or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Where are the WMD? Well....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Where are the WMD? Well....  

post #1 of 190
Thread Starter 
In recent weeks, the mainstream media has ignored new developments and information Iraq's WMD program. For two years, the media has reported on those screaming about Iraq's lack of WMD, those saying Bush lied, that the war was a farce, that it has made us less secure, will bankrupt us, etc. But now in light of the recent pro-democracy demonsrations and positive events in Lebanon, Egypt and Palestine, a disturbing thought has ocurred to many liberals: Bush may have been right. Maybe even right about everything in the Middle East, including Iraq's WMD.

This link is an interesting read on Russia's possible involvement in moving Iraq's weapons:

http://globalpolitician.com/articles.asp?ID=390

And here is a broader look at the MSM's ignoring relevant weapons information:

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...rticle_id=4308

And if those sources are considered too "Right" for you, try the "Best Newspaper in the World"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/in...l?pagewanted=1

Granted, that article implies that there were major mistakes made after the war's start...but "no weapons"? One has to wonder.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #2 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
In recent weeks, the mainstream media has ignored new developments and information Iraq's WMD program. For two years, the media has reported on those screaming about Iraq's lack of WMD, those saying Bush lied, that the war was a farce, that it has made us less secure, will bankrupt us, etc. But now in light of the recent pro-democracy demonsrations and positive events in Lebanon, Egypt and Palestine, a disturbing thought has ocurred to many liberals: Bush may have been right. Maybe even right about everything in the Middle East, including Iraq's WMD.

This link is an interesting read on Russia's possible involvement in moving Iraq's weapons:

http://globalpolitician.com/articles.asp?ID=390

And here is a broader look at the MSM's ignoring relevant weapons information:

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...rticle_id=4308

And if those sources are considered to Right for you, try the "Best Newspaper in the World"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/in...l?pagewanted=1

Granted, that article implies that there were major mistakes made after the war's start...but "no weapons"? One has to wonder.


Oh god!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #3 of 190
So, SDW, they found the WMD? Or is this all just speculation based on the testimony of a single pro-Bush Iraqi official that they miraculously dismantled and shipped WMD facilities after the invasion, under the watchful eye of the US, satellite surveillance and ground troops be damned?

Let me know when they find them.
post #4 of 190
You have no premise and no evidence of anything in particular.

What you have is an ad hoc assembly of (variously): a highly speculative submission to some "journal of political thought" site, your own specious chain of causality in re developments in the middle east, an entirely-typical-of-the-genre exercise in historical revisionism from a right wing Bush apologist who has nothing new to offer but thinks we should just ignore the conclusions of the CIA and the State Department and agree with him that, dammit, there were so WOMD.

Oh, and the NYT article that does not suggest in any way shape or form that Iraq had WOMD but does damn the Bush administration for doing such a poor job of security post invasion.

Put 'em all together and they do, indeed, "make me wonder"; but certainly not about if Bush was right.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #5 of 190
Bomb Russia ! Bomb Russia !

Err...wait.....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #6 of 190
In 2050.

"I know they had WoMDs. I just KNOW it. All you nay sayers can´t prove me wrong"

You´ll be the hoot at the old people's home
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #7 of 190
This sort of reminds of when the G4 was stuck at 500 mhz for two years...
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
post #8 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
But now in light of the recent pro-democracy demonsrations and positive events in Lebanon, Egypt and Palestine, a disturbing thought has ocurred to many liberals: Bush may have been right.

You could as well say that Osama Bin Ladin was right from the start: Nearly everything that Bush has done since 9/11 was what Osama Bin Ladin wanted the US to do:

- To promote democracy in the middle-east and to reduce support for the dictatorships.
- To withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia.
- To get rid of one of the biggest enemies of Osama Bin Ladin, namely Saddam Hussein.

The logic behind that from Osama Bin Ladin's point of view is that democracy and nationalism in the arabic countries will strenghten their independence against the west and revive Islam as a political force.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
post #9 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by Nightcrawler
You could as well say that Osama Bin Ladin was right from the start: Nearly everything that Bush has done since 9/11 was what Osama Bin Ladin wanted the US to do:

- To promote democracy in the middle-east and to reduce support for the dictatorships.
- To withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia.
- To get rid of one of the biggest enemies of Osama Bin Ladin, namely Saddam Hussein.

The logic behind that from Osama Bin Ladin's point of view is that democracy and nationalism in the arabic countries will strenghten their independence against the west and revive Islam as a political force.

Nightcrawler

I didn't used to believe this theory but as time goes on it is becoming more and more obvious that this is the case.

The only questions that remain are whether this is a coincidence or whether Bush (or US covert Ops more likely) and OBL are somehow co-operating and to what degree.

I have little doubt that there is an agreement between the two, the questions relate to whether it is implicit or explicit and what the deal actually is.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #10 of 190
Thread Starter 
That's fine, mock away! Not a single person here has seriously addressed the possibility that the weapons were moved to Syria. Only a fool would openly dismiss it.

The NYT article, while condemning the performance of US troops based on their numbers (which I agree with), also shows that Saddam DID have a significant capabability of producing WMD.

But you'll all ignore this just as the MSM has, because while you accuse me of being a blind and deaf ideologue, it is you who refuse to even acknowledge other possiblities.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #11 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's fine, mock away! Not a single person here has seriously addressed the possibility that the weapons were moved to Syria. Only a fool would openly dismiss it.

The NYT article, while condemning the performance of US troops based on their numbers (which I agree with), also shows that Saddam DID have a significant capabability of producing WMD.

But you'll all ignore this just as the MSM has, because while you accuse me of being a blind and deaf ideologue, it is you who refuse to even acknowledge other possiblities.

Only a fool would believe it. And it has been addressed many times. You just don't, won't or can't listen.

Even Bush and his cronies are more in touch with reality than you fanboys. They don't even venture this - if there was an iota of truth in it then Damascus would be a heap of smoking rubble. It will be anyway when they find the right excuse/lie.

But even they are not stupid enough to try and fly with WMD again. Even though the fanbase are and have bought it before it even when on sale.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #12 of 190
SDW2001,
You do understand that we all know that Saddam had remnants of his weapons program that was dismantled after the first gulf war. These remnants are the things that disappeared. No one is contesting that. What has become clear is that Saddam had no usable weapons at the time we invaded (and more than likely for a long time before then), and that Saddam had no active programs that were capable of developing weapons.

You need to realize that believing in something and a conspiracy theory to boot without any evidence approaches SJO fanaticism. It was and still is this government's responsibility to prove that there were weapons; however, even the task force charged with doing this task stated that there were no weapons. If they had been moved into Syria, don't you think that the US would know and report it?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
post #13 of 190
The story cited about russian involvement is just the same story by the same single bush official (Shaw) that was reported in October. What does the pentagon have to say about it?
Quote:
Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior Pentagon officials distanced themselves from comments in the Washington Times by Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John Shaw about the explosives...

... senior Pentagon officials told CNN they have seen no intelligence information that would corroborate Shaw's assessment.

Asked about Shaw's comments during an interview on WABC radio in New York, Rumsfeld said, "No, I have no information on that at all and cannot validate that even slightly."

Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita said Shaw was not speaking for the Pentagon and that his views were not those of senior defense officials. DiRita also said that Shaw's superiors were talking to him about his comments

from CNN at the time

Second, the looting was systematic? no shit, sherlock. WHat do you think everyone's been talking about for the past couple of years wrt to the looting being a huge problem? Industrial facilities of all kinds were systematically looted.

SDW, part of the reason you are consistently wrong is because you read little snippets without any real research and then create these uninformed beliefs. Because they are uninformed, whether they are right or wrong, you'd never know. You are just shooting in the dark hoping you hit something. How many times do you have to miss (years of misses in your case) before you realize how ineffective that approach is?
post #14 of 190
Just in case SDW and Naples (who promoted this same theory from this Mauro tool a couple weeks ago "missed" it. Yes SDW, you're a couple weeks late. Courtesy of Giant.
Quote:
Meanwhile defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior Pentagon officials distanced themselves from comments in the Washington Times by Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John Shaw about the explosives...

... senior Pentagon officials told CNN they have seen no intelligence information that would corroborate Shaw's assessment.

Asked about Shaw's comments during an interview on WABC radio in New York, Rumsfeld said, "No, I have no information on that at all and cannot validate that even slightly."

Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita said Shaw was not speaking for the Pentagon and that his views were not those of senior defense officials. DiRita also said that Shaw's superiors were talking to him about his comments.

Isn't it sad how the Bush Fanatics keep insisting that the weapons were there but somehow were dismantled and taken out of the country and then, at the same time keep saying that if were not for Bush they would be in the hands of anti-US terrorists? From one of SDW's links:
Quote:
This was not a coin flip._ The consequence of trusting Saddam would have been WMD in the hands of anti-American terrorists._ Had President Bush simply trusted Saddam Hussein he would have violated his oath to defend his country.

