Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Inspectors Conclude No WMD In Iraq  
User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1981 times:

i am already looking forward to the torrent of excuses and flip flopping from the right wing (you know those guys that say kerry is unfit for command because of just that)


Inspectors conclude no WMD in Iraq
The Iraq Survey Group will report that Saddam Hussein had no banned weapons before the US-led invasion.
link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm

[Edited 2004-10-06 16:23:58]


10=2
74 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1945 times:

Zak!

How dare you say such stupidities! Everyone knows thousands of shells with Sarin have been found by 'our' good friends the Poles! And everyone also knows there's still tonns of WMD's burried in the Iraqi desert.

And how dare you include a link to an article which actually backs-up your statement. That is simply Not Done! You know very well that discussions on this board are limitted to the O'Reilly Factor Spin Free standards?


/sarcasm



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1938 times:

You know that if the Virgin Mary herself came down and told Republicans that there were no WMDs, they'd a. insist that she was on Dan Rather's pay roll; or b. What WMDs? We didnt go to war for WMDs.

And Karl Rove would start a new group called "Real Virgins for truth against the Virgin Mary."


User currently offlineScotty From UK - Scotland, joined Dec 1999, 1875 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1933 times:

What a surprise. So will Tony Blair now resign??

User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

>>>And Karl Rove would start a new group called "Real Virgins for truth against the Virgin Mary."<<<

Would Kerry vote, Yes, to that as well?

"I voted yes before I actually checked the hyman".



You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1908 times:

@Schoenorama

i must have been intoxicated or something, i can not explain how such a mishap could have happened! i guess i will go watch the NO SPIN ZONE now to learn from the bold journalists at foxnews!



10=2
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1893 times:

US government officials told the New York Times the report would include new evidence that Saddam Hussein had plans to break UN-imposed sanctions and renew the production of banned weapons.

'nuff said.



User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1891 times:

I won't believe it.......but no, it's not because I'm a Republican/conservative, it's because it doesn't make sense:

How can they "conclude" that there's no WMD in Iraq? Have they searched every square inch, underground as well? No. Not good enough to conclude anything, but just to assume.

I believe it could take several more years for something to turn up, I mean, they could have lots of shit buried out in the desert for all we know.

I have my doubts about WMD in Iraq, but I won't be so ignorant to "conclude" that there are no WMDs, just because they haven't turned up yet.

I'm willing to let the search continue for many many more years, before I draw any conclusions.



-NWA742


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1888 times:

"US government officials told the New York Times the report would include new evidence that Saddam Hussein had plans to break UN-imposed sanctions and renew the production of banned weapons."

Aaah, yes.
Those "US Government officials" whose doodie we have come to know and trust over the past 4 years.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1883 times:

Aaah, yes.
Those "US Government officials" whose doodie we have come to know and trust over the past 4 years.


Ah yes... The same Officials releasing the report which says no WMDs.


User currently offlineFLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4980 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1879 times:

NWA742,

I suggest you go to Iraq, and conclude for yourself. Perhaps you can search through every inch of the country to find WMD.

Of course you wont, your just in denial, like 99.9% of other conservatives on this planet, who will defend their leaders at every cost.




User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1874 times:

YUL... While you're gleefully glossing over the headline, you fail to read the rest of the information which is in the report.

User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 12, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1875 times:

>>>Of course you wont, your just in denial,<<<

FLYYUL, denial flows thru Egypt.



You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1864 times:

"Report: Saddam Not in Pursuit of Weapons

(AP) - Undercutting the Bush's administration's rationale for invading Iraq, the final report of the chief U.S. arms inspector concludes that Saddam Husseindid not vigorously pursue a program to develop weapons of mass destruction when international inspectors left Baghdad in 1998, an administration official said Wednesday. In drafts, weapons hunter Charles Duelfer concluded that Saddam's Iraq had no stockpiles of the banned weapons but said he found signs of idle programs that Saddam could have revived once international attention waned."


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20041006/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_13

Not only didn't Saddam have any WMD's as this Administration claimed, another Neocon claim about Saddam pursuing WMD's has also been debunked.



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1860 times:

"Ah yes... The same Officials releasing the report which says no WMDs."

Aaah.

The boy needs glasses.

The ISG has NOT reported that Saddam Hussein planned new WMDs. Its those mysterious "US officials" (quote, unquote "The officials, speaking anonymously") and their English lap dog, Jack Straw are baying that it would.

Don't misquote the article. You wouldn't if you had read it properly.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1851 times:

Read:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/

The whole article.


User currently offlineCommander_Rabb From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 771 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1849 times:

OK. No WMD? So kill us Americans for being wrong. That would make people happy no less. It seems that would placate many of you.

Saving grace is, that Saddam who had them before, will never have them again. Thank you very much.

Do we at least get any "points" for that? Oh yeah, "we all agree that Saddam should be gone...yada yada yada..."

Sheesh.

Signed,

17 U.N. Resolutions











User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13597 posts, RR: 61
Reply 17, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1843 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

From the linked article above:

President Bush’s election rival, Democrat John Kerry, pounced on Bremer’s statements that the United States “paid a big price” for having insufficient troop levels. On weapons, however, the Massachusetts senator has said he still would have voted to authorize the invasion even if he had known none would be found.



Wait, I thought Senator Kerry (and Senator Edwards last night) have repeatedly said that Saddam didn't attack us, though - implying there was no reason to invade?

So they want it both ways, then?  Nuts



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineFLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4980 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

Ok.

So lets go, round up the troops and the deficits, and invade north korea and Iran will ya.... theyve got more deadly nukes and damage potential than Iraq, but I dont see anything about these guys.

O-I-L -> huile -> Oilio


User currently offlineCommander_Rabb From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 771 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1839 times:

So lets go, round up the troops and the deficits, and invade north korea and Iran will ya

Actually France, Germany, Canada, and a few other E.U. puppets will do that.

Must the U.S. do everything?  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13206 posts, RR: 77
Reply 20, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1831 times:

What? Invade someone who could put up a fight? Heaven forbid.

DPRK would lose, but take a lot of US troops and others besides, with them.

Be a crap war for TV too, those 'embedded' FOX 'reporters' would stay firmly in the US for a start.
Plus Kim didn't try to 'kill ma Daddy' but the've long term terrorist links and a potential supplier of WMD materials to people who should not have access to such things.


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13597 posts, RR: 61
Reply 21, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1828 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There's a big difference in how you deal with someone who is WORKING on nuclear weapons vs. someone who HAS them.


"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1821 times:

Why Thank you, 7E7.

Isn't this the same mysterious US official Charles Duelfer who proclaimed back in 2001 that a. Saddam had WMDs; and b. that he was developing his WMDs pro-actively.

Were Mr. Duelfer not such a partisan hack appointed by the Bush admin. and if he weren't desperately trying to protect his own back-up arguments, he would have some more credibility. His report is full of references to factories producing phenol and chlorine and other chemicals. One example: An agricultural center developing pesticides. However, there is no evidence that the factory produced anything other than pesticides.

This is just more political spin. Duerfer has been saying "INTENT" desperately for the past year to protect his own foolish proclamations about confirmed WMDs back in 2001.


User currently offlineCommander_Rabb From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 771 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1821 times:

There's a big difference in how you deal with someone who is WORKING on nuclear weapons vs. someone who HAS them.

That is a very intelligent statement. One of the best I have heard on this forum. I am sure it might be hard for armchair world leaders sitting at home enjoying a coke to understand that. But give it a try.  Smile


User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1798 times:

Commander_Rabb wrote:

"Actually France, Germany, Canada, and a few other E.U. puppets will do that."

Uh, damn! Thanks for the info, I didn't know Canada has joined the EU! Thank god we have the Commander here...  Laugh out loud


Regards
Udo


25 Jaysit : "There's a big difference in how you deal with someone who is WORKING on nuclear weapons vs. someone who HAS them." But the confused Darfeur report, t
26 EA CO AS : "There's a big difference in how you deal with someone who is WORKING on nuclear weapons vs. someone who HAS them." But the confused Darfeur report, t
27 Jasepl : EA CO AS, come on. Even George Bush knows the answer to that! It's called oil.
28 L-188 : Doesn't matter. The UN never would have been able to conclude that without the invasion. Saddam never allowed the access, which was in violation of th
29 Post contains images JeffM : Wow, I guess John Kerry is wrong again. He did say Iraq had WMDs like everyone else, before he said they didn't. Hmmmmmmmm....... and so does his ambu
30 Udo : UN resolutions as an excuse...how hypocritical. What about all the ignored UN resolutions by USA's best buddy, Israel?
31 Commander_Rabb : UN resolutions as an excuse...how hypocritical. What about all the ignored UN resolutions by USA's best buddy, Israel? Israel and their "Ignored" reso
32 Post contains images EA CO AS : EA CO AS, come on. Even George Bush knows the answer to that! It's called oil. You mean that oil that we're now seeing at $51.00/bbl on the open marke
33 Jaysit : "Doesn't matter. The UN never would have been able to conclude that without the invasion." LOL. But it did. In 700 inspections across Iraq, beginning
34 JeffM : "..did we just invade the easy one with all the OIL? where IS all that oil then "Mr. Brainsurgeon" ? Not here. "..In 700 inspections across Iraq, .."
35 Commander_Rabb : So Jay, are you ready to trot off to war with Iran? You seem so by your statements. Or shall we wait for clearance from the U.N. and other similar lik
36 EA CO AS : Did we invade the wrong I-country? Or did we just invade the easy one with all the OIL? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Iran sit on huge petroleu
37 Jaysit : "Need I go on, or are you still unclear about the huge differences between Iran and Iraq and why they're handled differently?" Because Iran wasn't a p
38 EA CO AS : "Also, Iran hasn't: - repeatedly violated terms of a cease-fire agreement with it - fired on U.S. warplanes patrolling its airspace in accordance with
39 Jasepl : You mean that oil that we're now seeing at $51.00/bbl on the open market? Seems to me that prices go DOWN when supplies go up...... Even Alpha 1 - who
40 Jaysit : "Or are you suggesting that they are not worth acting on since they don't fit your agenda of criticizing the President in hopes of removing him from o
41 Jaysit : "You mean that oil that we're now seeing at $51.00/bbl on the open market? Seems to me that prices go DOWN when supplies go up...... Even Alpha 1 - wh
42 EA CO AS : What is it that sets Iraq apart from several other countries that warranted so much special attention? Iraq was violating terms of a cease-fire agreem
43 Jasepl : Can you think of any other nations on the planet that fit this bill? I sure can't. There's a fair few that do fit at least part of the bill. And unles
44 Jaysit : A comment on the bbc website sums it up perfectly "Saddam Hussein may be guilty of a number of dreadful things, but thought crime - is this a new lega
45 Jarek : Question to you though - are you seriously suggesting that any reasons OTHER than fears of WMD production are invalid ones for going to war? EA CO AS
46 Airplay : 17 U.N. Resolutions Make up your mind America. Do you or do you not care what the UN says?
47 Jasepl : Whatever it is that anyone's suggesting, both Parliament and Congress voted on and sanctioned the invasion of Iraq on the premise and promise that it
48 EA CO AS : Were those the only reasons we went in. No. Far from it, in fact. The biggest reason? WMDs and the thought that Saddam had or was producing them. Faul
49 Jaysit : "But again, Bush-haters will do whatever they can to overlook the other reasons or declare them invalid." Spare us the bull. A majority of Americans,
50 Post contains links Schoenorama : EA CO AS: "Iraq was violating terms of a cease-fire agreement they'd signed in 1991" Iraq was repeatedly violating terms of U.N. resolutions against i
51 B757300 : "When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for." -Bill Clinton on Larry King Live July, 2003
52 Jaysit : Good job, 757300. And you do all this extensive research for the GOP. For free. On A.net (????). AND you highlight and bold phrases! However, if the a
53 Post contains images EA CO AS : political toadies who were either bamboozled by the President's call to war So John Kerry and John Edwards - your party's standard-bearers - are polit
54 Jaysit : "So John Kerry and John Edwards - your party's standard-bearers - are political toadies?" Not toadies - Political whores. Isn't that what all politici
55 Iakobos : Can someone tell me what is the point in trying to push some fellows to admit publicly that they were wrong ? Many have been engaged so deeply that th
56 Post contains images Tbar220 : This is a case of "shoot first, ask question later". And now we have over 1000 American soldiers dead, 15,000 Iraqi civilians dead, the whole middle e
57 Vafi88 : How can they "conclude" that there's no WMD in Iraq? Have they searched every square inch, underground as well? They can conclude it, because we didn'
58 Boeing7E7 : Isn't this the same mysterious US official Charles Duelfer who proclaimed back in 2001 that a. Saddam had WMDs; and b. that he was developing his WMDs
59 Jasepl : Or GWB? A political whore, an IQ-challenged idiot, AND a duplicitous liar who who can't stop lying, let alone apologize to Congress, the US, and the w
60 Dc10guy : No "WMD" but plenty of oil .... Thier oil is exactly why Dubya invaded.
61 Boeing7E7 : Yeah DC-10. At $51 a barrel he sure found a ocean of it.
62 Udo : GWB went for oil in Iraq but with all the chaos he has caused his plan surprisingly (for him and his crowd) failed...other than expected oil is not ch
63 Boeing7E7 : GWB went for oil in Iraq but with all the chaos he has caused his plan surprisingly (for him and his crowd) failed...other than expected oil is not ch
64 Udo : I see. So, there's just some minor instability with dozens of killed people every day in one of largest oil rich countries... It's not the only reason
65 Banco : As for Blair - I don't think he apologised either. I believe he plain refused when asked to. Just as many doubted the doctors would even find a heart
66 Jasepl : Banco, I'll reply to your last post in a bit, but first this: George Bush has just said, and I quote: "America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in p
67 Post contains links B757300 : If anyone remembers, I predicted over a year ago that one possibility was that Saddam did not have any stockpiles but instead has an elaborate web of
68 Iakobos : B757300, (Why else would they have issued their own men protective clothing and antidotes in case they were accidentally exposed?) Please review your
69 Boeing7E7 : Hillary, Chirac, Patty Murray, Al Gore, Sherri Lewis and Lambchop and whoever else are not the President of the United States. If they were, and if th
70 B757300 : Those senators vote to authorize the use of military force and also to fund military operations. If they really believed otherwise, they could have vo
71 Post contains images Falcon84 : How can they "conclude" that there's no WMD in Iraq? Gee, I don't know, maybe it's because NONE HAVE BEEN FOUND? Doesn't take a genius to figure that
72 Commander_Rabb : GWB went for oil in Iraq but with all the chaos he has caused his plan surprisingly (for him and his crowd) failed...other than expected oil is not ch
73 Techrep : Zak i am already looking forward to the torrent of excuses and flip flopping from the right wing (you know those guys that say kerry is unfit for comm
74 Techrep : Can any Demo's, who actualy understand Kerry's position, care to shed some light on why Kerry made that statement? "Without question, we need to disar
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why They Don't Find WMD In Iraq posted Thu Jul 3 2003 11:03:54 by NoUFO
CIA’s Final Report: No WMD Found In Iraq posted Tue Apr 26 2005 22:14:18 by Tbar220
No More Insurgents In Iraq! posted Wed Nov 30 2005 18:35:40 by Texan
Iraq Had No WMD? posted Sat Nov 12 2005 16:40:33 by OttoPylit
UK Inquiry Reveals Iraq Had No WMD posted Wed Jul 14 2004 15:42:12 by Go Canada!
No Banned Arms Found In Iraq posted Thu Sep 25 2003 16:25:19 by Qb001
WMD Have Been Found In Iraq! posted Fri Apr 11 2003 02:27:41 by I LOVE EWR
Inspectors Find Weapons IN Iraq posted Thu Jan 16 2003 13:58:28 by Ryanb741
Have We Reached True Civil War In Iraq? posted Fri Nov 24 2006 20:36:10 by Falcon84
Is Bledsoe The Biggest No-load In The NFL? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 02:00:15 by Jetjack74