The Iraq Thread

[Bernadotte 0]

Here is a list of recent statements made by UNMOVIC to the SC regarding Iraq.  It's a good read for anyone questioning the need for all this pressure on Iraq.  I wish some of the journalists at Iraqi press conferences would ask about the concerns expressed under the sub-headings Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons and Missiles.

Today Iraq told Blix that they will assemble teams to scour the land in search of the missing materials and documents.  I suspect that the week ahead will see plenty of "breaking news" events where Iraqi representatives, with hand clasping forehead, tell the world, "Oh my god look what we've just found."

[Guest]

About the 8500 liters of missing anthrax. Former UN inspector Scott Ritter pointed out that Blix failed to mention that that anthrax becomes unusable three years after production, especially if it is in liquid form as the Iraqi one.

He said also that the same goes for chemical weapons, that those that were manufactured between 1993 and 1998 were of so bad quality that they would be worthless today, even if Iraq hid them from the inspectors.

Source: Dagens Nyheter

btw. On the topic of Scott Ritter. This is from two weeks ago:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Former UN Weapons inspector Scott Ritter has cancelled his trip to Iraq following recent reports that he had been arrested in an Internet sex sting. He admitted to the 2001 arrest. The charges were later dropped and the records were sealed. Ritter, who lives near Albany and recently spoke at Binghamton University as a critic of the Bush Administration's stance on Iraq, was supposed to meet with the Iraqi Government about ways to avoid a war with the US.

<span id='postcolor'>

What a conincidence, ey?

Somebody leaks sealed court records of Scott Ritter - the most credible and expert critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy - from a misdemeanor charge two years ago to every major media outlet.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 10 2003,04:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I suspect that the week ahead will see plenty of "breaking news" events where Iraqi representatives, with hand clasping forehead, tell the world, "Oh my god look what we've just found."<span id='postcolor'>

I really hope that stuff doesn't fly with the UN. If he didn't submit it in that 12,200 page report, even though it's full of holes and lacks a lot, then it's an illegal weapon and we should respond like it is.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 10 2003,05:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">About the 8500 liters of missing anthrax. Former UN inspector Scott Ritter pointed out that Blix failed to mention that that anthrax becomes unusable three years after production, especially if it is in liquid form as the Iraqi one.

He said also that the same goes for chemical weapons, that those that were manufactured between 1993 and 1998 were of so bad quality that they would be worthless today, even if Iraq hid them from the inspectors.<span id='postcolor'>

yes, but if they had them they obviously had the capability to make them, or buy more. So what makes you think they didn't?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Somebody leaks sealed court records of Scott Ritter - the most credible and expert critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy - from a misdemeanor charge two years ago to every major media outlet.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not sure what you mean. You think someone in the Bush administration is flinging mud?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 10 2003,00:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 10 2003,05:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">About the 8500 liters of missing anthrax. Former UN inspector Scott Ritter pointed out that Blix failed to mention that that anthrax becomes unusable three years after production, especially if it is in liquid form as the Iraqi one.

He said also that the same goes for chemical weapons, that those that were manufactured between 1993 and 1998 were of so bad quality that they would be worthless today, even if Iraq hid them from the inspectors.<span id='postcolor'>

yes, but if they had them they obviously had the capability to make them, or buy more.  So what makes you think they didn't?<span id='postcolor'>

That anthrax was from 1989 and Iraq claims to have destroyed it in 1991. It's worthless now anyhow. The Iraqi chemical industry was largely destroyed in the war. The (previous) inspectors have also destroyed large stockpiles of weapons.

Yet those 8500 liters are still on the 'unaccounted stuff list' and Powell mentioned them in his speech. That's at it's best misguiding.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not sure what you mean.  You think someone in the Bush administration is flinging mud?<span id='postcolor'>

No shit Sherlock

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 10 2003,05:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That anthrax was from 1989 and Iraq claims to have destroyed in 1991. It's worthless now anyhow. The Iraqi chemical industry was largely destroyed in the war. The (previous) inspectors have also destroyed large stockpiles of weapons.<span id='postcolor'>

I heard that we missed a lot of the WMD targets during the first war. And yes the inspectors did destroy large amounts of weapons, but they also knew about some that they couldn't destroy.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No shit Sherlock <span id='postcolor'>

Just wanted to get it in writing.

[Guest]

North Dakota Found To Be Harboring Nuclear Missiles!

[FSPilot 0]

Where's North Dakota?

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 10 2003,01:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">North Dakota Found To Be Harboring Nuclear Missiles!<span id='postcolor'>

Tut tut, Denoir.

That's a repost from the same thread

Arent you reading carefully?

I love The Onion!  I like the Gulf War II one from last year.  

Ooooh...coool...smilies can be hot links!!

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 09 2003,18:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">About the 8500 liters of missing anthrax. Former UN inspector Scott Ritter pointed out that Blix failed to mention that that anthrax becomes unusable three years after production, especially if it is in liquid form as the Iraqi one.<span id='postcolor'>

If Anthrax is only useable for 3 years then why was Gruinard Island (Anthrax Island) declared unsafe from 1942(when they did the tests) to 1990?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The final WW II report on the Gruinard Island tests suggested anthrax could be used to render cities uninhabitable "for generations".<span id='postcolor'>

SOURCE

Scott Ritter quote from 1998 PBS TV interview...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ritter, does Iraq still have prescribed weapons?

Mr. Ritter: "Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability."

WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.

<span id='postcolor'>

But yet he says today they are no threat?  I question his credability just on the pure notion he has not remained consitant.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Feb. 10 2003,02:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If Anthrax is only useable for 3 years then why was Gruinard Island (Anthrax Island) declared unsafe from 1942(when they did the tests) to 1990?<span id='postcolor'>

Dried and weaponised Anthrax can remain potent for much longer than the Anthrax Iraq was capable of producing.  There's no evidence that Iraq ever had anything other than liquid Anthrax.

[FSPilot 0]

Whether or not the anthrax they had in 1998 is still potent is irrelevant. It's evidence to the fact that they were developing the chemical, and have provided no evidence that they've stopped and destroyed their facilities.

[brgnorway 0]

More news on Colin Powels evidence on chemical factories:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is no sign of chemical weapons anywhere - only the smell of paraffin and vegetable ghee used for cooking. In the kitchen, I discovered some chopped up tomatoes but not much else.

<span id='postcolor'>

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,892112,00.html

[Major Fubar 0]

Latest news, Collin Powell reveals more aerial surveillance:

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 10 2003,02:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">More news on Colin Powels evidence on chemical factories:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is no sign of chemical weapons anywhere - only the smell of paraffin and vegetable ghee used for cooking. In the kitchen, I discovered some chopped up tomatoes but not much else.

<span id='postcolor'>

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,892112,00.html<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, there is no possible way anything was cleaned up before reporters were invited either?  I am not sure which side has accurate facts on this specific matter but just because reporters saw nothing does not mean nothing is/was there.

[Guest]

Iraq suggested to Blix that they were willing to prove it by helping the UN drill into the ground at the suspected sites. That should prove if there has been any long term chemical production or not at the sites.

[FallenPaladin 0]

Well, that`s something!

But I guess it will of course not be enough for Pres. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld. Their next theory might be that the chemicals are developed and stored in Cessnas or other airplanes that constantly fly over Iraq ( ) and are refueled in the air. If the Iraqis possess facilities in train wagons and trucks, why not in airplanes?

I wonder I`ve not read something about chemicals stored in civilians fridges Damn, check the food, that`s left in Iraq

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Feb. 10 2003,15:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder I`ve not read something about chemicals stored in civilians fridges    Damn, check the food, that`s left in Iraq  <span id='postcolor'>

[Balschoiw 0]

latest background news:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">February 10, 2003: The unspoken reason for many Gulf states opposing the overthrowing Saddam Hussein is not any love for the current Iraqi government, but fear of what a democratically elected Iraqi government would do for their ability to control the Shiite minorities. Over sixty percent of Iraqis are Shias, and a fairly elected Iraqi government would be dominated by Shias. All the Arab Persian Gulf states have Shia minorities, and these minorities have been dumped on for centuries. If Iraq were run by Shias, the other Gulf states would have to deal with Shia minorities who could now call on overt, or covert, support from their "Shia brothers" in Iraq.

Shia Islam spilt off from Sunni Islam over a thousand years ago, and many Sunnis consider Shias heretics. This is what is preached openly in Saudi Arabia (although the government officially objects to this sort of thing, they won't take strong measures to stop it.) In practice, Shias are about as different from Sunnis as Roman Catholics are from Protestants. Shias are allowed to go on a Hadj pilgrimage to Mecca, but usually in separate groups, and with occasional violence between Shias and Sunnis. In Pakistan, Shia and Sunni extremists have been bombing and shooting each other for years. Iran is dominated by Shia clergy, many of whom openly call for administering a little attitude adjustment to Sunnis.

<span id='postcolor'>

The other side of the story. Now you maybe understand why a war on iraq could cause a lot of rumble in the whole region.

[FallenPaladin 0]

President Bush is unfortunately willing to light the spark, that will lead to the explosion down there. He will be able to "free" Iraq from Hussein and exchange him for a pro USA puppet, like Hamid Kharzei (don`t know right now, how he is spelled correctly) in Afghanistan, but then he`ll leave Iraq like it was left before in the last gulf war. A civil war would be the result, that would spread out over the whole region there.

An example for such behavior is what happened to the kurds in northern Iraq in the last gulf war. Many of them fought Hussein, because they believed in help from the USA, but then the USA withdrew their forces and they were defeated by Hussein`s troops. And now Bush expects the kurds to aid him in his private war...

Well, I guess he`ll be surprised, when many, many kurds refuse to help him, because they still remember what happened to them the last time when they believed in their liberators from the USA.

[Guest]

Actualy the Shi'a muslims are in majority in Iraq while the Sunni are in power.

Proportions: Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%

The Shi'as are not strangers to the idea of joining with Iran and Iran is no stranger to the idea of annexing a large part of Iraq.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">because they still remember what happened to them the last time when they believed in their liberators from the USA.

<span id='postcolor'>

Actually they have no chance for a separated state, the goal they are fighting for.

February 6, 2003: PUK leader Jalal Talabani told Turkish reporters that if Saddam Hussein falls there will be no independent Kurdistan. Here’s one of several interesting Talabani quotes: "The American Army will liberate us from the Iraqi dictatorship, and there will no longer be any question (for us) to secede." Talabani was in Ankara for a series of talks with the Turkish government. KDP leader Necirvan Barzani was also in Ankara for the same meetings as was a representative from Iraq’s “Turkmen†(ie, Turk) minority community.

Remember PUK is not PKK and Talibani is the name of the PUK leader

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 10 2003,16:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">... and Talibani is the name of the PUK leader  <span id='postcolor'>

If Bush reads Talibani in one of his dossiers I fear he`ll bomb this poor PUK leader.

Hope one of his advisors will be so smart to tell Mr. President the difference between a guy, whose name is Talibani, and the fundamentalists, that call themselves Taliban

[Guest]

Let's review the situation a bit:

The Kurds are fighting for a state of their own on a territory that is across Turkey, Iran and Iraq. Each of these countries fight the Kurds, who on occasion fight each other too. The Kudish PKK is also a notorious terrorist organization that does not hesitate to attack civilian targets. Iraq, Iran and Turkey often use Kurd separatists to fight other Kurd separatists.

Iran does not like Iraq and the feeling is mutual. Iran does however claim a large part of the Iraqi territory due to it's Shi'a muslim majority. The Shi'a muslims in Iraq would be more then willing to join Iran.

Turkey is a NATO member and as such has no big love for Iraq. They do share however the same problems relating the Kurd movements. Any change to the current status in one of them would affect the other.

Let me not get into the issue of Israel vs. the other Mid East states or the schizophrenic feelings for American money vs American ideology that the Arab states have.

There is a very fragile status-quo right now and only a madman would like to poke such a hornets' nest.

[Guest]

The death of NATO?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States will go ahead with plans to boost Turkey's defenses in advance of a possible war with Iraq despite objections from NATO allies France, Germany and Belgium, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday.

"The planning's going to go forward outside of NATO, if necessary," Rumsfeld said, appearing at a Pentagon briefing with visiting Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

...

<span id='postcolor'>