Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SaburoS on September 06, 2003, 12:43:26 PM
-
http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1107_AP_Online_Regional___Middle_East/29ec9d03-9098-4f05-92ba-ef24f7e583f5.html (http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1107_AP_Online_Regional___Middle_East/29ec9d03-9098-4f05-92ba-ef24f7e583f5.html)
Search for Iraq Weapons Proves Elusive
36 minutes ago
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Weapons hunters in Iraq have found what they interpret as evidence of Iraqi preparations to secretly produce chemical and biological weapons, some Pentagon officials say.
But as the postwar weapons hunt enters its sixth month, it remains unclear whether they have found _ or ever will _ any evidence that Iraq had actually made such weapons or whether it simply was prepared to do so.
So far, the Bush administration has not announced anything that would validate the bulk of its prewar assertions about Iraq.
"What we have not yet shown, and what really counts, was that there were major, ongoing programs at the time we invaded Iraq," said Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
The evidence of Iraqi preparations that the teams have found so far points to plans for weapons production that was to take place primarily at "dual-use" manufacturing facilities inside Iraq, the U.S. officials said. These are buildings with an overt, legitimate purpose, such as making pesticides or pharmaceuticals, but their equipment also can be used to make weapons.
No weapons have been reported found. The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, did not know whether any evidence showed that Iraq had actually produced weapons or whether it simply had plans to do so.
Last week, David Kay, the CIA adviser heading up the search, told several members of Congress that he expects to find weapons of mass destruction, but that there also is the remote possibility he would not.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who met with Kay in Iraq on Saturday, said at a news conference in Baghdad that weapons hunters are "working diligently and professionally, and we all look forward to hearing what they have to say."
Uncovered plans and interviews with Iraqis suggested certain sites were prepared to make weapons, the defense officials said. Many of the suspect facilities themselves were looted in the chaos after the war.
Searchers have found quantities of chemicals and substances that can be used to make both weapons and legitimate civilian items, the officials said. Castor beans, for example, can be used to make brake fluid for cars and the poison ricin.
Reaching indisputable conclusions about the intended purpose of these items and sites can be difficult. Unless something else proves a particular batch of castor beans was intended for ricin production, searchers will lack solid proof of a weapons effort.
CIA officials declined to comment on any discoveries. Officials say there is no timetable for Kay to report his findings, although there has been some expectation he would provide a preliminary report this month.
Previously, the intelligence agency had publicized two discoveries in Iraq. Both have proved controversial.
As major fighting wound down, U.S. forces turned up two truck trailers that generally fit defectors' prewar descriptions of mobile biological weapons labs. Intelligence analysts at the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, the CIA's counterpart at the Pentagon, said the trailers were probably indeed those labs.
But a second DIA team, composed of engineers, subsequently found the trailers were probably for hydrogen production for military weather balloons, as the Iraqis had claimed. Some State Department analysts also questioned the original CIA-DIA conclusion.
The DIA engineers said the trailers were not built to make the liquids and slurries used in biological weapons. But the intelligence analysts, citing the defectors, believe the trailers were only part of a weapons production line, arguing that other, as-yet-unfound trailers had the equipment to create a finished product.
CIA and DIA officials say the intelligence analysts stand by their findings that the trailers were for weapons.
Separately, in May, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist started providing parts and documents from Iraq's pre-1991 nuclear weapons program to CIA officers in Baghdad.
The scientist said he kept them buried in his backyard on the orders of Saddam Hussein's government, and he would dig them up to restart the program when U.N. penalties against Iraq were lifted.
The White House pointed to these as evidence Iraq still had weapons programs, although some American officials privately say they mark an intent, but not an actual program, to build a nuclear weapon.
The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency interpreted the find as proof that Iraq's nuclear weapons effort had never been revived.
Two months ago, after a visit to Iraq, Republican senators said U.S. searchers had uncovered solid evidence of weapons programs. But Democrats on the same trip said the evidence was not definitive. No one provided details.
In August, the leader of the weapons hunt, Kay, suggested a breakthrough was close. But Kay said the U.S. government would proceed slowly before going public with any discoveries, to make sure its analysis was sound.
That has left critics suggesting the administration either mishandled or exaggerated its prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs.
"To date there has been no discovery that does not look like a residual or low-level effort growing out of what went on during the time before the Gulf War or when (pre-1998 U.N. inspectors) were still inspecting Iraq," Cordesman said.
He offered several possibilities:
_Without U.S. intelligence spotting them, the Iraqis destroyed their weapons programs, either in a deliberate manner in the 1990s because of the inspections, or perhaps in a panic before the recent war.
_The Iraqis hid the weapons so well that U.S. weapons hunters still cannot find them, a prospect Cordesman regarded as unlikely given the months of searching by U.N. and U.S. representatives.
_The Iraqis reduced their efforts to small-scale research programs, with plans to ramp up activities once U.N. penalties were lifted. Any production lines were never activated before the war.
_The administration has found some evidence of more widespread programs but is keeping it secret despite international pressure to justify its invasion of Iraq.
Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
-
They'll find em eventually, if not sadams they'll be ones planted by the ol' George Bush lol.
-
I belive its the CIA who will plant em, that way Bush can say:
*i know nuttin and i never have, so help me god :confused: *
-
No he'll just say he was out of the loop
-
Same thing :D
-
Hear that sucking sound?
It's U.S. credibility.
-
yep
one down, a couple more to go
-
lolo too funny...wait..in September US will be isuing a Large report on WMDS in Iraq...again...
So you morons who think Iraq never had WMDs? Think the UN resolution 1441 was fake also??
Lead a horse to water.......
too funny..btw F S for banning BiGB
-
Im not sayin they had or didn't have any. But the point is George Bush will make sure they find some whether it's actually theirs or not :)
-
Would this come from the same intelligence that also said the Iraq's had WMD ready to be deployed within 45mins?
...-Gixer
Originally posted by urbMAW
lolo too funny...wait..in September US will be isuing a Large report on WMDS in Iraq...again...
So you morons who think Iraq never had WMDs? Think the UN resolution 1441 was fake also??
