quote:

ORIGINAL: DMFParadox

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Yeah, but it's 100% subjective. And nice, for maybe National Geographic, but still not anything meaningful for a discussion of Policy.

Of course, if it ends up in the Geographic, it goes from 'anecdotal evidence' to 'well-researched fact.'

Ok, now--I'd like to ask Herfacechair about the evidence he has to support the rundown of Iraqi infrastructure before the war; and if he has it, any evidence to display what Iraqi hospitals, schools, and commercial infrastructures looked like just before the war.

27 billion dollars of Iraqi money is gone, regardless of what happened to it. We're on our own dime in fixing this mess, now. If we do fix it, then yes, it's vindication of a sort for you. Personally, I believe that you did a fine job there regardless; the Hussein regime had to go, and the U.S. military did it so astonishingly quickly that it's going to be in textbooks for millenia to come. The dramedy unfolding as to reasons, justifications, and effectiveness really has the taste of a power play more than it does an actual criticism of the war. But... after your job was done... Iraq's troubles just began to snowball. It has the feel of a clusterfuck, not a well-orchestrated cleanup. I'd like to agree with you, I really would, so show me your evidence please.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

Whether Saddam’s troops had WMD or not is a red herring statement.

The other side of the argument are insisting that Iraq had no WMD. I disagreed. And subsequently provided evidence that there was WMD in Iraq:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

quote:

BAGHDAD, Iraq— A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent (search) recently exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday.

Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas (search) was also recently discovered.

Two people were treated for "minor exposure" after the sarin incident but no serious injuries were reported. Soldiers transporting the shell for inspection suffered symptoms consistent with low-level chemical exposure, which is what led to the discovery, a U.S. official told Fox News.

"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy."

Now, unless the military training manual that I read is wrong, both Sarin and Mustard are chemical agents. Hence, they’re WMD.

The fact that these two agents were used post invasion (meaning, after we completed the invasion), whether Saddam’s troops had them or not, is beside the point.

The other side of the argument insisted that Iraq had “no” WMD. In order for that to be true, they have to prove that NO WMD were found. Both the sarin and mustard gas prove them wrong.

THAT is what I used to prove my point. NOT what Rush Limbough (sp) said.

Again, it doesn’t matter what you think about the sources I use, a fact is a fact.

....from the link you have provided....
".....Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and said more analysis was needed. If confirmed, it would be the first finding of a banned weapon upon which the United States based its case for war."

.....can you link to any report that shows that the further analysis referred to by Rumsfeld confirmed the original suggestion? All you've shown us is a fox news reports of a preliminary report. What you claim is evidence of WMD's in Iraq is nothing of the sort. It may, charitably, suggest that such evidence may exist, but it is not the smoking gun you claim.

quote:

NEW YORK-Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

There were no WMDs in Iraq,period.

quote:

BAGHDAD, Iraq— A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent (search) recently exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday.

quote:

NEW YORK — Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

No stockpiles,no production facilities,no programs,no actual weapons.Nothing,nada,zero,none.

quote:

Urban Legend: Saddam Hussein posed no threat. In the words of former Senator Max Cleland, “Iraq was no threat. We now know that. There are no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons programs, no ties to al-Qaeda. We now know that.”

Reality: Upon his return from Iraq, weapons inspector David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, said in Senate testimony: “I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein…. I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought…. After 1998, it became a regime that was totally corrupt…. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country.”

Dr. Kay’s report noted that, “We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.” He concluded, “Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction…. Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to restart CW [chemical weapons] production.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

The justification for the war was wrong.There`s no other way to put.Trying to, is only make pretend.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm

and

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6434-2005Jan13.html

This is after all,the White House saying this.I think this puts that point to rest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

There were no WMDs in Iraq,period.

Again:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

quote:

BAGHDAD, Iraq— A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent (search) recently exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday.

Confirmation that this was sarin:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html

quote:

NEW YORK — Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday

Sarin is a chemical nerve agent. WMD consists of nuclear, chemical, and biological agents. Therefore, sarin as a nerve agent, is WMD.

Your statement that there were “no” WMD in Iraq is false.

Now, I’m going to ask you a question, this should be easy, as I provide the answer above:

Is sarin a nerve agent? YES [   ] NO [   ]

Copy and paste that to your response and place an X in the box that represents your answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

No stockpiles,no production facilities,no programs,no actual weapons.Nothing,nada,zero,none.

First, whether they saw evidence of stockpiles or not is beside the point. Your side of the argument insists that there were “no” WMD in Iraq. The use of the above sarin proves your side of the argument wrong. Because, whether you agree with it or not, sarin is an example of WMD.

On the programs, and your “nothing, nada, zero, none comment:

http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleID.18837/article_detail.asp

quote:

Urban Legend: Saddam Hussein posed no threat. In the words of former Senator Max Cleland, “Iraq was no threat. We now know that. There are no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons programs, no ties to al-Qaeda. We now know that.”

Reality: Upon his return from Iraq, weapons inspector David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, said in Senate testimony: “I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein…. I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought…. After 1998, it became a regime that was totally corrupt…. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country.”

Dr. Kay’s report noted that, “We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.” He concluded, “Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction…. Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to restart CW [chemical weapons] production.”

Now, your side of the argument insists that since they didn’t find WMD, there “wasn’t” any WMD. Erroneously arguing that no evidence is the same thing as none existence.

So, maybe you’d be able to do what the others on this thread and other message boards have continually failed to do.

Answer this question:

Before you saw my very first post here, you had no evidence that I existed. You didn’t site any evidence of my existence, or anything else that indicated that I existed.

Does that mean that I didn’t exist until I made my first post here? YES [   ] NO [   ]

Copy and paste that question, and put an “X” in the box that represents your answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

The justification for the war was wrong.There`s no other way to put.Trying to, is only make pretend.

WRONG.

Under asymmetrical warfare, allowing a dictator to play cat and mouse games with regards to his WMD programs, given his past history of supporting terrorists, given his hosting radical terrorist conventions, given his making death to America statements, and given Bin Laden’s search for WMD, and better ways to kill more Americans, not going into Iraq would’ve been equivalent to letting someone play with matches in a room you’re both in, when it’s flooded with gasoline.

Iraq under Saddam had as much connection to the greater asymmetrical threat as Al-Qaeda had.

Your refusal to see a connection, and your refusal to see why we had to go into Iraq, shows that you don’t understand the nature of this war.

Precisely what our enemies need to accomplish their objectives.

Go back and read the link to Unrestricted Warfare. You’ll see the two authors describe people like you when they talk about a war method being “beyond the frequency bandwidth.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm

and

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6434-2005Jan13.html

This is after all,the White House saying this.I think this puts that point to rest.

From your first link:

"The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."

Again, no evidence DOESN’T equal “non” existence. If you haven’t done so, go back to my question asking you if I didn’t exist when you had no evidence of my existence, and answer it.

The theme of your second link relates to your first link, with regards to not finding WMD. Assuming that they “didn’t” have WMD because they didn’t find them, per those articles, is as asinine as dismissing a missing person as “non existent” because they couldn’t find him/her.

I’m going to tell you the same thing I’ve told numerous people over the years. Not finding WMD, not sighting evidence, doesn’t constitute non existence. And I’m going to hold that position until they dig up every square inch of Iraqi, and surrounding country, soil.

Because none of the inspection teams did that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Actually I asked for a credible report.  Not a media spin on a report.  Your BBC article references the ISG report.  It is full of violations by the Saddam regiem.  Quoting form the actuall report, not the BBC slant on it.  As I said before, Saddam was in violation of the sanctions, thankfully it was less than thought by many. 

Since Operation Iraqi Freedom, two scientists from Iraq’s pre-1991 nuclear weapons program have emerged to provide ISG with uranium enrichment technology and components, which they kept hidden from inspectors. In August 2003, a former EMIS scientist told ISG during an interview that he had taken material and equipment that was related to EMIS and hid them in various places near his home in the 1990s

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 these 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.

Procurements supporting delivery system programs expanded after the 1998 departure of the UN inspectors. Iraq also hired outside expertise to assist its development programs.

Given Iraq’s investments in technology and infrastructure improvements, an effective procurement network, skilled scientists, and designs already on the books for longer range missiles, ISG assesses that Saddam clearly intended to reconstitute long-range delivery systems and that the systems potentially were for WMD.

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.

 
 
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

The basis for war ( as stated in the congressional resolution) was Saddams refusal to comply with the relevant UN restrictions on WMD.  As several reports have shown, Saddam was in massive violation of these, with un declared bio plants, stocks of agents, plans,  suspicious dual use items, delivery systems, high tech items claimed to have been destroyed. 


What a bunch of crap.

They were complying and we had the run of the joint.

No one thought we needed a full-out invasion and occupation.
There were 500 hundred things we could have done,short of an invasion and occupation.


It was the terrorizing of the American people,with tales of un-manned planes flying over from Iraq,and comments like,"I don`t want the "smoking gun"(evidence of wmd),to come in the form of a mushroom cloud".That kind of scare tactic is what what sold the American people,on the lie that is Iraq.

Don`t try to weasel out(you,or any neo-con) of the responsibility for getting us stuck in this ditch.I know you can`t help yourself,but try.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

There were no WMDs in Iraq,period.

Again:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

quote:

BAGHDAD, Iraq— A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent (search) recently exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday.

Confirmation that this was sarin:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html

quote:

NEW YORK — Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday

Sarin is a chemical nerve agent. WMD consists of nuclear, chemical, and biological agents. Therefore, sarin as a nerve agent, is WMD.

Your statement that there were “no” WMD in Iraq is false.

Now, I’m going to ask you a question, this should be easy, as I provide the answer above:

Is sarin a nerve agent? YES [   ] NO [   ]

Copy and paste that to your response and place an X in the box that represents your answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

No stockpiles,no production facilities,no programs,no actual weapons.Nothing,nada,zero,none.

First, whether they saw evidence of stockpiles or not is beside the point. Your side of the argument insists that there were “no” WMD in Iraq. The use of the above sarin proves your side of the argument wrong. Because, whether you agree with it or not, sarin is an example of WMD.

On the programs, and your “nothing, nada, zero, none comment:

http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleID.18837/article_detail.asp

quote:

Urban Legend: Saddam Hussein posed no threat. In the words of former Senator Max Cleland, “Iraq was no threat. We now know that. There are no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons programs, no ties to al-Qaeda. We now know that.”

Reality: Upon his return from Iraq, weapons inspector David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, said in Senate testimony: “I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein…. I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought…. After 1998, it became a regime that was totally corrupt…. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country.”

Dr. Kay’s report noted that, “We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.” He concluded, “Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction…. Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to restart CW [chemical weapons] production.”

Now, your side of the argument insists that since they didn’t find WMD, there “wasn’t” any WMD. Erroneously arguing that no evidence is the same thing as none existence.

So, maybe you’d be able to do what the others on this thread and other message boards have continually failed to do.

Answer this question:

Before you saw my very first post here, you had no evidence that I existed. You didn’t site any evidence of my existence, or anything else that indicated that I existed.

Does that mean that I didn’t exist until I made my first post here? YES [   ] NO [   ]

Copy and paste that question, and put an “X” in the box that represents your answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

The justification for the war was wrong.There`s no other way to put.Trying to, is only make pretend.

WRONG.

Under asymmetrical warfare, allowing a dictator to play cat and mouse games with regards to his WMD programs, given his past history of supporting terrorists, given his hosting radical terrorist conventions, given his making death to America statements, and given Bin Laden’s search for WMD, and better ways to kill more Americans, not going into Iraq would’ve been equivalent to letting someone play with matches in a room you’re both in, when it’s flooded with gasoline.

Iraq under Saddam had as much connection to the greater asymmetrical threat as Al-Qaeda had.

Your refusal to see a connection, and your refusal to see why we had to go into Iraq, shows that you don’t understand the nature of this war.

Precisely what our enemies need to accomplish their objectives.

Go back and read the link to Unrestricted Warfare. You’ll see the two authors describe people like you when they talk about a war method being “beyond the frequency bandwidth.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm

and

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6434-2005Jan13.html

This is after all,the White House saying this.I think this puts that point to rest.

From your first link:

"The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."

Again, no evidence DOESN’T equal “non” existence. If you haven’t done so, go back to my question asking you if I didn’t exist when you had no evidence of my existence, and answer it.

The theme of your second link relates to your first link, with regards to not finding WMD. Assuming that they “didn’t” have WMD because they didn’t find them, per those articles, is as asinine as dismissing a missing person as “non existent” because they couldn’t find him/her.

I’m going to tell you the same thing I’ve told numerous people over the years. Not finding WMD, not sighting evidence, doesn’t constitute non existence. And I’m going to hold that position until they dig up every square inch of Iraqi, and surrounding country, soil.

Because none of the inspection teams did that.

Ah, I see why you`re mis-lead.Fox News is the media arm of the White House.How many stories about paid(by the white house),planted reporters and fake news people,do you need to read about,before you wake up and smell the coffee?

Got a link or news out-fit other than Fox?A news-paper, not owned by the Rev.  Sun Myung Moon ,that confirms what you say?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Actually I asked for a credible report.  Not a media spin on a report.  Your BBC article references the ISG report.  It is full of violations by the Saddam regiem.  Quoting form the actuall report, not the BBC slant on it.  As I said before, Saddam was in violation of the sanctions, thankfully it was less than thought by many. 

Since Operation Iraqi Freedom, two scientists from Iraq’s pre-1991 nuclear weapons program have emerged to provide ISG with uranium enrichment technology and components, which they kept hidden from inspectors. In August 2003, a former EMIS scientist told ISG during an interview that he had taken material and equipment that was related to EMIS and hid them in various places near his home in the 1990s

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 these 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.

Procurements supporting delivery system programs expanded after the 1998 departure of the UN inspectors. Iraq also hired outside expertise to assist its development programs.

Given Iraq’s investments in technology and infrastructure improvements, an effective procurement network, skilled scientists, and designs already on the books for longer range missiles, ISG assesses that Saddam clearly intended to reconstitute long-range delivery systems and that the systems potentially were for WMD.

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.

 
 
 

Dude,the WH has admitted it!lol

I know,it`s that dang cool-aid ,again.

Curses you!!,..Cool-aid!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

The basis for war ( as stated in the congressional resolution) was Saddams refusal to comply with the relevant UN restrictions on WMD.  As several reports have shown, Saddam was in massive violation of these, with un declared bio plants, stocks of agents, plans,  suspicious dual use items, delivery systems, high tech items claimed to have been destroyed. 


What a bunch of crap.

They were complying and we had the run of the joint.

No one thought we needed a full-out invasion and occupation.
There were 500 hundred things we could have done,short of an invasion and occupation.


It was the terrorizing of the American people,with tales of un-manned planes flying over from Iraq,and comments like,"I don`t want the "smoking gun"(evidence of wmd),to come in the form of a mushroom cloud".That kind of scare tactic is what what sold the American people,on the lie that is Iraq.

Don`t try to weasel out(you,or any neo-con) of the responsibility for getting us stuck in this ditch.I know you can`t help yourself,but try.

No, Iraq wasn’t complying with the inspections. The head of the inspection team’s briefing of the UN showed way too many inconsistencies with what Iraq said they have, and what the inspection team was finding.

If Iraq was complying, the inspection would’ve wrapped up sooner, as the Iraqis would’ve led the inspection team by the fingers to everything that had to do with their WMD program.

Not sit and their behinds and let the inspection team GUESS which building, or location, the WMD might be in.

A person in the military, in charge of inventory, would’ve been relieved for cause had he received that same report after an inventory was taken.

Don’t mistake calling a threat for what it is as “terrorizing” the American people. Equating the asymmetrical warfare realities the administration was talking about to “terrorizing the American people” is like saying that the police is “terrorizing the community” when they warn the community of an escaped convict with a violent past.

That assumption is simply asinine.

We’re not trying to weasel out of anything, we’re describing the threat for what it is, and arguing that we should continue in Iraq until we accomplish our objectives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

The basis for war ( as stated in the congressional resolution) was Saddams refusal to comply with the relevant UN restrictions on WMD.  As several reports have shown, Saddam was in massive violation of these, with un declared bio plants, stocks of agents, plans,  suspicious dual use items, delivery systems, high tech items claimed to have been destroyed. 


What a bunch of crap.

They were complying and we had the run of the joint.

No one thought we needed a full-out invasion and occupation.
There were 500 hundred things we could have done,short of an invasion and occupation.


It was the terrorizing of the American people,with tales of un-manned planes flying over from Iraq,and comments like,"I don`t want the "smoking gun"(evidence of wmd),to come in the form of a mushroom cloud".That kind of scare tactic is what what sold the American people,on the lie that is Iraq.

Don`t try to weasel out(you,or any neo-con) of the responsibility for getting us stuck in this ditch.I know you can`t help yourself,but try.

No, Iraq wasn’t complying with the inspections. The head of the inspection team’s briefing of the UN showed way too many inconsistencies with what Iraq said they have, and what the inspection team was finding.

If Iraq was complying, the inspection would’ve wrapped up sooner, as the Iraqis would’ve led the inspection team by the fingers to everything that had to do with their WMD program.

Not sit and their behinds and let the inspection team GUESS which building, or location, the WMD might be in.

A person in the military, in charge of inventory, would’ve been relieved for cause had he received that same report after an inventory was taken.

Don’t mistake calling a threat for what it is as “terrorizing” the American people. Equating the asymmetrical warfare realities the administration was talking about to “terrorizing the American people” is like saying that the police is “terrorizing the community” when they warn the community of an escaped convict with a violent past.

That assumption is simply asinine.

We’re not trying to weasel out of anything, we’re describing the threat for what it is, and arguing that we should continue in Iraq until we accomplish our objectives.

Oh ,is that right?

Can you then quote Scott Ritter,saying what you claim?

I don`t remember him saying anything of a sort.

