Beating a dead horse - WMD

[kach22i]

I'm only posting this because a few posters on this board still think there are WMD out there and will never give up on this belief.

Iraqi diplomat gave U.S. prewar WMD details
Saddam’s foreign minister told CIA the truth, so why didn’t agency listen?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856/

But on that very trip, there was also a secret contact made. The contact was brokered by the French intelligence service, sources say. Intelligence sources say that in a New York hotel room, CIA officers met with an intermediary who represented Sabri. All discussions between Sabri and the CIA were conducted through a "cutout," or third party. Through the intermediary, intelligence sources say, the CIA paid Sabri more than $100,000 in what was, essentially, "good-faith money." And for his part, Sabri, again through the intermediary, relayed information about Saddam’s actual capabilities.

The typical Iraqi informant would tell the CIA what they wanted to hear..............all for the right price of course. Why would a guy being paid $100,000 tell the CIA the opposite of what they wanted to hear? Because he was telling the truth, that's why.

Deal with it, and move on......................

We are not there to remove WMD.

We are not their to free them.

We are not there because that's where the 9/11/2001 terrorist came from.

We may not even be there for the oil, afterall oil surplus means lower oil prices and that does not help profits in that industry.

We are there to protect the dollar from the Euro, and oil exchanges are still based on the dollar - we won.

We won, so can we come home now?

[DaveE]

I'm beginning to think we are there to keep Halliburton and the rest of the war industry prosperous.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by DaveE
I'm beginning to think we are there to keep Halliburton and the rest of the war industry prosperous.

That is called a perk, had proper money been spent on our homeland infastructure there would of been some extra competition to deal with - not good for profits. Halliburton is qualified and specialized to do work oveseas, not saying they are not.

[svandamme]

i know the location of some WMD's in Belgium, seriously , i'm not even kidding...large stockpiles of chemical weaponry...please have the CIA contact me

[Joeaksa]

Kach,

To end all of this. Saddam had large stocks of chemical weapons, aka WMD. We all know this, its a proven fact. Please show the world proof that he destroyed it all. Remember, proof that it was destroyed.

Then we will tip our hat to you, otherwise you may just be FOS. Remember that it took over 60 years to find some of the bunkers hidden after WW2.

When are you going to give it up that there may just be WMD out there that no one has found? There is proof that some of the stockpiles were moved to Syria but then doubt that you have heard about that...

At least you guys never give up. Its a lost cause but you keep trying...

Joe A

[kang]

From the above mentioned article: "The United States administration is acting on behalf of Zionism."

[Rick Lee]

When they find Natalie Holloway's body in a place as tiny as Aruba, I'll start believing we've combed through all of Iraq.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
There is proof that some of the stockpiles were moved to Syria but then doubt that you have heard about that...

Not only have I read about it, I've posted such articles. You can't call it "proof" though.

I like what one guy said about proof when talking about the solar system and the possible existance other planets, UFO's, Lock Ness monster and I guess you could apply it to WMD. It went something like, we have theories, we have photos, we even have video and testimonials. All of which if used in a court of law would be enough to convict a man of murder. Yet none of it can be classified as scientific proof.

[Joeaksa]

Again, pls prove that the known stockpiles were destroyed. Then we can all agree that they do not exist.

You cannot do it and Saddam would not just throw the stuff away. Its hidden away somewhere and will pop out when we least expect it. Like when a Democrat wins the Presidency...

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Like when a Democrat wins the Presidency...

That's because the Democrats know how to get things done.

[Moneyguy1]

Just an idle question:

Given that Saddam was "losing the war", if there were these WMDs, why did he not use tham as a deterrent against coalition forces?

Partial answer: Probably the same reason the Axis didn't use poison gas or germ warfare against the allied powers. (reprisal)

[Rick Lee]

Remeber, our troops found tons of atropine injectors in places Iraqi troops had abandoned. Why would they have had them? Because they thought we'd be using nerve gas?

[Moneyguy1]

Propaganda is a potent weapon. The people of Okanawa were convinced the Americans were butchers and so they preferred suicide. The belief that we would use poison gas might have been a belief of the Iraqi conscriptee. If Saddam touted the existence of his WMDs, he could likely make a potential invader think twice before doing so.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

[djmcmath]

Originally posted by kach22i
...Lock Ness monster...

Isn't that the Loch Ness monster? Did anyone else laugh when they read this?

Originally posted by kach22i
We are not their to free them.

Isn't that there? You got it right on the first line, then failed on the second line.

You see, we on this forum have few means to make an impression of someone. Are they professional? Are they educated? Are they concerned with accuracy and attention to detail? Your writing is the only thing we have to form an opinion of you -- and you cannot even bother to take care with those items. Why should we assume that your research into the accuracy of WMD claims went any farther than your research into the accuracy of proper spelling?

[kang]

"Don't think for a minute that we still have WMD," he [Saddam] told his deputies. "We have nothing."

Here's an interesting article that discusses the search for WMD's from Saddam's point of view. Apparently, some documents found after the invasion have been translated and recently made public. These documents make it clear that the WMD’s were indeed destroyed after 1991.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060321/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_wmd_tapes

Here’s an excerpt:

Scores of Iraqi documents, seized after the 2003 invasion, are being released at the request of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, who has suggested that evidence might turn up that the Iraqis hid their weapons or sent them to neighboring Syria. No such evidence has emerged.

Repeatedly in the transcripts, Saddam and his lieutenants remind each other that Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s, and shut down those programs and the nuclear-bomb program, which had never produced a weapon.

[Don Ro]

Originally posted by djmcmath
You see, we on this forum have few means to make an impression of someone. Are they professional? Are they educated? Are they concerned with accuracy and attention to detail?

I read somewhere that we have 3 separate vocabularies.
1. Writing
2. Speaking
3. Thinking
.
When I read kach22i's posts, I frequently see his use of the word "of" instead of "have."
i.e., above: "...homeland infastructure there would of been some extra competition..."

'Could be that he's got some adjacent channel cross-influence going on between his speaking and writing vocabularies.
Ya think? Who knows?
Maybe just a lazy habit, is all. Not all that uncommon...especially on the internet.
.
Oh, and BTW, you also misspelled "infrastructure", kach.
.
OK...sorry for the thread strip. As you were.

[techweenie]

Hmm. So one poster is talking about made up reasons to invade a country, sacrifice thousands of American lives, squander hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars and destabilize a country.

And the next poster is talking about a couple of wrong spellings in the first person's post.

I suppose if you can't mount a strong defense, even the most trivial offense will have to suffice.

[djmcmath]

Tech, the horse is dead. We've made dogfood. Now we're learning how to play the drums. Every possible argument, counter-argument, and counter-counter-argument in this silly topic has been played out. We're really just shooting the s*** at this point.

So looking back at all of it, I thought it was funny, in kind of an ironic way, that someone who's doing his best to sway people's opinions with his educated views and intellect lacks whatever it takes to bother to express his views in reasonably proper English.

[rcecale]

Originally posted by kach22i
That's because the Democrats know how to get things done.

Please, not while I'm eating breakfast!!!

You think passing Pepsi through your nose is rough...try passing Captain Crunch!!!

Randy

[kach22i]

djmcmath and Don Ro, you two would make quite the couple. You are just so supportive of each other, why don't you get married?

I skipped lunch and skipped spell check, what's your point? I made a few spelling mistakes, not the first time, not the last time.

You have no point so you attack me, you can do better than that boys.

FYI: I can answer any ad hominem attack in like wise manner. Like the old saying goes; people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Ad hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is usually, though not always, a logical fallacy (see Validity below).