Search for WMDs Called off

[RZetlin]

Search for WMD in Iraq ended: Effort folded shortly before Christmas

Iraq leaders admit nationwide vote impossible, hunt ends for WMD

Of course the search has been called off after the election.

And there were so many Bush supporters that were 100% certain that WMDs were in Iraq.

[Boltzmann]

Just wait until they [the Bush supporters] come up with excuses about the UN letting Saddam move them WMDs out of the country, or bury them down. Or something else equally pathetic.

/me goes away before he's accused of "crusading"

[Blade556]

The CIA sold Iraq their Chemical Weapons 10 years ago. How could they not know that there were some there? They even used those weapons to gas the Kurds (Not the Iraqi's), who were told to rebel against Iraq by former president George W. Bush. During the Annihilation of the Kurds, the USA really didn't do anything about it, they just sat back and watched them get slaughtered.

You can find an article about that in the Sunday Sun, which is a Canadian Paper.

[RZetlin]

As for the explanation that the WMDs were moved, Powell was showing off all those satellite pictures to the world.

You would think one of those satellite images would show those 500 pound nukes being moved to Iran or some other country.

[netghost2.0]

The WMD argument is a dead horse. I think most people who supported Iraq War II are currently using or switching to the "democratization" or "democracy domino effect" rationale. It's actually a very clever argument despite being somewhat disingenuous and appealing to Americans' tendency "to do something". Here's a summary of it:

"Yes, the original justification of the war (i.e. WMD) may have been false or over-exaggerated. But so what? What's done is done... you pinko/libbie/communists are not proposing any solutions to the current problem! All you do it whine and *****; make some constructive proposals! You don't really care about the Iraqi people! (oldest trick in the book: good ol' appeal to emotion never hurts!) If it were up to you, Saddam Hussein would still be murdering Iraqis. The war saved Iraqi lives in the end! (second oldest trick: utilitarian argument) The anti-war movement and the free press are a traitorous 'fifth column' who secretly hoping for America's defeat in Iraq. Where's the good news?

By the way, John Kerry would have been worse."

Overall, it's a "better" argument than the laughable "imminent threat" or "Saddam will eventually get nukes and pass it on terrorists" BS that has been plaguing political discussions several months ago.

[Kane]

All because the French found them and wanted to cover up the fact they were wrong

[__Xzyx987X]

It makes no difference whether the WMDs were there or not. Republicans would find some way to justify the war even if it turned out that Sadam was actually the best leader Iraq had ever had, and all those stories about the bad things he did were lies. Seriously, Bush has started a huge war with no justification, put us trillions in debt... At this point I think the man could commit murder and no one would call him on it (if you don't already consider what he's done in Iraq murder.)

[Player-X]

I can't feel symphatatic to them and I am in between prefering bush and hating him, for one thing due to his squndering the US currency has fallen and American products here are getting less expensive yet I can't say I support him as the next target could be here

[bahamut_2006]

Originally Posted by Player-X

the next target could be here

I highly doubt that, considering the state of the American military and the fact, that to my knowledge, we have no quarrel with Malaysia. The American military, despite how powerful it is, is not large enough for what Bush wants it to do. I doubt he will go into another country like he did in Iraq, and even if he did, it would be Iran, North Korea, or China (if Taiwan declares independence and China responds with force.) Though if Bush has half a brain, he would stay out of those countries. I feel that their is no need for us to change the government of a country when it is one that we do not approve of, or is not in our best interest. Now about the WMD's. I believed it at the start of the war like many Americans did. However, I was also certain that no teams sent in would find any. Why? Well either Saddam had them and he got rid of them beforehand since he saw what was coming and wanted us to look like idiots, or he may not of had them at all. Their are too many conflicting and biased reports to be certain either way, and it really doesnt matter that much since that arguement was dropped months ago. Bush just wanted a good reason for changing the government. Now I aint against democracy in Iraq, but the cost of the war financially and of life makes one wonder if it was really worth the trouble. And now with us and the interim government saying some areas (Sunni Muslim of course) are not safe enough for voting, that will most likely seriously undermine the credibility of the election. If the election goes well and we can give Iraqis control of their own security soon then the war, though costly in so many ways, may have been worth it if the country gets to experience democracy.

[Narrrf]

Great, another Bush-bashing thread. Gee, I hardly know where to start...

How about the "Saddam was a great guy" slur?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.graves/
Yeah, whatever. Anyways, that's just the gist of it. Try googling mass graves, torture chambers, Saddam, atrocities, and Iraq. See what you get yeah?

There's no doubt that Saddam had Wmd. He used them for crying out loud. Ever hear of "Black Friday"? The question is just what happened to them.

Dang all of my other outdated links. I'll be back.

[bahamut_2006]

If I had to say either way, I would agree with you since the UN said themselves their was WMD unaccounted for. However, some will ignore that since when we searched nothing was found, hence the only "possible" answer is that the UN, and the US, were wrong. That possibility can be debated til the end of time and it wont make any difference. Personally, I intend to stick with my opinion. I know their are many who feel Bush invaded Iraq for different reasons. I cant rule that out as a possibility, but for the time being I dont agree with it. Just as long as the election goes well and the troops come home soon and maybe we can put this behind us.

[_E_]

Originally Posted by Narrrf

Great, another Bush-bashing thread. Gee, I hardly know where to start...

How about the "Saddam was a great guy" slur?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.graves/
Yeah, whatever. Anyways, that's just the gist of it. Try googling mass graves, torture chambers, Saddam, atrocities, and Iraq. See what you get yeah?

There's no doubt that Saddam had Wmd. He used them for crying out loud. Ever hear of "Black Friday"? The question is just what happened to them.

Dang all of my other outdated links. I'll be back.

So you are saying, Saddam was the evil devil while the US was the Iraqi's only ray of hope to save them from his tyranny? I bet it doesnt matter to them anymore, a tyrannt has replaced another tyrannt. Nothing's changed except the country's gone worse.

Yours,
-Elly

[netghost2.0]

Originally Posted by Narrrf

Great, another Bush-bashing thread. Gee, I hardly know where to start...

How about the "Saddam was a great guy" slur?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.graves/
Yeah, whatever. Anyways, that's just the gist of it. Try googling mass graves, torture chambers, Saddam, atrocities, and Iraq. See what you get yeah?

There's no doubt that Saddam had Wmd. He used them for crying out loud. Ever hear of "Black Friday"? The question is just what happened to them.

Dang all of my other outdated links. I'll be back.

Oh please... let's invade the entire continent of Africa, the Middle East, etc. etc. etc. if we're going to use the "humanitarian" rationale.

At least be consistent in your principles if you're going to use "it's for the Iraqi people" BS.

As for Saddam having WMD... I guess Charles Duelfer and Scott Ritter and other weapons inspectors are dead wrong... but you know better, right? And damn, those WMD can just magically disappear without any signs or evidence of removal because they are just THAT easy to transport. And please, let's not confuse WMD with biological warfare which is a whole category in itself.

In 1996, Richard Danzig stated that: "We must declare our independence from the term "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD), and recognize that biological weapons have special characteristics that distinguish them from chemical and nuclear weapons."

Slate published an excellent article with a very strong argument that chemical and biological weapons do not constitute "Weapons of Mass Destruction":

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2070188

[Seta-San]

i agree with most of that and in fact iraqi lives are being saved. I think by only a couple hundred a year last i heard, which was sometime in november. also this has brought out the terrorists and given as a place abroad to fight them rather than at home. war sucks, it truely does but these guys are stupid. They just don't get if they stop attacking us we'll no longer have a politically viable reason to be there and then they could sneak in as many terrorists into the country and topple the government. Instead they are wasting their time attacking americans.

Originally Posted by netghost2.0

The WMD argument is a dead horse. I think most people who supported Iraq War II are currently using or switching to the "democratization" or "democracy domino effect" rationale. It's actually a very clever argument despite being somewhat disingenuous and appealing to Americans' tendency "to do something". Here's a summary of it:

"Yes, the original justification of the war (i.e. WMD) may have been false or over-exaggerated. But so what? What's done is done... you pinko/libbie/communists are not proposing any solutions to the current problem! All you do it whine and *****; make some constructive proposals! You don't really care about the Iraqi people! (oldest trick in the book: good ol' appeal to emotion never hurts!) If it were up to you, Saddam Hussein would still be murdering Iraqis. The war saved Iraqi lives in the end! (second oldest trick: utilitarian argument) The anti-war movement and the free press are a traitorous 'fifth column' who secretly hoping for America's defeat in Iraq. Where's the good news?

By the way, John Kerry would have been worse."

Overall, it's a "better" argument than the laughable "imminent threat" or "Saddam will eventually get nukes and pass it on terrorists" BS that has been plaguing political discussions several months ago.

[Narrrf]

Originally Posted by Elly

So you are saying, Saddam was the evil devil while the US was the Iraqi's only ray of hope to save them from his tyranny?

Umm... yes? The U.N. certainly wasn't doing anything. Besides taking billions and billions of dollars in bribes of course.

Originally Posted by netghost2.0

Oh please... let's invade the entire continent of Africa, the Middle East, etc. etc. etc. if we're going to use the "humanitarian" rationale.

Well, why not? I never said I had a problem with that. Might've even saved a Rwandan or two, or a Kurd or three.
Try not to be so narrow minded in attacking my principles yeah? I never said it was the chief reason. It's not even the most important one. However, it is the most endearing effect thus far and shouldn't be marginalized the way some people are doing right now.

What some people forget is that we had reason to go after Saddam since day 1 of the second Gulf War. He invaded Kuwait, (a sovereign nation), first. He even managed to burn it's oilfields in his hasty retreat. He launched scud missiles at Israel. He murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. He refused to comply with UN resolutions first. The U.S.A. was reactionary the whole time. The time for that has gone.

As for biological weapons not being called WMD, I say to leftist Slate, "Whatever!" That article's so bad I hardly know where to start. Needless to say, I didn't find their case to be quite as strong as you say. It's semantics is what it is. And a subtle apologetic.

...?