This idea that finding WMD doesn't matter
 

Completely ridiculous. The Bush administration, as well as Blair's government, said Saddam posed an imminent threat. Regardless of whether that was the correct or moral reason to go to war--it wasn't--it was the main reason we were given, moreso than the fact that Saddam was a horrible despot or the always-shaky links between Iraq and al-Qaeda (although the links between Iraq and terrorism were well established).

My point is that somebody needs to produce something besides two mobile labs that didn't even have weapons, not for the sake of moral correctness or rebuilding Iraq, but for the credibility of the government, which is always tenuous to begin with.

Edit: Please, for the love of God, don't bring oil into this. I'm tired of hearing it.

So if we don't find WMD right away, that means that they don't exist?

By that argument, I suppose Osama bin Laden didn't exist either.

they had years to hide them, it may take that long to find them

this was argued i think to its near end in the political forum. my general impression of that thread was that it was agreed that the US, Britain, etc did informally and formally place much weight on their claim of iraq having WMD as one of the primary justifications for the war, and that they did in fact fail to provide any credible evidence thus far for any of those claims. considering that this is still agreed with, lets get back to talking about oil.

http://etori.tripod.com/dajjalsystem/images/got_oil.jpg

okay, but we're talking very large claims, with very large consquences, and absolutly no credible clear valid evidence on any of those claims through months and months of inspection from the UN and unrivaled inspections from the US themselves. war is a huge deal, and if your going to have "proof" it better be damn good (ie better than this)

hey, you people had your time to post about political discussions. That time and forum, is gone.

I really hope you don't believe that oil stuff. There are very few people on the left that have any credibility still claiming that. The war cost much more, in the short term or the long term, than taking all of Iraq's oil could ever replace. That's such a stupid argument, it's laughable.

It won't matter. They'll gloss over it, provide other reasoning, then divert attention away to other matters. People will end up forgetting, deciding it's no longer important, and things will carry on as usual. People tend to rely on the government and mass media for information and guidance, and as coverage decreases their perception of the end result will become skewed. Look at Afghanistan - it's never even mentioned these days. Ask anyone what the situation is there, chances are they won't know.

Personally I'm glad there are so many questions flying around, because it does actually seem like people are paying more attention this time

The general consensus among people I've talked to is that if they've found any, they're probably waiting 'til right before voting-time to whip 'em out.

Because face it, considering the state of the economy, that's the only chance the Republicans will have at getting re-elected.

(She says, fingers crossed, hoping upon hope that the only reason she hasn't heard anything about a Good Solid Democratic Candidate With A Chance is because she's out of the country...But knowing she's probably not that lucky.)

i can see another 3 pager comin !
 

:rolleyes:

This is the silliest idea I have ever heard. Besides the fact that the military would rather find it now than later, there's no reason to worry about the election right now.

Perhaps because you're not in the country you aren't aware, but Bush's approval ratings are incredibly high, there's a Republican Congress, and there are more Republican Governors.

The economy was going in the shitter before the election of 2000. Everyone knew this. The reason the economy took such a sharp downturn was because of the stock market. Our economy is practically integrated with the DJIA.

The market took its first major dive in late 1999. Clinton was in office. Was he the cause? No. Of course not. He really didn't do much to prevent it, however.

How could people NOT see that investing money into companies that were spending money willy nilly and never made profits nor projected to make profits any time soon was a bad idea?

Yet, the Clinton administration raised interest rates to keep people in the market and encourage more investing and more growth.

Before you start blaming the Republicans for the economy, you really should look at the facts.

I never said that. Read the thread's title; I'm responding to the idea, quite popular among the neocons for the last couple of weeks, that it doesn't matter whether we find them or not, which is laughably untrue. Even though I usually disagree with William Safire, his columns are almost always thought-provoking and compelling, but the one he wrote regarding this topic the other day was embarrassing and sounded like it was trying to cover the administration's (and his own) tracks.

This is about the government's credibility, no more, no less. And we're not just looking for evidence that Iraq had WMDs, though that in and of itself is obviously a major booster; we're also looking for evidence that these weapons constituted a major threat. When intelligence officials and even administration insiders are starting to question the administration's PR spin on things, I don't think it's unfair to demand that something pop up and try to sweep the question under the table or flat-out deny that anything's wrong. When Colin Powell himself is said to have been thoroughly exasperated at the stretches of intelligence that were passing through official outlets, something's sketchy.

Mind you, none of this means Iraq doesn't have WMD. And they're roughly as real of a reason for us going to war as oil. But that WAS the official spin from the administration, and therefore, until we find something, I'm saying it's only fair to keep people under close scrutiny.

i was joking about that picture, and those people that spout of "war for oil" or "blood for oil" i am not aligned with. i dont think the war was/is about oil, solely, but your a flat out fool to if you were to say it has no role at all in this. its a complicated issue with many many motivations, and oil is one of them, not the biggest, but id say quite big

i don't think it's insane to think that if nothing is actually found, that maybe some evidence of some could be invented. there are plenty of other reasons to nuke the fuck out of iraq, even now, that i really don't care if we only find m-80 firecrackers and blackmarket campbells soup. the whole area is going to implode and initiate wars with each others for as long as people are there. lets get SARS over there, people. we can do this. take one for the team.

i agree fully. any of this new stuff could have just as easily been 5th tier news, and im glad news agencies are running with it, but still am fearful for any coming event, some even more important, being left to sit.

Irrelevant. Congress is barely Republican, there aren't too many more Republican governors, and Bush's ratings continuously dropped post-9/11 and slowly will continue to drop again if we don't find any WMDs/the economy stays in the tank. I'm not saying the administration is solely responsible for the economic tanking, but people are seeing that the first round of tax cuts did nothing to create new jobs and were rather strongly against the second round. The incumbent always takes the blame for a bad economy. You know that.

Anyway, the country's more split than you think, and it's going to stay that way if the postwar situation/the economy stays bad. If the Dems had a star candidiate, I'd be confident in predicting he (well, rather, she) would win; as it stands, I still think they have a chance, probably about 40% right now.

to think that this war has nothing to do with oil or economics is laughable.

if it was for liberation, we should be in the Congo.

yeah for the sake of any rational real debate on this issue we have to completely disown the government line. theres some valid stuff to pick out, but generally its PR and holds no weight. ive been waiting to talk about this war on a machiavelli-type level. control. power. maintaining it.

It wasn't for liberation, either, as much as it should have been.

hey if you were on tv or radio i would patronize your show

Well, two things: Firstly, oil is not just money, it's power. Controlling more oil means controlling more of the world's supply, which is powerful in both economic terms and strategic terms. Reserves are estimated at over 100 billion barrels, at a production cost of around $1 per barrel. Current prices are around $30, so we're talking around $2900 billion wortrh of oil sat there. Apparently the Pentagon has estimated the cost of the war at between $60 and $100 billion. That would still be a nice return. And don't forget, oil reserves are running very low now, and suitable replacement energy sources have not been found. As supply becomes more and more scarce, oil reserves are going to become very important, and prices will rocket.

Secondly, you could also look at the channels the money would actually pass through. The actual war was paid for by the public, through taxes. The revenue from the oil would go to private oil companies, meaning that many pay out, and only a few reap the rewards. It's not inconceivable that the oil guys in the government might want to help out their friends - after all, if the war wasn't about oil, the cost is still there. If they're not adverse to spending so much on a war with no monetary returns, why would they be adverse to doing so to gain something back?

This isn't to say I necessarily believe all of this, I just don't think the idea of oil being a major factor is ridiculous at all

Don't patronize me

Bush should announce the WMD discovery at the 2004 Republican Convention in New York City....now that's showmanship!

you mean the one they've already moved back almost a month to help it coincide more with 9/11???

what a bunch of fuckers


and he's going to win, too b/c the democrats have no fucking candidates...i used to believe in edwards but now i'm not so sure...i wouldn't even vote for kerry or gephardt myself and i'm a fucking communist! ahh, dark days ahead...

I think it was pretty well proven several months ago by the likes of BlueStar and myself that this war was not about oil. Get over it.

*blink* I wasn't blaming the Republicans for the economy. I don't know enough about the economy or how it works to do that. The economy is the last thing I care about when it comes to politics.

I was just noting that it's historically very rare for a President to get re-elected when the economy's not doing well. Because while, like me, most Americans probably don't know enough about how the government and the economy interplay to really know what they're talking about - unlike me, for a large proportion of the voting public, the state of the economy is a significant factor in how they vote.

HHAAHHA no jc, i dont think so. you and bluestar are the final definative voice on nothing to nobody. this is as much open for debate as it ever was you shitface, i say you get over yourself first

Kucinich?

*sigh* when leftists/ignorant people are proven wrong they often resort to name calling/ personal attacks. Classic.

You could have responded with a well reasoned argument why your theory is correct but instead you chose to call me a "shitface."

And proving your case is not:

-- posting a CTRL-V from a well known leftist scource
-- calling the otherside "shitface"
-- implying that the other side is arrogant

Go find the thread, and argue with the stats BlueStar posted for a neutral scource. I dare you... shitface.