Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Where are the weapons of Mass Destruction??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Whether Iraq had WMD's or not... I would rather see Iraq's oil fields in the hands of the USA than in the hands of Saddam's regime...

    Of course I would much rather the new Iraq government have the oil fields when one is set up and all power be given back to their own government.

    Untill that time Iraq will rest in the most capable arms of the USA and UK armed forces.

    Who cares about the WMD's anymore... A dangerous dictator who slaughtered innocent men, women and children was tumbled... that alone has got to be worth the war...

    I think we have had enough USA bashing recently (me doing quite alot of it) so its time to be nice to them and theyw illl try to be nice to us
    I don't believe it...for once, I actually agree with kaddyuk. What has the world come to???
    Fly Raleigh-Durham International, with direct flights on Air Canada, AirTran, American Airlines, American Eagle, America West, Continental Airlines, Continental Express, Delta Airlines, Delta Connection, jetBlue, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Express and US Airways to:

    ATL, AUS, BWI, BOS, CHS, CLT, MDW, ORD, CVG, CLE, DFW, DTW, FLL, BDL, HOU, IND, LAS, LAX, LGW, MEM, MIA, MSP, BNA, EWR, MSY, JFK, LGA, ORF, MCO, PHL, PHX, PIT, STL, SLC, TPA, YYZ, DCA and IAD.

    Comment


    • #32
      Anyone who thinks the Iraq war was solely about WMD's is either ignorant of the facts or is deceiving themselves. Saddam was a well known supporter of terrorists, offering thousands of dollars to the families of homicide bombers.

      Secondly, Saddam was yet another two-bit dictator trying to revive the worst of the Third Reich and Stalin's Russia. Saddam and his sons murdered millions of innocent Iraqis, lived in absolute luxury while the vast majority of the country starved, and were using their "people" as play things for their own sick enjoyment. We've seen just a tip of the sand dune on this one. Every month more mass graves are uncovered and hear thousands more tales of torture, rape, and murder.

      And finally, I want all the anti-Bush, anti-war, people on this forum to answer two simple questions.

      Given what we've seen in just the last ten months, were the Iraqi people better under Saddam and his thugs?

      Under the logic of some here, the U.S. did not have the right to remove Saddam from power. So, did the U.S. and the Allies have the right to remove the leadership of Nazi Germany and Japan from power in 1945?

      Comment


      • #33
        We did a good thing. Like it or not, the Coalition did a good deed. Plus, any amount of complaining that Saddam should be back in power wont do any good. I doubt even the friggin ACLU could do anything.
        It's a Jeep thing, you wouldn't understand.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Katamarino
          As opposed to the substantial evidence of the WMDs?

          I think they've fallen in a hole with Beagle 2...

          ROFL
          Click Here for my aviation photographs.
          No Frontiers

          Comment


          • #35
            OH Jess, thank you so much!! I think I'm loving you more each day; purely platonically, of course!

            Comment


            • #36
              Damn, why am I even responding...

              Originally posted by B757300
              And finally, I want all the anti-Bush, anti-war, people on this forum to answer two simple questions.

              Given what we've seen in just the last ten months, were the Iraqi people better under Saddam and his thugs?
              Who are you or am I to judge? Does anyone on this forum know "the Iraqi people" well enough to judge that? And WHO said, at the beginning, the war was about the Iraqi people, anyway? Spare me that sh!t.

              Originally posted by B757300
              Under the logic of some here, the U.S. did not have the right to remove Saddam from power. So, did the U.S. and the Allies have the right to remove the leadership of Nazi Germany and Japan from power in 1945?
              Yes. It was a declared war. Japan attacked the United States, and Germany declared war on the United States because it was Japan's "ally", in a way. You usually are well informed on historic facts, so why did you ask this question?

              Comment


              • #37
                We already found the WMD's, destroyed 2 and currently have the 3rd in US hands

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by B757300
                  Given what we've seen in just the last ten months, were the Iraqi people better under Saddam and his thugs?

                  Under the logic of some here, the U.S. did not have the right to remove Saddam from power. So, did the U.S. and the Allies have the right to remove the leadership of Nazi Germany and Japan from power in 1945?
                  Can you define better? Have you been to Iraq? Are you aware of the fact that there are constant terrorist attacks and many basic services are still not yet provided? Don't get me wrong, I hate Saddam, but I don't know if the lives of the Iraqi people are better just yet. Freedom is great, but it can't be enjoyed amidst violent instability.

                  As for the second question, yes Iraq invaded two of its neighbours, or at least tried. First time it was Iran, America supported that. Second time it was Kuwait, thats where Saddam turned from friend to foe. He was toppled years after he was deemed harmless, when he was toppled, Iraq was not in the process of invading another country. That sends the second question out the window for you.

                  PIAA310, we seem to think alike and I largely agree with you on your point of view. What I found interesting was on a show about the war on terror a while back it showed two separate interviews done in Feb '01 and July '01 where both Powell and Rice respectively, clearly stated that there was no evidence that Saddam was a threat.......Interesting.

                  And chrisburns, no WMD's have been found yet. Sorry.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by chrisburns
                    We already found the WMD's, destroyed 2 and currently have the 3rd in US hands
                    Can you give us links to some stories about this...?
                    I walked across an empty land
                    I knew the pathway like the back of my hand
                    I felt the earth beneath my feet
                    Sat by the river and it made me complete

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Can you give us links to some stories about this...?
                      I may be wrong, but I think he is talking about Uday, Qusay (spelling?) and Saddam.
                      Fly Raleigh-Durham International, with direct flights on Air Canada, AirTran, American Airlines, American Eagle, America West, Continental Airlines, Continental Express, Delta Airlines, Delta Connection, jetBlue, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Express and US Airways to:

                      ATL, AUS, BWI, BOS, CHS, CLT, MDW, ORD, CVG, CLE, DFW, DTW, FLL, BDL, HOU, IND, LAS, LAX, LGW, MEM, MIA, MSP, BNA, EWR, MSY, JFK, LGA, ORF, MCO, PHL, PHX, PIT, STL, SLC, TPA, YYZ, DCA and IAD.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Anyone than thinks you could search a land mass that size in this short amount of time is delusional..

                        And just to put things in perspective....

                        ....weapons don't kill people, People do......

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Yes herpa2003 you are correct, I guess News that is several months old has not hit New Zealand yet! But for just
                          WMD #1 & 2
                          http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3225714/

                          WMD # 3
                          http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3711360/


                          There you go

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I just want to know where the WMD's are??
                            And we're supposed to know? Right now I'm sitting at my computer, not in Iraq searching.



                            I don't get it, Saddam let the UN weapon inspecters everywhere they wanted to go and they found nothing.

                            No comment.

                            The UN inspecters didn't say that there are no WMD's. They just said that they need more time. I don't get it, when they didn't find anything, why did the USA go and attack Iraq?
                            They had almost twelve years searching for it. They had the time before the first Persian Gulf War and then they had it during Clinton's attack in 1998 and then they had the time before this war. They had all that time and they didn't find anything. The United States went to war to:

                            A) Free the Iraqi people

                            B) Take out Saddam

                            C) SEARCH for WMDs. They've been in there 10 months and are search over 440,000 sq km. People think that the coalition is going to be in there and get out, but this is something that takes some time.


                            I think i know the main reason that the US went there, which is for OIL. They just wanted the OIL, they knew that Iraq didn't have any WMD's, they made sure of that when they sent the UN inspecters there. Thats the reason they were there. To make sure that Iraq does not have any WMD's so that the USA can go in a get the oil
                            That argument is so trite. "That's because there's really nothing more to the whole "theory" than,

                            A) The United States uses oil
                            B) Iraq has a lot of oil
                            C) Bush & Cheney are former oilmen

                            -- We can't be going to war to get Saddam to sell us oil because he already does.

                            -- Do we want him to sell us MORE oil? Well then all we'd have to do is ask. Iraq is desperate to acquire more revenue.

                            -- Do we want to increase the price of oil to make the oil companies more profitable? Again, that's easy to do. We could simply destroy the Iraqi oil fields in retaliation for their attacks on our planes in the "no fly" zone. That would cause a large temporary spike in the price of oil.

