Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Weapons Of Mass Deception...  
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1199 times:

Alot has been discussed about the alleged WMDs in Iraq, but something still doesn't seem to fit. Even though

If there are in fact WMDs there, why isn't the coalition freaking out about it? Aren't they worried that they may get into the hands of the wrong people? Aren't they still in a relatively lawless land?

Bush told us that there were "significant" quantities of these weapons, and that he had proof of their existance. Doesn't that mean they should be relatively easy to find?

And the big question, if there were in fact WMDs why didn't Saddam use them for Pete's sake?

Why are all the oil sites being guarded but none of the potential WMD sites? Why is an interim government being planned but no serious effort to find WMDs?

Is Bush hoping that the WMD issue will just wilt away?



28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1181 times:

The more I hear about this war I believe less and less that it was about wmd...

User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1178 times:

Someone goofed, big-time.


Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4530 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1167 times:

"Someone goofed, big-time."

Sadly, I don't think this was a goof-up. Bush et al knew very well that Saddam did not possess many WMD, and there was no way he would use them on the U.S. It's all about controlling the world's second largest oil producer.


User currently offlineJj From Algeria, joined Jun 2001, 1227 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1164 times:

and the only way to get to control all that was to convince the people that Saddam possesed WMD's... now that they're there they no longer care 'bout weapons, and they'll let some time pass until everybody forgets about it. Not that Saddam didn't have them. I'm sure that at some time he did. But he had already destroyed them by the time the US was thinking about invading.

User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1161 times:

Be careful, you may have to eat your words.

There is a tremendous (and growing) body of circumstantial evidence pointing to the existence of WMD. We obviously do not know where they are hidden. But I am pretty confident they will be found.

Since, accirding to some of your sentiments, Bush is just an idiot, why are you expecting such quick results?

Pete


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1159 times:

We obviously do not know where they are hidden.

Obviously? Listening to Powell before the war they knew EXACTLY where they were! How many months ago did the war start? How many WMDs found?


User currently offlineAirworthy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1153 times:

There were several months between Powell's speech and the start of the war.

User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1151 times:

So obviously in those months the intelligence stopped and the Iraqis moved them all. Sucks to be Powell.

User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1140 times:

As I recall, Powell's evidence revolved around intercepted communications regarding the transfer of the materials -- but the locations were not ascertained. So we know the weapons were being moved, but did not know what was moved where. But it was obvious there was something relevant going on, and without spies on the scene, we had no way of knowing where.

The bottom line is that neither you nor I have any substantive information. We are both dependant on news conferences to form our opinions. So you choose to believe Saddam, I choose to believe President Bush. Only time will tell who was lying and who was not. I owe it to my president to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Pete


User currently offlineGoingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1133 times:

Naw..we had PROOF of WMD's. However, this proof was so double deep secret that we couldn't even tell the UN forces to even begin to look. Had we done that, and allowed the UN to find these weapons that we had all this proof of, then the whole world would have had the "proof" that they did indeed possess WMD's, and we might have gotten more support for an attack than we did, and we could still eat "French fries" without being called unpatriotic. As it is, we kick a little sandy ass, and say "whoops...they musta moved them", then start telling Syria how they'd better behave in postwar Iraq.

User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1128 times:

I choose to believe President Bush

How many more months with no WMDs uncovered will it take for you to stop believing him?


User currently offlineEg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1834 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1127 times:

I find it funny that all these weapons that were apparently on 45 minutes' notice to launch have just vanished into thin air.......

User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1123 times:

Depends on how things are progressing. To date, we are not even 2 months into this operation. Just look at the complexity of it, the tremendous amount of tasks competing for our scarce resources and the interruptions due to attacks and other diversions.

I will assume that Bush is telling the truth until such time that evidence emerges to the contrary. But a lack of progress does not constitute such evidence to the contrary.

Pete


User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1122 times:

The problem for Bush is that after this length of time, should the US find something, there will be those who suspect the Americans planted them to save face.

User currently offlineJj From Algeria, joined Jun 2001, 1227 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1116 times:

Excuse me, but the speeches I heard, Powell said that intelligence knew exactly where the WMD's were. So please don't try to convince me that they were just "intercepted communications" and all that shit. If you knew exactly where they were, couldn't you control those sites with a satelite? Come on, the moment you knew they moved them? Then this speaks about your intelligence. If I knw where something dangerous is, I'm going to monitor it! I'm sorry but I'm convinced more and more that this whole thing about WMD's is just a biiiiiiiiiiiiig lie by Bush and Co.

User currently offlineSSTjumbo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1114 times:

Yes the coalition could have found them by now, yes Powell "knew" exactly where they were at, yes Iraq is relatively lawless, but I still have to question the secrecy of this. I'm not implying that Bush is necessarily 100% on the ball, but I'm questioning whether or not the press really knows everything about what's going on. Hunch, but so what  Insane.

Cheers
-Mike


User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1087 times:

"Then this speaks about your intelligence."

Yeah, what can I say....we're just a dumb, uncouth, uneducated mob of cowboys, and on top of that, our leader is an idiot. You must be surprised I can even read and write.

".....I'm questioning whether or not the press really knows everything about what's going on."

Caveat emptor.....you have to decide yourself what to believe and what not.

Colin Powell is the only one I trust in the administration, and his speech to the UN a few months ago meticulously detailed the evidence about the WMD. I don't remember it all now, of course, but I do remember that he did not claim to have positive evidence, just circumstantial. Before the war started, he said it won't be easy, while the critics said we would be bogged down in a quagmire. Let's say we are somewhere in between right now.

Pete


User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1082 times:

As I recall, Powell's evidence revolved around intercepted communications regarding the transfer of the materials -- but the locations were not ascertained.

Whenever a new video of Saddam surfaces, there is the greatest amount of skepticism concerning the validity of the date and whether it is really Saddam or not. I believe this is reasonable skepticism. Why then, do the "intelligence" gatherers believe communications of the transfer of materials? Before a major conflict, both sides usually dance around the truth in a game of intimidation.

Excuse me, but the speeches I heard, Powell said that intelligence knew exactly where the WMD's were.

Yes they did. As a matter of fact when they finally go around to inspecting the sites they found them looted to the extent that it was not possible to determine if anything was missing. I read today that a nuclear site was found looted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10888-2003May3.html

Why on earth did they wait this long to check it out? Don't you think securing suspected sites would be one of the first things you would do? I wouldn't trust any investigation of a site that was not secured as soon as possible. Evidence may have been removed or planted by now.

To me, this all implies that Bush knew full well that the coalition forces would find nothing. Otherwise he would be making more of an effort to secure the sites and find the "smoking gun". He had nothing to show the world before and he has nothing to show the world now.

Delta-Flyer,

It's truly patriotic to put your faith in your country's leader and give him the benefit of the doubt. I certainly don't fault you for that.








User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16228 posts, RR: 57
Reply 19, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1077 times:

He had nothing to show the world before and he has nothing to show the world now.

Umm....yes he does. He removed Saddam the tyrant. Had Bush followed your apologist leftist philosophy Airplay (by not invading Iraq), Saddam would still be in power terrorizing, raping, pillaging, etc etc etc.

Do you wish Saddam was back in power Airplay???





Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1070 times:

He had nothing to show the world before and he has nothing to show the world now.

YYZ717, the focus of the topic is the alleged weapons of mass destruction. It's not "leftist policy" or whether or not everyone is happy Saddam is no longer in power. Try to stop trying to demonize me by trying to associate me with your ludicrous arbitrary comments that really belong on an email an not on this thread and stay focussed on the topic.



User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1065 times:

Saddam would still be in power terrorizing, raping, pillaging, etc etc etc.

Why the hell do I care? That sounds like an Iraqi problem to me!



Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16228 posts, RR: 57
Reply 22, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1064 times:

Try to stop trying to demonize me

Err....because I challenge one of your comments? A tad dramatic today, aren't we?  Insane

Airplay, there is a constant anti-Americanism in all your threads and posts. The US NEVER gets the benefit of the doubt with you (despite so much of your personal wealth and livelihood coming from the US). Why can't you take the same viewpoint as Delta-flyer with his balanced position, as attached:

As I recall, Powell's evidence revolved around intercepted communications regarding the transfer of the materials -- but the locations were not ascertained. So we know the weapons were being moved, but did not know what was moved where. But it was obvious there was something relevant going on, and without spies on the scene, we had no way of knowing where.

This seems reasonable to me. Maybe they simply haven't found them yet, or they were spirited away, or they have been found but not communicated.

And yet Airplay.....in your mind....you've already decided that there are no WMD's, and hence Bush is a liar. Not a very balanced conclusion.






Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineDash 80 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 309 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1062 times:

Another WMD thread is exactly what this forum needed Insane


...where the rubber hits the runway...
User currently offlineSSTjumbo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1043 times:

Caveat emptor.....you have to decide yourself what to believe and what not.

What I'm suggesting is, maybe we don't know everything that's going on in Iraq, as in "Top Secret" actions. Maybe they just don't want anyone to know. I don't know the validity of what I just said, but as in the war against the Taliban, some of the operations were secret in success. Well, supposedly.

Cheers
-Mike


25 Sabena 690 : Umm....yes he does. He removed Saddam the tyrant. Had Bush followed your apologist leftist philosophy Airplay (by not invading Iraq), Saddam would sti
26 Sabena 690 : Airplay, there is a constant anti-Americanism in all your threads and posts. Correction: in your dreams. I'm getting a déjà vu btw... Why can't you
27 Yyz717 : But of course, if Bush wants to play war, let him do. If he wants to ignore the UN, let him do. Just like France ignored the UN when it sent troops to
28 David b. : YYZ, since you don't live here why don't you open your eyes and stop complaining?[Edited 2003-05-05 16:26:59]
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Where Are The Weapons Of Mass Destruction? posted Thu Mar 23 2006 18:12:46 by Raffik
Weapons Of Mass Destruction posted Sat Jul 5 2003 11:43:32 by Carduelis
Saddam Bans Weapons Of Mass Destruction posted Fri Feb 14 2003 16:17:15 by Ryanb741
Weapons Of Mass Destruction: Cartoon posted Sat Jan 11 2003 22:34:19 by Aviatsiya
Proof That Iraq Has Weapons Of Mass Destruction posted Mon Sep 9 2002 13:16:38 by Go Canada!
Sex: The Ultimate Weapon Of Mass Destruction posted Wed Jul 31 2002 05:28:28 by Lehpron
Lebanon Accuses Israel Of Using Illegal Weapons posted Tue Jul 18 2006 07:06:44 by BA
The End Of The Assault Weapons Ban In The USA posted Wed Jun 29 2005 09:11:42 by MD-90
"phenomenal Mass" Of Condoms posted Wed Jun 1 2005 08:03:45 by BaylorAirBear
Nuclear Weapons: A Right Of Every Country posted Wed Nov 17 2004 20:30:36 by Derico