Where's the secret WoMD evidence?

Great Debates
61

does it only have to be an immidiate threat to us? i would certainly say that they posed a threat to our allies (of course i mean the big “I” word, but i do not want to bring that facet of this conflict into the current debate) iraq harbored terrorist, hell syria does to and they are almost proud of it. the syrian president said that while he does not condone the actions of orginizations outside of syria, he had no problem with hamas (a syrian terror orginization)

and once again for the people in the back, we never, ever said that we had evidence of where the weapons were, and just becuase the situation has changed, and just like i cannot say anything to certainty, you cannot say with all certainty, that revealing the evedince that we do have would not put anyone in harms way. maybe we intend to continue to use the same sources for the next couple of years to help prevent civil wars and coups. who’s to say that we have a “right” to know everything the government does? can you honestly say that the world would be better if we knew everything the gov. did and they held no secrets? of course they have to keep something sanitzed for national security reasons.

i will concede that the us has probably done things it shouldn’t have (like we keep training these guys as leaders then having to take them out 10 or 15 years later), but i honestly feel we were justifed with this military action.

62

spy satalites cannot show you dick except for ground movement. how does that equate to “we should know exactly where this is at”?

your remarks about colin’s address to the un state right there in the very quotes that the materials appear to be moving or have moved. how can we track this with a satalite that passes over every 10 minutes or whatever it is?

how can we use satalites to track movements in underground bunkers or tunnels? or is it that you don’t believe they have those since there is no “concrete” evidence of such?

and since you know, what did happen to all the nerve gas and anthrax? i mean the way you are stating your argument, you know for a fact that bush, powell, and rummy are liars and they don’t have any, then you can tell me what did happen to everything they freely admitted that they had, not to mention the crap they never told anyone about.

how is it that you are certain that the us officials are lynig to us, but you don’t think it is possible that the iraqi officials lied? what is up with that? just becuase saddam said “i don’t have any” he is right? he is automatically telling the truth, but you cannot for one minute fathom that our leaders are telling you the truth?

63

The “game” is far from over. We have barely been in the country for 3 weeks now. Just because the old regime is in collapse does not mean you announce your intelligence sources to the new interim government, nor the government that will eventually be put into place by the Iraquis. Indeed, even by going directly to the sites that you have hard information on, you can reveal much about where your intelligence sources reside within the structure of government. I agree that if our current administration does not end up with evidence of wmd that it will not look favorable to that administration or us as a country.

The world is filled with countries that have wmd. Others countries have shown great restraint in using those weapons. Iraq has not. Iraq has proven itself to to be a violent neighbor not only willing to use wmd, but also to have empire- like tendencies. Iraq signed a resolution to rid itself of it’s wmd after the first gulf war and to provide proof that is had done so by providing data and admitting inspectors into the country to verify it’s claims. It has not done any of the above, and has been caught at times directly interfering in any attempt to verify it has dismantled it’s wmd and wmd programs. I for one would recommend withholding judgement for a bit longer before jumping on the ‘unprovoked war’ bandwagon.

64

Hmm, a violent, unpredictable neighboring country that has WMD, and has empire-like tendencies?
Sounds uncomfortably familiar.

65

Well, yes, or else you could justify invading ANYONE. The United States itself presented a much greater potential threat to the Soviet Union and its allies during the Cold War than Iraq was to the USA in 2003. Do you think the Soviet Union would have been justified in attacking the United States in, say, 1983? The USA was surely a potential, if not immediate, threat.

Or, as another poster in another thread pointed out, if you can attack anyone presenting a potential threat, how can you blame the Japanese for bombing Pearl Harbor? The USA and Japan had been at each other’s throats for months. The USA was certainly a POTENTIAL threat.

Syria is not Iraq. I agree Israel has cause for war against Syria, but, not to point out the obvious, ISRAEL has opted not to attack Syria. If Israel doesn’t think the situation necessitates invading Syria you’re going to have difficulty convincing me the USA should do it. It’s certainly not a matter of being unable to do it; Israel has stomped Syria before and could do it again.

Then just what was with all that evidence Powell presented to the United Nations of what wre supposed to be WMD sites?

Who’s to say the government as a right to expect people to just believe anything they say?

The UNITED STATES (and the UK) started this war. The onus is on them to provide real, convincing evidence the war was justified. It seems pretty clear to me, based on the law, tradition, and common frickin’ sense, that if someone wants to start a war, THEY should have to put up the evidence why. It shouldn’t fall on the rest of the hapless world to prove why they shouldn’t.

66

Bush and Co. are using “bait & switch” like a couple shady used car salesman.

“Come on down, We’re overloaded with evidence of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons, and a nukular program.”

“Can we please see some of this evidence” asked the concerned shopper?

“Let me ask my manager”, “No, we can’t show you the invoice. But trust me, the evidence is there. Would I lie to you?”

“Hey, you delivered this Iraq to me for $80 billion, 100+ plus dead American soldiers, 1000s of dead “liberated” Iraqi civilians. Where’s my WMD?”

“Oh, umm- well, that model is at our other location” “Come back later, maybe next month it’ll be in stock”

“But”

“Sorry, I got another customer” “Excuse me, sir. Can interest you in an old Syria, it’s got terrorists, weapons of mass destruction and a few Iraqi Ba’athists hidden in the trunk” “Hell, I’ll even throw in a slightly used Iran”

All sarcasm aside, I think there are probably some WMD somewhere in Iraq. Saddam had literally tons of chemicals and anthrax and other bad stuff. But Bush was certainly impatient with the UN inspectors. Bush thought less than 3 months was plenty of time for the UN inspectors. The US can now go anywhere, literally anywhere in Iraq to look for WMD.

I think Bush is sandbagging us. Bush is riding high right now, so there is no need to “find” WMD at this moment. But as the American economy continues to falter, there will be certain strategic announcements of evidence.

67

it was less than 3 months?!?! it was 12 years dammit, the first gulf was was ended on a premise that iraq was going to get rid of their wmd’s, 12 years and 16 UN resolutions ago.

obviously you guys aren’t going to be appeased until somene shoves it in your face, and even then we will hear cries of “the us planted the evidence”

so whatever, i respect your opinion on it, but i don’t think you should talk with the amount of certainty as you have been after only 3 weeks.

you have to wonder about the patriotism of someone who not only distrustfully questions every thing about the government, but also conjectures what might happen in the future, always putting america in the worst possible light.

you guys don’t have all the info and neither do I. my opinion, and apparently the opinion of the majority of americans that support(ed) this war is that they have shown me enough to justify it. and since the UN isn’t trying to bring anyone inside the US to the Hague, i am assuming that they are pretty much ok with everything that we have done as well.

Maybe if you guys want to be somewhere with the same political views as you, you could join the french. i am not trying to be a dick, i am just saying that it is as hard to convince you as it is the french (of course, we all know that the french have an ulterior motive for not wanting the war)

68

Ya wanna dance? Come on, tough guy, bring it on. Let’s see what ya got. What’s the matter, you scared or something?

Ah, never mind, you’ll all be cheering at the Anschluss parades. Better start memorizing the Pledge of Allegiance just in case.

69

but if no WMBs are found the assumpion is that they did destroy them over the last 12 years. My best reading of it is that by 1998 when the inspectors first left almost all the WMBs programs were discontinued and were not started up again. There were discrepancies in stock which the iraqis seemed oddly reluctant to square up. There are lots of possible explanations for this, not all of them sinister

70

megadave:but only iraq (and perhaps a few others) would use this on innocent civilans
this quote is not quite correct, im certainly not a US basher, but they are the only country in history to use atomic weapons in war.
lets not forget chemical weapons in Vietnam (agent orange). to many people in this world it is the western world who are the maniacs with WMD

71

once again someone is making up excuses for the iraqis on one hand and playing against the us on the other.

i just don’t understand i guess why we give so much lenience to saddam and his cohorts, but expect nothing short of perfection from our elected leaders

72

hey rougue, i want to thank you for bringing up a new point. I had not thought of it that way (even though it is painfully obvious). I suppose some could say we were justified with Japan and Vietnam as we were mainly going for self defense (at least that was our intention i suppose), but personally, I don’t agree with either decision the US made.

Besides you could make a very weak argument that saddam also had his for self defense, though i don’t think that would hold water

73

Sheesh.

The first Gulf War wasn’t about WMDs at all, it was about KICKING IRAQ OUT OF KUWAIT. I’m sure you remember that Kuwait part, right? Weapons of mass destruction were a secondary issue.

Look, I and you and everyone else knows Iraq was required, by treaty, to get rid of WMDs, and that they did not meet UN resolutions. So let me ask you these two questions:

  1. Are you actually saying that not meeting a Security Council resolution is justification for a full scale invasion?

  2. Would you like me to provide you with a list of all the countries that have violated a Security Council resolution? I think the list will reeeeally surprise you.

Oh, the appeal to patriotism? That’s pathetic, dude.

74

We knew where to point those spy cameras before; why not now?

If the United States is claiming Iraq has WMDs and is using that argument to justify a war, then the burden of proof is on them provide evidence, not the other way around.

And I’ve stated (on this board and elsewhere) before the war that I believe Iraq has some WMDs, though probably nowhere near the numbers the U.S. has been claiming. But again, the burden of proof is on the US to show that there’s an eminent threat which required military action, not just to say “Hey, we don’t trust Saddam, let’s fight!”

No, but that’s what Hans Blix and the inspectors were sent in to determine. George W. Bush’s push for war merely indicates that he doesn’t believe in due process.

Considering how many times the Bush Administration has already been caught publically lying about reasons for a war with Iraq (the nonexistent IAOC report, the forged uranium sale from Niger, etc.), no.

75

rjung, how do those quotes help your case any? For example, 2 of those 3 had to do with ballistic missile sites. Iraq was found to have been hiding and building Al Samoud 2 missiles, banned by the UN. Iraq fired SCUDs, banned by the UN. Did Colin Powell say what was taken by the trucks at the biological warfare site?

Do chemical/biological agents have to be moved by trucks? Not necessarily, but the equipment does. Why wouldn’t Saddam, knowing about our spy satellite capabilities, simply move the chemical/biological agents through the extensive network of tunnels under Baghdad? How are our spy satellites supposed to track that, hmm? They could have been moved from one site to another in total secrecy, and we would never know.

Plausible only by hysteric standards.

76

Over a decade isn’t due process? How many court cases do you know of that span more than 10 years?

77

Monster, if you actually think that the U.S. government lying to start a war is “plausible only by hysteric standards,” you really need to put a little more time into the old history books. Starting wars based on lies is old hat in Washington. Do a Google search on “Gulf of Tonkin incident” and “USS Maine.”

I think it is perfectly reasonable to think they lied about this. Heck, some of the lies are public record now. Nigerian uranium, anyone?

78

IRAQ FIRED NO SCUDS. At least, at the last Pentagon briefing I read on the topic, at the end of March, our military officials stated that no scuds had been fired.

Stop repeating this lie, or present evidence that they did.

I note that there is no mention of WMD on CNN’s website nor MSNBC’s website. This is the point at which the story just goes away. In two weeks, you will be an impolite anti-American harping on old news if you ask, “Where again are the WMD’s?”

I am hopeful that the rest of the world forgets as well as we will that Bush lied about the presence of WMD’s. I am doubtful that they will.

79

You know, you guys keep stating categorically that the Bush administration LIED about the war, because there ARE NO weapons of mass destruction.

Why don’t we hang on to that judgement for a little while? It’s still very early in the game, guys.

As for why there haven’t been any weapons found at those 30 sites… Well, that would be because the government REVEALED that they suspected weapons at those 30 sites. You can bet they were ‘sanitized’ within days. So the U.S. could be starting from scratch. The military says there are 3,000 suspected sites, and they only have manpower to search 10-15 per day. So this could take a while.

They’ve already found a huge complex in the western desert near the Syrian border, which is so heavily boobytrapped that they’ve had to send back to the States for special equipment before they can enter it. We should be hearing about that in a few days.

The war isn’t even over yet, and you guys are already declaring failure. The U.N. weapons inspectors searched Iraq for FOUR YEARS and totally missed their biological and weapons programs.

80

Sam Stone: I don’t think that’s the argument there.

What this thread, and the OP, seem to be asking, is this: why is the solid evidence of WMDs that the Bush Administration claimed to have to justify the war not being publicly revealed and used, now that the war is over and there exists no solid reason to keep it hidden?

The questioning here, I believe, is of the evidence Bush and his subordinates claimed to have in the months leading to the war, not of the WMDs themselves.