so i suppose the horrendous treatment these people
are recieving is okay if we simply intellectualize everything,
disregard the fact that they are >human beings
(just like you & I... woah!!!) and make up stories about "what nice conditions they're in" as to make ourselves feel better about supporting
a place like this!


*shakes head*

-sarahlust

Originally posted by skippytjc
My wife wont let me use the AC 95% of the time either.

What you need is a room with an air conditioner, a lock on the door, a TV, stereo, computer, refrigerator and a microwave--oh, and a new job--at the very least.

[edit on 2005/7/20 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I've laid out repeated examples of Iraq being caught red handed destroying documents, barring inspectors from facilities, and preventing them from working without expelling them, as well as expelling American weapons experts.

None of these are WMD. Nice try refuting my argument. I never denied that Iraq did some illegal things, yet from going there to saying that they were hiding WMD stockpiles is a stretch, for which there is no evidence.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The argument against Iraq's possession hinges on the flimsy logic that because searches failed to actually find the materials themselves in the face of a systematic delaying, obstruction, and deception campaign (although they succeeded in finding incredible amounts of highly incriminating documentary evidence) that the materials were not there. This simply makes no sense. Why did Saddam repeatedly bring down military actions and prolonged sanctions against himself, if he could have readily vindicated himself and restored his relations with Russia, France, China and in fact most of the world? Do you honestly believe that anybody would have heeded a US effort to keep the sanctions in place in clear violation of Resolution 687?

In order for the sanctions to be lifted, a UN resolution is necessary that establishes Iraq has complied with its terms. The US and UK have veto power in the UN. Put one and one together, it isn't that hard, even if you have half a brain. You also never addressed my arguments that none of the scientists involved in the weapons programs - which the US was now free to interrogate, which it had an argument over before the invasion - testified that there was ongoing production or research projects towards WMD, or that WMD were kept behind. Nor has any other Iraqi so far. Plus you continue, like an ostrich, to stick your head in the sand and even refuse to consider that the US doesn't even have a public reward for anyone that gives a golden tip for WMD discovery.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Last but not least there is the attack at Al-Jubayl. There is an extremely simple answer for why Bush has not capitalized on this. It's called the VA.

That was just one single attack and wouldn't cost the worl, in comparison with all other cases of veterans claiming to have Gulf War Syndrome. The number of Scuds that were fired and landed anywhere near a military target is further pretty low. And once again, you succeed in completely ignoring that none of the 39 scuds fired against Israel contained anything else than a conventional warload. Are they lying too? I'm frankly sick and tired of your conspiracy theories.

[edit on 21-7-2005 by Simon666]

Originally posted by Simon666
None of these are WMD.

Of course not, just clear evidence that Iraq was hiding WMD.

In order for the sanctions to be lifted, a UN resolution is necessary that establishes Iraq has complied with its terms.

So what exactly are you attacking. As I have said, America can keep the sanctions in place on paper, but can't enforce them. The UN resolutions would become entirely irrelevant in the eyes of the world if America blocked their removal for reasons clearly outside of those which instituted the resolutions. I made my angle on this clear, yet you ignored it and came back suggesting that I somehow was ignorant of the facts and had "half a brain". Very classy my friend.

You also never addressed my arguments that none of the scientists involved in the weapons programs

Because it is irrelevant. I never claimed that Iraq was in the process of furthering its research and production of chemical weapons. They were unable to do so under the eyes of UNSCOM. My point is not that there was research going on but that illegal materials were being maintained for later use. So, how do you propose we get Saddam's most loyal people who were trusted with the coverup of these last few vital components of his program to talk?

That was just one single attack and wouldn't cost the worl, in comparison with all other cases of veterans claiming to have Gulf War Syndrome.

I know you're not really that blind. If it is determined that troops were attacked with biological weapons and developed gulf war syndrome, what do you think everybody else affected by GWS is going to start saying? We're talking about tens of thousands of people who went through a great deal of suffering and many of whom ultimately died because of government negligence. And that's only from the Gulf. British veterans of Bosnia have had similiar problems and have been included in GWS studies. You've got clear evidence that the government story is a fabrication, eye witness accounts and medical results strongly indicating the use of T-2 Toxin, and a simple motive for the government to be covering it up. You accuse me of being afraid to think?

And once again, you succeed in completely ignoring that none of the 39 scuds fired against Israel contained anything else than a conventional warload. Are they lying too? I'm frankly sick and tired of your conspiracy theories

I ignored it because it's a ridiculous point stemming from your inability to comprehend the strategic situation of the Gulf War. Fine, let me put on my purple dinosaur suit and spell it out for you. Saddam Hussien's strategy was to force America out by causing as many casualties as possible. Iraqi battle doctrine valued wounding with chemicals over fatality because wounded troops place a strain on enemy logistics. There was every reason to use chemical warfare against American troops, despite America's possession of Nuclear weapons. Remember afteralll that the Soviet Union still existed at this time and although they tollerated our efforts against Iraq, they were attempting to work as peace makers. Saddam probably judged by this that we could not nuke him.
Using gas on Israel on the other hand much less sense. All Saddam needed to do was us look like zionists defending Israel for political reasons so that his neighbors would deny us access to their territory. Pushing Israel so far as to draw them into the war would have been foolish. The capability of America to deploy forces was not fully appreciated at that time. The Saudis were entirely taken aback when we told them that we could have forces arriving in their country within 12 hours of recieving their permission. In light of this lack of knowledge, Saddam would quite likely have percieved it as crucial to the balance of forces that he not draw such a potent military power as Israel which was so near his country into the war, as he had every reason to believe that without them America would likely not be able to deploy so much so quickly.


You have searched desperately for every technicality, but you can not refute the overwhelming evidence that Saddam was failing to cooperate with the complete distruction of his chemical and biological weapons program. He had the less lethal version of the toxin (preferable to an army which values injury over inflicting fatality by the way), he probably forgot he had it, he didn't have anything weaponized ready to go, fine. Now just prove that he wasn't attempting to keep the necessary components to rebuild his WMD at a later time. It will be hard to do that of course because he ordered the destruction of documents that could have exhonorated him. Why did he do that? Because those documents would not have exhonorated him, but condemned him.

You're not a bad debator, but at the end of the day you are arguing a logically indefensible position because your are politically predisposed to adopting that position. The facts speak for themselves. Now why don't you get over your hatred for Bush, who I am not defending in the least, and just acknowledge the facts, which stilll doesn't necessarily prevent you from being as anti-war as you like. Just do us all the courtesy of not insulting our intelligence by grasping at straws and taking personal jabs at my intellect just because you can't accept the overwhelmingly obvious.
We're done now my friend.

This stomping brought to you in part by- Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola: keeping Vagabond up and posting at all hours of the night since 2004..

Originally posted by Simon666
That was the entire bloody point of Iraq firing SCUD missiles at Israel in the first place. To try to get Israel into the war, which would in the idle hope of Saddam move the other Arab states to come to help. You demonstrate with this serious loopholes in your logic.

This was not the point at all. -Puts the purple dinosaur suit back on-. Ok children, listen closely.
According to what Arab militaries knew in 1991, provoking Israel into a war would have drastically expanded the forces at America's disposal on short notice.
If, however, Israel could be attacked without causing a war, a US attack on Saddam might be seen as motivated not only be the invasion of Kuwait, but also by the attacks on Israel. This was calculated to reduce the odds of Iraqs neighbors helping America. If Saudi Arabia and Jordan had fallen for this, America could only have attacked amphibiously, from the South, and even that would have been dangerous if Saudi and or Iran had been willing to defend Israel's enemy by threatening US forces entering the Gulf. Therefore America would have needed to bring it's attack almost entirely from the North, via Turkey, thus allowing Iraq to concentrate its forces better.
it should also be noted that this would have worked if Saddam hadn't been seen as a threat by Saudi Arabia. Satellite photos of Iraqi tanks massing near the Saudi Border are likely he sole reason that Saddam's insignificant slaps at Israel did not yield the desired results.

Plus you still do not address: if you seriously believe WMD were kept behind, why did and still does the US not offer a reward for a golden tip for WMD discoveries?

Are you going to pitch a fit every time I prioritize your more relevant mistakes over peripheral stupid questions? It's not even difficult. Posting reward posters for people works because people are conspicuous. Any average joe will notice the republican guard hanging around his neighborhood protecting someone, and may be tempted to betray them for the money. A hand full of specimens of biological agents under the care of a hand full of people, mostly controlled by those Saddam judged most loyal to him, are not something the average joe can rat out.
For all you know, there were rewards offered for the WMD, but those offers would not necessarily go on a poster or be widely advertised. They would be addressed to a handful of individuals who were in a position to have relevant knowledge.
As for your Iraqi scientist who hasn't been seen since capture, have you considered that maybe he's at Gitmo with his testicles strapped to a car battery because we want to know what Saddam did with what he had left, as opposed to your blind speculation (coming from somebody who told me he's sick and tired of conspiracy theories no less) that we are keeping him out of sight to supress the truth?

Originally posted by Simon666
Small detail: Saddam WAS already under attack when he decided to launch SCUDS at Israel. Iraq only started firing missiles at Israel the day AFTER the US had begun the massive air campaign against Iraq.

Small detail is right. Preparations for a ground offensive were still over a month from completion. The fact that he moved as soon as it became clear that hostilities were imminent makes it all the more clear that he hoped to force Saudi Arabia to remove their permission for coalition forces to carry out offensive operations from Saudi Arabia. Remember that Saudi Arabia only accepted our troops to begin with because they were afraid of an Iraqi invasion of their country.
Also note that he had attempted earlier to negotiate his withdrawl from Kuwait in exchange for an Israeli pullout from the Golan Heights and Southern Lebanon. What precisely would be the point of that if Saddam meant to go to war with them anyway?
You can believe me on this- Saddam definately did NOT want Isreal coming off of the leash while there were half a million US troops there to help Israel kick Arab butt. It was a diplomatic play. Saddam's intent from start to finish was to weasel his way out of the war and walk away from the bargaining table with significant financial and territorial gains at best, and extremely impressive political victories at the least. He would have negotiated long before the troop buildup began in all likelihood if Mubarak hadn't destroyed the deal that King Hussayn of Jordan and King Fahd of Saudi Arabia were working out by condemning the invasion of Kuwait, after it had been made crystal clear to Mubarak it was unacceptible for Saddam to be seen as bowing to Mubarak.

the US claimed to have such satellite photos but never ever produced them. Russian satellite pics showed no Iraqi troop concentrations near the Saudi border.

I am aware of that controversy as well as the indication by civilian satellites that the estimate of Iraqi forces in Kuwait was probably grossly overstated. You are missing the point though. The Saudis bought it. All that was required was for the Saudis to be afraid. If they had not been, they would have reacted to Saddam's attacks on Israel in the intended manner- by siding with Arabs over the allies of Israel and refusing permission for offensive action from their territory. Also by the way, photos, although quite possibly faked, were presented to King Fahd by Swartz-wartz and Cheney. They were absolutely instrumental in forcing his agreement.

It is believed that the US created the story - just like many others, the most notorious one is the baby incubator story

Don't forget when they passed of the Kuwaiti Ambassador's daughter as a witness before congress. There was a lot of impressive lying going on before that war. Feel free to stop missing the point whenever you like. How does the fact that you subscribe to a completely mistaken interpretation of Saddam's intent in throwing a few Scuds at Israel? If anything, the idea that he was not massing troops against the Saudis would support the idea that he was simply trying to pull Saudi support away from the coalition in order to make the offensive against him impossible?

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I was interested to hear your take on it and it is a nice but insufficient try at condoning that. It sure as hell wouldn't hurt to make the offer public.

Every time you feel that my arguments are insufficient I beam with pride. And of course it wouldn't hurt to make that offer. Telling a bunch of dirt poor goat herders who have no way of knowing jack about the WMD that we'll make them rich if they give us information won't generate ANY false leads what so ever or waste any of the already insufficient resources at the disposal of our intelligence, now will it?

After all, we are concerned about the safety of US troops and the US public from WMD, aren't we?

Quite apparently not. Don't you watch the news? At any rate, IF we wanted to show any concern for safety or success, a great place to start would be by not overburdening our intelligence services with false tips from people who have nothing to offer us, but REALLY want that money. Apparently thats the one favor our government has done for the troops.

Besides, Saddams sons were betrayed by their own relatives, who they considered most loyal to them and who they turned to for refuge. They were not captured because there were "republican guards" hanging around. After the fall of the regime, it was each on his own.

So what your saying is that you agree with me that offering a reward to the general public is a bad idea even when looking for people, because it was not average people but insiders who betrayed Saddam's sons (by the way, nice job pulling only two cards out of the deck as if they were the only case)? Seems like you're trying to have it both ways in a sense. Shouldn't we have targeted the reward offer at insiders instead of offering to the general public and saved ourselves a lot of false leads? That's what your own example suggests, yet you are demanding that we should put up wanted posters for the WMD or something to that affect?
Another thing to consider is the power of propaganda. Remember how the Japanese would throw themselves off cliffs because they were told that Marines are canibals? Well people aren't against international law. Iraqs WMD on the other hand are. Does it really seem so far out that people associated with the program would be reluctant to come forward because they had helped violate international law and weren't sure they could trust the US not to punish them?

I already told you most of the deck of most wanted has been captured or killed, the top scientists imprisoned and lower ranking scientists intensively questioned by the Iraqi Survey Group.

It would be nice if you'd at least say something relevant to what you quoted. If anything your point argues against the idea of putting out a general reward offer if the majority of people in the know have already been captured or questioned. What you're basically saying is that all that's left is a bunch of people who know nothing but will try to take a lucky guess to get rich, overwhelming our intelligence services for no good reason?

I don't know what exactly you think you're proving, but in all of your carrying on you haven't raised a single valid challenge to the point that there is ample evidence that Saddam was covering up a covert weapons program. The best you've been able to do is inform us that we have many of the people who know what happened in custody. They were captured, therefore they didn't have weapons? They aren't being allowed to hold press conferences, therefore they must not have had weapons? What are you getting at- if you actually have a point?
This little Chewbacca Defense of yours is doing nothing but misinterpret facts which are completely consistent with my contention that Iraq was maintaining small stores of precursors to biological weapons for use in reconstituting their arsenal at a later date, and that these materials were moved to neighboring countries and/or destroyed hastily in the lead up to the invasion, in hopes that this frustration would lead to our withdrawl before Saddam's capture and allow him to reemerge to regain power.

They all keep saying there were no WMD nor WMD programs, some do say that Saddam intended to reconstitute them after the sanctions were lifted. Although in itself this is likely, the lifting of the sanctions wasn't considering US and UK veto. And again, it sure wouldn't hurt to get this out to widest public.

How many times have I told you that the veto can only keep the sanctions in place ON PAPER? The UN has no teeth. The minute it became clear that Iraq had complied, every nation in the world with the exception of the US and UK could have resumed trade with Iraq with impunity because France, Russia, and China would not have stood for any action against violators.
You have even conceded to the likelihood of my point now, yet you cling to the fact that these scientists are denying it. Has it occurred that when you have taken great pains to cover something up so that the invaders will eventually be forced to leave your country that the LAST THING you would ever do is undermine your own efforts by telling them the truth?

I have considered it, have you? If you consider that, you should even conclude MORE that there is nothing. You know something, what I derive from your view of Iraqis is that if they work for the regime they are demons from hell, 100% loyal and devoted to "the cause", as well as able to resist the hardest torture or the most tempting offers of money.

Yes that's exactly what I said, verbatim.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
They are all demons from hell

I get the impression you're a bit slow on the uptake sometimes, so let me stress that I just made that quote up.
Perhaps they're not saying anything because there is nothing to say. They are screwed. What do you do when somebody is torturing you to make you give them the location of something that you destroyed just before they arrived?
They weren't fiercely loyal- they were deathly afraid. They got into our hands and they had somebody new to be afraid of- and they almost certainly told us what happened. But what then? Should we put a battered prisoner on tape like the North Vietnamese did and make him state what happened? Yeah, that will work. Or maybe we should let him heal up, then arrange a press conference so that he can tell the news what he knows, because there is no way that he'd seize the opportunity to screw us over by going into the press conference and returning to the old story that they had disarmed long before we attacked. No, they'd NEVER do a thing like that, especially not when it would almost certainly bring about the end of the occupation, thus necessitating the release of the POWs- including the speaker himself
It's a catch 22. plain and simple. There is nothing we can do to convincingly reveal what the evidence already suggests to those not blinded by politics if it has been corroborated by the captured officials. With any logical thinking ability at all you should have realized this.

