THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

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

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

Sheesh, I understood what you read! You just can't seem to understand that you didn't originally answer the question, which was:

Why would Saddam not use his WMD against the American troops?

You answered that by saying he didn't have them to use, because he'd already moved them.

But moving the WMD was a consequence of the decision to not use them on US troops, not a reason that he couldn't use them! What you wrote doesn't answer why Saddam chose not to use them against the US forces.

Your second line - that Saddam didn't want to use them to justify the invasion - is a better answer, which I gave you credit for, but it doesn't make any sense either, because why would he care about justifying an invasion, which he is doomed to lose without the WMD, and is already happening anyways? Justifying the invasion doesn't change the fact of said invasion one bit, and I doubt Saddam was trying to figure out what would make the US look the worst.

You need to learn to read accurately and drop the condescending tone, you are coming off quite foolishly here.

Cycloptichorn

But moving the WMD was a consequence of the decision to not use them on US troops, not a reason that he couldn't use them! What you wrote doesn't answer why Saddam chose not to use them against the US forces.

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

Investigators laid the possibility to rest last year. Charles Duelfer, the White House's hand-picked W.M.D. investigator, found in a 92-page report that "no information gleaned from questioning Iraqis supported the possibility" that Saddam moved WMD to Syria.

There is no "evidence" that shows the Duelfer report was wrong. Rather, a couple of people are pushing conspiracy theories without any supporting evidence.

MYTH #1 - Saddam Flew WMD to Syria:

Fox News reporter Brit Hume reported last month, "The number two general in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved its weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the U.S. invasion."

Georges Sada, the former general referenced in Hume's report, laid out the idea in his new book, "Saddam's Secrets." Sada claims Saddam used 747 jets "to smuggle his weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq and into Syria, following a natural disaster in northwestern Syria on June 4, 2002."

But Sada admits he never saw it happen. Instead, Sada's two pilot friends are the only witnesses, and Sada said he will not disclose the names of the pilots.

MYTH #2 - The Russians Hid the WMD in Syria:

Some on the right have taken the myth one step further. Pundits such as Fox News military analyst Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney are claiming Russian Special Forces moved the WMD to Syria. Former deputy undersecretary of defense John Shaw came up with this explanation nearly a year ago. He told the conservative NewsMax in March 2005, "I am absolutely sure that Russian Spetsnatz units moved WMD out of Iraq before the war." NewsMax described the operation as "the most successful intelligence operation of the 21st century." Like Sada, Shaw has absolutely no evidence to support his theory except for "unnamed sources" in Iraq.

Shaw is hardly a reliable source. The Los Angeles Times reported in April 2004 that the Pentagon inspector general investigated Shaw because he allegedly tried to "alter a contract proposal in Iraq to benefit a mobile phone consortium that includes friends and colleagues." The resulting delays angered U.S. officials, who said the "deaths of many Americans and Iraqis might have been prevented with better communications." The Pentagon pushed Shaw out in December 2004.

To Hinderaker this constitutes "evidence" that "the administration, along with the CIA and the intelligence services of all other countries who assessed the issue, likely was right after all." He then chastizes the news media for failing to report the "big news."

Filed under: Iraq, Syria
Posted by Payson February 27, 2006 6:07 pm

...
He moved his biggest and best weapons
...

You really are dense if you think I can't understand what you are writing.

I never claimed that the WMD were moved AFTER or DURING the invasion. I understand that your source says that they were moved BEFORE the invasion.

You claim that Saddam moved the WMD in hopes of forestalling the invasion. I claim that this is bull sh*t. You have no way of knowing what Saddam was thinking. None. You are assuming that he was thinking the course of action that leads to the scenario in which you favor, but present no proof whatsoever that this is true.

You seem to believe that Saddam thought that if got rid of the WMD, there would be no invasion. This is idiocy. Saddam wasn't a fool, he knew Bush and his cronies wanted to invade him, and were only using WMD as an excuse. Even if nothing was found, the Bush admin would use the same line that so many, including yourself, have used: 'We know that he wanted to have WMD, and it was only a matter of time till he got them, so he had to be taken out to make sure.'

Your whole argument rests upon the flawed assumption that Saddam believed that we were only interested in attacking Iraq because of WMD. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that he thought this was true.

Saddam made a decision whether or not to use the WMD against invading US troops before he moved them and before we invaded. Your claim that Saddam got rid of his highly powerful weapons, right before he was attacked, is ludicrous in the extreme.

Your argument fails on three points: first, there is no compelling reason to trust Sada any more than the other Iraqis who lied to us about WMD (isn't that your story, btw? That the Iraqis who provided us with WMD evidence were lying, and that's why we mistakenly thought they were still there?). Second, there is no physical evidence at all that these WMD's were produced, created, stored, or transported. Third, your insistance that you know what Saddam was thinking, and that said thinking involved believing the US would just leave him alone if he shipped his WMD out, is ludicrous and stands up to no sort of logical reasoning.

Please provide an alternative that doesn't involve the WMD's simply disappearing because we both know that is not the case.

OH, yeah

Quote:

Please provide an alternative that doesn't involve the WMD's simply disappearing because we both know that is not the case.

Here's one: they didn't exist. There is no evidence that Saddam had WMD that weren't destroyed. The only argument that has been forwarded by you and yours along these lines is 'we didn't see proof of the destruction, why didn't they tape it, etc.' but that doesn't prove that they weren't destroyed.

Occam's razor applies here; the simplest solution is probably the most accurate. It is far more likely that Saddam never had the WMD in the first place, then a complicated and secret plot to hide them in the desert in Syria.

Here's a motive for Sada to lie for ya: He's pimping his book. Money is his motive, and since there are no fact-checkers to prove him wrong, why not lie?

Cycloptichorn