Maybe they’ll be found, maybe they wont. Time will tell.
But if W actually had that information, he’s done himself a disservice by not sharing it with the weapons inspectors, and choosing instead to pass on to them information that was innacurate or fabricated.
W would have had a lot less trouble selling the idea to the world if the weapons inspectors came up with a real “smoking gun”.
How luck for you that you are on a message board where the moderators wont kick down your ISP and ban you senseless for making comments like yours above and then watch videos of your ameteur porn. You should try logging on some of those message boards you want to compare us to and make some of those ignorant blanket statements. In short, if you hate the people on this message board then why don’t you get the fuck off? If everything this messageboard stands for so angers you, why stay? Is it just because you want something to bitch at?
Because of course you’ve been asking for military intervention in Iraq for years now right? Let’s see, you joined this board in 1999, can you show me any posts of yours in 2000 saying the USA needs to invade Iraq to get rid of the dictator? Or did you wait until Bush told you you were supposed to worry about Saddam’s evil deeds? Maybe you should try thinking for yourself instead of letting your government do your thinking for you. As if Iraq was the only country in the world with a repressive government. Where are your demands for the USA to send troops to Sierra Leone, the Congo, Liberia, to bring democracy there? Or maybe bring democracy to the oppressive government of Saudia Arabia? I guess you’ll wait until another Republic president tells you you need to start worrying your pretty little head about it. :rolleyes:
Unless the stuff is hidden so far away from Baghdad, and in a mobile mobile enough state, that there would be no way to get there before it was long gone.
And also, it’s important to keep some secrets, so that you really know Saddam HAS disarmed. In other words, let’s say the Bush administration gave the inspectors everything they had. The inspectors find it, and Saddam says, “Okay, you found it all. Now I’m completely disarmed. Now go away.”
Now the U.S. has no way of knowing if he really has disarmed, because they don’t know what else he might have. So you have to keep a lot of this stuff secret, so you can test him when he claims he has nothing left. Since he doesn’t know what you know, he can’t claim that it’s all gone unless it really is. Or rather, he can claim it, but you’ll know he’s lying.
The other reason is obvious - to protect sources. The missiles strike on the leadership yesterday suggests that the administration had intelligence contacts inside the Iraqi government. If that’s the case, then there’s no way they could release intelligence received from that source without the source being killed and the source of intel dried up.
Which country? and keep in mind that Mexico doesn’t count.
At this very moment we are making arrangements to secure 2 seperate areas where we know WMD are located. You’ll get your proof. The United States of America is under no obligation to turn this information over to inspectors, and i am certain any reason for not doing so will be brought to light and explained in enough detail after the fact, although not enough detail to asuage the screamers here. Just because everything isn’t laid out for ou in a nice little package doesn’t mean that there are sinister motives behind it, remember that.
I stand by my comments. Too often within the walls of these forums a single man is blamed for the entire country’s willingness to go to war to topple a regime. Some of you honestly believe the POTUS actually has this much authority on his own. Care to comment on the Clinton bombing without UN approval during Lewinsky? Care to make the comparison? Care to condon it and then rail against Bush for going the extra mile with the UN in comparison?
Why don’t you stop speculating long enough to deal with the facts and cease your blistering insults and blame toward an administration. Yes, every administration can benefit from change, but many of you are posting nothing short of absolute hate a bile toward a president that is undeserving of it. I have seen to often your hate aimed cooly at the administration without a care in the world of the atrocities that take place abroad. It is these atrocities that will directly affect us in the future.
In short, you shouldn’t make comments in regards to things you know nothing about.
Thank you for making my point.
I see, so Saddam has secret invisible* WMDs stashed in the desert and if we never find them then that’s because he hid them really good, and even if the US does know where they are the government’s going to keep it top secret so we don’t jeapordize any intelligence “sources.” Very convenient. You leave effectively no way to prove that Bush was wrong about the WMDs.
I’ll say it again, if Goddamn Insane was ever going to use WMDs, now would be the time. Since he isn’t using them, I think it’s only rational to conclude that he doesn’t have any, Bush was wrong, and the whole justification for this invasion is just so much bullshit.
I don’t expect the Smirk to ever cop to it, though.
It isn’t rational at all to assume that. There are many reasons why he wouldn’t or couldn’t use them. He and his forces may very well be cut off from them. Reports are coming in that we have them pinpointed and are securing them. That information could be hours old. He may not want to use them because every moment we are over there and they are not being used might support the very argument that you make. It could very well be that the men that are in charge of initiating the use of these weapons are no longer carrying out his orders, perhaps in final defiance to his falling regime. There could be a secret deal between us and our inside guys that allowed us to locate and secure them in exchange for whatever. There are many, many reasons why they haven’t been used. Your uninformed ‘rationale’ doesn’t hold up against any of them. You simply don’t know.
So don’t pretend to…
I have no such demand. Those places have no current potential based on our intel for clear and present danger to the United Statesor her allies. They do not directly threaten our security. Currently, they have no potential. Next time, dodge right. All of this dodging to the left is too predictable and you’ll get hit with the ball everytime.
Loathe though I am to defend Diogenes, may I ask if you are any better informed than he is. Otherwise, you’re guilty of the same offence.
I’ve now checked the thing that I obviously should have checked in the first place. Kuwait is pretty small, and there’s only a tiny part in the south of Kuwait that’s more than 150 km from the Iraqi border. So the missiles didn’t have to be SCUDs at all.
And the most recent news reports are saying that only one or two (reports conflict) of the missiles were SCUDs. Which one (or two)? The one (or two) that was was intercepted by a patriot missile in midair and blown to bits. Credible evidence of SCUD possession is lacking at this stage.
Model Shipwright
Do you expect that revelation to lend you some sort of credibility?Frankly, given the display of shrill, self righteous hyperbole in which you have chosen to indulge at the expense of ‘enlightening’ us ignorant fools you’ll forgive me if I thank my lucky stars you haven’t been posting longer.
Do you want to know why people are making bullshit assessments? It is because everyone’s favourite Rent-a-cop has given us fuck all to go on. We, the people, have repeately asked for proof, demanded it and finally begged for it. And what did we get? Hemming, hawing, simple minded obfuscation, forged documents and plagiarised outdated doctoral dissertations. If America’s Government goes out of its way to keep its populace ignorant and stupid then, yes, bullshit assessments will be made and it will solely be the fault of the Government.
Here, let me hand you a fire extinguisher for that flaming strawman Model Shipwright. I have no trouble believing that there are Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. What I do have trouble with, and what the plurality of anti-war protestors have trouble with, is the idea that Saddam’s very posession of these weapons is enough to switch from a policy of containment to an all out invasion. Why is the fact that he has some of these weapons tantamount to the virtual certainty that he’ll ever use them? After all, by Colin Powell’s own admission, he’s had Anthrax stores and VX gas stockpiles since the first Gulf War and he hasn’t shown the slightest indication that he’ll use them. What’s changed? Please outline any tactical advantage Saddam would gain through the use of WMD’s on other nations.
Hussein has been trying to get his hands on nuclear weapons for nearly two decades and he has failed. Clearly, something must be working.
How does telling the fucking Weapons Inspectors where the fucking weapons are constitute a breach of National Security?
“Hey, Hans. Y’know them weapons of mass destruction you’ve spent over a decade looking for without finding? Well, they’re over there.”
“Gee, thanks George. I’ll go tell the UN security council we’ve found our smoking gun”.
“Great. Then I’ll be able to provide a semi rational facade under which to go to War. It may not be perfect but it’s better than what we’ve got now by keeping everyone in the dark”
“What’s that George?”
“Fuck all, Hans. Absolutely fuck all.”
Not telling the Weapons Inspectors where the WMD’s are constitutes needless obfuscation and surely is a tactical blunder considering that a revelation by Blix that WMD’s had been found at X Y co-ordinates would have been grounds for a second UN resolution which would have quelled a vast proportion of anti-war sentiment. Yeah, we would have had to quibble with the wording a bit to satisfy the French but if there had been a definite smoking gun as opposed to the oblique shadows fleeting under the US Govt’s tissue of lies, deceit and misdirection then maybe, just maybe Chirac wouldn’t have felt compelled to use his countries veto…
And how, precisely, will the revelation of a smoking gun assist the enemy against us? Seriously, I want some scenario’s O wise prognosticator extroadinaire.
I don’t think the intelligence community should hide evidence of any smoking guns from the public, especially when such evidence would bolster public opinion for the war around the world and would not in any way constitute a breach of national security.
Well, thank you for taking the trouble to stain this board with your Right wing hystrionics to even the balance.
Who is this ‘You’ of whom you speak? Oh, I get it, it’s a general, non-specific ‘You’, the byproduct of a dumb assed generalisation. I remember international outrage over that incident.
re·tard2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rtärd)
n. Offensive Slang
My God you’re right…well, can’t argue with the dictionary.
Quite a damning indictment coming from someone who seems to support a full scale information black out in the interests of the one true great non defineable: National Security.
Assuming you’re affiliated with the intelligence community in some way, I would appreciate a clear and detailed explanation of your rationale for keeping the American people in the dark. I am filled to the fucking brim with disgust for the way the American Government has tried to spin this war using ignorance as a tool for its own advantage. Justify it.
The cholesterol from too many WMD Freedom Fries may have been clogging the arteries in Milo’s brain.
well then, you might want to clue in the OP himself, since he was the one continuing to argue that the SCUDS or whatever the hell was shat were by and of themselves WOMD. He has yet to admit that he seems to be the only one believing that. I wondered myself why he didn’t come in, admit the error and go instead on the tactic you propose here, but whaddya gonna do?
Sorry I wasn’t here to respond to all the “See? See? They weren’t Scuds” comments.
News sources too numerous to count continue to say Scuds landed on Kuwait yesterday. They are citing Kuwaiti military officials.
Cite
An Associated Press story from less than one hour ago indicates the U.S. military has absolutely not determined those missiles were not Scuds. Cite
Though it’s already been discounted by those here, if any of the missiles were al-Samouds, they were also declared banned weapons by UN weapons inspectors.
So, in Coldfire’s style, let’s review -
Iraq is using weapons it is not allowed to have and/or weapons it swore it didn’t have.
Certain nations and individuals used the “no concrete proof they have these weapons” as an excuse for being anti-war. They have been proven wrong.
Many on the SDMB have chosen to quibble about whether ballistic missiles are a weapon of mass destruction. I’ve provided evidence that they are listed under “weapons of mass destruction” at several reputable sites that look at these types of things, including a CIA site.
However, it should be noted that I really don’t give a fuck whether a ballistic missile is legally described as a WMD. WMD or banned weapon, my point is quite decidedly the same.
Desperately cling to semantics as you see fit.
“shot” goddammit. (but it is a funny typo at least)
Thanks for that Milossarian. Your first link doesn’t appear to go to an actual report, but you’ll note that I linked to a similar report somewhere above about 10 hours ago.
But the claims that the only missiles that were SCUDs were the same ones that were intercepted in mid-air and blown to bits (and so unverifiable) are suspicious.
The rest of your post and OP about missiles in and of themselves being WMD is just nonsense.
Model Shipwright is in no wise worthy of a reply; he seems to be the reincarnation of Danae.
Milo, if you see no moral difference between long-range missiles and WMDs, then I guess it makes sense to call it a semantic quibble. I see a huge difference between the two, and so does much of the world population. Even France has said they’ll get behind the war effort if Hussein uses WMDs; they’ve not offered to do the same if he uses long-ranged missiles.
But if your only point is that Hussein was in noncompliance with UN resolutions – well, duh. Nobody outside of Iraq, as near as I know, disputes that. What we dispute is whether his noncompliance rises to the level of an invadable offense, and whether the best body to evaluate and respond to breaches of UN resolutions is the United States government acting in defiance of the UN.
Daniel
See the above defintion of retard. Moron.
YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED PROOF OF SCUDS BEING WoMD! Read your links dumbass.
SPOOFE - see, he’s still claiming it. So, while you would like to re-direct the thread, as long as the OP is coming back again and insisting that the missles themselves are “WOMD”, we’ll still have to answer that.