Saddamn Secret Tapes?

[Burgold]

There were three beliefs (probably more) about Iraq's WMD:

1. He has them. They're an immediate danger to those in the U.S. and he's going to use it against us now or at least very soon so we better stop him.

2. He has them, but they're not an immediate danger to those in the U.S. He's a monster, but not a fool. He knows if he actually launched an attack against we'd anhilate him and he loves power too much to risk that. (where I stood)

3. He has no weapons or they've all gone chemically inactive due to the passage of time. Besides, he hasn't attacked anyone in almost twenty years and lots of other folks have been much more active in harming U.S citizens, property and interests. If you really are concerned about terrorism, why wouldn't you go after the real terrorist states?

I think most people believed he had them. The question now is what's become of them. Are they buried in the sand somewhere? Are they actively in terrorist hands in Syria and Saudi Arabia? Are we in greater or less direct danger now. Iraq had WMDs. Hell, right now, so does Pakistan, Cuba, China, the U.S., India, North Korea, and about twenty others. The question was always why there... why now. There were equal or worse bad guys out there.

[boobiemiles]

There is nothing new here. But it underscores the desperation this administration is under to prove the war was justified. We all know that Sadaam had WMD. Like somebody posted before, Reagan gave them to him in the first place. But the rationale for war was Iraq WMD posed a great threat to us. I don't like the way the media is used as propaganda to further the notion that a war against Iraq qas justified. I have disagreed with the war from the beginning, but we got hit on 9-11, so we wanted our pound of flesh. For all those that wanted war against Sadaam, even though Sadaam never raised a hand against America, eat up.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

2. Says that Iraq had chem weapons and discussed hiding them, but this was before the current war.

In short, it's NOT what you guys are hoping for.

We knew that at some point Iraq had chem weapons because we gave them some. But so far, the tapes do not have anything to do with hiding WMD's right before the US invaded.

Why are the chemical weapons that we KNEW he had not good enough to be considered weapons of mass destruction? I don't understand that. If they existed from a certain time period, they don't count?

You just admitted in the above sentences that the US "knew" that Saddam had chemical weapons...so why isn't that justification enough to rid Iraq of WMDs?

I could very well be missing something, I just might need it explained in a little more detail. Thanks!

[SkinsHokieFan]

Ambulances to Syria people

Just a little aside, and its anecdotal so it take it with a grain of salt if you want

A very good friend of mine who I played lacrosse with in high school and went to college with me at Tech returned from Iraq last week and I met with him for lunch this past week

For the most part he had mostly positive things to say about his expierences in Iraq, saying 80 percent of the time things are just fine, its those 20 percent of the time when bullets and bombs are flying at him that suck

Anyways to get to the point about this, his sector is the Sunni triangle. Among Iraqis he has befriended are many former members of the Republican guard, who insist that these weapons were moved via amblunces to Syria, because Saddam knew the US would not fire at ambulences

Believeable? Sure. Did it happen? Thus far there is nothing but anecdotal evidence from republican guard guys

To me there is way too much smoke for there not to have been any fire. Doesn't make sense at all that every intel agencey in the world would be wrong on this. But the physical evidence is not there at all

Just thought I would throw that in for you all

[SkinsHokieFan]

I think most people believed he had them. The question now is what's become of them. Are they buried in the sand somewhere? Are they actively in terrorist hands in Syria and Saudi Arabia? Are we in greater or less direct danger now. Iraq had WMDs. Hell, right now, so does Pakistan, Cuba, China, the U.S., India, North Korea, and about twenty others. The question was always why there... why now. There were equal or worse bad guys out there.

Bang has made very good posts regarding this. Its about strategically placing our military in the middle east. Saddam was the bad guy that was easy to hate, he had weapons, and we now have access all over the middle east and have Iran on both its Western and Eastern borders

In terms of our long term objectives, our military is perfectly positioned to do battle in the middle east. Going after Pakistan, China, or Saudia Arabia would have been serious trouble

[RabidFan]

So which is it? Gutted airplanes, ambulances, a convoy of trucks like in Die Hard 3?

