Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on November 16, 2005, 05:54:24 PM
-
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/16/122915.shtml
Yeah, it's on the Newsmax site.... supposed to be in the Weekly Standard's upcoming November addition.
If any of this is true, it certainly should justify invading Iraq and would vindicate President Bush and the decision to go to war.
The funny thing would be to see what he Dems would say, it it were true. Would they then begin proudly standing by their vote to gop to war?
Maybe Iraq did have ties to 911 afterall?
excerp:
Recently discovered Iraqi documents now being translated by U.S. intelligence analysts indicate that Saddam Hussein's government made extensive plans to hide Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 - and had deep ties to al Qaida before the 9/11 attacks.
Some of the internal Iraqi memo titles:
Chemical Gear for Fedayeen Saddam
• Memo from the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to Hide Information from a U.N. Inspection team (1997)
• Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team
• Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment
• Correspondence from [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to [the Military Industrial Commission] regarding information gathered by foreign intelligence satellites on WMD (Dec. 2002) • Cleaning chemical suits and how to hide chemicals
• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] plan of what to do during UNSCOM inspections (1996)
-
Ok, I'm not disputing he had them.. but the 'hid' them line is getting very frayed. We need a trail, a chain of possession leading to their current location or owners.
'Hid' just don't cut it any more.
-
Yup as much as I'd like this to be credible it is from newsmax. If it'd show up on the AP wire that'd be a different story. I'd love to see the "Bush Lied" crowd's reaction though. They obviously don't like to face facts but who knows.
-
If you want to know where they are, just look to the west!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I'd love to see the "Bush Lied" crowd's reaction though. They obviously don't like to face facts but who knows.
The fact that you posted this in a thread where NUKE is still trying argue that the invasion was justified because Iraq had WMD is just ironic, it's Ultra-Ironic(tm).
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
If you want to know where they are, just look to the west!
You are aware that your governments own investigation indicated that the WMD were destroyed long before the invasion, right?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
The fact that you posted this in a thread where NUKE is still trying argue that the invasion was justified because Iraq had WMD is just ironic, it's Ultra-Ironic
Why is it ironic? especially if I'm downplaying the source! The fact that you are coming in here just to disagree with whatever I said here is predictable....in fact it's uber-predictable(tm).
-
probably.. but dammit, if they're able to uncover a 'hide 'em' order from Saddam, don't it stand to reason that the 'where' part would be inclusive?
There's a LOT of stuff that just doesn't make sense about all this, not the least being just where in hell the goods went. Show us a chain of possession.. tie up the biggest lose end of 'where'.
short of that, the administrations just gonna sound like the kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
-
Anyone remember Operation Desert Fox? ;)
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.
'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.
"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.
The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.
Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.
"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.
"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.
Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world. [/size]
•Timeline
•Maps
•Where They Stand
•Flashback 1991
•Forces in the Gulf
•Bioweapons Explainer
•Message Boards
•UNSCOM Documents
•Related Links
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.
Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.
"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.
"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so
-
The Syrians have them. They know we know they have them.
So the solution is really simple.
Send a message to the Syrian PM "Hand over the WMD's that Saddam gave you or else. Respond in a week."
No response or a nasty response, take out his Secretary of State.
Send a message to the Syrian PM "Hand over the WMD's that Saddam gave you or else. Respond in a week."
No response or a nasty response, take out his VP.
Send a message to the Syrian PM "Hand over the WMD's that Saddam gave you or else. Respond in a week.
P.S. Guess who's next."
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The Syrians have them. They know we know they have them.
I see, so you have better information on Iraqi WMD than the US government (who spent billions on the investigation). Care to share your source?
PS: I <3 Gunslinger.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
The fact that you posted this in a thread where NUKE is still trying argue that the invasion was justified because Iraq had WMD is just ironic, it's Ultra-Ironic(tm).
The fact that I NEVER said that the war was justified because Iraq had WMD is further proof that you don't know what your are discussing and you are just leg humping again. Does it ever get old?
And, by the way, 500 tons of Uranium ( some enriched) was discovered and removed from Iraq after the invasion.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I see, so you have better information on Iraqi WMD than the US government (who spent billions on the investigation). Care to share your source?
PS: I <3 Gunslinger.
\
So you suddenly now trust the US government and what it reports? :lol
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Anyone remember Operation Desert Fox? ;)
Did you actually have a point or do you reference Clinton as a knee-jerk reaction to any challenge of the Bush admin?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
...I'd love to see the "Bush Lied" crowd's reaction though. They obviously don't like to face facts but who knows.
Originally posted by Thrawn
The fact that you posted this in a thread where NUKE is still trying argue that the invasion was justified because Iraq had WMD is just ironic, it's Ultra-Ironic(tm).
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Why is it ironic?...
It is ironic because you are accusing others of not being able to face facts.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
And, by the way, 500 tons of Uranium ( some enriched) was discovered and removed from Iraq after the invasion.
None of it was weapons grade material.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
None of it was weapons grade material.
That's true. But it was a banned substance of value to a WMD program. The enriched portion was highly radioactive.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Did you actually have a point or do you reference Clinton as a knee-jerk reaction to any challenge of the Bush admin?
My point was...the object of Iraq invasion hasn't changed, but the American Public has....it always was about his threat to the western world if he was allowed to stay in power. Don't worry, America will keep you safe regardless if you think it was a bad decision. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
None of it was weapons grade material.
Can you pronounce "Dirty Bomb"?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Did you actually have a point or do you reference Clinton as a knee-jerk reaction to any challenge of the Bush admin?
The point (IMO) was, Clinton attacked Iraq based on information he believed to be true. Or was it a lie and he misled the american public?
And just in case you missed the point again.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
What part of the above is a lie and why?
Was it a lie then or is it just a lie now?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
None of it was weapons grade material.
Why would they have 500 tons of Uranium?
How did they get it in the first place?
-
Originally posted by Furious
It is ironic because you are accusing others of not being able to face facts.
Google, is thy friend (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=clinton%2C+iraq%2C+1998&btnG=Google+Search)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Can you pronounce "Dirty Bomb"?
Can you pronounce "Boogey Man"?
-
Originally posted by Krusher
The point (IMO) was, Clinton attacked Iraq based on information he believed to be true. Or was it a lie and he misled the american public?
And just in case you missed the point again.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
What part of the above is a lie and why?
Was it a lie then or is it just a lie now?
Either way, it's not relevant to the $200 Billion quagmire we're in today.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The Syrians have them. They know we know they have them.
So the solution is really simple.
Send a message to the Syrian PM "Hand over the WMD's that Saddam gave you or else. Respond in a week."
No response or a nasty response, take out his Secretary of State.
Send a message to the Syrian PM "Hand over the WMD's that Saddam gave you or else. Respond in a week."
No response or a nasty response, take out his VP.
Send a message to the Syrian PM "Hand over the WMD's that Saddam gave you or else. Respond in a week.
P.S. Guess who's next."
I think they should just release few barrels of anthrax to the US and tell you got what you asked for :)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
That's true. But it was a banned substance
Dear god NUKE, you make it sound like the Iraqis where hiding this stuff. UNMOVIC was fully aware of the uranium at the Tawaitha facility and had inventoried it.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Dear god NUKE, you make it sound like the Iraqis where hiding this stuff. UNMOVIC was fully aware of the uranium at the Tawaitha facility and had inventoried it.
Yeah, fully aware after it was found.
-
oh my oh my, the boosh haters are getting upset.
-
Originally posted by john9001
oh my oh my, the boosh haters are getting upset.
I know it's like a magnifying glass on an ant hill. :aok
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Yeah, fully aware after it was found.
IAEA knew it was there before the last round of inspections. What's your point anyway? That the inspections where working before the invasion? In fact, the uranium became unsecure after the invasion. Not that much can be done with un-enriched uranium anyway.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Why would they have 500 tons of Uranium?
How did they get it in the first place?
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/nwp2.html
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Google, is thy friend (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=clinton%2C+iraq%2C+1998&btnG=Google+Search)
this is a side arguement, but do you really understand the concept of "irony"?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
IAEA knew it was there before the last round of inspections. What's your point anyway? That the inspections where working before the invasion? In fact, the uranium became unsecure after the invasion. Not that much can be done with un-enriched uranium anyway.
There was also a list of WMD, TONS IT, that the UN never accounted for, but knew was there.
But hey, they knew it was there, so it's all good.
And the 500 tons of uranium is in the US now.....a little bit more secure than pre-invasion
-
Originally posted by Sandman
None of it was weapons grade material.
Pfffft... that's like your Daughter saying......
"But Dad it's ONLY cookie dough!!!"
"It's NOT like I'm eating Cookies!"
Get Real!!!
Mac
-
“Iraq was in clear material violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441. They maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their programs. So there was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what they were doing that was illegal.”
-Inspector David Kay's testimony
“Saddam Hussein so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted.”
-weapons inspector Charles Duelfer
Furious do you really understand the concept of "facts?" (this is of course to my comments relating to the "Bush Lied" crowd, not the article posted in this thread.....I've allready spoke my peice on it.) because I havn't seen one posted from either you or thrawn. :huh
-
Originally posted by NUKE
There was also a list of WMD, TONS IT, that the UN never accounted for, but knew was there.
But hey, they knew it was there, so it's all good.
Nah, the inspectors said (and the signatories to resolution 1441), "There may be these and those WMD there, let's go check it out.".
They couldn't find them, and Bush et al decided that that ment that they must be there. Pretty wierd thinking eh?
And the 500 tons of uranium is in the US now.....a little bit more secure than pre-invasion
Perhaps, but 500 tons of uranium ore wasn't a threat in the first place.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Nah, the inspectors said (and the signatories to resolution 1441), "There may be these and those WMD there, let's go check it out.".
They couldn't find them, and Bush et al decided that that ment that they must be there. Pretty wierd thinking eh?
Perhaps, but 500 tons of uranium ore wasn't a threat in the first place.
Nope, the UN said that TONS of the WMD have NEVER been acounted for.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
500 tons of uranium ore wasn't a threat in the first place.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
ahhhh thrawn you kill me. Perhaps Sadam Husain was never captured and what we have is his clone. He (sadam) and OBL are chllin together in a cave in pakistan sipping 40's and smokin the hoooka.
I love revisionists. They are so entertaining.
-
Thrawn and Nash really need to open together in Vegas!
They'd be a Riot Comedy Show!!!
Kinda like the Smothers Brothers, Laurel and Hardy, Abbot and Constello...
or just "Ernie and Bert".
:rofl
Mac
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The Syrians have them. They know we know they have them.
That really wouldnt surprise me considering he tried sending his airforce to Iran in Gulf war I.
Also it is my understanding that in the case of the Bio weapons in particular that the amount we would be looking for would fit in a two car garage.
And we would be looking for them in an area the size of Texas.
What I would like to know is how much Dual use Chemical stuff they found.
Stuff that in and of themselves are nothing But. Combined with other chemicals create a Chemical weapon.
Kinda like Ammonia and Bleach. Most people have them in their homes and by themselves they are only perfectly legitimate cleaning agents. But mix the two together and you have poison gas
From what I understand abaou how Iraqs Chemical weapon program worked is they didnt keep stockpiles of the stuff ready to fire but rather mixed the stuff on site just prior to them using them.
Seems Saddam didnt trust just anyone for this task and thus had only a few specific people who were authorised to do it under his orders.
Would make sence to me particularly if he thought he might be under the threat of inspections or accusations of WMDs.
Inspections would turn up nothing but chemicals that have a legitimate other uses and thus cant be claimed as a WMD untill they are actually mixed together.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Thrawn and Nash really need to open together in Vegas!
They'd be a Riot Comedy Show!!!
Kinda like the Smothers Brothers, Laurel and Hardy, Abbot and Constello...
or jusr "Ernie and Bert".
:rofl
Mac
Nash is intelligent, interesting, creative, likeable, and likes America. Other than that, Thrawn is just like him.
-
Hey, I like everybody here....
Just wanted to get that out before I ask the next question. And here I'm genuinely curious, I really have no big doggie in this particular fight.
Thrawn, if WMDs were in fact discovered to have been in Iraq till just prior to the 2003 invasion, would that really change your opinion of the war or of Bush? Would you really suddenly go into the support column on either?
I'm just wondering if this is a "Who cares? Doesn't change anything" issue.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Nope, the UN said that TONS of the WMD have NEVER been acounted for.
So?
Cops come to your house with a search warrent looking for illegal firearms. They know that you bought some in the past. You tell you destroyed them. They start searching your house, they report that they aren't finding any weapons. The Chief of Police says stop the search and arrest him for having illegal weapons anyways.
Gunslinger,
Cops come to your house with a search warrent looking for illegal firearms. They know that you bought some in the past. They start searching your house, they report that they aren't finding any weapons. The Chief of Police says stop the search and arrest him for having illegal weapons anyways.
You're on trial and your lawyer says, "WTF, he didn't have any illegal firearms.".
Cop on the stand says, "Yeah, but we found charcoal and metal. Which those items, machining equipment and some other things he could make them.".
Your lawyer, "Did he have the proper equipment, and other things he needed to make them."
Cop, "Well, no.".
Your lawyer, "...WTF?".
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
So?
Cops come to your house with a search warrent looking for illegal firearms. They know that you bought some in the past. You tell you destroyed them. They start searching your house, they report that they aren't finding any weapons. The Chief of Police says stop the search and arrest him for having illegal weapons anyways.
Gunslinger,
Cops come to your house with a search warrent looking for illegal firearms. They know that you bought some in the past. They start searching your house, they report that they aren't finding any weapons. The Chief of Police says stop the search and arrest him for having illegal weapons anyways.
You're on trial and your lawyer says, "WTF, he didn't have any illegal firearms.".
Cop on the stand says, "Yeah, but we found charcoal and metal. Which those items, machining equipment and some other things he could make them.".
Your lawyer, "Did he have the proper equipment, and other things he needed to make them."
Cop, "Well, no.".
Your lawyer, "...WTF?".
not even close. For this to be an equal comparison I would have had to own Machine guns and Machine gunned a bunch of people and barried them in my back yard. The cops would have discovered the bodies and it would have been known that at one point in time I had a Machine gun.
Then once they got to the basement they would have found a young woman in a deep whole mumbling over and over "it puts the lotion on it's skin or it gets the hose".
That would be a better comparison.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
That would be a better comparison.
It would be a more complete analogy, but it would be outside the scope of this discussion. I mean, I could go on about how some of the cops sold you illegal weapons, and condoned your behaviour...but I won't because it would be outside the scope of this discussion.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
It would be a more complete analogy, but it would be outside the scope of this discussion. I mean, I could go on about how some of the cops sold you illegal weapons, and condoned your behaviour...but I won't because it would be outside the scope of this discussion.
are you referring to the 500 tons of Uranium or WMDs in general. Because the POST itself, aside from yours and Nukes little love fest, is about WMDs. SO I think it's relevent. In addition there was more than just 500 tons of uranium in the justification for the invasion. So in general your analogy sucks sack sweat....mine doesn't. Either way stop trying to re-write history or use silly toned down analogies because they don't work.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
are you referring to the 500 tons of Uranium or WMDs in general. Because the POST itself, aside from yours and Nukes little love fest, is about WMDs. SO I think it's relevent.
Sure, but you were talking about how Saddam was a ****tard. Not WMD.
In addition there was more than just 500 tons of uranium in the justification for the invasion.
The only valid reaons (vis a vis the UN Charter) for invading another country is to defend yourself, for mutual defense (a la NATO) or with Secutity Council approval. And to forstall you possibly arguing about the Charter, it was written by Americans, and ratified by the US.
Now, was the US in immient danger of being attacked by Iraq? In hindsight, obviously not. I have yet to see any evidence put for at the time, to indicate that it was a reasonable assumption that Iraq was going to attack the US. Furthermore, any evidence would have to be pretty darn conclusive for it to be justifiable, we are talking about going to war here.
The same applies to any of the US allies being immiently attacked.
Did the US have Security Council approval to invade Iraq?
No, 1441 gives one last chance for Iraq to comply. The inspectors where supposed to inspect and report to the SC. If the SC determined that Iraq was in violation then it would decide what action to take. If you look at past resolutions where the SC gave approval for military action to enforce a resolution, the language is very clear. Nowhere does it say, that UN members can use military power to force Iraqi compliance.
So, what justification was there? Heck, what justification was their to invade at that point in time? Why not let the inspectors finish thier job? (I have a theory on that if you are interested)
-
Well it's kinda hard to get something accomplished with a weak spineless UN when the countrys that have veto power have their hand in the cookie jar.
Then there's this:
Iraq Liberation Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act)
either way I'm not trying to justify the war, I think it's completly nescesary, I'm countering the "Bush lied" revisionists.
-
"Well it's kinda hard to get something accomplished with a weak spineless UN when the countrys that have veto power have their hand in the cookie jar."
No arguements here. I think the current SC system is broken.
"Iraq Liberation Act"
Yeah, Bill's a war criminal and should be thrown in jail...seriously. But then so is the Canadian government that ordered the Canadian soldiers to invade Yugoslavia.
Consitiutional question, can your Congress pass a bill that over-rides a treaty? I thought that treaties were the perview of the Executive.
-
Backwards. Congress ratifes treaties.. the executive can only propose and offer them for Congressional aprroval/ ratification.
-
And ratifies them with a 2/3rd majority IIRC.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
So?
Cops come to your house with a search warrent looking for illegal firearms. They know that you bought some in the past. You tell you destroyed them. They start searching your house, they report that they aren't finding any weapons. The Chief of Police says stop the search and arrest him for having illegal weapons anyways.
Gunslinger,
Cops come to your house with a search warrent looking for illegal firearms. They know that you bought some in the past. They start searching your house, they report that they aren't finding any weapons. The Chief of Police says stop the search and arrest him for having illegal weapons anyways.
You're on trial and your lawyer says, "WTF, he didn't have any illegal firearms.".
Cop on the stand says, "Yeah, but we found charcoal and metal. Which those items, machining equipment and some other things he could make them.".
Your lawyer, "Did he have the proper equipment, and other things he needed to make them."
Cop, "Well, no.".
Your lawyer, "...WTF?".
Only problem with the arguement is you would then be in trouble for not keeping records of what you did with the firearms you were known to have had.
they too would want to know "where they are now?"
-
Dred this is a fascinating interview. I can't speak for the validity of the source as it's late and I'm tired, but this guy seems to know his stuff.
Where the WMDs Went (http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20154)
Thrawn this is just for you.
This reminds me of the police chief who announced on television plans to raid a secret drug factor on the outskirts of town. At the time appointed, the police, all twelve of them, lined up behind each other at the front door, knocked and waiting for the druggies to answer, as protocol required. After ten minute of toilet flushing and back-door slamming, somebody came to the front door in a bathrobe and explained he had been in the shower. The police took his story at face value, even though his was dry as a bone, then police proceeded to inspect the premises ensuring that the legal, moral , ethnic, human, and animal rights, and also the national dignity, of the druggies was preserved. After a search, the police chief announced THERE WERE NO STOCKPILES of drugs at the inspected site. Anyone care to move to this city?
-
Guys, why are you arguing with a troll who is argumentum ad nauseum personified? Please, stop feeding him, he doesn't care about the facts, he just wants the attention.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
.... he just wants the attention.
No he doesn't.
-
I don't have the motivation to find the reports, but there were barrels of chemicals along with surface to surface rockets found in Iraq, along with equipment designed to protect people from chemical exposure. In the barrels were two different chemicals that when combined created nerve gas. In and of themselves they were nothing but pesticides and could not be classified as chemical weapons. But they were stored together with the military equipment to disperse them as a military weapon and with the equipment to protect those that might be deploying them. "Barrels". But they weren't intended as military weapons. They were part of a government fumigation process founded by the benevolent Saddam, liberator of the people of Iraq, in an attempt to revitalize the agricultural success historic to the Kurdish territories in the north of his beloved country. Anyone that doesn't see this is an idiot. Look at his mass mulching projects to fertilize the soil. Saddam was an agricultural genious taken down by the two digit IQ'd leader of the free world.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
So?
Cops come to your house with a search warrent looking for illegal firearms. They know that you bought some in the past. You tell you destroyed them. They start searching your house, they report that they aren't finding any weapons. The Chief of Police says stop the search and arrest him for having illegal weapons anyways.
Gunslinger,
Cops come to your house with a search warrent looking for illegal firearms. They know that you bought some in the past. They start searching your house, they report that they aren't finding any weapons. The Chief of Police says stop the search and arrest him for having illegal weapons anyways.
You're on trial and your lawyer says, "WTF, he didn't have any illegal firearms.".
Cop on the stand says, "Yeah, but we found charcoal and metal. Which those items, machining equipment and some other things he could make them.".
Your lawyer, "Did he have the proper equipment, and other things he needed to make them."
Cop, "Well, no.".
Your lawyer, "...WTF?".
It's more like:
Country A loses a war and agrees to a specific set of cease-fire agreements, never fully complies with the agreements and also:
1. tries to assinate a former US President
2. never accounts for TONS of WMD that they produced. And by accounting, they did not provide ANY evidence that they had been destroyed, which was part of the DEAL with the UN.
3. failed the "last chance" resolution to comply
Reason number one is reason enough to go to war. All the other reasons, combined with #1, plus Saddam's past history are ample reasons for going to war.
So other than a cease-fire agreement, a war, international sanctions and national security implications of doing nothing, your analogy of a citizen a cop and a laywer is dead on. :rolleyes:
-
I don't think Bush or Blair or whoever lied about WMD's. We all believed in them. Any suggestion that either did is as much about domestic politics as anything.
The trouble was that few if any WMD's were found. They still haven't been found. Now we have people saying they all went to Syria and it's all part of a brilliant plan by Saddam Hussein and his Baathists to invite invasion and the destruction of his regime so that they could infiltrate the new government and take over again later. Very clever indeed :eek:
This from the Front Page interview.
Tierney: While working counter-infiltration in Baghdad, I noticed a pattern among infiltrators that their cover stories would start around Summer or Fall of 2002. From this and other observations, I believe Saddam planned for a U.S. invasion after President Bush’s speech at West Point in 2002. One of the steps taken was to prepare the younger generation of the security services with English so they could infiltrate our ranks, another was either to destroy or move WMDs to other countries, principally Syria. Starting in the Summer of 2002, the Iraqis had months to purge their files and create cover stories, such as the letter from Hossam Amin, head of the Iraqi outfit that monitored the weapons inspectors, stating after Hussein Kamal’s defection that the weapons were all destroyed in 1991
:noid
Now that is the conspiracy theory to beat all conspiracy theories.
So now we know why things haven't worked out so well in Iraq. It's all thanks to Saddam and his strategic genius. I wonder when he plans to hold his victory march.
I really don't know why some people find it so neccessary to constantly justify the war. We all believed in the WMD's even it seems Saddam. But none were found and there isn't a shred of evidence that any are in Syria.
This is as much to do with the current situation in Iraq. It hasn't worked out that well. It's a mess. So reasons must be found. This is just the latest theory. A poor one at that.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
The only valid reaons (vis a vis the UN Charter) for invading another country is to defend yourself, for mutual defense (a la NATO) or with Secutity Council approval. And to forstall you possibly arguing about the Charter, it was written by Americans, and ratified by the US.
Now, was the US in immient danger of being attacked by Iraq? In hindsight, obviously not. I have yet to see any evidence put for at the time, to indicate that it was a reasonable assumption that Iraq was going to attack the US. Furthermore, any evidence would have to be pretty darn conclusive for it to be justifiable, we are talking about going to war here.
The same applies to any of the US allies being immiently attacked.
doesn't shooting at the aircraft in the no-fly zone daily constitute an attack?
-
Ali Ibrahim Al-Tikriti, the “Butcher of Basra.”
Ibrahim: I can personally vouch for Saddam's WMD programs. I helped protect his scientists and their documents while I was there. His nuclear program was at the top of his list and Saddam was very interested and sent out his security forces to hunt down a nuclear weapon when the Soviet Union fell. There were rumors amongst the inner circles that he had a crude nuclear weapon but I never saw it. I did handle as well as my units VX, Sarin and mustard gas. We were supplied with Russian NBC protective suits and they were always updated. Vast networks of bunkers were built to protect the military when such weapons were to be used. There were chutes built from the bunkers to the surface to launch these weapons in mortar shells in a surprise attack upon enemy forces approaching.
There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam had these weapons when the United States invaded. Saddam never did anything that he believed showed weakness. His weapons programs were also always a top priority for research and development because he knew he could always purchase conventional weapons abroad. The relationship between the Ba'ath Party in Baghdad and Damascus were one in the same. There is no doubt in my mind that if Saddam wanted to he could have sent such weapons and documents to Syria with ease. Assad and especially his generals would have welcomed such an idea or proposal from Saddam.
Here it be. (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20043)
Good read also.
Mac
:aok
-
Originally posted by Staga
I think they should just release few barrels of anthrax to the US and tell you got what you asked for :)
I think you should volunteer for security work in Iraq, and throw yourself on a ied :aok
-
There will NEVER be peace in the Middle East unless we (USA) become a Moslem nation and support their views (what ever they are this week). Not to mention the separation of church\state will have to go.
They will not like or want us around until this happens. Whether we are over there or here they will do anything to KILL all others that do not agree with there views. This is not an oil thing; it has been going on long before anyone knew there was oil under the sand.
As for WMD. Every country has a WMD program. The USA, China, Russia, Sweden, Finland, Swaziland, Cuba, Peru. Every country has them. Every country wants them. Where they might not have nukes, they will have others. Those who say they do not are the ones to watch.
We are going to fight, (and we can do nothing can stop that) let it be over there. Right or wrong you take the fight to the enemy. You kill them, destroy there cities or…….
Year 2075
The election results are in for the country (no names here). The Peoples front for the liberation of toilets has been elected to the leadership. They now control the government and the military.
All terrors attack against our country by them has stopped. Peace. The countries to the north and south still will not change their views on the right of toilets everywhere.
News flash!
In the country to the north there was a terrors attack on 2 public bathrooms 100’s killed and wounded. The country to the north said in the United Nations general assembly that the terrors cam from our country. We responded that they were not in any way controlled by us and that the “Freedom Fighters” are acting on their own.
The attacks soon spread to the south country. And peace is over.
Well,
That peace lasted about 10 min. They will not like us until we adopt their worldview and give up the freedoms we enjoy here now. We will like them when they stop killing us for what we believe.
If in the next year, some one finds the ultimate power source that runs cars, heats homes and powers everything and uses no oil. We no longer need the oil from them. We no longer have an interest in there countries, they will still kill us.
The war, as with most wars is about freedom to choose. As to what those freedoms are, it just depends whose side you’re on. Does anyone really believe the Chinese are going to let Moslems (good or bad) in to there country to spread their faith?
This world sucks. I have been in the military (22 years) and every president has attacked somebody. In the future lets all play a game. If you’re going to say something bad about the war because the war is bad, do it. If you’re going to say something about the war because you do not like the current president start your message, “I hate the president because”.
We need to get this stuff down to the root cause.
You either like the current president or you do not. That is all it is.
As for the war, all wars are bad, but it is much better to have the war on their land than ours.
-
You guys still believe WMD's will be found? Come on.
I give you an A+ for loyalty but a D- for facing reality.
The reality is that in 20 years, your grand children or great grand children will be reading in the history books that the second gulf war was started with a lie.
-
Originally posted by Phaser11
There will NEVER be peace in the Middle East unless we (USA) become a Moslem nation and support their views (what ever they are this week).
There will be a peace in ME when all participants will figure out the other option will cost too much. Problem is some countries are occupying areas belonging other nations and are also practising apartheid.
As long as that continues there will be nutcases who are using that for their own benefit.
Problem with US is that for decades you vetoed all UN sanctions against Israel and practically speaking gave them free hands. Now you reap what you sew and even if couple of your presidents have been trying to help the peace negotiations it's not easy when people in ME see you as Israels ally.
Tell me... why aren't there American UN troops between Israel and Lebanon or in Golan Heights? Would it be too dangerous for your troops to receive gun fire from Israeli tanks?
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
You guys still believe WMD's will be found? Come on.
I give you an A+ for loyalty but a D- for facing reality.
The reality is that in 20 years, your grand children or great grand children will be reading in the history books that the second gulf war was started with a lie.
Just like the Gulf of Tonkin.
Had nixon admitted his mistakes, he probably would have survived the investigation. Seems these Boosh apologists are unwilling, or unable, to see that most of the country totally disagrees with current policy towards Iraq as well as the mishandling of the information leading up to the war.
I'm guessing that when Bush tells the media he saw the Loch ness Monster doing a texas-two step in the Rose Garden, Ripsnort will cut and paste it on these BBs as gospel truth:lol
Gunslinger and nuke will fall predictably in line (minus the Tillman avatar, since it's now yesterdays news and all that faux sympathy is now a thing of the past) :cry
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Gunslinger and nuke will fall predictably in line (minus the Tillman avatar, since it's now yesterdays news and all that faux sympathy is now a thing of the past) :cry
hey if you choose to ignore facts and revise history to fit an agenda by all means go ahead and try.
-
Tenet served through the end of the Clinton administration and well into the term of George W. Bush.
Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about Weapons of Mass Destruction WMDs in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002 he is said to have assured the President that the evidence against Saddam amounted to a "slam dunk case,"
So if the same CIA director whom gave Clinton intel gave the same intel to the Bush Adminstration which lead to their statements and actions of war, what now makes them liars but not the Clinton Admin.
I don’t think either admin Lied, I do think the Intel was not complet at best, wrong at worst.
Now the liberal bias media (CNN, CBS,NBC,ABC,MSNBC,AP,BBC et.al.) Gasp at how low Bush’s trustworthly numbers have fallen. No friging kinding his numbers are down you buttnuts have been calling him a liar for four years. With no prospective to what was prevoiuse said.
So lets see, George Tenet was Clinton’s CIA director, the CIA gathered threat assisments which promted The Clinton Adminastration to make the following statements and take the following action.
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
Transcript:
President Clinton explains Iraq strike Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. British forces join them. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
-
Originally posted by Staga
There will be a peace in ME when all participants will figure out the other option will cost too much. Problem is some countries are occupying areas belonging other nations and are also practising apartheid.
Oh come on Staga, Al Qaeda doesn't even claim to have attacked the United States because of their support of Israel, they have stated they attacked the USA because of their continued presence on the Sacred Arabian Peninsula.
