You can't possibly believe there were WMD's in Iraq

[Mameotron]

There is his claim that if the "remaining" in:
    "produced" - "witnessed" = "remaining"
is not zero that that proofs that WMD were still in Iraq in 1998. One may assume "witnessed" is correct, but there is no way of knowing that the figures for "produced" are correct. The records in Iraq weren't really that accurate anyway.

However, the function is actually:
    "produced" - "witnessed" - "destroyed" - "used" - "boasting" = "remaining"
Since there is no way to KNOW "destroyed", "used" or "boasting" there is also no way to "KNOW" the value of "remaining".

Using your own infallable logic, you have shown us that there is no way to prove that there ARE or ARE NOT any WMDs in Iraq.

This contradicts your statement:

Apparently some inspecters KNEW there were no WMD:

You said it yourself.  No way to know the value of remaining.  That obviously does not mean there are none.

[patrickl]

There is his claim that if the "remaining" in:
    "produced" - "witnessed" = "remaining"
is not zero that that proofs that WMD were still in Iraq in 1998. One may assume "witnessed" is correct, but there is no way of knowing that the figures for "produced" are correct. The records in Iraq weren't really that accurate anyway.

However, the function is actually:
    "produced" - "witnessed" - "destroyed" - "used" - "boasting" = "remaining"
Since there is no way to KNOW "destroyed", "used" or "boasting" there is also no way to "KNOW" the value of "remaining".

Using your own infallable logic, you have shown us that there is no way to prove that there ARE or ARE NOT any WMDs in Iraq.

I didn't say that exactly. You can proof quite easily that there are WMD in Iraq (find a WMD). It's just that you can't proof it from the assumption that once they might (even that is unsure) have been there and you didn't see them destroyed personally. There is indeed no way to proof that there are NO WMD.

This contradicts your statement:

Apparently some inspecters KNEW there were no WMD:

You said it yourself.  No way to know the value of remaining.  That obviously does not mean there are none.

The second statement is indeed an inaccurate report of the statements made by the inspecters and such. What they really said is in the quotes. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Mameotron]

Patrick, I didn't expect you to agree with me.  You even went so far as to change your post to make your position more clear.  My hat's off to you- it's rare to see that kind of behavior in these threads.

And, although it was completely overlooked by everyone, I am glad that you realize the importance of working out the situation in Isreal in relation to the whole Iraq situation.

[patrickl]

Patrick, I didn't expect you to agree with me.  You even went so far as to change your post to make your position more clear.  My hat's off to you- it's rare to see that kind of behavior in these threads.

And, although it was completely overlooked by everyone, I am glad that you realize the importance of working out the situation in Isreal in relation to the whole Iraq situation.

Glad you approve. I'm really in this from a mathematical (logic) point of view. I'm sad that people with politcal views seem fit to change the laws of logic to suit their own needs.

There was an item on dutch television yesterday that claimed that americans (as in people from the USA) tend to watch comedians for reliable information on the political debate because they don't trust the reporters anymore. I assumed that was a bit of an exaggeration, but when I see sites like that RushLimbaugh site (and I assume the opposition will have similar sites) I can imagine why people lose faith in "reporters".

If more americans would realize the seriousness of the Israeli situation, maybe it could get worked out somehow. That would take away so much hatred towards the USA (and thus reduce terrorism). I haven't a clue how that can be fixed though. Basically two peoples with only one space to live in and they won't live together. Our (dutch) solution would be to create new land in the sea, but I doubt either party would accept that    Maybe this wall will bring stability when the dust is settled down, but I'm not so sure about it.

Off topic, but for us dutchies it's actually pretty hard to see the difference between Kerry and Bush. Of course we can see the differences in mental capabilities between these candidates, but they are both so far right (relative to our politicians) that they would both be classed as extremist rightwing politicians.

[fredster]

Patrickl,

You are not an American. You have no idea where we stand.  I am not from New Zeland either, so I don't comment on what they do there.  Simple as that.

We know Saddam didn't have any by the time we got there.  We didn't know that beforehand.  Most of the world believed it.

and as for this

but they are both so far right (relative to our politicians) that they would both be classed as extremist rightwing politicians.

If you think kerry is right wing I just shutter.

[TA Pilot]

And think - all this lovely rhetoric.  All a lie.


"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons...

...The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War...

...The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties...

...Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future....

...But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace"

-- President George W. Bush

[patrickl]

Patrickl,

You are not an American. You have no idea where we stand.  I am not from New Zeland either, so I don't comment on what they do there.  Simple as that.

We know Saddam didn't have any by the time we got there.  We didn't know that beforehand.  Most of the world believed it.

The point is that TA Pilot keeps harassing the threads with his claim  that the inspectors KNEW there were WMD at the end of 1998. I have clearly shown this statement to be false both logically (you can't proof guilt by claiming there is no proof for innocence) and factually (I found statements of all the head inspectors of that time that they did NOT know for sure that there were WMD in Iraq)

What does this have to do with being an american or from New Zealand or from the Netherlands? Of course you can debate about how much certainty you put on the assumption that there might have been WMD (or indeed still are), or where they went if they did exist, or that you take a look at what Hans Blix found when he was told to get the WMD that Rumsfeld knew were there (but found nothing), or you can say he might have picked up the arms factoring again. Indeed one could.

A whole other discussion would be that the IAEA is complaining that the US is now effectively blocking their inspections of the nuclear facilities and that they have witnessed that said nuclear facilities are actually disappearing without authorization (i.e. someone is stealing the nuclear facilities). I don't care too much for that type of discussion though. I do care if people purposefully twist the truth.

[TA Pilot]

The point is that TA Pilot keeps harassing the threads with his claim  that the inspectors KNEW there were WMD at the end of 1998.

I'm sorry.

I dont recall seeing where you explained where the weapons are.

Iraq reported X number of weapons.

UNSCOM accounted for X-Y weapons.

Where are Y number of weapons?

[patrickl]

And think - all this lovely rhetoric.  All a lie.

<blablabla>

-- President George W. Bush

Actually, that speech at no point states that WMD's are in Iraq. That's just my point and that's also why I found so much support for my defense on DrewKaree's site. It's a fact acknowledged by all people with some knowledge in the matter that there was no proof that WMD's really were there for sure. Both left and right. Just assumptions that there might be or an assumption that there would be a WMD program in the future.

If you are looking for lies then you better check your own statement. Or maybe the statements of Rumsfeld (the only person I could find claims of that he KNEW the locations of the WMD).

[patrickl]

The point is that TA Pilot keeps harassing the threads with his claim  that the inspectors KNEW there were WMD at the end of 1998.

I'm sorry.

I dont recall seeing where you explained where the weapons are.

Iraq reported X number of weapons.

UNSCOM accounted for X-Y weapons.

Where are Y number of weapons?

I did explain. It might be a bit too complicated for you to grasp, but try reading it again

[Grasshopper]

The point is that TA Pilot keeps harassing the threads with his claim  that the inspectors KNEW there were WMD at the end of 1998.

I'm sorry.

I dont recall seeing where you explained where the weapons are.

Iraq reported X number of weapons.

UNSCOM accounted for X-Y weapons.

Where are Y number of weapons?

T A Pilot, I think you're confusing having the last word with winning the argument.

With respect, I really don't see how patrickl can make his position any clearer.

As you've repeatedly ignored all the points he's made, I believe you have now lost the argument.

Time to move on.

[TA Pilot]

I did explain.

Oh, I saw your explanation.
But it doesnt asnwer my question.

See, rather than accept what was reported by UNSCOM, you make two assumtipns:

"One may assume "witnessed" is correct, but there is no way of knowing that the figures for "produced" are correct. The records in Iraq weren't really that accurate anyway."

You assume that the produced numbers are less than what was reported.  If there were really fewer numbers than reported, this would neatly explain the difference between the reported and observed quantities.

-Why do you assume that the actual production numbers are less than reported?
-Why do you assume that the acutal production numbers are not equal to - or even  MORE than reported?

As you said - "there is no way of knowing that the figures for "produced" are correct."  If thats true, then why do you assume that the actual number was less, and not more, than reported?

Unless you can support your assumptions, you'll have to account for the difference between the produced and the accounted for.

Where are they?



"Since there is no way to KNOW "destroyed", "used" or "boasting" there is also no way to "KNOW" the value of "remaining"."

This is the second assumption, related to above.  Rather than accept the reported number. you assume that Iraq decided to "boast" about its weapons quanities, in order to make itself look tougher than it is.

But - it makes no sense for Iraq to do this, given the situation.

Think about this for just a minutte:
-I'm under investigation for having illegal weapons
-I report that I had a quantity greater than what I actually had.
-The investigators find a quantity of weapons smaller than I reported (which they would, necessarily).

The investigators will think...   I no longer have any weapons?
Why?

So, unless you can support your assumtions, they arent valid - and then neither is the argument based upon them.

Show that Iraq exaggerated its claims.
Show that the Iraqi weapons claims arent accurate.

If you cant do that, then explain the disposition of the difference in numbers between the numbers produced and the numbers accounted for.

[DrewKaree]

Ok so now you are wasting my time too. Your reply is not based on the original statement. So in fact your reply is of no use, but I'll help you explain a bit further.

Oh thank GOD!  I was hoping to hear more of your 'splanation.

Sorry to waste your time.

Is it hard to find hats?  

[Crazy Cooter]

I've got it:

Think about this for just a minute:
-I'm under investigation for having 2 spidermen in my pocket
-I report that I had a quantity greater than what I actually had.
-The investigators find a quantity of spidermen smaller than I reported (which they would, necessarily).

The investigators will think...  I no longer have any spidermen?
Why?

Show that I exaggerated my claims.
Show that my spidermen claims aren't accurate.

If you can't do that, then explain the disposition of the difference in numbers between the numbers produced and the numbers accounted for.  

[Mameotron]

If more americans would realize the seriousness of the Israeli situation, maybe it could get worked out somehow. That would take away so much hatred towards the USA (and thus reduce terrorism). I haven't a clue how that can be fixed though. Basically two peoples with only one space to live in and they won't live together. Our (dutch) solution would be to create new land in the sea, but I doubt either party would accept that    Maybe this wall will bring stability when the dust is settled down, but I'm not so sure about it.

You are so right.  I wonder how many of us Americans realize that, although the Palestenians hate the Jews for obvious reasons, they hate Americans almost as much because they honestly believe we are supplying all the money & weapons to Isreal to fight against them.
An attack on the World Trade Center certainly was an attack on the US financial companies.  And I understand the significance that September 11 happened to be the day before the Jewish new year.  Probably the fact that more people would be at work on Tuesday overruled the decision to attack on Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year).
As you said, I can't think of any solution to how 2 countries can live in the same place they both consider holy and God-given.

[patrickl]

I did explain.

Oh, I saw your explanation.
But it doesnt asnwer my question.

Even if you are only looking for the opinion pieces, did you miss the part where:
- the inspectors themselves said the reports weren't 100% accurate?
- the report claims on several occasions that the number accounted for is actually higher than the number declared? The report itself proofs it's not usable to exactly calculate the number of remaining WMD.

Kinda lame that you try to defend your statement by objecting to only some of the assumptions, while the rest of my explanation easily disproves your statement. Leave the assumptions you object to out and the explanation still stands. I probably should have left them out myself, but I just wanted to show there were enough uncertainties in the figures itself to disallow the 100% certainty that you seem to find in the subtraction of these figures.

If you want an opinion; I guess you have no case so you take some of the assumptions out of context and think you can win a discussion that way. Is that the "new" style of politics ... don't go for the truth but give an opinion on part of an opinion and hope that impresses people (or bores the opponent) enough to actually win an argument against the truth? Really sad.

The main thing still is that the fact that you can't prove you destroyed something (or never had it in the first place) doesn't proof you have it now. That the report is stated to be flawed/incomplete (by the inspectors) is merely an extra bonus, but not essential.

ps Since I opened this can of worms myself let me explain the boasting. The inspectors said (I read this in several interviews) that Saddam probably boasted the numbers of WMD to frighten his neighbors (before 1991). I'm not making this up, the inspectors gave this as one (of several) explanation(s) for the difference remaining.

[fredster]

Hi Danny, Glad to see you are awake.

people overseas KNOW that 10% of you are FILTHY rich, and 90% of you are working class.

Then why do people think we are all rich?  Isn't that pretty much the way it is in most developed countries?  Is there something wrong with being rich?

patrickl may not know what goes on in NZ either seeings how he is from holland...

I thought about it, and I really didn't know that.  I am now exploring why I should care then why anybody outside of the US should worry about it.

raped children and shot people on the street? are you for real? do you really believe that? i suppose they kill their granmas and make mince pies out of them too?

Yes, Danny.  His sons and he specialized in that type of terror.  Google it.  It's in the news all over what these people did.  I mean, do you disagree with that? Do you also think there was no holocaust?  
Some guys made a DVD of it, I believe it's called the "deception of america"  

you will probably find missiles in Israel that could hit france, what you gonna do about it?

That shows where you are comming from.  To put Saddam and Iraq on the same moral plane with Israel, a democratic country show's your fundamental misunderstanding of the issues we face.

It's like the same argument you came out with Gitmo.  At least 7 of the 200 released so far have went back their terrorists ways.  6 of them were killed in acts of terror by the US forces.  We have to be really careful who we release.

I don't believe nationmaster or any one source for anything.  It's mearly a site with some useful stats relavant to some international discussions.

I don't speak without having some facts behind what I say.  I don't make my opinions based on gut reactions.  Opinions and facts merge together in some thinking, but I like to see the facts, all the facts.  Good ones and bad ones.  

Hey, I used to be on the democratic side.  But over the years I have seen elements of the dems make no sense.  I see the same thing on the Republican side.

I don't like to comment on other countrys politics.  I don't see where it's my business.  I don't understand why people in Holland or Australia or the UK want to comment on our internal politics.  Even International politics and issues are decided from within.  

The US wants to make the world a democracy.  We want to protect our people from the fear of terrorists.  We want to insure the people of the US are protected. We feel what we have done is just and legal and with proper goals and outcomes.  Some people don't agree.

If collectively in the US we don't agree with a policy, we vote against those who vote for it.  Do the same thing in your country internally.  Whomever win have the right to drive policy until the next election.  That's how democracy works.

I don't understand your politics and you can't understand mine.  Sorry. To believe you can understand the dynamics of US policy and politics based on a 1/2 TV show (or our 1/2 tv show about yours) is silly.  At best you get a superficial view of the issues.  If you believe you can, then watch a video on how to be a brain surgeon and put up a sign.  

[DrewKaree]

1) you will probably find missiles in Israel that could hit france, what you gonna do about it?

Let them.  But someone, please, for the love of Pete, SAVE THE CROISSANTS!

granmas and make mince pies out of them too?

*homer simpson voice* mmmmm Grandma's mincemeat pies....droooool

you don't think that australia or the UK can buy oil from elsewhere too?

they won't take boomerangs for payment, and the British can get by with solar power, what with all the good weather over there

patrickl may not know what goes on in NZ either seeings how he is from holland...

I thought just Brits and Aussies were full of themselves

people overseas KNOW that 10% of you are FILTHY rich, and 90% of you are working class...

I AM filthy, but not rich.  I AM working, but I have no class.  Your definitions are sorely lacking, and I resent the implication.  Good day, sir

That's ONE discrepancy i could see. there must be others too...

that means the whole site is shite.  I know, because patrick toleded me so.

[Crazy Cooter]

No tolededing will be tolerated.

-couldn't resist.

"I am now exploring why I should care then why anybody outside of the US should worry about it....I don't like to comment on other countrys politics.  I don't see where it's my business.  I don't understand why people in Holland or Australia or the UK want to comment on our internal politics.  Even International politics and issues are decided from within..."
then later: "The US wants to make the world a democracy."

Now, let's pretend we're China for a change of flavor (flavour for those of us without "real" english )
[in chinese...] I am now exploring why I should care then why anybody outside of China should worry about it....I don't like to comment on other countrys politics.  I don't see where it's my business.  I don't understand why people in Holland or Australia or the UK (or the US) want to comment on our internal politics.  Even International politics and issues are decided from within... China wants to make the world communist.

So is wanting the world to be democratic anymore "right" than wanting the world to be communist?  Thoeocratic (sp)?  You couldn't base an arguement on freedom because that hinges on internal politics.  By saying the US wants the world to be democratic, it says the current internal politics of any Nation not democratic is insufficient.  So you actually "comment" quite loudly on other countries internal politics.

You further my point when you say:
"To put Saddam and Iraq on the same moral plane with Israel, a democratic country"
That says the morals of democracy are "better" than theocracy.  Now let me make it clear: I agree they are not on the same moral plane, but it's not because Israel is democratic.  After all, look at Hitlers rise to power.

[patrickl]

4) Patrickl, are you an American? What do you know of America? That we liked the Lord of the Rings trilogy? You have a very skewed view of Americans and what we stand for.  I don't know what goes on in New Zealand, probably I will never go there.  

As Danny_Galaga pointed out I'm from Holland, but all in all I have spend many months in the US in four different states (mostly in California though). My dad lived there for years and my wife lived in Michigan for a year. She also works for an american company so I meet lots of americans that way too. Actually that's how I gained most of my insights about the differences. When americans come live in the Netherlands they quickly realize what freedoms (can you actually have that word in plural form?) they missed back home, but they are all scared of our speeds limits (and even more about the speeds we actually travel at).

Anyway, I don't see what me knowing the US or not has anything to do with the subject of this thread. Is this about the censorship or freedoms thing? I know a nice tale about that. I was in Palm Beach (or Fort Lauderdale but it doesn't matter) laying on the beach and suddenly some police officers came walking on the beach. They came for a lady wearing a thong (we call that a "string" btw) Apparently that was not allowed and she had to put on extra clothes! I guess here biggest crime was that she looked good.

Oh now you got me started, I thought of another one. During my stay in California I also went to a beach  and there were actually riots. I didn't understand (or care about) what was going on at the time (kinda scared of getting shot to be honest), but later on the news they explained that some ladies decided to lay on the beach naked. The police tried to arrest them and the other beach dwellers attacked the police.

I'm still wondering where you see that I have a skewed view on americans. I have to admit I came mostly in touch with well educated americans, but that shouldn't be much of a problem.

[patrickl]

1)

That's ONE discrepancy i could see. there must be others too...

that means the whole site is shite.  I know, because patrick toleded me so.

HO YEAH BABY! One error and you're outta here! Oh no wait, it just means you can't use the information to claim that you are 100% sure about something (i.e. no betting of whole live savings on facts being true).

[DrewKaree]

HO YEAH BABY! One error and you're outta here! Oh no wait, it just means you can't use the information to claim that you are 100% sure about something (i.e. no betting of whole live savings on facts being true).

Yet we were told there were no WMD's and we've got to believe those reports.  Except enough intelligence agencies had reports stating the contrary.  I'll have to continue to believe they have WMD's, since I'm not 100% sure they DON'T.

Sure, it means I'll have all my life to continue to claim they have WMD's, because they haven't found them yet, but until you can prove a negative, I'll be right (like Cooter says, "at least in my mind")

[Mameotron]

If you'll allow me to go off topic for a moment, I'd like to share parts of an e-mail from a relative in the U. S. Marine Corps who is currently in Iraq.  These are his opinions on how the war is going.


Can't really say we need anything specific, but a few suggestions would be: Candy, Snack Food (especially Trail Mix for energy), Foot Powder, and Baby Wipes. Baby Wipes are the Dalai Lama here in the combat zone, since we get the highly rated shower at least once every two weeks or so, whether we need it or not.
> The travel sizes are best since we can just put them right into our
packs,
> and they don't take up too much space or weight. Doesn't sound like
much,
> but every little bit makes a difference when you are carrying your
whole
> life on your back, along with the other 100 pounds of gear (helmet,
flak
> jacket, SAPI plates, weapons, ammo, water, maps, radios, knives,
bayonets,
> night vision gear). Would not recommend tapes, cd's, etc being sent.
> Paperback books and magazines are good also. Gatorade packages and the
> small Crystal Light packages work well also.

>Morale remains very high. This is a stressful situation, to say the  
>least, but most of these guys are thriving in the environment, due to the fact that it is they type of challenge they have been looking forward to and training for. The enemy is giving them lots of chances. If you are watching or listening to the news, you can understand. Seems like they're getting very desperate and scared as the elections approach, both ours and the ones scheduled here in Iraq. We have a lot of locals coming to us every day, supplying information on the bad guys, because they don't want the idiots in their neighborhoods, around their families.

>Operations tempo remains very high. Always on the move when we are outside the wire, in order to reduce the targeting against us, and keep the enemy off balance. Works like a charm for the most part, they can't respond or react quick enough, other than die most of the time. We truly do own the night. The night scares the living hell out of the bad guys, because they can't see or hear us coming. Our Scout Sniper Teams have struck fear in our entire Area of Operations (AO), which is now bigger than the state of Rhode Island. The US Army used to cover this same area with 4 Mechanized Battalions, which we are now doing with 1 Infantry Battalion. Has freed up freedom of movement and operational tactics for us. We are outnumbered as all hell, but we can basically shoot in any direction, so that makes it easy.
> Still think we are going to have to deal with Iran and Syria in the
> near future, since that's where far too many of these idiots are
> coming
from.
One step at a time.

[patrickl]

HO YEAH BABY! One error and you're outta here! Oh no wait, it just means you can't use the information to claim that you are 100% sure about something (i.e. no betting of whole live savings on facts being true).

Yet we were told there were no WMD's and we've got to believe those reports.  Except enough intelligence agencies had reports stating the contrary.  

Can you really show us an intelligence report that states that there were WMD in Iraq (after 1998) for sure? Cause I read a lot of reports finding the quotes and not one report or interview actually stated that they were sure there were WMD (and for that matter none that stated there weren't either). Only that there might be a chance that there would be some (or that they might be produced in the future). These intelligence reports always seem to have a backdoor for covering peoples asses. They are not hard facts and they don't want to be accounted for when they get it wrong.

Of course when you read the headlines you can get the wrong impressing because the reporters making the headlines don't write "Inspector says: WMD might be in Iraq", but they go for "Inspector says: WMD in Iraq" (in which the latter of course is not an exact abbreviation of the story)

I'll have to continue to believe they have WMD's, since I'm not 100% sure they DON'T.

Sure, it means I'll have all my life to continue to claim they have WMD's, because they haven't found them yet, but until you can prove a negative, I'll be right (like Cooter says, "at least in my mind")

That's a perfectly valid statement. In fact, I myself belief there is a chance that WMD will still be found or that there will be evidence that they were moved to Syria (or something)

[patrickl]

If you'll allow me to go off topic for a moment, I'd like to share parts of an e-mail from a relative in the U. S. Marine Corps who is currently in Iraq.  These are his opinions on how the war is going.

The son of my wife's brother is also in Iraq. He writes similar reports home.

He was on patrol duty for the last month and he finds it really odd to go have tea with the Iraqi's. You never know who is the idiot, but still you have to go out and be friendly with the people to gain their trust so they will tell on the bad ones (at least that is the dutch approach in these situations). Must be a very weird situation to be in, but he is happy that he can help these poor people get their life back on the road.

[DrewKaree]

Can you really show us an intelligence report that states that there were WMD in Iraq (after 1998) for sure? Cause I read a lot of reports finding the quotes and not one report or interview actually stated that they were sure there were WMD (and for that matter none that stated there weren't either). Only that there might be a chance that there would be some (or that they might be produced in the future). These intelligence reports always seem to have a backdoor for covering peoples asses. They are not hard facts and they don't want to be accounted for when they get it wrong.

It usually has to be declassified, or portions of them have to be declassified, so I'll just assume that since people can see parts of them, that they do exist, and that what they say is how decisions are made, based on whether the reports and what might happen...I mean, sure, they supposedly had WMD's in Russia too, but who am I to believe reports that may not actually exist or photos that could have been doctored

I'll have to continue to believe they have WMD's, since I'm not 100% sure they DON'T.

Sure, it means I'll have all my life to continue to claim they have WMD's, because they haven't found them yet, but until you can prove a negative, I'll be right (like Cooter says, "at least in my mind")

That's a perfectly valid statement. In fact, I myself belief there is a chance that WMD will still be found or that there will be evidence that they were moved to Syria (or something)

You're flat out amazing!  Disproving a negative....a perfectly valid statement!  

Oh, and without the   smiley, they'll think you agree with me that the weapons were moved or something.  And I was called a crackpot who believes in conspiracy theories for saying that.  Go back and add the   to cover your arse...it'll be better that way

[DrewKaree]

What do you get on social security in the US? not much right?

every person I know on Social Security makes, at MINIMUM, half of what I make for the month.  

And at that rate, I hold no hopes whatsoever that I will get a dime from Social Security.  There have been studies that show the amount that each person has paid into Social Security is paid back to them within the first two years of them getting on the program.

That's why it's the "third rail" of politics.

Oh, and I'm still filthy, but far from rich.

we are currently haggling with east timor over gas rights

Why didn't you guys just ask me?  Just pay for postage and give me a stipend of $200/month for Mexican food, and I'll bottle and send you guys all the gas I can produce.

Terrorists will want to attack you for helping the U.S.  They don't attack you for negotiating gas prices.  

[DrewKaree]

and i'm not referring to the unfortunate side-effects of your mexican food plan (insert smiley face here)  

I figured politics = a person full of crap, so your gas plan HAD to be DrewKaree eating Mexican = Gas Plan solution.

[DrewKaree]

hey, don't american cars run on gas? that's why there are so many fat people there, so they can run their cars. it's a catch 22 of course, fat people need big cars, which need more gas, which need fatter people to power them  

actually, I've found a "magic potion" to make a more "productive" refinery.  Have some frijoles with a glass of (take your pick they both work equally well) Foster's or Guinness.  Pabst works great if you need production at the other end of the "factory".

It's like using premium in your car instead of regular

 

[DrewKaree]

oh, i noticed you used the word 'arse' earlier. goodonya mate  

I figured it would help you if I sprinkled a little "colour" into the conversation.  And to give you an Americanized reply for "goodonya", righbackatcha, bub!

So lemme get this straight.  Australia isn't buying the gas from them, they're poking a hole in the ground on their side of the line, which happens to go into the large underground supertanker holding the gas?  Is this in the water, requiring a derrick of some sort, or what....'splain the thing a bit better, as I read "maritime border" to mean it's out in the ocean.

Course, you guys are surrounded by ocean...must be why yer all wet!  

Hey, could this be (insert shameless plug for other thread I started) "semantics"?

[patrickl]

I mean, sure, they supposedly had WMD's in Russia too, but who am I to believe reports that may not actually exist or photos that could have been doctored

Of course they have WMD in russia. There are plenty in the USA. What's your point?

I'll have to continue to believe they have WMD's, since I'm not 100% sure they DON'T.

Sure, it means I'll have all my life to continue to claim they have WMD's, because they haven't found them yet, but until you can prove a negative, I'll be right (like Cooter says, "at least in my mind")

That's a perfectly valid statement. In fact, I myself belief there is a chance that WMD will still be found or that there will be evidence that they were moved to Syria (or something)

You're flat out amazing!  Disproving a negative....a perfectly valid statement!  

Oh, and without the smiley, they'll think you agree with me that the weapons were moved or something.  And I was called a crackpot who believes in conspiracy theories for saying that.  Go back and add the   to cover your arse...it'll be better that way

I don't need to cover my  ass. I never claimed to knew absolute truth. I'm only complaining that TAP is not covering his ass.

The january 1999 report does not proof WMD's exist, but it also doesn't proof they were not there. However, it might support the notion that there was still a chance that there might be some WMD left. So since they cannot be found now either:
A) they weren't there to begin with (zero left at the end of 1998)
B) they were destroyed between 1998 and 2003
C) they were moved out of Iraq (for example, taken away by the terrorists that flocked to Iraq)
D) they just have not been found yet

Personally I think A and B are most likely and C and D are getting less likely every day (and every million the US spent trying to find them before the elections are over) Since there is still a chance C or D will be true, you won't see me write they are not true.

I guess the issue where we actually differ in opinion is if the remote chance that someone might have WMD is actually a reason to go to war. Especially after the "proof" your intelligence agency gave was so obviously shown to be flawed (Hans Blixx could find nothing at the sites where the CIA claimed the WMD might be found)

[Mameotron]

hey, don't american cars run on gas? that's why there are so many fat people there, so they can run their cars. it's a catch 22 of course, fat people need big cars, which need more gas, which need fatter people to power them  

Well, here we have a solution!  Drew CAN power his car, generator, local electric company, with gas!
http://mitglied.lycos.de/cturare/lit.htm

[fredster]

Danny,

What do you do for a living? Pick up change in parking lots or what?  Professional vegrant?

You have to fuel your economy unless you want to live in a grass hut.

[DrewKaree]

a picture. the venn diagram looking part are the maritime borders...

Ummm...whut?    

Did you forget to post that picture?  I don't see anything.

[danny_galaga]

a picture. the venn diagram looking part are the maritime borders...

Ummm...whut?    

Did you forget to post that picture?  I don't see anything.

what are you on about drew? you need new glasses  

[danny_galaga]

Danny,

What do you do for a living? Pick up change in parking lots or what?  Professional vegrant?

You have to fuel your economy unless you want to live in a grass hut.

hey didn't you say somewhere else that YOU used to pick up change in parking lots? if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me...

[GGKoul]

I heard the best reason why the US knew there was WMD in IRAQ.  Because the US has the receipts.

[fredster]

Iraq was a risk to the world.

The evidence is/was clear. Get over you peaceniks.  Move over and let the US save the world.  You can build us a statue later.

Here's some more evidence for those fact challenged liberals of the world:

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

[patrickl]

I guess one statistic says it all.


                        Americans Killed
Before Gulf II               36
After Gulf II               1000

From these two numbers it's really easy to see how the terrorism has dropped dramatically ... ehm no ... wait ... that can't be right  .....  uhhhhhm .... Hey that looks like it's risen

[Dartful Dodger]

I guess one statistic says it all.


                        Americans Killed
Before Gulf II               36
After Gulf II               1000

From these two numbers it's really easy to see how the terrorism has dropped dramatically ... ehm no ... wait ... that can't be right  .....  uhhhhhm .... Hey that looks like it's risen

You're forgetting the 3000+ Americans that were killed in the world trade center.

Don't worry, the majority of us that will be voting to keep Bush in, haven't forgotten.