http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6023159

Saddam Hussein did not have weapons…when we launched war in Iraq. The last time he “had” these weapons was in 1991 (or so the new report says) This was the main reason why we attacked Iraq. It has been proven and deemed false. Saddam was no threat to the American people, and he wasn’t past 1991.

Saddam had “weak, and little” ties to Al Queda (according to the 9/11 Panel). The second major reason the Bush Administration gave for the Iraq war has been proven and deemed false. The Iraq War does not fit under fighting terrorism, which is what this war was suppose to be about.

The new reason (after the first two main reasons have been proven false) is that we are giving the Iraqis a Democracy. But how can this be, when Iraq is chaos? We are putting major military bases in Iraq (funny if we are letting them control their own land) US soldiers are dying at a higher rate each month. The Iraqis are suffering in a world of chaos. We have drawn terrorists to Iraq. Hospitals are not up to standard conditions. Children are dying of deformities, and over 10,000 Iraqis have died at our hands.

We were told the Iraqis would “greet us with flowers and as liberators” and that has not happened. We were told we knew exactly where the weapons were, and we didn’t, for Saddam never had the weapons.

While Iran and North Korea are producing weapons, we are in a country that was no threat to us. We needed three times the amount of troops to stabilize Iraq, yet the Bush Administration paints a wonderful picture in Iraq. Yet, all sources point we have no way to give the Iraqis a free society, because we did not bring enough troops.

Osama Bin Laden is running free, because we diverted attention away from Afghanistan to go into Iraq. Osama was a threat, and we left him. Saddam wasn’t a threat, and we went after him.

We have lowered our world reputation, by the Prisoner Abuse we struck in Iraq. We have a horrible reputation because of this Administration.

This Administration Ok’d acting just like the “evil terrorists”

All the reasons Bush gave are false. He was no threat. And the new reasons (giving them a democracy) are not possible, because we didn’t bring enough troops.

........you could hear a pin drop....

......inside the head of GWB

lmao.:D

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
......inside the head of GWB

lmao.:D thats some funny shit.....lmao

Thank you, Thank You...

Well, while you guys are slamming Bush, you need to be fair and slam the Brittish, Russian, Egyptian, French, Israeli etc etc intelligence as well, because they all said the same thing. By the way, your beloved UN also said that Saddam had WMDs. All Bush is guilty of is believing the CIA and many other intelligence agencies around the world. You guys make it sound like Bush knew that there were no WMDs but he went in anyway and lied to everyone.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Well, while you guys are slamming Bush, you need to be fair and slam the Brittish, Russian, Egyptian, French, Israeli etc etc intelligence as well, because they all said the same thing.
Not really, because they didn’t (except Britain) launch war based on their intelligence. And since Bush started the war, he is to blame. Plus, if all countries agreed (like you say), on the fact that Saddam had weapons, why couldn’t they agree on a resolution?

Originally posted by DaveTooner
By the way, your beloved UN also said that Saddam had WMDs. All Bush is guilty of is believing the CIA and many other intelligence agencies around the world. You guys make it sound like Bush knew that there were no WMDs but he went in anyway and lied to everyone.

Every UN report showed that Saddam had no Weapons. David Kay, and Blix all said Saddam had no weapons.

Iraq weapons report draws another blank:
Report saying:
Iraq's nuclear program had been suspended for many years.
There was no solid evidence linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, nor evidence that Iraq would transfer WMD to terrorists.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3380645.stm)

The search group in charge of finding evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, led by David Kay, has released an interim report saying none have yet been found.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3161032.stm)

The UN said Saddam did not have weapons. The Inspections proved he didn’t have weapons, and Bush still went to war. We blame him, and he needs to take full responsibility for his mistakes.

Not really, because they didn’t (except Britain) launch war based on their intelligence. And since Bush started the war, he is to blame.

So if you had all these countries confirming your intelligence that he had WMDs, you wouldn't have done anything? Give me a break. Put yourself in Bush's position. He had no way of knowing the intel was false. If it turned out to be true and he did nothing, and the country was attacked he would have been impeached. It was the smart thing to do.

Plus, if all countries agreed (like you say), on the fact that Saddam had weapons, why couldn’t they agree on a resolution?

I don't know, but all of the countries I cited said he had 'em.

Nice try with the links. All those reports were after the military action started. In the lead up to the war the UN was saying that Saddam was in violation.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
You guys make it sound like Bush knew that there were no WMDs but he went in anyway and lied to everyone. EXACTLY !!

Originally posted by DaveTooner
So if you had all these countries confirming your intelligence that he had WMDs, you wouldn't have done anything? Give me a break.
But they weren’t confirming his intelligence. It was only Russia and Britain who were mainly confirming this.

But the more prevalent evidence that he didn’t have weapons, was that the UN Inspectors (who know more then any country) said he didn’t have weapons. The UN who was in Iraq, who searched, said that he had no weapons.

The fact is, the reason we could not get a resolution in the UN, was because many countries were no confirming what Bush said.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Put yourself in Bush's position. He had no way of knowing the intel was false. If it turned out to be true and he did nothing, and the country was attacked he would have been impeached. It was the smart thing to do.
Okay, if I was in Bush’s position, I wouldn’t have claimed to know exactly where the weapons were in Iraq. I wouldn’t have told America we were 100% sure Saddam had weapons, when we were only going of assumptions from other countries. I wouldn’t have gone in Iraq, without enough troops. I wouldn’t have run this war, the way he has. I wouldn’t have given the false impression Saddam has links to terrorists, when he didn’t.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Nice try with the links. All those reports were after the military action started. In the lead up to the war the UN was saying that Saddam was in violation.
Nice try? Well, those were reports on reports that came out before we invaded Iraq. Every UN report showed he had NO weapons. I suggest you get your facts straight.

And he was not in violation. Yes, previously he was in violation. But in the latest UN inspection David Kay and other inspectors said he was “fully cooperating” and not in violation of anything.

Okay, if I was in Bush’s position, I wouldn’t have claimed to know exactly where the weapons were in Iraq. I wouldn’t have told America we were 100% sure Saddam had weapons, when we were only going of assumptions from other countries. I wouldn’t have gone in Iraq, without enough troops. I wouldn’t have run this war, the way he has. I wouldn’t have given the false impression Saddam has links to terrorists, when he didn’t.

Basically what you just said (in a clever, sly way) is that you WOULD have gone into Iraq but would have done some things differently. So quit slamming Bush for going into Iraq. Slam him all day long about how he handled the war if you want.

Nice try? Well, those were reports on reports that came out before we invaded Iraq. Every UN report showed he had NO weapons. I suggest you get your facts straight.

And he was not in violation. Yes, previously he was in violation. But in the latest UN inspection David Kay and other inspectors said he was “fully cooperating” and not in violation of anything.

David Kay's report came out after the war, I hate to tell you.

And do you not remember when Saddam sent the UN that HUGE report supposedly accounting for all his weapons? They said it was bogus. This was right before the war. Its true that the weapons inspections at the time hadn't turned up anything, but the UN was saying he was in violationg but they did not want military action.

Originally posted by korg
EXACTLY !!

So did Britain, Russia, France, and BILL CLINTON lie too?

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Basically what you just said (in a clever, sly way) is that you WOULD have gone into Iraq but would have done some things differently. So quit slamming Bush for going into Iraq. Slam him all day long about how he handled the war if you want.
When did I say I would have gone into Iraq? You are utterly wrong, and incorrect. Do not put words in my mouth. The UN said he had no weapons past 1991, Bush had those reports, and he did not pay attention to them.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
David Kay's report came out after the war, I hate to tell you.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/04/sproject.irq.inspectors/
Reports were out before we invaded, that the inspectors had found nothing.

Bush had the reports before hand, and didn’t listen to the most factually based documents, and still launched war.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Its true that the weapons inspections at the time hadn't turned up anything, but the UN was saying he was in violationg but they did not want military action.
He was in violation of things, before the last UN inspection.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
BILL CLINTON lie too?

Bill Clinton didn't have the 2000 UN Inspection reports in front of him, when he made claims to Saddam having weapons. Bush had them....

When did I say I would have gone into Iraq? You are utterly wrong, and incorrect. Do not put words in my mouth. The UN said he had no weapons past 1991, Bush had those reports, and he did not pay attention to them.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but when you say "I wouldn’t have gone in Iraq, without enough troops. I wouldn’t have run this war, the way he has." that sure is what it sounds like. Why make a comment like that if you wouldn't have gone in at all?

Bush had the reports before hand, and didn’t listen to the most factually based documents, and still launched war.

Bush had 12 intelligence agencies telling him Saddam had the weapons. If you were Bush, you would have disregarded all this? Yeah right.

He was in violation of things, before the last UN inspection.

When exactly was the last inspection? Cause in 2002 after Bush's speech to the General Assembly about Iraq, the UN (including France) signed off on a resolution that said disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences.

Bill Clinton didn't have the 2000 UN Inspection reports in front of him, when he made claims to Saddam having weapons. Bush had them....

So Russia lied too then? Putin knew Saddam didn't have anything but said he did anyway? Then didn't support the war. Give me a break. No one lied. It is incredibly intellectually dishonest of you to say they all lied.

You go right ahead and believe that Bush lied. That's fine. But if I were Bush and I had his intelligence, I would have done the same thing. Even your man John Kerry believed the intel.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but when you say "I wouldn’t have gone in Iraq, without enough troops. I wouldn’t have run this war, the way he has." that sure is what it sounds like. Why make a comment like that if you wouldn't have gone in at all?
If I had gone into Iraq, which is a hypothetical, I wouldn’t have run it the way George Bush has. I would have never gone in, in the first place. But, the way Bush has run it, has been disastrous.

I'm just bringing up the fact that, not only did he go in and Saddam was NO threat, he has run this war poorly.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Bush had 12 intelligence agencies telling him Saddam had the weapons. If you were Bush, you would have disregarded all this? Yeah right.
12? Care to cite that? And he’s had years and years of UN Inspections telling him that Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
When exactly was the last inspection? Cause in 2002 after Bush's speech to the General Assembly about Iraq, the UN (including France) signed off on a resolution that said disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences.
First of all, there have been numerous UN Inspections. All claimed Saddam didn't have weapons. Yes, they claimed he had to disarm or else face serious consequences. Which is why we put the UN inspectors in Iraq, to make sure he did disarm. The result of the inspections, showed that he didn’t have weapons.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
You go right ahead and believe that Bush lied. That's fine. But if I were Bush and I had his intelligence, I would have done the same thing.
If you had the UN Reports saying he had no weapons, you would have invaded? Well, that is seriously moronic and ridiculous for any intelligent person to say.

The rest of the ISG report, which you are conveniently ignoring, had information based on Iraqi intelligence documents, and interviews with members of the Hussein regime (including Tariq Aziz) Basically, Husseins plan was this:

1. Throw out inspectors
2. Bribe key countries in the Security Council that have veto power
3. Without UN support the United States will not attack Iraq.
4. Get sanctions lifted with the help of the bribed countries (they named France, Russia and China)
5. Continue weapons program

These countries, all of whom received millions of dollars laundered through the UN food for oil program, were never going to support us in Iraq, despite what the president's detractors are saying.

(The full article can be found on Scotsman.com)

You can continue to ignore this, but it is in the same report this thread is based on. The United States and the rest of the coalition did absolutely the right thing by invading Iraq and removing the Hussein regime. Twenty years from now, this will be looked on in the same way the Israeli attack on the Baghdad nuclear plant is looked on today. Some people didn't get it at the time.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
So did Britain, Russia, France, and BILL CLINTON lie too? PROBABLY SO.....but we're at WAR under bush......lives are lost ....under his watch ! thinkng about robbing a bank, is different than robbing it !

Brooks, I have not ignored that. I just do not see it as a compelling reason to launch war. We can hypothesize all we want about what Saddam “would have, could have, might have” done, but we will never know for sure. The fact is, the Bush Administration said we knew where the WMDs were, and we didn’t know where they were. They said he had weapons, when he didn’t.

He may have had those plans, but that does not mean he would have followed through with them. If we were concerned with him following through with them, we could have made sure that we kept close tabs on his movement. With satellites and all the technology I’m sure we could have, if we wanted to, made sure he didn’t follow through with those plans.

But when you strike war, which seems to not invoke the same meaning as it use to. You need to have clear reasons on why you want to strike war. To go to war based on an assumption of him sometime, maybe, producing weapons is absurd and reckless.

The reasons Bush gave prior to the Iraq War are false, bottom line. And the fact is, Saddam still was not the biggest threat in the Middle East or in the world. North Korea and Iran needed to be dealt with first. As did Osama Bin Laden.

So even if the fact that he had "plans" was a "justifiable" reason, (which it isn't) it doesn’t add up, nor make sense we would pick Saddam for that ONE reason, over other countries who are far more of a threat to the United States.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Well, while you guys are slamming Bush, you need to be fair and slam the Brittish, Russian, Egyptian, French, Israeli etc etc intelligence as well, because they all said the same thing. By the way, your beloved UN also said that Saddam had WMDs. All Bush is guilty of is believing the CIA and many other intelligence agencies around the world. You guys make it sound like Bush knew that there were no WMDs but he went in anyway and lied to everyone.

How many of those countries' leaders have still not admitted to making a mistake?

Even good ol' Tony Blare had admitted he realizes they didnt take enough time...

But Bush is still in his fantasy world of Spin.

Dave ! Where did you get that foreign intelligence confirmed the WMD theory ? The only report came from UK and USA and they later proved to be wrong - if not faked !
Russia and even more France never supported the WMD theory. They kept on saying only UN inspections could establish the evidence of their existence, but Bush did not listen to them.

12? Care to cite that? And he’s had years and years of UN Inspections telling him that Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction.


It's been reported on the news numerous times, my friend. The UN inspections were halted for many years because Saddam kicked them out! They never said conclusively that he didn't have any before the lead up to the war. They just hadn't found anything YET. Otherwise they would NOT have signed a resolution saying disclose, disarm or face serious consequences a matter of mere months before the war.

If you had the UN Reports saying he had no weapons, you would have invaded?

Yes. I would trust my own intelligence and that of other countries before I would the UN.

Dave ! Where did you get that foreign intelligence confirmed the WMD theory ? The only report came from UK and USA and they later proved to be wrong - if not faked !
Russia and even more France never supported the WMD theory.

That's flat out wrong. The US and British intelligence were not the only ones that said he had WMD. Russia came out and said that they told the US that their intelligence said he had weapons. This came out after the war. France signed off on a resolution months before the war that said disclose disarm or face serious consequences. Why would they do that if they say there were no weapons?

They kept on saying only UN inspections could establish the evidence of their existence, but Bush did not listen to them.

Ok, one minute you say France, Russia, etc claim there were no weapons, then you claim they thought inspections would confirm that he did have them. Why inspect if they thought he was weapons free? This ALL proves my point... the UN thought Saddam had the weapons during the lead up to the war. That is why they signed the resolution DISCLOSE DISARM OR FACE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. This is not hard to understand.

Bottom line: Bush did not lie. Bush acted on intelligence from multiple agencies that turned out to be false. Even the LIBERAL Washington Post stated after this new report came out that you can't blame the Bush administration for this. There's no way he could have known this intelligence was false. End of story.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
It's been reported on the news numerous times, my friend. The UN inspections were halted for many years because Saddam kicked them out! They never said conclusively that he didn't have any before the lead up to the war. They just hadn't found anything YET. Otherwise they would NOT have signed a resolution saying disclose, disarm or face serious consequences a matter of mere months before the war.
if the police comes to your door and want to come in, you asking for a warrant doesnt imply guilt, and this has been proven because saddam DIDNT HAVE ANYTHING ! in this country, we can sue for false invasion





That's flat out wrong. The US and British intelligence were not the only ones that said he had WMD. Russia came out and said that they told the US that their intelligence said he had weapons. This came out after the war. France signed off on a resolution months before the war that said disclose disarm or face serious consequences. Why would they do that if they say there were no weapons?
he didnt !, and WE are the bullies that went to war with them. he didnt have them.......lets just say he called the presidents bluff, and we're the losers in this. we look like fools. its like getting a bad drug tip, busting in the door , putting the family on the floor, yelling and screaming obsenities.....and finding no drugs......


Ok, one minute you say France, Russia, etc claim there were no weapons, then you claim they thought inspections would confirm that he did have them. Why inspect if they thought he was weapons free? This ALL proves my point... the UN thought Saddam had the weapons during the lead up to the war. That is why they signed the resolution DISCLOSE DISARM OR FACE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. This is not hard to understand.he didnt have them, why is that so hard to understand......because of all of the uncertainty, we should have MADE SURE ! the inspectors said that they didnt find anything, shouldnt we have let them do their job first, thats why they were there.

Bottom line: Bush did not lie. Bush acted on intelligence from multiple agencies that turned out to be false. Even the LIBERAL Washington Post stated after this new report came out that you can't blame the Bush administration for this. There's no way he could have known this intelligence was false. End of story. even bush knew he lied, but he did an even better job getting us to argue about it.....did you read the list on all of the things bush did that day. these things came from dems and republicans, and the shit was fishy. bush did not react correctly to this as CIC.

