• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

Boo Radley said:
And yes, snoopes does contradict him. His quotes are from different time periods, some being before Clinton's people declared the threat over.
Click to expand...

No one disputed that the quotes are from prior time periods. However, Clinton’s own people, when making the case for their action, indicated that Saddam has to meet his obligations under the cease fire agreement. They further indicated that Saddam would at some point restart his weapons program. As we know, Saddam was not meeting his obligations under the cease fire agreement in 2002/3 and it was alleged that his program had been restarted (and not just by the US). Hence the relevancy.

So, they meant nothing to the 2003 and debate.
Click to expand...

Of course they do. History doesn't happen in a vaccuum. History didn't start on the day Bush was elected. Many things happened that brought us to that point.

It shows a pattern of behavior by Saddam. He was really just waiting for Bush to send some rockets at him (as Clinton did) then restart his weapons program with the people that still had knowledge of the program.

From interviews conducted by the FBI after Saddam’s capture:

"And that was his intention?" Pelley asks.

"Yes," Piro says.

"What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?" Pelley asks.

"He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program," says Piro.

"Chemical, biological, even nuclear," Pelley asks.

"Yes," Piro says.
 
USA-1 said:
And you expect us to believe him?
Click to expand...

What are you getting at? That he lied about there being no WMDs? And I'm not being sarcastic I just don't understand what you are getting at.
 
Wiseone said:
What are you getting at? That he lied about there being no WMDs? And I'm not being sarcastic I just don't understand what you are getting at.
Click to expand...

I was being sarcasic.
 
Have any of you geniuses actually READ the Iraq war resolution?

If you have, then PLEASE state the specified reasons for war instead of cherry-picking one.
 
buck said:
So, your whole argument is that the intelligence community (including those from many countries that were against the war and did not join us) didn't know as much as you, who had never seen any of the actual data used to make the decision.

Have you ever considred that maybe you just made a guess based on your general dislike for the president and just happened to get lucky? You use the term "knew" as if you truly knew anything. Were you in the CIA at the time reviewing the information? If not, you pretty much knew nothing.
Click to expand...

I knew we were re-invading a country foolishly and needlessly. There have been examples of this in the past, like the one presented above. You learn from history. If you don't learn from it, you repeat it, they say. That's what we did. And look where we are.

Somebody started this thread with information that might appear to mean we actually did find significant amounts of wmds. Woweee! But, we will spend at least a trillion dollars, and thousands of our lives, and to show for it we've found, what's your estimate, maybe a million dollars worth of useless mustard gas?

Goddam smart investment.
 
tryreading said:
I knew we were re-invading a country foolishly and needlessly. There have been examples of this in the past, like the one presented above. You learn from history. If you don't learn from it, you repeat it, they say. That's what we did. And look where we are.

Somebody started this thread with information that might appear to mean we actually did find significant amounts of wmds. Woweee! But, we will spend at least a trillion dollars, and thousands of our lives, and to show for it we've found, what's your estimate, maybe a million dollars worth of useless mustard gas?

Goddam smart investment.
Click to expand...

Its a dumb investment if you believe THAT is the sole reason for invasion.

Perhaps you should read up on all the reasons rather than just one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
scourge99 said:
Its a dumb investment if you believe THAT is the sole reason for invasion.

Perhaps you should read up on all the reasons rather than just one.
Click to expand...

I've heard two people say this now, but they've both so far failed to actually state those reasons themselves. Instead challenging us to "read up" ourselves, which implies two things: that we haven't researched the issue at all, and two, because if we had researched we'd find its only a simple matter of finding information to realize there can only be one conclusion, a pro-war one.

Its insulting in that it states we haven't done the research but also flies in the face of reality when it suggests that two people can't be equally knowledgeable on an issue yet still disagree. AND most importantly for our poster it allows him to imply all of this without actually doing exactly what he's demanding we do, which is research and display the information.
 
scourge99 said:
Its a dumb investment if you believe THAT is the sole reason for invasion.
Perhaps you should read up on all the reasons rather than just one.
Click to expand...
W/o the threat of Hussein giving his WMD to terrorists, the war would not have happened.
As GWB said in his piece up thread, WMD were the main reason.
Also as Wolfowitz noted, when they were planning on how to sell the invasion, it was decided that the threat from the WMD was the only one of the reasons that could justify sending our military into harm's way.

But, yes, as you have noted, other reasons were tacked on as well.
 
Wiseone said:
I've heard two people say this now, but they've both so far failed to actually state those reasons themselves.
Click to expand...
The Iraq War Resolution which EXPLICITLY states the reasons for war and was voted upon and passed by more than 2/3rds the house and senate.

Do you know what the Iraq War Resolution is???
Do you know what a joint resolution is?

Here it is: READ IT.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf


Notice all the reasons that DON'T involve WMDs??

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

Wiseone said:
Instead challenging us to "read up" ourselves, which implies two things: that we haven't researched the issue at all, and two, because if we had researched we'd find its only a simple matter of finding information to realize there can only be one conclusion, a pro-war one.
Click to expand...
I challenge you to read because most posters have done little more than read newspaper articles and listen to pundits. I believe you fall into that category.

I challenge you to use higher level sources.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
Simon W. Moon said:
W/o the threat of Hussein giving his WMD to terrorists, the war would not have happened.
Click to expand...
I comment on what is, has been, and can be shown as true. I don't speculate on "what if" situations. I leave that to people who claim to be fortune tellers.



Simon W. Moon said:
As GWB said in his piece up thread, WMD were the main reason.
Also as Wolfowitz noted, when they were planning on how to sell the invasion, it was decided that the threat from the WMD was the only one of the reasons that could justify sending our military into harm's way.
Click to expand...
WMDs were how the war was "sold" to the American people.

In every war in US history the government needs the support of the people to go to war, to stay in war, and to mop up post-war. WMDs were the pre-war justification. Its too bad for the Bush administration that the propaganda machine fell flat when no WMDs were found. That was a major blunder on their part which will always be remembered.
 
Last edited:
tryreading said:
I knew we were re-invading a country foolishly and needlessly. There have been examples of this in the past, like the one presented above. You learn from history. If you don't learn from it, you repeat it, they say. That's what we did. And look where we are.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. You "knew" alright. :roll:

The very next time a dangerous country is acting like they have WMD's and not fullfilling their agreements under international treaties, i'm sure Obama will yell for them to "go get that TryReading guy". Think of all the money that can be saved by just trusting our national defence to you. Sure, you'll be wrong almost all of the time, but just think - you'll always have Iraq. The one time you were right.

Somebody started this thread with information that might appear to mean we actually did find significant amounts of wmds. Woweee! But, we will spend at least a trillion dollars, and thousands of our lives, and to show for it we've found, what's your estimate, maybe a million dollars worth of useless mustard gas?

Goddam smart investment.
Click to expand...

Well, IMO there were and will be further benefits from this invesment. But if the only one you can see is the little bit of WMD that we found, good for you.
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
I comment on what is, has been, and can be shown as true. I don't speculate on "what if" situations. I leave that to people who claim to be fortune tellers.
Click to expand...
You offer support for the idea that the threat of WMD was essential and critical for the US to "to go to war, to stay in war, and to mop up post-war."
scourge99 said:
WMDs were how the war was "sold" to the American people.
In every war in US history the government needs the support of the people to go to war, to stay in war, and to mop up post-war. WMDs were the pre-war justification. Its too bad for the Bush administration that the propaganda machine fell flat when no WMDs were found. That was a major blunder on their part which will always be remembered.
Click to expand...
If the war was not "sold" to the electorate, we would not have gone.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
You offer support for the idea that the threat of WMD was essential and critical for the US to "to go to war, to stay in war, and to mop up post-war."
Click to expand...
I only offer support that the Bush administration made effective use of WMDs/Al-Queda/Terrorism/9-11 as propaganda in order to garner support for the war. Propaganda that is part of every war that needs to be "sold" to the populace.

Based on the history of our relations with those in the region, the writing in the resolution, and others things, its seems clear that there were far more and complex reasons the leaders wished to go to war than simply what the propaganda so clearly put forth.

Simon W. Moon said:
If the war was not "sold" to the electorate, we would not have gone.
Click to expand...
I find it unlikely that a democratic republic would go to war without at least partial support of its people.

I do NOT claim to know what would of happened. I leave such speculation for others to debate.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
These Wikileaks are great, apparently, as long as they make Bush look bad.
Click to expand...

Also the majority of chem attacks that have occurred in Iraq were home brewed and normally used off the self legal chemicals. For example many insurgents attempted to use IEDs or bombs which mixed Bleach and Ammonia, it wasn't very effective because the range was small and required the soldier to remain in that spot for a long time. Basically it was about as effective as the Mustard gas used in WW1, but even less so because soldiers weren't stuck in a trench.
 
Hatuey said:
Mustard and blister agents are not WMDs lol.

Bush on WMDs:



False.

Bush on Yellow Cake Uranium:



False.

Anybody who thinks mustard gas and blister agent are some of the most 'lethal weapons ever devised' has obviously never heard of agent orange, AQ Khan's thermonuclear technology, NK's plutonium bombs and all the others held by Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia etc. Seriously, Iraq was a crippled little bull**** state we managed to overthrow in 3 weeks.
Click to expand...
Do you.... know... anything about blister agents?
 
Boo Radley said:
No, snoopes says so. Again, we've all been through this before. You have read discussions on this before haven't you?
Click to expand...

Snopes is an arm of the leftists designed to deny the truth. If you believe Snopes, you probably use Wikipedia as your prime source of information.
 
tryreading said:
I mean the White House, and everyone in Congress who voted for war, were fools.
Click to expand...

Glad to see you are an equal opportunity labeler because there were Democrats who voted for that war.


Okay, all those trucks? You mean trucks that were exposed by our intelligence?
Click to expand...

Satellite photos.

You tell me about the trucks. And tell me why, in 7 years, we still don't know if weapons were moved in them.
Click to expand...

Tell me. Did we attack Syria? If not, why didn't we? I'm not privy to CIA briefings. Maybe you are and will enlighten your readers.
 
You know, I've been waiting for all the free oil we were supposed to get by invading Iraq. How's that working out? Can I expect my discount gas card in the mail sometime soon because I gotta tell ya, I've been waiting since 2001 for that damn thing and it still hasn't gotten here.

I mean, "blood for oil" was the rallying cry for years - so if it were true, we should be grabbing the oil right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
bicycleman said:
Snopes is an arm of the leftists designed to deny the truth. If you believe Snopes, you probably use Wikipedia as your prime source of information.
Click to expand...

I know, I know. Reality has a liberal bias. Anything that factually contradicts your world view, your bias, must be liberally biased. I got that.
 
buck said:
No one disputed that the quotes are from prior time periods. However, Clinton’s own people, when making the case for their action, indicated that Saddam has to meet his obligations under the cease fire agreement. They further indicated that Saddam would at some point restart his weapons program. As we know, Saddam was not meeting his obligations under the cease fire agreement in 2002/3 and it was alleged that his program had been restarted (and not just by the US). Hence the relevancy.
Click to expand...

People here do treat those comments as if they weren't from another time period, and that actions in the past had no bearing on them, and leave out comments by them that said that threat was over.

Again, meeting is obligations wasn't the argument that won with the public, or really a valid reaason for us to invade outside the UN. Those obligations were to the UN and not just the US. violating UN resolutions is a UN matter. For us to invade outside the UN, we have to a reason beyond those. And by our agreements, it must be that we are being attacked or that an attack is eminent. That condition did not exist. So, Sadda is a bad man doesn't qualify as reason to invade. And outside the UN, neither does him not meeting his obligations.

Of course they do. History doesn't happen in a vaccuum. History didn't start on the day Bush was elected. Many things happened that brought us to that point.

It shows a pattern of behavior by Saddam. He was really just waiting for Bush to send some rockets at him (as Clinton did) then restart his weapons program with the people that still had knowledge of the program.

From interviews conducted by the FBI after Saddam’s capture:

"And that was his intention?" Pelley asks.

"Yes," Piro says.

"What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?" Pelley asks.

"He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program," says Piro.

"Chemical, biological, even nuclear," Pelley asks.

"Yes," Piro says.
Click to expand...

No one suggests history happens in a vaccum, but comments out of context don't apply today. That's the point. Nor does Saddams history of behavior. His history certainly means we should not take his word at face value, and no one has suggested we should. But to invade a country, any country, the standard hs to be higgh. We must have serious cause, reason, justification. And those qquotes, even if they were in context, would not qualify (even though that's not why they are presented. They are present to sugest agreement with Bush).
 
Boo Radley said:
I know, I know. Reality has a liberal bias. Anything that factually contradicts your world view, your bias, must be liberally biased. I got that.
Click to expand...

Or your statement can be reworded regarding Snopes.

"Boo Radley has a lberal bias. Anything that contradicts his world view, his bias must be conservatively biased."
 
Boo Radley said:
People here do treat those comments as if they weren't from another time period, and that actions in the past had no bearing on them, and leave out comments by them that said that threat was over.
Click to expand...
I have never heard anyone state or even suggest that. The comments are relevant because they show that even they believed Saddam to be dangerous, to not be cooperating with inspections and had WMD. Operation Desert Fox, as Albright and Clinton and others stated, was not to rid Saddam of WMD, but simply to degrade his ability to make and deliver them. In what world (other than yours) does degrading mean the same as eliminating the threat? So, since it obviously wasn’t Operation Desert Fox that eliminated the threat, what activity after that operation is it that you believe eliminated it?

Again, meeting is obligations wasn't the argument that won with the public, or really a valid reaason for us to invade outside the UN. Those obligations were to the UN and not just the US. violating UN resolutions is a UN matter. For us to invade outside the UN, we have to a reason beyond those. And by our agreements, it must be that we are being attacked or that an attack is eminent. That condition did not exist. So, Sadda is a bad man doesn't qualify as reason to invade. And outside the UN, neither does him not meeting his obligations.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with that slightly. Saddam not meeting his obligations was one of the arguments that won with the public. It confirmed in the mind of the public (and probably of those in charge) that Saddam had WMD. There were often reports of inspectors being delayed or even turned away which is rather suspicious activity for someone that doesn’t have anything to hide. Had Saddam cooperated, I find it highly unlikely that the war would have or even could have gone forward. Had Saddam actually cooperated with inspectors, people would have been far less likely to be for the war. I know I wouldn’t have been for the war and I am sure there are many others just like me.
 
BTW: The war had never actually ended. A cesefire predicated upon Saddam following the requirements laid out in that document was signed. Saddam didn't follow through on his obligations and the cease fire ended. We were still in a war posture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
buck said:
I have never heard anyone state or even suggest that. The comments are relevant because they show that even they believed Saddam to be dangerous, to not be cooperating with inspections and had WMD. Operation Desert Fox, as Albright and Clinton and others stated, was not to rid Saddam of WMD, but simply to degrade his ability to make and deliver them. In what world (other than yours) does degrading mean the same as eliminating the threat? So, since it obviously wasn’t Operation Desert Fox that eliminated the threat, what activity after that operation is it that you believe eliminated it?
Click to expand...

1) Then. Hence why the ocntext, the declaration that the threat was over is important. Then.

2) Dangerous? How dangerous? It has to reach the level of having to be invaded. Mere dangerous is not enough. He was a bad person, he did bad things, there was a small level of threat. It is not about finding quotes recognizing this. It is about showing they believed he reached the level of having to be invaded. Remember, most good lies start with a little truth.

3) Dealing absolutes was part of Bush's problem. Something you seem to be doing above. You can never eliminate all threats. We certainly didn't do that by invading Iraq. Saddam did not have the ability to make and store stock piles, which is why much of what he had left was no longer viable, having degraded to the point of being useless.


I would disagree with that slightly. Saddam not meeting his obligations was one of the arguments that won with the public. It confirmed in the mind of the public (and probably of those in charge) that Saddam had WMD. There were often reports of inspectors being delayed or even turned away which is rather suspicious activity for someone that doesn’t have anything to hide. Had Saddam cooperated, I find it highly unlikely that the war would have or even could have gone forward. Had Saddam actually cooperated with inspectors, people would have been far less likely to be for the war. I know I wouldn’t have been for the war and I am sure there are many others just like me.
Click to expand...

Outside of polticial sites like this, I don't see much of the public even aware, let alone convinced by that argument. As for Saddam, and people don't really think this through much, so it may have seem to many that turning away meant he had something, Saddam had to make countries like Iran think he could defend himself. He had to walk a fine line, keeping the UN off him and Iran worried. Had we been more concerned with evidence than appearances, Rumsfeld would have never gotten away with absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And remember, inspectors were on the ground. They were asking for time. They were not convinced invasion was warranted. The evidence suggests there was nothing Saddam could have done to prevent invasion. It was always just a matter of when. Just because it wasn't easy, again, doesn't justify leaping all the war to invasion and war, especially considering the cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom