PDA

View Full Version : Very interesting article about Saddam & WMD



Ironduke
04 Nov 03,, 05:25
Saddam was sure of his own survival

Aide says confusion reigned on eve of war with U.S.

BAGHDAD, Nov. 2 — Saddam Hussein refused to order a counterattack against U.S. troops when war erupted in March because he misjudged the initial ground thrust as a ruse and had been convinced earlier by Russian and French contacts that he could avoid or survive a land invasion, former Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz has told interrogators, according to U.S. officials.

AZIZ, WHO surrendered to U.S. authorities on April 24, has also said Iraq did not possess stocks of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons on the eve of the war, an assertion that echoes the previously reported statements of other detained Iraqi leaders and scientists. Yet Hussein personally ordered several secret programs to build or buy long-range missiles in defiance of international sanctions, according to Aziz’s reported statements.

The former deputy prime minister has described an argument he had with Hussein in 1999, in which the Iraqi president insisted that U.N. Resolution 687, enacted to limit Iraq’s armaments, prohibited long-range missiles only if they were armed with weapons of mass destruction.

Aziz said he countered, “No, it’s a range limit,” and all Iraqi missiles able to fly beyond 150 kilometers (about 93 miles) were banned, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the interrogation reports. Hussein demanded in reply, “No, I want to go ahead,” according to the senior official.

After nearly five months of prisoner interviews, document searches and site visits, “We know the regime had the greatest problem with the 150-kilometer limit” on missile ranges, said Hamish Killip, a former U.N. arms inspector now working with the Iraq Survey Group, a CIA-supervised body appointed by President Bush to lead the hunt for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Hussein and his most senior military commanders saw the range limit “as an invasion of their sovereignty,” Killip added. They fumed because hostile neighbors might hit Baghdad with missiles, but Iraq would be unable to answer in kind.

Yet investigators have found no comparable evidence to date that Hussein was willing after 1999 to risk being caught in major defiance of U.N. bans on nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, officials involved in the weapons hunt said.

“They seem to have made a mental separation between long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction,” Killip said.

Aziz’s statements about the Iraqi missile program have been largely corroborated by documents and interviews with engineers and scientists, officials said. On other subjects, the English-speaking bookworm’s reliability as a witness is uncertain. After a turn as the Iraqi president’s histrionic spokesman and foreign minister during the early 1990s, Aziz had grown estranged from Hussein as the war approached earlier this year, and officials involved in the interrogations say they are cautioned by Aziz’s long history of deceit and opportunism.

Still, Aziz’s extensive cooperation with interrogators has become a fulcrum of recent U.S. and British efforts to explore enduring mysteries of Hussein’s conduct during the last two years, several officials said.

As the hunt for major finds of chemical or biological arms has turned cold, U.S.-led investigators increasingly seek to understand why Hussein might have acted as he did if he truly had no sizable arsenal of contraband weapons. From their digs in looted factories and sprawling ammunition dumps, they are moving more and more to an exploration of Hussein’s mind.

PROBING HUSSEIN’S PLAN

In addition to Aziz, interrogators have systematically interviewed dozens of former Iraqi generals, intelligence officers and scientists in recent months, while trying to isolate them from one another to prevent coordinated answers.

Among the interrogators’ questions: If Hussein did not have chemical or biological weapons, why did he fail to disabuse U.S. and other intelligence services of their convictions that he did? Why did he also allow U.N. inspectors to conclude that he was being deceptive?

In early weeks, said officials involved, generals and intelligence officers close to Hussein typically blamed their government’s poor record-keeping for arousing suspicions in Washington and at the United Nations, repeating a defense used by Iraqi spokesmen during years of cat-and-mouse struggles with weapons inspectors.

More recently, however, several high-ranking detainees have said they believe that Hussein was afraid to lose face with his Arab neighbors. Hussein concluded, these prisoners explained, that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and other countries paid him deference because they feared he had weapons of mass destruction. Hussein was unwilling to reveal that his cupboard was essentially bare, these detainees said, according to accounts from officials.

In separate interviews with The Post, several former high-ranking Iraqi generals not held in detention offered similar views. Hussein “had an inferiority complex,” said Maj. Gen. Walid Mohammed Taiee, 62, chief of army logistics as the war approached earlier this year. “From a military point of view, if you did have a special weapon, you should keep it secret to achieve tactical surprise. . . . But he wanted the whole region to look at him as a grand leader. And during the period when the Americans were massing troops in Kuwait, he wanted to deter the prospect of war.”

Interrogators asked Aziz whether Hussein was also trying to bluff Iran, fearful that his hostile neighbor might be developing weapons of mass destruction. Aziz replied, according to the senior U.S. official familiar with his interrogation reports: “Every time I brought up the issue with Saddam, he said, ‘Don’t worry about the Iranians. If they ever get WMD, the Americans and Israelis will destroy them.’ ”

In the end, say investigators, all of this fragmentary testimony about Hussein’s thinking about special weapons is uncorroborated by hard documentary evidence or an unimpeachable inside source.

“The question we all have is, ‘What was so damned important that you were willing to go through all of this?’ ” said Killip of the Iraq Survey Group. He continued: “I’ve not heard any totally convincing explanation that’s backed up with facts. And it’s truly puzzling.”

FOREIGN CONTACTS

Aziz’s extensive interrogations — eased by a U.S. decision to quietly remove his family from Iraq to safe exile in a country that American officials would not name — paint Hussein on the eve of war as a distracted, distrustful despot who was confused, among other things, by his meetings with Russian and French intermediaries. Aziz said Hussein emerged from these diplomatic sessions — some secret at the time — convinced that he might yet avoid a war that would end his regime, despite ample evidence to the contrary.

Aziz has told interrogators that French and Russian intermediaries repeatedly assured Hussein during late 2002 and early this year that they would block a U.S.-led war through delays and vetoes at the U.N. Security Council. Later, according to Aziz, Hussein concluded after private talks with French and Russian contacts that the United States would probably wage a long air war first, as it had done in previous conflicts. By hunkering down and putting up a stiff defense, he might buy enough time to win a cease-fire brokered by Paris and Moscow.

Aziz’s account, while provocative, has not been corroborated by other sources, said U.S. officials involved in the interrogations. They said they were aware that Aziz might be trying to pander to his American captors’ anger at French and Russian conduct before the war.

The public record of French and Russian back-channel contacts with Hussein on the war’s eve is thin and ambiguous. Former Russian prime minister Yevgeny Primakov, long close to Hussein, made an announced visit to Baghdad in February and a secret trip just days before the war’s opening on March 20. A few weeks later, after Baghdad’s fall, Primakov held a news conference to explain that, at his clandestine last-ditch meeting, he had urged Hussein to resign.

Primakov said Hussein listened attentively to his ideas and asked him to repeat himself in front of Aziz. But then Hussein changed the subject and mentioned that in 1991, the leadership of what was then the Soviet Union had also suggested he resign, and he had ignored them.

“Until the last minute, Russia and President [Vladimir] Putin did everything in their power to prevent this terrible war,” Primakov declared at his news conference, according to the Russian Interfax news agency. Russian commentators raised doubts about Primakov’s version, however, arguing that he was too close to Hussein to deliver the sort of tough message he described.

The extent and character of French contacts with Hussein before the war is even less clear. Several media outlets reported early this year that France had opened a private channel to Hussein, but the French Foreign Ministry denied these reports, insisting that its diplomats had made plain to Hussein that he should stand down.

In any event, Hussein emerged from these contacts convinced that Washington would not launch an immediate invasion of Iraq, according to Aziz, as U.S. officials described his statements. Even as U.S. and British forces massed on the Kuwaiti border, Hussein was so sure of himself, Aziz reportedly said, that he refused to order an immediate military response when he heard reports that American ground forces were pouring into Iraq, concluding that the crossing was some sort of feint.

Taiee, one of the former major generals interviewed by The Post, agreed that Hussein had “not expected a war.” The Iraqi president had concluded that “there would be bombardment as in ’98 and the regime would continue and he would be a hero. Then, in case war did happen, these promises he had received from the French and Russians — plus the resistance he thought the army would put up, not knowing that they would go home — this would be enough to win a cease-fire and a settlement.”

But Maj. Gen. Amer Shia Jubouri, 50, a former army division commander and chief of the Iraqi war college, said in an interview that he believed “the French and Russian governments delivered very clear messages to Saddam that the war was going to happen,” and that if Hussein believed otherwise, it was a result of the president’s own confusion.

“He obviously misunderstood the theory of deterrence,” said Jubouri. “You have to know when this theory can be successful, and when it can be disastrous.”

UNEXPECTED BREAKDOWN

Once the war began, Hussein fulfilled few of his threats. The CIA warned that Hussein might use chemical weapons. Instead, after initial resistance, the regime and army melted away.

Investigators have considered the possibility that Hussein intended all along to make a strategic withdrawal from Baghdad and fight a guerrilla war, but they say they can find no evidence of such a strategy from interrogations or documents. They also doubt Hussein could have persuaded his generals to abandon Baghdad as part of a defensive strategy, and they argue that if this was really Hussein’s plan, it was poorly executed.

American and British interrogators have asked dozens of generals who served in high-ranking command roles in Iraqi army divisions during this year — some imprisoned, some living freely — why Hussein did not use chemical weapons to defend Baghdad. A number of these generals have said that they, too, believed chemical weapons would be deployed by Hussein for the capital’s defense. Yet none of the officers admitted receiving such weapons himself.

