Optional

Um... About those buried labs...

Well, haha, you'll never believe this, but as it turns out, the news was just a tad, erm, well, mistaken about that.

AGAIN.

Also interesting... A whole big article on CNN when they were told about the 'buried labs'... Yet to find news that they were not, in fact, buried labs, you have to go about midway down this page to find the following:

So the bongs turn out to be cigarette holders....

-me

Zar

Optional,

Well, that appears to put the kabosh on that, then...

I love the teeny-tiny space devoted to it in the middle there. Way to go, CNN.

Mr. Superbad

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.30A.byrd.wmd.htm

Kosh

I stand corrected. At least for now.

It was interesting though to see what extent the "peaceniks" here will go to justify their stance. Even when the report was that they were buried chemical labs, there was still denial about WMD.

I have admitted when I'm wrong. Will you when the time comes?

Cap'n Jack

Considering the US and UK sold the nerve and chemical agents, plus the equipment to maufacture such agents, then I guess there is a fairly good chance that Iraq has had them. Although quite why Saddams Regime were less than forthcoming on their dissarmament of such weapons, is beyond me, surely doing what was asked of them would have made it extremely difficult for the US/UK millitary action to take place.

Loren Pechtel

Take a truck, pour sand over it. You've got a buried, mobile object.

Loren Pechtel

He wouldn't use them until he could use them successfully. Using them on our troops wouldn't gain him anything.

Some years down the road, putting them in our cities and saying that he'll detonate if we interfere with his plans, though...

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Kosh
Really? Care to cite any evidence for that claim?

They keep harping on the fact that Iraq bought biological agents from us back in the 80's. It was stupidity, not intentionally supplying him with weapons. (Back then the only real check was to see that the purchaser was equipped to handle the materials.)

Saying that past weapons were destroyed does not automatically mean that no new weapons have been built. You do see that, don't you?

We *KNOW* he was rebuilding. Those missiles destroyed just before the balloon went up. The inspectors ordered the castings destroyed years ago.

Zar

As you can see another report turned out to be false for the umpteenth time. Don't blame the "peaceniks" for your frustrations. The doubts people have are from being informed, and seeing false alarm after false alarm exposed. I for one didn't initially doubt this one much because I had no reason to yet other than being gun shy from the other failures to find WMD. But then, whether chem weapons are found or not, there is also a philosophic and contextual debate about WMDs that throws into releif just how little they may really matter apart from a pretext to take over a central Middle Eastern nation to secure America's predominance. But that's another story covered ad nauseum elsewhere. So it isn't so cut and dried as this.

But if you assent to all that stuff about the New American Century and so forth, how the heck do you think global dominance is accomplished? Just by talking about it and snapping your fingers? You gotta break some eggs to make an omelet. Iraq was one of the eggs. It was going to happen for one reason or another. As we can see it didn't happen for any discernable reason we could find BEFORE the invasion, or even DURING it, which is already a big problem.

What is really fascinating is how some pro-war people continue to fight tooth and nail to say there IS a justification for this war where there isn't one or where it is paper thin. If you are "pro-war" qua war, then why do you need to cling to the same ideals that the "peaceniks" do by constantly warping all logic to belatedly show the "peaceniks" how their goals and demands for evidence, etc., are actually being met? If "peacenik" concerns like "evidence" are of no value, then why engage in this ridiculous charade?

Could it be that for you, these things are merely hurdles to get over on the way to your next mass killing while for "peaceniks" they are absolute requirements? Is that it? Why not simply say wars should be fought for the glory of Washington, D.C., and that the heads of the vanquished should be brought back and put on pikes in front of the White House to increase the grandeur of emperor Bush the First?

Or, could it be that you also sense the need to justify your actions? If so, then we share a point of human contact that has some vague hope of being constructive, regardless of the outcome. If not, then we are bitter enemies to the very end.

Hayden

Small point:

When putting things in the desert, burying them is only sensible as it protects them from sandstorms, and they're relatively easy to retrieve.

Why they needed to be in the desert is another question.

HR