Hussein Was Sure Of Own Survival

[jimnyc]

the big difference is that you are in that token few that still cling to the hope that they are buried in iraq somewhere

Nope, not alone. And I really don't even care if they are found or not. The real threat is the people behind the weapons, and where are they?

even our own government has basically called off the search!

Ummmm... ok.

don't give me these scraps of Botulism mr. lefty heckler posted. that looks like enough to kill a horse! (or two) ok, maybe a hundred after a week or so

Well, lets see. Dijetlo said that high ranking Iraqi officials have stated that they were all destroyed. If they were all destroyed, then where did these come from? And if these exist, is it so far fetched to believe there are more? ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY WERE DOCUMENTED AND ACCOUNTED FOR and now they just *poof* disappeared! Some would like to compare the search to that of a policeman searching a car Well, this is war, not a misdemeanor traffic stop. The stakes are high, bluffing is not highly recommended.

let's see it, man! i really wonder how, if saddam had his back to the wall, or the opportunity to use them against the US troops, why didn't he?

For starters that would have put the entire world behind us. Saddam had no chance against our military, with or without the use of chemical weapons. Doing so would have been signing his and his regimes immediate death warrant (as if they aren't destined for certain death anyway)

i could swear i've been over this at least a couple times on this board.

You have, and I wish you would stop already, it's getting tiresome constantly explaining basic understanding to you.

 

[Bry]

Just out of curiosity, where is the documenting and accounting of the WMDs Iraq used to have? It seems to me the only documentation I've seen referenced was Iraqi documentation, but maybe I'm wrong. Would appreciate the help.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Originally posted by spillmind
the dispute is NOT if they ever had them!



is this not obvious? the big difference is that you are in that token few that still cling to the hope that they are buried in iraq somewhere even our own government has basically called off the search!

they haven't called off anything and you know that.

Originally posted by spillmind
don't give me these scraps of Botulism mr. lefty heckler posted. that looks like enough to kill a horse! (or two) ok, maybe a hundred after a week or so

what are you nuts?

According to Agence France-Presse, the Center for Civilian Bio-defense Strategies at Johns Hopkins University says: "Botulinum toxin is the single most poisonous substance known" and "poses a major bioweapons threat because of its extreme potency and lethality, its ease of production, transport and misuse, and the potential need for prolonged intensive care in affected persons."

it only takes a little to kill someone

Originally posted by spillmind
let's see where this massive stockpile bush was plugging from my other post:

'...It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas.....'

iraqs own declartion sated what they had and they've NEVER have shown that they destroyed it

Originally posted by spillmind
let's see it, man! i really wonder how, if saddam had his back to the wall, or the opportunity to use them against the US troops, why didn't he?

i could swear i've been over this at least a couple times on this board.

there are only theories why he didn't use it. everything from our warning that we would reply in kind to us warning iraqs gernerals that they would be caught and put on trial if they did. they plenty of evidence to show he was going to use them everything from buying antropene(a anti nerve gas agent) to finding protective suits to when the soliders surrender having gas masks on them.

and for someone asking what documentation on what happend iraqs wmd iraq never provided anyone with what happen to them. they said the documents were lost etc etc all bs they would on have to say we did x,y or z with them which they didn't do and even hans blix said iraq hasen't acounted for what they said they had.

 

[Bry]

jejeje. Is that what you all are waiting for? A piece of Iraqi paper said there were WMDs, and now there aren't any Iraqi documents that say the contrary?

Don't hold your breath. And they could have made things so much easier on us just by printing out a piece of paper...

Saddam is probably still laughing about this expensive exercise in finding the non-existent needle in the haystack.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
jejeje. Is that what you all are waiting for? A piece of Iraqi paper said there were WMDs, and now there aren't any Iraqi documents that say the contrary?

Don't hold your breath. And they could have made things so much easier on us just by printing out a piece of paper...

Saddam is probably still laughing about this expensive exercise in finding the non-existent needle in the haystack.

Too bad the inspectors would have been a little more thorough than just accepting a piece of paper, and Saddam knew that, which is why he didn't take that route.

You think Saddam is laughing? At his 2 dead sons maybe? At the plenty of dead from his regime? At the piss poor republican guard that gave in quicker than the French? Maybe he's laughing at the size of the hole he has to live in now! Yep, those cat and mouse games worked out well for him and his guard!