                            -- Do we want to get more oil on the world market so we can buy cheaper oil? We could easily convince the UN to remove the sanctions and Iraq would quickly double their oil production. They're currently producing way under capacity.

                            -- Do we want to get the oil field contracts that the French and Russians have? Behind the scenes, Bush could have offered to have the sanctions lifted if Hussein would have torn up the contracts he had with the French and Russians. If we didn't want the sanctions in place they'd be gone and the contracts Saddam made with the French and the Russians? They don't mean anything when you're dealing with a dictator like Hussein -- unless you've got a military capable of enforcing the deal. Also, just as a side note, the war, the occupation, and aid we'll give Iraq will end up costing us much more than those oil fields are worth even if we would have gotten them all (which we won't).

                            -- Do we want to control the country that has the 2nd largest supply of oil in the world so we'll still have a source of oil after much of the rest of the planet has gone dry? Well, this makes no sense at all in world where relationships between nations change regularly. Think about how our relationships with Pakistan, Russia, South Korea, & Germany have changed just since 9/11. The only way we could insure that we would still have access to Iraq's oil decades from now would be to make them into a US colony with a puppet ruler who actually takes orders from us. Is there anyone out there who actually thinks this is going to happen despite the fact that we're not doing it anywhere else in the world today?"

                            Written by John Hawkins. Not by me.

                            The UN is just a tool for the USA, the USA tells the UN to put sentions on the other countries,etc
                            I imagine you made this remark since the U.S. was one of the countries involved in the creation of the UN. But, I may be wrong. However, when is that the United States or any country for that matter has to go to the UN to ask for permission to do something for national security. Yes, the Iraq war in a sense was for national security, because it took out an evil dictator and as I speak (or write) is making sure he doesn't, well now didn't have his hands on WMDs.

                            Link:Saddam authorized the use of Chemical weapons if attacked.
                            Man your just a little kid, you don't get this stuff as i said before.
                            Please, don't call anyone a little kid, including GrantT, until you know their real age.

                            UN is just a "tool" for USA like i said before, the USA bosses around UN. Why didn't the US send its own inspecter to Iraq? If the UN really was a priority to the USA the USA would not have ignored the UN and would not have gone into Iraq.
                            The US bosses the UN around? It was the UN who passed the resolutions to not let the US go to war. The US did send in their inspectors in, their called the Marines (and to include everyone, the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy).

                            Like I said, when is that the US or any country has to go to the UN to get permission to protect itself from possible future threats. Ones that we may have been wrong about. But I'd rather be sitting here at my desk knowing I'm safe than worrying about if Saddam was walking through a factory watching some people put together a nuke.


                            By the way, I think the French were some of the first to be interested in oil. Link:French sees future

                            We gave diplomacy 12 years, we gave the the inspectors 12 years (which some of those years they didn't take to their advantage). Diplomacy failed. The inspectors were not given access to everywhere, hence the reason why they didn't find a thing.

                            ::sigh::, well I think I'm going to leave this where it is.
                            CheckSix

                            Equipment: A camera (who gives a rip about the brand?)

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by chrisburns
                              Yes herpa2003 you are correct, I guess News that is several months old has not hit New Zealand yet! But for just
                              WMD #1 & 2
                              http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3225714/

                              WMD # 3
                              http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3711360/


                              There you go
                              I'll have you know that New Zealand is several hours ahead of you slow yankees back there

                              And I don't think those were the WMDs that the Coalition were harping on about before they trundled into Iraq were they...?
                              I walked across an empty land
                              I knew the pathway like the back of my hand
                              I felt the earth beneath my feet
                              Sat by the river and it made me complete

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Where are the weapons of Mass Destruction??

                                Originally posted by aloges
                                Damn, why am I even responding...
                                I'm not sure why I'm bothering either.... I suppose because some of the information etc in this thread isn't necessarily correct or needs clarification.

                                Originally posted by PIAA310
                                Hello guys, I just want to know where the WMD's are?? That BUSH promised us.
                                Er, pass, ask me one on geography.

