quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancre

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goodwill


So now these same democrats say that bush lied to us and there never were any wmd's and that he took us to war for nothing.

Mr Goodwill,

The point is, of course, that the people who said these things did NOT unilaterally invade Iraq without UN favor, correct me if I am wrong.

And John Kerry's speech, by the way, is taken out of context. He said that he would support the war iff (if and only if) the weapons inspectors were allowed to finish their jobs - which, obviously they were not - unless you wish to argue that Duelfur, Clark, O'Neill - all <formerly> "the presidents men" were lying? Are you argueing that? Because their reports do NOT support what you are claiming.

Peace & God bless,

Liza, i'm hoping you read the Duelfer report: report which says that Hussain wanted to rebuild his weaponery program and was paying off the UN to dissolve the restrictions, which is why they didn't agree with the invasion. why kill the cash cow? please read his report. as for Clark, well, he's basically the laughing stock of washington. i won't put much stock in anything he says.

kim
[8D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwingert

quote:

if Iraq b/c a democratic nation, it will cripple the Al-Quada and they know it

You obviously don't understand how Al-Qaeda operates or appreciate the power of their ideology.

So let me ask you this...if democracy takes hold in Iraq, will the US Government force democracy in decidely undemocratic places like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancre

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goodwill


So now these same democrats say that bush lied to us and there never were any wmd's and that he took us to war for nothing.

Mr Goodwill,

The point is, of course, that the people who said these things did NOT unilaterally invade Iraq without UN favor, correct me if I am wrong.

And John Kerry's speech, by the way, is taken out of context. He said that he would support the war iff (if and only if) the weapons inspectors were allowed to finish their jobs - which, obviously they were not - unless you wish to argue that Duelfur, Clark, O'Neill - all <formerly> "the presidents men" were lying? Are you argueing that? Because their reports do NOT support what you are claiming.

Peace & God bless,

Liza, i'm hoping you read the Duelfer report: report which says that Hussain wanted to rebuild his weaponery program and was paying off the UN to dissolve the restrictions, which is why they didn't agree with the invasion. why kill the cash cow? please read his report. as for Clark, well, he's basically the laughing stock of washington. i won't put much stock in anything he says.

kim
[8D]

Hi Kim, Yes, I did read the report. I have a link to the cia website, not the findlaw one that you used: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

Funny, this is what I read in it:

"Since the early 1970s, Iraq has consistently sought to acquire an effective long-range weapons delivery
capability, and by 1991 Baghdad had purchased the missiles and infrastructure that would form the basis
for nearly all of its future missile system developments. The Soviet Union was a key supplier of missile hardware
and provided 819 Scud-B missiles and ground support equipment.
Iraq’s experiences with long-range delivery systems in the Iran/Iraq war were a vital lesson to Iraqi President
Saddam Husayn. The successful Iraqi response to the Iranian long-range bombardment of Baghdad, leading
to the War of the Cities, probably saved Saddam.
By 1991, Iraq had successfully demonstrated its ability to modify some of its delivery systems to increase
their range and to develop WMD dissemination options, with the Al Husayn being a fi rst step in this direction.
The next few years of learning and experiments confi rmed that the Regime’s goal was for an effective
long-range WMD delivery capability and demonstrated the resourcefulness of Iraq’s scientists and technicians.
Iraq failed in its efforts to acquire longer-range delivery systems to replace inventory exhausted in the
Iran/Iraq war. This was a forcing function that drove Iraq to develop indigenous delivery system production
capabilities.
Desert Storm and subsequent UN resolutions and inspections brought many of Iraq’s delivery system
programs to a halt. ...• The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) has uncovered no evidence Iraq retained Scud-variant missiles, and debriefings
of Iraqi offi cials in addition to some documentation suggest that Iraq did not retain such missiles
after 1991.
Key Findings
Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and signifi cance of the pre-1991
Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively
decayed after that date.
• Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest
concerted efforts to restart the program....

Key Findings
Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions
were judged favorable:
• Saddam and many Iraqis regarded CW as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a
weapon that had saved the nation at least once already—during the Iran-Iraq war—and contributed to deterring
the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad.
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq
unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications
that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire
to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered...
In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain
advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW
program or was conducting BW-specifi c work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite
evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of
discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level."...
ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons
and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent. However ISG lacks evidence to document
complete destruction. Iraq retained some BW-related seed stocks until their discovery after Operation Iraqi
Freedom (OIF)...
ISG is aware of BW-applicable research since 1996, but ISG judges it was not conducted in connection with
a BW program.
• ISG has uncovered no evidence of illicit research conducted into BW agents by universities or
research organizations....In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent
production systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons."
I'm assuming you know of the military assistance the US gave to Hussein in the 1980's, or how, when Hussein did use chemicals on his own people - the US STILL remained on friendly ties with Hussein to protect our economic interests. Just in case you forgot"
"U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 30, 2002; Page A01

High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.
...
review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague....

Chemicals Kill Kurds

In late 1987, the Iraqi air force began using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq that had formed a loose alliance with Iran, according to State Department reports. The attacks, which were part of a "scorched earth" strategy to eliminate rebel-controlled villages, provoked outrage on Capitol Hill and renewed demands for sanctions against Iraq. The State Department and White House were also outraged -- but not to the point of doing anything that might seriously damage relations with Baghdad.

"The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is . . . important to our long-term political and economic objectives," Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy wrote in a September 1988 memorandum that addressed the chemical weapons question. "We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis." ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true

Now, I assume you think that we should invade all countries that "may start" a WMD program, or "have plans" to start a WMD program. Now, wouldn't we be invading half the countries in the world. The Bush admin said they had hard evidence of WMD - clearly the Duelfer refutes this. I may remind you that at the VERY SAME time we invaded Iraq, North Korea was sending missiles into the Pacific & outright threatening the US - A LOT more threatening to me.
And you're dissing Richard Clarke?!?! He worked under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and yes, you guessed it, George W Bush II, the current president as national security advisor, terrorism czar. Hardly a laughing stock less you think the four aforementioned presidents chose wrongly? If so, write them a letter.
Hussein had to go - but not at the cost of a reported 25,000 innocent Iraqis (w/even higher estimates) and the loss of 1700+ of our best & brightest. We could've assassinated Hussein and his evil cohorts, and/or pressured our Arab buddies that are neighbors to Hussein to step down.

Peace & God bless,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goodwill

quote:

Saddam Husayn.

well your report cant even spell Saddam Hussein right so there goes that idea

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancre


MMM. . . . . rather interesting that folks ignore the truth and want to believe these silly lies. well to help you all along, since you do ignore the truth, i thought i'd bring the truth to you in the form of Mr. Duelfer's report. unfortunately, copy right laws forbid me from posting all of it, so here are some key points. are we ready? here we go:

Regime Strategic Intent:
Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when
sanctions were lifted.

• Saddam totally dominated the Regime’s strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait),
maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq’s strategic
policy.

• Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

• The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came
to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

• By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in
terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.
Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that
which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

• Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam’s view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi’a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.

• The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifi able group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieu-tenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.

Regime Finance and Procurement:
Throughout the 1990s and up to OIF (March 2003), Saddam focused on one set of objectives: the survival of himself, his Regime, and his legacy. To secure those objectives, Saddam needed to exploit Iraqi oil assets, toportray a strong military capability to deter internal and external threats, and to foster his image as an Arab leader. Saddam recognized that the reconstitution of Iraqi WMD enhanced both his security and image. Conse-quently, Saddam needed to end UN-imposed sanctions to fulfill his goals.

One aspect of Saddam’s strategy of unhinging the UN’s sanctions against Iraq, centered on Saddam’s efforts to influence certain UN SC permanent members, such as Russia, France, and China and some nonpermanent (Syria, Ukraine) members to end UN sanctions. Under Saddam’s orders, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) formulated and implemented a strategy aimed at these UNSC members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions and undermining its subsequent OFF program by diplomatic and economic means. At a minimum, Saddam wanted to divide the five permanent members and foment international public support of Iraq at the UN and throughout the world by a savvy public relations campaign and an extensive diplomatic effort.

Another element of this strategy involved circumventing UN sanctions and the OFF program by means of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements. Protocols allowed Saddam to generate
a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. The successful implementation of the Protocols, continued oil smuggling efforts, and the manipulation of UN OFF contracts emboldened Saddam to pursue his military reconstitution efforts starting in 1997 and peaking in 2001. These efforts covered conventional arms, dual-use goods acquisition, and some WMD-related programs.

ISG uncovered Iraqi plans or designs for three long-range ballistic missiles with ranges from 400 to 1,000 km and for a 1,000-km-range cruise missile, although none of thses systems progressed to production and only one reportedly passed the design phase. ISG assesses that these plans demonstrate Saddam's continuing desire-up to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)-for a long-range delivery capability. [a side note: on the show Front Line "looking for suddam's weapons", after the invasion by american forces, a reporter interviewed one of the engineers who was to design one of these missiles. He confirmed these missiles but was executed by the bath party the next day.]

The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals, but ISG will not be able to resolve whether Iraq intended the system to underpin any CW-related efforts.

• The Regime employed a cadre of trained and experienced researchers, production managers, and weaponization experts from the former CW program.

• Iraq began implementing a range of indigenous chemical production projects in 1995 and 1996. Many of these projects, while not weapons-related, were designed to improve Iraq’s infrastructure, which would have
enhanced Iraq’s ability to produce CW agents if the scaled-up production processes were implemented.

The above is only sections of the reportThe whole report can be found here: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/dciwmd93004kf.pdf

Now after reading the above, i for one am glad that "dimbulb" took us to war. from the evidence presented by those working with and for Hussain, it would only have been a matter of time before Hussain would have had a working chemical weapons program. And based on other evidence in this report it is clear he would have turned his sights on the US and her allies. I think this ends this discussion, unless there are others who wish to throw out silly, meaningless, hate filled excuses that have no merit or facts behind them. unless of course, this report scares the living blank out of you, then meaningless excuses are understandable.

kim

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goodwill

quote:

Saddam Husayn.

well your report cant even spell Saddam Hussein right so there goes that idea

quote:

i'm still amazed at those who will ignore the truth and run after lies.

quote:

maybe they're scared, maybe they just refuse to listen.

quote:

thanks again, GW.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jipsah

Oh yes, thanks ever so much. As a taxpayer, I'm grateful that we're throwing $16,000,000,000 a week into a bonfire.

quote:

you guys are hopless wonders please stick to what ever God hads called you to do and leave the politicing up to the adults

quote:

Oh yes, thanks ever so much. As a taxpayer, I'm grateful that we're throwing $16,000,000,000 a week into a bonfire.

quote:

I know isnt it wonderful...Burn Baby Burn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jipsah

quote:

Oh yes, thanks ever so much. As a taxpayer, I'm grateful that we're throwing $16,000,000,000 a week into a bonfire.

quote:

I know isnt it wonderful...Burn Baby Burn

I'd love if you'd do it with your money instead of mine. I reckon I could make better use of it.

quote:

"Well if that's the law, that I cain't shoot a hombre that's thinking about killing everybody in the county as soon as he can raise enough money for a gun and some ammunition, then I don't know what this country's a'comin' to. If a man needs shootin', by gum we oughtta be able to shoot him! I reckon you'd ruther just wait 'til he's gunned down everbody in the state, wouldn'tcha? Dang yeller bellies! I don't reckon you wanted me to burn his house, neither, didja? Cain't do nuthin' without you sissy-boys findin' fault with it. Didn't but one of his young'uns get kilt in the fire, and the rest of 'em oughtta be grateful for being shet of that pole-cat daddy of theirs. They're a lot better off than they was."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jipsah

quote:

i'm still amazed at those who will ignore the truth and run after lies.

You mean like the lie that Iraq had WMDs? The lie that there was some arcane connection between Iraq and the 9-11 murderers? The lie that the Iraqi people were going to greet us with wild hosannas as their liberators? The lie that we had a plan for disengagement when it was all done? Or any of the other whoppers that got us into this quagmire in the first place?

quote:

maybe they're scared, maybe they just refuse to listen.

Or maybe we're just literate.

quote:

thanks again, GW.

Oh yes, thanks ever so much. As a taxpayer, I'm grateful that we're throwing $16,000,000,000 a week into a bonfire.

quote:

then i guess the whole entire world lied, huh? Russia, all middle-east countries, England, france, all liars, b/c all of them claimed hussain had weapons.

quote:

and i noticed you ignored the rest of my post, as liberals always do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancre

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancre


MMM. . . . . rather interesting that folks ignore the truth and want to believe these silly lies. well to help you all along, since you do ignore the truth, i thought i'd bring the truth to you in the form of Mr. Duelfer's report. unfortunately, copy right laws forbid me from posting all of it, so here are some key points. are we ready? here we go:

Regime Strategic Intent:
Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when
sanctions were lifted.

• Saddam totally dominated the Regime’s strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait),
maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq’s strategic
policy.

• Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

• The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came
to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

• By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in
terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.
Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that
which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

• Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam’s view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi’a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.

• The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifi able group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieu-tenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.

Regime Finance and Procurement:
Throughout the 1990s and up to OIF (March 2003), Saddam focused on one set of objectives: the survival of himself, his Regime, and his legacy. To secure those objectives, Saddam needed to exploit Iraqi oil assets, toportray a strong military capability to deter internal and external threats, and to foster his image as an Arab leader. Saddam recognized that the reconstitution of Iraqi WMD enhanced both his security and image. Conse-quently, Saddam needed to end UN-imposed sanctions to fulfill his goals.

One aspect of Saddam’s strategy of unhinging the UN’s sanctions against Iraq, centered on Saddam’s efforts to influence certain UN SC permanent members, such as Russia, France, and China and some nonpermanent (Syria, Ukraine) members to end UN sanctions. Under Saddam’s orders, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) formulated and implemented a strategy aimed at these UNSC members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions and undermining its subsequent OFF program by diplomatic and economic means. At a minimum, Saddam wanted to divide the five permanent members and foment international public support of Iraq at the UN and throughout the world by a savvy public relations campaign and an extensive diplomatic effort.

Another element of this strategy involved circumventing UN sanctions and the OFF program by means of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements. Protocols allowed Saddam to generate
a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. The successful implementation of the Protocols, continued oil smuggling efforts, and the manipulation of UN OFF contracts emboldened Saddam to pursue his military reconstitution efforts starting in 1997 and peaking in 2001. These efforts covered conventional arms, dual-use goods acquisition, and some WMD-related programs.

ISG uncovered Iraqi plans or designs for three long-range ballistic missiles with ranges from 400 to 1,000 km and for a 1,000-km-range cruise missile, although none of thses systems progressed to production and only one reportedly passed the design phase. ISG assesses that these plans demonstrate Saddam's continuing desire-up to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)-for a long-range delivery capability. [a side note: on the show Front Line "looking for suddam's weapons", after the invasion by american forces, a reporter interviewed one of the engineers who was to design one of these missiles. He confirmed these missiles but was executed by the bath party the next day.]

The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals, but ISG will not be able to resolve whether Iraq intended the system to underpin any CW-related efforts.

• The Regime employed a cadre of trained and experienced researchers, production managers, and weaponization experts from the former CW program.

• Iraq began implementing a range of indigenous chemical production projects in 1995 and 1996. Many of these projects, while not weapons-related, were designed to improve Iraq’s infrastructure, which would have
enhanced Iraq’s ability to produce CW agents if the scaled-up production processes were implemented.

The above is only sections of the reportThe whole report can be found here: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/dciwmd93004kf.pdf

Now after reading the above, i for one am glad that "dimbulb" took us to war. from the evidence presented by those working with and for Hussain, it would only have been a matter of time before Hussain would have had a working chemical weapons program. And based on other evidence in this report it is clear he would have turned his sights on the US and her allies. I think this ends this discussion, unless there are others who wish to throw out silly, meaningless, hate filled excuses that have no merit or facts behind them. unless of course, this report scares the living blank out of you, then meaningless excuses are understandable.

kim

and just for clarification, here is my post. notice this statement here:

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when
sanctions were lifted.

also see this one:

b]One aspect of Saddam’s strategy of unhinging the UN’s sanctions against Iraq, centered on Saddam’s efforts to influence certain UN SC permanent members, such as Russia, France, and China and some nonpermanent (Syria, Ukraine) members to end UN sanctions. Under Saddam’s orders, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) formulated and implemented a strategy aimed at these UNSC members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions and undermining its subsequent OFF program by diplomatic and economic means. At a minimum, Saddam wanted to divide the five permanent members and foment international public support of Iraq at the UN and throughout the world by a savvy public relations campaign and an extensive diplomatic effort.

in otherwords, Hussain was WORKING to CREATE a NEW WMD program. see above. He was WORKING toward bringing DOWN the sactions so he could BUILD a program. no weapons were ever found, i'll give you that one, but if you read the WHOLE report it will say, and i repeat again, HE WANTED AND WAS WORKING TO BUILD A NEW WEAPON PROGRAM. If we hadn't gone to war, Hussain would have succeeded in CREATING a new weapons program as is seen by the WHOLE report.
thank you.

kim
[8D]

quote:

Where in your posted quotes, does it say that Hussein POSSESSED WMD? Please show me, in your posts, where it states that Hussein in fact, possessed WMD. All your posts say is that Hussein was PLANNING to restart "WHEN" sanctions were lifted. I posted straight from the Key findings of the CIA website - in there, it quite plainly says that Hussein did NOT possess WMD; if you still think otherwise, you must be in denial;

quote:

Continuing from the aforementioned, I will ask it again: if you believe that, because Hussein may have been planning to restart his WMD programs after sanctions were lifted, do you believe we should invade these types of countries (of which there are many); over other countries that ACTUALLY HAVE WMD, and that were ACTUALLY LAUNCHING MISSILES into the Pacific, like North Korea, at the VERY SAME TIME we were planning to invade Iraq? I am not saying we should've invaded North Korea - I am just trying to understand the way you think. And please, answer the question.

quote:

Notice that those ex-presidents, countries who also BELIEVED Hussein had WMD - notice that they did NOT unilaterally invade Iraq - you know, like we did. Now you may think this is not a big difference, but to me, this is a glaring difference - one that has cost the Iraqi people 25,000 innocents dead and the loss of 1700+ of our best & brightest;

quote:

Don't you find it ironic that we supplied Hussein with biological, chemical weapons in the 1980's; that the US CIA funded bin Laden in the early 1980's? It is interesting how you ignored that in your post....

quote:


TO justachristian and boJangles and friends....read this story


The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at
war. My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and
I were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve
and defend our Country again today. I knew that my husband would give
him a good explanation.
My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand
in our front living room window. He said "Son, stand there and tell me
what you see?"

"I see trees and cars and our neighbor's houses." he replied.

"OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the
United States of America and you are President Bush."

Our son giggled and said "OK."

"Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every
house and yard on this block is a different country" my husband said.

"OK, Dad, I'm pretending."

"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and pretend you
see Saddam come out of his house with his wife. He has her by the hair
and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the
face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to
death. Their children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are
screaming and crying, they are watching this but do nothing because they
are kids and they are afraid of their father. You see all of this
son.... what do you do?"

"Dad?"

"What do you do son?"

"I'd call the police, Dad."

"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations and they take your
call, listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do
you do then, son?"

"Dad.......... but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to
whine.

"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or
your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my
husband says.

"But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.

"I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want
you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're
pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."

"Daddy...he kills them?"

"Yes son, he does. What do you do?"

"Well, if the police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door
neighbor to help me stop him." our son says.

"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get
involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my
husband says.

"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"

"WHAT DO YOU DO, SON?" Our son starts to cry.

"OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for
help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and
puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next, son?"

"What Daddy?"

"He walks across the street to the old lady's house and breaks down her
door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire
and then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in the
window and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?"

"Daddy..."

WHAT DO YOU DO?"
Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers, "I'd close the
blinds, Daddy."

My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him, "Why?"

"Because, Daddy.....the police are supposed to help people who need
them...and they won't help.... you always say that neighbors are
supposed to HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help
me stop him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by myself, Daddy....I can't
look out my window and just watch him do all these terrible things
and...and.....do nothing...so....I'm just going to close the blinds...so
I can't see what he's doing........and I'm going to pretend that it is
not happening."

I start to cry.

My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window,
looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husband's questions and
he says, "Son."

"Yes, Daddy."

"Open the blinds, because that man.... he's at your front door. "WHAT
DO YOU DO?"

My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up
his tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without
hesitation he says: "I'D DEFEND MY FAMILY, DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM
HURT MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M GONNA
FIGHT HIM!!!!!"

I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs our son to his
chest and hugs him tight, and says... "It's too late to fight him, he's
too strong and he's already at YOUR front door, son.....you should have
stopped him BEFORE he killed his wife, and his children and the old lady
across the way. You have to do what's right, even if you have to do it
alone, before it's too late," my husband whispers.

THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good
men stand by and let evil happen, THAT is the greatest EVIL of all.

Our President is doing what is right. We, as a free nation, must
understand that this war is a war of humanity. WE must remove evil men
from power so that we can continue to live in a free world where we are
not afraid to look out our window so that my nine year old son won't
grow up in a world where he feels that if he just "closes" the blinds
the atrocities in the world won't affect him.

"YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT! EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO
IT ALONE!" BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! BE PROUD OF OUR
TROOPS!! SUPPORT THEM!!! SUPPORT AMERICA SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR
CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS..."