US closes book on Iraq WMD hunt - Page 2




 
--
Boots
 
May 8th, 2005  
rkmac48
 
During World War One, the Germans manufactured giant guns, mounted on railroad cars. Numerous evidence was presented that showed the existance of these weapons (of mass destruction, sort of...) with photographs and eyewitness.



To this day, they have not been found. The Allies lost track of them, and the general speculation is that they were buried, probably underground. Ninety years later, their location still remains a mystery.


Just because they haven't been found does not mean they do not exist.
May 8th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkmac48
During World War One, the Germans manufactured giant guns, mounted on railroad cars. Numerous evidence was presented that showed the existance of these weapons (of mass destruction, sort of...) with photographs and eyewitness.



To this day, they have not been found. The Allies lost track of them, and the general speculation is that they were buried, probably underground. Ninety years later, their location still remains a mystery.


Just because they haven't been found does not mean they do not exist.
My point is not whether they exist or not its that we see a lot of people playing both sides of a fence in claiming that the invasion was justified because of UN resolution XXXXX and then saying they were really there "freeing" the Iraqi's and when that falls over its because some other excuse.

Its really not a convincing argument if you are there making the world safer then by all means validate that against the UN resolutions and the lack of a find, if you are there "freeing the people" then leave the UN resolutions out of the equation and justify your actions on that argument.
May 9th, 2005  
gladius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
What I find strange is the left's willingness to focus on this subject while virtually ignoring the mass graves of an estimated 400,000 murdered by Saddam, not to mention the torture brought about by that regime.

Not to mention as 03USMC said, this WMD subject has this has been batted around here before ad nausem.
Whats even stranger is the "rights" desire to ignore that it was the "primary" reason for the war.
The reason for war is not ignored. There were no WMD's found in Iraq,everybody knows this. That doesn't mean there were never any there, Saddam used a scud in the opening moments of the war (isn't a scud consider a WMD?), among other things.

Whatever the reason it is now moot.

The mass graves and torture done by Saddam are what now have come to light. These however are virtually ignored by the left. Why is that? Does focusing on this pull away from how bad Bush is? Its tottaly transparent to see that this is simply agenda driven, by choosing to virtually ignore such horendous human suffering, just to make Bush look bad.

The point is those that were screaming in the beginning about how many Iraqis would get hurt or die in the war are now conveniently leaving this out. There seems to be a lack of humanity by those proffesing to have so much of it.

But your answer proved my original point.
--
Boots
May 9th, 2005  
Snauhi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
What I find strange is the left's willingness to focus on this subject while virtually ignoring the mass graves of an estimated 400,000 murdered by Saddam, not to mention the torture brought about by that regime.

Not to mention as 03USMC said, this WMD subject has this has been batted around here before ad nausem.
Whats even stranger is the "rights" desire to ignore that it was the "primary" reason for the war.
The reason for war is not ignored. There were no WMD's found in Iraq,everybody knows this. That doesn't mean there were never any there, Saddam used a scud in the opening moments of the war (isn't a scud consider a WMD?), among other things.

Whatever the reason it is now moot.

The mass graves and torture done by Saddam are what now have come to light. These however are virtually ignored by the left. Why is that? Does focusing on this pull away from how bad Bush is? Its tottaly transparent to see that this is simply agenda driven, by choosing to virtually ignore such horendous human suffering, just to make Bush look bad.

The point is those that were screaming in the beginning about how many Iraqis would get hurt or die in the war are now conveniently leaving this out. There seems to be a lack of humanity by those proffesing to have so much of it.

But your answer proved my original point.

More Iraqis are dying from the bombs then the Saddmas hands.
May 9th, 2005  
gladius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snauhi
More Iraqis are dying from the bombs then the Saddmas hands.
You got solid proof of this? Besides the ultra-left wing propaganda websites.

I'd tell you to not bother wasting your time cos you'll never find any (because its not true), but that's up to you.

The short answer is, NO, more people didn't die from US bombs in Iraq, than the 400,000 already found in mass grave (there could be more).

Not only that but most Iraqis seemed to tolerate those bombs that were dropped, just to get rid of Saddam, this is what those ultra-left wing sites don't tell you.
May 9th, 2005  
SwordFish_13
 
 
Hi,

Quote:
What I find strange is the left's willingness to focus on this subject while virtually ignoring the mass graves of an estimated 400,000 murdered by Saddam, not to mention the torture brought about by that regime.
What i find Ironical is the same gentleman was considered a Ally once?

There are Too many Tyrants still ruling ......... A world free Saddam and the Like is a safer world ........... But the Desision to go to war was Unilateral desision and that can't be tolarated ............. If you are fighiting for democracy you have to respect democtractic desisions too ........... UN is one such organistaion which has a membership of world countries and being a member you have to respect it's desision .

Peace
-=SF_13=-
May 9th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordFish_13
Hi,

Quote:
What I find strange is the left's willingness to focus on this subject while virtually ignoring the mass graves of an estimated 400,000 murdered by Saddam, not to mention the torture brought about by that regime.
What i find Ironical is the same gentleman was considered a Ally once?

There are Too many Tyrants still ruling ......... A world free Saddam and the Like is a safer world ........... But the Desision to go to war was Unilateral desision and that can't be tolarated ............. If you are fighiting for democracy you have to respect democtractic desisions too ........... UN is one such organistaion which has a membership of world countries and being a member you have to respect it's desision .

Peace
-=SF_13=-
And Stalin was an allie at one time too, because he compared to the Axis was the lesser of two evils to the other allied countries. Same with Saddam vs the Clerics in Iran. 20/20 hind sight is a wonderful thing and I don't recall anyone here ever saying that supporting Saddam wasn't a bone head move in hind sight.

But to keep harping and carping on it well here we call that Monday Morning Quarterbacking. It changes nothing. 20 years after the fact.

Was far as respecting the UN's decisions since you want to throw out that old gem again. My opinion on the UN's wants vs a Sovereign Nations Security is pretty well known so I'm not even going there.
May 9th, 2005  
CABAL
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkmac48
During World War One, the Germans manufactured giant guns, mounted on railroad cars. Numerous evidence was presented that showed the existance of these weapons (of mass destruction, sort of...) with photographs and eyewitness.



To this day, they have not been found. The Allies lost track of them, and the general speculation is that they were buried, probably underground. Ninety years later, their location still remains a mystery.


Just because they haven't been found does not mean they do not exist.
I don't understand why you have the urgency to relate the issue of WMDs in Iraq and the Big Bertha deployed by the German Army. The issue is quite logical and clear to understand. President Bush constantly iinsisted Saddam Hussein Dismantle all weapons that fit within the WMD Category. It appears that Saddam have fooled President Bush when there was no signs of WMD in existance. Which have come this speculation, Mr. Hussein have won and lost. He have lost his political power in Iraq, but he was able to persuade many nations and people across the globe to not trust the United States. As a result, relations with other nations suffered greatly especially Europe.

Secondly, I don't think the term WMD's is no longer convincing as a primary supporting arguement as a justification for the Second Gulf War. What convinces me instead is the United State's willingness to expand its influences, establish relations with other nations (forcefully if necessary), project the policital ideals of the so-called "great" American Demoracy throughout the world, attempting to establish friendlier Pro-American Governments in the Middle East (which of course many Neo-Conservatives describe as necessary).
May 9th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkmac48
During World War One, the Germans manufactured giant guns, mounted on railroad cars. Numerous evidence was presented that showed the existance of these weapons (of mass destruction, sort of...) with photographs and eyewitness.



To this day, they have not been found. The Allies lost track of them, and the general speculation is that they were buried, probably underground. Ninety years later, their location still remains a mystery.


Just because they haven't been found does not mean they do not exist.
Nope thats because the Germans said they destroyed them oddly enough the Allies believed them even after capturing the gun carriage of one of them and even stranger still they were right. Not the best parallel to draw I don't think.

Quote:
It appears that Saddam have fooled President Bush when there was no signs of WMD in existance. Which have come this speculation, Mr. Hussein have won and lost. He have lost his political power in Iraq, but he was able to persuade many nations and people across the globe to not trust the United States. As a result, relations with other nations suffered greatly especially Europe.
A good example of this occurred when not long ofter the Iraq war Powell rolled up to the UN to tell them about Syria and Irans WMDs which promptly met a resounding "haven't we heard this before" response.

So to some degree not have relations suffered but world security has as well since the US has managed to isolate and discredit itself in world politics.
May 9th, 2005  
CABAL
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
A good example of this occurred when not long ofter the Iraq war Powell rolled up to the UN to tell them about Syria and Irans WMDs which promptly met a resounding "haven't we heard this before" response.

So to some degree not have relations suffered but world security has as well since the US has managed to isolate and discredit itself in world politics.
I certainly agree. Its best for the US to halt on consistancy about its WMD issue. That will surely not convince the world.