NationStates Jolt Archive

In this topic, I don't want to argue over their existence.
IF WMD ARE FOUND IN IRAQ
what will happen?
What will the left say?

That they were planted.

Bush will regain support, the left will try and dismiss then as 'too small'. :lol:

What will happen : There will be rejoicing in the streets by the right wing (BTW look for them and Osama to be found right before the election.)
What the left will say : What took you so long, or Bush planted them.

let me remind you that they did recently find a WMD in Iraq. A arty shell that was found was rigged with sarin gas.

let me remind you that they did recently find a WMD in Iraq. A arty shell that was found was rigged with sarin gas.

One old shell of low grade Sarin gas that didn't mix correctly and dates back to the Iran-Iraq war is hardly a WMD or justification to invade a country because of immanent threat.

let me remind you that they did recently find a WMD in Iraq. A arty shell that was found was rigged with sarin gas.

LOL..yeah that was worth 600 American lives.... :roll:

If they find them by november Bush will be elected(thank god), and the liberals will accuse the Bush of planting them

If they find them by november Bush will be elected(thank god), and the liberals will accuse the Bush of planting them

They would have to find a helluva lot of them at this point for him to be elected solely on the basis of that find alone.

let me remind you that they did recently find a WMD in Iraq. A arty shell that was found was rigged with sarin gas.To call that WMD is ridiculous. Not even the administration is trying that.

And if WMD are found, I imagine there will be a brief flurry of Limbaugh, et al crowing "We were right" and after a week, the left will say "was it really a threat and was it worth the cost and death of these soldiers?" And there will be months of conspiracy theories.

let me remind you that they did recently find a WMD in Iraq. A arty shell that was found was rigged with sarin gas.

LOL..yeah that was worth 600 American lives.... :roll:

No but what was was saving 10,000s of other lives. Bush needs to find weapons of mass destruction because he said there would be them, and support has faded, if he does the left will weep.

No but what was was saving 10,000s of other lives. Bush needs to find weapons of mass destruction because he said there would be them, and support has faded, if he does the left will weep.

Would those 10,000s of other lives be the Iraqi's who have died since our invasion of their country?

As for the left, "weeping" if WMDs are found, at this point everyone is so suspicious of this administration that it wouldn't make much difference.

let me remind you that they did recently find a WMD in Iraq. A arty shell that was found was rigged with sarin gas.

LOL..yeah that was worth 600 American lives.... :roll:

No but what was was saving 10,000s of other lives. Bush needs to find weapons of mass destruction because he said there would be them, and support has faded, if he does the left will weep.Or (hypothetically) we would accept that Bush was right about this. That doesn't mean we'll support him. There are still other issues besides WMDs. And how has finding one measly shell saved 10,000s of other lives? It's unlikely now that Bush will find WMDs. If there are, it's unlikely that they'll be found by November. Bush will lose his support, and Kerry will win election. We'll start withdrawing, and if there were any WMDs, it won't be we who found them.

let me remind you that they did recently find a WMD in Iraq. A arty shell that was found was rigged with sarin gas.

LOL..yeah that was worth 600 American lives.... :roll:

No but what was was saving 10,000s of other lives. Bush needs to find weapons of mass destruction because he said there would be them, and support has faded, if he does the left will weep.Or (hypothetically) we would accept that Bush was right about this. That doesn't mean we'll support him. There are still other issues besides WMDs. And how has finding one measly shell saved 10,000s of other lives? It's unlikely now that Bush will find WMDs. If there are, it's unlikely that they'll be found by November. Bush will lose his support, and Kerry will win election. We'll start withdrawing, and if there were any WMDs, it won't be we who found them.
The word coward springs to mind. Sure leave the British. Anywho, I didn't mean the shell would have killed 10000 I was just pointing out that many more died under Saddam its just we didn't find out about it.

let me remind you that they did recently find a WMD in Iraq. A arty shell that was found was rigged with sarin gas.

LOL..yeah that was worth 600 American lives.... :roll:

No but what was was saving 10,000s of other lives. Bush needs to find weapons of mass destruction because he said there would be them, and support has faded, if he does the left will weep.Or (hypothetically) we would accept that Bush was right about this. That doesn't mean we'll support him. There are still other issues besides WMDs. And how has finding one measly shell saved 10,000s of other lives? It's unlikely now that Bush will find WMDs. If there are, it's unlikely that they'll be found by November. Bush will lose his support, and Kerry will win election. We'll start withdrawing, and if there were any WMDs, it won't be we who found them.
The word coward springs to mind. Sure leave the British. Anywho, I didn't mean the shell would have killed 10000 I was just pointing out that many more died under Saddam its just we didn't find out about it.Who's to say that the British will be left behind? Tony Bliar (misspelled intentionally, in case that's not blatantly obvious) won't be in power forever. Who's to say the British wouldn't follow suit and slowly start to withdraw?

Oh, so you meant the shell. Well, yes, that is true, many died under Saddam. But it wasn't quite as chaotic as it was now. Not as lawless. And American troops weren't dying.

And it's not about the people who died under Saddam. That's not why we started this war. We started this war because of an ultimatum that Saddam turn over his WMDs. Looks like there weren't many (if any at all) to turn over. Deaths under Saddam doesn't justify it for me. If that were the original reason, yes, I would be behind this. But it's not. So I'm not.

let me remind you that they did recently find a WMD in Iraq. A arty shell that was found was rigged with sarin gas.


Any idiot can make sarin gas or ricin, (im sure as hell not going to say how) but a 10 year old could make it.

I hardly think that it counts as a WMD. Anthrax on the other hand... wouldn't want to find any of that apparently.

Its amazing how little it takes (i know 9/11 was 'big' by US standards) to throw a nation as 'great' ( :roll: ) as the US into a paranoid state :evil:

Many people om the left originally opposed the war when it was believed the Saddam did actually possess WMD's, whilst such a discovery might win over a number of centrists I severely doubt that it would substantially alter their view of the war.

As for wondering how the left might react. I would have thought that the manner in which the right has acted after discovering that Iraq did not actually possess any WMDs would be an excellent indicator.

That said I would be highly glad if a large stock of WMDs were found, I feel that it would restore a great deal of public faith in our governments and consolidate western opinion somewhat, which can only ever be a good thing.

Of course that is fairly irrelevant since by now it is pretty plain to just about everybody that Iraq did not possess a large stockpile of WMDs.

The word coward springs to mind. Sure leave the British. Anywho, I didn't mean the shell would have killed 10000 I was just pointing out that many more died under Saddam its just we didn't find out about it.

Yes, well, the phrase "insane jingoist lunatic with poor reality testing skills" springs to mind as well. How, exactly, is withdrawing from completed military action cowardly? Wasn't the point soverignty? I didn't realize the point of the invasion of Iraq, which either had something to do with human rights violations or securing huge stockpiles of WMDs, was to set up an occupation. It was my understanding that, once we got rid of Saddam, our work there was done and we had no interest in colonialisim. Yet now it's "cowardly" to withdraw? Nice double bind, that.

Also, where was this justification when we went in? I don't remember Bush claiming, "Unless Saddam shows the world that he is no longer abusing human rights we will take him out." I remember him saying something to the effect of, "Unless Saddam produces WMDs that he says he destroyed and UN teams can find no trace of, we'll take him out." Don't try and claim humanitarian provocation for a war that was, essentially, a bluff call. We invaded Iraq not because we were concerned about the Kurds or any other minority, but because, according to our leaders, Iraq possessed WMDs that were an imminent threat to us. To date, those imminently threatening WMDs have yet to be found and human rights abuses still occur in Iraq with death tolls of innocent Iraqis way into the thousands by a conservative estimate.

*roasts marshmellows over topic*

let me remind you that they did recently find a WMD in Iraq. A arty shell that was found was rigged with sarin gas.

oh yeah, that sure was a weapon of MASS destruction.

First, the presence of sarin has been verified, it is a real nerve agent, ect. Left-leaning media have dismissed it as "traces" of sarin, but in fact there was about a gallon. (http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/012343.html) It's true that there is more to the invasion of Iraq than merely WMD, but still, WMD is probably the most compelling reason to invade Iraq. Besides that, Iraq was an active supporter of terrorism, not only having a training camp for terrorists at Salman Pak (http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock040303.asp) featuring among other things, an airplane (useful for terrorists learning how to efficiently hijack a plane) and a weapons-grade decontamination shower.
Additionally, Saddam Hussein also offered 25,000$ to the families of Hezbollah suicide bombers (http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/Saddam_Hussein.htm). Before Sept. 11, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group.

Now, another liberal myth that has since arisen is the "imminent threat" that Bush supposedly claimed that Iraq posed (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html). Bush's reasoning rested on the idea that if Iraq ever developed nuclear weapons, it would be too late to take action (Like North Korea). The repeated violations of his cease-fire agreement to end the first Persian Gulf War, which include the recent sarin find, show that he couldn't be trusted.

Now that we're in Iraq, we've expended a considerable amount of money and some 700 soldiers have died. I have no doubt that if we simply pulled out today, tomorrow, 30 days from now or in the immediate future, Iran-style Islamocrats will take over the country, brutually oppressing everyone and supporting more terrorism. Therefore, it seems that we owe it to the fallen soldiers that their deaths were not in vain and that we actually remove the Iraqi threat (by developing a real democracy there).

get Syria and Saudi Arabia and quit worrying about those weapons.


mass pacification

they were planted.
another of bush's shannanigans to try and cover up the fact that all evidence was faulty and all he wanted was oil

they were planted.
another of bush's shannanigans to try and cover up the fact that all evidence was faulty and all he wanted was oil
*WRONG buzzer sounds*

The oil companies were against the war (Shell and BP)
It has not gained them much really because they could get oil from Iraq anyway.
If Bush wanted oil he could just dig up Alaska.

they were planted.
another of bush's shannanigans to try and cover up the fact that all evidence was faulty and all he wanted was oil
*WRONG buzzer sounds*

The oil companies were against the war (Shell and BP)
It has not gained them much really because they could get oil from Iraq anyway.
If Bush wanted oil he could just dig up Alaska.

Where's your proof that they were planted? None, huh? That's what I thought.

Moreover, I agree with Enerica. If we are really getting tired of the Middle East, let's withdraw our political obiligations and start drilling in Alaska until we find another reasonable alternative energy source.

We in the US cannot continue to use oil as the major driving force of our economy and at the same time claim that Alaska is off-limits because of ecological problems, because regardless where the oil is extracted, it still creates ecological harm. (And no one can say that they don't depend on oil, because they must either ride a bus, drive a car, or even use your computer, which all involve oil in some way or another). Otherwise, we are simply hypocrites.

I invite the green people to start living without using ANYTHING that uses oil in one way or another. I can pretty much guarantee you that they are the first to drive around SUV's that they have no use for and drink their expensive coffee.

First, the presence of sarin has been verified, it is a real nerve agent, ect. Left-leaning media have dismissed it as "traces" of sarin, but in fact there was about a gallon. (http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/012343.html)

I can't get your link to work. Here's an interesting article from a former UN Weapons Inspector that argues the Sarin shell found was indeed not part of some vast secret store http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0521/p09s01-coop.html. However, this is the first time I've heard "a small amount of nerve gas", which is what the military experts on the scene described it as, as being "about a gallon." So until you can provide a credible source and a working link that say otherwise, I'm going to have to go with what every other military expert out there has said so far (including the ones in the Bush administration) which is that this was an old shell and was no big deal.



It's true that there is more to the invasion of Iraq than merely WMD, but still, WMD is probably the most compelling reason to invade Iraq. Besides that, Iraq was an active supporter of terrorism, not only having a training camp for terrorists at Salman Pak (http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock040303.asp) featuring among other things, an airplane (useful for terrorists learning how to efficiently hijack a plane) and a weapons-grade decontamination shower.

Um, this article is from April of 2003. If this was indeed a terrorist training camp, then why haven't we heard more of it, particularly since BushCo is desperate to find any ties between terrorisim and the Saddam regiem?


Additionally, Saddam Hussein also offered 25,000$ to the families of Hezbollah suicide bombers (http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/Saddam_Hussein.htm). Before Sept. 11, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group.

No one has argued that Saddam was a good guy. In fact, the world concensus before the US invasion was that he had to go. The problem is that Bush led a unilateral campaign that spit in the face of every other world power to go to war on his own time table for reasons that we have since discovered to be false.


Now, another liberal myth that has since arisen is the "imminent threat" that Bush supposedly claimed that Iraq posed (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html). Bush's reasoning rested on the idea that if Iraq ever developed nuclear weapons, it would be too late to take action (Like North Korea). The repeated violations of his cease-fire agreement to end the first Persian Gulf War, which include the recent sarin find, show that he couldn't be trusted.

No, his stated rationale for going to war was intelligence that Iraq was in possess of weapons of mass destruction and they presented an imminent danger to US interests. http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/IraqReport3.asp

No one has ever said that Saddam could be trusted. What the objection is all about was that he incited a war against the will of the entire rest of the world for his own agenda which was based on falsehoods. You're trying to paint a picture of liberals loving Saddam which simply doesn't exist.


Now that we're in Iraq, we've expended a considerable amount of money and some 700 soldiers have died.

Yes, and who knows how much higher both those figures will climb before this debacle is over. Certainly not the administration which is begging Congress for a blank check to fund this madness.


I have no doubt that if we simply pulled out today, tomorrow, 30 days from now or in the immediate future, Iran-style Islamocrats will take over the country, brutually oppressing everyone and supporting more terrorism.

So how long are we supposed to stay there? 10 years? 20 years? Is there any timetable at all? What are the conditions that must be met for us to know we're done and we can go home? They keep changing, you see. First it was to topple Saddam. Then it was to find the WMDs. Now it's to "secure" the new government AGAINST IT'S OWN PEOPLE.


Therefore, it seems that we owe it to the fallen soldiers that their deaths were not in vain and that we actually remove the Iraqi threat (by developing a real democracy there).

When have we ever been able to "export" democracy by force? And how dare you use those dead soldiers as a "guilt attack" to try and rob from us one of the very freedoms they fought and died for, the right to question our government. You should be ashamed of yourself. Our responsibility to our soliders is to honorably ask them to defend the United States, not squander their lives and futures in a hopeless quagmire of personal vendetta, private agenda and blatant colonial greed. What we owe to those fallen soldiers is the removal and prosecution of the administration that betrayed them and sent them to die far from home for reasons that have nothing to do with protection of the United States and most certainly nothing to do with honor.

I am concerned more about the nation that has the largest stocks of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, biological and chemical agents, has a record of using them, sees itself as being above international organisations and conventions, and has a pre-emptive strike policy.

Guess who?

blatant colonial greed. What we owe to those fallen soldiers is the removal and prosecution of the administration that betrayed them and sent them to die far from home for reasons that have nothing to do with protection of the United States and most certainly nothing to do with honor.

Are you trying to infere that America would ever have the patience, the ability, or the desire to run an empire.

Where have you been hiding?
How on earth have you managed to avoid all of the media reports for the last couple of months?
The picture which has emerged is quite simple. The WMDs were a beat-up by a group of Iraqi exiles. The "evidence" for mobile biological laboratories, the "imminent threat" and the "forty-five minute capability" were all provided by this same group of shady con-men and opportunists. Their stories were viewed with some scepticism by intelligence operatives at the time, but were eagerly seized upon by an administration keen to go to war with Saddam, larely based on George Bush wishing to continue his fathers work.
Do try to keep up.

Are you trying to infere that America would ever have the patience, the ability, or the desire to run an empire.

America in theory might be able to run an empire.

The Bush Administration, however, consider themselves lucky if they remember to unzip their pants when they have to piss.

That they were planted.
Yup would agree with that. UN couldn't find them (although not given enough time), David Kay (US expert) couldn't find them, and no matter how tight the screws were turned, seems like the Iraqi people also don't know where they are.

blatant colonial greed. What we owe to those fallen soldiers is the removal and prosecution of the administration that betrayed them and sent them to die far from home for reasons that have nothing to do with protection of the United States and most certainly nothing to do with honor.

Are you trying to infere that America would ever have the patience, the ability, or the desire to run an empire.


America DOES run an empire. What country have you been living in? Oh, sorry. And I've mentioned this before. Oil companies now have access to greater supply yet prices have sky rocketed when they should have crashed, though this may seem a bit premature. This perhaps could be because the oil companies are not, Oh shall we say "Trading Fairly".
Or maybe there is much less oil than the public thinks. And an agreement was struck that prices would keep low until this new supply was secured and then prices could be let loose. Bu thats relaly just a conspiracy theory.

But you have to admit. Oil is something everyone uses and I'ts limited and becomming more and more so. That means its worth warring over. Someone needed to secure it for themsemselves and It seems the West may have managed it

The only WMDs they will find in Iraq is the ones they bought off the Americans during the Iraqi-Irani war. So if they find ANY (and they most likely won't) they'll be American. And they really didn't even use those weapons against the Irani's. They used most of them against the Kurds. And that was really bloody smart of America. Yeah, let's sell WMDs to a madman... Yeah... And also let's give $3 billion (US) of CIA training to the world's most fundamentalist and dangerous terrorist, Osama Bin Laden (and we're still to be shown hardcore evidence that he even orcestrated 9/11, could've been the Saudis) and see what happens. Yes Americans are a real intelligent bunch.