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.

 

NEWS: Another Part Of US Justification For Invading Iraq Admitted False

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   


Because it is largely democrats who are critical of our decision to invade Iraq. It is largely democrats who call George Bush a liar regarding EVERY facet relating to the war on terrorism and the reasons behind invading Iraq.

So Valhall;

You take issue with the "false statements" surrounding the U.S Invasion of Iraq? I challenge you: What "false statements" are you referring to? And I'm NOT interested in unsupported opinions. I want FACTS and PROOF from CREDIBLE sources backing your claims. To give you an idea of what I DON'T believe is credible: Any reference from "Farehnheit 911"; John Kerry; ANY Actor of ANY political stance; any reference from the media MUST be backed by a credible alternate source (including Fox News); Al Sharpton; Jesse Jackson; Pat Robertson; to name a few.

Freedom_for_sum




posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Because it is largely democrats who are critical of our decision to invade Iraq.


Just weighing in as a relatively right-wing minarchist who, on the whole, loathes leftists AND who believes that our decision to invade Iraq was horribly misguided, justified by deliberate dis- and mis-information and is ultimately meant ONLY to further the interests of a limited number of mendacious, power-drunk scumbags with absolutely no regard for the effects that it might have on the citizens of any nation-- the US, Iraq or any other.

I further believe that the notion that Republicans and Democrats are natural enemies and the resulting antagonism between those who claim allegiance to each side is a deliberate result of carefully crafted propaganda designed specifically to divide the people of this nation against each other so that they will continue to fail to see that they are actually natural allies and that they have a common enemy in ALL those who seek to accumulate and wield power over others, regardless of nominal party affiliation.



[edit on 15-12-2005 by Bob LaoTse]



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
...power-drunk scumbags with absolutely no regard for the effects that it might have on the citizens of any nation-- the US, Iraq or any other.


I'm betting that Iraqis would disagree with your assesment as most would agree that Saddam Hussein was not only a power-drunk scumbag; but a murderous power-drunk scumbag. It's a good thing someone is looking out for them!! (US that is).


Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
I further believe that the notion that Republicans and Democrats are natural enemies and the resulting antagonism between those who claim allegiance to each side is a deliberate result of carefully crafted propaganda designed specifically to divide the people of this nation against each other so that they will continue to fail to see that they are actually natural allies and that they have a common enemy in ALL those who seek to accumulate and wield power over others, regardless of nominal party affiliation.


I'm having difficulty following this sentence. RU saying that Dems and Reps are "friends" with a common enemy found in those who seek to wield power over others? Who are those who seek this Power? BTW; That's gotta be the LONGEST sentence I've EVER read!!



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Playing The Fool


Originally posted by ArchAngel
Saddam knew the fingers would be pointed at him first.

I guess that's why he went out of his way to comply with UNSCOM.


Go ask Scott Ritter why UNSCOM failed. No doubt he'll tell you that it was all Richard Butler's fault.

Saddam was playing the politics that kept him in power in his country. To have appeared weak before the UN would have been the end of him.

Obviously you've never played high-stakes poker.

And Saddam was plying for the highest stakes of all.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Shell Game


Originally posted by ArchAngel
They were replaced by UNMOVIC years before the American invasion.

Does that somehow imply that Saddam cooperated with UNSCOM, or shall that point continue to stand unchallenged?

Speaking Of UNMOVIC


Originally posted by ArchAngel
Iraq was in full compliance with all UN resolutions at the time America invaded.

Is that simply your opinion or can you substantiate this somehow?

Dr. Blix's UNMOVIC report on March 19, 2003 suggests otherwise:

“May I add that in my last report I commented on information provided by Iraq on a number of unresolved issues. Since then, Iraq has sent several more letters on such issues. These efforts by Iraq should be acknowledged, but, as I noted in this Council on 7 March the value of the information thus provided must be soberly judged. Our experts have found so far that in substance only limited new information has been provided that will help to resolve remaining questions.”

This report was made the day before the invasion commenced, and doesn't indicate anything approaching “immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access” as required by UNSCR 1441. Iraq was still -- according to UNMOVIC -- withholding information it was required to produce.

Feel free to peruse the rest of UNMOVIC's reports in context and see if you can somehow corroborate them with your statement, because I can't.

What evidence do you have to support your claim that “Iraq was in full compliance with all UN resolutions at the time America invaded”?

This should be easy enough to substantiate if it is true.

Is it?

Suppositions Of Sovereignty


Originally posted by ArchAngel
The suppostion that Iraq was in possession of WMD was false no matter if Bush knew, or not.

It was for the Security Council Alone to decide, not America Alone.

What is the foundation for this claim?

A citation would be far more valuable than an unfounded opinion.

U.S. sovereignty has never been surrendered to any foreign body, including the United Nations. All members are sovereign states bound by treaty, but subordinate to no one.

