If chemicals are used or found, what wil you do?

[Troll]

I'm curious about this as France has decided it will support the US and the others will some balls if NBC weapons are used. But what about the fact that they swear that Iraq has none?

so what will you claim when/if any are used or found?

[Troll]

Forgot to add one for some of my fellow JREFers.

Will you cheer and be glad that they were used on US troops or Israeli civilians?;)

[richardm]

Obviously it'll all be an evil American conspiracy. And anyway "We only have their word for the fact that they found the stuff, right"?

You could put it all to music and sing it.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I don't know, I'll probably be more worried about whether any of our troops are doing the dying cockroach than to give much thought as to whether any deekhead is doing the happy dance of vindication.

Maybe you should have put poll option in like that.

[Lothian]

If chemical weapons were used I would regret that the weapons inspectors were not allowed to supervise their destruction safely with no human cost.

[Drooper]

Inhale them????? ;) :eek: :cool:

[iain]

The strawmen are coming out, I see.

Show me where anti-war people have claimed that Iraq has no chemical weapons.

I am sure Iraq, in common with many other nations, does have some chemical weapons. I think it almost certainly has far fewer than it did 12 years ago and those that it does have do not currently pose a threat to the West (which was the original justification for war).

I think that a peaceful solution is more likely that war to achieve the safe removal of those remaining weapons, rather than having them used on Kurds, US soldiers or smuggled out to terrrorists.

The pro-war lobby seem to have a really hard time understanding that the debate is not about do something vs. do nothing but about the best way to achieve certain objectives.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by iain
The strawmen are coming out, I see.

Show me where anti-war people have claimed that Iraq has no chemical weapons.

I am sure Iraq, in common with many other nations, does have some chemical weapons. I think it almost certainly has far fewer than it did 12 years ago and those that it does have do not currently pose a threat to the West (which was the original justification for war).

I think that a peaceful solution is more likely that war to achieve the safe removal of those remaining weapons, rather than having them used on Kurds, US soldiers or smuggled out to terrrorists.

The pro-war lobby seem to have a really hard time understanding that the debate is not about do something vs. do nothing but about the best way to achieve certain objectives.

So, you are saying option #6 then. :) Not such a straw man after all. :cool:

[iain]

Originally posted by Drooper


So, you are saying option #6 then. :) Not such a straw man after all. :cool: Yes, option 6 and yes, a straw man.

Troll's first comment makes that clear, saying that France swears Saddam has no chemical weapons, which is untrue (how could they, or anyone else, know since the inspectors have not been allowed to finish their work?).

[Victor Danilchenko]

One more option missing:

"He may have had the chemical weapons all along, but there is such a thing as "due process", and it's critical to democracy -- either democracy of people, or democracy of nations."

There is a good Constitutional reason why courts in US toss out damning evidence that was inappropriately gathered. the pro-war people who stridently proclaim their allegiance to Constitution would do well to remember that -- that each crook who "gets off on a technicality" gets off because Constitution does not bend to expediency or momentary sentiment. The same reasoning applies to inspections.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by iain
Yes, option 6 and yes, a straw man.

Troll's first comment makes that clear, saying that France swears Saddam has no chemical weapons, which is untrue (how could they, or anyone else, know since the inspectors have not been allowed to finish their work?).

Just curious, supposing inspections were still ongoing when would you have been able to conclude that they were finished?

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by ssibal


Just curious, supposing inspections were still ongoing when would you have been able to conclude that they were finished?

When they say:
-we finish the inspections!

[pgwenthold]

Let's consider the flip side: suppose we wipe out all of Iraq and don't find anything worthwhile. What then will George Bush say?

"Nevermind"?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
One more option missing:

"He may have had the chemical weapons all along, but there is such a thing as "due process", and it's critical to democracy -- either democracy of people, or democracy of nations."



He's had 12 years of due process.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by LuxFerum


When they say:
-we finish the inspections!

From the way Iraq was cooperating, I do not think they would have ever declared the inspections to be finished.

[patnray]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Let's consider the flip side: suppose we wipe out all of Iraq and don't find anything worthwhile. What then will George Bush say?

"Nevermind"?

We may never know the truth. If no weapons are found we'll be shown pictures of bunkers and told they once contained chemical weapons. Or we'll be told Iraq destroyed them (or sold them to OSB) just before we got there. Or we'll be shown pictures of trailers and told they are filled with WMDs, but reporters will not be allowed to look inside (to dangerous, you know)...

Weapons could be found. The significance of what's found may, or may not, be exagerated. I suspect we may never get a full and accurate accounting of anything found. We will be told only that which supports the justification for the war.

[patnray]

Originally posted by ssibal


From the way Iraq was cooperating, I do not think they would have ever declared the inspections to be finished.

Plus, the inspectors could have spend years following up on faulty US intellgence reports...

[Victor Danilchenko]

Tony

He's had 12 years of due process.Do you realize how dumb that sounds?

"You there, on death row! nevermind that your latest appeal is pending, you've had your 12 years of due process, now it's the chair for you!"

Please, folks. Does any one of you honestly believe we're going to go in full bore, US ass-kicking style, and not find exactly what we're looking for, whether it was there or not?

Does any one of you think we won't hold something up to the world that justifies our actions in a dramatic fashion?

[rikzilla]

I'd say: "I told you so!"
(didn't see that one on your poll!)

-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Tony

Do you realize how dumb that sounds?

"You there, on death row! nevermind that your latest appeal is pending, you've had your 12 years of due process, now it's the chair for you!"

The dumb part is that we give convicted death row inmates so much time to appeal. Seems we give the same slack to tyranical dictators. How 'bout thinking about the hundreds of thousands that have fallen victim to Saddam since '91?? Do they deserve fewer human rights??

There's an old saying in Texas, in ref to carrying a gun and using it; "It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by six." It's easy to see why pre-emptively killing your enemy is the smart move eh?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by rikzilla


The dumb part is that we give convicted death row inmates so much time to appeal.

The dumb part is that you have the death penalty, but that is for another thread.


It's easy to see why pre-emptively killing your enemy is the smart move eh?

So, if Saddam has a nuke, he should lob it at washington now? Would that be a smart move? Would Saddam be justified in a pre-emptive strike right about now?

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Estimated Prophet
Does any one of you honestly believe we're going to go in full bore, US ass-kicking style, and not find exactly what we're looking for, whether it was there or not?

It never ceases to amaze me that remarks like this consistently surface on a message board devoted to skepticism.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Thanz


The dumb part is that you have the death penalty, but that is for another thread.


[B]

So, if Saddam has a nuke, he should lob it at washington now? Would that be a smart move? Would Saddam be justified in a pre-emptive strike right about now?

Saddam is about done. However, if he could I'm sure he'd lob a nuke....hell, maybe he will. Would he be justified? Better question is "would he care, or need to be justified?" Of course not, he doesn't care about justification.

Fact is, it's better to face him now with our military....than it is to face his terrorist operatives on our streets with our civilians.

-z

[Tony]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Tony

Do you realize how dumb that sounds?




I realize how dumb you sound. You've already shown to have an affinity for dictators and brutal regimes, im not surprised you would defend saddam. With any luck, youll get hit by a car today and humanity will be spared your idiocy.

[Troll]

My point was based upon those that have made the claim that he has no such weapons. Hussein's own claims that he has no such weapons and his claim that he will use such weapons if we invade. Some people here overlook his claims to use what he says he does not have, what he failed to just hand over to the inspectors and have sated that he has no WMDs. I am curious as to what if anything they will say when they are found to be incorrect.

If you wanna know what Bush will say under any given situation then ask him or post your own poll asking opinions of what people think he may say.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Tony

I realize how dumb you sound. You've already shown to have an affinity for dictators and brutal regimes,<gapes> Whaaaa?..

Which ass did you pull this idiocy out of? me, having affinity for dictators and brutal regimes? Sir, you are an utter *********** moron, and one without the appreciation for the freedoms that the US Constitution guarantees you; freedoms of which I, as an immigrant, am apparently so much more aware than you.

im not surprised you would defend saddam.I am defending freedom and law you moron. You know, kinda like the fact that every criminal deserves a vigorous defense in court, regardless of whether they are guilty or not?..

With any luck, youll get hit by a car today and humanity will be spared your idiocy.Oh, this takes the cake. :rolleyes:

[Baggle]

Originally posted by Wolverine


It never ceases to amaze me that remarks like this consistently surface on a message board devoted to skepticism.

When I read that, I thought the exact same thing, Wolverine.

-Baggle

[patnray]

Anyone remember the Gulf of Tonkin?

A fabricated incident used to justify a major expansion of the US role in Viet Nam...

[fishbob]

Let me get this straight:

Troll is trolling.
Rik and Tony want to go blow stuff up.
Victor, who ain't from around these parts, knows the most about the US Constitution.
patnrya is clearly cynical.
EP is skeptical to partly cynical (good joke)
Wolverine didn't get the joke.

Did I miss anything?

[shanek]

Originally posted by rikzilla
The dumb part is that we give convicted death row inmates so much time to appeal. Seems we give the same slack to tyranical dictators.

Well, at least now we see how your thought process works: "Kill! Kill! Kill! Who cares if they actually did it or not!!!" :rolleyes:

It's easy to see why pre-emptively killing your enemy is the smart move eh?

Yeah, it reduces the possibility of your story being contradicted.

[Tony]

Originally posted by fishbob
Let me get this straight:

Troll is trolling.
Rik and Tony want to go blow stuff up.
Victor, who ain't from around these parts, knows the most about the US Constitution.
patnrya is clearly cynical.
EP is skeptical to partly cynical (good joke)
Wolverine didn't get the joke.

Did I miss anything?

http://www.rr-bb.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://www.rr-bb.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://www.rr-bb.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://www.rr-bb.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://www.rr-bb.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://www.rr-bb.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
I realize how dumb you sound. You've already shown to have an affinity for dictators and brutal regimes, im not surprised you would defend saddam. With any luck, youll get hit by a car today and humanity will be spared your idiocy.

What Wolverine said, only for this post.

Originally posted by Wolverine


It never ceases to amaze me that remarks like this consistently surface on a message board devoted to skepticism.

I'm skeptical of Saddam Hussein. I'm also skeptical of this administration.

It amazes me that some of our skeptics think war is the only solution to the problem.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Fact is, it's better to face him now with our military....than it is to face his terrorist operatives on our streets with our civilians.

-z

His terrorist operatives? Did Osama pass his boys off like a baseball owner before free agency?

[evildave]

Chemical weapons have already been found. Mustard gas precursors, for one. Just in the last couple of weeks.

But the U.S. has a stockpile of chemical weapons of its own.

And LOTS of weapons of mass destruction.

So does Russia, and some of the "former soviet republics".

So does France. And the UK.

So do many others.

What makes Iraq "extra special" to be unilaterally attacked like this?

The Gulf War was 13 years ago. We should probably go back and re-invade Vietnam, too. There was plenty of unfinished business there. Then we can re-invade Cuba. Remember the Bay of Pigs? We didn't topple Castro, either.

Then there's always Canada. The war of 1812 should leave some bitter memories, except most of my patriotic brethren don't remember that one. (Hint: The 'White House' was not always that color.)

Perhaps we should go back and Re-invade Korea and Japan, too.

I mean, heck! Why not get all those good Christians riled up and they can re-enact the Crusades! Dubya can play "His Holiness".

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

well if chemical weapons are found:

I will consider the new evidence and re-evaluate whether there is robust evidence that chemical weapons do exist,

or were recently possessed by Saddam's regime necessitating a pre-emptive strike by the US/UK coalition.


It would help Bush's/Blair's case tremendously showing that their knowledge of suspect materials necessitated the pre-emptive strike.

I will not apoligise though as I was considering all the available evidence prior to these incriminating finds.

Until the incriminating evidence is found though I am sticking with:

There is no evidence that Saddam's Regimes possessed WMDs or suspect chemical weapons.

[Monketey Ghost]

And I must backtrack from my previous statement (as Mags), that something would be found no matter what.

As the clock ticks and the questions grow louder, nothing has been discovered so far.

But I give it more time. How much more? Maybe, until the end of summer before I'll be fairly confident that WMD's weren't a real reason for the invasion.

The way it looks to me as of now:1) our intelligence was faulty, or simply made up. 2) Or the Bush2 administration was lying outright.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by No Answers
And I must backtrack from my previous statement (as Mags), that something would be found no matter what.

As the clock ticks and the questions grow louder, nothing has been discovered so far.

But I give it more time. How much more? Maybe, until the end of summer before I'll be fairly confident that WMD's weren't a real reason for the invasion.

The way it looks to me as of now:1) our intelligence was faulty, or simply made up. 2) Or the Bush2 administration was lying outright.

Interesting resurrection of a thread. A good before/after.

However, in response to this post, the intelligence has been shown to be terminally faulty, even if something is found. That is, we were told there was conclusive evidence of WMD. The evidence has thrown up nothing at all. If something is found from now on, it will not be due to the intelligence used to justify the war, but due solely to new information gained from detailed searches.