PDA

View Full Version : Before the War



ShadowKnight
April 9th, 2005, 09:38 PM
I remember that a lot of people were against the war from the beginning, against the war in Afganistan, and now they are saying they were for Afganistan. So, what is it? Were you or were you not for the war in Afganistan?

What is it specifically that makes you completely against the war? We all know that Saddam is not a good man, and a man that never negotiates, a man that is a supporter of terrorism, a man that has no intent in making a peaceful world, so what is it? I'm sure if we could have prevent what's going on in North Korea, we would all agree to pre-emptive action, so what makes this case unique?

Those are two separate questions.

Pibs
April 10th, 2005, 09:00 AM
Do what to North Korea?

Which bit of "leave other people alone" is so difficult?

The only reason the N Koreans are devoloping nukes is to defend themselves from America!


P.

Iluvatar
April 10th, 2005, 09:53 AM
Well, either you worded your question poorly, or you have a dim grasp of the world at large. Saddam was in charge of Iraq. He had little to do with Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan was a just one, and the vast majority of America was, and still is in favor of it. Now, which are you asking about, Saddam and Iraq, or Afghanistan?

ShadowKnight
April 10th, 2005, 08:43 PM
Do what to North Korea?

Which bit of "leave other people alone" is so difficult?

The only reason the N Koreans are devoloping nukes is to defend themselves from America!


P.

Right, good logic. Why didn't we leave Hitler alone? Just leave him be! He's only making a military to destroy and conquer Europe! North Korea makes nukes to become a world power, America does not threaten them. You completely ignore everything America has done for good, closing your mind and blinding yourself to see only what a mob sees. You see America for its evil, when you cannot see the obvious evil of Saddam or Osama. How ironic and how foolish.



Well, either you worded your question poorly, or you have a dim grasp of the world at large. Saddam was in charge of Iraq. He had little to do with Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan was a just one, and the vast majority of America was, and still is in favor of it. Now, which are you asking about, Saddam and Iraq, or Afghanistan?

Those were two separate questions as I stated. Perhaps I should clarify. Before the war, we had our eyes on Afganistan, thinking perhaps that Osama himself may be there, did you, or do you know believe that was the right thing to do?

Second question: With the case of Iraq, why is it that people believe we should leave Iraq alone, when it has a history of terror under Saddam's reign, and with a high chance that he would do something again? Why is that logical at all? Why do we wait for the obvious to happen and allow people who have NO interest in any shape, fashion, or form of any sort of peace. When was it our policy to endanger peace by allowing a man, that permits no form of negotiation by any means, to keep the throne of power for an entire nation? He was the very same man that pushed inspectors away in 1998 after agreeing to them. By breaking his agreement, he also agreed the RIGHT to dethrone him. Why do we see this war as completely negative after liberating a nation under the terror of a man that has no respect for peace nor human life. And then we have the courage to say that America are the dogs and violators of peace. How ironic is that we free people, and we are called war-mongers and terrorists? Now, we are developing a system to allow the people of Iraq to choose their own leaders and have a voice that every human being deserves, and yet we are looked upon as international terrorists and evil, greedy people. And we believe we were all for oil, yet in the State of the Union, Bush announced that he was pushing for using our own oil. We forget so easily what good we have done, and instead try to transform a war to one that is known as an economical war. And in the light of the future, we can see that we have two allies in the Middle East, surely no simple thing and of course with a huge cost, but for the better good of the future and of peace. With a hope that we can turn all nations to obtain freedom, which is never cheap, we are looking at a more hopeful future of peace.

Now, instead of having that, our intent is to leave Saddam in power, a man that respects no man, no nation, no anything. And we believe that it would be in our interest, to leave a man that has a history of war, killing, and terrorism, and somehow hope that he will not do anything ever again. You leave peace in the hands of a man that doesn't even know what peace means, and somehow believe that this is within our interest of world peace. Why is this considered logical to so many people? How in the world does that make sense?

GIVEN: i don't agree 100% with the war, but overall, I believe that we did a very good thing. tell me why we see it as a failure?

Zhavric
April 11th, 2005, 06:34 AM
Right, good logic. Why didn't we leave Hitler alone? Just leave him be! He's only making a military to destroy and conquer Europe! North Korea makes nukes to become a world power, America does not threaten them.

Straw man.


You completely ignore everything America has done for good, closing your mind and blinding yourself to see only what a mob sees. You see America for its evil, when you cannot see the obvious evil of Saddam or Osama. How ironic and how foolish.

Ad hom.

What I find ironic and foolish is that you're only now, on your reply post, mentioning Osama Bin Laden.


Those were two separate questions as I stated. Perhaps I should clarify. Before the war, we had our eyes on Afganistan, thinking perhaps that Osama himself may be there, did you, or do you know believe that was the right thing to do?

Going after Osama Bin Laden (you do remember him, right?) was the right thing to do. Getting rid of the regime that was hiding him was the right thing to do. Staying in the country longer than we needed to is the wrong thing to do. Letting Osama get away is the wrong thing to do.


Second question: With the case of Iraq, why is it that people believe we should leave Iraq alone, when it has a history of terror under Saddam's reign, and with a high chance that he would do something again? Why is that logical at all? Why do we wait for the obvious to happen and allow people who have NO interest in any shape, fashion, or form of any sort of peace. When was it our policy to endanger peace by allowing a man, that permits no form of negotiation by any means, to keep the throne of power for an entire nation? He was the very same man that pushed inspectors away in 1998 after agreeing to them....

While you're on the topic of smearing Saddam, you may want to remember that he was our buddy for a LONG time.

Here's a photograph from the early 80's showing Saddam shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld:


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

Do you know what changed in between this photograph and our invasion of Iraq? WE betrayed Saddam. Yup. That's right. America stabbed him in the back. We supported Saddam and then went behind his back and traded Arms to Iran. You should do your homework on the "Iran-Contra scandal". Let me make this perfectly clear:

Saddam. Was. A. United States. Ally. Period.

So if you want to call him a bloodthirsty dictator, fine. More power to you. But I'm tired of hearing the warhawks try to erase bits of history or casually dismiss them. Is that what you were planning on saying? "It's okay to break our word / stab people in the back / toss out everything we know about morals and ethics so long as we're doing it to bad people..."

I thought you were all about moral values...

Snoop
April 11th, 2005, 06:56 AM
What is it specifically that makes you completely against the war?
Wars kill people. The war is over - haven't you heard? http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/photos/recip/story/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/usiraqforces Troops will be coming home and the world will go on without us. You think we will be appreciated? In what way? Do you expect nothing in return for all the lives that were lost and all the money that was spent? Does our country expect nothing? If you answer no, then you live in a dream world.


So, what is it? Were you or were you not for the war in Afganistan?
At the time we invaded, I was for it. You put the question in past tense, so there's your answer.

As far as proclaiming victory in any war - ask your self "was it worth it?".

KevinBrowning
April 11th, 2005, 08:25 AM
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

http://hebgen.uni-hd.de/internet/potsdam.gif

You are so silly, Zhav. The enemy of one's enemy is one's friend, in politics at least. As with Stalin and Hitler, the greater and more immediate threat to the country in question (the United States) is dealt with first. Sometimes, this means accepting help from evil dictators, only to depose them later. Yeah, it is underhanded, but when it comes to improving and even saving the lives of the ordinary, innocent people of the world, a little betrayal of betrayers is not such a grave sin.

CliveStaples
April 11th, 2005, 08:34 AM
Saddam. Was. A. United States. Ally. Period.

So. Was. Stalin. Period.

Zhavric
April 11th, 2005, 10:39 AM
You are so silly, Zhav.

Ad hom. Not a particularly insulting one, but my degree of comedy isn't the debate.


The enemy of one's enemy is one's friend, in politics at least. As with Stalin and Hitler, the greater and more immediate threat to the country in question (the United States) is dealt with first. Sometimes, this means accepting help from evil dictators, only to depose them later. Yeah, it is underhanded, but when it comes to improving and even saving the lives of the ordinary, innocent people of the world, a little betrayal of betrayers is not such a grave sin.

Straw man.

And what the CENSORED is this crap about "a little betrayal... is not such a grave sin"? What is that? Since when is America about sinking to the other guy's level? Since when do we get to compromise our ethics when it suits us? Is this part of the so-called "moral standard" of the right? If it is, I don't think I've ever been prouder to be liberal.

And this argument that you've put forward is all very typical. It goes a little something like this:

Conservative: Saddam has always been an evil threat who's been waiting to take revenge on us.
Opposition: Uhm... except for that stint in the 80's where he was our buddy.
Conservative: It's okay to betray our allies if we feel like betraying our allies.

Great argument...

ShadowKnight
April 11th, 2005, 11:57 AM
Straw man.

And what the CENSORED is this crap about "a little betrayal... is not such a grave sin"? What is that? Since when is America about sinking to the other guy's level? Since when do we get to compromise our ethics when it suits us? Is this part of the so-called "moral standard" of the right? If it is, I don't think I've ever been prouder to be liberal.

And this argument that you've put forward is all very typical. It goes a little something like this:

Conservative: Saddam has always been an evil threat who's been waiting to take revenge on us.
Opposition: Uhm... except for that stint in the 80's where he was our buddy.
Conservative: It's okay to betray our allies if we feel like betraying our allies.

Great argument...


Zhav, you are using really bad logic. In the 80s he was an ally... great. Here's your problem: in 1991 they did something very stupid, something that caused a huge reponse of coalition(sp) forces to get involved including the United States. So, the alliance? uhhh, i hate to say it, but it's kind of broken, but you know what? We gave Saddam a chance, remember? What did he do with it Zhav? When we gave him the chance to correct himself? Well, I'll remind you. He didn't negotiate, he didn't allow UN inspectors to investigate his country, and broke the treaty. Yeah Zhav, we have some "ALLY."

ShadowKnight
April 11th, 2005, 01:00 PM
Wars kill people. The war is over - haven't you heard? http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/photos/recip/story/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/usiraqforces Troops will be coming home and the world will go on without us. You think we will be appreciated? In what way? Do you expect nothing in return for all the lives that were lost and all the money that was spent? Does our country expect nothing? If you answer no, then you live in a dream world.

Snoop, the dream world does not belong to me. The world you believe to be a better one is one of this:

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/199/1684/320/September%2011.%202001.jpg

This is what we are avoiding by stopping these people. No one thought it possible that Osama was capable of this, until this day happened. Are you suggesting having a blind eye to these dangerous people?




At the time we invaded, I was for it. You put the question in past tense, so there's your answer.

As far as proclaiming victory in any war - ask your self "was it worth it?".

Yes, considering the possible future with Saddam in power, that is saving a lot more lives now than later.

Snoop
April 11th, 2005, 01:05 PM
No one thought it possible that Osama was capable of this
Intelligence has proven this statement incorrect - there were warnings. see: http://www.markfiore.com/animation/see.html


This is what we are avoiding by stopping these people.
In Iraq?


that is saving a lot more lives now than later
Pure conjecture.

ShadowKnight
April 11th, 2005, 08:19 PM
Intelligence has proven this statement incorrect - there were warnings. see: http://www.markfiore.com/animation/see.html

Then what was the need to push out inspectors if there were no WMDs?

Fyshhed
April 12th, 2005, 07:59 AM
So. Was. Stalin. Period.

You are so silly, Zhav. The enemy of one's enemy is one's friend, in politics at least. As with Stalin and Hitler, the greater and more immediate threat to the country in question (the United States) is dealt with first. Sometimes, this means accepting help from evil dictators, only to depose them later. Yeah, it is underhanded, but when it comes to improving and even saving the lives of the ordinary, innocent people of the world, a little betrayal of betrayers is not such a grave sin.
So the two of you are trying to say that the Cold War was justified then?

Fyshhed
April 12th, 2005, 08:01 AM
Zhav, you are using really bad logic. In the 80s he was an ally... great. Here's your problem: in 1991 they did something very stupid, something that caused a huge reponse of coalition(sp) forces to get involved including the United States.
Namely tampering with the borders that other people drew out for them forcefully in WWI? Gotcha.


So, the alliance? uhhh, i hate to say it, but it's kind of broken, but you know what? We gave Saddam a chance, remember? What did he do with it Zhav? When we gave him the chance to correct himself? Well, I'll remind you. He didn't negotiate, he didn't allow UN inspectors to investigate his country, and broke the treaty. Yeah Zhav, we have some "ALLY." I'd blow off the UN too, if they gave me permission to do something, and then invaded me when I did it.

ShadowKnight
April 12th, 2005, 09:44 AM
Namely tampering with the borders that other people drew out for them forcefully in WWI? Gotcha.

Saddam agreed to stay in power if he allowed UN inspectors to come in, and to not resist against investigations. He did not do EITHER.



I'd blow off the UN too, if they gave me permission to do something, and then invaded me when I did it.

Wrong, Saddam didn't follow his part of his agreement, I think we've been over this many times.

CliveStaples
April 12th, 2005, 11:39 AM
So the two of you are trying to say that the Cold War was justified then?

No, we should have done nothing to contain Soviet Communism and expansionism. Let 'em have their nukes. What are they gonna do with 'em? Yeah, like they'd ACTUALLY use them. They're Communists! They're all about helping other people out! Come on, Che was a doctor! And Stalin helped his nation turn from an agricultural-base into an industrial-base! Heroes, I tell you. HEROES!

Keep fighting the good fight, Comrade Fysh.

Pibs
April 12th, 2005, 01:16 PM
BLURPH!

Did you just say:

"When was it our policy to endanger peace by allowing a man, that permits no form of negotiation by any means, to keep the throne of power for an entire nation?"

You did didn't you?


That's ANOTHER keyboard gone..


OK, here's a great little link, leading to a 200 page website, written before the war and updated before the "mission accomplished" and "bring it on" fiasco.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/introduction.htm

This War Is About So Much More

Written: March 21, 2003 - April 18, 2003

This war in Iraq is about so much more than Iraq. This war is about everything.

This war is about the American system; this war is about the global community; this war is about our economy; lies we have all been told for generations; this war is about 500 years of history; this war is about 500 years of the future. This war really is about everything.

President George W. Bush Jr. has lied to bring us to war with Iraq. Whether this war be right or wrong, and whether its immediate consequences be good or bad, there can be no denial that the nation was moved to war with lies. So what does that mean?

Three basic ways to see this are:

1) No, he didnít lie. If you believe that he lied then you are un-American. If you call the president a liar then you should leave the country; you should be ashamed. If you believe that the president is a liar then you are a horribly misinformed and misguided person that has no morals. We should all trust the president and have faith in him and our nationís leaders.

If this is true then we have a lot of misguided Americans, and a world that is against the rest.

2) Yes, he lied. On top of that, the entire American system supported the lies; we have all been lied to for years by the American government, but thatís just the reality of life in the modern world. Itís not possible for the government to be honest and open with American citizens for a variety of reasons including national security. We all have to just put our trust in leadership in order to be safe and to be happy because the issues are too complex for the average citizen. National, and world, security depends on secrecy.

If this is true then democracy is dead, as uninformed puppets cannot govern themselves.

3) Yes, he lied, and the entire system supported his lies. Not just his lies, but lies that have gone on for generations in America, lies told by politicians and businessmen alike. Bush did lie, he cheated, and he stole, and his agenda may not be in the best interests of the American people or the people of the world.

If this is true then what does it say about our system? How did we come to this?

Back in 1926 Gilbert K. Chesterton wrote: "You may have secret diplomacy; you cannot have secret democracy. Democracy is dead without information. If the people are misinformed about the main facts, we cannot even say that they are voting wrong, but rather that they do not vote at all. At best they are voting about something else; something that does not exist. The old defenders of democracy never dreamed of defending this sort of democracy. They assumed that public affairs would be public. "

The first thing that Iím going to do is present the case that the Bush administration is full of lies. Then I will take the case all the way back to World War II, where, for all intents and purposes, this problem started. Of course the issues can really be traced back even further than that, back even to the formation of America itself.

This war on Iraq was really designed to be a war on the European Union, OPEC, and the UN as much as a war on Iraq. It was designed to indirectly attack the EU and UN via the Iraqi situation. The three primary goals are to secure American influence in the Persian Gulf, weaken the EU and UN, and gain increased influence over OPEC. (ie petro-dollar P.)

Whatever the ultimate outcome of this conflict may be, it cannot be said that the American people were properly informed about the motives or methods of those promoting this war, nor the implications of it.
........

P.

ShadowKnight
April 13th, 2005, 08:00 PM
President George W. Bush Jr. has lied to bring us to war with Iraq. Whether this war be right or wrong, and whether its immediate consequences be good or bad, there can be no denial that the nation was moved to war with lies. So what does that mean?

Based off WHAT LIES? You mean the lies that supposably came from our intelligence? The "lies" that were given to him? Okay Pibs, first of all, I still think there were WMDs in Iraq. I'm sorry, I'm not a person that will simply ignore 12 years of non-cooperation and pushing away inspectors and the fact that Saddam is in power, and say that he didn't have weapons. I think people give Saddam a little less credit, for crying out loud, he's a criminal. We have criminals who get away by hiding things, and we are talking about a country that is the size of california where he can simply hide these weapons. Also, consider one of the most greatest things of our time: transportation. It seems people have forgotten how powerful this really is. You can bury weapons and you got a huge country at your disposal to hide stuff. It's NOT difficult. Just because we don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. I doubt our inspectors have searched every inch of Iraq, such a notion is ridiculous.



Three basic ways to see this are:

1) No, he didnít lie. If you believe that he lied then you are un-American. If you call the president a liar then you should leave the country; you should be ashamed. If you believe that the president is a liar then you are a horribly misinformed and misguided person that has no morals. We should all trust the president and have faith in him and our nationís leaders.

If this is true then we have a lot of misguided Americans, and a world that is against the rest.

uh huh, surrrrrrrrrrrre....




2) Yes, he lied. On top of that, the entire American system supported the lies; we have all been lied to for years by the American government, but thatís just the reality of life in the modern world. Itís not possible for the government to be honest and open with American citizens for a variety of reasons including national security. We all have to just put our trust in leadership in order to be safe and to be happy because the issues are too complex for the average citizen. National, and world, security depends on secrecy.

If this is true then democracy is dead, as uninformed puppets cannot govern themselves.

it's possible.




3) Yes, he lied, and the entire system supported his lies. Not just his lies, but lies that have gone on for generations in America, lies told by politicians and businessmen alike. Bush did lie, he cheated, and he stole, and his agenda may not be in the best interests of the American people or the people of the world.

If this is true then what does it say about our system? How did we come to this?

Wow, i think i found your answer Pibs /\ :P




Back in 1926 Gilbert K. Chesterton wrote: "You may have secret diplomacy; you cannot have secret democracy. Democracy is dead without information. If the people are misinformed about the main facts, we cannot even say that they are voting wrong, but rather that they do not vote at all. At best they are voting about something else; something that does not exist. The old defenders of democracy never dreamed of defending this sort of democracy. They assumed that public affairs would be public. "

The first thing that Iím going to do is present the case that the Bush administration is full of lies. Then I will take the case all the way back to World War II, where, for all intents and purposes, this problem started. Of course the issues can really be traced back even further than that, back even to the formation of America itself.

This war on Iraq was really designed to be a war on the European Union, OPEC, and the UN as much as a war on Iraq. It was designed to indirectly attack the EU and UN via the Iraqi situation. The three primary goals are to secure American influence in the Persian Gulf, weaken the EU and UN, and gain increased influence over OPEC. (ie petro-dollar P.)

Whatever the ultimate outcome of this conflict may be, it cannot be said that the American people were properly informed about the motives or methods of those promoting this war, nor the implications of it.
........

P.

................... this is comical and nonsensical

War against Europe? L O L. Then why the hell did we go for 9 months to try to bring them into the war? If you recall Pibs, Great Britian came with us, I'm not sure, but that seems to be against our motives to make war with Europe! Looks like we screwed up! We shouldn't have asked the UN to get into this war. Oh wait.... haven't you heard Pibs? Yes? Bush went to Europe to what!? Oh my GOD! He was trying to bring the Europeans back on our side and make peace? Our plans have gone terribly wrong!

*sigh*

Pibs, give me something more realistic, I enjoy good jokes, but this is even beyond laughable.

Pibs
April 13th, 2005, 11:33 PM
On the contrary it's pretty serious.

That's the intro, now read the first chapter on lies.

I DID give the link, right? And no, he didn't block inspectors for 12 years!



P.

ShadowKnight
April 16th, 2005, 12:07 PM
On the contrary it's pretty serious.

That's the intro, now read the first chapter on lies.

I DID give the link, right? And no, he didn't block inspectors for 12 years!



P.

YES HE DID. He blocked inspectors, if you are refering to the time he allowed inspectors in before the war, you must realize that the reason why he allowed them in is because our forces were already there. He was saying no no no no, and when we showed up, then he was like... well... okay. <_<

KevinBrowning
April 16th, 2005, 03:30 PM
First, my advice is to stop obsessing about WMD, it was never the only reason we invaded:

"On May 30, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz stated in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine that the issue of weapons of mass destruction was the point of greatest agreement among Bush's team among the reasons to remove Saddam Hussein from power. In Vanity Fair, he said,
The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason..." The remainder of the quote, which was not included in the article, is as follows, according to a Pentagon transcript: "...but, there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two." [15] (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html) The same day, General James Conway, senior Marine commander in Iraq, expressed similar thoughts in a satellite interview with reporters at the Pentagon."

More suspicious nonsense from Saddam:

"On December 14 Saddam Hussein was captured by U.S. forces. Time Online Edition reports that in his first interrogation he was asked whether Iraq had any WMD's. According to an official, his reply was: "'No, of course not, the U.S. dreamed them up itself to have a reason to go to war with us.' The interrogator continued along this line, said the official, asking: 'if you had no weapons of mass destruction then why not let the U.N. inspectors into your facilities?' Saddamís reply: 'We didnít want them to go into the presidential areas and intrude on our privacy.'Ē (Bennett, 2003)"

I'm not sure what the libs expect us to find. Maybe they won't be happy unless the new government starts gassing the Kurds like old Saddam. Here are some definite WMD that have been found and even used on our troops by Iraqis after the invasion, though:

"On May 2, 2004 a shell containing mustard gas, was found in the middle of street west of Baghdad. The Iraq Survey Group investigation reported that it had been "stored improperly", and thus the gas was "ineffective" as a useful chemical agent. Officials from the Defense Department commented that they were not certain if use was to be made of the device as a bomb.[25] (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html)

On May 15, 2004 a 155-mm artillery shell was used as an improvised bomb. The shell exploded and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to a nerve agent (nausea and dialated pupils).[26] (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wosari183807557may18,0,3344775.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines) [27] (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/173793_sarin18.html) On May 18 it was reported by U.S. Department of Defense intelligence officials that tests showed the two-chambered shell contained the chemical agent sarin, the shell being "likely" to have contained three to four liters of the substance (in the form of its two unmixed precursor chemicals prior to the aforementioned explosion that had not effectively mixed them). [28] (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html)." - Wikipedia

Pibs
April 16th, 2005, 04:53 PM
Are you seriously saying that for a decade and 2 years Saddam blocked inspectors?

I think you'll find the inspectors themselves disagree with you.


P.

ShadowKnight
April 16th, 2005, 08:24 PM
Are you seriously saying that for a decade and 2 years Saddam blocked inspectors?

I think you'll find the inspectors themselves disagree with you.


P.

support please.

mog
April 17th, 2005, 11:24 PM
I'm not sure what the libs expect us to find. Maybe they won't be happy unless the new government starts gassing the Kurds like old Saddam. Here are some definite WMD that have been found and even used on our troops by Iraqis after the invasion, though:

"On May 2, 2004 a shell containing mustard gas, was found in the middle of street west of Baghdad. The Iraq Survey Group investigation reported that it had been "stored improperly", and thus the gas was "ineffective" as a useful chemical agent. Officials from the Defense Department commented that they were not certain if use was to be made of the device as a bomb.[25] (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html)

On May 15, 2004 a 155-mm artillery shell was used as an improvised bomb. The shell exploded and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to a nerve agent (nausea and dialated pupils).[26] (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wosari183807557may18,0,3344775.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines) [27] (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/173793_sarin18.html) On May 18 it was reported by U.S. Department of Defense intelligence officials that tests showed the two-chambered shell contained the chemical agent sarin, the shell being "likely" to have contained three to four liters of the substance (in the form of its two unmixed precursor chemicals prior to the aforementioned explosion that had not effectively mixed them). [28] (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html)." - Wikipedia

Firstly I must say that I've come to support the war because it was the morally and strategically correct thing to do. However, the claim that the Baath regime stockpiled WMDs is most definitely the result of a catastrophic failure by almost all Western intelligence services.

These examples do not constitute evidence that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. It's a direct analogue to the situation in Belgium or any other country with WW1 battlefields. Even now they are still digging hundreds of unexploded gas shells out of the ground every year. Similarly, there are thousands of shells scattered around Iraq where they were lost or failed to explode in the Iran war. This fact was never in contention by anyone. The existence of these shells is not what was in mind when George Tenet told Bush that Iraq had WMDs.