It's Official - The Search is Over

[The Kernel]

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.

Well then, what are we waiting around for? Let's invade Syria!

[Durandal]

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!

I knew it! Hussein was building an ark to take two of every weapon of mass destruction on!

I'm afraid not. It was a significant enough event for the ISG to acknowledge.

Your opponent taking the bait does not make it relevant.

It also represents a loose end.

Not as far as this debate goes. Unless of course you have evidence of their contents. Which you don't.

Granted that having found nothing of consequence in Iraq thus far reduces significantly the chance that WMD were in those trucks.

This isn't about the chances of there having been WMD's in those trucks. This is about whether or not it's reasonable to conclude that there were. And it is not.

Although that's a nice little tactic on your part, trying to make the debate about probability to make it seem as if your alternative has some sort of viability.

It is not, however, out of the realm of possibility,

This isn't a debate about what's in the realm of possibility. This is a debate about whether or not it's reasonable to conclude that there were WMD's in those trucks. And it is not.

and to suggest that the Syrian convoy stories were false or fabricated, as Stravo did, is to deny reality.

Who cares? It was a factual inaccuracy with no actual bearing on whether or not Hussein possessed WMD's.

[weemadando]

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.

Sure and where's the proof that they had ANYTHING AT ALL to do with WMDs?

Lets face it, intel was so terrible that the Russian ambassadors convoy was stopped no less than 3 times on its trip to the border. So any stories of things crossing or not crossing the border are dubious.

And lets not forget that THERE WERE NO PROGRAMS IN PLACE!

[Darth Wong]

Hey Kast, just prior to the invasion I saw a picture of a Republican Guard soldier standing guard. There was a hole in his helmet, which had obviously been recycled from its previous (probably now deceased) owner. This is the same government which supposedly had developed a super-secret mobile nuclear weapons development facility?

[Durandal]

And lets not forget that THERE WERE NO PROGRAMS IN PLACE!

But there was possible intent to allocate resources to weapons of mass destruction program-related activities. That's what counts, you pinko liberal bitch.

[Admiral_K]

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?

Look dumbass, We KNOW he had WMDs as of the late 80s, early 90s. Whether or not he produced any more after he was defeated in 91 doesn't change the fact that he still had some from previous endeavors.

Since we KNOW they existed at one time.

That means 1 of 3 things.

1) They were destroyed, and Iraq simply didn't document the destruction properly (This was their contention, however given Saddam's track record we weren't exactly going to take their word for it)

2) Some WMDs still remain, but are extremely well hidden.

3) Some WMDs were moved out of the country, to another nation such as Syria.

The fact that you are so quick to believe that there is no remote chance that 2 or 3 is possible leads me to believe you are a fucking idiot. I've not said that 2 or 3 is even likely, but I'm not prepared to accept that they were "all destroyed" as gospel.

[The Kernel]

Look dumbass, We KNOW he had WMDs as of the late 80s, early 90s. Whether or not he produced any more after he was defeated in 91 doesn't change the fact that he still had some from previous endeavors.

Since we KNOW they existed at one time.

That means 1 of 3 things.

1) They were destroyed, and Iraq simply didn't document the destruction properly (This was their contention, however given Saddam's track record we weren't exactly going to take their word for it)

2) Some WMDs still remain, but are extremely well hidden.

3) Some WMDs were moved out of the country, to another nation such as Syria.

The fact that you are so quick to believe that there is no remote chance that 2 or 3 is possible leads me to believe you are a fucking idiot. I've not said that 2 or 3 is even likely, but I'm not prepared to accept that they were "all destroyed" as gospel.

How about 4? Don't know 4 do you?

4) The weapon that were left after the Iran/Iraq war are no longer functional due to degredation.

Also, of course we know Saddam had chemical weapons in the 80's (hell, we gave the fucking things to him to fight Iran with) but that is irrelevent. Bush made it quite clear that it wasn't those weapons he was interested in, it was the WMD programs that Saddam was supposedly building, along with attempts to get ahold of Uranium for a nuclear bomb program. A few old tanks of Sarin don't mean shit, even if we found them.

[Admiral_K]

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?

Yes we should've waited until Saddam actually HAD WMDs to use on our troops, or to give to terrorists before we acted. The report clearly stated Saddam had plans to re-activate his weapons programs once sanctions had been lifted. The whole concept behind pre-emptive action is you act before the threat is revealed. If an Asteroid looks like it has a good chance of striking the earth, and we have a chance to launch a mission know to change its course/destroy it, should we wait until the last minute calculations come in to tell us if it will hit or not?

Ridiculous!

[The Kernel]

Yes we should've waited until Saddam actually HAD WMDs to use on our troops, or to give to terrorists before we acted. The report clearly stated Saddam had plans to re-activate his weapons programs once sanctions had been lifted. The whole concept behind pre-emptive action is you act before the threat is revealed. If an Asteroid looks like it has a good chance of striking the earth, and we have a chance to launch a mission know to change its course/destroy it, should we wait until the last minute calculations come in to tell us if it will hit or not?

Ridiculous!

The concept of "capability" seems to be beyond you now doesn't it? Saddam didn't have the capability to build meaningful WMD's, he just had some nebulous desire to do so according to US intelligence. You want to try to make an argument when he has the capability to build them? You go right ahead. But your argument for preemption could be used to justify an attack on every third world shithole on the face of the Earth.

I hear that Mugabe is interested in possessing WMD's too, does that mean we should attack Zimbabwe and remove him from power?

[Keevan_Colton]

Yes we should've waited until Saddam actually HAD WMDs to use on our troops, or to give to terrorists before we acted. The report clearly stated Saddam had plans to re-activate his weapons programs once sanctions had been lifted. The whole concept behind pre-emptive action is you act before the threat is revealed. If an Asteroid looks like it has a good chance of striking the earth, and we have a chance to launch a mission know to change its course/destroy it, should we wait until the last minute calculations come in to tell us if it will hit or not?

Ridiculous!

You get dumber by the minute...just thought you should know that.

Saddam LACKED THE CAPABILITY TO BUILD OR MAINTAIN WMD. Note the BUILD OR MAINTAIN part, the old tanks of gas degrade, they stop being any good...to put it in terms that an idiot like you might understand, they have a use by date that was a long long time ago. Ok?

As for the intent part and your fucking moronic analogy with the asteroid, there's a major fucking difference between an inert piece of fucking rock on an actual collision course and the entirely non-quantifiable thing about desire to have something. Desire does not in any way connect with reality unless you have the capability to realize the desire. Saddam lacked the capability to realize his desire ergo, it was just pissing in the wind.

Let me just state again, you are so fucking dumb I expect you to choke to death on your own mouse soon if the trend continues.

[Chmee]

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?

Yes we should've waited until Saddam actually HAD WMDs to use on our troops, or to give to terrorists before we acted. The report clearly stated Saddam had plans to re-activate his weapons programs once sanctions had been lifted. The whole concept behind pre-emptive action is you act before the threat is revealed. If an Asteroid looks like it has a good chance of striking the earth, and we have a chance to launch a mission know to change its course/destroy it, should we wait until the last minute calculations come in to tell us if it will hit or not?

Ridiculous!

THIS is what really pissed me off about the Bushies blurring the line between terrorists and Saddam, repeating the Big Lie (or at least the Big Innuendo) over and over again until people actually believe this shit.

It was never anything but LAUGHABLE to assert that Saddam would give a WMD to an Islamic terrorist group. He was right behind US on their list of Guys They Really Really Want Dead. He was a secular tyrant who executed any Islamic leader who showed signs of developing a spine! He ruthlessly murdered thousands of internal dissidents on the suspicion that they might someday oppose him .... and you think he's going to give guys like that a real WEAPON? Here's a news flash: guys like Saddam are not sharers!

When Saddam had a chance to drop WMD's on advancing coalition troops in the Gulf War, certainly his Golden Opportunity if he ever wanted to do such a thing, what did he do? NOTHIN'. Because he was a ruthless dickhead, not a nut ... he was NEVER going to use a WMD on somebody who already had them, because he was all about staying in power, not about being at Ground Zero for a retaliatory strike.

Of course the dickhead was going to try to have WMD's again someday ... he lived next door to IRAN. You think he wanted to go into the next war armed with nothing but a bad attitude? But this propagandist bullshit that the purpose of an Iraqi WMD program was to attack America with them just demands that we forget everything that happened in the Gulf War and pretend that Saddam magically turned into somebody he never was, and it really burns my toast when guys in the White House treat the whole country like it can't remember history that happened more than five minutes ago. 75% of the country, okay ... but dammit, the rest of us can READ!

[Chardok]

++http://www.angelfire.com/realm3/war.in. ... 040303.jpg

Copy+paste


this is a link to the pic of the guard with the hole in his helmet.

[Admiral_K]

THIS is what really pissed me off about the Bushies blurring the line between terrorists and Saddam, repeating the Big Lie (or at least the Big Innuendo) over and over again until people actually believe this shit.

It was never anything but LAUGHABLE to assert that Saddam would give a WMD to an Islamic terrorist group. He was right behind US on their list of Guys They Really Really Want Dead. He was a secular tyrant who executed any Islamic leader who showed signs of developing a spine! He ruthlessly murdered thousands of internal dissidents on the suspicion that they might someday oppose him .... and you think he's going to give guys like that a real WEAPON? Here's a news flash: guys like Saddam are not sharers!

Saddam may not have been buddys with Bin Laden, but Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group in the world. Palestinian terrorist groups were supported by Iraq etc.

Russian Intelligence had indicated that Iraq HAD planned to support terrorist attacks against U.S. interests.

When Saddam had a chance to drop WMD's on advancing coalition troops in the Gulf War, certainly his Golden Opportunity if he ever wanted to do such a thing, what did he do? NOTHIN'. Because he was a ruthless dickhead, not a nut ... he was NEVER going to use a WMD on somebody who already had them, because he was all about staying in power, not about being at Ground Zero for a retaliatory strike.

Of course the dickhead was going to try to have WMD's again someday ... he lived next door to IRAN. You think he wanted to go into the next war armed with nothing but a bad attitude? But this propagandist bullshit that the purpose of an Iraqi WMD program was to attack America with them just demands that we forget everything that happened in the Gulf War and pretend that Saddam magically turned into somebody he never was, and it really burns my toast when guys in the White House treat the whole country like it can't remember history that happened more than five minutes ago. 75% of the country, okay ... but dammit, the rest of us can READ!

The primary fear wasn't simply that Saddam would launch attacks with WMDs, but that his wonderful children would carry on his work for him after he was gone. Every indication is that they would've actually been worse than Saddam.

[Axis Kast]

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?

No, Keevan. The fact is that there are holes in your argument big enough to drive a truck through. Literally. And if, like Stravo, you deny that they exist, then you’re a liar.

Sure and where's the proof that they had ANYTHING AT ALL to do with WMDs?

Lets face it, intel was so terrible that the Russian ambassadors convoy was stopped no less than 3 times on its trip to the border. So any stories of things crossing or not crossing the border are dubious.

And lets not forget that THERE WERE NO PROGRAMS IN PLACE!

What was in those trucks is irrelevant to the fact that the incident took place and must be acknowledged as a loose end.

And that example of the Russian ambassador is yet more evidence for those who disagree with the ISG’s conclusions, numbnuts. If the ISG was so over-taxed and under-manned that it couldn’t even keep a proper account of diplomatic traffic, then clearly there were very unusual strains on the search teams.

Hey Kast, just prior to the invasion I saw a picture of a Republican Guard soldier standing guard. There was a hole in his helmet, which had obviously been recycled from its previous (probably now deceased) owner. This is the same government which supposedly had developed a super-secret mobile nuclear weapons development facility?

Well, there’s a bullshit argument, if ever I’ve seen one.

The quality of the grunt’s equipment is not necessarily indicative of the state of the nation’s entire military infrastructure. Note Iran.

[The Kernel]

Saddam may not have been buddys with Bin Laden, but Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group in the world. Palestinian terrorist groups were supported by Iraq etc.

Russian Intelligence had indicated that Iraq HAD planned to support terrorist attacks against U.S. interests.

Want to show proof of this or are you just flapping your lips?

The primary fear wasn't simply that Saddam would launch attacks with WMDs, but that his wonderful children would carry on his work for him after he was gone. Every indication is that they would've actually been worse than Saddam.

I see, you are saying we preemptively attacked Iraq in order to prevent Saddam's sons from one day coming to power because YOU think that they would have been bad for the country (far worse than the current situation I presume). I'm sorry, I don't think I've heard a funnier halfhearted justification for the Iraq quagmire since the AQ-Saddam links.

[SirNitram]

The trucks can only be a loose end if there was any evidence they had materials connected to WMDs. There is no such evidence. Ergo, any claim they are relevent in this argument is an appeal to ignorance fallacy. QED, and other high-falutin' talk.

It's funny as hell how you claim these trucks could, possibly have WMDs. Where would these magic WMDs be from? There's nothing to make them in Iraq. There's nothing to maintain them in Iraq.

[The Kernel]

What was in those trucks is irrelevant to the fact that the incident took place and must be acknowledged as a loose end.

How about you stop arguing the bullshit on whether or not the trucks were there and instead answer one simple question:

So Fucking What?

[Chmee]

<snip>

Saddam may not have been buddys with Bin Laden, but Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group in the world. Palestinian terrorist groups were supported by Iraq etc.

Russian Intelligence had indicated that Iraq HAD planned to support terrorist attacks against U.S. interests.

Mmm, and the Russians have no interest in getting us to do their work for them in fighting Islamic separatist movements in their part of the world ... I love it when former KGB goons who are doing their best to crack down on democracy in their own country are suddenly our source for intelligence on what's best for America. Show me the Intel, otherwise it's just Pooty trying to get somebody else to kill Chechens for him.

As for Iraq supporting Palestinian terrorist groups, there's zero intel that we've seen to show they did anything to support operations .... like every other Islamic nation (including our 'good buddies' in Pakistan, Saudi & Kuwait) they donate money to the Hamas organizations that support the widows & children of suicide bombers .... well, yeah, I don't find that a particularly admirable course of conduct, but I don't see us dropping JDAMs on the Saudis for doing it.

<snip>
The primary fear wasn't simply that Saddam would launch attacks with WMDs, but that his wonderful children would carry on his work for him after he was gone. Every indication is that they would've actually been worse than Saddam.

I don't find baseless speculation about future generations of assholes to be a much better pretext for going to war than speculation about present generations of assholes.

[Andrew J.]

What was in those trucks is irrelevant to the fact that the incident took place and must be acknowledged as a loose end.

The fact of the matter is that those trucks did not contain weapons of mass destruction, period. What was in them is irrelevant to any discussion of WMDs in Iraq.

[Stravo]

Kast weapons need infrastructure which the report found no evidence of since 1991. Are you telling me Sadaam magiced up some fucking WMD's and then shipped them off in those trucks? Or will you be even more ridiculous and claim that the trucks also carried all the infrastructure with it as well. A couple of labs, some reactors, maybe a bunsen burner or two?

What the fuck is it with you people? Bush's own team, which I'm sure had all the incentive in the world to grasp at ANYTHING to justify WMD claims, now say there was NOTHING prior to 1991. Stop it with the fucking trucks its really getting embarassing at this point.

[Admiral_K]

Kast weapons need infrastructure which the report found no evidence of since 1991. Are you telling me Sadaam magiced up some fucking WMD's and then shipped them off in those trucks? Or will you be even more ridiculous and claim that the trucks also carried all the infrastructure with it as well. A couple of labs, some reactors, maybe a bunsen burner or two?

What the fuck is it with you people? Bush's own team, which I'm sure had all the incentive in the world to grasp at ANYTHING to justify WMD claims, now say there was NOTHING prior to 1991. Stop it with the fucking trucks its really getting embarassing at this point.

Nothing PRIOR to 1991 or Nothing SINCE 1991?

[Stravo]

Nothing PRIOR to 1991 or Nothing SINCE 1991?

Sorry, SINCE 1991.

[Admiral_K]

<snip>

Saddam may not have been buddys with Bin Laden, but Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group in the world. Palestinian terrorist groups were supported by Iraq etc.

Russian Intelligence had indicated that Iraq HAD planned to support terrorist attacks against U.S. interests.

