Dave Hinz wrote in
:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 08:50:55 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote in
:
"Can't find 'em" doesn't mean "aren't here" or even "weren't here",
Nate.
Dave, you are starting to look desperate in your denial. The primary
pretext for going to war with Iraq was WMDs, but they had none prior
to the invasion.
That was _one_ of the reasons, yes.
You know as well as I do that the two primary reasons given were that
Saddam had WMDs and that he had links to the 9/11 attacks. How many
times did the Bush administration mention "mushroom clouds?" How many
times did they mention 9/11 and Iraq in the same breath?
If you want to pretend that none of that happened, and that the Congress
and public would have been eager to wage a preemptive war just to
"spread freedom and liberty," then I think you are not being realistic.
Of course he had them 20 years earlier. At the time Saddam was
using chemical weapons, we were rooting for him in his war with
Iran.
What about the Sarin shell that injured our guys, Nate? Don't they
count? Did it not exist? Couple liters of Sarin, what, that's not
enough M to be a W of MD?
No, one twenty year old leftover sarin shell from the Iran-Iraq war
is not enough for me to want to go into a war that costs thousands of
lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
And yet, it shows that there were WMD there that were not declared.
He had his trailers mothballed & stored. If he was acting in good
faith, why would he have and store those trailers, Nate?
Who said he was acting in good faith besides you?
As for those trailers, they are only one in a long line of
exaggerations:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...977853,00.html
You're a fool if you don't think that's what was going on when the
UN was pussyfooting around saying "Oh, pleeeeease let us come in?
Come on, Pleeeeease?".
At the end the UNMOVIC guys were going anywhere they wanted with no
notice. You know that.
Yes, he was done hiding his stuff by then.
Why do you guys continue to disbelieve the final report of the
President's own handpicked chief investigator:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...ne_Events.html
So I think you are intentionally exaggerating.
And still nothing was found.
It's not that easy to move large quantities of WMDs, as Iraq was
supposed to have. We had surveillance overflights, satellites, etc
etc looking for just that.
Ten years is a long time.
Ibid.
We know they _HAD_ WMDs. We know we haven't found much of them
yet. "no links to 9/11" is arguable at best. Why did he have those
bio-lab trailers buried, I wonder? What _is_ with those uranium
enhancing centrifuge parts? How many more sarin shells are still
"wups, forgot that one too" buried?
Bio lab trailers? That was really laughable. Do you know anything
about science ... chemical, biological, or nuclear materials? Ever
seen a chemical plant or a pharmaceutical plant? Do you suppose that
companies like Dow and Amgen spend hundreds of millions of dollars
building manufacturing plants when they could just as easily do it in
a "mobile tractor trailer?"
Why don't you tell that to the CIA? Here's the link that Fred
didn't understand:
http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/iraq.../index.html#07
Yeah, that is another embarrassment for the CIA, isn't it? And
embarrassing that Colin Powell showed all those glossy slides of those
trailers to the UN, too:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...977853,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/09/in...al/09WEAP.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/26/in...al/26WEAP.html
What centrifuge parts do you mean? The incomplete parts buried in
some guy's backyard in 1991?
Incomplete, yes, but critical parts to rebuilding the program.
Please comment on the trailers, though, it'd be interesting to
see how you twist it. "I don't trust the CIA" is I expect what
your answer will be.
See above.
I personally think we should have kicked ass, set up the new guy
(or not), and got the hell out. But, going in needed to be done.
Yeah, a bunch of you guys on the right want to get out now that the
going is messy. Unfortunately leaving now creates a much bigger mess
than if we had done nothing. So we have to stay and clean up the
problem that was created.
Which, the problem of us rebuilding the infrastructure, or the
problem of us having removed the dictator?
Silly.
You probably won't acknowledge Libya's disarming is a result of
Bush's decisions either, I suppose.
No, I don't.
Imagine my surprise.
Libya had been trying to rejoin the international
community since 1998, when it turned over the two terror suspects for
the Lockerbie bombing. In early 2001, Libya was lobbying through
Britain for lifting of UN sanctions.
And yet, nothing moved until we were in the neighborhood with
an army.
Libya had been trying to negotiate to lift sanctions for several years
prior to Iraq. Trying to attribute Libya's previous actions to the Iraq
war is wishful thinking.
Long as they're no longer a threat to us, sorry, but they can
(and will) go on killing each other without hurting my feelings.
We're not going to change their little thousand-year grudge, but
we can limit the scope of how it threatens us or our allies.
Do you really think there will be less threat to us if one of the
largest countries in the Middle East is either in civil war or under
a Shiite fundamentalist government?
If they're fighting each other, that's better than them fighting
us. So sure, kill each other, weaken each other. Keeps 'em busy
and off our doorstep.
Wow. Do you think the threat to us is from the Iraqis???
The Iraqis have not been a threat since Gulf War I. The threat to us is
from Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. One of the principal goals of
Al Qaeda is to undermine and topple all secular nations in the Middle
East, and to spread Taliban-style theocracy. Not only does our war in
Iraq destabilize one of the largest secular countries in the region, it
also empowers the Shiite majority that is most closely allied with
fundamentalist Iran. Plus, the war in Iraq is a recruiting boon for Bin
Laden, and it's an efficient training ground for terrorists. Surely you
have heard of Al-Zarqawi and his group, recently renamed "Al Qaeda in
Iraq."
The world's 5th largest standing army (iirc), lead by a murderous
dictator, was neutralized, and further (potential) deployment of
WMDs was halted.
There was no active WMD program.
^^^^^^
Active being the operative word. Now, it'll hopefully be harder for
them to restart their WMD programs as well.
Do they need WMDs? Where are those, what, 330 tons of high grade
plastic explosives that went missing? Do you suppose any of that
ended up with Al Zaqari, and through him over to Osama?
I see, so now Nate says "Why worry about WMD when they have other
weapons". Interesting twist. I don't trust 'em at all, especially
with WMD.
Yeah, we are definitely safer now.
Good thing the UN was on top of things, eh?
You blame the UN?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...orld/sns-iraq-
munitions,1,7437110.story?coll=chi-news-hed
Kind of speaks for itself.
Said brutal dictator is now in irons.
Funny how your type seems to think that's not important.
Brutal dictators are a dime a dozen in the world. And he's not much
different from some of the brutal dictators that we are calling
allies today.
Funny how your type seems to think that's not important.
I do think it is important that we are making alliances with people that
are nearly as bad as Saddam. Pakistan's exportation of nuclear weapons
technology is potentially much much worse than anything Saddam did. So
why did Musharraf pardon AQ Khan, and why is Musharraf our good buddy?
Other villians in the neighborhood are getting nervous. This was
the *real* reason to go to Iraq. Bush wants to bring the Middle
East peace and Jesus. But what is mostly needed there, is a
deep-seated fear of ****ing off the US. It worked in Libya
Damn right it did. But, he won't give Bush any credit for that,
watch.
I'll give Bush plenty of credit for ****ing off the Middle East.
The middle east is ****ed off that Libya disarmed? That's strange.
News flash: they've been ****ed off at us since the crusades.
I think you know why the Middle East (and most of the world) is ****ed
with the US. And that it is much worse now than it was previous to the
Iraq war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3518412.stm
http://people-press.org/commentary/d...?AnalysisID=77
Iran and North Korea are exhibiting their fear by making nukes as
quickly as possible.
So, do you think that's wise of them, all things considered?
Seems to be effective so far. You think we can take them all on at
once? You suppose we'll invade them once they have nukes?
Hard to say. The people who know more about it than you and I do,
know more about it than you and I do.
Wow. You obviously have a level of trust that I don't.