THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Quote: "Sada: Of course. . . . I want to see everybody in the region to be in peace. . . . And I hope that peace is coming very soon. And before I finish, I want to bow in front of the parents of those who have lost their beloved one, and I want to tell them that I know it is difficult and tough, but it is worth it, and they should be proud of their daughters and sons killed in the war because they have liberated a country, liberated 27 million people, and that country is the country of father Abraham, and Daniel of Babylon, and Jonah of Nineveh."

It seems this general doesn't understand his own country's history. The 27 million people have been at war with each other over the millennia. An outside intruder is not going to "fix" that in short order!

0 Replies

CNN Breaking news: U.S. military to close Abu Ghraib prison and transfer prisoners to other jails in Iraq, CNN confirms.

Well, isn't that something? I hope the prisoners enjoy their new surroundings as I am sure they will be much better off there.

0 Replies

For what reason should we believe this guy, any more than the other Iraqis who lied (or were paid to lie) in the lead-up to the war, about WMD?

He hasn't presented any objective proof. And it doesn't make any sense at all, the story that they offer; that Saddam purchased or manufactured hundreds of tons of WMD material just to ship it away? Why? So we wouldn't find it when we got here? How does that make an Iota of sense?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Does it make more sense to you that the stuff simply vanished?

0 Replies

Why would that make any more sense, especially given the fact that there was never any proof that they existed in the first place?

We know Saddam destroyed some, if not all, of his WMD stockpiles after the first gulf war; we know he had the desire to create more; there isn't any evidence at all that he actually did. Every piece of evidence that this was so, forwarded by War Hawks like yourself, turned out to be 100% incorrect.

Frankly, given the track record, there's no reason to believe any of this, in the slightest; and it doesn't change a single 'fact on the ground,' that we didn't find WMD, and that the situation is still terrible for everyone involved.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I would like you to explain the strategic importance of Saddam transferring his hard-sought WMD stockpiles to another country prior to our invasion, please.

I am of the opinion that this makes no logical sense, from anyone's point of view, especially Saddam's; please point out where I am in error.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

CNN Breaking news: U.S. military to close Abu Ghraib prison and transfer prisoners to other jails in Iraq, CNN confirms.

Well, isn't that something? I hope the prisoners enjoy their new surroundings as I am sure they will be much better off there.

They won't be worse off, I'm pretty sure about that.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I would like you to explain the strategic importance of Saddam transferring his hard-sought WMD stockpiles to another country prior to our invasion, please.

I am of the opinion that this makes no logical sense, from anyone's point of view, especially Saddam's; please point out where I am in error.

Cycloptichorn

...I must have overestimated you somewhere....

Saddam knew that he had no chance winning against the superior US/Coalition militery. He may be insane, but not stupid. The reasons for the US invasion seemed to hinge upon WMD's (among others) being illegally stored/stockpiled/owned by Iraq. Saddam saw the presentation Powell gave before the UN, Saddam has been found on tape discussing WMD's and how the UN had so far failed to find them.

The Syrian disaster offered Saddam a "way out". He would ship all WMD's out and the allow UN inspectors complete "unfettered" access to Iraq. After all, he no longer had them in country. The UN inspectors would find no evidence of WMD's the war would be called off and Saddam could then go and collect his weapons from Syria after making the foolish Americans go home. I do not believe he thought the US would still attack after letting the UN inspectors in again. Remember all the hoopla in the days preceeding the attack?

Does that make logical sense to you now?

0 Replies

Quote:

Does that make logical sense to you now?

No, it looks exactly what it is, a desperate attempt by the Iraq war apologists to gain some some kind of credibility from the fact that everything they said in defending the war in Iraq turned out to be false.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Quote:
Does that make logical sense to you now?

No, it looks exactly what it is, a desperate attempt by the Iraq war apologists to gain some some kind of credibility from the fact that everything they said in defending the war in Iraq turned out to be false.

I know you wouldn't let anything get in the way of your blind hatred of the US. That's why it wasn't addressed to you.

0 Replies

No, it doesn't make sense. Why would Saddam believe that the US wouldn't attack him? He isn't stupid, don't forget. He knew we weren't attacking because of WMD, but for other reasons; the WMD were just an excuse. This was obvious long before the war began. Getting rid of the WMD wasn't going to keep any attack from happening, and you know it, and in fact history proved that to be true; we attacked, and there were no WMD.

Why didn't he use some of these WMD to even the odds? Why would he trust Syria (or whoever) to give them back after the war? These questions make too much sense for you to simply discount them out of hand.

