War in the middle east.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

You got it: pride and stupidity. The Duelfer report includes a comprehensive analyisis of Saddam's regime and his intentions re: WMD. Among the findings were:

It's a good read, but i come away with a different opinion Sadam knows that Chemical wpns is a major deterence a major trump card...one that i think he would have held close to him...but like i said i can not prove it...it is my opinion that Sadam or his sons..knows of the existance of Iraq's chemical wpns...and they are not saying much well he is not saying much.....i also believe that Sadam thinks he can attain power again ....and in the current conditions that might be possiable if the americans were to pull out...

[Black Dog]

AG:

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of  orce against it should WMD be discovered.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

Like i said i can not prove it...but the ISG were not there to witness each and every bomb or shell destroyed ....alot of this destruction was done by Iraq it self...and then verified by ISG at a later date...don't let the kids watch the candy store.

[Black Dog]

What I'm curious about, AG is why, despite the abscence of any evidence showing he had WMD or WMD programs since 1991, are you so very coninced he did. You don't come off as a rigid idealogue, so I'm wondering what you're basing your opinion on.

[Guest eureka]

AG, you have put out some resoned arguments about military needs in various discussions. You are, however, losing credibility with the claims about Saddam's weaponry and links to terror.

These claims when made by the uS administration, have been thoroughly debunked.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

why, despite the abscence of any evidence showing he had WMD or WMD programs since 1991, are you so very coninced he did.

We did alot of this type of thing with conventional wpns in Bosina, with many of the different factions, muslims, croat's, serbs, they would all claim they had destroyed wpns and munitions and we'd find them a week later stashed away in some warehouse......

what makes Sadam any different ....all the evidance reveals that he compliled 110 % with the coalition. he destroyed everything he had...to comply and to have sanctions lifted....that done all he has to do is what ...

Wait for the inspectors to come give him a clean bill and poof his country and lives are back to normal....

As per the coalitions demands...so why does he make it so hard on the inspectors...why does he try and block the only thing standing between military action or normalcy for his country. Are these actions of a man trying to comply with demands or are these actions of a man who is trying to hide something....

eureka:

If i have offended anyone with my remarks to Ceasar then i appolgise. they were childish as was his remarks to me in on a different post.

It is not my intentions to rehash the entire event , but to state that the evidance is not black and white...

There are no clear and absolute proof that x number of munitions were produced by Iraq and x amount were destroyed by Iraq and x amount were verified to have been destroyed by the ISG.

With that said are we to trust the Iraqis when they say they destroyed it all or the ISG when they say we can't find any ....like playing hide and seek and when you can't find a kid...he did'nt exist because we can't find him.....

As for the links to terror, your telling me that there is no AL Quiada in Iraq today....

[Slavik44]

As for the links to terror, your telling me that there is no AL Quiada in Iraq today....

George bush has links to terror then as well, after all are you teling me America is al queda free?

[Black Dog]

what makes Sadam any different ....all the evidance reveals that he compliled 110 % with the coalition. he destroyed everything he had...to comply and to have sanctions lifted....that done all he has to do is what ...

Wait for the inspectors to come give him a clean bill and poof his country and lives are back to normal....

Because they've been through the country with a fine tooth comb. They reviewed documents and interviewed captured regime officials and completed extensive field work.

All evidence points not to Saddam hiding weapons, but to him not having weapons in the first place.

As per the coalitions demands...so why does he make it so hard on the inspectors...why does he try and block the only thing standing between military action or normalcy for his country. Are these actions of a man trying to comply with demands or are these actions of a man who is trying to hide something....

Perhaps what he was trying to hide was teh fact that he didn't have any WMD. Think about it: Saddam believed WMD was a strong deterrent (especially against Iran) and a source of pride. He also felt that WMD would make him a force in the region. Now, if UN inspections were allowed and showed Iraq was clean, it would disgrace Saddam and expose his regime as a paper tiger, thus opening it up to external and internal threats.

Your analysis, while sound in its basic logic, is tainted by your preconceptions and (our) decidedly western way of thinking.

[Guest eureka]

Of course there are Al Quaeda in Iraq today: nobody disputes that. The relevant point is that there were none there before the American deposition of Saddam. The American adventure has brought Al Quaeda to many countries where they were not before.

How is that a justification for the inevitable introduction of terror to those countries due to the American hubris?

[B. Max]

I don't no where they got it, but if you get your information from the main stream media they barely will mention any of it if at all. They're to busy making things up like dan rather or trying to figure out what they want you to hear. I read a story the other day where someone was likening them to a bunch of fith columists. Can't say i disagree.

That's right: the sam emedia that brethlessly echoed every pre-war WMD allegation the administration made is now covering up evidence. In fact, this conspiracy even touches those charged with hunting for weapons in Iraq. It would surprise me if this bid to keep the overwhelming evidence of Iraq's WMD's (I hear they were also working on experimental giant robots and flying monkey suicide bombers) reaches all the way to the POTUS.

You mean hans blix or whatever his name was. The guy couldn't find his ass with both hands tied behind his back.

