I agree with you but how do we know for sure about the evidence? Didn’t we bomb the shit out of lots of places that may have been sources of weapons (and wmds) before the troops/inspectors got there to verify?
And your belief is based upon what again? It couldn’t have been hearsay right, you were probably there on the ground in Iraq performing the inspections yourself in order for your opinion to be based upon something other than hearsay right?
Yellow barrels were well-known WMDs back in the 80s.
Of course, back then WMD stood for Weapons of Mario Destruction. And they were thrown by gorillas.
mswas
Saddam’s WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says I am blocked from reading this article.
Saddam’s WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief Interesting and lends some credence to the WMD moved to Syria Idea.
A relative of Syrian President Bashar Assad is hiding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in three locations in Syria, according to intelligence sources cited by an exiled opposition party. **freerepublic ** is not a good source, very biased.
Jim
Rumsfeld:"The area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. "
Maybe they shoulda looked there?
Fair enough. I’m not married to any particular reality on this subject, I just don’t consider the case as closed as a lot of people would love for it to be. In all fairness I would say that the bias in this case is less drawn from a desire for the Democrats to be right and the Republicans to be wrong, but from a desire for their to be no WMDs born from a genuine fear of our enemies having them. However, self-delusion out of fear is a very dangerous thing.
I don’t have a particular interest in the truth being either way in this case, only that I see a lot of overly simplistic decisions about politics being argued on this board and any disagreement being labelled as a “Conspiracy Theory”. As I said before, Politics is a conspiracy by it’s very nature.
Erek
Fighting ignorance begins with critical thinking, mswas. The story this guy tells lends no support whatsoever to the contention that WMD’s were in Iraq. It doesn’t even pass the most basic sniff test.
I mean, barrels with skulls and crossbones on them, for Og’s sake? The only thing missing from this story is Darth Vader striding around with his theme music playing in the background.
Nah, the sooner they find 'em the sooner the war could end.
The bolded part;
They know where what are? The weapons or the places they where dispersed?
The scary thing to keep in mind is that Clothahump’s vote counts as much as yours…
I find your disbelief of something because it fits your sense of a pop culture cliche as less than compelling. Of course, I’m not privy to your fancy critical thinking skills and all.
Don’t use that as an absurdity. The skull and crossbones are standard symbols on placards that represent poisons. That part isn’t implausible at all.
I’ve already told you that I do admit that the existence of WMDs remains a possibility. However, in the face of a continued lack of physical evidence, it becomes less and less likely as time goes on. It makes more logical sense to “play the odds”, as it were.
See I find it more logical to reserve judgement. One doesn’t need to form a solid opinion on every subject that approaches their consciousness. To each his own.
Or perhaps in the abandoned old funfair that’s rumoured to be haunted: ask the cranky old caretaker Mr Grimley for the keys.
Yes, but the very prevalence of the skull and crossbones symbol on containers of dangerous industrial chemicals negates its value as an indicator of WMD.
Where to even begin?
Yes, Iraq had chemical weapons-and stopped manufacturing them in 1991/1992.
Experts agree that time had rendered them essentially useless.
Yes, the UN was unable to account for some of the aforementioned chemical weapons and once again,experts in the field have concluded Saddam used the missing chemical weapons against the Kurds.
Kay offered a huge sum of money for proof of WMD’s and a free ticket anywhere in the world to anyone (and his family) that could reveal their existence.
Given the conditions in Iraq when the offer was made, don’t you think that one or two of the men involved with moving said weapons, would have stepped up with evidence if there was any?
Including self-delusion based on the fear that your dearly held beliefs may be wrong, mswas.
Ever thought that might be the reason that you insist on arguing the point?
Well, I don’t know much about the logistics of transporting chemical weapons, but I’d be willing to bet that they don’t come in 44 gallon drums that you can just throw in the back of a plane, skull and crossbones or not. Maybe it was pirate treasure.
Reserve judgement until what?
The argument that there are/were WMD’s can be proved by finding them.
The argument that there are not/were not WMD’s can be proved by not finding them, ever.
So far, we have not found any. Like you say, that does not prove it one way or the other. However, it provides support for number 2 - not finding them, and continuing to not find them as time goes on, make argument 2 more and more likely.
Yes, you’re right, we don’t know for certain. However, as we have found nothing so far, my opinion is “it is most likely that there never were WMD in Iraq”. Is it too hasty of me to have that opinion?
While we’re comparing cites, here’s a choice bit from the Robb-Silberman Commission investigating the WMD intelligence failures:
Cite. Damn that John McCain and his fellow panel members for making conclusions based upon their self-delusional fears.
Reserving judgement is all fine and dandy during the early days of the investigation. But when the days drag on into weeks and the weeks drag on into years then forming an opinion becomes logical, even necessary. How long would you have us wait for suitable evidence before finally saying, “Well, I guess there aren’t any WMDs”? Where is the cutoff between sensible reservation of judgement and dogged denial?