Quote:

---

J4S0N said:
Not yet imminent? I'd hate to see what happens when a threat is imminent.

---

Quote:

---

J4S0N said:
So your saying that if the U.S had failed to kill 150,000 people, Saddam would have killed 800,000?

You do know that the U.S government sold Saddam the weapons he used on his own people? That he was put into control by American money and weapons. Iraq was being used to fight Iran at the time. The U.S didn't give a shit about what he was doing to his people, and they still don't give a shit about the people there.

Hell when you consider what is happening to the poor troops because of depleted uranium in the bullets and missles its obvious that they don't even care about their own troops. Gulf war syndrome was only the beginning.

Depleted uranium has a half life of 400million years or something, causes all kinds of diseases. Very high radiation. The Iraq people will be getting cancer for millions of years now.

---

Quote:

---

Catalysis said:
No, its not "very high radiation", that why it is called depleted.

---

Quote:

---

Ravus said:
"I believe to this day that it (Iraq) was an urgent threat. This could not go on and we are safer as a result because today Iraq is no longer going to be a state of weapons of mass destruction concern."
?Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser, Mar. 14, 2004

"Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people and to all free people."
?George W. Bush, Mar. 6, 2003

"Within a week, or a month, Saddam could give his WMD to al-Qaeda."
-Donald Rumsfeld, November 2002

Condi, the National Security Adviser, directly said Iraq was an urgent threat. Bush said Saddam was a direct threat to the US. Rumsfeld made many quotes of this nature, and said that Saddam could give his WMDs to al-Qaeda in a week (even though there were none.) Useless semantics aside, how could the American people NOT think Iraq was an imminent threat by these statements?

---

Quote:

---

Ravus said:
The administration knows most Americans don't "educate themselves," as you put it, they rely on the government and the media, and when the National Security Advisor directly says that Iraq is an URGENT threat, when Rumsfeld says Iraq has WMDs and is going to give them to the terrorists, when Bush says Iraq is a direct threat to us, they eat it up and draw the only conclusion: Iraq is an urgent threat, armed with weapons of mass destruction and cooperating and aiding terrorists like al-Qaeda. Brainwashed Americans can't see any more of an imminent threat than that after 9/11.

I'm guessing the reason you're defending these bullshit government administrators is because you thought Iraq had WMDs and supported the war, eh?

---

Quote:

---

pinksharkmark said:
Iraq did have bio and chem weaponry. No one disputes that. At the time the first group of inspectors withdrew from Iraq in 1998, there remained substantial stocks of bio and chem weaponry Iraq was known to have which weren't yet accounted for. No one disputes that either.

At the time UN Resolution 1441 was passed, these stocks had still not been accounted for. No one disputes that. At the time the second group of inspectors withdrew from Iraq prior to the invasion, these stocks still had not been accounted for. No one disputes that either.

Post invasion, Duelfer's team found evidence of the continuation of Hussein's bio and chem production facilities, in direct violation of the ceasefire agreement. They also found some mustard and sarin artillery shells (thirteen to fifteen depending on which of Duelfer's television interviews you listen to) as well as the single sarin shell used in an improvised explosive device.

To this day, no one has explained what happened to those stocks. Where are they? I don't know. No one knows. It's possible even Hussein himself no longer knows. There is more evidence they were transported to Syria pre-invasion than that they were destroyed. The only "evidence" they were destroyed is Hussein's claims.


pinky

---

Quote:

---

unbeliever said:
*yawn*

Almost all of those bio/chem weapons were over a decade old and way past their "use by" date so to speak. By their natures those sorts of weapons are not stable and were not designed for long term storage and subsequent future use.

I don't know which would be worse, that we are so sure those weapons existed and are now somehow missing beyond our reach or that we might be entirely wrong about the whole damned thing from the top.

---