Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Is there a reason you haven't shared your confirmable intelligence with the rest of the world?"
Things that are done in secret can't be confirmed. All I'm saying is that my theory of what happened to the WMDs is compatible with all observations.
The problem for Bush is not that Iraq failed to confirm that it destroyed its WMDs. His problem is that he stated that he had "proof" that Iraq still had them. He was wrong.
Re: "And why did the world's various intelligence agency fail to pick up the full scale incineration of over 1,000 tonnes of WMDs (estimated amount contained in those 6,000 warheads)??"
Those estimates were worst cases and were probably wayyyyy off. And to get rid of chemical weapons is simple. You simply use them. In battlefield conditions (i.e the Iran / Iraq war) it takes about 10 tons of chemical weapons to kill a single soldier. It takes a hell of a lot more than 10 tons to accidentally kill someone, LOL. So you fire them into an unpopulated area and let them dissipate. It looks just like any other practice peacetime artillery barrage. But you knew this.
Re: "And when did Saddam suddenly have this revelation? Before he announced he would stop cooperating with the UNSCOM inspectors (right after that document on unaccounted for warheads was found) in 1998? Or in 2002 when NO inspectors were present?"
Unlike you, (who says that Iraq's WMDs are in Syria, LOL), I do not claim to have intimate knowledge of when or where Iraq's WMDs were disposed of. If I had to hazard a guess, it would be 2002. The way to figure it out would be to look up the date that Iraq started asking for UN inspectors to come back. For example:
September 20, 2002
...
Aziz added, "all weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have been completely destroyed. Even tools and buildings housing equipment have been destroyed."
...
arabicnews.com
Re: "Yeah... it's called profiling."
Oh, now you're claiming to be a professional profiler?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! LOL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Even if you were a profiler, the fact is that profilers are wrong a substantial percentage of the time. And here you are, after the evidence you concluded must exist turns into vapor, claiming not only to be a profiler, but to be a profiler who is right despite the evidence, LOL.
Re: "I mean, my god, Bilow... Look at how we safeguard our chemical and nuclear stockpiles here in the US!! We don't let them go unaccounted for, EVER!!..."
You are so full of shit. We lose chemical weapons all the f'ing time. For example:
...
In 1988, people in the Solomon Islands discovered rusty, World War II-era U.S. artillery projectiles. The markings on the steel casings were eroded and illegible. No one knew what was in them, but something inside sloshed. A team of explosives experts realized they were dealing with chemical weapons.
...
inel.gov
And besides, what does how the US treats chemical weapons have anything to do with how Iraq treats em?
Re: "The ENTIRE problem is that since 1998 there have been NO information with which to generate a new thesis. No new information from Iraq, no new evidence of destroying or even possessing, those WMDs that were found missing in 1998."
Actually, there are the following new pieces of information:
(1) Iraq allowed inspections, even begged for them.
(2) This time the UN weapons inspectors found no weapons.
(3) Even when given access to US intelligence, the inspectors found no weapons.
(4) When a war did start, even though the US announced that the Iraqis would use chemical weapons, no chemical weapons were used.
(5) And despite the US interviewing hundreds of Iraqis, after the fall of Saddam's regime, no WMDs were found.
It's your failure to address the above new points of information that is your problem.
Your (latest) thesis is that all the WMDs are in Syria. Cool. Then how do you explain how it came to be that the US announced that Iraqi generals had been given orders to use them at their own discretion? Did the thousands of tons of weapons sneak across the border in those last few weeks despite constant US surveillance?
And none of this comports very well with what you (or the US) were saying before the absence of WMDs became obvious.
In short, you claim to be a profiler and make up the Syrian theory without a single shred of evidence in favor of any of it. And you sit there complaining about my theorizing, LOL.
Look. If you were right, and the WMDs obviously were taken to Syria, then how come the Conservative party in Britain is calling Blair a liar? And how come both parties in Congress have agreed to review US intelligence?
Why don't you share your crackpot theory with the government and save them the expense of all those investigations?
-- Carl |