Lead a horse to water.......
too funny..btw F S for banning BiGB
-
seems that the cia isn't the only gov't agency that the bush admin alegedly told what they wanted in reports.
seems they also told the epa what to find on air quality in the NY area imediatly after 9/11.
stumbled upon senate hearings on the subject on c-span thursday or friday, saying the whitehouse told epa officials that they needed a report finding the air at or near ground zero safe for reasons of nat'l security. and the epa obliged without taking any readings or basing the report on any evidence at all.
I guess you can report just about anything you want if you tell investigators what you want their findings to be before they write the reports.
-
Raises hand, and suggests that Grunhers should not be allowed to ever plan any invasions of any sort except an invasion of France.
-
Search n see (vids) or read witness reports about the attrocities carried out by sadams regime
See woman and kids gassed or mutilated and maimed see young men unwilling to serve in his forces shot or tortured to death
WMD's, Look at the area iraq covers, Think where you would hide wmd's if you had to, Play cat n mouse with inspectors for several yrs while you hide/conceal weapons
Sheesh some people must think the regime would have put boards up with arrows saying here we hid wmd's etc
Damn i could if i had resources sadam had of hidden a thousand wmd's
And you think that because inspectors were looking and checking and they never found the golden fleece of wmd's he aint got any ?
He jerked the UN (laughable as it is now) for yrs and as i say could of hid anything anywhere in this time
Sheesh people go into a sewing machine and get a needle out, Now on your property go hide it, then ask people to find it (get the picture)
Ohh and don't forget at the time the searchers could ONLY look where they wanted after written PERMISSION/CONCENT and PRIOR WARNING at first in iraq, I know now this does not apply but dang it get real (during this time who had the upper hand ?)
Man it's a sad day when you can see a evil/sadistic/genocidal be brought to account then after this people whine about no wmd's
And i know there are more tyrants and sadistic/genocidal regimes around the world but you have to start somewhere and in reality some regimes could never be brought to account eg a very large communist state (means massive war etc, i think you get the hint)
Hurray Iraq's dictatorships gone, Gonna be a long haul for peace though admittedly but it's a start
I myself feel that he's had anything hid real good/countries involved with supplying n aiding stuff have helped them disappear to save their own 6's / moved n hid outside iraq (look at geography)
Don't just look at negative side so far look at the positive
A piece of scum and his terror regime have had their day and are now in custody or ****ting bricks 24/7 wondering wtf is gonna happen next
If you want to feel sick i can navigate you to some sources about how his regime worked and how he oppressed his country without a thought for anyone/anything else except his regime (not on a full stomach)
You know what his one son (maimed one) liked to order and watch ?
Shoving prisoners i use this term loosly into a industrial plastic recycling shredding machine and bagging the results and dishing it out for officials for there fish to feast on
And here some are chatting about was it worth it as no wmd's found yet sheesh
You may sense i feel angry writing this ? well yes i am, because i don't care what colour/religeon any person is, i respect people for what they are
Don't get me wrong i aint a softie, i believe an eye for an eye legal-wise but to me everone is born equal though some think they were born more equal to others but these generally meet their match and are brought back down to earth
I was born in england in 1967, I was brought up as a youth with terrorism news reports etc and all that goes with terrorism surrounding northern ireland
1st terrorism act that stays in my mind was the killing of (forgive spelling) heiry neave ?
Seen all terrorism all my life thus far and that's just about northern ireland, also about spains terrorism i guess to some degree
I would of thought and hoped that at least since my birth people would of learned by the past or at least the commities/bodies/think tanks etc (UN *laugh*) would of learned but hell no. People just can't admit wrongs were done and get on with making this planet a better place for the future :( for all peoples and all faiths etc
Well i feel better after letting off some steam
-
Titanium
posts/thoughts like that will get you shipped to America :)
-
a sentiment shared by several
I'm not sayin they had or didn't have any. But the point is George Bush will make sure they find some whether it's actually theirs or not
Sounds like some are trying to hedge thier bets.
Hiding a drum of chem or bio would not be that difficult, all one needs is a backhoe, about 20 minutes, and a desert to hide it in.
Hiding would be much easier than destruction or transportation to the Bekka valley.
They do have Foxbats buried in the desert, so they have practice.
Patience.....
-
Defiance,
yes we all(or at least most) agree Saddam was a evil guy. the reason we still whine about the WMD's is an important legal one.
bush did not get aproval from congress for this war, he went around them, this is only allowed when we face a clear and pressent danger to the US. we where told this was iraq's WMD program that could deliver these agents within 45 minutes.
now iraq had more than 45 min warning that we where going to invade. if they had these weapons and where willing to use them (that whole threat thing again), why didn't they?
1. where they afraid of what we'd do if they did? if so then they really wheren't much of a threat to the US after all.
2. maybe they where afraid to use them on their own land. no, wait they've done that before thats one of the reasons we invaded.
3. maybe they didn't use them because they destroyed them, and don't have them, or they where hidden so far out in the dessert that they couldn't be brought to bare in a reasonable time frame. but then you'd lose that clear & presseent threat thing again wouldn't you.
any other reasons you can think of why, if the threat was really there as the whitehouse says/said, that they wheren't used?
-
Either one of two things happened:
Saddam had um and since he knew the war was coming, he disposed of them(unlikely) or sent them to neighboring countries,which the US for now couldn't go into.
Iraq could have disposed of them(unlikely too) in the late 90s coarsed by French , German, and Russian politicos, but left the resolutions in place in order for them ^ to remain in the status quo,thus most of the bussiness dealings with Iraq could've continued.
-
even if one of those 2 options happened, then we still lack the "clear and pressent danger", Bush should have obeyed the law and got congressional aproval for this war.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
bush did not get aproval from congress for this war, he went around them,
This is not so. Bush did in fact get an authorization from congress.
Listen to Kerry and Leiberman when they say, "I voted to give the president authority...."
-
The U.S. Congress did vote for war, and the U.N. did pass resolutions authhorizing armed force to counter noncompliance with U.N. conditions and the reason for those resolutions was that the U.N., long before G.W. Bush was President, considered Iraq to be a threat to its neighbors and regional stability and part of the threat was evidence of active WMD programs.
