New report confirms WMD fears in Iraq were legitimate

Intending and having are two different things. Saddam did not actually have the weapons he was invaded for having. A mistake.

 

They could find tons and tons of wmd's and it still wouldn't appease the anti=war crowd.

 

Since Iraq has used wmd's in the past, I see problem believing they had them before the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

http://www.fair.org/extra/0209/iraq-gas.html

 

Even if he had them, he was there and we are here:

I think we have more to fear from Russia or China than we ever had from Iraq. They have the power to reach us from there. ......I know this is a change of position than what I had in 2002, after repeated attempts of UN inspectors during the Clinton and early Bush years....

I used to think maybe there was justification to protect Israel..... however, that idea has changed too since our state department seems to encourage and presure Israel to give up and give in more and more: AND, like Ron Paul says, our country gives more money and military aid to the countries which surround Israel, than it does to Israel.

But now I see much of our foreign policy as a smoke screen.... just like much of the domestic policy: it is designed to enlarge debt; it is designed to focus us on certain concerns while other developments are takng place which is weakening our internal strength; it designed more to manipulate us into laws and bigger government designed to separate the people from their wealth and lively hood and their freedoms.

============

People running for office are bold to talk about 'universal' compliance i.e. medical insurance.... and no one seems to notice the underlying threat, greater than being sick, and that is the threat of taking more of our money with 'the promise' that government will provide better than we can if given back our own freedom of choice and a competitive society in which to work; (and believe me I'm in a spot w/o insurance, unemployed, living on a 401-k that is both taxed and penalized for pre social security withdrawal: a cancer survivor w/o insurance just depending on the LORD.)

I have a current infection being treated with $4.oo generic antibiotic prescribed by a local walk in clinic for $40 a visit. Lab and x-rays are available by referral to another place which also charges upfront cash, but is considerably discounted from customary charges still due when I had insurance and went to the preferred providers..... Go figure. Now its a non insurance, non government, a private medical practice ..... vs those other preferred provider insurance back or government backed (medicare/caid) clinics.


:godisgood:

 

The question nobody seems to be asking is, even if Saddam did have WMDs or secret programs to manufacture them...how does that change our constitution?

It's pretty clear that if we're going to attack another country for any reason at all there must first be a declaration of war from congress. Not a UN resolution.

The suspicions of the president and all his men and the constant fear mongering from the mass media and it's corporate benefactors or permission from congress to "use force" against another country should mean nothing to Americans absent a constitutional declaration of war.

Anything short of a declaration of war is unlawful it shouldn't matter if "wmd fears in Iraq" were confirmed or not. What should matter is that we've watched our "leaders" take us into one nation building military adventure after another without demanding an end to this unconstitutional practice.

 

Wouldn't change our constitution if we found a million tons of the stuff. Apparently it's alot easier to appease the pro nation building crowd than to talk law with them. All you gotta do is throw a good scare into them and they're ready to toss the law aside and use the military for bigger and better nation building experiments that are quickly proving to be our biggest downfall.

In other words you can't have an "anti war crowd" if there is no war and legally speaking we aren't at war with anyone.

Being pro nation building and making excuses for unconstitutional actions on the part "our governemt" is the same as being anti american imho but don't worry to much about it at least you can take comfort in being part of the in crowd whatever that is..

 

I see nothing threatening in Saddam's wanting weapons of mass destruction. I expect every dictator in the world would like to have WMD. Wanting them and having them is very different. We know that N. Korea has them and yet nothing has been done about them. Yes we have talked and talked and talked, but then N. Korea has no oil or other natural resources we are interested in and they have a large military that is not ill equipped. Iran wants them and has made moves toward developing them and heaven knows taking on Iran is a different kettle of fish from invading Iraq. Plus our military is spread so thin from the Iraq misadventure that we are practically unable to respond to any new crisis.:tonofbricks:

 

Since the Bush administration(and others) were wrong about Iraq having WMDs at least so far they have the good sense not to use the "he was dreaming about having them" argument.

Our own National Intelligence Estimate states that Iran is not attempting to build a nuclear weapon. I think that the whole "Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons" was a bogeyman created by neo-cons to try to start a third war during the Bush administration.

 

But there were none, yet it doesn't matter to the pro-war crowd.

 

Bingo!

If Saddam had possessed these WMD's as the Bush administration said that he had, he would have used them on the invading U.S. troops. He didn't use them because he did not have them.

 

The very fact that he used wmd's in the past, means he had wmd's. But people act as if they never exsisted. Which history proves wrong.

 

Gee, maybe he used the WMDs he had in his war with Iran.

Surely since Saddam used WMDs in the past, if he still possessed them, he would have used them against our soldiers during the U.S. invasion.

 

Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction. (I enjoyed typing 'was'). All of world history and foreign policies up to 60-70 years ago would have seen the US as more than justified to take the action it did. Iran was an active enemy of our state and that of our best friend, Israel (as are a lot of other nations).

 

And ain't that too bad? If he had them, then there would have been reason to invade and get mass-destructed.

 

People say he never had them, apparently he did.

 

History proves he did.

 

I don't dispute that Saddam had them, we sold or gave them to him.

He, obviously did not possess them before the start of the current war, which is the main reason he was invaded! This war was started based on false information!

 

I agree.

Hussein was a rogue dictator that should have been taken out of power in the first Gulf war. That was Bush Sr's fault.

 

Hardly. George H.W. Bush had enough good sense to avoid the quagmire and killing field that George W. Bush has created in Iraq due to his poor planning.