Who HASN'T been paying attention?

[LynnTheDem]

Which answer do you believe is true?

The 3 variables:

-Iraq had WMD after 1991.

-Iraq was involved -directly, or indirectly or funded- the 911 attacks.

-The majority of the world supported bush's invasion of Iraq.

[Ravenseye]

1. What about 1 variable?

I don't think Iraq was involved in 911....I KNOW the majority of the world didn't support he invasion....

WMD after 1991? Yeah quite possible. WMD after 2001? Not very likely.

Nukes? No. Bioagents? Probably not. Chemicals? Yeah good chance. Not a ton, but I would wager some.

Reason to invade a country unprovoked?

Priceless.

[MemphisTiger]

2. but...but...Colin Powell showed us the pictures

so it must be true because he wouldn't lie. I can't even keep a straight face while typing that.

[LynnTheDem]

6. Stop laughing, your typing goes squiggly!

:D

And Powell never lied about the Mai Lai massacre, or IraqGate, or Iran-Contra, or 1991 Gulf war. Uh uh. Not Powell. :crazy:

[Sideways]

26. Stop Laughing Powell Had Some Mighty Fine Clip Art

Looked like he ripped it off from a 5th graders power point presentation. I knew it was all lies but when I saw the clip art I knew we were gonna get royally fucked. That shit just sealed it for me.

Fucking war criminal and professional liar oh and WH Uncle Tom.

[LynnTheDem]

28. Did you see that "drawing" he had???!!

OMG that had me snorting my soda, I was laughing so hard when I saw that in the WaPo! HOW could ANYONE...even the silly rightwingnuts...have taken that seriously! LOL!!!

[Ravenseye]

7. That was BS

We're talking about them saying..."Look see they'd making them RIGHT NOW" and that was bullshit.

The question said since 1991. Well if we take that to mean post-gulf war, then I'm not saying there was any evidence of them, but i'm just saying that we KNOW he had them before.

If you think that there wasn't a drop of illegal chemicals there in 1991...not 2001, 1991...then you need to just think about it for a second. Just because some guy 10 years later says 'no evidence' doesn't mean there weren't any.

Of course there wasn't any nukes, or major stockpiles, but to say NONE...thats an absolute that just seems kinda unlikely to me.

Just like saying did Iraq have any 'direct or indirect' connection. INdirect? Hell the United States had an indirect connection. Bush gave tax breaks, some people took those tax breaks and gave money to different organizations, some of which were unscrupulous and gave money to terrorists, who used money to buy the plane tickets.

Just bullshit.

[LynnTheDem]

8. bush, Cheney, and both bush's weapons inspectors say NONE since 1991

NONE has been found since 1991.

As a negative can't be proved, I'm willing to use the terminology of bush's own hand-picked weapons inspectors and say "no WMD since 1991".

Iraq MAY have pink elephants, too...but to date, NONE have been found. ;)

[MemphisTiger]

9. What I was referring to were the pictures of the

mobile chemical weapons labs that Colin Powell showed to the UN to gain support for the attack. If we could find a MOBILE truck that is allegedly producing weapons, why can't we find it now. Because sometimes a truck is just a truck.

[LynnTheDem]

11. Oh yeah, the hotdog trucks

The hellium weather balloon trucks. The ones sold to Iraq in the 1980s...by the UK.

That sure turned Tony the bLiar's face a deep shade of red.

ROTFLMAO!!!

[LynnTheDem]

4. Both of bush's own hand-picked weapons inspectors say

No WMD whatsoever since 1991, no plans (aka "weapons of mass destruction program related activities) since 1994, no capability to produce WMD since 1991.

Both are bushits, hand-picked by the head bush, and republican warmongering bastards, and are in 100% agreement with Scott Ritter, the DoE, the IAEA etc...so I'm taking them at their sworn word.

Actually bush & Cheney both publicly admitted in September "no WMD since 1991". Amazing how the 60% bush supporters don't bother listening to their bush-god. Too busy drooling with lust, perhaps. EWWWW.

[itzamirakul]

3. What about this variable?

That Saudi Arabia was involved in 911? Or that persons from Israel were involved in 911?

[LynnTheDem]

5. Oh dear...we have 1 person who has NOT paid attention.

Tsk. Hope that's not a progressive!

[Yuugal]

10. I voted the 3rd choice

I'm sure Iraq still had some stuff left over from what we gave them in the 80's. Most of the world's people may have been against the invasion and that may have caused their govts to say all the "right" things against it but deep down, I think the people in power all over the world were secretly happy at first that the US was sitting on a good chuck of the world's remaining oil. Global corporations need the oil spigot to be wide open and its they who really pull the strings in this world. Unfortunately for them, the oil hasn't been flowing much at all and it probably never will until we leave.

