Half of U.S. still believes Iraq had WMD

Parent Cafe
121

<p>

</p>

<p>Wouldn’t be hard to destory the printed and human evidense. You can bet that if china invaded the west coast and was driving into Nevada, the Air Force Base at Groom Lake (Area 51 to some), would dissapear very fast, both physically and in all media</p>

122

<p>It seems there is way too much credit going to Saddam, and way too little going to the U.S. military. Our satellites have kept a pretty close eye for years and years on everything involving major troop movements and/or this type of construction. For example, the country with the biggest reason to hide their nuclear arms was Russia in the period 1950 to 1990. Yet they apparently never succeeded in hiding their nuclear bunkers. </p>

<p>Even if Saddam built underground bunkers in the desert, I find it very hard to believe that such a major construction project could occur without our satellites picking it up. Afterall, our military said they knew pretty much contemporaneously about the North Korean missile launch, and had tracked where the missile was aimed and knew it was either a a dud or unarmed before it even hit the air. I thought that was the reason for the administration’s emphasis on mobile labs - the satellites couldn’t track them as well.</p>

123

<p>Oh, captured documents and testimony of Iraqi generals is admissable as evidence in this discussion? What a novel idea:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007645.php[/url]”>http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007645.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://www.nysun.com/article/26514[/url]”>http://www.nysun.com/article/26514&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

124

<p>Ah yes, Groom link. So highly classified, pictures are hard to come by, except through google:</p>

<p><a href=“Google Maps”>Google Maps;

125

<p>Well, it’s groom lake, not link</p>

<p>And yes, everyone knows its there, but if the chinese showed up and it was empty of aircraft, personnel, and documents, what good would it be?</p>

<p>Very good links by the way fundingfather</p>

126

<p>Funny how the attitude has gone from,“NO WAY JOSE! AIN’T NO WAY THERE ARE BUNKERS IN IRAQ.” to “Well, it is possible, but it would be REAL hard and we have like these satellites.”
Satellites are not omnipresent and most likely used surveillance on the major cities of Iraq, not some primitve village close to a massive desert. And gosh, in the mid 1990s, Iraq was the least of our concern when compared to Iran, North Korea, and China.</p>

<pre><code> ANYWAY…
</code></pre>

<p>Remember back in the 80s when Israel bombed a nuclear weapons factory in Iraq? Wow, Saddam never possessed WMDs, NONE!</p>

127

<p>Maybe the banner, instead of saying MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, should have said YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE OTHER GUY</p>

128

<p>

</p>

<p>What are you blathering about? Would you like to present any substantive evidence to back that argument?</p>

<p>Here’s how you present an argument:</p>

<p>Statement:<br>
Iraq did not possess WMD’s in 2003.
Proof:<br>
According to the Iraq Survey Group (group created byt he Bush Administration) “While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.”
Source:
<a href=“https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html#sect0[/url]”>https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html#sect0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>"In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. "</p>

<p>Read any of the following:</p>

<p>Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq by Michael R. Gordon and retired Marine Corps lieutenant general Bernard E. Trainor.</p>

<p>Iraq Survey Group Final Report
<a href=“http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/[/url]”>http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>Whoever said Saddam never had WMDs? I’m pretty sure no one ever made the claim that Saddam never had WMDs, only that they didn’t exist in 2003.</p>

129

<p>Tomadog, you don’t read very well, do you? But you sure can spin and mix multiple posters’ posts.</p>

130

<p>So, what was Saddam trucking into Syria then?</p>

131

<p>Justinian, no one ever said “Well, it is possible, but it would be REAL hard and we have like these satellites.” Talk about a straw man argument.</p>

<p>You said “Satellites are not omnipresent and most likely used surveillance on the major cities of Iraq, not some primitve village close to a massive desert. And gosh, in the mid 1990s, Iraq was the least of our concern when compared to Iran, North Korea, and China.” </p>

<p>“most likely” they only looked at cities? You are using rank speculation here, that doesn’t even make sense. This stuff is on Google, per the previously posted pictures, because we have the satellite pictures. Human beings are the ones who focus it down. Geez louise. Just reading a Tom Clancy book will give you more history and military tidbits than you seem to have.</p>

132

<p>zoosermom,</p>

<p>Then please enlighten me as to what I was supposed to take your post to mean? </p>

<p>As I read it, I wrote that Saddam did not possess WMD’s in 2003, nor did he have an infrastructure in place to produce them in quantaties relevant to a military conflict. I then wrote that Saddam would not let investigators in to verify his claim that he had destroyed all stocks of weapons. In light of the Iraqi Survey Group Report that I cited above, this fact has since been verifyed. </p>

<p>You proceded to write, and I quote, “Not true at all” with no supporting evidence or argument. I then provided a rebuttle citing several sources.</p>

<p>Where exactly am I failing to “read very well?” </p>

<p>If you are alluding to the full text of the report, I assure you that I read it in detail. If you have any points you’d like to make regarding that text I’d be happy to discuss it with you.</p>

<p>Finally, I never made credited Justinian’s quote to you, I simply felt the need to reply to his utterly ridiculous post.</p>

133

<p>"zoosermom,</p>

<p>Then please enlighten me as to what I was supposed to take your post to mean? "</p>

<p>My dispute was with your reference to verification. I vehemently disagree with that statement. But you are right, I didn’t make that clear in my initial post.</p>

134

<p>ZM, no, I’ll criticize the administration from firing Arabic translators for no other reason than being gay. I guess the culture war must be maintained at all costs, no matter how immoral or stupid it might be.</p>

135

<p>Fired for being gay? They were millitay I take it?</p>

136

<p>Nice. President Bush gets blamed for a statute that came out of a Democratic controlled Congress that was signed into law by a Democratic President. Repeat the mantra: All things bad are the fault of President Bush, all things bad are the fault of President Bush…</p>

137

<p>Justinian, no one ever said “Well, it is possible, but it would be REAL hard and we have like these satellites.” Talk about a straw man argument.</p>

<p>I rephrased a previous comment. That is all.</p>

138

<p>Okay, I’m convinced. The force of the arguments of the loyalists is overwhelming. I guess there actually is just as much evidence that Iraq had secret hidden WMD’s in 2003 as there is that the United States Government is hiding UFO’s in secret facilities in Nevada, and that the first claim is therefore entitled to every bit as much credence as the second. </p>

<p>Who’d have guessed it?</p>

139

<p>

</p>

<p>So would you care to post any evidence contradicting the findings of the Iraqi Survey Group? I’m simply interested to know what source/information you have that convincingly argues that we have not verified (at least to the 90-95% percent certainty) that Saddam’s WMD stockpile and ability to produce WMDs was destroyed?</p>

140

<p>Justinian, if by “rephrase” you mean “misrepresent”, then I agree. </p>

<p>Why must we belittle each other’s opinions by changing or misreading what they say? The issues here are important, and should be discussed with some level of integrity. Trying with various levels of effort to misrepresent serious comments into jurvenile or clownish comments doesn’t get anyone anywhere.</p>