|
danooguy
Feb 10, 2006, 9:32 PM
Post #51 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: Do you think that a martyr in the making is concerned about such things?
That's exactly what I was thinking.
Nevermind that a dictator can get anyone to do anything, anywhere, anytime, unless of course they want to die...sooner rather than later. We have heard countless reports of his ruthlessness...if but half of them are true...
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 10, 2006, 9:32 PM
Post #52 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: He's working on the Superbowl now...
Excellent. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Feb 10, 2006, 9:36 PM
Post #53 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: He issued a final statement about 18 months after the invasion.He's working on the Superbowl now...
Sweet... can't wait to find out if Seattle wins this time. :D
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Feb 10, 2006, 9:42 PM
Post #54 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
As I said long before this war started, even if Saddam had WMD's, he presented little or no threat to the U.S.
He already proved that he would not use them against us in Gulf War 1, even when our tanks where rolling all over his Republican Guard. He was not even a threat to his immediate neighbors. He was completely castrated militarily, pinned under our thumb, and quite successfully contained.
U.S. and British intel said that if he did have them he would be more likely to hand to off to terrorists if we invaded.
So if WMD's in the hands of Saddam was truly the concern, then invading Iraq was clearly not the best course of action to address that concern.
For these reasons I knew that our President had a hidden agenda, that the line he was feeding us was bull. Anyone with a smidgeon of capacity for logical thought could see this. And, there have been multiple reports over the past couple years that support this - that Bush strong-armed our intel community into providing ammo for his political agenda, that he flat out misrepresented the conclusions of our intel community to the American people, and that he used the spectre of WMD's to scare the American people into supporting the invasion.
I also said that invading Iraq would be counter-productive to our interests in the war on terror. Is this not obvious now? Since the invasion Islamic radicalism has risen steeply. The broader war that Bin Laden wanted, East vs. West is looking more and more likely (as opposed to merely a civil war between moderate and radical Islam, which the moderates were winning, by the way). We are weaker militarily, weaker politically, and weaker financially. Our country is far more vulnerable today to the economic damage that another terrorist attack would cause. And we have done little to actually secure our homeland against future attack.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Feb 10, 2006, 9:48 PM
Post #55 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
Reno wrote: Then what did he do with the nerve gas he used on the Kurds? That's the one question that nobody seems to have an answer to, and that's what really scares me.
Maybe it's back in the US...it's place of origin. :shock:
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Feb 10, 2006, 9:56 PM
Post #56 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: Quote: Do you think that a martyr in the making is concerned about such things? That's exactly what I was thinking.
Yeah he/she would if they had to tranport it to a certain area/place/country.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Feb 10, 2006, 10:00 PM
Post #57 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: In reply to: Quote: Do you think that a martyr in the making is concerned about such things? That's exactly what I was thinking. Yeah he/she would if they had to tranport it to a certain area/place/country.
Why?
Why would they care? The martyr-to-be knows he is going to die. What difference would it make?
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Feb 10, 2006, 10:14 PM
Post #58 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: He already proved that he would not use them against us in Gulf War 1, even when our tanks where rolling all over his Republican Guard.
In reply to: U.S. and British intel said that if he did have them he would be more likely to hand to off to terrorists if we invaded.
In reply to: Anyone with a smidgeon of capacity for logical thought could see this.
In reply to: Since the invasion Islamic radicalism has risen steeply. The broader war that Bin Laden wanted, East vs. West is looking more and more likely
What actions by Islamic radicals compare to 9/11, the WTC bombing, the embassy bombing in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole?
|
|
|
|
|
jred
Feb 10, 2006, 10:29 PM
Post #59 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Quote: Do you think that a martyr in the making is concerned about such things? That's exactly what I was thinking. Yeah he/she would if they had to tranport it to a certain area/place/country. Why? Why would they care? The martyr-to-be knows he is going to die. What difference would it make? |
|
|
|
|
slavetogravity
Feb 10, 2006, 10:47 PM
Post #60 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 1114
|
[quote="thorne"]In reply to: In reply to: Since the invasion Islamic radicalism has risen steeply. The broader war that Bin Laden wanted, East vs. West is looking more and more likely Really? What actions by Islamic radicals compare to 9/11, the WTC bombing, the embassy bombing in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole?
Well for starters there was the Madrid bombings, the London bombing, and the current element of Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq. There was no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda before the Iraq invasion...I repeat NO LINK...
The best quote I ever heard in regards to the fallacy of a Iraq Al-Qaeda link was from a former head of the CIA, who said that before the invasion Al-Qaeda had more links to Brooklyn then they did to Bagdad.
So, yah... operation "kick the hornets nest" is a complete success.
Kind of ironic that the War On Terror would result in the creation of more terrorists.
As for the mysteriously missing Nerve Gas.
Did it ever occur to anyone that Saddam did get rid of weapons like the UN told him to. A logical reason why any was unaccounted for was because the US blew it up during the Gulf war and subsequent decade of strategic bombing raids.
Ever hear of Gulf War syndrome? It's generally agreed that one of the leading causes of Gulf War syndrome was from the exposure to the fall-out from Iraqi ammunition dumps that the US bombed.
Do you think that the Air force would be so inept that they would have missed it all? Given the amount of bombs that where dropped on that country I'm surprised that they didn’t blow it all up.
|
|
|
|
|
slavetogravity
Feb 10, 2006, 10:51 PM
Post #61 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 1114
|
[quote="thorne"]In reply to: In reply to: Since the invasion Islamic radicalism has risen steeply. The broader war that Bin Laden wanted, East vs. West is looking more and more likely Really? What actions by Islamic radicals compare to 9/11, the WTC bombing, the embassy bombing in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole?
Well for starters there was the Madrid bombings, the London bombing, and the current element of Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq. There was no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda before the Iraq invasion...I repeat NO LINK... and today there most definitely is.
The best quote I ever heard in regards to the fallacy of a Iraq Al-Qaeda link was from a former head of the CIA, who said that before the invasion Al-Qaeda had more links to Brooklyn then they did to Bagdad.
So, yah... operation "kick the hornets nest" is a complete success.
Kind of ironic that the War On Terror would result in the creation of more terrorists.
As for the mysteriously missing Nerve Gas.
Did it ever occur to anyone that Saddam did get rid of weapons like the UN told him to. A logical reason why any was unaccounted for was because the US blew it up during the Gulf war and subsequent decade of strategic bombing raids.
Ever hear of Gulf War syndrome? It's generally agreed that one of the leading causes of Gulf War syndrome was from the exposure to the fall-out from Iraqi ammunition dumps that the US bombed.
Do you think that the Air force would be so inept that they would have missed it all? Given the amount of bombs that where dropped on that country I'm surprised that they didn’t blow it all up.
|
|
|
|
|
slablizard
Feb 10, 2006, 10:52 PM
Post #62 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 5558
|
I agree.
In reply to: Forgive for sating the obvious but don’t you think that if Sadam Husaine had WMD he would have used them when US invaded his country? I mean come on!? if ever there's a good time to whip out the WMD it’s when the US invades. Do you think he was just being a nice guy and chose not to use them?? He used them against Iran in the 80's and he used them against his own people. But he choses not to use them when an army that’s been laying waste to his country for the last decade decides to invade? Hmmmmm, is it me, or does that sound a little weird? Or perhaps... Just maybe.....he never had any....and maybe any claims that he had them and managed, to this very day, to hide them from the US, is because the people who instigated this war, and still support this war are desperate to find the justification to the senseless loss honour and life. |
|
|
|
|
reno
Feb 10, 2006, 11:00 PM
Post #63 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: Have we not already figured out that the stuff could not be moved around that easily?
No. We've agreed that certain biological weapon toxins SHOULD not be moved around without extreme caution.
That's not the same as COULD NOT be moved.
You COULD smoke a cigarette while filling your car with gas. You probably should not do so, however.
In reply to: Plus how many bio-chemists are suicide bombers?
Huh....?
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 10, 2006, 11:24 PM
Post #64 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: Do you think he was just being a nice guy and chose not to use them??
Since we're going to deal in conjecture, I'll venture a guess. After all, mine is as good as yours or anyone else's.
As I recall, Bush announced that he'd sent word to them that if they unleashed chemical or biological weapons, there would be swift and severe consequences. Perhaps a threat of total destruction by way of thermonuclear weaponry might give even a maniac cause to think about what he would or would not dare try against a superior force. Did Bush threaten him with nuclear weaponry? Who knows? But if so consider that everyone seems to nod their heads in agreement that Hussein could not possibly have had nuclear capabilities at the time.
Got nukes?
We do. He supposedly didn't. Do the math.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Feb 11, 2006, 12:00 AM
Post #65 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
In reply to: In reply to: He already proved that he would not use them against us in Gulf War 1, even when our tanks where rolling all over his Republican Guard. Did his not using them in '91, when our stated objective was to oust him from Kuwait (not overthrow him entirely), prove that he wouldn't use them in '03? Seems like conjecture to me.
Yes, because of the reason he did not use them. The same reason applied in the second war. Do you know what that reason is?
In reply to: In reply to: U.S. and British intel said that if he did have them he would be more likely to hand to off to terrorists if we invaded. They did? Who? When?
Yes, they did, before the war. This was reported somewhat widely in mainstream media outlets. I also posted it in several threads on this site. Perhaps you should pay closer attention to such matters. I’m not responsible for educating you, Google it yourself.
In reply to: In reply to: Anyone with a smidgeon of capacity for logical thought could see this. You do have a way of talking down to people.
I apologize for making generalizations, as evidenced by your next question, I should not include you in that “anyone” category.
In reply to: In reply to: Since the invasion Islamic radicalism has risen steeply. The broader war that Bin Laden wanted, East vs. West is looking more and more likely Really? What actions by Islamic radicals compare to 9/11, the WTC bombing, the embassy bombing in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole?
First of all, your question is a logical fallacy. (Smidgeon?) You think there’s some sort of linear correlation between radicalism and terrorist attacks? Please. A rise or fall in radicalism can be seen in many other symptoms. Cartoon reaction? Hamas winning?
Secondly, you need to pay closer attention to the world around you. Do only attacks on America matter to you? But I’ll play along with your logical fallacy anyway:
Since 1981 the U.S. State Department has published an annual report on global terrorism. Beginning in 2004, after the statistics provided by the National Counterterrorism Center showed a precipitous rise in terrorist attacks and deaths, the Bush administration decided to stop including such statistics in the annual report. (I’ll leave it to you do decide why the Bush Administration doesn’t want you to know those numbers.)
Regardless, the numbers have gotten out. In 2004 there were 651 attacks causing 1907 deaths. These numbers do not include attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is more than 3 times the severity of terrorism in the prior year; you know, 2003, the year we invaded? There were 208 attacks causing 625 deaths in 2003. 2005 numbers aren't out yet.
In all, since 9/11 there have been more deaths due to international terrorism than were killed on 9/11, with the precipitous rise in attacks coming after we invaded Iraq. None of this accounts for the deaths of Iraqis from terrorism. They are being killed at a rate of 500 per month, and the number of attacks in Iraq has been steadily rising, not declining.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Feb 11, 2006, 12:04 AM
Post #66 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: Did it ever occur to anyone that Saddam did get rid of weapons like the UN told him to.
Not really, no.
UNSCOM reported that they could not reconcile the amounts claimed by Sadaam with the facilities they were allowed to inspect.
So either Sadaam lied about what they had produced or he didn't. If he did lie about what they had produced (i.e. volume,) then is it reasonable to think he turned around and told the truth about destroying all the facilities? I don't think so. If he didn't lie, then there are unaccounted chem/bio agents out there somewhere. Either one is a disturbing proposition.
One other note: I read somewhere (have to look, see if I can find it,) about the UN Inspections team learning that Sadaam had pursued the use of aflotoxin as a bio-weapon. That's really worrisome, since it's a carcinogen, and wouldn't really show up as overtly as another agent, until you started seeing entire populations falling dead from cancer. At that point, it'd be impossible to secure any "proof" that it was a deliberate attack.
Scary stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
slavetogravity
Feb 11, 2006, 12:48 AM
Post #67 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 1114
|
In reply to: [One other note: I read somewhere (have to look, see if I can find it,) about the UN Inspections team learning that Sadaam had pursued the use of aflotoxin as a bio-weapon. That's really worrisome, since it's a carcinogen, and wouldn't really show up as overtly as another agent, until you started seeing entire populations falling dead from cancer. At that point, it'd be impossible to secure any "proof" that it was a deliberate attack. Scary stuff.
Scary indeed.
And here's some proof that it's occuring.
http://www.mediareviewnet.com/...ates%20in%20Iraq.htm
In reply to: The rate of birth defects, (In Iraq) after increasing ten-fold from 11 per 100,000 births in 1989 to 116 per 100,000 in 2001, is soaring further. Dr Nawar Ali, a medical researcher into birth deformities at Baghdad University, told the UN’s Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) last month: “There have been 650 cases [birth deformities] in total since August 2003 reported in government hospitals. That is a 20 percent increase from the previous regime. Private hospitals were not included in the study, so the number could be higher.” In reply to: Six years ago, the College of Medicine at Basra University carried out a study into the rate of cancer among children under the age of 15 in southern Iraq from 1976 to 1999. It revealed a horrific change between 1990 and 1999. In the province of Basra, the incidence of cancer of all types rose by 242 percent, while the rate of leukaemia among children rose 100 percent. Children living in the area were falling ill with cancer at the rate of 10.1 per 100,000. In districts where the use of Depelated Uranium had been the most concentrated, the rate rose to 13.2 per 100,000.
Yes sir, chemical warfare is a horrible thing. Perhaps someone should tell the US to stop waging it.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Feb 11, 2006, 1:13 AM
Post #68 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
In reply to: So either Sadaam lied about what they had produced or he didn't. If he did lie about what they had produced (i.e. volume,) then is it reasonable to think he turned around and told the truth about destroying all the facilities? I don't think so. If he didn't lie, then there are unaccounted chem/bio agents out there somewhere. Either one is a disturbing proposition.
Of course you're ignoring another obvious possiblity, and a very likely one at that. Bad record keeping. It's rather preposterous to expect that in Iraq, a country bombed to smithereens, they would be able to keep flawless records of their inventory and the destruction of that inventory.
We can't even do it ourselves, when we haven't been bombed to smithereens. You remember the story in 2003 about WMD's found buried in a Maryland field, the forgotten remants of an earlier germ warfare program? And it's much worse than that, trust me.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Feb 11, 2006, 1:29 AM
Post #69 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: Of course you're ignoring another obvious possiblity, and a very likely one at that. Bad record keeping. It's rather preposterous to expect that in Iraq, a country bombed to smithereens, they would be able to keep flawless records of their inventory and the destruction of that inventory.
Then why not say "Hell, I don't really know how much we have, but we'll be happy to show you whatever you want, in the spirit of peace." ??
The UN Inspection Teams were repeatedly denied access to numerous structures, facilities, and locations. Why do that if you don't have something to hide?
In reply to: You remember the story in 2003 about WMD's found buried in a Maryland field, the forgotten remants of an earlier germ warfare program? And it's much worse than that, trust me.
Actually, no, I don't remember that. Off to search for it and read a bit.
BTW, Pedro, good to see you back... hadn't heard from you in a while. Kinda missed you. *sniff*
;)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Feb 11, 2006, 1:39 AM
Post #70 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: Did it ever occur to anyone that Saddam did get rid of weapons like the UN told him to. Not really, no...
I think he did get rid of them. But, to save face and appear to be defiant to the "infidels" and to project the image of a tough leader in the Arab world, he didn't admit that he got rid of them. I think Saddam tried to have it both ways--and it came back to bite him in the ass. My $.02.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Feb 11, 2006, 1:49 AM
Post #71 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
Reno,
What Curt said.
You're ignoring the most obvious and most probable answers to your questions.
In 2003 the Army spent $25M digging up over 2,000 pounds of unaccounted for material near Ft. Kendrick, Maryland. This was reported in May of 2003, ironically, right after we invaded Iraq for bad record keeping, or something.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Feb 11, 2006, 1:56 AM
Post #72 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: Reno, What Curt said. You're ignoring the most obvious and most probable answers to your questions.
Pedro:
I'm not "ignoring the most obvious and most probable answers." I just don't think it's accurate. Possible? Sure. But probable? I don't know about that.
I'll repeat... if that was the case, why not admit it? To save face? That's a stretch. Again, possible, but I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Feb 11, 2006, 2:03 AM
Post #73 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: Reno, What Curt said. You're ignoring the most obvious and most probable answers to your questions. Pedro: I'm not "ignoring the most obvious and most probable answers." I just don't think it's accurate. Possible? Sure. But probable? I don't know about that. I'll repeat... if that was the case, why not admit it? To save face? That's a stretch. Again, possible, but I don't think so.
I don't know, reno. Saving face, and in this case maintaining his image as the "tough guy" of the Arab world, meant quite a lot to Saddam I think.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Feb 11, 2006, 2:59 AM
Post #74 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Reno, What Curt said. You're ignoring the most obvious and most probable answers to your questions. Pedro: I'm not "ignoring the most obvious and most probable answers." I just don't think it's accurate. Possible? Sure. But probable? I don't know about that. I'll repeat... if that was the case, why not admit it? To save face? That's a stretch. Again, possible, but I don't think so. I don't know, reno. Saving face, and in this case maintaining his image as the "tough guy" of the Arab world, meant quite a lot to Saddam I think. Curt
Which brings back to why he didn't use them in '91. Use them and invite destruction or don't use them (therefore not giving the US an excuse to take Bagdad) and remain defiant in defeat.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Feb 11, 2006, 3:13 AM
Post #75 of 113
(1910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Reno, What Curt said. You're ignoring the most obvious and most probable answers to your questions. Pedro: I'm not "ignoring the most obvious and most probable answers." I just don't think it's accurate. Possible? Sure. But probable? I don't know about that. I'll repeat... if that was the case, why not admit it? To save face? That's a stretch. Again, possible, but I don't think so. I don't know, reno. Saving face, and in this case maintaining his image as the "tough guy" of the Arab world, meant quite a lot to Saddam I think. Curt Which brings back to why he didn't use them in '91. Use them and invite destruction or don't use them (therefore not giving the US an excuse to take Bagdad) and remain defiant in defeat.
Right. I think that's all part of Saddam's bizarre psyche. By not using any WMD in 1991, he avoided total oblivion. However, since his government wasn't actually toppled, he was later able to claim victory over the invading forces, i.e. the USA.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
