm many WMDs were accounted for and destroyed, this is FACT, others were not accounted for, and we did not, do not KNOW they were destroyed, so the only question is what happened to them, not whether they ever existed or not. That FACT cannot be denied.
ev·i·dence
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment
Something indicative; an outward sign
The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
FACT: Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.
2. Lets see Iraq was given 17 U.N. resolutions and chances to comply, this he failed to do...how many last resorts does one give? 17, sounds like a good number. Saddam was then given 48 hours to get out...one more last chance, he failed to take advantage of. When one faces an enemy who will not capitulate and makes a mockery of all diplomatic and political efforts to resolve a dispute, the options become very slim, one is go to war and find out the truth, the other is wait to be attacked and find out the truth. I prefer the former to the later, every time.
3. Lets see A LAW was passed by Congress to support the invasion of IRAQ...yet they did not authorize it? hard sell there.
4. as far as the aftermath....its been 3 years, talk to me in about 47 more years and we can discuss the success or failure and the ramifications.
"The bottom line is that insurgents have found a very successful tool to blow up anything up to tanks and they are using it in increasing amounts."
Very successful??? Yet they have failed to stop the reconstruction and building of the new government from taking place...They have failed miserably. In February 2004, Zarqawi acknowledged a democratic Iraqi state would mean defeat for Al-Qaida in Iraq.
Papers found with his fatally injured body tell the tale of how he knew they were LOSING....are losing... and will lose.
You post allot of opinion...with little substance or facts to back up your opinions, now if you want a differing opinion I might be happy to oblige but I will not play the game of political tit for tat or circle running on topics we clearly do not agree on, so I would suggest you dispute the facts and start your case there directly, then your ideologues might gain some credence.
Facts are always "SPIN" to those who only want to see the world from their viewpoint. Other views exist and TRUTH is often harder to accept than LIES that make us feel more comfortable with our opinions.
#2 The invasion wasn't the "last resort" as stipulated -- seems like Iraq was pretty beat down and devoid of inflicting damage even to neighbors.
#3 As a previous poster stated, because Congress abdicated its responsibility, doesn't mean it was sanctioned by "legitimate authority". Unless you believe in kings and queens and divine rule still...
#5 Two parts to this -- yes success was guaranteed with the absolute advantage in pure firepower. But the occupation has been fraught with error and has created a cauldron of threats that did not exist prior to the invasion. This is a fact.
Beyond that, the entire concept of "pre-emptive" war is totally undemocratic and befitting of an empire, monarchy or oligarchy. Wendell Berry writing regarding this truth:
**A head of state, preparing to act alone in starting a preemptive war, will need to justify his intention by secret information, and will need to plan in secret and execute his plan without forewarning. The idea of a government acting alone in preemptive war is inherently undemocratic, for it does not require or even permit the president to obtain the consent of the governed. As a policy, this new strategy depends on the acquiescence of a public kept fearful and ignorant, subject to manipulation by the executive power, and on the compliance of an intimidated and office dependent legislature. To the extent that a government is secret, it cannot be democratic or its people free.**
http://azplace.net/index.ph...
This is a matter of opinion, not a FACT. At the time after 9-11 and before the invasion of IRAQ, there was good reason to believe that Iraq was a threat.
Did Iraq fire on U.S. warplanes manning the NO-Fly ZONE? answer...YES, that is a fact 100%.
Did Iraq fully and completely abide by countless U.N. resolutions, demanding accountability for WMDs and All related technology? answer.... No. this is a fact 100%, you may not consider tons of chemical and biological weapons unaccounted for not a threat, but I would dare say that the people who are responsible for the protection of America would sadly disagree with you.
Did Iraq comply with the countless U.N. resolutions demanding that it either account for all it's long range missiles and technology or show that it was destroyed? answer... No, This is a threat, not only to us but to our allies in Israel and Kuwait, not to mention Saudi Arabia, Threats to American interests, allies and economy, is a direct threat to the United States.
Did Saddam have ties with terrorist organizations around the world? Answer... Yes, Iraq was paying the families of suicide bombers in Palestine and also offered a bounty to anyone who liked American servicemen and women. Saddam also had ties with Osama Bin Ladens Brother-in-Law who heads a terror group in the Philippines. recent developments even detail how IRAQ and Al-Qaeda were directly connected.
"Everything else IMV falters in this list because #1 just isn't satisfied."
interesting, and we again note that is your "VIEW" not a fact but an opinion, the stated article says "The war in Iraq fails to meet almost all of these requirements." I have shown that in my "VIEW" The war in IRAQ met and still meets all the requirements, based not on my opinions, but plain and simple FACTS, that NO ONE CAN DENY.
"The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith." George W. Bush October 7, 2002
"Even the immediate neighbors did not view the Iraq nation as threatening to them"
Wrong again I served in the military, with Kuwaitis and others from the Saudi nations being trained on our bases to defend themselves against the threat of Saddam, I served before, During and after Desert Storm and I remember The political and military angst of those men and their nations when Saddam had threatened them again and again and even invaded and "occupied" Kuwait. You forget that it was Saudi Arabia's rejection of help from Osama Bin Laden, right after his victory over Russia that turned Bin Laden eyes to America as his NEW ENEMY. When the Arabians rejected him and instead chose US as their protectors, that was the start of Bin Laden's Fatwa against the U.S. and a direct predecessor to 9-11.
http://reference.allrefer.c...
"The Persian Gulf War in 1991 battered the offensive capability of Iraq's formidable military machine. An estimated forty divisions were lost or rendered ineffective. About twothirds of Iraq's 4,500 tanks were destroyed as well as more than 2,000 artillery pieces. Nevertheless, the Iraqi army's active manpower strength was an estimated 380,000 at the war's end, including three divisions of the Republican Guards, the troops considered most loyal to President Saddam Husayn. Despite crippling blows to its fighting potential, Iraq remained a potential adversary and a long-term security threat to Saudi Arabia's limited forces. "
"Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it? " George W. Bush October 7, 2002
You might consider the passing of a LAW , overwhelmingly, to attack another Nation an "abdication" to responsibility. But to me it is equivalent to a declaration of WAR.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. This is not an opinion, it is a FACT.
"Two parts to this -- yes success was guaranteed with the absolute advantage in pure firepower. But the occupation has been fraught with error and has created a cauldron of threats that did not exist prior to the invasion. This is a fact."
And the fat lady has yet to sing, Iraq still moves towards a free and publicly supported Democracy, despite the attempts of the terrorists and former Saddam loyalists to make it otherwise, Freedom will win out in the end, I believe that with all my heart. I hope for the BEST for the IRAQIS and for America in the future, NO ONE said this would be a cake-walk, but it is a battle that must be fought and won, and no battle was ever won with HALF-Hearted intent or without a will to succeed.
"Beyond that, the entire concept of "pre-emptive" war is totally undemocratic and befitting of an empire, monarchy or oligarchy."
Perhaps in the eyes of those who view America, wrongly, as an Empire or fascist State, Some might choose to give an enemy who has sworn our destruction a chance to reconsider that plan the benefit of the doubt, rather than to give our leaders, who are elected and appointed, and whose JOB it is to protect this Nation that same benefit of the doubt, I on the other hand will give America that benefit, long before I will give it to the Saddams, Bin Ladens, Kim Jong Ils, Hezbollah, and Hamas' , They do not deserve it and It would take allot for me to even consider granting them any kind of olive branch, if I am not at first and foremost even up to the challenge of offering it to OUR NATIONS LEADERS.
We disagree on this Naum and Travis, this also is a fact. I am however honored that you like myself are willing to stand by your beliefs as you have. Thank you for the chance again and again to express my point, It don't matter if we ever agree, we are but ants on a leaf in the ocean, I fear all our futures are on a path that NONE of us can see where it will end or what the world of our children will be like. I want you to know however, that when we do reach that far off distant place called tomorrow, I hope that at least the truth of all this is finally seen the light of day, and whoever is wrong understands that we do what we must, or we think we must to make tomorrow better than today. Humans are prone to error, and we have blundered our way through thousands of years of "ignorance". maybe one day we might just reach that place called "enlightenment".
PEACE TO YOU ALL.
Pray for Peace in Israel. God Bless.
http://www.foxnews.com/stor...
"Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
Thursday, June 22, 2006
WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday. "
http://www.sweetness-light....
"The following is a translation of a newly posted Iraqi document done by an unofficial translator. The document, posted in Arabic, is from a Department Of Defense program.
In the document an Iraqi opposition source working in Syria reports on the movement of Iraqi trucks to Syria before the start of the US invasion of Iraq. It is his understanding that the trucks contained proscribed weapons of mass destruction."
From an online posting from someone who was there and in regards to this "headline":
****
Just wanted to let people know if you have seen this report or press release.....its a bunch of BS. From the end of 2003 to the beginning of 2005 I was working on the CEA and WMD programs in Iraq.
These "chemical munitions" that were found and are now being trumpeted as being WMD proof were generally small artillery or rocket munitions. In 99% of the cases the munitions were so old (World War 2 era) and had been exposed to the heat, sun and wind for so long that the chemicals inside were either inert or had evaporated.
In only 2 cases to my knowledge, involving artillery shells, there was enough of the chemicals left to make the soliders exposed sick to their stomachs and that was it.
Here is a good judge of how seriously we, the people actually working on these programs, took the risk of exposure to chemical weapons....while looking for them we carried absolutely zero protection gear with us. That should tell you something.
****
Wishing to believe in something is not the same thing as reality actually existing...
"No evidence of WMD ever in Iraq"
This is simply false,as for the age of the weapons that is unimportant, they were still deadly and highly dangerouse, probably more dangerouse than "new" weapons would be due to their degraded states.
From the article
" Last year the head of Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, said that insurgents in Iraq had already used old chemical weapons in their attacks.
Nevertheless, "the impression that the Iraqi Survey Group left with the American people was they didn't find anything," Hoekstra said.
"But this says: , that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," he said.
Asked just how dangerous the weapons are, Hoekstra said: "One or two of these shells, the materials inside of these, transferred outside of the country, can be very, very deadly."
The report said that the purity of the chemical agents -- and thus their potency -- depends on "many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions."
"While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," it said."
I repeat
"Weapons have been discovered; more weapons exist. And they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone"
and again
"more weapons exist"
not existed, "exist" meaning To have actual being; be real, or To continue to be; persist.
wishing something is true is not the same as it in reality being true...Facts are facts.
The Left has claimed all along that there were NO WMDs. There has never been a distinction between war-actionable WMDs and non-war-actionable WMDs. The claim was NONE, zero, nada. That claim has been demonstrated to be utterly false.
"a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.
“This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991,” the official said, adding the munitions “are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war.”
The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein’s intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq.
He also said that the Defense Department statement shortly after the March 2003 invasion saying that “we had all known weapons facilities secured,” has proven itself to be untrue.
“It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump,” he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them."
Excerpts from Hugh Hewitt interview with Santorum all spoken by Santorum:
"….. I’ll quote again from the summary, not the classified report, “despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist beyond the 500 that they have recovered.”
….. All I can tell you is there have been published reports on blog sites about this report…and the published reports say that 75% of these 500 or so weapons were in fact filled and usable, and very dangerous for the…if got to improper hands.
….. It’s my impression that this is a very dangerous situation in Iraq, with the number of chemical weapons still believed to exist out there, and the threat that they might in fact get into the wrong hands. So Saddam, it is clear, from this report, had lots of chemical weapons around, and that people got their hands on them. So this is exactly what we were concerned about, that Saddam in fact had large stockpiles of chemical weapons, and would in fact…those chemical weapons could in fact get into the hands of people who would like to do harm to America.
….. think most people would look at this as a serious threat, and most people would look at this as saying that anybody who would claim that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction prior to the second Gulf War would not be taking a fair look at this situation as it is.
….. So we hastily called a press conference, of which…normally, I would think if you’re announcing the finding of weapons of mass destruction, you’d get more than four or five reporters, but that’s all we could seem to drum up.
….. what I think the Duellfer report was pretty clear about was that he had weapons programs in place, but that the sanctions were in fact effective in stopping him from producing more. "
There has never been a distinction between war-actionable WMDs and non-war-actionable WMDs. The claim was NONE, zero, nada. That claim has been demonstrated to be utterly false.
500 equals SOME...NO equals ZERO...wishing something is true is not the same as it in reality being true...Facts are facts.
DONALD RUMSFELD, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE -June 23, 2006-
Certainly. What's been announced is accurate, that there have been hundreds of canisters or weapons of various types found that either currently have sarin in them or had sarin in them. And sarin's dangerous, and it's dangerous to our forces and it's a concern.
So, obviously, to the extent we can locate these and destroy them, it's important that we do so. They are dangerous, and any of them, I'm sure, General Casey or anyone else in that country would be concerned if they got in the wrong hands.
Dream ON!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
Sarin, also known by its NATO designation of GB (O-Isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate) is an extremely toxic substance whose sole application is as a nerve agent. As a chemical weapon, it is classified as a weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations according to UN Resolution 687, and its production and stockpiling was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993.
wishing something is true is not the same as it in reality being true...Facts are facts.
http://www.buzztracker.org/...
Sarin: 'A drop will kill you'
19/05/2004 07:16
New York - Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four litres of the deadly nerve agent sarin, US defence department officials told Fox News on Tuesday.
The artillery shell was being used as an improvised roadside bomb, the US military said on Monday.
The 155mm shell exploded before it could be rendered inoperable, and two US soldiers were treated for minor exposure to the nerve agent.
"A little drop on your skin will kill you" in the binary form, said Randall Larsen, founder of Homeland Security Associates.
"So for those in immediate proximity, three litres is a lot."
Another shell filled with mustard gas, possibly also part of an improvised explosive device (IED) was discovered on May 2, defence officials said. The second shell was found by passing soldiers in a median on a thoroughfare west of Baghdad.
"Clearly, if we're gonna find one or two of these every so often - used as an IED or some other way - the threat is not all that high, but it does confirm suspicion that he [Saddam] did have this stuff," said Colonel Robert Maginnis.
A weapon of mass destruction or (WMD) is a term used to describe munitions with the capacity to indiscriminately slaughter large numbers of human beings. The phrase broadly encompasses several areas of weapon synthesis, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) and, increasingly, radiological weapons.
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent...
The extent of poisoning caused by sarin depends on the amount of sarin to which a person was exposed, how the person was exposed, and the length of time of the exposure.
Symptoms will appear within a few seconds after exposure to the vapor form of sarin and within a few minutes up to 18 hours after exposure to the liquid form.
All the nerve agents cause their toxic effects by preventing the proper operation of the chemical that acts as the body’s “off switch” for glands and muscles. Without an “off switch,” the glands and muscles are constantly being stimulated. They may tire and no longer be able to sustain breathing function.
Sarin is the most volatile of the nerve agents, which means that it can easily and quickly evaporate from a liquid into a vapor and spread into the environment. People can be exposed to the vapor even if they do not come in contact with the liquid form of sarin.
Because it evaporates so quickly, sarin presents an immediate but short-lived threat.
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/...
The following excerpts from an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate were declassified on July 18, 2003 and presented at a White House background briefing on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Key Judgments [from October 2002 NIE]
We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)
We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs.
Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
It's also at https://www.cia.gov/cia/rep... remember this was just five months before the start of the Iraq war.
http://www.cfr.org/publicat...
Did Iraq ever use sarin?
Yes. Iraq began producing sarin in 1984 and admitted to possessing 790 tons of it in 1995. Saddam Hussein used sarin on the Kurds in northern Iraq during a 1987-88 campaign known as the Anfal. The worst attack occurred in March 1988 in the Kurdish village of Halabja; a combination of chemical agents including sarin and mustard gas killed as many as 5,000 people and left 65,000 others with severe skin and respiratory diseases, abnormal rates of cancer and birth defects, and a devastated environment. Experts say Saddam Hussein launched about 280 chemical attacks against the Kurds.
wishing something is true is not the same as it in reality being true...Facts are facts.
