2/10 So what do you guys think:
(a) WMDs were destroyed before the war
(b) WMDs are buried in the desert in the middle of nowhere
(c) WMDs are in Syria/Lebanon/etc
(d) There were never any WMDs
(e) WMD's are hiding with Osama.
\_ No fair relabeling your options. It makes everyone look nonsensical
\_ Aren't you sick of this topic already?
(d) WMD's are hiding with Osama.
(d) WMD's are hiding with Osama.
\_ I don't think even Wolfowitz was nutty enough to suggest (d).
\_ how about:
\_ I don't think even Wolfowitz was nutty enough to suggest (e).
\_ We know some of (A) is true. (B) wouldn't be a bad guess since
the Iraqis have buried plenty of other things in the sand but
obviously there's no proof (B) is true or we wouldn't be wondering
about it. (C) is based on intelligence rumors which is never a
100% guarantee especially in the Middle East. American intel has
been weak since we started putting up lots of high quality spy
satellites and letting the human intel skills dry up.
\_ I think, more than likely, people under hussein probably had
them destroyed to try and get back into the graces of the UN,
and that the posturing was a balance between putting on a show
of strength for their general populace and appeasing hussein.
The inspectors were there and were looking. We should have let
them continue. It was, apparently, an effective containment.
--scotsman
\_ Wait... that makes no sense. Why would people under Hussein
want to get into the graces of the UN? UN could not save them
from Hussein sending them to shredders. What possible motive
do they have for trying to appease an org which could do NOTHING
for them, vs. appeasing a dictator who could kill them on a whim.
Hussein had nothing to gain by giving up WMDs. At the same time,
almost every major nation except the US had something to gain
by having US appear with an egg on their face. Thus, what I think
happened is, the WMDs are in Syria, possibly with Russian, etc.
help. Of course, it will be really difficult to prove, since
Syria can move them somewhere else, or destroy them discreetly.
\_ I think by "people under Hussein" scotsman is referring to his
underlings, not his peasants. The people in his party would
want to help him avoid getting invaded. That being said, if
there were WMDs, it wouldn't surprise me if they had were in
Syria or buried in the desert.
\_ BUSH IS ALWAYS RIGHT!
\_ [ I have less patience than poster below. ]
\_ Good way to kill a decent conversation, trollboy. I'd
censor your dumb ass but I believe everyone has the
right to publicly demonstrate just how stupid they are.
\_ There was a really great article about this subject by the
guy who wrote "A Gathering Storm." Wish I had the URL, but
basically he had a fairly good argument that the WMD thing
post 1995 was a bluff meant to help Saddam's domestic
political situation. There's also the whole issue of the
large numbers of weapons scientists who were claiming to
work on programs in order to get money but then simply
embezzling it. Then again, his book turned out to be all
wrong so who knows.
\_ Uhm, in 1998 the entire world still believed Iraq had WMD
when the inspectors left so either the bluff was very
effective and Iraq's internal security aparatus was rock
solid or there were WMDs somewhere in Iraq.
\_ Uhm, please don't speak for the entire world when
your knowledge of the world is limited by what
your third rate media and press dumps on ya.
\_ Gee, you're right. I never read foreign press or see
what foreign dignitaries say or do anything else but
mindlessly suck up what ABC/NBC/CBS dish out at 8pm
everynight! Thanks for enlightening me! Ok, asshole,
back here in the real world, the entire world is on
public record as believing there were WMD in Iraq in
the 1998 post-inspector era. Thank you.
\_ You keep saying, but it is still not true. Hans
Blix said otherwise, Colonel Ritter (Retired US
Marine Corp Colonel, head of the UN Inspection
Team in 1998) and Russia said otherwise. Your
repetition of a lie in the face of overwhelming
evidence makes you less credible. It does not
make the lie more believable.
\_ Now you're just outright lying. I've seen
interviews with both Blix and Ritter and both
have said in public interviews that there were
wrong so who knows.
your knowledge of the world is limited by what
your third rate media and press dumps on ya.
repetition of a lie in the face of overwhelming
evidence makes you less credible. It does not
make the lie more believable.
still WMD in Iraq in 1998 post-inspectors. I was
going to give you the benefit of the doubt and
just call you ignorant but you've gone beyond
that.
\_ Prove it. I have the URLS and have posted them
time and time again. Show me the interviews
where Hans Blix or Ritter say that there
are still WMD in Iraq. You will never be
able to produce them because they never
said any such thing. You are just a big
fat liar.
\_ But, but, but it works for Fox News!
\_ bingo. nicely put. |