Political Crossfire Forums

[justintsn]

Has anyone here heard of the Bible Code?
It had a nice show on the History Channel.

The code showed that sadamm moved something out of the country recently.

One could argue it was the WMD. One could say that this religious adminerstration believed that.

[flamboyant]

Plato & Socrates wrote: flamboyant wrote: Plato & Socrates wrote: Fishstyx wrote: If Bush knew he was lying for the sole reason to invade Iraq, why not plant some WMDs in Iraq? All it would have taken is one shipping container packed full of VX poison gas. Voila! War is justified! Is it so unfeasible to believe that the intelligence relied on at the time just wasn't good?

Unfortunately for Bush and his neo-con cohorts, but fortunately for us, Bush could'nt do what you suggested and plant some chemical and biological agents/weapons. The main reason he could'nt do this is because, right now our science has reached quite a sophisticated level. As well as the obvious, that we could tell what agents/chemical and biological weapons they were. We can more importantly tell from which country it was produced and even tell which facility produced the agents. So there is a directly traceable path we can follow, to be able to ascertain where the agents come from.

It's the same with nuclear weapons. We can tell exactly which nuclear facility in the world, processed the Uranium or Plutonium for any particular bomb, after it is detonated. Because of this, this is one of the main reasons why governments around the world, haven't given WMD's to lunatics and terrorist groups. Could you imagine the U.S response if a terrorist used a Iraqi WMD, and killed U.S civilians? They would know the response would be justified and devastating.

If one thing is universal and that is politicians where ever they are in the world, are addicted to power. They're not dumb enough or mad enough to let there WMD, fall into the hands of terrorists. It would mean the end of them. They cant even do it by proxy, for the reasons I outlined above. Otherwise they would have done it already and Bush, would have planted the WMD's to save his reputation.

Can I have a link or two on that, because while I have heard chemical weapons can be traced, on the nukes, I seem to remember regarding North Korea we couldn't even figure out if it was indeed a nuke or just a big conventional weapon.

I also think fishstyx raises a great point - if the president was evil enough to completely fabricate a case for WMD which he knew was wrong, he would have definitely been evil enough to see the need to go in there and plant some WMD.

Regarding the tracing of strains - think about it, the US already has the technology to detect and trace the source of chemical weapons, you don't think the CIA also has envisioned a scenario where they use chemical weapons that would trace directly to other governments? You don't think just the same way we can trace them, we can also duplicate the exact same strain?

It's not so easy to fabricate or duplicate, especially when unscom was involved. In the Unscom team, it was made up of scientists from all over the world, answerable to there governments first, then the U.N. Where you source the precursor agents for you chosen chemical or biological weapon. It has a signature. The water you would use in your biological weapon, would be sourced locally. The water from the Euphrates, it has a distinctive chemical composition, say compared to the Nile, or the Amazon or the Potomac or the local river.

The quality of air, for example the air particles inside the biological weapon, will be distinctive. ie; lets say Saddam had 3 WMD factories. One in Baghdad, one in the Southern Iraqi desert and one in northern Iraq near the mountains. Because of the amount of vegetation and the type of vegetation, the air has a distinctive composition. Add to this the variable of the differing types of industries around the plant (if any at all) and the type of fumes and pollutants they throw out. We can roughly tell where in the world, the air came from.

So now when you put all those variables together, as well as other I have left out. You can now see the picture of how and why we can trace the source plant, where these weapons are made. Plus between the western Intelligence agencies, we know between us where 99% of the chemical/biological WMD factories are. So it is even easier to trace and verify, if required to do so.

Damn dude, that is a hell of an informative post, thanks.

I still think a president determined to lie about WMD could still somehow plant WMD and pull it off, but you definitely bring a lot of points to light that would make it far from easy. I wonder also if some WMD are harder to trace than others, for instance, as a novice I would wonder if something like mustard gas would be far more generic and harder to trace than say anthrax, which has a viral signature if I'm not mistaken. You raise a lot of points on why it would be hard to pull off, but I'd also wonder if the CIA could have planted WMD that would be readily tracible to the black market and thus, something Saddam could plausibly have purchased himself.

[flamboyant]

justintsn wrote: Has anyone here heard of the Bible Code?
It had a nice show on the History Channel.

The code showed that sadamm moved something out of the country recently.

One could argue it was the WMD. One could say that this religious adminerstration believed that.

There you go, see? Bush didn't lie, he read it in the Bible code.

[Claudia Schiffer]

Heinz wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: ...Also, when you know your ennemy has WMDs, you tend to negociate with them,...not invade them. :wink:

The US and parts of Europe aren't Canada. It's called "taking the initiative."

LOL..Yea! :roll: ...great initiative. :roll:

[homerjay_s]

Mr. Sunshine wrote: Bush believed what the global INTEL network and the Democrats who voted for force against Iraq believed. 8:)

How many republicans voted against the use of force in Iraq?

Oh right, one...and he won't be back in January. So, if you're trying to keep score as to who's to blame for Iraq...it rests on the hands of the executive who actually ordered the invasion, and the majority party in the legislature that actually had the ability to stop him. The Republicans already lost the legislature on this issue. One would think that those that support them and want them to take control back would try to avoid this mistake of theirs rather than trying to blame minority Democrats who did not have access to the same intel as the President, and only the intel that he cherry picked to make his case.

Then again, when they don't have ready made divisive issues to grandstand on, the Republicans typically don't do well.