Your scenario lacks an important component: a shred of proof. Given the track record from your party on intelligence issues (pun most definately intended), until you can provide at least some objective proof, there isn't a single reason to believe anything provided re: Wmd and Iraq.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Careful, cyclop, you might be lumped in with me and be accused of having a blind hatred for the US. :wink:

0 Replies

So, you can have zero objectivity about this then? I just want to be sure because I don't need to waste my energy if you refuse to be even slightly open to this discussion.

How do you explain away Sada? Do you trust Saddam's word over his?

Quote:

Given the track record from your party on intelligence issues

You mean the CIA, Interpol and all the worlds other intelligence agencies that all agreed that WMD's existed?

The proof is there, just not visible. It's circumstantial. Iraq had WMD's, there is no denying that. They have not all been accounted for, there is no denying that. They must be somewhere because they can't be nowhere and evidence points to Syria. The logic is there for you to see Cyc., you just need to see it.

To answer your questions...

Why would Saddam believe that the US wouldn't attack him?

He figured the US would succumb to world pressure and back down as they had the previuos 12 years. He didn't believe Bush would have the support to invade after no WMD's were found.

Why didn't he use some of these WMD to even the odds?

Because he moved them prior to the invasion.

Why would he trust Syria (or whoever) to give them back after the war?

Lots and lots of money. Once no WMD's were found, he believed the sanctions would have to be lifted and he could finance whatever weapons he wanted from the sell of oil.

0 Replies

That's a crazy conspiracy theory you've come up with, McG. As bad as those you make fun of.

Quote:

How do you explain away Sada? Do you trust Saddam's word over his?

I don't trust either of them. Why should I? Tell me why you trust him.

Quote:

Lots and lots of money. Once no WMD's were found, he believed the sanctions would have to be lifted and he could finance whatever weapons he wanted from the sell of oil.

This is just plain farcical. Do you honestly believe that this is what Saddam thought? That he would hide his WMD, and everything would go back to being hunky-dory? Ridiculous!

And this:

Quote:

Why didn't he use some of these WMD to even the odds?

Because he moved them prior to the invasion.

Is a false answer, because it doesn't answer the question. The question is, 'Why would Saddam move his WMD instead of use them to even up the fight with the Americans?' to which you answered, 'because he moved them, he couldn't use them.' That is a tautology, sir; a logical fallacy.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

You mean the CIA, Interpol and all the worlds other intelligence agencies that all agreed that WMD's existed?

Interpol, McG, is the International Criminal Police Organization :

Quote:

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That's a crazy conspiracy theory you've come up with, McG. As bad as those you make fun of.

Quote:
How do you explain away Sada? Do you trust Saddam's word over his?

I don't trust either of them. Why should I? Tell me why you trust him.

Quote:
Lots and lots of money. Once no WMD's were found, he believed the sanctions would have to be lifted and he could finance whatever weapons he wanted from the sell of oil.

This is just plain farcical. Do you honestly believe that this is what Saddam thought? That he would hide his WMD, and everything would go back to being hunky-dory? Ridiculous!

And this:

Quote:
Why didn't he use some of these WMD to even the odds?

Because he moved them prior to the invasion.

Is a false answer, because it doesn't answer the question. The question is, 'Why would Saddam move his WMD instead of use them to even up the fight with the Americans?' to which you answered, 'because he moved them, he couldn't use them.' That is a tautology, sir; a logical fallacy.

Cycloptichorn

Sorry to have wasted our time. You can continue on about your usual activities.

0 Replies

You didn't actually answer the question, 'why wouldn't Saddam have used his WMD against American troops?'

If you wish to retreat from the field rather than answer simple, on-topic questions, be my guest; it's little more than I expected, anyways.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I did answer the question, you just refused to accept it. I can't help that.

How was he supposed to use them when he didn't have access to them because they had been moved?

Why would he justify the invasion by using them? That would go against the premise I have laid out.

0 Replies

That's it! That's what he did! Of course!

He moved his biggest and best weapons, the only ones which stood a chance of affecting the invader, the only thing that might have saved his country, precisely at the time when they might have been of some use.

Stands to reason, doesn't it? A plan so fiendish in its cunning, it was obvious only to McGentrix.

0 Replies

McTag, I don't expect you to understand. let me try in simple talk...

Saddam believed:
US invasion based on WMD's
no WMD's, no invasion

I know it's a difficult concept, but try letting your brain function.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know