"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:35:26 +0000, NOYB wrote:

Additionally, there are an untold number that fled to Syria, Sudan, and
Iran...likely in the same convoys that shipped the weapons to those
places
right before the war.

Syria and Iran? I just don't buy it. Iranians saw those WMDs first hand
in the Iran/Iraq War. Iran may have lost as many as 1 million killed or
maimed in that war. No way would they take Iraq's WMDs, nor would Saddam
give them Iran.

You need to check your history a little bit. I seem to remember Saddam
flying his fighter jets to Iran during the first Gulf War to save them from
being destroyed. They were never returned, however.



As for Syria, they sided with Iran in that war, and only
recently reopened their border with Iraq.

They're also controlled by Baathists.

While it is possible, I think
it is very unlikely Syria has Iraq's WMDs. A far more likely scenario, is
that Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans cherry picked the intelligence
leading to this war.

http://www.radioleft.com/article.php?op=Print&sid=1192

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...512fa_fact#top


When you get conflicting intelligence, and you haven't had inspectors on the
ground in Iraq since 1998, you're always going to "cherry pick" the
intelligence that best backs your hypothesis. I believe the intelligence
suggests he had WMD's, and either hid them well or shipped them to Syria for
safe-keeping. You believe the intelligence that suggests that he didn't
have WMD's. Two sides to every coin...

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:58:40 +0000, NOYB wrote:

You need to check your history a little bit. I seem to remember Saddam
flying his fighter jets to Iran during the first Gulf War to save them
from being destroyed. They were never returned, however.

Not only weren't they returned, but some were incorporated into the
Iranian Air Force and used to attack Iraqi targets. I doubt Saddam was
dumb enough to repeat that mistake. I would also like to point out that
Iran has moderated it's tone since those days. There is a sizable push
from within for modernization and democracy.


As for Syria, they sided with Iran in that war, and only
recently reopened their border with Iraq.

They're also controlled by Baathists.

The Baathists split years ago. The Syrian and Iraqi Baathists are
competitive interests. Although, I would agree that *if* WMDs were moved,
Syria would be a more likely place than Iran.


When you get conflicting intelligence, and you haven't had inspectors on
the ground in Iraq since 1998, you're always going to "cherry pick" the
intelligence that best backs your hypothesis.

Yeah, but ... before going to war, I would suggest one needs more than an
hypothesis. Proof would be nice. Also, wouldn't it be better to let the
intelligence lead you to your hypothesis, rather than "cherry picking" to
support your preconceived hypothesis.

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:58:40 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I believe the intelligence
suggests he had WMD's, and either hid them well or shipped them to Syria
for safe-keeping. You believe the intelligence that suggests that he
didn't have WMD's. Two sides to every coin...

Saddam *had* WMDs. We all know that. The question is what happened to
them, and frankly, I don't know. But I have read the New American Century
policy papers, and I don't want this to turn into some bizarre shell game
where we invade one country after another looking for WMDs *without* ever
seeing any. The reason given for the invasion of Iraq was WMDs and the
threat Iraq posed to us. I would suggest this administration has a duty
to the American people to explain what happened to them, and that duty
hasn't been satisfied by their ever mutating reasons for this war.

thunder wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:58:40 +0000, NOYB wrote:

The reason given for the invasion of Iraq was WMDs and the
threat Iraq posed to us.

That was only *ONE* reason. Not the only one.

Dave

The reason given for the invasion of Iraq was WMDs and the
threat Iraq posed to us.

That was only *ONE* reason. Not the only one.

Dave

Out of every hundred times the Bush gang
listed a reason, WMD had to lead the pack at 90-something percent.

Remember the "Support Our Troops" rallies? Most of the folks with the brand
new, fresh out of the plastic shrink wrap American flags made in China and the
yellow ribbons (made in China) sincerely believed that our invasion of Iraq was
to
defend the United States from imminent attack by Saddam Hussein. 90-some
percent would have given you the WMD line last March. Easily. Now, of course,
the line is "we all knew better, all along. Don't you think the world is better
of without Saddam Hussein running Iraq?"
Good technique: cover a whalloping error with an indisputable, even if only
marginally related, collateral benefit.

Don't forget, in the days leading up to the invasion Bush was walking a very
skinny dimplomatic tight rope. He had to have an issue that showed Iraq in
violation of the
UN accords that ended GWI. They knew damn well there were no WMD- their
military people knew damn well that the
"shelf-life" had expired on the weapons SH once had.

The adminsitration even had a detailed accounting, demanded from and provided
by Iraq, that listed the WMD Iraq once had and what had become of them. It was
turned in about this time last year, it was something like sixteen thousand
pages in length ((there is a rumor it was submitted to a NG by somebody in
AUS)) and hours after receiving it Bush dismissed the entire document as "all
lies". After the fact, since there are no WMD to be found, any accounting that
says there are none is certainly every bit as credible as a claim that WMD
exist, and exist in quantities sufficient to threaten the security of the
United States.

However, WMD was an issue that could be used as a justification for the US
disregarding the terms of the UN accord and invading Iraq. Installing a
"democracy," generating a windfall for VP Cheney's business cronies, and
securing a base for future US military activities in the middle east wouldn't
have generated a lot of support from the rest of the world. Come to think of
it, WMD didn't pass the sniff test anywhere but the UK, Australia, and a few
tiny eastern Euro countries where until relatively recently the armies still
used muskets and deployed on horesback.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:25:59 +0000, Dave Hall wrote:

thunder wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:58:40 +0000, NOYB wrote:

The reason given for the invasion of Iraq was WMDs and the
threat Iraq posed to us.

That was only *ONE* reason. Not the only one.

Almost every public word the President has uttered has been archived
somewhere. It is quite easy to go back and read his words. A personal
favorite of mine is this speech where GWB outlines the Iraqi threat,
posted incredibly under the title "Denial and Deception". I find it quite
difficult to believe a President could be so wrong by accident. I'm sure
there were other reasons for this invasion, but the threat Iraq posed was
the one given to us, the voting public.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html