Iraq's WMDs went to Syria.

[NaplesX]

This is a thread started as a result of a conversation with MarkUK in another thread. So rather than clog that one up, I decided to continue here.

MarkUK did not think that there was any indication that SH moved weapons to Syria prior to the current war, or at least that is how it seemed to me.

To quote MarkUK, "However since I am not starting out with the conclusion that Saddam must have buried/exported his weapons to make us look like idiots - because there is no evidence of that whatsoever, im afraid your articles are just wishful thinking, until some conclusive evidence exists."..."If sudan has Chemical weapons, there is more chance that they came from the US, Britain or France."..."you could sum up for me the evidence contained that links Saddams supposed WMD through Syria and then to Sudan..."

So...

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/syria/chem.html
1997 - This lays out Syria's pursuit of WMD's since the early 70's. I cite this to establish Syrian mindset, well known for some time and the need for outside help to produce it. Notice who was known to be helping them. (Russia in case MarkUK is reading... err not reading)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/syria/al-safir.htm
Locations of said WMD facilities.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/irq9910.htm
April 26, 1999 - Syria shipping (smuggling) oil from Iraq despite UN sanctions, showing once bitter enemies cooperating closely. This also establishing that smuggling to Syria has been known for a while.

http://www.news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/15/wsyri15.xml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30006
December 15, 2002 - Syria is smuggling arms into Iraq for a commission, despite UN sanctions. This, before the current war. Notice again who is directly tied to these activities. (Russia)

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0306/S00177.htm
June 24, 2003 - Attack inside Syria based on intel that Syria was trying to smuggle Iraqi officials out of the country.

http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/24135.htm
September 16, 2003 - Covers the threat faced by Syria, including acknowledging possible WMD transfer from Iraq into Syria. Again notice who is helping Syria advance it's illicit military efforts. (Russia)


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36376
December 30, 2003 - Report laying out details of contracts and arrangements between Iraq and Syria. Once again look who is knee deep. (Russia)

http://216.26.163.62/2003/me_iraq_10_08.html
October 8, 2003 - Report showing David Kay knew convoys of trucks went into Syria right before the war. It talks about the incestuous relationship between the countries at that point.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36463
January 6, 2004 - Report stating that a relative of Syrian President Bashar Assad is hiding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in three locations in Syria.

http://www.nationalreview.com/geraghty/geraghty200401070900.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/geraghty/geraghty200401120834.asp
More info.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36844
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1340941,00.html
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=670123

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/17/141224.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13282
April 26 - May 6, 2004 - AQ CW plan in Jordan disrupted. Chemicals and money come from Syria, maybe some of Iraq's original WMDs.

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=20828
May 15, 2004 - Interesting report linking Syria with Korea and possible WMD movement.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38581
May 20, 2004 - Report showing new evidence that the WMDs that Syria had may now be moved to Bakaa valley in Lebanon. New info appearing in the Mar - May 2004 period.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040525-121749-1468r.htm
May 25, 2004 - Another report of weapons trafficing between Iraq and Syria.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html
June 11, 2004 - A report showing WMD components are leaving the country.

http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/Joshua.M.Landis-1/syriablog/2004/07/asad-arrested-for-smuggling-weapons.htm
July 11, 2004 - It appears that Syria knows this is going on.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-011235-4438r.htm
August 16, 2004 - Details about how the smuggling happened.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usweap183976268sep18,0,4649763.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines
September 19, 2004 - Toward the end of the article it states that the Syrian transfers are still being investigated by the US.

http://www.afrol.com/articles/13956
September 19, 2004 - A report stating that chemical weapons use is suspected in Sudan. Syria is connected in a number of ways and may be supplier, if true. US is ivestigating this also.

In conclusion, Just from these Google'd sources, it seems very clear that something was sent to Syria right before the war. Reports are trickling into the public eye that Syria is moving weapons, if not identical, similar to ones that the whole world seems to think that SH had. It appears that the issue is not mute, seeing as the US government is actively pursuing the investigation and strenuously pressuring the Syrian government. As far as the links to the Sudan, if you like I will post that also.

So Mark UK, I have stated the case that there is a VERY VERY GOOD chance that SH sent his weapons to Syria. Please tell me where I am wrong.

[ghost killa]

Originally posted by NaplesX

I have stated the case that there is a VERY VERY GOOD chance that SH sent his weapons to Syria. Please tell me where I am wrong.

You're not.

[tonton]

According to this, we attacked the wrong country.

According to EVERYTHING we now know, we attacked the wrong country.

Bush attacks the wrong country and spends billions and billions of our next generation's money.

Yay! Let's reelect him! :rolleyes:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by tonton
According to this, we attacked the wrong country.

According to EVERYTHING we now know, we attacked the wrong country.

Bush attacks the wrong country and spends billions and billions of our next generation's money.

Yay! Let's reelect him! :rolleyes: To the contrary.

It seems that Iraq was feeding a lot of greedy mouths along with quite possibly AQ. Fox obtained a secret UN database.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132832,00.html

I think the facts are starting to come to light.

[tonton]

Originally posted by NaplesX
It seems that Iraq was feeding a lot of greedy mouths along with quite possibly AQ. Fox obtained a secret UN database.

Typed in Excel in 1972, no doubt. :lol:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by tonton
Typed in Excel in 1972, no doubt. :lol: Funny.

They did not say, but it seemed to me it was an inside source.

[Anders]

Iraq's WMDs went to Syria.

Only if we want to start a war with them.

[midwinter]

Let me get this straight:

Iraq had WMD, and not only can we not find them in Iraq, but we *think* they were moved to another country while we were in the bathroom, I guess. So. You're saying that this administration invaded a country, lost track of all the WMD, allowed them to slip across the border into Syria, can't figure out how to find them now, and has been stuck with a WMD-less Iraq that is quickly descending into civil war?

And we should re-elect these people...why, again?

[Gilsch]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Good points midwinter. This is just hilarious. I guess the Pentagon's golden boy Chalabi and "Curveball" were a "little" bit off base. If we believed Chalabi and 'Curveball" about the WMDs and invaded a country in large part thanks to their "intelligence"....this administration has got to be the most useless, incompetent ever....1050 US deaths, 10,000-20,000 wounded and countless of dead innocent Iraqis later.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by Gilsch
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Good points midwinter. This is just hilarious. I guess the Pentagon's golden boy Chalabi and "Curveball" were a "little" bit off base. If we believed Chalabi and 'Curveball" about the WMDs and invaded a country in large part thanks to their "intelligence"....this administration has got to be the most useless, incompetent ever....1050 US deaths, 10,000-20,000 wounded and countless of dead innocent Iraqis later. You forgot the $200 Billion flushed down the toilet.

[sammi jo]

NaplesX:

Perhaps you should read this: It may answer some questions for you re. the location of those pesky WMDs.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/unscom950822.pdf

In the transcript of the interview, Kamel states categorically:

extracted:

"I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed"
(p. 13).

Kamel specifically discussed the significance of anthrax, which he portrayed as the "main focus" of the biological programme (pp.07-08 ). Smidovich asked Kamel: "were weapons and agents destroyed?"

Kamel replied: "nothing remained".

He confirmed that destruction took place "after visits of inspection teams. You have important role in Iraq with this. You should not underestimate yourself. You are very effective in Iraq." (p.7)

Kamel added: "I made the decision to disclose everything so that Iraq could return to normal." (p. 08.)

Furthermore, Kamel describes the elimination of prohibited missiles: "not a single missile left but they had blueprints and molds for production. All missiles were destroyed." (p. 08.)

On VX, Kamel claimed: "they put it in bombs during last days of the Iran-Iraq war. They were not used and the programme was terminated." (p.12).

Ekeus asked Kamel: "did you restart VX production after the Iran-Iraq war?"

Kamel replied: "we changed the factory into pesticide production. Part of the establishment started to produce medicine [...] We gave insturctions [sic] not to produce chemical weapons." (p.13).

Despite the significance of these claims, it was not known that Kamel made this assertion until February 2003. Kamel's claim was first carried on 24 February 2003 by Newsweek, who reported that Kamel told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims (Newsweek, 3/3/03). Newsweek reported that the weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday resuming production after inspections had finished. The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Newsweek reported.

The Bush administration, in making its case for war against Iraq cherrypicked Kamal Hussein's testimony, but ignored the inconvenient material about the destruction of missiles, and stocks of chemical and bio weapons, carried out shortly after the Gulf War before or during the time the UN inspection regime commenced. The lack of WMDs points to the accuracy of the Iraqi claim that they had nothing left, (barring a few old shells which had at some point may have been fitted with a chemical warhead).

[jimmac]

Nice try Nappy! But as you can see no one is buying and it's not having the effect you wanted.:lol:


Maybe if you stopped going with the assumption that Bush is a good guy and did the right thing there.;)

[shetline]

No, no, no!

Here's where all the WMDs are hidden...

http://us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/wf/m/ls-map.jpg

Yes, it's LIECHTENSTEIN!

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by sammi jo
NaplesX:

Perhaps you should read this: It may answer some questions for you re. the location of those pesky WMDs.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/unscom950822.pdf

In the transcript of the interview, Kamel states categorically:

extracted:



The Bush administration, in making its case for war against Iraq cherrypicked Kamal Hussein's testimony, but ignored the inconvenient material about the destruction of missiles, and stocks of chemical and bio weapons, carried out shortly after the Gulf War before or during the time the UN inspection regime commenced. The lack of WMDs points to the accuracy of the Iraqi claim that they had nothing left, (barring a few old shells which had at some point may have been fitted with a chemical warhead). How many links did I give you? That was only a fraction of the ones that I've found. I am not totally disregarding what you just posted. But I will tell you this; I do not trust the UN. It is an anti-american political entity that is only looking out for it's own interests.

The oil for food program has proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the UN needs an enema. Big time.

The UN collected BILLIONS in charges - approx. 2% on every barrel of oil to oversee the whole thing and insure honesty. They only checked 5 to 7% of the actual shipments and then on haphazardly. SH was left to dictate the rules and so the UN chose MONEY over doing the right thing.

So if you choose to align yourself with the UN that is fine, but not for me.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by shetline
No, no, no!

Here's where all the WMDs are hidden...

http://us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/wf/m/ls-map.jpg

Yes, it's LIECHTENSTEIN!

My namesake?!? Couldn't be...

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by jimmac
Nice try Nappy! But as you can see no one is buying and it's not having the effect you wanted.:lol:


Maybe if you stopped going with the assumption that Bush is a good guy and did the right thing there.;) Please tell me what effect i was looking for, again...

Anyway, I am sure you are right about everything that you say. So no sense arguing my failed view with you. I don't want to waste you time.

[Northgate]

So which is worse?

Iraq with WMDs?

Or Syria with WMDs?

[shetline]

Originally posted by Northgate
So which is worse?

Iraq with WMDs?

Or Syria with WMDs?
Neither is worse than the horror of LIECHTENSTEIN with WMDs!!! :wow:

[MarcUK]

Like Ive said Naples, If you are on to something, Well done. Really.

Go Tell the Media, go tell Bush directly, because as far as the US State department is concerned, there is was no link they were aware of as of Last Wednesday.

I didn't see anything but 'Maybe, might have, possibly etc...' from the evidence you presented the other day, and you lost all chance of me taking you too seriously when I proved beyond doubt that you were not being honest in your researching.

And to be frankly honest, I don't have any intention of reading all of those links, because well, Im pissed with myself that I spent the best part of a weekend discussing something I dont really care about.

Anyway, you can have a limited apology if you found my poking fun too offensive, but hey - don't cheat next time.

Best Wishes

MarcUK - WITH A FUCKING 'C' GODDAMNIT!!!!:lol:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by MarcUK
Like Ive said Naples, If you are on to something, Well done. Really.

Go Tell the Media, go tell Bush directly, because as far as the US State department is concerned, there is was no link they were aware of as of Last Wednesday.

I didn't see anything but 'Maybe, might have, possibly etc...' from the evidence you presented the other day, and you lost all chance of me taking you too seriously when I proved beyond doubt that you were not being honest in your researching.

And to be frankly honest, I don't have any intention of reading all of those links, because well, Im pissed with myself that I spent the best part of a weekend discussing something I dont really care about.

Anyway, you can have a limited apology if you found my poking fun too offensive, but hey - don't cheat next time.

Best Wishes

MarcUK - WITH A FUCKING 'C' GODDAMNIT!!!!:lol: No, it bothered me none.

I just was busy also with kids and stuff, and didn't feel like doing anything, sometimes you end up repeating things in these forums and I didn't want to get that ball rolling. But you will notice that I summarized for you in this thread. :)

But at least you are honest about things and I can respect that. Sorry for the spelling error. MarCUK... I got it now:) :embarrass

[MarcUK]

Naples,

You know, If I went with my gut reaction, I'd quite honestly believe that Saddams weapons are spread all over the god damn middle east.

But I work with evidence, not emotion.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Northgate
So which is worse?

Iraq with WMDs?

Or Syria with WMDs?

If Syrias WMDs are as bad as Iraqs then neither.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by MarcUK
Naples,

You know, If I went with my gut reaction, I'd quite honestly believe that Saddams weapons are spread all over the god damn middle east.

But I work with evidence, not emotion. I couldn't agree more.

But if you are to listen to many of the posters here and pundits, you are led to believe that SH was just a misguided pup that was being gently controlled by the UN and there was no need for any further action.

This new report by FOX will blow the lid off of the UN. Trust me, right now the UN is complete damage control mode and I am sure their shredders are working overtime.

Saddam had their number, and was playing them like a fiddle and the rest of the world as well. He was milking everyone and actively pursuing sanctioned weapons. The French and the Russians and Germany were making $100's of BILLIONS off of the program, selling him those same weapons. There were AQ front companies dealing with UN OFF program. It was a total mess. These are facts, not feelings at this point.

And the sad part of it all is they found it is HIGHLY possible that money intended for the Iraqi people, through OFF, is being used now to kill them and US/UK soldiers. The UN as a whole could have stood up against SH had he not owned France, Germany, Russia and many others. That is what this all boils down to. I feel the UN let the world down and let this war happen. I also think that will come to light very quickly now.

I contend that Bush found out about this stuff and put an end to it. That can't be a bad thing IMO.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Please tell me what effect i was looking for, again...

Anyway, I am sure you are right about everything that you say. So no sense arguing my failed view with you. I don't want to waste you time.


No. I'm not right about everything I say.


It's just that you're trying to invent a justification for this war.;)

[jimmac]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I couldn't agree more.

But if you are to listen to many of the posters here and pundits, you are led to believe that SH was just a misguided pup that was being gently controlled by the UN and there was no need for any further action.

This new report by FOX will blow the lid off of the UN. Trust me, right now the UN is complete damage control mode and I am sure their shredders are working overtime.

Saddam had their number, and was playing them like a fiddle and the rest of the world as well. He was milking everyone and actively pursuing sanctioned weapons. The French and the Russians and Germany were making $100's of BILLIONS off of the program, selling him those same weapons. There were AQ front companies dealing with UN OFF program. It was a total mess. These are facts, not feelings at this point.

And the sad part of it all is they found it is HIGHLY possible that money intended for the Iraqi people, through OFF, is being used now to kill them and US/UK soldiers. The UN as a whole could have stood up against SH had he not owned France, Germany, Russia and many others. That is what this all boils down to. I feel the UN let the world down and let this war happen. I also think that will come to light very quickly now.

I contend that Bush found out about this stuff and put an end to it. That can't be a bad thing IMO.




About your last sentence. Then why hasn't Bush said anything about this before?


Backtracking after the fact to find a reason isn't a good way to justify anything. ;)

[MarcUK]

Im gonna hate myself in the morning!

from your link http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/24135.htm

"Since the 1970s Syria has pursued what is now one of the most advanced Arab state chemical weapons (CW) capabilities. It has a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin that can be delivered by aircraft or ballistic missiles, and has engaged in the research and development of more toxic and persistent nerve agents such as VX."

This alone could be the source of the supposed Sudan weapons. It shows Syria didn't need Iraqi weapons at all. Wether they took them is a different matter I agree.

Before I address the specifics of Syria’s WMD programs, let me first discuss press reports that Iraq covertly transferred weapons of mass destruction to Syria in an attempt to hide them from UN inspectors and Coalition forces.

Since when do press reports make it Intelligence?. Ok better not answer that? ;)

We have seen these reports, reviewed them carefully, and see them as cause for concern. Thus far, we have been unable to confirm that such transfers occurred

That is from sept 16, 1 year ago. Has there been any evidence suggesting otherwise since then. Ive not heard any.

[MarcUK]

from your first link

Syria's chemical weapon effort has relied heavily on foreign help. Former CIA Director William Webster testified in 1989 that "West European firms were instrumental in supplying the required precursor chemicals and equipment. Without the provision of these key elements, Damascus would not have been able to produce chemical weapons."

Like I said, the weapons (although worded slighly differently) came from the US, UK or France. Apparently Germany and Russia as well. No link here to Iraq's WMD of the late 90's/2000's

from your second link

Nothing but photos/maps of apparently of Bases in Syria for the ChemWeps established in the first link, not Iraqs WMD of the late 90's/2000's

from the 3rd link

This is about Oil in 1999, and was well known, but there is no suggestion here of WMD. Perhaps Saddam floated them down the oil pipe?

from 4th and 5th links,

This is weapons going from Syria to Iraq, not the other way around. If Saddam already had these weapons, why would he be importing more, costing him money, but exporting his own?

To be continued....

[MarcUK]

from the next link

U.S. military forces crossed into Syria and engaged in a shooting match with border guards last Wednesday after destroying a caravan that was suspected of carrying Saddam Hussein or members of his family, Defense officials said Monday.

A family caravan expedition is not WMD!

from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=36376

no explanation of where Saddams WMD are/were.

from http://216.26.163.62/2003/me_iraq_10_08.html

"Scud missile fuel is only useful in Scud missiles," Kay said. "No other class of missiles that Iraq has. And yet, Iraq declared that it got rid of all its scud missiles in the early 1990s. Why would you continue to produce Scud missile fuel if you didn't have Scuds?"

Scud missile fuel is Not WMD. Where are the Iraqi scud Missiles? Could the fuel not be sold for the Scud missiles that Syria had already built on their own? iDunno.

from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=36463

A relative of Syrian President Bashar Assad is hiding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in three locations in Syria, according to intelligence sources cited by an exiled opposition party.

People with large grudges are not usually reliable intel. Check out that Iraqi guy raided by the US, forget his name - was supposed to be the Iraqi Interim President.

n an exclusive interview yesterday with the London Telegraph, Assad came close to admitting his country possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

But we already established where they came from earlier. They are not likely Saddams.

TO be continued....

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by NaplesX
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132832,00.html
From those intrepid FoxnewsHounds:
Shays said it’s possible the United Stations may not have needed to go to war against Saddam. United States?
United Nations?
United STATIONS?

Man, talking about just making shit up - now there's a new world power we never knew about! :lol:

[MarcUK]

Im not going to go through the rest. If you think one of those artices has the definate proof let me know.

What we do know.

Saddam Hussain was evil
Iraq had WMD at some point
Syria is Evil
Syria appears to have its own WMD
The whole fucking world appears to have helped Syria get its WMD.
Small Armaments etc (not WMD) went from Syria to Iraq in 1999-2002
Things not specified (non WMD specified-fuel)went from Iraq to Syria at some point before the war.

Yes Its possible Saddam exported his WMD to Syria and Syria exported them to Sudan and then Sudan fired 5 of them off but then sent them Back. Does it look like the whole ME, russia and Europe, (dont forget the US sold multiple billion $ of Arms to Iraq during the 80's too) are a bunch of deceitful devious WMD smuggling dollar whores, maybe.

BUT

You do not have conclusive evidence of this.

Im sorry, you dont. Get over it.

[MarcUK]

Yes, get over it, or I will be forced to find some very embarrasing photos of you during the 80's :lol:

see ya later
Marc

[shetline]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
From those intrepid FoxnewsHounds:
United States?
United Nations?
United STATIONS?

Man, talking about just making shit up - now there's a new world power we never knew about! :lol:
They slipped up and let out the truth! The UNITED STATIONS is Rupert Murdoch's plan to use his media empire for Total World Domination. Expect the stupid minion who typed this story up, and whoever was supposed to be watching over him, to die soon in sudden "accidents" or of "natural causes". :wow: :err: :D

[giant]

Originally posted by too many people
Saddam's WMD -> Syria...
Do they mean the WMD that Iraq wasn't capable of producing or the WMD stocks that weren't viable since a few weeks to a month after they were produced back in the 80s? Oh, wait. Those are both the same.

Funny how close to 15 years of inspections detailing Iraqi WMD, including now ~2 years of inspections by the UN and US, all of which demonstrated there were no large stocks and Iraq coulnd't produce anything, some kids are still going on about this.

Only someone really desperate for attention would have started this thread at this point, since the premise automatically precludes any possibility of a rational discussion.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by NaplesX
How many links did I give you?

Lots and lots, but until the time that WMDs (genuinely) show up in Iraq or Syria, the links are worthless.Combined intelligence should have some clue as to where to look....the US budget alone is $40 billion +. Are they that incompetent?

That was only a fraction of the ones that I've found. I am not totally disregarding what you just posted.

Don't forget that it was Kamal's testimony that the Bush Administration used to tell the world how "dangerous" Iraq was, how there was an "imminent threat": recall the Iraqi drones armed with mustard gas and sarin about to swarm over the Atlantic to hit the east coast...sending so many people diving for cover and duct-taping their houses.... The problem was, which those in the anti-war camp knew all along, was that the weapons listed in Kamals report, quoted by Bush, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Blair and echoed verbatim by the US media, were non-existent. And now, 18 months after the war, with no trace of anything that qualifies as a ''WMD", it looks as if the Saddam regime was the honest party, while Bush and his allies were the liars! This really is not the way for a responsible superpower to act in the world. If Saddam, of all people, appears more truthful than Bush, then the US credibility in the world must be at a pretty low ebb. :mad:

But I will tell you this; I do not trust the UN. It is an anti-american political entity that is only looking out for it's own interests.

The US regards the UN with extraordinary duplicity. When the UN make decisions that may cause inconvenience to an ally, for example those dozens of resolutions that Israel has blatantly ignored during the last 3 decades, thumbing their noses at the world community, then we regard the UN as a waste of time. But when they pass something like resolution 1441 against Iraq, then we embrace them. Duplicity is not the way the a responsible superpower should behave in the world.

The oil for food program has proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the UN needs an enema. Big time. The UN collected BILLIONS in charges - approx. 2% on every barrel of oil to oversee the whole thing and insure honesty. They only checked 5 to 7% of the actual shipments and then on haphazardly. SH was left to dictate the rules and so the UN chose MONEY over doing the right thing.

The oil for food did nothing for the Iraqis. All the funds were diverted by Saddam and his thugs for their own self-enrichment. The UN should have lifted the sanctions to allow the Iraqi people to recover from the Gulf War and the horrendous decade that followed. The best way of removing Saddam would have been free trade with the rest of the world, and the Iraqi people then may have had more of a shot of taking care of their own business independently. But as far as the US (administrations) were concerned, no Saddam meant that the future war planned by the PNAC in 1995 would have had no chance of geting off the ground; the notion of a genuine Iraqi democracy had no legs, so the notion of lifting sanctions had no chance, which, as we recall, was vetoed by the UNSC on a regular basis during the 1990s.

So if you choose to align yourself with the UN that is fine, but not for me. [/B]

Did you agree with the UN when 1441 was passed? Did you align with the UN decision when the action against Afghanistan was approved?

One more thing about Iraq's supposed WMD:
Iraq was supposed to be armed to the teeth with chemical and bio weapons, according to Bush and co. So what did we do? We sent 140,000 troops into a potentially extremely dangerous situation, many of whom had no protection against such weapons! :mad: This implies the Pentagon knew that the threat was grossly inflated or non existent...or would they be willing to send all those people to their certain deaths?

Also, why would Saddam have these WMDs in the first place? Probably a last ditch resort in the event of invasion by a militarily vastly superior power. This happened twice, in 1991 and 2003. How many WMDs were used? A big fat zero, that's what. That was the threat...they didn't even use them when their country was invaded, both when they had them, and of course when they didnt!

Quagmire Accomplished: $200 billion either wasted or funneled to (often corrupt) businesses run by his oil and defense buddies, $$ hundreds of billions more to pay in the future, 1050 American soldiers dead so far, many more to come, 13,000 Iraqi civilians killed so far, Iraqi infrastructure decimated, an explosion of terrorism throughout the middle east, and universal condemnation from the rest of the world.

Nice one George W. Bush, you fxcking traitor.

:mad:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by jimmac
No. I'm not right about everything I say.


It's just that you're trying to invent a justification for this war.;) You see, I never even mentioned that. This is a thread about wether or not Iraq moved materials and weapons into Syria BEFORE the war or if tit was even possible.

You are jumping ahead of yourself.

And as I have stated and is fact, GWB and this admin gave a LIST (as in, more than one, or two or five) of reasons to go to war.

I know that there has been many a thread about that particular subject, and I think we all know your stand on the war in Iraq, so why keep typing the same tired thing. Especially since, this is a different subject matter.

Just an idea. Maybe a dumb one, but it just popped into my head. Watcha think?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by jimmac
About your last sentence. Then why hasn't Bush said anything about this before?


Backtracking after the fact to find a reason isn't a good way to justify anything. ;) Did you skip this part:

"IMO"

In My Opinion.

Am I allowed to have one of those? Can I?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by MarcUK
Yes, get over it, or I will be forced to find some very embarrasing photos of you during the 80's :lol:

see ya later
Marc Oh man not that. Remember Parachute pants? :lol:

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Oh man not that. Remember Parachute pants? :lol:

Oh dear god. Don't forget the Michael Jackson jacket you had to wear with them.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Lots and lots, but until the time that WMDs (genuinely) show up in Iraq or Syria, the links are worthless.Combined intelligence should have some clue as to where to look....the US budget alone is $40 billion +. Are they that incompetent?



Don't forget that it was Kamal's testimony that the Bush Administration used to tell the world how "dangerous" Iraq was, how there was an "imminent threat": recall the Iraqi drones armed with mustard gas and sarin about to swarm over the Atlantic to hit the east coast...sending so many people diving for cover and duct-taping their houses.... The problem was, which those in the anti-war camp knew all along, was that the weapons listed in Kamals report, quoted by Bush, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Blair and echoed verbatim by the US media, were non-existent. And now, 18 months after the war, with no trace of anything that qualifies as a ''WMD", it looks as if the Saddam regime was the honest party, while Bush and his allies were the liars! This really is not the way for a responsible superpower to act in the world. If Saddam, of all people, appears more truthful than Bush, then the US credibility in the world must be at a pretty low ebb. :mad:



The US regards the UN with extraordinary duplicity. When the UN make decisions that may cause inconvenience to an ally, for example those dozens of resolutions that Israel has blatantly ignored during the last 3 decades, thumbing their noses at the world community, then we regard the UN as a waste of time. But when they pass something like resolution 1441 against Iraq, then we embrace them. Duplicity is not the way the a responsible superpower should behave in the world.



The oil for food did nothing for the Iraqis. All the funds were diverted by Saddam and his thugs for their own self-enrichment. The UN should have lifted the sanctions to allow the Iraqi people to recover from the Gulf War and the horrendous decade that followed. The best way of removing Saddam would have been free trade with the rest of the world, and the Iraqi people then may have had more of a shot of taking care of their own business independently. But as far as the US (administrations) were concerned, no Saddam meant that the future war planned by the PNAC in 1995 would have had no chance of geting off the ground; the notion of a genuine Iraqi democracy had no legs, so the notion of lifting sanctions had no chance, which, as we recall, was vetoed by the UNSC on a regular basis during the 1990s.



Did you agree with the UN when 1441 was passed? Did you align with the UN decision when the action against Afghanistan was approved?

One more thing about Iraq's supposed WMD:
Iraq was supposed to be armed to the teeth with chemical and bio weapons, according to Bush and co. So what did we do? We sent 140,000 troops into a potentially extremely dangerous situation, many of whom had no protection against such weapons! :mad: This implies the Pentagon knew that the threat was grossly inflated or non existent...or would they be willing to send all those people to their certain deaths?

Also, why would Saddam have these WMDs in the first place? Probably a last ditch resort in the event of invasion by a militarily vastly superior power. This happened twice, in 1991 and 2003. How many WMDs were used? A big fat zero, that's what. That was the threat...they didn't even use them when their country was invaded, both when they had them, and of course when they didnt!

Quagmire Accomplished: $200 billion either wasted or funneled to (often corrupt) businesses run by his oil and defense buddies, $$ hundreds of billions more to pay in the future, 1050 American soldiers dead so far, many more to come, 13,000 Iraqi civilians killed so far, Iraqi infrastructure decimated, an explosion of terrorism throughout the middle east, and universal condemnation from the rest of the world.

Nice one George W. Bush, you fxcking traitor.

:mad: Couple of things.

The UN is in principle a good thing. Many members are Arab fundamentalist nations. Right now it is a corrupt entity and you know it. If you don't then please don't reply because you are living in a parallel universe, and the fact that you are talking to us here in this one could have serious repercussions.

Who made a fuss about GWB going to the UN for approval?

The left wing democrats. that's who. GWB was trying to play nice and did it do him any good? No.

The intel community is being pummeled right now, why?

Because the left wing Democrats want someone to point a finger at for 9/11 and the trivial detail of "stockpiles of weapons" issue. Forget that everything was in place to produce said WMD's, who cares. Forget that SH had major clean up time before the war started to do what he wanted. Let's blame someone. As usual who do they blame? Well, there is an easy republican "war mongering" racist, oil puppet, target in the white house. The intelligence community is getting blamed.

$200 billion figure you used includes the ongoing war in Afghanistan along with other WOT efforts.

So Israel is the problem? Now I see it.

You are posting canned arguments from other threads and on things that do not relate to the thread at hand.

I thought that anyone could start a thread. That means that you can start a thread called "Bush Lied, Bush deceived, Bush Lied, US and Israel are evil. Oh did I mention Bush Lied." if you so desire. You and Jimbo can impress each other with your wit and cunning. It would be the best thread of all time. So many people would visit from around the globe to see the intellectual marvel that it is. I bet you might even set a world record on amount of posts and maybe even longevity.

It would actually cause me to have some respect for you. Being that we are discussing the possibility of Iraq moving weapons into Syria PRIOR to this current war, and not the current war in Iraq.

Watcha think?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
Oh dear god. Don't forget the Michael Jackson jacket you had to wear with them. One word...

Mullet

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
Do they mean the WMD that Iraq wasn't capable of producing or the WMD stocks that weren't viable since a few weeks to a month after they were produced back in the 80s? Oh, wait. Those are both the same.

Funny how close to 15 years of inspections detailing Iraqi WMD, including now ~2 years of inspections by the UN and US, all of which demonstrated there were no large stocks and Iraq coulnd't produce anything, some kids are still going on about this.

Only someone really desperate for attention would have started this thread at this point, since the premise automatically precludes any possibility of a rational discussion. I knew you couldn't resist.

I think sammy and jimbo are starting a new thread you might be interested in...

[faust9]

Ok NapleX, you are officialls Sisyphus (http://www.pantheon.org/articles/s/sisyphus.html) where all things WMD are concerned. You can't escape the fact that you were lied to and that you bought into those lies. Iraq didn't have WMD. Syria probably has some, but these weapons are from their own programs. Additionally you have no proof to back your claims. The Bush admin isn't even venturing into your troubled waters.

http://www.martketplace.com/cartoonmanifesto/g%20Sisyphus.JPG

Enjoy.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by faust9
Ok NapleX, you are officialls Sisyphus (http://www.pantheon.org/articles/s/sisyphus.html) where all things WMD are concerned. You can't escape the fact that you were lied to and that you bought into those lies. Iraq didn't have WMD. Syria probably has some, but these weapons are from their own programs. Additionally you have no proof to back your claims. The Bush admin isn't even venturing into your troubled waters.

http://www.martketplace.com/cartoonmanifesto/g%20Sisyphus.JPG

Enjoy. Well that clenches it.

I am totally wrong and that picture proves it.

Thank you for setting me straight?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Well that clenches it.

I am totally wrong and that picture proves it.

Thank you for setting me straight?

That last sentence should have a period, not a question mark.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Couple of things.

The UN is in principle a good thing. Many members are Arab fundamentalist nations. Right now it is a corrupt entity and you know it. If you don't then please don't reply because you are living in a parallel universe, and the fact that you are talking to us here in this one could have serious repercussions.

Ok, who would you strike off the list of UN members?

Who made a fuss about GWB going to the UN for approval?
The left wing democrats. that's who. GWB was trying to play nice and did it do him any good? No.

Going to the UN was a charade. No matter what the UN came out with, GWB was going to war. The inspections were real, but the eventual outcome was eched in stone. WMD or no WMD, GWB was going to war.

The intel community is being pummeled right now, why?
Because the left wing Democrats want someone to point a finger at for 9/11 and the trivial detail of "stockpiles of weapons" issue. Forget that everything was in place to produce said WMD's, who cares. Forget that SH had major clean up time before the war started to do what he wanted. Let's blame someone. As usual who do they blame? Well, there is an easy republican "war mongering" racist, oil puppet, target in the white house. The intelligence community is getting blamed.

No. The intelligence community had it right. Numerous 20-30 year CIA veterans knew there were no WMDs there. The intel community is taking the can for the Pentagon's and the admin's lies.

$200 billion figure you used includes the ongoing war in Afghanistan along with other WOT efforts.

The war in Afghanistan had little or nothing to do with the WOT. If it was, how come a large contingent of US forces were in the region, ready to roll. 9-11 was the excuse used to justify the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, and overthrowing the Taliban to a shocked American public who would otherwise have never swallowed it. Similar things have happened before, for example the fictitious incident in the Gulf of Tonkin to start Vietnam, Pearl Harbor to start WW2, and 9-11 to start the PNAC agenda. Don't you recall Operation Northwoods, where a homebrew "terrorist" attack on American interests was mooted in order to blame Cuba, thereby raising US public anger, to justify and launch a war to oust Castro. This was presented to JFK by the Pentagon, and he gave it the thumbs down. These are thekind of people we are dealing with.

So Israel is the problem? Now I see it.

Israel has been a problem since it was started. It need not have been. The people in charge in both Israel and Palestine stand to lose if peace breaks out, and thats not going to happen soon.

You are posting canned arguments from other threads and on things that do not relate to the thread at hand.

True, I did go off topic. Its tough not to!

I thought that anyone could start a thread. That means that you can start a thread called "Bush Lied, Bush deceived, Bush Lied, US and Israel are evil. Oh did I mention Bush Lied." if you so desire. You and Jimbo can impress each other with your wit and cunning. It would be the best thread of all time. So many people would visit from around the globe to see the intellectual marvel that it is. I bet you might even set a world record on amount of posts and maybe even longevity.

:rolleyes:

It would actually cause me to have some respect for you. Being that we are discussing the possibility of Iraq moving weapons into Syria PRIOR to this current war, and not the current war in Iraq.

Watcha think?

Well, if you look thru the archives of this topic, I did suggest in one thread that Saddam would have been tempted to stash WMDs over the border (in remote parts of Syria, Saudi, Jordan,Turkey or Iran...forget Kuwait). But that was assuming he possessed WMDs. At the time of this thread, it was shortly after Powell made his February 5th 2003 speech to the UNSC and he was pretty convincing; he fooled lots of people, including himself.

But re. the practicality of moving WMDs to Syria:

*The few major roads between the two nations would have been closely and continuously monitored in the US by spy satellite for suspicious activity, such as truck movements, materials being buried etc. The technology in space is of such high resolution that small text can be deciphered.

*The movement of high level radiological material is extremely tough to conceal without specialized shielding.

*The whole region is a desert climate with lots of cloudless days and clear nights, making such a task even tougher to conceal.

*In the months before the war, there were not only inspectors roaming at will throughout Iraq with no notice or forewarning of location, but also advance US forces checking things out under cover.

*There were rewards offered to former Baathist officials to reveal the whereabouts of WMDs. Nothing has come of that.

*Then there's the issue getting these materials past Syrian border guards and officials, and somehow concealing it all.

*The Syrian government, even if sympathetic towards Saddam, would never have risked a war with the US/Coalition by voluntarily harboring Iraqi WMDs. Assad may not be a man of integrity, but he isn't a complete idiot!

The task of concealing WMDs in Syria (or elsewhere outside of Iraq ) could have been done in theory, I will give you that. But it would have been damned difficult to pull off successfully, without leaving a multitude of traces. Which implies (a) They did an incrediblly fine job of concealment, obliterating all the traces in the process, and pulled a fast one over the eyes of US intelligence with their $$billions worth of high technology and skilled manpower, or (b) there were no WMDs to hide. Take your pick.

We all know that Saddam in the past (1980-1991) had WMDs..thats a given. But I tend towards Kamal Hussein's testimony re. credibilty; Iraq wanted to return towards normalcy and the regime regarded such weapons not as a asset, but a liability. And since they have never used them against anyone since the Iraq-Iran war, despite two huge invasions, this also implies that the weapons were absent, both from Iraq and from Syria, where they could conceivably have been retrieved in the event of a national emergency.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I knew you couldn't resist.

I think sammy and jimbo are starting a new thread you might be interested in...

But you didn't really answer the question. It's because Giant's question pokes holes in your logic. :rolleyes:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by jimmac
But you didn't really answer the question. It's because Giant's question pokes holes in your logic. :rolleyes: No, it's because I refuse to engage him, I know his tricks, and yours too.

Hey look... quick a new "Bash Bush" thread, go get it.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
No, it's because I refuse to engage him, I know his tricks, and yours too.

Hey look... quick a new "Bash Bush" thread, go get it.

So waitaminute. You're now refusing to participate in your own thread where you laid out all your evidence for WMDs in Iraq having been moved to Syria because...people pointed out that 99% of it wasn't actually evidence?

[faust9]

Originally posted by midwinter
So waitaminute. You're now refusing to participate in your own thread where you laid out all your evidence for WMDs in Iraq having been moved to Syria because...people pointed out that 99% of it wasn't actually evidence?

He's doomed to forever push the WMD rock up a hill no matter what evidence is provided. Push Naples push.

[midwinter]

What's so baffling about Naples's position on all of this is simply that everyone, including the Administration, State, and the CIA has admitted that they got this one wrong. There were congressional hearings to figure out why, for god's sake.

[faust9]

Originally posted by midwinter
What's so baffling about Naples's position on all of this is simply that everyone, including the Administration, State, and the CIA has admitted that they got this one wrong. There were congressional hearings to figure out why, for god's sake.

I hear ya..:lol: "Some peoples kids" as an old chief of mine used to say.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by NaplesX
No, it's because I refuse to engage him, I know his tricks, and yours too.

Hey look... quick a new "Bash Bush" thread, go get it.


Uh, huh........:rolleyes:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
What's so baffling about Naples's position on all of this is simply that everyone, including the Administration, State, and the CIA has admitted that they got this one wrong. There were congressional hearings to figure out why, for god's sake. I think that if you look back you will see you are reading into it what you want to hear.

I believe that that they have acknowledged that they have found no "stockpiles" which is way different than what you are asserting.

I don't think that they have ruled out the fact they may not exist in Iraq.

I always felt that they would be found inside Iraq. I was wrong. But the more I read, I can't rule out that they may be in syria or who knows where by now.

The fact that AQ is now planning a big attack using WMDs is very interesting also. And let's not forget the foiled AQ WMD attack foiled in Jordan. It was estimated that it could have killed 20,000 people there.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
But the more I read, I can't rule out that they may be in syria or who knows where by now.
I got news for you. No matter how much people have written claiming otherwise, no matter how many pseudo-scientific studies there are, aliens do not make crop circles.

This is just your newest Clinton Body Count.

[FormerLurker]

Weapons of Mass Delusion

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I think that if you look back you will see you are reading into it what you want to hear

Projection ain't just a river in Egypt. I'm just reading the headlines (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=iraq+weapons&btnG=Search+News).

I believe that that they have acknowledged that they have found no "stockpiles" which is way different than what you are asserting.

They have acknowledged that the intel was wrong. There were no WMD. Everyone got it wrong.

I don't think that they have ruled out the fact they may not exist in Iraq.

Think again.

I always felt that they would be found inside Iraq. I was wrong. But the more I read, I can't rule out that they may be in syria or who knows where by now.

What you are experiencing is called "cognitive dissonance." When you start "feeling," "thinking," or "believing" that aliens snatched up the weapons, let us know.

The fact that AQ is now planning a big attack using WMDs is very interesting also.

Indeed. The simple fact that we know about it should make you scared of this admin. How many of the millennium plots did you know about beforehand? Also, AQ is not Iraq.

And let's not forget the foiled AQ WMD attack foiled in Jordan. It was estimated that it could have killed 20,000 people there.

AQ is not Iraq.

[faust9]

Originally posted by midwinter
...
Also, AQ is not Iraq.

AQ is not Iraq.

I don't think NaplesX will ever make this distinction.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
Projection ain't just a river in Egypt. I'm just reading the headlines (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=iraq+weapons&btnG=Search+News).



They have acknowledged that the intel was wrong. There were no WMD. Everyone got it wrong.



Think again.



What you are experiencing is called "cognitive dissonance." When you start "feeling," "thinking," or "believing" that aliens snatched up the weapons, let us know.



Indeed. The simple fact that we know about it should make you scared of this admin. How many of the millennium plots did you know about beforehand? Also, AQ is not Iraq.



AQ is not Iraq. It seems interesting to me how, in many instances, you (meaning you and some here with the same mindset) are more than willing to make large leaps in faith/reasoning/judgment when it suits you.

The truth be told, none of know what is going on in these rogue states. We are all operating off of limited knowledge, and could be wrong about any given point. We are all living on a prayer, if you will - on faith. For you, it is faith in GWB being evil (or something to that effect), and I am sure you have your reasons for feeling that way. Me, it is faith that the government, however flawed, is working to protect you and I because our government and its members live among us - if for no other reason than it's to protect itself, it protects us. Individuals in the government may buck that trend but overall I believe this to be true.

I have never ever stated that Iraq=AQ. Iraq has proven ties to Iraq, going back long before this war - this I have said and am in the process of outlining in another thread. Once again here is a leap that you are willing to make to fit your view - that AQ existed and hid everywhere else in the world except Iraq. There exists one person that personifies this tie, in Iraq right now. Anyone?

As far as the intel being wrong, sure, but not all of it. Yet another leap on your part.

That the Bush admin is informing the citizenry of possible future threats, is a good thing. And for you to imply that they know exactly what is going to happen and using it for political gain, or perhaps they or just making it up, is yet another leap that you are more than willing to take.

I knew when I posted the links above, that many would argue the way they are now. But from the posts many of you either read too fast or did not objectively look at them, perhaps not at all.

Please tell me which sources you find are not credible. Then we can apply that to both sides of the argument. I'm willing. Are you?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
It seems interesting to me how, in many instances, you (meaning you and some here with the same mindset) are more than willing to make large leaps in faith/reasoning/judgment when it suits you.

The irony, of course, is that you're the one talking about what you think, feel, and believe. The rest of us are talking about what is being reported.

The truth be told, none of know what is going on in these rogue states. We are all operating off of limited knowledge, and could be wrong about any given point. We are all living on a prayer, if you will - on faith.

Again, how can you get onto me about "making large leaps" and then claim that everything is about "faith"?

For you, it is faith in GWB being evil (or something to that effect), and I am sure you have your reasons for feeling that way.

Don't be silly. I don't think GWB is evil. I think he's a terrible president for a variety of reasons, and I think he has made the world less safe than it was before.

Me, it is faith that the government, however flawed, is working to protect you and I because our government and its members live among us - if for no other reason than it's to protect itself, it protects us. Individuals in the government may buck that trend but overall I believe this to be true.

Why would you think I disagree with this? The only caveat here is that I think that this particular administration tested out a theory in Iraq, and that theory has failed. However noble the theory might've been, it has been, up until now, an abysmal failure.


I have never ever stated that Iraq=AQ. Iraq has proven ties to Iraq, going back long before this war - this I have said and am in the process of outlining in another thread.

And those ties have been all disproven. Both on this board and in the press.

Once again here is a leap that you are willing to make to fit your view - that AQ existed and hid everywhere else in the world except Iraq.

Existing in Iraq and hiding in Iraq is not a tie. When people say "tie," they mean some kind of formal state-sponsorship of terrorism, which is what the utterly discredited Mylroie theory you're using relies on. It is your leap of faith to argue that something that has not been proven and cannot be seen is in fact there. Thomas Aquinas.

There exists one person that personifies this tie, in Iraq right now. Anyone?

I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. There are 25 million people in Iraq. I haven't had time to talk to them all.

As far as the intel being wrong, sure, but not all of it. Yet another leap on your part.

What the hell do you think those HEARINGS were about?

That the Bush admin is informing the citizenry of possible future threats, is a good thing. And for you to imply that they know exactly what is going to happen and using it for political gain, or perhaps they or just making it up, is yet another leap that you are more than willing to take.

Tell me this, then: what good does it do you, as average citizen joe, to know that there has been increased chatter? What are you supposed to do about it other than a) be afraid and b) look for a "strong leader" when you're afraid?

I knew when I posted the links above, that many would argue the way they are now. But from the posts many of you either read too fast or did not objectively look at them, perhaps not at all.

I thought your links were pretty thoroughly gone through in the other thread.

Please tell me which sources you find are not credible. Then we can apply that to both sides of the argument. I'm willing. Are you? [/QUOTE]

Sure. I'll plow through them as soon as I get some time. Work work work.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
It seems interesting to me how, in many instances, you (meaning you and some here with the same mindset) are more than willing to make large leaps in faith/reasoning/judgment when it suits you.
Ineresting, since that's actually the exact opposite of what has gone on here from the beginning. Since day 1, there has been very little evidence to support the theories about Iraq, but the argument from the "WMD!" folks has always been that the lack of evidence is the evidence. According to them, the fact that the inspectors couldn't find anything showed that Saddam was hiding something. That's why these "WMD!" folks have been dead wrong since that same day 1. The evidence never was there.
Please tell me which sources you find are not credible.
The problem with your challenge is that you dump a bunch of CRAP into a post and then challenge us to waste our time pointing out all of the various flaws. We have better shit to do than argue with such a moronic position. Look at the crap you linked to. Just from clicking a couple times I see a headline saying "KAY SAYS WMD IN SYRIA" when he said no such thing. You also have links to world tribune. You must be fucking joking.

And your position is fucking moronic from the get-go because you ignore the fundamental problem with your belief system: the breakdown in the "WMD!" theory isn't on the stockpile end, it's on the production end. How can saddam have weapons when he can't fucking produce them?!?! And on the stockpile end, how can he stockpile them when they don't last longer than a month or so?!?!

That's why you are already wrong even if some mustard gas was shipped to syria. The model you are working from is fatally flawed from every damn direction. Anything you may or may not get right is pure chance. You can't take credit for the wind blowing the dart into the board when you are throwing it in completely the opposite direction.

Personally, if this thread wasn't at the top of the forum I wouldn't respond. All this thread is for you is a way to get attention you so desperately crave. It works. You come in here and make the most inane comments and everyone keeps bumping the thread for you because they are so in shock that someone could be so misguided.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
What the hell do you think those HEARINGS were about?

If you are referring to the 9/11 commission, it has concluded there were ties between Iraq and AQ. but no proof that Iraq helped with the 9/11 attacks.

You do know those are two separate issues? Should I quote it for you, or is that just another unreliable source?

Originally posted by midwinter
Tell me this, then: what good does it do you, as average citizen joe, to know that there has been increased chatter? What are you supposed to do about it other than a) be afraid and b) look for a "strong leader" when you're afraid?
I am not afraid. Are you? I am informed, and so are you.

What do you think should be done?

Originally posted by midwinter
I thought your links were pretty thoroughly gone through in the other thread. Um, these are totally different links...

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
Ineresting, since that's actually the exact opposite of what has gone on here from the beginning. Since day 1, there has been very little evidence to support the theories about Iraq, but the argument from the "WMD!" folks has always been that the lack of evidence is the evidence. That's why they have been dead wrong since that same day 1.

The problem with your challenge is that you dump a bunch of CRAP into a post and then challenge us to waste our time pointing out all of the various flaws. We have better shit to do than argue with such a moronic position. Look at the crap you linked to. Just from clicking a couple times I see a headline saying "KAY SAYS WMD IN SYRIA" when he said no such thing. You also have links to world tribune. You must be fucking joking.

And your position is fucking moronic from the get-go because you ignore the fundamental problem with your belief system: the breakdown in the "WMD!" theory isn't on the stockpile end, it's on the production end. How can saddam have weapons when he can't fucking produce them?!?! And on the stockpile end, how can he stockpile them when they don't last longer than a month or so?!?!

That's why you are already wrong even if some mustard gas was shipped to syria. The model you are working from is fatally flawed from every damn direction. Anything you may or may not get right is pure chance. You can't take credit for the wind blowing the dart into the board when you are throwing it in completely the opposite direction.

Personally, if this thread wasn't at the top of the forum I wouldn't respond. All this thread is for you is a way to get attention you so desperately crave. It works. You come in here and make the most inane comments and everyone keeps bumping the thread for you because they are so in shock that someone could be so misguided. PUT UP or SHUT UP.