There's no way that can be spun - before the current political hoopla, a body of people who are well respected world leaders and authorities agreed with the viewpoints of the few leaders now being slandered as 'liars' or 'agressors' - mainly for political purposes.
Maybe the U.N. did not think military intervention would ever take place based on the resolutions they passed, so they passed them even if not totally convinced - this is not a cause for blame as far as the U.S., the U.K., or any of the other Nations who supported the overthrow of Hussein and his cronies.
Maybe congress voted in favor of war because they didn't fear any political fallout at the time - that's not why you vote for or against war.
But (for the 5th time by me personally on this BBS), none of this has anything to do with the 'pink elephant' questions that no one ever seems to ponder (probably because the answer doesn't generate controversy):
If there were no WMD, then why would a power-addicted dictator risk his regime by not allowing totally free access to inspection teams?
If there were no WMD, why did the campaign of misdirection against the U.N. inspection teams even take place?
If there were no WMD, why were signal intercepts made available that quoted Iraqi military commanders telling subordinates to delete all reference to chemical warfare systems, tactics, and doctrine from their SOPs?
Why?
Mike/wulfie
-
If there were no WMD, why were signal intercepts made available that quoted Iraqi military commanders telling subordinates to delete all reference to chemical warfare systems, tactics, and doctrine from their SOPs?
well, how about if you no longer have chemical warfare systems you no longer need any reference to them in your SOPs.
do we still have reference for cleaning and care of mussle loading black powder weapons in our infantry SOPs?
-
Wow! Your desire to attribute positive motives to saddam hussein and negative ones to the usa is simply stunning... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by wulfie
If there were no WMD, then why would a power-addicted dictator risk his regime by not allowing totally free access to inspection teams?
If there were no WMD, why did the campaign of misdirection against the U.N. inspection teams even take place?
This goes for both questions: probably because he believed, with some justification, that inspection teams were loaded with American and British spies.
-
Erlkonig you mean the inspectors wernt suposed to go snooping around Iraqi weapons sites? I love how you just eat up and belive all of Saddam's propaganda...
-
No new information about the convoy from Iraq going to Syria before the attack?
I thought the Isrealis had information about this.
-
GRUNHERZ, your constant knee-jerking is beginning to wear on me. I am not trying to justify what Saddam did, merely posit a possible explanation for his behavior. I think it's pretty obvious Saddam was a paranoid man and I don't find it a stretch to suggest that he feared the inspectors' interests and intentions went beyond his weapons programs.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
This goes for both questions: probably because he believed, with some justification, that inspection teams were loaded with American and British spies.
2, maybe 3 of 30+ and none of those being confirmed can't really be called 'loaded', which in turn does't really give 'some justification'. What you are speaking of did happen but is almost 'ancient history' in terms of the events we are talking about here.
Also, due to the largely baseless accusations by Iraq of what you allude to above, the inspection teams were heavily 'revamped' (curiously enough the major effect of this was to take 8 of the top 10 best WMD inspectors in terms of international opinion and have them removed from future assignments in Iraq - I'm not so sure Iraq was worried about them being spies - more likely they were opposed to them being good at their job) from 1994 onward.
So, in 2002 and 2003, when dealing with what most experts in the field of WMD non-proliferation considered to be the 'B-Team', headed by a WMD inspector characterized as a 'sweet old grandpa type that has lost a step mentally', why would Iraq still give them the run-around? The evidence given to the U.N. by the U.S. and the U.K. about Iraq's efforts to thwart the latest and much more 'friendly' WMD inspection team was refuted by no one , including Iraq.
In mid-late 2002 the ball was sqaurely in Hussein's court. He could have launched an international public affairs-type campaign that would have assured his security if he had nothing to hide. Invite Western media to accompany inspection teams, give simple evidence of destruction, or even avoid lying over things like the continued modification of missiles where the only purpose for the modification was to allow them to reach Israel. He did none of this. He's either terminally stupid, which is unlikely when you consider how long he's avoided the efforts of various groups of well motivated and intelligent individuals who were out to kill him, or there's more to the story than Howard Dean, John Kerry, and the majority of the media outlets are currently aware of.
I'd place a lot more faith in the supposedly informed/educated opinions of the 'naysayers' (especially the highly political ones) if they actually were putting their reputations on the line when they said what they said.
Kerry (D-Mass) is convinced the people of the U.S. were lied to to start a war and that there was no credible WMD threat (even though he voted for offensive military action vs. Iraq months before the speech by Bush that everyone is calling 'proof of lying' nowadays) - fine. If he's that convinced, then stake his political career on it - have him resign from all offices if he's ever proved wrong.
Hey, I know that can't and won't happen - but some people need to reduce the credibility rating of information from sources that have much to gain if they are believed.
Intelligence may have been cut-and-pasted to prove a point. That is wrong but the true ***** is that no one is going to know for sure if that happened for another 29 years probably (when the relevant raw intelligence can be vetted for FOIA release). But the claim that there were no WMD and there was no threat was contrary to what more than 'only a couple of people' believed. And Blair is also not getting a fair shake - he's been stating his #1 international relations issue is non-proliferation of WMD since the day he was selected for his job and that was well before 11SEP01.
Also, there's no 'abbreviated chain of command' to allow the President to 'cut-and-paste' intelligence to support his arguments as cleanly and secretively as some people have claimed was done. There are numerous career professionals involved in that chain of information that are loyal to the job and the U.S. as opposed to loyal to any given President. If the 'selective analysis' that some in the media say took place to the extent that they imply it did my opinion is that you would have had a resignation or two by now. Career intelligence officers distrust the motives of elected politicians and their cronies/appointees as much as they distrust the media in terms of bias.
On a side note, here's a good collection of reports on Iraq, WMD, etc.:
http://www.cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/index.htm
Mike/wulfie
-
Might be helpful for some people on this board to actually read Resolution 114 (http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1010res.htm) what congress voted for.. I like this part..
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Notice the report says "had" not "has".. There is nothing.. absolutly nothing Iraq could've done to avoid this invasion. I wish Congress wouldn've read this Resolution a little bit more carefully.
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
So the material breach is from 1998 not the present.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to —
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
So if the Security Council threatens to veto "decisive action to hell with them
-
@ capt. apathy
"2. maybe they where afraid to use them on their own land. no, wait they've done that before thats one of the reasons we invaded"
He had them yes as you answered yourself and proven evidence was shown
He had them used them yes 100%
He dicked the UN around yes 100%
He would of escaped a legal war by american senate standards purely on the grounds he couldn't use them faster than 45mins ? yes? this part i am lost
As i say "we" i say we as in the leading industrial countries etc etc and institutions eg UN (*laugh*) won't/will not learn from history and time n time again let it repeat (in my 35yrs i recall 7 instances off the top of my head)
Dang as far as i could tell the UN (*laugh*) was set up after the league of nations (maybe wrong aint 100% off top of my head sure) with a main if not sole purpose to stop ****e like sadams regime from doing all it's done ??
UN phooey, UN in middle east? in south east asia ? in africa ?
and up until a few years ago in the darn middle of europe ?
Each time a regime as bad as iraq's topple/get toppled i hear "we cannot shall not could not allow this to ever happen again", But as usual going on 1950's to the present day i doubt it very much especially now the UN seems to of lost so much face/faith and give in to ganster/terrorism dictators to buy time to cover their 6's
-
Just wanted to mention that a family in Iraq named their son George Bush. Gonna be interesting to see if the kid makes it past the age of 5 years old.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
I wish Congress wouldn've read this Resolution a little bit more carefully.
Ahhhh yes, if only the people in Congress had a chance to be enlightened by your wisdom.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
There is nothing...absolutly nothing Iraq could've done to avoid this invasion.
It could have made an honest attempt to show that it wasn't a threat, as opposed to being caught in lie after lie after lie.
It could have stopped trying to shoot down aircraft over the no-fly zone instead of repeatedly trying to do so for 10 years.
It could have abided by the cease fire agreements that it signed back in 1991.
Hussein and his supporters had 10+ years of time and they wasted all of it and pissed off a group of Nations that showed them mercy, trusted them, and gave them a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. chance.
As for the security council - it's been used for bad as well as good throughout the history of the U.N. I wonder what the press and the soul-less politicians that we have today would have said 'back then' when the security council issue arose over military action in defense of South Korea.
As much as it pains some because it shows their cause to be of minimal importance in 'the grand scheme of things', the situation in Iraq was/is much bigger and about much more than one U.S. President that the Democrats cannot stand and their hopes to get a Democrat voted in as the next President of the United States.
I believe that no matter who was President at the time, if Iraq tried the same 'shell-games' post-11SEP01 the end result would have been the same. Many of the key advisors that play important roles when it comes to decisions like 'invade/do not invade' are not selected based on who is elected President, or who controls congress, or who is senator.
The risks of allowing him to stay in power - given his past history and current activities - were far greater than the risks of removing him from power even though 100% international support for such actions did not exist.
-
poor saddam :( - he was just misunderstood :rolleyes:
-
There is nothing...absolutly nothing Iraq could've done to avoid this invasion.
Ok You are now officaly nuts...
-
He had them yes as you answered yourself and proven evidence was shown
yes we know that he at one time had chemical weapons, we sold them to him.
how, are we going to ever stay in business if we attack people for being our customers, or using the products we sell?
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
yes we know that he at one time had chemical weapons, we sold them to him.
No, 'we' (the U.S.) did nothing of the sort.
Why don't you document the 'chemical weapons' that the U.S. sold to Iraq. The Raiders lost tonight and I'm in need of a good laugh. :)
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by wulfie
The U.S. Congress did vote for war, and the U.N. did pass resolutions authhorizing armed force to counter noncompliance with U.N. conditions and the reason for those resolutions was that the U.N., long before G.W. Bush was President, considered Iraq to be a threat to its neighbors and regional stability and part of the threat was evidence of active WMD programs.
There's no way that can be spun
Of course there is a way to spin it...you just did. The first gulf war wasn't about Iraq being a threat. Iraq actually invade and occupied another nation state, without Security Council approval, sound familiar?
And why did the UN SC take issue with this? Because it broke a contract that every member of the United Nations signed, the Charter of the United Nations.
Maybe the U.N. did not think military intervention would ever take place based on the resolutions they passed, so they passed them even if not totally convinced
Of course the UN didn't think military intervention would take place. This is because the UN Security Council did not pass a resolution asking the member states to enforce the resolutions militarily. And please no equivocation. The language the Security Council uses to direct the UN member states to enforce a resolution is, by necessity, quite plain.
Here is an example from resolutoin 678 (1990), adopted by the Security Council at its 2963rd meeting on 29 November 1990
"2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;"
Any freakin' doubt in your mind what the Security Council means?
You can find the rest of the resolution here, one of the shortest resolutions I've ever seen.
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s90/32
this is not a cause for blame as far as the U.S., the U.K., or any of the other Nations who supported the overthrow of Hussein and his cronies.
I think it is. There was no statement in resolution 1441, like the one above. The coalition did not have a Security Council mandate to invade Iraq. And, in fact, the coatlion nations are in direct violaton of Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations.
"Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."
The same Article that Iraq was inviolation of when it invaded Kuwait.
If there were no WMD, then why would a power-addicted dictator risk his regime by not allowing totally free access to inspection teams?
You don't know why do you? There could have been dozens of reason why he would want to that. One being that the US had already used UNSCOM teams to SPY on Iraq, for THREE fricken' years.
From the Washington Post, March 22, 1999.
"United States intelligence services infiltrated agents and espionage equipment for three years into United Nations arms control teams in Iraq to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the U.N. agency that it used to disguise its work, according to U.S. government employees and documents describing the classified operation."
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq99-7.htm
Of course this is all irrelevant because SH DID allow totally free access to inspection teams. But don't let any facts stand in the way of you arguements.
If there were no WMD, why did the campaign of misdirection against the U.N. inspection teams even take place?
Which campaign when? You mean AFTER he gave full access to the inspection teams? If I recall there was a hell of alot of misdirection happen at UN Security Council meetings, but it wasn't coming from Iraq, it was coming from the US.
