Where the hell are the Weapons of Mass Destruction???

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

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,938
5
0
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
wrong: the WMDs ARE the CAKE here, remember how long we lambasted Iraq's WMD's to the UN? remember what Bush used to labor over for days getting the coalition behind him? WMDs. not this assassination attempt.

frosting is iraqi freedom and democracy

the pro war people always conveniently elevate/demote priorities day-by-day depending on how things are actually going in reality

that's a circumvention and b#lls#it answer, Tiles

Who's to say it wasn't smuggled out? Obviously there were WMD, why else would Iraq play cat and mouse with the UN inspectors all these years? Why wouldn't they just follow the resolution and save themselves? Because they were guilty.

And give it some time. Iraq is a big place, and the US military has been mostly in the cities. Wait until they actually go out and search for them... there's a lot of desert out there.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Originally posted by: NFS4
OK, so we go into this way claiming that Iraq has not declared all its weapons of mass destruction and that we KNOW that they have them. Now we can't find any?? What's up with that?:)

I remember Colin Powell shoing the UN pictures of all of this stuff last month. Now it just disappeared?

It would be a serious blunder if we didn't find jack sh!t over there after all the "sand" clears


You are EXACTLY right, man; it's been a month now, and still we haven't got anything to show for it. And special forces were in Iraq before that; they could have scoped SOMETHING out, and pointed the world's attention to it just before, or after the war started.

The Bush regime just raped a country based upon the ever-elusive WMD mantra, yet now saying that well the Iraqi's needed to be free so WMDs don't really matter as much. That's circumvention of the issue, and pure baloney.

We have every right to have expected that SOMETHING, ANYTHING, be found by now; yet the well has come up dry.

I had a dream last night that because Iraq was clean, the UN condemned George Bush to allow Saddam to come back into his country and power, and GWB was forced to foot the entire bill for reconstruction of Iraq.

Heh heh...wouldn't THAT be Justice served!

Yes, having Saddam returned to power would be justice for the citizens of Iraq he murdered, raped, and oppressed for 20 plus years. Maybe he can gas some more of them for a celebration.

This thread is titled "Where the hell are the Weapons of Mass Destruction???"

That is the million dollar question, SADDAM PROVIDED a list of the WMD he hadto the UN, AND AGREED TO PROVIDE PROOF OF THEIR DESTRUCTION. Of course we have been asking for 12 years where are they..
Why is it you think 12 years was not enough for Saddam to produce WHAT HE STATED HE HAD, but 3 weeks is too long for the US to go find them in a nation the size of Cali while still conducting a war? Granted, the US does know every little secret he hid from the UN, and we have exactly the same inside knowledge of the programs and locations as Saddam himself....
rolleye.gif


Everyone remember Haiti? A US military action restored a democratically elected leader, we then turned over control of the situation to THE UN. Haiti is A MESS RIGHT NOW.




 

PG

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,426
44
91
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: Wheezer
Ya know I just don't get it.

Eveyone wanted to give the inspectors more time but expect the military to be able to walk right in and find it, no problems and be able to pin point exactly where they are.

Do we know he has them? yes we do. Is it possible that they have been moved around? Certainly. Fortunately we have gotten rid of the regime so the shell game is over, they will not be moved again I would not think, and so now is just a matter of time.

OK, so the US doesn't give the inspectors the time to do their job and rushes into war with Iraq. So now WE should give the government/military enough time to find them when they wouldn't do the same for the UN?? Isn't that kind of a double standard?

Kill first, ask questions later?? Admit, the WOMD was just a front to pick a fight with Saddam.

here
Your argument is BS. We didn't give the inspectors enough time but out troops who are busy fighting a war are supposed to find everything in one month's time? The inspectors didn't get the job done in 12 years, be patient.

edit: more
 

dcpsoguy

Diamond Member
Nov 5, 2000
3,252
0
0
Originally posted by: NFS4
OK, so we go into this way claiming that Iraq has not declared all its weapons of mass destruction and that we KNOW that they have them. Now we can't find any?? What's up with that?:)

I remember Colin Powell shoing the UN pictures of all of this stuff last month. Now it just disappeared?

It would be a serious blunder if we didn't find jack sh!t over there after all the "sand" clears

You clearly watch too many movies, because you seem to think this is a Hollywood movie, and that it will be over in two hours with a happy ending.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Don't worry the "Coalition" is guaranteed to "find" WMD in Iraq.

;)


Count on it.

rolleye.gif



The IMPORTANT thing to remember is that our Administration IS treating this War as a movie. ;)
(haven't you noticed?; complete with "join the army" commercials)
 

Michael

Elite member
Nov 19, 1999
5,435
234
106
I'll just repeat my previous answer to this question/discussion:

The "We need WMD right now" crowd is just trying to redefine victory. Same with the "Looting must stop right now" and "Not one Iraqi can go hungry or thirsty" statements. They lost the other victory conditions they were trying to impose, so they're moving on to another angle.

Michael
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
Originally posted by: Michael
I'll just repeat my previous answer to this question/discussion:

The "We need WMD right now" crowd is just trying to redefine victory. Same with the "Looting must stop right now" and "Not one Iraqi can go hungry or thirsty" statements. They lost the other victory conditions they were trying to impose, so they're moving on to another angle.

Michael

Exactly, and why do we need another one of these stupid ass threads, is 5 a day not enough. God damn give it some time.

KK
 

galperi1

Senior member
Oct 18, 2001
523
0
0
Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech
You're jumping the gun. How did the Bush regime rape Iraq??? Minimally, we stopped the execution of many Iraqi citizens. How do you explain the multiple palaces that the Hussein family lived in, while many of their citizens were very poor. Iraq will get out of being a dictatorship, the oil will be sold and the Iraqi citizens will have a *much* better life than they had under the Sadaam Hussein regime. I think this alone is a very impressive undertaking. Also, when the WMD are located (which they will be) it'll just be the icing on the cake.

I find that VERY hypocritical. How about we look at the USA. Very prominent people in the USA have multiple houses/mansions, while MANY are still poor across the nation. So does that mean they will have a better life if OUR regime is changed?
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Michael
I'll just repeat my previous answer to this question/discussion:

The "We need WMD right now" crowd is just trying to redefine victory. Same with the "Looting must stop right now" and "Not one Iraqi can go hungry or thirsty" statements. They lost the other victory conditions they were trying to impose, so they're moving on to another angle.

Michael
The major "loss" was the Anglo-American lack of UN support for the war. That original argument is still valid.
Like it or not, we DO need the UN . . .

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Michael
I'll just repeat my previous answer to this question/discussion:

The "We need WMD right now" crowd is just trying to redefine victory. Same with the "Looting must stop right now" and "Not one Iraqi can go hungry or thirsty" statements. They lost the other victory conditions they were trying to impose, so they're moving on to another angle.

Michael
The major "loss" was the Anglo-American lack of UN support for the war. That original argument is still valid.
Like it or not, we DO need the UN . . .

The lack of support was only from nations illegally dealing arms and profiting from Saddam's regime.
Americans support this effort, probably because we don't have a govt controlled media like France.

Let me aks you about Haiti, the US went in, restored a democratically elected leader to power quickly and turned the reins over to your vaunted UN. Do you know the condiitions in Haiti NOW? Tell me again why the UN is so vital, why should we give them another chance to screw up one of our good starts?

 

bentwookie

Golden Member
Aug 3, 2002
1,771
0
0
Originally posted by: galperi1
Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech
You're jumping the gun. How did the Bush regime rape Iraq??? Minimally, we stopped the execution of many Iraqi citizens. How do you explain the multiple palaces that the Hussein family lived in, while many of their citizens were very poor. Iraq will get out of being a dictatorship, the oil will be sold and the Iraqi citizens will have a *much* better life than they had under the Sadaam Hussein regime. I think this alone is a very impressive undertaking. Also, when the WMD are located (which they will be) it'll just be the icing on the cake.

I find that VERY hypocritical. How about we look at the USA. Very prominent people in the USA have multiple houses/mansions, while MANY are still poor across the nation. So does that mean they will have a better life if OUR regime is changed?

trying to compare the 2 cultures is laughable...you really need to pull your head out and get educated in the the region before making comments like that.
 

Michael

Elite member
Nov 19, 1999
5,435
234
106
Alistar7 - The government does not control the media in France and Germany. Not even close. No more than the government controls the media in the US.

Michael
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: Michael
Alistar7 - The government does not control the media in France and Germany. Not even close. No more than the government controls the media in the US.

Michael


Maybe you should read up on the history of France's media, noticed how their systematic torture was not told ot their own citizens...


Prague, 27 May 1998 (RFE/RL) -- In France for the past century-and-a-half, both governments and newspaper readers have tended to see the press as corrupt, venal, politically partisan and, therefore, pliant, unreliable and disreputable. So much so that, in the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, the very word "journalist" served at least much as a cynical term of contempt as a description of a profession.
 

Michael

Elite member
Nov 19, 1999
5,435
234
106
Alistar - I speak and read French well and have been to France many, many times. I know French history, the French business structure, French media, and other subjects pretty well.

Tossing out one link doesn't prove anything.

The American media is partisan as well. So?

Michael
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Sorry, but thats sounds retarded. What were all those pictures of proof then? If I was Saddam, and I had WMD, you would have been breathing/wearing them rather quickly. I'm not saying he does not have them, but thats not a good theory to why he didn't use them. Swift attack? If he watched CNN he could have could have drew a circle on a calender on what day the attack was gonna begin.

It was a swift attack... the inspectors were in Iraq until the last day. Then bombing started almost immediately the next day. You aren't going to be moving WMD like they were just bags. One of the reasons why the war was so successful was the fast invasion of the US. Iraqi soldiers were abandoning or surrending almost immediately. What the Iraqi's were waiting for was the Shock and Awe... it was a feint though... there wasn't going to be a long air war like the first Gulf war, so they never had a chance to mobilize the WMD.

If the country was going to be invaded anyway it seems like it would be a good time to mobilize the WMDs. Screw the inspectors, the US is invading kind of thing. It's not like we up and surprised them.

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: Michael
Alistar - I speak and read French well and have been to France many, many times. I know French history, the French business structure, French media, and other subjects pretty well.

Tossing out one link doesn't prove anything.

The American media is partisan as well. So?

Michael

Is the US media partisan? yes, do they HIDE the truth, lol, good luck proving that. Anything relevant that has happened in this conflict has been fully reported here in the states, notice you don't get the same full story in EU countries, you get stories designed to support their Govt.'s position. What about the Arab media, lol, Iranians were not even allowed to see the celebrations is Baghdad, Al-Jazeera showed NOTHING until a US flag was placed over a statues head, wiythin 30 seconds they had a story stating it should have been an Iraqi flag. Did they show that was put up as well, no, they just replay the US flag. You will get some partisan bulshit in out papers, but there are THOUSANDS to choose from all giving the same FACTS with a different angle in interpretation.

 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Michael
I'll just repeat my previous answer to this question/discussion:

The "We need WMD right now" crowd is just trying to redefine victory. Same with the "Looting must stop right now" and "Not one Iraqi can go hungry or thirsty" statements. They lost the other victory conditions they were trying to impose, so they're moving on to another angle.

Michael
The major "loss" was the Anglo-American lack of UN support for the war. That original argument is still valid.
Like it or not, we DO need the UN . . .
Tell me again why the UN is so vital, why should we give them another chance to screw up one of our good starts?
They can provide much more money for "relief" but - most importantly - the UN "legitimizes" the Iraq government change by War, IN ARAB EYES (you are for stability in the region?).

 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Michael
Alistar - I speak and read French well and have been to France many, many times. I know French history, the French business structure, French media, and other subjects pretty well.

Tossing out one link doesn't prove anything.

The American media is partisan as well. So?

Michael

Is the US media partisan? yes, do they HIDE the truth, lol, good luck proving that. Anything relevant that has happened in this conflict has been fully reported here in the states, notice you don't get the same full story in EU countries, you get stories designed to support their Govt.'s position. What about the Arab media, lol, Iranians were not even allowed to see the celebrations is Baghdad, Al-Jazeera showed NOTHING until a US flag was placed over a statues head, wiythin 30 seconds they had a story stating it should have been an Iraqi flag. Did they show that was put up as well, no, they just replay the US flag. You will get some partisan bulshit in out papers, but there are THOUSANDS to choose from all giving the same FACTS with a different angle in interpretation.
Quit throwing out "crap" about Al Jazeera. I doubt that you have read anything on their site. They are VERY moderate for Arab reporting and are a "balance" to other extreme views (believe it or not).

They do show civilain casualties of war, however - Anglo-American media doesn't.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
I do follow their site, but not if I want full factual reporting. That was hardly crap as you call it, just fact. They were showing a small arms battle in another part of Baghdad that morning, no mention of the celebrations until the flag incident, and never a mention of the Iraqi flag. Can you find a photo of that on their site, no.

In the "eyes of the Arab world" we would be seen as invaders by the people of Iraq, did you miss the fact that almost the entire Arab world was STUNNED by the peoples reaction?

We do see civilian casualties, our media does report this as well as anything else relevant in the conflict. About 1,250 civilian dead right?
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: apoppinThe major "loss" was the Anglo-American lack of UN support for the war.

No the major losses were quite numerous. First it was the plan had failed and we had moved too far too fast and underestimated the Iraqi resistance. Then it was the attacks against our supplies lines would cripple the advance. Then it was the Iraqi people hated us and didn't want liberation. Then it was the Elite Republican Guard was waiting for us in Baghdad and would resort to urban warfare which we wouldn't be prepared for and blood would run in the streets. Also the entire Arab world would rise up against us and terrorists would be hanging from every lampost in the US. Countries like NK and Iran were rattling their sabers as well and WWIII was just around the corner.

Now we've blown through every city in Iraq...the people celebrated our troops everywhere...NK is making overtures at multilateral talks and the entire Arab world is sure of really only one thing...they were lied to about everyone's capabilities...ours and theirs. The performance of our military didn't go unnoticed by Russia either.

The ankle-biting continues here unabated...it merely switches to another topic. Even the Iraqi Minister of Information eventually realized the truth...others apparently take a bit longer.

 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Alistar7
I do follow their site, but not if I want full factual reporting. That was hardly crap as you call it, just fact. They were showing a small arms battle in another part of Baghdad that morning, no mention of the celebrations until the flag incident, and never a mention of the Iraqi flag. Can you find a photo of that on their site, no.

In the "eyes of the Arab world" we would be seen as invaders by the people of Iraq, did you miss the fact that almost the entire Arab world was STUNNED by the peoples reaction?

We do see civilian casualties, our media does report this as well as anything else relevant in the conflict. About 1,250 civilian dead right?
Where do you get the 1,250 figure?

Al Jazeera is the moderate Arab Point of View. They did mention that they were "stunned". The Iraq flag is a "detail" conveniently omitted . . . I do NOT use them as the be-all of "factual" reporting - just a balance to Western sources. ;)

And Wiz . . . just for you: :)



AJ- Will US fabricate WMD evidence?
With the US-led war to change the government of Iraq all but over there is still little sign of the weapons of mass destruction for which this campaign was fought.



Daily reports of suspected finds have all so far turned out to be false alarms and with every false trail the temptation grows for the United States to produce a the smoking gun.



?The United States is now embarrassed because it could not confirm the presence of WMD in Iraq,? said Dr. Hassan Krayyim, a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut.



?The concern lies in the possibility that the United States would present false evidence to prove that its decision to go to war was right,? he said.



Dr. Imad Jadd, international relations specialist at the Egypt-based Al-Ahram Centre for Studies, agreed. ?What will stop the United States from bringing chemical weapons from outside Iraq and moving them into the country to prove their longstanding claims?? he said.


?They can do it because they are the authority now that is conducting the search.?



Jadd called on the United Nations to send delegations to Iraq to monitor any finds of suspected chemical agents. ?International inspectors should be present in Iraq,? he said. ?They are the ones who should announce any findings,? he said.



He cautioned against allowing US-led forces to move suspected material found in Iraq to outside the country for testing. ?When this happens, it means that the evidence is lost,? Jadd said. ?They should leave the material in its place.?



A US military official said on Tuesday more testing and analysis was required before determining whether substances found at sites in central Iraq were banned chemical weapons agents.



"Initial reports were 'yes, it could potentially be'," said Brigadier General Vincent Brooks.



"We do not know enough at this point to say it should be discounted or that we have found some weapons of mass destruction for use."



That contradicted an earlier remark on Tuesday by a US military source near the predominantly Shia city of Karbala in Iraq who said tests indicated the substances were not chemical weapons agents. "The latest tests turned out negative," the source said.



In another incident, the US military investigated on Tuesday the possibility of the presence of mustard gas near the central city of Najaf after five soldiers developed what they thought were blisters while on duty there. However, it turned out that they were suffering from heat exhaustion, not exposure to chemical agents.

Last week, an initial report that claimed several bottles found in western Iraq may have contained chemical weapons appeared to be a case of one bottle labelled as a nerve agent that had been invented in the 1940s.

During an earlier phase of the war, US military officials claimed that President Saddam Hussein would use chemical weapons against the invading forces as soon as they cross the ?red line? around Baghdad.



Until now he hasn?t. ?Even if (Saddam Hussein) had chemical weapons, it was not logical for him to use them in the heart of the Iraqi capital, because Iraqi soldiers and residents would have been affected,? said Krayyim.



He pointed out that the use of such weapons would only be significant if they harm the enemy and not one?s forces. ?That?s why the US troops all removed their suits. They were confident that they wouldn't be attacked by chemical weapons,? he said referring to the Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) protective outerwear suits.



Shortly after US troops entered the Iraqi capital, they were ordered to take off their NBC suits.
US troops wait in full NBC suits in Kuwait after a warning of a second scud missile attack from Iraq last month



Krayyim ruled out the possibility that Iraq would have used WMD even if it possesses such weapons. ?Iraq does not have a political interest in that because the Iraqi government wants to quash the justification which the US used for waging its war,? he said.



In the meantime, US President George Bush has authorised the use of tear gas in Iraq, which could be a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention that states that ?each state party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.?



?It won?t be the first violation that the United States commits If it uses tear gas,? Krayyim said. ?They have also used cluster bombs in the war on Iraq.?

:Q

Having the UN there would disarm this type of criticism. ;)