Why are we at war?

[Guest]

@marine36:

I really dont see Iraq staying united forever either. Its not a real country to begin with. All the different religious sects will probably break up and go their seperate ways, but I doubt other middle eastern countries will have a hand in their affairs, we will make sure of that.

You mean like we kept Syria from meddling in Lebanon’s affairs for the past 20 years?

[Guest]

@ncscswitch:

Gd Dmn F_alk, you ARE being deliberately obtuse!

You are deliberatetly vague. You even redefine time scales:

Of COURSE I was talking about the 91-03 time frame when I said the Iran/Iraq war was 20 years ago.

So when you say “20 years ago”, it is actually: “3-15 years ago” ?

Also, just because the Shites MAY have sent material out of southern Iraq in the interim period (91-03) does NOT preclude Saddam himself sending materials from the area he DID control during the same time period.

So, may might could …
oh, somewhere you said SH did send more materials (than his Mirages) to Iran. Is that guessing or will we see some backing up of it?

And what is that crap about me calling Iraq a democracy???  I said that AFTER Saddam was deposed, Iraq became a majority (or at least largest plurality) Shite nation… the same religious/ethnic group as is the majority/ruling group in Iran.  I never made ANY claim that the Shites held power in Iraq prior to '91.

We are talking about “What was moved to Iran from IRaq during SH reign”. Ii doesn’t matter who rules it now. And it was you who brought this argument “they are similar thus they will send stuff”. The rulers were not similar at all … UP TO 20 years after the First Gulf War (that is Iran-Iraq in international understanding).

So, you talk about “1991-2003” (or 20 years after the armistice of 1988), and say “it matters that they are similar”. And you say “those in power were not similar until 2005”.

You are using logical falacies

This makes your post quite funny actually.
You use “20 years after” for … “3 to 15 years after” … and while i try to nail that pudding to the wall, you say i was fallacious?

by trying to equate 2 different POTENTIAL sources for material to be transfered to Iran and trying to claim that they are part and parcel of the same argument.  One has to do with Saddam himself, and his government, and the areas he controlled.  THAT is the source for the jets flown to Iran, and MAY be the source for OTHER materials that the IAEA had tagged but are now missing.  The OTHER source has to do with the Shites in southern Iraq and the aid they were receiving from Iran and the aid they MAY have given to Iran in exchange.

I will requote you:

The Iran/Iraq war was 20 years ago. …  Same language, similar culture, similar religion, etc.  All those same factors tie Iraq and Iran together far more closely than either nation has ever been tied to any outside power.
…
(new paragraph: Shites in souther Iraq, in that same paragraph:) Saddam knew it was a one-way ride, just like it was with the aircraft that went to Iran in 1991.  But he sent MORE anyway, knowing they would never be reuturned.
…(new paragraph)… the materials Saddam had …we know for CERTAIN that military (and other?) equipment went to Iran.

If you don’t want to be misunderstood, why not use paragraphs to mark things that belong together and that done’t belong together? You never differed between the Shiites and SH, you never said that 20 means 3-15. If you are vague and not precise, then don’t blame me or call me fallacious.
Your paragraphs implicate things you didn’t want to say.

I am simply far more likely to believe the least-common denominator here:
#1  Saddam knew he was going down and sent materials in areas under his control to other nations (most likely Iran) in order to keep the materials from being destroyed or confiscated.  We KNOW he did this with jets in '91 and in '03, so why not with OTHER materials?
#2  We know the Shites were getting aid from Iran after '91.  People tend to do things for their own self-interest, so why not think that Iran got something in exchange for their aid?

So Iran played both sides in Iraq.  Surprise, surprise.  Like THAT has never happened anywhere else in the world.

And you call me a conspiracy theorist? That is quite funny.
Saddam did not send material to Iran for two reasons:

1. He hated them (they have nothing in common: not language, not culture, not religion. They fought a war for nearly a decade.)
2. He had nothing to send. No “nucular” weapons, no chemical weapons, no biological weapons.

[Guest]

F_alk,

I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you, sorry.

However, since you keep hammering on certain things, let me correct you…
The current year is 2005.  The Iran/Iraq war started in the early 1980’s and ended after 8 years.  That places the Iran/Iraq war in a time range of from 25 to 17 years ago.  Hence, “20 years ago” is a fitting description.  Actually, it is now damn near 2006, which makes it 26 to 18 years ago.  Want to keep arguing the point?

Now, you say that Saddam did NOT send material to Iran.  Then what in the world ARE those Mirage jets?  Are they illusions?  An Al Jezira propaganda piece?  Disinformation put out by Iran?  And when did those jets go to Iran?  Some in 91, some in 03.  Are you saying that Saddam ONLY sent jets?  Are you infering that Saddam hated Iran so much that he sent them free jets not once but twice?

Iraq had no WMD’s huh?  Ummm… what was all that sh*t that the IAEA had tagged then that they are complaining that is now missing?  No chemical weapon artillery shells?  No gas that they used on the Kurds or on Iranian troops?  No SCUD missiles?  Or how about the stuff that we KNOW for certain Saddam had because NATO sold it to him???  All of the chemical agents sent by the US and France and Germany… were are THOSE materials?  Did he use ALL of it already?  Did he sell some of it other nations?  You tell me and we’ll both know.  What we DO know is that those materials are unaccounted for, and they did not just vanish.

And you still seem to have trouble keeping certain things seperate… that there WAS a transfer of materials from Saddam and his government (a KNOWN AND CONFIRMED transfer) to Iran, and that these transfers occured in '91 and '03 at a MINIMUM, and that the transfer included AT LEAST jets.  And the second that there MAY have been further transfers in '03 through '05 from Shites in southern Iraq that are sympathetic to/supporters of the government of Iran.

Now, you go ahead and keep ranting.  I am finished with this thread.

[Guest]

@ncscswitch:

However, since you keep hammering on certain things, let me correct you…
The current year is 2005.  The Iran/Iraq war started in the early 1980’s and ended after 8 years.  That places the Iran/Iraq war in a time range of from 25 to 17 years ago.  Hence, “20 years ago” is a fitting description.  Actually, it is now damn near 2006, which makes it 26 to 18 years ago.  Want to keep arguing the point?

@ncscswitch:

Gd Dmn F_alk, you ARE being deliberately obtuse!

Of COURSE I was talking about the 91-03 time frame when I said the Iran/Iraq war was 20 years ago.

1.)Make up your mind once please.
Why would anyone argue with you when you redefine what you said every minute. OYu are worse than a pudding, you are like soup to be nailed against a wall.

2.) STOP LYING ABOUT ME !
@ncscswitch:

Now, you say that Saddam did NOT send material to Iran.

I never said that. I said:
@F_alk:

oh, somewhere you said SH did send more materials (than his Mirages) to Iran. Is that guessing or will we see some backing up of it?

I included the Mirages.

I demand that you do not requote me wrong a second time.

you also wrote

What we DO know is that those materials are unaccounted for, and they did not just vanish.

The UN demanded a report about that. It was produced by Iraq short before the invasion, and like 10 minutes before the ultimatum ran out. The USA seized it and had total control over that report for more than 24 hours. The UN then received a censored version of that report.
If you can’t remember that, it is not my fault.

Now, as you misquoted me, i retaliate eye-for-an-eye and misquote you:
@ncscswitch:

I … say … those Mirage jets Are …  An Al Jezira propaganda piece… .

Iraq had … WMD … that we KNOW for certain

… You tell me … What we DO … to have  … a  government … KNOWN … to … keep ranting.

[Guest]

I am going to put this “20 year” thing to bed NOW:

When I first posted that the Iran/Iraq ware was 20 years ago, it was in response to Chengora saying “It is doubtful that Saddam would have sent any materials to the Iranians.  He did fight a war with them after all.”  and to CC’s statement “Why then, would he send nuclear material to Iran if he felt they were a constant threat?”  I even excerpt quoted CC when I posted the “20 year” comment.

You, F_alk, are the one who misinterpreted that “20 year” comment when you posted your reply to me after I posted the second means of POTENTIAL transfer of materials to Iran:  the lack of central control of Iraq by Saddam during the interim period.

My “Of course…” response was frustration directed toward you for not putting 2 and 2 together…  the Iran/Iraq war WAS 20 years ago, thus there was NOT a state of war between Iran and Iraq in the 1991-2003 time frame that would have allowed for the transfer of materials.

Sorry if I did not spell that out clearly enough for you after you misinterpreted the initial post and what I responding to (despite having included a quote reeference).  Not my fault that you started the argument from a false position.

[cystic crypt]

the Iran-Iraq war may have been 20-ish years pre-invasion, but as i said - your own intelligence showed that Iran was the biggest threat in SH’s mind. 
Or are we ignoring this as it is not a pretext for war as the other intelligence was . . . ?

[Imperious Leader]

If i was SH and i knew i was gonna get my arse kicked… id send as much contraband stuff to any enemy who would take it as along as they also hated and wanted war with my enemies. After WW2 germany sent a bunch of “heavy water” to Japan with current plans for other experiments. Yes they were allied. In the Iraq/ Iran case they had a war many decades ago, but after all they both view the Americans with far more greater threat to their own power structures than the possibility of another Iraq/ Iran war. Sending the “goodies” to Syria is not safe enough because after all they are puny and weak compared to Iran. We allready established that he sent his air force to Iran in 1991 even though its also true that they  kept it. But for Saddam to even trust this “enemy” shows some protocol or at the very least the possibility of additional items were also sent. It is not an implausible idea.Again History is replete with major changes of who is on who’s side.

[Guest]

@Imperious:

It is not an implausible idea.

TY, that is all I was trying to get across.

[Guest]

@Imperious:

… After WW2 germany sent a bunch of “heavy water” to Japan with current plans for other experiments. Yes they were allied.

After WW2 ?
Do i have to go through all of this again?

So, “after WW2” or “late in WW2”?
I can not imagine that any occupying ally would have allowed the export of heavy water and plans. Heavy water was damn expensive, they would have conficated that right away (like they confiscated all rocket technology).

[Imperious Leader]

i ACTUALLY DIDNT MEAN AFTER WW2 . What i meant was after it was clear that Germany lost the war (spring 1945) they sent the following to Japan:

A newly-designed breathing and exhaust mast, the Schnorchel,
permitted the U-234 to travel submerged for extraordinary distances.
U-234 departed Kiel on its maiden voyage on 25 March 1945, bound for
Kristiansand, Norway.  There it loaded important cargo and personnel
and departed on 15 April for a submerged voyage which was to take
them around the Cape of Good Hope, eventually concluding in Japan.
That transit was never completed.

Among the three hundred ton cargo was three complete Messerschmitt
aircraft, a Henschel HS-293 glider-bomb, extra Junkers jet engines,
and ten canisters containing 560 kg (1,235 lbs.) of uranium oxide
(U235).  The uranium oxide was to be used by the Japanese as a
catalyst for the production of synthetic methanol used for aviation
fuel.  Other cargo consisted of one ton of diplomatic mail and 6,615
pounds of technical material including drawings of ME 163 and ME 262
aircraft, plans for the building of aircraft factories, V-1 and V-2
weapons, naval ships (destroyers of classes 36C and Z51, and M and S
boats), and submarines (Types II, VII, IX, X, XI, XXI, and XXIII).
German fire-control computers, Lorenz 7H2 bombsights, Lufte 7D
bombsight computers, FUG 200 Hohehtweil airborne radars and bomb
fuses were also included in the manifest along with other military
equipment and personal luggage.

So it looks like they tried to send some high end plans to their allies to carry the torch.
They didnt send “heavy water” sorry my mind needed a refresh on what i read a long time ago. But the point being that when nations feel the end is near its quite plasible like in germanys case that Iraq too sent some goodies to Iran. At least its not without some merits. You have to grant me that. Well then you probably wont, but maybe this will help you anyway.

[Guest]

Well, the thread has moved on, but I couldn’t help responding to this (from IL from Friday):

This is the first time i disagreed with this point FYI.

I wrote on Dec. 5:

For any Bush supporters writing on this:  you do realize that if such a policy were implemented, most of the red states would be disenfranchised

You wrote:  "I dont agree…"  There’s another post as well, but I am too lazy to make a more concerted search (and I should get back to work!)  :-)  Sorry, couldn’t help it.

In any event, the more substantive point is that Iran and Iraq have never been on good terms following the desposition of the Shah and the rise of the Baath party in Iraq.  Both sides tried to destabilize the other, because each embodied the “devil” for the other.  Saddam, recall, was a secular nationalist with some limited pan-Arab aspirations (but only on the leadership score, not a UAF appeal).  Khomeini was an Islamist who pretty clearly wanted a return to the caliphate, and who didn’t have a problem destablizing regimes through encouraging internal elements.  Moreover, don’t forget that their ethnic bases of power were entirely different and at times antagonistic.

In addition, it’s more useful to look at what happened after the 1980-88 war.  Yes, it’s been many years since then, but prior to 2003, Iran and Iraq never made the rapprochement that the US and UK did following the 1812 war.  Someone had mentioned that Iraq and Iran had similar non-political ties.  This is patently absurd, and displays a marked lack of understanding of the region’s politics and the facts on the ground.  The Persian-Arab tension has always remained, as had the Shiite-Sunni divide and the secular-nationalist v. radical-Islamist point I mentioned earlier.  The intervening years have not been marked by cooperation in oil transport, for example, or burgeoning cultural exchange.  Rather, Iran has on several occasions attempted to foment disruption in Iraq by encouraging Shiites and Kurds, as they did during the first Gulf War (1980-88).

Like I said, Saddam sent his planes to Iran because they were getting destroyed, but he did so because he had little choice.  It wasn’t an agreement, it was a gamble, and a mistaken one at that.  In this war, the force deployment was more conducive to shuttling materials to Syria (if they went there) rather than Iran.  Also, don’t forget that Bush had lumped Iran into the Axis of Evil.  Why, then, does anyone think that Syria was less safe than Iran?  Finally, suggestions that Shiites in the south transfered weapons to Iran are not entirely plausible.  Saddam’s military structure kep power and critical material tightly controlled by the Republican guard, who mostly hailed from Sunni tribes loyal to him.  It is unlikely that the Shiites, who Saddam was suppressing, would have access to any significant materials, including jets.  It is even more unlikely that they would be able to effect a transfer of large-scale weapons given the no-fly zone and US surveillance during the 91-03 period, and because there would be a strong incentive to hold onto to any weapons for themselves.  Given all this, and the fact that even the Israeli general was pointing to Syria and not Iran, you need something stronger to make a plausible case for the Persians.

[Imperious Leader]

does anyone think that Syria was less safe than Iran?

Sryia is not a good place to stash WMD because it can easily be overrun and because Syria is nothing compared to the strength of Iran. Its like the difference of Israel going into Lebanon vs going into Egypt. WE (the willing) could probably go into jordan or Sryia without too much pretext because they would fall under our might in hours rather than days, while Iran is a substantial proposition and the american public wont support any action unless they themselves engaged in combat actions into iraq. Also its not really clear that SH sent those planes to iran " because he had nothing more to lose" or rather he may have some ties to his neighbor that we may not be aware of. I presented this idea as a plausible explanation it is not the facts by any stretch, but speculation. Your ideas are just as plausible in any case.

On the other points well have to agree to disagree. The sunnis will have to let the Shite majority control Iraq and that alone will speak volumes of Iraq/Iran reeapproachment. It if wasnt true before it will soon.

[Guest]

@Chengora:

Rather, Iran has on several occasions attempted to foment disruption in Iraq by encouraging Shiites and Kurds, as they did during the first Gulf War (1980-88).

Thank you Chengora.  You just validated one of MY two points:  that Iran was assisting the Shites in southern Iraq for more than a decade, and that perhaps those same Shites (you know the ones that have no ties to Iran culturally despite both being Shite…) returned the favor.

@Chengora:

Like I said, Saddam sent his planes to Iran because they were getting destroyed, but he did so because he had little choice.  It wasn’t an agreement, it was a gamble, and a mistaken one at that.  In this war, the force deployment was more conducive to shuttling materials to Syria (if they went there) rather than Iran.

Question:  How DID those additional fighters get to Iran in 2003 then?  Did David Copperfield do it?

@Chengora:

It is unlikely that the Shiites, who Saddam was suppressing, would have access to any significant materials, including jets.  It is even more unlikely that they would be able to effect a transfer of large-scale weapons given the no-fly zone and US surveillance during the 91-03 period, and because there would be a strong incentive to hold onto to any weapons for themselves.

Another question:
The IAEA says all that “stuff” was there in '03.  When we went in, we went in from the South primarilly, with the 3rd Division (or was it the 4th?) racing up the western border of Iraq after a rapid re-deploy from their aborted Turkish landing.  Forces from 82nd and 101st were air-dropped into northern and western areas (those two zones out near the Syrian border that held the SCUDS that needed to be secured at zero hour).  So we had forces south, west, and north.  That means that to go to Turkey, Syria, Jordan or Saudi, they would have had to go THROUGH US forces.

But west… west we did not have forces coming in, since Iran didn;t sign off on the war plan.  We had to work our way across the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to get over that way, several days into the fight as I recall.

So um, WHICH direction was open and available for the transfer of material?  Was it through the 3rd INF?  Maybe the 4th INF let them through?  I know, the 82nd let them slip by!

Because we all know that all of those materials tagged by the IAEA certainly did NOT go to Iran.  Saddam hated Iran, he would never send Iran things like chemical weapons or fighter jets…

[221B Baker Street]

Quote from: Chengora on Today at 10:03:09 AM
Rather, Iran has on several occasions attempted to foment disruption in Iraq by encouraging Shiites and Kurds, as they did during the first Gulf War (1980-88).

Thank you Chengora.  You just validated one of MY two points:  that Iran was assisting the Shites in southern Iraq for more than a decade, and that perhaps those same Shites (you know the ones that have no ties to Iran culturally despite both being Shite…) returned the favor.

I think this is a good point.  As far as I know, there could have been elements within Saddams army that had ties to Iran.  Is it possible that they could have been dealing with Iran without Saddams knowledge?

Quote from: Chengora on Today at 10:03:09 AM
Like I said, Saddam sent his planes to Iran because they were getting destroyed, but he did so because he had little choice.  It wasn’t an agreement, it was a gamble, and a mistaken one at that.  In this war, the force deployment was more conducive to shuttling materials to Syria (if they went there) rather than Iran.Â

Question:  How DID those additional fighters get to Iran in 2003 then?

I think it is more likely that the pilot who has been told to engage the much superior and more numerous US pilots and planes, once clear of the airfield, decided to take their chances in Iran.  By heading that direction as quickly as they could, they could avoid being shot down by the US.

[Guest]

@ncscswitch:

Another question:
The IAEA says all that “stuff” was there in '03.  …

Why is it so hard for you to consider the possibility that they were wrong there.
I myself can’t remember reports of the IAEA about “stuff” that went missing from before to *after the invasion. I remember that there was a report covering the time after the invasion and during the occupation that deals witrh “missing stuff”, suspected that it was transporeted out of Iraq by the US.
But that is just me and my memory. I won’T do the work to look either statement up, just claim that mine is correct.

[Guest]

Thank you Chengora.  You just validated one of MY two points:  that Iran was assisting the Shites in southern Iraq for more than a decade, and that perhaps those same Shites (you know the ones that have no ties to Iran culturally despite both being Shite…) returned the favor.

Not quite enough still.  You’re forgetting the nature of the assistance.  Iran could very rarely afford to send weapons over to Iraq, even small arms.  In fomenting disruption, they chiefly provided political incentives and some economic/fiscal ones too.  And the fact that Iraqi Shiites and Iranian Shiites are both Shiites didn’t mean they didn’t kill each other from 1980-88.  That’s the other cultural/ethnic dimension that you keep missing:  Arabs and Persians have not coexisted well since 1979, and their tribes certainly don’t get along.  It’s a much more delicate situation than you acknowledge, and the loyalties don’t always work in the way you’re thinking.

This is important because you’re making a very strong claim:  that Shiites in Iraq actually transfered weapons material to Iran, likely independent of Saddam Hussein’s knowledge and authority.  This assumes that they had access to those weapons (generally no, that was kept by Saddam loyalists), they had the capability to move it undetected, and that they would choose to do so.  The question of course is why?  They like Iran?  They feel that Iran can put the materials to better use?  Why would the Shiites, who are receiving protection from the U.S., choose to piss off the U.S. in a huge way by transfering weapons?  And especially when they realize that their political futures depend on working with invading forces?  And what about Saddam’s police and spy network?  They weren’t hampered from operating by the no-fly zone, and Saddam maintained up to half a million people in his police and security services.  Why do you place so much importance on the no-fly zone as if it curtails all Iraqi state action?  Big questions that your idea needs to resolve.

My idea, however, is much more plausible.  If Saddam did in fact transfer weapons (and I’m not sure he did), then it would make more sense to look for them on the Syrian border.  You’re right, US troops were in that area.  But that is a highly unprotected and porous border, and you’re asking two divisions to immediately scout an entire province.  And this assumes that Saddam didn’t effect a transfer before troops arrived.  This position avoids all the problems that plague your analysis, maintains the chain of command that Saddam personally oversaw regarding his weapons and his efforts to conceal them from inspectors, and coincides more with regional politics.  Of course, there are problems with this, one being your argument about US troops in the region.  But that isn’t a crippling point in the way that prior relations between Iran and Iraq are, nor in considering the interests of the Shiites, nor in ignoring the efficacy of Saddam’s police force.

And in the end, I’m not certain that weapons were transferred or, better stated, that they actually made it out.  In addition, I must confess ignorance as to Iraqi planes suddenly appearing in Iran in 2003.  Do you have a link?

[cystic crypt]

@F_alk:

@ncscswitch:

Another question:
The IAEA says all that “stuff” was there in '03.  …

Why is it so hard for you to consider the possibility that they were wrong there.
I myself can’t remember reports of the IAEA about “stuff” that went missing from before to *after the invasion. I remember that there was a report covering the time after the invasion and during the occupation that deals witrh “missing stuff”, suspected that it was transporeted out of Iraq by the US.
But that is just me and my memory. I won’T do the work to look either statement up, just claim that mine is correct.

Even Bush et al is finally acknowledging that they made mistakes w.r.t. WMD’s.  I’m not sure why members on this board are still so certain that they existed.

[Jennifer]

@cystic:

@F_alk:

@ncscswitch:

Another question:
The IAEA says all that “stuff” was there in '03.  …

Why is it so hard for you to consider the possibility that they were wrong there.
I myself can’t remember reports of the IAEA about “stuff” that went missing from before to *after the invasion. I remember that there was a report covering the time after the invasion and during the occupation that deals witrh “missing stuff”, suspected that it was transporeted out of Iraq by the US.
But that is just me and my memory. I won’T do the work to look either statement up, just claim that mine is correct.

Even Bush et al is finally acknowledging that they made mistakes w.r.t. WMD’s.  I’m not sure why members on this board are still so certain that they existed.

I can’t speak for everyone, but for myself - the reason I believe they existed is directly related to the difficulties the UN Weapon’s Inspectors had in the performance of their duties in Iraq.  If they had been witness to the destruction of weapons that were supposed to be destroyed, then I don’t think there would have been any problem.  Actually, if that had happened, I imagine that Saddam would still be in power, but the nation would be under sanctions for human rights violations.

But as I said, that’s my imagination and thought process, nothing factual.

[Guest]

@Chengora:

This is important because you’re making a very strong claim:  that Shiites in Iraq actually transfered weapons material to Iran, likely independent of Saddam Hussein’s knowledge and authority.

Actually, no, I am floating a hypothesis, tis being one of two hypoteses actually, to account for A:  “missing” WMD’s that most of the world acknowledges that Saddam HAD (at least at one time) and B:  why Iran may be so beligerant recently.

This particular hypothesis is supported by an initial review of the known facts:  material is missing, Saddam was not in total control in this area from 91 to 03 and had NO control over it after 03, area is adjacent to Iran, area received assistance from Iran for more than a decade, area is majority population of same religious element as rules Iran, it is known that some types of materials (notably jets) did leave this area for Iran (possibly wihtout orders based on other’s posts in this thread), etc.

@Chengora:

Why would the Shiites, who are receiving protection from the U.S., choose to piss off the U.S. in a huge way by transfering weapons?  And especially when they realize that their political futures depend on working with invading forces?

Um, perhaps because Saddam was still able to wield SOME influence in portions of this area from 91 to 03 and killed a lot of them in retaliation for their aid to the US the first time?  Perhaps because they no longer trusted the US to stick around and protect them (since we didn;t the first time) and Iran was the big-dog on the block that WOULD be there afterwards?  Just a few idle thoughts…

@Chengora:

And what about Saddam’s police and spy network?  They weren’t hampered from operating by the no-fly zone, and Saddam maintained up to half a million people in his police and security services.  Why do you place so much importance on the no-fly zone as if it curtails all Iraqi state action?  Big questions that your idea needs to resolve.

Not really.  The Shite assisted moves could have all occured 03 and later.  I simply said they could have started as early as 91 when Saddam’s control was weakened.

@Chengora:

My idea, however, is much more plausible.  If Saddam did in fact transfer weapons (and I’m not sure he did), then it would make more sense to look for them on the Syrian border.

You’re right.  Let’s just ignore the known fact that jets went to Iran and assume that anything else went to Syria (which got no jets, either in 91 or 03).  Also, your statement “and I’m not sure he did”… do you dispute the jets being moved both in 91 and in 03?  Do you not consider Mirage Jets, et.al. to be weapons?

@Chengora:

You’re right, US troops were in that area.  But that is a highly unprotected and porous border, and you’re asking two divisions to immediately scout an entire province.

Yes, it is so much LESS porous of a border when you have NO US troops in the way, and border guards that would WELCOME the materials you were bringing to their nation.

[Guest]

sigh  It’s always got to be harsh criticism with you, huh?  Fine, let me put it this way:  I agree that Iraqi fighters fled to Iran in 1991, as I’ve said and posted links for.  However, I do not know of any similar action in 2003.  If you post a link, I’ll judge that on it’s merits, but I have been unable to find any references to it, not that I was searching that hard.  Also, I agree that Iran is a plausible destination for arms.

However, I contend that Syria is a better destination and more likely to have occurred.  This, however, is assuming that Saddam moved his WMDs to another country, which I am not certain he did.  Scott Ritter, who was a top inspector in Iraq, contends in his book that the IAEA had catalogues of destroyed and preserved equipment and weapons.

(This is in a small response to Jen - btw, glad to have you back and that you’re safe!)  :-)

So, we’re dealing with quite an amount of hypotheticals here.  And, I believe you mischaracterize the situation on the ground between 1991 and 2003, and are using the penumbra of action to justify your argument, rather than articulating something more in line with ground-level realities of interest and power in that period.  For example, Saddam was denied air capability and the ability to enact an atrocity in the southern no-fly zone, this is true.  However, he still had an extensive police and security presence right up to the US invasion in 2003.  In the records that inspectors uncovered, that police system was as advanced as any in the world, perhaps not in terms of technological capability, but certainly in terms of information on each individual in the country.  However, you are ignoring this fact to assert that Saddam had little control over the weapons in the area, which is not the case.

And this is because of the Iraqi military’s force structure, and in particular the WMD program.  After all, I am not concerned with the transfer of conventional arms, and I don’t think that’s what we were really talking about.  Critical weapon systems - WMD, airforce - were staffed and controlled by people directly loyal to Saddam, either through the Republican Guard as opposed to the regular army, or more generally based on tribal affiliations with direct familial ties to Hussein.  And those people did not come from the Shiite tribes in the south.  Remember, the inspectors concentrated their efforts in and around Baghdad, precisely because those were Saddam’s power bases and he hid his weapons there.  Shiites therefore did not have access to critical weaponry, and as a result, I find your assertion of a transfer of arms doubtful.

In addition, we still have the question of Shiite motivation to transfer arms.  First you argue that Saddam had relatively less control in the south, which I take as a partial concession to my point.  Then you say he is still able to kill a wide number of Shiites in the south.  These aren’t necessarily contradictory statements, but they should give some pause to your assertions.  Secondly, you keep missing the Arab-Persian dimension of relations.  As stated in the latest issue of the Atlantic Monthly, Shiites in Iraq have not always liked Shiites in Iran.  In fact, most are generally hostile.  I said that Iran tried to foment disruption, not that it was successful.  Indeed, success has most often come from working with the Kurds, not the Shiites.  Again, just because certain people share a common religion, doesn’t mean they don’t kill each other or hate each others’ guts.

I have to go, but I’ll finish this up a bit later.