OK, so we found WMDs
- Thread starter Arcades057
- Start date
- Status
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
I concur, our work here is finished. I claim this a victory for us. Few and far between!Tulkas12 said:
skadistic
Caomhanach
MobBoss said:
Thats kinda reaching out there realy realy far. That assumption has no backing in fact at all. Up untill this point you were doing so good.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Actually, claiming victory is one of the few thing Bush can do... but it has already been proven to not be enough.Cheezy the Wiz said:
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Speedo said:
Ah, but there are ways to increase or even make shelf-life a non-issue:
Thanks for the update. Bottom line, whats your opinion on this stuff still being deadly? I need to put a call into a Chem weapons guy I know, but I am pretty sure you wouldnt want to pour it on your cornflakes now would ya?
Arcades057
Warlord
There is never a victory in debates or arguments such as these. One side will continue to feel how they feel, the other will think how they think.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
skadistic said:
It takes money to build a facility to mix chemical weapons. My point is that there has been more than enough money found in hidden bunkers in Iraq to facilitate this.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Actually, that's true when it goes about a real debate, but that's not a debate.Arcades057 said:
There are facts, and there are those who deny facts.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
i was referring to the myriad of debates on this subject in these here forums.Marla_Singer said:Actually, claiming victory is one of the few thing Bush can do... but it has already been proven to not be enough.
@ neomega: thats beceause you havent read this thread yet
Arcades057
Warlord
Well, I guess we've lost WWII also. Look at all those graves at Colleville sur Mere...
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Marla_Singer said:
I think the truth is that no WMD program was found. Just like the inspectors didnt find any WMD either. But today we know that they apparently missed a few.....
Arcades057
Warlord
Precisely! Thank you for that and it's so very true, on BOTH sides.
skadistic
Caomhanach
Tulkas12 said:
Not FBI my good sir but the NSA. A much more evil group of men with powers beyond that of normal gov. agents.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Those soldiers didn't fall after Truman claimed victory on Germany. That probably makes a difference I guess...Arcades057 said:
Well, I guess we've lost WWII also. Look at all those graves at Colleville sur Mere...
It's funny you mention Colleville-sur-Mer, I've been there actually. Have you ?
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
there wasnt a festering insurgency in Germany. Germans are honorable folk, like other Europeans, who accept when they've lost, and dont drag on a closed war with a cowardly insurgency like this ( im not saying gurella warfare is cowardly, its how we fought our revolution, but the morals practiced by these guys - or lack thereof, discredit them as good people).Marla_Singer said:
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
A challenge to the hawks:
If Saddam had tons of enriched uranium, thousands of gallons of chemical weapons, hundreds of unfired shells full of chemical agents, and, oh, let's just say it, a nuclear bomb...
Why didn't he use them?
There. That's my question. He was being invaded by hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Thousands of tanks. Hundreds of aircraft. Bombs galore. The American forces overran the country piecemeal in a month.
But in that entire month, we didn't get a single report of the usage of NBCs. He was falling from power. He was on the defensive. He could have set hundreds of traps with his "nuclear weapons" that he had in abundance. He could have had hundreds of chemical weapons.
So. He was a megolomanic dictator, with no qualms about killing his own people (see gassing of the Kurds), fighting, at least for the first few parts of the war, in the Shiia regions of his country who he could care less about. He had nothing to lose, because no matter if he alienated the international community or not, the US was going to capture him, and even if the US didn't kill him, the international tribunal would have sentenced him to death. He obviously did not want to go down in flames.
So he has these lovely "thousands" of NBCs stocked up all over the place. And yet he does not use them. Not once in the war, even when it became clear the USA was thrashing the Iraqis on every field of combat.
OK, so maybe your counterargument will be that he didn't use them to ensure that his sentence would be lighter, or to ensure that the world would know he was innocent.
Then... er... you haven't been thinking out the whole thing.
Apparently, he doesn't use his multitudinous NBCs, despite being in a war to the bitter death, because he wants to appear as though he was innocent all along.
And yet, in trying to prove himself innocent, he leaves thousands of gallons of chemicals, hundreds of shells of chemical nature, tons of enriched uranium lying around--hidden, yes, but apparently not well enough. Do you really believe that he would try and prove his innocence by not using NBCs that you claim he had--and yet not destroy them?
Furthermore, the argument that he would try to prove his innocence with this is frankly preposterous. He was doomed from the getgo--we have plenty of evidence that he gassed the Kurds and subjected thousands of his civilians to torture and execution. There was no way that he could have gotten a free ride out of the trial--and even if he did, the common Iraqi Shiite would assassinate him right outside the court building.
So he doesn't use NBCs that you believe he had. He doesn't use them once. He didn't do that to prove his innocence, because, frankly, the above just thrashed that argument thouroughly.
So apparently, the logical conclusion to me is that, either these weapons were unusable, or they were unknown to the military planners of Saddam Hussein.
Either way, your arguments about "WMDs" have failed to prove their point.
If Saddam had tons of enriched uranium, thousands of gallons of chemical weapons, hundreds of unfired shells full of chemical agents, and, oh, let's just say it, a nuclear bomb...
Why didn't he use them?
There. That's my question. He was being invaded by hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Thousands of tanks. Hundreds of aircraft. Bombs galore. The American forces overran the country piecemeal in a month.
But in that entire month, we didn't get a single report of the usage of NBCs. He was falling from power. He was on the defensive. He could have set hundreds of traps with his "nuclear weapons" that he had in abundance. He could have had hundreds of chemical weapons.
So. He was a megolomanic dictator, with no qualms about killing his own people (see gassing of the Kurds), fighting, at least for the first few parts of the war, in the Shiia regions of his country who he could care less about. He had nothing to lose, because no matter if he alienated the international community or not, the US was going to capture him, and even if the US didn't kill him, the international tribunal would have sentenced him to death. He obviously did not want to go down in flames.
So he has these lovely "thousands" of NBCs stocked up all over the place. And yet he does not use them. Not once in the war, even when it became clear the USA was thrashing the Iraqis on every field of combat.
OK, so maybe your counterargument will be that he didn't use them to ensure that his sentence would be lighter, or to ensure that the world would know he was innocent.
Then... er... you haven't been thinking out the whole thing.
Apparently, he doesn't use his multitudinous NBCs, despite being in a war to the bitter death, because he wants to appear as though he was innocent all along.
And yet, in trying to prove himself innocent, he leaves thousands of gallons of chemicals, hundreds of shells of chemical nature, tons of enriched uranium lying around--hidden, yes, but apparently not well enough. Do you really believe that he would try and prove his innocence by not using NBCs that you claim he had--and yet not destroy them?
Furthermore, the argument that he would try to prove his innocence with this is frankly preposterous. He was doomed from the getgo--we have plenty of evidence that he gassed the Kurds and subjected thousands of his civilians to torture and execution. There was no way that he could have gotten a free ride out of the trial--and even if he did, the common Iraqi Shiite would assassinate him right outside the court building.
So he doesn't use NBCs that you believe he had. He doesn't use them once. He didn't do that to prove his innocence, because, frankly, the above just thrashed that argument thouroughly.
So apparently, the logical conclusion to me is that, either these weapons were unusable, or they were unknown to the military planners of Saddam Hussein.
Either way, your arguments about "WMDs" have failed to prove their point.
I don't think Saddam knew what he had available and what he didn't.nihilistic said:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rihab_Rashid_Taha:
So...
1. Iraq had a certain amount of anthrax in 1991, and both Saddam and the U.N. knew it.
2. Some of the anthrax was destroyed, but Saddam was not informed.
3. When the U.N. inspectors asked about it, they were told the anthrax never existed (which they knew to be false).
Conclusion (if my logic is faulty, please let me know how):
Saddam (presumably) thought he had 1800 gallons of anthrax available. Given that the U.N. inspectors were told that the anthrax "never existed" when they knew it did, I don't think the belief that Saddam was hiding it was unjustified.
- Status
Similar threads
