galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

Great Points About Iraq.

Sat Jun 21, 2003 10:17 pm

These are statements made about Iraq by The President Of the United States, they state the reason for removing Saddam.
"Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. "


and this is good too.

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability."




"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sat Jun 21, 2003 10:22 pm

Why is Bush using United Nation bodies in defence of the war? HE's made it clear he seems the UN as a mere irrelevance. Why should we suddenly pay attention to it now?
Your bone's got a little machine
 
pacificjourney
Posts: 2659
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 9:12 pm

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sat Jun 21, 2003 10:27 pm

When and where was all that said ? And yes it matters.
" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
 
B747forlife
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2001 9:36 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sat Jun 21, 2003 10:32 pm

Are these things that Clinton said? I'm just asking because I do not remember Saddam (at least during this round of "inspections") saying that he would no longer cooperate with "inspectors."

-Nick
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:25 pm

I believe that these things were said by Clinton, not Bush. But Clinton did not follow through with his threat of force (a few cruise missiles hardly count.)

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:27 pm

You right, Clinton didn't, which means one of two thing.

He was lying to placate those who belive in liberty and freedom for everybody.

Or

He was in Kahootz with Saddam.

Personally I belive the latter.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:43 am

Again: WHERE ARE THESE WEAPONS THAT WERE SUPPOSEDLY AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE U.S.??
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:59 am

Again: WHERE ARE THESE WEAPONS THAT WERE SUPPOSEDLY AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE U.S.??

ya know...I'm kinda starting to wonder about that myself.

Good question.
 
pacificjourney
Posts: 2659
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 9:12 pm

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sun Jun 22, 2003 2:02 am

The looters got them, didn't you hear Bush say so today. Why didn't we think of that before ?
" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sun Jun 22, 2003 2:19 am

Yes the looters got them, they are using them as living room ornaments  Laugh out loud
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sun Jun 22, 2003 2:21 am

PJ, you and I don't agree on much, but that made me laugh like hell.  Laugh out loud
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sun Jun 22, 2003 2:38 am

Here are a few interesting quotes to think about. Now some of these same people for purely political reasons are saying the exact opposite.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sun Jun 22, 2003 2:46 am

Looters?!? They only took what was theirs!! WMDs to everyone, I say!

< /sarcasm >

Might I suggested these two:
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/wmd.html
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/dictator.html
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sun Jun 22, 2003 2:52 am

Ok, let me pose a question here. If Saddam did NOT have weapons of mass destruction, then why did he put up such a fight with the UN inspectors? If I were in charge of an ENTIRE country, were filthy rich, and had God knows how many palaces, I'd do ANYTHING to stay in power. Saddam knew that if those weapons were found, he'd be removed. But if he didn't have them, and I mean really didn't, wouldn't he have invited, even forced inspectors to search his country? I would have. His non-compliance has got to tell you something.
This Website Censors Me
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sun Jun 22, 2003 4:33 am

" WHERE ARE THESE WEAPONS THAT WERE SUPPOSEDLY AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE U.S.??"

Where is Saddam Hussein? They can't find him either, does that mean he was an invention of the Bush administration? Just wondering...


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sun Jun 22, 2003 4:46 am

LY744, don't you also think that question was a little twisted? The WMDs didn't pop up on TV every so often, didn't shake hands with Donald "Nuke'Em" Rumsfeld, didn't declare wars, didn't...
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
Sabena 690
Posts: 6065
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 12:48 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sun Jun 22, 2003 5:15 am

LY744: don't compare an elephant with a fly.

N766UA: you make an interesting remark!

Let me answer it from the logic of SH: he knew that wardog bush was going to attack, no matter if the UN agreeed or not. He knew that he would be removed from power. So why didn't he invite the UN weapon inspectors? Very simple: he wanted that America would look stupid! And for god sake he was right! Look how stupid America looks now now that no WMD's are found! He made the biggest gap between Europe and America ever, Europe was never as divided as before, this is exactly what he wants!

He is laughing his a$$ off now somewhere (if he is still alive) with how stupid bush dealt with this whole situation!

Another example is the big bunker the 'intelligence' told us about in which Saddam was staying. We got a whole explanation how solid it was etc etc, now apparently IT DOES NOT EXIST!!!!

Are you actually aware what for a stupid dictator is currently in the white house?
 
B747forlife
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2001 9:36 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sun Jun 22, 2003 7:40 am

Sabena 690 - Saddam doesn't give a crap about the divide between Europe and the US. Plus, Saddam would've made Bush like an even bigger idiot if immediatly after Powell's presentation he brought out all of those things and showed their non-WMD related purpose. He didn't, and if what you say is true and he is trying to make Bush look like a fool, that would have been the best way to do it.

-Nick
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sun Jun 22, 2003 7:44 am

Aloges and Sabena 690, you are both very much correct, of course. Saddam would seem to be much, much easier to find then the WMD's, he's the one whose face is painted on every freaking building in the country afterall.

LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: What The World Thinks Of America

Sun Jun 22, 2003 8:41 am

N766UA:

"Ok, let me pose a question here. If Saddam did NOT have weapons of mass destruction, then why did he put up such a fight with the UN inspectors?"

Because Saddam knew the WMD's never were the real issue. He knew, because the US stated so on many occasions, that even when he complied with ALL UN resolutions, the US and the UK would still veto any resolution regarding the lifting of the sanctions. Mind you, the sanctions were put in place to get Saddam to comply with the resolutions in the first place but these two nations were keen on getting a regime change by using the UN sanctions.

.
Go over the UN Security Council's meetings of the past 12 years and see for yourself how the US/UK have tried over and over again to use the UN to accomplish objectives of their own Foreign Policies. Mind you, I do believe a regime change is good, but why the hell did they tell us about this IMMINENT THREAT of WMD's when all they wanted was Saddam out of power?

LY744:

" Where is Saddam Hussein? They can't find him either, does that mean he was an invention of the Bush administration? Just wondering..."

This is so pathetic... I do hope not every Republican thinks the same,... for the sake of the Mental Health of the Republicans in general.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sun Jun 22, 2003 9:14 am

Look who's playing the "You're-crazy-but-I'll-elaborate-no-further" card now! Stop beating around the bush and humor me with some arguments, will ya?

Republican, geez, where do I start with that...

LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
delta-flyer
Posts: 2631
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:47 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sun Jun 22, 2003 9:23 am

Just because we haven't found the WMD's does not mean they do not exist. Be patient, Iraq is big, and the WMD's can be quite small - a few jars of anthrax here and there, a few barrels of chemicals, it doesn't take a lot of real estate.

The fact is, all the evidence that exists today is curcumstantial -- and there is a pretty good bit of that. There is no proof that the WMD exist nor that they do not exist.

I trust Colin Powell, and I accept the evidence he presented to the UN just before the war. I have no doubt that Saddam had WMD, and I have no doubt that today much of them have been spirited away to other Arab countries for future use.

" Where is Saddam Hussein? They can't find him either, does that mean he was an invention of the Bush administration?"
- This is so pathetic...

Actually, I thought that was very clever  Smile

Pete
"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"
 
cptkrell
Posts: 3186
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 10:50 pm

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sun Jun 22, 2003 9:56 am

News Flash for everyone that that think they have the ultimate handle: The 'Iraq Restaurant' on Warren Avenue in Detroit (only 4 city blocks W. of Dearborn), after recently changing their name to the 'New Iraq Restaurant' just put up a new sign that sez 'Intermediate Iraq Restaurant'.
....Jack  Smile
all best; jack
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sun Jun 22, 2003 10:06 am

B757300, all those Democrats you posted-those you hate with such a passion, but now use to defend Mr. Bush with-did NOT make the decision to start a war on this issue. You're God, Mr. Bush, did that, not Daschle, not Cohen, not Pelosi, not Gephardt.

It's pretty amusing to hear you quote people that you hate with al oru being, to try to get your God off the hook. It doesn't work. All those people you quoted, they aren't the ones where the buck stops-it stops with Bush, and him alone, so again the question to Mr. Bush is:

WHERE ARE THE WMD'S? IF THEY WERE SUCH AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE U.S. WHY HAVEN'T THEY BEEN FOUND?

Inquiring mind (translations: those that don't lamely and regularly apologize for George Bush and everything he does) would like to know.
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sun Jun 22, 2003 9:35 pm

Hey Alpha ever consider some of those that dont neccesarilly go with the Democratic tide can sometimes agree with their points, Why cant you? Its so apparent that all you do is just hate the other party no matter what is said. At least some on here can be more subjective than you. I for one did agree on the points that Clinton made on Iraq, its just to bad he never followed through on them.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sun Jun 22, 2003 10:46 pm

I don't doubt that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (after all, we sold them to him, and he's been seen to use them) and maybe even had 'something' in the way of WMDs right up until before the conflict.

However, the war was 'sold' to the US and UK populations on the basis that Saddam and his WMDs presented a clear and immediate threat to the security of the United States and the United Kingdom. Tony Blair even says that the weapons were on 45-minute standby for release.

Now, that level of readiness implies an industriousness of operation that is far larger and more extensive than "a few jars of anthrax". You need factories, bases, development areas, engineers, personell, raw materials, transport infrastructure, power, money, soldiers to guard it all, proceedures, rules, laws, statutes etc. This is what Saddam had in 1990, and it was dismantled by the UN (approx. 90% of it according to reports). However, nothing resembling this sort of infrastructure has been found. It seems like Saddam's vaunted WMDs were perhaps the odd drum of 'goo'...so why if it was that much, so frightening to the US and UK?

However, this is a fairly academic point. I see from a report in the New York Times that 30% of the American public believe that WMDs have already been found. 22% said that Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons!!!!!. 50% believed that Iraqis comprised the hijackers on Sept. 11.

If the US public are this easy to brainwash, Bush will win 04 in a walk. But the real threat will remain, undetected and unconfronted.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:35 pm

I don't doubt that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction

Neither do I. We know he HAD them. He used them on the Kurds and on Iran-but that was back in the 1980's. So that is not even the question. What the question is-and what our conservative friends on here have NEVER once even tried to answer when the question is brought up is where are they NOW-or more appropriately, were were they just before the war broke out.

Bush and Cheney both said that they were present, and could be used on short notice on the U.S. or alllies. Both of them said that before the war. Well, that's an outright falshood, for if that were the case-if they were in a position to be used on short notice-they WOULD have been found by now.

Hey Alpha ever consider some of those that dont neccesarilly go with the Democratic tide can sometimes agree with their points, Why cant you?

Why can't I? Because I don't see any fucking weapons coming out of Iraq, now two months after the war "ended" (which is funny in itself, since Americans are being killed daily on an instllment plan over there). WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS!!!!!!! What part of that question do you not understand?

At least some on here can be more subjective than you.

Subjective about what? This is a pretty cut and dried issue, is it not? Either the weapons are there, or they're not. And all those Democrats are wrong, too, seems to me-BUT THEY DIDN'T LAUNCH A WAR OVER WMD'S. GEORGE BUSH DID! That's why I ask HIM the question-he made the decision, not Mary Peolosi. She had not power to influence the march to war, nor did ANY Democrat, since both houses are control by Republicans. So what they said doen't mean a hill of beans. What George Bush says and does, does matter, because HE is the President.

And for once, why don't those on the right be subjective. We've seen no wepaons AT ALL that fall under the category of WMD's come out of Iraq. We've had those trucks-and we haven't heard a damn thing about those in weeks!! A few chemical suits. What else? WHERE ARE THE WMD'S THAT WERE SUPPOSEDLY AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE U.S.????

Can you imagine the uproar from the right had Bill Clinton or Al Gore launched a war like this, and no WMD's were found? Had it been either, the Republicans would be furious-and rightly so. Same with all the conservatives on this board-they'd be asking for Clinton or Gore's head. But from them, and from the GOP in Congress, all we get is deathly silence on the issue.

Bush doesn't have forever. If weapons aren't found there, and if Americans continue to be killed there daily, he has a LOT of questions to answer to the American people and to the world.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Mon Jun 23, 2003 3:10 am

Didn't Bush's spokesman said the real reason for removing Saddam from power was to pull American troops out of Saudi Arabia, thus helping to calm the region? The administration, however, considered this point too complicated for the public to understand, the spokesman said.
I support the right to arm bears
 
david b.
Posts: 2894
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 7:18 pm

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Mon Jun 23, 2003 3:15 am

Did they make that point before or after the failure to find WMDs?
Teenage-know-it-alls should be shot on sight
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Mon Jun 23, 2003 4:06 am

"Saddam Hussein has stockpiled, weaponized, and used chemical and biological weapons. And he has made no secret of his desire to acquire nuclear weapons. He has ignored international agreements and frustrated the efforts of international inspectors, and his ambitions today are as unrelenting as they have ever been.

We do know, however, that Iraq has weaponized thousands of gallons of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. We know that Iraq maintains stockpiles of some of world’s deadliest chemical weapons, including VX, sarin and mustard gas. We know that Iraq is developing deadlier ways to deliver these horrible weapons, including unmanned drones and long-range ballistic missiles. And we know that Saddam Hussein is committed to one day possessing nuclear weapons. If that should happen, instead of simply bullying the Gulf region, he could dominate it. Instead of threatening only his neighbors, he would become a grave threat to US security and to global security. The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored..." -- Tom Daschle, October 11, 2002
http://www.senate.gov/~daschle/pdf/iraqresolution101002.pdf

"Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.

The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people...

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs..." --Bill Clinton February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq

Go back and take a look at the report Hans Blix delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax, Blix reported "no convincing evidence" that they were ever destroyed. But there was "strong evidence" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had admitted "and that at least some of this was retained." Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax." Cirincione concluded that "it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin."

On the question of VX, Blix reported that his inspections team had information that conflicted with Iraqi accounts. The Iraqis claimed that they had produced VX only as part of a pilot program but that the quality was poor and the agent was never "weaponized." But according to Blix, the inspections team discovered Iraqi documents that showed the quality of the VX to be better than declared. The team also uncovered "indications that the agent" had been "weaponized." According to Cirincione's August 2002 report, "it is widely believed that significant quantities of chemical agents and precursors remain stored in secret depots" and that there were also "thousands of possible chemical munitions still unaccounted for." Blix reported there were 6,500 "chemical bombs" that Iraq admitted producing but whose whereabouts were unknown. Blix's team calculated the amount of chemical agent in those bombs at 1,000 tons. As Blix reported to the Security Council, "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."

Today, of course, they and many other known weapons are still unaccounted for. Does it follow, therefore, that they never existed? Or does it make more sense to conclude that the weapons were there and that either we'll find them or we'll find out what happened to them?

The answer depends on how broad and pervasive you like your conspiracies to be. Because if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are lying, they're not alone. They're part of a vast conspiratorial network of liars that includes U.N. weapons inspectors and reputable arms control experts both inside and outside government, both Republicans and Democrats...

Maybe former CIA director John Deutch was lying when he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Sept. 19, 1996, that "we believe that [Hussein] retains an undetermined quantity of chemical and biological agents that he would certainly have the ability to deliver against adversaries by aircraft or artillery or by Scud missile systems."

Maybe former defense secretary William Cohen was lying in April when he said, "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."

Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to reach Europe.

Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that "we have to find and destroy them."

Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared last September, based on what he learned as vice president, that Hussein had "stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Finally, there's former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech, Clinton described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs." Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons." That was as unequivocal and unqualified a statement as any made by George W. Bush...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26671-2003Jun6.html
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Mon Jun 23, 2003 4:31 am

Quoting people doesn't prove anything.

"The world is flat" -- 777236ER, 2003.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Mon Jun 23, 2003 4:43 am

B757300, again, quoting people who's guts you hate doesn't exonerate Bush of starting this war, over something that wasn't proven BEFORE he invaded Iraq. You're quote of Democrats MEAN NOTHING!!!! They didn't start the war-your God George Bush did. So what if Gore "lied". He isn't the president, and he didn't start the war. Who the hell cares what he thinks? Answer the damn question for once.

Again, WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS???
 
airworthy
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 7:05 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Mon Jun 23, 2003 4:46 am

But 777236ER is a worthless person compared to a world leader who is arguing for or against the use of military force to destroy an enemy that he thinks is there.

You are right a quote in itself is worthless, but if a person who holds real power in the world says it, and also has a means to act on it, then the quote has real power.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Mon Jun 23, 2003 4:52 am

But 777236ER is a worthless person compared to a world leader who is arguing for or against the use of military force to destroy an enemy that he thinks is there.

Nevertheless, despite the weight it may carry, it's just a quote. It's not proof...

You are right a quote in itself is worthless, but if a person who holds real power in the world says it, and also has a means to act on it, then the quote has real power.

A quote can have power without being true...

"The liberal media and many of the pundits said I was stupid . . . They misunderestimated me"

Then again, they can just be stupid.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
delta-flyer
Posts: 2631
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:47 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Mon Jun 23, 2003 6:19 am

If the US public are this easy to brainwash, Bush will win 04 in a walk.

Naturally, we are not as smart as you blokes across the pond. The world is doomed. We have lethal weapons and a maniac leader who will use them to rule the world. Life's a bitch, ain't it?

Pete
"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"
 
VonRichtofen
Posts: 4270
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2000 3:10 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Mon Jun 23, 2003 6:59 am

"Be patient, Iraq is big, and the WMD's can be quite small"

Funny, Hans Blix wanted more time, but the Bush admin wouldn't give it to him....Now the coalition hasn't found any weapons and they're saying "we need more time"

"a few jars of anthrax here and there, a few barrels of chemicals"

So a few jars sitting in the desert are an imminent threat to the US?

 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:53 pm

Alpha, and others,

The point of B757300's quotes shows that Bush did NOT lie about WMD in Iraq. His information was the same information as everyone else had, and I did not hear of anyone who credibly contradicted it.

Have you thought about the basic problem in your assumption? You are assuming that Saddam, who was known to still own WMDs until the Inspectors left in 1998, suddenly decided to get rid of them on his own, when there was nobody around to stop him, after having tried to keep them under the nose of inspectors for 7 years. Does this make sense to you? Do you really believe that he saw the light and became Saint Saddam?

Did you know that they are still digging up unexploded shells and bombs from the First World War in France and Belgium, in spite of all the efforts over 85 years to clean them up? And don't even think about WWII, and countless other wars in the 20th century which have strewn ordinance all over that are still killing curious children and adults today, every day. The point is that the world is an awfully big place, and if you don't know exactly where something is, you will be looking for an awfully long time.

I am convinced that the stuff is there, buried in the desert somewhere (where, as far as I know, they haven't even started looking yet, still looking in the towns), and they will be continuing to be occasionally found and dug up 10, 20 or more years from now.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
MD-11 forever
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:15 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Mon Jun 23, 2003 3:26 pm

..... But WHY not use them if you have them and fight a war? If the British intelligence or at least the prime minister) believe you're ready to use them within 45 minutes?? Your post doesn't provide answer to an of those questions! Where is saddam, where is OBL, why didn't the US forces take any measures to protect the nuclear plant from looters? Is it safer to have nuclear material in the hands of looters instead of Saddam? I doubt this!
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Mon Jun 23, 2003 4:09 pm

MD-11

Countries have had these weapons since the First World War, and since then have not used them against each other out of fear of retaliation. The only exception has been Iraq with Iran. Perhaps a little sense broke out in Iraq, knowing that the U.S. response might be, to put it mildly, nasty. Perhaps Saddam did give the order, but others refused to follow it. Perhaps over a period of 4 years Saddam had them buried so well that he could not easily access them when they were needed.

Who knows? But one thing I am confident about is that Saddam would not have liquidated the stocks he had willingly. They are there, somewhere.

As for those looters that stole nuclear materials, I think they will soon be Darwin Award candidates. That stuff is pretty nasty.

Charles

[Edited 2003-06-23 09:10:47]
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
MD-11 forever
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:15 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Mon Jun 23, 2003 4:14 pm

@CFalk

Charles, you really believe there was no other possiblity to prevenzt those looting of nuclear material? IF US was so sure that there was a nuclear program, IF they knew where it was located, WHY THE HELL didn't they build up a security organisation for such sensitive areas as one of the first actions in this war??? Hard to believe that they didn't think about secure thise places as they made the whole world believe that Iraq is full of potential terrorists protected by Saddam..........
 
Murf
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2000 11:47 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Mon Jun 23, 2003 10:54 pm

If Iraq's major product for export was broccoli would we have gone to war? I doubt it. WMD were an easy excuse for a war. They might actually find some, I hope they do. But right now it looks real bad on our president. If there was such a big threat of them being used on our troops , and I speculating here, I would say they shouldn't be to hard to find.
 
B747forlife
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2001 9:36 am

RE: Great Points About Iraq.

Mon Jun 23, 2003 11:19 pm

Alpha 1 - Do you think you could make your posts any more inflamatory, and still not get them deleted?

777236ER - Of course, because Bush has had a bunch of badly-said quotes, everything thing out of his mouth is stupid and uncredible. Fine. Then believe what all those democrats said; that's right, they said the exact same thing as Bush on the WMD issue.

-Nick

(ultra-sarcasm)All hail our God Bush, because obviously all Republicans love everything he does to the letter.(/ultra-sarcasm)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BlueberryWheats, moo and 11 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos