WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon 865 Replies latest social current

Xena

It's either post on here or shout at the TV and that just makes me feel old

ROFL..now that was cute
ThiChi

Simon poses a good question.
PM Tony Blair commented to the World Leaders at one of the UN Security Council meetings before the war that: "We all know Saddam has WMDs" with no rebuttal from the other Nations. In context: Over 1,000 sites still need to be inspected. Iraq Scientists are coming foreword and are helping the Allies with the search.
The bigger question is not if they exist, but where did they go? Syria?
Searchforthetroof:
"""They will find WMD soon, because the CIA are now 'looking' for them and if they need to find them that badly they will...by any means.""
There you go agian. Thank God your record of paranoid, half truths are well documented. What unfounded rubbish. Any proof to your claim?
Why Look For Reasons to Feel Gloomy?
AlanF

Simon, normally I don't say anything about these war topics, since there is far more heat than light, and none of us really knows what is going on behind the scenes. We don't know the true motives of the Bush administration, or of most other players. Speculation may be fun, but it's basically useless.
I'm commenting here because I think you're getting too emotional about this whole thing, and I'm concerned about your mental state. You said:
: It's either post on here or shout at the TV and that just makes me feel old.
That's a bad sign, and it's obvious to me that you've lost your objectivity because you're too emotional about this topic. Your lack of objectivity is illustrated by your statement:
: We were told so many things. Now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.
The use of "of course" indicates that you had already determined, in your own mind, that WMD would not be found, and probably that you even hoped they would not be found -- all of which is completely unobjective. You have no more idea what Saddam and company were doing than I or Dubla or anyone else on this board does.
It astounds me that so many people have such strong opinions when most everyone realizes that almost all our information comes from the news media, which is not only biased in any number of directions, but is also manipulated by governments.
AlanF
Englishman

Hmm..must confess, Dear Boy, that the "Of course" did indicate a certain mindset perhaps?
Just don't get him started on Manchester City..
Englishman.
Jayson

I apologise. I did request people tone down the war topics and am guilty of ignoring my own advice.
It's either post on here or shout at the TV and that just makes me feel old

Simon I hope you can see that many people here are trying to be very polite and rational. I fail to see how this thread is full of ugly tone. (Some kodos are in order?)
As you say that I (speaking as probushusa) consider WoMD are of no consequnce? I wonder how you can think that? Of course they are! Maybe more now than before. I the book I keep prostituting in goes to great lengths about how Saddam is probably no likely to give his prize to Terror organizations because he can't be sure if they will use them as he wanted them used. So now finding them my be more important than before. Because a desperate Iraqi most wanted might do anything to get the hell out of there. You are right! And, I as well as any rational thinking person want the WMD found! I believe they do exist and always have. They need to be found; They must be found. Not because of petty politics and who is right and who is wrong, but because these are very bad things. It seems that no matter what is done the bad is X10 and the good is outright dismissed or not even commented on. Lets say that they exist and are not found. At some point would they not leak and become a contaminant? If they exist we need to find them. If we can't do it then we need the UN's help. But it's been days please simon give us a chance. Have a penny of faith, please give us a reasonable chance to fail.
Do you get most of your info from the BBC? Are you aware that they admit that they have been telling half truths about Iraq. They had too in order to say in Baghdad. CNN has told such horrible stories of what their reporters went through; About the minders everywhere and the torture and executions of anyone who said the wrong thing. At Easter my brother's girlfriend was positive that if Iraq had WMD we know exactly where they are. If they moved them to Syria at any point in 12 years we would know about it. When I asked her what she knows that I don't she just said "I refuse to believe that Saddam or anyone can do anything and us not know about it." I only wish I had that much confidence in Bush and the US defense team. I just don't think that they are that smart or powerful. I wish they were. What I don't understand is if it is true that the BBC has been less than truthful how can they still have the moral high ground with their viewers? The Reporters name was Woods and I will see if I have info if you want it.
Simon have you read some books on Middle Eastern politics or even the whole history of the region? I mean the big picture and not just the last year or two. You should.
Last on WMD, to a terrorist conventional weapons have proven time and time again to be more effective for their purpose.
With the right technology WMD have a different tone which is what Saddam was building with missle delivery systems that had upgraded guidance systems. This could have amounted to State sponcered terror and blackmail. Saddam said that his mistake was not having nuclear capablities before invading Kuwait. This was a 12+ year war and not a three week one. If WMD are found will you feel that you have been wrong about my team? What would be the turning point where you would or could ever consider this conflict (regarding US/UK) right?
It seems to me that the world is at a turning point. Will Nation-states still doiminate the global arena or will a new world order emerge. Many people see no difference between Saddam's Iraq and Bush's America. In fact they see America as the threat to them. The tie to WMD is that it would be this new world order that decides military might and nations would answer to this body exclusively. That just scares the hell into me. How many already see the UN as the world's government?
Jay
SheilaM

Well a SCUD is considered a WMD and was used now wasn't it? Hmmm they found plenty of evidence of biochiemicals that weren't supposed to be there. Sounds like they already have found enough evidence that in a court of law this would be considered enought to bring someone to trial, but it's not good enough for naysayers.
ThiChi

""which is not only biased in any number of directions, but is also manipulated by governments.""
With Respect, Alan F, Who does not have an agenda? The information highway has changed all that. The free flow of news from all sources, Governments, News agencies, Private ventures like Human Rights Organizations, and other independent sources(and others), really gives balance to the whole. No voice is omitted. Its all there. I do not damn open agendas. However when information is intentionally omitted or taken out of context by any of the above, then it becomes underhanded.
Simon has asked a valid question. Give the US time is the answer. However, the primess of invasion was based on noncompliance of UN Resolution 1441. A fact you cannot escape.
ThiChi

True, Iraq is in breach of other less intensive violations which are not classified WMD.
Simon:
“You can't have freedom of speech, and at the same time have people not being offended.”
Cheer up, Brother! Its all good!
AlanF

Sigh. ThiChi, you're doing exactly what you should not -- making assumptions when you have no information upon which to base them. Let's see how:
: who is really paranoid here?
Not me. I have made no posts on topics regarding the Iraq war which allow you to make this implicit assumption.
: Who does not have an agenda?
Hardly anyone. Are you assuming that I have a particular one? On what basis?
: The information highway has changed all that. The free flow of news from all sources, Governments, News agencies, Private ventures like Human Rights Organizations, and other independent sources(and others), really gives balance to the whole. No voice is omitted. Its all there.
Nonsense. Government agencies put out only what they want people to hear. They have plenty of secrets, and secret agendas. News agencies know only what they can observe, and what government agencies tell them. Every one I know of has an agenda, either pro-war or anti-war (obviously I'm talking about this current Iraq war). Many news agencies are themselves government sponsored and therefore reflect only what a government wants people to hear. Private organizations run the gamut of objectivity, but again have little more real information than normal news channels. Are you really so naive as to assume that full information can be derived from such sources and find its way to the information superhighway?
The fact is that anyone who discloses information that a government wants kept secret will be either jailed or killed, depending on the government and other circumstances. That effectively stanches the flow of full information.
Can you name a single news source that is unbiased? That has no agenda? I can't. When I watch TV news or read any number of news sources, I have trouble not laughing because their agendas are so transparent. Right, left, middle -- all kine sam ting!
: I do not damn open agendas. However when information is intentionally omitted or taken out of context by any of the above, then it becomes underhanded.
True, but irrelevant to anything I have posted.
: Simon has asked a valid question. Give the US time is the answer.
Of course.
: However, the primus of are invasion was based on noncompliance of UN Resolution 1441. A fact you cannot escape.
What do you mean, that I cannot escape? Why do you assume that I have an opinion on this topic that I must escape?
Your assumptions here, ThiChi, indicate that your comprehension of reading material -- and certainly of my personal views, of which you have zero information aside from this post -- leaves much to be desired. You ought to take a college course to correct this deficiency.
AlanF
Jayson

Me thinkith that AlanF and ThiChi are under friendly fire...Me thinkith they are on the same side. Me hopeth that they re read posts to see that generalization of IT information makes propaganda a choice in free countries. You don't have to listent to one source or one opinion but you also can choose too. Some countries like un IRAQ did not have freedom of anything accept to shut the hell up. I hope the US/UK fix that.
We need to stop using Jecques Eullul's ideas of what propaganda is. Darn those French!
Drudge is an example although I don't know what it/he says cause I don't read him.
And yes Simon's question is a fair one. WoMD ... so where are they? Answer, Stand by.

WoMD ... so where are they?

Share this