●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byfnj ( 64210 ) writes:
Look, I don't know for sure if they are faked, and neither does anyone else. If they are real, all of the world leaders need to be removed and punished for allowing it to happen. But let's suppose for a moment that they ARE fake. I do know that the idea of blackmailing or threatening mass devastation using fake WMDs is evidence of either very sick (and stupid) minds indeed, or a bankrupt response policy on the part of the civilized world. We know this has been done before. Saddam Hussein did his level best
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
I do know that the idea of blackmailing or threatening mass devastation using fake WMDs is evidence of either very sick (and stupid) minds indeed, or a bankrupt response policy on the part of the civilized world.
You mean like when we claimed Hussein had WMDs although we knew he didn't? Yes, that was sick, and morally bankrupt. And done for profit.
byfnj ( 64210 ) writes:
You need to read up. SH made up his fake WMDs as deliberate policy. He actually essentially confirmed this later. He made them pretty convincing. Pretty much all intelligence worldwide was fooled. Yes, the response was just as crazy as the provocation. I thought I made all this clear.
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
Pretty much all intelligence worldwide was fooled.
This does not even approach the truth. Pretty much all intelligence worldwide was skeptical, and we knew that even as we declared that he definitely had WMDs. Revisionist view of history is revisionist.
Yes, the response was just as crazy as the provocation. I thought I made all this clear.
You did not even make your views clear, and your views do not define the situation.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byCassini2 ( 956052 ) writes:
Saddam Hussein thought he had chemical weapons, and definitely wanted them.
George Bush said he had chemical weapons.
Most of the worlds intelligence agencies, including the CIA, were quietly saying they were no chemical weapons. Some of these agencies had their results taken out of context by their superiors.
If I run outside my house, stark naked, on a city street, carrying a fake gun, screaming "I have a gun!!!" The police will probably shoot me. After a while, that was what happened to Saddam Hussein
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
Saddam Hussein thought he had chemical weapons, and definitely wanted them.
There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein actually thought he had chemical weapons. And since he was kept drugged up the whole time he was on trial, nobody ever got any conclusive answers to anything. He managed to get some good zingers in during the trial anyway.
George Bush said he had chemical weapons.
So, two of the least credible people on the planet said that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons, and that's supposed to be convincing?
If I run outside my house, stark naked, on a city street, carrying a fake gun, screaming "I have a gun!!!" The police will probably shoot me.
Probably. But if you run outside your house stark naked with no gun in sight (and clearly, nowhere to conceal one)
bySockatume ( 732728 ) writes:
Be carefuly with that analogy. There's no question that Hussein actually had chemical weapons until the '90s. We sold him the fucking things, and the capability to make more, before the Gulf War, and the UN implemented a disarmament treaty in the aftermath. Whether he was following that threaty - and what risk any remaining weapons might present - was central to the Iraq war. It's not like, apropos of nothing, Western powers decided he must have weapons of mass destruction.
Of course there's a preponderance of evidence that whatever his ambitions, he simply did not have the weapons or the capability to make them. That is, there was evidence of absence, not absence of evidence.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
Be carefuly with that analogy. There's no question that Hussein actually had chemical weapons until the '90s. We sold him the fucking things,
I know that, and I've made the point that we "had the receipt" more than once here on Slashdot. However, as you say:
Of course there's a preponderance of evidence that whatever his ambitions, he simply did not have the weapons or the capability to make them. That is, there was evidence of absence, not absence of evidence.
We knew that what we had sold him was no longer around and we had no evidence that he had actually managed to use what we sold him so really, there was no evidence that he had WMDs and we knew that. There was all evidence that it was possible for him to get WMDs but if that is the bar then we're all fucked.
bySockatume ( 732728 ) writes:
Oh, that last paragraph was my way of making it clear I agreed with you.
bySockatume ( 732728 ) writes:
Whatever the actual motivations of the agents involved, Iraq's disarmament compliance was the argument for war, and the essential dispute between the UN and the Coalition. You'd have to have been asleep for the entire year leading up to the invasion to suppose that it wasn't absolutely fundimental.
●r current threshold.
byHentes ( 2461350 ) writes:
Saddam Hussein definitely had chemical weapons, he just used them all up on his own people by that time.
byformfeed ( 703859 ) writes:
Probably. But if you run outside your house stark naked with no gun in sight (and clearly, nowhere to conceal one) screaming "I have a gun" they'll probably just taser you.
Unless you're in L..A.
They probably would shoot you. -And then five other naked people just to make sure they really got you.
●r current threshold.
●ur current threshold.
byfnj ( 64210 ) writes:
Alas, it is you who are revisionist. Try checking the facts [snopes.com]. Deal with it.
● current threshold.
bySockatume ( 732728 ) writes:
Even a charitable analysis of the situation would suggest that a mixture of "motivated reasoning" (bullshitting yourself to a predetermined conclusion) and/or sheer staggering incompetence was necessary for Hussein's posturing to be read as a credible, actual threat.
Even if he hadn't been complying with his disarmament agreement (which, lest we forget, was partly necessary because Western governments had been selling him chemical weapons and manufacturing equipment for years) that's a political issue for th
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...