NationStates Jolt Archive

I haven't heard of anyone bringing this little item up yet, so please, allow me. I have not completely decided what to think of this little gem yet, but it would provide an explanation for what had happened to the WMD's we all know were in Iraq before the invasion began. And yes, there were WMD's in Iraq while Saddam was in power. Ask the Kurds. They surely went somewhere.

In any case, I am waiting on another news source to pick this up just to see how much veracity to attach to it. You be the judge.

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

The Bible Code predicted that WWIII would start as a result of our finding Iraq's WMD in Syria in 2005. Given that we haven't found any in Syria, and WWIII has not started, I can say, that given a much more reliable source of intelligence than the Bush Administration or some down on his luck retired Iraqi general, no WMD were smuggled into Syria.

If Iraq had any they would have used them against our troops.

Maybe some people "know" this, but I prefer to be confronted with evidence one way or the other... and there wasn't proof enough to convince me that there were any.

If there was the smallest shred of credible evidence that there actually were weapons smuggled out of Iraq the current administration's spin doctors would have seized upon it.


They'd love nothing more than to be able to wipe that stain of egg off their faces and boost dubya's dismal approval rating.

Maybe some people "know" this, but I prefer to be confronted with evidence one way or the other... and there wasn't proof enough to convince me that there were any.

Reagan gave chemical weapons to Sadam. Sadam refused to prove that he no longer had them. It is logical to conclude he still had them.

If there was the smallest shred of credible evidence that there actually were weapons smuggled out of Iraq the current administration's spin doctors would have seized upon it.


They'd love nothing more than to be able to wipe that stain of egg off their faces and boost dubya's dismal approval rating.

Maybe they already know and are holding onto that information to release it when it would bennifet them the most. Say... late 2006 to mid 2007?

Reagan gave chemical weapons to Sadam. Sadam refused to prove that he no longer had them. It is logical to conclude he still had them.

If he did, what do you think he was saving them up for?

If he did, what do you think he was saving them up for?
The next Kurd or Shia uprising maybe

The next Kurd or Shia uprising maybe

You mean, while he was sitting in that earthhole of his waiting for the Americans to drag him out?
He was an evil guy all right, but dictators tend not to remain in power for so long if they don't know how to use their weapons.

You mean, while he was sitting in that earthhole of his waiting for the Americans to drag him out?
He was an evil guy all right, but dictators tend not to remain in power for so long if they don't know how to use their weapons.

Pre-invasion i was meaning

Pre-invasion i was meaning

Pre-invasion he had reason to save them. During invasion, he had reason to use them.
Actually, during invasion it would have been foolish to the extreme not to use them, especially as things got desperate for him.

Pre-invasion he had reason to save them. During invasion, he had reason to use them.
Actually, during invasion it would have been foolish to the extreme not to use them, especially as things got desperate for him.
Using the chem wpns during the invasion would have justified the invasion. Saddam and his regime could have sold the chem. wpns to Syria in order to finance the insurgency after the end of major combat operations.

Using the chem wpns during the invasion would have justified the invasion. Saddam and his regime could have sold the chem. wpns to Syria in order to finance the insurgency after the end of major combat operations.

My guess is, they sold them out a lot earlier, sometime during the decade of the embargo.
If you have weapons, are not afraid to use them and have no problems with your image in the world as Saddam has proven numerous times in the past, what's the point in trading them in for other weapons?
You would use them, all of them, every last bit, in the hope it would save you position and eventually your skin.

If he did, what do you think he was saving them up for?


Using the chem wpns during the invasion would have justified the invasion. Saddam and his regime could have sold the chem. wpns to Syria in order to finance the insurgency after the end of major combat operations.


That, or he could have buired them in the dessert for safe keeping and either not had access to them or decided that he didn't want the US any more pissed off than we already were.

Or he could have already have used them all against his own people.

That, or he could have buired them in the dessert for safe keeping and either not had access to them or decided that he didn't want the US any more pissed off than we already were.

If he wanted that, he would have tried everything to appeace them. He didn't. To be honest, he never seemed to care all that much just how pissed off the US were....


Or he could have already have used them all against his own people.

Used them or sold them. My guess is the second.

My guess is, they sold them out a lot earlier, sometime during the decade of the embargo.
If you have weapons, are not afraid to use them and have no problems with your image in the world as Saddam has proven numerous times in the past, what's the point in trading them in for other weapons?
You would use them, all of them, every last bit, in the hope it would save you position and eventually your skin.
Again, the use of chemical weapons would have validated Bush's posistion to invade Iraq. Saddam wanted to ensure Bush and the US never recieved world support for the war. Saddam could have possibly sold the weapons pre-invasion to ensure the Saddamist led insurgency could hold its own after the fall of Baghdad.

The Saddamist-led insurgency is now pretty much dead, and the insurgency is now being led by foreign religious extremeists. The fight put up by the Saddamists allowed the muslim world the time it needed to see the cause for jihad in Iraq. The insurgency is now lead by foreigners who do not care about what is in the Iraqi people's best intrest, they just see an oppritunity to kill Americans.

Used them or sold them. My guess is the second.

Most likely...I was just listing off the possibilities.

Reagan gave chemical weapons to Sadam. Sadam refused to prove that he no longer had them. It is logical to conclude he still had them.

I doubt the words logical and a rational human being can be applied correctly on a megalomanic ruler such as Saddam Hussein.

To admit he isn't in a state to effectivly combat the american army would have been political suicide for him after a decade preaching anti-american rethorics.

The man bluffed and the USA called his empty bluff.

To the point of having the weapons sold. It is a possibility but we are talking about quite a large chemical and biological arsenal here ( Or at least it was presented to the public in such a maner) and I highly doubt they could vanish without even a single trace. The CIA might be faulty at times but I doubt their Iraqi sources are so inadequate that they have lost sight of an arsenal capable of destroying the larger part of the middle-east.

Again, the use of chemical weapons would have validated Bush's posistion to invade Iraq. Saddam wanted to ensure Bush and the US never recieved world support for the war. ...

Again, that's pre-invasion. If Saddam had the weapons pre-invasion, he would have smuggly scorned the rest of the world, and used them against enemy troops once the invasion was started.
I assume that he did sell them at some stage, but it seems highly unlikely that he managed to smuggle huge amounts of WMDs out of his country shortly before the invasion without anybody catching on. Remember how closely his country was being watched then. My thought is, he sold them out years earlier to continue his lifestyle even under the strict US/UNO embargo.
Or else he may have sold them for military support to other countries, but that would have been a worse deal than when Fox sold all merchandising rights of the Star Wars movies to George Lucas....

There are no Weapons, and have been none since the mid 90's, from what I understand of the evidence. Had they existed, we would have heard long before now, and from far more sources than the NY sun.

Again, that's pre-invasion. If Saddam had the weapons pre-invasion, he would have smuggly scorned the rest of the world, and used them against enemy troops once the invasion was started.
I assume that he did sell them at some stage, but it seems highly unlikely that he managed to smuggle huge amounts of WMDs out of his country shortly before the invasion without anybody catching on. Remember how closely his country was being watched then. My thought is, he sold them out years earlier to continue his lifestyle even under the strict US/UNO embargo.
Or else he may have sold them for military support to other countries, but that would have been a worse deal than when Fox sold all merchandising rights of the Star Wars movies to George Lucas....
I have tried my best to explain this to you, but I guess you just are not feeling me. I am going to concluse my participation in this thread by saying you did not spend a year in Iraq. You do not understand the insurgency. You think of it as a checkers game when it is a chess game.

I have tried my best to explain this to you, but I guess you just are not feeling me. I am going to concluse my participation in this thread by saying you did not spend a year in Iraq. You do not understand the insurgency. You think of it as a checkers game when it is a chess game.

So, only people who have spent a year in Iraq understand the situation? *lol In that case, it might be a good idea to relocate your military administration and your government there, too.
I understand the insurgency, but I also understand that it does little to nothing to help Saddam's case. So, if he ever spent money on that, it was quite a waste, no matter where he got the money from.