                                Originally posted by PIAA310
                                I don't get it, Saddam let the UN weapon inspecters everywhere they wanted to go and they found nothing.
                                That statement needs a bit more information. AFAIK access was granted to all locations but in some cases this was after considerable delays. I know from an ex colleague who was involved with the inspection teams that their movements were monitored closely and it was suspected that locally employed staff were passing information about the teams movements to the Iraqi government.

                                There are many large storage compounds in the middle of no-where in Iraq, many with a single road leading to / from. They're large enough to appear on TPC charts so you may be able to look some up online. Road-borne inspection teams couldn't possibly have visited completely unannounced. Yes they had helicopters but without the very strictest security its actually rather difficult to keep the destination of a helicopter secret.

                                Originally posted by PIAA310
                                The UN inspecters didn't say that there are no WMD's. They just said that they need more time. I don't get it, when they didn't find anything, why did the USA go and attack Iraq?
                                Well that's possibly a question that can only be answered by the US government. I suppose one opinion could be that if you suspect a country has WMDs, especially when they have a track record of using them, that if you find out for sure that yes, they do still have them it might be too late.
                                Iraq, the 58th largest country in the world, has an area of approx 435,000 sq km. There are huge expanses of the west of the country that are just barren desert. The North & more so the North West are very mountainous. To search this country properly is a very big job.

                                I suppose one may also say 'the end justifies the means'..... Would anyone claim, with conviction, that eventually Iraq will not be a better place without Saddam Hussein, his sons & followers? I was in downtown Baghdad when the news broke that he'd been captured and the only way of describing the reaction of the average man on the street is wild jubilation (this was actually slightly worrying for us, the only 2 europeans in sight as it involved lots of firing into the air & we weren't exactly heavily armed )

                                Originally posted by PIAA310
                                I think i know the main reason that the US went there, which is for OIL. They just wanted the OIL, they knew that Iraq didn't have any WMD's, they made sure of that when they sent the UN inspecters there. Thats the reason they were there. To make sure that Iraq does not have any WMD's so that the USA can go in a get the oil.
                                I'm unsure as to the point you're trying to make when you say "The UN inspecters didn't say that there are no WMD's" and then "they knew that Iraq didn't have any WMD's, they made sure of that when they sent the UN inspecters there", you seem to be contradicting your own arguments.

                                Originally posted by PIAA310
                                I think that the UN inspecters should have been given more time. The UN is just a tool for the USA, the USA tells the UN to put sentions on the other countries,etc.......
                                I think that you possibly don't understand the way that either the UN, the UNSC or the process of imposing sanctions works. This might be a useful place to start looking for the information to enable you to express more informed opinions...

                                Originally posted by PIAA310
                                Well those are just my thoughts, and others probably think differently. I know people are going to disagree with what i said, and i hope that no one got offended or anything of that nature.
                                Likewise my intention is not to offend but to express my own opinions / information and to correct / clarify points raised where I'm able to.

                                Originally posted by PIAA310
                                The USA would never have gone to IRAQ if they knew that they had WMD's. Saddam would have used them as a last resort in the war. Did he?? No, because he had NOTHING.
                                I'd be interested in seeing proof that there is nothing to be found. How does one proove that somebody doesn't have something? Naturally you can proove that somebody does have something but if it's hidden that could take a long time.

                                It would of course be laughably easy to hide something... out into the desert with a shipping container full of whatever you're trying to hide, a JCB & a $150 GPS. A couple of hours later you're finished and within a day or two there's no signs you were there. I havn't seen that here but have in Afghanistan it's very effective. There is still information filtering out here about previously unconsidered areas where weapons were / could have been stored.

                                To quote Rolf Ekeus in an interview of a couple of months ago "First of all, the U.S. troops were highly mobile, we were not talking about the first world war when chemical weapons were successful in the trench warfare - very stable warfare -- but a highly mobile situation. The Iraqi troops, which were less well protected, had less advanced technology for protection, would in themselves have been at great risk. So it was clear against an advanced enemy like the U.S., it was not useful to make, to employ such weapons."

                                Originally posted by PIAA310
                                UN is just a "tool" for USA like i said before, the USA bosses around UN. Why didn't the US send its own inspecter to Iraq?
                                Presumably you havn't heard of the Iraq Survey Group then??

                                Originally posted by PIAA310
                                Please give me your reason to why you think that IRAQ had WMD's.
                                Maybe this interview will give some background information. It's with Rolf Ekeus, a former weapons inspector. He is of the opinion that after GW I there was not a large scale production effort but rather a drive to produce & refine both the equipment & procedures to enable speedy & high quality production if required.

                                I suppose one could consider that as a reason to invade without there being evidence of large scale production / stocks.

                                Originally posted by kaddyuk
                                Whether Iraq had WMD's or not... I would rather see Iraq's oil fields in the hands of the USA than in the hands of Saddam's regime...

                                Of course I would much rather the new Iraq government have the oil fields when one is set up and all power be given back to their own government.

                                Untill that time Iraq will rest in the most capable arms of the USA and UK armed forces.
                                Well said Kevin.

                                Originally posted by B757300
                                Saddam and his sons murdered millions of innocent Iraqis, lived in absolute luxury while the vast majority of the country starved,
                                It's probably not correct to say that the vast majority of his people starved but certainly some did & in a country that should be incredibly wealthy that's bad enough.

                                Having been to 3 of his palaces (in Mosul, Central Baghdad & adjacent to Baghdad Airport) I can vouch for him living in absolute luxury. Well, having the ability to do so as he was apparantly so paranoid that the palaces were very rarely used.

                                This is the one near the airport, surrounded by a huge man-made lake;


                                Poor quality pic as it was taken from a Mil-8, not the most stable photography platform around

                                Originally posted by B757300
                                Given what we've seen in just the last ten months, were the Iraqi people better under Saddam and his thugs?
                                This might seem odd but read-on..... In the short term yes, they were. Compared with present levels crime was almost un-heard of. The current mood of the Iraqis I know is first hope & then a little dismay that (in their words) it's taking too long. Just one example.... the owner of an off-licence (liquor store for US readers) in downtown Baghdad that I know tells me that when there was an influx of Wahabis several years ago with consequent risk to such stores that a pair of policemen were posted outside every single off-licence / liquor store in Baghdad. Since SH's overthrow his brother was kidnapped from the store, shot & killed & he's had several thousand dollars extorted.

                                I'm absolutely convinced that in the longer term they will certainly be better off & for that reason the present day hardships will eventually be worthwhile.

                                Originally posted by aloges
                                Originally posted by B757300
                                And finally, I want all the anti-Bush, anti-war, people on this forum to answer two simple questions.

                                Given what we've seen in just the last ten months, were the Iraqi people better under Saddam and his thugs?
                                Who are you or am I to judge? Does anyone on this forum know "the Iraqi people" well enough to judge that? And WHO said, at the beginning, the war was about the Iraqi people, anyway? Spare me that sh!t.
                                I do know some of the locals here. Not well enough to judge for myself wether or not they are better off but I can pass on what they say (above).

                                PS, Let's keep it civil......

                                Originally posted by A340_flyer
                                Can you define better? Have you been to Iraq? Are you aware of the fact that there are constant terrorist attacks and many basic services are still not yet provided? Don't get me wrong, I hate Saddam, but I don't know if the lives of the Iraqi people are better just yet. Freedom is great, but it can't be enjoyed amidst violent instability.
                                Could you also do the first parts of your paragraph too? I.e. define your points better and tell us if you've been to Iraq? What basic services are not yet provided?

                                Electricity supplies now exceed pre-war levels and in many parts are stable & constant. My office is fed from city-power (there's no backup generator) and in the last 3 or 4 weeks its been out once, for around 5 mins. Telephone services are now far better than pre-war levels, healthcare services I'm told by an English friend who worked here for the Red Cross, were not particularly poor pre-war but are now even better, education services are restored and water distribution infrastructure is being quickly restored / cleared.

                                Originally posted by CheckSix
                                They had almost twelve years searching for it and they didn't find a single weapon.
                                A quote from the Ekeus interview, linked above "Yeah, we came in, there we found huge quantities of chemical weapons, certainly they were not destroyed." I'd think that he, as the man on the ground at the time, knows better than any of us what was found.

                                Can everyone please keep this civil.... there's no need for insults / swearing.

                                Regards
                                RJP
                                View my photos at JetPhotos.Net!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X