Tricky question for warmongers - but lets all laugh

[peaccenicked]

Where are the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam would be so keen to use?

[englandsgay]

we found iraqi chemical suits and gas masks... why would THEY have them if chemical attacks weren't in the picture?

[peaccenicked]

It is standard professsional military practice throughout the world to have them. Even the Americans have them. You will have to do better than that. LOL

[IzmSchism]

Hans Blix has gone on the record stating that Iraq has not used any of the supposed weapons to violate any of the restrictions imposed on them....

[Ghost Writer]

I am sure we will see them when they begin lobbing them on our troops.

[ComradeJunichi]

Yes, obviously. We would also see that Russia is socialist if the Soviet Union was restored.

Uh, throw something better.

Wouldn't they have done something by now? Especially with bombs falling everysingle day. Maybe they're not using them since their opponents are killing their own troops for them.

[commie kg]

I'm sure that if none are found, the US will find a way to make it look like they found some...

[Xvall]

we found iraqi chemical suits and gas masks... why would THEY have them if chemical attacks weren't in the picture?

I know at least fifty people in my city that have chemical suits or gas masks. Hell; half of the United States has gas masks. I suppose that we should be worried about my neighbor harboring nuclear weapons. I had better go and disarm him immediately.

I am sure we will see them when they begin lobbing them on our troops.

One would think that he would have lobbed them on the troops already, no? They are closing in on Baghdad. I don't think he would be stupid enough to use chemical attacks the city he is in. That may effect your troops; but it would kill his as well.

[lukecrouch]

We're less than 2 weeks into this war and you are already up in arms to see the nukes?

For the sake of this argument, concede that he does have them.

He's been able to hide them from inspectors LOOKING for them for years. (And they actually found some in violation of their agreed terms)

You think a bunch of marines and soldiers who are busy watching their own asses are going to be able to find them?

What if Hussein is dead and his weapons are burried in the desert somewhere?

The point is that it is way to early to start this argument up.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 7:42 am on Mar. 31, 2003
Where are the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam would be so keen to use?


It is my opinion, just like Im sure it is of many other war supporters, that the main grounds for this war is the way Saddam Hussein treats his people in Iraq. I couldn't give a toss whether or not he had weapons. He is a brutal dictator who tortures his people. Fact. And that is why this war is justified.

englandsgay's useless point about them finding gas masks etc. was completely pathetic. Forget that anyone in favour of this war used that as a supporting argument please.

I haven't really followed the directives as tho what Iraq can and can't have, but were they meant to have Scuds? If not, theyve been used. But thats ireelevant to my point.

He tortures his people. We've tried every corner of the "diplomacy" sqaure (more like dodecahedron) so war is the only answer.

[Pete]

dodecahedron What does this word mean? (I know I could look it up in a dictionary, but that would be out of context)

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

It's a ten sided shape. I was just trying to emphasise how many paths of diplomacy have been tried with Hussein.

[Pete]

Thank you.

I am sure, though, at the end it was America who cancelled the diplomacy channel. By ignoring the United Nation's procedure and not going through the Security Council.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

True. But I am of the belief that Saddam was allowed too much diplomacy anyway.

[canikickit]

It is my opinion, just like Im sure it is of many other war supporters, that the main grounds for this war is the way Saddam Hussein treats his people in Iraq. I couldn't give a toss whether or not he had weapons. He is a brutal dictator who tortures his people. Fact. And that is why this war is justified.

I totally disagree with that, but there's no need to get into it here. It's not the issue.

The point is that the Bush-Blair team used the "Weapons of Mass Distruction" excuse to scare people.

I wonder where the weapons are?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I agree completely. There is, as yet, no hard evidence of these weapons.

I don't see how you can disagree with my point though. Saddam and his totalitarian regime have tortured Iraqis for fun.

[canikickit]

Yes, but I think all this mucking about in other cultures causes more damage than good. It's just the continuation of imperialism.

It's going to cause more resentment among the Iraqis and the arabic and muslim world at large, it's going to cause more cancer from more depleted uranium, it's going to cause more refugees, it's going to cause more war.

While I will be glad to see the back of Saddam - it's the whole method of western hegemony which must be criticised. The lies, the manipulation, the quest for profits.

[革命者]

I haven't really followed the directives as tho what Iraq can and can't have, but were they meant to have Scuds? If not, theyve been used. But thats ireelevant to my point.
I don't think they're Scuds-- i think they would be more precise.. i am not sure, tho. (they were not allowed nonetheless-- only <150km missiles.)

[hawarameen]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 8:57 pm on Mar. 31, 2003
Thank you.

I am sure, though, at the end it was America who cancelled the diplomacy channel. By ignoring the United Nation's procedure and not going through the Security Council.


i think it was france that killed all hope of diplomacy actually.

when france says it will veto ANYTHING that gives saddam an ultimatum what is left? do you tell saddam you must dissarm, well you dont have to actually, its up to you?

[lukecrouch]

That is a great point.

France was the one who rendered the UN completely useless. Like hawarameen said, if they were going to veto any resolution that gave an ultimatum the resolution would have to be something like:

"You guys are being bad, please stop or we're going to write another sentence like this one."

[casturatedcarbar]

it wasnt just france that stopped the attempts of diplomacy, what about iraq? How many oppourtunitys have we given them to play by the rules, and avoid further conflict?

Oh and if you need more convincing as to why America is doing something Saddam, go here-

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMD...E140082001!Open (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE140082001!Open)

[Xvall]

He's been able to hide them from inspectors LOOKING for them for years. (And they actually found some in violation of their agreed terms)

The UN never found the weapons. This is idiotic; the whole reason you started the war. Let me get this straight. If the UN inspectors find weapons, then you attack Iraq to disarm them. If the UN inspectors do not find weapons (They didn't) then you assume that they're just really good at hiding them, and attack Iraq to 'disarm' their invisible, unconfirmed, weapons. What was the damn point of the UN inspections, then?

[Anti communist]

Drake, we have intelligence (satelite pictures, intercepted cell phone calls) that tells us he has them.

ComradeJunichi, he might not have used them yet for one of 2 reasons. 1)he is waiting until the coalition gets near Bahgdad in large numbers before he starts using them so he can kill thousands of coalition troops in a matter of minutes. Or 2)He is delaying and holding out in the capital because he is busy destroying them somewhere so we look like we invaded for no reason at all.

Either way, as Socialsmo o Muerte said, this guy is just another murderous thug that needs to be taken out. You'll see the horror stories that will come out from the Iraqi people once Hussein is gone and they feel free to speak in public.

Did you see 20/20 on ABC Fri night? They showed a video of his thugs executing several Kurds in a firing squad line with ak-47s. Then one guy went up to each victim after they were already slumped over (dead) and with their hands still tied behind their backs to the post and he shot each one in the head just to make sure. Now here's the really bad part. He made the whole town come out to watch this so they know not to mess with his gov't. There were children no older than 7 yrs old in the crowd who were forced to watch this.

(Edited by Anti communist at 1:37 am on April 1, 2003)

[peaccenicked]

If you cant answer a question change the subject.
Here is more evidence of no evidence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...,926187,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,926187,00.html)

[Anti communist]

We are only 10 days into this war and the country has the square milage of Cali. He's had 12 yrs to hide, and learn how to hide this stuff. You'll see, we'll get the weapons and when he's gone the citizens will tell their horror stories of torture, etc. The main job of the troops right now is to defeat Saddam, hen when he's gone there will be much more time for hunting for weapons.

Besides, doesn't the whole world know that he gased the Kurds in the late 80's killing thousands? Well since the world knows he did that, and since he didn't explain what happend to that chem stockpile (what was left) in his recent declaration before the war, it's a safe assumption that he still has it.

[peaccenicked]

The only safe assumption to make is that this is an imperialist war that has very little to do with Saddam's WMD or his torture or gasing of the Kurds.
http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...m=22&topic=2043 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=2043)

(Edited by peaccenicked at 7:39 am on April 1, 2003)

[IzmSchism]

as for France being the fall guy, I dont buy that, my opinion is that the US never intended to use the UN channel as a means to de-arm Iraq, and if you are going to say that well, the diplomatic channels have been open for the last twelve years, again, bollocks to that, because, if it was so important to dis-arm, why did we support the Baath party for so long before without raising a fuss, how can we overlook Sadamm using biological weapons on the Kurds at Hajbalah in 88'?? And now we decide is the time to get in...?

[alexia]

I agree that Hussein is a violent dictator who needs to be got rid of but that is no more the principle behind this war than the infamous "weapons of mass destruction" and everybody here knows it.
If getting rid of Saddam was the real reason behind this war than in some ways I could understand it, even though I could never agree with it. But to attack a country and kill thousands more civilians on top of those killed during, and since the 1st Gulf War (500,000 children in the ten yrs after the war ended) by the nuclear weapons the States used, all for a mixture of oil and revenge is horrendous.

[Liberty Lover]

all for a mixture of oil and revenge is horrendous.

And I suppose you are going to provide us all with some evidence of this assertion?

[Anti communist]

There were a ;ot of deaths after the last war but most of those were due to the lack of action on Saddam to get fod, water, medicine to his people when he was supposed to be selling oil for humanitarian aid. Instead he chose to line his pockets and build more palaces.

[Show me the Money]

Quote: from Anti communist on 7:34 am on April 1, 2003
Besides, doesn't the whole world know that he gased the Kurds in the late 80's killing thousands? Well since the world knows he did that, and since he didn't explain what happend to that chem stockpile (what was left) in his recent declaration before the war, it's a safe assumption that he still has it.
they destroyed his weapons in 1998 as a result of UN inspections. But the U$ gave them the weapons in the first place.. so they must know if they're gone or not, right?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from alexia on 10:27 am on April 1, 2003
I agree that Hussein is a violent dictator who needs to be got rid of but that is no more the principle behind this war than the infamous "weapons of mass destruction" and everybody here knows it.
If getting rid of Saddam was the real reason behind this war than in some ways I could understand it, even though I could never agree with it. But to attack a country and kill thousands more civilians on top of those killed during, and since the 1st Gulf War (500,000 children in the ten yrs after the war ended) by the nuclear weapons the States used, all for a mixture of oil and revenge is horrendous.


I agree with the first few lines. That sums it up. I think we all know that, as yet, they have NO evidence to support their grounds for war for the weapons. But Saddam is Saddam. Got to get rid of him.

As for the oil, well, who is actually putting the issue of oil before human lives here? Is is the leaders of the coalition? Or you? Because I sure as hell haven't heard any of them say they were going to war for oil. It is all of you who say it is for war who are the heartless bastards putting oil over human lives.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

If America hadn't supported Saddam against that genius on my avatar, he would have been gone years ago.

So fuckin close.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 8:39 pm on Mar. 31, 2003

Quote: from peaccenicked on 7:42 am on Mar. 31, 2003
Where are the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam would be so keen to use?


It is my opinion, just like Im sure it is of many other war supporters, that the main grounds for this war is the way Saddam Hussein treats his people in Iraq. I couldn't give a toss whether or not he had weapons. He is a brutal dictator who tortures his people. Fact. And that is why this war is justified.

englandsgay's useless point about them finding gas masks etc. was completely pathetic. Forget that anyone in favour of this war used that as a supporting argument please.

I haven't really followed the directives as tho what Iraq can and can't have, but were they meant to have Scuds? If not, theyve been used. But thats ireelevant to my point.

He tortures his people. We've tried every corner of the "diplomacy" sqaure (more like dodecahedron) so war is the only answer.


That is a good point, however, under international law you cannot provoke a to initiate regime change in a certain country.

You can justify the war with regime change morally, but it is still illegal to go to war only on that pretense. However, it is illegal to go to war with out the consent of the U.N. so it is illegal whether they find Weapons of Mass Destruction or not. However it will be far more acceptable to the U.N. if they do.

[US Shockrule2000]

by who's standards.. the UN's? i say fuck the UN-- the only good thing they brought us is the IMF... we invented the UN anyways..

sr2000.

[Anti communist]

Show me the Money, he threw out the inspectors in 1998, they didn't destroy anything. And do you really think that a few dozen inspectors on the ground in such a big country are going to be able to find everything he has? Scott Ritter trashed Saddam for his attempt to hide weapons when they threw him and the other inspectors out in 1998. We all know that Scott Ritter now defends Saddam and did a 180 degrees turn on his claims from 1998. But what we now know about Ritter is that he was recently charged in NY state with luring an under aged girl on the internet to have sex. I have a feeling that Saddam is pulling this guy's strings. He probably had sex with 12 yr old girls when he was in Iraq and Saddam knows it and is black maling him now.

Also, their job is not to find weapons. Their job, as you all conveniently forget, is to verify that his claims of disarmament are accurate. And we all know by the pathetic declaration of their weapons plan a few months ago that there are a lot of holes in the data. Also, Colin Powell gave a very convincing presentation on how they move weapons out the back gate in trucks while the inspectors are coming in the front gates. Plus he also showed satelite pictures and intercepted phone calls as other evidence.

Also, this last resolution (1441) was the 17th in 12 yrs that he dismissed. He had and he has no intentions of disarming.

[Tasha]

Who would you consider disarming first? A man who has killed 100 people with a machine gun. Or a man who has killed 5 people with a pistol. Point proven the usa has showed in history to have more of an inclination to use weapons of mass destruction and kill more people with these weapons than all countries combined. Any country that uses weapons of mass destruction in any manner other than being a negotiating tool should be disarmed. However if you do not have proof that they are there then you cannot make the claim that they are there.

(Edited by Tasha at 2:56 am on April 2, 2003)

[Pete]

Show me the Money, he threw out the inspectors in 1998

It is well documented that Clinton pulled the inspectors out.

resolution (1441)

Am I the only one that remembers Bush and Powell telling us that it would not be pretense for war?

[RedPirate]

They will plant them in the country just like corrupt cops in the police states of the U.S.

[Anti communist]

They will be found (weapons). Don't worry about us trying to manufacture evidence. It won't happen and we won't need to.

As for disaming Saddam, let's not forget that he gassed 5,000 people to death in the north in the late 80s and then killed 200,000 in the south after the post gulf war attempted uprising. He is the biggest killer of Muslims in history.

[peaccenicked]

Quote: from Anti communist on 6:05 am on April 2, 2003
They will be found (weapons). Don't worry about us trying to manufacture evidence. It won't happen and we won't need to.

.

I trust Saddam more than I trust you.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02...prj.irq.decree/ (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/14/sprj.irq.decree/)

[peaccenicked]

I dont know if Saddam Hussien has chemical weapons or not, but there
is no proof that Bush will accept. He simply MUST have them.
So if he must have them then he does have them and thats the only 'proof' that he has them. The mantra 'He must have them' and some or most of the population, repeat the mantra. It is like something out of George Orwell. Now he did have them thats for sure but he made them illegal
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02...prj.irq.decree/ (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/14/sprj.irq.decree/)
Now does that mean he does not have them. No. You can not prove a negative.
So then what is the point? How can we go to war on the basis of a Presidential mantra.

[alexia]

I can't remember the exact date for this quote but on a talk show Madeline Albright was asked whether 500,000 childrens lives was a decent price to pay for oil and she replied, "well, its a tough choice to make, but yes, we think the price is worth it."

[Liberty Lover]

Quote: from alexia on 9:01 am on April 2, 2003
I can't remember the exact date for this quote but on a talk show Madeline Albright was asked whether 500,000 childrens lives was a decent price to pay for oil and she replied, "well, its a tough choice to make, but yes, we think the price is worth it."

A good try Alexia but no cigar. Madeline Albright was the Secretary of State during the Clinton administration, whose policy was containment not regime change.

A book I am currently reading by ‘comrade’ John Pilger quotes Madeline Albright as saying “we think the price is worth it”, after being asked if the deaths of half a million Iraqi children were a price worth paying for sanctions.

[Show me the Money]

well, ok.. we can't be 100% sure if all biological and chemical weapons are destroyed.. but UNSCOM-chief butler did say that all forbidden (nuclear) missiles were destroyed and there weren't any nuclear/long-range weapon programs.. and there haven't been any reports on WMD programs since.. and they did see only some iraqi soldiers burning documents and they monitored the destruction and/or release of documents, they did get access to some «presidential sites», and altough it's not impossible for them to resume/restart a biological/chemical weapons program, it's not very likely with the sanctions and constant sattelite monitoring, i imagine.

i am not an expert on this, tho.-- i wasn't into politics back then..still i think this war is illegal and completely wrong.

[Anti communist]

Peaccenicked, you would believe the word of Saddam Hussein before your own President. I've heard t all now. That's like when someone here said something about the Cuban constitution allowing for for demonstrations. In a dictatorship, the constitution is for propaganda only and the dictotor is usually a lier and brutal murderer as in the case of Saddam.

By the way, here' what your little link says. It's a game that Saddam has been playing for 12 yrs and which CLinton let him get away with......at the last minute when you are about to be blown up, make it look like you're doing something in good faith to meet the sanctions. Then when the preassure eases up a bit, he goes right back to is old ways. Look at what your link says:

While the decree bans individuals and companies from importing or producing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, ****it makes no mention of government or state-run entities***. The Iraqi government insists it possesses no such weapons (what a joke).

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 8:57 pm on Mar. 31, 2003
Thank you.

I am sure, though, at the end it was America who cancelled the diplomacy channel. By ignoring the United Nation's procedure and not going through the Security Council.


Saddam Hussain ignored 17 UN resolutions whats there to suggest he would take any notice of the UN now?

[peaccenicked]

Saddam Hussein has not used Chemical weapons for over 11 years. Why is he going to start again?

[Hayduke]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 10:19 pm on April 2, 2003
Saddam Hussein has not used Chemical weapons for over 11 years. Why is he going to start again?

I think the events in iraq can answer that question.

[Pete]

AK 47

Just because Saddam ignored them doesn't mean America should. What are they doing? Playing Saddam's game. It makes them no better in this sense!

I was watching a documentary on the past of this war and in 1990 George Bush Sr said "We will not allow the strong to rule over the weak." Myself, the entire row I am in (the only ones who have a political mind in the class) and my teacher all burst out laughin.

[peaccenicked]

Sorry D Day I meant pre coalition invasion.

Now that he has got a reason, I would think a Nuclear strike would detter him somewhat.
AK47
YET still the question remains , why is it only a matter of faith that SH has WMD.
''Saddam has chemical weapons this I know because George Bush's bible tells me so.



This is a religious war based on Bushes paranoid delusions. ''There is a clear and presnt danger from Iraq''.
Just about everyone in the world knows thats bullshit, barring the red necks of the US and their counter parts abroad.
It is as much bullshit as ''This is a war of liberation" just about every Iraqi knows that, bar those oppositionists
who think they can broker a deal with the post war general Franks dictatorship.