Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction? (July 2003 edition)

[freeo]

I should really start these on the first of each month...

Yet another month has passed with no news of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So, does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?

[tau_neutrino]

At the beginning of the war, I was convinced that Iraq had WMD. Now I'm undecided.

[relentless]

who the hell knows

[Acharne]

I'm thinking no... I find it hard to believe you could hide something like that for this long.

[crz]

please search all of texas for the elusive bigfoot. if you dont have results inside of half a year, clearly bigfoot doesnt exist. whats that, the place is freaking huge and people are killing your help? oh, boo hoo, no pity for you.

sheesh, you people are unbelieveable. i definitely expect an answer if they dont have wmd's, but for the love of pete, freaking realize how much there is to search and how hard it currently is.

[Moniker]

Nobody said it was easy, jackass, they're just stating whether they think it's there or not.

Moniker, he was replying to this:

I'm thinking no... I find it hard to believe you could hide something like that for this long.

So before you call someone else a jackass because they have a different view than you, maybe you should try to understand the situation.

[Cain]

The White House claimed we were in imminent danger. That means the weapons should have been on the ready, not buried deep into the sand in an obscure part of the Iraqi desert.

We're in "grave danger." The invasion is "urgent." All that bullcrap.

If you want to now argue along the "wait and see" lines, then where were you when Hans Blix investigated? Colin Powell essentially said the inspectors were stupid and Saddam kept moving things right under their noses.

It's a moot question. Nobody cares anymore.

[PurpleHaze]

/me indulges in a chuckle at Cain's sig

wtf yes he does.. dam hippies voting no and stuff

[Moniker]

So before you call someone else a jackass because they have a different view than you, Actually I called him a jackass because he says "you people". Obviously it wasn't directed at one person.

Maybe you shouldn't assume why I call someone a jackass, blah blah blah, don't tell me what I do and do not understand.

[Sleepy Mexican]

Our military and all that shizzle is capable of a lot. We have shit running over every country nobody even knows about, I think we're advanced enough to have found WMD by now if they exist...this isn't just some troops running around Iraq.

[crz]

Originally posted by Moniker
Actually I called him a jackass because he says "you people". Obviously it wasn't directed at one person.

Maybe you shouldn't assume why I call someone a jackass, blah blah blah, don't tell me what I do and do not understand.

so my use of the words "you people" warrant you calling me a jackass. did i mis something or do you have misdirected anger?

[snaggle]

There's no way they have them. Plain and simple. A regime that took a whole two weeks to fall had no way of fronting a threat to a superpower. If anything, the US didn't destroy enough of the country, we've lost more guys since the war was "over" than we did when it was on. We need to get out of there, and let them squabble over how to run the country. Our business was over the minute it became apparent they had no WMD.

[Acharne]

Tell that to Dubya.

[philly]

Originally posted by Moniker
...don't tell me what I do and do not understand.

..its pretty clear you don't understand this...

Flame free intelligent discussions concerning religon, politics, science, philosophy, and other topics that require actual thinking. NON-FLAMMABLE.


Lets see, we can't find Osama (hey remember that guy?), we can't find any of the upper level Al Queda (wow another blast from the past)we can't find Saddam so why is everybody surprised we haven't found WMD yet? If they exist it could be a while before we find them if at all. But as Cain stated we were told it was urgent and the US was in grave danger, so that leads you to believe these WMDs were 95% complete an ready to deploy. I'm sure something will be discovered eventually, but weither or not it justifies invading a country is another question.

[Cain]

Clinton killed plenty of innocent people (the exact number will never be known) when he destroyed a Sudanese pharmecutical factory. To be fair, Republicans had reservations about this attack. Oh, not because he violated international law and murdered innocents on faulty intelligence. They feared he was purposely distracting the media from the Lewinsky "scandel".

[Moniker]

Philly:

If an admin declares that I'm flaming, then I'll stop. And yes, I do understand the rules, and I didn't violate them.

so my use of the words "you people" warrant you calling me a jackass. did i mis something or do you have misdirected anger? It's obvious I have to spell this out for you, so I suppose I'll go ahead.

sheesh, you people are unbelieveable. i definitely expect an answer if they dont have wmd's, but for the love of pete, freaking realize how much there is to search and how hard it currently is. Obviously when you say "you people" you're referring to people who don't think there are WMD's there (or Americans in general). Then you tell "you people" that they don't realize how hard it is to find them.

I, being one of these people who don't think WMD's don't exist in Iraq, was offended and decided to call you a jackass for assuming we (also read as: you people) are too ignorant to realize that it was difficult.

If this doesn't clear it up then I'm out of ideas.

Never seen a thread like this before.

[larcain]

Hmmm. We can't Saddam either. Maybe HE doesn't exist. Maybe Osama doesn't exist. Maybe those towers ARE still standing. Maybe these are not the droids we're looking for...

[[RiCE]cancer]

Hmmm. We can't Saddam either. Maybe HE doesn't exist. Maybe Osama doesn't exist. Maybe those towers ARE still standing. Maybe these are not the droids we're looking for...

I see no reason to even address this, let alone read it (alas, I can't take back my precious time), but let's step through the motions anyway.

One man hiding is far different from the thousands upon thousands of "weapons of mass destruction" the Bush administration claimed Iraq was hiding. It's as simple as that.

Edit:

I just thought of a cute analogy.

I have two giant haystacks. Right in front of you, I throw a needle into one of them. In the other one, I tell you there's a car. I then provide you with tons of documentation showing why I believe there to be a car in the second haystack.

You search haystack number one for the needle and come up empty handed. You search haystack number two for the car (for several months) and also come up empty handed. When you say I must have been wrong about there being a car in the second haystack I say, "Well you couldn't find the needle either! Does that mean it doesn't exist!? You're just not looking hard enough."

I do hope you see the parallel. And note that in my example thousands of people weren't killed in the search for the car.

[larcain]

I believe the word you used "hiding" is the correct one. Things that are hiding (or people) are generally hidden so as not to be found. That assumes different sized or shaped things (or people) will be hidden in different places both with the criterium that they are placed so as not to be found. I might hide a needle in a haystack so that it could not be found. I wouldn't assume that the same sort of haystack could also hide a car.

[crz]

Originally posted by [RiCE]cancer
I see no reason to even address this, let alone read it (alas, I can't take back my precious time), but let's step through the motions anyway.

One man hiding is far different from the thousands upon thousands of "weapons of mass destruction" the Bush administration claimed Iraq was hiding. It's as simple as that.

Edit:

I just thought of a cute analogy.

I have two giant haystacks. Right in front of you, I throw a needle into one of them. In the other one, I tell you there's a car. I then provide you with tons of documentation showing why I believe there to be a car in the second haystack.

You search haystack number one for the needle and come up empty handed. You search haystack number two for the car (for several months) and also come up empty handed. When you say I must have been wrong about there being a car in the second haystack I say, "Well you couldn't find the needle either! Does that mean it doesn't exist!? You're just not looking hard enough."

I do hope you see the parallel. And note that in my example thousands of people weren't killed in the search for the car.

too bad the car is too big for a half decent analogy. try 10 small rocks and youre a bit closer kid.

[Jigga|]

when viewing the news these days i noticed the American govt have said they messed up, that one sentenance that slipped into Bush's speech before the war about having WMD's and they have put all the blame on a CIA director, and they also claim that having WMD's wasnt a big factor for them going to war in the first place. i have a hard time believing that.. they had me convinced back before the war that they were going to war because of those WMD's... but im getting this feeling that back then when WMD's were such a huge thing now is just regarded as one sentenance that slipped into the speech.. and is really no big deal because it was a slip up by "intelligence"

[alphatronics]

Originally posted by crz
please search all of texas for the elusive bigfoot. if you dont have results inside of half a year, clearly bigfoot doesnt exist. whats that, the place is freaking huge and people are killing your help? oh, boo hoo, no pity for you.

Bigfoot doesn't need a silo.