Why not plant WMD to justify Iraq war?, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 11-8-2006 @ 03:40 PM by War_Monger
Originally posted by mecheng
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"?


Mecheng

I'd first like to say that I comend you for the decency you have shown me here in this thread. I'm a new member for I've joined only recently but I have participated in several discussions already. There are some members of this site (I won't mention any names) that have attack me personaly and seem to only want to argue and fight simply because I disagree with them on the very topics relevent too our (yours and mine) disscussion here. Therefore, I will vote for you this month. It is members like you that make this worth participation. I hope we can continue to have an intelligent and rational discussion and transfer of ideas.

Now, in responce to the above quote, I would like reiterate the assertions of a member, who posted earlier to this thread, that it was not just Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld who were saying that Iraq had WMD. There were a number of intel agencies around the world who were saying the same thing. I remember the news stories about it in the time leading up to the invasion. I'm currently working to find good sources for this information.

I do agree, however, that something very unfortunate happended in regard to the intel on the WMD. Several questions must be asked (and answered) about the apparant intel failure. First, if the intel that the U.S. provided as justification for an invasion was faulty, what happened with the intel from other nations that agreed with that of the U.S.? That could, in the minds of conspiracy theorists, suggest not just a U.S. cooked conspiracy, but global collaboration for a conspiracy. Is that Likely? I think not. The other possibility is simply that the weapons were hidden somewhere in Iraq underground, as many other weapons have, or the weapons were destroyed in haste as a result of the threat of invasion, or that the weapons were transfered out of the country. There is one final point I would like to make about the "hidden weapons" theory. Even a cursory search on google will turn up much factual evidence of weapons that were found buried in the sand in Iraq. Even intact and fuctional fighter jets have been uncovered. And this was not a scrap yard either. If Saddam was willing to hide legal weapons in the ground, why wouldn't he be willing to hide illegal weapons in the sand? I'd like you to comment on that.

Here is another point to ponder. Lets just assume for a moment that Bush and Blair did lie about wmd to justify an invasion. What would be the consequences of lieing and cooking up faulty intel? THe consequences would be exactly what we are seeing today with people calling them liers and demading impeachment proceedings. Bush and Blair are not dumb. They would have understood the consequences and relized that there political careers and reputations would be severly damaged. Furthermore, if they lied people would have found out that they lied when no wmd turned up. They would have had to understand this as well. So why lie about something when you know for certain any lies are certain to be uncovered. I wouldn't do that and I don't think you would neither. No rational person would. Think about that.

Here is a link to the Duelfer Report:
www.cia.gov...


reply posted on 11-8-2006 @ 06:33 PM by War_Monger
Originally posted by
War_monger,

I appreciate your position. In your professional opinion, you believe that a fire burning for less than an hour brought down 100 stories of infrastructure?

That seems to belittle common sense (yes I have looked at other examples of burning sjy scrapers).

Remember the b-29 bomber that crashed into the Empire state building back in the day? That building was a lot less sound from an engineering standpoint, and it still up.

I challenge anyone who doesn't believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy to do the right thing. Step away from their position and really entertain the hundreds of elements surrounding 9/11, leading up to and afterwards, it will become self-evident. There is a psycholgy implanted in our american minds making us not want to see it. Alas, it is still there.

AAC

[edit on 11-8-2006 by AnAbsoluteCreation]


AnAbsoluteCreation

I to respect your opinion. However, I strongly believe you to be mistaken. Allow me to explain. First, a B-29 never hit the Empire State Building. It was a B-25 Mitchell

source: Scroll down to July.

The B-25 was much smaller and much lighter than the Boeing 767's that crashed into the Twin Towers. Also, the 767 is a jet capable of speeds far great than the maximun speed of the prop driven B-25. It is very poor judgement to compare the combined supeior speed and maximun tonnage of the 767 to the inferior speed and tonnage of the B-25. More speed and mass results in higher impact energy.

The Twin Towers were designed to take a direct hit from a fully loaded Boeing 707. So does that mean that the building should have been able to survive the 767 impact. A comparison of the 767 to the 707 reveals that the 767 is not only larger in dimension but also an incredible 116,400 lbs heavier than a fully loaded 707! The answer is No.

Now, where do you get this information that the Empire State Building was "alot less sound from an engineering standpoint"? The Empire State Building uses the traditional steel column and girder construction with a concrete facde. This construction technique is used throughout the world on literally thousands of buildings and is known for its enormous strength and durability. In fact, it is quite common knowledge in the civil engineering community that column and girder construction is the one of the strongest designs available. The drawback in using this design is the fact that it uses tremendous amounts of steel which translates to tremendous costs and and a great total building mass. The fact that the Empire State Building (and many other buildings using this construction) is still standing after nearly 80 years is testement to the fact that column and girder construction is quite sturdy indeed.

People seem to think that the steel in the trade center had to melt and become a liquid in order for the building to become weak enough to collapse. This is a faulty assumption. The strength of steel, or any metal for that matter, weakens as a function of temperature. In fact, by the time steel reaches 44% of its melting temperature (approx 1100 degrees F) it has already lost 72% of its yield strength (source A)! In addition, steel, like all other metals, has a very low specific heat capacity, which means that it will absorb heat very quickly and easily and is the reason why it only took approximately 1 hour to fell the buildings. The reason that other buildings (column and girder) survived and the towers didn't has everything to do with their respective design criteria. You need to take into account the mass and the cross section of the steel, the amount of steel, the thermal translation in the buildings interior, and a whole host of other engineering considerations.

Sources and additional info:

source A: Handbook of Mathematical, Scientific, and Engineering (by the Staff of Research and education Association)

[url=http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/References/FireDesignSteel.pdf]Fire Design of Steel Structures



reply posted on 13-8-2006 @ 02:12 PM by Liberal1984
I think they were extremely confident they would find something Saddam had genuinely forgot to destroy. After all both the U.S and Russia (as well as probably a view other countries) have chemical and biological weapons they are still in the process of decommissioning
www.defenselink.mil...
www.ens-newswire.com...

Once they had found such weapons I think the plan would be to work out how deadly their contents would be if say they were injected into you. They would then be able to say in the press they had found a hundred or so WMD’s each with the capability to kill say 10,000 people. That would look good, the press would love it, and only sites like this would make people aware of the facts.

Actually planting WMD’s would be totally criminal to all those involved. Everyone from the president downwards would be committing both a national and international crime. In the event something leaked (which you could be sure it would) there is a chance the president would have to leave as an exile; or possibly do time.
As the war (post invasion) progressed the chances of being to do this (and get away with it) would grow slimmer. You would need the involvement of at least a hundred troops just to get them there; everyone one of those soldiers would be liability and you couldn’t be sure they would all get killed in action. In fact this might be a particularly bad idea if those involved got pissed.

Side Note
Contrary to popular belief the U.S only opposes the first use of these weapons; it retains the right to retaliate. www.fas.org...
I found that link interesting, on the one hand they are destroying perfectly good WMD’s on the other hand they retain the right to use them. I guess America will just have to make some new ones pretty damn quick in the event they want to retaliate?
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^