nikkipornoface

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

I'm not saying this is definitive proof, but it certainly brings the arguement back to the table

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq...ey_Findings.pdf

shade23z

Definitely interesting stuff. Regarding Iraqi topics other than WMD, here's an interesting article I found about Saddam's reign of terror - prepared while Clinton was still in office.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm#impact

If only our government didn't rush to judgement and just would have let the U.N. do it's job!

Jimi

Very interesting, however.... it only says that he WANTED the sanctions lifted. "The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions"

All this paper says is that they planned on producing nuclear and other WMDs when UN sanctions were lifted. It doesn't even lead to any assumption that there may have been WMDs in Iraq this whole time. It's an overview of what Hussein wanted with his regime during and after the UN sanctions were in effect.

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be found."

This is from your own "evidence".

nikkipornoface

Hey Jimi-
I think you need to learn to read. What did I say before the link? Did I mention "evidence"?

Again, blind hatred rears its' head

Jimi

Learn to read? What is this topic about? You did say it wasn't "definitive proof". However, you said it "brings things back to the table", basically saying that it is showing some kind of loose evidence that could be implied as Iraq having WMDs, when, in fact, it says the opposite.

Leave the insults somewhere else. If you want to get defensive, do it by proving me wrong, not by insult.

Esco

No need to get personal. Isn't the whole point of posting something controversial is to generate some constructive discussion. If you were hoping for comments that only supported your position you should have never posted this to begin with.

nikkipornoface

No, I was looking for comments that did not insinuate things.

Jimi-
You put evidence in quotes. That techniques is used to quote something that has been previously said. Since I never said evidence in my post, you assumed that I meant this as evidence.
Next, this article has all kinds of information. Some supporting the claim of WMD, some questioning that claim. To dismiss all supporting claims while trumpeting questioning claims is foolish. You do that here.
Fact is, I post this article to show that the discussion on Iraq and WMDs might not be as dead as people say. This article proves my point that the discussion is not dead...hence the "brings the arguement back to the table" comment.

Constructive discussion is only valuable when people take into account the information that is present and not information that is insinuated.

Therefore, part of Jimi's post is valuable while the other part is based purely on bias and insinuation.

If I wanted a discussion based on insinuations, I would have used loaded words and a loaded article. Since I did not do that, I would appreciate it if the insinuations could be left for another time