WMD Search Final Report: We Found Nothing

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Link'd

In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.

“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.

“As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”

more...
Hear that flushing sound? That's our credibility going down the toilet. 1600 American casualties, $200 billion dollars, and countless Iraqis dead... for what? Ok so the Iraqi people might end up better off because of this. Maybe, years from now. But that's not why we went to war. We went for national security reasons, and from all accounts, this war has made us less safe. Saddam's scientists might hire themselves out to terrorist groups. Thousands of tons of weapons are floating around the region. Our troops are still in harms way. The Iraqi's voted, and 3 months later we still don't have a government. Billions of American taxpayer dollars are being wasted on infrastructure projects. American companies are gouging American taxpayers. Meanwhile Iraqis continue to die at a higher rate than when Saddam was in power. Our international credibility is in tatters. Oil prices are rising due largely to instability in the market.

What have we gained from this war? And when can we bring our soldiers home?
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
mactastic said:
What have we gained from this war?
cynically:
1. war practice
2. 2nd bush term
3. foothold in middle east
4. docile populace
5. increased funding for military contracters (halliburton, carlyle group, bechtel, et. al.)

mission accomplished!
 

PlaceofDis

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,232
4
:::sigh::: i cant believe they let bush go to war in the first place without proof....pathetic

oh and zim you forgot to add the Bush 2.0 got to finish off sadam for his daddy
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
This is what I don't get- Clinton has sex and gets impeached for lying about it. Who gets hurt? His family. Bush lies about WMD and people don't just get hurt, they die. Then the moron gets re-elected. Call me crazy, but isn't this impeachable? BTW- I was no fan of Clinton either.
 

PlaceofDis

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,232
4
leekohler said:
This is what I don't get- Clinton has sex and gets impeached for lying about it. Who gets hurt? His family. Bush lies about WMD and people don't just get hurt, they die. Then the moron gets re-elected. Call me crazy, but isn't this impeachable? BTW- I was no fan of Clinton either.
well technically i dont think bush lied, his agents lied, he was just stupid enough to believe them....hes a moron....
 

ham_man

macrumors 68020
Jan 21, 2005
2,265
0
What bugs me is people cry about genocide in Sudan, but turn a blind eye in Iraq. We should have taken Sadaam down in the Clinton administration...
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
mactastic said:
Hear that flushing sound? That's our credibility going down the toilet. 1600 American casualties, $200 billion dollars, and countless Iraqis dead... for what? Ok so the Iraqi people might end up better off because of this. Maybe, years from now. But that's not why we went to war. We went for national security reasons, and from all accounts, this war has made us less safe. Saddam's scientists might hire themselves out to terrorist groups. Thousands of tons of weapons are floating around the region. Our troops are still in harms way. The Iraqi's voted, and 3 months later we still don't have a government. Billions of American taxpayer dollars are being wasted on infrastructure projects. American companies are gouging American taxpayers. Meanwhile Iraqis continue to die at a higher rate than when Saddam was in power. Our international credibility is in tatters. Oil prices are rising due largely to instability in the market.
Other than that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

BTW, the price tag is at $300 billion now, with the latest appropriations. I believe that works out to roughly $1,000 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. Something to think about in April, when you're writing that check to the U.S. Treasury for services your country has rendered unto its citizens.
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
IJ Reilly said:
that works out to roughly $1,000 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. Something to think about in April, when you're writing that check to the U.S. Treasury for services your country has rendered unto its citizens.
Fear Tax
 

takao

macrumors 68040
Dec 25, 2003
3,825
432
Dornbirn (Austria)
Ham_man said:
What bugs me is people cry about genocide in Sudan, but turn a blind eye in Iraq. We should have taken Sadaam down in the Clinton administration...
you mean Bush sen. right ? he was in charge during the 91 war after all...

(and why was iraq supported during the 80ties anyway huh ?)
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
Ham_man said:
What bugs me is people cry about genocide in Sudan, but turn a blind eye in Iraq. We should have taken Sadaam down in the Clinton administration...
A blind eye... right. Somebody needs to dig out that photo of Don Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand a few years back when he was our best buddy.
 

ham_man

macrumors 68020
Jan 21, 2005
2,265
0
zimv20 said:
are you saying saddam was engaged in genocide?
Genocide - n; systematic, planned annihilation of a political, racial, or cultural group

He did gas the Kurds...
 

ham_man

macrumors 68020
Jan 21, 2005
2,265
0
takao said:
you mean Bush sen. right ? he was in charge during the 91 war after all...

(and why was iraq supported during the 80ties anyway huh ?)
My mistake. The gassings did occur during Bush I. And yes, I do wonder why we supported either Iran or Iraq during their war....
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Ham_man said:
. And yes, I do wonder why we supported either Iran or Iraq during their war....
Commies... that's why. Iran was seen as more closely allied with the USSR so they needed to be checked. It fit nicely into our scheme of meddling in the ME, playing one off the other so they don't form a bloc to oppose us.
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
Its almost funny, lets see all these dudes that attacked us were from Saudi Arabia, A Saudi Judge today is caught telling folks to Jihad yadda yadda yadda against America. We missed the target. Osama was from this country not Iraq. :mad: Politics,etc dont they suck.
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
Ham_man said:
He did gas the Kurds...
If you look back through the archives of this forum, you'll see that this was been debunked long ago.

Here's just one source that pops up from a quick Google.

In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.
The evidence seemed to indicate the gas was from Iranian shells; it was suspected that some landed off target. Never before or since was Iraq accused of using chemical weapons outside of combat.

Regardless, gassing one city one time hardly constitutes the definition of genocide.

Saddam was no Hitler.
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
pseudobrit said:
Regardless, gassing one city one time hardly constitutes the definition of genocide.
yep. saddam committed a lot of atrocities, but afaik genocide was not among them.
 

3rdpath

macrumors 68000
the invasion and subsequent occupation of iraq was never about WMD.

i'm still absolutely amazed that so many people bought that story...but then again i'm amazed when i see people waiting in line to actually pay money to buy a hamburger at mcdonalds.

guess that proves theres a large majority of americans who will gladly swallow any sort of crap put forth. :rolleyes:
 

takao

macrumors 68040
Dec 25, 2003
3,825
432
Dornbirn (Austria)
pseudobrit said:
Saddam was no Hitler.
who ironically didn't use his WMD (hundred thousands tons of Sarin,Soman,Tabun) because he feared that the allies will use them too after he used them and with german cities in bombing distance he didn't want to risk that

actually most people are surprised when they hear that germany _still_ has grenades filled with nerve gas left ... the problem is that they can only be destroyed one after the other with big care (i think they are down to thousand or even hundreds of tons left)
they didn't drop it into the north-sea like the british army did after WW1 ;)