1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

An Obvious Inconsistency

Discussion in 'The OT' started by John Corn, Aug 16, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. John Corn

    John Corn Hall Of Fame

    5,046
    0
    Mar 21, 2002
    Okay, here's a conundrum. A quandary. It could very well turn into a quagmire, or even a morass.

    The Bush administration says they have credible evidence that Saddam Hussein is building weapons of mass destruction. But then they turn around and say that weapons inspectors going back would be unnecessary because Hussein will have hidden everything, and the inspectors will come up empty.

    So we have evidence, but the inspectors wouldn't be able to find it because Saddam would hide it, but we have it anyways?

    Is this the best they can do?............:shrug:
     
  2. gcutler

    gcutler Hall Of Fame

    3,434
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I saw an interview with one of the Chief weapons inspectors Scott ??? on the Daily Show (well it looks like a real news show :D ) and Scott ??? said that he feels that much of what the Administration is saying he disagrees with. He says he rather have Weapons inspectors there on the ground than nothing at all.
     
  3. jrjcd

    jrjcd Arcane Movie Trivia King DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,806
    0
    Apr 23, 2002
    who cares...any excuse will do to wipe that crud off the face of the earth...
     
  4. Mike123abc

    Mike123abc Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    2,818
    0
    Jul 19, 2002
    In the past the events went like this:

    Weapons inspectors say we want to see site XXX

    Iraqis say that site does not exist, we dont know what you are talking about.

    Weapons inspectors provide proof that it exists (sat photos or such)

    Iraqis say oh that... we did not know what you were talking about, that site is a private bath or some such and you cannot go there

    essentially exchange goes on for however long it takes to get rid of any evidence.

    Inspectors finally arrive and there is nothing there. Some reports of last inspections showing sat photos of caravans going out the back of the facility while inspectors at front door.

    Iraq is a large country and has a lot of hiding places. They are not fools to put a sign up or let a production facility be identified by satellite. They could delay for months or years with inspectors.
     
  5. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    This guy has a long reputation of being against any action against Iraq. He shows up all the time on these shows because he is the exception to most of the knowledgeable people on the subject of inspectors and their worth in this mess. Mike posted the most accurate description of what goes on over there when inspectors are on the ground.
     
  6. TNGTony

    TNGTony Hall Of Fame

    5,345
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    I don't know why the exchange doesn't go like this:

    Inspectors go to Sadam and say, "we want to look at this site."

    Sadam says "What site?"

    Inspectors, "The one that will be blown up in 5 minutes unless you let us in."

    Sadam says "I have no idea what site you mean."

    Inspectors "You know...THIS site. The one that will cease to exist in 4 minutes unless we can see what's inside."

    Sadam think about it for 5 minutes and returns..."Okay. I'll consider letting you in on one confition."

    Inspectors say, "Never mind about that one. We don't want to sift through the rubble. Now about this other site."

    Saddam, "What site?"

    Inspectors, "You know this site that will cease to exist in 5 minutes unless we can see what's inside."

    Rinse, repeat.

    See ya
    Tony
     
  7. gcutler

    gcutler Hall Of Fame

    3,434
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I don't think we ever really wanted to get rid of Saddam. Look at how we pretty much ignored the Anti-Saddam forces at the end of the Gulf War. All those Kurds who starved to death in the northern Iraqi mountains, and the Shiite rebels in the south.

    There may have been some good or not so good reasons at the time.

    1) We would have had to occupy Bagdad and do nation building, which we hate to do since WW2.
    2) The Turkish Government has a similar Kurd population and didn't want Iraqi Kurds to get the upper hand to incite the Turkish Kurds
    3) We were afraid the Iranians would be able to overthrow any new gov't and setup a puppet Iraqi Islamic Puppet State
    4) Most of Arab part of coalition would not support move.
    5) Conspiracy experts say, "What a perfect BoogieMan to have available any time you want to divert attention from domestic issues"

    So while we had the chance to get rid of Saddam, we blew it. And will probably never have as good a chance as we had 11 years ago. Everything starts from Zero this time around
     
  8. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    I believe Mr. Ritter was the chief UN weapons inspector on the ground in Iraq and his contention is that despite the cat and mouse game the Iraqis insisted on playing, the inspectors HAD been largely successful in finding and destroying most of Saddam's suspect activities. I believe Richard Butler, his former boss, is one of the "knowledgeable people" you refer to. He was rarely on the ground in Iraq and essentially ran the show from New York or Geneva. Butler comes across as more of a bureaucrat/diplomat/politician then someone knowledgable in the field. And while this certainly doesn't invalidate his opinion, it makes it at least a little suspect, for me at least.

    It should be remembered too that despite the popular conception, Saddam didn't "kick out" the inspectors, they left voluntarily. I don't remember the exact circumstances but I believe it was in anticipation of coalition military action, air strikes on Baghdad or something. I believe it was only after this action that Iraq refused to allow them to return.

    Ritter is only suggesting that getting insectors back in, even under the former circumstances of Iraqi stonewalling, is preferable to an invasion with the obvious costs and dubious results. He has also pointed out that much of the information from inspections was apparently used for targeting of subsequent air strikes. Something that was expressly forbidden by the UN agreement with Iraq and bolstered Saddam's claim that many of the inspectors were actually spies.
     
  9. lee635

    lee635 Hall Of Fame

    2,023
    2
    Apr 17, 2002
    I think you all underestimate the ability of weapons inspectors to find trace evidence. That's what the inspectors can pick up, even if the entire operation were dismantled a few days ago. And the type of chemical traces discovered combined with other intelligence gathering can give a fairly clear picture of what the Iraqi's are up to.

    The weapons inspectors were highly effective even with the cat-and-mouse delay tactics; that's why Iraq booted them out in the first place.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page