$5000 WMD Challenge

[ChicagoMaroon]

Okay, all you people cryin' "Where are the WMD!!!?!?!?" like it's such an easy thing to find, I got a challenge for you.

I will hide a small box filled with empty glass vials somewhere in the greater Los Angeles area. After which I will put $5000 in an escrow account. If you find that small box before the Coalition forces find WMD in Iraq, you get the $5000.

Only caveat is that you have to pay 8% interest per annum on the $5000. This is simply to compensate me for the cost of the $5000, because I can compound my money at an 8% annual rate (at the very least). If you win though, you get the $5000 plus the accrued interest. If you lose, I get my $5000 back and the accrued interest.

Sure the Coalition has more people searching, but Iraq is the size of California. Los Angeles is a significantly smaller area.

The U.N. said Iraq had WMD, Clinton said Iraq had WMD, Congress said Iraq had WMD, Bush said Iraq had WMD, Saddam used WMD against his people, Saddam admitted he had WMD, realist logic dictates that Iraq had WMD. It is error to conclude that because we haven't found them yet, that they did not exist. I'll put my money where my mouth is, how about you?

EDIT: I am peeved at the Bush administration for not having a better grasp of the situation. Saddam had them, and now we don't know where they are. A plan to track and contain the movement of these things should have been in place before the chaos of war. Sure we can't be exact, but we could have like I dunno... sealed off the border to Syria!

 

[Czar]

 

[ChicagoMaroon]

Originally posted by: Czar

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: ChicagoMaroon

Originally posted by: Czar

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ChicagoMaroon

Originally posted by: Czar

Here you go. I say there is 10k in a box in Boston. I say it is there. I will get more and more people to say it is there. I will have people misrepresent what I say, and declare it is there. I will tell lifelong friends that they are either for or against me if they do not come armed and look for it. I say it is there. We will bribe or coerce others. The Willing. Because I said it was there. They will watch while you and I go in shooting. It's there. I said so. Count the bodies and see how many it takes to make the box materialize. There, job done. Boston liberated. What? Yeah, that's why we are here, just like I always said. The box? Oh, that... Well somebody said there was one around here....

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Here you go. I say there is 10k in a box in Boston. I say it is there. I will get more and more people to say it is there. I will have people misrepresent what I say, and declare it is there. I will tell lifelong friends that they are either for or against me if they do not come armed and look for it. I say it is there. We will bribe or coerce others. The Willing. Because I said it was there. They will watch while you and I go in shooting. It's there. I said so. Count the bodies and see how many it takes to make the box materialize. There, job done. Boston liberated. What? Yeah, that's why we are here, just like I always said. The box? Oh, that... Well somebody said there was one around here....

nice, but fallacious

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Here you go. I say there is 10k in a box in Boston. I say it is there. I will get more and more people to say it is there. I will have people misrepresent what I say, and declare it is there. I will tell lifelong friends that they are either for or against me if they do not come armed and look for it. I say it is there. We will bribe or coerce others. The Willing. Because I said it was there. They will watch while you and I go in shooting. It's there. I said so. Count the bodies and see how many it takes to make the box materialize. There, job done. Boston liberated. What? Yeah, that's why we are here, just like I always said. The box? Oh, that... Well somebody said there was one around here....

nice, but fallacious

You got the point then. Yes a fallacy is exactly what we have.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Here you go. I say there is 10k in a box in Boston. I say it is there. I will get more and more people to say it is there. I will have people misrepresent what I say, and declare it is there. I will tell lifelong friends that they are either for or against me if they do not come armed and look for it. I say it is there. We will bribe or coerce others. The Willing. Because I said it was there. They will watch while you and I go in shooting. It's there. I said so. Count the bodies and see how many it takes to make the box materialize. There, job done. Boston liberated. What? Yeah, that's why we are here, just like I always said. The box? Oh, that... Well somebody said there was one around here....

nice, but fallacious

You got the point then. Yes a fallacy is exactly what we have.

except that no one ever knew if you had the box with 10K in it while saddam's possession of WMDs has been well documented over the last 2 decades.

 

[Zebo]

I wanna know where you can compound your money at 8% in this administrations economy

 

[Zebo]

Only if you tell me "where they are." Like Rummy did. We know where they are.-Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Here you go. I say there is 10k in a box in Boston. I say it is there. I will get more and more people to say it is there. I will have people misrepresent what I say, and declare it is there. I will tell lifelong friends that they are either for or against me if they do not come armed and look for it. I say it is there. We will bribe or coerce others. The Willing. Because I said it was there. They will watch while you and I go in shooting. It's there. I said so. Count the bodies and see how many it takes to make the box materialize. There, job done. Boston liberated. What? Yeah, that's why we are here, just like I always said. The box? Oh, that... Well somebody said there was one around here....

nice, but fallacious

You got the point then. Yes a fallacy is exactly what we have.

except that no one ever knew if you had the box with 10K in it while saddam's possession of WMDs has been well documented over the last 2 decades.

Yes, indeed we knew what and were they were. So Bush is saving them for a Christmas present? BTW it was well documented the he HAD (past tense) WMD's

The President went to war saying he knew a thing he did not. If he did, he would have them. Now the hunt for evidence after the fact is on. I want to see what they knew BEFORE they invaded. Where is it?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Yes, indeed we knew what and were they were. So Bush is saving them for a Christmas present? BTW it was well documented the he HAD (past tense) WMD's

The President went to war saying he knew a thing he did not. If he did, he would have them. Now the hunt for evidence after the fact is on. I want to see what they knew BEFORE they invaded. Where is it?

maybe you do but thats not what your little story was telling. changing the argument doesn't help you just as it doesn't help bush.

maybe i shouldn't have used present perfect, though i don't think its reasonable to believe that saddam just got rid of all his toys and didn't keep any records of it.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Yes, indeed we knew what and were they were. So Bush is saving them for a Christmas present? BTW it was well documented the he HAD (past tense) WMD's

The President went to war saying he knew a thing he did not. If he did, he would have them. Now the hunt for evidence after the fact is on. I want to see what they knew BEFORE they invaded. Where is it?

maybe you do but thats not what your little story was telling. changing the argument doesn't help you just as it doesn't help bush.

maybe i shouldn't have used present perfect, though i don't think its reasonable to believe that saddam just got rid of all his toys and didn't keep any records of it.

Just as it is not reasonable to say that Saddam destroyed all his weapons, didn't tell anyone that, and now we can find absolutely no evidence of that destruction despite having the run of the country.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider Yes, indeed we knew what and were they were. So Bush is saving them for a Christmas present? BTW it was well documented the he HAD (past tense) WMD's The President went to war saying he knew a thing he did not. If he did, he would have them. Now the hunt for evidence after the fact is on. I want to see what they knew BEFORE they invaded. Where is it?

maybe you do but thats not what your little story was telling. changing the argument doesn't help you just as it doesn't help bush. maybe i shouldn't have used present perfect, though i don't think its reasonable to believe that saddam just got rid of all his toys and didn't keep any records of it.

I used to agree with this completely, until I read that news report about the Army base in Maryland where they found vials of Anthrax (nonweaponised) and other biological weapon equipment and detritus. Apparantly it was dumped when the US shut down its bioweapons programs in the 70s. The Army fella commanding the cleanup was quoted as saying something like "We have no idea whats there. We are pretty sure there are no nukes, though"

So if the worlds pre-eminent country, acting at its own leisure in times of peace can lose track of stuff like this completely, then maybe its conceivable that some tinpot gulf state, just decimated by war, could do the same thing.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dpm


I used to agree with this completely, until I read that news report about the Army base in Maryland where they found vials of Anthrax (nonweaponised) and other biological weapon equipment and detritus. Apparantly it was dumped when the US shut down its bioweapons programs in the 70s. The Army fella commanding the cleanup was quoted as saying something like "We have no idea whats there. We are pretty sure there are no nukes, though"

So if the worlds pre-eminent country, acting at its own leisure in times of peace can lose track of stuff like this completely, then maybe its conceivable that some tinpot gulf state, just decimated by war, could do the same thing.

lose track of all of it? something that happened in the last 5 years if it happened at all (not "just decimated" as at earliest any de-armament had to have happened 7 years after the last war)? not be able to produce one scientist or technician or anything at all with a positive affirmation that they got rid of the stuff? the army may have forgotten about their stuff in maryland but i'm sure it wouldn't have taken much looking through records to find some mention of it and not too much more looking to find the people who were there and go interview them.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
lose track of all of it? something that happened in the last 5 years if it happened at all (not "just decimated" as at earliest any de-armament had to have happened 7 years after the last war)? not be able to produce one scientist or technician or anything at all with a positive affirmation that they got rid of the stuff? the army may have forgotten about their stuff in maryland but i'm sure it wouldn't have taken much looking through records to find some mention of it and not too much more looking to find the people who were there and go interview them.

I'm not the best informed at this, but I remember reading after the first gulf war that it was hoped/believed that much of Saddam's bioweapon stocks had been hit. Why would it have to have been 7 years after the end of that war? Do we have proof that they still had them then?
I agree that a complete lack of positive proof would seem a damning indictment, but on the other hand, I have not read the dossier they handed to the UN, nor heard what the captured weapons scientists have said.

Oh, and in the interview with the US army guy (I must dig out the link again) he said that there was no documentation for where it came from (they'd already searched) and that apparantly at the end of the US bioweapons program all the stuff had just been dumped. This in the US with all its public safety laws etc.

I'm not saying I totally discount the possibility that Saddam still had bioweapons. I'm just saying that a lot of things (like this, the fact that he didn't use them when his regime was in its death throws) and recent administration comments saying that he may have destroyed them some undetermined time before the war started) have given me significant doubts.
Frankly, as just a bog standard member of the public, I don't have access to anywhere near enough information to form a conclusive opinion either way. I would just feel a great deal better about it if some were discovered.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Yes, indeed we knew what and were they were. So Bush is saving them for a Christmas present? BTW it was well documented the he HAD (past tense) WMD's

The President went to war saying he knew a thing he did not. If he did, he would have them. Now the hunt for evidence after the fact is on. I want to see what they knew BEFORE they invaded. Where is it?

maybe you do but that's not what your little story was telling. changing the argument doesn't help you just as it doesn't help bush.

maybe i shouldn't have used present perfect, though i don't think its reasonable to believe that Saddam just got rid of all his toys and didn't keep any records of it.

I was responding with something intentionally silly to the silly first post.


I have no doubt that compared to you I am an old fossil. We (my generation) went through this very thing in Vietnam. Many things were reasonable to assume, then and now. The problem was that those assumptions were not tested rigorously before the shooting started. It made sense that the Vietnamese torpedoed our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. They didn't like us, and they certainly could have. But having the capability did not make it so. We went to war because we Americans bought it. Now, Saddam is or was a paranoid idiot. Has it not occurred to anyone that maintaining records of the destruction of weapons is saying that he had them to begin with? Do we know that? No, but we did not know much either way. Now Saddam has not bothered other countries since 91 and there was no indication that he was going to. From the perspective of US security, Saddam posed no threat for the foreseeable future. The whole country could have been locked down as a no fly zone, preventing his attacking neighbors. Many things could have been done, but no, we went to war. Why? The predominate reason expressed was WMD's. Liberation was not a reason but a benefit. So, we were told something quite specific, but that seems to not be the case. Just like the Gulf of Tonkin.

What would be required to justify this war to me?

Prove ( with sufficient verifiable evidence) that we knew BEFORE the war.

1) Saddam had been plotting terrorists acts.

or

2) Had WMD's AND was planning to use them against against other countries.


People need to understand the nature of these weapons. In combat, they suck. All they would do is get the enemy madder and retaliate. They are a weapon of last resort. Apparently he learned about butt kicking in 91, which is why he has been relatively well behaved. WMD's are a deterrent to attacking countries, which is why people really really need to ask why they were not uses when there was nothing to lose. Make no mistake, he had nothing to lose.

It remains to be proved that Saddam was a credible threat, and in any case, it needs to be shown that this was known prior to the war. Shooting someone, claiming they are armed based on a criminal act committed 10 years ago would land you in jail, whether or not it turns out after the shooting that he was armed. Bush needs to do better than this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh, and you do not shoot someone because they cannot demonstrate they are innocent, and you do not start a war for that reason either.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dpm
I'm not the best informed at this, but I remember reading after the first gulf war that it was hoped/believed that much of Saddam's bioweapon stocks had been hit. Why would it have to have been 7 years after the end of that war? Do we have proof that they still had them then?
I agree that a complete lack of positive proof would seem a damning indictment, but on the other hand, I have not read the dossier they handed to the UN, nor heard what the captured weapons scientists have said.

from my understanding when clinton pulled the weapons inspectors out in 1998 the weapons were still there.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

It remains to be proved that Saddam was a credible threat, and in any case, it needs to be shown that this was known prior to the war. Shooting someone, claiming they are armed based on a criminal act committed 10 years ago would land you in jail, whether or not it turns out after the shooting that he was armed. Bush needs to do better than this.

by the time saddam would have become a credible threat to the US it would have been too late to stop him, thats the nature of wmd/nuclear deterrent.


as for nothing to lose, for all we know hes still alive with billions in the bank. might be at some posh resort on the black sea right now.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Oh, and you do not shoot someone because they cannot demonstrate they are innocent, and you do not start a war for that reason either.

That's a stupid analogy and you know it. Saddams guilt had already been established. He was required to destroy WMD and prove that he had done so. All this proving his innocence and proving a negative bullsh!t is just that, bullsh!t. If any analogy is to be used, it is that Saddam did not comply with the terms of his probation and that always gets you hammered.

 

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: dpm
I'm not the best informed at this, but I remember reading after the first gulf war that it was hoped/believed that much of Saddam's bioweapon stocks had been hit. Why would it have to have been 7 years after the end of that war? Do we have proof that they still had them then?
I agree that a complete lack of positive proof would seem a damning indictment, but on the other hand, I have not read the dossier they handed to the UN, nor heard what the captured weapons scientists have said.

from my understanding when clinton pulled the weapons inspectors out in 1998 the weapons were still there.

Whawdh? UNSCOM pulled its own inspectors out. Clinton doesn't have control over the UN inspectors, just like Bush didn't have control over them this year. Get your facts straight before you blame a president for something he didn't control.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Oh, and you do not shoot someone because they cannot demonstrate they are innocent, and you do not start a war for that reason either.

That's a stupid analogy and you know it. Saddams guilt had already been established. He was required to destroy WMD and prove that he had done so. All this proving his innocence and proving a negative bullsh!t is just that, bullsh!t. If any analogy is to be used, it is that Saddam did not comply with the terms of his probation and that always gets you hammered.

What did Saddam do to other countries since 91. This was a damned shooting war, not some panty raid. Bet you would have cheered Johnson. After all, the Vietnamese did not prove a negative.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Whawdh? UNSCOM pulled its own inspectors out. Clinton doesn't have control over the UN inspectors, just like Bush didn't have control over them this year. Get your facts straight before you blame a president for something he didn't control.

he had them pulled out when he was going to conduct strikes against targets in iraq. probably feared for their safety.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Oh, and you do not shoot someone because they cannot demonstrate they are innocent, and you do not start a war for that reason either.

actually terms of the cease fire for the gulf war did dictate that iraq had to demonstrate its innocence. violating the cease fire would be justification for resumption of hostilities.