Why the attempt at historical revision?What`s your point?
We all know what happened.

Are ya`ll just try`n to weasel out of this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Hey, y'all wouldn't happen to have the GC/MS results for that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Well Scott Ritter said,  ,""We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the United States in this war is inevitable,". "Every time we confront Iraqi troops we may win some tactical battles, as we did for ten years in Vietnam, but we will not be able to win this war, which in my opinion is already lost," Ritter added.

He also said in 2002,  "There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution."  Which is of course what I am saying, and you are disagreeing with.  Funny, Ritter agrees with me not you.

But of course let's not forget the final chapter on Scott Ritter....

In 2001, Ritter was arrested near Albany, NY. News reports state that Ritter had brushes with police on two occasions, both involving allegations of intent to meet underage girls after chatting on the Internet.[26] After an agreement with Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Preiser, the charges were suspended for six months, and were dropped after no further allegations arose. All court records from this matter were sealed. The District Attorney fired Preiser for failing to bring the matter to his attention.[27] According to WTEN-TV, Ritter underwent court-ordered sex offender counseling from an Albany psychologist.[28]

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

Your side of the argument argues that “no” WMD were found based on inspection teams not sighting evidence of such.  My side of the argument argues that “no” evidence doesn’t constitute no existence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Well Scott Ritter said,  ,""We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the United States in this war is inevitable,". "Every time we confront Iraqi troops we may win some tactical battles, as we did for ten years in Vietnam, but we will not be able to win this war, which in my opinion is already lost," Ritter added.

He also said in 2002,  "There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution."  Which is of course what I am saying, and you are disagreeing with.  Funny, Ritter agrees with me not you.

But of course let's not forget the final chapter on Scott Ritter....

In 2001, Ritter was arrested near Albany, NY. News reports state that Ritter had brushes with police on two occasions, both involving allegations of intent to meet underage girls after chatting on the Internet.[26] After an agreement with Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Preiser, the charges were suspended for six months, and were dropped after no further allegations arose. All court records from this matter were sealed. The District Attorney fired Preiser for failing to bring the matter to his attention.[27] According to WTEN-TV, Ritter underwent court-ordered sex offender counseling from an Albany psychologist.[28]

He also said that there were no WMD programs,that threatened us.No way to have a nuclear program,no chance of having a bio. program,and little chance of having a chemical program.With the inspectors on the ground,doing their thing,it`s a little disingenuous to claim that Iraq wan`t complying.Bush pulled out the inspectors.Who`s zooming who?

He`s (Ritter) said all along,that invading Iraq was wrong,and would be wrong.Given the fact that we had the run of the place,Saddam was contained,etc.,there was no need for this human catastrophe(2ND in size,only to  Darfur)to be created,by bush.

The burden of proof is on the pro-war side,to prove that it`s absolutely necessary to commit to attacking another nation.There has to be evidence an"imminent threat",or attack,before we attack another nation.Not a fear of an attack,or phony evidence of "yellow-cake",from Africa,or fake stories about aluminum tubes.

The bushies said that they didn`t want the evidence(of an imminent threat)to "come in the form of a mushroom cloud".

Ritter had said all along,that there was no nuclear program.
Why the selective use of what Ritter said.

I say,listen to everything he said.He was the expert and had all the info/data/intel at hand.

As I post this,60 Minutes is doing a story about "curve ball",the Iraqi who provided all the bullshit stories,that helped fool us into war.
It shows the whole story,all the way up to the invasion.
How the CIA knew,(eventually) that "curve ball" was a bullshiter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

Your side of the argument argues that “no” WMD were found based on inspection teams not sighting evidence of such. My side of the argument argues that “no” evidence doesn’t constitute no existence.

Do you believe the same about vampires & werewolves? That the lack of evidence does not constitute lack of existence?

That's the problem with trying to prove the complete lack of something - be it vampires, werewolves, or software bugs. You can try like mad, but you can't make it to 0.0%. And considering all the surveillance we had on Iraq before the runup to the invasion, how would Saddam snuck out all the goodies?

As for some of the proof of WMD given before, those chemical weapons were determined to be created before the 1991 invasion. But that news was always days or weeks later, and not on the first page.

Remember the portable bio lab, that had evidence of urea in a tank (with the wrong configuration for a bio lab)? It was a plant to generate gas for balloons (helium, I believe) just like our own US Army's. And the urea, as one Iraqi put it, was due to those "stupid guys peeing in the tanks!".

I'd sign off like Ron, but I'm not a true conservative.... more of a middle-of-the road in the scheme of things.

Thornhappy