(WMD) - The Iraqi Official Record

[Nie Trink Wasser]

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA13903


Upon the fall of the Saddam regime, two Iraqi scientists, employed by Iraq's NEA, were interviewed on the Qatari television station Al-Jazeera. They pointed out that the facilities of NEA in Tawitha were looted, including 200 barrels of yellow cakes and uranium oxide. The looters emptied the barrels' contents in waterways or in their neighborhoods in order to use the barrels for domestic purposes (one scientist saw a barrel full of tomatoes). One of the scientists, Dr. Muhammad Zeidan, a biology expert and a graduate of Damascus and Baghdad Universities, talked about the expected ecological disaster from releasing thousands of flies known as chrysomya bezziana, nicknamed screw worm, which were bred by the NEA to be used as biological farming insecticides. The flies were released by the looters and were expected to harm animals in Iraq and neighboring countries. These flies were to be released after being sterilized. However, the flies that were actually released in large quantities were not sterilized. (9)

[Jon_in_london]

So now the WMDs were looted, that why they cant be found?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
So now the WMDs were looted, that why they cant be found?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.



you didnt read the article and you're taking it out of context.

also :


http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=21608

Does Saddam Hussein exist? How about Osama bin Laden? Or Eric Rudolph?
Saddam and Osama must not exist. Why? Because they cannot be found. And, as we all know from witnessing the recent hyperventilation about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, if something can't be found, it must not exist.
.............
In 1998, Senator Robert Byrd argued strongly for military action against Iraq, saying, "the administration needs to act sooner rather than later." Apparently, Byrd's sense of urgency was much more acute when a fellow Democrat occupied the White House; even though President Bush cited the same reasons as Clinton, Byrd accuses the Republican of lying.

[Jon_in_london]

From your link:

Of course, we can ask of the accusers why it is they were willing to give U.N. inspectors an unlimited amount of time to find these weapons, but the U.S. doesn't even get a full two months.

An accuser might offer as a riposte "why should you be allowed unlimited time, with complete access to all iraqi scientist and generals and access to iraq archives, yet the UN inspectors, without those privilages, were not?"

Put it like this, 1200+ weapons inspector going where they want when they want with access to all Iraqs scientists and generals, access to all the west's best intelligence about these WMDs have not, in two months, been abale to find so much as an Anthrax spore?

How long did Blix and his team have?
How many inspectors did Blix have?
Did Blix have complete access to US and UK intelligence reports?
Did Blix have complete access to all Iraq scientists and generals?

Then how can the Bush and Blair now be asking for more time for themselves when they denied Blix the very same?

The only hypocrisy is solely in the Bush & Blair camp.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser






Does Saddam Hussein exist? How about Osama bin Laden? Or Eric Rudolph?
Saddam and Osama must not exist. Why? Because they cannot be found. And, as we all know from witnessing the recent hyperventilation about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, if something can't be found, it must not exist.
.............


Are you trying to draw an analogy?

If you are, you have lost me. We have proof, documentation, intelligence reports, interviews and such that Saddam and Osama exist. We have proof that the Saddam Regime and Osama's al-Queada either exist or still exist.

We are not talking about things that remotely resemble Father Christmas, the Easter Bunny, or planet "X" here.

(just doing my part to continue the poor analogies ;) )

[Mr Manifesto]

PS... (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030616ta_talk_gourevitch)

A few days after Bush toured Auschwitz, the Pew Research Center released a survey of international opinion, canvassed from some twenty countries, which found that “the war has widened the rift between Americans and Western Europeans, further inflamed the Muslim world, softened support for the war on terrorism, and significantly weakened global public support for the pillars of the post-World War II era—the U.N. and the North Atlantic alliance.” And the war in Iraq is far from over. What is at stake there, and in the war against terrorism of which it is but a chapter, is the nature of America’s standing as the defining power of our age. We are told that we went into Iraq to make the world safer, yet, even as the remaining members of Bush’s axis of evil, Iran and North Korea, pursue nuclear-arms programs, many of the countries that allied with us against Saddam are wondering if they were falsely led. Nobody can regret that Saddam is gone. But, in the unipolar world that the Bush Administration seems bent on forging, our security will depend as much on our credibility as on our physical might.


It reminds me of the movie "Point Break".

"You're cold because all the blood is running out of your body... You're going to be dead soon. I hope it was worth it."

Now I don't believe America is going to be 'dead' 'soon', but I still think that history will show the victory in Iraq will be a pyhrric one.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe

We are not talking about things that remotely resemble Father Christmas, the Easter Bunny, or planet "X" here.

(just doing my part to continue the poor analogies ;) )


so were these weapons nonexistent when clinton was in office too ?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser

so were these weapons nonexistent when clinton was in office too ?
It is pretty obvious that Saddam had WMDs at one time. It is also pretty obvious that neither Bush 1 nor Clinton felt like this was worth starting a war over. In fact, when Saddam actually used a WMD against the Kurds (back in 1988, when Reagan was president), the US did nothing.

There were inspectors trying to verify if Saddam still had WMDs. Bush 2 started a war even though he had a better chance of disarming Saddam peacefully than either of his predecessors. In fact, all evidence shows that Saddam had in fact been disarmed.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
An accuser might offer as a riposte "why should you be allowed unlimited time, with complete access to all iraqi scientist and generals and access to iraq archives, yet the UN inspectors, without those privilages, were not?"


Wait a second... weren't you one of the people that was claiming tht Iraq was cooperating with the inspectors? And if they were cooperating, shouldn't they have had access to all Iraqi scientists/archives/etc?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tricky

In fact, all evidence shows that Saddam had in fact been disarmed.

Sorry, but to say that "all" evidence showed Saddam had disarmed is an absolute with doesn't hold up.

First of all, there was the lack of Iraqi evidence for the destruction of existing stocks. (If you have something illegal, and you don't prove that you've gotten rid of it, the logical assumption is that you still have it.) In fact, Iraq's activities should have been enough to arouse suspicion.

Blix himself suggested prior to the war that there were chemical and biological weapons unaccounted for, and that Iraq may not have been disarmed. See: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/1946168. Basically, prior to the war, many (most?) leaders assumed Iraq still had weapons; they just disagreed with the best way to handle them.

Iraq may not have had any weapons. They may have destroyed them 4 years ago and not documented it. They may have destroyed them the day before the invasion. They may have hidden them very well. Whatever the case, to say that "all" evidence suggests they were disarmed is incorrect.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
So now the WMDs were looted, that why they cant be found?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


Jon;

You don't believe US reps when they say Iraq has WMD and you don't believe Iraq's own people when they say they have them. In previous threads you've alluded that the US responds violently (case in point, Iraq) without cause and yet when the US responds diplomatically (petroleum embargo against North Korea) you find fault with that, too. Yet you put money on Blix who came under fire for discrepancies (I'm too nice to say
errors ) in his reports.


Doesn't it make sense when a country such as Iraq has been warned for months....not days...but months, that an attack from the U.S. is imminent, that they would take every effort to hide whatever WMD they had? Further, doesn't it make you wonder why Hussein didn't simply leave the country in which case the war might well have been avoided? Would that have been so terrible? Do you think the Iraqi people are worse off for his dictatorship having ended?

I'm just trying to get an understanding of where you're coming from ..
:confused:

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Wait a second... weren't you one of the people that was claiming tht Iraq was cooperating with the inspectors? And if they were cooperating, shouldn't they have had access to all Iraqi scientists/archives/etc?

Yes- which just makes me wonder why Bush And Bliar wanted to start the war in any case.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Yes- which just makes me wonder why Bush And Bliar wanted to start the war in any case.

But then you are stuck in a catch-22...

- If the inspectors really had access to everything in Iraq, and they were in Iraq for months, then the US (after taking control of Iraq) doesn't really have any 'advantage' in searching; therefore, you can't start complaining about the US not finding weapons right away

- If the inspectors did not have complete access, then they aren't following the requirements layed out in UN resolutions.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


You don't believe US reps when they say Iraq has WMD and you don't believe Iraq's own people when they say they have them.

Iraq own people said they HAD them (past tense).

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


In previous threads you've alluded that the US responds violently (case in point, Iraq) without cause and yet when the US responds diplomatically (petroleum embargo against North Korea) you find fault with that, too.


I would hardly call oil embargoes and putting a country on the "to be attacked" list diplomacy. Not very diplomatic diplomacy anyway.

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


Yet you put money on Blix who came under fire for discrepancies (I'm too nice to say
errors ) in his reports.


Discrepancies? source? link?

Originally posted by Ladyhawk

Doesn't it make sense when a country such as Iraq has been warned for months....not days...but months, that an attack from the U.S. is imminent, that they would take every effort to hide whatever WMD they had?

So then, let the UN do its job, help them instead of slandering and hampering them. Let them do their job before launching a war that killed 1000s of Iraqis and 100s of US and UK troops. A war that has made the global security situation far worse.

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


Further, doesn't it make you wonder why Hussein didn't simply leave the country in which case the war might well have been avoided? Would that have been so terrible? Do you think the Iraqi people are worse off for his dictatorship having ended?


Im glad that Saddam has left. That doesnt bother me. Want to go around declaring war on all tryrants? fine. Go on then... lots of tyrants waiting, lots of crickets chirping. Just dont lie to me about non-existant WMD as an excuse to start your war- which it turns out was really all about oil- US officials have even said so (Wolfowitz- economically we had no choice, the country (iraq) is swimming in oil).

Whether or not things will be better for the people of Iraq, and indeed the rest of the world, in the long run still remains to be seen.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
The only hypocrisy is solely in the Bush & Blair camp.

No. Its merely idiocy from anti-Bush/Blair fanatics. The problem with Blix in Iraq wasn't finding WMD. The problem was finding weapons and eliminating them didn't resolve the Saddam problem. You find some weapons, he develops more. Weapons Inspections were a placebo for the weak-minded. We knew after a decade that the only way to disarm Saddam was to remove him altogehter.

Welcome to the real world son.

[Jon_in_london]

Seg- put it this way:

Suppose Blix et al. and the 'coalition' inspector are exactly evenly matched.

Why should anyone be more inclined to grant Bush & Bliar's request for more time when they were not willing to grant the same to Blix?

Plus- the two sets of inspectors are by no means evenly matched. The UN inspectors were a much smaller group and had nowhere near the resources available to the coalition inspectors.
No spy satellites, no U2 spyplanes, no MI6, no CIA, no 300,000 troops to keep a beady eye out........

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by corplinx


No. Its merely idiocy from anti-Bush/Blair fanatics. The problem with Blix in Iraq wasn't finding WMD. The problem was finding weapons and eliminating them didn't resolve the Saddam problem. You find some weapons, he develops more. Weapons Inspections were a placebo for the weak-minded. We knew after a decade that the only way to disarm Saddam was to remove him altogehter.

Welcome to the real world son.

Im NOT complaining that Saddam has been removed. Thats good.
What bothers me is the way our beloved leaders have deceived us. If you want to get rid of someone because he/she is a nasty s**t, then make your case for war honestly.

IMO politicians that lie to start wars should be strung up.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
.

Why should anyone be more inclined to grant Bush & Bliar's request for more time when they were not willing to grant the same to Blix?


Blix had to fight bugged hotel rooms, fake scientists, and Iraqi subversion at every turn. And it still didn't solve the problem that if you in theory did find and destroy all WMD that Saddam will just build more.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Sorry, but to say that "all" evidence showed Saddam had disarmed is an absolute with doesn't hold up.
Okay, how about "all evidence since the war"?

Originally posted by Segnosaur
First of all, there was the lack of Iraqi evidence for the destruction of existing stocks. (If you have something illegal, and you don't prove that you've gotten rid of it, the logical assumption is that you still have it.) In fact, Iraq's activities should have been enough to arouse suspicion.
Yes it might arouse suspicion, and there might be reasons for Saddam to do such a thing. Nevertheless, no matter how logical it might seem, this supposition is still not evidence.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Blix himself suggested prior to the war that there were chemical and biological weapons unaccounted for, and that Iraq may not have been disarmed. See: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/1946168. Basically, prior to the war, many (most?) leaders assumed Iraq still had weapons; they just disagreed with the best way to handle them.
Yes he did. I was convinced that Iraq had WMDs. I always assumed we would find some rather quickly, once the war was over. I am truly surprised that we have been unable to uncover any evidence for them. Is it possible that Bush had fooled Blix too?

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Iraq may not have had any weapons. They may have destroyed them 4 years ago and not documented it. They may have destroyed them the day before the invasion. They may have hidden them very well. Whatever the case, to say that "all" evidence suggests they were disarmed is incorrect.
I see absolutely no evidence (since the war) for their recent existence. Every thing that has been pointed at as "evidence" has been a red herring.

