Why not plant WMD to justify Iraq war?

I believe the war in Iraq is illegal. I believe we went in there under false pretences. I believe the president lied to us by saying Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I therefore believe we made a mistake by preemptively attacking Iraq for those reasons.

So I'm wondering why hasn't the government simply planted WMDs to justify the war?

Good question. If he did that though, it'd justify this theory of him lieing and what not. Wouldnt that play right into y'all's hands? ( and by y'all I mean those that believe as you, nothing offensive meant)

No offense taken. I guess I'm asking the question under the assumption that they could plant the WMDs and get away with it. I wouldn't think that would be too difficult.

I guess I'm wondering, in a round-about way, if the governement has the capability to orchestrate something like 9/11 why wouldn't they simply plant some WMDs and get people like us off their backs?

Well, at this point in time and, perhaps, at the time of the war, it is conceivable that even if the U.S. found WMD, people wouldn't have believed it. This administration has a genuine credibility gap. It is difficult to credibly believe anything that the administration states.

It's a real "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation.

Because they didn't find WMD in Iraq, they are damned. If they had found WMD in Iraq, noone would have believed it. People would have assumed that they had been planted. Therefore the administration is damned.

To answer your question, why don't they just plant WMD in Iraq? I have to ask why bother? Anyway you put it, the administration is damned. No one believes anything that the administration has to say. I only have one question; Who can you believe?

That's exactly how feel as well. Why bother risking getting caught if nobody's going to believe you anyway.

As far as who to believe, at this point in time, that's a really difficult thing to answer. 9/11 has really damaged people's belief in their government. I don't simply take what the government spews at face value anymore. I don't think they ever expected the power of people talking on the internet to affect public opinion the way it has since 9/11 and I must admit it's a great thing to see. People are no longer limited to form opinions based solely on what the mainstream has filtered for them.

Just look at today's events. Right off the bat people (at least here) are questioning the validity of what went on. There are alternative discussions going on outside of "Al Qaeda did it" and IMO that's pretty cool.

It does have credibility gap, but it stems from the lack of WMD in Iraq so if they had found em, or planted em, then that gap wouldn’t be there.

For sag of argument, say they did orchestrate 9/11 and planted WMD. Look on this board, the news and other places on the net. They wouldn’t get away with that any better than they got away with 9/11. I mean 5 years later there is still great turmoil over “Did the govt/Bush know about/orchestrate 9/11?”
It would be even harder than a 9/11 cover-up. The Iraqi’s would know it was false and we couldn’t shut them all up like we somehow have over 9/11.

Plus there is still a chance we will find WMD where there is some evidence that they were shipped to Syria and now possibly in Lebanon. The Israelis are looking at possibly sending troops to an area some thing the WMD from Iraq were placed before Syrian forces were run out of Lebanon.

But as with 9/11 and Bush lying, its all opinion, speculation and hoping.

THey didn't plant wmds because they figured, when they first cooked up the plan, that no one would beleive it by that point??

Does that mean that there aren't any more conspiracies then?

I asked the very same question a long time ago, and I believe the general response was that they'd be found out to have been planted. Never really bought that, nor do I buy it now. Some people believe the US government planned and carried out 9/11... what's planting a few weapons in the desert compared to that? I mean, give me a nuke and transport for a few friends and we'll bury them in the desert, and we're untrained idiots!

All that aside, whatever one believes, what if some country's intel agencies planted weapons in Iraq and, say, the British or Dutch or Italians or whomever (non-US) found them? Would that change things at all, credibility-wise? (Not a rhetorical question, I'm just curious of others' opinions on that matter)

[edit on 10-8-2006 by AlphaHumana]

Good counterpoint to mine. I agree with that as well. Whats a few supposedly planted weapons compared to 9/11. Most dont believe 9/11 was an inside job so they'd prolly buy that WMD were really found. But then again look at this admin and they cant seem to keep stuff secet for long. It seems everything gets leaked these days.

I think it would make a lot of difference if a different country found WMD. Whether they were planted or truely found, everyone elses countries credibilty is greater than the US's. Why I'm not so sure since the US's lack of credibility stems from no WMD as ou intel said, but every other nations intel said the same. Why are we the liars? because we were willing to do something about Saddam even though it was possibly bad intel?

