"Eat a Booger For WMD" Challenge

[Richard G]

I challenge all who believe there are no WMDs in Iraq to eat a booger when they find them.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Richard G
I challenge all who believe there are no WMDs in Iraq to eat a booger when they find them.
And what are you putting on the table? ;)

Seriously though, I don't think there are many folks, even among us "leftists" that believe there are zero WMDs. I believe that there weren't enough WMDs or delivery systems to threaten anyone but their closest neighbors (hell, they couldn't even hit Kuwait and it's right next door). That makes the claim that they were a threat to the US a bit weak. Though the reasons for not invading far outnumber the reasons for invading (IMO), I do not deny that there were some legitimate reasons for the war. Possession of WMDs does not appear to be one of those legitimate reasons. It appears to have been a scare tactic by the Bush administration to whip up a war frenzy.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Richard G
I challenge all who believe there are no WMDs in Iraq to eat a booger when they find them.

There is currently no evidence of the existance of WMD in Iraq.

There is no evidence that WMDs have been used on coalition troops or Iraqis that rose up against the regime in the last 3 or 4 weeks.

I have not stated any belief or conviction that there are no WMDs in Iraq.

What I do "believe" in is evidence.

My conviction: evidence of the existance of WMDs needs to be presented before a claim of the existance of WMDs in Iraq can be substantiated.

Does your jeuvinile playground challenge extend to "all who believe evidence is required to determine if Saddam's Regime currently possessed or employed the use of WMDs"?

The competent US chemical teams will examine suspect materials and release their findings after the suspect materials have been thoroughly tested.

In other words, they are seeking evidence, not looking for ways to edify people who hold a belief that the WMDs do or do not exist.

Your challenge, Richard, suggests that you are in need of emotional fulfilment which will happen when the WMDs are found.

Do you have an emotional invested interest in this issue Richard?

Just to clarify (in case I have read you wrong):

What , in your opinion Richard, does belief (one way or the other) have to do with the determination of the existance of WMDs?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Belief is irrelevant.

Ask me if I believe that Saddam's Regime was good and I will respond with:

There is evidence that Saddam's regime was harsh and brutal. The crimes against humanity that this Regime participated in are many.

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/crimes/#saddam (http://)

The number of robust evidence, observations, documnetations, and reports are many. I do not no need to believe that the evidence and reports exist. The fact is they do. The evidence can not be refuted that the regime practiced a harsh and brutal rule.

My belief whether the Regime was good or not does not have any bearing on the evidence presented.

[shanek]

So, you are making a challenge to absolutely no one because it's a complete strawman. Saying that there is no evidence for something is not the same as saying that thing doesn't exist, as any good skeptic knows.

But I'm sure you and Dr. Kent Hovind would get along great...

[corplinx]

Does this mean that people who normally eat boogers will have to refrain until WMD are found?

AUP could starve.

[Mel]

Originally posted by Tricky

I believe that there weren't enough WMDs or delivery systems to threaten anyone but their closest neighbors (hell, they couldn't even hit Kuwait and it's right next door).

They DID hit Kuwait.... the shopping mall is a prime example. Luckily, most of the missiles were either intercepted or were so far off target they posed no danger to humans.


That makes the claim that they were a threat to the US a bit weak.

I don't think Bush ever specifically stated Iraq was a DIRECT threat to the USA? (I could be wrong)

An indirect threat is just as dangerous when you can get other parties to carry out the dirty deeds.

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by corplinx
Does this mean that people who normally eat boogers will have to refrain until WMD are found?

AUP could starve.
Good god, man!! What are you implying?? That AUP is a closed system and a perpetual motion device?? :D
Unless, of course, you didn't mean that he normally confines himself solely to his own boogers...

[crackmonkey]

The challenge is valid. There are a number of people who have asserted that there are no WMD in Iraq... Scott Ritter, for one. I've heard a number of posters echo these sentiments. To be fair, I visit a number of boards, and I don't recall if anyone here has said as much. In any case, the challenge is fair. Those who have asserted that there are no Iraqi WMDs should be prepared to dine on snot.
This obviously doesn't apply to those who are merely waiting on evidence one way or another.

[Martin]

Tricky's question is equally valid. There are a number of people have asserted that there are WMD in Iraq. What's their stake supposed to be?

[Mel]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
The challenge is valid. There are a number of people who have asserted that there are no WMD in Iraq... Scott Ritter, for one. I've heard a number of posters echo these sentiments. To be fair, I visit a number of boards, and I don't recall if anyone here has said as much.

I can tell you from experince.... this reluctance to name names and cite specific threads is NOT going to go over well with WMT1. ;)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Martinm
Tricky's question is equally valid. There are a number of people have asserted that there are WMD in Iraq. What's their stake supposed to be?
In fact, not only have people asserted that there are WMD's, but that we have already found and destroyed them. I believe Richard G's exact words were, "mission accomplished (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=419243&highlight=mission+accomplished#post419243)". I think he should have to eat a booger every day until his statement is proved true.:p

Another thing occurred to me about this issue. Back when Dubya was trying to sell this war to the UN and to the US, he said he had evidence that there were WMDs, but that he couldn't show it for security reasons. Well, with no more need for moles in Saddam's infrastructure, surely the security reasons are moot by now. Why not trot out that evidence now, Mr. Bush?

[Mel]

Originally posted by Tricky

Well, with no more need for moles in Saddam's infrastructure, surely the security reasons are moot by now. Why not trot out that evidence now, Mr. Bush?

Since this war is far from over and we are still trying to track down and bring to justice some very guilty people, does it sound like a good time to show all your cards?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Mel


Since this war is far from over and we are still trying to track down and bring to justice some very guilty people, does it sound like a good time to show all your cards?
Agreed, but surely there is a card or two he could show. It certainly would bolster my faith in our intelligence gathering operations if I could see just one or two things they've gotten right.

[crackmonkey]

I agree with you. I think it was foolish not to provide more evidence of WMD beforehand. I can only speculate as to Bush's motives, but the assertions weren't backed up with anything concrete.
A number of items that are possibly WMD have been picked up in Iraq, and are being tested right now. Apparently, the US wants to have testing done simultaneously in several countries to lend their results more credibility.
If there are no WMD found in Iraq within, say, 3 months, I'll be willing to be sealed up in a pit of my own filth for a week.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I agree with you. I think it was foolish not to provide more evidence of WMD beforehand. I can only speculate as to Bush's motives, but the assertions weren't backed up with anything concrete.
A number of items that are possibly WMD have been picked up in Iraq, and are being tested right now. Apparently, the US wants to have testing done simultaneously in several countries to lend their results more credibility.
As I have said before, I think you will probably find a few WMDs in Iraq, but based on what we have seen so far, it will not be enough to have been a threat to their neighbors, much less the US. It also appears that they were hidden so carefully that it would have been difficult for Saddam to have accessed them. Like one other poster joked, I was really expecting some ultra high tech laboratory out of a James Bond movie. So far we've see a few ingredients that might have been possibly converted to WMDs, but no conversion apparatus and no delivery system. Having non-US labs test them is a good idea, but still won't turn them into WMDs. (I haven't seen this story. Do you have a link?)

Originally posted by crackmonkey
If there are no WMD found in Iraq within, say, 3 months, I'll be willing to be sealed up in a pit of my own filth for a week.
Oh, I am quite sure that there will be something found that you can claim was a WMD. But just in case, when are you going to start saving up your own filth for the pit?:p

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mel
I don't think Bush ever specifically stated Iraq was a DIRECT threat to the USA? (I could be wrong)

From this year's SOTU address:

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

And then there's:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030101-880493.htm
http://www.rnc.org/NewsService/Video/090402v1.htm
http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/dl/Qus-iraq-bush.Rqis_DFA.html

Just from a two-minute Google search.

[Mel]

Originally posted by shanek


From this year's SOTU address:

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Yes, but he's merely 'supposing' and not offering any cold evidence that Saddam was actively doing business with anyone that wants to target the USA. He even used the word "IMAGINE" in his speech and I think that was cleverly calculated.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Mel


Yes, but he's merely 'supposing' and not offering any cold evidence that Saddam was actively doing business with anyone that wants to target the USA. He even used the word "IMAGINE" in his speech and I think that was cleverly calculated.

Exactly, offering no evidence.

Bush was appealing to the emotions of Americans and manipulating the fears of Americans.

[Mel]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


Exactly, offering no evidence.

Bush was appealing to the emotions of Americans and manipulating the fears of Americans.

But on the other hand, I don't expect ANY President to swing open the classified documents to prove his case.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Mel
But on the other hand, I don't expect ANY President to swing open the classified documents to prove his case.
Then he shouldn't have said "we have evidence" if he was not going to provide it. No skeptic should ever accept that sort of claim at face value. UFO nuts also claim, "the govenment has evidence, but won't release it." Any such claim would cause critical thinkers to roll their eyes.:rolleyes:

[Baker]

Originally posted by Tricky

And what are you putting on the table? ;)

Seriously though, I don't think there are many folks, even among us "leftists" that believe there are zero WMDs. I believe that there weren't enough WMDs or delivery systems to threaten anyone but their closest neighbors (hell, they couldn't even hit Kuwait and it's right next door). That makes the claim that they were a threat to the US a bit weak. Though the reasons for not invading far outnumber the reasons for invading (IMO), I do not deny that there were some legitimate reasons for the war. Possession of WMDs does not appear to be one of those legitimate reasons. It appears to have been a scare tactic by the Bush administration to whip up a war frenzy.

Don’t forget Wayne posted a thread claiming the US might plant the WMD to justify the war so the anti side has their side of the argument covered if they do.

[ImpyTimpy]

Yeah but that'd be a pretty shoddy argument to say the least.. If any anti-war claims it I think we can safely say kook.

Originally posted by Baker


Don’t forget Wayne posted a thread claiming the US might plant the WMD to justify the war so the anti side has their side of the argument covered if they do.

[iain]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Yeah but that'd be a pretty shoddy argument to say the least.. If any anti-war claims it I think we can safely say kook.

I agree. I would have to see very convincing evidence before I believed anyone making that sort of claim.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by shanek
From this year's SOTU address:

And then there's:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030101-880493.htm
http://www.rnc.org/NewsService/Video/090402v1.htm
http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/dl/Qus-iraq-bush.Rqis_DFA.html

Just from a two-minute Google search.
Good point, but it seems to me that all that rhetoric focuses more on Iraq being an indirect threat, by arming terrorists and so forth. The notion of Iraq posing a direct threat, where it does not act through a proxy (such as Al Qaeda, for example), is actually downplayed in those sources - for good reason.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by corplinx
Does this mean that people who normally eat boogers will have to refrain until WMD are found?

AUP could starve.

:eek: eww :eek:

[shanek]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

Good point, but it seems to me that all that rhetoric focuses more on Iraq being an indirect threat, by arming terrorists and so forth. The notion of Iraq posing a direct threat, where it does not act through a proxy (such as Al Qaeda, for example), is actually downplayed in those sources - for good reason.

Downplayed, maybe, but still there.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Richard G
I challenge all who believe there are no WMDs in Iraq to eat a booger when they find them.



Richard, you never did answer these questions:




What, in your opinion Richard, does belief (one way or the other) have to do with the determination of the existance of WMDs?

Does your ... challenge extend to all who believe evidence is required to determine if Saddam's Regime currently possessed or employed the use of WMDs"?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
The challenge is valid. There are a number of people who have asserted that there are no WMD in Iraq...

Arent you supposed to be rollicking in s**t?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I agree with you. I think it was foolish not to provide more evidence of WMD beforehand. I can only speculate as to Bush's motives, but the assertions weren't backed up with anything concrete.
A number of items that are possibly WMD have been picked up in Iraq, and are being tested right now. Apparently, the US wants to have testing done simultaneously in several countries to lend their results more credibility.
If there are no WMD found in Iraq within, say, 3 months, I'll be willing to be sealed up in a pit of my own filth for a week.

So howcome JAR, who at least was man enough to admit he was wrong, gets 700+ posts worth of smack while Richard G and Crackmonkey get away with this bollocks? I've half a mind to shut this forum down.*



















































*This is not a 4aX0r threat. I actually own JREF.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Richard G
I challenge all who believe there are no WMDs in Iraq to eat a booger when they find them.

Well the USA has been occupying Iraq for about the last 1.5 years and still has not found any WMDs there.

I should think that if there were any WMD to find, then they would have been found by now. But perhaps you will be so kind as to point out these WMDs you speak so fondly of.