Insinuations to the contrary are what is false.

There seems to be a lot of that going around. :shk:



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Low-Stakes Poke


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Obviously you've never played high-stakes poker.

Obviously you have no problem with making false assumptions about me and posting them here.

I prefer opinions about the topic, not me, and I prefer that they be honest and based on facts.

That seems to be a problem in this thread.

Maybe that can be fixed, but only if members commit themselves to do so.

I invite anyone who cares to do just that, and leave the ad hominem digressions out of this.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
You take issue with the "false statements" surrounding the U.S Invasion of Iraq? I challenge you: What "false statements" are you referring to? And I'm NOT interested in unsupported opinions. I want FACTS and PROOF from CREDIBLE sources backing your claims. To give you an idea of what I DON'T believe is credible: Any reference from "Farehnheit 911"; John Kerry; ANY Actor of ANY political stance; any reference from the media MUST be backed by a credible alternate source (including Fox News); Al Sharpton; Jesse Jackson; Pat Robertson; to name a few.

Freedom_for_sum



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
...power-drunk scumbags with absolutely no regard for the effects that it might have on the citizens of any nation-- the US, Iraq or any other.


I'm betting that Iraqis would disagree with your assesment as most would agree that Saddam Hussein was not only a power-drunk scumbag; but a murderous power-drunk scumbag. It's a good thing someone is looking out for them!! (US that is).


IF the US invasion of Iraq has benefitted or will benefit the Iraqi people, it's only as much and as necessary to provide viable propaganda. The actions of politicians-- ANY politicians-- are meant only to further their immediate interests and those of their patrons. They do have to present the things that they do in a reasonably positive light so as to convince credulous people that their actions are anything other than self-serving, and at least from time to time they do actually do things that benefit others, but that is not because of any true regard for those among the masses who might actually benefit.



Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
I further believe that the notion that Republicans and Democrats are natural enemies and the resulting antagonism between those who claim allegiance to each side is a deliberate result of carefully crafted propaganda designed specifically to divide the people of this nation against each other so that they will continue to fail to see that they are actually natural allies and that they have a common enemy in ALL those who seek to accumulate and wield power over others, regardless of nominal party affiliation.


I'm having difficulty following this sentence. RU saying that Dems and Reps are "friends" with a common enemy found in those who seek to wield power over others? Who are those who seek this Power? BTW; That's gotta be the LONGEST sentence I've EVER read!!


Sorry-- I have a weakness for enormous compound sentences.

Simplified and explained:

I believe that the notion that Republicans and Democrats are natural enemies and the resulting antagonism between those who claim allegiance to each side is a deliberate result of carefully crafted propaganda. This propaganda is designed specifically to divide the people of this nation against each other. This is done so that we the people will continue to fail to see that we are actually natural allies and that we actually have a common enemy in ALL those who seek to accumulate and wield power over others, regardless of nominal party affiliation.

In a nutshell-- right-wing citizens and left-wing citizens are not, or at least should not be, each other's enemies. The politicians and power-mongers of both parties are the true enemies of the citizens of both parties.

Your rights and my rights are not threatened necessarily by politicians of only this party or that party, but by politicians of BOTH parties. So long as we the people continue to treat each other as enemies, we divide ourselves and weaken ourselves, and the only people who benefit are those who would oppress us.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum


Because it is largely democrats who are critical of our decision to invade Iraq. It is largely democrats who call George Bush a liar regarding EVERY facet relating to the war on terrorism and the reasons behind invading Iraq.

So Valhall;

You take issue with the "false statements" surrounding the U.S Invasion of Iraq? I challenge you: What "false statements" are you referring to? And I'm NOT interested in unsupported opinions. I want FACTS and PROOF from CREDIBLE sources backing your claims. To give you an idea of what I DON'T believe is credible: Any reference from "Farehnheit 911"; John Kerry; ANY Actor of ANY political stance; any reference from the media MUST be backed by a credible alternate source (including Fox News); Al Sharpton; Jesse Jackson; Pat Robertson; to name a few.

Freedom_for_sum



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Low-Stakes Poke


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Obviously you've never played high-stakes poker.

Obviously you have no problem with making false assumptions about me and posting them here.

I prefer opinions about the topic, not me, and I prefer that they be honest and based on facts.

That seems to be a problem in this thread.

Maybe that can be fixed, but only if members commit themselves to do so.

I invite anyone who cares to do just that, and leave the ad hominem digressions out of this.


Well, if you had played high-stakes poker you would know that Saddam was bluffing with a poor hand. Not only was he bluffing, he was going all the way with his bluff, refusing to call, but upping the ante. All in the name of domestic politics. He was doing what he believed he needed to do to remain in power.

The opinions were about the topic, just put in a different way.

