Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Did Saddam Have WMD?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
241 replies to this topic

#31    <bleeding_heart>

<bleeding_heart>

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,947 posts
  • Joined:27 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

  • "Nil Satis Nisi Optimum"

Posted 02 February 2004 - 04:51 AM

In reference to my earlier post, I did not mean the west supported the massacre I was merely trying to show that Iraq was not an enemy then and the attack was not a bout of fiction to justify an attack. It was to show why Saddam needed to be removed from his position of power!


I will never forget 9/11 or the many soldiers from various nations who we all owe a debt of gratitude!  

Posted Image


#32    <bleeding_heart>

<bleeding_heart>

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,947 posts
  • Joined:27 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

  • "Nil Satis Nisi Optimum"

Posted 02 February 2004 - 04:57 AM

terrorism;
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


That for me would make Saddam a terrorist! There's the justification.

Posted Image


#33    KayEl

KayEl

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 506 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003

Posted 02 February 2004 - 05:26 AM

  These people would rather wait until something really BAD happened and THEN do something about it. Then of course,  they often operate with the benefit of hindsight!
whistling2.gif

Oh by the way...have everybody forgotten about what happened to the Kurds?  huh.gif
Oh, of course not, it is alright for Saddam to kill his own people! whistling2.gif  


#34    Fluffybunny

Fluffybunny

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,136 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male

  • "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."
    Thomas Paine

Posted 02 February 2004 - 05:36 AM

QUOTE (thepsychoticseaotter @ Feb 1 2004, 08:41 PM)
It shows no respect to our soldiers, or even those who died at 9/11......


Oh please.  rolleyes.gif I have done nothing to disrespect "our soldiers" or those that died on 9/11.

I for one, WAS one of those soldiers in Desert Storm. 91B medical specialist. I spent 5 years(87-92) in the US Army and am well aware of what our soldiers are going through. I have nothing bust respect for the soldiers there. and here.

For you to say that I am being disrespectful is not true.

It is not disrespectful to question the actions of the President. It is a freedom, and a needed one at that.

There are plenty here who would choose to follow blindly the words of the president and our governement. I do not. I disagree when I see something happening that should not be happening.

Otter, if it bothers you too much to read "trash" like this, then just go elsewhere. There are plenty of other threads to choose from, on many topics that may more may not fall into your definition of "trash".

To say it is disrespectful to our soldiers is laughable. The very freedoms that they (and I)have fought for guarantee the freedom of speech, something I hold dearly. Freedom of speech is a double edged sword, it gives you the right to speak for what you believe in, and for me to rebuttle.

It works well, you should try it some time.


Too many people on both sides of the spectrum have fallen into this mentality that a full one half of the country are the enemy for having different beliefs...in a country based on freedom of expression. It is this infighting that allows the focus to be taken away from "we the people" being able to watch, and have control over government corruption and ineptitude that is running rampant in our leadership.

People should be working towards fixing problems, not creating them.

#35    Fluffybunny

Fluffybunny

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,136 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male

  • "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."
    Thomas Paine

Posted 02 February 2004 - 05:37 AM

QUOTE (KayEl @ Feb 1 2004, 09:26 PM)
Oh, of course not, it is alright for Saddam to kill his own people! whistling2.gif

Is it better that we do it for him?

Too many people on both sides of the spectrum have fallen into this mentality that a full one half of the country are the enemy for having different beliefs...in a country based on freedom of expression. It is this infighting that allows the focus to be taken away from "we the people" being able to watch, and have control over government corruption and ineptitude that is running rampant in our leadership.

People should be working towards fixing problems, not creating them.

#36    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

  • Member
  • 14,465 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Milky Way Galaxy 3rd planet

  • They're wearing steel that's bright and true
    They carry news that must get through
    They choose the path where no-one goes

Posted 02 February 2004 - 06:00 AM

QUOTE
President Bush lied to the rest of the world to justify attacking Iraq.

Does anyone understand that? Am I alone here?


You are not alone .....  Senator Kennedy agrees with you 100%.

Are you sure you're a libertarian?

1.  You have some points to consider on the Patriot Act I will admit...I don't fear it
in the hands of this administration but let's never forget the 900 FBI files
that just kind of 'wound up' in the White House last time around.
On the other hand...if we don't stop the terrorists...will it even matter?

2.  If you can prove that President Bush lied: please submit the proof.
Why do you think he lied when the UN believed what the intelligence was
on WMD.

3.  I understand you don't want to debate anything with me because you
think I am a Bush/Rush parrot.  It just happens to be the case that I agree
with both of them across the board on most everything.
I am not a mind-numbed robot.  I understand your points...I just don't agree
with too many of them.

4.   And as far as intelligence goes:  Why not go to the horses mouth for
that one.  Yes, I have read George Orwell's 1984.  Have you read Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House by Gary Warren Aldrich?
If you haven't I encourage you to do so.  It may open even your eyes
to the truth behind the intelligence which led to war.  



Posted Image
once i believed that starlight could guide me home
now i know that light is old and stars are cold

ReverbNation

#37    Seraphina

Seraphina

    Voted Best Member 2005

  • Member
  • 7,133 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2003
  • Location:Paisley, Scotland

  • Everyone likes a smouldering and sexy glare from a diminutive scientist.

Posted 02 February 2004 - 10:42 AM

Not to change the subject, but I heard on the radio that Bush and Tony Blair had been put forward for the Nobel Peace prize...which is ironic since they started a war tongue.gif

QUOTE
the intelligence which led to war.


Isn't that a contradiction? tongue.gif  

Posted Image

Apparantly, over on Exchristian.Net, they say that I'm "probably the smartest person" on UM....that is so cool...

#38    <bleeding_heart>

<bleeding_heart>

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,947 posts
  • Joined:27 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

  • "Nil Satis Nisi Optimum"

Posted 02 February 2004 - 10:44 AM

What's next McDonalds getting an award foor services to cows!

Posted Image


#39    Fluffybunny

Fluffybunny

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,136 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male

  • "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."
    Thomas Paine

Posted 02 February 2004 - 07:14 PM

QUOTE (joc @ Feb 1 2004, 10:00 PM)
2.  If you can prove that President Bush lied: please submit the proof.

OK joc, here you go...Maybe this will help you understand where I am coming from. I have said these things over and over again, but assuming that you are looking for verification outside of my own opinion I have taken information from the website of David Corn, the Washington editor of "The Nation".



QUOTE
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." And, "[Saddam Hussein is] a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda."


These two Bush remarks go hand in hand, even though the first was said on March 17, 2003, two days before Bush launched the invasion of Iraq, and the other came during a November 7, 2002, press conference. Together they represented his argument for war: Hussein possessed actual weapons of mass destruction and at any moment could hand them to his supposed partners in al Qaeda. That is why Hussein was an immediate threat to the United States and had to be taken out quickly. But neither of these assertions were truthful. There has been much media debate over all this. But the postwar statements of Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of the CIA, provide the most compelling proof. He has been conducting a review of the prewar intelligence, and he has told reporters that the intelligence on Hussein’s WMDs was full of caveats and qualifiers and based mostly on inferential or circumstantial evidence. In other words, it was not no-doubt material. He also has said that prewar intelligence reports did not contain evidence of links between Hussein and al Qaeda. The best information to date indicates that the prewar intelligence did not leave "no doubt" about WMDs and did not support Bush’s claim that Hussein was in cahoots with al Qaeda. Bush’s primary reason for war was founded on falsehoods


Here is a great article by the Washington Post that further breaks down President Bushes Lie. Link

Here is an excerpt from the above article:

QUOTE
"[U.S. weapons] investigators have found no support for the two main fears expressed in London and Washington before the war--that Iraq had a hidden arsenal of old weapons and built advanced programs for new ones. In public statements and unauthorized interviews, investigators said they have discovered no work on former germ-warfare agents....The investigators assess that Iraq did not, as charged in London and Washington, resume production of its most lethal nerve agent, VX, or learned to make it last longer in storage. And they have found the former nuclear weapons program, described as a 'grave and gathering danger' by President Bush and a 'mortal threat' by Vice President Cheney, in much the same shattered state left by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s."



There is another website that you might want to check out, it is an in depth evaluation of the Iraq intelligence that was used by the president to come up with the above statements. Link

The above link has a great deal of information on the matter, which you may or may not want to read. From what I read, the threat that Iraq posed to the US was nowhere near what President Bush claimed it to be.

In reference to the information in the above link, Colin Powell puts his two cents in on the matter. The comments on the matter below are again from David Corn.

QUOTE
1/08/04 - Powell Blows Apart Bush's War Rationale  
    
  In a press conference today, Secretary of State Colin Powell was asked about a report produced by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that concluded there was no evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda and no evidence that Hussein was likely to transfer weapons of mass destruction to Osama bin Laden's network. Powell replied, "There is not--you know, I have not seen smoking-gun concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did."

No concrete evidence? The possibility of such connections? That is not how Bush depicted the supposed link between Iraq's dictator and America's number-one foe. In a press conference in November 2002, he declared that Hussein was "dealing" with al Qaeda. And during his high-profile May 1, 2003, speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, Bush said that Hussein was an "ally" of Hussein.

So what did those statements mean if there was no solid evidence tying Hussein to al Qaeda? Bush had argued that war was necessary because (1) Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and (2) Hussein maintained an operational alliance with al Qaeda. Bush claimed that Hussein could at any moment slip his WMDs to bin Laden. Consequently, Bush's assertions about the relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda was an essential part of his case for war. Yet now Powell--who on February 5, 2002, told the United Nations Security Council that there was a "sinister nexus" between Iraq and al Qaeda--says all the talk of an alliance between Hussein and al Qaeda was based on prudent concern not actual facts. That is not how Bush presented the matter to the American public. Once more, here is evidence of the absence of a nexus between reality and Bush's rhetoric and yet another indication he misled the nation on the way to war. 


There is so much information that I could put here, but I do not want to flood the boards with huge post to prove a point that can be proven with observation and critical thought.

The proof joc, is that he did lie. The president said that there were connections to terrorist groups when there were none. The president said that there were WMD when there were none.

Why don't we look up the definition of lies
QUOTE

lie
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.
To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.


I am sure that you will try to spin your way out of this one joc, but fact is, he lied. He lied in order to start a war that killed thousands of innocent people.

That same war has killed over 500 US soldiers. You want to talk about being direspectful Saxcatz? How about sending people off to die in a war that was based on a lie? That is as disrespectful a thing as I can imagine.

Too many people on both sides of the spectrum have fallen into this mentality that a full one half of the country are the enemy for having different beliefs...in a country based on freedom of expression. It is this infighting that allows the focus to be taken away from "we the people" being able to watch, and have control over government corruption and ineptitude that is running rampant in our leadership.

People should be working towards fixing problems, not creating them.

#40    Bruno

Bruno

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 42 posts
  • Joined:29 Oct 2003
  • Location:Portugal

  • &quot;Solo!! I'm a soloist on a solo list, all live, never on a floppy disk...&quot;

Posted 02 February 2004 - 07:26 PM

Of course there are WMD in Iraq! They're called Apaches, Black Hawks, F-16's, F-15's, Shermans, M-16's, RPG's, Tomahawks, ... Do you really think that if they had them, they would have hidden them somewhere? For what? If Saddam was to be removed from power and Iraq was to be invaded, what difference would it make to leave the supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction intact? Why hide them in Syria? Is this supposed to be a cat and mouse game? "Ok, here they come to invade Syria! Quick, quick, take ours and Saddam's WMD's and hide them in... Iran, before they find them!!"

"The truth is you're the weak, and i'm the tirany of evil men. But i've been trying real hard to be the shepard!!"

#41    DespondentDave

DespondentDave

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 285 posts
  • Joined:17 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Newton-le-Willows, England

  • I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

Posted 02 February 2004 - 07:34 PM

My personal opinion is that Iraq did have WMDs, but at the moment in the UK there doesn't seem to be many people left who share that opinion.

My reasoning is first, that they did have the capability to use them in the first place, and did so, as in the massacre of the thousands of Kurds. We'd have to be really naive, given that they had that knowledge, that they wouldn't try to build them again. Secondly, the cynics seem to think that it would be easy to uncover the WMDs if they had existed. You can stock enough WMDs to kill the entire population of the world ten times over in the back of a small lorry. Some people seem to think that Saddam would have hidden them behind his sofa or something. He had months to get rid of all the evidence, which could have meant deporting them to Syria, or some top secret underground bunker, that has since had all it's entrances concreted over. The means of manufacturing them could then have been destroyed and the evidence of their destruction presented, as they were several years earlier, when Iraq was first ordered to destroy it's WMD stockpile.

The thing is now that I seriously don't think they ever will be discovered, and the respective Governments of Bush and Blair may well eventually collapse very soon. Certainly the British public as a whole seems to have lost all it's confidence in Tony Blair, and it's only the lack of any serious competition from the other parties, that has kept his nose in front in the opinion polls. There is no doubt, that if the Conservative party wasn't such a shambles, then Blair would lose his position at the next election, and it would have been the lack of support for the war in Iraq that would have been the major reason for that.

At the moment those that are trying to justify the war are making a complete pig's ear of it, and even it's staunchest supporters are beginning to wonder whether it was worth the loss of so many lives.

Personally I think we have all made  a much betterr job of justifying it on this board than our bumbling leaders have done.


#42    DespondentDave

DespondentDave

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 285 posts
  • Joined:17 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Newton-le-Willows, England

  • I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

Posted 02 February 2004 - 07:39 PM

QUOTE (Bruno @ Feb 2 2004, 06:26 PM)
Do you really think that if they had them, they would have hidden them somewhere? For what? If Saddam was to be removed from power and Iraq was to be invaded, what difference would it make to leave the supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction intact? Why hide them in Syria?

The difference is Saddam could point to the rest of the world, 'prove' that he was right all along, and leave the US and British Governments at an all time low popularity level with their respective populations. He would have scored a huge moral victory for himself, and the ant-Western brigade.

Let's face it, that's more or less exactly what he has done. 1-0 to the anti-west propaganda machine.


#43    Bruno

Bruno

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 42 posts
  • Joined:29 Oct 2003
  • Location:Portugal

  • &quot;Solo!! I'm a soloist on a solo list, all live, never on a floppy disk...&quot;

Posted 02 February 2004 - 07:48 PM

QUOTE (DespondentDave @ Feb 2 2004, 06:39 PM)
QUOTE (Bruno @ Feb 2 2004, 06:26 PM)
Do you really think that if they had them, they would have hidden them somewhere? For what? If Saddam was to be removed from power and Iraq was to be invaded, what difference would it make to leave the supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction intact? Why hide them in Syria?

The difference is Saddam could point to the rest of the world, 'prove' that he was right all along, and leave the US and British Governments at an all time low popularity level with their respective populations. He would have scored a huge moral victory for himself, and the ant-Western brigade.

Let's face it, that's more or less exactly what he has done. 1-0 to the anti-west propaganda machine.

What's the use of having a moral victory if you're not there to enjoy it? Saddam is not (or was not) the kind of leader to take a stand for the entire Arab world! He was a tyrant! And, in this war "West vs. East" we are way past the morality! People are dying. That's what happend on Somalia, in New York and in iraq. It's not the power of speech or ideas that rules this anymore, it's the power of death and destruction... i believe that the WMD's were an excuse to remove a thorn on Bush's side (both father and son)!  

"The truth is you're the weak, and i'm the tirany of evil men. But i've been trying real hard to be the shepard!!"

#44    DreamRebel

DreamRebel

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,038 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2004

  • Knowledge is the weapon of choice. Those who possess it shall prevail.

Posted 02 February 2004 - 07:48 PM

[Edit] Post removed

Attached Images

  • saddam_captured.jpg


#45    Bruno

Bruno

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 42 posts
  • Joined:29 Oct 2003
  • Location:Portugal

  • &quot;Solo!! I'm a soloist on a solo list, all live, never on a floppy disk...&quot;

Posted 02 February 2004 - 07:54 PM

Yeah, he had them when he used them against the curds, but that was an internal affair that wasn't worth fighting for, right? Now, Koweit is a tottaly different issue and harbouring terrorists is something that he has only done recently! A menace to the Western world!! Give me a break!!

"The truth is you're the weak, and i'm the tirany of evil men. But i've been trying real hard to be the shepard!!"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users