On the prowl for WMD

[Carrie]

Well said, Opti.



Last edited by Carrie at Apr 3 2003, 01:44 PM

[Opti]

Originally posted by Carrie@Apr 4 2003, 04:44 AM
Well said, Opti.

I saw what you called me before the edit! h34r:

You have no idea how often people used to mix us up ;-)

[Carrie]

*grin*
Sorry about that

[Opti]

Originally posted by Carrie@Apr 4 2003, 04:54 AM
*grin*
Sorry about that

If you know him, it is even funnier considering your current title ;-)))

"R-n L-vi's next ex-partner!"

[RawAlex]

JR, point of this discussion was a simple question: What if there are no WMD? I think Colin understood what I meant very well: What are the political implications of being somewhat wrong?

All of your comments in your first post pointed out the reasons WHY the US went to war. That isn't the issue. That is old news. There is a war - the war was because the US claimed Iraq didn't follow UN resolutions, and violated them.

If there are no WMD, then there is a problem. Was Iraq actually in compliance with Resolution 1441? If there is not solid proof to the contrary, what does it mean, especially within the political context of that region? Will not find WMD be the type of proof that extremist groups can use to rally people to rise up against US friendly governments in the area? Will the Arab people just be happy to see a major jackass like Saddam blown off?

JR, you do seem to try your damnedest to misunderstand me, so that you can ridicule me. What can I say, it's just boring.

Alex

Whether or not we're going to really find anything is anyone's guess. Whether or not they were there to begin with I think is a given. He has or had them, but I'm sure they're very well hidden and as a lot are saying, are probably in Syria.

[Mike AI]

There is no doubt in my mind there will be lots of evidence found on WMD. However, the people who are biased and are anti-USA will say that the evidence has been fabricated and planted by the CIA/Special Forces/USA.

One cannot change the minds full of mush, who are always on the wrong side of history.... there are people in the world who truly beleive 9-11 was a plot by the CIA and Israel to start a war against Muslims.

This is a good article... I think he is right on the numbers, but obviously Bush and others cannot just come out and say this.... but it is what I have been saying for years. We are at war with Islamic Fundamentalism, and we have been since the 80s.... only now do we realize it, and are acting on it..... Oh and we will win!


http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.....war/index.html

Originally posted by RawAlex@Apr 3 2003, 06:51 PM
JR, point of this discussion was a simple question: What if there are no WMD? I think Colin understood what I meant very well: What are the political implications of being somewhat wrong?

All of your comments in your first post pointed out the reasons WHY the US went to war. That isn't the issue. That is old news. There is a war - the war was because the US claimed Iraq didn't follow UN resolutions, and violated them.

JR, you do seem to try your damnedest to misunderstand me, so that you can ridicule me. What can I say, it's just boring.

Alex

Alex, you made a missleading remark and then asked "whats wrong with what i said". i responded to that... and that alone. i pointed out in a clear and concise way, what was wrong with what you said. i was not pointing out "why the US went to war".

you then tried to address it and attacked what i said. i went over the facts one more time just for you. all points which you will tactfully ignore because you know you can't ague against them. thats vintage RawAlex.

thats all i said. nothing more, nothing less.

you keep pointing out that i did not answer your question, when i am pointing out now for the third time that i did. you seem to have a very selective memory.

as i have said. i think its equally significant if nothing is found than if something is found. the issue is verification... the same verification that Iraq failed to provide. given the political value of finding something, i am sure we will be bombarded with new evidence, testimonies, documents and probably actual weapons... after the war. its a big country, a deadly government with a lot skeletons in the closet. turning the worlds attention away from that issue if need be should be quite easy as well.

your question which you have now asked in several different ways now, assumes that there will be some negative aspect of not finding anything. as i said (which you continue to ignore), since the entire world is very focused on post Saddam Iraq, humanitarian aid and reconstruction... its seems pretty unlikely that anyone significant (including the 49 nations which support the war in some way) are going to say "see i told you so" in any event.

[Almighty Colin]

AP reporting boxes with "white powder in vials", instructions in Arabic for spreading chem weapons, and atropine found South of Baghdad. Atropine is an anti-nerve agent.

Originally posted by slavdogg@Apr 2 2003, 02:02 PM
i doubt there are any WMD left in Iraq
whatever iraq had was probably transfered to Syria or another country.

The only WMD I know of are the ones that creep into my computer and screw with it. Some times they may be sprites, but too often they are weapons of mass destruction. Thank good for backups!

[Almighty Colin]

I think if the US is going to argue that pre-emptive war is a valid policy for stopping weapons proliferation it would be in it's best interest to convince the world of this doctrine. It would be better to be right than wrong in this particular instance and the more right the better,

That's why I don't understand the point-of-view that it doesn't matter if WMD's are not found. We need to find them AND act with all the diplomatic ability we have to improve relations with much of the rest of the world.

[RawAlex]

Colin, I think you are correct here... without WMD, the US will look (in the region) like even more of a bully than they already think... and there probably will be no end to the crap at the UN any time in the future when the US wants to get something done...

WMD are the reason for the war - without them, Saddam was "right", the UN was "right", and (shudder) France was "right".

It won't be enough, I don't think, to say "he had them once 10+ years ago"... without proof of current weapons, well...

I am hoping that the reported find this morning will be the start of a nice run of chemical discoveries... that will put the minds of everyone more at ease.

JR: I posted a simple question, Slavdogg said I was "manipulating he truth", so I asked what was wrong with the question. Your answer had little or no bearing on that, rather it was a long winded attempt to make me look anti-american and to belittle my attempt to raise a valid point. The orignal question was:

What happens if the US (and it's coalition of the willing) take over Iraq, and after extensive study, don't find anything more than the Al samud missles (which go 15 miles futher than they were suppose to...) and a few old chemical shells, long out of use?

Your reply was a justification for war statement... that wasn't the question, now was it? I know there were chemical weapons in the past, I know there were chemical shells in the past, I know that almost any rocket propelled weapon can "be modified" to fly further (by putting in a larger solid rocket motor). All of those are statements of why the US went to war... but doesn't explain what is wrong with the question. The question states that the missles could travel to far (slightly, based on the motors in them), and that shells had been found (a dozen, I think it was, all in a warehouse under a bunch of dust).

your off to the races, trying to explain WHY the US went to war. We all know why. That isn't a question. The question is:

What if the assumptions for going to war were wrong, and there are no WMD found?

Alex

[Winetalk.com]

What if the assumptions for going to war were wrong, and there are no WMD found?
****************************

they just found the 1000's of boxes with white powder and liquids chemical with instructions how to wage a chemical war, stay tuned Alex and pray that you were right along with others UN-ers

ok Alex. i am no longer interested in wasting my time on a mindless contest of wills.

RawAlex - 1
JR - 0

[Carrie]

Remember the Indiana Jones movies where you weren't supposed to touch anything when you went into a tomb, because it was covered in a light powder that was a poison?

This morning forces found weapons with a powder sprinkled on them, they didn't plant it - the embedded reporter was there with them filming it as they found it. The news crew also went in and did their own tests on the material, and it tested positive for Ricin.
That's the stuff that kills you in 72 hours and there is no cure for it.

So, looks like the question starting this thread is moot.

[Vick]

Fuck it - if no WMD are found in Iraq let's plant some (besides the missiles that have been found in Iraq that they were banned from having BY THEIR OWN AGREEMENT)








* it case you might be confused, part of the above is satire, it's up to you to figure out which part