• 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."

Why you SHOULD care if they don't find WMD's

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Stark

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
7,735
0
0
Blame saddam if no WMD are found, not Bush.

Saddam had over a decade to prove he had completely abandoned any hopes for develping WMD. He never did.

As a result, western intelligence agencies were forced to formulate a picture of what Saddam was capable of doing, always assuming the worst possible case. Just because Saddam was too incompetant to actually develop what we thought he could does not mean there was not threat.

If a cop stops you and you reach inside your jacket and refuse to show your hands, the cop must assume you're going for a weapon. If you get shot, it's your fault, not the cops.

Of course, many people don't see it that way.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Powell's evidence consisted of tenuous ties between Baghdad and an Al Qaeda leader, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, who had allegedly received medical treatment in Baghdad and who, according to Powell, operated a training camp in Iraq specializing in poisons. Unfortunately for Powell's thesis, the camp was located in northern Iraq, an area controlled by the Kurds rather than Saddam and policed by U.S. and British warplanes. One Hill staffer familiar with the classified documents on Al Qaeda tells TNR, "So why would that be proof of some Iraqi government connection to Al Qaeda? [It] might as well be in Iran."

You do realize he was captured, in Baghdad?????
I've gotten bored with trying to track all of your misinformation, but if I remember right, this is another case of you "misunderstanding" the stories you read. As I pointed out to you before, the article said they captured a person with ties to Zarqawi, not Zarqawi himself. If you have a different link, please present it; I'll apologize if you're correct. My guess is you'll ignore this correction, just as you have every other time I've pointed out your misstatements.

The camp was also there, complete with recipes for WMD and dispersion manuals and dead Al-Queda. They also found chemical protection suits identical to ones issued to regular Iraqi forces, same with the weapons and ammo. Coincidence?
Yes, this is explicitly addressed in the material I quoted - Kurdish-controlled territory in our no-fly zone. "It might as well be in Iran."

and from the Iraqi Daily News

Ansar al-Islam is a radical Kurdish Islamic group that is supportive of Saddam Hussein's regime. This group is located in the pseudo-autonomous Northern Iraq. This group has ties with Taliban and al-Qaeda. It is the most radical group operating in the Iraqi Kurdistan region.

"According to some reports, the group has received $600,000 from al-Qaeda, and a delivery of weapons and Toyota Land Cruisers. There are also reports stating that Ansar al-Islam received $35,000 from the Mukhabarat branch of Iraqi Intelligence Service, in addition to a considerable quantity of arms."

We also know for a fact Al-Queda was invited to Baghdad for meetings and did attend, although not much is known further on that.
We know that bin Laden and other Al Quaeda operatives have consistently and vehemently stated they wanted nothing to do with Hussein and his secular regime.

 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Powell's evidence consisted of tenuous ties between Baghdad and an Al Qaeda leader, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, who had allegedly received medical treatment in Baghdad and who, according to Powell, operated a training camp in Iraq specializing in poisons. Unfortunately for Powell's thesis, the camp was located in northern Iraq, an area controlled by the Kurds rather than Saddam and policed by U.S. and British warplanes. One Hill staffer familiar with the classified documents on Al Qaeda tells TNR, "So why would that be proof of some Iraqi government connection to Al Qaeda? [It] might as well be in Iran."

You do realize he was captured, in Baghdad?????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I've gotten bored with trying to track all of your misinformation, but if I remember right, this is another case of you "misunderstanding" the stories you read. As I pointed out to you before, the article said they captured a person with ties to Zarqawi, not Zarqawi himself. If you have a different link, please present it; I'll apologize if you're correct. My guess is you'll ignore this correction, just as you have every other time I've pointed out your misstatements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like you guessed right. ;)
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Gaard
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Powell's evidence consisted of tenuous ties between Baghdad and an Al Qaeda leader, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, who had allegedly received medical treatment in Baghdad and who, according to Powell, operated a training camp in Iraq specializing in poisons. Unfortunately for Powell's thesis, the camp was located in northern Iraq, an area controlled by the Kurds rather than Saddam and policed by U.S. and British warplanes. One Hill staffer familiar with the classified documents on Al Qaeda tells TNR, "So why would that be proof of some Iraqi government connection to Al Qaeda? [It] might as well be in Iran."

You do realize he was captured, in Baghdad?????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I've gotten bored with trying to track all of your misinformation, but if I remember right, this is another case of you "misunderstanding" the stories you read. As I pointed out to you before, the article said they captured a person with ties to Zarqawi, not Zarqawi himself. If you have a different link, please present it; I'll apologize if you're correct. My guess is you'll ignore this correction, just as you have every other time I've pointed out your misstatements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like you guessed right. ;)
Voice of experience, he is consistent.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
23,003
770
126
Originally posted by: Stark
Blame saddam if no WMD are found, not Bush.

Saddam had over a decade to prove he had completely abandoned any hopes for develping WMD. He never did.

As a result, western intelligence agencies were forced to formulate a picture of what Saddam was capable of doing, always assuming the worst possible case. Just because Saddam was too incompetant to actually develop what we thought he could does not mean there was not threat.

If a cop stops you and you reach inside your jacket and refuse to show your hands, the cop must assume you're going for a weapon. If you get shot, it's your fault, not the cops.

Of course, many people don't see it that way.
Absolutely horrible analogy. The cop would kill the motorist because he presented an imminent threat to the cop and ... oh wait! What was that? Iraq didn't pose an imminent threat to us? Unless you know something that we don't about saddam deploying WMD's against us, TRY AGAIN.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: Stark
Blame saddam if no WMD are found, not Bush.

Saddam had over a decade to prove he had completely abandoned any hopes for develping WMD. He never did.

As a result, western intelligence agencies were forced to formulate a picture of what Saddam was capable of doing, always assuming the worst possible case. Just because Saddam was too incompetant to actually develop what we thought he could does not mean there was not threat.

If a cop stops you and you reach inside your jacket and refuse to show your hands, the cop must assume you're going for a weapon. If you get shot, it's your fault, not the cops.

Of course, many people don't see it that way.
Absolutely horrible analogy. The cop would kill the motorist because he presented an imminent threat to the cop and ... oh wait! What was that? Iraq didn't pose an imminent threat to us? Unless you know something that we don't about saddam deploying WMD's against us, TRY AGAIN.


Yeah it was pretty weak. Assuming the worst possible case justifies a nuke being dropped on Washington. Not recommended proceedure. I really thought Americans were braver than this, but I learned I was wrong.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,054
0
71
HayBus -

About the 'Mericans being braver . . The most squirilly people I know are those who have no sense of security.
Somehow by proxy - we have substittuted personal insecurities for the sense of National Security, as there seems
to be a large aura of paranoia in the leadership of this country. Not only does it manifest itself in Dubya, but
the inner circle uses it to justify their over-reaction to Iraqs threat status, and anytine the public seems to be
laying down and getting complacent, Asscraft releases another 8 Billion Axe Murders studying with O.J. scare.
Rumbo sneers, and brushes things off as trite annoyances, maybe to him - but not to those he killed.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,971
3,758
126
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
----------------------
Anybody figure out yet why Bush was on vacation till 9/11. Did we find out yet what they knew and when they knew it, or did it get classified.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
----------------------
Anybody figure out yet why Bush was on vacation till 9/11. Did we find out yet what they knew and when they knew it, or did it get classified.
thought he was in florida talking to school kids and visiting old election engineers.

;)
 

prometheusxls

Senior member
Apr 27, 2003
830
0
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Wake up, Phokus. This isn't 1908. Our greatest fears are no longer slow moving armies bearing rudimentary firearms. The destruction a small group of terrorists can level on the world with WMD is FAR more devastating than a million Soviet infantry. If unleashed, WMD won't discriminate between civilian and military targets. It won't recongize national borders. It won't sign a peace treaty. And, as we've SEEN there are actually people in this world crazy enough to use them and, guess what, they're being bred by the tens of thousands under dictatorial regimes every day in the Middle East.

The bottom line is that we CAN'T just sit back and wait for someone to administer the first blow because finding the culprit may not be possible or, even worse, it may just be a knockout blow. We CAN take preventative measures to decrease the possibility of the currently existing WMD falling into terrorist hands.

I'm all for letting the other guy swing first. But I'm not as likely to do so if he's carrying a knife. I'm gonna bust him up or run the second I see he has a knife and I'm not sure where America has to run to.
The terrorists are a serious threat. They won't sign a treaty, or declare war before atacking . They Don't recognize national boundries, and they use WMD with out provocation or remourse. They are sort of like us in this respect.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY