50% of Americans still think Saddam had WMD

[CptStern]

Did Saddam Hussein's government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?

Half of Americans apparently still think so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why: a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in Iraq. [they forgot stupidity, partisan bootlicking and sheer denial on a massive scale]

People tend to become "independent of reality" in these circumstances, says opinion analyst Steven Kull.

The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900 million- plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.

Despite this, a Harris Poll released July 21 found that a full 50 percent of U.S. respondents -- up from 36 percent last year -- said they believe Iraq did have the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, an attack whose stated purpose was elimination of supposed WMD. Other polls also have found an enduring American faith in the WMD story.

The facts are that Iraq -- after a four-year hiatus in cooperating with inspections -- acceded to the U.N. Security Council's demand and allowed scores of experts to conduct more than 700 inspections of potential weapons sites from Nov. 27, 2002, to March 16, 2003. The inspectors said they could wrap up their work within months. Instead, the U.S. invasion aborted that work.

As recently as May 27, Bush told West Point graduates, "When the United Nations Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to take that final opportunity."

"Which isn't true," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a scholar of presidential rhetoric at the University of Pennsylvania. But "it doesn't surprise me when presidents reconstruct reality to make their policies defensible." This president may even have convinced himself it's true, she said. [highly doubtful]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/280331_wmd07.html?source=mypi

wtf? 3 years later and half the population of the US still believes this nonsense? got to hand it to the Bush admin's PR they did a heck of a job pulling the wool over 300,000,000 americans ...still seems to be working apparently (in a least half the cases)

 

[Ome_Vince]

dismantled its nuclear arms program? Didnt the Israeli's bomb that

It is frightening what PR can do :O
Though i hope nobody is stupid enough to think Right-Wingers invented PR "warfare" or are the only ones involved in it.
That would be an incredibly simple-minded thought to say the least.

 

[baxter]

Is that all ?

30% don't know what year 911 was.

 

[CptStern]

dismantled its nuclear arms program? Didnt the Israeli's bomb that

It is frightening what PR can do :O
Though i hope nobody is stupid enough to think Right-Wingers invented PR "warfare" or are the only ones involved in it.
That would be an incredibly simple-minded thought to say the least.

they bombed a nuclear reactor ..but I find it ironic because although saddam was a madman he did sign the non-proliferation treaty ..something Israel hasnt done ..in fact they still havent admitted they have over 200 nukes and refuse to ratify the treaty


seems to me that if the international rule of thumb on nations possessing WMD were to be applied to israel ...well let's just say regime change would be in order

 

[Korgoth]

they bombed a nuclear reactor ..but I find it ironic because although saddam was a madman he did sign the non-proliferation treaty ..something Israel hasnt done ..in fact they still havent admitted they have over 200 nukes and refuse to ratify the treaty


seems to me that if the international rule of thumb on nations possessing WMD were to be applied to israel ...well let's just say regime change would be in order

hell, if human rights applied to Israel, they'd be up for regime change...

 

[CptStern]

or at the very least sanctions :naughty:

 

[pvtbones]

hell, if human rights applied to alot of countries, they'd be up for regime changes...

fixed

 

[VictimOfScience]

Not surprising really. Think about how dumb the average American is and then realize that a full hallf of the country is dumber than that. Astounding, shocking, but sadly very true.

 

[Llama]

Wow...nice one America.
:dozey:

 

[Ome_Vince]

they bombed a nuclear reactor ..but I find it ironic because although saddam was a madman he did sign the ..something Israel hasnt done ..

-Hitler also guaranteed he'd not invade Holland Dont trust the words of a madman, i think History has proven that point.
-Isnt that treaty to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, that you wont buy or sell them or help other countries develop them.
I'm a bit confused, and probably missing something, but what does that have to do about reducing risk of usage or threat??
Especially considering the fact that Mr Saddam the madman kills thousands of Iranians with chemical weapons, so he obviously isnt scared of using WMD. (and this was all in the same time period)

Both India and Pakistan have also not signed the treaty, considering most (including the latest terror activity in Heathrow) comes from Pakistan, i'd be more worried about that. Heh, just read North Korea has withdrawn from the treaty, now they can do some nice shopping.

 

[CptStern]

could we please never ever mention ww2 in a thread not specifically related to ww2? god that "well they did so and so during ww2" bit is extremely tiresome. Let me introduce to you godwin's law ..btw I'm not accusing you of envoking godwin's law ...just tired of comparisons drawn to ww2



still doesnt justify that Israel has yet to declare wmd

 

[Ome_Vince]

What does this have to do with anything i said in that post :S? The comparisson is an illustration that you shouldnt trust madmen I thought that was obvious.

We're not talking justification, -> talking threat. Considering that timezone: Saddam was using WMD's on Iran, threat was high he was going for nukes, Israel bombed the reactor.
Yet you bounce that off as: "well Israel hasnt admitted they even have nukes, and they havent signed a treaty that they wont sell-buy them or help other countries develop them".

 

[CptStern]

there is NO justification based on threat alone: premptive strike = violation of international law

and dont muddy the issue: I distinctly said that if the rule of law were applied to Israel they would also face invasion/sanctrion REGARDLESS of whether a madman runs the country or not. Your slippery slope excuse is unjustifiable ..saddam possed wmd but never used them in an unprovoked attack on israel/US ..so your point is nulified

 

[Icarusintel]

Another America is stupid thread? Thank god for CptStern and NoLimit or else we'd have none of these.

Seriously though, America's education system is fairly poor. I recognize that easily. I also recognize that the media does a piss poor of educating people as well, besides the fact that a lot of their facts have no background information to explain why something is, and most of the stories tend to be skewed/biased. Also, education, as much as it is touted, is clearly not a priority and a lot of it has been dymbed down so that everyone can feel equal. Simply put, some people are smarter than others, and that needs to be acknowledged and given the resources to expand.

A lot of the best minds in America have come from other countries. That's a simple fact. But still, making any kind of broad generalizations that Americans are idiots off of a simple is ridiculous. Americans as a whole aren;t stupid, they're poorly informed and misinformed.

Saying this, there are a lot of people in this world that are the same way. There are people that still think that the earth is flat. There are others who still believe they can heal problems using old spiritual methods instead of modern science. And I wouldn;t call any of them stupid. They've got the information they have and they do the best with what they've got.

 

[Ome_Vince]

@Sterno
There are tons of pre-emptive strikes. The serbs didnt attack anybody but their neighbours.
Yet we felt the need to do a pre-emptive strike.
Once a country forms a real threat, NATO, UN or whatever has legit reason to setup sanctions or invade.
Saddam actually used WMD's and was attempting to obtain nukes.
More than legit reason to sanction or possibly invade.
Yet before this was brought to the table, Israel acted on its own and bommed the reactor.

And you flip this around with a complete non-related treaty as if the rule-of-law would have meant we need sanctions or whatever at Israel because they "supposingly have nukes" and didnt sign a piece of paper that Iraq did???

Waw, thats great Saddam the madman wouldnt have sold his nukes to other countries. But that doesnt even close talk about the threat-of-usage, since like i said, he was using WMD's on Iran during that same time period.

Now, i havent slept much, so forgive me but i'm a little confused:
Is your point: Israel's acts were illegal, or if it was morally right? Since those are 2 different issues.
Are you comparing Iraq's nuclear threat, with a "non-selling-distribution" treaty that Israel didnt sign and your point was??

Since when was this treaty in any picture for sanctions or invasions? -> then we should sanction or invade India-Pakistan and our friends the North Koreans.

 

[CptStern]

@Sterno

please use my proper name Vincenzo

There are tons of pre-emptive strikes. The serbs didnt attack anybody but their neighbours. Yet we felt the need to do a pre-emptive strike.

how does that justify anything? pre-emptive strike based on a defense justification is a violation of international law (specifically war of agression) ..pussy foot all you want around the issue, throw in whatever half-baked comparison you want, it changes nothing

Once a country forms a real threat, NATO, UN or whatever has legit reason to setup sanctions or invade.
Saddam actually used WMD's and was attempting to obtain nukes.

lies and he used WMD 20 years ago ..the UN made sure he dismantled everything after 1991 ....but surely you're not suggesting the invasion of iraq was justified?

More than legit reason to sanction or possibly invade.
Yet before this was brought to the table, Israel acted on its own and bommed the reactor.

violation of international law. ..UN issued a resolution conndemning the bombing

I'll be back when I have the time, I'm not done with you yet

 

[Ome_Vince]

please use my proper name Vincenzo ----

I'll be back when I have the time, I'm not done with you yet

-Osirak bombing 1981, -Iraq-Iran war 1980-1988

I'm not talking about present day so dont bring the current Iraq-war to the table. Thats plain rediculous and you know it. I'm talking about in the 80's.

