It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Gitmo: 5 Star Resort
page: 9share:
Originally posted by skippytjc
[Which crimes? Source? Can you quote a criminal report
or any court proceedings that outline the crimes?
Skippy ... you left out one word ... LEGITIMATE. Quote a
criminal report or court proceedings from LEGITIMATE unbiased
sources. The Jackster just might come back with quotes from
Al-Jazeera, Bagdad Bob, or something.
Originally posted by dbates
Originally posted by Jakomo
As for violation of UN resolutions, um, Israel has violated over 93 Resolutions, I don't see any bombing runs or regime change going on there.
O yes! Here we go again. When all else fails in the Arab world. When everything goes to Hell in a hand-basket. You can always blame Israel.
I don't think he is blaming Israel, I think he is drawing comparisons to the reasons the war was started. Stating that it couldn't be simply un resolutions, as Israel - along with the others he mentioned - had also UN resultions they ignored.
**Edit, I see you have answered this, so I guess there is no point in doing it again. Cheers.
[edit on 25-6-2005 by Passer By]
Crimes of the US? You want links? You want recent ones or older ones?
Forget links.
Illegal invasion of Iraq, based on lies and misleading info to the UN and to the world.
Guantanomo Bay, a violation of the Geneva Convention.
Abu Ghraib prison scandal (there were convictions in this one).
Going back a bit:
1973 CIA coup of democratically elected Allende in Chile and the propping up of dictator Pinochet.
Mining of the port of Managua.
Funding Noriega the drug lord with CIA $$$.
There are thousands of links out there, but whichever ones I post there will be naysayers.
"This source is anti-american!"
"This was written by someone with an Arab-sounding name!"
"You are anti-american so you made this up!"
So, um, yeah, whatever.
The good thing about my side of the argument is that time will vindicate me. Gitmo will be seen as the ultimate transgression of basic human rights very very soon, and those on my side of the fence will be able to say "Yeah, we knew it and we tried to tell people, but people didn't want to listen".
Just watch. Say what you like that I'm a rabid anti-American pig, but the FACTS will surface.
Bye.
jako
Forget links.
Illegal invasion of Iraq, based on lies and misleading info to the UN and to the world.
Guantanomo Bay, a violation of the Geneva Convention.
Abu Ghraib prison scandal (there were convictions in this one).
Going back a bit:
1973 CIA coup of democratically elected Allende in Chile and the propping up of dictator Pinochet.
Mining of the port of Managua.
Funding Noriega the drug lord with CIA $$$.
There are thousands of links out there, but whichever ones I post there will be naysayers.
"This source is anti-american!"
"This was written by someone with an Arab-sounding name!"
"You are anti-american so you made this up!"
So, um, yeah, whatever.
The good thing about my side of the argument is that time will vindicate me. Gitmo will be seen as the ultimate transgression of basic human rights very very soon, and those on my side of the fence will be able to say "Yeah, we knew it and we tried to tell people, but people didn't want to listen".
Just watch. Say what you like that I'm a rabid anti-American pig, but the FACTS will surface.
Bye.
jako
Originally posted by Jakomo
The good thing about my side of the argument is that time will vindicate me. Gitmo will be seen as the ultimate transgression of basic human rights very very soon, and those on my side of the fence will be able to say "Yeah, we knew it and we tried to tell people, but people didn't want to listen".
Just watch. Say what you like that I'm a rabid anti-American pig, but the FACTS will surface.
I doubt that will ever happen, America will say it was a necessary part of the War on Terror. It is nowhere near the levels of Korematsu so I don't think this is going to be that big of a deal. People just don't care that much.
Edit - I would also say that this is HARDLY the single largest transgression of human rights, lol, that idea is laughable.
[edit on 27-6-2005 by CaptainJailew]
Apparently, terrorists like donuts:
Mothering Terrorists at Gitmo
"We've all heard wild tales about the interrogation techniquess employed at Guantanamo Bay. Allegedly, these include sleep deprivation, drugs, overheated cells, seductive women, and even Christina Aguilera music (true torture). In addition to enjoying the kind of first-class meal these would-be terrorists enjoy everyday during my trip to Guantanamo Bay last week, I also learned part of their 2,600-calorie daily diet comes in the form of donuts -- donuts the terrorists enjoy while being interrogated by sensitive, nurturing, modestly-clad female interrogators...."
Mmm...Donuts!
Mothering Terrorists at Gitmo
"We've all heard wild tales about the interrogation techniquess employed at Guantanamo Bay. Allegedly, these include sleep deprivation, drugs, overheated cells, seductive women, and even Christina Aguilera music (true torture). In addition to enjoying the kind of first-class meal these would-be terrorists enjoy everyday during my trip to Guantanamo Bay last week, I also learned part of their 2,600-calorie daily diet comes in the form of donuts -- donuts the terrorists enjoy while being interrogated by sensitive, nurturing, modestly-clad female interrogators...."
Mmm...Donuts!
Gitmo detainee team readies for World Cup....
Soccer
"WASHINGTON (AFP) - Inmates from the US-led war on terror held at the prison camp at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are well treated, play outdoor sports, and have access to a broad Muslim-approved menu, a US senator who traveled to the site said.
US Senator Pat Roberts, a conservative Republican from Kansas, said on "Fox News Sunday" that he just returned from visiting the Guantanamo detention site.
"They have a Muslim menu down there of 113 dishes," said Roberts, chairman of the US Senate Intelligence Committee.
"I saw them playing soccer. I saw them playing ping-pong. I saw them playing ... I think it was volleyball," he said.
US camp guards "strictly observe with reverence all of the prayer calls, five times a day, 20 minutes," he said.
"And in regards to the health care, my word, they have better health care than many of my small communities in Kansas."
According to Roberts inmate treatment there "is carrots, not sticks. We are treating people humanely."
Meanwhile the US soldiers guarding the inmates "are getting very rough treatment from some of these detainees -- and I don't call them 'detainees,' I call them 'terrorists' -- throwing excrement at them and everything else."
The US guards "are more worried about what's happening in Congress in regards to their future than they are the terrorists," Roberts said.
There are some 520 detainees from around the world being held at the site, including suspected members of the Al-Qaeda terror network and Afghanistan's Taliban militia.
The Guantanamo detention site has been the focus of worldwide controversy following allegations that US forces have abused detainees. Leading members of the opposition Democratic Party want the site closed down...."
Its time for the haters to stop using Gitmo as thier excuse to hate and support the terrorists. These detainee's are treated better than most low income people, and some middle class!!
Soccer
"WASHINGTON (AFP) - Inmates from the US-led war on terror held at the prison camp at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are well treated, play outdoor sports, and have access to a broad Muslim-approved menu, a US senator who traveled to the site said.
US Senator Pat Roberts, a conservative Republican from Kansas, said on "Fox News Sunday" that he just returned from visiting the Guantanamo detention site.
"They have a Muslim menu down there of 113 dishes," said Roberts, chairman of the US Senate Intelligence Committee.
"I saw them playing soccer. I saw them playing ping-pong. I saw them playing ... I think it was volleyball," he said.
US camp guards "strictly observe with reverence all of the prayer calls, five times a day, 20 minutes," he said.
"And in regards to the health care, my word, they have better health care than many of my small communities in Kansas."
According to Roberts inmate treatment there "is carrots, not sticks. We are treating people humanely."
Meanwhile the US soldiers guarding the inmates "are getting very rough treatment from some of these detainees -- and I don't call them 'detainees,' I call them 'terrorists' -- throwing excrement at them and everything else."
The US guards "are more worried about what's happening in Congress in regards to their future than they are the terrorists," Roberts said.
There are some 520 detainees from around the world being held at the site, including suspected members of the Al-Qaeda terror network and Afghanistan's Taliban militia.
The Guantanamo detention site has been the focus of worldwide controversy following allegations that US forces have abused detainees. Leading members of the opposition Democratic Party want the site closed down...."
Its time for the haters to stop using Gitmo as thier excuse to hate and support the terrorists. These detainee's are treated better than most low income people, and some middle class!!
Forgive my late response- I somehow missed this thread in my subscription list.
Here we go Jakomo.
You don't believe that Saddam was bribing officials left and right, not to mention paying favors to France and others for turning a blind eye to his transgressions? 3 questions: Can you read, do you own a television, or do you otherwise have access to the news?
ferretman:
Correction- how dare the Iraqis shoot at planes that were patrolling the no fly zones to SAVE thousands of INNOCENT Iraqis from a maniac who had used chemical weapons on them the last time they stood up for themselves.
Feel free to post any reliable data you have on how many bombings there were, how many casualties there were, and how many of those casualties were innocent people as opposed to Saddam's men. And remember, we're talking pre-war violations of the cease fire.
In case you thought your link was good evidence, let me break that one down for you. CCMEP was orginally formed to oppose military action against Iraq in 1990 in the second gulf war (which most Americans call the first gulf war, although that name actually refers to the Iraq-Iran war). These people were against protecting Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from a mad man- quite possibly because the mad man in question was firing rockets at Israel, and the co-founder of the CCMEP is a huge Palestinian activist by the name of Ali Abunimah. So that's where the CCMEP comes from- Palestinians who didn't want to fight a nation that was attacking Israel.
If that is not adequate to discredit CCMEP, might I call your attention to the fact that they site figures given by Baghdad? The same Baghdad from whence the infamous (and hillarious) Baghdad Bob reported that American forces were surrounded and being destroyed.
Back to how dare they... While we're at it, how dare they deny access to and in several cases expell weapons inspectors in violation of the requirement that they confirm disarmament of their chemical and biological warfare programs, which even the infamous Scott Ritter said in 1998 could be reconstituted in a matter of months.
Since we all know that two wrongs DO make a right, I am now prepared to hail Saddam Hussien as the greatest hero of all time. Thankyou for enlightening me. I wish I had been bright enough to see things your way from the get go. (/sarcasm)
Joyce Hens Green is a judge for the DC District Court. The US Court of Military Appeals and the US Supreme Court have jurisdiction over matters decided under the UCMJ. If there were any doubt about this, the Supreme Court would hear the first case arising from disobedience to Green's order and affirm the order. Green is simply an activist judge making a political statement of absolutely no legal value whatsoever.
That would only have happened if I had gotten in a fight, but then I would not have been allowed to go to recess. You are taking my point about disparity of dining and religious accomodations between schools and Gitmo to an illogical point by suggesting that because I was in a place with worse food than Gitmo, I must be a dangerous criminal like the people and Gitmo and thus must deserve to be shackled. Your only defense against my point is a transparent logical fallacy.
Frequently. In fact one of the methods of interrogation was not to let me sit down until I could answer Ms. Jordan's questions about the Pythagorean Theorem. They use that at Gitmo too- just not to teach geometry.
Again, I was not in prison. If I had fired an AK-47 at somebody, I would have seen nobody but prison guards for a significantly longer period of time than 3 years- IF i were not put to death. Logical fallacies will get you nowhere. The point remains that the "inhumane" conditions at Gitmo are merely the bare bones of any effective prison, and in most other respects Gitmo eclipses the accomodations provided to innocent people under our government's care.
That would have sounded really good during field week in boot camp. No cage- just a huge pack. And I didn't get to go inside for 1 hour a day, unlike these pampered terrorists at Gitmo. As for being treated like a dog... most people don't deny their dogs food for misbehaving. The US military can't deprive terrorists of food for misbehaving. My drill instructor gave us the bare minimum 5 minutes to eat- and since he couldn't deprive us of the opportunity to eat, he instructed us to eat with our mouth-pieces in, thus making it impossible for us to eat any appreciable quantity of food in that 5 minutes. I never wanted to be a dog so bad in my life. Right after I bit the DI in the butt I would have gone and eaten- like most dogs do regularly.
Yes in boot camp and yes in 4 of the 6 classes I took senior year. Next question.
I'm dead serious... or at least I was. I'm actually laughing at you hysterically now. I'm still waiting for you to explain what we did wrong without implying that a prison is supposed to be as free and happy as a highschool.
As was virtually every other POW in the history of the world, all of whom went to prison (except in Iraq maybe- those POWs probably just got shot by the Republican Guard). The enemy goes to prison until the conflict is over. That's legal. The fact that they were fighting for their homeland has nothing to do with anything.
Of course. They saw it on Iraqi TV, which you just admitted was not telling them the truth. Nevermind that earlier you linked to a website using the same Iraqi lies that these people were fed.
Actually Saddam killed them by abusing the oil for food program. The French killed them by accepting oil vouchers as bribes. Ditto half of Europe. I've got a wild idea for you. Let's find out what percentage of the dead were Sunni Ba'athists. That should give us a real clear picture of who to blame.
I'd do exactly everything they did. That's not the point. The point is that if captured I would fully expect to have my testicles hooked up to a car battery until I told them what they wanted to know, then I'd expect to be shot and thrown into a mass grave. Then, I'd be AMAZED when it didn't happen because it turned out that America wasn't the great Satan that Iraqi media (and segments of the American media for that matter) had been lying about for all these years.
I understand why they wanted to fight. I understand why a lot of them still want to fight. I understand why we can't let them all go, even if their motives were basically pure.
I also understand that a great many of the people it Gitmo aren't Iraqis at all though. I understand that terrorists are entering Iraq to fight us because they are from a brainwashing culture where you have to kill whoever the Mullah says or you might go to hell.
It's not a lack of understanding or compassion. It's a lack of wanting to see Americans killed just because I wanted to be compassionate towards terrorists.
I'm in the construction business and you're telling me we need more prisons. This approach is highly unlikely to win me over.
You mean dissenters who take up arms against their fellow citizens to aid terrorists? Probably- but not too many. I'm not sure that most Americans are gullible enough to fall for the anti-American rhetoric that you have been spouting.
If you mean pure dissenters, who don't do anything wrong to anyone else, are going to be jailed like terrorists. then you are welcome to present proof that any such unconstitutional action is planned and you and I can get right to work on killing the conspirators together. If you're just saying that for the sake of hearing your jaws rattle though, please clean up all of this bovine feces before you leave. Somebody might step in it like you just did.
Here we go Jakomo.
Originally posted by Jakomo
Um, I'm not even going to bother refuting ANY of your wild claims, since you appear to be paranoid or delusional or something.
Unless you care to back up this wildly hilarious claim.
You don't believe that Saddam was bribing officials left and right, not to mention paying favors to France and others for turning a blind eye to his transgressions? 3 questions: Can you read, do you own a television, or do you otherwise have access to the news?
ferretman:
Yeah, how DARE the Iraqis shoot at planes that are patrolling and bombing their sovereign territory, huh? There were bombing runs almost EVERY DAY
, and killed THOUSANDS of Iraqis.
Correction- how dare the Iraqis shoot at planes that were patrolling the no fly zones to SAVE thousands of INNOCENT Iraqis from a maniac who had used chemical weapons on them the last time they stood up for themselves.
Feel free to post any reliable data you have on how many bombings there were, how many casualties there were, and how many of those casualties were innocent people as opposed to Saddam's men. And remember, we're talking pre-war violations of the cease fire.
In case you thought your link was good evidence, let me break that one down for you. CCMEP was orginally formed to oppose military action against Iraq in 1990 in the second gulf war (which most Americans call the first gulf war, although that name actually refers to the Iraq-Iran war). These people were against protecting Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from a mad man- quite possibly because the mad man in question was firing rockets at Israel, and the co-founder of the CCMEP is a huge Palestinian activist by the name of Ali Abunimah. So that's where the CCMEP comes from- Palestinians who didn't want to fight a nation that was attacking Israel.
If that is not adequate to discredit CCMEP, might I call your attention to the fact that they site figures given by Baghdad? The same Baghdad from whence the infamous (and hillarious) Baghdad Bob reported that American forces were surrounded and being destroyed.
Back to how dare they... While we're at it, how dare they deny access to and in several cases expell weapons inspectors in violation of the requirement that they confirm disarmament of their chemical and biological warfare programs, which even the infamous Scott Ritter said in 1998 could be reconstituted in a matter of months.
As for violation of UN resolutions, um, Israel has violated over 93 Resolutions, I don't see any bombing runs or regime change going on there. Ditto for Libya, Syria, China and North Korea.
Since we all know that two wrongs DO make a right, I am now prepared to hail Saddam Hussien as the greatest hero of all time. Thankyou for enlightening me. I wish I had been bright enough to see things your way from the get go. (/sarcasm)
Good point. However, these secret military tribunals have been ruled ILLEGAL by federal judges. Who cares what FrontpageMag's resident looney has to say about them.
Joyce Hens Green is a judge for the DC District Court. The US Court of Military Appeals and the US Supreme Court have jurisdiction over matters decided under the UCMJ. If there were any doubt about this, the Supreme Court would hear the first case arising from disobedience to Green's order and affirm the order. Green is simply an activist judge making a political statement of absolutely no legal value whatsoever.
The Vagabond
Were you shackled when you went out for recess?
That would only have happened if I had gotten in a fight, but then I would not have been allowed to go to recess. You are taking my point about disparity of dining and religious accomodations between schools and Gitmo to an illogical point by suggesting that because I was in a place with worse food than Gitmo, I must be a dangerous criminal like the people and Gitmo and thus must deserve to be shackled. Your only defense against my point is a transparent logical fallacy.
Did they interrogate you?
Frequently. In fact one of the methods of interrogation was not to let me sit down until I could answer Ms. Jordan's questions about the Pythagorean Theorem. They use that at Gitmo too- just not to teach geometry.
Were you kept away from your family and friends and had absolutley no outside contact with anyone other than prison guards for over 3 years?
Again, I was not in prison. If I had fired an AK-47 at somebody, I would have seen nobody but prison guards for a significantly longer period of time than 3 years- IF i were not put to death. Logical fallacies will get you nowhere. The point remains that the "inhumane" conditions at Gitmo are merely the bare bones of any effective prison, and in most other respects Gitmo eclipses the accomodations provided to innocent people under our government's care.
Were you kept in a cage outdoors, like a dog, exposed to the elements for 23 hours a day?
That would have sounded really good during field week in boot camp. No cage- just a huge pack. And I didn't get to go inside for 1 hour a day, unlike these pampered terrorists at Gitmo. As for being treated like a dog... most people don't deny their dogs food for misbehaving. The US military can't deprive terrorists of food for misbehaving. My drill instructor gave us the bare minimum 5 minutes to eat- and since he couldn't deprive us of the opportunity to eat, he instructed us to eat with our mouth-pieces in, thus making it impossible for us to eat any appreciable quantity of food in that 5 minutes. I never wanted to be a dog so bad in my life. Right after I bit the DI in the butt I would have gone and eaten- like most dogs do regularly.
Were you restricted from talking to anyone on the outside?
Yes in boot camp and yes in 4 of the 6 classes I took senior year. Next question.
You're not serious, right?
I'm dead serious... or at least I was. I'm actually laughing at you hysterically now. I'm still waiting for you to explain what we did wrong without implying that a prison is supposed to be as free and happy as a highschool.
POWs! Enemy guerrila soldiers defending their COUNTRY, their HOMES, their FAMILIES!
As was virtually every other POW in the history of the world, all of whom went to prison (except in Iraq maybe- those POWs probably just got shot by the Republican Guard). The enemy goes to prison until the conflict is over. That's legal. The fact that they were fighting for their homeland has nothing to do with anything.
Didn't they see their country bombed and starved for 12 years by their so-called "liberators"?
Of course. They saw it on Iraqi TV, which you just admitted was not telling them the truth. Nevermind that earlier you linked to a website using the same Iraqi lies that these people were fed.
You might have forgotten all this, but they still remember burying the 500,000 children that the sanctions killed.
Actually Saddam killed them by abusing the oil for food program. The French killed them by accepting oil vouchers as bribes. Ditto half of Europe. I've got a wild idea for you. Let's find out what percentage of the dead were Sunni Ba'athists. That should give us a real clear picture of who to blame.
What would you do in their situation? Lay down your arms and surrender to your invaders?
I'd do exactly everything they did. That's not the point. The point is that if captured I would fully expect to have my testicles hooked up to a car battery until I told them what they wanted to know, then I'd expect to be shot and thrown into a mass grave. Then, I'd be AMAZED when it didn't happen because it turned out that America wasn't the great Satan that Iraqi media (and segments of the American media for that matter) had been lying about for all these years.
I understand why they wanted to fight. I understand why a lot of them still want to fight. I understand why we can't let them all go, even if their motives were basically pure.
I also understand that a great many of the people it Gitmo aren't Iraqis at all though. I understand that terrorists are entering Iraq to fight us because they are from a brainwashing culture where you have to kill whoever the Mullah says or you might go to hell.
Wow, color me surprised that you would demonstrate such a lack of compassion and understanding.
It's not a lack of understanding or compassion. It's a lack of wanting to see Americans killed just because I wanted to be compassionate towards terrorists.
For every person in Gitmo, there are 10,000 people worldwide that this is adding fuel to their anti-American fire. Better start building more prisons, America.
I'm in the construction business and you're telling me we need more prisons. This approach is highly unlikely to win me over.
Soon you'll need to be packing them with your own "dissenters".
You mean dissenters who take up arms against their fellow citizens to aid terrorists? Probably- but not too many. I'm not sure that most Americans are gullible enough to fall for the anti-American rhetoric that you have been spouting.
If you mean pure dissenters, who don't do anything wrong to anyone else, are going to be jailed like terrorists. then you are welcome to present proof that any such unconstitutional action is planned and you and I can get right to work on killing the conspirators together. If you're just saying that for the sake of hearing your jaws rattle though, please clean up all of this bovine feces before you leave. Somebody might step in it like you just did.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Correction- how dare the Iraqis shoot at planes that were patrolling the no fly zones to SAVE thousands of INNOCENT Iraqis from a maniac who had used chemical weapons on them the last time they stood up for themselves.
The no fly zones didn't save anybody from anyone.
Again I'm late getting a reply in. I can't believe I'm dignifying this oneliner with any reply at all, but call me stubborn.
I would be very interested in having you tell me exactly how many chemical attacks the Iraqi Airforce carried out in those no fly zones while they existed.
I would be very interested in hearing you say ANYTHING to substantiate your hollow attack on my contention that Saddam, and not the US, was the bad guy.
Be warned though, it may take more than one sentence, and you'll probably be hard pressed to come up with anything logically sound in defense of the Butcher of Baghdad.
I would be very interested in having you tell me exactly how many chemical attacks the Iraqi Airforce carried out in those no fly zones while they existed.
I would be very interested in hearing you say ANYTHING to substantiate your hollow attack on my contention that Saddam, and not the US, was the bad guy.
Be warned though, it may take more than one sentence, and you'll probably be hard pressed to come up with anything logically sound in defense of the Butcher of Baghdad.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
I would be very interested in having you tell me exactly how many chemical attacks the Iraqi Airforce carried out in those no fly zones while they existed.
None, since they destroyed their chemical weapons. Which had nothing to do with no fly zones. Once again: Iraq had no WMD anymore at some point past 1991.
Oh, Saddam disarmed did he? Feel free to support your statement and I'll be happy to chew up and spit out whatever argument you would like to bring.
However I will not play "did not" "did too" at any great length if you do not feel the need to back up your assertions with any sort of factual
argument.
As for this having nothing to do with the no fly zones, may I kindly remind you that the Iraqi military possessed and has used systems for the airborne release of chemical and biological agents, including but not limited to the Mycotoxins which have all but crippled many Gulf War veterans? These agents are released not only by SCUD missile but also by helicopter as well as by their SU-22 "Fitter" aircraft. Among other uses, they were used against the 4th Naval Mobile Construction Battalion at Al Jubayl, Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War.
Feel free to see supporting evidence of this in the Gulf War Syndrome research project that I worked on, or just go right to the source if you are impatient.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.mold-help.org...
(One last note, and I hope this doesn't seem petty because I'm only trying to help: The policy on quoting around here says that you don't need to quote a post that is immediately above your own.)
As for this having nothing to do with the no fly zones, may I kindly remind you that the Iraqi military possessed and has used systems for the airborne release of chemical and biological agents, including but not limited to the Mycotoxins which have all but crippled many Gulf War veterans? These agents are released not only by SCUD missile but also by helicopter as well as by their SU-22 "Fitter" aircraft. Among other uses, they were used against the 4th Naval Mobile Construction Battalion at Al Jubayl, Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War.
Feel free to see supporting evidence of this in the Gulf War Syndrome research project that I worked on, or just go right to the source if you are impatient.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.mold-help.org...
(One last note, and I hope this doesn't seem petty because I'm only trying to help: The policy on quoting around here says that you don't need to quote a post that is immediately above your own.)
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Oh, Saddam disarmed did he? Feel free to support your statement and I'll be happy to chew up and spit out whatever argument you would like to bring. However I will not play "did not" "did too" at any great length if you do not feel the need to back up your assertions with any sort of factual argument.
Well, there weren't any still functioning WMD found apart from one single sarin round that had sarin as a binary ammunition. Pretty impressive eh? You might also want to read the Kay report. Apart from a few vials in a refrigerator, some other beefed up trivia as well as much discussion about intent, essentially nothing was found and it seems that indeed Iraq had disarmed.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
As for this having nothing to do with the no fly zones, may I kindly remind you that the Iraqi military possessed and has used systems for the airborne release of chemical and biological agents, including but not limited to the Mycotoxins which have all but crippled many Gulf War veterans?
May I kindly remind you that there is no evidence that Iraq still had those after 1998 and that there is no evidence either that Iraq used WMD during the Gulf War? If your veterans got crippled by something, it is possibly because the US military bombed installations where WMD were stored but either didn't feel it necessary or just wasn't capable to inform and protect their own troops operating in the vicinity.
[edit on 20-7-2005 by Simon666]
I keep reading throughout this thread, the phrases linking the detainees at
Gitmo and the word 'terrorist'..
Maybe i'm missing something really obvious, Since when did the poor unfortunate
people, who are held agsint their will become known as terrorists.
When are we going to see some of that stuff called...err..ummm, 'evidence'
And theres another word, its on the tip of my tongue...darn, err..oh yes, ' proof'
I know how you guys so love to portray yourselves as the leading lights in providing
a just and free society, just not if you happen to be tortured 24/7/265 at Gitmo..
Gitmo and the word 'terrorist'..
Maybe i'm missing something really obvious, Since when did the poor unfortunate
people, who are held agsint their will become known as terrorists.
When are we going to see some of that stuff called...err..ummm, 'evidence'
And theres another word, its on the tip of my tongue...darn, err..oh yes, ' proof'
I know how you guys so love to portray yourselves as the leading lights in providing
a just and free society, just not if you happen to be tortured 24/7/265 at Gitmo..
The only thing the Gitmo detainee's are missing is a swimming pool and a golf course....
And they get all this for the low low price of shooting at Americans!
And they get all this for the low low price of shooting at Americans!
Originally posted by Simon666
Well, there weren't any still functioning WMD found apart from one single sarin round that had sarin as a binary ammunition. Pretty impressive eh?
Let's test this logic in another situation. An undercover police officer sells drugs to me. They attempt to arrest me and I run away. They don't lose sight of me for most of the chase, and are quickly gaining on me. I turn a corner and for a split second they can't see me, then they round the corner and catch me, and I'm no longer carrying the drugs. Therefore I was never hiding any drugs from them?
In 1998 when Saddam singled Scott Ritter out for expulsion from Iraq, Ritter who later claimed Saddam had no weapons, said that Saddam had enough to reconstitute his aresenal in mere months.
Saddam Hussien repeatedly denied access to certain facilities to weapons inspectors and repeatedly expelled the inspectors. He then had several months of warning before our invasion during which he easily could have either moved his weapons to neighboring countries or simply burried them somewhere- both tactics which he has used in the past to save aircraft and other military equipment. He had ample motive for this as well. His intention was to cause America to withdraw from Iraq without capturing him so that he could regain control of the country when we left.
We know he had them and was strongly resisting disarmament in clear violation of the terms he agreed to after the Gulf War. He had the motive and the opportunity to get rid of the weapons in the months before our attack. The fact that he succeeded in hiding them does nothing to diminish the obvious implications of his prior actions.
Furthermore, if he had destroyed them willingly at any point before our decision to attack, he would have had ample opportunity (and motive) to properly document this disarmament so as to have the sanctions on his nation lifted an the treat of further military action removed. If Saddam had in fact disarmed at any point other than immediately prior to the American invasion, then it can only be determined that Saddam irrationally made a series of decisions which served no purpose other than to encourage US action against him.
You might also want to read the Kay report.
Just to clarify, you are referring to the report written by in 2003, after the US invasion, after Saddam had enjoyed the above mentioned opportunity for a hasty disarmament, written by a man who didn't get a single chance to perform inspections in Iraq between the years of 1993 and 2003? That Kay report? The same Kay report which revealed that although no deployed weapons were found, that samples of various agents were being hidden in the home refrigerators of Iraqi scientists for the purpose of reconstituting Iraq's biological warfare program once inspections ended? That Kay Report? (sarcasm) Nope- never heard of it. (/sarcasm)
Perhaps next time you would like to cite a report which doesn't include damning proof that Saddam attempted to secretly maintain possession of materials to reconstitute his program once we were gone. Perhaps you would have tried to present such a report the first time, instead of just bringing one which has been heavily spun for political purposes despite the fact that it clearly contains evidence of Saddam's attempt to thwart our efforts to disarm him, if in fact any such report existed.
May I kindly remind you that there is no evidence that Iraq still had those after 1998
The Kay report contains evidence that they did. Scott Ritter also asserted in 1998 that Iraq remained capable of fully reconstituting their armament in mere months.
en.wikipedia.org...
and that there is no evidence either that Iraq used WMD during the Gulf War?
I already presented eye witness accounts in one link, as well as a link to a research project I lead on Gulf War Syndrome which contains several key pieces of evidence demonstrating that a large group of Gulf War Syndrome cases (classified as "confusion ataxia") display clear signs of Mycotoxin poisoning, particularly a weapon known as T-2 Toxin, and can in fact be treated by the same drugs which would be prescribed for mycotoxicosis.
If your veterans got crippled by something, it is possibly because the US military bombed installations where WMD were stored but either didn't feel it necessary or just wasn't capable to inform and protect their own troops operating in the vicinity.
Although an event of exactly this nature did occur to the Army's 37th Engineer Batallion at Kamisiyah, Iraq, when they were destroying Iraqi ammunition storage areas, I have already linked you to eye witness accounts of an Iraqi attack carried out on US troops at Al Jubayl, Saudi Arabia. If you'll take a glance at my reserach project you'll also note that there was a suspected chemical attack by Scud missiles at Al Khafji on 20 January 1991.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Let's test this logic in another situation. An undercover police officer sells drugs to me. They attempt to arrest me and I run away. They don't lose sight of me for most of the chase, and are quickly gaining on me. I turn a corner and for a split second they can't see me, then they round the corner and catch me, and I'm no longer carrying the drugs. Therefore I was never hiding any drugs from them?
Well, if the person turned around the corner and got rid of his drugs ten years or so ago, claiming to go after him because of drugs around 10 years after the facts seems pretty absurd. We have a proverb: it is easy to find a stick to beat a dog. If you want to slam someone, it is easy to find a convenient excuse.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
In 1998 when Saddam singled Scott Ritter out for expulsion from Iraq, Ritter who later claimed Saddam had no weapons, said that Saddam had enough to reconstitute his aresenal in mere months.
Two errors: in 1998 Scott Ritter wasn't UN chief weapons inspector, but Richard Butler. Plus, they weren't kicked out, they left voluntarily because Clinton was going to bomb Iraq. What happened was that afterwards, Saddam didn't let them back in.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Saddam Hussien repeatedly denied access to certain facilities to weapons inspectors and repeatedly expelled the inspectors. He then had several months of warning before our invasion during which he easily could have either moved his weapons to neighboring countries or simply burried them somewhere- both tactics which he has used in the past to save aircraft and other military equipment. He had ample motive for this as well. His intention was to cause America to withdraw from Iraq without capturing him so that he could regain control of the country when we left.
We know he had them and was strongly resisting disarmament in clear violation of the terms he agreed to after the Gulf War. He had the motive and the opportunity to get rid of the weapons in the months before our attack. The fact that he succeeded in hiding them does nothing to diminish the obvious implications of his prior actions.
Wrong again. The US has killed or captured nearly every figure of the deck of the most wanted as well as the heads of the former weapons programs. None of that led to any WMD. Nor has any Iraqi ever been able to provide a clue that led to the discovery. Where are the people that made the WMD, guarded them or buried them? Plus an extra clue to make you think: the US made it widespread public knowlegde they offered million dollar rewards for Saddam Hussein and his sons, yet not a single dollar for WMD. What do you think is a bigger threat to the US: a couple of fugitives on the run or, if they really existed, weapons of mass destruction that risked to fall into the hands of terrorists?
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Furthermore, if he had destroyed them willingly at any point before our decision to attack, he would have had ample opportunity (and motive) to properly document this disarmament so as to have the sanctions on his nation lifted an the treat of further military action removed. If Saddam had in fact disarmed at any point other than immediately prior to the American invasion, then it can only be determined that Saddam irrationally made a series of decisions which served no purpose other than to encourage US action against him.
