NFT: Fahrenheit 9/11

[Alex28]

this is pointless. i agree you aren't a racist but you are clueless...

 

[millersnose]

clueless??

personal insults are the last resort of one losing a debate badly

 

[Alex28]

OK...I refer to the following example I gave you:

* CNN running article on bogus American legislation and not even issuing a retraction! - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37914

tell me...how can i find six errors in a news story that had been made up by CNN?

the story is one great big error!

i hope i have been clear in my point. I can't see how Moore can be 60 times more dodgier than CNN in this case.

(I really don't think I can spell this out any clearer for you...)

 

[Terminator]

* CNN running article on bogus American legislation and not even issuing a retraction! - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37914

What has this got to do with the middle east?

 

[Alex28]

he wanted evidence that CNN is misleading - i never suggested this article had anything to do with the Middle East (that is another article...each one of those cases relate to different dodgy acts CNN have done).

 

[Terminator]

Was it misleading, or was it just an honest mistake.

 

[Alex28]

they refused is issue a retraction or an apology...i'm going with misleading.

 

[Terminator]

Not a typo?

 

[Alex28]

lmao...you are funny

they refused to issue them as well...

 

[Terminator]

Wheres fatboy? :lol:

 

[bluesbreaker]

Alright, i've been a little busy to come on here a lot - dancing around with real estate agents'll do that to you!

Before I get to the personal stuff, let me just say that i'm a proud Australian, and even prouder member of a family with such a strong military tradition. I've lost relations in WW1 and Vietnam. My dad is former SAS-R and, before that, Commando. Both my uncles served in Desert Storm, my dad's dad was a machine gunner at Tobruk and his dad was at Anzac Cove before being killed at Fromelles, and lastly, before my Mum's family came here, her mother lost her whole family in Treblinka (being Jews). I'm not anti-Australian, i'm not anti-American, and i'm most definately not anti-Israel.

What I _am_ is anti-fallacious wars, and anti-ignorance (Hello Terminator!).

Whats worrying is that people like Alex28 and BluesBreaker except everything Moore says without even questioning it, its like they want to believe no matter what, their truly brainwashed, too much e and pot probably, their brains have sadly become like mush.

I will debate you under the table about ANY aspect of politics, you ignorant f**k. Yeah, my brain's turned to mush, just try me . Don't you dare talk about me like you have ANY idea. You're getting torn apart by Alex28, and _you're_ the one who's brainwashed here, clown.

I did _not_ say I accepted what Moore said, but arguing semantics like Millersnose is is not an example of Moore lying. Did Condalezza Rice delibaretely mislead us for her Fuhrer's own gain? Yes. _How_ she did it is totally f**king irrelevant. It's all about implications.

The bottom line is we went into a war over false pretenses. There is _no_ connection between Hussein and Bin Laden, there are no chemical weapons (the only WMDs that Saddam _ever_ had was the ones _we_ gave him to fight the Ayatollah and our on again/off again friends the Kuwaitis) and he was no threat to us. It's a complete f**king fallacy to even SUGGEST it had anything to do with human rights, especially considering the things we've ("we've" being the west) allowed to happen.

Think about Washington's treaties with the Iroquoi (which were all broken, and then the Iroquoi were forced to pay "war" repatriations), the fiasco that is Guantanamo Bay, the British response to the Boxer Rebellion in China, hell, even Australia and our treatment of the Indigeneous population, not even mentioning illegal migrants. Bottom line is, if you want to act like the world police, you damn well better have a clean recent record of Human Rights.

But that's a tangent. Anywho, I don't necessarily believe the invasion has anything to do with oil, more I think it's punishment for Saddam thumbing his nose when he is supposed to be the oppressive puppet-dictator that the west can control. Hell, the West is supporting Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Sudan to name a few. The only time we seem to care is when these people _we_, more often than not, put into power decide to tell us to mind our own business. Think about your history. Countries like Nicaragua, Angola, Cuba, Panama, Romania, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam, South Korea, Afghanistan, Zaire, Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Libya. I could go on all night about how it's a cycle that's continually repeating - with examples - can you do the same about threats to our way of life without mentioning the people we've helped to put in power or helped fund at some stage? Of course you can't, because you don't have any f**king clue .

Here's some little gem's i've collected along the way .

Maybe, but Im not going to back Moore even if most of what he says is true, because its not in my best interests too.

That is a super quote, really shows how much you care about the Iraqi's and their plight. *snort* Typical Liberal, "Oh, the poor Iraqi's, we just wanted to help you guys! ... What, no, it's not in _our_ best interests anymore, even if we did put the 'evildoer' into power!"

... probably adopt a Isolationists policy

I've noticed how you like throwing words around you don't really know anything about. America very much HAS an isolationist policy. Sure, not as "isolationist" as the US used at the beginning of the WW1. But unless the US have vested interests, they do NOT go liberating countries. Who uses Veto more than all of the other members combined (excluding Britain - who votes with them anyway)? The good ole US of A! Who CONTINUALLY undermines the UN, dating from its inception and the Iranian affair in 1953 through the bombing of Nicuragua in 83 all the way to Iraq in 2003? I'll let you guess.

Your [sic] too Anti US and Anti Bush to be taken seriously,

No one's taking you seriously anyways, you're too anti... Well, intelligent discussion for one (You, Marge Simpson's uncle and Pol Pot would've been top mates i'd imagine. They shared some of your ideals, shoot em all and let god sort em out! YEE HAW), anti-muslim for another, for anybody to listen, short of having a good chuckle at your posts.

if the WMDs were found in Iraq, the first thing Moore would say was they got planted by the US, and you would agree with him.

Absolutely Irrelevant argument. I guess I forgot how you were "psychic Terminator - the amazing man who can forsee things that never f**king substantiated!". Allow me to apologise!

His country was hit in an unprovoked attack, and he responded, would Iraq have been invaded if 9/11 hadnt happened?

... That had _absolutely no_ connection to Iraq. And my brain is the one that's been turned to mush :roll:.

But thats not the point Alex, the point is nobody in the public cared, about the Iraqis until their governments sent troops into the middle east, and then their all of a sudden their incredibly concerned for the health and well being of the Iraqis.

I tend to believe that people speak for the circles they're apart of. That explains why no one cared around you, because you're a right-wing nutjob . But anywho, on the contrary, Clinton placed Trading embargos on Iraq, which slowly strangling their economy further after the devastation of the Iraqi-Iranian war. Amnesty International and the Red Cross have been on Iraq's case ever since old Saddam gassed some Kurds. The Human Rights section of the UN (name eludes me right now) has done the same thing.

but now he is attacking his own government at a really bad time, which says he's only trying to make some money,

That's the most interesting jump i've ever seen. Questioning things is part of a healthy, functioning democracy. The blind following of governments is completely f**king idiotic. Ask a Jew a little bit about that if you get the chance . However, I like how _you_ accuse _me_ of following Michael Moore blindly (even though I can tear any argument you put up apart), yet you go and say something downright stupid like the above. I guess the Government is allowed to be followed "blindly", but heaven forbid someone do the same to a writer, especially if they write about the other side (You have no proof of me saying I followed what Moore said "blindly"). Ever heard of Salman Rushdie? Good show Termy, good show. :lol:

... dont forget the US put Saddam up there in power back in the seventies. [sic] And if you make a mistake you should clean it up.

Uh oh, the Americans have some work cut out for them!

Good thats where they should [sic] attacking, starting with a nuclear attack on mecca next ramadan.

Bahaha, you're a complete f**king nut-job. You're the flipside of those evil terrorists who want to kill all non-muslims, and YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION FROM 4 PAGES AGO! Nothing else needs to be said to an ignoramus.

Nuffy, I respect your intelligence, because you obviously have put some research into your topics of choice. However, I do believe you have to take everything into consideration here as well. Also, sometimes i come across being a lot more aggressive than I mean to be, don't think that, because that's not how I see what you're saying.

Libya is out of the terrorism business (What evidence is there to support this claim anyways? Qaddafi supported Arab organisations that wanted a united homeland, how is this any different than, say, our friends in Israel?), whilst their next door neighbours - Our old mates the Sudanese, who Reagan used as an excuse to go after Qaddafi - "terror"ise their local population mercilessly.

By the way, why was Reagan so upset at Qaddafi anyways? Oh yeah, because he supported Iran in the Iraq/Iran conflict! That was when our friend Saddam was doing as he was told though.

Iran is "open" in the sense that our oil companies have sweet deals. Not particularly "open" to anyone else. This has been since we removed the democratically elected Mosaddeq in 53 (barring a brief period with the Ayatollah Khomeini running the show), has sweet f**k all to do with Saddam.

North Korea has continued its nuclear weapons program. Certainly a huge back down there *grin*.

 

[millersnose]

geez what a pile of deluded lies

your worship of michael moore and childlike unquestioning of conspiracy theories is comical

(the only WMDs that Saddam _ever_ had was the ones _we_ gave him to fight the Ayatollah and our on again/off again friends the Kuwaitis)

there are about 40 UN reports dealing with chemical weapons production all developed and manufactured by iraq over the last 14 years

not a single record of the US selling any WMD's to iraq

are you simple?

 

[Nuffy]

BB

Thats quite a rant, I don't have the time to debate every point one by one but I offer the following comments for starters.

Pre Iraq, there was unanimous agreement that Iraq had WMD, they had a very large ongoing program, read a book called "Germs - The ultimate weapon", it covers it in great detail and was written before Iraq so its not covering any specific angle.

They also had a nuclear weapons program, 500 tons of yellow cake and DU has been found indicating an enrichment program AKA nukes. All in contravention of both UN 1441 and non prolif treaty. This is in clear breach of res 687 which was passed in 1991.

Iraq had ceased all co operation with agencies since 1998.

Iraq did have very clear links to terrorism, amongst other things they sponsor sucide bombers to the tune of 10K a head (literally sorry!).

Based on the evidence available, governments made judgement calls, now in hindsight people say they were wrong, you can't have it both ways, governments make calls based on the information available, when people were protesting, it wasn't about the lack of WMD's, it was about the action outside of a UN mandate.

Now with the benefit of hindsight, people say that they knew there was no WMD's so the premise for the war was false. You can't have it both ways.

I'll put it in footy terms, at the beginning of the year, signing Rusty Richardson looked like a masterstroke, in hindsight, it didn't work out. But you can only judge the club at the time they made the decision and it looked like a good one at the time.

Based on the evidence available, the US / UK governments saw that Saddam was in breach of UN resolutions,they believed that he was in breach for sinister reasons, Al Qaeda was looking for WMD's and that there was the potential for carnage.

There seems little acknowledgement that the US population was and still is very scarred by Sept 11 and because they were attacked in a unprovoked way, they wanted to ensure that every option was covered and Iraq was a big black hole.

Lets also not forget that Saddam would still be in power if he had agreed to co operate with the UN, at any time prior to the invasion, he could have thrown open the doors and gates to his programs and the US / UK wouldn't have had any reason for action, it was his defiance and the UN's inaction that started the ball rolling.

Interestingly Bob Brown was calling for action several years ago due to Saddam's persecution of the Kurds, he was advocating regime change, once the US delivered that, he was calling it totally unjustified.

I don't know what the excusion into refugees, the Boxer rebellion and Iroquoi indians added to the arguement, the relevence factor is zero.

Please drop off the "west put dictators in place so its their fault", of course they did, including Saddam, but at the time the Cold War was in full swing and broader considerations took precedence. Again it comes down to hindsight and judging decisions on todays evidence when the decision was made previously and in a different context is a bit unreasonable.

Forget the UN, they are a joke, their dithering over Sudan is a classic case in point, and their actions over Iraq are yet to be fully exposed, the oil for money scandal is yet to hit its peak.

Finally, with respect to Libya....... all I can say is Lockerbie and Pan Am, that was state sponsored terrorism pure and simple.

Iran was freeing up through the reformists however the hard line religious conservatives rigged the last election and have taken back power, it seems unlikely however that they will return to their overt anti westernism as they have seen what has happened to the self proclaimed "hard man" of the ME.

And NK is re engaging with its neighbours and the west, there are some really positive things coming out of the ongoing talks, interestingly they were very hardline and antagonistic up to the invasion of Iraq, I believe that many countries including the NK's didn't believe the US had the stomach for it, once the US showed it did, the NK's wanted to negotiate, thats a good thing and freely available on the public record.

You have to remember Sept 11 predated Afganistan and Iraq and Bali predated Iraq.

The western countries did not start this, but we need to be proactive, appeasement doesn't work, ask Neville Chamberlain.

It can be argued that Bush was only in power a period of months prior to Sept 11, yet Al Qaeda was in place well before Bush came to power. It can be said that Clinton was in power for 8 yrs, yet the media seem to blame Bush for all this and more. Clinton took unilateral action but nobody seemed to care.

Anti Americanism seems to really raise its head when a Republican is in office and or a Liberal is in the Lodge, it makes me wonder whether the agenda is noble or whether it is about wresting back control from those dreadful conservatives!

 

[millersnose]

 

[Terminator]

Before I get to the personal stuff, let me just say that i'm a proud Australian, and even prouder member of a family with such a strong military tradition. I've lost relations in WW1 and Vietnam. My dad is former SAS-R and, before that, Commando. Both my uncles served in Desert Storm, my dad's dad was a machine gunner at Tobruk and his dad was at Anzac Cove before being killed at Fromelles, and lastly, before my Mum's family came here, her mother lost her whole family in Treblinka (being Jews). I'm not anti-Australian, i'm not anti-American, and i'm most definately not anti-Israel.

Well thankyou Blues Breaker for all this attention, I havent had this much since Millersnose put up Termy quotes, maybe you could go down there and add a few more.
Your familys history sounds like one to be proud of, OK.. how come you turned out to be such a goose :lol: :lol:

What I _am_ is anti-fallacious wars, and anti-ignorance (Hello Terminator!).
I will debate you under the table about ANY aspect of politics, you ignorant f**k. Yeah, my brain's turned to mush, just try me . Don't you dare talk about me like you have ANY idea. You're getting torn apart by Alex28, and _you're_ the one who's brainwashed here, clown.

Yawn, more brilliance from dopey.

I did _not_ say I accepted what Moore said, but arguing semantics like Millersnose is is not an example of Moore lying. Did Condalezza Rice delibaretely mislead us for her Fuhrer's own gain? Yes. _How_ she did it is totally f***ing irrelevant. It's all about implications.

Her Fuhrer?
WW2 ended 50 years ago shit for brains, der fuhrer blew his brains out, something you could do, if you had any to blow out.

The bottom line is we went into a war over false pretenses. There is _no_ connection between Hussein and Bin Laden, there are no chemical weapons (the only WMDs that Saddam _ever_ had was the ones _we_ gave him to fight the Ayatollah and our on again/off again friends the Kuwaitis) and he was no threat to us. It's a complete f***ing fallacy to even SUGGEST it had anything to do with human rights, especially considering the things we've ("we've" being the west) allowed to happen.

Can you prove theres no connection?
You can't can you.
The Americans supplied alot of weaponary to Iraq to counter the weapons being poured into Iran by the Soviet Union, why did you leave that bit out dumbf**k.

Think about Washington's treaties with the Iroquoi (which were all broken, and then the Iroquoi were forced to pay "war" repatriations), the fiasco that is Guantanamo Bay, the British response to the Boxer Rebellion in China, hell, even Australia and our treatment of the Indigeneous population, not even mentioning illegal migrants. Bottom line is, if you want to act like the world police, you damn well better have a clean recent record of Human Rights.

No good man ever won a war dickhead, it takes bastards to do that.
Understand fool?
OK to simplify it for numnuts BB, people like you think that the world would be a squeaky clean place with no global policeman or hegemony on the scene, that everyone would get along fine, which is utter bullshit, there would be just heaps of little wars going on everywhere, everyday of the year.
What right have you got to demand the US be squeaky clean when no one else ever is.

But that's a tangent. Anywho, I don't necessarily believe the invasion has anything to do with oil, more I think it's punishment for Saddam thumbing his nose when he is supposed to be the oppressive puppet-dictator that the west can control. Hell, the West is supporting Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Sudan to name a few. The only time we seem to care is when these people _we_, more often than not, put into power decide to tell us to mind our own business. Think about your history. Countries like Nicaragua, Angola, Cuba, Panama, Romania, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam, South Korea, Afghanistan, Zaire, Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Libya. I could go on all night about how it's a cycle that's continually repeating - with examples - can you do the same about threats to our way of life without mentioning the people we've helped to put in power or helped fund at some stage? Of course you can't, because you don't have any f***ing clue .

:lol: Looks whos talking, Nth Korea is not supported by the west, its supported covertly by China and has been since the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950.
Everybody, I give you BluesBreaker...Lord of the Idiots.

Maybe, but Im not going to back Moore even if most of what he says is true, because its not in my best interests too.

That is a super quote, really shows how much you care about the Iraqi's and their plight. *snort* Typical Liberal, "Oh, the poor Iraqi's, we just wanted to help you guys! ... What, no, it's not in _our_ best interests anymore, even if we did put the 'evildoer' into power!"

You idiot :lol:

... probably adopt a Isolationists policy

I've noticed how you like throwing words around you don't really know anything about. America very much HAS an isolationist policy. Sure, not as "isolationist" as the US used at the beginning of the WW1. But unless the US have vested interests, they do NOT go liberating countries. Who uses Veto more than all of the other members combined (excluding Britain - who votes with them anyway)? The good ole US of A! Who CONTINUALLY undermines the UN, dating from its inception and the Iranian affair in 1953 through the bombing of Nicuragua in 83 all the way to Iraq in 2003? I'll let you guess.

Im quite aware of what the word 'isolationist' means you dumb merkin, and just to show everyone on here what a complete and utter turkey you are, Ill correct your embarressing knoweledge of history about the US in Isolation to the world before WWI.
The US adopted this policy for most of the 19thC, not just the first few years of WW1, go learn some history clown.
As for the UN, that joke of an organisation wouldnt even exist without the US as a member.

Your [sic] too Anti US and Anti Bush to be taken seriously,

No one's taking you seriously anyways, you're too anti... Well, intelligent discussion for one (You, Marge Simpson's uncle and Pol Pot would've been top mates i'd imagine. They shared some of your ideals, shoot em all and let god sort em out! YEE HAW), anti-muslim for another, for anybody to listen, short of having a good chuckle at your posts.

Your could be right here I must be dumb to take you seriously Blues Breaker, Im anti- muslim according to you, but Im also 'shoot em all and let God sort them out', funny isnt that what the muslim clerics preach?
Jihad them all and let Allah sort them out?
Left yourself wide open for that one dumbo.

if the WMDs were found in Iraq, the first thing Moore would say was they got planted by the US, and you would agree with him.

Absolutely Irrelevant argument. I guess I forgot how you were "psychic Terminator - the amazing man who can forsee things that never f***ing substantiated!". Allow me to apologise!

But he probably would suggest it, as would every other lefty on here, and thanks for recognising my pyschic powers.

His country was hit in an unprovoked attack, and he responded, would Iraq have been invaded if 9/11 hadnt happened?

... That had _absolutely no_ connection to Iraq. And my brain is the one that's been turned to mush :roll:.

No your brain has turned to nothing, mush would at least be something, in other words your saying Bush intended to invade Iraq regardless of 9/11 happening or not, can you back that up with any evidence?

But thats not the point Alex, the point is nobody in the public cared, about the Iraqis until their governments sent troops into the middle east, and then their all of a sudden their incredibly concerned for the health and well being of the Iraqis.

I tend to believe that people speak for the circles they're apart of. That explains why no one cared around you, because you're a right-wing nutjob .

But all my Neo-Nazi and Aryan Brotherhood friends care about me BB. :lol:

But anywho, on the contrary, Clinton placed Trading embargos on Iraq, which slowly strangling their economy further after the devastation of the Iraqi-Iranian war. Amnesty International and the Red Cross have been on Iraq's case ever since old Saddam gassed some Kurds. The Human Rights section of the UN (name eludes me right now) has done the same thing.

Gassed some kurds.. they were just pests werent they BB, who needs them around, right ? :roll:

but now he is attacking his own government at a really bad time, which says he's only trying to make some money,

That's the most interesting jump i've ever seen. Questioning things is part of a healthy, functioning democracy. The blind following of governments is completely f***ing idiotic. Ask a Jew a little bit about that if you get the chance . However, I like how _you_ accuse _me_ of following Michael Moore blindly (even though I can tear any argument you put up apart), yet you go and say something downright stupid like the above. I guess the Government is allowed to be followed "blindly", but heaven forbid someone do the same to a writer, especially if they write about the other side (You have no proof of me saying I followed what Moore said "blindly"). Ever heard of Salman Rushdie? Good show Termy, good show. :lol:

You really are a moron. :lol:

... dont forget the US put Saddam up there in power back in the seventies. [sic] And if you make a mistake you should clean it up.

Uh oh, the Americans have some work cut out for them!

Yes that is true, congratulations dipshit, you finally said something on here that was accurate.

Good thats where they should [sic] attacking, starting with a nuclear attack on mecca next ramadan.

Bahaha, you're a complete f***ing nut-job. You're the flipside of those evil terrorists who want to kill all non-muslims, and YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION FROM 4 PAGES AGO! Nothing else needs to be said to an ignoramus.

It was just a joke BB, admittedly in poor taste.

 

[Kaz]

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10423940%5E401,00.html

Washington Post admits pre-Iraq 'flaws'
From correspondents in Washington
August 12, 2004

EDITORS at US daily newspaper The Washington Post have acknowledged they underplayed stories questioning US President George W Bush's claims in the lead up to the US invasion of Iraq.

In the story published in the newspaper today, Post media critic Howard Kurtz writes that editors resisted stories that questioned whether Bush had evidence that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

"We did our job but we didn't do enough, and I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder," assistant managing editor Bob Woodward says in the story.

"We should have warned readers we had information that the basis for this was shakier" than many believed.

Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks told Kurtz, "There was an attitude among editors: Look, we're going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?"

Executive editor Leonard Downie said, "We were so focused on trying to figure out what the administration was doing that we were not giving the same play to people who said it wouldn't be a good idea to go to war and were questioning the administration's rationale."

In the story, which runs for more than 3,000 words for today's edition of the Post, Kurtz writes, "The result was coverage that, despite flashes of groundbreaking reporting, in hindsight looks strikingly one-sided at times."

A number of critics have faulted the American news media for not being more sceptical about the Bush administration's claims before the beginning of the war in March 2003. In the year and a half since Saddam was toppled, US troops have yet to discover any weapons of mass destruction.

In a study published in March by the Centre for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland, researchers wrote: "If the White House acted like a WMD story was important, ... so too did the media. If the White House ignored a story (or an angle on a story), the media were likely to as well."

In May, The New York Times criticised its own reporting on Iraq, saying it found "a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been" and acknowledging it sometimes "fell for misinformation" from exile Iraqi sources.

The Associated Press

 

[Terminator]

True, the Americans did go in like a bull at the gates, but what choice did the UN give them?

 

[Alex28]

all they had to do was wait for the UN weapons inspectors to do their jobs...they could have told the US there was no weapons and the US could have gone on ignoring Hussein like they have for the last 30 years...

i agree getting Hussein is a good thing, but it was one good thing in a whole lot of bad...

 

[Nuffy]

Alex

Not to put to finer point on it but the UN refused to nominate a timeframe, in fact resolution 687 was passed in 91 and inspectors worked until 98 when Saddam ceased co operation with them.

How much longer should he have been given..............I'll say it again, if he had of recommenced co operation with the UN prior to the invasion, the US wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.

He played a game of brinkmanship and failed, then he assumed that the "vietnam" syndrome would save him, again he miscalculated.

I repeat, the assertion prior to the ground offensive, from the UN down, was that he had WMD's, the issue was action outside of a UN sanction.

It is only now that the NO WMD's angle is being used by the anti america lobby to bash them over the head.

Personally, I believe that the WMD's do exist, considering the amount of items and material that went over the borders in GW 1, I suspect that much of it did also.

Kaz, I also question the point of the article posted, its almost saying "we knew what was going on all along, take our word for it". Another piece of ass covering in hindsight.

 

[Terminator]

Also Israel would have been pushing for the UN to find the weapons alot faster as they had the most to fear from Saddam using them.