WMD Mega-Thread
- Thread starter SkunkApe
- Start date
- Status
Monkeyleg
Member.
SkunkApe, I'm sorry that it's too late (for me) to rebut in full your counterpoints. But let's establish a jumping-off point for tomorrow's discussions.
1. You may believe that Bush and Blair truly would sacrificice political power by lying, but I'm quite sure that their advisors would have stopped them. The easiest route for Bush to have taken would have been to condemn Saddam with words, and move on. The war has taken a toll on our economy, something I'm sure the Bush team knows will be front-and-center in the 2004 elections. I don't see any political advantage to war. By November of 2004, all the voters are going to be looking at is the economy, and this war didn't help it at all. This war jeopordized Bush's chances next year.
2. CIA, UN and foreign intelligence said he had the weapons or the means to produce them. Remember that a number of sites discovered in the first few weeks couldn't be confirmed as WMD sites because they could serve dual purposes: they could produce pesticides or sarin gas, depending upon the process at the moment. Further, the argument was not that Saddam would attack in "45 minutes." The argument was that, given enough time, he would grow much stronger, and the cost to our troops would be much heavier.
3. UN Resolution 1441 specifically stated that Saddam had not abided by the prior resolutions which required him to document the disposal of his WMD's. 1441 also authorized the use of force if Saddam did not comply. The onus was on Saddam, not us.
4. "What?" What "what?"
5. Controlled storage? You mean the kind of controlled storage that anthrax requires to be sent through the postal system here? With all due respect, are you well-versed enough in chemistry/biology to be able to state that such weapons cannot be stored in low-tech environments and still be lethal afterwards?
6. "See above. Where's the proof?" Again, the onus was on Saddam. And, if you don't believe that he could move vials, barrels and boxes into Syria in exchange for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars that a country like Syria needs, well, we're never going to reach any concensus.
7. "I'll give you that one." Why, thank you very much! And you have a good night as well.
1. You may believe that Bush and Blair truly would sacrificice political power by lying, but I'm quite sure that their advisors would have stopped them. The easiest route for Bush to have taken would have been to condemn Saddam with words, and move on. The war has taken a toll on our economy, something I'm sure the Bush team knows will be front-and-center in the 2004 elections. I don't see any political advantage to war. By November of 2004, all the voters are going to be looking at is the economy, and this war didn't help it at all. This war jeopordized Bush's chances next year.
2. CIA, UN and foreign intelligence said he had the weapons or the means to produce them. Remember that a number of sites discovered in the first few weeks couldn't be confirmed as WMD sites because they could serve dual purposes: they could produce pesticides or sarin gas, depending upon the process at the moment. Further, the argument was not that Saddam would attack in "45 minutes." The argument was that, given enough time, he would grow much stronger, and the cost to our troops would be much heavier.
3. UN Resolution 1441 specifically stated that Saddam had not abided by the prior resolutions which required him to document the disposal of his WMD's. 1441 also authorized the use of force if Saddam did not comply. The onus was on Saddam, not us.
4. "What?" What "what?"
5. Controlled storage? You mean the kind of controlled storage that anthrax requires to be sent through the postal system here? With all due respect, are you well-versed enough in chemistry/biology to be able to state that such weapons cannot be stored in low-tech environments and still be lethal afterwards?
6. "See above. Where's the proof?" Again, the onus was on Saddam. And, if you don't believe that he could move vials, barrels and boxes into Syria in exchange for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars that a country like Syria needs, well, we're never going to reach any concensus.
7. "I'll give you that one." Why, thank you very much! And you have a good night as well.
rrader
member
DaveB:
Last edited:
faustulus
Member
1. I realize this is an emotional dicussion, but please attack the arguements, not the person.
2. Dr. Jones, Do you really not see the difference between one person and weaponS of mass destruction. A better analogy would be using the 50 odd leaders the administration has targeted. Now it would stand to reason that if they found one of 55 surely they could have found one of X numbers of WMDs.
3. What are the consequences of our leaders lying?
4. Let's keep in mind this isn't the first time America has done this. See Mexican-American conflict.
5. I think we can all agree Saddam was bad and the world is better off without him. The question on the table is the justification BEFORE the attack not after. He was not a saint, but the world is full of bad men who pose more of a threat to the U.S. than Saddam did. Why then the urgency to attack this madman? Looking at the cost/benefit analysis of the operation I think we can safely say it is unbalanced. We lost too many sons and daughters and a ended up bolstering Osama bin Laden's status among fence sitting Muslims. We took down a fairly stable secular regime in a region ruled by religious fanatics.
My problem with the current administration -- who I voted for -- is his reluctance to let Americans know what is going on. He doesn't like to be bothered with keeping us informed. I do not trust people who work in the shadows.
2. Dr. Jones, Do you really not see the difference between one person and weaponS of mass destruction. A better analogy would be using the 50 odd leaders the administration has targeted. Now it would stand to reason that if they found one of 55 surely they could have found one of X numbers of WMDs.
3. What are the consequences of our leaders lying?
4. Let's keep in mind this isn't the first time America has done this. See Mexican-American conflict.
5. I think we can all agree Saddam was bad and the world is better off without him. The question on the table is the justification BEFORE the attack not after. He was not a saint, but the world is full of bad men who pose more of a threat to the U.S. than Saddam did. Why then the urgency to attack this madman? Looking at the cost/benefit analysis of the operation I think we can safely say it is unbalanced. We lost too many sons and daughters and a ended up bolstering Osama bin Laden's status among fence sitting Muslims. We took down a fairly stable secular regime in a region ruled by religious fanatics.
My problem with the current administration -- who I voted for -- is his reluctance to let Americans know what is going on. He doesn't like to be bothered with keeping us informed. I do not trust people who work in the shadows.
Faustulus,
I must agree with Dr. Jones. He is simply using the same logic, in the same way, as those who claim there never were WMDs. It may be true that there never were any--we'll see, I hope--but not finding them now doesn't prove they weren't there. Absence of evidence vs evidence of absence, you know?
Of COURSE the consequences of our govt lying to us are enormous. So are the consequences of an elephant falling out of the sky onto my keyboard. Has nada to do with the probability of the event, and Monkeyleg was doing the reasonable thing: wondering what was the likelihood of lying. And to address that you have to ask why Bush would stake everything on it. Perfectly reasonable thinking, and your response doen't address it.
Skunkape, either Bush is a cynical, conniving man or he isn't. If he is, it makes no sense for him to stake everything on WMDs he knew didn't exist. If he isn't, then he was doing the best he could with the info he had, which may have been incorrect--again, we don't know. You can't have it both ways.
If and when the truth ever comes out, it won't be through the media sources quoted in this thread, which, as I pointed out earlier, are blatantly biased and dishonest.
I must agree with Dr. Jones. He is simply using the same logic, in the same way, as those who claim there never were WMDs. It may be true that there never were any--we'll see, I hope--but not finding them now doesn't prove they weren't there. Absence of evidence vs evidence of absence, you know?
Of COURSE the consequences of our govt lying to us are enormous. So are the consequences of an elephant falling out of the sky onto my keyboard. Has nada to do with the probability of the event, and Monkeyleg was doing the reasonable thing: wondering what was the likelihood of lying. And to address that you have to ask why Bush would stake everything on it. Perfectly reasonable thinking, and your response doen't address it.
Skunkape, either Bush is a cynical, conniving man or he isn't. If he is, it makes no sense for him to stake everything on WMDs he knew didn't exist. If he isn't, then he was doing the best he could with the info he had, which may have been incorrect--again, we don't know. You can't have it both ways.
If and when the truth ever comes out, it won't be through the media sources quoted in this thread, which, as I pointed out earlier, are blatantly biased and dishonest.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
We couldn't find Eric Rudolph for five years in South Carolina. We're supposed to find stuff that was hidden with the resources of a national government in a wilderness the size of California (or larger, if they went to Syria) in about one month? Riiiight.
Aren't most of the people now saying we should have found WMD within one month the same people who said the weapons inspectors needed another six months to do their job properly, about a year altogether?
Do you think it's possible, just possible, that the "intelligence reports" which are now being denounced as false were true at the time, but that the Iraqis moved WMD in the meantime? Finding stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, if they exist, is going to depend on taking the time to break down members of the Baath party and the military who are party to those kinds of secrets. We don't even have all those people in hand yet.
In other words, which is more likely:
1. Bush, Powell, and all the rest lied to us and got away with it, or
2. Hussein hid the stuff?
Aren't most of the people now saying we should have found WMD within one month the same people who said the weapons inspectors needed another six months to do their job properly, about a year altogether?
Do you think it's possible, just possible, that the "intelligence reports" which are now being denounced as false were true at the time, but that the Iraqis moved WMD in the meantime? Finding stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, if they exist, is going to depend on taking the time to break down members of the Baath party and the military who are party to those kinds of secrets. We don't even have all those people in hand yet.
In other words, which is more likely:
1. Bush, Powell, and all the rest lied to us and got away with it, or
2. Hussein hid the stuff?
In other words, which is more likely:
1. Bush, Powell, and all the rest lied to us and got away with it, or
2. Hussein hid the stuff?
There's a third option: Bush, Powell, and all the rest lied to us, and will need to be be more forthcoming during the impeachment trial.
The brits are set to begin an inquiry, and we'll all mebbe know more soon.
Those of you who are not familiar with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution should go and do your homework.
db
1. Bush, Powell, and all the rest lied to us and got away with it, or
2. Hussein hid the stuff?
There's a third option: Bush, Powell, and all the rest lied to us, and will need to be be more forthcoming during the impeachment trial.
The brits are set to begin an inquiry, and we'll all mebbe know more soon.
Those of you who are not familiar with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution should go and do your homework.
db
Please, DaveB!
Those of us who are not familiar with Churchill's unheeded warnings about Hitler should go do our homework.
Those of us who said we had 'much to learn' from Stalin should go do our homework.
Just as silly as your comment, my friend.
I start from the assumption that Bush is honorable, because I have no proof otherwise. That's my approach, based on what I have seen so far of this President. So if I'm told he's been lying, I want some evidence. I haven't gotten it.
Others begin from the premise that Bush is a liar. For them any allegation is plausible, hence this thread.
If it turns out that Bush lied, he deserves to be removed--or worse. I won't have to like it, I'll just have to acknowledge it. Until then, I keep my options open. What I've seen in this thread is people who had already reached their conclusion before any of this happened. I can see no other explanation for the readiness to accept such flimsy evidence. We need the truth, not attitude.
Those of us who are not familiar with Churchill's unheeded warnings about Hitler should go do our homework.
Those of us who said we had 'much to learn' from Stalin should go do our homework.
Just as silly as your comment, my friend.
I start from the assumption that Bush is honorable, because I have no proof otherwise. That's my approach, based on what I have seen so far of this President. So if I'm told he's been lying, I want some evidence. I haven't gotten it.
Others begin from the premise that Bush is a liar. For them any allegation is plausible, hence this thread.
If it turns out that Bush lied, he deserves to be removed--or worse. I won't have to like it, I'll just have to acknowledge it. Until then, I keep my options open. What I've seen in this thread is people who had already reached their conclusion before any of this happened. I can see no other explanation for the readiness to accept such flimsy evidence. We need the truth, not attitude.
rrader
member
Don Gwinn:
Actually, I think the people here are making a somewhat unrelated argument:
- A nation-state needs some justification for inititaing force against another nation-state, and this is generally required to be something more then "we don't like the SOB that runs the place," or "our moral compass says we need to remove evil people like that."
- We were working on an acceptable amout of justification with the UN inspection teams. They were getting nowhere while the administration claimed that they had "irrefutable proof" that prohibited substances existed and were being manufactured.
- Instead of sharing this intel with the inspection teams as they requested, we (meaning the current administration of the US) decided to keep the info to ourselves, and then went on with claims that Iraq's possession of these substances made them an immediate threat to the United States, and such threat was so great that we couldn't wait for things like UN inspection teams to find the evidence we needed to go in legitimately. Further, we didn't see the need to get our actions approved by the rest of the globe. We chose to act alone in this. Well, except for a few "friends."
- Now that all is said and done, we aren't finding the huge amounts of substances we supposedly had "irrefutable proof" existed. To some of us, this sounds phony. If we had proof before, then we should be able to find at least some of the substances. Maybe the assets on the ground that we weren't willing to potentially compromise by sharing our intel should be a good source for info on what happened to the substances we knew with 100% certainty weree there...
- Not rational (not likely), or
- Not telling us everything about the situation.
BTW, if the "he's a bad guy" argument gives us legitimacy to wage war on our own, does that mean we're justified in taking on China next year, on the basis that they're an immediate threat? How about securing the siberian oilfields as part of our attempt to eliminate risks from unaccounted for nukes in the former USSR?
Mute
Member
Let me see if I got this right. For 12 years, UN Inspectors found duck feathers, duck wings, duck bills and duck webbed feet in Iraq. They even found a whole duck here and there. They also captured numerous terrorists operating in and seeking asylum in Iraq.
But since they haven't found a whole duck after this war, Bush lied about the existence of all of the above. Iraq has no ducks, never had any ducks and could not have sold or given ducks or parts to assemble ducks to the terrorists that were never in Iraq. Uh-huh.
If it walks and quacks like a duck.
But since they haven't found a whole duck after this war, Bush lied about the existence of all of the above. Iraq has no ducks, never had any ducks and could not have sold or given ducks or parts to assemble ducks to the terrorists that were never in Iraq. Uh-huh.
If it walks and quacks like a duck.
WMDs: "bureaucratic" excuse for war
Did Wolfowitz really say this? If he did, how do y'all feel now?
db
Published on Wednesday, June 4, 2003 by the Guardian/UK
Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.
The US Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.
The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defense minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."
Mr Wolfowitz went on to tell journalists at the conference that the US was set on a path of negotiation to help defuse tensions between North Korea and its neighbors - in contrast to the more belligerent attitude the Bush administration displayed in its dealings with Iraq.
His latest comments follow his widely reported statement from an interview in Vanity Fair last month, in which he said that "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction."
Did Wolfowitz really say this? If he did, how do y'all feel now?
db
Published on Wednesday, June 4, 2003 by the Guardian/UK
Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.
The US Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.
The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defense minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."
Mr Wolfowitz went on to tell journalists at the conference that the US was set on a path of negotiation to help defuse tensions between North Korea and its neighbors - in contrast to the more belligerent attitude the Bush administration displayed in its dealings with Iraq.
His latest comments follow his widely reported statement from an interview in Vanity Fair last month, in which he said that "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction."
JohnBT
Member
"We haven't found Saddam and do not know where he is.
Using your logic, he never existed.
Right?"
Right! Succinct and to the point. They use bad logic.
I'd be very happy to find out that Saddam et al did in fact destroy all the nasty weapons.
I just don't believe they destroyed them all or left it all hidden when they fled. I don't believe they took tons of the stuff with them, but I bet they took enough to hold as bargaining chips.
John
Using your logic, he never existed.
Right?"
Right! Succinct and to the point. They use bad logic.
I'd be very happy to find out that Saddam et al did in fact destroy all the nasty weapons.
I just don't believe they destroyed them all or left it all hidden when they fled. I don't believe they took tons of the stuff with them, but I bet they took enough to hold as bargaining chips.
John
Is it rude to post a link to your own thread?
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25500
db
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25500
db
I do I feel now? As more and more evidence had come out showing how the governments of the United States and Britain lied to the public about the real reasons for attacking Iraq, my feelings have gradually changed for suspicion to outrage, with a little sadness thrown in.
I am somewhat relieved that this issue is finally getting the publicity it deserves. Make no mistake, this story is big. The British parliament and U.S. senate are calling for hearings, with members of Bush and Blair's own parties among those asking for investigations. Bush is in the hot seat, and he knows it. That's why thousands of additional inspectors are being sent to Iraq, hoping to find (or plant, as some accuse) some sort of definitive evidence.
I am somewhat relieved that this issue is finally getting the publicity it deserves. Make no mistake, this story is big. The British parliament and U.S. senate are calling for hearings, with members of Bush and Blair's own parties among those asking for investigations. Bush is in the hot seat, and he knows it. That's why thousands of additional inspectors are being sent to Iraq, hoping to find (or plant, as some accuse) some sort of definitive evidence.
jmbg29
member
You asked
Then you posted an article from
And you weren't able to hear me LMMFAO?
Maybe it's time for a hearing check-up.
There was some minor evidence of WMD and their earlier presence.
Am I happy with the result of the war?
Yes. I'm glad the Iraqis will get to share in the oil wealth instead of it going to one dictator and his palaces.
what else is good?
No more govt sponsored torture
" " gang rapes
" " political murder"
" " restriction of free speech and assembly
"
" " use of WMD on dissidents and enemies
" " sponsoring and support of terrorism
Our govt is full of crap 90% of the time and I'm not happy about that. Sometimes the best things happen as a result of the worst intentions.
Am I happy with the result of the war?
Yes. I'm glad the Iraqis will get to share in the oil wealth instead of it going to one dictator and his palaces.
what else is good?
No more govt sponsored torture
" " gang rapes
" " political murder"
" " restriction of free speech and assembly
"
" " use of WMD on dissidents and enemies
" " sponsoring and support of terrorism
Our govt is full of crap 90% of the time and I'm not happy about that. Sometimes the best things happen as a result of the worst intentions.
Monkeyleg
Member.
"It got really quiet all of a sudden."
Sorry, Dave. I'm just waiting for Sean Hannity to tell me what to think.
So far the only sources I've heard for these statements are Vanity Fair and now a couple of papers in Germany.
When a media outlet that I know to be at least somewhat credible--even the Washington Post--does their own coverage, it will be easier to take a position.
Meanwhile, I find it a little incredulous that our deputy defense secretary would tell a bunch of people in Singapore that the war was "all about oil." If he was simultaneously announcing that he was running for the White House with Ralph Nader, that would be a different story.
Sorry, Dave. I'm just waiting for Sean Hannity to tell me what to think.
So far the only sources I've heard for these statements are Vanity Fair and now a couple of papers in Germany.
When a media outlet that I know to be at least somewhat credible--even the Washington Post--does their own coverage, it will be easier to take a position.
Meanwhile, I find it a little incredulous that our deputy defense secretary would tell a bunch of people in Singapore that the war was "all about oil." If he was simultaneously announcing that he was running for the White House with Ralph Nader, that would be a different story.
rrader
member
Quiet all of a sudden???
More like the Monty Python line: "Gales of derisive laughter Bruce!"
The Guardian. This is the same "newspaper" that has fabricated dozens of patently false stories about the war in Iraq over the past year in a campaign to support their hard-left extremist political agenda.
This is the same "newspaper" that fabricated a story about the US Army supposedly "staging" the rescue of Jessica Lynch, stating in their article that she was in no obvious danger (what about the 7 members of her squad killed execution-style) and that the rescue personnel fired blank rounds during the rescue.
Right.
I'm sure the US Army, which was having so much difficulty resupplying front-line units according to the Guardian, just happened to have brought along a lot of blank rounds for this very purpose.
What a crock.
The Guardian has no credibility whatsoever.
It's sad to see the political left devolve into such shrill paranoia.
More like the Monty Python line: "Gales of derisive laughter Bruce!"
The Guardian. This is the same "newspaper" that has fabricated dozens of patently false stories about the war in Iraq over the past year in a campaign to support their hard-left extremist political agenda.
This is the same "newspaper" that fabricated a story about the US Army supposedly "staging" the rescue of Jessica Lynch, stating in their article that she was in no obvious danger (what about the 7 members of her squad killed execution-style) and that the rescue personnel fired blank rounds during the rescue.
Right.
I'm sure the US Army, which was having so much difficulty resupplying front-line units according to the Guardian, just happened to have brought along a lot of blank rounds for this very purpose.
What a crock.
The Guardian has no credibility whatsoever.
It's sad to see the political left devolve into such shrill paranoia.
Waitone
Member
One of the more interesting phenomena of today's world is the way news is reported. Use to be a story was put out and it was pretty much taken at face value. Same thing goes for newsmakers quotations in op-ed pieces.
With the availability of primary sources on the internet it is now possible to read the primary sources and then compare it to reportage.
Surprise, surprise. Seems our vaunted defenders of part of the first amendment have been playing loosey-goosey with the facts, facts that in years past would not have surfaced. Seems media outlets have either made up or heavily modified quotations. My all time favorite was a quotation Maureen Doud made in her column of a quotation by Dubya. Other media outlets went back to Dubya's quotation and compared it to Doud's scribing of the quotations. Doud jiggered the quotation so that the meaning was different from what Dubya actually said. To this point Doud has not admitted wrong or apologized. In the past it never would have surfaced.
Subject article was reported in an antagonistic european rag which sourced the article from another european rag. There are those who would jump of such reportage to support a preconceived opinion as to just what actually happened in Iraq.
Don't know about you, but I check carefully the pedigree of any reportage about anything and I sure don't rely on one source.
If I was in the government business this day and time, I would not sit for an interview unless I ran my own tape recorder and I retained the right of publishing transcriptions of said interview. Our moral code this day and time does not prohibit lying. Used to be one could sorta trust the product of major news outlets. No more. Biggest names in the businsess can no longer be trusted.
With the availability of primary sources on the internet it is now possible to read the primary sources and then compare it to reportage.
Surprise, surprise. Seems our vaunted defenders of part of the first amendment have been playing loosey-goosey with the facts, facts that in years past would not have surfaced. Seems media outlets have either made up or heavily modified quotations. My all time favorite was a quotation Maureen Doud made in her column of a quotation by Dubya. Other media outlets went back to Dubya's quotation and compared it to Doud's scribing of the quotations. Doud jiggered the quotation so that the meaning was different from what Dubya actually said. To this point Doud has not admitted wrong or apologized. In the past it never would have surfaced.
Subject article was reported in an antagonistic european rag which sourced the article from another european rag. There are those who would jump of such reportage to support a preconceived opinion as to just what actually happened in Iraq.
Don't know about you, but I check carefully the pedigree of any reportage about anything and I sure don't rely on one source.
If I was in the government business this day and time, I would not sit for an interview unless I ran my own tape recorder and I retained the right of publishing transcriptions of said interview. Our moral code this day and time does not prohibit lying. Used to be one could sorta trust the product of major news outlets. No more. Biggest names in the businsess can no longer be trusted.
- Status