Do you still have the religious faith that weapons of mass destructions were flown to Russia?
As Stalin once said (and I paraphrase) a ideology can not be reasoned with--it is better to be shot. There is no reasoning with you, is there?
Iraq was the most examined county in the world--with hundreds of inspectors on the ground searching--and they left empty handed years ago, and yet you still desperatly clasp onto your faith that somehow, somewhere there are WMDs. Is it because if you were to acknowledge and admit that you were wrong that your entire ideology would collapse around you? Is your ideological beleifs that fragile, that to admit that you were wrong will undermine your entire belief system?
Sociologist call it an American civil religion. I wrote an article about it on wikipedia, if you want to look it up.
I believe Naum is incorrect on this point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
AND AS TO ME BEING "REASONED" WITH, I BELIEVE IT WAS ME WHO SAID THAT DISCUSSION BETWEEN US DIDN'T DEPEND ON ONE OF US BEING RIGHT OR WRONG...YOU WERE THE ONE THAT SAID IT DID.
AND AS TO ME ADMITTING I WAS WRONG ABOUT WMDS...I WASN'T WRONG...THEY EXISTED THIS IS A FACT AS SURE AS THE SUN RISES AND SETS...THE ONLY TRUE QUESTION IS WHERE DID THEY GO, AND TO DATE THAT ISSUE IS THE ONLY ONE UNRESOLVED. DO YOU KNOW WHERE THEY ARE? I DON'T THINK SO. WHEN YOU CAN TELL ME WHERE THEY ARE THEN AND ONLY THEN CAN YOU TRULY SAY I WAS "WRONG" AND THEN AND ONLY THEN WILL I SAY I WAS. IT IS A FOOL WHO SAYS HE WAS WRONG ABOUT SOMETHING WHEN THE ANSWER HAS YET TO BE TOLD. GIVE ME FACTS GIVE ME EVIDENCE I HAVE OFFERED BOTH HERE AND SHOWN THAT MY FAITH IS BASED ON EVIDENCE NOT FANTASY...YOU HAVE OFFERED NO EVIDENCE THAT THE WMDS "NEVER EXISTED" WE KNOW THIS IS NOT TRUE. YOU HAVE OFFERED NO EVIDENCE THAT SAYS SADDAM DESTROYED THEM..THIS IS STILL AN OPEN VARIABLE, YOU HAVE OFFERED NE EVIDENCE THAT SAYS HE COULDN'T OR DIDN'T HIDE THEM...SO THAT TOO IS AN OPEN VARIABLE. YOU HAVE ALSO NOT SHOWN HOW IT IS "IMPOSSIBLE" THAT THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MOVED TO SYRIA. I HAVE SHOWN EVIDENCE THEY DID EXIST, I HAVE SHOWN EVIDENCE THEY WERE MOST LIKELY MOVED...SO IT IS FAITH WITH EVIDENCE THAT IS STRONGER HERE MY FRIEND, YOU HAVE FAITH WITH NO EVIDENCE AND THAT IS SURELY A PROBLEM ISN'T IT?
wishing something is true is not the same as it in reality being true...Facts are facts.
REMEMBER MY WORDS MANY MONTHS AGO TRAV
"If you cannot justify your beliefs without tearing mine apart or allowing me justification of mine perhaps your beliefs are not strong enough to stand next to mine"
MY WORDS "Can we not disagree in PEACE?"
YOURS
"No :("
MY WORDS
"Does one opinion have to be better than the other?"
YOURS
"Yes :)"
SO IT WOULD APPEAR THAT YOU ARE THE ONE WHO "NEEDS" TO BE RIGHT TRAVIS. NOT I
FACTS ARE FACTS
QUOTE <<"U.S. intelligence agencies have obtained satellite photographs of truck convoys that were at several weapons sites in Iraq in the weeks before U.S. military operations were launched, defense officials said yesterday.
The photographs indicate that Iraq was moving arms and equipment from its known weapons sites, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
According to one official, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, known as NGA, "documented the movement of long convoys of trucks from various areas around Baghdad to the Syrian border."
“The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units,” Mr. Shaw said. “Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units.”
“Most of Saddam’s most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.”
Shaw said that he confirmed this information with two separate European intelligence services who were familiar with the Russo-Iraqi arms transfers.
“Besides their own weapons, the Russians were supplying Saddam with arms made in Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria and other Eastern European nations, he said.”
“Whatever was not buried was put on lorries and sent to the Syrian border,” the defense official said."
and General Georges Sada:
"A former Iraqi general alleges that in June 2002 Saddam Hussein transported weapons of mass destruction out of the country to Syria aboard several refitted commercial jets, under the pretense of conducting a humanitarian mission for flood victims."
John Loftus a former Army officer, served as a Justice Department prosecutor. He investigated CIA cases of Nazi war criminals for the U.S. attorney general:
"Jordan recently seized 20 tons of chemicals trucked in by confessed al-Qaeda members who brought the stuff in from Syria. The chemicals included VX, Sarin and 70 others.
There's a lot of reason to think (the source of the chemicals) might be Iraq. We captured Iraqi members of al-Qaeda, who've been trained in Iraq, planned for the mission in Iraq, and now they're in Jordan with nerve gas. That's not the kind of thing you buy in a grocery store. You have to have obtained it from someplace."
so you see it's not "magical" there is evidence to support such claims." >> END QUOTE
QUOTE <<""“Need I remind you of the absurd “the WMDs were sent to Russia” hypothesis?"
THIS WAS ACTUALLY A THEORY REPORTED IN FROM NEWSMAX, NOT MY THEORY, BASED ON THE WORDS OF A FORMER TOP BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:
"Russia Moved Iraqi WMD Charles R. Smith Thursday, March 3, 2005 Moscow Moved Weapons to Syria and Lebanon According to a former top Bush administration official, Russian special forces teams moved weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq to Syria.
"I am absolutely sure that Russian Spetsnatz units moved WMD out of Iraq before the war," stated John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for international technology security.
Story Continues Below
According to Shaw, Russian units hid Saddam's arsenal inside Syria and in Lebanon's Bekka valley.
"While in Iraq I uncovered detailed information that Spetsnatz units shredded records and moved all WMD and specified advanced munitions out of Iraq to Syria and Lebanon," stated Shaw during an exclusive interview.
"I received information from several sources naming the exact Russian units, what they took and where they took both WMD materials and conventional explosives. Moscow made a 2001 agreement with Saddam Hussein to clear up all Russian involvement in WMD systems in Iraq," stated Shaw.
Shaw's assertions match the information provided by U.S. military forces that satellite surveillance showed extensive large-vehicle traffic crossing the Syrian border prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom."
http://www.freerepublic.com...
THE WORDS JUSTIFY VS. TRIVIALIZE
TWO DIFFERENT WORDS WITH DIFFERENT MEANINGS....HOW CAN ONE REPLACE THE OTHER UNLESS OF COURSE YOU MEAN THE OPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAY.
http://www.atsnn.com/story/...
original news source:
http://www.washingtontimes.com
Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.
John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.
"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."
http://www.nationalreview.c...
(London Sunday Telegraph) The News Editor for this newspaper
said today that reports indicate Saddam Hussein sent several
shipments of biological and chemical weapons materials to
other countries before the US liberation effort began.
So, the mindless protesters whining about the lack (in the
whole 5 weeks we have been there), of finding WMDs in Iraq,
can quit their hand-wringing. The US/UN will/may need to go to
other nations (gee - wonder which ones - syria, iran, yemen,
lebanon, jordan, Afghanistan, pakistan, etc. etc.)
I.e., in case the mindless hand-wringers missed the point
here, if no WMDs are found, does not mean they do not
exist (either in Iraq still-hidden, or in countries to
which they are now stored).
Of course greece is also suspect, as they are wont to commit
atrocities.
greece's atrocities revealed
http://www.observer.co.uk/i...
43,00.html">> END QUOTE
QUOTE<<"The fundamental problem facing the administration and its supporters is that on this, as on all other question relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, they were, in the words of David Kay, who initially headed the ISG, "all wrong.""
BEING WRONG DOES NOT MEAN ONE IS GUILTY OF LYING, IN FACT IF YOU ARE WRONG MAY PROVE YOU DIDN'T LIE BECAUSE FIRST YOU HAVE TO KNOW THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS NOT TRUE...AND SAY IT ANYWAY, BUSH RELIED ON THE SAME INFORMATION AND INTEL THAT THE REST OF OUR GOVERNMENTS LEADERS RELIED ON WHEN THEY CALLED FOR SADDAM TO BE BROUGHT DOWN DURING CLINTONS YEARS, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE REPUBLICANS KNEW ALL DURING CLINTONS TERM THAT SADDAM HAD NO WMDS AND KEPT THAT INFO TO THEMSELVES? I HARDLY THINK SO...SO YOU CANT ARGUE BOTH WAYS EITHER BUSH KNEW THERE WERE NO WMDS..AND LIED...OR HE, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE WAS SIMPLY MISTAKEN. THE FACT IS THAT EVEN THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS THOUGHT SADDAM HAD THEM... AND IF HE DIDN'T HAVE THEM HE WANTED IRAN AND THE KURDS AND OTHER POSSIBLE THREATS TO BELIEVE HE DID EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT ASSEMBLED HE COULD HAVE HAD THEM MADE IN AM MATTER OF DAYS, HE HAD THE MATERIAL AND THE RESOURCES. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY PROOF THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY, THE ONLY PROOF IS THAT IF HE DID THEY ARE NOT IN IRAQ ( OR BEEN FOUND IN IRAQ YET) AND MAY IN FACT HAVE BEEN SMUGGLED TO OTHER PLACES OR EVEN SHIPPED OUT BY RUSSIA. WHAT IS THE BIGGER MISTAKE, TAKING DOWN AND EVIL DICTATOR WHO MURDERED THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE AND HAS USED WMDS IN THE PAST AND ALSO HAD TIES WITH TERRORISTS AND "CONTACT" WITH AL QUEDA ON A BELIEF THAT HE HAD WMDS THAT HE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HAD AND WHO ALSO LIED AND STONEWALLED ANY ATTEMPTS TO PROVE OR DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE WMDS, OR IGNORING A CLEAR THREAT WHO FOR OVER 12 YEARS REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH DEMANDS OF THE "FREE" WORLD THAT HE AGREED TO YEARS BEFORE, WHO HAD THE MEANS THE KNOW-HOW AND THE PLANS TO MAKE WMDS, SUPPORT TERROR AND WAS CLEARLY AN ENEMY TO THE REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD...AND ALLOW THOSE PLANS AND DESIRED TO PERHAPS FORM AN EVIL DEADLY THREAT TO PEACELOVEING NATIONS AROUND THE GLOBE? I WOULD ALWAYS PREFER THE FORMER MYSELF.>> END QUOTE
THIS IS THE ONLY TIME I EVEN CAME CLOSE TO SUGGESTING THEY WERE IN RUSSIA
APRIL 2005
QUOTE <<"and before anyone argues that iraq had no wmds, for all intents and purposes the rest of the world believed he did, and his own people believed he did, its just as easy to terrorize (and allot cheaper) with imaginary weapons as it is when you actually have them, abomb threat without a bomb still clears a whole building. I think in the future we will find saddams wmds in Syria, or elsewhere, maybe even Russia.">> END QUOTE
QUOTE <<yup, the old Move the goal posts play! Its funny when the blind try to tell you what color the sky is. I FEEL VERY ENLIGHTENED.
