Is anyone else surprised WOMD's werent planeted in iraq?

Vesayen · December 10, 2003, 18:48

I figured even if we didnt find any, the goverment would of planted them to ensure the war was legitimate.....

The diplomat · December 10, 2003, 18:50

Why would they be planted? Iraq had WMDs. You don't need to plant something that is already there.

rah · December 10, 2003, 18:53

At first, I thought that would be the obvious answer to the problem. But after some more thought, why bother.
A majority of Americans don't really seem to care that nothings been found. The DieHards know we will find something eventually.

But if you got caught, people would care.

Ming · December 10, 2003, 19:14

Good point rah... getting caught would hurt the administration.

As you say, the diehard repubs expect us to still find them...

Many people don't care...

And the hard core left will be convinced the US planted them even if they are found.

So why bother... nothing to gain, and lots to lose.

SlowwHand · December 10, 2003, 19:45

Whatta ya know. The Twin Terrors make good points.

Q Classic · December 10, 2003, 20:58

they won't be planted for the simple reason that we don't want our womd there at all. god forbid something goes wrong and we lose track of them...

DeathByTheSword · December 10, 2003, 21:03

ok...can someone...US citizens prefered...explain to me why you all dont care about not finding any WMD or that the US didnt have any reason to take over Iraq?
(that is just my opinion ofcourse

)

(i really cant believe there is such a difference between US and EU so please try to explain it to me)

Kidicious · December 10, 2003, 21:04

Quote:

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
ok...can someone...US citizens prefered...explain to me why you all dont care about not finding any WMD or that the US didnt have any reason to take over Iraq?
(that is just my opinion ofcourse

)

(i really cant believe there is such a difference between US and EU so please try to explain it to me)

We do of course. These people don't represent the US public.

Bereta_Eder · December 10, 2003, 21:07

Americans wouldn't care.

Europeans wouldn't believe it.

Maybe.

Generalizing wildly.

orange · December 10, 2003, 21:32

I don't believe that we would plant WMDs in Iraq...but I also don't believe that any will be found...and even if they are found it won't justify the war.

St Leo · December 10, 2003, 21:35

I'm surprised.

...and even if they are found it won't justify the war.

Yes, but if they are found, the Bush Administration would look like mere idiots rather than incompetent delusional idiots.

DanS · December 10, 2003, 21:52

Quote:

explain to me why you all dont care about not finding any WMD or that the US didnt have any reason to take over Iraq

I don't know why everybody else doesn't care, but they don't seem to. I don't care because, strictly speaking, WMD wasn't what the reason that I supported the invasion. In my view, taking down Saddam was unfinished business and we were still fighting Gulf War I.

Ned · December 10, 2003, 21:53

The conspiracy theorists of the left never cease to amaze me in the intricacies of their paranoia.

DeathByTheSword · December 10, 2003, 21:55

ok then what is the MAIN reason US citizens think it was right to take over Iraq (

see i didnt even use invade or attack...oh wait i did now...well that is again just my opinion...)

but on a more serious note...i havent met a american lately..except one of my teachers (he helped design a smaller and better version of the cruise missile

)...

so i havent had any change to talk about it! HELP ME!

DanS · December 10, 2003, 21:58

Quote:

ok then what is the MAIN reason US citizens think it was right to take over Iraq

What do you want us to say? The polls show that Americans don't care too much, but don't ask why they don't care.

There was a smorgasbord of reasons for taking down Saddam. People chose their own reasons, or combination of reasons. But even though the reasons are unknown, we do know that support for taking out Saddam was very consistent over a 12 year time period -- within the margin of error of 62%.

Nubclear · December 10, 2003, 21:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
The conspiracy theorists of the left never cease to amaze me in the intricacies of their paranoia.

Says the man who vehemetly defended the theory that NOTHING was wrong in Iraq (cause this one reporter said so) and every other news outlet in the world was lying

Berzerker · December 10, 2003, 22:10

I'm surprised a little, maybe the Bush administration isn't as dishonest as some think. It would be interesting to see what would have happened if a large majority of Americans did care about this justification for the war. If there isn't a big motive to lie - plant WMD - then why do it? I guess that was pointed out...

DeathByTheSword · December 10, 2003, 22:11

ok that is something that i didnt know....(about the support to attack saddam)...but then my next question: was there anything in the reasoning of US citizens because of 11-09 or is Iraq a totally different thing? where i am to young for to remember

DanS · December 10, 2003, 22:15

Don't know. 9/11 didn't change the 62% support number.

Ramo · December 10, 2003, 22:16

Quote:

The conspiracy theorists of the left never cease to amaze me in the intricacies of their paranoia.

This coming from the guy who believes that Shrub is hiding evidence of a Saddam-al-Qaeda connection to suprise the Dems.

Berzerker · December 10, 2003, 22:20

Many were led to believe Saddam was connected to 9/11 so it's not entirely different. Many people supported the invasion because of Gulf War I, because Saddam is a butcher, and some believe a more friendly "democracy" smack dab between Iran and Syria will help Israel and the ME in general. There are all sorts of reasons to support ousting Saddam and few to mind our own business, so when you combine all the groups with their particular reasons they probably outnumber the dissenters, and even many dissenters understand the rational for invading. And then there's the sentiment of supporting the President in time of crisis...

Ned · December 10, 2003, 22:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

Says the man who vehemetly defended the theory that NOTHING was wrong in Iraq (cause this one reporter said so) and every other news outlet in the world was lying

Who, another accurate summary from the unfair and unbalanced.

DeathByTheSword · December 10, 2003, 22:29

ok..i understand the gulf-war I and even the democracy in the ME...but if saddam is a butcher and the US wants to get rid of butchers why dont they invade in several other countries to...and i dont like the idea of forcing democracy on to people that clearly dont want it...yet...but ok in general I can understand the ideas behind the attack...and i will stop asking now "

...tnx all....(still aposed to the war...but 100% for the rebuilding of Iraq after the war

)

Japher · December 10, 2003, 22:30

I'm not really suprised at all. Bush probably thought if he planted Nukes a "nuke-tree" would grow, and who want more nukes in the mid-east?

Seriously, once we saw innocent ppl getting mowed down by Saddam all excuses went out the door. For me - a die hard repub, Bush supporter, past voter of Bush, future voter of Bush, and supporter of our actions there - that was enough of a reason. I think he got lucky, but like my dad always says, "I'd rather be lucky than good any day."

Berzerker · December 10, 2003, 22:44

Sword - there are people who want to attack countries engaged in genocide or similar activities, the US attacked Serbia because of it's behavior in Bosnia/Kosovo, and the US involvement in Somalia was largely in response to warlords using food and starvation as a weapon against competitors, but when all you have is that one reason, the task of convincing a majority becomes more difficult. With Iraq there were a number of reasons, not just his treatment of Iraqis. Let's not forget most of the Dems and Repubs were not beating the war drums back in the 80's when Saddam was committing atrocities, so they only found Iraq's crimes a convenient excuse once they had other reasons to invade Iraq.

Ned · December 10, 2003, 22:44

Quote:

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
ok..i understand the gulf-war I and even the democracy in the ME...but if saddam is a butcher and the US wants to get rid of butchers why dont they invade in several other countries to...and i dont like the idea of forcing democracy on to people that clearly dont want it...yet...but ok in general I can understand the ideas behind the attack...and i will stop asking now "

...tnx all....(still aposed to the war...but 100% for the rebuilding of Iraq after the war

)

Despite the appearance of omnipotence, we have our hands full as it is with Iraq, Afghanistan and Korea.

We really could use the help of the French, Germans and Russians. But they seem more interested in selling weapons for cash to the enemies of the United States, such as Saddam.

DanS · December 10, 2003, 22:45

Quote:

but if saddam is a butcher and the US wants to get rid of butchers why dont they invade in several other countries to...

You can only do what you can do. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't do anything.

Berzerker · December 10, 2003, 22:50

Or more accurately, attack those who can't fight back.

DanS · December 10, 2003, 22:53

Well, opportunities are opportunities. You can't attack without an opportunity.

Sandman · December 10, 2003, 23:15

It could be that they believed their own lies. It happens quite often to people in important positions.