If there were no WMD, why were signal intercepts made available that quoted Iraqi military commanders telling subordinates to delete all reference to chemical warfare systems, tactics, and doctrine from their SOPs?
Once again, there could be dozens of reason they were talking about chemical weapons and tactics. IIRC miko mention some of them in a thread awile back. But you are going to make the same the mistake that the Bush administration did. You are going to look at the evidence and using the following horrendously fallacious arguement, "Well it COULD mean they have WMD, therefor they DO have WMD".
-
The laughs on you wulfie,
US Companies sold Iraq Billions of NBC Weapons Materials
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/03/119547.php
Most Americans listening to the President did not know that the United States supplied Iraq with much of the raw material for creating a chemical and biological warfare program. Nor did the media report that U.S. companies sold Iraq more than $1 billion worth of the components needed to build nuclear weapons and diverse types of missiles, including the infamous Scud.
When Iraq engaged in chemical and biological warfare in the 1980s, barely a peep of moral outrage could be heard from Washington, as it kept supplying Saddam with the materials he needed to build weapons.
http://www.snowcoalition.org/flyers/weaponsales.pdf
THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm
The Reagan administration and its special Middle East envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, did little to stop Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s, even though they knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons "almost daily" against Iran, it was reported yesterday.
US support for Baghdad during the Iran-Iraq war as a bulwark against Shi'ite militancy has been well known for some time, but using declassified government documents, the Washington Post provided new details yesterday about Mr Rumsfeld's role, and about the extent of the Reagan administration's knowledge of the use of chemical weapons.
The details will embarrass Mr Rumsfeld, who as defence secretary in the Bush administration is one of the leading hawks on Iraq, frequently denouncing it for its past use of such weapons.
The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html
Do your own damn goggle search!
-
Originally posted by wulfie
No, 'we' (the U.S.) did nothing of the sort.
Why don't you document the 'chemical weapons' that the U.S. sold to Iraq. The Raiders lost tonight and I'm in need of a good laugh. :)
Mike/wulfie
You really have know idea what your country does and has done in your name, do you.
"According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:
• Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
• Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
• Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.
• Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
• Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
• Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.
Also on the list: Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, and dozens of other pathogenic biological agents. "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction," the Senate report stated. "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."
The report noted further that U.S. exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical-warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities, and chemical-warhead filling equipment.
The exports continued to at least November 28, 1989, despite evidence that Iraq was engaging in chemical and biological warfare against Iranians and Kurds since as early as 1984."
http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html
-
hehe beat you posting by one minute Thawn.. that google search engine is fast eh
-
Nah, I know there was a site linked, with the info, at http://www.michaelmoore.com. :D
-
Cripes, just saw this on AGW.
"Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.
Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.
The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.
President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.
Veteran pollsters say the persistent belief of a link between the attacks and Saddam could help explain why public support for the decision to go to war in Iraq has been so resilient despite problems establishing a peaceful country.
The president frequently has called the Iraq war an important centerpiece in the United States' war on terror. But some members of the administration have said recently they don't believe there is a direct link."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
Cripes, there's where ignorance gets ya. I don't know wether to laugh or cry.
-
saddam the good guy - just a big hairy Iraqiee Santa Claus :rolleyes:
mean ole Americans .... LOL
the future of Iraq and, in the long term, the face of the middle east will have you eating your words
-
I like the Isreali approach.
Fly in and blow up Iraq's nuclear plant.
When was that btw? Mid- to late-eighties?
-
Originally posted by Drunky
I like the Isreali approach.
Fly in and blow up Iraq's nuclear plant.
When was that btw? Mid- to late-eighties?
Israel does have her moments. :)
-
Originally posted by Drunky
I like the Isreali approach.
Fly in and blow up Iraq's nuclear plant.
When was that btw? Mid- to late-eighties?
summer 1981 I think
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
The laughs on you wulfie,
Okay I'm going to try and be civil here, because there may be an honest misunderstanding.
There is a significant difference between nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and chemical weapons. I know this statement is a no-brainer, but read on.
You stated *chemical weapons*. A common and inaccurate statement sometimes designed to make people think that the weapons used on the Kurds and the Iraqis were bought from the U.S. and sent into action weeks later and sometimes just an innocent misstatement. No such thing ever happened. The chemical weapons used by Iraq did not come from the U.S., nor were they created from U.S.-supplied precursor material. I'm not gloating over chemical weapons 'quality', but if the Kurds and the Iraqis were hit with 'top line' U.S. or Soviet chemical agents the results would have been far more horrific (especially for the Kurds, when you consider the superior 'persistence' of first rate 'modern' chemical weapons as compared to what the Iraqis used).
The biological agents provided to Iraq - who was fighting a Nation that was self-described as a sworn enemy of the U.S. at the time - have been provided to several other Nations for both defense related and non-defense related medical research. There is a huge difference between biological materials and the ability to farm them, produce them in a form usable as weapons, and (most difficult) the ability to store them for use. The U.S. did not provide Iraq with 'know how' on farming, weapons production, or storage. This is probably the main reason they were never used against the Kurds.
These may all seem like insignificant differences to most - but they are not insignificant to somone who has been involved with WMD/NBC related activities as a part of their job. If you talk to anyone with a serious, educated background on biological agents the data about the materials provided to Iraq doesn't even raise an eyebrow. They were provided to well respected Western trained Iraqi doctors engaged in high level defense and non-defense related research. You have to remember that the Doctors that asked for these materials literally went to medical school in the U.S. and U.K. with some of the Western Doctors involved with clearing the material for shipment to Iraq. Such assistance was given to numerous Nations. There is no quick and easy step between the accquisition of those samples and deployable biological weapons. Someone formally educated on the subject would regard it as the equivalent to providing someone with no lab with the formula for gunpowder. When someone 'outside the situation' comments that conceivably they could now make bullets to kill people with a gun - well, they're still a long ways from that. And the samples provided have numerous valid medical uses. The companies that provided these materials had Western Doctors as advisors, high level employees, etc. There is no way that Iraq or any Nation would have been provided with resources that would have convertible into deployable biological or chemical weapons with no further assistance from outside sources. Iraq did eventually develop some advanced deployable chemical and biological weapons, but it did so with the help of non-U.S. supplied resources and expertise. This is almost never mentioned in the politicially motivated 'reports' commonly available today.
Thrawn and 10Bears - in all honesty I thought 10Bears statement was the typical 'The U.S. gave Iraq chemical wepaons that Iraq used to kill people 2 weeks later'. This is what I was talking about. I know all about the precursor materials, etc. I have a high level knolwedge on NBC weaponry/production/etc. provided by the U.S. Department of Defense (which is both a blessing and a curse - because the worst case scenario is worse than most people can imagine, but the 'layman' is often unaware of how difficult it is to deploy chemical warfare agents with maximum effect - something the media uses to great effect which I find highly unprofessional). If you look at anything I've ever said on the topic, I have always been very specific.
The materials seized by the U.N. were seized because the behavior of Iraq in terms of regional stability had changed radically between the time they were provided and the time at which they were seized. Remember that when these materials were supplied Iraq was a Nation governed by a nonreligious leader and was involved in a war (in which they were heavily outnumbered) against a sworn enemy of the U.S that was currently the most powerful (militarily) Nation hostile to the U.S. in the entire Middle Eastern region. If Iran defeated Iraq they would have been adjacent to the Saudi oil fields and unchallenged militarily unless the U.S. directly intervened, which would have had serious repurcussions when you consider the current state of the cold war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
This is not to say that there is no 'fault' to be assigned to the U.S. over Iraq's WMD programs, but it is only fair to recall the state of world affairs at the time these transactions took place. Using hindsight some poor decisions can be said to have been made, but the reasoning at the time was sound and the best option available. Intent does matter. Also remember The U.S. gave the U.N. inspectors very accurate and complete data on what to look for as far as U.S. provided materials go. The U.S. did its best to rectify a situation gone bad. It did not wantonly throw gasoline onto a fire in terms of Iraq and WMD capability as so many 'reporters' are fond of implying.
It is the following types of inaccurate statements that I find to be highly unprofessional and intentionally misleading:
"$1 billion worth of the components needed to build nuclear weapons"
To build nuclear *weapons*? What components? U.S. companies weren't allowed to provide such components to trusted Allies such as Germany. This is an inaccurate statement.
"When Iraq engaged in chemical and biological warfare in the 1980s"
When and against whom did Iraq engage in biological warfare? If research is being engaged in warfare, the U.S., U.K., U.S.S.R., and numerous other Nations were 'engaged in nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare' for years. A suprisingly low casualty rate from such warfare, no? Also, if he had deployable biological weapons at the time, it is almost certain he would have used them against Kurdish population centers.
"THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction."
A general statement made for politics. More accurate would be the phrases 'could be used' and 'to begin'. There were/are crucial components that Iraq was lacking and never supplied with by the West. Such components very carefully watched at an international level. There have been numerous (20+) cases over the past decade where the delivery of such components to Iraq, North Korea, and Iraq was detected and thwarted.
"even though they knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons "almost daily" against Iran"
A lie. The incidents where Iraq used checmical weapons are very well documented and tracked. They were far from 'almost daily'. The effectiveness of chemical weapons is (still) highly dependant upon the weather if you are targeting personnel (which is what the Iraqis were doing vs. Iran) and not facilities, assembly areas, and other operational and strategic targets (which is what U.S. and U.S.S.R. doctrine called for). 'Almost daily' use makes no sense. The writer of that report was targeting an audience that would have no way of knowing this. Also, the specific agents used in each and every attack and where they came from are known. Western Doctors have had access to the victims of every documented attack.
"West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia."
A scary sounding statement that is avoiding some obvious facts. Pneumonia and tuberculosis are still major killers in the Middle East. Tuberculosis is the main reason for the far lower life expectancy in the region. Research with those materials by Nations in that region is common and has an obvious valid medical purpose. West Nile fever germs? You tell me - is there a valid medical use for such 'germs'? Are you going to develop a secret lethal version of the West Nile virus for use on the enemy? Who trains the mosquitoes? :)
"• Clostridium Botulinum...
• Histoplasma Capsulatam...
• Brucella Melitensis...
• Clostridium Perfringens...
• Clostridium tetani...
Also on the list: Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA,"
Again, it sounds damning - except that almost any University worldwide could accquire such materials from the medical research community of most Nations. Please note that I did not include Bacillus Anthracis, which can be found in the wild. There are major differences, most of which have something to do with lethality, between Bacillus Anthracis and the modified strains of Anthrax that the U.S. and U.S.S.R. developed as possible biological weapons.
As for 'VX nerve gas', the U.S. did not sell deployable VX nerve gas to Iraq. If the Iraqis had such gas in a deployable state, the Iranian casualties from chemical weapons would have been greatly increased. Does the writer of that article list the senate report he referenced (honestly curious)?
You said 'chemical weapons'. In my book that is either chemical warfare agents, ready to be placed in a delivery system, or a delivery system already loaded with a chemical warfare agent. The U.S. provided neither to Iraq.
Google is a useful tool for internet searches, but there's no gurantee that everything it finds for you is accurate and/or truthful.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Which campaign when?
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/deception.htm
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by straffo
summer 1981 I think
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
You really have know idea what your country does and has done in your name, do you.
No. But on topics like this I tend to discuss things on a more professional level. When he said 'chemical weapons' I thought he meant 'chemical weapons', not biological research agents, etc.
Read my 'wall of text for details'. :)
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
You don't know why do you? There could have been dozens of reason why he would want to that. One being that the US had already used UNSCOM teams to SPY on Iraq, for THREE fricken' years.
(Only the U.S.?)
Of course this is all irrelevant because SH DID allow totally free access to inspection teams.
(Not true. Show me any statement by any member of any U.N. inspection team stating where they were given free access of any sort)
But don't let any facts stand in the way of you arguements.
(Please, educate me some more. Tell me how things really are in the world of international relations, espionage, WMD, etc. Maybe you'll help my career)
Which campaign when?
(Check the FAS link dealing with UN WMD inspection activities and Iraqi deception - then you may want to contact the FAS sources and 'fill them in on what REALLY happened)
You mean AFTER he gave full access to the inspection teams?
(Tell me when that happened again - I already forgot)
If I recall there was a hell of alot of misdirection happen at UN Security Council meetings, but it wasn't coming from Iraq, it was coming from the US.
(Deception like reconaissance photos showing the grading of terrain that had one conceivable use - to eliminate trace soil evidence of chemical and biological agent production and/or storage? There we go again, confusing people with our evil photographs. Just like when we pointed out the ICBM sites in Cuba for the U.N. Will we ever learn?)
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by wulfie
No. But on topics like this I tend to discuss things on a more professional level.
My apologies, I will try and respond in kind.
"Originally posted by Thrawn
You don't know why do you? There could have been dozens of reason why he would want to that. One being that the US had already used UNSCOM teams to SPY on Iraq, for THREE fricken' years."
(Only the U.S.?)
I don't know, but I don't feel it's relevant. What I was trying to show is that SH certainly did have a reason for not having UN inspection teams in Iraq. He didn't want other nation states using them to spy on Iraq.
...
I just found this.
"MI6 involved in spying against Iraq through UNSCOM
By Julie Hyland
26 January 1999
An investigation by the Independent newspaper disclosed on Monday, January 25 that British secret intelligence agents worked as part of the United Nations teams of arms inspectors (UNSCOM) in Iraq.
According to sources in Whitehall and at the UN in New York, British MI6 officers first infiltrated UNSCOM in 1991. The Independent quoted these sources as saying, "A number of officers were asked if they were interested in the posting--one officer joined for a period," and that additional officers were thought to have rotated through the teams. Spies were drawn from the intelligence services in Britain, as well as the US and Israel."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jan1999/mi6-j26.shtml
(Not true. Show me any statement by any member of any U.N. inspection team stating where they were given free access of any sort)
Okey dokey.
"Chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix has described the resumption of inspections in Iraq as "a good start".
Mr Blix made the comments in New York after UN teams had completed their first inspections - visiting two suspected sites - and said they had been given full access by the Iraqis. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2520361.stm
"Which campaign when?
(Check the FAS link dealing with UN WMD inspection activities and Iraqi deception - then you may want to contact the FAS sources and 'fill them in on what REALLY happened)[/B][/QUOTE]
The latest date in that link is 1998, and deals with the UNSCOM inspections. Alot has happend since then. Like the lastest series of inspections under UNMOVIC.
(Deception like reconaissance photos showing the grading of terrain that had one conceivable use - to eliminate trace soil evidence of chemical and biological agent production and/or storage?
I was thinking about the mobile weapons labs, that turned out to be used to generate hydrogen of weather observation balloons.
Granted, it is possible that the Bush administration thought that's what they were, as well as the Al-Qaeda/Iraq link. But even if that is the case, I think it shows how the Bush Aminstration disregarded any info that possibly disproved what they already "knew".
It's certainly nice to have a NBC expert on this board,, thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding on that issue.
-
Could be used for hydrogen, or could be used for bio weapons. Dunno that we can ever be sure on that one.
-
Desert Storm Was A Huge Success
Sept 12, 2002
As we stand on the brink of another war with Iraq, the monday morning quarterbacks are out in full force. They say former President George Bush should have finished off Saddam Hussein. Ironically it is some of the same people who don’t want us to go after him now.
It is easy to second guess over a decade later. What he did at that time was exactly as he should have done. There were no cries for the overthrow of Saddam. George Bush was one of the most popular presidents of all time after the decisive victory. His approval rating at that time was 91%.
What would the liberals and the media have done to President Bush if he had gone in with the objective to take out Saddam? They would have been relentless in their attacks against him. Think back to that time. It would have been brutal. They would have said he had no right to go to that extreme. He would have been vilified like no other president.
The former President did exactly what he said he would do. He freed Kuwait. That was the objective. That was all he really could have done at that time.
The elder Bush is an easy target now. He does not feel the need to try to boost his legacy like Clinton does. His conscience is clear. Clinton now says we should hold back from going after Iraq. It’s a good thing for video. The not so slick Clinton was caught on tape in another huge contradiction. He said back in 1998 that Saddam had to be dealt with because he would obtain and use weapons of mass destruction. What a hypocrite.
Others continue to spew anti American talk about current and former dealings with Iraq. The leaders of the Democratic party continue to try to slow the War on Terror down. Why did they support Clinton’s statements in ’98 and not President Bush in a time of war? They would rather jeopardize our national security than to see a Republican president lead our nation again the evil terrorists. They would rather trash the former President Bush than question Clinton’s lack of resolve and the breaches of security during his 8 years. As for Clinton, he can’t handle President Bush’s popularity and he continues to try to polish his own record.
Now the media’s favorite camera hound is the former weapons inspector Scott Ritter. The anti American list continues to be exposed. Ritter seems to either hate this country or has some kind of axe to grind with somebody. Some of his statements have been outrageous and without merit. A complete turnaround from just 2 years ago. How could we ever trust inspections after seeing this guy?
Former President Bush brought the world together over a decade ago. Now George W. Bush has brought America together. Meanwhile, the liberals continue to try to divide. They continue to bash the good people and defend the wicked. What a difference in class.
-
Originally posted by Gadfly
Could be used for hydrogen, or could be used for bio weapons. Dunno that we can ever be sure on that one.
Sure we can. We already are.
"Iraqi mobile labs nothing to do with germ warfare, report finds
Peter Beaumont, Antony Barnett and Gaby Hinsliff
Sunday June 15, 2003
The Observer
An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist.
The conclusion by biological weapons experts working for the British Government is an embarrassment for the Prime Minister, who has claimed that the discovery of the labs proved that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction and justified the case for going to war against Saddam Hussein.
Instead, a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: 'They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.'
The conclusion of the investigation ordered by the British Government - and revealed by The Observer last week - is hugely embarrassing for Blair, who had used the discovery of the alleged mobile labs as part of his efforts to silence criticism over the failure of Britain and the US to find any weapons of mass destruction since the invasion of Iraq.
The row is expected to be re-ignited this week with Robin Cook and Clare Short, the two Cabinet Ministers who resigned over the war, both due to give evidence to a House of Commons inquiry into whether intelligence was manipulated in the run-up to the war. It will be the first time that both have been grilled by their peers on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee over what the Cabinet was told in the run-up to the war.
MPs will be keen to explore Cook's explanation when he resigned that, while he believed Iraq did have some WMD capability, he did not believe it was weaponised.
The Prime Minister and his director of strategy and communications, Alastair Campbell, are expected to decline invitations to appear. While MPs could attempt to force them, this is now thought unlikely to happen.
The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, is expected to give evidence the week after.
The revelation that the mobile labs were to produce hydrogen for artillery balloons will also cause discomfort for the British authorities because the Iraqi army's original system was sold to it by the British company, Marconi Command & Control."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,977916,00.html
-
So how did that mid-September annoucement go?
"Discovering WMD (WMD announcement coming in September)
Townhall.com ^ | August 9, 2003 | Robert Novak
Discovering WMD Robert Novak (archive)
August 9, 2003 | Print | Send
WASHINGTON -- Former international weapons inspector David Kay, now seeking Iraqi weapons of mass destruction for the Pentagon, has privately reported successes that are planned to be revealed to the public in mid-September.
Kay has told his superiors he has found substantial evidence of biological weapons in Iraq, plus considerable missile development. He has been less successful in locating chemical weapons, and has not yet begun a substantial effort to locate progress toward nuclear arms.
Senior officials in the Bush administration believe Kay's weapons discoveries should have been revealed as they were made. However, a decision, approved by President Bush, was made to wait until more was discovered and then announce it -- probably in September."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/961260/posts
Note the author.
Now Kay didn't announce anything of the sort, but he did say this yesterday.
"Inspectors fail to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
Last Updated Thu, 02 Oct 2003 22:35:57
WASHINGTON - David Kay, the inspector charged with finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq for the United States, says he has found nothing so far.
Kay says he thinks it will be six to nine months before he can conclude one way or the other whether such weapons exist.
Kay briefed reporters after giving closed-door testimony updating U.S. lawmakers on his efforts in Iraq. He says he is always ready to be surprised, but has found no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in Iraq so far.
"But we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone," he said.
Kay is reportedly asking for an additional $600 million US to continue his search in Iraq."
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/10/02/womd031002
-
Text of David Kay's unclassified statement (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/index.html)
I think I'd rather read what the guy actually said, thanks.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
You really have know idea what your country does and has done in your name, do you.
"According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:
[/url]
Private American suppliers sold what is considerd now as "dual use" technology. Perfectly legal at the time even if questionable today. The trailers you give a clean bill of health for are also considered "dual use" and are in fact being re-examined to determine what other uses besides weather baloons (LOL) iraq had for them. Didnt a canadian try and build a super gun for sadam. I am sure you want to hold Canada personaly responsible for his actions also.
-
Only in the US and former Soviet, would the chief of the state get away with a thing like this.
Democracy???
What a laugh!
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Didnt a canadian try and build a super gun for sadam. I am sure you want to hold Canada personaly responsible for his actions also.
Did he do it with the approval of the Canadian government?
Toad, thanks for the link.
-
Weapons inspectors get paid by the hour.... and most of them are liberals!
Of course they are not finding any WMD! Job Security!!
UN weapons inspectors spent 6 months, going through Saddam's palaces and driving around Iraq looking for weapons - and they were aided by US intelligence which had irrefutable information that Saddam was hiding WMD.
They could not find any.
Even after Powel played a tape about a "truck shipment" - which we all know is a code word which means - Chemical Weapons. Duh!
Why don't any of you see this?
Do we have to spell it out to you?
We all know this because Bush, Channey, Power, Ashcroft, Rush, and FoxNews told us so. They are moral and upright people - they have good character and dignity - they wouldn't lie to us like the Democrats and Slick Willy did.
The reason why we can't find any WMD in Iraq is because Saddam trucked them to Iran!!
Duh!!! Everyone knows this.
Iran has all the WMD now. Iran has been an unstable entity in the gulf since the Shaw ran away in exile to Morrocco.
We should be attacking Iran now... and Iran has Nukes!
What are we waiting for? They could attack us at any moment.
We need to protect America from this Axis of Evil.
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Weapons inspectors get paid by the hour.... and most of them are liberals!
Of course they are not finding any WMD! Job Security!!
UN weapons inspectors spent 6 months, going through Saddam's palaces and driving around Iraq looking for weapons - and they were aided by US intelligence which had irrefutable information that Saddam was hiding WMD.
They could not find any.
Even after Powel played a tape about a "truck shipment" - which we all know is a code word which means - Chemical Weapons. Duh!
Why don't any of you see this?
Do we have to spell it out to you?
We all know this because Bush, Channey, Power, Ashcroft, Rush, and FoxNews told us so. They are moral and upright people - they have good character and dignity - they wouldn't lie to us like the Democrats and Slick Willy did.
The reason why we can't find any WMD in Iraq is because Saddam trucked them to Iran!!
Duh!!! Everyone knows this.
Iran has all the WMD now. Iran has been an unstable entity in the gulf since the Shaw ran away in exile to Morrocco.
We should be attacking Iran now... and Iran has Nukes!
What are we waiting for? They could attack us at any moment.
We need to protect America from this Axis of Evil.
Fear and consumption it's the Republican way.
-
Hiya's,
Aint got time to wade through from my original reply but..............
I have a series i taped on vhs from i think 1992 (The Gulf War)
In it in interviews after 1991 "Tariq Aziz" many a time ADMITS iraq has WMD's but chose not to use them
Why can't some divvy in the reporting area (tv/radio/papers etc) just ask me for the damn tape to varify wtf iraq admitted to posessing since @ least 1991
Sheesh
You guys gotta remember that there's an equal and opposite force to everything in this life
EG: No good news hmm let's make bad news
EG: No bad news hmm let's make the good news
Media tends to be a sharp double-edged knife ;)