1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Bush, Cheney Concede Saddam Had No WMDs

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by JGrubbs, Oct 8, 2004.

  1. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps, but they still existed in violation of the UN treaty. In addition there were many unaccounted for munitions that Iraq was required to declare to the UN. These munitions have still not been accounted for apparently. In addition, Blix outlined mustard gas and other chemical weapons that they found in violation of the UN Resolution.

    Um ... Apparently not ...

    NEW YORK (CNN) -- An international group of experts has determined that Iraqi missiles can fly farther than allowed under U.N. resolutions, a Security Council diplomat said Wednesday. ...UNMOVIC had previously said 13 out of 40 recent tests of the Al Samoud missile went beyond the permitted range. UNMOVIC told Iraq to stop testing two missile systems, including the Al Samoud, until the U.N. analysis was completed.

    According to the Security Council diplomat, Blix will refer to the report when he addresses the council Friday. The report says Iraq's Al Samoud 2 missile "went beyond" the 150 kilometers (93 miles) allowed by the United Nations.

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/12/sprj.irq.wrap/

    More proof could be shown in support of this.


    I think that is an old wives tale, fit not to be told. There has not been any substantiation of that apart from opinion pieces. I think we would be better off staying away from those in the discussion here at hand.
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Is it not apparently true that these vast stockplies of WMD ready to be launched in 15 minutes were also an old wives tale?
     
  3. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, that depends on what you mean by "15 minutes". You may be unaware that according to the theory of relativity, time is a function of both speed and gravity. Fifteen minutes at a high speed, or in zero gravity, is not the same as 15 minutes where you sit.

    Do you have a statement from GW Bush defining the parameters under which the "15 minutes" were considered?

    If not, your question and its impliciation are based on speculation. I, on the other hand, have a love for the truth and therefore cannot criticize our President on this until the matter of relativity is cleared up. ;)
     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    It doesn't look like 15 years would have been enough time to launch an attack.
     
  5. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Probably not. Too bad so many had to die, and will continue to do so.
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, now it is ... But it wasn't then. At the time, the troops were prepared for chemical attacks because intelligence of the US and other nations said Saddam could launch it very quickly.

    Why do you think so many people have such a hard time separating what we know now from what the whole world believed to be true then? I do not understand the mentality that thinks we can fairly judge based on hindsight. In the interest of honesty and fairness, you cannot judge people by something which they had no means of knowing and which the preponderance of evidence showed to be false.

    How many of us would have made decisions differently in our lives if we were making them now as opposed to several years ago? I for one would love to have a do over in the stock market. I got burned big time. But I operated on teh best possible knowledge at the time. You don't get do overs in life. You go with what you got and make your decisions.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is bad that so many had to die. But it is good that millions are now not subject to Saddam's torture and murder. The people dead from the war have not even begun to come close to the people dead from Saddam. Life is precious ... even when it is Iraqi life.
     
  8. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0


    I think that is an old wives tale, fit not to be told. There has not been any substantiation of that apart from opinion pieces. I think we would be better off staying away from those in the discussion here at hand.
    </font>[/QUOTE]You may think it's an "old wives tale", but if you do then you are ignoring the facts.

    The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among it's founding members were: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush and Paul Wolfowitz. You can download a 95 page document fro the PNAC web site that lays out the plans for invading Iraq, in this document they state that this invasion will not be possible unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

    This is not an "old wives tale" based on "opinion pieces", but facts straight from the leadership in the Bush administration.
     
  9. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is bad that so many had to die. But it is good that millions are now not subject to Saddam's torture and murder. The people dead from the war have not even begun to come close to the people dead from Saddam. Life is precious ... even when it is Iraqi life. </font>[/QUOTE]There is such a double standard held by those who justify killing over 100,000 of our troops and thousands of Iraqi civilians to free "millons" who were "subject to Saddam's torture and murder", why saying we simply need to wait for the right judges to free the millions of babys being butcherd in America every year.

    If war was justified to remove Saddam, then Civil War is justified to end abortion in America.
     
  10. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Inherent in the definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction is the idea that the weapons are actually capable of actual mass destruction.
     
