Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: CMC Airboss on January 27, 2006, 01:45:51 PM
-
Not a bad strategy... Move the WMDs from Iraq to Syria in civilian passenger aircraft and disguise them as relief supplies heading to a Syrian dam disaster in 2002. This, from Iraqi general Georges Sada. At the very least, it seems plausible and the flights actually occured.
Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says
By IRA STOLL - Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 26, 2006
The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514?page_no=1 (http://www.nysun.com/article/26514?page_no=1)
Interesting note: The United Nations coordinated the relief effort for the Hama Province dam collapse in Syria.
From page 9 of the UNDAC report. Iraq has sent 12 airplanes with food, medicines and blankets, and also dispatched a 12-member medical team.
http://www.reliefweb.int/ochaunep/edr/SyriaUNDACReport.pdf (http://www.reliefweb.int/ochaunep/edr/SyriaUNDACReport.pdf)
-
Let it go.
-
Originally posted by CMC Airboss
Not a bad strategy... Move the WMDs from Iraq to Syria in civilian passenger aircraft and disguise them as relief supplies heading to a Syrian dam disaster in 2002. This, from Iraqi general Georges Sada. At the very least, it seems plausible and the flights actually occured.
Georges Sada retired from the Iraqi airforce in 1986. Interesting that he is somehow better informed than all the Iraqi figures still serving in 2003 who have so far failed to offer up the same information whilst in US custody.
-
They hid 'em in here
(http://altura.speedera.net/ccimg.catalogcity.com/220000/226500/226543/products/10855703.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Georges Sada retired from the Iraqi airforce in 1986. Interesting that he is somehow better informed than all the Iraqi figures still serving in 2003 who have so far failed to offer up the same information whilst in US custody.
he was reactivated during the kuwait invasion, get your Bush bashing facts straight.
-
I've been saying that they are in Syria for years now.
But who listens to me?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I've been saying that they are in Syria for years now.
But who listens to me?
notice how this isn't big news to the mainstream media?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
notice how this isn't big news to the mainstream media?
Because there is no evidence to back the claim up, you wouldn't want the MSM to have another 'Rather" moment now would you?
Besides, he's hocking a book, that's reason enough for the right to claim that someones got an leftist agenda, why not now?
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
Because there is no evidence to back the claim up, you wouldn't want the MSM to have another 'Rather" moment now would you?
Besides, he's hocking a book, that's reason enough for the right to claim that someones got an leftist agenda, why not now?
Evidence has never been a pre-requisit for the MSM to run a juicy story. I KNOW that if the reverse were true the MSM would be all over this with out much shred of proof.
All it takes is a NY times secret document and there's a national scandle. Must we forger (or never actually realize) those that broke the NSA story where "hocking a new book" (http://drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm) as well.
-
I don't think this is "proof".
However, I'd be interested in hearing if any of the anti-war/anti-Bush types here would change their position if Iraqi WMD were found/proven to have been move to Syria as Sada says.
Would it change any minds/opinions?
I'm thinking it wouldn't.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I don't think this is "proof".
However, I'd be interested in hearing if any of the anti-war/anti-Bush types here would change their position if Iraqi WMD were found/proven to have been move to Syria as Sada says.
Would it change any minds/opinions?
I'm thinking it wouldn't.
Me neither. The anti-war crowed wants to hear the "Bush Lied" lies over and over again because it re-affirms their stuart smally beleifs that the new "king george" secretly goosetepps in his genuine imitation imported gestapo boots every night before his scheduled bed time.
What's really sad is.....to me, this sounds more plausible then a conspiracy theory about a "president snowing his entire administration and telling lies to his nation (not to mention brainwashing both republicans and democrats to say the very same lie for the last 10 or so years and getting the previous administration to write into US law in 1998 the very thing that he set out to d) to go to war to help his oil buddies and Cheny's Haliburton stock all the while finishing the job that his daddy started."
-
no actually I have all the WMDs and I am prepareing a massive strike
Joke
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
no actually I have all the WMDs and I am prepareing a massive strike
Well with a southern border that is secure as swiss cheese is solid, I would venture to say that's entirly possible.
Joke
-
Originally posted by Toad
I don't think this is "proof".
However, I'd be interested in hearing if any of the anti-war/anti-Bush types here would change their position if Iraqi WMD were found/proven to have been move to Syria as Sada says.
Would it change any minds/opinions?
I'm thinking it wouldn't.
of course they would not .. it is the same reason any of this is not reported in the mainstream media
I think something went across the border. I do not think every intel div in the world worth 2 cents was wrong when they said sadman had wmd's of some sort
it aint like we didnt telegraphed our right cross or anything and did not give him time to move whatever....
all the more reason to beeatch slap syria as it deserves..
strange how these third world dirt bag cheekbones countries with their obl **** look alikes control the rest of us with some poor quality home video movie message when they feel like it ....what did the dow drop the last time the mountain man goat humper made it on alkazereeeee tv??
it aint gonna end until we see the mushroom cloud, either here or there or both...my vote says there b4 here...
now let me tell you how I really feel... :)
-
Originally posted by CMC Airboss
Not a bad strategy... Move the WMDs from Iraq to Syria in civilian passenger aircraft and disguise them as relief supplies heading to a Syrian dam disaster in 2002. This, from Iraqi general Georges Sada. At the very least, it seems plausible and the flights actually occured.
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514?page_no=1 (http://www.nysun.com/article/26514?page_no=1)
Interesting note: The United Nations coordinated the relief effort for the Hama Province dam collapse in Syria.
From page 9 of the UNDAC report.
http://www.reliefweb.int/ochaunep/edr/SyriaUNDACReport.pdf (http://www.reliefweb.int/ochaunep/edr/SyriaUNDACReport.pdf)
There was no WMDs in Iraq at the time we were told of the "Nuclear ring around Ol' Bagdhad or the "chemical belts either", why do some folks still want to belive otherwise?
-
Originally posted by Big G
There was no WMDs in Iraq at the time we were told of the "Nuclear ring around Ol' Bagdhad or the "chemical belts either", why do some folks still want to belive otherwise?
Do you have proof as such. We were ALL told otherwise from various nations of all different political parties.
WE KNEW HE HAD THEM AND YET HAD ANY PROOF THAT THEY WERE DESTROYED.
For those that scream the invasion was based on a lie there is sure enough silence when additional information MAY present otherwise.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Me neither. The anti-war crowed wants to hear the "Bush Lied" lies over and over again because it re-affirms their stuart smally beleifs that the new "king george" secretly goosetepps in his genuine imitation imported gestapo boots every night before his scheduled bed time.
What's really sad is.....to me, this sounds more plausible then a conspiracy theory about a "president snowing his entire administration and telling lies to his nation (not to mention brainwashing both republicans and democrats to say the very same lie for the last 10 or so years and getting the previous administration to write into US law in 1998 the very thing that he set out to d) to go to war to help his oil buddies and Cheny's Haliburton stock all the while finishing the job that his daddy started." [/QUOTE
You can call me Anti- war if you like, I just feel like that nowadays..
Big G (ex of)
1/ Royal Scots
4 Armoured Brigade
1st Armoured Division
WIA Safwan 1991
-
Originally posted by Big G
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Me neither. The anti-war crowed wants to hear the "Bush Lied" lies over and over again because it re-affirms their stuart smally beleifs that the new "king george" secretly goosetepps in his genuine imitation imported gestapo boots every night before his scheduled bed time.
What's really sad is.....to me, this sounds more plausible then a conspiracy theory about a "president snowing his entire administration and telling lies to his nation (not to mention brainwashing both republicans and democrats to say the very same lie for the last 10 or so years and getting the previous administration to write into US law in 1998 the very thing that he set out to d) to go to war to help his oil buddies and Cheny's Haliburton stock all the while finishing the job that his daddy started." [/QUOTE
You can call me Anti- war if you like, I just feel like that nowadays..
Big G (ex of)
1/ Royal Scots
4 Armoured Brigade
1st Armoured Division
WIA Safwan 1991 [/B]
I got 10 years active duty myself, that doesn't make me an expert. Either way it seems more plausible to me that Iraq moved it's stash to syria than it does that they just vanished into thin air and with a wave of a hand "these arnt the WMDs you're looking for"
I'd like to know what everyone's been talking about since 1998 and if that's all a "lie" as well.
-
All the usual suspects...:rolleyes:
I see that is enough reason for another pre-emtive iNvAsIoN!!!
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
All the usual suspects...:rolleyes:
I see that is enough reason for another pre-emtive iNvAsIoN!!!
can you offer a better explanation?
Again, I'm not sold on this theory, it just sound more reasonable than the "bush lied" rhetoric
-
A couple of released terrorists say they were abused in Gitmo, and it's on the front page of Newsweek, I'd say this generals' allegations deserve as much consideration by the media
-
Didn't Bush come out recently and admit that the intelligence may have been faulty?
Toad,
You know my stance on this...it's the same as yours. Find WMD, damn good reason to go in.
No WMD, bad idea to tell the American people that's the main reason for going to war.
-
Senate Report proves Saddam had WMD.
http://www.rense.com/general29/wesold.htm
-
I heard two Canadian grandmothers loaded those WMD's in their panties and smuggled them to Toronto to the secret Al Quaida training camp.
Blame Canadah.
-
USA sells WMD to Iraq even AFTER the world saw Saddam used nerve gas killing ten's of thousands of Iranians & Kurds.
i'm still waiting for a rational explanation for this...supplying a genicidal Arab thug WMD while at the same time illegally selling it's war torn neighbour(Iran) conventional weapons(& leaving Congress outta the loop) .... while they are at war with each other?
That was insane.... and now look how many are payin the price for it.
-
Only reason he had any chemical crap was because the White house sold it to him.
Go and ask Rumsfield, he met him in 1983 to arrange an arms deal, there was some chemical weapons there in 1991, Artillery shells, they couldn't get an aircraft into the air to even attempt to deliver it.
UN checked, UN checked again, EU checked, EU checked again, US checked, US checked again. Powell gets to do the dog and pony show at the UN and then is sidelined afterwards.
This has been done to death before in previous threads probably.
There was no terrorists in Iraq before, but there is now. I'm all for Afghanistan, I just wish they would turn the heat up there, burn those poppy fields for a start, but Iraq ? na, I don't buy it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I don't think this is "proof".
However, I'd be interested in hearing if any of the anti-war/anti-Bush types here would change their position if Iraqi WMD were found/proven to have been move to Syria as Sada says.
Would it change any minds/opinions?
I'm thinking it wouldn't.
Are you still trying to win that bet?
-
AHhhhhh It's so clear now.
The whit house sold them to Iraq back in the 80s
and sometime in the last 25 years they just dissapeared.
That makes PERFECT sense! I can see why this wouldn't make the news that much. :rolleyes:
-
Some are just as loose with the facts as those who they complain about! What were those 3 lab trucks for they found, a means to distribute UN food for popsickles? Should we now put Uday and Qusay relatives back in charge of the rape rooms and human meat grinders maybe stick Saddam back in charge because he won hide and seek with Hans swiss bank account Blix..
We knew, Clinton knew, The UN knew that WMD did in fact exist, for some reason Saddam choose to not disclose properly dismanteling the weapons and for fun fired missles at our planes in the no fly zone and continued to play hide the chemicals while Saddams innocent sons played on an Iraqi version of Queer eye for the Hussien sons lets see who can out rape whom...
We removed a murdering dictator who enslaved his people and killed those whom oppose him in ways that seem like he enjoyed it like we enjoy watching 24 every monday night.
As the countdown to invasion loomed democrats predicted gloom and doom,
our armies would be peppered with chemicals, are soldiers killed in the 10's of thousands, even told at one point of possible attacks on the US by Dem Nancy Pelozi predicting civillian casualties by WMD's that we knew in the 1990's were still in place but again Saddam decided to cover up the dismanteling of the programs even with the Ambiguous Porn monger Scott Ritter on the payroll and the ever so innocent George Galloway knew for a fact that WMD's didn't exist but the Oil for Loot program was a great bargain for thier families college tuitions and sport car habits.
One fact Liberals seem to easily dismiss is that if the UN oil for Food program had been working like it had been designed and initially set up to work we shouldn't have had to invade in the first place so why isn't the left pissed off at Annan or France or Russia or any other country on the Oil for Payolla take, its really convienant to blame Bush isn't it with out upsetting our great friends
the French who looked the other way as antitank weapons with
serial numbers dated around a year were bought and moved into Iraq to kill our troops.
Strange how the Yourapeeans fancy a murderous dictator whos sons seemed like such wholsome boys whom could have been cast on the Yuro version of trading spaces and possibly everybody loves Saddam over a God fearing Christian with balls enough to point out the fact that the yourapeeans really aren't looking out for our best interests unless there is money involved or a party at the rape room and they are invited.
And since when has the term Liar been such a soar point for Liberals, the history of lieng liberals is a book worth on its own ending recently with Bill Clintons famous fireside finger pointing on national tv.
The Left decided early on that the UN is the proper place to settle international conflict, well why not put international security into the hands of UN cheese handout peacekeeping forces instead of the worlds greatest fighting force, then when it turns out the peacekeeping force starts selling young iraqi females into the sex slave trade the liberal msn will look the other way and place that little trinket on page 15b of the monday paper, ohhh those wacky peacekeepers they were just kidding...
Its easier to believe that Bush Lied then it is a murderous Dictator moved Chemical weapons to a known terrorist sponsering country, and the people who spout that garbage should just pack up and move to Iran for a year or just do us a favor and stop voting forever because you failed the voting aptitude test and dont deserve to be a citizen of this country..
TJ
-
Wow TJ don't hold back, tell them how you really feel.
-
All the WMDS are sitting in shipping containers in our ports ready to be activated by Alqida sleeper agents disguised as Mexican illegal immigrants.
:O :huh :noid
-
!!!!!!
heck i think even if we found wmd's the left would be crying about something else in Iraq and how we coulda shoulda did it all any other way than the way Bush and his admin have gone with this war..
all they want is their power back, they give a rats arse about nothing else .. now they just need to filibuster Alito so we can nuke em on Weds :)
-
Originally posted by CMC Airboss
At the very least, it seems plausible and the flights actually occured.
while it could be plausible, it seems much more likely that Bush is a liar and a fat-mouth.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
while it could be plausible, it seems much more likely that Bush is a liar and a fat-mouth.
Here we go again.
In one hand we have a sound, plausable, logical theory.
In the other we have a conspiracy theory about a "president snowing his entire administration and telling lies to his nation (not to mention brainwashing both republicans and democrats to say the very same lie for the last 10 or so years and getting the previous administration to write into US law in 1998 the very thing that he set out to do) to go to war to help his oil buddies and Cheny's Haliburton stock all the while finishing the job that his daddy started.
hmmmmm
-
Originally posted by T0J0
Some are just as loose with the facts as those who they complain about! What were those 3 lab trucks for they found, a means to distribute UN food for popsickles?
What the hell? I can't believe that years after the two (not three) supposed "mobile biological weapons labs" proved to be labs that produce hydrogen for weather balloons used to help artillery guidence, and after it has been explained so often on this bbs, people are still ignorant of that fact.
The UN knew that WMD did in fact exist,
Nope, the UN postulated that they existed. They didn't know if fact, hence the desire to send in inspectors to find out.
One fact Liberals seem to easily dismiss is that if the UN oil for Food program had been working like it had been designed and initially set up to work we shouldn't have had to invade in the first place
How do you figure?
the French who looked the other way as antitank weapons with serial numbers dated around a year were bought and moved into Iraq to kill our troops.
What the hell? I can't believe that years after the 4 supposed "recently produced, French, anti-tank missiles" proved to be Roland anti-aircraft (not anti-tank) missiles made in the earily 80's and were in fact misidentified by the Polish soldiers who found them, and after it has been explained so often on this bbs, people are still ignorant of that fact.
The Left decided early on that the UN is the proper place to settle international conflict,
Well...yeah, what were those stupid bastard pinkos Roosevelt and Churchill thinking?
Its easier to believe that Bush Lied then it is a murderous Dictator moved Chemical weapons to a known terrorist sponsering country,
I don't know if it's easier to believe it. You seem to believe the opposite quite readily with so very little evidence to support that position. Then again you seem to find it easy to believe a whole lot of things that has been demostrated to be wrong.
I see you find it also easy to rebut arguements that aren't being made. You make it seem that someone can only ascribe to one of two positions. Either Bush lied about the exist about WMD being in Iraq, or that they must be in Syria. But that's a false delema, there are plenty other posibilities. But don't let that distract you from your tunnel vision view of the issue.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Here we go again.
In one hand we have a sound, plausable, logical theory.
In the other we have a conspiracy theory about a "president snowing his entire administration and telling lies to his nation (not to mention brainwashing both republicans and democrats to say the very same lie for the last 10 or so years and getting the previous administration to write into US law in 1998 the very thing that he set out to do) to go to war to help his oil buddies and Cheny's Haliburton stock all the while finishing the job that his daddy started.
hmmmmm
Even if Bush didn't lie, it doesn't follow that therefore the WMD went to Syria. As far as the plausible theory is concerned, compare it to the theory that Iraq destroyed. Compare the evidence of the testomy of Sada, against the testomy of hundreds of people interviewed, and all the other evidence gathered by the CIA task force that, shortly after the invasion was completed, was charged with investigating Iraq WMD capabilities after
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Even if Bush didn't lie, it doesn't follow that therefore the WMD went to Syria. As far as the plausible theory is concerned, compare it to the theory that Iraq destroyed. Compare the evidence of the testomy of Sada, against the testomy of hundreds of people interviewed, and all the other evidence gathered by the CIA task force that, shortly after the invasion was completed, was charged with investigating Iraq WMD capabilities after
It's still a sound theory that the left CHOOSES to completly ignore. Intel anylists still have literally TONS of papers that are being translated and gone over that they havn't processsed yet.
It seems plausible that these flights happed
It seems plausible that Iraq destroyed their weapons
Either way there's no hard evidence that either of those two actually happened. But they do seem to hold more water then the "Bush lied" rhetoric that gets thrown out there constantly. Metric tons of anthrax and nerve gas just don't dissapear.
addendum to the document: (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm)
The CIA’s chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing “sufficiently credible” evidence that WMDs may have been moved there.
Inspector Charles Duelfer, who heads the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), made the findings in an addendum to his final report filed last year. He said the search for WMD in Iraq—the main reason President Bush went to war to oust Saddam Hussein—has been exhausted without finding such weapons. Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s.
But on the question of Syria, Mr. Duelfer did not close the books. “ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war,” Mr. Duelfer said in a report posted on the CIA’s Web site Monday night.
-
Originally posted by T0J0
We knew, Clinton knew, The UN knew that WMD did in fact exist
well, which is it? did bush lie about WMD or did he lie about them NOT having WMD?
CNN ran newscasts in which George, Connie, Dick and Colin all said that the WMD were destroyed and that his ability to replenish this arsenal was impossible. This set of news clips are from 2000-2001. (they are re-released in F 9/11 movie)
Then magically, within 12 months approximately, they have all the WMD capable of being launched within a 45 minute window.