Another piece of evidence against their existence is that even though there are still Baathist loyalists have carried out numerous attacks on coalition troops, none have used WMDs, which makes the "he gave them away" theory pretty unstable. Who better to give them to than his own loyalists?

And I am still waiting to see this "pre-war" evidence. What's the point of keeping it secret now? It couldn't be much of a security risk anymore. Bush could win a lot of support if he'd just show it.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Im glad that Saddam has left. That doesnt bother me. Want to go around declaring war on all tryrants? fine. Go on then... lots of tyrants waiting, lots of crickets chirping. Just dont lie to me about non-existant WMD as an excuse to start your war- which it turns out was really all about oil- US officials have even said so (Wolfowitz- economically we had no choice, the country (iraq) is swimming in oil).


You, ah, do realize that the whole Wolfowitz quote has been completely debunked, don't you?

When Wolfowitz made that comment, he was comparing North Korea and Iraq, and how energy sanctions may work in Korea, but wouldn't work in Iraq because they were "swimming in oil". However, the "swimming in oil" part was taken out of context (by a newpaper in the UK, among others) as "proof" that the war was about oil.

The quote has been discussed many times, and debunked in the media. I suggest you do some research on it before you use it to support your arguments.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by corplinx


Blix had to fight bugged hotel rooms, fake scientists, and Iraqi subversion at every turn. And it still didn't solve the problem that if you in theory did find and destroy all WMD that Saddam will just build more.

With what, pray tell? All that weapons grade uranium you have sitting on the shelf? Those weapons grade chemical precursors sitting in the closet?

You don't just have this stuff lying around. You have to get the materials somewhere. Oh wait, you buy it from Nigeria, right?

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


I would hardly call oil embargoes and putting a country on the "to be attacked" list diplomacy. Not very diplomatic diplomacy anyway.

Discrepancies? source? link?


So then, let the UN do its job, help them instead of slandering and hampering them. Let them do their job before launching a war that killed 1000s of Iraqis and 100s of US and UK troops. A war that has made the global security situation far worse.

Im glad that Saddam has left. That doesnt bother me. Want to go around declaring war on all tryrants? fine. Go on then... lots of tyrants waiting, lots of crickets chirping. Just dont lie to me about non-existant WMD as an excuse to start your war- which it turns out was really all about oil- US officials have even said so (Wolfowitz- economically we had no choice, the country (iraq) is swimming in oil).

Whether or not things will be better for the people of Iraq, and indeed the rest of the world, in the long run still remains to be seen.

Here is a link to the Blair discrepancy I was referring to:
http://www.aim.org/publications/guest_columns/metcalf/2003/mar10.html

There were several others I heard on the news over the last few months, but this was a link I had saved.

You say the WMD was 'non-existent' . So, you dispute the testimony of the Iraqi scientists? You say we should have let the UN do their job. Don't you think if they'd have done their job and enforced their own resolutions, this war might have been avoided? And, you really didn't answer my question about Saddam leaving. You don't think an embargo is diplomatic? How then do you think the NK situation should be dealt with? They've openly admitted to the development of nuclear weapons. You don't think that cause for concern? Or do we wait and see if 9/11 happens again...not just to the U.S....to anyone? And, I'm sorry, but I don't see where the US is trying to control Iraq's oil. Seems to me the most recent report I heard was that the US was backing Iraq's election of their own officials to handle that task...

You never addressed my question previously about WWII. Based on your idealogy, should the US have stayed out of that war since we were not directly under attack?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


You don't just have this stuff lying around. You have to get the materials somewhere. Oh wait, you buy it from Nigeria, right?

Or from France and Germany. (See: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003269)

On the other hand, its possible that Saddam was doublecrossed when trying to rebuild his weapons program: http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1369794,00.html

(Gee, what does a dictator have to do to get some respect from criminals?)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Or from France and Germany. (See: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003269)


You contradict yourself.

Here's what you said:

"Blix had to fight bugged hotel rooms, fake scientists, and Iraqi subversion at every turn. And it still didn't solve the problem that if you in theory did find and destroy all WMD that Saddam will just build more."

If you find and destroy all the stuff the weapons inspectors were looking for, there ain't going to be anything left to build anymore WMD. There won't be any anthrax, no weapons grade plutonium. So again I ask, if everything is destroyed, where are they going to get the materials to rebuild their WMD?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Tricky



Another piece of evidence against their existence is that even though there are still Baathist loyalists have carried out numerous attacks on coalition troops, none have used WMDs, which makes the "he gave them away" theory pretty unstable. Who better to give them to than his own loyalists?

And I am still waiting to see this "pre-war" evidence. What's the point of keeping it secret now?


good points

There are many prime targets in Iraq for the baath loyalists to target. (hope it never happens mind you - I do not want to see the coalition troops become casualties).

The "pre-war" evidence was sensitive information that would have put sources in danger if shared. Is that still true? Are these sources still in danger after the regime has fallen?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk



You say the WMD was 'non-existent' . So, you dispute the testimony of the Iraqi scientists?

Ah yes anecdotal evidence. What is anecdotal evidence worth without physical evidence to support the anecdotal evidence?

Did these scientists at one time work in a WMD program or a chemical/biological weapons program? Probably, the Iran/Iraq conflict is evidence that these programs existed at one time.

Did Iraq aquire hardware to support its programs. Possibly. Paper trails exist with the exception of black market transactions. How many pl@yst@ti0ns did the Iraqi regime aquire? Were they playing console games or did the console parts get used in Iraqi delivery systems or were they used to build a super-computer? The only way to find out is to see the physical evidence and see if paper trails and acecdotes/testimonials lead to a significant find.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
You don't think an embargo is diplomatic? How then do you think the NK situation should be dealt with? They've openly admitted to the development of nuclear weapons.

Oil embargoes tend not to be very good diplomacy. Ask the Japanese.

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Or do we wait and see if 9/11 happens again...not just to the U.S....to anyone?

What on earth does NK have to do with 9/11? :confused:

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
And, I'm sorry, but I don't see where the US is trying to control Iraq's oil.

Never heard of haliburton?

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
You never addressed my question previously about WWII. Based on your idealogy, should the US have stayed out of that war since we were not directly under attack?

Thats the perogative of the US. They had every right to stay out of WWII as long as they werent attacked (which the US did). But dont come with stories about how America's involvment in WWII was some great altruistic moral crusade.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Oil embargoes tend not to be very good diplomacy. Ask the Japanese.

How about asking the Japanese about real imperialism?

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Oil embargoes tend not to be very good diplomacy. Ask the Japanese.

What on earth does NK have to do with 9/11? :confused:



Thats the perogative of the US. They had every right to stay out of WWII as long as they werent attacked (which the US did). But dont come with stories about how America's involvment in WWII was some great altruistic moral crusade.


Ok..I refuse to believe your naive, so I'll try again. My point is that you seem contradictory in your responses. You don't think embargoes are diplomatic; you don't think war is an answer. You say the UN should be allowed to do its job but never answered my question concerning their refusal to enforce their own resolutions. You're glad Saddam is gone; you just don't like how we accomplished it. You say the world looks to us to act 'decently' and imply that the US shouldn't attack unless attacked. Yet, when I asked your honest opinion of our involvement in WWII, you say it was not some 'altruistic moral crusade'. I'd have thought you'd have at least given it status as 'decent' behavior. I never "came with a story" of any kind! Why do I compare NK to 9/11? Because we never saw 9/11 coming either, Jon. Get it? We didn't provoke Pearl Harbor. We didn't provoke Bin Laden. He made a lot of noise for a long time about hating Americans and we chose to ignore him. If we aren't going to resort to war (and I hope we don't) with NK and you don't think embargoes are a way to deal with the threat of their nukes, then would you PLEASE tell me what it is you think the U.S. should do? Leave it up to the U.N? Do nothing and hope NK doesn't provoke war with us? It just seems you have a lot of criticisms, but few solutions...

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser

Does Saddam Hussein exist? How about Osama bin Laden? Or Eric Rudolph?

Saddam and Osama must not exist. Why? Because they cannot be found. And, as we all know from witnessing the recent hyperventilation about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, if something can't be found, it must not exist. Hi! I've been trying to catch up on threads here in politics before getting back to posting regularly here, so I don't repeat too much of what people have already said in the past couple months. So I'm going to wait a bit before joining in the main discussion of this topic.

But this minor item in your post caught my eye, and I don't see anyone else having commented on it yet.

Eric Rudolph was caught, by an alert police officer (a rookie, as I recall) who spotted him near a dumpster. That was a couple of weekends ago. I've been meaning to check back in on the story for more details, so may do that later today if time permits.

So yes, Eric Rudolph does exist.

