• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

WMDs in Syria

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
According to Gen. Georges Sada, Saddam's former #2 in the airforce. Iraq's WMD's are in Syria. Source Gen Sada also documents this in his book "Saddam's Secrets".
I believe much of what Sada claims in his book. But the problem I have with this are as follows.
1) No fly zone, what the hell was the US enforcement doing?
2) Why did the US not go right into Syria?
3) Why with Saddam longing to go all out against the US, had he had WMD's not use them against the invading military? Simply to embarass the US? Just doesn't make sense.

Now all of the regulars on this site know that I'm against the war because of the fraudulant information. Not what all of you know is that I was a hardcore supporter of the war prior to the invasion. When Saddam was caught I recall coming across a news article that claimed that it was Syria that gave up Saddam because of a deal struck between the US and Syria with regards to sanctions that were to be impossed.
Any other of you remember this story with Syria?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: WMD's Are in Syria

jfuh said:
According to Gen. Georges Sada, Saddam's former #2 in the airforce. Iraq's WMD's are in Syria. Source Gen Sada also documents this in his book "Saddam's Secrets".
I believe much of what Sada claims in his book. But the problem I have with this are as follows.
1) No fly zone, what the hell was the US enforcement doing?
2) Why did the US not go right into Syria?
3) Why with Saddam longing to go all out against the US, had he had WMD's not use them against the invading military? Simply to embarass the US? Just doesn't make sense.

Now all of the regulars on this site know that I'm against the war because of the fraudulant information. Not what all of you know is that I was a hardcore supporter of the war prior to the invasion. When Saddam was caught I recall coming across a news article that claimed that it was Syria that gave up Saddam because of a deal struck between the US and Syria with regards to sanctions that were to be impossed.
Any other of you remember this story with Syria?
Try to look at it from Saddam's position...

1991...Nobody invaded...They stopped short and left him in power as the UN mandated...

1991...They threw sanctions on him that he didn't give a rat's *** about...

1994...He threw UN inspectors out of his country...no retaliation...

1998...He threw UN inspectors out of his country...no retaliation...

1998...Clinton dropped missiles during a Jeopardy's Tournament of Champions commercial break...didn't do crap...

1998...Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act, which states te US will do everything in our power EXCEPT force...

The whole 12 years...Total defiance of UN resolutions...no retaliation...

Now put yourself in Saddam's shoes...

Time after time after time the world balked about doing anything against him...total "cry wolf" syndrome...

When 2003 came along, did you honestly think he was thinking the US would actually do something active instead of something passive?...They didn't the first 879 times...Saddam didn't think Bush had the nads to go through with it...He was relying on the Feingolds, Pelosis, and Kennedys to stop it for him...

A slight miscalculation on his part...

He was under the impression that he could move the evidence that would destroy him, and when the 2002/2003 inspectors left, he'd continue right along doing the same thing he was doing for the last two decades...telling everybody what a good little boy he's been...

Had he known GWB wasn't pulling punches like the last two administrations, he probably would've took Egypt up on their offer of asylum...But he was gambling that GWB would do the same thing the last two administrations did and put on the brakes...

He tried to call the US's bluff like he did multiple times before...

One problem...This time, it wasn't a bluff...
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: WMD's Are in Syria

cnredd said:
Time after time after time the world balked about doing anything against him...total "cry wolf" syndrome...

When 2003 came along, did you honestly think he was thinking the US would actually do something active instead of something passive?...They didn't the first 879 times...Saddam didn't think Bush had the nads to go through with it...He was relying on the Feingolds, Pelosis, and Kennedys to stop it for him...

A slight miscalculation on his part...

He was under the impression that he could move the evidence that would destroy him, and when the 2002/2003 inspectors left, he'd continue right along doing the same thing he was doing for the last two decades...telling everybody what a good little boy he's been...

Had he known GWB wasn't pulling punches like the last two administrations, he probably would've took Egypt up on their offer of asylum...But he was gambling that GWB would do the same thing the last two administrations did and put on the brakes...

He tried to call the US's bluff like he did multiple times before...

One problem...This time, it wasn't a bluff...
The whole cry wolf thing is why I was in full support of taking out the guy. Not to mention the "slam dunk" deal proposed by tenant.
However here's the problem. According the Gen. Sadar, the weapons were moved just hours before the invasion happened. They were flown out from Baghdad to Syria.
Now this doesn't quite seem to go along with that logic of calling the bluff.
Also Syria? Why are we not bombing the living daylights out of those terrorists? I mean there's really no doubt about Syria's roll in terrorism.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: WMD's Are in Syria

jfuh said:
The whole cry wolf thing is why I was in full support of taking out the guy. Not to mention the "slam dunk" deal proposed by tenant.
However here's the problem. According the Gen. Sadar, the weapons were moved just hours before the invasion happened. They were flown out from Baghdad to Syria.
Now this doesn't quite seem to go along with that logic of calling the bluff.
Also Syria? Why are we not bombing the living daylights out of those terrorists? I mean there's really no doubt about Syria's roll in terrorism.
A) It wasn't until "hours before the invasion happened" that Saddam realized that this time it was not a drill...

He was holding out until the last second...Just like he did every other time when the UN or Clinton said, "And this time we mean it!"...

It would've been easier for him to say, "Oh sh!t...I'm done for." one month ahead of time...but once again, why would he think that when the UN and Clinton blinked everytime before?...

So it exactly identifies with him "calling the bluff"...You don't call a bluff when you have no hand yourself...You try to wait it out and see if the one being agressive pulls up...every single time beforehand; they have...

B)As to why we're NOT bombing Syria?...I simply don't know...I personally endorse it...

But then again, I don't make the decisions...We elect someone to do that...

I may not agree to all of them...but I WILL back them...
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
jfuh said:
Also Syria? Why are we not bombing the living daylights out of those terrorists? I mean there's really no doubt about Syria's roll in terrorism.

cnredd said:
As to why we're NOT bombing Syria?...I simply don't know...I personally endorse it...

Despite all of our vaunted technology, and despite the testimony of two Iraqi generals, one suspects that we still don't know for sure whether Saddam secreted WMDs in Syria. Remember, the lack of human intelligence continues to be one of our biggest problems in the ME. With the assistance of friends the Russkys, terrorist groups and Russky client states long ago learned to time their movements according to the fly-by schedule of surveillance satellites. We can monitor truck convoys and flights, but we can't see inside and check out the contents without some Mark I eyeballs on the scene.

As much as we'd like to see the Assad regime in Syria done away with and a concomitant move toward representative government, we simply don't have the justification to unilaterally do so - yet.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
Despite all of our vaunted technology, and despite the testimony of two Iraqi generals, one suspects that we still don't know for sure whether Saddam secreted WMDs in Syria. Remember, the lack of human intelligence continues to be one of our biggest problems in the ME. With the assistance of friends the Russkys, terrorist groups and Russky client states long ago learned to time their movements according to the fly-by schedule of surveillance satellites. We can monitor truck convoys and flights, but we can't see inside and check out the contents without some Mark I eyeballs on the scene.

As much as we'd like to see the Assad regime in Syria done away with and a concomitant move toward representative government, we simply don't have the justification to unilaterally do so - yet.
If any future unilateral act of pre-emptive strike, Syria by far outranks the others. Syria is actively the terrorist go to state.
But then I guess having several major oil piplines stopping at Syria out to the Med has it's influence.
I suspect that this also has to do with Israel. Any violence inccured in Syria would likly flood over into Israel and cause a greater destabilization of that region.
 
Last edited:

vandree

Member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
234
Reaction score
0
Location
Studio City, ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
According to Gen. Georges Sada, Saddam's former #2 in the airforce. Iraq's WMD's are in Syria. Source Gen Sada also documents this in his book "Saddam's Secrets".
I believe much of what Sada claims in his book. But the problem I have with this are as follows.
1) No fly zone, what the hell was the US enforcement doing?
2) Why did the US not go right into Syria?
3) Why with Saddam longing to go all out against the US, had he had WMD's not use them against the invading military? Simply to embarass the US? Just doesn't make sense.

I don't think his claim is credible at all. He claims that Saddam Hussein took advantage in June 2002 of the collapse of a dam in Syria to transfer his WMD. Saying that he was sending humanitarian help, he converted two civilian planes and made 16 flights to transwer the WMD. Now Gen Sada says that the source of his info is the pilots of the two planes.

I have several problems with this account.
1. why wouldn't those same pilots tell the story to the American authorities?
2. At the time the region was full of intelligence officers from several countries, all the eyes were in Iraq, spy planes were flown in the region, yet we are to believe that they didn't notice any weird movement in Iraq nor Syria (let's keep in mind that once in Syria those WMD had to be hidden somewhere)
3. The whole idea of one country transfering his WMD to another I think is pretty silly in the first place. Who is to say that Syria wouldn't use those same weapons against Iraq, knowing at that point that Iraq has none? And why would a foreign country accept them when all the eyes of the world are on the region?

I also think you are answering your own questions. There is no way the transfer would have gone unnoticed. If the intelligence agencies were that bad, we may as well get rid oof them!
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
vandree said:
I have several problems with this account.
1. why wouldn't those same pilots tell the story to the American authorities?
2. At the time the region was full of intelligence officers from several countries, all the eyes were in Iraq, spy planes were flown in the region, yet we are to believe that they didn't notice any weird movement in Iraq nor Syria (let's keep in mind that once in Syria those WMD had to be hidden somewhere)
3. The whole idea of one country transfering his WMD to another I think is pretty silly in the first place. Who is to say that Syria wouldn't use those same weapons against Iraq, knowing at that point that Iraq has none? And why would a foreign country accept them when all the eyes of the world are on the region?

1. Maybe they stayed in Syria.

2. Airplanes aren't suspicious looking. You fly the bombs and components on a few planes into a hangar in Syria. Why would that be unfeasible?

3. It isn't silly when you consider that they are loyal Baathist allies eager to undermine the U.S. Syria would have nothing to gain from attacking their only strong ally in the region. They would accept them because they were outraged at the U.S. action.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Saddam studied Milosevic's conduct at trial very closely and has thus far duplicated it (hopefully he will finish off the same way too). He wouldn't have used his WMD (which we know he had after watching him use some of them on to commit genocide) on the U.S. forces because that would have justified everything we were doing in the eyes of the world. He is smarter than that.
 

Touchmaster

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
114
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
If you think the Iraq baathist party had anything to do with the Syrian party of the same name (just because they have the same name! imagine it!) then your knowledge of the middle east is so limited as to be worthless. thanks.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
jfuh said:
According to Gen. Georges Sada, Saddam's former #2 in the airforce. Iraq's WMD's are in Syria. Source Gen Sada also documents this in his book "Saddam's Secrets".
I believe much of what Sada claims in his book. But the problem I have with this are as follows.
1) No fly zone, what the hell was the US enforcement doing?
2) Why did the US not go right into Syria?
3) Why with Saddam longing to go all out against the US, had he had WMD's not use them against the invading military? Simply to embarass the US? Just doesn't make sense.

Now all of the regulars on this site know that I'm against the war because of the fraudulant information. Not what all of you know is that I was a hardcore supporter of the war prior to the invasion. When Saddam was caught I recall coming across a news article that claimed that it was Syria that gave up Saddam because of a deal struck between the US and Syria with regards to sanctions that were to be impossed.
Any other of you remember this story with Syria?

1) Wouldn't know
2) A couple weeks after we took Baghdad, we were told to be prepared to move towards Syria. It never happened.
3) Saddam was smart. He knew that the only thing that would save him from the coalition in the "Gulf War" was to incite Muslim anger everywhere over an Israeli military strike, hence his scud missiles striking Israel instead of U.S. military forces. He wished to make it a religious war for Muslims everywhere.

In OIF, he knew that if he used chemical weapons against U.S. forces, he would finally prove to the world that he has them and that he was everything that he was accused of being. Most of us, though prepared for it, were not expecting a WMD strike. He was trapped in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.


PS. The underground bunkers, the size of football fields, that were found in Iraq by Marines last year contained more than just "several tons of weapons and ammunition." Amongst the materials, equipment, and documents found, Syria has been implicated along with a European country (Not France).
 
Last edited:

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
vandree said:
I don't think his claim is credible at all. He claims that Saddam Hussein took advantage in June 2002 of the collapse of a dam in Syria to transfer his WMD. Saying that he was sending humanitarian help, he converted two civilian planes and made 16 flights to transwer the WMD. Now Gen Sada says that the source of his info is the pilots of the two planes.

I have several problems with this account.
1. why wouldn't those same pilots tell the story to the American authorities?
2. At the time the region was full of intelligence officers from several countries, all the eyes were in Iraq, spy planes were flown in the region, yet we are to believe that they didn't notice any weird movement in Iraq nor Syria (let's keep in mind that once in Syria those WMD had to be hidden somewhere)
3. The whole idea of one country transfering his WMD to another I think is pretty silly in the first place. Who is to say that Syria wouldn't use those same weapons against Iraq, knowing at that point that Iraq has none? And why would a foreign country accept them when all the eyes of the world are on the region?

I also think you are answering your own questions. There is no way the transfer would have gone unnoticed. If the intelligence agencies were that bad, we may as well get rid oof them!

Decent questions.

1) Where are the pilots? Our intel has a number of jets "missing."
2) Iraq is a large country with a lot of open flat desert.
3) Not so silly considering that the ruling and oppresive party in Syria is "Baathist." Many members of the Saddam regime, including family members, went to Syria for protection.
 

Deegan

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I have always felt that Syria was a major threat, especially to our friends in Israel. I don't know if they moved weapons there, but I can say with certainty, important people and papers were moved there, that I am sure of!:shock:
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
GySgt said:
1) Wouldn't know
That's the real problem isn't it? No one knows or mentions about it. Just how good are "spy" planes in recognition of threats? So many failed recon. Top notch equipment, pilots second to none. Is it really just as simple as overpaid pencil pushers with no idea where to look and what to look for?

GySgt said:
2) A couple weeks after we took Baghdad, we were told to be prepared to move towards Syria. It never happened.
Yes this I remember

GySgt said:
3) Saddam was smart. He knew that the only thing that would save him from the coalition in the "Gulf War" was to incite Muslim anger everywhere over an Israeli military strike, hence his scud missiles striking Israel instead of U.S. military forces. He wished to make it a religious war for Muslims everywhere.
I think this was also the exact idea that OBL and other religoius fanatics had. Seems like we gave them the perfect gift when we only sent so few in to secure.

GySgt said:
In OIF, he knew that if he used chemical weapons against U.S. forces, he would finally prove to the world that he has them and that he was everything that he was accused of being. Most of us, though prepared for it, were not expecting a WMD strike. He was trapped in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.
See this really just doesn't make sense. For a guy that is cornered, lost everything and clear to be captured sooner or later.......
No wait actually, if he were trying to spark religious fundamentalist reponse yes, this would be very effective.


PS. The underground bunkers, the size of football fields, that were found in Iraq by Marines last year contained more than just "several tons of weapons and ammunition." Amongst the materials, equipment, and documents found, Syria has been implicated along with a European country (Not France).[/QUOTE]
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,053
Reaction score
12,464
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Does anyone have any proof that Saddams WMD are in Syria?

So far I have seen right wing blogs and sites with a clear agenda (rubber stamping the Iraqi invasion), wishfull thinking from high level Bush administration officals (Cheney and Rumsfeldt and thier neo con friends) and a lot of rumors and hearsay for various sources who have a clear agenda in placing Saddams WMD in Syria (like avoiding the death penalty for former Saddam loyalists.. strong motivator).
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
PeteEU said:
Does anyone have any proof that Saddams WMD are in Syria?

So far I have seen right wing blogs and sites with a clear agenda (rubber stamping the Iraqi invasion), wishfull thinking from high level Bush administration officals (Cheney and Rumsfeldt and thier neo con friends) and a lot of rumors and hearsay for various sources who have a clear agenda in placing Saddams WMD in Syria (like avoiding the death penalty for former Saddam loyalists.. strong motivator).
I'm probably the most liberal poster thus far in this thread. Read post #1.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
PeteEU said:
Does anyone have any proof that Saddams WMD are in Syria?

So far I have seen right wing blogs and sites with a clear agenda (rubber stamping the Iraqi invasion), wishfull thinking from high level Bush administration officals (Cheney and Rumsfeldt and thier neo con friends) and a lot of rumors and hearsay for various sources who have a clear agenda in placing Saddams WMD in Syria (like avoiding the death penalty for former Saddam loyalists.. strong motivator).

Fact:

Most "right wing" blogs are as wrong as most "left wing" blogs. There is a lot of exxagerated information out there. Any "proof" that you might read about on the Internet is more than likely exxagerated or, as you typed, "wishful thinking." However, the American government has proof. There was chemicals, equipment and documents discovered last year in two seperate locations. There may be more, but I am only certain of the two. Syria is a country implicated as well as a European country (It is not France).

Speculation:

I do not know why it has not been made public. I can only make an educated guess about it. The last thing the world wants to see is another American invasion into another Muslim country. There are other ways to deal with problems other than direct military response. Also, with the implications of a European country (not France) that was involved with equipment that could be used to develop WMD, there is diplomatic conflicts involved. I do not know the name of this country (No intel report I have read names it), but based on what I saw and came across in Iraq, I could also make another educated guess.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: WMD's Are in Syria

cnredd said:
Try to look at it from Saddam's position...

1991...Nobody invaded...They stopped short and left him in power as the UN mandated...

1991...They threw sanctions on him that he didn't give a rat's *** about...

1994...He threw UN inspectors out of his country...no retaliation...

1998...He threw UN inspectors out of his country...no retaliation...

1998...Clinton dropped missiles during a Jeopardy's Tournament of Champions commercial break...didn't do crap...

1998...Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act, which states te US will do everything in our power EXCEPT force...

The whole 12 years...Total defiance of UN resolutions...no retaliation...

Now put yourself in Saddam's shoes...

Time after time after time the world balked about doing anything against him...total "cry wolf" syndrome...

When 2003 came along, did you honestly think he was thinking the US would actually do something active instead of something passive?...They didn't the first 879 times...Saddam didn't think Bush had the nads to go through with it...He was relying on the Feingolds, Pelosis, and Kennedys to stop it for him...

A slight miscalculation on his part...

He was under the impression that he could move the evidence that would destroy him, and when the 2002/2003 inspectors left, he'd continue right along doing the same thing he was doing for the last two decades...telling everybody what a good little boy he's been...

Had he known GWB wasn't pulling punches like the last two administrations, he probably would've took Egypt up on their offer of asylum...But he was gambling that GWB would do the same thing the last two administrations did and put on the brakes...

He tried to call the US's bluff like he did multiple times before...

One problem...This time, it wasn't a bluff...

OK, the president let a two bit dictator goad him into an invasion and occupation we will be paying for for a long, long time. That is what is great about being the biggest fish in the pond, you can bully someone who doesn't toe your line. But if your scenario is accurate, if Hussein didn't believe the US would actually invade, then he would not have secreted his WMDs to Syria.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aquapub said:
Saddam studied Milosevic's conduct at trial very closely and has thus far duplicated it (hopefully he will finish off the same way too). He wouldn't have used his WMD (which we know he had after watching him use some of them on to commit genocide) on the U.S. forces because that would have justified everything we were doing in the eyes of the world. He is smarter than that.

He had them but was too smart to use them? That doesn't make sense. His survival was at stake, you think he'd hold off using weapons because he was worried about how it would justify the US invasion?

Hmmm, maybe; that would put him a couple notches smarter that the guy who runs our country, who now looks like an idiot for basing the invasion of Iraq on WMDs that were never found.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
jfuh said:
That's the real problem isn't it? No one knows or mentions about it. Just how good are "spy" planes in recognition of threats? So many failed recon. Top notch equipment, pilots second to none. Is it really just as simple as overpaid pencil pushers with no idea where to look and what to look for?

Our intelligencia is very good. However, they are flawed in areas where it counts. They have a habit of forecasting failures - predicting failure is always easier and safer. They also suffer from the same thing many Army and Air Force Generals suffer from - they are facing forwards and trying to fight today's battles while clinging to "Cold War" tactics. Our enemy has us at an advantage in that respect. We spend billions of dollars on equipment, personel and their training, and on intelligence gathering. We are very, VERY good, but we are not adapting to today's world as fast as our enemy is moving. During the "Cold War" a satellite image was all we needed to strike our enemy. What good is a satellite image against Radical Islam? We had it all figured out during the "Cold War" ...then the world changed. Instead of facing another superpower, we found oursleves up against atavistic hatreds and passions academics had declared vanquished: religious fanaticism, ethnic prejudices, nationalism, genocide, etc.

"Our extavagant intelligence architecture rests on a flawed foundation: The indefensible conviction that human beings are rational actors.

Hateful as their deeds have been, our enemies have reveled in human genius, from the invention of the suicide bomber-the greatest precision weapon of our time and a dirt-cheap way to have a strategic impact--to the elaborate choreography of 9-11. Victims of our own wealth, we assume we can buy a technological solution to any problem. Our enemies have the advantage of poverty-they have to rely on the power of the human mind. Who get's better value?"


Ralph Peters sums it up rather nicely and he would know.....
http://www.oss.net/dynamaster/file_archive/050825/c24591e2c178ede3c02216f5083cdc0a/AFJ4_Peters[1].doc
 
Last edited:

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GySgt said:
Fact:

I do not know why it has not been made public. I can only make an educated guess about it. The last thing the world wants to see is another American invasion into another Muslim country. There are other ways to deal with problems other than direct military response. Also, with the implications of a European country (not France) that was involved with equipment that could be used to develop WMD, there is diplomatic conflicts involved. I do not know the name of this country (No intel report I have read names it), but based on what I saw and came across in Iraq, I could also make another educated guess.

The administration is suppressing evidence of WMDs, which would go a long way toward justifying its action there, on the basis of not embarrasing Syria and a European country (not France)?

Incredible, IMO. With support for the war in the dumpster, it is hard for me to believe that if they Bush Admin had any slightly credible evidence that Hussein in fact had had WMDs, it would be blasted on the 6pm news, big time.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GySgt said:
...
We spend billions of dollars on equipment, personel and their training, and on intelligence gathering. We are very, VERY good, but we are not adapting to today's world as fast as our enemy is moving. During the "Cold War" a satellite image was all we needed to strike our enemy. What good is a satellite image against Radical Islam?
...

There were had satellite images. They just misrepresented what they were.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
GySgt said:
they are facing forwards and trying to fight today's battles while clinging to "Cold War" tactics. Our enemy has us at an advantage in that respect. We spend billions of dollars on equipment, personel and their training, and on intelligence gathering. We are very, VERY good, but we are not adapting to today's world as fast as our enemy is moving.
I hear you, but that's the big issue. The mentality that we can "out buy" the enemy. where as the enemy is hardly spending any money, yet effectively causing enough fear and panic that we're changing all our principles and fighting into thier ideology. Sad.

GySgt said:
During the "Cold War" a satellite image was all we needed to strike our enemy. What good is a satellite image against Radical Islam? We had it all figured out during the "Cold War" ...then the world changed. Instead of facing another superpower, we found oursleves up against atavistic hatreds and passions academics had declared vanquished: religious fanaticism, ethnic prejudices, nationalism, genocide, etc.
You know I brought up intelligence as a failur because look at the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Kosovo? Old maps? Any satellite image would've seen that there was a Chinese flag flying over the embassy.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
jfuh said:
I hear you, but that's the big issue. The mentality that we can "out buy" the enemy. where as the enemy is hardly spending any money, yet effectively causing enough fear and panic that we're changing all our principles and fighting into thier ideology. Sad.


Kicking their *** is easy. We are doing that everywhere in many countries that many are not even aware of. Despite still being a loosely organized entity Al-Queda and many local organizations are, indeed, fratcured. However, the true battle field against Radical Islam is in the IO war. We are losing and have been for over a decade. Fundamental Islamists have the far advantage being the local "heroes" of their oppressed and highly religious civilization.

jfuh said:
You know I brought up intelligence as a failur because look at the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Kosovo? Old maps? Any satellite image would've seen that there was a Chinese flag flying over the embassy.


It depends on the photo. There are also other factors. From the guy that reads the photo all the way down to the guy that guides the bomb into the building window, there is a lot of room for human and mechanical error.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GySgt said:
Kicking their *** is easy. We are doing that everywhere in many countries that many are not even aware of. Despite still being a loosely organized entity Al-Queda and many local organizations are, indeed, fratcured. However, the true battle field against Radical Islam is in the IO war. We are losing and have been for over a decade. Fundamental Islamists have the far advantage being the local "heroes" of their oppressed and highly religious civilization.

Exactly! That is the battle we should be fighting. We are losing the battle of ideas, which we are trying to fight with misrepresentations and weapons. It's not working; we need a different plan. A plan that doesn't fuel radicalism in the ME.

[/QUOTE]
 
Top Bottom