Ex-U.S. Arms Hunter Kay Says No Stockpiles in Iraq

[insein]

fixed. Go read.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by The Worried One
Bush himself told the American people the reason to go into Iraq was because they had weapons of mass destruction and had the capabilities to use them in a matter of minutes...not because the people there were being tortured (that sounds familiar with us being there now), and massacred. His story changed. To say we've been trying to free them from opression since the first Gulf war is not true, and we weren't trying to do that in the beginning of this war either. Now all of a sudden, when no weapons are found, we're freeing the iraqi people...how noble of us!!!! Btw, 3 of ur 5 sites were unable to be accessed.

And Bush also stated that one of the goals was to free the Iraqi citizens from an oppressive dictator and to force them to comply with said resolutions. This was stated by George Bush Sr., this was stated by Bill Clinton. This was stated by John Kerry. This was stated by Teddy Kennedy. This was stated by MANY of the top democratic leaders. This was also repeated by our current president. The story never changed in respect to the abuse and oppression faced by the Iraqi citizens.

Again, I suggest you read the many resolutions that have been set forth since 1991, specifically resolutions 687 and 1441.

 

[The Worried One]

Go back to the very beginning of Bush's term...when we first got into this. Find the first thing he told the American people...then come back to me.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by The Worried One
Go back to the very beginning of Bush's term...when we first got into this. Find the first thing he told the American people...then come back to me.

I don't need to. I've followed this closely from day one. WMD might have been the focus for quite some time, but freeing the Iraqi people from oppression has been a goal since 1991. This cannot be denied. It was in every resolution and in almost every speech by Bush. I suggest you search a bit on this very board. This argument has been brought up time and time again and his speeches have been posted here time and time again showing the 'myriad' of reasons for entering Iraq, not just for WMD. Read the resolutions and speeches as I have requested before spouting off on only what you wanted to hear. The facts (resolutions and speeches) don't lie.

 

[The Worried One]

We went to Iraq because of Al Quaeda. The leaders of this group tried to kill Bush's father.....Im telling you. We had no way of knowing...no proof....of any weapings of mass destruction. We KNEW for a fact that North Korea had weapons of mass destructyion YET we arent on their case, we didnt invade and force their people to create a democracy...do theses people even know whats going on? we cannot impose ideals upon countries that have no relation to such situations....it just doesnt work. SO we send our boys to Iraq...they die....and what do we do? we send more. -a Friend

 

[insein]

Originally posted by The Worried One
We went to Iraq because of Al Quaeda. The leaders of this group tried to kill Bush's father.....Im telling you. We had no way of knowing...no proof....of any weapings of mass destruction. We KNEW for a fact that North Korea had weapons of mass destructyion YET we arent on their case, we didnt invade and force their people to create a democracy...do theses people even know whats going on? we cannot impose ideals upon countries that have no relation to such situations....it just doesnt work. SO we send our boys to Iraq...they die....and what do we do? we send more. -a Friend

Again perhaps you missed it.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/17/141224.shtml
WMD's in Syria you say? Jordan foiled a plot to kill 80,000? Syria got them from where? Iraq? No they don't have any WMDs.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=482
Whats that? Debka said that awhile ago? Hmmm...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109338,00.html
Whats that? Al Queda terror cell in iraq? Hmmm that can't be because Al Queda and Iraq don't like each other and have nothing to do with one another.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html
Whats that terror Camp reported in 2002 byt a Liberal newspaper? Imagine that.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/
Hmmm even CNN has shown that these attackers received training in Iraq and weapons from Syria.

I don't think you understand the words evidence and truth.

 

[The Worried One]

Thats a very nice theory but i need some real evidence

 

[insein]

Originally posted by The Worried One
Thats a very nice theory but i need some real evidence

I beleive that even if a WMD were fired up your ass you'd still be asking for real evidence. What the hel do you call that above you? Op Eds?

 

[The Worried One]

Thats not evidence, that's theory. But i guess you republicans would be more than happy to invade syria too to find those alleged WMD

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by The Worried One
Thats not evidence, that's theory. But i guess you republicans would be more than happy to invade syria too to find those alleged WMD

If you saw a WMD, would you know you were looking at one?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Damn, you 2 still whining about WMD?

What whiny babies, to actuall expect our justifications for war to be real? How silly!.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I don't need to. I've followed this closely from day one. WMD might have been the focus for quite some time, but freeing the Iraqi people from oppression has been a goal since 1991. This cannot be denied. It was in every resolution and in almost every speech by Bush. I suggest you search a bit on this very board. This argument has been brought up time and time again and his speeches have been posted here time and time again showing the 'myriad' of reasons for entering Iraq, not just for WMD. Read the resolutions and speeches as I have requested before spouting off on only what you wanted to hear. The facts (resolutions and speeches) don't lie.

If Bush really wanted to free the Iraqis from oppression, why did his daddy sit by idel when the Shia's rebelled against Saddam?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by insein
Again perhaps you missed it.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/17/141224.shtml
WMD's in Syria you say? Jordan foiled a plot to kill 80,000? Syria got them from where? Iraq? No they don't have any WMDs.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=482
Whats that? Debka said that awhile ago? Hmmm...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109338,00.html
Whats that? Al Queda terror cell in iraq? Hmmm that can't be because Al Queda and Iraq don't like each other and have nothing to do with one another.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html
Whats that terror Camp reported in 2002 byt a Liberal newspaper? Imagine that.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/
Hmmm even CNN has shown that these attackers received training in Iraq and weapons from Syria.

I don't think you understand the words evidence and truth.

I've already discredited all of these sources. They all either A) are irrelevant because they show how Al Qaeda is in Iraq only AFTER we lit Baghdad on fire or are irrelevant because they talk about WMD in Syria as if that implies there were WMD in Iraq B) are based on "our sources" or "our expert sources" and other anonymous worthless sources, and the one that does that is also a Jewish paper with plenty motivation to lie about Muslims, or C) refer to a single Al Qaeda camp in KURDISH CONTROLLED NORTHERN IRAQ that we could have bomed anyway and who manufacturing of chemicals later turned out to be bogus, or D) are based on the confession under duress of a terrorist on state run Islamic TV


Nice try, but I think before I believe a terrorist forced to make a confession on a state run Islamic TV station I'm going to believe David Kay.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/...17/141224.shtmlWMD's in Syria you say? Jordan foiled a plot to kill 80,000? Syria got them from where? Iraq? No they don't have any WMDs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Do you even realize that your argument here is based on the assumption that your argument is correct? You're saying that some weapons came from Syria, and since Saddam Hussein hid his weapons in Syria, that means Saddam Hussein had weapons. Circular logic, a fallacy.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=482
Whats that? Debka said that awhile ago? Hmmm...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"intelligence sources", "our intelligence sources", "Our sources", "its most exclusive sources", "DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s sources say", "DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s Middle East experts" I am to believe a bunch of anonymous sources just because you say so?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109338,00.html
Whats that? Al Queda terror cell in iraq? Hmmm that can't be because Al Queda and Iraq don't like each other and have nothing to do with one another.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No smallbrain, its that Al Qaeda and HUSSEIN didn't like each other. If you want to debunk a liberal argument at least bother to learn exactly what that liberal argument is. In case you weren't aware, Hussein and the Iraqi people didn't like each other to much. That's why Al Qaeda hated Hussein, because Hussein oppressed the Iraqis and did not force Islam on the people like Al Qaeda wanted.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...,779359,00.html
Whats that terror Camp reported in 2002 byt a Liberal newspaper? Imagine that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"in northern Iraq," - What's that, NORTHERN Iraq? And which parts of Iraq did Hussein have control over?

"Most of them fled Afghanistan after the US-led offensive, "

What's that? They weren't in Iraq before 9/11?

"But US analysts decided that whatever al-Qaida was up to was too rudimentary to pose a direct threat and was not worth risking American lives for. "

What's that you say? Not worth risking American lives for?

And I don't know where you've been since that article came out, apparently you ignore all the news you don't want to hear, because it later came out, like everything else Bush was claiming, that the camp in KURDISH CONTROLLED northern Iraq isn't all its cracked up to be.
Holding Hussein accountable for what goes on in KURDISH CONTROLLED NORTHER IRAQ is like invading Maine to free the slave in Georgia.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm even CNN has shown that these attackers received training in Iraq and weapons from Syria.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast.../jordan.terror/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



First off, I never claimed there were no weapons in Syria, so I really don't see what your point is with that.
"On a confession shown on state-run Jordanian television, "
On a what? We're to take the word of a terrorist's confession on a Muslim State's state run TV? WTF? Oh, I get it, ONLY when it helps YOUR argument. The rest of the time confessions given under duress on state run state censored Islamic TV aren't worth didly, but if they support YOUR viepoint, they're gold!

"U.S. officials have said is behind some attacks in Iraq."

Your point? Where did I ever say Al Qaeda isn't in Iraq NOW?



If you were trying to prove that Hussein had WMD and/or that Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda, I have to tell you, you have failed miserably. Thanks, try again.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
If Bush really wanted to free the Iraqis from oppression, why did his daddy sit by idel when the Shia's rebelled against Saddam?

That really doesn't have much to do with what our current president has done, does it? Nor does it have anything to do with my comments. I was referring to resolutions that were put into place after the war in 1991. Yes, WMD was the main focus throughout the years. But for someone to say liberating/freeing the Iraqi people was never a goal is just being naive. Like I said, it's in every resolution since 1991 and was in nearly every speech. Resolutions 687 and 1441 called for Iraq to do a helluva lot more than just dispose of and/or prove the destruction of WMD.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by jimnyc
That really doesn't have much to do with what our current president has done, does it? Nor does it have anything to do with my comments. I was referring to resolutions that were put into place after the war in 1991. Yes, WMD was the main focus throughout the years. But for someone to say liberating/freeing the Iraqi people was never a goal is just being naive. Like I said, it's in every resolution since 1991 and was in nearly every speech. Resolutions 687 and 1441 called for Iraq to do a helluva lot more than just dispose of and/or prove the destruction of WMD.

Liberating/freeing the Iraqi people is just a positve side effect of the war. If keeping the Iraqi people oppressed was something Shrub thought was in the national interest or his own, he would have gleefully done it. Do I even need to list all the times the US has supported oppresive governments? You think that all of a sudden, in the 90's, the US just decided that it should oppose all repressive governments? I don't think so.


Furtermore, simply violating a treaty isn't a cause for war. The only just war is one fought in response to an imminent threat, PERIOD. Hussein could have snubbed his nose at inspectors for 30 more years and not attacked the US, and had that happened, we would have avoided war altogether.


The best way to avoid war is not to start one, you know?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Liberating/freeing the Iraqi people is just a positve side effect of the war. If keeping the Iraqi people oppressed was something Shrub thought was in the national interest or his own, he would have gleefully done it. Do I even need to list all the times the US has supported oppresive governments? You think that all of a sudden, in the 90's, the US just decided that it should oppose all repressive governments? I don't think so.

Again with the obfuscation. We aren't discussing other dictators. We aren't discussing other nations. We are discussing Iraq, the resolutions drawn up by the UN & the speeches spoken by GWB. I merely stated that freeing the Iraqi people from oppression was a goal since 1991. That statement was met with resistance. It's easily proven by reading said resolutions and speeches.

Furtermore, simply violating a treaty isn't a cause for war. The only just war is one fought in response to an imminent threat, PERIOD. Hussein could have snubbed his nose at inspectors for 30 more years and not attacked the US, and had that happened, we would have avoided war altogether.

I'm not going to debate you on that as it's a loaded opinion which will vary from person to person, and I will respect your opinion. My point was that Saddam did violate the treaties, both with the WMD and with the oppression of his people.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Again with the obfuscation. We aren't discussing other dictators. We aren't discussing other nations. We are discussing Iraq, the resolutions drawn up by the UN & the speeches spoken by GWB. I merely stated that freeing the Iraqi people from oppression was a goal since 1991. That statement was met with resistance. It's easily proven by reading said resolutions and speeches.




I'm not going to debate you on that as it's a loaded opinion which will vary from person to person, and I will respect your opinion. My point was that Saddam did violate the treaties, both with the WMD and with the oppression of his people.

And what, pray tell, was being done to free the Iraqi people between the two gulf wars? Sanctions? Is that what was supposed to free them, sanctions? What was done to further their freedom between the two wars? A bunch of fancy speeches and unenforcible resolutions? Wow, people obviously really cared about the Iraqi people. They made speeches about them and passed resolutions and tried to starve them to death.

What exactly was Shrub going to do to free the Iraqi people had Hussein opened up Iraq to a free and unconditional search for WMD? Was Shrub going to say "Gotcha! I'm invading anyway!"? If freeing the Iraqi people was Shrub's goal, what in "Let us look for WMD and we won't invade" indicates that? Hmmm. Nothing.

A loaded opinion? That wars should not be fought as preventative measures? That was the predominating thought in the United States till Shrub came to power and gently massaged half the nation's brains. Go read history, see what kind of nations have historically invaded other countries without being attacked, see if those are the kinds of systems you would like to live under.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

empty message (sorry guys)









GO TIGAHS! (That's alright Georgia, you guys really are better than us, you just had a bad day, TWO bad days)

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
And what, pray tell, was being done to free the Iraqi people between the two gulf wars? Sanctions? Is that what was supposed to free them, sanctions? What was done to further their freedom between the two wars? A bunch of fancy speeches and unenforcible resolutions? Wow, people obviously really cared about the Iraqi people. They made speeches about them and passed resolutions and tried to starve them to death.

The sanctions were in place to try and get Iraq to comply with resolutions he refused to abide by. There was an oil for food program setup, it's hardly the fault of the USA that Saddam destroyed that as well. Medical assistance was shipped in and Saddam used that for personal gain as well. The intent was certainly not to harm the Iraqi people, that honor falls on Saddam's shoulders. Saddam could have stopped the oppression. Saddam could have cooperated with Kuwait and return their belongings. Saddam could have fully disarmed and fully cooperated with weapons inspectors. Had he done this things the sanctions would have been lifted and war averted.

What exactly was Shrub going to do to free the Iraqi people had Hussein opened up Iraq to a free and unconditional search for WMD? Was Shrub going to say "Gotcha! I'm invading anyway!"? If freeing the Iraqi people was Shrub's goal, what in "Let us look for WMD and we won't invade" indicates that? Hmmm. Nothing.

Now your strictly going on propaganda and opinion. As previously stated, had Saddam fully and unconditionally cooperated I'm confident we would have seen a different outcome.

A loaded opinion? That wars should not be fought as preventative measures? That was the predominating thought in the United States till Shrub came to power and gently massaged half the nation's brains. Go read history, see what kind of nations have historically invaded other countries without being attacked, see if those are the kinds of systems you would like to live under.

All I know is that I don't want to live in the world I saw on 9/11. I also suspect the Iraqi people didn't want to live in a world of oppression. I don't think the entire Middle East wanted to live in a world threatened by their neighbors. The sanctions and reolutions were designed to be preventative and failed. I feel the war was necessary to ensure there the freedom of the Iraqi's. It was Saddam's responsibility to come clean with the WMD and he failed to do so. We needed to then ensure the safety of the region and possibly America ourselves.

I know you've stated in many other threads about the WMD. Let me bring something up to you that no one else has yet. Saddam declared tons of chemical weapons in 1998. These weapons and chemicals were verified by weapons inspectors shortly before being thrown out in 1998. When they returned years later these weapons and chemicals couldn't be accounted for. Inspectors repeatedly asked for their whereabouts or proof of their destruction. Saddam failed to answer. What do you suppose happened to these thousands upon thousands of liters of chemicals? Should we just have chalked it up as a mistake?