Again, two mistakes. 1. The disarmament was ordered by Hussein kamel but not properly documented. 2. US leaders have made it sufficiently clear that the lifting of the sanctions would not follow Iraq's documented disarmament but that the sanctions would remain for as long as Saddam was in power. See this link and this link.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
The same Kay report which revealed that although no deployed weapons were found, that samples of various agents were being hidden in the home refrigerators of Iraqi scientists for the purpose of reconstituting Iraq's biological warfare program once inspections ended? That Kay Report? (sarcasm) Nope- never heard of it. (/sarcasm)
There is only a single occasion where items were stored in a home refrigerator. If you actually read it, you'd know that the scientist refused to hide the more dangerous stuff as he had children running around. What was in the fridge was hardly threatening and the request to store them had been shortly after 1991, the Iraqi government seemed to have forgotten about them afterwards since for years, nothing was done with those samples anymore. It is far from damning proof and might even be indicative of the opposite, that there were no serious attempts to reconstitute any programs as was also part of the conclusions of the Kay report.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
The Kay report contains evidence that they did. Scott Ritter also asserted in 1998 that Iraq remained capable of fully reconstituting their armament in mere months.
No it doesn't, show me the passage in the Kay report that states they have evidence of WMD past 1998. Considering the Wikipedia link you have provided towards Scott Ritter, you might have read it first:
Originally Wikipedia content
In the months leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Ritter spoke to numerous audiences, proclaiming the extreme unlikelihood that Saddam Hussein had any functioning weapons of mass destruction.
While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq. ... Effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections.[3]
Originally posted by The Vagabond
I already presented eye witness accounts in one link, as well as a link to a research project I lead on Gulf War Syndrome which contains several key pieces of evidence demonstrating that a large group of Gulf War Syndrome cases (classified as "confusion ataxia") display clear signs of Mycotoxin poisoning, particularly a weapon known as T-2 Toxin, and can in fact be treated by the same drugs which would be prescribed for mycotoxicosis.
Although an event of exactly this nature did occur to the Army's 37th Engineer Batallion at Kamisiyah, Iraq, when they were destroying Iraqi ammunition storage areas, I have already linked you to eye witness accounts of an Iraqi attack carried out on US troops at Al Jubayl, Saudi Arabia. If you'll take a glance at my reserach project you'll also note that there was a suspected chemical attack by Scud missiles at Al Khafji on 20 January 1991.
What you gave was merely a speculation slash conspiracy theory on what happened, the official explanation is in the same link you provided:
The Pentagon’s Explanation
The Department of Defense (DoD) now contends that the loud noise heard by the Seabees on the early morning of January 19, 1991 was probably the explosion of an Iraqi Scud missile, contradicting the initial explanation by unit commanders that it had been a sonic boom. According to a Pentagon statement, a review of battle records indicates that "a Scud missile aimed toward Dhahran [Saudi Arabia] was intercepted at high altitude in the area [of Al Jubayl] around the time of the... incident.”" [7] DoD officials deny that the Scud carried a chemical warhead, since the burning skin and other acute symptoms reported by victims are not consistent with the effects of standard chemical-warfare agents. [8] Mustard gas, for example, does not cause an immediate burning sensation on the skin, facial numbness, or a metallic taste in the mouth; instead, it induces painful skin blisters that appear between three and eight hours after exposure.
The alternative explanation offered by the Pentagon is that the Seabees may have been exposed to a toxic propellant released from an intercepted Iraqi Scud as it broke up in the atmosphere. [9] It is known that the Iraqis used red fuming nitric acid (RFNA), a highly corrosive chemical, as an oxidizer for the kerosene fuel in their ballistic missiles. When a Scud was damaged by a Patriot missile, the RFNA remaining in the oxidizer tank was often dispersed. As a result, individuals downwind of a Scud intercept may have been exposed to droplets of nitric acid and toxic vapors of nitrogen dioxide, the reddish-brown smoke that RFNA gives off as it evaporates.
According to a CIA analysis, individual exposures to RFNA released from an intercepted Scud would depend on several factors, including proximity to the impact site, level of shelter and chemical protection, the amount of RFNA remaining in the fuel tank, the amount released when the missile broke up, and the prevailing atmospheric conditions. The worst-case hazard area could be as large as 2-3 kilometers downwind and 100 to 200 meters wide. Toxicological studies of nitrogen oxides indicate that the first symptoms of exposure appear after a period of 4 to 30 hours, during which victims feel extremely fatigued and show signs of abnormally low blood pressure. After this latent period, acute symptoms develop, including headache, dizziness, lassitude, nausea and vomiting, cyanosis (a blue tinge to the mucous membranes), anxiety, difficulty breathing, and suffocation. [10]
An Iraqi Scud attack with chemical or biological weapons makes no sense AT ALL, Iraq didn't even dare to do that to Israel for fear the response would be nuclear, let alone they would dare to do that to the US that contrary to Israel OFFICIALLY possesses nukes.
A lovely post, chock full of nonsense, but at least more detailed that your previous ones.
First you were claiming that he got rid of them in 1998, now you're saying 10 years ago. All the while there is still the little matter of proof found in 2003 that he had his scientists secretly storing samples that could be used to reconstitute his biological weapons program.
You apparently have tried to make me appear less knowledgeable about this subject by claiming that I've said things that I never said. I never said that Scott Ritter was the chief weapons inspector. I only said that he was expelled from Iraq by Saddam Hussien in 1998 and that at that time he made it clear that Saddam still had the means to fully rearm himself in mere months.
Furthermore you claimed that Scott Ritter was not expelled, but merely barred from re-entry as Saddam's response to the 1998 airstrikes. This is also false, as you would have known if you'd actually checked out the links I provided earlier.
That's from the Wikipedia article on Scott Ritter which I linked you to earlier. Saddam was interfering with weapons inspections BEFORE the airstrikes. Also, let's not forget WHY the airstrikes took place. Richard Butler reported that Saddam was obstructing inspectors, so the inspectors were pulled out in order to be safe while Saddam was punished for not letting them work. Afterwards Saddam basically decided that if he couldn't get away with interfering, he wouldn't let them back in at all.
From wikipedia, i give you a couple of examples
en.wikipedia.org...
You claim that I'm wrong about the fact that Saddam's actions are irrational for a man who has disarmed and that they clearly indicate that he was still armed. Your evidence for this is the fact that war criminals are refusing to testify against themselves. Brilliant.
Look at the above my friend, and read the link because I had to discipline myself pretty strongly to keep those quotes from getting any longer than they already are. 1998- the year you claim they disarmed, was a year of incredible deception. We caught them overestimating the amount of chemical munitions used in the Iraq-Iran War. We caught them destroying documents. They interfered with inspectors countless times, assaulted inspectors, and on multiple occasions in the summer completely suspended all activity by UNSCOM, as well as repeatedly expelling American inspectors, Scott Ritter in particular. We gave him a reprieve the first time and didn't bomb him. He pushed his luck further so we bombed him. Then he refused to let inspectors go back to work. This is the year after which you say it can't be proved he had the weapons!? This was the year we caught him red handed holding onto the weapons!
You claim that I am mistaken in claiming that Iraq had failed to prove disarmament simply because Iraq spit out the name Hussien Kamel? What exactly do you think that proves, especially in the face of all of the events I have mentioned above where Iraq was caught red handed hiding weapons from the inspectors?
Then you seem to think that just because America passed the "Iraq Liberation Act" that somehow the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 687 which dictates that the reaffirmation of the earlier resolutions (the sanctions) is undertaken specifically for the purpose of removing Iraq's capability to violate the Geneva Protocol on Asphixiating, Poisonous, or Other Gasses and carry out a series of requirements to affirm its recognition of Kuwaiti independence.
America never had any authority to keep the sanctions in place beyond the fulfillment of Resolution 687. We could have held an embargo on them, but it wouldn't have mattered- the rest of the world would not have and could not be obligated to.
You all but ignore the fact that Iraqi scientists were storing banned materials in their homes. The best you can do is to claim that Iraq had probably forgotten about it and never would have used it to reconstitute it's weapons programs. Did it even occur to you that perhaps they hadn't pulled that stuff back out yet becuase they still had weapons inspectors poking around who would have found it if they had begun reproducing it? They were keeping specimens for reproduction and weaponization once the inspectors were gone. What other explanation is there? This is damning evidence of Iraq's attempts to circumvent their obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions. That they may have just forgotten it or that they hadn't used it yet is irrelevant- they stored that illegal material in a private home to escape detection by inspectors. Unless of course you think the scientist took it home because he thought it would make his fridge smell better.