It's that simple. I read every one of those links, you admittedly don't care to do the same. You are in no position, at your own admission, to preach. Besides, I know what you will say before you say it. You are no-one's mental or intellectual superior as you have consistently put forth, and the fact that you embrace that persona proves just the opposite every time you post.

I very carefully word my posts so that it is clear to all what I "feel" or "believe". I back up my assertions with documentation that supports my argument. I have never said that anyone here has to agree with me. I don't call people names just because they don't agree with me. Why are you so insecure in your beliefs, that you can conduct yourself in a civil manner? Do you really need that bad for everyone to agree with you on everything?

There are many people here, despite fundamental disagreement on different issues, remember they are dealing with fellow humans. I can carry on conversations with them for that reason.

You seem pretty smart, and I am sure that you are. But you are not smart enough to figure out how to talk to people. We are all people - all of us here behind your screen. Even me - sad little misinformed nappy from naples.

I may not be very smart, but I am smart enough to know when something is futile. Trying to have a civil conversation with you is just that.

I know you will read this and dismiss everything except what you want to hear but read this please...

RESPECT OTHERS IF YOU WANT RESPECT.

PS. I learned that when I was 5.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
PUT UP or SHUT UP.
I have put up, naples, for years now. And you know what? I have been right on this for years now. I started posting in FC in Sept 2002 (and that was just when I got fed up with posters on my then favorite mac site making ridiculous comments about Iraq) saying the exact same shit that everyone found out after the war. And what's the secret? I actually go by the facts and look at the evidence. It's an interesting method that should try some time.
RESPECT OTHERS IF YOU WANT RESPECT.
You're out in Clinton Body Count land where most of your info comes from websites with animated backgrounds. Since that's the kind of garbage you look up to, the last thing I want is your respect. Gaining your respect requires being a crackpot and being dead wrong.

If you want my respect, adopt a logical worldview based on authorative sources with transparent and thorough research methods.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Boo. Yah.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
I have put up, naples, for years now. And you know what? I have been right on this for years now. I started posting in FC in Sept 2002 (and that was just when I got fed up with posters on my then favorite mac site making ridiculous comments about Iraq) saying the exact same shit that everyone found out after the war. And what's the secret? I actually go by the facts and look at the evidence. It's an interesting method that should try some time.

You're out in Clinton Body Count land where most of your info comes from websites with animated backgrounds. Since that's the kind of garbage you look up to, the last thing I want is your respect. Gaining your respect requires being a crackpot and being dead wrong.

If you want my respect, adopt a logical worldview based on authorative sources with transparent and thorough research methods. Respect commands itself and it can neither be given nor withheld when it is due. - Eldridge Cleaver

Men are respectable only as they respect. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Only those who respect the personality of others can be of real use to them. - Albert Schweitzer

There is no respect for others without humility in one's self. - Henri Frederic Amiel

Respect yourself if you would have others respect you. - Baltasar Gracian

We confide in our strength, without boasting of it; we respect that of others, without fearing it. - Thomas Jefferson

[faust9]

R - E - S - P - E - C - T
Find out what it means to me
R - E - S - P - E - C - T
Take care, TCB

Franklin

[trumptman]

Originally posted by faust9
R - E - S - P - E - C - T
Find out what it means to me
R - E - S - P - E - C - T
Take care, TCB

Franklin

Actually I should pull a giant on you and mention that although that song was sang by Aretha, it was written by Otis Redding.

/giant - You have no credibility. I am the expert. (although I refuse to state why) You are not an expert/authority/professional and should shut up and refrain from posting until I declare you to be one. You are but a sad little forum dweller attempting to feign intelligence via Google searches while taking the subject off track. /giant off.

:devil: :lol:
Sorry, sorry. Couldn't resist.

/begging for forgiveness in advance

Nick

[Northgate]

Originally posted by NaplesX
RESPECT OTHERS IF YOU WANT RESPECT.

PS. I learned that when I was 5.

This coming from the man who said I was "small and sad" in another thread because I dared to point out Republican hypocrisy with regards to their treatment of Democrat veterans.

:no:

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
I have put up, naples, for years now. And you know what? I have been right on this for years now. I started posting in FC in Sept 2002 (and that was just when I got fed up with posters on my then favorite mac site making ridiculous comments about Iraq) saying the exact same shit that everyone found out after the war. And what's the secret? I actually go by the facts and look at the evidence. It's an interesting method that should try some time.

You're out in Clinton Body Count land where most of your info comes from websites with animated backgrounds. Since that's the kind of garbage you look up to, the last thing I want is your respect. Gaining your respect requires being a crackpot and being dead wrong.

If you want my respect, adopt a logical worldview based on authorative sources with transparent and thorough research methods.


Hahahahahaha... you are a funny, funny man/child.

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

Better yet, you could have someone claim that since Iraq and WMD aren't your area of expertise, that you can't even understand the authoratative sources you would attempt to read to adopt said worldview. They they could just tell you to shut up and sit on your thumb until someone who is authoritative (and we don't just mean in the tone of their posts) comes along and tells you what to think.

Because that is basically what you say in every post.

Nick

[tonton]

Originally posted by trumptman
Actually I should pull a giant on you and mention that although that song was sang by Aretha, it was written by Otis Redding.

/giant - You have no credibility. I am the expert. (although I refuse to state why) You are not an expert/authority/professional and should shut up and refrain from posting until I declare you to be one. You are but a sad little forum dweller attempting to feign intelligence via Google searches while taking the subject off track. /giant off.

:devil: :lol:
Sorry, sorry. Couldn't resist.

/begging for forgiveness in advance

Nick

Track record, Nick. Track record.

Giant was right on WMD. You were not.
Giant was right on links. You were not.
Giant was right on Niger. You were not.

Who should I trust as more of an "expert"?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Northgate
This coming from the man who said I was "small and sad" in another thread because I dared to point out Republican hypocrisy with regards to their treatment of Democrat veterans.

:no: Correction: I said that your post made you appear small and sad. I did not call you anything.

Poopy face... there I said it...:lol:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by tonton
Track record, Nick. Track record.

Giant was right on WMD. You were not.
Giant was right on links. You were not.
Giant was right on Niger. You were not.

Who should I trust as more of an "expert"? I see you have not read the 9/11 commission report.

[giant]

Originally posted by tonton
Giant was right on WMD. You were not.
Giant was right on links. You were not.
Giant was right on Niger. You were not.

Who should I trust as more of an "expert"?
Just to be fair:
Originally posted by giant
And what's the secret? I actually go by the facts and look at the evidence
AFAIAC, I deserve no credit, the facts do. I still have yet to figure out how so many millions of people got so carried away by the mass hysteria when we had such a good accounting of the most scrutinized military of the past 15 years. After all, the whole "WMD!" argument always was just a leap of faith in the face of a mountain of opposing evidence.

The saddest part is that the country as a whole still can't have a measured discussion about the reality of what happened with Iraq's WMD programs over the years, as evidenced by the sarin shell IED frenzy. Those that followed the Bush admin's lead and got burned are now so desperate for any vindication that literally even a few drops of anything somehow means that Saddam of course was poised to strike the US with a vast arsenal. God forbid we actually find a few buried barrels of mustard that come anywhere near a single ton.

If anyone needs another refresher on the vast disparity between the claims and the actual facts, glen rangwala's Claims and Evaluations (http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html) continues to be the best one stop shop.

[NaplesX]

You gotta love a man that quotes himself to bolster his own argument.

How can you argue with that?

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You gotta love a man that quotes himself to bolster his own argument.

How can you argue with that?
You disagree with what I said there? That's fine. If you want to believe that I am an expert rather than simply one of many rational consumers of information, you are free to have that opinion.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I see you have not read the 9/11 commission report.

I know I can understand Tonton saying something about WOMD, but Niger?

Nick

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
You disagree with what I said there? That's fine. If you want to believe that I am an expert rather than simply one of many rational consumers of information, you are free to have that opinion. Woe, hey... you are an EXPERT. No arguing with that.

I am just glad that you take time out of your busy day, as I know that you are no doubt inundated with calls and work, to spread scraps of knowledge to us.

You are a giant among men.

:rolleyes:

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You are a giant among men.
And apparently some boys, as well.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
And apparently some boys, as well. That sounds a little weird, GN.

[shetline]

Not one of you has offered the slightest speck of evidence against the claim that Saddam's WMD are stockpiled in Liechtenstein.

In fact, the way you've all so obviously skirted around the topic -- save one very weak denial -- makes it clear that you just can't face the truth. The world will rue the day it turned a blind eye to the crypto-Ba'athists running the show in Vaduz!

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I see you have not read the 9/11 commission report.

I have a copy right here: it's not worth the paper its printed on. The 9/11 "Commission" report is a sick joke, a national disgrace. It should be called the 9/11 OMISSION Report, because that is exactly what it is. And with Philip Zelikow as executive director, what more could one expect but a whitewash of criminal proportions.

What a bunch of a$$holes. It's no wonder that so many of the families of the deceased are so furious.

:mad:

[iPoster]

Originally posted by sammi jo
*The few major roads between the two nations would have been closely and continuously monitored in the US by spy satellite for suspicious activity, such as truck movements, materials being buried etc. The technology in space is of such high resolution that small text can be deciphered.

Not trying to go too far off topic, but that is a common misconception.
From the Federation of American Scientists(fas.org):
"Imagery intelligence satellites use film and electronic cameras, or radars, to produce high resolution images of objects on the ground at ranges of up to one thousand kilometers. Orbiting at altitudes several hundred kilometers, such satellites can readily identify and distinguish differing types of vehicles and equipment with resolutions better than 10 centimeters. Resolutions of several meters are useful in locating vehicles and characterizing installations, while resolutions on the order of ten meters have some applications for locating facilities, such as airfields and ports."

10cm is good resolution, but not quite enough to read text, and there are only 3 of the modern satellites in orbit at one time that are capable of it.
"Three of the older KH-11s are currently in orbit, as well as three of the more capable Advanced Keyholes, which fly in orbits nearly twice as high as their predecessors."

And during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait(when every asset available was focused on Iraq): "These systems were not infallible, since the US lost track of four Iraqi divisions for a 24 hour period on August 7-8."

During the Cold War, it was quite common for the USSR to time troop/ship movements to times when we had no satellite coverage.


*The movement of high level radiological material is extremely tough to conceal without specialized shielding.

I have hands on experience with industrial radiographic sources, it's not that difficult to shield a radiation source. A couple inches of lead or steel would be more than enough to drop readings down below background. And 'inert', ie, not involved in a chain reaction, uranium actually does not emit much radiation compare to other sources(cobalt, irridium, strontium).

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by iPoster And during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait(when every asset available was focused on Iraq): "These systems were not infallible, since the US lost track of four Iraqi divisions for a 24 hour period on August 7-8." But that was 12-13 years ago. I'm sure we have more satellites that are more sophisticated these days.
During the Cold War, it was quite common for the USSR to time troop/ship movements to times when we had no satellite coverage.
Again, that was a long time ago. I find it hard to believe we haven't made the necessary corrections over a decade later.

[iPoster]

Originally posted by Gilsch
But that was 12-13 years ago. I'm sure we have more satellites that are more sophisticated these days.
Again, that was a long time ago. I find it hard to believe we haven't made the necessary corrections over a decade later.

But modern satellites must obey the laws of physics. They are not in geostationary orbits, therefore they can only cover certain areas at certain times, leaving windows with no coverage.

[bunge]

Originally posted by iPoster
But modern satellites must obey the laws of physics. They are not in geostationary orbits, therefore they can only cover certain areas at certain times, leaving windows with no coverage.

Are you implying that Iraq and/or Syria could coordinate the transfer of weapons of mass destruction based on when our satellites were not in orbit above the Middle East?

[iPoster]

Originally posted by bunge
Are you implying that Iraq and/or Syria could coordinate the transfer of weapons of mass destruction based on when our satellites were not in orbit above the Middle East?

It does look like WMD were not transfered to Syria, but *if* there were transfers, any country with the capability to launch satellites would know the schedules of all known orbiting objects. (so they don't launch into the path of someone else's satellite, or space debris.)

The question would be if their intelligence services may or may not know which of our satellites are 'spy' birds, but it's not hard to figure out the orbit the Space Shuttle is in when it goes on missions with "unidentified" military payloads...just pointing out that it's not outside the realm of possibility, there were plenty of nations with that capability willing to violate the arms embargo, so why not sell intelligence to Iraq/Saddam as well?

And according to FAS.org (http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/operate/ds/images.htm#limitations), they learned a few things about satellite capabilities from the US during the Iran/Iraq war:
Iraq used deception "techniques they learned from US military intelligence officials during the eight year war between Iran and Iraq... In the course of receiving the US intelligence assessments, based on information from US spy satellites, the Iraqis 'were able to learn how we did the assessments,' one analyst said. 'They were able to learn how we keep track of what goes on in a war' -- and thus how to mask their military operations."


And you're assuming we were specifically looking for shipments. From space a truck is a truck, it takes HUMINT to determine what is in the truck. And if Saddam offered to give/sell Assad his WMD(if there were any) to add to Syria's arsenal (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/syria/), do you think he would turn it down?

[NaplesX]

More news on possible WMD passing into Syria:

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_8.html

The problem is they just don't know, which then leads to the conclusion that it is a definite possibility.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by NaplesX
The problem is they just don't know, which then leads to the conclusion that it is a definite possibility.

Straight out of the playbook by Dennis Hastert.

Naples might be a homosexual. The problem is we just don't know for sure. Which leads to the conclusion that it's definitely possible. We just don't know.

;)

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Northgate
Straight out of the playbook by Dennis Hastert.

Naples might be a homosexual. The problem is we just don't know for sure. Which leads to the conclusion that it's definitely possible. We just don't know.

;) Get real. I am a homo, what's it to you?;)

Are you saying it is not a definite possibility?

Thing is you can't. Because it is a huge possibility.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Get real. I am a homo, what's it to you?;)

Are you saying it is not a definite possibility?

Thing is you can't. Because it is a huge possibility.

By huge, what are we talking about, that the probability of event X>5%?

Get over it Naples. There were no weapons.

[faust9]

I wonder why it took 12 days to report on this? Doesn't it strike you as odd Naples that a partisan publication(s) is just now commenting on this as "breaking news" some two weeks after the fact? Hmmm. Why don't you read the transcript of the senate hearing if you can find it an quote us the applicible sections with links to the transcript. I dare say you'll find you've bought into more spin.

Here, I did 32 seconds of leg work for ya: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/duelfer-sasc-20041006.html

Naples learn to sort through the spin and lies. Iraq had zero capability to create WMD's so how could they move that which they neither had (per Kay and Duelfur reports) nor had the capacity to make (again re same reports)?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
By huge, what are we talking about, that the probability of event X>5%?

Get over it Naples. There were no weapons. That is not what has been said by all of these studies and reports. Talk about letting the media leading people around by the nose-ring.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Get real. I am a homo, what's it to you?;)

Are you saying it is not a definite possibility?

Thing is you can't. Because it is a huge possibility.

Of course it's a possibility. A "huge" possibility. Who knows? Any and everything is a possibility when you don't have any concrete evidence or facts.

George Soros fortune could've come from drug money. We just don't know.

Brittney Spears might have a set of hairy ones. That will always be a possibility unless I go down on her myself, right? Photos? They can be faked. Testimony? Can be perjured. Relentless testimony to the contrary from the accused? Protesting too much.

This silly probability game can be applied to pretty much anything.

But let's so you're right. Let's say Syria has the weapons. I would far more concerned about these weapons in the hands of Syrians than I would be Iraqis.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Northgate
Straight out of the playbook by Dennis Hastert.

Naples might be a homosexual. The problem is we just don't know for sure. Which leads to the conclusion that it's definitely possible. We just don't know.

;)



http://www.mahopa.de/bilder/lustige-forenbilder/bunny-pancake.jpg

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Northgate
Of course it's a possibility. A "huge" possibility. Who knows? Any and everything is a possibility when you don't have any concrete evidence or facts.

George Soros fortune could've come from drug money. We just don't know.

Brittney Spears might have a set of hairy ones. That will always be a possibility unless I go down on her myself, right? Photos? They can be faked. Testimony? Can be perjured. Relentless testimony to the contrary from the accused? Protesting too much.

This silly probability game can be applied to pretty much anything.

But let's so you're right. Let's say Syria has the weapons. I would far more concerned about these weapons in the hands of Syrians than I would be Iraqis. BINGO!

Johnny, tell him what he's won....

[giant]

Who wudda thunk that this thread could become an even bigger pile of crap than it was in the first place?

[faust9]

Originally posted by NaplesX
BINGO!

Johnny, tell him what he's won....

Naples do you understand that northgate is undermining your idea that nonexistent weapons were transfered?

[segovius]

It is a ZERO possibility as anyone with any knowledge of this area will already know:

1) Iraqi WMD did not exist - let it go (that's even a reason for the zero possibility though btw)

2) The Syrian Ba'ath are a completely different party and ideology from the Iraqi - they hated each other.

3) Asad is not a fool. He knows that Syria is next on the warheads list and has known it for a long time: he has two choices and two only:

a) arm to the teeth and prepare to fight rearguard (the Saddam route)
b) cozy to the US (as far as possible with the maniacs in power at the moment)

He has chosen b) and he chose it a long time ago. Before the war even.

So b) excludes taking the WMD which would be part of a).

Further evidence for b) is the concessions Asad is constantly making to the US - none of which you will hear about because the war machine is cranking up for when Bush wins and they don't want the sheep getting the wrong (right) impression. Murder is always so difficult to justify....

These concessions include:

Turning over the suspects for the Istanbul bombing to the Turks.

Extraditing Islamists to the US (and the 'disappeared' list a la Latin America no doubt).

Initiating negotiations with the US - these unfortunately always founder because the Bush admin's middle east policy is written by Israel.

Which is why Syrian civilians can expect to be dying in large numbers shortly after Bush is re-elected.

Nice.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by segovius
Which is why Syrian civilians can expect to be dying in large numbers shortly after Bush is re-elected.

You may be more right than you know.

[faust9]

Originally posted by giant
Who wudda thunk that this thread could become an even bigger pile of crap than it was in the first place?

Why are you shocked that Sisyphus (http://www.pantheon.org/articles/s/sisyphus.html) is still pushing his rock forever uphill?

[Northgate]

I just wanted to inject Brittney Spear's genitalila into a conversation. That's all. ;)

[jimmac]

Originally posted by NaplesX
BINGO!

Johnny, tell him what he's won....


The horse is dead already!



OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!

[dmz]

NaplesX, I think what they are trying to say is that Syria hated Iraq SO MUCH that they bought all that oil under the table.


Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd


That of all the traffic that was going across the Iraq/Syria border was stuff not related to how much Syria hated Iraq.



Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd


That none of the stuff that Syria and Iraq were trading out of hatred, was WMD related, since there was not on shred of that sort of material in Iraq -- that the UN weapons inspectors were searching through Iraq simply because they had nothing else to do.



Now some might sit down and think about the odd situtation in Iraq, of abilities and weapons programs, lots of low-level enriched uranium, and great deal of history dealing with WMD and ask:

How did ding dong get rid of ALL THAT STUFF?!! Did he flush it down the potty? Did he hide it in the desert? Did he let some of it go stale and dump it in the desert? Hmmmmmmmm........


But since we have vairous poster's personal guarantee that not one uranium atom ever ended up in Syria, so I guess it's just impossible for SH to go that route.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by dmz
NaplesX, I think what they are trying to say is that Syria hated Iraq SO MUCH that they bought all that oil under the table.


Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd


That of all the traffic that was going across the Iraq/Syria border was stuff not related to how much Syria hated Iraq.



Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd


That none of the stuff that Syria and Iraq were trading out of hatred, was WMD related, since there was not on shred of that sort of material in Iraq -- that the UN weapons inspectors were searching through Iraq simply because they had nothing else to do.



Now some might sit down and think about the odd situtation in Iraq, of abilities and weapons programs, lots of low-level enriched uranium, and great deal of history dealing with WMD and ask:

How did ding dong get rid of ALL THAT STUFF?!! Did he flush it down the potty? Did he hide it in the desert? Did he let some of it go stale and dump it in the desert? Hmmmmmmmm........


But since we have vairous poster's personal guarantee that not one uranium atom ever ended up in Syria, so I guess it's just impossible for SH to go that route. And since they firmly believe the liberal spin, it must be true.

There are no more WMD in the region to worry about. Pack it up and go home. Give it to the UN to handle now.

[MarcUK]

Excuse me for being ignorant,

The first I knew of low-level enriched uranium was about a week ago, when the news started reporting that it has gone missing and that whole buildings have been dismantled and shipped at randon across the globe, right under the Americans noses.

I ask, If we knew the Iraqi's had such stuff, why were we not guarding it and cataloging it? Why had it not been produced as evidence of WMD programs, and how is it possible to ship out and dismantle known buildings right under our noses?

It stinks of Farce.

[dmz]

Actually if I remember right, the US quietly removed the stuff in June.


USA Filleted (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-07-iraq-uranium_x.htm)

[giant]

He's talking about equipment and buildings, not the Tuwaitha uranium. And it wasn't quiet. Everyone had a story on it, including, obviously, USA Today.

[dmz]

2 tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1,000 highly radioactive items


That seems like more than enought to get someone into trouble.

[giant]

What does the Tuwaitha uranium have to do with anything? Are you just for the first time, a year and a half after 'major combat operations,' learning about the history of Iraq WMD?

You remind me of the nuts that shit their pants when the marines secured it during the invasion, broke the IAEA seals and claimed it was plutonium.

[dmz]

I think the point was that there was nothing at all left to transferr to Syria.

[Nightcrawler]

It's rather easy: Off course Iraq didn't have any usable WMD's, and Bush knew that! Otherwise he wouldn't have invaded Iraq, too risky. Bush and his administration knew quite clearly that Saddam's usable WMD's were destroyed by the UN-inspectors and Saddam himself.

In the no-fly-zones in Iraq the US and Britain flew daily bombardments, ensuring that any defense of Iraq gets destroyed, be it anti-plane-rockets or radars or anything else military usable. Even companies producing ammunition or weapons were destroyed, the nuclear reactors were destroyed already by Israel.

What was it then that motivated Bush and his administration to invade Iraq, if it were not WMDs, was it the oil? Or was it the human rights situation? Or was it the will to remodel an islamic country into a modern democracy with a modern capitalistic economy that hails freedom?

The truth is it's all that mixed together and a bit more. It's the strategy to control the middle-east-oil more closely than before in order to prevent that oil is traded in euros instead of dollars. If ever a vital ressource were to be traded in euros instead of dollars it would create a domino-effect, that could render the dollar useless as THE world-trade-currency, which could seriously hamper the US-economy, and which could lead to a much stronger EU-econmy and consequentially also a much stronger EU as before.

Perhaps not everyone knows it, but the greatest fear of the neocons is that the US-empire could collapse and that the US-western-hemisphere would shrink back to the state it was in 19th-century, when it only dominated north- and southamerica.

The neocons fear it that much not only because of the loss of power, influence, wealth, etc..., but also because they think that a world without a dominating US would return to the devastating wars the european mights led in the 18th/19th-century and in the two worldwars.

The neocons are educated people, they have read a lot of historical books about the old empires of the roman and greek and other empires, in order to somewhat find out the formula of how to prevent the collapse of the american empire.

They found out that to prevent that it is necessary to prevent the upcoming of another competing empire and for that it is necessary to closely control vital ressources and to have military bases near the possible new empires.

The neocons-thinktanks came up with four possible new empires: The chinese empire, the russian empire (yes, eventhough the Soviet-Union collapsed a new russian empire could come out of it), the european empire, and even though more remote an islamic empire.

The neocons truly think that as long as they prevent the creation of these empires, the american empire will last. Personally I think that exactly the strategy to prevent the creation of other empires forces the end of the american empire, but that's just me.

Nightcrawler

[tonton]

When Rome fell it fell from within.

[Harald]

Originally posted by Nightcrawler
If ever a vital ressource were to be traded in euros instead of dollars it would create a domino-effect, that could render the dollar useless as THE world-trade-currency, which could seriously hamper the US-economy, and which could lead to a much stronger EU-econmy and consequentially also a much stronger EU as before.

We're not talking 'hamper the US economy.' The size of the budget and balance of trade deficit is so large -- like, fucking massive -- that the US would collapse. It would be bankrupt. It would not be able to feed its citizens.

The entire 'American Way of Life®' would be over.

[tonton]

Originally posted by Harald
We're not talking 'hamper the US economy.' The size of the budget and balance of trade deficit is so large -- like, fucking massive -- that the US would collapse. It would be bankrupt. It would not be able to feed its citizens.

The entire 'American Way of Life®' would be over.

Exactly. So Clinton's way of avoiding such an effect should this transition take place was to eliminate the deficit and reduce the debt. Bush's way is to not give a fuck about debt reduction and fight like hell to make sure such a transition never occurs.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Harald
We're not talking 'hamper the US economy.' The size of the budget and balance of trade deficit is so large -- like, fucking massive -- that the US would collapse. It would be bankrupt. It would not be able to feed its citizens.

The entire 'American Way of Life®' would be over.

This is a primary argument against the 'terrorists want to destroy our way of life' school of thought and proof it is a crock.

If terrorists really wanted to cause the downfall of the US then they would do it economically. They haven't.

All it would take is to do the one thing no capitalist would ever do: make large scale insane bets on the stock market. Possibly in relation to 'terrorist' events.

Just like those guys who bet on the put options pre-911 - except those obviously weren't terrorists as they have made millions and got away with it while the story got killed off.

If and when 'real' terrorists decide to end the US way of life then it will be over in weeks - it wouldn't take much: $500, 000 M selectively squandered and panic and greed take over - then there's the budget deficit in tandem.....

[dmz]

Originally posted by Harald
We're not talking 'hamper the US economy.' The size of the budget and balance of trade deficit is so large -- like, fucking massive -- that the US would collapse. It would be bankrupt. It would not be able to feed its citizens.

The entire 'American Way of Life®' would be over.


Herald, that was just silly, and so was the comment you quoted. The inrticacies of fiat currency are a bit more complicated than that. You can't willy-nilly shunt that much capital out of the World markets without effecting (okay destroying) those same world markets.

Honestly you guys -- this starting to sound like a bad séance.

[Harald]

Originally posted by dmz
Herald, that was just silly, and so was the comment you quoted. The inrticacies of fiat currency are a bit more complicated than that. You can't willy-nilly shunt that much capital out of the World markets without effecting (okay destroying) those same world markets.

Honestly you guys -- this starting to sound like a bad séance.

Uh, hello?

That's exactly what I'm talking about. I think you may have missed something very basic.

Imagine I have a business. I am trading at a massive loss, MASSIVE loss. Every day I owe more and more and more to other companies. At the same time, I am spending MASSIVE amounts on pension schemes, security and administration inside the company.

Imagine these losses and spending are the largest of any company in the history of the world by an extremely large margin. Like, the largest of any company. In the history of the world. By an extremely large margin.

What would possess anyone in their right mind to buy shares in my company or lend me money?

1) Security of the loan
2) Promise of growth of the company.

There is nothing else -- NOTHING -- that makes this sane.

So what keeps people secure in their loans to the US? What keeps the dollar from collapsing under what is in 100% of other situations ludicrous overvaluation? Why do people still buy 'shares' in the US (use the dollar as a reserve currency)?

Say it with me, DMZ: "petrodollars." The fact that for energy is fundamental to capitalist growth, and to get it we all have to have dollars. And the security is that all those dollars under Saudi and Iraq that will one day be pumped out and which economies will have to get hold of and keep or they get no energy and fall to pieces.

What would happen to the US economy if oil was sold in euros? When people realised that the dollar was no longer the primary reserve currency? That they should ask for their debts to be paid? That oil pumped out of the ground no longer meant that America Inc. could trade at a MASSIVE loss and have a MASSIVE budget deficit?

This is simple, unimpeachable economics. You cannot debunk it. It cannot be debunked.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Harald
We're not talking 'hamper the US economy.' The size of the budget and balance of trade deficit is so large -- like, fucking massive -- that the US would collapse. It would be bankrupt. It would not be able to feed its citizens.

The entire 'American Way of Life®' would be over. The US government feeds it's citizens?

Where do I get on that gravy train?

[dmz]

Herald, honestly -- foreign investment, for example, comes to America because of it's abilibty to produce and consume. Suggesting that any contry in the world could walk away from the U.S. economy, or in any way attempt to harm the U.S. economy, is bizzare.


I'm out of time, so you'll have to setlle for a quote:

Another unfounded worry about the trade deficit is that it will saddle future generations with an unsustainable "foreign debt." It is true that foreign investors own about $1.5 trillion more in U.S.-based assets than Americans own in foreign assets abroad. But about half of foreign-owned assets in the United States are not debt but equity--direct investment in factories and real estate and portfolio investment in corporate stock. And the $1.5 trillion in net foreign investment in the United States is only about 16 percent of Gross Domestic Product, and 4 percent of the net wealth of all U.S. households and non-profit organizations. Net payments to finance our foreign "debt" were less than $20 billion in 1999, about one-fifth of one percent of GDP.


Yet another worry is that chronic trade deficits will spook foreign investors and undermine the foreign-exchange value of the U.S. dollar -- sending stock and bond markets and the real economy into a tailspin. The problem with that scenario is that it ignores the fact that trade deficits are linked to a strong, not a weak, dollar. The trade deficit increases the supply of dollars in the global economy, as foreign producers accept more dollars in payment for imports. But in times of economic expansion, the demand for those dollars by foreign investors seeking to buy U.S. assets is even greater. As long as foreign demand for U.S. assets remains strong, the dollar will remain high, and so will the trade deficit.


The best policy is to ignore th