Can the US find ANY weapons in Iraq?

[BaliBabyDoc]

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.

I think you have misread Iran-Iraq relations. The oligarchy in Iran believes time is its ally. Their neighbor is 60% Shi'ite and 10% Kurd . . . the cleric class believed it was only a matter of time before Saddam's regime would fail b/c it lacked popular support from the people; which is quite ironic considering the source. These two countries fought a brutal war that lasted almost a decade. Saddam (despite US/USSR) assistance was never going to defeat Iran b/c those mofos are true believers plus the population is twice that of Iraq. Therefore, Saddam was satisfied to declare victory and then pick on Kuwait.

As for the first Gulf War the most likely reason Saddam did not use WMD against coalition forces is that Bush, the Greater sent a clear message that use of such weapons would be the end of his regime. I am not implying any back channel deals . . . no proof . . . but Bush never had any intentions of being a pawn of the Neocons; particularly wasting American lives and resources for a problem Iraqis must solve.

Gulf War Syndrome is likely the typical manifestation of a multifactorial illness. Genetics, vaccinations (several used by the US military typically would NEVER be approved for use in the civilian population), exposure to various toxins, heat, and stress conspire to produce an ill-defined, difficult to characterize spectrum disorder. It's unlikely that a solitary agent/event is responsible for US/UK complaints (I would like to know what other coalition countries have to say).

 

[syzygy]

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.

exactly. how does this prove your point ? answer me this: why was 51 necessary ?

1441 was a unanimous agreement. don't you care that this blasted organization can't even follow through on unanimous agreements ! ! ! ! !

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

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.

Interesting? Call it like you see it . . . that's BS! The inspectors did not find any WMD b/c Saddam was all over them, prohibited their movement, and the inspectors were otherwise incapable of doing the job regardless of how much time they were allowed. Despite such failings . . . the inspectors actually found material consistent with WMD and prohibited missiles which were subsequently destroyed.

The US inspection regime has found nothing of substance, has reported multiple "discoveries" that were retracted, and Colin Powell's mobile labs on loan from the UK (maybe). Oh did I mention they've allowed radiologic material to be compromised despite being forewarned by the IAEA?!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: syzygy

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.

exactly. how does this prove your point ? answer me this: why was 51 necessary ?

1441 was a unanimous agreement. don't you care that this blasted organization can't even follow through on unanimous agreements ! ! ! ! !

Point? <looks around innocently>

I am making an observation regarding the logical consistency of you post.




Now about 1441. You state it had unanimous agreement. On passage? Fine. Now did it have that as far as implementation? Did the UN unanimously agree to war on Bush's time table? Where are they obligated to go to war without evidence proportional to the US remedy? We still haven't seen that. You accuse the UN of not following through on evidence they did not have to support a war that one man declared need be, when that one man did not have it? And your problem is with the UN?

 

[syzygy]

I think you have misread Iran-Iraq relations. The oligarchy in Iran believes time is its ally. Their neighbor is 60% Shi'ite and 10% Kurd . . . the cleric class believed it was only a matter of time before Saddam's regime would fail b/c it lacked popular support from the people; which is quite ironic considering the source. These two countries fought a brutal war that lasted almost a decade. Saddam (despite US/USSR) assistance was never going to defeat Iran b/c those mofos are true believers plus the population is twice that of Iraq. Therefore, Saddam was satisfied to declare victory and then pick on Kuwait.

the iranian mullahs can't effect any plot if they lack the cooperation of their iraqi shiite brethren. the supreme council for islamic revolution
in iraq was repatrioted and their leader gave no indication whatsoever that he is in cahoots with iran's cloistered elite . cnn link

certainly none of the other prominent iraqi shiites have expressed a desire to forge any unusually close relationship with their neighbor
that would compromise their newfound independence and power. certainly not grand ayatollah al-sestani, moktada al-sadr, or al-sadiq. they
suffered for too long to partake in any more misadventures. the intrigue you're alluding to would be too much for any local leaderto consider
even in fat prosperous times. the iraqi shiites have demonstrated their independence from iranian shiites on many critical occasions.

so unless the iranian mullahs can twist some serious arm their plottings are a dead issue.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I am attempting to demonstrate how many Bushies have misread Iran-Iraq relations . . . in the past and present. The oligarchy in Iran wants to lead a populist revolution through the Arab world. Over the past decade they've come to realize many Arabs couldn't give a camel's rectum about the Iranian revolution. I did not intend to imply the Shi'ites (and certainly not the Kurds) were in cahoots with Iran. My intent was to demonstrate everyone's understanding that Saddam ruled by force not popular support. Invariably, such regimes crumble with time. Saddam's regime would have met the same fate . . . Iran was going to be disciplined.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

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.

Interesting? Call it like you see it . . . that's BS! The inspectors did not find any WMD b/c Saddam was all over them, prohibited their movement, and the inspectors were otherwise incapable of doing the job regardless of how much time they were allowed. Despite such failings . . . the inspectors actually found material consistent with WMD and prohibited missiles which were subsequently destroyed.

The US inspection regime has found nothing of substance, has reported multiple "discoveries" that were retracted, and Colin Powell's mobile labs on loan from the UK (maybe). Oh did I mention they've allowed radiologic material to be compromised despite being forewarned by the IAEA?!

30 May 2003United Nations Security Council

13. Again, with respect to anthrax, the Commission, as it reported, had strong
indications ? but not conclusive evidence ? that all the quantities produced had
not been destroyed, and that hence even today such quantities could remain.



Don't look unless you want a clear comprehensive factual overview of Iraq, the UN, the Uk, the US, and inspection findings regarding WMD....