You wanted Saddam's continued inconvenienceing of the weapons inspectors to be proof of his possession of such weapons, when there are and were none to be found. It was just proof of Saddam's inability to think outside a very small, socio-pathic box.

Meanwhile, Iran has continually played the IAEA for fools, only admitting to their program of enrichment when it was too far gone for the IAEA to do anything about it and the US too pre-occupied to ba able to spare political capital, having wasted it all on mythical WMDs in Iraq.

Whereas Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN, while having nothing to hide, Iran were pretending to be accomodating while having everything to hide.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Not Getting The Point 101


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
The opinions were about the topic, just put in a different way.

Why do I even bother?



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

And here's my answer in my own words:

I watched the President tell us over and over that we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam had used WMDs on his own people in the past and would do so again on other countries. He said this many many times. I watched Powell with his little vial full of talcum, or whatever it was


Valhall, I know you and I differ on this issue, but there are a few things that we must cover if we are to seriously discuss the wmd issue again.

I will show you a few of the early reports which indicated that Saddam was pursuing wmd, and that not only was president Bush the only one to claim this, but president Clinton believed the same thing along with most of the world. The only difference is that half of the world didn't want a war in Iraq because they had their dirty deals which you mentioned throught the OFF (Oil For Food) program.


Could Iraq Have the Atomic Bomb?

by Gary Milhollin

The New York Times
November 19, 1997, p. A39.
..................
Ever since the Persian Gulf war, Iraq's nuclear weapon team has been busy designing a bomb. The latest blueprint, according to United Nations inspectors, is of a sphere measuring 32 to 35 inches in diameter with 32 detonators. The bomb would weigh less than a ton and fit on a Scud missile, the weapon Mr. Hussein used in the war to hit Israel and kill American troops.

Iraq has already successfully tested the bomb, using a "dummy" nonnuclear core. To complete it, Iraq needs only nuclear fuel, and the latest design requires a mere 35 pounds of highly enriched uranium. Inspectors believe they have destroyed almost all the equipment needed to produce such uranium, but the Iraqis know how to build or import what they need. Indeed, Iraqi scientists have made great strides in developing centrifuges, which can convert natural uranium to nuclear weapon grade. A few thousand centrifuges can produce enough high-grade uranium to fuel a few bombs per year.
...................
Despite these dangers, France and Russia have tried to rule out military action and to broker a compromise. Indeed, France, in its eagerness to placate Mr. Hussein, has proposed to close the books on new inspections and to rely mainly on monitoring the biological, chemical and nuclear weapons that have already been found.

But keeping track of what has already been found would not amount to a serious inspection effort -- it would be "faking it," in the words of one inspector. It would surrender all hope of finding the secret manufacturing operations -- nuclear, chemical and biological -- that remain the greatest threat posed by Iraq. There is no substitute for aggressive long-term inspections. The United States must insure that they continue.


Excerpted from.
www.iraqwatch.org...



DEPT. OF MASS DESTRUCTION:
Saddam's nuclear shopping spree.
by Gary Milhollin

The New Yorker
The Talk of the Town
December 13, 1999, p. 44.

Ever since the United Nations weapons inspectors were shut out of Iraq, a year ago, the world has been left to wonder what Saddam Hussein is up to. Well, now it can be told: he has been secretly trying to transform his desert dictatorship into a world-class center for the treatment of kidney stones.

Or so it would seem, to judge from his latest purchases on the international medical-equipment market. Although Iraq remains under a strict United Nations embargo, the embargo does not cover medical supplies. Last year, the Iraqi government ordered half a dozen lithotripters, which are state-of-the-art machines for getting rid of kidney stones. (The word "lithotripter" comes from the Greek for "stone breaker.") A lithotripter uses a shock wave to pulverize these painful objects without surgery. Machines like the ones Iraq bought require a high-precision electronic switch that triggers a powerful burst of electricity. In addition to the lithotripters, Iraq wanted to buy a hundred and twenty extra switches. That is at least a hundred more than the machines would ever need.

Iraq's strange hankering for this particular "spare part" becomes less mysterious when one reflects that the switch in question has another use: it can trigger an atomic bomb. According to a knowledgeable U.N. inspector, each bomb of the type that Iraq is trying to build requires thirty-two switches. Thus, a hundred of them would outfit three bombs. It is hardly a coincidence that, as the former U.N. inspector Scott Ritter testified at a Senate hearing last year, the inspectors had "intelligence information which indicates that components necessary for three nuclear weapons exist" in Iraq. Saddam Hussein has been shopping for what he needs to make sure they work.

