Okay, hypothetical now...

What happens if the US (and it's coalition of the willing) take over Iraq, and after extensive study, don't find anything more than the Al samud missles (which go 15 miles futher than they were suppose to...) and a few old chemical shells, long out of use?

Do you think, like a police roust, that incriminating evidence will appear out of nowhere to make sure that things look bad?

What do you think the chances are of actually finding functional WMD at this point?

Alex

Alkex,
I say we say "Whoops" and wait for Saddam's incarnation to rule Iraq again...


"The purpose justifyes the means" I shall say
;-)))

Serge I am with you.

However, I am confident we will find all kinds of things in Iraq. We are not looking that hard right now, our focus is on KILLING the enemy and destroying the Iraqi regimes infrastructure.


We will find evidence of WMD, we will find evidence of Saddam's lying and misleading to the UN, etc... etc...

I can already hear the anti-Americans groaning about our latest military victories. Have not heard about quagmire or vietnam in the past few days. Nothing like outstanding victories to shut up the Anti-American crowd.....

of course they will say we are killing innocent children and women, that it was no surprise the coalition won, blah blah blah....

Mike, my guts feeling tells me that we won't find shit...

but this si only my guts feeling...

i doubt there are any WMD left in Iraq
whatever iraq had was probably transfered to Syria or another country.

that's what we gonna say after we find zilch....

Alex, there you go again with your your subtle manipulation of truth

i love it

Slav, Serge, maybe we will go into Syria to find the weapons. Assad seems to want to rattle the saber, thinking the US was bogged down....

Maybe that is there the 4th ID will head to. The 4th ID by itself could wipe out most armies in the region.... 500 tanks and bradley fighting vehicles, 150 or so apaches. It is the best trained, most high tech division in the Army.

I know it is wishful thinking, but as Patton said after we defeated the Germans... we have our Army here, might as well continue to Moscow.

Some people may hate it, but right now the big dog on the block in the middle east is the United States.

Serge, Assad is shaking in his boots for a reason.

Alexander The Great was bigger force....I wouldn't go into Syria, at least for now.

Making BASE in recounstructed Iraq is MORE importnat IMHO

the future will tell....

little history on Syria
Syria supported Iran in iran-iraq war
supported the first Gurl War
and now is the only friend Iraq and Saddam have.

maybe young Assad should be taught a lesson his daddy learned.


It all sounds nice, but could get very messy if there is a conflict with Syria as most likely Iran and Hezbollah and Israel will get pulled in to battle. After successful Iraq war, leaving Syria isolated might be a better choice. Assad's regime is not very strong, and he'll be surrounded with all pro Western nations

Alex, there you go again with your your subtle manipulation of truth

i love it[/b][/quote]
Slav, I am sorry... what is wrong with that statement? Everything I read on the Al-Samud seemed to indicate that the difference in flying distance was about 15 miles (give or take, hard to tell without firing one to be sure)... and the only shells found by the weapons inspectors were older, did not contain any chemicals, and were not prepared for use.

Did I miss anything?

My personal opinion is that any there were there are either VERY buried, VERY gone... but won't be found any time soon.

Alex

I saw a former Iraqi scientist state that Iraq started building a subway system under Baghdad years ago but never finished it. There are miles of tunnels already built. A lot of people believe that is where all the stuff is. The tunnels have never been inspected btw. We shall see if it's true.

They will find WMD... Iraq have already used lots of WMD against their own people - somewhere, someone knows where they are keeping it. Give it 1-2 months, and the Frence will eat their words at the UN.

Heck - Saddam is probably carrying a few WMD in a suitcase or up his ass... we better get those special forces in, and do a body search... :)

Slav, Serge you guys are right - isolating Syria, and Iran with a strong pressence by the US in Iraq, and Afganistan is what will happen.

But, we know, and more importantly Assad knows it would not take much to take out Syria... they are a small country, and are bordered against the Med... I think they will play ball. They will have no other choice.

Yeah ... but wasn't one of the reasons we gave for going after Hitler, and the reasons we maintained our guard against the Soviets, because they were prone to acting like the big dogs on the block?

PD there is a difference between KNOWING we are big dogs on the block, and then acting on it to just subjugate more human beings to our will.

Calm down....

Gee, I suppose you are right. Being the big dogs, we know better than any other dogs what's good for them, right?

YEP!


:D

You're learning, comrade ...

Alex, the Al Somud (sp) missiles were not destroyed because they went "15 miles further than they were supposed to". I am not sure what you read, but its clear you did not watch or read the report to the UN of Hans Blix.

They were destroyed according to Hans Blix in his report to the UN because they not only exceeded the limitations imposed by the UN BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY because they also could be "easily modified" as he put it, to go even further. that was the issue. that was why they were destroyed after full documentation and information was made available about them.

so what is "wrong with that statement" is that it is not correct and it is missleading... further, it downplays the issue of Iraqs failure to account for the weapons and weapons programs that are the real issue. (VX Gas stockpiles, Chemical weapons stockpiles, Biological weapons programs and stockpiles of Anthrax, Smallpox etc as well as thousands of chemical bombs that turned up missing, 300 illegally imported rocket engines etc. etc. etc. etc. whether those things exist today or can be found does not change the fact that Iraq has staunchly refused to answer those questions and provide any verifiable information on those things which has been demanded repeatedly.

Furthermore, those missiles were fully declared by Iraq, were previously known to exist and were not in any way shape or form connected to the other issues at hand. They were not "found" as you suggested. and still, the questions that were being asked... namely those regarding their refusal to fully account for Chemical weapons stockpiles and programs, Biological weapons stockpiles and programs, thousands of missing chemical bombs, illegally imported weapons (300 rocket motors etc) and the numerous descrepencies in their 2nd declaration to the UN which was no more informative than their previous declarations... though it was clearly said to be their "last chance" which was the 4th such "last chance" out of 16 Resolutions.

whether you agree with it or not, the chemical shells that were found were not declared. meaning that once again, Iraq lied and said "these things dont exist... only to be later found to exist. simple fact. they said they provided a full declaration of everything they had and it was a lie. just as previously. nothing new. if anything, it lends more credibility to the fact that they cannot be trusted to comply even when they were knowingly facing certain destruction with about 300,000 troops and the worlds most advanced fighting forces sitting in their front yard, waiting to strike.

Since there seems to be a far greater focus of world governments and the UN on "post Saddam Iraq", humanitarian aid and the end of a regime which even Russia and Germany only yesterday said they supported, i highly doubt that world leaders will be lining up to say "see i told you so". That does not include the current 49 Nations which now support in some way the war in Iraq which clearly wont.

Given the political value of finding more info about weapons in Iraq, i think its a safe bet to say that more information, testimony, documents, interviews with scientists and probably weapons will definately turn up in a very well publicized manner and it is something that will be pursued very agressively.

I personally think that finding nothing is just as significant as finding something. either way, there is verification... the same verification which Iraq has intentionally failed to allow or provide in 12 years of lies and deception and 16 failed UN Security Council Resolutions.

I don't have time to look it up; but last week, a couple of rockets were captured which UK people were said to have confirmed WERE chemical warheads.

wishful thinking, Torone...

Three choices.

1. Plant them.
2. Claim they were moved to Syria and move on.
3. Bush says "As president I must tell the truth. We didn't find any WMD but we did free the Iraqi people ...." People might eat that truth telling bit. Who would have ever thought people would like Ollie North's patriot defense?

They'll be back in force on the next down-cycle.

Speculation. Take One.

I think WMD's will be found. It's Saddam's life-long ambition. He has accepted sanctions rather than fully cooperating with UN resolutions for 12 years. In all that time he could have been rebuilding his conventional military. Why not comply? I think he'd rather develop WMDs than have sanctions lifted and a bigger and better conventional military.

I think he hasn't used WMD's because he think he will survive.

wishful thinking, Torone...[/b][/quote]
Aw, c'mon, Serge! Why would CBS (Clinton Broadcast System) lie about that? I think that it is significant that much was NOT made of it...

For the record...
Yesterday was a horrible day for me. Had to get up at 0400, got home at 2000. Bright spot was seeing Iraqi's being forced to undress in the middle of the desert (per my email to Bush after the fake surrender thing last week).

Personally, I think he's been dead (daid?) since the first strike...

Of course, I also bought Enron thinking it would go back up...

I think he's alive still.

I didn't know nekkid iraqies turn you on
;-))))

i was wondering the other day... how can it be legal to launch all those missiles on that bunker the first day, with the admitted intention of killing Saddam Hussein and his sons and others with him?

i dont understand what the legal basis is for intentionally trying to kill him even before hostilities began. is it just because he is in a bunker and that is a legitimate military target?

i noticed the world was pretty quiet about it. so i am thinking i am missing something.

JR,
what's wrong with that?

what is bothering you?

i did not say anything was wrong with it or that anything was bothering me. i honestly never understood how it was legal or what the legal justification was for it.

i have heard most of the legal arguments for attacking Iraq and the legality of the conflict in general seems to not really be in question. but to my knowledge, its not legal to intentionally try to kill a head of state.

many other things do bother me though. but mostly its just cottage cheese, Barbara Streisand and rotten fish.

Ultimatum has passed,
thus the war have begun,
and in the war,
the heads of states ARE concidered to be legal targets...

I read US lawyers analysis of it

I didn't know nekkid iraqies turn you on
;-))))[/b][/quote]
Sheesh! :headwall:

What's wrong with nekkid iraqis? I bet there are a lot of olive skinned beauties over there.

...But these were guys...

BTW, here, we pronounce it eye-rackies. :biglaugh:

I agree that the regime heads probably wouldn't use them unless all hope was lost... hopefully by then they won't be capable of lauching them.. Somehow I fear if they do have some devious plan.. it could involve trying to bring Israel into the conflict rather than firing WMD at coalition forces.

<!--QuoteBegin--Torone@Apr 3 2003, 09:46 PM
Personally, I think he's been dead (daid?) since the first strike...

Of course, I also bought Enron thinking it would go back up...[/quote]


If Saddam is dead or badly injured that could be a reason they wouldn't use chemical weapons.. and I do think he's probably dead. he's a meglomaniac and it would really help his cause for the iraqi people to see him ranting and raving. If he could be seen he would be... he definately wouldn't have had the VP read out that speech calling on suicide bombers to attack the mercenaries if he was able to do it himself

Don't forget all those thousands of gas masks and chemical antidote kits we have found... all made in the last 2 years. I reckon that's enough proof that he holds the weapons and is willing to use them. Not legal proof of course, but good enough for me to make up my mind.

I saw a bit of commentary about this... Intentionally assainating a countries political leaders is against the law in or out of war time. Allegations that we tried to do that was pretty much answered by

- There was military commanders in the bunker
- Saddam controls the military and wears a General's uniform
- We were at war already.. was way past the dealine.

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