Mmm, and the Russians have no interest in getting us to do their work for them in fighting Islamic separatist movements in their part of the world ... I love it when former KGB goons who are doing their best to crack down on democracy in their own country are suddenly our source for intelligence on what's best for America. Show me the Intel, otherwise it's just Pooty trying to get somebody else to kill Chechens for him.

As for Iraq supporting Palestinian terrorist groups, there's zero intel that we've seen to show they did anything to support operations .... like every other Islamic nation (including our 'good buddies' in Pakistan, Saudi & Kuwait) they donate money to the Hamas organizations that support the widows & children of suicide bombers .... well, yeah, I don't find that a particularly admirable course of conduct, but I don't see us dropping JDAMs on the Saudis for doing it.

The point was Iraq wasn't the "enemy" of all terrorist groups. And The russian intel merely coroborated what our own intelligence, and British intelligence had been saying.

And please tell me what the fuck telling us about Iraq's terrorist plans has to do with Chechnya? Further, if Russia wanted us to invade Iraq, Why would they have opposed so openly in public?

And Finally, Russia didn't exactly need to prod us to action in order to crack down on Muslim extremists ANYWHERE in the world. Sept 11th had already done that.

Sorry, but your conspiracy theory just doesn't carry any weight.

<snip>
The primary fear wasn't simply that Saddam would launch attacks with WMDs, but that his wonderful children would carry on his work for him after he was gone. Every indication is that they would've actually been worse than Saddam.

I don't find baseless speculation about future generations of assholes to be a much better pretext for going to war than speculation about present generations of assholes.

It is hardly baseless. Uday And Qusays penchant for tyranny are well known. Do a google search.

[Admiral_K]

Look dumbass, We KNOW he had WMDs as of the late 80s, early 90s. Whether or not he produced any more after he was defeated in 91 doesn't change the fact that he still had some from previous endeavors.

Since we KNOW they existed at one time.

That means 1 of 3 things.

1) They were destroyed, and Iraq simply didn't document the destruction properly (This was their contention, however given Saddam's track record we weren't exactly going to take their word for it)

2) Some WMDs still remain, but are extremely well hidden.

3) Some WMDs were moved out of the country, to another nation such as Syria.

The fact that you are so quick to believe that there is no remote chance that 2 or 3 is possible leads me to believe you are a fucking idiot. I've not said that 2 or 3 is even likely, but I'm not prepared to accept that they were "all destroyed" as gospel.

How about 4? Don't know 4 do you?

4) The weapon that were left after the Iran/Iraq war are no longer functional due to degredation.

If #4 were valid we would've found the remnants of them wouldn't we? If the remnants were destroyed than that would full under #1.

Also, of course we know Saddam had chemical weapons in the 80's (hell, we gave the fucking things to him to fight Iran with) but that is irrelevent. Bush made it quite clear that it wasn't those weapons he was interested in, it was the WMD programs that Saddam was supposedly building, along with attempts to get ahold of Uranium for a nuclear bomb program. A few old tanks of Sarin don't mean shit, even if we found them.

Incorrect.

Powell's Speech to the UN February 2003:

"Iraq declared 8,500 liters of anthrax, but UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters. If concentrated into this dry form, this amount would be enough to fill tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of teaspoons. And Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoon-full of this deadly material

And that is my third point. And it is key. The Iraqis have never accounted for all of the biological weapons they admitted they had and we know they had. They have never accounted for all the organic material used to make them. And they have not accounted for many of the weapons filled with these agents such as there are 400 bombs. This is evidence, not conjecture. This is true. This is all well-documented."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.i ... index.html

This demonstrates we most certainly were interested in these weapons and what happened to them.

[Chmee]

<snip>

It is hardly baseless. Uday And Qusays penchant for tyranny are well known. Do a google search.

Nobody would deny their penchant for tyranny ... the question is how that constitutes a clear and present danger to the United States. If you're from the House of Saud or the military dictator of Pakistan, we've got no problem with your tyranny, but if you're a Hussein we do? That ain't the test of when we go to war, we go to war to stomp flat somebody who fucked wiith us. If we go around waging war against every jackass with an attitude on the theory that someday they might get a bug up their ass and attack us, we're gonna get a LOT of American kids killed for nothing.