officially pissed off by the "no weapons of mass destruction in iraq" propaganda

[pinklola]

so according to the united nations, iraq COULD still have weapons of mass destruction within its borders, could be working on these weapons within others borders, OR could have sold or had them stolen. YAY!!! just cuz whitey hasnt been found doesnt mean he doesnt exist...hell he could be on his home soil, if we cant catch him what makes us think

Comments

[guitarzan]

"The United States barred the inspectors' return after the war, preventing the IAEA from keeping tabs on the equipment and materials up to the present day."

sounds like your conspiracy theory could swing both ways, jon. the IAEA is limited by how much they can know because the US is keeping them out...

here's an interesting counter argument, where the CIA director himself admits that WMD claims on Iraq are ill-founded:

http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2004/s1216479.htm

[pinklola]

its not a counter arguement, andy. the topics of it existing and the subject of it being right to have searched for it are two separate entities. 'Course they are gonna say that its not there (bush etc.), cuz if they keep saying that these weapons are being hidden somewhere...what are people gonna say...this is politics dude.. id bet my lifes worth tenfold that if bushs administration kept saying that there was stuff there then people wouldnt believe him. people would withdraw whatever trust they had in him. they would think, he cant admit his wrong so hes making shit up. u think thats the message he wants to convey? nope, satisfy the people...the only way for a president to win and with his current situation, he cant win. as far as im concerned...you and i asked for this burden of a war as much as he did

[guitarzan]

i certainly agree that election years can give both parties an excuse to dance to the center, to not want to say anything radical (or anything that might be factually misinterpreted or just plain wrong). bush and cheney and the republican campaign are trying there damndest to word things in a way that disillusion the american people about the reasons for going into Iraq, just as much as kerry, edwards, and the democratic campaign are wording things to confuse people about why as senators they voted for one bill and not the other and so on. the ABC article (which isn't the best on the subject but just an example of what's out there) isn't countering the CNN article, moreso the context of your comments. you said the article claimed that WMDs could be out there, and the ABC article shows even those who were once strongest behind the notion that Iraq had WMD now admit they were wrong

[pinklola]

all i was saying was that we cant just exclude the possibility that there could be weapons of mass destruction out there. course dick and bush (giggle) are gonna say they were wrong to avoid looking like cocky knuckel heads. in order for bush to go to war, he had to have the house of reps behind him, so why arent they given crap for it? it was an overwhelming majority afterall. how can you actually say he was flawed in doing so? k...step into his shoes for just a minute...ur dealing with a country who has known to oppose america and torture its own people, meanwhile undermining sanctions...is known to have had weapons of mass destruction in the past. k, now...the "intelligence" says that they are a potential upcomming threat. what do you do? do you risk the possibility? being commander in cheif, id like to think youd have the best interest in your people and be scared shitless of what could potentially happen. if you dont act on it, and we are attacked and many killed...the blood is on your hands. how do you act? i think its the duty

[mi6hero006]

It is a lot harder to hide weapons of that magnitude, and the plants required to make such weapons, than it is to hide a single person, so your likening it to the Whitey search isn't a great analogy. With the number of troops we've had there, both on the ground and in the air, and for the length of time that they've been there, if they say they haven't found anything, odds are it means that there isn't anything to find. Granted, once Saddam knew we were going to attack, he could have had them dismantled, but that's not too likely I would think. True he did have chemical weapons in the past, we saw him use them against the Kurds, but due to sanctions, his capability to recreate that arsenal had been severely hindered. That said, I don't think we were lied to about the WMDs at the begining, though our intelligence was far from spectacular.
-Eric

[pinklola]

well when you have an entire country country to hide something that large in, let alone any allies, or just people who want the same things (any other nation in the nuclear arms race that doesnt exactly coincide with american beliefs), you can hide damn near anything. weve had soldiers sweep through the plains and lowely populated area...i hardly consider that a likelihood to find anything that could be there. this wouldnt be his first time undermining sanctions. actually, i think likening this search to whitey is perfect...if you were to pass him in a supermarket..would you know it was him? i wouldnt less i had met him in person previously..and the majority if people wouldnt. if my neighbor had a wierd lookin set of tools set up next door, i wouldnt be able to tell it was a to create anything nuclear. sure, the army is trained to know it by sight, but when nuclear destruction can been sold literally in a brief case in russia, its become a lot easier to conceal these things. these things were "systematically" taken apart. if

[jackalopemonger]

I'll say it as simply as I can: the burden of proof lies on the party making the affirmative statement. As the doubting party, I can't provide evidence of something not existing; all I can provide is lack of evidence of its existence. And to quote from your own article:

"A new CIA report last week by chief U.S. weapons investigator Charles Duelfer made clear, however, that Saddam had all but given up on his nuclear program after the first Gulf War in 1991."

Show me solid evidence, and we can debate over it. But to me it looks like the entire WMDs claim was cooked up for the purpose of having an excuse to invade a key Middle East country.

[pinklola]

im curious how ya figure? as u articulated it, it says they had most definately continued the development of nuclear weapons, note...that was after what have been called some of the most extreme sanctions were put in place. so its been noted that these "powerful" sanctions were broken, as i see it, the burden of proof lies within the ability to rule out any reasonable doubt, our constitution agrees with that much. the wmds werent the origional reason for hittin off war with iraq, it was a deus...the first thing that got that motive was the false belief that osama and saddam were linked and workin together. yeah, we were wrong...no denying that but when we were faced by the idea that they had wmds over there...thats when we really tossed in a shit load of people