How come the US haven't found any nukes in Iraq? (some more scrutiny)

Remove all ads!

How comes that the US, now that they are roaming Iraq, with special forces "de-luxe-inspectors", in thousands haven't found notable quantities of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

I need guidance to prevent me from falling into the scary belief that the US, despite being right for being victorious, have been lying about this (or beeing simply ignorant or, worse, indifferent). Any explanations? I mean, none of you seriously believes they all were sent to Syria? Or Iran even?

[ June 05, 2003, 11:52: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,244748,00.html

Ragusa, of course. I mean who's more trustworthy, Powell send by Bush or Joschka Fisher ?

Joschka Fischer, no doubt. But you know, it's pretty hard to find out, if something is pesticide or ... ah ... pesticide.

Even more, when they have no German equippement

 

I too am curious, but I think it's too soon to pass judgement. The military part more or less ended today with Tikrit, so now they can devote more divisions to seeking them out. I'm confident they'll be found, under what circumstances though is still anyone's guess (they've been moved, buried, dismantled and spread out to be reassembled later, whatever). I mean come on - it's only been 3 weeks. I wouldn't expect any major discovery to be made this soon anyway.

You could very well be right Ragusa - but for me, just because they didn't trip over warheads as they stepped through Saddam's palace door doesn't mean they aren't very well hidden. Too soon to tell IMO.

 

If they don't find any, they'l set them up, so it makes no diference...

 

Right, we will set them up. We are just running around finding WMD for insects (pesticides) for fun. We like looking the fool.

If we were going to plant them, why wouldn't we have done it already?

[ April 14, 2003, 20:59: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

Darkwolf wrote:

Darkwolf, you can't deny some irony. It's funny how quickly things change. Now, it's the US-Military running around :" Hey, it's not so easy, give us more time, be patient, hey, rome wasn't build in a day..."

1 month ago, they knew exactly where everything was.

 

It's not only about trusting or not trusting the gvt. Here's a funny episode about all the evidence needed, reflecting to a good part what I have experienced here, by an american:

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5631

Sometimes "Trust me." must do ....

 

Ragusa -- Because the WMD are all in Syria now -- along with the ghost of Saddam.

 

but ... when it is for the ghostly WMDs and the ghost Saddam ... isn't it some kind of a witchhunt then?

*******************************************

PS: Some more neat links, about intel and proofs for Saddam's suspected evils:

http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1

I especially like that part:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,794759,00.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0210-05.htm http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,druck-244748,00.html

A rough translation of the last link as it is in german:

[ April 15, 2003, 19:49: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Yes, the Bush adminsistration, much like the puritans of Salem, have learned the use of fear very well. The "ghost" of Saddam will be with us for a long time. We won't see it, but we will be assured that it is there.

 

That is of course exaggerated, anyway, here's another nice episode from an pre-war interview with Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview on Fox News Sunday, when Wolfowitz was asked if Saddam could do anything to convince the US that he has no WMDs, no links to Al-Quaida or was no threat even:

So did the american gvt actually know what to look for? - therefor saying "We'll know when we see it?". Or is it more that the US didn't need any proof as all they wanted was a regime change anyway? Then all the babbling for threat, WMDs and disarmament in international councils was just a big hypochrisy and a continued lie. A lie not only to the world, but especially to the congress and the US public.
That would also explain the crudely forged evidence and the blunt lies the US delivered to the world.
After such an amount of undeserved trust allowing this war to happen, I'd now really like to see some real evidence now, afterwards, even more as the US now start threatening Syria, in a tone and way sounding still familiar from the iraq-war prelude.

While " Comical Ali" entertained the world with his fantastic lies, bringing back the spirit if 1001 nights to Baghdad, who will be the joker in the US crew? "Cynical Rummy"?

[ April 16, 2003, 12:16: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

This applies to all goverments in the world they are LIARS and they think that we are stupid. But somehow we must oppose them and do not accept everything they say for granted. US administration is having just a bigger problem than the rest goverments because they is in the front line alone. Of course the way they run politics are simply too barbaric and somewhat naive, so they are getting a lot more mistrust than any other US goverment in the past.
I also remember that the US goverment and especially mr Bush after the invasion began has not mentioned the (pathetic in my opinion) excuse of Iraq's disarmament except the cases where he was asked to say something for that matter. The pretext after the invasion was to liberate the Iraqies from their oppressor and their misery!!!
And after that it is time for Syria to be liberated from her own dictator. Man i really believe they think we are complete idiots. They use the excuse of Saddam and Bin Laden speculated existence in wherever they see fit just to play with our fears and take their words for true.

 

See, I don't think anyone ever claimed this. If you say so, will you support please?

I'd once again point out that like the proclamations of a failed coalition strategy a week into the campaign this may all be premature. I don't know if it is but the point is -- neither do you.

 

At Laches:

That Powell speech in front of the UN-security council.
When you proof that WMDs exist in Iraq with pictures, how can you not know where the WMDs are ?

 

Because we just went there for the oil. Also, to make girls wear pants and have to suffer through college, as well. It's part of our war against Islam.

Also, we needed some breathing room. It's nice to have a colony that we use for sheer profit. We're thinking about using indentured Iraqi servants for our occupational forces. A harem for making E-4, and whatnot.

 

The bottom line is that this administration is struggling at home. Without the war, they are pretty much finished. Their approval on the economy and domestic issues is dissmal. As long as they can keep the war thing going, they have a big approval rating.

Same with the American media -- the war is programming for profit. They know that the war has kept viewers glued to the TV, and advertisers might sell lots of cars as a result. The bottom line is the bottom line for these guys. I'm just plain tired of it all.

[ April 17, 2003, 06:31: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

No.

I watched the Powell speech. He never said, "we know exactly where WMD's are."

He did say things like, "we have evidence they have WMD's based on the sale of x,y,z which are used to produce WMD's. They explain this away based upon them being normal munitions but that is highly unlikely because that would put the Iraqi normal munitions into a higher quality category than those used by China, the UK, France, or the US which we find highly unlikely."

Now, I din't find the Powell speech persuasive. That's not the point. The point is that for you to say that in it he states the US knows exactly where WMD's in Iraq are is either based on a lack of personal knowledge of what he said, perhaps if you had difficulty understanding the speech, or intentionally misleading.

Also, I'd just point this out:

the proposition: Iraq has weapons of WMD's based on knowledge of the sale of materials to Iraq =!= we know the precise location in Iraq that these have been hidden.

Again, the point isn't that there are or are not WMD's in Iraq. I don't know. The point is that I believe that, once again, false positions are being attributed to others without support. Makes it easier to criticize them I guess.

 

Referring to Tom Paine whos writer put it into such nice words in the dialogue with Perle:

I'd like to refer to the post above where I translated that Spiegel report about what ex-inspectors thought of Powell's "proofs".

The US started a war, against international law (besides, unlike invading afganistan), without any proof but with the will to go to war. That's how it looked before the war and that's how it looks now that no proof showed up. The things that have been found by now, a few labs of doubtful use, dual-use chemicals and a handful of missiles, could have easily been handled by inspectors. They are no reason for a war.
The Bush crew has gambled with it's "moral superiority" and lost, not unlike israel in lebanon 1982 when it became agressive against neighbour countries first.

PS: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030415-iraq01.htm

[ April 17, 2003, 13:10: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

BTA -- Your argumnet was that he had these WMD - and he still might - that he was big threat to the US and everyone in the region. But the war is pretty much over and no WMD were ever used during the war, which would have been the time to use them. I will give your argument the benefit of a doubt: Maybe Saddam and his elite body guard are hiding somewhere and just waiting for the right moment to swoop down from the mountains, and catch us all by surprise.