Half of U.S. still believes Iraq had WMD - Page 5

motivez · 08-08-2006, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

WMDs were not the sole reason we went ot iraq. we also went in because he wasn't cooperating for what, over a decade. WMDs have now become a focus because it's ammo against the bush admin.

WMD's are the focus because they were essentially the sole reason we were presented with in the run up to the war for why we had to go in because of how much of a threat Saddam posed to us with them... and we were 100% WRONG

The fact that he wasn't cooperating was more of a footnote at the end of every explaination about how we couldn't let him have WMD

motivez · 08-08-2006, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

i think it's very possible they were moved before we got there.

"It's very possible" isn't an acceptable proof of anything.

It's very possible that one of us will die tommorow, but it's not proof enough that it's going to happen that we should take drastic action to try to prevent it from happening as though it was a sure thing.

ballz2wallz · 08-08-2006, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

"It's very possible" isn't an acceptable proof of anything.

you're absolutely right, which is why the government has now taken the stand it has...hence the 'political ramifications' i've mentioned thye had to consider...

motivez · 08-08-2006, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

you're absolutely right, which is why the government has now taken the stand it has...hence the 'political ramifications' i've mentioned thye had to consider...

Uh, political ramifications... in that they had to admit that they were wrong, because they were wrong..

Not that they had to admit they were wrong because they weren't really wrong, but public perception was that they were wrong, so they had to go along with pretending to be wrong for the sake of political polls...

ballz2wallz · 08-08-2006, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Uh, political ramifications... in that they had to admit that they were wrong, because they were wrong..

Not that they had to admit they were wrong because they weren't really wrong, but public perception was that they were wrong, so they had to go along with pretending to be wrong for the sake of political polls...

because they aren't going to track down what happened to them, no matter what they think. do you believe that many in the bush admin still think saddam had them and shipped them somewhere? i have no doubt many do...but they can't state that, and they can't do anything about it. politically they have to bite the bullet.

it in no way means that saddam didn't have them.

motivez · 08-08-2006, 05:13 PM

You're simply grasping for straws in an attempt to maintain some reasonable justification for going to war.

Bottom line is that regardless of what they "think", or "believe" might have possibly maybe could have had a chance of happening... there is absolutely NO PROOF to back up it up.

I refuse to believe that the Bush Administration, in all of its gung-ho-cowboy glory would have had a problem saying "Look, what happened is that the weapons were transferred to Syria before we invaded' if there was even an inkling that it's what happened.

With all of the satellite and other recon information they had access to about Iraq in the run up to the war, I find it impossible to believe that if that's what happened, there would be absolutely NO proof.

You can continue wishing that's what happened, but it's not "likely" or "probable" or "reasonable", because there's nothing at all except your wishful thinking that supports it.

ballz2wallz · 08-08-2006, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

You can continue wishing that's what happened, but it's not "likely" or "probable" or "reasonable", because there's nothing at all except your wishful thinking that supports it.

and the saddam tapes

motivez · 08-08-2006, 05:40 PM

They've been shown to not prove anything. Read the thread. The article you posted is long outdated..

SoFlaJDM · 08-08-2006, 07:12 PM

let's not forget the rape rooms

Kytro · 08-08-2006, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

i think it's very possible they were moved before we got there.

It's also "very possible" he didn't.

TheMrs · 08-08-2006, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by Ron Burgundy

Half of U.S. still believes Iraq had WMD (AP)

AP - Do you believe in Iraqi "WMD"? Did Saddam Hussein's government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?

What's even scarier is that there are people who still believe that we went over and ousted Saddam because we were "freeing a people". Yeah.. my ass.

Was this before or after the WMD's or was this before or after he did or did not have ties to OBL? lol

They couldn't even keep their "reasons" straight. Yet... there are people who keep repeating it over and over.. hoping it's true and that we really did go over there to topple an evil dictator.

I just wonder why it wasn't that important to us back during Desert Storm. Hmmm. *rubbing chin and rolling eyes*

thatguyoverthere · 08-09-2006, 03:30 AM

This thread is both sad and entertaining. Sad that some people still refuse to admit to reality, and amusing to watch the war defenders do their same little tap dance.

"He did have them! He had them and moved them! He wanted them! He probably had them! It was more likely than not that he had them! Saddam HIMSELF was a WMD! Clinton thought he had them! It doesn't matter if he had them, we went in for different reasons! Rape rooms! Mass graves! Please, won't someone think of the UN resolution?!"

Here in Reality Land, some of us refuse to forget that during the run up to the war, it was alllllllll about WMD and smoking guns in the shapes of mushroom clouds. No amount of slicing and dicing, parsing, misdirection, revisionist history, or tap dancing can change that. To now imply that bringing up WMD is mere partisan bashing is just plain pathetic.

We went in saying that Saddam had WMD. He didn't.

motivez · 08-09-2006, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

This thread is both sad and entertaining. Sad that some people still refuse to admit to reality, and amusing to watch the war defenders do their same little tap dance.

"He did have them! He had them and moved them! He wanted them! He probably had them! It was more likely than not that he had them! Saddam HIMSELF was a WMD! Clinton thought he had them! It doesn't matter if he had them, we went in for different reasons! Rape rooms! Mass graves! Please, won't someone think of the UN resolution?!"

Here in Reality Land, some of us refuse to forget that during the run up to the war, it was alllllllll about WMD and smoking guns in the shapes of mushroom clouds. No amount of slicing and dicing, parsing, misdirection, revisionist history, or tap dancing can change that. To now imply that bringing up WMD is mere partisan bashing is just plain pathetic.

We went in saying that Saddam had WMD. He didn't.

The UN resolution thing is the most hilarious aspect of people who still refuse to admit we made a mistake.. because I could probably find instances of 99.9% of them bashing the UN and their resolutions in other cases as worthless or something we shouldn't have to pay attention to.

It's like, we should only pay attention to facts and information when it suits the conclusion we'd like it to lead us to.

There was a great article about the "reality based community" awhile back, and how the Bush administration believed they should create their own reality instead of, oh, you know, existing in the one that exists for the rest of humanity.

tbone · 08-09-2006, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

WMDs were not the sole reason we went ot iraq. we also went in because he wasn't cooperating for what, over a decade. WMDs have now become a focus because it's ammo against the bush admin.

Really? In the 2003 State of the Union, WMD's were the primary focus. The other reasons were definately secondary. In the Congressional resolution passed before the State of the Union, WMD's are also the primary focus. Not sure where you got your info for why we were going to war in 2003. Granted, now in hindsight, all those reasons are being "highlighted" as thee reasons.

Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations' (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material an unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

ballz2wallz · 08-09-2006, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by tbone

Really? In the 2003 State of the Union, WMD's were the primary focus. The other reasons were definately secondary. In the Congressional resolution passed before the State of the Union, WMD's are also the primary focus. Not sure where you got your info for why we were going to war in 2003. Granted, now in hindsight, all those reasons are being "highlighted" as thee reasons.

primary != sole, so yes, really.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-09-2006, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

primary != sole, so yes, really.

Okay, to cut through this bullshit of primary v. secondary, sole v. many...let's just put out one glaring reality:

Neither Congress nor the American people would have agreed to invade Iraq simply based upon the fact Saddam wasn't following UN resolutions, like he had not been following for years, and because of "rape rooms." WMDs were the catalyist that turned the contained nuissance of Saddam into an imminent threat needing invasion. Remove WMDs, the keystone of the entire imminent threat argument, and the entire rationale for invasion falls apart, except for a small group of neocon PNAC hawks, that is, who were looking for any excuse to invade.

ballz2wallz · 08-09-2006, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Neither Congress nor the American people would have agreed to invade Iraq simply based upon the fact Saddam wasn't following UN resolutions, like he had not been following for years, and because of "rape rooms." WMDs were the catalyist that turned the contained nuissance of Saddam into an imminent threat needing invasion. Remove WMDs, the keystone of the entire imminent threat argument, and the entire rationale for invasion falls apart, except for neocons, that is...who wanted to invade regardless.

hard to tell now, but i would disagree with that. i thikn most americans would have preferred we finished the job in the first war, and i think_while maybe not as many_most of america would have not cared if WMDs were the reason or not. i think enough would have agreed.

Scrum · 08-09-2006, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

hard to tell now, but i would disagree with that. i thikn most americans would have preferred we finished the job in the first war, and i think_while maybe not as many_most of america would have not cared if WMDs were the reason or not. i think enough would have agreed.

Every time I hear you say "Americans would have supported the invasion of Iraq even if WMD was never brought into the equation", I laugh a little harder.

ballz2wallz · 08-09-2006, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Every time I hear you say "Americans would have supported the invasion of Iraq even if WMD was never brought into the equation", I laugh a little harder.

good to know

Scrum · 08-09-2006, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

hard to tell now, but i would disagree with that. i thikn most americans would have preferred we finished the job in the first war, and i think_while maybe not as many_most of america would have not cared if WMDs were the reason or not. i think enough would have agreed.