[edited vulgarity, please, no vulgarities on board -nygdan]

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Nygdan]

the first time around, they knew they had chemical weapons and lots of arms coz we sold them in the first place. the second time around it was just a facade. lots of us said so from the begining. glad to see others coming around. as to why they dont just plant them? my best guess is why risk the possibility of exposure when they are already in? if they got caught for example it would be a real bad thing...

now what i think is they might find em yet. i mean, imagine if the whole world opened its eyes and realized they werent there in the first place. then imagine the day before the excrement hits the cooling device a load of WMD gets found. that would keep the show on the road indefinately...

Originally posted by SenHeathen
Good counterpoint to mine. I agree with that as well. Whats a few supposedly planted weapons compared to 9/11. Most dont believe 9/11 was an inside job so they'd prolly buy that WMD were really found. But then again look at this admin and they cant seem to keep sh!t secet for long. It seems everything gets leaked these days.

I think it would make a lot of difference if a different country found WMD. Whether they were planted or truely found, everyone elses countries credibilty is greater than the US's. Why I'm not so sure since the US's lack of credibility stems from no WMD as ou intel said, but every other nations intel said the same. Why are we the liars? because we were willing to do something about Saddam even though it was possibly bad intel?

could you please post links to that?

You want the answer? Because they truely thought they'd find some. Just like if they invaded any country, they would find some kind of WMD. That is why (and published) Saddamm secretly had all of his weapons destroyed because he didn't want what happened to happen. Justify a war by claiming he is a threat and has WMD. So saddamm destroy them all.

Bush and Comp. were going to war no matter what. People that don't see this don't want to see it. That simple. AAC

AAC, I see where you're coming from... but it really isn't too late for someone to plant such weapons! Senior admin officials wouldn't even have to know about it. Heck, Franklin Roosevelt had no idea we were developing a nuclear weapon and the Manhattan Project had over 100,000 people working on it from three different countries! What's a misplaced CIA team or Seal-squad with one of our many thousands of nukes, chemical or biological weapons?

edit: changed some words, it sounded too aggressive, my main point is my opinion that it is not too late, not that I espouse such an idea because I support the efforts in Iraq, WMDs or not, but that's a whole different thread.

[edit on 10-8-2006 by AlphaHumana]

mecheng

I'm still trying to understand why people insist upon saying that Bush lied about WMD just to start a war in Iraq when the evidence leads to a contrary conclusion. I've been paying very close attention to the Iraq situation since the 1991 gulf war and I just cannot come to your conclusion. I'm not trying to be provocative here but I want to understand why people think this way. Thanks

www.time.com...

“To be sure, even some of the key antiwar Europeans believed Saddam may have had some WMD capability. The intelligence agencies of Germany and France may have been as surprised as the CIA by the complete absence of any such weapons in Iraq. “


www.freerepublic.com...

The people now saying that GW lied are themselves liars I guess. Read these quotes:
theanchoressonline.com...


You could even read it from a General in Saddams army whom wasn’t even muslim and went against Saddam many times and is surprisingly still alive.
Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied & Survived Saddam Hussein? By General Georges Sada and Jim Nelson Black


Sorry, it’d take me a week to find links to everyone’s intel reports since everything I searched for came up with how there were no WMD found.


Heck, this could all be wrong and Saddam never did gas the Kurds and we haven’t found any sarin or mustard gas. Who knows???????

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
AAC, I see where you're coming from... but it really isn't too late for someone to plant such weapons! Senior admin officials wouldn't even have to know about it. Heck, Franklin Roosevelt had no idea we were developing a nuclear weapon and the Manhattan Project had over 100,000 people working on it from three different countries! What's a misplaced CIA team or Seal-squad with one of our many thousands of nukes, chemical or biological weapons?

[edit on 10-8-2006 by AlphaHumana]

At this point is it even neccesary though? With all the violence everywhere I believe they have thier hands full. BTW, they've already addresed the situation with, "We saw the same eveidence that Congress saw before war."

Plus, they'd probably be scared that a terrorist group would kidnap and retreive the weapan and use it on soldiers. Maybe? AAC

Originally posted by War_Monger
mecheng

I'm still trying to understand why people insist upon saying that Bush lied about WMD just to start a war in Iraq when the evidence leads to a contrary conclusion. I've been paying very close attention to the Iraq situation since the 1991 gulf war and I just cannot come to your conclusion. I'm not trying to be provocative here but I want to understand why people think this way. Thanks

With a name like that you probably don't want to see it.

Seriously though, it is the events leading up and afterwards that sheds light on the deception. It is calculated treason in my humble opinion. Opinions do vary. AAC

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

Originally posted by War_Monger
mecheng

I'm still trying to understand why people insist upon saying that Bush lied about WMD just to start a war in Iraq when the evidence leads to a contrary conclusion. I've been paying very close attention to the Iraq situation since the 1991 gulf war and I just cannot come to your conclusion. I'm not trying to be provocative here but I want to understand why people think this way. Thanks

With a name like that you probably don't want to see it.

Seriously though, it is the events leading up and afterwards that sheds light on the deception. It is calculated treason in my humble opinion. Opinions do vary. AAC

Ok but I asked reasons and evidence. All you provided is your opinion. I have a degree in aerospace engineering from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. When I got my masters I focused on aerodynamics and structural design. The basic principles for the engineering of airframes and buildings are exactly the same. Structural engineering of bridges and skyscrapers is an interest of mine and I've studied these topics independently. All the talk of 911 being an inside job and the buildings being brought down by controled demolition is just crazy. There is absolutely no scientific or engineering basis to any these claims and those who perpetuate the notion of controled demolition only demonstrate their own ignorance.

Furthermore, how could controled demolition take place when even experts in the field such as the Loizeaux family always gut a building before the shape charge explosives (or standard explosives) are stategically placed to weaken and/or sever load bearing columns and beams. The gutting of the building serves two purposes. First, to remove certain materials that may pose an environmental threat and second, to remove building materials so the shape charges can be placed. Removal of these material often takes several days, even weeks, and the resulting operation looks more like a major construction site. So, with the building having to experience at least some degree gutting, taking weeks for a building of that size, and the equipment needed throughout the building and outside, how exactly was this operation to take place without hundreds, or even thousands, of people that work at or near the trade center knowing about it?

I have alot more to say about this including evidence and sources to go with it. I will add more later. If anybody wants information on the Loizeaux family here is there website : www.controlled-demolition.com...

Originally posted by SenHeathen
www.time.com...

“To be sure, even some of the key antiwar Europeans believed Saddam may have had some WMD capability. The intelligence agencies of Germany and France may have been as surprised as the CIA by the complete absence of any such weapons in Iraq. “


www.freerepublic.com...

The people now saying that GW lied are themselves liars I guess. Read these quotes:
theanchoressonline.com...


You could even read it from a General in Saddams army whom wasn’t even muslim and went against Saddam many times and is surprisingly still alive.
Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied & Survived Saddam Hussein? By General Georges Sada and Jim Nelson Black


Sorry, it’d take me a week to find links to everyone’s intel reports since everything I searched for came up with how there were no WMD found.


Heck, this could all be wrong and Saddam never did gas the Kurds and we haven’t found any sarin or mustard gas. Who knows???????

SenHeathen did you read the Charles A. Duelfer Report? If not you should. It's 985 pages long but it is very damaging to those who claim Saddam was not seeking WMD when we went into Iraq. The media cherry picked from the Duelfer report to promote their anti Bush pro liberal agenda. I's no wonder at all so many people believe the rubbish they do about the war in Iraq. Your points about the intel are spot on as well. I'll try to post the Duelfer Report for anyone who wants to know the truth.

Originally posted by War_Monger
...very damaging to those who claim Saddam was not seeking WMD when we went into Iraq.

WM - I'd like to see the report if you have it. IMO, there's a big difference between saying we're going to invade another country because they have WMD's vs. we're going to invade another country because they're seeking WMDs.

Bush, Cheney, and Rummy all told us, prior to the invasion, that they have WMDs and that was the supposed reason for invading Iraq. Unfortunately, so far, it appears they're wrong.

So what I don't get is why not just plant them to say "see here they are"?