Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Politics

U.S. Officially Gives Up On WMD Search In Iraq 453

Posted by timothy from the absence-of-evidence dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Several news outlets are reporting that the United States has officially ended the The Iraq Survey Group's search for WMDs. Prior to the war, WMDs were named as a justification for a 'preemptive' invasion."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Officially Gives Up On WMD Search In Iraq More

U.S. Officially Gives Up On WMD Search In Iraq

Comments Filter:

  • Well DUH! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @02:01PM (#11338315) Homepage Journal
    The US Presidential election is over, now we see the following:

    Employment again tanks

    Trade deficit skyrocketing

    Torture still going on in Iraqi prisons

    The war is going worse than we thought (the prez actually admitted)

    No WMD stockpiles found

    Where is the outrage? There's no outrage because people have been so baffled with bullsh!t they don't know what to believe, a 50/50 election result illustrated this clearly.

    "The Iraq Survey Group, which was responsible for the search, goes on, but its focus now is trying to help counter the Iraqi insurgency."

    Well, at leas they have full employement.

    Don't spend all that political capital at the same gumball machine.

    • Re:Well DUH! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Carbonite ( 183181 )
      The US Presidential election is over, now we see the following:

      I'm not going to get into a debate on the veracity of your statements, but none of the claims you listed are post-election news. The economy and Iraq both received very extensive news coverage before the election so I'm not quite sure what your point is.

      • Actually, They Are... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ackthpt ( 218170 ) *
        I'm not going to get into a debate on the veracity of your statements, but none of the claims you listed are post-election news. The economy and Iraq both received very extensive news coverage before the election so I'm not quite sure what your point is.

        Prior to the election it was treated as speculation and downplayed by the Whitehouse (read: the president and his innercicle of advisors) Since the election they are now admitting failures, regarding how badly the war is going (before 'these were isolate

    • Re:Well DUH! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Where is the outrage? There's no outrage because people have been so baffled with bullsh!t they don't know what to believe, a 50/50 election result illustrated this clearly.

      I found the whole election to be ironic. This election was about "values," supposedly. Apparently it's morally right to support an administration with a culture of trampling on human rights, "disappearing" thousands of "enemy combatants," outright torture, lying to start a war, killing 100,000 innocent civilians, and destroying the liv

    • Re:Well DUH! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by superpulpsicle ( 533373 )
      When Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather, two of the more well influential journalists quit in the middle of a war, that's no coincidence. We obviously have alot of things to hide.

      Just count 20 years from now, and all of us Americans will be as shocked as the Germans citizens who discovered the prisoner camp mistreatments for the first time.

    • The US Presidential election is over, now we see the following:
      Employment again tanks

      Trust me, I'm the last person on Slashdot who would hold up Bush for anything but ridicule, but the employment numbers are still going up... for now. In the last year, employment almost recovered the 2+ million jobs lost since Bush took office. Granted, those are false numbers, pumped up by unsupportable tax cuts that are making states go broke. I suspect that Bush supporters may have even hired people as an under-the

      • Re:Well DUH! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Marxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) *
        I'd also point out that we had between 10-50 million illegal immigrants come in during that time- most of which were of working age.

      • Re:Well DUH! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by 4of12 ( 97621 )

        No, I'm the last person on Slashdot who would support W.

        You are quite correct, that employment is actually increasing. The quality of those jobs relative to the jobs that were lost during the recession I do not know, though I've read that many people switching jobs have ended up taking significant cuts in pay and/or benefits. There are a lot of new jobs that have to be created to employ new people entering the workforce, something like 150k/month.

        Also, to be fair, a President has less impact on the day-to

    • SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @03:54PM (#11339826)
      Your post says you are angry, but then you sigh and heave and -- inevitably -- you give up, shut up, and go on with your life. Your opposition to the war consists of posting on Slashdot about it, in a section that nobody reads.

