i figured you'd like him.

Iraq has already used WoMD specifically outlawed by the UN. The US has already been vindicated. It is only a matter of time before the chemical and biological agents are uncovered.

It is only a matter of time before the chemical and biological agents are uncovered.

Really? Well, here's what the Brits say http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/articl...3&parent_id=258

Iraq has already used WoMD specifically outlawed by the UN. The US has already been vindicated. It is only a matter of time before the chemical and biological agents are uncovered.

When did Iraq use Chem/Bio weapons?

Iraq has already used WoMD specifically outlawed by the UN. The US has already been vindicated. It is only a matter of time before the chemical and biological agents are uncovered.

When did Iraq use Chem/Bio weapons?

Chemical and biological weapons weren't the only devices outlawed by the UN. The "Silkworm" missle used last week against Kuwait and the Al Sammoud missiles used occasionally in Iraq's offense against Coalition Forces are banned according to the UN Resolutions.

Silkworms and Al-Samoud missiles are not considered WMD unless they contain NBC material. They are in violation of the ceasefire agreement however.

 

:refrains from making the obligatory NBC joke:

You're correct. This has been going on for more than ten years. Twelve to be exact. However, between 1998 and 2002, there was no action to see the complete disarmament of Iraq. The Security Council failed in that respect, just as they have failed in other missions they charged themselves with - the creation of a Palestinian state for example.

 

Most UN observers, and experts in the field thought that UN resolution 1441 was having quite a degree of success - it was slow going but there was motion. Keeping pressure on Iraq effectively ended any effort to rearm Iraq and by our own Intelligence reports, the state had significantly fewer stocks of harmful weaponry - and did not pose a current credible threat.

 

Dude, I won't cry when Saddam Hussein leaves. He's a terrible person and deserves everything he's getting. However the policies that led us here do not serve the best interest of the US or even the world. If no WMD were found, or if the number was extremely low or even degraded, it would prove Bush's Preemptive War theory as wrong. The US may like it when it suits us, but this same idea could be used for the North Koreans to invade the South, Iran to attack a new Iraq, China to invade Taiwan, India to invade Pakistan. In any of those cases, we won't be dealing with biochem. We'd be dealing with nukes. Something I wouldn't want to see.

the reason 1441 was working was because we had 300,000 troops in desert ready to play foxhunt with saddam...if we decided not to go to war and brought those troops home the saddam would have again started playing hide and seek with the weapons inspectors...

actually thats not true. We barely have 300,000 now. The number then was more like 150,000 troops.

 

However, this would have been a good time to realize the effectivenes of a choking inspections regime. There could have been ways to play this out into a peaceful situation... but that's hard. The Bush administration doesn't often like doing things that are hard.

There could have been ways to play this out into a peaceful situation... but that's hard. The Bush administration doesn't often like doing things that are hard.

Yeah cause deciding to send American troops into war is an off-the-cuff decision. <_>

Yeah cause deciding to send American troops into war is an off-the-cuff decision.  <_>

Let's see. Bush has never had to do anything hard before. I mean, he got into Yale and Harvard because of his dad and his granddad (how many people know that Granddaddy Bush sold weapons to the Nazis?)

 

Bush got his job with the Texas Rangers because of his dad. He got his job at the oil company because of his dad. He got the GOP nomination because of the power of his dad.

 

And if we want to get technical, according to a Time article...in March 2002, Condie Rice, US Senators, etc. were having a meeting about foreign policy...how to get Iraq to comply through the UN, etc. and Georgie walked in and in his own eloquent foreign policy decision, said this was his foreign policy. "f*** SADDAM. WE'RE TAKING HIM OUT."

 

MARCH 2002 AND HE IS SAYING THIS. He never wanted to see a peaceful resolution to this war, that sick f***. :fyou Georgie!

actually thats not true. We barely have 300,000 now. The number then was more like 150,000 troops.

 

However, this would have been a good time to realize the effectivenes of a choking inspections regime. There could have been ways to play this out into a peaceful situation... but that's hard. The Bush administration doesn't often like doing things that are hard.

i should have said "coalition " forces in the "region"...there were about 45k brits plus all the crews of the ships within firng distance...my mistake

Yeah cause deciding to send American troops into war is an off-the-cuff decision.  <_>

Let's see. Bush has never had to do anything hard before. I mean, he got into Yale and Harvard because of his dad and his granddad (how many people know that Granddaddy Bush sold weapons to the Nazis?)

 

Bush got his job with the Texas Rangers because of his dad. He got his job at the oil company because of his dad. He got the GOP nomination because of the power of his dad.

 

And if we want to get technical, according to a Time article...in March 2002, Condie Rice, US Senators, etc. were having a meeting about foreign policy...how to get Iraq to comply through the UN, etc. and Georgie walked in and in his own eloquent foreign policy decision, said this was his foreign policy. "f*** SADDAM. WE'RE TAKING HIM OUT."

 

MARCH 2002 AND HE IS SAYING THIS. He never wanted to see a peaceful resolution to this war, that sick f***. :fyou Georgie!

So now another reason Bush is bad (never thought I'd say that ) is because he had a charmed life? That's ridiculus! Anyone would take advantage of every opportunity he/she is given by their parents or by anyone else.

 

As for a Time magazine article? Please........you like to point out that Bush has lied and not to believe his reasons for this war and yet you want me to believe what is writen in a Time magazine article?

So now another reason Bush is bad (never thought I'd say that   ) is because he had a charmed life?  That's ridiculus!  Anyone would take advantage of every opportunity he/she is given by their parents or by anyone else.

 

As for a Time magazine article?  Please........you like to point out that Bush has lied and not to believe his reasons for this war and yet you want me to believe what is writen in a Time magazine article?  

When the US senators come out and state that he said it, I'll believe it...especially when they are Republican.

 

Bush may have had a charmed life, but wouldn't you find it hypocritical to later say "I believe that everybody should get where they are by merit"? My one question to him would be then, "Shouldn't you give back your Yale and Harvard degrees and not be President?"

When the US senators come out and state that he said it, I'll believe it...especially when they are Republican.

 

Bush may have had a charmed life, but wouldn't you find it hypocritical to later say "I believe that everybody should get where they are by merit"?  My one question to him would be then, "Shouldn't you give back your Yale and Harvard degrees and not be President?"

Was all this said to Time magazine first hand from the Senators, Republican or not? Or was this 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand information? If you have the article or a link I would love to read it.

 

Why should he have to give his education back? Even if Daddy Bush got GW into Harvard and Yale, GW still had to graduate on his own and earn his degree or do you have knowledge of him cheating, having someone do his homework or paying off school professors?

There could have been ways to play this out into a peaceful situation... but that's hard. The Bush administration doesn't often like doing things that are hard.

Yeah cause deciding to send American troops into war is an off-the-cuff decision. <_>

It's not an off the cuff decision. It's a calculated one. But there were other options. He didn't exercise them, explore them or for that matter seriously consider them.

The Washington Post reports this afternoon that the suspected chemical weapons were not in fact chemical weapons at all. Which is what the generals on the scene had been trying to say for 24 hours, but Fox/CNN/MSNBC/everyone else seemed to try and bury.