Yay, America.
If this thread is any indication, I suppose that, by the absolute loosest definition of the phrase “WMD,” (that is, “an outdated and largely degraded arsenal of chemical weapons that might or might not remain harmful to one or more individuals”) it might not be inaccurate to say Iraq had WMD prior to invasion. A more important question is: Was Iraq’s arsenal, as we understand it today, provocation enough for invasion?
[QUOTE=Cisco]
Cite that 1920s style “Death Rays” were orbiting?
[/QUOTE]
Of course: Cite. 
Extra nerdy goodness: [url=“Tesla's Death Ray | Interesting Facts About Nikola Tesla #11”]Nikky Tesla’s improved 1930s style death ray[./url].
But… but… the Harris Poll asked:
“Do you believe that the following statements are true or not true?”
I mean, come on now… logically, all the questions are going to be either true or not true, aren’t they? So obviously the correct answer is “Yes!” I remember these sorts of weaselly trick questions from grade school. The very last line of the poll probably read: “Now that you have read all the questions, do only Step One.” Nice try, HarrisInteractive!
Seriously though, regarding the Saddam/al-Queda link: from where, exactly, would so many Americans suddenly absorb this notion just within the last year? Even the Administration abandoned this particular line of innuendo some months ago, didn’t they? I could maybe see the “WMD” meme sort of worming its way into the public consciousness via the oft-flogged factoid about the 500 fossil shells, but the other question just seems a bit fishy.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
"…Half of Americans now say Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded the country in 2003 — up from 36 percent last year
[/quote]
I hesitate to mention this but while you were gone they found some WMDs in Iraq. Apparently Saddam forget about some leftover party favors that were kind of gathering dust in the desert for like fifteen or twenty years, and these were trotted out for display in a paltry and pathetic fashion and even Bush was too embarassed over them to say anything.
C’mon, you guys are being way too generous. We all know the Merikan Tard Nation thinks Saddam had intercontinental nukes he was going to use on us as soon as Osama gave him the go-ahead, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will get that meme out of their tiny, sludge-filled skulls.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
C’mon, you guys are being way too generous. We all know the Merikan Tard Nation thinks Saddam had intercontinental nukes he was going to use on us as soon as Osama gave him the go-ahead, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will get that meme out of their tiny, sludge-filled skulls.
[/QUOTE]
If it wasn’t for Bush you would be speaking Farsi and praising Allah you damn ingrate.
[QUOTE=garygnu]
I don’t like to compare the Bush II White House to the Nazis, but this combination of theories constitutes (IMHO) current policy.
[/QUOTE]
Godwin bad blah blah blah, but I bet a lot of us would find it hard not to think of that quote in this situation. The increase in wrong answers probably proves why Goebbels was right: people have short memories, so the liars just have to be persistent.
[QUOTE=AFAIKnow]
If it wasn’t for Bush you would be speaking Farsi and praising Allah you damn ingrate.
[/QUOTE]
That or French. Brioche, anyone?
[QUOTE=DragonAsh]
And to think - the Bush administration wasn’t even smart enough to *plant *imcriminating evidence of WMD.
Stupid, and incompetent to boot.
[/QUOTE]
[Lewis Black] Have the common sense to send a couple of 15 year olds into Kinko’s. I need a picture of a camel with a nuclear weapon on it’s back. [/LB]
[QUOTE=AFAIKnow]
If it wasn’t for Bush you would be speaking Farsi and praising Allah you damn ingrate.
[/QUOTE]
Hilarious!
Hey! Bush stopped some kinda program where we’d all get free Farsi lessons? Now I’m REALLY mad at him! :mad:
“Think about how stupid the average person is, then realize that half of them are stupider than that.”
-George Carlin
[QUOTE=Scylla]
I hesitate to mention this but while you were gone they found some WMDs in Iraq. Apparently Saddam forget about some leftover party favors that were kind of gathering dust in the desert for like fifteen or twenty years, and these were trotted out for display in a paltry and pathetic fashion and even Bush was too embarassed over them to say anything.
[/QUOTE]
But your pal Shodan wasn’t.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Godwin in 18. Par for the course, I guess.
[/QUOTE]
Par would be between 70 and 72. We need a new law for comparing someone to Sienfeld. How about Cramer’s Law? Kind of appropriate since they had the Soup Nazi.
[QUOTE=Epimetheus]
This is in a country in which quite a number of people are taught to believe in things contrary to the facts. They may know intellectually that we don’t have evidence of any WMD’s and that there is absolutely NO evidence of ties to Al Qaeda, but the question doesn’t ask “Does all evidence point to these things being false?”
[/quote]
You’d have to change that to the preponderance of evidence, but in any case it would be way too complicated for a poll question.
Stupid and delusional, it seems to me. Makes me feel much better. 
[QUOTE=elucidator]
“…Half of Americans now say Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded the country in 2003 — up from 36 percent last year…In addition, 64 percent say Saddam had “strong links” with al Qaeda…Fifty-five percent said that “history will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.”…American confidence in the Iraqis has improved: 37 percent said Iraq would succeed in creating a stable democracy, up five points since November…”
I don’t get it. First thought, of course, is, well, this is the Washington Times, the Moonie Rag of Record. But this is a Harris poll, considered a reliable source from what I gather.
So, what the fuck? It would certainly appear that my campaign against Cognitive Dissonance (the number one threat to the Republic!) has had little enough impact.
How is this possible? Are our fellow citizens so entirely brain-dead that they can’t see the blazingly obvious?
Honestly, pals and gals, I don’t get it. Anybody got a clue? I mean, I could sort of understand if it went to 50% from 75%, Lord knows, take a while sometimes…but this is up from before! Based on what? Scrying with entrails? Christ Jesus, what do we have to do to get through to these people!
I want to stay sane and sober. Must I choose?
[/QUOTE]
Well, sir and or madame, it would seem that you are completely unaware that 2 tons of enriched uranium was taken out of Iraq last July. But I guess since it wasn’t put in a neat little suppository shaped package, and detonated up your ass, it doesn’t count as WMD.
Ah, well… technicalities.
Points and laughs at the idiot
Retards are funny.
LEU is not suitable for use in WMDs, only power generation.
Why is that idiot laughing?
Bereft. Inconsolable.
[QUOTE=Cherry Flavored Hatred]
Well, sir and or madame, it would seem that you are completely unaware that 2 tons of enriched uranium was taken out of Iraq last July. But I guess since it wasn’t put in a neat little suppository shaped package, and detonated up your ass, it doesn’t count as WMD.
Ah, well… technicalities.
Points and laughs at the idiot
Retards are funny.
[/QUOTE]
Well, bust my buttons! When I click on your link, my computer takes me to a Google search results page. Every hit on that page brings me to a page that references materials taken out of Iraq, not in July, 2005, but June, 2004.
Also, those results suggest that the materials don’t count as WMD, not because they weren’t put in a neat suppository-shaped package and detonated up elucidator’s ass, but because (1) they were enriched into a form that made them suitable for power generation rather than weapons; and (2), they had been under seals set in place by the IAEA before the 2003 invasion (implying that they not only weren’t weapons, they weren’t even under SH’s effective control).
I guess my computer must be a retard.
Would you like to come over and point and laugh at it?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: OUCH! i SPRAINED MY EYEBONE! :dubious: :dubious: :dubious: :dubious: