If Saddam Had Stayed

[Upchurch]

What makes you think he's OK with professing faith to bolster his popularity but draws the line at funding jihadists? He funded Hamas.

You misunderstand. I'm saying that it isn't likely that Bin Laden would work with Saddam.

 

[leftysergeant]

What makes you think he's OK with professing faith to bolster his popularity but draws the line at funding jihadists? He funded Hamas.

Hamas does not have objectives which would have required Saddam's death.

 

[leftysergeant]

How many Iraqi civilians would have died with Saddam in power?

When your child's brain is a smear on the wall, I don't think you would much care whose bullet put it there.

 

[Virus]

When your child's brain is a smear on the wall, I don't think you would much care whose bullet put it there.

Well, yeah. It totally matters who did it.

I'm saying that it isn't likely that Bin Laden would work with Saddam.

Demonstrably wrong. Sunni jihadists accept cash and arms from the secular Allawite regime in Syria, who they consider to be heretics.

Jesus, Stalin can ally with Roosevelt and Churchill but you think it's impossible for Bin Laden to ally with Saddam?

 

[eeyore1954]

When your child's brain is a smear on the wall, I don't think you would much care whose bullet put it there.

I would care. But my point is would more Iraqi civilians been killed if Saddam had stayed in power.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

It depends if Saddam decided to go for another purge.

 

[JihadJane]

I would care. But my point is would more Iraqi civilians been killed if Saddam had stayed in power.

How do you know?

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

Demonstrably wrong. Sunni jihadists accept cash and arms from the secular Allawite regime in Syria, who they consider to be heretics.

As in al Qaeda or another group? The difference is key.

 

[Upchurch]

Demonstrably wrong. Sunni jihadists accept cash and arms from the secular Allawite regime in Syria, who they consider to be heretics.

The secular who now?

Jesus, Stalin can ally with Roosevelt and Churchill but you think it's impossible for Bin Laden to ally with Saddam?

Not impossible, just very unlikely. And lacking any concrete evidence that they ever did, there is no reason to think they might have.

 

[BenBurch]

My personal take on things was that Saddam was a useful tool. He was the rook in the corner of the board covering Iran and holding Iran in place. When and if we wanted him gone, a sharpshooter would have been a sane use of military force, and would have cost use far less than the trillions the Bush Idiot chose to spend.

 

[leftysergeant]

I would care. But my point is would more Iraqi civilians been killed if Saddam had stayed in power.

I doubt it.

 

[leftysergeant]

Share the joke with the rest of us. Osama says no to money, arms and safe houses for his jihad does he? What does he wage it with? Pointed sticks?

Osama had the money, he could buy such arms as he needed locally, and had no logistical capability to store them outside the theater of operations. Why would Saddam provide arms to someone most likely to use them against him in his own country? And a safe house in a country whose leader you exist to over-throw is an absurdity in itself.

You have no clue what was going on there, and apparently no clue as to the operations of small-cell terrorist organizations.

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

People are sort of missing the point. Between the two parties, Saddam would be the one more likely to reject a partnership. For a strongman trying to maintain power over a country with artificial borders and a diverse population [the majority of which is hostile towards him], such an alliance would offer no long-term benefit and very little short-term benefit. Bin Laden has a history of turning against those who formed alliances of convenience with him for short-term strategic gain [see: U.S.-Mujahideen partnership in Afghanistan in late 70s/early 80s]. Saddam would have no assurance that if he were to sell weapons and offer training to al Qaeda that al Qaeda wouldn't then turn on him and work to overthrow his secularist Ba'athist government.

 

[commandlinegamer]

If we're gonna mention Stalin then I think we can bring Trotsky into the mix also, viz Saddam policy is essentially Socialism in one country, i.e. Stalin whereas Osama is Trotsky with his World Communism. And if we extend this ludicrous metaphor, by removing Saddam from power we may have missed out on an opportunity to see Osama murdered by ice-pick.

 

[Virus]

People are sort of missing the point. Between the two parties, Saddam would be the one more likely to reject a partnership. For a strongman trying to maintain power over a country with artificial borders and a diverse population [the majority of which is hostile towards him], such an alliance would offer no long-term benefit and very little short-term benefit. Bin Laden has a history of turning against those who formed alliances of convenience with him for short-term strategic gain [see: U.S.-Mujahideen partnership in Afghanistan in late 70s/early 80s]. Saddam would have no assurance that if he were to sell weapons and offer training to al Qaeda that al Qaeda wouldn't then turn on him and work to overthrow his secularist Ba'athist government.

So why does the Baath regime in Syria give cash, arms and logistical support to terrorists that desire the overthrow of all secular Arab regimes?

Still failing to address the gaping hole in the argument.

a sharpshooter would have been a sane use of military force

So his serial rapist son can take over instead? Great plan.

 

[leftysergeant]

So his serial rapist son can take over instead? Great plan.

Given the quality of intel coming out of Iraq pre-invasion, I no longer trust the descriptions of some of the atrocities attributed to Saddam and the boys. Remeber the reports about the incubators stolen from Kuwait? I still get confliucting reports as to how true that was.

There is the question as to whether, if they were such monsters and ne'er-do-wells, the boys would have been able to fill their father's shoes.

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

So why does the Baath regime in Syria give cash, arms and logistical support to terrorists that desire the overthrow of all secular Arab regimes?

If you're referring to HAMAS and Hizbollah, you're going to have a hard time proving that they wish to overthrow secular Arab regimes.

 

[BeAChooser]

Show me some conclusive proof that those trucks existed first.

So when the ISG said there were trucks observed going to Syria right before the war they were just lying? LOL! You know how lame that argument is, CE, given that certain media venues even carried pictures of the truck convoys?

There's plenty of evidence to support this, starting with several Washington Times articles from 2004. For example, read http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-011235-4438r/ . And another by Bill Gertz (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/oct/28/20041028-115519-3700r/ ) stated that "U.S. intelligence agencies have obtained satellite photographs of truck convoys that were at several weapons sites in Iraq in the weeks before U.S. military operations were launched, defense officials said yesterday. The photographs indicate that Iraq was moving arms and equipment from its known weapons sites, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. According to one official, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, known as NGA, 'documented the movement of long convoys of trucks from various areas around Baghdad to the Syrian border.' The photographs bolster the claims of Pentagon official John A. Shaw, who told The Washington Times on Wednesday that recent intelligence reports indicate Russian special forces units took part in a sophisticated dispersal operation from January 2003 to March 2003 to move key weapons out of Iraq."

Furthermore, documents found in Iraq after the invasion and translated during the period when documents were made available by the government specifically mentioned the truck convoys and contained first hand accounts by those who were in them. And those accounts also left open the possibility they contained WMD.

David Kay, who headed the ISG effort for months after the invasion, stated "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved." But it wasn't resolved … because the ISG concluded it was too dangerous to investigate. Because someone was targeting ISG personel and anyone they talked to about WMD.

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=18688 states that "For the first time, the U.S. intelligence community has released an assessment that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were transferred to neighboring Syria in the weeks prior to the U.S.-led war against the Saddam Hussein regime. U.S. officials said the assessment was based on satellite images of convoys of Iraqi trucks that poured into Syria in February and March 2003. The officials said the intelligence community assessed that the trucks contained missiles and WMD components banned by the United Nations Security Council." It states "the U.S. intelligence assessment was discussed publicly for the first time by the director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency in a briefing in Washington on Tuesday. James Clapper, a retired air force general and a leading member of the U.S. intelligence community, said he linked the disappearance of Iraqi WMD with the huge number of Iraqi trucks that entered Syria before and during the U.S. military campaign to topple the Saddam regime."

General Clapper, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and then Director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, told reporters that U.S. surveillance satellites captured images of vehicle traffic dispersing WMD materiel to urban locations in Iraq and moving large quantities into Syria as well. He specifically noted a huge increase in the number of Iraqi trucks traveling to Syria before and during the war, particularly between February and March, 2003. And if you don't think we should trust General Clapper, CE, then explain why Obama does? You see, Obama recently nominated Clapper to be Director of National Intelligence (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/4/likely-intel-chief-clapper-held-disputed-wmd-view/ ). And note that http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20100608_9917.php states "Eastern European intelligence officers, in Clapper's presence, stated that Russia had aided Iraqi efforts to ship items to another nation, said former Defense Department technology security officer John Shaw." Weren't you aware of any of these things, CE?

