Weapons of mass Destruction and Democrats

digerati · Feb 15, 2004, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Well like I said man, some people just cannot be helped. No one is saying that there are any weapons anymore, not bush, no blair, not the CIA, not the UN, not any of the thousands of researchers and scientists that have been interviewd since the war ended - not anyone that matters.

Maybe you don't get the way the CIA works? I mean don't you think they have really gone to town and interrogated absolutely everyone they could find about this? Do you think that somehow all of those thousands of people would all keep collectively quiet - even when presented with extreme psychological torture techniques - or more likely when presented with the opportunity to make a ton of money, through the biggest tongue loosener of all, which is good old fashioned bribery?

If so I have to say that The Iraqis must be some sort of super human breed - all of these people - and none of them with even a single clue about what happend to these aleged WMDs.
GJ

There are so many ways to dispose of things, especially in a country like that with so much open wide space. Do you know what this is?

That is an advanced Russian MiG-25 Foxbat Jet being dug out of the sands of Iraq. Now that's a jet, so I wonder what else we will find buried in the sands?

Quote:

The discovery of the buried Iraqi jet fighters illustrates the problem faced by U.S. inspection teams searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is larger in size than California, and the massive deserts south and west of Baghdad were used by Saddam Hussein to hide weapons during the first Gulf war.

Give it time, as with everything, give it time.

raid517 · Feb 15, 2004, 03:59 AM

Lol your crazy man...

I guess everone who knew anything about it has mysteriously vanished too? Hey, maybe it was aliens? After all, stranger things have happend - or at least in your world them seem to.

If anyone had even given as much as a hint that there was anything to find, they would be sending more inspectors in, not scaling back the search.

In any case I guess you're entitled to believe what you want, no matter how bizzar it may seem to others.

As far as I'm concerned David Kay wouldn't have said what he did, unless he was absolutely 100% certain that it was accurate. The CIA had got it wrong before - he wasn't likely to allow them to get it wrong again. (Reasonable people don't behave that way. Athough to be honest I was surprised that he was so frank, since he had been personally picked by Your President Bush to find any evidence he could to justify the war. It must have felt like a kick in the balls for pres Bush when he came out and said even he couldn't find anything).

I guess all that's left is people like yourself and other kooks and conspirator types to form weird 'otherworld' type web sites, and post bizzar unrealated photographs and hold them up as 'evidence'. I guess you will continue to do so long after the whole rest of the world has moved on and (as far as is possible) has forgotten about all this.

Oh well. At least it's not me who is in the minority any more.

GJ

digerati · Feb 15, 2004, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Lol your crazy man... I guess everone who knew anything about it has mysteriously vanished too? Hey, maybe it was aliens? After all, stranger things have happend - or at least in your world them seem to.

If anyone had even given as much as a hint that there was anything to find, they would be sending more inspectors in, not scaling back the search.

In any case I guess you're entitled to believe what you want, no matter how bizzar it may seem to others.

As far as I'm concerned David Kay wouldn't have said what he did, unless he was absolutely 100% certain that it was accurate. The CIA had got it wrong before - he wasn't likely to allow them to get it wrong again. (Reasonable people don't behave that way. Athough to be honest I was surprised that he was so frank, since he had been personally picked by Your President Bush to find any evidence he could to justify the war. It must have felt like a kick in the balls for pres Bush when he came out and said even he couldn't find anything).

I guess all that's left is people like yourself and other kooks and conspirator types to form weird 'otherworld' type web sites, and post bizzar unrealated photographs and hold them up as 'evidence'. I guess you will continue to do so long after the whole rest of the world has moved on and (as far as is possible) has forgotten about all this.

Oh well. At least it's not me who is in the minority any more.

GJ

I'm not a hardlined advocate of their being weapons there. The weapons were never a main reason for this war for me anyways. I just wanted Saddamn gone, or dead (along with his sons), I never felt Iraq was a threat.

But like life has taught me, you'll be surprised at what you find in the sands..

~~bluelight~~ · Feb 15, 2004, 04:11 AM

I recently read a book by a man named Kapucincsky about the Shah of Iran.

During the 60 ies and 70 ies the Shah was fixed on creating one of the biggest defense systems seen on his side of the planet.

So....off to Usa ,France and Britain he went while wearing his spending trousers....He bought HUGE amounts of weapons,aircraft,vehicules,helicopters etc etc etc......with the incomes from the oil that he used as his personal money.

The only problem was.....when all of this material ended up in Iran he had no infrastructure thast allowed for maintenance of all the goods....

So...most of it was useless in a matter of a few years.

American Helicopters were parked along one of the mainroads to Teheran for years in hundreds while being destroyed by dust and sand.

I dont know why this aircraft to which a link is posted is doing in the sand.....

But whatever it does there...

The aircraft is not a WMD by any definition.

Bluelight

raid517 · Feb 15, 2004, 04:30 AM

I agree. I can just imagine some poor sod of an Iraq official being told to hide them. I don't think it would have been very healthy for him to ignore that instruction - despite the fact that the US was probably listening and watching for any possibility of any aircraft movments made by the Iraqi airforce. If he had tried to put them in the sky they would have beein blown out of the air in seconds. As a result he would have been killed. If he tried to Tell Saddam he couldn't move them, he would have been kiled. I guess this seemed like the only way out.

Anyway I don't buy that some buried Iraqi planes is evidence of buried WMDs. Reading around google it turns out that these planes were found due to intelligence gained by the CIA from a retired Iraqi Airforce general- which kind of backs up the idea that discoveries like this come from solid intelligence, rather than just pointlessly digging around in the sand.

As I said, if there was any intelligence at all relating to WMDs I am sure that would have turned up by now too.

GJ

digerati · Feb 15, 2004, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
I agree. I can just imagine some poor sod of an Iraq official being told to hide them. I don't think it would have been very healthy for him to ignore that instruction - despite the fact that the US was probably listening and watching for any possibility of any aircraft movments made by the Iraqi airforce. If he had tried to put them in the sky they would have beein blown out of the air in seconds. As a result he would have been killed. If he tried to Tell Saddam he couldn't move them, he would have been kiled. I guess this seemed like the only way out.

Anyway I don't buy that some buried Iraqi planes is evidence of buried WMDs. Reading around google it turns out that these planes were found due to intelligence gained by the CIA from a retired Iraqi Airforce general- which kind of backs up the idea that discoveries like this come from solid intelligence, rather than just pointlessly digging around in the sand.

As I said, if there was any intelligence at all relating to WMDs I am sure that would have turned up by now too.

GJ

We haven't caught all of his previous officials yet, so there is still a chance someone knows something out there. But why bury the Jet? To make Iraq look innocent? To protect Russia? I mean he could have just kept them grounded. So what else could they have buried and for what purpose? Answer that question and then you'll understand why I feel there is a chance (not a certainty) that there may be some.

BluntmaN · Feb 15, 2004, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ^_^
We haven't caught all of his previous officials yet, so there is still a chance someone knows something out there. But why bury the Jet? To make Iraq look innocent? To protect Russia? I mean he could have just kept them grounded. So what else could they have buried and for what purpose? Answer that question and then you'll understand why I feel there is a chance (not a certainty) that there may be some.

Why do it? Well for a second lets think. Why would someone bury a multimillion jet in dirt and not get into the trouble to cover it in any way to protect it from the dust. Probably because they were in a hurry and couldnt get a plastic bag that big. But lets look into the whole arms buried in the dessert issue. What if (this is a long shot but what the hell) Saddam knew that his country was to be taken over and he buried these weapons so that someone in his ranks who has all the maps of all the weapons could go and dig them up after the Americans have rebuilt Iraq, re-installed democracy and picked up and left. He could then use these weapons to retake the country. Once he is in power he ll be able to use the more advanced weapons the US will undoubtedly give to Iraq to protect it from its neighbors. With these weapons his plan would most likely be to hold every one in Iraq hostage and negotiate the return of the fallen dictator.

