"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel"

The Left has let this country down? You've got
to be yanking some chains there. The Bush has
had unparalled power and a hand-maiden Congress
to deal with Terrorism and Iraq. The Left has
had almost zero input in the actions dealing
with those problems. And BushCo has refused
to listen to even the most constructive
criticism, even from their own Generals.
No, you guys can quit trying to pass the buck,
it does'nt work.

The Act that was passed was a wise one,but it
said nothing about illegally invading and
occupying Iraq. After the war was WON in 2003,
BushCo(Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld) had a window of
opportunity,which they blew with cronyism,
greed, hubris and incompetence. The Iraqi
people rightly expected a free and prosperous
future with our help. What did they get?

We're in a Quagmire there, and the same people
that put us in the situation still refuse to
listen. There is no confidence in Bush,with
good reason.

Thats not exactley new, everyone knows that we destroyed Iraq for the last decade or so. That would be both New Labour and the Conservatives in Britan and both The democrats and the Republicans in America, not to mention of course other countries.

However it still does not make the situation better in Iraq for ordinary people wqho can not leave there houses for fear of murder, kidnapp or arrest.

The ceasfire we had in 1991 was After Daddy Bush called for the people of Iraq to rise against their president (Quite rightly he was evil) then we abandoned them to Saddam to start removing them, throwing them off buildings, running them over with tanks, shooting them, you get the picture. Our hypocrisy knows no bounds, we've been calling for his removal for years yet when people are willing to do something about it themselves we leave them to be massacred then we step in and all hell breaks loose and we create a disaster zone.

Oh he might have some WMD even although the UN weapons inspectors told us they hadn't found any and needed more time, he lets inspectors in but we still attack anyway AND we were still enforcing the sanctions which suprise suprise aren't damaging Saddam particularly we are just helping him to supress his people and murder them. Although interestingly Saddam always distributed supplies fairly he never with held from certain areas, he was actually praised for this.

And please stop the cries of the left all want us to be overthrown by maniac heathens. We don't we quite enjoy the way we live what we do want well I want, and this is for both left and right an end to the hypocrisy and callous disregard for life. Is it the Iraqi's peoples fault we fell out with our ex-best bud? Do they deserve mass starvation, death, disease? I have never let my country down, I may be against the war but I have never criticised the Troops in the British army for what they are doing. They are doing as good a job as can be done in that situation and I am proud of the job they are doing especially when at the beginning they adopted the hearts and minds campaign, they didn't go in all guns blazing even although they were at risk they were thir soft bonnets rather than helmets. They are a credit to Britain and the people of BRitain. So please never accuse me of betraying my country or my troops, I have never and never will. Disagreeing with the government is not the same as not supporting the troops, disagreeing with the government is what democracy is about, the right to have your own opinion and stick to it.

In 1999, George Bush Sr explained why he didn't move on to Baghdad after the first Gulf war. "Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond international law, went beyond the stated mission and said, 'We're going to show our macho? We're going to be into Baghdad . We're going to be an occupying power - America in an Arab land - with no allies at our side.' It would have been disastrous."

Send a copy to Hollywood LIB David Letterman. Maybe he can decide who he wants to win in Iraq!Now that Big Bubba has spoken! What a thoughtless parrot he is. Just like the pseudointellectual parrots on this board. Fox obviously qualifies as a parrot as well. Birdbrains at work in their intellectual splendor.

Weefee,
You know, someday I'd like to meet a lib who's actually read the Duelfer report instead of the old media's brief coverage: "Saddam had no WMDs." It says some mightily interesting things, not the least of which is the money from oil for food that you describe Saddam as using to buy food and distribute fairly to all area, that money went somewhere else too:

"Saddam invested his growing reserves of hard currency in rebuilding his military-industrial complex, increasing its access to dual-use items and materials, and creating numerous military research and development projects. He also emphasized restoring the viability of the IAEC and Iraq’s former nuclear scientists. The departure of UN inspectors and Iraq’s refusal to allow their return permitted MIC to purchase previously restricted dual-use materials and equipment that it needed for both weapons development and civilian applications. In addition, MIC had greater flexibility in adapting civilian technology to military use. Yet without inspectors to certify Iraq’s ultimate compliance with UNSC resolutions, the UN could perpetuate sanctions indefinitely. The actions of Minister of Military Industrialization ‘Abd-al-Tawab Al Mullah Huwaysh reflected this situation: he said he gave explicit directions to MIC leadership and workforce to avoid any activities that would jeopardize lifting UN sanctions. But, according to reports from his subordinates, he disregarded UN restrictions; acting, as if Saddam had instructed him to do so and justifying his actions by telling his employees that no matter how much evidence Iraq provided it would never satisfy the UN. For example, Huwaysh authorized in 2000 the repair of two 300-gallon mixers, and two solid propellant casting chambers in 2002 (all rendered inoperable by UNSCOM inspectors in 1992), for possible use in building solid propellant missiles that exceeded the 150 km range restriction fixed by UNSCR 687."

And let us not forget he unilaterally enacted a secret law committing Iraq to the violation of UN sanctions:
"Saddam, angered by sanctions, inspections, and the Desert Fox attacks, unilaterally abrogated Iraq’s compliance with all UN resolutions—including the 1991 Gulf war ceasefire—with a secret RCC resolution, according to both presidential secretary ‘Abd Hamid Mahmud and Diwan President Ahmad Husayn Khudayr."

And let us not forget the matter of the intent and capability to manufacture WMDs:"In addition to preserved capability, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD as soon as sanctions were lifted....An Iraqi CW expert separately estimated Iraq would require only a few days to start producing mustard—if it was prepared to sacrifice the production equipment....Imad Husayn ‘Ali Al ‘Ani, closely tied to Iraq’s VX program, alleged that Saddam had been looking for chemical weapons scientists in 2000 to begin production in a second location, according to reporting."

Nor let us forget the missiles:"Saddam stated to his ministers that he did not consider ballistic missiles to be WMD, according to Huwaysh. Saddam had never accepted missile range restrictions and assessed that if he could convince the UN inspectors he was in compliance regarding nuclear, chemical and biological weapons then he could negotiate with the UNSC over missile ranges....Saddam directed design and production of a 650 to 750 km range missile in early 2002, according to Huwaysh. Saddam wanted the missile within half a year....In 2002, Iraq began serial production of the Al Samud II, a short-range ballistic missile that violated UN range limits—text firings had reached 183 km—and exceeded UN prescribed diameter limitations of 600mm. Iraq’s production of 76 al Samud IIs, even under sanctions conditions, illustrates that Iraq sought more than a handful of ballistic missiles, but was deterred by the existing trade restrictions."

Nor let us forget where so much of the oil for food money actually went:"Between 1996 and 2002, the overall MIC budget increased over forty-fold from ID 15.5 billion to ID 700 billion. By 2003 it had grown to ID 1 trillion. MIC’s hard currency allocations in 2002 amounted to approximately $364 million. MIC sponsorship of technical research projects at Iraqi universities skyrocketed from about 40 projects in 1997 to 3,200 in 2002. MIC workforce expanded by fifty percent in three years, from 42,000 employees in 1999 to 63,000 in 2002."

Nor let us forget the taped meeting of Saddam with his advisors on the eve of Desert Storm:
"Saddam: what is it doing with you, I need these germs to be fixed on the missiles, and tell him to hit, because starting the 15th, everyone should be ready for the action to happen at anytime, and I consider Riyadh as a target . . .

Husayn Kamil: (door slams) Sir, we have three types of germ weapons, but we have to decide which one we should use, some types stay capable for many years (interrupted).

Saddam: we want the long term, the many years kind . . .

Husayn Kamil: . . . There has to be a decision about which method of attack we use; a missile, a fighter bomb or a fighter plane.

Saddam: With them all, all the methods . . . I want as soon as possible, if we are not transferring the weapons, to issue a clear order to [those concerned] that the weapon should be in their hands ASAP. I might even give them a “non-return access.” (Translator Comment: to have access to the weapons; to take them with them and not to return them). I will give them an order stating that at “one moment,” if I ‘m not there and you don’t hear my voice, you will hear somebody else’s voice, so you can receive the order from him, and then you can go attack your targets. I want the weapons to be distributed to targets; I want Riyadh and Jeddah, which are the biggest Saudi cities with all the decision makers, and the Saudi rulers live there. This is for the germ and chemical weapons . . . Also, all the Israeli cities, all of them. Of course you should concentrate on Tel Aviv, since it is their center.

Husayn Kamil: Sir, the best way to transport this weapon and achieve the most harmful effects would come by using planes, like a crop plane; to scatter it. This is, Sir, a thousand times more harmful. This is according to the analyses of the technicians (interrupted) . . .

Saddam: May God help us do it . . . We will never lower our heads as long as we are alive, even if we have to destroy everybody."

In the words of another commenter, "'Nuf said."

Big, big, big, big, BIG difference between supported armed groups looking to overthrow Saddam and the US armed services invading Iraq.

Don't try and turn this into "you supported Clinton when he wanted to oust Saddam, but not Bush."

Dems have known for a long time that Saddam was a problem, as this act clearly shows. What this act also clearly shows was that we supported his removal through other means aside from US military intervention... There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which the Bush I "you break it, you buy it" reasoning.

Dems have been very consistent on this. Saddam was a problem, did not require a full-scale military invasion and overthrow of his government.

Mark, thanks for supporting the Democrat view. If the Republicans would not have been crying "wag the dog" and trashing the Constitution with impeachement Clinton might have gotten rid of Sadamm. This is a good example why I am so insulted when Bush during his stump speeches implies Democrats help terrorist; disgusting. Democrats just wants the nation to look differently at the Iraq issue.

Message will be sent next week against that America wants change from this adminstration that does everything it can to divide and conquer us.

I'm curious Tom... you say that "Saddam was a problem, did not require a full-scale military invasion and overthrow of his government."

So, what you're saying is Democrats would have been perfectly happy to let Saddam go on killing thousands if not hundreds of thousands of more people until he died and then one of his crazy sons took over, but didn't have the iron will to keep up the regime and maybe internal politics would have taken over?

Is this what you're suggesting the Democrats were in favor of? If so, then why are Democrats all up in arms about Darfur then. Why is genocide in Iraq okay but in Darfur it's not?

I know that clearly that is a trite way of looking at what you say Democrats were all about with regard to Saddam. It's just so bizarre how there is no common policy ANYWHERE... even on the same position within the Democratic Leadership, and more often than not, from any one particular Democrat.

we were still enforcing the sanctions which suprise suprise aren't damaging Saddam particularly we are just helping him to supress his people and murder them.

I'm glad you mentioned this, weefee. There are some on the left, such as Michael Moore, who seem to present a pre-war view of Iraq as being much more tolerable than the situation there is now. The reality, however, is that Iraq was indeed suffering under the sanctions. This was one of the two main reasons why Al Qaeda declared war against the U.S., back in 1998 (thus belying the idea raised by some Bush critics that AQ didn't care about Iraq until we invaded).

Although interestingly Saddam always distributed supplies fairly he never with held from certain areas, he was actually praised for this.

Under Saddam, a large part of the money that came from the Oil-For-Food program, which was part of the sanctions, was diverted from his people's needs into his own palaces. Thus, much of the suffering of Iraq's people can be placed on the shoulders of Saddam himself. There was one part of Iraq that Saddam could not distribute supplies to, which was the de-facto Kurdistan createed by our northern no-fly zone. Instead, 13% of the oil revenue was diverted separately to Kurdish authorities, who actually used the money to provide for their people. While public health suffered in much of Iraq during the sanctions years, the occurence of such things as infant mortality actually decreased in the Kurdish-controlled areas.

Is it the Iraqi's peoples fault we fell out with our ex-best bud?

I take this "ex-best bud" phrase with a grain of salt. We tolerated Saddam because we considered his enemy Iran, who had recently kidnapped our emissaries and held them hostage, to be the greater threat. This kind of strange bedfellows was common during the Cold War, and like it or not, it will happen in the War On Terror as well.

this is for both left and right an end to the hypocrisy

If you want to talk about hypocrisy, I would point out that the left accuses Bush of lying, when their side of the aisle was likewise accusing Saddam of having WMD before Bush became president. For example:

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Nancy Pelosi, 16 December 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." President Clinton, State Of The Union speech, 27 Jan 1998.

Note the dates of these quotes. George Bush the Younger was governor of Texas back then, when the Democrats were already making what would later become Bush's case for invading Iraq. I would invite the Democrats to explain how these statements were honest mistakes for themselves, but lies Bush said essentially the same thing. Did Bush, despite his alleged stupidity, find out something (that Saddam did NOT have WMD) in 2 years what Clinton failed to discover in 8 years? Or did Saddam start following the U.N. resolutions only when Bush became president?

Disagreeing with the government is not the same as not supporting the troops, disagreeing with the government is what democracy is about, the right to have your own opinion and stick to it.

Yes, but there is no right to be hyppcritical, as some of Bush's left-wing critics have done, as I've explained above. We Americans prize our free speech, but also realize that the first amendment only means that the government cannot punish you for stating your honest opinion. It doesn't meant that you words can't be criticized by others. After a terrorist attack few years back, the president of the U.S. warned us to be careful about what we say, because it could motivate the terrorists to kill more people. His exact words included "Words have consequences". His name was Bill Clinton. The terrorists were named McVey and Nichols.

Tom just shows how spineless and cowardly the left really is. God help us all if these idiots win next week.

Don't try and turn this into "you supported Clinton when he wanted to oust Saddam, but not Bush."

Why not Tom, none has ever doubted this thought. Thank you for saying it for us!!!

Dems have known for a long time that Saddam was a problem, as this act clearly shows. What this act also clearly shows was that we supported his removal through other means aside from US military intervention... There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which the Bush I "you break it, you buy it" reasoning.

Bullshiznit, You libs were blaming the U.S. for sanctions & their miserable affects(not saddaam), you were blaming the U.S. for weapons inspectors failures and every time they got kicked out of Iraq it was the U.S. fault(not saddaams), you blame us now, that civilians are dying in the streets in certain geographic locations within Iraq(Not the terrorists). Your right Dems have been very consistent on.........blaming the U.S. Thank you, thank you very much!

