Lying to the US

[a000]

Has anyone else noticed that no one is reporting on the fact Bush was wrong about the war?   Yes I know we liberated Iraq and thats probably a good thing, but that is not why we went to war.  Bush didnt go before Congress and defy the UN with the idea of liberating Iraqi people.  He went and said that Saddam has chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, yet we now have found they don't have anything.  We found they lied about 2 scud missles, is that enough to invade a country over?  I just think its funny when Bush was asked this question his response was that the army needed more time to search everywhere.  This was the same reply Hans Blix had for Bush, but it wasnt good enough.

Just remember that we defied the UN on the grounds that Saddam had the huge weapons and set back world history 50 years.   Now that fact is not even a whisper in the news.  I want to know WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?  If there are none, then why did Bush lie and said there were?

[a000]

Lying to the US

[Intuit]

I believe we will "find" massive stores of "weapons of mass-destruction" whether they truly exist or-not because of the implications involved in not having them.  He has been known to keep us in the dark and let all the critics speculate... later making them look silly with his (not-so) revelations of honorable intent.

[Intuit]

Where is UpLandGame... he always has some insight.

[a000]

"He has been known to keep us in the dark and let all the critics speculate... later making them look silly with his (not-so) revelations of honorable intent. "

I am not sure when he has ever done this.  Hes always been very open about everything he plans to do, I dont think hes left us on the dark on anything.  Now that the war is over and we control all of Iraq shouldnt we have found something?  Yet we have found nothing.  The media is embedding with all the troops I am sure they could not keep us on the dark about the weapons.  You can beleive that these weapons exist someplace secret, but they do not.  The reason we went to war, and told the UN and the rest of the world to kiss our ass, was wrong.  We were wrong, Bush should apologize.

[wdb1966]

Quote
We were wrong, Bush should apologize

I see that you seem to be the expert...what did you find at all the 3000+ sites that the US is in the process of exploring, which could take months.

[Intel16]

Yep, how long has the military been in Iraq and how much was spent fighting? Geez, the same people against the war and saying to give the UN time are demanding to see the weapons now and not later. Just can't wait huh?

[Wrawrat]

I wouldn't be surprised if they don't find any WMD, even in all those sites. Maybe it was wrong to lie, but at least they liberated an oppressed people.

However, I would like Bush to apologise for all the religious tensions he made by imposing his christian view & feelings over his country. Now more people hates americans just because of that even if many people aren't sharing the same beliefs...

[Arrow]

Hey, if Iraq did destroy their WMD stores, why did they play all these games. All Saddam would have had to do was show the inspectors all the documentation and talk to the scientists and generals without any minders. End of story, Saddam wins, France and Russia get their oil and military sales. Since this didn't happen, those weapons are buried somewhere. Its real easy to hide these weapons. And if there aren't any WMDs, then the war serves as an example of what not to do when the inspectors come knocking, it got rid of a tyrant (I love how a lot of people want to call Bush a liar and even a murderer while they blindly ignore Saddam's actions, which have lead to the deaths of millions), and got rid of a regime that support terrorism (yes, we've found links to various terrorist organizations).

Oh, and on the subject of setting the world back 50 years, don't forget to include France and Russia and their actions. They did everything they could (including relaying private conversations with the US to Saddam and spying on Blair) to save Saddam in order to protect a major source of oil and a large market for themselves.

While Bush has made his mistakes, a000, don't think for a second that everyone else is blameless.

[crosscourt]

They did find large stores of cyanide at that terrorist camp in Northern Iraq and the captured experts said they did exist but were buried prior to the inspections and war.

If we dont find them was the war wrong or a waste,of course not. Terrorist links have been proved and the Iraqi people deserve a chance to have their country under their control.

Lying is a bit off base and I agree with Wdb it will take a long time to search for the many buried assets and check neighboring countries to see if they were in fact moved.

Their were also confirmed reports of Cyanide residue in the Euphrates river along with trace parts of other chemicals usually associated with Serin a deadly nerve agent. They could have been dumped to avoid them being found.

Chemical tanks were found in Northern Iraq and drones fitted with nozzles for chemical agent release were also found along with artillery shells designed for biological or chemical agent use.

What would be gained having American soldiers killed over nothing. Bush simply isnt that type of person and was indeed tormented at the losses in the war.

Lets try to be objective and not jump to conclusions,CC

[a000]

I love the attitude that if I point out that the US was wrong that everyone else must be right.  Do you really think things are that simple.  Its the same people who call people against the war unpatriotic.  They are such simple propaganda statements and really are baseless.

The US hasnt found any links to terrorism.  We found papers that said Iraq has met with members of Al- Queda and that they planned to meet with Osama.  We've met with Al-Queda and Sadam as well, does that make us terrorists?  They hated the US, which they could have reasons to, so they wanted to meet with other leaders.  Its no different than what we do.  We've all seen the pictures of Rumsfield shaking Sadam's hand.  Doesnt mean hes evil.

We have found lots of things that could be used with chemical weapons, they could also be used for medical or pesticide purposes.  The thing it we dont know.  Bush's response is that they need more time.  He wasnt singing that tune when Blix said the same thing.  I dont think its ok to forget what Bush said and just look at the result.  People should be held accountable for their actions and words.  Sadam shouldve been overthrown, and Bush shouldve just come out and said we wanted to liberate Iraq.  Why did he have to try to find a smoking gun that ended up blowing up in his face.  We like to talk about WMD as chemical weapons, when the first reason we wanted to go to war was nuclear.  I guess that didnt work out to well either.

I'm all for liberating countries from evil leaders, but not at the expense of lying about the reasons.  Bush is known for saying it straight up, but when he is wrong is he the same way?  I guess not, well see.  

Im sure everyone has seen Bush in his military uniform like he was some war hero.  Im not sure why every paper in the nation showed someone who hid from Vietnam all dressed up instead of the thousands of actually soldiers who did his bidding.   Wasnt there another leader who got all dressed up in uniform to show off his military superiority, oh yea, Sadam.  

And so America the Great, America the Free, will be once again America the hypocrite.  I love this country, I beleive we should fight for our freedoms, of which our greatest is freedom of speech.  Im tired of people calling anti-war sediment unpatriotic.  Jeb Bush said last week at an NRA meeting "The sound of our guns is the sound of freedom."  I disagree, the sounds of our voices is the sound of freedom.  Lets try not to tarnish our freedom by lies.

[wdb1966]

Quote
The US hasnt found any links to terrorism.

You need to do some more reading...many terrorist camps have indeed been found, some even with commercial aircraft bodies for practice runs.

[a000]

You are correct WDB.  Let me correct myself.  No substantial military or finacial links to al-queda have been found.  The media likes to pretend what they have found are quality links, but they had no more link than we did to al-queda.  

One of my pet peeves is how the word terrorism is getting destroyed by the media.  So I am glad you corrected me.  Bush was even forced to change his "war on terror" to something else.  This is because the word terrorist is being associated with too many people thaty arent.  Have you seen the polls that ask if Sadam had anything to do with 9/11?  Like half the population says yes, that is sad.  We need to place our enemies better so we know why we are destroying them.  If we off them for the wrong reasons we will look foolish in the history books.

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: a000
Has anyone else noticed that no one is reporting on the fact Bush was wrong about the war?   Yes I know we liberated Iraq and thats probably a good thing, but that is not why we went to war.  Bush didnt go before Congress and defy the UN with the idea of liberating Iraqi people.  He went and said that Saddam has chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, yet we now have found they don't have anything.  We found they lied about 2 scud missles, is that enough to invade a country over?  I just think its funny when Bush was asked this question his response was that the army needed more time to search everywhere.  This was the same reply Hans Blix had for Bush, but it wasnt good enough.

Just remember that we defied the UN on the grounds that Saddam had the huge weapons and set back world history 50 years.   Now that fact is not even a whisper in the news.  I want to know WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?  If there are none, then why did Bush lie and said there were?

Does it really matter if we find them at this point?  Blix has already accused us of lying and planting evidence and we haven't found anything.  We have found terrorist training camps, but already the opposition is saying, "Yeah but that's in the north where the Kurds were in power, not Saddam" which isn't true.  UN no fly zones did keep Saddam from bombing the Kurds again, but that's all.  Whatever we do find, and I do think we'll find plenty, we'll be accused of planting it and lying to the international community for "Imperialist political gains."

The thing that worries me most is that we won't have the time to complete the job.  The mess in Fallujah is a perfect example of how this could deteriorate and Americans , not to mention Islamic fundamentalists, are painfully aware of their Vietnam past and the problems in Israel.  If enough of our troops come home in body bags from these terrorist assaults, public opinion will erode and Bush will be forced to pull out of Iraq.  And don't think that the people carrying out these bombings don't know that.  

Quote
I just think its funny when Bush was asked this question his response was that the army needed more time to search everywhere.  This was the same reply Hans Blix had for Bush, but it wasnt good enough.

We gave Saddam 11 years to disarm.  Is the US going to get 11 years to disarm Iraq as well?  The fact of the matter is that Bush just declared the ground assault over with this week.  I think it's a bit fast to assume that WMD don't exist when we've only begun to look for them.

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: wdb1966

Quote
The US hasnt found any links to terrorism.

You need to do some more reading...many terrorist camps have indeed been found, some even with commercial aircraft bodies for practice runs.

Just to back that up here are a couple links:


Link #1

Link #2

The camp we supposedly took.  Make sure you notice the date on this article.

I couldn't find a link to the article where our forces took that camp with the airliner on it though.  That's what's been driving me nuts about these debates.  I'll read something on CNN.com or ABCNew.com and just a few weeks later it's gone from the site.  I know I read it and I talk to other people that have read these articles too, but now they're gone.  If you want to know why conservatives get so upset about the "liberal bias" in the media, this is a perfect example of it.  All sorts of articles that would support my position on this issue have just dried up and I can't find them with google.

[a000]

Scut- you need to read all the posts before you post anything.  We gave Iraq 11 years to disarm and I beleive they disarmed their WMD.  I dont think they did everything to our specifications, but I beleive he doesnt have WMD.


Not to start another discusion but consider this.  Since we did go against the UN, shouldnt the UN stopped us from going into Iraq.  Obviously they couldnt stop up, but wouldnt it of been werird if they wouldve surround baghdad and said that the US didnt have authorization to go in.  I think thats what they shouldve done, but obviously they have no power with out the US.  Just kind of funny to think about.

Scut- Yes I think its really important we find WMD.  That was the reason for the war.  It wasnt because Sadam was evil to the kurds, it was because he had military camps, it wasnt to free the people of Iraq, it wasnt because of oil.  Bush said it was because he had WMD and we were going to war to "protect the US".  That was the reason he gave congress, the american people, the UN, and the world.  I wouldve accepted the other reasons, but thats not what he said.  What he said compared to what he did is very important for us as a country, a democracy, and for bush's political race.  To think otherwise is silly.

[wdb1966]

Quote
Since we did go against the UN...

The cease-fire UN resolutions which Iraq agreed to in 1991 also provided authority for coalition forces to restart military action if Iraq broke any of the agreed-to conditions...and they were in violation the very first time they forced UN inspectors out.

This required no further approval from the UN.

[a000]

wdb- we didnt go against them because of that.  We held a vote and it was vetoed.  You can rhetoric all you want, but we didnt get UN approval, therefore UN wasnt for it.   If another country did the same thing we did, we wouldve led the UN there and stopped it.

[a000]

I suggest everyone who has posted here READ this.  Its the latest update on the WMD findings.  It also talks about effects of finding or not finding them.  

[wdb1966]

I agree that they do need to find them, however, the UN took 11 years so I'm not expecting overnight results...I'm a little more realistic.

[a000]

WDB- the UN did take years.  Thats a long time to look.  When is too long?  Weve spent money we dont have looking and trying to prove our case for war, and have found no WMD.  I hope we do so we have justification, but I fear we wont find anything.  That is realistic

[Lord Raiden]

Of course we're not going to find any, or very few of them.  You think the Iraqi's are going to leave this stuff where it's really easy for us to find?  Oh heavens no.  If you can't find this stuff searching the US because it's all hidden away in secret locations, you think the US is gonna have much better luck over there?

Of course the thing that always gets me is how we're screaming about all these other countires and their WMD's, and yet we have 3x's as many WDM as any other country on the planet, and on top of that, we possess large stockpiles of some of the most lethal NBC weapons in the world, many of which are banned around the world.  Kinda sounds two faced to me.  How can we scream about other countries having these and not do something about our stocks??  Probubly because our government is a bunch of power hungry paranoid freaks.  I say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Maybe it's time the UN did inspections in the US for banned WMD.  Let's see the US answer to that one.  

[Arrow]

According to CNN, Aziz has told the US that they destroyed alot of WMDs just before the war began. Too bad those fools didn't do it in front of the UN.

Raiden, I hope you realize that Russia, China and Britain all have WMDs. The difference between US and the countries we're screaming about is that we aren't going use them in any conflict short of WWIII nor are we going to sell them to terrorist. North Korea has a history of selling weapons to anybody. The Syrians and Iranians support terrorist. Pakistan and India will probably use them against each when they go to war (its a safe bet it will happen sooner or later).

Also, lets not forget the US is destroying its WMD stockpile. There's a plant in Tennessee that destroys bio and chem weapons.

Frankly, when you have nukes, you don't need bio and chem weapons. You have to have a lot of chemical weapons to do any real damage and biological weapons take a while to do their work (although they're usually fatal). One nuke can take out a city real quick. The problem with chemical and biological weapons is that can cause massive panic. Any thing a terrorist gets his hands on would probably kill a few thousand at most, but the panic would be socially, politicially and economically devastating.

On the subject of nukes, I think we need to send a powerful message to North Korea. Basically, tell them that if they want into the nuclear club, they have to face the consequences. If the use nukes or export them, then we nuke them. Friggin two-bit tyrants.

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: a000
Scut- you need to read all the posts before you post anything.  We gave Iraq 11 years to disarm and I beleive they disarmed their WMD.  I dont think they did everything to our specifications, but I beleive he doesnt have WMD.


Not to start another discusion but consider this.  Since we did go against the UN, shouldnt the UN stopped us from going into Iraq.  Obviously they couldnt stop up, but wouldnt it of been werird if they wouldve surround baghdad and said that the US didnt have authorization to go in.  I think thats what they shouldve done, but obviously they have no power with out the US.  Just kind of funny to think about.

Scut- Yes I think its really important we find WMD.  That was the reason for the war.  It wasnt because Sadam was evil to the kurds, it was because he had military camps, it wasnt to free the people of Iraq, it wasnt because of oil.  Bush said it was because he had WMD and we were going to war to "protect the US".  That was the reason he gave congress, the american people, the UN, and the world.  I wouldve accepted the other reasons, but thats not what he said.  What he said compared to what he did is very important for us as a country, a democracy, and for bush's political race.  To think otherwise is silly.

And you need to take a look at the time stamp on my first post.  1 minute after the one above it.

I was perfectly serious when I said it didn't matter and here is why.  

1.  We will find them because they are there.  We may not find many if they've worked their tails off to destroy them, but we'll find some.
2.  The portion of the American public that believe this was just, believes that for more reasons than just WMD.  They believe it because of our history with Saddam and because they feel their safety is threatened by Saddam.
3.  The portion of the American public that doesn't believe it was just will never believe it no matter how much proof we put up.  Watching the anti-war, anti-Bush propoganda shows that firmly entrenched.  Any presentations of WMD as proof will be met with accusations of planted evidence.
4.  Those in the international community who supported the US and didn't support the US have made their beds and are going to have to sleep in them regardless.  Those supporting the US would loose all of the benefits of support and those against would only undermine their credibility.  This issue was far too polarized for countries to change their sides now.

The most unlikely scenario, in my mind, is not finding anything.  I don't think I'm naive when I say that the US will be honest about the process.  I think that the fact that our press has made one mistaken declaration of Chem/Bio weapons after another is proof enough of that.  But what happens if they aren't found?  Kuwait has the remnants of that Chinese weapon that slammed into their mall.  It was bought illegally, against the UN embargo.  How about those French missles we've found?  Against the embargo.  North Korean missles that voilated the treaty?  Terrorist camps?  Torture chambers?  We'll hold up all of these pieces of evidence that Saddam was an evil dictator and just as I said above, those who wanted to believe this was just will continue to believe it, and those who didn't won't.  I am plenty old enough to realize just how hard it is to change one mind in this world, much less millions.

We could allow the UN to march right into Iraq today and if they found enormous stockpiles of WMDs it wouldn't really mean anything to those who opposed us.  They opposed our methods, not our reasons.  They've opposed the US's use of force as a means to eliminate the sovereignty of a leader and either it scares the pants off them or it emboldens them to use the fear of others as a point of leverage to create a political niche for themselves.  

***Warning:  Off Topic on the Off Topic board***

I think the latter is particularly true of the French.  The French are a proud nation and they have a very long line of historical relevance and importance.  Did you know that French used to be the language of international law?  All treaties were written and signed in French.  Go look up how many Treaties of Versaille there are.  They were the cornerstone of international law and politics up until World War II.  Their quick decimation by Nazi forces and their quick agreement to turn over jews to Hitler (something that not even Mussolini did) tore apart that prestige.  Their need for US financial support and inability after the war to setup a consistent government didn't help either.  Do you really think that these wounds to their deep pride aren't at least some of the reason they're being so obstructive in the UN?  We're talking about a country that has laws on the books to prevent radio stations from playing entirely English playlists.  A country that has a party with the slogan "France for the French" holding seats in their legislative body.  France is fiercly proud.  I daresay more so than Americans are of their country.  Americans are a bunch of mutts that like to tack other ethnic considerations onto their names, Irish American, Italian American, Afro American, Asian American, Mexican American, etc...  I would be curious to see how well that would fly in France.  

The truth of the matter is that I understand and sympathize with French incalcitrance.  I am sure that if in my lifetime the US is no longer the number one power in the world, it will be a tough pill for me to swallow as well.  The problem is that it's my country's safety at issue here and while I do understand France's position, the French don't have to live here.  They don't have to nervously watch the TV and phone everyone they know in NY when a couple of their towers are being struck down by Airliners.  They didn't have to sit and wonder if the next move in this quaqmire is going to be sarin gas from Saddam on a subway, or anthrax in the water supply.  It's a new world order out there and all it takes is the littlest man or woman to kill thousands.  Saddam was paying those men and women to do their work in Israel.  $10,000 per suicide bomber, in fact.  I don't trust him enough not to want to do it to us as well.  

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: a000
wdb- we didnt go against them because of that.  We held a vote and it was vetoed.  You can rhetoric all you want, but we didnt get UN approval, therefore UN wasnt for it.   If another country did the same thing we did, we wouldve led the UN there and stopped it.

No, the UN security council took a vote.  There is a HUGE difference.  It was never put to the UN body at large, only to the security council members.  There were too many fat contracts for many of the security council members to risk if they put it to a full UN vote.  Not only that, but the US was lining up the necessary votes for their latest resolution to pass when France declared it moot by saying they'd exercise their permanent member ability to fully veto any measure put forth by the US.  They blocked it before even the security council could vote.  The US had eight of the nine members on board and had full expectations of getting the ninth (out of 15) vote they needed.  

You can try to peddle that junk about the full UN being lined up fully against the US all you want, but it's simply not true.  This was a matter of the big boys on the block carping in the back room to the exclusion of everyone else.  There was no way that the security council members with their fat contracts were going to let this one go out to a vote at large.  The continent of Africa has seen more than it's fair share of terrorist killings on their soil in the name of Islamic fundamentalism.  The Eastern Block countries of Europe also know exactly what it's like to live under the yoke of brutal dictatorship.  Those opposing us on the security council couldn't take the risk of letting the vote go to the UN at large.  Here's the list of 49 countries that explicitly supported our actions in Iraq.  Those are only the ones that came out and fully supported us.  I'm sure there are plenty of UN members that just stayed out of it because they didn't have to pick a side.  This isn't as one sided as the anti-war crowd would have you believe.