Similarly, Amer Al Saadi .... (pointless multi-paragraph biography excluded

Touching story to be sure, but in no way does it contradict anything above. Also there is a matter of point of view to consider. You can drone on and on all you like about what a nice guy he is and how he would never have lied for Saddam, but as you said, he did not defect, and he followed orders by building weapons for Saddam.
Has it occurred to you that a little something called the Fedayeen Saddam exists, and even if he was a great guy and was wanted to turn on Saddam he must know full well that his wife and children would be targets if he did? It wouldn't be the first time that Saddam loyalists sought out and attempted to kill traitors in Europe afterall.


I repeat one more time for emphasis:
You concede that it is likely that Saddam attempted to preserve the necessary materials to reconstitute his weapons program in violation of Resolution 687.
All evidence suggests that he did this successfully until 2003, at which point he was forced to destroy what he had left or hand it to his neighbors for safe keeping, because he felt that if they were not found the US would be forced to leave and he would be able to return to power.
Those who do know have no motive what so ever to publically state the truth. To continue to lie is in their own best interest and quite possibly necessary for the safety of their families, and even if they were inclined to turn coat, there is no believable manner in which their testimony could be brought to light- it would simply be taken as propaganda made under durress.

I've laid out a simple, logical explanation. This can be opposed only by overlooking a great deal of evidence uncovered by UNSCOM and by placing blind faith in the word of men who have every reason to lie. Why would you ever take such an irrational position? I would guess it to be that like many of the wild eyed Saddam appologists that you simply hate Bush and will sell yourself to any devil available to formulate an attack on him.
Yet again I remind you that I hate him too, and I have plenty of rational reasons for it. I don't see the need to deny the obvious just to make him look slightly worse.

Originally posted by Simon666
The point of that would be to save time if he didn't mean it - according to the US government at the time - and to save face in the Arab world in the event of withdrawal from Kuwait if he did mean it.

That's exactly the point. He was working to negotiate a withdrawl- call it to save face if you will. I'm not sure thats a perfect description, but it's close enough. He intended to negotiate from the get go and use what he had taken as a bargaining chip to win political victories.
What you seem to be ignoring is that this is exactly the reason he could not gas Israel. It would have started a war- which he didn't want. Winning a political concession from Israel for his withdrawl was his way out of the war. Why would he want to start a war with them and jeopardize that?

Israel's contribution would be marginal in any event, compared to the already huge presence of US, UK and French forces. Your notion is simply ridiculous.

1. They would have made the war inescapable.
2. They would have opened an entirely new front.
3. They were in a position to tie up any assisstance Saddam might have won from neighbors.

The Saudis had already allowed US troops to operate from their territory. Changing their minds and a given word was diplomatically not feasible.

They allowed American troops onto their territory for a defensive mission. It was entirely possible that they could have revoked any permission for aggressive action if their was widespread condemnation of cooperation against an enemy of Israel.
I don't know what "diplomatically feasible" means to you, but in my mind, for an Arab nation to allow the Great Satan to keep troops on Holy Ground to attack another Muslim nation which was attacking Israel at the time might have been the dictionary definition of not diplomatically feasible if Egypt and Syria had gone against the idea.

What burden on the intelligence services? It seems like they could use all intelligence they need in Iraq.

Yes, they could use all the intelligence they can get in Iraq. They sure as hell wont get it if they have their people running around listening to the wild guess of every goat farmer who desperately hopes that his lucky guess might win him the lottery. What assetts we had would find themselves digging up every trash dump in Iraq instead of pursuing good intelligence.

Wrong, the person who betrayed them, did so because he knew of the public offer.

So approaching his family members more privately wouldn't have gotten us the same lead with way less time wasted following false leads?

