WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon 865 Replies latest social current

• 

  Terry

  Weapons of Mass Destruction are invisibly present and have been since 1914. One "sees" them with the eyes of faith.
• 

  Realist

  His playing games with the weapons inspectors seemed to point towards some concealment. In fact, he almost tried to look guilty!

  in the 90ties the inspectors were spying on iraq. then the inspectors choose to leave in 1998. when the inspections were resumed in 2003 iraq fully colaborated with the inspectors.
• 

  Pole

  :: Weapons of Mass Destruction are invisibly present and have been since 1914. One "sees" them with the eyes of faith.

  Interestingly, those who first proclaimed their invisible presence also suggested that their generation shall not pass away until all WMDs are physically revealed to the world.

  Although by now most of those original faithful and discreet proclaimers have either vanished or gave up making predictions, their zelous followers (also known as the-other-sheep-WMD-proclaimers) continue to spread the good news of the revelation of the invisible Weapons of Mass Destruction.

  In doing so they are more Catholic than the Pope himself.
• 

  NameWithheld

  it is an uncontested fact that at one time saddam did possess wmds (and has used them on his own people).....he admitted to having large stockpiles of various wmds in declarations to the u.n. let me know if you need links...i can dig back through this thread and find them.

  That's all well and good. I guess he used them all up though, since they don't exist now. So my initial question remains valid - how do you destroy that which you do not possess. Not to mention those "WOMD" he did use all those years ago were chemical based, not nuclear. Nuclear clouds are what Bush and co. wanted to leap to our minds when they scream "Sadam has WOMD". It's the nuclear threat which scared us.

  This conversation will lead not lead either of us anywhere however - if you wish to believe Sadam was a big enough threat to world peace to justify our actions in Iraq, it is not my place to change your mind.
• 

  Simon

  interesting that the first post since emans "locking" post was made today then (by you, oddly enough). a wild coincidence i guess. btw, what would be the purpose of unlocking a thread that was specifically locked because it was going nowhere and only causing problems? has something changed? who unlocked it?

  Well, whenever the thread was unlocked, the first post would show up as being when the first new post was made wouldn't it.

  It was locked because it couldn't be resolved at the time. It can now. I disagreed with the locking at the time but I don't whine about things if someone else makes a moderating decision.

  i wasnt trying to change the subject....just pointing out that the rules obviously get bent when it serves the right persons purpose. as far as my position goes, youve dodged nearly every question ive posed to you on this thread (including some on this very page back in august), and whenever called to the mat you give your "pearls and swine" speech........your antics are the silliest remnants of this entire discussion.

  Yeah, right. You can't stick to the topic now because your past comments and assertions make you look a bit of a ass don't they?

  No rules were bent - the thread was locked because it was felt that the thread couldn't go anywhere at the time but now the official report has come out it can. You lost.

  I think the "silliest remnants" of the discussion are those by the neo-con zeolots who fell for the lies and still cling to them even though thier "messiahs" have let them down and no longer believe things themselves.

  Any more off-topic comments by you will be deleted.
• 

  LittleToe

  Mike:

  So why did Saddam only make a half hearted attempt to defend his claims that WOMD didn't exist?

  Pride?
  If the world thought that his country could compete on a military level, and if his people saw some pride in that, it's a difficult position to back down from (even if you want to, which I suspect he didn't).

  So much bluff, double bluff and triple bluff here.

  Of course. It's politics...

  Dubla:

  exactly....and his games got his country attacked. perhaps he wanted to be a martyr? he couldve easily avoided the war if he indeed had destroyed his wmds by proving it...but he refused, knowing full well the consequences. i guess trying to figure out the whys of a madmans actions might be futile.

  ???
  How long were you a JW? You know how the WTS has always loved to draw ire to itself, so that it could claim persecution.
  Add a dash of politics and power to a heightened sense of religious fervor, with a martyr complex, and what do you expect?
  People don't attach bombs to themselves, or pilot one-way-trip aeroplanes, simply because they are mad.

  I could well be wrong, but it appears that one thing that is generally left out of these kind of discussions is any semblance of understanding of the Middle-Eastern culture. Not everyone thinks the way we do, in the West. That's not right or wrong, it just IS.
  Travel, to that portion of the world, reveals that thinking processes and values can differ radically from one region to another.

  Terry:

  Weapons of Mass Destruction are invisibly present and have been since 1914. One "sees" them with the eyes of faith.

  ROFL

  Pole:

  Interestingly, those who first proclaimed their invisible presence also suggested that their generation shall not pass away until all WMDs are physically revealed to the world.

  LOL

  Personally I have no axe to grind, but I found those two WTS comparisons hilarious
• 

  Abaddon

  dubla

  interesting that this thread has been locked for some time, but gets unlocked to serve an agenda.

  Er... no, a subject which was in the process of determination has now been determined. I suppose that one could describe that as serving the agenda of truth. Do you have a problem with that?

  If you don't like being reminded that people who insisted that stocks of WoMD would eventually be found were (technical term coming up here) WRONG, tough.

  I don't really think you've dealt with the issue that the threat depicted by our political leaders was similar to threats portrayed by our governments in the past. If they can create a situatuion where they are depicted as acting in our best interests to protect us from a threat, they will get support for actions that otherwise would be opposed by the majority.

  This time round though, many people were sceptical of the reasons given and the claims made. They have been vindicated. The counter-claims they made were dismissed at the time by those very people who now admit there were no WoMD.

  It's amazing that the coalition of the fooled are still justifying the deception.

  Iraq posed no threat to the USA, just as Nicaragua posed no threat to the USA when Ray-gun declared a State of National Emergency. Both times the deception allowed the USA to pursue long-term strategic and commercial goals, conforming to the hegemonic ideology that American foreign policy has pursued since WWII.

  Making it seem like an emergency made rapid military action a viable plan. We now know we could have hopefully done it smarter and better by involving more Arabic countries so that they were seen as heading a 'police-action' to allow a dictator with human-right violations to be deposed by an oppressed populace with outside help. This would have taken time, but we had time. It would also have meant that the USA would have lost less lives and spent far less money (but not have achieved the commercial gains it has made both through internal 'war economy' slight-of-hand or whatever it ends up screwing Iraq for). It also would have lost out on any chance (like it has one now) of a long term base in a strategically important area.

  But as the USA was 'threatened', the USA was 'justified' in rolling rough-shod over international law. Just as it has justified its previous violations of international law with fabricated or over-stated claims of the USA being at threat.

  If you want to join the ranks of those who are apologists for the American hegemony, go ahead. Being an apologist for 'the kinder, gentler, machine gun hand' isn't something I'd do though.

  Apologists don't tend too fare well, historically speaking; they're looking backwards trying to make everything 'right' through argumentation, rather than admitting faults and looking forward to genuine solutions to the problems besetting the world today.

  Of course they changed the tune (rather unsuccesfully in consideration of the human rights violations by the US government and US troops) to a humanitarian intervention. Fortunately not everyone has the memory of a goldfish or a Dubbie, so the new light trick doesn't work for many.

  It's obvious that Iraq was militarily helpless. The USA has a track record of picking on countries it thinks it can beat, and beat easy. The petty Imperialism of the US in the Carribean and Central America is a validation of this policy. Iraq was easy to take both times.

  But North Korea? They wouldn't be so easy and they could pop a nuke out at an 'inconvenient' moment.

  Apparently all humans have equal rights, but some are more equal than others...
• 

  William Penwell

  I recall how the UN was trashed by those that supported the War because they said they were not doing their job and buying Saddam's lie's. As it goes on the issue of WoMD, Saddam was telling the truth, Iraq didn't posses WoMD, the weapons inspections were working and it was Bush and Blair that were the liars. Was it worth all the American, British and Iraqi live? I know all you that supported the war will still justify it in your minds but try justifing that to all those that lost loved ones over a lie. As Abaddon said above, "we could have hopefully done it smarter and better by involving more Arabic countries so that they were seen as heading a 'police-action' to allow a dictator with human-right violations to be deposed by an oppressed populace with outside help."

  Will
• 

  dubla

  simon-
  

  Yeah, right. You can't stick to the topic now because your past comments and assertions make you look a bit of a ass don't they?

  lets avoid the ad hominem attacks, okay? and no, my past comments stand....the fact is that saddam had wmds at one time, and when he was required to prove he destroyed them he either could not, or refused. either way, he was in breach of the resolution and couldve avoided the war. this morning on cnn they were interviewing david kay (do a google search if youre unfamiliar with him)......hes not exactly the biggest supporter of the war, but he did say there was no way under the previous conditions (pre-war) that any president couldve known the truth about iraqs wmds. if a president couldnt have known for sure, how could i have? no one knew for certain.....some chose to take saddams word for it. i made a logical conclusion based on saddams known stockpiles (gulf war era) and his actions after the resolution (if you remember, none of my beliefs have ever been based on any "evidence" from this administration). saddams actions defied logic, and in turn he was taken out of power.
  

  You lost.

  this isnt a game to me...it might be to you. naa-naa-na-boo-boo antics might be fun, but they dont add any value to the situation or the discussion. the only people that "lost" are the dead iraqis and coalition soldiers.
  

  I think the "silliest remnants" of the discussion are those by the neo-con zeolots who fell for the lies

  again, ill repeat, my personal beliefs about saddams wmds have never been based on any evidence by this administration (ive said that from day one)....therefore, even if bush and blair "lied" as you believe, its impossible for my position to be based on those "lies". ive also taken you to task about calling me a neo-con zealot several times, and im far from being the right extremist you attempt to make me out to be. isnt this the same type of labeling and exaggerating youve asked others to refrain from? please give me the same courtesy you expect of others.
  

  even though thier "messiahs" have let them down and no longer believe things themselves.

  bush is far from my messiah....unfortunately hes the best option we have right now. as abaddon has brought out many times, our two party system is antiquated. dont forget, kerry believed the exact same things about saddams wmds that i did....so this isnt an issue that can differenciate bush from kerry.
  

  Any more off-topic comments by you will be deleted.

  thats a bit harsh isnt it? im fully willing to discuss the topic with you...id only ask that you actually respond to the questions i pose, just as i have responded to every single question youve posed. thats how a discussion works.

  aa
• 

  dubla

  abaddon-
  

  Er... no, a subject which was in the process of determination has now been determined.

  on cnn this morning, david kay said that this report tells us absolutely nothing new about saddams wmds. he said the only new information was the light that was shed on saddams evasion of the sanctions. so, really we dont know anything now we didnt already know in august. didnt bush and blair admit long ago that wmds would probably not be found? so how is this a new determination? the report said there is "little chance" of significant stockpiles being found....the same thing the bush administration said months ago.
  

  I suppose that one could describe that as serving the agenda of truth. Do you have a problem with that?

  i cant respond to this question fully without giving an "off topic" answer....and ive been warned that doing so would result in me being deleted. so, the short answer is no, ive got no problem with that.
  

  If you don't like being reminded that people who insisted that stocks of WoMD would eventually be found were (technical term coming up here) WRONG, tough.

  no, ive got no problem being reminded.....itll go on much longer than this. the discussions about saddams wmds or lack thereof will most likely continue for years.
  

  Making it seem like an emergency made rapid military action a viable plan. We now know we could have hopefully done it smarter and better by involving more Arabic countries so that they were seen as heading a 'police-action' to allow a dictator with human-right violations to be deposed by an oppressed populace with outside help. This would have taken time, but we had time.

  i agree....i think the situation was handled poorly, and as ive said to you in the past, i think the threat was exaggerated in order to justify the war.
  

  If you want to join the ranks of those who are apologists for the American hegemony

  im not going to defend every action ever taken by the u.s., but i do think iraq and the rest of the world is better off with saddam out of power.

  aa