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

all they had to do was say was "we dumped it out" and took the inspectors to where they dumped it to test the ground.they didn't even do that.

 

[dijetlo]

>> hidden in a scientist home who said they were for a weapons program<<
Could you post a link to this article? Is this the guy who buried these things under his rose bush in 1992? He can claim thier for a WMD program but I can make the same thing with a coke bottle, milk and a raw egg (botulism bacteria is present in your intestines right now, though your body destroys the tiny quantities in fresh food.)
>>Johns Hopkins University says: "Botulinum toxin is the single most poisonous substance known"<<
Unfortunatly, what you have presented is cultures infected with botulism, not botulinum.
>>it only takes a little to kill someone<<
Botulism can only enter the body oraly, you are safe enough if you don't eat the samples.
>> we still have been able to determine the fate of Lt. Cmdr. Speicher <<
Sadly, I think we can assume the Lt. Cmdr gave his life in the '91 Gulf War. Has the navy reclassed him from MIA?
>>all they had to do was say was "we dumped it out" and took the inspectors to where they dumped it to test the ground.they didn't even do that.<<
From Jimmy:
>>Too bad the inspectors would have been a little more thorough than just accepting a piece of paper<<
They claimed they dumped it, but were unwilling to supply the documentation or witnesses. Husein offered on the eve of the war, but President Bush was disinterested. How much does that really absolve us for having invaded them? Admitedly, we were not the only fools at this party. We're just the fools who ended up with the bill.
from jimmynyc
>>It's quite possible the stuff is buried and will never be found.<<
If that is in fact the case, several members of the administration could be facing indictment for war crimes. Without the WMDs', it's an act of naked aggression. Violations of the '91 cease fire are only a valid reason if we find proof they violated the cease fire. The long range missiles were in the process of being destroyed at the initiation of activities, the "intercontinental drones" turned out to be administration paranoia (as did the WMDs', if one were to go by the evidence presented this far). Did we claim any other violations?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by dijetlo
Violations of the '91 cease fire are only a valid reason if we find proof they violated the cease fire.

Not true at all. Look closer at resolution 687. How about YOU tell ME what they were in breach of? I'll save you the time if you don't want to search, the answers are already on this board.

 

[lilcountriegal]

Botulism can only enter the body oraly, you are safe enough if you don't eat the samples.

Unfortunately, your buddy Saddam unleashed many different chemicals and toxins into the river during the first Gulf War which the military was using as drinking water. I dont think anyone would be stupid enough to open a vial and suck it down. Many of our service men/women were made sick from the toxins he put in the river, simply because they were thirsty.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Originally posted by dijetlo

Could you post a link to this article? Is this the guy who buried these things under his rose bush in 1992? He can claim thier for a WMD program but I can make the same thing with a coke bottle, milk and a raw egg (botulism bacteria is present in your intestines right now, though your body destroys the tiny quantities in fresh food.)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/sprj.irq.kay/index.html

Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in the home of an Iraqi scientist. One of the strains can be used to produce biological weapons

Originally posted by dijetlo
Unfortunatly, what you have presented is cultures infected with botulism, not botulinum.

Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in the home of an Iraqi scientist. One of the strains can be used to produce biological weapons

Originally posted by dijetlo
Botulism can only enter the body oraly, you are safe enough if you don't eat the samples.

it can made it several forms from the cia:

Botulinum toxin
Botulinum toxin is produced by the bacterium Clostridium botulinum, which occurs naturally in the soil. Crude but viable methods to produce small quantities of this lethal toxin have been found in terrorist training manuals.

Symptoms usually occur 24 to 36 hours after exposure, but onset of illness may take several days if the toxin is present in low doses. They include vomiting, abdominal pain, muscular weakness, and visual disturbance.


Botulinum toxin would be effective in small-scale poisonings or aerosol attacks in enclosed spaces, such as movie theaters. The toxin molecule is likely too large to penetrate intact skin.

Originally posted by dijetlo
Sadly, I think we can assume the Lt. Cmdr gave his life in the '91 Gulf War. Has the navy reclassed him from MIA?

are you discounting that his intials were found in a baghdad prsion cell? saddam has kept prisnors for a long time. he kept an iranian pilot for 18 years. then there are theories that have floated my my way including one saying saddam has him with him to use as a bargining chip if cornered or a few saddam intel people are holding so if we get saddam they can bargin him for saddam. his body nor has any remains been found one way other the other but you got to hold out hope.

Originally posted by dijetlo

They claimed they dumped it, but were unwilling to supply the documentation or witnesses. Husein offered on the eve of the war, but President Bush was disinterested. How much does that really absolve us for having invaded them? Admitedly, we were not the only fools at this party. We're just the fools who ended up with the bill.

saddam only try to stall and thats all.

Originally posted by dijetlo

If that is in fact the case, several members of the administration could be facing indictment for war crimes. Without the WMDs', it's an act of naked aggression. Violations of the '91 cease fire are only a valid reason if we find proof they violated the cease fire. The long range missiles were in the process of being destroyed at the initiation of activities, the "intercontinental drones" turned out to be administration paranoia (as did the WMDs', if one were to go by the evidence presented this far). Did we claim any other violations?

nope. saddam violated the cease fire long long ago. when he used helicopter to attack the kurds and the shite in the south it was a violation etc etc from the lager iraq liberation act:


(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently ac-cepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to dis-close fully and permit the
dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dis-mantlement.

(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.

(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.

(8) On August 31 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction cap-ture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional govern-ment.


(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) ac-cess to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM per-sonnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of de-ception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.

(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all co-operation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threat-ened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
--------------------

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

the second part of the last part of my post:

from pl 235



Whereas hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and the conditions governing the cease-fire were specified in united Nations Security Council Resolutions 686 (March 2, 1991) and
687 (April 3, 1991);

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 requires that international economic sanctions remain in place until Iraq discloses and destroys its weapons of mass destruction programs and capabilities and undertakes unconditionally never to resume such activities;

Whereas Resolution 687 established the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) to uncover all aspects of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and tasked the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to locate and remove or destroy all nuclear weapons systems, subsystems or material from Iraq;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 715, adopted on October 11, 1991, empowered UNSCOM to maintain a long-term monitoring program to ensure Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are dismantled and not restarted;

Whereas Iraq has consistently fought to hide the full extent of its weapons programs,and has systematically made false declarations to the Security Council and to UNSCOM regarding those programs, and has systematically obstructed weapons inspections for seven years;

Whereas in June 1991, Iraqi forces fired on International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and otherwise obstructed and misled UNSCOM inspectors, resulting in United Nations Security Council Resolution 707 which found Iraq to be in ``material breach'' of its obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 for failing to allow UNSCOM inspectors access to a site storing nuclear equipment;

Whereas in January and February of 1992, Iraq rejected plans to install long-term monitoring equipment and cameras called for in United Nations resolutions, resulting in a Security Council Presidential Statement of February 19, 1992 which declared that Iraq was in ``continuing material breach'' of its obligations;

Whereas in February of 1992, Iraq continued to obstruct the installation of monitoring equipment, and failed to comply with UNSCOM orders to allow destruction of missiles and other proscribed weapons, resulting in the Security Council Presidential Statement of February 28, 1992, which reiterated that Iraq was in ``continuing material breach'' and noted a ``further material

[[Page 112 STAT. 1539]]

breach'' on account of Iraq's failure to allow destruction of
ballistic missile equipment;

Whereas on July 5, 1992, Iraq denied UNSCOM inspectors access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture, resulting in a Security Council Presidential Statement of July 6, 1992, which declared that Iraq was in``material and unacceptable breach'' of its obligations under United Nations resolutions;

Whereas in December of 1992 and January of 1993, Iraq violated the southern no-fly zone, moved surface-to-air missiles into the no-fly zone, raided a weapons depot in internationally recognized Kuwaiti territory and denied landing rights to a plane carrying United Nations weapons inspectors, resulting in a Security Council Presidential Statement of January 8, 1993, which declared that Iraq was in an ``unacceptable and material breach'' of its obligations under United Nations resolutions;

Whereas in response to continued Iraqi defiance, a Security Council Presidential Statement of January 11, 1993, reaffirmed the previous finding of material breach, followed on January 13 and 18 by allied air raids, and on January 17 with an allied missile attack on Iraqi targets;