Nobody on the world stage has accused Bush of war crimes in the Hague, or slapped sanctions on us, or coordinated a huge boycott of US goods. Even if the face of torture pics, blatant mistreatment of mass numbers of "detainees", horrific civilian casualties.....still nothing ever gets done on the world stage whether it be the UN or even just one unilateral act by somebody. If the world majority is truly against this war, why aren't they doing anything about it?

[LynnTheDem]

12. But the fact is

NO WMD has been found since 1991, and so say bush's own 2 weapons inspectors. They also say Iraqi didn't have any CAPABILITY to produce WMD since 1991.

Another fact is, the vast majority of the world opposed bush's invasion of Iraq.

NO NATION in the world had a pro-war majority of citizens; not even the USA until after the bombs were dropping on Iraq.

The world DID try to prevent bush's invasion of Iraq; should the world have attacked America? Bombed Washington? Plenty of people on the world stage have accused bush of war crimes. Nations are boycotting US goods; that's why the huge trade gap we now have.

The US can't have sanctions slapped against it through the UN, as the US would simply veto any such actions.

Something IS being done; the world's nations are continuing to isolate the USA.

[Yuugal]

13. nothing has been found

but the poll just asked if I thought there was any WMD after 1991 and I think there was up until the inspections were stepped up under Clinton at which point the stuff was probably shipped to Syria or Iran. We didn't conquer Iraq in 1991 so there had to be stuff still there for a while.

[LynnTheDem]

16. Side question for you...

Syrai and Iran are NOT pals of Saddam Hussein or his government and most certainly never have been...WHY on earth would they EVER have said hey sure, we'll risk being wiped off the face of the earth for you, you bastard that we hate, we'll hide your WMD for you???

Not to mention, of course, that US satts have NEVER picked up the massive movements that would have been EASILY visible had Iraq sent Syria or Iran their WMD to hide; or why Hussein would ever have bothered to hide any WMD to begin with; or why he'd have bothered to hide useless gunge, which is all Iraq's chem and bio agents would have been many years ago (they have very short shelf lives for the best quality, and Iraq never did have the good stuff).

Only the rightwingnuts were ever stupid enough to come up with this bullshit, yet so many people such as yourself, who aren't rightwingnuts, seem to think this ludicrous idea has merit.

WHY?

Because it's so often echo-chambered by the rightwingnuts that it's morphed into CW?

Even bushCartel, in their desperation last year to explain no WMD, didn't bother trying to use that excuse. And they've tried pretty much every possible excuse in the book. :D

[Yuugal]

20. good question, heres my answer

"""Syrai and Iran are NOT pals of Saddam Hussein or his government and most certainly never have been...WHY on earth would they EVER have said hey sure, we'll risk being wiped off the face of the earth for you, you bastard that we hate, we'll hide your WMD for you???"""

In the first gulf war Iraq planes flew to Iran and that was right after a bloody war between the two. Hatred for America breeds strange bedfellows. If I was running Iraq I'd have given them to Satan before giving them to the US or letting them find them. Many times in life two enemies get together to confront a greater danger. That would be us.

[LynnTheDem]

22. But WHY, if you ruled Iraq, would you have given them to ANYONE?

The planes that flew to Iran were Iraqi DEFECTORS; 2 of them were MEK (Iranian). They sure as heck weren't hiding hundreds of thousands of chem or bio agents, or the humongous missiles and launch pads on their planes. I doubt they had so much as a change of underwear with them.

They'd be useless. You gotta understand here, Iraq's chem & bio agents had shelf lives of less than 2 years.

Any WMD they had was made PRIOR to 1991; they had NO capability to produce any after that.

So why would you a decade later give useless gunge to anyone?

Why would anyone hide your useless gunge?

And no, Iran and Syria were never against the USA so much more than against Iraq that they'd have risked anhilation to hide useless gunge for Hussein.

And how about the total lack of US satts to pick up any such MASSIVE movement, when they were able to pick up license plate numbers in downtown Baghdad?

How come not 1 single Iraqi has come forward and said "I helped hide/move WMD"?

With the quantities bush quoted over & over & over & over & over, there would have been THOUSANDS of Iraqis required to move it all; yet not 1 person has come forward to collect bush's $1 million reward for such info.

Why the contortions? Why the refusal to accept the most likely truth, which most experts world-wide have said was most likely since the start? For the past decade Iraq has been telling the truth; they destroyed their WMD right after the 1991 Gulf War. There is much PROOF of this; there is NO proof whatsoever, and no common sense, to Iraq having handed over their WMD to Syria or Iran or anyone else.

The UN weapons inspectors, such as Hans Blix, continuously said there was vast evidence of vast amounts of wmd destroyed. The problem for the UN teams was that they could not say what the exact amounts destroyed were. Until they could prove EXACT quantities, they were forced to leave the amounts as "unaccounted for", because that is how the US worded the UN resolution.

It's like you saying you had 10 sandwiches and bush says PROVE IT. You gave 6 away as pressies. The inspectors find 4 of the gift recipients who still have their sandwich presents still in their wrappers, and then they find the empty wrappers of the other 2 sandwich presents and the recipients who agree that yes they ate those 2 sandwich gifts.

So the inspectors can reasonably account for those 6 out of 10 sandwiches.

You say you ate the other 4 several years ago, and you were so sick from pigging down so much at once that you had to go to the hospital.

The inspectors check hospital records, and they say yep you were admitted for tummy ache, too much sandwiches...but they CANNOT SAY FOR CERTAIN how MANY sandwiches you ate.

Maybe you only ate 2 and are hiding 2 in Syria. Mouldy stale useless sandwiches.

PROVE you ate all 4. A decade ago.

You can't. But there IS proof that you did eat them; you just can't prove you ate ALL of the 4 "unaccounted for" sandwiches.

[Yuugal]

24. what if you weren't just starved for food

you were also starved for cold hard cash?

""" But there IS proof that you did eat them; you just can't prove you ate ALL of the 4 "unaccounted for" sandwiches.""""

Maybe he sold a few sandwiches to avoid a total loss? If he did I doubt he cared who bought them. I'm so used to being lied at by the govt and the media that I've finally just settled on the idea that there were "some" WMD's at one point or another, and that they went somewhere. Into the ground, maybe they were sold, maybe some spoiled, maybe all of the above. Keep in mind I'm talking about the early 90's. By the time Bush got a hard-on for Iraq I don't think they had squat except for a lot of oil.

[LynnTheDem]

27. Then we'd have found proof of the sales

And why would anyone buy useless gunge and risk anhilation?

But...

Let's agree there's a lot of proof but no certainty that Iraq didn't have any WMD after 1991, and pretty much for sure he had nothing after 1998.

And agree that bush and his Cartel are lying war criminal bastards. Deal?

So...shall we go for some sandwiches? My treat, I'm STARVING now! :D

[Ravenseye]

15. Fact? 2 Inspectors saying it doesn't necessary make it true.

The WMD that they had in 1990 didn't just go POOF! Certainly they were in the process of getting rid of them, whether they were destroying them intentionally, selling them off to the highest bidder, or just burying them in the desert somewhere and abandoning them.

To go in there ten years after the fact and say 'well we have no evidence there has been any WMD here since 1991' is saying that we know they had some in 1991, and we know they don't have any now, and no evidence since 1991. To say that means that they were immediately removed by Saddam in 1991 is absurd.

I don't think he was making more, I don't think he had them at the start of the second war, but what happened to them? They obviously got rid of them, but I dont' think it happened overnight.

To send inspectors in there, even now, and say there are NO weapons of mass destruction there, and I don't care if Bush says it, it just dangerously silly.

It's a HUGE country with plenty of people we don't like. If we can't find the damn insurgents what makes you think we'd find the WMD especially if they were portable or buried in someones backyard?

I"m not saying it was a reason to go to war, I'm just saying that you can think we didn't have reason to go to war, and also think it's possible that there are even still WMD there to this day.

[LynnTheDem]

17. And maybe we'll still find Iraq's pink elephants.

After all, it's a big country.

[Ravenseye]

21. Thats an insulting response

They never had pink elephants. There are no pink elephants anywhere.

Iraq DID have WMD. There are WMD in many different places and countries.

The question that was posed was whether I believed Iraq posessed WMD since 1991.

If you had said 1998, or 2001, I would have said "No, they haven't had WMD since then." but the question was 1991.

The country is in utter chaos, and a solid 20% of the country either hates us enough not to cooperate or is actively fighting us and making it difficult to go places. Some of those people have been 'out of control' since before we even got to Baghdad.

All I'm saying is that they had them, you know they had them, in 1990, and we know they aren't there now.

If you believe that inspection teams can travel Iraq right now and honestly determine whether or not there were any WMD in Iraq on January 1st, 1992 then maybe you really can see pink elephants becuase you're obviously smoking something good. Quit hogging it.

[LynnTheDem]

23. Iraq had NO CAPABILITY to produce WMD since 1991

That is a proven fact.

Iraq may have had chem & bio agents, made prior to 1991, still on-hand after 1991.

BUT we have NO PROOF whatsoever that Iraq had any wmd after 1991.

BUT they'd have been useless by 1994 at the latest, if Iraq did have any old stock still on hand after 1991.

BUT the official finding is no wmd after 1991.

BUT none whatsoever has been found; not by the UN teams up until 1998, and from 2001-2003; and not by either of bush's US teams from 2003-2004; and not one single Iraqi has come forward and claimed bush's $1 million reward for info on wmd being in Iraq after 1991.

BUT we DO have a LOT of PROOF that in fact Iraq did destroy all wmd in 1991.

If even bush & Cartel are forced to concede no WMD in Iraq since 1991, that's more than "beyond reasonable doubt", imo.

[Ravenseye]

29. You are saying what I'm saying!

I never said they made any after 1991, and you yourself say theyt may have had agents made prior to 1991 still on hand after 1991.

Thats all I'm saying. Not having proof of somethings existance is not proof that it doesn't exist at all and you know it.

I think anything they did have probably was useless by 1994.

You didn't ask about the official finding, you said whether they had any past 1991, and even you admit it's possible, even in small amounts, and the inspectors wouldn't have found them. That's all.

And just because Bushco said that there were no WMD in Iraq since 1991, you believe them? When did you start believing what they say? Do you also think that privitizing social security is a good idea? Bushco says so.

As far as how much PROOF we have that iraq destroyed all their WMD in 1991, we're talking about findings that partly are touted in the media as 'SEE PROOF' while other parts of it showing the shakyness of the actual findings are buried and never talked about.

This is all PROOF that has come about since the war. We didn't have this proof before the war. I don't buy any intelligence collected in the current environment. Yet I still doubt there were any functioning WMD in the country after 1994. Early 1992 though? I wouldn't be so sure, and thats what you're talking about.

[LynnTheDem]

30. I don't believe bushCo on ANYthing; I do believe Scott Ritter.

And this is what HE said way before bush's illegal war of aggression.

Funny how bush's own hand-picked inspectors were forced to the same conclusions, LOL!

Of course the US Stenomedia won't point out just how WRONG WRONG WRONG bush is...as bush ALWAYS is. But still, WE know, and we KNOW BUSH knows we know. Ya know? :D

[proud patriot]

14. Hmmmm , my choice is not on the list

I believe the weapons were destroyed in operation
Desert fox in 98 I believe .

so saddam had weapons after 91 ,but they were destroyed prior
to the invasion in 2002. Iraq had zero connection with the
Sept. 11th attack.

[LynnTheDem]

18. If Iraq had pre-1991 WMD in 1998, they would have been useless gunge.

Both of bush's lead weapons inspectors make it very clear; Iraq did not have the CAPABILITY to make WMD since 1991.

ANY WMD they may have had after 1991, altho none to date has been found, would have dated PRIOR to 1991.

Even the best of chem & bio agents have short shelf lives (3 and 5 years) and Iraq never had the good stuff.

I'm going by the OFFICIAL finding; Iraq had NO wmd and NO capability of producing wmd since 1991. And it's a lot more than just bush's weapons team leaders who come to such a conclusion.

The "truth" is, Iraq COULD have pink elephants; but the official truth, and the most likely truth, is they do not. ;)

[Rambis]

19. I have never believed...

anything the bushies have told us. I was gob smacked when people started talking to me about how 9/11 was the work of Sadaam. I never made the connection and no matter how many times the bullshits told us there was one I never believed them. I didn't know about PNAC at the time so I didn't think * could be manipulated (revenge for daddy) into invading a country. Nothing surprises me anymore. MIHOP/LIHOP, CIA funding foreign wars by selling crack in the US. Blood for oil, food for oil, meds for oil... Whatever lowly depths you can possibly imagine we have already been there and have moved on to what more heinous crimes? YOWSAH!

[Lone Pawn]

25. I believe they likely hadn't gotten around to destroying everything by '92

Therefore, even though it isn't a choice, I'd pick "Iraq had WMD after 1991" on technical grounds.

[quaker bill]

31. 1991 is not the correct date

The inspectors were still uncovering caches of the old WMD stockpile well after 1991. However, there is little evidence that any remained after 1994. The programs to build WMD in Iraq were ended in 1991, but the clean up took longer.

[LynnTheDem]

32. And that 1 who voted for "all 3" lives under a rock

Only 20% of those incredibly ignorant 60% of bush supportersthink all 3.

Talk about an "insignificant fringe minority"! Poor thing.