      LOOK IN THE FUCKING MIRROR! YOU ARE THE PROBLEM! If you want people to be outraged, then BE OUTRAGED YOURSELF and DO SOMETHING WITH THAT ANGER. There are still anti-war speeches taking place -- go and listen to one. Go take part in a rally, hell, START a rally yourself. Get your friends and neighbors to go, and be an ACTIVE citizen, instead of someone who sits back, complains, and votes democrat. Write editorials, get in touch with the public, and get people to channel their own anger with yours.

      You talk about the election being 50/50. Well guess what, buddy: BOTH MAJOR CANDIDATES SUPPORTED THE WAR. You think voting for them sent any kind of message? The democrats are the ones that gave Bush the power in the first place. The democrats are the ones that still won't take a stand against it. Why are YOU content to vote for a party that you don't agree with on this incredibly important issue??

      Now is the time to start acting, not yet another four years from now when it's too late to change anything. Look up your local Green Party [gp.org] and become an active member of it.

      It's worth several hours of my weekend to protest the war and go to political meetings. I don't understand when you say you're too busy watching sitcoms and playing World of Warcraft.
      • You know, I may dissagree with some of the reasons the two of you are angry. I think Kerry would have been as bad or worse than Bush. I don't think Bush is a complete idiot, or deliberately lied about the wmd's. But I do think he's not interested in reduceing the governments burden on it's citizens and is way to happy to sign rights limiting legislation we niegther need nor want.
        But a your post well deserves the insightfull mod. One should not just say "this is wrong" and go back to thier easy chair to

      • Re:SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT (Score:4, Insightful)

        by hitchhacker ( 122525 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @05:56PM (#11353521) Homepage

        the Green Party?

        So you are saying the government is screwing up, and I agree, and you want the government to have more power?

        "the problem isn't the abuse of power, it's the power to abuse."

        they can't screw up so royally if they don't have the power to do so.
        I say vote for the constitution and a smaller federal government...

        -metric
    • Well put. There's an amusing little article on CNN [cnn.com] that discussed the true complexity of anti-U.S. sentiment in Iraq vs. Bushco's promoted fantasy that it's all bin Laden's doing. And to any and all Bush voters: thanks a lot for flushing the country down the toilet, morons. Your children will enjoy paying off the $500 billion dollar bill for your stupidity while you die in the street after Social Security is bankrupted. Family values my ass.

  • Great... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by the_mad_poster ( 640772 ) <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @02:01PM (#11338316) Homepage Journal
    I'm sure we'll get a lot of war/Bush supporters here that pop up with all sorts of justifications now, but look, the justifications given over and over by Bush and his crew was that they (the wmds) were either there, or that Saddam had the capability to either make them, or get them from someone else.

    Not only are they apparently not there (notwithstanding the "Syrian conspiracy theory" and such), a conclusion backed by three reports (Kay, 9/11, Duelfer) and this, the justification cannot be changed now just because it was wrong in the first place (in other words, you can't come back and respond to this news story by saying "but we liberated the iraqis" - yes, we did, but that wasn't the justification given for war, so it's a topic for a different discussion). Bush and his pals didn't say "we're going in because Saddam is an evil wicked little man who mistreats his people" in anything more than the most superficial manner. He did it by evoking images (well, that was more Cheney's job, actually) of an Iraq-backed attack spready doom across the continental United States and saying he knew something we didn't about all this.

    Well, he was wrong. You can either sit and make stupid excuses and try to say "well, it doesn't matter because of..", but the fact is, this administration was wrong.

    Responsible people would now stand up and explain what happened and what they plan to do about the fallout caused by their error. Irresponsible people, or people who were lying in the first place, will come back and try to change the subject or sweep it under the rug.

    I'd like to think that the United States is a responsible nation, but with the way this has been addressed by this administration - attempting to shake its head and say no, really, we were right even though almost nothing we said before the war was true - and the way it's unlikely about to be addressed here, I have serious doubts that this country is currently anything close to responsible.

    That's fine though. Keep it up. We'll see how long the rest of the world puts up with us if our trustworthiness turns into a chronic, glaring problem. You can only stay a superpower for so long when you rely on the rest of the world for your way of life and you're not willing to change it when you can't rely on the world anymore. Bring out the "woo woo! america is teh r0xx0rz!" crap instead of admitting you're wrong. We'll see just how well that works in the long run.

