WMD search in Iraq by U.S. officially ends

Discussion in 'Politics' started by shaggie, Jan 12, 2005.

  1. shaggie

    shaggie Senior Member

    Sounds like things are winding down in Iraq. I wonder if the U.S. involvement will continue after the 'elections' or if that will become a reason for the U.S. to exit, as it has been for a number of other countries who will be pulling out their troops after the elections.

  2. Ole_Goat

    Ole_Goat Member

    We'll probably will stay on for a long while after the elections.
    In an another forum, it was speculated we are invading Syria in Feb. I doubt this will occur since Iraq is still very unsettled. Also there is still a lot of resistance from Democrats and U.N. from our current presence in Iraq.

    If we do move into Syria, we may find the WMD missing from Iraq. Hussien has move strategic equipment out of country so invading wouldn't find it. He moved fighter jets to Iran during the first war. The problem was Iran wouldn't give them back when the fighting ended.

    If/when(?) we do move into Syria, logistically, we do have a good jumping off point from both the sea and Iraq. After Syria then Iran. The problem is there may not be enough time for Pres. Bush. He has only 4 years left, I doubt he has enough time to stablize Iraq.
  3. LickHERish

    LickHERish Senior Member

    Ah yes, lets cheer for more illegal war of aggression against sovereign nations which have neither declared war nor attacked us. Abosultely astounding the myopia and hypocrisy of the nation today.
  4. sprout

    sprout DeadHead

    I can't believe you're talking that shit Ol Goat. "Maybe if we move into Syria we'll find the missing WMDs from Iraq"

    Thats the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard and you really topped a big one.

    I wonder if thats the excuse they'll try to use when its time......

    my god
  5. moonshyne

    moonshyne Approved by the FDA

    One question.....IF there ever was WMD in Iraq, why didn't they use them when we invaded? I mean, did they keep them hidden in the dirt just for the hell of it or something? It seems to me that if you have such weapons at your disposal, and you recieve threats from a country who promises to invade by a certain date, wouldn't that be the best time to use them (especially when saddam has shown in the past that he is the kind of person who has no problem with putting such weapons to use)? Or perhaps Saddam WANTED to get caught and have his sons pumped full of bullets. :confused:

    To this day, I've never had a single person who believes in the "WMD relocation" theory explain it rationally to me.
  6. Ole_Goat

    Ole_Goat Member

    That is the big question. He used them at least twice, during the Iraq-Iran war and against villages who were giving him trouble about 1987, killing about 5,000 civilians. About a year ago an artillary shell exploded expelling a nerve toxin. This explosion would have been much more serious had it been properly detonated from an artillary piece rather as if it was a land mine. This shell at the very least is a part of the WMD cache everyone had been looking for. As with termites, were there's one, the assumption must be made there must be more - someplace.

    Concerning moving WMDs, their constituant components, and their technology, out of the country - its an effective move. Keeps the hardware / technology out of the invading army's reach until its safe to move it back in. The Vietnamese had their supply trails in Cambodia, where they knew they wouldn't be attack. [Except they were attacked in 1970(?) for several weeks. This invasion created so much of a policital firestorm, it was never repeated.]
    If its never safe again, then whoever recieved it, in this case either/both the Syrians or the Iranians, could employ it at a time of their choosing.

    We probably will never know for certain if the Syrians or Iranians accepted equipment or technology from Iraq in the months leading up to the latest war. They certainly did have the time to accept any shipments.
    I don't think we are going to invade either country just to that find out whats there. We have our hands quite full with Iraq at the moment. A day or so ago, Sec. Powell said we will be withdrawing troops from Iraq this year. He certainly has more information than I do, just the same, I think we will be there at this strength longer than 1 year.

    Lately the Syrians have been a bit quiet compared with the Iranians. The Iranians have been actively seeking not only Atomic Weaponry but negotiating with the North Koreans for a missile system capable reaching Israel. North Korea, lately, has acquired the habit of testing their long range missiles accross Japanese airspace. If they are successful, North Korea will be able to take out Los Angeles. If Iran acquires these long range missiles, coupled with nuclear/nerve gas agent type warheads; we could see ourselves in Tehran before Tehran takes out Tel Aviv.
  7. Eugene

    Eugene Senior Member

    I thought that the entire 'saddam moved weapons to syria' thing was disproved.
    The reason he wouldn't use WMDs on us is because it would reflect badly on him, this way he still has a lot of support world wide and can give us a real black eye.
  8. Ole_Goat

    Ole_Goat Member

    World opinion doesn't deter despots from brutally preserving their hold on power or acts of aggression against their neighbors. There seems to be only two methods of behavioral change for dictators.

    1. They voluntarily alter their behavior the moment they arrive at the full realization the application of force will be used against them - personally. Pol Pot emptied the cities of Cambodia then proceeded to kill about a quarter of his nation's population. World opinion was against such actions. The genocide ended only when Vietnam invaded Cambodia, chasing Pol Pot back into the jungle.

    2. Stalin killed at least as many Russians as did WWII. He didn't end his purges until nature intervened. He died of a stroke while some say he was organizing another show trial.
  9. Mui

    Mui Senior Member

    "Now that i've been re-elected I can finally admit there is no WMD in iraq!" - george w bush
  10. Eugene

    Eugene Senior Member

    Well, i still think the CIA debunked the moving to syria, and looking back on the evidence of WMDs most of it was inflated and unreliable.
    I still maintain that it would help saddam if he looked like the victim in all of this, and it would reflect really really badly on the US, so it would be a win for him to not use them. Plus, imagine the shit we would do to him if he released nerve gas on our troops.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice