http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...65431098444910

Well, anyone suprised about this? I'm not.

 

F'ing retards. The 9/11 commision proves without a doubt there were none, and BUSH admits there were none, and they still beleive there were. People like that need to be dragged out back and shot. Well, maybe not shot, but beat with a rubber hose maybe.

-Chris

 

Strong ties with al Qaeda have been refuted but nobody knows about the possibility of WMDs

 

So you are saying that since the intelligence that says there are no stockpiles of WMD found yet (just small weapons programs) and that therefore NO STOCKPILES exist is better than the pre-war intelligence? You realize that it came from many of the same sources, right?
Even though I still don't think that's the REAL reason we went there, I'd bet you some will turn up over time. So what do you think about the caveats in the report?

Did you mean mis-education? I thought I was going to see a hot republican chick in this thread.

 

Speak of the devil on breaking news....

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/in...&partner=MYWAY

 

Can anyone explain to me how that's not evidence of a weapons program?

 

Sure,

They were allowed to have the HMX and RDX because they are also used in civil/industrial razing. It was well known that they had these and that they tried and failed to develop a nuclear program with these items in the 80's. There has been no evidence of a renewed program since the gulf war.

Where is the outrage that tons of this material has gone missing under the 'watchful eye' of our military? Why is the first instinct---"see, I told you they have WMD" instead of, "holy ****, our military just let 380 tons of explosives dissapear into thin air"

 

Exactly.....

 

Didn't Rumsfeld admit that there were no WMD's already? I could have sworn he said they were wrong about that a few weeks ago...are you one of the people they're talking about in the article Salty?

 

Rumsfeld did that to save face IMHO. There's no telling what's under all that sand and we may never know for hundreds of years

 

Actually there are several excellent ways to detect things under sand. Sonar works alright, certain radio frequencies can be used...bombs/bunkers have much different densities than sand, and we can definatly figure out densities under ground from aerial methods...how do you think we image/find the bunkers we do blow up? Or how about underground oil? The earth can be imaged deeper than Iraq is capable of digging...and IMHO, I'll bet we've imaged the whole country (wouldn't be all that hard). So if you thought Rumsfeld admited what he did IYHO just to save face, then I say you ARE one of the people talked about in the article.

 

Its obvious to me you don't know much about the technology you are referring to. I admittedly do not either. However I do not believe that using sonar or some other method to "scan" an entire country and detect burried munitions "wouldn't be so hard". On the contrary, I think it would be next to impossible. My point is, imaginary effortless scanning of a country does not an argument make.

 

Pray tell. How DO we image/find the bunkers we do blow up? I imagine that we use a vast aerial formation of art deco robots with sonar and radio scanners behind their cyclops like visors.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/haarp.htm

That link describes the technology and is a research proposal to set up stations around the globe for military use (haven't done it yet, but the technology is around, just not in a standardized form that can cover the whole NHemisphere like they propose).

http://www.sandia.gov/RIE/OilAndGasA.htm

This one describes Sandia using the same technology to find gas/oil. They have been testing for many years, and I'm sure our military has some working prototypes of this type of technology.

Haven't you seen the pictures they show on the news of underground-imaged bunkers?
In addition to all this, I'm sure X-rays and even the newly developed T-rays could be used.

All I'm saying is that there really isn't anywhere in Iraq where a bunch of WMDs could be hidden...we would have found them by now. And Rumsfeld admited he they were wrong about the WMDs because...gasp...they were!

 

easy there on your own fallacious arguments:

Appeal To Complexity:
if the arguer doesn't understand the topic, he concludes that nobody understands it. So, his opinions are as good as anybody's.

I actually do know something about the technology, and, although it may not be easy (as in quick and effortless), it can be done, and is being done.

In addition:
Burden Of Proof:
the claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can't make a strong enough case.

There may be three problems here. First, the arguer claims priority - but why is it him who wins by default? Second, he is impatient with ambiguity, and wants a final answer right away. And third, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."