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

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by In-Limbo, Apr 8, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Sorry old fruit but the thread is lost - what the chuffing hell are you talking about
  2. 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?
  3. I think a very large number of people would stop caring about Saddam's WMD's if they ever turned up :roll:
  4. I agree, even if you staged a "World Tour" with them, a great many people would intentionally just go deaf, dumb and blind.
  5. 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.
  6. I do think you're missing something (perhaps by you not associating JPost to the Liberals?).

    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?
  7. Or Lychgate at the time....
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Whilst Yanks hate losing, they hate admitting it even more.
  12. 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.
  13. blue-sophist

    blue-sophist LE Good Egg (charities)

    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.