WMDs - "Rumors of Wars" prophecy fulfilled?

[jonnybreeves]

If I were to use my best efforts to make a pro-Iraq War argument with the information I know, an informed argument would still have to take into account the following indisputable facts:

1) Iraq had no WMDs after all
2) Each of the highest ranking officials in the Bush administration continually spoke of the existence of WMDs as fact
3) Two weeks before the invasion, chief UN weapons inspectors reported that no WMDs, or weapons facilities, including mobile or underground facilities, had been found
4) The US ignored the lack of WMD findings by UN inspectors and misled the public regarding those findings, continuing to emphasize the existence of underground and mobile facilities
5) Two weeks before the invasion, chief UN weapons inspectors reported the highest level of progress and cooperation from Iraq since the Gulf War
6) The US ignored the reports by UN inspectors of Iraqi cooperation and misled the public regarding that reported cooperation
7) The US went to war without a declaration, having never been attacked by Iraq and, to the contrary, after attacking Iraq for decades
8 ) Despite all of the above, the "intelligence community" is consistently blamed for the erroneous WMD claims

Don't believe me? Read my next post... And decide for yourself if the Iraq War and the broader "War on Terror" is prophecy fulfilled.

[jonnybreeves]

We tend to think of the Iraq War in terms of a timeline from September 11th to the present. However, to really understand the invasion of Iraq, one must first understand the history of US-Iraq relations. During the 1980's, the US supported Saddam and provided his military funding and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

In 1990 and 1991 however, after Saddam used his military power to invade Kuwait—something against US interests—the US fought against Iraq in the Gulf War. Following the Gulf War, the UN passed resolution 687 which required Iraq to destroy all WMDs as well as their capability to produce them. Over the next 7 years, UN inspectors oversaw the destruction of WMDs but were critical of Iraq's level of cooperation. In 1998, Bill Clinton approved air strikes against Iraq known as Operation Desert Fox in which the US and UK bombed many targets throughout Iraq. In anticipation of the 1998 air strikes, UN inspectors left and were not "kicked out" as Bush later alleged in his 2002 "axis of evil" speech. After having 100 targets bombed, Iraq refused to allow UN inspectors back into the country to "inspect" their remaining weapons capabilities.

The "War on Terror" shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq after George W. Bush gave his State of the Union address in January, 2002, when he described the "axis of evil.” These remarks were the first in a year long propaganda campaign that eventually led to the Invasion of Iraq. As the time for war drew closer, the administration became increasingly relentless in their claims that Iraq possessed and refused to disarm WMDs, although many politicians and persons in the media were increasingly skeptical.

Towards the end of 2002, Iraq's government gave in to international pressure and agreed to allow UN weapons inspectors back into the country. The US, and the UK made a push to pass UN resolution 1441. This resolution alleged that Iraq was still in violation of the earlier mentioned Resolution 687 that required Iraq to destroy its WMDs following the Gulf War. This new resolution (1441) required Iraq to comply "immediately, unconditionally and actively," with every term of the resolution, giving Iraq its final chance to destroy its WMDs before having to face "serious consequences."

Weapons Inspectors entered Iraq for the first time in 4 years on November 27, 2002. On March 7, 2003, after only three months of inspections, Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix reported a level of cooperation from Iraq never reached during the entire decade after the gulf war. Keep in mind, this progress was reported two weeks before the US invaded:

"Inspections in Iraq resumed on the 27th of November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties, and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM [U.N. Special Commission] in the period 1991 to 1998." He stated that, "The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. It has not, however, so far persisted in this or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it."

Despite the notable progress and increased cooperation, Blix acknowledged that remaining tasks needed to be completed and said:

"How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can – cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months.

"Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programs."

After over a decade of conflict, based on the current Iraqi cooperation, verification of disarmament was to take months, and a remaining monitoring system would ensure our continued safety.

In addition to reporting substantial progress and cooperation, Blix went on to emphasize that, contrary to US intelligence estimates, UN inspectors had found no evidence of mobile or underground weapons facilities:

"...intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons. The Iraqi side states that such activities do not exist.

"Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food-testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen as well as large containers with seed-processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found. Iraq is expected to assist in the development of credible ways to conduct random checks of ground transportation."

"...There have been reports, denied from the Iraqi side, that proscribed activities are conducted underground. Iraq should provide information on any underground structure suitable for the production or storage of weapons of mass destruction.

"During inspections of declared or undeclared facilities, inspection teams have examined building structures for any possible underground facilities. In addition, ground-penetrating radar equipment was used in several specific locations. No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far."

Towards the end of his report, Blix explained that a draft working document was to be submitted to the UN Security Council for approval the same month. The document addressed "unresolved disarmament issues," and identified "key remaining disarmament tasks." Notice what Blix said about the amount of information contained in the working document for the period between 1998 and 2003:

"...I should note that the working document contains much information and discussion about the issues which existed at the end of 1998, including information which has come to light after '98. It contains much less information and discussion about the period after 1998, primarily because of paucity [scarcity] of information.

“Nevertheless, intelligence agencies have expressed the view that proscribed programs have continued or restarted in this period. It is further contended that proscribed programs and items are located in underground facilities, as I mentioned, and that proscribed items are being moved around Iraq. The working document does contain suggestions on how these concerns may be tackled."

Because weapons inspectors were absent 4 years, they could not confidently say whether mobile or underground facilities existed. When UN weapons inspector's demanded to see US intelligence evidencing the existence of those facilities, the US refused to reveal that intelligence. The WMDs were exactly where the US wanted them, underground and mobile, so that no one in the international community, including UN weapons inspectors could determine whether WMDs actually existed. In reality, if the US had waited to invade, the UN would have confirmed to the world that the WMDs and mobile and underground weapons facilities did not exist.

A week later (just four days before the invasion), intelligence documents the US had claimed were 'strong evidence' of Iraq's nuclear weapons programs were dismissed by the UN as forgeries. However, the question has never been answered as to who forged these documents originally identified by the US as such 'strong evidence.' According to a CNN article, "experts said the suspects include the intelligence services of Iraq's neighbors, other pro-war nations, Iraqi opposition groups or simply con men. Most rule out the United States, Great Britain or Israel because they said those countries' intelligence services would have been able to make much more convincing forgeries if they had chosen to do so. President Bush even highlighted the documents in his State of the Union address on January 28." See CNN article: Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for US: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.i ... index.html

The Bush administration defiantly countered the progress reported by weapons inspectors on March 7, 2002, by repeating the claim to the American public that our intelligence indicated that Saddam was using mobile and underground weapons facilities to hide his WMD programs.

However, such an opposite and defiant reaction from the administration to reported progress from weapons inspectors was foreseeable. Months before the inspections began, the Bush administration had hedged against the possibility of reported progress and cooperation from Iraq. In August 2002, three months before inspections, Cheney had voiced his disapproval of inspectors entering Iraq altogether, claiming that inspections would only be detrimental by giving a false sense of security:

"A return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of his [Saddam's] compliance with the UN resolutions. On the contrary, there is a great danger that it would provide false comfort that Saddam was somehow back in his box."

If the US was so sure of the existence of WMDs, why would Cheney be worried that that inspectors would not find them, months before inspections began?

In addition to the administration's attempt to counter the possibility of reported cooperation and progress months before inspections began, on the same day Hans Blix reported, Colin Powell was also prepared to ward off the reported progress before the UN. According to Powell, the progress and cooperation reported by weapons inspectors fell short. After all under resolution 1441, Iraq had to comply “immediately, unconditionally and actively” or else face “serious consequences.” He also continued to assert that he “knew” underground and mobile facilities existed:

UNITED NATIONS WEAPONS INSPECTORS REPORT
TO SECURITY COUNCIL ON PROGRESS IN DISARMAMENT OF IRAQ
UN Press Release
…[Colin Powell] said today’s meeting concerned a very, very important question, namely, whether the Iraqi leadership had made the decision to comply with Security Council resolutions and to rid itself of all weapons of mass destruction and infrastructure for such weapons. The answer was not about how many inspectors were on the ground, or how much more time and effort should be given, nor whether more benchmarks were needed. The answer depended on whether Iraq had made the choice to actively cooperate in every possible manner in the immediate and complete disarmament of its prohibited weapons.

Today’s briefings had shed more light on that difficult question, he said. He had listened very carefully to hear if Iraq had finally understood that the will of the international community must be obeyed. He was pleased to hear some new progress and activity with respect to substance, but he was sorry that that was all still coming in a grudging manner and that Iraq was still refusing to offer immediate, active and unconditional cooperation – not late, but immediate, not passive, but active, and not conditional, but unconditional in every respect. Despite some progress, he still found a catalogue of non-cooperation. If Iraq genuinely wanted to disarm, he would not have to worry about setting up the means to look for mobile biological units, and search extensively for the underground facilities he knew existed…

Unfortunately, the next day, President Bush also misled the public with regard to the reported progress and cooperation in a radio address, leading the unquestioning public to believe that the March 7 report by UN weapons inspectors actually concluded that Iraq did in fact have WMDs:

War on Terror President's Radio Address – Audio
March 8, 2003

The Chief United Nations Weapons Inspector reported yesterday to the Security Council on his efforts to verify Saddam Hussein's compliance with Resolution 1441. This resolution requires Iraq to fully and unconditionally disarm itself of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons materials, as well as the prohibited missiles that could be used to deliver them. Unfortunately, it is clear that Saddam Hussein is still violating the demands of the United Nations by refusing to disarm. (Notice how this last statement appears to be the UN inspector's conclustion but nothing could be further from the truth.)

…our intelligence shows that even as he is destroying these few missiles, he has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles…If the Iraqi regime were disarming, we would know it – because we would see it; Iraq's weapons would be presented to inspectors and destroyed. Inspection teams do not need more time, or more personnel – all they need is what they have never received, the full cooperation of the Iraqi regime.

…The attacks of September the 11, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terror states could do with weapons of mass destruction. We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.

Based on the logic Powell and Bush use, it is clear the use of military force never hinged on proof of the existence of WMDs. After all, the administration already ‘knew’ Saddam had WMDs—they didn’t need proof from the UN. No, the invasion hinged on whether Saddam complied with every term of resolution 1441, “immediately, unconditionally and actively,” as Colin Powell emphasized in his retort to Hans Blix's report.

Rather than grant the few months requested by weapons inspectors to complete the UN inspection, the US and UK took action. Incredibly, on the same day of Hans Blix report, the US, UK, and Spain presented a drafted UN Security Council resolution that said:

"Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded by resolution 1441 (2002) unless, on or before 17 March 2003, the Council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under resolution 1441 and previous relevant resolutions, and is yielding possession to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems and structures, prohibited by resolution 687 (1991) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and all information regarding prior destruction of such items."

If passed, the resolution would have given UN authorization to carry out the "serious consequences" warned of in resolution 1441—the use of military force. However, after facing opposition in the UN from other countries, the US, UK, and Spain abandoned their efforts to pass this new resolution. Instead, the administration invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, under authorization they had received in October, 2002 when congress circumvented the Constitution by granting power to the President to use military power to disarm Iraq, without officially declaring war. Reminiscent of Viet Nam, congress has never actually declared war on Iraq.

After the invasion, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and that Saddam ended the country's nuclear program after the Persian Gulf War in 1991. The Iraq Survey Group also concluded that UN inspectors were in the process of confirming these facts before the invasion.

The following is an excerpt from the President's address to the nation where he admits that the intelligence regarding the existence of WMDs was wrong:

President's Address to the Nation – Video
December 18, 2005

"...From this office, nearly three years ago, I announced the start of military operations in Iraq. Our coalition confronted a regime that defied United Nations Security Council resolutions, violated a cease-fire agreement, sponsored terrorism, and possessed, we believed, weapons of mass destruction. After the swift fall of Baghdad, we found mass graves filled by a dictator; we found some capacity to restart programs to produce weapons of mass destruction, but we did not find those weapons.

"It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

"He was given an ultimatum – and he made his choice for war. And the result of that war was to rid a – the world of a murderous dictator who menaced his people, invaded his neighbors, and declared America to be his enemy. Saddam Hussein, captured and jailed, is still the same raging tyrant – only now without a throne. His power to harm a single man, woman, or child is gone forever. And the world is better for it."

[pjbrownie]

You cannot prove a negative. Just because WMD's were NOT found by the US forces does not mean they were not there. You could take a truckload of Ricin, bury it in the desert, and no one will find it. The WMD story has always been a massive shell game.

AND, you seriously trust Hans Blix and the UN? Come on! I don't trust any of these clowns, Bush, Cheney, or Obama. I was against the war in principle--we need to be attacked before we attack. It's called claiming the moral high ground. We were not attacked by Iraq, therefore, we don't attack.

The premise for going in was lame. They wanted a pro-American democracy in the Middle East--WMD's were their way in via UN resolutions which I don't give a cup of warm spit for. They should of just said "we want regime change and to democratize Iraq." Period.

[jonnybreeves]

You cannot prove a negative. Just because WMD's were NOT found by the US forces does not mean they were not there. You could take a truckload of Ricin, bury it in the desert, and no one will find it. The WMD story has always been a massive shell game.

AND, you seriously trust Hans Blix and the UN? Come on! I don't trust any of these clowns, Bush, Cheney, or Obama. I was against the war in principle--we need to be attacked before we attack. It's called claiming the moral high ground. We were not attacked by Iraq, therefore, we don't attack.

The premise for going in was lame. They wanted a pro-American democracy in the Middle East--WMD's were their way in via UN resolutions which I don't give a cup of warm spit for. They should of just said "we want regime change and to democratize Iraq." Period.

So where do we disagree?

[pjbrownie]

The fact or non-fact that Iraq had no WMD's. Other than that we're pretty square.

[CBentley]

Sure they had them.

[CBentley]

I should mention that Iraq did have weapons (made in the U.S.A.), but they likely used them on the Kurds.

[jonnybreeves]

You cannot prove a negative. Just because WMD's were NOT found by the US forces does not mean they were not there. You could take a truckload of Ricin, bury it in the desert, and no one will find it. The WMD story has always been a massive shell game.

AND, you seriously trust Hans Blix and the UN? Come on! I don't trust any of these clowns, Bush, Cheney, or Obama. I was against the war in principle--we need to be attacked before we attack. It's called claiming the moral high ground. We were not attacked by Iraq, therefore, we don't attack.

The premise for going in was lame. They wanted a pro-American democracy in the Middle East--WMD's were their way in via UN resolutions which I don't give a cup of warm spit for. They should of just said "we want regime change and to democratize Iraq." Period.

pjbrownie,
You do understand that most experts are in agreement that Iraq had no significant weapons capability since after the Gulf War (1991)? You also understand that UN Weapons Inspectors remained in Iraq through the 1990's and assured that any remaining weapons were dismantled and destroyed?

This is why Scott Ritter, the UN Chief Weapons Inspector through the 1990's disagreed so adamantly about the US Intelligence assessment that Saddam had accumulated massive stockpiles of WMDs.
Short video clip of Scott Ritter laying down the smack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVjSwGnIUII
Another short video of Scott Ritter: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ba3Tzl31SPA

The Iraq Survey Group sent in immediately after the invasion had this to say:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/
The Iraq Survey Group report said that Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended the country's nuclear program after the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

...the report said that "the former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after the sanctions."

The report found that Iraq's "ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed" after 1991 -- and a nuclear weapon would have been years away.

We are talking about massive stockpiles of WMDs, so threatening to the US homeland that we were drawn into war. We are talking about weapons production capabilities and nuclear weapons production facilities. Not a pile of mustard agent that can be buried in the desert. This is one of the major misconceptions of the American public. This is what the media and gov counts on you not thinking about for too long, because if you do, you come to realize that this was one big fat lie. Then it makes you feel a little weird about the millions of people we have killed over there (1 Million under Clinton's/UNs sanctions, and approaching 1 Million since the war began).

[Mark]

I need to jump in here about this issue of the often debated WMD in Iraq. This has been one of the most propagandized issues of the American 5th column that you could possibly find. Regardless on ones feelings about the legitimacy of the Iraq war this WMD has become nothing but a political sham where virtually no one really wants to have the truth widely published.

Democrats ignore anything that validates alternative findings about this issue because they want to hurt the credibility of Republicans and further their own agenda's. Republicans like those in the Bush admin don't want to really get to the bottom of this because they fear alienating some of our so called allies like Russia in fighting global terrorism. (What a freakin joke that is!) Therefore the truth has been hidden from the public in large measure by a main stream press who frankly don't give a fat rats behind about fully disclosing what the truth really is.

Only a few independent journalists and researchers have been willing to tell the truth about this. Their findings are never published by mainstream media sources because they don't want to change public perception about the propaganda that has overflowed concerning this. Its a big joke.

It kind of reminds me of the alternative medicine field. The drug companies don't want to allow the truth about things like alternative cancer treatments with naturopathic remedies out in the public eye because it jeopordizes their control over the minds of the sheeple and their cash cow they have going. The Govt agencies like the FDA then squash any possibilities that these alternatives can become avaliable to the public on a broad scale because they are in bed with the drug companies. Its all one big scam with money and power at the core of it.

Come on now Jonny and any others who buy into this no WMD argument. Don't get sucked into the perceptions and propaganda that has been carefully laid out by those who don't want the truth to be told here about this issue. Allow the truth to take precedence over any agendas or pre-conceived notions about this or that conspiracy.


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71076

http://www.globalpolitician.com/21644-iraq-wmd

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1259806/posts

http://www.worldthreats.com/?cat=19

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatc ... /0127.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... 64CCC1FFCD

[NoGreaterLove]

I think we have to give the hypothesis that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction a logical look. If I were Saddam Hussein and I knew the United States was about to attack, or I was aware of the fact that the world community was paying attention to me, pointing a finger in my direction, accusing me of WMD, I would find a way to get it out of my country unnoticed.

My first phone call would be to Russia, a country who has extensive experience with the products. There are top government officials who have breifly spoken of Russian cooperation in this matter.

So to say there were no WMD in Iraq before we attacked, based on the fact that we only found five hundred chemical weapons after the war, is baseless.
Someone could accuse me of having weapons in my house and threaten to come to my door, break in and find them. Do you think I am going to just keep them here? Come on! Even Saddam was not that stupid!
I realize it would take some great expertise to cover this up, but bring in Russia, and you have what you need.

Just some thoughts in favor of WMD. I am split about 60/40 on the issue in favor of them having them. But what difference does it make? We already saw what his intentions were in 1991. We already saw him kill tens of thousands of his own people with chemicals. In my opinion the Lord allowed and just maybe, just maybe inspired the attack. I guess we will never know on this earth.

What did Pres Gordon B. Hinckley mean when he said this in conference in Oct 2001?

It is the terrorist organizations that must be ferreted out and brought down.

We of this Church know something of such groups. The Book of Mormon speaks of the Gadianton robbers, a vicious, oath-bound, and secret organization bent on evil and destruction. In their day they did all in their power, by whatever means available, to bring down the Church, to woo the people with sophistry, and to take control of the society. We see the same thing in the present situation.

We are people of peace. We are followers of the Christ who was and is the Prince of Peace. But there are times when we must stand up for right and decency, for freedom and civilization, just as Moroni rallied his people in his day to the defense of their wives, their children, and the cause of liberty (see Alma 48:10).

[Gaz]

I forgot about this thread. I'm also going to do something I hate when other people do, post after only having read the first post.

I've got a few quick points to hit:
1. WMD's never mattered. We wanted to get another pro-US country in the region and Saddam was an easy target.

2. Playing the hunt for WMD's game is retarded. Even if Saddam had them, there are so many places he could have moved them to that it doesn't even matter. If he didn't have them at the time, he intended to get them as soon as he could. It doesn't matter.

3. We need to withdraw from the UN. Multilateralism is an abysmal failure. There are too many competing interests with way too much bureaucracy and almost no will to enforce its own rules. When countries ruled by crackpots like Iran and North Korea are flaunting the UN, you know you have a serious problem. What happens when a big boy like China or Russia decides they want to throw down?

4. We need to stay out of foreign wars. America doesn't have the political will to fight other peoples wars. When you have socialists that think the highest priority the country has is to pay for lazy peoples healthcare, it is unlikely any action on foreign soil is going to be successful. We want to tie down our generals with politics, instead of letting them run the campaign successfully.

5. Capitalism is the best motivator we have. If we're interested in enforcing our will on another country, we can do it through embargos. If they pose a real credible threat to the US, we can go whip them and leave the rebuilding of the country to them.

[jonnybreeves]

1. WMD's never mattered. We wanted to get another pro-US country in the region and Saddam was an easy target.

Gaz,
I completely agree with this, which basically sums up your other points, so I think I agree with all of what you are saying.

I am interested in reading Mark's links, and I am totally open to new information about this or any other issue, Mark. Not sure what they say yet, but I will warn that it will be hard to convince me that both the Democrats and Republicans weren't using WMDs to scare the American public, post 9/11 "Terrorist Attack," and that Bush, et al, weren't lying straight through there teeth in order to go to war. This is my main point, which highlights the immorality and gross unconstitutionality of what is happening over there. However, I'm always up for learning more about the weapons that Saddam bought from the sophisticated military powers...and I tend to trust investigative journalists much more than most anything else in this world.

[Gaz]

LOL you should probably read the other posts...

I know, I'm ashamed of myself. I wanted to respond so it didn't appear that I was avoiding the thread, but I didn't have the time to read through everything and reply.

[Mark]

WMD's never mattered. We wanted to get another pro-US country in the region and Saddam was an easy target.

No need to apologise Gaz. I don't doubt your premise at all. However as I have said multiple times here the risk of getting cut off from the oil supply in that part of the world would be an economic disaster to the western world. If the middle east and all its anti-American allies did a power play against America in cutting off oil can you imagine the consequences of such an event? It would send the United States into a tailspin that they would not recover from for years if oil supplies to the west were severely limited or shut down from all international suppliers. Our economy would shrivel up like a prune. Oil is our lifeblood and we require its continued flow to continue our economic facade. We made our bed by not making ourselves energy independent and we will have to sleep in it to maintain a semblance of normality and a lack of total chaos.

[jonnybreeves]

WMD's never mattered. We wanted to get another pro-US country in the region and Saddam was an easy target.

No need to apologise Gaz. I don't doubt your premise at all. However as I have said multiple times here the risk of getting cut off from the oil supply in that part of the world would be an economic disaster to the western world. If the middle east and all its anti-American allies did a power play against America in cutting off oil can you imagine the consequences of such an event? It would send the United States into a tailspin that they would not recover from for years if oil supplies to the west were severely limited or shut down from all international suppliers. Our economy would shrivel up like a prune. Oil is our lifeblood and we require its continued flow to continue our economic facade. We made our bed by not making ourselves energy independent and we will have to sleep in it to maintain a semblance of normality and a lack of total chaos.

Mark, I think you are right...it is the second step to what Gaz is saying...i.e., why would we want a presence in the middle east? Oil, short and simple (our "vital interests" that politicians talked openly about for decades until War time - just google the phrase "vital interests"). Iraq has the 3rd largest oil reserves of any country (some say 1st based on the probability of oil in unsurveyed oil fields).

The oil fields have already been bid on and divied up to US and UK big oil. http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... 2L20090309

The problem is...we are supposed to live righteously and expect the Lord to bless us if we live in righteousness...not rule the world by the point of a bayonet. Do you agree?

[Gaz]

WMD's never mattered. We wanted to get another pro-US country in the region and Saddam was an easy target.

No need to apologise Gaz. I don't doubt your premise at all. However as I have said multiple times here the risk of getting cut off from the oil supply in that part of the world would be an economic disaster to the western world. If the middle east and all its anti-American allies did a power play against America in cutting off oil can you imagine the consequences of such an event? It would send the United States into a tailspin that they would not recover from for years if oil supplies to the west were severely limited or shut down from all international suppliers. Our economy would shrivel up like a prune. Oil is our lifeblood and we require its continued flow to continue our economic facade. We made our bed by not making ourselves energy independent and we will have to sleep in it to maintain a semblance of normality and a lack of total chaos.

Don't get me started on our oil dependency, it definitely will de-rail this thread.

As much as the 9/11 thread may make people believe otherwise, I'm not much of an apologist for the government. I'm actually relatively persuaded that Bush et al, really had convinced themselves that Saddam was a threat, I can even buy that idea if we're talking about the long term. I'd just prefer to have the government be as honest with us as possible, although I recognize that to make it happen we'd need voters that are more familiar with the GDP then they are with the most recent winner of American Idol.

[jonnybreeves]

I'm actually relatively persuaded that Bush et al, really had convinced themselves that Saddam was a threat, I can even buy that idea if we're talking about the long term. I'd just prefer to have the government be as honest with us as possible...

If you get the chance, you should really read the second (long) posting by me above. It is just direct quotes from the UN, Powell, Bush, Cheney, others, with some commentary from me piecing together the quotes. It is amazing how open they were being about what they were doing. The justification for war really hinged on Resolution 1441, which really didn't have anything to do with evidence of weapons capabilities... It was just the opposite in fact. Military action was imminent if Saddam didn't comply perfectly with everything the US and UN were demanding even though he was complying more than ever.

The US does this sort of thing all the time. We arranged a lose lose for Saddam... i.e., either he let us walk into the sovereign, collect evidence of everything, destroy any significant weapons (sound familiar to gun control?) Or we come in with our military and take over anyway. That is what was happening to Iraq in the months (and years actually) leading up to the invasion.

And yet, if all you were listening to was talk radio and the MSM at the time, you would have thought Saddam was possibly responsible for 9/11, and maybe going to fly a UAV over the US... These statements came from our beloved trusted leaders after all. Behind the scenes, the invasion started the second weapons inspectors got on the ground. Did you know the US invaded about two weeks after Iraq agreed to destroy Saddam's last significant weapons...the Al Samoud 2 missiles that exceeded the 150 km range allowed by UN resolutions?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvDe7Z-ykDo

The destruction of these type of missiles (specifically Al Samoud 1) was one of the incomplete objectives of the Operation Desert Fox airstrike in 1998. In Hans Blix’s words, this was "the most substantial measure of disarmament...since the middle of the 1990's."
According to the "Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the US Regarding WMDs," the Intelligence regarding the existence of the Al Samoud 2 missiles was the only intelligence the US ended up being right about prior to invading.

Seems a little coincidental again that the US invaded only after significantly weakening Saddam's actual weapons capabilities, doesn't it? He was actually complying...but that wasn't good for him in the end. We knew exactly the weapons we wanted to destroy. And ironically the US intelligence failure once again is blamed...it is just the opposite. We knew exactly what we were doing the whole time. The rest was smoke and mirrors.

[HeirofNumenor]

I need to jump in here about this issue of the often debated WMD in Iraq. This has been one of the most propagandized issues of the American 5th column that you could possibly find. Regardless on ones feelings about the legitimacy of the Iraq war this WMD has become nothing but a political sham where virtually no one really wants to have the truth widely published.

Democrats ignore anything that validates alternative findings about this issue because they want to hurt the credibility of Republicans and further their own agenda's. Republicans like those in the Bush admin don't want to really get to the bottom of this because they fear alienating some of our so called allies like Russia in fighting global terrorism. (What a freakin joke that is!) Therefore the truth has been hidden from the public in large measure by a main stream press who frankly don't give a fat rats behind about fully disclosing what the truth really is.

Only a few independent journalists and researchers have been willing to tell the truth about this. Their findings are never published by mainstream media sources because they don't want to change public perception about the propaganda that has overflowed concerning this. Its a big joke.

It kind of reminds me of the alternative medicine field. The drug companies don't want to allow the truth about things like alternative cancer treatments with naturopathic remedies out in the public eye because it jeopordizes their control over the minds of the sheeple and their cash cow they have going. The Govt agencies like the FDA then squash any possibilities that these alternatives can become avaliable to the public on a broad scale because they are in bed with the drug companies. Its all one big scam with money and power at the core of it.

Mark, thank you for those insights. Very fair minded of you, as well as easily relatable to other venues, for the purpose of understanding and truth.

[Mark]

Mark, thank you for those insights. Very fair minded of you, as well as easily relatable to other venues, for the purpose of understanding and truth.

Very kind of you to say Heir. Thanks Bro.

[HeirofNumenor]

HeirofNumenor wrote:
Mark, thank you for those insights. Very fair minded of you, as well as easily relatable to other venues, for the purpose of understanding and truth.



Very kind of you to say Heir. Thanks Bro.

Ihr Wilkommen, doitashimasite, and pazhalsta.

[jonnybreeves]

...Democrats ignore anything that validates alternative findings about this issue because they want to hurt the credibility of Republicans and further their own agenda's...

Mark, thank you for those insights. Very fair minded of you, as well as easily relatable to other venues, for the purpose of understanding and truth.

...Ummm, you do understand they are two wings on the same bird don't you? Democrat / Republican? Bush was the most liberal president we've EVER had. Think privacy infringement...think government bailouts...think power to the fed and the national gov...think CFR...

[HeirofNumenor]

...Ummm, you do understand they are two wings on the same bird don't you? Democrat / Republican? Bush was the most liberal president we've EVER had. Think privacy infringement...think government bailouts...think power to the fed and the national gov...think CFR...

Ummm that is a given. Mark was referring only to the show that the PTB put on for the clueless masses, as well as their own party politicians who have not yet caught on, even if he didn't think consciously of his fact (he had admitted it elsewhere).

[jonnybreeves]

...Ummm, you do understand they are two wings on the same bird don't you? Democrat / Republican? Bush was the most liberal president we've EVER had. Think privacy infringement...think government bailouts...think power to the fed and the national gov...think CFR...

Ummm that is a given. Mark was referring only to the show that the PTB put on for the clueless masses, as well as their own party politicians who have not yet caught on, even if he didn't think consciously of his fact (he had admitted it elsewhere).

Ummm... Good.