88Comrade2000 Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 So far, they don't seem to be find as many of WMD as they told us they are. Some of it could be in Syria and Iran but there still should be plenty to find in Iraq. If they don't find all the weapons they said they did- then it will cause some problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Wop Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Well the thing to remember is that Iraq is a huge country and from what I heard the other day, they still have only scratched the surface of their search. I did see a CNN article saying that the US is calling into action an 1000 man team to really get the search into high gear. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/17/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html Another thing is that it is probably unfair to think that these weapons are easy to find. Saddam has had plenty of time to hide these weapons over the years, and it is more likely that we know that they have weapons, but are really unsure about their ltrue ocations (especially considering the fact that Saddam would know what sites we would look closest at, and probably hide them in other locations). Another thing I saw said that the US is offering rewards to those that provide info on hidden WMD.....this most likely this will be the means that would provide the quickest way to find such weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Assume that any new weapons inspectors are unable to locate any WMDs. Assume that after interrogation of all high-ranking officials... no information is forwarded because there really was no weapons being produced. Does it really change the American attitude about the war? I mean, this war was started under the "War on Terrorism" umbrella lead by Colin Powell's testimony... and quickly changed to liberating the Iraqi people. Would the average American then lose confidence in the Bush administration? Because they would have been essentially lied to no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 The War on Terrorism argument was mainly bolstered by the Weapons of Mass Destruction argument. If they fail to find the weapons then it may give us a black eye. On the other hand, if the reconstruction of the Iraqi government goes well, then the people's joy and prosperity will make most forget about WMD. They did change their tune pretty quickly from anti-WMD to a war of liberation. Given the large number of countries that possess WMD's who voice hostility towards the US, I supported the war of liberation much more than I did to remove the WMD's. I do hope that they uncover a large cache or six though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 nonsense....... - the first Bush cutbacks, the so-called "peace dividend" - occurred because the war against the Soviet Union was won. The cutbacks had to occur as a matter of domestic politics - there is very good evidence on Iraq's efforts to develop WMDs. I have noted how peace advocates on this board have chosen to ignore the statements of defectors such as Saddam's chief nuclear scientist during the 90s (his name, I believe, is Hamas) and other defectors who have stated unequivocably that Saddam was developing production capabilities and trying to secure weapons grade material - I have seen folks on this board ignore the circumstantial evidnce of 1000s of chem-bio suits of recent vintage - I have seen folks on this board ignore circumstantial evidence of weapons delivery systems configured to deliver chem-bio weapons - I have seen folks on this board ignore the documented use of these weapons against the kurds and Iranians as though Saddam suddenly changed his mind and decided to do away with these weapons - I have seen folks on this board blithely ignore the very existence of individuals like Chemical Ali and the Germ Lady. Just what were the roles of these people? - I have seen folks on this board ignore the circumstantial evidence of mobile labs that have been found that have chem-bio capabilities - I have seen folks on this board ignore the larger picture of what is happening with the huge stockpiles of enriched uranium and weaponized bio feedstocks in the former Soviet Union No. Iraq is/was just one link in a larger chain of WMD proliferation that has a lot of people nervous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 We'll find them. Other than an exercise in what if, discussing this now makes about as much sense as prognosticating how long the 'quagmire' was going to last when the war started. So far, the only lies we can confirm were the ones told by those opposing the war related to casualty figures, response in the middle east, reaction of the Iraqi people, etc...I'll grant you that its important for the American people that we validate the original intent of the war, to remove WMD's from a hostile regime's hands. But beyond our borders, its irrelevant. Many in the Middle East will continue to hate us, continue to harbor insane beliefs that we are the root of all evil, and wouldn't believe us if we hauled 20 tons of nerve agent out of the ground tomorrow. They don't matter. I'll stand by my original prediction that we'll find nerve and blister agents, and probably anthrax stores as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 We will find blister, nerve and perhaps blood agents. Maybe some anthrax and a nuclear program a lot further along then many had suspected, thanks the the frogs. Believe it. Have patience guys, we are still in the process of securing the country and getting the lights back on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 circumstantial evidence is not proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Why do we need proof? We've found mobile chemical labs. What else could those things be used for other than to produce chemical weapons? I think we will find them, but I rest easier knowing that we got rid of regime that was actively trying to/ and succeeding at producing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 If this adminstration is smart (in question) we will "find" a lot of WOMD. We need time to make them look like they were there all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 We may make a conservative out of you after all, JackC:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Originally posted by Air Sarge We may make a conservative out of you after all, JackC:D Good luck with that one my friend. I believe making "sure" we find them would be good for the country and that's what should be important for all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 The French and British entered World War II to ensure a free Poland. Poland wasn't a free country until almost 50 years later. Was WWII therefore a failure? The real reason for this war was regime change. It was/is an enormous policy gamble that had been advocated for over a decade by Wolfowitz. If Iraq can develop into some sort of functioning democracy that respects the rights of all its citizens, WMD will be rendered fairly irrelevant by comparison. The creation of a new free Arab state with a reasonably amicable relation with America cannot be underestimated. By contrast, if the experiment falters and the country reverts to an oppressive totalitarian state, the war will have been a failure. All that said, I think there is little doubt that WMD are still hidden somewhere in Iraq; but in light of the current civil unrest, things like restoring power and delivering aid are far more urgent taksts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama circumstantial evidence is not proof. no one said it was but that doesn't mean you totally ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 I agree you don't ignore it... my point is only that you don't conclude that you have found WMD because you have found chemical suits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 What about mobile chemical labs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama I agree you don't ignore it... my point is only that you don't conclude that you have found WMD because you have found chemical suits. that's kind of like saying "we found all the legal ingredients to make meth but we didn't find any meth itself" at some point you have to put 2 and 2 together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Mobile Chem labs indicate that they were AT THE LEAST attempting to make Chem weapons, but it doesn't prove that they succeeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Mobile Chem labs indicate that they were AT THE LEAST attempting to make Chem weapons DINGDINGDING> That's all the proof we need. He wasnt allowed to make them, so even attempting to do so created a threat. If we dont find any, that means we got to him before he succeeded. PERFECT in my book. The new doctrine is one of pre-emption. It works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Originally posted by stratoman that's kind of like saying "we found all the legal ingredients to make meth but we didn't find any meth itself" at some point you have to put 2 and 2 together. I know in my house right now, I have everyday items that can be made into a bomb... does that mean I should be arrested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama I know in my house right now, I have everyday items that can be made into a bomb... does that mean I should be arrested? it would all depend on the circumstances, in your case I would say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSF Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Sorry Codeorama, but you're seriously reaching. I wonder how long and what it will take for some of you lefties to be convinced. "Mobile Chem labs indicate that they were AT THE LEAST attempting to make Chem weapons, but it doesn't prove that they succeeded." and then... 'I know in my house right now, I have everyday items that can be made into a bomb... does that mean I should be arrested?" No, but if they find a meth lab in your house they'll arrest you even if you didn't succeed in making any meth. They have already found enough for most Americans to feel comfortable with the decision. Even if they didn't succeed with the mobile lab, which is unlikely, the intention is clear and that's enough for me. We have only scratched the surface guys. We have just begun the search. We'll find plenty, and we'll still be finding things years from now in Iraq. There will be stuff we never find b/c it's already in places like Syria, and that's scary if you think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Originally posted by GaSkinsfan Sorry Codeorama, but you're seriously reaching. I wonder how long and what it will take for some of you lefties to be convinced. "Mobile Chem labs indicate that they were AT THE LEAST attempting to make Chem weapons, but it doesn't prove that they succeeded." and then... 'I know in my house right now, I have everyday items that can be made into a bomb... does that mean I should be arrested?" No, but if they find a meth lab in your house they'll arrest you even if you didn't succeed in making any meth. They have already found enough for most Americans to feel comfortable with the decision. Even if they didn't succeed with the mobile lab, which is unlikely, the intention is clear and that's enough for me. We have only scratched the surface guys. We have just begun the search. We'll find plenty, and we'll still be finding things years from now in Iraq. There will be stuff we never find b/c it's already in places like Syria, and that's scary if you think about it. The problem isn't about convincing me that they have WMD, I believe they probably did have some at one time or possibly had some in a lesser volume than Bush has claimed. If they had everything that they were accused of having, some would have surely turned up by now... But I am sure we will find proof eventually. The thing for me is that even if they do have them, in my opinion, that doesn't make them a threat to us. There are many many options for terrorists to get chem or bio weapons and much easier than Iraq would have been... Besides that, in my opinion, each nation has a right to defend themselves. WMD are a means to prevent attack from others. Are we rushing to invade Russia even though we know they have aided Iraq?? No we are not. There are so many nations out there that have WMD and are not buddies with us, that's a fact. Why are we not rushing over to North Korea?? If Iraq had nukes, would this war have taken place?? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 One point, Code: In the case of Iraq, they have used chemical weapons as offensive weapons in the Iran Iraq war, inasmuch as Iraq started the war, then used Chemical weapons to to turn the tide of the war after they started losing. Now, I'm sure you could split hairs and say that even though Iraq started the war, they didn't use Chems until Iran started penetrating Iraqi territory, but I still think that goes beyond purely defensive purposes. Of course, there's the chems used against the Kurds, but you probably want to disqualify that as being an internal matter. As I've stated previously, I think this war wasn't really about Chemical weapons anyway, nor was it about oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Wop Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 The problem isn't about convincing me that they have WMD, I believe they probably did have some at one time or possibly had some in a lesser volume than Bush has claimed. If they had everything that they were accused of having, some would have surely turned up by now... But I am sure we will find proof eventually. My problem with this is that it is really misguided to think that WMD would turn up so quickly. The Iraqi's have had years and years to devise ways to hide weapons and keep them from inspectors, but all hell, we can just walk into Iraq and find them in 3 weeks because they are sitting out in the open......come on, thats absurd. The thing for me is that even if they do have them, in my opinion, that doesn't make them a threat to us. There are many many options for terrorists to get chem or bio weapons and much easier than Iraq would have been I also love when someone says that a country is not a threat because they don't engage us in an active war. I will give you the fact that preemptive battles do change things from conventional thinking....but so did 9/11. To say they are no threat is misguided....how hard would it be for Saddam to give a canaster of bio or chem weapon to some terrioritst, and what would be the chance that we could stop that (just because it hasn't happended doesn't keep it from being a threat). Also Saddam is a know supporter of terrorism (and has a serious problem with US and Isreal), he had terrorist camps in the North that we took out, and he is know to support the terriorist attacks in Isreal by paying the families of those who carry out such attacks. I mean what do you want a picture of him with this finger on a button to launch a Nuke. But then I guess you might say that is circumstancial, the picture could have been made altered with photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.