These aren't the WMD you were looking for......
- Thread starter hillbilly
- Start date
- Status
Sylvan-Forge
Member
We are getting good at arming our future enemies.
We gave Iraq WMDs to deal with Iran/USSR.
We gave Iraq WMDs to deal with Iran/USSR.
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.
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?
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
Member
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
Member
No kidding? So if we gave him the WMD, then we are the more responsible for recovering it, right?
Of course.
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.
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.
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" 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.
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" 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
Member
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/
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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
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
Member
Scratch the "We" just can't seem...
I should say "our fearless leaders" instead.
I should say "our fearless leaders" instead.
Hkmp5sd
Member
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.
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.
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.
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
Member.
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.
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
Member
Not exactly a diplomatic statement, but more accurate than anything else I have seen about Iraq.
GoRon
Member
Apropos,
Eleven Mike
Member
Monkeyleg and Mr. Friedman, well said.
Sylvan-Forge
Member
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.
When a country attacks us, we should go in there and lay the smack-down on em.
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.
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****!
By this time we should have been giving the middle-east the finger.
North Korea, China, Iran, Ad Nauseum..likewise.
Ok .. rant off.
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.
When a country attacks us, we should go in there and lay the smack-down on em.
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.
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****!
By this time we should have been giving the middle-east the finger.
North Korea, China, Iran, Ad Nauseum..likewise.
Ok .. rant off.
GTSteve03
Member
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.
Eleven Mike
Member
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.
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.
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
Member
Dittos to Monkey Leg
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!
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!
- Status
