Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News WMD allegations make a comeback

  1. Aug 7, 2006 #1
    According to my morning paper an Associated Press article written by Charles J Hanley indicates that 50 percent of the American people now believe that there are WMD in Iraq. This is up from 35 percent one year ago.

    The free Republic and other rightwingers including talk radio are taking this to a totally bizarre extreme and apparently people are believing it.

    Link from the Free? Republic with sub links.

    The Iraq Survey Group totally debunked the WMD myth. What could be the psycololgy behind people believing or wanting to believe this tripe.

    On July 21 (I can't find a link, but it is in Hanley's article) A Fox news segement reported. Are Saddam Hussein's WMD Now in Hezbolla's Hands? Fox had no evidence. This is truly Rovian.

    I will try to find a link to Hanley's article. edit: here is one
    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/08/07/half_of_us_still_believes_iraq_had_wmd/?p1=MEWell_Pos5 [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 7, 2006 #2
    That's one way to look at it. Another way is to say the Duelfer report detailed Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions regarding the declaration and destruction of proscribed weapons and materials.

    We ask the same question about the other side all the time.
  4. Aug 7, 2006 #3
    Read the article by Hanley. You are debunked with facts. And no, don't give me any assignments or suggest that I am using the wrong definition of the word "facts" as you have done in another thread:rolleyes:
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 7, 2006
  5. Aug 7, 2006 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Personally, I couldn't care less what the results of ANY poll are. They are misleading and manufactured, why should I or anyone else care about what other people "think"? Talk about herd instinct. :rolleyes:
  6. Aug 7, 2006 #5
    Herd instinct is exactly the problem being discussed here, whole herds of people being driven to irrational fears over nonexistent weapons.
  7. Aug 7, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that weapons were found in Iraq, but this information was kept quiet for political reasons, I.E. the original sources of the weapons (or the materls and chemicals used in them) can be traced back to "ally" nations?
  8. Aug 7, 2006 #7
    It was politically led herd instinct that got us into the quagmire in Iraq.
    You don't really think that it was independent thinkers that got us there do you??:rolleyes:
  9. Aug 7, 2006 #8
    There are herds pushing that impression on people, but not with any reasonable basis for the claim.
  10. Aug 7, 2006 #9
    My God you fell for the group think.


    The idea that the information about the stray shells found was withheld because the United States, through the Department of Commerce, made it possible for Iraq to buy the chemicals is bunk.

    All of the Iraq's chemical weapons were filled with chemicals with the purchase made possible by the USA. That was common knowledge a long time ago.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2006
  11. Aug 7, 2006 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Whatever, I am not particurally interested in arguing the finer points of the Iraq war, my simple point is just that polls in their current form (ESPECIALLY when coming from the A.P.) are B.S. I'm sure there are Iraq war threads a mile long with many arguments laid out, I don't feel the need to re-invent the wheel in this respect, because in the end people need to make up their own mind, no one should do it for them... Unfortunately factual data is very lacking in this arena, and it is my suspicion that any real data that exists is either classified, or drowned out by raging opinion.

    As for polling- my suspicion is that people's opinions are close to a standard distribution on any given sontroversial subject, and the "limits" of where the poll is taken dictate the results. Most of the time, a controversial issue such as this end up 50-50. Phrasing, available questions, and context have too large an effect on a poll's answers to make it even marginally effective.
  12. Aug 7, 2006 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Right back atcha Eddie :yuck:
  13. Aug 7, 2006 #12
    And what's your source for this speculative little tidbit?
  14. Aug 7, 2006 #13
    Here's an assignment for you. You read it and point out where I'm "debunked with facts." Then you can play with the goalposts and retreat to the presently safe claim that "there is no evidence of an active, viable Iraqi chemical or biological arsenal." Of course, that wasn't the question asked on the poll, now was it?
  15. Aug 7, 2006 #14
    I'm don't think "group think" means what you think it means.

    Um, where did you get that idea?

    On the point about the ISG addressing the chemical munitions shells uncovered in Iraq.

    So now we know three things
    1. Iraq did not comply in substance (they retained hundreds of munitions) or in process (they did not declare tens of thousands of munitions) with the disarmament protocols specified in the pertinent Security Council resolutions.
    2. ISG has no idea what happened to hundreds pre-1991 of CW munitions.
    3. Over 500 CW munitions have been found since exploitation began.

    My guess is because what other people think affects policy insofar as those people elect the policymakers.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 7, 2006
  16. Aug 7, 2006 #15
    http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/made-in-the-usa-part-iii-us-government-agency-listings/2892/ [Broken]

    Not that you will read it.

    Three moot points, the Pentagon has declared the pre 1991 weapons as unusable.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  17. Aug 7, 2006 #16


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, more than anything I am referring to documents from Saddam's regime released by the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office a short while ago, which detailed Iraq's connections with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and their policies for hiding/disposing of components, chemicals, and documents in laboratories from U.N. inspections. I used to have a link to these documents, but it has since gone dead, perhaps someone else has one :frown:

    As for the speculation about the origins of the weapons, it comes mainly from Rush Limbaugh (which I tend to agree with, although he himself said it was speculation when trying to decide why these documents had been classified for so long). One way or another, it seems strange to me that the military has been finding weapons in Iraq, yet these discoveries have been played down, even though they would be helpful to Bush's stance, and the military's on-going campaign in Iraq. it makes me wonder is all :uhh:

    I'm just throwing ideas around, even if I do realize that many people on this board are visciously liberal.
  18. Aug 7, 2006 #17


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    On another note, it's obvious that Hezbolla is not using old Iraqi weaponry, they are being supplied by Syria and Iran.
  19. Aug 7, 2006 #18
    The shells have been found one or two at a time over the last three years. Rush is the epitome of group think.
  20. Aug 7, 2006 #19
    The Exact quote from the Fox news segement was

    I cut and pasted the entire sentence, how did the term WMD come up missing??

    Regardless, this is the type of outrageous National Enquirer mentality that uninformed people on the right are falling for.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2006
  21. Aug 7, 2006 #20


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    All true statements that miss the point completely. If the reason for the invasion was to punish Iraq for failing to comply, your statements would be relevant.

    As it was, 99.7% of chemical weapons were destroyed in spite of a half-ass, rushed plan for destruction. The remaining weapons found were non-functional and dispersed haphazardly around the country. Even if the reason for invasion was non-compliance, such a punishment would be overkill for a 0.3% error rate.

    The reason for the invasion was that Iraq's WMD were portrayed as an imminent threat, which they were not. The only one of your statements that relate to that is the first. If Iraq had been more open about destroying their weapons, there would have been no question about the threat.

    With Hussein concealing his destruction activities, the US could rely on reports from UN inspectors (no evidence of WMD found, but unable to rule out existence) or CIA reports (yellowcake uranium, mobile chemical laboratories, centrifuge tubes, etc). Which wound up being more reliable?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook