WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon 865 Replies latest social current

• 

  dubla

  pleasure-

  what you spout out dubla is regurgitated BS from politicians, there's nothing solid about that.

  i was specifically talking about the quotes i provided from the iaea....and yes they are solid testimonies, or are you calling into question the opinions of the iaea now as well? boy, theres no such thing as an "expert" in your eyes, is there? unless of course its someone talking of fairy tales and secret cover-ups.

  and links to what so-called 'respected individuals', means we have to believe whatever they say does it, even when they cant back up what they say?

  to suggest that publishing this material if it is 'a how to' manual, would allow rogue countries to build nukes is completely absurd.

  personally, i think the iaea is qualified to make the judgement on that.....and id imagine that the reason there are 136 member states of the iaea is because they also believe the experts are qualified in their field. you can reject it as "absurd", but it wont make it so.

  a bit about the iaea staff:

  C. The staff shall include such qualified scientific and technical and other personnel as may be required to fulfill the objectives and functions of the Agency. The Agency shall be guided by the principle that its permanent staff shall be kept to a minimum.

  D. The paramount consideration in the recruitment and employment of the staff and in the determination of the conditions of service shall be to secure employees of the highest standards of efficiency, technical competence, and integrity. Subject to this consideration, due regard shall be paid to the contributions of members to the Agency and to the importance of recruiting the staff on as wide a geographical basis as possible.

  http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Documents/statute.html#A1.7

  but of course, these so-called experts dont know as much about building a nuclear bomb as you do, right? im sure youre more qualified to say whether or not those pages should be released to the public, i cant figure out why they just didnt consult you instead.

  do you think that these nations dont know how to do it already?

  oh, of course they do....everyone knows its as simple as sending in 3 proofs of purchase from any kellogs brand cereal to get the full nuclear instruction manual.......allow four to six weeks for delivery.

  you're the one who's always talking about this crap. your posts span over 22 pages, and you dont humour, you just bore the pants off people. reading your posts is like watching CNN.

  make it 23....and i never claimed to be some sort of exciting poster. again, facts and real sources cant compete with your conspiracy websites on the excitement scale. here you are again crying about boredom. the last time i checked, no one is forcing you to read my posts.....yet here you are, you cant drag yourself away, and you just have to keep replying. whether or not you like my style of posting is right around dead last on my list of "things to worry about", but i do appreciate your input nonetheless.....consider it noted.

  you cant prove anything, so give it a rest.

  and you can prove just as much....yet youre still here, and youre not "giving it a rest", are you? again, no one is forcing you to read or contribute to this thread. youve got the freedom of choice, so if im so bothersome to you, use it.

  but no, anyone who comes on here with different opinion to yours has to go through the dubla treatment of the endless slime of official stories and quotes with no proof.

  actually, thats the farthest thing from the truth. in fact, theres been a bunch of posters on here who disagree with me that i havent even addressed. again ill remind you, it was YOU who confronted ME on the issue....but i guess i was supposed to ignore you.?. ill keep that in mind next time. it does seem quite curious though, that youve felt this way about my posts, and have been bored out of your mind, yet you still felt the need to strike up a discussion with me..? hmm.....strange way of showing your disgust with someone.

  aa
• 

  Pleasuredome

  cheers dubla, that'll do for me for a few months.
• 

  crownboy

  Well, most dependible sources outside the US government, and some sources within them were pretty sure that there weren't any. A former chief UN weapons inspector who is both American and Republican (Scott Ritter), gave pretty good reason to believe that there weren't any in there, or at least not any that merited the US' war. So we are left to believe that Saddam has out smarted the rest of the world by dumping his manifold weapons in areas only members of conservative based think tanks think might be possible, or we are left to accept the fact that much of what the administration said was false.

  Personally, I think the administration will eventually admit the weapons will not be found, but they'll either say that Syria some how got them (great pretext to go to war with them), or, more likely, that there was an exceptional breakdown of US intelligence, and while the US was wrong about the WoMD, they did not have any nefarious reasons for this. Just another case of the US wanting to do the right thing, but just getting it wrong . Or they could just cart out more "moble labs" that were found in non-Saddam controlled northern terriotories (that have nary a trace of chemicals), and declare that as evidence, as Dubya kind of did in the recent G-8 summit. Of course, it is possible that weapons could be found, as I don't put it past Saddam to try such a thing, but given all the things that have happened so far (fake Nigeria documents, etc.), I think it's reasonable to assume that it is unlikely. But hey, if the economy recovers it won't matter that much for Dubya come next year anyway.

  I do agree with dubla in believing that Saddam is already dead.

  rem, if the only reason for believing that someone named Saddam Hussein existed was dependent solely on very shaky intelligence, and that intelligence insisted that he would be found after an invasion of Iraq, then I think his failure to be found at this time would be a good reason to doubt his existence.
• 

  rem

  Crownboy,

  I don't think the evidence was that shaky. Basically we knew that he had x number of WMD after Gulf War I. He provided evidence that he destroyed y number of weapons. x - y = z Weapons unaccounted for. I believe it is safe to assume that if he didn't provide evidence he destroyed them, then he still had them. That's why we had UN inspectors over there all these years. Add to this the fact that Saddam was very hostile to the inspectors over the years and they continuously found Iraq in breach of its obligations over the years, it becomes increasingly more probable that he had them.

  As time goes on I'm less confident they will be found, if they even existed at all. The fact is, though, the entire UN security counsel believed he had them and he provided no reason for them to believe otherwise. He called the bluff, but the US and UK weren't bluffing this time. He lost. So, no, Saddam didn't outsmart the rest of the world. If he really didn't have WMD then he's the dumbest man alive because all he had to do was comply with his obligations. But maybe he was too busy torturing people to do that.

  rem
• 

  Realist

  rem,

  Were those blanks he was shooting at US and UK aircraft patroling the no-fly zone?

  well you can throw stones in the air in the hope to hit a passing aircraft. fact is he didn't shoot down a single aircraft. one crashed due to engine failure. so far 200 allied soldiers were killed. about 150 due to iraqi fire. hence the iraqi army is not what i would call a threat to anyone. lichtenstein would have won that war!
• 

  Jayson

  Realist, I think that this steamroll of Iraq shows clearly the superiority of the US military force. The terrorists and the Arab world thought that the US a coward that will only drop bombs from 50,000 ft. The we have no stomach to fight on the ground where they have a fighting chance. But our M1 A's still outclass anything that the world has to offer. The US has no equal. Not in military terms and not economicly. (How's the fishing over there? Maybe there is some outclassing in that?)

  Your argument to dismiss the Iraqi attacking US/UK aircraft would be better suited to remind us that the UN never gave their holy permission to create no fly zones to stop Saddam from murdering the Kurds and the Sheiks for following the US recomendation to overthrow the regime. (Remember we stopped within a few hundred miles of Bahgdad and turned around leaving them to be slaughtered in 91'.)

  Why do you think that for 12 years Saddam refused to do what was ordered by the holy UN? If he had then WMD would not be the issue. But he didn't so his removal is not because he had x # of WMD at point zero charle location for us to bomb. Although that would have been nice.

  If we invade Iraq 15,000 US soldiers will die. (didn't happen)

  If we invade Iraq millions of Iraqis will die. (It happened at the hands of Saddam but not during the US invasion.

  If we invade Iraq the Arab world will unite against the US in a holy war. (Didn't happen)

  If we invade Iraq it will plunge the region into choas. (It didn't happen)

  If we invade Iraq the siege of Baghdad will be like Stalingrade. (It didn't happen)

  It was said that 170,000 artifacts were distroyed in the War. This was big news here and all over the world. It was a lie. the true number something like was 39.

  There were supposed shortages of everything from food to medicine to toiletpaper before the war 5000 died every month in Iraq. This because of UN santions. But now, and more to the point in the 3 weeks of the war it is ALL caused but the US invasion. And even worse those M1 A tanks were not loaded with big macs when they rolled into Bahgdad.

  Yugoslavia/Kosovo is still not on its feet even with UN help. This after years of aide. But in weeks the US is supposed to fix more than a decade of Iraqi decay even before the war. We are good but not that good. This will take 10 years or more to fix, probably more. And that is if all goes well.

  Bush lied? One would be such a smuck to believe that. Or accept it more to the point. It is irrelevent. He lied about the torture? He lied about the graves? He lied about the 1981 nuclear program? He lied about the war with Iraq where chemical WMD were used? He lied about the invasion of kuwait? The chemical WMD used against the Kurds and their slaughter? And those southern Iraqis he lied about that too? And the ecological devistation done by Saddam he lied about that too? And the Weapons distroyed by the UN those were what Blix must have been forced to lie about? And the Nuclear/WMD programs in the 1990's all lies? And how about those delivery systems? They don't matter? They were banned. I guess the UN resolutions against were lies too? I'd agree that they were a joke. But, so is the UN. Kind of like this thread.

  I'd agree that US intel was lacking. It was presented as strong (and it was).. That I agree on. But see, that makes invasion more necessary and justifiable not less. There was no way to know what Saddams Iraq was doing.

  It is the stance that the WMD must be found to justify the invasion. That is not true. That is the lie. Finding the WMD just means that we can breath easier. There is less chance they are in the hands of terrorists. There is no reason the believe that they do not exist. If Rummie allowed them to slip out of the country that will be what I will be enraged over. It's going to take years before I am easy about this. I'm not going to accept that they don't exist just because the BBC and the other left news media says so. I find it hard that Bush hate could so blind such intelligent people.
• 

  czarofmischief

  I have a BBC news announcement! The WT purchased Iraq's WOMD using profits from their child-porn industry...

  CZAR
• 

  William Penwell

  The WT purchased Iraq's WOMD using profits from their child-porn industry...

  Sounds like another fabricated lie by W
• 

  freeman

  If people want to bash Bush and company over the issue of WMDs, please do so if this makes you feel better, however please do it for the right reasons, not because of some political poppycock.

  When I hear people chiming in with things like there never were any WMDs or that Saddam was never really a threat to the US or his neighbors, I truly don’t know weather to laugh or cry. Part of me wants to laugh because of the overwhelming evidence of the growing threat that this regime posed to the world and his own people is so abundantly clear to even the blind so as to be joke to say otherwise. The part of me that wants to cry sees how blinded people become when they get emotionally involved defeating political opponents a nd onsequently lose all perspective .

  Put another way: Why do I know that the preponderance of the known evidence is that Saddam had WMDs and more importantly had several ongoing weapons programs before the start of the war?

  Why is it that I can click my browser and find all sorts of creditable sources of information attesting to this fact? More importantly, why is it that some can’t or will not do the same?

  Jason seems to have nailed a point that most have missed:

  Finding the WMD just means that we can breath easier. There is less chance they are in the hands of terrorists. There is no reason the believe that they do not exist. If Rummie allowed them to slip out of the country that will be what I will be enraged over. It's going to take years before I am easy about this. I'm not going to accept that they don't exist just because the BBC and the other left news media says so.

  The question is not DID SADDAM HAVE WMDs, the question is WHAT BECAME OF THEM AND IN WHO’S HANDS ARE THEY NOW?

  If Bush and company have let political concerns get in the way of making an early military decision to take these weapons out of Saddam’s hands and because of that delay said weapons are now in the hands of terrorists or other unfriendly type people, then IMHO Bush should be impeached at the very least. I really hope this is not a reality as that would truly be a nightmare for everyone. The possibility does exist however because as you will recall, Bush and company were making nice nice with UN and member nations trying to get everyone onboard. This gave Saddam ample time to dispose of his arsenal one way or the another. If he truly destroyed it as at least one of his scientists has said then that would be fine, but if he gave it to others, God help us all!

  Freeman
• 

  William Penwell

  Maybe the reason why the US has not found Weapons of Mass Disappearance in Iraq is because the UN inspectors were doing their job in the first place. Than that leads to the point that hundreds of innocent Iraqi, US and British lives were wasted unnecessarily just for W's hidden agenda of world domination.

  Will