(NFR) WMD's and a little perspective

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Luv2flyfish, May 21, 2004.

  1. I have been reading through all the political garbage on this site and only have to chime in on one thing.

    "13 months later some sarin gas turns up"

    being there, right now, trust me....if you think a couple teams from dag gone washington can sweep every nook and cranny of a COUNTRY and turn up every little hiding place, every card board box, every spider hole, every empty well, house, warehouse, alley way, dumpster, car trunk, foot locker, wardrobe in a country of however many million people.....you are missing it folks.

    13 months may seem like a long time. Let me put this is some sort of perspective on a MUCH smaller scale. Let me go hide my fly rods, all 8 of them, in the greater Seattle area. You go pick 100 of your friends.......and you got one month to go find my fly rods...... There are No other rules. no place that I cant hide them, ANYWHERE in the greater seattle area. If you think the bad guys play by the Washington, CNN rules.....think again!

    155mm artillery shells that are filled with sarin gas are NOT that big. We're not looking for titan missles here folks......we're looking for shoe boxes....that could be hidden ANYWHERE. Do you think the teams from washington that hold the fate of the political world in their hands are out digging in fields. You ever wonder how much shit you hide in the ground when you have time to prepare?

    Oh gee, we didnt find what we were looking for in all the likely spots.....well no sh&^ Sherlock.

    Quite frankly - I dont give a damn if the sarin was from iraq, syria, turkey, or dag gone ice land......I am glad that some was found...and the good guys have it. You guys dont have SHIT to worry about! any damn blast that comes about every day could be some of that sarin that the Washington-Ites DIDNT find cuz it wasnt in the likely spot.....and guess what - My Fly Fishing days are over.

    This is a 3rd world shitty country.......there isnt going to be the mother load that you all expect. This is small scale, not large scale. This is some knuckle head on the road in a huge city with whatever his weapon is. He's got 500 bucks in his pocket and his holy quest in life is to kill an american. Can you say Needles in Hay stacks? And that one knuckle head....he can do alot of damage.

    These people are not stupid by any means. If you could see how their tactics change every single day it would paint a clearer picture.

    Another point - CNN and fox news are NOT the world leaders in FACTUAL information. If people want to know what is really going on, go out and get a strategic level job in this country. Go sit in some top level pentagon, DoD, State Department jobs. Come put on a uniform and be the CJTF-7 Commander. You sift through the intelligence, YOU determine what is actionable and useless, You send out YOUR troops, YOU figure out where the bad guys hide bad stuff, YOU answer all the questions.

    CNN and FOX News dont know a damn thing. They broadcast out nothing but political OPINIONS. The news is sooooo heavy with one side or the other. There is reason that all useful information in this country is not broadcast.

    ITS NOT FOR EVERY CITIZEN TO KNOW!!!! There is a REASON that people have Security Clearances, there is a reason there are CLASSIFIED breifings to the President of the United States, good bad or indifferent.

    I dont know what the hell is going on, Not one single person on this board knows what the hell is going on. We all have opinions. They are like armpits, we all have a couple, and they all stink. And I have just Aired mine out.

    I am going out in a few minutes in this wonderful country to go handle the business. I hope some knuckle head from washington found all the shit on these streets that could kill me at any moment. Oh yeah, dont forget to dig up under the sidewalks and break open the curbs.....they hide things there that go BOOM and kill people. Thats not a very likely spot now is it? Ya just never know what might be a bi-product of that BOOM either.

    Tight Lines!
  2. WMD's and a little perspective

    Thanks for the post.
  3. WMD's and a little perspective

    Thank you for the post,your service,and putting this in perspective for those of us that post our uninformed opinions on this site.I have great respect for you and what you say.I am sure it is much more accurate than anything we get on the news over here.
  4. WMD's and a little perspective

    We know that China and other countries have this stuff. But mummmmmms the word.:beathead
  5. WMD's and a little perspective

    China and other countries are not using it on their citizens and neighbors... Just thought I would point that out.
  6. WMD's and a little perspective

    Luv2FlyFish. Here's something to think about: We've always lived in an uncertain world, we do today, and we will tomorrow. Get used to it. If you want to invade every country with sarin gas, you don't have my vote. Or we could find paths other than Soviet style threats (join us or be demolished). Of course it didn't work for the Soviets. USA is supposed to be different, and the way we are different is taking the high road for the long term. It is tough, but rightious.
  7. WMD's and a little perspective

    We can only look at history and try to learn something from it or be doomed to repeat it.

    Viet Nam (and I was a vetreran of that war) was a humiliating defeat for us--the Communist took over the entire country and we were lucky to evacuate in time to save at east some of our troops and a few friends. Most of our "friends" were executed and our equipment and supplies and air fields and bases were abanadoned.

    I only repeat this to show that what happened in Viet Nam, Camabodia etc. was not very pretty--we gave billions of dollars, money that could have gone to build schools, killed some of our finest citizens, people that would be with us today, and yet we got nothing in return.

    We worry that the same war machine, the industrial military complex, that put that war in motion is putting on the show in Iraq today.

    We do not care to lose again what we lost in Souteast Asia and we want our troops home before we have another "Viet Nam Memorial" were thousands of names are chisled in stone in some grassy vale in Washington, D.C.

    If Iraq decends into a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites and a blood bath goes on for years and we must again pull out with little gained and much lost, we will again be sickened, not at our troops, but at those leaders who started all this up. They will just be out of office. Others will be out of their lives.

    I dearly hope you are not one of these others. Stay safe. You have my full support.

    Bob, the Can't wait till November. :beer2
  8. WMD's and a little perspective

    For me, the issue is that GW Bush declared Iraq an "immediate threat", emphasizing that Iraq could have missles loaded with WMD's within a 45 minute window. The scare tactic used by the Bush administration lead congress to give the president the power to declare war on Iraq. This is only the second time in history that congress has given the president cart blanche on declaring war, the first time was during the Vietnam war. This was a very heated debate in the fall of 2002.

    Documents show that before Bush ever took office, his administration had already decided to invade Iraq. In early 2003, the war began and various journalists were imbedded with the infantry to bring back live reports. America thought we would sustain heavy casualties because Iraq threatened to use WMD's. Within weeks of the invasion, all of our fears melted away as we realized that Iraq did not have the ability to utilize them. Undoubtedly, Saddam would have used them if he had had them.

    Shortly after the first Iraq war, UNSCOM had a team of inspectors in the country. If I'm not mistaken, they were there from 1991 to 1998. There mission was to destroy the capabilities of Iraq from creating WMD's. They documented the destruction of the labs, the chemicals and the means of Iraq to create these weapons. Prior to the war in 2003, the UN inspectors were also on site in Iraq, monitoring and investigating alleged abuses of resolution 687 that Iraq signed prohibiting them from building WMD's. Iraq was contained at this point, they were heavily monitored.

    To further make my point, the Bush administration has now renamed it's mission in Iraq as a mission to "free the Iraqi people". It has done away with it's original name to make this war more appealing to the general public. And while that is probably a good thing, if the U.S. role is to free all nations under tyranny, we've got hundreds still to "invade". To say the argument for this war was due to the threat of the imminent use of WMD's has fallen short is an understatement.

    Let's not forget that just prior to the war with Iraq, North Korea claimed to have 2 nuclear bombs. These claims were verified by scientists working for the UN. For whatever reason, the Bush administration had their sites set on Iraq.

    Scott Ritter was the chief inspector of UNSCOM in 1998. He was very much against the invasion of Iraq because of his knowledge that Iraq could not have built WMD's in the short time since UNSCOM left the country. Iraq did not have the labs or the means to have built WMD's. Here is an article in which he was interviewed in the fall of 2002. Scott would very much be in the know about chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and his claim is "'Even if Iraq managed to hide these weapons, what they are now hiding is harmless goo" Here is the full story:


    Certainly, nobody on this board or anyhere knows all that there is to know on this topic. However, some of us are pretty informed. We're also critical and skeptical of the U.S. because of what we've witnessed in our lifetimes.

    And while I support you and the rest of the US Troops in Iraq, I don't believe we should be there or that our cause for this invasion was justified. Furthermore, I can't blame the insurgents for rising up against this invasion as we would do the same thing in this country if the roles were reversed.

    Steve Buckner
  9. WMD's and a little perspective


    Despite being one of those who is opposed to the war in Iraq, I totally appreciate your perspective. And one thing we liberals refuse to be is close minded (A closed mind is the antithesis of liberalism). So your reports on the state of affairs over there provide valuable insight. You're absolutely correct about no one knowing what the hell is going on. So please don't let the anti-war armpits you find on these nfr posts discourage you. Taken as a whole, the differing opinions, historical perspectives, and occassional facts can help us all to become more enlightened and understanding of opposing views.

    Thanks for all your efforts, and I hope you're back fishing on your home waters soon. In the mean-time, we'll be sure and save a few fish for you.

  10. WMD's and a little perspective


    After eight years in the Army myself, I don’t have anything to say about your job over there. I wish I could fit back into my BDU’s and run around with you in the back of some Hummer on patrol. You and I both know what we singed up for, to kill as many Godless son of a b!tches that we can find. I miss the bond of a squad, you’re closer than brothers and watching out for each others ass. I wish I were with you.

    But sitting back here in the world, I’m pissed at George because he is an incompetent ass. Now I know your gung ho and don’t like people talking bad about your boss, but 130,000 troops for a country that size is ridiculous. Maybe 350,000 or better. And I don’t mean those losers in the rear, I mean 350,000 pissed off infantry, sweeping through the streets at will in fully armored vehicles. This half assed effort will get us nowhere. They’re never going to love us so showering them hugs and kisses ain’t going to get us squat. After nabbing Saddam, I think you guys should have march ordered and drove straight through Iran, Afghanistan and into Pakistan. After all, It was Bin Laden we were after to begin with and the bastard is still out there. There are 3000 souls still there where the twin towers used to be, screaming for Justice. If we are not going to give 110 percent of our resources, then we should get the hell out of there. Or at least be in the right country.

    I voted for Bush because I thought he would kill them all and then 9/11 came. In the process, he has destroyed everything the Demos had built and still hasn’t got Bin Laden hanging on the fence of the white house. So screw him, I’m going back to voting Demo.

    I wish I was there with you brother.

    Matt Burke
  11. WMD's and a little perspective

    News flash in today's paper: looks like the administration's primary source of information alleging WMDs in the first place was an agent of the Iranian intelligence services. The 'documents' adminsitraion confidant Ahmed Chalibi presented to Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz that 'verified' Saddam's WMD's existence were likely forgeries funneled to the gullible neo-cons by the Iranians, still smarting from their bloody 1980s war with Iraq.

  12. WMD's and a little perspective

    Another example of incompetence. Just keep your head low luv2flyfish so we go fishing when you get back.

    Matt Burke
  13. WMD's and a little perspective

    Thanks for finding that. This will be more bad news for the Bush Administration. GW Bush should get the same treatment for invading Iraq as Saddam got for invading Kuwait. GW Bush and Rumsfeld should stand trial for their attrocities.

    Once again, our government has lied to the U.S. and the world...sad indeed.

    Steve Buckner
  14. WMD's and a little perspective

    "for those of us that post our uninformed opinions on this site"

    That could go either way. Only history will prove out who's less wrong.
  15. WMD's and a little perspective

    One thing is clear...this forum has a number of "conspiracy theorists" who think they are informed and who say they know the facts, when in reality they are not and do not. At least I admit right up front that I don't know anything more than what I've read and heard in a variety of biased media, and unless I had spent the last year working as a staffer in the Pentagon or as a soldier deployed in Iraq, I'm not supposed to be in the know.

    So how do these guys respond to a cogent statement from the WFF member in the best position to comment on the whole situation? They gloss right over what he said and continue trying establish some high-level conspiracy to get us into war, and they keep spewing the same old anti-Bush rhetoric.

    I was glad to hear from Iraq this morning, and I was especially glad to get the feeling that our troops still feel there's an important job to be done. As I've said before, I think the President, based on all the information he possessed at the time, truly believed that it was America's duty to act and that his actions, though certainly subject to debate, have been taken in good faith. I also agree, however, that we owe it to the troops to do any and every thing necessary to aid in completing the mission and getting them back home as soon as possible.
  16. WMD's and a little perspective

    >>"...and I was especially glad to get the feeling that our troops still feel there's an important job to be done."


    I'm particularly distressed by people who make statements about the war being a self-serving contrivance of the "war machine"; the entire mission being an effort in futility on par with Vietnam; and the Commander in Chief being a moron -- and then following up such statements with "I support our troops." Supporting our troops means a helluva lot more than just wanting them to come home alive. Every American wants that. I can't think of anything less supportive of our troops than telling our boys that their commander is an idiot and their efforts are futile at best and complicit in war crimes at worst.:reallymad

    Sorry everybody. I'm just pissed off because I couldn't go fishing today (will T-ball season ever end?). I'm going to sit down and try to write something funny.

    I told myself I was going to take a break from these threads...
  17. WMD's and a little perspective

    >For me, the issue is that GW Bush declared Iraq an
    >"immediate threat",

    President Bush NEVER declared Iraq an "immediate threat". In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush said that Iraq must be stopped BEFORE it became an immediate threat.

    If you disagree, please show a transcript of any speach by the President stating otherwise.

    >Documents show that before Bush ever took office, his
    >administration had already decided to invade Iraq.

    How does an administration decide on something BEFORE there is even said administration??? In the 1990's, some of the people who would later become part of the current administration, wrote a policy paper saying that the best interests of the US and Middle East would be served by Saddam's removal.

    This policy, part of the PNAC papers, was presented to President Clinton who acted upon it by declaring Iraqi regime change to be official American foreign policy. Clinton further acted on this policy by bombing Iraqi targets for four days in December 1998, using thousands of missles and bombs launched by British and American forces. According to Iraq, thousands were killed.

    By the way, Clinton neither seeked nor obtained UN "approval" for this action.

    >America thought we would sustain heavy casualties
    >because Iraq threatened to use WMD's.

    Why did we anticipate "heavy casualties" if President Bush "lied" and we "knew" that Iraq had no WMD's?

    Every credible source felt certain that Iraq still had signifigant quantities of WMD's, including France, the UN, Bill Clinton and John Kerry.

    >Undoubtedly, Saddam would have used them if he
    >had had them.

    Why? Saddam still had a large army but he refused to send it out to fight. Maybe Saddam hid them in anticipation that the American resolve would falter and he would resume power at a later date. Appart from Saddam resumming power, the faltering of resolve is becomming more and more apparent unfortunately.

    >Let's not forget that just prior to the war with Iraq,
    >North Korea claimed to have 2 nuclear bombs. These
    >claims were verified by scientists working for the UN.
    >For whatever reason, the Bush administration had their
    >sites set on Iraq.

    Would you prefer a nuclear war to what is happening in Iraq? Unfortunately, due to Clinton's failure to prevent N. Korea's from building the nukes, our options with N. Korea are severely limited unless we wish to see Seoul vaporized.

    Clinton prefered the "negotiation and sanction" approach to N. Korea's nuclear program. It was a miserable failure. It is my belief that the eventual outcome in Iraq would have been the same if we had continued with the sanctions in Iraq. This can be backed up by the fact that Libya was near completion of it's nuclear weapons program despite 20 years of sanctions.

    Contrary to your belief, Saddam was NOT contained. The facts coming out regarding the corruption of the "Food for Oil" program prove this. The sanctions against Iraq were constantly being violated and some European nations and many in this nations political left were calling for elimination of the sanctions. It was only a matter of time before it was "business as usual" for Saddam.

    If President Bush had failed to act and Iraq had developed nuclear weapons, Democrats would be calling for Bush's impeachment. Most conservatives, myself included, would also have been irate.
    >Scott Ritter was the chief inspector of UNSCOM in
    >1998. He was very much against the invasion of Iraq
    >because of his knowledge that Iraq could not have built
    >WMD's in the short time since UNSCOM left the country.

    Scott Ridder has absolutely NO credibility what so ever! Prior to 2000, he was stating that Iraq still had massive quantities of WMD. Only AFTER he accepted money from Iraqi sources to make a "documentary" did he change his tune.

    >Certainly, nobody on this board or anyhere knows all
    >that there is to know on this topic.

    On that, we both can agree!

    >Furthermore, I can't blame the insurgents for rising up >against this invasion as we would do the same thing in >this country if the roles were reversed.

    How sad! If the roles were reversed, I would be fighting on the side that was attempting to bring some semblance of democracy to the nation. Not the side that was trying to return it to a murderous dictatorship.
  18. WMD's and a little perspective

  19. WMD's and a little perspective

    got to agree with cactus. i didn't vote for bush and haven't voted republican since i was 18 and voted for nixon x( although gw is looking more and more incompent(and more importantly the guys who run him are looking more and more like fools) they took the right path. dicking around with these guys has not worked and 9/11 proved that. butt kicking is the only way to deal with them. it's just looking like the current administration is not capable of doing it. niether are the democrats and that is a sad commentary. we need a real leader like rome needed another julius caesar. my nephew just left iraq and i hope the rest can follow soon. this is not a part of the world which has ever been at peace for long and it is unfortunate that we are dependent upon it for our energy supply. as long as that dependence exists we will have no peace either.
  20. WMD's and a little perspective

    Per your request, I've included a laundry list of quotes from Bush, Dick Cheney, White House Spokesman Scott McClellan and others stating that Iraq posed an "imminent threat". GW Bush and his administration also used other synonymous phrases such as "mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat", "serious and mounting threat", "unique threat," .

    You are correct that he does not mention an imminent threat during his state of the Union address, these quotes were made in addition to that speech, most of them to get congress to turn over the power of declaring war on Iraq.

    "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
    • President Bush, 10/2/02

    "This is about imminent threat."
    • White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

    "There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
    • President Bush, 10/2/02

    "This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
    • President Bush, 9/26/02

    "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
    • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

    "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
    • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

    Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
    • Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

    Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
    • Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

    Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
    • Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

    "Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
    • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

    "Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
    • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

    "The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
    • President Bush, 1/3/03

    "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
    • President Bush, 11/23/02

    "I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
    • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

    "Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
    • President Bush, 11/3/02

    "I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
    • President Bush, 11/1/02

    "There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
    • President Bush, 10/28/02

    "The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
    • President Bush, 10/16/02

    "There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
    • President Bush, 10/7/02

    "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
    • President Bush, 10/2/02

    "Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
    • Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

    So why did we anticipate heavy casualties? Because in Bush's state of the union address, he mentions the quantity of weapons that Iraq supposedly had. Here is the quote from his January 2003 State of the Union Speech:

    "The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

    The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

    Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

    U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them."

    13 months later, how much have we found?

    I will concede that I was unaware that Ritter did change his story. Thank you for enlightening me on that.

    Steve Buckner

Share This Page