Iraq went to Siemens, the German electronics giant, to place the order. Before the Gulf War, Iraq acquired Siemens computers and other equipment useful for processing uranium to nuclear-weapons grade, and the company provided electrical equipment for one of Iraq's main missile sites. (Siemens has denied helping Iraq advance its nuclear program.) In this instance, Siemens forwarded the switches order to its supplier, Thomson-C.S.F., a French military-electronics company. The French government promptly barred the sale. Stephen Cooney, a Siemens spokesman, refuses to say whether Siemens nevertheless filled the switch order, or even whether the order was placed. If Siemens made the deal, Iraq got a powerful nuclear boost.
..........................
The U.N. inspectors have learned that Iraq's first bomb design, which weighed a ton and was just over a yard in diameter, has been replaced by a smaller, more efficient model. The inspectors have deduced that the new design weighs only about one thousand three hundred pounds and measures about twenty-five inches in diameter. That makes it small enough to fit on a Scud-type missile. The inspectors believe that Iraq may still have nine such missiles hidden somewhere.

The inspectors have also concluded that Iraq's bomb design will work. Iraq, they believe, has mastered the key technique of creating an implosive shock wave, which squeezes a bomb's nuclear material enough to trigger a chain reaction. The new design also uses a "flying tamper," a refinement that “hammers" the nuclear material to squeeze it even harder, so bombs can be made smaller without diminishing their explosive force.


Excerpted from.
www.iraqwatch.org...

If you find this improbable consider the following, which I learned from an Iraqi, a fellow MWD engineer who works in my company and who also believes Saddam did have wmd. I don't recall hearing this on the news, but according to this co-worker of mine Saddam bought 2 million playstations to reverse engineer the cpus in the consoles and use them for missile guidance systems. Saddam had been trying to get any technology that would help him with his military arsenal, while avoiding the sanctions.

I understand the above is third hand information, but I don't see any reason for this co-worker to lie to me about this.

Let's continue.



Why Iraq Will Defeat Arms Inspectors

By GARY MILHOLLIN and KELLY MOTZ

The New York Times
September 16, 2002, p. A21



Many voices are now calling for renewed United Nations inspections in Iraq. Some belong to critics of the Bush administration who are opposed to war. Others belong to those who favor war but see inspections — which they fully expect to fail — as the needed triggering event for war. Still other Iraq experts believe that Saddam Hussein himself will invite the inspectors back as a means of forestalling invasion if troops begin to move in his direction.

Whatever one's stance on how best to handle Saddam Hussein, it is crucial to understand one thing: United Nations inspections, as they are currently constituted, will never work.

There are several reasons for this. Consider the record of the United Nations Special Commission, an agency that was charged with inspecting Iraq's weapons programs from 1991 to 1998. While Unscom did manage to destroy tons of missiles and chemical and biological weapons, it could not complete the job. Iraqi obfuscations prevented it from ever getting a full picture of the entire weapons production effort. The commission's replacement, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, which has not yet been allowed to enter Iraq, will have even less success given its structure and policies.

Unscom was staffed mainly by officials on loan from national governments who did not owe their jobs to the United Nations; Unmovic personnel, on the other hand, are United Nations employees who are likely to be hobbled by the United Nations' notoriously inefficient bureaucracy.


Excerpted from.
www.iraqwatch.org...

It is also worthy to remember what I presented for a while now about UNMOVIC, they were being paid off with money from OFF (Oil For Food) programme, which we all know now was, and still is, being investigated because of the dirty deals all those involved had with Iraq.

The above fact was even posted at the UNMOVIC's official site, perhaps you remember the many times I presented this evidence and linked/excerpted from the UNMOVIC site, before the information about how they were being paid off with money from the oil for food program was taken from the site.

The above links and others can be found at.
www.iraqwatch.org...

You are one of the few people around these forums that knows every evidence others and i have presented. Even though the stockpiles of wmd were not found, there is more than enough evidence to support the fact that Saddam had and was working on acquiring more wmd.



Originally posted by Valhall
..............
I watched as I and many many other Americans were told by our government that because Saddam was busy spending all his money to build more and more WMDs, and scurrying about the desert to hide them from inspectors, he constituted the next great menace in the war on terrorism.


Well, according to the Russians Saddam was a menace, although they continued saying there was no need to depose Saddam they did say the following.


Putin says Iraq planned US attack

Russian President Vladimir Putin says that after the 9/11 attacks Moscow warned Washington that Saddam Hussein was planning attacks on the US.
He said Russia's secret service had information on more than one occasion that Iraq was preparing acts of terror in the US and its facilities worldwide.


Excerpted from.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Another little fact to take into account is that before the war Saddam gave medals to Russian generals, and was even selling banned military weaponry and equipment to Iraq, which they now are doing with Iran...for some reason.


Saddam’s Worthless Medals

By VLADIMIR SOCOR

It is by now public knowledge that Russian arms manufacturers have been supplying Iraq for years, in breach of U.N. sanctions, right down to the beginning of the U.S.-led campaign, and even during the campaign's first days. The clandestine supplies were often routed through third countries, such as Syria. Weapons systems were usually delivered in components, which were then reassembled in Iraq, sometimes with assistance of Russian technicians on-site. Some of these deliveries seemed calculated to offset technological advantages of the coalition forces, and thereby to increase the casualty rate among them.


Thus, thousands of Russian-made night-vision devices were delivered off the producer's shelf to the Iraqi army, so as to enable it to face coalition forces in night combat. Russian manufacturers also sold Kornet anti-tank guided missiles, as well as anti-tank artillery shells, to Iraq. The Kornets knocked out several US Abrams battle tanks in the initial phase of the campaign.


For both military and political effect, Saddam acquired brand new GPS-jamming stations from Russia. These stations create active interference with the Global Positioning Systems, which by means of satellite signals guide U.S. planes and precision weapons to their targets. The jammer disorients pilots, and deflects "smart" munitions off their trajectories. This not only protects Iraqi military targets, but produces collateral damage and civilian casualties, which are then exploited for propaganda purposes. GPS-jammers probably caused some of the incidents in which US precision weapons strayed and struck British planes, an Iraqi bus, and occasionally fell on Turkish, Syrian, and Iranian territories. Russian and international media pounced on those incidents, before U.S. forces located and destroyed most of the jamming stations.


Saddam also received from Russia components and spare parts for Soviet-era heavy weapons, which form the bulk of the Iraqi army's inventory. These include Scud-C missiles ("al-Hussein"), surface-to-air missiles, battle tanks such as the T-72 and combat helicopters.
..............
Such deliveries violated not only the U.N. sanctions, but also Russia's official ban on military supplies to Iraq-a ban originally declared in 1990 by the Soviet government in accordance with U.N. resolutions in the runup to the first Gulf War, but not strictly enforced by Russian governments since then.


Excerpted from.
www.borrull.org...

Russia seems to have been playing both sides. On one side helping Saddam, while on the other secretly giving the US information for years that Saddam was planning on making terrorist attacks on US soil and US interests.

We can continue reading on the above link the following.


For their part, Russian investigative reporters discovered a few days ago that Generals Vladislav Achalov and Igor Maltsev-former deputy defense minister and former air defense chief of staff, respectively- have long been advising Iraq's military. They last visited Baghdad about a week before the start of the U.S.-led operation Iraqi Freedom, inspected military installations, and were awarded medals by Saddam for services rendered. The generals confirmed the visits and the awards. However, Russia's Defense Ministry has simply denied knowledge of these retired generals' many visits to Iraq.

Moscow almost certainly fears (probably along with Paris) that US forces in Iraq may discover detailed information on illicit deals with Saddam Hussein's regime, once the allies-and a new Iraqi government-take control of the country, and open the regime's archives. This consideration may partly explain efforts by Moscow and Paris to forestall regime change in Iraq. It also accounts in part for the reported efforts by Russian intelligence services to seize certain archives in Baghdad and cart them away. The U.S. and its allies should ask the Kremlin to bring the arms sellers to justice, and to terminate sales of Russian military equipment to rogue regimes. The victorious allies should not require Iraq's new government to repay the Saddam Hussein regime's military debts to Russia. Those are Saddam's debts, not the Iraqi people's. The U.S. will bear a large share of the costs of Iraq's reconstruction. If it requires Iraq to pay those multi-billion-dollar military debts to Russia, the US would end up financing Saddam's Russian arms purchases.


Excerpted from.
www.borrull.org...




Originally posted by Valhall
And I heard our president say that if the UN security council wouldn't back a military action against Saddam they would be "irrelevant". And I thought that sounded pretty good bein's the ol' sadastic bastard was hording WMDs and preparing for nefarious deeds against any and all in the world.


And you know very well that president Bush was not the only one, nor was he the first one to make these statements.


"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998


Excerpted from.
brainyquotes.com...


"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs. Proliferation of WMD constitutes a threat for the planet at large. our security depends on our capacity to deal collectively with this major risk. On this topic, no more than on others, our policy is not to spare Iraq: we have always called for the strict implementation of UN resolutions." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002


Excerpted from.
www.globalpolicy.org...

Of course, we know now how the UN sanctions worked in Iraq don't we?


"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998


Excerpted from.
www.brainyquote.com...


And there are a lot more, in fact most of the world, and their intelligence agencies many whom have nothing to do with the US intelligence agencies, believed and stated that Saddam did have wmd and a wmd program.


Originally posted by Valhall
I also watched as there were no WMDs found. No evidence of WMD manufacturing capabilities found. No mobile labs, no stationary labs, no citizens - in 2 years - coming forward and providing proof, or even offering to testify - that there was activity to make, hide, or use WMDs.


We found new empty chemical missiles which they were not supposed to have and which can only be used with chemical weapons. We found missiles which were banned from Iraq, we found tons of documents which dealt with wmd programs and which Iraq was not supposed to have, as well as centrifuges and other material which they were supposed to have destroyed instead of hiding them.


Chemical munitions found by Polish soldiers in Iraq date back to 1980s
WARSAW, Poland - Warheads believed to contain the deadly nerve agent cyclosarin that were found by Polish troops in south-central Iraq date back to Saddam Hussein's war with Iran in the 1980s, the Polish-led multinational force said Friday.

Advertisement


"Beyond any doubt, the warheads date back to 1980-88 and were used against the Kurds and in the Iraqi-Iranian war," said a statement from the Polish command.

Polish troops recovered 17 rockets for a Soviet-era launcher and two mortar rounds filled with chemical substances in late June, spokesman for the Polish-led force, Lt. Col. Robert Strzelecki said in a telephone interview from Iraq.

"Laboratory tests showed the presence in them of cyclosarin, a very toxic gas, five times stronger than sarin and five times more durable," multinational force commander Gen. Mieczyslaw Bieniek told Poland's TVN24 at the force's Camp Babylon headquarters.

"If these warheads, which were still usable, were used on a military base like Camp Babylon, they would have caused unforeseeable damage," Bieniek said.


Excerpted from.
www.zwire.com...

Yes, those wmd were old, but were still usable and they were not supposed to have them.

Some people want to disregard many of the wmd found because they were old, but most of which was still usable. ISG recovered a total of 53 chemical weapons from various sources and military units throughout Iraq.

Supposedly Saddam had destroyed all of his wmd, if that is true what were all those wmd found?


Blix: Iraqis have found more warheads
Top inspectors meet with Iraqi officials
Monday, January 20, 2003 Posted: 3:04 AM EST (0804 GMT)


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi officials said they have found four more empty chemical warheads similar to 12 others found last week, the U.N.'s chief weapons inspector said Sunday.

Hans Blix, in Baghdad with top nuclear weapons inspector Mohamed ElBaradei, said on CNN's "Late Edition" that the 12 empty warheads were on the agenda for talks Sunday with Iraqi officials.

"They said they had been surprised themselves" about finding the empty warheads, Blix said. "They were in boxes, never opened -- there were bird droppings on them. But of course they should have been declared and destroyed."


Excerpted from.
www.cnn.com...

Brand new empty chemical warheads, which should have been destroyed, along with the other evidence of wmd found which....according to the Iraqis and seom news media...were all destroyed.



Originally posted by Valhall
I watched as it was revealed that the entire world - with the sucking syphon stuck right in the middle of the UN - had been making billions and billions of dollars off of oil vouchers while the Iraqi people lived through more than a decade of sanctions. And I've watched nothing come in the way of punitive measures on this, the greatest financial rape to ever occur in human-kind.


Not the entire world, but those countries that did not want a war in Iraq. Those were most of the countries that had the illegal deals with Iraq.




Originally posted by Valhall
Oh - and if my accurate recalling of the historical record over the past 4 years is not sufficent for you, I would suggest you pull that WMD everybody's been waiting on out your own personal hidey-hole and give us some proof that ANYTHING that was told to us prior to the invasion had some real substance. And NO - you don't get to point at a nonevidential rumor of Syria.


The proof has been given many times Valhall, and why is it that what Russian defectors and others have been saying, that Russia was probably behind the evanescence of most of the wmd from Iraq, because they put them there and took them to other countries such as Syria, is nonevidential and just a rumor, when we can see that the rumors that all the wmd were destroyed and nothing remained in Iraq is the only rumor?

What has not been found was the "stockpiles" of wmd, which has been used by some media sources to proclaim that no wmd, and no evidence to substantiate the fact that Saddam had wmd and wmd programs, have been found at all.


BTW Valhall, why do you ask in the one hand that no reports have come up from Iraqi people telling the US about wmd etc, yet on the other hand you want to see it as rumors the accounts told by for example Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who says he has evidence that Iraq's wmd are in Syria?


A senior Syrian journalist reports Iraq WMD located in three Syrian sites
06 January, 2004

AFP

Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept. The storage places are:
.............


Excerpted from.
www.2la.org...

or the Iraqi scientist who said that he was told to hide a nuclear centrifuge parts for later use once the west stopped looking for wmd?


(CNN) -- The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology -- parts needed to develop a bomb program -- that were dug up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned.

The parts, with accompanying plans, were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush in his garden 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel.

U.S. officials emphasized this was not evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapon -- but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program as soon as the world was no longer looking.


Excerpted from.
www.cnn.com...


[edit on 16-12-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Was all that happened in Iraq a waste and was it for nothing?

I already presented what one Iraqi woman said right after she voted in Iraq, and what she thought about the war in Iraq. Here is an excerpt from a blog made by another Iraqi citizen and what he has to say. The responses to his blog are also interesting to read.


............
Before March 20, 2003, we were in a dungeon. We did not see the light. Saddam Hussain was crushing Iraq's spirit slowly, we longed for his end, but knew we could not challenge him, or his diabolical seed who would no doubt follow him and continue his generation of hell on Earth.

Since then, we now have hope. Hope is not a tangible thing, but it is something, it is more than being blinded by darkness, by being stuck in a mental pit without any future.

Hope has been the greatest product of the last two years. No doubt, many have died, many have died by accident or due to crimes. But their sacrifices are not, and will not be for nothing. I refuse to let it be, and my countrymen stand with me.

Our cities are smoking, our graveyards full, and terrorists in our midst. But we are not defeated. We are not down, we are not regretful. We are not going to surrender. For all that the two years have brought, the greatest thign they have given us is a future, and a view of the finish line.

Iraqis see the finish line, the finish line of freedom and democracy and a functioning nation. We can smell it, taste it, and like a sprinter, one who has broken his legs, but who has a heart full of passion, we will crawl there no matter what the cost. No matter what we must endure, we have realized what we can become, and that is the biggest result of the last two years.

Noone can take that from us. Not the terrorists, not those who want to question the good of the removal of Saddam, not those who want to reduce our glory for politics, none.

We have been brought from darkness to light. And not only has the future been made better for Iraq, but the martyrs of our nation, their blood is watering the roots of democracy across the world. We are watching our neighbors come closer to the light, and this only pushes us more, and makes us stronger in our burning desire to reach the finish line, to realize the dream that our people have had for so long.

No, we will not give up, and we will not say that the last two years were a waste. They for all their trouble have been momentus. They for us, have been a turning point in history. Whether or not you agree, this is how it looks from Iraq.


Excerpted from.
democracyiniraq.blogspot.com...

[edit on 16-12-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Muaddib,

This is just a marker to let you know that I am not ignoring your previous, most excellent post and will be responding.

Concerning your second post - I am sincerely elated at whatever positives have come from the freeing of the Iraqi people from the Saddam regime - but that doesn't have ONE SINGLE MERIT to what is being discussed here. And this is the same ploy the white house has used.

Pre-invasion: We're going in because they have WMDs.
Post-no-WMDs-found: We went in to free the Iraqi people.

Your first post has significant value to the discussion, but that second one is nothing but diversion.

*val hands Muaddib a promissory note on response*



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Muadib: Excellent post, and great links. I, too, have posted links pertaining to the WMD's, proof of which show the movement of much to Syria and Libya, but to no avail.

Valhal: Yeah..... what the Iraqi people say may be off topic, but still relevant to the war. Oh..... and there were about 12 reasons given for the war, not just WMD's. One main iyem was removing Saddam from power, which is one thing Bush agreed with Clinton on.

Personally, I don't care if there were WMD's or not. If that's something everyone could agree on for the coalition to get that tyrant out of power, so be it.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   


Why don't you tell us all what book it is in, and then explain why its not in the Dulfer report.

If more than a ton of enriched Uranium had been found everyone would have known about it.


Geez.... read the post.
The book is titled "Disinformation" Author: Richard Miniter
Publisher: Regnery Press

Although I do have the proverbial "little birds" in my ears, and some contacts through my ex-military days, alas I cannot explain to you why such information is not in the Dulfer report.
However, one might be.... information brought to light after the report was made. Another, possibly, so as not to provide information to the enemy as to how/where some things were discovered.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   
To the Mods: Although the points don't matter to some (and to me, to some extent), it IS nice to be able to have them available for the options made available to members. I sure don't want to lose any of what I have garnered but, at risk of doing so, I am about to "cut and paste" from a book mentioned in an earlier post. If you wish to edit it... fine. If you wish to take points away, do so if you must.... after all, the rules apply to everyone. I do so to present as much information as possible as it relates to this thread. Although long, and will consume a bit of bandwidth, perhaps what is presented will actually SAVE some bandwidth by stopping some of the 'it was there.. it wasn't there" back and forth and arguing. My butt is on the line, but here goes.....

".... In a secret operation on June 23, 2004, U.S. forces seized 1.77 metric
tons of enriched uranium--the kind used to make fuel for atomic
bombs--in a nuclear facility in Iraq, according to BBC News.3 The
BBC has been consistently critical of Bush and the Iraq war. U.S.
Department of Energy experts also removed 1,000 radioactive mate-
rials in "powdered form, which is easily dispersed," said Bryan Wilkes,
an Energy Department spokesman."

".... Polish general Marek Dukaczewski, Poland's military intelligence
chief, revealed that troops in the Polish-patrolled sector of Iraq had
received tips from Iraqis that chemical weapons were sold to terror-
ists on the black market. The weapons had been buried to avoid
detection, the general told the BBC. Polish military officials bought
seventeen chemical-weapons warheads from Iraqis for $5,000 each to
keep them from Iraq's so-called insurgents. "An attack with such
weapons would be hard to imagine," the general said. "All of our activ-
ity was accelerated at appropriating these warheads." Tests confirmed
that some of the warheads contained cyclosarin, a nerve agent five
times more powerful than sarin. These chemical weapons were sup-
posed to have been completely destroyed during the 1991­1998 UN
inspector regime. Clearly, some WMD survived.

U.S. soldiers stormed into a warehouse in Mosul, Iraq, on August 8,
2005, and were surprised to find 1,500 gallons of chemical agents. It
was the largest chemical weapons lab found in Iraq.8 The intelligence
community remains divided over the origin of those chemical
weapons (either from inside Iraq or outside) and whether they were
made during Saddam's regime or after."

".... The Iraq Survey Group, led by David Kay and charged with finding
WMD after the war, discovered a projectile loaded with mustard gas
attached to a roadside bomb in May 2004. Fortunately, the mustard
gas was "stored improperly" and was "ineffective." The mustard-gas
shell is believed to be part of the eighty tons of such gas still unac-
counted for."

".... If one keeps reading Blix's reports, darker realities emerge. The
inspectors could not account for Iraq's 6,500 chemical weapons (which
were missing) and couldn't prove that Iraq had destroyed the anthrax it
admitted it had produced. In short, according to Blix, some WMD were
most likely still in Iraq's arsenal. Blix said that inspectors had found evi-
dence that Iraq had been producing VX nerve gas as well as a "mustard
gas predecessor," thiodiglycol.
Blix also testified that inspectors found some evidence that Iraq had
been preparing to produce missiles that were specifically banned."

".... Given Saddam's intentions, Duelfer did not rule out that Saddam
might have had WMD and could not say whether such weapons might
have been smuggled to Syria just before the 2003 war."

".... When the Iraq
Survey Group (ISG), led by David Kay, issued its interim report in
October acknowledging that it had not found chemical or biological
weapons, the inspectors had then visited only ten of the 130 major
ammunition depots in Iraq; these ammunition dumps are huge,
sometimes five miles by five miles on a side. Two depots alone are
roughly the size of Manhattan. It is worth recalling that after Desert
Storm, U.S. forces unknowingly destroyed over 1,000 rounds of
chemical-filled munitions at a facility called Al Kamissiyah. Baghdad
sometimes had special markings for chemical and biological muni-
tions and sometimes did not. In short, much remains to be done in
the hunt for Iraq's WMD."

This, and more, is from just one chapter in the book.

edited to add one period. (.)

[edit on 16-12-2005 by zappafan1]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Muaddib;

Excellent post--I couldn't have done it better. And thanks for the links; I intend to use them for future reference.

Zappafan;

Good excerpts from that book. I think I'll look it up at Amazon.




Originally posted by Valhall
Pre-invasion: We're going in because they have WMDs.
Post-no-WMDs-found: We went in to free the Iraqi people.


GB has never asserted that we went in Iraq to free her people. It has always been an integral part of the war on terroism as taking the fight to our enemy is always the better choice than having the fight on our own soil. Once Iraq has in place a democratic government, the region will be more stable and we will be safer for it. Then it'll be time to go into Iran


[edit on 16-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
NORMANDY, FRANCE (June 6, 1944) Three hundred French civilians were
killed and thousands more were wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated, and that reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason, "said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."

The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops,
tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and
thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed
that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, thus threatening the species with extinction. A representative of Greenpeace said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just another example of how the military destroys the environment without a second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate greed."

Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded, said the invasion was based solely on American financial interests. "Everyone knows that President Roosevelt has ties to 'big beer'," said Pierre LeWimp. "Once the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will control the world market and make a fortune."

Administration supporters said America's aggressive actions were based
in part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who
sent a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a
secret weapon -- a so-called "atomic bomb". Such a weapon could produce
casualties on a scale never seen before, and cause environmental damage that could last for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after spending two long weekends in Germany. Shortly after the invasion began, reports surfaced that German prisoners had been abused by American soldiers. Mistreatment of Jews by Germans at their so-called "concentration camps" has been rumored, but so far this remains unproven.

Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion,
and French officials are concerned that the uncollected corpses will pose a
public-health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in
advance," they said. "It's their mess, and we don't intend to help clean it up."



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
To the Mods: Although the points don't matter to some (and to me, to some extent), it IS nice to be able to have them available for the options made available to members. I sure don't want to lose any of what I have garnered but, at risk of doing so, I am about to "cut and paste" from a book mentioned in an earlier post. If you wish to edit it... fine. If you wish to take points away, do so if you must.... after all, the rules apply to everyone. I do so to present as much information as possible as it relates to this thread. Although long, and will consume a bit of bandwidth, perhaps


The name of the book might help here.

Why did you neglect to post it?

I know what the book is, but its your job to provide the title.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join