Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome
..
If you actually read anything I said I mentioned already that Iraq has violated several resolutions countless times, failed to declare WMD, failed to record their disposal. Could you imagine without the dossiers where those WMDs are?

The basis to go to war is that Iraq is an imminent threat. Iraq had nothing in it's arsenal that was capable of hitting US soil. The Iraq war was argued the basis that Iraq is an imminent threat based on 5 year old evidence and cherry-picked intelligence. Not to say there was no threat but not directly to the United States. While Iraq did produce WMD, none had the capability of reaching US soil without the use of a intermediary. There are far more countries threating to the security of the United States than attacking a country we were already containing.

Even in the article you posted it came from a discredited source. As you can see in this article 2 years later. To this day, they still have not proven those labs indeed produced biological weapons.

Iraqi Exile Denies Misleading U.S., Chalabi Tells Lesley Stahl He Wants To Testify Before Congress - CBS News

With regards to the irrevelent article on UN inspectors dragging a man out clutching a notebook that might've contained weapon information, how is that Hans Blix's fault? He was not personally responsible for the incompetence of one UN inspector. Nor does it mention great detail because the whole story isn't disclosed, the credibility of the witness, how he approached the UN inspector etc.. Right now you are engaging in the infamous puffery of the Bush Administration. Exagurating a claim based on little information. It could've been a refugee finding a way out of Iraq. The article does not provide any details to make that determination. If we were to base the entire credibility of an organization based on a employee making a wrongful determination, alot of organizations would not be credible, including many governmental agencies.

The 2nd link you provided from Dean's world is like giving me a link to a 9/11 conspiracy site. Damn that purely bias, simply parapharasing from the Amnesty International webpage.

As for that article from The Boston Globe, Hans Blix did not state anything that differed from what he determined at the time. That's why it's called a status report. Why exactly are you going to include evidence that hasn't been fully substanciated and determined it delivered biological/chemical weapons? That's called Puffery. Oh yeah, it's also been proven it didn't.

Iraqi Drones Not For WMD, Evidence Matches Pre-War Dissenting View Of Air Force Analysts - CBS News

But imagine that a news organization engaging in outright puffery before evidence was verified accurate. It turned out to be very effective propaganda.

FOXNews.com - Iraqi Drones May Target U.S. Cities - U.S. & World

As well as posting it myself in it's entirety, in the style you posted you are omitting an important parts of Hans Blix presentation to the UN, however I'll highlight one specific part you omitted from the report:

In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built-up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries. This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communications, translation and interpretation staff, medical support, and other services at our Baghdad office and Mosul field office. All serve the United Nations and report to no one else.


_________This is where you decided to omit this piece of information_________

Furthermore, our roster of inspectors will continue to grow as our training programme continues ā?? even at this moment we have a training course in session in Vienna. At the end of that course, we shall have a roster of about 350 qualified experts from which to draw inspectors.



A team supplied by the Swiss Government is refurbishing our offices in Baghdad, which had been empty for four years. The Government of New Zealand has contributed both a medical team and a communications team. The German Government will contribute unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance and a group of specialists to operate them for us within Iraq. The Government of Cyprus has kindly allowed us to set up a Field Office in Larnaca. All these contributions have been of assistance in quickly starting up our inspections and enhancing our capabilities. So has help from the UN in New York and from sister organizations in Baghdad.



In the past two months during which we have built-up our presence in Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been inspected before. By the end of December, UNMOVIC began using helicopters both for the transport of inspectors and for actual inspection work. We now have eight helicopters. They have already proved invaluable in helping to ā??freezeā? large sites by observing the movement of traffic in and around the area.



Setting up a field office in Mosul has facilitated rapid inspections of sites in northern Iraq. We plan to establish soon a second field office in the Basra area, where we have already inspected a number of sites.





Mr. President,



We have now an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspection teams every day all over Iraq, by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability which has been built-up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council.
Did the conclusion of this report determine that Iraq is an imminent threat? No. The evidence that the US used to go to war was very weak. The only way it could was to engage in puffery. Notice how I mention this word over and over again. I'm not accusing them of lying. Puffery means to make claims that are subjective and not objective. That's exactly what Colin Powell and the rest of the Bush Administration were engaging in, using evidence and witnesses that have been discredited.

As for the quotes from other cannabis.com members, what is the point? Not once did I mention anything about gas prices as it has absolutely nothing to do with this argument. If anything, it simply proves how bias you are. Sure I don't like Bush, but I do agree with his decision on the Iraq war from an economic perspective. It shows you have no clue what I am even stating to begin with. The war was engaged because of global economics. That's the concept you are failing to grasp and you are the one failing to understand the real reason the US went to war with Iraq and why government official have to engage in puffery. It's not about Saddam, WMDs, terrorism. It's about the long-term economic health of the United States.

The Iraq war revived the economy by all the investment made to the military complex and oil companies which is money being pumped into the economy at the cost of devaluing the dollar. Those two industries are stable and profittable thanks to the Iraq war. As soon as Iraq security situation progresses, more investment is opened up. With US companies opening businesses in Iraq, that only means more money for our economy. Iraq becomes prosperous, US even more. Win-win situation if the US sticks it out on the occupation. If you are going to argue the positives about the Iraq war, turn to economical events and data, not some repeated puffery written by people trained in PR.