So, only people who have spent a year in Iraq understand the situation? *lol In that case, it might be a good idea to relocate your military administration and your government there, too.
I understand the insurgency, but I also understand that it does little to nothing to help Saddam's case. So, if he ever spent money on that, it was quite a waste, no matter where he got the money from.
What
Would
Dime
Bag
Do?

I haven't heard of anyone bringing this little item up yet, so please, allow me. I have not completely decided what to think of this little gem yet, but it would provide an explanation for what had happened to the WMD's we all know were in Iraq before the invasion began. And yes, there were WMD's in Iraq while Saddam was in power. Ask the Kurds. They surely went somewhere.

In any case, I am waiting on another news source to pick this up just to see how much veracity to attach to it. You be the judge.

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514


Woah...I call foul.

Read this:

The pilots told Mr. Sada that two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, Mr. Sada said. Then Special Republican Guard brigades loaded materials onto the planes, he said, including "yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel." The pilots said there was also a ground convoy of trucks.

Did you catch it?


"yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel."

Does anyone honestly think anyone with an ounce of sense, would transport weapons of mass destruction, in bright yellow cans with a skull and crossbones on it, as if yelling to anyone who sees them.."HEY...LOOK AT ME..IM A BIG CAN OF DANGEROUS CRAP!"

No....you would disguise it as something mundane.
Like anything a bit more inconspicious.

Saddam is no fool.

and previous to the invasion, the US government was surely monitoring all traffic to Syria, and would have noticed large convoys of trucks.

and previous to the invasion, the US government was surely monitoring all traffic to Syria, and would have noticed large convoys of trucks.
I agree with you on all your quote but this last part. If we were monitoring the Iraqi/Syrian border Saddam's bitch ass daughter would not be financing a large portion of the insurgency from Syria right now.

I agree with you on all your quote but this last part. If we were monitoring the Iraqi/Syrian border Saddam's bitch ass daughter would not be financing a large portion of the insurgency from Syria right now.


Its very hard to monitor one person disguised in a crowd, but a convoy of trucks, is entirely different.
Im not sure how exstensively the border was monitored before the invasion, but Im sure this would have been noticed, and reported.

Its very hard to monitor one person disguised in a crowd, but a convoy of trucks, is entirely different.
Im not sure how exstensively the border was monitored before the invasion, but Im sure this would have been noticed, and reported.
We have assets that could track convoys like that. Do you know anything about JSTARS?

We have assets that could track convoys like that. Do you know anything about JSTARS?


No, but I do know that surveillance sattelittes can zero in so resolutely, that you could hold a bill in your hand, and it could make out the denomination.
Or a liscence plate number on the back of a vehicle.

No, but I do know that surveillance sattelittes can zero in so resolutely, that you could hold a bill in your hand, and it could make out the denomination.
Or a liscence plate number on the back of a vehicle.
You have watched Enemy of the State one too many times. We have cool shit, but no satelites that can read plate numbers.

If you want to read up to JSTARS. Its pretty cool shit if it gets used correctly. http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/jstars-features.htm

I think that Saddam tried to get his program back up again after the Kuwait War, but the sanctions meant that after a while there were no resources left for it. He had to channel funds, imports and so on on keeping his military going, and himself in power.
So he ended the program, but obviously didn't want anyone to know. In his deluded state, he probably assumed that he was seen as more powerful and fearsome if others thought he still had WMDs. That's why he didn't want the UN to look, that's why he played the game as if he still had them.

I think that Saddam tried to get his program back up again after the Kuwait War, but the sanctions meant that after a while there were no resources left for it. He had to channel funds, imports and so on on keeping his military going, and himself in power.
So he ended the program, but obviously didn't want anyone to know. In his deluded state, he probably assumed that he was seen as more powerful and fearsome if others thought he still had WMDs. That's why he didn't want the UN to look, that's why he played the game as if he still had them.


Precisely.

Also, as the bulk of whatever chemical weapons that may have remained in Iraq, it probably has a limited shelf-life, was probably unstable, and unusable.

So far we've heard every excuse for not finding Iraq's WMD except the dog ate them.

It was a big fat lie and the crooks who lied us into war with Iraq are the same crooks who will lie us into war with Iran, and the shmucks who believed the lies about Iraq having WMD are the same shmucks who will still believe the lie that Iran has nukes.

So far we've heard every excuse for not finding Iraq's WMD except the dog ate them.

It was a big fat lie and the crooks who lied us into war with Iraq are the same crooks who will lie us into war with Iran, and the shmucks who believed the lies about Iraq having WMD are the same shmucks who will still believe the lie that Iran has nukes.

Iran admits that they have nukes, you schmuck!

Iran admits that they have nukes, you schmuck!

Reopening research facilities doesn't mean that a) they have "nukes" nor b) they admit to having "nukes".

Austria has nuklear research facilities, so maybe they should make your list, too?

Iran admits that they have nukes, you schmuck!
They do? :eek:
Better tell the CIA! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4606356.stm) Quickly too!

They may not have them (I misspoke about that), but from what I've read, they do admit that they have plans to develop them.

I'm not against anyone having nukes.

(Actually, I'm against everyone having them, but since nobody that has them will give them up, pretty much any country should get them)

I think that Saddam tried to get his program back up again after the Kuwait War, but the sanctions meant that after a while there were no resources left for it. He had to channel funds, imports and so on on keeping his military going, and himself in power.
So he ended the program, but obviously didn't want anyone to know. In his deluded state, he probably assumed that he was seen as more powerful and fearsome if others thought he still had WMDs. That's why he didn't want the UN to look, that's why he played the game as if he still had them. I'm kinda Agreeing with this. I also remember some report by some of the Iraqi Scientists were saying that Saddam did allocate funds into creating WMD's but his scientists could not agree on where to start, so they ended up diverting most of the money to their own little projects, while feeding lies to Saddam about his store of WMD's.

A case where Greed and Corruption in Iraq that actually worked in Saddam's favor while screwing Saddam.

don't know if anyone noticed (or remembered) but up untill the last couple of days before the war started, I had the impression from all reports (news,) that Saddam was confident, arrogant and even daring the US to do something... then when the deadline was about a week or so away, he was desprate, almost begging the inspectors to come back or the UN to step in... like maybe he just found out that he actually didn't have the Weapons he thought he had...

Remember, the source of most of the reports the US had on WMD's were reports given to Saddam himself.

...but since nobody that has them will give them up...
Actually, one country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction) did. The only ones.

They may not have them (I misspoke about that), but from what I've read, they do admit that they have plans to develop them.

I'm not against anyone having nukes.

(Actually, I'm against everyone having them, but since nobody that has them will give them up, pretty much any country should get them)
Your reading skills are deficient, then.

It is the official position of Iran that the research facility will be used to generate peacefull uses for nuclear. (Such as electricity) The US don't believe it and are scared that it is a lie.

Actually, one country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction) did. The only ones.there are more examples: * Ukraine Ukraine - signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Ukraine inherited about 5,000 nuclear weapons when it became independent from the USSR in 1991, making its nuclear arsenal the third-largest in the world [14]. By 1996, the Ukraine had voluntarily disposed of all nuclear weapons within its territory, transferring them to Russia. [15].

* Belarus Belarus – A few Eastern European countries inherited whatever nuclear stockpiles happened to be stationed in their territory after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Belarus had 81 single warhead missiles which it returned to Russia by 1996. Belarus signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. [16]

* Kazakhstan Kazakhstan – Inherited 1,400 nuclear weapons from Soviet Union, returned them all to Russia by 1995. Signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.also, seeing what happened to saddam, ghadafi declared, he wanted to abandon his wmd projects.

there are more examples:also, seeing what happened to saddam, ghadafi declared, he wanted to abandon his wmd projects.

Gaddafi got duped. The centrifuges that AQKhan sold him never worked.

Reg rollbacks of nuke programs, I think we can add Brazil and South Africa to the list. Both had a covert nuke program which they gave up.

Gaddafi got duped. The centrifuges that AQKhan sold him never worked.

Reg rollbacks of nuke programs, I think we can add Brazil and South Africa to the list. Both had a covert nuke program which they gave up.
One may add Argentine as well. They wanted to keep pace with Brazil, just in case.

I think that Saddam tried to get his program back up again after the Kuwait War, but the sanctions meant that after a while there were no resources left for it. He had to channel funds, imports and so on on keeping his military going, and himself in power.
So he ended the program, but obviously didn't want anyone to know. In his deluded state, he probably assumed that he was seen as more powerful and fearsome if others thought he still had WMDs. That's why he didn't want the UN to look, that's why he played the game as if he still had them.

I think Hans Blix said it well when he said something along the lines of: Just because I have a sign that says "beware of the dog", it doesn't mean I really have a dog. (but it will keep burglars out.) :)

I think Hans Blix said it well when he said something along the lines of: Just because I have a sign that says "beware of the dog", it doesn't mean I really have a dog. (but it will keep burglars out.) :)
unfortunatly, if your landlord says no pets, and you keep the sign up, as well as pretend you still have a dog, don't blame anyone but yourself when the eviction notice arrives because you have a dog.

Reagan gave chemical weapons to Sadam. Sadam refused to prove that he no longer had them. It is logical to conclude he still had them.


Also the fact that when Iraqi troops surrendered to advancing American units they had gas masks and bio-environment suits with them. The surrendering Iraqi's only kept what was necessary for them to survive as they searched for American units to surrender to. These items included: weapons,food (the little they had), gas masks, and some bio-environment suits. When one Iraqi colonel which spoke english was asked if he feared the American's were going to gas them he replied "No we are afraid Saddam will gas you and we will be caught in the middle" (One Bullet Away: The Making of a Marine Officer by Nathaniel Fick).

Also many citizens complained that Fadayeen and Republican Guard units were beating people for getting to close to "chemical bomb sites" (One Bullet Away).

Since we have been in Iraq we have found sights and trailers which prove that Saddam had the ability and intentions of building chemical and biological weaponry after the inspectors were removed, we have also found hollow missile's capable of carrying chemical and biological weaponry.

Your reading skills are deficient, then.

It is the official position of Iran that the research facility will be used to generate peacefull uses for nuclear. (Such as electricity) The US don't believe it and are scared that it is a lie.


Good book on that is Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Standoff with Iran. Iran's purposes are anything but peaceful, I think we have to assume for all purposes of national security that they have nuclear weaponry. They bought all the WEAPON GRADE portions that they need from the guys that helped Saddam out (France, Russia, Germany). We know this thanks to finding shipments of these types of parts in the mediteranean under the last Iranian president who was a reformist. Now with their threats against Israel, I believe we must assume that they have or are very close to nuclear weapons. They called Israel's talk childish, we'll see how childish they think it is when Israel kicks their ass again.

I haven't heard of anyone bringing this little item up yet, so please, allow me. I have not completely decided what to think of this little gem yet, but it would provide an explanation for what had happened to the WMD's we all know were in Iraq before the invasion began. And yes, there were WMD's in Iraq while Saddam was in power. Ask the Kurds. They surely went somewhere.

In any case, I am waiting on another news source to pick this up just to see how much veracity to attach to it. You be the judge.

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514
I find this a little dubious. The no-fly zones were still in place and I doubt the Iraqis are able to hide a C-130 from our AWACS. If they are, then we have some real problems.

unfortunatly, if your landlord says no pets, and you keep the sign up, as well as pretend you still have a dog, don't blame anyone but yourself when the eviction notice arrives because you have a dog.

First of all Hi!

Second of all, I didn't realise that the US were renting the middle east...

First of all Hi!

Second of all, I didn't realise that the US were renting the middle east...

They don't rent, they buy. And if somebody doesn't want to sell.... well, look at Iraq, Iran, Syria...

I find this a little dubious. The no-fly zones were still in place and I doubt the Iraqis are able to hide a C-130 from our AWACS. If they are, then we have some real problems.

They wouldn't have flown em out if they moved em. The Iraqi Air Force isn't good enough, they would have driven them. The borders weren't closed and we weren't watching them. Proof of this would be the fact that our soldiers were finding Syrian passports with the purpose of visit given as Jihad even while the war was still going on.

They wouldn't have flown em out if they moved em. The Iraqi Air Force isn't good enough, they would have driven them. The borders weren't closed and we weren't watching them. Proof of this would be the fact that our soldiers were finding Syrian passports with the purpose of visit given as Jihad even while the war was still going on.
Sada does talk about using civilian aircraft with the seats taken out. I guess they could have had an approved flight plan and made their way to Syria.

unfortunatly, if your landlord says no pets, and you keep the sign up, as well as pretend you still have a dog, don't blame anyone but yourself when the eviction notice arrives because you have a dog.

True enough, it is a difficult game to play when you are saying both things at the same time. But remember the difference between facts and rhetoric.

To continue the metafor: The landlord has to prove you had a dog before he can evict you, but you don't have to prove anything to the burglars - you are satisfied knowing they believe you might have a dog.

True enough, it is a difficult game to play when you are saying both things at the same time. But remember the difference between facts and rhetoric.

To continue the metafor: The landlord has to prove you had a dog before he can evict you, but you don't have to prove anything to the burglars - you are satisfied knowing they believe you might have a dog.it depends on how far one pushes the deception. playing a tape of a dog barking at random times, collecting and spreading scat, leaving a half filled dish of water/food... all will enhance the illusion of a dog, and if just the tape alone is played, neighbors complaining of the noise is enough to get the eviction notice. the only difference is tho. the renter can challenge it in a court of law and it can be easily proven that no dog exists with such a small space to search.

it depends on how far one pushes the deception. playing a tape of a dog barking at random times, collecting and spreading scat, leaving a half filled dish of water/food... all will enhance the illusion of a dog, and if just the tape alone is played, neighbors complaining of the noise is enough to get the eviction notice. the only difference is tho. the renter can challenge it in a court of law and it can be easily proven that no dog exists with such a small space to search.

But in order to prove one has no dog, you have to let the landlord himself or independant inspectors into your house to prove it. And not just have them tell you that they'll be looking in the living room so you can hide the dog in your bedroom.

But in order to prove one has no dog, you have to let the landlord himself or independant inspectors into your house to prove it. And not just have them tell you that they'll be looking in the living room so you can hide the dog in your bedroom.well, if you wanna make it a true parallel to Iraq.

the Landlord come to inspect your home. he looks in the yard and when he tries to look in the window, you stop him, saying its not proper, and show him in the hallway. you lead him through the hall into the kitchen, preventing him from going into your bedroom, makind an exscuse that it's messy in there. after the kitchen, you go past the den (door closed) and show him the living room... he asks about the bedroom and den, you throw a fit and make him leave. the next day, he comes back to try again, and you let him go into the den and bedroom but not into the bathroom. (saying the toilet's flooded, and it's really stink in there.) you let him inspect the closets but not the basement, (one of the pipes burst and it's really dangerous there.) when he insists, you throw him out again.

a couple days later he comes with officers to serve the eviction notice and "you say, no come, look there is no dog." wether or not the exscuses were real, by the time the notice is served, it's too late, and the battle starts (of course it would be in a courthouse and not a battle feild. ) :D

it depends on how far one pushes the deception. playing a tape of a dog barking at random times, collecting and spreading scat, leaving a half filled dish of water/food... all will enhance the illusion of a dog, and if just the tape alone is played, neighbors complaining of the noise is enough to get the eviction notice. the only difference is tho. the renter can challenge it in a court of law and it can be easily proven that no dog exists with such a small space to search.

I fear we may be lost in the metaphorical forrest if this metafor continues. ;)

Since this went further then I had expected, I feel compelled to find the quote:
Amanpour asked why, if those weapons had been destroyed, would Saddam have continued to let the world believe he still possessed them at the risk of losing his country? Blix surmised that the bluffing was a cheap and effective deterrent. "[The Iraqis] didn't mind the suspicion from the neighbors — it was like hanging a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the dog' when you don't have a dog," he speculated.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml

And while on the topic of Blix, here's a speech (http://www.maximsnews.com/2005hansblixmexico28january.htm) he held a year ago that some might find interesting.