NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry this is an old argument, and myself (along with millions of others) will refuse to beleive Saddam had WMDs until we see the proof. Period.

And there can be no proof if Saddam destroyed all of his WMD stockpiles. He did so because he anticipated that liberals in this country would not believe that he actually did possess WMDs, thus turning them against Bush. Also, it would allow him to perform better in his trial if he cast himself off as a victim of US aggression. Do you see the brilliance of his plot? He tried to divide the US, and succeeded, by obliterating his WMDs! Not only that, but he gave himself an escape route. Absolutely fucking evil, but genius nonetheless. Kind of like Hitler.

A rat in a corner always lashes out

Saddam is smarter than a rat and took the correct course of action by maximizing his self-interest.

And there can be no proof if Saddam destroyed all of his WMD stockpiles. He did so because he anticipated that liberals in this country would not believe that he actually did possess WMDs, thus turning them against Bush. Also, it would allow him to perform better in his trial if he cast himself off as a victim of US aggression. Do you see the brilliance of his plot? He tried to divide the US, and succeeded, by obliterating his WMDs! Not only that, but he gave himself an escape route. Absolutely fucking evil, but genius nonetheless. Kind of like Hitler.

I'm sorry, if he destroyed his WMD stockpile why did we invade?

And please don't tell me they were completed obliterated and all traces of their existence wiped out in the short time it took US forces to reach Baghdad as that is just totally unfeasible.

I'm sorry, if he destroyed his WMD stockpile why did we invade?

He destroyed his WMDs after we invaded, but we had no way of certifying that he had done so without embarking upon an exhaustive search of the entirety of Iraq.

And please don't tell me they were completed obliterated and all traces of their existence wiped out in the short time it took US forces to reach Baghdad as that is just totally unfeasible.

Please. All it takes is 15 minutes, at the most. You plant an explosive device on the WMD stockpiles and watch them go "boom"! Did you see how the WMDs were destroyed in the aftermath of the first war in Iraq?

Saddam is smarter than a rat and took the correct course of action by maximizing his self-interest.

If Saddam was smart he would have accepted the fact that we beat him in Desert Storm, he would have also fled as soon as Bush gave his 24-hour ultimatum.
And there can be no proof if Saddam destroyed all of his WMD stockpiles. He did so because he anticipated that liberals in this country would not believe that he actually did possess WMDs, thus turning them against Bush. Also, it would allow him to perform better in his trial if he cast himself off as a victim of US aggression. Do you see the brilliance of his plot? He tried to divide the US, and succeeded, by obliterating his WMDs! Not only that, but he gave himself an escape route. Absolutely fucking evil, but genius nonetheless. Kind of like Hitler.

Save the crystal ball for the circus, we deal with facts here not fortune-telling.

Look, whether there were weapons or not, we are there now. If we pull out, choas and civil war will issue. Don't we now need to see the job through?

He destroyed his WMDs after we invaded, but we had no way of certifying that he had done so without embarking upon an exhaustive search of the entirety of Iraq.



Please. All it takes is 15 minutes, at the most. You plant an explosive device on the WMD stockpiles and watch them go "boom"! Did you see how the WMDs were destroyed in the aftermath of the first war in Iraq?

Yes I did, in plain view of everyone. Doing it secretly in the space of, what, 3 weeks, to the amount of munitions/chemicals/whatever the fuck was claimed he had? With no witnesses? With no leftover rubble or residuals? Come on, your really stretching the bounds of credibility here. It simply couldn't be done.

Please. All it takes is 15 minutes, at the most. You plant an explosive device on the WMD stockpiles and watch them go "boom"! Did you see how the WMDs were destroyed in the aftermath of the first war in Iraq?

Oh yes, and it left ass-loads of evidence, yet funny enough, we haven't been able to find any.

Look, whether there were weapons or not, we are there now. If we pull out, choas and civil war will issue. Don't we now need to see the job through?

Correct.

Yes I did, in plain view of everyone. Doing it secretly in the space of, what, 3 weeks, to the amount of munitions/chemicals/whatever the fuck was claimed he had? With no witnesses? With no leftover rubble or residuals? Come on, your really stretching the bounds of credibility here. It simply couldn't be done.

There was plenty of debris everywhere in the aftermath of the US bombings coupled with the artillery strikes -- there would be no way to prove that one piece of rubble once enclosed a WMD stockpile. Also, witnesses would only see an explosion without knowing that a WMD stockpile had exploded, not to mention the fact that Saddam would not be stupid enough to store his weapons in Baghdad. He'd hide them in the middle of the desert, just like we do.

