Topic: Fox News - Tucker's Fucked.

[nyctex]

Who said all of them were fooled? The fact that loads of them lied meant they were in on it too. Blair's Dossier? Dr David Kelly?

Maybe they are lying about North Korea and Iran as well.  Yea that's the ticket

[SMD]

Doesn't it hurt your eyes seeing everything in black and white?

[4pool]

No but looking through a kaleidoscope should. You can see all types of crazy things in there.

[redchiz]

Thank you, Green Day 

Don't wanna be an American idiot.
Don't want a nation under the new media.
And can you hear the sound of hysteria?
The subliminal mindfuck America.

Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
Well that's enough to argue.

Well maybe I'm the faggot America.
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
Now everybody do the propaganda.
And sing along in the age of paranoia.

Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
Well that's enough to argue.

Don't wanna be an American idiot.
One nation controlled by the media.
Information nation of hysteria.
It's going out to idiot America.

Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.

[Alan_X]

Alan-F..I'll give it up when someone gives absolute evidence why the UN, UN inspectors, et all were convinced Saddam had WMD's.--never recinded their resolutions---and voted for resolution 1441 which said one last chance.

I do believe  the entire World at the time believed Saddam had WMD's through the actions of the United Nations. Not one country, other than Iraq, ever claimed anything different.

Next you'll tell me North Korea doesn't have nukes and Iran isn't working on theirs. As the UN inspectors have told us they do and are. Just the same as the UN inspectors told us Saddam and Iraq had WMD's.

Hindsight based on "nothing found" means diddly squat. Especially when some bits were found as i've stated. But obviously not enough to convince most.

I refer the honorable gentleman to my earlier reply:

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=132818.msg2128189#msg2128189

I'll post it again in full because it highlights either your general ignorance of the English language and an inability to comprehend complex argument, or a willfull misrepresentation of a report through selective highlighting and emphasis....  which fits the topic of this thread pretty well...

Quote from: 4pool on July 18, 2006, 01:34:01 PM

Alan_F..

Blix made monthly reports to the UN.

There is no doubt that Blix wanted more time.

Maybe you would like to read his summary from February:

Mr. President, UNMOVIC is not infrequently asked how much more time it needs to complete its task in Iraq. The answer depends upon which task one has in mind: the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and related items and programs, which were prohibited in 1991, the disarmament task; or the monitoring that no new proscribed activities occur.

The latter task, though not often focused upon, is highly significant and not controversial. It will require monitoring which is ongoing, that is open-ended, until the Council decides otherwise.

By contrast, the task of disarmament foreseen in Resolution 687 and the progress on key remaining disarmament tasks foreseen in Resolution 1284, as well as the disarmament obligations which Iraq was given a final opportunity to comply with under Resolution 1441, were always required to be fulfilled in a shorter time span.

Regrettably, the high degree of cooperation required of Iraq for disarmament through inspection was not forthcoming in 1991. Despite the elimination under UNSCOM and the IAEA supervision of large amounts of weapons, weapons-related items and installations over the years, the task remained incomplete when inspectors were withdrawn almost eight years later, at the end of 1998.

If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament under Resolution 687 could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of Resolution 1441, the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short if immediate, active and unconditional cooperation with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming.

Thank you, Mr. President.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq.un.transcript.1/

So here you have the argument in a nutshell. There were three things Iraq and Saddam were to do per UN resolutions.

1: the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and related items and programs, which were prohibited in 1991.

2: the disarmament task

3: the monitoring that no new proscribed activities occur

Now going back to his report from January.....not one of those three had been met. Between the VX, Chemical shells, Missles with longer range, Weapons rebuilding capability, scientist looking at enriched uranium, etc...

But of course...inspections would take care of this. Especially when Saddam kept moving and hiding his stuff. Just as the 500 chemical warheads that were found buried in 2003 after the war and recently declared unclassified information.

However, Blix himself said the key was immediate, active and unconditional cooperation which is what Resolution 1441 said Iraq was to do and which Iraq wasn't doing if it  "were to be forthcoming". So it was pie in the sky wishing that Iraq would change and cooperate fully with inspectors. Regardless of whether there were 200 or 2,000 inspectors.

Saddam wanted his weapons. He would not give them up and would play hide and seek with inspectors. He would reconstitute his capabilities at the drop of a hat. Which he had done to reconstitute his missle programme and continue scientific studies and labs on chemical programmes. One would have to be the most nieve person on the planet to think Saddam would be a pacifist.

Either that or a relative of Neville Chamberlain...

Oh for god's sake mate. How old are you? This is from February 2003, three years before the report this year which says quite clearly and uncategorically that there were no weapons and that the invasion was unwarranted. Saddam would have liked to have kept his weapons and that is why the contiuing monitoring was seen as a key part of the process.

The point Blix is making is that he wanted the opportunity to complete the task in hand. He understood that America was already mobilising and was desperate to get on the ground before the summer months. I remember because I was paying attention at the time not Googling back to try and prove some point.

Reading through your post I suddenly realised you have no idea about punctuation as the paragraph you have divided into three tasks actually refers to two:

Your version:

The answer depends upon which task one has in mind: the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and related items and programs, which were prohibited in 1991, the disarmament task; or the monitoring that no new proscribed activities occur.

three tasks....

or what is actually written without your highlighting:

The answer depends upon which task one has in mind: the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and related items and programs, which were prohibited in 1991, the disarmament task; or the monitoring that no new proscribed activities occur.

I know you probably think they're just used to make smileys but in a sentence such as this the colon :   is followed by statements that are divided by semi-colons   ;     (you know, the one you use to make a winking smiley). If you split it down into it's constituent parts with a line break to make it clear it reads as follows:

The answer depends upon which task one has in mind:

(see that's a colon....

the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and related items and programs, which were prohibited in 1991, the disarmament task;

 

(see there's the semi-colon. The commas in the statement could be omitted and the statement would be clearer if it was restructured thus: the disarmament task, the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and related items and programs which were prohibited in 1991)

or the monitoring that no new proscribed activities occur.

  (and the full stop indicates the end of the sentence).

See... two tasks. I think you need to go back to Sesame Street and learn what all those dots and squiggles are before trying to argue international politics.

