Thread: Al Gore throws fuel on the fire...

Originally Posted by brogers

Ok, you're saying Congress and the Senate are spineless pathetic humans, I can agree with that.

Like I said though, it doesn't mean their innocent. Their stance didn't change because they were lied to, it changed because the poll numbers changed.

Your charges of invisible threat are ridiculous. You don't understand that the United States was not the only one with Intel showing weapons programs. If the UN wasn't a joke, Iraq would have been taken care of by then for not complying, years before.

I could go on about how Clinton crippled our Intelligence agency, but nah.

I understand your questioning the level of threat Hussein/Iraq posed to the US, but the Weapons Inspectors were finding nothing regarding WMDs when they searched Iraq. Why did Bush attack?

The WMD inspectors were substantiating the conclusion that Iraq posed no threat to the US from WMDs yet Bush kicked them out of the country and attacked IRaq anyways (in contravention of the grant of UN authority).

Originally Posted by Decker

I understand your questioning the level of threat Hussein/Iraq posed to the US, but the Weapons Inspectors were finding nothing regarding WMDs when they searched Iraq. Why did Bush attack?

The WMD inspectors were substantiating the conclusion that Iraq posed no threat to the US from WMDs yet Bush kicked them out of the country and attacked IRaq anyways (in contravention of the grant of UN authority).

What I'd like to know is how the Inspectors could declare that no WMDs existed if they never had full, unfettered, access to the country.

I'd have to find it, but I had read a statement from one of the weapons inspectors saying the inspections Iraq allowed were a joke.

Before we entered Iraq, I thought it was a good idea. Apparently it wasn't, but you can't trust a madman who's shown in the past he has the capacity to produce chem/bio weapons, and more importantly, that he isn't afraid to use them.

Essentially, we had to see for ourselves. The UN is a joke, IMO, and many others share that opinion. Why did he keep out inspectors for over a decade? That's some pretty suspicious activity.

Originally Posted by DOMS

What I'd like to know is how the Inspectors could declare that no WMDs existed if they never had full, unfettered, access to the country.

The WMD inspectors did not declare that Iraq had no WMDS. They did declare that as they were doing their inspections, no evidence of WMDs could be found. Since Bush kicked them out of the country, they could not complete their investigations.

Originally Posted by Decker

The WMD inspectors did not declare that Iraq had no WMDS. They did declare that as they were doing their inspections, no evidence of WMDs could be found. Since Bush kicked them out of the country, they could not complete their investigations.

Yeah, because they were kicked out so soon. It had only been over a decade.

Originally Posted by brogers

I'd have to find it, but I had read a statement from one of the weapons inspectors saying the inspections Iraq allowed were a joke.

Before we entered Iraq, I thought it was a good idea. Apparently it wasn't, but you can't trust a madman who's shown in the past he has the capacity to produce chem/bio weapons, and more importantly, that he isn't afraid to use them.

Essentially, we had to see for ourselves. The UN is a joke, IMO, and many others share that opinion. Why did he keep out inspectors for over a decade? That's some pretty suspicious activity.

The weapons inspectors are world class scientists. They believed in their methodology--read the report to the UN by Hans Blix (I lost all my links when my computer died yesterday)--In fact one of the inspectors . . .Mohamed ElBaradei, won the 2005 Nobel Prize for Peace for efforts to prevent the spread of atomic weapons and promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100700179.html

The proof is on the ground in Iraq as far as WMDs are concerned: there are none. The inspectors were vindicated and you and the other detractors have been proven wrong. True that's hindsight, but that's all Bush permitted.

Originally Posted by brogers

I'd have to find it, but I had read a statement from one of the weapons inspectors saying the inspections Iraq allowed were a joke.

Before we entered Iraq, I thought it was a good idea. Apparently it wasn't, but you can't trust a madman who's shown in the past he has the capacity to produce chem/bio weapons, and more importantly, that he isn't afraid to use them.

Essentially, we had to see for ourselves. The UN is a joke, IMO, and many others share that opinion. Why did he keep out inspectors for over a decade? That's some pretty suspicious activity.

Besides, he had a history of using and building WMDs. And he had started to build a nuclear reactor (thanks to the Israelis for destroy it!) and had the plans to rebuild it.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Yeah, because they were kicked out so soon. It had only been over a decade.

When it comes to mass loss of lives and property, I'm willing to go that extra mile. Grudging compliance is still compliance.

We did go the extra mile.

We stopped at the end of the first battle and gave them the chance to end it without further loss of life. We even gave them over a decade to comply. The didn't do their part and the war resumed.

Originally Posted by DOMS

We did go the extra mile.

We stopped at the end of the first battle and gave them the chance to end it without further loss of life. We even gave them over a decade to comply. The didn't do their part and the war resumed.

Why all of a sudden, after 10 years, was an ultimatum laid down? I'll tell you why, they had a pretext from 9/11 which actually had nothing to do with Iraq. It was a bad pretext at that, especially considering we have North Korea and now Iran who are essentially saying, "We are pursuing nukes and there ain't shit you can do about it because you are spread to thin, infidels."

If ya ask me, the best way to get them to understand why they can't have nukes is to drop one on them.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Why all of a sudden, after 10 years, was an ultimatum laid down? I'll tell you why, they had a pretext from 9/11 which actually had nothing to do with Iraq. It was a bad pretext at that, especially considering we have North Korea and now Iran who are essentially saying, "We are pursuing nukes and there ain't shit you can do about it because you are spread to thin, infidels."

If ya ask me, the best way to get them to understand why they can't have nukes is to drop one on them.

Why after (over) 10 years? Hell, why didn't we do it after 5 years? Why not wait for 20?

Drop a nuke on North Korea? All we have do to is stop feeding them. The US is the largest financial contributor to North Korea (through the IMF) on the planet. We stop feeding them and they starve.

I was talking more wrt to Iran, but starving the Koreans would be fine too.