$5000 WMD Challenge

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
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.
but now that saddam is not around to prove his argument which the us demanded that he did, isnt it now up to the US to prove that they were right now that they have full access to all the places their "proof" said wmd's were?
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
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.

you can when the burden of proof was shifted to him as a condition of GW1.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Originally posted by: Czar
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.
but now that saddam is not around to prove his argument which the us demanded that he did, isnt it now up to the US to prove that they were right now that they have full access to all the places their "proof" said wmd's were?

only to save face
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
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.

Don't change the subject but I'll answer. The Vietnamese weren't required by a binding resolution to prove anything. As far as Saddam goes, he didn't overtly do anything to any other country. Why? Because of no-fly zones and sanctions. What was he supposed to be doing? Destroying WMD and cooperating with weapons inspectors. Was he doing that? No, he wasn't.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
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.
but now that saddam is not around to prove his argument which the us demanded that he did, isnt it now up to the US to prove that they were right now that they have full access to all the places their "proof" said wmd's were?

Yes.

 

Originally posted by: 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.
In December 1998, Butler (Richard Butler, UNSCOM Director) pulled his inspectors out of Iraq. Less than 24 hours later, the United States, along with Great Britain, launched Operation Desert Fox.

He had advance notice, but Clinton just informed him of the military plans. Presidents have absolutely zero total control over the U.N.

From here.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Czar
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.
but now that saddam is not around to prove his argument which the us demanded that he did, isnt it now up to the US to prove that they were right now that they have full access to all the places their "proof" said wmd's were?

Yes.
where is that proof? if the proof the US had before the war of wmd's being there was so concrete solid why has nothing come forth?
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Czar
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.
but now that saddam is not around to prove his argument which the us demanded that he did, isnt it now up to the US to prove that they were right now that they have full access to all the places their "proof" said wmd's were?

Yes.
where is that proof? if the proof the US had before the war of wmd's being there was so concrete solid why has nothing come forth?

You tell me. How am I supposed to know that. There's two choices. 1. They haven't found it yet or, 2. There isn't any.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Originally posted by: jumpr
In December 1998, Butler (Richard Butler, UNSCOM Director) pulled his inspectors out of Iraq. Less than 24 hours later, the United States, along with Great Britain, launched Operation Desert Fox.

He had advance notice, but Clinton just informed him of the military plans. Presidents have absolutely zero total control over the U.N.

From here.

ok, great, its really not required at all of the point i was making
rolleye.gif
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Originally posted by: Czar
where is that proof? if the proof the US had before the war of wmd's being there was so concrete solid why has nothing come forth?

you tell me how to find a half a swimming pool's worth of chemical or biological agent most liked secreted away in an unmarked underground storage tank.
 

LeadMagnet

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,348
0
0
I wanna know where you can compound your money at 8% in this administrations economy

I always think it is funny how politicians claim they help the economy or how the other guys hurt the economy.

or the people that belive them.

When in reallity Greenspan , Opec , and global economies have a hell of a lot more to do with it. And the economy reacts about as quick as a glacier so we won't feel GWB impact for a couple more years.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
"Prove ( with sufficient verifiable evidence) that we knew BEFORE the war.

1) Saddam had been plotting terrorists acts.

or

2) Had WMD's "

He orchestrated the attempted assasination of King Bushie the 1st, we also arrested iraqi "diplomats" at the start of the war for planning over a dozen terrorist attacks on US interests. All the money he funneled to families of suicide bombers went through one of the most infamous terrorists ever, who was eventually captrued in Baghdad. Besides the Al-Queda camp we found with WMD recipes and dispersion manuals, we found others just south of Baghdad that were attended by many organizations throughout the arab world.

Blix told the council "there remain long lists of items unaccounted for" in the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs Iraq claimed to have dismantled more than a decade ago.

"But it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for," he said.

Bolstering claims Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, the former head of South Africa's chemical and biological warfare program said he believed Saddam was hoodwinked by criminals who delivered containers full of sand instead of chemicals and failed to deliver purchased equipment.

...."We picked up orders and requests he was sending out all over the world for raw materials, but the sanctions were so tight on him that he was really hoodwinked by a lot of criminals," Wouter Basson told the Pretoria Press Club.

"Ingredients, chemicals, constituents and electronics that he ordered and paid for never cropped up.

"There were containers full of sand offloaded, and I think ultimately they just gave up and realised under their circumstances it is not going to work for them."

maybe they should have mentioned this a few months ago instead of opposing action, sounds like Saddam had no intentions of continuing the procurement of WMD after sanctions were imposed.....
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,875
0
76
Originally posted by: 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!

I don't know where to begin. First is that WMD are more then little vials. We are talking about warheads capable of carrying chemicals, chemical labs, nuke labs etc... You are clearly making it sound it was over a couple little vials. How can you contain the movement of something that never exisited? Saddam didn't have anything.

 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: ChicagoMaroon

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?

How about making it realistic. You hide enough barrels to hold 500 tons of chemical weapons - not to mention the 16,000 missiles that would be necessary to deliver those chemicals. You can have the entire state of California to hide them in. But you have to give me all of the spy planes and satellites that the military has so I can look for all of the trucks that it would take to move those barrels to wherever you're going to hide them. Plus I'll need a few thousan people to help me look - the military doesn't have only one person looking, right? I think it's about 1400. And of course I'll want a Humvee, because those are just so darn sweet. I think my conditions are slightly more realistic.

You want my opinion? This war wasn't about making us safer, it was about making us FEEL safer. I didn't really feal like I was in a whole lot of danger before the war though... I guess I'm just not as paranoid as most people. Does anyone seriously think an attack similar to Sept 11 will ever happen again? After people have seen what terrorists are capable of, you think an airliner with 100+ people on it will be taken over by 5 guys with butter-knives and boxcutters?

In other news, some guy has dyed the water in two fountains in Philadelphia - one pink, one blue. Pretty funny looking.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
Originally posted by: ChicagoMaroon

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?

How about making it realistic. You hide enough barrels to hold 500 tons of chemical weapons - not to mention the 16,000 missiles that would be necessary to deliver those chemicals. You can have the entire state of California to hide them in. But you have to give me all of the spy planes and satellites that the military has so I can look for all of the trucks that it would take to move those barrels to wherever you're going to hide them. Plus I'll need a few thousan people to help me look - the military doesn't have only one person looking, right? I think it's about 1400. And of course I'll want a Humvee, because those are just so darn sweet. I think my conditions are slightly more realistic.

You want my opinion? This war wasn't about making us safer, it was about making us FEEL safer. I didn't really feal like I was in a whole lot of danger before the war though... I guess I'm just not as paranoid as most people. Does anyone seriously think an attack similar to Sept 11 will ever happen again? After people have seen what terrorists are capable of, you think an airliner with 100+ people on it will be taken over by 5 guys with butter-knives and boxcutters?

In other news, some guy has dyed the water in two fountains in Philadelphia - one pink, one blue. Pretty funny looking.

owned...
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,746
6,762
126
The missing weapons are a considerable embarrassment ant potential impeachment threat to Bush, so much so, I think, that I'm beginning to think it will in fact be necessary to plant something to cover his ass. The national and international repercussions from a preemptive fraud war are too terrible to imagine. Some situations require that you cheat your way out. It's better for everybody. What good will the truth be?