New report confirms WMD fears in Iraq were legitimate

Discussion in '2008 Archive' started by I Am Blessed 24, Feb 11, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Robert Spencer, one of the nation's leading experts on the Islamic religion, says he doesn't understand why the Bush administration has not jumped on a recent report that confirms former dictator Saddam Hussein intended to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction.

    Recently CBS's 60 Minutes aired an interview with George Piro, a Lebanese-born FBI agent, who debriefed Saddam Hussein following his capture in December 2003. Piro was able to get Hussein to admit that while he did not have active WMD programs in 2003, he wanted to reconstitute all of them -- chemical, biological, and even nuclear.

    THE REST OF THE STORY
     
  2. Dagwood

    Dagwood
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Intending and having are two different things. Saddam did not actually have the weapons he was invaded for having. A mistake.
     
  3. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    They could find tons and tons of wmd's and it still wouldn't appease the anti=war crowd.
     
  4. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since Iraq has used wmd's in the past, I see problem believing they had them before the war.




    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

    http://www.fair.org/extra/0209/iraq-gas.html
     
  5. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even if he had them, he was there and we are here:

    I think we have more to fear from Russia or China than we ever had from Iraq. They have the power to reach us from there. ......I know this is a change of position than what I had in 2002, after repeated attempts of UN inspectors during the Clinton and early Bush years....

    I used to think maybe there was justification to protect Israel..... however, that idea has changed too since our state department seems to encourage and presure Israel to give up and give in more and more: AND, like Ron Paul says, our country gives more money and military aid to the countries which surround Israel, than it does to Israel.

    But now I see much of our foreign policy as a smoke screen.... just like much of the domestic policy: it is designed to enlarge debt; it is designed to focus us on certain concerns while other developments are takng place which is weakening our internal strength; it designed more to manipulate us into laws and bigger government designed to separate the people from their wealth and lively hood and their freedoms.

    ============

    People running for office are bold to talk about 'universal' compliance i.e. medical insurance.... and no one seems to notice the underlying threat, greater than being sick, and that is the threat of taking more of our money with 'the promise' that government will provide better than we can if given back our own freedom of choice and a competitive society in which to work; (and believe me I'm in a spot w/o insurance, unemployed, living on a 401-k that is both taxed and penalized for pre social security withdrawal: a cancer survivor w/o insurance just depending on the LORD.)

    I have a current infection being treated with $4.oo generic antibiotic prescribed by a local walk in clinic for $40 a visit. Lab and x-rays are available by referral to another place which also charges upfront cash, but is considerably discounted from customary charges still due when I had insurance and went to the preferred providers..... Go figure. Now its a non insurance, non government, a private medical practice ..... vs those other preferred provider insurance back or government backed (medicare/caid) clinics.


    :godisgood:
     
    #5 windcatcher, Feb 11, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2008
  6. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    The question nobody seems to be asking is, even if Saddam did have WMDs or secret programs to manufacture them...how does that change our constitution?

    It's pretty clear that if we're going to attack another country for any reason at all there must first be a declaration of war from congress. Not a UN resolution.

    The suspicions of the president and all his men and the constant fear mongering from the mass media and it's corporate benefactors or permission from congress to "use force" against another country should mean nothing to Americans absent a constitutional declaration of war.

    Anything short of a declaration of war is unlawful it shouldn't matter if "wmd fears in Iraq" were confirmed or not. What should matter is that we've watched our "leaders" take us into one nation building military adventure after another without demanding an end to this unconstitutional practice.
     
    #6 poncho, Feb 14, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2008
  7. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Wouldn't change our constitution if we found a million tons of the stuff. Apparently it's alot easier to appease the pro nation building crowd than to talk law with them. All you gotta do is throw a good scare into them and they're ready to toss the law aside and use the military for bigger and better nation building experiments that are quickly proving to be our biggest downfall.

    In other words you can't have an "anti war crowd" if there is no war and legally speaking we aren't at war with anyone.

    Being pro nation building and making excuses for unconstitutional actions on the part "our governemt" is the same as being anti american imho but don't worry to much about it at least you can take comfort in being part of the in crowd whatever that is..
     
    #7 poncho, Feb 14, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2008
  8. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,619
    Likes Received:
    158
    I see nothing threatening in Saddam's wanting weapons of mass destruction. I expect every dictator in the world would like to have WMD. Wanting them and having them is very different. We know that N. Korea has them and yet nothing has been done about them. Yes we have talked and talked and talked, but then N. Korea has no oil or other natural resources we are interested in and they have a large military that is not ill equipped. Iran wants them and has made moves toward developing them and heaven knows taking on Iran is a different kettle of fish from invading Iraq. Plus our military is spread so thin from the Iraq misadventure that we are practically unable to respond to any new crisis.:tonofbricks:
     
  9. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since the Bush administration(and others) were wrong about Iraq having WMDs at least so far they have the good sense not to use the "he was dreaming about having them" argument.

    Our own National Intelligence Estimate states that Iran is not attempting to build a nuclear weapon. I think that the whole "Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons" was a bogeyman created by neo-cons to try to start a third war during the Bush administration.
     
  10. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    But there were none, yet it doesn't matter to the pro-war crowd.
     
  11. Dagwood

    Dagwood
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bingo!

    If Saddam had possessed these WMD's as the Bush administration said that he had, he would have used them on the invading U.S. troops. He didn't use them because he did not have them.
     
  12. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    The very fact that he used wmd's in the past, means he had wmd's. But people act as if they never exsisted. Which history proves wrong.
     
  13. Dagwood

    Dagwood
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gee, maybe he used the WMDs he had in his war with Iran.

    Surely since Saddam used WMDs in the past, if he still possessed them, he would have used them against our soldiers during the U.S. invasion.
     
  14. Rubato 1

    Rubato 1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    0
    Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction. (I enjoyed typing 'was'). All of world history and foreign policies up to 60-70 years ago would have seen the US as more than justified to take the action it did. Iran was an active enemy of our state and that of our best friend, Israel (as are a lot of other nations).
     
  15. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93
    And ain't that too bad? If he had them, then there would have been reason to invade and get mass-destructed.
     
  16. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    People say he never had them, apparently he did.
     
  17. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    History proves he did.
     
  18. Dagwood

    Dagwood
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't dispute that Saddam had them, we sold or gave them to him.

    He, obviously did not possess them before the start of the current war, which is the main reason he was invaded! This war was started based on false information!
     
  19. The Scribe

    The Scribe
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. ;)

    Hussein was a rogue dictator that should have been taken out of power in the first Gulf war. That was Bush Sr's fault.
     
  20. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hardly. George H.W. Bush had enough good sense to avoid the quagmire and killing field that George W. Bush has created in Iraq due to his poor planning.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...