Where are the Weapons? - Through Syria, into the Bakaa Valle

[Ghost Writer]

Anti-war protestors, and whining liberals in general, have criticized the administration for not producing immediate evidence that Iraq actually had a Chemical, Biological, or Nuclear Weapons program. To me, this missing evidence is disturbing. It may mean that it has been removed from Iraq, and passed on to other enemy nations like Syria, Lebanon, or Iran. Just today, a paper jointly published by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency (http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraqi_mobile_plants/index.html#09) offers strong evidence of Iraq's mobile production facilities that were probably used to manufacture biological agents. These findings are consistent with the intelligence reports used in Secretary of State Powell's U.N. address. If other intelligence was correct, and the weapons we knew Iraq to possess in 1998 via UNSCOM existed, where did they go? If Saddam had ordered their destruction, wouldn't he have offered proof of such destruction, to twart the mounting threat of war? It seems to me as if these weapons have disappeared. Perhaps the fear that drove us to war in Iraq has been realized, and Iraq has passed them onto other enemy nations, or to terrorist networks around the world.

In fact, many will remember that shortly after the Iraq war was heralded as a success that the Bush administration started warning Syria about harboring Iraqi officials and weapons. I have heard that intelligence reports are circulating that point to the strong possibility that the weapons we are looking for have been buried in the Bakaa Valley in Lebanon. Supposedly, they are six 50 to 60 meters under the ground. There are indications that Iraqi leaders and weapon scientists were being sheltered in a clandestine operation by Syria to help discredit the U.S. military effort in the region. Not surprisingly, Russia and the French have also been implicated as co-conspirators.

There are serious problems in the region. I think our decision to send more troops into Iraq is also part of a decision to gear up for future action in Syria, and Lebanon. We will allow Iran to ride until we get those problem areas under control, since they are invariably linked to the violence inside Israel. If Bush's roadmap to peace is to succeed, we must choke Syria, and Hezbollah. Otherwise, a Palestinian state will only be used to stage future attacks on the Jewish people who are collectively hated by the Islamic world at large.

sources:
Busy Baghdad Highway to Damascus - US Close to Military Action against Iraqi and other Targets in Syria (http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=465)
Washington Post Story about the French Issuing Passports to members of Saddam's regime (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-talk/2003MayJun/0018.html)



(Edited by Ghost Writer at 9:00 am on May 30, 2003)

[Pete]

There are none. The CIA knew it the whole time. That is why they resorted to forged documents and half truths while leading up to the war. Everything else is either untrue, or manfucatured so that a moral panic could be created to give the cowboy a supposed mandate through the UN, which did not happen.

Bush's road map to peace will not be successful. The only peace in the Israel-Palestine issue will come when Israel is completely and utterly destroyed. That is the stark truth if one exams the forces at work in the region. I give that manfactured super-imperial/colonial nation 50 years at the most. And America will be driven from Iraq and Saudi Arabia soon enough. Any additional action by either side will fuel the fire that devours their digits in the region.

[Cassius Clay]

Right and Saddam didn't use these weapons because? To believe that he would then send them trough to Syria (without the U$A noticing, if that were true then not only would you be seeing glourios American soldiers fighting the mother of all battle's somewhere in the west of Iraq on CNN but also likely F-16's over Damascus) a nation run by a government who have had a intense rivallry with the Iraqi- Bathists for 25 years is even more stupid.

But coming from the same guy who thinks Saddam was a 'Socialist' this is hardly surprising.

[chamo]

The Secret Intelligence Services, that's MI6 to you and me, gathered "information" that the supposed missiles could be fired within 45 minutes of the order being given. The Prime Minister of Britain, that's Tony Blair to you, also assertains that the weapons will be found.
However, at the same time Donald Rumsfeld calmly demanded that they will probably never be found. Unsurprising really.

Also, there are reports that a member of the British government doctored the report into Iraq's supposed weapons to make it "sexier", meaning more alarming. This is how you can lie about things, have a war, and claim someone else did it.

The evidence of these "mobile laboratories" is also flawed, seeing as how no proof of any chemical or biological weapons in them has been found. The chemical suits are also a load of shit, I think nearly all countries will have some form of protection against chemicals in case they are attacked.

[Dirty Commie]

I have asked that question to myself and the answer I came up with was that they are none. The lies changed by thte week as the war progressed...The first excuse for attack was to disarm Saddam of his ''weapons of mass destruction'' the next excuse, after the invasion was to ''liberate the people'' (because shooting eleven year old protesters is liberty?)

The weapons are either going to be planted by the military, or made up, and 'destroyed' without any photographic evidence.

[Sabocat]

Oh...don't worry....they'll find the WMD's, the CIA is probably flying them in via C-141 or C-5A even as we speak. ;)

[Dirty Commie]

Quote: from Disgustapated on 11:37 am on May 30, 2003
Oh...don't worry....they'll find the WMD's, the CIA is probably flying them in via C-141 or C-5A even as we speak. ;)

I'm sure they have already arrived.:)

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Dude, I really am not concerned by Iraqi nukes, more by US tough.

Seen the US's history, knowing that they do everything for money and power, that they used weapons of mass destruction and poison substitutes to attack enemies several times in history.

I certainly fear more the US State rather then the previous Iraqi government.

I am certain that Iraq had Biological and Chemical weapons, the materials for it, can be found everywhere.

I don't think that they had Nuclear weapons, because they had no chance, room or time to create even the facilities.

[Zombie]

"other enemy nations like [..] Lebanon"

Enemy nation eh you twit? I'll let you know Lebanon, mainly it's ex-president Amin Gemayel, was fully cooperating with the US throughout the Iraqi conflict, and served as the principal mediator between both parties. So you've been dealing with enemy nations then! Oh the shame!

I wouldn't be surprised if they did find something in the Bekaa valley though, that area is almost fully occupied by Syrian troops. But as long as I can tell, the only thing you're gonna find there is prime Lebanese hash.

Better luck next time kiddo.

[Harmless Games]

You think the U$ would have viable evidence and publish it low key in one newspaper? NO. They would have a publicity bananza! It would mean that they were right and everyone else was wrong, and the reason we havent done this is the simple fact that there were none.

[Dirty Commie]

The sad thing is that the usa does no need evidence, no one will stand upto 'us' anyway... I fear for the worlds safety.

[atlanticche]

that laboratory is american

[Exploited Class]

I like how the mass of brainwashed people will believe anything and everything other than they weren't there. They will go out on any limb possible to explain the WMD except for the limb that says it is probable and more than likely that they just weren't there.

We had a person who worked there, dismantling the weapons, who was a registered republican saying they were all gone.

The information they used to say they were there, was plagurised, inacurate and wishful thinking at best.

There never was any known ties between 9-11 and Iraq.

Now here is funny part. If Saddam did have WMD, he would have them for what? To stop people from taking over his country, he would have used them when? When invading forces came into the country perhaps?

So he doesn't use them, instead he either
A. Deystroys them before forces enter into Iraq.

Why? Why is this even being brought up? What was he trying to do? Save his good name? His good gassing kurds name?

Oh he did it to make the Americans look stupid. hahaha he sure pulled one on all of us. What a setup. If you can believe that then it should be about 1000 times easier to believe that Bush knew of 9-11 and did nothing to stop it.

B. He moved them to other countries, somehow getting by the 200 satellites roaming over Iraq. Even though we can catch single individuals in this country, well enough, we let a whole bunch of chemical weapons just pass by.

In the end you are left with two possibilities and have to agree to one.

If you think the WMD left the country, then you have to admit that the US has bad intelligents, and that they are liars, liars to the UN and the rest of the world when they said they had intelligents and satellite evidence of the chemicals being produced.

Or you have to accept that we have excellent intelligence and we are allowing the chemicals to leave their country and didn't stop them. In which case, the reason being we want more wars with other countries.

I would say it is the first, considering now we are finding out that what we thought was a bunker of Saddam's that we hit in a pre-emtive attack, turns out to not even be a bunker, let alone Saddam there.

If that is the case, then we can't tell Iran and Syria that we know they are up to no good. Obviously we don't have the intelligence to be able to tell who is naughty and who is nice.

[Ghost Writer]

Sorry guys, but there is something seriously wrong with your assertion that this threat was manufactured by the CIA to justify the war. In addition, your assertion that we will plant the evidence does not add up either. First, there was nothing speculative about the laundry list of materials that Iraq was known to possess, as a result of previous weapons inspections. Detailed accounting of materials needed to make these agents were uncovered by UNSCOM, and many defectors aided us in our assessment of Iraq's weapons programs. In addition to this key point, there is ample evidence that Iraq had built their programs up around the weapons inspection process, thereby creating an illusive program that is hard to detect, even by the noses of those commissioned to find them. What is known, what is fact, is that Iraq possessed biological and chemical weapons.

If it is true that America knew these reports to be fraudulent, and manufactured them in order to justify the war, and they planned to plant the evidence, after the fact, why haven't these weapons been planted already? It seems to me that we have people within the Pentagon and Administration that understand, as I do, that these weapons exist, and they would rather find those weapons, rather than invent dangerous materials to support their reasons for war. Unlike the French, the United States happens to care about its credibility around the world, and it remains highly unlikely that America would fly in materials, which they do not manufacture in an attempt to justify the military action taken in Iraq.

[Pete]

America has no credibility. They have bigger guns than anyone else.

[abstractmentality]

Ghost Writer:

I thought we already went through this idea of WMD here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=1447&start=30). nothing has turned up, and i seriously doubt that anything will turn up.

on that note, i just got done reading a nice article on some aspects of this:
WASHINGTON (May 30) - The United States on Friday announced a major expansion of so-far fruitless efforts to find chemical and biological arms in Iraq, forming a team of 1,400 U.S., British and Australian experts to take up the hunt.

The Pentagon named Army Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton to head the new Iraq Survey Group, which will try to find alleged arms that Washington cited as its main justification for the invasion of Iraq in March that toppled President Saddam Hussein.

No such weapons have been found, and the move was announced just hours after Lt. Gen. James Conway, the top U.S. Marine officer in Iraq, said U.S. intelligence was ''simply wrong'' in leading the military to believe that the invading troops were likely to be attacked with chemical weapons.

''The Iraq Survey Group represents a significant expansion of effort in the hunt for weapons of mass destruction as we build on the efforts that are ongoing,'' Dayton, director of operations for the Defense Intelligence Agency, told a Pentagon briefing.

''We may get lucky. We may not. We may find out three months from now that there was a very elaborate deception program going on that resulted in the destruction of stuff.''