Ofcourse we don't want the truth to be known, now do we?

You did nothing to refute the logic I presented. I can understand why.

Well, the guy that ratted on Saddam's sons is living comfortably of the reward money with his extended family in a secure location now. So, yes, it has occurred to me and I don't see it as a limiting condition at all.

One guy was greedy enough to chance it, because it's not a limit AT ALL? If somebody offered you a million dollars to do something that would cause someone to try killing your family, you wouldn't be worried in the least? You're nuts- and obsessed with money.

Actually, your position is the irrational one since there is no evidence to support it and if you think all things over regardless of what you want to be true for political reasons, it is incredibly unlikely.

UNSCOM has uncovered AMPLE evidence of the premise of my explanation and that evidence has lead you to conceede the likelihood that Iraq was attempting to maintain the components to reconstitute their weapons.

You have failed to attack the flawless logic of my explanation of why your assumptions as to why the witnesses haven't turned anything up are wrong.

At any rate, there has been a death in the family and so I will not have time to enjoy this little discussion for a while. Perhaps at some time you and I can step into the debate forum and find out who's got logic on their side.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
That's exactly the point. He was working to negotiate a withdrawl- call it to save face if you will. I'm not sure thats a perfect description, but it's close enough. He intended to negotiate from the get go and use what he had taken as a bargaining chip to win political victories. What you seem to be ignoring is that this is exactly the reason he could not gas Israel. It would have started a war- which he didn't want. Winning a political concession from Israel for his withdrawl was his way out of the war. Why would he want to start a war with them and jeopardize that?

Actually, wrong considering the timetable. He was working on a political way out before the war started, according to the US government at the time it was just an attempt to win time and Iraq should withdraw unconditionally (such an attitude leaving no chance for a diplomatic solution leads some to suspect the US wanted and in fact set up the Gulf War). So they went to war anyway, Iraq attacked Israel as response after the first day it was attacked in the air campaign, so when the diplomatic initiatives had already failed some time ago.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
1. They would have made the war inescapable.
2. They would have opened an entirely new front.
3. They were in a position to tie up any assisstance Saddam might have won from neighbors.

1. The war was already inescapable. You don't send a few hundred thousand troops there just for nothing and the air campaign had already started.
2. Israel doesn't border Iraq, fool, nor would any Arab nation allow Israeli troops on their soil.
3. It would create a welcome diversion and a new oil crisis would harm the west enormously. The US army doesn't run on hydrogen.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
So approaching his family members more privately wouldn't have gotten us the same lead with way less time wasted following false leads?

It would give less guarantees, only with hindsight you know that even his family members were susceptible so your argument is pretty moot. Saddam's sons are also but one case.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
One guy was greedy enough to chance it, because it's not a limit AT ALL? If somebody offered you a million dollars to do something that would cause someone to try killing your family, you wouldn't be worried in the least? You're nuts- and obsessed with money.

As I've said, he got to a new secure location WITH his family.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
UNSCOM has uncovered AMPLE evidence of the premise of my explanation and that evidence has lead you to conceede the likelihood that Iraq was attempting to maintain the components to reconstitute their weapons.

UNSCOM has uncovered ample evidence they kept some documents and some small items behind during some years and thwarted inspections at cases. Ofcourse I concede that Iraq sometimes attempted to keep some components to reconstitue their weapons, but to go from there to saying there is evidence they kept WMD stockpiles behind is a stretch.

I have only a moment to answer, but luckily the steadily deteriorating quality and relevance of your insistence on defending the inferior position will only take a few seconds to rebuff once more.

Originally posted by Simon666
Actually, wrong considering the timetable.

Hogwash, I've already made it clear how his attacks work within the time table in which they occurred.

He was working on a political way out before the war started

My point exactly, yet you are trying to say that if he'd used WMD on us (at the tactical level) that he'd certainly have used them strategically against Israeli civilians as well? If he'd done that, there goes getting out of the war.

they went to war anyway, Iraq attacked Israel as response after the first day it was attacked in the air campaign, so when the diplomatic initiatives had already failed some time ago.

I've already explained how Iraq intended to escape war even after the airstrikes had begun. It's clear to anyone who isn't hell bent on twisting history to defend the name of a genocidal maniac just because he is Bush's enemy.

1. The war was already inescapable. You don't send a few hundred thousand troops there just for nothing and the air campaign had already started.

Refuted earlier.

2. Israel doesn't border Iraq, fool, nor would any Arab nation allow Israeli troops on their soil.

Resorting to name calling. How intelligent of you. Seeing as you have your are taking your absurdity to new levels each time, and have no resorted to petty name calling, this will be our last exchange. You are beaten, the readers can see it, and I will not suffer your crap further.
In response to your pont though; good thing Israel doesn't border Jordan either, which wasn't on Saddam's side in the least and doesn't border Iraq either. Not that Israel ever would have done that to get to Saddam if he had used gas on them.(/sarcasm) Starting a war with Israel would have been counterproductive to Saddam's attempts to force a diplomatic resolution which would have been extremely beneficial to him politically if they had succeeded.

3. It would create a welcome diversion and a new oil crisis would harm the west enormously. The US army doesn't run on hydrogen.

What diversion? Iraq would still be the enemy, and an Israel incursion through Northern Jordan to Iraq would have had a negligible impact on the oil flow in the long term- if anything it would have increased the oil flow as that war would have ended with substantial new Jordanian, Syran, and Iraqi land in Israeli hands.
America's already had sufficient fuel for the campaign. The short term interruption couldn't have stopped the war. What do you think? Do you think that the US Army goes to war with a quarter tank of gas and has to pump and refine it's own oil in the field?

Originally posted by The Vagabond
It would give less guarantees, only with hindsight you know that even his family members were susceptible so your argument is pretty moot. Saddam's sons are also but one case.

How so? On one hand you assure me that it's people in the know who are doing the reporting in order, on the other you are telling me that just targeting the people in a position to know is not a better idea that putting a general notice out to every uninformed goat herder who would give any false lead he could come up with just for a wild chance at the money. You're arguing in two contradictory directions.

As I've said, he got to a new secure location WITH his family.

Where, on the international space station? Is everbody who turns on Saddam going to be taken to another magical universe where former Iraqi intelligence officers could never possibly have even the slightest most remote chance in hell to track them down? You mean to tell me that just because a few people were willing to gamble that Saddam's thugs wouldn't be able to track them down, that NOBODY would even give one moment's thought to the fear of what may happen to their family? You're ignoring the points of contention themselves to focus on the biography's of a few unimportant individuals. You are essentially arguing that nobody in Iraq is even remotely afraid for the safety of their families, just because one guy believes he would be able to keep his family safe.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
UNSCOM has uncovered ample evidence they kept some documents

No, the documents are not the subject of the evidence, they are the evidence. The documents prove that Iraq over-stated munitions expenditures in the Iraq-Iran war, thereby concealing part of their WMD stockpile from the record. They're probably burried in the desert somewhere, never to be seen again, but we have the documentation proving that they were never used and were being hidden.

and some small items behind during some years and thwarted inspections at cases.

To what point and purpose. Think really hard. Why do you thwart a weapons inspection? Perhaps so your weapons won't be found?

Ofcourse I concede that Iraq sometimes attempted to keep some components to reconstitue their weapons, but to go from there to saying there is evidence they kept WMD stockpiles behind is a stretch.

That's the point! How many times do I have to say it? THAT in and of itself, is a violation of 687. They don't have to have stockpiles to be in violation, and for your case that they disarmed to be false, because the requirement for disarmament was COMPLETE dismantling of their WMD program- destroying 99% of it and putting a bit in cold storage to whip out the minute the sanctions were gone.

You are defeated, and your immaturity has landed you on my ignore list for at least a short time. When I have more time on my hands, perhaps you'd like to go to the debate forum and have your butt handed to you- not that I would expect that to put it through your head that you're case is illogical.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
My point exactly, yet you are trying to say that if he'd used WMD on us (at the tactical level) that he'd certainly have used them strategically against Israeli civilians as well? If he'd done that, there goes getting out of the war.

If he used WMD on you, there was no way getting out of war either. An obvious mistake in what I have increasing trouble calling your "logic".

Originally posted by The Vagabond
1. Refuted earlier.
2. Resorting to name calling. How intelligent of you. Seeing as you have your are taking your absurdity to new levels each time, and have no resorted to petty name calling, this will be our last exchange. You are beaten, the readers can see it, and I will not suffer your crap further.
In response to your pont though; good thing Israel doesn't border Jordan either, which wasn't on Saddam's side in the least and doesn't border Iraq either. Not that Israel ever would have done that to get to Saddam if he had used gas on them.(/sarcasm) Starting a war with Israel would have been counterproductive to Saddam's attempts to force a diplomatic resolution which would have been extremely beneficial to him politically if they had succeeded.
3. What diversion? Iraq would still be the enemy, and an Israel incursion through Northern Jordan to Iraq would have had a negligible impact on the oil flow in the long term- if anything it would have increased the oil flow as that war would have ended with substantial new Jordanian, Syran, and Iraqi land in Israeli hands. America's already had sufficient fuel for the campaign. The short term interruption couldn't have stopped the war. What do you think? Do you think that the US Army goes to war with a quarter tank of gas and has to pump and refine it's own oil in the field?

1. Only in your mind.
2. Your point WAS foolish so spare me the name calling reference to somehow save the validity of your argument. Israel could AT BEST only deliver air support (which would be marginal considering US, UK and French presence already), it could NOT open a second front since it doesn't border Iraq nor would any Arab nation allow them to operate from their soil.
3. That Israel could just drive through Jordan into Iraq just like that is also ridiculous, plus Jordan has not much oil, Syria has barely enough for its own needs and Iraq's was burning when captured, remember? Also remember the oil tap has been shut before by Arab nations as reprisal for western support for Israel.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
How so? On one hand you assure me that it's people in the know who are doing the reporting in order, on the other you are telling me that just targeting the people in a position to know is not a better idea that putting a general notice out to every uninformed goat herder who would give any false lead he could come up with just for a wild chance at the money. You're arguing in two contradictory directions.

You're twisting what I said, like a forked tongued snake. I never said it is ONLY people in the know who do the reporting, I just happened to give an example of that. I do say indeed it is even better to inform the general public. And false leads don't get rewarded, gee, and you wonder why I call you a fool.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Where, on the international space station? Is everbody who turns on Saddam going to be taken to another magical universe where former Iraqi intelligence officers could never possibly have even the slightest most remote chance in hell to track them down? You mean to tell me that just because a few people were willing to gamble that Saddam's thugs wouldn't be able to track them down, that NOBODY would even give one moment's thought to the fear of what may happen to their family?

Gee, you just invented that argument to avoid even to CONSIDER the possibility that they haven't offered any public major reward for WMD because they don't have too much hope of finding it anyway and because nor were WMD the real reason for war. The argument of being afraid for your family also applies for those who want to rat on the deck of most wanted, so if you really consider that an argument instead of searching for any old pathetic excuse to not have to address the core of the issue, you say the US shouldn't have ever offered rewards AT ALL for the deck of most wanted.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
No, the documents are not the subject of the evidence, they are the evidence.

I don't recall claiming otherwise.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The documents prove that Iraq over-stated munitions expenditures in the Iraq-Iran war, thereby concealing part of their WMD stockpile from the record. They're probably burried in the desert somewhere, never to be seen again, but we have the documentation proving that they were never used and were being hidden.

You only have documentation they existed. Not what happened afterwards with them. Though some suspicious things happened. After Kamel Hussein testified that he had ordered everything was destroyed, very little actual WMD turned up anymore.

They don't have to have stockpiles to be in violation, and for your case that they disarmed to be false, because the requirement for disarmament was COMPLETE dismantling of their WMD program- destroying 99% of it and putting a bit in cold storage to whip out the minute the sanctions were gone.

I never claimed their dismantling of WMD programs was complete. As it looks, there were however no WMD anymore, one of the pretended reasons for the war. Unless you actually want to claim that even if some blueprints were lacking, the US would go to war just to enforce UN resolutions, UN resolutions the US government adores so much because of the respect and undying love for the UN.