Just How Bad Did The Republicans Want To Invade Iraq?

[Correll]

RW claimed that Saddam was safely contained.

Except he was not. He was stockpiling weapons.

All nations stockpile weapons. Now go change your diaper.

I did not disagree with you.

But a Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

Now go fuck yourself you asshole.

Saddam had not much left after the first gulf war. Now you know.

NOt much what left? Weapons?

Compared to who? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia?

A Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained. He is a Time Bomb. He is the opposite of safe.

Saddam was not a threat to the US.

A Time Bomb sitting in the middle of the Middle East is a threat to the World.

It is the opposite of Safe. He was NOT safely contained.

 

[Mudda]

All nations stockpile weapons. Now go change your diaper.

I did not disagree with you.

But a Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

Now go fuck yourself you asshole.

Saddam had not much left after the first gulf war. Now you know.

NOt much what left? Weapons?

Compared to who? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia?

A Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained. He is a Time Bomb. He is the opposite of safe.

Saddam was not a threat to the US.

A Time Bomb sitting in the middle of the Middle East is a threat to the World.

It is the opposite of Safe. He was NOT safely contained.

It's not the US' job to determine what countries to take out for the world. In fact, the US is the biggest threat militarily in the world and has been at war for almost its whole existence.

 

[Correll]

I did not disagree with you.

But a Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

Now go fuck yourself you asshole.

Saddam had not much left after the first gulf war. Now you know.

NOt much what left? Weapons?

Compared to who? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia?

A Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained. He is a Time Bomb. He is the opposite of safe.

Saddam was not a threat to the US.

A Time Bomb sitting in the middle of the Middle East is a threat to the World.

It is the opposite of Safe. He was NOT safely contained.

It's not the US' job to determine what countries to take out for the world. In fact, the US is the biggest threat militarily in the world and has been at war for almost its whole existence.

So, moving the goal posts are we?

Before I discuss your new points would you be so kind as to admit that Saddam was NOT safely contained as RW claimed?

Seeing as you have given up making that case.

Then we will move on to your new "goalposts".

 

[Slyhunter]

RW claimed that Saddam was safely contained.

Except he was not. He was stockpiling weapons.

All nations stockpile weapons. Now go change your diaper.

I did not disagree with you.

But a Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

Now go fuck yourself you asshole.

Saddam had not much left after the first gulf war. Now you know.

NOt much what left? Weapons?

Compared to who? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia?

A Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained. He is a Time Bomb. He is the opposite of safe.

Saddam was not a threat to the US.

He was a threat to Israel.
He was a threat to other countries around him.
He didn't have to be a direct threat to the US.

 

[Slyhunter]

I did not disagree with you.

But a Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

Now go fuck yourself you asshole.

Saddam had not much left after the first gulf war. Now you know.

NOt much what left? Weapons?

Compared to who? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia?

A Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained. He is a Time Bomb. He is the opposite of safe.

Saddam was not a threat to the US.

A Time Bomb sitting in the middle of the Middle East is a threat to the World.

It is the opposite of Safe. He was NOT safely contained.

It's not the US' job to determine what countries to take out for the world. In fact, the US is the biggest threat militarily in the world and has been at war for almost its whole existence.

Technically, morally, we should take out North Korea and force them to merge with South Korea. It is disgusting that we allow the inhuman treatment of their citizens like we do.

There are other countries equally deserving of our help for similar reasons.

But we are not powerful enough to help all of them so we have to pick and choose who we help one at a time.

 

[Correll]

Saddam had not much left after the first gulf war. Now you know.

NOt much what left? Weapons?

Compared to who? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia?

A Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained. He is a Time Bomb. He is the opposite of safe.

Saddam was not a threat to the US.

A Time Bomb sitting in the middle of the Middle East is a threat to the World.

It is the opposite of Safe. He was NOT safely contained.

It's not the US' job to determine what countries to take out for the world. In fact, the US is the biggest threat militarily in the world and has been at war for almost its whole existence.

Technically, morally, we should take out North Korea and force them to merge with South Korea. It is disgusting that we allow the inhuman treatment of their citizens like we do.

There are other countries equally deserving of our help for similar reasons.

But we are not powerful enough to help all of them so we have to pick and choose who we help one at a time.

Trying to do that would get Seoul shelled a lot, tens of thousands would likely die. If not more.

THe majority of the fighting would likely be done by SOuth Korean forces.

Certainly the majority of the deaths would.

Forcing such an issue on South Korea against their wishes, I not sure that we COULD do it, but we certainly should NOT do it.

 

[healthmyths]

RW claimed that Saddam was safely contained.

Except he was not. He was stockpiling weapons.

All nations stockpile weapons. Now go change your diaper.

I did not disagree with you.

But a Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

Now go fuck yourself you asshole.

Saddam had not much left after the first gulf war. Now you know.

NOt much what left? Weapons?

Compared to who? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia?

A Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained. He is a Time Bomb. He is the opposite of safe.

Saddam was not a threat to the US.

NO he was a threat to innocent children that if he were still alive by now over 2 million would have starved...all because HE WOULDN"T CERTIFY HE HAD NO WMDs!
What sane leader would allow 144,000 children a year starvation when to lift the UN sanctioned embargo all he had to do was "CERTIFY HE HAD NO WMDs!
How complicated is that?
In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

But if Saddam was to be believed i.e. he wouldn't sign the certification, what else would all the intelligence agencies AND these Democrats believe?

Remember... these Democrats also believed Saddam had WMDs because THEY believed NO sane leader would let 576,000 children starve if all he need do is
be honest and certify the destruction.

According to the Times story, Saddam Hussein wanted the world to believe he possessed WMD in order to create fear and thwart any war plans by the US.
The revelation that Saddam's generals believed they would use WMD against American, British and other invading forces explains why the US military found protective gear had been issued to Iraqi soldiers. The top commanders wanted their troops protected from the WMD they intended to use.

"The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defense, " stated the New York Times on March 12.
NY Times: Saddam's generals believed they had WMD to repel US

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."

Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

 

[Campbell]

The Sanctions were failing, remember the Oil FOr Food Scandal?

And considering how long Saddam was screwing around, ie thoughout the end of the Bush administration and all the Clinton years, one can hardly call the invasion an "immediate attack".

Over ten years and he has made no moves outside his borders

We needed to send 5000 Americans to their deaths beause Saddam was diverting food money?

You claimed he was contained. I pointed out that the containment was failing.

Do you remember what he was diverting food money TO?

If the supposed containment was not important to your being against the war, you should not have mentioned it as a reason for being against the war.

How is that failing?

We claimed he was a threat....where was the threat?

He was diverting the Oil for Food Money to buy weapons in violation of the Sanctions which was a big part of the containment.

Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

If the supposed containment was not important to your being against the war, you should not have mentioned it as a reason for being against the war.

Saddam was stockpiling weapons? You mean like the US does and so does pretty much every other country in the world? And given the fact they Iraq was invaded by a foreign army, I'd say that their stockpiling of weapons was right on.

I hear what you're saying but it never was about that. The reason Bush and his gang managed to get support for that invasion of a sovereign nation which had done no harm to the U S was one thing....WMD's. I don't believe they actually thought he did have them they just needed an excuse.

 

[Campbell]

All nations stockpile weapons. Now go change your diaper.

I did not disagree with you.

But a Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

Now go fuck yourself you asshole.

Saddam had not much left after the first gulf war. Now you know.

NOt much what left? Weapons?

Compared to who? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia?

A Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained. He is a Time Bomb. He is the opposite of safe.

Saddam was not a threat to the US.

A Time Bomb sitting in the middle of the Middle East is a threat to the World.

It is the opposite of Safe. He was NOT safely contained.

We've been in the middle east since the 1930's. I assure you we weren't invited. Our automobiles needed fuel. At the end of the second world war in Yalta Winston Churchill told Roosevelt and Stalin to divide up the spoils any way they wanted to but not to mess with Great Britain's interests in the middle east.

 

[Mudda]

Saddam had not much left after the first gulf war. Now you know.

NOt much what left? Weapons?

Compared to who? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia?

A Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained. He is a Time Bomb. He is the opposite of safe.

Saddam was not a threat to the US.

A Time Bomb sitting in the middle of the Middle East is a threat to the World.

It is the opposite of Safe. He was NOT safely contained.

It's not the US' job to determine what countries to take out for the world. In fact, the US is the biggest threat militarily in the world and has been at war for almost its whole existence.

So, moving the goal posts are we?

Before I discuss your new points would you be so kind as to admit that Saddam was NOT safely contained as RW claimed?

Seeing as you have given up making that case.

Then we will move on to your new "goalposts".

Every country including Iraq stockpiles weapons, including the US. It's a normal thing for countries to do. Saddam was no threat to the US whatsoever and was contained to their small part of the world.

 

[Mudda]

All nations stockpile weapons. Now go change your diaper.

I did not disagree with you.

But a Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

Now go fuck yourself you asshole.

Saddam had not much left after the first gulf war. Now you know.

NOt much what left? Weapons?

Compared to who? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia?

A Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained. He is a Time Bomb. He is the opposite of safe.

Saddam was not a threat to the US.

He was a threat to Israel.
He was a threat to other countries around him.
He didn't have to be a direct threat to the US.

Israel is more than capable of taking care of itself. Saddam wasn't a threat to countries around him, he couldn't beat Iran after 10 years and AMERICAN HELP. Kuwait he couldn't keel either, his army was way too weak. And he threatened no other country. Not even the US.

 

[Correll]

Over ten years and he has made no moves outside his borders

We needed to send 5000 Americans to their deaths beause Saddam was diverting food money?

You claimed he was contained. I pointed out that the containment was failing.

Do you remember what he was diverting food money TO?

If the supposed containment was not important to your being against the war, you should not have mentioned it as a reason for being against the war.

How is that failing?

We claimed he was a threat....where was the threat?

He was diverting the Oil for Food Money to buy weapons in violation of the Sanctions which was a big part of the containment.

Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

If the supposed containment was not important to your being against the war, you should not have mentioned it as a reason for being against the war.

Saddam was stockpiling weapons? You mean like the US does and so does pretty much every other country in the world? And given the fact they Iraq was invaded by a foreign army, I'd say that their stockpiling of weapons was right on.

I hear what you're saying but it never was about that. The reason Bush and his gang managed to get support for that invasion of a sovereign nation which had done no harm to the U S was one thing....WMD's. I don't believe they actually thought he did have them they just needed an excuse.

Bullshit.

 

[Mudda]

All nations stockpile weapons. Now go change your diaper.

I did not disagree with you.

But a Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

Now go fuck yourself you asshole.

Saddam had not much left after the first gulf war. Now you know.

NOt much what left? Weapons?

Compared to who? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia?

A Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained. He is a Time Bomb. He is the opposite of safe.

Saddam was not a threat to the US.

NO he was a threat to innocent children that if he were still alive by now over 2 million would have starved...all because HE WOULDN"T CERTIFY HE HAD NO WMDs!
What sane leader would allow 144,000 children a year starvation when to lift the UN sanctioned embargo all he had to do was "CERTIFY HE HAD NO WMDs!
How complicated is that?
In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

But if Saddam was to be believed i.e. he wouldn't sign the certification, what else would all the intelligence agencies AND these Democrats believe?

Remember... these Democrats also believed Saddam had WMDs because THEY believed NO sane leader would let 576,000 children starve if all he need do is
be honest and certify the destruction.

According to the Times story, Saddam Hussein wanted the world to believe he possessed WMD in order to create fear and thwart any war plans by the US.
The revelation that Saddam's generals believed they would use WMD against American, British and other invading forces explains why the US military found protective gear had been issued to Iraqi soldiers. The top commanders wanted their troops protected from the WMD they intended to use.

"The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defense, " stated the New York Times on March 12.
NY Times: Saddam's generals believed they had WMD to repel US

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."

Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

I don't read long posts that are mostly copy&paste. Condense your thought or fuck off, your choice.

 

[Correll]

I did not disagree with you.

But a Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

Now go fuck yourself you asshole.

Saddam had not much left after the first gulf war. Now you know.

NOt much what left? Weapons?

Compared to who? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia?

A Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained. He is a Time Bomb. He is the opposite of safe.

Saddam was not a threat to the US.

A Time Bomb sitting in the middle of the Middle East is a threat to the World.

It is the opposite of Safe. He was NOT safely contained.

We've been in the middle east since the 1930's. I assure you we weren't invited. Our automobiles needed fuel. At the end of the second world war in Yalta Winston Churchill told Roosevelt and Stalin to divide up the spoils any way they wanted to but not to mess with Great Britain's interests in the middle east.

What the Hell are you talking about?

The US was an oil exporter at that time. We were "in" the Middle East during WWII so that we could ship Lend Lease to the Soviets to fight the Nazis, and the locals were leaning towards the Nazis.

IMO, that was a valid reason to be involved.

 

[Correll]

I did not disagree with you.

But a Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

Now go fuck yourself you asshole.

Saddam had not much left after the first gulf war. Now you know.

NOt much what left? Weapons?

Compared to who? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia?

A Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained. He is a Time Bomb. He is the opposite of safe.

Saddam was not a threat to the US.

NO he was a threat to innocent children that if he were still alive by now over 2 million would have starved...all because HE WOULDN"T CERTIFY HE HAD NO WMDs!
What sane leader would allow 144,000 children a year starvation when to lift the UN sanctioned embargo all he had to do was "CERTIFY HE HAD NO WMDs!
How complicated is that?
In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

But if Saddam was to be believed i.e. he wouldn't sign the certification, what else would all the intelligence agencies AND these Democrats believe?

Remember... these Democrats also believed Saddam had WMDs because THEY believed NO sane leader would let 576,000 children starve if all he need do is
be honest and certify the destruction.

According to the Times story, Saddam Hussein wanted the world to believe he possessed WMD in order to create fear and thwart any war plans by the US.
The revelation that Saddam's generals believed they would use WMD against American, British and other invading forces explains why the US military found protective gear had been issued to Iraqi soldiers. The top commanders wanted their troops protected from the WMD they intended to use.

"The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defense, " stated the New York Times on March 12.
NY Times: Saddam's generals believed they had WMD to repel US

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."

Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

I don't read long posts that are mostly copy&paste. Condense your thought or fuck off, your choice.

YOu should read that one.

The New York Times report on Saddams generals being shocked and demoralized when Saddam finally told them that he had no WMDs, to fight the Americans with is very important and relevant to our discussion.

 

[Mudda]

Saddam had not much left after the first gulf war. Now you know.

NOt much what left? Weapons?

Compared to who? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia?

A Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained. He is a Time Bomb. He is the opposite of safe.

Saddam was not a threat to the US.

NO he was a threat to innocent children that if he were still alive by now over 2 million would have starved...all because HE WOULDN"T CERTIFY HE HAD NO WMDs!
What sane leader would allow 144,000 children a year starvation when to lift the UN sanctioned embargo all he had to do was "CERTIFY HE HAD NO WMDs!
How complicated is that?
In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

But if Saddam was to be believed i.e. he wouldn't sign the certification, what else would all the intelligence agencies AND these Democrats believe?

Remember... these Democrats also believed Saddam had WMDs because THEY believed NO sane leader would let 576,000 children starve if all he need do is
be honest and certify the destruction.

According to the Times story, Saddam Hussein wanted the world to believe he possessed WMD in order to create fear and thwart any war plans by the US.
The revelation that Saddam's generals believed they would use WMD against American, British and other invading forces explains why the US military found protective gear had been issued to Iraqi soldiers. The top commanders wanted their troops protected from the WMD they intended to use.

"The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defense, " stated the New York Times on March 12.
NY Times: Saddam's generals believed they had WMD to repel US

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."

Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

I don't read long posts that are mostly copy&paste. Condense your thought or fuck off, your choice.

YOu should read that one.

The New York Times report on Saddams generals being shocked and demoralized when Saddam finally told them that he had no WMDs, to fight the Americans with is very important and relevant to our discussion.

Well there you go, you just summarized that whole mess in 2 lines, that's what I'm talking about. It's ok to then post your reference, but at least to say first wtf your point is.
So Saddam admitted he had no WMD? So what's the problem?

 

[Slyhunter]

NOt much what left? Weapons?

Compared to who? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia?

A Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained. He is a Time Bomb. He is the opposite of safe.

Saddam was not a threat to the US.

NO he was a threat to innocent children that if he were still alive by now over 2 million would have starved...all because HE WOULDN"T CERTIFY HE HAD NO WMDs!
What sane leader would allow 144,000 children a year starvation when to lift the UN sanctioned embargo all he had to do was "CERTIFY HE HAD NO WMDs!
How complicated is that?
In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

But if Saddam was to be believed i.e. he wouldn't sign the certification, what else would all the intelligence agencies AND these Democrats believe?

Remember... these Democrats also believed Saddam had WMDs because THEY believed NO sane leader would let 576,000 children starve if all he need do is
be honest and certify the destruction.