Not really, because they didn’t (except Britain) launch war based on their intelligence. And since Bush started the war, he is to blame. Plus, if all countries agreed (like you say), on the fact that Saddam had weapons, why couldn’t they agree on a resolution?
For Christ's sake - some of those nations had BILLIONS wrapped up in Iraq's oil, and consequently, they knew if we went in there, they were going to lose their investment. Why do you think those cheese eating, surrender monkeys fought us tooth and nail? Russia, Germany - all the same situation. We funded 40% of the UN's bills, and then those nations turned around and used their collective voices to thwart us from DOING THE RIGHT THING. Why...for MONEY.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
The UN inspections were halted for many years because Saddam kicked them out! They never said conclusively that he didn't have any before the lead up to the war. They just hadn't found anything YET. Otherwise they would NOT have signed a resolution saying disclose, disarm or face serious consequences a matter of mere months before the war.
I hate to burst your bubble, but all the UN Inspections before the Iraq War showed he had no weapons. Bush did not listen to those inspections, and went on bad intelligence. And yes, we kicked the UN Inspectors out, before they were done inspecting. It's our fault, that they didn't finish. But what they did have, prior to the war, showed he was no threat.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Yes. I would trust my own intelligence and that of other countries before I would the UN.
You would trust our own intelligence, even though our UN Inspectors said Saddam didn't have weapons? You would trust our information which came from Amid Chalabi, who provided the intelligence to Bush for this war? He was a crook in Iraq, and we trusted him for almost all of our intelligence. He was wrong, and the Bush Administration should never have listened to him. They should have paid attention to the UN reports which all said Saddam had no weapons.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
The US and British intelligence were not the only ones that said he had WMD. Russia came out and said that they told the US that their intelligence said he had weapons. This came out after the war. France signed off on a resolution months before the war that said disclose disarm or face serious consequences. Why would they do that if they say there were no weapons?
Yes, three countries. And all have admitted their intelligence was wrong, and that we should have waited longer before we made the decision to go to war with Iraq. The only Administration that hasn't admitted this, is ours. That tells you something right there.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Ok, one minute you say France, Russia, etc claim there were no weapons, then you claim they thought inspections would confirm that he did have them. Why inspect if they thought he was weapons free?
If you had correctly followed what I said, which you didn't, because you cannot comprehend very well...I specifically said that prior to the UN Inspections the world thought Saddam had weapons. We called for Saddam to disarm, and then he told us that he did disarm. We didn't believe his word, so we sent UN Inspectors in Iraq to see if he really did disarm. The reports show he did disarm, yet we still launched war.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
This ALL proves my point... the UN thought Saddam had the weapons during the lead up to the war.
No, it doesn't. You are wrong. The UN believed Saddam had weapons from 1997-2000. When we called for him to disarm, we sent the UN Inspectors into Iraq, and we found he didn't have weapons. From 2000 onward, the UN believed he had no weapons. When we wanted to launch war, the UN thought he did not have weapons, because of the reports from the Inspectors.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
There's no way he could have known this intelligence was false. End of story.
Yes, he could have, if he had paid attention to the UN Inspection Reports.

I'm still positive that no evidence of WMD was produced by any other country than USA and UK.
Russia's post war declaration were vague and mostly a favour to Bush. France and Germany never produces any evidence for a good reason - there were no evidence, and there were no weapons. They sticked to their proposal : keep on insoecting and until UN finds new evidence there is no ground for any preemptive war.

In fact i don't know why we are still debating on evidence since it's now obvious these weapons did not exist.

I hate to burst your bubble, but all the UN Inspections before the Iraq War showed he had no weapons.

I know that. I also know that Saddam did not cooperate with the inspectors. One question that you continue to fail to answer: When Bush was making the case for the war you INSIST that the UN had proven he had no weapons. Then why did they pass a resolution mere months before the war saying disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences? Answer that.

Russia's post war declaration were vague and mostly a favour to Bush.

Oh brother. A country who was AGAINST the war in the first place says their intelligence supported ours and you just brush it off as a lie. You are priceless. There were 12 intelligence agencies around the world that also thought he had weapons. Do you people not watch the news?!

France and Germany never produces any evidence for a good reason - there were no evidence, and there were no weapons.

No, that is not why France and Germany would not support our military action. They wouldn't support it because they along with the rest of the CORRUPT UN security council were being bribed by Saddam. They were his puppets. This information was ALSO in this very report but you won't hear that from the media and certainly not from you people. Another interesting tidbit to the report was that Saddam was trying to get sanctions to end so he could start rebuilding his WMD program. Guess who also wanted the sanctions lifted. His good buddies - the FRENCH.

In fact i don't know why we are still debating on evidence since it's now obvious these weapons did not exist.

Yes we know now that they did not. The reason we're debating this is because you left wing loons insist that Bush knew there were no weapons so he LIED about it. That is not true. Bush and Blair were not even CLOSE to being the only ones who thought he had something.

lets talk about what the rest of the report said, mainly how Sadam was playing the weak UN and planned to do it until his weapons programs were re established, and how france and germany and sadam were al getting benefit from the oil for food program while iraqis starved. saddam is gone, so is a major source of cheap oil for "the rest of the world". screw em both. france and germany and russia pretending to be against the war for anything besides money and oil is a joke.

The reason we're debating this is because you left wing loons insist that Bush knew there were no weapons so he LIED about it.

Everyone knows that, except for some of our "special" posters here in Allforums.

EDIT: Who started this thread again? Oh yeah, Overdose. This is the same guy who is cheering about Poland leaving Iraq over there in the World forum. I think it's pretty obvious that the Overdosed one doesn't give a flying fuck about anything except the Democratic party. And that includes the well-being of the US.

We can hypothesize all we want about what Saddam “would have, could have, might have” done, but we will never know for sure


Overdose, don't take this the wrong way, but I think you should defer to Tariq Aziz on this one. He pointed out what Saddam was planning on doing, with the assistance of our "allies", had we not gone to war. And it would have worked.

Innocence and Guilt is only a matter of timing.

Innocence and Guilt is only a matter of timing.
If you're going to quote, at least give the person credit. And would you at least give us good quotes? One line posts with bad quotes do not make you look smart.

