No WMD?

David

Hmmm. If he has disarmed and has no WMDs then he did do what Bush wanted.

However, I agree that it does take two to fight a war. I personally think that this war was going to happen no matter what Saddam did, though. The neo-conservative agenda (much of which I agree with, by the way, even though I am a steenking leeberal) demonstrates that much. Wolfowitz was not going to let this guy off the hook as the ousting of Saddam is crucial to the overall middle east program of democratisation. 

Click to expand...

But the thing is David that there is no evidence that Saddam has disarmed. You said it right therefore "if he has disarmed and has no WMDs then he did what Bush wanted". He did not and the war is on.

Getting ride of the Al-Samoud (cs) missiles when he was caught with them wasn't what Bush was after. And he only got rid of them to trick the world into thinking he was disarming. The US government says he has WMD, it's a fact, therefore he must show proof that he destroyed what we know he has and also that he discontinue the scientific work of developing them which in fact he also hasn't shown proof of.

Yes it does take two to fight and this is what I've been saying all along. Saddam is just as much a player in the start of this war as anybody! He has done nothing, not a damm thing, to advert this war!

David, what has Saddam done with the left over gas that he used when he gased his own people? I'd like to know!

Hmmm. I would disagree with you there. Saddam has used his forces as well as he could have considering the odds against him. Blending them in with civilians, using terror units to force those not so loyal to him to fight, using suicide bombers, using prisoner displays to boost moral and support in the Arab nations and to try and weaken US resolve - all make good sense to me. They are the things I would do if I was an evil dictator desperately trying to cling to power against the attack of the most powerful nation in the world.

Click to expand...

Although I'm a veteren I'll leave it up to the experts to tell me what they think of Saddam as a tactician on the battlefield (tactician if you don't know is defined by Websters as 1-the science of maneuvering military and naval forces or 2-any skillful methods to gain an end)    I was refering to the first part of that definition in which all of our military leaders say Saddam is totally inept due in large part from the way he conducted his forces in the first gulf war but lets look at that second definition.

Any skillful methods to gain an end. This I will agree Saddam is good at. Everything you posted about Saddam's military achievments, which by the way has only been in evidence with us for what 2 weeks, has been about useing his troops to hide behind civilians, women and children (your terminology of blending in is somewhat misleading), threatening civilians to fight for him, sometimes useing torture as a convincing arguement for them sometimes even death. Useing propaganda to sway the Arab region into hateing Americans.

 These are the acts of a desperate regime and with actions like this will only result in a bad ending for Saddam, not a good one. History tells us that actions of this kind don't work against a major power with a resolve to win. Again Saddam proves he's no tactician and doesn't know what he's doing. He is committing suicide!

Have you asked yourself why the Iraqi people hasn't fought against the coalition in mass numbers that Saddam has asked them to do? These pockets of ambushes and suicide taxi drivers isn't what I would call a nation of millions fighting against evil invaders. These people hate Saddam! If America didn't leave them high and dry 10 years ago maybe this war would be over now but those millions of people don't trust the Americans. Anyway his propaganda isn't successful in Iraq but it is to the world who only think they know Saddam.

I think it would be impossible to leave behind no evidence - again I am quoting the US military - that any WMDs were there. I agree that it would be possible to move them without people noticing.

Click to expand...

Some evidence has been left behind to suggest that they do have WMD. Perhaps you mean no smoking gun has been left behind?

The flow of the war can move faster than he anticipates, especially as the US and British use special forces behind his lines. It would be very difficult to know exactly where to put the WMDs where they would be 1.) safe and 2.) usable if required.

Click to expand...

My guess is that the order was given to move all WMD to Baghdad.

I think the US is showing signs of being concerned about it. They must find those weapons.

Click to expand...

Agreed but I don't think it should be or even has been made a priority yet.

And all these sites have been inspected by the inspectors. They found nothing there that would indicate he is still producing weapons of mass destruction or storing them at those facilities.

Click to expand...

Even if they were "inspected" by our inept friends in the UN, the bullets are still flying. Technically, they're not even looking for WMDs yet. They're still ousting Sadman. Time is on our side. You want immediate results. M

Three well-known, well-documented WMDs:

1. Saddam Hussein

2. Uday Hussein

3. Qusay Hussein

Hello David!

It is very hard to show evidence that you do not have something ...

If Saddam did present a document showing exactly what he did with every single WMD that the US said that he had, what would that prove? Nothing, except that he can write.

Even if he had all the WMDs that the US said he had and handed it over to the microgram, he could still have stuff that the US did not know about.

This is the question: how could Saddam have proved that he had no WMDs? What could he have done to avert the war?

Click to expand...

