wmd stuff

[GT]

warning no stupid or imature comments

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=147277854&p=y47z787y7&n=147278797

So your telling me equipment used to make some nuclear materail as well as some materail itslef left the country? So did they have WMDs? We they moved from iraq?

[logamus]

we need to check syria. that border has way too many holes.

[Lohman446]

When you say check Syria, are we discussing check like nicely or like we checked Iraq?

Actually though I agree here, Iran and Syria are definite places to start looking, then again so is Saudi Arabia

I could not help but recall this being like before WW2. After WW1 Germany had severe limits placed on its army and basically ignored the terms of that treaty. Was not Iraq ignoring the terms of the treaties at the end of the Gulf War similar?

[Jack_Dubious]

I could not help but recall this being like before WW2. After WW1 Germany had severe limits placed on its army and basically ignored the terms of that treaty. Was not Iraq ignoring the terms of the treaties at the end of the Gulf War similar?

Between WW1 and WW2, Germany had built up the greatest army on earth. After the Gulf War, Iraq didnt have a pot to piss in. When we invaded Iraq, they had arguably the worst modern/mechanized army on earth. Costa Rica couldve probably rolled over them.

The Hitler/Saddam analogies are as flawed as the Vietnam/Iraq analogies...

JDub

[PyRo]

Truth is they did violate the treaty which required U.N. weapons inspections. So we had absolutly no way to prove or disprove what Sadam was doing. It raises supsion when a country suddenly decides not to allow inspections anymore does it not. Sadam was calling out bluff trying to impress the countries around him. Why wouldn't he allow visits, he probably wanted us to think he had these weapons.
Germany did build the greatest military force in the world while everyone watched but noone wanted to do anything about it. The differance is now you can build a great military force right under the U.N. nose. At the time when Germany built its military you couldn't have enough firepower to kill 2 million people stored in the basement of your house,

[Lohman446]

Between WW1 and WW2, Germany had built up the greatest army on earth. After the Gulf War, Iraq didnt have a pot to piss in. When we invaded Iraq, they had arguably the worst modern/mechanized army on earth. Costa Rica couldve probably rolled over them.

The Hitler/Saddam analogies are as flawed as the Vietnam/Iraq analogies...

JDub

While I will agree with a flaw in the final argument, I will defend the logic that makes that analogy. There are a lot of similarities, and as pointed out the means to cause terrible destruction now is not just a massive standing army. I guess I am just pointing out what is the purpose of peace treaties if noone is willing to abide by or enforce them. Now Im just waiting for someone to pull some historic treaty principle out (like the agreement that Switzerland would not export mercenaries) and point out that some are.

[68AutoMoose]

Wow guys, some really great points made in this thread. I'm a military vet, and I would agree that our most current endeavor int Iraq was nothing short of a cake-walk (force on force wise). And I also agree that Saddam not only defied the U.N sanctions and refused the inspectors, but he probably also hid anything he may have had...in Syria or elsewhere. My biggest problem with the whole WMD thing is the people here that demand proof to justify our presence there. The people that want to see the weapons are the same ones that would have been protesting our invasion of Afganistan...had we done it prior to Sept.11.

Sure everyone wants revenge...but when we take action that is preventitive they get pissed. Bottom line is this will take a while, but in the long run it was the right thing to do. And as far as Bin Laden...the clock is ticking.

[Lohman446]

I am on the fence about Iraq... its a hard situation.

Morally and legally I beleive we had every right to go into Iraq, we may have even had an obligation to do so for humanitarian reasons, not just preemptions. I will note that we should not be looked towards to police the world, and there are other places with far worse atrocities.

To the discussion of preemption. I do agree that Iraq posed an clear threat to the United States. I do not know if I agree that it was immenint (sp). Not knowing, could we have afforded to risk it and wait?

History. History teaches me something, regardless of our plans, of our intentions, we cannot win in middle east. Look at Iran and its overthrow of the goverment we had supported in the 50s in the 70s. Look at the overthorw of the British supported government in Iraq in the 50's(?). Look at the crusades, look at the war between the Israelis and the Palastinians that has raged for about 5,000 years. Look at modern military history, and the lack of success of any army in fighting against a guerilla who can blend in with the populace or the landscape. We cannot win in the middle east, its a historic truth.

So what do we do now? I have no answers to that, we are in the middle east now, and we were right to go in, and wrong to do so. Part of me says get out now... and though I do not agree with Howard Dean on many issues I would have been interested to see his exit plan for Iraq. I would be interested to see Kerry's exit plan for Iraq... I have seen Bush's - and frankly I give any governent we help set up (regardless if the elections ar 100% fair) less than 25 years before they have to deal militarly with an uprising or be overthrown. What do we do? Do we get out and let those there fight it out amongst themselves, with countless civilians deaths and unecessary loss of life? Would we like the governemnt that arose from it? The answer to the last question is maybe. Can we morally just leave these people to years and possible decades of war? No... we can't,

It leaves me with this impossible scenario. We should not have avoided going to Iraq, we should have accepted our responsibility for our safety and our word and honor (the treaties) that are demanded of us as a society. With that being clear there is the flip side, we should not be occupying any country in the middle east. We cannot be seen to be setting their governments. We should not be there.

[Mango]

seriously who cares.

[thecavemankevin]

my brother is in the navy and was the ship that shot off this first missles at the restaurant that started it all. He said that before the war started they saw large amounts of trucks and so forth driving "things" into syria that should never have still been in Iraq in the first place.

so my money is on syria.....but Iran is also a possibility.

[bleachit]

wow, a so far civilized discussion on this topic, so I will try to continue it. My biggest issue with the UN and Iraq is that the UN, in my opinion, did not do its job in Iraq. They had years of inspectors and suspicious activity going on in Iraq concerning where and when inspectors could do there job. Sadaam agreed to allow them free reign to go wherever whenever to do surprise inspections and when the inspectors showed up, they were not allowed to do their job. Clearly Sadaam was playing the UN and did so very well. Threats were made, Sadaam conceded, just long enough to get them off his back for awhile, then he was back to making the rules. The UN refused to take action to resolve the issue in Iraq, and as a result, made them selves look like Sadaam's play thing.

as far as hiding weapons in other countries, I seem to recall that there were several Iraqi fighters shot done fleeing Iraq, and others confiscated by Iran after landing there during the first war in Iraq.

[steveo356]

Well first of all i highly doubt thered be many if any iraqi weapons hidin in iran. because iraq has in vaded them in the past and tehy wereour base of ops for the invasion. id say syria. well this is what we get for being the big brother watching over thousand of smaller siblings. And the U.N. use correctly is a wonderrful thing i too dont believe they do there job in the middle east. wouldyou want to pour your forces into a region were a modern army is at a disadvantage by not having any idea who there fighting.

PS as an american i wouldnt ever want to set foot in the middle east or any were in north africa for that matter. Our failure to find less forceful ways of dealing with other countries problems has given us a bully kind of image sure the side were helping is greatfu l but the other side is getting screwed out of sumthin as well. maybe if we became a defensive country as oposed to getting our selves into trouble when we should have been there any way the image of the US will mend itself

[bleachit]

the Iran comment was only to show that it wouldnt be the first time weapons were exported to hide them from an invading force, not to suggest that Iran is currently holding wmds for Sadaam.

[GT]

few comments fella's.

I think we will win in iraq. the difference bewteen iran of the 50's and 70's is the enormous number of buisness willing to start comerce in that corner of the world. For example over 140 buisnesses have setup shop in afganistan in the last 8 months. that is simply amazing. there are two things that change a country, money and freedom to make money.

Little note on wmd's. take a look at how much some of this stuff weighs. At work, i have some materal that weighs bewteen 500-1000lbs. even though the densities are different they all can fit into a 55 gallon drum, or roughly the size of a large trash can. Futhermore any nober of heavy elements like EU can easlity be stored into this type of containier. If they had a few tons of EU in iraq, about 4-5 drums, do you think it would be diffcult to hid something the size of 4-5 big trash cans in a land the size of Calforina?

[Jeffy-CanCon]

...do you think it would be diffcult to hid something the size of 4-5 big trash cans in a land the size of Calforina?

Give the man a prize! You may be able to prove that Saddam still had WMDs, but you will never be able to prove that he didn't.

Well first of all i highly doubt thered be many if any iraqi weapons hidin in iran. because iraq has in vaded them in the past and tehy wereour base of ops for the invasion. id say syria. ...

Saddam might have sent WMDs or equipment to Syria. They were both dictatorships ruled by the Sunni-led Arab-socialist Baath party. Iran is a Shiite-ruled theocratic semi-demcracy, with whom he never got along.

Iran was NOT the base of ops for the invasion of Iraq. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey and Uzbekistan were the bases. US troops have not been in Iran since 1980 (officially).

I am on the fence about Iraq... its a hard situation.

Morally and legally I beleive we had every right to go into Iraq, we may have even had an obligation to do so for humanitarian reasons, not just preemptions. I will note that we should not be looked towards to police the world, and there are other places with far worse atrocities.

To the discussion of preemption. I do agree that Iraq posed an clear threat to the United States. I do not know if I agree that it was immenint (sp). Not knowing, could we have afforded to risk it and wait?

Morally and legally it was a Maybe. It IS a good thing to remove a murderous dictator and to try and create democracy. But then again, if the Iraqis weren't willing to do anything about Saddam on their own, who are we in the West to do it for them? It's a little presumptuous. Legally, the UN resolutions threatened unspecified consequences for non-compliance, which Saddam deserved. Whether the consequences extended to invasion and overthrow of the government is open to inerpretation.

History. History teaches me something, regardless of our plans, of our intentions, we cannot win in middle east. Look at Iran and its overthrow of the goverment we had supported in the 50s in the 70s. Look at the overthorw of the British supported government in Iraq in the 50's(?). Look at the crusades, look at the war between the Israelis and the Palastinians that has raged for about 5,000 years. Look at modern military history, and the lack of success of any army in fighting against a guerilla who can blend in with the populace or the landscape. We cannot win in the middle east, its a historic truth.

....

Winning consists of convincing your enemy to give up. That is unlikely to happen as long as they perceive the war indifferent terms. To them it is a struggle of Islam against Christianity, and of national self-determination. Those are powerful motivators.

... The war between the Israelis and Palestinians only goes back about 75 years.