WMD Mega-Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
We are still in the "police action" phase. How long do you think that will last if radicals really do grievous harm to this nation? They target All of Us, civilians and soldiers as one; we scruple to target only their active militants. That's very noble but unlikely to be an effective long-term strategy in what the enemy has defined as a genocidal conflict.
 
He even could have stepped down.
At the very least, he could have declared Baghdad an 'open city' and avoided the sort of warfare which is likely to produce civilian casualities.
And Chamberlain should have declared London an 'open city' in World War 2 in order to avoid all of those civilian casualties, right? Or perhaps Roosevelt should have handed Hawaii over to the Japanese to avoid more fighting?

It's so easy to say that when you're the one invading.
 
Well, at least there are those trailers...

I've been out of town for a few days, and didn't have access to my usual news sources, so this might have been reported. I can't find any references in the US media, but, luckily, we have the Brits.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0615-02.htm

Published on Sunday, June 15, 2003 by the Observer/UK
Iraqi Mobile Labs Nothing To Do With Germ Warfare, Report Finds
by Peter Beaumont, Antony Barnett and Gaby Hinsliff


An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist.


NO SMOKING GUN
Members of a weapons inspection team examine a trailer in northern Iraq in late April.

The conclusion by biological weapons experts working for the British Government is an embarrassment for the Prime Minister, who has claimed that the discovery of the labs proved that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction and justified the case for going to war against Saddam Hussein.

Instead, a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: 'They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.'
 
DonQ, re your "vice versa" comment: How so? Before 9/11, the Al Qaida crowd was undisturbed in its planning efforts; its money flow was intact and functioning, and there was little counter-intel working against it--outside of the US and Israel.

Now, their bases are pretty much gone. Their money flow is dramatically reduced, and numerous countries are arrayed against them.

How are they more capable and competent, now, than before their primary leader was in hiding and stationary? Are they better off with various second and third echelon leaders under arrest? Better off with fewer areas of sanctuary?

Pray, elucidate! This grasshopper would like to be instructed!

:), Art
 
DonQ, re your "vice versa" comment: How so?
- Art Eatman

Art, THEY NOW have US troops in immediate contact where THEY can get at them. Lebanon re-visited!

I'm not just talking about Iraq. Afghanistan is still also far from being pacified.

Ticks me off that the Sean Hanitties and Rush Limbaughs can't be manning the front lines! :rolleyes:

Don
 
Kim Philby (deceased, of course) probably still has (living) friends in that govt., so I, too, will wait for some more data.
 
I'm sure that when FOX caught this error they immediately put out a retraction or correction!
Why would they need to put out a retraction when the report was true: ie "NPR reported that..."?

For example, I can report "DonQatU asserts that the trucks discovered in Iraq are not mobile biological labs." Whether or not your assertion about the trucks is true has no bearing on my report about the assertion. My report is true in that you made the assertion. Understand?
 
Why would they need to put out a retraction when the report was true: ie "NPR reported that..."?

So NOW we've got DRC and Destructo saying that the NPR report was true.

Did you guys note that the EMBEDDED NPR reporter claimed that BM-21s had a range of 300 miles? :D

Thank-You BOTH for committing to the record! :rolleyes:

Boy........ am I ever going to look silly when proof of those 20 BM-21s loaded with sarin and mustard are bought forth! :D

"No "brown stuff" yet Sherlock!"

"Keep digging Watson!" :D

Don
 
DonQatU

Your problem is this: you need to figure out if you want them pacified or not. If we want to pacify them, we can, but we'll need you, and those who side with you, to stand way, way back and not hamstring what needs to be done in a struggle for survival.
 
Malone, give it a break. Even the DNC has come out and stated this is not "the issue" to beat G-Dub with. I guess you believe that after Saddam kicked the inspectors out in 1998, he unilaterally disarmed?? Why then would he risk invasion if he had nothing to hide?? Wishful thinking on the part of the Bush-bashers. Wait 'till Bush rapes some women or has sex with an intern or sells nuclear technology to the Chinese or sells pardons for cash or raffles the lincoln bedroom or cuts drug deals with Tyson chicken or shakes down Buddhist monks or .... wait....they didn't stick either. Oh well.....:D
 
The propaganda campaign is working!

Wednesday, June 4, 2003

A PIPA poll shows 41% percent of Americans believe the U.S. already found WMDs in Iraq. Amazingly, 22% believe that Iraq already used WMDs against U.S. troops.

Sometimes it hard not to just give up and watch TV for the rest of my life.







http://pipa.org/whatsnew/html/new_6_04_03.html

Many Americans Unaware WMD Have Not Been Found

Four in Ten Overall

Majority of Those Who Favored the War and
Republicans Who Follow International Affairs Very Closely

A striking finding in the new PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll is that many Americans are unaware that weapons of mass destruction have not been found in Iraq. While 59% of those polled correctly said the US has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, 41% said they believed that the US has found such weapons (34%) or were unsure (7%).

Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments: "For some Americans, their desire to support the war may be leading them to screen out information that weapons of mass destruction have not been found. Given the intensive news coverage and high levels of public attention to the topic, this level of misinformation suggests that some Americans may be avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."

"To some extent this misperception can be attributed to repeated headlines that there has been a promising lead in the effort to find evidence of such weapons' headlines that are not counterbalanced by prominent reporting that these leads have not been fruitful. But there is also reason to believe that this misperception may be unconsciously motivated, as the mistaken belief is substantially greater among those who favored the war."

Among those who approved of the decision to go to war and were not just supporting the president (53% of the sample), a majority of 52% said the US has found weapons of mass destruction (48%) or did not know (4%).

Among Republicans who said they follow international affairs very closely -- and thus may also be more exposed to headlines reporting promising leads -- an even larger percentage -- 55% --said weapons have been found, with just 45% saying they have not.

Another widespread misperception is that Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons in the war. Twenty-two percent held this misperception, with 9% being unsure, while 69% correctly said that Iraq had not used such weapons. However, unlike the question of whether weapons have been found, there is no greater tendency to hold this belief among those who support the war, or are Republicans who follow international affairs closely, than there is in the general population.

The desire to reduce cognitive dissonance may also be skewing some Americans' memory of the government's rationale for going to war. Asked, "Thinking back to when the US government was making the case for going to war with Iraq, according to the government, what was the most important reason for going to war with Iraq?" 60% said "the evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction," and 19% said "the evidence that Iraq was working with the terrorist group al'Qaeda." But 20% said the most important reason was "the fact that Saddam Hussein was an oppressive dictator." Asked for the second most important reason, another 32% chose "the fact that Saddam Hussein was an oppressive dictator," while weapons of mass destruction were chosen by 24% and links to al'Qaeda by 42%.
 
What I find even more shocking is the percentage of folks out there under the mistaken impression that the hunt for WMDs was the sole reason for the Iraqi campaign and that not finding them ever would somehow invalidate any other rationale.
 
Why should I care what that gang of panty-waist wankers at the DNC thinks is "the issue to beat G-Dub with"? I couldn't care less if the Dems, at least those that signed away their war-making authority, beat the pretzeldent. I don't at this point really even care whether there were WMDs there or not. (In that I guess I've come to a meeting of the minds with a lot of folks here.) What's apparent is that Bush didn't have the evidence he claimed he had when he was beating the drum for war.

That makes him a liar.

And Dick Cheny is a liar.

And Donald Rumsfeld.

And Colin Powell.

And Ari Fleisher.

And Condoleeza Rice.

Bill Clinton weasn't impeached for any of those things. He was impeached for lying. Under oath, so it rose to a higher legal standard, but when is it permissible for holders of offices of trust to lie to the public? Not for any justifiable security reason, but to influence the debate over a grave matter of public policy.

Since it wasn't under oath, there may be no legal case for impeachment, but he ought to be held accountable for his lies, as should the rest of those listed.
 
Malone! Hey buddy? They're politicians. They only lie when their lips move. Same as the Democrats. Same as the Green Party. Same as the Fascists. Same as the Communists.
 
What I find even more shocking is the percentage of folks out there under the mistaken impression that the hunt for WMDs was the sole reason for the Iraqi campaign and that not finding them ever would somehow invalidate any other rationale.
-Boats


"If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct."

Colin Powell
Interview with Radio France International
February 28, 2003


"One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites."

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003


"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found."

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003





Yeah, Boats, I must have imagined the whole WMD thing. Sorry.

P.S. Its not that the missing WMDs positively invalidate the other reasons; it that our president may have lied. If he lied about the WMDs, what makes you think he didn't lie about the other so-called reasons?

I lived through eight years with a liar in the White House, you'd think I was due for a break by now.
 
war??? what war!?

I for one am glad we got them before they got us...
now we need the rest of the USA to forget about
"who wants to marry an American Idle millionaire survivor"
and stock up on ammo and vote the gungrabbers out!
 
Art,
A bin Laden might understand your point, but I'd bet that thousands of his sympathizers would not.
I feel you are right but it is the organizers I fear more than the foot soldiers.
Also Art, I don't think bin Laden was not mobile before. He has been on our list for sometime, none of this is new to him.

Longeyes,
The problem is we can't ignore the rest of the world, becuase in the global society we have all countries are interconnected. You may think they need us more than we need them, but as others have pointed out in this thread before, our nation runs on oil. I won't even mention the commerce we rely on from other countries. We all need each other.
And we haven't proven we have the ablity to disrupt their system. It boils down to who has more to lose. I think we can all agree that we do. Many more [cough] patriot acts [/cough] and there won't be much freedom left to protect. We must be careful in fighting monsters to not become monsters ourselves -- to paraphrase the german philosopher.

Don's problem is he wants them pacified but he isn't willing to do it at any cost, he realizes some costs are too high. Death is not the worse thing that can happen to man. The values of the Enlightenment will back him up on that.
 
The West, sir, and the values of the Enlightenment.

The threat against the West and the values of enlightenment?

No disrespect meant, sir ........ but I expect our Government to speak the truth! When it doesn't...... we can expect respect from no nation!

Don
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top