Deception Activities of Iraq

[RDWYTruckDriver]

Deception Activities

Lots of very intresting info in this site.

 

[RDWYTruckDriver]

Bump.

 

[RDWYTruckDriver]

top

 

[kage69]

I'm sure the idiots will still pound the table and scream about how Saddam was complying with UN resolutions though. Gee, we just dug up a bunch of planes from the desert, and they're weapons, but the the thought of WMD being buried is somehow an incredulous notion.

 

[DealMonkey]

Like the sand through the hourglass, these are the days of our lives...

 

[RDWYTruckDriver]

Originally posted by: kage69
I'm sure the idiots will still pound the table and scream about how Saddam was complying with UN resolutions though. Gee, we just dug up a bunch of planes from the desert, and they're weapons, but the the thought of WMD being buried is somehow an incredulous notion.

The reality is these people in the US and other countries don't really care about the issues in this war and the war againt terrorism. They hate the US and or the current President period. So they'll argue endlessly about topics that haven't been resolved yet and point fingers instead of helping find correct solutions or at least be helpful in some positive way.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver

Originally posted by: kage69
I'm sure the idiots will still pound the table and scream about how Saddam was complying with UN resolutions though. Gee, we just dug up a bunch of planes from the desert, and they're weapons, but the the thought of WMD being buried is somehow an incredulous notion.

The reality is these people in the US and other countries don't really care about the issues in this war and the war againt terrorism. They hate the US and or the current President period. So they'll argue endlessly about topics that haven't been resolved yet and point fingers instead of helping find correct solutions or at least be helpful in some positive way.

Here's an idea. Let's see who can find the most "I really don't care..." statements made by members here concerning the issues surrounding this war. I wonder if they'd be for or against the war. I can think of at least 2 members right now who have stated something similar to "I could care less if they ever find WMD, the fact is I would've supported this war no matter what reasons were given." Now tell me again...which people don't care about the issues.

 

[phillyTIM]

do most of us really even care anymore?

what iraq did is NOTHING compared to all the strong-armed, deceptive, right-wing tactics of the Bush Regime. they are more fun to strike at!

Saddam is a saint compared to Bushevik

 

[LikuidElvanFirestar]

A troll is a troll is a troll in whatever form.

Why don't you learn about your own stink slid under the carpet by your US government.

Just maybe if previous US admins didn't fully support (financially and militarily) Saddam, there would be no invasion. NO wild lusty chases for Saddam's big weiners.

Did you eveer think your old and new (still old) government is an assessory to Saddam's crimes? Probably not.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: kage69
I'm sure the idiots will still pound the table and scream about how Saddam was complying with UN resolutions though. Gee, we just dug up a bunch of planes from the desert, and they're weapons, but the the thought of WMD being buried is somehow an incredulous notion.

Saddam was complying(UN and Hans Blix), the planes were not banned weapons, and all the "evidence" presented by the Bush admin concerning Iraq's WMD and WMD programs was a pile of dung!

 

[alrocky]

http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=7&aid=D7SLG9900_story


BAGHDAD, Iraq - A close aide to Saddam Hussein says the Iraqi dictator did in fact get rid of his weapons of mass destruction but deliberately kept the world guessing about it in an effort to divide the international community and stave off a U.S. invasion.
The strategy, which turned out to be a serious miscalculation, was designed to make the Iraqi dictator look strong in the eyes of the Arab world, while France and Russia were wary of joining an American-led attack. At the same time, Saddam retained the technical know-how and brain power to restart the programs at any time.

Saddam's alleged weapons bluff was detailed by an Iraqi official who assisted Saddam for many years. The official detailed the reasons behind Saddam's disinformation campaign - which ultimately backfired by spurring, rather than deterring a U.S. invasion. Saddam remained convinced that an ambiguous stance about the status of Iraq's weapons programs would deter an American attack. "He repeatedly told me: 'These foreigners, they only respect strength, they must be made to believe we are strong,'" the aide said.

Saddam from 1998 until 2002, prevented U.N. inspectors from the country and when they finally returned in November, 2002, they often complained that Iraq wasn't fully cooperating. Iraqi scientists, including those currently held by the U.S. military, have maintained that no new unconventional weapons programs were started in recent years and that all the materials from previous programs were destroyed.

Intelligence officials at the Pentagon, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said some experts had raised the theory that Iraq put out false information to persuade its enemies that it retained prohibited chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. "That explanation has plausibility," said Robert Einhorn a former assistant secretary of State for nonproliferation. "But the disposition of those missing weapons and materials still has to be explained somehow." Iraq's claims that it destroyed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons materials could never be verified by U.N. inspectors who repeatedly requested proof. "If there were no weapons, <U>why was it that Iraq conducted itself as it did</U> for so many years?" Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, told The Associated Press in June.

Saddam's aide suggested the brinkmanship ultimately backfired because U.S. policy switched in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, from containing the Iraqi leader, to going after those who could supply terrorists with deadly weapons. He described Saddam as almost "totally ignorant" of how Western democracies functioned and attributed his failure to grasp the impact of Sept. 11 to the fact that he increasingly surrounded himself with yes-men and loyalists who were not qualified to give him expert advice on economic, military or foreign policy matters.
------

According to above article Iraq was WMD-free but S.H. bluffed, costing him not his shirt but his whole country. Not a good poker player.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver

Originally posted by: kage69
I'm sure the idiots will still pound the table and scream about how Saddam was complying with UN resolutions though. Gee, we just dug up a bunch of planes from the desert, and they're weapons, but the the thought of WMD being buried is somehow an incredulous notion.

The reality is these people in the US and other countries don't really care about the issues in this war and the war againt terrorism. They hate the US and or the current President period. So they'll argue endlessly about topics that haven't been resolved yet and point fingers instead of helping find correct solutions or at least be helpful in some positive way.

The reality is there are people in US who never think for themselves and does not have the intelligence to see through lies and propaganda. They eat every crap that the government feed them and does not realize their country is in one of the worst economic slump, largest national deficit, hated by international community and have not address the real reason why there are terrorists waging war against us.

Well, ignorance is bliss as the saying goes.

 

[RDWYTruckDriver]

Good read there alrocky, could shed some light on the whole subject if true. And I could see it happening that way as well. Like you stated "Not a good poker player" and if that's what SH was thinking/doing then it all falls on his sholders even more. The US is not going to stand idle anymore after 9/11 and the other terrorist supporting countries better take note if this was infact the case. No amount of " more time " with the UN teams would have produced anymore evidence then SH and his Iraqi goverment would allow.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver
Good read there alrocky, could shed some light on the whole subject if true. And I could see it happening that way as well. Like you stated "Not a good poker player" and if that's what SH was thinking/doing then it all falls on his sholders even more. The US is not going to stand idle anymore after 9/11 and the other terrorist supporting countries better take note if this was infact the case. No amount of " more time " with the UN teams would have produced anymore evidence then SH and his Iraqi goverment would allow.

Because there was no evidence to produce. Duh. Where is etech and his name calling when you need it?

 

[RDWYTruckDriver]

Because there was no evidence to produce

There was evidence. They could have proven to the UN Inspectors that they did infact get rid of / destroyed all known WMDs. But the Iraqi government and SH choose to play games instead.

A close aide to Saddam Hussein says the Iraqi dictator did in fact get rid of his weapons of mass destruction but deliberately kept the world guessing about it in an effort to divide the international community and stave off a U.S. invasion.

From link:

link

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver

Because there was no evidence to produce

There was evidence. They could have proven to the UN Inspectors that they did infact get rid of / destroyed all known WMDs. But the Iraqi government and SH choose to play games instead.

A close aide to Saddam Hussein says the Iraqi dictator did in fact get rid of his weapons of mass destruction but deliberately kept the world guessing about it in an effort to divide the international community and stave off a U.S. invasion.

From link:

link

Iraq said it destroyed the weapons. What evidence would you have them produce to prove this? What evidence would Bush & Co. have accepted? Computer printouts that did NOT show these weapons? Did that. Videotapes of each weapon being destroyed? Sworn statements notarized by an Iraqi law firm? What if they had no evidence? What, exactly would you have them do?

There is nothing in your article that indicates Iraq could produce any additional evidence that they had destroyed the weapons. As I just said in another thread, all of the evidence we had suggested Iraq had substantially complied. Everything else was speculation and innuendo. We were trying to confirm this via inspections when Bush-lite charged in with the invasion.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver

Because there was no evidence to produce

There was evidence. They could have proven to the UN Inspectors that they did infact get rid of / destroyed all known WMDs. But the Iraqi government and SH choose to play games instead.

A close aide to Saddam Hussein says the Iraqi dictator did in fact get rid of his weapons of mass destruction but deliberately kept the world guessing about it in an effort to divide the international community and stave off a U.S. invasion.

From link:

link

Iraq said it destroyed the weapons. What evidence would you have them produce to prove this? What evidence would Bush & Co. have accepted? Computer printouts that did NOT show these weapons? Did that. Videotapes of each weapon being destroyed? Sworn statements notarized by an Iraqi law firm? What if they had no evidence? What, exactly would you have them do?

There is nothing in your article that indicates Iraq could produce any additional evidence that they had destroyed the weapons. As I just said in another thread, all of the evidence we had suggested Iraq had substantially complied. Everything else was speculation and innuendo. We were trying to confirm this via inspections when Bush-lite charged in with the invasion.

Bowfinger, if you knew anything about this subject at all you would know that Iraq was under UN rules to prove that they had destroyed the weapons that they had. Simply saying, yep, we got rid of them, did not count, did not prove a thing and, if true, was in itself a violation of the UN Resolutions.

If Saddam was bluffing then the US intelligence would indicate that he still had weapons. That's what bluff is. His bluff, if that was all it was, was called.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver

Because there was no evidence to produce

There was evidence. They could have proven to the UN Inspectors that they did infact get rid of / destroyed all known WMDs. But the Iraqi government and SH choose to play games instead.

A close aide to Saddam Hussein says the Iraqi dictator did in fact get rid of his weapons of mass destruction but deliberately kept the world guessing about it in an effort to divide the international community and stave off a U.S. invasion.

From link:

link

Iraq said it destroyed the weapons. What evidence would you have them produce to prove this? What evidence would Bush & Co. have accepted? Computer printouts that did NOT show these weapons? Did that. Videotapes of each weapon being destroyed? Sworn statements notarized by an Iraqi law firm? What if they had no evidence? What, exactly would you have them do?

There is nothing in your article that indicates Iraq could produce any additional evidence that they had destroyed the weapons. As I just said in another thread, all of the evidence we had suggested Iraq had substantially complied. Everything else was speculation and innuendo. We were trying to confirm this via inspections when Bush-lite charged in with the invasion.

Bowfinger, if you knew anything about this subject at all you would know that Iraq was under UN rules to prove that they had destroyed the weapons that they had. Simply saying, yep, we got rid of them, did not count, did not prove a thing and, if true, was in itself a violation of the UN Resolutions.

Thank you. I so enjoy it when a Bush apologist changes the subject. I always assume it's because they can't respond intelligently to the topic at hand, but I suppose it could be a problem with literacy.

I am fully aware that the UN resolution required Iraq to prove compliance. This is easy for you to verify since I repeatedly said in this forum that it is a BS justification for our invasion -- our standards for invasion must be much higher than poor paperwork. Now that we know your dig was ignorant, please note that it also has nothing to do with this thread. See if you can follow along:

Alrocky posted the article about Iraq wanting the world to think it still had WMDs even though it had really destroyed them.

RDWYTruckDriver replied that the UN inspectors would never have discovered more evidence.

Ldir said that's because there was no evidence to produce. He also invited you, etech, to call RDWYTruckDriver a name -- "idiot" I assume based on another recent thread -- for reaching the obvious conclusion that the inspectors would not find weapons that weren't there.

RDWYTruckDriver responded that Iraq could produce evidence it had complied, and offered a link which he implied showed Iraq had such evidence.

I jumped in to point out that the article did not say this, and I asked how Iraq could produce evidence it did not have. I then repeated that the inspectors were there to determine if Iraq complied or not.

(All of the above are paraphrased, not quotes.)

Note, we were talking about the value of the inspectors and what evidence Iraq could or could not produce. We were NOT discussing the U.S. justification for invading Iraq. Rather than contributing to the discussion, you suggested I was ignorant because you couldn't or wouldn't follow the discussion. This is a common tactic some right-wingers use to disrupt threads they dislike.

Now that I have that off my chest, can you answer the question or not? If Iraq had no other evidence that its WMDs were gone, what evidence could it have produced? If it had no further evidence, what would you have them do in response to requests for more evidence? If they "were" bluffing, what else could they have done to demonstrate that it was a bluff?

If Saddam was bluffing then the US intelligence would indicate that he still had weapons. That's what bluff is. His bluff, if that was all it was, was called.

Huh??? Sorry, it just doesn't parse. Frankly, it sounds like something Bush would stammer.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: etech

Bowfinger, if you knew anything about this subject at all you would know that Iraq was under UN rules to prove that they had destroyed the weapons that they had. Simply saying, yep, we got rid of them, did not count, did not prove a thing and, if true, was in itself a violation of the UN Resolutions.

If Saddam was bluffing then the US intelligence would indicate that he still had weapons. That's what bluff is. His bluff, if that was all it was, was called.

So if he was in such clear violation of UN rules, why didn't the UN authorize the use of force against Iraq?

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: kage69
I'm sure the idiots will still pound the table and scream about how Saddam was complying with UN resolutions though. Gee, we just dug up a bunch of planes from the desert, and they're weapons, but the the thought of WMD being buried is somehow an incredulous notion.

Saddam was complying(UN and Hans Blix), the planes were not banned weapons, and all the "evidence" presented by the Bush admin concerning Iraq's WMD and WMD programs was a pile of dung!

Yeah, I remember watching the un meeting where Powell laid forth the evidence of weapons which included "Mobile weapons development trucks" He said that shortly before inspectors visited a site these trucks came and took away the weapons, I remember thinking yeah right lol. And I was for the war at that point.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: etech

Bowfinger, if you knew anything about this subject at all you would know that Iraq was under UN rules to prove that they had destroyed the weapons that they had. Simply saying, yep, we got rid of them, did not count, did not prove a thing and, if true, was in itself a violation of the UN Resolutions.

If Saddam was bluffing then the US intelligence would indicate that he still had weapons. That's what bluff is. His bluff, if that was all it was, was called.

So if he was in such clear violation of UN rules, why didn't the UN authorize the use of force against Iraq?

The UN agreed on "severe consequences" As to why certain countries on the Security Council did not authorize force, that's been covered many times on this board.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: etech

Bowfinger, if you knew anything about this subject at all you would know that Iraq was under UN rules to prove that they had destroyed the weapons that they had. Simply saying, yep, we got rid of them, did not count, did not prove a thing and, if true, was in itself a violation of the UN Resolutions.

If Saddam was bluffing then the US intelligence would indicate that he still had weapons. That's what bluff is. His bluff, if that was all it was, was called.

So if he was in such clear violation of UN rules, why didn't the UN authorize the use of force against Iraq?

The UN agreed on "severe consequences" As to why certain countries on the Security Council did not authorize force, that's been covered many times on this board.

"Severe consequences" if? It's the "if"that is the important part. The UN and the "unwilling" were waiting to see what developed, Bush had spent a year preparing his invasion force and didn't want to wait any longer.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: etech
So if he was in such clear violation of UN rules, why didn't the UN authorize the use of force against Iraq?

The UN agreed on "severe consequences" As to why certain countries on the Security Council did not authorize force, that's been covered many times on this board.[/quote]

Right, but they did not authorize war. So that's a pretty weak argument. I don't recall these other discussions about the permanent members of the security council and their possible vetos, however I can assume you meant that France, Russia, et tal had ulterior motives in doing so?

 

[RDWYTruckDriver]

See, no matter what's said here or in other threads, this is an example of "this is my opinion" and "this is what I believe to be true". Someone can post links / quotes ect. and someone from another view will decline the information or downplay the information or post their view of said information. I think it's great that we are able to come to a place like this forum and post our view. We need to remember that nobody is going to change the way others will think/feel about issues. If I disagree with your view and you with mine then that's fine.

Just one more tid bit here ... saw on CNN Capitol Gang show today that still 69% of Americans polled support this war effort. And I belive the majority of Americans realize this and it's done deal so lets finnish the work. My opinion of coarse

 

[RDWYTruckDriver]

I talked about polls and thought I'd post a link to some recent polling reguarding Iraq and the American public:

PollingReport.com

Not that polling is a be all end all kind of answer to this Iraq issue at all, but still interesting infomation.