Official: Russia Moved Iraqi WMD !

Well it seems that most will not even consider the possibility, I guess we will just have to wait and see, but keep in mind what is going on in Syria and Lebanon, especially the Beka Valley...........

You make russia out to be the russians to be evil people, are you reading this out of a propaganda book?

You make Americans out to be dumb, lazy, ignorant and incompetent...

Everything I said is simple truth. There's a reason Iraq had T-72's, and MiG-29's, and North Korea has the same. How about Syria? All of these nations have been getting Russian weapons. Russia dumps weapons on any third world nation willing to pay.

.....Really? You got proof of this...

The quote I'm refering to has circulated for sometime. I don't care to go look for it. You won't deny who armed Saddam, and continued to arm Saddam throughout the 90's, though, will you?

Actually It can be explained in a lot of ways, your just unwilling to accept them.
Yes unless there is actual proof not just someones opinion then there is no justification to accuse them of anything.

America hasn't accused them of anything.

I don't know what explanations there are for huge shipments flooding out of Iraq into Syria just prior to the invasion. This wasn't ordinary.

Oh the small stockpile of left over bioagents from the gulf war?

I'm not talking about leftovers. He had active labs capable of producing this stuff at any time.

Yes suspicios activicty reported by who?

Satellite pictures don't lie. There's no justification for shipments going from Iraq into Syria before the invasion.

Says who?
He went in why then?
Because some man told him there was checmical weapon facilities...cough baby millk factory cough..

He went in because he actually thought it was a good idea, where everyone benefited.

"David Kay, the man who led the CIA's postwar effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, has called on the Bush administration to "come clean with the American people" and admit it was wrong about the existence of the weapons. "

Isn't that same guy who was saying how Iraq had WMD's a few years ago, and that we weren't being hard enough with Iraq? He's not reliable at all.

By whose professional opinion , yours?

Anyone with a brain. If you think I'm wrong, why don't you explain to me what those shipments carried, and what their purpose was.

That may be so, but hideing ALL of these weapons takes man power and reasources, yet we have heard of no forces yet being captured or admiting they were part of it.

Who would we capture? A bunch of guys who probably ran off to Syria with the weapons?

Denial - remember the 911 conspiracies also.................



Rubbish, just plain turdblossom rubbish.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
You make Americans out to be dumb, lazy, ignorant and incompetent...

Not in this thead...

Everything I said is simple truth. There's a reason Iraq had T-72's, and MiG-29's, and North Korea has the same. How about Syria? All of these nations have been getting Russian weapons. Russia dumps weapons on any third world nation willing to pay.

So?
Does that mean thier willing to arm a country with WMD?
No.

The quote I'm refering to has circulated for sometime. I don't care to go look for it. You won't deny who armed Saddam, and continued to arm Saddam throughout the 90's, though, will you?

Arm him with what?
Conventional weapons?

America hasn't accused them of anything.

I don't know what explanations there are for huge shipments flooding out of Iraq into Syria just prior to the invasion. This wasn't ordinary.

They could be anything from a supply of Ak'S to a supply of wheat.

I'm not talking about leftovers. He had active labs capable of producing this stuff at any time.

Not acording to the inspectors there, who also presented the information they had in worse case scenarios not actually what was there.

Satellite pictures don't lie. There's no justification for shipments going from Iraq into Syria before the invasion.

The SAT pics showed trucks moveing into syria, you cant find anyexcuse to justify a shipment.
That doesnt men there isnt one.

He went in because he actually thought it was a good idea, where everyone benefited.

How can everyone benifit from war?

Isn't that same guy who was saying how Iraq had WMD's a few years ago, and that we weren't being hard enough with Iraq? He's not reliable at all.

Nethiers the CIA considering they said on air , "there are no WMD in iraq"

Anyone with a brain. If you think I'm wrong, why don't you explain to me what those shipments carried, and what their purpose was.
[/qutoe]
Really, its soooo obvios that any shipment between two countries obviosly contains WMD.
Could be anything from Wheat to AK's.

Who would we capture? A bunch of guys who probably ran off to Syria with the weapons?

I think we would discover several thousand men missing in iraq....

So?
Does that mean thier willing to arm a country with WMD?
No.

They did in the 80's. It's certainly not beneath them.

Arm him with what?
Conventional weapons? [/quoe]

WMD's and conventional weapons.

They could be anything from a supply of Ak'S to a supply of wheat.

Why would Iraq be shipping AK-47's to Syria? Why would they just suddenly start sending wheat just before an invasion? Interesting time and place to start trading.

Not acording to the inspectors there, who also presented the information they had in worse case scenarios not actually what was there.

That's bull. The factories have been found. I'd rather here the typical bonehead argument they were factories made for producing pesticides then this...

How can everyone benifit from war?

The Americans get a base in the Middle East, oil contracts, and get rid of a serious potential threat while the Iraqis get rid of a tyranical dictator who massacred his own people.

Nethiers the CIA considering they said on air , "there are no WMD in iraq"

It's funny that people don't believe the CIA when they say something they disagree with, like Iran has a nuclear program, yet are quick to believe government whitewash like that...

The CIA could not politically keep saying there were WMD's with the media hounding on the lack of evidence. The public believed there were mistakes, so the government had to make it look like they were doing something to fix the problems.

I think we would discover several thousand men missing in iraq....

It doesn't take several thousand men, and many parts of Saddam's regime did go run into Syria and Iran.

Very well answered indeed, so that's what Saddam was hiding huh, AK's and Wheat, I bet there was consumer electronics, didn't want the infidels getting a hold of them.

Hey, Columbia has massive oil reserves, maybe they moved the WMD's there. Maybe we should support their opposition in VN, call Chavez a terrorist and move the american military there... Oh yeah that's right, we already are. Are we still on the WMD garbage? LOL. Wake up folks, even your 'war hero president' Bush has admitted there were no WMD's. He has already moved on to the next excuse which was simply ousting an evil dictator, perhaps you should move on as well. Nobody is buying that crap anymore, not even the guys like Tenet that started it. In other words...

Hey, Columbia has massive oil reserves, maybe they moved the WMD's there. Maybe we should support their opposition in VN, call Chavez a terrorist and move the american military there... Oh yeah that's right, we already are. Are we still on the WMD garbage? LOL. Wake up folks, even your 'war hero president' Bush has admitted there were no WMD's. He has already moved on to the next excuse which was simply ousting an evil dictator, perhaps you should move on as well. Nobody is buying that crap anymore, not even the guys like Tenet that started it. In other words...

I tried to reach down for a good sarcastic way of calling you an idiot, but it just wasn't there. It's too pointless.

Why is it that people like you only create government conspiracies when it agrees with your idealistic garbage? Most of what you say is completely unrealistic.

Like what? Indulge me...

You spoke right?


yada

yada

yada..............


EDIT
Actually that was uncalled for, sorry.


Why WMD? Becuase they were there, now they are not, where did they go?

If you believe Saddam destroyed them, then see the post above your post.

[edit on 9-3-2005 by edsinger]

Originally posted by twitchy
Like what? Indulge me...

The whole conspiracy with Iraq makes little to no sense for reasons I've already explained. If Bush simply was interested in corporate interests, he could have waited until after the election to go after Iraq. It would have been far smarter and safer.

There was clearly more reasons for going after Iraq.

The fact that people doubt there were WMD's is kind of a joke. Pretty much EVERY intelligence agency said the same thing about the WMD's. There was absolutely no reason to believe they weren't there.

We have satellite pictures of Iraq tearing down weapons sites, as well as huge shipments leaving the country before the invasion.

Weapons factories have been found in Iraq.

There's more political reasons for the CIA to say there aren't WMD's now, then to say there were WMD's before.

He could not have gone in with out 9/11 happening the supposed (actually the lie) connection of 9/11 and Iraq IS what caused half of American to support the invation, if there was no 9/11 to shock Americans to believe anything that the Gov says he would have NEVER even tried to mentionb sure a move on Iraq in a news breifing let alone realy going threw with it.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The whole conspiracy with Iraq makes little to no sense for reasons I've already explained. If Bush simply was interested in corporate interests, he could have waited until after the election to go after Iraq. It would have been far smarter and safer.

There was clearly more reasons for going after Iraq.

The fact that people doubt there were WMD's is kind of a joke. Pretty much EVERY intelligence agency said the same thing about the WMD's. There was absolutely no reason to believe they weren't there.

We have satellite pictures of Iraq tearing down weapons sites, as well as huge shipments leaving the country before the invasion.

Weapons factories have been found in Iraq.

There's more political reasons for the CIA to say there aren't WMD's now, then to say there were WMD's before.

Well, when you find any let us know. Otherwise, I'd suggest reading up on the statements of George Tenet, both prior to and after his resignation, as well as the statements made by Clarke and other people very intimately involved with the wooling of your eyes. Yellow Cake from Nigeria maybe? Rusty Chemical Artillery Ordinances?
As far as your statement that all the intelligence agencies said he had WMD's, which ones? I was under the impression that the the first Iraq War had reduced Sadam's offensive military capability to near nothingless, the crippling sanctions imposed wouldn't even let him import the chemicals needed to make band-aids, and UN inspectors which had been in Iraq for nearly two decades hadn't found chit. The only ones perpetuating that information were British and American intelligence, and American Intelligence agencies told the Bush Administration that the information they had 'gleaned' (an in many cases completely fabricated) was unreliable AT BEST.
It's bad when propoganda is so effective that people are still debating it's legitimacy even after the folks who started the story have admitted that it wasn't true. The only WMD's we knew Saddam had for sure were the ones Rumsfeld sold him in the 80's, the ones we had the reciept for.
As far as the rest of the world knew and understood, Saddam was in compliance with UN resolutions regarding WMD's.
Bush knew Iraq wasn't a threat to any American interests other than his interest in the Euro.

Originally posted by twitchy
As far as the rest of the world knew and understood, Saddam was in compliance with UN resolutions regarding WMD's.

Your kidding right? I guess that is why he kicked the inspectors out wasn't it?

Like I said Ed...

It's bad when propoganda is so effective that people are still debating it's legitimacy even after the folks who started the story have admitted that it wasn't true.

As far as the rest of the world knew and understood, Saddam was in compliance with UN resolutions regarding WMD's.

Statements like these are just unbelievably ignorant. Even if Saddam didn't have WMD's, it's fact he was in violation of UN resolutions. That's why they passed more of them just before the invasion.

Yellow Cake from Nigeria maybe?

This claim was credible, and still is. Iraq did bring the issue up with Nigeria.

As far as your statement that all the intelligence agencies said he had WMD's, which ones?

Russian, French, Israeli, and various Middle Eastern countries.

The only WMD's we knew Saddam had for sure were the ones Rumsfeld sold him in the 80's, the ones we had the reciept for.

We never actually sold any WMD's to Iraq. We merely gave funds, which were then used to buy them from Russia and France.

War had reduced Sadam's offensive military capability to near nothingless, the crippling sanctions imposed wouldn't even let him import the chemicals needed to make band-aids

Yea, he was just continuing to get more advanced missile systems, improving air defenses, and actively trying to get all sanctions lifted by throwing bribes at various nations, like France, Russia, China and Germany.

UN inspectors which had been in Iraq for nearly two decades hadn't found chit.

Two decades? Maybe if you had about 10 years, and kind of ignore the fact that there were only few occasions we inspected. During those occasions Saddam denied access to the inspectors, and illegal weapons were found...

Sources man, show me da money.

Edit:
Former Ambassador to Africa, Wilson went to Nigeria as a US Envoy specifically to investigate the Yellow Cake Uranium information. He found the documents to be falsified, and he was rewarded for his hard work by having hishis wife, Valerie Plame, identity as a CIA agent leaked, in direct violation of The Intelligence Identities Protection Act Of 1982.

Here's your yellowcake...

www.cnn.com...
Ms. Rice acknowledged that the president's information turned out to be "not credible," but insisted that the White House hadn't realized this until after Mr. Bush had cited it in his State of the Union address...
"It was well known throughout the intelligence community that it was a forgery," said Melvin Goodman, a former C.I.A. analyst who is now at the Center for International Policy.
Still, Mr. Tenet and the intelligence agencies were under intense pressure to come up with evidence against Iraq. Ambiguities were lost, and doubters were discouraged from speaking up.

The Wilson Envoy wasn't the only one who verified the Yellow Cake documents were bogus... Fact is, the Nigerian Government didn't have any Yellow Cake to sell Iraq, let alone the "500 tons of yellow cake" they were supposed to be trying to purchase. Get real.

www.independent-media.tv...
Thirteen months later, on March 8, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, informed the U.N. Security Council that after careful scrutiny of the Niger documents, his agency had reached the same conclusion as the CIA's envoy. ElBaradei deemed the documents "not authentic," an assessment that U.S. officials did not dispute.

www.ccmep.org...

Another source you probably won't read...
justoneminute.typepad.com...
Russia?

www.isis-online.org...
Russia was not convinced by either the September 24, 2002 British dossier or the October 4, 2002 CIA report. Lacking sufficient evidence, Russia dismissed the claims as a part of a "propaganda furor."...He goes on to say, "Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress."...

France?

French intelligence services did not come up with the same alarming assessment of Iraq and WMD as did the Britain and the United States. "According to secret agents at the DGSE, Saddam's Iraq does not represent any kind of nuclear threat at this time…It [the French assessment] contradicts the CIA's analysis…"5 French spies said that the Iraqi nuclear threat claimed by the United States was a "phony threat."

Israeli Intelligence? Give me a break.
Germany?

...Germany did not find Powell's "evidence" strong enough to support the U.S.'s stance on the Iraqi threat.

And oh yeah.. Like hell we didn't sell Iraq Chemical weapons, we even sold them the crop spraying helicopters to dispense them with. By no cooincidence, Rumsfeld was knee deep in Pharmaceutical Companies at the time. I have an extensive library here, and if you like I can list such things as botulism and other 'research' materials that were shipped to Iraq during the Iran Iraq war in US crates in the amounts they were shipped.
Hell man, consider this little fact alone... note the word export...

www.greenleft.org.au...
According to William Blum, writing in the August 1998 issue of the Progressive, Sam Gejdenson, chairperson of a Congressional subcommittee investigating US exports to Iraq, disclosed that from 1985 until 1990 “the US government approved 771 licenses [only 39 were rejected] for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application …
Just four months later, Washington stood by as the US giant Bechtel corporation won the contract to build a huge petrochemical plant that would give the Hussein regime the capacity to generate chemical weapons.

I have a copy of this report if you would like to read it, deluded one.

www.commondreams.org...
The CDC and a biological sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus.

The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran. They were detailed in a 1994 Senate Banking Committee report and a 1995 follow-up letter from the CDC to the Senate.

I would love to waste more time helping you with your delusions, but the Irony of you trying think of ways to call me an idiot while spouting off unsubstantiated claims that have already been debunked by the likes of Condiliar Rice, is too much to bear.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by twitchy]

[edit on 10-3-2005 by twitchy]

And just in case you missed my point earlier, here's a good starter course, i.e. medicene for your ignorance...
www.dissidentvoice.org...

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
They did in the 80's. It's certainly not beneath them.

Same with the good old U- S-of A I dont see us investigateing you...

WMD's and conventional weapons.

Why would they arm a "mad man" as you so call him with WMD?
Money? No not the risk is far too high.

Why would Iraq be shipping AK-47's to Syria? Why would they just suddenly start sending wheat just before an invasion? Interesting time and place to start trading.

Yes interesting timeing, yet nothing wrong with it.
Iraq might have struck a deal, you never know.

That's bull. The factories have been found. I'd rather here the typical bonehead argument they were factories made for producing pesticides then this...

Actually its been proven that the inspectors where paraniod and showed worst case scenarios every time.
The factories for what?
Chemicals? There are hundreds of chemicals!

The Americans get a base in the Middle East, oil contracts, and get rid of a serious potential threat while the Iraqis get rid of a tyranical dictator who massacred his own people.

Some "threat" I've got a bigger threat of getting run over.
The iraqi's will just have another dictator or will stay under US occupation.
The iraqi's also lost thousands during the war.. how is that "winning"?

It's funny that people don't believe the CIA when they say something they disagree with, like Iran has a nuclear program, yet are quick to believe government whitewash like that...

Yes, director of intelgence says there isnt any then suddenly there is?
........all mind games huh..wow you sure have got them figured out!...

The CIA could not politically keep saying there were WMD's with the media hounding on the lack of evidence. The public believed there were mistakes, so the government had to make it look like they were doing something to fix the problems.

Yes and as believable as this "wmd to syria" idea...

It doesn't take several thousand men,

Ok, running the plants takes men. Say about 100 per plant.
Moveing the produce takes say another 50 drivers.
Guarding them takes another 50 per plant.
Supply the plants takes another god knows high number.

and many parts of Saddam's regime did go run into Syria and Iran.

There would TOOOO many men missing to there have been a serios WMD programe there.

Your wrong AGAIN American Free Press in late 2002 put out a report and listed 28 U.S. Companies that sold chemical weapons to Iraq in the 80's when they asked Raythyon why they sold Iraq those weapons Raythyon spokesperson responded by saying "At the time Iraq and the U.S. we're friends so it was technacly LEAGAL for us to sell them theses weapons" P.S. Now I'm 200% sure your just a young kid, back in 87 Oliver North scandle which clearly showed U.S. sold Iraq chemical weapons.