Their stated goals are to drive the infidels (that includes you my friend, not just us) out of the Dar-El-Islam, and then bring the Jihad to you, that you may no longer live in "the land of war" but that all men might dwell in the land of peace under the benevolent rule of a Caliph who rules according to Sharia.
The Muslim Brotherhood, of which Al-Qaeda and Hamas are merely sub-groups, was founded before the creation of Israel. Also, if this is all about American support of Israel, why are Al Qaeda cells and other Jihadists targeting Buddhists in Thailand and Christians in Indonesia? How would the US withdrawing all support for Israel end the Jihad in Sudan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Chechnya, Macedonia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Thailand, etc.
- SEAGOON
-
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
new source
a former weapons inspector with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), a retired CIA counter-terrorism official with vast experience dealing with Iraq, and a former advisor to then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton on Iraq - were asked to analyze the documents. All said they comport with the format, style and content of other Iraqi documents from that era known to be genuine.
Laurie Mylroie, who authored the book, "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War against America," and advised Clinton on Iraq during the 1992 presidential campaign, told CNSNews.com that the papers represent "the most complete set of documents relating Iraq to terrorism, including Islamic terrorism" against the U.S.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
You are aware that your governments own investigation indicated that the WMD were destroyed long before the invasion, right?
im not sure.... there is some anlysis....
half of the poeple who read it concluded, that Iraqi WMD can be deployed in 45 mins.
Second half of the people concluded, that Iraq doesnt have WMD.
So if somebody made mistake, it was just "bad conclusion with goodness in the mind" and nobody is responsible.
maybe reports from Inteligence are released under GPL and thats why there are so many diferent interpretations :D
-
I hear an interesting take on Iraq a couple weeks ago.
the Main WMD was found when we captured Saddam.
Saddam himself is a WMD as it was by his order the WMDs that were used , were used and if used again there it would have also been, by his order.
Myself personally I still think he had them and somehow hid or got rid of them. Possibly or rather probably with the help of other nations before the invasion.
I think it would be quite nieve if not outright stupid of us to think he had suddenly decided to turn over a new leaf and give it all up. It just wasnt his style.
He was a gambler
I think he counted on getting sanctions lifted and when the US threatened to invade he figured the UN would be able to stop us. Then when it became obvious we were comming in no matter what he managed to get rid of them. He certainly had enough time. And as I mentioned before he probably had the help of other nations looking to gain something politically
The idea being that us comming in would serve several purposes.
When we found no WMDs it would make us look like fools and loose credibility in the world.
That being done he would then be able to claim the invasion wase flse and he would then be able to re assume his role as the leader of Iraq.
In his mind it would make him a hero in the Islamic world again having stoood up to the US.
Even if killed he would be considered a martyr and thus cement his place in Islamic history
I think he counted on the help of these other countries after the invasion to place him back in power. and that part went wrong. at least so far as the trial isnt over yet.
these other countries main interest was in redicing the clout the US had in the world. that purpose having been met they really dont give a damn what happens to Saddam. one way or the other.
But all in all as I mentioned on several other threads I was an am for the war WMDs or no WMDs. "Because its tuesday" was a good enough reason for me.
Far as Im concerned the attempted assasination attempt on Bush Sr. and the bombings of the barracks in Saudi Arabia after Gulf War I were in themselves an act of war against the United States
It also has other benifits.
It places an american presence in the area and reduces our dependancy on Isreal in being our eyes and ears of the middle east.
No offence to any Isrealies. By and large from what I've seen your all decent people. But as our Thomas Jefferson once said "the United States should always put her own interests first and not maintain permanant alliances"
I happen to agree with that And with all due respect Isreal is as much liability to us as it is an asset Not to mention I personally dont agree with some of its politics. But thats another debate.
And lastly but not least. It puts us where the oil is.
Thats right. Im not going ot make beleive thats not part of it nor am I ashamed or shy about admitting it.
OIL is not only in our national interests it IS our national interest.
It is absolutely vital to our interests. and for the moment there is no substitute So bottom line is we have to be able to insure getting reguardless of how we go about it.
Naysayers kid yourselves not about its importance and think about how mucxh screaming you would be doing without everything from gas for your car, to the keyboard you type on to those ever present appendages we call cell phones people just cant live without thesedays.
to the food you eat to the clothing you wear
Cause without a ready suppply of oil you will either not have it or not be able to afford it.
Everything, Everything is dependant on oil now. Unless you really want to go back to frming on your backyards. knitting your own clothes and doing the horse and buggy bit
-
My view on the matter is that we had no choice but to invade Iraq, based on all the intelligence, Saddam's past history and 9/11 lessons learned about not acting on threats.
We didn't find WMD, but that doesn't change the fact that before the invasion, we only had the compelling intelligence of not only the US, but of the UK, France, Russia, Germany,Israel and others, plus Saddam's past and the 9/11 lessons to go by.
Now that we have comitted, I want to see this through and I wish All Americans would stand behind the troops and the mission.
Some say that people like me are blindly supporting Bush, and that's off the mark. A lot of people like me are supporting OUR nation in a time of war.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
My view on the matter is that we had no choice but to invade Iraq, based on all the intelligence, Saddam's past history and 9/11 lessons learned about not acting on threats.
According to the latest Zogby polls, you're probably in the minority these days.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
According to the latest Zogby polls, you're probably in the minority these days.
Time has a funny way of doing that.
In hindsight we all know it all
Pretty easy to predict the past
Wonder how those polls would have read if all that info and intel if presented on 9/12
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Time has a funny way of doing that.
In hindsight we all know it all
Pretty easy to predict the past
Wonder how those polls would have read if all that info and intel if presented on 9/12
True enough, but there's a few of us around here that thought Iraq was a mistake from the very beginning.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
True enough, but there's a few of us around here that thought Iraq was a mistake from the very beginning.
What reasons did you have at that time?
-
Pre-emptive war for one.
-
BS you could cut with a butter knife for another.
-
I have no respect for any person who, when faced with the truth, lacks the integrity to admit their error.
"Listen son... in this family, if you make a mistake, you own up to it. If you break a window throwing a baseball, you own up to it, apologize without a smirk or 'Yeah, but...', fix it, learn your lesson, and we carry on without any twisting of words or excuses."
You're not 10 year-old kids - stop acting like it and grow up, for heaven's sake.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I have no respect for any person who, when faced with the truth, lacks the integrity to admit their error.
"Listen son... in this family, if you make a mistake, you own up to it. If you break a window throwing a baseball, you own up to it, apologize without a smirk or 'Yeah, but...', fix it, learn your lesson, and we carry on without any twisting of words or excuses."
You're not 10 year-old kids - stop acting like it and grow up, for heaven's sake.
It is not going to happen Rolex.
-
Originally posted by Nash
BS you could cut with a butter knife for another.
(http://www.geocities.com/lip_gloss_gals/troll13.gif)
Please Do Not Feed The Nash!
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Oh come on Staga, Al Qaeda doesn't even claim to have attacked the United States because of their support of Israel, they have stated they attacked the USA because of their continued presence on the Sacred Arabian Peninsula.
Their stated goals are to drive the infidels (that includes you my friend, not just us) out of the Dar-El-Islam,
ohh that must be some special version from CNN ?
Last time i use to read their complete statement, they named their enmy as "americans" and those who support them.
Ummm they called them infidels in that statement, thats true.
And christiam religion fanatics call them pagans. include my granny :D
Lets use brain Seagoon and try to split popular rhetoric from "real" goals. Even better check out what they used to claim 20 yaers ago. (at that time i would call them funny optimists :D )
That remind me evens here in Czech 16 years ago..... when agent of secret police pretended to be injured at the manifestation and second day all news around the europe broadcasted, that Czech demonstrans were masacred. There were also witness. :rofl
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I hear an interesting take on Iraq a couple weeks ago.
the Main WMD was found when we captured Saddam.
Saddam himself is a WMD as it was by his order the WMDs that were used , were used and if used again there it would have also been, by his order.
Myself personally I still think he had them
Do you mean those from 80's whitch he bought from US and UK ?
Or those who were never found ?
ummm buts its old story .. i agree.. nobody made mistake, nobody is guilty
-
Lada, the US and UK did not sell WMD's to Saddam. I'm not sure which propaganda leaflet you've been reading. Most of Saddam's equipment was Soviet and French. The French were even helping him to build a nuclear reactor until it was bombed by the Israelis.
You must be particularly naive to think that, safely tucked away as you are in middle Europe, you are not a target of Islamic fundamentalists. America was named as the enemy. But for a good reason, take America out of the picture and Israel goes. Then we are all next for the chop. We will all:
be guided by Allah to submit to Islam and to experience the bliss of Islam.
OSL's own words.
America simply represents the rest of us in their eyes. We are all targets. Even you.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I have no respect for any person who, when faced with the truth, lacks the integrity to admit their error.
I agree. All those dems who voted to support the war should be ashamed of themselves for their political spin and haymaking in a time of war.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Some say that people like me are blindly supporting Bush, and that's off the mark.
It's right on the $$ actually..I remember another thread i asked you why you felt Kuwait had to be "Liberated".
Your reply.."Because the President said so."
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by lada
Do you mean those from 80's whitch he bought from US and UK ?
Or those who were never found ?
ummm buts its old story .. i agree.. nobody made mistake, nobody is guilty
could be either, or both
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
It's right on the $$ actually..I remember another thread i asked you why you felt Kuwait had to be "Liberated".
Your reply.."Because the President said so."
:rolleyes:
:lol Sure. :lol
Even if I said it, I was :lol at the time.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
:lol Sure. :lol
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1253848#post1253848
hope u like the taste of toe jam.:p
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Ok, I'm not disputing he had them.. but the 'hid' them line is getting very frayed. We need a trail, a chain of possession leading to their current location or owners.
'Hid' just don't cut it any more.
And the endless streams of morphing 'justifications for war with Iraq' contiunes.
Keep throwing them on the wall, something will stick.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I agree. All those dems who voted to support the war should be ashamed of themselves for their political spin and haymaking in a time of war.
I think some republicans are in that boat too. Elections are coming up.
-
Sirloin, you asked why we liberated Kuwaitt, and I said because the President gave the go ahead, which is true.