Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq: Foxnews.com

[luckydevil]

For me, we should stop arguing about WHY we are there in the first place...WE ARE THERE...so let's figure out how best to finish this job, which is at this point to leave a stable Iraq that can govern itself, and bring our troops home.

Yeah, you are right. We can't go back in time.

[ZoEd]

The problem, and what frustrates me the most. Is that EVERYBODY who argues in these threads, in the news, and on T.V. is more concerned about who is RIGHT, and who is WRONG instead of how best to handle the situation, and our problems. We can't even get past arguing about whether or not the war was justified to begin with. How is that helping us deal with the current state of affairs in Iraq? For me, we should stop arguing about WHY we are there in the first place...WE ARE THERE...so let's figure out how best to finish this job, which is at this point to leave a stable Iraq that can govern itself, and bring our troops home. If our best thinkers put as much effort into how best to bring a successful conclusion to this campaign as they do arguing about why we are even involved in this campaign, we could have re-invented the wheel by now.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!

[Commander PK]

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!

Same to you. :applause: Excellent post above, and basically exactly what I was trying to say as well.

[twa]

The problem, and what frustrates me the most. Is that EVERYBODY who argues in these threads, in the news, and on T.V. is more concerned about who is RIGHT, and who is WRONG instead of how best to handle the situation, and our problems. We can't even get past arguing about whether or not the war was justified to begin with. How is that helping us deal with the current state of affairs in Iraq? For me, we should stop arguing about WHY we are there in the first place...WE ARE THERE...so let's figure out how best to finish this job, which is at this point to leave a stable Iraq that can govern itself, and bring our troops home. If our best thinkers put as much effort into how best to bring a successful conclusion to this campaign as they do arguing about why we are even involved in this campaign, we could have re-invented the wheel by now.

Well said. :applause:

[luckydevil]

For me, we should stop arguing about WHY we are there in the first place...WE ARE THERE...so let's figure out how best to finish this job, which is at this point to leave a stable Iraq that can govern itself, and bring our troops home.

I just want to add

I am worried that some in the administration are interested in setting up a permanent military base, rather than leaving.

[Redskins Diehard]

:applause: :applause: :applause:

I don't want to be left out. Too bad there isn't a circle---- smiley!

Just kidding. Good points, you know who you are that made them

[Redskins Diehard]

I just want to add

I am worried that some in the administration are interested in setting up a permanent military base, rather than leaving.

Well you probably are correct. Whether or not it is something to worry about or not is another thread. Look no further than Korea and Germany and Bosnia and Kosovo for precedent

[Commander PK]

:applause: :applause: :applause:

I don't want to be left out. Too bad there isn't a circle---- smiley!

Just kidding. Good points, you know who you are that made them

Nice...

:laugh: :applause:

[ZoEd]

I just want to add

I am worried that some in the administration are interested in setting up a permanent military base, rather than leaving.

Don't worry it's a fact. That's all I do, build bases and I'm going back for my third trip in April for another 7 months. What's that tell you? We'll be there for a while as an occupying force. Not in the current numbers but I think Iraq will be our hub for future ME op's.

[Commander PK]

I just want to add

I am worried that some in the administration are interested in setting up a permanent military base, rather than leaving.

That may be. Would it be in our country's best interest to do so? Probably not in the very long term. I could see a situation where an American military presence is in Iraq, to some degree, for several years to come. A hugely scaled back presence. It may take some time for Iraq's elected government to gain total control, and cooperation from all groups. To get the Sunni's, Shiites, Kurds, and the radicals like Al Sadr on the bandwagon. If an American military presence in Iraq, helps the country maintain control...even if it takes let's say...a decade. I'm all for it. If our goals in Iraq cannot be accomplished without such a base, then I'd rather have the base then fail in Iraq. We must do, what we must to win.

The objectives in Iraq since 2003 to now, may or may not have changed, depending on your point of view, but for me right now there is clear objective. Help the Iraqi government defeat the insurgency, and allow an Iraqi style democracy to blossom. It is in the best interest of the American people that we succeed to that end.

[ZoEd]

Painkiller where have you been all my life? :notworthy It seems that you keep taking the words right out of my mouth. You wouldn't happen to be a 5'8" blonde with blue eyes, size 3/4 who likes to hunt and fish would you?

Seriously, we're going to be there for a while. We've encountered problems lately getting permission from Turkey to fly in their air space. We've completely pulled out of Saudi. That leaves UAE and Kuwait. We need real estate. We've also built several bases in Afghanistan, guess what that means, Iran we have you surrounded.

[Johnny Punani2]

They have probably adjusted that now, but before the war, Nukes were the only WMD's... I've got 2 family members in the military and both have indicated that as such, one's a marine, the other is in the army. 60 minutes did a spot on that as well about 2 years ago.

they are both stupid or either full of crap. WMDs include Chemical/Biological/Nuclear Weapons and that was when I was in the USAF for 5 years in the early/mid 90s.

[Seabee1973]

Were these the WMDs that we were seeking? I've always asked and pondered how come it hasn't been pointed out that many of the WMDs would actually be bad due to the age and sitting in the desert. I'd like to read more to see if we are actually finding great stockpiles of newer and read-to-use WMDs. Those would be the more significant finds...

If Republicans said the war is now about the War on Terror, than I would say it's that particular party that has changed its tune, which has been the point of some folks.

its always been about the war on terror rember after 9-11 bush named teh axis of evil. afghanistan Irag Iran North korea and one or 2 other countries

[Seabee1973]

That is a lie, and not true. The chemicals are no longer ACTIVE!!! You can't "re-activate" chemicals by causing an explosion :doh: Once the shelf life expires, the chemicals are no longer dangerous!!!!

Do you not understand this?

And why would the UN lift sanctions? You are basing an argument after the fact, and it is a joke.

1. Saddam did not have an active WMD program

2. The only weapons around were inactive post gulf war I bombs which are not even WMDs.

3. Saddam MAY have started a WMD program in the FUTURE IF the sanctions were lifted.

Do you honestly think the American public would have backed a war based on this info?

So uranium which is radio active and has a 4.5million some odd year shelf life canr be re-activated it does not take much to re-activate sarin gas with the right explosion even if it has been sitting for years.

The Battalion before I went to Adak alaska found buried Naplam from WW2 that was past its shelf life they were lucky that they didnt hit the canisters right

[herrmag]

I was just thinking how a lot of the same folks who use the U.N. sanctions as a reason to go in there. Are the same folks who say the U.N. are a bunch of worthless parking ticket avoiding jerks and we should kick them out of the United States.

Guess their sanctions and existence are only needed sometimes

Bufford, I respect your opinion because you tend to not join either side (although some call you a liberal looney ) . However, see my post about the '91 war. We backed down, and agreed to the UN sanctions ( a CEASE FIRE) because we thought the terms would be upheld, and if not, the UN (including us) would react. However, the UN did not. We could've kept marching all the way to Baghdad while the Iraqi troops were running for cover (or surrendering, intentionally...Remember the story of Iraqi troops pulling a stuck US jeep out, and then surrendering immediately without a shot fired?)

The inspections were a failure. The very SECOND the inspectors were not granted full access to any facility is the day we should have gone after Saddam. We waited too long, and had NO support. Who's to blame for that? We might be just as culpable as the rest of the UN. But it obviously wasn't on Clinton's agenda to give a flying F. Sorry, I know ppl are sensitive to Clinton, and I'm not going out of my way to go after him. One of the greatest diplomats and public speakers in our great nation's history.

[chomerics]

I just want to add

I am worried that some in the administration are interested in setting up a permanent military base, rather than leaving.

I agree, and as long as we are in Iraq, it will be a hotbed for terrorism, and we will continue to make more terrorists.

Painkiller, I agree with your sentament wholeheartedly, but it will never happen in this climate. The current politics in the nation is HORRIBLE, and our leader has done nothing except divide our country in two. Blatent disregard for human rights, and wanton recklesness in regards to impearialistic dillutions of grandeur have made us the bad guys in the entire worlds eyes. Rather then simply becoming a realist about the situation, the presidents cabinet going around giving speeches about straw men, and telling all how the democrats are all the worlds problems. It is "the architect" who polarizes the country with speeches, and "riles up the base" to the point of utter lunacy.

BTW, you DO see a few people actually debating the issues, if you want to hear what I think should be done in Iraq, I will tell you. It has been said before ad nauseum, but if it happens, it would be akin to Bush admitting a mistake. . .something he could never do.

[TradeTheBeal!]

So, I guess we can expect the rest of the world to do a 180 and praise our war of aggression. Cause, ya know, Saddam was a freedom-hating madman bent on nerve-gassing the European Union...not to mention all that deadly anthrax!!

Clearly, GW Bush and his policies have SAVED so many lives since he became pres, that history will need 50 years to begin to appreciate his greatness.

[Thiebear]

So, I guess we can expect the rest of the world to do a 180 and praise our war of aggression. Cause, ya know, Saddam was a freedom-hating madman bent on nerve-gassing the European Union...not to mention all that deadly anthrax!!

Clearly, GW Bush and his policies have SAVED so many lives since he became pres, that history will need 50 years to begin to appreciate his greatness.

Considering 75% of the world is dictatorship I'd have to say they probably frown on the overthrowing of dictators no matter the reason in public. And in private when that OTHER dictator irritates them..

Saddam was a freedom hating madman.. then you lost focus with the EU...

GW Bush / the Military / SA / Pakistan / FBI / Lebanon / Afghanistan / and 35+ other countries will probably save countless lives when we look back and realize they no longer have a bank account or country to act from autonomously..

Again: Sarcasm is great if used correctly, going to have to work on your delivery though.

[MaddogCT]

So uranium which is radio active and has a 4.5million some odd year shelf life canr be re-activated it does not take much to re-activate sarin gas with the right explosion even if it has been sitting for years.

The Battalion before I went to Adak alaska found buried Naplam from WW2 that was past its shelf life they were lucky that they didnt hit the canisters right

Uranium:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium

Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA [1], in 1989 the Iraqis destroyed 40 or more tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks owing mostly to impure precursors.

Like other nerve agents, Sarin can be chemically deactivated with a strong alkali. Typically an 18 percent aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide is used to destroy Sarin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960715/72569.htm

Napalm:

http://tchester.org/fb/issues/napalm.html

:logo:

[TradeTheBeal!]

Considering 75% of the world is dictatorship I'd have to say they probably frown on the overthrowing of dictators no matter the reason in public. And in private when that OTHER dictator irritates them..

Saddam was a freedom hating madman.. then you lost focus with the EU...

GW Bush / the Military / SA / Pakistan / FBI / Lebanon / Afghanistan / and 35+ other countries will probably save countless lives when we look back and realize they no longer have a bank account or country to act from autonomously..

Again: Sarcasm is great if used correctly, going to have to work on your delivery though.

Sarcasm is a girl that is too pretty for you, partner...she doesn't dance with party-boys these days. You should keep her name out of your mouth.

I was going for satire. Apparently, so were you..again, not at your disposal. Both satire and sarcasm (in this context) require a firm political foundation of populist ideology and executive restraint. This, for us all, is sadly lacking.

Dictionary.com makes a fine moderator at this point...http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Fascism.

You are committed and loyal to your party. You deserve better...so does the USA!

[Thiebear]

Sarcasm is a girl that is too pretty for you, partner...she doesn't dance with party-boys these days. You should keep her name out of your mouth.

I was going for satire. Apparently, so were you..again, not at your disposal. Both satire and sarcasm (in this context) require a firm political foundation of populist ideology and executive restraint. This, for us all, is sadly lacking.

Dictionary.com makes a fine moderator at this point...http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Fascism.

You are committed and loyal to your party. You deserve better...so does the USA!

I left my party: They suck.... they dismantled the ethics committee, they spend like Paris Hilton on crack and they don't deserve to be in a leadership position as once they got it they decided to spend all their time just hanging on to power.. Nice try though...

I also have 2 children as a single dad, the party days are long gone...

You should change your title to red herring... which part of my quoted text did you feel was satire?

[Larry]

What was the end result?

1) Now you're talking about (one) civil war, 100 years later. But the subject was Iraq, and whether they're better off now vs. under Saddam. Yeah, 100 years from now, they might be better off than if they hadn't paid this price right now.

2) Are you claiming to posess some divine insight as to what Iraq will look like 100 years from now? Cause if you want to discuss "maybe"s you'll need to find some other people who can predict the future, too.

3) Just my personal opinion: I really don't trust people who think they can justify a war with "they'll thank me, someday."

[@DCGoldPants]

Bufford, I respect your opinion because you tend to not join either side (although some call you a liberal looney ) . However, see my post about the '91 war. We backed down, and agreed to the UN sanctions ( a CEASE FIRE) because we thought the terms would be upheld, and if not, the UN (including us) would react. However, the UN did not. We could've kept marching all the way to Baghdad while the Iraqi troops were running for cover (or surrendering, intentionally...Remember the story of Iraqi troops pulling a stuck US jeep out, and then surrendering immediately without a shot fired?)

The inspections were a failure. The very SECOND the inspectors were not granted full access to any facility is the day we should have gone after Saddam. We waited too long, and had NO support. Who's to blame for that? We might be just as culpable as the rest of the UN. But it obviously wasn't on Clinton's agenda to give a flying F. Sorry, I know ppl are sensitive to Clinton, and I'm not going out of my way to go after him. One of the greatest diplomats and public speakers in our great nation's history.

all I know is that Bush 41 knew that going in Baghdad without a clear and defined exit strategy, would be a mistake. Now his wisdom is showing true.

[Larry]

I just want to add

I am worried that some in the administration are interested in setting up a permanent military base, rather than leaving.

Oh, C'mon.

I've been hearing people for over a year claiming that bases were the primary reason we went in the first place.

(Side note: Ever since we started this war, the administration has reminded me of Maxwell Smart: "You'll never win, Ziegfreid! The entire 82nd Airborne is only moments behind me." (Ziegfreid shakes his head.) "Would you believe, a company of Marines?" (Ziegfreid smiles.) "How about three angry Girl Scouts?". I get this impression every time I watch them, still throwing out different answers to "Why did we go to war?", trying to find one that the voters will buy.)

Many members of the reason-of-the-month club have been trying to get traction with the idea that Bush knew all along that Afghanistan and Iraq weren't threats, but he knew that four years down the road, Iran would be a threat, and so these wars are really a brilliantly-executed flanking attack that was executed because Bush predicted the real threat years in advance.

-----

On a more practical note, I confess I have trouble figuring out why we need a base in Iraq. Maybe it's just me, but I was under the impression that Kuwait really owes us, big time. (Something to do with the fact that if it weren't for us, their country wouldn't exist right now.)

I'd think that if we wanted 1/3 of the feraking country on a 99-year lease, they'd really have to give it to us.

Yeah, Iraq is a more central location than Kuwait, and has a lot more empty sand. But to me, if I had to pick a base in Iraq, at the price of a war, followed by decades of occupation (and the coresponding bad feelings), or a base in Kuwait, without all of the "startup costs", I'd settle for Kuwait.

[TradeTheBeal!]

I left my party: They suck.... they dismantled the ethics committee, they spend like Paris Hilton on crack and they don't deserve to be in a leadership position as once they got it they decided to spend all their time just hanging on to power.. Nice try though...

Getting closer...

I also have 2 children as a single dad, the party days are long gone...

The "party" I was referring to was your political party. I accused you of regurgitating partisan dogma. BTW, I am a 36YO single father with a son that turns 17 in August...the party days are NOT long gone, IMO.

You should change your title to red herring... which part of my quoted text did you feel was satire?

Red Herring? Try true believer.

This part of your text, this broad list of states/nations/agencies "and 35+ other countries!" for me, lapsed into satire. Primarily because it was in response to a far-fetched,satirical accusation on my behalf.