Was it just a mistake?

[Varentao]

Yeah, heard it on the news earlier today.

I don't think it proves he had an arsenal of WMDs. Or any that were ready for fire within 45 minutes (or a similar time frame, which was what the British and i think American goverment said..).

Because i mean a country like Iraq which embarked on such a huge WMD programme in so many fields for over a decade. It's highly unlikely they'd get rid of ALL of them. Though in my opinion (which is not as informed as some) there were materials to help re-build their programme. Over months and years maybe. Rather than minutes, hours or days. I mean at the time did they have warheads capable of delivering nuclear, biological or chemical material to Israel? And if yes, how 'able' were they? Furthermore, how much did they have?

Though i felt the way the US has handled the invasion has been a bit abrupt and not as sensitive to the situatio of the modern day world. Of which it, the USA, is central. I must say i am pleased Saddam has been deposed. The many civilians killed would surely have been killed under Saddams's rule...along with UN sanctions. Though the handling seems to be descending Iraq into a state of oppressive chaos and anarchy. Akin to Saddam's rule in a sense.

[Bounce]

^ The proof is in the articles of the original gulf war cease fire and numerous UN resolutions aimed at Iraq. There is absolutly no question as to the weapons existance, the only question is did Sadam destroy them as ordered. If so, where is the documented proof of such destruction, the stock piles of chemical agents have not been accounted for to date, yet no one is concerned about that? We all know prior to the gulf war they had the capability to hit Isreal, with such weapons, plus the war heads are easily converted from conventional to chemical. I myself was never worried about Sadam attacking Isreal with said wepaons, but transfer of ownership of such weapons did alarm me. We all know just how easy it was for Nuclear technology to be smuggled out of Pakistan, right? So how hard would it be for the terrorist to get their hands on long range deliverly capabilties? Not long considiring the black market and the break down of security in Pakistan, would it? The weapons did and do exist, the media is bussy focusing on the WMD's in the conventional sense (nukes), and taking eye's off of the chemical and biological threat. V, they had stock piles worth of dealdly agents that can be used to kill large numbers of a nations population. Regardless of how this War is being handled, the fact remains that there is a huge threat out there that is so far unaccounted for. Making less of the situation, as the media has, by deliberatly undermining US efforts at capturing these weapons, is playing into the favor of those who would use them. I don't expect most to understand this, since most are only informed by thier TV's and news papers, or by their univeristy professors. I can only imagine how this will be played down, or undermined yet again.

[Varentao]

^Yeah, that's about it. More the transferrence to other organisatoins. Than firing it themselves onto other nations. Like Israel or Cyprus. Which is what the coalition seemed to base a substantial amount of the war on.

I would've thought it would've been much harder for Iraq to sell/distribute their materials to terrorists than Pakistan. As Iraq was heavily sanctioned and watched. Though not saying it was not possible.

To be fair. In Britain the biological and chemical threat has been far from overlooked by the media.

From what i've read and heard. Saddam was planning to re-establish a WMD programme. And did have materials to start it up. But not as much as what has been projected by militairy and goverment people.

As stated before. I am not as informed as some. Especially yourself Bounce.

What can be said is this. It's such a sad thing that so much of this is tangled in the deception of politics. And how that alone leads to the quite logical spawning of conflicting theories, points of views, perceptions etc.

One must cut through this consistently if they want the public to believe their truth. What am i saying...to believe the 'ultimate' truth if you would. Otherwise you shall get the uninformed media and masses running riot with anti-Americanism, Anti-war and all the rest.

Oh, and of course, what is being fought. Terrorism. 'Religious' terrorism of such extreme and ultimate zeal. Yet relative sophistication to match.

[Richard Parker]

hell yes the US government is biased. or was, almost certainly still is. but we like to call it pusuing our interests.

[Phate]

Bounce, I wasn't talking about anti-american sentiment in the US. I was thinking more of anti-americanism globally. Specifically in other islamic nations where terrorist organisations do their recruiting. I honestly don't see how the war in Iraq is going to discourage young muslims from joinging extremist movements. Perhaps you can blame international media, but the fact is that the media is what it is.

Seriously, I wish that the war had been a complete success. That high ranking members of Saddams regeme had turned over the locations of WMDs in storage. That the Iraqi people would have completely embraced the coalition forces. That a new ruling power would be instated that is able to maintain democratic ideals and human rights. And that the surrounding Islamic nations would not condem, but instead encourage this type of nation-building for other rogue states.

However, this has not happened. Whether they exist or don't exist WMDs have not been found, and I will be suprised if they are found before political pressure forces the coalition to move out of Iraq. If WMDs are still out there when the troops move out, how will the war have reduced the threat?

As far as the new Iraqi government goes, well I give it about 2-3 years before it is mostly made up of religious figureheads like Sadr. The problem is that you can't just go into a country, remove the ruling power, and expect that a democracy will form. Look at history. Building nations takes several decades of occupation in order for the people to become used to the institutes and ideals necessary for democracy to take hold. You can't do it in 2-3 years.

I have nothing against american defending itself, and I have nothing against trying to change the direction of the middle east in order to curb the rise of terrorism. However, I believe that the Iraq war was the wrong strategy.