But America attacked Iraq because Bush convinced the people that Saddam had weapons of "Mass destruction" and had the power to use them on American soil. In terms of "Mass destruction" people think of "Nukes".

Unless Sadamn had missiles and warheads packed with tons of mustard gas or sarin that could reach the US. I hardly call him a threat to America, only to his own people and countries around him.

Weapons of
Mass
Deception

bush has an agenda and it has nothing to do with WMD's

I found some sarin in my butt

Have the United Nations ever sent peacekeeping operations there?

good point
although i dont think we've taken steps back, i just think our forces just werent trained to play the roll of police. also, finding the weapons now, a year ago, or a year from now isnt the point. he had them at one point and used them(for sure), wanted them and had the money to get them. thinking there was no chance he had any or could get any is just ignorant.

Only an idiot equates "weapons of mass destruction" as being only Nuclear weapons btw. the whole world has been told what the United Nations turned up in Iraq pre-war, and what the United States were looking for in Iraq.

Read carefully

"Unless Sadamn had missiles and warheads packed with tons of mustard gas or sarin that could reach the US. I hardly call him a threat to America"

That is the problem I have with this entire mess. As I mentioned earlier I think Bush rushed into this way to fast. He himself said it would be a long road that would take many years. He was questioned as to an exit plan. No concrete answer was ever given.

Why weren't the soldiers trained to play the role of police? He knew we were going to be there a while. He knew we were going in with just Blair firmly on our side. Where is the peace keeping forces. He rushed in and its a fucking mess now.

I wonder why we pay all these analysts all across the world for intelligence, right here on GFY someone declared Iraq not a threat, well let's all pack up and go home.

Are missiles and warheads the only delivery mechanism for Chemical/Biological weapons? and do they all have to be able to reach the United States from Iraq?

The ceasefire should have ended the minute Saddam broke his ceasfire deal. 9/11 or no 9/11.

Well, Bush told everyone that Iraq was a threat to America. This is why the war started...........

You didn't answer the question(s)?

Missiles would be the only choice if you wanted something massive. If Saddam wanted to cause harm in more primitive means, he would have done it a long time ago.

lol, no, you're right, this solves it. They found one old harmless shell with sarin gas in it that didn't hurt anyone. That means Bush didn't lie about the WMD stockpiles. The war was justified after all.

I can't even begin to understand how simple someone's mind must be, for them to be able to convince themselves of bullshit like this.

i didnt say 1 round makes the war justified. my point was if they find 1 round or 5000, it wont be enough for some people.

Are you simple minded enough to think that is the only one?

primitive means? missiles and rockets are not the only deliverable mechanism(s) and none of the others are primitive either.

Aerosolized spray delivered from planes, delivery from conventionall arms (mortar, rockets, artillary shells, bombs) nerve agents can kill in undetectable doses, aerosolized delivery by any means in a city, or otherwise crowded area would lead to high death tolls, it's highly unlikely Saddam Hussein would have used any of them to attack the United States directly, however his support of terrorist organizations like Hamas and his possession of such weapons and attempts to hide them does make you wonder what he did intend them for.

When he quoted a "harmless" shell with "sarin gas in it" I had to laugh.

Actually, no, that's a typical right wing cop-out. The stockpiles Bush quoted in his state of the union address would do everyone just fine. I believe it was 25,000 litres of Anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents, several mobile biological weapons labs, and an advanced nuclear weapons development program. If that fucker pulls anything resembling that kind of a threat out of a hole in the sand then this war argument will turn in debate. Until then Bush is a lying war criminal and anyone who continues to support him and make excuses for him is a fool, period.

If he wanted to, he would have done it a long time ago. :2 cents:

yeah, no one's laughing when you guys call an old bomb that injured no one a weapon of mass destruction. When it went off, did it produce the mushroom cloud Bush was nice enough to warn us about?

convienient it took them this long.. till bush started losing in the polls when they found something, I dont buy it

That's rather funny numbers are you sure? I saw the United Nations only estimated 150-200 metric tonnes of Sarin, 2,245 gallons of Antharax (United Nations estimated three times that amount) 5,125 gallons of botulinum toxin (United Nations estimated twice that amount)
Even the United Nations disputed that he had destroyed all of his stuff.

Please. don't fart :Graucho

They found one 20 years old artillery shell.
It has been dated back to Iraq-Iran war

I almost thought you said Saddam would post a thread on GFY :Graucho

If there's really 550 mustard gas shells out there, why the hell did they just use one? And why did it take so long for them to use it? Did some terrorist trip over it while walking in the desert and decided to use it? :helpme

When was date ( FYI, a date ?)

Am I going by your reasoning again? because last time I checked he had vast quantites of chemical/biological weapons before the Gulf war and did not use them, so what is the difference? I even stated that he would not use them directly, the concern is more to his support of groups like Hamas, and what is his intentions were in trying to keep his chemical weapons?

Apparently those who rigged it as a road side bomb didn't know exactly what it was and didn't use it correctly. What worries me a bit is that whoever rigged that shell probably knows what was in it now and knows where he/they got it and where a bunch more are hidden.

well one, it was a improvised weapon, and it was not detonated by the means it was intended, you keep saying it dated back to the Iran-Iraq war, but the United Nations were inspecting and searching for the same weapons for years in Iraq (and did find lots of them however) so it is likely this is just a round that slipped through the cracks, the question is how many of these weapons are still unaccounted for, and were they hidden by the regime or were they lost weapons from an old war?

That's the bullshit Bush was feeding the public while Hans Blitz was insisting that Iraq posed no threat to the world. What does he know, he's only the UN weapons inspector who was searching Iraq. Why would he know more than a bunch of neocon chickenhawks?

Don't take my word for it...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030128-19.html


hmm, how much is 500 tons of sarin anyway? Can it fit into one 20 year old spent shell buried in the dessert? :1orglaugh

Funny how you back the United Nations in one message, when the United Nations themselves stated they did not believe Saddam Hussein gave a true and full accounting of his Chemical/Biological program and that lots of his delivery mechanisms and agents were unaccounted for.

the one they found today, either made recent or one from 20 years ago, just proves what the president said. he had the weapons. i seriously doubt this is the ONLY one in iraq. i guess he was right and saddam didnt really destroy all of them.

28. You have to believe that there were never any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, even though they were used against Iran, the Kurds and the the Iraqi people and even though the many Democrats warned us about WMD before the Iraqi invasion: William Jefferson Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, Robert Byrd, Jay Rockefeller, John Kerry, Bob Graham, Ted Kennedy, Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman and vice-president Al Gore to name only the most vociferous.

- THE POLITICALLY CORRECT LEFTWING LIBERAL HANDBOOK

Probably immediately after signing it. The date he first kicked out inspectors would serve as a good date I suppose. I don't know the exact date that was but it could probably be easily found with a google search.

edit: probably a better time would be the first time he blocked inspectors from accessing a site they wished to inspect. I don't know when that was either.

You don't get it. I'm not saying "Saddam Hussein gave a true and full accounting of his chemical/biological program". I'm saying that he didn't pose an imminent threat to anyone and that there was no need to invade without cause. The UN agreed before the war and they agree now, so does 90% of the world. We're right, it's been proven day after day and unfortunately it's only going to keep getting worse and worse. The sooner you can admit to yourself that maybe you fell for a bunch of bullshit from Bush the better.

WOW.... Now your point of Iraq breaking a " cease fire" isd very strong... LOL


BTW, they never did ... You do your own google search... after all, you brought it up ... I understand that now americans just have to say " to make it a fact", but not this time...

And read about the expulsions of the UN inspectors, more closely the americans covert ones....

:2 cents:

Kay = former head of US inspectors

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...100798,00.html

No. But they border with Kuwait, whom they've already attacked or have you forgotten that?

The U.N agreed, and the U.N said so? I am so appeased - after all the U.N did enforce their ruling when he expelled the inspectors, they also enforced their rulings when the U.N inspectors were denied access to facilities, they also enforced their decision when Saddam Hussein was ordering his forces to fire on British, and American aircraft in the no fly zones?

Where did anyone every say that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction? It's pretty simple, but I guess not simple enough for some. They didn't have the weapons 18 months ago and they don't have them now. You fools are so desperate for something to cling to that you're trying to turn one old shell into a reason to go to war. Tell that to the 5,000 vets who have lost limbs so far, when they're begging for change for the rest of their lives because you're to scared to question what you're told.

Americans are now so caring about Kuwait... lol

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/18/features-crogan2.php

Ok so are you saying Saddam never blocked access to any sites and never kicked out inspectors or that doing so wasn't a breach of the ceasefire?

Last time: repeat after me:

The no fly zones are NOT UN resolutions or measures.


but unilateral acts of the US-UK and originally France....


Repeat it 10 times, so you stop blabbing rumors.

Yeah you really have an understanding of what went on. Let me guess, you read the Fox ticker a lot? Fucking wake up, if there was a reason to go to war the UN would have approved it. You, George Bush, and about 40 million evangelical Christians still believe in this war, everyone else in the world knows it's bullshit. History will obviously prove us right, no matter how loud your pundits talk.

You idiots say, "well how many WMD would he have to have to satisfy you". How about this, how proven wrong would you have to be before you admit it? No WMD... You're still not wrong. We're liberators, they'll be waiving US flags in the streets... you're still not wrong. Bin Laden - 9/11 connection... you're still not wrong. Torturing innocent prisoners... still not wrong.

One day you'll have to stop listening to the rhetoric and look at the situation with your own eyes. Your eyes don't lie, Bush does. Remember that proven fact the next time you read a pentagon briefing that's passing for a news story and don't question it for a second.

There is a big difference in the change of the administration of the United States,
President Clintons response to the killing of U.S civilians by terrorists were targeted cruise missiles on empty terrorist camps in Afghanistan, President Bush response was a war against a country that supported the Terrorists, President Clintons response to the
expulsion of the U.N inspectors was a bombing raid on Iraq (Operation DesertFox) followed by nothing more, President Bush went to war (rightly or wrongly?) with Iraq.

No, I'm saying you don't have a clue .