WE ALL KNOW that sarin is a deadly chemical/biological weapon and that's not the only type of WMD found in IRAQ, WE ALL KNOW the world is better off without Saddam and his thugs. WE ALL KNOW that the democrats WHINED for years about how dangerous the IRAQ threat was. WE ALL KNOW that Iraq is on the road to a better future(much to the chagrin of the Radical Islamic JIHAD movements, the Liberal Bush-Haters, The Democratic party, France, Germany, Russia, and the U.N., ALL OF WHOM PROFITED IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER FROM SADDAM STAYING IN POWER.
Saddam's $2m offer to WMD inspector:
http://www.news.telegraph.c...
Evidence of WMD plotting found in Iraq:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...
03/08/01/ixportaltop.html
http://cranialcavity.net/wo...
"According to a former top Bush administration official, Russian special forces teams moved weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq to Syria. “I am absolutely sure that Russian Spetsnatz units moved WMDs out of Iraq before the war,” stated John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for international technology security. According to Shaw, Russian units hid Saddam’s arsenal inside Syria and in Lebanon’s Bekka valley [GP Editor: Bekka Valley is located near the Syrian border and that’s the location where the Syrian troops will be re-deploying to following their withdrawal from most of Lebanon].
“While in Iraq I uncovered detailed information that Spetsnatz units shredded records and moved all WMD and specified advanced munitions out of Iraq to Syria and Lebanon,” stated Shaw during an exclusive interview. “I received information from several sources naming the exact Russian units, what they took and where they took both WMD materials and conventional explosives. Moscow made a 2001 agreement with Saddam Hussein to clear up all Russian involvement in WMD systems in Iraq,” stated Shaw."
http://www.globalpolitician...
"Russia May Have Helped Move Iraqi WMDs"
HERE'S AN INTERESTING STORY:
http://www.townhall.com/col...
"Liberals -- wrong, wrong and wrong again
Larry Elder
March 17, 2005
Thirty-five percent of Americans, according to a 2004 Pew Research survey, call themselves conservative, while only 22 percent call themselves liberal (43 percent call themselves moderate) -- a 3 percent increase in conservatives since 1992. There is a reason for this -- liberals keep getting it wrong"
"The war in Iraq: "Week after week after week after week," said Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., in October 2003, "we were told lie after lie after lie after lie." Kennedy called Iraq a "quagmire," predicting it will turn into "Bush's Vietnam." Now what?
Eight million Iraqis voted in their election over seven weeks ago. Protesters in Lebanon demanded the withdrawal of Syrian troops and agents. Egypt committed to, and Saudi Arabia conducted, elections, however flawed. Elections in the Palestinian territories produced a new leader who -- at least for now -- speaks of a peaceful two-state solution. So what does Sen. Kennedy say now?
"This Week's" George Stephanopoulos asked Kennedy whether President Bush deserves credit for democratic developments in the Middle East. Kennedy replied, "Absolutely, absolutely, and I think . . . what's taken place in a number of those countries is enormously constructive. It's a reflection the president has been involved." Well, well. Oh, sure, Kennedy talked about the number of Americans killed every day in Iraq, and that we need to figure out a way of withdrawing U.S. troops, but nothing about "quagmire.""
"Ronald Reagan's tax cuts: Critics claimed the Reagan tax cuts would stunt economic growth, while triggering inflation and higher interest rates. Inflation fell from 12.5 percent in 1980 to 3.9 percent in 1984, interest rates declined, and economic growth went from minus 0.2 percent in 1980 to plus 7.3 percent in 1984."
"Race-based preferences:"
"Strategic Defense Initiative:"
"Welfare reform:"
"Charity:"
"Minimum wage: "
"Of the major domestic and national security issues of the last several decades, liberals consistently got it wrong, wrong and wrong again!">> END QOUTE
QUOTE <<http://www.worldthreats.com...
"Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Robert Goldberg cited former U.N. weapons inspector Richard Spertzel, who stated that Moscow supplied Baghdad with fermentation equipment to produce biotoxins.
According to Spertzel, the Russians on the U.N. inspection team in Iraq were "paranoid" about his efforts to uncover smallpox production.
Goldberg noted that no country has "done more to rebuild" Saddam's chemical and biological weapons programs or "been more aggressive in helping hide the truth" than Russia."
"According to the book "Russian Military Power," published in 1982, "It is known that the Soviets maintain stocks of CW (chemical weapons) agents." The two primary Russian chemical weapons in the 1982 Soviet inventory were the nerve agent "VX" and "blistering agents - developments of mustard gas used so effectively in World War I.""
"Iraq did most of its WMD killing using Russian-made MiG and Sukhoi aircraft equipped with chemical sprayers. In addition, Saddam used French-made artillery and helicopters to dump gas on Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurds.
Iraq obtained Russian delivery systems and the same inventory of Russian-made chemical weapons at the same time. Iraqi SU-22 Fitter attack jets were armed with Warsaw Pact-designed bombs filled with chemical weapons. Iraq used these Russian jet fighters to drop chemical weapons on Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war.
Iraq tried to use these SU-22 jets during the 1991 Gulf War, but they were detected and destroyed on the ground before they could launch a deadly chemical attack.
Other Russian weapons found with chemical weapons include the FROG-7 missile, 122 mm rockets, 152 mm artillery and the M-1937 82 mm mortars. All the Iraqi artillery missiles, rockets, shells and mortar rounds filled with chemical weapons are of Russian design.">> END QUOTE
QUOTE <<http://www.newsmax.com/arch...
"According to a former top Bush administration official, Russian special forces teams moved weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq to Syria.
"I am absolutely sure that Russian Spetsnatz units moved WMD out of Iraq before the war," stated John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for international technology security."
"According to Shaw, Russian units hid Saddam's arsenal inside Syria and in Lebanon's Bekka valley.
"While in Iraq I uncovered detailed information that Spetsnatz units shredded records and moved all WMD and specified advanced munitions out of Iraq to Syria and Lebanon," stated Shaw during an exclusive interview."
""I received information from several sources naming the exact Russian units, what they took and where they took both WMD materials and conventional explosives. Moscow made a 2001 agreement with Saddam Hussein to clear up all Russian involvement in WMD systems in Iraq," stated Shaw.">> END QUOTE
QUOTE<<same article:
"You said that the Russians told Saddam, "There is going to be an invasion. Get rid of your chemical and biological weapons."
Sure. It would only bring the United Nations down on their heads if they were shown to really have Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's not generally known, but the CIA has found 41 different material breaches where Saddam did have a weapons of mass destruction program of various types. It was completely illegal. But no one could find the stockpiles. And the liberal press seems to be focusing on that.
">> END QUOTE
QUOTE <<from neal boortz
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE IRAQI WMD
An interesting bit of truth is slowly leaking out into the mainstream media with little fanfare, and it's the news that Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction may have been looted or moved from the country during the war. Remember...prior to to John Kerry's defeat last November, there were no weapons of mass destruction. Suddenly...we're finding out where they might have gone. How's that for media bias?
The first major news organization to suck it up is none other than the New York Times- http://www.nytimes.com/2005... . That leftist bird cage liner reported yesterday that when the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam not only possessed stockpiles of WMD, but it was moved to a neighboring state before Coalition forces could get there. For how many months have people been saying this? Looks like a nice plate of crow is going to be served to the Bush-bashing left.
The paper quoted Sami al-Araji, Iraq's deputy minister of industry as saying "It appeared that a highly organized operation had pinpointed specific plants in search of valuable equipment, some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications, and carted the machinery away." He also says it was a very sophisticated operation. So how much will we hear about this? Did the Russians help? Is this why Putin was so dead-set against the war?
The mainstream media reads, relies on and regurgitates much of what they read in the New York Times on a daily basis. Since this story will be perceived as being good for George Bush, expect it to be buried. But make no mistake: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, possessed the capability to produce nuclear weapons and would have sold or used them.
Thank God he was stopped.>> END QUOTE
THOSE ARE ALL MY POSTS ABOUT RUSSIA AND IRAQS WMDS...
Again, Mondo, I refer you to the actual testimony of someone who was there (regarding recent Senator Santorum claims about WMD) and assesses it for what it is - much ado about nothing. WWI era weapons, most of which are 100% defective are not WMD.
And they're not the WMD the administration was trotting out pre-invasion. Instead we were told of mushroom clouds and missle strikes on U.S. soil, all of which were blatant lies or terrible equivocations…
And the "Russia moved 'em" story is totally bogus — how on earth could they make such movements and elude satellite detection?
The term WWI era weapons is misleading...this simply means that this is the same "type" of weapons used in WWI and not weapons produced in the early 19hundreds. These weapons were produced around 1991 at least the ones you speak of. not 1901. They were degraded because they were stored either wrong or were hidden in a place that allowed them to do so. Were they shells that could be fired from a weapon? NO, but they did contain "chemicals" that could be deadly if used improperly or properly.
As to the moving them being "bogus"? well you must know that satellites are not static, they move across the sky, and much of them are tracked by other sources, such as "Russian" intel. They know when those satellites are moving over head and can avoid being seen doing something during these certain times of day when this happens. Your ignorance of intelligence is astounding. Satellites are only effective if they are at the right place at the right time.
There are photos showing trucks at bunkers and then these trucks going to Syria.
http://www.washingtontimes....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/n...
http://www.defenselink.mil/...
http://www.space.com/news/i...
Spamming is a term that describes a malicious attempt to send advertisements or "unwanted" data and or to overwhelm a source with information that is "unwanted" or unrelated to a discussed subject.
What I did was to show that "all" of my statements about "RUSSIA AND WMDS IN IRAQ" have remained consistent and that I had source info from which I came to my conclusions and as proof of what I said. I do not simply pull opinions out of my butt, as some here do. If you make a claim as to the wmds and whether or not they exist or existed it is incumbent upon the person making those claims to show how they came to this conclusion and to show that they are not just spouting baseless opinions and trying to pass them off as FACT.
I always know when i got your emotions going when you use all CAPS. I thought those days of all CAPS were behind us.
I will read all of your comments later. Does somehow adding thousands of words bolster your argument? I don't think it does.
The bottom line is this:
"Iraq was the most examined county in the world--with hundreds of inspectors on the ground searching--and they left empty handed years ago"
No October suprise before the 2004 election. Nothing. Thousands of words still don't have much effect on the validity of this one sentence. The bottom line is: You were wrong.
I could turn them on if it makes you think I am spinning in my chair.
"Iraq was the most examined county in the world--with hundreds of inspectors on the ground searching--and they left empty handed years ago"
That is poo-poo and you know it,The inspectors were not effective, they were told where to go and where not to go. They were threatened and manipulated.
The argument started that there were "NO WMDs in IRAQ", when I showed this opinion was not based on fact it was then changed to the "opinion" that saran was not WMds, ignoring the fact that mustard gas was also found. When it was shown that this "opinion" was also not a FACT. It was then changed to "these were WWI era weapons and not dangerous" then this argument was shown to be a fallacy, The whole reason we were looking for WMDs in Iraq was because we said they had "pre-existing" wmds and the ability to make "new" wmds. These are clearly "pre-existing" even if they dated to 1991. These are the exact same weapons we were looking for, weapons we knew he had and weapons Saddam failed to account for having or destroying.
"The bottom line is: You were wrong."
Another opinion, backed up by nothing, as usual, and it has no effect on me what so ever.
as to MY BAD BAD foodingspamming, I consider information a very important thing, I have a love for truth and a love for FACTS. When my truthfulness is questioned and one little piece of something I said is repeated rather than the whole complete context of what I have said and maintained, due to FACTS, Hell yeah I'm going to "flood" you with information and if you don't like it, you can IGNORE it as it seems you have no problem with IGNORING anything that might even hint that your "opinion" might not be based on facts at all but are actually baseless and sadly simply WRONG.
So read it or not, ignore it as you are want to do, it doesnt change the truth and it only shows how the TRUTH hurts you.
how many bottom lines do you need travis, there is only one for me:
I have reason to believe what I believe, and have been given no reason to change my mind to date, nothing nada zip, only opinions. That is the bottom line, when you get something to back up your opinions get back to me and I will consider whether or not I was mistaken as to what I thought about WMDS, until then dont expect your opinions to be any more than that to me.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/rep...
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.
The scale of the Iraqi conventional munitions stockpile, among other factors, precluded an examination of the entire stockpile; however, ISG inspected sites judged most likely associated with possible storage or deployment of chemical weapons."
so the official finding is:
"ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter"
Based on that, until more evidence is released that would contradict this, I do agree what we have now is not sufficient to say that what the ISG says isn't a fact. There is some evidence that Iraq may have had WMds and they have been moved or hidden. If I am to be honest here I have to say, that because there hasn't been a serious investigation of these claims, despite the evidence, The current opinion is that MOST of Iraq's wmds were destroyed in 1991.
I cannot say that I know there were wmds in IRAQ, I believe there were, but that belief, to date has been based on evidence that has not been substantiated by an official investigation and therefore is open to debate. If you choose to ignore it, then you are right to do so, and I apologize. But on the same token because this evidence has not been proven it has also not been disproven. I will accept the "no wmds" opinion and say that until further investigations are made or more solid proof comes up. I agree, and I was wrong.
See Trav, some of us are not beyond reason.
I have to say that this is the "opinion" of the ISG, not a fact. Until the FACTS are known, I will accept this opinion as the valid one to date.
Now the next question is, do I now think the war was wrong and Bush Lied? Not yet, but show me some facts or at least opinions that might bear weight and you never know, sure I had to look real hard to find the info I did. But in finding that info I did find enough to show that they whole "IRAQ WMDS" question has yet to be answered conclusively.
Quote
WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.
“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.
“As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”
Quote
Another addendum also noted that military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons — most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War. In an insurgent’s hands, “the use of a single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives,” another addendum said.
Quote
And still another said the survey group found some potential nuclear-related equipment was “missing from heavily damaged and looted sites.” Yet, because of the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the survey group was unable to determine what happened to the equipment, which also had alternate civilian uses.
“Some of it probably has been sold for its scrap value. Other pieces might have been disassembled” and converted into motors or condensers, an addendum said. “Still others could have been taken intact to preserve their function.”
Quote
Among unanswered questions, Duelfer said a group formed to investigate whether WMD-related material was shipped out of Iraq before the invasion wasn’t able to reach firm conclusions because the security situation limited and later halted their work. Investigators were focusing on transfers from Iraq to Syria.
No information gleaned from questioning Iraqis supported the possibility, one addendum said. The Iraq Survey Group believes “it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.”
Looks like the ISG left themselves a few "open doors" for wiggle room.
Add Comment