Was WMD the first reason to go to war or was is the purchase of enriched uranium from Niger? (later proven to be fraudulent) or was it ties to al Qaeda? (also a lie)
You guys would have better luck helping OJ find the real killers! ;)
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
well, which is it? did bush lie about WMD or did he lie about them NOT having WMD?
CNN ran newscasts in which George, Connie, Dick and Colin all said that the WMD were destroyed and that his ability to replenish this arsenal was impossible. This set of news clips are from 2000-2001. (they are re-released in F 9/11 movie)
Then magically, within 12 months approximately, they have all the WMD capable of being launched within a 45 minute window.
Was WMD the first reason to go to war or was is the purchase of enriched uranium from Niger? (later proven to be fraudulent) or was it ties to al Qaeda? (also a lie)
You guys would have better luck helping OJ find the real killers! ;)
Wow don't let facts get in your way or anything. WMDs were the selling point, the main reason was to enact regiem change in Iraq wich has been US foriegn policy since 1998......yup that's right it's been US foreign policy to enact regeim change in Iraq since 1998.
another part of the WMD sell point was the niger yellow cake. The Iraqis did in fact inquire about purchasing some, but never did.....hardly fraudulent.
as far as using the word "Lie" you are going to wear it out by placing it were it doesn't belong. A statment based on facts is not a lie if the facts turn out to be incorrect.
Oh and that wasn't a terrorist training camp that our troops found north of Baghdad.....it was Disneyland Iraq.
-
get your facts correct gun:
"The term Yellowcake Forgery refers to falsified documents which appeared to depict an attempt by Iraq's Saddam Hussein regime to purchase yellowcake uranium from the country of Niger, in defiance of United Nations sanctions."
source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery)
ps: you do understand what 'falsified documents' means do you?
I really think OJ would appreciate your help though.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
get your facts correct gun:
"The term Yellowcake Forgery refers to falsified documents which appeared to depict an attempt by Iraq's Saddam Hussein regime to purchase yellowcake uranium from the country of Niger, in defiance of United Nations sanctions."
source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery)
ps: you do understand what 'falsified documents' means do you?
I really think OJ would appreciate your help though.
tsk tsk tsk
The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn't likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well -- evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.
Wilson reported that he had met with Niger's former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries.
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
either way this is getting away from the topic at hand. Of course you could just put your head in the ground and ignore it and live in your BDS (http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20031205.shtml&e=9797) delusional world
-
I don't think there were wmd at the time. And I don't think they went to Syria. There would've been wmd again had we left Saddam alone. We needed to get busy leaving him alone or get busy getting rid of him. We were in the middle of the road for too many years being punked by him.
Continious inspections with an armored division in his backyard pissing off the saudis untill his son's sons died wasn't the solution.
We shouldv'e gotten rid of him in '91. Even the Germans and French would've happily went along on that ride, as it would've been politically fashionable at the time.
One major beef that the saudis of Bin Laden's ilk had with the US was that we did not eliminate Saddam. Instead of getting rid of one, at least in their view, we became the facilitators, and presevers of two tyrannical regimes, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
Here is an interview of a general of the Republican Guard, a man who had been in war when Iraq did deploy WMD. I think his assesment of the WMD issue is probably correct.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/invasion/interviews/raad.html
-
Suave,
The problem I have is he still doesn't explain what happened to them. The inspectors did not find any evidence that they were destroyed or being destroyed but just the opposite. Inspectors walking in the front door, documents and cargo going out the back.
-
Can what that general said be validated?
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Can what that general said be validated?
-SW
He is going to address the senate next week. What he has to say at least needs to be investigated.
-
I too exercise my hidden liberal needs to play fast and loose with the facts once in awhile, at least its only once in awhile.
I mean you guys bend the facts like Ted Kennedy after a night out drinking or a college exam... If it were up to John the War Hero Kerry-Saddam would still be in power, his sons would still be practicing rapists and the whole Oil for Saddams vegas style digs would continue forever.... It took a guy with Balls to remove a looser from power, and along the way the great women of the left cried and kicked and screamed because we didn't leave it to the all powerful cheese handing out UN peacekeeping titans, those humanitarian forces of goodness, the same agency that took a week to send an envoy to the tsunami region to discuss a possible humanitarian effert that might come in several weeks but delayed because all the 4 star hotels were booked, but that didn't stop the greatest military in the world from showing up within the second day with ships, helicopters and supplies to relieve the tsunami victims, meanwhile the french sent 47 tents and a dog....
If its easier to believe that BUSH Lied then it is to believe that WMD's were moved at some point of time your a liberal, its not your fault..Men who know how to use guns and ride a horse are scary, thats why the left voted to elect a president whom never worked a real job his entire life, married into wealth, spoke french fluently, when he did hold a job he missed more days of work then he showed up, and then stated if he was president he would seek yourappean approval for all US international affairs, then to make matters worse had a running mate with a Moe Howard haircut who chased ambulances for a livng...
