NationStates Jolt Archive

What if, hypothetically, they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq today? And you couldn't find some way to claim Bush planted them? What would you do?

Go about my day as normal. Finding WMD's doesn't invalidate the argument that Iraq posed no threat to us. The Republic of Iraq does not and never has posessed any weapons delivery system capable to hitting the United States. Beyond that, even when they patently had WMDs, they didn't give them to terrorists or use them on Israel or any of the other crazily unlikely doomsday scenarios envisioned.

Accept I was incorrect about Iraq's weapons capabilities. Still doesn't make the Iraq War any less wrong.

This kind of baiting doesn't work.

Accept I was incorrect about Iraq's weapons capabilities. Still doesn't make the Iraq War any less wrong.

This kind of baiting doesn't work.

I didn't mean to bait. It's late at night, I'm procrastinating on homework, and I asked a question. It's too late in the night for my to have motives.

Change the channel from news to some cartoons. :)

Change the channel from news to some cartoons. :)

the T.V. isn't on.

I didn't mean to bait. It's late at night, I'm procrastinating on homework, and I asked a question. It's too late in the night for my to have motives.

it is never possible to not have motives. it is however always possible to be ignorant of them. even one's own.

and by what convolution of pretention gives america the sole 'right' to determine which other soverign nations may or may not possess ANYTHING?

nor is there any way to make or prove it not possible for so called american interests to slip them in there.

=^^=
.../\...

it is never possible to not have motives. it is however always possible to be ignorant of them. even one's own.

and by what convolution of pretention gives america the sole 'right' to determine which other soverign nations may or may not possess ANYTHING?

nor is there any way to make or prove it not possible for so called american interests to slip them in there.

=^^=
.../\...

That's why it's a hypothetical. And fine I have motives, they just happen to be convoluted and disturbing.

What if, hypothetically, they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq today? And you couldn't find some way to claim Bush planted them? What would you do?

Well - we all know that only EVIL people have WMDs in their country. And if a country had WMDs then it is obviously for offensive purposes and that civilised countries like the UK or US would NEVER stockpile WMDs on a large scale - particulary not with delivery capeability anywhere on earth.

And - of course it would have been fully justified invading him on the basis that he had not declared war on the US.

'course - you still ahve to find these WMDs....

What if, hypothetically, they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq today? And you couldn't find some way to claim Bush planted them? What would you do?

Find out who hid them, and then make sure to employ that guy. He's got a GIFT, I tell you!

the T.V. isn't on.

Then how did I find out that there are WMDs in Iraq? :confused:

And fine I have motives, they just happen to be convoluted and disturbing.

Not all that convoluted. Retroactive justification of the Iraq war/occupation. It's fairly common since at heart, most people don't want to believe they supported and support a war/occupation based on empty platitudes.

Then how did I find out that there are WMDs in Iraq? :confused:

Someone on NSG told you?

Not all that convoluted. Retroactive justification of the Iraq war/occupation. It's fairly common since at heart, most people don't want to believe they supported and support a war/occupation based on empty platitudes.

But... I hate the Bush Admin. And I never supported the war.

Then how did I find out that there are WMDs in Iraq? :confused:

You're a pshycic.

What if, hypothetically, they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq today? And you couldn't find some way to claim Bush planted them? What would you do?

Not much.

Let me answer this another way.

I think Bush is a moron either way.

If it had been me, you would have seen WMD's.

Becuase I would have buried the bastards in the desert my frickin self, and have the support of the world, when I was proven right...on film of course.

Dubya wasnt even that smart.

What if, hypothetically, they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq today? And you couldn't find some way to claim Bush planted them? What would you do?

Today?

Move...as it will ensure the Republicans have control of Congress for another two years, and I don't trust them not to mess things up even worse than they already have.

You're a pshycic.

In that case, I'm going Tetsuo on the world's collective ass.

You're a pshycic.

I knew you were going to say that.

>.>

<.<

But there is a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. It's called US foreign policy. It destroys peace, hope, economy, human decency, well, it's pretty massively destructive!

Well how do you know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction? Saddam had so much control of the contry and had quite a few allies he could have had them and then got them out of the country somehow! who says that he didn't give any weapons to terrorists? Micheal Moore? Pfft what a back up to a flimsy argument.

Well how do you know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction? Saddam had so much control of the contry and had quite a few allies he could have had them and then got them out of the country somehow! who says that he didn't give any weapons to terrorists? Micheal Moore? Pfft what a back up to a flimsy argument.

If he seriously managed to smuggle large quantities of weapons out of the country despite being closely monitored by the entire Western world, the guy is a lot cleverer than anyone would give him credit for. And your own administration would be a lot more incompentent than what we assume right now.

Oh, and you happen to be the first person here to mention Michael Moore... what an interesting way of attacking an argument nobody has made yet.

Well how do you know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction? Saddam had so much control of the contry and had quite a few allies he could have had them and then got them out of the country somehow! who says that he didn't give any weapons to terrorists? Micheal Moore? Pfft what a back up to a flimsy argument.

Saddam had zero allies. The rest of the heads of the Middle Eastern nations hated him, what with Iraq being a secular state and all.

Saddam had zero allies. The rest of the heads of the Middle Eastern nations hated him, what with Iraq being a secular state and all.

He had Syria... oh that's right... Syria loves Iran and Iran hates Iraq... *Just preemptivly attacking an arguement*

Well how do you know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction?

Burden of proof that Iraq *did* is on people who claim it did. It's not up to others to prove a non-existence, it's up to you to prove the existence.

Burden of proof that Iraq *did* is on people who claim it did. It's not up to others to prove a non-existence, it's up to you to prove the existence.

Well, it would be, if "fair trial" was applicable in international politics. As it is, the situation is more like "we attack who we want because we can, the rest of the world can be grateful that we even bother to think of an excuse, we just do this because we're polite"

Someone on NSG told you?

After all, Generlites do know everything.

After all, Generlites do know everything.

Almost everything.

I dont think you've shared "the most offensive riddle ever".

Almost everything.

I dont think you've shared "the most offensive riddle ever".

Well, not here anyway.

Were there WMD's in Iraq? Depedns on what you call a WMD. Nukes? No. Bioweapons? Very Unlikely. Poisons? Yes. But everyone has poisons. Hell, I could make some poison gas weapons with common household chemicals and a short-ranged delivery system or grenades with stuff from Menards or Home Depot. You can also make a rocket launcher out of pvc pipes, estes engines, and any number of homemade explosives. Making weapons isn't hard.

What if, hypothetically, they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq today? And you couldn't find some way to claim Bush planted them? What would you do?

A lot of other countries have stocks of WMD. Just obliterating one of them won't make the world any safer. What we need is a GLOBAL disarmament policy.
I also happen to remember that Bush said something about "we won't allow any country to have greater military power than us". So why doesn't he attack Russia or the EU? Chicken suspect.

A small list of WMD owners, to my knowledge.
N=nuke, B=biological, C=chemical

USA (NBC)
Russia (NBC)
France (NC)
Britain (N)
India (NC)
Pakistan (N)
China (NC)
Italy (C)
Germany (C)
Israel (N)
Lybia (C)
South Africa (C)
North Korea (N)
Syria (C)
Turkey (C)
Morocco (C)

...

so what?

Were there WMD's in Iraq? Depedns on what you call a WMD. Nukes? No. Bioweapons? Very Unlikely. Poisons? Yes. But everyone has poisons. Hell, I could make some poison gas weapons with common household chemicals and a short-ranged delivery system or grenades with stuff from Menards or Home Depot. You can also make a rocket launcher out of pvc pipes, estes engines, and any number of homemade explosives. Making weapons isn't hard.

Yea. Look over the Internet for the "Book of bombs".
And, if your country produces washing machines, building centrifugues for uranium enrichment isn't exactly difficult. Coupling that with a normal coal mine (yes, there is uranium in coal also)...

What if, hypothetically, they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq today? And you couldn't find some way to claim Bush planted them? What would you do?

Not much... I would reevaluate my position on the matter, and view US intelligence agencies in a more favourable light. Maybe even dislike the Bush administration a little bit less...

But I would not change my opinion on the legality of the war, as there were no imminent threats to justify the preemptive attack nor the ignoring of the UN and international law.