How much you wanna bet those WMD's are going to start showing up?

[Mirai]

http://www.lakesunleader.com/archive...1000-news1.txt

"Seven more soldiers in Iraq have contracted the same puzzling illness that has killed two... The latest cases bring the number of affected troops to 19. All have been evacuated to the same Landstuhl, Germany, hospital where Spec. Josh Neusche, 20, of Montreal was treated before he died July 12. It is believed Neusche contracted the illness, first thought to be pneumonia, while conducting cleanup operations with the 203rd Engineer Battalion in Baghdad. ... 'For some reason doctors have been able to eliminate SARS as a possible explanation for the soldier's deaths and sickness.'" According to a previous story: "Doctors told Neusche's family an unknown toxin was to blame. It quickly attacked Neusche's muscles, kidney and liver."

[A few outlets report that Neusche's unit was working near Baghdad Int'l Airport when the illness struck. This has prompted some to question whether it might have been a hypothetical cargo shipment from the United States which killed these soldiers. So perhaps we will "discover" WMDs real soon now.]

[sayonara]

£0.26

[Monkehpimp]

I only read the first bit, but could it be to do with the use of depleted uranium shells?


I put my 50 cents on no.

[Mirai]

Originally posted by Monkehpimp
I only read the first bit, but could it be to do with the use of depleted uranium shells?


I put my 50 cents on no.

The symptoms in question don't match those of uranium exposure.

So no.

[Tactitus]

Gulf War II Syndrome?

Nobody's interested in WMDs anymore. It's all about WMD programs.

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

It seriously wouldn't suprise me if the USA (and others) planeted "WMD(s)" for them to find convieniently, just when they need to.

[Monkehpimp]

its more likely they'll just start up on the next country. The media wont remember WMD as soon as that happens.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Belgarath The Sorcerer
It seriously wouldn't suprise me if the USA (and others) planeted "WMD(s)" for them to find convieniently, just when they need to.

Well they "needed" to find them months ago. It's hardly very convenient to "find" them after taking so much heat for not finding them.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Well they "needed" to find them months ago. It's hardly very convenient to "find" them after taking so much heat for not finding them.

Yeah, although I wouldn't doubt that the top brass did believe they would find vast amounts of WMD upon entering Iraq (most of these types believe their own propaganda). Maybe they are only now realising that there aren't dozens of missiles lying around to be discovered...

Still, I doubt they would plant anything because the risk of being caught is too high (they'd lose any credibility over any claim ever). Much better to just keep running the story "It was never about WMD, but about regime change, stability, etc. You crazy leftists!"

[Fifth_teletubbie]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Well they "needed" to find them months ago. It's hardly very convenient to "find" them after taking so much heat for not finding them.

On the contrary, it makes it all the more believable, as your own response proves.

[Dave]

If they find any now, it would be automatic to assume that they put them there out of desperation.

[Mirai]

What did I say?

[Lupin]

lol

People "should not be surprised by surprises", he said.

lol

Senator Pat Roberts, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said afterwards:

"I think in view of a lot of criticism, I would not be surprised if there is a surprise that would end up changing a lot of people's minds."

lol, americans beware!

[Deffeh]

i notice the prowars have been very quiet recently

They deserve only to be hit with shoes!

[Marilyn Manson]

The 'Security Risk' argument was bollocks from the start. They completely disregarded the idea that Saddam would likely end up supplying Al-Qaeda with WMD's/Arms, and instead went for a bizzare 'SADDAM COULD NUKE THE UK' argument. Saddam was never a direct security risk since the end of Gulf War I, either too us or his neighbours, because he was completely, unambiguously shown of the consquences of such action.

They should have waited. Saddam and Al-Qaeda would almost certainly have converged at some point. At least Bush's 'Saddam is bad' argument was generally logical, no matter whatever implications it had for diplomatic relations or the international order.

A for Democracy in Iraq: They should have thought about this before they ravaged Iraqi society through sanctions. Was foreign policy always this retarded and short-sighted? I doubt it.

[acropolis]

they had the terrorism argument too ;

the problem was that the terrorism argument was based on the possibility of saddam giving WMD to terrorists...which brings you right back to square one.

hell, even on Fox News the other night they asked their analyst what the fed meant when they said "progress was being made", and the analyst said it probably means they have no leads whatsoever, and are unlikely to ever find anything, but are looking through vast reams of documents and calling it 'progress'

[Marilyn Manson]

The whole thing has been an absolute bloody fiasco from start to finish.

[queball]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
They should have waited. Saddam and Al-Qaeda would almost certainly have converged at some point.

How d'you figure?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by queball
How d'you figure?

Intuition based on experience of what generally happens in these sorts of foreign policy situations.


I used to live in Metternich's waistcoat pockets, you know.

Seriously, who else were they going to turn to but themselves? Even the most ardent ideological crackpot is fundamentally a pragmatist in these situations. Saddam could only have hurt Western intrests through indirect menans, almost certainly through a third party, and bin Laden would have eventually been lured into finding another state-sponsor and 'safe house' before long. Their intrests were so similar that they would almost certainly have linked up in some manner before long. And that's all The US and The UK would have needed, really.

[queball]

Why would this Saddam Hussein want to hurt Western interests?
I thought the world was like this before the liberation:
The Kurds were in bed with Al-Qaeda,
Saddam disliked the Kurds,
Saddam disliked Al Qaeda (but had religious links wrt compensating widows and stuff),
Saddam basically liked the rest of the world but was into nationalism,
The rest of the world was mostly ok with Saddam but the UN was interested in this disarmament thing.

correct me if I'm wrong

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by queball
Why would this Saddam Hussein want to hurt Western interests?

Well, assuming he did actually make good on his constant anti-Western rhetoric.

I think saying 'Saddam was being really lovely and co-operative, and was never going to try and undermine Western intrests in the region' is a bit simplistic, but saying 'SADDAM WAS GONNA NUKE JERUSALEM AND INVADE KUWAIT AGAIN AND LAUNCH MISSILES AT THE UK' is just as bad.

Western power in the Gulf and the Middle East was directly detrimental to Saddam's own regional powerbase. If he retained regional delusions of grandeur after Gulf I, and I asume most people here agree that he likely did do, then he would have been almost compelled to try something eventually, albeit covertly. I can't imagine he would have sat on his arse forever. I grant you that it's not certain that Al-Qaeda would definetley be the Middle-organisation, but it was the only really likely one.

[Lupin]

problem is that the us economy can be affected by arm industry.
and well afaik the us economy wasnt that fine, before the war, although i might be wrong.
however i dont know in which ways the war affected the us economy...

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Lupin
problem is that the us economy can be affected by arm industry.

Affected, yes; but the arms industry is driven by R&D and procurement of big-ticket items (ships, aircraft, tanks) not a small war like Iraq. Yes, they'll pick up some extra contracts for spare parts and ammunition--but that's pocket change for them (and the economy overall).

and well afaik the us economy wasnt that fine, before the war, although i might be wrong.

Well I'm not sure it's all that fine now.

however i dont know in which ways the war affected the us economy...

Well, the reconstruction contracts may amount to several billion dollars but even that's not much compared to the overall economy; and when you offset it against the one- or two-hundred billion dollar price tag the war and occupation will likely end up costing--that's a pretty inefficient way to stimulate the economy (even by already-low US government standards). I mean, it'd be a helluva lot cheaper just to give Bechtel a billion dollar contract to repaint Cleveland or something.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Tactitus
I mean, it'd be a helluva lot cheaper just to give Bechtel a billion dollar contract to repaint Cleveland or something.

But that would be socialism.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
But that would be socialism.

Heh. That reminds me of one of my favorite Arnold Glasow quotations:

Perhaps taxation without representation was tyranny, but it was a heck of a lot cheaper.