You ask where in the Kay Report there is clear evidence that Iraq was violating its commitment to disarm. Again I remind you:
The same passage which you have already acknowledged which makes it clear that Iraq attempted to conceal illegal biological agents in the home of a scientist. Think about it for a minute- what in the hell were they planning to do with that stuff? Why in the WORLD would they possibly want to hide a biological agent they weren't supposed to have in somebody's fridge? If this isn't clear evidence that Iraq never planned to lose it's ability to produce biological weapons, I don't know what is.
Then you bring up a quote from the wikipedia article on scott ritter, which is interesting indeed, chiefly because it shows that you did read the article and were simply trying to win the argument by deception when you asserted that Ritter was not expelled. Let me add a little emphasis to this quote to put it in context for you though.
So what Ritter appears to actually be conveying is not at all in contradiction to his statements in 1998. Iraq did not prove disarmament, and while it was highly unlikely that they possessed weaponized agent in rockets prepared to fight, he never claimed that they had not retained banned substances with the intent of retaining the ability to reconstitute their arsenal at any time they so chose, in violation of UN Resolutions.
As for the attack at Al Jubayl, feel free to completely investigate the sources I provided and realize that while the offical story goes out of its way to demonstrate that the attack was not one using Mustard Gas, that medical studies have clearly shown that the symptoms experienced are perfectly compatible with exposure to T-2 Toxin, and that one of the primary risk factors for Confusion Ataxia (one variety of Gulf War Syndrome) was presence at Al Khafji on 20 December 1991, where a similiar event occured.
Also feel free to note the strange actions pointed out in the source on the Al Jubayl attack. Radio operators ordered to burn their logs? And as you point out, the fuel from a Scud would have been red. The Seabees clearly describe a yellow cloud. And why didn't the Nitric Acid corrode their protective gear, tents, etc? Why did the 11th Air Defense Artilley Brigade report no Scud launches to Saudi Arabia on that day if it was a Scud attack? There are a lot of holes in the official story.
You seem hell bent on denying that Saddam had any weapons. It's your right to believe whatever you want, however completely irrational it may be, and for whatever reason. Maybe you just love to hate Bush (incidentaly that'd be the one thing you and I have in common), or maybe you're a big fan of Baghdad Bob. Whatever the case is, your arguments hold no water. You're searching desperately for any technical loophole whereby you can claim that Saddam didn't have weapons, but the documentation of his resistance to disarmament is staggering. Your position can not possibly be taken seriously by anyone whose political views do not predispose them to agree.
First you were claiming that he got rid of them in 1998, now you're saying 10 years ago. All the while there is still the little matter of proof found in 2003 that he had his scientists secretly storing samples that could be used to reconstitute his biological weapons program.
You apparently have tried to make me appear less knowledgeable about this subject by claiming that I've said things that I never said. I never said that Scott Ritter was the chief weapons inspector. I only said that he was expelled from Iraq by Saddam Hussien in 1998 and that at that time he made it clear that Saddam still had the means to fully rearm himself in mere months.
Furthermore you claimed that Scott Ritter was not expelled, but merely barred from re-entry as Saddam's response to the 1998 airstrikes. This is also false, as you would have known if you'd actually checked out the links I provided earlier.
After he was singled out for expulsion from Iraq in August 1998, before UNSCOM was withdrawn,
That's from the Wikipedia article on Scott Ritter which I linked you to earlier. Saddam was interfering with weapons inspections BEFORE the airstrikes. Also, let's not forget WHY the airstrikes took place. Richard Butler reported that Saddam was obstructing inspectors, so the inspectors were pulled out in order to be safe while Saddam was punished for not letting them work. Afterwards Saddam basically decided that if he couldn't get away with interfering, he wouldn't let them back in at all.
From wikipedia, i give you a couple of examples
en.wikipedia.org...
June, 1997
* Iraqi military escorts on board an UNSCOM helicopter try to physically prevent the UNSCOM pilot from flying the helicopter in the direction of its planned destination, threatening the safety of the aircraft and their crews.
June 21, 1997
* Iraq once again refuses UN inspection teams access to sites under investigation.
* The UN Security Council passes Resolution 1115, which condemns Iraq's actions and demands that the country allow UNSCOM's team immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any sites for inspection and officials for interviews
September 13, 1997
* An Iraqi military officer attacks an UNSCOM weapons inspector on board an UNSCOM helicopter while the inspector was attempting to take photographs of unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site designated for inspection.
September 17, 1997
* While waiting for access to a site, UNSCOM inspectors witness and videotape Iraqi guards moving files, burning documents, and dumping waste cans into a nearby river.
September 25, 1997
* UNSCOM inspects an Iraqi "food laboratory". One of the inspectors, Dr. Diane Seaman, enters the building through the back door and catches several men running out with suitcases. The suitcases contained log books for the creation of illegal bacteria and chemicals. The letterhead comes from the president's office and from the Special Security Office (SSO).
* UNSCOM attempts to inspect the SSO headquarters but is blocked.
October 31, 1998
* Iraq ends all forms of cooperation with the UNSCOM teams and expels inspectors from the country.
* U.S. President Clinton signed into law HR 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
November 13-14, 1998
* US President Clinton orders airstrikes on Iraq. Clinton then calls it off at the last minute when Iraq promises once again to unconditionally cooperate with UNSCOM
December 15, 1998
* Richard Butler reports to the UN Security Council that Iraq is still blocking inspections.
December 16-19, 1998
* UNSCOM withdraws all weapons inspectors from Iraq.
* Saddam Hussein's failure to provide unfettered access to UN arms inspectors led Washington and London to hit 100 Iraqi targets in four days of bombing as part of Operation Desert Fox. The US government urged UNSCOM executive chairman Richard Butler to withdraw, and "[a] few hours before the attack began, 125 UN personnel were hurriedly evacuated from Baghdad to Bahrain, including inspectors from the UN Special Commission on Iraq and the International Atomic Energy Agency."
December 19, 1998
* Iraqi vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan announces that Iraq will no longer cooperate and declares that UNSCOM's "mission is over."
You claim that I'm wrong about the fact that Saddam's actions are irrational for a man who has disarmed and that they clearly indicate that he was still armed. Your evidence for this is the fact that war criminals are refusing to testify against themselves. Brilliant.
Look at the above my friend, and read the link because I had to discipline myself pretty strongly to keep those quotes from getting any longer than they already are. 1998- the year you claim they disarmed, was a year of incredible deception. We caught them overestimating the amount of chemical munitions used in the Iraq-Iran War. We caught them destroying documents. They interfered with inspectors countless times, assaulted inspectors, and on multiple occasions in the summer completely suspended all activity by UNSCOM, as well as repeatedly expelling American inspectors, Scott Ritter in particular. We gave him a reprieve the first time and didn't bomb him. He pushed his luck further so we bombed him. Then he refused to let inspectors go back to work. This is the year after which you say it can't be proved he had the weapons!? This was the year we caught him red handed holding onto the weapons!
You claim that I am mistaken in claiming that Iraq had failed to prove disarmament simply because Iraq spit out the name Hussien Kamel? What exactly do you think that proves, especially in the face of all of the events I have mentioned above where Iraq was caught red handed hiding weapons from the inspectors?
Then you seem to think that just because America passed the "Iraq Liberation Act" that somehow the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 687 which dictates that the reaffirmation of the earlier resolutions (the sanctions) is undertaken specifically for the purpose of removing Iraq's capability to violate the Geneva Protocol on Asphixiating, Poisonous, or Other Gasses and carry out a series of requirements to affirm its recognition of Kuwaiti independence.
America never had any authority to keep the sanctions in place beyond the fulfillment of Resolution 687. We could have held an embargo on them, but it wouldn't have mattered- the rest of the world would not have and could not be obligated to.
You all but ignore the fact that Iraqi scientists were storing banned materials in their homes. The best you can do is to claim that Iraq had probably forgotten about it and never would have used it to reconstitute it's weapons programs. Did it even occur to you that perhaps they hadn't pulled that stuff back out yet becuase they still had weapons inspectors poking around who would have found it if they had begun reproducing it? They were keeping specimens for reproduction and weaponization once the inspectors were gone. What other explanation is there? This is damning evidence of Iraq's attempts to circumvent their obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions. That they may have just forgotten it or that they hadn't used it yet is irrelevant- they stored that illegal material in a private home to escape detection by inspectors. Unless of course you think the scientist took it home because he thought it would make his fridge smell better.
