Join the CIA and torture innocent people without consequence!

[DeathScepter]

Given the fact both of their regimes are of the Baitth(msp) party and Saddam has a grudge against the U.S. since the Persian Gulf War.

 

So the Likely hood of both of them working together to hide the WMDs.

 

 

 

Also there are many ways to hide the WMD with or without Syria's help.

[Gorgon]

"

actually you can't use the words "proven fact" as there is strong evidence he had something (they don't know what), and shipped it out during the dead period before the war, probably to syria.

 

taks

"

 

What a sad little fig leaf, but sure, it's not completely proven.

[Sand]

Given the fact both of their regimes are of the Baitth(msp) party and Saddam has a grudge against the U.S. since the Persian Gulf War.

 

So the Likely hood of both of them working together to hide the WMDs.

 

 

 

Also there are many ways to hide the WMD with or without Syria's help.

 

Why hide when you can use? If the US was in the process of invading wouldn't it make more sense to use WMDs to repel such invasion? Saddam had no WMDs. Saddam had no connections to Al Qaeda. The whole invasion was a farce and a waste of resources and lives. Congress needs to stop this warmongering president before he puts us at a three front war. I have no doubt that Heir Bush wants to invade Iran next, looking for any "justification" for it, even if he has to make it up.

 

In any case, if this has been going on for years, Taks, then it needs to stop and it needs to stop now. Those involved need to be criminally charged and punished.

[Musopticon?]

On the use of wmds; imagine the retaliation to such a move and you'll realise that shipping the weapons the heck away seems like a great idea.

[Gorgon]

LOL is this round two ? - The phantom weapons are now in Syria, quick, invade, send the secretary of state to the UN with a bull**** story.

 

Might I point out the source that Sadam had mobile weapons facilities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi

Edited March 4, 2007 by Gorgon

[taks]

What a sad little fig leaf, but sure, it's not completely proven.

just pointing out an inconsistency, one that you really don't understand. still not able to make a connection between successive posts, are you?

 

taks

[taks]

LOL is this round two ? - The phantom weapons are now in Syria, quick, invade, send the secretary of state to the UN with a bull**** story.

actually, no you idiot. they have pictures of _something_ being transported out. quite frankly, iraq is such a large desert that it wouldn't take much effort to hide anything. saddam had weapons, we know that. he failed to properly destroy all of them, at least he failed to report they were all destroyed. they went somewhere.

 

taks

[Sand]

Pictures of "something?" Oh yes, it could be "something" out there so lets kill a bunch of Iraqis and destabilize the whole region because "something" is out there.

[Guard Dog]

Pictures of "something?" Oh yes, it could be "something" out there so lets kill a bunch of Iraqis and destabilize the whole region because "something" is out there.

Remember the chess analogy I gave you Sand? Sometimes you need to take a square not because you need it now but because you will need it later? The war in Iraq is just a part of the war on terror. If Iraq and Afghanistan were both stable with a strong US presence, and Pakistan and Uzbekistan are allies with the US, Iran is totally surrounded and is less likely to launch one of those nuclear weapons they are building.

 

BTW, are you ready to change your name to Snow yet? Looks like you are getting enough.

[taks]

Pictures of "something?" Oh yes, it could be "something" out there so lets kill a bunch of Iraqis and destabilize the whole region because "something" is out there.

well, in spite of gorgon's inabillity to actually formulate a cogent argument to the contrary, it IS actually proven fact that saddam _had_ the weapons. they were documented by the weapons inspectors and they were not destroyed.

 

now, you tell me where they went, oh wise sage sand and also explain why large, undocumented trucks full of something were crossing the borders in areas they had no reason to be in... they had to go somehwere, so either they were buried, in which case they're still in iraq (and gorgon's already moronic comment is even more moronic), or they went out of the country to another country, one that is friendly to iraq most likely, and my statement is correct.

 

you two are like shooting dead fish in a barrel.

 

taks

Edited March 4, 2007 by taks

[Sand]

GD, that is a pretty big if and I just don't think it is worth the time or effort, or the resources and lives lost to do so.

 

Also there is no evidence that they are making nuclear weapons. Show me conclusive and 100% accurate information that Iran is making weapons then you would have a case, but there isn't any and I don't trust Bush's administration about intelligence reports. They have the tendacy like to edit things and make things up to justify themselves.

[taks]

no, but the level of enrichment they're going for can only be used for one thing, sand. i.e. only bombs need really pure stuff.

 

taks

[Sand]

no, but the level of enrichment they're going for can only be used for one thing, sand. i.e. only bombs need really pure stuff.

 

taks

 

Nope. Nuclear power plants need good material as well. Besides, who are we to tell Iran they can't have nuclear weapons? We have nuclear weapons, Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, Russia has nuclear weapons, Israel has nuclear weapons, and so forth and so on. If Iran is being threatened by nuclear powers like the US and Israel don't they have the right to use whatever technologies they have to defend themselves from such a threat?

 

If there was an alliance of nations or one powerful nation that is threatening my borders I would want the strongest weapons around to defend myself.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Sand

[Guard Dog]

no, but the level of enrichment they're going for can only be used for one thing, sand. i.e. only bombs need really pure stuff.

 

taks

 

Taks is right about that. Plus very little of Iran's terrain can be reached with power lines. One reactor could probably run the entire country's existing infrastructure. They are enriching far too much material (based on the number of facilities they have) for it to be anything other than weapons. Personally, I would have handled US foreign policy very differently since 9-11 had I been in the White House and the Iraq war to date has been an utter abortion. That said, were are in it and cannot back out without creating more and far worse problems down the road.

 

When we were packing up to leave in '91 everyone was saying we would have to come back because the job was not finished. That turned out to be true. I don't want to see US Troops fighting there again ten years from now. So as wrong headed as it has been done, better to finish it now.

[Guard Dog]

Nope. Nuclear power plants need good material as well. Besides, who are we to tell Iran they can't have nuclear weapons? We have nuclear weapons, Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, Russia has nuclear weapons, Israel has nuclear weapons, and so forth and so on. If Iran is being threatened by nuclear powers like the US and Israel don't they have the right to use whatever technologies they have to defend themselves from such a threat?

 

If there was an alliance of nations or one powerful nation that is threatening my borders I would want the strongest weapons around to defend myself.

 

Yeah, but they are talking about USING them.

 

Edit: Forget that last comment, it was hypothetical and pointless.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Sand]

The problem is, GD, it will never be finished.

[Sand]

Yeah, but they are talking about USING them. If we were having this discussion in 1936 about Hitler would you feel the same way?

 

Uh oh, someone broke the Goodwin Law.

 

The US and Israel have made quite a number of threats against Iran. We are the aggressors in this. We are the one's interfering and we have kept up this interference in this region for 60 years. If you have an aggressive foreign power at your borders, would you seek to get the strongest weapons you can get in order to defend yourself? Look through the eyes of the Iranian government. They see only threats and aggression against them. To use your Hitler remark, we are Germany and they are Poland.

[Guard Dog]

The problem is, GD, it will never be finished.

Probably not. Someone told me once, if you put a Sunni and a Shia in a room together and told each the other was the last of his kind in the world they would fight to the death.

 

Personally, I think 9-11 shows the wisdom of the Monroe/Roosevelt Doctrine. I would rather see the US concern itself ONLY with the Western Hemisphere. If it were up to me I would immediately close all bases east of Puerto Rico and west of Guam, redeploy those units within that zone and IMMEDIATELY terminate all foreign aid to any country not in North or South America. MFN trade status for China would be revoked and granted to someone close to home. As for the rest of world, they can get by on their own. Wars, tsunamis, whatever, they hate us, they have never helped us, why should our money help them. As for Europe, I doubt they need or want our help these days.

[Lucius]

Isn't it odd, that the danish contribution to Afghanistan is probably doing more than Germany/France? Even though it's a NATO operation? I'm just thinking that these guys really don't like you, as it is right now, I'm thinking the invasion of Iraq has a lot to do with this discontempt. When Canada requested assistance in their offensive last year, noone came to help... this is NATO?

 

And Spain, seems to keep a very low profile after the Madrid bombings, even though it's probably hightly unlikely that the terrorists could pull that off again, wouldn't you say? I'm just saying the Europe can't rely on the UK and smaller nations doing all the work, France/Germany need to get their **** together and wake up.

 

This was probably OT, but I just wanted to went my frustration.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Lucius

[Sand]

The problem is, GD, it will never be finished.

Probably not. Someone told me once, if you put a Sunni and a Shia in a room together and told each the other was the last of his kind in the world they would fight to the death.

 

Personally, I think 9-11 shows the wisdom of the Monroe/Roosevelt Doctrine. I would rather see the US concern itself ONLY with the Western Hemisphere. If it were up to me I would immediately close all bases east of Puerto Rico and west of Guam, redeploy those units within that zone and IMMEDIATELY terminate all foreign aid to any country not in North or South America. MFN trade status for China would be revoked and granted to someone close to home. As for the rest of world, they can get by on their own. Wars, tsunamis, whatever, they hate us, they have never helped us, why should our money help them. As for Europe, I doubt they need or want our help these days.

 

I fully agree with that.

[Gorgon]

"actually, no you idiot"

 

You need to learn to make people look like fools without actually calling them idiots, you know, like I have been doing to you the last few days.

 

'a sattelite saw something' is hardly compelling evidence of anything at all. Firstly we are clearly in wishful thinking territory here, secondly, since the mobile weapons facility theory is highly suspect considering the sources, what is left that could have been moved to Syria, a few chemical grenades... honestly, who cares. Syria could cook up some anthrax on its own without too much trouble.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

"

In any event it's interesting that you bring up the comparison with WMD. Do you not think that a brutal dictator unsupervised by ANYONE who has previously built WMD, wants WMD, and retains the industrial capabilities to produce WMD wil probably have them?

"

 

What are you talking about ?

 

Bush and Rice use the national securtiy estimate of 2002 to bolster the contention that they did the right thing with the information they had at the time, only there were plenty of dissenting views within the intelligence community that were never presented. It's called plausible deniablilty, tell us what we want to hear and don't tell us anything it might be better we be seen not to know.

 

It's a proven fact that Sadam didn't have any WMD but was engaging in a game of high stakes bluff, so I take it you mean Iran ?

 

You may not have heard, but I've got a lung infection at present, so I'd be grateful if you would refrain from making me laugh so much. Dissent in the intelligence community is like bitchiness in the movie industry. Intel is the art of drawing conclusions from imperfect data. Hell, you get dissent in the scientific commmunity where people can watch the data gathering under controlled conditions.

 

As taks points out, Saddam had UN proven stocks of thousands of litres of gas alone. They never stated plausibly what happened to those stocks. You don't just casually pour VX nerve gas down the sink like fat from the Sunday roast. Come to think of it, even that is a bad idea. Blocks the plughole.

 

I digress.

 

Nopw, maybe the comparison is more apt than I thought. The CIA is known to have taken a whole bunch of people. What has happened to them? Or does the UN have to send in inspectors to determine offcoially that abuse is occurring? Oh, wait, unless the US refuses to let them into certain areas, like Iraq did. Then the UN can pass resolution after resolution asking for investigative access, and wasting years and years. Sounds like a passel o' fun. We can put Hans Blix on it.

[Fenghuang]

As taks points out, Saddam had UN proven stocks of thousands of litres of gas alone. They never stated plausibly what happened to those stocks. You don't just casually pour VX nerve gas down the sink like fat from the Sunday roast. Come to think of it, even that is a bad idea. Blocks the plughole.

 

 

My dad saves a can from something that went in with whatever he's cooking and pours the fat in that; lets it solidify and throws it in the waste bin.

[Walsingham]

As taks points out, Saddam had UN proven stocks of thousands of litres of gas alone. They never stated plausibly what happened to those stocks. You don't just casually pour VX nerve gas down the sink like fat from the Sunday roast. Come to think of it, even that is a bad idea. Blocks the plughole.

 

 

My dad saves a can from something that went in with whatever he's cooking and pours the fat in that; lets it solidify and throws it in the waste bin.

 

For a second there I thought you were going to finish with "...and that's your momma".

[Lucius]

My brother saw someone in a car throw a can out the window onto the street, he picked the can up, and threw it back in. This continued back and forth, until the two young brats came out and wanted to fight.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Lucius