TJ
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
He is going to address the senate next week. What he has to say at least needs to be investigated.
Definitely. If it's true, they are still a threat.
-SW
-
who was lying? (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm)
no one answered my question: why in 2001 did this admin say there is definately no WMD and then 12 months later say just the opposite (and use fraudulent documents to try to support their claim?)
are the WMD that were moved to syria going to put the world at peril in only 45 minutes still?
-
why in 2001 did this admin say there is definately no WMD
From your link:
He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.
It does not appear that powel is saying or ever said "there is deinately no WMD"
EDIT:
And what fraudulent documents are you reffering to.
-
We Must Invade Syria
(http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-2_shadow.jpg)
(http://members.aol.com/skillndaring/images/b52.gif)
(http://www.dtra.mil/press_resources/photo_library/thumbs/missilelaunch.jpg)
-
Raider you forgot these guys:
Unfortuatly it's the grunts that take most of the losses
-
First to Fight:aok
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
From your link:
It does not appear that powel is saying or ever said "there is deinately no WMD"
last paragraph on the last link:
"There you have it. Four to seven months before 9/11--and just 15 to 18 months before the drive to attack Iraq seriously revved up--the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor trumpeted that Iraq had a decimated military, no "significant capabilities" regarding WMD, and was so feeble that it couldn't even threaten the countries around it with conventional military power."
that's a very long way from being capable of delivering wmd's in 45 minutes around the world
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
last paragraph on the last link:
"There you have it. Four to seven months before 9/11--and just 15 to 18 months before the drive to attack Iraq seriously revved up--the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor trumpeted that Iraq had a decimated military, no "significant capabilities" regarding WMD, and was so feeble that it couldn't even threaten the countries around it with conventional military power."
that's a very long way from being capable of delivering wmd's in 45 minutes around the world
But that's not what you said, and again what forged documents?
-
the Niger doc on uranium which was used to support the invasion was later proven to be fraudulent (i posted the link in support of that statement within the last hour)
ps: I gotta break for dinner...it's 6pm in the east..back later buddy!:)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Me neither. The anti-war crowed wants to hear the "Bush Lied" lies over and over again because it re-affirms their stuart smally beleifs that the new "king george" secretly goosetepps in his genuine imitation imported gestapo boots every night before his scheduled bed time.
What's really sad is.....to me, this sounds more plausible then a conspiracy theory about a "president snowing his entire administration and telling lies to his nation (not to mention brainwashing both republicans and democrats to say the very same lie for the last 10 or so years and getting the previous administration to write into US law in 1998 the very thing that he set out to d) to go to war to help his oil buddies and Cheny's Haliburton stock all the while finishing the job that his daddy started."
Bush himself said that there are/were no weapons of M D. Why are you still saying this stuff?
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
the Niger doc on uranium which was used to support the invasion was later proven to be fraudulent (i posted the link in support of that statement within the last hour)
ps: I gotta break for dinner...it's 6pm in the east..back later buddy!:)
There's probably alot of false/bad intell out there. But,
Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush's 16 words weren't based on the fake documents. The British didn't even see them until after issuing the reports -- based on other sources -- that Bush quoted in his 16 words. But discovery of the Italian fraud did trigger a belated reassessment of the Iraq/Niger story by the CIA.
Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." But that wasn't until June 17, 2003 -- nearly five months after Bush's 16 words.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Bush himself said that there are/were no weapons of M D. Why are you still saying this stuff?
Considering Bush's track record I think I would beleive a formor Iraqi Air Force General over him on this matter, wouldn't you agree?
Either way it's worth looking into.
-
Originally posted by T0J0
snip
meanwhile the french sent 47 tents and a dog....
R_O_T_F_L_M_A_O_!!!
Great line :)
culero
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Considering Bush's track record I think I would beleive a formor Iraqi Air Force General over him on this matter, wouldn't you agree?
Either way it's worth looking into.
Well, we've had feet on the ground in Iraq for sometime now.
I'd say we've looked plenty. There'd be evidence of their existence if the program was as big of a threat as it was told to us.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Well, we've had feet on the ground in Iraq for sometime now.
I'd say we've looked plenty. There'd be evidence of their existence if the program was as big of a threat as it was told to us.
maybe evidence in the form of testimony from the number 2 guy in the iraqi air force??????
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Are you still trying to win that bet?
Nope. I lost the bet. The bet had an ending date and WMD wasn't found by the date.
But nice red herring.
The question was IF they found the stuff now in Syria would any of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd say..."Wow, I was really wrong. Good thing we took ole SH out."
I don't think they would.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nope. I lost the bet. The bet had an ending date and WMD wasn't found by the date.
But nice red herring.
The question was IF they found the stuff now in Syria would any of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd say..."Wow, I was really wrong. Good thing we took ole SH out."
I don't think they would.
