WMD's found in Iraq

[Mini D]

Ah... someday those that have been screeming "they haven't found ANY WMD" as if it were some kind of battle cry will realize they've been every bit as ignorant and every bit the liars they accuse the Bush administration of being.  Actually, I doubt it.

MiniD

[yowser]

Actually, the first scream in this thread was "They HAVE found WMD".

yowser

[Mini D]

You're talking about this thread yowser.  And you're completely ignoring the "never" part of my statement.  Seems that those with their heads burried in the sand really only need to open their eyes and that's where they'll find the answers.

MiniD

[Mini D]

BTW, the "WMD" topic was a coating the Bush administration used to make swallowing the pill of war a bit easier.

The "there are no WMD" argument that ensued was a complete lie refuted by every administration since the 80's.  It amazes me how many people hold to these beliefs while insisting the Bush administration was lieing.

The truth is, the anti-war croud ****ed up on this one.  The battle cry should never have turned into "there are no WMD in Iraq... they'll never find them".  It should never have even become the primary issue for not going to war, or vilinizing the invassion.  Though... I'm glad it did.  "Never" is the easiest word to throw back in someone's face.

MiniD

[Godzilla]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
...because the U.S. did not invade Iraq to enforce U.N. resolutions. The U.S. invaded Iraq because they "were" an imminent threat to the safety and security of the United States.

The US did what the UN was supposed to do and did not: ensure Iraq complied with the resolutions. The UN failed and the US succeeded in making Iraq comply.

The UN regarded Iraq as a threat . The UN was once again proven to be worthless, offering tough words and no action to stand behind them.

The US did what we needed to do to ensure Saddam would not be a threat to us  The US did what the UN should have done...... issue an ultimatum to Iraq. Iraq chose to beleive they could get away with whatever they pleased because France and Germany's weakness and failure to stand behind the UN  resolutions gave Iraq that hope.


Now Iraq is in compliance, Saddam is gone and Iraqis are free from Saddam. Can someone please tell me what is bad aout any of that?

[lord dolf vader]

it aint what you do its how you do it.

your neibor kills a man you call the law and they do nothing. you then kill the man yourself, fine dandy, now your a murderer under the law and will be punished/killed.

countrys are the same some people just think being well armed makes us and exeption. they are wrong.

is that so hard to understand?

[yowser]

Originally posted by Mini D
BTW, the "WMD" topic was a coating the Bush administration used to make swallowing the pill of war a bit easier.

The "there are no WMD" argument that ensued was a complete lie refuted by every administration since the 80's.  It amazes me how many people hold to these beliefs while insisting the Bush administration was lieing.

The truth is, the anti-war croud ****ed up on this one.  The battle cry should never have turned into "there are no WMD in Iraq... they'll never find them".  It should never have even become the primary issue for not going to war, or vilinizing the invassion.  Though... I'm glad it did.  "Never" is the easiest word to throw back in someone's face.

MiniD

Not sure where you're getting the "never" part.  There's a big difference between wanting proof that there are WMD in Iraq and "there are no WMD in Iraq...they'll never find them".  Most objective people are of the former group.

As for the people shouting "there are no WMD in Iraq...they'll never find them"....there are as many people shouting "There are WMD in Iraq".  Each side is as clueless about the truth as the other.

A part of me and I'm sure others, sort of hopes they do find WMD.  That means we could be wrong about this administration and it's motives.  That would be much better for all concerned.

yowser

[Mini D]

Yowser,

The proof has been in existance for the last 20 years.  The debate is stating that the "proof" is wrong.  Now the only proof that will be accepted is finding the WMD.  Everything else has been disregarded.  It's the equivelant of only convicting murderers if there is a videotape of them committing the murder.

Of course, that will be changed as people find out just how badly they've been behaving during all of this.  People who had their chests sticking out screaming "oh yeah... well where are these WMDs?!" are just a little more deflated.

Basically, saying there were no WMDs is what is based on lack of proof and assumptions through ignorance.  The proof showing there are was already there.

MiniD

[Nilsen]

I was never in the crowd that screamed that there was no WMD in iraq..(how should i know that anyway? and it was documented that they had them in the past)

I was, and still am in the "crowd" that thinks that the US/UK attack on Iraq AT THE TIME was very wrong. Removing Saddam and his friends was sertainly very good for the iraqis.

I belive that the UN should have been part of it to bring more of the world behind the move (would have taken more time of course), and that would have prevented the situation that now excists.

For one or two counties to do whatever they please in the world without caring what others think is a very dangerous situation (just read some history) and does nothing to improve stability.

One more thing is that for the US/UK to ask the rest of the world to help rebuild iraq without getting any lucerative contracts + asking them to remove all og iraqs debt is just asking for it.... Dont think those opposed to the war wants to pay american companies to do the jobs needed in Iraq.

The only winners in this conflict is going to be US corporations and the US military budgets. The loosers are taxpayers and all those iraqi, US, UK, italian troops and civillians that are dead and injured beacuse of this attack.  Im also afraid that this conflict will create a larger recruiting base for terrorists.

[yowser]

MiniD,

Everybody accepts that Iraq had WMD and used them in the past.  Nobody is arguing that.

The question is, did Iraq still possess them at the start of this war or have the capability of producing them.  Or did they get rid of everything as they said they did?

I and many others initially supported this war because this administration told us Iraq had WMD and therefore was an imminent threat.  We accepted this as fact.  It now turns out the pre-war intel or at least the intel they chose to believe and presented was wrong.  They did not find WMD where they thought it would be.  Note that I am not saying they lied.  I am saying they were wrong.  Their only hope now is that they get lucky and find WMD where they did not know it existed.

In light of these events, I don't think asking for proof that Iraq was in possession of WMD at the start of this war is unreasonable.

yowser

[Mini D]

Yowser, there were several issues in regards to WMD.  The main issues were 1) the capability to manufacture them and 2) the unaccounted for WMD.  

Once you have the capability, you always have the capability.  The only thing that is debatable is the nuclear capabilities, but that is simply debatable not dismissable.  The biochemical aspect of things is not debatable... capabilities are there.

Then we come to unaccountable WMD.  This is what was most innefective over the last 15 years... the fact that Iraq did not destroy anything in a manner that could prove it's destruction.  They'd simply not be there.  I have a tendancy to say that digging up a batch of chemical weapons from the desert has a tendancy to show that Iraq's version of destroying weapons is different that the rest of the world's (including the UN's).  Of course, the gentlement burying shoulder launched missiles in the sand were just trying "to destroy them" too.

MiniD

[Nakhui]

I'm still waiting for a live speach from the White House proclaiming WMD were found....

Surely, this is it! This proves their point!

Why are they silent?

Let's put in to perspective here that the Bush Administration proclaimed that Iraq had tons of WMD - what was the phrase Bushed in his state of the union address... oh yah "Stock Piles"

That's why the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said in their report:

"It is unlikely that Iraq could have destroyed, hidden or sent out of the country the hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons, dozens of Scud missiles and facilities engaged in the ongoing production of chemical and biological weapons that officials claimed were present without the United States detecting some sign of this activity," said the report by Jessica T. Mathews, Joseph Cirincione and George Perkovich.


But ok.... if these 150 rusted mortal shells aren't them... take your time... go find some more!

[Toad]

OK, we have a match.

Nak is DmdNexus.

See if you can figure what gave it away using the BBS search function.

[Yeager]

these are the same people that thought Gorby was the man of the decade and Reagan was the devil.  Im guessing Hussein is their next choice for man of the decade.

The liberal doves have no credibility to me.  Never have.  

To Bush I say, "Four More Years" and lets start thinking about who to put up against the next democratic candidate for 2008.  Need to stay ahead on these matters, there is simply too much to lose.

Yeah, its got to be dmdnx.  what happened, did he get banned?

[strk]

Weapon of mass destruction. Meaning a weapon that kills indiscriminately.

 (Hortlund's idea of a WMD)

Hort what do you think a MOAB does?  Kills only unfriendlies?  How about cluster bombs or landmines?  How about a 500lb bomb?  A gunship?  A 16 inch shell?  How discriminate are these weapons?

Maybe I misunderstand you, are you saying that the entire world should disarm?  

WMD's are MASS DESTRUCTION.  Think mushrom cloud.  I think probably flying a plane into a skyscraper qualifies.  Some bio agents, if a way could be found to disperse them, since they could spread by human contact and infect others.  Chemicals could be WMDS if used in the right place.  Sarin and Ricin are 2 good examples, as are cyanide gas (smells like almonds - from NBR training) and nerve agents - let off in sufficient quantities in a closed, heavily populated area - like a closed in stadium at superbowl.  

Blister agents are not deadly unless they are not treated.  Period.  They do not qualify as Wepons of Mass Destruction.  Your evidence does not support your rhetoric, counsellor.

strk