Post #105,513
6/10/03 11:03:06 AM
|
Re: Does the definition of WMD change daily in Bizarro land?
Is there an official definition you could point me too?
|
Post #105,514
6/10/03 11:05:48 AM
|
Try a dictionary
WMD
Weapons of Mass Destruction. None of those are complex words.
-----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
|
Post #105,530
6/10/03 12:58:01 PM
|
Re: Try a dictionary
Aren't nuclear dirty bombs Weapons of Mass Destruction?
|
Post #105,533
6/10/03 1:09:19 PM
|
They certainly are.
Of course a nuclear dirty bomb would have radioactive material with an explosive core or some defined delivery system. Debris from a bombed and looted reactor is only debris until somebody fashions it into a weapon. There is a difference between radioactive trash and a weapon.
Everybody knew the reactor was there. The UN indicated that there was nuclear material there. It didn't get looted until after we arrived. We lost track of the stuff, not them.
Regarding this as a WMD is a unrealistic stretch.
|
Post #105,544
6/10/03 1:49:17 PM
|
Speaking of Unrealistic Stretches...
Regarding this as a WMD is a unrealistic stretch.
Absolutely. But so is the prevailing sentiment here that the only reason we had for going to war was the existence of WMDs and since we haven't found them immediately upon taking over Iraq, the whole thing was a big lie and Bush should be impeached.
But the article does unwittingly point out the fact that Iraq had a serious nuclear program, had the materials to make dirty bombs or supply them to terrorists to make their own and had the capability to produce a nuclear bomb in 3 - 5 years. This was also one of the reasons for taking out Sadaam.
Regards,
John
|
Post #105,556
6/10/03 2:16:58 PM
|
Not exactly
But so is the prevailing sentiment here that the only reason we had for going to war was the existence of WMDs I don't think that people are upset because it was the only reason. I think it's because it was the stated reason. Even the administration is admitting it was a political compromise. Call me an idealist, but I think if the people aren't willing to support a war based on the real reasons maybe we shouldn't be starting that war. ===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #105,559
6/10/03 2:23:01 PM
|
More to the point
if the people promulgating the war are too afraid to state their reasons to the public expected to support it, they shouldn't start it.
The issue is not the reasons for the war... the issue is lying to the people paying for it and dying in it.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #105,575
6/10/03 3:44:55 PM
|
A bit of revisionist history?
The issue is not the reasons for the war... the issue is lying to the people paying for it and dying in it.
If I remember correctly, there was never any question about Iraq posessing WMDs before the war, even Democrates believed it. The only question was whether we should deal with them with inspections or war.
I think a lot of folks are setting them up for a hard fall for arguing so soon that the WMD thing was a big lie to trick us all into going into war.
- There was plenty of intelligence to show Iraq had WMDs and both Republicans and Democrates believed it.
- The search in Iraq is not over and more evidence will likely be found.
- Even if none is ever found, a majority of Americans think going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do even if we never find any WMDs.
I think there are more important issues than trying to get Bush; like figuring out what happened to Sadaam's WMDs
Regards,
John
|
Post #105,579
6/10/03 4:20:26 PM
|
Revisionism indeed
If I remember correctly, there was never any question about Iraq posessing WMDs before the war Aside from the fact that plenty of folks doubted that Iraq had WMDs in any significant amount, the point you so conveniently keep missing is that Iraq was marketed as an imminent threat to the US. It wasn't. Period. Bush lied, thousands died. -----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
|
Post #105,664
6/11/03 8:12:12 AM
|
Re: Revisionism indeed
Aside from the fact that plenty of folks doubted that Iraq had WMDs in any significant amount,Didn't Democrats join Republicans in authorizing Bush to take action against Iraq? Even Dick Gephardt still believes Iraq had the weapons and that we will find them: "But," he said, "there is long, consistent, clear evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. And I'm still convinced that we are going to find them." [link|http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/08/sprj.irq.main/|http://edition.cnn.c...08/sprj.irq.main/] the point you so conveniently keep missing is that Iraq was marketed as an imminent threat to the US.We know that had WMDs (remember the gassing of Kurds and Iranians), we know they provided no evidence for their claim they destroyed them all (even though the evidence would have ended the sanctions and avoided the US throwing Sadaam out of power). We know they had a nuclear program and had the capability to produce a bomb in the next 3 to 5 years. We know they had plenty of nuclear materials to produce dirty bombs. Unless you believe Sadaam was really a good guy and would never use these weapons against us or slip them to terrorists who would, then he was an imminent threat to the US. Certainly not finding WMDs in Iraq would be a great way to justify an anti-war stance as well as provide ammo against Bush. I would argue there's a more important issue if we don't find them; that being who has them now and has anyone sliped one into the US. Regards, John
|
Post #105,671
6/11/03 9:05:52 AM
|
That won't cut it
Quoting a member of the administration accused/proven of having lied to refute charges that the administration lied isn't going to work here bubba.
-----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
|
Post #105,673
6/11/03 9:15:16 AM
|
Re: That won't cut it
Quoting a member of the administration...
Dick Gephardt is a member of the adminstration?
...accused/proven of having lied to refute charges that the administration lied isn't going to work here bubba.
Which member would that be? What did he lie about and what is the proof that he lied?
Regards,
John
|
Post #105,688
6/11/03 10:49:54 AM
|
Following your link
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday it was "nonsense" to label U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as bogus. How do you read the name Colin Powell as Dick Gephardt? The little miss innocent act won't cut it either. If you want to remain willfully ignorant, that's your choice. I certainly wouldn't want to intrude in your bliss. -----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
|
Post #105,700
6/11/03 11:35:38 AM
|
Re: Following your link
How do you read the name Colin Powell as Dick Gephardt?Under the section "Powell's 'killer argument'" near the bottom: A key Democrat, however -- House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri -- told CBS there would be an investigation, although he downplayed the significance.
"We'll have an investigation in the Congress," said Gephardt, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. "We should. You should, after any war, review what happened, what the intelligence was and whether things were done right."
"But," he said, "there is long, consistent, clear evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. And I'm still convinced that we are going to find them." The little miss innocent act won't cut it either. If you want to remain willfully ignorant, that's your choice. I certainly wouldn't want to intrude in your bliss.Ok...I guess that would be a no to providing the proof... Rgards, John
|
Post #105,656
6/11/03 6:18:01 AM
|
Apparently you've missed a lot of reasons for distrust of
"stated motives" for this Unilateral First Strike and especially for distrusting the unstated motives, many of which you can read about [link|http://www.newamericancentury.org/| here] -- then compare the people on the masthead, adding William Kristol -- and reread the roster of the White House Cabinet and 'Advisors'.
The urgency was claimed to be high: yet we see that Iraq was on This Agenda long before even 9/11. The bogus (and daily changing) rationalizations, you will find on a careful reread of "here": have been the major complaints from those of us who trust this bogus cabal for what they are: a first American coup d'etat, instituted by 5 members of the US Supreme Court [That's actually 4 members + Scalia's sock-puppet, Thomas].
"Get Bush" ?? By all means: Regime Change is a very good idea.
Indeed: impeach before the march into Iran, N. Korea, the deployment of the new 'bunker buster' nukes and Gawd Knows whatever other fantasies inhabit our self-anointed Crusader for Good VS Evil in the world.
Or - enjoy the bankruptcy without a whimper (the least onerous of the possible outcomes of the mess already made amongst former Allies).
Ashton
|
Post #105,933
6/13/03 12:31:56 AM
|
Does not follow
The fact that the Republicans-Who-Think-Abortion-Should-Stay-Legal party capitulated does not imply that there was never a question. A good many of us (well, me, anyway, and the CIA - I feel real odd being in such company) are on record from the start as saying Bush et. al. were lying about the WMD.
----
Sometime you the windshield, sometime you the bug...
|
Post #105,955
6/13/03 8:01:50 AM
|
Re: Does not follow
A good many of us (well, me, anyway, and the CIA - I feel real odd being in such company) are on record from the start as saying Bush et. al. were lying about the WMD.
Any links to on the record comments from the CIA saying Bush was lying about the WMD?
Thanks,
John
|
Post #105,562
6/10/03 2:48:28 PM
|
Re: They certainly are.
Yellowcake is a mixture of oxides of uranium formed in the process of extracting the uranium from raw ore. It is of some concern because it is used in the early stages of both weapons-grade and plant-grade uranium fuel production. But, given that there was a nuclear reactor on the site, it's hardly surprising to find traces of it.
-drl
|
