Can the US find ANY weapons in Iraq?

[BOBDN]

A link about the new offensive to find weapons.

Link

And another about some other weapons we can't find.

Link

Gee, I hope the hearings are open. I think it's every politician's duty to lie in public at every opportunity. And our right to see them do it.

 

[Czar]

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/usinfo/press/intell.htm
related

The newly-disclosed DIA report, classified "secret,'' is entitled, "Iraq's Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapon and Missile Program: Progress, Prospects, and Potential Vulnerabilities.'' Its existence raises more questions about the quality of U.S. intelligence before the March invasion. In one section about Iraq's chemical weapons capabilities, the report says: "No reliable information indicates whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where the country has or will establish its chemical agent production facility." The report cites suspicious weapons transfers and improvements on Iraq's "dual-use" chemical infrastructure. Nonetheless, says a DIA spokesman, "there was no single piece of irrefutable data that said [Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein] definitely has it."

 

[syzygy]

the essential point is still for as long as saddam remained in power he would never reform his ways and would continue
to pose a threat to the region, whether that be an imminent or long-term threat is irrelevant.

no matter how much you vent or bounce up and down about it, saddam would never have turned into a sweetheart - unless
ofcourse you already thought him one. the containment policy was an expensive failure, the u.n. an even more expensive
failure.

with failing international accountability, a routinization of a watered-down sanction regimes, and saddam's unbothered hold
of power, the whole thing stunk. he, and every other banana republic monster, was laughing at global leadership, and would
have continued to strut about undetered if we had continued on the spinless left-wing appeasement route.

 

[BOBDN]

I like Rumsfeld's quotes. Just like Bush's they're impossible to back away from now. Unless they actually WANT to admit that they lied.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: syzygy
the essential point is still for as long as saddam remained in power he would never reform his ways and would continue
to pose a threat to the region, whether that be an imminent or long-term threat is irrelevant.

no matter how much you vent or bounce up and down about it, saddam would never have turned into a sweetheart - unless
ofcourse you already thought him one. the containment policy was an expensive failure, the u.n. an even more expensive
failure.

with failing international accountability, a routinization of a watered-down sanction regimes, and saddam's unbothered hold
of power, the whole thing stunk. he, and every other banana republic monster, was laughing at global leadership, and would
have continued to strut about undetered if we had continued on the spinless left-wing appeasement route.

"Laughing at global leadership"????? :Q

Is there a government of earth now? Where is it headquartered? Who chooses the leaders? Who makes the laws? Who enforces them? Is it democratic? Is it a dictatorship?

World government or world domination?

 

[Alistar7]

The UN is what he was referring to as far as global leadership, but how effective can it be if someone like Saddam can buy all the support he needs to thwart the will ofthe majority/


We have found weapons, plenty of modern French, German, Russian, and Chineese conventional weapons that somehow made their way into Iraq during the sanctions period, notice we have not taken them to task over those, and won't

 

[syzygy]

Is there a government of earth now? Where is it headquartered? Who chooses the leaders? Who makes the laws? Who
enforces them? Is it democratic? Is it a dictatorship?

uuh, well, the united nations. did you read or imagine something in my post about 'world gov't'? i mean, we were focused for
months on the comical proceedings therein, no ? its where gov't people from all over this big world meet to argue about
a great many wonderful thingz. really !

now, put that pacifier back into your mouth and suck harder.

 

[Moonbeam]

the essential point is still for as long as saddam remained in power he would never reform his ways and would continue
to pose a threat to the region, whether that be an imminent or long-term threat is irrelevant.
------------
Totally irrelevant. We went to eliminate WMD not remove a bad guy, remember. We aren't attacking the tremendous list of other bad guys in the world where there's no oil or strategic import, you notice. What is essential about your point is your desperate need to not realize you are in support of murder. Also, Saddam was no threat to the region.
------------------
no matter how much you vent or bounce up and down about it, saddam would never have turned into a sweetheart - unless
ofcourse you already thought him one. the containment policy was an expensive failure, the u.n. an even more expensive
failure.
-------------------------
The murder is cheaper defense.
---------------------------
with failing international accountability, a routinization of a watered-down sanction regimes, and saddam's unbothered hold
of power, the whole thing stunk. he, and every other banana republic monster, was laughing at global leadership, and would
have continued to strut about undetered if we had continued on the spinless left-wing appeasement route.
--------------------------------------------
Talk about venting and bouncing up and down. What makes you a world authority? All I see in apposition to spineless appeasement is a psychopathological faith in murder as an appropriate solution to your irrational fear.

 

[Lonyo]

I thought I heard somewhere (although it was briefly, and in passing) that the US knew Saddam DIDN'T have any WMD, but believe he had the capability to make them in the future, in which case it wouldn't be at all suprising if they fail to find any.

 

[LunarRay]

Amazing... simply amazing...

"The British review comes amid widespread doubts expressed by scientists on both sides of the Atlantic that the trucks could have been used to make biological weapons.

Instead The Observer has established that it is increasingly likely that the units were designed to be used for hydrogen production to fill artillery balloons, part of a system originally sold to Saddam by Britain in 1987.

The British review follows access by UK officials to the vehicles which were discovered by US troops in April and May.

'We are being very careful now not to jump to any conclusions about these vehicles,' said one source familiar with the investigation. 'On the basis of intelligence we do believe that mobile labs do exist. What is not certain is that these vehicles are actually them so we are being careful not to jump the gun.'

The claim, however, that the two vehicles are mobile germ labs has been repeated frequently by both Blair and President George Bush in recent days in support of claims that they prove the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

I've got to go get the link so I'll edit later.

link

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: HJD1
Amazing... simply amazing...

"The British review comes amid widespread doubts expressed by scientists on both sides of the Atlantic that the trucks could have been used to make biological weapons.

Instead The Observer has established that it is increasingly likely that the units were designed to be used for hydrogen production to fill artillery balloons, part of a system originally sold to Saddam by Britain in 1987.

The British review follows access by UK officials to the vehicles which were discovered by US troops in April and May.

'We are being very careful now not to jump to any conclusions about these vehicles,' said one source familiar with the investigation. 'On the basis of intelligence we do believe that mobile labs do exist. What is not certain is that these vehicles are actually them so we are being careful not to jump the gun.'

The claim, however, that the two vehicles are mobile germ labs has been repeated frequently by both Blair and President George Bush in recent days in support of claims that they prove the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

I've got to go get the link so I'll edit later.

link

Remarkable. Last time around it was baby formula factories making germ warfare.

I wonder what it'll be next time. Bicycle factories making tanks?

 

[Moonbeam]

With HJ?s help I think I've unearthed the threat of WMD as relating to the Hussein Coat of Arms, a very dangerous menace indeed.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
With HJ?s help I think I've unearthed the threat of WMD as relating to the Hussein Coat of Arms, a very dangerous menace indeed.

You funny bunny, you.

What might that be.... he asks with bated breath... I'm all ears... what is this new WMD threat to mankind... Baby food Factories disguised as Iraqi Women's you know whats.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think his Coat of Arms has a scimitar on it. Very dangerous indeed. Millions should die to contain the unsheathing of that threat.

 

[Tal]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
A link about the new offensive to find weapons.

Link

And another about some other weapons we can't find.

Link

Gee, I hope the hearings are open. I think it's every politician's duty to lie in public at every opportunity. And our right to see them do it.

Wait, are you reversing your impeach Clinton vote? Lying under oath seems worse than just doing it in public. Although I'll scewer Bush right along with you if it turns out that........... well, ok, maybe not, but I'll be mad.

 

[Tal]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: HJD1
Amazing... simply amazing...

"The British review comes amid widespread doubts expressed by scientists on both sides of the Atlantic that the trucks could have been used to make biological weapons.

Instead The Observer has established that it is increasingly likely that the units were designed to be used for hydrogen production to fill artillery balloons, part of a system originally sold to Saddam by Britain in 1987.

The British review follows access by UK officials to the vehicles which were discovered by US troops in April and May.

'We are being very careful now not to jump to any conclusions about these vehicles,' said one source familiar with the investigation. 'On the basis of intelligence we do believe that mobile labs do exist. What is not certain is that these vehicles are actually them so we are being careful not to jump the gun.'

The claim, however, that the two vehicles are mobile germ labs has been repeated frequently by both Blair and President George Bush in recent days in support of claims that they prove the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

I've got to go get the link so I'll edit later.

link

Remarkable. Last time around it was baby formula factories making germ warfare.

I wonder what it'll be next time. Bicycle factories making tanks?

Who was it that bombed a Tylenol type of factory?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: syzygy
the essential point is still for as long as saddam remained in power he would never reform his ways and would continue
to pose a threat to the region, whether that be an imminent or long-term threat is irrelevant.

no matter how much you vent or bounce up and down about it, saddam would never have turned into a sweetheart - unless
ofcourse you already thought him one. the containment policy was an expensive failure, the u.n. an even more expensive
failure.

with failing international accountability, a routinization of a watered-down sanction regimes, and saddam's unbothered hold
of power, the whole thing stunk. he, and every other banana republic monster, was laughing at global leadership, and would
have continued to strut about undetered if we had continued on the spinless left-wing appeasement route.

You are completely missing the point. If the administration wanted to go after saddam because he was a 'bad guy who mistreated his people', he should have used THAT argument instead of the 'OMG, SADDAM HAS WMD'S AND HE MIGHT USE THEM AGAINST US AND OTHER COUNTRIES' argument. Lying to the american people in order to get support for war = bad, last time i checked.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: syzygy
the essential point is still for as long as saddam remained in power he would never reform his ways and would continue
to pose a threat to the region, whether that be an imminent or long-term threat is irrelevant.

no matter how much you vent or bounce up and down about it, saddam would never have turned into a sweetheart - unless
ofcourse you already thought him one. the containment policy was an expensive failure, the u.n. an even more expensive
failure.

with failing international accountability, a routinization of a watered-down sanction regimes, and saddam's unbothered hold
of power, the whole thing stunk. he, and every other banana republic monster, was laughing at global leadership, and would
have continued to strut about undetered if we had continued on the spinless left-wing appeasement route.

Lovely; punishment before offense. Should we start forming a Division of PreCrime?

 

[syzygy]

Lovely; punishment before offense. Should we start forming a Division of PreCrime?

lets see. we'll have a peek into your moral universe and determine if this pre-crime division is a sensible idea . . . .

a megalomaniac with a penchant for snuff videos constructs a totalitarian police state non pareil, murders thousands
of his own citizens, conducts two wars of aggression, and then refuses for a span of 12 years to comply with a single
u.n. resolution aimed at ensuring that he does not cook up any more sinister plots.

hmmm, there doesn't appear to be any antecedents here that would indicate an abnormal personality. no, from the
evidence presented, and from the motivations we can deduce from his history, this subject is clearly not a threat to
kith, kin, neighbor, or his human pets, which he feeds to his sons on occasion.

 

[syzygy]

You are completely missing the point. If the administration wanted to go after saddam because he was
a 'bad guy who mistreated his people', he should have used THAT argument instead of the 'OMG, SADDAM
HAS WMD'S AND HE MIGHT USE THEM AGAINST US AND OTHER COUNTRIES' argument. Lying to the american
people in order to get support for war = bad, last time i checked.

i see this point. yes, i do

the problem is once you accept this position you are left with a lot of speculation. well, why did the president
lie ? wait, wait, wait, who said the president lied ? these democrats ? these peacniks, saddam lovers, and
anarchist types ? where is this proof he lied ?

the suposed proof is the intelligence assessments. but when you make an assessment, you tend to err on the side
of caution and sometimes over-estimate threat potentials beause the worst case scenario is too unimaginable
to swallow. with saddam, we have reams of evidence which indicated he would never have reformed his ways.
yes, he would roll back or place his wmd program in abeyance for a short time, but his desire to continually realize
the worst in himself would never be reformed. in fact, through his machinations he ensured that his evil legacy would
be preserved in the rule of his sons. can you imagine another 40 or 50 years of such hellish conditions ?

bush had tomes of intelligence from iraqi dissidents who kept telling him - quite accurately - that saddam was a
pathological monster. do you prefer to listen to the iraqi dissidents, men like khadir hamza, or the french ? the
containment policy was a stillborn child because the premises were flawed. he had mastered the u.n. inspection
regimes. ironically, his policies of deception became ever more sophisticated because we kept exposing him to new
programs, tricks, and resolution demands. like a smart rodent, he began to predict the course we would take and
anticipate moves weeks and months down the line. the third party route was lost. the u.s. had to intervene militarily.
the u.n. had long ago ceased to be useful . . . assuming they ever were.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: syzygy
the essential point is still for as long as saddam remained in power he would never reform his ways and would continue
to pose a threat to the region, whether that be an imminent or long-term threat is irrelevant.

no matter how much you vent or bounce up and down about it, saddam would never have turned into a sweetheart - unless
ofcourse you already thought him one. the containment policy was an expensive failure, the u.n. an even more expensive
failure.

with failing international accountability, a routinization of a watered-down sanction regimes, and saddam's unbothered hold
of power, the whole thing stunk. he, and every other banana republic monster, was laughing at global leadership, and would
have continued to strut about undetered if we had continued on the spinless left-wing appeasement route.

You are completely missing the point. If the administration wanted to go after saddam because he was a 'bad guy who mistreated his people', he should have used THAT argument instead of the 'OMG, SADDAM HAS WMD'S AND HE MIGHT USE THEM AGAINST US AND OTHER COUNTRIES' argument. Lying to the american people in order to get support for war = bad, last time i checked.

UN Charter article 51 only provides invasion to defend and then the UN keeps control of the issue. No issue but one of immenent self defense issues would be consistent with this. All the other UN nations would have to attack us to get us out of Iraq if we invaded contra to the UN charter.. Our draft res failed... remember.

 

[Zrom999]

Originally posted by: syzygy

You are completely missing the point. If the administration wanted to go after saddam because he was
a 'bad guy who mistreated his people', he should have used THAT argument instead of the 'OMG, SADDAM
HAS WMD'S AND HE MIGHT USE THEM AGAINST US AND OTHER COUNTRIES' argument. Lying to the american
people in order to get support for war = bad, last time i checked.

i see this point. yes, i do

the problem is once you accept this position you are left with a lot of speculation. well, why did the president
lie ? wait, wait, wait, who said the president lied ? these democrats ? these peacniks, saddam lovers, and
anarchist types ? where is this proof he lied ?

the suposed proof is the intelligence assessments. but when you make an assessment, you tend to err on the side
of caution and sometimes over-estimate threat potentials beause the worst case scenario is too unimaginable
to swallow. with saddam, we have reams of evidence which indicated he would never have reformed his ways.
yes, he would roll back or place his wmd program in abeyance for a short time, but his desire to continually realize
the worst in himself would never be reformed. in fact, through his machinations he ensured that his evil legacy would
be preserved in the rule of his sons. can you imagine another 40 or 50 years of such hellish conditions ?

bush had tomes of intelligence from iraqi dissidents who kept telling him - quite accurately - that saddam was a
pathological monster. do you prefer to listen to the iraqi dissidents, men like khadir hamza, or the french ? the
containment policy was a stillborn child because the premises were flawed. he had mastered the u.n. inspection
regimes. ironically, his policies of deception became ever more sophisticated because we kept exposing him to new
programs, tricks, and resolution demands. like a smart rodent, he began to predict the course we would take and
anticipate moves weeks and months down the line. the third party route was lost. the u.s. had to intervene militarily.
the u.n. had long ago ceased to be useful . . . assuming they ever were.

So you are saying that since the evidence that Saddam was a "pathological monster" that is enough justification for invasion? Some people can argue the same about Bush. Iraqi dissidents have their own agendas and their stories will be biased. It is unlikely that Saddam would ever use such weapons if he had them against the US, and being a "pathological monster" doesn't mean that he is suicidal. He had stockpiles of chemical and biological weaponry during the first gulf war, but it wasn't used on coalition forces. Even if the Iraqis had WMD programs ready to be restarted as soon as the inspectors gave the all clear signal, the target of these weapons would have been most likely Iran, not the US.

 

[syzygy]

So you are saying that since the evidence that Saddam was a "pathological monster" that is enough justification for invasion? Some people can argue the same about Bush.

yes they can, and do. how reasonable they sound, eh ? you don't need to search too hard to find someone who will equate anything.

Iraqi dissidents have their own agendas and their stories will be biased

unless you have a specific person in mind with a specific issue to argue, this statement means nothing.

It is unlikely that Saddam would ever use such weapons if he had them against the US, and being a "pathological monster" doesn't mean that he is suicidal

why wouldn't he ? i don't think he just built them to collect them. although he must how notoriously difficult they are to control in actual battle. i
agree with your second part. i find he has exercised piss poor judgement often in the past, but he is above all a political creature bent on survival.

He had stockpiles of chemical and biological weaponry during the first gulf war, but it wasn't used on coalition forces. Even if the Iraqis had
WMD programs ready to be restarted as soon as the inspectors gave the all clear signal, the target of these weapons would have been most
likely Iran, not the US.

the iraq-iran war ended in 1989, and belligerencies between the two dropped to mere whispers with the death of khomeini. the succesive
ayatollahs have kept the rhetoric to a minimum and saddam had tried not to stir the waters either. i don't know that saddam did not use
wmd against the coalition forces in the first gulf war. i am not sure the actual cause of the gulf war syndrome that affected so many personnel
has ever been found.

 

[syzygy]

UN Charter article 51 only provides invasion to defend and then the UN keeps control of the issue. No issue but one of immenent self defense issues would be consistent with this. All the other UN nations would have to attack us to get us out of Iraq if we invaded contra to the UN charter.. Our draft res failed... remember.

resolution 1441 passed - unanimously. 1441 promised an unhappy end for saddam if he continued his dance with the latest inspection
regime. what a shock it must have been to the world when sweet saddam decided on a game of russian roulette instead.

as much as i detest the u.n.. they are not staffed by a cadre of religious fundamentalists who cannot see beyond the text on the page.
every day in their esteemed chambers numerous fictions are played out that give the appearance of cooperation, amity, and love, but
in fact backroom deals, personal politics, and national interests are gang-pressed by each member nation. they all have their petty
interests and none shy away from pushing their pet causes.

article 51 outlines a parameter that assumes the u.n. is in working condition; that the other available options are reliable and can be
implemented with a reasonable expectation of success, whether that be in achieving an outright resolution or at least competently
managing a hotspot. that is far from the case today. the u.n. is a toothless noob, an abysmal failure, and a toy for illiterate dictators
to play around with. nothing more.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: syzygy

UN Charter article 51 only provides invasion to defend and then the UN keeps control of the issue. No issue but one of immenent self defense issues would be consistent with this. All the other UN nations would have to attack us to get us out of Iraq if we invaded contra to the UN charter.. Our draft res failed... remember.

resolution 1441 passed - unanimously. 1441 promised an unhappy end for saddam if he continued his dance with the latest inspection
regime. what a shock it must have been to the world when sweet saddam decided on a game of russian roulette instead.

as much as i detest the u.n.. they are not staffed by a cadre of religious fundamentalists who cannot see beyond the text on the page.
every day in their esteemed chambers numerous fictions are played out that give the appearance of cooperation, amity, and love, but
in fact backroom deals, personal politics, and national interests are gang-pressed by each member nation. they all have their petty
interests and none shy away from pushing their pet causes.

article 51 outlines a parameter that assumes the u.n. is in working condition; that the other available options are reliable and can be
implemented with a reasonable expectation of success, whether that be in achieving an outright resolution or at least competently
managing a hotspot. that is far from the case today. the u.n. is a toothless noob, an abysmal failure, and a toy for illiterate dictators
to play around with. nothing more.

You dismiss 51 because of the incompetence of the UN, yet rely on 1441 as justification to attack although it was passed by the same body. Interesting.