What about the weapons of mass destruction?

[TheItalianguy]

I mean, i wouldn't want to be off topic (looking at CNN and BBC etc...) and ruin it for George W. but in all this jubilation am I the only one who is wondering about these weapons of mass destruction? because that's the reason the US went there...right??? am I the only one recalling this? so what are the news? when are the Iraqis going to use them? I mean if not now, when? What are the Iraqis going to do, use them when the war is over?

And just to be precise: from www.clarence.com

Professor Doug Rokke, former-director of the DU project of the Pentagon, former professor of Environmental Science at the University of Jacksonville stated that "the use of DU is a War Crime?.
Rokke said: 'We need to analyze this from an ethical standpoint. This war is about illegal weapons of mass destruction...but the US troops are using these weapons against the Iraqis" He added ?these double standards are disgusting?.
Last time DU was used in this conflict was on Friday when an American fighter jet accidentaly shot on British troops killing one soldier.

 

[pbg]

EXCELLENT POINT

EXCELLENT POINT

He is Australia the same question is now starting to asked by a great deal of society and some parts of the media.

How about that great piece of spin control when the US government implied to the masses that the skeletor body remains found by coalition forces was somehow connect with the WOMD.

 

[ryson]

You don't think the SCUD missiles they have been launching are WMD's? I think the better questions is what do YOU consider a WMD? Finding medium range missiles with a "substance" in the heads of the them (maybe it was cocaine or heroin and saddam was going to throw a big party, finding suicide bomber vests in schools, caches of weapons/ammo - NBC suits/atropine in shools/hospitals (which really belong in schools by the way) do not give you a clue on what this dude has been planning, these things are hidden very well or they have already crossed the border into syria. I find it really interesting that fighting is heating up in wester Iraq...hmm pretty close to the border of Syria. Also it's only been what 22 days since this thing started? The ultimate WMD is Saddam himself and yes we need to get his a**. I am really beginning to think that no matter what the folks opposed to the war are never going to be happy. I aslo belive there are a couple of reasons for this, first the dems got on the stump talking all sorts of trash about a war for oil, trying to finish daddys war etc., now that they are realizing they are wrong the WMD argument comes up. The opposers are scared to death that the outcome of this war is success because W will win the next election and that means 4 more years of logic and HONOR in the White House. Next dem presidential candidates: Al Sharpton for pres, Nancy Pelosi for VP. Sort of tells the state of the dem party.
I am also very curious as to how many people opposed to the war have seen a dictatorship/communist society first hand, I spent a significant amount of time in Eastern Europe before and after the cold war, if you had witnessed these environments first hand it would change your views, definetly help shape mine.

 

[SixFive]

don't worry, Itallianguy will probably switch sides soon! Also, that clarence.com seems to be the authority on unbiased reporting Nice calendari section though!

 

[Turfgrass]

BEWARE OF DESPERATE DEMOCRATS
The reality of a quick victory in Iraq is now starting to sink in with Democrats. For the third time in the last fifteen years Democrats have stood witness to a great world-changing triumph by a Republican president: Reagan and the fall of the Soviet Union, Bush 41 and Gulf War I, and now Bush 43 and the defeat of Saddam Hussein. For eight out of these fifteen years there was a Democrat in the White House. It was eight years filled with scandal, dishonesty and corruption --- and no major domestic or foreign policy accomplishments to pad the resume.

A sense of desperation will soon control the Democratic agenda. Many had hoped for a foreign policy disaster with the use of military force in Iraq. It doesn?t look like this is going to pan out for the Democrats. With every passing day the 2004 election draws closer. The Democrats were unable to deny Bush a victory in Iraq, but there is one avenue still open to the left. The economy.

The left showed that it was more than willing to put their hopes for a return to power in 2004 ahead of the need to make the world safer through the disarmament of Saddam Hussein. Will they now take the same tact with the economy?

In a word ? yes. You bet they will.

The only real hope the Democrats have left is for Americans to forget about what has transpired in Iraq, and to fixate on a poor economy. Democrats know that Americans tend to reward or punish presidents for the turns in our economy. If the U.S. economy shows improvement between now and next year?s election Republican success is assured. Democrats, then, must do everything in their power to delay a strong economic recovery until after next year?s elections. This means fighting by every means necessary any presidential initiative that might lead to increased economic growth, and that, of course, means fighting any tax cuts.

The history is clear. Tax cuts lead to increased economic activity, economic growth and government revenues. From the Democratic perspective, this cannot be allowed to happen.

Democrat hopes for a Bush failure in Iraq appear doomed. That leaves the economy. Tax cuts must be stopped. Any initiative that might bring increased economic growth must be derailed.

Beware of desperate Democrats.

 

[djv]

Ryson war is about BlackGold. WMD not found at this time. Air bases. We have them now and I believe who ever is head of new Iraq government. They will understand we are going to have airbases. One for a long time maybe two.
WMD before war started I seen so many times Colin Powel and Bush say he's got them. We have a very good idea where they are. But cant give that info away could get someone killed in Iraq.
Does seem strange if we know so much were still looking. I mean from what we were told there should just be huge stocks and piles of this stuff. As for those Scudds. We never called then WMD in 91 war so I guess with out nuke war heads on them there not more then a 200 lb bomb. Thats all the scuds can carry more then 125 miles. Hell were droping 2000 & 3000lb bombs. Do we call them WMD. Nope we say there bunker busters.
Not to worry we will find sometype of WMD. I will fly it there myself if needed. Anything to see we dont lose face.

 

[ChrryBlstr]

ryson:

you do bring up a few great points....bottom line is....saddam had to go....no question about it....i don't think anyone is arguing that point....BUT....once again....was the way it was done the ONLY viable alternative???

now....i'm not a democrat nor a republican....nor an american....so i don't have any ties with any of these gov't factions....in fact....i don't support any of my own country's political parties, either....BUT....that's neither here nor there!!!

AND....i was born in a country under oppression by a dictator as well....so i KNOW what it is like first-hand....BUT....luckily enough or as fate would have it....my family was pretty wealthy and we were left alone by the powers that be!!!

although most of the people wanted change....not EVERYONE did....some people either didn't care or were happy enough living their life as is....BUT....then again....massive genocide wasn't being perpetrated against opposing "tribes" or anything like that....at least not to the extent that saddam did....STILL to say that EVERYONE wanted change would be untrue!!!

this dictator, as powerful as he was, was finally ousted in the end WITHOUT a war breaking out....albeit with a firm nudge by the U.S. gov't, i'm sure!!!

my big problem with this whole thing is the idea of war....since war = death....period....whether military or civilian....death is the prevailing theme!!!

now some people will argue that death is inevitable....even necessary in order to get saddam out....BUT....THAT is the whole point....was it really....ask the mother of the little iraqi girl that was shot in the head by a marine yesterday and ask her if her little girl taking a bullet in the head was worth the price of her impending freedom....i'm not sure what she would say....BUT....i KNOW how i would respond....because it's all relative....call it selfish if you want....BUT....i would think that most of us wouldn't be willing to make that sacrifice....to sacrifice myself....no problem....BUT....to sacrifice a loved one....i highly doubt it!!!

another problem i have is all the rhetorical B.S. propaganda from ALL sides....and because i consider omission as lying....then....why do governments insist on lying to the people IF all their intentions are truly good???

i'm not even going to get into details about iraqi propaganda....because we all KNOW how retarded THAT was!!!

AND i'm NOT saying that gatting saddam out and getting rid of his WMDs and liberating the people aren't all good causes....BUT....to discount the benefits that this war will have for the U.S. is assinine....for starters....how about being able to coerce the iraqis into electing a leader who is "friendly" with the west....not to mention eliminating the constant threat to iraq's oh-so-friendly neighbor israel....why aren't these perks ever mentioned, i wonder???

AND....to think that bush starting this war hasn't increased his popularity....and taken the focus off of the internal problems....as well as unifying the american people in their dismay at other countries such as france and russia....thereby promoting national pride....is equally ridiculous!!!

all these reasons contributed to thousands of people getting killed....senseless or justified is open for debate....BUT....to think that it is either one side (WMDs, getting rid of saddam, liberating the people) OR the other (war for oil, increasing bush's popularity, etc.) just doesn't make any sense....since they are ALL factors that led us to this point!!!

man....why governments refuse to acknoweldge COMPLETE truths is beyond me....then again....perhaps they only spew out jargon that they feel people want to/should hear!!!

 

[ChrryBlstr]

i thought this was funny!!!

WMD = weapons of mass distraction


HA HA HA HA....*LOL*

 

[ferdville]

As noted elsewhere, why are you in such a hurry Italianguy? Were you not in favor of the stooges and Hans Blix getting all the time they needed to continue their quest for WMD? Were you not happy to give them months to do further checking? But now you want our guys to find these things RIGHT NOW. Do you think those chemical suits were stored because they were planned as the newest Spring fashions for Iraq? Do you think the antidote was there in case the Marines unloaded chemical/biological weapons? Or do you think the US planted those things in an effort to sway world opinion?

 

[AR182]

Chrryblstr,

In a previous post you said....."ask the mother of the little iraqi girl that was shot in the head by a marine yesterday and ask her if her little girl taking a bullet in the head was worth the price of her impending freedom...."

After we finish asking this mother can we question the mothers of boys who refused to have their sons "enroll" in saddam's "kiddie army"?
I understand that if a parent refuses to have their child serve in this army, the child is either tortured & sentenced to serve 5 years in prison, or killed. An iraqi-American group has estimated that saddam has killed around 3 million iraqi people since he rose to power.How many of those do you think were children?If we estimate that maybe 1% were children then we are talking about 30,000 kids that were butchered(sp?).

I am not justifying that killing innocent people is okay in war & is to beexpected, but the allies went to extreme measures in avoiding civilian casualties. As a matter of fact there are "experts" who have said that because of not trying to kill civilians, it has probably led to more ally soldiers dying.

War sucks, people should not be killing one another, but sometimes it is unavoidable.You may disagree, but saddam was given many chances to disarm, but chose not to.Now innocent people must suffer.

 

[TheItalianguy]

not in a hurry ferdiville but the war is over, why didn't the Iraqis use them against US troops yet? that's curious I think. they are willing to blow themselves up just to kill a couple of foreign soldiers but they can't use biological weapons?

I just feel in every interview George W. wants to blow up and say it: " F*ck yeah it's about oil!" but he jas been restraining himself until now.

 

[gardenweasel]

the war is over?

the war is over?

that was a joke,right.....there are large parts of northern iraq that we haven`t even attempted to liberate....hell,we aren`t in total control of baghdad....when the scientists are found,that`s when we`ll know....they may be dead,though...that`s what saddam should have done....and it`s possible those mobile labs are in syria....everybody knew roughly when this invasion was starting....i think we kinda did blow any attempts at getting saddam and the top dogs....my guess is they are long gone... that may end up being our biggest faux pas....but,it`s understandable considering the scope of this task....but,if there are scientists still alive,imo,we`ll learn quite a bit....patience...

 

[ferdville]

The war is over? I don't hear anyone but the media proclaiming that crock. There is much fighting left to be done. Is the outcome clear - yes. But the fighting hasn't stopped. And please explain the thousands of chemical protective suits uncovered.

 

[ChrryBlstr]

AR182:

i offer no other alternatives to saddam's ouster because i simply don't know how else it could have been done....i'm thinking special ops assassination, but, that was deemed illegal by the U.S. a few years back....BUT....that doesn't necessarily mean that i agree with the way it was done....this war didn't have to take place at all....call me idealistic....BUT....i think there could have been some other way to get rid of him without all this senseless killing!!!

as an aside....i'm not saying that it's right....nor am i condoning it....BUT....do you realize that the majority of the people that he has exterminated were from opposition tribes....kurds mostly....not just iraqis as we're led to believe....they've been enemies for centuries....each tribe killing the other for countless numbers of years....yes....everyone there considers themselves an iraqi....BUT....a sunni or a kurd or whatever other tribe first and foremost....it is reprehensible....BUT....he had the power and chose to wield it that way!!!

You may disagree, but saddam was given many chances to disarm, but chose not to.

and i STILL do not believe that this is the only reason this war started....there has to be more to it than that....if so....why was he ever considered a U.S. ally at one point in time....it just makes no sense....it's not like he turned into a madman overnight!!!

As a matter of fact there are "experts" who have said that because of not trying to kill civilians, it has probably led to more ally soldiers dying.

i agree with this completely....BUT....none of this would have happened if there was no war in the first place!!!

once again....i'll cite this question from john stuart mill that the prof posed....

(c) While vacationing in some foreign country, I come across 20 villagers who are about to be executed by the government. The general in charge, however, offers to let 19 of the prisoners go, if I agree to shoot the 20th one myself. Should I shoot the one (innocent) villager myself, or should I let the twenty (innocent) villagers be executed by the General?s soldiers?

i'm STILL trying to figure it out....it's not simply black or white....in fact....i'm more inclined to believe that neither scenario is acceptable....and would opt for the 3rd choice....eliminate the general in charge....period!!!

now ask yourself....if that girl was your daughter....is her death....her sacrifice worth the price of freedom....or better yet....is her death worth the salvation of 30, 000 others....for me....a question that cannot be answered by a simple yes or no!!!

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I-Guy/your statement

" I mean, i wouldn't want to be off topic (looking at CNN and BBC etc...) and ruin it for George W. but in all this jubilation am I the only one who is wondering about these weapons of mass destruction? because that's the reason the US went there...right??? am I the only one recalling this? so what are the news? when are the Iraqis going to use them? I mean if not now, when? What are the Iraqis going to do, use them when the war is over?"

No I don't think you are "only one" wondering, it appears from latest polls that about 22% of people still are "upset" on this issue. If you discount the left,protesters and Hollywood I don't know how many others would be left over.

and I don't think it will ruin it for George or the other 78% of U.S. citizens,or the militarty risking their lives there and neither the Iraqi population.

To find WMD is only reason we went there? Somehow I feel the same 22% would agree on that statement, "a few" might believe it had something to do with 9-11.

If they find them,fine,if not no prob either.--of course if they do which I anticipate, the Arab world,French and the 22% will say they were planted so what difference does it make.

Maybe if you are every in situation where you put your life on the line for something you believe in or live in country where it is in jeopardy daily you will see how those that have and do view
the Microsoft Militia (the keyboard crusaders)

 

[djv]

DTB im sorry im sticking with my top three reason. Balck Gold, WMD, Air Bases. Weather they got/get Saddam or not has slipped way down the poll. We then lifted the freedom for the people up the poll higher. Saddam and the People I believe never made it in to the top three. Just my position. If we start screwing with Iran next or Syria I guess it will be WMD only. Mean while our in your face N Koreans who say right up front. Screw you Bush were building a few more Nukes. And what do we do. We just dont even mention it or talk to them. And that for sure will be about WMD because they have zero oil.
As for WMD in Iraq. We had info that was so good Colin Powell tryed to convince the UN we need action. Im not saying there not there. But if they have so many and we new so much three weeks ago. Well Im saying maybe we were tricked alittle with the talk before the war. We will find something and our faces will not be red. But guys you all had to here what I did. Dam you think they would be able to just walk right up to some of them. Yes In less then three weeks. Hell should Have been able to in two weeks. We owned most of the country in 15 days. So on the battel goes. I just hope these folks are still gratefull in some way or another 3/4 years from now. And dont go back to killing each other off as they have for last 200 years.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

DJV You have earned right to have any opinion and they are always appreciated,my friend.

--a little on N korea. I think it is an entirely different ballgame and I think we have handled it perfectly. While they appear to be coming around today and backing down to mutilateral talks now, I would like to think that our display in war in Iraq might have
"persueded" them and I am sure it will be presented that way,but truth be known China had the most to do with it as I think we were hoping all along. I read in one of their papers a couple of days ago that they threaten to cut off supplys with NK if they did not go into multilateral negotiations. It has been like a big poker bluff all along.China hoping we would budge and visa versa. Our ace in the hole was China had much more to lose with
with NK on their border.

 

[djv]

Yes China had to play a big part and must continue. They have beefed up there border just to prevent more N Koreans coming into China. A little like our border with Mexico. But I do say we must be ever alert and take charge in the end game. I just dont trust China enough.