If there's no WMD, Bush loses my vote.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Lancer
Something very wrong with that guy.

Who me?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


Welcome to circular logic-ville, population: You.

Why are you confident we will find something that hasn't been proven to exist in the first place?

Because I always been confident.. when I was coming out to my parents I was confident they would be accepting and they were.. when I got into a relationship I was confident they would be okay with it and they were...

So why not be confident about a international issue? I am hoping it will turn out like every other time I was confident.. my way.

As long as you realize that's not logical, more power to you.

Just a hunch feeling I guess.. in that recent capture of nearly 400 loyalists...

[Pekka]

Lancer, I respected you before, and now I respect you even more. I still disagree with you, but I can not help but admire your backbone. The fact remains that Bush promised WMDs, but yet there are no WMDs to this day.

They did have WMDs for sure. But the question is, where are they now. I think the most important question is, if the WMDs have gone missing, at what point it happened. Has it been few years? If so, then the intelligence was not sufficient for attack for reasons being WMDs in the first place. It is worrying, that we lost the track of those WMDs. Now we need to carefully think, if we can claim that they are in Syria now for example and attack. What if they're not there anymore either? What if they never went to Syria? The Iraqi WMDs that is, maybe they have their own but that's not the point. Can we go around the world, attacking every country, because the WMDs have supposedly travelled there? If WMDs are not to be found, then it means intelligence failed miserably. If those are the facts and condition, I think we are not ready for any attacks. Not until we have SOLID information. It is very clear that even if there was intelligence information, it was not solid, because we would have found it already.
And the point is, gov promised WMDs, and we don't have them. Even if we were to find them in coming months, the intelligence information was weak. Too weak.

I still support 'liberating' Iraq, but for different reasons.

[Dr Strangelove]

Wouldn't it be funny if the weapons of mass destruction turned out to be oil barrels filled with grain alcohol and grape juice? Yep, I've been to places where "purple jesus" was pretty much a weapon of mass destruction.

[Lancer]

cyclotron, just a small joke, actually it's me... ok it's a tad silly...

I gotta go to work, later Poly.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Fez
So why not be confident about a international issue? I am hoping it will turn out like every other time I was confident.. my way.

Well, have it your way then. I suppose hunches can't be argued with.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Lancer
cyclotron, just a small joke, actually it's me... ok it's a tad silly...

I gotta go to work, later Poly.

Hmmm, I'll think about that one.

'Bye, Lancer.

[Lancer]

Pekka, sure, Iraq was good for Israel and I support Israel. If Bush had made the case on attacking Iraq to support our allies in Israel, it wouldn't have sold, sadly. Remember that...

[Urban Ranger]

Kudos to Lance for sticking W to his words.

But don't forget Powell's list! Rest assured though the Dems and lefties will post the list when the time comes.

[Pekka]

Lancer, True.. but lying is not the way to go with war either. Though I argue that Bush necessarily did not lie.
He's not the head of Pentagon. Pentagon provides (?) the information, and they are responsible for what information they give and how they make them look and what conclutions they make from their own reports, and what they recommend, and how they use their special experts. I bet they can get anything look dangerous if they want to, so how their reports were when they reached Bush. It could have been an honest mistake too from the side of Pentagon. Or, maybe they are 100% correct and right on the button, but for some reason they have been failing finding them.

What is sure now, is that they did not have knowledge of where they were. Maybe they thought they did, but in reality they didn't. Now, if they actually have WMDs in Iraq, what kind of danger they would have posed to US troops, as they could have not destroyed them in time. The way I see it, US troops were in grave danger because of faulty or incomplete intelligence information. Now that's hazardous. Maybe honest mistake, maybe not, who knows.

[Pekka]

So, because of incomplete information, someone must have pushed this really hard from Pentagon. Or at least this is what I believe until I learn something new.
This person needs to be investigated, because in my opinion he put US troops in dangerous position. And if the investigation shows real hard pushing because of personal agenda or what ever, then it is even more serious, since you can't go doing things like these, they start wars!

If it was an honest mistake by this person(s), they still need to be kicked in the butt for not doing their jobs. They could have always said 'We are not sure'. Even though I believe the results in Iraq were good, there still needs to be some butt kicking, to prevent these things happening. If not for anything else, then for that the troops won't face such danger because of '100% sure information'.

[CyberGnu]

Fez, OK, so you are confident. But how long are you willing to give Bush? If no WMD's have been found a year from now, will you still be confident?

[CyberGnu]

Pekka, why are you ruling out the possibility that the WMD's were destroyed in the mid 90's?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Fez, OK, so you are confident. But how long are you willing to give Bush? If no WMD's have been found a year from now, will you still be confident?

I'll give him up to a month before the election.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Pekka
So, because of incomplete information, someone must have pushed this really hard from Pentagon. Or at least this is what I believe until I learn something new.

You mean Wolfy the warmonger?