Don Bordenkircher, who served two years as national director of prison and jail operations in Iraq, stated that he spoke to about 40 prisoners who were members of the Iraqi military or civilians assigned to the Iraqi military and stationed at munitions facilities, and they “boasted of being involved in the transport of WMD warheads to Syria." He said their stories matched and were not contradictory. Are you calling him a liar too?

Iraqi General Sada (the #3 general in Iraq at one time) stated that he was told by several Iraqi pilots that he knew and trusted that just prior to the war, Saddam moved WMD to Syria both by plane and truck. The Israelis said their spies told them Iraq WMD had found its way into Syria. Also, several Syrian journalists had reported this. And you are calling them all liars … or were you just unaware of these facts?

So you want to wallow? So be it …

But you might want to read this …

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/dont_be_so_sure_there_were_no.html

Don't Be So Sure There Were No WMD in Iraq

And you might want to be aware of this ...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/satellite-photos-support-testimony-that-iraqi-wmd-went-to-syria/

Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria
The history books on this issue shouldn’t be written just yet.

June 6, 2010

Ha’aretz has revived the mystery (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/what-is-assad-hiding-in-his-backyard-1.292935 ) surrounding the inability to find weapons of mass destruction stockpiles in Iraq, the most commonly cited justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom and one of the most embarrassing episodes for the United States. Satellite photos of a suspicious site in Syria are providing new support for the reporting of a Syrian journalist who briefly rocked the world with his reporting that Iraq’s WMD had been sent to three sites in Syria just before the invasion commenced.

The newspaper reveals that a 200 square-kilometer area in northwestern Syria has been photographed by satellites at the request of a Western intelligence agency at least 16 times, the most recent being taken in January. The site is near Masyaf, and it has at least five installations and hidden paths leading underneath the mountains. This supports the reporting of Nizar Nayouf, an award-winning Syrian journalist who said in 2004 that his sources confirmed that Saddam Hussein’s WMDs were in Syria.

… snip …

On February 24, 2009, I went to see a talk Duelfer gave at the Free Library of Philadelphia to promote his book. He admitted there were some “loose ends” regarding the possibility that Iraqi WMD went to Syria, but dismissed them. Among these “loose ends,” Duelfer said, was the inability to track down the Iraqis who worked for a company connected to Uday Hussein that sources said had driven “sensitive” material into Syria. A Pentagon document (http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=60 ) reveals that an Iraqi dissident reported that 50 trucks crossed the border on March 10, 2003, and that his sources in Syria confirmed they carried WMD. These trucks have been talked about frequently and remain a mystery.

Quote:
2) Tell us the contents of the concrete bunker that was built under the Euphrates in 2002 (that locals said contained WMD) and that was looted before the CIA (in all it's *wisdom*) decided to take a look at it in 2006?

You tell me, dawg. It's your story. Nobody aside from a few true-believer NeoCons seem to think the "bunker" even exists.

Here you go again … wallowing. With all the above reports of WMD related material being moved out of Iraq and with the ISG itself stating that they had a "credible" source who said that happened, you simply want to dismiss the above allegation out of hand. Well, logic says that if WMD was moved, it had to have come from somewhere. Why not a bunker under the Euphrates?

Seems to me the person who claims to have discovered these bunkers, Dave Gaubatz, had the credentials to make such a claim. He says he worked 12 years as an agent in the US Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations. That in 2001 he was decorated for being the "lead agent in a classified investigation, arguably the most sensitive counter-intelligence investigation currently in the entire Department of Defence". That he was the first agent to enter Saudi Arabia and then Nasariyah in Iraq, and that his mission was to locate suspect WMD sites, discover threats against US forces in the area and find Saddam loyalists, and then send such intelligence to the Iraq Survey Group and other agencies. Now note … NO ONE has claimed any of that is not true. Neither the Defense Department or the Office of Special Investigations has disavowed Gaubatz's claimed background or claimed mission. They've made no comment whatsoever.

Gaubautz claims that two congressmen, Peter Hoekstra, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Curt Weldon, took an interest in his story (and indeed, those two Congressmen did make statements about believing all Iraqi WMD had not been accounted for and might have been moved out of the country. Gaubatz claims they tried to access his classified intelligence reports and were told that all 60 of them had gone missing. And again, neither Hoakstra, Weldon, or any Defense department agency has claimed that portion of Gaubatz's claim is untrue. Gaubatz claims that some Iraqis who had helped him locate the sites were given asylum in the U.S. Again, no one in any official capacity has disputed that claim. And apparently the articles on this indicate that emails show a correspondence between Gaubatz and Weldon’s chief of staff, Russ Caso, which indicate that Weldon met with some of the Iraqis who reportedly helped Gaubatz. And noone has disputed that claim either. It certainly would explain why Weldon was so vocal back then about the issue of WMD not being a closed case.

The ONLY thing that Weldon and Hoakstra have disputed so far is Gaubatz's claim that they wanted to make a secret trip to Iraq to see the WMD site in the company of Gaubatz so that if the trip found nothing it could remain secret. Gaubatz claims that only if they found something did the Congressmen want to go public about the trip But Gaubatz says that when he learned Weldon did not even want to alert the Pentagon or intelligence officials about the trip and would be offering no protection to Iraqi witnesses, he backed out. That wouldn't be an unreasonable thing to do, if it is true. Those are the only details about Gaubatz's story that anyone so far has denied, CE. But if the Congressmen are willing to deny that, why deny the rest? Unless the bunker does exist? The fact is, this sounds exactly like the sort of swarmy political shenanigans that politicians engage in when not wanting to go out on a limb against ongoing public opinion.

And it is completely believable that having lost Gaubatz's reports on the bunkers and failing to investigate them until years after the war, the Bush administration and DoD might chose to simply cover the whole matter up to avoid looking completely incompetent. And republican Congressmen wouldn't have wanted to make either look incompetent … again for purely political reasons. Especially if, as Gaubatz claims, when they did get around to investigating the site, they found the bunkers empty but with clear signs of looting. Because that would open a whole can worms. Not even the Bush administration seemed to want to invade Syria just because Syria (or someone in Syria) might have accepted WMD materials that Iraq wanted to keep out of US hands. You'd agree with that, right?

Quote:
3) Tell us why Iraq selectively sanitized files, computers and facilities thought related to WMD? They did this before, during and even after the invasion, according to the ISG. What were they hiding?

Oh, I dunno. You do realize that Saddam and a lot of his high-ranking officials were kindasorta TRIED FOR WAR CRIMES following the invasion? Could've been trying to destroy evidence of THAT? Could've been trying to destroy evidence leading to the location of their "hidey holes"?

But the ISG said they "SELECTIVELY" sanitized items related to WMD. Not not just files in general. The truth is, CE, given that statement, you really can't say what Saddam had or didn't have prior to the war. And the fact that they did this at all seems to be evidence they were hiding something in the WMD arena. Yet you claim they had no WMD?

Quote:
4) Tell us where that still viable binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED actually came from and how you *know* it was the only one?

Could've come from practically anywhere. Iran, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Russia. Surely if it were part of some hidden stockpile left over from Saddam there would've been more than ONE.

You didn't even bother to try and learn ANYTHING about this, did you, before responding. And apparently, you weren't paying the least attention back when this was news. Wallowing then and still wallowing, I see.

First of all, the ISG said the shell they found was manufactured by Iraq. And it was still viable. And it contained 4 to 5 liters of agent … enough to kill thousands of people had it been properly dispersed. AND the ISG stated that they can't be sure how many such warheads might still be out there because of Iraq's efforts to deceive inspectors over the years as to the scope and intent of the binary sarin program. So in reality we don't know with any degree of certainty there weren't other shells stockpiled somewhere … perhaps in a bunker under a river.

And CE, what are the odds that if insurgents just picked a shell at random off the floor of the desert or in some arms cache to make an IED, they would have picked one of Saddam's best WMD weapons rather than one of the tens of millions of similar looking conventional shells that were lying around unguarded in Iraq after the war ... if that was the only shell of its type out there? That probability is next to nil.

CE, do you realize that after the war the ISG fully evaluated less than one quarter of one percent of the over 10,000 weapons caches throughout Iraq, and visited fewer than ten ammunition depots identified prior to OIF as suspect CW sites? They are still digging up surprises in the desert.

Quote:
5) Tell us what the documents dated 2002 from Saddam that were found in Iraq but not translated until much later meant when they ordered "special" materials to be hidden ("special" materials was the way Iraq referred to WMD at the time)?

[citation needed]

Wallow, wallow.

Quote:
6) Tell us why you think invading Iraq was only about finding completed WMD munitions, and not precursors and the means to produce WMD as well (you see the ISG concluded that Iraq had not given up it's pursuit of WMD and that Saddam planned to reconstitute his chemical munitions within six months to a year after the UN gave Iraq a clean bill of health and sanctions ended)?

a) Because everything the Administration said in the run-up to the war would've had us believe that Saddam was a clear and present danger and had active stockpiles of WMDs.

But democrats from previous adminstrations who had seen the same intel openly agreed with that assessment. We had plenty of reason to suspect that Saddam was retaining active stockpiles. In fact, your inability to address questions #1 through #4 leave open that possibility. And Bush didn't say Iraq was an "imminent" threat (as democrats repeatedly and dishonestly claimed), he in fact said just the opposite … that it was NOT an imminent threat. He said that we needed to invade to keep Iraq from becoming an imminent threat. Precisely because they had deliberately violated the agreement they made about WMD disarmament. And the ISG proved he was right. The Iraqi regime was hiding everything they needed to quickly reconstitute WMD and delivery systems for WMD once UN oversight ended (and that was writing on the wall).

b) Because perceived intent is not a justification for invading a foreign country.

But violating a cease fire agreement which is the only thing that allowed Saddam's regime to remain in power after his last bit of mischief is a justification for invading. The first Gulf War was not over. Especially since that violation concerned WMD and the regime violating it apparently was in friendly contact with the terrorist group who just finished killing thousands of innocent Americans. In contact with a terrorist group which was known to be seeking WMD for further attacks against America. Do you realize, CE, that Saddam was the ONLY leader of nation post 9/11 to openly applaud the 9/11 hijackers and what they did? Or were you wallowing about that fact, too?

c) Because if they thought mere PURSUIT of such weapons represented a reason to invade, North Korea would've been a much more logical target.

No, because North Korea was not violating a cease fire agreement that stimulated it stop every activity connected to WMD. Nor was North Korea known to be in contact with al-Qaeda or a safe haven for al-Qaeda. And even democrats agreed with that assessment. For example John Edwards stated in February 2002 that

... we have three different countries (Iraq, Iran, and North Korea) that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."

You are obnoxious.

And you, of course, aren't.

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

Not even gonna bother with this one. It's become painfully obvious that you have no interest in objective fact. Time and time again, you've spun and cherry-picked statements from the ISG or cited complete fabrications.
I can see why nobody takes you seriously around here. You argue like a Truther.

[not to mention that obnoxious grinning emoticon you use when it's in no way called for]

 

[leftysergeant]

So when the ISG said there were trucks observed going to Syria right before the war they were just lying? LOL! You know how lame that argument is, CE, given that certain media venues even carried pictures of the truck convoys?

There's plenty of evidence to support this, starting with several Washington Times articles from 2004. For example, read http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-011235-4438r/ . And another by Bill Gertz (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/oct/28/20041028-115519-3700r/ ) stated that "U.S. intelligence agencies have obtained satellite photographs of truck convoys that were at several weapons sites in Iraq in the weeks before U.S. military operations were launched, defense officials said yesterday. The photographs indicate that Iraq was moving arms and equipment from its known weapons sites, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. According to one official, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, known as NGA, 'documented the movement of long convoys of trucks from various areas around Baghdad to the Syrian border.' The photographs bolster the claims of Pentagon official John A. Shaw, who told The Washington Times on Wednesday that recent intelligence reports indicate Russian special forces units took part in a sophisticated dispersal operation from January 2003 to March 2003 to move key weapons out of Iraq."

Now, do you have a reliable source for this wierdness about Saddam sending his most powerful weapons across the border to a hostile state as he was about to be invaded by an overwhelminglky more powerful enemy?

And CE, what are the odds that if insurgents just picked a shell at random off the floor of the desert or in some arms cache to make an IED, they would have picked one of Saddam's best WMD weapons rather than one of the tens of millions...

About as likely as Rumsfeld telling the truth.