Comments on: I Accept Your Challenge

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 18:37:09 +0000

Credibility is not a word that comes to mind when the UN is mentioned. Given their reluctance to use force in Iraq I would say they had an agenda to show the US was wrong. Blix migh or might not have his own motives. The fact is some of the people who have visited there have told me different things than were reported.

Why should I not believe the Iraqis who are coming forward. They are more credible than Hussein who everybody wanted to take at his word.

The threat to the US was the sponsorship and support of terrorists and their leadership. Bush told them we would make no distinction and he gave Hussein and his sons a chance to leave. They chose, mistakenly, to stay.

If someone wanted to attack your hometown it would not be difficult. Hussein could pay the family of a child to have that child walk in and detonate a chemical filled explosive device. Getting the people and equipment in here would not be a problem for a determined enemy.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:10:23 +0000

We had satellite photos of his “mobile wepons manufacturing labs” too. What did those turn out to be?

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:08:43 +0000

A chemical attack on my hometown would be impossible for him to perpetrate considering he doesn’t have the delivery methods. But yes, that would make me believe. The fact is, Sadaam didn’t pose a threat to us. We invaded him on spurious claims and bad intel. To me that is a failure.

Who are you going to believe: some random Iraqis (especially ones with political positions at stake) or Hans Blix; the DIA; the UN? Who’s got the credibility here?

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:20:31 +0000

There is even more evidence pointing to Iraq in gassing the Kurds. None of the texts I use to teach about WMD mention this as a possiblity. In addition, if Iran did it Hussein would have been showing it to the world to charge them with war crimes. He basically tried to hide it and say it nev er happened. Forensic evidence was used years later to show chemicals were used. This also backs my claim that if he got rid of them without building an elaborate facility (which we have not found) there would be evidence. The chemical markers remain for a long time.

There are items in the reports that are “suspicions”. You make the claim Hussein had destroyed most of his WMD and that this report or that says they were destroyed by a certain date (in the 98 time frame) yet it is overlooked that a spokesman for him said that they had them and would use them as recently as 11/02. If we are going to run around and say Hussein said he got rid of them and we believe him then we have to believe it when his people say they have them and will use them.

There have been Iraqis who have told us that he had them and they were moved. You are right that it is speculation that they went to Syria but the fact that we have sattellite photos of the storage bunkers being emptied and trucks leaving them is a strong indication that they went somewhere.

We had a great deal of intelligence, some of it still highly classified, that shows he had them. My friends from the weapons inspections teams said they were sure the WMD were there but they were hindered in the investigation. Other information is not out in the open for discussion. Fact is, we used intelligence from our country and many other reputable countries around the world.

What would it take to make you believe? Perhaps a chemical attack in your home town.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 14:10:59 +0000

Okay, here goes. I know I’m not going to convince you because you’re already convinced, but here goes. I’m not denying that Sadaam had WMD’s, but according to the UN, the DIA, and every inspection team sent to Iraq, those weapons had been destroyed either by Sadaam himself or during operations during the first gulf war, or by the UN between the years of 1991 and 1998. Again, I’m not claiming that he never had them, but that by all estimates, as much as 95% of it had been destroyed. Sadaam wanted to obtain WMD’s, but couldn’t because of sanctions.

Suspicion of WMD’s is not proof. It’s just some guy saying he thinks that Iraq might be doing something illegal.

The CIA report saying that Iraq was caught smuggling WMD’s has since been proven to have been false intel. I don’t fault Bush for that one. But again, I think it’s pretty flimsy to be invading nations and killing people over. Just my opinion, and I don’t expect it to influence you at all.

The gassed Kurds: there’s a mountain of evidence out now that shows that the Iranians actually gassed the Kurds, not Iraq. Do a google search for “Iran gassed Kurds”, and you’ll find it.

WMD’s hidden in Syria: again there’s no proof. Only suspicion. Suspicion is not proof.

So, all you’ve got is some suspicion and a faulty CIA report. Granted, the CIA report was probably the strongest thing there, and I definitely don’t blame Bush for it. I think maybe we should have second guessed the intel. Maybe we could’ve gotten a second opinion from the UN? I don’t know what really could have been done. I do know that we at least should have had hard evidence before subjecting the entire Iraqi population to genocide.

That’s all I have time for right now. I’ll get to the Iraq-Alqueday connection later.

By: Surfside

Surfside — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:52:54 +0000

Quite impressive and informative. If only the MSM would have done half the work you did, the country would have been better served. Had I not already been convinced, I would be now.

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:54:31 +0000

I’m not ignoring you. I’m having a busy time at work right now. I’ll come in here to “play ball” later on. Good work by the way. I didn’t expect you to actually do it.