We can hypothesize all we want about what Saddam “would have, could have, might have” done, but we will never know for sure
Need I say exactly? Is unsure reason good enough to go to war? Is that reason good enough to elevate war on the scale of importance? War is a last resort kind of thing, anything else is barbarianism. Obscurity in the information lends to the view that war is a good thing, that it's plan A. Being unsure about your information says you don't care enough to figure it out fully, meaning you're lazy. And in a life or death situation for thousands of people, that is entirely unacceptable.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
I know that. I also know that Saddam did not cooperate with the inspectors. One question that you continue to fail to answer
Wrong I have answered this question. If you could read, you would have known I already answered this. My response was that David Kay said this in the last UN Inspection...

Saddam is complying with all demands, and cooperating fully

So yes, in previous inspections he wasn't complying. But on the last inspection, Saddam was complying. So why would we attack him once he was complying?

Originally posted by DaveTooner
When Bush was making the case for the war you INSIST that the UN had proven he had no weapons. Then why did they pass a resolution mere months before the war saying disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences? Answer that.
What exactly are you talking about? They past a resolution saying he had to disarm. In 2000 he said he had disarmed, and so we sent inspectors into Iraq to make sure he really did disarm. He did disarm. The UN found no weapons.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
The reason we're debating this is because you left wing loons insist that Bush knew there were no weapons so he LIED about it. That is not true.
Bush had the UN Reports right infront of his face. He decided to give the American people wrongful information, and not the whole truth. Yes, he gave us half-truths. He gave us information that was fitting to his agenda. He was not giving us the full story. He mislead America. Period.

watching OD lay out the case as to why uncle saddam should still be in golden palaces is always entertaining

British Intelligence? I got yer British Intelligence right here:

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg00457.html

This article proves that the intelligence dossier the Brits produced, posted on the 10 Downing St. website, and passed on to Colin Powell prior to his UN appearance, was actually
1. plagiarized almost word for word from an existing article on the internet.
2. about 12 years old...

Needless to say this has caused quite a stir in the UK, and many question whether Blair will survive the next election.

There was very little hard intelligence about what was actually happening in Iraq prior to the invasion. The best intelligence we had was what was coming from the inspectors on the ground.

The decision to invade Iraq was made years earlier, when Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Armitage, Perle and Libby were all at a think tank (PNAC) in Washington and Clinton was president:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2003/0304thinktank.htm

9/11/01 provided the excuse to invade. Are we better off now that Saddam is out? Thats not the point. We would be far better off if Osama Bin Laden was dead now and thats what George should have been doing for the last 3 years.

Watching Trav run away from the facts, and debate is always fun, too. He laughs at what I say; yet he can’t come up with reasons for why I’m wrong…Ahhh, the irony!

But when did I say he should stay in the palace? The fact is Trav, you are so ill-educated on what I say, it’s funny. Saddam was a threat. But he was not the most prevalent threat at the time we launched war. Osama Bin Laden , Iran, Pakistan, North Korea were all more-so threats then Saddam. We should have dealt with them first, before going into Iraq.

Of course Saddam had to be dealt with, but it should not have been the first priority. He had no weapons, and had almost no links to terrorism. So why would we be attacking a man, who was no threat, when we have countries and areas that are far more threatening to the security of our country?

Originally posted by Overdose
Osama Bin Laden , Iran, Pakistan, North Korea were all more-so threats then Saddam. We should have dealt with them first, before going into Iraq.

let me ask again, how many of therse countries have we been at war with, has used chemical weapons, has launched ballistic missles at isreal, has tried to assasinate US presidents and quite plainly gave money to anyone who would blow up a bunch of isreali civilians? yes, they are all threats, and all must be dealt with, but one country, not one man, as in OBL, remember its a war on terro, not a war on 9-11, has been at the top of the list for some time now, and that is hussein, to say he iis no different from anyone else is either blind or ignorant. I dont remember iran firing on our planes daily, planes simply trying to enforce the fucking UN's resolutions. maybe that scumbag kofi annan can get the Ghana air force to enforce iraqi no fly zones. dont try and make SADDAM HUSSEING into a victim, just some poor schmuck who got taken out unfairly, he deserved waht he got, and the world is better of with him gone, you will not deny it, but wil only say "we should have waited" fuck that, wait for what? for some french asshole to give us the OK?

Originally posted by Travh20
has used chemical weapons
That we gave him. And that we also approved of him using against Iran...

Originally posted by Travh20
has launched ballistic missles at isreal
How is that a threat to the United States of America? And how does that relate to a war on “terrorism”? Besides, Israel has invaded areas that has not been theirs. Has killed Muslims, and acted just like Saddam did. Double Standard?

Originally posted by Travh20
has tried to assasinate US presidents
You mean George Bush Senior? Who wrote in his book that invading Iraq is a no-win situation? That we could never have an escape plan and no way to win the peace? Oh yes, that President!

Originally posted by Travh20
remember its a war on terro, not a war on 9-11, has been at the top of the list for some time now, and that is hussein, to say he iis no different from anyone else is either blind or ignorant.
Wrong, he had no ties to terrorism or al Queda. The 9/11 panel said they were “slim” if anything at all. I suggest you keep up on standard information.

Originally posted by Travh20
for some french asshole to give us the OK?
How was he a threat? No WMD’s, and no ties to terrorism. Sorry, don’t see the threat.

I see a threat with North Korea and Iran actually having weapons. Who actually do trade with terrorists.

ok, so back to isreal and we gave him weapons, answer the questions,m how many missles has n korea or iran launched lately? how many countries have the invaded? how many has saddam invaded? how many times has N korea and iran used WMD? how many times has Saddam? answer the damn questions and stop talking about our ALLIES as if they were the enemy. YEs, isreal is an allie, another allie, along the lines of britain, poland, spaina dn a bunch of others who are not good enough for you and the good senator to consider allies, and seem it OK to denegrate on your path to power.

Originally posted by Travh20
ok, so back to isreal and we gave him weapons, answer the questions,m how many missles has n korea or iran launched lately?
None, but they very well could…and we sure aren’t preventing them in any way…because we are stuck in Iraq.

Originally posted by Travh20
how many countries have the invaded?
None. But that’s beside the point. We SUPPORTED Saddam when he invaded Iran.

Originally posted by Travh20
how many times has N korea and iran used WMD?
Trav, you are so moronic it’s unbelievable. To you, it’s black and white. Yes, Saddam used weapons. Which is why we made him disarm, because he wasn’t using them appropriately. He did disarm. Which thus means, that he was no threat. Which thus means, we can’t use that reason anymore, because he doesn’t have the weapons anymore.

You can say, Saddam used weapons. But in 2001, he was no threat…because he didn’t have weapons. To say, “well he used weapons in the past, so we must invade him” is ridiculous! He didn’t have them anymore, which thus means he wasn’t a threat.

Iran and North Korea should be pressured, just like Saddam was to remove weapons. But since we are in Iraq, we cannot put pressure on these Governments….like we did Iraq. They should have been dealt with, before a previous and non-existent, threat was taken care of.

we can pressure Iran a hell of a lot more with hundreds of thousands of US troops on their eastern and western borders then we could from washington. but your little brain cant think strategically, only politically

Really? So, you think we can just take our troops from Iraq, send them to Iran, leave Iraq in chaos, occupy three countries, and start a whole war in the middle east and over stretch our armed forces even further? Good strategy Trav!

Originally posted by Blibblob
Innocence and Guilt is only a matter of timing.
If you're going to quote, at least give the person credit. And would you at least give us good quotes? One line posts with bad quotes do not make you look smart.


I dont remember where i heard this quote. It just stuck in my mind. Oh and thats ok, i dont care if people think im smart or not.

Kerry has said as late as 2003 that Saddam needed to be taken down.....nothing else matters. Kerry saw that we didnt find what we suspected and jumped to the other side of the fence....a nice deception by Kerry.

Bush was still saying that Saddam had weapons, and Kerry believed Bush. Only now do we have factual reports that show we were manipulated by George Bush.

but alas you have no way to prove that....its just your own little theory.

I seem to remember ALOT of stirring about weapons inspectors not being granted full access to iraq. They were let in but weren't allowed to go anywhere they wanted. Its like showing the officer the backseat of the car when you know the dead body is in the trunk. So OD's claim that inspectors could just waltz in with open arms and search anywhere is BS in my opinion. I think we all saw that after the 17th or whatever chance Saddam got to FULLY comply.....we weren't gonna give Saddam an 18th chance like the "all-powerful" UN would have. A slap on the wrist only works for so long.

The UN is like the parent who never disciplines their kid. The kid keeps on defecting and doing bad stuff and the parent doesnt do anything.

Originally posted by Decka
The UN is like the parent who never disciplines their kid. The kid keeps on defecting and doing bad stuff and the parent doesnt do anything.

If you like this analogy, then Bush would be a parent who beats his kids just in case they would intend to do bad things. Which one is worse ?

Well, Astra, if my neighbors said they saw my kids misbehaving, and they were short with me when I questioned them about their mischief, you can bet, as a parent, I'm going to lay down a preemptive strike on that ass so severe, they'd be purely stupid to try that shit ever again. I'd be basing my assumption that they were up to no good on a reliable source, going on information I couldn't squeeze out of the slippery little bastards, but yet, I knew they were hiding something, and by using parental intuition, logic, and fairness, I deduced the best method of punishment was a swift kick to their lying little asses.

if you think your kid has a gun....you go and make sure he has it or he doesnt....you dont wait for him to shoot someone and then deal with him.

Originally posted by Decka
I seem to remember ALOT of stirring about weapons inspectors not being granted full access to iraq.
Decka, sadly, you don’t remember the full story. But what I’ve come to conclude, is that you usually don’t understand anything. Anyway, the inspectors were not allowed full access when we were inspecting him during the 90’s. But in the last UN Inspection, Saddam was allowing full access.

David Kay said this,
Saddam is complying with all demands

Which thus means, why would we attack Saddam once he has started to comply?

But that’s besides the point, you don’t attack him based on the assumption he “may” have weapons, because he isn’t “complying”. That is a false reason.

But the fact is, he was complying in the last UN Inspection. That’s the little bit of information you forget to remember.

Originally posted by Overdose
Decka, sadly, you don’t remember the full story. But what I’ve come to conclude, is that you usually don’t understand anything. Anyway, the inspectors were not allowed full access when we were inspecting him during the 90’s. But in the last UN Inspection, Saddam was allowing full access.


Well......#1 your comment on how i "dont understand anything" is pretty asshole-ish, you dont know me so put a cork in your pie hole.

#2 its been proven to most that Saddam cant be trusted... Saddam had chance after chance after chance and didnt come through......it doesn't take Perry Mason to think that something was afoot. And when dealing with weapons that can kill millions...you dont TRUST that he doesnt have weapons...you go in and make sure.

Originally posted by Decka
Well......#1 your comment on how i "dont understand anything" is pretty asshole-ish, you dont know me so put a cork in your pie hole.
Yes, it was “asshole-ish”. Deal with it.

Originally posted by Decka
#2 its been proven to most that Saddam cant be trusted... Saddam had chance after chance after chance and didnt come through.....
Yes, and since he was not to be trusted...we inspected his country for weapons. And on the latest UN Inspection he did come through You just won’t admit it. The fact is, why would we attack him once he is starting to comply? He was doing everything we asked in the last UN Inspection. Don’t fabricate. But you know what? It’s okay for Israel to break UN Treaties…but if Saddam does it, WAR!

Originally posted by Decka
you dont TRUST that he doesnt have weapons...you go in and make sure.
Yes, Decka, you're right, you don’t trust him. You have Inspectors go into Iraq and make sure he doesn’t have weapons (which is not trusting him). He was complying with demands, and had no weapons. And guess what? He DIDN’T have weapons! If we had let the inspectors stay and do their job, we wouldn’t have over 1,000 American soldiers dead.

well...i only have 2 things to say...

#1 thanks OD for admitting your an asshole......you said it not me

#2 MOST people agree with me that Saddam out of power is a good thing. You can feel free to come up with any conspiracy theory that Bush was hungry for war or whatever BS.....but hey your boy Kerry agrees, so you deal with it.

Originally posted by Decka
#1 thanks OD for admitting your an asshole......you said it not me
Making an asshole’ish comment does not mean you are an asshole. It just means you can at points be an asshole.

Originally posted by Decka
#2 MOST people agree with me that Saddam out of power is a good thing. You can feel free to come up with any conspiracy theory that Bush was hungry for war or whatever BS.....but hey your boy Kerry agrees, so you deal with it.
Huh? What are you talking about? Well, way to say on topic. I have no conspiracy theory. He had the UN reports, and all the information right in front of his face. He decided to manipulate everyone in America; into believing Saddam was a threat. He wasn’t. And even if Kerry did agree (which he doesn’t) I don’t have to agree with everything he says.

Originally posted by Decka
Well......#1 your comment on how i "dont understand anything" is pretty asshole-ish, you dont know me so put a cork in your pie hole.

#2 its been proven to most that Saddam cant be trusted... Saddam had chance after chance after chance and didnt come through......it doesn't take Perry Mason to think that something was afoot. And when dealing with weapons that can kill millions...you dont TRUST that he doesnt have weapons...you go in and make sure. iraq was NO MORE A THREAT than korea is, how come we're not there. how come we're not in iran ?. during the first debate, kerry said something about iran having weapons, and bush replied that , his words, " we have sanctions in place in iran " . i said to myself, damn, bush got him there. then kerry said that those sanctions weren't effective. and bush said , and i quote, " well, they dont work because it wasnt my admin that put them in, it was the admin before his.....hmmmm. so i said to myself, so he has yet to put sanctions on a country that claims to be starting a weapons program, the same program that we blew up iraq for....hmmmm. and they're next to iraq, has aided terrorist, and still have some there....... WHY ARENT THEY CONSIDERED THE SAME THREAT !?. man, with all due respect, dont you ask yourself anything about this shit ?