The Iraq Thread 2

[denoir 0]

or that he ordered them to be moved or destroyed before he could use them

But then he was not a clear and present danger!

There are two possible situations:

1) He didn't have them in the first place when the war started

2) He had them but didn't use them and managed to somehow magically dispose of them before his country was overrun.

The fact that no WMD were used against the occupational forces. For comparison, I can guarantee you that USA would use all weapons at their disposal should the continental USA be invaded and the country being occupied.

Saddam didn't even use them for self defence. So you can either conclude that he did not want to use them or he did not have any to use. Either way it nullifies the pre-war claims that Iraq was an immidiate threat.

Condoleezza Rice: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a

mushroom cloud."

Don't you see how they manipulated the post-11/9 fears of the US population to sell a war to the public under completely false pretenses. They took the worst imaginable scenario and presented it as if it was a fact. And that's deception.

[booradley60 0]

Ebud, I know nothing I said can happen. All the angst in the world is rooted in cause and effect relationships that can never be resolved. I don't live in a Disney world. The only way for us to live in harmony is to either all be born with significant intelligence or for a single race to kill off everyone that is different. Neither will ever happen, and I totally understand that. I only presented that because THIS specific conflict could have been prevented through understanding. That this is true points to certain people having their own agendas and that's why I posted it to this thread. I understand also that fighting is sometime necessary but that is only in the face of unspeakable evil. (i.e. Adolf Hitler and his minions). Please understand that Central Alabama isn't Disneyland and I know the world is a bitch.

[Tamme 0]

denoir

Quote[/b] ]No, not Blix. His term was this latest one. During the previous UNMOVIC mission that ended with the withdrawal in 1998 the inspectors destroyed much more WMD than were destroyed during GW1.

The latest search for WMD started in january 2003. The coallition forces have all the data from the previous inspections which should do their job much easier.

The UN has been looking for these weapons since the end of the last gulf war.

If the UN has been looking for the WMDs for so long, why didn't they find anything, and why haven't the coalition forces found anything!?

B E C A U S E   T H E R E   I S   N O T H I N G   T O   F I N D

[FSPilot 0]

turms

Quote[/b] ]IAEA has said that its not a smoking gun,are they biased?

I didn't say it was a smoking gun.

denoir

Quote[/b] ]But then he was not a clear and present danger!

There are two possible situations:

1) He didn't have them in the first place when the war started

2) He had them but didn't use them and managed to somehow magically dispose of them before his country was overrun.

As far as we knew he was a clear and present danger. If he did destroy them I don't think he would of done it in secret.

Quote[/b] ]The fact that no WMD were used against the occupational forces. For comparison, I can guarantee you that USA would use all weapons at their disposal should the continental USA be invaded and the country being occupied.

I doubt the US would use chemical or nuclear weapons on our own soil. Personal opinion, I hope it'll never come up.

Quote[/b] ]Saddam didn't even use them for self defence. So you can either conclude that he did not want to use them or he did not have any to use. Either way it nullifies the pre-war claims that Iraq was an immidiate threat.

I disagree. It was never a threat that Saddam would use them in a force on force war with the US. Everyone knows we would shoot back with chemicals and he would lose. The threat was that they would be handed to a terrorist, which could easilly be the explanation.

[ralphwiggum 6]

denoir

Quote[/b] ]But then he was not a clear and present danger!

There are two possible situations:

1) He didn't have them in the first place when the war started

2) He had them but didn't use them and managed to somehow magically dispose of them before his country was overrun.

As far as we knew he was a clear and present danger.  If he did destroy them I don't think he would of done it in secret.

"as far as we knew". that says it all. the intelligence gathered to make that conclusion was false, thus indicating that the argument for war was not sound.

Hussein was adamant about his WMD stockpile and any open destruction before pre-GW2 UN inspectors would have political implications of him surrendering to UN, which he would not accept. unfortunately, CIA fucked the inspection with planting bugs all over Iraq, and that was 1996. so basically, for 6 years UN would not be able to inspect thanx to the good old USA messing with the UN inspection team.

now that war is over, where is WMD? UN Inspectors were happy to get info from US, which we never provided, and still isn't able to provide evidence of any kinds.

Quote[/b] ]The threat was that they would be handed to a terrorist, which could easilly be the explanation.

which happened as US went in and guarding of supposed WMDs were absent, thus creating looter's haven. There has been no proof that Iraq sold WMDs to terrorist groups, and since you say that the clear and present danger was Iraq selling WMD to terrorists groups, the purchase from an Africa nation for use of Iraq is an irrelevant assumption that cannot support TBA's stance.

[Tamme 0]

Quote[/b] ]The fact that no WMD were used against the occupational forces. For comparison, I can guarantee you that USA would use all weapons at their disposal should the continental USA be invaded and the country being occupied.

I doubt the US would use chemical or nuclear weapons on our own soil.  Personal opinion, I hope it'll never come up.

Bush has clearly stated that if USA feels threatened, they will use nukes.

[theavonlady 2]

Bush has clearly stated that if USA feels threatened, they will use nukes.

Could we have a clear quote to that clear statement? Under exactly what circumstances?

[Harnu 0]

Quote[/b] ]The fact that no WMD were used against the occupational forces. For comparison, I can guarantee you that USA would use all weapons at their disposal should the continental USA be invaded and the country being occupied.

I doubt the US would use chemical or nuclear weapons on our own soil.  Personal opinion, I hope it'll never come up.

Bush has clearly stated that if USA feels threatened, they will use nukes.

Who? What? Where? When? Huh?

[FSPilot 0]

RalphWiggum

Quote[/b] ]"as far as we knew". that says it all. the intelligence gathered to make that conclusion was false, thus indicating that the argument for war was not sound.

That's heresay too. One shred of the piles of evidence the US put forth has been brought into question. All of it was not false.

Quote[/b] ]Hussein was adamant about his WMD stockpile and any open destruction before pre-GW2 UN inspectors would have political implications of him surrendering to UN, which he would not accept. unfortunately, CIA fucked the inspection with planting bugs all over Iraq, and that was 1996. so basically, for 6 years UN would not be able to inspect thanx to the good old USA messing with the UN inspection team.

Source? If I remember right it was Iraq that bugged the inspector's rooms and generally got in their way a lot.

Quote[/b] ]now that war is over, where is WMD? UN Inspectors were happy to get info from US, which we never provided, and still isn't able to provide evidence of any kinds.

Give them 12 years.

Tamme

Quote[/b] ]Bush has clearly stated that if USA feels threatened, they will use nukes.

I think he was referring to Iraq.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]The fact that no WMD were used against the occupational forces. For comparison, I can guarantee you that USA would use all weapons at their disposal should the continental USA be invaded and the country being occupied.

I doubt the US would use chemical or nuclear weapons on our own soil.  Personal opinion, I hope it'll never come up.

Bush has clearly stated that if USA feels threatened, they will use nukes.

Who? What? Where? When? Huh?

in case the enemy resorts to chemical warfare or nuclear weapons, US will reply with equal force. This has been, is, and will be US's position.

[NurEinMensch 0]

I didn't say it was a smoking gun.

So what was it? A rather unimportant piece of information, mentioned on like page 247 in the report? Or was it importand prove of Iraq being a threat aka smoking gun?

If it wasn't importand then mentioning it in the orally report would blow it out of proportion. Im sure the the hawks wouldn't mind tho.

Quote[/b] ]As far as we knew he was a clear and present danger. If he did destroy them I don't think he would of done it in secret.

You're confusing knowledge and speculation. Again. If you knew he was a clear and present threat you also knew _what_ he had and _where_ he had hidden it. Since nothing has been found yet it's safe to assume you did _not_ know where it was. So how can you claim you knew he was a clear and present danger?

Quote[/b] ]I disagree. It was never a threat that Saddam would use them in a force on force war with the US. Everyone knows we would shoot back with chemicals and he would lose. The threat was that they would be handed to a terrorist, which could easilly be the explanation.

Better check your own WMD labs. Remember the anthrax letters?

[FSPilot 0]

NurEinMensch

Quote[/b] ]So what was it? A rather unimportant piece of information, mentioned on like page 247 in the report? Or was it importand prove of Iraq being a threat aka smoking gun?

If it wasn't importand then mentioning it in the orally report would blow it out of proportion. Im sure the the hawks wouldn't mind tho.

Let me know when you get back from planet tangent. I was nitpicking denoir, trying to make a joke.

Quote[/b] ]You're confusing knowledge and speculation. Again. If you knew he was a clear and present threat you also knew _what_ he had and _where_ he had hidden it. Since nothing has been found yet it's safe to assume you did _not_ know where it was. So how can you claim you knew he was a clear and present danger?

Uh, no. We know he had them (hell, we gave them to him), we just didn't know where he was keeping them.

Quote[/b] ]Better check your own WMD labs. Remember the anthrax letters?

What? That happened almost a year before this war started. And we still don't know where that stuff came from.

[Crazysheep 1]

As far as we knew he was a clear and present danger.  If he did destroy them I don't think he would of done it in secret.

*sighs*

This is going nowhere. FSPilot, I have already told you, several times, that they were not destroyed in secret-it was in 1997 and it was on the news.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Quote

Better check your own WMD labs. Remember the anthrax letters?

What?  That happened almost a year before this war started.  And we still don't know where that stuff came from.

It's been proven that the anthrax was home-grown, ie made in American labs. It's that simple.

Quote[/b] ]Quote

You're confusing knowledge and speculation. Again. If you knew he was a clear and present threat you also knew _what_ he had and _where_ he had hidden it. Since nothing has been found yet it's safe to assume you did _not_ know where it was. So how can you claim you knew he was a clear and present danger?

Uh, no.  We know he had them (hell, we gave them to him), we just didn't know where he was keeping them.

That's not what W, Powell, and the "intelligence apparatus" said. They claimed they knew exactly where they were, but refused to share the information. Are we sure they had information? Remember the Powell Report? Lotsa nice pictures, drawings, and sat pics of "WMD sites" and "WMD vehicles." Those sites have mostly been checked and nothing found.So where did they go? Presumbably if we knew they were there, we would also watch them to make sure that they weren't moved. Seems logical eh? W and Crew duped most of the nation into this conflict, and for what benefit? Have you been benefited? Has the world been benefited? Has Iraq been benefited? Only by the slightest of margins right now.

Do research on WW1 and WW2 propoganda and draw the parallels. Watch the chain of events spread since his steppin' in. How are your rights doin'? Pick em up of the floor and ask. How that economy doin'? Notice that unmployment in some sectors haven't been this high since 1955. How are international relations doing? Step outside your room and find out. Go to international chat rooms, and boards (beyond this one).  Think about what and how they are teaching subjects in school.

One bumper sticker I saw sums it up pretty much for me:

(On a VW)

(A "W" with a circle and a line through it)

"Can we have our country back now?"

Or a popular one around these parts:

"Bush is a punk ass chump"

Quote[/b] ]Quote

"as far as we knew". that says it all. the intelligence gathered to make that conclusion was false, thus indicating that the argument for war was not sound.

That's heresay too.  One shred of the piles of evidence the US put forth has been brought into question.  All of it was not false.

And that is the problem. It's not ONE shred. Its a series of blunders, mistakes, and out-right lies. Do you really think that anyone would let the President stand up and make false claims that would undoubtedly come back to smack him? A far more plausible excuse is it was ignored. Ignored because it didn't fit the needed agenda. What you are seeing now is "plausible deniability." Tenet is the fall guy. He will most likely be kicked out so that a more "Hoover-esque" lackey can be installed.

This very fact that one claim was false brings every other claim under scrutiny. If this one is false, is there not a possibility that other claims made are false? This assumption gains strength each day nothing is found.

I know the 12 years of previous UN inspections will be brought up again, so I might as well address it.

UN has 12 years and destroys a large portion of Iraq's WMD (documented). 1998 inspectors are kicked out because the US sticks their big ass thumb in there. 4 or so years pass. Do you really think that Iraq retained the capability to rebuild and distribute MORE weapons? This is DURING heavy sanctions remember. To rebuild and begin producing WMDs from almost nothign takes not only great resources, but lots of ACTIVITY. Why was nothing mentioned? Or noticed? Or any evidence presented?

As Denoir stated, there are 2 possibilites:

1. Iraq had them and didn't use them (destroying C&P Danger)

2. Iraq never had them (still destorying the US claim for war........but Bush continues dragging the US into a costly, in more ways then one, unnecessary war).

The US doesn't have 12 years. Thanks to this brain-child, the burden of proof is now on us, and we're lookin' like jackasses each time we scream WMD and nothing turns up. Now not only do we have to prove that this war was justified, but we have to rebuild a country while we are at it. Good idea anyone? i think not.

Quote[/b] ]Quote (Tamme @ July 14 2003,21:58)

Bush has clearly stated that if USA feels threatened, they will use nukes.

