JR, lovely spew up there... right off the Powell briefing to the UN.

Long on suspicions, short of facts.

The Camaro parked in your driveway (or your neighbor's driveway) can be modified to be a racecar. Does that mean it is? Nope... just could be. The Al-samud missles (almost half of which were destroyed prior to the start of the war) had a range that was very slightly past the limits of the UN resolution... 25 kms, about 15 miles, if I remember the numbers). Possibly in the future, with time, effort, and money, they could have been converted to longer range. But I didn't read anything that talked about them existing.

They found some shells, sitting in a warehouse. Those shells were not armed (no explosive of chemicals in them) - they were destroyed as well.

There are alot of claims about how much of this or that Iraq has (or had, the stuff does degrade over time, and the last time they used the stuff was over 10 years ago, from what I have read).

The thread asks a simple question, what happens if the US (and friends) take over and don't find anything? Not why the US went to war, but what happens if the whole thing was a mistake?

Alex

What if they're also a military leader though?

i.e. Saddam is in charge of Air Force and Ground to Ground-to-ground missiles.

Also - Bush = Commander and Chief of Armed Forces[/b][/quote]

I think that is the point the coalition forces were making.. Saddam controls the military and wears a General's uniform.

George Bush may be commander in chief but he is clearly the peoples representative and not a military leader.

All that aside.. the point was very strongly made that there were several other legitimate military leadership targets in the same bunker, which makes the strike "legal" in any case.

For me, it's this simple.

A 13th consecutive year of lying and hiding is more likely to occur than a sudden reversal of policy in Iraq.

I said before the war that if any WMD's are found in Iraq it would be foolish to announce it until after the war. Once it is known that Saddam has WMD he is free to use them as there is no reason not to. A sudden announcement that Saddam has chem weapons would place coalition troops in immediate danger. I stick to that.

We'll see.

Alex, i am quoting facts and you are talking about a Republican political conspiracy and suggesting it is factless. I am talking ONLY about facts and you are making remarks that are nothing more than opinion, supported by remarks like "i dont recall reading that".

it seems to me that you probably have not read Iraqs Weapons Declarations to the UN, the reports of previous inspectors, the various timelines of events and are not aware of what weapons, weapons systems and biological and chemical agents are not still not accounted for.

I have read it all and i know very well what i am talking about. i am not talking about suspicion, i am talking about weapons known to exist, verified to exist and whose whereabouts and/or possible destruction have not been accounted for.

Like many, i suspect you are confusing the fact that the last inspectors found little (though they are not there to "find" anything) with the fact that large stockpiles of weapons are not accounted for which Iraq has refused to cooperate in accounting for them. Its not about what is "found" its about Iraqs refusal to cooperate in the verification and destruction process of the UN Inspections Team.

fact 1: i neither dispute that many were destroyed or what their range is. Their destruction had absolutely nothing to do with Colin Powell. as i have indicated previously, i think that Colin Powell did not do a good job at all in making their case. Tony Blair has been much more convincing and compelling in my opinion.

fact 2: the missiles were prior declared to the UN and known to exist with the exception of some specific technical details and information regarding tests. after examining additional information and inspecting the rockets, Hans Blix determined that they should be destroyed.

just because you dont "read anything about them existing" - does not change the fact that it is a known and verifiable fact as they were reported to exist in Iraqs latest Weapons Declaration to the UN following the last Resolution 1441.

fact 3: the missiles were destroyed because they both exceeded the maximum range alowed and quoting Hans Blix "could be easily modified" to further increase their range. I watched him say that live as he gave his report. it was significant to me because was curious what the arguement was for destroying them since Iraq maintained that if the missiles were fully loaded with fuel and a warhead, they would have fell WELL within the allowed range.

you are making an analogy about a Camero/racecar and i am talking about the actual reason given by the man who made the decision. whether you agree with it or not or you dream of a faster Camero - is not relevent to the stated reason for their destruction by the head of the weapons inspection team.

fact 4: they found some chemical shells. the simple fact is that they were not declared to the UN as was the case with numerous other weapons programs and weapons. nothing new. still a lie no matter how you look at it. and it was one more lie in a long string of lies.

as for the the actual "what if" question, i answered that as well.

JR congrats, you have done it again... completely missed the point!

You just recited the list of why the US went to war. You didn't answer the simple question:

What happens at the end of the war, Tommy Franks in charge or Iraq, and they don't find WMD?

Alex

PS: Don't try to twist everything I say into some sort of anti-american conspiracy bullshit. Your getting a little paranoid, I think.

Okay, the question assumes that we won't find anything, and what happens then.
The same thing that happens if we do find something. The UN and coalition forces work to rebuild Iraq, without a maniacal dictator who orders mass attacks on people and whose personal guard slaughters innocent civilians who are trying to flee the city for their own safety.

The WMDs are still a concern, but that concern has faded in the face of what the Iraqi soldiers are doing to damn themselves. You don't jump up holding a little girl as a human shield and expect the world to still be on your side.

Last night on msnbc the Pentagon allowed an embedded reporter near Al Kut to broadcast a verbal description of what was going on during a firefight. His photographer was filming the whole time and the Pentagon was seeing that video, but the tv viewers just got to hear the audio.
An Iraqi soldier had taken a family hostage and was using them as human shields during the firefight. During the shooting, the Marines were doing everything possible not to hit this family (a father, a 13-yr old girl, and a small 3-yr old girl). Finally the Colonel of the troop put a bullet right through the head of the hostage-taker and freed the family, and the reporter (who is also a doctor) ran out to get the family down into their foxhole. (You should've heard the doctor when a helicopter flew in for support and started firing Hellfire missiles right over their head - "JESUS CHRIST! JESUS CHRIST!! HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!! WOOO!!!" right on the air, hehe.)

Being a terrorist isn't just about chemical weapons - it's also about terrorizing your own citizens and mass-murdering them for no reason other than the fun of doing so.

So nothing happens. The rebuilding goes on and the world rejoices because these terrorized people are free to live a life out from under the oppression of a murderous, raping dictator and his sons.

no one is talkinga about why the US went to war. i certainly wasn't. you are dodging the facts again and twisting the truth.

it seems that anytime someone puts up a strong argument against what *i believe* to be very flawed logic on your part. they have "missed the point" - "just don't get it" - "did not read the post" - "completely missed the point" etc etc. Maybe Serge will be kind enough to just put icons for those remarks to spare you the inconvienence of having to type them so often?

Alex, i answered that question already... then for the sake of clarity, pointed out again that i answered it. so i am not sure what "point" i am missing.

i only posted because you made a missleading and incomplete statement... then asked "whats wrong with what i said"?

I answered you and you make derrogatory remarks about what i said while dismissing it as "long on suspicion and short on facts" and accusing me of quoting someone that you dissagree with politically - so i once again, (for the second time) i tried to clarify it in a way that would leave no confusion and that could be easily disputed if it was possible to dispute. ... but you have already chosen to play the "you completely missed the point" card. so i guess i have to fold my hand now.

i guess its not always about "learning" as you claim is it Alex? it often seems to me that you see messageboards as being about "teaching"

maybe i am just a bad student.



Last edited by -= JR =- at Apr 3 2003, 12:58 PM

I don't think finding WMD is as vitally important as we all once thought.. assuming the Iraqis dont use them then it will be ambiguouis anyway.

Those that want to believe any WMD's the coalition find were planted will believe that... if they don't find any, then those that believe they were smuggled to Syria or too well hidden will believe it..

There is so much evidence that they do have WMD it is almost impossible to believe they wont be located when the regime is gone anyway.

I think finding chem/bio weapons is important. How will the Arab world react if coalition invaded Iraq and Saddam didn't have WMD after all?

That being said, I think they'll be found regardless of whether they are there or not.

Yet another way in which the victors write history.

Well said, Opti.



Last edited by Carrie at Apr 3 2003, 01:44 PM

I saw what you called me before the edit! :ph34r:

You have no idea how often people used to mix us up ;-)

*grin*
Sorry about that :)

If you know him, it is even funnier considering your current title ;-)))

"R-n L-vi's next ex-partner!"

:D

JR, point of this discussion was a simple question: What if there are no WMD? I think Colin understood what I meant very well: What are the political implications of being somewhat wrong?

All of your comments in your first post pointed out the reasons WHY the US went to war. That isn't the issue. That is old news. There is a war - the war was because the US claimed Iraq didn't follow UN resolutions, and violated them.

If there are no WMD, then there is a problem. Was Iraq actually in compliance with Resolution 1441? If there is not solid proof to the contrary, what does it mean, especially within the political context of that region? Will not find WMD be the type of proof that extremist groups can use to rally people to rise up against US friendly governments in the area? Will the Arab people just be happy to see a major jackass like Saddam blown off?

JR, you do seem to try your damnedest to misunderstand me, so that you can ridicule me. What can I say, it's just boring.

Alex

Whether or not we're going to really find anything is anyone's guess. Whether or not they were there to begin with I think is a given. He has or had them, but I'm sure they're very well hidden and as a lot are saying, are probably in Syria.

There is no doubt in my mind there will be lots of evidence found on WMD. However, the people who are biased and are anti-USA will say that the evidence has been fabricated and planted by the CIA/Special Forces/USA.

One cannot change the minds full of mush, who are always on the wrong side of history.... there are people in the world who truly beleive 9-11 was a plot by the CIA and Israel to start a war against Muslims.

This is a good article... I think he is right on the numbers, but obviously Bush and others cannot just come out and say this.... but it is what I have been saying for years. We are at war with Islamic Fundamentalism, and we have been since the 80s.... only now do we realize it, and are acting on it..... Oh and we will win!


http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.....war/index.html

Alex, you made a missleading remark and then asked "whats wrong with what i said". i responded to that... and that alone. i pointed out in a clear and concise way, what was wrong with what you said. i was not pointing out "why the US went to war".

you then tried to address it and attacked what i said. i went over the facts one more time just for you. all points which you will tactfully ignore because you know you can't ague against them. thats vintage RawAlex.

thats all i said. nothing more, nothing less.

you keep pointing out that i did not answer your question, when i am pointing out now for the third time that i did. you seem to have a very selective memory.

as i have said. i think its equally significant if nothing is found than if something is found. the issue is verification... the same verification that Iraq failed to provide. given the political value of finding something, i am sure we will be bombarded with new evidence, testimonies, documents and probably actual weapons... after the war. its a big country, a deadly government with a lot skeletons in the closet. turning the worlds attention away from that issue if need be should be quite easy as well.

your question which you have now asked in several different ways now, assumes that there will be some negative aspect of not finding anything. as i said (which you continue to ignore), since the entire world is very focused on post Saddam Iraq, humanitarian aid and reconstruction... its seems pretty unlikely that anyone significant (including the 49 nations which support the war in some way) are going to say "see i told you so" in any event.

AP reporting boxes with "white powder in vials", instructions in Arabic for spreading chem weapons, and atropine found South of Baghdad. Atropine is an anti-nerve agent.

The only WMD I know of are the ones that creep into my computer and screw with it. Some times they may be sprites, but too often they are weapons of mass destruction. Thank good for backups!

I think if the US is going to argue that pre-emptive war is a valid policy for stopping weapons proliferation it would be in it's best interest to convince the world of this doctrine. It would be better to be right than wrong in this particular instance and the more right the better,

That's why I don't understand the point-of-view that it doesn't matter if WMD's are not found. We need to find them AND act with all the diplomatic ability we have to improve relations with much of the rest of the world.

Colin, I think you are correct here... without WMD, the US will look (in the region) like even more of a bully than they already think... and there probably will be no end to the crap at the UN any time in the future when the US wants to get something done...

WMD are the reason for the war - without them, Saddam was "right", the UN was "right", and (shudder) France was "right".

It won't be enough, I don't think, to say "he had them once 10+ years ago"... without proof of current weapons, well...

I am hoping that the reported find this morning will be the start of a nice run of chemical discoveries... that will put the minds of everyone more at ease.

JR: I posted a simple question, Slavdogg said I was "manipulating he truth", so I asked what was wrong with the question. Your answer had little or no bearing on that, rather it was a long winded attempt to make me look anti-american and to belittle my attempt to raise a valid point. The orignal question was:

Your reply was a justification for war statement... that wasn't the question, now was it? I know there were chemical weapons in the past, I know there were chemical shells in the past, I know that almost any rocket propelled weapon can "be modified" to fly further (by putting in a larger solid rocket motor). All of those are statements of why the US went to war... but doesn't explain what is wrong with the question. The question states that the missles could travel to far (slightly, based on the motors in them), and that shells had been found (a dozen, I think it was, all in a warehouse under a bunch of dust).

your off to the races, trying to explain WHY the US went to war. We all know why. That isn't a question. The question is:

What if the assumptions for going to war were wrong, and there are no WMD found?

Alex

What if the assumptions for going to war were wrong, and there are no WMD found?
****************************

they just found the 1000's of boxes with white powder and liquids chemical with instructions how to wage a chemical war, stay tuned Alex and pray that you were right along with others UN-ers

ok Alex. i am no longer interested in wasting my time on a mindless contest of wills.

RawAlex - 1
JR - 0

:rolleyes:

Remember the Indiana Jones movies where you weren't supposed to touch anything when you went into a tomb, because it was covered in a light powder that was a poison?

This morning forces found weapons with a powder sprinkled on them, they didn't plant it - the embedded reporter was there with them filming it as they found it. The news crew also went in and did their own tests on the material, and it tested positive for Ricin.
That's the stuff that kills you in 72 hours and there is no cure for it.

So, looks like the question starting this thread is moot.

Fuck it - if no WMD are found in Iraq let's plant some (besides the missiles that have been found in Iraq that they were banned from having BY THEIR OWN AGREEMENT)








* it case you might be confused, part of the above is satire, it's up to you to figure out which part