• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Am I the only one who doesn't care if they ever find "WMD"?

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

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well as usual I'll get right to the important issue:

What did you mean by this, Bali?:

"No doubt the favorite Roman god of this humanitarian cadre is Janus."

That's over my head.
I gather the gate is open and the gate is closed at the whim of the Bushes. (Janus is god of gates and doorways and the 5th or 6th moon of Saturn, I think.)

 

KAMAZON

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2001
1,300
0
0
www.alirazeghi.com
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Saddam supported terrorist suicide bombers in Israel. Paid millions to their families. This is not even a contested issue. I don't care what reason they used to sell you on taking that guy out.
Lets say Saddam did fund these terrorists, but we didn't take Saddam out. instead we killed thousands upon thousands of civilians, looted the oldest artifacts of our civilization, put the entire area on fire, and so fourth. Also, Arial Sharon PERSONALLY funded HAMAS in the 1980s when he was finance minister of Israel. The USA personally sold Saddam the WMDs which were illegal to kill Iranians, and Bin Ladin has always been a CIA assett to fund the Mujahadeen 'Afghansi' 'freedom fighters' against the soviets. When did Bin Ladin stop working for us?


Besides, when they do find these "WMD", all you Saddam lovers/Bush haters will say it was planted so there can be no real answer to satisfy you people anyway. Tell me I'm wrong.[/quote]

It's no where near proven they found, or will find anythign close to WMD, but WHAT IS PROVEN IS THAT CHENEY LIED ABOUT WMD. The 'Yellow Cake' uranium story given by Cheney to the Congress, American President, UN, and the American People was A LIE. He KNEW it was a lie, but used it as a pretext for war. Why don't you answer why CHENEY LIED to get this war started, maybe his friends in Halliburton who are paying him millions of dollars had something to do with it.

Even if they find WMD, There is no way any kind of WMD Iraq was A IMMEDIATE THREAT DEMANDING A INVASION.




Dick Cheney "Yellow Cake" Uranium story Chronology

Appendix: Chronology
* Sometime in late 2001, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency received a series of documents on the letterhead of the Niger government, detailing repeated attempts by Iraq to purchase vast quantities of uranium oxide ?yellow cake,? a precursor for nuclear weapons.

* In early 2002, Vice President Cheney requested that the documents be investigated and, as a result, a former U.S. Ambassador to African countries was dispatched to Niger.

* Sometime in February 2002, officials of the CIA, the State Department and the Vice President were informed by the ex-Ambassador that the documents were forgeries. The fact that the documents were forgeries was reported around the Bush Administration.

* Nevertheless, on Sept. 24, 2002, Bush Administration officials and CIA officials briefed Congressional leaders that the Iraqis were attempting to purchase ?yellow cake? from an African country. The same day, the Office of British Prime Minister Tony Blair published a dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, foisting the same false information about the Niger uranium purchases.

* On Dec. 19, 2002, the U.S. State Department published a one-page fact sheet, disputing Iraq's weapons declarations to the United Nations Security Council, again citing the Niger sales of ?yellow cake? to Iraq.

* During January 2003, every top national security official of the Bush Administration, including National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush, himself, cited Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear materials from Africa, in briefings, interviews and, in the case of George Bush, in his State of the Union address.

* On March 7, 2003, Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) delivered testimony before the United Nations Security Council, in which he exposed the Niger documents as shoddy frauds.

* Even following the ElBaradei public revelations, Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on March 16 on ?Meet the Press,? repeated the Iraq nuclear material lie.


U.S. Representative Henry Waxman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, sent a letter to President George W. Bush, demanding a full explanation from the Administration, as to why senior officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and the President himself "cited forged evidence about Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear materials."

Rep. Waxman To Pres. Bush: ?Explain Why You Cited Forged Evidence'THE REP. HENRY WAXMAN LETTER: Who Knew What, and When?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,963
3,752
126
I gather the gate is open and the gate is closed at the whim of the Bushes.
--------------------
I told you Mom said you were the poetic one.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I gather the gate is open and the gate is closed at the whim of the Bushes.
--------------------
I told you Mom said you were the poetic one.
You misspelled (poetic one) S/B cootie pen.:)
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,878
0
76
Originally posted by: DZip
Crazyfool:

It looks like once again a question is answered by short sighted, narrow-minded people that don't like what America stands for. The only thing that will make them happy is to discredit President Bush and have America look bad. This president has made most Americans feel good about taking out a threat to free loving people around the world. If 100 Iraqi's are glad about U.S. intervention to destroy Saddam and 1 terrorist Muslim rebel hates America for giving Iraqis freedom to choose their destiny, the news reports cover the 1. These rebels that are attacking American soldiers are hoping they can muster support for America to withdraw and turn the power over to these militant Muslim groups. A new government should be tolerant of all religious groups; these religious groups do not show tolerance to other religious groups. They kill innocent people and claim it?s God's will. My God loves everyone, their God does not.
This has to be one of the most moronic things I've ever read on this board.

 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
One big problem is that Bush Inc. likely established the goal of invading Iraq before defining the rationale do to so. "Saddum's dead!" was Bush Inc.'s goal, probably even before his inauguration. As I recall military action was stepped as early as 2000.

After concluding Iraq is to be invaded they then looked for ways to acheive this goal. That's partly why today there are so many acusations of misrepresenting, embellishing and even fabricating data from the intelligence community. People are beginning to realize this.

Sept. 11th made it possible to play on our fears to manipulate public opinion and garner support. Even before that, the "brilliance" of establishing "no fly" zones ten years earlier made it so very easy to deliver the coupe de grace to a weak enemy.

Soon now we'll hear a lot of "it's a done deal, let's not dwell in the past, it's time to look toward the future" and most of us will sheepishly comply. Alas, it will be a future of much of the same.
 

KAMAZON

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2001
1,300
0
0
www.alirazeghi.com
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
One big problem is that Bush Inc. likely established the goal of invading Iraq before defining the rationale do to so. "Saddum's dead!" was Bush Inc.'s goal, probably even before his inauguration. As I recall military action was stepped as early as 2000.

After concluding Iraq is to be invaded they then looked for ways to acheive this goal. That's partly why today there are so many acusations of misrepresenting, embellishing and even fabricating data from the intelligence community. People are beginning to realize this.

Sept. 11th made it possible to play on our fears to manipulate public opinion and garner support. Even before that, the "brilliance" of establishing "no fly" zones ten years earlier made it so very easy to deliver the coupe de grace to a weak enemy.

Soon now we'll hear a lot of "it's a done deal, let's not dwell in the past, it's time to look toward the future" and most of us will sheepishly comply. Alas, it will be a future of much of the same.
Actually, according to Lyndon LaRouche, Dick Cheney wrote the official plans for the Iraq war by ousting Saddam and re-writing the middle east back in 1991 whne he was head of defence under Bush Sr. "41".
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,979
1
0
DZip

What crap! Would that be the same god in the stories that:

wiped out all but 8 people from the face of the Earth?
killed all of the men, women, and children in 2 cities because they were bad?
ordered the Jews to slaughter all of the people already living in a land that god gave them as a gift?
directed the "infallable" Popes to mount the crusades?
was the divine inspiration for the Inquisition, the witch hunts, and Manifest Destiny?

How can you argue "my god is better than your god" with a straight face?
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,179
1
81
Originally posted by: Nitemare
but then again I give a sh!t about innocent Iraqi's who used to get slaughtered daily...
No, you don't, and neither do I and neither does anybody else. You just say you to so that you can try and claim a moral high ground. Rather pathetic.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
It's not so much whether or not you care if we find WMD, it's more a question of whether or not you care if our president used the WMD reason without warrant.

Crazyfool and Nitemare and anyone else who doesn't care if they find WMD, do you care if you were lied to by our government?
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,905
10
81
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Saddam supported terrorist suicide bombers in Israel. Paid millions to their families. This is not even a contested issue. I don't care what reason they used to sell you on taking that guy out.

Besides, when they do find these "WMD", all you Saddam lovers/Bush haters will say it was planted so there can be no real answer to satisfy you people anyway. Tell me I'm wrong.
You're wrong.

1. Cite a source on your millions of dollars claims.
2. If we had solid proof that Saddam supported terrorism, he would be in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 33) and could be indicted for war crimes (like Milosevic). A great place to do this would have been the permanent International Criminal Court which was formed right around the time the war started, and which the United States vehemently opposed. Why? Because it might be used against us. Woah, accountability for the United States?!

Newsflash - we are NOT the world's policeman. We do not decide who is entitled to rule a country. To call people who opposed the war "Saddam lovers" is ignorant. I guess that makes you... well personal flames are not permitted, but you can connect the dots. :)

In summary: you are wrong.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,905
10
81
Originally posted by: DZip
Crazyfool:

It looks like once again a question is answered by short sighted, narrow-minded people that don't like what America stands for. The only thing that will make them happy is to discredit President Bush and have America look bad. This president has made most Americans feel good about taking out a threat to free loving people around the world. If 100 Iraqi's are glad about U.S. intervention to destroy Saddam and 1 terrorist Muslim rebel hates America for giving Iraqis freedom to choose their destiny, the news reports cover the 1. These rebels that are attacking American soldiers are hoping they can muster support for America to withdraw and turn the power over to these militant Muslim groups. A new government should be tolerant of all religious groups; these religious groups do not show tolerance to other religious groups. They kill innocent people and claim it?s God's will. My God loves everyone, their God does not.
I voted for Bush. This war was not necessary. It was not our place to intervene, it was the UN's. The UN decided not to. Blame France if you will, or blame the structure of the UN that gives countries like France and the UNITED STATES veto power (how democratic - 5 countries get the final say on everything).
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: Czar
A reason must be a legal reason, if you think the guy across the road from you is beating up his wife you just dont go in and kick the snot out of him. WMD's were the only legal reason.
you're absolutely wrong. they were not the only "legal" reason. and by the way, what do you mean by "legal?" Are you talking about laws that were made 50,60,80 years ago that don't really fit into the current era? If so, then those laws need to be revised.

BTW, if you feel threatened, laws must give way to reality.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,905
10
81
Originally posted by: AnImuS
well im caught between both sides. If WMD are not found and he lied then i will be pretty disappointed...
But morally i feel the war was the right thing to do...
Why?
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,905
10
81
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Czar
A reason must be a legal reason, if you think the guy across the road from you is beating up his wife you just dont go in and kick the snot out of him. WMD's were the only legal reason.
you're absolutely wrong. they were not the only "legal" reason. and by the way, what do you mean by "legal?" Are you talking about laws that were made 50,60,80 years ago that don't really fit into the current era? If so, then those laws need to be revised.

BTW, if you feel threatened, laws must give way to reality.
Wait wait wait, let me guess... you're in the "UN is irrelevant" crowd, right? Do you watch O'Reilly too? By legal, I'm guessing he means legal under international law. Freeing the Iraqi people from an oppressive dictator is not a valid reason for starting a war without the support of the UN.

Edit: I never felt threatened by Saddam; Bush was merely able to convince the simple-minded majority that he was a threat to our national security. As I've said in previous posts, obviously Iraq itself poses no threat to the United States because it is too far away; they'd have to resort to terrorist tactics IF they wanted to attack the U.S. If Saddam wanted to sell or give chemical or bio weapons to Osama, he could have done so any time in the past. Even before the first war, when he was allowed to have them. But the bottom line is, Saddam would rather hit Israel.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,963
3,752
126
you're absolutely wrong. they were not the only "legal" reason. and by the way, what do you mean by "legal?" Are you talking about laws that were made 50,60,80 years ago that don't really fit into the current era? If so, then those laws need to be revised.

BTW, if you feel threatened, laws must give way to reality.
------------------------------
Damn, it's just as I thought, Dari used the word realist when what he really means is moral coward. Dari's one of those elitists from whom the law springs minute by minute our of his latest tantrum.
 

B00ne

Platinum Member
May 21, 2001
2,168
1
0
For all the ppl arguing it was worth it for "freeing" (yeah right) the Iraqi ppl should ask themselves one Question. Who gives YOU the right to decide what other ppl (Iraqis) want and the right to decide over their life and death, their way of life - their destiny. You call that freedom? You have some twisted views. What is called freedom in the West might not be the same for other ppl, You neglect cultures and impose your (our) culture on those ppl. They did not choose nor can they choose now, for them they came from one prison to another.

Freedom my friends is when the ppl in question choose whyt they like, Freedom is no absolute unit freedom is always in the eye of the beholder.

But the US dont care about other ppl wishes because they are on a holy mission to destroy all cultures and impose their (our) own the western way of life...

What would you ppl think when somebody enters you to bring you freedom - but off course u ppl wont even think about that because u sit on your high horse indoctrinated by your society thinking your are the only measure for right and wrong, free and not free, because the "American way is a sacred one" - You cannot even grasp your arrogance
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,963
3,752
126
I disagree BOOne. We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.............. I would argue about the externality of the creator, but I believe that there is something universal in human aspiration and hope. The question is see is are we more evolved than they and if so does that make it imperative that, were possible, we act to benefit the human race. I don't think the Bush Admin would go across the street to help an African nation in the same plight as Iraq, absent oil, and not necessarily just because the people are black. Africa is just not on the radar. The war was not about freedom or WMD. It was about straterery. It was a religious-ideological war for strategic control, a doctrine of a new American century.
 

B00ne

Platinum Member
May 21, 2001
2,168
1
0
Moonbeam, I am not sure I understand what you were saying. I wasnt arguing the reason for the war, I was arguing the notion that the war brought Freedom to the Iraqi ppl.

There might be something universal about aspiration and hope, and our freedom might also be something what the ppl eventually want. But in the moment from what I have seen, they dont want the freedom set up by some Occupation government, they seem to want some Islam state. Anyway it doesnt really matter, I would be happy if they want our freedom (way of life) - the core of the problem is: when this is imposed from an outside power and not evolved from within, the ppl (even though in our view are free and maybe even objectively viewed they might be free) wont accept it as Freedom but as an ungodly Regime forced on them by the USA (provided they really want to take that Islam state route) and thus they wont feel free.

Basically: what we think is good for us, does not necessarily mean others in different cultures think that too.

On the other hand maybe you are right and they just need to learn and get the time for that during the occupation period - we will see, and I hope for the best. But I doubt it, I have yet to see a country with strong Islamic Religion where the ppl accept our freedoms - not even Turkey has that (after decades)... and they are the one "Islamic" country with the closest resemblence to our way of life...
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Czar
A reason must be a legal reason, if you think the guy across the road from you is beating up his wife you just dont go in and kick the snot out of him. WMD's were the only legal reason.
you're absolutely wrong. they were not the only "legal" reason. and by the way, what do you mean by "legal?" Are you talking about laws that were made 50,60,80 years ago that don't really fit into the current era? If so, then those laws need to be revised.

BTW, if you feel threatened, laws must give way to reality.


You and your family threaten me.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Czar
A reason must be a legal reason, if you think the guy across the road from you is beating up his wife you just dont go in and kick the snot out of him. WMD's were the only legal reason.
you're absolutely wrong. they were not the only "legal" reason. and by the way, what do you mean by "legal?" Are you talking about laws that were made 50,60,80 years ago that don't really fit into the current era? If so, then those laws need to be revised.

BTW, if you feel threatened, laws must give way to reality.
International Laws, something all countries should abide by and something that does make the world a safer place
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Saddam supported terrorist suicide bombers in Israel. Paid millions to their families. This is not even a contested issue. I don't care what reason they used to sell you on taking that guy out.

Besides, when they do find these "WMD", all you Saddam lovers/Bush haters will say it was planted so there can be no real answer to satisfy you people anyway. Tell me I'm wrong.
So.. the first issue is Saddam supports terrorist issues in Israel.. The US supported all sorts of folks doing any number of acts that could be classified as terrorism. Heck we even had to make a law to keep the CIA in check which I think has been modified (exec. order) So similar acts are dissimilar....:confused:

I have yet to read a post from a Saddam lover... or Bush hater... so it is not relevant to anyone here... but as to the WMD. I sure hope they are found ... all of them... assume they exist... or existed.. I do... but, where are they... ??? I am more worried about where they are now than if they are buried... If in the hands of OBL or another group... I'm real worried because our Intel can't seem to keep track of the goings on in the world... I have little faith that we have a real means of detection... Please let us find the WMD... I'll sleep much better having a good laugh at the posts that will come if they are and until then... I'm worried a bit... ain't you?

 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
Everyone take a deep breath! My god. Things are really cookin' around here! Did those personal attack rules get thrown out the window? I used to enjoy the respect that most of us argued with. It seems like its completely dissolved at this point. I'm ticked off and let me tell you why:

I supported this war, supported Bush, supported it all the way through Bush's perfectly executed Aircraft Carrier landing. Now I'm beginning to digest some of it a little more. I endured all of the insults of being grouped with ignorant Dixie Chick-haters and "god forbid" Flag-wavers, and alas I have come to some frightening conlcusions:

Iraq may not have a weapons program, at least not to the degree that we believed. I think it will be years before this stuff is sorted out. I don't believe, yet, that Bush purposefully misled or lied to us on these facts. I haven't seen sufficient proof of that for me. What saddens me is that we have forgotten almost everything leading up to the war. The games that Hussein played with the inspectors...etc...What I don't understand is that Hussein did these things without even having a weapons program. I don't sympathize with the man at all, I think he has been one of the worst people for that region in centuries, the way Hussein played things out we had to believe that there were WMD's. He wouldn't cooperate, in hindsight perhaps out of his paranoia and disdain for the UN instead of fear of getting caught with a Smoking Gun. He wouldn't let the UN do their flyovers, he had people minding them constantly, blah blah blah.

I'm not buying into the conspiracy theories yet. I hope we can move on and make Iraq a better place from here on out. I do think Bush has blundered his way through this in many ways. I fully support an extensive investigation, but I don't think for a minute that it won't be a partisan bare-knuckle boxing match in which we will all lose for the most part. New things will come to light about this and I have a feeling that the next election will be as knee-deep in mud as this thread has become.

We'll keep learning more and more about this. Anything found in Iraq at this point will be pointless as the nonpartisan support time has run out. And if you buy the Bush=Satan routine you'll have plenty of Fall Guys to get through before you can convince any hard-liners that he masterminded the whole shabang. Most opinion polls are slowly leaning back towards the polarization that we saw in the 2000 election so we can expect a real fun one in '04. Voter turn-out will defenitely increase as a result of all of this.

The bottom line is that this whole event has left way too many plot-wholes wide open. There are more and more unanswered questions every day about what occured and why. Most of these will take years to be filled in, by the time we know what happened for better or worse, Baghdad could be a bustling metropolis, and we'll be bopping our heads to the new Iraqi Pop Sensation Boy Band while cruising around in our All-Wheel Drive Iraqi-made SUV's, laughing about how we used to be at war with those guys and now we're driving their cars around.

Most people will learn something from this. I'm happy that Hussein is out of power and I think we can move on, but it WILL be hell for a while and it might get worse before it gets better. I'll be watching Bush like a hawk and he's got some things to answer to before I'll fell like he either made a mistake or he lied. We all wish we could pull his motives out of his head, but we can only really speculate. I've gone from loving him to feeling quite neutral about him. I usually give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll see...In the meantime I'll be floating out in the politcal ether happily with no party to call home.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY