The Iraq Thread 2

[FSPilot 0]

denoir

Quote[/b] ]No, they didn't. It's another pre-war propaganda lie spread by right-wing media. But regardless, there are no Iraqis obstructing the US inspectors now, and nothing has been found. If Saddam indeed was burying WMD then he did it a long time before the war started hence the 45 minutes claim is BS. You can't have it both ways. Either he dug them down or he didn't. You can't say that they were buried and that the 45 minutes claim was correct.

The UN was not looking for migs.

Mig: small aircraft

Nuclear materials processing plant: huge complex

The 45 minute claim was probably true at one time. But I doubt it was when he started hiding his stuff.

Quote[/b] ]HA! Classic FSPilot! How many people Saddam killed does not have anything to do with the 45 minutes question. Try again.

You're trying to say that, because one of the arguments provided may of been flawed that we should of invaded. I responded yes we should have since he's killed so many people and will continue to.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, and how many were in position to do that? Really, Saddam's sons visited just about every Iraqi home to look for future rape and torture victims. Oh, yes, they worked 24/7 so that they could terrorize every civilian in Iraq.

History channel did a good documentary on Saddam's sons. Showed how he used to talk to principals of schools to get girls to come stay with him. I doubt he was tutoring them.

Quote[/b] ]When did I say that he was a good guy? And yes, the Iraqi people are glad to have him gone but they are not happy what you have done with the country. They've gone from bad to worse. That doesn't mean that the initial "bad" was good.

I never said that you said that, I said you seem to think it. And, IIRC, most Iraqis would rather have things the way they are now than have Saddam back. I don't have that census on hand though.

Quote[/b] ]The question is hypothetical since the reason for the invasion was never about the Iraqi people. I have a very nice Wolfowitz quote on that, if you wish.

It's one of the reasons I support the war.

Quote[/b] ]Give me those numbers. I'm gessing that when you say "my" numbers you really mean it - i.e that you made it up. The most extreme right-wing sources put the number of Iraqis Saddam killed to 100,000-200,000. And I can guarantee that they're bullshit.

Heard it on TV so I can't exactly quote it. Guess which show though.

Anyway, I made another graph with your numbers.

Compared to the Iraqi casualties a US invasion would still of been relatively painless.

Crazysheep

Quote[/b] ]Well, according to this 1991 edition of Punch magazine all the Iraqis were told that they'd won then as well....so my point still stands.

That the Iraqis lie to make the US look bad? How does that indicate to you that they wouldn't inflate their civilian casualty numbers? Maybe even do some themselves to make it look like we did.

[Crazysheep 1]

That the Iraqis lie to make the US look bad?  How does that indicate to you that they wouldn't inflate their civilian casualty numbers?  Maybe even do some themselves to make it look like we did.

No, they were pretending they had WON.

[denoir 0]

The 45 minute claim was probably true at one time.  But I doubt it was when he started hiding his stuff.

Well, then we're making progress. The claim was made by the British government in the prelude of the war and was about how things were at that moment, not 10 years ago. So you agree that they lied?

Quote[/b] ]You're trying to say that, because one of the arguments provided may of been flawed that we should of invaded. I responded yes we should have since he's killed so many people and will continue to.

It's not one argument, it's just about any argument.

[*] No WMD have been found (primary justification)

[*] No terrorist ties have been found (secondary justification)

The only one left is the humanitarian cause, which was declared as a "bonus" during the prelude of the war. The reason stated for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was a clear and present danger to USA and to the Mid East through his possession of WMD and his terrorist ties.

That justification was wrong.

Quote[/b] ]History channel did a good documentary on Saddam's sons. Showed how he used to talk to principals of schools to get girls to come stay with him. I doubt he was tutoring them.

I'll try not to laugh to much at you using the "History Channel" as a source of information. Anyhow, my point is the same: even if the brothers raped and pillaged 24 h/day, how many Iraqi citizens could they have affected? Not many. Iraq was a bloody dicatorship yes. Saddam's rowmodel was Stalin, yes. But to ordinary citizens with no political ambitions, this makes no difference. As long as they shut up the risk to them is minimal. At the same time they had water, electricity and work - which they do not now. So for the average citizen things have only gotten worse. You can't eat freedom of speech.

Quote[/b] ]Compared to the Iraqi casualties a US invasion would still of been relatively painless.

The death toll is over 25 years and two wars. You can't compare it with a three month limited military action.

[FSPilot 0]

Crazysheep

Quote[/b] ]No, they were pretending they had WON.

I know that. The fact I was pointing out is that they were pretending. They may of also pretended about their civilian casualties.

denoir

Quote[/b] ]Well, then we're making progress. The claim was made by the British government in the prelude of the war and was about how things were at that moment, not 10 years ago. So you agree that they lied?

Not at all, it's possible that they hadn't started hiding their weapons yet.

Quote[/b] ]It's not one argument, it's just about any argument.

[*] No WMD have been found (primary justification)

[*] No terrorist ties have been found (secondary justification)

The only one left is the humanitarian cause, which was declared as a "bonus" during the prelude of the war. The reason stated for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was a clear and present danger to USA and to the Mid East through his possession of WMD and his terrorist ties.

That justification was wrong.

Just because we haven't found WMD or terrorists yet doesn't mean they're not there.

Quote[/b] ]I'll try not to laugh to much at you using the "History Channel" as a source of information. Anyhow, my point is the same: even if the brothers raped and pillaged 24 h/day, how many Iraqi citizens could they have affected? Not many. Iraq was a bloody dicatorship yes. Saddam's rowmodel was Stalin, yes. But to ordinary citizens with no political ambitions, this makes no difference. As long as they shut up the risk to them is minimal. At the same time they had water, electricity and work - which they do not now. So for the average citizen things have only gotten worse. You can't eat freedom of speech.

So you completely support and endorse his dictatorship? If you saw him rape some girl or kill somebody you'd sit on your hands and defend his right to continue?

Quote[/b] ]The death toll is over 25 years and two wars. You can't compare it with a three month limited military action.

Sure I can, how many Iraqi civilians died before the gulf war as a result of the US? Very few. I could just as easilly say that the numbers are for however long Saddam has existed since there are practically no US-caused casualties before the first gulf war.

[Badgerboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Sure I can, how many Iraqi civilians died before the gulf war as a result of the US?  Very few.  I could just as easilly say that the numbers are for however long Saddam has existed since there are practically no US-caused casualties before the first gulf war.

Well the US provided weapons, support and training for Saddams troops, troops he used to kill his own people. This was done even though most of the world knew that Saddam was a complete bastard.

So indirectly, quite a few!

[FSPilot 0]

Well the French trained and helped us during the revolutionary war. So they're completely responsible!

[denoir 0]

Just because we haven't found WMD or terrorists yet doesn't mean they're not there.

There have been now over 8 months of UN and US inspections. At what point do you think it's safe to say that there were no WMD and no terrorists?

There was supposed to be plenty of them and they were supposed to pose a grave danger to the world. You can't hide a nuclear processing facility. You can't hide a chemical weapons plant. These are not things you could just bury in the sand, or destroy without a trace. What happened to the tens of thousands of people working at those alledged plants? Are they suffering from collective amnesia?

Every single shred of evidence points at the fact that there were no WMD and that tere were no terrorist ties.

And the top argument of them all, which you conveniently ignored again, is the fact that even if he had them he did not use them. Saddam was losing power. He had nothing to lose by using them, nothing - and he did not. There are only two possibe explanations:

1) He did not want to use them.

2) He did not have them in the first place.

If it's 1) then the whole argument of Saddam being a danger to the world was pure BS and the same for 2).

Quote[/b] ]So you completely support and endorse his dictatorship?  If you saw him rape some girl or kill somebody you'd sit on your hands and defend his right to continue?

No, I'll just quote myself.

Quote[/b] ]When did I say that he was a good guy?   And yes, the Iraqi people  are glad to have him gone but they are not happy what you have done with the country. They've gone from bad to worse. That doesn't mean that the initial "bad" was good.

Saddam = bad.

Situation today  = worse

But the overall issue isn't Saddam and isn't the Iraq situations. The issue is about how you can go on trusting leaders that obviously lied to you.

Quote[/b] ]

Sure I can, how many Iraqi civilians died before the gulf war as a result of the US?  Very few.  I could just as easilly say that the numbers are for however long Saddam has existed since there are practically no US-caused casualties before the first gulf war.

Hehe, considering that USA et al provided him help with chemical weapons, supported him with military hardware and gave him full political support, I'd say quite a few Iraqi civilians died as a result of the US. You're forgetting that until 1991, Saddam was the good guy, as far as the US was concerned. He was a good friend of yours.

[FSPilot 0]

denoir

Quote[/b] ]There have been now over 8 months of UN and US inspections. At what point do you think it's safe to say that there were no WMD and no terrorists?

A few months after there's no more shooting in Iraq, I'd say.

Quote[/b] ]There was supposed to be plenty of them and they were supposed to pose a grave danger to the world. You can't hide a nuclear processing facility. You can't hide a chemical weapons plant. These are not things you could just bury in the sand, or destroy without a trace. What happened to the tens of thousands of people working at those alledged plants? Are they suffering from collective amnesia?

When did we say there were tens of thousands of people working on these plants? What makes you think the plants weren't underground to begin with? What makes you think they didn't just pile some sand on top of their WMDs like they did their migs?

Quote[/b] ]Every single shred of evidence points at the fact that there were no WMD and that tere were no terrorist ties.

According to you.

Quote[/b] ]And the top argument of them all, which you conveniently ignored again, is the fact that even if he had them he did not use them. Saddam was losing power. He had nothing to lose by using them, nothing - and he did not. There are only two possibe explanations:

1) He did not want to use them.

2) He did not have them in the first place.

If it's 1) then the whole argument of Saddam being a danger to the world was pure BS and the same for 2).

No, I responded to this argument. He did not use them because he was 1) busy hiding them or 2) did not want to be retalliated against in kind. Just because he didn't use them doesn't mean he didn't have them. The US has a large nuclear arsenal but we didn't use it, does that mean we don't have it?

Quote[/b] ]No, I'll just quote myself.

Quote[/b] ]When did I say that he was a good guy? And yes, the Iraqi people are glad to have him gone but they are not happy what you have done with the country. They've gone from bad to worse. That doesn't mean that the initial "bad" was good.

Saddam = bad.

Situation today = worse

But the overall issue isn't Saddam and isn't the Iraq situations. The issue is about how you can go on trusting leaders that obviously lied to you.

So you are endorsing and supporting his murderous regime over freedom and liberation. You'd rather live in a police state than have partial power losses in some parts of the country?

Quote[/b] ]Hehe, considering that USA et al provided him help with chemical weapons, supported him with military hardware and gave him full political support, I'd say quite a few Iraqi civilians died as a result of the US. You're forgetting that until 1991, Saddam was the good guy, as far as the US was concerned. He was a good friend of yours.

But we didn't kill any of those people. This is like blaming France for all the wars the US has gone through because they aided us once.

[denoir 0]

When did we say there were tens of thousands of people working on these plants?  What makes you think the plants weren't underground to begin with?  What makes you think they didn't just pile some sand on top of their WMDs like they did their migs?

Look up any chemical refinery on the web. See how many employees they have and look at the size of the facility. You'll soon realize that you can't hid something that big.

You can't make chemical weapons in your kitchen you know, and much less nuclear weapons.

Quote[/b] ]No, I responded to this argument. He did not use them because he was 1) busy hiding them or 2) did not want to be retalliated against in kind. Just because he didn't use them doesn't mean he didn't have them.

Then it's what I designated as 1) he did not want to use them. So the whole argument that his weapons were a danger to the region and the world was BS. Not even when his government collapsed did he use them. That's the most extreme situation possible and he didn't use them.

Quote[/b] ]So you are endorsing and supporting his murderous regime over freedom and liberation.

You mean the freedom of being governed by the occupational powers. You mean the freedom of getting shot at a demonstration. No thank you, I don't think I'd enjoy the kind of "freedom and liberation" that you have given the Iraqis.

Quote[/b] ]

You'd rather live in a police state than have partial power losses in some parts of the country?

It's not partial power losses. They don't have power and they don't have water. So if I was forced to chose between living in Saddam's Iraq or Iraq as it is today, I would most certainly choose Saddam's Iraq. And judging how you started to panic over the short power outage in NY, I'd say you'd be making that choice much quicker than me.

Quote[/b] ]But we didn't kill any of those people. This is like blaming France for all the wars the US has gone through because they aided us once.

Saddam did not kill all those people too! He just led a system that did that.

Without you and others helping him build chemical weapons, he would have not attacked the Kurds with them. You knew very well what he was going to do with them and you did not object after he had used them. It's like giving a loaded gun to a person you know is a homicidal psychopat. You may not be pulling the trigger yourself, but you are bloody responsible for the killings he does.

[Warin 0]

DEFINTION MAN!!!

Quote[/b] ]Main Entry: fu·tile

Pronunciation: 'fyü-t&l, 'fyü-"tIl

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin futilis brittle, pointless, probably from fu- (akin to fundere to pour) -- more at FOUND

Date: circa 1555

1 : serving no useful purpose : completely ineffective <efforts to convince him were futile>

2 : occupied with trifles : FRIVOLOUS

- fu·tile·ly /-t&l-(l)E, -"tIl-lE/ adverb

- fu·tile·ness /-t&l-n&s, -"tIl-n&s/ noun

synonyms FUTILE, VAIN, FRUITLESS mean producing no result. FUTILE may connote completeness of failure or unwisdom of undertaking <resistance had proved so futile that surrender was the only choice left>. VAIN usually implies simple failure to achieve a desired result <a vain attempt to get the car started>. FRUITLESS comes close to VAIN but often suggests long and arduous effort or severe disappointment <fruitless efforts to obtain a lasting peace>.

Addendum:

Trying to use common sense and rational discourse to prove a point with certain individuals.

[Frisbee 0]

I aid terrorists,train them to be pilots,and give them enough money to buy whatever they need.

Then they proceed to crash into the Pentagon a year of planning after.

According to your logic I'm not to blame,since I helped them so long ago.

If you think you can make chemical or nuclear weapons with a few dozen scientists you're really mistaken,if I look at the facilities of eg. Afga-Gevaert they're bloody huge.

You can't bury them without the work of several hundreds or easily thousands of labormen to build bunkers that large

You can't operate them effeciently without at least the same number of people working on them.

Since the us would pay up anything for info on WMD's,I know I'd spill my guts if i was one of those people.

Unless,of course,you say that Saddam murdered them,their families and all their relatives and acquaintances when the work was done.

[Warin 0]

And, even if you could bury all of the facilities required ( ), a construction project of that magnitude would surely have shown on satellite imagery.

Burying a few aircraft with no preparation or protection could be done in a few nights of work. Excavating enough to build osme super secret hidden lab would take a lot longer. Plus, all of the electricity for running the gear would have to come from somewhere ;)

EVERY shred of 'WMD' eveidence released since the end of Saddams Regime has been shown to be bollocks.

[Crazysheep 1]

If you think the BBC is respectable then I've got a bridge to sell you.  a recent poll shows that most britans don't think the BBC is reliable

Well, I don't know who took that poll but if it took place after the feud of BBC vs Government, but if it did it's an attempt to discredit the BBC. Plus, I live in Britain, and everyone I know trusts the BBC; if you are saying they are unreliable, it's debatable, but respectable? Of course they are!

[FSPilot 0]

denoir

Quote[/b] ]Look up any chemical refinery on the web. See how many employees they have and look at the size of the facility. You'll soon realize that you can't hid something that big.

You can't make chemical weapons in your kitchen you know, and much less nuclear weapons.

So the man who mailed anthrax to celebrities and other people, he had a giant chemical refinery in his backyard? 10,000 workers who kept their mouth shut about it? How come our high tech satellites didn't spot his chemical refinery denoir?

Quote[/b] ]Then it's what I designated as 1) he did not want to use them. So the whole argument that his weapons were a danger to the region and the world was BS. Not even when his government collapsed did he use them. That's the most extreme situation possible and he didn't use them.

He didn't use them because he thought he would be back in power in a few months. This is also why he buried his airplanes, for later use.

Quote[/b] ]You mean the freedom of being governed by the occupational powers. You mean the freedom of getting shot at a demonstration. No thank you, I don't think I'd enjoy the kind of "freedom and liberation" that you have given the Iraqis.

Yeah, demonstrators are known to be peaceful and non-violent. This falls into the category of things you don't hear on the news. You don't see on the BBC how many peaceful demonstrations go by peacefully. You only see the headlines when someone fires an RPG during a demonstration and runs into a crowd of innocent people.

Quote[/b] ]It's not partial power losses. They don't have power and they don't have water. So if I was forced to chose between living in Saddam's Iraq or Iraq as it is today, I would most certainly choose Saddam's Iraq. And judging how you started to panic over the short power outage in NY, I'd say you'd be making that choice much quicker than me.

LOL! I started to panic? I didn't even have power outages.

And yes, partial power outages. The power is off and on around Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]Saddam did not kill all those people too! He just led a system that did that.

He maliciously ordered that they be killed.

Quote[/b] ]Without you and others helping him build chemical weapons, he would have not attacked the Kurds with them. You knew very well what he was going to do with them and you did not object after he had used them. It's like giving a loaded gun to a person you know is a homicidal psychopat. You may not be pulling the trigger yourself, but you are bloody responsible for the killings he does.

And how were we supposed to know he would gas innocent civilians with them? You don't have the luxury of hindsight before something happens.

[DracoPaladore 0]

denoir

Quote[/b] ]Look up any chemical refinery on the web. See how many employees they have and look at the size of the facility. You'll soon realize that you can't hid something that big.

You can't make chemical weapons in your kitchen you know, and much less nuclear weapons.

So the man who mailed anthrax to celebrities and other people, he had a giant chemical refinery in his backyard?  10,000 workers who kept their mouth shut about it?  How come our high tech satellites didn't spot his chemical refinery denoir?

Because you don't need a facility of large size to create that little of anthrax. Probobly can do it in a shed. Remember ,there was barely even a spoon full in those letters from what I've heard.

[Warin 0]

denoir

Quote[/b] ]Look up any chemical refinery on the web. See how many employees they have and look at the size of the facility. You'll soon realize that you can't hid something that big.

You can't make chemical weapons in your kitchen you know, and much less nuclear weapons.

So the man who mailed anthrax to celebrities and other people, he had a giant chemical refinery in his backyard?  10,000 workers who kept their mouth shut about it?  How come our high tech satellites didn't spot his chemical refinery denoir?

Because you don't need a facility of large size to create that little of anthrax. Probobly can do it in a shed. Remember ,there was barely even a spoon full in those letters from what I've heard.

But there are 25,000,000 people in Iraq. They were TOTALLY under Saddams boot, so he made them all make a few tablespoons of Anthrax or VX in their shed, and suddenly he has ENOUGH TO KILL EVERYONE IN THE WORLD!!!!!

[FSPilot 0]

Because you don't need a facility of large size to create that little of anthrax. Probobly can do it in a shed. Remember ,there was barely even a spoon full in those letters from what I've heard.

So, theoretically, someone with the appropriate equipment and a tractor trailer could create more than several spoon fulls. Considerably more over a long period of time, with more than one factory.

[DracoPaladore 0]

I don't know. I was just guessing really. I don't think it probobly took that much equipment to make a pinch of it.

[Warin 0]

Because you don't need a facility of large size to create that little of anthrax. Probobly can do it in a shed. Remember ,there was barely even a spoon full in those letters from what I've heard.

So, theoretically, someone with the appropriate equipment and a tractor trailer could create more than several spoon fulls.  Considerably more over a long period of time, with more than one factory.

The problem FS, is that none of these tractor trailers you surmise exist have been found. In fact, the ones presented by CENTCOM turned out to be facilities for manufacturing hydrogen gas.

Thing is, while you might be able to make small quantities of anthrax or nerve agents with minimal facilities, you cannot make them on the scale Saddam was accused of having without industrial capabilities.

BTW, last I heard, the anthrax from those letters was traced to a US Army lab.

[denoir 0]

So the man who mailed anthrax to celebrities and other people, he had a giant chemical refinery in his backyard?  10,000 workers who kept their mouth shut about it?  How come our high tech satellites didn't spot his chemical refinery denoir?

Oh, dear, this has reached new lows. The mailed anthrax was produced in a HUUUUUUGE facility called the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases located at at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

[Warin 0]

So the man who mailed anthrax to celebrities and other people, he had a giant chemical refinery in his backyard?  10,000 workers who kept their mouth shut about it?  How come our high tech satellites didn't spot his chemical refinery denoir?

Oh, dear, this has reached new lows. The mailed anthrax was produced in a HUUUUUUGE facility called the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases located at at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

I'm pretty sure that WMD facility can be found on satellite imagery. Or maybe even an American Automobile Association travel map

[FSPilot 0]

Oh ok, that makes sense.

But he still could of buried the trucks

[denoir 0]

According to Powell, Saddam was supposed to have 25,000 liters of Anthrax. That's quite a few trucks. Furthermore what is often omitted in these discussions, the anthrax that Iraq produced was in liquid form which has a very limited shelf life and has to be kept in controled environments, or it dies. It would not have survived being dug down in the ground.

Nevertheless, if you check my post, I did not say anything about biological weapons. They can be produced with less equipment. Chemical and nuclear weapons can't. You cannot produce VX gas in a mobile lab. It requires a large chemical refinement plant exclusivly dedicated for production of the gas. And don't get me started on what infrastructure is required for nuclear weapons research.

[FSPilot 0]

Wasn't that also according to the UN's '95 report? I forget the exact number but they also found a considerable amount of illegal weapons before they left.

I still don't see why he couldn't of stored them in underground bunkers. Not burying them directly, but keeping them out of sight.

[denoir 0]

Wasn't that also according to the UN's '95 report?  I forget the exact number but they also found a considerable amount of illegal weapons before they left.

No, they never found them. The UN destroyed a lot of weapons but was convinced that there was more. Saddam was less than cooperative and the inspectors left before validating his claims. The thing is that nobody really knows how much he produced in the first place since he never provided any acceptable documenatation of it. It's fairly certain that he did not produce any since 1991 when he shut down his WMD programs.

As for the unaccounted stuff, it's pretty academic as those weapons would be completely useless by now.

Good article on the subject: Lies About Iraq’s Weapons Are Past Expiration Date

Quote[/b] ]I still don't see why he couldn't of stored them in underground bunkers. Not burying them directly, but keeping them out of sight.

In theory yes, but what about the infrastructure? All the chemical and biological weapons have a very limited shelf life ranging from a couple of weeks to three, max four years. Unless he was planning on using them within that time interval, the whole WMD program would be pointless. So while he could have perhaps hidden chemical munitions etc, he could have not hidden the plants that produced them. And since no evidence of such plants have been found the most obvious explanation is that there were no such plants in operation after 1991.