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

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

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

SIGNYM

Monday, June 6, 2005 6:36 PM

Huh. I guess there really WAS nothing to see here all along. Just another person cherry-picking
facts to make a point.

Bush lied? Sign the letter

www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com

SIGNYM

Monday, June 6, 2005 7:16 PM

YOU started this thread with the implication that actual WMD technology was tranferred to parts unknown BEFORE the invasion. Of course you refuse to be constrained by my scenarios because you refuse to be constrained by logic. Let me point out a just a few contradictions:

--------------------------
Were WMD deployed around Baghdad and Tikrit, as Rumsfeld said they were? If so, how could UNMOVIC have failed to notice them? Or did Rumsfeld refuse to pass along the information?

Did Saddam have WMD ready to deploy in 45 minutes, as Bush implied? Again, how could UNMOVIC fail to have noticed the massive production that this implies, or how could Kay have missed it afterwards?

Since Saddam supposedly was secretly producing WMD, why did he have a some parts to a nuclear centrifuge buried in someone's backyard? And if he was managing to secretly produce chemical WMD, why did he continue to operate "excess" (in your opinion) chlorine and phenol plants which would only draw inspection and hostility?

If Saddam had stockpiles of WMD, deployed or ready-to-be deployed, as Bush et al said, why did he not use them in the war? Whay tranfer them to another nation?

Once Saddam was captured, why would Iraqi scientists, engineers and military staff continue to lie about the nature of their work, especially since they were offered amnesty?

If Bush et al were correct about the urgent facts of which they seemed so certain, why have they not been able to prove their point? Why have they shifted their rationale from those huge- apparently phantom- stockpiles to "freedom is on the march"? If his facts were so secure, why would Bush use evidence that had already been discredited?

Why refer to WMD produced before 1996? They would be useless anyway.

-----------------------------
Some facts just naturally contradict others. You can't use them ALL. Remember- we didn't go to war because Saddam might be a threat some day. We were treated with visions of mushroom clouds and chemical attacks and biowarfare, huge stockplies of the stuff that Bush couldn't wait another month, another week, another minute, because the risk to the USA was so grave, so imminent, and growing so fast. Okay- we sent in 150,000 troops in harm's way to avert this imminent danger that Bush et al convinced us was there. The danger- pretty much like your arguments- just seem to have evaporated on insepection, didn't it?

Bush lied? Sign the letter
www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/

SIGNYM

Monday, June 6, 2005 7:29 PM

Nope.

Bush lied? Sign the letter.
www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com

SERGEANTX

Monday, June 6, 2005 7:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
-----------------------------
Some facts just naturally contradict others. You can't use them ALL. Remember- we didn't go to war because Saddam might be a threat some day. We were treated with visions of mushroom clouds and chemical attacks and biowarfare, huge stockplies of the stuff that Bush couldn't wait another month, another week, another minute, because the risk to the USA was so grave, so imminent, and growing so fast. Okay- we sent in 150,000 troops in harm's way to avert this imminent danger that Bush et al convinced us was there. The danger- pretty much like your arguments- just seem to have evaporated on insepection, didn't it?

Bush lied? Sign the letter
www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com

Signym, did you happen to read that article I linked to earlier? It's really an excellent overview of the situation and, I think, shows the WMD issue in a more realisitic perspective relative to the strategic interests in the area. Well worth reading if you have time.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12230

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

SERGEANTX

Monday, June 6, 2005 9:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Who is divert and distracting? Look at your own posts. You talk about everything but WMD in Iraq. I think its because you know you are wrong.

I was making the point that WMDs were only ever supplemental to the more profound reasons for attacking Iraq. It seems to me that the reasons we went to war with Iraq and the relevance of the WMD issue is very much 'on topic'.

Quote:
Who started the name calling? That was you with the SOB comment so don't presume to lecture me. "Bush supporter" you sound so arrogant. It is what I expect of hate filled liberals. Well, I have to break it to you, you are no expert.

Nor am I hate-filled, nor am I a liberal. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. It's not about name-calling. It's about trying to attack someone's credibility by just arbitrarily labelling them something that classifies them nicely for your premade argument. (ie, anyone who disagrees with you is an America Hater or a left wing conspiracy nut.)

Quote:
What do neo-cons or debating styles have to do with the phony story about "no WMD in Iraq" which is the original subject of the thread.

Quite a lot actually. In fact I couldn't think of any other issue more central to the ideas of the neo-cons, or the debating style of it's supporting arguments.

Quote:
I'll openly call you out when you attack GW with false claims and make anti-US smears and you don't like that very much do you? Someone has to stand up to you.

Actually I do like it. It's why I like to discuss stuff on these boards. There are lot of intelligent minds here. Its a great opportunity to test out ideas and I relish the feedback. Even some of yours.

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

SIGNYM

Monday, June 6, 2005 10:10 PM

Sarge- OK, I read the article. It sounds like baloney to me and here's why:

The article doesn't focus on terrorism per se but radical Islamic fundamentalism. (BTW- I think the article gives some weight to the claim this is a religious war.... I personally don't think so, but the article does seem to support the notion.) The concept, it seems, is that by eliminating one of the few secular regimes in the area and putting Saddam's head on a pike at the city gates, we will terrorize the area nations into democracy which will cause the radical fundamentalists to see the error of their ways and get with the program.

I can imagine that we can bully some national leaders into some sort of compliance but that our effect on radical Islamic fundamentalists is likely to be opposite- hardening their opposition to the United States rather than softening it. Unless you can influence most of the population at all levels, occupation is unlikely to work. Even if you don't stir up terrorism per se, you will prolly stir up nationalism w/in the populace and resistance to anything the USA advocates.

I was going to go into detail on Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Lebanon, but I'm running out of time. I'll have to pick this up later.

SERGEANTX

Monday, June 6, 2005 10:22 PM

Oh, I completely agree Signym. I certainly wasn't endorsing the conclusions in the article. It just seemed a particularly honest of accounting of what's going on. I find it refreshing and exactly the kind of discussion that is lacking in public circles. I'd like to see more Bush supporters addressing these issues so openly.

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

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, June 6, 2005 11:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Then why post in a public forum without specifically naming the person you wanted to reply from?

Sad.

Andrew Lynch

Gino, you have failed me for the last time....

You know the rules. Plus, you got kinda rude back there. You know, if you go around referring to people as "rightwing nuts" its only going to provoke them. How would you like it if Lynch called you a "paranoid lunatic fringe conspiracy nut"? Well?

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

Sorry the " really do not help your credibility and are the stuff of the paranoid lunatic fringe conspiracy nut crowd. "

really annoyed me. Besides I really wasnt looking to argue with Andrew Lynch... from some of his posts with Signy I figure if Bush nuked France, he'd find a way to justify it... so not seeing the point.

If I was rude or out of line I am sorry

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

SERGEANTX

Monday, June 6, 2005 11:44 PM

Hey Gino, I was just kidding. Forgot to include the sarcasm tag.

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

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, June 6, 2005 11:47 PM

Thats cool, really wanted to use the " nuke France " line anyway. Bet some neocons dream about it........

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

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