Are you guys watching the Daily Show?

[Dharma punk]

His options:

1. Write a book explaining how Saddam moved his WMDs to Syria, and make lots of money.

2. Write a book about there not being any WMDs and not make any money.


Money rules the world, not truth and justice.

QFT

[grEnAlEins]

Since it is my job to study and contemplate such things, I will present my proffesional opinion that the reason we invaded Iraq had to have been this:

This changes things as now it is apparent that you too have expert power in your claims. I guess the question I have now is, if the Iraqis did have said WMDs, could they have attacked our regional allies (e.g. Israel or Kuwait)? Would that, in your opinion, give use cause to take pre-emptive action?

Yeah, but I get it from the horses mouth.

To be fair, I never said this. All I said is that I have no way knowing who is an expert on what untill that info is presented to me. I have no idea who people who post here are. For all I know, anyone here could be a fourteen year old girl having fun on a forum, with no expertise yet passing herself off as an expert. My point is, the only person who I know to to have any expertise is this former military advisor. This is not to say I do not believe you, as I do now that I know you are an expert. If this guy is telling the truth, then we may have been correct in our pre-emptive conflict. I am in no way claiming this with any certainty. Look at things from my point of view though, I have never seen an intelligence report from the government, the only thing that I have seen is this man's claims that he executed the order of Hussien to move said weapons. Logically this is believable as I have never seen data or any source suggesting that this never happened/was impossible. Remember, you see things that I cannot, so am ignorant to the intel that you have. Keeping this in mind, who am I to believe, Peter Jennings, or an advisor to Saddam Huessien? The choice is obvious in my mind.

I like how eager people are to discredit intelligence sources that give them information they don't like

What intelligence reports/sources have I seen that give me info that I do not like? The answer is none, as I do not have access to them. I only see what is said in the news-media (I do watch multiple network including NBC CNN FOX and CBS) and nobody who appears seems to have verifiable information based on real-world experience. Now that I know (or at least believe) that Kosmo, for example, is an expert, I can value what he says and use him as a source. Before this, I my options were to believe someone who had extensive experience within the former Iraqi Government, or a news anchor/field correspondant without this experience. I can take the word of an expert with knowledge of a situation, or I can take the word of some random guest on "The Situation Room," "O'Rieley Factor," or whatever else is on. I am not saying that I seek proof for what I believe and discredit any other source, I am saying that this man is the only source that I have seen that has information based not on theory, but fact and his experience with the Iraqi Government. I could ask him what happened, or a graduate of some school of journalism. Who should I believe? Again, my choice as far as who I should believe is obvious to me, the person with the experience.

And Kosmo, thank you for sharing your opinion on why we did go to Iraq. I do find it valuable, and am not trying to discredit you, I am merely saying that this advisor seems more knowledgeable on this situation that Paula Zahn is (which were basically my options as far as who to believe). I have not yet read his book, but I plan too shortly (I am going to order it after class today). Sorry if my posts seemed to attack you and your info (not intended), but I gotta call 'em like I see 'em. If the point of the conflict in Iraq is to quell hostility to the west in Iran in order to allow us to go after Syria, then I guess it is a bumble of a situation as it would most likely not work out, as you mentioned. But if it was to protect regional allies like Israel or Kuwait, I would support the conflict. Would a country such as Iraq have had the ability (e.g. a delivery system) that could have caused an certain danger to an ally, or at the least a serious threat? And do stay safe over there.

[Eagle]

Alright, I didn't see the show, but I can tell you one thing. I WAS THERE. The Syrian border is somewhere between difficult and impossible to seal. It's one of the most porus and busiest. WE TRIED. Dammit we tried. The only mistake we made was giving such advance warning, and thereby giving them the chance to get them out. And it's because of this mistake that the government doesn't want to publices the problem. The weapons were there, we waited to long, and now... POOF. Do we go elsewhere in search of them, risk spreading the war, or do we sit tight and try and contain the problem, now that they are not nessessarily in the hands of someone friendly, then at least someone a little less threatening?

That having been said, we DID find WMDs in Iraq, just a couple here, a couple there. The news reported them, and the next day everyone forgot. No huge smoking gun of a stockpile like everyone expected, because as this guy said, THEY WENT TO SYRIA.

Now, anyone know what the name of this guy is, and the title of his book? I like to find a copy of it.

[grEnAlEins]

Alright, I didn't see the show, but I can tell you one thing. I WAS THERE. The Syrian border is somewhere between difficult and impossible to seal. It's one of the most porus and busiest. WE TRIED. Dammit we tried. The only mistake we made was giving such advance warning, and thereby giving them the chance to get them out. And it's because of this mistake that the government doesn't want to publices the problem. The weapons were there, we waited to long, and now... POOF. Do we go elsewhere in search of them, risk spreading the war, or do we sit tight and try and contain the problem, now that they are not nessessarily in the hands of someone friendly, then at least someone a little less threatening?

That having been said, we DID find WMDs in Iraq, just a couple here, a couple there. The news reported them, and the next day everyone forgot. No huge smoking gun of a stockpile like everyone expected, because as this guy said, THEY WENT TO SYRIA.

Now, anyone know what the name of this guy is, and the title of his book? I like to find a copy of it.

Georges Sada is the author (former Air Force general and advisor to Saddam Huessien), [U]Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Huessien"

Here is a link to a clip of the show (click on "Georges Sada").

book

[91Foxtrot]

Eagle - The guy is Georges Sada.

Just a few observations:

I guess the question I have now is, if the Iraqis did have said WMDs, could they have attacked our regional allies (e.g. Israel or Kuwait)? Would that, in your opinion, give use cause to take pre-emptive action?

It apparently didn't give Bush Sr. cause to attack. I don't think there is any debate that, at one time, Iraq did have WMDs. They used them against Iran during their war in the 80's. I was 14 during the first Gulf War, and I remember everyone being worried that Saddam would break out the WMDs against the troops. (Although they weren't called WMDs back then.) Also, Iraq had SCUDs that had been modified into al Husayn missiles for the specific purpose of reaching Tel Aviv. So we can say that, at one point, Iraq had the WMDs and the delivery systems. When did we go to war with Iraq? When they invaded Kuwait. Not because they had the capability of attacking our allies.

My real concern is that greenaliens is taking his word as gospel because he was involved in the Iraqi government. I'm not going to say that Sada is a liar because, as was said, I can't prove he's not telling the truth. But it sounds like he can't prove that what he says is the truth, either. Maybe I'm cynical, but I take everything with a grain of salt. People have been known to be less than honest.

Syria said they don't have the WMDs, and they are the experts on what they have and don't have, right?

[Steelrat]

Yeah, but I get it from the horses mouth.

/midnight in Afghanistan

Hey man, hows it goin? I wasn't directing my comment at you. I was directing it at those who might see this crap as suddenly justifying the whole invasion. Its ironic that certain conservatives will ignore or try to discredit anyone who claims there were no WMDs in Iraq before the invasion, but the minute someone comes along and claims that there WERE, those same people find him immediately credible.

From the first day Bush set foot in office, the invasion was being planned. WMDs, 9/11, and whatever else were just convenient excuses.

[Eagle]

Hey man, hows it goin? I wasn't directing my comment at you. I was directing it at those who might see this crap as suddenly justifying the whole invasion. Its ironic that certain conservatives will ignore or try to discredit anyone who claims there were no WMDs in Iraq before the invasion, but the minute someone comes along and claims that there WERE, those same people find him immediately credible.

From the first day Bush set foot in office, the invasion was being planned. WMDs, 9/11, and whatever else were just convenient excuses.

Yeah, I wouldn't doubt that Bush was itching for a reason to invade, but as someone who was there, I can tell you that this just corraberates what I've seen, and what I've done.

[Steelrat]

Yeah, I wouldn't doubt that Bush was itching for a reason to invade, but as someone who was there, I can tell you that this just corraberates what I've seen, and what I've done.

Well, someone who has played in the sandbox would certainly know more about what was, and wasn't, there than I would. I've only heard about people finding a few left-over shells and other munitions. Not exactly the chemical factories and atomic weapon labs that were supposed to be over there...

EDIT: While it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Saddam sent some stuff into Syria, what DOES surprise me is that he didn't send HIMSELF into Syria. If he had such a good relationship with them, why the hell didn't he go there himself?

[grEnAlEins]

My real concern is that greenaliens is taking his word as gospel because he was involved in the Iraqi government.

Doesn't his involment qualify him as an expert regarding the regime? I value his comments because he executed the order to remove the WMDs, not because he was involved in government. He would know more than almost anyone else would due to his experience. I am not "taking his word as gospel." I am merely saying that he has more knowledge on this topic than anyone else who is going to talk. As for your suspecting his claims are fake, as you do, do you have reason to believe that said WMDs were not taken to Iraq? If you have a source suggesting this information please share it... if possible...??? The fact is that his assertion seems to me to be the most valid as he witnessed the entire situation. If there were a witness that said "We never had WMDs after the first Gulf War. I would know, as was an Iraqi General who would have used them had they been available," I would find this just as valid. The fact is you might be a bit overly cynical. Don't get me wrong, I know people are dishonest all the time. I know that 60-80% of people will lie cheat and steal if they have the motive (I worked in Loss Prevention). The fact is, Sada has no motivation to lie that I can see. He already has a job in the new Iraqi Governmant, and runs no risk of being charged with any crimes. Again, if Sada is a bad source, direct me to a good one...

He does claim to have seen these weapons, as well as their transportation to Syria, first hand. That is strong evidence, stronger than anyone has given. That is all. I value Sada's opinion because it is the best that I have seen. If there is someone who can discredit Sada, point me to him/her please. Untill somebody can come up with better data than Sada has given, Sada is top dog. Everyone who is argueing that he is lieing or not truthful argueing based on nothing. I could say that anyone who has posted here is not being truthful, so what? Argueing that Sada is not trustworth because you said so is a crock.

When did we go to war with Iraq? When they invaded Kuwait. Not because they had the capability of attacking our allies.

Correct, and seing as how Iraq has already invaded an ally in the past (and past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior) there is no reason to believe that they would not do it again if capable. This means that if Iraq regains ability to harm an ally, they would likely do it again. The question is should we have waited, or were we right to pre-empt? I believe that we were right to pre-emt if there was a threat. The question is was this percieved threat real? Sada gives his answer. You (and I do not even know who you are/what qualifies you as better than Sada) give yours. Since I know that Sada is the most qualified person that I have seen/heard from, the only logical thing to do is to value his discourse untill a more valid discourse is made available. If you have more valid discourse, then share it with me please, make it available. The "Sada is a bad source because I said so" argument does not blow my skirt up (not that I wear skirts ). Sada saying "I saw the WMDs first hand, I watched weapons inspector take bribes and look away, I watched the WMDs cross into Syria" does have more validity. Again, Sada might not be right, but he has the most logical and valid discourse that I have seen. Show me "proof" that somthing else is true and I will believe it.

[RoadDawg]

The former advisor to Saddam Huessien in the Iraqi Air Force just wrote a book and is explaining exactly how Saddam and the Bathests moved the WMD's that they did have "to Syria by air and by ground."

So Bush is off the hook now, we went to get the WMD's, but Saddam moved them to Syria. Wow, riveting stuff. Hillary, Kerry, Gore, Kennedy, France, Germany, Russia, et. al. Bush is waiting for an apology... As are the American people....

Not to burst a bubble or anything but Side Show Bob was saying that the Americans never entered Baghdad, although they were fighting it out 2 blocks away. So just because he says that they were moved, doesn't necessarily mean they weren't, or that they even exist. Evidence is the only way to prove any type of accusation.

[wad04]

honestly, you all need to get over it. For the war or against it, we're there. I'm so sick and tired of politics and all this politicall bull ****. We ALL have our political agendas, even on this freakin' web site... It's very, very, very sad.
Nother EVER gets solved in these threads. I still can't believe people try to even win arguments here. So whatever, flame me if you want (you probably will). But just remember, no one is going to win any of this.

so cheers

I take no sides

[kosmo]

Its a little easier to not take sides when your friends havent died there.

Oh and Steelratt, Im doing quite well. I live with the Afghan National Army at a provincial control center and run liason meetings between the important people in every organization over here for all governments involved, which is quite a few. Fun stuff so far.

Also, grenaliens, as far as Iraq possibly invading a neighbor if they were capable, they werent even close to capable. Not by a long shot.

[Recon by Fire]

Thousands of Americans have died in Iraq by non wmds, but in contrast wmds have not claimed a single life.

I consider several daisey chained 155mm artty shells rigged as a car bomb to be a WMD. Disagree? Try being in the blast radious and we will discuss it later...if you live. WMD's not claimed a single life? Tens of thousands of Kurds ad Iranians will disagree.

You are close on the real reason for being in the Middle East, but it is not oil either (though always a consideration!). "Strategery"

[kosmo]

While 155s are quite impressive (my prior two units were arty battalions with those and the pansy 105s. We hit a herd of horses with a 155 at Ft Polk, was pretty messy) they are not defined as a weapon of mass destruction by the embargos placed on Iraq, and surely one wouldnt classify them in the same league as an anthrax laden scud. And by not taking any lives, I meant Americans, and to my knowledge while there were still ethnic genocides after the first war, they werent killed by anything NBC. As far as the Iranians, well, you cant exactly not blame us for that one anyway.

[Recon by Fire]

I get sick of the WMD's. But since IED's have killed far more US soldiers than NBC type weapons, surely we can just declare all IED's as WMD's if you only want to consider the mass destruction :) As I said, enjoy your first 155 artty laden car bomb and you will change your mind

And just as with everyone in the US who have never been to Iraq, the comments of those of us who have, differ just as much.....