NO! Chemical weapons in Iraq???

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Leo,

I can see what you are saying. But didn't they find degraded weapons last year as well?

And Nephy, you should know better than this. If they found 500 units of weapons grade,or near grade mustard, sarin or other chemicals I can guarentee the responses would be different. You should know by now that all of us "left wing-nuts" are open to calm, rational arguments and debates and have even been known to change our stance on something when presented with a convincing enough argument. If you have something other than "the wheels keep spinning" and calling us condensending then please share it, if not, don't be suprised when the s start comming.

Yes, I can expect rudeness. Thanks- I manage to refrain from rolling eyes myself-

I never called you a left wing nut- nor does that thought go through my mind when I read these things-

I find alot of the responses to what he posted to be rude and condescending and no- my faith that certain people are susceptible to the possibility of changing their mind is very very low.

I am expressing my frustration without making it personal- and I don't really appreciate anyone telling me what I can or can not express. Heaven forbid I express my opinion without vetting it with people here first.

Good lord.

(and trust me- I am never surprised by it when people resort to rolling their eyes- it's expected from some quarters)

[scaeagles]

Actually, if I recall, the liberal mantra prior to the Bush election was that Saddam was a dangerous man with WMDs. During the second election, John Kerry said that if you didn't believe Saddam was a dangerous man with WMD, you shouldn't vote for him. After the Bush elections it was the same thing. After Bush action, it became that he had no WMD because he had destroyed them all and therefore action was unnecessary. Now it is that it is no big deal because they were old and degraded. In fact, I've heard some reports on the local radio about liberals questioning why it took so long to find these and why we're only finding out now from his recently declassified document.

So no matter what, spin from the left will be critical.

GD, I honestly don't recall anyone on the left saying Saddam still had WMD post invasion.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

GD, I honestly don't recall anyone on the left saying Saddam still had WMD post invasion.

It was neither from the left nor the right, but what I'm referring to is the post-invasion analysissess (or whatever the fvck the plural of that word is...analyses, that's it) that concluded over and over again that Sadaam really really really really wanted to be WMD capable, but was completely nackered by the UN watchdogs. So yeah, finding chemical weapons that were degraded beyond usefullness continues to support that. Weapons that he had to bury in the desert and not even glance at for fear of being discovered are as good as destroyed. Inert chemical weapons are not WMDs. It all comes down to the fact that even without Sadaam's cooperation, the UN's constant nagging accomplished exactly what it was supposed to. It rendered him powerless.

[scaeagles]

Should I accept that premise (which isn't unreasonable), how were we to know that without the required full and unfettered access required by the cease fire and UN resolutions related to the cease fire?

[Not Afraid]

Should I split this thread? There's a conversation going on about WMD in Iraq then there's another discussion about how people feel about others expressing their thoughts. Mabe we should have one big thread where people can post their generalities about posting habits and content.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Should I accept that premise (which isn't unreasonable), how were we to know that without the required full and unfettered access required by the cease fire and UN resolutions related to the cease fire?

Well, how about the proponderance of things like that video of Sadaam from just after the Gulf War where he tells his top aides exactly that? Or the fistfulls of defectors that told us exactly that?

Like I said, this is just another piece in a long list of evidence that started coming in before the invasion and continues to be corroborated.

[FEJ]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

.. Mabe we should have one big thread where people can post their generalities about posting habits and content.

Isn't that called "The Parking Lot?"

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

GD, I honestly don't recall anyone on the left saying Saddam still had WMD post invasion.

I seem to recall Bush making a big stink about Saddam having WMD and that is why we were going in.

But I could just be having false memories

[FEJ]

Have they found these yet?

[Alex]

Quite simply these weapons in this condition do not support Bush's case for going to war. The case he made was based on Iraq actually being an imminent threat for being in possession of usable WMDs and in active development of more effective WMDs.

My case for the war didn't really care whether he had them or was persuing them but rathre that we simply couldn't take the chance that he had them or was persuing them. Turns out he didn't (though he may have believed he did) really have either. So long as Iraq was stonewalling efforts to definitively establish their capacity, they posed an unacceptable threat. Even though the threat, in hindsight, was pretty close to nil, I still think the war was justified on my grounds but unjustified on Bush's grounds.

As I said above, if these finds strongly supported Bush's case for the war do you really think it would have taken this long for word to get out and
that Rick Santorum would have been the mouthpiece of choice?

I'd still like to hear more about the insurgents apparently using mustard and sarin gas as that would be a major story.