MSNBC is reporting a HUGE ammo dump discovered...possible chemical munitions.

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
If it was in an area of Iraq that was not controlled by his regime, how could he decide to allow or not allow access to it?

The did not control the air in the northern Iraq, but they did have large forces in North Iraq. Saddam denied the existance of this camp. This denial basically kept the US from sending forces in to check it out. We could have just bombed it, but we still could not have easily put forces on the ground to clean it up.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Insane3D
If it was in an area of Iraq that was not controlled by his regime, how could he decide to allow or not allow access to it?

The 9/11 terrorists did most of their planning and training in the US...does that mean we have a connection to them?

I feel I should add that I am not so naive as to think that Saddam had no links to any terrorism as he regularly made contributions to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers as a reward for their "heroism"..

There is much greater freedom here that allows for people like that to mix in with everyone else, that's not the case in Iraq, their citizens hardly have the privacy or freedom of movement.

That may be the case in areas controlled by his regime, but if it is located in a part of the country that is not controlled by him, like Kurdish territory, he wouldn't have any control over it.

 

[Alistar7]

People really need to go back and listen to what Bush said to the UN on 9/12, he was not kidding and I think the rest of his world took what he said far too lightly.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Insane3D
If it was in an area of Iraq that was not controlled by his regime, how could he decide to allow or not allow access to it?

The did not control the air in the northern Iraq, but they did have large forces in North Iraq. Saddam denied the existance of this camp. This denial basically kept the US from sending forces in to check it out. We could have just bombed it, but we still could not have easily put forces on the ground to clean it up.

That statement doesn't make much sense to me. If he had so many forces in Northern Iraq, why were the Kurds still in control? Also, how does his denial keep American forces from going in there? You mean if he said it was there, we would have gone in?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Insane3D
If it was in an area of Iraq that was not controlled by his regime, how could he decide to allow or not allow access to it?

The did not control the air in the northern Iraq, but they did have large forces in North Iraq. Saddam denied the existance of this camp. This denial basically kept the US from sending forces in to check it out. We could have just bombed it, but we still could not have easily put forces on the ground to clean it up.

That statement doesn't make much sense to me. If he had so many forces in Northern Iraq, why were the Kurds still in control? Also, how does his denial keep American forces from going in there? You mean if he said it was there, we would have gone in?

The Kurds were more protected by US airpower than in control.
There were several Iraqi divisions in northern Iraq.
Since Several Iraqi divisions existed there, it would have taken more than special forces to ensure everything was taken/destroyed and all intel was gathered. This would have required permission from the host goverment to put a force large enough to remove the problem without it being call an invansion.

 

[Insane3D]

I see your point. However, I don't understand how we would need his permission to enter a part of the country not controlled by him? By your reasoning, all we would have needed was the permission of the Kurds since the area in question was controlled by them.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
I see your point. However, I don't understand how we would need his permission to enter a part of the country not controlled by him? By your reasoning, all we would have needed was the permission of the Kurds since the area in question was controlled by them.

The Kurds likely would have let us, but the Iraqi divisions would not have. Saddam did not control the air, but he had significant forces in the north.

 

[Insane3D]

Ok, I see your point. However, I still think it doesn't imeediately mean there was a connection between the camp and his regime. If anything, it could be more of a connection between the Kurdish forces and the camp. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Ok, I see your point. However, I still think it doesn't imeediately mean there was a connection between the camp and his regime. If anything, it could be more of a connection between the Kurdish forces and the camp. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Except that the kurdish forces are helping us in the north. The kurdish forces seem to have little problem with helping us and us destroying this camp.

 

[LH]

Ok, I see your point. However, I still think it doesn't imeediately mean there was a connection between the camp and his regime. If anything, it could be more of a connection between the Kurdish forces and the camp. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Dude, this terror group has been fighting the Kurds, and was formed by pro Saddam Iranians(not the Iranian gov though), it has no dealings with the Iraqi kurds, and it does have possible ties to Saddam because they frequented government buildings in Baghdad on many occassions.

 

[Insane3D]

You are correct. I was just pointing out that it is easier to argue that the Kurds had connections to it since it was in their territory. I don't think they had any connection to it, I was just making a point.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
You are correct. I was just pointing out that it is easier to argue that the Kurds had connections to it since it was in their territory. I don't think they had any connection to it, I was just making a point.

Just answer me this.

If the Kurds have control, why are we still still fighting the Iraqi Divisions in the north right now?
Why did we even have to fight the Iraqi division in the north at all if the Kurds were in control.


We both know the answer is that Kurds did not have control in the North.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Insane3D
You are correct. I was just pointing out that it is easier to argue that the Kurds had connections to it since it was in their territory. I don't think they had any connection to it, I was just making a point.

Just answer me this.

If the Kurds have control, why are we still still fighting the Iraqi Divisions in the north right now?
Why did we even have to fight the Iraqi division in the north at all if the Kurds were in control.


We both know the answer is that Kurds did not have control in the North.

Actually, the area where we are fighting them are outside of the area that was controlled by them IIRC. They are moving into territory previously controlled by Saddam. I could be wrong.

 

[merlocka]

oops... no WMD,


just bug spray.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Ok, I see your point. However, I still think it doesn't imeediately mean there was a connection between the camp and his regime. If anything, it could be more of a connection between the Kurdish forces and the camp. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Bush said in his speech after 911 that the US would attack terrorists and any nation that harbors them. Those last few words were highly debated by the administration because it's definate statement of future american policy. Bush laid down the glove, we will take aggressive measure against any nation harboring terrorists. Wether Saddam harbored them willingly would not matter under this policy.