No evidence of WMD

[up2date]

Two months after the head of the CIA's search for Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction said "solid progress" was being made, officials say he will tell members of Congress on Thursday that his team has not found any banned weapons.This will add fire to the Bush administration...


http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/sprj.irq.kay/index.html

[KWJams]

However, David Kay said inspectors have found evidence of a biological weapons program. He also noted more substantial activity in missile production than Iraq disclosed to the United Nations.

Kay said his inspectors need more time before conclusions can be reached, and he urged patience.

"Believe me, we're working as hard as we can. I know the importance attached to this work. There's a lot more work to do before we can declare we're at the end of this road rather than at the beginning," Kay said. "We have found a great deal, much of which was not declared to the United Nations."

[NetxMan]

Kuwait foils smuggling of chemicals, bio warheads from Iraq
Associated Press
Kuwait City, October 2

Kuwaiti security authorities have foiled an attempt to smuggle $60 million worth of chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to an unnamed European country, a Kuwaiti newspaper said on Wednesday.
The pro-Government Al-Siyassah, quoting an unnamed security source, said the suspects had been watched by security since they arrived in Kuwait and were arrested "in due time." It did not say when or how the smugglers entered Kuwait or when they were arrested.

The paper said the smugglers might have had accomplices inside Kuwait. It said Interior Minister Sheik Nawwaf Al Ahmed Al Sabah would hand over the smuggled weapons to an FBI agent at a news conference, but did not say when.

Government officials could not be immediately reached for comment.

Iraqi Interior Minister Nouri Al-Badran met on Tuesday with Sheik Nawwaf and discussed cooperation between the two countries in security matters. His visit is the first by an Iraqi interior minister to Kuwait since 1990.

:D

[up2date]

Personally, there is no doubt in my mind that Iraq had WMD. They may have dismantled it, hid them really well, or the worst case scenario - distributed them to other countries. It's probably a combination of all three. There were several reasons for going to war. I think the Bush made a mistake by making WMD the top public priority. That's it.

I almost hope the article you posted proves true. I hope it's not true because if they foiled this attempt, how many attempts were successful? Scary thought. But since the war started I have been hoping the weapons would turn up so the world would have the evidence it needed (as if there wasn't enough already) to prove that Saddam is a bad man. But I had my hopes up before for stories that in the end were false hopes. We'll see how this one plays out.

[Sly Limey]

Unfortunately the WMD are either in Syria and other such countries or buried in the desert. News was released that stated a lot of saddams chemical weapons are buried in syria next to a huge military base... Good luck getting Hans Blix and his team of useful idiots in there.

If however, i am wrong and saddam never in fact had any WMD's, then bush has some harsh times ahead and i am thinking old hilary will profit from them.

Personally i see it this way:

I dont care why the politicians say why we went to war against iraq. The plain facts are that iraq was a main supplier of arms, funds and training for every single terrorist organisation that is currently pointing its weapons at us... Al Queda, PLO, IRA et al. They blatantly HAD WMD's once, they used them on their own people. The regime was a brutalising and evil dictatorship that threatened the already fragile balance of "peace" in the middle east. Saddam spent 2 decades torturing, raping and murdering his countrymen and it was only a matter of time before he caused all out war in the middle east.
I would rather see his government destroyed and some sort of order put in its place than see him carry on as he was.

[JD3]

I suspect Saddam had WMD's and we may or may not find them. And while I am convinced he is a "Bad Man," I must ask if this is the best approach to the problem. Wasn't the sanctions UN by nature and, therefore, only the UN's responsibility to enforce? Seems we overstepped our authority.

Also, have we really made the world safer by doing so? Pat Buchanan maintains that Saddam was contained and that want we are doing now borders on American Imprealism (The Mclaughlin Group). And George Will said on "This WeeK" that the lesson of this war was to encourage nuclear proliferation. "The lesson is that if you are going to deal with the United States, you had better have nuclear weapons."

Isn't that what North Korea is saying (CNN 10.4.03) and Iran (CNN, Washington Post, etc.)?

Before you dismiss me as a liberal I voted for Bob Dole to replace Clinton. And I quoted conservatives here.

[NetxMan]

Well, number 1

The UN is a joke.

Number 2

The UN is a joke.

Number 3

The UN is a joke.

[JD3]

Maybe, but is invasion proper? Is the world safer? Can we kill our way out of this?

Russia couldn't conquer Afganistan, and they were bigger. Killing hasn't changed anything in Isreal (Am I wrong about that?). History seems to say that a people who don't want to stop won't. And since terrorist have no specific national ties, doesn't it seem unlikely that we will be able to combat the problem by invading countries?

Seems like a logic problem to me. And if preemptive attacks are proper and justifiable, especially without proof being a requirement (Wolfiwitz maintained that we couldn't wait for proof), then once we called North Lorea and Iran part of the Axis of Evil, wouldn't they be proper to attack us first and not wait for us to invade them? The logic seems flawed to me.

Besides, even if the UN is a joke, does that mean by law we can side step all jokes? I can break a law in this country the minute I think the law or those enforcing it are jokes?

[NetxMan]

What Law?

[JD3]

I refered to international law that prohits invading another country that isn't an immenant threat to you. I compared that to domestic law. Can I just call the police or the courts a joke and do want I think is best?

[James]

Problem is, if we wait until a country has been proven to be a immenant threat, then we put ourselves to exactly that, a immenant threat. And you dont think Saddams sons were going to just go away and hide in a cave for the rest of their lives if Saddam HAD indeed given up do you?

I think what Bush did was preventive medicine.

[NetxMan]

In, that "law" of yours does it cover the butchering of men, women and childern?

Or, shotting missles and planes in restriced air space?

Or, the development of biological weapons?

Or, the Mass Murder of 3000 people on 9/11?

[JD3]

You can't reduce the argument in this manner. China kills its own, and we make them favored nation trading partners. The world is full of evil men and abused citizens. If you want to make the argument that America is going to save them all, I'd be willing to listen to that. But many balk at the idea. They say evil can only be stamped if it is in our interest to do so.

Being ethical is hard. Being strong enough not to attack a percieved threat or possible threat, not neccesarily a real one, is what being moral is about.

If I accept that I can attack any threat I think exsists, especially if I accept Wolifowiz's claim that I don't need or can't wait for proof, then I can just attack whomever I want.

Other countries have WMD's. So do we. The burden is to prove that they will be used against us. According to this administration there was no link to 9/11. Weak link to Al Queidia. When you consider the area, that is the same as none.

We become agressors and not liberators.

[JD3]

If you remember, the Kuwiati leader killed his own people as well, and we gave that country back to him. Most of what we believe Saddam did was the work of the PR firm of Hill (?) and Knowlton and actors hired to lie to congress. (You know throwing babies out of incubators and rapping women in hospitals and the like)

Saudi Arabia has stronger ties to Al Queida. Iran is more of a threat. North Korea is arming. And Isreal and Palistine are still engaged in daily terror. Preemptive strikes have not made the world safer. We took the easy feel good path and made the world a more dangerous place.

But most of all, it is weak and unethical to attack first, and unless you plan on conquoring the world, you run the risk of being peempted.

Besides, the 166 billion plus would have been better spent shoring up our borders, paying police, law enforcement agences and emergency agencies. This was poorly planed, poorly thought out, and unethical.

[Sly Limey]

Originally posted by JD3
Maybe, but is invasion proper? Is the world safer? Can we kill our way out of this?

Russia couldn't conquer Afganistan, and they were bigger. Killing hasn't changed anything in Isreal (Am I wrong about that?). History seems to say that a people who don't want to stop won't. And since terrorist have no specific national ties, doesn't it seem unlikely that we will be able to combat the problem by invading countries?

Seems like a logic problem to me. And if preemptive attacks are proper and justifiable, especially without proof being a requirement (Wolfiwitz maintained that we couldn't wait for proof), then once we called North Lorea and Iran part of the Axis of Evil, wouldn't they be proper to attack us first and not wait for us to invade them? The logic seems flawed to me.

Besides, even if the UN is a joke, does that mean by law we can side step all jokes? I can break a law in this country the minute I think the law or those enforcing it are jokes?


First off... Russia spent over a decade in afghanistan and ended up with nothing more than a lot of dead soldiers and a dead loss...... We levelled the frikkin place in a few weeks and they are all currently getting back to normal lives without the hassle of living under a crushing repressive regime. 1 - 0 to us.

Second... Saddam was NOT contained. He influenced every part of the middle east through either threats, violence, money or ties to terrorists.

Third... The UN resolutions were put in place under the direct threat of military action should saddam fail to uphold the rulings in those resolutions. Well fail he did and as was promised 12 YEARS ago we acted where the UN was unwilling to do so. We didnt weaken the UN's standing. The UN weakened its own standing by proving itself to be an innefective and weak organisation with no will to back up its own directives.

and finally (for now)... George "dubya" Bush, by acting preemptively was merely upholding his constitutional right to protect his country and its people by removing aggressors before they strike us. Pre-emptive strikes are a constitutionally protected and encouraged act. He is bound by the constitution to do so. For him to sit idly by whilst another nation prepared to damage to or attack the US he would be derelict in his responsibilities as the Leader of the United States.

[NetxMan]

But most of all, it is weak and unethical to attack first, and unless you plan on conquoring the world, you run the risk of being peempted.

So I guess 9/11 was ok to you then? Now, I understand why "Willy" Clinton didn't take Osama when he had a chance. Because that would have been "weak and unethical", we would much rather wait for thousands of people to die before we act.

[JD3]

We have done little in Afganistan. The war lords still rule. The taliban are making inroads. Bombing from above can level, but gaining control of the people takes more.

2nd, were is your evidence? The adinistration has offered none. They say he had nothing to do with 9/11. His links to anyone else was suspect. He lives in the region and cannot help but have connections. Keep in mind he was a secular dictator and not a religious fantic. In fact, he and Bin Lauden were enemies. He did not allow the religious fantics in his country to prosper.

Again, how much of a threat can a country you can take in less than a month be? The couldn't even defend themselves. The president has done nothing of the kind. The argument lacks merit or proof. In fact, it appears that if a nation is a threat, like Iran or North Korea, we will do little or nothing.

We invaded a 3rd world country without proof or evidence that they were in anyway an immenant threat.

[JD3]

And I repeat, SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO WITH 9/11. Ask your president. He said so publically.