Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire No WMD's in Iraq??? PPPhhppbbtttt

I generally respond in kind.
You never cease to amaze me though?
You actually know the definition of "Former" and "latter"?
You must have paid attention in your GED classes at the Red Onion?
"Big Willie" sends you his love. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Whatever, dude. I'd put my credentials up against yours anyday.

See ya....

Everything that Saddam had is now in Syria. Let's let the Israeli's go find it. Maybe some one will believe them. kwg

Nah, don't forget---- they're members of the Zionist/Neocon/Big Oil/Bu$Hitler/Space Alien conspiracy.

Can't believe a word they say.

One thing ol' Sadam said rang true with me. Iraq DOES need a strong leader (possibly a dictator). Just look at the mess democracy has brought over there. Give 'em a couple hundred years of learnin' and some exposure to Western thought (e.g. Soviet Union) and democracy just might succeed. If I was a bettin' man, my money would be on the old style regime comin' back, or an unending civil war. Too bad. While we're shootin' our load in Iraq, Iran is crankin' out the WMDs and buyin' missles from N. Korea to send 'em into downtown Tel Aviv.

Skinner---It is tempting to dismiss the experiment---

"One thing ol' Sadam said rang true with me. Iraq DOES need a strong leader (possibly a dictator). Just look at the mess democracy has brought over there. Give 'em a couple hundred years of learnin' and some exposure to Western thought (e.g. Soviet Union) and democracy just might succeed."

Of course, the same thing could have been (and was) said about the floundering American nation in its early years, when the Confederation failed, and the Constitution was barely adopted. Shay's Rebellion, the Whisky Rebellion....instability, internal revolts......and that was in a country with largely shared religion, language and values, and some experience in democracy on the local level.

The lesson, I think, is that it takes time to judge the result.

Here is a thought.

Do you suppose that old Saddam might of hid his WMD's a few hundred feet underground, and that maybe our bunker busters collapsed the access tunnels.

We know he had em. We know he used em. We even have a pretty good idea of how much he had, how much he used, and how much should have been left over. We just do not know where he stashed em.

Maybe they got exported? And maybe some archeologist will dig em up, in about ten thousand years

Oh my god, this is a joke, right. A few hundred feet isn't anything with the capabilities the US military detection systems. Prior to the attack and invasion---the weapons inspectors said no evidence of WMD, even the CIA said no WMD, many other agencies said it was NOT there anymore. Bush had the NSA and the SSD (special branches of intelligence gathering agencies redirected by him and Cheney and Rumsfeld) to create the "intelligence" that said----'Oh there is all this WMD there now, we even know how much they have, and we DO know where it is.'

The myth-making appears to be a blatant attempt NOW to create probability where at one time not long ago the Bush administration was claiming certainty: "We know where it is it, it is near Tikrit and Baghdad, east, west, south and north somewhat."---Rumsfeld

Somewhat is an important clarifier: Most US citizens heard this as Rumsfled did NOT want to talk specifics for 'security' reasons however, somewhat implies "not far away from".

Archeologists in a few thousand years "may" find it is a substantially different and impotent argument from the very self-confident, cocky, irritatingly dismissive, and yes arrogantly delivered statements that INSISTED we know where the WMD are, the world is wrong and we are RIGHT, and that is why we MUST invade.

If everyone thought the WMD existed in Iraq prior to the invasion then why was so MUCH of the world opposed to the Bush invasion and only a handful of countries---including Britain but aside form that the other countries were truly insignificant and, most of these were clearly paid off, comprising a not very impressive "coalition' at all. Defenders of Bush, his loyalists are now really stretching to create some type of argumnet that the WMD are there... I find the archeologits in a few thousand years concept hilarious if it wasn't so predictably propoganda, misleading and obvious mis-information. Can't the loyalists ever admit that Bush and his loyalists are WRONG? Do they always have to be right even if they have to invent fairy tales?

Yogi,

At first thought I would say that anyone who believes that a system exhists that can see through 300 to 500 feet of sand and rock anywhere in the world, is a bit deluded.

But I do not know you. I do not know your background. Perhaps you are privy to the latest military technological secrets.

Please enlighten me as to this technology and its capabilities. Will it help us find those 200,000 missing AK's?

no need to add my comments since Pete E said it so perfectly

but was it worth what were in now.......never ending story, were screwed if stay there, screwed if we leave

Yogi---it's you who is is in fantasy land if you can't even accept the fact that the whole world knew, or thought they knew, that Iraq had WMD stockpiles and production facilities. Since the facts have been posted so many times I'm not going to go through the exercise again ....obviously you're not concerned with that.

One of the stated reasons by many for opposing the war was exactly that...Saddam had WMD, had used them before in war, and would use them against our troops.

It's one thing to argue the wisdom of the policy, but to argue from absurd factual premises makes you sound like a crackpot.

I've been working for years (since 1998) on technologies for the inspection and the decontamination of radiological, biological and chemical (warfare) agents. There are 7 major facilities in the US in dire need of decontamination. The testing and location of such agents is a highly evolved array of technologies and yes they can locate them (ie chem/bio/radiological agents) with amazing accuracy and precision.

I am the inventor of a device that climbs vertical and inverted surfaces for the specific purpose of DETECTING and then safely REMOVING radiological, chemical and or biological agents....in a manner that completely eliminates exposure to humans. It is amazing really.

So I guess I may have a bit more insight into locating and removing chem/bio/radiologicla agents than the typical WalMart greeter.

crackpot?

This is the stuff I do for a living. Every day I am involved with detection, inspection, and removal or chemical, radiological and chemical agents with REMOTE control technologies....

I assure you it is NOT fantasy land. I would estimate I am much closer to understanding the TECHNOLOGIES that most people, yes even the geniuses on this forum who know so much about detection of dangerous agents.

I have no idea what you do for a living, but if you don't understand that virtually everybody in the world with reason to know believed Iraq had WMDs.....or more likely you know it but are so warped out by Bu$Hitler hatred you don't want to accept it.....then I have trouble giving any credence to anything else you say, however technically well informed you may be.

alot "if's" you wrote there.... however, IF you don't want to give any credance to anything "else" I say all I can say is you didn't ever give me any credence ever since you first discerned that I was not a Bush loyalist. And that I dislike Bush.

So, there is nothing different now than before.

I hope we can agree to disagree on this issue but to throw anything I have to say away, and of giving nothing I say ANY credence just because you and I disagree strongly about BUSH, well, that says a great deal about who YOU are.

Please then, since you are in the position to know. Tell us how a buried cache of chemical agent or a radiological source might be found, when no access tunnels exist.

Do we have ground penetrating radar which can see through 300 feet or more of sand and rock? Is it ultrasound or sonar technology which does the trick? Do we have chemical "sniffers" which are sensitive enough to detect a sealed canister of nerve gas, buried under 300 feet of dirt and rock? Or sophisticated new geiger counters which can seperate back ground radiation from a radiological source which is so well shielded?

I am in no position to know about these things, and am anxious for you to share your knowledge.

Other than the use of poison gas by Germany during WW1 and the Japanese using POWs for chemical weapons testing subjects during WW2, has the US ever been attacked with WMDs by another sovereign nation? If so, I don't recall any.

Iraq did have WMDs at some point in time, they used chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds. Did they ever have the capacity to make or use either biological or nuclear weapons? Not that I know of. Experimentation, sure, but I think that there is a pretty big leap from experimentation to building a nuclear weapon to actually delivering a nuclear weapon. It seems more likely that a working nuclear weapon could be bought from somebody in the former USSR a lot easier and cheaper than it would be to build your own.

In the end, what difference does it make if we do or don't find any working WMDs in Iraq? We can't undo what we have done and, after spending so many lives and so much treasure, why would we want to? Iraq will likely be a burden on the US tax payers and US military for years to come. Worth the cost? I don't know and even if it isn't, what choice do we have but to stay the course?

Jeff

There is only one if in that paragraph.

I don't care if you're a Bush loyalist or not. I'm not even sure what you mean by that, since I haven't seen anybody around here who doesn't have serious criticism of Bush, me included.

My issue with you is purely factual....discussion is kind of pointless if the parties don't even accept the same reality at the outset. And my training tells me that if somebody refuses to accept reality when it complicates his side of an argument, you really can't rely much on what he says.

There is a rational case to be made against the Iraq war, and reasonable people can and do disagree. But it starts with accepting some easily verifiable facts on the front end.

QUOTE: "Do we have ground penetrating radar which can see through 300 feet or more of sand and rock? Is it ultrasound or sonar technology which does the trick? Do we have chemical "sniffers" which are sensitive enough to detect a sealed canister of nerve gas, buried under 300 feet of dirt and rock? Or sophisticated new geiger counters which can seperate back ground radiation from a radiological source which is so well shielded?"

wow, do I detect an antagonizing tone there?

The vast array of technologies and experts that were depolyed to Iraq were armed with extremely advanced instrumentation and years of intelligence, yes even that gathered from incrediby reliable satellite surveillance. Beyond what most could imagine. They also had an amazing arsenal of forensic detection capabilities, far, far more sophisticated than commercially available ultrasound, "radar" type, radiological sensing, or any of the warfare agent detectors most people may be acquainted with.

Those highly skiled and extremely well equipped experts wanted to find something. They wanted very much to find ANYTHING, and they had the MOST advanced detection capabilities ever assembled by human kind to find something.... and they came away with nothing.

One of my friends was one of the first western engineers to be allowed into the X Soviet Union. He was one of a 7 member team to "help" the soviets deal with the top three radiological mishaps that occured there. Chernobyl, for your information, was actually number 3 on the list, ie, there are two accidents that are actually considered 'worse" by the scientific community, but that is another matter... He and his team was equipped with some very sophisticated gear and yes they can isolate and detect radiological sources discerning its makeup from competing and naturally occuring radiation. That one is easy.

The detection and forensic capabilities of the special envoys sent to find WMD in Iraq was far beyond what most living room laymen could ever imagine even in their wildest dreams... So, you can spout off questions intended to make the average reader here think wow no way could we find "buried" WMD, but I think you grossly underestimate the cabilities of modern detection sciences...particularly for the Pentagon... What do you think all those billions and yes billions of dollars spent for such capabilites was spent on?

You didn't answer his question, Yogi. You gave a speech. Reread the question...can you answer it or not?