woofer; You went to an awful lot of trouble to respond to a post that was nothing but pure psychobabble. Think of it this way...that's 20-30 wasted minutes of your life you'll never get back.
The amount of time inspectors spent there is totally irrelevant, Saddam knew where they were going. They could have been going in circles forever and it wouldn't have helped them find anything that was there. Inspectors were tipping off Saddam as to where, remember that.
I should read, The former aid to Powell said? lol, next ...
Next is Daily from Comedy Central? lol, next ...
Yes, there were spys who were inspectors or at least knew where they would be:
Obstruction. Baghdad also undertook strenuous efforts to frustrate inspections in the field by blocking UNSCOM convoys, diverting inspectors to safe areas, and moving banned weapons, materials, and equipment to isolated hiding spots. In several instances, satellite intelligence revealed that Iraqi officials literally moved forbidden items out the back door of a facility while U.N. inspectors were coming in the front door.
The Iraqis also made repeated attempts to defeat the inspection by gaining advance notice of inspections through intelligence-gathering operations targeting inspectors in Iraq, Bahrain (where UNSCOM maintained a field office), and even New York City at U.N. headquarters.9 Iraqi agents bugged hotel rooms, conference rooms, and offices used by inspectors, monitored U.N. radio frequencies, and tapped telephones. Iraqi agents also infiltrated a number of spies into UNSCOM's Baghdad operations. When Hussein Kamal al-Majid, the high-ranking defector who oversaw some of Iraq's most secret military programs, met with UNSCOM Executive Chairman Rolf Ekeus after defecting in August 1995, he was shocked to recognize that the UNSCOM interpreter Ekeus brought with him was an Iraqi spy whom he himself had infiltrated into UNSCOM.10
Former UNSCOM inspectors reported: "It was a rare inspection when the Iraqis did not know what the inspectors were looking for before they arrived."11 A panel of former U.N. inspectors concluded that of UNSCOM's 260 inspections, "only a half-dozen actually surprised the Iraqis."12
Iraq also learned to defeat intelligence-gathering by U.S. satellites and electronic signal intercepts. Baghdad was given key satellite data by the Soviet Union and helped by the East Germans to develop sophisticated means of defeating satellite intelligence collection.13
Yeah, it would be hard to argue with me about Saddam spying. It's very true. See what I mean? Why go to all that trouble for nothing to hide? How can you debate me on anything at all? I don't know, if you refuse to acknowledge or be open to facts, it would be a little difficult wouldn't it?
You can Chuckle all you want. You are pretty cocky for having so many holes in your knowledge of these things. I know they found mustard residue in the Tigris because I followed the whole thing. CORRECTION: it was the Euphrates River, the other main river in Iraq. I remember when they found the residue, it was reported.
Lets also not forget, the head of the UN WMD inspection group, lied about Iran having nuke capability. His report was leaked and he's known for some time, years.
I've proven my point to where if someone isn't totally repellent to information and logic, they will get it. The rest? Waste of time.
I was in the Military when all this went down. I was right on this stuff as it came out, every detail.
You might want to open your mind a little, you're going through life seemingly immune to information that doesn't fit your stunted paradigms. That, is your problem. Our problem if you vote out of such a remarkable paradox of brilliance. You can take the boy to school, but you can't make him think.
I made 19 points in the post I'm responding to, but using my Internet Explorer browser, all I see is the last few points. Using my Firefox and Opera browser, my whole post can be viewed. This is a bizarre first.
I had to repost this because I made a wrong XHTML tag. Now it can be viewed properly when Internet Explorer is used.
Geeeeeeez, there's a whole lot to address in your post.
1) We don't know if there were WMD or not. It's not a false claim unless it's known to be false at the time, and we don't know what was there at the time.
BEFORE we started Shock and Awe, the inspectors had spend months looking for WMD and couldn't find anything. Do you think it was fair then, to carry through with Shock and Awe?
2) They didn't even say they knew there was WMD, it was the fact that Saddam had gone to the trouble to buy off officials in governments.
3) To recruit spy's in the inspection teams so they always knew it was coming.
If you think that there were spies on the inspection teams, I don't know how I can debate you on anything at all though.
4) There were communications recorded of an inspection location being warned to move material on more than one occasion.
Show me where you got this bit of info (link, please).
5) The report by all countries took this into account.
Took exactly what into account?
6) Why would Saddam go to all that trouble, risking war over the cheating and breaking the treaty again, if there was nothing to hide? That is what that was based on.
I'm not sure what you are asking here. What "trouble" are you talking about? Are you saying that he risked everything by hiding WMD from inspectors?
7) Sure, the CIA came out and said there was no WMD, soon after they found a squadron of fighter jets buried in the sand, they didn't know those were there, what if they had been WMD?
You obviously didn't read the inspection reports. Iraq disclosed them. Besides, when have fighter jets been considered WMD?
8) There was residue of Mustard agent in the Tigris river.
That's too funny to even address. I am chuckling though.
9) An Iraqi AF General said they had taken loads of WMD to Syria in Cargo planes.
Can you provide the link please. I don't like statements like this without a source.
10) We didn't search 100% of the country. That is not really possible.
11) The report that said they were absolutely sure there had no WMD? Done by the same agency that said there was WMD? Hello? Do you trust the first report less than the next? Why?
I'm confused. What agency are you referring to? If it's the IAEA, show me where they ever stated that Iraq had WMD.
12) Bush would have been a monumental moron to ignore reports from all the members of the UN security council, that situation was such we have to assume Saddam had WMD, and he was an imminent threat to use it.
Bush is a monumental moron and he certainly did ignore the reports. And for you to say that "we have to assume Saddam had WMD" is ludicrous. Bush says so, so we should assume? http://www.bushlies.net/
13) There is all kinds of speculation as to why he went to war, even though almost every democrat was in it with him and most of the talking louder.
This is the first statement of yours that I agree with up to a point. Where I disagree is that there were slightly more Republicans who were vocal on the matter, but I'd say that it was pretty close to being even-steven.
14) The speculation is without exception, idiotic. His friends were in oil, his daddy was in oil, his daddy was under threat from Saddam, blaugh blaugh blaugh ... Stupid.
Speculation was not idiotic at all. It was, and probably still is a topic of interest.
15) Now what Intelligence Agency makes a definitive statement about an unproven negative?
I'm assuming you are referring to the IAEA. Show me the definitive statement you are talking about.
16) THEY DON'T, I don't know what the heck they were thinking, but that is absolutely not a professional evaluation.
Chuckling again. Are you suggesting that the IAEA didn't give a professional evaluation? And just out of curiosity, when Saddam was accused of having WMD, how do you suppose he was going to prove that he didn't? He did all he could do. He allowed the inspections to go forth.
17) It sounds like a politically motivated superior took over and just made the report.
A little history is in order....
In 1953, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower envisioned the creation of this international body to control and develop the use of atomic energy, in his "Atoms for Peace" speech before the UN General Assembly. In September 1954 the United States announced to the United Nations General Assembly a plan to create an international agency to take control of the fissile material being used to create nuclear reactors, establishing a kind of nuclear bank, and the United States called for an international scientific conference on all peaceful aspects of atomic energy.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAEA
18) Real officers would be canned over such a ridicules official statement that they can't know to that degree of certainty.
I think this must be a carry-over from your two previous statements.
19) Any report that was credible would have said basically. We didn't find anything and we don't know if there was any. That is as definitive as you can get in that situation. Beyond that is unprofessional political bull.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