Dems have been very consistent on this. Saddam was a problem, did not require a full-scale military invasion and overthrow of his government.

Posted by: Tom Shipley at November 1, 2006 09:04 AM

Bwahahaaahahaaaahaaahaaaaa, You think with Dean, Pelosi, Kerry, Feingold etc. leading your party that anyone believes this, other than likeminded pacifist liberals that is. You guys are at best "A joke", at worst "a thorn in our sides"!

As a Gulf 1 vet, I don't have a problem w the invasion. The Iraqi Baathists were enemy savages as evident by the civilan slaughter they inflicted in Kuwait City prior to their retreat.

But, I do have considerable problemSSS in disregarding military consul in favor of assumptions concerning the occupation. The Powell doctrine may be seen to clearly trump the Rumsfeld strategy.

And I do have considerable problemSSS w turning our assult forces into police & nation-builders instead of internationalizing the occupation in a meaningful way so our forces could be redeployed.

We failed to get it right even the second time.

The blood of our military dead demands this administration be held to account for that. And only if the Dems control one house will that happen.

Thank JFrancoisK for his thoughtful, intellectual, superior intellect comments. May Dean and Pelosi come out of hiding and open theirs for us?

Karl, can you find them for us?

Mark,

this is a joke, right? You've come to the point where you have to defend Bush by asserting that his policies are consistent with Clinton's? Bill Clinton, possibly the most thoroughly incompetent president on foreign policy since Hoover, and you defend Bush by saying, Well Clinton Did it Too!

Awesome, thanks. This is similar to the way people defend Neocons in general by pointing out that their policies are largely liberal in origin.

Morris, wawilliyo, bigfoot, bearman,

I'm confused when you guys blame Saddam's "badness" for the ill-effects of the UN santions. It's as though it was a total surprise to you (and Clinton) that the Iraqi people would suffer under sanctions, even though that was the essence of the debate over sanctions during the 90's. It's as though you (and Clinton) expected the Oil for Food program to actually work, in spite of the fact that the UN was administering it, and in spite of the fact that we had no control of the money once it entered Iraq. What the hell did you guys (and Clinton) think would happen? Oh, gosh, we never imagined that the money would go to Saddam's military! Damn.

But Clinton pressed ahead with sanctions anyway. And Madeline Albright justified the suffering by saying that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children would be "worth it". And shame on you for defending Bush by saying that he's just continuing Clinton's policies.

And to all the liberals here, I would love to hear you try to defend Clinton on this subject.

Wawilliyo,

I believe the Iraqi Liberation Act is a good place to start when wondering what the dems policy toward Iraq was.

And on comparisons to Darfur... obviously, every situation is different. Right now, I would not be surprised to see a UN action much like Bosnia take place in Darfur next year. And I agree this should be pushed more. I believe there are dems who are very concerned about Darfur, just as there are many republicans who. Problem is, Iraq is taking up a lot of people's time these days.

Now back to Clinton's Iraqi Liberation Act. Bush I at the end of Desert Storm chose not to go into Baghdad to take out Saddam because he knew the consequences of doing so might be worse than letting him stay in power.

I think this was the general feeling in Washington until Bush came into power. Clinton decided to take the approach to do everything it our power to help internal overthrow of Saddam. No one doubted Saddam was dangerous, people recognized the problem, they just differed on how to go about solving it.

Bush came to power, 9/11 happened, and the table was set to follow the New American Century game plan of taking out Saddam and establishing a democracy in the ME that would transform the region.

Well, a lot of people didn't think that would work. Bush trumped up Saddam's threat to America and got the support to go in and do this, and now that plan is literally blowing up in his face.

No one is saying they wanted Saddam to be in power. But many people do not think the benefits of invading to take out Saddam outweighed the negatives effects such an action would create. I think over the past 3+ years those people have been proven right.

If you want to criticize someone's policy on Iraq, the CLEAR person to judge is Bush, not Clinton.

AMAZING, TOM AND THE REST OF YOU LIBS:

"IF CLINTON HAD DONE THE JOB OF TAKING CARE OF THE TERRORISTS AS HE SHOULD HAVE, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A SECOND ATTACK ON U.S. SOIL. GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEADS FOOLS.

CLINTON, ETAL, WERE INEPT, AND WE WERE LOOKING PRETTY WEAK AND VULNERABLE, AND THE TERRORISTS TRIED FOR THE BIGGER AND BETTER BANG. THESE ARE THE WORDS OF 'OSAMA BIN LADEN HIMSELF'....YOU HATEFUL BUSH-BASHERS NEED TO LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF BJ WILLY AND HIS PARTNER/HILLARY, AND STOP TRYING TO BULLSHIT THE REAL FACTS OF HISTORY.

So Tom, I take it that you would defend Clinton's use of sanctions on Iraq during his tenure? I take it that you agree with Madeline Albright that half a million children dead would be "worth it"?

Your statement that "Clinton decided to take the approach to do everything it our power to help internal overthrow of Saddam" is laughable. Clinton added little more to the effort to depose Saddam than what he inherited from Father Bush. Clinton's foreign policy was lazy, not concerted. He did nothing new (that we know of) to support rebel factions in the North or the South, he made absolutely zero effort to hold the UN accountable in its administration of the Oil for Food program, and the comments that the Clintonites made on the topic brought Arab anger toward the west to record levels.

So tell me, Tom, what exactly did Clinton do to try to make sure that the next president didn't inherit a complete mess in Iraq?

And I just read this little gem from Josh Keaton above: "If the Republicans would not have been crying wag the dog and trashing the Constitution with impeachement Clinton might have gotten rid of Sadamm."

Brilliant Josh. Would you care to back that statment up with some shred of evidence? Some evidence that Clinton was ever willing to do anything more in Iraq than keep sanctions in place?

other_nate,

I was probably wrong to say Clinton tried everything short of invasion to help oust Saddam. More accurately, the Iraqi Liberation Act was an attempt to try to remove him through other means, but in hindsight, it didn't get enough support from the president to really give opposition parties a chance to really take out Saddam.

That being said, I don't know if Bush did anything to help in that department either. We all know he did invade the country, but that invasion has been shown to be unnecessary (when it was sold as necessary) and has hurt our effort in the war on terror (in my opinion).

Saddam was weakened by the sanctions, there's no question about that. He was not a threat to the US or even his neighbors at the time of the invasion. That's pretty much fact. So in terms of addressing the threat of Saddam, the sanctions seemed to be at least a good temporary fix.

Tom

Why did you want Zarqawi and his buddies to set up camp in Iraq to launch attacks against us?

This is great. We now have "other_nate", straight from the liberal alternate universe, attacking the posts of "Tom Shipley", also from the liberal alternate universe, and "Josh Keaton", who is in the running for the #1 liberal wack-o.

We conservatives should just sit back and let the libs tear each other apart. Priceless.

A-10 -

I'll probably disagree with Tom on most things because I'm a conservative. And by that I mean an ACTUAL conservative, not a big-government, big-spending, big-brother neoconservative. And let me remind you,

I voted for Bush, twice.
I am registered as, and mostly vote, republican.

You, A-10, are one of the Bush-bots who can only argue with liberal fanatics. Anyone who disagrees with you must be a liberal, right? Great argument dude. Try actually answering my questions instead of atacking a strawman.

If you are unable to debate intelligently, that's mostly your loss, but do the forum (and your party) a favor by leaving the discussion to others who can argue without demagoguing.

ok I was having a go at both left and right. What really annoys me is the hypocrisy of everything we could have removed him yearsago and we would have been thanked for by the Shias and the Kurds who we asked to revolt, which they did willingly, we betrayed them and left the Shias to their fate. We did help the Kurds but just across the border Turkey was violating teh human rights of the Turkish Kurds, summary executions, killings torture etc.

The oil for food programme was a pile of *****. 30% of every barrell sold went as payment to Kuwait due to lost business etc. during the invasion, which yes makes sense they lost out but it meant further suffering for the Iraqis. The UN did actually praise Saddam for his distribution of teh resources he had, of course he maintained his standard of living thats what dictators do, why else would you be one? Also Iraq did not have the capability to produce as much oil as was required due to the fact that we bombed teh hell out of teh place and damaged the wells etc and he was not allowed the parts to fix the machinery etc. Also his people were dying or malnutritioned not exactly a good workforce you will agree. We (being the US and Britain) refused acess or made them wait for items that had no danger for us. Babyfood was refused as adults might eat it, how does that matter, or are we killing the adults and saving the kids, Tennis balls, no idea hy the hell they would want them but they were refused, Kids dying of cancer could have one drug they needed but not the vital other drug they would get that a month later even although they need to be used at the same time.

As for WMD what WMD did he have? there has not been one found at all. If he did there must hve been a government cover up coz we haven't heard about it. We all no he had them when he was gassing the Iranians and Kurds in the 80's. We didn't care then though hell we were suppliying them, as we do with many dictatorial regimes i.e Saudi Arabia (here I mean military equipment to supress their populations. Why if he had WMD did Hans Blix and co. want more time. Why did he let them in if he had them and perhaps more importantly why did we attack? We never attacked the USSR during the cold war precisely coz we knew they had WMDs, the reason we had tehm was to prevent such an attack. If as BLIAR claimed they could be deployed in 45 mins then would we not have been destroyed by now?

Finally....someone mentions the Iraq Liberation Act that Leftards ignore!!

other_nate,

"I'll probably disagree with Tom on most things because I'm a conservative."

Could have fooled us. You have taken what seems to be stands in opposition to conservative policies. You seem to be more of a isolationist than a "ACTUAL conservative".

Since I'm not a big-government, big-spending, big-brother neoconservative either, we should see eye to eye on most issues.

"You, A-10, are one of the Bush-bots who can only argue with liberal fanatics."

Actually, I'm not a "Bush-bot" at all. I disagree with him on a number of issues. However, I can't help it entering into debate with the liberals who frequent this blog. I consider it my civic duty to help them escape from the alternate universe in which they reside.

"Anyone who disagrees with you must be a liberal, right"

Wrong. But those who express liberal viewpoints tend to fall into that category. You, on the other hand, seem to think that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be a liberal or a neo-conservative. I'm certainly not a liberal and I'm not sure if I'm a neocon. But maybe I am.

According to Irving Kristol, who is generally considered the "godfather" of modern neo-cons, neo-cons are characterized by policies to cut tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth, they do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state, they think patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions, and they think world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. Generally they believe in an increased emphasis on defense capability, a willingness to challenge regimes deemed hostile to the values and interests of the United States, pressing for free-market policies abroad, and promoting democracy and freedom. Not all bad ideas.

It's funny that liberals use the term "neo-cons" in a derogatory sense. It seems to me that the "neo-cons" are unabashedly patriotic and pro-American. What's wrong with that?

"Try actually answering my questions instead of atacking a strawman."

I'm sorry if it seems that I have avoided answering your questions, but since you have not addressed any questions towards me, I did not feel obliged to answer.

"If you are unable to debate intelligently, that's mostly your loss, but do the forum (and your party) a favor by leaving the discussion to others who can argue without demagoguing."

I can debate intelligently, can you?

Weefee,
I know you're not going to read what I'm about to post, because if you had read what I posted above you wouldn't have responded that we should have invaded in 1991. What I posted, on the off chance you're reading this, is that Saddam had his planes loaded down with the most deadly, long lasting germ weapons and he ordered them that if we didn't stop at Kuwait to dump them on Riyadh, and all cities in Israel. If you still think we should have invaded, then you're something of a monster who doesn't care enough about anyone to justify me wasting any more time with you.

You ask, what kind of WMDs did he have? Good question. Why don't we take a trip to New York and ask the UN inspectors because we can't trust Americans to give us the right answer. Oh, that's right, we don't have to, because Team Bush already researched it, and told the country about it three years ago:

"Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world.

The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming.

It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them."

Morris,

UNSCOM reported that 1.5 tons of Sarin is unaccounted for. 1.5 tons of Sarin is enough to kill 134,000,000 people. Yes, that's 134 MILLION.

A-10 says,

-"You have taken what seems to be stands in opposition to conservative policies."

Name one.

-"You seem to be more of a isolationist than a ACTUAL conservative."

Prove it. Find a quote by me where I espouse any sort of isolationism.

-"Since I'm not a big-government, big-spending, big-brother neoconservative either, we should see eye to eye on most issues."

Well shoot, then why are we fighting? You must have been just kidding when you called me a liberal.

-"Actually, I'm not a "Bush-bot" at all. I disagree with him on a number of issues."

Gee, A-10, like what? Where do you disagree with Bush? Fiscal policy, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war?

-"You, on the other hand, seem to think that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be a liberal or a neo-conservative."

I have never called you either a liberal or a neocon, nor have I implied such. I am calling you a bush-worshipping robot, unable to deal with criticism from anyone on either side of the political spectrum.

As for your description of neocons, I laughed out loud when I read this:

-"they do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state"

Are you, like, retarded or something? If so, I apologize, and I'll leave you alone. Where did you get this idea? I'd love to know.

other.nate..are you , like....18???? or like, retarded...???
nice, Twerp!!!!

A-10,
You write:
"UNSCOM reported that 1.5 tons of Sarin is unaccounted for. 1.5 tons of Sarin is enough to kill 134,000,000 people. Yes, that's 134 MILLION."

Why did the bumbling portrayal of Hans Blix in Team America just become so much less funny?

Morris -

Thank you for regurgitating the statements of Team Bush in the run-up to the war. Perhaps you'd like to do some point-by point debate with me over the content of this statement? And then maybe cap it off by looking at the evidence for viable WMDs that have been found since the invasion?

And as long as were doing quotes, here's some for you:

"The purity of Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were on average below 60%, and dropped below Iraq’s established quality control acceptance level of 40% by purity some 3 to 12 months after production. [...] There is no evidence that any bulk Sarin-type agents remain in Iraq - gaps in accounting of these agents are related to Sarin-type agents weaponized in rocket warheads and aerial bombs. Based on the documentation found by UNSCOM during inspections in Iraq, Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were largely of low quality and as such, degraded shortly after production. Therefore, with respect to the unaccounted for weaponized Sarin-type agents, it is unlikely that they would still be viable today." - UNMOVIC UDI working document, March 6 2003

"Iraq is not able to make good-quality chemical agents. Technical failures have reduced their purity and caused problems in storage and handling. This is a particular problem for the sarin- type nerve agents (GB and GF). These both contain hydrofluoricacid (HF), an impurity that attacks metal surfaces and catalyzes nerve agent decomposition. This leads to metal failure and leaks in the ammunition, increasing handling hazards. [...] Lower purity significantly limits shelf life and reduces toxic effects when the munition is employed. [...] The nerve agent should have already begun to deteriorate, and decomposition should make most of the nerve agent weapons unserviceable by the end of March 1991." - CIA memorandum January 1991, and repeated in the IISS strategic dossier of 9 September 2002

"We believe Iraq was largely cooperative on its latest declarations because many of its residual munitions were of little use - other than bolstering the credibility of Iraq's declaration - because of chemical agent degradation and leakage problems." - US Dept of Defense, April 2002

"Iraq does not appear to have a dedicated facility capable of producing Mustard and its key precursors. Significant modifications would be required to convert existing chemical production facilities for this purpose. Iraq would have to utilize “corrosion resistant” equipment (for the processing of the chlorinating agent), which it possesses in limited quantities. However, Iraq had some items of dual-use equipment distributed all over the country at legitimate facilities that could be removed and assembled for the construction of a dedicated Mustard production plant". - UNMOVIC, March 6 2003

A-10 -

Big numbers, very scary. Now go do some research on sarin, and tell us how pure and how fresh that sarin would have to be, and in what manner it would have to be applied in order to kill that many people. Then, go do some research on what Saddam had produced, and tell me how that number you used has ANY actual real-world applicability.

Other Nate,
The UN was for it before they were against it. They were the ones telling us these weapons existed and were missing, all the way back before Bush got elected. How was that not evidence to go to war based on WMDs that wasn't cooked up by the White House. It pleases me that Iraqi nerve agents may not be effective today. But I thought Iraq didn't have WMDs. If Bush lied and there were no WMDs, how did the UN evaluate their effectiveness.

Oh, this is priceless: "The nerve agent should have already begun to deteriorate, and decomposition should make most of the nerve agent weapons unserviceable by the end of March 1991." So, you're quoting a CIA report on what "should" have happened. Is that like when they said Iraq "should" have an active chemical/biological weapons program when we liberated Iraq? Or is that like the oft-quoted by Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller (before the Iraq liberation) about how at the time of Desert Storm, the CIA said it "should" be another 5 five years before Saddam had a nuke, then once we invaded we found out he was a year from having a nuke.

Your next quote ("We believe Iraq was largely cooperative on its latest declarations because many of its residual munitions were of little use - other than bolstering the credibility of Iraq's declaration - because of chemical agent degradation and leakage problems.") is (if you've read the report) as were all your previous comments, limited to the scope of chemical weapons. What about enough BOTOX to kill millions? What about enough anthrax to kill millions? What about Saddam violating the UN resolution by making missiles capable of reaching Israel? What about Saddam purchasing a great number of prohibited weapons systems (not the least of which air defense radar to help him shoot at our pilots enforcing the no fly zone)?

And your last quote makes Duelfer's point: "However, Iraq had some items of dual-use equipment distributed all over the country at legitimate facilities that could be removed and assembled for the construction of a dedicated Mustard production plant." Iraq was building up its "dual use" equipment and increasing its military industrial complex 40 times. Do you realize how significant that is? If America did that, we'd be spending more than 10 billion dollars on defense.

You appear to lament my argument because I quote from the Duelfer report, but apparently you didn't bother to read the part I quoted, because it says the same thing as your last quote: "In addition to preserved capability, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD as soon as sanctions were lifted....An Iraqi CW expert separately estimated Iraq would require only a few days to start producing mustard—if it was prepared to sacrifice the production equipment." What that's saying, to spell it out, is that if they're willing to take apart their factories that have the dual use equipment, they'd have had mustard gas in a few days, and this comes from and Iraq chemical weapons expert, not George W. Bush. And they had the intent to do that the moment sanctions came down.

So, we have the UN in 1999 telling us that Iraq has all these biological weapons, and chemical weapons; we have the CIA telling us they don't think the chemical weapons "shouldn't" work, but they've been wrong about WMDs before. We have both the UN and Iraq telling us that Iraq will if they want (and according to Duelfer's evidence, they want) have mustard gas a few days after we invade; we have enough BOTOX to kill millions unaccounted for; we have enough anthrax to kill millions unaccounted for; we have a history with them saying they've destroyed WMDs and finding them to still exist; we have (at this point) proof of a secret Iraqi law to defy the UN resolutions; we have a man who killed a hundred thousand of his own people; we have a man who used WMDs on his own people; we have a man who ordered his military that if we liberated Iraq in 1991 to use their longest lasting germ weapons on Riyadh and all over Israel. I can't figure out why we invaded, Bush is such an idiot, right?

other_nate,

Do you like to argue just for the sake of arguing?
If so, join a debate team.

"You must have been just kidding when you called me a liberal."

As you were attacking conservatives who post here, you sounded a lot like a liberal. If you are not, good for you.

"Gee, A-10, like what? Where do you disagree with Bush? Fiscal policy, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war?"

Understanding that with anyone who we elect to occupy the White House, we are getting a politician who has to try to work with both parties, I have several issues where the President could show more conservatism. We should be curtailing the growth of federal spending, expecially in entitlements. We should have a more aggressive illegal immigration policy. We should be pushing through more federal judges who apply the law, and who don't attempt to make laws.

"I am calling you a bush-worshipping robot, unable to deal with criticism from anyone on either side of the political spectrum."

It does not compute. Sorry, my robot side was showing through. You're wrong. Don't worship the President. Never did. But as a fellow conservative, I feel obliged to go to his defense when he is attacked with lies, distortions, and half-truths.

I try to deal with criticism with facts. I think the other regular conservative posters on this site would agree.

"As for your description of neocons, I laughed out loud when I read this:

-"they do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state"

Are you, like, retarded or something? If so, I apologize, and I'll leave you alone. Where did you get this idea? I'd love to know."

If you read my post, it is a direct quote from Irving Kristol. Second line of the third paragraph on that page. Its his idea, not mine. If you want to call Mr. Kristol "retarded or something", you can.

You can do me and others on this site by leaving the discussion to others who can argue without demagoguing.

Love sitting back and watching the conservatives tear each other apart... priceless (sorry, couldn't pass that one up).

TS,

And I thought he was a liberal. Silly me.

See I forgot the "close link" html code in my post above. Oops.

Nate,

"Big numbers, very scary. Now go do some research on sarin, and tell us how pure and how fresh that sarin would have to be, and in what manner it would have to be applied in order to kill that many people. Then, go do some research on what Saddam had produced, and tell me how that number you used has ANY actual real-world applicability."

Have done the research on Sarin. Had lots of NBC classes during my 27 years in the military.

The point is that the 1.5 tons of Sarin are still unaccounted for. Yes, it would have to be pure. Yes, it would have to be weaponized. Yes, it would have to be able to be delivered in an effective way.

So, assuming that it would only have 1/100th of its effectiveness, it would only kill 1,340,000. Do you want to be one of the 1,340,000? I don't.

A-10 -

No, you clearly need to do some more reading if you think that 1,340,000 is a remotely feasible number for Sarin that's at least five, and maybe more than ten years old.

Go review your notes from your "27 years of in the military", and tell me just how the iraqis could kill a million people with a ton of 10 year old sarin. Try to come up with a scenario, I'd love to hear it. Better yet, go find out if, in the military's opinion, ten-year-old sarin is even weaponzable in the first place. Let me know if you need some pointers for information.

A million people. Seriously. You need to THINK before you write stupid things.

And concerning your previous post A-10 -

-"If you read my post, it is a direct quote from Irving Kristol. Second line of the third paragraph..." blah blah

Yes thank you for quoting Mr. Irving Kristol... again. So tell me how his brand of conservatism has helped reduce our dependence on the welfare state. Tell me why the "godfather of neoncons", who has never been in government, is accurate in his portrayal of the neocon movement. Tell me how the neocons have pressed Bush to reduce the size of our government bureaucracy, or temper its will to babysit us with regulations and criminal codes. Feel free to provide me with some evidence of any kind that supports your assertion that this one sentence by Irving Kristol defines the character of the neocon elements of the current administration.

other_nate,

"No, you clearly need to do some more reading if you think that 1,340,000 is a remotely feasible number for Sarin that's at least five, and maybe more than ten years old."

In as much as we don't know where the missing 1.5 tons of Sarin is, the purity of the Sarin, how it was being stored, and what the effectiveness is, it would be difficult to make an estimate of how many people it could kill.

But that's besides the point. The point is that the liberals are all saying that "Saddam did not have WMD", when UNSCOM says there are hundreds of tons of missing chemical agents and about 30,000 missing chemical and bio munitions.

other_nate,

One more thing about the Sarin. We don't know how much Sarin was produced between the time the inspectors left and our intervention in 2003. Could be none. Could be a ton. Could be 10 tons. If Iraq was producing Sarin, or possessed the precursors, at the time of our intervention your theory about ineffective Sarin goes out the window.

The 1.5 tons is probably not a viable threat now, but it was in 2003 and before. Remember, the standard was NO WMD, NO WMD programs, NO prohibited weapons systems. Saddam violated each and every one of these standards.

"Yes thank you for quoting Mr. Irving Kristol...Blah, blah, blah."

What's your point? You wanted to know where I "got that idea". I told you. It's not my "idea", its Mr. Kristol's. I'm not here to debate the virtues of neo-con philosophy. The thread is about the 8th Anniversary of the Iraq Liberation Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by a Democrat President. Implemented by a Republican.

You keep claiming he has WMD. WHERE? We haven't found them perhaps there is a good reason for this? You DO NOT attack a country that has them I don't see you jumping into North Korea?

If everyone agreed he had WMD why did teh EXPERTS i.e Hans Blix and co. ask for more time? Why did Saddam kick UN inspectors out before? They were spying for Israel, well some of them, and they admitted it. If Saddam had them he would have used them, in a last ditch attempt to save his position and possibly his life. So much for the International Criminal court's then.

I am never going to be convinced that he had them until there is solid evidence of them. Even the Bliar Regime has admitted that dossier was "sexed up", sadly that scandal lead to the suicide of Dr David Kelly. They had to back down on the 45 minute claim.

And of course back to sanctions, how would he have got his WMD's ready for action or his sarin??? They banned drugs for wee kids dying of cancer or gave them one when they needed two. He couldn't get it from neighbours he was surrounded by hostile countries, Iran, Syria, Turkey. he was not a popular man.

weefee,

We've been over this a thousand times. But for your benefit, I'll go over it again.

"You keep claiming he has WMD. WHERE? We haven't found them perhaps there is a good reason for this?"

We HAVE found some. 500 chemical munitions. Not in the numbers that UNSCOM (The United Nations Special Commission on Iraq), reported were declared by Iraq and are not yet accounted for. Where are the rest? That is the $24,000 question. Were they moved to Syria? Are they buried in the desert? Are they in one of the thousands of ammo dumps Saddam had throughout the 164,000 sq miles of Iraq? Even the Iraq Survey Group, set up to try to find the missing MWD, admitted that because of the scope of Iraq's weapons dumps, they didn't search them all.

You are also ignoring, or choosing to deny, the fact that the Iraqi's used WMD on their own people and the Iranians, that they admitted that they had them, and failed to show proof that they were destroyed. As I posted above, the standard was NO WMD, NO WMD programs, NO prohibited weapons systems. Saddam violated each and every one of these standards.

"why did teh EXPERTS i.e Hans Blix and co. ask for more time?"

Do you understand what was the mission of the UN Weapons Inspectors? It was never their job to search for the WMD. It was their job to certify that the WMD disclosed by the Iraqis was destroyed or that the Iraqis produced proof that they were destoryed. Are you aware that the Iraqi's produced five different 15,000 page "Full and Final" declarations of the extent of their WMD programs? Each and every time the Iraqis produced a report, the Weapons Inspectors discovered additional, unreported WMD.

"Why did Saddam kick UN inspectors out before?"

Could be because they kept catching the Iraqis in the lie about their WMD and WMD programs. Could be because of the UN complaints about Iraq's deception, dis-information, and deceit concerning the WMD.

"I am never going to be convinced that he had them until there is solid evidence of them."

My God, do you want a link to pictures of the dead Kurds killed by Mustard Gas? Aren't the 500 chemical munitions filled with sarin and mustard gas enough evidence? Isn't the admission by the Iraqis that they had them enough?

Your statement says it all. Confronted with irrefutable evidence of Iraqs WMD, you deny it.

"And of course back to sanctions, how would he have got his WMD's ready for action or his sarin???"

What? Prior to our intervention in Iraq, Saddam was free to pretty do whatever he pleased. Sure we had sanctions on him. But he was still purchasing prohibited weapons systems from the French, Germans, and Russia. They were all taking bribes from Saddam.

Did you know that the precursors for some of these WMD are also common chemicals. He was producing these chemicals all along. Several hundred tons of these precursors are also missing. We have found significant quantities of these precursors.

Don't know why he didn't use what he had left. Thankfully he didn't.

Weefee -

You do realize that Saddam ammassed stockpiles of chemical weapons during the 80's don't you?

Morris says,

-"The UN was for it before they were against it."

What the hell does that mean? What's "it"? And whatever "for it" means, the UN was definitely "against it" long before the invasion in 2003.

-"They were the ones telling us these weapons existed and were missing, all the way back before Bush got elected."

Yeah, LONG before Bush got elected. The WMDs that Bush pretended to be so scared of were produced BEFORE the first invasion. And you're conveniently forgetting all of the other things that the UN was saying, such as that most of Saddam's weapons stockpiles were destroyed in the first gulf war, more was destroyed by Saddam himself and Amercian bombings in the 90's, and the rest was far too old to be of military value.

-"So, you're quoting a CIA report on what "should" have happened. Is that like when they said Iraq "should" have an active chemical/biological weapons program when we liberated Iraq?"

Now this is just confusing. What are you saying? My point here was very simple: the CIA was thoroughly unconvinced of the threat of Iraqi WMDs. Do you mean to disagree with this? I can show you plenty more material if you want.

"once we invaded we found out he was a year from having a nuke."

No, wrong. I assume that you're talking about the claims made by Paul Leventhal, which were thoroughly discredited by nuclear experts such as those from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. This is still a subject of debate, certainly not something that you can just say like it's widely accepted.

-"What about enough BOTOX to kill millions? What about enough anthrax to kill millions?"

*sigh*

I assume that you're referring to your previous post, where you repeat Bush's original claim that Saddam had "materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin", according to the UN. Problem is, the UN never said this, or anything close to it. The UNSCOM January 1999 report says that Iraq had growth media "Sufficient for the production of 1200 litres of concentrated botulinum toxin (depending on availability of other components including yeast extract). This would represent an additional 6% of that which has already been declared by Iraq." Six percent more than what they admitted. Do you see 38,000 anywhere? Go read the report and let me know if you find it.

UNMOVIC further downplayed the threat in a subsequent report:

"it seems unlikely that significant undeclared quantities of botulinum toxin could have been produced, based on the quantity of media unaccounted for." - Unresolved Disarmament Issues, 6 March 2003

Here's another fun quote from that same report:

"Any botulinum toxin that was produced and stored according to the methods described by Iraq and in the time period declared is unlikely to retain much, if any, of its potency. Therefore, any such stockpiles of botulinum toxin, whether in bulk storage or in weapons that remained in 1991, would not be active today."

And here's what the CIA said in a 1990 briefing. Oh, but you don't trust the CIA, right? Well, I'll show it to you anyway:

"Botulinum toxin is nonpersistent, degrading rapidly in the environment. [...] [It is] fairly stable for a year when stored at temperatures below 27c."

Let me know if you want to get into the anthrax. Better yet, go read about it yourself, and save me the trouble of trying to educate you.

You said,

-"Iraq was building up its "dual use" equipment and increasing its military industrial complex 40 times. Do you realize how significant that is? If America did that, we'd be spending more than 10 billion dollars on defense."

I've got news for you, genius. Our official defense budget is already over 400 billion dollars. Exactly what point are you trying to make here?

-"What that's saying, to spell it out, is that if they're willing to take apart their factories that have the dual use equipment, they'd have had mustard gas in a few days"

Great, good point. So, what you're saying is that IF we were to lift the restrictions on chemical and industrial equipment, and stop bombing Saddam's industrial facilities, and then ignore his subsequent activities, then he would start making mustard again. Did you ever hear anyone say that we should do any of these things? Sounds to me like the Kurds (and us) were pretty safe from the mustard as long as the sanctions were in place. It certainly ought to take more than the threat of mustard to justify an invasion and years of gruelling occupation.

-"So, we have the UN in 1999 telling us that Iraq has all these biological weapons, and chemical weapons"

Again, wrong. You just keep repeating the same things over and over again, without providing any evidence whatsoever. Change your statment to "Iraq has all these useless biological weapons, and chemical weapons", and you'll be more accurate.

-"we have the CIA telling us they don't think the chemical weapons "shouldn't" work, but they've been wrong about WMDs before."

Right, you don't trust the CIA claims about the Sarin. Do you know anything about Sarin? Do you even know what Sarin is? Do have any reason at all to dispute the claims that the CIA made in that quote I gave you? Again, books are your friend.

You, morris, are a sheep. You're actually worse than a sheep; you'll keep on regurgitating the administration's worn out BS even after they themselves have abandoned it.

A-10 says -

-"it would be difficult to make an estimate of how many people it could kill."

Yes, difficult for you, certainly. But that doesn't stop you from making guesses like "134,000,000 people". The problem with sheep like you is that you actually say this stuff out loud.

-"The point is that the liberals are all saying that Saddam did not have WMD".

Another strawman. Bravo. Find me a quote by someone (someone important, preferably) who claims that Saddam never possessed WMDs. The most whacked-out liberal kooks remember that Saddam used mustard in the war with Iran. That was not the crux of the debate. What was up for debate was whether or not Saddam had VIABLE chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons as of 2003. And the evidence to support Bush's assertions was, and is,... jack sh*t. Prove me wrong dude.

-"UNSCOM says there are hundreds of tons of missing chemical agents and about 30,000 missing chemical and bio munitions."

Again, conveniently forgetting all the other things that UNSCOM said, along with its predecessor UNMOVIC, the CSIS, the CIA, and every weapons inspector in Iraq at the end of the 90's: that those missing chemical/bio agents and munitions were almost all relics of the 80's, and had long ago become USELESS as weapons.

We knew it was crap when Bush said it the first time. But, now that Iraq is subdued, and U.S forces can actually search the countryside proper, I'm sure you can show me some evidence that proves me wrong, right?

-"We don't know how much Sarin was produced between the time the inspectors left and our intervention in 2003. Could be none. Could be a ton. Could be 10 tons. If Iraq was producing Sarin, or possessed the precursors, at the time of our intervention your theory about ineffective Sarin goes out the window."

Yes! Brilliant! My theory goes out the window! Except that there was zero evidence that this was happening, then or now. Zero.

In your response to weefee above, you said,

-"We HAVE found some. 500 chemical munitions."

My goodness, are you still doing this? Listen carefully smart-guy: those 500 munitions that Rick Santorum talked up WERE MADE IN THE 80's. They Can Not Be Used. The Bush administration distanced themselves from Santorum's sideshow for a very good reason: it would have made them look really stupid, just as it makes you look really stupid.

-"Did you know that the precursors for some of these WMD are also common chemicals. He was producing these chemicals all along. Several hundred tons of these precursors are also missing. We have found significant quantities of these precursors."

Hmm. I'm going to take a guess here... and say that you have no idea what you're talking about. I'd love to hear you expound on the process involved in producing Tabun, or VX, or Sarin, and I'd like to see your proof that Saddam was actively engaged in producing precursors before the invasion. It could be true; I just don't think you really know.

"other_nate"

The crux of the debate is whether we were justified in invading Iraq. All the talk about WMD is fluff.

Saddam was in violation of the 1991 Cease-Fire.

Saddam was in material breach of the 17 UN Resolutions.

Saddam attempted to assassinate a former US President.

Saddam committed acts of war by firing on US and UK aircraft patrolling the No-Fly Zones.

Saddam trained, harbored, and financed terrorism.

Congress passed an Authorization for the use of the Armed Forces against Iraq. We inforced the UN Resolutions disarming Saddam. Case closed.

Now, what are you agruing about, exactly?

Oh, and as for "I'd like to see your proof that Saddam was actively engaged in producing precursors before the invasion."

From Douglas Hanson, a U.S. Army cavalry reconnaissance officer for 20 years, and a veteran of Gulf War I. He was an atomic demolitions munitions security officer and a nuclear, biological and chemical defense officer. He also worked for an operations intelligence unit of the CPA in Iraq.

"huge warehouses and caches of 'commercial and agricultural' chemicals were seized and painstakingly tested by Army and Marine chemical specialists,"

"they were storing the precursors to restart a chemical-warfare program very quickly."

"elements of the 4th Infantry Division found 55-gallon drums containing a substance identified through mass spectrometry analysis as cyclosarin -- a nerve agent."

"At Taji -- an Iraqi weapons complex as large as the District of Columbia -- U.S. combat units discovered more "pesticides" stockpiled in specially built containers, smaller in diameter but much longer than the standard 55-gallon drum."

Also:

- Kay and Duelfer came to a similar conclusion, telling Congress under oath that Saddam had built new facilities and stockpiled the materials to relaunch production of chemical and biological weapons at a moment's notice.

"I'd love to hear you expound on the process involved in producing Tabun, or VX, or Sarin.

I'm not a chemist. I was involved in HUMINT. I'd tell you about it, but then I'd have to kill you. ;-)

By the way, who's side are you on?

A-10,

Congratulations, you have just proven my point about you beyond any doubt. When confronted with the reality of what we actually knew about Saddam's weapons programs, you did exactly what the Bush administration did: you switched to the "But Saddam Was a Really Bad Guy" argument. Let's have a look shall we?

-"All the talk about WMD is fluff."

This - is - awesome. How "fluffy" was the WMD issue to the administration in 2003? Was it fluff when Powell focused on Iraq's WMDs to justify the war to the UN, completely embarrassing himself in the process? You need to think real hard, and try to remember what Bush said about Americans being under immediate threat from Saddam's fluffy WMDs.

-"Saddam was in violation of the 1991 Cease-Fire."

As he had been since the end of the first gulf war. I didn't hear Bush doing too much hand-ringing about this, did you?

-"Saddam was in material breach of the 17 UN Resolutions."

Your going to have to be more specific about this. Israel was almost constantly been in violation of security council resolutions. So which resolutions that had nothing to do with WMDs were illustrations of a serious and imminent threat to the U.S.?

-"Saddam attempted to assassinate a former US President."

Holy crap! If this is true, then the only sane response would be a full-scale invasion and gruelling occupation!

-"Saddam committed acts of war by firing on US and UK aircraft patrolling the No-Fly Zones."

What!? Are you serious? I never knew! That's terrible! How may American servicemen died in these attacks? Again, the only sane response would be a full-scale invasion and gruelling occupation.

-"Saddam trained, harbored, and financed terrorism."

Funny, I never heard Bush use this as a reason to go to war in 2003. Maybe he did, but I sure didn't hear it. What I mostly heard about were all those fluffy WMDs.

-"Congress passed an Authorization for the use of the Armed Forces against Iraq."

Well, gee, you got me there. I can't argue with congress!

-"We inforced the UN Resolutions disarming Saddam. Case closed."

You should have added a "So There!" to end of that statement. Case closed!

-"Now, what are you agruing about, exactly?"

A-10, I... um, nevermind.

-"Saddam had built new facilities and stockpiled the materials to relaunch production of chemical and biological weapons at a moment's notice."

Like I said, it could be true. But there are qualifiers to your asserion. Let's look at what the Duelfer report really says:

"A former nerve agent expert indicated that Iraq retained the capability to produce nerve agent in significant quantities within two years, given the import of required phosphorous precursors. However, we have no credible indications that Iraq acquired or attempted to acquire large quantities of these chemicals through its existing procurement networks for sanctioned items."

This makes it seems like we were pretty safe from the nerve agents. But maybe you're talking about this:

"ISG judges, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months."

Ahh, mustard. The old-fashioned mainstay of of tyrants the world over. Trouble is, we never heard Bush use mustard as an excuse to go war, did we? Maybe because mustard's not really that dangerous, and was of very limited concern to the military. No, what we heard about was the nerve gas, the bio-weapons, and, of course, all the nukular technology that Saddam surely had.

Bush has long since abandoned these assertions. But we can still rely on people like A-10 to tell us about those 500 ancient chemical munitions we just found, and that 1.5 tons of sarin that could KILL 134,000,000 PEOPLE!

You are a bush-bot because you find a way to justify Bush's actions no matter what, and you'll parrot the government spin without bothering to do any research yourself.

Oh, and one more thing A-10. This was the cherry on the cake of your idiotic reply:

-"By the way, who's side are you on?"

Another classic symptom of being a bush-bot. If you can't argue intelligently, then question my patriotism.

yes I know he had them during te 80's but I was getting sick of repetedly saying he had them in the 80's but not now. I know he gassed the Iranians and Kurds. Again my point is hypocrisy no one cared back then. It was ok because he was fighting against Iran, barely one word of condemnation, the same when during teh Iran-Iraq war an Iraqi piolot bombed The Stark, killing US Servicemen, they tried to blame it on the Iranian, who A) were invaded by Iraq, B)hadn't set up the shipping exclusion zone and C) gassed there own people or have WMD's.

A-10 you never read my post properly. The reason UN inspectors were kicked out was because some were spying for Israel. They addmitted it aswell.

As for shipping them to Syria. Would you ship your nukes to North Korea? They Iraqi Baathists and Syrian Baathists are well known to despise each other, he would never have them shipped to Syria it was an enemy country.

I have also seen the pictures of teh Kurds, but while blaming France, Germany and Russia (rightly) blame should definetly also be placed on The UK and US we were doing it too. The US even helped supply him with chemical agents etc. and intelligence during the Iran-Iraq war which helped him target the Iranians.

As for maintaing and expanding his stock, he couldn't get food, medicine or even Tennis Balls into teh country without UN approval, and teh UK and US were teh prime objectors to things like Baby Food, tennis balls, school books and so on. As well as teh cancer drugs I mentioned above. The economy was cripples as were the oil fields that were broken, destroyed by coallition. He couldn't repair them to meet his allowed limit for oil barrrells a day, which would if he had reached it more food for his tattered an dextremly malnourished army and population. The army used to beg food from UN troops stationed on teh border.

If he was such a major threat to security we would have done it a long time ago, and why did he attack after he allowed UN inspectors in? If he did have WMDs and remember we were told, at least in Britian, the could be deployed in 45 mins, complete BS obviously, if they lie about that then why should I believe Bliar and co. If its missing perhaps its been destroyed or didn't exist?

yeah yeah, when ever someone is critical of government policy they are anti-american. I like Americans and teh Country because I don't like some of your governmental policies I am anti-american. I AM NOT I have American friends and family. I HATE British foreign policy, I hate unethical policies, I don't care who the hell implements they could be bloody Green with purple spots, buddhists, vegans I don't care if I don't agree wit something I don't agree with something doesn't mean I hate teh people or country.

I don't even know what DU and Kos are so have never visited. I have how ever read various things by people who have met Saddam, by Right wing people, lefties, Independant Journalists, Partisan Journalists, hell I even put myself through watching Fox News.

I will always be critical of government whether left or right. I am a Nationalist, I voted for them in teh last election (Scottish). Proud of my country, troops etc. Not proud of the British Government for their lack of balls sucking up Bush's ar**. Of course notable exceptions, mainly Robin Cook who quit the British Cabinet because did not believe the BS WMD claims. He should know was head of MI6 (british Intelligence agency) and foreign secretary. The man can't be accused of not knowing what could happen.

All that I care about is not putting the Iraqi people through further suffering than necessary and of course security for people in teh world. L

other_nate,

I'm not going to list al