It's Official - The Search is Over

[BoredShirtless]

Bullshit. And even if true, big whoop, it could have been anything.

[Axis Kast]

Bullshit. And even if true, big whoop, it could have been anything.

Actually, Kay pointed out that the borders were porous, and that convoys had moved freely across the Syrian frontier even at the time of the ISG's arrival.

Whether it "could have been anything" or not is beside the point. You argued that it didn't happen at all. And that's blatantly false.

[BoredShirtless]

Bullshit. And even if true, big whoop, it could have been anything.

Actually, Kay pointed out that the borders were porous, and that convoys had moved freely across the Syrian frontier even at the time of the ISG's arrival.

I thought you meant UN inspectors. It's piss easy to find a quote from a US inspector before or soon after the invasion toeing the Bush Administrations line.

Whether it "could have been anything" or not is beside the point. You argued that it didn't happen at all. And that's blatantly false.

"Bullshit" isn't an argument. It's another way of saying "proof please?".

[Patrick Degan]

The final report clearly states that Sadaam DID NOT have WMD's or even the POTENTIAL to make WMD's since 1991. No, there were no secret convoys to Syria. No there were no shredding sessions in the middle of the night on the eve of the war, no there were no secret stockpiles lost in the desert.

Bush's own people and experts in the military concluded this in their final report which is not getting coverage so yes to stop people like you making these claims over and over there needed to be coverage to say once and for all: THERE WERE NO AND NEVER WERE WMD'S IN IRAQ.

That's disingenious. The weapons inspectors all acknowledged that some convoys made their way across the Iraqi border during the time of the American invasion, and that these were never followed up upon.

That's right, Axi. Just keep clutching at those straws.

[Crown]

Well, I think I'm the one most entitled to say "I told you so", really. I'm pretty sure I was the No.1 exponent of the "there are no WMDs in Iraq" argument from Day 1 (October 2002?) on the board, though I can't be sure.

A lot of people were screaming bullshit on that one (me included), but you and Patrick did a lot of the heavy shovelling of the amound of horse manuer the Bushites were throwing at you two, and well you both deserve special mention for that!

Congrats!

[salm]

Because it's a depressing story. What it boils down to is it's not a pleasant story, it's the kind that causes people to find something else to watch. It's why stories on the Iraq insurgency, at least those that can't be overhyped, are cut short. Unless it can outrage (which it hasn't) or alarm (which it hasn't) then people are just going to either ignore it or turn it off.

so the american public finds it depressing when they find out that they were never threatened with WMD but have to admit that they made a mistake in the past? evil of admitting a mistake > evil of nuclear threat...

dude, if that´s true, that´s fucked up beyond anything imaginable.

[Admiral_K]

Um Bush administration officials?

Well at least you yourself realise the absurdity of your previous post.

Um What the fuck are you talking about?

Bush administration officials originally stated that there were WMDs. Now they say they were wrong and that there werent any.

If they were wrong in the first place, how can you be so sure they are right now?

[Chardok]

Um What the fuck are you talking about?

Bush administration officials originally stated that there were WMDs. Now they say they were wrong and that there werent any.

If they were wrong in the first place, how can you be so sure they are right now?

Because previously they were stating there were WMD's based on threadbare (at best) evidence. Now the fact that there are no/never were any WMD's have been verified and verified again. (David Kay, et. al.)

[salm]

Um What the fuck are you talking about?

Bush administration officials originally stated that there were WMDs. Now they say they were wrong and that there werent any.

If they were wrong in the first place, how can you be so sure they are right now?

the same thing that makes you sure that there aren´t any invisible cow-cockroach chimeras that piss into your drink every time you pick your nose.

[Admiral_K]

If they were wrong before, why are you so quick to conclude they are correct now in saying THERE WERE NO AND NEVER WERE WMD's IN IRAQ?

Because now they are plagorizing Hans Blix? Unlike the US, the UN has a credible track record in this arena.

I don't think the words "UN" and "credible" fit into the same line. Regardless of any other factors, the "oil for bribes" scandal makes it pretty clear that the United Nations FAILED in its duty with IRAQ.

However, the rest of the report indicates that Saddam had taken steps that would insure his capabilities to make WMD's as soon as sanctions were lifted. Given the oil for bribes scandal, and Saddam's nature I'd tend to think this was true.

What steps?

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Com ... ndings.pdf

Read page 1 of the report key findings.

[Crown]

Um Bush administration officials?

Well at least you yourself realise the absurdity of your previous post.

Um What the fuck are you talking about?

Bush administration officials originally stated that there were WMDs. Now they say they were wrong and that there werent any.

If they were wrong in the first place, how can you be so sure they are right now?

Jeez you're thicker than 2 planks of wood aren't you?

First. before the war the UN weapons inspectors were claiming that there weren't any WMD's - you know the guys that were actually there on the ground.

The Bush team claimed there was and used that as a justification to go to war.

After the war, they sent in their own inspectors, and now these inspectors are telling the Bush Admin that there weren't any WMD's.

You see 'they' weren't wrong before. These weapons inspectors go into the gig after the war.

The only people who were wrong before was the Bush Admin, which doesn't mean jack shit, unless you think Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and Wolfewitz were the ones doing the inspecting!



Or are you too stupid to tell the difference between 'weapons inspectors' and 'Bush Administration'?

[Chmee]

If they were wrong before, why are you so quick to conclude they are correct now in saying THERE WERE NO AND NEVER WERE WMD's IN IRAQ?

Because now they are plagorizing Hans Blix? Unlike the US, the UN has a credible track record in this arena.

I don't think the words "UN" and "credible" fit into the same line. Regardless of any other factors, the "oil for bribes" scandal makes it pretty clear that the United Nations FAILED in its duty with IRAQ.

Oh yeah, that mean ol' U.N. made those poor western oil companies buy the Iraqi oil ....

There was more than one UN duty in Iraq, as there was more than one UN agency involved in Iraq.

The duty to see that the WMD programs were choked to death by sanctions and inspections, that duty they apparently fulfilled.

The duty to properly administer billions of dollars in oil revenue and fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities .... well, apparently they are about as competent as Enron officials at that duty.

[Axis Kast]

http://216.26.163.62/2003/me_iraq_10_08.html

For Kay's admission that convoys carrying unknown cargo crossed the Syrian border around the time of the American invasion.

This is not "toeing the administration line." It's an admission of fact. It happened, and it represents a lose end whether you like it or not. Take it or leave it, but you can't deny it.

[Chmee]

http://216.26.163.62/2003/me_iraq_10_08.html

For Kay's admission that convoys carrying unknown cargo crossed the Syrian border around the time of the American invasion.

This is not "toeing the administration line." It's an admission of fact. It happened, and it represents a lose end whether you like it or not. Take it or leave it, but you can't deny it.

Yep, there's just no evidence that it was anything more sinister than the crap they looted from Kuwait and never gave back ... could have been truckloads of Rolex for all we know.

Does point out some weaknesses of Rumsfeld's strategy of winning the war with tech and speed but not enough actual feet on the ground to close the borders.

Allies wiith armies bigger than Australia's and Poland's would have been useful there, huh?

[SirNitram]

http://216.26.163.62/2003/me_iraq_10_08.html

For Kay's admission that convoys carrying unknown cargo crossed the Syrian border around the time of the American invasion.

This is not "toeing the administration line." It's an admission of fact. It happened, and it represents a lose end whether you like it or not. Take it or leave it, but you can't deny it.

Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy. 'Some trucks crossed the border and we have no idea what was in them, but despite all the evidence Iraq had no infrastructure to make WMDs, I will declare they held WMDs'

[Axis Kast]

Yep, there's just no evidence that it was anything more sinister than the crap they looted from Kuwait and never gave back ... could have been truckloads of Rolex for all we know.

Speculation which has no bearing on the fact that convoys did, in fact, cross the border unimpeded. Which is the sole point of the argument.

Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy. 'Some trucks crossed the border and we have no idea what was in them, but despite all the evidence Iraq had no infrastructure to make WMDs, I will declare they held WMDs'

Strawman. I did not say those trucks held WMD. I said that trucks with unknown cargo crossed the border. That's a fact. End of story.

[SirNitram]

Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy. 'Some trucks crossed the border and we have no idea what was in them, but despite all the evidence Iraq had no infrastructure to make WMDs, I will declare they held WMDs'

Strawman. I did not say those trucks held WMD. I said that trucks with unknown cargo crossed the border. That's a fact. End of story.

Then don't bring them up in a thread strictly about WMD, kiddo. So instead of Appealing to Ignorance, you're just too pathetic to be able to stay on one topic.

[Durandal]

Yep, there's just no evidence that it was anything more sinister than the crap they looted from Kuwait and never gave back ... could have been truckloads of Rolex for all we know.

Speculation which has no bearing on the fact that convoys did, in fact, cross the border unimpeded. Which is the sole point of the argument.

Fine, then it's a red herring. Either way, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, nor was there infrastructure capable of producing them.

[Axis Kast]

Then don't bring them up in a thread strictly about WMD, kiddo. So instead of Appealing to Ignorance, you're just too pathetic to be able to stay on one topic.

I suggest you go back and read the topic before embaressing yourself any further. I didn't just "cook up" the convoy issue. I was replying to Stravo.

Fine, then it's a red herring. Either way, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, nor was there infrastructure capable of producing them.

I'm afraid not. It was a significant enough event for the ISG to acknowledge. It also represents a loose end. Granted that having found nothing of consequence in Iraq thus far reduces significantly the chance that WMD were in those trucks. It is not, however, out of the realm of possibility, and to suggest that the Syrian convoy stories were false or fabricated, as Stravo did, is to deny reality.

As for infrastructure, while I concur that in the Iraqi case, weapons and the domestic capability to produce them would probably have come together, existing infrastructure is not a prerequesite to WMD possession.

[Admiral_K]

Because now they are plagorizing Hans Blix? Unlike the US, the UN has a credible track record in this arena.

I don't think the words "UN" and "credible" fit into the same line. Regardless of any other factors, the "oil for bribes" scandal makes it pretty clear that the United Nations FAILED in its duty with IRAQ.

Oh yeah, that mean ol' U.N. made those poor western oil companies buy the Iraqi oil ....

There was more than one UN duty in Iraq, as there was more than one UN agency involved in Iraq.

The duty to see that the WMD programs were choked to death by sanctions and inspections, that duty they apparently fulfilled.

The duty to properly administer billions of dollars in oil revenue and fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities .... well, apparently they are about as competent as Enron officials at that duty.

Well Lets look at other UN Success stories like Iran and North Korea... WHOOPS

[Admiral_K]

Jeez you're thicker than 2 planks of wood aren't you?

First. before the war the UN weapons inspectors were claiming that there weren't any WMD's - you know the guys that were actually there on the ground.

If they were certain there were no more WMDs why did they insist on continuing inspections?

The Bush team claimed there was and used that as a justification to go to war.

This was based on WMDs Iraq was known to have prior to the gulf war and had not accounted for.

After the war, they sent in their own inspectors, and now these inspectors are telling the Bush Admin that there weren't any WMD's.

Thats not correct. There WERE WMD's at some point in Iraq in the past 15 years. The inspectors now seem to asert that they were destroyed. However, I don't see how they could possibly say that with 100% certainty.

You see 'they' weren't wrong before. These weapons inspectors go into the gig after the war.

The only people who were wrong before was the Bush Admin, which doesn't mean jack shit, unless you think Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and Wolfewitz were the ones doing the inspecting!

Or are you too stupid to tell the difference between 'weapons inspectors' and 'Bush Administration'?

The weapons inspectors were appointed by the Bush administration moron.

But if we are going to view the report as 100% accurate and completely infallible as you wish to do, then you must also agree with its statements that Saddam had planned to actively pursue WMDs once sanctions were lifted. And if you agree with that asertion, then invading Iraq to remove him from power is justified.

[Keevan_Colton]

K, fist off you're being a fucking stupid twat.

The fact is there can never be definite proof of the non-existence of somthing, only the fact that it cant be found. But the evidence does show a lack of weapons to be found in iraq, a lack of infrastructure to make them and so on...

Do you know what it means when you cant find something and cant find any evidence supporting its existence?

[Stravo]

Do you know what it means when you cant find something and cant find any evidence supporting its existence?

Yes. It means it's in Syria.

[Chmee]

Do you know what it means when you cant find something and cant find any evidence supporting its existence?

Yes. It means it's in Syria.

Like Noah's Ark!

[The Kernel]

But if we are going to view the report as 100% accurate and completely infallible as you wish to do, then you must also agree with its statements that Saddam had planned to actively pursue WMDs once sanctions were lifted. And if you agree with that asertion, then invading Iraq to remove him from power is justified.

Saddam "planned" to pursue WMD construction after the sanctions were lifted eh? Well, I "plan" to make twenty billion dollars, create a world class football team, and breed sharks with laser beams on their heads. Maybe however you should consider waiting before sending the IRS after me to tax me on that income eh?