  11. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    It is bad that so many had to die. But it is good that millions are now not subject to Saddam's torture and murder. The people dead from the war have not even begun to come close to the people dead from Saddam. Life is precious ... even when it is Iraqi life. </font>[/QUOTE]All over this world there are evil men brutalising their populations like Saddam Hussein did. Millions are dying under the rule of tyrants in Sudan, the Congo, North Korea, and elsewhere. Are we going to sacrifice the lives of our young people to solve these problems as well?
     
  12. leesw

    leesw Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    3
    Senator John Kerry: "Saddam Hussein took us to war once before. In that war, young Americans were killed. He went to war in order to take over the oil fields. It wasn't just an invasion of Kuwait. He was heading for the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. And that would have had a profound effect on the security of the United States.

    This is a man who has used weapons of mass destruction, unlike other people on this Earth today, not only against other people but against his own people. This is a man who tried to assassinate a former president of the United States, a man who lobbed 36 missiles into Israel in order to destabilize the Middle East, a man who is so capable of miscalculation that he even brought this war on himself. This is a man who, if he was left uncaptured, would have continued to be able to organize the Ba'athists. He would have continued to terrorize the people." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 1/11/04)
     
  13. leesw

    leesw Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    3
    "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected." --John Kerry New York Times December 17, 2003
     
  14. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that is the Bush administrations plan, "to rid the world of evil". If they do plan on spending the lives of 100,000 of our troops in every country where "evil men brutalising their populations like Saddam Hussein", then they would deffinetly need to re-instate the draft. :(
     
  15. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    No one could seriously doubt that the world is better off without Saddam in power, but there are dozens of other men of which the same could be said.

    The point is we went to get WMD that weren't there. We read that EVERYONE thought there were there. I disagree, I thought, along with many others, that the evidence was tenuous. Some people, a very small minority, were right.
     
  16. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is bad that so many had to die. But it is good that millions are now not subject to Saddam's torture and murder. The people dead from the war have not even begun to come close to the people dead from Saddam. Life is precious ... even when it is Iraqi life. </font>[/QUOTE]There is such a double standard held by those who justify killing over 100,000 of our troops and thousands of Iraqi civilians to free "millons" who were "subject to Saddam's torture and murder", why saying we simply need to wait for the right judges to free the millions of babys being butcherd in America every year.

    If war was justified to remove Saddam, then Civil War is justified to end abortion in America.
    </font>[/QUOTE]To them it's not a double standard. The standard is: defend GW Bush, right or wrong, regardless of the consequences.

    It's incredible, but you can see it as well as I can. It's idol worship at its worst.
     
  17. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    So what? He was trying to get them... and intentionally deceiving people about it. That's like saying "he didn't murder the person... he just TRIED to murder the person - he must a good guy after all".

    I would continue echoing the sentiments of Democrat & Clinton lacky Dick Morris who mentioned that "Hitler had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, but we went after Germany in WWII".

    It is our intelligence's responsibility to make us aware of possible threats... and Saddam clearly had WMD at one time (which he used) and also there were well documented ties with terror. Hitler didn't bomb Pearl Harbor, but he was a significant part of the Facism that was trying to come against the world, and against the US. Saddam is the same thing - he is a supporter of terror will ill intentions towards the US and our allies (including Israel). We did the right thing by freeing Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein - just as we did the right thing by helping the world get rid of Hitler.
     
  18. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I haven't seen anyone here justify killing over 100,000 of our troop. THat would be more than 75% of the force over there. And there is no double standard. There are clear differences to those not blind to them. I would be in favor of much stronger steps in outlawing abortion. I am one of hte few here, as I recall, who support charging both doctors who commit abortion and women who have them with first degree murder. I have been criticized for that position in the past. But there are clear differences between that issue and this one.
     
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes and no ... YOu should be aware by now that "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is a category or type of weapon. A substance that is a WMD is always a WMD, even if it loses some of its potency. Having said that, there have been WMDs found, as well as substances to make WMDs, as well as programs in place to pursue them, as well as other violations of the UN resolution.

    All of that is review which you should know by now. I am not sure why it is still being questioned ... apart from political bias.
     
  20. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    When all of those places meet the same standard as Iraq, then it would be considered. Though this argument is often brought up, it lacks serious contemplation and analogy. Those places are not the same as Iraq.
     
Loading...