Are you so sure he doesn'thave the means to attack? Are you ignoring how they can cover their tracks? They will not blow up a building in the US and take credit for it. They will launder money and/or arms to soeone to do it for them, and deny the whole thing. Stop thinking conventionally. War will not be contained by these assumptions.
<hr></blockquote>
And the benefit for Saddam would be...?
You do realize that the main one of Saddam's driving political goals is wholly contrary to that of radical islamic groups. In fact, the islamic groups (to which such an attack would be attributed) are as much an enemy to his dream of the unified arabia as the US is.
[quote]
Hussein wants to be the next Saladin, the man who vanquised the crusaders and rules the Arab world. That's his motivation. You think he just wants to be left alone? You think he's only in it for the oil?
<hr></blockquote>
Do I think he's in it for the oil, you ask. How that as a motivation even came into your head, god only knows.
Like I said, there was a good three-part discovery channel special that packaged it for the more simple among us. Maybe you should take the channel off fox and check it out.
Here's an intersting tidbit from Stratigic Forcasting, LLC (pay only):
[quote]Speaking before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell described a sophisticated Iraq capable of simultaneously mounting highly competent research and development projects in nuclear, chemical and biological areas. He also described a sophisticated security system capable of mounting deception operations, monitoring and disinformation campaigns. Throughout his presentation, Powell described an Iraqi military that was coherent, coordinated and effective.
On the other hand, when discussing Iraq's ability to resist a U.S.-led attack, a very different vision emerges. In this vision, Iraq's military is seen as fundamentally incompetent -- in essence unevolved from its defeat in Kuwait in 1991 and incapable of learning lessons from past mistakes. In 1991, the allies mounted an attack simply to recapture Kuwait, employing a force of 500,000. In 2003, the force being deployed is half this size at most and is expected to conquer a much larger area, including a major city.
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld explained his view of the quality of Iraqi forces at a televised town hall meeting on Nov. 14, 2002: "In the event that force has to be used with Iraq, there will be no World War III. The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that. And, it won't be a World War III. And if I were to characterize the difference between 1990 and today, the United States military is vastly more powerful, and the Iraqi army and military capability has declined substantially."
In December 2000, an unnamed senior intelligence official was quoted as saying, "The Iraqis, across the board, have a serious morale problem. They are not eager to engage U.S.-led coalition forces in combat." He went on to say, "Equipment shortages and manpower shortages, we believe, affect the quality and quantity of their training."
The Bush administration, therefore, has two visions of Iraq. In one, the Iraqis are capable of managing a complex weapons development program and providing a sophisticated security program for it, which the United States has penetrated only with great effort. On the other side, Washington has a vision of the Iraqi military -- which also runs the weapons program -- as being incapable of recovering from a war that ended 12 years ago. The military is incapable of providing adequate equipment and supplies to troops in the field on which the regime's survival will depend in the event of war. Certainly, the Iraqis are aware of the growth of U.S. military power and of the decline of their own power. Why, over 12 years, have they been incapable of improving their conventional forces?
Iraq is setting itself up as the weapons manufacturer for any two-bit terrorist group with some cash.<hr></blockquote>I'm sorry but you must have mistaken Iraq for Pakistan and North Korea.
What were those North Korean missiles doing in a boat headed for the Sudan?
As much as everyone here wants to get their war on, you might want to actually go after someone who has admitted to having WMD. Pakistan and North Korea are tops on the list, but I believe that the former is some kind of special friend and getting military assitance, while the latter we are not currently speaking to, but sending them fuel oil and food anyway. One of you really bright muthas want to explain thaat away.
Well, the leftist's typical responses have all been offered:
1. The evidence is not credible.
------Fact; It actually IS.
2. The evidence is not sufficient
------Fact: It IS more than enough.
3. The UN won't and shouldn't let us go to war
------The UN has let Saddam deceive the international community for years. It is toothless. Its resolutions mean nothing. Iraq is scheduled to chair the disarmerment conference next month. Good God. Oh, and the last time I checked, The United States of America decides when it goes to war.
4. The UN charter prevents the US from acting in it's own defense and the defense of others (by attacking Iraq).
----Wrong. It does the opposite, actually.
5. We should just let the inspectors have all the time they need...conducting a scavenger hunt for weapons.
----Worst idea, ever.
6. The UN will place sanctions on the US for attacking Iraq "without provocation".
----I would LOVE to see that. Please
7. (bunge) The burden of proof is on the US and its allies...in other words the UN Security Council.
----Just the opposite. Not only should the burden of proof be on Iraq, it actually IS on Iraq. They have to prove the destruction of their weapons that they PREVIOUSLY declared. They haven't done that.
8. Iraq doesn't have any weapons of MD (I'll credit SJO with that one, though she never actually uses those words).
-----Well, there is no question what they USED TO have. Now, they say they don't have it anymore. They just have ignored it's existence while publicly making statements that they don't have anything. Oh, wait...they forgot about some of the weapons, which the UN found. No, no, my mistake again, they havent showed what happened to the material they admit that they used to have....or is it that they never had it? OK, OK...I think I have it now. Good. No one in his right mind actually thinks Saddam is chemical and biological weapons-free. No one. Say you don't want to go war....but don't say THAT.
In summary:
These arguments are crap. Utter crap. We have the right to do this. We are going to do it. It isn't for oil. It isn't for revenge. There will NOT be hundreds of thousands of casualties on either side. The UN will support action.
and...
Colin Powell made a DEVASTATING case against Saddam.
We have more evidence than I thought we would have. Can you say "National Security Agency Intercepts"???
If Iraq has all these chemical and biological weapons as alleged, then they must be extremely well hidden, because the inspections aren't coming up with anything.
Will open-ended warfare and the probable disintegration of Hussein's government and "the likely deaths of those who supposedly know where they are" allow us to more easily unearth and destroy them?
Will bombing these sites unleash "hundreds of tons of VX" in an out-of-control scenario and perhaps put thousands of US troops in danger of being poisoned?
If Saddam is so ruthless and if he has these weapons, might he not just unleash them on US forces, when backed into a corner?
It's a shame the White House doesn't listen to many of their senior generals and admirals, as well as CIA chief Tenet, who have all advised against a war, for those, and numerous other reasons.
Of course the constitution can be amended, and so can the U.N. Charter. But it hasn't been.
And I said the Constitution doesn't specifically mention the U.N. Charter because the Constitution existed before the U.N. Charter.
The Constitution specifically speaks of International Treaties.
That's what I said so don't put words in my mouth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting how you reply to that with a lot off huff and puff claiming I put words in your mouth and ignore the entire second part of the post.
You said, and I quote:
We're bound by the Constitution to the U.N. Charter.
And it has been shown to you that the two have not correlation, not even in treaties that you claim exist which do not. Until the Constitution says that the US is bound by the will of the UN Security council even when it disagrees and think the said security council is being dense or spineless and must fashion its foreign policy based on this, then your point has no weight. I am not trying to put words in your mouth, I am tryng to understand your point. On this issue, as with the DU you are adamant, and wrong.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>If Iraq has all these chemical and biological weapons as alleged, then they must be extremely well hidden, because the inspections aren't coming up with anything.
Will open-ended warfare and the probable disintegration of Hussein's government and "the likely deaths of those who supposedly know where they are" allow us to more easily unearth and destroy them?
Will bombing these sites unleash "hundreds of tons of VX" in an out-of-control scenario and perhaps put thousands of US troops in danger of being poisoned?
If Saddam is so ruthless and if he has these weapons, might he not just unleash them on US forces, when backed into a corner?
It's a shame the White House doesn't listen to many of their senior generals and admirals, as well as CIA chief Tenet, who have all advised against a war, for those, and numerous other reasons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did you even read the speech or listen to it? Come on people, it was all laid out there. And they did fond some things that were inevitably missed by the Iraqis. And what do we here about those. Ahh, just leftovers, they mean nothing... Yeah... How about a quote fromthe speech about one such thing observed via sattelite and ground sources:
I'm going to show you a small part of a chemical complex called al-Moussaid (ph), a site that Iraq has used for at least three years to transship chemical weapons from production facilities out to the field.
In May 2002, our satellites photographed the unusual activity in this picture. Here we see cargo vehicles are again at this transshipment point, and we can see that they are accompanied by a decontamination vehicle associated with biological or chemical weapons activity.
POWELL: What makes this picture significant is that we have a human source who has corroborated that movement of chemical weapons occurred at this site at that time. So it's not just the photo, and it's not an individual seeing the photo. It's the photo and then the knowledge of an individual being brought together to make the case.
This photograph of the site taken two months later in July shows not only the previous site, which is the figure in the middle at the top with the bulldozer sign near it, it shows that this previous site, as well as all of the other sites around the site, have been fully bulldozed and graded. The topsoil has been removed. The Iraqis literally removed the crust of the earth from large portions of this site in order to conceal chemical weapons evidence that would be there from years of chemical weapons activity
But then, what does Powell know? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
[quote]You mean like how attacking Afghanistan has caused so much more terrorism?<hr></blockquote>French tanker in Yemen, American diplomat Foley killed in Jordan, multiple attacks on churches in Pakistan, synagogue truck bomb in Tunisia, car bomb in Israeli resort hotel in Mombasa, shoulder fired SAM attack on Israeli plane in Mombasa, Bali nightclub, random shootings of American servicement in Kuwait and Afghanistan.
<strong>French tanker in Yemen, American diplomat Foley killed in Jordan, multiple attacks on churches in Pakistan, synagogue truck bomb in Tunisia, car bomb in Israeli resort hotel in Mombasa, shoulder fired SAM attack on Israeli plane in Mombasa, Bali nightclub, random shootings of American servicement in Kuwait and Afghanistan.
Are you stupid or just ignorant?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Show me how that is more than what was already going on before 9/11. You cannot.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong> IF these WMD exist and all this intelligence is out there, some if it quite old, WHY haven't the inspectors received it? They have yet to find any of these weapons. The inspectors arrive up at suspect locations without notice...or are there Iraqi moles within the inspection teams warning them of visits first so the sites can be sanitized? Or does the US regard the inspections as redundant?
</strong> <hr></blockquote>
The inspection teams have, I believe, stated that one of their concerns is the Iraqi requirement of having Iraqi officials go with them on their searches. This would give them at least some warning of when/where an inspection is to take place. besides which, how hard do you really think it would be to hide/bury any amount of stuff in 4 years in a country the size of Iraq?
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
What's the deal with attacking the entire country and then simultaneously offering the rogue element exile and safety?
</strong> <hr></blockquote>
Ummm....I guess that would be the point of the exile...to avoid the war. If Saddam leaves power, then the US/UN could move in without a fight. It's not like the US expects Saddam to personally grab a gun a put up a such a strong one-man battle that they would offer him exile in order to make the rest of the war easier.
The former President Bush -- himself a former Ambassador to the UN -- told the General Assembly in 1990, the United States believes "that universal UN membership for all States is central to the future of (the) organization ...."
And now the current President Bush deems it essential that we act with complete disreguard of our UN membership.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>If Iraq has all these chemical and biological weapons as alleged, then they must be extremely well hidden, because the inspections aren't coming up with anything.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Country the size of california. 4 years to hide materials and people assiciated with the hiding. hmmm..I guess one could expect the just *might* be extremely well hidden. What, you expected them to be laying in plain view with perhaps a neon sign?
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Will open-ended warfare and the probable disintegration of Hussein's government and "the likely deaths of those who supposedly know where they are" allow us to more easily unearth and destroy them?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes.
Without Iraqi govenment hinderence, a proper inspection can take place. Also, quite an assumption to think everyone involved in the WDM program would be killed in the war. The US/UN wouldn't target them, and by the time the war was far enough along to justify to Saddam a reason to exterminate every single last person involved in the WMD programs, it would probably be too late for him to take them all out.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Will bombing these sites unleash "hundreds of tons of VX" in an out-of-control scenario and perhaps put thousands of US troops in danger of being poisoned?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The fuel-air bombs used in Afaganistan would be quite effective in neutralizing many chemical/biological weapons as the tend to burn extremely hot and suck air into the explosion.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
If Saddam is so ruthless and if he has these weapons, might he not just unleash them on US forces, when backed into a corner?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, leave them so they can be unleashed on US civilians?...hmmmmmm well, I'm not in the US so go for it.
The former President Bush -- himself a former Ambassador to the UN -- told the General Assembly in 1990, the United States believes "that universal UN membership for all States is central to the future of (the) organization ...."
And now the current President Bush deems it essential that we act with complete disreguard of our UN membership.
Exactly!!! I mean, he even went so far as to actually seek and get a unanimous ratification for the security council on resolution 1441. He actually expects the UN to back up their resolutions, including the ones passed after the first gulf war, and as a member state is willing to act in order to enforce those resolutions. How anti-UN can you get!!
In 1991 his military was crushed. The same thing will happen again this time round. He must have his head buried deep in the desert sand if he honestly thinks he's going to be any contest to US forces.
Doesn't he want to stay on as President of Iraq? He could do just that, if he declared those weapons as requested, so the numbers matched those of what Powell stated this morning.
Or is war going to happen by default, no matter what he declares?
If the weapons are there, to not declare them suggests the man is either plain stupid, or he is a victim that same old "avoiding loss of face no matter what the cost" syndrone.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Is Saddam Hussein completely stupid, or what?
In 1991 his military was crushed. The same thing will happen again this time round. He must have his head buried deep in the desert sand if he honestly thinks he's going to be any contest to US forces.
Doesn't he want to stay on as President of Iraq? He could do just that, if he declared those weapons as requested, so the numbers matched those of what Powell stated this morning.
Or is war going to happen by default, no matter what he declares?
If the weapons are there, to not declare them suggests the man is either plain stupid, or he is a victim that same old "avoiding loss of face no matter what the cost" syndrone.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know about you but my skills as a mind reader sucks. However, looking at evidence as brought up, he is hidning something. That fact cannot be denied. Are you willing to stake your security or the security of his neighboring nations that it is not that bad?
[quote]Have the inspectors been left out of the intelligence loop?
Have the inspectors been given this list of suspect sites to inspect? If not, then why not?
If they already have this list of sites, one can only presume they would take them seriously enough to go and search them. Have they been there and what have they found there?<hr></blockquote>
from what i've read
1. yes, they have been left out of the loop. the U.S. intelligence group feels that the UN group has been comprimised.
2. yes they have been given sites. within a few days the Iraqis were at those sites with clean-up crews. when the UN inspectors got out there, the sites were clean.
as for already losing France, i was listening to NPR on the way home, they said that a French carrier has just left port, and troops are being told to be on stand-by.
they're on board, they just won't say so until they have to. they have billions in oil contracts they'd risk losing if they didn't help the U.S. and regime change occurs. (as in no help=contracts tossed out the window)
<strong>I'm sorry but you must have mistaken Iraq for Pakistan and North Korea.
What were those North Korean missiles doing in a boat headed for the Sudan?
As much as everyone here wants to get their war on, you might want to actually go after someone who has admitted to having WMD. Pakistan and North Korea are tops on the list, but I believe that the former is some kind of special friend and getting military assitance, while the latter we are not currently speaking to, but sending them fuel oil and food anyway. One of you really bright muthas want to explain thaat away.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I agree that we have multiple problems. I'd even agree that N Korea is quite probably more dangerous.
Pakistan I can't comment on... so far they've placed as nicely with their big toys as India, so who knows?
And I'm certainly not eager to 'get my war on'. You have me confused with someone else, I'm afraid.
Comments
Are you so sure he doesn'thave the means to attack? Are you ignoring how they can cover their tracks? They will not blow up a building in the US and take credit for it. They will launder money and/or arms to soeone to do it for them, and deny the whole thing. Stop thinking conventionally. War will not be contained by these assumptions.
<hr></blockquote>
And the benefit for Saddam would be...?
You do realize that the main one of Saddam's driving political goals is wholly contrary to that of radical islamic groups. In fact, the islamic groups (to which such an attack would be attributed) are as much an enemy to his dream of the unified arabia as the US is.
[quote]
Hussein wants to be the next Saladin, the man who vanquised the crusaders and rules the Arab world. That's his motivation. You think he just wants to be left alone? You think he's only in it for the oil?
<hr></blockquote>
Do I think he's in it for the oil, you ask. How that as a motivation even came into your head, god only knows.
Like I said, there was a good three-part discovery channel special that packaged it for the more simple among us. Maybe you should take the channel off fox and check it out.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
[quote]Speaking before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell described a sophisticated Iraq capable of simultaneously mounting highly competent research and development projects in nuclear, chemical and biological areas. He also described a sophisticated security system capable of mounting deception operations, monitoring and disinformation campaigns. Throughout his presentation, Powell described an Iraqi military that was coherent, coordinated and effective.
On the other hand, when discussing Iraq's ability to resist a U.S.-led attack, a very different vision emerges. In this vision, Iraq's military is seen as fundamentally incompetent -- in essence unevolved from its defeat in Kuwait in 1991 and incapable of learning lessons from past mistakes. In 1991, the allies mounted an attack simply to recapture Kuwait, employing a force of 500,000. In 2003, the force being deployed is half this size at most and is expected to conquer a much larger area, including a major city.
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld explained his view of the quality of Iraqi forces at a televised town hall meeting on Nov. 14, 2002: "In the event that force has to be used with Iraq, there will be no World War III. The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that. And, it won't be a World War III. And if I were to characterize the difference between 1990 and today, the United States military is vastly more powerful, and the Iraqi army and military capability has declined substantially."
In December 2000, an unnamed senior intelligence official was quoted as saying, "The Iraqis, across the board, have a serious morale problem. They are not eager to engage U.S.-led coalition forces in combat." He went on to say, "Equipment shortages and manpower shortages, we believe, affect the quality and quantity of their training."
The Bush administration, therefore, has two visions of Iraq. In one, the Iraqis are capable of managing a complex weapons development program and providing a sophisticated security program for it, which the United States has penetrated only with great effort. On the other side, Washington has a vision of the Iraqi military -- which also runs the weapons program -- as being incapable of recovering from a war that ended 12 years ago. The military is incapable of providing adequate equipment and supplies to troops in the field on which the regime's survival will depend in the event of war. Certainly, the Iraqis are aware of the growth of U.S. military power and of the decline of their own power. Why, over 12 years, have they been incapable of improving their conventional forces?
<hr></blockquote>
Iraq is setting itself up as the weapons manufacturer for any two-bit terrorist group with some cash.<hr></blockquote>I'm sorry but you must have mistaken Iraq for Pakistan and North Korea.
What were those North Korean missiles doing in a boat headed for the Sudan?
As much as everyone here wants to get their war on, you might want to actually go after someone who has admitted to having WMD. Pakistan and North Korea are tops on the list, but I believe that the former is some kind of special friend and getting military assitance, while the latter we are not currently speaking to, but sending them fuel oil and food anyway. One of you really bright muthas want to explain thaat away.
1. The evidence is not credible.
------Fact; It actually IS.
2. The evidence is not sufficient
------Fact: It IS more than enough.
3. The UN won't and shouldn't let us go to war
------The UN has let Saddam deceive the international community for years. It is toothless. Its resolutions mean nothing. Iraq is scheduled to chair the disarmerment conference next month. Good God. Oh, and the last time I checked, The United States of America decides when it goes to war.
4. The UN charter prevents the US from acting in it's own defense and the defense of others (by attacking Iraq).
----Wrong. It does the opposite, actually.
5. We should just let the inspectors have all the time they need...conducting a scavenger hunt for weapons.
----Worst idea, ever.
6. The UN will place sanctions on the US for attacking Iraq "without provocation".
----I would LOVE to see that. Please
7. (bunge) The burden of proof is on the US and its allies...in other words the UN Security Council.
----Just the opposite. Not only should the burden of proof be on Iraq, it actually IS on Iraq. They have to prove the destruction of their weapons that they PREVIOUSLY declared. They haven't done that.
8. Iraq doesn't have any weapons of MD (I'll credit SJO with that one, though she never actually uses those words).
-----Well, there is no question what they USED TO have. Now, they say they don't have it anymore. They just have ignored it's existence while publicly making statements that they don't have anything. Oh, wait...they forgot about some of the weapons, which the UN found. No, no, my mistake again, they havent showed what happened to the material they admit that they used to have....or is it that they never had it? OK, OK...I think I have it now. Good. No one in his right mind actually thinks Saddam is chemical and biological weapons-free. No one. Say you don't want to go war....but don't say THAT.
In summary:
These arguments are crap. Utter crap. We have the right to do this. We are going to do it. It isn't for oil. It isn't for revenge. There will NOT be hundreds of thousands of casualties on either side. The UN will support action.
and...
Colin Powell made a DEVASTATING case against Saddam.
We have more evidence than I thought we would have. Can you say "National Security Agency Intercepts"???
For more, see my new thread.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>
I'm not sure atacking Iraq would prevent more attacks (though I'm tending to think that)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd be interested in what reasons you have for thinking attacking Iraq will prevent terrorism.
<strong>
I'd be interested in what reasons you have for thinking attacking Iraq will prevent terrorism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You mean like how attacking Afghanistan has caused so much more terrorism? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Will open-ended warfare and the probable disintegration of Hussein's government and "the likely deaths of those who supposedly know where they are" allow us to more easily unearth and destroy them?
Will bombing these sites unleash "hundreds of tons of VX" in an out-of-control scenario and perhaps put thousands of US troops in danger of being poisoned?
If Saddam is so ruthless and if he has these weapons, might he not just unleash them on US forces, when backed into a corner?
It's a shame the White House doesn't listen to many of their senior generals and admirals, as well as CIA chief Tenet, who have all advised against a war, for those, and numerous other reasons.
<strong>
Of course the constitution can be amended, and so can the U.N. Charter. But it hasn't been.
And I said the Constitution doesn't specifically mention the U.N. Charter because the Constitution existed before the U.N. Charter.
The Constitution specifically speaks of International Treaties.
That's what I said so don't put words in my mouth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting how you reply to that with a lot off huff and puff claiming I put words in your mouth and ignore the entire second part of the post.
You said, and I quote:
We're bound by the Constitution to the U.N. Charter.
And it has been shown to you that the two have not correlation, not even in treaties that you claim exist which do not. Until the Constitution says that the US is bound by the will of the UN Security council even when it disagrees and think the said security council is being dense or spineless and must fashion its foreign policy based on this, then your point has no weight. I am not trying to put words in your mouth, I am tryng to understand your point. On this issue, as with the DU you are adamant, and wrong.
<strong>If Iraq has all these chemical and biological weapons as alleged, then they must be extremely well hidden, because the inspections aren't coming up with anything.
Will open-ended warfare and the probable disintegration of Hussein's government and "the likely deaths of those who supposedly know where they are" allow us to more easily unearth and destroy them?
Will bombing these sites unleash "hundreds of tons of VX" in an out-of-control scenario and perhaps put thousands of US troops in danger of being poisoned?
If Saddam is so ruthless and if he has these weapons, might he not just unleash them on US forces, when backed into a corner?
It's a shame the White House doesn't listen to many of their senior generals and admirals, as well as CIA chief Tenet, who have all advised against a war, for those, and numerous other reasons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did you even read the speech or listen to it? Come on people, it was all laid out there. And they did fond some things that were inevitably missed by the Iraqis. And what do we here about those. Ahh, just leftovers, they mean nothing... Yeah... How about a quote fromthe speech about one such thing observed via sattelite and ground sources:
I'm going to show you a small part of a chemical complex called al-Moussaid (ph), a site that Iraq has used for at least three years to transship chemical weapons from production facilities out to the field.
In May 2002, our satellites photographed the unusual activity in this picture. Here we see cargo vehicles are again at this transshipment point, and we can see that they are accompanied by a decontamination vehicle associated with biological or chemical weapons activity.
POWELL: What makes this picture significant is that we have a human source who has corroborated that movement of chemical weapons occurred at this site at that time. So it's not just the photo, and it's not an individual seeing the photo. It's the photo and then the knowledge of an individual being brought together to make the case.
This photograph of the site taken two months later in July shows not only the previous site, which is the figure in the middle at the top with the bulldozer sign near it, it shows that this previous site, as well as all of the other sites around the site, have been fully bulldozed and graded. The topsoil has been removed. The Iraqis literally removed the crust of the earth from large portions of this site in order to conceal chemical weapons evidence that would be there from years of chemical weapons activity
But then, what does Powell know? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
Are you stupid or just ignorant?
<strong>French tanker in Yemen, American diplomat Foley killed in Jordan, multiple attacks on churches in Pakistan, synagogue truck bomb in Tunisia, car bomb in Israeli resort hotel in Mombasa, shoulder fired SAM attack on Israeli plane in Mombasa, Bali nightclub, random shootings of American servicement in Kuwait and Afghanistan.
Are you stupid or just ignorant?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Show me how that is more than what was already going on before 9/11. You cannot.
<strong> IF these WMD exist and all this intelligence is out there, some if it quite old, WHY haven't the inspectors received it? They have yet to find any of these weapons. The inspectors arrive up at suspect locations without notice...or are there Iraqi moles within the inspection teams warning them of visits first so the sites can be sanitized? Or does the US regard the inspections as redundant?
</strong> <hr></blockquote>
The inspection teams have, I believe, stated that one of their concerns is the Iraqi requirement of having Iraqi officials go with them on their searches. This would give them at least some warning of when/where an inspection is to take place. besides which, how hard do you really think it would be to hide/bury any amount of stuff in 4 years in a country the size of Iraq?
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
What's the deal with attacking the entire country and then simultaneously offering the rogue element exile and safety?
</strong> <hr></blockquote>
Ummm....I guess that would be the point of the exile...to avoid the war. If Saddam leaves power, then the US/UN could move in without a fight. It's not like the US expects Saddam to personally grab a gun a put up a such a strong one-man battle that they would offer him exile in order to make the rest of the war easier.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
The former President Bush -- himself a former Ambassador to the UN -- told the General Assembly in 1990, the United States believes "that universal UN membership for all States is central to the future of (the) organization ...."
And now the current President Bush deems it essential that we act with complete disreguard of our UN membership.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
<strong>If Iraq has all these chemical and biological weapons as alleged, then they must be extremely well hidden, because the inspections aren't coming up with anything.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Country the size of california. 4 years to hide materials and people assiciated with the hiding. hmmm..I guess one could expect the just *might* be extremely well hidden. What, you expected them to be laying in plain view with perhaps a neon sign?
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Will open-ended warfare and the probable disintegration of Hussein's government and "the likely deaths of those who supposedly know where they are" allow us to more easily unearth and destroy them?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes.
Without Iraqi govenment hinderence, a proper inspection can take place. Also, quite an assumption to think everyone involved in the WDM program would be killed in the war. The US/UN wouldn't target them, and by the time the war was far enough along to justify to Saddam a reason to exterminate every single last person involved in the WMD programs, it would probably be too late for him to take them all out.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Will bombing these sites unleash "hundreds of tons of VX" in an out-of-control scenario and perhaps put thousands of US troops in danger of being poisoned?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The fuel-air bombs used in Afaganistan would be quite effective in neutralizing many chemical/biological weapons as the tend to burn extremely hot and suck air into the explosion.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
If Saddam is so ruthless and if he has these weapons, might he not just unleash them on US forces, when backed into a corner?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, leave them so they can be unleashed on US civilians?...hmmmmmm well, I'm not in the US so go for it.
<strong>Isn't it funny...
The former President Bush -- himself a former Ambassador to the UN -- told the General Assembly in 1990, the United States believes "that universal UN membership for all States is central to the future of (the) organization ...."
And now the current President Bush deems it essential that we act with complete disreguard of our UN membership.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly!!! I mean, he even went so far as to actually seek and get a unanimous ratification for the security council on resolution 1441. He actually expects the UN to back up their resolutions, including the ones passed after the first gulf war, and as a member state is willing to act in order to enforce those resolutions. How anti-UN can you get!!
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
In 1991 his military was crushed. The same thing will happen again this time round. He must have his head buried deep in the desert sand if he honestly thinks he's going to be any contest to US forces.
Doesn't he want to stay on as President of Iraq? He could do just that, if he declared those weapons as requested, so the numbers matched those of what Powell stated this morning.
Or is war going to happen by default, no matter what he declares?
If the weapons are there, to not declare them suggests the man is either plain stupid, or he is a victim that same old "avoiding loss of face no matter what the cost" syndrone.
<strong>Is Saddam Hussein completely stupid, or what?
In 1991 his military was crushed. The same thing will happen again this time round. He must have his head buried deep in the desert sand if he honestly thinks he's going to be any contest to US forces.
Doesn't he want to stay on as President of Iraq? He could do just that, if he declared those weapons as requested, so the numbers matched those of what Powell stated this morning.
Or is war going to happen by default, no matter what he declares?
If the weapons are there, to not declare them suggests the man is either plain stupid, or he is a victim that same old "avoiding loss of face no matter what the cost" syndrone.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know about you but my skills as a mind reader sucks. However, looking at evidence as brought up, he is hidning something. That fact cannot be denied. Are you willing to stake your security or the security of his neighboring nations that it is not that bad?
Have the inspectors been given this list of suspect sites to inspect? If not, then why not?
If they already have this list of sites, one can only presume they would take them seriously enough to go and search them. Have they been there and what have they found there?<hr></blockquote>
from what i've read
1. yes, they have been left out of the loop. the U.S. intelligence group feels that the UN group has been comprimised.
2. yes they have been given sites. within a few days the Iraqis were at those sites with clean-up crews. when the UN inspectors got out there, the sites were clean.
3. see #2
as for already losing France, i was listening to NPR on the way home, they said that a French carrier has just left port, and troops are being told to be on stand-by.
they're on board, they just won't say so until they have to. they have billions in oil contracts they'd risk losing if they didn't help the U.S. and regime change occurs. (as in no help=contracts tossed out the window)
<strong>I'm sorry but you must have mistaken Iraq for Pakistan and North Korea.
What were those North Korean missiles doing in a boat headed for the Sudan?
As much as everyone here wants to get their war on, you might want to actually go after someone who has admitted to having WMD. Pakistan and North Korea are tops on the list, but I believe that the former is some kind of special friend and getting military assitance, while the latter we are not currently speaking to, but sending them fuel oil and food anyway. One of you really bright muthas want to explain thaat away.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I agree that we have multiple problems. I'd even agree that N Korea is quite probably more dangerous.
Pakistan I can't comment on... so far they've placed as nicely with their big toys as India, so who knows?
And I'm certainly not eager to 'get my war on'. You have me confused with someone else, I'm afraid.