On the prowl for WMD

[RawAlex]

Okay, hypothetical now...

What happens if the US (and it's coalition of the willing) take over Iraq, and after extensive study, don't find anything more than the Al samud missles (which go 15 miles futher than they were suppose to...) and a few old chemical shells, long out of use?

Do you think, like a police roust, that incriminating evidence will appear out of nowhere to make sure that things look bad?

What do you think the chances are of actually finding functional WMD at this point?

Alex

[Winetalk.com]

Alkex,
I say we say "Whoops" and wait for Saddam's incarnation to rule Iraq again...


"The purpose justifyes the means" I shall say
;-)))

[Mike AI]

Serge I am with you.

However, I am confident we will find all kinds of things in Iraq. We are not looking that hard right now, our focus is on KILLING the enemy and destroying the Iraqi regimes infrastructure.


We will find evidence of WMD, we will find evidence of Saddam's lying and misleading to the UN, etc... etc...

I can already hear the anti-Americans groaning about our latest military victories. Have not heard about quagmire or vietnam in the past few days. Nothing like outstanding victories to shut up the Anti-American crowd.....

of course they will say we are killing innocent children and women, that it was no surprise the coalition won, blah blah blah....

[Winetalk.com]

Mike, my guts feeling tells me that we won't find shit...

but this si only my guts feeling...

[slavdogg]

i doubt there are any WMD left in Iraq
whatever iraq had was probably transfered to Syria or another country.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by slavdogg@Apr 2 2003, 05:02 PM
i doubt there are any WMD left in Iraq
whatever iraq had was probably transfered to Syria or another country.
that's what we gonna say after we find zilch....

[slavdogg]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Apr 2 2003, 04:45 PM
What happens if the US (and it's coalition of the willing) take over Iraq, and after extensive study, don't find anything more than the Al samud missles (which go 15 miles futher than they were suppose to...) and a few old chemical shells, long out of use?
Alex, there you go again with your your subtle manipulation of truth

i love it

[Mike AI]

Slav, Serge, maybe we will go into Syria to find the weapons. Assad seems to want to rattle the saber, thinking the US was bogged down....

Maybe that is there the 4th ID will head to. The 4th ID by itself could wipe out most armies in the region.... 500 tanks and bradley fighting vehicles, 150 or so apaches. It is the best trained, most high tech division in the Army.

I know it is wishful thinking, but as Patton said after we defeated the Germans... we have our Army here, might as well continue to Moscow.

Some people may hate it, but right now the big dog on the block in the middle east is the United States.

[slavdogg]

Serge, Assad is shaking in his boots for a reason.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Apr 2 2003, 05:11 PM


Some people may hate it, but right now the big dog on the block in the middle east is the United States.
Alexander The Great was bigger force....I wouldn't go into Syria, at least for now.

Making BASE in recounstructed Iraq is MORE importnat IMHO

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by slavdogg@Apr 2 2003, 05:13 PM
Serge, Assad is shaking in his boots for a reason.
the future will tell....

[slavdogg]

little history on Syria
Syria supported Iran in iran-iraq war
supported the first Gurl War
and now is the only friend Iraq and Saddam have.

maybe young Assad should be taught a lesson his daddy learned.


It all sounds nice, but could get very messy if there is a conflict with Syria as most likely Iran and Hezbollah and Israel will get pulled in to battle. After successful Iraq war, leaving Syria isolated might be a better choice. Assad's regime is not very strong, and he'll be surrounded with all pro Western nations

[RawAlex]

Originally posted by slavdogg+Apr 2 2003, 05:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (slavdogg @ Apr 2 2003, 05:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--RawAlex@Apr 2 2003, 04:45 PM
What happens if the US (and it's coalition of the willing) take over Iraq, and after extensive study, don't find anything more than the Al samud missles (which go 15 miles futher than they were suppose to...) and a few old chemical shells, long out of use?
Alex, there you go again with your your subtle manipulation of truth

i love it[/b][/quote]
Slav, I am sorry... what is wrong with that statement? Everything I read on the Al-Samud seemed to indicate that the difference in flying distance was about 15 miles (give or take, hard to tell without firing one to be sure)... and the only shells found by the weapons inspectors were older, did not contain any chemicals, and were not prepared for use.

Did I miss anything?

My personal opinion is that any there were there are either VERY buried, VERY gone... but won't be found any time soon.

Alex

[ulfie]

I saw a former Iraqi scientist state that Iraq started building a subway system under Baghdad years ago but never finished it. There are miles of tunnels already built. A lot of people believe that is where all the stuff is. The tunnels have never been inspected btw. We shall see if it's true.

[Rolo]

They will find WMD... Iraq have already used lots of WMD against their own people - somewhere, someone knows where they are keeping it. Give it 1-2 months, and the Frence will eat their words at the UN.

Heck - Saddam is probably carrying a few WMD in a suitcase or up his ass... we better get those special forces in, and do a body search... :)

[Mike AI]

Slav, Serge you guys are right - isolating Syria, and Iran with a strong pressence by the US in Iraq, and Afganistan is what will happen.

But, we know, and more importantly Assad knows it would not take much to take out Syria... they are a small country, and are bordered against the Med... I think they will play ball. They will have no other choice.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Apr 2 2003, 05:11 PM
Slav, Serge, maybe we will go into Syria to find the weapons. Assad seems to want to rattle the saber, thinking the US was bogged down....

Maybe that is there the 4th ID will head to. The 4th ID by itself could wipe out most armies in the region.... 500 tanks and bradley fighting vehicles, 150 or so apaches. It is the best trained, most high tech division in the Army.

I know it is wishful thinking, but as Patton said after we defeated the Germans... we have our Army here, might as well continue to Moscow.

Some people may hate it, but right now the big dog on the block in the middle east is the United States.
Yeah ... but wasn't one of the reasons we gave for going after Hitler, and the reasons we maintained our guard against the Soviets, because they were prone to acting like the big dogs on the block?

[Mike AI]

PD there is a difference between KNOWING we are big dogs on the block, and then acting on it to just subjugate more human beings to our will.

Calm down....

[PornoDoggy]

Gee, I suppose you are right. Being the big dogs, we know better than any other dogs what's good for them, right?

[Mike AI]

Gee, I suppose you are right. Being the big dogs, we know better than any other dogs what's good for them, right?


YEP!


:D

[PornoDoggy]

You're learning, comrade ...

[-= JR =-]

Alex, the Al Somud (sp) missiles were not destroyed because they went "15 miles further than they were supposed to". I am not sure what you read, but its clear you did not watch or read the report to the UN of Hans Blix.

They were destroyed according to Hans Blix in his report to the UN because they not only exceeded the limitations imposed by the UN BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY because they also could be "easily modified" as he put it, to go even further. that was the issue. that was why they were destroyed after full documentation and information was made available about them.

so what is "wrong with that statement" is that it is not correct and it is missleading... further, it downplays the issue of Iraqs failure to account for the weapons and weapons programs that are the real issue. (VX Gas stockpiles, Chemical weapons stockpiles, Biological weapons programs and stockpiles of Anthrax, Smallpox etc as well as thousands of chemical bombs that turned up missing, 300 illegally imported rocket engines etc. etc. etc. etc. whether those things exist today or can be found does not change the fact that Iraq has staunchly refused to answer those questions and provide any verifiable information on those things which has been demanded repeatedly.

Furthermore, those missiles were fully declared by Iraq, were previously known to exist and were not in any way shape or form connected to the other issues at hand. They were not "found" as you suggested. and still, the questions that were being asked... namely those regarding their refusal to fully account for Chemical weapons stockpiles and programs, Biological weapons stockpiles and programs, thousands of missing chemical bombs, illegally imported weapons (300 rocket motors etc) and the numerous descrepencies in their 2nd declaration to the UN which was no more informative than their previous declarations... though it was clearly said to be their "last chance" which was the 4th such "last chance" out of 16 Resolutions.

whether you agree with it or not, the chemical shells that were found were not declared. meaning that once again, Iraq lied and said "these things dont exist... only to be later found to exist. simple fact. they said they provided a full declaration of everything they had and it was a lie. just as previously. nothing new. if anything, it lends more credibility to the fact that they cannot be trusted to comply even when they were knowingly facing certain destruction with about 300,000 troops and the worlds most advanced fighting forces sitting in their front yard, waiting to strike.

