Oh, they were Saddams WMDs? My bad...

#2
#4
Apologies dear chap, I'll try and paraphrase.

On September 6th last year, Israel went in suited and booted into Syria and bombed them. Iran and Syria went mental (as you'd expect) but very quickly calmed down when it became public knowledge that the target's were apparently of a "Weapon of Mass Destructive" nature, what not.

Speculation at the time seemed to centre on it being of North Korean in origin, although this doesn't bear up to mountains of material predating this event which links directly the Baathist elements in power over the Syria-Iraq devide and their linked NBC programs.

Not being ones to let anything lie, anti-bush hawks in US Congress have been pressuring the whitehouse to declare the nature, purpose and real targeted effect of this mission.

The results of which it has been leaked yesterday over in Israeli press, some half a year later, is that the imminent joint-report to publish to Congress may state that rather than this being an attack on Syria directly, it was an attack on the so called missing "Smoking Gun" which was as we all know was 'never found in Iraq'.

That most people have already made up their minds, or have long since gone past the point of caring about WMD's in Iraq's case may well be what this statement is relying on.

I suspect a simple case of "better to pin a tail on a dead horse than a live tiger"? Particularly as direct defence interests of removing nuclear stock plies parked next door have already been served.

Surely they won't be trying to 'make friends and influence people' in light today's domestic opinions on Iraqi having WMD's?
 
#5
That most people have already made up their minds, or have long since gone past the point of caring about WMD's in Iraq's case may well be what this statement is relying on.
I think a very large number of people would stop caring about Saddam's WMD's if they ever turned up :roll:
 
#6
I agree, even if you staged a "World Tour" with them, a great many people would intentionally just go deaf, dumb and blind.
 
#7
In-Limbo said:
The results of which it has been leaked yesterday over in Israeli press, some half a year later, is that the imminent joint-report to publish to Congress may state that rather than this being an attack on Syria directly, it was an attack on the so called missing "Smoking Gun" which was as we all know was 'never found in Iraq'.
but that's not what the Post article says, is it? Unless I am missing something, the article just criticises the US for not getting stuck into the "Axis of Evil" properly.

the 2004 article by Nizar Nayuf was one of many (unproven) claims at the time - there's still no evidence of Saddam's WMDs moving to Syria - unless you are an avid follower of Fox News.
 
#8
Yellow_Devil said:
In-Limbo said:
The results of which it has been leaked yesterday over in Israeli press, some half a year later, is that the imminent joint-report to publish to Congress may state that rather than this being an attack on Syria directly, it was an attack on the so called missing "Smoking Gun" which was as we all know was 'never found in Iraq'.
but that's not what the Post article says, is it? Unless I am missing something, the article just criticises the US for not getting stuck into the "Axis of Evil" properly.
I do think you're missing something (perhaps by you not associating JPost to the Liberals?).

ISRAEL'S POSITION reflects a conflict between immediate and long-term interests. Israel has an immediate interest in dissuading Syria from attacking either directly or through any of Syria's multiple terror proxies. It also has an interest in protecting intelligence sources and methods which may be compromised by a disclosure of the operation.
Yellow_Devil said:
The 2004 article by Nizar Nayuf was one of many (unproven) claims at the time - there's still no evidence of Saddam's WMDs moving to Syria - unless you are an avid follower of Fox News.
Perhaps from that we can deduce that the mission into Syria on 6th September was therefore a mere PR stunt?

If the mind is perfectly capable of performing natural Bayesian Inference takes fully into account a mantra that exists in others that forever suggests "still no evidence", are they likely to be an avid follower of Fox News?
 
#10
Now, what is wrong with Fox news? As they say themselves, they are a fair and balanced arm of the conservative Republicans. :roll:

The mystery is though, why so many in US, where at least half the people say they are now against the Iraq war, would vote for John McCain. He wants to circumvent the UN, replace the CIA with an OSS type org, continue in Iraq for years to come and possibly expand the war to other areas, etc.
 
#11
In-Limbo said:
The results of which it has been leaked yesterday over in Israeli press, some half a year later, is that the imminent joint-report to publish to Congress may state that rather than this being an attack on Syria directly, it was an attack on the so called missing "Smoking Gun" which was as we all know was 'never found in Iraq'.
It was well-reported around the time Op TELIC began that Saddam had moved WMDs to Syria. Surely no big surprise now? I was writing about this in 2003.
 
#12
Filbert Fox said:
Apparently he wants to cleanse the Boston Area of PIRA scum and their supporters.
Gets my vote.
Come on now, let it drop and discuss the issue in the thread. :roll:

Bush and co wanted to go to war with Iraq well before 9/11 and weapons had nothing to do with it. Was all about oil - plus some neocons thought they could 'remake' the Middle East' in the West's image.
 
#14
Taz_786 said:
KevinB said:
The mystery is though, why so many in US, where at least half the people say they are now against the Iraq war, would vote for John McCain.
Whilst Yanks hate losing, they hate admitting it even more.
That may be true, but I don't think it is just true for septics - although Lyndon Johnston refused to leave Vietnam because he 'didn't want to be the first president to lose a war' and you will still find people in US who do not think Vietnam was 'lost'. They must have an odd idea about winning.
 
#15
KevinB said:
Taz_786 said:
KevinB said:
The mystery is though, why so many in US, where at least half the people say they are now against the Iraq war, would vote for John McCain.
Whilst Yanks hate losing, they hate admitting it even more.
That may be true, but I don't think it is just true for septics - although Lyndon Johnston refused to leave Vietnam because he 'didn't want to be the first president to lose a war' and you will still find people in US who do not think Vietnam was 'lost'. They must have an odd idea about winning.
Perhaps, Kevin, they may be against the war but ... possibly have a little bit of self-interest where the future POTUS is concerned. Some people may be totally focussed on "wars", as you were/are. But there are other issues that ordinary people address.

For example, would the middle class [such as exists over there] vote for a Democrat? Who will tax their arrses off to fund Medicare For All [including illegals]? Given the way the NHS has bled the taxpayer in UK for decades, can you visualise the cost to the people of America that fund the rest of the people of America?

Perhaps "The War" is less of an issue than some people think.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
Why don't the septics just come right out and say it: "Sorry ladies and gennelmen, truth be told, WE supplied Iraq with dual-use chemical and biological weapons knowingly during the Iran/Iraq war, along with Germany; we no longer want them to have them, and we sure don't want those nasty Iranians getting their hands on them - THEY ARE OURS AND WE WANT THEM BACK!"
 
#17
KevinB said:
That may be true, but I don't think it is just true for septics - although Lyndon Johnston refused to leave Vietnam because he 'didn't want to be the first president to lose a war' and you will still find people in US who do not think Vietnam was 'lost'. They must have an odd idea about winning.
Militarily after the Tet Offensive was unsuccessful the North Vietnamese were all fought out and would have needed another five years to be able to launch a similar offensive. If the Americans had stayed, stood their ground and continued to invest money there is a good chance they would have won.

They lost because of the lack of political will and public support. The cutting of resources and the unwillingness of the public to allow more men to go to what the press portrayed as 'almost certain death', coupled with hostile reception by soldiers on their return, all meant that the end was inevitable.

If they do the same with Iraq, the metaphor used so often will have been a self-fulfilling prophesy.
 
#18
blue_sophist said:
KevinB said:
Taz_786 said:
KevinB said:
The mystery is though, why so many in US, where at least half the people say they are now against the Iraq war, would vote for John McCain.
Whilst Yanks hate losing, they hate admitting it even more.
That may be true, but I don't think it is just true for septics - although Lyndon Johnston refused to leave Vietnam because he 'didn't want to be the first president to lose a war' and you will still find people in US who do not think Vietnam was 'lost'. They must have an odd idea about winning.
Perhaps, Kevin, they may be against the war but ... possibly have a little bit of self-interest where the future POTUS is concerned. Some people may be totally focussed on "wars", as you were/are. But there are other issues that ordinary people address.

For example, would the middle class [such as exists over there] vote for a Democrat? Who will tax their arrses off to fund Medicare For All [including illegals]? Given the way the NHS has bled the taxpayer in UK for decades, can you visualise the cost to the people of America that fund the rest of the people of America?

Perhaps "The War" is less of an issue than some people think.
One reason for that is, as of yet, there is no draft. When there is, I think you will see much more protesting, as with the Vietnam war.

You have a point about the fear some in the middle class have of the Dems. Their taxes may be raised to help some undeserving unfortunate! People have said this to me, although not in so many words. But do you let the homeless starve, the working class and working poor go without healthcare, etc. etc. I agree, the social programs in UK have gone way too far, but always a safety net is needed.

Also, I point out to these people who do not want their taxes raised, who do you think will be paying for the Iraq war? It will come home to roost and will not be the wealthy footing the bill.
 
#19
Kevin, I describe myself as a caring Conservative.

Large numbers of the "poor" should get off their backsides, off welfare, and get a job created by the vacancies arising from the expulsion of 11M illegal immigrants.

The healthcare industry should be re-structured [don't ask me how, I'm military] to provide healthcare instead of profits.

As you say, some safety nets are needed, but the cry goes out "I'm poor, I need welfare" when in fact they are [a] not tangibly poor, just greedy, and capable of working, but welfare pays quite well.
 
#20
blue_sophist said:
Kevin, I describe myself as a caring Conservative.

Large numbers of the "poor" should get off their backsides, off welfare, and get a job created by the vacancies arising from the expulsion of 11M illegal immigrants.

The healthcare industry should be re-structured [don't ask me how, I'm military] to provide healthcare instead of profits.

As you say, some safety nets are needed, but the cry goes out "I'm poor, I need welfare" when in fact they are [a] not tangibly poor, just greedy, and capable of working, but welfare pays quite well.


In US, there is a lot less welfare available than there used to be. There is a time limit, a year or two perhaps, not sure about the time? A problem with getting people off welfare (in US) is that they often lose health benefits that many employers, especially in low wage jobs, do not provide. Or they lose income but the money they make is not enough to cover rent, food, transportation, child care etc. Would be better to provide help but require work of some kind.

Yes, healthcare needs restructuring - needs to be affordable or, in some cases subsidised, so all can be covered. Like you, I have no idea how to do it and the profit makers do not want any change in the status quo.

There are those, like the drug addicted or the alcoholic or the mentally ill (in US, many institutions closed down, leaving these people on the street), who become homeless, and although I despise addiction, they must be taken care of in some way.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top