WMD in Iraq? Nah, nothing to see here, move along...

POSTED BY: lynchaj
UPDATED: Sunday, March 8, 2026 22:49
VIEWED: 7691
PAGE 5 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 5, 2005 4:18 PM

Quote:
I have looked at it. It is old news. Wolfowitz and Cheney basically authored much of the principles in policy documents in 1992.

You could say the exact same thing about almost anything. The constitution, the Bible, the newspaper, etc. All they are is a think tank, not policy maker. Only elected officials make policy and William Kristol is not one of them. Its not a cabal.

Do you not see the contradiction?

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 5, 2005 4:54 PM

You asked this question before and I promised to answer. Not only is is Rue's conclusion, it was the conclusion of the CIA.

Quote:
Ask yourself "Why did Saddam appear to be hiding WMD and related technologies for 12 years?" and "Why did Saddam expend so much effort keeping the threat of Iraqi WMD alive if he didn't have any?"

Because Saddam used the threat of WMD to keep his potential enemies at bay, both external (Iran) and internal.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, June 5, 2005 4:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
I have looked at it. It is old news. Wolfowitz and Cheney basically authored much of the principles in policy documents in 1992.

I'm glad you're so well informed. If any of the rest of you are interested, please check out that site. Lynchaj is right. It's not a cabal or a conspiracy. It's a thinktank created by some of the principle architects of our foriegn policy. Whether you agree with them or not, the policies reflect a fairly radical departure from the usual Washington approach and it's well worth looking at their reasoning.

One of the first things that strikes me, when I read their literature, is how comfortable they are with the idea of the United States essentially running the world. As the only remaining superpower, perhaps it is obvious that our role would be one of leadership, but to what extent should we press that leadership? Does it give us reason or right to call for 'regime change' in a given country? Does it give us justification to invade a country that won't bend to our will?

I think the papers at PNAC clearly address these questions and the answers are the same ones enacted into policy by the Bush Administration. I think it's worth looking at. Certainly more productive than endless left-right bickering over minutiae.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

HKCAVALIER

Sunday, June 5, 2005 4:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Really, step back and think about the situation for a few minutes. Apply Occam's Razor. Ask yourself "Why did Saddam appear to be hiding WMD and related technologies for 12 years?" and "Why did Saddam expend so much effort keeping the threat of Iraqi WMD alive if he didn't have any?"

Ack! Why am I replying to this thread??? Why did I even read this thread??? Ah, well...

Sorry, but this here's a misuse of "Occam's Razor." His is the principle of unnecessary plurality, not the principle of what people seem to be doing they must be doing, aka what you see is what you get. "Why do people believe in God?" By your "reasoning" the obvious answer is because God exists. Wrong.

"Why did Saddam appear to be hiding WMD and related technologies for 12 years?" You're accepting a hypothesis without investigation. It looked like that's what he was doing, but rain looks like God's tears and I've seen faces in the clouds. By Lynch's Razor, I've proven the existence of God and a new species. We're talking about logic here, Lynch, proof, not your blinkered, backyard BBQ "common sense."

"Why did Saddam expend so much effort keeping the threat of Iraqi WMD alive if he didn't have any?" This one is even more spurious. The simplest explaination would be that Saddam expended so much effort to keep the threat alive because he wanted to keep the threat alive, simply. You want to threaten someone, you make yourself look bigger than you are. Ah, but no, he must have expended all that energy out of his simple devotion to the truth. Who's trusting Saddam now, Lynch?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 5, 2005 5:06 PM

EDITED TO DELETE
A reply to Geezer.

EDITED TO ADD
HK- thank you for making crystal clear the illogic of taking Saddam's WMD "threat" seriously.

EDITED TO ADD
Lest this question gets lost in the shuffle, I copied it here:

Quote:
Lynch, both you and I quoted the Duelfer report multiple times. The report is quite clear: Not only were there no stockpiles of WMD ready to be deployed, there were not even active programs that could have produced WMD. Why do you keep ignoring the findings? Are you suggesting that the Bush administration is lying and covering up the presence of massive WMD through the Duelfer report?

I think this deserves an answer.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 5, 2005 5:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
As opposed to the other FANTASY threads, where the government always lies to the people, and the neo-cons, the Illuminati, the IJC, the Carlyle Group, the Tri-lateral Commission, and the Stupid White Men are all out to screw you over, just because they can?

Listen, Pops, *plays the age card* as opposed to the reality that most of us here will never know 100% of what has and is going on, that as many conspiracy theories are true as not, and, yes, there are Stupid White Men out to screw us over, just 'cause they can, just not most of them.
Remember what Mal said about the edge?

Either the US government is gonna chain up the world's population as slaves, or it's a knight in shiny armour 'round here, no middle Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 5, 2005 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Do you have any idea about of which you are talking about? We had little or no sustainable capacity to stop the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Kuwait was our ally, one we had been supporting for YEARS prior its invasion by reflagging their tankers during the Persian Gulf tanker war.

Please, read some history.

All we had to do was TELL Sadam not to do it, or else. He did what he did 'cause he thought we would let him. He was not an imbecile, he was lulled into this delusion, then stepped on, like we wanted. We hung Kuwaite out to the wind, not the first 'ally' we've done that to.
I've read history, that's the problem.
Get your history from more than one or two sources, drop your fear of being incorrect, and learn something new! IMHO.

Didn't play the age card this time Chrisisall

SERGEANTX

Sunday, June 5, 2005 7:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
I am merely responding to this atrocious anti-US anti-GW libel such as the oft repeated but never substantiated "BUSH LIED". Someone has to stand up to the America hating left wing wackos and challenge their empty assertions or it will start to replace facts.

See, to me, this is the biggest impediment to any kind of productive discussions on these issues. Each side refuses to see the other as anything besides hateful wackos. Isn't it possible that there are substantial and worthwhile criticisms of Bush doctrine? Isn't it possible that Bush is a reasonable man doing a very difficult job?

Let's try to turn down the volume on the histrionics and look at things a little more clear-eyed, eh?

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 5, 2005 7:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Are you trying to tell me we can stop an invasion of several armored divisions with mere words to a maniacal lunatic?

No, I'm saying that telling him that he would meet with forcefull resistance would have made him think. He was not a lunatic, merely evil. By not tellin' him anything, we let him assume we'd do nothing, and that's what we wanted, a reason to blast him.

Quote:
Again, you blame the US for Saddam's acts of agression like we were responsible for his invasion of Kuwait.

No, we weren't responsible directly, we just looked away until the opportune moment.

Quote:
PS, I have never "played the age card" whatever that means. I don't know your age, I don't care about your age and it is not relevant. Why do you bring it up? You don't know my age and I see no relevance in it to the discussion whatsoever.

It's a joke, as in trying to be humourous- a trait that I see little of here. I made reference to your lack of age and Geezer's abundance of it, as if only I'm the one with the 'correct' age to view this all with perspective, having it both ways, but still being always right, which is obviously stupid. We can all be wrong sometimes.

Quote:
I am merely responding to this atrocious anti-US anti-GW libel such as the oft repeated but never substantiated "BUSH LIED". Someone has to stand up to the America hating left wing wackos and challenge their empty assertions or it will start to replace facts.

Who's the 'America hating left'? You? I detect no such person here, only some that would like to correct mistakes or prevent them from being made. And facts don't matter when the point is being 'right'. I'm not always right, do you think you are?

Lighten up and interject some superfluous sillyness once in a while Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 5, 2005 7:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Saddam was a menace and you have yet to refute that.

He was definitly a jerk, and was in need of a gravestone, no doubt. It's the way to that stone that's most in question, it seems.

See, we can agree Chrisisall

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE