America Targeted 14,000 Sites. So Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

i won't even bother to read your post since you are the one and only "ignored" person for me on bigsoccer <it is quite an honor> but i get the idea of what it is about just by the title of your thread...

they will find the weapons, don't you worry your little heart...

 

IF they find them, what will you bitch about then?

 

brother Universal will claim the US planted whatever is found ...... fear not.

 

Well let's face it. If they don't actually find any, they will.

 

I believe that WMD will be found. But it will probably be enough for some to justify the war and not enough for others. And then there's those who no matter what is found will say the war was right or wrong. I ask though that if no WMD are found was this war really in the best interest of America? With no WMD, no threat presently militarily to us or even to his neighbors by Iraq, and with the continuation of sactions / inspections (UN) along with a step up of CIA intelligence couldn't this have been handled with out the need to engage in nation building?

 

no if they find some - you will say they didn't.

 

repeat after me: "hope is not a strategy" ....

until we have the time to investigate the sites - all we have is a bunch of armchair generals.

So let's all just (get along) be patient and let the soldiers and inspectors do their job. Geez with all the imbedded reporters you think it would be that easy to plant something?

 

Nothing like getting your information from someone at the University of Michigan, that fair and balanced institution at which a student had to sue the school anonymously over its Stalinist-style speech restrictions. Aside from that HAHAHA. WMD will be found, and this quote is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've seen on BS in quite some time, even from your posts. The first war justified by illusion? Are you willing to stand by that? What about:

Franco - Prussian War (Ems Telegram)
World War II (invasion of Poland specifically though conspiracy theorists would have us believe Pearl Harbor was anticipated and the Japanese plans were known)
to name a few.

A little rough on the Germans, but they provide so many good examples in recent times. The Austro Prussian war was also a wonderful conflict with questionable justification. That crazy Bismarck. What qualifies as "an illusion"? Being deceptive about motives (which is not the case here)? Going to war for personal gain and issuing weak justification (as the examples above demonstrate)? When you lead off an article with that quote it is impossible to bypass the overwhelming stupidity of it.

 

Supposed weapon storage locations revealed to the press turned out to be nothing. Supposed weapon storage locations revealed to the UN turned out to be nothing. Supposed distribution of weapons to Iraqi troops turned out to be nothing. Supposed weapon storage locations occupied by US troops and searched turned out to be nothing. Whether or not such weapons are eventually found you must admit that the (supposed) reason for going to war was hopelessly invalidated. We really had no idea what was in Iraq, and were simply bluffing to the UN.

 

Yeah, we wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions, make any hysterical and/or false claims or get all shrill and belligerent over this issue whilst the inspectors have still got a job to do, now would we? That would be the height of injudicousness.

 

That's what I've been saying since last October. But then Bush and Blair decided to have a war anyway.

 

I used to wonder why Universal's post count never changed from 67, but now that I see every one of his posts is the same tired agitprop, I have my answer.

 

3-4 days ago, I read that there were 40 sites we told our soldiers to look at, and at that time, we'd come up dry at 19 of them. How many of the remaining 21 have we visited so far?

 

It's official. There were never WMDs in Iraq. I'm as amazed as you are, but Don Rumsfeld told me so today.

Okay, he went on Meet the Press and Face the Nation yesterday, I only read about it today.

Liberal Oasis has the relevant quotes.

Oh, clearly, it’s on the priority list to be done.

[But] it’s not the kind of thing you spend much time doing when you’re in a war and you’re trying to win the war and stop the violence and stop the killing...

...And there will be exploitation of possible sites, in an orderly way, as soon as the environment is sufficiently permissive.

…if we can find the right people who will tell us where they've located them, then that's the way we're going to find them.

Inspectors didn't find them and certainly we're not going to find them.

It's not like a treasure hunt when you run around and dig down and see if there's a tunnel some place.

You've got to find the people who dug the tunnels, the people who've worked in those operations.

As Liberal Oasis points out, you only take an attitude THIS cavalier when you're absolutely not at all worried that WMD will fall into terrorist hands during this period of anarchy.

(Anarchy that's a deliberate policy of the coalition, according to the ultraliberal New York Times. Oh, wait, sorry - that's the LONDON Times. But that's another topic.)

After all, it was only a jillion times more likely that OBL would get WMD with SH SOL. What with Saddam being an infidel and all. Now, well, we don't know who has WMD and where, and we're not terribly concerned.

So either the adminstration is criminally irresponsible - always a possibility - or they knew they were blowing smoke from day one.

There are no WMDs. Anything we "find" will be straight out of Mark Fuhrman's desk drawer. I'm guessing it will have more chlorophyll than sarin or anthrax, since it will be such a huge plant, and all.

So, really, it's an awfully good thing that the war was worth it even without the WMD threat, isn't it?

WOLF! WOLF! FOR PETE'S SAKE, EVERYONE, THERE'S A BIG FREAKING WOLF PRACTICALLY DROOLING ALL OVER YOU!

 

My my my Dan, aren't you the cynic.

Fixed.

 

Re: Re: America Targeted 14,000 Sites. So Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

So can I assume by this "attack the messenger" approach that you couldn't actually find anything to dispute in the actual message?

 

Now that you mention it I suppose I'll take a swipe at the message as well. Seeing as we have been in the country for under a month so far I hesitate to jump to conclusions such as some people around here do. We have been in control, such as it is so far, for under a week. I can't help but think that Saddam, who if anyone had a sense of self-preservation, would have given conclusive and provable documentation as to the location of the chemicals and biological weapons. Had he surrendered such documentation this would all have been unnecessary and he would still be in power. Saddam was not a stupid man, he ruthlessly stayed in power for well over two decades, and there is no reason to believe he decided to hang up his spurs and take a bunker buster in his bedroom. Just because we haven't found them doesn't mean that we won't. He had a 12 year head start to hide the evidence and he's had a lot of practice at that.

 

But he didn't surrender this information, and Bush et al still said we knew he had WMD. If we knew he had WMD, we must have had some idea of what he had and where he had it. Otherwise it was just another lie to advance an unecessary war.

 

I would just like to point out we have searched two dozen sites. Thousands remain......that will be all

 

You're absolutely right. We should have given weapons inspectors more time.

 

We gave them seven years and a few odd months, were you trying to go for an even ten?

 

I thought we gave them twelve. Can't you guys making up fake excuses get your story straight?