leonarde

slept2long: I have lived in the US of A for over 45 years (and served in the military for a bit) but have never seen an AMERICAN "weapon of mass destruction" to my knowledge. That HARDLY means they ain't there (and OUR ICBMs are HUGE!!!). We had them by the thousands. And still have quite a few.

But I'll make a prediction or two:

1) when chemical toxic agents are found, the response here will be: 'but it wasn't on a warhead!'

2) when biological agents(anthrax) is found, the response here
will be 'but it's not in a readily available form and there were only a few tons of it!'

3) when nuclear bomb/warhead blueprints are found, the response here will be 'but it's only on the drawing board!'

In other words the goalposts will be moved again (as on the Proof of Iraqi-al Qaida link? thread: gosh! only one measly Iraqi intelligence document from 5 years ago showing direct links!)

Cheers!

leonarde

I have NO idea what you mean by 'they' here.

The repeated (and erroneous) mantra on these Iraqi threads has been: 'oh! Those Bushites are pulling the wool over our eyes. 'But as I tried to point out repeatedly (but perhaps I'll pack it in now):

1) in early 1998, the Clinton Administration sent a Cabinet team
(Secy of State Albright, Secy of Defense Cohen ?et alia.) on the road to sell a war against Iraq. CLINTON was convinced 5 YEARS
ago that diplomacy with Iraq had failed and that ONLY military action could get Iraq to disarm. The team got a hostile reaction
in Columbus (and the Intern Scandal got in the way). But the important thing is: the REASONS for the then PROPOSED WAR were virtually IDENTICAL to those of 2002-2003.

2) So to believe that "they" are lying means that that includes 2 (fairly different) administrations: Clinton's and Bush's). (and logic dictates that in those 5 years----mostly uninspected ones---the WMD program just got MORE advanced)

3) If you look at the reports of FRENCH and GERMAN intelligence
agencies, THEY are(now were) saying essentially the SAME things
about Iraq's WMD programs as our CIA was. So the "they" that one has to be sceptical of grows and grows. (note: France and Germany didn't really resist military action for INTELLIGENCE reasons but for economic and political ones).

4) if you look at the evaluations of Iraq's WMD programs made by NON-governmental organizations (NGOs), you find the same general evaluation. These would be non-proliferation organizations.

So once again to be sceptical here means believing in a HUGE conspiracy by almost the entire Western world to slander S Hussein and Iraq.

Unlikely.

Cheers!

slept2long

Your point being? I bet other countries could point them out on a moments notice. Well if they had security clearence.

We did find this. Pesticides I believe.

Actually I bet there are quite a few people who will accept this better than you think if in fact it happens.
There was an experiment done years ago by the DOE or someone. Two physics students were asked to, from scratch, design a nuclear weapon. It took them two years. That was the design not the actual weapon. Nuclear weapons aren't simple to build.

Read through some of the public domain stuff here.
Don't bring up other threads. Your comments were rebutted several times in that thread so give it up already.

leonarde

Partial post:But Iraq's program in ORIGINS goes back to the early 1970s. It attracted S Hussein's personal interest at that time (he was 'only' Vice president).

This ISN'T a matter of getting "two physics students" but of using the hundreds of (mostly) Western-educated scientists and engineers of the last 30 years, many of whom have remained there and have been working to that end (development of a weaponized nuclear device) for YEARS and getting them to put it together.
From THAT standpoint (ie an educated class from which to do it) Iraq is (now was) in a FAR better shape than N Korea.

Cheers!

leonarde

partial post:[QUOTE]In other words the goalposts will be moved again (as on the Proof of Iraqi-al Qaida link? thread: gosh! only one measly Iraqi intelligence document from 5 years ago showing direct links!)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Don't bring up other threads. Your comments were rebutted several times in that thread so give it up already.
____________________________________________


Yes! That just what the "rebuttal" consisted of: it's an OOOOOLD
document!

Cheers!

theyeti

Leonarde, as far as I'm concerned the goal posts stand firm where they've always stood:

Were Iraq's WMD a credible threat to the US or other countries? Likewise, as far as al-Qaeda is concerned, was Saddam working with them? If the answer to these questions is "no", then the two biggest pillars of justification which the war was sold upon are bunk. Now there may have been other good reasons for the war, but if the aforementioned reasons turn out to be bogus, then this indicates that Bush could not sell the war on its actual merits.

I'm pretty well convinced at this point that both are indeed bogus. While Iraq may have had some WMD, there is little chance at this point that what they had was any kind of serious threat. Some mustard gas and stuff like that in small quantities maybe, but nothing threatening. No nuclear program. As for al-Qaeda, showing that Saddam had contacts with them proves nothing. Were they actually working together? By mentioning al-Qaeda in the same breath as Saddam in just about every speech, Bush has convinced between 50 and 70% of Americans that Saddam was responsible for 9/11! This despite the fact that Great Britain -- our staunchest ally -- has maintained in no uncertain terms that there is no connection between the two. I'm not sure what's worse: the mendacity of our President or the gulibility of the American public.

Which brings me to my real point: The goal shifting is being done entirely by the Bush apologists. It's no longer a matter of trying to demonstrate that Iraq actually posed a threat to the US. Now it's a matter of simply trying to find WMD of any kind, anywhere. No more is it about Iraq's nuclear weapons program and the "mushroom cloud" that we could expect had we failed to act, now it's about traces of poison gas on the inside of an empty barrel, or finding some materials which could have been a precursor to a precursor of a biological weapon. Was Saddam in cahoots with al-Qaeda? They're not even trying to prove that anymore; now all they're looking for is some shred of evidence that Saddam acknowledged al-Qaeda or considered talking to al-Qaeda. And for that matter, any terrorist group or individual found in Iraq, regardless of whether they had a working reationship with Saddam, regardless of whether they were plotting to attack the US or were the more mundane anti-Israeli type, regardless of whether or not they were old and washed-up, is touted as proof that the Bush administration was right to connect Saddam to The War On Terror. See how the goal-posts have been moved? The criteria have now become so loose that almost every country in the world, including the US (especially the US), could have been invaded under similar pretexts. So let's drop the phoney excuses and try to focus on the reasons that have merit. And if that can't be done, we should conclude that the war was not justified.

theyeti

slept2long

And it was shut down after '91 I believe. And was absent during recent inspections.

And it's gotten them what? I haven't seen proof of any progress. And NK has a bomb Iraq doesn't. NK can deliver a missle significantly outside it's borders. I think it could reach the west coast, but I am not sure. Iraq has missles that have a 100-150 mile limit. How are they in better shape? And those scientist all seem to be singing the same tune.

Mr. Superbad

I wonder if Germany/France/Russia actually convinced Saddam to destroy his weapons as a blow to US/UK credibility? Maybe it's just wishful thinking.

Vorkosigan

Leonarde, there is no evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link. Just a request for an envoy. The US recently completed talks with envoys from the People's Muhjadeen in Iraq. I assume you are now trumpeting the US-People's Muhjadeen link, and criticizing our strong support for their terrorist acts. What, no?

As for the other three predictions, they are meaningless. Bush's case was that Iraq was in clear violation of the UN resolutions, and had amassed WMDs and was a clear and urgent threat to regional stability and world peace. In other words, the Administration lied and the invasion of Iraq was simply an act of aggression.

Vorkosigan

Farren

Leonarde, I hope you don't leave any time soon. You make me smile like this every night before I sleep.

THE ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD?!! (and that merits double exclamations and a question mark, believe me). Great Scott! I thought I was living in it! And last time I checked, about two nations on Earth believed the claptrap put forward as evidence by the Bush-Blair roadshow. Christ, I obviously took too many hallucinigens and am currently bound in a straightjacket watching the TV on the inside of my skull!

Gurdur. I am the man. Look at me. Isn't it obvious? Have your secretary get hold of my secretary, after I've let go of her. Lets do Tequila and hug.