The Risk of Doing Nothing

[Toad]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
It fits... Bush claimed that Hussein was an immediate threat.

Haven't there been some direct links to terrorists found? They captured the Achille Lauro guy, right? Some others? Also indications that they were linked to a degree with Al Quaeda? I'd say that's a threat.

I know that even a VCR tape of Saddam and Bin Laden butt-bumping with 17 living witnesses wouldn't be proof enough for some of you guys, of course.



I'm willing to see how this plays out. I don't think the WMD have to be found faster than Ronald can fry up a Happy Meal for it to be "validated".

If they find them in a reasonable amount of time, that's fine by me.

If they don't, that would be different.

For now.. I'll just relax a while.

[Nash]

Grun, turns out there was an omission at the bottom part of my post; allow me to fix it:

If you're going to reply with yet another sarcastic remark, ask me about the 60's civil rights movement, or reply with only a question while answering none of mine, don't waste your breath.

There... that's better.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hmmm... so... ten plus years of sanctions in Iraq got us what exactly?

NOTHING.

Sanctions doesnt work. Iraq is a very good example of this.

[Suave]

Originally posted by Nash
"Supporting terrorists was his claim that Hussien was an immediate threat to the US."

Not entirely true AKIron... At one point in the lead up to the war, Iraq was appearently some 90 days from nuclear capability.

Not just one point, they were at this point a few times, going back to the 80s . You might be interested in searching up some interviews with the former head of Iraq's nuclear program, I don't know his name, he escaped Iraq in the 90's I think .

[Suave]

Here's a link to an article about an interview with the guy I was talking about. His name is Khidhir Hamza .

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/terror/articles/hamza011222.htm

Some quotes of interest:

Iraq tested two radiological weapons in 1987 and 1988.

From August to November 1990, as the allies built up their forces for the Gulf War, Hamza was ordered into an intense effort to construct an atom bomb. By November his Atomic Energy Department had nearly completed a nuclear device. But, at about the size of a refrigerator, it was far too big to fit into a missile warhead-and it lacked the core of highly enriched uranium. Hamza and his colleagues had 31 kilograms of uranium from their Osiraq reactor that had been destroyed by Israeli bombers in 1981, from which they could distill 18 kilograms enriched enough to form the core. But they also knew that any such move would set off alarms at the International Atomic Energy Agency

[Nash]

Suave - to finish the quote which you cut off mid-sentence:

"But they also knew that any such move would set off alarms at the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitored Iraq's use of uranium, and that Iraq would be stopped from developing any more enriched uranium. Thus, Iraq would be able to build only one oversize bomb. Informed of this, Hamza says, Saddam agreed to shift to concentrating on using chemical and biological weaponry to halt the allied forces of Desert Storm."

So, contrary to the point you're trying to make, this doesn't support the idea of any Iraq nuclear weapons program post-'91. In fact it doesn't support *anything* post-'91.

Regarding the "immediate threat" case for war - Bush et al clearly argued it:

(Sept. 2002) "Last month, Bush told reporters that an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) study had concluded Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was "six months" away from obtaining nuclear capabilities. "I don't know what more evidence we need," concluded Bush. Yet the IAEA never issued any such report with those findings about Iraq.

Condoleezza Rice warned that Saddam might unleash a "mushroom cloud," and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested Saddam might soon attack America and kill "tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children."

Ladies... this wasn't *that* long ago.... If you've got the inclination and about 2 minutes you would come up with hundreds of quotes/examples.

[Dowding]

If they find them in a reasonable amount of time, that's fine by me.

If they don't, that would be different.

For now.. I'll just relax a while.

Tick - Tock - Tick - Tock.

[Suave]

Originally posted by Nash

So, contrary to the point you're trying to make, this doesn't support the idea of any Iraq nuclear weapons program post-'91. In fact it doesn't support *anything* post-'91.

Straw man fallacy, that wasn't the point I was trying to make by posting that link. In fact I even stated that the man escaped in the 90s . He was the head of the nuclear program untill he defected in 1994, at which time he was replaced. To point out the obvious, 1994 is after 1991, I'm not sure why you find that year so significant though.

The rest of that sentence does state that Iraq continued it's chemical and biological weapons program with redoubled vigor though. Actually it says using, not producing. It does not imply that the nuclear program was halted.

[Suave]

Originally posted by Nash


Regarding the "immediate threat" case for war - Bush et al clearly argued it:

(Sept. 2002) "Last month, Bush told reporters that an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) study had concluded Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was "six months" away from obtaining nuclear capabilities. "I don't know what more evidence we need," concluded Bush. Yet the IAEA never issued any such report with those findings about Iraq.

 

Who made this ascertation ? And are they privy to highly classified IAEA national security information like the President is ?

[Suave]

Originally posted by Nash


Condoleezza Rice warned that Saddam might unleash a "mushroom cloud," and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested Saddam might soon attack America and kill "tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children."
 

Yeah that's what nbc weapons do when they go off . You doubt this ?

[Toad]

Dowding, you want a piece of the betting action that 10Bears and Nash have?  

I'm sure we can arrange something.

As you know, WpnX is 13th TAS just back from Iraq. After chatting with him, I feel pretty confident I was right. Iraq's a big place; they might not find it in 90 days but I think they'll find it.

We're talking about folks that bury squadrons of Migs, amongst other things, in a desert as big as all of California.

Of course, it HAS been a bit over two entire weeks since they declared the combat phase over.............

[GRUNHERZ]

But lets all look at bright side of all of this. Even the USA haters recognize how much more competant the USA is compared to the gutless chatting UN - they were asking for an indefinite timeframe for Blix and co but wont even give the good old USA a week to find the stuff.

God Bless America!  

[Rude]

From here, it looks as if the intel was wrong and Blix was right. There are no WMD.

You hope and pray....none of you guys will buck up and just tell it like it is....you can't stand Bush....you feel he stole the election, you hope for failure in Iraq and regarding our domestic economy, a recovery under the Bush administrations control would only cause you grief.

No matter who is running our country, I would think we as citizens would hope for an outcome which is best for America...in my years of living, I've never seen such bitter, hateful and consistent partisanship.

[Rude]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hmmm... so... ten plus years of sanctions in Iraq got us what exactly?

Nothing

[Rude]

How many of you have ever stood in the middle of a desert?

If so, can you tell me it would be easy to find anything buried in that same desert?

It's not that easy.

Who here believes in no possibility of the WMD's being removed from the country while we square danced in the UN?