I think you'd be more likely to get the anti-Bush crowd to admit to being wrong than the pro-Bush crowd.
you guys seem to be determined to back that guy no matter what he says or does.
I'm beginning to suspect his whole nomination, campaign and election was all just an elaborate fraternity prank taken way to far.
something along the lines of
"any body can be elected with the right campaign and mis-information. I bet I could even get someone as dim as George elected"
"I'll take that bet"
"you're on"
and as simple as that our country and much of the world was screwed
-
What does it say about the Democrats then? They lost to him twice.
BTW, don't be confused. I don't think he's a "good" President by any means.
Amazing the Dems couldn't find ANYONE that could beat him.
Tell you this... I'd have voted for Lieberman last time. Would you have voted for him?
(And I think the incontrovertible discovery of piles of unquestionable WMD of Iraqi origin in Syria would be met with the sound of crickets from the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd.)
-
Originally posted by Toad
The question was IF they found the stuff now in Syria would any of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd say..."Wow, I was really wrong. Good thing we took ole SH out."
I don't think they would.
Depends, the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd isn't one united organism that has one specific set of arguements or philosophies. Gunslinger, same thing applies to your nebulous "The Left". As such making a prediction on how such a varied group of people would react seems like futility to me.
Personally, my biggest beef with the war wasn't whether or not Iraq had WMD or that Bush lied about it, but that in my opinion the UN Charter wasn't followed.
But one can get away with all sorts of things if they turn out to be right. I think they only way the coallition can be right in this case, is if Iraq transferred the postulated WMD after Security Council resolution 1441 came into force. I base that opinion on the following section of the aforementioned resolution.
"Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;"
-
why do I now get an ie security alert when I get to this page in this thread? something about a certificate..?
-
so do I Eagler...started about 2 hours ago and I've never seen this window before (I've been doing this on the internet since 93)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Depends, the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd isn't one united organism
So can you suggest a better name for the grouping of those opposed to the war and/or Bush.
Sure, it's generic; how else could you say it?
Security warning is from the Marine pic I think.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
so do I Eagler...started about 2 hours ago and I've never seen this window before (I've been doing this on the internet since 93)
its Bush watching us!:noid
-
Properties of the Marine Photo:
https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/News/Marines/EnvGuide/marines.jpg
The pic causes the warning. Might want to remove that.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
maybe evidence in the form of testimony from the number 2 guy in the iraqi air force??????
Come on Grun....your grasping at straws...we all know how honest and dependable anybody in Sadam's regime was?
How about evidence in the form of the actual WMD's or trace evidence of the WMD's.
You have to admit, we've had enough people on the ground and enough time to find out if they were there or not. Irrespective if they were moved, there'd still be evidence of their existence in Iraq.
-
Come on you guys, your smarter than that.
It seems that they were sent to Iran.
Retention bonus just went up!!
shamus
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Evidence has never been a pre-requisit for the MSM to run a juicy story.
They did run one, when we were sold that they were in Iraq, maybe you missed all those stories in the MSM about all the WMD we were going to find there. Why would they be so quick to be duped twice? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
-
USA sells WMD to Iraq
That's not an accurate statement. All evidence I have seen on chemical sales to Iraq were chemicals that had a dual use. Chemicals for pesticide production is one reason we sold chemicals to Iraq. We also sold Anthrax spores to Iraq for the purpose of Anthrax vaccine production for livestock.
Selling chemicals and biological agents (anthrax spores) to Iraq for legitimate purposes does not equate to selling chemical or biological weapons to a madman.
I have yet to see any evidence of actual WMD's being sold to Iraq.
It's going to be interesting to see what comes of this General's book.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Come on Grun....your grasping at straws...we all know how honest and dependable anybody in Sadam's regime was?
How about evidence in the form of the actual WMD's or trace evidence of the WMD's.
You have to admit, we've had enough people on the ground and enough time to find out if they were there or not. Irrespective if they were moved, there'd still be evidence of their existence in Iraq.
Grasping at straws? Let me ask a rehtorical question......Why do you think I want this looked into?
I'll answer it, because I am a concerned citizen. We were sold on the war on various issues, one of them being Sadam's possesion of WMDs. He used them before, we know he had them at one point in time reguardless of how he got them, so where did they go.
That's the question, Where did they go? This guy is saying they went to syria, if he has proof of that should we just ignore him because we've been on the ground for over 2 years and havn't found much evidence?
I read a report a couple weeks ago that the US has litterally metric TONS of paperwork that they are still translating and analysing.
Grasping at straws, I think not.....
Sorry bout the pic of the Marines, it was a google image search and now I can't edit it.
-
That's the question, Where did they go?
Thats been my question all along. We knew he had X amounts of each type of chemical weapon. The UN knew he had X amounts of each type of chemical weapon. Not all of it has been accounted for.
As someone stated earlier, metric tons of material just doesnt disappear.
-
and sometime in the last 25 years they just dissapeared.
That makes PERFECT sense! I can see why this wouldn't make the news that much.
In that timeline there is a happening called Gulf1 where WMD faced a mass destruction. The stock that was then was destroyed by your own army according to its own reports.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
I
"any body can be elected with the right campaign and mis-information. I bet I could even get someone as dim as George elected"
So the Rep campaign was won by misinformation...OK
Misinformation like "I was before the war before I was against it"
Like "we'll seek the approval of Yourop on issues of foriegn policy"
OK you win this argument LOL it was won on Mis-information, cant argue that fact the great Kerry Edwards ticket was one running mate shy of being the next 3 stooges tv show...Wait Teresa was Curly joe
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
In that timeline there is a happening called Gulf1 where WMD faced a mass destruction. The stock that was then was destroyed by your own army according to its own reports.
Some of it most certainly was destroyed in Gulf War 1. The stocks that Iraq still had left after that war is what has not entirely been accounted for. These leftover stocks were verified as existing by UN weapons inspectors and by Iraq's own declarations.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Grasping at straws? Let me ask a rehtorical question......Why do you think I want this looked into?
I'll answer it, because I am a concerned citizen. We were sold on the war on various issues, one of them being Sadam's possesion of WMDs. He used them before, we know he had them at one point in time reguardless of how he got them, so where did they go.
That's the question, Where did they go? This guy is saying they went to syria, if he has proof of that should we just ignore him because we've been on the ground for over 2 years and havn't found much evidence?
I read a report a couple weeks ago that the US has litterally metric TONS of paperwork that they are still translating and analysing.
Grasping at straws, I think not.....
Sorry bout the pic of the Marines, it was a google image search and now I can't edit it.
Oh, well, you're a concerned citizen. Why didn't you say so in the first place? That changes everything.
Now answer this not so rhetorical question. Why isn't the Bush Admin hitting the airwaves non-stop if they knew about this guy. I mean, it's not like he just fell off the back of a truck somewhere. It's not like this would have been the first time he had a chance to tell this to people who could act upon it, now is it Grun?
You assume our intelligence agencies are halfway competent, right? Then where has this guy and his information been for the last couple of years?
I'm saying I find it very hard to believe that we haven't already talked with this guy and looked into his information.
I'm saying if it was credible, you'd have seen some kind of action, diplomatic or otherwise being put onto Syria by now.
I'm saying that if this guy and his info is the real deal, Bush would be saying it so much that we'd be hearing it in our sleep.
Now, I could be wrong, and our intelligence agencies might have blown it on this guy.
Then that would mean our intelligence agencies aren't up to the standard we, and more importantly, the President needs them to be, and that might just lead to a..............war based on faulty intelligence.
So next would be Syria, I guess. I mean our intelligence agencies should check this guy and his info out, and then should recommend military action because Syria is a direct threat to our security due to their possesion of Iraq's WMDs according to this ONE guy who shouldn't be an unknown player to anyone involved in the whole Iraq WMD hunt. This is like a shell game, except Americans get killed looking for the peanut that isn't there!
But then you'll say, Hey if it stops them from flying planes into buildings then it's ok if we make a mistake here or there and invade countries in error.
Except it's not OK, because we are supposed to stand for better ideals than the scum we are fighting.
***Edit--Let me add Grun, that IF this guy and his info is the real deal, then we should all have MORE questions about the quality of our Intel Agencies, not less questions. And if it is the real deal, then good for Bush, good for us, and good for the world, as long as we get them destroyed.
-
Please stop calling me Grun.
-
Well, Grun, I think it's perfect to continue calling you Grun - over and over and over - never acknowledging the simple, obvious error and never accepting that error. Your name could be Grun. It's plausible. And it's such terrific irony, right Grun? :D
BTW, thanks for posting the image from a .mil https server with an expired certificate (where is that rolling eyes emoticon?).
-
Sry about the Gun....I didn't even realize I was doing that.
-
I wrote skuzzy about the pic, maybe one of our super secret on the ball MPs can delete it.
-
I think Stringer has it pretty well summed up.
-
i dont doubt for a moment the weapons were moved to syria... that border has remained as porous as our own southern border. The guy had the WMDs clearly... He used them on Iran and on his own people. But even if they didnt exist saddam himself is a proven WMD and he has been well worth the cost in lives and materials to remove him. good riddance!
-
He used them on Iran and on his own people.
Events before Gulf1 where WMD was destroyed.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Events before Gulf1 where WMD was destroyed.
Really? Do you have proof or documentation of this? You statement contradicts what alot of the UN inspectors were saying during the mid to late 90's with all the cat and mouse games that were played with them.
PS thanks MP3 :aok
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Events before Gulf1 where WMD was destroyed.
Since you obviously didnt read my other post:
Some of it most certainly was destroyed in Gulf War 1. The stocks that Iraq still had left after that war is what has not entirely been accounted for. These leftover stocks were verified as existing by UN weapons inspectors and by Iraq's own declarations.
:)