We did dective work in Iraq for 14 years and almost as many UN resolutions. If the weapons were moved out it was because of the simple fact that multilateralism at the UN was not effective. Like /^Blackmagik^\ said, for the longest time the UN insectors could not go into palaces. It only seems logical to me that if I had something that another person wanted to find I would hide it in the one place they could not go. The UN should have had unfettered access from day 1 to the whole of Iraq like they did 14 years later.

And there is still no proof that the weapons are not there, nor is there proof as to where they are. The only thing there is proof of is that as of 1998/1999 they were in Iraq and there was a large quantity of them and no record or proof of them being destroyed.

 

The Washington Post March 16, 2003

"Despite the Bush administration's claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, U.S. intelligence agencies have been unable to give Congress or the Pentagon specific information about the amounts of banned weapons or where they are hidden. ... Senior intelligence analysts say they feel caught between the demands from White House, Pentagon and other government policymakers for intelligence that would make the administration's case.

Administration officials, in making the case against Iraq, repeatedly have failed to mention the considerable amount of documented weapons destruction that took place in Iraq between 1991 and 1998. . In that period, under U.N. supervision, Iraq destroyed 817 of 819 proscribed medium-range missiles, 14 launchers, 9 trailers and 56 fixed missile-launch sites. It also destroyed 73 of 75 chemical or biological warheads and 163 warheads for conventional explosives. U.N. inspectors also supervised destruction of 88,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions, more than 600 tons of weaponized and bulk chemical weapons agents, 4,000 tons of precursor chemicals and 980 pieces of equipment considered key to production of such weapons."
As I recall, Iraq also destroyed a large amount of their Al-Samoud 2 Long range missiles in the weeks before the war.
And you didnt respond to my previous post. Don't you think that that was questionable evidence?

 

You named one piece of questionable evidence that the British government claims is true. Who to believe?

And it was the WMD, the biological and chemical stockpiles that were there in 1998, that are not there now, and that Iraq cannot produce evidence of destroying them that I am talking about. How many times must I bring this up, and each and every time a liberal ignores this fact?

Oh and nice smilie depicting "Death to Israel". Do you really think that makes me take what you say seriously?

This is what I am talking about

 

I see your point, dont think I just like to argue (although it is fun). I'll be honest, you do have a point, but I still dont feel the best course of action was war. I think it depends on how you look at it. It's too late now anyway, lets just hope something good comes out of it.

 

from my point of view i feel that if there was no war we'd have about 14 more years of playing cat and mouse with UN weapons inspectors and eventually come to the same point that we're at now. better to nip it in the bud before it becomes a problem that we can't take care of right?

 

It's not a problem we can take care of now. Where we had surplus spending, we're not in debt billions of dollars. DAILY we loose US troops to guerilla style warfare and we have nothing to show for it (not to mention media hype on a bunch of bs for morale and public relation -i.e JESSICA LYNCH. No WMD have been uncovered, we still dont even have Saddam himself (kinda like Bin Laden). We conquered Iraq and even though Mr. Bush's oil friends are getting all the contracts and making an assload of money off the whole thing, I'm still paying $2.00 a gallon. The job market is in the shitter and the economy has gone down the drain (again).

 

so you're saying you would rather let the situation sit another 14 years? it'll be even more of a problem to get under control then.

sure it's sad to see soldiers dying to suicide bombers and such, but from my viewpoint, each and every one of them knew the risks before they raised their right hand and took their oath. i know i did. if they didn't think anything would happen and they were just on a ride for college money.... they've had one hell of a rude awakening. the military is not a commitment to be taken lightly.

i do agree with you on the whole jessica lynch situation---- (mark that on your calendar, we actually agree on something)

contrary to popular belief, the decline of the job market and the economy at this point in time is not because of the war or the person living in the white house. those two are just the obvious scapegoats that everyone looks to. the real underlying problem, causing the economy and job market to suffer is the globalization of big business. simply put, it's cheaper for industry to manufacture goods in countries such as mexico, china or india rather than right here in the US. because of that, we have an increasing surplus in jobless people and an ever plummeting economy(that is unless you are in a specialized field or work with government contracts). you can partially thank mr. clinton for that because he didn't see it fit to veto NAFTA. that bill singularly put hundreds of thousands of US citizens in the poor house and lined the pockets of the buerocrats that signed it into being nicely, as well as the companies that take advantage of the benefits daily.

i know several families in my hometown, that within a year of the signing of that bill into law, were jobless and forced to go on welfare to survive. the textile industry has since all but completely gone away from this country. that's hundreds of thousands of jobs... gone at the drop of a hat. there's a reason that the economy is hovering around the bottom of the barrel and it's not because of war or oil prices or a president that just doing as good of a job as he can with what he was handed.

just my $.02

 

The war is not the reason you are paying $2.00 per gallon. The broken pipeline that supplies Phoenix and the blackout that stopped dozens of oil refineries in the Northeast is to blame. Not to mention the price gouging local gas station owners are probably probably benefiting from.

 

And daily far more people get hit by buses or get murdered...at least these soldiers are helping another country and securing America's future. You cannot tell me that Saddam did any favors for that country, and you cannot possibly tell me that Iran and the Saudis and others in the region weren't influenced more than a little by our willingness to take Saddam down. What have we got to show for it? Far better hospital care in Iraq, basic services that are returning to pre-war levels, and the end of Saddam's security arm going out and rounding up tens or hundreds or thousands of people that have spoken out against the government or something and will be shot and buried in mass graves. For every Iraqi pissed off at the US because they had it better before the war, there are 2 or 3 thankful for what we've done because they had an aunt or a brother or a mother dragged off and shot in the dead of night.

Hahaha, the economy has gone down the drain...even the liberal media is admitting that the economy is showing signs of rapid development (GNP is booming, for instance) and the only trouble area will be the unemployment number, which will stay stagnant for another half year or so. If you wanna blame your gas prices on the war in Iraq, maybe you should start blaming cable prices on it too.

 

*yawn* :jerkit:




maybe those Iraqis that love us have the WMD? hmmmm