403-3

[ShadowTemplar]

Well, the first two are from government agencies. Which aren't kinda what I'd call independent. The last is just a transcript from the UN hearings on the issue. I remember those. They weren't convincing then, either.

[StaffSaberist]

What's so unconvincing about that last one? You have a recording of them speaking freely about their programs. It would take a lot of work to fake that. Then, you would have to bribe the voice actors to not tell anybody about it. Then, they'd have to explain where the money came from. The fakery wouldn't last very long, esp. with the media poking it's nose into anything and everything that could potentially make W look bad.

[ShadowTemplar]

Not exactly. They are clearly talking about maintaining operational security on something. Big deal. Operational security isn't illegal. Having instruction manuals that contain the words 'nerve agents' isn't illegal. Making sure you actually have scrapped the weapons you say you've scrapped seems like a prudent thing to do.

[StaffSaberist]

 

Ah, W, you had to go and say it. I personally believe there were WMD's, but President Bush seems to have said there aren't. I found this:

 

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq," he told a foreign policy forum on the eve of elections to establish Iraq’s first permanent, democratically elected government.

 

"And I’m also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we’re doing just that."

 

Source]

 

OK, what does that say? To you, it'll be an admission of guilt of a crime. To me, if he's wrong about this and I'm correct, then he knows there were WMD's and is trying to cover his tracks to keep himself out of an obvious political trap. If he's right, then he's guilty of no more than being wrong.

 

A little later on in the article:

 

"We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of brutal dictator," he said.

 

"It is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in his place.

 

Umm.... no.

 

We did go in originally because Saddaam didn't take our "regime change" threats seriously. And because we believed he had WMD's. W never said anything about the Iraqi people. BUT, as long as we were in Iraq, it was certainly a required thing to do, since if we hadn't pitched in, there would have been civil war.

 

It no longer matters what I think. W has just said there was a mistake in the intelligence. That makes what I say on the WMD matter a moot argument.

 

As for the Iraqi Freedom: Not the original plan, like I said, but that was a given when we decapitated their power chain. Now, the troops are being slowly pulled out of Iraq, elections are up and walking (It'll take time to be up and running), and thus the war is ending. Wow. This discussion doesn't have much time to live, does it?

[rccar328]

When it gets right down to it, we had all kinds of reasons to go to war. WMD was reason #1, and it hasn't panned out (to the point, as StaffSaberist pointed out, that the President admitted that the intelligence was wrong). I've heard various theories about where the alleged WMD may be, if they are still around somewhere (everything from being burried somewhere in the Iraqi desert to being hidden in Syria, both of which are plausible yet unproven and therefore not really worth arguing over). However, there were other reasons:

 

-Saddam had been violating UN resolutions for around 12 years, and the resolution just prior to the war threatened the use of force...so, really, the US backed up the UN's resolution when Iraq started monkeying around with the weapons inspections. The fact that the UN Security Council refused to authorize military action isn't really indicative of anything positive on the UN's part, or anything negative on the part of President Bush - the Oil for Food investigation and other evidence has shown that some of the main opposition to the war from the Security Council had financial interests in Iraq, in violation of UN sanctions.

 

-Saddam was supporting terrorism. Documents obtained after the invasion of Iraq show that around 8,000 terrorists were trained in Iraqi training camps between 1999 and 2002 (at a rate of about 2,000 per year). This information has been gleaned from a collection of around 5 million 'exploitable items' - documents and so forth, about 2.5% of which have been examined closely.

 

-Saddam's regime terrorized its own people. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago, another mass grave was unearthed, this one in Kerbala (there have been other mass graves discovered in other areas). US forces have also found evidence (some cases of which have been brought up in testimony in Saddam's trial) of Iraqis being abducted and tortured, people being executed by inserting them into wood-chippers, and other gruesome acts.

 

I could probably go on, but I don't have time right now...and frankly, I think these reasons are more than enough.

[StaffSaberist]

Hey, nice to see you, rccar! I'm not going to waste thread space by saying "I agree" "Right on", etc. You already know I agree. Let me just say a few things.

 

About the first link: It may seem a little biased, but the same reporter has covered stories that don't shed very good light on the President's administration, like here. So he doesn't just support the President blindly. This fact adds weight to the first story, making it more plausible.

 

About the second link: Even if your second link was complete fiction, which it's not, there are tons of mass graves across Iraq, and we already knew he terrorized his people. ShadowTemplar has said as much:

 

Hussein was a git, to be sure...

 

So sadly, no new info there other than applying it to 'Why going into Iraq was a good thing'.

 

As for the WMD's, I don't care what W says. IMO he said there were no WMD's because it saves face, rather than saying "But they were right here! They... unh! They were there, but they're gone!" Both strategies cause a dip in his approval rating, but the latter does much more damage than the former.

 

So! Here's my take on this. rccar was right when he said

 

I've heard various theories about where the alleged WMD may be, if they are still around somewhere (everything from being burried somewhere in the Iraqi desert to being hidden in Syria, both of which are plausible yet unproven and therefore not really worth arguing over)

.

 

Of course, I won't argue about where they are. If I knew, I'd be getting a new job... like CIA director. Or proven-to-be-true psychic. But since I'm not psychic, all I can say is that I believe they are still out there. They were moved. Saddaam may have been evil, but certainly not the kind of stupid criminal you hear about from Jay Leno on the Tonight Show. He knew the UN was watching him. A sudden stockpile of WMDs would have gotten even the UN to go into Iraq. But no, no, Saddaam isn't foolish. If he had at least 3/4 of a brain, he'd ship them off to a secret bunker, or a series of them. He can't use them because he's in prison. Everyone else who knew about them may be dead, such as Saddaam's sons.

 

I'd go on, but I'll save it for later. I'm having a bit of fun, here.

[El Sitherino]

Except it'd be impossible to hide the weapons, considering all the eyes watching. It's kind of hard to miss a nuclear warhead, especially the kinds Iraq would/could have/afford.

 

Also your points about America's health issues are disgustingly wrong. I suggest you learn about a topic before you try to bull**** your way through it.

 

As for Guantanamo Bay, I don't know what kind of crap you've been told, but they hardly recieve adequate care. And considering the majority of the people being held there are only suspected of possible connections I think there's something quite wrong. As for quality of food and care, again, I don't know what you've been told, but it's obviously not the truth if you wish you got the food they get.

 

And you mention something about "how would I know they don't have a warrant". If you knew anything about law (which you should be learning in school) you'd know that when police raid your house/business/etc. they are to present the warrant immediately. So chances are if they just bust in and start shooting, they don't have a warrant.

 

Your second part was "isn't that a concern for my attorney", you neglect the fact that they aren't allowed an attorney.

[TK-8252]

About the first link: It may seem a little biased, but the same reporter has covered stories that don't shed very good light on the President's administration, like here. So he doesn't just support the President blindly. This fact adds weight to the first story, making it more plausible.

 

I'm hesitant to trust the Neo-Con Standard Weekly Standard, which seems to site its source for the article as nothing more than "some Bush Admin dudes," over that of other sources. The National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the 9/11 Commission all denied a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Remember, Saddam and Osama are bitter enemies, so this idea that Saddam, a secularist, would be helping out Osama, his enemy, to promote the most radical elements of islam, just doesn't make sense to me.

[StaffSaberist]

Except it'd be impossible to hide the weapons, considering all the eyes watching. It's kind of hard to miss a nuclear warhead, especially the kinds Iraq would/could have/afford.

 

The UN believed that there were WMDs in Iraq. They even told Saddam if he didn't cooperate, a regime change was in order. The only problem was the UN didn't have the *ahem* to back up their words. We did.

 

Also your points about America's health issues are disgustingly wrong. I suggest you learn about a topic before you try to bull**** your way through it.

 

You're probably right. I don't know all that much about the health care system. The comments on health care caught me by surprise, and I had to scramble on that one. So yeah, I did BS my way through parts of it. But I'm not kidding about the fact that most or all of Americans who have health care earned it. They didn't just laze around waiting for the liberals to take pity. If they're handicapped and can't work, that's one thing. But my beef is with those who don't work for it.

 

And healthcare isn't the topic, is it?

 

As for Guantanamo Bay, I don't know what kind of crap you've been told, but they hardly recieve adequate care. And considering the majority of the people being held there are only suspected of possible connections I think there's something quite wrong. As for quality of food and care, again, I don't know what you've been told, but it's obviously not the truth if you wish you got the food they get.

 

You could have said just as much without the flamebait. But I'm not foolish enough to attack a super moderator. I'll simply say this: The prisoners may not be treated like royalty, and there were a few cases of a Abu Grahib repeat, but those responsible for it were tried in court and convicted, IIRC. They are not cruelly treated or denied life-giving resources. I read through most of the sites that claim cruel treatment. They come across as whiners who want to ensure that we walk on cracked eggs and don't go so far as to hurt their feelings. Probably because if they did go to Guantanamo, they were intimidated by the looks they were given by prisoners.

 

Oh, and the food at our local schools is crap. I've seen people gag on it. OK, here's the list of what is served what at Guantanamo. I agree it's no gormet meal or cuisine, but it certainly is enough to sustain life. If you think otherwise, you don't know what it's like to be dirt-poor.

 

Breakfast - typically bread, cream cheese, an orange, a pastry, a roll, a bottle of water

 

Lunch - typically a box of cereal, two cereal bars, a packet of peanuts, one packet crisps, one packet raisins, a bottle of water

 

Evening meal - typically white rice, red beans, a banana, bread, a bottle of water.

 

Again, no I wouldn't prefer this feeding regiment. But it can sustain life, you can live of less if need be. And in all prisons, some detained are innocent and released when they are found Not Guilty. People accused of grand theft auto, for example, spend time in jail even if found innocent later, because they may be a flight risk. The Army doesn't go around arresting people all willy-nilly.

 

And you mention something about "how would I know they don't have a warrant". If you knew anything about law (which you should be learning in school) you'd know that when police raid your house/business/etc. they are to present the warrant immediately. So chances are if they just bust in and start shooting, they don't have a warrant.

 

If I was the next-door neighbor, chances are that I wouldn't be able to see inside and see the action. If the cops bust in and the suspect is armed and pointing the gun at the cops, hell yeah they'd shoot. That's their job if it comes down to his-life-or-yours. And cops do bust down doors to arrest people that are known to have guns. That way they are startled and don't have time to arm themselves. So if I saw that happen, it could be police brutality to the extreme, but it could just as easily be an armed suspect.

 

Your second part was "isn't that a concern for my attorney", you neglect the fact that they aren't allowed an attorney.

 

In Guantanamo, no. But in the example, yes. Oh, BTW, I'm not going to law school, FYI. I'm no lawyer.

 

I'm hesitant to trust the Neo-Con Standard Weekly Standard, which seems to site its source for the article as nothing more than "some Bush Admin dudes," over that of other sources. The National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the 9/11 Commission all denied a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Remember, Saddam and Osama are bitter enemies, so this idea that Saddam, a secularist, would be helping out Osama, his enemy, to promote the most radical elements of islam, just doesn't make sense to me.

 

When I said it added weight, I didn't mean it was the only article that mattered. I know it isn't all that great for a source, but it does assist a little in making a point. It's like a pistol is good at firing, but an AK-47 (such as using three different sources) gets the job done better.

[toms]

The UN believed that there were WMDs in Iraq. They even told Saddam if he didn't cooperate, a regime change was in order. The only problem was the UN didn't have the *ahem* to back up their words. We did.

 

This seems to be a very common misconception.

 

The UN believed that the Weapons inspections were working to prevent the Iraqis from producing WMDs, thats why they wanted to continue them.

 

The weapons inspectors believed that they were doing their job, and should be allowed to continue. Though the CIA undermining their mission didn't help.

 

The only evidence that there was that saddam did have WMDs came from the US intelligence agencies, and that has since been proven to be horrendously researched, badly over-inflated and based purely on ancedotal evidence from anti-saddam people who had a vested interest in getting him removed.

 

Even then, the WMDs that were talked about were battlefield WMDs that might be deployed against invading troops (ie defensive) not ones that could be deployed against anyone on foreign soil. And since not a single one was actually used for defense its pretty certain even those didn't exist.

 

The UN was (rather sensibly imho) reluctant to support unilateral first strikes against any country that we might SUSPECT was doing something wrong. This has subsequently been proven fairly sensible since it turns out all the "evidence" the CIA had was wrong anyway.

 

Going to war to remove saddam might have been justified on human rights grounds, but on the grounds given it was entirely ensible for the UN to resist such a unilateral strike... and entirely illegal for the US and UK to go ahead anyway and undermine the UN in the process.

 

PS/ If, after 4 years imprisonment and questioning, the US still doesn't have the confidence that it has enough evidence to hold the men and children in guantanamo through a proper legal system, it should let them go. What use is a constitution, human rights and a legal system if it can be bypassed by geographical loopholes? ANd how can the US now hold the high ground when pressing for better human rights in other countries, when they can point at guantanamo?

[rccar328]

This is a pretty standard line, I guess - if a news agency comes out with a story that refutes your argument, bring its credibility into question...on the other hand, if the story helps your argument, it doesn't matter how un-credible it is, because in that case, it's not the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge that matters (Rathergate comes to mind...). If that source isn't up to par for you, check out the book 'Disinformation' by Richard Minter. You might learn a thing or two (I did when I read it...).

 

As to the argument about buried WMD...US military forces have found MIG-25 fighter jets (reportedly over 30 of them) buried in the Iraqi desert. If they can hide fighter jets under the sand, who's to say they couldn't hide missiles, or even chemical or biological weapons agents, which take up far less space than jets or missiles? I wasn't saying it was definite, but it is undeniably a possibility.

 

There is also the possibility that the weapons were hidden in Syria. I've heard reports (though I don't know how accurate they are) that Syria has agreed to hide WMD for Iran in exchange for Iran's granting assylum to some Syrians implicated in the murder of the Lebanese PM (Source). If they're willing to do it for Iran, who's to say they didn't already for Iraq?

 

But all of that aside, the purpose of the weapons inspections wasn't to keep the Iraqis from producing weapons, it was to see if the Iraqi government had disposed of the weapons we knew they had after the Gulf War. The last UN resolution on the topic (UN Resolution 1441) told Iraq that they were non-compliant to past resolutions, and if they didn't comply fully, both through forclosure of any and all documents relating to their chemical/bio weapons projects, as well as providing "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates," they would "face serious consequences" (and on a side note: 'more inspections,' 'more sanctions,' and 'pay Saddam off with the Oil-For-Food program' do not count as "serious consequences").

 

To start off with, Saddam tried to bury the UN in paperwork by dumping thousands of documents on them, only some of which related to actual weapons programs. Then, they started monkeying around with the inspections process, both by insisting that 'minders' be present at the interviews with inspectors, and by denying access to areas the inspectors wanted to inspect for periods of time, giving the express impression that they were hiding something in those locations.

 

Basically, Iraq decided they were going to give the UN the finger (yet again), because the UN has proven they don't have the stomach to back up their resolutions with force (there are 9 violated resolutions that I counted listed in Res. 1441, dating back to 1990), and the UN decided they were going to let Iraq get away with it. In Res. 1441, the Security Council reminds Saddam that they have warned Iraq it will 'face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations,' yet Saddam obviously hadn't faced any serious consequences - after all, while the UNSC was shaking its finger at Saddam with one hand, the other hand was making Saddam richer with the Oil-For-Food program. The US and the UK could hardly undermine the UN by going to war with Iraq (besides the fact that it's impossible two nations to make a unilateral strike...and we had and have many more than two nations on our side). The UN was undermining itself by not enforcing its resolutions. If anything, the US gave the UN legitimacy...which the UN then outright refused by speaking out against the invasion, proving the whole organization is nothing but a sham and all of their resolutions are nothing but the world's biggest joke.

[TK-8252]

This is a pretty standard line, I guess - if a news agency comes out with a story that refutes your argument, bring its credibility into question...

 

Well, okay, but the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the 9/11 Commission all say there's no link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. A neo-con magazine that says there is a link doesn't override the claims of official sources.

[StaffSaberist]

No, but rccar just made my day. I'm not going to even bother with debating today, he really brought up points that are fantastic, and proven. And trust me, if I knew about the planes hidden in the sands I'd have brought it up long ago. Anyone can look back on my discussion of 'where the WMDs are' and they'd see that that was an appropriate place to bring this up. But I honest-to-God didn't know that. , rccar!

[SkinWalker]

When it gets right down to it, we had all kinds of reasons to go to war. WMD was reason #1, and it hasn't panned out (to the point, as StaffSaberist pointed out, that the President admitted that the intelligence was wrong). I've heard various theories about where the alleged WMD may be, if they are still around somewhere (everything from being burried somewhere in the Iraqi desert to being hidden in Syria, both of which are plausible yet unproven and therefore not really worth arguing over). However, there were other reasons:

 

The main reason they're not worth arguing over is that science should have been enough to tell us that the alleged "WMDs" (a broad and worthless term by itself) were nonexistent. See previous posts in previous threads by me to see why.

 

-Saddam had been violating UN resolutions for around 12 years, and the resolution just prior to the war threatened the use of force...

 

Which made it a UN problem, not a United States one. One which the UN believed it was acting on with sanctions and inspections, which were working in the opinions of those that were responsible for oversight. Moreover, the United States and Israel have violated numerous UN resolutions: therefore the "UN resolution" argument is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that we invade a sovereign nation because they are a violator of UN resolution any more than it follows that we invade every nation that whose head of state is a dictator/despot.

 

...the Oil for Food investigation and other evidence has shown that some of the main opposition to the war from the Security Council had financial interests in Iraq, in violation of UN sanctions.

 

No it didn't. It demonstrated that a few individuals had financial interests in Iraqi oil, but not the Security Council itself. To state such nonsense is evidence of ignorance or deception. Of course, if you can source that claim -demonstrate that it was the Security Council itself that was benefiting from the corruption that exists in the "Oil for Food" scandal, I'll freely retract my accusation of ignorance or deception.

 

But with regard to oil and corruption, it is clear that the United States interest in Iraq was, indeed, oil and the prevention of Iraqi oil being introduced in the European market, which in turn, would have prompted OPEC to switch from the dollar to the euro in it's currency of choice. In short, the war was about oil.

 

-Saddam was supporting terrorism. Documents obtained after the invasion of Iraq show that around 8,000 terrorists were trained in Iraqi training camps between 1999 and 2002 (at a rate of about 2,000 per year). This information has been gleaned from a collection of around 5 million 'exploitable items' - documents and so forth, about 2.5% of which have been examined closely.

 

Which, number one, is completely unverified information. The author of that article cited no sources except to say that they were "documents retrieved." Where are the documents? If they're this convincing, why has the Bush regime not revealed them as evidence to support his claim that Iraq is a war on terrorism? Even if they're top secret, yada yada yada, surely the President could state that there is epigraphical evidence to support his wild claim. Indeed, if they are super-dooper secret, a hack like Hayes wouldn't have been privy to them. In other words, this is poppycock being promoted by the radical right that wishes to ensure the moderate right buys into the illogical nonsense that this is a war on terror. That untold billions of their tax-dollars aren't being wasted in a war for oil.

 

-Saddam's regime terrorized its own people.

 

So did the governments of Korea, Uganda, Sudan, Chechnya, etc. What's your point? Oh, the "we must attack the despot" non sequitur, eh?

 

I could probably go on,

 

Doubtlessly. In spite of the lack of evidence or logic, there are those that are inclined to believe in all sorts of wierd things. ESP, telepathy, Miss Cleo, UFOs, alien abductions, ghosts, spontaneous human combustion, the validity of the war in iraq, chupacabras, crop circles, that the hollocaust was a hoax, that the moon landing was a hoax, etc., etc.

 

If they can hide fighter jets under the sand, who's to say they couldn't hide missiles, or even chemical or biological weapons agents

 

Science. The shelf life of these weapons is very, very limited and storage must be strictly controlled. It requires power to maintain climate and even then the shelf life is still limited though can be prolonged a few years. Science tells us that the chemicals and biologicals in question would have been long rendered inert by time even before the invasion. But we all understand that the Bush regime is disinterested in science, as is this regime's supporters.

 

This is all characteristic of people who have pre-conceived conclusions and seek only the data, however incomplete or wrong, to support their conclusions.

[rccar328]

Well, okay, but the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the 9/11 Commission all say there's no link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. A neo-con magazine that says there is a link doesn't override the claims of official sources.

For clarification's sake, re-read the article. It does speak explicitly of terrorist training camps in Iraq. Al-Qaida, however, is never brought up. Maybe the Weekly Standard has more credibility than you thought: there was no proof that they were specifically Al-Qaida training camps, so they didn't assert that they were. It does say that "intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis."

 

Try reading the article next time instead of judging it purely on who wrote it...

[SkinWalker]

Reading the article is a waste of time. There are no primary sources cited. There is no validity to the material.

[edlib]

It's highly doubtful that any of those planes would ever fly again. They're scrap.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3116259.stm

It would most likely take a complete strip-down and re-build of all those planes before any pilot would ever think about getting anywhere near one of those fighters. It would take months and millions in parts and labor of a highly skilled maintenance crew to ever hope of getting them operational again. Frankly, it would probably be cheaper and easier to just buy a new air force.

 

Desert sand is one of the most harmful things you can ever expose high tech mechanical systems to,.. perhaps short of leaving them submerged in salt water for an extended length of time.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/AAR.htm

 

Any theoretical missile and rocket systems Iraq might have had buried in the desert would very likely fare little better. It might be easier to protect a rocket or missile from sand getting near it, but special care would need to be taken in the burying and extracting processes.

 

... proving the whole organization is nothing but a sham and all of their resolutions are nothing but the world's biggest joke.

OK,.. but what exactly is the better alternative, pray tell?

Perhaps a bunch of unconnected nation states trying to work out their differences without any kind of international moderation, having to resort to hair trigger military posturing to solve every dispute? Or perhaps forced global hegemony under a power bloc lead by whoever proves themselves biggest and strongest on the world stage?

If we were to disband the U.N. as a failed experiment, what would you propose we replace it with? Or is it just to be "every nation for themselves?"

[TK-8252]

For clarification's sake, re-read the article. It does speak explicitly of terrorist training camps in Iraq. Al-Qaida, however, is never brought up. Maybe the Weekly Standard has more credibility than you thought: there was no proof that they were specifically Al-Qaida training camps, so they didn't assert that they were. It does say that "intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis."

 

Try reading the article next time instead of judging it purely on who wrote it...

 

I did read it, and found these references to al-Qaeda:

 

"Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda..."

 

"Speaking of Ansar al Islam, the al Qaeda-linked terrorist group that operated in northern Iraq..."

 

And that doesn't include the numerous references to 9/11 terrorist training in Iraq, which would also tie in al-Qaeda.

[rccar328]

I apologize: my scanning skills aren't that great. I probably should've worn my glasses...

 

But my inability to pick one word out of almost 3,500 (or 3 words, as it was repeated...) aside, terrorist groups with ties to al-Qaida are not al-Qaida themselves - whether the article mentions al-Qaida or not, it never directly links al-Qaida to Iraq. Furthermore, the article doesn't go to any great lengths to link Iraq and 9/11. This was the only reference I could find:

"Spanish investigators believe that Ghasoub Ghalyoun, the man they have accused of conducting surveillance for the 9/11 attacks, who also has roots in the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, was trained in an Iraqi terrorist camp in the early 1980s. Ghalyoun mentions this Iraqi training in a 2001 letter to the head of Syrian intelligence, in which he seeks reentry to Syria despite his long affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood."

 

All it says is that one terrorist whom Spanish investigators believe (but don't know) was involved in 9/11 was trained in Iraq...hardly a 'smoking gun' type assertion.

 

 

 

And on the topic of the buried fighter jets, from that BBC article:

"Our guys have found 30-something brand new aircraft buried in the sand to deny us access to them," said Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Republican Porter Goss.

 

If they buried the MIGs to 'deny us access to them', who's to say they wouldn't bury chemical or bio agents (or the remnants of them) for the same reason? Regardless of whether or not the original documented chemical or biological agents were still viable or not (and if they were in carefully controlled storage, or if Iraq had developed new agents), they still could have buried them to hide the evidence, and even if the agents were no longer viable, there still would have been some evidence of their existence that Saddam would have wanted to hide.

 

But I'm not going to argue WMD anymore...there's little point to it, considering that we've invaded, and Saddam is out (though I think I've said that before...).

[edlib]

With all the intelligence gathering on Iraq in the build-up to invasion, it's a bit hard for me to imagine that we might have missed a convoy of trucks driving from all the WMD depots we had tagged out to the desert where there were backhoes and bulldozers waiting. If they had chemical and biological weapons in the quantities that we were told they had, it couldn't have been that small or quick an operation, especially when you consider the products we are talking about and the care people moving them would have had to take.

(I suppose anything's possible, but I have to suspect activity like that would have been noted by the satellites or flyovers. I've no doubt that we had almost every inch of that country mapped out in detail long before the full force was gathered in the Gulf. I'm also positive that we had those WMD locations we were so sure about monitored 24-7 in the months we were building up our forces.)

 

And how come nobody has come forward to show our troops where they are? Some of the people involved in that operation have to still be around, and they can't all be insurgents. Or if they all are, why haven't they dredged some of them up and tried to use them on our troops yet?

 

Also, the biggest thing that has been bugging me since this whole thing started: If Saddam had WMDs at the time of our invasion that he intended to use to kill Americans, why didn't he use them when the Americans started to set foot on his soil? Seems to me the perfect opportunity.

[Samuel Dravis]

Also, the biggest thing that has been bugging me since this whole thing started: If Saddam had WMDs at the time of our invasion that he intended to use to kill Americans, why didn't he use them when the Americans started to set foot on his soil? Seems to me the perfect opportunity.

I think it would have done more damage to his cause to use them - even if he had, do you think it would have saved his country? I don't think he's that stupid.

 

Right now, America is the major player in the 'war vs terror'. If he had used WMDs, he would have proven that America was right, and the other countries would have no excuse not to join in...

[edlib]

Ah... but that goes against all the arguments made in the build-up to the war about how Saddam had no qualms about using WMD against Iran as well as against his own people. That he was a total madman willing to kill thousands without a thought. If he hated America as much as we were led to believe, then attacking us should have been totally in his character. He was already considered by us then to be a war criminal, what did he really have to lose? I don't think he would have cared what other countries would have thought, if he could have been seen giving the U.S. forces a real fight, and then go out as a martyr as he goes down with his country. He would have become a hero in the radical parts of the Arab world, if nothing else.

 

The second American troops began arriving in the Gulf in real numbers, I've no doubt that he realized at that point that his country was lost already.

 

I was surprised as anyone when we got into Baghdad as easily as we did. I fully expected him to fight back with the very weapons we were going in after him for having. When it didn't happen I seriously began to doubt the reasons we were all given to be over there in the first place. And when no trace of any real evidence ever turned up after being there for months searching every nook and cranny, I truly began to believe that we had all been deceived by someone, somewhere.

[Samuel Dravis]

Ah... but that goes against all the arguments made in the build-up to the war about how Saddam had no qualms about using WMD against Iran as well as against his own people. That he was a total madman willing to kill thousands without a thought. If he hated America as much as we were led to believe, then attacking us should have been totally in his character.

While I don't think that Saddam really *believes* Islam, I do think he understands its value as a tool to control people. If he made America right, even one time, it would have undermined his arguments about how evil we are. While it probably wouldn't have mattered to the fanatics, it would likely have made more ordinary people question why they were supporting insurgents after the invasion (which have cost us more deaths and wounded than the invasion itself, I might add).

 

About terrorists though - here are some 'cartoons' from Iran. I can't express in words how absolutely abhorrent these are, and I only watched half of the middle one. Little wonder that there are more fanatics coming into Iraq. Iran's president-elect's statements are not helpful either.

 

I was surprised as anyone when we got into Baghdad as easily as we did. I fully expected him to fight back with the very weapons we were going in after him for having. When it didn't happen I seriously began to doubt the reasons we were all given to be over there in the first place. And when no trace of any real evidence ever turned up after being there for months searching every nook and cranny, I truly began to believe that we had all been deceived by someone, somewhere.

I don't think there's much belief required on that one. You'd have to believe we weren't (or at least suffered some really abysmal intel problems).

[StaffSaberist]

It's highly doubtful that any of those planes would ever fly again. They're scrap.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/3116259.stm

It would most likely take a complete strip-down and re-build of all those planes before any pilot would ever think about getting anywhere near one of those fighters. It would take months and millions in parts and labor of a highly skilled maintenance crew to ever hope of getting them operational again. Frankly, it would probably be cheaper and easier to just buy a new air force.

 

Desert sand is one of the most harmful things you can ever expose high tech mechanical systems to,.. perhaps short of leaving them submerged in salt water for an extended length of time.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...rt/1995/AAR.htm

 

Any theoretical missile and rocket systems Iraq might have had buried in the desert would very likely fare little better. It might be easier to protect a rocket or missile from sand getting near it, but special care would need to be taken in the burying and extracting processes.

 

But what if the intent wasn't to use them, but to hide them, as I've been saying? If we find planes, even scrap planes, then maybe we'll find something else in the sands, as rccar pointed out.

[TK-8252]

It's not that hard to get rid of some jets. Could just burn them... or sell them to the UN. Either way, no one's going to find them again.