Half of U.S. still believes Iraq had WMD - Page 6

DosEquis · 08-09-2006, 04:35 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.

ACTUALLY even with the WMD arugment the support for the war was only around 60-65%. Remove that part and i bet it hovers about 40%.

ballz2wallz · 08-09-2006, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

ACTUALLY even with the WMD arugment the support for the war was only around 60-65%. Remove that part and i bet it hovers about 40%.

we'll never know

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-09-2006, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

we'll never know

i've noticed possibility, not probability, is what you like to focus on.

ballz2wallz · 08-09-2006, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

i've noticed possibility, not probability, is what you like to focus on.

perhaps it's the way my brain has been trained in my line of work...

you can't EVER say anything as fact or even a high probability unless there is sufficient evidence to suggest so. until then, it's all possibility to me. sorry.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-09-2006, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

perhaps it's the way my brain has been trained in my line of work...

you can't EVER say anything as fact or even a high probability unless there is sufficient evidence to suggest so. until then, it's all possibility to me. sorry.

you think that all of the effort spent to find weapons and no weapons being found, the US government and intelligence agencies even admitting there were no weapons, the total absence of any evidence showing the weapons were transfered elsewhere, and the political motivation of republicans to find and talk about any shred of such evidence if it did exist, is insufficient evidence to say it's highly improbable Iraq had weapons?

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-09-2006, 08:07 PM

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-09-2006, 08:08 PM

ballz2wallz · 08-09-2006, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

you think that all of the effort spent to find weapons and no weapons being found, the US government and intelligence agencies even admitting there were no weapons, the total absence of any evidence showing the weapons were transfered elsewhere, and the political motivation of republicans to find and talk about any shred of such evidence if it did exist, is insufficient evidence to say it's highly improbable Iraq had weapons?

given saddam's history of weapons and his unwillingness to get rid of them, further strengthened by his desire to hide weapons programs, i'd say yes, i believe it's insufficient evidence.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-09-2006, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

given saddam's history of weapons and his unwillingness to get rid of them, further strengthened by his desire to hide weapons programs, i'd say yes, i believe it's insufficient evidence.

Okey dokey, I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Kytro · 08-09-2006, 08:35 PM

Since the government was making an assertion, they should haev reliable evidence to back it up.

While it's possible Saddam had WMDs that isn't the same as likely or probable.
Without evidence it's merely a guess, like many other "possibilities".

Logically a position needs evidence to back it up, and lacking that evidence the position become untenable.

Diesel66 · 08-10-2006, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

And those would be where?

They turned out to be false. Intel is not perfect, especially when you dont have your own agents in the enemies' camp. ie Kosovo and the mass graves

persian gulf war and the bayoneting of babies doh, kuwaiti propaganda,

Why do you think the people wouldnt support the war without chem/bio weapons ? We invaded numerous countries with even less justification over the years.

DosEquis · 08-11-2006, 03:14 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

They turned out to be false. Intel is not perfect, especially when you dont have your own agents in the enemies' camp. ie Kosovo and the mass graves persian gulf war and the bayoneting of babies doh, kuwaiti propaganda,

Why do you think the people wouldnt support the war without chem/bio weapons ? We invaded numerous countries with even less justification over the years.

We might have but there are countless differences between them. Things like kosovo were done with NATO support and it was lead by clinton and wesley clark with 0 US casualties. Other differences include selling the conflict for what it was. This was sold primarily on WMD and immediate threat to the US and ties to al qaeda. No weapons (they said it themselves) and no significant ties to al qaeda (they also said this) turned up. This also involved 150,000 soldiers and occupying a country. This involved nation building, something he said he wouldn't do in the 2000 campaign. The common excuse is 9/11 changed things. Well Iraq is not connected to 9/11.

Without wmd this war would not have happened.

tbone · 08-11-2006, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

perhaps it's the way my brain has been trained in my line of work...

you can't EVER say anything as fact or even a high probability unless there is sufficient evidence to suggest so. until then, it's all possibility to me. sorry.

I'm guessing your not a surgeon, "we can't prove you don't have cancer so we're going to cut you open to see."

I agree with you that you can't ever say anything is fact until their is sufficient evidence to suggest so. We didn't have sufficient evidence to suggest Iraq had WMD's, in fact there was mounting evidence to suggest the contrary, yet the gov't presented it as if there were WMD's to the American public and the world.

So, in your own admission as to "how your mind works", since we didn't have sufficient evidence to confirm WMD's shouldn't that rational have been left off the reasons to invade Iraq when presented to Congress and the American people?

ballz2wallz · 08-11-2006, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by tbone

I'm guessing your not a surgeon, "we can't prove you don't have cancer so we're going to cut you open to see."

sometimes that's necessary. biopsies sometimes require invasive surgery

Diesel66 · 08-11-2006, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

We might have but there are countless differences between them. Things like kosovo were done with NATO support and it was lead by clinton and wesley clark with 0 US casualties.

Army Chief Warrant Officers David Gibbs and Kevin L. Reicher RIP because you are fogotten.

What is the difference between NATO support and UK, Poland, Australia etc... ?

we dont have France and Slovenia with us, what will we do.

Love how you completely ignore the fact we went to war based on bad intel then too.

Kytro · 08-11-2006, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

sometimes that's necessary. biopsies sometimes require invasive surgery

That is because there is something which could well be cancer. Measure of risk vs reward

ballz2wallz · 08-11-2006, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

That is because there is something which could well be cancer. Measure of risk vs reward

now you're gettin it.

motivez · 08-11-2006, 09:40 PM

The host of the body that would potentially need this biospy would still have to consent in this twisted little analogy you guys have going on here.

Kytro · 08-11-2006, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

now you're gettin it.

I always got it, however in the case of iraq it is more like the surgeon was looking for a reason to cut and goes...maybe there is cancer.

ballz2wallz · 08-12-2006, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

I always got it, however in the case of iraq it is more like the surgeon was looking for a reason to cut and goes...maybe there is cancer.

in the case of iraq, there were second and even third opinions that also agreed a likely potential for cancer. typically before a major surgery, a second opinion is needed. in the case of iraq, the surgeon had even more.