The W
Views: 98344213
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.8.14 0110
The W - Current Events & Politics - Smoking Guns -- smoke 'em if you got 'em
This thread has 6 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(2094 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (16 total)
Gavintzu
Summer sausage








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2804 days
Last activity: 2804 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
Great article on Time.com about the war so far. One great section is about the WMD Saddam had:

"For months before the war began, everyone from Bush on down argued that Saddam's arsenal of biological and chemical weapons was so dangerous that destroying it was worth a war. They laid claim to information so certain that Colin Powell was able to provide graphic details to a U.N. audience in February. Pentagon officials were confident that the quality of their intelligence would lead troops to the illicit stockpiles fairly quickly once U.S. boots were on Iraqi soil. Now they're adjusting the picture: the Pentagon says its soldiers are no more likely to stumble over a weapons cache than top U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix was. "Things were mobile. Things were underground. Things were in tunnels. Things were hidden. Things were dispersed. Now, are we going to find that? No, it's a big country," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last week. "The inspectors didn't find anything, and I doubt that we will—what we will do is find the people who will tell us."

"The White House is screaming, 'Find me some WMD,'" says a State Department official, adding that the task is one of many suddenly facing the department. Members of the Administration must feel a new bond with Blix, since they are now the ones arguing that these things take time."

"The failure to turn up anything to date raises two possibilities, neither one good, says Joseph Cirincione, chief of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "It may be that there aren't as many weapons as the President said, in which case we have a major intelligence failure, a huge embarrassment for the President and a huge blow to U.S. credibility—and that's the good news," he says. "The other option is that there are as many weapons as the President feared, and they're no longer under anyone's control."

"That second possibility underscores the urgency of the hunt. The prime rationale for the war was to prevent the proliferation of such weapons.
Since every other government facility has been pillaged, there's no reason to believe such marketable weapons are secure. "It's not that no one knows where they are," Cirincione says. "It's that we don't know where they are."

I find the bits I bolded really worrisome. That either/or is not a win/win situation ... it's a lose/lose one for everyone but the Islamic fundamentalists.






Any man who hates small dogs and children can't be all bad.
Promote this thread!
cokeman
Chorizo








Since: 12.4.03
From: nj (back from iraq)

Since last post: 3224 days
Last activity: 3014 days
#2 Posted on
I bet that they will find WMD. wether or not they are already there. Or if we can't find any and we put them some where and find them. One way or another we will find weapons. but thats just my opinion.



Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 136 days
Last activity: 136 days
#3 Posted on
Ah, fun. That's one thing I didn't even think of. And apparently nobody else did either.

If we destroy the command and control structure in Iraq, what happens if somebody else finds the WMD first? So, potentially, the war could turn around and bite us in the ass in 6 months instead of years from now.

-Jag




From the mouth of my uncle Jim, the Republican banker:
"I regret voting for Bush."
"We need to vote him out of office."

I am in Shock. I am in Awe.
Hairy Caray
Bauerwurst








Since: 28.10.02
From: Wrigley Field hot dog stand

Since last post: 3631 days
Last activity: 3628 days
#4 Posted on

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    Ah, fun. That's one thing I didn't even think of. And apparently nobody else did either.

    If we destroy the command and control structure in Iraq, what happens if somebody else finds the WMD first? So, potentially, the war could turn around and bite us in the ass in 6 months instead of years from now.

    -Jag



I think the fear is not that someone is going to stumble across them, but that they were systematically distributed to groups that took them across the borders while we were still going around in circles at the UN. Saddam may have been a megalomaniac, but he may have taken one last shot at us by giving his WOMD away when he realized we were coming.




Cubs win! Cubs win! Cubs win!
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3843 days
Last activity: 3788 days
#5 Posted on
Saddam may have been a megalomaniac, but he may have taken one last shot at us by giving his WOMD away when he realized we were coming.

As opposed to the far simpler method of taking a shot by actually using them?
Hairy Caray
Bauerwurst








Since: 28.10.02
From: Wrigley Field hot dog stand

Since last post: 3631 days
Last activity: 3628 days
#6 Posted on

    Originally posted by godking
    Saddam may have been a megalomaniac, but he may have taken one last shot at us by giving his WOMD away when he realized we were coming.

    As opposed to the far simpler method of taking a shot by actually using them?



That would only validate every claim the US made against him, and still wouldn't have won the war. Rather, it probably would have solidified opposition to his regime. By getting rid of them, he had a chance of surviving the war and maybe even remaining in power by claiming that the US fabricated the whole thing, and can't even find a single weapon within Iraq's borders. You'll also recall that the terrorist groups left the country when the threat of war was imminent. That would be the other major claim against his regime beyond its day-to-day killing, raping, and maiming.




Cubs win! Cubs win! Cubs win!
asteroidboy
Andouille








Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1367 days
Last activity: 275 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95
This is where Team Bush has the advantage. As long as they're battling abstract concepts, like terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, they can pretty much make up the rules as they go along.

We're currently at war with terrorism. When are we ever going to "beat" the concept of terrorism? Or will we always be at war, as long as there's one 14-year-old Palestinian kid that hates us? Will this war be as successfull as the war on drugs?

As for the weapons, if they find them, great. If not, they can plant them. If they don't, the weapons must have been smuggled out of the country by the boogeyman and are presently being held by Kaiser Soze.

Are there weapons? I don't know. Maybe. But I don't want our military to continue going down rabbit trails, looking for them. And I don't want WMOD or "terrorism" to be a convenient excuse whenever Bush wants to start a war.

And I have a hard time fully belieiving in our intelligence community just a year and a half after their spectacular failure.



-- Asteroid Boy


Wiener of the day: 23.7.02

"My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport."
"Was he no-selling?"
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2767 days
Last activity: 2610 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
Oppose the war if you want, asteroidboy, but putting quotes around "terrorism" is silly. You might not think that going into Iraq combats terrorism, but terrorism is out there, plain as the nose on your face, as they say. Talk to the crew of the Cole. The Marines in Beirut. The citizens of New York. Terrorism is a very, very real thing.



"May God bless our country and all who defend her."

George W. Bush, 3/19/03
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3843 days
Last activity: 3788 days
#9 Posted on
That would only validate every claim the US made against him, and still wouldn't have won the war. Rather, it probably would have solidified opposition to his regime. By getting rid of them, he had a chance of surviving the war and maybe even remaining in power by claiming that the US fabricated the whole thing, and can't even find a single weapon within Iraq's borders.

...so, wait, we wanted him to destroy his WMDs or we'd invade him, and he said he didn't have any, and then Bush said he'd invade for real and stuff, and he destroyed them and didn't tell us so the US would be SURE to invade and remove him from power, but get to look stupid in the process? As opposed to, say, destroying them openly and getting to stay in power since the only internationally accepted basis for an invasion of Iraq was that he had them in the first place?

That's utterly insane reasoning, you realize.
asteroidboy
Andouille








Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1367 days
Last activity: 275 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    Oppose the war if you want, asteroidboy, but putting quotes around "terrorism" is silly. You might not think that going into Iraq combats terrorism, but terrorism is out there, plain as the nose on your face, as they say. Talk to the crew of the Cole. The Marines in Beirut. The citizens of New York. Terrorism is a very, very real thing.


Really? Thanks for spelling that out for me. I thought I made it clear that going to war against a CONCEPT was stupid. Going to war against a group of people who killed Americans is fine. Going to war against an abstract notion is pointless and open-ended. Don't you think they know that? When do you think the war against "terrorism" will end?



-- Asteroid Boy


Wiener of the day: 23.7.02

"My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport."
"Was he no-selling?"
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1253 days
Last activity: 19 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#11 Posted on
    Originally posted by asteroidboy

      Originally posted by PalpatineW
      Oppose the war if you want, asteroidboy, but putting quotes around "terrorism" is silly. You might not think that going into Iraq combats terrorism, but terrorism is out there, plain as the nose on your face, as they say. Talk to the crew of the Cole. The Marines in Beirut. The citizens of New York. Terrorism is a very, very real thing.


    Really? Thanks for spelling that out for me. I thought I made it clear that going to war against a CONCEPT was stupid. Going to war against a group of people who killed Americans is fine. Going to war against an abstract notion is pointless and open-ended. Don't you think they know that? When do you think the war against "terrorism" will end?



When will the terrorists stop murdering women and children to achieve their goals?

Oh, I forgot, that is OK for them to do... because a Republican is in the White House, and there is NOTHING worse than that...

(edited by Pool-Boy on 22.4.03 0855)




Still on the Shelf #5
cokeman
Chorizo








Since: 12.4.03
From: nj (back from iraq)

Since last post: 3224 days
Last activity: 3014 days
#12 Posted on
You tell him pool-boy.



Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3686 days
Last activity: 3155 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on

    Originally posted by asteroidboy
    When do you think the war against "terrorism" will end?


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    When will the terrorists stop murdering women and children to achieve their goals?


So you agree, then, that this "war" can't be won? After all, it's not like they're going to stop as long as we keep playing into their hands.



Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#14 Posted on
EDIT: Nevermind, I don't even want to get involved in this.

(edited by OlFuzzyBastard on 22.4.03 2239)



Great warrior? Wars not make one great.
calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 498 days
Last activity: 14 hours
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    EDIT: Nevermind, I don't even want to get involved in this.

    (edited by OlFuzzyBastard on 22.4.03 2239)



I have been saying the same thing more and more since the war started.

(edited by calvinh0560 on 22.4.03 2254)
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.54
I thought this thread was going to be about Billy and Bart, but then I noticed the lack of the second 'n.'

I fail to realize why, if Saddam actually did have major-league WOMD that could actually harm the USA, they weren't used in the war. You don't have something for a rainy day and then keep it on the shelf during a downpour.



Over 1100 posts and still never a Wiener of the Day!






Are you racist?

Brought to you by the good folks at sacwriters.com.
Pages: 1Thread ahead: Salon shows its true colors
Next thread: Professor/student relationships
Previous thread: Why I Don't Trust CNN
(2094 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
She takes pictures of clouds as a hobby... I'd vote for her. She's kinda cute too.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Smoking Guns -- smoke 'em if you got 'emRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.134 seconds.