Since there seems to be a far greater focus of world governments and the UN on "post Saddam Iraq", humanitarian aid and the end of a regime which even Russia and Germany only yesterday said they supported, i highly doubt that world leaders will be lining up to say "see i told you so". That does not include the current 49 Nations which now support in some way the war in Iraq which clearly wont.

Given the political value of finding more info about weapons in Iraq, i think its a safe bet to say that more information, testimony, documents, interviews with scientists and probably weapons will definately turn up in a very well publicized manner and it is something that will be pursued very agressively.

I personally think that finding nothing is just as significant as finding something. either way, there is verification... the same verification which Iraq has intentionally failed to allow or provide in 12 years of lies and deception and 16 failed UN Security Council Resolutions.

[Torone]

I don't have time to look it up; but last week, a couple of rockets were captured which UK people were said to have confirmed WERE chemical warheads.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Torone@Apr 3 2003, 06:16 AM
I don't have time to look it up; but last week, a couple of rockets were captured which UK people were said to have confirmed WERE chemical warheads.
wishful thinking, Torone...

[Almighty Colin]

Three choices.

1. Plant them.
2. Claim they were moved to Syria and move on.
3. Bush says "As president I must tell the truth. We didn't find any WMD but we did free the Iraqi people ...." People might eat that truth telling bit. Who would have ever thought people would like Ollie North's patriot defense?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Apr 2 2003, 04:54 PM
I can already hear the anti-Americans groaning about our latest military victories. Have not heard about quagmire or vietnam in the past few days.
They'll be back in force on the next down-cycle.

[Almighty Colin]

Speculation. Take One.

I think WMD's will be found. It's Saddam's life-long ambition. He has accepted sanctions rather than fully cooperating with UN resolutions for 12 years. In all that time he could have been rebuilding his conventional military. Why not comply? I think he'd rather develop WMDs than have sanctions lifted and a bigger and better conventional military.

I think he hasn't used WMD's because he think he will survive.

[Torone]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Apr 3 2003, 06:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Apr 3 2003, 06:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Torone@Apr 3 2003, 06:16 AM
I don't have time to look it up; but last week, a couple of rockets were captured which UK people were said to have confirmed WERE chemical warheads.
wishful thinking, Torone...[/b][/quote]
Aw, c'mon, Serge! Why would CBS (Clinton Broadcast System) lie about that? I think that it is significant that much was NOT made of it...

For the record...
Yesterday was a horrible day for me. Had to get up at 0400, got home at 2000. Bright spot was seeing Iraqi's being forced to undress in the middle of the desert (per my email to Bush after the fake surrender thing last week).

[Torone]

Originally posted by Colin@Apr 3 2003, 06:36 AM
Speculation. Take One.

I think WMD's will be found. It's Saddam's life-long ambition. He has accepted sanctions rather than fully cooperating with UN resolutions for 12 years. In all that time he could have been rebuilding his conventional military. Why not comply? I think he'd rather develop WMDs than have sanctions lifted and a bigger and better conventional military.

I think he hasn't used WMD's because he think he will survive.
Personally, I think he's been dead (daid?) since the first strike...

Of course, I also bought Enron thinking it would go back up...

[Almighty Colin]

I think he's alive still.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Torone@Apr 3 2003, 06:44 AM
Bright spot was seeing Iraqi's being forced to undress in the middle of the desert (per my email to Bush after the fake surrender thing last week).
I didn't know nekkid iraqies turn you on
;-))))

[-= JR =-]

i was wondering the other day... how can it be legal to launch all those missiles on that bunker the first day, with the admitted intention of killing Saddam Hussein and his sons and others with him?

i dont understand what the legal basis is for intentionally trying to kill him even before hostilities began. is it just because he is in a bunker and that is a legitimate military target?

i noticed the world was pretty quiet about it. so i am thinking i am missing something.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by -= JR =-@Apr 3 2003, 07:18 AM
i was wondering the other day... how can it be legal to launch all those missiles on that bunker the first day, with the admitted intention of killing Saddam Hussein and his sons and others with him?

i dont understand what the legal basis is for intentionally trying to kill him even before hostilities began. is it just because he is in a bunker and that is a legitimate military target?

i noticed the world was pretty quiet about it. so i am thinking i am missing something.
JR,
what's wrong with that?

what is bothering you?

[-= JR =-]

i did not say anything was wrong with it or that anything was bothering me. i honestly never understood how it was legal or what the legal justification was for it.

i have heard most of the legal arguments for attacking Iraq and the legality of the conflict in general seems to not really be in question. but to my knowledge, its not legal to intentionally try to kill a head of state.

many other things do bother me though. but mostly its just cottage cheese, Barbara Streisand and rotten fish.

[Winetalk.com]

Ultimatum has passed,
thus the war have begun,
and in the war,
the heads of states ARE concidered to be legal targets...

I read US lawyers analysis of it

[Torone]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Apr 3 2003, 07:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Apr 3 2003, 07:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Torone@Apr 3 2003, 06:44 AM
Bright spot was seeing Iraqi's being forced to undress in the middle of the desert (per my email to Bush after the fake surrender thing last week).
I didn't know nekkid iraqies turn you on
;-))))[/b][/quote]
Sheesh! :headwall:

[Almighty Colin]

What's wrong with nekkid iraqis? I bet there are a lot of olive skinned beauties over there.

[Torone]

Originally posted by Colin@Apr 3 2003, 09:18 AM
What's wrong with nekkid iraqis? I bet there are a lot of olive skinned beauties over there.
...But these were guys...

BTW, here, we pronounce it eye-rackies. :biglaugh:

[Opti]

Originally posted by Colin+Apr 3 2003, 06:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Apr 3 2003, 06:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Speculation. Take One.

I think WMD's will be found. It's Saddam's life-long ambition. He has accepted sanctions rather than fully cooperating with UN resolutions for 12 years. In all that time he could have been rebuilding his conventional military. Why not comply? I think he'd rather develop WMDs than have sanctions lifted and a bigger and better conventional military.

I think he hasn't used WMD's because he think he will survive.[/b]

I agree that the regime heads probably wouldn't use them unless all hope was lost... hopefully by then they won't be capable of lauching them.. Somehow I fear if they do have some devious plan.. it could involve trying to bring Israel into the conflict rather than firing WMD at coalition forces.

<!--QuoteBegin--Torone@Apr 3 2003, 09:46 PM
Personally, I think he's been dead (daid?) since the first strike...

Of course, I also bought Enron thinking it would go back up...[/quote]


If Saddam is dead or badly injured that could be a reason they wouldn't use chemical weapons.. and I do think he's probably dead. he's a meglomaniac and it would really help his cause for the iraqi people to see him ranting and raving. If he could be seen he would be... he definately wouldn't have had the VP read out that speech calling on suicide bombers to attack the mercenaries if he was able to do it himself

Don't forget all those thousands of gas masks and chemical antidote kits we have found... all made in the last 2 years. I reckon that's enough proof that he holds the weapons and is willing to use them. Not legal proof of course, but good enough for me to make up my mind.

i was wondering the other day... how can it be legal to launch all those missiles on that bunker the first day, with the admitted intention of killing Saddam Hussein and his sons and others with him?

i dont understand what the legal basis is for intentionally trying to kill him even before hostilities began. is it just because he is in a bunker and that is a legitimate military target?

i noticed the world was pretty quiet about it. so i am thinking i am missing something.

I saw a bit of commentary about this... Intentionally assainating a countries political leaders is against the law in or out of war time. Allegations that we tried to do that was pretty much answered by

- There was military commanders in the bunker
- Saddam controls the military and wears a General's uniform
- We were at war already.. was way past the dealine.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Opti@Apr 3 2003, 10:46 AM
I saw a bit of commentary about this... Intentionally assainating a countries political leaders is against the law in or out of war time.
What if they're also a military leader though?

i.e. Saddam is in charge of Air Force and Ground to Ground-to-ground missiles.

Also - Bush = Commander and Chief of Armed Forces

[RawAlex]

JR, lovely spew up there... right off the Powell briefing to the UN.

Long on suspicions, short of facts.

The Camaro parked in your driveway (or your neighbor's driveway) can be modified to be a racecar. Does that mean it is? Nope... just could be. The Al-samud missles (almost half of which were destroyed prior to the start of the war) had a range that was very slightly past the limits of the UN resolution... 25 kms, about 15 miles, if I remember the numbers). Possibly in the future, with time, effort, and money, they could have been converted to longer range. But I didn't read anything that talked about them existing.

They found some shells, sitting in a warehouse. Those shells were not armed (no explosive of chemicals in them) - they were destroyed as well.

There are alot of claims about how much of this or that Iraq has (or had, the stuff does degrade over time, and the last time they used the stuff was over 10 years ago, from what I have read).

The thread asks a simple question, what happens if the US (and friends) take over and don't find anything? Not why the US went to war, but what happens if the whole thing was a mistake?

Alex

[Opti]

Originally posted by Colin+Apr 4 2003, 02:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Apr 4 2003, 02:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Opti@Apr 3 2003, 10:46 AM
I saw a bit of commentary about this... Intentionally assainating a countries political leaders is against the law in or out of war time.
What if they're also a military leader though?

i.e. Saddam is in charge of Air Force and Ground to Ground-to-ground missiles.

Also - Bush = Commander and Chief of Armed Forces[/b][/quote]

I think that is the point the coalition forces were making.. Saddam controls the military and wears a General's uniform.

George Bush may be commander in chief but he is clearly the peoples representative and not a military leader.

All that aside.. the point was very strongly made that there were several other legitimate military leadership targets in the same bunker, which makes the strike "legal" in any case.

[Almighty Colin]

For me, it's this simple.

A 13th consecutive year of lying and hiding is more likely to occur than a sudden reversal of policy in Iraq.

I said before the war that if any WMD's are found in Iraq it would be foolish to announce it until after the war. Once it is known that Saddam has WMD he is free to use them as there is no reason not to. A sudden announcement that Saddam has chem weapons would place coalition troops in immediate danger. I stick to that.

We'll see.

[Almighty Colin]

Refresher Course on Saddam's Deception (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/etc/cron.html)

[-= JR =-]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Apr 3 2003, 11:37 AM
JR, lovely spew up there... right off the Powell briefing to the UN.

Long on suspicions, short of facts.

The Camaro parked in your driveway (or your neighbor's driveway) can be modified to be a racecar. Does that mean it is? Nope... just could be. The Al-samud missles (almost half of which were destroyed prior to the start of the war) had a range that was very slightly past the limits of the UN resolution... 25 kms, about 15 miles, if I remember the numbers). Possibly in the future, with time, effort, and money, they could have been converted to longer range. But I didn't read anything that talked about them existing.

They found some shells, sitting in a warehouse. Those shells were not armed (no explosive of chemicals in them) - they were destroyed as well.

There are alot of claims about how much of this or that Iraq has (or had, the stuff does degrade over time, and the last time they used the stuff was over 10 years ago, from what I have read).

The thread asks a simple question, what happens if the US (and friends) take over and don't find anything? Not why the US went to war, but what happens if the whole thing was a mistake?

Alex
Alex, i am quoting facts and you are talking about a Republican political conspiracy and suggesting it is factless. I am talking ONLY about facts and you are making remarks that are nothing more than opinion, supported by remarks like "i dont recall reading that".

it seems to me that you probably have not read Iraqs Weapons Declarations to the UN, the reports of previous inspectors, the various timelines of events and are not aware of what weapons, weapons systems and biological and chemical agents are not still not accounted for.

I have read it all and i know very well what i am talking about. i am not talking about suspicion, i am talking about weapons known to exist, verified to exist and whose whereabouts and/or possible destruction have not been accounted for.

Like many, i suspect you are confusing the fact that the last inspectors found little (though they are not there to "find" anything) with the fact that large stockpiles of weapons are not accounted for which Iraq has refused to cooperate in accounting for them. Its not about what is "found" its about Iraqs refusal to cooperate in the verification and destruction process of the UN Inspections Team.

fact 1: i neither dispute that many were destroyed or what their range is. Their destruction had absolutely nothing to do with Colin Powell. as i have indicated previously, i think that Colin Powell did not do a good job at all in making their case. Tony Blair has been much more convincing and compelling in my opinion.

fact 2: the missiles were prior declared to the UN and known to exist with the exception of some specific technical details and information regarding tests. after examining additional information and inspecting the rockets, Hans Blix determined that they should be destroyed.

just because you dont "read anything about them existing" - does not change the fact that it is a known and verifiable fact as they were reported to exist in Iraqs latest Weapons Declaration to the UN following the last Resolution 1441.

fact 3: the missiles were destroyed because they both exceeded the maximum range alowed and quoting Hans Blix "could be easily modified" to further increase their range. I watched him say that live as he gave his report. it was significant to me because was curious what the arguement was for destroying them since Iraq maintained that if the missiles were fully loaded with fuel and a warhead, they would have fell WELL within the allowed range.

you are making an analogy about a Camero/racecar and i am talking about the actual reason given by the man who made the decision. whether you agree with it or not or you dream of a faster Camero - is not relevent to the stated reason for their destruction by the head of the weapons inspection team.

fact 4: they found some chemical shells. the simple fact is that they were not declared to the UN as was the case with numerous other weapons programs and weapons. nothing new. still a lie no matter how you look at it. and it was one more lie in a long string of lies.

as for the the actual "what if" question, i answered that as well.

[RawAlex]

JR congrats, you have done it again... completely missed the point!

You just recited the list of why the US went to war. You didn't answer the simple question:

What happens at the end of the war, Tommy Franks in charge or Iraq, and they don't find WMD?

Alex

PS: Don't try to twist everything I say into some sort of anti-american conspiracy bullshit. Your getting a little paranoid, I think.

[Carrie]

Okay, the question assumes that we won't find anything, and what happens then.
The same thing that happens if we do find something. The UN and coalition forces work to rebuild Iraq, without a maniacal dictator who orders mass attacks on people and whose personal guard slaughters innocent civilians who are trying to flee the city for their own safety.

The WMDs are still a concern, but that concern has faded in the face of what the Iraqi soldiers are doing to damn themselves. You don't jump up holding a little girl as a human shield and expect the world to still be on your side.

Last night on msnbc the Pentagon allowed an embedded reporter near Al Kut to broadcast a verbal description of what was going on during a firefight. His photographer was filming the whole time and the Pentagon was seeing that video, but the tv viewers just got to hear the audio.
An Iraqi soldier had taken a family hostage and was using them as human shields during the firefight. During the shooting, the Marines were doing everything possible not to hit this family (a father, a 13-yr old girl, and a small 3-yr old girl). Finally the Colonel of the troop put a bullet right through the head of the hostage-taker and freed the family, and the reporter (who is also a doctor) ran out to get the family down into their foxhole. (You should've heard the doctor when a helicopter flew in for support and started firing Hellfire missiles right over their head - "JESUS CHRIST! JESUS CHRIST!! HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!! WOOO!!!" right on the air, hehe.)

Being a terrorist isn't just about chemical weapons - it's also about terrorizing your own citizens and mass-murdering them for no reason other than the fun of doing so.

So nothing happens. The rebuilding goes on and the world rejoices because these terrorized people are free to live a life out from under the oppression of a murderous, raping dictator and his sons.

[-= JR =-]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Apr 3 2003, 12:14 PM
JR congrats, you have done it again... completely missed the point!

You just recited the list of why the US went to war. You didn't answer the simple question:


JR congrats, you have done it again... completely missed the point!

no one is talkinga about why the US went to war. i certainly wasn't. you are dodging the facts again and twisting the truth.

it seems that anytime someone puts up a strong argument against what *i believe* to be very flawed logic on your part. they have "missed the point" - "just don't get it" - "did not read the post" - "completely missed the point" etc etc. Maybe Serge will be kind enough to just put icons for those remarks to spare you the inconvienence of having to type them so often?

Alex, i answered that question already... then for the sake of clarity, pointed out again that i answered it. so i am not sure what "point" i am missing.

i only posted because you made a missleading and incomplete statement... then asked "whats wrong with what i said"?

I answered you and you make derrogatory remarks about what i said while dismissing it as "long on suspicion and short on facts" and accusing me of quoting someone that you dissagree with politically - so i once again, (for the second time) i tried to clarify it in a way that would leave no confusion and that could be easily disputed if it was possible to dispute. ... but you have already chosen to play the "you completely missed the point" card. so i guess i have to fold my hand now.

i guess its not always about "learning" as you claim is it Alex? it often seems to me that you see messageboards as being about "teaching"

maybe i am just a bad student.



Last edited by -= JR =- at Apr 3 2003, 12:58 PM

[Opti]

I don't think finding WMD is as vitally important as we all once thought.. assuming the Iraqis dont use them then it will be ambiguouis anyway.

Those that want to believe any WMD's the coalition find were planted will believe that... if they don't find any, then those that believe they were smuggled to Syria or too well hidden will believe it..

There is so much evidence that they do have WMD it is almost impossible to believe they wont be located when the regime is gone anyway.

[Almighty Colin]

I think finding chem/bio weapons is important. How will the Arab world react if coalition invaded Iraq and Saddam didn't have WMD after all?

That being said, I think they'll be found regardless of whether they are there or not.

Yet another way in which the victors write history.

[Carrie]

Well said, Opti.



Last edited by Carrie at Apr 3 2003, 01:44 PM

[Opti]

Originally posted by Carrie@Apr 4 2003, 04:44 AM
Well said, Opti.

I saw what you called me before the edit! :ph34r:

You have no idea how often people used to mix us up ;-)

[Carrie]

*grin*
Sorry about that :)

[Opti]

Originally posted by Carrie@Apr 4 2003, 04:54 AM
*grin*
Sorry about that :)

If you know him, it is even funnier considering your current title ;-)))

"R-n L-vi's next ex-partner!"

:D

[RawAlex]

JR, point of this discussion was a simple question: What if there are no WMD? I think Colin understood what I meant very well: What are the political implications of being somewhat wrong?

All of your comments in your first post pointed out the reasons WHY the US went to war. That isn't the issue. That is old news. There is a war - the war was because the US claimed Iraq didn't follow UN resolutions, and violated them.

If there are no WMD, then there is a problem. Was Iraq actually in compliance with Resolution 1441? If there is not solid proof to the contrary, what does it mean, especially within the political context of that region? Will not find WMD be the type of proof that extremist groups can use to rally people to rise up against US friendly governments in the area? Will the Arab people just be happy to see a major jackass like Saddam blown off?

JR, you do seem to try your damnedest to misunderstand me, so that you can ridicule me. What can I say, it's just boring.

Alex

[originalheather]

Whether or not we're going to really find anything is anyone's guess. Whether or not they were there to begin with I think is a given. He has or had them, but I'm sure they're very well hidden and as a lot are saying, are probably in Syria.

[Mike AI]

There is no doubt in my mind there will be lots of evidence found on WMD. However, the people who are biased and are anti-USA will say that the evidence has been fabricated and planted by the CIA/Special Forces/USA.

One cannot change the minds full of mush, who are always on the wrong side of history.... there are people in the world who truly beleive 9-11 was a plot by the CIA and Israel to start a war against Muslims.

This is a good article... I think he is right on the numbers, but obviously Bush and others cannot just come out and say this.... but it is what I have been saying for years. We are at war with Islamic Fundamentalism, and we have been since the 80s.... only now do we realize it, and are acting on it..... Oh and we will win!


http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.....war/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.woolsey.world.war/index.html)

[-= JR =-]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Apr 3 2003, 06:51 PM
JR, point of this discussion was a simple question: What if there are no WMD? I think Colin understood what I meant very well: What are the political implications of being somewhat wrong?

All of your comments in your first post pointed out the reasons WHY the US went to war. That isn't the issue. That is old news. There is a war - the war was because the US claimed Iraq didn't follow UN resolutions, and violated them.

JR, you do seem to try your damnedest to misunderstand me, so that you can ridicule me. What can I say, it's just boring.

Alex
Alex, you made a missleading remark and then asked "whats wrong with what i said". i responded to that... and that alone. i pointed out in a clear and concise way, what was wrong with what you said. i was not pointing out "why the US went to war".

you then tried to address it and attacked what i said. i went over the facts one more time just for you. all points which you will tactfully ignore because you know you can't ague against them. thats vintage RawAlex.

thats all i said. nothing more, nothing less.

you keep pointing out that i did not answer your question, when i am pointing out now for the third time that i did. you seem to have a very selective memory.

as i have said. i think its equally significant if nothing is found than if something is found. the issue is verification... the same verification that Iraq failed to provide. given the political value of finding something, i am sure we will be bombarded with new evidence, testimonies, documents and probably actual weapons... after the war. its a big country, a deadly government with a lot skeletons in the closet. turning the worlds attention away from that issue if need be should be quite easy as well.

your question which you have now asked in several different ways now, assumes that there will be some negative aspect of not finding anything. as i said (which you continue to ignore), since the entire world is very focused on post Saddam Iraq, humanitarian aid and reconstruction... its seems pretty unlikely that anyone significant (including the 49 nations which support the war in some way) are going to say "see i told you so" in any event.

[Almighty Colin]

AP reporting boxes with "white powder in vials", instructions in Arabic for spreading chem weapons, and atropine found South of Baghdad. Atropine is an anti-nerve agent.

[AussieWebmaster]

Originally posted by slavdogg@Apr 2 2003, 02:02 PM
i doubt there are any WMD left in Iraq
whatever iraq had was probably transfered to Syria or another country.
The only WMD I know of are the ones that creep into my computer and screw with it. Some times they may be sprites, but too often they are weapons of mass destruction. Thank good for backups!

[Almighty Colin]

I think if the US is going to argue that pre-emptive war is a valid policy for stopping weapons proliferation it would be in it's best interest to convince the world of this doctrine. It would be better to be right than wrong in this particular instance and the more right the better,

That's why I don't understand the point-of-view that it doesn't matter if WMD's are not found. We need to find them AND act with all the diplomatic ability we have to improve relations with much of the rest of the world.

[RawAlex]

Colin, I think you are correct here... without WMD, the US will look (in the region) like even more of a bully than they already think... and there probably will be no end to the crap at the UN any time in the future when the US wants to get something done...

WMD are the reason for the war - without them, Saddam was "right", the UN was "right", and (shudder) France was "right".

It won't be enough, I don't think, to say "he had them once 10+ years ago"... without proof of current weapons, well...

I am hoping that the reported find this morning will be the start of a nice run of chemical discoveries... that will put the minds of everyone more at ease.

JR: I posted a simple question, Slavdogg said I was "manipulating he truth", so I asked what was wrong with the question. Your answer had little or no bearing on that, rather it was a long winded attempt to make me look anti-american and to belittle my attempt to raise a valid point. The orignal question was:

What happens if the US (and it's coalition of the willing) take over Iraq, and after extensive study, don't find anything more than the Al samud missles (which go 15 miles futher than they were suppose to...) and a few old chemical shells, long out of use?

Your reply was a justification for war statement... that wasn't the question, now was it? I know there were chemical weapons in the past, I know there were chemical shells in the past, I know that almost any rocket propelled weapon can "be modified" to fly further (by putting in a larger solid rocket motor). All of those are statements of why the US went to war... but doesn't explain what is wrong with the question. The question states that the missles could travel to far (slightly, based on the motors in them), and that shells had been found (a dozen, I think it was, all in a warehouse under a bunch of dust).

your off to the races, trying to explain WHY the US went to war. We all know why. That isn't a question. The question is:

What if the assumptions for going to war were wrong, and there are no WMD found?

Alex

[Winetalk.com]

What if the assumptions for going to war were wrong, and there are no WMD found?
****************************

they just found the 1000's of boxes with white powder and liquids chemical with instructions how to wage a chemical war, stay tuned Alex and pray that you were right along with others UN-ers

[-= JR =-]

ok Alex. i am no longer interested in wasting my time on a mindless contest of wills.

RawAlex - 1
JR - 0

:rolleyes:

[Carrie]

Remember the Indiana Jones movies where you weren't supposed to touch anything when you went into a tomb, because it was covered in a light powder that was a poison?

This morning forces found weapons with a powder sprinkled on them, they didn't plant it - the embedded reporter was there with them filming it as they found it. The news crew also went in and did their own tests on the material, and it tested positive for Ricin.
That's the stuff that kills you in 72 hours and there is no cure for it.

So, looks like the question starting this thread is moot.

[Vick]

Fuck it - if no WMD are found in Iraq let's plant some (besides the missiles that have been found in Iraq that they were banned from having BY THEIR OWN AGREEMENT)








* it case you might be confused, part of the above is satire, it's up to you to figure out which part