Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interesting Thought On WMD's

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Interesting Thought On WMD's

    One of the big selling points on the invasion on Iraq was to prevent Saddam from using WMD on the USA or his neighbors. We assume, even though they were never found, they were probably moved. So now, they may in the hands of Anti-USA terrorist groups. In addition. in the two invasions of Iraq by the USA, Saddam never used his WMD. Are they now in the hands of groups they may well use them? If so, have we caused more problems, rather than solved the problem?
    Sincerely, Lew Fisher

  • #2
    Uhm...what means 'WMD'?
    Resistance is futile!
    My little company

    Comment


    • #3
      WMD : Weapon of Mass Destruction.

      There are some days ago I heard French specialists who said that there are certainly WMDs in Iraq. But it is very difficult, maybe impossible to find them. Because it is very easy to hide biological and chemical weapons. More than that you can dismantle them and hide the elements in different locations. And taken separately, those elements seems inoffensive.
      But, anyway, even with WMD, Saddam wasnít really a threat for peace. He didnít use them in 91, Israel is able to defend itself alone, largely. The WMD were only an excuse, and the fact that there are or there are not WMD in Iraq has no importance. For several reason the USA needed to invade and occupy the country.

      And yes, itís now that Iraq is a danger, because some month ago a place where (civil) nuclear materials were stored was pillaged. And you can make ďdirty bombsĒ with this material, even if you canít make a real nuclear bomb.

      La Palice.
      Monsieur de La Palice est mort
      Mort devant Pavie.
      Un quart d'heure avant sa mort
      Il ťtait encore en vie...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Fishkoff
        One of the big selling points on the invasion on Iraq was to prevent Saddam from using WMD on the USA or his neighbors. We assume, even though they were never found, they were probably moved. So now, they may in the hands of Anti-USA terrorist groups. In addition. in the two invasions of Iraq by the USA, Saddam never used his WMD. Are they now in the hands of groups they may well use them? If so, have we caused more problems, rather than solved the problem?
        The most likely scenario is that Saddam Hussein either destroyed most, if not all of his weapons of mass destruction stockpiles, or buried them throughout Iraq. If he did destroy them, Saddam would have done so without UN supervision to avoid giving the appearance of submitting to the security council. Psychological reports produced prior to the war confirmed this behavior pattern. (In fact, if you do a search of the forum, there might be a link to the declassified copy of it.)

        The truth might be Iraq's WMD program existed solely on paper. Large stockpiles can be replaced quickly if you have the personnel and knowledge. If Bush and Blair didn't insist on a smoking gun, a more appropriate examination of intelligence would be established. Real intelligence is rarely direct. It's an investigation usually based on circumstantial evidence. Bush and Blair claimed otherwise and are paying for it.

        Of course, we all know WMDs were not the real reason for war. The US has 7,000 nuclear warheads guided by some of the most sophisicated software on the planet. We could toast every major city in Iraq in a matter of minutes. On order, planes equipped with GPS guided bombs could attack damns on the Eurphrates River. Depending on the season, the death toll would have been enormous. (Powell said that's how the US planned to respond if Saddam used WMDs during the 1st Gulf War if public opinion demanded.)

        Have we created more problems than we've solved? Yes. Now there likely dozens, if not hundreds of unemployed Iraqi scientists, likely more willing to sell their knowledge to the highest bidder than Russian NBC experts are. Many were likely "detained" in Iraq, and given jobs by the Ba'athist Party. Now, they have little reason to stay and could go to Syria and Iran, or the nearest terrorist camp to provide expert services.
        "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Fishkoff
          One of the big selling points on the invasion on Iraq was to prevent Saddam from using WMD on the USA or his neighbors. We assume, even though they were never found, they were probably moved. So now, they may in the hands of Anti-USA terrorist groups. In addition. in the two invasions of Iraq by the USA, Saddam never used his WMD. Are they now in the hands of groups they may well use them? If so, have we caused more problems, rather than solved the problem?
          Not really, we have always assumed that Hussien would not use them himself, that eventually he would hand them over to terrorist organizations so that they could use them against the U.S. I don't think that Hussien wanted to get his hands dirty.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Priest
            Not really, we have always assumed that Hussien would not use them himself, that eventually he would hand them over to terrorist organizations so that they could use them against the U.S. I don't think that Hussien wanted to get his hands dirty.
            Then the Iraq War was an even riskier step for the US than I figured.

            After all, it's easier to contain the enemy you know than to try to contain the enemy you don't.
            Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by tigersqn
              Then the Iraq War was an even riskier step for the US than I figured.

              After all, it's easier to contain the enemy you know than to try to contain the enemy you don't.
              Yes tiger it was a very risky move in a lot of ways, but, in the final analysis I don't think that Bush had much choice.

              Comment


              • #8
                Yes tiger it was a very risky move in a lot of ways, but, in the final analysis I don't think that Bush had much choice.

                Oh, I disagree, the USA had no business in Iraq. As we have seen, Saddam never used any WMD on us (and he had an optimal chance). We invaded under the veil of UN mandates (mandates the UN did not want enforced). The Bush administration screamed Saddam was a direct threat to the USA. At best, all he has ever has been was a regional threat. Basically, we were just looking for an excuse, much as Hitler did several times during WWII. Bush even relied on faulty intelligence to help justify the invasion. Now, we are stuck with huge expenses; mounting troop losses and loss of face just so Cheney's old company can make millions of dollars. Furthermore, now we have the balls to ask countries that did not want the war to help, but not share in the booty. What a joke. Finally, if there were WMD, they probably have been sent to various terrioists factions to be used on us at a later date. Good going Bush!
                Last edited by Fishkoff; 18 Sep 03, 00:59.
                Sincerely, Lew Fisher

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Deltapooh
                  The truth might be Iraq's WMD program existed solely on paper. Large stockpiles can be replaced quickly if you have the personnel and knowledge. If Bush and Blair didn't insist on a smoking gun, a more appropriate examination of intelligence would be established. Real intelligence is rarely direct. It's an investigation usually based on circumstantial evidence. Bush and Blair claimed otherwise and are paying for it.
                  The WMD question is a problem because the situation in Iraq doesnít work well and is still a mess, because nothing is settled since the end of the war. When the war finished rapidly and when Saddam was removed, nobody criticized the Coalition any more. To the contrary, the French, the Germans and the Russians didnít know what to say, and tried to save their face, and the Coalition triumphed. Because the operation was a success everybody thought that Bush was right and that Blair played the good cards. And that would have been the same thing if in the post war the most of the problems had been resolved quickly. If the democracy and the peace had slowly set up in the country, with good prospects for the future, nobody would care about the WMDs now, everybody would thought that the invasion of Iraq, with the installation of democracy and peace, would have been a good thing. And Bush and Blair had certainly banked on a quick victory, a population cheering the British and American soldiers, and an easy reconstruction. They were right for the victory, wrong concerning the population, and hadnít apparently prepared the post war.
                  Before the war Bush and Blair perfectly knew that the WMD stories were just hot air, but they thought that with the success of the operation everybody would forget them.

                  LaPalice.
                  Monsieur de La Palice est mort
                  Mort devant Pavie.
                  Un quart d'heure avant sa mort
                  Il ťtait encore en vie...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Fishkoff
                    Yes tiger it was a very risky move in a lot of ways, but, in the final analysis I don't think that Bush had much choice.

                    Oh, I disagree, the USA had no business in Iraq. As we have seen, Saddam never used any WMD on us (and he had an optimal chance). We invaded under the veil of UN mandates (mandates the UN did not want enforced). The Bush administration screamed Saddam was a direct threat to the USA. At best, all he has ever has been was a regional threat. Basically, we were just looking for an excuse, much as Hitler did several times during WWII. Bush even relied on faulty intelligence to help justify the invasion. Now, we are stuck with huge expenses; mounting troop losses and loss of face just so Cheney's old company can make millions of dollars. Furthermore, now we have the balls to ask countries that did not want the war to help, but not share in the booty. What a joke. Finally, if there were WMD, they probably have been sent to various terrioists factions to be used on us at a later date. Good going Bush!
                    You don't know that Hussein would have never used WMD's on the U.S. After 9/11 a lot of things that seemed impossible before all of a sudden became possible. That is why we had to review our threat matrix, and Hussien involvement in terrorist organizations.
                    Last edited by Priest; 21 Sep 03, 03:41.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Priest
                      You don't know that Hussein would have never used WMD's on the U.S., no one does. After 9/11 a lot of things that seemed impossible before all of a sudden became possible.
                      Yes, itís certainly something that non-Americans must think about. Priest, you perfectly resume and explain the fact that America has changed after 9/11. The non-Americans must admit it is something that they have difficulties to figure (sp?).

                      LaPalice.
                      Monsieur de La Palice est mort
                      Mort devant Pavie.
                      Un quart d'heure avant sa mort
                      Il ťtait encore en vie...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by LaPalice
                        Yes, it’s certainly something that non-Americans must think about. Priest, you perfectly resume and explain the fact that America has changed after 9/11. The non-Americans must admit it is something that they have difficulties to figure (sp?).

                        LaPalice.
                        Thank you LaPalice. It's not just the fault of non U.S. countries, I will have to admit that the Bush administration has failed to convey to the rest of the world how vulnerable Americans feel right now. Afraid that every two-bit terrorist with an axe to grind against America will show up in an American city with some WMD supplied by God knows who. All we know for sure is that there are a lot of them out there with no other thought than to kill Americans. Perhaps the U.S. is over-reacting, I don't know, I guess only time will tell for sure.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Priest
                          Thank you LaPalice. It's not just the fault of non U.S. countries, I will have to admit that the Bush administration has failed to convey to the rest of the world how vulnerable Americans feel right now. Afraid that every two-bit terrorist with an axe to grind against America will show up in an American city with some WMD supplied by God knows who. All we know for sure is that there are a lot of them out there with no other thought than to kill Americans. Perhaps the U.S. is over-reacting, I don't know, I guess only time will tell for sure.
                          The tragic reality here is that the Bush Administration prefers to keep people in "panic mode". It all likelihood, if there is an NBC attack on the US, it will be an act committed by domestic terrorists. The manu-facturing and transportation of such material is very difficult. Chances are, the terrorist(s) would be detected and apprehended before reaching their final destination. Personally, I believe the European continent is more likely to experience a WMD attack than the US. Terrorists could move great distances using a variety of less detectable means of travel. It's entirely possible to move from Iran to Paris not employing any means of public transportation. One could mount such an effort to reach the US, but would likely require a large vessel, which is more likely to be detected and inspected.

                          Whether or not Saddam Hussein would have employed WMDs is a good question. The most likely answer is no. Saddam knew the US was capable of mounting a devastating counter-attack. He was also not certain the Arab world would restrain an international response, even if the target were Israel. Any attack he did launch would pale in comparison to our response.

                          Originally posted by LaPalice
                          The WMD question is a problem because the situation in Iraq doesnít work well and is still a mess, because nothing is settled since the end of the war. When the war finished rapidly and when Saddam was removed, nobody criticized the Coalition any more. To the contrary, the French, the Germans and the Russians didnít know what to say, and tried to save their face, and the Coalition triumphed. Because the operation was a success everybody thought that Bush was right and that Blair played the good cards. And that would have been the same thing if in the post war the most of the problems had been resolved quickly. If the democracy and the peace had slowly set up in the country, with good prospects for the future, nobody would care about the WMDs now, everybody would thought that the invasion of Iraq, with the installation of democracy and peace, would have been a good thing. And Bush and Blair had certainly banked on a quick victory, a population cheering the British and American soldiers, and an easy reconstruction. They were right for the victory, wrong concerning the population, and hadnít apparently prepared the post war.
                          Before the war Bush and Blair perfectly knew that the WMD stories were just hot air, but they thought that with the success of the operation everybody would forget them.
                          To some extent I agree. While I don't believe the stories are hot air, I do believe Bush and Blair banked heavily on success to justify their efforts. In the US, I don't see many Americans asking about WMDs. It's more of an personal opinion. Bush has both parties by the balls, and is correct on the WMD issue almost by default.

                          As for France, Germany, and Russia's response, again, this was not too surprising. Chirac and the rest were resigned to the situation and maintain their foriegn policy strategy, which is more designed to make the best of any situation, rather than influence them. I believe most observers agree, the US could achieve UN support if it wanted to. However, I don't think Bush feels the contribution is worth the price both political and finanically. If people would do the numbers, they'd find most of our allies are in no real position to make major contributions. In 1990, the West had hundreds of thousands of troops just sitting around in bases. Today that's not the case. Many countries are struggling to meet their defense requirements while pursuing internationalism. I'm certain this is providing Bush with another excuse to keep the UN out.
                          "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Folks, inside my head I can hear a faint, but increasing, noise of the Saigon evacuation. Crowds screaming, the chop chop of helicopter blades.

                            We may have to get the hell out of Iraq, in a fashion less dramatic than Saigon but nevertheless.

                            I'm loosing heart.

                            If we were killing those people and bulldozing their cities sticking around 'till the job is finished would have made sense. But taking casualties in exchange for doing something that is really good for them in the long term (democracy instead the most brutal Arab dictatorship and prosperity instead of the starvation diet of "oil for food") is a bad deal.

                            Most likely Dubya or whoever follows him in the office (Dubya is toast) will set a token political goal for the Allies (e.g. "Iraqis elect some kind of governing body") and the occupation force will leave upon reaching that goal.

                            The mistake that was made in this war was the naive attempt at making the Iraqi people happy, whereas the real goal should have been to murder as many of the top leadership as possible and get out. IMHO this is the only thing that makes impression in the Arab world: annihilation of the ruling elite. Only they are responsible for everything that's wrong in our mutual relations. Casualty lists of KIA Arab conscripts are meaningless and only rally the population against the invading force.

                            The destruction of Saddam's Iraq was a very positive development, but sticking around and taking casualties serves only to encourage the enemy.
                            Last edited by MonsterZero; 21 Sep 03, 09:30.

                            "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
                            --Frederick II, King of Prussia

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              If there is any failure it rest at the feet of the Bush Administration and his main supporters. They got the country into this war with a pipe dream of plan for the post-war period. They kept blowing their horn about WMD and ties to 9-11. They are the ones that offered sweetheart deals to contractors with close ties to the GOP.
                              "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                              Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X