| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
13 Jan 2004 08:30:22 PM |
| Object: |
When They Find the WMD That Saddam Hussein Hid |
It should happen soon. Very soon. The announcement of substantial
amounts of Iraq-produced weapons will be made known to the world.
It ought to shut everyone up once and for all. But it won't.
The Bush administration, the U.S. military and intelligence services
have taken a lot of heat for not finding WMD yet. Some people are even
saying that Bush is dishonest and irresponsible for not producing the
WMD that he "promised." Some, of much lesser intelligence and
maturity, resort to Hitler aspersions.
The question of "Where are the WMDs?" is a reasonable one, however. A
huge amount of resources and lives have been spent on invading and
controlling Iraq and the main reason that most people had in their
minds as to the reason for going in was that Saddam Hussein had WMD. I
don't recall anyone saying in February or March 2003, "Nah, Iraq
doesn't have any damn WMD. It's not worth going in there for that
reason. Iraq DOES NOT EVEN HAVE WMD."
But they haven't been found. And a lot of the nutballs are lot more
bold nowadays. They proudly proclaim that "THERE NEVER WERE ANY
WMDS--WHY DID WE GO INTO IRAQ!?--IMPEACH BUSH! I KNEW IT ALL ALONG!"
Why did we go into Iraq if there were no WMDs? The Bush adminstration
and others had the reasons (democracy, change the landscape, oil,
baby-killing, etc.) but those reasons, all of those reasons, are not
good enough. No rational government (consisting of a president,
cabinet, two houses of congress) and the military would do something
like it did if there were much doubt about the WMD thing.
The WMD have to exist.
PM Blair once said something in July that made a lot of sense to me.
He said that contention by critics that there are *NO* WMD "rests on
this rather extraordinary proposition: that having for years
obstructed the United Nations inspectors and concealed his programs,
having finally effectively got rid of them in December '98, he then
took all the problems and sanctions and action upon himself,
voluntarily destroyed them but just didn't tell anyone."
No, there are WMD. Saddam wouldn't have done what he did unless they
did exist.
I think the Coalition will find the WMD soon.
And we will come to know that Saddam Hussein led us to them.
.
|
|
| User: "Iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: When They Find the WMD That Saddam Hussein Hid |
13 Jan 2004 09:15:47 PM |
|
|
<ryda56p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:21286b3e.0401131830.52c54dea@posting.google.com...
It should happen soon. Very soon. The announcement of substantial
amounts of Iraq-produced weapons will be made known to the world.
It ought to shut everyone up once and for all. But it won't.
The Bush administration, the U.S. military and intelligence services
have taken a lot of heat for not finding WMD yet. Some people are even
saying that Bush is dishonest and irresponsible for not producing the
WMD that he "promised." Some, of much lesser intelligence and
maturity, resort to Hitler aspersions.
The question of "Where are the WMDs?" is a reasonable one, however. A
huge amount of resources and lives have been spent on invading and
controlling Iraq and the main reason that most people had in their
minds as to the reason for going in was that Saddam Hussein had WMD. I
don't recall anyone saying in February or March 2003, "Nah, Iraq
doesn't have any damn WMD. It's not worth going in there for that
reason. Iraq DOES NOT EVEN HAVE WMD."
But they haven't been found. And a lot of the nutballs are lot more
bold nowadays. They proudly proclaim that "THERE NEVER WERE ANY
WMDS--WHY DID WE GO INTO IRAQ!?--IMPEACH BUSH! I KNEW IT ALL ALONG!"
Why did we go into Iraq if there were no WMDs? The Bush adminstration
and others had the reasons (democracy, change the landscape, oil,
baby-killing, etc.) but those reasons, all of those reasons, are not
good enough. No rational government (consisting of a president,
cabinet, two houses of congress) and the military would do something
like it did if there were much doubt about the WMD thing.
The WMD have to exist.
PM Blair once said something in July that made a lot of sense to me.
He said that contention by critics that there are *NO* WMD "rests on
this rather extraordinary proposition: that having for years
obstructed the United Nations inspectors and concealed his programs,
having finally effectively got rid of them in December '98, he then
took all the problems and sanctions and action upon himself,
voluntarily destroyed them but just didn't tell anyone."
No, there are WMD. Saddam wouldn't have done what he did unless they
did exist.
I think the Coalition will find the WMD soon.
And we will come to know that Saddam Hussein led us to them.
You're quite wrong. Saddam did what he did for bluster and bravado. He
destroyed the poison gas, rail gun and other related stuff we might call
WMD much before and some after gulf war I, 1990 time frame. He kept the
world guessing about WMD programs and stock piles to keep his enemies on
their toes as a way of puffing up his chest so he wouldn't be attacked. His
bravado and BS was aimed against Iran more than any one else. He never
thought the US or the UK would attack him without provocation so he wasn't
worried about us. The real issue is that the WMD intel was mostly BS of the
kind presented during the Soviet era. Then, there would be some rumors and
loose information and the CIA, NSA and others would work up worst case
senarios of the possibe threat the Soviets presented. We built our defenses
based on these senarios always with the worst case in mind. That same mind
set presented WMD rumors to the Bush neo-cons and they developed war plans
based on it. The difference is that they were not simply planning defense as
in the Soviet era but were actually planning preemptive war based on this
loose, unproven raw information. The kind of information used for war
planning, troop movements and the rest is quite different than the raw,
worst case information used to plan for a new fighter or bomber. This subtle
difference in intel was lost on everybody except, of course the French,
Germans and others who knew all along that the evidence did not fit planning
for war. Many in the US knew that too. Bobby Byrd, for example. The net
result is that there are no WMD and none will ever be found. A careful check
of the Iraq intel shows that the presence of WMD was iffy and speculative at
best. People like Powell blew it all out of proportion trying to convince
the UN. But they didn't buy it which shows they are a lot smarter than you
give them credit for.
Icon
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gene" |
|
| Title: Re: When They Find the WMD That Saddam Hussein Hid |
14 Jan 2004 07:01:54 AM |
|
|
() wrote in
news:21286b3e.0401131830.52c54dea@posting.google.com:
It should happen soon. Very soon. The announcement of substantial
amounts of Iraq-produced weapons will be made known to the world.
It ought to shut everyone up once and for all. But it won't.
The Bush administration, the U.S. military and intelligence services
have taken a lot of heat for not finding WMD yet. Some people are even
saying that Bush is dishonest and irresponsible for not producing the
WMD that he "promised." Some, of much lesser intelligence and
maturity, resort to Hitler aspersions.
The question of "Where are the WMDs?" is a reasonable one, however. A
huge amount of resources and lives have been spent on invading and
controlling Iraq and the main reason that most people had in their
minds as to the reason for going in was that Saddam Hussein had WMD. I
don't recall anyone saying in February or March 2003, "Nah, Iraq
doesn't have any damn WMD. It's not worth going in there for that
reason. Iraq DOES NOT EVEN HAVE WMD."
But they haven't been found. And a lot of the nutballs are lot more
bold nowadays. They proudly proclaim that "THERE NEVER WERE ANY
WMDS--WHY DID WE GO INTO IRAQ!?--IMPEACH BUSH! I KNEW IT ALL ALONG!"
Why did we go into Iraq if there were no WMDs? The Bush adminstration
and others had the reasons (democracy, change the landscape, oil,
baby-killing, etc.) but those reasons, all of those reasons, are not
good enough. No rational government (consisting of a president,
cabinet, two houses of congress) and the military would do something
like it did if there were much doubt about the WMD thing.
The WMD have to exist.
PM Blair once said something in July that made a lot of sense to me.
He said that contention by critics that there are *NO* WMD "rests on
this rather extraordinary proposition: that having for years
obstructed the United Nations inspectors and concealed his programs,
having finally effectively got rid of them in December '98, he then
took all the problems and sanctions and action upon himself,
voluntarily destroyed them but just didn't tell anyone."
No, there are WMD. Saddam wouldn't have done what he did unless they
did exist.
I think the Coalition will find the WMD soon.
And we will come to know that Saddam Hussein led us to them.
You don't follow the news do you - The inspectors are going home. I flew
all over that area in the first gulf mini war and we destroyed everything
we found, then ten years of bombing and cruse missles destroyed more.
There are no WMD's anymore. Not since the late nineties. Bush wanted to
attack Iraq because Saddam tried to kill his Daddy. He used the life of
our children to accomplish it. While I can understand a son protecting
his parents - it is a coward that uses the lives of others to accomplish
it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: When They Find the WMD That Saddam Hussein Hid |
14 Jan 2004 10:32:07 AM |
|
|
ryda56p@yahoo.com wrote:
PM Blair once said something in July that made a lot of sense to me.
He said that contention by critics that there are *NO* WMD "rests on
this rather extraordinary proposition: that having for years
obstructed the United Nations inspectors and concealed his programs,
having finally effectively got rid of them in December '98, he then
took all the problems and sanctions and action upon himself,
voluntarily destroyed them but just didn't tell anyone."
No, there are WMD. Saddam wouldn't have done what he did unless they
did exist.
I think the Coalition will find the WMD soon.
And we will come to know that Saddam Hussein led us to them.
Your contention that the U.S. destroyed all the WMD with bombs and
missiles is another "extraordinary proposition."
<vpolitico@hotmail.com> wrote
Again not if you read the news. We sent 1600 sorties and 400 missiles
into Iraq in Dec. 1998. We bombed everything we even suspected of
being related to WMDs. Towards the end of this targeters said they
could not even find targets to send out against. All evidence since
the invasion is this destroyed what ever residual WMDs or programs
were left.
OK. Let's say you are right. The 1600 sorties and 400 missiles
"destroyed what ever residual WMDs...wer left." (AFTER Iraq destroyed
the WMD before 1998?)
Let's say that is a fact.
That doesn't change the "extraordinary proposition" much.
Instead of Saddam destroying the WMD himself, under your scenario, it
was the good ole USA that destroyed them.
You still haven't answered why there are no reports of released WMD
material by the bombing that would have contaminated the area where
they were located.
And you haven't answered why Saddam would give up all his power,
wealth and murderous fun, in the face of the heavily signaled invasion
by the U.S. forces.
All he had to do was say (at any time between 1998 and 2003,
especially between October 2002 and March 19, 2003)
"What WMD? The U.S. sorties and missiles destroyed them all! We don't
got no stinkin' WMD to show you!"
He didn't.
It's fair to ask, "Why not?"
According to YOUR SCENARIO, the choice for Saddam was:
1. Divulge the single piece of information [the WMD were gone] that
would get the U.N., the world, and the U.S. off his back--as well as
what would get the economic sanctions swiftly and assuredly lifted
from his country so that he could continue his raping, killing,
dominating, stealing and miscellaneous fun.
or
2. Accept permanent removal from power, loss of personal fortune of
billions, incarceration or death, and humiliation or martyrdom.
And you think he chose No. 2?
Fascinating.
Ryd
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: When They Find the WMD That Saddam Hussein Hid |
14 Jan 2004 11:59:42 AM |
|
|
On 14 Jan 2004 08:32:07 -0800, ()
wrote:
"What WMD? The U.S. sorties and missiles destroyed them all! We don't
got no stinkin' WMD to show you!"
He didn't.
It's fair to ask, "Why not?"
Oh please. Iraq produced an 11,000 page document saying just that.
they were giving the MOVIC inspectors free reign and access as the
invasion talk heated. In the last days they even extended an
invitation for the CIA to come in and look for themselves. Bush
declined.
Your familiarity with the events leading up to the invasion seems
slight and highly selective.
_______
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public."
-President Teddy Roosevelt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kucinich4Prez" |
|
| Title: Re: When They Find the WMD That Saddam Hussein Hid |
14 Jan 2004 01:07:32 PM |
|
|
<vpolitico@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vo0b005n8kr8aujks0cnlgfg3t71k3vrlp@4ax.com...
On 14 Jan 2004 08:32:07 -0800, ()
wrote:
"What WMD? The U.S. sorties and missiles destroyed them all! We don't
got no stinkin' WMD to show you!"
He didn't.
It's fair to ask, "Why not?"
Oh please. Iraq produced an 11,000 page document saying just that.
they were giving the MOVIC inspectors free reign and access as the
invasion talk heated. In the last days they even extended an
invitation for the CIA to come in and look for themselves. Bush
declined.
As did all the Democrats in Congress who authorized the war. They ALL
declined Saddam's frantic last-minute offer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: When They Find the WMD That Saddam Hussein Hid |
14 Jan 2004 12:00:18 PM |
|
|
On 14 Jan 2004 08:32:07 -0800, ()
wrote:
1. Divulge the single piece of information [the WMD were gone] that
would get the U.N., the world, and the U.S. off his back--as well as
what would get the economic sanctions swiftly and assuredly lifted
from his country so that he could continue his raping, killing,
dominating, stealing and miscellaneous fun.
or
2. Accept permanent removal from power, loss of personal fortune of
billions, incarceration or death, and humiliation or martyrdom.
And you think he chose No. 2?
Fascinating.
Saddam chose 1. Bush and his necons chose 2.
_______
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public."
-President Teddy Roosevelt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kucinich4Prez" |
|
| Title: Re: When They Find the WMD That Saddam Hussein Hid |
14 Jan 2004 01:07:32 PM |
|
|
<vpolitico@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ss0b00p2e34kl56ltcuueiuhe10uepcst6@4ax.com...
On 14 Jan 2004 08:32:07 -0800, ()
wrote:
1. Divulge the single piece of information [the WMD were gone] that
would get the U.N., the world, and the U.S. off his back--as well as
what would get the economic sanctions swiftly and assuredly lifted
from his country so that he could continue his raping, killing,
dominating, stealing and miscellaneous fun.
or
2. Accept permanent removal from power, loss of personal fortune of
billions, incarceration or death, and humiliation or martyrdom.
And you think he chose No. 2?
Fascinating.
Saddam chose 1. Bush and his necons chose 2.
Apparently by "necons" (?) you are referring to the Democrats in Congress
who AUTHORIZED the war?
It's always good to try and keep track of these novel definitions you
Liberals are forever concocting......
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: When They Find the WMD That Saddam Hussein Hid |
14 Jan 2004 08:03:23 AM |
|
|
The question of "Where are the WMDs?" is a reasonable one, however. A
huge amount of resources and lives have been spent on invading and
controlling Iraq and the main reason that most people had in their
minds as to the reason for going in was that Saddam Hussein had WMD. I
don't recall anyone saying in February or March 2003, "Nah, Iraq
doesn't have any damn WMD. It's not worth going in there for that
reason. Iraq DOES NOT EVEN HAVE WMD."
[snip]
Why did we go into Iraq if there were no WMDs? The Bush adminstration
and others had the reasons (democracy, change the landscape, oil,
baby-killing, etc.) but those reasons, all of those reasons, are not
good enough. No rational government (consisting of a president,
cabinet, two houses of congress) and the military would do something
like it did if there were much doubt about the WMD thing.
The WMD have to exist.
PM Blair once said something in July that made a lot of sense to me.
He said that contention by critics that there are *NO* WMD "rests on
this rather extraordinary proposition: that having for years
obstructed the United Nations inspectors and concealed his programs,
having finally effectively got rid of them in December '98, he then
took all the problems and sanctions and action upon himself,
voluntarily destroyed them but just didn't tell anyone."
No, there are WMD. Saddam wouldn't have done what he did unless they
did exist.
I think the Coalition will find the WMD soon.
And we will come to know that Saddam Hussein led us to them.
"Gene" <Where@AmI.com> wrote:
You don't follow the news do you - The inspectors are going home.
Actually, going home is the 400 member Joint Captured Materiel
Exploitation Group which was a subset of teh 1400 member Iraqi Survey
Group.
I've read that the JCMEG was tasked with searching weapons depots and
other sites for illicit weaponsm, including missile launchers and
conventional weapons, not necessarily WMD.
The Iraqi Survey Group, however, is responsible for finding WMD and
has a separate military team that specializes in disposing of chemical
and biological weapons.
The ISG and the separate team are reported to be remaining in Iraq.
Why would the disposal team remain behind? To dispose of what?
I flew all over that area in the first gulf mini war and we destroyed
everything we found, then ten years of bombing and cruse missles
destroyed more.
There are no WMD's anymore. Not since the late nineties.
Then why would Saddam accept certain loss of power by specifically
refusing to simply tell the U.N. in 2002 and early 2003, "Hey, I
destroyed all the stuff. Here's what we did and where we did it. Chew
on that for awhile you infidels. Now get off my back."
For you to be right Gene, your contention:
"rests on
this rather extraordinary proposition: that having for years
obstructed the United Nations inspectors and concealed his programs,
having finally effectively got rid of them in December '98, he then
took all the problems and sanctions and action upon himself,
voluntarily destroyed them but just didn't tell anyone."
I flew all over that area in the first gulf mini war and we destroyed
everything we found, then ten years of bombing and cruse missles
destroyed more. There are no WMD's anymore. Not since the late nineties.
If you destroyed them with your bombing and cruise missiles, wouldn't
that have caused the release of biological or chemical substances and
contaminated some territory and killed some people? Such has never
been reported, AFIK.
Your contention that the U.S. destroyed all the WMD with bombs and
missiles is another "extraordinary proposition."
You could be right, but it will be extraordinary if you are.
Ryd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hound Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: When They Find the WMD That Saddam Hussein Hid |
14 Jan 2004 09:17:18 AM |
|
|
<ryda56p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:21286b3e.0401140603.2b1e671e@posting.google.com...
The question of "Where are the WMDs?" is a reasonable one, however. A
huge amount of resources and lives have been spent on invading and
controlling Iraq and the main reason that most people had in their
minds as to the reason for going in was that Saddam Hussein had WMD. I
don't recall anyone saying in February or March 2003, "Nah, Iraq
doesn't have any damn WMD. It's not worth going in there for that
reason. Iraq DOES NOT EVEN HAVE WMD."
[snip]
Why did we go into Iraq if there were no WMDs? The Bush adminstration
and others had the reasons (democracy, change the landscape, oil,
baby-killing, etc.) but those reasons, all of those reasons, are not
good enough. No rational government (consisting of a president,
cabinet, two houses of congress) and the military would do something
like it did if there were much doubt about the WMD thing.
The WMD have to exist.
PM Blair once said something in July that made a lot of sense to me.
He said that contention by critics that there are *NO* WMD "rests on
this rather extraordinary proposition: that having for years
obstructed the United Nations inspectors and concealed his programs,
having finally effectively got rid of them in December '98, he then
took all the problems and sanctions and action upon himself,
voluntarily destroyed them but just didn't tell anyone."
No, there are WMD. Saddam wouldn't have done what he did unless they
did exist.
I think the Coalition will find the WMD soon.
And we will come to know that Saddam Hussein led us to them.
"Gene" <Where@AmI.com> wrote:
You don't follow the news do you - The inspectors are going home.
Actually, going home is the 400 member Joint Captured Materiel
Exploitation Group which was a subset of teh 1400 member Iraqi Survey
Group.
I've read that the JCMEG was tasked with searching weapons depots and
other sites for illicit weaponsm, including missile launchers and
conventional weapons, not necessarily WMD.
The Iraqi Survey Group, however, is responsible for finding WMD and
has a separate military team that specializes in disposing of chemical
and biological weapons.
The ISG and the separate team are reported to be remaining in Iraq.
Why would the disposal team remain behind? To dispose of what?
I flew all over that area in the first gulf mini war and we destroyed
everything we found, then ten years of bombing and cruse missles
destroyed more.
There are no WMD's anymore. Not since the late nineties.
Then why would Saddam accept certain loss of power by specifically
refusing to simply tell the U.N. in 2002 and early 2003, "Hey, I
destroyed all the stuff. Here's what we did and where we did it. Chew
on that for awhile you infidels. Now get off my back."
For you to be right Gene, your contention:
"rests on
this rather extraordinary proposition: that having for years
obstructed the United Nations inspectors and concealed his programs,
having finally effectively got rid of them in December '98, he then
took all the problems and sanctions and action upon himself,
voluntarily destroyed them but just didn't tell anyone."
I flew all over that area in the first gulf mini war and we destroyed
everything we found, then ten years of bombing and cruse missles
destroyed more. There are no WMD's anymore. Not since the late
nineties.
If you destroyed them with your bombing and cruise missiles, wouldn't
that have caused the release of biological or chemical substances and
contaminated some territory and killed some people? Such has never
been reported, AFIK.
Your contention that the U.S. destroyed all the WMD with bombs and
missiles is another "extraordinary proposition."
You could be right, but it will be extraordinary if you are.
Ryd
Yet another uninformed straw grabber.
Hound Dog
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: When They Find the WMD That Saddam Hussein Hid |
14 Jan 2004 09:54:33 AM |
|
|
On 14 Jan 2004 06:03:23 -0800, ()
wrote:
Your contention that the U.S. destroyed all the WMD with bombs and
missiles is another "extraordinary proposition."
Again not if you read the news. We sent 1600 sorties and 400 missiles
into Iraq in Dec. 1998. We bombed everything we even suspected of
being related to WMDs. Towards the end of this targeters said they
could not even find targets to send out against. All evidence since
the invasion is this destroyed what ever residual WMDs or programs
were left.
_______
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public."
-President Teddy Roosevelt
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: When They Find the WMD That Saddam Hussein Hid |
14 Jan 2004 12:14:35 AM |
|
|
On 13 Jan 2004 18:30:22 -0800, ()
wrote:
No, there are WMD. Saddam wouldn't have done what he did unless they
did exist.
I think the Coalition will find the WMD soon.
Read General Zinni's take. he was commander of US forces in the
middle east for near a decade and read all the daily intel reports.
he says when he heard Cheney going off about WMDs, he thought to
himself, this is bogus.
_______
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public."
-President Teddy Roosevelt
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
