Frightening idea - what if G.W.Bush and T.Blair was right about the WMD's? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-28-2003, 11:41 AM   #1
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 08:03 AM
Frightening idea - what if G.W.Bush and T.Blair was right about the WMD's?

Imagine for one..
The proofs weren't faked and before the war there were many many WMDs in Iraq, the mobile prodution facilities etc.

What could be the reason that we can't find them anymore also we had satelitephotos and contacts men to proof their existence before?

Could it be that they have been looted in the war chaos by Al Quaida? Like other (organized?) criminals looted cultural goods (for example the oldest (10.000 years) calender on earth)

The idea that Bush could have helped Al Quaida to get ABC weapons frightens me

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 11:51 AM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:03 PM
Because they were "safer" in Saddam's hands?

Interesting thought, but things that are looted are taken from known locations. If WMD have been moved in the last couple of weeks, it was by people who knew about them and had access to them all along.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 02:35 PM   #3
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 08:03 AM
nbcrusader:

no of course not, but war without a hurry could have prevented that.

Imagine that the Bush administration knew where these weapons were and the people who controled that in iraq weren't real bush sympathisants - could it be that they sold the WMDs to the terrorists when the Iraq regime broke down and US/GB forces couldn't control the situation (because they simly weren't enough soldiers)?

Just a thought of me, no proof - just a scary thought.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 10:38 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:03 AM
Klaus,

I wouldn't call 12 years of inspections and sanctions a rush to war. If anything, this nightmare senerio if true would prove that the invasion came to late. I could see some of it being found in terrorist hands but certainly not all of it. As to the status of Al Quada, it would seem to be a rather ineffective organization since it has been unable to respond in any meaningful way to the build of US troops, and invasion and occupation of an Arab country. The USA has done and excellent job in uprooting Al Quada. That organization has for the most part been ineffective since 9/11.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-29-2003, 07:07 AM   #5
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 08:03 AM
it's not the 12 years which make me call it a rush for war but the weak preperations and the fact that after 12 years G.W. had no time for another month to coordinate it better and get a UN approval for his doings.
AlQuaida did show up verry irregulary in the past too - so i wouldn't call them ineffective now.

I don't think it's a good idea to warm up this discussion we had on dozens of other threads, so back to my idea.

Coming too late is a scarry idea too. Which brings me back to a thread where we discussed about alternatives to war and mine was UN controls at the complete iraqi border where every single part of im- and export should be checked by UN inspectors.

so.. 2 things which makes me think that my worst case scenario is more plausible than yours:

- there are allways chances that security agencies find out about such a weapon export - it would have been more than just stupid of saddam to export his weapons in a moment where the US military is allready there and the US president searches hardly for a reason to invade.
Saddam definetly is a cruel reckless dictator, but he didn't seem stupid to me.

- in a moment of anarchy and complete chaos there are chances that :
a) some of the iraqi (local) leaders decide to sell the weapons for personal profit or to hurt US where they could

b) a single soldier who protected a wmd side just decided to make either money or do everything to hurt the US

c) lootings of organized criminals who got hints from insiders where to find the WMDs

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-30-2003, 10:03 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:03 AM
Klaus,

One more month of cooridination with the UN would have been a waste of time. The UN was ineffective and the Bush administration spent to much time going that route knowing it would be ineffective in disarming Saddam.

Please, what has Al Quada been successful at doing since 9/11? An effective organization would have been able to launch multiple attacks on at least a monthly basis. The attacks would be complex and large. Several of the small terror attacks that did happen might not have even been the work of Al Quada. No US targets were destroyed since 9/11 by Al Quada. Only through wishful thinking could one consider Al Quada to still be effective.Coming too late is a scarry idea too.

"Which brings me back to a thread where we discussed about alternatives to war and mine was UN controls at the complete iraqi border where every single part of im- and export should be checked by UN inspectors."

This is exactly what the UN tried to do. Iraq was under the most extensive sanctions and weapons embargo regime in history. Yet it was a failure. Much of the problem had to do with countries that bordered Iraq and had an interest in the black market. Plus, such a plan never addressed the WMD that Iraq already had, and their efforts to hide it, or if need be, use military force to protect it.

Saddam is probably the greatest miscaculator in history. Everyone that has tried to predict his behavior and actions consistently has failed. It was stupid to invade Iran. It was stupid to invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

A, B and C are all possible but highly unlikely. WMDs were the best guarded in Iraq of anything. Their location was also the most secret. Only a small number of people know where such hidden items are. Looters and criminals would not be able to run into or find such a well hidden and protected item.

Given the level of importance the regime placed on WMDs, it is most likely that if the WMD has left Iraq, it did so under an organized plan by Saddam.

Ultimately though, the WMD is still most likely in Iraq. Iraq is huge, the size of France. Hiding such weapons in an area of that size is easy compared to trying to find them.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 06:51 PM   #7
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 08:03 AM
We talked about the (non-) legitimation of this war in dozens of other threads, no need to discuss this here too.

i'm not "wishful thinking" i'm affraid that the network could be still effective, we'll (hopefully not!) see this in the next years

The UN embargo was not about sending soldiers to the borders and controll the im-and export it was just paperwork and it was highly abused by the ones who had the power to do so. but we discussed that in other threads also

It was not Stupid for him to invade iran, he had the complete western world behind him because "we" were affraid of the ayatollah and of the communists.
It was also his chance to stop the shiitic cleric movement in Iraq.
Saddam was stupid enough not to see the trap from the US. Their diplomat said to saddam "the US has no defense contract with kuwait" and "the US would look the other side" (retranslated from german, sorry) but they waited for a reason for war against Iraq. (discussed allready several times before, no need to turn this thread into a "what saddam did wrong part 1000 thread)

When did Saddam invade Saudi Arabia?

You think Saddam could bring out hundreds of thousands of abc weapons out of iraq and storing them in another country (they would have been transported to at least one of the neighbouring countries) and the factory facilities while there were UN inspections?

You think this is more likely than that well organized criminals (like the no-more-exisiting alquaida) could loot these WMDs?

To be serious i think that both scenarios are unlikely - and i'm glad that this frightening idea is unlikely, I prefer the idea that there were no WMDs.
Sadly US dosn't allow neutral inspections to find out which scenario is true.

"Iraq is huge, the size of France. Hiding such weapons in an area of that size is easy compared to trying to find them."

Sounds like the arguments of the pro-peace fraction before the war

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 07:43 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:03 AM
Klaus,

In regards to the UN embargo, it was not just a piece of paper. Soldiers of every country that bordered Iraq had the ability to stop most of if not all of the smuggling that went on and enforce sanctions. But several of them did not do this. UN soldiers would have to be approved by the specific country. Syria would never approve of course because they were making so much money off sanctions because of the black market.

In the long term, sanctions were bound to fail considering the trade relationships in the area.It was not Stupid for him to invade iran, he had the complete western world behind him because "we" were affraid of the ayatollah and of the communists.




"It was not Stupid for him to invade iran, he had the complete western world behind him because "we" were affraid of the ayatollah and of the communists.
It was also his chance to stop the shiitic cleric movement in Iraq.
Saddam was stupid enough not to see the trap from the US. Their diplomat said to saddam "the US has no defense contract with kuwait" and "the US would look the other side" (retranslated from german, sorry) but they waited for a reason for war against Iraq. (discussed allready several times before, no need to turn this thread into a "what saddam did wrong part 1000 thread)"

The West in general was not behind Saddam prior to his invasion of Iran. The Soviets were backing him all the way because Iraq was their client state. Some Western support came after Iraq started to lose the war and the possibility of Iranian take over of Iraq and the Persian Gulf became a likely possibility.

The invasion of Iran was stupid because the Iraqi military was not ready for such an invasion. The invasion was pointless and almost led Iraq to being taken over by Iran. That is essentially why it was stupid. It was also stupid of Saddam to believe he had the military capability in 1980 to defeat Iran. The Shiat cleric movement would not have been stopped with an invasion of Iran. Ken Pollack correctly explains that in his book: The Threatening Storm.

The USA diplomat never told Saddam that we would let him invade Kuwait. The transcription of that conversation is widely available and the diplomat did not encourage Saddam in any way to invade Kuwait! Please stop repeating charges that are factually untrue.

Ken Pollack who was in the CIA at the time was the only only CIA officer to predict that Saddam would invade Kuwait. Most of the US defense establishment did not think Saddam would invade Kuwait.




"When did Saddam invade Saudi Arabia?"

In early February of 1991, Saddam sent several Iraq divisions across the border from Kuwait and took the town of Kafji in Saudi Arabia. Try telling the residents of Kafji that they were not invaded!


"You think Saddam could bring out hundreds of thousands of abc weapons out of iraq and storing them in another country (they would have been transported to at least one of the neighbouring countries) and the factory facilities while there were UN inspections?"

Much of the infrastructure for building Chemical and Bio weapons is easy to hide, so the answer to this question is yes. Do I think he really did smuggle the WMD out of the country, no. But its a more likely senerio than untrained terrorist who are not trained in the proper care and maintenance of Chemical/Bio weapons!

Klaus,

It is a fact that Iraq had 10,000 liters of Anthrax and 30,000 chemical/bio capable shells when the UN inspectors left in 1998. If Iraq does not have these weapons anymore, where is the proof! It is not incumbent on the USA or any other nation to prove that Iraq has WMD, it is incumbent upon Iraq to prove that they don't.

"Sadly US dosn't allow neutral inspections to find out which scenario is true."

THATS FALSE! The USA allowed neutral inspections for 12 years! They were a failure because they did not completely disarm Iraq of its WMD. The only option left because of their failure was to use military force to ensure that Iraq was disarmed. That is what is being done now. The time for peaceful UN inspections passed away months ago. It is the military's job now to ensure that Iraq is disarmed!

"Sounds like the arguments of the pro-peace fraction before the war"

IF thats so the pro-peace crowd should of realized that unarmed UN inspectors would never be able to find the WMD with Saddam watching and potentially blocking their every move. Only the military could disarm an uncooperative Saddam.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 08:27 PM   #9
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 08:03 AM
I hope i can find a transcript of these 2 statements from the US. I only saw the interviews (more than once) on TV (look the other side + no defense contract).

I can't remember the Invasion of Saudi arabia, that's why i asked - don't expect every question to be a attack against you

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 08:30 PM   #10
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 08:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Klaus,

THATS FALSE! The USA allowed neutral inspections for 12 years! They were a failure because they did not completely disarm Iraq of its WMD. The only option left because of their failure was to use military force to ensure that Iraq was disarmed. That is what is being done now. The time for peaceful UN inspections passed away months ago. It is the military's job now to ensure that Iraq is disarmed!
I was refering to the Iraq situation now where the US dosn't allow the UN to continue their inspections.

the inspecions are not only for peaceful dissarmemt they were primary to find out IF there are WMDs - and that's exactly what has to be done now.
Not only for the (morale) legitimation of this war.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 09:30 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:03 AM
Klaus,

The UN phase of peaceful disarmament ended when the military phase which was designed to disarm Iraq began. The job of the UN inspectors was to verify that Iraq was complying with the resolutions. Their job was not to find and destroy all the WMD, that was Iraq's job and it was the UN who would verify this destruction. The process required Iraqi cooperation. The process failed because Iraq would not cooperate. This is when the military process to disarm Iraq began.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 07:57 AM   #12
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 08:03 AM
STING2:

i (and the mayority of the UN security council) dissagrees - with the same logic you could say the embargo ended.

Anyway let's not discuss the US/UN problem on ALL threads of FYM
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 10:49 AM   #13
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 08:03 AM
offtopic:

Quote:
In early February of 1991, Saddam sent several Iraq divisions across the border from Kuwait and took the town of Kafji in Saudi Arabia. Try telling the residents of Kafji that they were not invaded!
I'm a little surprised, i googeled for that war and i found 2 websites of military members who wrote a line about this invasion and about a dozen websites which told that it was a fake and never hapened.
Can anyone help me with reliable informations (not from one of the countries who took part at the invasion or the defense) about Iraq invading Saudi Arabia in '91?

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 06:30 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:03 AM
Klaus,

9 US Marines died in the battle of Kafji! I hope you do not assume their deaths were fake! If you want a detailed description of the battle, I can dig up one. I can even name the Iraqi divisions that were involved in the operation and the Marine light Recon Batallion that was deployed near the town when the attack happened.

The US Marines actually withdrew because the did not have any Heavy Armor (tanks). But one Marine squad stayed in the city and called in airstrikes from the roof of one the buildings. Marine Harrier attack jets and Cobra Attack Helicopters engaged the Iraqi forces in and around the town for several hours. Soldiers from Saudi Arabia and Qatar were involved in retaken the town as well.

The whole time that squad of Marines was on top of the building calling in airstrikes unknown to the Iraqi soldiers on the streets below them. They interviewed the Seargent in charge of the squad after the battle and he detailed the entire operation on TV. This was on CNN and nearly other major news outlet around the world back in February 1991. I remember watching the news as it happened before I went to school.

There are a large number of books and magazines that have details on the battle. Go to your nearest library and look up newspapers and magazines from that time. I believe Newsweek put the pictures of the 9 US Marines that died there on the cover that week. The Marines were actually killed as a result of friendly fire.

One of the interesting points military anylyst who looked at the battle area soon after it happened noted, was that much of the Iraqi forces in the battle were equiped with Chinese made equipment which was inferior to Soviet equipment. The simple point being that these were regular troops of the Iraqi army and not the Republican guard that conducted the attack.

The last book I read that had something about this battle was Ken Pollacks book THE THREATENING STORM. There is tons of information out there. But I think your local library might be a better source than the internet. The internet is always getting better for information, but a good library will often have all kinds of things that are not posted on the internet yet.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-03-2003, 01:53 PM   #15
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 08:03 AM
I don't assume that the deaths or even war was a fake, i was just surprised to get os few informations on the world wide web.

The boock you mentioned is scheduled after Helmut Schmidts (imho the best german leader we had) "Men and Powers" and some non political books.

So back to the original idea:

Do you think it's impossible that because of the (natural) chaos of war criminal organizations could steal the WMDs and sell them later to a high-bidder?
Or do you think it was a possibility.

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com