Off course the US will not pick up and leave Iraq they ll more likely stay, establish bases and keep troops just in case some looney tries this tactic. Which brings us to the democracy issue. What if a democraticaly elected leader decides that the trade agreements signed by the pseudo leaders are null and void and signs new agreements with lets say France or Germany how would the Americans react to that? Will they stand idly as the new leader sells oil to France and buys German weapons? No they ll use every measure necessary to make him "rethink" so this would not be a democracy would it? In fact it is stupid to establish a democratic goverment that would have full control of its foreign policies. So therefore the Iraqi invation is not that "friendly" after all. I hope now you can see why there are so many attacks on coalition forces.

The war in Iraq was not a preemtive strike to protect the world from a madman's WMD, if he had any WMD a lot of people would know about it forget about the officials what about the troops that buried them (a large number of which cooperate with the CIA and US army). It was not to free the Iraqi's cause this has many implications as mentioned above and it would be down right stupid if the Americans went about spending billions getting their troops killed just to let Iraq's future democratic leaders turn their backs on them. Because real freedom is the right to turn your back to whoever you want and even change the goverment to dictatorship if you have the public support to do so.

Real freedom cant be "given" it is earned.

bird chest · Feb 15, 2004, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BluntmaN
Why do it? Well for a second lets think. Why would someone bury a multimillion jet in dirt and not get into the trouble to cover it in any way to protect it from the dust. Probably because they were in a hurry and couldnt get a plastic bag that big. But lets look into the whole arms buried in the dessert issue. What if (this is a long shot but what the hell) Saddam knew that his country was to be taken over and he buried these weapons so that someone in his ranks who has all the maps of all the weapons could go and dig them up after the Americans have rebuilt Iraq, re-installed democracy and picked up and left. He could then use these weapons to retake the country. Once he is in power he ll be able to use the more advanced weapons the US will undoubtedly give to Iraq to protect it from its neighbors. With these weapons his plan would most likely be to hold every one in Iraq hostage and negotiate the return of the fallen dictator.

Off course the US will not pick up and leave Iraq they ll more likely stay, establish bases and keep troops just in case some looney tries this tactic. Which brings us to the democracy issue. What if a democraticaly elected leader decides that the trade agreements signed by the pseudo leaders are null and void and signs new agreements with lets say France or Germany how would the Americans react to that? Will they stand idly as the new leader sells oil to France and buys German weapons? No they ll use every measure necessary to make him "rethink" so this would not be a democracy would it? In fact it is stupid to establish a democratic goverment that would have full control of its foreign policies. So therefore the Iraqi invation is not that "friendly" after all. I hope now you can see why there are so many attacks on coalition forces.

The war in Iraq was not a preemtive strike to protect the world from a madman's WMD, if he had any WMD a lot of people would know about it forget about the officials what about the troops that buried them (a large number of which cooperate with the CIA and US army). It was not to free the Iraqi's cause this has many implications as mentioned above and it would be down right stupid if the Americans went about spending billions getting their troops killed just to let Iraq's future democratic leaders turn their backs on them. Because real freedom is the right to turn your back to whoever you want and even change the goverment to dictatorship if you have the public support to do so.

Real freedom cant be "given" it is earned.

As to the weapons that is what I mean. Yes it is a long shot. Should we pump less money into it? Yes. But should we stop searching or write off the possibility all together? No.

Will US leave I would have to say no. We will be there as long as we are able. But I do feel the US would allow them to shop somewhere else if they wanted to. Would we pull as many strings as we could? Of course. But we did let the panama canal go. Which we did not have to since it was loned to us forever (AKA sold) in contract but they wanted it so we gave it to them.

But freedom can be given a chance to be earned!

raid517 · Feb 15, 2004, 11:47 PM

Well I still think your crazy. The CIA are professionals. They might have screwed up due to having been put under such huge pressure by Bush and his chums - but once they are in the country and can talk to who they want, they have all of the resources they need to gather whatever intelligence they might possibly want.

I guess you can have the comfort that maybe in 25 years you can still say, 'well you never know.' After all you can't disprove what you can't find.

However like most people I am willing to go with the ballance of probability - and the ballance of probability is that it is extremely unlikely that you could completely hide a vast WMD program of the kind that Iraq was accused of having before the war and everyone who knew anything about it. So far there hasn't even been as much as a hint of a hint of anyone who can produce anything solid.

There has though undoubtedly been a lot of intelligence gathered from people in Iraq who did know about these things and who all have so far said that the case for WMDs was extremely overstated. The CIA gave their diffinitive view in Mr Kay's final report. There was no WMDs and no program to develop any either.

I don't know how much more clearly they can spell it out for you. Yet you continue to insist that you will go on believing in what they now admit was a mistaken premise.

Maybe you can see how odd that seems - maybe not. But it is especially strange since really you only had the world of the CIA (and George Bush) to go on originally.

Oh... Erm... Yeah... I think I get it... Are you saying you believe George Bush more than you believe the CIA (or the IEAE, or MI6 or anyone else for that matter)? I mean that would make sense if you were, since there are a few complete Bush fantaics on these threads who would rather believe him than anyone else. But that would kind of mean that George Bush would have to more or less omnipotent - with a god like insight and a psychic ability to cast his mind's eye to any part of our world at a moments notice...

Again that wouldn't be a surprise if you belived that, as there are some genuine frothing at the mouth Bush fanatics here.

Well if that's the case I guess I can't argue with it. All I know is that for everone else, this isssue is now dead.

I just wonder if there will be any concequences for allowing our govenments to have acted so harshly.

GJ

bird chest · Feb 16, 2004, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Well I still think your crazy. The CIA are professionals. They might have screwed up due to having been put under such huge pressure by Bush and his chums - but once they are in the country and can talk to who they want, they have all of the resources they need to gather whatever intelligence they might possibly want.

I guess you can have the comfort that maybe in 25 years you can still say, 'well you never know.' After all you can't disprove what you can't find.

However like most people I am willing to go with the ballance of probability - and the ballance of probability is that it is extremely unlikely that you could completely hide a vast WMD program of the kind that Iraq was accused of having before the war and everyone who knew anything about it. So far there hasn't even been as much as a hint of a hint of anyone who can produce anything solid.

There has though undoubtedly been a lot of intelligence gathered from people in Iraq who did know about these things and who all have so far said that the case for WMDs was extremely overstated. The CIA gave their diffinitive view in Mr Kay's final report. There was no WMDs and no program to develop any either.

I don't know how much more clearly they can spell it out for you. Yet you continue to insist that you will go on believing in what they now admit was a mistaken premise.

Maybe you can see how odd that seems - maybe not. But it is especially strange since really you only had the world of the CIA (and George Bush) to go on originally.

Oh... Erm... Yeah... I think I get it... Are you saying you believe George Bush more than you believe the CIA (or the IEAE, or MI6 or anyone else for that matter)? I mean that would make sense if you were, since there are a few complete Bush fantaics on these threads who would rather believe him than anyone else. But that would kind of mean that George Bush would have to more or less omnipotent - with a god like insight and a psychic ability to cast his mind's eye to any part of our world at a moments notice...

Again that wouldn't be a surprise if you belived that, as there are some genuine frothing at the mouth Bush fanatics here.

Well if that's the case I guess I can't argue with it. All I know is that for everone else, this isssue is now dead.

I just wonder if there will be any concequences for allowing our govenments to have acted so harshly.

GJ

I do not like bush end of story. I will vote for him next election becuase I like the other democrats less. I have not seen that does not mean it has not happened anymore then one person in the cia say that the wmds do not exist in the cia. If you can show me a source where multiple cia agents say so or a statement by the cia that they do not exist tehn I will believe you. Until I see that I am still on the side of looking. Cause they could be there.
You really need to stop telling me what I think and what kind of bubbles and what no I am in because it is really getting annoying. I do not talk trash to you so just stop I am here to debate not for you to infer what I think and tell me I am in a dream world.

raid517 · Feb 16, 2004, 06:54 PM

Well HELLO what have I just been saying? Or did the name David Kay pass you by? David Kay was the head of the CIA search in Iraq for WMDS. Maybe I should dance about in front of you, waving flags an banners with his name printed on? He was the CIA's main man in Iraq and he has said, absolutely, unequivocally, unmistakably NO WMDS IN IRAQ AND NO PROGRAMS TO DEVELOP ANY EITHER!!!
You really ought to read about it and just who this guy was.? Maybe you think he was some pinko left leaning socialist with an agenda against the United States?

WRONG!

David Kay was carefully vetted and selected from among the creme of the CIAs own top ranking operatives. President Bush wanted a guy who would do a good job for him - he expected he would deliver.

Unfortunately for him, even some rightward leaning CIA operatives still retain a sense of decency - and in the end Mr Kay's integrity appears to have drawn him to some very different conclusions that were put forward in Bush's own political agenda.

In case you don't believe me, you can always read 'this page, which gives some brief details about who he was and just how much effort he put into the investigation.

You clearly don't watch much news on the TV - or if you do it is probably just Fox news, who neglected to even mention David Kay - or that the search for WMDs had pretty much come to an end due to the overwhelming weight of evidence against them in his report.

I'm not telling you what to think - I just can't fathom what your talking about? All this stuff is old news here now.

But that report isn't just his view, it's the view of the hundreds of CIA agents and law enforcement operatives who went into Iraq after the war ended. So it isn't as you seem to think it is, 'just the view of one man.' It really isn't that simple.

Anyway, you're probably right, I'm probably am wasting my time attempting to pursuade you.

No doubt you will take these paranoid delusions to your grave.

I gave you what you asked for, but I suspect you simply will find another reason not to believe it.

GJ

BluntmaN · Feb 16, 2004, 07:49 PM

Quote:

If you can show me a source where multiple cia agents say so or a statement by the cia that they do not exist tehn I will believe you. Until I see that I am still on the side of looking. Cause they could be there.

Keep looking? For how long? Indefinately? How long will they "keep looking"? Maybe a bit after the elections? Maybe for 2 years? How about 10 or 1000 years? These are all possible answers to this question since they havent defined a timeline. So what Bush and Tony tell the world is to wait and see but they fail to define how long we will be waiting. Another thing as I already mentioned before the UN before the war asked for more time but the US didnt listen so why should we listen to their requests?

bird chest · Feb 16, 2004, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Well HELLO what have I just been saying? Or did the name David Kay pass you by? David Kay was the head of the CIA search in Iraq for WMDS. Maybe I should dance about in front of you, waving flags an banners with his name printed on? He was the CIA's main man in Iraq and he has said, absolutely, unequivocally, unmistakably NO WMDS IN IRAQ AND NO PROGRAMS TO DEVELOP ANY EITHER!!!
You really ought to read about it and just who this guy was.? Maybe you think he was some pinko left leaning socialist with an agenda against the United States?

WRONG!

David Kay was carefully vetted and selected from among the creme of the CIAs own top ranking operatives. President Bush wanted a guy who would do a good job for him - he expected he would deliver.

Unfortunately for him, even some rightward leaning CIA operatives still retain a sense of decency - and in the end Mr Kay's integrity appears to have drawn him to some very different conclusions that were put forward in Bush's own political agenda.

In case you don't believe me, you can always read 'this page, which gives some brief details about who he was and just how much effort he put into the investigation.

You clearly don't watch much news on the TV - or if you do it is probably just Fox news, who neglected to even mention David Kay - or that the search for WMDs had pretty much come to an end due to the overwhelming weight of evidence against them in his report.

I'm not telling you what to think - I just can't fathom what your talking about? All this stuff is old news here now.

But that report isn't just his view, it's the view of the hundreds of CIA agents and law enforcement operatives who went into Iraq after the war ended. So it isn't as you seem to think it is, 'just the view of one man.' It really isn't that simple.

Anyway, you're probably right, I'm probably am wasting my time attempting to pursuade you.

No doubt you will take these paranoid delusions to your grave.

I gave you what you asked for, but I suspect you simply will find another reason not to believe it.

GJ

David kay is one person. I am waiting for the entire cia.

Besides we probably have found weapons it is just that bush is hidding them until the last second to win the election.

Knowing Bush he would do something like that. By the way if you read my last post I said I already said I know about david kay by saying "that cia guy," I am just not going to write the possobility till the cia or multiple high ranking official in the cia say they never had any. If you can provide the facts that I just asked for then I will believe you.