If no WMD found; will Bush be made out to be a liar?

[uh Clem]

They're in Syria.

Unless the administration changes its current "Syria First" policy by going after Iran.

In which case, they're in Iran.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by uh Clem
They're in Syria.

Unless the administration changes its current "Syria First" policy by going after Iran.

In which case, they're in Iran.

This morning in the news: W admin asserted that Republican Guard soldiers took them away.

In other words, anywhere but here.

[Sava]

connorkimbro: so then Bush is going to use his "faith-based" intiatives to get us to believe in the WMD's

elden: I know the CIA can do better with photoshop... that's my point... so why didn't they?

[Edan]

after all the US had control of the air early on, and should have had the baility to interdict large convoys (which is what it would take to move all those WMD's),

Hmm, massive firepower against convoys of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Good idea? (Not that the US shouldn't have done a damnsight more, but bombing the stuff isn't always the wisest choice)

[GePap]

Originally posted by Darius871


Not that I buy the reports about them being buried in Lebanon, but just FYI they said that they were loaded into tankers before the war and unloaded in a Mediterranean port.

Wow, what a crackerjack outfit our naval blockade must be in tankers filled with WMD's got through

Edan:

Any new defectors with the same story lately? About post 1998?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap


Wow, what a crackerjack outfit our naval blockade must be in tankers filled with WMD's got through

Am I mistaken, or weren't tankers THE way Iraq exported oil? Did American ships rigorously inspect every tanker that left Iraq
->before<- the war?

Originally posted by Sava

elden: I know the CIA can do better with photoshop... that's my point... so why didn't they?

Wait a sec, I missed all the media frenzy about forged photos... or is this just your expert opinion? 'Ooh, dem things look photoshopped.'

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


Hmm, massive firepower against convoys of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Good idea? (Not that the US shouldn't have done a damnsight more, but bombing the stuff isn't always the wisest choice)

Bombing the stuff out in the middle of the damn desert (which is what the space between the Euphrates-Tigris valley, and Syria, would not have realesed some "doom shroud", plus most chem weaposn break up quickly in the sun and heat, so yes, if such things ever existed, blow the convoy up!

Not to say I actually beliee there ever was a convoy, and if there was, I just reiterate my "Bush's other lie" post made above.

[Edan]

Edan:

Any new defectors with the same story lately? About post 1998?

Whether or not there are doesn't change Iraq's capability of hosting a nuclear weapons programs under sanctions and right under inspectors noses (just like North Korea...) However, I seem to remember hearing of a defection in 2000 (or thereabouts)

[GePap]

Originally posted by Darius871


Am I mistaken, or wasn't tankers THE way Iraq exported oil? Did American ships rigorously inspect every tanker that left Iraq before the war?

Yes, since 1990, as part of the UN sanctions.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Darius871
Am I mistaken, or weren't tankers THE way Iraq exported oil? Did American ships rigorously inspect every tanker that left Iraq ->before<- the war?

What tankers? IIRC, even the "Oil for Food" programme had been stopped prior to the war.

Another thing is, tanker modification work would surely detected by US spy sats.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


Bombing the stuff out in the middle of the damn desert (which is what the space between the Euphrates-Tigris valley, and Syria, would not have realesed some "doom shroud", plus most chem weaposn break up quickly in the sun and heat, so yes, if such things ever existed, blow the convoy up!

Umm, There are a number of towns and cities in the region near the Syrian border. And, from what I remember, someone in the military said they would purposefully not bomb suspected WMD sites in order to prevent the possibility of a large number of civilian deaths (and frankly, I think they did a pretty good job of minimizing civilian casulties as best they could ).

[Edan]

Originally posted by Darius871


Am I mistaken, or weren't tankers THE way Iraq exported oil?

They also exported it (both under sanctions and ignoring the sanctions) to Syria through a pipeline.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap

Yes, since 1990, as part of the UN sanctions.

Well you learn something new everyday; that sounds like quite a feat to check every nook and cranny of dozens of tankers making hundreds of trips throughout the decade. But hey, if you say they did.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

What tankers? IIRC, even the "Oil for Food" programme had been stopped prior to the war.

How long before the war? The articles I've read on the tanker story (again, not that I buy it, I was just pointing out that an easily detected land convoy was not the only possibility) said that they departed as early as the time of inspections.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Another thing is, tanker modification work would surely detected by US spy sats.

Why would the work have to be that extensive? Any secret compartments that would be necessary could all be built below decks and invisible. Secondly, there would be numerous ways of getting the weapons inside that would be indetectable.

[GePap]

Yes, there are towns, but mostly it is desert, and no, hitting a convoy in the middle of the desert, away from towns, would mean few civilian casualties.

But the point is moot, becuase, as i said before:

Bush said the point of this war (or the point he emphazised most before the war) was to protect Americans form Iraqi WMD's, specifically, from them getting into the hands of terrorist. IF there were any weapons, and somehow they made it to somewhere out of Iraq, out of US control, then Bush FAILED to achieve one of his main goals, since those WMD's would still be out there, capable of landing in Bin Ladn's hands (by this sort of logic) and "killing thousands upon thousands of Americans", if we go by what this admin. says these weapons are capable of.

Meaning (if this were true), Bush did not lie about WMD's, just the ability of this war to protect us from them.

as I asked before, is this somehow a better lie?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Darius871
Well you learn something new everyday; that sounds like quite a feat to check every nook and cranny of dozens of tankers making hundreds of trips throughout the decade. But hey, if you say they did.

They could not check every nook or cranny..but getting hundreds of mustard gas shells, thousand of tons of chemcial agents, 10,000 liters of anthrax, 28,000 liters of boutlism (spll?), 2 dozen SCUD's would surely require much more space than just a few nooks and crannies, would they not? (the afore mentioned stuff is what we said they had before the war)