Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says

[Chase]

Saddam's number 2 man in the air force says WMDs were transported to Syria.

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

[Ana4Stapp]

Saddam's number 2 man in the air force says WMDs were transported to Syria.

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514


Finnaly Bush seems to find out the official excuse to save the whole world!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

Next stop : Syria???

[RoffeDH]

Yeah... IF this is true, that man is a dead man soon... Sadam followers will by any means get a hold of him...

[RalphyS]

Yeah, right!

One thing that the advocates of 'there were WMD's' can never really explain properly is, why didn't Saddam use them if they were there?

It was obvious, that he could never win the war against superpower USA, it was just as obvious that it would be a short war, that he would be taken out of power, that he would never be returned to power, as we know he has never had any moral problems using chemical or rocket warfare. So what did he have to gain by not using the WMD's?

Oh wait, I got it. It was all a complot to make George Bush and Tony Blair look bad, that must be it, that's why he shipped them to Syria instead of using them :)

[Ana4Stapp]

Yeah, right!

One thing that the advocates of 'there were WMD's' can never really explain properly is, why didn't Saddam use them if they were there?

It was obvious, that he could never win the war against superpower USA, it was just as obvious that it would be a short war, that he would be taken out of power, that he would never be returned to power, as we know he has never had any moral problems using chemical or rocket warfare. So what did he have to gain by not using the WMD's?

Oh wait, I got it. It was all a complot to make George Bush and Tony Blair look bad, that must be it, that's why he shipped them to Syria instead of using them :)

;) LOL!!!!!!!

Seriously...you only forgot one thing: the oil..Ralphy...the oil...:rolleyes:

[Chase]

;) LOL!!!!!!!

Seriously...you only forgot one thing: the oil..Ralphy...the oil...:rolleyes:

Seriously... you only forgot one thing: Proof... Ana... proof :rolleyes:

If you're going to accuse my country of being theives, at least have some proof.

[Chase]

Yeah, right!

One thing that the advocates of 'there were WMD's' can never really explain properly is, why didn't Saddam use them if they were there?

It was obvious, that he could never win the war against superpower USA, it was just as obvious that it would be a short war, that he would be taken out of power, that he would never be returned to power, as we know he has never had any moral problems using chemical or rocket warfare. So what did he have to gain by not using the WMD's?

Oh wait, I got it. It was all a complot to make George Bush and Tony Blair look bad, that must be it, that's why he shipped them to Syria instead of using them :)

He wasn't going to use them against the United States or Britain. There was a chance of him using them against Israel, Kurds, Shia, and neighboring states.

He's used chemical agents in the past to massacre his enemies... and now, he's rightfully on trial for those crimes.

[Ana4Stapp]

Seriously... you only forgot one thing: Proof... Ana... proof :rolleyes:

If you're going to accuse my country of being theives, at least have some proof.


LOL!!!!! But I have one question Chase...you want the same kind of proof Bush and Blair used to justify the invasion of Iraq???? I mean ...fake ones????? :rolleyes:

I really love your innocence...;)

[eusebioCBR]

So those caravans of large trucks running 24hrs a day into Syria was just a coincidence.( I'm going to regret visiting this thread:boxedin: )

[Chase]

LOL!!!!! But I have one question Chase...you want the same kind of proof Bush and Blair used to justify the invasion of Iraq???? I mean ...fake ones????? :rolleyes:

I really love your innocence...;)

According to Human Rights Watch, Saddam Hussein killed 290,000 Iraqis. That number doesn't include 500,000 Iranians and the Kuwaiti casualties during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. That right there is enough to take the man out of power. Saddam's genocide isn't fake.

[Ana4Stapp]

According to Human Rights Watch, Saddam Hussein killed 290,000 Iraqis. That number doesn't include 500,000 Iranians and the Kuwaiti casualties during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. That right there is enough to take the man out of power. Saddam's genocide isn't fake.

Didnt say that Saddams genocide was fake, Chase (again you show your enormous talent in changing my words here...) btw, prove that I said that...I said that the 'evidences' of nuclear weapon were fake...as you already know...or did you forget that fake report Blair used as proof...or...maybe you feel 'embarassed' of remembering :rolleyes: it......

But as your friend...I"ll help you to remember this:http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html

[Ana4Stapp]

Seriously... you only forgot one thing: Proof... Ana... proof :rolleyes:

If you're going to accuse my country of being theives, at least have some proof.


Just a brief note...I didn't accuse your powerful contry of being thieves...but maybe (your government) 'something' liars...or at least...creatives...imaginatives...:etc... :rolleyes:

[RalphyS]

He wasn't going to use them against the United States or Britain. There was a chance of him using them against Israel, Kurds, Shia, and neighboring states.

He's used chemical agents in the past to massacre his enemies... and now, he's rightfully on trial for those crimes.

Tony Blair's infamous report stated that Iraq could attack the west in something like 5 minutes, if I remember correctly. Dubya always called Saddam a threat to us, so the fear was installed that he could use WMD's against the West, but that's really not what I meant.

If he had WMD's (and to be honest, I thought he probably had something too), he would have no moral problem to use them against an invasion into Iraq. An invasion that would doubtlessly succeed in overthrowing him, so he was in fact backed into a corner he could not get out of. He should have been desperate enough to use any weapons he had, and he did, and there were no WMD's. What reason could he have for shipping them to Syria instead of using them on the invaders? Weren't the troops all equipped with gasmasks, because we were sure they would have to face chemical warfare? The best proof that it wasn't there is that the troops never had to face anything of that sort.

[RalphyS]

So those caravans of large trucks running 24hrs a day into Syria was just a coincidence.( I'm going to regret visiting this thread:boxedin: )

You've seen that?

[RalphyS]

According to Human Rights Watch, Saddam Hussein killed 290,000 Iraqis. That number doesn't include 500,000 Iranians and the Kuwaiti casualties during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. That right there is enough to take the man out of power. Saddam's genocide isn't fake.

True enough, but that weren't the reasons given, untill all other given reasons (WMD's, connection to Al Queayda) failed to be true.

Also, the USA never seemed that concerned with mass murdering dictators/governments (Rwanda, Oeganda) before or after, at least not enough to invade the country for it, some were even supported (Chili, Saddam earlier).

I hope you are honest enough to admit to yourself that Bush didn't invade Iraq out of the goodness of his heart, to help the poor suffering people of Iraq, of which he killed over a 100,000 too in the process of "liberating" them (If I heard the numbers correctly).

[Ana4Stapp]

True enough, but that weren't the reasons given, untill all other given reasons (WMD's, connection to Al Queayda) failed to be true.

Also, the USA never seemed that concerned with mass murdering dictators/governments (Rwanda, Oeganda) before or after, at least not enough to invade the country for it, some were even supported (Chili, Saddam earlier).

I hope you are honest enough to admit to yourself that Bush didn't invade Iraq out of the goodness of his heart, to help the poor suffering people of Iraq, of which he killed over a 100,000 too in the process of "liberating" them (If I heard the numbers correctly).


Again...oil...Ralphy...oil...:rolleyes:

[Steve]

The argument that the reasons for war were a lie by Bush's part just astound me. Do people not understand what intelligence reports are? The intelligence reports that both the US and UK had showed an iminent threat with Sadaam. Irregardless of the fact that the reports were later proven to be false, the fact of the matter is at the time the war started, the reports were there and had not been proven false. If Bush had these reports in his hands and failed to act on them, all the anti-Bush people would be in an uproar that he did not act based on the intelligence he had. It's not a "lie" - it's acting on intelligence we had.

And to those democrats who say it's a lie, what about all of Congress who voted to give the President the power to go to war? They must have lied to because they were given all the same intelligence the President and our allies had. If I remember correctly, it was a unanimous decision to grant the President the power to go to war.

And if you want to say this entire war was over oil, please show documented evidence that shows the United States and/or our allies have stolen oil from Iraq. Iraq is the 7th largest importer of crude oil to the US and imports from that country have actually declined since the war. See:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

[eusebioCBR]

You've seen that?
YES, the satellite images presented by the defence department and shown on all the network news shows covering the near year long debate of wether we should hold Saddam accountable to the countless violations of the armistice he agreed to. Saddams surrender was conditional and he is responsible for those violations. If you think Saddam was no big deal or not much of a threat would you want him neighboring your country? Perhaps you'd like him heading your government? I'm sure we're all content to philosophize from our relatively comfy societies and now most in Iraq can boast that liberty(philosophize) as well.

[Ana4Stapp]

YES, the satellite images presented by the defence department and shown on all the network news shows covering the near year long debate of wether we should hold Saddam accountable to the countless violations of the armistice he agreed to. Saddams surrender was conditional and he is responsible for those violations. If you think Saddam was no big deal or not much of a threat would you want him neighboring your country? Perhaps you'd like him heading your government? I'm sure we're all content to philosophize from our relatively comfy societies and now most in Iraq can boast that liberty(philosophize) as well.

Its getting a liitle bit boring to us - the 'liberals' to be interpreted like Saddams or Osama's fans by you americans (not all of you, of course!) here...:eek:
We dont admire them!!!!!...but the fact is that we also see the two sides of the story and honestly theres no innocence or only good intentions in invading Iraq ...
And before someone asks to some proof -- I can say that superpowers like US never were worried to show some proof --always decided to 'act' based in its suppositions in keep its mission: SAVE THE WORLD!!!!!!!!

[eusebioCBR]

I didn't use the term liberal so debate those insecurities with yourself. I saw someone ask for proof and I chimed in. The last bit was my opinion as a member of the greatest superpower in the world:jam: Wouldn't Political Banter be boring if everyone agreed? :rolleyes:

[Ana4Stapp]

I didn't use the term liberal so debate those insecurities with yourself. I saw someone ask for proof and I chimed in. The last bit was my opinion as a member of the greatest superpower in the world:jam: Wouldn't Political Banter be boring if everyone agreed? :rolleyes:

I didnt say you especifically called me liberal anyway I cant see a problem in it (others members are always calling me that).. so you got it wrong...:eek: Insecurities???? You are the one who seems insecure to debate something -- I rarely see you here debating ...:rolleyes:

But you are right in one thing --We need to debate in Political banter -and this the thread that actually I like the most --I love politics so its too easy to come here to debate(and be sure I know how it works -since Im one of the few regulars members who post here and ...seems that its the opposite with you...) and believe me, agree to the members of the only superpower is the last thing im worried ---btw if you still have any doub about it... ask Chase, right??:D lol

[eusebioCBR]

In the first place you quoted me with your whining about the liberal issue. I guess I have not posted as much as you and others(in this thread) so please pardon my trespass. :bow2:

[RalphyS]

YES, the satellite images presented by the defence department and shown on all the network news shows covering the near year long debate of wether we should hold Saddam accountable to the countless violations of the armistice he agreed to. Saddams surrender was conditional and he is responsible for those violations. If you think Saddam was no big deal or not much of a threat would you want him neighboring your country? Perhaps you'd like him heading your government? I'm sure we're all content to philosophize from our relatively comfy societies and now most in Iraq can boast that liberty(philosophize) as well.

So those caravans of large trucks running 24hrs a day into Syria was just a coincidence.( I'm going to regret visiting this thread )

I asked if you saw the caravans of large truck running for 24 hrs a day into Syria?

If the USA had documented proof from satellite images of caravans of trucks moving into Syria on the eve of the war, I have no doubt at all that George W. would have ordered to follow and examine these trucks.

That there was proof that Saddam did not give full cooperation in regards to the restrictions that were put upon him I totally agree with, that Saddam was a big deal as a tyrant I also agree with, that Saddam was building WMD's there was much doubt about, weapon inspections were still in full progress, Hans Blix and his men were still inspecting and could not find any proof that there were any WMD's, because there weren't any as it turned out.
The world (France, Germany, Russia, millions of protesters) doubted the security reports or at least were sure that is was not enough proof to base a war on and they were proven right. They had access to the same intelligence as the pro-war governments of the USA and Britain, but they interpreted the intelligence correctly by saying there was insufficient proof and that there needed to be more inspections and more monitoring. The inspections and the no-fly-zones proved in retrospect enough to control the weapon-building capacity of Saddam. Sure, the citizens of Iraq were under the reign of a terrible tyrant, but that wasn't the issue. Now they are on the brink of a civil war, I don't know what's better, living under a dictator or living in a country with a civil war going on, can you?

The pro-war people always claim that the anti-war people would have Saddam doing as he himself pleased, that is not the case, we just didn't think war was the solution, more inspections, more monitoring, keeping up the no-fly-zones, it should have been enough to keep him under control, without taking thousands of lives of Iraqi citizens and of coalition forces.

[RalphyS]

And again I ask the question that no pro-war activist can answer me: Why didn't Saddam use the WMD's he supposedly had at the moment that the coalition forces entered/invaded Iraq? Why would Saddam choose to move these weapons abroad instead of using them against the forces that would surely dethrone and imprison him? Many thing can be said about this terrible man, but to consider him a fool I would not do.

About the oil-aspect, I do not think the sole reason for invading Iraq was oil, I think Dubya was probably more seeking revenge for daddy, but I do believe that the oil is a thing, which keeps the US looking to the middle-east and the political moves in that region with much more interest than it would, say to central Africa.

[Ana4Stapp]

.
The pro-war people always claim that the anti-war people would have Saddam doing as he himself pleased, that is not the case, we just didn't think war was the solution, more inspections, more monitoring, keeping up the no-fly-zones, it should have been enough to keep him under control, without taking thousands of lives of Iraqi citizens and of coalition forces.

YES!!!!!!;)

[eusebioCBR]

So those caravans of large trucks running 24hrs a day into Syria was just a coincidence.( I'm going to regret visiting this thread )

I asked if you saw the caravans of large truck running for 24 hrs a day into Syria?

If the USA had documented proof from satellite images of caravans of trucks moving into Syria on the eve of the war, I have no doubt at all that George W. would have ordered to follow and examine these trucks.

That there was proof that Saddam did not give full cooperation in regards to the restrictions that were put upon him I totally agree with, that Saddam was a big deal as a tyrant I also agree with, that Saddam was building WMD's there was much doubt about, weapon inspections were still in full progress, Hans Blix and his men were still inspecting and could not find any proof that there were any WMD's, because there weren't any as it turned out.
The world (France, Germany, Russia, millions of protesters) doubted the security reports or at least were sure that is was not enough proof to base a war on and they were proven right. They had access to the same intelligence as the pro-war governments of the USA and Britain, but they interpreted the intelligence correctly by saying there was insufficient proof and that there needed to be more inspections and more monitoring. The inspections and the no-fly-zones proved in retrospect enough to control the weapon-building capacity of Saddam. Sure, the citizens of Iraq were under the reign of a terrible tyrant, but that wasn't the issue. Now they are on the brink of a civil war, I don't know what's better, living under a dictator or living in a country with a civil war going on, can you?

The pro-war people always claim that the anti-war people would have Saddam doing as he himself pleased, that is not the case, we just didn't think war was the solution, more inspections, more monitoring, keeping up the no-fly-zones, it should have been enough to keep him under control, without taking thousands of lives of Iraqi citizens and of coalition forces.

I'm not convinced there is nothing harmful being hidden in Syria.:peoplesey

Unless you have absolute proof of what was not on every one those trucks, I'll continue to hold my suspicion.

[eusebioCBR]

I would rather fight as a free man, I don't see life under a dictatorship being truly lived.

There's no need to tell me "that's easy for you to say", it's a pedictable respnonce:pukey:

[RalphyS]

I would rather fight as a free man, I don't see life under a dictatorship being truly lived.

The same applies to me, I too would fight with any means possible against a dictator if I lived in a dictatorship, but ... and that's a big but, I would not force anyone to fight with me of for me, it should be everyone's own personal choice if freedom is worth the pain of physical harm or even death that could fall upon you.

In this case the USA took away that choice from the Iraqi people and put them in harm's way without giving them any choice in the matter.

[eusebioCBR]

In this case the USA took away that choice from the Iraqi people and put them in harm's way without giving them any choice in the matter.

I see your point, but I don't completely agree.

When the American colonies declared independence from the UK/King far less than half of pop.(37%?) were supporters.

I know the circumstances are different (Iraq), but I believe there is a percentage of their pop. that wants outside support to secure freedom.

[Justify]

**double post**

[Justify]

The same applies to me, I too would fight with any means possible against a dictator if I lived in a dictatorship, but ... and that's a big but, I would not force anyone to fight with me of for me, it should be everyone's own personal choice if freedom is worth the pain of physical harm or even death that could fall upon you.

In this case the USA took away that choice from the Iraqi people and put them in harm's way without giving them any choice in the matter.


Oh yeah... That explains all those Iraqi's who were so excited to tear down Saddam's statues. And all those Iraqi's who were so excited to actually be able to vote for their own government. I totally see your point. It was totally against their will. Do you think those people actually felt safe from physical harm or death under Saddam? No, they were worried for their lives under Saddam. So your point about their personal choice if Freedom is worth death is pointless. Those people were more worried that we would not stay and finish the job this time than they were that we were actually coming to take Saddam out of power. The people fighting against us now in Iraq are not the Iraqi's but the terrorist who think they can destroy our will. I say it is better to fight the terrorist on their own turf than it is to fight them here.

[eusebioCBR]

Oh yeah... That explains all those Iraqi's who were so excited to tear down Saddam's statues. And all those Iraqi's who were so excited to actually be able to vote for their own government. I totally see your point. It was totally against their will. Do you think those people actually felt safe from physical harm or death under Saddam? No, they were worried for their lives under Saddam. So your point about their personal choice if Freedom is worth death is pointless. Those people were more worried that we would not stay and finish the job this time than they were that we were actually coming to take Saddam out of power. The people fighting against us now in Iraq are not the Iraqi's but the terrorist who think they can destroy our will. I say it is better to fight the terrorist on their own turf than it is to fight them here.

WELL SAID:clap:

[metalchris25]

yup

[Prog]

I'm not a pro-war activist (do those really exist? I don't think anyone is "pro-war", just like people aren't pro-abortion/pro-death, they are "pro-choice"), but I will halfway answer your question Ralphy. Saddam murdered his own people, hurt his own people, and has proven to be dangerous in the past (for example, by invading Kuwait). So, in that sense, can one logical try to reason why Saddam didn't use WMDs if he had them? He is obviously a very illogical person, or at least he is to me.

And to Steve, you are very right. Russian Intelligence, Lord Butler's investigation in Britain, and our own intelligence concluded that Iraq had WMDs. And new evidence has even shown that Saddam's top generals thought he had WMDs. So, to say Bush lied is highly irresponsible, uniformed, and, well, hateful.

[RalphyS]

Saddam murdered his own people, hurt his own people, and has proven to be dangerous in the past (for example, by invading Kuwait). So, in that sense, can one logical try to reason why Saddam didn't use WMDs if he had them? He is obviously a very illogical person, or at least he is to me..

Nonsense, you named the list yourself, murder, invasion, genocide, torture ... No atrocity was too extreme for Saddam to stay in power, expand his influence, wreak his havoc or vengeance upon his enemies. Is this all cruel and inhuman? Ofcourse, but not illogical, the logic is that he always did whatever needed to stay in power, he wasn't a leader of the empty threat, he had no remorse about doing the unthinkable whenever it was required in his (granted) twisted mind, but that was the logic of his actions. You could depend on him doing that, just like he attacked Israel with scuds in the first gulf war, so if he truly would have had any WMD's he would have used them.

And to Steve, you are very right. Russian Intelligence, Lord Butler's investigation in Britain, and our own intelligence concluded that Iraq had WMDs. And new evidence has even shown that Saddam's top generals thought he had WMDs. So, to say Bush lied is highly irresponsible, uniformed, and, well, hateful.

Well, I'm not in uniform :D , but I'm calling b.llsh.t in regard to Bush's pre-war statements. By now it is obvious that the American government disregarded and even set aside any possible intelligence that stated that Iraq might not have WMD's and they did state that they did have them as a matter of certainty, in my opinion that makes you a liar. :wtf:

[Prog]

Well, like I said, I was only halfway answering your proposition, and I stand by what I said and disagree with your rebuttal, but because opinions are just opinions, I'll leave that part at that. Now, is it not possible that Saddam had WMDs and hid them from the inspectors, and by the time we were getting ready to attack them, he didn't have time to recover them and use them? That sounds highly possible to me. Of course, this is only speculation, but it isn't a half-answer. :P

So, you think that the US may have disregarded any possible intelligence that Iraq didn't have any WMDs. That's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but let's look at the facts. Like I stated, we had intelligence that said Iraq did have WMDs, so were we to disregard that intelligence, which possibly outweighs intelligence that says they didn't?

[Chase]

Well, like I said, I was only halfway answering your proposition, and I stand by what I said and disagree with your rebuttal, but because opinions are just opinions, I'll leave that part at that. Now, is it not possible that Saddam had WMDs and hid them from the inspectors, and by the time we were getting ready to attack them, he didn't have time to recover them and use them? That sounds highly possible to me. Of course, this is only speculation, but it isn't a half-answer. :P

So, you think that the US may have disregarded any possible intelligence that Iraq didn't have any WMDs. That's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but let's look at the facts. Like I stated, we had intelligence that said Iraq did have WMDs, so were we to disregard that intelligence, which possibly outweighs intelligence that says they didn't?

Exactly. Just reiterate what you said... it wasn't just President Bush and the CIA who came to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Russia, Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, Ukraine, Bulgaria, South Korea, Japan, the NETHERLANDS... as well as some others. Therefore, to sit there and call Bush a liar for acting on what a conglomerate of nations concluded is rather biased and spiteful. A lot of nations contributed to the removal of Saddam Hussein, the United States just led the way. Perhaps the intelligence was flawed, but if the global community believed that Saddam Hussein was a greater threat than he actually was... I don't blame President Bush for using the resources that he had as Commander in Chief of the most powerful nation in the world. Like or not, the United States, as the lone superpower, should have an obligation to assist those in need throughout the world and to participate in establishing stability in problematic regions like the Middle East.

[RalphyS]

Now, is it not possible that Saddam had WMDs and hid them from the inspectors, and by the time we were getting ready to attack them, he didn't have time to recover them and use them? That sounds highly possible to me. Of course, this is only speculation, but it isn't a half-answer. :P?

Well almost anything is possible, but is it likely? It's not like you didn't see the attack of the US coming, I personally remember the ultimate date for an attack being pronounced 2 months ahead of time on Dutch tv by military experts, so as I've stated before Saddam may have been cruel, but not a fool, he would also have known when he would have needed the WMD's. But let's assume for the sake of arguement he didn't have the time to recover them, how then did he find the time to ship them to Syria and what would he benefit from that, he must have realized that he would never survive an invasion as leader of Iraq. And if he didn't ship them to Syria, why haven't they been found. The only logical conclusion and I'm not the only one to have arrived at that, is that there were no WMD's (anymore).

So, you think that the US may have disregarded any possible intelligence that Iraq didn't have any WMDs. That's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but let's look at the facts. Like I stated, we had intelligence that said Iraq did have WMDs, so were we to disregard that intelligence, which possibly outweighs intelligence that says they didn't?

I never said that they should have disregarded any evidence for WMD's, but they should have had a balanced view in regard to the evidence for and against, and there have been former members of the Bush-government as well as others in high security positions, who stated that Bush and his cronies were specifically looking (under a microscope) for anything that might connect Iraq with 9/11. In my humble opinion we have a case of finding the suspect first and than trying to tie him to the evidence and that's not balanced and I really wouldn't call it "intelligence".

And based on my conclusion in the first remark in this post, I find it rather troubling that 'intelligence' for WMD's outweighed that against them. It's like stating that before Christmas the evidence for Santa's existence outweighed that against his existence. And what troubles me even more is that if it was "faulty intelligence", it is brushed under the carpet with an attitude of 'oops, we did it again' (to quote miss Spears). "Sorry, slight mistake, we will make sure it never happens again, sorry for the thousands of casualties". I remember even Dubya beforehand stating that war should be a last resource, one of the few remarks of his I do agree with, but from his actions I never saw any support for that attitude. The whole Iraqi-war and especially the 'securing the peace'-part were more of an ''let's go the war now and worry about the consequences later"-attitude, in spite of many warnings, which predicted the situations that later did come into existence.

[RalphyS]

Exactly. Just reiterate what you said... it wasn't just President Bush and the CIA who came to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Russia, Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, Ukraine, Bulgaria, South Korea, Japan, the NETHERLANDS... as well as some others. Therefore, to sit there and call Bush a liar for acting on what a conglomerate of nations concluded is rather biased and spiteful. A lot of nations contributed to the removal of Saddam Hussein, the United States just led the way. Perhaps the intelligence was flawed, but if the global community believed that Saddam Hussein was a greater threat than he actually was... .

Well I know for sure that The Netherlands did not have any independent research to the possibility of the existence or non-existence of WMD's in Iraq, and I bet that this was the case with most in the coalition of the 'willing'.

And let's not forget that there were those who doubted the conclusions beforehand, those who were regarded as cowards, France, Germany, Russia and maybe every other nation that did not participate in the coalition, which ofcourse numerically outnumber those who did participate heavily.

I do blame my government for taking part in these actions, based on false pretenses and without thoroughly researching the evidence against objectively.


I don't blame President Bush for using the resources that he had as Commander in Chief of the most powerful nation in the world. Like or not, the United States, as the lone superpower, should have an obligation to assist those in need throughout the world and to participate in establishing stability in problematic regions like the Middle East.

Indeed with power does come responsibility (got this from Spider-man, I think), the responsibility to help those in need, but also the responsibility to use the power wisely. And the latter did not happen imho, just as I do not think that this war has increased the stability in the Middle East, it may have just done the opposite.

[Chase]

Well I know for sure that The Netherlands did not have any independent research to the possibility of the existence or non-existence of WMD's in Iraq, and I bet that this was the case with most in the coalition of the 'willing'.

And let's not forget that there were those who doubted the conclusions beforehand, those who were regarded as cowards, France, Germany, Russia and maybe every other nation that did not participate in the coalition, which ofcourse numerically outnumber those who did participate heavily.

I do blame my government for taking part in these actions, based on false pretenses and without thoroughly researching the evidence against objectively.




Indeed with power does come responsibility (got this from Spider-man, I think), the responsibility to help those in need, but also the responsibility to use the power wisely. And the latter did not happen imho, just as I do not think that this war has increased the stability in the Middle East, it may have just done the opposite.

The French (as well as the Germans), especially, had economic ties to Saddam Hussein... it's pretty obvious as to why they would oppose the war in Iraq. Vladimir Putin's intelligence told the U.S. that they thought that Hussein was developing WMDs. Nevertheless, the Russian's haven't really done anything to help the U.S. since World War II... so getting them to assist in Iraq would be rather tough. Them, as well as the Chinese, are the against the proposed U.N. sanctions against the nation of Iran. Go figure.

I think in time a free and democratic Iraq is better for the world. Like I've said in the past though... it's hard to fix such a problematic country or region overnight. Much of the insugency in Iraq is funded by Al Qaeda... and other foreign sources. It's not a real grassroots, Iraqi movement. Do you honestly think that Iraq would be better under Uday and Qusay Hussein? Overtime, I would think that Iraq and Iran would ally themselves against some common enemies in Israel, the United States, and Great Britain had Hussein (or his sons) been in power.