sixtofive Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 EDIT: Another thing. How long have we been holding Baghdad? and it took use how long to find these things AFTER the capture of Saddam?Comments like this make me wonder if people have any clue how difficult of a task the soldiers have in front of them. It makes me wonder if people realize how large of an area has to be searched, how long they have had to hide them, and the nature of the terrain which is excellent in which to do so. They have pulled an entire fighter squadron out of the sand, with all of the planes still in working order. These were found mostly with luck. Imagine how hard it would be to find this stuff. Then you can add in the fact that we gave them more than ample time to smuggle them out if that was there plan by allowing those idiots at the UN to screw things up. They were able to smuggle out entire factories posed primarily as scrap metal right under the nose of the UN inspectors, and they admitted it later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImmortalSnafu Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 It makes me wonder if people realize how large of an area has to be searched, how long they have had to hide them, and the nature of the terrain which is excellent in which to do so.Do you remeber when Colin Powell presented maps to the UN showing known chemical bunkers with stocks of chemical weapons? Where are those? He said with certainty that those weapons were there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted July 27, 2004 Author Share Posted July 27, 2004 EDIT: Another thing. How long have we been holding Baghdad? and it took use how long to find these things AFTER the capture of Saddam?Comments like this make me wonder if people have any clue how difficult of a task the soldiers have in front of them. It makes me wonder if people realize how large of an area has to be searched, how long they have had to hide them, and the nature of the terrain which is excellent in which to do so. And comments like this make me wonder if some people remember that, not only have there been inspectors in Iraq looking for such things as these supposed missiles for 12 YEARS, and the information gathered was available to the Iraq Survey Group, but also that the UK and US governments presented detailed maps of WMD sites as justification for going to war, yet no sign of any such WMD has been presented so far. (Of course, maybe the fact some of these maps were passed on to the UN Weapons Inspectors who checked them out and found not a damn thing has something to do with that.) EDIT: I also forgot to add in the fact that even the extremely biased and 'sexed-up' information that the coalition presented to try to justify the war did not even try to claim that Saddam succesfully managed to create nuclear weapons. The closest that even that came to was saying he was trying to. Also: many are questioning whether or not this is actually true, but the main reason I believe it comes from a couple of friends of mine that are over there right now. They said that there has been signifigant pressure to try to cover this up. Why the hell would the coalition try to cover it up? If this is true, they would be shouting it from the rooftops! It would extremely daft of them not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow_Diet Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 **Thank you Wolf for your help, I didn't have a way of defending my opinion** Yes, as I had said before, and as Wolf also said. They would NOT cover up any WMD in Iraq, they'd be dancing around telling the whole world, "I told you so." But they're not, even Bush didn't hop on this, which leads me to wonder why you're defending your opinion so whole-heartedly.*shakes himself* whoops, any way... Nukes are a serious matter (duh), and shouldn't be messed around with as far as media or rumors go. If there were nukes, Bush would be doing his happy dance for weeks. But there isn't, and Bush isn't out to tell the world otherwise. EDIT: Then you can add in the fact that we gave them more than ample time to smuggle them out if that was there plan by allowing those idiots at the UN to screw things up. Uh, no. Bush attacked WAY before the UN had sanctioned anything, and no, they most certainly are NOT idiots. I'm pretty sure most (note: MOST) of our world leaders are fully capable of defending us in our time of need. Other then getting rid of a dictator, we have no reason to be in Iraq at all, and I believe a lot of our world leaders felt that same vibe.Saddam is evil, but not a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyjet3 Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 I don't think you caught sixtofive's point... he isn't justifing the war... He is simple saying that it is hard to search an area bigger than texas when there are mountains, caves, underground secret bunkers, ect. He is simply saying it takes time... Do you remeber when Colin Powell presented maps to the UN showing known chemical bunkers with stocks of chemical weapons? Where are those? He said with certainty that those weapons were there... Who says they weren't moved? Sixtofive was trying to say that Iraq had time to move them IF there were even there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted July 28, 2004 Author Share Posted July 28, 2004 I don't think you caught sixtofive's point... he isn't justifing the war... He is simple saying that it is hard to search an area bigger than texas when there are mountains, caves, underground secret bunkers, ect. He is simply saying it takes time... How much time? We, in the form of the UN, have been there searching on and off since immediately after the Gulf War. That's, what? 13 years or so now? Do you remeber when Colin Powell presented maps to the UN showing known chemical bunkers with stocks of chemical weapons? Where are those? He said with certainty that those weapons were there...Who says they weren't moved? Sixtofive was trying to say that Iraq had time to move them IF there were even there... The problem with that theory is that, when Blix and his team visited the sites passed on to them by the UK and US, he didn't even find traces of WMD, which would have told him WMD was there at one point and had been moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixtofive Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 tyjet you hit it right on, even a sizeable amount of the stuff could be compared to a needle in a hay stack under these conditions. As far as the UN goes, they were smart enough to give the Iraq government a free pass by way of a schedule of when and where they would be visiting. Even if they didn't come out and tell them when they were coming for an inspection they had people in the right places to give penty of heads up time. How dumb would you have to be to get caught by these guys? As far as the issue of time, the key word there was off and on, and there was more off than on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImmortalSnafu Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 Where do you think the maps came from? The US had satellites watching those sites....anything that came or went could be observed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted July 28, 2004 Author Share Posted July 28, 2004 tyjet you hit it right on, even a sizeable amount of the stuff could be compared to a needle in a hay stack under these conditions. As far as the UN goes, they were smart enough to give the Iraq government a free pass by way of a schedule of when and where they would be visiting.That's just plain wrong. Yes, the Inspections Teams did do scheduled visits, but they also did surprise inspections where the first the Iraqis knew a particular site was going to be visited was when the team drove up, got out, and requested access to the site. Even if they didn't come out and tell them when they were coming for an inspection they had people in the right places to give penty of heads up time. And this conveniently ignores the issue of not even traces of WMD being found. How dumb would you have to be to get caught by these guys? As far as the issue of time, the key word there was off and on, and there was more off than on. Well, that is also plain wrong. UN Inspections began on 9th June 1991. Between then and when the war began, I will list the periods when Inspections weren't taking place: A period of a few days beginning 5th July 199313th-25th November 1997The longest period: 31st October-18th November 1998 And that's it. The rest of the time, UN Weapons Inspection teams were in Iraq looking for weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixtofive Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 in the time that you say that there were ongoing inspections you seem to forget that they were not being compliant. That is the biggest reason that certain intelligence agencies thought the way they did, what were they hiding at the places where inspectors were refused access? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.