Maybe Iraq War Has Hurt Al Qaeda

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

Dual use items ? If you guys want to go after each country who has dual use items, better declare WW3 immediately...

---

I don't want to hear anymore about theoretical dual uses unless you can show an actual dual use.

Iraq was a country in dire straits. Can you show show me such a robust industrial/commercial base in Iraq that can justify all the dual (civilian) uses for these items? If not, then I have to assume that the use was of the "other" kind.

We're hearing that the power grid was in disarray, the water system was fouled up, there was no economy to speak of (unless you were in the business of building palaces), so what is the proof of the civilian use?

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

The first phrase of your post is unusually arrogant

---

Sorry, I was tired and then went to bed.

quote:

---

For ex. any country mastering nuclear energy may build high-quality aluminium compounds and employ them from civil reactors to aeronautics & space technology passing by scientific instrumentation. I have not seen any occurrence of US complains against Japan, Germany, France, etc... for internal use.

---

And I haven't seen any examples of Iraq using their components for these purposes, unlike Japan, Germany, France, etc. All I see is Iraq storing them in bunkers with other weapons. If they were truly for industrial/commercial use, I'd expect to see them stored in industrial warehouses close to where the need is.

Still, there is the question of the dual use in Iraq. It's one thing to say that what we find has alternate uses. It's another to say that the alternate use was the intended use. I don't think that it was, and in all your words you don't give any indication either.

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Oh please Takvah, if you haven't figured it out by now, then you never are.

I have repeated it AD NAUSEUM, and again, if you haven't listened before, you're NOT going to listen now.

Poor Takvah, ignored anything that didn't agree with his assumptions.

---

One of Jag's posts

If you answer the question "what's the real reason" then you are admitting there was different reason than the one originally stated. I.E. a lie.

Yet I get berated for calling it a hidden agenda.

I notice you haven't used the term multiple objective or fringe benefit. You specifically keep using "different reason" though not in those exact words. If the terrorists are flocking to where we are then wouldn't have afghanistan served the same purpose? Then it would have been a great fringe benefit while we were kicking Taliban rear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

You don't recall Bush ever mentioning the 17 resolutions over 11 years?

Don't you remember Bush's own speech to the UN where he called their own credibility into question because of their lack of action on their own resolutions? Why do you think Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN to give his now infamous speech?

---

Actually I do not remember Bush calling the 17 resolutions. Perhaps once, maybe a couple times. I remember "chemical, biological, and nuclear" weapons. I remember the mushroom cloud statement. I remember "this was the one reason we could all agree on". I remember posters on THIS board coming up with the resolution argument and the bad man argument in defense of Bush. Bush stuck with the WMD argument. IF he had stuck with the resolution argument I would have still disagreed with the war but wouldn't have nearly as much ammo against it.

Do you remember that the weapons inspectors had gone back in and were finding the stuff they had catalogued before? Meaning they were untouched and not in use.

It's all moot anyway. Kerry is right. We broke it we bought it. The only thing to do now is exactly what Jag has been stating.