“The only consistent pattern we’ve gotten — 100 percent consistent — is that each commander says, ‘My unit didn’t have WMD, but the one to my right or left did,’ ” said the senior U.S. official involved. This has led some American interrogators to theorize that Hussein may have bluffed not only neighboring governments and the United States, but his own restive generals.


“He would not hesitate to deceive even his hand-chosen commanders if he thought that by this he could achieve success,” agreed Jubouri, the former general.

U.S. officials said they remain uncertain about the scope of Hussein’s chemical weapons program during 2002 and earlier this year, despite their failure so far to discover Iraqi stocks or any capacity to produce them.

“We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist,” the leader of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, told Congress on Oct. 2. U.S. officials said that conclusion still holds one month later.

The investigators’ most significant new discovery over the last month, officials said, was that Hussein made a secret deal to purchase Nodong missiles from North Korea, in addition to a previously reported clandestine deal to buy North Korean missile parts between 1999 and 2002. Neither shipment came through, however, because North Korea’s government said it was under too much U.S. pressure in 2002 to risk a delivery by sea.

The substantial evidence of Iraq’s secret long-range missile programs, combined with more fragmentary testimony in which Hussein reportedly asked scientists how long it might take to reconstitute chemical arms, has led some investigators to conclude that Hussein saw missiles as his most difficult challenge. In this hypothesis, Hussein wanted to build or buy long-range missiles before he took on the risks of secretly restarting banned programs to make weapons of mass destruction.

“The pattern I think we’re seeing is, they were working on the long pole in the tent,” the missile program, said the senior U.S. official involved in the weapons search. When Hussein asked scientists how long it would take to restart sarin and mustard gas production, he learned the timelines “were all so sufficiently short” that he could afford to hold off until the missile program was further along, the official said.

Yet as the threat of war approached, Hussein apparently took no step to speed the manufacture of special weapons. Perhaps, as Aziz reportedly has said, this was because he believed he could survive the coming war. Or perhaps, as many of his military subordinates now insist, it was because a fading, confused Hussein had outmaneuvered himself.

Investigators of the Iraq Survey Group have discovered that in the months before the war, many specific military and civilian defensive measures ordered by Hussein in past conflicts were only partially carried out or were completely ignored. There appears to have been “some kind of breakdown in the structure that was controlling things,” Killip said.

Former military leaders, including dozens of detained generals who have undergone interrogations, have cited the Iraqi president’s military incompetence, isolation, and reliance on family and tribe in a time of crisis as central factors in the regime’s collapse.

In discussing Hussein’s failure to use chemical weapons in the defense of Baghdad, officials said, the generals often rant sarcastically that Hussein’s government did not even prepare land mines and other basic military defenses to block or slow the U.S. advance. Why, they ask, should chemical weapons be any different?

“There was no unity of command. There were five different armies being used, no cooperation or coordination,” retired Maj. Gen. Abed Mutlaq Jubouri, 63, a former division commander later jailed by Hussein for conspiring against the regime, said in an interview with The Post. “As to the defense of Baghdad, there was no plan.”

http://www.msnbc.com/news/988314.asp

Confed999
05 Nov 03,, 01:13
Aziz makes it look like we got set up by France and Russia. I hope he's lying, if not, I hope it can be proven and used politically, probably best not to let the public know if it's true.

Ray
05 Nov 03,, 02:36
Anything is possible in Politics.

This war has been a whole web of lies all around, even if the results have been somewhat positive.

As Rober Frost wrote -

The woods are lovely dark and deep,
Ihave many promises to keep
And miles to go before I sleep
And miles to go before I sleep.

PiggyWiggy
05 Nov 03,, 05:05
Nothing positive has ever come out of a USELESS war.

I mean, wtf is this war about, you ever stop to think that.

I know, do you?

Officer of Engineers
05 Nov 03,, 05:11
Son,

You're talking to veteran there who's probably seen more action than the rest of us combined and there are at least two others (myself and M21sniper) here who's received fire and returned fire.

We know more about war than you will ever dream. Don't try to lecture us.

Trooth
09 Feb 04,, 01:28
Originally posted by Confed999
Aziz makes it look like we got set up by France and Russia. I hope he's lying, if not, I hope it can be proven and used politically, probably best not to let the public know if it's true.

I guess it depends if France and Russia were tipped off by Saddam as to Iraq's WMD capabilities. If they were then yes, they duped everyone into fighting the war anyway, rather than coming clean that Iraq had none. If they weren't then it reads like they were trying to avoid the war by convincing Saddam to resign. Whether this would have prevented the war is a different matter (althought the Hussein were given 48 hours to leave Iraq just before the war).

It sounds to me like WMD where the Emporers news clothes. It is also likely that as with many despots, it is impossible to dissuade them from the fact that they are fallible, contrary to their propaganda.

smilingassassin
09 Feb 04,, 02:43
For all those who doubt the exsistance of WMD's or the legitimacy of the war in Iraq...

What we did know was
Fact- Saddam did have WMD previously.
Fact- Saddam would utilize WMD when neccessary.
Fact- Saddam had been ordered to dispose of all WMD.
Fact- Saddam was to show physical proof of disarming and Disposal of WMD.
Fact- Saddam never did verify that he disposed of WMD.
Conjecture- Saddam had ties with Terrorist Organizations.
Conjecture- Saddam was attempting to purchase materials that could be used for building more WMD.
Fact- Saddam was purposely misleading and denying access of inspection teams in their duties.
Conjecture- Teams of Scientists and other officials claim that they were working on WMD projects.
Conjecture- Papers and other sources indicate that a massive project with the purpose of hiding and transporting WMD has been implemented.

few judges would allow such evidence to be used in a Court of Law. But that same man would know that there is indeed, misdoings occuring. The courts said O.J. was innocent, but the fact was that all knew he did it.

Technically the U.S. could claim tommorow that they had destroyed all their WMD's...and without proper documentation those on the left could argue that they do not exist, same is happening in Iraq now.

tw-acs
09 Feb 04,, 02:56
Officer of Engineers,

What is this war about? You know so much about it, you boasted. Yet, that is all you said. Where are your facts and your opinions and ideas that make you more intelligible in this subject?


This new, sketchy, unreliable information changes nothing.

How can U.S. Officials determine the intelligence information used to justify the War in Iraq was false and forgeries after the War but not before?

President George Bush is a strong believer in the New American Century. Summarized as installing an Imperialist State in America. Thus using the United States military to acquire natural resources.

Iraq and the neigboring lands have a large quantities of petroleum. Presumably, petroleum is the target.

If President George Bush had national security and the further development of the United States in the intent of his actions why did he not industrialize hemp.

Specifically hempseed oil.

The first internal combustion engine was created in 1894 by Rudolph Diesel. The combustable fuel used in this engine was hempseed oil.

Approximately, 30 years later the petroleum industry designed a fuel to mimic the hempseed oil. They made synthetic vegetable oil; We now know as diesel.

In fact hempseed oil burns cleaner and comes from a plant that can grow nearly anywhere on the planet. And as the cotton gin allowed for cotton to be a profitable plant to grow, hemp had a similiar technological leap allowing the seperation of the fiber from the hemp plant to be profitable.

So why don't we use hemp instead of petroleum. We could reduce tension around the world.

Make cloth cheaper with less pesticide and herbicide use than cotton and at higher quality.

Also make hemp paper at every grade of paper at 1/4 the cost of wood pulp paper and 1/5 the pollution(i.e. U.S. Constitution is made out of hemp).

Hempseed is the most nutritious seed and the cheapest source of protien, thus we could feed the world's hungry. That would be humanitarian.

Also there was a study in 1974 funded by the NIH conducted at the Medical College of Virginia intended to find the harmful effects of marijauana on the immune system. They found none. However they did notice that lung cancer tumor growth was retarded and breast cancer tumor growth was retarded and it helped fight a virus induced leukemia.

If that study is too old for you there was a study conducted in 2000. Research like this is not allowed in this country because the DEA thinks it should be a schedule I drug. Thus no medical value. Odd thing is this study found THC to be effective in irradication of brain tumors in 20% of the test subjects.

Cannabis Sativa has the most potential of any plant or any resource known to man.

If President Bush was truely being patriotic in his intentions wouldnt he industrialize hemp and allow for medical research of marijuana?

President Bush has lots of money from the petroleum industry as does his family have lots of connections with the petroleum industry.

I highly doubt he is a patriot. Nor was the War in Iraq.

It was for personal gain.

Bush and Cheney have strong ties with corporations that have benefitted from the War in Iraq and every change Bush has made has been beneficial to corporations and the rich.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Why

Officer of Engineers
09 Feb 04,, 03:47
Originally posted by tw-acs
Officer of Engineers,

What is this war about? You know so much about it, you boasted. Yet, that is all you said. Where are your facts and your opinions and ideas that make you more intelligible in this subject?


This new, sketchy, unreliable information changes nothing.

How can U.S. Officials determine the intelligence information used to justify the War in Iraq was false and forgeries after the War but not before?

President George Bush is a strong believer in the New American Century. Summarized as installing an Imperialist State in America. Thus using the United States military to acquire natural resources.

Iraq and the neigboring lands have a large quantities of petroleum. Presumably, petroleum is the target.

If President George Bush had national security and the further development of the United States in the intent of his actions why did he not industrialize hemp.

Specifically hempseed oil.

The first internal combustion engine was created in 1894 by Rudolph Diesel. The combustable fuel used in this engine was hempseed oil.

Approximately, 30 years later the petroleum industry designed a fuel to mimic the hempseed oil. They made synthetic vegetable oil; We now know as diesel.

In fact hempseed oil burns cleaner and comes from a plant that can grow nearly anywhere on the planet. And as the cotton gin allowed for cotton to be a profitable plant to grow, hemp had a similiar technological leap allowing the seperation of the fiber from the hemp plant to be profitable.

So why don't we use hemp instead of petroleum. We could reduce tension around the world.

Make cloth cheaper with less pesticide and herbicide use than cotton and at higher quality.

Also make hemp paper at every grade of paper at 1/4 the cost of wood pulp paper and 1/5 the pollution(i.e. U.S. Constitution is made out of hemp).

Hempseed is the most nutritious seed and the cheapest source of protien, thus we could feed the world's hungry. That would be humanitarian.



President Bush has lots of money from the petroleum industry as does his family have lots of connections with the petroleum industry.


will finish later

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and frankly, I really don't care. I am Canadian, not American and my views on American politics means very little.

As far as I am concerned, Saddam violated the terms of surrender with four clear cut and undisputable violations. That is enough for me.

Don't bother addressing me again. You're on my ignore list.

Leader
09 Feb 04,, 04:03
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and frankly, I really don't care. I am Canadian, not American and my views on American politics means very little.

As far as I am concerned, Saddam violated the terms of surrender with four clear cut and undisputable violations. That is enough for me.

Don't bother addressing me again. You're on my ignore list.

:LOL :LOL :LOL :LOL :LOL Poor Tw-acs, even the liberals put him on their ignore list. :LOL

Officer of Engineers
09 Feb 04,, 04:05
Unfortunately, I am not a liberal. I am a small "c" conservative.

Leader
09 Feb 04,, 04:26
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Unfortunately, I am not a liberal. I am a small "c" conservative.

Sure you are. wink wink ;)

Confed999
09 Feb 04,, 04:34
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
I am a small "c" conservative.
What's that? Mostly conservative?

Officer of Engineers
09 Feb 04,, 04:46
It means that I rather vote Liberal if they have a coherant policy I can agree with than for the women our conservative parties seemed to be committing suicide with.

Most CF members are small "c" conservatives, not as a group loyal to any one party. That's because the last Conservative Party Prime Minister who also happenned to be the last Conservative Defence Minister who shall remained nameless (Kim Campbell) was the worst Prime Minister and Defence Minister in history. She was in charge during the Somali fiasco.

That turned alot of CF members against the Conservative.

Today, the new Conservative Party has leading in its leadership race, a new dumb blonde. I'll vote Liberal Paul Martin fiscal management than for someone who got handed daddy's wealth.

tw-acs
09 Feb 04,, 04:54
I was asking for your oh so great vast amount of knowledge on this topic. I was also showing you the kinds of things i care about. Every word of what I posted should be of global concern.


Your response is to not address me and ignore me. Quite the display of knowledge
:YIKES!
better watch out for Canada!! and there 1 submarine?

The United States is Canada's defense so you would be pretty ignorant to not pay attention to American politics.

Why should the United States go behind the UN's back? Thus making the UN even less credible?

What was the justification for war?

Leader do you ignore me?

Confed999
09 Feb 04,, 04:57
I get it, thanks Officer of Engineers. ;)

Leader
09 Feb 04,, 05:01
Originally posted by tw-acs
I was asking for your oh so great vast amount of knowledge on this topic. I was also showing you the kinds of things i care about. Every word of what I posted should be of global concern.


Your response is to not address me and ignore me. Quite the display of knowledge
:YIKES!
better watch out for Canada!! and there 1 submarine?

The United States is Canada's defense so you would be pretty ignorant to not pay attention to American politics.

Why should the United States go behind the UN's back? Thus making the UN even less credible?

What was the justification for war?

Leader do you ignore me?

Could he be any clearer?


I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and frankly, I really don't care.

And no, I don't ignore you. I read every word you post. I just choose not to respond to your outrageous statements and political rhetoric because there is absolutely no point in doing so. You will just argue right pass me as if my posts were so many blank lines.

Ironduke
09 Feb 04,, 05:24
Originally posted by tw-acs
I was asking for your oh so great vast amount of knowledge on this topic. I was also showing you the kinds of things i care about. Every word of what I posted should be of global concern.


Your response is to not address me and ignore me. Quite the display of knowledge
:YIKES!
better watch out for Canada!! and there 1 submarine?

The United States is Canada's defense so you would be pretty ignorant to not pay attention to American politics.

Why should the United States go behind the UN's back? Thus making the UN even less credible?

What was the justification for war?

Leader do you ignore me?
Kevin, Lt. Col. Yu (ret.) had a distinguished military career in the Royal Canadian Army. His expertise on military matters is second to none on this forum.

If you want to get an idea of his vast amount of knowledge on military topics, read the article at the following link:
http://www.china-defense.com/pla/tactical_impressions_pla/tac_imp_pla-01.html

The Colonel has been in actual combat, and served in a number of campaigns including Bosnia.

His military credentials are posted here:
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=8843#post8843

Ray
09 Feb 04,, 06:19
Tw-ac,

While your arguments merit interest, the Colonel makes out a very convincing case as to why it was imperative for the US to invade Iraq. I don't think one could wish away the facts that he has trotted out.

Oil is an important issue for the US and of that there is no doubt, but oil has been an issue even before Bush was elected. It is more of a strategic compulsion since US has to secure the Southern flank of the proposed oil line from the ex USSR oilfield through Ukraine to Europe and strategy is not 'conjured' in one day. It is a slow plodding process.

Why hemp oil is not a fuel is an interesting question, but I am not qualified to comment. Maybe someone on this board knowledgeable enough will.

What is irking the world is that WMD has not been found in spite of the vehement claims. It's not Bush who is the devil incarnate. Indeed, if you wish to pin anyone down it is Wolfowitch {spelling!). Bush is just a do-gooder who is a trifle naïve. That is about all.

The other question that none will believe that the US intelligence has failed. The best intelligence in the world with all the financial backup and technical gizmo cannot fail. Just cannot. There is more than what meets the eye. That is what is irking the world.

That the world thinks that the US is infallible is actually the fault of the US. They are gregarious and have 'convinced' all that nothing that they do is wrong. They are suffering now for their gregariousness. We can't ever believe that the US intelligence can be wrong. No way. That is why you are irked. Like it or not, you have been subconsciously made to believe that the US cannot EVER get it wrong. Unfortunately, they have got it wrong.

Can we change the current ground realties now? No way. So, lets make the best of a bad thing.

smilingassassin
09 Feb 04,, 08:51
"better watch out for Canada!! and there 1 submarine?"

Shows how much you know about Canada Tw-ac, Canada has four upholder class submarines, that would pose quite a threat to the U.S. subs given the British have VERy quiet subs. If defenbaker hadn't of been a yankee kiss ass canada would have made the American aerospace industry look sick with the introduction of the Avro Arrow

"The United States is Canada's defense so you would be pretty ignorant to not pay attention to American politics."

The United States is canada's defence because both country's have decided upon that arrangment, not because the U.S. TOLD us that thats the way it was going to be.

...and as for your opinion that the war in Iraq was without rhime or reason heres some reasons for the war...aside from the repetative Quackmire "where are the WMD's" arguement

1. Saddam Hussein was in violation of the cease-fire agreements that put the 1991 Gulf War on hold by firing at British and American airplanes in the no-fly zones.

2. Saddam Hussein was in violation of more than a dozen UN Security Council resolutions, including one that threatened the use of force if he did not immediatly surrender all relevant documentation to Hans Blix regarding the production of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

3. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator guilty of genocide and other crimes against humanity.

4. Saddam Hussein publicly threatened to finish Hitler’s job by destroying the state of Israel.

5. Saddam Hussein was an obstacle to long-overdue political liberalization and democratization in the Arab Middle East.

6. Saddam Hussein’s support for Palestinian terrorists made a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict impossible.

7. Saddam Hussein was an ongoing threat to Saudi Arabia, and due to Saudi support for Al Qaeda and Islamic fascism generally, the United States was not able to continue protecting the House of Saud indefinitely, nor could the world afford to have Saddam Hussein in control of Saudi oil and the holy cities of Mecca and Medina if we abandoned the Saudis to their fate.

8. In the post-911 era of apocalyptic terrorism, mass-murdering anti-American dictators who align themselves with terrorists and who have produced and deployed the weapons of genocide are too dangerous to be allowed to remain in power.

Oh and by the way, I'm not an ignorant canadian...I am following the american politics....and right now Kerry is the best thing the democrats can put against a Presedent that appears not to be even trying to battle his rivals. None of the other Democrats are worth their weight in gold and if you Americans are unlucky enough you could get Dean as a presedent, the same madman that said we shouldn't pre-judge Osama Bin Laden, and you guys on the left think Bush is a lunatic!

Trooth
09 Feb 04,, 10:45
MY concernw ith the war in Iraq is not that the war itself wasn't justified. My concern is that my elected eladers deceived me for their reasons to fight the war.

I fully understand and subscribe to the list in smilingassasin's post.

But, we cannot get away fromt he fact that a coalition was formed to defeat a clearl and present threat to the security of the free world posed by Saddam's massive arsenal of WMD. We cannot get away from the fact that the WMD arguement was the one pushed through the UN. We cannot get away fromt he fact that your poltiical leaders, chose to ignore the evidence from the UN weapon inspectors. Tehy decided to abandon the UN (and thus seriously damage it).
We cannot get away fromt eh fact that the coalition heaped such ire on the French, and yet now we know that the coalition leaders were deceiving us!

Perhaps it was an unintentional deceit. That we await to see. Perhaps the arrogance of the US/UK led railroading of the UN will come back to haunt them or perhaps we will find out why everyone got it wrong. This cannot be allowed to happen again, hundreds of coaltiions troops have died, thousands of Iraqi civilians have died, dozens of non-military support people (such as UN) have died. The death toll is greater than 9/11.

I have no problem with deposing Saddam, but i have a problem with my government deceiving me (or in my case trying to as i never bought the WMD argument).

As for "pre-judging" OBL. Well good on Dean. He stood up for the values of his society and didn't just pander to the lynch mob mentality. His comments showed that he respected the rule and principle of law. Something most people would normally commend in a poltiical leader.

Officer of Engineers
09 Feb 04,, 16:05
Trooth,

You've touched on several issues here.

1) W Bush and Blair's WND issue. On this, I was convinced of Saddam's WMD not by what Washington DC nor what London said but by Saddam's very own actions.

A) The AS (modified AS2) missiles
B) 12 chemical artillery shells
C) His 3rd Ring of Death around Baghdad (aka chemical weapons release point).
D) His release orders authorizing his generals to use chemical weapons.

I do not see how I could have made any other conclusions.

People make mistakes, even leaders. However, what I do demand is that they own up to their mistakes.

As for OBL, Dean is absolutely wrong. This ain't a crime. It's a war. By definition, OBL is a combattant, not a criminal. Meaning that he is subject to military Rules of Engagement, not a Court of Law. OBL declared war, not us. We don't have to prove his guilt. He has to prove his innocense.

Iron Man,

Just an FYI. The Canadian Army was never known as the Royal Canadian Army. It was simply just the Army or known as today Land Force. In abbreviation, it's LF or to foreigners, LF/CF - Land Force/Canadian Forces.

Ironduke
09 Feb 04,, 18:14
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Iron Man,

Just an FYI. The Canadian Army was never known as the Royal Canadian Army. It was simply just the Army or known as today Land Force. In abbreviation, it's LF or to foreigners, LF/CF - Land Force/Canadian Forces.
My bad.

Officer of Engineers
09 Feb 04,, 18:59
Originally posted by smilingassassin
"The United States is Canada's defense so you would be pretty ignorant to not pay attention to American politics."

The United States is canada's defence because both country's have decided upon that arrangment, not because the U.S. TOLD us that thats the way it was going to be.

That is perhaps one of the biggest myths out there, even believed by a vast majority of uniformed members on both sides of the border and both sides of the Atlantic.

First, ask yourself what military threats does Canada face? Today, none.

During the Cold War, the primary military threats were Soviet bombers and subs of which Canada was well equipped to handle. Air Command was expeted and capable of stopping the 1st Soviet bomber threat cold. It's the second and 3rd waves that the USAF would need to deal with (if it ever came to that, the ICBMs would already been launched). Maritime Command had the duty of protecting the sea lanes for REFORGER (Re-ENFORcement GERmany) and had ASW capabilities second to no one.

About the only threat we couldn't stopped are the ICBMs and even then, neither could the Americans. They relied on nuclear retalliation.

Even here, Canada had some cards to play. Canada was a nuclear power up until the mid 70s when Trudeau got us out of the nuke game. All three services had tac nukes (some under the dual key control (ie require American authorization)). CF-104 Starfighters primary role in CFB Lahrs, Germany was to rain nukes down on the Warsaw Pact.

I would like to put this in context. There is absolutely no doubt that the US carried a lion share of the defence burden and Canada could not have maintained even half her status without the US. Air Command is extremely reliant on NORAD and having access to facilities like TOP GUN to hone our pilots. Maritime Command is but a link in an American CVBG.

However, to say that Canada was reliant on the US for her defence is extremely misleading.

Officer of Engineers
09 Feb 04,, 20:45
About the Avro Arrow,

Much of the perceived performance was speculated. The Avro Arrow was never fitted with the Iroquois engine, thus, we don't know if the airframe could have handled that much power.

Then, there is the design itself. The Avro Arrow was an interceptor, not a dog fighter. It could manouver as well as a MiG-25 which is to say not very well at all though it could use climb as a way of manouver. While it had an internal weapons bay, it lacked guns of any sort and whether it could fit guns or external mounts is academic at this point. The Avro Arrow would have been the best interceptor ever built if it lived up to its potential but the interceptor concept was dead wrong in the context of areial warfare. You would have to bastardize the thing up the ying-yang to get any combat worthiness out of it.

The Americans are to blame for its failure but not the way you think. The break even point for the Avro Arrow was 140 planes. The RCAF was only committed to buy 60-75. There has to be another buyer and the only one looking at that point that could fill this order was the USAF. They were not interested.

The Arrow's cancellation also paved the way for the expansion of Canadian nuclear weapons program. The RCAF acquired the CF-101 Voodoo with a Genie nuclear tipped AAM package to fill the need that was destined for the Avro Arrow.

Trooth
09 Feb 04,, 21:32
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Trooth,

You've touched on several issues here.


Yeah sorry my laser sight is broken :)



1) W Bush and Blair's WND issue. On this, I was convinced of Saddam's WMD not by what Washington DC nor what London said but by Saddam's very own actions.

A) The AS (modified AS2) missiles


I am assuming these are the missiles that operated beyond the mandated range? I do not disagree that it is a material breach. However if i remember it came to light in the test results of the issles in amongst the documentation supplied by Iraq to the US/UN. As i understand it the Iraqis had found some of their missles were more efficient than they had thought. Also as i understand it the extra 30km was not tactically significant? I design things everyday, and i have bought other peoples designs, and i have stuff that works better than it is supposed to and i have Friday afternoon specials that don't. My understanding of it at the time was that it was not a strategic advantage, just well engineered. But others will be able to correct me.

The crucial thing, for me is the intent. Did they intend to make those missles fliy further or did they just perform better than expected. Why does it matter? Well in the build up to the war there was a lot made of Iraq's intentions to kill everyone with WMD.



B) 12 chemical artillery shells

Are these the 12 that are in good nick, but empty, or the ones that were buried that the Danish found? The latter were proved not to contain WMD.

12 is not the massive arsenal that was portrayed. Again a material breach, but see intent above.



C) His 3rd Ring of Death around Baghdad (aka chemical weapons release point).

Which appears to have been a bluff. The intelligence should have known this.



D) His release orders authorizing his generals to use chemical weapons.

All who have been questioned so far say they were authorised to use chemical wepaons, but that their units didn't have them. They were all told that the nearby units had them, however. Another bluff.



I do not see how I could have made any other conclusions.


I agree. And this is somewhat my point. On the evidence we were presented, it was clear cut, open and shut. We had to get him now, because he is gonna kill every last one of us with his massive arsenal of WMD. But someone was either deliberately telling porkies, or was failing in their job of gathering intelligence



People make mistakes, even leaders. However, what I do demand is that they own up to their mistakes.

Its a brave new world. It might happen .....



As for OBL, Dean is absolutely wrong. This ain't a crime. It's a war. By definition, OBL is a combattant, not a criminal. Meaning that he is subject to military Rules of Engagement, not a Court of Law. OBL declared war, not us. We don't have to prove his guilt. He has to prove his innocense.


If trials were good enough for the Nazis and the Japs i fail to see why OBL should be let off lightly.

I am not (and i do not believe Dean was either) saying that OBL is innocent. I am simply saying that if OBL wants to declare western society to be barbaric, uncivilised etc, we should use the utmost principled way of dealing with him and afford every right available to him. He'll still be convicted but it will show those parts of the world that hate us that we are not the devils we are portrayed.

As people are fond of saying, we are in a new type of war here and as i am fond of saying, it is a hearts and minds war. It won't be solved by shooting alone.

smilingassassin
09 Feb 04,, 21:35
I humbly stand corrected!

Officer of Engineers
09 Feb 04,, 23:31
Originally posted by Trooth
I am assuming these are the missiles that operated beyond the mandated range? I do not disagree that it is a material breach. However if i remember it came to light in the test results of the issles in amongst the documentation supplied by Iraq to the US/UN. As i understand it the Iraqis had found some of their missles were more efficient than they had thought. Also as i understand it the extra 30km was not tactically significant? I design things everyday, and i have bought other peoples designs, and i have stuff that works better than it is supposed to and i have Friday afternoon specials that don't. My understanding of it at the time was that it was not a strategic advantage, just well engineered. But others will be able to correct me.

The crucial thing, for me is the intent. Did they intend to make those missles fliy further or did they just perform better than expected. Why does it matter? Well in the build up to the war there was a lot made of Iraq's intentions to kill everyone with WMD.

It's a case of if it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck, don't try to tell me it's an platupus.

I believe that we went through this before but allow me to refresh your memory.

