I see polls like this all the time, and it makes me wonder what the hell is going on in the rest of the country, because the people I know don't think this stuff is true. It's not that I think the polls are lying, but just who the hell are these people that think we've found WMDs or that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi or whatever and where did the pollers find them?
I never said you did. The fact that you have a poll backing up your assertion is fine, but we could both probably hijack this thread with poll results showing different conclusions.
Quote:
[/b]Maybe you just don't know enough people who watch Fox:[/B]
Actually, yes I do. The vast majority of my family are viewers of Fox News, and (not surprisingly) conservative. But none of them are misinformed. I myself watch Fox News more often than not when I choose to watch TV news (mainly because things like CNN and MSNBC are so damn dull), and I know they have not misrepresented the facts regarding what the ethnicities of the hijackers were or about what types of weapons were used against invading forces during the war.
I actually have several independent polls backing up my assertion. I'd be interested to see any polls you could produce that show the American public to be well informed about 9/11, Saddam, Iraq etc.
I'm intrigued that you watch Fox and yet you find them to be a good source of facts on Iraq. Do you have an alternative explanation for Fox viewers being less informed even after statistically compensating for other factors such as age and voting preference etc. ?
I also wonder what you mean by 'misrepresenting'. I've seen many links posted in this very forum that repeatedly and *very* strongly suggested that WMD had been found. They were often posted along with claims of "See, I was right! They did have WMD". Of course they still haven't been found so how do you explain that? Overeagerness on Fox's part rather than outright lying perhaps, just sensationalism, not premeditated fraud?
I agree with all these sentiments and that's why I would never, ever describe myself as 'pro-military' (and dislike those who promote wars to gain pork barrel defence contracts).
Having opinions is fine, but having opinions about the reasons for starting a war (war = bad) that aren't grounded in some basis of reality just isn't going to fly, just like having opinions about evolution being a liberal athiest plot to brainwash children (which some other forum members believe). There's plenty of info about WMD available so there's really no need for wild conjecture.
And finally I don't need to read your comments to know what ordinary Americans think. They think Saddam planned 9/11 and sent a team of Iraqi hijackers to do the job. Well, they're entitled to their opinion I suppose (still wrong though).
Stupider - Having read plenty about the military by now, I have few illusions. The military is as flawed an organization as any huge bureaucracy. When I say I am pro-military, all I mean is that I respect the courage of those who go to war and put their lives on the line for the rest of us. How can anyone NOT appreciate that? The soldiers, even the generals, do not make the ultimate decision to go to war - ever - at least, not in the US. So the "politics" of war is not the province of the military. They didn't make the decision to go to Iraq. But they went, risked, and even gave their lives, under the orders of civilians.
I think a strong military is essential to our security now and in the future. Strong not just with advanced weapons technology, but with bright and creative minds at the helm. Some very sharp and capable people make their careers in the services. I think they live under a peculiar circumstance, i.e. that most soldiers would prefer NOT to have to go to war, especially the ones who have experienced it. Victory or not, war is a terrible thing. But to study about war strategy and tactics for one's whole life, and then not be able to put any of it to use in the real world must also be a little strange.....kind of like rehearsing for a play for twenty years, but never actually performing it.
I know NO ONE who thinks Saddam planned 9/11. I think he might have known about it; maybe even contributed funding; maybe gave safe harbor to planners. Most of the hijackers were Saudis. That point has never been under contention.
As to the reasons for going to war in Iraq, anyone who believes he possessed WMD's, was developing and manufacturing them, and was prepared to supply some of them to terrorists, has no trouble knowing why we decided to take out Saddam and his regime. But all the dilly-dallying around for months with the UN gave Saddam plenty of time to move stuff out of the country for safe-keeping elsewhere.
The bunkers I keep mentioning, as reported in Newsweek, were built for Saddam's safety, 60-80' below ground. They were designed by German engineers to be bomb-proof, and were built - with no expense spared (like his many palaces) - before the '91 war. I think he would have moved some of his WMD to a few of those bunkers - out there somewhere in the vast Iraqi desert. I imagine he had 10-15 bunkers, at least; he certainly had enough palaces. Easy to use a few bunkers to hide stuff. And extremely difficult to find in a desolate wasteland.
Wow....I'm so glad that I didn't suck up to CarolA back when she first joined because it is only NOW that I can truly say that she is the COOLEST new person to our boards in a long, long time (and I have the right to say that).
She's taken the time and care to articulate her position instead of flinging URLs around like knife jugglers at the circus. Heck, she's even managed to make good old Stupider look like a snot!
Wow....I'm so glad that I didn't suck up to CarolA back when she first joined because it is only NOW that I can truly say that she is the COOLEST new person to our boards in a long, long time (and I have the right to say that).
She's taken the time and care to articulate her position instead of flinging URLs around like knife jugglers at the circus. Heck, she's even managed to make good old Stupider look like a snot!
Gosh, Drewprops, thank you for saying such nice things. You have put a very large and happy smile on my face.
And I loved your simile about the knife jugglers. I guess you know the way to an English teacher's heart. hehe.
As to the reasons for going to war in Iraq, anyone who believes he possessed WMD's, was developing and manufacturing them, and was prepared to supply some of them to terrorists, has no trouble knowing why we decided to take out Saddam and his regime.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view) anyone who believed that was wrong.
I believe what I say about WMD. I think Saddam tried to get as many out of the country as he could, to preserve them and to back up his lies. I think they're in Syria, Yemen, Sudan, etc. I won't be changing my opinion about that despite your ridicule.
You are focused on the wrong part of the equation. For example, how could Saddam ship out VX when it's physically impossible for him to have it in the first place?
I love the "Iraq definetly has TONS of WMDs"... but we just haven't found them yet argument.
After Rumsfeld and Cheney bragged about knowing "roughly" where they were...
They had weak intel and were more willing to run with it then they should have. It just gave them extra motivation to go in... which they were thinking about before 9/11. They saw it as way to democratize the middle east.
Iraq didn't have the resources or equipment to develop weapons. The UN sanctions were quite effective. As were the inspections. They found the oversized al-sammoud missles and destroyed them.
The Bush adminstration came up with all sorts of reasons to go into Iraq. Freeing the Iraqis people was the least of them. They pushed WMD, Nuclear development and Terrorist connections much more.
I remember thinking that their intel must be water tight for them to be making all these accusations... the impression was "trust us and we'll show you right where everything is"
Except, of course, that it was physically impossible and that there is ZERO evidence that any 'WMD' was shipped out of the country. The 'shipped to Syria' theory is a superstition (belief not backed by any fact) that runs counter to all available evidence.
The bunkers I keep mentioning, as reported in Newsweek, were built for Saddam's safety, 60-80' below ground. They were designed by German engineers to be bomb-proof, and were built - with no expense spared (like his many palaces) - before the '91 war. I think he would have moved some of his WMD to a few of those bunkers - out there somewhere in the vast Iraqi desert. I imagine he had 10-15 bunkers, at least; he certainly had enough palaces. Easy to use a few bunkers to hide stuff. And extremely difficult to find in a desolate wasteland.
Quote:
I think the WMD are sitting in warehouses in Syria, and are buried in 60-80 foot deep bunkers Saddam had designed/built by German engineers before the first gulf war. They're there, you can bet your bottom dollar.
Interesting. Before, you stated that the WMDs were in Syria in warehouses and bunkers. Are you now saying they moved them to the 'vast" Iraqi desert? ooook.
No wonder we can't find the WMDs. Bastards keep moving those underground bunkers. Don't you find it strange that we have "control" of the whole country, have most of the top scientists in custody and no WMDs yet? Not only that, but I remember reading in -Newsweek- that the companies that built bunkers in Iraq in the 1980's, including Yugoslavian companies,had already given us details and plans about them.
How many people do you suppose are required to store and move WMDs? Where are those people now that we have had "control" of the country for over 6 months and Saddam is in custody???
Interesting. Before, you stated that the WMDs were in Syria in warehouses and bunkers. Are you now saying they moved them to the 'vast" Iraqi desert? ooook.
No wonder we can't find the WMDs. Bastards keep moving those underground bunkers. Don't you find it strange that we have "control" of the whole country, have most of the top scientists in custody and no WMDs yet? Not only that, but I remember reading in -Newsweek- that the companies that built bunkers in Iraq in the 1980's, including Yugoslavian companies,had already given us details and plans about them.
How many people do you suppose are required to store and move WMDs? Where are those people now that we have had "control" of the country for over 6 months and Saddam is in custody???
Gilsch - Warehouses in Syria, and 60-80' bunkers in the desert of IRAQ. (He wouldn't build bunkers for his own safety in another country.) If the bunkers were built for Saddam's safety, which they were, he's not going to be announcing where they are located. He probably swore the engineers to silence, and though they might have communicated plans, I doubt they would give locations. Or, more probably, they might not even have known the locations. They might have been driven there at night, and didn't even know where they were when the sun rose. Easy to do that in a desert.
Re people: barrels of chemicals are moved to Syria and elsewhere, a few at a time, in pickup trucks or vans, stored in locked warehouses, five people left in Syria to guard the warehouses. Some barrels go by ship to Yemen/Sudan. The few people needed for this operation stay in the towns where the supplies are stored. They don't go back to Iraq. No surprise that we don't have them in custody.
As far as scientists not knowing stuff, a murderous dictator gives no one any more informantion than they must have to do their job. That's the way criminal regimes operate - only a few people know all the information. Everyone else just knows their own little part. Standard operating procedure for the KGB and other delightful groups.
Barrels are put in bunkers out in the desert, down 60-80', and NO ONE is needed to "mind" them. The bunkers are re-concealed with whatever desert camouflage works best, and the WMD are left there by themselves, in storage.
Maybe you don't know much about what deserts are like, with blowing sand obscuring what was once a road, and the whole unvariegated surface of hundreds of square miles that all look the same. Easy to get lost out there, with no landmarks, or with dunes shifting in appearance after every windstorm. Deserts would be a perfect place to dig deep bunkers and disguise the surface entrances. Easy to do.
Saddam was so paranoid about being assassinated that he slept in a different place every night, probably for the last twenty years. No one knew ahead of time where he would sleep. And I read that he was driven around in modest cars so no one would know it was he going by. So it stands to reason that if he built bunkers for his safety during bombardment, they would be well-concealed, and few people would know their location. They would be scattered around in the desert, probably in places unlikely to get bombed.
A barrel of anthrax could wipe out a city. How hard would it be to transport a few barrels to Syria. I'm speaking of chemical (and biological) weapons. A few barrels of chemicals - easy to ship to Syria, Yemen, Sudan - to spread out his supplies. Don't want to put them all in one place - not good planning. I read that experiments were done using dogs and botulism and a few other nasty things...like plague. Tapes were found of the animals undergoing their agonies after exposure to various substances.
And finally, since I am talking about chemical and biological materials as weapons, I have to point out how easy it would be to give a half a barrel of anthrax to a terrorist. Think of the damage a few people could do in a city with that much anthrax. Think of the traces of ricin that were found in London. Directions for making ricin were even found in Afghanistan, iirc. And there it shows up in London.
I might also mention as a side note that a whole truckload of barrels of cyanide was hijacked in Mexico a year ago. The truck was found days later, empty. All the barrels of cyanide were gone. Wonder what the plans are for that chemical, and where those barrels are sitting at this very moment?
Comments
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I don't just make this stuff up you know:
I never said you did. The fact that you have a poll backing up your assertion is fine, but we could both probably hijack this thread with poll results showing different conclusions.
[/b]Maybe you just don't know enough people who watch Fox:[/B]
Actually, yes I do. The vast majority of my family are viewers of Fox News, and (not surprisingly) conservative. But none of them are misinformed. I myself watch Fox News more often than not when I choose to watch TV news (mainly because things like CNN and MSNBC are so damn dull), and I know they have not misrepresented the facts regarding what the ethnicities of the hijackers were or about what types of weapons were used against invading forces during the war.
I'm intrigued that you watch Fox and yet you find them to be a good source of facts on Iraq. Do you have an alternative explanation for Fox viewers being less informed even after statistically compensating for other factors such as age and voting preference etc. ?
I also wonder what you mean by 'misrepresenting'. I've seen many links posted in this very forum that repeatedly and *very* strongly suggested that WMD had been found. They were often posted along with claims of "See, I was right! They did have WMD". Of course they still haven't been found so how do you explain that? Overeagerness on Fox's part rather than outright lying perhaps, just sensationalism, not premeditated fraud?
Originally posted by Scott
That was a bias poll.
Which one? And in what way?
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I agree with all these sentiments and that's why I would never, ever describe myself as 'pro-military' (and dislike those who promote wars to gain pork barrel defence contracts).
Having opinions is fine, but having opinions about the reasons for starting a war (war = bad) that aren't grounded in some basis of reality just isn't going to fly, just like having opinions about evolution being a liberal athiest plot to brainwash children (which some other forum members believe). There's plenty of info about WMD available so there's really no need for wild conjecture.
And finally I don't need to read your comments to know what ordinary Americans think. They think Saddam planned 9/11 and sent a team of Iraqi hijackers to do the job. Well, they're entitled to their opinion I suppose (still wrong though).
Stupider - Having read plenty about the military by now, I have few illusions. The military is as flawed an organization as any huge bureaucracy. When I say I am pro-military, all I mean is that I respect the courage of those who go to war and put their lives on the line for the rest of us. How can anyone NOT appreciate that? The soldiers, even the generals, do not make the ultimate decision to go to war - ever - at least, not in the US. So the "politics" of war is not the province of the military. They didn't make the decision to go to Iraq. But they went, risked, and even gave their lives, under the orders of civilians.
I think a strong military is essential to our security now and in the future. Strong not just with advanced weapons technology, but with bright and creative minds at the helm. Some very sharp and capable people make their careers in the services. I think they live under a peculiar circumstance, i.e. that most soldiers would prefer NOT to have to go to war, especially the ones who have experienced it. Victory or not, war is a terrible thing. But to study about war strategy and tactics for one's whole life, and then not be able to put any of it to use in the real world must also be a little strange.....kind of like rehearsing for a play for twenty years, but never actually performing it.
I know NO ONE who thinks Saddam planned 9/11. I think he might have known about it; maybe even contributed funding; maybe gave safe harbor to planners. Most of the hijackers were Saudis. That point has never been under contention.
As to the reasons for going to war in Iraq, anyone who believes he possessed WMD's, was developing and manufacturing them, and was prepared to supply some of them to terrorists, has no trouble knowing why we decided to take out Saddam and his regime. But all the dilly-dallying around for months with the UN gave Saddam plenty of time to move stuff out of the country for safe-keeping elsewhere.
The bunkers I keep mentioning, as reported in Newsweek, were built for Saddam's safety, 60-80' below ground. They were designed by German engineers to be bomb-proof, and were built - with no expense spared (like his many palaces) - before the '91 war. I think he would have moved some of his WMD to a few of those bunkers - out there somewhere in the vast Iraqi desert. I imagine he had 10-15 bunkers, at least; he certainly had enough palaces. Easy to use a few bunkers to hide stuff. And extremely difficult to find in a desolate wasteland.
She's taken the time and care to articulate her position instead of flinging URLs around like knife jugglers at the circus. Heck, she's even managed to make good old Stupider look like a snot!
Originally posted by drewprops
Wow....I'm so glad that I didn't suck up to CarolA back when she first joined because it is only NOW that I can truly say that she is the COOLEST new person to our boards in a long, long time (and I have the right to say that).
She's taken the time and care to articulate her position instead of flinging URLs around like knife jugglers at the circus. Heck, she's even managed to make good old Stupider look like a snot!
Gosh, Drewprops, thank you for saying such nice things. You have put a very large and happy smile on my face.
And I loved your simile about the knife jugglers. I guess you know the way to an English teacher's heart. hehe.
Love,
Carol
Originally posted by Carol A
As to the reasons for going to war in Iraq, anyone who believes he possessed WMD's, was developing and manufacturing them, and was prepared to supply some of them to terrorists, has no trouble knowing why we decided to take out Saddam and his regime.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view) anyone who believed that was wrong.
Originally posted by bunge
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view) anyone who believed that was wrong.
Whatever.
Originally posted by Carol A
I believe what I say about WMD. I think Saddam tried to get as many out of the country as he could, to preserve them and to back up his lies. I think they're in Syria, Yemen, Sudan, etc. I won't be changing my opinion about that despite your ridicule.
You are focused on the wrong part of the equation. For example, how could Saddam ship out VX when it's physically impossible for him to have it in the first place?
...obviously, it wasn't physically impossible, then. Hence you are wrong.
After Rumsfeld and Cheney bragged about knowing "roughly" where they were...
They had weak intel and were more willing to run with it then they should have. It just gave them extra motivation to go in... which they were thinking about before 9/11. They saw it as way to democratize the middle east.
Iraq didn't have the resources or equipment to develop weapons. The UN sanctions were quite effective. As were the inspections. They found the oversized al-sammoud missles and destroyed them.
The Bush adminstration came up with all sorts of reasons to go into Iraq. Freeing the Iraqis people was the least of them. They pushed WMD, Nuclear development and Terrorist connections much more.
I remember thinking that their intel must be water tight for them to be making all these accusations... the impression was "trust us and we'll show you right where everything is"
Iraq was in no way a direct threat to the U.S.
Originally posted by Randycat99
...obviously, it wasn't physically impossible.
Except, of course, that it was physically impossible and that there is ZERO evidence that any 'WMD' was shipped out of the country. The 'shipped to Syria' theory is a superstition (belief not backed by any fact) that runs counter to all available evidence.
Originally posted by giant
Except, of course, that it was physically impossible and that there is ZERO evidence that any 'WMD' was shipped out of the country.
Originally posted by Carol A
The bunkers I keep mentioning, as reported in Newsweek, were built for Saddam's safety, 60-80' below ground. They were designed by German engineers to be bomb-proof, and were built - with no expense spared (like his many palaces) - before the '91 war. I think he would have moved some of his WMD to a few of those bunkers - out there somewhere in the vast Iraqi desert. I imagine he had 10-15 bunkers, at least; he certainly had enough palaces. Easy to use a few bunkers to hide stuff. And extremely difficult to find in a desolate wasteland.
I think the WMD are sitting in warehouses in Syria, and are buried in 60-80 foot deep bunkers Saddam had designed/built by German engineers before the first gulf war. They're there, you can bet your bottom dollar.
Interesting. Before, you stated that the WMDs were in Syria in warehouses and bunkers. Are you now saying they moved them to the 'vast" Iraqi desert?
No wonder we can't find the WMDs. Bastards keep moving those underground bunkers.
How many people do you suppose are required to store and move WMDs? Where are those people now that we have had "control" of the country for over 6 months and Saddam is in custody???
Originally posted by Gilsch
Interesting. Before, you stated that the WMDs were in Syria in warehouses and bunkers. Are you now saying they moved them to the 'vast" Iraqi desert?
No wonder we can't find the WMDs. Bastards keep moving those underground bunkers.
How many people do you suppose are required to store and move WMDs? Where are those people now that we have had "control" of the country for over 6 months and Saddam is in custody???
Gilsch - Warehouses in Syria, and 60-80' bunkers in the desert of IRAQ. (He wouldn't build bunkers for his own safety in another country.) If the bunkers were built for Saddam's safety, which they were, he's not going to be announcing where they are located. He probably swore the engineers to silence, and though they might have communicated plans, I doubt they would give locations. Or, more probably, they might not even have known the locations. They might have been driven there at night, and didn't even know where they were when the sun rose. Easy to do that in a desert.
Re people: barrels of chemicals are moved to Syria and elsewhere, a few at a time, in pickup trucks or vans, stored in locked warehouses, five people left in Syria to guard the warehouses. Some barrels go by ship to Yemen/Sudan. The few people needed for this operation stay in the towns where the supplies are stored. They don't go back to Iraq. No surprise that we don't have them in custody.
As far as scientists not knowing stuff, a murderous dictator gives no one any more informantion than they must have to do their job. That's the way criminal regimes operate - only a few people know all the information. Everyone else just knows their own little part. Standard operating procedure for the KGB and other delightful groups.
Barrels are put in bunkers out in the desert, down 60-80', and NO ONE is needed to "mind" them. The bunkers are re-concealed with whatever desert camouflage works best, and the WMD are left there by themselves, in storage.
Maybe you don't know much about what deserts are like, with blowing sand obscuring what was once a road, and the whole unvariegated surface of hundreds of square miles that all look the same. Easy to get lost out there, with no landmarks, or with dunes shifting in appearance after every windstorm. Deserts would be a perfect place to dig deep bunkers and disguise the surface entrances. Easy to do.
Saddam was so paranoid about being assassinated that he slept in a different place every night, probably for the last twenty years. No one knew ahead of time where he would sleep. And I read that he was driven around in modest cars so no one would know it was he going by. So it stands to reason that if he built bunkers for his safety during bombardment, they would be well-concealed, and few people would know their location. They would be scattered around in the desert, probably in places unlikely to get bombed.
A barrel of anthrax could wipe out a city. How hard would it be to transport a few barrels to Syria. I'm speaking of chemical (and biological) weapons. A few barrels of chemicals - easy to ship to Syria, Yemen, Sudan - to spread out his supplies. Don't want to put them all in one place - not good planning. I read that experiments were done using dogs and botulism and a few other nasty things...like plague. Tapes were found of the animals undergoing their agonies after exposure to various substances.
And finally, since I am talking about chemical and biological materials as weapons, I have to point out how easy it would be to give a half a barrel of anthrax to a terrorist. Think of the damage a few people could do in a city with that much anthrax. Think of the traces of ricin that were found in London. Directions for making ricin were even found in Afghanistan, iirc. And there it shows up in London.
I might also mention as a side note that a whole truckload of barrels of cyanide was hijacked in Mexico a year ago. The truck was found days later, empty. All the barrels of cyanide were gone. Wonder what the plans are for that chemical, and where those barrels are sitting at this very moment?
Originally posted by Randycat99
Carol, you'll find that Gilsch has a very hair-trigger nature. Do a search on her and me, and you'll see what I mean.
You mean Gilsch is a female??????
I don't think I have enough strength to do a search right now.
I couldn't handle another episode like the last one I dealt with.
I think I'll delete that last comment.
Thanks for the 'heads-up', Randycat.