Do WMDs even matter to you?

[HEyHEY]

Many people make the point (and they're right to do so) that no WMDs have been found. I find that many times though it's phrased in a way that could be understood as the war being justified if WMDs were found.

Would it make a difference to you?
(Don't worry I won't flame you)

[Evanstondem]

1. It would depend on the type of "WMD"

Finding an active nuclear weapons program that was close to building a bomb would have made a difference.

Chemical and biological weapons would not have influenced me unless it was proven that they could truly cause mass destruction to U.S. citizens. I have always thought that the WMD label did not fit these weapons. It was an attempt by the Bush Administration to lower the threshold for the type of weaponry that they could use to justify their invasion.

[HEyHEY]

8. okay...then how about...

Have also needed hard proof Saddam would have been able to use them against the US? Or would the finding of weapons be enough to sway you?

[Clark Can WIN]

2. No

but your dog does. :-)



The war was a pile of crap from every angle WMD's or not.

[La_Serpiente]

3. I find it amazing

that there hasn't been any WMD's. I think it is critical since that was the case made for war.

However, if Bush threw out the entire argument that we don't need to find WMD's, then we must ask ourselves a question: Was this a war of liberation or a war of empire?

[HEyHEY]

5. I find it amazing...

That these evil bastards haven't planted someting yet.

[SahaleArm]

20. Yep.

That's my biggest surprise.

[Avalux]

4. No

it doesn't make a difference. If you remember, our soldiers were ready to be blasted by an arsenal of chemical and/or biological weapons upon entering Iraq. Didn't happen. Iraq supposedly had an arsenal pointed at Israel, they were such a big bad tuff guy according to our devine leaders.
Bottom line - Iraq didn't have weapons capable of doing crap; so the war was unjustified. If they turn up at some point, who cares. Means nothing.

[Djinn]

7. Not really

many countries have WMD's (North Korea, Pakistan, India), many have also lied about it or attempted to keep it secret (Israel) there are also many that are dictorships and that are brutal to their own people (Saudi's), only when Bush advocates pre-emptive war against them will I beleive that this war was anything other than a cynical grab at fossil fuel and the power it brings


edit - oops spell countries without a U and it suddenly looks more appropriate!

[ant]

6. no

I assumed before the war that Saddam had some chem/bio and was trying to acquire nukes (but was far from it). I believed this not because Bush said it but because it seemed reasonable in light of Saddam's past behavior. I was wrong, but since I didn't reach that conclusion based on anything Bush said it wouldn't be honest for me to blame him now.

My position was - and still is - that war was not necessary to deal with that problem and, in fact, would cause more problems than it solved.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. It would depend on what and how much

If they found everything Colin Powell said they had where Rummy said it was, we would all be eating crow. They may have had ulterior motoves for the war, but they would have their reasons that they could throw back at us. And Joe Sixpack would support them over it.

Frankly, I thought they would find something, but it wouldn't be enough to constitute a real threat.

As it is, the Bushies are eating crow (or at least whining about the fact its been served to them). Joe Sixpack may may not have come around to us, but he's looking in our direction and listening to what we have to say.

The fact that no WMDs have been found makes a big difference.

[maggrwaggr]

15. I disagree. The question was, was Iraq a threat? The answer was "NO"

Wmd's or not, Iraq was not gonna attack the U.S. or its neighbors for fear of retaliation by the US.

Saddam was not a suicide bomber. Saddam was all about survival. And still is, apparently.

He was never a threat to us. The big lie is that he was.

The fact that the wmd's weren't found just proves our point even more. And is just one big embarassment for the hawks.

[wtmusic]

10. 'WMD'? Whazzat?

Oh yeah, the 'weapons' thing. Are those guys still looking? Now there's a fun job. Kinda like the Maytag repairman, but you get shot at.

[rucky]

11. I don't understand the question

do you mean if they are found, or if they were found?

As of now, it doesn't matter anymore. The question of imminent threat by WMDs has been answered. The question of WMD programs has been answered. They've pretty much conceded that one - now they're looking for WMDs about as hard as OJ is looking for the real killer. But that's not really what their selling.

WMD's have been a red herring all along - the Neocons have pretty much admitted that when Wolfowitz said WMD threat was "something we could all agree upon". Colin Powell also said there was no threat back in 2001.

The debate we need to be having is about PREEMPTIVE war, the PNAC doctrine, the Bush Doctrine. This is what they've been trying to sell us all along...the WMD threat was just a fear motivator to get this (predetermined) war going.

If WMDs were found right after the invasion, the antiwar voice wouldn't be much different from the first Gulf War. BUT the chickenhawks wouldn't have their case for preemption, either.

