Originally posted by Muaddib
Twitchy....the whole fricken world was saying Saddam had wmd, the only difference is that Russia, China, France, Germany and some others didn't want
anyone to attack Iraq, because then they would lose any of their business with Saddam.
This is a patently false statement...
"Russia Dismisses Statement on Iraqi Possession of Mass Destruction Weapons
Moscow has received no clear and irrefutable evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said
"French President Jacques Chirac has said the US-led war in Iraq was illegal and expressed his fear for the country's future in the face of a
Chirac said France and China were "very close" in their appraisal of the Iraq crisis, and that the two countries were in regular contact with
Germany, Russia and Spain on the issue."
"It is complete rubbish to claim that France, Germany and Russia agreed that Iraq currently had WMD's in March 2003. Whatever there intelligence
agencies believed (and we really don't know, do we), these countries POLITICAL leaders were not convinced of the present existence of WMD's and
wanted the inspectors to do their mission...Saddam fully complied with 1441 as the report given to the UN in February, 2003 clearly showed. His prior
compliance (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to the decision to go to war in 2003"
"China, France and Russia, which all hold veto power on the council, said inspections were working and should remain in place."
And again....you are saying if we weren't involved in the war in Iraq we wouldn't be victims of international terrorism.....is that why the wtc was
attacked first in 1993? is that why the USS Cole was attacked also during Clinton's administration? Is that why the US was attacked several times
during Clinton's administration? not only the ones I mention above?.......*shakes head*
No, your are misquoting me here, both US military strikes in Iraq come YEARS after our earlier interventions. Our invlovement and subsequent
responsibility for Iraqi hostility goes all the way back to the administration of Theodore Rosevelt. Particularly relevant here is our involvement in
the Iran Iraq war, as I stated before. We supplied both Iran and Iraq simoltaneously, played them against each other, and even supplied crop spraying
helicopters for the dispersal of CHemical Agents. We put Sadaam in power, aided supplied, trained funded both him and his enemy. WTC has NOTHING to do
with Iraq, at all. The USS Cole has nothing to do with Iraq. Irrelevant generalizations at best that fade to a partisan slant by your mention of the
Clinton administration. There is a HUGE difference between a PRETEXT and REASON for invasion...*shakes head*
Yeah, you want to do what Clinton did huh? just ignore terrorism, think it will go away or that it will become a "nuisance" like Kerry is saying
This kind of partisan rhetoric does not warrant a response, except to repeat my assertion that terrorism is a noun, not a nationality. Invasion,
occupation, and the subsequent corruption thereof are not solutions to terrorism, nor is terrorism by individuals justification for the attack of a
soverignty. You state that Clinton ignored terrorism, but support Bush? Here let me let you in on a little secret...
-"In August 2001, President Bush received a memorandum entitled Bin laden determined to attack inside the United States (Rice testimony before 9/11
commission and released PDB)
During that same month, Bush was on an extended vacation (raw video footage and numerous news reports)."
-""Mr. Ashcroft told you that he did not want to hear about this [terrorism] anymore," Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste asked on
April 13. "Is that correct?"
"That is correct," Pickard replied (interim FBI director Pickard)."
-"Funds for counterterrorism ops denied: During the summer of 2001, the FBI submitted what I believe was our 2003 budget proposal. That proposal
came back and the additional funds that we were looking for on counterterrorism were denied. I spoke to the attorney general briefly and asked him if
I could appeal it and he told me, yes, I could; put it in writing. I had our finance and counterterrorism people put together an appeal of that
decision. And then on September 12th, I read the denial of that appeal from the attorney general (Pickard testimony before 9/11 commission)"
-"In 1999, when the Clinton administration learned of a potential Al Qaeda threat, there were daily meetings between the heads of the FBI, CIA, and
AG to discuss findings. There were no such meetings even after the August PDB entitled Bin laden determined to attack inside the United States
(Richard Clark on 60 minutes). Under the Bush Administration, There was not a single cabinet level meeting on terrorism until September 4, 2001."
-"I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden. We have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz the Deputy Sec'y of Defense said, 'No, no, no.
We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.' And
I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the Untied States in eight years,' and I turned to the Deputy Director of [the] CIA
and said, 'Isn't that right?' and he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States.' (Richard Clarke on 60
Lets see if Bush was the only one to say Saddam had wmd and something must be done about it.... i have posted this info time and time again...have
you not read any of these reports? Not only posted by me but other members as well?
Why We Went to War
From the October 20, 2003 issue: The case for the war in Iraq, with testimony from Bill Clinton.
by Robert Kagan & William Kristol
10/20/2003, Volume 009, Issue 06
"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf
War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four
days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was
prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the
penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."
--Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003
The above link was given originally by Seekerof in the following link.
In the 1999 UNSCOM report, it is stated that there were several tons of unnacounted for wmd in Iraq, and UNSCOM was an agency of the UN, as is
UNMOVIC.... So if anyone duped the world and coalition it was the UN as most nations in the world used intelligence from this agency....
May 2, 2002
David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of unaccounted for stocks of Iraqi
precursor chemicals, chemical agent and special munitions, based on the findings of the UN Special Commission.
Mr. Straw: In answer to questions on 12 March 2002, Official Report, columns 74345, I said that weapons inspectors were unable to account for 4,000
tonnes of so-called precursor chemicals used in the production of weapons; 610 tonnes of precursor chemicals used in the production of nerve gas; and
31,000 chemical weapons munitions.
This information was the best available at the time, and was based on Iraqi declarations to UNSCOM inspectors between 199198 and data contained in an
UNSCOM report published in 1999.
The following is Australia intelligence on WMD in Iraq.
The real scandal contained in the long-awaited report of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) that was published last week concerns the fecklessness of
the United Nations, not to mention the treacherous conduct of some of its security council members, in its dealings with Saddam's regime between the
end of the 1991 Gulf war and last year's Operation Iraqi Freedom.
In the diplomatic build-up to last year's war to remove Saddam Hussein from power, the two most vociferous opponents of military action were Russia
and France. Even though Presidents Putin and Chirac reluctantly signed up to UN Security Council resolution 1441 in November 2002 - which threatened
Saddam with "serious consequences" if he did not fully comply - they were at the forefront of the international campaign to block military
The arms deals you refer to were conventional weaponry, not horrifying world threatening WMD's. Are you trying to suggest that every nation in
opposition to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan raised their objections because they were in bed with Iraqi military industry? Do you have any idea
how ridiculous an assertion that is? Russian Gyroscopes are not aresoled anthrax facilities, my friend. Not to mention all of this speculative mumbo
jumbo amounts to a hill of beans because NO WMD's have been found in Iraq. No realistic capability of producing WMD's have been identified, neither
by the UN inspectors, nor by our own inspections or by the US or British Military. They had WMD's prior to the first Gulf War, and we bombed them and
imposed the harshest economic sanctions in the history of international accord. Do you have reliable or credible evidence that Iraq posessed WMD's,
cause if you do you have surpassed the capability of countless UN inspectors and Intelligence Agencies. Faked documents from Nigeria maybe? Maybe your
refering to these?
"On January 9, 2004, Icelandic munitions experts and Danish military engineers discovered 36 120mm mortar rounds containing liquid buried in Southern
Iraq. While initial tests suggested that the rounds contained the banned chemical weapon blister gas,  subsequent analysis by American and Danish
experts showed that no chemical agent was present.  It appears that the rounds have been buried, and most probably forgotten, since the Iran-Iraq
war. Some of the munitions were in an advanced state of decay and most of the weaponry would likely have been unusable."
You are sitting there saying they had WMD's while YOUR PRESIDENT is now publicly admitting that they did not, and changing his rationale again now
claiming that Iraq was manipulating the Oil for Food Program in order to begin their weapons programs anew once the sanctions were lifted. This is
complete 180 degree horse crap from the Bush Administration. First they say the war was because of an Iraq/Alqeada link, then they claim it was
because Iraq was a military threat to the free world, then they claim it was because they were in violation of UN resolutions, now, when all that
turned out to be hogwash, they are claiming they were justified because Sadaam intended to START weapons programs in the near future. Which is it?
What is the real reason we invaded and occupied Iraq? This may shed some light...
This is only scratching the surface, let me know if you would like some more references to the War against terror bologna. The fact of the matter is,
Iraq posed no threat to any western civilization. The only crime they are guilty of is sitting on the second largest oil reserves in the world and not
being cooperative with PNAC's plan for economic domination of the energy market. If terrorism were the real issue, we would go after terrorsists, not
territories. If we really wanted BinLaden, we wouldn't have turned down numerous prior offers of his extradition. Even the Taliban offered to
extradite Osama if we could provide credible evidence of his involvement in the 9-11 attack. Rather than providing evidence, we provided bombs and
occupation. Keep in mind we had already threatened Afghanistan with military action prior to 9-11, military action which had NOTHING to do with
terrorism at all and came only after UNOCAL testified before congress that Afghanistan would be a stumbling block to the proposed caspian sea
pipelines. Keep in mind that plans to invade Iraq were already in the making long before 9-11. How can you claim that our invasion of Iraq and
Afghanistan were in the interests of protecting America when neither of those countries have ever attacked, nor were likely to ever pose any military
threat to us at all. They had terrorist connections, well dude, I have news for you, WE have terrorist connections. WE funded the 'evil' pipeline
blocking taliban, WE funded Osama, and to be perfectly honest with you, I am not too terribly sure that Alqeada isn't a total fabrication, a modern
"Goldstien" straight from 1984. There is credible evidence to support this especially in light of recent reports that Israel was busted setting upa
fake Alqeada network in the West Bank reigon. Why did Bush say that Osama was no longer a priority of his administration? Why did we turn down offers
of his extradition? If terrorism was even of remote concern to the Bush Administration, then why are we still sucking up Saudi money? Get real man,
this isn't a righteous war against the evil terrorists, it's a
CRUDE-SADE (crusade). A power grab for the billions of barrels of dollars instead of euros. Its about feeding the rapidly growing asian energy market,
it's about US corporate interests and the military industrial complex we were warned about. All this military intervention in the middle east was
planned long before 9-11 ever happened.
Let me quote separetely this part.....
At the time it was felt that their main motivation was to protect their lucrative trade ties with Baghdad. In late 2002, Saddam
still owed the Russians some $10 billion, mainly for illegal arms deals. France came next in the trade rankings.
I have posted in the past also the interviews that were done to "other" Russian high ranking military defectors who told that these illegal trades
were true, among other things, and the deals went until 2002 (i stated wrongly 2003 in my previous post)
Now as i was looking for more information about this topic I found out the following...directly from the UN website...
The Commission (UNMOVIC) is financed from a small portion of the monies raised from the export of oil from Iraq (the oil-for-food
programme). Unlike its predecessor, UNSCOM, the staff of UNMOVIC are employees of the United Nations.
So the UNMOVIC commission was financed from a "small portion of the monies raised from the oil-for-food programme.....which we know that many nations
were corrupt and were making illegal deals with Iraq...
Humm...i did not see this before but it is very interesting.....so the UNMOVIC commission which althou it did state that they found banned rockets and
other banned materials that were in possesion of Iraq before the war...it stated that they had not found any wmd stockpiles.... humm...i am smelling
more corruption here....
The UNSCOM commission was not financed by the "oil-for-food" programmed...and it did state there were unnaccaunted wmd in Iraq...
This is getting interesting.....let's continue.
Here is a link to other links on the Butler report.
The world believed the UN reports which stated in 1999 that Iraq did have unnacounted for wmd....and every intelligence agency wastalking about
Iraq's wmd...I have posted that the Canadians were saying this, so was France and Germany
"...Unaccounted for..." that's a far cry from documented affirmed 'massive stock piles of chemical biological and nuclear weapons which pose an
imminent threat to the free world' isn't it? No the world didn't believe Iraq had WMD's, with the exception of UK and US mandated intelligence
(intelligence that prooved to be completely incorrect and in some cases, FABRICATED) the rest of the world wanted to continue with the insepctions
process and handle the situation in Iraq legally.
The US and UK invasion of Iraq was illegal, or as your righteous Bush administration claims, it was 'preemptive'. Iraq wanted the economic sanctions
against them cleared so that an esitmated 500,000 Iraqi children wouldn't die any more, hence hence his compliance with UN inspections despite what
you think about their refusal. There are four documented cases of Iraq 'refusing' to cooperate with the inspections, two of them were on Ramadan
(sp?) one was a refusal to allow inspectors to interrogate college students, the other was bologna as well. No the rest of the world didn't support
our invasion and occupation of Iraq, no the rest of the world didn't think Iraq was a threat. It would be nice if they did, then we wouldn't be
footing the bill in US dollars and US blood.
*shakes head*.....There are more than just two meetings between Al Qaeda agents and Iraqi governemnt officials....you are only reading the excerpts
and not looking into the links I am giving....and the information they give...
Saddam was supporting terrorism, not only Al Qaeda but others as well...
Let's pretend for a moment that all the experts who have said there was no credible link were full of crap, now tell me what the hell were the CIA
meeting with Osama for then November 1, 2001 in Dubai? Saddam was supporting terrorism, well there's a new angle. And Israel? Columbia? Algeria? The
only difference between Iraq and other terrorist supporting regimes is that they aren't sitting on en estimated three trillion bucks worth of oil.
Algeria has documented connections to Alqeada, but not a single bomb falling on it. Saudi Arabia has definate connections to alqeada, but hey no bombs
there either. It isn't about terrorism at all. It isn't about UN charters, hell we have violated many UN resolutions, our good buddy Israel has
violated more UN resolutions than any other country in the world. If you are naive enough to believe that the US is simply acting on behalf of the
protection of the free world by invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, then you have been fooled.
Saddam bankrolled Palestinian terrorists
Documents show Saddam funded Palestinian terrorist group
Syrian business front funded terrorists through UN oil-for-food programme
1991 tape reveals Saddam wanted to use biological weapons against Israel
Story in full SADDAM Husseins links to terrorism have been proven by documents showing he helped to fund the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Well there's your story dude, Israel felt threatened. God help if Israel feels threatened. MOSAAD is a charitible organization that would never
fabricate or exaggerate intelligence would they?
humm....so Al Qaeda didn't do it?.....so you don't think other Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations would have tried to attack us once more?
(Which I am sure they are going to keep trying...)
According to you, you would ahve just killed the small group withint Al Qaeda that coordinated the 9/11 attacks...and would have left the rest of Al
Qaeda and other terrorist organizations which have pretty much the same goal as AQ?.... sure...and you think we wouldn't have been attacked again of
The leader of 'alqeada' denied responsibility for the attack of the WTC but the man that wired atta 100,000 dollars was meeting with senate
intelligence comittee members the morning of. And here again i repeat myself, terrorists aren't soverignties. Terrorists organizations don't just
reside and glean support from Iraq and Afghanistan. We wouldn't have been attacked by international terrorism at all if we had stayed the hell out of
their business to begin with. How far back in history would you like to go to demonstrate this point? We have been manipulating middle eastern
politics and wars for a LONG time. Think about it, would you be pissed off if somebody gave you money, taught you to fight, then you find out the same
folks were giving your enemy money and teaching them to fight? If you couldn't buy flour and were watching your kids starve to death or die of
curable diseases becuase somebody wouldn't let you buy medical supplies, would you be a little ill? They can't respond to these actions militarily,
so presto, you get terrorism. They don't want our interferrence in their affairs, who would? WE have created this problem, period. For the last
thousand years of so the western world has been pissing these people off, more so in modern times, but think about it. Why are they so angry with us?
Do you actually believe that it is because they hate democracy? That they are out to destroy our lifestyle? Ridiculous man, they don't give a crap
about democracy, and they don't give a crap about baseball or apple pie. They want to be left to determine their own affairs, they want to left
alone. They want control of their own resources. Let me simplify this concept for you, we are over there, they aren't over here. They own their
resources, we want their resources. Now sit down for the big shocker, WE STARTED IT. WE CREATED terrorism by not staying the hell out of their
business. I can't believe you actually think that Islamic countries are out to get us for no reason other than their hatred for democracy. That is a
sickening nationalist view of the situation. You are actually trying to argue that the reason for terrorists act against the US is because they hate
us. This fails to answer or address the obvious as to WHY they hate us and what we did to provoke such inherent hatred. The answer is simple, but you
have to cut your tv off to find out.
I do not live under any paranoid illusions...thank you very much..i never said all Arabs or all Muslims are terrorists...do not put words in my mouth
I have never said.... but yes there are radicals that want to destroy our way of life or they want the world to be dominated by Islam and
Sharia.... Perhaps you are too blind yourself watching baseball and eating apple-pies....things i haven't done in a very long time..... I am
not that much of a fan of apple pies or baseball....anyways.....
LOL dude, listen to yourself. They want to destroy our way of life, they want the world to be dominated by islam... that is a paranoid illusion. We
are destroying their way of life, we want the world to be dominated by 'democracy'. We are there, they aren't here. Yes you do live under the
paranoid illusion that Islam is out to destroy our way of life, when the simple truth of the matter is, they don't give a rats *ss about our way of
life. They desire to allocate their own resources as they see fit without outside interferrence. We don't have any business there other than trying
to suck their oil fields dry. Terrorism is an atrocious act of violence, but so is an illegal invasion and occupation of a soverign nation under false
pretenses. We piss these people off, arguably for a thousand years or more, then expect them to not get upset when we are over there telling them who
and how and when. Other than buying petroleum from them, we have no business there. Our involvement in that reigon should have been limited to a
fianancial interest, yet time after time we find our intelligence and foriegn policies arming and supplying various factions against each other,
mandating the policies and resources of nations thousands of miles away from us. They hate our way of life? LOL No, they hate outside interference. We
would too. Reverse the situation, think of it from their point of view. It's their oil, it's their land, it's their culture, WE ARE THE ONES
INTERFERING WITH THEM.
Wow, so one weapon which he uses to fight the whole world? Was he an asset of ours before he decided to turn against us? yes....he did turn against
us as i proved several times already posting an interview that was done with him in the 1990s....he said that while we were using him to attack the
Russians...he and his people were also thinking on how to attack us in the future....
He still is an asset. This is evident not only by our turning down numerous offers of his extradition, but Bush himself has stated that Osama is no
longer priority of his administration. Do you smell that? The leader of alqeada, the monster that supposedly masterminded the largest terror attack in
the world, is no longer a priority. Why is that? Could it be because it was never about getting Osama in the first place? If it was, don't you think
we have provided the taliban with soem credible evidence connection him to 9-11 to have him extradited? If Osama was such a terrorist threat, why6
aren't we still trying to find him? Why did we turn down offers to extradite him from various countries prior to our military actions in the middle
east. Why were we threatening Afghanistan with bombings before 9-11? Why was there maps of Iraqi oil field laid out at the 'closed door' energy
policy meetings with Dick prior to 9-11? Why aren't we bombing and invading Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9-11 terrorists came from (the ones that
didn't turn out to be alive and well that is)? Why is it that its ok for us to sponsor terrorist groups in south america but its not ok for them?
Why, if terrorism is the real problem are we continuing with militant foriegn policies and occupation of hostile reigons? Get real man, it isn't
about terrorism. It's about oil, its about feeding a monster we created.