You ask where in the Kay Report there is clear evidence that Iraq was violating its commitment to disarm. Again I remind you:
The same passage which you have already acknowledged which makes it clear that Iraq attempted to conceal illegal biological agents in the home of a scientist. Think about it for a minute- what in the hell were they planning to do with that stuff? Why in the WORLD would they possibly want to hide a biological agent they weren't supposed to have in somebody's fridge? If this isn't clear evidence that Iraq never planned to lose it's ability to produce biological weapons, I don't know what is.
Then you bring up a quote from the wikipedia article on scott ritter, which is interesting indeed, chiefly because it shows that you did read the article and were simply trying to win the argument by deception when you asserted that Ritter was not expelled. Let me add a little emphasis to this quote to put it in context for you though.
Originally Wikipedia content
In the months leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Ritter spoke to numerous audiences, proclaiming the extreme unlikelihood that Saddam Hussein had any functioning weapons of mass destruction.
So what Ritter appears to actually be conveying is not at all in contradiction to his statements in 1998. Iraq did not prove disarmament, and while it was highly unlikely that they possessed weaponized agent in rockets prepared to fight, he never claimed that they had not retained banned substances with the intent of retaining the ability to reconstitute their arsenal at any time they so chose, in violation of UN Resolutions.
As for the attack at Al Jubayl, feel free to completely investigate the sources I provided and realize that while the offical story goes out of its way to demonstrate that the attack was not one using Mustard Gas, that medical studies have clearly shown that the symptoms experienced are perfectly compatible with exposure to T-2 Toxin, and that one of the primary risk factors for Confusion Ataxia (one variety of Gulf War Syndrome) was presence at Al Khafji on 20 December 1991, where a similiar event occured.
Also feel free to note the strange actions pointed out in the source on the Al Jubayl attack. Radio operators ordered to burn their logs? And as you point out, the fuel from a Scud would have been red. The Seabees clearly describe a yellow cloud. And why didn't the Nitric Acid corrode their protective gear, tents, etc? Why did the 11th Air Defense Artilley Brigade report no Scud launches to Saudi Arabia on that day if it was a Scud attack? There are a lot of holes in the official story.
You seem hell bent on denying that Saddam had any weapons. It's your right to believe whatever you want, however completely irrational it may be, and for whatever reason. Maybe you just love to hate Bush (incidentaly that'd be the one thing you and I have in common), or maybe you're a big fan of Baghdad Bob. Whatever the case is, your arguments hold no water. You're searching desperately for any technical loophole whereby you can claim that Saddam didn't have weapons, but the documentation of his resistance to disarmament is staggering. Your position can not possibly be taken seriously by anyone whose political views do not predispose them to agree.
Originally posted by skippytjc
You see, in the USA you are innocent until proven guilty.
So then, why haven't any of the Gitmo detainees been proven guilty? After some 3 odd years?
-koji K.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
First you were claiming that he got rid of them in 1998, now you're saying 10 years ago.
No I did not. Read again. At one occasion I said by 1998, the time the inspectors left, there were no WMD anymore. If there were no WMD anymore in 1995, or around ten years ago, that claim is still valid. Kamel Hussein defected in 1995 and testified all WMD had been destroyed. Both Bush, Blair, Cheney and Colin Powell found Kamel a valuable and reliable source.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
All the while there is still the little matter of proof found in 2003 that he had his scientists secretly storing samples that could be used to reconstitute his biological weapons program.
Well, samples aren't WMD, aren't they? You are grasping at straws, at samples kept in a home refrigerator, to try to justify your position. Nevermind that according to an interview with Mr Kay, the vial contained the toxin itself, not the bacteria, so your claim it could be used to reconstitute his biological weapons program is false. Furthermore, the most lethal form of the germ is the A strain, while the form found by the ISG was the B strain. It is utterly pathetic from your part to cling to that to support the notion that Iraq held WMD behind and was still a threat.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
You apparently have tried to make me appear less knowledgeable about this subject by claiming that I've said things that I never said. I never said that Scott Ritter was the chief weapons inspector.
Sorry, I misinterpreted that. However, considering your doubts about my claim that the weapons inspectors left before the bombing and weren't simply let back in, claiming instead Iraq "expelled" the weapons inspectors, from your own link:
December 15, 1998
* Richard Butler reports to the UN Security Council that Iraq is still blocking inspections.
December 16-19, 1998
* UNSCOM withdraws all weapons inspectors from Iraq.
* Saddam Hussein's failure to provide unfettered access to UN arms inspectors led Washington and London to hit 100 Iraqi targets in four days of bombing as part of Operation Desert Fox. The US government urged UNSCOM executive chairman Richard Butler to withdraw, and "[a] few hours before the attack began, 125 UN personnel were hurriedly evacuated from Baghdad to Bahrain, including inspectors from the UN Special Commission on Iraq and the International Atomic Energy Agency."
December 19, 1998
* Iraqi vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan announces that Iraq will no longer cooperate and declares that UNSCOM's "mission is over."
Originally posted by The Vagabond
You claim that I'm wrong about the fact that Saddam's actions are irrational for a man who has disarmed and that they clearly indicate that he was still armed. Your evidence for this is the fact that war criminals are refusing to testify against themselves. Brilliant.
That was not my only argument wasn't it? By the way, ever heard of the concept plea bargain? The chief scientists of the WMD programs have also not testified anything of that nature and they are not necessarily war criminals. Nor has any ordinary Iraqi involved in production, storage or supposed burial of WMD come forward. The US hasn't even publicly offered any reward for any WMD. I even challenged you to think about that fact. You obviously haven't, I wonder why, perhaps you're afraid to think for yourself?
Originally posted by The Vagabond
America never had any authority to keep the sanctions in place beyond the fulfillment of Resolution 687. We could have held an embargo on them, but it wouldn't have mattered- the rest of the world would not have and could not be obligated to.
Actually, the US could do that.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
As for the attack at Al Jubayl, feel free to completely investigate the sources I provided and realize that while the offical story goes out of its way to demonstrate that the attack was not one using Mustard Gas, that medical studies have clearly shown that the symptoms experienced are perfectly compatible with exposure to T-2 Toxin, and that one of the primary risk factors for Confusion Ataxia (one variety of Gulf War Syndrome) was presence at Al Khafji on 20 December 1991, where a similiar event occured.
Well, it may very well be that you're right and the US government has lied, that would not be unusual at all. But as I've said, none of the 39 scuds fired at Israel, which has not even officially acknowledged nukes, contained anything else than a conventional warhead. This makes attacking the US, a definitely confirmed nuclear superpower, with weapons of mass destruction extremely unlikely. I'd rather bet on the official story in this case. Plus, if Saddam had used WMD against US troops, even if George Bush Sr. tried to cover it up as you allege, George Bush Jr. would just love to politically exploit such an example.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
You're searching desperately for any technical loophole whereby you can claim that Saddam didn't have weapons, but the documentation of his resistance to disarmament is staggering. Your position can not possibly be taken seriously by anyone whose political views do not predispose them to agree.
Resistance to disarmament doesn't necessarily mean actually hiding illegal stuff. People not cooperating or even hampering police searches of their homes may just hold a grudge against or deep distrust of the police. So far nothing has been found and the US government also doesn't seem to expect to find anything. How much reward is there out again for an Iraqi that gives a golden tip to any WMD to keep them out of the hands of insurgents and terrorists? Oh yes, none that anyone knows of.
Frankly I'm no longer interested in even dignifying you unwillingness to acknowledge the evidence found in 1998 of Iraqi coverups with a response.
Nor am I going to continue playing "is not" "is too" over your repetitive assertion that having banned materials is OK just because it was a small amount hidden in somebody's private home. The point stands that Saddam was hiding materials in private residences. I'll leave it to the readers to figure out why.
I've laid out repeated examples of Iraq being caught red handed destroying documents, barring inspectors from facilities, and preventing them from working without expelling them, as well as expelling American weapons experts. Your only counter for this is that at one point UNSCOM left on its own in order to be safe from bombing which was necessitated by an UNCSCOM report saying that Saddam was failing to cooperate with inspections of his disarmament program.
The argument against Iraq's possession hinges on the flimsy logic that because searches failed to actually find the materials themselves in the face of a systematic delaying, obstruction, and deception campaign (although they succeeded in finding incredible amounts of highly incriminating documentary evidence) that the materials were not there. This simply makes no sense. Why did Saddam repeatedly bring down military actions and prolonged sanctions against himself, if he could have readily vindicated himself and restored his relations with Russia, France, China and in fact most of the world? Do you honestly believe that anybody would have heeded a US effort to keep the sanctions in place in clear violation of Resolution 687? Unless the US was prepared to go to war with Russia over it, there is no way that the sanctions would have continued to be practiced, even if the US had blocked official removal of the sanctions.
It seems at this pont we've both said what we have to say on that issue as well. I believe the logic is undeniable and am more than happy to leave it at that for the readers to decide.
Last but not least there is the attack at Al-Jubayl. There is an extremely simple answer for why Bush has not capitalized on this. It's called the VA. VA policy has been to deny Gulf War Syndrome. Victims are only eligible for benefits for their illness if they acknowledge it as a psychosomatic illness. Veterans who claim exposure to exotic diseases invariably test negative, which if you read the research project is not particularly strange for mycotoxicosis. If America admits that soldiers in the Gulf War were subjected to chemical attack, not only will the survivors of men who died from exposure to Mycotoxins suddenly be demanding a great deal of money, but victims from other symptom groups who experienced spinal cord injuries as a result of exposure to Organophosphate weapons such as Sarin while under the limited protection of the Nerve Agent Pyridostigmine Prevention Kit will also have to be investigated and recieve benefits, which inevitably leads to the exposure of what happened at Kamisiyah and opens the DoD up to wrongful death lawsuits.
Denying the WMD basis of Gulf War Syndrome is multi-billion dollar issue, even before you consider the incredible fallout to certain defense contractors, the subsequent need to update out equipment, etc. Then of course there is the incredible scar that such a revelation would leave on both Presidents Bush.
It's almost a peripheral issue anyway, but I am supremely convinced that veterans of the Gulf War were exposed to chemical attack, were insufficiently protected- with the full knowledge of our military, and as a result hav ebeen swept under the rug.
So, we are quite apparently at an impasse- we have come to a place where we are essentially reitterating the same talking points back and forth, and I can respect your adherence to your opinion, although I do not particularly understand it. In my mind, it seems clear that Saddam made a concerted and sometimes successful effort to ensure that his WMD program was not completely extinguished beyond recovery.
Nor am I going to continue playing "is not" "is too" over your repetitive assertion that having banned materials is OK just because it was a small amount hidden in somebody's private home. The point stands that Saddam was hiding materials in private residences. I'll leave it to the readers to figure out why.
I've laid out repeated examples of Iraq being caught red handed destroying documents, barring inspectors from facilities, and preventing them from working without expelling them, as well as expelling American weapons experts. Your only counter for this is that at one point UNSCOM left on its own in order to be safe from bombing which was necessitated by an UNCSCOM report saying that Saddam was failing to cooperate with inspections of his disarmament program.
The argument against Iraq's possession hinges on the flimsy logic that because searches failed to actually find the materials themselves in the face of a systematic delaying, obstruction, and deception campaign (although they succeeded in finding incredible amounts of highly incriminating documentary evidence) that the materials were not there. This simply makes no sense. Why did Saddam repeatedly bring down military actions and prolonged sanctions against himself, if he could have readily vindicated himself and restored his relations with Russia, France, China and in fact most of the world? Do you honestly believe that anybody would have heeded a US effort to keep the sanctions in place in clear violation of Resolution 687? Unless the US was prepared to go to war with Russia over it, there is no way that the sanctions would have continued to be practiced, even if the US had blocked official removal of the sanctions.
It seems at this pont we've both said what we have to say on that issue as well. I believe the logic is undeniable and am more than happy to leave it at that for the readers to decide.
Last but not least there is the attack at Al-Jubayl. There is an extremely simple answer for why Bush has not capitalized on this. It's called the VA. VA policy has been to deny Gulf War Syndrome. Victims are only eligible for benefits for their illness if they acknowledge it as a psychosomatic illness. Veterans who claim exposure to exotic diseases invariably test negative, which if you read the research project is not particularly strange for mycotoxicosis. If America admits that soldiers in the Gulf War were subjected to chemical attack, not only will the survivors of men who died from exposure to Mycotoxins suddenly be demanding a great deal of money, but victims from other symptom groups who experienced spinal cord injuries as a result of exposure to Organophosphate weapons such as Sarin while under the limited protection of the Nerve Agent Pyridostigmine Prevention Kit will also have to be investigated and recieve benefits, which inevitably leads to the exposure of what happened at Kamisiyah and opens the DoD up to wrongful death lawsuits.
Denying the WMD basis of Gulf War Syndrome is multi-billion dollar issue, even before you consider the incredible fallout to certain defense contractors, the subsequent need to update out equipment, etc. Then of course there is the incredible scar that such a revelation would leave on both Presidents Bush.
It's almost a peripheral issue anyway, but I am supremely convinced that veterans of the Gulf War were exposed to chemical attack, were insufficiently protected- with the full knowledge of our military, and as a result hav ebeen swept under the rug.
So, we are quite apparently at an impasse- we have come to a place where we are essentially reitterating the same talking points back and forth, and I can respect your adherence to your opinion, although I do not particularly understand it. In my mind, it seems clear that Saddam made a concerted and sometimes successful effort to ensure that his WMD program was not completely extinguished beyond recovery.
new topics
-
This is our Story
General Entertainment: 50 minutes ago -
President BIDEN Vows to Make Americans Pay More Federal Taxes in 2025 - Political Suicide.
2024 Elections: 3 hours ago -
Ode to Artemis
General Chit Chat: 3 hours ago -
Ditching physical money
History: 7 hours ago -
One Flame Throwing Robot Dog for Christmas Please!
Weaponry: 7 hours ago -
Don't take advantage of people just because it seems easy it will backfire
Rant: 7 hours ago -
VirginOfGrand says hello
Introductions: 8 hours ago -
Should Biden Replace Harris With AOC On the 2024 Democrat Ticket?
2024 Elections: 9 hours ago -
University student disciplined after saying veganism is wrong and gender fluidity is stupid
Education and Media: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
Hate makes for strange bedfellows
US Political Madness: 17 hours ago, 20 flags -
University student disciplined after saying veganism is wrong and gender fluidity is stupid
Education and Media: 11 hours ago, 12 flags -
Police clash with St George’s Day protesters at central London rally
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 14 hours ago, 9 flags -
President BIDEN Vows to Make Americans Pay More Federal Taxes in 2025 - Political Suicide.
2024 Elections: 3 hours ago, 8 flags -
TLDR post about ATS and why I love it and hope we all stay together somewhere
General Chit Chat: 15 hours ago, 7 flags -
Should Biden Replace Harris With AOC On the 2024 Democrat Ticket?
2024 Elections: 9 hours ago, 6 flags -
Don't take advantage of people just because it seems easy it will backfire
Rant: 7 hours ago, 4 flags -
One Flame Throwing Robot Dog for Christmas Please!
Weaponry: 7 hours ago, 4 flags -
God lived as a Devil Dog.
Short Stories: 13 hours ago, 3 flags -
Ditching physical money
History: 7 hours ago, 3 flags
active topics
-
Police clash with St George’s Day protesters at central London rally
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 37 • : SprocketUK -
New whistleblower Jason Sands speaks on Twitter Spaces last night.
Aliens and UFOs • 48 • : baablacksheep1 -
Russia Ukraine Update Thread - part 3
World War Three • 5718 • : Freeborn -
Hate makes for strange bedfellows
US Political Madness • 40 • : 19Bones79 -
Lawsuit Seeks to ‘Ban the Jab’ in Florida
Diseases and Pandemics • 29 • : Cre8chaos79 -
TLDR post about ATS and why I love it and hope we all stay together somewhere
General Chit Chat • 8 • : Cre8chaos79 -
This is our Story
General Entertainment • 0 • : BrotherKinsMan -
British TV Presenter Refuses To Use Guest's Preferred Pronouns
Education and Media • 126 • : Asher47 -
Why to avoid TikTok
Education and Media • 17 • : mooncake -
The Superstition of Full Moons Filling Hospitals Turns Out To Be True!
Medical Issues & Conspiracies • 22 • : mooncake