Whereas on June 10, 1993, Iraq prevented UNSCOM's installation of cameras and monitoring equipment, resulting in a Security Council Presidential Statement of June 18, 1993, declaring Iraq's refusal to comply to be a ``material and unacceptable breach'';

Whereas on October 6, 1994, Iraq threatened to end cooperation with weapons inspectors if sanctions were not ended, and one day later, massed 10,000 troops within 30 miles of the Kuwaiti border, resulting in United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 demanding Iraq's withdrawal from the Kuwaiti border area and renewal of compliance with UNSCOM;

Whereas on April 10, 1995, UNSCOM reported to the Security Council that Iraq had concealed its biological weapons program, and had failed to account for 17 tons of biological weapons material resulting in the Security Council's renewal of sanctions against Iraq;

Whereas on July 1, 1995, Iraq admitted to a full scale biological
weapons program, but denied weaponization of biological agents, and subsequently threatened to end cooperation with UNSCOM resulting in the Security Council's renewal of sanctions against Iraq;

Whereas on March 8, 11, 14, and 15, 1996, Iraq again barred UNSCOM inspectors from sites containing documents and weapons, in response to which the Security Council issued a Presidential Statement condemning ``clear violations by Iraq of previous Resolutions 687, 707, and 715'';

Whereas from June 11-15, 1996, Iraq repeatedly barred weapons inspectors from military sites, in response to which the Security Council adopted United Nations Security Council Resolution 1060, noting the ``clear violation on United Nations Security Council Resolutions 687, 707, and 715'' and in response to Iraq's continued violations, issued a Presidential Statement detailing Iraq's ``gross violation of obligations'';

Whereas in August 1996, Iraqi troops overran Irbil, in Iraqi Kurdistan, employing more than 30,000 troops and Republican Guards, in response to which the Security Council briefly suspended implementation on United Nations Security Council Resolution 986, the United Nations oil for food plan;

[[Page 112 STAT. 1540]]

Whereas in December 1996, Iraq prevented UNSCOM from removing 130 Scud missile engines from Iraq for analysis, resulting in a Security Council Presidential Statement which ``deplore[d]'' Iraq's refusal to cooperate with UNSCOM;

Whereas on April 9, 1997, Iraq violated the no-fly zone in southern Iraq and United Nations Security Council Resolution 670, banning international flights, resulting in a Security Council statement regretting Iraq's lack of ``specific consultation'' with the Council;

Whereas on June 4 and 5, 1997 Iraqi officials on board UNSCOM aircraft interfered with the controls and inspections, endangering inspectors and obstructing the UNSCOM mission, resulting in a United Nations Security Council Presidential Statement demanding Iraq end its interference and on June 21, 1997, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1115 threatened sanctions on Iraqi officials responsible for these interferences;

Whereas on September 13, 1997, during an inspection mission, an Iraqi official attacked UNSCOM officials engaged in photographing illegal Iraqi activities, resulting in the October 23, 1997, adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1134 which threatened a travel ban on Iraqi officials responsible for noncompliance with United Nations resolutions;

Whereas on October 29, 1997, Iraq announced that it would no longer allow American inspectors working with UNSCOM to conduct inspections in Iraq, blocking UNSCOM teams containing Americans to conduct inspections and threatening to shoot down United States U-2 surveillance flights in support of UNSCOM, resulting in a United Nations Security Council Resolution 1137 on November 12, 1997, which imposed the travel ban on Iraqi officials and threatened unspecified ``further measures'';

Whereas on November 13, 1997, Iraq expelled United States inspectors
from Iraq, leading to UNSCOM's decision to pull out its remaining inspectors and resulting in a United Nations Security Council
Presidential Statement demanding Iraq revoke the expulsion;

Whereas on January 16, 1998, an UNSCOM team led by American Scott Ritter was withdrawn from Iraq after being barred for three days by Iraq from conducting inspections, resulting in the adoption of a United Nations Security Council Presidential Statement deploring Iraq's decision to bar the team as a clear violation of all applicable resolutions;

Whereas <<NOTE: Saddam Hussein. Kofi Annan.>> despite clear agreement on the part of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein with United Nations General Kofi Annan to grant access to all sites, and fully cooperate with UNSCOM, and the adoption on March 2, 1998, of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1154, warning that any violation of the agreement with Annan would have the ``severest consequences'' for Iraq, Iraq has continued to actively conceal weapons and weapons programs, provide misinformation and otherwise deny UNSCOM inspectors access;

Whereas <<NOTE: Richard Butler.>> on June 24, 1998, UNSCOM Director Richard Butler presented information to the United Nations Security Council indicating clearly that Iraq, in direct contradiction to information provided to UNSCOM, weaponized the nerve agent VX; and

Whereas Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security: Now, therefore, be it


[[Page 112 STAT. 1541]]



Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.