So why did he risk going to war over not allowing inspectors into all areas of Iraq....if he had nothing to hide, was it Pride or stupidity,...Why starve his people if he knew he had nothing to hide....why not allow them access to everything then be done with it after they left begin all over again....be allow to sell your oil and reak the profits...with the US troops gone home ....

You got it: pride and stupidity. The Duelfer report includes a comprehensive analyisis of Saddam's regime and his intentions re: WMD. Among the findings were:

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion,

irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic

missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

• Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi offi cials considered Iran to be Iraq’s

principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and infl uence in the Arab world

were also considerations, but secondary.

• Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the

value of WMD. In Saddam’s view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during

the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks

on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred

Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role

in crushing the Shi’a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fi re.

• The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither

was there an identifi able group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants

understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent,

but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.

It's a interesting look at the regime and its WMD aspirations, but its inescapable conclusion is that Sadam did not possess WMD.

You mean hans blix or whatever his name is. The guy couldn't find his ass with both hands tied behind his back. As for the likes of scott ritter, he's got traitor stamped all over him.

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/5/114239.shtml

[Black Dog]

You mean hans blix or whatever his name is. The guy couldn't find his ass with both hands tied behind his back. As for the likes of scott ritter, he's got traitor stamped all over him.

No I mean Charles Duefler, the man in charge of the United States' weapons hunt. The man who's report I've been quoting from for the past zillion posts. That would be the same report which contradicts your NewsMax (talk about reliable sources) by concluding

Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.

Why are you people still fighting this battle?

[B. Max]

You mean hans blix or whatever his name is. The guy couldn't find his ass with both hands tied behind his back. As for the likes of scott ritter, he's got traitor stamped all over him.

No I mean Charles Duefler, the man in charge of the United States' weapons hunt. The man who's report I've been quoting from for the past zillion posts. That would be the same report which contradicts your NewsMax (talk about reliable sources) by concluding

Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.

Why are you people still fighting this battle?

That's obviously not what Duefler said, or you are taking something out of context. Typical mainstream media tricks.

[Black Dog]

That's obviously not what Duefler said, or you are taking something out of context. Typical mainstream media tricks.

You know, it's standard procedure to check a source before running off at the mouth about it. You obviously haven't read the report, but

that's a direct quote from the its Key Findings. Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. The link is in the post you quoted earlier.

In fact: here's a direct link.

[B. Max]

That's obviously not what Duefler said, or you are taking something out of context. Typical mainstream media tricks.

You know, it's standard procedure to check a source before running off at the mouth about it. You obviously haven't read the report, but

that's a direct quote from the its Key Findings. Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. The link is in the post you quoted earlier.

In fact: here's a direct link.

Tell it to the likes of dan rather, moore and so on. Although i doubt the enemy from within could give a rats ass.

[Black Dog]

Um...Dan Rather, Micheal Moore et al are not the one's clinging to a bizarre version of reality where Iraq had WMD. You are. You can try and change the subject, but the fact is, all the evidence shows Iraq had no WMD and no programs to produce them.

I understand that nobody likes to admit they are wrong, but jeez: suck it up.

[B. Max]

Um...Dan Rather, Micheal Moore et al are not the one's clinging to a bizarre version of reality where Iraq had WMD. You are. You can try and change the subject, but the fact is, all the evidence shows Iraq had no WMD and no programs to produce them.

I understand that nobody likes to admit they are wrong, but jeez: suck it up.

Yes syria claims the same thing. Yet the terrorists that were caught last year on their way to jordan, with the chemical weapons they had to do who knows with them, got them in syria. Most likely they are some of the same weapons the russians moved out of iraq and into syria. Or else syria has their own chemical weapons and are giving them to terrorists, or both. More than enough reason to take out syria.

[Black Dog]

Yes syria claims the same thing. Yet the terrorists that were caught last year on their way to jordan, with the chemical weapons they had to do who knows with them, got them in syria. Most likely they are some of the same weapons the russians moved out of iraq and into syria. Or else syria has their own chemical weapons and are giving them to terrorists, or both. More than enough reason to take out syria.

C'mon, say it: "I. Was. Wrong." You can do it!

As for your Syria story, you might want to keep this in mind: "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." (not "won't get fooled again.")

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

Because they've been through the country with a fine tooth comb. They reviewed documents and interviewed captured regime officials and completed extensive field work.

All evidence points not to Saddam hiding weapons, but to him not having weapons in the first place.

And in a court of law where would that get you....the evidence has failed to prove "without a shadow of a dought" that NO WMD where in IRAQ prior to invasion...

There are areas in your evidance where you must take a leap of faith...and yes it makes sense to do so by many individuals, this is not a case of "was Bush right" it's a case that of what happened to these wpns...and if they are not destroyed who has them right now.... thats what scares me....

Your analysis, while sound in its basic logic, is tainted by your preconceptions and (our) decidedly western way of thinking.

I really hope your right...i don't think my thinking is that tainted...with x 6 tours into places like Rwanda, Bosina, Afgan, 1 st Gulf war. i think i may have a basic idea on how these guys think....don't get me wrong i'm no expert...but it has givening me the basics...

[Army Guy]

eureka:

The American adventure has brought Al Quaeda to many countries where they were not before.

It's easy to blame everything on the US, as the AL Quaida is a mindless organization with no agenda of it's own, and can hardly be held accountable for any of it's actions...

How is that a justification for the inevitable introduction of terror to those countries due to the American hubris?

Are you saying that the US is responsable for the creation of AL Quaida because of it's actions in Iraq, or it's foriegn policy...

[Black Dog]

And in a court of law where would that get you....the evidence has failed to prove "without a shadow of a dought" that NO WMD where in IRAQ prior to invasion...

You're asking to prove a negative. That's impossible. We can, however, usr the best information available to formulate an assessment. And I think the evidence is pretty clear.

As far as your court analogy goes, in court, the onus is on the accusser to prove guilt. So if this were a ourt, Iraq would walk.

There are areas in your evidance where you must take a leap of faith...and yes it makes sense to do so by many individuals, this is not a case of "was Bush right" it's a case that of what happened to these wpns...and if they are not destroyed who has them right now.... thats what scares me....

What about the "leap of faith" required to beleive there are/were weapons? Surely there must be some solid evidence available to support that claim. yet neraly every one of the Busha dmin's claims on WMDs have been proven wrong. So where does that leave us?

Are you saying that the US is responsable for the creation of AL Quaida because of it's actions in Iraq, or it's foriegn policy...

This is a much more interesting subject than WMD. While the U.S. was not directly responsible for AL Qaeda, they did play midwife by supporting the naescent radical Islamist movement in Afghanistan against the Soviets (interestingly enough, the U.S. now finds themselves in a similar situation in Afghanistan today). What's more, the U.S.'s actions in the war on terror have done more to boost AQ's cause than Osama could have dreamed.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

You're asking to prove a negative. That's impossible. We can, however, usr the best information available to formulate an assessment. And I think the evidence is pretty clear.

This is part of my point that small leaps of faith need to be taken when reading all the evidance, easy to do but does not prove "with out a shadow of a dought"

And the best we can do is formulate an assessment that "To the best of the US wpns inspecs knowledge that they can find no evidence of WMD proir to the US invasion"....

That statement does not say thier was or was not any WMD in Iraq just they could not find any evidence to prove it.

As far as your court analogy goes, in court, the onus is on the accusser to prove guilt. So if this were a ourt, Iraq would walk.

Your right ,i have said it all along that i could not prove it...

I know to all of you i'm just being thick headed but i do not believe in grey areas.. ...but we all know that all the facts are not or will not be presented on this matter....be it they are classified, or perhaps harmful in other ways to the US gov't and will not be released...and at this time there are defintly more evidence for Iraq not having WMD...

[Black Dog]

That statement does not say thier was or was not any WMD in Iraq just they could not find any evidence to prove it.

If you're a cop and you're called to a murder scene, but there's no body, no blood, no weapon, no signs of a struggle, nothing: would you still conclude that a murder had occurred?

Anyway, I think we're on the same page at this point.

[caesar]

It's easy to blame everything on the US, as the AL Quaida is a mindless organization with no agenda of it's own, and can hardly be held accountable for any of it's actions...

A mindless organization with no agenda????????????????

What are you talking about?????

They DO have STRONG leadership and a serious agenda.

Of course they can and should be held accountable for any of its actions.

That does not condone the actions of the USA government that has now angered Muslim nations; made them distrustful of the Agenda of the USA government towards other Muslim nations and has convinced many young Muslim youth that their survival is best served by joining these terrorists/ freedom fighters.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

While the U.S. was not directly responsible for AL Qaeda, they did play midwife by supporting the naescent radical Islamist movement in Afghanistan against the Soviets

Yes they did provide some intell and wpns to the Afgan freedom fighters...as this was during the Cold war...and Russia was the enemy.....

(interestingly enough, the U.S. now finds themselves in a similar situation in Afghanistan today).

Perhaps, with one big diffence the regular people of Afgan just want the war to stop and for most part support the US efforts....

What's more, the U.S.'s actions in the war on terror have done more to boost AQ's cause than Osama could have dreamed.

I agree that the War in Iraq( operation Iraqi freedom) has done more for Bin Ladins cause, the (War on terror)in Afgan is fairly well supported by the world...

[Black Dog]

Perhaps, with one big diffence the regular people of Afgan just want the war to stop and for most part support the US efforts....

I don't think the people of Afghanistan were stoked about the war against the Soviets. Interesting, too, that many of the vicious "warlords" that rule over most of that country also oppossed the Soviets.

I agree that the War in Iraq( operation Iraqi freedom) has done more for Bin Ladins cause, the (War on terror)in Afgan is fairly well supported by the world...

But from an Islamist perspctive, both invasions are the same: imperialist, western aggression against the followers of Islam. remember, OBL and his cohorts believe they are fighting a defensive war agsints western encroachment.