While the new group will be staffed by up to 1,400 people from the United States, Britain and Australia, it will increase the number of searchers in Iraq to about 300 from the current 200, Dayton said. Others will be involved in tasks ranging from analyzing documents to questioning people who may have knowledge of such weapons.

With offices in Baghdad, Qatar and Washington, the group will undertake other tasks including collecting information on terrorism, war crimes and prisoner of war issues, he said.

It will replace the U.S. military's 75th Exploitation Task Force, which has been looking for weapons for two months with no success despite visiting 220 of 900 suspected sites. A two-week transition period will begin no later than June 7.

''The goal is to put all the pieces together in what is appearing to be a very complex jigsaw puzzle,'' Dayton said.

But Conway, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, said in a teleconference with reporters at the Pentagon it was too early to say whether the United States also had been wrong in charging that Iraq had chemical and biological arms when the invasion began 2-1/2 months ago.

''We were simply wrong,'' he said of the assessment that chemical shells or other weapons were ready in southern Iraq and likely to be used against invaders by Saddam's forces.

''Whether or not we are wrong at the national level I think still very much remains to be seen. ... 'Intelligence failure,' I think, is still too strong a word to use at this point,'' said Conway, speaking from the town of Hilla, south of Baghdad.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials have expressed confidence such weapons will be found, although Rumsfeld this week conceded Iraq may have decided to destroy them ahead of the invasion.

Conway said he was convinced when U.S. and British troops swept into Iraq from Kuwait that they would come under chemical or biological attack before they reached Baghdad.

But such shells have not been found even in ammunition storage sites. ''It was a surprise to me then. It remains a surprise to me now that we have not uncovered weapons ... in some of the forward dispersal sites,'' said Conway. ''Believe me, it's not for lack of trying.''

Reuters 15:50 05-30-03

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

[Invader Zim]

Sorry NormaN Bbut several members of the intelegance agencys such as MI6 and the CIA have actually said how the governments had taken sources deamed by them as unreliable, such as the chemical weapons launch in 45 minutes of an order from Saddam etc.

The whole thing was a pack of lies

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq....ents/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html)

http://www.bushwatch.net/iraqevidence.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/15/...7583740556.html (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/15/1047583740556.html)

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/...,966702,00.html (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,966702,00.html)

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02...irq.uk.dossier/ (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/07/sprj.irq.uk.dossier/)

http://www.liberalslant.com/lwt051903.htm

[Zombie]

Unlike the French, the United States happens to care about its credibility around the world

Neither France or any other country gives a flying fuck about their credibility.
One question that pops up in my mind, credibility towards who?
The mass population? Propaganda is taking care of that.
Other governments? Massive investments and import/export contracts are taking care of that.
So credibility to who? Does it even exist in a capitalist world? Isn't money more important than what your neighbors think of you?

Finally, if credibility is what you are looking for, you could have at least made the effort to remove Saddam quietly, instead of pushing the whole world to go against you in all this turmoil.

Unless credibility isn't what you are after, maybe it is publicity that you truly want after all.

.A.

[Exploited Class]

Stormin, you have picked a bad side to stand, Bush is a 3 legged chair short 4 legs.

Shortly after your post, these wonderful news reports are coming out.

U.S. Insiders Say Iraq Intel Deliberately Skewed
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A growing number of U.S. national security professionals are accusing the Bush administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the $30 billion intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...telligence_dc_2 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030530/ts_nm/iraq_intelligence_dc_2)

So are these intelligent insiders just unpatriotic scum, commies maybe? Or do they now work for the French! Or are the intelligent insiders left out of the loop unlike yourself?

And of course this one that Powell and Straw had doubts over the intelligence on Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...,967548,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,967548,00.html)

But he told Mr Straw he had come away from the meetings "apprehensive" about what he called, at best, circumstantial evidence highly tilted in favour of assessments drawn from them, rather than any actual raw intelligence.

Adam Ingram, the armed forces minister, admitted the claim was made by "a single source; it wasn't corroborated".

[Ghost Writer]

There is something seriously wrong with the memorandum circulated by ex-intelligence officers who call themselves Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. None of them are currently briefed on current national security issues. Therefore, they do not have the knowledge that operatives in the field currently have, and they are not kept up to date on such matters.

I have a better story for you, coming from the Washington Post. Bill Tenet, the active director of the CIA stands behind the intelligence that led us to war (http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/151/nation/CIA_head_defends_Iraq_intelligence+.shtml).

I too, am fully comfortable in my position, as I am confident of my ability to discern the truth. My record of being right far outweighs any communist on this message board.

You would think that after a growing number of dead wrong predictions that the left has made they would get tired of being wrong. Well let me tell it to you straight, you are wrong and you will find yourself retracting your baseless accusations in the near future. No, you leftists wouldn't do that. You already have your cover story prepared. As soon as the bulk of the weaponry is found, you will simply accuse the Bush administration of planting the evidence.

Let me ask you in advance; how would such a massive conspiracy succeed without somebody on the inside getting cold feet, and feeling very uncomfortable lying to the American public, which they serve? These are men that believe in the system, and risk their lives to defend it. Do these men really seem like the type of people who would concoct such a lie, without conscience?

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 11:53 am on May 31, 2003)

[chamo]

Would Colin Powell and Jack Straw conduct such a lie?
I think they would. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,967548,00.html)

Maybe even some of your American Generals (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,967604,00.html) would like to admit that there are no weapons to be found.

The thing is, it was not necessarily the intelligence agencies who doctored and changed and lied about the documents of Iraq's weapons, it was the politicians. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html) After all, they are the ones in the best position and the most comfortable about lying.

Maybe the army were too busy torturing (http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,11816,967527,00.html) the Iraqi Prisoners of War to bother looking for the weapons?


(Edited by happyguy at 2:13 pm on May 31, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

I dare anyone to find information that directly refutes any of the keys points addressed in the CIA's October 2002 assessment titled Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#01). Give specific information, and a detailed account of the sources used to discredit this document. Do not use Scott Ritter, as he has been thoroughly discredited. Furthermore, refrain from using sources that have an obvious anti-war slant. The CIA's information is well documented and has not been effectively refuted. News reports that use sources, such as the opinions of retired intelligence personell will not do, neither will reports that merely suggest there are active agents who 'disagree with the assessment'. I want hard data, compiled from other intelligence services, or weapons inspections processes. You mean to tell me that it does not concern anybody in the least that the materials describe in the report have turned up missing. along with the man who issued the orders to develop them? That is what is happening, the whole world knew these programs existed, and now they would rather question the credibility of the United States, instead of an obviously corrupt government that massacred its own people. God damn, if this man carried out torture chambers, and systematically filled mass graves; why is it so hard for you leftist to accept the fact that he was developing such agents?

[Ghost Writer]

What should also interest anyone concerned with this issue is the key suppliers of such technology. Look at the CIA's Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/bian/bian_apr_2003.htm#12), specifically the key suppliers listed. Among the nations helping to procure such weaponry exists Russia, North Korea, and China. It is interesting that the assessment for the following six month period lists Western European nations as suppliers. This would indicate that we are closer than ever to outing the French and Germans as being part of the problem. If fences aren't mended, we may end up labeling a couple past allies among our enemies.

I don't think that we have people in the field, putting their lives at risk for the purpose of producing fiction. Consider the fact that this is what they deem to be safe for public consumption. What else do you think they know? I am sure that much of what the intelligence community has knowledge of would make the general public shit their pants. What a thankless position it is, ensuring the safety of the American people. You spoiled little shits don't have the slightest understanding of the world, although you pretend to.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 2:22 pm on May 31, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

I must once again stress that our best chance of finding these weapons is to follow the advice of Israeli intelligence, which contends that the weapons were buried in the Bekaa Valley (http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=482). We have been discussing an attack on this hotbed of terrorism since 9-18-01.

Although Russia cleaned out most of the intelligence documentation linking them to Iraq, a survey group is going to sift through the documents that were found in an effort to 'solve this jigsaw'. The effort to uncover these weapons is being expanded under the Iraq Survey Group (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030530-0231.html).

[Pete]

Ghost Writer, what you are attempting to prove is that the social construction of a WMD scare is really true. Your moral crusader/entrepeneur/enforcer is only trying to keep his job, and that of his friends. Nothing wrong with that is there?

Welcome to the basics of the Social Construction of Moral Panics.

1. A Kernal of Truth: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction programs. Chemical/Biological Weapons are not WMD, but Nukes are. Yes Saddam did try to build them at one time but those were all dismantled after the 1st Gulf War.

2. Media Magnification: OH MY GOD! THEY MUST HAVE THEM THEY MUST! Obviously this kernel of truth is exploded into a full blown fact, even though all of the defectors say "We have them, but they are gone now" in their faulty English. The media records it as "We have them." Oh my god we are all going to die!

3.Politico-Moral Entrepeneurs: To gain or keep their jobs a group of highly moralistic people, aka one imbecilic reborn christian, parades around on the media magnified kernal of truth until he gets his way.

4.Professional Interest Groups: Ex-generals walk into news rooms and talk about evil Iraq's WMD stock pile which they must surely have seeing the President's actions and the media can't lie or exagerate can they? Anyways even if they do can't these old men make a ton of money talking about where they were?

5.Historical Context of Conflict: "He tried to kill my daddy." Enough said to discredit Dubya. (alont with everything else)

6.Linking WMD to "Dangerous Class.": Saddam supports Al Qaeda regardless of the numbers of times he has been labeled 'infidel' or they have tried to kill him! He is a terrorist! GET HIM!!!!


I hope that clears things up. Isn't sociology beautiful?

[Ghost Writer]

I don't think I have seen a bigger pile of crap in my life. Sociology? Yeah, sociology will give you a future at Burger King. That's about it. Sociology is no substitute for common sense.

What about refuting any of the information given in the CIA report? Claiming that the government is lying when the facts don't support that view is simple denial. In your case, the denial is idelogically based. Like I have said, the left is constantly making horrible predictions about what will happen. Whether they apply the sociology that they learned in their liberal arts colleges or not, they are consistently wrong. What about that? How many times are your people going to be wrong before they learn to shut their filthy mouths. I guess the track record of people's predictions can be outweighed by the altruistic ends to which they are employing there stupidity.

Let me ask you this. Are you going to be embarrassed when the weapons are found?

[Pete]

The facts from the defectors make the CIA irrelevant. Aswell the Brits did use a grad paper from a while ago. Makes you wonder how good your sources must be.

Sociology is more powerful than common sense as it scientificaly examines common sense.

It has been so long I would not trust anyones proof.

EDIT: Your comment on Sociology equalling flipping burgers is a typical capitalist approach to any non-science field, but Universities have proved that arts students are usually better employed.

(Edited by CrazyPete at 11:01 am on May 31, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

"it scientificaly examines common sense"

Hah! I can tell that you have a gross misunderstanding of science. Update: sociology is not a science.

[Pete]

It is a social science. Not a natural or physical science.

[Ghost Writer]

Are there any predetermined laws that can be applied? Can outcomes be predicted? Can behavior of the system be explained? It seems as if the only thing that sociology is capable of is describing the system. However, the validity of those descriptions remains questionable. You are correct. Sociology is a social science, a soft science, a psuedo-science. Most of the time the methods of pure science can not be applied, and sociology must rely on quasi-experiments, like prospective designs and ex post facto designs to complete their research. Replication is a problem for this psuedo-science, as is randomization, and control of dependent and extraneous variables. Soft science has its uses, and most of the time they must be looked at together. For instance, we must take economic, historical, and psychological factors into consideration in order to practice sociology. However, the formula you provided was crap. It seems to use a hodge-podge of useless garbage that has absolutely no bearing on the scenario we are discussing. You formula lacks the simplicity and symmetry that most scientific laws possess. To regard it as law is foolish, at best.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 11:17 pm on May 31, 2003)

[Xvall]

OMG! LOL!

I'm so sorry Ghost Writer. You are absolutely right. What the fuck was I thinking? It's quite apparent that the evil forces of Al Quieda and Saddam Hussein all flew the weapons on giant chemical-facility-sized magic carpets.

[Pete]

GW. Sociology has the capability of prediction, but of course humans are random. In that randomness, though, we fit into certain general patterns (such as the one I used to show the stupidity of Mr. Bush's claims). That same model can be used to show why marijuana is illegal in America, and only just decriminalized in Canada. It can be used to examine past and current events to predict future events. Right after Sept 11 2001 I pointed to Afganistan as America's first target that very day. How? I applied a formula (similar to this one infact), proven by exaiming the steps to war in a variety of other cases, and the propaganda was there. The moral crusaders just needed a spark to jump on.

All science is flawed. It assumes 2 things. 1) Everything was as it is now in the past and 2) Everything will be the same as it is now in the future.

Call it as you wish, but GW, it does not matter what site you give me the weapons do not exist.

[Pete]

However, the formula you provided was crap. It seems to use a hodge-podge of useless garbage that has absolutely no bearing on the scenario we are discussing. You formula lacks the simplicity and symmetry that most scientific laws possess. To regard it as law is foolish, at best.

LOL.

First of all it is a universal. It is perfectly compatible with this scenario, and I gave you examples for each point.

Secondly did you not see the 7 simple catergories that exist? I do not know what you mean by symetry though. Do you mean stuff like y=mx+b^2?? Where there is an equal sign??

This is less a law but more a way of putting things into perspective, and one, it seems, you disagree with. That is your choice, but remember it is easier to accept a really big lie than a small one, and Mr. Bush has fed us a HUGE conspiracy theory that just does not exist.

[abstractmentality]

Well then, the CIA document really is nothing more than a joke. read it carefully, and you will see.

From the Chemical Weapons portion:
"More than 10 years after the Gulf war, gaps in Iraqi accounting and current production capabilities strongly suggest that Iraq maintains a stockpile of chemical agents, probably VX, sarin, cyclosarin, and mustard." - CIA report

"Iraq probably has concealed precursors, production equipment, documentation, and other items necessary for continuing its CW effort."

"Iraq probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents."

"...capabilities that can be diverted quickly to CW production."

From the Biological Weapons portion:
"Iraq has the capability to convert quickly legitimate vaccine and biopesticide plants to biological warfare (BW) production and already may have done so."

"there are compelling reasons to be concerned about BW activity at other sites and in mobile production units and laboratories."

This report really is a joke. i have made bold the words i see as key in this report. They all show how strong the evidence the CIA has is, with words like "can", "probably", "compelling", etc. These words all point to circumstantial "evidence" and thoughts about what could be happening in Iraq, without any actual evidence. All "actual evidence" are things about prior to the Gulf War, and things that were caught by UNSCOM.

You say that you want us to use well documented sources, when the CIA can only talk about circumstantial evidence, it reallt is funny. All of the sections on Chemical Weapons and Biological Weapons dont provide any evidence as to what is actually happening at the time of this report (2002).

Also, i think we have discussed the credibility of Scott Ritter, and i dont think you did too well in that discussion. if he were to have lied about weapons stock piles in other situations, than i would agree with you that his credibility isnt all too much. However, to my knowledge, he hasnt. the child molestation case was dismissed, and should not be held against him.

Furthermore, your article from Debkafile isnt very documented either. it simply says "DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s intelligence sources" and nothing more. it says they have sources, and nothing more. they dont go into depth whatsoever. i have sources too, but does that make them credible, or truthful? We dont know anything about their sources. really, a useless article.

so, do you have any other "evidence" to bring up?

[kelvin90701]

[quote]Quote: from abstractmentality on 7:35 pm on June 1, 2003
Well then, the CIA document really is nothing more than a joke. read it carefully, and you will see.

/quote]

Granted. No WMDs.

The end of the 1st Gulf War, the Iraqi agreed to unrestricted inspections, no fly zones, etc. We agreed to stop shooting at them.

They broke the treaty, we kept our promise to resume shooting.

[Pete]

Acually the shooting never ended.

[abstractmentality]

Well, kelvin90701, i dont really think the Iraqi government had much of a choice at the end of the Gulf War as to what they were going to agree to or not. the Shi'ite rebellion spelled trouble for the Iraqi government, and they needed some help to stop the rebellion. who better then the US? well, i wouldnt doubt that the Iraqi government giving those no fly zones had something to do with the Iraqi government using US arms to defeat the rebellion.

but you do agree on the assesment of the CIA report i did?

[Exploited Class]

Well as far as do I think if the Bush regime would plant evidence? Given the time frame of being in the country, which is now bording on two months, still with little evidence to back their war, I can see them doing it. They didn't have to plant evidence at first because they all thought that, "Probably" or Maybe", or "There's a good chance" that the Iraqis have these WMD, so there is a good chance we will find them.

You see it throws down like this. The US says, "Our awesome and excellent intelligence that is so great sees the following things. We see that right before UN inspection teams show up to sites, we see iraq moving things before. Also with all this great intelligence we hear them talking about it. On top of all that we know for sure without a shred of doubt, because of all this wonderful intelligence, we know where they are keeping it."

So the rest of the world says, "Please share all this wonderful data with the UN inspectors so they know exactly where to go so we can see the fruits of all your intelligence data."

The US says, "NO" and some kind of excuse that is good for some people like top secret or hurt spies comes up as the excuse. Then a few people say, "Sure, that sounds about right."

But the pressure is on to show all this great intelligence with the UN. Finally the US says ummm okay and gives it to them. The UN goes to prove the US right and shows up at the sites, and nothing is found.

The US says, use excuse #2. "The Iraqis moved it or something diabolical." And some of the people in the world say, sure why not Saddam is pretty bad so he probably did move it, and Saddam has better intelligence than 400Billion dollar Military budget America and must of intercepted top secret information ahead of time and moved whole factories just minutes before UN inspectors showed up."

So the US says, "That was close, that excuse worked."

Then it becomes a few months and the patients of the US is getting thin. Because all these UN inspectors have yet to find something except these rockets of non mass destruction. And then Iraq deystroys these crappy missles that can go 30 miles farther than they are suppose to. Which is good because they could have been used to stop the 100,000 soldiers massing on their border.

Then the US says, give us the stuff we claim you have now. Iraq could then start making stuff that they weren't suppose to just to give the US something, but instead went with the, "We don't have it, we can't give you something we don't have." The US says "Prove it"

Then Iraq says "Prove a negative? How? Oh okay then we will prove it by letting people, inspectors, in and look around."

US says, "No we did that and they didn't find anything."

Iraq says, "Did you think they didn't find it because there is nothing here?"

US says, "No, because well no."

Then Iraq says, "Why don't you invade our country and then you will have full control and can look anywhere and everywhere with your hundred of thousands troops and see there is nothing here. Then you can use all that wonderful and not made up intelligence to verify that we in fact do have WMD."

The US says, "Sure we will do that."

Then all the cameras, satellites and listeners turned off. Intelligence people went on a vacation and stopped paying attention to Iraq, because there was a war on and what good could they do. They did their part earlier.

Then the war is over and the world says, "And the WMD that you promised would be there and was the main reason for you taking control of their country?"

The US says and back tracks, "The WMD wasn't the main reason and we think you only get that idea because Powell talked about it for over an hour to the world at the UN."

Then the US says, "We know we had all these wonderful intelligence reports, we could hear generals talking before, had satellite photos of all this great stuff, but none of that works now and we think we let them go to Syria, somehow. or we will use excuse #4, they deystroyed it while our intelligence team was on vacation."

Then the world says, "Oh well this all makes sense, because Saddam wouldn't want to use WMD on invading forces, but he just had it to have."

On the other side of the world people were looking for Santa Claus, and never found him. And everybody said why? And they said, well the north pole is big. Then they said, you have been all over the North Pole, why haven't you found him yet? And they say, "He hides really, really well" oh. Then they say, "It has been a long time, why have you yet to find him?" Because we need more time.

A thousand years pass, and still no Santa Claus.

Why?

Because you could a million years to search for something but if it doesn't exist, no matter how much of a belief you have they he does, you can't find what isn't there. Not untill you get so discouraged you grab somebody off the street and dress him up as Santa Claus, just the be done with it.

[Ghost Writer]

The fact that the CIA uses words like probably, may have, and strongly suggests has to do with the nature of inductive logic. There are plenty of criteria for examining the strength of such an argument. They include the strength of the conclusion, scope of the conclusion, amount of evidence supporting the conclusion, and the variety of evidence.

As we have seen the amount of evidence in the case of Iraq's weapons program is certainly compelling. There also exists a wide variety of evidence that supports the conclusion. However, the point you chose to attack has to do with the scope, and strength of the conclusion.

You choose to attack the CIA's use of conclusion indicator words, in an attempt to render their argument useless. However, your criticism is wrong for the following reason. The scope of the conclusion being reached and the degree of certainty associated with the conclusion are logically tied together. Rule number one, when using making an inductive argument, the stronger the conclusion being reached, the more likely that it will be wrong. Therefore, if you use weaker conclusion indicators, your argument is actually stronger. Obviously, watering down the certainty that one attributes to the conclusion being made actually strengthens the argument.

What we should be looking at is the overall inductive strength of the argument, and its cogency. An argument is inductively strong if and only if it is improbable that the premises are true and the conclusion false. However, this measure is not good enough, when we are concerned about the truth of the argument. In this case, we must also look to cogency, the inductive argument's equivalent to deductive soundness. An argument is inductively sound if it is inductively strong, and its premises are true. By all of these measures the CIA's argument is inductively sound. (http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/R/Wayne.D.Riggs-1/courses/intro/2001-spring/unit1-oh.html#INDSOUND)

We must look at the whole argument, not just the indicator words. I will give you my own simple argument, for you to evaluate on its strength and cogency.

1.)We know that Saddam had weapons prior to the 1st Gulf War.

2.)We know that Saddam has used these weapons to kill his own people.

3.)We know that many Iraqi scientists have the know how to develop these weapons, by virtue of Western education.

4.)Further inspections found that all of Saddam's production facilities, stockpiles, and caches of weapons were not destroyed during the 1st war. We know this by virtue of them being uncovered by inspectors.

5.)We have invoice data that offers support that he continued his WMD programs even during UN inspections.

6.)Inspectors were severely hindered prior to their removal in 1998.

7.)We know that Saddam never produced evidence to support his government's assertion that they were all destroyed. This is important because this was an admission on the part of the Iraqis that our data was not far from accurate.

8.)We have SIGINT of Iraqi soldiers discussing banned weapons while the latest UNMOVIC inspection was being conducted.

9.)We have found mobile weapons production facilities recently. An affirmation of some of the intelligence used prior to the 2nd war.

10.)We know that production facilities existed in Northern Iraq.

11.)We know of Iraqi involvement with foreign intelligence services.

12.)We know the Syria and Iraq have a good relationship, and that both systems were ruled by Baathist regimes, before the war.

13.)Many on the 52-card deck have been obtained, and were hiding in Syria.

14.)We also know that the Bekaa Valley is a virtual snakes den of terrorists hostile to the United States.

15.)We know that Russia and France had a vested interest in blocking the U.S. motion for war.

16.)We know that Russian intelligence services are top notch, and have the capacity resources needed to move the amount of weapons that Iraq was thought to possess. This methodology was developed during the Cold War when the Soviets devised creative systems for hiding mobile launch vehicles. In addition, our ability to accurately quantify the number of Soviet ICBM's was likely impeded by this.

17.)If foreign governments were complicit in Iraq's WMD program, they would have a vested interest in keeping themselves from being implicated in the conspiracy to develop these weapons.

18.)Russia went broke after the cold war, thus their government and scientists sought to profit from their expertise in this area.

19.)Russian operatives were active inside Iraq, while the terms of warfare were being discussed in an International Body Politic.

20.)Iraq built much of its capability while being subjected the frequent inspections. Therefore, it evolved into a highly illusive, well-organized system of protocols and contingencies.

21.)We know that we gave them ample warning of an attack. Therefore, they could have bought themselves enough time to remove the weapons they had invested large amounts of illegal oil money into developing.

22.)We know that large convoys of refugees were traveling west after the initiation of 2nd war.

Therefore, Iraq probably retained their weapons, and sought to hide them using the help of foreign intelligence services, premeditated protocols, and contingency plans engineered before the fact. Even with the help of foreign intelligence, the chances for detection over a long haul would be greater. Therefore they may have moved them through a friendly country that was probably paid off in advance, and hid them in an area still controlled by forces hostile to the United States, yet close enough to lessen the chances of being detected. Some have pointed to the Bekaa Valley, and I agree that this is a likely location. Even if the weapons do not exist in the valley, it is a source of contention that must be dealt with. Finally, I still believe that we must actively pursue the chemical, biological, and nuclear components that Iraq was known to possess, so the logical result of weapons of this type in the hands of Gihadist does not come to fruition.

At the very least, it is important to document the fate of those weapons, so the American public can sleep better at night. I think that anyone who assumes that these weapons were an apparition, concocted by the Bush administration are fooling themselves, and everyone living in a western nation should be concerned with the disappearance of chemical and biological agents. This matter is far too serious to be politicized, and we should all be demanding full disclosure of their whereabouts. The truth about this matter is of importance, and that is what should prevail. Those who would rather politicize the argument, and forget about the implications of these materials, I believe are making a mistake.

Since, the analysis of raw intelligence is a subjective undertaking, no deductive argument can be made either way. We can only look at the probability of the conclusion. Those who do not trust our government on this matter are playing an unhealthy game of Russian roulette, and a Dutch book argument can be made against them based on the odds. Those who believe as I do are taking the case that has a higher probability. This is a gamble. My bet is on the table, as is yours. Now all we can do is see how it plays out in the future. I am comfortable that I am making the right bet.

I did not come to this conclusion lightly, because my view is the result of critical research into the topic, conducted objectively. Unfortunately, we might lose either way. If I am right, people might die, left or right of the political spectrum. If you are right, our governmental institutions have lost further credibility and democracy suffers as a result. I hope that I am right, and this wager ends in the classic movie ending, where the bad guys are thwarted in their attempts to do immeasurable harm to the world's people.

[Invader Zim]

Its an interesting question. Im sure that until recently Saddam did have weapons of Mass destruction, this we know because our governments in the west sold them to him when he was fighting Iran. He also fired these at his own people. However several are still apparantly unaccounted for. This has 4 possible scenario's

- He destroyed them before the war. Which i think is unlikley as he is fond of using them.

- He has hidden them somewhere in Iraq.

- He shipped them to a naibouring nation. However In saddams position i dont think i would give away my wmd as i may find them being used on me in the future.

- He used them all against his own people and the Iranians.

I believe that only two of them are likley really likley or a mixture of all of them.

This is my theory anyway.

PS and yes the CIA and MI6 have been lying out there asses all the way through this.

[notyetacommie]

I am glad to read one thing of your pile of crap, GW. You still shit hearing the name of my country, Russia.
Your point No18 is also intriguing. Who pushed Russia to its present state? Whose economists gave advise that lead us to misery? Who supported bloody dictator Yeltsin who bombed the legally elected Parliament?
Next, what's the point of building and hiding WMDs if you don't use them in the time of war? One rocket of those that flew to Kuwait, passing successfully your invincible "Patriots" would be enough to quit with your army, but Saddam didn't do it! Why, Ghost, why? What's the point?

[Sabocat]

I find it highly unlikely that all the U$ spy satellites and spy planes wouldn't have detected either movement, burial, or pre war destruction of the so called WMD's. You would think that there would be at least a modicum of importance placed on watching these things, since they were planning an invasion based on them.

If Colin Powell (liar/deceiver/bad salesman), could show the world his supposed pictures of the weapons, then why couldn't they watch what happened to them?

Mmmm.....smells like bullshit to me.

[Ghost Writer]

To me it sounds like Intel resources may have been allocated poorly on the eve of war. We probably placed higher priority on target identification, assumming that we would have no trouble finding those weapons once we were on the ground.

How many satellites do you suppose we have? We were not about to let our guard down in other areas of interest. If you remember, North Korea was acting up at that time. Perhaps this was a diversionary tactic orchestrated by the Chinese, in order to ensure that we would divert intelligence assets to other areas. Maybe babysitting the Korean Peninsula gave the Iraqis the cover they needed to smuggle the weapons out.

Trust me, the Russian program has been trying to master counter-surveillance on our satellites. Perhaps they got the timing right. It is possible to figure out overflight schedules, and operate within the blindspot.

Whatever happened, somebody f*cked up. However, the weapons exist. You ask why Saddam wouldn't use them on our troops. I ask why would Saddam choose to go to war when he could have provided the requested information, and demonstrated that he had destroyed them. I bet Saddam figured that he could use them at a time of his choosing, since he was successful at getting them out of the country. I only hope that special ops is all over this one. We must remember the old addage, revenge is a dish best served cold.

[abstractmentality]

GW:
Ok, so, what you have produced is nothing more than circumstantial evidence. can you convict someone of murder solely on circumstantial evidence? to my knowledge, no.

on to point 9. can you find me a news article to this, not a CIA document. surely if something like this was found it would be reported in any credible (i use this term loosely) news service. as far as i can remember, they thought that found a mobile manufacturing facility only later to figure out it was not anything they thought it was.

ok, with your thoughts on the use of the word probably, you are telling me that when i write my history paper on democracy, liberty, and justice in Latin America with respect to specific readings we had to do, that if i show circumstantial evidence to support a thesis that is probably correct, i am going to get a good grade? i wrote a paper earlier this quarter, and in it i wrote that since we can see these previous factors, we can assume this, and was immediatley marked down for that comment (he wrote in the margin about how one should never do that in any credible paper). furthermore, the fact that Iraq had WMD doesnt necessarily mean that they must have them today (or moved them to a different location). your argument does have holes in it. for instance, your argument is something like: because Iraq had WMD, and did not prove they destroyed them (by UN standards), they must have them today (or have moved them elsewhere). However, that argument is fundamentally flawed in that they could have disposed of the WMD by other means, or allowed them to waste by their natural process, as described here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=1447&start=30). Many factors are not accounted for in your premices, and can therefore your conclusion can be false.

So its China's fault that we missed the exporting of Iraqi weapons? LOL. that is funny. it really is.

(Edited by abstractmentality at 11:02 am on June 2, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

"can you convict someone of murder solely on circumstantial evidence"

Yes, people have been convicted solely on circumstantial evidence.

With respect to inductive strength of an argment, I suggest taking a full course in logic.

It sounds like the professor who made those remarks on your paper was an English teacher. Although English teachers are supposed to be experts on gramatical syntax, many of them know nothing about logic, which is the study of logical relations within language.

It is true that teachers will tell you not to use such language in a persuasive speech. However, when you get into the real world, and have to lay your ass out on the line for something that is inductively supported, not known to be 100% true, you are better off making sure that the degree of certainty you place on your argument matches the scope of the conclusion. Otherwise, you may find yourself in the wasteland of professional suicide, with your credibilty and reputation shot to shit.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 12:24 pm on June 3, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

Here you go vox.

[Dirty Commie]

Ghost wanker, if you take out the "LL" (which means lame load of... ) in bull shit, you have bush-it...coincidince? conspiracy?

Sends right wing theories of your's down the drain.

[Loknar]

There were likely WMD's in Iraq. Bush is taking a huge risk doing this, it is in his best intereasts that the weapons are found, if they arent he is in deep trouble.

[IHP]

Apparently Tony Blair's approval rating has plummetted as a result of this as well. If only the Honourable John of Arabia's approval here would drop.

--IHP