When does you patience run out?

GePap · May 2, 2003, 00:41

Simple question: the WMD hunt is on, and as of yet, nothing. When will you begin to question whether anything at all will be found? (and in theory, what you were told before the war?)

I said a while ago that I would wait 6 weeks to see how the admin. came up with some proof or some evidence, well, anything, on the extensive claims made (so, I need to see more than just a few chemicals..were were the 2 dozen SCUDS, 10,000 litersd of Liquid and dry anthrax, hundreads of mustard gas shells, thousands of nerve gas shells, so forht and so on)

So I vote one more month.

Giancarlo · May 2, 2003, 00:52

I got six months patience. There are subways, tunnels and all sorts of things that have to be explored.

PLATO · May 2, 2003, 01:27

Put me down for 6 months to a year. Hundreds of suspected and thousands of possible sites to look at. That combined to the fact that the Iraqis were putting atremendous amount of effort into hiding them means that it could take awhile. Very few specialist are actually in country looking yet.

GePap: At least let them get some experts in country before you start your 6 week clock. The President just declared the combat phase over just today.

Imran Siddiqui · May 2, 2003, 01:28

Years... well actually more leaning towards I don't care if we find any or not.

orange · May 2, 2003, 01:29

that's the spirit, Imran! If you're going to support an imperialistic war, at least be honest about it

Imran Siddiqui · May 2, 2003, 01:31

I ain't supporting an imperialist war at all. I want us out of their goverance within 5 years. I'm supporting kicking the crap out of a two-bit dictator who's a major *******. I wouldn't be angry at all if we decided to pressure Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Zimbabwe next.

Nubclear · May 2, 2003, 01:34

5........4..............3......................... .2............................................1... .............................................0

Times up!

Urban Ranger · May 2, 2003, 02:21

2 more weeks. With all that solid CIA information Colin Powell was waving around in the UN, and all those scientists and a few top Baath brasses the coalition troops have access to, if there's something, they should have already found out.

I give them 2 more weeks just to be charitable.

Dis · May 2, 2003, 02:23

I don't care either way. I never thought those WMD were any threat to anyone.

LoneWolf · May 2, 2003, 02:23

Oops, no WMD's. Too bad, maybe we should find Saddam and apologize. Or not. Oh well . . .

Zero · May 2, 2003, 02:41

Mine ran out as soon as they were eager to jump in to war.

Like orange said, I didnt feel the need to mask my desire for war with some crummy WMD hunt.

TCO · May 2, 2003, 02:47

They will find it, And you all will weasel like you did when Bagdhadn fell withogut a Stalingrad battle. and when thepeople rejouceed

eWeasle.s

Urban Ranger · May 2, 2003, 05:26

Quote:

Originally posted by LoneWolf
Oops, no WMD's. Too bad, maybe we should find Saddam and apologize. Or not. Oh well . . .

Well yes, there's no need to even prop up the lame pretext now the war is over. What else is new? Rest assured that this is not the last time you'll hear this.

Proteus_MST · May 2, 2003, 06:19

Concerning the Informations the USA claimed to have, I have the same opinion as Urban Ranger.

Powell always spoke of very solid informations concerning the Location and amount of WMDs in Iraq, but at the same time he said that the informations had to be kept secret to protect the Informants.
Now, Saddams Regime is gone and there is no need to protect the Informants anymore (the Informants could approach the US-Troops and get protected by them if they still feared they could get murdered by Saddams Minions).
So as there is nothing which hinders the US-Troops from using the Informations they are supposed to have, where are the WMDs?

I still voted to give the US-Troops 2 Mmonths more time.
It is much more time than Powell had given the US-Inspections in Iraq and if they don´t find anything within this time I will be convinced that there are no significant Quantities of WMDs in Iraq anymore and therefore the accusations of the Bush administration concerning WMDs in Iraq (which is the ground upon which they built their Casus belli and tried to convince the Security Council to allow a war against Iraq) are false.

Spiffor · May 2, 2003, 06:36

Years, but I'm closing to "I don't care". I am nearly sure Saddam had some chemical weapons/research that weren't threatening to anyone except Iraqis.
And when these trace chemicals will be found, the Bushies will explain how these toys could have plunged the world in chaos.

Besides, even if Saddam decided to get rid of all his chemicals before his fall, the Bushies will plant some.

Sirotnikov · May 2, 2003, 08:16

The Information an intelligence agency can have is that they have weapons.

It doesn't mean they know where they are now.

They may have discovered that they had a weapon at place X , M months ago, and it was transferred to be hidden.

That doesn't help them to find the weapon at all.

Especially if Iraq was smart and either destroyed the weapons, or transferred them to Syria. Furthermore they could have had all the people who were in charge of it on the actual level killed. Thus the only ones alive are those who gave the general order to "destroy" the WMD they had. They don't know where evidence is.

Furthermore, Iraq is currently a haven for intelligence and commando agents from all countries. According to reports quoted from Israeli government meetings, there is a swarm of Iranian agents, doing everything they can to destabilize the area and discredit the USA. And they aren't the only ones (looks at syria, france, russia, saudi arabia).

Dauphin · May 2, 2003, 08:26

I think it short-sighted for the pro-war camp to say that they don't care if WMDs aren't found. If they are found it makes the next invasion of a rogue state far easier as the US won't look like such a bald-faced liar.

SpencerH · May 2, 2003, 08:34

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
They will find it, And you all will weasel like you did when Bagdhadn fell withogut a Stalingrad battle. and when thepeople rejouceed

eWeasle.s

What more needs to be said?

eWeasle.s

Spec · May 2, 2003, 08:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
I got six months patience. There are subways, tunnels and all sorts of things that have to be explored.

I there was something, they would have found it already....

And if they ever find anything, I'm pretty sure the U.S. will have planted it.

Spec.

Arrian · May 2, 2003, 09:18

My main concern is how we handle the occupation/transition to Iraqi self-governance*. The WMDs or lack thereof are now (now that the war happened) secondary to me.

-Arrian

* - I'm not pleased thus far.

Urban Ranger · May 2, 2003, 09:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
The Information an intelligence agency can have is that they have weapons.

It doesn't mean they know where they are now.

I don't think you can conclusively make such a call. Without knowing the source(s) of such information, my guess is as good as yours.

SlowwHand · May 2, 2003, 09:55

So many rocks to turn over, but some people think it can be done with a snap of the fingers.

Try and remember that the majority aren't as brilliant as, well, some.

I can't name any names, or Ming gets in drawers in a bunch.

Giancarlo · May 2, 2003, 09:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Spec

I there was something, they would have found it already....

And if they ever find anything, I'm pretty sure the U.S. will have planted it.

Spec.

What a load of horse crap! Get real! Iraq is not the size of Switzerland.

Spec · May 2, 2003, 10:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez

What a load of horse crap! Get real! Iraq is not the size of Switzerland.

No, the load of crap is what you say ALL THE TIME!!! The Bush regime is a manupalitive organisation that makes people beleive what ever they want. And it seems to be working great on you.
We ALL know that Saddam has no WMD or **** like that, and all bush was after is OIL, revenge for his father, and oil.
If Bush is REALLY after WMD, why doesn't he go in Soudan and Korea? Cuz there is no oil!!!

Stop assuming that you know everything when all you do is IMPOSE your stupid beliefs on everyone.

Spec.

Giancarlo · May 2, 2003, 10:25

Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction whether you like to admit it or not. What have you been watching? Al Jazeera?

Get real! You lack the intelligence to understand you have been brainwashed completely.

My stupid beliefs? I wouldn't be talking. You hypocrite.. stop acting like an self righteous almighty fool and start accepting the facts!

Spec · May 2, 2003, 10:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction whether you like to admit it or not. What have you been watching? Al Jazeera?

Get real! You lack the intelligence to understand you have been brainwashed completely.

My stupid beliefs? I wouldn't be talking. You hypocrite.. stop acting like an self righteous almighty fool and start accepting the facts!

I lack intelligence?!?!

OOOHHH!!!! PLEAASEE!! Tell me all you know!!! Tell me the facts!!! Show it to me!!! PLease!!!

FACE IT!!! YOU HAVE NO FACTS!!! As for intelligence, I cant stomp you to the ground in a flash in anyway.

You change your mind like you change underwear, you dont know what you are talking about, and everyone here knows this, what you call facts is what you beleive in and opinions are proven to be generaly false.

Why did you stop posting here? Hmmmm, let me see,........maybe cuz you didn't know what you were talking about and people here got fed up with you and you only got flamed all the time. Nice start over.

I dont buy **** from a guy that calls himself a "Progressive middle center left wing corporate capitaliste neo-facist anti-communist".

Start sticking to your story and getting it right and then we will talk about what you think about other things.

We all know how you are Giancarlo....and a "fact based" talker is not what you are. Why dont you just go and watch FOX news and keep beleiving what you see.

Seems like it was better when you wern't on Poly anymore, the atmosphere was better in the threads. There is no way of having a civilized arguement with you, you have to take out insults. I could do that to but you would just probably cry to your mom, I dont want to hurt your fellings...poor little helpless boys.

I pitty you.

Spec.

Q Classic · May 2, 2003, 10:48

i love the fact that those who watch nothing but fox news or are flagrantly right wing believe that al jazeera was just a mouthpiece for saddam, rather than a real news organization which broadcasted a different side of war.

as for weapons of mass destruction:
i don't care. saddam, in my eyes, was a bad man, but he was also an s.e.p.~ if he stayed or went, it didn't matter to me.
if he had wmd, that's bad. if he didn't, we got rid of him; we just look a little less noble.

doesn't matter. i'm not voting for a repeat in 2004, but i sure as hell don't know where my vote is going. prolly will be "wasted" on a third party, nee?

SlowwHand · May 2, 2003, 10:58

spec. i can't believe either how much you ignore facts or refuse to listen.

The United States doesn't NEED Iraq's oil.
End.
Period.
Finito.

Spec · May 2, 2003, 11:05

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
spec. i can't believe either how much you ignore facts or refuse to listen.

The United States doesn't NEED Iraq's oil.
End.
Period.
Finito.

It doesn't NEED it to survive but it WANTS it.
If Bush wants to free countries like it supposubly did in Iraq, then why dont they go In Nkorea, soudan, Congo, Libya, Chili...anywhere else where people need it? Because there is no ECONOMIC reason to go there. The only reason why the US would interveen (?) anywhere is to make a profit of somekind. You know this, I know this, everyone knows this.

Spec.

Shi Huangdi · May 2, 2003, 11:19

I don't care if we find any or not. The causus belli wasn't that we knew they had WMDs, but that there was a good chance they could have them. Saddam was not complying with inspections and contuing his games, so it looked like he had something to hide. Under those circumstances, it was prudent not to believe Saddam that he had no WMDs and take him out.