Posted by
timothy
on from the absence-of-evidence dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Severalnewsoutlets are reporting that the United States has officially ended the The Iraq Survey Group's search for WMDs. Prior to the war, WMDs were named as a justification for a 'preemptive' invasion."
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
-- Carl Sagan
Re:Great...
by
h4x0r-3l337
·
· Score: 4, Informative
the justifications given over and over by Bush and his crew was that they (the wmds) were either there, or that Saddam had the capability to either make them, or get them from someone else
bull-shit. The Bush administration flat out said that he had WMD. They claimed to have proof. At some point they even claimed they had found them. None of that turned out to be true.
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction - Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there. -
Ari Fleischer, Press Briefing, Jan. 9, 2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. - George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. - Gen. Tommy Franks,
Press Conference, March 22, 2003
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. - Donald Rumsfeld, ABC Interview, March 30, 2003
We found the weapons of mass destruction - George W. Bush, Polish TV Interview, May 29, 2003
The list goes on and on and on...
Re:The ends
by
NonSequor
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Hussein deserved to be taken out of power, there's no doubt about that, but I just don't think he was a pressing concern. I seriously doubt that Saddam would have attacked the US if he did have the weapons. Saddam was a secular leader and I don't think he was ever interested in a jihad against the US. I think the only scenario where Saddam might have attacked the US would be if he built his army back up and developed bioweapons then attacked his neighbors again and threatened the US with the bioweapons if we intervened.
I think that the real reason for the Iraq war was to test the domino theory that some conservative pundits were tossing around. They were hoping that a democracy in Iraq would lead to revolutions in neighboring states. If it worked, it would solve a lot of our problems. But it never had a chance of working in the first place.
-- My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
Fucking delusionary bozo.
by
jotaeleemeese
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There is no connection between Al Qaeda and Hussein. None, Zero, Zilch.
Your own Congress has said that much, Rumsfeld had accepted it. So stop it please, don't insult our intelligence.
In the run to the war humanitarian causes were never mentioned. Never. Bush's "preocupation" (hypocrate) were uniquely and exclusively WMDs.
For goodness sake, find yourself the idiotic "axis of evil speech" and look how much Iraqi people featured there.
Stop the denial, it will only delay the finding of a slution to the problem.
Inspectors were shown over a 9 year period to be ineffective. And since we know Saddam had a bioweapons program ready to ramp up at a moment's notice and was more than eager to get back into the business, only a fool would think
WASHINGTON -- The search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has quietly concluded without any evidence of the banned weapons that President Bush cited as justification for going to war, the White House said Wednesday.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there no longer is an active search for weapons and the administration does not hold out hopes that any weapons will be found.
Chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles Duelfer is to deliver his final report on the search next month. "It's not going to fundamentally alter the findings of his earlier report," McClellan said, referring to preliminary findings from last September. Duelfer reported then that Saddam Hussein not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either.
--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Well DUH!
by
ichimunki
·
· Score: 2, Informative
United States GDP: $10,990,000,000,000.
7% of US GDP: $769,300,000,000.
Saudi Arabia GDP: $287,800,000,000.
Number of Saudi Arabias it would take to produce 7% of what the U.S. does: 2.67.
The odds that whatever you're saying about Saudi Arabia having a "7 percent share in [the U.S.] economy" is a load of [cow manure]: 100%.
-- I do not have a signature
That's below even your low standards.
by
khasim
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Why not just read his State of the Union address where he outlines the case instead of cherry picking?
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Looks like you're wrong.
WMD Report
That took about 15 seconds in Google.
The ORIGINAL question was "WHICH report? In fact, provide the page number, because I want to see the exact text, in context.
You failed to do so. You presented a link to a CNN story about the report, not to a specific quote in the report. You can't do that because the report does not say what you claim it says.
Inspectors were shown over a 9 year period to be ineffective. Define the level of force to be used in your forceful reinstatement.
"UN sanctions curbed Saddam's ability to import weapons, technology, and expertise into Iraq. Sanctions also limited his ability to finance his military, intelligence, and security forces to deal with his perceived and real external threats."
And since we know Saddam had a bioweapons program ready to ramp up at a moment's notice and was more than eager to get back into the business, only a fool would think he wasn't working to bring down the entire sanctions from within the U.N.
Again, the actual report contradicts your claims. "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specifi c work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level."
So, in conclusion: #1. Saddam was not a nuclear threat to the US. #2. Saddam was not a chemical threat to the US. #3. Saddam was not a biological threat to the US. #4. Saddam was not a terrorist threat to the US.
Saddam was not a military threat to the US in any way, shape or form.
Slashdot Mirror
Americas aren't stupid. They're mean.
And ignorant. And self-righteous.
Not all Americans are like this. Just most of them.
I am embarrassed by my own country.
And just the month before, we gave up an additional $20 billion + to our trading partners in bad trade agreements.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
FBI has been involved in foreign attacks on US installations since the mid 90s.
So involved are they that they considered opening an office in Yemen.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
bull-shit. The Bush administration flat out said that he had WMD. They claimed to have proof. At some point they even claimed they had found them. None of that turned out to be true.
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction - Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there. - Ari Fleischer, Press Briefing, Jan. 9, 2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. - George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. - Gen. Tommy Franks, Press Conference, March 22, 2003
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. - Donald Rumsfeld, ABC Interview, March 30, 2003
We found the weapons of mass destruction - George W. Bush, Polish TV Interview, May 29, 2003
The list goes on and on and on...
Hussein deserved to be taken out of power, there's no doubt about that, but I just don't think he was a pressing concern. I seriously doubt that Saddam would have attacked the US if he did have the weapons. Saddam was a secular leader and I don't think he was ever interested in a jihad against the US. I think the only scenario where Saddam might have attacked the US would be if he built his army back up and developed bioweapons then attacked his neighbors again and threatened the US with the bioweapons if we intervened.
I think that the real reason for the Iraq war was to test the domino theory that some conservative pundits were tossing around. They were hoping that a democracy in Iraq would lead to revolutions in neighboring states. If it worked, it would solve a lot of our problems. But it never had a chance of working in the first place.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
There is no connection between Al Qaeda and Hussein.
None, Zero, Zilch.
Your own Congress has said that much, Rumsfeld had accepted it. So stop it please, don't insult our intelligence.
In the run to the war humanitarian causes were never mentioned. Never. Bush's "preocupation" (hypocrate) were uniquely and exclusively WMDs.
For goodness sake, find yourself the idiotic "axis of evil speech" and look how much Iraqi people featured there.
Stop the denial, it will only delay the finding of a slution to the problem.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And since we know Saddam had a bioweapons program ready to ramp up at a moment's notice and was more than eager to get back into the business, only a fool would think
You can't take the sky from me...
United States GDP: $10,990,000,000,000.
7% of US GDP: $769,300,000,000.
Saudi Arabia GDP: $287,800,000,000.
Number of Saudi Arabias it would take to produce 7% of what the U.S. does: 2.67.
The odds that whatever you're saying about Saudi Arabia having a "7 percent share in [the U.S.] economy" is a load of [cow manure]: 100%.
I do not have a signature
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Looks like you're wrong.The ORIGINAL question was "WHICH report? In fact, provide the page number, because I want to see the exact text, in context.
You failed to do so. You presented a link to a CNN story about the report, not to a specific quote in the report. You can't do that because the report does not say what you claim it says.Actually, if you read the final report, it says that they were effective. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp
"UN sanctions curbed Saddam's ability to import weapons, technology, and expertise into Iraq. Sanctions also limited his ability to finance his military, intelligence, and security forces to deal with his perceived and real external threats."Again, the actual report contradicts your claims. "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specifi c work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level."
So, in conclusion:
#1. Saddam was not a nuclear threat to the US.
#2. Saddam was not a chemical threat to the US.
#3. Saddam was not a biological threat to the US.
#4. Saddam was not a terrorist threat to the US.
Saddam was not a military threat to the US in any way, shape or form.