If a country poses a real threat, like Saddam back then lobbing WMD's at Iran, the Security Council has the legit right to order a strike, which you refer to as pre-emptive. Just like we did a strike on the Serbs. Call it whatever you want, you cant deny this.

However, Israel's attack was illegal, since it had no approval from the Security Council, i never denied this, yet you keep hammering on it. I'm talking about the moral-war your waging around the issue.
You pull some bullshit treaty to the table implying as if the UN is a hypocrit in not putting sanctions on Israel or invading it because it didnt sign a non-selling,buying or distributing agreement.
Then you compare that to WMD crazy Saddam.

Funny enough, both Iran and Israel were attempting to destroy it. Iran's attack failed.
Iran had every reason to destroy it, since they were allready catching WMD's from Iraq.
And later on during the Gulf War, Iraq also starts lobbing scuds at Israel.
But i guess there really was no threat there.

The random comparisson you made is invalid, and i just wanted to point that out. O, and yes indeed that strike was technically illegal so you dont need to keep repeating that.
Its not what i'm talking about.

 

[bbson john]

Hmm, Japan poses a threat as the Right-Wingers in the Government are mad and they hold, in fact, a very strong power. I think China should preemptive it.

Attacking another is not fun. It is not something can do when we have a "reason".

 

[Gray Fox]

The serbs were not bombed because the west felt it was a threat, they were bombed because they were commiting genocide, not because they might attack nato countries or anything like that, that was not a preemtive strike.

 

[bbson john]

The serbs were not bombed because the west felt it was a threat, they were bombed because they were commiting genocide, not because they might attack nato countries or anything like that, that was not a preemtive strike.

That is obvious. And the UN admitted that they sent the army late. So many innocent perople were killed. Very sad.

 

[Saketi]

cptstern u like to throw around these propaganda sources dont ya, always either against, USA, UK Israel, but never against the real perpitrators. IRAN/SYRIA/IRAQ/.

 

[Tr0n]

And you're a dumbass noob.

 

[Llama]

cptstern u like to throw around these propaganda sources dont ya, always either against, USA, UK Israel, but never against the real perpitrators. IRAN/SYRIA/IRAQ/.

Wow.

1.) I don't think i've ever read a post where Stern has been against the UK.

2.) Iraq a perpitrator? Strange, last time I checked they were invaded over a lie which has caused the society there to degenerate since the war started.

3.) He has good reason to be against the Isreal / US administartion. Incase you havent noticed, the US has managed to drag the UK and itself into Afghanistan and Iraq (For what? **** all, that's what) While Isreal is going around blowing the hell out of innocent civilians.

4.) What Tr0n said

 

[Ome_Vince]

The serbs were not bombed because the west felt it was a threat, they were bombed because they were commiting genocide, not because they might attack nato countries or anything like that, that was not a preemtive strike.

Whoeps, my bad, what i actually meant was, sometimes things like attacking the Serbs need to be done to serve humanity, or to prevent such acts in the future.
Considering crazy Saddam was using WMD's on his loosing war in Iran, i can understand that Iran + Israel couldnt take the risk.
Illegal yes, but you wont see me shed tears for the lost Nuclear Reactor, and i'm sure no Iranian will shed tears over it either.

 

[Saketi]

And you're a dumbass noob.

wow! damn, dont offend me to much, cock dropper.

3.) He has good reason to be against the Isreal / US administartion. Incase you havent noticed, the US has managed to drag the UK and itself into Afghanistan and Iraq (For what? **** all, that's what) While Isreal is going around blowing the hell out of innocent civilians.

U all have you heads up your asses, They are NOT ALL INNOCENT PAL.. Hezbollah hides amungst civi's, fking hell, ur blatantly thick. And no the US did not drag us into the war at all, the extremist in this country did it for us.

 

[CptStern]

Whoeps, my bad, what i actually meant was, sometimes things like attacking the Serbs need to be done to serve humanity, or to prevent such acts in the future.

yes bombing the shit out of civilians in order to serve humanity ..how ironic is that?

Considering crazy Saddam was using WMD's on his loosing war in Iran,

wrong, Saddam was winning, he had US backing, iran did not

If a country poses a real threat, like Saddam back then lobbing WMD's at Iran, the Security Council has the legit right to order a strike, which you refer to as pre-emptive. Just like we did a strike on the Serbs. Call it whatever you want, you cant deny this.

sorry you are 100% incorrect.. not one word of what you said pertaining to Iraq was correct ..read this

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Iraq was NOT a threat during the war with Iran because it had US backing ..in fact Iran tabled a resolution that the US lobbied other countries to ignore ..the resolution died before reaching the Security council

cptstern u like to throw around these propaganda sources dont ya, always either against, USA, UK Israel, but never against the real perpitrators. IRAN/SYRIA/IRAQ/.

that sounds like a challenge to me (what I could decipher, that is) I challenge you to pick out any of my points and disprove it ..with sources, cross referenced and verified ...this should be fun(ny)


thanks Llama, Tron but I quite enjoy getting insulted like that ..it makes beating them over the head with facts that much more pleasureable

 

[el Chi]

Both India and Pakistan have also not signed the treaty, considering most (including the latest terror activity in Heathrow) comes from Pakistan, i'd be more worried about that.

India and Pakistan have nukes so they can knock the shit out of each other, not anyone else. And don't broadbrush presume that, because some terrorists came from there, that Pakistan's some kind of "rogue stste". That's just ridiculous.

Illegal yes, but you wont see me shed tears for the lost Nuclear Reactor, and i'm sure no Iranian will shed tears over it either.

The kind of nuclear reactor that powers sanitation systems, water treatment and pumping systems, electricity for people's homes, that sort of thing. Yes, I feel sure that the people of Lebanon just shrugged that one off.

 

[Ome_Vince]

@Stern,

yes bombing the shit out of civilians in order to serve humanity ..how ironic is that?

You dissaprove with the NATO bombardments on the Serbs?
Yes i guess Genocide was the better alternative for humanity.

wrong, Saddam was winning, he had US backing, iran did not

-Sorry, your right, what i meant was Iraq wasnt doing to good in its invasion as it boasted it would be in Teheran in 3 days and it ended more or less a stalemate if i remember correctly.

Iraq was NOT a threat during the war with Iran because it had US backing

-Look beyond the USA and Europe for a change. Iraq WAS a threat to IRAN and perhaps Israel if it got Nukes. Especially Iran, since they were allready catching some nice Chemical WMD from Saddam.
100,000 Iranian victims is not nothing.
Funny enough, Israel did Iran a favor in the process.


@El Chi
I never said that or implyed Pakistan was. Though alot of terrorism does originate there, including vs India.

 

[el Chi]

"Both India and Pakistan have also not signed the treaty, considering most [*](including the latest terror activity in Heathrow) comes from Pakistan, i'd be more worried about that."

*= The implied omission here was "terrorists". If it was something else, then do tell me, because then I've made some sort of grievous error.
But if you were saying:
"Most terrorists/extremists come from Pakistan who have not signed the treaty and have nuclear weapons, so I'd be more worried about them than Israel."
This basically implies that you are worried because a lot of terrorists come from a nuclear nation, which in turn implies that you consider Pakistan to be a nuclear threat because of these terrorists. Thus, you implied that Pakistan was a terrorist/rogue state.

 

[CptStern]

@Stern,

You dissaprove with the NATO bombardments on the Serbs?
Yes i guess Genocide was the better alternative for humanity.

slippery slope logical fallacy. why is it always an either/or situation with you? read this

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200005--.htm

-Sorry, your right, what i meant was Iraq wasnt doing to good in its invasion as it boasted it would be in Teheran in 3 days and it ended more or less a stalemate if i remember correctly.

read the article ..every precaution was taken to ensure Iraqi victory

By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints [Note 1]. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].

What was the Reagan administration's response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results." But the department noted in late November 1983 that "with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq ha[d] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack" [Document 25]. The State Department argued that the U.S. needed to respond in some way to maintain the credibility of its official opposition to chemical warfare, and recommended that the National Security Council discuss the issue.

Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons

-Look beyond the USA and Europe for a change. Iraq WAS a threat to IRAN and perhaps Israel if it got Nukes. Especially Iran, since they were allready catching some nice Chemical WMD from Saddam.
100,000 Iranian victims is not nothing.
Funny enough, Israel did Iran a favor in the process.

again you're clouding the issue ..regardless of whether saddam used WMD it didnt matter to the US or europe ...in fact the US went out of it's way that Iraq bear none of the responsibility. You cant possibly argue their/your hypocracy without raising the specter of how the nationality of the victems invloved justifies intervention

 

[Llama]

wow! damn, dont offend me to much, cock dropper.



U all have you heads up your asses, They are NOT ALL INNOCENT PAL.. Hezbollah hides amungst civi's, fking hell, ur blatantly thick. And no the US did not drag us into the war at all, the extremist in this country did it for us.

Okay, I am going to break this down piece by piece, because you obviously can't understand things.

Hezbollah kidnapped Isreali soldiers. Isreal then started targetting civilian buildings - Hospitals, Roads, Bridges. Not to stop Hezbollah, to kill the Lebanese.
Did I say Hezbollah were innocent?
No
Have the majority of people killed been innocent civilians?
yes
Therefore, was my original statement correct?
Yes


On towards the second point you make. The extremists made the US go to war. Explain how, exactly. How did the attack on 9/11 force America to invade (since then) two middle eastern countries?

Let's look at Iraq.
US Justification for invading Iraq - Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Did he?
No (Which, in case you hadn't noticed, this thread was about)

US Justification for invading Afghanistan - Bin Laden is assumed to be hiding there, no naturally if you go there and try to capture him, all this will go away.

Somehow, I can imagine that this sort of policy doesn't exactly create a positive image for the US in the eyes of many people. Why do you think they attacked you in the first place? Because they hated you. Do you think that invading two other countries, and then sitting back while Isreal slaughters Lebanese civilians is going to increase your popularity within the eyes of extremist muslims?

No, didn't think so.

Oh, and one final point. If I am so blatantly thick, as you put, why am I the person who can spell the words 'you are' correctly?

 

[Ome_Vince]

slippery slope logical fallacy. why is it always an either/or situation with you? read this

No, just in that case, looking back at it, i choose the lesser of too evils.
And i read that article, interesting -> though:
Read this
The Dutch Enclave lost 8000 muslim men from the Dutch UN camp, which were then slaughtered by the Serbs.
Point being that mass-murder was going on, and this started before NATO intervention.
Also, yes, tactically, maybe NATO could have "handled" the situation "better", critisism is good, though stopping the Serbs from mass-murder.

read the article ..every precaution was taken to ensure Iraqi victory

Nice

again you're clouding the issue ..regardless of whether saddam used WMD it didnt matter to the US or europe ...in fact the US went out of it's way that Iraq bear none of the responsibility. You cant possibly argue their/your hypocracy without raising the specter of how the nationality of the victems invloved justifies intervention

Clouding the issue? Whether or not the US were hypocrits in protecting Iraq, or whether Europe mattered or not, it mattered ALOT for the region, especially Iran, who like i mentioned a few times allready lost 100.000 people due to Iraqi WMD's.
My point being: morally the destruction of that reactor was good, and none of the surrounding countries, especially not Iran could take that risk of Iraq obtaining/using Nuclear Weapons.
Further-more, usage of WMD's is illegal, which would be a direct legit reason for the Security Council to order emediate action, since 100k sounds more like genocide to me.
And yes we're all hypocrits, but that more clouds the issue -> the reactor, and the threat which is what we're discussing. If the destruction of the reactor was morally right considering the threat.

 

[bbson john]

I can't imagine how far Iraq was from nuclear weapon. (Very far)

And every country is causing threat to each other. This is not a reason for invading others, unless the theart of war is really imminent.

 

[Crowbar-at-hand]

Iraq had those nuke's Id bet there some place in Seria, Saddam had plenty of time to get them out of just before the invasion. Also justification for going into Iraq was because there was a freakin' NO FLY ZONE, WE CANT LEAVE IT UP THERE FOREVER CAN WE???? obviously no. So we went in there.

 

[CptStern]

Iraq had those nuke's Id bet there some place in Seria, Saddam had plenty of time to get them out of just before the invasion. Also justification for going into Iraq was because there was a freakin' NO FLY ZONE, WE CANT LEAVE IT UP THERE FOREVER CAN WE???? obviously no. So we went in there.

lol! so the justification for the invasion of iraq was the ... no fly zone? as in "Saddam broke the no fly zone which caused america to invade" justification we've heard so much about.


No





Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.
- Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002


Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
- Dick Cheney August 26, 2002


If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.
- Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002


Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
- George W. Bush September 12, 2002


If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
- Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002


We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
- Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003


Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
-George W. Bush January 28, 2003


We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
- Colin Powell February 5, 2003


Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
- Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003


We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
- George Bush February 8, 2003


So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
- Colin Powell March 8, 2003


Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
- George Bush March 18, 2003


We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.
- Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003


Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
- Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003


There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
- Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003


I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
- Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003


One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
- Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003


We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
- Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003


Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction
- Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003


Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.
- Neocon scholar Robert Kagan April 9, 2003


I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.
- Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003


We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
- George Bush April 24, 2003


Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.
- Tony Blair 28 April, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
- Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003


We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
- George Bush May 3, 2003


I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.
- Colin Powell May 4, 2003


I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.
- George W. Bush May 6, 2003


Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.
- Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003


For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
- Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003




oh and on the Nukes/WMD issue


No

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5702006622816922747&q=iraq


http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm


in fact the bush admin knew saddam didnt have wmd

http://youtube.com/watch?v=m27wF9vjJIE

No, just in that case, looking back at it, i choose the lesser of too evils.
And i read that article, interesting -> though:
Read this
The Dutch Enclave lost 8000 muslim men from the Dutch UN camp, which were then slaughtered by the Serbs.

Point being that mass-murder was going on, and this started before NATO intervention.
Also, yes, tactically, maybe NATO could have "handled" the situation "better", critisism is good, though stopping the Serbs from mass-murder.

yes I am aware of srebrenica ..still doesnt excuse the fact that nato bombings (based on trumped up justifications (read the links I provided)) killed thousands of civilians

Clouding the issue? Whether or not the US were hypocrits in protecting Iraq, or whether Europe mattered or not, it mattered ALOT for the region, especially Iran, who like i mentioned a few times allready lost 100.000 people due to Iraqi WMD's.[/quote]

what exactly are you failing to see here? They got away with it because they had help. Read the article

My point being: morally the destruction of that reactor was good, and none of the surrounding countries, especially not Iran could take that risk of Iraq obtaining/using Nuclear Weapons.
Further-more, usage of WMD's is illegal, which would be a direct legit reason for the Security Council to order emediate action, since 100k sounds more like genocide to me.
And yes we're all hypocrits, but that more clouds the issue -> the reactor, and the threat which is what we're discussing. If the destruction of the reactor was morally right considering the threat.

saddam was years away from developing anything (hmmm sounds like present day Iran). Clear violation of UN charters (which israel is signatory to):

Fully aware of the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came into force in 1970, that in accordance with that Treaty Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date,

Noting furthermore that Israel has not adhered to the non-proliferation Treaty,

Deeply concerned about the danger to international peace and security created by the premeditated Israeli air attack on Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981, which could at any time explode the situation in the area, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States,

Considering that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations",

1. Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un487.htm

 

[ktimekiller]

Stern is kicking ass, yet people denies it.

 

[Cole]

Does Stenr ever not kick ass?

 

[ktimekiller]

let me think...... naw

 

[victor]

This debate is pointless. Everyone opposing Stern's arguments is simply spouting the same propaganda that they had shoved down their throats, and evidently don't have the ability of critical thought. Even when you beat them with logic, they will invariably fall back on their familiar arguments of "SADAM IS EVIL" and "OMG WMD >_<", no matter how false or inane these statements are.

The counter argument to Stern's points so far has been a moral one, but it is inherently flawed. A country, or society, claiming to stand for "freedom for all people" cannot in any way morally justify pre-emptive military action against another country. To invade another country, and depose a sovereign government goes against everything that America stands for, and this hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed by the rest of the world.

America had the ability to generate massive amounts of goodwill for itself, and to help many people, but instead it has effectively shot itself in the foot.

I'm amazed that the existence of the Internet, a free and uncensored source of information, has not raised the awareness of the American people to how they're getting screwed over. Instead of learning and developing their own opinions, they troll forums and attempt to spread the same propaganda they are fed by their government. Please look at what's happening to your own country, and realise that you're becoming the very thing you're proclaiming to fight against.

 

[Ome_Vince]

yes I am aware of srebrenica ..still doesnt excuse the fact that nato bombings (based on trumped up justifications (read the links I provided)) killed thousands of civilians

Its not like i approve bombing civilians, but its definatly the lesser-of-2-evils. The Serbs had an impressive arsenal, with good AA, so its not like some rogue UN army could have stopped them.
I still agree with the bombardment, and it is justified judging the alternative: genocide.

what exactly are you failing to see here? They got away with it because they had help. Read the article

saddam was years away from developing anything (hmmm sounds like present day Iran). Clear violation of UN charters (which israel is signatory to):

I ask again, and dont ignore this question, because this is what we're discussing:
Are you aiming towards if it was legal, or if it was morally justified?

I fully agree with the destruction of the Nuclear Reactor, even though i know technically it wasnt legal.
Like i mentioned before, i wont shed a tear for that reactor or Saddam's missed chance to get nukes, and the comparisson you made is invalid since in no way does the threat come close.

O, and for your information, i oppose any military action against Iran