(Sorry to interrupt. Please continue.)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Why should anyone be more inclined to grant Bush & Bliar's request for more time when they were not willing to grant the same to Blix?

Because Bush and Blair have the aircraft, tanks, and artillery.

Blix had an impotent UN backing him up...

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


You contradict yourself.

Here's what you said:

"Blix had to fight bugged hotel rooms, fake scientists, and Iraqi subversion at every turn. And it still didn't solve the problem that if you in theory did find and destroy all WMD that Saddam will just build more."

If you find and destroy all the stuff the weapons inspectors were looking for, there ain't going to be anything left to build anymore WMD. There won't be any anthrax, no weapons grade plutonium. So again I ask, if everything is destroyed, where are they going to get the materials to rebuild their WMD?

You misattributed the quote... The comment about Blix, and Saddam building more WMD was written by corplinx.

Now, as for 'rebuilding' their weapons program, the ability to rebuild depends on how much, and exactly what was destroyed. Removing the final products while leaving everything else in tact is only a temporary measure. If growth media (for bioweapons) or chem weapon precursors are eliminated, it will slow down a weapons program a little more; however, these can be purchased on the open market, or in some cases, diverted from civilian use.

Removal of development facilities, or even the people involved in the development of the weapons themselves, is the 'best' solution. (That is why the famous "truck of death" has any relevance; even if all stocks are destroyed and growth media were eliminated, having the capacity to rebuild stocks means that an arsenal can be established in just a few months.)

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Iraq own people said they HAD them (past tense).

Well, which past tense is it?

Simple past tense?
Past continuous tense?
Past perfect tense?
Past perfect continuous tense?

In other words,... saying they HAD the weapons does not mean they no longer HAVE them. I had two legs. Wow! I still do.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
PS... (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030616ta_talk_gourevitch)



It reminds me of the movie "Point Break".

"You're cold because all the blood is running out of your body... You're going to be dead soon. I hope it was worth it."

Now I don't believe America is going to be 'dead' 'soon', but I still think that history will show the victory in Iraq will be a pyhrric one.
A pyrrhic victory is a victory where the victorious group had so many casualties that if it has another battle, it will lose. The U.S. had a ridiculously unpyrrhic victory in Iraq. Nearly 200 people died on the U.S. side in the invasion. Considering that possibly as much as 300,000 U.S. troops were sent into Iraq(that was from an estimate I read in an article before the invasion took place. It might be wrong.), that means that the death of an American soldier was a very rare occurence.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JAR

A pyrrhic victory is a victory where the victorious group had so many casualties that if it has another battle, it will lose. The U.S. had a ridiculously unpyrrhic victory in Iraq. Nearly 200 people died on the U.S. side in the invasion. Considering that possibly as much as 300,000 U.S. troops were sent into Iraq(that was from an estimate I read in an article before the invasion took place. It might be wrong.), that means that the death of an American soldier was a very rare occurence.

That was the literal source of the meaning. The term now also means a victory that turns out to be more trouble than it was worth in other terms. That is, the US is now trapped in Iraq, whether it likes it or not. If it leaves before it has installed a secure government that runs according to it's terms, it will have lost still.

In the meantime, events that force it to leave will have to be pretty serious, or even not so serious, but politically unpalatable for the folks at home. Clinton got of Somalia pretty quick, when he sensed the way that was heading, and far fewer troops had suffered casualities.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That was the literal source of the meaning. The term now also means a victory that turns out to be more trouble than it was worth in other terms. That is, the US is now trapped in Iraq, whether it likes it or not. If it leaves before it has installed a secure government that runs according to it's terms, it will have lost still.



Not to mention that it has severely damaged its international reputation for the sake of showing a little muscle. And now North Korea gets to take the moral high ground and threaten 'pre-emptive' strikes on Japan and South Korea. Good one, Yankees!

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
And now North Korea gets to take the moral high ground and threaten 'pre-emptive' strikes on Japan and South Korea.

Care to explain your reasoning here (if any)?

[JAR]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Not to mention that it has severely damaged its international reputation for the sake of showing a little muscle. And now North Korea gets to take the moral high ground and threaten 'pre-emptive' strikes on Japan and South Korea. Good one, Yankees!
You have a quote from Marx in your signature, your user name is Mr Manifesto and you think that North Korea, a communist country, "gets to take the moral high ground."

Are you a communist?