Just two months ago

[Donut]

This thread started just over two months ago

Interesting how things have changed. Notice how the warmongers have no doubt that weapons of mass destructions are there to be discovered. Note there little talk of freeing the Iraqis from a vicious dictator. It's all justified because the WoMD are there and he is prepared to use them against us.

No talk of human rights violations - just taunts about apologies that haven't been given.

WoMD may yet turn up in Iraq, but it's interesting how the goalposts were moved in the past two months, both in Washington, London and on IW.

[Donut]

I tried to edit the 'offending' word Thoran but I get a message to say 'Sorry, the time to edit your post has elapsed' or somelike.

I guess Z has changed the settings because of people deleting their threads.

Perhaps you could imagine it says 'pro-war' and then address my point.

[Grojlach]

Donut, you read my mind. That was exactly what I was wondering as well when I read some people's comments in the "where are the WoMD?" topic this afternoon. Thanks! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Donut: I tried to edit the 'offending' word Thoran but I get a message to say 'Sorry, the time to edit your post has elapsed' or somelike. I guess Z has changed the settings because of people deleting their threads. Perhaps you could imagine it says 'pro-war' and then address my point.

No problem...

Well, I didn't respond in that thread, but my response to the question is that while I thought (and still believe) there are Chem/Bio and possibly Radiological weapons in Iraq, I never really thought the war was about WOMD's. It seemed to me that the President was using the existance of these weapons as a justification for action, but the minor threat posed to the US by these devices IMO didn't justify action... I always thought Bush had other reasons for the war (which I hope he tells us someday).

My support for the war wasn't based on the short term risk of Saddam and his WOMD's, but rather a combination of the long term risk (which IMO was significant) and the potential benefits to his country and the world of his removal. Another factor in my opinion was that he was reachable. 12 years of refusal to follow UN resolutions left him vulnerable to attack... and I credit Bush for taking action even though I think the downside risk far outweighs the upside potential for him personally.

As far as the change in administration focus, you can believe whatever you will... perhaps it's spin, perhaps it's the real reasons Bush did this coming out. Who knows, and no doubt people will believe what they want based on their own position. Doesn't really matter I think... what's important is what is done going forward (which I'm not too optimistic about thus far).

[Donut]

The situation in Britain is different. Blair categorically sold the war to the British Parliament on the basis of WoMD being an immininent and direct threat to us in Britain. He claimed that the WoMD could be readied and used within 45 minutes!!!

What they said about weapons of mass destruction:

“If we know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him?” “It (Iraq regime) possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons . . . we know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX gas”
George Bush, October 7, 2002

“We are dealing with a very real threat today, that of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction”
Geoff Hoon, March 10, 2003

“His (Saddam Hussein’s) regime has large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weaponsand he has an active programme to acquire and develop nuclear weapons”
Donald Rumsfeld, January 20, 2003

“Every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.

“In fact, they (Iraqi regime) can produce enough dry biological agent in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people. “Saddam Hussein has never accounted for vast amounts of chemical weaponry: 550 artillery shells with mustard, 30,000 empty munitions, and enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents. If we consider just one category of missing weaponry, 6,500 bombs from the Iran-Iraq war. . . Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tonnes of chemical-weapons agent. Even the low end of 100 tonnes of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly five times the size of Manhattan”
Colin Powell, address to the UN Security Council, February 5, 2003

“It is right (going to war) because weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, are a real threat to the security of the world and this country”
Tony Blair, House of Commons, January 15, 2003

“What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme.

His (Saddam Hussein’s) military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them.”
Tony Blair, Foreword to Iraq “dossier”


Who moved the goalposts Tone?

And why didn't Saddam use them when he was attacked?