Is anyone going to believe this is what the US says it is?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I am referring to the huge Iraqi chemical weapons factory found.

― hamish (hamish), Monday, 24 March 2003 05:11 (twenty-three years ago)

Like I said elsewhere, the government is already trapped on this point. Here's what happens either way:

GOV'T: "Er, we didn't find anything after all."
EVERYONE ELSE: "You clodhopping morons."
(likelihood of gov't saying this: nil)

GOV'T: "See, we DID find something!"
QUITE A FEW PEOPLE: "You're obviously faking that to create a justification."

The potential problem with this is that the government *could* be telling the truth on this point. But will anyone give them any benefit of the doubt? Should they?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 24 March 2003 05:14 (twenty-three years ago)

one thing's for damn sure, we're gonna FIND SOME WMD whether it's there or not. i probably won't believe it without considerable proof as i think WMD is a false pretext for this whole operation anyway

― Aaron A., Monday, 24 March 2003 05:17 (twenty-three years ago)

As if that dash of common-sense logic was going to keep it from happening?

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Monday, 24 March 2003 05:28 (twenty-three years ago)

I just love how the papers/media are saying 'weapon of mass destruction' instead of missiles or bombs or any normal term not created by the white house press advisers.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Monday, 24 March 2003 07:15 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, Saddam's advisors are now "the dirty dozen" per CNN, too.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 24 March 2003 07:22 (twenty-three years ago)

Of course, it's too early to know whether these reports are true, but if WMDs were found, how much proof would it take to convince you? I think that the definitive proof would be if UN inspectors were to come in once the war was over and say "Yup, they're chemical weapons, alright." However, if the US says for sure that they're chemical weapons, I'd be inclined to believe them; they do have do be accountable when the war is over, after all.

― Bingo, Monday, 24 March 2003 10:14 (twenty-three years ago)

Two possible situations;

1 - Saddam = mad. If he had WMD he'd have chucked them at us by now.
2 - Saddam = not mad. He wouldn't have them anyway, so as not to give the US/UK axis of invasion cause to invade.

Whoops.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Monday, 24 March 2003 10:17 (twenty-three years ago)

Chemical weapons are crap anyway. Nukes are still where it's at when it comes to WMD.

― N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 24 March 2003 11:02 (twenty-three years ago)

Indeed. Just wait til Israel chuck theirs at Iran.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Monday, 24 March 2003 11:56 (twenty-three years ago)

However, if the US says for sure that they're chemical weapons, I'd be inclined to believe them; they do have do be accountable when the war is over, after all.

To whom? Accountability doesn't seem like much of an issue with this administration

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Monday, 24 March 2003 12:19 (twenty-three years ago)

"In a twist that could complicate the effort, the White House has decided, for now, to assign no role in the disarmament effort to the key U.N. agencies that were charged by the Security Council with carrying out the search for banned weapons. [...] early this month, the White House reversed course, saying it was a military operation and would remain one for a long time to come, not suitable for civilians. Officials said the U.N. agencies could be given a role later. Two officials said the U.N. agencies would not likely be invited to participate until the United States was ready to turn over dual-use biological or chemical sites for long-term monitoring."

from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57066-2003Mar19.html

So no one is going to see these sites for months except the US military. And until an independent group examines the supposed WMD facilities, I won't believe anything coming from the US on this issue.

I don't believe the Bush administration because I like being a skeptical bastard, but because they have earned my mistrust by repeatedly telling huge lies and excessive secrecy (for "security" reasons of course)

― fletrejet, Monday, 24 March 2003 14:10 (twenty-three years ago)

People are going to believe what they want to believe. As ever

― mookieproof (mookieproof), Monday, 24 March 2003 16:33 (twenty-three years ago)

It reminds me of the old dirty-cop gun-drop routine.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Monday, 24 March 2003 16:34 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.