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

and lets not forget saddams harbouring of abu nidal and 93 wtc bombing suspect Abdul Rahman Yasin who is still on the loose in iraq.

 

[dijetlo]

>> I'll save you the time if you don't want to search, the answers are already on this board.<<
What, the rusty bucket of botulism?
Point to some evidence, not an opinion. You can site the UN all you like but the UN didn't ask us to invade Iraq, quite the contrary (making our defense of the war on the basis of UN Resolutions a little thin.)

Hey lilcountrygirl
>>Unfortunately, your buddy Saddam<<
I don't have any buddies named saddam LCG. I hope that your not offended with the direction the conversation has taken.

>> unleashed many different chemicals and toxins into the river during the first Gulf War <<
and how would we use this if forced to defend the invasion of Iraq in 2003?

 

[jimnyc]

Point to some evidence, not an opinion. You can site the UN all you like but the UN didn't ask us to invade Iraq, quite the contrary (making our defense of the war on the basis of UN Resolutions a little thin.)

No, having them (Iraq) agree to an extensive resolution and then allowing them to be in breach of the majority of it, is thin.

What good is the UN if the purpose is to have widespread votes and resolutions if nobody is expected to abide by them? Maybe things would be different if countries that had the veto option were playing on a level field:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=907

The UN had their chance, those with 'other interests' balked.

 

[lilcountriegal]

The whole botulism/botulinum argument may be over, but I ran across this article searching to update myself on my previous post regarding Saddam tossing chemical agents in the Euphrates (While the war was going on, I saw a short report on MSNBC... I was looking for the link to the entire story) and wanted to post it in case anyone cared to read it....

the first step of a weaponization program would be to convert botulism to botulinum.)Kayes' problem is what he found was an old can of cool whip (botulism), not a weapons program.

Unfortunatly, what you have presented is cultures infected with botulism, not botulinum.

Positive tests for terror toxins in Iraq

 

[lilcountriegal]

and how would we use this if forced to defend the invasion of Iraq in 2003?

I'm not offering this as a defense to the invasion of Iraq. I simple posted that in reference to your statement:

Botulism can only enter the body oraly, you are safe enough if you don't eat the samples

Botulism can enter the body only orally, but not "only" if you eat the samples. The (I believe Euphrates) River was contaminated with this (still looking for the link if you need it) in the first Gulf War. There are many other ways of contaminating someone with botulism than having them pick up a cookie and eat it themselves... it can be slipped into food/drink supply unbeknownst to the recipient, and Saddam has proven in the past that he would, and could, do exactly that.

I apologize if my previous post wasnt clear. (no sarcasm intended)

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
No, having Iraq agree to an extensive resolution and then allowing them to be in breach of the majority of it, is thin.

Well, there is where the lack of physical evidence comes back to bite us, doesn't it? The only area we can currently demonstrate Hussein was in direct violation of is the articles pertaining to 150+km missiles and weren't they in the process of destroying those missiles (at the insistance of the UN) the day we invaded? See how the UNSCR 687 is not really going to be useful in defending the invasion?

...What good is the UN if the purpose is to have widespread votes and resolutions if nobody is expected to abide by them? Maybe things would be different if countries that had the veto option were playing on a level field:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=907
The UN had their chance, those with 'other interests' balked.

I thought you made an excellent point in the first quoted sentence. The UN is only as strong as the member nations make it, so the weakness of the UN is a direct result of the actions of the member nations (including the US).
As for it's opposition to the Iraqi invasion, remember the UN charter names one of its' primary activities as preventing war. The reasons for France/Germany/Russias opposition is many fold. There was some profit involved for the leadership, without a doubt there allways is, though the fact that the invasion was wildly unpopular outside the US/UK made it very easy to oppose it. I would think the single largest reason was thier discomfort with the economic expansion of the US by military means. Each of these countries were once a colonial power, they see the United States moving into a position to cut Europe off from a much needed raw material (oil). While we feel they are needlessly worrying, the fact that we now have that capability (assuming the reigning Saud prince agrees, as well as our puppet in Kabul.) has tilted the playing field in international politics against them. It really is not surprising they opposed the invasion, it wasn't in there countries self interest either.

How the war was to be blocked
>> they would block a U.S.-led war through delays and vetoes at the U.N. Security Council...Hussein concluded after private talks with French and Russian contacts that the United States would probably wage a long air war first...he might buy enough time to win a cease-fire brokered by Paris and Moscow.<<

Again, that would have been in those countries best interests if they had been able to accomplish this. What I find amazing is that Paris and Moscow actually beleived we would wait for the summer before launching the groundwar. I guess they don't get Fox.

 

[dijetlo]

>>Saddam has proven in the past that he would, and could, do exactly that. <<

On one level your right, lcg. I agree Hussein was a bad man and the world need not mourn the passing of his regime. My concern is with the US, not Iraq. It's no small matter, the Kaye report due out in a few months. We made some pretty serious charges prior to the initiation of hostilities. If we can't back any of them up with some hard proof, we're going to be in a bit of a corner.
We are the worlds lone superpower, and we all live in the eye of the storm so to speak, but from the outside the view is a little different.
Everyone knows no nation could effectively resist us for more than a few months if we chose to change their regime. For the last 50 years, this didn't bother the world very much, most countries were glad for it, we were viewed as a largely benevolent force. We were the shield behind which they lived their lives. Times change, Unions rise and fall, but the good will to the US endures because our excersize of that military muscle follows established, universaly accepted principles and in this regard was without reproach. Even to Gulf War I, we have allways acted in concert with other nations, though we never really had to. (I love Schwarzkopfs comment about "not taking the french to war was like not taking your accordian hunting".) We need to prove our actions were valid in Iraq, though the time for that is probably past. The world notices when the Sec of State comes to the UN and shows sattelite pictures of factories and waves around little bottles of mock anthrax.
The farther we push these countries away from us the closer we push them together. One of the diplomatic truths is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Its' a big world out there, it can get mighty cold when nobody will cooperate with you (ask Saddam Hussein, if you can find him.) I just don't want my children to have to live in a sea of hostile nations, manning the battlements of fortress America.
Along with the lives lost and wealth dispursed, part of the cost of this war is the risk of that future. Watch the world with an unbiased eye and tell me, which direction are they headed?

 

[spillmind]

jim, with all due respect, i just don't see your points.

'You have, and I wish you would stop already, it's getting tiresome constantly explaining basic understanding to you. '

this is not basic understand, thus the debate and the board. *ahem*

'And I really don't even care if they are found or not. '

i KNOW you don't. it is only the scapegoat that less and less people are still clinging to. where are these people? good question? i thought our intel knew about WMD, knew about saddam's whereabouts. you can admit it. the government already has. WE DIDN'T HAVE A CLUE.

ok, we haven't officially called off the search, however:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3225515.stm

and with the stance our gov takes with justification without the production of the OFFICIAL PREMISE or 'war' should be blaringly obvious.

'Well, lets see. Dijetlo said that high ranking Iraqi officials have stated that they were all destroyed. '

this is a very subjective sentence, and it is in context. a general blanket statement cannot be used as an end all be all comment.
yes, these are concerning isolated incidents- but why is only iraq under the microscope? i could easily picture other factions in other countries as a greater/equal threat.

the possible reasons why he didn't use them:

a) he didn't HAVE them i mean, duh.

b) good theory on the world backing us then, not like he had a snowball's chance in a supernova anyway. international support wouldn't save/condemn him in the end, anyway.

i'm sticking withy what has been proven so far. i don't think he had them. we can't find them... again the burden of proof is not mine!


finally, it seems a bit hypocritical with all the new things we subsidize, like:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2122619.stm

in light of our own terror activities around the world, who says US holds the moral authority over the world, and can do what it likes while other have to comply?

and people wonder why more people worldwide don't support the american global capitalism model. it's filled with hypocrisy and corruption. and it's only getting worse.