Edsinger. Your show of intentional ignorance and lack of rational reasoning is quite frankly amazing. There's really no other way to put it. You keep
presenting links to one quiestionable source after another. And when your 'evidence' is debunked, you simply find another bs source with even more
bs claims and start a new thread. I'm betting you burned your hand on the stove quite a few times as a kid, huh?
Well I've thoroughly read through the report you presented, edsinger. Here is my conclusion of the key issues raised.
Originally presented in "A White Paper" by Andrew Apostolou
What appears to have happened, according to the ISG, is that unilateral WMD stock destruction was part of Saddam’s campaign of deception. While the
U.N. suspicion of March 2003 that the stocks still existed was probably wrong, the underlying assumption of malign Iraqi intent was
What was viable, however, was to retain as much of the intellectual capital and dual use infrastructure as could be concealed so that full WMD
programs and, when militarily required, WMD production, could resume in the future—probably after sanctions were lifted. As the Butler inquiry in
Britain found in July 2004, Iraq had “the strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons programmes, including if possible its
nuclear weapons programme, when United Nations inspection regimes were relaxed and sanctions were eroded or lifted.
"Malign intent"? "WMD production could
resume in the future - probably
after sanctions were lifted"? These are assumptions
and does nothing
to justify the invasion of Iraq. Here are the facts
Contrary to prewar statements by President Bush and top administration officials, Saddam did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the
war began and his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, said Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.
Duelfer said his report found that aluminum tubes suspected of being used for enriching uranium for use in a nuclear bomb were likely destined for
conventional rockets and that there is no evidence Iraq sought uranium abroad after 1991. Both findings contradict claims made by Bush and other top
administration officials before the war the Bush administration before the war.
Duelfer said Wednesday his teams found no evidence of a mobile biological weapons capability.
In fact, the ISG reports that on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Iraq still had a chemical weapons capability and could have produced
significant volumes of mustard gas within three to six months and large volumes of nerve agents within two years if it could acquire the necessary
precursors. 59 Iraq apparently had the capability to rapidly produce mustard gas within days, but production would not have been
he ISG concluded that depending upon the extent of the activity ordered, “Iraq could have reestablished an elementary BW program within a few
weeks to a few months of a decision to do so.
is the key issue here. Furthermore, ISG concluded the following:
The most specific evidence of an illicit weapons program, the officials said, has been uncovered in clandestine labs operated by the Iraqi
Intelligence Service, which could have produced small quantities of lethal chemical and biological agents -- though probably for use in
assassinations, not to inflict mass casualties.
Iraq's nuclear program, which in 1991 was well-advanced, "was decaying" by 2001, the official said, to the point where Iraq was -- if it even
could restart the program -- "many years from a bomb.
Unknown to the U.N., Saddam had constructed a WMD system designed to beat the inspection system.
. There is no substantial evidence
to support this claim.
Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used
Other countries have nuclear weapons. With the US, there is one big difference: it has used them.
Again, this doesn't justify attacking another nation.
Before 9/11 there was credible evidence available that Saddam had been in contact with al Qaeda, as noted by the 9/11 Commission.
This particular issue was thoroughly
investigated by the 9/11 Commission. They came to the following conclusion:
Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an
Islamist agenda - save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin
had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraq Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.
Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance to producing weapons, but there is no evidence that
Iraq responded to this request.
The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no
evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that
Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.
Furthermore, evidently there were no written strategies or plans by Saddam's regime to pursue the banned weapons in case the UN sanctions were
lifted. Instead, the inspectors based their findings on Duelfer's interviews with Saddam after his capture. These interviews left Duelfer's team
with the impression that Saddam was more concerned about Iran and Israel as enemies than he was about the United States.
The war of 2003 was not a U.S. war of choice, nor a U.S. war of prevention, but a war of Saddam’s choosing.
War was the option that Saddam chose. The Iraqi regime was afforded the opportunity to comply with its U.N. obligations, a genuine “last
chance” that it chose not to take.
These are quite fantastic statements and are evidently together with statements such as "Iraq was harboring terrorists" and "sought to gain WMD
capabilities" pathetic attempts to shift from the actual major reasons presented to support the attack on Iraq. Those statements would not have
sufficed to gain support of this war; the Bush Administration was well
aware of this fact. Consequently, the main arguments presented by the
Bush Administration were the alleged relationship between Saddam and OBL, coupled with the assertion that Iraq possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass
destruction. These claims were considered proof of how Iraq posed an imminent
threat to the US and the rest of the free world.
To date, there is no credible information whatsoever to support those claims
Originally posted by edsinger
Look if you want concrete facts and want to hold it in your hand then I can not make you hold it, but I can tell you that the information I post is
just as legit as what you do. The perspectives are different thats all.
On the contrary, edsinger. The vast preponderance of available credible
evidence doesn't support the notion of your 'information' being as
legit as mine. Factual evidence is factual evidence - period.
Look has the Osama in Baghdad visit been explained? If they were such mortal enemies then Osama would not have made it out alive.
Welcome to the real world, edsinger. All mortal enemies doesn't necessarily kill each other. Educate yourself on your own nation's non
connections with its 'mortal enemies'.
As I have stated many of times, the old arab saying that "the enemy of your enemy is your friend" bears credence here. The 911 report plainly
states that there were connections but no CONCRETE PROOF of collabaration. The article I posted would be a decent reason as to why they met and had
contacts. If we can find the proof that the documents in which I posted show that Saddam was funding or involved in the Somalia fiasco, then you would
have your evidence.
You keep beating this dead horse. There is also evidence of US contacts with al Qaeda as well as US support and training of militant groups closely
associated with al Qaeda. Yet again; the level
of connection and what it has amounted to, is what's important. The available credible
between OBL and Saddam Hussein - period.
Jan. 18, 1993 memo from Saddam Hussein, through his secretary, to the Iraqi Intelligence Service, urging that missions be undertaken to "hunt
down Americans," especially in Somalia.
Well I've read through the interpretation of these papers. The only thing that can be concluded is that Saddam had hostile intentions towards the US
in the early 90's. How odd...
Desert Storm - anyone? This memo - authentic or not - doesn't
support the claims made by the Bush Admin
prior to the invasion.
I would say that Saddam and Osama must have had an agreement as Osama never attemted to get rid of Saddam, maybe they worked togther towards a
common goal , who knows. But America was the enemy of both.
Actually according to the 911 Report, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraq Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into
his Islamic army. The fact that the US was the enemy of both is in no way evidence of their alleged collaboration. Or do you feel like you want to
throw in a few additional nations in this 'collaboration' as well?
Oh ok, well
Three in Four Say If Iraq Did Not Have WMD or Support al Qaeda, US Should Not Have Gone to War
Saddam's Intent to Build WMD Not Seen as Sufficient Reason
Yep. Thats how most people
in the US actually feel. Glad to see it.
But he got re-elected even though the public in general has no clue to the facts and the assumed facts. Some things will never be proven, and
did you notice this one?
Only 1 in 5 Want to Withdraw
Oh, absolutly. I noticed it. "If you break it, you fix it".
Btw, did you
notice that a majority of the US citizens also oppose the war in Iraq all together?
We have a job to finish and the only way to do so is to win.
This is a revealing statement on your part, edsinger. Get your head out - this is not
Unfriendly forces do not meet as AlQada and Saddam's folks did. Again why would Osama be allowed in Baghdad? True, I agree that Saddam was
Islamic only in "show", but he also had things that Osama needed and was probably willing to sell them.
"Probably"? Again; read the 911 Report and quit spewing your bs assumptions
I do not live in a dreamworld, I live in one that is hostile to my way of life and my country.
Another fine example of Bush propaganda.
We deal with threats as they come.
You mean "shoot first and ask questions later"?
I would say in light of the available evidence, you deal with imagined
911 was not the first strike against us, but it was the first to draw a serious response, and one that I think Bin Ladin miscalculated on,
Yeah, I'm sure OBL absolutly didn't
see the attack on Saddam
I do not think that Saddam had any part in the planning or execution of the 911 attacks. he might have known about it but that is pure
conjecture on my part.
Correct, edsinger; that's pure conjecture on your part
Islamic fundementalist Terrorists attacked the United States on 911
Actually from what is known to date and being specific; people associated with al Qaeda
attacked the US on 9/11.
We declared war on the terrorists and those who harbor them.
Here we go with the famous broad brush of Dubya. So would you also say you're currently at war with IRA as well?
Iraq supported state sponsered terrorism and gave refuge to those involved.
Circumstantial. And there is no credible information to support a link to the events surrounding the actual invasion of Iraq or what was initially
claimed by the Bush Administration.
He had the means to provide them with WMD and was getting more senile as time passed. He had plenty of chances to aviod war, but failed to meet
the agreements HE signed.
Again - these are guesses and assumptions
. The available evidence contradicts the notion of Saddam having or being close to have the means
the intent of providing al Qaeda with WMD's - period
I would agree. And you have yet to provide a valid argument, edsinger.
I do not hate Iraqi's at all, I want to see them Free! Look warfare is nasty, people are dying on both sides, it is sad here that everyone
loved Saddam so much but as an American, I feel it was in the worlds interest to see him go.
So now you claim to feel this war is actually
about the freedom of the Iraqis? Gimme a break.
Originally posted by LostSailor
And Durden, theres no point in showing the facts.
"There is not point in showing the facts"? Try it, why don't you?
I could shove a document signed by Saddam Hussein himself stating that he was planning on using a nuclear bomb on the US in your face and you
still wouldn't believe me, so whats the damn point?
See, this is the problem. The available credible
said claims about Saddam, and you
seem to completely
If you have something to support your opinion you feel like sharing; by all means do so or go find another place to
At least the majority of US citizens can see the light
You're right, and it's supported by my previous link.
Check out the link in my signature ed..... its some interesting stuff.
Hey LostSailor, check out this
link, why don't you?
Originally posted by edsinger
So you would be willing to bet he absolutley had none? Would you bet your life on it? What if the documents show that he did purchase some anthrax in
2000? Did you read the Dalfur report? It stated that saddam could have restarted production in weeks from his ok to do so. I guess you would have some
excuse for that one also? Even Durden knows this to be the case....we still know he had them, he did not declare all that he had, some think he
destroyed them so as to not have to admitt he had biological weapons........funny turns of events wouldnt you say?
You have my reply on this issue earlier in this post.
Look I have never said this president is perfect, I think Ronnie Raygun was a much better one, but I will say this, Bush doesnt back down and
he says what he means and means what he says. You know what you have with him, unlike the POS the demo's through out for fodder this year.
Nor does he admit when his wrong - even when the available evidence proves this to be the case.
And you feel this is actually a good
If you would look into it, there is a lot of circumstancial evidence that he sent some to Syria and/or hid them in the Western desserts. I
would not be so quick to believe the lies that you hear.
To even call this lot of 'evidence' circumstantial is IMO to give it too much credit.
And I agree, edsinger. You really shouldn't
be so quick to believe the lies that you hear. So don't.
Senior investigators and analysts in the U.S. government have concluded that Iraq acted as a state sponsor of terrorism against Americans and
logistically supported the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States - confirming news reports that until now have emerged only in bits and pieces.
A senior government official responsible for investigating terrorism tells Insight that while Saddam Hussein may not have had details of the Sept. 11
attacks in advance, he "gave assistance for whatever al-Qaeda came up with."(snip)
You seem to think this was news..? Actually, it was in fact posted September the 29th in 2003
. And now, more than a year later - there is
no solid evidence presented in support of those dated claims.
I do not know if it is real, but I would not be surprised...
You wouldn't be surprised, huh? It seems quite obvious to me that your mind is very much made up - despite what the evidence show or doesn't
show, so why do you even try and make it look as if you're actually interested in the truth? You're not fooling anyone but yourself, edsinger.
According to the September 11 report:
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995.
Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq
responded to this request ... [but] the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. (p.61)
In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence.
In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps
both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.
You can find my reply on this issue earlier in this post.
Look you said they have already been debunked and you have the wrong set of papers, thats all. These have not been authenticated either as of
No. They haven't been authenticated. But you still
use them in this attempt to support your opinion; while you discount that which is
supported by the actual
Originally posted by IBM
You peaceniks will not understand that a country that is not aggressive will cease to exist. War although ugly is necessary. This war was to make sure
that no one threatens the US. It was absolutely necessary and justifiable.
So essentially, you're justifying a preemptive war with no credible information to support an imminent threat. Beautiful.
"The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed"
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
- Edmund Burke (1729-1797), British statesman and philosopher
"Veni, vidi, vici."
(I came, I saw, I conquered)
- Julius Caesar, Roman emperor (100BC-44BC)
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
- General George Patton Jr
"Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum".
("If you wan't peace, prepare for war")
- Flavius Vegetius Renatus. Roman Military strategist. c. 390. A.D
"From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of
tyrants and patriots."
- Thomas Jefferson
- Joseph Goebbels
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly... it must confine
itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
- Joseph Goebbels
"...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and
- Joseph Goebbels
"This war is a defensive war. It was forced upon us by our enemies, who wish to destroy our nation. The only thing we cannot afford to lose in
this war is our freedom, the foundation of our life and our future. No one has the right to complain about limitations on his personal freedom caused
by the war."
- Joseph Goebbels
"God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he [Hitler] was sent to us by God to save
- Hermann Göring
"No matter what human beings do I shall some day stand before the judgement seat of the Eternal. I shall answer to Him, and I know he will judge
- Rudolf Hess
"We believe that the Fuhrer is fulfilling a divine mission to German destiny! This belief is beyond challenge."
- Rudolf Hess
"With all our powers we will endeavour to be worthy of the Fuhrer thou, O Lord, has sent us!"
- Rudolf Hess
"You Einsatztruppen (task forces) are called upon to fulfill a repulsive duty. But you are soldiers who have to carry out every order
unconditionally. You have a responsibility before God and Hitler for everything that is happening. I myself hate this bloody business and I have
been moved to the depths of my soul. But I am obeying the highest law by doing my duty. Man must defend himself against bedbugs and rats-- against
- Heinrich Himmler
I ask for you to think about what these wise men have said and not let history repeat itself.
Indeed, IBM. Let's not
let history repeat itself.
[edit on 10-11-2004 by Durden]