[abe]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Those of 1991.

And you really AREN'T AWARE of any other WMD's afterwards?

Well, if that were the case why didn't Iran invade Iraq and do away with their hated enemy of their 10 year war?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by abe

And you really AREN'T AWARE of any other WMD's afterwards?

Well, if that were the case why didn't Iran invade Iraq and do away with their hated enemy of their 10 year war?

Because before we had 9/11 to blame Iraq on, the U.S. probalby wouldn'tve allowed Iran to invade Iraq.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by abe

And you really AREN'T AWARE of any other WMD's afterwards?

Well, if that were the case why didn't Iran invade Iraq and do away with their hated enemy of their 10 year war?

There was no WMDs made after 1991. Hussein was not in a position to develop any weapons of sophistication throughout the '90s. I don't believe so; he would have been able to use them already, and terrorists would have bought his stock then.

If he was able to sneak out oil, he certainly was able to sneak out a few germs then. We would have seen their effects already, especially on Israel, which would have been an easy target (and still is) for bio-weapons.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

OK. Som VX precursor is missing. So? What's your point?

All of those discovered in 1991 were destroyed. ALL. There is no such things as "a BUNCH uncalled for" and "The UN tagged SOME". If you look at the reports (I just did), what is left is a minute quantity, and it is very likely useless by now.

Terrorists can most likely create their own stock from scratch now anyway, so hunting Hussein's "lost WMDs" is a waste of time and resources.

Facts are, there were WMD unaccounted for. Which went against the UN resolutions set fourth.

Now there is proof coming out Saddam was even making MORE WMDs at whim before and right up to the point of invasion.

But keep your head in the sand. I don't care.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

There was no WMDs made after 1991. Hussein was not in a position to develop any weapons of sophistication throughout the '90s. I don't believe so; he would have been able to use them already, and terrorists would have bought his stock then.

This is what is called your personal opinion. Not a fact.

[abe]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Because before we had 9/11 to blame Iraq on, the U.S. probalby wouldn'tve allowed Iran to invade Iraq.

That is a senseless statement in SOOOOO many ways.

But to save myself the time I'll just address this point.

So why don't we just NOT ALLOW Iran to develop a nuclear capability?

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Facts are, there were WMD unaccounted for. Which went against the UN resolutions set fourth.

Now there is proof coming out Saddam was even making MORE WMDs at whim before and right up to the point of invasion.

But keep your head in the sand. I don't care.

This is what is called your personal opinion. Not a fact.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Facts are, there were WMD unaccounted for. Which went against the UN resolutions set fourth.

there were some. but as of 1997, 90-95% of all weapons had been destroyed through unmovic. i forget what percentage of the known - tagged, sealed, destroyed - were destroyed, but many of the capabilities were not proven capabilities - but were a way to categorize dual-use chemicals via receipts. no proof that they were used for the nefarious purposes but still counted against them.

there will still be some WMD out there. some forgotten cache's may be found - like have been, often with CW whose expiration date was long past - but nothing constituting the programs you're talking about. our own inspectors, with unfettered access to every in^2 of iraq not afforded to the UN inspectors, gave up and concluded there were no WMD's.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Now there is proof coming out Saddam was even making MORE WMDs at whim before and right up to the point of invasion.

links? i wonder where he got all the ready cash for that?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

This is what is called your personal opinion. Not a fact.

No because I can back it up with FACT.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

links? i wonder where he got all the ready cash for that?

Did you not read the first post in this thread?

I mean you commented on it..

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No because I can back it up with FACT.

Please back it up with fact.

[Kevin]

Clinton said Hussein and the Iraqi leadership had repeatedly lied to the United Nations about the country's weaponry.
"It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this (weapons inspections) operation since 1991 to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them and the feedstock necessary to produce them," Clinton said.
The president said that after the Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq admitted having a massive offensive biological warfare capability, including:
• 5,000 gallons of Botulinum (causing Botulism)
• 2,000 gallons of Anthrax
• 25 biological-filled Scud warheads
• 157 aerial bombs
Clinton said Iraq still posed a threat to the national security of the United States and the "freedom-loving world."

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.clinton/

[Kevin]

Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. . . . Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003: "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons is to dominate, intimidate or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region."

Clinton: "Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. . . . Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. . . . Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection."

Bush: "The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. From intelligence sources, we know for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites, and monitoring the inspectors themselves."

Clinton: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

Bush: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy and it is not an option. The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

Clinton: "The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. . . . Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. . . . But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

Bush: "Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed, the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans, this nation fights reluctantly because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes, peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military."

[Kevin]

During a speech at the Pentagon, President Bill Clinton declares: "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals, who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity -- even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program. But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist."

[Wiskedjak]

Let me rephrase:

Please back up with fact that "there is proof (that is, not hearsay) coming out Saddam was even making MORE WMDs at whim before and right up to the point of invasion"

I do not contest that there were unaccounted WMD

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Did you not read the first post in this thread?

I mean you commented on it..

and so i did, though my comment simply pointed out the previous thread. AND the OP did not address the question i just posted.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Let me rephrase:

Please back up with fact that "there is proof (that is, not hearsay) coming out Saddam was even making MORE WMDs at whim before and right up to the point of invasion"

I do not contest that there were unaccounted WMD

I figured Kevin would be alot slower to respond with those "facts" ...

[Wiskedjak]

Wow. Ask Kevin to back up a belief with facts and he clams right up.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Let me rephrase:

Please back up with fact that "there is proof (that is, not hearsay) coming out Saddam was even making MORE WMDs at whim before and right up to the point of invasion"

Well people in the KNOW about such a thing, are saying such a thing.

Please provide proof they are lying?

I do not contest that there were unaccounted WMD

Good thing!

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I figured Kevin would be alot slower to respond with those "facts" ...

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Wow. Ask Kevin to back up a belief with facts and he clams right up.

GEEEEEESH why so defensive and on the "attack "

I haven't been posting much in the WHOLE FORUM the past day or two.

I've been busy.

Quit with the silly knee-jerking movement thing.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well people in the KNOW about such a thing, are saying such a thing.

Please provide proof they are lying?

Good thing!



GEEEEEESH why so defensive and on the "attack "

I haven't been posting much in the WHOLE FORUM the past day or two.

I've been busy.

Quit with the silly knee-jerking movement thing.

And yet, still no "facts", just hearsay ...

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

And yet, still no "facts", just hearsay ...

Judge: Mr. Hutz we've been in here for four hours. Do you have any evidence at all?
Hutz: Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.</simpsons>

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

And yet, still no "facts", just hearsay ...

These people worked with Saddam. They would know if anyone correct?

Some of you woudln't even admit it if Saddam himself came out and said it.

"Oh that is hearsay"



BTW Wisk, there are no FACTS either way. But that doesn't stop those of you that claim Iraq never had WMDs after the golf war and in the 2000s

The clues actually show otherwise.

No one knows what happened to them however.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin

This is what is called your personal opinion. Not a fact.

Originally Posted by Kevin

No because I can back it up with FACT.

Originally Posted by Kevin

BTW Wisk, there are no FACTS either way.

greg

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin

These people worked with Saddam. They would know if anyone correct?

Or, perhaps they're just disgruntled ex-employees of the Saddam administration with book sales to push up ...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

greg

Busted.

[besson3c]

I love it how Kevin is as relentless as an f-ing bulldog in getting in people's faces 24/7, but plays the victim so well...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I love it how Kevin is as relentless as an f-ing bulldog in getting in people's faces 24/7, but plays the victim so well...

I thought you had me on ignore?

Victim? I admitted he busted me.

I suggest you put me BACK on ignore

BTW you attack people for making posts JUST LIKE you just made.

How is it that besson doesn't have to follow his own rules?