According to the Times story, Saddam Hussein wanted the world to believe he possessed WMD in order to create fear and thwart any war plans by the US.
The revelation that Saddam's generals believed they would use WMD against American, British and other invading forces explains why the US military found protective gear had been issued to Iraqi soldiers. The top commanders wanted their troops protected from the WMD they intended to use.

"The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defense, " stated the New York Times on March 12.
NY Times: Saddam's generals believed they had WMD to repel US

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."

Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

I don't read long posts that are mostly copy&paste. Condense your thought or fuck off, your choice.

YOu should read that one.

The New York Times report on Saddams generals being shocked and demoralized when Saddam finally told them that he had no WMDs, to fight the Americans with is very important and relevant to our discussion.

Well there you go, you just summarized that whole mess in 2 lines, that's what I'm talking about. It's ok to then post your reference, but at least to say first wtf your point is.
So Saddam admitted he had no WMD? So what's the problem?

His own troops were shocked because they were under the impression that he did have WMD's. Just like everyone else.

 

[healthmyths]

I did not disagree with you.

But a Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

Now go fuck yourself you asshole.

Saddam had not much left after the first gulf war. Now you know.

NOt much what left? Weapons?

Compared to who? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia?

A Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained. He is a Time Bomb. He is the opposite of safe.

Saddam was not a threat to the US.

He was a threat to Israel.
He was a threat to other countries around him.
He didn't have to be a direct threat to the US.

Israel is more than capable of taking care of itself. Saddam wasn't a threat to countries around him, he couldn't beat Iran after 10 years and AMERICAN HELP. Kuwait he couldn't keel either, his army was way too weak. And he threatened no other country. Not even the US.

So you don't believe in keeping agreements i.e. NATO?
Should we discuss the agreements you personally have that you don't keep?

 

[Mudda]

Saddam was not a threat to the US.

NO he was a threat to innocent children that if he were still alive by now over 2 million would have starved...all because HE WOULDN"T CERTIFY HE HAD NO WMDs!
What sane leader would allow 144,000 children a year starvation when to lift the UN sanctioned embargo all he had to do was "CERTIFY HE HAD NO WMDs!
How complicated is that?
In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

But if Saddam was to be believed i.e. he wouldn't sign the certification, what else would all the intelligence agencies AND these Democrats believe?

Remember... these Democrats also believed Saddam had WMDs because THEY believed NO sane leader would let 576,000 children starve if all he need do is
be honest and certify the destruction.

According to the Times story, Saddam Hussein wanted the world to believe he possessed WMD in order to create fear and thwart any war plans by the US.
The revelation that Saddam's generals believed they would use WMD against American, British and other invading forces explains why the US military found protective gear had been issued to Iraqi soldiers. The top commanders wanted their troops protected from the WMD they intended to use.

"The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defense, " stated the New York Times on March 12.
NY Times: Saddam's generals believed they had WMD to repel US

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."

Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

I don't read long posts that are mostly copy&paste. Condense your thought or fuck off, your choice.

YOu should read that one.

The New York Times report on Saddams generals being shocked and demoralized when Saddam finally told them that he had no WMDs, to fight the Americans with is very important and relevant to our discussion.

Well there you go, you just summarized that whole mess in 2 lines, that's what I'm talking about. It's ok to then post your reference, but at least to say first wtf your point is.
So Saddam admitted he had no WMD? So what's the problem?

His own troops were shocked because they were under the impression that he did have WMD's. Just like everyone else.

So the Iraqi ground troops have the intelligence gathering power of the CIA? Ummm... no.

 

[Mudda]

Saddam had not much left after the first gulf war. Now you know.

NOt much what left? Weapons?

Compared to who? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia?

A Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained. He is a Time Bomb. He is the opposite of safe.

Saddam was not a threat to the US.

He was a threat to Israel.
He was a threat to other countries around him.
He didn't have to be a direct threat to the US.

Israel is more than capable of taking care of itself. Saddam wasn't a threat to countries around him, he couldn't beat Iran after 10 years and AMERICAN HELP. Kuwait he couldn't keel either, his army was way too weak. And he threatened no other country. Not even the US.

So you don't believe in keeping agreements i.e. NATO?
Should we discuss the agreements you personally have that you don't keep?

Israel is not part of NATO. Now you know.