Yes, I am anti-bush but the statement in and of itself has nothing to do with the argument. When I focus on WMD's I focus on NBC or Nuclear, Biological, Chemical and their amounts. Is it enough to kill off hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands.
fejj: intelligence is never black and white. some sources may lead to the conclusion that something is true, others might lead to false. You have to analyse what is presented to you and reach a conclusion based on all pieces and the value of each piece (was this source biased? is that source really saying that it's true? or only that he believes it to be true? who/what are this source's sources? etc). You can't just point to one intelligence source and reach a conclusion (which is exactly what you are trying to do).
That would be very short sighted for me to do before making any claims to the opposite. Seeing as the above sounds like what I did for nearly five years I can tell you that when a majority of the intelligence community says something. That it is usually fact; this has obviously changed in recent years because the voice of that community is usually, the Whitehouse. This is also not a discussion I feel that can be openly had here. The short and terse is what I said previously.
fejj: Iraq collaborated with and was harboring known terrorists, some of whom lived in the al-Jazair neighborhood of Baghdad.
Here are a list of countries who have associated, collaborated and harbored known terrorists in the last 50 years. Cuba, most of Northern Africa, The United States of America, Israel (even before their were a recognized independent state), Russia, China, pretty much most of Middle Europe, The Phillipines and one could go on. There are terrorists everywhere. The list of terrorist organization is so long and growing that even some of the names have begun to overlap.
fejj: There is/was only one way to find out for sure if Iraq had WMDs - invade (as you say, there have been, to my knowledge, no found WMDs of nuclear nature inside the boarders of Iraq, that we know of - but that doesn't mean they don't exist, hidden somewhere; similarly it doesn't mean that they do. But that was my previous point).
Actually before the latest invasion the UN had inspectors in Iraq for close to 10 years. Iraq played the big bad we have all these weapons but it was large and parcel grandstanding by Saddam and most everyone knew this. The former George W. Bush did a pretty good job in making sure that Iraq's military programs were handicapped severely. Starting an NBC program in Iraq was possible but they simply don't and didn't have the facilities to maintain any large WMD capability. Which is what most of the intelligence community has been saying since the start of this nonsense. You ever wonder why the George W. Bush (the one I am anti on) always says "Me and my father disagree but he's aware being in this position makes me privy to information he doesn't have". Well George W. Bush Sr was right. The "privy" information was just his son cherry picking the most far fetched intelligence.
fejj: There exists intelligence (backed also by British and Isreali intelligence sources) that there existed joint Iraq-Egyptian WMD (nuclear and ballistic missile) programs in neighboring Arab nations such as Lybia for the purpose of "plausable deniability".
Please don't speak of the British and their intelligence. MI6 and Mossad are pretty much in the same boat as us and are being led by a bunch of children. British intelligence hasn't provided a solid fact during this whole thing! Name a piece of public intelligence you've seen and I'll lead you to water. Mossad isn't even really an intelligence organization so much as they are a terrorist assassination organization themselves, that is pretty much their MO. As far as Libya goes they've been handicapped for so long they finally caved only a couple years ago. They also simply can't support a proper NBC program.
fejj: In September of 2002, Iraq is known to have moved chemical weapon components to Syria for storage.
You mean chemical components, not chemical weapon components. I can only speculate as to what you are speaking of. I suspect it's either the chemical lab located in Iraq. Or you're speaking about tube rods for enrichment or some other program they were working on. None of which where NBC or WMD programs. That said, for the matter of entertaining the idea, lets say they were chemical weapon components moved to Syria; for storage. So what?
fejj: In 2002, Saddam moved troops into position to make a preemptive attack on Isreal (with the help from other Arab nations, the Palestinians as well as Al-Qaeda) before the United States was able to make its offensive on Iraq, knowing that the United States would have to launch their attack from Isreal. Saddam's plan was to use ballistic missiles launched at Isreali targets to cripple Isreal and America as much as he could, but, only after the planned attacks started from terrorist groups who would start the fighting. The reasoning was that he knew Isreal would have to retalliate against the terrorist attacks, thus giving him the excuse to attack Isreal back saying that he was simply coming to the aid of the Palestinians. He hoped that this would also have the effect of rallying the rest of the Arab nations
This is just crazy talk. Not even the idiots we have in office now would launch an attack from Israel. It's simply not feasible, even if we wanted to do it! Secondly, it doesn't make sense, none, at all. So I'll defer here
fejj: It has been confirmed also that Iraq was preparing to provide biological weapons to the Palestinians.
Towards the end of your bullet list I can see where you stand on the issues. The above statement is insanity, you are certainly not getting this information from a proper intelligence source.
fejj: Even if we remove all evidence of Iraq having (or having access to) any type of WMD, the fact that they were going to launch an offensive on Isreal is justification enough to attack Iraq, nevermind that they harbored and collaborated with terrorist organisations. Saddam was unstable - a threat to the people of Iraq and his neighbors and had been for decades, it was time this threat was eliminated for the safety of millions.
Ok. I thought you were having rational argument here. I can see that is obviously not the case. I'll move on now.
If you want the proof, look at Iraq, show me WMD's, show me weapons, show me a plan of attack, show me an army capable of attacking Israel in the region. There's no proof to be had, in reality all that is happening is that the region has destabilized and will brew more terrorist organizations. As was said time and time again by nearly everyone. No one is safer, Israel needs more loans and more weapons, more people die.
At some point, the proof that what you're saying is not true has to be evident in the current situation? No? I'm sure you're a good person but you clearly don't know what you are speaking about here. If you want to have honest discussion then I'm willing to do so, in the mean time. Good luck.