The Iraq Thread 2

[Harnu 0]

Quote[/b] ]1) No, the statistics say that they destroyed 90%....and let's not forget 70% of Iraqs military was crushed in the devastating bombing campaign of the first gulf war, which means when the UN destroyed these this was already significantly less than it was a decade beforehand.

That's still 10% not destroyed, and statistically, statistics like that aren't always correct (I'm aware of the oxymoron in that...)

They are significantly less, but it sure wasn't 100%

Quote[/b] ]2) No, because they destroyed all the factories that made WMDs and filled up the mining shafts of mines which mined.....stuff involving their creation. It is also not easy to hide a weapons factory, and none were found, so do you really think it's likely he made more?

Yes, I do think it's likely.

Quote[/b] ]3) Yes, he did have some hidden away-the Al Samoud missiles....or, perhaps, where these not illegal at the time?

Al Samoud missile were probably part of what was hidden away. Most likely, they were not all he hid away.

Quote[/b] ]What I meant was that he would not say to the world "Look, I just destroyed all my WoMDs, as you wished".

To get him to say that, they had to hold a gun to his head, thats all I meant. I thought you were talking about Saddam telling everyone that he had finished complying with the resolution before the crisis?

When I said before it would be publisized, I meant that US intel would have sent back info about them all being destroyed, and it would have been leaked from there.

Or am I on the wrong argument with you? It's hard to keep track when it's 1 v 6

Quote[/b] ]Quote

So you think the UN Weapons Inspectors then had destroyed all WMD's, he never made more, and he never had any hidden away?

I think so, until prooven other. Now isnt it up to the coalition to proove me wrong? Or is it not?

As they are now searching for WMD's. But Iraq is one large place, and one large desert. They could almost literally be anwywhere in there. Also, common sense can help a little on this one. Why do you think UN Inspectors got all of them? Why would Iraq kick them out if they had nothing left to hide?

[turms 0]

Why do you think UN Inspectors got all of them?

Becouse coalition forces havent found any, dispite all the intelligense resources gathered before the war.

Interseting thing came to my mind, what would be easier,finding Saddam Hussein from Iraq or finding WMDs from Iraq?

[Crazysheep 1]

Quote[/b] ]That's still 10% not destroyed, and statistically, statistics like that aren't always correct (I'm aware of the oxymoron in that...)

I take it you began the quote wars before you read all my post. Don't worry, I do that too.

Quote[/b] ]Yes, I do think it's likely.

Elaborate please, my friend. While it is perfectly valid to argue that WMDs had been moved out the country or destroyed, one cannot go about hiding the factories that produce them very well. SCUDs are big, this isn't like the secret rooms in USSR factories where they build guns-plus, coalition forces have no restrictions so secret rooms would have been found.

Quote[/b] ]Al Samoud missile were probably part of what was hidden away. Most likely, they were not all he hid away.

Based on what? The UN inspectors had enormous freedoms, more so than any other previous inspection, ever, and it was very unlikely that WMDs would not be found. Plus, the Gulf War never really ended as some soldiers have argued - the country has been under constant supervision from the UN and it is more unlikely than any other country in the world that Iraq could have hidden any WMDs. You seem a decent guy, but perhaps you can argue a case for the war in Iraq that is not just the produce of an enormous propaganda campaign? Almost every single statistic and solid fact contradicts the possibility that Iraq had WMDs. Perhaps you can start by saying how many Saddam killed, and the Coalition forces have not caused so many to die yet?

Quote[/b] ]As they are now searching for WMD's. But Iraq is one large place, and one large desert. They could almost literally be anwywhere in there. Also, common sense can help a little on this one. Why do you think UN Inspectors got all of them? Why would Iraq kick them out if they had nothing left to hide?

Like I said.........the co-operation with the UN was, after the Ba'ath party realised that the CIA using the UN to spy on them again was the least of their worries, exceptional. Iraq did not kick them out, unless you are referring to the case where CIA agents were caught planting bugs under the guise of the UN in 1996?

All of this spying has meant that it is fantastically unlikely that the USA would not have found any clues to the whereabouts of WMDs in Iraq.....in addition, there is bound to be some people with knowledge who have realised the prospects of reward and inevitable protection received from coalition forces in the present chaos. The realistic chances of WMDs existed are millions to one. Opinion, yes, but....

[Harnu 0]

Alright, from now on, I'm going one question at a time, one person at a time

Quote[/b] ]Elaborate please, my friend. While it is perfectly valid to argue that WMDs had been moved out the country or destroyed, one cannot go about hiding the factories that produce them very well. SCUDs are big, this isn't like the secret rooms in USSR factories where they build guns-plus, coalition forces have no restrictions so secret rooms would have been found.

Well, I was speaking out of personal opinion there. I would certainly still produce things. Secretly, of course. Even a single factory could create quite a few over the course of a few years. I saw something on CNN I belive of tunnels under some of the presidential complexes. They were quite good, and well made. Whos to say they didn't pull a small Cheyene Mountain out in the desert? Now I'm acting like my crazy, conspiricy theorist neigbor!

But seriously. Taking indecrestion with various parts and shipping them around, and manufacturing them somewhere out in the middle of nowhere. It surely could be done without drawing too much attention.

[FSPilot 0]

Baslchoiw

Warning: contains graphic images

I'll bet they're convinced.

Ex-Ronin

Quote[/b] ]You heard they have destroyed them, thus complying with the UN resolution

You know they have them, because they used them in the past and some of them were given to them by the US

HENCE you know they have them, but you need to find out what happened to them

You are merely using deductive reasoning to imply that Iraq may have/had WoMDs, but the proof is nonexistant. You are also claiming that they may have been destroyed before the war - thus complying with the UN resolution, thus making the war illegal, thus the US is a rogue nation defying international law

Make your mind up

If they wanted to comply with the UN resolution they had 12 years to. The only reason they destroyed them was to make the US look bad, not to comply with the UN resolution.

And no, it's not deductive reasoning. We know they have them because 1) they used them on more than once occassion, 2) we, along with other countries, gave some to them, 3) the UN found some in 1995. On the other hand, we have no evidence that they publically and officially destroyed them in compliance with the Un resolution. We think that they destroyed them to save face and make the U.S. look bad, not to comply with the UN.

[NurEinMensch 0]

If they wanted to comply with the UN resolution they had 12 years to.

And yet there is no evidence they didn't comply.

But thanks, I really feel much safer now. The threat of a WMD attack that could be prepared within 45 minutes is now gone. I can finally sleep again.

Face it FSPilot, your government lied and got your country into a war. Whatever they said to get support for the war turned out as intel failure at best.

Doesn't that make you question your government? Don't you feel betrayed?

But still you hard core hawks try to justify that war.

Why?

[FSPilot 0]

Quote[/b] ]And yet there is no evidence they didn't comply.

The fact that they didn't comply is the evidence. If they wanted to comply with the resolution they would of done it publically, very publically.

Quote[/b] ]Face it FSPilot, your government lied and got your country into a war. Whatever they said to get support for the war turned out as intel failure at best.

Doesn't that make you question your government? Don't you feel betrayed?

But still you hard core hawks try to justify that war.

Why?

My government didn't lie to me. The only people who are lying are the people who think Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. The only people who are lying are the ones who want to keep Saddam in power for their own selfish reasons.

[Harnu 0]

Quote[/b] ]Face it FSPilot, your government lied and got your country into a war. Whatever they said to get support for the war turned out as intel failure at best.

Doesn't that make you question your government? Don't you feel betrayed?

Dunno about FS, but it sure doesn't make me question the government or make me feel betrayed

[Warin 0]

My government didn't lie to me.  The only people who are lying are the people who think Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction.  The only people who are lying are the ones who want to keep Saddam in power for their own selfish reasons.

Even your own government thinks it was lied to by the executive branch.

Nice that you know better than all those Congressmen and Senators

Face it, FS. Bush and his cronies duped everyone to wage an unjustifiable war. No matter how evil Saddam is/was, the US War was a war of aggression. And far more sinister than you care to believe.

[Harnu 0]

Quote[/b] ]Face it, FS. Bush and his cronies duped everyone to wage an unjustifiable war. No matter how evil Saddam is/was, the US War was a war of aggression. And far more sinister than you care to believe.

The problem is, a lot of people wanted to go to war with Iraq simply because it felt like something we had to do. Evidence aside, Saddam was a bad guy, and if Bush pointed the finger at him, we would do what we needed.

This doesn't mean were going after every 'bad guy' in the world. But getting Saddam for some people said it was almost like they needed to tie up the loose end of the first Gulf War. We could have had him then, but getting him now was the next best thing for some.

[Warin 0]

Quote[/b] ]Face it FSPilot, your government lied and got your country into a war. Whatever they said to get support for the war turned out as intel failure at best.

Doesn't that make you question your government? Don't you feel betrayed?

Dunno about FS, but it sure doesn't make me question the government or make me feel betrayed  

It's a bird, It's a plane, It's:

DEFINITION MAN!!!!

Quote[/b] ]Main Entry: gull·ible

Variant(s): also gull·able  /'g&-l&-b&l/

Function: adjective

Date: 1818

: easily duped or cheated

- gull·ibil·i·ty  /"g&-l&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun

- gull·ibly  /'g&-l&-blE/ adverb  

[Harnu 0]

Read my previous post just 3 mins before yours  

For a lack of words, I feel it was the right thing to do.

[Crazysheep 1]

And no, it's not deductive reasoning.  We know they have them because 1) they used them on more than once occassion, 2) we, along with other countries, gave some to them, 3) the UN found some in 1995.  On the other hand, we have no evidence that they publically and officially destroyed them in compliance with the Un resolution.  We think that they destroyed them to save face and make the U.S. look bad, not to comply with the UN.

I feel mildly offended you have blatantly chose not to read any of my posts.

[Crazysheep 1]

My government didn't lie to me.  The only people who are lying are the people who think Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction.  The only people who are lying are the ones who want to keep Saddam in power for their own selfish reasons.

You criticise people, presumably the French, (NB: It was not just the oil thang that made the French anti-war. They have both the highest Islamic and the highest Jewish population in Europe. Going to war in Iraq would lead to civil unrest, obviously) who wanted to keep Saddam in power for selfish reasons. Excuse me, but isn't that precisely what the USA did before Gulf War 1?

And if you are suggesting that people on this forum are lying, then that is just wild paranoia. We have nothing whatsoever to gain apart from satisfaction from persuading you, and in the unlikely event we are wrong, then we are incorrect not lying. (If you're out there, then SAVE ME, DEFINITION MAN!)

[NurEinMensch 0]

The fact that they didn't comply is the evidence.  If they wanted to comply with the resolution they would of done it publically, very publically.

Iraq _did_ make that report that accounted for most of their former WMD program. (And yes that was very publically) It wasn't complete but it was good enough and that's not my opinion but that's what Mr. Blix thought plus they gave the inspectors full access to everything.

Did Iraq try to hide something? I bet!

Was there any threat to us? No, whatever he had hidden somewhere was obviously not enough to use. Proof? It wasn't used in the war, if that isnt proof enough for you try to find the WMD yourself.

Quote[/b] ]My government didn't lie to me. The only people who are lying are the people who think Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. The only people who are lying are the ones who want to keep Saddam in power for their own selfish reasons.

Come on, do you want me to find some of Bushs speeches before the war? We can go through them sentence by sentence and compare them to the current reality and current speeches.

And you still want to tell me they didnt lie?

What about all the fake evidence they presented to the UN (and you congress)? In my book faking evidence = lying.

But maybe that's just me.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

You can only be betrayed if you trust the traitor in the first place

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]You can only be betrayed if you trust the traitor in the first place

*scratches head*

Is this Hollywood ?

or are we somehow lost ?

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Quote[/b] ]You can only be betrayed if you trust the traitor in the first place

*scratches head*

Is this Hollywood ?

or are we somehow lost ?

What he said makes perfect sense.

You can not betray if there was no trust that could be betrayed in the first place

You can then go on and try and think about how this applies to the workings of the world, but I am too tired to show you, so yuo have to do it yourself

[Tex -USMC- 0]

LOL, nice emoticon. Anyhow, maybe it's just an oddity of English that can't be transferred over to German. If you're betrayed by someone, that implies that at one point they were serving your interests and you trusted them.

[Major Fubar 0]

At the end of the day, most of the world is pissed off at the way Bush handled this for the following reasons:

1. It was never the USAs place to enforce UN resolutions against the UNs own will. Despite what you may think, the US of A is NOT the world's police force, at least not in the opinion of the rest of the free world.

2. In the UN inspectors own opinion, their inspections were working and simply needed more time. The USA completely blew any chance of a peaceful resolution by flexing it's military muscle to show everybody that they are still the big kid on the block. The plan to intimidate Iraq into complying with a show of military force would have been fine, except that due to financial reasons (not being able to justify such an expendature without a concrete result) and so as not to "lose face", Bush felt he had to follow through with actual military action.

3. The WMD excuse to invade Iraq was so flimsy as to be an insult to the rest of the world. Colin Powell's powerpoint presentation was a joke, and time and again US intel was proved wrong.

4. The precedent that Bush set by a "preemptive strike" against a country that posed virtually zero threat to America scared the shit out of the whole world, leading everyone worrying about "who's next"...not only from action by the USA, but for any other country felt like citing Bush's example... IMHO this has done more to destabilise the global balance than Saddam ever could...

5. The way that after being unable to find any evidence of WMD (the USAs whole pretext of invasion), the whole WMD issue was casually swept under the carpet, and all of a sudeen the whole invasion was about removing the evil Saddam and liberating the poor, oppressed people of Iraq (who 12 years earlier America didn't seem to care about very much).

[Harnu 0]

Quote[/b] ]Was there any threat to us? No, whatever he had hidden somewhere was obviously not enough to use. Proof? It wasn't used in the war, if that isnt proof enough for you try to find the WMD yourself.

It wasn't used in the war because Saddam could very well have realized we was going to lose anyway. So he had to flee. But how can he remain uncaptured? Low profile, and not many people looking for him.

If the WMD's were hidden, America looks like the bad guy, so other nations will not cooperate in the search for Saddam. Had they been used, Saddam would have shown everyone America was right, which is something that would seemingly be a shock to the world, and then we'd all be looking for him.

Well, that's my speculation anyway.

[joltan 0]

@ June 24 2003,00:29)]maybe it's just an oddity of English that can't be transferred over to German. If you're betrayed by someone, that implies that at one point they were serving your interests and you trusted them.

So your governement didn't serve your interests and you never trusted them anyways? Ok, to me this means you don't give shit about what your governement does anyways. Wow, how's checks and balance supposed to work then? No wonder Dubya and his cronies can basically do whatever they want...

[Longinius 1]

"It wasn't used in the war because Saddam could very well have realized we was going to lose anyway. So he had to flee."

Then, what makes you think he would EVER use it? By this reasoning, he knows he is fucked if he uses WMD's against the coalition or their allies. So why would he ever do it?

"But how can he remain uncaptured? Low profile, and not many people looking for him."

There are loads of people looking for him last I checked. You know, the soldiers from the coalition for one. And then loads of people from the nation he used to oppress.

"If the WMD's were hidden, America looks like the bad guy, so other nations will not cooperate in the search for Saddam. Had they been used, Saddam would have shown everyone America was right, which is something that would seemingly be a shock to the world, and then we'd all be looking for him."

Doubtful. Even if he used them, he'd be using it in self defence. Granted, it wouldnt get him any sympathy but I am not sure we'd see much more people running around looking for him either.

[Schoeler 0]

@ June 24 2003,00:29)]maybe it's just an oddity of English that can't be transferred over to German. If you're betrayed by someone, that implies that at one point they were serving your interests and you trusted them.

So your governement didn't serve your interests and you never trusted them anyways? Ok, to me this means you don't give shit about what your governement does anyways. Wow, how's checks and balance supposed to work then? No wonder Dubya and his cronies can basically do whatever they want...

You forget that our government changes hands every four years. For guys like me and I'm assuming Tex as well, we don't consider the Bush administration our government. True they govern us, but not the way we would like and we didn't ask them to either. Hopefully the candidates I support will get elected next time, and by the people, not the Supreme Court.

[Schoeler 0]

"It wasn't used in the war because Saddam could very well have realized we was going to lose anyway.  So he had to flee."  

Then, what makes you think he would EVER use it? By this reasoning, he knows he is fucked if he uses WMD's against the coalition or their allies. So why would he ever do it?

"But how can he remain uncaptured?  Low profile, and not many people looking for him."

There are loads of people looking for him last I checked. You know, the soldiers from the coalition for one. And then loads of people from the nation he used to oppress.

"If the WMD's were hidden, America looks like the bad guy, so other nations will not cooperate in the search for Saddam.  Had they been used, Saddam would have shown everyone America was right, which is something that would seemingly be a shock to the world, and then we'd all be looking for him."

Doubtful. Even if he used them, he'd be using it in self defence. Granted, it wouldnt get him any sympathy but I am not sure we'd see much more people running around looking for him either.

If he had used them, American SOP is to respond with WMD, we'd have nuked him.  I don't think any of his subordinates (with command authority over the weapons) had any illusions of winning the war.  Instead, they were jockeying for best position in post-war Iraq and trying to avoid any war crimes charges.  It wouldn't have looked too good to have used the weapons.  Those guys knew they would eventually wind up being tried after the war, why give the enemy the rope to hang themselves with?