This is a modified SA2 Surface-To-Air Missile with a 12kg warhead. The extra range was achieved by removing the guidance system and extending the fuel storage. Essentially, its only guidance is pure ballastics meaning that you're not aiming at a moving target unless you know exactly where that target is 20 minutes from now. Even then, the pure ballastic nature of the weapon has too many variables such as wind and target speed that it really cannot be depended to hit a moving target.

Thus, this missile is only good for stationary targets like an HQ. The only HQs that the Iraqis can be sure of are within stationary sites (ie within a building) and 12 kgs ain't even going to dent the concrete.

Also, the SA2 has a proximity fuse, meaning an airburst. It does not have nor did the Iraqis developed an impact fuse for this weapon.

Thus, you have 12kgs warhead size, essentially an airburst fuse, pure ballastics that is only good for stationary targets, what kind of warhead do you think would be best suited for this system?

The other point is that the Iraqis knew that they exceeded the allowable specifications. They proceeded with production in any case, knowing the violation.



Originally posted by Trooth
Are these the 12 that are in good nick, but empty, or the ones that were buried that the Danish found? The latter were proved not to contain WMD.

12 is not the massive arsenal that was portrayed. Again a material breach, but see intent above.

These were the 12 found before the war. The 12 were in perfect, well maintained order, meaning that someone knew about them, and maintained them, during the time that Iraq was not supposed to have them. A very deliberate violation. A warning sign if there is any that at the time I took to be if Saddam hid this deliberately, what else is he hiding?


Originally posted by Trooth
Which appears to have been a bluff. The intelligence should have known this.

On this one, I side with Military Intelligence (as opposed to the CIA). The depots were filled and the lines manned. We have had confirmed intelligence that orders have been given to deploy the chemical weapons. Whether it was a bluff or not, I would have treated as real. It would be criminally negligent to do otherwise.


Originally posted by Trooth
All who have been questioned so far say they were authorised to use chemical wepaons, but that their units didn't have them. They were all told that the nearby units had them, however. Another bluff.

There are two things that this intelligence confirmed and remained true. Saddam is more than willing to use WMD. Saddam has no qualms about casualties, even among his own people. This confirms that Saddam was a very legitimate threat vis-a-vi chemical weapons. Just because he doesn't have them does not erase the fact that he was willing to use them.


Originally posted by Trooth
I agree. And this is somewhat my point. On the evidence we were presented, it was clear cut, open and shut. We had to get him now, because he is gonna kill every last one of us with his massive arsenal of WMD. But someone was either deliberately telling porkies, or was failing in their job of gathering intelligence

Not the first time and I'll bet won't be the last time. However, the fault is throughout the world, perpuated by Saddam himself. He was either unable or unwilling to comply with the terms of surrender. He was also very willing to continue his programs (re: the buried nuclear program, the 12 chemical shells, the modified SA2 SAM).

I don't know when or how he decided to destroy his WMDs. We knew he had them. However, I strongly suspect that Iraq is sitting on an ecological timebomb.


Originally posted by Trooth
Its a brave new world. It might happen .....

Only time that happenned was Ronald Reagan and the Iranian airliner shot down, despite what the evidence suggest to the contrary.


Originally posted by Trooth
If trials were good enough for the Nazis and the Japs i fail to see why OBL should be let off lightly.

The Nazis and the Japanese who went to trial surrendered and signed the terms of surrender. They were subsquently charged with War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

If OBL decides to surrender, then he would be treated according to the Rules of War. However, no one is going to wait for a lawyer to read him his rights before slamming him into a cell.


Originally posted by Trooth
I am not (and i do not believe Dean was either) saying that OBL is innocent. I am simply saying that if OBL wants to declare western society to be barbaric, uncivilised etc, we should use the utmost principled way of dealing with him and afford every right available to him. He'll still be convicted but it will show those parts of the world that hate us that we are not the devils we are portrayed.

We are devils. Ask anyone who met us in combat. You have one chance to live and that is to surrender before we reach you.


Originally posted by Trooth
As people are fond of saying, we are in a new type of war here and as i am fond of saying, it is a hearts and minds war. It won't be solved by shooting alone.

The Mongols would readily disagree with you.

Trooth
10 Feb 04,, 00:23
We will have to disagree as to whether or not the war on terror will achieve its aims by shooting alone. The war on terror isn't over, and i can't see it being over without convincing people of our worth as a peoples.

I for one don't care about what OBL is. It is what he represents that we have to deal with. Failing to deal with him fails to deal with the war on terror. In my opinion, we are storing up problems if we treat OBL like a battlefield commander. He isn't and whilst i hate to use the word, we should respect him for what he is. A terrorist, but also a figurehead. It is a figurehead that needs to be exposed.

My concern is that the West has a shady past when it comes to OBL and SH and may decide to solve the problem secretly rather than air all that dirty laundry in public. This would do ourselves a dis-service, but politicans are opportunists by nature.

I struggle to believe that Saddam's arsenal is buried somewhere. If Saddam had destroyed his weapons he would only have done it to avoid war, or to get the sanctions repealed. He could only have achieved either end by demonstrating he ahd destroyed them. There is no doubt he didn't do that. Therefore it is fair to assume he had the WMD ready to deploy, or that he never had them (well since he was last disarmed).

And my concern remains that the removal of a dictator on the middle east does not warrant the creation of dictatorships in the west. If the intelligence is wrong, that is one thing. If it was right and ignored, i will use my democractic rights to assist in their removal.

Officer of Engineers
10 Feb 04,, 07:55
Trooth,

You're not listening to me. At the very least, you're not understanding me. The 1st and primary response to OBL is Force and Force alone. Until that Force neutralizes OBL's threats, your views on how to deal with him is irrevelent.

That Force cannot and will not promise you in what shape we will deliver OBL to you. What you civies do with him after we deliver him to you is your business but do not for one second dictate on how we are tol deliver him to you (ie, dead or alive).

Saddam's capture is the perfect example of what I am talking about. Saddam surrendered fast. However, if any later, I cannot and will not bring anyone up on charges for dropping a grenade in Saddam's hole.

At this point, since we delivered Saddam, what you Civies do with him is no longer a military problem.

As for Saddam's WMD. We know that he had them. We also know that there is no record of their disposal meaning that it was not done at a plant where it could be recorded.

That essentially leaves a very disturbing option. He either buried it or spilled it - ie an ecological timebomb.

tw-acs
10 Feb 04,, 21:37
Leader

I was quite clear. Maybe you misinterpret the format of my post. Each line break means that I am adressing a different paragraph or making a new pargraph with information I believe to be relavent. Showing me more information does not make anything I say less relevant.

Ironman

I give him respect where respect is due. In my mind miltary service does not give someone the right to boast and claim right without backing it up. That is if they can say they no so much more in the first post why don't they actually put that knowledge there.

Though me saying that now after he has posted more does not have quite the effect but still.

Ray

I do not see this imperative reason to invade Iraq in the manner that it was done. The intelligence used by the Bush Administration for justifying the Way in Iraq has now been determined by U.S. officials to be false and forgeries.

Now I do not understand why they could not figure this out before hand.

And why the intelligence tip-offs on 9/11 were disregarded.

I watched portions of Meet the Press when they were interviewing the president. If you saw these can you honestly tell me that this is a war of necessity. Bush had to ask "Can you repeat the question?" as he stumbled he finally said necessity.

I am just curious, maybe someone on this forum can explain to me why president George Bush has no records of being in the National Guard ( social security, pay stub, we should have records for paying him if he was in the National Guard and did report)
And why he was allowed and he said on Meet the Press I worked a deal out with the military so he could get out of duty 8 months early to go to Harvard. Though he did not go there right away.

Oh and Ray my screen name is " tw-acs "

The US has gotten many things wrong in its day. Including intelligence. Your arrogance to tell me what I think amazes me.

Making the best of the situation is somether we must do. That does not justify the situation.
I will continue to pursue knowledge to find out why Americans die at the hands of terrorists every day since the War in Iraq began yet it is claimed American and Americans are safe from terrorism.

Thats BS They Die Every Day

Veterans can you not see that a war should be just.
Or is it ok risk your life for someone elses personal gains.

smilingassassin

No I know I don't know all that much about the Canadian Military. For one there just isn't a whole lot there. The actual number of submarines was not my point.

The actions of Saddam Hussien do not justify the United States of America to sink even lower than he. And justify a war on false intelligence. It would be so much simple if Bush said Saddam is a bad guy lets get him. Unfortunely congress won't go for that. So fabricate a story and get the USA in too far.

The manner in which Saddam Hussien was removed from power raises a lot uncertainity in the world and in the USA.

There are people concerned about America and its future and more importantly the World's future.

I hope that is something everperson in the world is concerned about, the future of our planet. Though I don't think a lot of people care? Nor realize the kinds of things that we do now will affect us then.
Most people are stuck with the idea self gratification.

We see this with 9/11 and the War in Iraq. America was piseed. I was ready to enlist. Until I saw that I wouldnt even be lookin for OBL I would be a pawn in president Bush's War in Iraq.

What connection between OBL and SH were concered about in regard to the War in Iraq. It is my understanding one is a religious fanatic and the other a fanatic that really dont get along very well.

And they were enemies so the logic that OBL and SH are on the same side is just the same as sayin OBL is with the USA agains SH or SH with USA against OBL or kuwait or the USA on sides with Kuwait and Iraq or something like that.

Granted SH should not be in power and isn't now.

I have no problem with this. However the means in which were used to attain the goal that was sought were not right. And the goal is most likely ulterior in its nature.

Thats politics. You don't take a war, for example and think its about the people. That the USA went to Iraq for thw Iraqi's. Thats ignorance. If that was true we would have been there say 17 yrs ago?

My point is stop acting so damned naive yourselves!! You all know politics!

Ironman

Why did halliburton get those contracts?
Remember what you said?

Thats the same thing here.

Given Contracts to Friends.

The purpose of this war was not out of necessity. There was no imminent danger. Though the actions taken may increase the likelyhood of such danger existing.

This war was about personal gain!

Oh and I wonder why has only one person addressed my question "Why is hemp illegal to be grown for industrious purposes? Would shifting the primary source of fuel from petroleum to vegetable oil decrease tensions around the world. Specifically regions with large concentrations of petroleum i.e. Middle East.

That one person said it was interesting.

There is a very simple reason for hemp being illegal.
Do you know it?

Trooth
11 Feb 04,, 00:18
The 1st and primary response to OBL is Force and Force alone. Until that Force neutralizes OBL's threats, your views on how to deal with him is irrevelent.

That Force cannot and will not promise you in what shape we will deliver OBL to you. What you civies do with him after we deliver him to you is your business but do not for one second dictate on how we are tol deliver him to you (ie, dead or alive).

Saddam's capture is the perfect example of what I am talking about. Saddam surrendered fast. However, if any later, I cannot and will not bring anyone up on charges for dropping a grenade in Saddam's hole.

At this point, since we delivered Saddam, what you Civies do with him is no longer a military problem.


I would not want one coalition soldier to think twice about protecting themselves, nor their comrades in a choice between themselves and OBL. That is not my point. My point is not that he should be captured alive. My point is that should he be captured alive he should be tried, in public, with all the rights that he can be accorded. No show trials, no military tribunals. A proper trial. Let the world hear the man speak. Let the world hear his views. He will be convicted, not just by evidence, but by his own "teachings". Much as Saddam's image in the Arab world is lessened by the fact that he is alive, OBL's and Saddam's would be reduced to nothing by having to answer of their crimes.

If OBL wants to start waving the dangerous end of an AK at a collection of well armed squaddies i would want them to gun him down as quickly as possible to protect themselves. If Saddam had been blown all over his spiderhole by a standard issue grenade i would not have lost a moments sleep for the man. If a US soldier had died trying to capture him alive i would have.

I was, perhaps misguidedly, under the impression that the military were tools of the polticians. Therefore if OBL were to be captured military thinking is somewhat irrelevant to what the politicians want.



As for Saddam's WMD. We know that he had them. We also know that there is no record of their disposal meaning that it was not done at a plant where it could be recorded.

That essentially leaves a very disturbing option. He either buried it or spilled it - ie an ecological timebomb.


Only time will tell. We know he had them once. We thought he had them since. We may or may not have been right. We do not know either way yet.

Officer of Engineers
11 Feb 04,, 05:32
Originally posted by Trooth
I would not want one coalition soldier to think twice about protecting themselves, nor their comrades in a choice between themselves and OBL. That is not my point. My point is not that he should be captured alive. My point is that should he be captured alive he should be tried, in public, with all the rights that he can be accorded. No show trials, no military tribunals. A proper trial. Let the world hear the man speak. Let the world hear his views. He will be convicted, not just by evidence, but by his own "teachings". Much as Saddam's image in the Arab world is lessened by the fact that he is alive, OBL's and Saddam's would be reduced to nothing by having to answer of their crimes.

If OBL wants to start waving the dangerous end of an AK at a collection of well armed squaddies i would want them to gun him down as quickly as possible to protect themselves. If Saddam had been blown all over his spiderhole by a standard issue grenade i would not have lost a moments sleep for the man. If a US soldier had died trying to capture him alive i would have.

I was, perhaps misguidedly, under the impression that the military were tools of the polticians. Therefore if OBL were to be captured military thinking is somewhat irrelevant to what the politicians want.

We have a major disconnect here. There are rules governing how a military can behave, even during combat. There are also rules dictating how a military can and cannot be used, even by the President of the United States or the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

If OBL is captured, he is handed to the rear echelon who then must go through procedure for processing him. If OBL is determined to be a EPW, then he is headed off to a PoW camp. If he is not, then he is handed over to law enforcement agencies to which is no longer our problem.

If he is an EPW, then OBL is subject to War Crimes as well as Crimes Against Humanity to which a death sentence can be applied. Under the Articles of the Geneva Conventions, only the Detaining Power military or an authorized civilian judical authoriy, the EPW and his legal representatives who may be a fellow EPW or an appointed defence councel, and a representative from a Protecting Power (example Red Cross/Red Crecent) may attend the proceedings.

No one, not even the President of the United States nor the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom can change those rules.

Ray
11 Feb 04,, 07:05
This post is basically prompted by Trooth's post.

May I request all who wish to reply to this post to show some patience and leave their jingoist baggage in the closet for at least this time?

I request all potential candidates who will haul me over the coals i.e. flamers to read the article 'Victory Disease' that has been published in the Military Review written by an US military officer. It is an excellent article not only for Americans to read, but surprisingly for even Indians and others who feel that they are better than others.

We cannot get away from the fact that (as Trooth pointed out) that we have been conned that Saddam had WsMD and was a threat to civilisation. He has None. He may have been an ass to talk BIG, but then, if talking BIG is a fault, then it is another question.

Compare the danger to the world. Saddam had NO Weapons of MD. He was attacked. To believe that the CIA is a bunch of cretins and chumps is doing disservice to the great worked they have done so far. Yet no attack has been organised to knock off Pakistan where their nuclear bomb hero QA Khan SOLD nuclear secrets and EQUIPMENT to Libya, North Korea and Iran! The saving grace is that Musharraf has capped the disease at serious personal risk, both politically and with his life. The Muslim fundamentalists will not take it lying down. Yet, the US, which is the bastion of world safety, is pussyfooting. And so is India pussyfooting. The US was well aware many years back that he was selling the secrets. Then, why this moral indignation of the US at North Korea having nuclear arsenal? Why didn't they stop it? Political expediency. But at what risks? US soldiers in South Korea are now up a gum tree.

My question to all is that: OK, there were missiles a wee beyond the authorised range in Iraq, but where are the WMD?

I have no qualms about going to war against anyone who violates the rules. I bought the theory that Saddam had WMD. But, what I hate is that I have been conned by fat cats.

Blix was not sure that there are WsMD.. Al Baradi was categorical; Kay says its bullshit and so does that British expert whose name skips my mind [not the guy who killed himself]. So, who do I believe?

And here is my neighbour's hero of the Islamic bomb using the blackmarket to get richer and selling stuff to Al Qaeda! Lest you think he is wrong, well the way the world has gone against the Islamic chaps, they too have to look after their own. However, he made a personal fortune in the bargain. That is not Islamic.

So, friends, what is the answer? Tarry a while before condemning. We, too, are at fault. Doctor, heal thyself as the saying goes.

Ray
11 Feb 04,, 07:09
Go ahead haul me over the coals.

It is midnight and more in the US and so I am safe till day break.:yum :ar15 :D :dbanana :smoke :P

Ray
11 Feb 04,, 07:17
Colonel,

If OBL is captured, then it will be like what I have read in DELL comics - They will THROW away the KEYs.

Bet you bottom Candadian money, I will pickup that key and throw it into the Pacific Ocean which is the deepest in the world.

The best part is that then the US will not be blamed for not releasing him!!!!!! (Remember someone said that US will be blamed this way or that way, no matter what it does. Well, I will sacrife myself for the US!)

Ray
11 Feb 04,, 08:02
Tw-acs,

Got your name right?

It is not my 'arrogance' that I addressed you with. It is just to assist you to into the path to logical discussion. Logicality denied and venom spewing doss not lead to education.

Indeed, we must get to the rationality for the Iraq War. Indeed, we have been conned. But will shouting irrationality help reaching the goal? Don't be self motivated and bear the Cross. There are many in the US and UK who too are equally peeved. And there are many in the US, UK and elsewhere who are not peeved. Listen to their viewpoints too. You and I cannot change the leaders of this world. At least, we can learn how they tick.

My famed by-line is - Take it Easy and Look Busy!

Are you are Russian? If so, 'Kak vashe dzaroviye?' Which I think means "how are you?' If that's not OK, then take this - Kak te poshivaesh? Dasvidaniya, Tavatrische. Spoconochi.

Kuri li vuyi cigroo? Light up a cigar.

Yah pa ni mayu pa Russki niyem nagaw.

Calm down.

Trooth
11 Feb 04,, 13:57
Perhaps we do have a major disconnect, because i do not remember ever saying that OBL should not face the death penalty, or even saying that the military have acted improperly.

I freely admit that i am not an expert on law, either military or otherwise. I defer to those who are. However we all have to realise that OBL and SH will become pawns in the war on terror. The military is there to achieve political objectives. The brave men and women of the armed forces do not start wars, politicians do. The high level objectives are set by politicians.

My opinion is that the political objectives for OBL and SH exist beyond simply elimination.

Much as "unlawful combatants" can exist as is poltically necessary, other clases of prisoner can, and i suspect, will be created.

Officer of Engineers
11 Feb 04,, 16:16
Originally posted by Ray
I request all potential candidates who will haul me over the coals i.e. flamers to read the article 'Victory Disease' that has been published in the Military Review written by an US military officer. It is an excellent article not only for Americans to read, but surprisingly for even Indians and others who feel that they are better than others.


The General is refering to this Military Review Article

The Victory Disease (http://www-cgsc.army.mil/milrev/download/english/JulAug03/karcher.pdf) by Major Timothy M. Karcher, U.S. Army


Because of America's vast strength, national and military leaders might become overconfident in our abilities and begin to underestimate those of the enemy. This cultural phenomenon manifests itself in the mindset sometimes called the Victory Disease. America's position as the sole global superpower makes it an excellent candidate for the disease. The military must devote itself to diminishing the possibility of falling prey to the disease.


Originally posted by Ray
We cannot get away from the fact that (as Trooth pointed out) that we have been conned that Saddam had WsMD and was a threat to civilisation. He has None. He may have been an ass to talk BIG, but then, if talking BIG is a fault, then it is another question.

Sir,

The only thing that we were wrong about was the stockpiles Saddam was supposed to have. We were not wrong about his Research and Development programs nor of his intent. 12 years of air war had already proven that Saddam had no intentions of abiding by the terms of surrender.


Originally posted by Ray
Compare the danger to the world. Saddam had NO Weapons of MD. He was attacked. To believe that the CIA is a bunch of cretins and chumps is doing disservice to the great worked they have done so far.

The CIA is a bunch of Yahooes. My personal belief based upon the treachery they performed. I'll leave it at that.


Originally posted by Ray
Yet no attack has been organised to knock off Pakistan where their nuclear bomb hero QA Khan SOLD nuclear secrets and EQUIPMENT to Libya, North Korea and Iran! The saving grace is that Musharraf has capped the disease at serious personal risk, both politically and with his life. The Muslim fundamentalists will not take it lying down. Yet, the US, which is the bastion of world safety, is pussyfooting. And so is India pussyfooting. The US was well aware many years back that he was selling the secrets. Then, why this moral indignation of the US at North Korea having nuclear arsenal? Why didn't they stop it? Political expediency. But at what risks? US soldiers in South Korea are now up a gum tree.

Sir, neither North Korea nor Pakistan signed terms of surrender that was enforcable by lethal force. Saddam did sign those terms.

As for the proliferation problem, no one is innocent. Canada unwittingly helped India with her 1st nuke. China told Pakistan that her original nukes would not work. France built Iraq's reactors. The US turned a blind eye to Israeli nuclear esponiage.


Originally posted by Ray
My question to all is that: OK, there were missiles a wee beyond the authorised range in Iraq, but where are the WMD?

That is the big question in discussion. We knew that they existed. We can't find them. We know that they have been very improperly disposed of. It has now become an ecological imperative to find them or more preisely, the site to which these WMDs were disposed and clean it up in some way or at least isolate it. These weapons existed, Sir. That is for certain. The chemicals and biologicals that were in them has now become a health hazzard.


Originally posted by Ray
I have no qualms about going to war against anyone who violates the rules. I bought the theory that Saddam had WMD. But, what I hate is that I have been conned by fat cats.

Blix was not sure that there are WsMD.. Al Baradi was categorical; Kay says its bullshit and so does that British expert whose name skips my mind [not the guy who killed himself]. So, who do I believe?

As with people of our profession, Sir. We believe in ourselves and we correct ourselves when we make a mistake and we owe up to those mistakes, even if those mistakes had cost lives.


Originally posted by Ray
And here is my neighbour's hero of the Islamic bomb using the blackmarket to get richer and selling stuff to Al Qaeda! Lest you think he is wrong, well the way the world has gone against the Islamic chaps, they too have to look after their own. However, he made a personal fortune in the bargain. That is not Islamic.

He was caught, Sir and I'm hoping for a firing squad.


Originally posted by Ray
So, friends, what is the answer? Tarry a while before condemning. We, too, are at fault. Doctor, heal thyself as the saying goes.

The first thing, though, Sir is to admit that we are sick, or in this case, that we were wrong. However, Sir, I've re-examine my deductions based upon the available evidence and Saddam's intent. I cannot see how I could arrive at any other conclusion.

1) We knew that he had those WMDs.
2) He could not or would not prove he destroyed them.
3) He issued orders for those WMDs to be used.
4) He started wars and initated actions to which he had no hope of success but was willing just to inflict casualties for the sake of casualties

a) The Iran-Iraq War
b) The Kuwait War
c) Assassination attempt on George Bush Sr
d) 12 years of the Iraq Air War

The urgency was created by 11 Sept. 11 Sept had shown Saddam that the traditional terrorist campaign of extremely small and isolated action has now given way to company level executions. There were over several hundred people involve in 11 Sept, not just a small cell, and they operated without the national infrastructure of a national military and intelligence organizations.

Saddam had those and his brain must have been clicking into overtime. He praised 11 Sept and must have been thinking on how could he capitalize on this new tactic.

As a soldier, my thinking was it was time to finish the job once and for all before he gets the chance to use his aim.


Originally posted by Ray
Tw-acs,

Got your name right?

It is not my 'arrogance' that I addressed you with. It is just to assist you to into the path to logical discussion. Logicality denied and venom spewing doss not lead to education.

Indeed, we must get to the rationality for the Iraq War. Indeed, we have been conned. But will shouting irrationality help reaching the goal? Don't be self motivated and bear the Cross. There are many in the US and UK who too are equally peeved. And there are many in the US, UK and elsewhere who are not peeved. Listen to their viewpoints too. You and I cannot change the leaders of this world. At least, we can learn how they tick.

My famed by-line is - Take it Easy and Look Busy!

Sir, my compliments and respects. I've earned my arrogance as I am well sure, so have you. However, you sure have a way of gently putting people in their place.

tw-acs
12 Feb 04,, 21:17
As much as I will listen to others views, you should listen to mine.

I agree we must figure out why the US and UK officials acted the way they did. And what reasons they made the choices they did. That is exaclty what I am trying to do. I am focusing on US officials.1

I think that taking the approach that is most readily allowed for by what information is presented to us from the media ( owned by corporations) is not the best approach. I think that the administration is in office for purely personal gain. I do not think they have America nor Americans at heart when they make choices like they have.

I think that me mentioning Cannabis Sativa and hemp in an arguement against the actions taken by the president will get my posts discredited by persons that are too ignorant to read them. I am not saying anyone is just that a controversial issue like that will do that.

Though logically HEMP could help mankind and the earth immensly. Oh and it might hurt established industries( Corporations). Which is why it is illegal today. A process for making paper with wood pulp was successful. The persons that owned this paper making process saw that hemp could make better paper more efficeintely thus very harmful for wood pulp paper.

This man also owned a Newspaper and started calling cannabis sativa/hemp by its spanish name, Marijuana. And playing with mexican racism to get farmers confused. See the farmers did not realize Marijuana was hemp. Thus allowed for the Marijuana tax act of 1937 to be passed.

You are probably dont have a clue why I even bring up hemp in this forum. If you have no clue that is exactly why i do it.

Hemp should be industrialized for many reasons. I.E reducing US dependency on foriegn petroleum. Thus lowering tension in areas with high volumes of petroleum. I.E Middle East

In a democracy or some form of it, the type of government we have in th USA, citizens have all the power.

If it is not difficult to find persons that agree its is even more difficult organizing them to get proper response from officials.

I hope, this is my personal opinion that Bush is not re-elected and that we can have persons in the White house that are not going to throw one over on us. That will have the American at mind every second of every term served and even after.

I am not saying for fact that they did. Just about 99.9% sure that George Bush and Friends and the USA's most dangerous fiends. (Corporations, ironically, they provide the USA with a lot of wealth by exploiting Americans labor. Soon we will not even get the oppurtunity to be exploited ( having a job) because they will be in foriegn countries.

Not that they intend to attack America but exploit it as much as possible. Even to the extent of telling the American worker your fired cause you want too much money. Then they send that labor to a forigen country with very lax standards for working conditions and wage rate.

Exporting jobs is not good for America. Especially during war time. Not the war in Iraq though equally notable. The war on terrorism.

What happens to the USA IF Bush allows for the exporting of jobs. Where will we work? We would lose are manufacturing base and thus in war time we would rely on foriegn nations for manufacturing. I am not the most brilliant strategist but I do know this is not a good strategy.

The only postive I can see from exporting jobs is that corporations will make labor cost less. And allow for more profits. Those profits generally go into the already deeply lined pockets of the Corporate Executives.

And if you look at the policy changes the Bush Administration has made for example healthcare. You see that Corporations are benefitting from every action Bush has made in office.

Bourgeoisies

All the actions of the Bush Administration seem to benefit corporations more than any other entity.

Presumably the Bush Administration has one goal. To make as much money as possible like the capitalist should.

It is clearly explained in the New American Century. American Imperialism.

To summarize all this, Bush is a figurehead, in office for the benefit of Corporations and the further exploitation of Labor.

Centralization of wealth.

To think that wealth is centralized now, is almost amusing when you think about what may be in store for the world if the USA does not get a president with American Ideals in mind.

smilingassassin
13 Feb 04,, 00:53
Its very simple why the UK and the U.S. attacked Iraq. The mere threat that saddam could produce WMD's and sell them to willing terrorists is enough to go in. Saddam has used them, saddam for whatever reason bluffed that he had them, and at the same time tried to tell the U.N. that he didn't have them and impeeded their progress in proving he didn't have them. The fact that he openly supported anti-Israel terrorist organizations who we all know actively support other terrorist organizations is a resonable enough threat to act on. Chemical and biolodgical weapons are very quick and easy to produce with the know how...and we all know saddams been down that road so all he needed was the "production" components of the program, which there is enough evidence to support that he very likely had in addition to a basic delivery system in place and in small enough numbers to hide from all eyes short of an invasion.

The WMD arguement has been worked up to a froth by those who refuse to accept the inevitable and take action. If terrorists can commondeer 4 airliners and crash them into buildings while they are full of screaming civilians they certainly will have no qualms about aquiring WMD's and using them.

The U.S. govt. did not lie, they acted on information that a multitude of other nations had gathered. The U.S. administration along with the UK administration were the only ones with the "balls" to acctually do something about it. The fact that we have yet to find the "smoking gun" is irelavant, and those who choose to focus on that arguement are not looking at the big picture.

Trooth
13 Feb 04,, 01:09
When i argue about WMD, i am arguing that my government, intentionally or otherwise, misled me. I would like to know why and if i don't like the reason i will use my small power (my vote) to try to elect a new gonverment.

I acknowledge that Saddam was quite capable of using WMD. I acknowledge that the US and UK had been engaged in a 12 year military campaign against Iraq (the no fly zones). I acknowledge that terrorists work together (the mission defines the coalition is an argument that applies to both sides, after all). I acknowledge that, in perhaps a decade, Iraq may be a stable and propserous democracy.

However, there will be another Iraq, and another Saddam. There will therefore be reasons given to attack these. Brave men and women of the UK will be killed, and wounded, both physically and mentally by such action. Foreign nationals (military or civilians) will be killed. This are big issues that need proper justifcation. When my leaders emphasise their justifcation to me, and it is wrong, i want to know why it is wrong. In a democracy the leaders are accountable to the population at election time, otherwise we have only swapped a dictatorship in Iraq with one in the UK.

tw-acs
13 Feb 04,, 02:04
The threat that someone could do something some time?


That is the most ridiculous thing i have heard.

In that logic everyone should be fighting eachother.
I believe that is the type of thinking the world was trying to get away from, to avoid unnecessary wars.

That logic fueled the arms race. That was a not good thing. Study history, learn from our mistakes.

What do you mean by



who we all know


Who is we? And what do we know? Does that include me?

Under what justification is that a reason to attack? Please Explain in detail.

The logic behind Saddam Hussein and WMD

If neigboring countries ( i.e. Israel) has nukes it would be to Saddam's advantage to have nukes. He does not possess nukes and has not ever. His own scientists have explained that they lied to him to allow him to think he could have nukes. Since Saddam never had nuclear weapons but a neighboring country does it would be at Saddam's advantage to bluff he has nukes to gain that respect.

If Saddam was a threat because he may possess WMD, why have we not attacked countries that we know have WMD?

What do you mean by

which there is enough evidence to support that he very likely had


Intelligence is not supposed to be probable. It should be definite and not the only tool used in determining whether to go to war.

War should be the last choice. Thus pre-emptive is unnecessary and againts American ideals.



The WMD arguement has been worked up to a froth by those who refuse to accept the inevitable and take action.


What is the inevitable?


If terrorists can commondeer 4 airliners and crash them into buildings while they are full of screaming civilians they certainly will have no qualms about aquiring WMD's and using them.


Oh what about the whole not scrambling fighter jets to escort the hijacked not commondeered airliners to the ground until authorization from the president. When authorization from the president is for confirmation to kill, not for scrambling the fighters jets. Scrambling fighter jets in this sitaution is what policy calls for.

Terrorists most likely would use whatever weapons at there disposal.

Saddam Hussien was not a terrorist, he was a brutal dictator as some have said on this forum.

The fact that they have not found any WMD is most likely because as David Kay said they dont exist. That was the justification of the whole war, it is quite relavent.

Since I focus on the justification of the war and the actual affects of the war and who benefits from the war i must not be seeing the whole picture.

Could you paint the whole picture with your words? So I can see it.

Ray
13 Feb 04,, 02:14
Now it has been proved that QA Khan the father of the Islamic Bomb of Pakistan has sold nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea.

The US was aware of it. Did it mean that US had to attack Pakistan? If it did not, why? It is callled political expediency. Compare the Iraqi situation with Pakistan selling nuclear secrets to all sworn enemies of the US and all top nations in Bush's 'axis of evil'.

Therefore, the justification to go gung ho on just one regime is not infallible.

Confed999
13 Feb 04,, 02:57
Originally posted by Ray
It is callled political expediency.
I call it two-faced. I hate it with a passion.

Officer of Engineers
13 Feb 04,, 05:30
Trooth,

You're asking us to prove a negative - that Saddam has no intention nor capabilites to use WMDs against the West.

Your very own LCol Tim Collins, 1st Battalion, Royal Irish Regiment believed the same intelligence as did I. He and I took the very same oath for the Queen's Commission to which we are trusted to perform our duties to the best of our abilities.

I find it very difficult to believe that two Queen's Officers are that stupid in coming to the same conclusion based upon two different set of evidences.

TW-ACS,

JUST WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU, FUCKING ASSHOLE! DON'T YOU DARE SPEAK TO THE GENERAL IN THAT TONE! YOU HAVE NOT EARN THAT PRIVLEDGE!

I DON'T FUCKING CARE WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW. YOU KNOW SHIT! THE GENERAL AND I BLED THE SAME KIND OF BLOOD IN THE SAME KIND OF MUD.

YOU ARE JUST SMOKING HEMP!

WE'VE SEEN WAR. WE'VE BLED WAR. JUST WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO SAY THAT YOU KNOW BETTER THAN WE DO?

IF YOU WANT OUR OPINIONS, ASK BUT DON'T DARE FOR ONE SECOND THAT YOU CAN DICTATE HOW WE ARE TO ANSWER TO YOU.

I'VE CHEWED BIGGER ASSHOLES THAN YOU!

Trooth
13 Feb 04,, 09:41
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Trooth,

You're asking us to prove a negative - that Saddam has no intention nor capabilites to use WMDs against the West.


I am confused now! I thought i was asking that it be proved that he had them, and if he didn't to find out why we thought he did. In fact i thought the coalition were asking Saddam to prove he didn't have them.



Your very own LCol Tim Collins, 1st Battalion, Royal Irish Regiment believed the same intelligence as did I. He and I took the very same oath for the Queen's Commission to which we are trusted to perform our duties to the best of our abilities.

I find it very difficult to believe that two Queen's Officers are that stupid in coming to the same conclusion based upon two different set of evidences.

I have the utmost respect for both of you. And for anyone in uniform.

My point isn't that you, say, are stupid because you misinterpreted the evidence, my point is that the evidence presented to you was flawed. I am sure you made an intellgient assessment of it. If i tell you it is raining, i am sure you would bring an umbrella. If it isn't raining that itsn't your fault!

tw-acs
13 Feb 04,, 21:29
Officer of Engineers I mean no disrespect to any veterans.
I have the most respect for persons serving their country in battle.
I am concerned about whether we needed to put more men in harms way.
I respect all of the people that post on this forum.
What did I say?
Profanity directed at members of the forum is not allowed. Why do you stoop so low?

You are yelling, very mature and adult of you.

Why would anyone smoke hemp?

I never said I know better. I am addressing an issue with facts that I know.

I will post how I want to post. I have a constitutional right, the freedom of speach; you shall not dictate what my posts and responses will be.

I dont want to know about your sex life.

I mean no offense what did I say?

Confed999
14 Feb 04,, 01:22
Originally posted by Trooth
In fact i thought the coalition were asking Saddam to prove he didn't have them.
Nope, SH was to turn them over, show where they were destroyed, or get out of the country.

Trooth
14 Feb 04,, 01:28
Originally posted by Confed999
Nope, SH was to turn them over, show where they were destroyed, or get out of the country.

Isn't that him proving to us that he didn't have them? I.e. if you've got them give them up, if you haven't got them show us what you did with them? What if he didn't have them to do away with?

Confed999
14 Feb 04,, 01:46
Then he should have taken the third choice. Had he complied with the UNSCRs up until that point, there wouldn't have been any question. He didn't comply, he didn't cooperate, he placed restrictions on inspectors anytime they were allowed into Iraq and he insisted he had them as well as insisting he didn't. The only way to be sure,either way, was what happened.

Officer of Engineers
15 Feb 04,, 06:24
Originally posted by Trooth
I am confused now! I thought i was asking that it be proved that he had them, and if he didn't to find out why we thought he did. In fact i thought the coalition were asking Saddam to prove he didn't have them.


I have the utmost respect for both of you. And for anyone in uniform.

My point isn't that you, say, are stupid because you misinterpreted the evidence, my point is that the evidence presented to you was flawed. I am sure you made an intellgient assessment of it. If i tell you it is raining, i am sure you would bring an umbrella. If it isn't raining that itsn't your fault!

I thank you for your compliments.

However, I would remind you that it is not us who are obligated to prove anything to start a war.

It is Saddam's obligation to prove everything to stop a war.

Those were the terms of surrender and clearly Saddam failed, despite what France and Germany want to portary otherwise,

Therefore, it is France and Germany asking us to prove a negative - that Saddam did not live up to those terms of surrnder.