It's official: There Are No Weapons Of Mass Destruction, & Georgie is a Fucktard.

[World_Eater]

More tortured logic

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3720520.stm

Already the Foreign Office in London is saying that Saddam Hussein was “in striking distance of ending sanctions” (though presumably the US and UK could have vetoed any move by the Security Council to do this), that he had a secret oil distribution programme amassing him some $2bn, had never abandoned his intention of acquiring chemical weapons and would resume his WMD activities once sanctions had gone, something fully understood by his lieutenants.

“On the basis of the report, we should accept that Saddam had the capacity to develop WMD,” British officials said.

If SH claims he has a frickin moon based laser should we just blindly believe him or investigate?

[Greathouse]

You win some.

You lose some.

I just can’t get too worked up over this. When the war started I would have bet good money that there were WMDs. But since there isn’t, I can’t really see that it changes anything. I think getting rid of SH was the right thing to do. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons doesn’t change my opinion that it was the right thing to do.

[Merijeek]

@lieu

Since there weren’t any, it really makes you wonder just what Saddam was thinking by playing a shell game with the U.N inspectors. He was hardly forthcoming and certainly gave the appearance of trying to stay a step ahead of the inspections. It would have been so easy for him to have removed any pretext for a U.S. invasion.

He was so incredibly cunning and capable in some regards, but so stupid in others.

I thoguht the idea was that Saddam actually thought they had them because his men in charge of them were afraid to admit to him that they had been destroyed?

Or was that just a Pubbie “See, EVERYONE thought Sadadm had them, even Saddam!” talking point I managed to let slip past?

-Joe

[World_Eater]

@Greathouse

Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons doesn’t change my opinion that it was the right thing to do.

We don’t know if it was the right thing yet. It’s possible something even worse then the SH regime could emerge. From the looks of how things are going, I wouldn’t be surprised. At least they get to vote next month. :rolleyes:

[Fear_Itself]

@Agrippina

I think I read somewhere that Cuba recently found oil. I could be wrong of course, but I wonder how long it’ll be before we realize that Castro has WMD and we must go to war with them.

Oil Find Hints at a Less Dependent Cuba

On Dec. 25, President Fidel Castro said he had some information to lift the spirits of Cuba’s 11 million people: two Canadian energy companies, Pebercan and Sherritt International, had discovered oil in the Gulf of Mexico in an area under Cuba’s control.

Mr. Castro, in an announcement that raised eyebrows in the executive suites of energy companies here, disclosed that the Canadian companies had discovered estimated reserves of 100 million barrels.

Mr. Cheney, wipe that drool off your lips!

[Gangster_Octopus]

To me this just shows what a rousing success the war has been:

Pre-war Iraq: Massive stockpiles of WMDs (source: The Bush Administration)
Post-war Iraq: No WMDs anywere to be found (source: The Bush Administartion)

Huzzah!!

[CandidGamera]

Silly Rabbits. Don’t you know?

Oil is a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

'Cause … it can… burn stuff.

[SentientMeat]

lieu: As to Blix’s comments, might we not consider instead someone not assessing their own culpability in a failed mission? Accurate or not, an impartial judgement might carry more weight.

His mission was to coordinate the search of every site suspected of harbouring chemical or biological weapons and report any obstruction or lack of co-operation whatsoever. The only people who think Hans Blix was not impartial are the ones who lost patience when he reported full co-operation.

[clayton_e]

@Greathouse

I think getting rid of SH was the right thing to do. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons doesn’t change my opinion that it was the right thing to do.

Except, of course, when both ourselves and the people of Iraq are less well off then they were before we started.

[Triskadecamus]

So, who do we invade next?

[Greathouse]

@clayton_e

Except, of course, when both ourselves and the people of Iraq are less well off then they were before we started.

In the short term, yes, I can see how the Iraqis maybe worse off. But I still have faith (damn, I hate using that word) that in the long run it will help them.

[yojimbo]

@Greathouse

You win some.

You lose some.

I wonder would you say that if you lived in Fallujah

Finally, we made it into Fallujah. The first thing we noticed was grafitti saying: ‘long live the mujahideen’.

I couldn’t believe it: the whole city is destroyed. It was a big shock. I wasn’t prepared for this much destruction.

I was here just before the American attack. It’s hard to believe this is the same city; it’s incredible, destruction everywhere. Fallujah used to be one of the few modern Iraqi cities and now there is nothing. The only people I see are Fallujans trying to work out where they used to live.

http://www.channel4.com/news/2005/01/week_2/11_iraq.html

[Syntropy]

@World Eater

We don’t know if it was the right thing yet. It’s possible something even worse then the SH regime could emerge. From the looks of how things are going, I wouldn’t be surprised. At least they get to vote next month. :rolleyes:

Why do you hate the United States? Don’t you realize, these poor oppressed people are getting the best puppetdemocracy we can shove down their throats?

[elucidator]

Trisk
Hmmmm. Interesting question! Be a good idea if the target weren’t very far away, ideal if the target nation actually bordered our country. Be a big help as well is they were predominantly English-speaking, makes dealing with the locals a lot easier. A source of strategicily vital whale blubber could be a crucial factor. Any connection to France, however remote, would be a plus.

Hmmmm. Are you pondering what I’m pondering, Pinky?

[Lightnin]

Bush, war under false pretenses that’s killed thousands of civilians and soldiers.

Clinton, blowjob that killed a few kittens, at best.

Who’s come closest to impeachment?
Sometimes I think I’m too cynical, sometimes I know I’m not cynical enough. :dubious:

[Ravenman]

@Triskadecamus

So, who do we invade next?

Syria. Intelligence indicates that that’s where all the WMD went.

[treis]

@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

The search for Weapons Of Mass Destruction in Iraq is officially over.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814588/

We didn’t find any.

More than 100,000 Iraqi civilians, & more than 1200 of our own troops died for nothing.

(1) I don’t accept the 100,000 figure for civilian deaths. Most studies have counts much lower then that.

(2) Just becuase we didn’t find any WMD’s doesn’t mean that these deaths were for nothing. A ruthless dictator is no longer in power and that certainly constitutes something.

(3) At the start of the war Iraq was not in compliance with UN resolutions and the treaty he signed at the end of the Gulf War

(4) The Bush administration had most likely decided that war was inevitiable a few months before it began. The argument is that Saddam was feigning compliance becuase he heard the beat of war drums and when that drumming ceased he would fall back into non-compliance.

[World_Eater]

@Greathouse

In the short term, yes, I can see how the Iraqis maybe worse off. But I still have faith (damn, I hate using that word) that in the long run it will help them.

What faith? Take a look at the reality of what’s going on there. If Iraq is going to go from shit to not shit, several things must happen. There is no indication that those things will happen now, or anythime soon, thus it will remain a shithole. No amount of “happy vibes” will change a damn thing.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Merijeek

I thoguht the idea was that Saddam actually thought they had them because his men in charge of them were afraid to admit to him that they had been destroyed?

That theory is that his WMD program staff didn’t dare tell him they hadn’t succeeded in making them in the first place.

It may be that he didn’t want to let his people know he’d knuckled to outside pressure - a dictator must keep his people fearful to keep in power. He must seem stronger than any enemy, but the enemies must plausibly exist as such in his people’s minds. Meanwhile, keeping the Iranian mullahs thinking he might really have it helped deter an invasion from that direction.

[Liberal]

@Gangster Octopus

Pre-war Iraq: Massive stockpiles of WMDs (source: The Bush Administration)

Interesting source. I have some other sources:

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” — President Clinton, 2 February, 1998

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” — Madeline Albright (Clinton’s Secretary of State), 18 February, 1998

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

“He [Saddam] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” — Sandy Berger, (Clinton’s National Security Adviser) 18 February, 1998

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — Letter to President Clinton, signed by (among others) Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 16 Dec, 1998

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), 16 December, 1998

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." — Al Gore, 23 September, 2002

Gore’s speech plans trigger speculation

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” — Senator Hillary Clinton, (D, NY), 10 October, 2002

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

“[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …” — Senator John Kerry, (D, MA), 23 January, 2003

Originally at http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html (speech given at Georgetown University) but since removed. Numerous backup sources can be found by Googling.