I'm going to start off by saying this, I am strongly conservative however I am doing my best to keep this first post from showing my bias. I'm probably going to drop out of the debate after this, but I was reading Mortal Wombat's thread and it infuriated me, and I had a post typed up and when I went to post it, the thread was locked and I had been invited to make a new thread about this, so I have done so to Furor's delight I'm sure.
The argument pointed out by Sen. Santorum was that WMDs had indeed been found in Iraq, the weapons had been found with traces of Mustard nerve gas and Serin nerve gas, both of which as most of you know, are lethal.
The rebuttal was that the materials [read as toxins] had been deteriorated due to time elapsation, which means that the weapons had not been developed recently and therefore were not the WMDs Bush went into Iraq looking for.
The counter argument and end of the article was that the relevance was not in functional WMDs but that WMDs were present in Iraq period, which now opens the door for other WMDs to be there, which could be fully functional.
Was he BSing us because he's behind 18 points to the Democrat or is this a viable argument?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
*Takes deep breath* OK, I am not going to release my anger on this, I will try and be civil. I personally think that this is a political ploy to not just better Mr. Santorum's Senate race chances, but to play a divide and conquer game on the Democrats. If you recall, Bush claimed that WMDs weapons were used on civilians, when they were used against the Iranians in their war. So no, these are not the weapons we are looking for, and I can see through the ploy.
On a side note, that's an awful piece of journalism. You can see the spin placed on every paragraph from a mile off.
LOL! That's amazing, considering I *just* mentioned what would happen if someone was to use a conservative leaning (and Newsmax is obviously one of them) blog/news to mention this.
Which is why it will NEVER matter if there is inrefutable proof that WMDs were found, used by Saddam, and actively hidden - there will still be people that could never accept it due to the pure hatred they show (and actually, I think that hatred is the lone reason that Conservatives continue to do well in elections. The reason? Because I think people don't respond to hatred and anger nearly as well as "whats in it for them" (even if the Republican party is doing a very bad job right now of delivering on "whats in it for them").
Erm, Saddam had Sarin and other nerve gas? Is this supposed to be some kind of revelation? If this is all the neo-conservatives have to try and make people think they didn't invade a country on the basis of a lie, it's proof (if it were needed) that they think us all half-wits.
You can't have it both ways. Either Bush lied about Saddam having them (and remember, half the world believed that he had them as well - with the same satellite photos we are now using to be concerned that North Korea evidentally has a weapon capable of reaching as far as Chicago), or he did have them, and Bush was telling the truth, and Saddam had them. If it's on "the basis of a lie" - then you can't say that it's "supposed to be some kind of revelation", because the entire basis of the UN inspections was that Saddam had them and was actively hiding them, and part of the reason we went into Iraq was the non-compliance of those inspections.
Assuming everything in the article is acurate and not misleading, etc. ...
If Iraq did, indeed, have non-functional WMDs then they did have WMDs. If a weapon is not functional, however, then it is not a threat and Bush's justification for the invasion was that Iraq was a threat because he had WMDs.
I'd also say if the friggin' Pentagon is saying, "These are not the WMDs we were looking for" then it's a pretty good indicator the weapons are not relevant. Santorum is grasping at straws.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Okay I'm actually going to address a few points here
1. The media has a heavy liberal bias, finding those conservative news broadcasts (Fox) doesn't make them facists, it's called other peoples' opinions. Just because the majority of people agree on an opinion it doesn't make it the correct or "right" one.
"A thousand idiots in agreement, are still just a thousand idiots."
2. Agreed the pentagon says that the WMDs we have found are not reason enough to go to war, mainly because we backed those WMDs in the Irani-Iraqi war.
3. The reason we went in to Iraq was to look for WMDs and we had the backing of about half of the UN on this issue, so you cannot fault us for going in there to begin with. Staying in Iraq is what you can argue.
The pentagon said it was a bad reason to start a war, but does that make it a bad reason to sustain a war? I am inclined to believe not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Okay I'm actually going to address a few points here 1. The media has a heavy liberal bias, finding those conservative news broadcasts (Fox) doesn't make them facists, it's called other peoples' opinions. Just because the majority of people agree on an opinion it doesn't make it the correct or "right" one. "A thousand idiots in agreement, are still just a thousand idiots."
To be perfectly honest, I'm sick of this acusation. The media, to use your blanket term, generally tries extremely hard to prevent bias. It's called journalistic integrity. Claiming the media is liberally biased is both an insult to every journalist everywhere, but it's also basically just a convenient way to discredit every single source that does not support your opinion.
Quote from _ »
2. Agreed the pentagon says that the WMDs we have found are not reason enough to go to war, mainly because we backed those WMDs in the Irani-Iraqi war.
No, that's not what the Pentagon said. The Pentagon said that the WMDs whch were found are not the WMDs they were looking for. The Pentagon expected to find WMDs that were recently manufactured and in a usuable state. Basically, they are saying these are not the WMDs Bush was referring to in his speeches.
Quote from _ »
3. The reason we went in to Iraq was to look for WMDs and we had the backing of about half of the UN on this issue, so you cannot fault us for going in there to begin with. Staying in Iraq is what you can argue. The pentagon said it was a bad reason to start a war, but does that make it a bad reason to sustain a war? I am inclined to believe not.
Again, you're not quite accurate. The US did not go into Iraq to look for WMDs, you know, just in case. We went to get rid of Saddam and destroy the WMDs that we knew for a fact were there. The UN supported us because when Bush told them Iraq without a doubt had WMDs, they believed him. If Bush truly had good reason to believe Iraq had WMDs, I would not fault him. But pretty much everyone involved in the matter other than Bush's top people have said there was no solid evidence.
I would also say finding a bunch of unusuable, 20-year-old weapons is an absurd reason to sustain a war. However, getting the job done correctly in Iraq is not a bad reason to sustain the war.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
You do know that Colin Powell who left the Bush administration for distaste of what it was doing made an annoucemount (paraphrase) "Iraq has WMDs and you should be scared, because our missle defense system is down except in D.C. and other major cities including New York"
hey I never said that because the media was liberal that the information they provide should be discredited and should be considered "flawed". Actually I have some proof that the media is liberal and strongly anti-bush and Iraqi war. I personally know about 14 soldiers, 5 of which are back in the U.S. (1 of which is on Stockholm Joy :-p) Who have several pictures of grateful Iraqis and those that like the help of America and their prescense in Iraq. One of those 5 is a negotiator, so he talks directly with the people in Iraq. Show me the last media presentation that shows that Iraq does indeed appreciate America. Actually show me the last media tidbit that doesn't screw America over even more than we already are (viewed by the rest of the world).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
2000+ american lives for a few old can of old nerve gas.
Quote from stanalquin »
.... that was the place in Kurdistan where Saddam used nerve gas to kill thousands (funnily enough, the Iraq government was heavily backed during this time by the USA, including the use of spyplanes so he could best plan his chemical attacks and the very helicopters which were used to deploy the weapons)
i find the need right now to point out that we gave him the gas as well.
Quote from _ »
[B]Okay I'm actually going to address a few points here
1. The media has a heavy liberal bias[/B]
stop you right there and say bull****
Quote from _ »
[B]2. Agreed the pentagon says that the WMDs we have found are not reason enough to go to war, mainly because we backed those WMDs in the Irani-Iraqi war.[/B]
If anything thats us reclaming OUR property we lent to sadam. I guess we are going to have to invade our selfs now.
Quote from _ »
[B] 3. The reason we went in to Iraq was to look for WMDs[/B]
well thats what they told us any how.
Quote from Kraj »
[/b]
To be perfectly honest, I'm sick of this acusation. The media, to use your blanket term, generally tries extremely hard to prevent bias. It's called journalistic integrity. Claiming the media is liberally biased is both an insult to every journalist everywhere, but it's also basically just a convenient way to discredit every single source that does not support your opinion.
[/b]
No, that's not what the Pentagon said. The Pentagon said that the WMDs whch were found are not the WMDs they were looking for. The Pentagon expected to find WMDs that were recently manufactured and in a usuable state. Basically, they are saying these are not the WMDs Bush was referring to in his speeches.
Again, you're not quite accurate. The US did not go into Iraq to look for WMDs, you know, just in case. We went to get rid of Saddam and destroy the WMDs that we knew for a fact were there. The UN supported us because when Bush told them Iraq without a doubt had WMDs, they believed him. If Bush truly had good reason to believe Iraq had WMDs, I would not fault him. But pretty much everyone involved in the matter other than Bush's top people have said there was no solid evidence.
I would also say finding a bunch of unusuable, 20-year-old weapons is an absurd reason to sustain a war. However, getting the job done correctly in Iraq is not a bad reason to sustain the war.
Kraj is a smart cookie.
ATTACHMENTS
rumsfeld_saddam
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Fallen Angel (Anson Maddocks art) Count:449!!!
You do know that Colin Powell who left the Bush administration for distaste of what it was doing made an annoucemount (paraphrase) "Iraq has WMDs and you should be scared, because our missle defense system is down except in D.C. and other major cities including New York"
You might find this interesting. I'm willing to believe Bush had good reason - based on the information he was given - to think Iraq had WMDs. Other things I have read indicated that the intelligence problems were known; in this article Powell says the intelligence problems were known, but not communicated to the higher-ups. That's a believeable explanation. I can accept that.
There are more sides to the story, though, but I don't feel the need to address them at the moment.
Quote from _ »
hey I never said that because the media was liberal that the information they provide should be discredited and should be considered "flawed".
You are correct. I misinterpreted the point you were making. My apologies.
Quote from _ »
Actually I have some proof that the media is liberal and strongly anti-bush and Iraqi war. I personally know about 14 soldiers, 5 of which are back in the U.S. (1 of which is on Stockholm Joy :-p) Who have several pictures of grateful Iraqis and those that like the help of America and their prescense in Iraq. One of those 5 is a negotiator, so he talks directly with the people in Iraq. Show me the last media presentation that shows that Iraq does indeed appreciate America.
To be honest, I haven't seen any story on the opinion of the Iraqi people in quite some time. The majority of the news I see simply a report of the state of affairs: what battles take place, how many soldiers have died recently and (if they are from the area) who they are, what progress is made, etc. To me, that's unbaised reporting.
At the time when the news was reporting on the opinion of Iraqi's, I recall seeing coverage for both opinions. It's not like they didn't show the statue of Saddam being toppled and masses of people celebrating in the streets, right? If they did not also show the Iraqi's who were angry about the US' presence, that would be biased reporting as well, would it not?
Quote from _ »
Actually show me the last media tidbit that doesn't screw America over even more than we already are (viewed by the rest of the world).
I'm not sure how the media could possibly screw America over any more than we already are.
I'm not sure how the media could possibly screw America over any more than we already are.
good point, and you guys have to realize before jumping at my throat that I haven't started arguing anything, I'm pointing out general information for both sides of the argument, I'm playing devil's advocate against myself. I stated in the Topic Post that I probably was going to back out and not argue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
I'm sorry if I came across as jumping down your throat. The "liberal bias in the media" comment irked me, but I didn't realize at the time you were responding to other people's comments about bias.
The other things I responded to were simply areas where I felt the assessment of the situation you communicated was innacurate. I wasn't trying to attack you, but to address issues I had with your assertions. I sincerely apologize if you felt pesonally attacked by my comments.
I will say, though, that regardless of your intentions you did choose to add your own comments, so it's only fair to expect people to respond, right?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
I was in no way offended, gosh it takes more than a liberal/conservative argument to do that to me. Start trying to disprove God, then I'll get defensive *JOKE*
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
I believe even the Bush Administration has removed "Omg, WMDS!" off the justification list for the War.
If they find them, though, then it'll be convenient for them. Remember, they scrapped two other excuses for invading Iraq (WMDs and links to al-Qaeda) before they resorted to liberation. But in their minds I'm sure they still think they're there.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/22/101414.shtml?s=ic
I'm going to start off by saying this, I am strongly conservative however I am doing my best to keep this first post from showing my bias. I'm probably going to drop out of the debate after this, but I was reading Mortal Wombat's thread and it infuriated me, and I had a post typed up and when I went to post it, the thread was locked and I had been invited to make a new thread about this, so I have done so to Furor's delight I'm sure.
The argument pointed out by Sen. Santorum was that WMDs had indeed been found in Iraq, the weapons had been found with traces of Mustard nerve gas and Serin nerve gas, both of which as most of you know, are lethal.
The rebuttal was that the materials [read as toxins] had been deteriorated due to time elapsation, which means that the weapons had not been developed recently and therefore were not the WMDs Bush went into Iraq looking for.
The counter argument and end of the article was that the relevance was not in functional WMDs but that WMDs were present in Iraq period, which now opens the door for other WMDs to be there, which could be fully functional.
Was he BSing us because he's behind 18 points to the Democrat or is this a viable argument?
LOL! That's amazing, considering I *just* mentioned what would happen if someone was to use a conservative leaning (and Newsmax is obviously one of them) blog/news to mention this.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=1181964&postcount=2
It's amazing what qualifies as "spin" and "bias" on this messageboard, it really does - there's been entire threads about the "bias" of FoxNews:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=25631&highlight=Fox+News
Which is why it will NEVER matter if there is inrefutable proof that WMDs were found, used by Saddam, and actively hidden - there will still be people that could never accept it due to the pure hatred they show (and actually, I think that hatred is the lone reason that Conservatives continue to do well in elections. The reason? Because I think people don't respond to hatred and anger nearly as well as "whats in it for them" (even if the Republican party is doing a very bad job right now of delivering on "whats in it for them").
You can't have it both ways. Either Bush lied about Saddam having them (and remember, half the world believed that he had them as well - with the same satellite photos we are now using to be concerned that North Korea evidentally has a weapon capable of reaching as far as Chicago), or he did have them, and Bush was telling the truth, and Saddam had them. If it's on "the basis of a lie" - then you can't say that it's "supposed to be some kind of revelation", because the entire basis of the UN inspections was that Saddam had them and was actively hiding them, and part of the reason we went into Iraq was the non-compliance of those inspections.
Northern Ohio Gamers Forums
http://www.wpxi.com/news/9415763/detail.html
Assuming everything in the article is acurate and not misleading, etc. ...
If Iraq did, indeed, have non-functional WMDs then they did have WMDs. If a weapon is not functional, however, then it is not a threat and Bush's justification for the invasion was that Iraq was a threat because he had WMDs.
I'd also say if the friggin' Pentagon is saying, "These are not the WMDs we were looking for" then it's a pretty good indicator the weapons are not relevant. Santorum is grasping at straws.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Lol! Well put!
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
1. The media has a heavy liberal bias, finding those conservative news broadcasts (Fox) doesn't make them facists, it's called other peoples' opinions. Just because the majority of people agree on an opinion it doesn't make it the correct or "right" one.
"A thousand idiots in agreement, are still just a thousand idiots."
2. Agreed the pentagon says that the WMDs we have found are not reason enough to go to war, mainly because we backed those WMDs in the Irani-Iraqi war.
3. The reason we went in to Iraq was to look for WMDs and we had the backing of about half of the UN on this issue, so you cannot fault us for going in there to begin with. Staying in Iraq is what you can argue.
The pentagon said it was a bad reason to start a war, but does that make it a bad reason to sustain a war? I am inclined to believe not.
To be perfectly honest, I'm sick of this acusation. The media, to use your blanket term, generally tries extremely hard to prevent bias. It's called journalistic integrity. Claiming the media is liberally biased is both an insult to every journalist everywhere, but it's also basically just a convenient way to discredit every single source that does not support your opinion.
No, that's not what the Pentagon said. The Pentagon said that the WMDs whch were found are not the WMDs they were looking for. The Pentagon expected to find WMDs that were recently manufactured and in a usuable state. Basically, they are saying these are not the WMDs Bush was referring to in his speeches.
Again, you're not quite accurate. The US did not go into Iraq to look for WMDs, you know, just in case. We went to get rid of Saddam and destroy the WMDs that we knew for a fact were there. The UN supported us because when Bush told them Iraq without a doubt had WMDs, they believed him. If Bush truly had good reason to believe Iraq had WMDs, I would not fault him. But pretty much everyone involved in the matter other than Bush's top people have said there was no solid evidence.
I would also say finding a bunch of unusuable, 20-year-old weapons is an absurd reason to sustain a war. However, getting the job done correctly in Iraq is not a bad reason to sustain the war.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
hey I never said that because the media was liberal that the information they provide should be discredited and should be considered "flawed". Actually I have some proof that the media is liberal and strongly anti-bush and Iraqi war. I personally know about 14 soldiers, 5 of which are back in the U.S. (1 of which is on Stockholm Joy :-p) Who have several pictures of grateful Iraqis and those that like the help of America and their prescense in Iraq. One of those 5 is a negotiator, so he talks directly with the people in Iraq. Show me the last media presentation that shows that Iraq does indeed appreciate America. Actually show me the last media tidbit that doesn't screw America over even more than we already are (viewed by the rest of the world).
i find the need right now to point out that we gave him the gas as well.
stop you right there and say bull****
If anything thats us reclaming OUR property we lent to sadam. I guess we are going to have to invade our selfs now.
well thats what they told us any how.
Kraj is a smart cookie.
You might find this interesting. I'm willing to believe Bush had good reason - based on the information he was given - to think Iraq had WMDs. Other things I have read indicated that the intelligence problems were known; in this article Powell says the intelligence problems were known, but not communicated to the higher-ups. That's a believeable explanation. I can accept that.
There are more sides to the story, though, but I don't feel the need to address them at the moment.
You are correct. I misinterpreted the point you were making. My apologies.
To be honest, I haven't seen any story on the opinion of the Iraqi people in quite some time. The majority of the news I see simply a report of the state of affairs: what battles take place, how many soldiers have died recently and (if they are from the area) who they are, what progress is made, etc. To me, that's unbaised reporting.
At the time when the news was reporting on the opinion of Iraqi's, I recall seeing coverage for both opinions. It's not like they didn't show the statue of Saddam being toppled and masses of people celebrating in the streets, right? If they did not also show the Iraqi's who were angry about the US' presence, that would be biased reporting as well, would it not?
I'm not sure how the media could possibly screw America over any more than we already are.
Thanks.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
good point, and you guys have to realize before jumping at my throat that I haven't started arguing anything, I'm pointing out general information for both sides of the argument, I'm playing devil's advocate against myself. I stated in the Topic Post that I probably was going to back out and not argue.
The other things I responded to were simply areas where I felt the assessment of the situation you communicated was innacurate. I wasn't trying to attack you, but to address issues I had with your assertions. I sincerely apologize if you felt pesonally attacked by my comments.
I will say, though, that regardless of your intentions you did choose to add your own comments, so it's only fair to expect people to respond, right?
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
What others say about me:
Sven Dostei
Unofficial Official arrogant teenage elitist of The Ivory Tower
If they find them, though, then it'll be convenient for them. Remember, they scrapped two other excuses for invading Iraq (WMDs and links to al-Qaeda) before they resorted to liberation. But in their minds I'm sure they still think they're there.