Weapons of Mass Destruction

[Linedrive]

With the inevitable risk of getting caught-out like those crappy forged documents that were supposed to prove links between Nigeria and a trade with Iraq in uranium. You'd hope that whoever does the "planting" is more competent.

Exhibit A

 

[patient1]

When did they ever find Anthrax in Iraq? I have been watching this thing pretty close - I do not recall hearing anything like that before?

I think the assertion is derived from the information in articles like this: accounting discrepancy

Prince Romeo & ThrobDownSouth- Thank You.

 

[Lancecastor]

Well, you didn't entirely vote in Bush --- it was the Supreme Court's decision as to the validity of the deciding few thousand votes in Florida.

Careful, they don't like to be reminded they have a court-appointed president who lost on the popular vote.

You'll get them chanting again....

 

[sensational204]

If your argument is that even if we find them, it means we planted them...[/B]

That's not my arguement at all. I'm sayingthat if we can't find them, then we wouldn't be above planting some to save face.

 

[zipman]

I have sorely missed you!

Right back at you b k. I just love reading some of the logic here, like the one I commented on above.

It is more than a little ridiculous to say they won't find WMD, but if they do, then the US planted it.

 

[Linedrive]

http://www.newsmaxstore.com/nmstore/images/books/Bush-map-poster.gif

 

[zipman]

That's not my arguement at all. I'm sayingthat if we can't find them, then we wouldn't be above planting some to save face.

Sorry I missed your point there. I have had other people use that argument.

I still disagree with your premise though. I don't think we have to find any WMD at all. The weapons inspectors were originally supposed to act as auditors to validate the destruction of the WMD that Iraq had declared at the end of the Gulf War. Iraq was forcing them to act as investigators instead of auditors, which necessitated this military action. If they didn't have them, they should have complied with the inspectors, as they agreed to.

 

[bad kitty]

Right back at you b k. I just love reading some of the logic here, like the one I commented on above.

It is more than a little ridiculous to say they won't find WMD, but if they do, then the US planted it.

Yep. You were gone but I pretty much figured it all out. It is all a big conspiracy about oil and then we are gonna blow up the world with nukes so the alien invasion can begin. See, it's the aliens that are really calling the shots. We are just puppets. I am still looking for the Puppet Master though.

 

[sensational204]

Careful, they don't like to be reminded they have a court-appointed president who lost on the popular vote.

You'll get them chanting again....

First of all, the popular vote doesn't matter. Our constitution is based on Electoral votes. And Bush is not the first President to be elected without winning the majority of popular votes. You can argue whether the electoral college system is the best way or not, but constitutionally that's the way our founding fathers set it up.

Secondly, that thing about him being court appointed isn't really true at all. Bush was declared the winner before it ever even went to court. Gore filed a petition to take it to court and the court just upheld the original count. Furthermore, the Washington Post went back and counted the questionable ballots and declared that Bush more than likely would have still won Florida even with a recount.

So even if you don't like Bush (as I don't), you should stop with the illegitimate President stuff. That's just being a sore loser and it hurts our cause. In reality Gore lost MOSTLY because of apathetic voters who probably would have voted for him but didnt' vote; and because of Ralph Nader who siphoned votes from him.

 

[ImpWizard]

Right back at you b k. I just love reading some of the logic here, like the one I commented on above.

It is more than a little ridiculous to say they won't find WMD, but if they do, then the US planted it.

No more ridiculous than saying, "If no evidence can be found to confirm that Iraq has WMDs, then they must be hiding it and lying so we'll attack them anyway."

 

[sensational204]

I still disagree with your premise though. I don't think we have to find any WMD at all. The weapons inspectors were originally supposed to act as auditors to validate the destruction of the WMD that Iraq had declared at the end of the Gulf War. Iraq was forcing them to act as investigators instead of auditors, which necessitated this military action. If they didn't have them, they should have complied with the inspectors, as they agreed to.

I think you'd have a hard time convincing the world that it was right to invade a country and remove it's leadership solely because they would not comply with the U.N. Without proof of WMD, no one would accept that as a legitimate reason. Especially after the US itself has backed out of environmental treaties, disarmament treaties, and UN conferences on racism when WE deemed it convenient. Not to mention that that would be the US changing message again, from a mission of security to a mission of penalization? No one in their right mind could accept that justification alone if there was no evidence of WMD.

 

[patient1]

Well, you didn't entirely vote in Bush --- it was the Supreme Court's decision as to the validity of the deciding few thousand votes in Florida.

I voted against the man, myself.

The Supreme court acted like a referee in a boxing match- it ended the fight prematurely without changing the outcome.
The Miami Herald's recounts favored Bush, also.

Election night returns don't reflect the outstanding absentee ballots. Traditionally these are heavily Republican, being cast by members of the armed services at sea & abroad, expatriot fat cats backing tax cuts, and travelling comission sales people. Florida isn't the only state this would be true of.

Al Gore painted himself into a corner by saying he wanted to have every vote count, then trying to block votes from service people with legal manuevering. He wisely backed down.

The only vote that matters is the electoral college vote cast in DC between the general election & the inauguration. Bush won it, too. He's legitimate as president, although he had no mandate for change.

 

[crysede]

You are really just clueless, aren't you. You are obviously blinded by your agenda.

Imp made a perfectly valid point – if possession of chemical protection suits entails that Iraq is planning something, then the same must be true of the US, and every other country owning such suits.

This is, of course, absurd: we know the US owns these suits in case chemical weapons are used against them. It is equally absurd to assume that Iraq does not have the exact same reason – after all, the US possesses far more chemical weapons than Iraq could possibly have amassed, and there has been increasingly strong opposition, within the US, to America's current ban on chemical warfare. If the Iraqis somehow manage to make the going really tough for the US, I would certainly not rule out a chemical attack by US forces against the Iraqis.

 

[Lancecastor]

First of all, the popular vote doesn't matter. Our constitution is based on Electoral votes.

Bush bought the election just like Nixon did.

If you are comfortable with those who can successfully twist the rules in becoming Presidente...any questioning of the legitimacy of Saddam Hussein's Presidency loses by extension.

Given that there is no evidence of WMD in Iraq and the bypassing of the UN, the reasons for invading Iraq are 1. Global Rule and 2. Oil....neither of which are legitimate by any rule of law.

Therefore, the USA is no better no worse than North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Saudi arabia or any other non-democratic autocratic or tyranical power.

 

[sensational204]

He's legitimate as president, although he had no mandate for change.

I don't believe in this mandate stuff. People just want someone to do a good job. Whether it be to change something that needs to be changed, or keep good things the same.

 

[Linedrive]

If the Iraqis somehow manage to make the going really tough for the US, I would certainly not rule out a chemical attack by US forces against the Iraqis.

They wouldn't use a chemical attack for several reasons. First, it would likely affect many of the civilians and second, evidence of a chemical attack remains, including the victims. There is no way for a chemical attack to occur and the western media not find clues of it. Is it impossible...well nothing is impossible. Of course I would assume that there are those that believe the US/UK would launch a chemical attack and blame it on Iraq, and for these people there is no debating, they are wrapped in conspiracy theories.

 

[p_p_man]

Funny how pp_man and his blokes are experts on America and the people. That's pretty funny.

When you think about it we probably know more about America and see it in its true light more than Americans who live within its shores and never travel the world.

The rest of us have been absorbed my American culture for many years, so have you...

The rest of us can see that culture through foreign eyes, you can't...

We have a broader, objective overview of your country, you don't...

ppman

 

[sensational204]

Bush bought the election just like Nixon did.

If you are comfortable with those who can successfully twist the rules in becoming Presidente...any questioning of the legitimacy of Saddam Hussein's Presidency loses by extension.

Given that there is no evidence of WMD in Iraq and the bypassing of the UN, the reasons for invading Iraq are 1. Global Rule and 2. Oil....neither of which are legitimate by any rule of law.

Therefore, the USA is no better no worse than North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Saudi arabia or any other non-democratic autocratic or tyranical power.

This post suffers from failures of logic of mamoth proportions. First of all, every president who's ever raised money for an election and won can be claimed to have "bought" an election. He was elected the exact same way as all the rest of them, except his election was closer than most. If anything it wasn't his money, it was his name recognition, and the fact that Ralph Nader sucked away his competitors votes that got him elected.

And secondly, just because there haven't been any WMD found yet doesn't mean they are not there. And even if they are not there, that doesn't mean that we didn't THINK they were there. Never chalk up to malice what can just as easily be explained by stupidity (especially when GW is involved).

And lastly, the US is NOT a democracy. It never has been. We are a democratic republic. That means that we do not make all the decisions, we elect representatives who make decisions for us. But that's still a far cry from an authoritarian dictatorship. There was a vote, and under the rules of that vote Bush won fairly. If we don't like him we have the right to vote him out next year.

 

[Lancecastor]

The US is NOT a democracy.

Thank you for seeing it my way.

 

[p_p_man]

They wouldn't use a chemical attack for several reasons. First, it would likely affect many of the civilians...

I don't think that self-imposed protect the civilians policy will last very long if its a matter of them or us...

Already the Iraqis have placed gun emplacements within civilian areas, have taken shots at the allies and then changed into civilian clothes and mingled with the population and hidden behind civilian women and kids lining the streets, to fire on our troops.

If that carries on it will be a matter of every civilian is suspect and to hell with the consequences...

ppman

 

[zipman]

No more ridiculous than saying, "If no evidence can be found to confirm that Iraq has WMDs, then they must be hiding it and lying so we'll attack them anyway."

That is not what I am saying. The point is that Iraq had the responsibility to provide support and access to verify that they had destroyed the WMD that they had. Iraq did not do this and prevented the Inspectors from doing their job. Because of this, it is necessary to go in and do it ourselves.

Originally posted by sensational204
I think you'd have a hard time convincing the world that it was right to invade a country and remove it's leadership solely because they would not comply with the U.N. Without proof of WMD, no one would accept that as a legitimate reason. Especially after the US itself has backed out of environmental treaties, disarmament treaties, and UN conferences on racism when WE deemed it convenient. Not to mention that that would be the US changing message again, from a mission of security to a mission of penalization? No one in their right mind could accept that justification alone if there was no evidence of WMD.

The threat of WMD in the hands of Saddam Hussein is much different than the other examples you presented. The treaties you listed are much different than losing a war and not abiding by the terms of the cease fire. Iraq lost and promised to comply to not have Bagdhad attacked. These are apples and oranges.

Originally posted by Lancecastor
Bush bought the election just like Nixon did.

If you are comfortable with those who can successfully twist the rules in becoming Presidente...any questioning of the legitimacy of Saddam Hussein's Presidency loses by extension.

Given that there is no evidence of WMD in Iraq and the bypassing of the UN, the reasons for invading Iraq are 1. Global Rule and 2. Oil....neither of which are legitimate by any rule of law.

Therefore, the USA is no better no worse than North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Saudi arabia or any other non-democratic autocratic or tyranical power.

The rules weren't twisted and this is a lame and old argument.

There is no evidence of WMD because Iraq didn't cooperate with the inspectors. Their lack of cooperation necessitated this action. Therefore, your conclusions are flawed. Nice try though.

 

[ImpWizard]

Like I said before, due to the risk of civilian casualties the US forces are more likely to use incapacitants, such as CS gas, and probably a whole bunch of others when they move into the big cities; that's the only kind of chemical attack that I'd expect the US/British forces to use. Having CBW suits means they can spare their own soldiers from any unintentional dispersal.

Unfortunately, the use of a lot of such weapons are still considered illegal in international law.

 

[Linedrive]

When you think about it we probably know more about America and see it in its true light more than Americans who live within its shores and never travel the world.

The rest of us have been absorbed my American culture for many years, so have you...

The rest of us can see that culture through foreign eyes, you can't...

We have a broader, objective overview of your country, you don't...

ppman

pp_man, you only know of your perception of what being an American is. It's more than SUV's, McDonalds and the Gap. Most of the time I think half the population here is idiotic, but when it comes to dealing with threats of the security of my country, there is nothing more important. While you may have talked to many Americans and maybe even visited here, you do not know what being an American is all about and you don't know what truly motivates our hearts.

I've spent time in Korea, Japan and Australia and still have friends to this day from those places. And while I have a good understanding of their culture, history and the people, I do not know what it means to be Korean, Japanese or Australian.

 

[Lancecastor]

Most of the time I think half the population here is idiotic

Now you're talkin'!

 

[Linedrive]

Of course that was the Canadian immigrants I was refering to