    (on an unrelated note, why did this disappear from the frontpage...?)

    • You must be one of the people who doesn't think that the world is better off with out Saddam Hussein in power.

      ;P

    • > (Kay, 9/11, Duelfer)

      Both the Kay and the Duelfer reports found hard evidence that Iraq was persuing illegal weapons programs. That alone, coupled with the terms of Iraq's cease-fire, was enough to justify a restart of the Gulf War.

      When you get defeated in a war, you obey the terms of the cease-fire. When you dick around with inspectors, create a web of corruption at the United Nations, and generally try to weasel your way out of your obligations -- well, don't be surprised if it all comes crumbing
      • In my opinion, war was justified the moment Saddam tried to assassinate Bush 41.
    • do you remember the reports they based their information from?

      do you remember where those reports came from?

    • Re:Great... (Score:5, Informative)

      by h4x0r-3l337 ( 219532 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @09:08PM (#11343894)
      the justifications given over and over by Bush and his crew was that they (the wmds) were either there, or that Saddam had the capability to either make them, or get them from someone else

      bull-shit. The Bush administration flat out said that he had WMD. They claimed to have proof. At some point they even claimed they had found them. None of that turned out to be true.

      Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction - Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

      We know for a fact that there are weapons there. - Ari Fleischer, Press Briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

      Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. - George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003

      There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. - Gen. Tommy Franks, Press Conference, March 22, 2003

      We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. - Donald Rumsfeld, ABC Interview, March 30, 2003

      We found the weapons of mass destruction - George W. Bush, Polish TV Interview, May 29, 2003

      The list goes on and on and on...

  • Motivation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Halvard ( 102061 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @02:03PM (#11338342)
    Shouldn't that read "WMDs were named as THE justification for the 'preemptive' invasion."

  • The ends (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sg3000 ( 87992 ) * <(sg_public) (at) (mac.com)> on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @02:04PM (#11338369)
    I thought about writing a long list to document where Bush or a member his administration said that we had to go to war with Iraq because of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This was about protecting America, right?

    Iraq even allowed the weapons inspectors in to prove they didn't have anything. Remember how the Bush administration mocked the U.N. weapons inspectors whose search turned up nothing? Remember the ultimatum that Bush gave Iraq -- disarm within 72 hours or else? And Fox News gleefully put a countdown clock on the screen? Remember the forged documents--not the ones from CBS; the ones supposedly from Nigeria saying that Iraq tried to acquire fissionable material? Remember the aluminum tubes?

    Remember how reasonable, rational people said there was no proof Iraq had WMDs? Remember how millions of people all over the world protested this war before it started? Remember when scores of diplomats resigned from the U.S. Foreign Service because of these false claims of WMDs? John Brady Kiesling [salon.com] wrote in his resignation letter, "We have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of the American people, since the war in Vietnam."

    However, I think I speak for nearly 50% of the country when I say that my head exploded from the incredible sense of "I told you so." I'm not happy to be right -- I'm sad for our country and what it turned into.

    And to all the Conservatives who say, "The weapons of mass destruction may not be found, but hey Iraq is now a peaceful democracy, so it was worth it," I respond with, "The ends do not justify the means."
    • "We have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of the American people, since the war in Vietnam."

      George W. Bush avoided serving in the Vietnam war, now he has his own going. Some of us learned something from Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby while others read about Goats.

    • Playing the devil's advocate, however, raises some very legitimate arguments in the other direction. Iraq's responsibility was not just to disarm, but to declare how it had disarmed and allow complete, unrestricted access to inspectors to verify that this had taken place. Hussein's regime consistently failed to comply with those aspects of the program, and thus left room for doubt regarding whether disarmament had actually taken place. He was clearly trying to maintain uncertainty on that question to kee

      • Re:The ends (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sg3000 ( 87992 ) *
        > to declare how it had disarmed and allow complete,
        > unrestricted access to inspectors to verify that this had taken
        > place.

        One problem is if you give an ultimatum to someone, they should have a reasonable belief that if they cooperate, you will live up to your end of the bargain.

        One major problem I had was that Bush was asking Iraq to prove a negative-- prove they don't have WMDs any longer. Of course, even a school child knows that you can't prove you don't have something.

        The problem is, Iraq
        • One major problem I had was that Bush was asking Iraq to prove a negative-- prove they don't have WMDs any longer. Of course, even a school child knows that you can't prove you don't have something.

          Quite the contrary, it would have been very easy to prove disarmament. Providing documentation as to how and when such activities occured, and allowing inspectors to check out the sites and scrap material to verify the truth of the documentation would have done the job.

          Don't forget that the Iraqis constantly
      • positioning our troops there as a local target for every car-bombing extremist in the Middle East.

        Because, of course, we all know that it is much more preferable to have car bombing extremists in the middle east targeting civilians in Kansas. I mean, how outrageous. When Bush said war on terrorism he actually meant it? Like for real? I mean, with soldiers and everything?

      • Re:The ends (Score:3, Informative)

        by NonSequor ( 230139 )
        Hussein deserved to be taken out of power, there's no doubt about that, but I just don't think he was a pressing concern. I seriously doubt that Saddam would have attacked the US if he did have the weapons. Saddam was a secular leader and I don't think he was ever interested in a jihad against the US. I think the only scenario where Saddam might have attacked the US would be if he built his army back up and developed bioweapons then attacked his neighbors again and threatened the US with the bioweapons if w

    • Re:The ends (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Paul Jakma ( 2677 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @03:00PM (#11339132) Homepage Journal
      " ... but hey Iraq is now a peaceful democracy, .. "

      And even that has not been accomplished. Dozen or more Iraqis die each day at presently in bombings. The violence is worse than ever. The elections later this month might end up boycotted by most Sunnis, if they can even take place. There's a distinct chance of civil war if the USA were to withdraw it's troops , and hence even further violence. OTOH, as long as US troops are actively involved in Iraq's security, there will be violence (insurgents against US and Iraqi National Guard troops, and the resulting retaliatory measures).

      Moral arguments aside, on a purely statistical basis, it seems a safe bet Iraqis are more at risk of violent death now than under Saddam. Which makes it very hard to justify this regime-change, especially with the bleak prospect for stability in near-term in Iraq.

      WMD: Nope

      Democracy in Iraq: Nope (maybe next month?)

      Stability in Iraq: Worse than under Saddam

      Sigh..

    • Re:The ends (Score:3, Insightful)

      by skahshah ( 603640 )
      And to all the Conservatives who say, "The weapons of mass destruction may not be found, but hey Iraq is now a peaceful democracy, so it was worth it,"...

      Now ? Peaceful ? democracy ? Do they really have the gall to say so ?

    • Re:The ends (Score:4)

      by bay43270 ( 267213 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @04:39PM (#11340418) Homepage
      raq even allowed the weapons inspectors in to prove they didn't have anything. Remember how the Bush administration mocked the U.N. weapons inspectors whose search turned up nothing? Remember the ultimatum that Bush gave Iraq -- disarm within 72 hours or else? And Fox News gleefully put a countdown clock on the screen? Remember the forged documents--not the ones from CBS; the ones supposedly from Nigeria saying that Iraq tried to acquire fissionable material? Remember the aluminum tubes?

      Remember how reasonable, rational people said there was no proof Iraq had WMDs? Remember how millions of people all over the world protested this war before it started? Remember when scores of diplomats resigned from the U.S. Foreign Service because of these false claims of WMDs?

      I think to most Americans, these things have just become clichés. Each mini-scandal leaked out with so little fanfare that by the time each was proven true, they had lost their bite. Had each of these things been released to the press and proven in a single day, we might have impeached Bush. But instead, half the country is exhausted with hate and the other half is wondering what big deal is.

      Really Bush is using the same tactic Clinton used during the Lewinski crap: Deny, deny, deny until it's common knowledge that your wrong, and then admit it. By then, no one cares.

  • Nonsense (Score:3, Funny)

    by cyranoVR ( 518628 ) * <cyranoVR.gmail@com> on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @02:06PM (#11338385) Homepage Journal
    They've already found mountains of conclusive evidence that Saddam had WMDs...they're just buried somewhere in the desert...or hidden in Syria...or Russians Black Ops stole them right before the war...something...

    Yeah, pretty much all I read besides /. is NewsMax and the Washington Times. Why do you ask?
    • Who ever modded me "troll"...why don't you take a peek over at the "news" sources I mentioned and see how they're playing this story (if at all).

      Wingnutz have been crowing the "discovery" of WMDs for the past 1.5 years...but this time I'm sure they'll accept the truth....RIGHT?

      PS - See ya in the M2 ;)


    • > They've already found mountains of conclusive evidence that Saddam had WMDs...they're just buried somewhere in the desert...or hidden in Syria...or Russians Black Ops stole them right before the war...something...

      Probably the CIA filched them and sold them to Iran in order to fund black ops in South America.

  • Everyone! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Over to Little Green Footballs [littlegreenfootballs.com] to watch them contort around this one!

    "Oh, this is just the liberal bias media, being biased, really they found some stuff, but the bias you know, the bias, biases out the truth. Israel and a conservative American government actually has never done anything wrong ever, it's just the bias makes it like it is. There's a liberal bias, did you know that?"

  • Here's the classes of WMDs that I find insignificant, first of all (all of which I could, with some research, point to stories about):

    1. East German Sarin with an expiration date of 1989.
    2. left over poison gas residue of various types on various pieces of scrap metal found in the desert.
    3. Aluminum tubes with multiple possible uses.
    4. Large ammounts of conventional weapons that the allied forces thought were so insignificant that they didn't even bother to secure them.

    Did I miss anything? Was ANYTHING found outside of these categories at all? Note, NONE of these categories were outside of the UN resolutions, as expired gas could be considered to be destroyed, dead ammo could be considered to be destroyed, conventional weapons were allowed, and there WERE other uses for the aluminium tubes.
    • Several Cans of Raid were found under Saddam's bathroom sink. There may also have been a straight razor in his medicine cabinet. It is no longer there but we have before and after photos of Saddam's face indicating that he may have once had one in his possession.

  • Surprising some were not faked (Score:5, Interesting)

    by justanyone ( 308934 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @02:15PM (#11338496) Homepage Journal
    It has surprised me that WMD were not faked by CIA / DIA / etc. (insert random agency name here). Getting a hold of some generic sarin, anthrax, botulinin, chlorine gas, etc. would be easy for any U.S. agency determined to do so. Placing it in a couple of buried shipping containers in the desert that we 'accidentally' discovered the location to would have been very easy.

    The fact that this was not done says to me:
    * maybe some was found but they can't talk about it (doubtful);
    * most of the people in the U.S. armed forces are basically ethical (encouraging);
    * no one thought of faking it (highly doubtful);
    * there are too many checks and balances within the agency structures to allow a fake to succeed (highly likely).

    The checks-balances scenario is this: CIA decides to fake it.
    1. They create the agent/material, bury it, fake up docs, release info about it, "find" it, make news.
    2. FBI decides, Hey, let's test it and figure out where it really came from and how it was made.
    3. UN / Brits request samples to test, start interviewing all their people about the subject and get nothing or actual denials.
    4. FBI figures out this isn't genuine and points fingers, or:
    5. ATF decides to test it independently, or:
    6. Secret service / Treasury tests it independently, or:
    7. GAO / Congressional subcommittee asks lots of questions, or:
    8. UN figures it out, points fingers, or:
    9. Iraq former-regime muckety-mucks say, "hey, wait, we didn't do that... it's cool, but we didn't do it."

    Just some thoughts.
    I like having multiple levels of power structures all competing for the truth. The whole CIA reorg bill concentrates power too much in my opinion. It'll allow for this kind of potential fakery to succeed.

    -- Kevin
    • I thought the FBI only investigated crimes on American soil... so they'd be investigating AFTER it was determined to be fake
      • Iraq IS currently American soil, under the Pottery Barn rule- we broke it, we bought it, it's our occupied territory now.
        • I wonder when does the "you broke enough enough stuff so you getting kicked out" rule come into force?

          After all even in the pottery barn they have rules of engagement... or at lest they did when I was shagging one of their cashiers :)

          That must happen after they quit looking for WMD and After they give on having election lines where snipers shoot people.

          • I wonder when does the "you broke enough enough stuff so you getting kicked out" rule come into force?

            Sometime after January 30 is my guess, depending on who gets elected of course (or maybe just as important, who doesn't).

            That must happen after they quit looking for WMD and After they give on having election lines where snipers shoot people.

            There's that too- right now the Shia and Kurds are looking at being the big winners in the January 30 election- because it's a sure bet anybody voting in the Sunn
      • FBI has been involved in foreign attacks on US installations since the mid 90s.

        So involved are they that they considered opening an office in Yemen. [usatoday.com]
    • most of the people in the U.S. armed forces are basically ethical (encouraging);

      Most of the people in the military are more ethical than 99% of the civilian populas. Read up on the military code of conduct. Among other things that are illegal and unethical in the military are officers fraternizing with enlisted personel (this means outside of work)(reasons are to keep officers from making bad decisions in life and death situations) and infidelity to a spouse or with someone who is married.

      There are

    • Too unstable. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Onan ( 25162 ) *
      This is what I first expected to happen when we invaded. Scary-sounding weapons would be "found" right away, and the US public would be eager to accept this retroactive evidence of the morality of our war.

      But after some thought, it's just not tenable. Pulling off such a scheme would require the involvement of at least hundreds of people, and more likely thousands. (Military and intelligence agencies are designed to work as large cooperative bureaucracies, with lots of internal checks and paperwork on trans
  • So I guess now we can hang the banner [cbsnews.com] back up?
  • They are in such disbelief that they got reelected despite all signs that they were cheating, lying and self-serving thiefs that they think now they don't need any justification. They can do as they please so long as it makes military or oil hungry jacks richer.

    Anyways not that it matters but they do not need excuses anymore. That war on terror jocker card can be used anytime they please! Thankfully we have conditionned crowds to eat it up.

  • consequences (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Laxitive ( 10360 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @02:33PM (#11338730) Journal

    The lesson here is clear: If you are a nation that the US may not like, and you don't have nuclear weapons, then you are vulnerable to attack and occupation by the US. They will, if they wish to, invent lies about you having said weapons, and attack you, with or without a general concensus from the rest of the civilized world.

    So if you want to protect yourself, get WMDs, and get them fast.

    That, my friends, is the moral of this story.

    -Laxitive
    • So if you want to protect yourself, get WMDs, and get them fast.

      *sigh* That's a really bad idea, too. If the US was at war with someone, and they actually used WMDs of any kind to defend themselves, the response would be devastating. Our official policy is to respond to WMD in kind-and that means breaking out our still significant nuclear weapons. Even if we chose not to use them, the response from the military, and the American people at large, would be devastating to say the least. Think of a demand
    • If you are a nation that the US may not like

      I think you've limited the scope a bit too much there.

      Iraq used to be on "our side".

      We did this shit to one of our friends... that should be the lesson for all to learn.

      Nobody is safe as long as we are around.

      • Re:consequences (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Onan ( 25162 ) *
        This is an important and under-repeated point: Iraq was, in fact, our best friend in the region. There's fairly clear evidence that Iraq requested US permission to invade Kuwait in 1991, and believed (mistakenly) that they had gotten it; they were genuinely surprised when we took issue with it.

        Iraq consistently exaggerated their weapons capabilities, and were reluctant to admit how completely powerless they were, because they wanted to deter Iran. Y'know, that other society with whom they've been at perio

  • Lying by understatement: an object lesson. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by manyoso ( 260664 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @02:36PM (#11338777) Homepage
    "Iraq Survey Group's search for WMDs. Prior to the war, WMDs were named as a justification for a 'preemptive' invasion."

    Prior to the war, WMDs were named as the justification for a 'preemptive' invasion.

    After the war and during the war, when WMDs were not being found, ... not so much.

    • > Prior to the war, WMDs were named as the justification for a 'preemptive' invasion.

      > After the war and during the war, when WMDs were not being found, ... not so much.

      I liked Umansky's tart assessment [msn.com] at Slate: "the Iraq Survey Group, which when last heard from was still hot on the trail for banned weapons, has in fact folded its tent, and it did so about three weeks ago. (No, you didn't miss the White House announcement.)"


  • We invaded them and they didn't attack us with WMD. What more proof do you need!

  • Seinfeld quote (Score:3, Funny)

    by meanfriend ( 704312 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @02:48PM (#11338972)
    Remember the Seinfeld where Babu opens a restaurant at Jerry's suggestion and later regrets it?

    It seems oddly fitting here. Just replace the words

    'people' with 'WMD'
    'Babu' with 'Most of the World'
    and 'Jerry' with 'GWB'

    Most of the World: Quiet!! You shut up! ... But where are WMD? You see WMD? Show me WMD. There are no WMD!
    GWB: You know, I think I'll just take the check.
    Most of the World: You bad man! You very very bad man! [leaves]
    GWB thinking: Bad man? Could my mother have been wrong?
  • The beginning of World War II had a tremendous positive effect on the American economy and helped in large part to pull the country out of the depression. In an age where most of the US military's weaponry is created by a few companies and is largely automated, does a war actually help an economy or simply overburden it with the cost of production without the offsetting abundance of jobs?
    • Worse than that- what little manufacturing that isn't automated is sent overseas, so the economies this war is helping are not our own, but mainly China and India.
      • Uh... No. The military has fairly strict requirements about what percentage of a product MUST be made in the USA. (I think it is %80 if it isnt %100) There was an issue a few years ago where a company that made the stocking caps for the navy had a label in it that said made in china. In the contract (this is in all of the contracts) it clearly stated that the caps must be made in the usa or a certain amount of it. The company had to recall all the caps and remake them as per the conditions of the contra
        • This was true a few years ago- but I doubt it heavily now. The reason why is obvious- there has been little or NO ramp up of production, NO factories re-opening, to support the War in Iraq. The closest we've come is that GM is buying more parts for China to run the military Hummer line at 1/2 capacity- up from 1/1000ths capacity....
    • The tremedous positive effect on the ecomony was also followed by a tremedous negative effect remember? Roaring 20's to the dirty 30's? If anything large scale war time production is the same as getting drunk off beer, then being hungover the next day when it's worn off.

      Now the government is pissing away billions and putting nothing back into the economy with the exception of a few large companies. The return to the American people will be less, plus taxes will soar to keep the gov't from going broke.

      Not

    • It depends. Entering into WWII was a situation where we created a lot of production and jobs that weren't there before. Post-WWII, few American wars have been at the behest of the hearts of the American people, but instead, at least in part, to legitimize the continuance of the military industry birthed for WWII. Sadly, a healthy chunk of our economy still depends on a need for war, or at least military actions. Death is big business, and we as a country are an addict to it, economically and perhaps even ps
  • Well done warmongers. Do you have any sense of outrage yet, or do you need Bush and his sidekick, Rumsfeld (or is the other way around?) raping your close relatives to grow some balls.

    Because they are turning the proverbial blind eye to the killing and maiming of Iraqi civilians in the thousends (collateral damage you know)., so maybe the only way you will react is when they turn against you and experience the horrors you are subsidizing with your taxes. Don't laugh, nightmares have a fucking habit of turn
    • Any TRUE warmonger would be outraged at how Iraq has been handled. Sorely lacking in the plan for Iraq and the War on Terror:

      1. Sacrifices at home to provide needed material for the troops.
      2. Wartime production crowding out civilian production.
      3. A draft calling up millions- even though it's obvious that cannon fodder would be usefull, as the enemy is highly limited on manpower.
      4. Nukes and terror to break the spirit of the enemy.

      All the true warmongers I know are calling for all or part of the above
  • Yes we have completed our search, no we dont have anything to say at this point because we really ended it a month ago but didn't bother to inform you. We dont think its that relavant to the liberation of the country.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close