Could we have a clear quote to that clear statement? Under exactly what circumstances?

It's standard US policy that any WMD or Nuke used against the US, an allied country, US troops, or allied troops will be answered in kind, with overwhelming force.

Now whether they would be used on our own soil is a tough question that has been debated. Nukes probably not (presumably you want to re-settle land you win back), chemical probably. Biological? Too risky I would say.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

As far as we knew he was a clear and present danger.  If he did destroy them I don't think he would of done it in secret.

*sighs*

This is going nowhere.

I wish I got a dollar every time someone said this to FS

[FSPilot 0]

Crazysheep

Quote[/b] ]This is going nowhere. FSPilot, I have already told you, several times, that they were not destroyed in secret-it was in 1997 and it was on the news.

Link?

edit - hold on, 2 people somehow managed to post in the 4 seconds it took me to type "Link?"  

Akira

Quote[/b] ]It's been proven that the anthrax was home-grown, ie made in American labs. It's that simple.

Link? (to those who haven't caught on yet, I'm not just going to take your word for it, provide a link)

As for the rest of your post, I've seen news on one shred out of the pile of evidence being questioned, that's all. until you provide a link to a non-biased source i'm done talking with you about this.

tex

Quote[/b] ]I wish I got a dollar every time someone said this to FS

I wish I had a dollar every time you made some useless and off-topic post.

[Longinius 1]

I found one link regarding anthrax letters for you, FS.

http://aztlan.net/zack.htm

You know, I find it strange that you chose to miss certain things, just for people to provide you links as proof. This was all over the news, and even dicussed on this very forum. Yet, you managed to miss it? Hmm, wonder how much other info you chose not to notice...

[FSPilot 0]

You call that unbiased!?

Quote[/b] ]Dr. Ayaad Assaad almost became a patsy for evil Zionists

Quote[/b] ](under a picture of a US lab's sign)

U.S. Army's "deadly pathogen" lab controlled by Zionists

This is a very biased site and the fact that you're trying to pass it off as reliable makes me wonder if I should even be listening to you.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Akira

Quote

It's been proven that the anthrax was home-grown, ie made in American labs. It's that simple.

Link? (to those who haven't caught on yet, I'm not just going to take your word for it, provide a link)

Alright you asked for it (even though this has been discussed before):

Antrax Identical To Army Germs

FBI Thinks "Inside" Job

Notice it is the FBI. Are they unbiased?

Analysis Of The Attacks

I hope that is enough. As for others:

Link1

Link2

Link3

This is an interesting one. Remember that the British intel report was a plagerized graduate student report? FSPilot: "PROOF!"

British Report

Everyone loves CNN

Link4

Reuters...UNBIASED

Why would the House be looking at the "proof" if everyone was thinking.."Oh its just ONE mistake. I'm sure there's not more."

Open your mind and think and question.

Bush ain't good for this country.

[FSPilot 0]

Finally we're getting somewhere

Akira

Quote[/b] ]Alright you asked for it (even though this has been discussed before):

Antrax Identical To Army Germs

FBI Thinks "Inside" Job

Notice it is the FBI. Are they unbiased?

Analysis Of The Attacks

I hope that is enough. As for others:

None of those prove that it was a US military attack ordered by the president, which is what we were talking about. And did you really think I would accept the "World Socialist Website" as unbiased?

Quote[/b] ]

Link1

Link2

Link3

This is an interesting one. Remember that the British intel report was a plagerized graduate student report? FSPilot: "PROOF!"

I thought this was interesting from link 3

Quote[/b] ]But the White House said last week the claim was based on forged documents and should have been left out of the speech.

Why would the white house poke a hole in the British case on WMDs if they wanted to mislead everyone about it?

Anyway, the links you gave suggest things, but don't prove things. I like the way when the US accuses someone of having WMDs you throw a fit over a lack of evidence, but when someone accuses the US of using bad evidence you accept it without any evidence.

Quote[/b] ]British Report

Everyone loves CNN

Link4

Reuters...UNBIASED

Why would the House be looking at the "proof" if everyone was thinking.."Oh its just ONE mistake. I'm sure there's not more."

Why is everyone thinking the US was lying when it's investigating it's own allies?

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]"as far as we knew". that says it all. the intelligence gathered to make that conclusion was false, thus indicating that the argument for war was not sound.

That's heresay too. One shred of the piles of evidence the US put forth has been brought into question. All of it was not false.

NOt to mention that most of evidence are hearsays from dissidents who might have intenetion of claiming something out of proportion. and i don't know what you've been upto, but Whitehouse publicaly said, that the Nigerian uranium claim should have been left out, meaning they FUCKED up.

welcome to a new world FS. you are found guilty unless you are proven innocent. why do you think US has a good legal system? because Benjamin Franklin said that it's better to have 1 good solid case and put a crook in jail than to make hasty statements and send innocent man to jail.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Hussein was adamant about his WMD stockpile and any open destruction before pre-GW2 UN inspectors would have political implications of him surrendering to UN, which he would not accept. unfortunately, CIA fucked the inspection with planting bugs all over Iraq, and that was 1996. so basically, for 6 years UN would not be able to inspect thanx to the good old USA messing with the UN inspection team.

Source? If I remember right it was Iraq that bugged the inspector's rooms and generally got in their way a lot.

Source for your claim that Iraq was bugging?

I got several for mine

one

second

Quote[/b] ]Ritter also apparently shared information on documents he said he gave to Washington officials or presented at international conferences.

When Ritter resigned, a spokesman for the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM), his agency, said Ritter was free to talk but not to disclose documents.

three

Quote[/b] ]The White House refused to confirm or deny the report that the United States planted spies in UNSCOM and carried out the infiltration for three years while keeping U.N. officials in the dark.

Knowledgeable sources confirm there was a U.S. military intelligence operative -- an engineer who repeatedly went into Iraq in 1995 and 1996 with a team using the cover of U.N. identity papers.

The engineer clashed with senior U.N. officials, sources say, because he refused to tell them what he was doing to their equipment.

When asked about the newspaper report, White House spokesman David Leavy said Washington provided technical assistance to UNSCOM.

But he refused to comment directly on the newspaper's report that U.S. agents rigged UNSCOM equipment and office space -- without permission -- to intercept Iraqi military communications between commanders and forces in the field.

<snip>

The Post report follows a February 23 story in The New York Times citing galley proofs of a forthcoming book by former arms inspector Scott Ritter as saying he knew of CIA operatives being placed on U.N. inspection teams.

four

five

Quote[/b] ]"The guilt can be spread fairly evenly across the board," Ritter said in an interactive chat this week on CNN Interactive. "The United Nations Security Council should be held accountable for passing a law and not enforcing it," he said. "Its members, specifically Russia, France and China, should be held accountable for putting their own narrow economic self-interests ahead of the disarmament requirement. And the United States should be held accountable for perverting the weapons inspection process for its own narrow objective of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. There's plenty of blame for everybody."

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]now that war is over, where is WMD? UN Inspectors were happy to get info from US, which we never provided, and still isn't able to provide evidence of any kinds.

Give them 12 years.

actually 8 at most. we had the chance, and we blew it.

[Akira 0]

By your rational, the only thing that can "prove" (by your standards) anything is if you were there and witnessed the whole thing.

That ain't gonna happen. Ever. For ANYTHING. Thats why you have that meaty thing in your noogin. Start using it.

So stop relying on just news and start to think about the way the world works for yourself. The US is not in shining armor.

[ralphwiggum 6]

I thought this was interesting from link 3

Quote[/b] ]But the White House said last week the claim was based on forged documents and should have been left out of the speech.

Why would the white house poke a hole in the British case on WMDs if they wanted to mislead everyone about it?

why would Whitehouse use foreign intel?

1. CIA had no intel

2. Better to blame others than yourself.

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, the links you gave suggest things, but don't prove things. I like the way when the US accuses someone of having WMDs you throw a fit over a lack of evidence, but when someone accuses the US of using bad evidence you accept it without any evidence.

the argument was based on flase facts. how straight forward is that?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

tex

Quote[/b] ]I wish I got a dollar every time someone said this to FS

I wish I had a dollar every time you made some useless and off-topic post.

Offtopic? Maybe. Useless? Rarely. Would you like a source for that too? Besides, where do you think you are?

[Akira 0]

@ July 14 2003,23:04)]

tex

Quote[/b] ]I wish I got a dollar every time someone said this to FS

I wish I had a dollar every time you made some useless and off-topic post.

Offtopic? Maybe. Useless? Rarely. Would you like a source for that too? Besides, where do you think you are?

lol

EDIT: I'm off. Good luck to everyone else...hehe. I'm goin' back to school! WOO HOO!