It's official: No WMD's found in Iraq

The inspectors have been recalled to Langley.

Published on January 12, 2005 By thatoneguyinslc In Current Events

I guess we weren't in as much danger as we thought...
Link

ABC news Australia's report
Link

Now before all you righties come unglued on me, i would like to point out that it was a bipartisan decision to go to war. No one disputes that.
Our government needs to make damn sure that they actually know what's going on before declaring war. The thing that upsets me is that the real WMD menace in the region (Iran) is blatantly pursuing WMD's and we sit idly by and do nothing.

We should have made a right turn and taken them out first.

Thanks for reading,
thatoneguyinslc

Comments (Page 1)

ParaTed2k

on Jan 12, 2005

"The thing that upsets me is that the real WMD menace in the region (Iran) is blatantly pursuing WMD's and we sit idly by and do nothing."

For me, I do think we will end up officially at war with Iran. I also think we are already at war with them, the battlefields just happen to be in Iraq. I even agree with you that Iran may have been a bigger problem that Iraq, even at the time we returned to hostilities with Iraq. However, would the presence of WMD have been enough justification to go to war with Iran? It really wasn't even enough justification to return to war with Hussein in and of itself. However, WMD on top of the human rights violations and more importantly, Hussein's infractions of the Safwan Accords made war with Iraq much more justifyable than invading Iran.

You also bring up something that has been the basis of a question I have asked people for awhile now. People often ask "Where are the WMD?" Actually, that is a great question. Since we know that Suddam had WMD, where is it all now? Apparently for some, the question only matters as a mean of making Prs. Bush or Republicans look bad. The more important points of the question however, should be, who has them, what are they planning to do with them and what is the best way to deal with the answers.

thatoneguyinslc

on Jan 12, 2005

Thank you Ted!

Solitair

on Jan 12, 2005

Well I supported the war despite being convinced that WMD did not exist so makes no difference to my stance. I'm pretty embarrassed at the mess of the occupation though.

Paul.

thatoneguyinslc

on Jan 12, 2005

I didn't support the war because of this issue. I really think that we had more legitmate reasons to go in there and take Saddam out. But then again i'm still upset at bush 1.0 for not finishing the job in 1991.

Thanks for your comment!

Myrrander

on Jan 12, 2005

I still think we should invade Israel. They have many more WMDs than any other country in the area.

Island Dog

on Jan 12, 2005

I still think we should invade Israel. They have many more WMDs than any other country in the area

But they are not fanatics like other parts of the Middle East.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 12, 2005

But then again i'm still upset at bush 1.0 for not finishing the job in 1991.

I agree with you here. I still remember being in Southern Iraq, gearing up for a push into Baghdad. The Air Force and Navy had been "softening the target" and we figured that would be the next phase in the whole operation. Even though it wasn't our primary reason for being there, if we left Hussein in power then, we would only be returning someday to "finish the job". I remember more than a few converstations that centered around just that idea. Most of us left the Middle East, expecting that someday we'd be back.

"Diplomacy" prevailed and we left Hussein in power. "Diplomacy" promised that they had a better plan for holding Hussein to the terms of the Safwan Accords (The Ceasefire of 91).

I think the last decade+ should be written down in history books everywhere, as the ultimate example of how "diplomacy" failed.

theknitter

on Jan 12, 2005

And America gave chemical weapons to IRAQ so that they could use them on Iranian Soldiers. ......... Pakistan has weapons of mass destruction (the ATOMIC BOMB) ... why not disarm them ..... oooops sorry I said that isn't Pakistan on America's side .......... for the moment

thatoneguyinslc

on Jan 12, 2005

I don't trust the Pakis either.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 12, 2005

And America gave chemical weapons to IRAQ so that they could use them on Iranian Soldiers. .........

Yeah, that was a pretty stupid call. If there is one policy both the left and the right need to get out off the agenda is, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

ParaTed2k

on Jan 12, 2005

And America gave chemical weapons to IRAQ so that they could use them on Iranian Soldiers. .........

Yeah, that was a pretty stupid call. If there is one policy both the left and the right need to get off the agenda is, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Daiwa

on Jan 12, 2005

As for Iran, I don't think we are actually sitting idly by and doing nothing. I think we don't know what's being done, but that something is actually going on through those old evil "back channels." No evidence to offer up, just a suspicion.

Cheers,
Daiwa

thatoneguyinslc

on Jan 12, 2005

You're probably right Daiwa, but i think the current administration was a little too focused on finding non existant WMD's for too long when they could have been focusing on Iran and Syria.

Personally, i think Israel should do another surgical strike.

Madine

on Jan 12, 2005

We would not have been able to reach a definite conclusion about Iraq's WMD status without an invasion.

latour999

on Jan 12, 2005

I still think we should invade Israel. They have many more WMDs than any other country in the area.

How about America? They have more WMDs than any other nation.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!