These aren't the WMD you were looking for......


PDA






hillbilly
June 22, 2006, 12:42 AM
Old Jedi mind trick.....

These are not the WMD you were looking for.

Bush Lied, People Died, etc..........


Nothing to see (repeat 500 times).

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf



And the accompanying story.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
Wednesday, June 21, 2006

WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

• Click here to read the declassified portion of the NGIC report.

He added that the report warns about the hazards that the chemical weapons could still pose to coalition troops in Iraq.

"The purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," Santorum read from the document.

"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.

Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."

Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq.

He also said that the Defense Department statement shortly after the March 2003 invasion saying that "we had all known weapons facilities secured," has proven itself to be untrue.

"It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump," he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them.

Hoekstra and Santorum lamented that Americans were given the impression after a 16-month search conducted by the Iraq Survey Group that the evidence of continuing research and development of weapons of mass destruction was insignificant. But the National Ground Intelligence Center took up where the ISG left off when it completed its report in November 2004, and in the process of collecting intelligence for the purpose of force protection for soldiers and sailors still on the ground in Iraq, has shown that the weapons inspections were incomplete, they and others have said.

"We know it was there, in place, it just wasn't operative when inspectors got there after the war, but we know what the inspectors found from talking with the scientists in Iraq that it could have been cranked up immediately, and that's what Saddam had planned to do if the sanctions against Iraq had halted and they were certainly headed in that direction," said Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor.

"It is significant. Perhaps, the administration just, they think they weathered the debate over WMD being found there immediately and don't want to return to it again because things are otherwise going better for them, and then, I think, there's mindless resistance to releasing any classified documents from Iraq," Barnes said.

The release of the declassified materials comes as the Senate debates Democratic proposals to create a timetable for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq. The debate has had the effect of creating disunity among Democrats, a majority of whom shrunk Wednesday from an amendment proposed by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts to have troops to be completely withdrawn from Iraq by the middle of next year.

At the same time, congressional Republicans have stayed highly united, rallying around a White House that has seen successes in the last couple weeks, first with the death of terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then the completion of the formation of Iraq's Cabinet and then the announcement Tuesday that another key Al Qaeda in Iraq leader, "religious emir" Mansour Suleiman Mansour Khalifi al-Mashhadani, or Sheik Mansour, was also killed in a U.S. airstrike.

Santorum pointed out that during Wednesday's debate, several Senate Democrats said that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, a claim, he said, that the declassified document proves is untrue.

"This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false," he said.

As a result of this new information, under the aegis of his chairmanship, Hoekstra said he is going to ask for more reporting by the various intelligence agencies about weapons of mass destruction.

"We are working on the declassification of the report. We are going to do a thorough search of what additional reports exist in the intelligence community. And we are going to put additional pressure on the Department of Defense and the folks in Iraq to more fully pursue a complete investigation of what existed in Iraq before the war," Hoekstra said.

If you enjoyed reading about "These aren't the WMD you were looking for......" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
FTF
June 22, 2006, 12:49 AM
Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.

Considering that the entire basis of this global war on extremeism was built upon the theory that Iraq had ties to Al-Qaida and a functioning chemical weapons program... one would think that Dub would be all over anything related to WMD in Iraq. Hell, at least if they found WMD they could kinda-sorta claim a victory... doubt they'll be claiming a victory on a secure goverment anytime soon.

Monkeyleg
June 22, 2006, 12:56 AM
The above story is a lie.

We all know that Bush lied.

We all know that Saddam Hussein was a quirky, but affectionate, dictator.

The above story is just one more fabrication from the Bush Adminisration to justify the invasion of Iraq.

There isn't even any point in debating the above story, since the LA Times, the NY Times, the Washington Post and other leaders of the mainstream press have told us that WMD's never existed.

The Iraqi invasion was designed to give Halliburton choice contracts (contracts for which they are now losing money on), and to give the American people cheap gasoline.

shooter94
June 22, 2006, 01:23 AM
:D

grimjaw
June 22, 2006, 01:23 AM
Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

How much of that is left over from stockpiles before the first Gulf War, say in the Iran-Iraq timeframe? How many chemical attacks have the coalition forces suffered, compared to explosives? Why weren't any of these used? If we haven't found them all, why hasn't someone used them on us?

Still skeptical here.

jmm

Kim
June 22, 2006, 01:31 AM
There was a General I think his name was McCaffery on Fox this p.m an another guy that was a former CIA, Counterterrorism guy or something. Their theory of why this was Classifed was that France, China and Russia all had a hand in some of the WMD shienigans in Iraq. They said there will probably be more found but that the Russians moved out most of the stuff in the months running up to the war to 3 places in Syria. That was why they did not for for the war in the Security Counsel and Bush did not want to embaress them since they are now helping with terrorism. Could be true. I think alot of things are done that we never know. Global politics in more ditry than our domestic politics. All kinds of deals are done undercover. Of coarse it could all be something else entirely.

Guy B. Meredith
June 22, 2006, 02:51 AM
I'm puzzled. I seem to remember news reports of findings that received no follow up primarily because the munitions found were pre-1991. So why is this now news?

Colmes was on a roll tonight, but blinked when, after he proclaimed the munitions insignificant as they were old and degraded, Ann Coulter said something to the effect of, "But you wouldn't want your children playing with them." Colmes did not try to field that one.

longeyes
June 22, 2006, 03:01 AM
Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.

Maybe he should be concentrating on a secure government in the U.S.?

There's got to be more to this. Kim's remarks suggest one plausible scenario.

tulsamal
June 22, 2006, 03:32 AM
Considering that the entire basis of this global war on extremeism was built upon the theory that Iraq had ties to Al-Qaida and a functioning chemical weapons program...

I know that's what the press says. I know that's what most of the general population would say. But that's a mischaracterization of what really happened. The WMD thing came late to the party but somehow it's all that gets remembered.

Bush started giving speeches saying that it was now US policy to seek a "regime change" in Iraq. This was at least six months before we were in the UN talking about WMD. Saddam and Iraq had basically been "reclassified" after 9/11. Before 9/11 we knew that Saddam was VERY anti-American, very brutal, and had access to a huge amounts of money but accepting that still seemed like a smaller risk than trying to act directly against him. It's the "don't pay any attention to the bad man with the gun and maybe he won't shoot YOU" theory of international relations. But 9/11 changed all that. Not because Iraq and Saddam were behind it. But because many members of the Administration realized they had been fooling themselves about our national security, especially with regard to events in the Middle East. Countries and leaders that had been considered to be "acceptable risks" suddenly were not.

So the Administration decided the US would be better off taking the risk of getting rid of Saddam and Company than we were leaving him in power. There were speeches given and papers written. There was a suspicion that the bad guys we were flushing out in Afghanistan were slipping into Iran and Iraq. And then came the critical moment when the Administration concluded that armed US force was probably going to have to be used. This was before we ever went to the UN at all. Colin Powell was the SecState. He convinced the President to go to the UN. He convinced the President that we should seek a coalition as his father had done. But there was a big problem there.

The UN Security Council wasn't going to agree to use military force against Iraq just because the US had decided Saddam was "a clear and present danger." They don't work that way. They operate much more like a bureaucratic judicial system than a strategic military command. You have to make specific charges. They have to be investigated over a long period of time. You have to create and pass resolutions which will attempt to change the behavior of the country in power. If the bad acts continue, further resolutions will probably be tried until everybody finally decides military force is the only alternative. So Powell explained to the President that the whole process could take years UNLESS we could go after Iraq with some already existing resolution. Well, hell, that would be easy. There were resolutions about their WMD. We knew for a fact they DID have them since the earlier inspectors had found and destroyed many of them. And we knew that Iraq had expelled the inspectors and refused to ever let them go back. The former inspectors had written reports that said there were still some WMD there in Iraq when they were expelled.

So that led to the whole UN debate over Iraq and WMD. Ultimately I think Powell was proven to be wrong in his policy recommendation. He thought we should seek a coalition and avoid action unilaterally. But the UN debate created a perception in the press and the public that the whole reason to go after Iraq was for WMD. I argued long and hard at the time that it didn't matter to me if Iraq had one teaspoon of nerve agent in the whole country. I believed that the basic Administration conclusion was right: it was in the national self-interest of the United States to have a regime change in Iraq. Period.

Now I would have been thrilled if they HAD found all kinds of nearly ready to go WMD all over Iraq. It would have just made justifying the whole thing so much easier. It's concrete, you can take photos of it and estimate the potential threat. But for whatever reason, it didn't work out that way. But don't try to convince me that "the fundamental reason the US went to war against Iraq was because of fear of WMD." I lived through it. I wrote a heck of a lot about it during the lead-in. And that's just not what happened. I don't have to go look it up.

The Administration decided on a long-odds gamble. A gamble that would have never been taken before 9/11. You only take big chances when the possible outcome of not taking that chance is even worse. 9/11 convinced many people that the rise of extremism and anti-Americanism in the Middle East was just going to keep getting worse. We WERE going to keep getting attacked even if we tried very hard to "get along." (Witness attacks in France and Canada even though those countries have bent over backwards to distance themselves from the US.) So the US leadership could just keep doing the same ineffective things. The same failed policies. And we would get attacked harder and harder every year. Or we could roll the dice. We could take a gamble and actually intervene militarily AND THEN try to rebuild and reshape the defeated countries into places that would at least have a chance of being more pro-West. Knowing full well it could actually make things worse.

Like I said already, it's a risk you only take when the alternative are worse. I think the decision was right. I'm disappointed that it hasn't worked out better. I'm not yet convinced that the outcome is decided. I would personally rather live in a world with human rights and democracy growing in the ME rather than one where Iran style revolutionary governments gradually take over and declare jihad against us.

(I think somebody touched a nerve. Sorry!)

Gregg

FTF
June 22, 2006, 03:58 AM
As I remember (and I doubt this was manipulated by teh press)

Bush started giving speeches saying that it was now US policy to seek a "regime change" in Iraq. This was at least six months before we were in the UN talking about WMD.

Bush also gave a speech declaring "mission accomplished" before 1/20th of the U.S. casualties were counted. Exactly which mission was accomplished? Hell, I voted for the guy, but if I was back in uniform I would throw a turd-laden MRE at him before I would do what he told me to do lol. Luckily he's too busy ripping away our civil liberties for protection from "global extremeism" to worry about 2a rights right now.

DesertEagle613
June 22, 2006, 04:13 AM
FTF,

Way to throw in a non sequitor.

Not that it matters for the thread, but imagine what would have happened had Bush NOT declared "Mission Accomplished" until the insurgency was defeated, i.e. sometime in the near future, roughly 4 years after the invasion. People like you would be accusing him of refusing to end the war in order to destroy our civil liberties. You would be demanding him to declare Iraq "Mission Accomplished."

In other words, stop getting so worked up over a bit of political theater. If you want to be upset about policies, go ahead.

B Easy
June 22, 2006, 04:14 AM
There were pictures of sarin munitions posted in TIME in either 2003 or 2004, but it was a very small quantity.

This stuff is left over from pre-1991.

It's definately not drinking water, but it's not sarin anymore. Though, Iraq did experiment with "dusty" agents which have a longer shelf life, I don't think that this sarin is really effective anymore.

The question wasn't whether or not Saddam had some stuff lying around, but whether he was actively pursuing a relationship with Al Qaeda whereby he'd manufacture them viable NBC's.

We haven't seen this to be the case, and wouldn't expect to, due to the relationship Saddam had with Bin Ladin.

All in all, whether or not we should have invaded is really a matter of personal opinion, but I don't think that 500 munitions that probably aren't viable anymore (and wouldn't have been viable in '03) are really what we're looking for.

FTF
June 22, 2006, 04:31 AM
Not that it matters for the thread, but imagine what would have happened had Bush NOT declared "Mission Accomplished" until the insurgency was defeated, i.e. sometime in the near future, roughly 4 years after the invasion.

Iraq was "invaded" on March 20, 2003. Roughly 4 years after this date would be March 20, 2007. That gives us until March of next year for Dub to legitimately declare an end to the insurgency. I'll be anxiously awaiting said date and end of hostilities... being so close to a major VA hospital and all... I do dislike all the amputees and mental cases when I go to the VA...it's so distracting.

Mongo the Mutterer
June 22, 2006, 07:43 AM
Yep Old stuff..

move along nothing to see here...

don't look behind the curtain.. you may see two fat guys named Murtha and Kennedy.

.
.
.


In all seriousness though, I've often wondered why the lefties have been beating this drum so long. Bush didn't lie, by any standards.

Saddam did have chemical weapons, as stacks of Kurd bodies attest to. No one doubts the validity of those slaughters (I hope). No one has ever convinced me the good ole Saddam had gotten rid of the WMD's. Lemme remember, oh yeah, he wouldn't let inspectors in to verify that he had... kind of a give away.

To believe that they were destroyed by the regime who not only stockpiled them, but used them, is typical liberal blissninny surrendermonkey folly. But ...Bush lied and people died....:barf: :barf: :barf:

shermacman
June 22, 2006, 07:51 AM
The only thing Bush is guilty of is having a terrible public relations department.

1911Tuner
June 22, 2006, 08:06 AM
"Still skeptical here."

Of course, Saddam only had about 6-8 months to move'em into Syria and Iran, thanks in large part to Kofi and Kompany...:rolleyes:

Left over from Gulf 1? Maybe...Probably. Doesn't make'em any less dangerous.

Mongo the Mutterer
June 22, 2006, 08:17 AM
The only thing Bush is guilty of is having a terrible public relations department.Agreed. But I think some of this PR manipulation is intentional. Give your enemies hope, let them get more and more ridiculous and strident,


and then smash them and listen to the wailing and lamentations... :evil:

cuchulainn
June 22, 2006, 09:19 AM
Agreed. But I think some of this PR manipulation is intentional. Give your enemies hope, let them get more and more ridiculous and strident,

and then smash them and listen to the wailing and lamentations
I too have often gotten the feeling that Bush puts on a dumb act -- he's stupid like a fox.

DunedinDragon
June 22, 2006, 09:37 AM
But waitaminit???!!!

I thought Saddam told the world he had DESTROYED all chemical weapons (whether they are old or not).

Bush said Saddam had NOT done that.

But Bush lied and Saddam was telling the truth???!!!:barf:

Capital Punishment
June 22, 2006, 09:43 AM
One of my favorite shirts :neener:

http://www.shopmetrospy.com/cNcgraphics/Product_336_PrSpare2.jpg

Marko Kloos
June 22, 2006, 09:44 AM
I can't believe that there are people desperate enough for justification to hold up 500 old degraded chemical munitions (with a range of 30 miles!) as a good return for 2,500 American lives and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.

Camp David
June 22, 2006, 09:49 AM
I can't believe that there are people desperate enough for justification to hold up 500 old degraded chemical munitions (with a range of 30 miles!) as a good return for 2,500 American lives and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.
:uhoh:
I can't believe that there are people desperate enough for justification to hold up a few slaves released from their chains as a good return for 600,000 American lives and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars! ;)

feedthehogs
June 22, 2006, 09:52 AM
Degraded chemical weapons were not what the American people were lead to believe was what they were looking for.

Thats like looking for a cache of weapons and finding a bunch of rusted muskets. Some might work, some may not. Some might be able to kill, some may not.

I find the story a political posturing move to help the off year elections this fall.

Extreme bad intelligence has been to blame since the beginning. And when you base your actions on that information, your bound to get caught with your pants around your ankles.

Santorum making the announcement just makes it that much more curb worthy.

Mongo the Mutterer
June 22, 2006, 09:52 AM
And Marko, I can't believe that there are people desparate enough to ignore 3,000 of their fellow citizens dying on 9/11, and hope that somehow the UN will come to their aid so they can satisfy their need for a "global test" so they can "feel" good about what they are doing as they drink their lattes and pick their toes through their Birkenstocks....

Thin Black Line
June 22, 2006, 10:02 AM
Nice T-shirt. And it's true: They're ALL LIARS.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/17/cp.01.html

Working Man
June 22, 2006, 10:07 AM
and then smash them and listen to the wailing and lamentations...

Mongo, get it right.... its "crush" not "smash" (that's for the Hulk) :neener:
and lets not forget "see them driven before you" that part is important. Our
problem here is they keep turning around and coming back.

GTSteve03
June 22, 2006, 10:08 AM
How many of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi or funded by Iraqi money again?

Yeah, thanks. :scrutiny:

feedthehogs
June 22, 2006, 10:14 AM
Mongo,
I musta missed the part where they tied the chemical weapons in Iraq to the Saudi nationals that flew the airplanes into the trade center.

One has nothing to do with the other. That's the problem.

Dravur
June 22, 2006, 10:15 AM
That before we went over to Iraq and haven't found the large stores of chemical weapons that EVERYONE, including all of the Demorats were darn sure were there. but yet, those with short memories don't seem to remember that Bill Clinton, et al also swore up and down that Saddam had the weapons and he was the most dangerous dude on the planet.

It is only after someone actually DID something and found that they had either been moved or were not there when these same rats come scurrying out of their holes to create the Bush Lied bumper stickers, conveniently forgetting their previous stand. They figure, Heck, the public won't remember that I stated there were WMDs also. The public is too short sighted to remember that.

Face it, The Demorats are invested in the United States defeat. If it is bad for the country, it is good for the demorats. I truly wonder if we had these types of blissninnys during the second world war. I wonder what the world would have been like if thise crop of whiners had been in power then. My guess is the British would be speaking German now.

hillbilly
June 22, 2006, 10:16 AM
GTSteve03, ya seen this one? Iraq is connected to the FIRST attempt to bring down the WTC.

But that doesn't count either, does it?

And of course, USA Today is a well-known Bushco neocon mouthpiece.....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm


U.S.: Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack
By John Diamond, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — U.S. authorities in Iraq say they have new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, according to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials.
The Bush administration is using the evidence to strengthen its disputed prewar assertion that Iraq had ties to terrorists, including the al-Qaeda group responsible for the Sept. 11 attack. But President Bush, in contrast with comments Sunday by Vice President Cheney, said Wednesday, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved."

Cheney had said on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday that "we don't know" if Iraq was involved but said some suggestive evidence had surfaced. He asserted that the campaign in Iraq is striking at terrorists involved in the attacks. Cheney also disclosed the new evidence about the 1993 suspect on the program, but he did not name Yasin.

Military, intelligence and law enforcement officials reported finding a large cache of Arabic-language documents in Tikrit, Saddam's political stronghold. A U.S. intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity said translators and analysts are busy "separating the gems from the junk." The official said some of the analysts have concluded that the documents show that Saddam's government provided monthly payments and a home for Yasin.

Yasin is on the FBI's list of 22 most-wanted terrorist fugitives; there is a $25 million reward for his capture. The bureau questioned and released him in New York shortly after the bombing in 1993. After Yasin had fled to Iraq, the FBI said it found evidence that he helped make the bomb, which killed six people and injured 1,000. Yasin is still at large.

Even if the new information holds up — and intelligence and law enforcement officials disagree on its conclusiveness — the links tying Yasin, Saddam and al-Qaeda are tentative.

The World Trade Center bombing was carried out by a group headed by Ramzi Yousef, who is serving a 240-year prison term. Federal authorities say Yousef's group received financial support from al-Qaeda via Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. But a direct al-Qaeda role in the 1993 attack hasn't been established.

feedthehogs
June 22, 2006, 10:24 AM
I don't think anybody will disagree with the fact that Saddam had chemical weapons.
Anyone who thought that mad dictator had destroyed them is a fool.
So yes he had them.

Now. Were they the WMD that the American people were lead to believe would be a threat to us over here or possibly Israel?
Were they some how tied into the actions of 9/11?
Were they enough of a threat for us to invade Iraq?

The answer is a big fat NO.
Therin lies the problem.

Mongo the Mutterer
June 22, 2006, 10:28 AM
Thank you Hillbilly... and Working Man, we will hear their lamentations in November...

GTSteve03
June 22, 2006, 10:31 AM
Even if the new information holds up — and intelligence and law enforcement officials disagree on its conclusiveness — the links tying Yasin, Saddam and al-Qaeda are tentative.
And this proves what, exactly?

Even Bush wouldn't say there was a link. :scrutiny:

I'm still failing to see the connection to 9/11.

feedthehogs
June 22, 2006, 10:32 AM
Even if the new information holds up — and intelligence and law enforcement officials disagree on its conclusiveness — the links tying Yasin, Saddam and al-Qaeda are tentative.


Can't get anymore conclusive that that!:rolleyes:

1911Tuner
June 22, 2006, 10:35 AM
Only 500?

Chemical...and particularly biological weapons...aren't known as "The Poor man's Nuke" por nada.

Envision, if you will...a truck such as the one that McVeigh set off...loaded with a like amount of explosive, and topped off with a half-ton of a nerve agent or Anthrax or Smallpox...or somethin' really nasty like Ebola...detonated at the height of the noon hour in Midtown Manhattan or the City of Lost Angels. Maybe a cocktail of all the above.

The Windy City would also offer a good fallout spread.

Well...One down and 499 to go.

Think about it...and think about how "secure" our southern border is and will become when the Nafta Super Highway is in full swing.

Wonder how many people are on the streets at noon in one of our major cities on a given week day...

Camp David
June 22, 2006, 10:45 AM
I'm still failing to see the connection to 9/11.

Most agree with you GTSteve... I am afraid that it will take a dirty bomb detonated in NYC before people "see the connection"...

In the days after 09/11/01 threats were determined and addressed; now five years later people divorce those threats, thinking that they fail to "see the connection"... but when a million or so Americans perish from a chemical release these same people will be front and center saying "Why didn't our government address the threat?"

The question comes down to this in terms of terrorism: Do we act against perceived threats or wait until the threat materializes and Americans die then act?

The prior administration did not act against Al Qaeda because it did not "see the connection" during the nineties between Al Qaeda and terror and 3,000+ Americans died. Now this administration has acted and many second guess those actions.

We have prevented terrorism domestically since 09.11.01 so the current policy seems wise and this adminstration does "see the connection" and for that we can only say, "Thank God."

GTSteve03
June 22, 2006, 10:50 AM
The prior administration did not act against Al Qaeda because it did not "see the connection" during the nineties between Al Qaeda and terror and 3,000+ Americans died. Now this administration has acted and many second guess those actions.
The prior administration was not in office on 9/11/01. Our current administration did nothing to prevent terrorism until they were forced to react to 3000 lives lost on their watch.

Now, they're still refusing to go after the man and the organization that are responsible for those attacks, who do not currently reside in Iraq.

Camp David
June 22, 2006, 10:57 AM
Now, they're still refusing to go after the man and the organization that are responsible for those attacks

Perhaps you missed all the action for the last five years by the US Army and the US Marines in Afghanistan and along the Pakistan border... would you be more satisfied if we nuked the country to kill Osama bin Laden, or neutralized the guy in a mountain cave (AS WE HAVE DONE)! :rolleyes:

Thin Black Line
June 22, 2006, 10:58 AM
It is only after someone actually DID something and found that they had either been moved or were not there when these same rats come scurrying out of their holes to create the Bush Lied bumper stickers, conveniently forgetting their previous stand.

Considering that our own DOE said the so-called nuke rods could not be
capable of enriching uranium and this disagreement/debate between them
and other elements of the intel community was not made public outside
the Top Secret intelligence estimate provided to a handful of politicians on
the Hill, then "Houston, we have a problem." Basically, these guys told their
buddies "Vote for the use of force." They did. Too bad we didn't have
more Missouri type "show me" people on the Hill, but the atmosphere at the
time (like I still whiff to this day) was "You're either with us or against us."

The WHOLE premise at the time was that there was an IMMINENT THREAT of
a WMD being used in the US and Condi and others kept harping about the
"mushroom cloud" going off somewhere in CONUS if we didn't do something
about it NOW. We now find out that this was never the case, that others
were aware of this but it was kept from the American people. As usual, the
plutocracy made the decision for We The People.

Now, before the keyboard commandos begin tapping their flaming tendrils
of pablum at me, bear this in mind: Given the information publicly available
at the time, I, too, was in favor of using force to stop Saddam. Also keep
this in mind: I WENT TO IRAQ as a result. Did YOU feel strongly enough
about it to do the same at the time? So while you are busy defending a
position that many in the position to know are NOT at this time, maybe you
should reconsider where you're still at and catch up.

The issue was Imminent Threat. There was not. Intelligence to the contrary
was not shared, discussed, or even debated by the majority of people who
were responsible to represent us and cast a VOTE. Is that America? I guess
so. Again, they're ALL LIARS.

orangelo
June 22, 2006, 11:12 AM
Saddam's Iraq has long had ties to international terrorism.

Remember Abu Abbas? He was the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking. Remember Leon Klinghoffer? He was the 69 year old American Jew that was handicapped and wheelchair bound, that Abbas' hijackers shot in the head and threw overboard.

Abu Abbas had been living in a safehouse in Baghdad for the past 20 years until US forces killed him.

Saddam paid money to families of suicide bombers in Israel.

Saddam gave direct material support for the FIRST WTC attack.

None of these facts are in dispute, but conveniently covered up by the communist media.

If John Forgery Kerry or Al Bore had been president, rest assured Osama Bin Ladin wouldn't be cowering in a cave somewhere. He'd be living it up in Uncle Saddam's Palace #9.

feedthehogs
June 22, 2006, 11:16 AM
I am afraid that it will take a dirty bomb detonated in NYC before people "see the connection

Only if that dirty bomb is connected to Iraq.

General assertions on terrorist threats to the US is not the topic here.
Its the connection of Iraq to those threats of the past and possibly the future through the use of WMD's which was the basis for our invasion of Iraq.

The question comes down to this in terms of terrorism: Do we act against perceived threats or wait until the threat materializes and Americans die then act?


If that is what we base our actions on then is not N. Korea, China, former parts of the Soviet Union, Iran, Syria, etc all percieved threats wheather they do it directly or sell weapons to those that do?

Do we invade those countries as well?

Our resources are so thin right now that the likes of a larger power such as N Korea or China would run us over like a garden snake with a lawn mower.

Our meddling in Middle Eastern countries affairs to secure oil for our thirsty country and our support for Israel has made us a target for terrorism.

MCgunner
June 22, 2006, 11:20 AM
In all seriousness though, I've often wondered why the lefties have been beating this drum so long. Bush didn't lie, by any standards.

Simple, politics. The more the left carped this line, the lower Bush's ratings got as they convinced more and more people with this propaganda. I think if Bush HADN'T invaded, his political opposition would be chastising him for THAT!

I always thought of it from the military perspective. We had no way in to Afghanistan when we invaded. We had to put paratroopers in there. Once we invaded Iraq, we had boots on the ground right in the middle of the hornet's nest. We can invade into Syria from there or Iran. We can strike anywhere in the middle east in force now. Early in the war, there was much talk of carrying on into Syria. If we had, we might have found the rest of the stock pile that didn't get left behind.

And I was unaware that Serin would degrade. I know mustard will over time. And, what about those mobile labs the found and the water during the invasion from the river that tested positive for blister agents I think. Sounded like they were dumpin' somethin' in the water to get rid of it, sounded like. And, how 'bout that serin warhead the BGs tried to set off in Baghdad just after the war when the IEDs started going off?

All that WMD BS aside, though, two things are evident. We are on the ground there among the bad guys and we're fighting them THERE and not HERE. While I'd like to cap a few of these Mullahs and soldiers of Allah myself, I'd as soon my wife don't get blown up at the supermarket.

As to the comment of Bush's inattention to second amendment issues? Bush is strongly pro-second amendment. When we got rid of Ma Richards here, finally, and Bush got elected governor, we FINALLY got a carry permit bill through that the democrats couldn't veto, like Ma Richards did. Would you prefer Kerry or Hillary or John Dean or Schumer or Teddy the alcoholic be president? How well would our second amendment rights be doing then? Were you around when Fraulein Reno was attacking Mt Carmel or Randy Weaver's house making America safe for soccer moms???? :rolleyes:

MrTuffPaws
June 22, 2006, 11:41 AM
Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

Look like it was nothing but pre '91 stuff. Nice play up to the elections.

carebear
June 22, 2006, 11:47 AM
Bush also gave a speech declaring "mission accomplished" before 1/20th of the U.S. casualties were counted. Exactly which mission was accomplished?

What mission? :confused:

Hmmmm, that would be the military mission that was palpably and clearly accomplished at the time of his statement. I'll restate it in case anyone missed it.

The mission at that time was the defeat of the Iraqi Army and the forcible removal of Saddam Hussein's regime. Nothing more.

Remember, the WMD's and terrorism etc. were merely the justifications for invading Iraq, the mission the war was started to accomplish was Saddam's removal from power.

There are (very) good arguments that the justifications for the mission (the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam) turned out to be wrong or overstated, and that the consequences of Saddam's removal ("mission accomplishment") were tragically and, in hindset, quite stupidly overlooked or mishandled; but it is puerile (and non-contextual) to use the "Mission Accomplished" statement as some sort of "I'm so snarky and ironic" indictment of those other failings.

It was a statement that was factually based and objectively correct in context. Perhaps folks could concentrate more on the real issues and spend less time trying to be clever.

GTSteve03
June 22, 2006, 11:48 AM
Perhaps you missed all the action for the last five years by the US Army and the US Marines in Afghanistan and along the Pakistan border... would you be more satisfied if we nuked the country to kill Osama bin Laden, or neutralized the guy in a mountain cave (AS WE HAVE DONE)!
Perhaps those last five years of action in Afghanistan would have amounted to something had not most of the military been shifted over to a quagmire in Iraq. Funny how the military has spent all that time in Afghanistan and still can't oust the Taliban or get the people to like us. There was rioting in the capital just last month and Al Qaeda sure seems to be influencing the locals.

And Osama is still hiding in Pakistan where WE AREN'T ALLOWED TO GO. And still putting out messages. And yet we don't invade Pakistan because they harbor terrorists. Why? Because they actually have real live WMDs(nuclear, oops I mean nukular weapons.) :rolleyes:

gunsmith
June 22, 2006, 12:37 PM
Does this mean you think we need to invade Pakistan?

gopguy
June 22, 2006, 12:42 PM
I have never heard a corpse ask if the weapon that killed it was old or not.....:rolleyes:

The liberal media just can not look at a story with out trying their best to put a dark lining on it. :banghead: :cuss: :fire:

Watch Fox News. It keeps my blood pressure down.

gopguy
June 22, 2006, 12:48 PM
GTSteve03 saidHow many of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi or funded by Iraqi money again?

They gave shelter to members of Al Qaeda fleeing Afghanistan. In fact the late Abu Zarqawi was recooperating from his wounds received in Afghanistan at the invitation of Saddam Hussein's regime. We made clear if you give aid and comfort to the terrorists then you were an enemy of the United States. The attack was justified on many levels, not just WMD.

Here is an editorial letter I wrote on the subject of the war a week ago.

Defending measures taken in protecting the USA

Recently on these pages we were treated to another
diatribe attacking the President, the war, Fox News
and a NSA program that is just a watered down version
of Bill Clinton's Eschelon program.
First let us deal with the President and Iraq. Once
again, every western and even Russian and Chinese
Intelligence services believed the Iraqis had a WMD.
We are currently translating a huge amount of
documents indicating they did. We have found some
weapons and production facilities ignored by most of
the press. Fox News has shown some of it. Upon
arriving in Iraq we did not find the overwhelming
evidence expected for the simple reason the build up
to the war allowed Saddam time to move the weapons. We
know from Iraqi Colonel Georges Sada that the Iraqi
government moved many of the weapons to Syria. Think
of it this way. If you think your kids are smoking
cigarettes up in their room and you go storming up the
stairs to check, they hear you and have pitched the
cigarettes out the window, thus when you arrive there
is no cigarette in the room, it does not mean it was
not there. The smoke may be quickly dissipating but
you know they had it. The smoke had not completely
cleared in Iraq upon our arrival either. The nuclear
centrifuges found in Scientists gardens, the Sarin gas
plant with perfume bottles, mustard gas artillery
shells, and the thousands of dead Kurds that were
gassed in the 1990s are proof he had them.
Her confidence in the United Nations is illogical.
What have they gotten right? That impotent, expensive,
debating society is so corrupt and incompetent it
should be disbanded. They are a threat to our national
sovereignty. The sight of blue helmeted UN soldiers
watching while doing nothing about the slaughters in
Darfur, Rwanda, East Timor, etc in recent years should
give no one great confidence in letting them handle
anything to do with our national security.
This month the UN is starting their “Small Arms and
Light Weapons conference” aimed at confiscating the
world’s privately held firearms. All this while the
controversy about Kofi Annan’s security team illegally
sneaking Heckler & Koch MP5 Submachine guns into the
United States has not cooled down. The typical
hypocrisy that I should not own a gun but people like
Kofi Annan and Teddy Kennedy need heavily armed
security teams irritates the blazes out of me.
The NSA program watching phone numbers is not illegal.
The CIA is prohibited from domestic espionage, NSA is
not. I ask, what harm is there in a computer looking
at what phone is calling another phone domestic or
foreign? The phone company already does this for
billing purposes. Nothing is flagged or looked at
until a phone call is made to a known phone number
that is connected to an Al Qaeda cell. How is that
illegal? We need to connect these dots to head off
another attack in our country. Lives depend on this.
Unless you are a terrorist or helping the enemy you
have nothing to fear from this program.
Ms. Wilkin tells us the President going to war with
Iraq was illegal. Rubbish! Under the terms of the 1991
Armistice we had the right to resume hostilities with
the first breaking of the agreement by the Iraqis. The
first time they fired on Coalition aircraft in the no
fly zone we had the right to go in to Iraq. They fired
on our planes often in the 90s and Clinton let them
get away with it. They also gave sanctuary to fleeing
Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, like the late Abu Musab
Al-Zarqawi, who became the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq,
killed on June 7th. This war was justified on many
levels and much earlier than when we finally went in.
Now I ask the readers to remember this. It was
liberals who were in power in the 90s who ignored
these problems with the Muslim radicals. They treated
it as legal problem. Bill Clinton refused on several
occasions to take Bin Laden in to custody. It is well
documented that he was offered to us by Sudan and
Qatar. Clinton’s dereliction of duty landed us in the
mess we are in. It has cost thousands of American
lives. President Bush is doing his best to keep
another attack from happening here. Frankly I get sick
of liberals standing in the way of our progress and
security. One must remember home grown opponents can
be a threat. Recent events in Canada show us that your
native born population can be a threat. It does make
one wonder why people stand in the way of defending
our country. When the next attack happens in our
country, just remember who have done their best to
block protecting the nation and have allied themselves
with our enemies by doing so...liberals.

griz
June 22, 2006, 01:04 PM
Old Jedi mind trick.....

These are not the WMD you were looking for.


Do you think those weapons, weapons even the pentagon says are useless, are the ones we were looking for when we went in three years ago? I don't.

I don't hate Bush. I am not a Democrat, an evil liberal (or even a liberal LOL), a pacifist, a bliss ninny, or any of the endless names that people get called when they disagree with the Republican party. But I don't agree that Iraq was a threat to us. And I am sorry that an opinion like that is so offensive to so many people on this board.

Let's stay on the high road.

gopguy
June 22, 2006, 01:10 PM
For anyone questioning my comments on Sarin gas in perfume bottles. Here is the link to the story.....think about it. Who could Saddam possibly had in mind to get these nasty little things. :rolleyes: Fox news had the footage showing this plant and the perfume bottles. This appeared in their special on the "Oil for Food program" and UN corruption that was done last year.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147047,00.html

Spertzel said Saddam was also planning to put the poisons on department store shelves across the United States and Europe.

Spertzel: Some of the photographs that were obtained from this same laboratory had multiple different shapes of glass spray bottles, perfume spray bottles, presumably to mimic different brand names. Can you imagine somebody going into a department store and spraying a little bit of a perfume to see whether they like the scent, only instead of perfume they're getting a face full of sarin? That would kill within, within a few minutes.

...If this were to appear at a couple different locations imagine the economic impact in the U.S. People would be afraid to buy anything.

Henry Bowman
June 22, 2006, 01:24 PM
Sounds like a story plot from Batman. :uhoh:

B Easy
June 22, 2006, 01:26 PM
"Just because they're from 91 doesn't mean that they're any less dangerous"

...yes it does. Sarin is extremely unstable, and top quality stuff will reach less than 50% purity within a few months.

The metabolites are definately toxic, don't get me wrong, but they cease to be sarin.



And the Fox article about the perfume bottles is just ridiculous. OK, you take your sarin, you put it in a perfume bottle. You're going to kill the person who gets directly sprayed with it, everyone else is just going to get sick unless they're particularly unwell to begin with.

The Tokyo subway attack is a prime example of why this is complete and utter bull. They used FAR more sarin than you could release in a couple sprays of a perfume bottle, and only a handful of people died. The rest got very ill.

yucaipa
June 22, 2006, 01:35 PM
Sen. Santorum & Rep. Hoekstra went through the proper chain of command to have some intelligence declassified ( a very uncommon activity in and of its self for Congress these days) then put the information in the public arena.

The "Bush Lied" crowd acts like Santorum & Hoekstra have attacked them.

Yes,these old pre 91 WMD's.

So when Saddam ignored those 17 UN resolutions and said "I have no WMD" he lied, thats all this means nothing more, nothing less.

ball3006
June 22, 2006, 01:35 PM
are back in the game................tell you what, I will take a 55 gallon drum, paint WMD on the side and hide it somewhere in the county, not state, where you live. You tell me how long it will take you to find it........Iraq is about the size of **********..........................chris3

Working Man
June 22, 2006, 02:03 PM
And the Fox article about the perfume bottles is just ridiculous. OK, you take your sarin, you put it in a perfume bottle. You're going to kill the person who gets directly sprayed with it, everyone else is just going to get sick unless they're particularly unwell to begin with.

The Tokyo subway attack is a prime example of why this is complete and utter bull. They used FAR more sarin than you could release in a couple sprays of a perfume bottle, and only a handful of people died. The rest got very ill.

It is not just about killing people it is about fear and disruption. The object is
to create a condition of panic, to make the general population feel unsafe and
paranoid.

It would be like Batman.... for a time people would be afraid to buy products and
wonder what will be targeted next.

Not saying that was going to happen but it would be effective terrorism.

MrTuffPaws
June 22, 2006, 02:03 PM
I love all of the armchair scientist in this thread.

The freaking pentagon stated

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

What is to argue about? He had usable stocks before 91. He did not have usable stocks when when we went in a second time.

GTSteve03
June 22, 2006, 02:17 PM
Does this mean you think we need to invade Pakistan?
No, and it's the same reason I don't think we should have invaded Iraq. Just because you're harboring terrorists doesn't give someone the right to invade a sovereign nation.

But apparently all the Bush-bots are 100% behind this strategery so why don't they seem to be having a problem with us not invading Pakistan? :scrutiny:

Mongo the Mutterer
June 22, 2006, 02:17 PM
Funny how the military has spent all that time in Afghanistan and still can't oust the Taliban or get the people to like us. Sorry Steve, putting marshmallows in their cocoa is NOT the job of our military.

And AFAIK the Taliban has been essentially destroyed. They are not running the government of Afganistan. There may be a few of the BGs around, but the situation over there hasn't deteriorated or the Socialist Mainstream Media would be all over it. (and Murtha would want a pull out to Guam!)

ArmedBear
June 22, 2006, 02:23 PM
Sorry Steve, putting marshmallows in their cocoa is NOT the job of our military.

LOL

The military does, however, have the duty to keep them from hating us. Fortunately, that's a lot easier to accomplish.:D

GTSteve03
June 22, 2006, 02:26 PM
Sorry Steve, putting marshmallows in their cocoa is NOT the job of our military.
Oh, you're one of those "glass parking lot" guys. Sure, that works just hunky-dory when your military is turned into an occupational force. NOT.

And AFAIK the Taliban has been essentially destroyed. They are not running the government of Afganistan. There may be a few of the BGs around, but the situation over there hasn't deteriorated or the Socialist Mainstream Media would be all over it. (and Murtha would want a pull out to Guam!)
If this is the case then why is the US military conducting the largest operation in Afghanistan since 2001 to clear out a resurgence of Taliban troops?

http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/world/10048548.html

gopguy
June 22, 2006, 02:40 PM
B EasyAnd the Fox article about the perfume bottles is just ridiculous.



B Easy, and your credentials to tell us about the degradation of Sarin gas is...?



Hardly. It is a true story, I saw the footage of the Sarin plant and the bottles in it. Perhaps the Iraqi plan was hair brained......but the intention to do harm in the west is there. As pointed out in the article the other goal was to cause economic chaos... Who will shop in a mall if such dangers exist? Terrorism is not always about killing but creating fear will sometimes suffice.

It has paid off for them in the past when gutless libs ran the country and did nothing after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, or the attack on the USS Cole, the attack on our embassy in Kenya or the attack on Khobar Towers....or can be driven out of Somalia because so many people were bothered to see the body of a US service man dragged in the streets......you don't cut and run when that happens......You kick the every living stuffing out of them to show them what happens when you attack the United States.

Mongo the Mutterer
June 22, 2006, 02:46 PM
Nope no glass parking lots...

But no worrying about "feelings" either.

Read your reference article -- an opinion piece by a LA Times WaPo columnist? Wow, there is some proof....

And if you bother to read your own proof you will see:

The top US commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, conceded last month that "the very weak institutions of the state" have permitted what he painted as a small Taliban revival. But "I am confident ... the situation will improve by the end of this year," he said.

The rest of the citations are either nameless or out of work bureaucrats.

Phetro
June 22, 2006, 02:46 PM
I can't believe that there are people desperate enough for justification to hold up a few slaves released from their chains as a good return for 600,000 American lives and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars!

This would be very profound...if the Civil War had been fought over slavery. That is a common misconception...but the war was fought over contention on the issue of federal government authority vs. state autonomy. And according to that old, tired, insignificant document called the Constitution of the United States, the South was right in claiming that the states--and never the federal government--had the sole authority to regulate all matters not specifically delegated to the feds by the same document, of which slavery just happened to be one. Ah, but who cares about that tired old thing anymore...

GTSteve03
June 22, 2006, 03:02 PM
The top US commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, conceded last month that "the very weak institutions of the state" have permitted what he painted as a small Taliban revival. But "I am confident ... the situation will improve by the end of this year," he said.
This being the same "state" that the US has been propping up militarily, much like in Iraq. And yet after 5 years it's still considered "very weak" even by the top US commanders.

That doesn't seem like a good plan towards victory to me. :scrutiny:

Dmack_901
June 22, 2006, 03:11 PM
How much of that is left over from stockpiles before the first Gulf War, say in the Iran-Iraq timeframe? How many chemical attacks have the coalition forces suffered, compared to explosives? Why weren't any of these used? If we haven't found them all, why hasn't someone used them on us?

Still skeptical here.

jmm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124924,00.html

They're just two of the incidents where things were used or found. I've seen a bunch of other claims of chemical/nerve attacks but they were all on right wing propaghanda websites so I won't bother trying to track them down again. FOX is conservative enough for me, lol.:p

The Tokyo subway attack is a prime example of why this is complete and utter bull. They used FAR more sarin than you could release in a couple sprays of a perfume bottle, and only a handful of people died. The rest got very ill. From what the History Channel said, a few barely punctured their packets, and the strategy lacked in dispersion ability. Only Hayashi stabbed it a lot. He killed 8 people. So it is a very deadly chemical when used "right".

gopguy
June 22, 2006, 04:09 PM
This being the same "state" that the US has been propping up militarily, much like in Iraq. And yet after 5 years it's still considered "very weak" even by the top US commanders.


Afghanistan has been difficult for anyone who has tried to impose a centralized government especially when linked to a foreign power. It will take quite some time to break them and get them to submit to any centralized government....no matter how benevolent. However to leave and allow the Taliban or any other unfriendly group assume power in Kabul is unacceptable.

TallPine
June 22, 2006, 04:31 PM
Are these the same WMD's that the US supplied to Saddam back when he was our "friend" :confused:

GTSteve03
June 22, 2006, 04:32 PM
Afghanistan has been difficult for anyone who has tried to impose a centralized government especially when linked to a foreign power. It will take quite some time to break them and get them to submit to any centralized government....no matter how benevolent. However to leave and allow the Taliban or any other unfriendly group assume power in Kabul is unacceptable.
If it's so hard to impose a centralized gov't, why would the Taliban have such an easy time with it? Maybe they don't want to be governed by a foreign power?

If we're going to end up having to "break them and get them to submit," that's a very odd definition of "freedom" that's on the march. :scrutiny:

longrifleman
June 22, 2006, 04:42 PM
It will take quite some time to break them and get them to submit to any centralized government....no matter how benevolent.

Since nobody has managed to accomplish this in recorded history, what makes you think WE can do it? And, other than having someone to bomb if they don't do what we want, why do we care about imposing a central govt on anyone? If bad guys are basing attacks on us from there, do something about it, govt or no govt. Otherwise, leave them alone.

And another thing, what makes you think ANY centralized govt is going to be benevolent, especially in that part of the world?

ArmedBear
June 22, 2006, 05:13 PM
And another thing, what makes you think ANY centralized govt is going to be benevolent, especially in that part of the world?

Please tell me this isn't an echo of the racist unofficial Democratic platform element that says that the camel jockeys couldn't handle freedom if they had it.

longrifleman
June 22, 2006, 05:42 PM
Please tell me this isn't an echo of the racist unofficial Democratic platform element that says that the camel jockeys couldn't handle freedom if they had it.

OK. It's not.:neener:

I'm not a big fan of strong centralized govt anywhere. I also think strong centralized govts tend to be enemies of freedom, instead of protectors of same.

My understanding is that the "country" of Afghanistan is pretty much an artifical creation, and the true nature is at best a confederation of different tribes/ethnic groups. Western diplomats can't deal with that kind of complexity, so they try to beat the different groups into a one size fits all nation-state. If some of that beating involves the application of high explosives, well, sucks to be an Afghan that day.

leadcounsel
June 22, 2006, 05:47 PM
I thought Saddam told the world he had DESTROYED all chemical weapons (whether they are old or not).

Bush said Saddam had NOT done that.

But Bush lied and Saddam was telling the truth???!!!


+1

Let's believe an evil dictator who has demonstrated his willingness to murder his own people with WMDs, start wars with his neighbors Iraq and Kuwait, sign treaties with the world after losing a war and then break his promises over a 10 year period, promise to not have WMDs and be found to have had them....

OR

We can believe 99% of the ELECTED officials (Dems and Reps) who looked at the intelligence and came to the same conclusion- the same conclusion most of the world intelligence came to; Saddam had WMDs and was a threat.

Now we have 500 examples of the WMDs he had and it took us many years to find them. I'm confident there are more hidden or shipped elsewhere.

MCgunner
June 22, 2006, 05:52 PM
Yeah, but perjury is okay as long as it's about sex. :rolleyes:

And then there was, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman....."

longrifleman
June 22, 2006, 05:56 PM
Saddam had WMDs and was a threat.

Yes, but a threat to who? There is the disagreement. Can you show that Iraq had any capability to carry out an attack on the US? If he was stupid enough to try, the entire country would have been a parking lot, and he knew it.

Master Blaster
June 22, 2006, 06:19 PM
The bottom line is that a majority of the Democrats voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq. They saw the same intellegence as everybody else, and the same reports from the UN inspectors. After 911 they made the decision to be proactive. Now they want to abdicate all responsibility for their decision, and cut and run. That will Give Iran control of the oil and of Iraq, and who knows maybe Saudi Arabia eventually. Heck if we wait long enough Iran will have a Nuke and we will have to fight them over the oil we NEED. Does that sound like a plan you want implemented???

Now that we have been there 3 years the Democrats want to pretend that they did not make informed decisions because they were fooled BY BUSH.
BUSH the dumb guy fooled them. So in the run up to the fall elections do YOU really want to be represented by people who say that they were fooled by Bush???? Do you really want to hand the ME and the oil fields to Iran and the Islaamofacists who want to destroy us???

Biker
June 22, 2006, 06:48 PM
Man, *I'm* ashamed to say that I was fooled by Bush - I voted for him in 2000.:o

Didn't take me long to figure him out though.;)

Biker

Sylvan-Forge
June 22, 2006, 06:51 PM
We are getting good at arming our future enemies.

We gave Iraq WMDs to deal with Iran/USSR.

ArmedBear
June 22, 2006, 07:04 PM
If he was stupid enough to try, the entire country would have been a parking lot, and he knew it.

Re the previous post, cool, then! Most people seem to mean what I wrote, sadly. Anyway, I'm not sure what a strong central government means; in some situations it could use its coercive power to improve individual liberty, though that seems to be the least likely path for a strong central government.:)

Re the above: I don't think he did. I think that the "read" that he and Osama Bin Laden got from the US actions in Tehran, Beiruit, Somalia, and even Kuwait is that we wouldn't actually DO anything to him. He played a game, and he lost. But the Iranians had won the same game some years before, and he himself had won the game in 1991. Sure, he lost Kuwait, but he didn't have it to begin with, and he remained in power, thumbing his nose, for more than another decade.

Note that, after we invaded Iraq, Kaddafi handed over anything we wanted and Libya is now our "friend." Until we actually invaded Iraq, I don't think a lot of the world's Saddams thought we'd actually have the cajones to do it. We HAD sat on our hands for many years, after declaring our official policy to be "regime change".

I'm thinking that the strategists who hang out a few stories below where the one plane hit on 9/11 have a MUCH better idea of these nuances than you or I do. Trusting government? Well, I'll just say that my knee-jerk mistrust has been dealt a few blows lately.

YellowLab
June 22, 2006, 07:29 PM
I did not vote for Bush or Kerry... I voted LIbertarian.

The people have been lied to OVER AND OVER.... the Gulf of Tonkin incident NEVER HAPPENED yet we were in Vietnam for years. The disgusting thing is that the average amercian is so fat stupid and lazy that all you need to do is wave the flag and they believe... in just about anything.

What was the point of Granada? Nicaragua (sp?) Mogidushu? Croatia? Hell I can't even spell half the places retard politicans have sent our finest men and women to die... for nothing.

I am a vet, and so is my father (we are both disabled vets) and I would kick Bush square in the nuts if he told me this jibberish to my face.

Think of it, POTUS is the CiC... yet all recent presidents have had little USEFULL military experience. Would YOU follow Bush or Cheny to battle?

Eleven Mike
June 22, 2006, 08:51 PM
Degraded chemical weapons were not what the American people were lead to believe was what they were looking for.

Thats like looking for a cache of weapons and finding a bunch of rusted muskets. Some might work, some may not. Some might be able to kill, some may not.

OK, but you'll notice that WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE HAD OR WHAT CONDITION IT WAS IN UNTIL WE INVADED. This was not acceptable.

Eleven Mike
June 22, 2006, 08:55 PM
We gave Iraq WMDs to deal with Iran/USSR

No kidding? So if we gave him the WMD, then we are the more responsible for recovering it, right?

Of course.

B Easy
June 22, 2006, 09:25 PM
B Easy
Quote:
And the Fox article about the perfume bottles is just ridiculous.




B Easy, and your credentials to tell us about the degradation of Sarin gas is...?


I work in microbiology and immunology at AECOM / Yeshiva U.

Primarily my work as dealt with anthrax, but my lab also works with HIV and ALV.

I never said that the perfume bottles story was "fake", simply that it would be grossly ineffective.

My interests lie in biological and chemical weapons. From one of my papers:

"Built from the ground up, sarin is comprised of dimethyl methylphosphonate, phosphorous difluoride, sodium fluoride, and isopropyl alcohol (Simpson, 2004). This combination, though deadly, is extremely unstable, which impairs the military value of sarin. Sarin is estimated to have a shelf life of a couple months to only a couple weeks, depending on the amount of impurities in the agent. For instance, for the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq produced sarin that was 60% pure and heavily contaminated with hydrogen fluoride. The Iraqi arsenal, despite being stored in special “igloos” meant to prolong shelf life, degraded to less than 10% purity within two years"

Which is why they experimented with dusty agents and binary munitions...

"Binary munitions represent an attempt at solving the shelf life “problem” associated with the chemical in its complete form. Multiple methods exist depending on the complexity of the weapons program by which they are developed. For instance, Iraq developed a crude binary system: a warhead or artillery shell was filled with isopropyl alcohol, and stored with methylphosphonic difluoride, which when combined, produces sarin. Shortly before launch, the methylphosphonic difluoride would be poured into the warhead, and it would be launched (Croddy, 2002; CIA, 2001)."



D-Mack, you're right: their delivery system was very crude. However, two of the casualties were employees in the subway who actually picked up the bags in an attempt to move them to a safer location.

My point is: a few sprays from a perfume bottle isn't going to kill anyone outside of the store in which it was released, realistically.

Kim
June 22, 2006, 09:53 PM
I love when people bring up Grenada. I was a nieve non political 23y/o at the time. But I do remember this episode and I do remember the lefty MSM whinning and distorting the picture. How do I know this like I said I was there right before and after. Here is what was going on before. There was a murder of the President and some other close aides. The Commies in league with Russia and Cuba moved in. There were machine gun tooting Cubians standing guard at radio station they had taken over. They were all over the place in small trucks with machine guns. The Cubans were building an airport ( One their Commie gov and our Liberals said was just for commercial airplanes wink wink). Oh contrare It was a hugh runnway for much more than Commercial airplanes. That too was guarded by Commies with machine guns. I had one commrade armed with a machine gun come down from the hills to the secluded beach that had me and one other person on it. He said he and his commrades were hiding in the hills to fight the evil Amercians. He asked for money for his friends. We gave him 5 dollars all we had and he went back to the hills.:what: We had a flat in a shack town . I think it was the first time they had seen a blonde white woman in the flesh as it was silent. I went into a shack to get a Coke and stone silence and then I noticed all along the wall posters of Reagan that sad "Death to the Capitalist PIG":eek: :what: There were rich Russians there also driving BMW's and eating right across from me. A local resident came by and whispered in my ear to let me know they were Russians. After the invasion all this nonsense was gone. I'm sure those Cubans were offically just there providing medical care. That is what all the libs believe to this day.Never ever trust our MSM.

GLOCK19XDSC
June 22, 2006, 10:23 PM
Santorum is just getting desperate because he foresees a loss in the upcoming election and must therefore come up with something...ANYTHING...to try and save his worthless hide.

As much as I despise Democrats, I will vote for Casey for no other reason than to get rid of this despicable scumbag.

http://spreadingsantorum.com/

gc70
June 22, 2006, 10:42 PM
I never said that the perfume bottles story was "fake", simply that it would be grossly ineffective.In 1983, there were seven deaths from cyanide-laced Tylenol. As a result, the packaging of over-the-counter drugs was changed in the US.

In 2002, two guys with a gun killed ten people and wounded three others in the Washington, DC area. Literally millions of people in a multi-state area were in a panic for weeks until the "beltway snipers" were caught.

The effectiveness of terrorism is not measured by a body count, but by the degree to which a society is changed by the terrorist acts.

Sylvan-Forge
June 22, 2006, 11:00 PM
No kidding? So if we gave him the WMD, then we are the more responsible for recovering it, right?

Of course.

That's not what I was implying.

I'm saying, I believe it is a mistake to play these kind of games and turn over these kinds of technologies to countries that happen to "temporarily" share our common enemies. Especially when they themselves proved to be a malice to the region or show little regard for their own peoples.

It was folly. It still is. We just can't seem to learn when to stop creating these kind of problems for ourselves. China comes to mind.
We send all this aid and technology to China, North Korea, Iran, etc.
only for them to use it against us later.

Not to mention we foot the bill along the way.

grimjaw
June 22, 2006, 11:03 PM
Left over from Gulf 1? Maybe...Probably. Doesn't make'em any less dangerous.

1911Tuner, I don't disagree. I realize that lots of things could have been relocated to foreign parts in the lead up to the war, but I also think we would have a pretty good idea what kind of traffic was going on. No way we wouldn't have been surveilling the crap out of the country during the prep time. Are we looking into those suspected agents now, asking that they be inspected for the WMD's? Maybe that's another reason the govt is knocking on Iran's door so heavily.

I don't pretend to know what goes on behind the scenes. Could be radically different than anything that's reported in the press or released by the government, but that's all I have to go on.

I remember hearing from Bush's people that we were in imminent danger of WMD's from Iraq, and I don't believe that was true. I resent that like I resent being lied to by Clinton. Maybe Bush was mislead or somebody in the intelligence community made a mistake.

I don't blindly trust Bush, his cabinet, or the press when it comes to this issue. I would believe hard evidence, but I don't think I've seen it and it's likely I'll never know.

jmm

Sylvan-Forge
June 22, 2006, 11:07 PM
Scratch the "We" just can't seem...

I should say "our fearless leaders" instead.

Hkmp5sd
June 22, 2006, 11:34 PM
The military could have found fully functional tactical nuclear weapons with "Made in China" stamped on the side and it would still not have mattered. Those against Bush would have complained that they were planted by the CIA. Look at the idiots that still believe the WTC was collapsed by explosives instead of terrorists in airliners because Bush wanted an excuse to invade Iraq.

At this point in time, whether or not Saddam had WMD is irrelevant. The US is in Iraq and must deal with the problem. Whinnying about the reason that got us there is useless. Bush cannot be reelected and will not be impeached.

B Easy
June 22, 2006, 11:44 PM
gc70, I don't study the ways that they're employed, I just study the weapons themselves.

That said, you're absolutely right. Sometimes all it takes is a myth, sans bodycount, to produce the desired effect.

I don't think there's ever been a case of someone putting razor blades in bobbing-apples, but that doesn't stop people from being cautious.


BTW, before anyone accuses me of "whining", that's not really my goal. WMDs or no WMDs, our presence in Iraq is necessary. I'm just trying to help sift through the bull.

Monkeyleg
June 22, 2006, 11:57 PM
We are not in Iraq to hunt down WMD's. We're not there to save the Kurds.

We are there to impose our power in the last region of the world that threatens us, and to render it as harmless as possible to the US.

You may not like the idea. I do.

It will be decades before historians will be able to apolitically evaluate Bush's policies in the Middle East. I'll be gone by then, but I will bet you that the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, along with the tough polices against Syria, Iran and other Middle East sponsors of terrorism, will be regarded as one of the most important doctrines of any presidential administration in US history.

gc70
June 23, 2006, 12:31 AM
We are there to impose our power in the last region of the world that threatens us, and to render it as harmless as possible to the US.Not exactly a diplomatic statement, but more accurate than anything else I have seen about Iraq.

B Easy
June 23, 2006, 12:37 AM
Monkeyleg, I agree 100%.

That will soon include France. Not because of French folks though...for once...

GoRon
June 23, 2006, 12:39 AM
Apropos,

In January 2004,Thomas Friedman wrote: "The real reason for this war — which was never stated — was to burst what I would call the 'terrorism bubble,' which had built up during the 1990s.

"This bubble was a dangerous fantasy, believed by way too many people in the Middle East. This bubble said that it was OK to plow airplanes into the World Trade Center, commit suicide in Israeli pizza parlors, praise people who do these things as 'martyrs' and donate money to them through religious charities.

"This bubble had to be burst, and the only way to do it was to go right into the heart of the Arab world and smash something -- to let everyone know that we, too, are ready to fight and die to preserve our open society. Yes, I know, it's not very diplomatic — it's not in the rule book — but everyone in the neighborhood got the message: Henceforth, you will be held accountable.

"Why Iraq, not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Because we could — period."

Eleven Mike
June 23, 2006, 12:46 AM
Monkeyleg and Mr. Friedman, well said.

Sylvan-Forge
June 23, 2006, 01:37 AM
We have seen this region for what it is for a long time.
There is a bunch of what we unfortunately need (oil) right there in said region.

Way back when, our fearless leaders could have thought a little deeper.
Maybe; 'We need to push hard to get away from oil and maybe start into hydrogen fuel and synthetic lubricating oils, (both old ideas),
'We need to address this now (then) because it will take a good while to implement and stabilize'.


Instead, our past leaders chose to keep playing the oil game. Likely simple stupidity, greed, warmongering, conspiracy. Whatever.
Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda. :scrutiny:

When a country attacks us, we should go in there and lay the smack-down on em. :fire:

When a country opresses its people. We should NOt deal with them favorably.
Sanctions, Isolation, .. We should not be giving these crappy governments our money. If a rebellion arises, we give the rebellion the tools - NOt nukes, NOt chems/bio., and NOt our troops! :banghead:
Only reason I can see invading is if some psycho is genociding. Right-F-N-Then, not a freaking decade later! :banghead:

When a country acts like a bully, threatening, spittle flying, we tell 'em to bring it. :neener:
We can put our spies in there to keep one-up them.

When we need resources, we buckle down by God and figure it out. What happened to self-sufficiency?

No, no, too simple. It's much more complex than that..
to that I say, BULL****! :cuss:

By this time we should have been giving the middle-east the finger.
North Korea, China, Iran, Ad Nauseum..likewise.



Ok .. rant off.

GTSteve03
June 23, 2006, 01:39 AM
"Why Iraq, not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Because we could — period."
Indeed, that speaks volumes. It shows how our leaders are nothing but cowards.

We couldn't attack Saudi Arabia because they have us in a stranglehold with oil.

We couldn't attack Pakistan because they have nuclear weapons.

So we pick on a country already weak from UN sanctions and a once-defeated dictator.

Way to flex our muscle. :scrutiny:

Eleven Mike
June 23, 2006, 02:04 AM
FYI, Steve, it's a war in Iraq, not on Iraq. I.e., we're helping them, and if they don't like it, tough cookies. If we're picking on anybody, it's Saddam Hussein and a lot of similar monsters.

B Easy
June 23, 2006, 02:14 AM
GoRon I totally agree with that quote.

Question though...do you think that our plan has backfired a bit?


I mean, we wanted to go to the middle east to assert ourselves: smash things and kill people. But now, we've shown that:

Every time an American soldier has some fun making Hadji form naked pyramids, the latte liberals throw a sh-t fit.

We go nuts over execution videos.

We're vulnerable to IEDs.

The people don't fear us. I mean, we aren't the Russians. If some Muji's family lies to us, we aren't going to go in there and kill the oldest/youngest.



I feel like we should have been more aggressive, if that were our goal.

TCB in TN
June 23, 2006, 02:29 AM
So much to talk about here. The invasion of Iraq is the right thing to do on so many levels it isn't even funny. First from a human stand point, the Iraqi people are already rec. the benifits of Sadam's ouster. As bad as things have been made to look on the News things are better there today than they were during his reign. Second the region is safer with out a madman who wanted nukes as well as other WMDs and very well may have used them if he were to have gotten them. Third and of great interest to the US was Sadam's propensity to help Terror groups. Like it or not, he gave money/aide to pretty much any terror group out there at one time or another. Fourth and even more important to the US, is the two fold effect of the US invasion, and nation building program. The extremests in the middle east hate the US and want to hurt us/ they also hate our lifestyles and our freedom. The thought of a democratic/representative republic flourishing in the middle east, allowing the spread of democracy, capitalism, western values, and the western lifestyle is a terrifying proposition to the extremests. They have pretty much mobilized the majority of their networks and tried to put a stop to progress in Iraq. This is good for the US in multiple ways. It provides a concentration of terror targets for the US to search out and destroy, along with the process being done on the soil of another country which minimizes the collateral damage to civilian US citizens. I worry about the men and women of the Armed forces over there, I actually have several friends in Iraq currently, but in my conversations with them I know they understand that they are doing what they are doing there now, to keep it from happening here later. I pray that God will protect them, and I thank him for giving them the courage and strength to do the job and do it well. I voted for Bush and while I disagree with him on many things (especially domesticly), I am glad he is the decider and not Kerry or that fake who says he is from TN. Neither of them have the guts to do what is necessary to protect this country. I just hope the next guy in has enough sense to defend us as well.

There are only 2 people in this world I trust and you ain't one of'em!

Dmack_901
June 23, 2006, 02:44 AM
I also agree with Thomas Friedman's words.

I'm not, GoRon, but I'll throw my opinion in... I don't believe it has backfired. Indeed we are not feared by the average Iraqi, Muslum, etc. But we don't want to be since fear can be used as a weapon against us. Same as mistrust.

However mistrust is a result of miscommunication which can be changed. Fear breads hatrid which lasts generations.

We havn't accomplished our goal yet. It is to transform extremist(violent) muslims to a Amish-like extreme(but peaceful and coexistant) faction.

As for GTSteve's comment on SaudiArabia vs. Iraq, it's much more complicated than that. And everyone knows that's liberal rethoric(not completely baseless, but blown out of porortion). Saudi Arabia is HUGE compared to Iraq. It is loaded with mistrust and hatrid of America. But there are also a lot of would be supporters or at least (in vast majority if played right)non-combatants.

Attacking Saudi Arabia would be like attacking Russia in the Cold War, instead of Vietnam. Sure it's a bigger enemy, but... at what cost. Iraq provides a buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia(and puts "friendly" nations on either side of iran). It's a much more amiable solution that trying to kill off everyone who disagrees with "us".

longeyes
June 23, 2006, 03:04 AM
In January 2004,Thomas Friedman wrote: "The real reason for this war — which was never stated — was to burst what I would call the 'terrorism bubble,' which had built up during the 1990s.

"This bubble was a dangerous fantasy, believed by way too many people in the Middle East. This bubble said that it was OK to plow airplanes into the World Trade Center, commit suicide in Israeli pizza parlors, praise people who do these things as 'martyrs' and donate money to them through religious charities.

"This bubble had to be burst, and the only way to do it was to go right into the heart of the Arab world and smash something -- to let everyone know that we, too, are ready to fight and die to preserve our open society. Yes, I know, it's not very diplomatic — it's not in the rule book — but everyone in the neighborhood got the message: Henceforth, you will be held accountable.

"Why Iraq, not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Because we could — period."

"You will be held accountable."

And would that include Friedman's brothers-in-print at the NY Times?

Kim
June 23, 2006, 03:06 AM
Why O Why do people keep saying Bush said Iraq was an immenant threat. I know through propaganda. Go look up the dang speech. He said BEFORE they become an immenant. If we waited till they were an immenant threat it would be too late. Good Grief I am tired of all the spinning. You can not make a rational decision if you do not know the truth. Remember all the screeching about preventive war. Well that was where it began then the progaganda started.:banghead:

Kim
June 23, 2006, 03:11 AM
I am also tired of the why did we not attack Pakistan or Saudia Arabia????Does anyone really think the LIbs would do that. It is stupid to argue that way. Do they have any idea what would happen if Saudia Arabia was attacked. Do they want a world wide depression. Heck they are using the gasoline prices now as a political hammer. Saudia Ruling family is the only thing that keeps the whole country being taken over by Radical Islamists. Do they want that. Do the really want us to attack Pakistian a nuclear armed country. It is ignorant.

Mongo the Mutterer
June 23, 2006, 07:10 AM
No, Kim, they want us to fail. Sad isn't it.

They want to run the world in a way that they can "feel" good about themselves and how "thoughtful" they are and how "diverse" their thinking is. Don't you know that they are the elite? They know the answer?

Oh, and if we fail, and people die, it never is their fault. They fight wars with one hand tied behind their back and then blame it on someone else (Vietnam, Nixon).

There is no Democrat who is qualified or competant to be Commander in Chief. That is the way they want it, so we can go to the UN on our hands and knees and beg them to fix our problems.

Thin Black Line
June 23, 2006, 09:43 AM
We can believe 99% of the ELECTED officials (Dems and Reps) who looked at the intelligence and came to the same conclusion- the same conclusion most of the world intelligence came to; Saddam had WMDs and was a threat.

The bottom line is that a majority of the Democrats voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq. They saw the same intellegence as everybody else, and the same reports from the UN inspectors. After 911 they made the decision to be proactive. Now they want to abdicate all responsibility for their decision, and cut and run.

No. Most did NOT have access to the Top Secret NIE. Most were unaware
of the internal intelligence disagreements over alleged WMDs. The majority
of our elected officials got the same trickle out leaks about "mushroom
clouds" from Condi and others. They trusted and went along just like I did
at the time.

The point is, the truth has come out. The spin-masters can keep wrapping
this turd in tinfoil, but those of us who've blown our noses can now smell
it in the room.

Furthermore, this is NOT CUT AND RUN. I did my tour in Iraq on year three
and the current rotation will be through most of year 4 for Iraq (Afghan is
longer). Four full years will be complete in Iraq by next Spring. Given our
country's other wars, I fail to see how starting redeployment "sometime" next
year is akin to cut and run. The people I see chirping the don't cut and run
mantra on TV have never done a deployment --probably not even worn a
uniform. Given this and their apparent lack of historical knowledge, they are
not qualified to make any statements about how long "we" should spend
there.

Man, *I'm* ashamed to say that I was fooled by Bush - I voted for him in 2000.

Didn't take me long to figure him out though.

As usual, Biker sums up common sense in just a couple lines.

I'm even more stubborn since I voted for the guy twice. I was skeptical
by 04, but Kerry seemed worse.

I'm able to admit I made a mistake. Let's find the courage to do that as a
nation and stop throwing blood and money into the sand trap. This isn't
a friggin' golf game.

We are getting good at arming our future enemies

We have armed ALL of our enemies. And, I have to agree with Murtha that
this current foreign fiasco is draining our military resources to the direct
benefit of China. I posted a long time back that US involvement in Iraq
was going to benefit China and the EU far more than us. Short of a draft,
there will not be enough people available should a problem come up again
within the next decade, let alone where would the MONEY come from.

When I see things like this

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2239088,00.html

I have to wonder what the whole point of it all is......we're just going
to end up throwing away good people (our soldiers) over lies, a failed
neo-con philosophy, and a foreign country that could care less about
our sacrifices when all is said and done :banghead:

GTSteve03
June 23, 2006, 10:03 AM
FYI, Steve, it's a war in Iraq, not on Iraq. I.e., we're helping them, and if they don't like it, tough cookies. If we're picking on anybody, it's Saddam Hussein and a lot of similar monsters.
I bet they enjoy our help, too. Considering the city of Baghdad gets less than half the electricity they had during Saddam's rule. Oh, and the daily civil war going on between the Shiites and Sunnis, I don't remember that during Saddam's rule either.

Saddam is now in custody, as is most of the former Iraqi higher-ups in the government. What other monsters are in Iraq similar to Saddam? Osama is in Pakistan, Jong-Il is in N Korea, and who knows who is in charge in Sudan. I don't see us doing much in any of those situations.

Saudi Arabia is HUGE compared to Iraq. It is loaded with mistrust and hatrid of America. But there are also a lot of would be supporters or at least (in vast majority if played right)non-combatants.
Sounds a lot like Iraq, actually. The Kurds pretty much love the US, and a large portion of Iraqi civilians don't want to pick up arms and fight the US, they want to live a normal life. So why couldn't we have done it another way?

Baba Louie
June 23, 2006, 10:17 AM
I'm even more stubborn since I voted for the guy twice. I was skeptical by 04, but Kerry seemed worse. Therein lies the rub... Between Gore in 2000 and Kerry in '04, who was the better choice? The lesser of two evils is still an unfortunate choice in some manner of thinking. The greater of the two evils would still (probably) follow an earlier admin's position that the enemy was a white American who owns guns, not some religious fanatic 'over there' who bombed American installations at will.

This admin used the "Fear" of 9-11 well. Spun it "just right". Sold it easily. Had a bill ready in less than 30 days and called it "The PATRIOT Act" which passed almost 100% with no one actually, you know, reading it or debating it to discuss the long term ramifications. Went to war on Iraq based on a concept of fear for our safety as opposed to "Liberation of a People we could use as an Ally in a Place we need some influence" (hard to sell Americans on that concept unless we're attacked first, witness Germany, Japan circa 1937-'41)

Hook, Line AND Sinker.

OK. You get lemons... you make lemonade.

So the next real question will arise in the fall of 2008. Will it be a "Lesser of Two Evils" choice again? And what spin will the winner use to control power and influence whilst casting aspersion on the present administration and playing the world-wide game of chess to avoid a "Checkmate" here at home?

One final, cynical note... Does anyone here, REALLY, think that John Q. Public will learn or hear the REAL Truth from our government... or know it when we do hear it? Sad, that.

Hkmp5sd
June 23, 2006, 11:39 AM
I'm even more stubborn since I voted for the guy twice. I was skeptical by 04, but Kerry seemed worse.

I'm more stubborn. If possible, I'd vote for him again.

gopguy
June 23, 2006, 12:13 PM
If it's so hard to impose a centralized gov't, why would the Taliban have such an easy time with it? Maybe they don't want to be governed by a foreign power?

The Taliban did not have an easy time of it, or a very good grasp on power in the whole country. One reason that Ahmed Shah Massoud "The lion of Panjshir." was assasinated hours before the attacks on September 11 2001. Or had you forgotten about the Northern Alliance?:neener:

DunedinDragon
June 23, 2006, 12:25 PM
One final, cynical note... Does anyone here, REALLY, think that John Q. Public will learn or hear the REAL Truth from our government... or know it when we do hear it? Sad, that.

Of course you won't know the real truth. It will be thoroughly spun and discredited by the liberal media LONG before you get it.

The question here is why has the MSM (CNN, Times, Wash Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, et al) so quiet on this subject? They certainly weren't that quiet when there was a recognition we hadn't been able to find any WMD? In fact you simply couldn't escape it. Where is all that reporting furor now? Even if it isn't the WMD we were looking for, you'd think they'd want to say something about it in terms of true, objective coverage.

Ahhhh...there's the problem!!!! True, objective coverage. Silly me!!!

Why take the chance that John Q Public might not follow along with their interpretation and spinning of this WMD disclosure and come to their own conclusions about it, thereby messing up their polling results for President Bush? Sure...there will be folks like Thin Black Line that'll buy whatever nonsense they sell. But there are people who think for themselves and realize the news jockey's are NOT political analysts...they're newspaper hawkers. If they talk about it, people become aware of it and perhaps draw their independent conclusions as many have here in this forum, and it's not in the interest of the liberal media for Bush to look good. Why? Because it makes them out to be exactly what they are....unprofessional journalists intent on pushing THEIR agenda which is to sell gloom and doom and make a bigger profit.

The issue here isn't politicians as much as it is media that wants to create disruption and furor. Those are the one's REALLY benefiting from all the coverage and extra papers they sell...not China.

And to Thin Black Line....yes I DID wear a uniform and I DID serve for 9 years. And I didn't serve in the desert, I served in the far east. And, unlike you, I didn't get a choice about it. And we spent a LOT more blood there in six months than we have in the entirety of our involvement with Iraq. And YES...IT IS CUT AND RUN. And if we don't finish things appropriately here, we will get the same results we got in Vietnam along with the discredit that goes with it.

By the way...we had our own version of media spinners back then too. They were called Jane Fonda. Some naive people bought into HER nonsense also.

gopguy
June 23, 2006, 12:27 PM
B EasyI work in microbiology and immunology at AECOM / Yeshiva U.

Glad you have the credentials to tell us about it and understand the issue. I did think you were saying the story was fake. I still stand by what I said about it clearly being a terror program designed to cause panic in the West....it was clearly aimed at us, no matter its efficacy.

Whether these weapons were degraded or not, they are proof that the shrieking "There were no WMD" crowd is wrong.

gopguy
June 23, 2006, 01:10 PM
There is no Democrat who is qualified or competant to be Commander in Chief.

Mongo you nailed that on the head. The same folks taking us to task for invading Iraq are now urging us to attack the N. Korean Taepodong missile while it is sitting at the launch facility...an act of war.......against a nuclear power.:eek: A nuclear power thanks to Bill Clinton no less! :cuss:

Ashton Carter and former Clinton Defense Secretary Perry wrote an editorial telling Bush to launch the attack..... These are the same people who cut that crazy deal with Kim back in the mid 90s that helped him along with his nuclear ambitions.:banghead: God help us!



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/22/103740.shtml?s=ic


National Security is too important to leave to the Democratic Party Amateur Hour....ever. Hell as this demonstrates we are still trying to clean up the last mess.....negotiated by Jimmy Carter and Maddy Albright in N. Korea....and they want power back?! As I said before God help us!



Former Defense Sec. Perry Wants N. Korean Missile Destroyed


Former defense secretary William J. Perry says the U.S. should launch a preemptive strike against the long-range ballistic missile that North Korea is reportedly preparing to launch.

In an opinion piece in the Washington Post, Perry and former assistant defense secretary Ashton B. Carter argue that if North Korea continues launch preparations, President Bush should immediately declare that the U.S. will destroy the Taepodong missile before it can be launched.

Perry and Carter suggest using a cruise missile launched from a submarine and carrying a high-explosive warhead.

"The effect on the Taepodong would be devastating," they write. "The multi-story, thin-skinned missile filled with high-energy fuel is itself explosive - the U.S. air strike would puncture the missile and probably cause it to explode.”

As President Bill Clinton's defense secretary, Perry oversaw preparation for air strikes on North Korean nuclear facilities in 1994 – strikes that were never carried out.

He has been a critic of the Bush administration's approach to North Korea, according to the Post

"We believe diplomacy might have precluded the current situation," Perry and Carter said. "But diplomacy has failed, and we cannot sit by and let this deadly threat mature."

On Wednesday, the U.S. ambassador to Japan stated that "all options are on the table" with regard to North Korea.

rev214
June 23, 2006, 01:25 PM
The same folks taking us to task for invading Iraq are now urging us to attack the N. Korean Taepodong missile while it is sitting at the launch facility...an act of war.......against a nuclear power. A nuclear power thanks to Bill Clinton no less!

if John Kerry can change his mind...and change it again...and again...and again...once again...

Mongo the Mutterer
June 23, 2006, 01:29 PM
Thanks Gopguy. +1 on your post.

I would find the fact that the SMSM uses "experts" from previous failed Democratic administrations to comment on funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Mongo the Mutterer
June 23, 2006, 01:38 PM
Thanks Gopguy. +1 on your post.

I would find the fact that the SMSM uses "experts" from previous failed Democratic administrations to comment funny


if it wasn't so tragic.

(double post, my bad)

Thin Black Line
June 23, 2006, 01:47 PM
And to Thin Black Line....yes I DID wear a uniform and I DID serve for 9 years. And I didn't serve in the desert, I served in the far east. And, unlike you, I didn't get a choice about it. And we spent a LOT more blood there in six months than we have in the entirety of our involvement with Iraq.

Believe me when I say that I'm thankful our armor and medical care are far
better than Vietnam --otherwise we would have a similar KIA. But you can't
measure "success" by our losses. You understand that I'm sure, but I get
tired of people who have no clue yet still harp that our casualties are
"not that bad." But, yeah, win a war "by making the other SOB die for his
country." However, there has to be a point to it since war is suppose to be
a means to an end. What is that "end" in Iraq? It keeps getting changed
every few months, doesn't it?

And YES...IT IS CUT AND RUN. And if we don't finish things appropriately here, we will get the same results we got in Vietnam along with the discredit that goes with it.

I read in the news recently about the secret Kissinger trip where it was
"ok" with the administration toward the end of the war if Vn fell. After
that meeting, the US lost 4,000 more soldiers before we pulled out. This
is not to insult you, but what was the point of staying in as long as we
did? What are our "results" with communist Vn now --free trade with a
communist regime.

So much for that BS "domino theory", huh? Choice or not, you got lied to
and I got lied to. But, it's not really an informed choice if people are
holding back on the info now is it. This is what happened with the alleged
WMDs.

I for one do not want to see OIF last as long as Vn since remaining there at
our current level of involvement seems rather useless. From the bean
counter perspective it's very expensive as a nation. Sure, there are some
select families that are making loads of money hand over fist from the
current situation, but this is bankrupting our country and hamstringing
the longterm health of our military.

Let the Iraqis do for themselves (or to themselves) at this point. We can
provide training and air. We can then do business with whoever is left
standing --just like we did with Vn.

Let's learn from our past mistakes:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon4/doc262.htm

Report by Mcnamara After Visit to Vietnam, 30 November 1965
....
5. Evaluation. We should be aware that deployments of the kind I have recommended will not guarantee success. US killed-in-action can be expected to reach 1000 a month, and the odds are even that we will be faced in early 1967 with a "no-decision" at an even higher level. My overall evaluation, nevertheless, is that the best chance of achieving our stated objectives lies in a pause followed, if it fails, by the deployments mentioned above.

Carl N. Brown
June 23, 2006, 04:14 PM
?We gave Iraq WMDs to deal with Iran/USSR?

Who armed Saddam Hussein?
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=41463&stc=1&d=1151089431
Why are US and UK blamed in the media, and USSR, France
and China get free passes?

Thin Black Line
June 23, 2006, 04:23 PM
Why are US and UK blamed in the media, and USSR, France
and China get free passes?

You're absolutely right on that. This is just to keep the dogs in the street
chasing each others' tails. All the G7 countries + China + Russia are
perfectly aware of who is doing business with who. They're fine with it
since this is Globalism and the people in control are made of teflon. Look
who's arming IRAN right now and who we (the US) still continue to do
business with anyway.....gotta keep the world going 'round now don't we?

B Easy
June 23, 2006, 05:19 PM
Gopguy, the anti-war "he doesn't have WMDs!" crowd doesn't care about whether or not he has WMDs, IMO.

They're against any and all violent conflicts, even in self preservation.

Saddam could have been farting Tabun and Soman, and they still would find something else to complain about. :)

DunedinDragon
June 24, 2006, 11:19 AM
Believe me when I say that I'm thankful our armor and medical care are far
better than Vietnam --otherwise we would have a similar KIA. But you can't
measure "success" by our losses. You understand that I'm sure, but I get
tired of people who have no clue yet still harp that our casualties are
"not that bad." But, yeah, win a war "by making the other SOB die for his
country." However, there has to be a point to it since war is suppose to be
a means to an end. What is that "end" in Iraq? It keeps getting changed
every few months, doesn't it?


You might do yourself a favor by reading fewer liberal-press books about Vn and more time talking with folks that were really there.

Of course success isn't measured by losses, mistakes are. I think you left out a few essential ingredients other than armor and medical care that have lead to "less mistakes" (i.e. less casualties) in Iraq. Things like better armament, better intelligence, better electronic warfare, better targetting systems, better warfare strategies...but most importantly the one thing you've had that we didn't is a Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of Defense that have the guts and resolve to run the war based on what their commanders and feet on the ground are telling them we need to do to win, not what the polls are telling them about their popularity.

As a military man I am a combatant. I may have my political views which I'm entitled to, but that has nothing to do with my mission at hand. Tell me you want me to win a war, I'll win that war whether I believe in it or not because that's my job. All I ask of the politicians is that they stand behind me and give me what I need to win it. Don't vascilate one day to the next about whether or not you want me there. Let me do my job. That, my friend, is what YOU have that I didn't.

When you hear the term that Vn was a political war, it means that the politicians dictated war strategies and rules of engagements that would be most beneficial in maintaining their polls and reducing negative press. It would not have done us any good to have cruise missiles in Vn although we could have used them quite effectively, we weren't allowed to bomb the NVR due to the effect it would have on the polls at home. You are lucky to have someone at the top that realizes to win any conflict you let the "wild horses run." The people in the field will tell you what they need to win. THAT'S why you have less "mistakes" as measured by personnel losses.

Of course there's no doubt that the Domino Effect was nonsense. We know that now, but at the time, given the furor over socialism and the advances it had made, it seemed logical. We are all wise men in retrospect, but that doesn't make it a lie. A lie by definition is intentionally telling an untruth..something like what Clinton did with Monika and the blue stained dress. Bush made his case based on the intelligence he and numerous other countries had and agreed with the analysis on. That is not a lie. It may have been a misinterpretation, it may not have been. We'll know over time. If you can show ANY EVIDENCE he had information that suggested there were not WMD's there and intentionally mislead us, then THAT would be a lie. But so far all you and the liberal press have are conspiracy theories...not evidence. A lie is what Saddam said when he told the world in 1998 he had destroyed ALL his WMD capability. We know now for a FACT that was a lie.

Most importantly in terms of the Vn to Iraq comparison, we were not fighting an enemy that had sworn to destroy us and had demonstrated it numerous times by attacking the US and US interests world-wide. The Vn had ZERO interest in the US until we went there in conjunction with the French, and once we left they again returned to caring less about us. That is hardly the same situation. Do you really think that the terrorists in Iraq will lose interest in continuing to harm the US and US interests if we leave? Do you really think they will "play nice" with the elected government or will they be more likely to try to establish more of a Taliban-like system of government (I can't wait to open up trade with them)? Do you think Iraq and the whole of the middle-east and the world will be MORE or LESS stable if we withdraw and allow things to take their natural course? The difference here is the ENEMY and the nature and drive of that enemy to do us harm. THAT is a HUGE difference. Thank God we have a leader with the resolve to stick it out.

I can't believe you would suggest we simply provide training and air support to Iraq in a discussion regarding Iraq and Vn. How do you think we got ourselves into Vn in the first place under Kennedy? :banghead:

I agree with you on one thing. Let's learn from our past mistakes. And in that vein let's not let a bunch of liberal-leaning bleeding hearts who are the same one's that would suggest if we remove all guns we will remove all violence tell us what the right thing to do is in a war. War isn't pretty, but sometimes it's necessary. I agree that Vn was probably never necessary, but that wasn't what lost that war. We lost that war based on a lack of resolve to win.

Instead of reading your magazines and books on the subject, why don't you take this post down to your local VFW and ask each one of the Vn vets if everything I've said here isn't true. Maybe then you can overcome your indoctrination by the US socialist press.

Thin Black Line
June 26, 2006, 10:12 AM
You might do yourself a favor by reading fewer liberal-press books about Vn and more time talking with folks that were really there.

BTDT. I also know there are Vn vets who might be more vocal about the
policies and manipulations of information which led to the misuse of soldiers
in Iraq, but they would be put into the position of "If you can't support
the reasons for the war in Iraq, you can't support the troops." This is
a known fallacy for those capable of abstract throught, but it goes to
show the level of administrative public mastery when such people are
efficiently put into check. I can appreciate this level of ability even if
I don't like it.

As far as getting the right equipment and listening to the cdrs and "boots
on the ground." Are you serious? It was pressure from the *families*
--especially the NG-- that got IBA for each soldier and armor for the vehicles.
I've responded to equipment issues on previous threads. I wish I could say
more but then opsec would come into play.

Of course there's no doubt that the Domino Effect was nonsense. We know that now, but at the time, given the furor over socialism and the advances it had made, it seemed logical. We are all wise men in retrospect, but that doesn't make it a lie. A lie by definition is intentionally telling an untruth.

Purposeful omission of critical relevant information from key people who vote
on policies is manipulation intended for a specific outcome. When those
omitting are also the same ones spouting only one side of what turned
out to be questionable information, there are those who would call that a lie.
They were aware of both sides, yet publicly only picked one. That's normally
called a "lie by omission."

I can't believe you would suggest we simply provide training and air support to Iraq in a discussion regarding Iraq and Vn. How do you think we got ourselves into Vn in the first place under Kennedy?

So how long do you suggest we should garrision Iraq and keep them as our
protectorate? Ten more years? 50? Do we wait until there is peace in
the ME when there has never been peace in the ME? :banghead: We
have provided security for far too long in Europe as it is.

Instead of reading your magazines and books on the subject,

I acknowledge hindsight by authors who could be tainted by bias, but that
does not undo the predictions made by those controlling policy at the
time:

1965.... We should be aware that deployments of the kind I have recommended will not guarantee success.

Please note throughout my entire post history that I am still in favor of
going after terrorists. It can be argued this could be done without large
scale invasions. Likewise, long-term foreign occupation is another matter
entirely. The US can protect itself while not taking on the burdens of
a British-style Empire where the sun never sets on our flag. Let's not
repeat the brit's mistake. Let's set up fortress America where we secure
our own borders.

Master Blaster
June 26, 2006, 12:08 PM
Here is an excerpt from the NIE that folks in Congress got to see, Its from a cached CIA webpage:

Key Judgments
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs
Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

Baghdad hides large portions of Iraq's WMD efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information.

Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.


Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled.

Iraq largely has rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.

Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.

Although Saddam probably does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them.
How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.


If Baghdad acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year.

Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until the last half of the decade.

Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain proscribed high-strength aluminum tubes are of significant concern. All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program. Most intelligence specialists assess this to be the intended use, but some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs.


Based on tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire, a few tens of thousands of centrifuges would be capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a couple of weapons per year.

Baghdad has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Its capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections and is probably more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf war, although VX production and agent storage life probably have been improved.


Saddam probably has stocked a few hundred metric tons of CW agents.

The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs, artillery rockets, and projectiles, and probably possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored, extended-range Scuds.
All key aspects—R&D, production, and weaponization—of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf wa</b>r.


Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives, including potentially against the US Homeland.

Baghdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability, which includes mobile facilities; these facilities can evade detection, are highly survivable, and can exceed the production rates Iraq had prior to the Gulf war.
Iraq maintains a small missile force and several development programs, including for a UAV that most analysts believe probably is intended to deliver biological warfare agents.


Gaps in Iraqi accounting to UNSCOM suggest that Saddam retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud-variant SRBMs with ranges of 650 to 900 km.

Iraq is deploying its new al-Samoud and Ababil-100 SRBMs, which are capable of flying beyond the UN-authorized 150-km range limit.

Baghdad's UAVs—especially if used for delivery of chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents—could threaten Iraq's neighbors, US forces in the Persian Gulf, and the United States if brought close to, or into, the US Homeland.

Iraq is developing medium-range ballistic missile capabilities, largely through foreign assistance in building specialized facilities.


Discussion
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs
In April 1991, the UN Security Council enacted Resolution 687 requiring Iraq to declare, destroy, or render harmless its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) arsenal and production infrastructure under UN or International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision. UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 687 also demanded that Iraq forgo the future development or acquisition of WMD.

Baghdad's determination to hold onto a sizeable remnant of its WMD arsenal, agents, equipment, and expertise has led to years of dissembling and obstruction of UN inspections. Elite Iraqi security services orchestrated an extensive concealment and deception campaign to hide incriminating documents and material that precluded resolution of key issues pertaining to its WMD programs.


Iraqi obstructions prompted the Security Council to pass several subsequent resolutions demanding that Baghdad comply with its obligations to cooperate with the inspection process and to provide United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and IAEA officials immediate and unrestricted access to any site they wished to inspect.

Although outwardly maintaining the facade of cooperation, Iraqi officials frequently denied or substantially delayed access to facilities, personnel, and documents in an effort to conceal critical information about Iraq's WMD programs.
Successive Iraqi declarations on Baghdad's pre-Gulf war WMD programs gradually became more accurate between 1991 and 1998, but only because of sustained pressure from UN sanctions, Coalition military force, and vigorous and robust inspections facilitated by information from cooperative countries. Nevertheless, Iraq never has fully accounted for major gaps and inconsistencies in its declarations and has provided no credible proof that it has completely destroyed its weapons stockpiles and production infrastructure.


UNSCOM inspection activities and Coalition military strikes destroyed most of its prohibited ballistic missiles and some Gulf war-era chemical and biological munitions, but Iraq still has a small force of extended-range Scud-variant missiles, chemical precursors, biological seed stock, and thousands of munitions suitable for chemical and biological agents.

Iraq has preserved and in some cases enhanced the infrastructure and expertise necessary for WMD production and has used that capability to maintain a stockpile of WMD and to increase its size and sophistication in some areas.

UN Security Council Resolutions and Provisions for Inspections and Monitoring: Theory and Practice

Resolution Requirement
Reality

Res. 687 (3 April 1991) Requires Iraq to declare, destroy, remove, or render harmless under UN or IAEA supervision and not to use, develop, construct, or acquire all chemical and biological weapons, all ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150 km, and all nuclear weapons-usable material, including related material, equipment, and facilities. The resolution also formed the Special Commission and authorized the IAEA to carry out immediate on-site inspections of WMD-related facilities based on Iraq's declarations and UNSCOM's designation of any additional locations.
Baghdad refused to declare all parts of each WMD program, submitted several declarations as part of its aggressive efforts to deny and deceive inspectors, and ensured that certain elements of the program would remain concealed. The prohibition against developing delivery platforms with ranges greater than 150 km allowed Baghdad to research and develop shorter-range systems with applications for longer-range systems and did not affect Iraqi efforts to convert full-size aircraft into unmanned aerial vehicles as potential WMD delivery systems with ranges far beyond 150 km.

Res. 707 (15 August 1991) Requires Iraq to allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to any site they wish to inspect. Demands Iraq provide full, final, and complete disclosure of all aspects of its WMD programs; cease immediately any attempt to conceal, move, or destroy WMD-related material or equipment; allow UNSCOM and IAEA teams to use fixed-wing and helicopter flights throughout Iraq; and respond fully, completely, and promptly to any Special Commission questions or requests.
Baghdad in 1996 negotiated with UNSCOM Executive Chairman Ekeus modalities that it used to delay inspections, to restrict to four the number of inspectors allowed into any site Baghdad declared as "sensitive," and to prohibit them altogether from sites regarded as sovereign. These modalities gave Iraq leverage over individual inspections. Iraq eventually allowed larger numbers of inspectors into such sites but only after lengthy negotiations at each site.

Res. 715 (11 October 1991) Requires Iraq to submit to UNSCOM and IAEA long-term monitoring of Iraqi WMD programs; approved detailed plans called for in UNSCRs 687 and 707 for long-term monitoring.
Iraq generally accommodated UN monitors at declared sites but occasionally obstructed access and manipulated monitoring cameras. UNSCOM and IAEA monitoring of Iraq's WMD programs does not have a specified end date under current UN resolutions.

Res. 1051 (27 March 1996) Established the Iraqi export/import monitoring system, requiring UN members to provide IAEA and UNSCOM with information on materials exported to Iraq that may be applicable to WMD production, and requiring Iraq to report imports of all dual-use items.
Iraq is negotiating contracts for procuring—outside of UN controls—dual-use items with WMD applications. The UN lacks the staff needed to conduct thorough inspections of goods at Iraq's borders and to monitor imports inside Iraq.

Res. 1060 (12 June 1996) and Resolutions 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, and 1205. Demands that Iraq cooperate with UNSCOM and allow inspection teams immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to facilities for inspection and access to Iraqi officials for interviews. UNSCR 1137 condemns Baghdad's refusal to allow entry to Iraq to UNSCOM officials on the grounds of their nationality and its threats to the safety of UN reconnaissance aircraft.
Baghdad consistently sought to impede and limit UNSCOM's mission in Iraq by blocking access to numerous facilities throughout the inspection process, often sanitizing sites before the arrival of inspectors and routinely attempting to deny inspectors access to requested sites and individuals. At times, Baghdad would promise compliance to avoid consequences, only to renege later.

Res. 1154 (2 March 1998) Demands that Iraq comply with UNSCOM and IAEA inspections and endorses the Secretary General's memorandum of understanding with Iraq, providing for "severest consequences" if Iraq fails to comply.

Res. 1194 (9 September 1998) Condemns Iraq's decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA.

Res. 1205 (5 November 1998) Condemns Iraq's decision to cease cooperation with UNSCOM.
UNSCOM could not exercise its mandate without Iraqi compliance. Baghdad refused to work with UNSCOM and instead negotiated with the Secretary General, whom it believed would be more sympathetic to Iraq's needs.

Res. 1284 (17 December 1999) Established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), replacing UNSCOM; and demanded that Iraq allow UNMOVIC teams immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all aspects of Iraq's WMD program.
Iraq repeatedly has rejected the return of UN arms inspectors and claims that it has satisfied all UN resolutions relevant to disarmament. Compared with UNSCOM, 1284 gives the UNMOVIC chairman less authority, gives the Security Council a greater role in defining key disarmament tasks, and requires that inspectors be full-time UN employees.



Since December 1998, Baghdad has refused to allow UN inspectors into Iraq as required by the Security Council resolutions. Technical monitoring systems installed by the UN at known and suspected WMD and missile facilities in Iraq no longer operate. Baghdad prohibits Security Council-mandated monitoring overflights of Iraqi facilities by UN aircraft and helicopters. Similarly, Iraq has curtailed most IAEA inspections since 1998, allowing the IAEA to visit annually only a very small number of sites to safeguard Iraq's stockpile of uranium oxide.

In the absence of inspectors, Baghdad's already considerable ability to work on prohibited programs without risk of discovery has increased, and there is substantial evidence that Iraq is reconstituting prohibited programs. Baghdad's vigorous concealment efforts have meant that specific information on many aspects of Iraq's WMD programs is yet to be uncovered. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information.


Limited insight into activities since 1998 clearly show that Baghdad has used the absence of UN inspectors to repair and expand dual-use and dedicated missile-development facilities and to increase its ability to produce WMD.
Nuclear Weapons Program
More than ten years of sanctions and the loss of much of Iraq's physical nuclear infrastructure under IAEA oversight have not diminished Saddam's interest in acquiring or developing nuclear weapons.


Iraq's efforts to procure tens of thousands of proscribed high-strength aluminum tubes are of significant concern. All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program. Most intelligence specialists assess this to be the intended use, but some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs.
Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program before the Gulf war that focused on building an implosion-type weapon using highly enriched uranium. Baghdad was attempting a variety of uranium enrichment techniques, the most successful of which were the electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS) and gas centrifuge programs. After its invasion of Kuwait, Iraq initiated a crash program to divert IAEA-safeguarded, highly enriched uranium from its Soviet and French-supplied reactors,but the onset of hostilities ended this effort. Iraqi declarations and the UNSCOM/IAEA inspection process revealed much of Iraq's nuclear weapons efforts, but Baghdad still has not provided complete information on all aspects of its nuclear weapons program.


Iraq has withheld important details relevant to its nuclear program, including procurement logs, technical documents, experimental data, accounting of materials, and foreign assistance.

Here is the rest http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=access+to+the+NIE+before+Iraq&ei=UTF-8&fr=my-vert-web-top&x=wrt&u=www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm&w=access+nie+before+iraq&d=MTtjdDmtM_v1&icp=1&.intl=us

carebear
June 26, 2006, 01:12 PM
Reading that I am reminded that, although Iraq may not actually have had the materials and equipment they were claimed to have had in the intelligence briefs presented by the administration, they sure acted like they did.

They did violate almost all the UN resolutions and restrictions on access and, as inspectors demanded more access to the few remaining uninspected sites, got more and more intransigent and belligerant in their refusals and less and less discreet in suspicious activities and outright violations, such as the enforced delays while inspectors noted trucks moving stuff out of inspection sites and locking SAM radars onto our aircraft.

In essence, they may have been "innocent" of actually having WMD anymore but they did their level best to appear guilty. Which makes it a bit more understandable (if not actually excusable) why, given equivocal evidence, many chose to err (whether by commission or ommission) on the side of the worst case scenario.

TCB in TN
June 26, 2006, 02:19 PM
TBL,
I can't say I agree with your opinion on this issue but mostly I do understand your reasoning, but what is this

"The US can protect itself while not taking on the burdens of a British-style Empire where the sun never sets on our flag. Let's not repeat the brit's mistake."

Where has colonization ever been discussed? Comparing the conflict in Iraq to the British colonization of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries is absurd. Exactly what parrallels do you think exist?

As I have said before I believe the regime change in Iraq will prove to be a great tactical decision for the US in the War on Terror. Iraq has become the focal point of most of the Islamic terrorists, drawing them from all over the middle east as well as other parts of the world. This makes US civilian citizens safer, and brings the targets to the US military rather than the other way around. And you mentioned living conditions in Iraq, well most of the reports I have seen have actually said that conditions are improved from before the War started. Everything I have read says that the infrastrure is much improved. The media highlights certain problem examples but overall the news coming from Iraq points towards much improvement.

GTSteve03
June 26, 2006, 02:25 PM
Iraq has become the focal point of most of the Islamic terrorists, drawing them from all over the middle east as well as other parts of the world.
Yep, ever since the invasion I haven't heard anything about Islamic terrorists in:

-Palestine
-Afghanistan
-Somalia
-Indonesia
-oh yeah, and Florida

Way to go with that consolidation plan!

yucaipa
June 26, 2006, 04:09 PM
And after Pearl Harbor in the name of fighting a world war, we invaded North Africa, Italy, and Normandy which caused fighting to brake out in France, Belgium, and Germany. I guess you think we are making the same mistake over again ?

GTSteve03
June 26, 2006, 04:34 PM
And after Pearl Harbor in the name of fighting a world war, we invaded North Africa, Italy, and Normandy which caused fighting to brake out in France, Belgium, and Germany. I guess you think we are making the same mistake over again ?
There's so many things wrong with this comparison I don't know where to begin.

Fighting was already going on in France, Belgium and other parts of Europe as they had been attacked/subjugated by Germany.

Our plans eventually entailed invading all the places you listed. I don't see us planning on invading all the places I listed, but knowing George the Younger, I wouldn't put it past him.

Oh yeah, and our strategy in WWII wasn't to invade North Africa in hopes of all the Nazis leaving Europe to attack us. :rolleyes:

yucaipa
June 26, 2006, 04:46 PM
How about this then, we are fighting a world war if the bad guys show up in Iraq and we kill them that's good.

If they show up in other country that doesn't mean what's going on in Iraq is wrong.

Thin Black Line
June 26, 2006, 04:53 PM
Where has colonization ever been discussed? Comparing the conflict in Iraq to the British colonization of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries is absurd.

A garrison and a colony are two different things. I certainly did not bring
up a permanent colony in Iraq. I guess, though, we'll have to see how
many US civilians are still working in Iraq a few years from now. How many
does it take to make a "colony"? 800? 8,000? 80,000?

Maybe it takes millions since 13,000,000 illegal foreigners in this country
don't seem to count as a colony....Calling Fortress America? Hello? (Knock-
knock) Who left the door open to the Fort so foreign colonies could start in
my back yard while I was staffing "our" garrison in Iraq?

Now THAT situation is ABSURD. :fire:

And after Pearl Harbor in the name of fighting a world war, we invaded North Africa, Italy, and Normandy which caused fighting to brake out in France, Belgium, and Germany. I guess you think we are making the same mistake over again ?

The pertinent issue here is Iraq and the justification to the American people
for its invasion. Many people feel our involvement was completely justified
in regards to Afghanistan since it could be stated that the Taleban were
shielding OBL. These were two different countries/situations and they
should not be lumped together. This isn't even akin to the alliance of
Nazi Germany and Japan back in WWII. But, if we want to go after where
the 911 terrorists and their financiers were, then we should have gone south
from Kuwait rather than north, right?

We had a blank check when it came to dealing with Afghanistan post 911, but we've more than overdrawn on that account due to Iraq. We've
literally p'ed it away in the sand. Now anytime WMDs come up in another
country it has the effect of the little boy crying "wolf" every night.

yucaipa
June 26, 2006, 05:27 PM
This isn't even akin to the alliance of
Nazi Germany and Japan back in WWII. But, if we want to go after where
the 911 terrorists and their financiers were, then we should have gone south
from Kuwait rather than north, right?


My point wasn't the 'alliance' it was, that was a global/world wide fight and that the smart play in the long term of the big picture isn't always the most popular or make the most sense at first.

Going into SA after 911, I won't hijack the thread, except to say I believe the judgment was made that SA could be taken care of in other ways.



We had a blank check when it came to dealing with Afghanistan post 911, but we've more than overdrawn on that account due to Iraq. We've
literally p'ed it away in the sand. Now anytime WMDs come up in another
country it has the effect of the little boy crying "wolf" every night.


We could have put more into Afghanistan but they do have elected central government, weak but getting better slowly, AF is a moderate Muslim government that is on good terms with Pakistan, which helps Mousharif (sp) with the moderates in his country against the Radicals.

We have troops on both borders of Iran, and don't think a day goes by that they don't know it.

This is an extremely complicated global chess game with fighting when needed.

President Bush's record has not been prefect, but when I some of these statements by the 'I hate Bush, he's an idiot' crowd its just cracks me up.





















[/QUOTE]

TCB in TN
June 26, 2006, 05:41 PM
TBL, I am with you on the 10+ million illegals in the US, but as for the whole

"We had a blank check when it came to dealing with Afghanistan post 911, but we've more than overdrawn on that account due to Iraq. We've
literally p'ed it away in the sand. Now anytime WMDs come up in another
country it has the effect of the little boy crying "wolf" every night."

The only reason that is an issue is the media's willingness to forget Clinton's intellegence reports and the statements of the UN's leadership. The UN acknowledged that WMDs were in Iraq, but the Leftists and Liberals cannot remember that and point only to Bush's lies. In fact the UN spoke and spoke about the danger to the whole world, that was posed by Iraq, and yet did nothing. So the only people with whom we have lost credability, are those who are either to ignorant to be informed about the truth or who have lost the right to have an opinion to begin with.
:banghead:

Ryder
June 26, 2006, 06:03 PM
Why do I keep hearing that more than 3000 americans were killed on 9-11? Isn't that a falsehood? Weren't most of those killed that day inside the WTC and weren't the majority of those foreigners?

longeyes
June 26, 2006, 06:31 PM
Maybe it takes millions since 13,000,000 illegal foreigners in this country
don't seem to count as a colony....Calling Fortress America? Hello? (Knock-
knock) Who left the door open to the Fort so foreign colonies could start in
my back yard while I was staffing "our" garrison in Iraq?

Now THAT situation is ABSURD.

+100

carebear
June 26, 2006, 11:27 PM
Why do I keep hearing that more than 3000 americans were killed on 9-11? Isn't that a falsehood? Weren't most of those killed that day inside the WTC and weren't the majority of those foreigners?

The World Trade Center wasn't the UN, it was just a commercial office building.

Almost everyone who worked in it and the surroundings were American citizen office types.

Art Eatman
June 26, 2006, 11:49 PM
Enuf drift...

If you enjoyed reading about "These aren't the WMD you were looking for......" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!