Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24
  1.    #1  
    I am still waiting to see the so called Weapons of Mass Destruction that the U.S. so urgently needed to protect the world from. Over one month later, nothing has materialized.. What gives?
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  2. #2  
    There are no WMD in Iraq or any smoking gun. It was Bush's burning desire for regime change and protect American interests that led to the confrontation. With the US economy in shambles, millions out of work, and the grand fau paux in Iraq, Bush's days as president are numbered. I'm blaming Florida!
  3. #3  
    IMHO, there are 4 possible senarios or explanations of why the US has not found WMD yet in Iraq:

    1) First, the lack could have been a major intelligence failure on the part of the allied forces concerning the possession of WMD in Iraq. It has been proven that Iraq did in fact have WMD at one time in the past and that Saddam has used them against his enemies and even his own people. The existance of these weapons in the recent past has soley been based on intelligence gathering on the part of various agencies in teh US, UK etc. If in fact no WMD are found, it would be one the biggest and most glaring failures of Intelligence perhaps 2nd only to 9/11.

    2) Many think the lack of WMD proves the deception of the US admin and its intentions for going to war. This is the most favorite theory of the left-wingers and anti-war/anti-globalization movements. It is mainly rooted out the fear and loathing for perceived American imperialism and it role as a world hegemon.

    3) Saddam and his cronies may have been able to smuggle most if not all of the WMD to other countries. This option is possible b/c the woeful inability of US/coalition forces to scure Iraqi borders during and immediately after the war. Many critics state that while the US only needed ttwo divisons to defeat Bagdad, the number of troops to stabilize the country is woefully inadequate. Thus many argue this lack of manpower could also have contributed to the possibilty of WMD being smuggled across the borders to neighboring countries. However, many opponents of the war fear that American "neo-cons" will use this justification to widen the conflict or start another campaign in someplace like Iran.

    4) Also a possibilty is that Saddam knew it would have been suicidal to use WMD and as a result destoyed most of these weapons just prior to the start of the war. However, if this is true, then there should be evidence of this destruction and invariably written records of it since the Iraqi regime was known for its meticulous record keepings (even of its many crimes and reprssions against it own peoples)

    The 1st two senarios are the most troubling b/c either way they would indicate a serious level of incompetance or mistrust of the American/Uk forces. The 3rd woudl be indicative of serious tactical and military deficiencies while the latter would be the best senario and prove the ultimate effectiveness of the military campaing to deweaponize the Iraqi regime.

    However, the truth is that whatever "facts" emerge out of this search, the opinion of most of the world not change if or when US forces find WMD. Unfortunately for the US, that fight is already lost and no one really believes US intentions anyway. There is nothing Bush or Blair coudl say to sway teh Germans, French, Arabs etc. Ultimately in the end, this war will be judged on how effectively teh US is able to re-build the Iraqi state into a peaceful, modern, free-market and hopefully democratic country. If such an objective can be met, most iraqi and other countries will soon forget whatever reasoning the US used to start the war in the 1st place. Unfortunately, after a couple months it seems the US was not adequately prepared to undertake this task...
  4. #4  
    Originally posted by yardie
    I am still waiting to see the so called Weapons of Mass Destruction that the U.S. so urgently needed to protect the world from. Over one month later, nothing has materialized.. What gives?
    I think it is extremely unlikely that Sadam's regime was able to destroy WMD immediately before the war or smuggle it outside of Iraq. First, it is not that easy to destroy WMD, second it would leave traces. And regarding smuggling: Who would be interested in WMD, after they had proven to be useless - they certainly did not help Saddam in any way for the past decade, did they?

    How can it be possible that the Bush administration knows beyond doubt that Saddam has WMD, and once they arrive on the scene, they suddenly have no idea about the stuff any more?

    I guess it shows that the Bush administration was either lying or bases it's decision on silly intelligence. Personally, I do not think CIA, NSA, etc. are THAT incompetent.

    But hey, who cares if the Bush administration is lying about it's motives? They have the power to do it, they do it.
  5. #5  
    Just a question.

    What evidence would you deem satisfactory?

    I'm assuming that you either don't know about the mobile biological weapons labs that they've found, or that you don't believe that those (UN proscribed) labs are evidence of an ongoing biolocal weapons program.

    Do any of you realize that we're not talking about nuclear warheads here? The US/UK said that Iraq had a program to develop such weapons, but that they didn't think they had reached that level yet.

    Contrary to what has been said here:

    " First, it is not that easy to destroy WMD, second it would leave traces. And regarding smuggling: Who would be interested in WMD, after they had proven to be useless - they certainly did not help Saddam in any way for the past decade, did they? "

    etc., It would be very easy to smuggle (or destroy) such weapons out of Iraq. They managed to drive several tractor trailers of cash out of Bagdhad, why couldn't they manage to do they same for biological weapons, esp. given the very porous Syrian border?

    As to the second part of the question - don't you think that the same kind of people that would fly a planeload of civilians into a building would have a use for biological weapons? Ask the Japanese how it feels to be attacked by terrorists armed with biological weapons.

    As to this interesting charge:

    "Saddam and his cronies may have been able to smuggle most if not all of the WMD to other countries. This option is possible b/c the woeful inability of US/coalition forces to scure Iraqi borders during and immediately after the war. Many critics state that while the US only needed ttwo divisons to defeat Bagdad, the number of troops to stabilize the country is woefully inadequate. Thus many argue this lack of manpower could also have contributed to the possibilty of WMD being smuggled across the borders to neighboring countries. However, many opponents of the war fear that American "neo-cons" will use this justification to widen the conflict or start another campaign in someplace like Iran."

    The US/UK doesn't have enough manpower in all it's military forces to completely lock down an area the size of the state of California. If you compare this situation to the old Eastern Bloc you could put a wall completely around Iraq, and people would still find a way through. Many ( ) think that Saddam had these agents removed/hidden from the country before the war. If there are any left in the country they will be found, if they were removed to another country it will take longer, but they still will be found.

    I find it very interesting that so many people were more than willing to give the UN process more than 12+ years to resolve this issue (which they never managed to do), but they can't wait 1 year for the US/UK to resolve it.

    A bit of a bias showing?
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  6. #6  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    Just a question.

    What evidence would you deem satisfactory?

    I'm assuming that you either don't know about the mobile biological weapons labs that they've found, or that you don't believe that those (UN proscribed) labs are evidence of an ongoing biolocal weapons program.

    Do any of you realize that we're not talking about nuclear warheads here? The US/UK said that Iraq had a program to develop such weapons, but that they didn't think they had reached that level yet.

    Contrary to what has been said here:

    " First, it is not that easy to destroy WMD, second it would leave traces. And regarding smuggling: Who would be interested in WMD, after they had proven to be useless - they certainly did not help Saddam in any way for the past decade, did they? "

    etc., It would be very easy to smuggle (or destroy) such weapons out of Iraq. They managed to drive several tractor trailers of cash out of Bagdhad, why couldn't they manage to do they same for biological weapons, esp. given the very porous Syrian border?

    As to the second part of the question - don't you think that the same kind of people that would fly a planeload of civilians into a building would have a use for biological weapons? Ask the Japanese how it feels to be attacked by terrorists armed with biological weapons.

    As to this interesting charge:

    "Saddam and his cronies may have been able to smuggle most if not all of the WMD to other countries. This option is possible b/c the woeful inability of US/coalition forces to scure Iraqi borders during and immediately after the war. Many critics state that while the US only needed ttwo divisons to defeat Bagdad, the number of troops to stabilize the country is woefully inadequate. Thus many argue this lack of manpower could also have contributed to the possibilty of WMD being smuggled across the borders to neighboring countries. However, many opponents of the war fear that American "neo-cons" will use this justification to widen the conflict or start another campaign in someplace like Iran."

    The US/UK doesn't have enough manpower in all it's military forces to completely lock down an area the size of the state of California. If you compare this situation to the old Eastern Bloc you could put a wall completely around Iraq, and people would still find a way through. Many ( ) think that Saddam had these agents removed/hidden from the country before the war. If there are any left in the country they will be found, if they were removed to another country it will take longer, but they still will be found.

    I find it very interesting that so many people were more than willing to give the UN process more than 12+ years to resolve this issue (which they never managed to do), but they can't wait 1 year for the US/UK to resolve it.

    A bit of a bias showing?

    Regarding the Japanese: Indeed they were attacked by terrorists using biological weapons (anthrax and botulism), but it did not work. The only time when it worked was when the US anthrax was used against US citizens - Maybe the US should start destroying their own anthrax first before trying to do it in other places?). I guess what you mean was the Sarin attack in 1995, but that was chemical, not biological.

    How would you destroy chemical or biological weapons? Make a camp fire and throw the bottles, gas tanks, germ powder etc. into the fire? Blow up the warehouse in which the WMD are stored? And all that would not leave traces (like people being poisoned, getting ill), no volunteer trying to get rich by telling the US troops where it happened? In theory you could be right, however....

    Yes, I am fully aware of the fact that no one claimed that Iraq had nuclear weapons, but that does not change anything. Regarding the labs that were found: You are jumping to conclusions. That the things found ever had anything to do with biological weapons is just another unsubstantiated claim. You seem very eager to believe what the administration is insinuating. It's just like the Saddam-Al Qaida link: it is very far from proven, most likely false, and yet the majority of the people in the US believe it. VERY eager to believe what the authorities tell them....

    Fact is the Bush administration claimed to be certain Saddam has/had WMD, used this a the main reason for the war, and (so far) utterly failed to substantiate that claim.
  7. #7  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    If you compare this situation to the old Eastern Bloc you could put a wall completely around Iraq, and people would still find a way through.
    Do you indeed think there was a wall around the Eastern Bloc?


    If it is that easy to smuggle the WMD to Syria, fighting a war in order to get a hold of Iraq's WMD was quite a futile attempt to start off with, wasn't it? If indeed Syria has Iraq's WMD as the result of the US attack, it would almost be the US fault, would it not? And Syria is even bordering Israel...! I think the US administration should not take chances and attack Syria as well, just to be sure - and Iran, too, of course. After all, Iran is on the way to Pakistan, and they DO have WMD for sure, and plenty of terrorists, too.
  8. #8  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    Just a question.

    What evidence would you deem satisfactory?
    How about some WMD, preferrably in working order, not just traces of leftovers from past decades like the first Gulf War between Iran and Irak, when undoubtedly Irak used WMD against their enemy (with the support of France and the US, by the way), and also against the Kurds.
  9. #9  
    Lessee...

    We said he has WMD's, he claimed he did not- very self-rightous, very indignant about such charges.

    What would have happened to Saddam and whatever countries supported him (no matter how covertly) if the charges could be proven true? As long as any potential WMD remain elusive, he has some chance of maintaining some credibility in some parts fo the world. If the WMD ARE found, he looses pretty much everything.

    So, lets play a game. You have several 18 wheelers you desperately need to hide from people who are good at looking for things. You have all of California to play with, AND any place you can sneak over the border to. You also have gobs of cash and a cadre of loyal people.

    Could you hide the vehicles so that they could not be found for a few years?

    Find an abandoned facotory or bunker away from any town. Bury them in an unmapped cave. Smuggle them onto a plane, train or boat and take them somewhere else.

    Heck- he's had 12 years to doctor the records and prepare for this scenario! I honestly would have been greatly surprised if they would have been easy to find- especially remembering the repercussions of such a discovery!
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are at!
  10. #10  
    Originally posted by Madkins007
    Lessee...

    We said he has WMD's, he claimed he did not- very self-rightous, very indignant about such charges.

    What would have happened to Saddam and whatever countries supported him (no matter how covertly) if the charges could be proven true? As long as any potential WMD remain elusive, he has some chance of maintaining some credibility in some parts fo the world. If the WMD ARE found, he looses pretty much everything.

    So, lets play a game. You have several 18 wheelers you desperately need to hide from people who are good at looking for things. You have all of California to play with, AND any place you can sneak over the border to. You also have gobs of cash and a cadre of loyal people.

    Could you hide the vehicles so that they could not be found for a few years?

    Find an abandoned facotory or bunker away from any town. Bury them in an unmapped cave. Smuggle them onto a plane, train or boat and take them somewhere else.

    Heck- he's had 12 years to doctor the records and prepare for this scenario! I honestly would have been greatly surprised if they would have been easy to find- especially remembering the repercussions of such a discovery!
    But still: isn't it odd how they claimed to have tons of evidence before the war (not that any of it was convincing, judging from what Powell showed), and now that they are there they have nothing?

    Besides, it is not Saddam's credibility that is being questioned here, he does not have any, never had....
  11. #11  
    Originally posted by clulup



    Regarding the Japanese: Indeed they were attacked by terrorists using biological weapons (anthrax and botulism), but it did not work. The only time when it worked was when the US anthrax was used against US citizens - Maybe the US should start destroying their own anthrax first before trying to do it in other places?). I guess what you mean was the Sarin attack in 1995, but that was chemical, not biological.
    So? Does that mean we shouldn't worry about biological weapons? I wasn't referring to the Sarin chemical attacks, but the earlier failed bio attacks.
    I didn't realize that they had caught the person(s) responsible for the US anthrax attacks. You must read better papers than we have.

    Originally posted by clulup
    How would you destroy chemical or biological weapons? Make a camp fire and throw the bottles, gas tanks, germ powder etc. into the fire? Blow up the warehouse in which the WMD are stored? And all that would not leave traces (like people being poisoned, getting ill), no volunteer trying to get rich by telling the US troops where it happened? In theory you could be right, however....
    You really don't know what you're talking about do you? I have a limited (compared to the experts who were working on them) knowledge of chem/bio agents and I could figure out how to safely dispose of the with (very) little or no traces leftover.

    Originally posted by clulup
    Yes, I am fully aware of the fact that no one claimed that Iraq had nuclear weapons, but that does not change anything. Regarding the labs that were found: You are jumping to conclusions. That the things found ever had anything to do with biological weapons is just another unsubstantiated claim. You seem very eager to believe what the administration is insinuating. It's just like the Saddam-Al Qaida link: it is very far from proven, most likely false, and yet the majority of the people in the US believe it. VERY eager to believe what the authorities tell them....
    Really? I'm jumping to conclusions? How? Saddam admitted having these mobile weapons labs and was supposed to have destroyed them years ago. Why else would he still have them? Sentimental value? Your rationalisms are getting thinner. Your accusations are also very silly.
    If I eagerly believed what you were spouting would I be ok?

    Originally posted by clulup
    Fact is the Bush administration claimed to be certain Saddam has/had WMD, used this a the main reason for the war, and (so far) utterly failed to substantiate that claim.
    Once again your the one jumping to conclusions. Your ilk couldn't even wait a reasonable amount of time to get onto this rabbit trail. Some of you have even gone so far as to say that even if WMD are found, you won't believe they weren't planted by the US/UK.
    Ridiculous....
    Last edited by BobbyMike; 06/02/2003 at 09:41 PM.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  12. #12  
    Originally posted by clulup


    Do you indeed think there was a wall around the Eastern Bloc?
    Gee whiz, do I have to be totally explanatory about that? Or are you just being silly.

    Originally posted by clulup

    If it is that easy to smuggle the WMD to Syria, fighting a war in order to get a hold of Iraq's WMD was quite a futile attempt to start off with, wasn't it? If indeed Syria has Iraq's WMD as the result of the US attack, it would almost be the US fault, would it not? And Syria is even bordering Israel...! I think the US administration should not take chances and attack Syria as well, just to be sure - and Iran, too, of course. After all, Iran is on the way to Pakistan, and they DO have WMD for sure, and plenty of terrorists, too.
    Now you're really being silly. Have you been staying up too late?
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  13. #13  
    Originally posted by clulup


    How about some WMD, preferrably in working order, not just traces of leftovers from past decades like the first Gulf War between Iran and Irak, when undoubtedly Irak used WMD against their enemy (with the support of France and the US, by the way), and also against the Kurds.
    Perhaps you should do a little research on what Saddam said he had. Or was he lying too?
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  14. #14  
    Originally posted by clulup


    But still: isn't it odd how they claimed to have tons of evidence before the war (not that any of it was convincing, judging from what Powell showed), and now that they are there they have nothing?

    Besides, it is not Saddam's credibility that is being questioned here, he does not have any, never had....
    Actually it's the credibility of the people claiming that there are no WMDs that is on the line. You've been wrong about everything else so far. And I'm willing to bet you won't ever admit you're wrong either, regardless of what's found.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  15. #15  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    I didn't realize that they had caught the person(s) responsible for the US anthrax attacks. You must read better papers than we have.

    You really don't know what you're talking about do you? I have a limited (compared to the experts who were working on them) knowledge of chem/bio agents and I could figure out how to safely dispose of the with (very) little or no traces leftover.

    Really? I'm jumping to conclusions? How? Saddam admitted having these mobile weapons labs and was supposed to have destroyed them years ago. Why else would he still have them? Sentimental value? Your rationalisms are getting thinner. Your accusations are also very silly.
    I cannot tell whether I read better newspapers than you have, since I don't know what you have (it is possible, though, Neue Zürcher Zeitung ranks very high regarding credibility. It is also quite strongly on the republican side, certainly not left). However, if you read my posting, you will find that I wrote "US anthrax", not "US terrorists" or something rather. No one really disputed that the anthrax used was a US brand.

    Having studied microbiology and chemistry, I do think I know what I am talking about regarding the disposal of biological and chemical weapons. How would you destroy, say, nerve gas in a few days without traces and nobody knowing? Again: of course it is possible, in theory, but how likely is it?

    What is the evidence that the things you call "mobile weapon labs" indeed were mobile weapon labs? You take for granted, what needs to be shown first.
  16. #16  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    Actually it's the credibility of the people claiming that there are no WMDs that is on the line. You've been wrong about everything else so far. And I'm willing to bet you won't ever admit you're wrong either, regardless of what's found.
    Did anybody ever claim there were no WMD for sure in Iraq? The UN inspectors certainly never did that, neither did I. However, I do think the US used the WMD story as an excuse for the war. Wolfowitz pretty much admitted it in his interview in Vanity Fair, no?

    I have been wrong about everything else so far? What would that be?
  17. #17  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    Gee whiz, do I have to be totally explanatory about that? Or are you just being silly.

    Now you're really being silly. Have you been staying up too late?
    Not silly, just slightly ironic. Which does not mean that there is a serious core. If indeed all of Saddams WMD were brought to other countries just like that as the result of the attack, attacking Iraq in order to catch the WMD would have been a very stupid thing to do.
  18. #18  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    Gee whiz, do I have to be totally explanatory about that? Or are you just being silly.

    Now you're really being silly. Have you been staying up too late?
    P.S.: I am not the only one asking silly questions (in your view):

    "U.S. claims have been called into question by numerous [US]lawmakers, who complain that no proof of weapons of mass destruction has been found in Iraq. Their alleged existence served as the central U.S. argument for war."

    "...the recently discovered trailers that THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION SAYS were mobile facilities to produce biological weapons" (emphasis mine)
    So also CNN agrees with my view that there is no proof so far that the alleged "mobile WMD labs" are indeed such... They MAY be such, but so far it just another unsubstantiated claim...

    (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...tel/index.html)
  19. #19  
    Originally posted by clulup

    Did anybody ever claim there were no WMD for sure in Iraq? The UN inspectors certainly never did that, neither did I. However, I do think the US used the WMD story as an excuse for the war. Wolfowitz pretty much admitted it in his interview in Vanity Fair, no?
    No? No I would say that he said it was one of the reasons. Pretty much depends on what you're looking for. You seem to be looking for flaws in the way this was handled, ergo you find things to support what you alresdy believe.

    Originally posted by clulup
    I have been wrong about everything else so far? What would that be?
    Umm, everything you've posted about this war ( and socialized medicine, etc.)? I only know you from what you post here. You could be wrong in other ways, you just haven't showed them to me yet.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  20. #20  
    Originally posted by clulup

    Not silly, just slightly ironic. Which does not mean that there is a serious core. If indeed all of Saddams WMD were brought to other countries just like that as the result of the attack, attacking Iraq in order to catch the WMD would have been a very stupid thing to do.
    I saw no irony, just silliness. Maybe you should relook up the definition of irony.

    As to your second part, that's not even silly - it's just plain stupid to even say that. It makes no sense.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions