IRAQ MINISTER SAYS SADDAM WMD CAREFULLY HIDDEN

Reuters ^ | 1/29/04

[Coop]

Or it could mean it was never there.

Yep. And we have no way of knowing which it is. But I have supporting evidence backing up my theory.

[Dave S]

No, not you saying the WMD's were destroyed, please direct me to the documentional evidence. If I'm wrong, I want to know it. Help me out. You saying it doesn't convince me, does it convince anyone else?

The US and the UN both said that Saddam had tons of WMD destroyed at the end of the first gulf war. Was there more, who knows. Has he produced more in recent years? Kay didnt find any evidence that he had. Was he still researching WMD? Yes. Was he producing it? No evidence and Kay has done more research than anyone on Free Republic.

[Coop]

Kay didnt find any evidence that he had.

That's false, as the Kay interim report and his testimony both show.

[Dave S]

Well, I'm convinced. There are no WMDs.

If you know they exist, where are they (GPS coordinates please) and how did they get there? WHen did they get there and who controls them now? Humility knows no bounds when in support of ideology.

[plain talk]

No, because that is not what is being said - at least by me. I'm not saying I know they're buried, I'm saying they may be buried. I have no idea what happened to them. And we may never know what happened to them. That's a far cry from those who claim to know there were none.

[Dave S]

I can suppose anything, doesn't mean much

You said it, not me.

What is the big deal? Fact that there were no WMD doesnt mean that Bush lied or that the war was wrong. IF we find some fine. But I certainly wont base my support for the war on whether WMD is located or not. If someone is threatening us with WMD and isnt willing to come clean, then they can suffer the consequences. Looks more and more like Saddam was a total fool. He lost his kingdom over nothing.

[Coop]

If you know they exist, where are they (GPS coordinates please) and how did they get there? WHen did they get there and who controls them now? Humility knows no bounds when in support of ideology.

Weak try, Dave, at best. You folks are the ones who know they don't exist. Yet you quickly realize you can't prove a negative, and many of you are often overwhelmed when the facts are presented to you. Yet rather than back off, you persist.

Yes, I do know the WMDs exist. I cannot even begin to tell you where they are. But I make a much stronger case for their existence than you ever could that they don't exist.

[Dave S]

Now, I could see him fooling one intel service. Maybe two. But not all of them. That's a little too tough.

You think they all get their intel from independent sources? The services share information and there is no good reason to believe any of the services you mentioned had any better sources than we did.

[Coop]

And what does ideology have to do with reasoned debate supported by facts? You're getting a bit desperate, Dave ol' boy.

[Coop]

You think they all get their intel from independent sources?

You think they all take whatever another country tells them at face value without trying to corroborate? You really should give our intel folks a bit more credit. (I realize I'm asking a lot.)

[LS]

I am pretty certain they have separate sources. Indeed, they work against each other on many occasions without even knowing it.

[TASMANIANRED]

Don't you guys remember the mummy movies. The funeral entourage gets slaughtered after the burial, then somebody off's the professional slaughterers and the knowledge is held in a single head.

Now we just have to freaking find the mummy. I always thought it should have been easy to both run away and to find him. One foot print and one big slide. He only moved about 2/10 mph.

[Dave S]

Do you know the difference between having a WMD program and having WMD weapon much less a stockpile of WMD weapons?
Do you know the difference between having a scientist or two that know how to make a nuke and having the plutonium or other materials to make the bomb or having a nuke in a warhead ready to launch?

[Coop]

I have made my knowledge, and the resources used in some cases to obtain/reinforce that knowledge, quite clear over the course of this thread. I unfortunately cannot say the same for you. Regards

[Dave S]

I will take Dr. Kay's word over yours, no offense

Then why dont you accept Kay when he says there probably are no WMD in Iraq now and that there probably were none there in recent years? Duh, you seem a little inconsistent to me?

[Coop]

I'm sure I do. From what I can tell you're not too big on details. Time to go home. Have a good day.

[Dave S]

If he had no weapons why on earth would he have foregone such wealth? This, to me, is the strongest proof that he did, indeed, have these weapons.

Everything in Iraq revolved around Saddam and his needs and desires. Saddam had more money than he could spend. He didnt need the extra oil revenue. He did need the fear that he thought WMD generated so that he could continue in power. He also couldnt afford to look weak to his people by backing down to the west and letting the inspectors in.

[Dave S]

Apparently you see NO intelligence failures in ANYTHING regarding WMD and Iraq.

Coop would be screaming bloody murder over intelligence failure if Bill Clinton was still President.

[Dave S]

Yep. And we have no way of knowing which it is. But I have supporting evidence backing up my theory.

And you have no WMD's and you have Kay saying that they probably never existed. Sorry, I go with Kay over you.

[Dave S]

That's false, as the Kay interim report and his testimony both show.

Read it again. Kay said that there was no evidence that Saddam had any stockpile of weapons like that outlined in Powell's speech to the UN. He had research programs, yeah. But that doesnt mean that he had stock piles of weapons.