PROOF WMD's exist in iraq

[Kilmer17]

code, they werent even allowed to have guns. Bullets or not. Chemical labs do 1 thing. They produce chemicals. There is absolutely no reason to have a mobile lab unless you are trying to hide it.

[gbear]

Kilmer our own intelligence on the labs indicated they may have just been used for hydrogen balloons used to test wind patterns for artillary. they said the labs would have been bigger than necessary. However, if they were used for WMD, it would have required a min of 2 other kinds of trucks which we haven't found yet.

Codeo, that was in the post a few days ago.

Fan since 62,

on the terrorism being less of a threat after the war: it's not just the enforcement side, there is also the recruitment side. What about the post yesterday about people being willing to take up arms against us in Iraq? What about the people that came across the border from Syria during the war? I submit there is credible evidence of increased recruitment as a reaction to our foreign policy. I would also submit that other countries making only token resistance to their nationals going to fight represents them not cooperating with us.

You argue the war has made us safer. We went to war to stop the spread of WMD. Instead we have scattered them god knows where. We have evidence of increased recruitment. And finally we have evidence that countries were less willing to help.

Ironically, the best blow against terrorism in the last 6 months probably happened as a response to the terrorist strikes in Saudi Arabia. It was only then that saudi Arabia started getting serious. Doesn't the fact that they stepped up their efforts after the attack in their country indicate they weren't doing all they could before that? Also, citizens there suddenly became willing to cooperate hunting down terrorists there. Why wouldn't these citizens do that before the bombs in saudi Arabia? Oh that's right: public opinion has no measurable impact on how countries help us fight terrorism. :doh:

[Gmac61]

If you honestly believe Saddam was all the things we painted him to be in the buildup to war (and I do think he was), how can you possibly beleive he wouldn't throw any and all WMDs at us when we were clearly coming for him? I see no way to reconcile these two points without some pretty twisted reasoning. He may have had them long ago, may have been trying to re-aquire some, but I'll never be able to buy the fact that he had them and refused to use them without ironclad proof and some reasonable explanation as to what Saddam had to gain by holding them back.

As to changing the reason for war to liberating a downtrodden people, I have to say I am against that. It may sound selfish, but I do not think we should start the business of spending American lives to remove dictators we don't like. That's an endless fight. Our troops, our military is for defense of America, not global police duties.

[codeorama]

gbear...thanks, that's exactly the post I was referring to but my brain couldn't recall the details...

Also about the terrorism, I believe it will be much worse longterm because of the war. That's just my opinion, I have no hard facts to back it up..

[Kilmer17]

Can you link it gbear. Not that I dont believe you, I'd rather see it for myself and see any counter arguments.

[gbear]

Couldn't find the link, but I did better. Here's the CIA's report:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraqi_mobile_plants/index.html

interesting parts:

"Hydrogen Production Cover Story

Senior Iraqi officials of the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development, and Engineering facility in Mosul were shown pictures of the mobile production trailers, and they claimed that the trailers were used to chemically produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. Hydrogen production would be a plausible cover story for the mobile production units.

The Iraqis have used sophisticated denial and deception methods that include the use of cover stories that are designed to work. Some of the features of the trailer—a gas collection system and the presence of caustic—are consistent with both bioproduction and hydrogen production.

The plant's design possibly could be used to produce hydrogen using a chemical reaction, but it would be inefficient. The capacity of this trailer is larger than typical units for hydrogen production for weather balloons. Compact, transportable hydrogen generation systems are commercially available, safe, and reliable."

So it couldn't have been used for that because it would be ineffecient? Never mind they would have had limited access to the what equipment they could get due to trade embargo:doh:

also:

"The trailers probably are part of a two- or possibly three-trailer unit. Both trailers we have found probably are designed to produce BW agent in unconcentrated liquid slurry. The missing trailer or trailers from one complete unit would be equipped for growth media preparation and postharvest processing and, we would expect, have equipment such as mixing tanks, centrifuges, and spray dryers"

So we think we can't find the other two trucks that would make it a WMD mobile plant, but surely that's what they are instead of a simpler but ineffecient use.

Sorry, that's shakey to me.

For those saying you just don't have the facts, that's true, but the CIA's report si as good as it gets for civilians.

[TheKurp]

I'm going to need some help here. I cannot seem to reconcile the fact that the right-wing conservatives on this board give no thought to how many tax dollars are being spent on the war on terrorism. Yet on the other hand these are the same people who adhere to party ideology in complaining about Democrats being the "tax and spend" party.

Who cares if the world hates the U.S.? We all should. Why? Because we as taxpayers foot the bill for that hatred. How many other Osama Bin Ladens are in incubation right now because of America's perceived arrogance? It's naiive to think that militants aren't born and motivated to acts of terrorism when outside countries use their power to influence internal politics. "Every action has a reaction" as Bob Marley was fond of saying. Terrorism against the U.S. will be a self-fulling prophecy if we continue down a road of aggression in the name of pre-emptive strikes when the justification for such actions are not well-founded.

***********************************************

Deficit Watch tracks cost of war on terror

S.A. group warns of danger posed to economy

W. Scott Bailey

A San Antonio-based national think tank is set to release a report this month that the organization's top executive says will reveal how the United States is "planting its own seeds of destruction" in the war on terrorism.

That report, says International Horizons Unlimited (IHU) President and CEO Dr. Saul B. Wilen, will divulge the staggering costs associated with the war effort that could prove to be disastrous for the Texas economy.

IHU is set to release its first Deficit Watch - a bi-monthly report detailing the ongoing costs of the war on terrorism. Wilen says the initial report will show that the United States will spend nearly $290 billion toward the war effort in 2003. That, according to IHU, is more than double the total amount spent between Sept. 11, 2001, and mid-December 2002.

"The deficit is a dynamic indicator of the financial stability of America," says Wilen. "The Deficit Watch goal is to be a single objective source of information compiled from public records and budget documents where the public and private sectors and the media can turn to learn about the factors contributing to the rising deficit, the impacts of the war on terrorism and other significant influences resulting in the growing deficit threat."

The inaugural report, which will soon be distributed to the media, public officials and private-sector economists nationally, will reveal that the United States is projected to spend $287.5 billion in 2003 to fight the war on terrorism. That compares to $139.1 billion IHU says was spent from the time of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, through Dec. 19, 2002.

As a result, IHU officials say the diversion of funds essential to support important state services and programs - such as education and health care - will only further weaken the U.S. economy. In Texas alone, IHU predicts that the Lone Star state will now experience a revenue shortfall of $6 billion to $9 billion for fiscal 2003. That's greater than the $5 billion Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Rylander originally projected.

Rylander was unavailable for comment. But a spokesman in her office, while agreeing that the shortfall is expected to surpass the $5 billion mark, says that is not as a result of costs associated with the war on terrorism.

Spokesman Patrick Fortner says the comptroller's office is attributing the shortfall to a "decrease in business investment" and "softer sales-tax figures."

Wilen says Rylander has to maintain a political distance between the war on terrorism and the budget shortfall to avoid providing ammunition to the Democratic camp. But politics aside, Wilen stresses that the money Texas could lose to the war on terrorism presents serious problems.

Asked what the projected spending on terrorism would mean for Texas, he says, "Disaster. Disaster in education and disaster in health care. That's frightening because we are already at the bottom of the heap in health care."

Costly effort

On Dec. 17, IHU sent out a request across the nation to city and state officials and to the private sector, enlisting their aid in gathering data for Deficit Watch. Within 24 hours of that request, Wilen - who has been invited to serve as a speaker at the 13th World Conference on Disaster Management in Canada - says 287 entities stepped forward to provide information and assistance.

The federal government, Wilen says, was less cooperative.

"They haven't been willing to come forward," Wilen adds. "But they've had no option because it's public record. It just took (IHU) to put it all together."

Some of those who have come forward to provide useful information include a couple of state comptrollers. Wilen won't identify their names or the states they represent. He also says a number of representatives from Fortune 500 companies have also offered their assistance.

The initial Deficit Watch report will show that the United States spent a total of $40 billion in military costs related to the war on terrorism between Sept. 11, 2001, and mid-December 2002. Those costs, according to the report, are conservatively projected to surpass $70 billion in 2003. Wilen says they could escalate to well over $200 billion if the United States is pulled into a lengthy war with Iraq.

Other areas worth noting include projected costs for businesses and universities. Based on numbers provided by IHU, private-sector investment in security could reach $4 billion in 2003. That is double the amount spent between 9/11 and year-end 2002.

University and private-sector research related to the war on terrorism is projected to cost at least $3.9 billion in 2003. That compares with the $1.7 billion IHU says was spent in between 9/11 and year-end 2002.

Playing catch-up

Wilen says IHU acknowledges the need for the United States to fend off global terrorism. But he adds that the federal government is going about it the wrong way, and that, he explains, could generate dire consequences.

"We must fight the war on terrorism," he insists. "But we must do it cost-effectively and through prevention. We are doing neither. We are almost 100 percent reactive. We can't win that way."

Wilen says the missteps in how the United States is dealing with terrorism come from misunderstandings and miscalculations. "(Terrorists) are much smarter than we give them credit," he says. "These are people who sleep in caves but at every turn (they) out-think us. These people are goal-oriented. But when we are responding, we aren't goal-oriented. We're playing catch-up."

Wilen continues, "Terrorists won't put us out of business with bombs. But if they rock our economy, they will put us out of business."

Although Wilen says the news in the initial Deficit Watch is not good, he adds that San Antonio's national profile could rise as a result of the project: "Here's a company out of San Antonio that is doing what no one else in the country chose to do - to look at our economic vulnerability. In the process, we have immediately jumped this informative piece to a national phenomenon."

[codeorama]

One thing that made me see terrorists in a different light was seeing the movie "Colateral Damage". While the movie sucked, the fact that it showed how the terrorist came to hate America and why he did what he did.

I will be the first to admit that if my family member were killed by (insert group here) I would be pissed and contemplate retaliation in some way.

Am I saying that i think the terrorists have a right to do what they do? NO WAY, but I think our country should realize that we have done some things that light a fire under these people's a$$es and makes them want revenge.

I posted an article from a liberatarian site a while back and the jist was "IF Americans are so determined to end Terrorism, America should stop funding and training terrorists and giving them reasons for their actions".

[redman]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

My questions still remain

What else could those mobile chemical labs be used for?

What else could chemical tipped missiles be used for?

What else could cause chemicals to show up in the Tigris and/or Euphrates?

Why dont you believe the Iraqi scientists who claim they helped destroy WMDs days before the war started?

What else can a secret underground nuclear facility be used for?

We have plenty of proof of WMDs. What we lack is an actual weapon.

Kilmer,

I agree with all of that. I also remind everyone about the all-too-easily forgotten fact that large quantities of chemical weapons can be manufactured in a matter of months if you have the infrastructure that Iraq did.

However, we said to the world that there was not only that equipment and infrastructure, but also tens of thousands of tons of weapons grade material. However happy the ending otherwise was/is for us in Iraq, we still need to account for that somehow.

BTW, the ease of manufacture of the chem weapons may lend credibility to Saddam's destruction of them pre-war. He was saavy, and he knew he could hide/disguise the infrastructure and lead the inspectors on and simply restock his weapons within months after they left. At the very least, he could embarrass us by their absence. Remember, a glorious death for a Baathist is to embarrass the "colonial" western powers in the name of Arab unity and glory.

We need to come up with evidence that bears out what we alleged pre-war, even if those circumstances have changed somehow. That's all I'm saying.

[redman]

What also needs to be addressed is how the rest of the world perceives us. As in my own individual life, the amount I care about how I'm perceived is measured by two co-equal things:

1) how much can the other person affect my life; and

2) how much do I respect the other person's views.

In this instance, by and large those who oppose us I really don't have much respect for. The Arab world, however moderate a given nation may be or appear, is about the most morally confused area there is. I don't look to them for moral guidance. Likewise, the socialist French and German governments don't offer me much here either, as they've clearly been willing to climb in bed with every two-bit tyrant they can if it allows them to pay for more of their extremely expensive social welfare infrastructure.

As for the first issue, I likewise am not by al Qaeda getting additional recruits. Al Qaeda's going to act no matter what, and to me this simply accelerates the process by which we destroy them. It isn't much of an argument to say that we shouldn't do something that is otherwise right or else we're going to get attacked. Al Qaeda can't be pleased that in the span of around 18 months we have subdued their favorite training grounds and one of the more destabilizing regimes in the Arab world.

While in the abstract I'd be concerned about our allies around the world falling away from us, I frankly haven't seen that yet. Our new Eastern European allies have proven steadfast, and the rhetoric from our traditional allies, on both sides of the Iraq fence, has not been changed.

As long as we believe what we're doing is right and have the evidence to back it up, I'm not afraid of bold action. History will sort out who gets credit or blame. As the old saying goes, "The proof is in the pudding."

[OURYEAR#56]

History is a funny thing. Once upon a time George Washington, Benjermin Frankling, and Thomas Jefferrson were considered terrorist, and the whole city of Boston was scene as a terrorsit center because of the Boston Tea Party. Now were consider these men Founding Fathers. I am not saying Osma's face will be put up on Mt. Arafat like Mt. Rushmore. But men that stand against oppressive measures will always be idolized, i.e. Mt. Rushmore.

[redman]

I see OURYEAR. But if "might makes right", then aren't you undercutting your arguments against this Administrations actions? We won, didn't we?

[codeorama]

redman, I can see a little truth in his statement, although not in the way he intended it..:laugh:

GW and boys questioned the government and and decided that they wanted something better, therefore they acted, they were considered "traitors" or "anti British" I'm sure. The fact that "We" question our government is "what America is" and was founded on, therefore "we" can't be "un American" in doing so.

just my 2cents:cheers:

[Om]

I've written before about how I felt the Bush Administration's biggest failing leading up to and during the actual prosecution of the war, was in articulating the case for war with Iraq. Allowing the search for actual, weaponized WMD, especially after the years Saddam was given between Gulf War's I and II to take his operations underground, to become such a singular focus in the press, and such a mantra for the Administration was, to me, a huge miscalculation.

Fact is, they had them, and they used them.

Does anyone really believe they destroyed them all?

And that they destroyed them all plus plumb forgot how to make more?

And that they destroyed them all, forgot how to make more, and lost the will to use them again?

[gbear]

Om,

You seem to say that Sadam definitely had them. I thought that too, and I still hope that was true, but everything I'm seeing makes me doubt. If they had gotten rid of them as some suggest, why were we at war? If Sadam truely had them, why would he not either A) use them or destroy them openly so that we would back off. At what point was it in his best interest to secretly destroy them?

What I also hate is that we secured the southern oil fields within roughly 48 hours of the beginning of the war. Yet suspected WMD sites remain unsecured to this date (as of 2 weeks ago:last article on subject). Priorities.

Follow your reasoning a little further

...do you really think they forgot how to make more?

...have we found any of the means they had to make any?

...if not, where are they (WMD & the means of producing more)?

...what have we accomplished?

And that's taking your logic and assumptions to where it seems to naturally go.

[Kilmer17]

Kurp, that's a great argument, and one that deserves it's own thread. But his one is discussing the existence of WMDs. IF the $$$ bothers you, start a thread about it. I'll have plenty to add.

gbear. If that's what they were used for then where are the balloons? It could be easily dismissed, just provide us an example of what they were using it for. Or, show me a scientist that denies the testimony of the scientists that claim they helped hide and destroy the WMDs prior to the war.

[JimboDaMan]

Actually, Om, there's a fair amount of evidence that the particular attack most highlighted in that report (Halabjah) was committed by Iran, not Iraq. At the very least there's no direct evidence the Iraqis did this, and there's been some internal government debate as to the true culprit. But, to your point, there's no debating that the Iraqis used chemical weapons against the Iranians during the war, and some anecdotal evidence they used them against the Kurds. Those pictures are graphic and terrible, but may actually have been due to the chemicals favored by Iran.

The other point I had was about losing the will to use them - didn't we prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam didn't have either the capability or the will to use them against us?

But I agree they had them at one point, may still have posessed some, and that they either knew how to make more or would work to gain that knowledge.

[Kilmer17]

So now Iraq didnt have any to begin with?

:laugh:

[gbear]

Kilmer,

Where are the balloons? Where are the WMD?

Regardless, by the time the trucks came into our posession, they had been stripped bear, by stripping agents and by looters or whomever. You think the balloons wouldn't have been taken? Is that it?

That's just it, read the report, they were told the trucks were used to make hydrogen. It fits. Our administration is just passing it off as untrue preferring to believe that we're just missing the other two trucks needed to make WMD with these trucks.

Regardless, the point is these trucks are far from proof of a WMD program.

Having a third of what one needs to make a bomb doesn't make things go boom.

"find a scientist that denies that they destroyed" them? Where did they destroy them? Does it strike you as odd that every place where they said the ydestroyed them, there should have been evidence of the destruction, but it's been missing?

Why would they secretly destroy them? That doesn't make sense.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

gbear. If that's what they were used for then where are the balloons? It could be easily dismissed, just provide us an example of what they were using it for. Or, show me a scientist that denies the testimony of the scientists that claim they helped hide and destroy the WMDs prior to the war.

Well I'm not gbear but exactly what testimonies are you referring to Kilmer?

Amer al-Saadi, Iraq's Science Chief had this to say after surrendering to U.S. military authorities.

Saddam Hussein's science adviser surrendered to U.S. military authorities Saturday, insisting that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and the U.S.-led invasion was unjustified.

Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi became the first of the 55 most wanted Iraqi figures to go into coalition custody. Al-Saadi arranged his surrender with the help of Germany's ZDF television network, which filmed him leaving his Baghdad villa with his German wife, Helga, and presenting himself to an American warrant officer, who escorted him away.

Al-Saadi told ZDF he had spent the war in his cellar and emerged after he saw a British TV report that he was being sought. He said he had no information on what happened to Saddam and repeated his assertion, made often in news conferences before the U.S.-led war started on March 20, that Iraq was free of weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. Central Command in Qatar confirmed in a statement that al-Saadi surrendered to coalition forces Saturday.

The elegant, British-educated al-Saadi is believed to be the first of the 55 regime figures sought by the coalition — he was the seven of diamonds in the deck of playing cards issued by the U.S. military with the wanted officials' pictures — to enter custody.

He had been wanted because he was a special weapons adviser to Saddam and oversaw Iraq's chemical program in the past. He is believed to have in-depth knowledge of other weapons programs as well.

He was among the key figures who worked with U.N. weapons inspectors and often spoke for the Iraqi government in news conferences between the resumption of inspections in November and their end last month.

After U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. Security Council in February, al-Saadi suggested that monitored Iraqi conversations Powell played were fabricated, that defector informants were unreliable and that satellite photographs "proved nothing."

Al-Saadi also had defended the regime's longtime practice of insisting that Iraqi officials be present during meetings between U.N. weapons inspectors and Iraqi scientists, saying that otherwise the scientists' remarks might be distorted.

By turning himself in, al-Saadi may be trying to deal himself a better hand for the future, reports CBS News Correspondent Mark Phillips. But Al-Saadi says he has nothing to be guilty about.

"I know the programs for weapons of mass destruction and have always told the truth about these old programs, and only the truth. You will see, the future will show it, and nothing else will come out after the end of the war," he said in an interview with ZDF, according to the broadcaster's German translation.

"Because I know the program, together with my colleagues, because we have always worked together and nobody intervened. Nobody ever told me what I should say."

In addition, Jaffar al-Jaffer, a British-educated physicist dubbed "the father of Iraq's nuclear weapons program" by UN inspectors has been in U.S. custody for 6 weeks. Yet we've heard nothing. Why?

[redman]

gbear-

Assume, essentially like Om said, that:

1) Saddam has produced WMD's before (and quite aggressively);

2) Saddam has used WMD's before;

3) Saddam gave no definitive indication that he was no longer willing to produce and use WMD's; and

4) Saddam could completely replenish his chemical weapons stockpiles, even if completely destroyed, within months.

Given all of those assumptions would you agree that war was justified? And wouldn't that provide a scenario in which Saddam might destroy his weapons in the short-term to thwart the disarmament process?

[Sarge]

You seem to say that Sadam definitely had them. I thought that too, and I still hope that was true, but everything I'm seeing makes me doubt

gbear...he had them. Trust me.

If Sadam truely had them, why would he not either A) use them or destroy them openly so that we would back off. At what point was it in his best interest to secretly destroy them?

Because he didn't want to be nuked. Had he used those weapons, we would have retaliated with a small yield nuclear weapon. That might have gotten his a$$ and at the very least would have burned up some of his loot.

He didn't want to back off, because if all else he would have looked like a pu$$y in the eyes of other arabs, and if he somehow lived or stayed in power, he would have been seriously undermined.

Am I saying that i think the terrorists have a right to do what they do? NO WAY, but I think our country should realize that we have done some things that light a fire under these people's a$$es and makes them want revenge.

But you know what, how fu(king stupid fo you have to be to realize that we aren't playing anymore and that we have a bigger stick than they do? We really haven't even taken the gloves off for real on anyone. What they should be doing is talking to us and trying to resolve things that way, because otherwise as long as they act like barbarians, we're gonna be here to beat their a$$es.

I'm going to need some help here. I cannot seem to reconcile the fact that the right-wing conservatives on this board give no thought to how many tax dollars are being spent on the war on terrorism. Yet on the other hand these are the same people who adhere to party ideology in complaining about Democrats being the "tax and spend" party.

OK, here's some help. It has to do with national security, which has no price tag as far as I and most of America is concerned. It's a far sight better then flushing money down the toilet by funding the NEA or spending money to fund studies of the limped-dicked cricket or some other worthless stuff

[Guest SkinsHokie Fan]

Blah blah blah. People, you tend to forget that Saddam Huessien was a very very bad guy and Iraq had no hope of ever getting rid of him and his sons.

Iran is on the verge of revolution. There was no way revolution or a coup was gonna occur in Iraq. This war no matter what you say was a damn good thing

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Air Sarge

OK, here's some help. It has to do with national security, which has no price tag as far as I and most of America is concerned. It's a far sight better then flushing money down the toilet by funding the NEA or spending money to fund studies of the limped-dicked cricket or some other worthless stuff

Sarge,

With all due respect, your response is nothing more than flag-waving rhetoric. Respond to the article I posted. It's about spending money wisely and effectively. The more enemies you create, the more energy and money you'll need to defend yourself. At what point will we have thrown so much good money after bad that we as a nation will not have the financial means to not only defend ourselves, but maintain our standard of living.

[gbear]

Redman,

If I accept everything you say as true, which I did before the war, how can we justify not securing WMD sites? Also, being able to destroy the WMD on short notice should still leave traces, and we haven't found any of the means of production necessary for your assumption of his ability to restock quickly.

Now we don't know where Sadam is. We don't know where the means of production for WMD are. We don't know where the existing WMD are.

Now if you had told me that the war will A) not secure existing WMD, not secure the means we believe exist for making more WMD, C) may or may not kill Sadam, and D) will leave us having earned the distrust of many previous allies I probably would not be for the war. Oh and A & B also might mean that they fall more readily into the hands of terrorists. Would you? If you answer yes on humanitarian grounds, are you willing to go to war in Africa (you can take your pick from a few ruthless regimes there).

Airsarge, he couldn't win or tie without them. Everybody knew he wasn't going to win. It was in the press all over the world about our peerless military. The most he could have gotten was a draw where he bravely defends the Arab world to the end. But he didn't because he didn't use the WMD that he might have had. You argued how he would have looked if he stayed in power, do you think that was ever a possible outcome once we attacked? Given his gorilla tactics, I would say his strategy from the beginning was never about staying in power. Gorilla tactics simply don't project power to rule, and he never had the technology to fight on an even footing.