David it's a fact that Saddam has WMD. He used them before. I'll ask you again, what did he do with the sarin gas supplies left over from the stash he used on the Kurds? Are you prepared to tell me that you have evidence to show that Iraq doesn't have any left? If you do then you will be the only man in the world, outside the Saddam regime, who has this evidence!

 The UN resolutions that made up the cease fire in 1991 stated that he needed to get rid of them under UN supervision and instead for 12 years he played cat and mouse with them. Apparently the nations of the UN didn't care about how they were made a laughing stock with the world.

Saddam could've even tried to come up with documented proof that he got rid of the WMD he has but he didn't even do that. You say that documents wouldn't have proved a thing and your probably right but at least the UN could work on that and sort out the truth. In all the weeks leading up to this war Saddam had already started his propaganda war. Instead of working with the US or the UN and pleading his case he started his propaganda as if the war had already started. He postured himself to make the US look bad instead of pleading his case. I believe he even wanted this war thinking that other nations would join him in fighting the US but that's my opinion.

I disagree. He manouvered politically to try and get the UN on side. He tried to cooperate enough with the weapons inspectors to get them to say he had no weapons. And so on. It is obvious that he did not do enough to avert the war - the war is on, after all. But what could he have done to avert the war? The only thing that I can see that he could have done would be to leave the country and invite the US military to take control.

Click to expand...

Saddam did everything in his power not to cooperate with the UN inspectors. Colin Powell made the case of the deception games Saddam was playing. What could he have done? He could've cooperated! The WMD would've been found and he would've had to get rid of them.

And if he told you that it had degraded to the point of uselessness and was then dumped, would you believe him? What if it is hidden somewhere and the US never finds it? What if it no longer exists and the US never finds it? How do we tell the difference?

Click to expand...

IF he would've played that game then like I said at least the UN inspectors would have something to work with. He did not however say this or bring any such evidence on the table. What he has maintained is that he never had WMD even with the KNOWN FACT that he used WMD on the Kurds! It's just sounding like now your makeing excuses for him. Pulling things out of the hat saying if he would've done this or if he would've done that. The fact of the matter is David he did NOTHING to try to stop this war. Again, NOT A DAMM THING!

 

I know they hate Saddam. That is why I support the war - I want the Iraqi people to freed from this genocidal pyscopath.

But that is not why the US is fighting. They are fighting to disarm Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction - or so they say. According to Bush, if Saddam had disarmed we would have left the Iraqi people under that regime of terror and been happy to do so.

Click to expand...

David the US can't take the position that we are to get rid of all the evil dictators in this world. We don't have the money or the manpower to do so all at once and if we did it one country at a time we would be at war forever. There is more than one reason why we are in Iraq and in war with that regime. I am interested to know why you think Bush wanted this war!

What, do you mean the buried artillery shells with defunct liquid anthrax, weapons that have been buried for at least 8 years?

Click to expand...

No I didn't hear about them being found but there goes Saddam's claim that he never had WMD don't you think? I'm mainly thinking about the sarin gas kits found and all the MOPP suits found with gas masks. You don't honestly believe they thought they needed this stuf to protect themselves against us do you?

You may be correct, but I personally doubt it. Bagdad is being hit by bombs. Therefore, the only safe places to keep the WMD would be in civilian areas. With so many civilians hating Saddam, keeping such a facility secret from US forces would be nigh on impossible.

If there are WMDs, I would think he would have to have them in the stronghold of his support, which is about 60 miles north of Bagdad. He could safely hide them among civilian areas as no-one there would be likely to betray him.

Click to expand...

It is known that the Iraqis have tunnel systems and bunkers in and around Baghdad so I still wouldn't rule it out.

I think it possible that Saddam and his sons are dead or injuryed enough where they're not calling the shots. The men in charge may have decided to destroy the cashes of WMD so they wouldn't be caught with them. Actually there's so many different scenario's of what could be going on that to make one's mind up now would be jumping to conclusions. We'll just have to wait and see.

Hmm. I think it is a priority. After all, they want to prevent him using them if they can help it. So from that perspective it is pretty urgent.


It would also be the key blow in the propoganda war. The world would see the US justified and that is a huge thing, much more valuable during the course of the war than after it is over.

Click to expand...

I disagree if you think it's the highest priority. The highest priority right now is to win this war and kick out the Saddam regime. The battle of Baghdad is going on as I type. The US Marines are up to the Baghdad's airport now. This war isn't bogged down as many of the media has reported. If you think that we're going to be at war there for a long period of time I would have to say your dreaming. The US doesn't have to win the war of propaganda to win this war. Once the war is won the finding of WMD will be made top priority but untill then........let's kick Saddam's butt!

 

 

 

Good article David, thanks for shareing!

Like I had said above, there are alot of different scenario's to this of what's going on. My opinion is that Saddam and his sons were killed on that first day. If this is true then it could also be true that the men in charge of the WMD decided to not use them as I do think if Saddam was alive he would've given the order for their use.

Let's just be thankful that none has been used yet and that it remains that way.

Thanks for the discussion on this, It's been a good one!

3 weeks to find stuff thats been hidden for 12 years or more. have a day.M

Hello David!

Still no WMDs found ... very strange. Perhaps they are all in Tikrit. Or maybe they have been taken to Syria. Or maybe they have been taken to the Emerald City ... <IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/wink.gif" border=0>


There are, I agree, a number of reasons for this war.

One of them is the agenda of the neo-conservatives, an agenda I agree with, which is to bring democracy to the Middle East. Saddam was picked for the reason that everybody hates him and it would be easier to get the world community to either agree or turn a blind eye.

The fall of Saddam sends a powerful message to a number of countries in the region: Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Jordan and even Israel. Democratise or we'll do it for you is that message.

A second reason is oil. The US economy needs oil prices to come down for it to recover from the dangerous position it has been placed in through Bush's foolish 'reduce taxes and increase spending' program.

A third reason is popularity. Bush is desperate not to go down the same path his father went. He is hoping that even if the economy is not fixed by cheap oil prices that he can survive on defence and security issues alone. If he does, he will be the first US President in recent times to get a second term with the economy in worse shape than it was at the start of his first term.

Another reason may indeed be a genuine fear that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (or is still trying to get some) and may provide such weapons to terrorists. The US presented no credible evidence for this so my position is that it was simply used as a pretext for the above three.


I look forward to the US finding those WMDs. I do not think they will find any but I am willing to accept that I could be wrong.

Have a nice day. <IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif" border=0>

Click to expand...

Great! You got your theroies together now how about some actual&nbsp;evidence to tie it all in? After all it's only fair that I ask for evidence since that's what you want from me or rather the US about WMD, right?

I too look forward to the US finding that evidence but I have confidense they will! Course I could me wrong also.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Today our troops found an underground nuclear facility that was overlooked by the UN inspectors. The RADS were so high that nobody could stay in there for more than 15 minutes.

Also found was a vast array of tunnels under Baghdad going several hundred yards (from what can be seen now) in every direction. I'm sure much will be found there.

~BUT~

It really does not matter. The Iraqi people want to be free and they will be free. That is enough justification for our actions.

As I heard many Iraqis stating on TV today.
"Thank-you Mr. Bush." "America is good. Saddam is bad."

Its a simple moral equation of good vs evil.
Good is stronger than evil and in the end good always wins.

In Christ, Patrick

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_128200.html

Hmmm - and after only 3 weeks. Imagine that. VEry strange. Perhaps they're not all in Tikrit. Gould? Gould? Beuller? M

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html

Hmmm

http://www.foxnews.com/

A rolling bio lab....my my what a surprise. Hmmmm. M

do I sense just a leetle touch of sarcasm here???

Today at 07:05 AM panterapat said this in Post #32

Today our troops found an underground nuclear facility that was overlooked by the UN inspectors. The RADS were so high that nobody could stay in there for more than 15 minutes.

Also found was a vast array of tunnels under Baghdad going several hundred yards (from what can be seen now) in every direction. I'm sure much will be found there.

~BUT~

It really does not matter. The Iraqi people want to be free and they will be free. That is enough justification for our actions.

As I heard many Iraqis stating on TV today.
"Thank-you Mr. Bush." "America is good. Saddam is bad."

Its a simple moral equation of good vs evil.
Good is stronger than evil and in the end good always wins.

In Christ, Patrick

Click to expand...

No and no.

1. It is not a "underground nuclear facility that was overlooked by the UN inspectors."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030410/%20UWEAPN/International/Idx

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/18/sproject.irq.warheads/

http://www.iraq.net/erica/news-e/archives/00000977.htm

2. No country has the right to attack another country due to suspecteed crimes against human rights, if you are going to go down that path I wall excpect to see amercian forces enter China, North Korea, Uzbekistan (who happen to be part of the "Coaliton of the willing"), Saudi Arabi, Iran, Kuwait, the list goes on... If you do not then the "liberating the Iraqi people" is not a valid argument to justifiy this war.

The US must find&nbsp;proof of WMD:s, otherwise this invasion was a&nbsp;complelely illegal and unnecesary action. And the credibility of the US will be harmed even more than it already is.

3. Stop watching FOX News (Geraldo Rivera as a war corespondent? Please... ) , CNN at least has some credibility.

Sweden's next ................

Three words: Bring It On