HALF of polled Americans still believe Iraq had WMD

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
financeguy said:



That thick dumb dipshit you voted for is, in fact,

The worst president............EVER

the worst entrepreneur........EVER

the worst Harvard MBA grad...........EVER

the worst Christian........................EVER

the worst diplomat........................EVER

the worst drunk.........................................EVER

and the biggest terrorist..............................EVER

(Offended now?)

Just wait for RECESSION 2007.
 
financeguy said:



That thick dumb dipshit you voted for is, in fact,

The worst president............EVER

the worst entrepreneur........EVER

the worst Harvard MBA grad...........EVER

the worst Christian........................EVER

the worst diplomat........................EVER

the worst drunk.........................................EVER

and the biggest terrorist..............................EVER

(Offended now?)

that is not true

he was a pretty successful drunk

and we have the expunged records to prove it
 
Dreadsox said:
I also have a belief that Saddam smuggled what little he did have out.

I do not believe the intelligence agencies of Germany, France, and the UK could be so wrong on their own intelligence.

I am discounting the US intelligence because I cannot trust them.

I am discounting the intelligence agencies of Germany, France, and the UK because I cannot trust them. The intelligence reports that were used were passed around between agencies making them look more credible than they were. In reality, there was very little concrete evidence but many, many unfounded allegations.

Dreadsox said:

If you discount the lies of this administration and look at say the UN reports alone....

It was impossible to believe he had nothing before the war...

I am thinking he had little left because of the fact that there has been little found and I find it difficult to believe he got what the UN thought he had out of the country.

:|

As A_W said, all that’s been found so far is a few hundred old mustard gas grenades supposedly forgotten in a dump after the first golf war. They do fall under the heading of chemical weapons but they are hardly a smoking gun (sorry about the unfortunate pun). My strong reaction to this comes from hearing that two thirds of the US population believe that WMDs have been found – one must assume that these people believe the claims of the Bush administration about stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

deep said:
that is not true

he was a pretty successful drunk

and we have the expunged records to prove it

:lol:
 
yolland said:
:| Can we get back to the thread topic please.

It is interesting how the underlying question is interpreted - usually affected by political beliefs. Based on the responses, it appears that the question was read as "did Iraq have WMD to justify the current war?"

Given the broad nature of the question - Iraq had WMD - it would be hard to come to the conclusion that Iraq never had WMD.
 
In my opinion:
Fuck Up: Invading Iraq
Far larger fuck up: Invading an Iraq that has no WMD
Incredibly massive fuck up: Invading Iraq, who have no WMD because they managed to ship them to Syria or elsewhere.

It would have to be by far the worst possible scenario. If you believe they did that, then you have to be as livid as everyone else at how this whole thing was handled from the very beginning.
 
indra said:
It means apparently half of Americans are stupid. :|

well, then call me stupid.

He had them and moved them prior to invasion

my opinion

this is why I rarely enter FYM....I get too annoyed

:wink:
 
When is a weapon not a weapon?

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.

"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.

"Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."

Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone."

"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions," he said. "The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons."

The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform.

Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection.

There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center's report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center's report.

Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this morning.


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060629_5547.html
 
It doesn't suprise me that he had this stuff. However, you would think this would be on the front page of every credible newspapper in the world by now if this report came out over a month ago.
 
What I don't get, what I was alluding to in my post earlier, is why so many supporters of the invasion feel that a theory that the WMD's were moved to Syria somehow justifies the action? Is that not the worst possible outcome of all possible outcomes?
 
what do you expect when the best news service the country has to offer is drowned out by the likes of fox.

if people would pay attention to pbs, they'd probably be less stupid at the end of the day.

but as others have said, entertainment tonite always has those interesting features and feel good stories about celebrities we're supposed to give a shit about who and what they're doing.

i really like how real that chick looks, you know the old one who's had countless plastic surgery over the years. can't recall her name.

whenever a "sad" story about someone's tragic battle with a toaster comes on, her expressions are always so sincere, and the way she hams it up with the likes of oprah and rosie odonnell really makes me feel she's real.

i like that. it's nice.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
What I don't get, what I was alluding to in my post earlier, is why so many supporters of the invasion feel that a theory that the WMD's were moved to Syria somehow justifies the action? Is that not the worst possible outcome of all possible outcomes?

We really don't need WMD to justify the war, since Saddam had already broken several UN resolutions. In those resolutions was the warning that force might be used, so he knew the risk he was taking. Also, he was a murderer extraordinaire. They didn't call him the Butcher of Baghdad because of how much he loved hamburger meat.

However, if Saddam had WMD, it further justifies the war because he had a stated hatred for the US and wanted to use those WMD.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
What I don't get, what I was alluding to in my post earlier, is why so many supporters of the invasion feel that a theory that the WMD's were moved to Syria somehow justifies the action? Is that not the worst possible outcome of all possible outcomes?

Many of us were in here BEFORE THE WAR started linking to articles as it was happening. I do not feel that I am using it to justify the action.
 
80sU2isBest said:


However, if Saddam had WMD, it further justifies the war because he had a stated hatred for the US and wanted to use those WMD.

Even if he did have them, he didn't have the resources to use them on US soil from Iraq.
 
So let me get this straight, for those who believe alllll of these WMDs are in Syria - why are you not advocating we invade? I mean, a rogue nation, in the middle east, hostile to some of its neighbours, hostile to the US and openly supportive of terrorism and it's just totally dandy that they've got this entire arsenal?
 
anitram said:
So let me get this straight, for those who believe alllll of these WMDs are in Syria - why are you not advocating we invade? I mean, a rogue nation, in the middle east, hostile to some of its neighbours, hostile to the US and openly supportive of terrorism and it's just totally dandy that they've got this entire arsenal?

You are really enjoying yourself on this!

#1 Nobody claimed they are all in Syria.
#2 I do believe that some of his capabilities were moved out of country.
#3 I am not aware of Syria thumbing its nose at the UN for 12+ years.
#4 There would need to be further evidence to get congress to approve any military action as they did in Iraq.
 
Dreadsox said:
#1 Nobody claimed they are all in Syria.

Where are the rest?

#2 I do believe that some of his capabilities were moved out of country.

Why don't we hear about this as a cause for concern? Shouldn't it be?

#3 I am not aware of Syria thumbing its nose at the UN for 12+ years.

You're right, they've only been thumbing their nose at the UN for 20+ years with their occupation of Lebanon, their arming of militias there and so on. Was Syria not named in the infamous UN resolution 1559?

#4 There would need to be further evidence to get congress to approve any military action as they did in Iraq.

Apparently they're not as trigger happy anymore.
 
anitram said:

Why don't we hear about this as a cause for concern? Shouldn't it be?



You're right, they've only been thumbing their nose at the UN for 20+ years with their occupation of Lebanon, their arming of militias there and so on. Was Syria not named in the infamous UN resolution 1559?


It should be.

I never claimed Syria has a good track record, They did leave Lebanon as a result of the Neo Con adjenda, Syria and Lybia have both had slightly different tunes.
 
Back
Top Bottom