You have still not answered or repudiated the 2006 report but have gone back and searched for something from February 2003, before the invasion and subsequent inspections, as if it somehow proves something. You are clearly intellectually incapable of understanding these documents (not unlike your hero George Dubya) as you quote things that actually disprove your case without even realising.

By the way, if you are calling me an appeaser then you can fuck off. You have no idea about my feelings and it's a moronic thing to say. I am not jingoistic but I am well aware that there are times when military action is required, including defence of one's family friends and country. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was not one of those times.

Your arguments are getting more and more pathetic by the post and I am leaving this thread. I stayed with it because I saw some merit in discussing these issues with someone from a different viewpoint but it is clear that you are so rabidlty in thrall to your right wing Hollywood idea of the international politics that you are incapable of rational debate. If you are in any way representative of the beliefs and attitudes of the majority of Americans I fear for the future of our world. That isn't hyperbole - I'm 50 this year and have never felt as pessimistic about the future as I do now. A moron in the White House who doesn't know the difference between Shia and Sunni yet who is deciding what happens in the most sensitive areas of the world - the Balkans of our time.

Whatever... I can see there is no further point discussing anything with you. See you on the footie forums

By the way I did know that North Korea was developing nuclear weapons. If you search I think you'll find I also predicted that the conclusion to be drawn from the Iraq war and the US' reluctance to take action against N Korea, is that compliance with weapons reduction is a bad idea and that despots and dictators need their own WMDs to be safe from the US... preferably nuclear. It's interesting don't you think that since Bush's axis of evil speech and the confirmation of the pre-emptive strategy, the one country that complied has been spanked, while the second is well on it's way to developing nuclear weapons safe in the knowledge that a ground war is virtually impossible for the US   under current circumstances and that Israel can be discounted as an invasion force (quite apart from the conflagration that would follow)...  oh and the third has carried out it's first nuclear test.

Please don't bother listing all the people who "supported" Bush... I couldn't give a flying fuck. I could see it coming and so could hundreds of thousands of others.

Fucking genius! Could Bush be more stupid!

[Alan_X]

Next you'll tell me North Korea doesn't have nukes and Iran isn't working on theirs. As the UN inspectors have told us they do and are. Just the same as the UN inspectors told us Saddam and Iraq had WMD's.

Yes, Saddam did have WMDs before the first Iraq war... but the weapons inspections were systematically destroying them. By the time of the second war they had mostly been destroyed. There was no atomic programme under Saddam when Bush invaded... as the weapons inspectors said. They were complying with inspections and the Inspectors wanted to finish the job. It was Bush's desperation to wage war before it got too hot that stopped them.

The whole point is that both Iran and North Korea were also largely complying with the IAEA inspections until a certain beligerent President decided to wave his dick about instead of using the tried and trusted diplomatic methods that have worked for so long.

The fact that you can't see the difference shows what a prize knob you are on this subject.

[Eric]

Can't believe no one has brought up the N. Korea-Pakistan connection.  Looks bad for the US if they've ignored this, to keep Pakistan as an ally in the War on/of Terror.

http://www.antiwar.com/bidwai/bi110402.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50241-2005Mar19.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15231340/

[nyctex]

Yes, Saddam did have WMDs before the first Iraq war... but the weapons inspections were systematically destroying them. By the time of the second war they had mostly been destroyed. There was no atomic programme under Saddam when Bush invaded... as the weapons inspectors said. They were complying with inspections and the Inspectors wanted to finish the job. It was Bush's desperation to wage war before it got too hot that stopped them.

The whole point is that both Iran and North Korea were also largely complying with the IAEA inspections until a certain beligerent President decided to wave his dick about instead of using the tried and trusted diplomatic methods that have worked for so long.

The fact that you can't see the difference shows what a prize knob you are on this subject.

So North Korea didn't start a military nuclear program until GWB called them a name?  Wow that is amazing

Iran really did want to build those reactors because they are worried about global warming and wanted to supply their country with a non-carbon based electric supply.  GWB called them a name and the ayatolahs saw all this plutonium lying around and said "what can we use this for?"


I also notice you didn't mention Lybia?

[Alan_X]

So North Korea didn't start a military nuclear program until GWB called them a name?  Wow that is amazing

Iran really did want to build those reactors because they are worried about global warming and wanted to supply their country with a non-carbon based electric supply.  GWB called them a name and the ayatolahs saw all this plutonium lying around and said "what can we use this for?"


I also notice you didn't mention Lybia?

What! I didn't say that, they have always had nuclear aspirations but they were being monitored by the IAEA and the six-party talks were taking place in Korea's case with some hope of succes. Nothing is perfect but the fact is that since any semblance of diplomacy has been abandoned, the Korean nuclear programme accelerated with no controls or inspections at all.

Libya had a WMD programme that has since been abandoned after diplomacy. Bush tried to spin it as a victory in the "war on terror" but the reality is that it was a result of "discussion and engagement".

Sorry what was your point about Libya?

(By the way you know they had nothing to do with Lockerbie don't you?)

[nyctex]

What! I didn't say that, they have always had nuclear aspirations but they were being monitored by the IAEA and the six-party talks were taking place in Korea's case with some hope of succes. Nothing is perfect but the fact is that since any semblance of diplomacy has been abandoned, the Korean nuclear programme accelerated with no controls or inspections at all.

Libya had a WMD programme that has since been abandoned after diplomacy. Bush tried to spin it as a victory in the "war on terror" but the reality is that it was a result of "discussion and engagement".

Sorry what was your point about Libya?

(By the way you know they had nothing to do with Lockerbie don't you?)

The point is diplomacy can only work with carrots and sticks.  Col. Q gave up a program that was farther along than most, including the IAEA inspectors, thought 

Col Q saw a strong US president and said - after the Iraq liberation - "That guy is nuts.  I don't want to mess with him"
Without the Iraq War or the War on Terror do you think Col Q would have done anything?  This "discussion and engagement" you speak of are a great way to stall.  When a country wants to disarm, like Libya eventually or South Africa, it can be done quickly and easily. 

Don't be so trusting that our enemies want to do the right thing - we just don't give them the chance

[Alan_X]

The point is diplomacy can only work with carrots and sticks.  Col. Q gave up a program that was farther along than most, including the IAEA inspectors, thought 

Col Q saw a strong US president and said - after the Iraq liberation - "That guy is nuts.  I don't want to mess with him"
Without the Iraq War or the War on Terror do you think Col Q would have done anything?  This "discussion and engagement" you speak of are a great way to stall.  When a country wants to disarm, like Libya eventually or South Africa, it can be done quickly and easily. 

Don't be so trusting that our enemies want to do the right thing - we just don't give them the chance

Apart from the fact that any sort of diplomacy that depends on leaders thinking "hey this guy is nuts..." belongs in a Lethal Weapon movie, not in the real world.....

Yes, he would have given them up without the Iraq war. He'd been moving that way for a long time following the success with the stitch-up over Lockerbie. He allowed a Libyan subject to be convicted and jailed for a crime he didn't commit in order to get back to the international table. That happened a long time before Bush I think you'll find.

Bush isn't a strong president, he's a weak and stupid one like the current Israeli leader. If the US hadn't gone to war against Iraq the second time, then the concept of unstoppable US military power would have been a great weapon in negotiations. By actually going to war without proper planning and a real idea of what to do once you are there he's actually made it clear to the world that the US for all it's fire-power and technology, can be held up and defeated by IEDs, AK47's and terror. You do know that Bush is now looking at an exit strategy that doesn't leave freedom and democracy spreading across the region like thousands of tinkling bells, but leaves the Iraqi people in a bloody mess, quite probably as a country split into three autonomous regions, Shia, Sunni and Kurd, with all the ethnic cleansing and bloodletting that will follow.

Fuck knows what will happen in Kurdish Turkey if the Kurds get autonomy... expect that one to kick off next. And of course Iran will probably have a go at annexing the south of Iraq.

Fucking shambles mate... utter fucking shambles.

[nyctex]

As I stated earlier it is very easy to disarm.  South Africa did it, The Ukraine did it.  Perhaps, just perhaps, Libya didn't want to.  They wanted to be the second Islamic nuclear state.  Best case they were willing to use their program as a trade - but in my book that is blackmail, not diplomacy.

[hide5seek]

If Bush is nuts perhaps every country should have  nuclear weapons?

[redchiz]

As I stated earlier it is very easy to disarm.  South Africa did it, The Ukraine did it.  Perhaps, just perhaps, Libya didn't want to.  They wanted to be the second Islamic nuclear state.  Best case they were willing to use their program as a trade - but in my book that is blackmail, not diplomacy.

You nearly made me piss there. You should be in the cesspit industry.

What a thesis: "The difference between blackmail and diplomacy - discuss." Ha!

As a trade union leader once said, when asked to comment on negotiations undertaken during so-called free collective bargaining: "Who is going to win?" - "The lions' share goes to the lions."

Or to put it another way: "If you've got them by the bollocks, their hearts and minds will surely follow."

[Alan_X]

As I stated earlier it is very easy to disarm.  South Africa did it, The Ukraine did it.  Perhaps, just perhaps, Libya didn't want to.  They wanted to be the second Islamic nuclear state.  Best case they were willing to use their program as a trade - but in my book that is blackmail, not diplomacy.

You really don't have a clue do you? Diplomacy is war without bullets. It's not a bunch after you Claude namby-pamby  gents discussing things over a brandy. It's down to tough negotiating, using sanctions and the threat of military action if necessary. if you have to start a war then you have failed. The idea that invading a country, creating a civil war with between 30,000 and 600,000 dead to make people think "the President is nuts..." just to persuade Qadaffi to give up his nukes is so stupid it beggars belief. Why not drop a nuke to prove how mad he is? And like I said it hasn't worked in Iran and Korea has it?

[4pool]

Alan_ F..

You drag up an old argument for what point? That you still can't find any evidence that the United Nations before the resumption of hostilities ever recinded the resolutions on Iraq.

Blix and company found --further-- violations with their latest inspections and so reported to the UN.

You can bloody well whigne about Bush and his actions after it was clear as day what 1441 meant --at least to Bush-- . He acted on the information at hand at that time.

Post war analysis is an interesting debate.

But let there be no doubt:

1: The United Nations never recinded their resolutions.

2: Further violations over and above the known violations were found when Blix and crew went back in.

This leads one to a very black and white conclusion about Saddam. And the "threat" of the US taking action was part of 1441. Did Saddam comply?

And I don't needd to google anything to know the facts at that point in time.

One might debate not to resume hostilities. One might debate inspections would have worked when it was apparent they never had. But one can't debate that the World, through the United Nations, was aware of Saddam and his wmd's and his ability to forever play cat and mouse with the UN. 14 years was enough.

I am very happy Saddam is out of power and what that means to the Middle East and rest of the world. To bad your not.

[nyctex]

You really don't have a clue do you? Diplomacy is war without bullets. It's not a bunch after you Claude namby-pamby  gents discussing things over a brandy. It's down to tough negotiating, using sanctions and the threat of military action if necessary. if you have to start a war then you have failed. The idea that invading a country, creating a civil war with between 30,000 and 600,000 dead to make people think "the President is nuts..." just to persuade Qadaffi to give up his nukes is so stupid it beggars belief. Why not drop a nuke to prove how mad he is? And like I said it hasn't worked in Iran and Korea has it?

I didn't say GWB is nuts nor do I think he is.  It was a throw away line that I would like to recall (if you will be so generous .)   Anyone that thinks Bush is nuts - is in fact nuts.  But I certainly don't  think the liberation of iraq was done to prove a point to Col Q.   That was a bonus.

Threats become pretty damn hollow when the other side has figured out that you will never follow up.  This is exact reason the UN is beyond a joke and endangers the world.  Dictator and despots have determined the best way to persue a weapons program is to "engage" the UN in "talks."  It is the best way to buy needed time.

We had to work very hard diplomatically with South Africa and The Ukraine to get them to disarm their nuclear weapons. 
I agree Iran and N Korea are the toughest cases but I think the fact it our negotiations haven't worked w/ Iran and North Korea might go to speak about THEIR goals and intentions - not ours

[SMD]

And I don't needd to google anything to know the facts at that point in time.

And that is exactly the whole point of this thread.

The amount of misinformation at the time was frightening. People were convinced that there were WMD's, that there were violations and whatever.
Saddam Hussein even went as far as demolishing his SAM capabilities, just in the hope of getting the inspectors to fuck off.
Of course, two weeks later the US invaded so it was crystal clear the real reasons why they wanted that.

In any case, since you're so sure of yourself, I await with glee your fervent campaigning for weapons inspectors to be allowed into Dimona.

[Dallas]

Explain this to me Einsteins.....

They were smart enough to fool a lot of people about the WMDs in Iraq including:

British Intelligence
The US State Department
Russian Intelligence
John Kerry
Al Gore
French Intelligence
Saudi Intelligence
Tony Blair
Jacques Chirac and the poet De Villpin
Kofi Annan
Bill Clinton and his more significant other - Hillary

Like the dog that didn't bark in the night, the significant omission from these lists is always Mossad - the smartest of them all.

And, of course, Robin Cook. Extract from his resignation speech in the week before the invasion:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.

It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?

Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?"

Full text here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2859431.stm

[Alan_X]

Alan_ F..

You drag up an old argument for what point? That you still can't find any evidence that the United Nations before the resumption of hostilities ever recinded the resolutions on Iraq.

Blix and company found --further-- violations with their latest inspections and so reported to the UN.

You can bloody well whigne about Bush and his actions after it was clear as day what 1441 meant --at least to Bush-- . He acted on the information at hand at that time.

Post war analysis is an interesting debate.

But let there be no doubt:

1: The United Nations never recinded their resolutions.

2: Further violations over and above the known violations were found when Blix and crew went back in.

This leads one to a very black and white conclusion about Saddam. And the "threat" of the US taking action was part of 1441. Did Saddam comply?

And I don't needd to google anything to know the facts at that point in time.

One might debate not to resume hostilities. One might debate inspections would have worked when it was apparent they never had. But one can't debate that the World, through the United Nations, was aware of Saddam and his wmd's and his ability to forever play cat and mouse with the UN. 14 years was enough.

I am very happy Saddam is out of power and what that means to the Middle East and rest of the world. To bad your not.

I brought up that old post because you were talking nonsense then and still are. You misrepresent the findings of Blix and the weapons inspectors for your own ends. They are unequivocal - there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the invasion was based on a false premise. End of fucking story....

Simple question yes or no... forget all the technicalities... was Saddam Hussein in a position to attack the US, UK or anyone else with chemical or other weapons of mass destruction when the invasion started?

(*hint*   the answer is no   *hint*)

You're right mate, I have a Saddam poster on my wall and a Saddam quilt cover... he's my hero...    Are you really glad that Iraq is in ruins? Yes Saddam has gone but the place is in turmoil with sectarian violence and an imminent civil war. So some of his goons and the Baath leadership have gone but are you aware that one of the things the commission reviewing options for a US pullout are considering is the need for a "strongman" to take over and impose law and order - plus ca change. Iraq was a state held together by authoritarian rule not democracy - sorry but that's the truth. It's the willful ignorance of the people who planned this war that is so unforgivable. Democracy and freedom don't make everything right with the world, they can only take hold if the ground is fertile and with no understanding of the underlying problems in Iraq (Shia resentment of the Sunni's, Kurdish desire for independence etc etc) the adventure was pretty much bound to fail. The creation of a "target rich" environment for Islamic terrorists was also a no-brainer. I take no pleasure in saying I told you so, and would much rather that people weren't dying.

At least when Saddam was in charge the bodies were fewer and they weren't left in the streets. Does Fox News explain to the American people that it's death sentence to be a baker in today's Iraq?

[Dallas]

You're right mate, I have a Saddam poster on my wall and a Saddam quilt cover... he's my hero... 

Did you buy them on ebay from nutjobtexas?

Only used 1980 - 1988.

[4pool]

I brought up that old post because you were talking nonsense then and still are. You misrepresent the findings of Blix and the weapons inspectors for your own ends. They are unequivocal - there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the invasion was based on a false premise. End of fucking story....

It's not the end of fucking story if you are going to deny that a new chemical lab was found., Saddam only destroyed a few missle warheads  and "promised" to destroy more.  He promised not to expand the distance his missles could go which were found to be in violation of UN restictions. Not destroy the missles themselves. But if you are blind , you are blind. Everyone can read Blixs report to the United Nations. It's there. I used his exact words. So try to spin them anyway you want.

Simple question yes or no... forget all the technicalities... was Saddam Hussein in a position to attack the US, UK or anyone else with chemical or other weapons of mass destruction when the invasion started?

(*hint*   the answer is no   *hint*)

Hint to yourself..any country anywhere can support an attack on the USA. If Poland wanted to they can. No one expected Saddam to personally bring his wmds with him. But you talk bollocks.

Question for you--was or was not the USA his enemy?

Hint--think Gulf War 1. Read what he said since.

You're right mate, I have a Saddam poster on my wall and a Saddam quilt cover... he's my hero...    Are you really glad that Iraq is in ruins? Yes Saddam has gone but the place is in turmoil with sectarian violence and an imminent civil war. So some of his goons and the Baath leadership have gone but are you aware that one of the things the commission reviewing options for a US pullout are considering is the need for a "strongman" to take over and impose law and order - plus ca change. Iraq was a state held together by authoritarian rule not democracy - sorry but that's the truth. It's the willful ignorance of the people who planned this war that is so unforgivable. Democracy and freedom don't make everything right with the world, they can only take hold if the ground is fertile and with no understanding of the underlying problems in Iraq (Shia resentment of the Sunni's, Kurdish desire for independence etc etc) the adventure was pretty much bound to fail. The creation of a "target rich" environment for Islamic terrorists was also a no-brainer. I take no pleasure in saying I told you so, and would much rather that people weren't dying.

At least when Saddam was in charge the bodies were fewer and they weren't left in the streets. Does Fox News explain to the American people that it's death sentence to be a baker in today's Iraq?

Nah, your good ol' boy Saddam just dumped them off buildings into the street. Or had mass graves. Didn't make any difference if you were a baker or candlestick maker.

So I will ask you personally to answer this question:

If there were an independant election run by the United Nations  January 15, 2007 with Saddam on the ballot would he win? Keeping in mind the chaos since he left.
 And your answer is??

[Alan_X]

It's not the end of fucking story if you are going to deny that a new chemical lab was found., Saddam only destroyed a few missle warheads  and "promised" to destroy more.  He promised not to expand the distance his missles could go which were found to be in violation of UN restictions. Not destroy the missles themselves. But if you are blind , you are blind. Everyone can read Blixs report to the United Nations. It's there. I used his exact words. So try to spin them anyway you want.

Posted before but for your benefit once again:

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=132818.msg2127329#msg2127329

Following the invasion there was an intense investigation by US investigators that found nothing. Blix, Ritter and the other inspectors all concluded that in hindsight and given full access to Iraq after Saddam was removed from power, ther were no WMDs.

Just to explain how time works...2006 comes after 2003... and therefore the conclusions in the WMDC report (2006) should be considered to supercede the interim comments of an incomplete inspection (2003).

Your evidence for a new laboratory appears to be this phrase:

"I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor."

Words fail me. That means he found a laboratory quantity (in other words a tiny amount, not enough for weapons) and not a laboratory.

You really should stop before you make yourself out to be a bigger idiot than you already do.

End....     of.......     story.......    fulll stop...    finito....     no more......   

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=132818.msg2125592#msg2125592

Would that be this report:

http://www.wmdcommission.org/sida.asp?id=9

Weapons of Terror published by the WMDC (Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission)

Presented to the UN Secretary General


which states on page 35:

"To counteract threats of WMD it is important to assess them accurately and understand what motivates states or non-state actors to acquire them. Without the right diagnosis, it is unlikely that the righ therapy will be found. The erroneous assessment that Iraq possessed WMD was the principal justification given for sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers tio invade IRAQ IN 2003 - Only to find no WMD."

My highlighting.

This is the latest report by this body - I'm not aware of any later report. You may have been cherry picking reports and also confusing the correct meaning of the term. I suggest you also read the report "Deconflating WMD" which provides a handy analysis of what is and what is not a "Weapon of Mass Destruction".

http://www.wmdcommission.org/files/No17.pdf

"When used for stylistic convenience, “WMD” is a harmless way to connote weapons
that have a significantly greater capacity to terrify and coerce populations than conventional
weapons do.  However, the acronym can be dangerous when political leaders, media and
citizenry use it in assessing and acting against international threats. “WMD” mixes threats
that should be distinguished.  This imprecision often extends into assessments of threatening
actors and the motivations behind them.  U.S. officials offered vague and muddled depictions
of Iraq’s capabilities and intentions in making the case for war, as in the following statement
by President Bush: the threat “arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions – its history
of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror...The danger is already significant and
it only grows with time.  If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today – and we
do – does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger
and develops even more dangerous weapons.”

You know this is bad for my health. I have a psychological reaction to stupidty...

[Alan_X]

So I will ask you personally to answer this question:

If there were an independant election run by the United Nations  January 15, 2007 with Saddam on the ballot would he win? Keeping in mind the chaos since he left.
 And your answer is??

My answer is that you are a complete prick when it comes to this subject.

A free and independent election in January is highly unlikely, and the previous election did what exactly? Created a "government" that is artificially cobbled together to appease the various sectarian interests, trapped in the green zone and unable to porovide security for its people.

I have no way of knowing but Saddam would get a lot more votes than you think. He was a Sunni and would get no votes from the Shia or Kurds who make up the majority of the population. But if the Sunni's thought he would rein in the Shia Interior Ministry/police death squads for example, I wouldn't be surprised if some would vote for him....

And even discounting all of the torture and death under Saddam the Shias would be sitting pretty in a divided Iraq because they would have most of the oil and unlikely to vote for the reinstatement of a situation where they would be disadvantaged. Ask if they would elect an autocratic despot who promised to cleanse "Shiastan" of all Sunni's and again you might surprised....

Sorry is this too complicated for you?... 

Saddam was a bad man but that is not a reason for destroying a country and creating a breeding ground for terrorism. As has been pointed out over and over ad infintum, America is more than happy to deal with dictators who murder their own people, so that was not the reason for the invasion.

[Eric]

My answer is that you are a complete prick when it comes to this subject.

A free and independent election in January is highly unlikely, and the previous election did what exactly? Created a "government" that is artificially cobbled together to appease the various sectarian interests, trapped in the green zone and unable to porovide security for its people.

I have no way of knowing but Saddam would get a lot more votes than you think. He was a Sunni and would get no votes from the Shia or Kurds who make up the majority of the population. But if the Sunni's thought he would rein in the Shia Interior Ministry/police death squads for example, I wouldn't be surprised if some would vote for him....

And even discounting all of the torture and death under Saddam the Shias would be sitting pretty in a divided Iraq because they would have most of the oil and unlikely to vote for the reinstatement of a situation where they would be disadvantaged. Ask if they would elect an autocratic despot who promised to cleanse "Shiastan" of all Sunni's and again you might surprised....

Sorry is this too complicated for you?... 

Saddam was a bad man but that is not a reason for destroying a country and creating a breeding ground for terrorism. As has been pointed out over and over ad infintum, America is more than happy to deal with dictators who murder their own people, so that was not the reason for the invasion.

Alan, take a step back mate.  4pool is a classic no-it-all that cannot admit defeat, I mean the whole world knows there were no WMD's (M=MASS destruction, not a vile, not parts, not former labs, etc.).  The reason given for going to war was always been WMD's, not reminants of an old weapons program as he is trying to convince everyone.  He would never talk about how the US is guilty of supporting many other dictators around the world (and the hipocracy of Saddam or WMD's being the cause of the Iraq War).

If you look at this entire thread, you'll see that he has been outclassed on education, incarceration, O'Reilly, FOX "News", 9/11, Iraq, WMD's (again!) and now Saddam.  And once he is shot down, switches topics. 

He's the minority here.  So he acts outrageous to get attention, to feel like he has some power.

[Alan_X]

Alan, take a step back mate.  4pool is a classic no-it-all that cannot admit defeat, I mean the whole world knows there were no WMD's (M=MASS destruction, not a vile, not parts, not former labs, etc.).  The reason given for going to war was always been WMD's, not reminants of an old weapons program as he is trying to convince everyone.  He would never talk about how the US is guilty of supporting many other dictators around the world (and the hipocracy of Saddam or WMD's being the cause of the Iraq War).

If you look at this entire thread, you'll see that he has been outclassed on education, incarceration, O'Reilly, FOX "News", 9/11, Iraq, WMD's (again!) and now Saddam.  And once he is shot down, switches topics. 

He's the minority here.  So he acts outrageous to get attention, to feel like he has some power.

Sorry but as with the other thread I've been quoting, I'd let it go if he wasn't a grown-up who should know better. I'll keep ragging him everytime he posts unsubstantiated garbage. It's not too much effort because he repeats the same nonsense over and over - the mysterious "lab" discovered in Iraq for instance. I find him interesting, why people believe things in spite of all evidence to the contrary is a fascinating subject. Maybe his cat was run over by a Democrat when he was younger, maybe Fox really does have hold over the American people or maybe they are just the final epitomisation of an introspective, ill-informed view of the world held by too many (not all) Americans, where might is right, everyone is jealous of the US and US values need to be exported around the world, eliminating any contrary view.

[4pool]

I love the last few posts.

And for the record I believe what I post.

You can call me stupid and the like. It's water off a ducks back.

I refuse to go back and post Blixs report AGAIN. 

Those who think the only reason to go to war was WMD's must have missed  the wording of the United Nations resolutions from 661 onward to 1441. It was not only actual WMD's, it was labs which could build or develop WMD's. It was about missles that could only go so far. It was about not having ANY chemical warheads for missles or other military weaponry. And yet, after 1991 we fast forward to 2002 and 2003 and what does Saddam have? Read Blixs report.

It clearly stated in there....

And I see Alan_F you can't even answer a simple question about Saddam being on a ballot can you. You go 6 ways from Sunday trying to justify God knows what instead of answering a simple question.
I think most people reading this thread can answer for themselves and laugh at how you can't answer a simple question. Because after all--it would be damn simple to Iraqis when they go to the polls ( provided of course Saddam was put on the ballot). It was a mock ballot with a mock date pulled out of the hat and you go off on some tangent. It was designed for people to THINK about what Iraqi's want and would prefer. Saddam or what they have now inspite of all they gone through and will continue to go through.. Considering polling says the overwhelming vast majority of Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone--even you can't admit it and take 6 paragraphs to answer along with calling  me a "complete prick". Classy response. Something you won't find me doing. But then again I am secure in what I believe in..

It much easier to debate on idea's and opinions rather than get into name calling. When someone does that, they have lost the debate, imho of course. Because if you can't debate on the merits of what you are trying to convey, what do you really have?

Which is why debating with the likes of Filopastry, for example, is much more fruitfull. He keeps things honest and above board because he is secure in what he believes. He, like I, recognize there will never be 100% agreement on any subject. Just ask your wife or girlfriend.. Which is why I never take these debates personal. When someone gets into name calling, they do and have. Afterall what the hell difference does it matter what I think at the end of the day? Apparently a hell of a lot to some who resort to name calling and worse.

[SMD]

You have an amazing habit of not answering the questions posed to you while making it seem like you're right.

Are you a politician?

[Alan_X]

I love the last few posts.

And for the record I believe what I post.

You can call me stupid and the like. It's water off a ducks back.

I refuse to go back and post Blixs report AGAIN. 

Those who think the only reason to go to war was WMD's must have missed  the wording of the United Nations resolutions from 661 onward to 1441. It was not only actual WMD's, it was labs which could build or develop WMD's. It was about missles that could only go so far. It was about not having ANY chemical warheads for missles or other military weaponry. And yet, after 1991 we fast forward to 2002 and 2003 and what does Saddam have? Read Blixs report.

It clearly stated in there....

And I see Alan_F you can't even answer a simple question about Saddam being on a ballot can you. You go 6 ways from Sunday trying to justify God knows what instead of answering a simple question.
I think most people reading this thread can answer for themselves and laugh at how you can't answer a simple question. Because after all--it would be damn simple to Iraqis when they go to the polls ( provided of course Saddam was put on the ballot). It was a mock ballot with a mock date pulled out of the hat and you go off on some tangent. It was designed for people to THINK about what Iraqi's want and would prefer. Saddam or what they have now inspite of all they gone through and will continue to go through.. Considering polling says the overwhelming vast majority of Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone--even you can't admit it and take 6 paragraphs to answer along with calling  me a "complete prick". Classy response. Something you won't find me doing. But then again I am secure in what I believe in..

It much easier to debate on idea's and opinions rather than get into name calling. When someone does that, they have lost the debate, imho of course. Because if you can't debate on the merits of what you are trying to convey, what do you really have?

Which is why debating with the likes of Filopastry, for example, is much more fruitfull. He keeps things honest and above board because he is secure in what he believes. He, like I, recognize there will never be 100% agreement on any subject. Just ask your wife or girlfriend.. Which is why I never take these debates personal. When someone gets into name calling, they do and have. Afterall what the hell difference does it matter what I think at the end of the day? Apparently a hell of a lot to some who resort to name calling and worse.

The fact that you refer to Hans Blix report of 2003 (which you clearly misrepresented) rather than the final report dated 2006 which I quoted above:

http://www.wmdcommission.org/sida.asp?id=9

Weapons of Terror published by the WMDC (Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission)

Presented to the UN Secretary General

which states on page 35:

"To counteract threats of WMD it is important to assess them accurately and understand what motivates states or non-state actors to acquire them. Without the right diagnosis, it is unlikely that the righ therapy will be found. The erroneous assessment that Iraq possessed WMD was the principal justification given for sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers tio invade IRAQ IN 2003 - Only to find no WMD."

... is why I get so exasperated. I called you a complete prick on this subject because you are. Sorry I live in a world where we use robust language and call things how they are. It doesn't devalue the level of the debate, it shows, I hope, the frustration that comes when the presentation of clear evidence and cogent argument falls on such stoney ground.

Your obsession with getting me to say whether Saddam would be elected in new elections however, is about as peurile as you can get. Why not get me to pull your finger and fart. It's at that level and I won't give you the satisfaction of answering it. Asking a simple yes / no question like that (unlike "Was Saddam a threat to the US or UK") is pointless when the truth is much more complex. We all agree that Saddam was an evil man but that is not the point. It's like asking whether Hitler would have won the first election in Germany after WWII.

(Though if you look you could work out what I think, though it would need some understanding of the social, religious and political make-up of Iraq and therfore probably too complex for you - you are still talking about the "Iraqi people" and what "they" want as if they are a homogenous entity!)

As with other threads I have no problem with people holding different opinions - things are there to be argued, it's when people represent lies as fact that I have a problem.

And not taking this personally? Again there is a big difference between you and me. I do take it personally that the US and UK governments have put me and my faqmily at risk, that they are responsible for the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of people for a lie. I'm glad that you can be so cold-hearted about something that is so serious - possibly affecting the future of all of us can be treated as a simple intellectual (I use the word in it's widest sense) excercise. I'll try to remember that in future and treat you accordingly.

[Ole Gunnar]

I think most people reading this thread can answer for themselves and laugh at how you can't answer a simple question. Because after all--it would be damn simple to Iraqis when they go to the polls ( provided of course Saddam was put on the ballot). It was a mock ballot with a mock date pulled out of the hat and you go off on some tangent. It was designed for people to THINK about what Iraqi's want and would prefer. Saddam or what they have now inspite of all they gone through and will continue to go through.. Considering polling says the overwhelming vast majority of Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone--even you can't admit it and take 6 paragraphs to answer along with calling  me a "complete prick". Classy response. Something you won't find me doing. But then again I am secure in what I believe in..

What point are you trying to make with the fact that Iraqi's wouldn't have voted for Saddam? Does it change the fact that there was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and does it justify the war?


And might I add, I'm not laughing at Alan_F and his "innability to answer a simple question" in this thread. You are providing all the comedy here mate.

[4pool]

Alan_ F..

I'm not worried about Hans Blix rewriting his opinion in 2006.

I am concened with his actual weapons inspections when Saddam was in power. As that was the point in time that decisions were made.

Or do you in your life wait until you are about to die before you go back to rewrite what you should or should  not do based on new information? You are  a perfect second guesser.

As i've repeated.... the decision to go back into Iraq was based on the information and thinking at the time. And at the time the United Nations and virtually every country represented in the UN were of the opinion Iraq had wmd's. It is not about information from 2004 -2006.

There was NO debate about Saddams NOT complying with the UN resolutions. He had not honored any of the resolutions. Nor had he honored the cease fire resolution he signed to end Gulf War I.

I realize you and others have a problem with black and white issues. If that causes you amazement and humour at my expense..doesn't bother me in the least. Facts are facts..

[SMD]

As i've repeated.... the decision to go back into Iraq was based on the information and thinking at the time. And at the time the United Nations and virtually every country represented in the UN were of the opinion Iraq had wmd's. It is not about information from 2004 -2006.

In 2002/2003 I spent most of my time arguing that if there were any remanents of any chemical or biological weapons, they were either obsolete or useless. Blair's Dossier was dismissed as a farce and a lie, particularly by the fact that it was copied from a PhD student's dissertation.
The US made up a heap of shit to try to pin on Saddam, like links to 9/11 and Al Qaeda, as well as the Niger documents. If there was a cast iron guarantee at the time that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, why the need to make bollocks up?

[4pool]

What point are you trying to make with the fact that Iraqi's wouldn't have voted for Saddam?

I guess what Iraqis want for themselves is of no "point" to you. Do they want Saddam and his dictatorship which "apparently" was less violent than what is going on now. Or , even putting up with the chaos, that they themselves can see the light at the end of the long tunnel for themselves and a new Iraqi government giving them rights and freedoms they hadn't had for years and years.

If they choose to continue rather than go back..that is of no consequence to you as to why they need to be defended until such time as they are able to defend themselves? Apparently not, eh?


Does it change the fact that there was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and does it justify the war?

The war was already justified. The war to liberate Iraq and depose Saddam is over.

This is now a battle to allow the new government a chance to get up and running and start anew. Of course they should have done it 24 hours after  being voted in.. And  just might have if not for outside influences and others internally trying to take advantage.

So please do side with those trying to disrupt the new govenment. As i'm sure if the USA just up and pulled out there would peace and  happiness around the globe, nevermind just Iraq.


And might I add, I'm not laughing at Alan_F and his "innability to answer a simple question" in this thread. You are providing all the comedy here mate.

At least you can see the funny side...   

[SMD]

4pool, I'm sorry but your assertions of what is good for the Iraqi people and the 'light' at the end of the tunnel are delirious bordering on offensive.

[4pool]

In 2002/2003 I spent most of my time arguing that if there were any remanents of any chemical or biological weapons, they were either obsolete or useless. Blair's Dossier was dismissed as a farce and a lie, particularly by the fact that it was copied from a PhD student's dissertation.
The US made up a heap of shit to try to pin on Saddam, like links to 9/11 and Al Qaeda, as well as the Niger documents. If there was a cast iron guarantee at the time that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, why the need to make bollocks up?

Boy oh boy...where to start.

There is a mindset that you perpetuate.

Bush had never....repeat never..claimed Saddam was part of 9/11.

Bush has made claims that Saddam and Al Queda had some nefarious links.  Much like to rival gangs working together for a common cause.

As for Niger--there are those who still claim that Saddam was trying to buy in Niger. Because there is not a consensus and some speculation this means others have seized on the point that it wasn't so. So it's a he said--he said issue. But it is not cast in stone that Saddam was not trying to purchase yellow cake in Niger.

I am glad you had your opinion as to what level of concentration any chemical weapons may have been at in 2002-2003.

Can you answer why the United Nations didn't share your opinion?

Can you answer why Blix found chemical weapons capabable labs? Or was that of no concern. Even though just having  those type labs was a violation of UN resolutions.

How long do you think it would take a lab to produce chemical wmds and resupply the military so they could replace exisiting chemicals in warheads?

Can you explain why Saddam had chemical missle warheads which were found by Blix and crew? And why they were not found in previous inspections before 2002/2003. In otherwords they were "new". And if there were "new" items, what makes you think those were the only "new" things to be found---had inspections continued on? Or were you willing to take that chance and give Saddam the all clear after he destroyed the few found?

And as a "new "  lab was found..what guarantees could you assure the World that Saddam would not supply other organizations with chemical wmd's to do his bidding for him? Much like a crime lord who can't be touched because there is no trace to him personally. But everyone knows where it came from.


I will wager any amount of money that should some chemical attack take place in a western country the USA will be blamed. Blamed because they went into Iraq and because of that they allowed the chemicals to be scurried out of country to be used against a target in the West. And if Saddam was still in power, he would have them and they would be controlled with the UN's help and nothing would have happened.

Mark my words...

[Ole Gunnar]

4pool,  you can't quote me like that! You split up my paragraph so that it suits your argument, and then try to make a cheap point about me not caring about the people of Iraq! Thats a hell of a lot lower than getting into the name calling you criticize Alan_F of.....

And USA didn't go to war with Iraq to liberate their people, and you saying so just proves that Fox News propaganda does in fact work very well.

[4pool]

Ole..I answered your questions one at a time. You only had 2 questions not a paragraph. That meant splitting them up to answer each.

Or would that not occur to you?

So I don't know how you think your were misquoted.

[4pool]

4pool, I'm sorry but your assertions of what is good for the Iraqi people and the 'light' at the end of the tunnel are delirious bordering on offensive.

I guess it would be if one didn't take into consideration--what Iraqi's themselves think. And i don't mean individual blogs from Iraq.

There have been numerous polls taken in Iraq...everyone i've seen Iraqis prefer the chance at democracy or liberation or whatever you want to call it V being under Saddams rule.

Read into that what you want.

If Iraqis wanted Saddam back I would categorically state going into Iraq and deposing Saddam was the wrong thing to do. But as they don't.......

Just me I guess who sees this logic...

[SMD]

Bush had never....repeat never..claimed Saddam was part of 9/11.

Quick Google search shows just how dirty the US played this game. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al all at differing points claimed that Saddam Hussein was linked to the attacks on the World Trade Centre - then disagreed with the others publicly, saying there was no link. On the same search page for "Saddam 9/11" on Google, you'll get Bush distancing himself from Cheney claiming there is a link, Cheney distancing himself from senators claiming there are links and Rumsfeld suggesting there might be unless there isn't one.

Anyway, just to show you the effect of it, have a bunch of news items:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
Resulting in...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Bush has made claims that Saddam and Al Queda had some nefarious links.  Much like to rival gangs working together for a common cause.

So does that mean Reagan should have been overthrown in the name of regime change?

As for Niger--there are those who still claim that Saddam was trying to buy in Niger. Because there is not a consensus and some speculation this means others have seized on the point that it wasn't so. So it's a he said--he said issue. But it is not cast in stone that Saddam was not trying to purchase yellow cake in Niger.

Are you fucking shitting me? Saddam Hussein's nuclear aspirations - peaceful or otherwise - ended when Israel illegally bombed the power station France helped build in the early 80's.
Even if Saddam had wanted to try and buy some, what was he going to do - sprinkle it on his morning croissants?
If you haven't noticed, you need the science and knowledge to be able to carry out a nuclear programme. The Middle East is very, very thin on the ground when it comes to physicists, let alone nuclear experts. If you want petroleum or even chemical engineers, you'll do well to find them in abundance. Nuclear engineers? Very rare out here.

I am glad you had your opinion as to what level of concentration any chemical weapons may have been at in 2002-2003.

Can you answer why the United Nations didn't share your opinion?

Yes, because it's a spineless, corrupt self serving anachronism.

Can you answer why Blix found chemical weapons capabable labs? Or was that of no concern. Even though just having  those type labs was a violation of UN resolutions.

It's all in the semantics. Chemical weapons capable is a phrase that can mean, well, anything. It was under these UN resolutions that saw pencils scrutinised, because apparently you can use the graphite for weapons production. Hell, up until 2003 you had to smuggle Playstation fucking 2s into Iraq because the Americans say Saddam could use the chips to create supercomputers.

How long do you think it would take a lab to produce chemical wmds and resupply the military so they could replace exisiting chemicals in warheads?

Given that Iraq couldn't even manufacture enough paracetmol or anaesthetic to cover the country's basic needs - my grandad, God rest his soul, had to have an eye operation without any anaesthetic because of this - I doubt it'd have to the capability to resupply in any real capacity to threaten anyone except maybe a few moths gathered around the porch light.

Can you explain why Saddam had chemical missle warheads which were found by Blix and crew? And why they were not found in previous inspections before 2002/2003. In otherwords they were "new". And if there were "new" items, what makes you think those were the only "new" things to be found---had inspections continued on? Or were you willing to take that chance and give Saddam the all clear after he destroyed the few found?

Were those the ones found in an abandoned lab in the middle of the desert? The ones that even the Iraqis weren't entirely sure existed or not?

And as a "new "  lab was found..what guarantees could you assure the World that Saddam would not supply other organizations with chemical wmd's to do his bidding for him? Much like a crime lord who can't be touched because there is no trace to him personally. But everyone knows where it came from.

Yup, America and Great Britain. Listen, you have to be extremely naive not to realise that there are weapons constantly on the move right now. I know for a fact the Russian mafia trafficks arms through Dubai and the UAE government is well aware of this. What can they do? Fuck all. Very few people can say shit to organisations like these - Saddam Hussein isolated from the rest of the world is nothing compared to the stuff that goes on every day.

I will wager any amount of money that should some chemical attack take place in a western country the USA will be blamed. Blamed because they went into Iraq and because of that they allowed the chemicals to be scurried out of country to be used against a target in the West. And if Saddam was still in power, he would have them and they would be controlled with the UN's help and nothing would have happened.

Mark my words...

And you're going to be completely oblivious to any potential set up, even if it's pointed out to you that Iraq didn't have that particular strain or something.

But you go ahead and live in your particular little world, far from where it all happens.

[SMD]

I guess it would be if one didn't take into consideration--what Iraqi's themselves think. And i don't mean individual blogs from Iraq.

There have been numerous polls taken in Iraq...everyone i've seen Iraqis prefer the chance at democracy or liberation or whatever you want to call it V being under Saddams rule.

Read into that what you want.

If Iraqis wanted Saddam back I would categorically state going into Iraq and deposing Saddam was the wrong thing to do. But as they don't.......

Just me I guess who sees this logic...

Yes! Because it's black and white! It's not binary at all. Just because we thought Saddam Hussein was an utter c*nt doesn't mean we all worship at the altar of America.
As for the polls, I find it utterly laughable that you can continually argue in another thread about the findings of one poll based on what you perceive to be bias, yet not even consider for one moment the logistics of surveying the population of Iraq at, well, any time!
You wouldn't have found many Iraqis saying Saddam Hussein was a shit before he was deposed and you won't find many Iraqis answering the fucking door for fear of being shot.

Tell me how many cities in the world are so dangerous thanks to sectarian violence that my entire extended family on both sides have had to either leave or leave the country altogether.

Fucking hell.