A conundrum according to Al Jazeera

[Mordenheim]

One side if WoMD is found will say "see!" the other will say "planted!"

if not one will say "he got them out of Iraq" and the other will say "see"

I don't see anyone winning this but it would look worse if nothing is found

[johnny]

I can't see what's the big deal here. The biggest "weapon of mass destruction" was Saddam himself, and he has been stripped of his powers. What difference does it make if they find as few shells with gas or not ? No matter how you look at it, imo the whole thing was a succes.

[Rimjaw]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: No WoMD need be found ever. Saddam said they existed in UN Resolutions, so technically - as far as anyone but Saddam was concerned - they *did* exist. So, there was understandable concern, anger, and -yes- war following his inability to produce and destroy weapons HE STATED IN WRITING did in fact exist.

When? How long ago? If he said that before the Blix report came out that argument has no basis.

I believe he stated that they had WMD during the Iran war but they destroyed them later. Not that I'm crazy enough to believe everything he says, but its not like we've found anything so far.

[johnny]

You call mustard gas and sarin nothing ? Tell that to the people in Tokio who happened to be in a certain subwaystation a few years ago. Anthrax was also found in large quantities according to the news here.

But okay.... if that doesn't count, forget i said anything.

[Seraph]

Do you have a source for the Anthrax being found? Or the mustard gas or sarin?

[ 04-20-2003, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Seraph ]

[johnny]

Nope, saw it on one of the many newsflashes of the war. And mustard gas might not be useful against militairy units, but it IS effective when you drop it in a crowded area, like an Israeli city or something. But don't turn this thing around, the question was if they had such gasses. The answer is yes. Exactly what do they need to come up with, to convince people Saddam was a threat ?

[Rimjaw]

Originally posted by johnny: You call mustard gas and sarin nothing ? Tell that to the people in Tokio who happened to be in a certain subwaystation a few years ago. Anthrax was also found in large quantities according to the news here. But okay.... if that doesn't count, forget i said anything.

I was in no way dismissing the danger of these agents, merely stating that none of them had been found yet.

[Seraph]

Nope, saw it on one of the many newsflashes of the war.

Well, I would say its just so much noise that the war has generated, because I haven't been able to find anything that said Iraq actually had weapons, there however have been a lot of "we think we found something" follows by "opps we were wrong" reports about chemical weapons.

Are you sure your not thinking of the suspeced warhead found outside Kirkuk that seemed to drop off the news once the first tests started comming back negative? Or the reports that the US gave the media just before the war started which basicly were just repeats of everything that bush has been claiming?

Heres a quote from something Rumsfeld said on Thursday
"The inspectors didn't find anything, and I doubt that we will."
Doesn't exactly sound like the US has found anything yet does it?

And mustard gas might not be useful against militairy units, but it IS effective when you drop it in a crowded area, like an Israeli city or something. But don't turn this thing around, the question was if they had such gasses. The answer is yes. What do they need to come up with, to convince people Saddam was a threat?

Well, I realized I was moveing away from the topic and cut that part of my message out. Becides, unless you can actually point to something that says Iraq had WoMD, then its just so much baseless noise.

I don't know what it takes to consider Saddam a threat, I used to, but the more the pro-war people talk, the less I belive that. They keep bringing up 'facts' that are seemingly baseless. If I used the kind of logic that the US administration is using I know my boss would fire me without a second thought.

[ 04-20-2003, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Seraph ]

[Rimjaw]

Originally posted by johnny: Exactly what do they need to come up with, to convince people Saddam was a threat ?

To justify the reson why this war was fought in the first place. Why was Iraq labeled a threat in the first place? In Powell's address in front of the UN security council, the following evidence was presented:

• Drawings and diagrams said to illustrate Iraqi mobile biological labs

• Assertions that Iraqi nerve gas is unaccounted for

• Images said to support the assertion that Iraq continues to pursue nuclear weapons

• Assertions that Baghdad has had high-level, long-standing links to Al Qaeda

Where is this evidence now?

[ 04-20-2003, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Rimjaw ]