There was plenty of debris everywhere in the aftermath of the US bombings coupled with the artillery strikes -- there would be no way to prove that one piece of rubble once enclosed a WMD stockpile. Also, witnesses would only see an explosion without knowing that a WMD stockpile had exploded, not to mention the fact that Saddam would not be stupid enough to store his weapons in Baghdad. He'd hide them in the middle of the desert, just like we do.

Chemical weapons leave traces on the materials they come into contact with, and as you said his caches were all in the desert, with no Coalition bomb debris to contaiminate the site. Identifying the stockpiles would have been absurdly easy.

He destroyed his WMDs after we invaded, but we had no way of certifying that he had done so without embarking upon an exhaustive search of the entirety of Iraq.



Please. All it takes is 15 minutes, at the most. You plant an explosive device on the WMD stockpiles and watch them go "boom"!

Destroying alleged stockpiles is only half the problem: you would also need to scrape together every scrap of paper or shred of documentation recording their one time existence, seeing as no such records have been found. Would take a tad longer than 15 minutes, no? Also a touch mysterious that no credible witnesses from the Iraqi military have come forward to state on record that WMD did exist and that encountered them in the course of their service. The '15 minutes' of your operation is starting to look like a logistical nightmare on par with killing all the slaves that built the pyramids.

Look, whether there were weapons or not, we are there now. If we pull out, choas and civil war will issue. Don't we now need to see the job through?

Chaos and civil war have already ensued.

Whether we still need to be there or not in the midst of it is a separate question.

There was plenty of debris everywhere in the aftermath of the US bombings coupled with the artillery strikes -- there would be no way to prove that one piece of rubble once enclosed a WMD stockpile. Also, witnesses would only see an explosion without knowing that a WMD stockpile had exploded, not to mention the fact that Saddam would not be stupid enough to store his weapons in Baghdad. He'd hide them in the middle of the desert, just like we do.

I'm sorry again but you are now being ridiculous.

1 - The vast majority of people in Iraq are very glad Saddam is no longer in power and all it would take would be just ONE of the many of hundreds of people who had to take part in this so called destruction. And it still hasn't happened yet.

2 - Chemicals such as Sarin, Anthrax, Botulism etc or any of the other things it was claimed he had can't simply be "blown up". The delivery systems can but not the chemicals themselves. They would leave residual traces in the areas where they were manufactured, stored and destroyed. And we still havn't found them.

3 - Production of these items is a very complicated and skkilled job and to produce them in the quantities it was claimed would take many people - see point one. And it still hasn't happened.

next non-argument?

Destroying alleged stockpiles is only half the problem: you would also need to scrape together every scrap of paper or shred of documentation recording their one time existence, seeing as no such records have been found.

Do you honestly believe it would be so hard to burn a scrap of paper? Saddam would have hidden the documentation of his WMDs quite well, and away from prying eyes. It would be absurdly easy for someone to simply set fire to all documents relating to WMDs -- it's not like the documents were widely dispersed over all of Iraq.

Also a touch mysterious that no credible witnesses from the Iraqi military have come forward to state on record that WMD did exist and that encountered them in the course of their service.

It is a fact that Saddam did have WMDs. However, few people had access to them after he claimed to have destroyed all of his stockpiles, and if they did, they would not tell.

Give Saddam a bit of credit. If he realized that American troops were invading, he'd either obliterate his WMD stockpile or ship it to Libya.

Libya? Libya? Libya?

There was plenty of debris everywhere in the aftermath of the US bombings coupled with the artillery strikes -- there would be no way to prove that one piece of rubble once enclosed a WMD stockpile. Also, witnesses would only see an explosion without knowing that a WMD stockpile had exploded, not to mention the fact that Saddam would not be stupid enough to store his weapons in Baghdad. He'd hide them in the middle of the desert, just like we do.That's not the way to troll! Never say 'like we do'!

It is more likely that WMD were buried in the desert and not used against troops because they were not developed fully, or sent to Syria. He used nerve gas against the Kurds at one time. He would have no problem with us. Intelligence may have been premature in its warnings. Who knows?

It is a fact that Saddam did have WMDs.

A single shred of evidence of the holding of WMD's by the Iraqi regime post the Gulf War, if you please? I'm sure there must be one credible report of such a monumentous revelation somewhere on the net?

Explain to me why the leaders of the Coalition of the Willing have shied away from acknowledging the existence of such evidence, and have instead shifted to references to a programme of 'WMD production', rather than the existence of actual WMD's, would you, darling?

It is a fact that Saddam did have WMDs.

If that is so why can't we prove it?

It is more likely that WMD were buried in the desert and not used against troops because they were not developed fully, or sent to Syria. He used nerve gas against the Kurds at one time. He would have no problem with us. Intelligence may have been premature in its warnings. Who knows?

I think he destroyed them after Gulf war I, hoping to not attract any attention from super-powers. Didn't work, obviously.

Do you honestly believe it would be so hard to burn a scrap of paper? Saddam would have hidden the documentation of his WMDs quite well, and away from prying eyes. It would be absurdly easy for someone to simply set fire to all documents relating to WMDs -- it's not like the documents were widely dispersed over all of Iraq. Yep, cos it's the documents we are after... the weapons we already have, if only we could prove the paper-trail!
It is a fact that Saddam did have WMDs. However, few people had access to them after he claimed to have destroyed all of his stockpiles, and if they did, they would not tell.Does that even make any sense? Ok, let's assume it does; Are you sure they wouldn't tell..?!? Really, Sherlock?

It would be absurdly easy for someone to simply set fire to all documents relating to WMDs -- it's not like the documents were widely dispersed over all of Iraq.

And how, prey tell, are you party to this information?

Oh right, I think I see the logic:

- there have been no documents recovered describing the creation of WMD's in post-Gulf War Iraq

- therefore, all such documents have been destroyed

- in order to be destroyed the documents would need to be stored centrally

- ergo, all these documents were stored centrally

Oh, hang on, we ain't proved shit here, have we?

It is a fact that Saddam did have WMDs.

If that is so why can't we prove it?

It may not be true, but it is a fact nonetheless.

If Saddam destroyed WMD after GWI, he sure gave the impression through the world press that he was working on nuclear and then scared us all by not allowing inspections which was one of the conditions after GWI.

It may not be true, but it is a [b]fact[/i] nonetheless.

Oh I see we're playing the fact game, true statements that arn't actually true.

Well, it is a fact that I am fabulously good looking and wealthy and have my pick of a harem of nubile young ladies. And can make love for 9 hours non stop. Fact!

It may not be true, but it is a fact nonetheless.

I don't really know whether your being serious or mocking MTAE here so I'll just say this. Saddam had Chemical weapons, he used them on the Kurds in '88, we know this.

I'm talking to Sacha Baron Cohen vol II and taking it seriously at times. MTAE is the resident Borat, and I'm feeding it... bad me! Stops now.

That's not the way to troll! Never say 'like we do'!

I was referring to the US. We don't put our nukes in fucking New York.

If Saddam destroyed WMD after GWI, he sure gave the impression through the world press that he was working on nuclear and then scared us all by not allowing inspections which was one of the conditions after GWI.

The battle of Khafji shows us that Saddam Hussein was not adverse to throwing spanners in the works. His perversity there was perfectly in line with the perversity you have just described.

If that is so why can't we prove it?

We did prove it. In fact, they were used as part of an ethnic cleansing campaign. Denying it is like denying the Holocaust.

We did prove it. In fact, they were used as part of an ethnic cleansing campaign.

When? (This question applies to both statements)

We did prove it. In fact, they were used as part of an ethnic cleansing campaign. Denying it is like denying the Holocaust.

We did not, and have never, proved that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs in the period between the first and second Gulf Wars. If we have, then show me. I've done this with you twice before MTAE, and both times you've pussied out on me, so again, here is your big chance. Offer some proof and prove me wrong. If you can.

We did not, and have never, proved that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs in the period between the first and second Gulf Wars. If we have, then show me. I've done this with you twice before MTAE, and both times you've pussied out on me, so again, here is your big chance. Offer some proof and prove me wrong. If you can.

As I previously stated, there is no proof. Why? Because Saddam was crafty enough to destroy it all. Look at what logic you are employing. If Saddam did not possess any WMDs, then there would be no proof of his having any WMDs. If Saddam had WMDs, then he may have destroyed all proof of his possession of WMDs in the aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq. Therefore, he did not have WMDs. Can you spot the error?

We did prove it.

As I previously stated, there is no proof.

.

(1) As I previously stated, there is no proof. Why? (2) Because Saddam was crafty enough to destroy it all. Look at what logic you are employing. If Saddam did not possess any WMDs, then there would be no proof of his having any WMDs. If Saddam had WMDs, then he may have destroyed all proof of his possession of WMDs in the aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq. Therefore, he did not have WMDs. Can you spot the error?

Firstly, I'd like to point out that YOU are the one claiming he destroyed his WMDs in the aftermath of the second invasion, I am saying he destroyed them in the aftermath of the FIRST invasion, thus taking away our given excuse for invading.

(2) - This has already been disproved by several posters in this thread. It is just not possoble in such a short space of time.

(1) - And my work here is done. *Bows and waits for applause* Goodnight troll, I look forward to proving you wrong again sometime.

I don't really know whether your being serious or mocking MTAE here so I'll just say this. Saddam had Chemical weapons, he used them on the Kurds in '88, we know this.

The question was whether he had them in 2004 before the US came and bombed everything to shit. Not in 1988.

*Bows and waits for applause*

The applause ain't gonna happen.

You aren't shooting fish in a barrel here, you're using dynamite in an aquarium.

(2) - This has already been disproved by several posters in this thread. It is just not possoble in such a short space of time.

It was not only possible for him to outright destroy all his weapons, but he could have easily transported them covertly to Libya.

It was not only possible for him to outright destroy all his weapons, but he could have easily transported them covertly to Libya.

Why Libya? And why are the US now embracing Libya as peaceful partners if your scenario maps onto reality?

Why Libya? And why are the US now embracing Libya as peaceful partners if your scenario maps onto reality?

Well, it would have to go through an intermediary, of course, but I believe that the intelligence community proposed a theory by which the WMDs were shipped to Libya, but perhaps I am mistaken. In any event, there was a plausible theory stating that the WMDs were shipped to a foreign country.

Well, it would have to go through an intermediary, of course, but I believe that the intelligence community proposed a theory by which the WMDs were shipped to Libya, but perhaps I am mistaken. In any event, there was a plausible theory stating that the WMDs were shipped to a foreign country.

All questions of plausibility aside, are you telling me that you can't tell the difference between Libya and Syria?

Well, it would have to go through an intermediary, of course, but I believe that the intelligence community proposed a theory by which the WMDs were shipped to Libya, but perhaps I am mistaken. In any event, there was a plausible theory stating that the WMDs were shipped to a foreign country.

Yes, yes, yes. And when that old pitch doesn't work, you'll say aliens came along in bright silver UFOs and beamed those WMDs away won't you?

That "plausible" theory has about as much plausibility as 3 legged pants. Especially when someone was going "We know exactly where they were".

All questions of plausibility aside, are you telling me that you can't tell the difference between Libya and Syria?

They could be shipped via Syria to Libya, but perhaps Syria was the country to which I was referring. As I said before, the specifics don't matter -- the point is that they could have been shipped to another country.

They could be shipped via Syria to Libya, but perhaps Syria was the country to which I was referring. As I said before, the specifics don't matter -- the point is that they could have been shipped to another country.

And yet despite the fact that 'there is no proof' we 'did prove it'? It ain't only geography that you're playing fast and lose with.

How did we prove something if there is no proof? Or are you working on some model of epistemology where a proof is not required to prove something?

Looks to me like your current argument is based on the unproven existence of WMD's which could have been shipped to a foreign country (the name of which temporary eludes you). Hell, yeah, I'd ship out bodybags on that basis, sure.

And yet despite the fact that 'there is no proof' we 'did prove it'?

We proved that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs, but we did not prove that he had them as of 2003.

We proved that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs, but we did not prove that he had them as of 2003.
No, nobody did.

We proved that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs, but we did not prove that he had them as of 2003.

What year was it proved that the Iraqi regime possessed WMDs?

Was it before or after the end of the first Gulf War?

Think carefully, now.

...As I said before, the specifics don't matter ...

Yeah, the specifics don't matter, we're only dealing with the lives and deaths of real people here.

I would like to toss in a little Molotov math here...

The Producers is arguably one of the funniest movies ever to handle the concept of the Shoah. It was released in 1968, 23 years after its end.

In the Shoah, an estimated 6 million Jews were killed. Using just THAT number & discounting the attendant millions of Slavs, Gypsies, Commies, faygelehs, catholics, avant-garde artists, free-thinkers, & other elements not conducive to Nazism...we then divide that number by the former to get a "persons per year" rate on when something becomes funny.

Using that math, 9/11 was funny by about 2 PM on 9/18.

I would like to toss in a little Molotov math here...

The Producers is arguably one of the funniest movies ever to handle the concept of the Shoah. It was released in 1968, 23 years after its end.

In the Shoah, an estimated 6 million Jews were killed. Using just THAT number & discounting the attendant millions of Slavs, Gypsies, Commies, faygelehs, catholics, avant-garde artists, free-thinkers, & other elements not conducive to Nazism...we then divide that number by the former to get a "persons per year" rate on when something becomes funny.

Using that math, 9/11 was funny by about 2 PM on 9/18.

Aye, and the percentage of the population of my country killed by the Omagh Remembrance Day bombing is equivalent to the percentage of Americans killed during the WTC attacks. Your point being?

Aye, and the percentage of the population of my country killed by the Omagh Remembrance Day bombing is equivalent to the percentage of Americans killed during the WTC attacks. Your point being?

That comedy rules all.

That comedy rules all.

True, but hardly news - there was even a regular cabaret staged by the inmates of Auschwitz.