The debate on Iraq

**BodwadUK** · Oct 1st, 2003, 02:04 AM

Why not just wait for the Enquiry to be concluded by somebody with all the evidence.

**Wally Pipp** · Oct 1st, 2003, 02:39 AM

so there's no rush ... funny that.

Anyway, it'll all amount to the same, believers and disbelievers alike. You can argue until you're blue in the face, you can shift and spin your reasons all you want but what the people over there are currently faced with didn't show up on any reconstruction map I've seen so far.

Good job guys ...

**yrwyddfa** · Oct 1st, 2003, 06:51 AM

Why not just wait for the Enquiry to be concluded by somebody with all the evidence.

Why not wait for the weapons inspectors reports before invading.

**BodwadUK** · Oct 1st, 2003, 09:02 AM

The weapons inspectors had their time and an answer from the Iraqi government was not given as to where a hell of alot of its weapons had gone. Weapons inspectors can only go where they are told to. It makes there job void when the enemy is just going to move all there stuff away from them

**yrwyddfa** · Oct 1st, 2003, 09:36 AM

It makes there job void when the enemy is just going to move all there stuff away from them

Your country needs you! If you know where the stuff is (I assume that you know that Saddam moved the stuff so you must have some idea of where it went) then you should let the world know - it would save us an awful lot of hassle

Or alternatively - you simply don't know.

**Shaggy Hiker** · Oct 1st, 2003, 09:48 AM

Didn't the report already come back? There was a report by the chief inspector who said that he found.....nothing. I think it was couched in some weasel words, but nothing was found.

**BodwadUK** · Oct 1st, 2003, 09:58 AM

I am merely saying that the Inspectors can only go where the people want them to go. Areas are still off limits. Hmm so i wonder where i would hide them!!!!!

No investigations are still taking place today and they never said they would find them immediatly. Iraq is a vaste place and its like looking for a needle in a haystack.

**yrwyddfa** · Oct 1st, 2003, 10:01 AM

The weapons inspectors withdrew from Iraq without finishing their work. Saddam obstructed this work, yes, but the weapons inspectors agreed that some progress was being made.

They never got to file a final report until we'd flattened the country.

**PeteD** · Oct 1st, 2003, 11:17 AM

The weapons inspectors should have been backed up by 1000 troops or so, and parachuted in to wherever without giving them any warning!

**Shaggy Hiker** · Oct 1st, 2003, 12:05 PM

People keep mentioning that Iraq is large...yeah? So what? If the inspectors are driving aimlessly around the country seeing the sights, they'd take forever. Surely no rational person would do that. They captured a huge number of people. Does nobody know where the weapons are? Or will none talk? If they would talk, the inspectors would know where to look, then Iraq wouldn't be such a big place.

Of course, this is happening, the answers just haven't been what was wanted. There are no weapons or they were all destroyed in the early 90's. That's all their getting.

**NotLKH** · Oct 1st, 2003, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
There are no weapons or they were all destroyed in the early 90's. That's all their getting.

or they were shipped out during the 3 months before the invasion.

**yrwyddfa** · Oct 1st, 2003, 01:19 PM

or they were shipped out during the 3 months before the invasion.

In which case what was the point in invading?

**NotLKH** · Oct 1st, 2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
In which case what was the point in invading?

Why do you even ask?

If they were shipped out, to hide them from an invader, then obviously they would be shipped back in if the invaders changed their mind.

Therefore, a successful invasion would decrease the liklyhood of someone haveing the capability of issuing a recall.

Wouldn't you agree?

**Shaggy Hiker** · Oct 1st, 2003, 03:55 PM

My understanding is that those who are cooperating (which would have some real benefit to some) are saying that they were destroyed in the early 90's, and the administration is beginning to believe it.

As for the latter assertion, that's reading between the lines. Nobody in the administration has stated it as far as I know, they are just starting to leak out that news.

**yrwyddfa** · Oct 2nd, 2003, 05:06 AM

Why do you even ask?

You imply that now we went to war to prevent weapons getting back into Iraq.

I don't understand your logic, which is why I ask.

**NotLKH** · Oct 2nd, 2003, 09:34 AM

There you go again.
I didn't imply anything. I provided an hypothetical circumstance, a third alternative to the possibilities that were raised by Shaggy Hiker, and then provided a reason for an invasion assuming the third circumstance was correct.

I didn't say that it did happen, nor did I say it was likely.

-Lou

**yrwyddfa** · Oct 2nd, 2003, 09:46 AM

(1) You ask me why I ask
(2) You provide a 'hypothetical' situation to demontrate your point
(3) I challenge your 'hypothetical' situation as one reason of why I would ask
(4) You state that it was only a 'hypothetical' situation that may or may not have happened, and may or may not be likely

Do you expect me not to ask for more information than the 'hypothetical' situations you provide?

Perhaps it's an illustration of some point. In which case what's the point?

My point is the 'hypothetical' situation is unrealistic and unlikely. I ask so that you may have the opportunity to clarify exactly why you even mentioned it. You mention further possibilities in order to extend a point made by shaggy; perhaps I can add another 'hypothetical' possibility . . ..

I reckon Saddam was an alien, and the reason we cannot find him now is that he's taken off on his spaceship to go home. The reason we cannot find WMD is that he loaded them onto his spaceship before he went home.

How's that for a 'hypothetical' situation?

**run_GMoney** · Oct 2nd, 2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
They never got to file a final report until we'd flattened the country.

LOL, we did flatten it too, didn't we? Sweet...

**PeteD** · Oct 2nd, 2003, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by NotLKH
Why do you even ask?

If they were shipped out, to hide them from an invader, then obviously they would be shipped back in if the invaders changed their mind.

Therefore, a successful invasion would decrease the liklyhood of someone haveing the capability of issuing a recall.

Wouldn't you agree?

there is no evidence of weapons having been shipped out. If there was evidence of that we would have heard about it.

**PeteD** · Oct 2nd, 2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by run_GMoney
LOL, we did flatten it too, didn't we? Sweet...

Bad taste....Would you like it if someone said 'Sweet' the twin towers were flattened? ... I don't think so...

**NotLKH** · Oct 2nd, 2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by PeteD
there is no evidence of weapons having been shipped out. If there was evidence of that we would have heard about it.

Similarly:

Theres no evidence that they never existed.

Theres no evidence that if they did at one point exist, that they all were destroyed in the early nineties.

**run_GMoney** · Oct 2nd, 2003, 01:38 PM

Nope, twin towers stuff isn't funny. Mine was.

**Shaggy Hiker** · Oct 2nd, 2003, 01:47 PM

There is no evidence that they never existed simply because at one time they were used. While you might debate whether or not they existed before or after, there was some evidence that they existed at that time

As for saying that there's no evidence that they were destroyed in the early 90s, that is not what I have been hearing. It sounds like the only evidence is of that, and not of anything else. While the evidence is not of a quality that you must accept it (eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, and are perhaps more unreliable than usual in this situation), there are no contradictions being reported at this time.

I doubt anybody is asking "Do they now or did they ever, exist?"

I would hope they are asking "Where are they, and why?"

But that does seem to be the case, and the answer seems to be:
"Destroyed in the early 90's" and ????

If there is a compelling answer for why, the first part would be plausible.

**Wally Pipp** · Oct 2nd, 2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by run_GMoney
Nope, twin towers stuff isn't funny. Mine was.

*paaarp* guess again ...

**NotLKH** · Oct 2nd, 2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
There are no weapons or they were all destroyed in the early 90's.

Sorry, I took that statement meaning

Possibility #1:the weapons never existed
Possibility #2: They were all destroyed in the early nineties.

since otherwise, if taken literally, the left side of your statement is superflouous being the result of the right hand portion of your statement.

So, I should have interpreted your statement as:

There are no weapons because they were all destroyed in the early 90's.

-Lou

**Shaggy Hiker** · Oct 2nd, 2003, 03:50 PM

Spoken like a coder

**yrwyddfa** · Oct 3rd, 2003, 01:39 AM

I know where there's lots of WMD: UK , and America - and they won't let the UN in to inspect them, either.

**NotLKH** · Oct 3rd, 2003, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
I know where there's lots of WMD: UK , and America - and they won't let the UN in to inspect them, either.

Ok. I'll bite.

When did the UN Pass this resolution.
Whats its name/number?

Was France, Germany, Italy, heck, ALL the UN members included?

**BodwadUK** · Oct 3rd, 2003, 06:42 AM

The UN does keep tabs its part of the obligation when you are in the UN!!!!

**yrwyddfa** · Oct 3rd, 2003, 08:36 AM

Ok. I'll bite.

When did the UN Pass this resolution.
Whats its name/number?

Was France, Germany, Italy, heck, ALL the UN members included?

You're right: you did bite; and you proved a very very valuable point.

**PeteD** · Oct 3rd, 2003, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by NotLKH
Ok. I'll bite.

When did the UN Pass this resolution.
Whats its name/number?

Was France, Germany, Italy, heck, ALL the UN members included?

As if America would respect such a resolution even if there were one...

**Shaggy Hiker** · Oct 3rd, 2003, 12:52 PM

Actually, that one would get a double veto.

However, America is in the interesting position where they are fighting to destroy chemical weapons. As many here are probably aware, destoying the weapons is proving to be even less popular than making them in the first place.

**lokespas** · Oct 9th, 2003, 05:47 AM

2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

**plenderj** · Oct 9th, 2003, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by lokespas
2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

The boxing equivalent of a KO in the first 10 seconds of the first round

**Xanith** · Oct 9th, 2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by lokespas
2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

No WMD? Did you even read the link you posted....remember this quote? "There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control"

Not a threat? Remember this quote from your own linked article? "So we have to continue to view this regime with the greatest suspicion, attribute to them the most negative motives, which is quite well-deserved with this particular regime"

I swear some of you run around with blinders on and only see and read what you want to.

X

**yrwyddfa** · Oct 9th, 2003, 08:39 AM

I swear some of you run around with blinders on and only see and read what you want to.

Yes, Xanith, you certainly do. I have to say I'm not surprised you actually have nothing left to actually say about the topic apart from cheap comments

**lokespas** · Oct 9th, 2003, 09:00 AM

I swear some of you run around with blinders on and only see and read what you want to.

I agree Xanith

**venerable bede** · Oct 9th, 2003, 09:58 AM

Bomb Mecca

**Xanith** · Oct 9th, 2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
Yes, Xanith, you certainly do. I have to say I'm not surprised you actually have nothing left to actually say about the topic apart from cheap comments

How is pointing out how a person is wrong a cheap comment? Its not my fault someone cannot fully understand their own link they posted.

X

**Xanith** · Oct 9th, 2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by lokespas
I agree Xanith

Good read your own link again and try to tell me the same thing

X

Thread: The debate on Iraq

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions