Post #93,083
3/30/03 2:12:14 PM
|
No WMDs found yet, details of search
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49385-2003Mar29.html|Washington Post] Ten days into a war fought under the flag of disarmament, U.S.-led troops have found no substantial sign of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. In some ways, that is unsurprising. The war is far from won, and most of Iraq's covert arms production and storage historically have taken place within a 60-mile radius of Baghdad. That is roughly the forward line of U.S. armored columns in their thrust to the Iraqi capital.
At the same time, U.S. forces have tested 10 of their best intelligence leads, four that first day and another half-dozen since, without result. There are nearly 300 sites in the top tier of a much larger list that the Defense Intelligence Agency updated in the run-up to war, officials said. The 10 sites reached by Friday were among the most urgent. If equipped as suspected, they would have posed an immediate threat to U.S. forces. "All the searches have turned up negative," said a Joint Staff officer who is following field reports. "The munitions that have been found have all been conventional." So far no signs of WMDs, despite hitting some of our best leads. They are careful to point out that the list of potential sites is really, really long and even if the US controlled the entire country it could take months to check them all. The US is also forming it's own inspector group, recruiting members of UNMOVIC that come from closely allied nations. This group will be operating under direct US command and have access to more US intelligence then UNMOVIC did. Jay
|
Post #93,104
3/30/03 3:21:39 PM
|
60 mile radius?
That is not much terrain to cover.
Particularly when what you're looking for is a chemical manufacturing plant.
I wonder why the UN inspectors couldn't find those sites.
hmmmmmmmmmm
And that story seems to contradict cybermace's claim that the US hit the chemical sites on the first strike.
Now, why does that NOT surprise me?
:D
|
Post #93,105
3/30/03 3:25:00 PM
|
And one quote from that article.
Two disarmament planners said the Bush administration is determined to conduct the weapons hunt without the U.N. agencies that hold Security Council mandates for the job. Administration officials distrust the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Hey cybermace, care to comment on your claims [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=92729|here]? Start there and keep reading the thread. Oh my, I do seem to have predicted that with 100% accuracy. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
|
Post #93,109
3/30/03 3:57:37 PM
|
Re: And one quote from that article.
I don't think you predicted "mistrust of the UN inspectors." Of course some whiny conspiracy theorists will claim that it's not good enough.
I predicted that there would be a UN inspection group. You're the one with egg on his face.
|
Post #93,121
3/30/03 4:26:53 PM
|
Why look. Here's more from your past.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=90963|Here.] If the military knows where the VX stockpiles are, it's in their best interest to stay the heck away until all resistance has been quashed, and they can deal with it absent the risk of someone blowing it up. But this article says that the military is checking out the sites. But you said that it would be "in their best interest to stay the heck away". I guess the military should have hired YOU instead of trying to do it themselves. hahahahahahahha No I did not predict "mistrust of the UN inspectors." I said that the US will "find" those "sites" after the "war" is "over". The only "mistrust" is that our current regime does not "trust" the UN inspectors to rubber stamp our "findings". As I predicted. I predicted that there would be a UN inspection group. But will that "inspection group" be allowed in any of the "sites" we "find" until AFTER the US has "checked" those "sites"? I predicted that they will NOT be. The US will attempt to use the UN inspectors to "verify" the "sites" that the US has "found". And this article supports that. hahahahahahahahahhahahaha That's the difference between a prediction and an excuse. You have excuses. I have predictions. 100% accurate. And going strong. I am a GOD!
|
Post #93,220
3/31/03 12:07:42 PM
|
Re: Why look. Here's more from your past.
As I posted before, manufacturing evidence of chemical weapons is not trivial, it would require the cooperation of thousands of soldiers, goverment officials, and weapons inspectors, it would have to avoid surveillance by other countries, AND it would have to pass an in-depth investigation by THE UN.
This is not like dropping a bloody glove.
The effects of an effort like that, if discovered (and the odds would be high), would be worse than if we'd simply nuked Baghdad and gotten it over with.
|
Post #93,248
3/31/03 1:40:57 PM
|
Like manufacturing "evidence" of Iraq's nuke program?
That was simple, claim some tubes were to be used for the nuke program and then "find" documentation showing that Iraq tried to purchase nuclear material from Niger. As I posted before, manufacturing evidence of chemical weapons is not trivial, it would require the cooperation of thousands of soldiers, goverment officials, and weapons inspectors, it would have to avoid surveillance by other countries, AND it would have to pass an in-depth investigation by THE UN. Yes, as you posted before. Yet you've also posted how the US military would avoid chemical sites because of the danger. Which is in direct contradiction of the article in this thread. And so forth. Your record for predictions is 0%. Your record for excuses is 100%. Again, there is no need to fake an entire manufacturing site. Just a few warheads. And those wouldn't have to be faked much. Just some tests showing that there was some chemical agent present PRIOR to the US destroying them.
|
Post #93,266
3/31/03 2:25:15 PM
|
Re: Like manufacturing "evidence" of Iraq's nuke program?
You contradict yourself.
So, this is the government that "faked" documents, according to your sources the documents were so badly faked it was ridiculous that anyone would believe them. (We'll ignore the fact that it wasn't our goverment who faked the documents, and so far the "ridiculous" opinion is one guy's statement).
Now you expect the same government to be capable of convincingly planting WMD in Iraq? They'll be able to fake the exact strains of biological agents, the same formulations of chemical agents, the same train of research as the Iraqi scientists?
You'd better add to you prediction that the U.S. will become the laughingstock of the world after basic forensics proves the WMD to be non-authentic.
I also didn't predict that the U.S. would leave the weapons alone...I suggested that they should, until it was safe to do so. Naturally they are not exploring bunkers in current battle zones, and are investigating areas they have already secured.
|
Post #93,271
3/31/03 2:50:58 PM
|
This is where your ignorance betrays you.
You contradict yourself.
So, this is the government that "faked" documents, according to your sources the documents were so badly faked it was ridiculous that anyone would believe them. (We'll ignore the fact that it wasn't our goverment who faked the documents, and so far the "ridiculous" opinion is one guy's statement). But I had said: That was simple, claim some tubes were to be used for the nuke program and then "find" documentation showing that Iraq tried to purchase nuclear material from Niger. So, you're wrong, again. Now you expect the same government to be capable of convincingly planting WMD in Iraq? No, I didn't say "convincingly". I said that our government would fake "finding" them. They'll be able to fake the exact strains of biological agents, the same formulations of chemical agents, the same train of research as the Iraqi scientists? Why fake them? WE GAVE THE SAMPLES TO THEM. hahahahahhahahahahaa That's where you ignorance betrays you. We were the ones helping Iraq develop them IN THE FIRST PLACE. We even supplied the SAMPLES. So anything we "find" will be exactly what we KNEW they had. hahahahahahahahahaha You'd better add to you prediction that the U.S. will become the laughingstock of the world after basic forensics proves the WMD to be non-authentic. Again, they will be EXACTLY what everyone KNOWS they have because we SUPPLIED the samples IN THE FIRST PLACE. ahahahhahahahahahhahaha I also didn't predict that the U.S. would leave the weapons alone...I suggested that they should, until it was safe to do so. Naturally they are not exploring bunkers in current battle zones, and are investigating areas they have already secured. Again, you are making excuses for what you said SHOULD happen. While I predict (with 100% accuracy) what WILL HAPPEN. So you said that our troops SHOULD NOT check out the sites because it would be too dangerous to them and civilians. But they DO do that. And they are not injured. Nor are any civilians. hahahahahahhahahahahahaha
|
Post #93,273
3/31/03 2:58:14 PM
|
Re: This is where your ignorance betrays you.
Again, they will be EXACTLY what everyone KNOWS they have because we SUPPLIED the samples IN THE FIRST PLACE. Whoa...so you're finally saying that they do have them!
|
Post #93,293
3/31/03 4:30:54 PM
|
No
He's saying that the raw materials (ie- the bugs and the chemicals) were given to Hussein by the US in the eighties.
It's like that joke that's going around... "how do we know what chemical and biological weapons Saddam has?" "We kept the receipts."
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #93,316
3/31/03 6:18:01 PM
|
Nope.
Just having loads of fun helping you demonstrate how ignorant you have to be to hold the beliefs you do.
hahahahahahahhahahahahaha
You didn't even know that the US supplied him.
hahahahahhahahahaha
|
Post #93,744
4/2/03 11:11:10 AM
|
Re: No WMDs found yet, details of search
[link|http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7027|Where, O Where Have the WMDs Gone?] Yes, this is the same group that, just two weeks ago, insisted was that UN weapons inspectors needed "more time" to scour the Iraqi countryside. Four months, they said, was simply not long enough for 108 experts to discover Hussein\ufffds stockpile.
Now they complain that allied forces haven\ufffdt found it in 14 days. Darrell Spice, Jr. [link|http://www.spiceware.org/cgi-bin/spa.pl?album=./Artistic%20Overpass|Artistic Overpass]\n[link|http://www.spiceware.org/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
|
Post #93,746
4/2/03 11:22:34 AM
|
Some good points in that article
Massively outgunned, Hussein can\ufffdt hope to defeat allied forces outright. His best hope is for a long, drawn-out war that produces a high coalition and civilian death toll. Over time, he suspects, American resolve will sap (note his showing of the film Black Hawk Down to Iraqi troops), and international pressure will mount for some sort of a peaceful resolution. The key to this strategy is not getting on the wrong side of Russia, France, and China, and that requires refraining from the use of WMDs, which are of limited use, anyway, against allied troops who have both the gear and training to protect themselves. and But what if no smoking gun can ever be found? What if the weapons remain in Syria? What if Hussein\ufffds forces have effectively hidden them, and after the war is over there are no Iraqi officials still alive who can find them? What if, as Hussein and his apologists claim, he doesn\ufffdt have the weapons at all\ufffdthey were all destroyed in the first Gulf War or by UN weapons inspectors afterwards?
For any of these unlikely scenarios to be true, Hussein would have to be a fool or a suicidal maniac. After all, he could have avoided war by simply making made a good-faith effort to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors. If he had nothing to hide, then what was he so busy hiding? Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #93,748
4/2/03 11:26:45 AM
|
The last paragraph...
Is what *MY* whole gripe is about the Protesters
b4k4^2
| [link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT | | [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] | | [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Microsoft develops apps for Linux by 2004] | Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberspace_strategy.pdf|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at checkpoints. |
|
Post #93,749
4/2/03 11:33:37 AM
|
Actually untrue...
what were the requirements of Bush incorporated?
Hint: they shifted as time went on - from allowing inspectors, to freeing political prisoners (yes, Bush actually required that) to Saddam Hussein leaving the country.
IMO - the only acceptable thing to Bush (et. al.) was Regime Change.
|
Post #93,753
4/2/03 11:53:07 AM
|
I was pointing out that the Protesters ABOUT...
Weapons of Mass Destruction... err Iraq's lack of them... err the Inspector's not finding them... err Saddamn "busy hiding" them... Even *IF* we sold them to him in the 80s... WTF do think he is going to do with them. Especially... ... ... wait... ... wait for it... here it comes... WHEN HE KNOWS WHERE AND WHEN THE INSPECTORS WERE GOING!
Why do you think the damned Inspectors couldn't find anything... then after we started parking troops near his border... did they "FIND" some minutia of the ones he has. Would we have had to assemble 100% of the US Armed Forces on his border to get him to comply... nope... He continued to deny the inspectors access to certain areas. A bonus to lopping off the head... we get to find them then... and actually "unbind" certain repressed peoples of Iraq... (Shiite, Kurds and so-on) or are you claiming none of that happened either. Now, Iraq had 12 years to comply with the "de-arming"... and we had inspectors in there for a LONG time before the 4 month stint... they pulled out themselves, as they were getting more and more resistence from Iraqi "Escorts and Officials"... Dunno 'bout but I am thinking you can't won't see any mention of those facts when some people go off here... b4k4^2
| [link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT | | [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] | | [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Microsoft develops apps for Linux by 2004] | Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberspace_strategy.pdf|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at checkpoints. |
|
Post #93,755
4/2/03 12:01:29 PM
|
My only argument was with this line....
After all, he could have avoided war by simply making made a good-faith effort to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors.
Bush changed the requirements more than once...the only thing he was consistant on was regime change.
|
Post #93,757
4/2/03 12:09:53 PM
|
I've got to disagree
If Saddam had met the requirements and then the target moved, I'd agree with you. I think it's more accurate to say the target was moved because he didn't meet the previous ones.
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #93,761
4/2/03 12:21:54 PM
|
Are you saying he didn't release his prisoners?
|
Post #93,766
4/2/03 12:58:13 PM
|
Don't know about the prisoners
The main issue has (supposedly) always been the weapons. Every time he was given an ultimatum and didn't meet it, the stakes were raised.
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
