Lets say the US military fails to find WMD in Iraq.
Sure, there is likely WMD there somewhere, but weapons inspectors WITH American intelligence assitance (ostensibly) were unable to locate anything, and the US itself couldnt come up with anything other than a forged Nigerian sales receipt and a cite to a British paper plagarized from an outdated graduate thesis.
Do you think the US, if unable to find WMD in Iraq, would resort to planting evidence?
This is a tough one. I predict that WMD will be found in Iraq.
They’ll almost certainly be Saddam’s.
But… what if the US authorities never find anything? Then the legitimacy of the war would be compromised utterly. Of course they could say “well, that’s because they’ve already been given to terrorists”. But I don’t think they’d have too many qualms in planting evidence, either. There’s precedent for dissembling.
Oh, they’ll find it all right. They have to find it. Whether its there or not. I suspect its there, but I’m not sure. But as jjim points out, it doesn’t matter if its there or not. After all our bullshit and forgeries, no one is going to believe us anyway.
Ok to get things in perspective… sure they could plant evidence but that would not help them long as journalists of the free press tend to dig into things. Considering the number of people that would need to be involved it is hard to keep that kind of thing a secret long.
Remember this would be the same press that found out the former President was fooling around with his intern in the whitehouse. I’m sure a few faked WMDs would be ferreted out in a few months.
Nah, history demonstrates that the US authorities would never resort to dirty tricks …
Actually, this reminds me of my reaction when US forces found a computer apparently belonging to a-Q in Afghanistan. Had lots of ‘How to’ info on it, some relating … surprise, surprise … to nukular (sic) type bombs. Where’d that story go, btw … ?
Anyhoo, this is to hypothetical for me, just now. I’d imagine Cheney and Rumsfeld will send the boys in ASAP to destroy all those receipts from way back before anything else is ‘found’ … lets wait and see what unfolds …
With Clinton the investigation took place in a country not at war, involved non-military related events, and was investigated by journalists who are from the country they are investigating in.
In Iraq all journalists will be under VERY tight survelliance. Dont you remember Gulf War I?
Ahhh but you don’t understand, it won’t be the on site journalists that will expose this. These things come out later.
All it takes is a few oddities in the story and the press will be all over it, they will dig up information, someone will speak or some paperwork will show up. Recent history shows that no conspiracy remains a secret, unless you are one of those paranoid types who believe in secret cabals.
Put it this way how many people would have to be involved to fake this. I mean if they create, let’s say a partialy made Nuke, they would have to 1st manufacture it (howmany people would be involved. 2nd make sure the parts aren’t tracable to the United States (after all if it looks like the US gave these components that would be just as ugly as if no WMD existed) so now we have two groups one makeing a retro bomb with foreign parts aquired by another group of people.
Now we have to transport it to Iraq without anyone knowing it was shipped. After that it must be stored until the appropriate moment. Finally shipped to a predestinagted area (Can’t be in a previously inspected area can’t be just sitting in a smouldering crater) That requires even more people.
Then has to be “found” requiring a group of patsies to stumble upon the area without noticing signs that the area had been tampered with.
Sure it can all be done, but the likely hood that it would remain a secret is unlikely. One screwup in any step of the conspiracy and the whole thing unravels.
Even the secrets of Gulf War I (such as the success rates of pariot missles and the Milk factory bombing) came out within a few months of the end of operations.
As a matter of fact, they’ll plant or manufacture evidence even if they do find WMD. Things will be forged, set up, and fixed for maximum PR effect.
Frankly, I think you’d have to be a total idiot to think otherwise. The US has already tried to make its case with proven lies, so why would you expect anything to change?
No, but there are those of us who believe the public has been hoodwinked. This has already happened. On several occasions the Bush administration has presented evidence, in public, that has turned out to be a lie. In every case the media didn’t really seem to follow up; the phony Nigerian uranium report got a little press, but other than that all the phony stories have just withered up and died, because those who are determined to believe the war is just don’t want to hear about it.
They don’t have to actually plant anything.
All they have to say is “We found it!”
By default the story will be true, they won’t have to prove a thing.
If we ask to examine it and the situation of the discovery, people, like some here on the board, will be all over us.
“Pfah, just another case of Bush-bashing” “Prove to us that it is fake!” “Where’s your tinfoil hat?”
If, after a while, it indeed turns out to be fake it is just so much old news. Another item for the memory hole.
I hope that wasn’t a shot here…
I’m not saying they won’t… I’m saying they won’t get away with it long.
So, You know they are phony. How? A good guess? Were you there? Are you Psychic? Do you have an inside plant?
I’m guessing the answer to those is No.
The reason you know is that someone out there was doing the homework and reporting. Remember the balsa wood plane fiasco a few weeks ago? If there is fakery going on to one degree or another it will not escape soemone’s notice. It will be reported.
Also you seem to underestimate the impact a story like that would have. It’s one thing for unsubstanitiated claims by the government which they can deny as faulty intellegence. Its another for them to hold up a weapon or a warehouse to the world and have it shown to be a plant.
They will have to show us not just tell. the World community will be scrutinizing the actions over the next few days it won’t be enough to just say they found it.
If there is something fishy it will be reported, if something is done about it that is another story.
Won’t be a need to plant it. It will be found/handed over. Perhaps even used.
And please, if you’re going to call me a ‘total idiot’ in the future, please do it in the Pit, as I’d hate to see you violate board rules (again). [And don’t bother going ahead and doing it now.]
He didn’t call you anything. Let’s take a look at what RickJay wrote:
He wrote “I think” and last I checked thoughts were still free (now, where is thought police when you need him…). If he had said “everyone who thinks otherwise is a total idiot”, you’d have a point. However, since he included “think” and “would have to be” there is no insult here, but just an opinion.
I think you are overestimating the “free press”. They will never rest to dig out the dirty secrets of a politician or a movie star, but I am not so sure about uncovering the wrongs of the U.S. foreign affairs, which, I am told, hava lots of juicy stuff for them.
On the other hand, once, if ever, the conspiracy turns out, the war will be over, the country destroyed (hopefully theirs), and very few people will care…
I think that the US troops will “find” evidence of Iraqi WoMD which will be presented to the press of the world at a suitably staged occasion.
My personal problem is that I would be deeply suspicious of such an event, given that the weapons inspectors were unable to find things even with the “US Intelligence” provided to them. Also, as has been pointed out, the Bush/Cheney/Blair movement have played fast and loose with “evidence” in the past. This is more than just the standard “don’t trust the government” rhetoric; I am now very dubious of anything said by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush or Blair (and extraordinarily dubious when it comes out of the weasel-mouth of Ari Fleischer, a man who just makes me cringe everytime he speaks).
So what would convince me?
Well, if we see evidence that the weapons have been used (Coalition troops coming home with serious signs of chem/bio weapons use), I’d find that convincing. But that’s a horrible way to get proof, and opposed as I have been to starting this war, I’d really like to see most everyone get home safely to their homes and families.
Failing that, I’d like to see some evidence trail with outside confirmation, such as might be provided by Dr Blix and/or some very senior and uncompromised members of the current (maybe not current as I write this) Iraqi regime. But we won’t get that for a while; possibly not for years until the propaganda and dis-information subside.
So if reports come in that Saddam has used wmd on American troops, Israelis, or Iraqi civilians, am I right to assume that many of you (elucidator, rickjay and latro, among others) will automatically assume the U.S is actually doing the poisoning? (Since no wmd in Iraq could possibly be Saddam’s, according to you.)
Secondly, since UN inspectors themselves have repeatedly stated that Iraq has failed to account for 10,000 litres of anthrax, 80 tons of mustard gas and much, much more, I just want to ask: why are you so charitable to Saddam’s claims to have disarmed? All you have argued for is that Bush isn’t trustworthy. But you have not presented a shred of logic or evidence to demonstrate why Saddam is credible, or why you think the inspectors are liars. Why is Bush the only acceptable target for your cynicsm?
For people who complain about the public being hoodwinked by Bush, its pretty breathtaking what you “skeptics” are willing to swallow.
I think that the US troops will “find” evidence of Iraqi WoMD which will be presented to the press of the world at a suitably staged occasion.
My personal problem is that I would be deeply suspicious of such an event, given that the weapons inspectors were unable to find things even with the “US Intelligence” provided to them. Also, as has been pointed out, the Bush/Cheney/Blair movement have played fast and loose with “evidence” in the past. This is more than just the standard “don’t trust the government” rhetoric; I am now very dubious of anything said by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush or Blair (and extraordinarily dubious when it comes out of the weasel-mouth of Ari Fleischer, a man who just makes me cringe everytime he speaks).
So what would convince me?
Well, if we see evidence that the weapons have been used (Coalition troops coming home with serious signs of chem/bio weapons use), I’d find that convincing. But that’s a horrible way to get proof, and opposed as I have been to starting this war, I’d really like to see most everyone get home safely to their homes and families.
Failing that, I’d like to see some evidence trail with outside confirmation, such as might be provided by Dr Blix and/or some very senior and uncompromised members of the current (maybe not current as I write this) Iraqi regime. But we won’t get that for a while; possibly not for years until the propaganda and dis-information subside.
Simple answer: No!
I’m still pretty sure Bush confirmed that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction, therefore you can rest assured that he won’t use weapons of mass destruction on US soldiers.
If he does, then that would prove me wrong and I would admit that. But, only time will tell. At the moment, let’s clearly identify what is our personal opinion, what is speculation and what are facts. If you include me into your assumption, you would be wrong. As an analogy, I’d bet you’re wrong about the other people too.
Nobody said the inspectors are liars. In fact, the inspectors are the most credible of all parties involved. If Iraq was supposed to disarm and the inspectors didn’t find any weapons, wouldn’t the conclusion be that Iraq did disarm?
I don’t know whether the judicial system changed over night, but back in the days it was “innocent until proven guilty”. I agree that Saddam is not a nice guy and it would make sense to remove him from power, but again: Finding NO EVIDENCE and then declaring that evidence is no longer needed and war will be declared puts Bush into a very bad light.
A behaviour like that isn’t fitting for a leader of a democracy, that’s why he’s seemingly getting more flak about this than Saddam. But if people would take time to actually listen, then it’d become apparent that nobody is taking sides for Saddam. What France, Russia and the other countries want is that the furhter disarmament of the Iraq is done according to the rules we set ourselves.
Breaking the rules every time it suits our purposes erodes the very foundation of the values Bush is allegedly trying to protect. Think about it.
“Innocent until proven guilty” did not apply in this case.
The burden of proof was on Iraq to show they had disarmed. They did not do so immediately and were slow to provide evidence. When South Africa disarmed it was able to prove it did so it had the records and evidence to present the world.
Iraq did not. And even the inspectors have had a hard time getting Iraq to account for some significant weapons.
Do I believe force is required now? No! Do I think the US may try to plant the evidence? Possibly. Will they get away with it? Not bloody likely.
Many of the posters here also show their huge American bias… Sure US press may not care but you’d be surprised how many “foriegn” news agencies love to find these little tid bits. Those against the war will use it against Bush in any further actions he may need to take.
There are, however, differences in degree of coverage. The media can report a fact, or they can report a fact and then start really digging at the story, a la Watergate.