In other words, it's a good thing these weapons are not in the hands of terrorists...even though, we don't know where they are or who has them now. Ahem. Cough.
That's the kind of irrational f-ed logic that you see from someone desperate to prove something he knows very well he can't.
post #15 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's fine, mock away! Not a single person here has seriously addressed the possibility that the weapons were moved to Syria. Only a fool would openly dismiss it.

The NYT article, while condemning the performance of US troops based on their numbers (which I agree with), also shows that Saddam DID have a significant capabability of producing WMD.

But you'll all ignore this just as the MSM has, because while you accuse me of being a blind and deaf ideologue, it is you who refuse to even acknowledge other possiblities.


" Not a single person here has seriously addressed the possibility "

Ha!

Maybe that's because as yet it doesn't begin to have enough to be a serious possibility!

You seem to like analogies involving straw. This is clutching at them!


So SDW where's the WMD?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #16 of 190
Faith based WOMD will stand up to any and all real world evidence. Believing in them is a demonstration of faith and faith grows stronger in the face of evidence.

Thus, early on they were just there, lying about in great heaps. When that didn't pan out they were craftily hidden within Iraq's trackless wastes (I believe it was Naples X who kept reminding us that "Iraq is a big country"). When hope for that happy eventuality began to fade we got the "moved to Syria" gambit.

I have no doubt (I'm not being sarcastic, I literally have no doubt) that if we were to invade Syria and establish absolutely that there are not now and have never been Iraqi WOMD there that our friends, stimulated by dark mutterings from various correctives to the "liberal media", would simply pick another country, or another dimension, or time travel, or anything at all to stay ahead of the evidence chain.

They will keep doing this (if they haven't already) long after everyone else has lost interest in what, after all, is a settled issue.

And so the great right wing myth machine keeps its flame alive, passing from generation to generation the sustaining articles of faith that exist outside of history, evidence and common sense.

Reagan was a great president who beat the Russians. Tax cuts always grow the economy. Vietnam was winnable, if not for the liberals. Clinton committed endless crimes for which he managed to weasel out having to go to jail for. And (lately, thanks to scary pundits) things like the McCarthy hearings and the Japanese internment during WWII were good ideas and not at all a stain on the the national fabric.

Being a winger means you never have to let go of any idea you have, no matter how tattered and disreputable. You just wait till everybody has forgotten about it and start in again, acting as if the evidence of 50, 10, 5 or one year ago never existed, or is somehow unreliable now when it wasn't then, because reality is unknowable and everybody has an opinion and things are more complicated than they seem and the only thing keeping the terrible, UN haunted, vastly interconnected truth from being widely accepted is the liberal conspiracy and its mindless worship of facts.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #17 of 190
March 2003: Weapons of mass destruction.

June 2003: Weapons of mass destruction programs.

October 2003: Weapons of mass destruction-related programs.

January 2004: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.

Today: Weapons of mass destruction that were ummm smuggled out of the country in an operation so brilliant that even the satellites missed it*.

* Except for the "extensive large-vehicle traffic crossing the Syrian border prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom" which the satellites did allegedly uhhhh.... see.
Hmmmmm
post #18 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
March 2003: Weapons of mass destruction.

June 2003: Weapons of mass destruction programs.

October 2003: Weapons of mass destruction-related programs.

January 2004: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.

Today: Weapons of mass destruction that were ummm smuggled out of the country in an operation so brilliant that even the satellites missed it*.

Reminds me of how the terrorist argument evolved.

"There be terrorists there"
"There be terrorist ties there"
"There be a few people with terrorists ties there"
"There be a couple people with suspected terrorist ties there"
"There might be people with suspected terrorist ties there"
then finally
"There are people who might associate themselves with the types of things that terrorists might associate themselves with there"

I'm hardly kidding with the last one, obviously it's not verbatim quotes, but the argument went from so specific to so general and loose over the course of the past few years. I don't really care to go digging for the quotes, but W. actually did say something fairly similar to my last joke. It's absolutely absurd. Of course, people who bought into it to start with couldn't care less.
orange you just glad?
orange you just glad?
post #19 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Only a fool would believe it. And it has been addressed many times. You just don't, won't or can't listen.

Even Bush and his cronies are more in touch with reality than you fanboys. They don't even venture this - if there was an iota of truth in it then Damascus would be a heap of smoking rubble. It will be anyway when they find the right excuse/lie.

But even they are not stupid enough to try and fly with WMD again. Even though the fanbase are and have bought it before it even when on sale.

And why is that? Why is it so absurd to think it's possible that the weapons were shipped to Syria?


hardeehar:

Quote:
SDW2001,

You do understand that we all know that Saddam had remnants of his weapons program that was dismantled after the first gulf war. These remnants are the things that disappeared. No one is contesting that. What has become clear is that Saddam had no usable weapons at the time we invaded (and more than likely for a long time before then), and that Saddam had no active programs that were capable of developing weapons.

You need to realize that believing in something and a conspiracy theory to boot without any evidence approaches SJO fanaticism. It was and still is this government's responsibility to prove that there were weapons; however, even the task force charged with doing this task stated that there were no weapons. If they had been moved into Syria, don't you think that the US would know and report it?

No, the NYT report references materials that were removed after the invasion. It clearly implies that weapons making equipment was removed. And, it's not a conspiracy theory...it's a possibility.

giant

Quote:
SDW, part of the reason you are consistently wrong is because you read little snippets without any real research and then create these uninformed beliefs. Because they are uninformed, whether they are right or wrong, you'd never know. You are just shooting in the dark hoping you hit something. How many times do you have to miss (years of misses in your case) before you realize how ineffective that approach is?

You claim that I have been consistently wrong is, um, wrong. It sets up a nice position from which to argue for you though, because anything you say is presented from the standpoint that you are assumed to be correct from the start.


Gilsch

Quote:
In other words, it's a good thing these weapons are not in the hands of terrorists...even though, we don't know where they are or who has them now. Ahem. Cough.

So...if they were moved shortly before the invasion, then how is that Bush's fault?

addabox:

Quote:
I have no doubt (I'm not being sarcastic, I literally have no doubt) that if we were to invade Syria and establish absolutely that there are not now and have never been Iraqi WOMD there that our friends, stimulated by dark mutterings from various correctives to the "liberal media", would simply pick another country, or another dimension, or time travel, or anything at all to stay ahead of the evidence chain.

If you have no doubt about that, then that's pretty sad. The fact is at this point there is no real way to prove what happened to the weapons if they existed. Too much time has elapsed, so invading Syria would not necessarily prove anything even IF they weapons were moved there. But, were there a way to conclusively prove the weapons were not moved to Syria, then it would of course lend a lot more weight to the argument that weapons weren't there (in Iraq) to begin with.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #20 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
You claim that I have been consistently wrong is, um, wrong.

Too bad we have 2-3 years of threads and posts archived here proving otherwise.
post #21 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Too bad we have 2-3 years of threads and posts archived here proving otherwise.

Go ahead. Post it. Let's see it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #22 of 190
Quote:
I have no doubt (I'm not being sarcastic, I literally have no doubt) that if we were to invade Syria and establish absolutely that there are not now and have never been Iraqi WOMD there that our friends, stimulated by dark mutterings from various correctives to the "liberal media", would simply pick another country, or another dimension, or time travel, or anything at all to stay ahead of the evidence chain

Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
If you have no doubt about that, then that's pretty sad. The fact is at this point there is no real way to prove what happened to the weapons if they existed. Too much time has elapsed, so invading Syria would not necessarily prove anything even IF they weapons were moved there. But, were there a way to conclusively prove the weapons were not moved to Syria, then it would of course lend a lot more weight to the argument that weapons weren't there (in Iraq) to begin with.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!



Classic!
post #23 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Go ahead. Post it. Let's see it.

Again? Which part do you want me to post? The fabricated kerry quote you subsequently lied about? The Air America thread where every single statement you made was factually incorrect? Or how during the war you created thread after thread after post after post announcing the discovery of WMD?
post #24 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Again? Which part do you want me to post? The fabricated kerry quote you subsequently lied about? The Air America thread where every single statement you made was factually incorrect? Or how during the war you created thread after thread after post after post announcing the discovery of WMD?

Let's see the posts. Really, I'm waiting.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #25 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Let's see the posts. Really, I'm waiting.


This is what it always comes down to. You wanting someone to remind you of what you've said. Myself I don't bother suppling proof or info for you anymore. It's a waste of time because no matter how black and white it is you wouldn't agknowlege it.

My advice to Giant is not to waste his time either.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #26 of 190
If the WMD are in Syria, why have we done absolutely nothing about it?

If they are in Syria, wouldn't they then be within reach of terrorists? Wouldn't the war, then, have achieved the goal we were most afraid of?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #27 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
So...if they were moved shortly before the invasion, then how is that Bush's fault?

Bush's fault? Where did I say anything about Bush?

Man, you're defending Bush where there wasn't even an attack on him! Calm down, put the glass of Kool-Aid down. Now let go of the Bush "Mission Accomplished" action figure. Walk away and take a nap.

Please get real already. You know you have an embarrassingly weak argument when Donald -We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat- Rumsfeld says he cannot validate those comments even slightly.

Or when the Pentagon spokesman says that Shaw's superiors "were talking to him about his comments".
post #28 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
If the WMD are in Syria, why have we done absolutely nothing about it?

If they are in Syria, wouldn't they then be within reach of terrorists? Wouldn't the war, then, have achieved the goal we were most afraid of?

You have to remember this is bizarro world. Your logic is backwards.
post #29 of 190
There are no WMD to find. And that's not just my opinion. It's the opinion of the inspectors ( experts ) before and after the war.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #30 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
There are no WMD to find. And that's not just my opinion. It's the opinion of the inspectors ( experts ) before and after the war.

Supporters of the war cannot ever admit that there were no weapons because then they would have to question the war and consider that their leaders lied to them.

This they can never do - and as there are no weapons so none can be found, this game will continue forever like a rancid and decaying Moebius strip.

It's not going anywhere. Someone post an evolution/creationist thread ffs......
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #31 of 190
Barely plausible deniability.

And becoming less and less so.
post #32 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
This is what it always comes down to. You wanting someone to remind you of what you've said. Myself I don't bother suppling proof or info for you anymore. It's a waste of time because no matter how black and white it is you wouldn't agknowlege it.

My advice to Giant is not to waste his time either.

Yes, it does come down to that. And let me tell you why. One of giant's favorite claims (and yours too) has been that "SDW is wrong consistently on nearly everything." You offer little or no support for that conclusion, other than the isolated case where I have been wrong (and on those occasions, I am more than willing to admit it). Or, another favorite tactic of yours is to take a point of discussion that I raised (or something I said was possible) and painted it as an iron clad prediction. Your favorite in that regard is the discussion of Bush winning 50 states. You raise it time and time again despite the fact that I never predicted firmly it would happen. I only said it was possible. I'm sure wil be only a matter of time until you prove my point on this one.

And this thread is another great example. I am saying it's possibile the weapons may have been moved to Syria before the war, and that it's apparent Saddam very well may have had WMD making equipment at the start of the invasion. Yet, the name calling and condescension began from post #2 on.

So while you and giant and company on the liberal left of the board are busy calling me a blind and deaf Bush zealot who can't see past his TV tuned to FoxNews, the real idealogues can be found in your mirrors. Only fools dismiss possibilties. Only fools are convinced they know about all the intelligence that our top military leaders and government officials do. In fact, one of giant's central claims is that there is no such thing as closed intelligence. Anyone who honestly thinks that we as civilians will ever know exactly what the upper escehlons of our goverment and intelligence agencies know is a fool, straight out.

Finally, let's assume for a minute that all of the claims about there being no weapons are true. Let's all assume that Saddam had dismantled his program and had no capability to make more. Now, what does that really mean?

It doesn't really matter. Saddam was in clear violation of countless UN resolutions, icluding 1441, which was actual standard for the invasion. He was a hostile power who WAS pursuing WMD and rearmament. There are several well publicized reports that demonstrate this. Saddam was unable to account for literally tons of banned materials, which he was required to do. And, while the Bush Administration primarily focused on WMD and the justification for war, this was not the only reason. I've listed Saddam's past infractions about 100 times here. Some, in my opinion, are jusitifaction for invasion in and of themselves. I've also said that one of the administration's mistakes was to focus too heavily on WMD. There were many reasons...many worthy reasons.

Of course, there are those that say the sense or urgency was created because of the "impending and imminent" threat portrayed by the adminsitration. That may be true, but would it have been better to wait? Would Saddam really stay contained over there indefinitely? And that is where our real point of disagreement is, giant, Glisch, addabox, jimmac, Shawn, et al. You disagree that we needed to or had the right to pre-empt Saddam's actions in the post 9-11 world. I say we needed to, should have and had the right as well. It was time for Saddam to be taken care of, not pushed off eight more years so someone else had to deal with him. No, Saddam didn't attack us on 9/11. But perhaps we should have waited for him to attack on 9/11....2010?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #33 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
There are no WMD to find. And that's not just my opinion. It's the opinion of the inspectors ( experts ) before and after the war.

Oh! Experts! You mean like Hans Blix, who was the 22nd choice for the job at the UN and who had never discovered any weapons during his entire career? Right.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #34 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
No, Saddam didn't attack us on 9/11. But perhaps we should have waited for him to attack on 9/11....2010?

The whole post was not a bad defence and kudos for standing your corner and making some effort but....this last bit really sums up your whole argument and unfortunately (for you and your argument), the whole house of cards can be blown over with just one word:

Osama
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #35 of 190
Obviously SDW you want to believe that there was WMD. That's means that you consider that this war was lame if it was not the case.
Blair for example, said otherwise "there was no WMD, but we will still right to do this war".
post #36 of 190
Yes, like Hans Blix and the myriad other experts who found nothing.

SDW, can you answer the questions I asked above, please?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #37 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh! Experts! You mean like Hans Blix, who was the 22nd choice for the job at the UN and who had never discovered any weapons during his entire career? Right.

So which choice were you for the UN job, then?

And just try to imagine the following scenario...

Hans Blix is looking for weapons.
There are no weapons.
Therefore, Hans Blix doesn't find any weapons.

That's a much more plausible scenario than covert smuggling of the "stockpiles" to Syria.

Unless you're in denial.
post #38 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh! Experts! You mean like Hans Blix, who was the 22nd choice for the job at the UN and who had never discovered any weapons during his entire career? Right.

Please don't try to alter the argument with your rhetoric. He wasn't the only one ( and I'd trust his judgement more than yours ). There were many who said the same thing. Also there you go again. You don't like something about the source so you want to ignore the entire argument. Thanks for varifying why I don't look things up for you anymore. Pretty childish if you ask me.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #39 of 190
Just some thoughts by free association here:

Iraq did have WMDs, for many years up until Gulf War One. What did the US do about it under those last 2 years of the Carter administration, the entire Reagan presidency and the first half of the Bush Sr. admin? Answer: Nothing.

Throughout this period, Saddam Hussein's regime was killing people by the 10s of thousands. What was the US response? Silence, even tacit approval.

Then after Gulf War One, Iraq was systematically disarmed and de-fanged under a rigorous inspection regime, and kept that way by UN sanctions, approved by successive US admins.

Then the Bush administration decided to invade. It must be the first time in history that a huge and expensive military effort has been deployed to fight a nation that had been verifiably disarmed, and remained so.

The fact remains that the Bush administration somehow deceived a majority of people in the US into supporting him on this maneuver. However could this have happened in a nation that is supposed to educated and informed? Answer: 9-11 and the fear, real or imaginary, that has gripped us ever since, and the reluctance of our media to ask any tough questions of this administration in public.

Without an event like 9-11, called for by the PNAC extremists in the late 1990s as a "New Pearl Harbor", an event absolutely essential to gain popular support for their desired and publicly stated aims (massive increase in US military spending and presence in the M.E. and other places world wide), the Bush admin could never, ever gotten away with invading Iraq, as well as getting public support for a fistful of other measures masquerading as "anti-terror" policies. This is no conspiracy theory...its a conspiracy FACT. They were right out of the closet with all this; Bush weighted his cabinet heavily with these PNAC neo-con extremists and even more so since the recent elections.

Why was there the incessant linking of 9-11 to Saddam? Why did Rumsfeld, a PNAC honcho, insist on going after Saddam right after 9-11? Why did Bush say that the capture of Osama bin Laden was "not important any longer", very soon after the invasion of Iraq started?

The whole WMD fisaco was part of the big lie. There was no poor intelligence: the lack of Iraqi WMD was public domain for some 13 years that Iraq has been disarmed and remained so, but this fact remains taboo by the US media. I recall Scott Ritter's testimony.....it was 100% spot on! Ritter, who incidentally is ex military and a conservative to boot, ironically became a hero for the anti-war movement, but he was first castigated and subsequently ignored by the US media, and even branded as a traitor. How pathetic is that? Also, some 50% of the US public remain under the impression that "we invaded them because they attacked us".

It's been done so may times, and it always works a treat. First scare the people half to death, have enough control on the flow of information, and brand dissenters and questioners as traitors. With all that in place, its like not only having the keys to the bank vault, but the ability to make yourself invisible at the same time.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #40 of 190
I have this feeling my questions are going to remain unanswered.

hmm...
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Where are the WMD? Well....