Go to Fahrenheit 911 - pros and cons
- Add a comment
- Go to WMDs? Or no WMDs?
Thanks for the news! That's good to know, but the fact that shells found earlier did test positive for Sarin proves the point. It doesn't take much of that stuff to do a lot of harm. Even if it was degraded when found, at some point in time it wasn't.
I truly hope you are right, that there are no more WMDs. But given the Baathist history of using chemical weapons, it is foolish to assume that no more exist.
posted by
WriterofLight
on July 8, 2004 at 6:04 PM
| link to this | reply
AN UPDATE...
From the Seattle Times online: (Perhaps you need to update?)
Saturday, July 03, 2004 - Page updated at 02:10 A.M.
Iraq Notebook
Shells free of chemicals
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Contrary to preliminary reports, 16 rocket warheads found last week in south-central Iraq by Polish troops did not contain deadly chemicals, a coalition spokesman said yesterday.
The Coalition Press Information Center in Baghdad, Iraq, said in a statement that the 122-mm rocket rounds, which initially showed traces of sarin, "were all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals."
The release also said that two other 122-mm rounds, found June 16 by the Poles, had tested positive for small quantities of sarin but were "so deteriorated ... (as) to have limited to no impact if used by insurgents against coalition forces."
posted by
Katray2
on July 5, 2004 at 6:20 PM
| link to this | reply
Thanks for reading! As I've noted elsewhere, WMDs were part of the reason, not the sole reason. More parts of the reason included removal of the Baathist regime, liberation of the Iraqi people and installation of a democratic government in Iraq, removal of a key source of funding and support for terrorists, and stabilizing the Middle East. A side benefit of the invasion was that it has lured terrorists from throughout the region to meet their doom there rather than giving them opportunity to attack innocent people elsewhere.
Of course Sadaam was never going to invade the US. It's preposterous to assume that he was. Doing so was simply beyond Iraq's capability, somewhere in the realms of the old Peter Sellers politcal farce The Mouse that Roared. However: Sadaam and the Baathists were in league with terrorists, as demonstrated by terrorist raining facilities found in Iraq, Sadaam's bankrolling of suicide bombers, and his openly sheltering Abu Nibal; Sadaam was unequivocal in his desire to harm Americans and American interests, as demonstrated by official rejoicing over the September 11th act of war; and he was totally committed to destabilizing the Middle East, as demonstrated by his rationale for invading Kuwait (restoring Iraqi borders, reasserting Iraqi sovereignty over the "dogs," etc.)
posted by
WriterofLight
on July 5, 2004 at 6:04 PM
| link to this | reply
Liberals & WMD
I suppose I'm a liberal? I'm not so sure liberals are obsessed with not finding WMD as they are with the lies that took us to Iraq. Saddam was NEVER going to invade the U.S. There are people out there who think that Saddam was going to "come here." BS!!! Total BS. Anyway I hate politics!
posted by
Taffy000
on July 4, 2004 at 9:09 PM
| link to this | reply
I've read news reports about this...
but haven't seen one thing about it on TV, of course. After painting the Bush Adm. as lying, oil hungry warmongers, they're not gonna hand deliver his October surprise for him. That'll come after Kerry is elected(God forbid)...
posted by
AnCatubh
on July 4, 2004 at 12:57 PM
| link to this | reply
WMD's DO exist!
The WMD's found by the Polish army is the second batch located. And you're "write" that the terrorists were after them because they wanted to use them against us.
Also, Lonebutt will never admit that removing a dictator who killed millions of his own people was the right thing to do. She likely "feels" removing Hitler was also a mistake.
She's the side of terrorists who want to cut her head off.... hey, there's a thought!
DAE
posted by
DEMSareEVIL
on July 3, 2004 at 1:19 PM
| link to this | reply
And why do right wingers like you still cling desperately to the discredited WMD argument OVER A YEAR AFTER THE BUSHIES DECIDED TO BOMB IRAQ WITH THEIR OWN WMD, insisting against all UN evidence to the contrary that they had the right to do so? I mean, even centrist Clinton commented that they should have let the UN inspectors complete their job before going in. Even if evidence of WMD were found now, that's no excuse for bombing a country on a mere hunch. There's no ethical excuse for preemptive war, my dear. And you should realize by now, unless you're mighty naive, that WMD were never the reason for invading Iraq to begin with. It was just a pretext. They had to think of something to justify it and fool the public.
posted by
lonebutte
on July 3, 2004 at 11:46 AM
| link to this | reply