WMD Thread: Find the WMD Game - Winner gets 14K Trophy 10% profits and a Barrel of Oil

[LunarRay]

CAD.

Why exactly should WMDs be mentioned? Saddam was captured - THAT was the news - THAT is what Bush spoke about.

I guess to justify and legitimize our presence in Iraq in order to capture him in the first place. If we broke in to the place we may have a problem.. but, sure as he is captured, all the dealings since the start of his reign till now will come out.. and that won't look to good.. especially, if we really gave him the stuff he used to further US objectives vis a vie the Iranians..
We should have bombed him to bits!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD.

Why exactly should WMDs be mentioned? Saddam was captured - THAT was the news - THAT is what Bush spoke about.

I guess to justify and legitimize our presence in Iraq in order to capture him in the first place. If we broke in to the place we may have a problem.. but, sure as he is captured, all the dealings since the start of his reign till now will come out.. and that won't look to good.. especially, if we really gave him the stuff he used to further US objectives vis a vie the Iranians..
We should have bombed him to bits!

There is no question that we supported him during his fight against Iran - Are you saying we shouldn't have done so?
Anyway - like I said - yes there are still unanswered questions but it doesn't diminish the importance of this capture.

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Let Bush enjoy the moment. It is by itself good news.
We'll see what exactly this means later.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD.

Why exactly should WMDs be mentioned? Saddam was captured - THAT was the news - THAT is what Bush spoke about.

I guess to justify and legitimize our presence in Iraq in order to capture him in the first place. If we broke in to the place we may have a problem.. but, sure as he is captured, all the dealings since the start of his reign till now will come out.. and that won't look to good.. especially, if we really gave him the stuff he used to further US objectives vis a vie the Iranians..
We should have bombed him to bits!

There is no question that we supported him during his fight against Iran - Are you saying we shouldn't have done so?
Anyway - like I said - yes there are still unanswered questions but it doesn't diminish the importance of this capture.

CkG

I'm sure no one would diminish the importance of Saddams capture especially for our troops.

The main question for your "like I said - yes there are still unanswered questions" does this capture override there not being any WMD?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I'm sure no one would diminish the importance of Saddams capture especially for our troops.

The main question for your "like I said - yes there are still unanswered questions" does this capture override there not being any WMD?

I haven't seen that assertion made...however for today - yes IMO it does. Long term maybe not but it definately is a big and neccessary step in helping the Iraqis feel more secure in knowing that he will never return to power. So IMO - if I was an Iraqi - It would override there not being any WMDs found yet.

WMDs is still an important part of the picture IMO - but at the moment it definately does not diminish this capture as the WMD question may hinge on how much good info we get out of Saddam. Remember - he still did not comply with the UN resolutions regarding WMDs - and he ultimately could have stopped this all from happening....on many many many occasions.

CkG

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD.

Why exactly should WMDs be mentioned? Saddam was captured - THAT was the news - THAT is what Bush spoke about.

I guess to justify and legitimize our presence in Iraq in order to capture him in the first place. If we broke in to the place we may have a problem.. but, sure as he is captured, all the dealings since the start of his reign till now will come out.. and that won't look to good.. especially, if we really gave him the stuff he used to further US objectives vis a vie the Iranians..
We should have bombed him to bits!

There is no question that we supported him during his fight against Iran - Are you saying we shouldn't have done so?
Anyway - like I said - yes there are still unanswered questions but it doesn't diminish the importance of this capture.

CkG

I'm sure no one would diminish the importance of Saddams capture especially for our troops.

The main question for your "like I said - yes there are still unanswered questions" does this capture override there not being any WMD?

no, it does not. how about you give the interrogators time to try and get that kind of info from saddam. has saddam even been in custody for 24hrs yet? thats hardly enough time to get WMD info from him!

just relax and be patient. good things come to those who wait.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD.

Why exactly should WMDs be mentioned? Saddam was captured - THAT was the news - THAT is what Bush spoke about.

I guess to justify and legitimize our presence in Iraq in order to capture him in the first place. If we broke in to the place we may have a problem.. but, sure as he is captured, all the dealings since the start of his reign till now will come out.. and that won't look to good.. especially, if we really gave him the stuff he used to further US objectives vis a vie the Iranians..
We should have bombed him to bits!

There is no question that we supported him during his fight against Iran - Are you saying we shouldn't have done so?
Anyway - like I said - yes there are still unanswered questions but it doesn't diminish the importance of this capture.

CkG

If I were the President, I'd not want anything Saddam might say about US policy to thwart the efforts under way now.. Now the supporters of Saddam have another quest.. the freedom of Saddam and the scholars will debate and divide the folks like always.. I'd still have preferred one of those MOAB's on his tunnel.. Then we can spin, deny and all the rest with out dealing with what he says.

Regarding Iran.. IF we gave Iraq.. chem wmd for use against iran.. well.. yes, I don't agree with that policy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD.

Why exactly should WMDs be mentioned? Saddam was captured - THAT was the news - THAT is what Bush spoke about.

I guess to justify and legitimize our presence in Iraq in order to capture him in the first place. If we broke in to the place we may have a problem.. but, sure as he is captured, all the dealings since the start of his reign till now will come out.. and that won't look to good.. especially, if we really gave him the stuff he used to further US objectives vis a vie the Iranians..
We should have bombed him to bits!

There is no question that we supported him during his fight against Iran - Are you saying we shouldn't have done so?
Anyway - like I said - yes there are still unanswered questions but it doesn't diminish the importance of this capture.

CkG

I'm sure no one would diminish the importance of Saddams capture especially for our troops.

The main question for your "like I said - yes there are still unanswered questions" does this capture override there not being any WMD?

A President of the US was either momumentally incompetent or a liar or both. The fact that Saddam is captured has no bearing on that.

Is it good that Saddam is out? Yep!

Now if Bush is out, then I will be satisfied that justice is done.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: zzzz
look here
see at other links blair 45 minutes claim

Would someone care to point out where Blair said Saddam could attack England with WMD in 45 minutes.

Why don't you get all red-faced again and blow spittle with every word? It's a much more fitting image for you.

 

[wacki]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674


Nope, not one mention of WMD.

Neither did Tony Blair and he said Saddam was aiming WMD at England to be launched in 45 minutes.

No, he didn't. I don't believe Tony Blair would of said that. Iraq doesn't even have the technology to lob a missle to the bottom half of Saudi Arabia, let alone Europe.

 

[phillyTIM]

bush knew a long time ago that he wasn't gonna find WMDs. he's cost our country blood and mountains of money, just to satisfy his lust of making saddam's life hell.

now he's saying they got saddam, yet doesn't have the backbone to relate it to the reason bush forced us into iraq in the first place - WMDs that may or may not have even been there.

 

[wacki]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: zzzz
look here
see at other links blair 45 minutes claim

Would someone care to point out where Blair said Saddam could attack England with WMD in 45 minutes.

Why don't you get all red-faced again and blow spittle with every word? It's a much more fitting image for you.

Read it carefully. It says "mobilised within 45 minutes" not aimed at Britain. That means putting on a mop suit which takes about 30 seconds. Pulling a shell out of a box and putting it in a howitzer. To me 45 minutes would be slow, but I guess you have to include logistic time.


Also that quote was hearsay only Hearsay link

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Let Bush enjoy the moment. It is by itself good news.
We'll see what exactly this means later.

Yup, the only people that really benefit from this are the Iraqis themselves. Saddam was little more threatening to the US than the Iraqi Information Minister was. Time will tell if this changes anything regarding the continued resistance in Iraq, which is the biggest threat to the US vis-a-vis the Iraqi situation.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
bush knew a long time ago that he wasn't gonna find WMDs. he's cost our country blood and mountains of money, just to satisfy his lust of making saddam's life hell.

now he's saying they got saddam, yet doesn't have the backbone to relate it to the reason bush forced us into iraq in the first place - WMDs that may or may not have even been there.

i love statements like these. you guys just seem so sure of yourself. you act like your reasoning is infallable and your infotmation is totally correct. where do you come up wth crap like this "just to satisfy his lust of making saddam's life hell. "??

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Let Bush enjoy the moment. It is by itself good news.
We'll see what exactly this means later.

Yup, the only people that really benefit from this are the Iraqis themselves. Saddam was little more threatening to the US than the Iraqi Information Minister was. Time will tell if this changes anything regarding the continued resistance in Iraq, which is the biggest threat to the US vis-a-vis the Iraqi situation.

"Let Bush enjoy the moment".

We'll see how much they use this in the Campaign advertising.

I'm sure we'll see tons of we removed Saddam and freed the Iraqi people ads, which is a absolutetly a good thing however you will not see the Bill Of Goods in the Ad that we removed the Weapons Of Mass Destruction.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD.

Why exactly should WMDs be mentioned? Saddam was captured - THAT was the news - THAT is what Bush spoke about.

I guess to justify and legitimize our presence in Iraq in order to capture him in the first place. If we broke in to the place we may have a problem.. but, sure as he is captured, all the dealings since the start of his reign till now will come out.. and that won't look to good.. especially, if we really gave him the stuff he used to further US objectives vis a vie the Iranians..
We should have bombed him to bits!

There is no question that we supported him during his fight against Iran - Are you saying we shouldn't have done so?
Anyway - like I said - yes there are still unanswered questions but it doesn't diminish the importance of this capture.

CkG

I'm sure no one would diminish the importance of Saddams capture especially for our troops.

The main question for your "like I said - yes there are still unanswered questions" does this capture override there not being any WMD?

A President of the US was either momumentally incompetent or a liar or both. The fact that Saddam is captured has no bearing on that.

Is it good that Saddam is out? Yep!

Now if Bush is out, then I will be satisfied that justice is done.

Man, ain't dat da truth.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, Duh! Dubya will likely never ever mention WMD's again in his whole public life. Any Whitehouse presscorps reporter who mentions it will be escorted off the grounds immediately, never to return.

We're just going to pretend that the whole thing never existed, along with Niger Uranium, "Links to Al Qaeda" (WTF does that actually mean, anyway?), the sordid Valerie Plame outing, and a few other utterly distateful and underhanded episodes.

Can't delve into any of that while we're restoring "honor and dignity" to the Whitehouse.

Maybe the '04 campaign slogan will be "I kept it in my pants."- it's about the best that can be said for the guy...

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Well, I don't like Bush for a lot of reasons (increased farm subsidies, that wretched medicare handout, etc) but I don't think he's genuinely a *liar* I think he's just...kinda dumb. I mean there's a certain genius to the fact that he hired a lot of VERY smart people to be his advisors, and he's leaps and bounds above Lyndon Johnson in that he actually let the MILITARY run the war in Iraq (Johnson made WAY too many strategic calls, given that he knew *nothing* about waging war...at least ol' Shrubbery realizes he isn't a military genius...)

I suspect that Bush got some inconclusive info that was presented as promising (it's called a "Framing error," when someone presents something to you positively you tend to run with it. We all do it to some extent) regarding teh WMD's.

Personally, I don't give a damn about WMD's and I never have. The fact is that the Iraqi people were suffering under the tyranny of a brutal dictator and his horrible regime; I think that's enough justification to oust his sorry ass, but then, when I say I care about peoples' rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, I do mean EVERYONE.

Jason

 

[yellowperil]

There are people suffering under worse oppression in North Korea, and possibly in China and dozens of other countries. North Koreans are being starved and slaughtered right now. If humanitarian concerns were really the reason why we spent all this $$ and soldiers' lives, and another $87B to rebuild Iraq, then we should be starting another war in North Korea now.

The whole WMD spiel was to try and convince everyone that the war in Iraq was necessary. Almost no one objects to war when there's an imminent threat and you're fighting to defend your homeland. What is much less popular, however, is starting a war for 'humanitarian' reasons and stirring a hornet's nest, and then spending billions of taxpayer dollars to capitalize the country and give all the lucrative contracts to your friends.

 

[dmcowen674]

Ok, finished ousting Dictator in Iraq now, time to head to the next Country with a Dictator and WMD. Nearest one is North Korea, right?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Ok, finished ousting Dictator in Iraq now, time to head to the next Country with a Dictator and WMD. Nearest one is North Korea, right?

Nearest would be

left turn iran
right turn syria.


BUt my guess is we will apply diplomacy in those areas for now.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Ok, finished ousting Dictator in Iraq now, time to head to the next Country with a Dictator and WMD. Nearest one is North Korea, right?

Nearest would be

left turn iran
right turn syria.


BUt my guess is we will apply diplomacy in those areas for now.

Problem is those Dictators don't have WMD. Has to be Dictator and has WMD.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Ok, finished ousting Dictator in Iraq now, time to head to the next Country with a Dictator and WMD. Nearest one is North Korea, right?

Nearest would be

left turn iran
right turn syria.


BUt my guess is we will apply diplomacy in those areas for now.

Charrison- I think the map you are looking at is a reflection in the mirror

 

[Jhhnn]

"Problem is those Dictators don't have WMD. Has to be Dictator and has WMD."

Maybe Pakistan, they have nukes... Wait, can't do that, Musharraf is our friend and ally...

Syria? yeh, Syria! That's where Saddam sent all of his, right? rather than defending himself with them, he shipped them off to his neighbor's place, just to embarass Dubya... didn't leave a trace, either...

 

[heartsurgeon]

what the libs can admit is that Saddam himself fits the description of a "weapon of mass destruction"

we have therefore found a weapon of mass destruction in iraq...end of case