[HEyHEY]

14. Sorry

I meant had they been found

[LeahMira]

24. Absolutely!

The debate we need to be having is about PREEMPTIVE war, the PNAC doctrine, the Bush Doctrine. This is what they've been trying to sell us all along...the WMD threat was just a fear motivator to get this (predetermined) war going.

It is horrifying to imagine that the U.S. would attack any nation that might attack us sometime in the future. If we know that a nation has some bone to pick, shouldn't we be talking to them to try to come to some resolution instead of giving them even more reason to be nervous about us? As to the torture chambers and rape rooms, the U.N. has a convention against genocide and an international court. Too bad the U.S. has refused to give those its full, unqualified support.

[neebob]

12. It wouldn't make a difference to me

if they found a vast undergound network of biochemical labs and missile silos with armed nuclear warheads. I don't care what they say about Saddam being devious and hiding things and moving them around and Iraq being a big country; I believe we have the technology to see what they had and where they put it. You'd have a hard time convincing me the U.S. government can't hone in on a snake hole in the middle of the desert in Iraq when I can find a satellite photo that clearly shows my house with my car parked in front of it on the internet. And that photo is ten years old.

[ant]

17. it's actually not that easy

While the US does have the technology to see a snake hole in the desert, the problem is knowing when/where to look. Most countries have learned how to evade US surveillance (by moving everything underground, for instance). And satellites have set paths; it's not difficult to figure out when you are or aren't being watched.

[Military Brat]

13. A man's word is his bond

It matters to me. I never believed the WMD were there. If one digs a little deeper than what rests on the media surface, the truth is there. From all I had read prior to the Iraq debacle beginning, I had formed the opinion that Saddam was bluffing, a gross and dangerous distortion of his tribal culture mentality. (Kind of like bush's "my balls are bigger than your balls" mentality.) However, our American society reserves bluffing for poker games and other adventures where the stakes are not life and death.

bush lied. Cheney lied. Powell lied. Wolfowitz lied. Rice lied. They all lied about WMD in Iraq. Their word is no good. They are not honorable people. They are not fit to represent the citizens of the United States. And that is why it matters.

[sandnsea]

16. If it matched pre-war intelligence

yes it would certainly matter. But "finding" WMD would never have been sufficient in my mind after the invasion. There was no intelligence that WMD actually existed in Iraq. There was suspicion at the time of the vote and need to get inspectors back in and get the Iraqi disarmament process going again. But by the time the actual invasion came around, it's clear to me they had no intelligence. Otherwise they would have secured known locations in order to protect our troops. At this point, Bush lied and took us into an illegal war. Now that he's done it, we have to make something positive for the Iraqi people and the stability of the region.

[JackSwift]

18. World history since before the Napoleonic era

has consisted of lame ass excuses for pillaging other countries. Since Wilson proposed the League of Nations there have been people who have demanded much higher standards for international behavior. There are people opposed to those kinds of international law, they are currently called neo-conservatives. They believe that it is a jungle and we might as well take advantage of it since we no longer have Soviets to restrain us. Well, the price is going to be incalculable.

[rman]

19. it matters that Bush lied about WMDs,

..fabricated evidence and preasured the CIA to find intelligence to back up the neocon policies.
If Saddam would actually have functional WMD delivery systems; not just a few artillery shells with ie chemical cargo or some barrels with mustard gass - but let's say Skuds with antrax, or small RC planes with nuclear warhead, and he wouldn't want to give those up, now that may in fact be just cause for military action.
But 10 years of UN inspections has releaved Saddam of any such capabilities, as everyone knows.

[bowens43]

21. Nope.

Not in the least. The only valid reason for attacking Iraq would be absolute proof of an imminent threat. Merely possessing WMD does not constitute an imminent threat.

[Hubert Flottz]

22. Union Carbide once gassed more people than Saddam did!

The guy who was in charge of the Bophal India plant never even spent a night in jail! Those people were killed because Carbide was cutting corners to save money at the Bophal plant! The people who survived the gas release and their families, hardly got enough money to bury the dead from nonUnion Carbide!

Yes I'm scared of WMDs because a plant about 5 miles from here makes the exact same chemical that killed the thousands in India!(sister plant to Bophal plant) In fact, that plant has now become the property of Bayer, a giant in the business of gassing of humans for fun and profit during WWII!(IG FARBIN=Bayer=Giftgas)

[HawkerHurricane]

23. It makes a difference to me

Since the 'causes belli' was Iraqi WMD's, threatening thier neighbors and the US, if they don't have them, then there is no reason for the war.

Making up reasons after the fact doesn't matter.