[SkinsHokieFan]

So which is it? Gutted airplanes, ambulances, a convoy of trucks like in Die Hard 3?

Could be all 3. Like I said, there is no physical evidence of weapons existing there in 2002, I am not going to say it

What I am saying though is there is way too much circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that suggests otherwise

[Burgold]

Bang has made very good posts regarding this. Its about strategically placing our military in the middle east. Saddam was the bad guy that was easy to hate, he had weapons, and we now have access all over the middle east and have Iran on both its Western and Eastern borders

In terms of our long term objectives, our military is perfectly positioned to do battle in the middle east. Going after Pakistan, China, or Saudia Arabia would have been serious trouble

I knew I would need a number 4.

4. The WMD's are a smokescreen. We know he had them and so this is a convenient excuse to get a foothold into the Middle East and make sure the real badder guys know big brother's watching them.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I knew I would need a number 4.

4. The WMD's are a smokescreen. We know he had them and so this is a convenient excuse to get a foothold into the Middle East and make sure the real badder guys know big brother's watching them.

Is that such a bad thing?

[Burgold]

Not necessarily unless you think that if it was a smokescreen the smokescreen was used on us too and you do not like the idea of being lied to by your government. There is the possibility that the Iraqi War will have a great transformative impact on the Middle East. If that is the case, I hope it will be, then the end will have justified the means. If it doesn't. Lying to us was just mean.

[@DCGoldPants]

Ambulances to Syria people

Just a little aside, and its anecdotal so it take it with a grain of salt if you want

A very good friend of mine who I played lacrosse with in high school and went to college with me at Tech returned from Iraq last week and I met with him for lunch this past week

For the most part he had mostly positive things to say about his expierences in Iraq, saying 80 percent of the time things are just fine, its those 20 percent of the time when bullets and bombs are flying at him that suck

Anyways to get to the point about this, his sector is the Sunni triangle. Among Iraqis he has befriended are many former members of the Republican guard, who insist that these weapons were moved via amblunces to Syria, because Saddam knew the US would not fire at ambulences

Believeable? Sure. Did it happen? Thus far there is nothing but anecdotal evidence from republican guard guys

To me there is way too much smoke for there not to have been any fire. Doesn't make sense at all that every intel agencey in the world would be wrong on this. But the physical evidence is not there at all

Just thought I would throw that in for you all

can ambulances move 500 tons of WMD without looking suspicious? That's either a lot of trips, or a fleet of vehicles.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Not necessarily unless you think that if it was a smokescreen the smokescreen was used on us too and you do not like the idea of being lied to by your government. There is the possibility that the Iraqi War will have a great transformative impact on the Middle East. If that is the case, I hope it will be, then the end will have justified the means. If it doesn't. Lying to us was just mean.

Like I have said, I think there is way too much smoke for there not to be any fire

Did the admin lie? No. Were they wrong? They certainly look wrong right now

Is Iraq changing for the better? Yes, every military person on this board and who I have spoken to has said the place was better when they left then when they got there

Will it change the ME? It will be a very very long time before we figure that out, probably long after we are all gone

[SkinsHokieFan]

can ambulances move 500 tons of WMD without looking suspicious? That's either a lot of trips, or a fleet of vehicles.

Very valid question. When I speak to a member of the Republican Guard, I will let you know

[Burgold]

Like I have said, I think there is way too much smoke for there not to be any fire

Did the admin lie? No. Were they wrong? They certainly look wrong right now

Is Iraq changing for the better? Yes, every military person on this board and who I have spoken to has said the place was better when they left then when they got there

Will it change the ME? It will be a very very long time before we figure that out, probably long after we are all gone

I'm pretty certain they had WMD's also. I just have a very high standard when it comes to war. I don't think Iraq met that. Having spent so many hours volunteering at Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval I have seen such amazing maturity and other qualities to make you proud. I hate the idea that some of these lives may have been misspent.

Sorry, about the use of the word "lying" I know its hot button. I was just having fun with wordplay--"ends justifying the means being mean"

[stevenaa]

There were three beliefs (probably more) about Iraq's WMD:

1. He has them. They're an immediate danger to those in the U.S. and he's going to use it against us now or at least very soon so we better stop him.

2. He has them, but they're not an immediate danger to those in the U.S. He's a monster, but not a fool. He knows if he actually launched an attack against we'd anhilate him and he loves power too much to risk that. (where I stood)

3. He has no weapons or they've all gone chemically inactive due to the passage of time. Besides, he hasn't attacked anyone in almost twenty years and lots of other folks have been much more active in harming U.S citizens, property and interests. If you really are concerned about terrorism, why wouldn't you go after the real terrorist states?

I think most people believed he had them. The question now is what's become of them. Are they buried in the sand somewhere? Are they actively in terrorist hands in Syria and Saudi Arabia? Are we in greater or less direct danger now. Iraq had WMDs. Hell, right now, so does Pakistan, Cuba, China, the U.S., India, North Korea, and about twenty others. The question was always why there... why now. There were equal or worse bad guys out there.

The last is an easy question to answer. We had legal standing to and in doing so had the chance to demonstrate to the equal or worse bad guys that we are not afraid to defend ourselves. There is no way we could or would have attacked any other country, without a direct attack against us. The left wants to make this into a rogue administration willing to preemptively strike anyone it sees fit and seeking to fulfill personal vendetas.

If the stakes weren't so high, I'd say let the left handle Iran. Certainly they can handle it diplomatically, as they preach Iraq should have been handled. I'm sure the Iranian president can be reasoned with. He's just a little misunderstood.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I get a little confused when I read people talking about how the government lied to us about this and that.

We elect these people to make decisions (some of which need to be secrets). We can't very well ***** and moan that we want to be in the know about everything. My sister brought up a good point yesterday (this is slightly off topic but is relevant, I promise).

She said that its dumb to wiretap international calls and then tell the public exactly what you're wiretapping...seems very easy for people breaking the law to find a workaround. My father chimed in with a "That's what you get when the press leaks information."

To me, it's the same principle with WMD in Iraq. We're not entitled to know everything, if we want to know it all, we should run for gov't office. The administrations tell the public what they need to know but the more we know, the more our operations and defenses are at risk.

So, finally my point. Who cares what we were told about the war in Iraq?? Whether Saddam had a nuke pointing at us or never used on WMD in his reign in Iraq, if our government thought we needed to establish a presence in the Middle East as a first step in a multi-step operation over there (and overthrow a ruthless dictator in the process which everyone will agree was a good thing), then who cares??

Thoughts?

[codeorama]

Why are the chemical weapons that we KNEW he had not good enough to be considered weapons of mass destruction? I don't understand that. If they existed from a certain time period, they don't count?

You just admitted in the above sentences that the US "knew" that Saddam had chemical weapons...so why isn't that justification enough to rid Iraq of WMDs?

I could very well be missing something, I just might need it explained in a little more detail. Thanks!

We know they had them at some point because WE (the United States) gave them the chem weapons to use against Iran, and from what I understand, they did use them against Iran. Where did they go you ask? They were used. Didn't one of the rivers show traces of the chem weapons in it? I remember that being used as "proof" then the tests came back showing the levels were as such that it was probably used vs. Iran.

It's not really hard to understand.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

We know they had them at some point because WE (the United States) gave them the chem weapons to use against Iran, and from what I understand, they did use them against Iran. Where did they go you ask? They were used. Didn't one of the rivers show traces of the chem weapons in it? I remember that being used as "proof" then the tests came back showing the levels were as such that it was probably used vs. Iran.

It's not really hard to understand.

Thanks man...I asked for a clarification...no need to get touchy and tell me it's not hard to understand.

I guess my point is, just because they used some, doesn't mean they used all. But again, I've read since the post you quoted that chemical weapons can expire so I'm assuming that the ones in question wouldn't have been operational in the 2000s?

Thanks again...and no need to get defensive. Some people (like me) ask questions for information, not to patronize!

[Burgold]

So, finally my point. Who cares what we were told about the war in Iraq?? Whether Saddam had a nuke pointing at us or never used on WMD in his reign in Iraq, if our government thought we needed to establish a presence in the Middle East as a first step in a multi-step operation over there (and overthrow a ruthless dictator in the process which everyone will agree was a good thing), then who cares??

Thoughts?

We're going to differ here. I believe like you that I don't have the right to know everything and that there is a value of withholding information. However, I strongly disagree with the point of view that the government has the right to lie or misinform the public about the right to war. War is the gravest decision a government can make and the people who will actually bare the cost of it deserve candor. In other words, it's cool to omit knowledge, but wrong to intentionally mislead or disceive. I think we as Americans deserve honesty.

[RabidFan]

I get a little confused when I read people talking about how the government lied to us about this and that.

We elect these people to make decisions (some of which need to be secrets). We can't very well ***** and moan that we want to be in the know about everything. My sister brought up a good point yesterday (this is slightly off topic but is relevant, I promise).

She said that its dumb to wiretap international calls and then tell the public exactly what you're wiretapping...seems very easy for people breaking the law to find a workaround. My father chimed in with a "That's what you get when the press leaks information."

To me, it's the same principle with WMD in Iraq. We're not entitled to know everything, if we want to know it all, we should run for gov't office. The administrations tell the public what they need to know but the more we know, the more our operations and defenses are at risk.

So, finally my point. Who cares what we were told about the war in Iraq?? Whether Saddam had a nuke pointing at us or never used on WMD in his reign in Iraq, if our government thought we needed to establish a presence in the Middle East as a first step in a multi-step operation over there (and overthrow a ruthless dictator in the process which everyone will agree was a good thing), then who cares??

Thoughts?

Well your question has merit for sure. Some people have a problem just with the Sales job the admin used to garner public support for their actions. As many people have problems with Sheehan and Moore's actions against the war by citing the importance of propaganda and unitedness of support for the war to then not enable OBL and others to use a divided culture of our citizens for our actions as a nation against us. So the American people shouldn't have to be sold on the war for support but then cannot speak against an action as it works against the US's image abroad for their actions???....they can't have it both ways.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

We're going to differ here. I believe like you that I don't have the right to know everything and that there is a value of withholding information. However, I strongly disagree with the point of view that the government has the right to lie or misinform the public about the right to war. War is the gravest decision a government can make and the people who will actually bare the cost of it deserve candor. In other words, it's cool to omit knowledge, but wrong to intentionally mislead or disceive. I think we as Americans deserve honesty.

That's fair enough. I see exactly what you mean.

However, if our government was only giving us part of the story, then it's grey area. For example, if they truly believed there were WMD in Iraq but also knew that a byproduct of the war would be to have a nice stronghold in the middle of the region, the fact that they were incorrect doesn't seem so bad to me.

Granted, we'll never know if they knew the WMD were gone or not so it's all speculative.

[Burgold]

Prove it.

New standard set here yesterday.

Unfortunately, speculation is no longer allowed on the internet.

[Cdowwe]

I still believe he just moved them to Syria

[Destino]

I think the truth here is we don't know what the hell happened to the WMD. They existed in the 90s but from that point to now, we have nothing more then theories.

[Larry]

I was just thinking what an amazing coincidence that these secret tapes that we've had for years, and which aparantly don't say anything new, (but which are even now being spun to the faithfull dittoheads as proof that Bush Was Right), just happened to be released on the same day that an Australian TV station releases video of more prisoner "abuse" at Abu Garaib.

(However, I checked some links. And while it appears that the pictures and video were previously unreleased, they were filmed at the same time, and supposedly by the same people, as Cpl England and Co. Not a new story, just new photos to go with the old story.)