WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon 865 Replies latest social current

dubla

realist-
his claim about the uranium!
okay, now we are getting silly. first off, his reference to the uranium documents (he didnt provide them as evidence) was made in early febraury, and the documents were proven to be a forgery in the middle of march.....hardly a "day later". and now youre claiming you meant the uranium documents in your original fabrication? let me refresh your memory about what you thought was "debunked"......
as to his reposrt...as you know part of it was debunked as 12 year old student paper already the very next day!
so which part of his report were you referring to? the one sentence mentioning the british dossier that he didnt even show to the u.n.? and was this really "dubunked....the very next day"? or was that exaggeration just for extra flavor? are you now claiming that the uranium documents came from a 12 year old student paper? i think youre having a hard time keeping your own claims in order.....what a tangled web we weave.
perhaps numbers from this year???
how could we possibly have numbers for unaccounted for weapons? if we had numbers from this year, they wouldnt be unaccounted for, would they? my question all along is, if he doesnt still have them, where are they? as i said, the only numbers anyone could possibly have is the last known numbers from when the inspectors actually took inventory.
the US was in possession of this report for several month and the CIA was not able to recognize it as a poorly faked dokument but blix and his guys were able to tear apart in one afternoon? what kind of shitheads are in charge at the CIA? you rely on these morons? holy cow!
i feel the same way. we relied on them before 9/11 too, and somehow they allowed planes to be crashed into the two tallest buildings in the country.
do you think any european country/company is risking to loose buisness with the US just to sell some trash to hussein? laughable!
obviously, they did exactly that. what do you think the opposition to the war amounted to? its no different than opposing sanctions would have been. think before you spew.
also bullshit! the weapons inspectors chose to leave iraq! hussein did NOT ban them!
they chose to leave because they were forced out. any way you slice it, they left for one simple reason: iraq was not cooperating. saddam knew the consequeses of non-cooperation (possible airstrikes), and he intentionally kept the game up to get the inspectors out.....then wouldnt allow them back in.........
The last time an inspection team was in Iraq was December 1998, when inspectors complained of not being allowed to do their work and pulled out ahead of joint U.S.-British airstrikes. Inspectors have not been allowed back in since then.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/19/iraq.weapons.inspections/
OK I LOOKED IT UP...the numbers you posted were from a 1995 UN report!
i also posted a recent u.n. report (i cant remember if it was 2002, or 2003, i can go back and check if youd like) stating specifically that there were still chemical weapons unaccounted for in iraq.
i have a question for you.....why do you care about any of this wmd talk? youve made it clear that it wouldnt matter to you if saddam had 100,000,000 tons of chemical agent at his disposal, he still wouldnt be a threat to anyone in your mind (which most everyone on this board believes is preposterous in and of itself). so why do you even argue about numbers from u.n. reports?
aa
Realist

dubla,
again attacking semantics is pointless. if i made a mistakable statement than so be it. it doesn't change the fact that the bush admin lied.
first off, his reference to the uranium documents (he didnt provide them as evidence) was made in early febraury, and the documents were proven to be a forgery in the middle of march.....hardly a "day later". and now youre claiming you meant the uranium documents in your original fabrication? let me refresh your memory about what you thought was "debunked"......
i am talking about powell's report that hussein tried to buy uranium from niger. these documents were given to blix after powell's report to the UN. el baradei and blix disproved these docs as poorly fabricated trash the next day. if bush was referring to them in feb. than so be it! PUNCHLINE IS: these were faked docs. and powell presented them to the UN to make the point for going to war! got it?
so which part of his report were you referring to? the one sentence mentioning the british dossier that he didnt even show to the u.n.? and was this really "dubunked....the very next day"?
the point of powell's speach was to convince the world (rather the US public) that hussein is posing a threat and producing/ acquiring WMDs. he referred to the british report as excellent work! the british report was debunked soon afterwards (following day or week...IT DOESN'T MATTER!) as a 12 year old report!!!!!! PUNCHLINE: powell was referring to a 12 year old report to make his case infront of the UN! another piece of evidence that was BS! got it?
are you now claiming that the uranium documents came from a 12 year old student paper? i think youre having a hard time keeping your own claims in order.....what a tangled web we weave.
i think you can't recognize the very simple fact that powell tired to mislead everyone! whether the reports were disproved the very next hour day or week is IRRELEVANT! do you get this point???? essential parts of the case made for war were FAKED!!!!!!!!! that is the POINT!!!! semantics are IRRELEVANT!!!
how could we possibly have numbers for unaccounted for weapons?
exactly the same way as in the 1995 report!!!!
if we had numbers from this year, they wouldnt be unaccounted for, would they?
LOL that is the whole issue! powell et al claimed the weapons exist while hussein et al claimed the do NOT! who is more trustworthy? DAMN HARD TO TELL AT THIS POINT!
i feel the same way. we relied on them before 9/11 too, and somehow they allowed planes to be crashed into the two tallest buildings in the country.
oh man what a sad statement! so you actually think the most powerfull agency in the world (CIA) is not able to tell a poorly fabricated document from a real one...but blix and his guys are? perhaps the US should hire only foreigners to do their intelligence work!
just as a sidenote...you compare a highly complex surveillance operation with checking a simple document! NOT COMPARABLE THINGS!
obviously, they did exactly that. what do you think the opposition to the war amounted to? its no different than opposing sanctions would have been. think before you spew.
the legal situation is a completely different one. you CANNOT compare breaking sanctions established by the UN with supporting a war. of course there were buisness interests at stake. thats the whole issue of the fucking war!
what happens to a company/country if it starts selling goods to castro? it will get sactioned by the US. does that mean the respective country has to support a war against cuba? certainly not. THESE ARE DIFFERENT ISSUES!
they chose to leave because they were forced out.
bullshit. the guy who was in charge pulled out because he claimed iraq had not cooperated enough. a VERY debateable decision at the time!
any way you slice it, they left for one simple reason: iraq was not cooperating. saddam knew the consequeses of non-cooperation (possible airstrikes), and he intentionally kept the game up to get the inspectors out.....then wouldnt allow them back in.........
that he was NOT cooperating is a claim mabe by buttler that is VERY debateable!
i also posted a recent u.n. report (i cant remember if it was 2002, or 2003, i can go back and check if youd like) stating specifically that there were still chemical weapons unaccounted for in iraq.
be so kind and look it up. i am too tired to do it.
i have a question for you.....why do you care about any of this wmd talk? youve made it clear that it wouldnt matter to you if saddam had 100,000,000 tons of chemical agent at his disposal, he still wouldnt be a threat to anyone in your mind (which most everyone on this board believes is preposterous in and of itself). so why do you even argue about numbers from u.n. reports?
the point is that the US and british admins lied about hussein posing a threat in order to get their people to support an unjusttified war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the US public fell for it like they fell for the baby/incubator lie in the first gulf war!
indeed i don't care about hussein having WMDs. he would not have attacked a western country most likely not even another arab country. after all his gigantic army including his high tech drones WMDs and other equipment was eliminated within 2 week without being able to shoot down a SINGLE US aircraft!
i am amazed that you are not able to see to what extend the bush admin lied to you!
dubla

realist-
if i made a mistakable statement than so be it.
well finally, a semi-admission......that wasnt like pulling teeth, was it?
i am talking about powell's report that hussein tried to buy uranium from niger.
we are going around in circles, but here goes anyhow......that report wasnt powells, as your article even said.....he merely mentioned it, and it was later proven to be a forgery. you believe that powell knew that full well at the time (same as the dossier), again, this is your opinion.
i think you can't recognize the very simple fact that powell tired to mislead everyone!
yes, he mislead everyone about the mobile labs too....oh wait, theyve been found.
exactly the same way as in the 1995 report!!!!
youre confused. you see, in 1995, we had an actual inventory number, now we do not....thus the phrase, unaccounted for. the whole point was that we dont know what hes done between now and then, and he cant prove it either. still the same simple question, what happened to them? still no intelligent answer.
perhaps the US should hire only foreigners to do their intelligence work!
well, that would stave off some skepticism.....not a bad idea.
the legal situation is a completely different one. you CANNOT compare breaking sanctions established by the UN with supporting a war. of course there were buisness interests at stake. thats the whole issue of the fucking war!
there were business interests at stake in both cases, that was my point....in one case the u.s. was supported (unanimously), and in the other it was not.
that he was NOT cooperating is a claim mabe by buttler that is VERY debateable!
i suppose we could debate that then, but most of the world believes saddam played games with the inspectors the whole way through....it was more than obvious.
be so kind and look it up. i am too tired to do it.
here you go, blix to the u.n.......
To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were “unaccounted for”. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-578338,00.html
the point is that the US and british admins lied about hussein posing a threat in order to get their people to support an unjusttified war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
again, if the u.s. and british amins were incorrect about saddams possession of wmds, then so was every other country on the u.n. security council. one more repeat: my personal beliefs on saddam hussein have never stemmed from any of this "evidence". i dont believe it was a straight forward lie the way you do, but either way, its pretty irrelevant to me personally. i thought saddam shouldve been taken out in 1991, and that was quite a bit before powell gave his report to the u.n., wasnt it? quite a bit before gwb got involved, wasnt it? my feelings on it have never changed.
aa
Francois

I'm really getting tired of all this shit.
Does that mean that I can lock this interminable, anti-US thread?
I mean that by comparison, our little "free speech" thread of several weeks ago was nothing but a pimple on a private's butt compared to this gigantic continuing insult.
And since I'm as tired of this thread as you were of the free speech thread, I think - to be fair and equitable, and certainly not be playing favorites - this thread should be locked. Now.
francois
dubla

Does that mean that I can lock this interminable, anti-US thread?

uh-oh.....here comes the standard speech about how there is no anti-us content on this entire board, and no one has ever made an anti-american or anti-us statement on this thread or any other..............
aa
Simon

Discuss the topic
If you are not happy with the thread then stop replying to it an bringing it to the top all the time.
dubla

If you are not happy with the thread then stop replying to it an bringing it to the top all the time.

im assuming that comment was directed at me, considering francois has only posted twice to this entire thread, certainly not "bringing it to the top all the time".........so, in response, when did i ever say i wasnt happy with the thread? i love this thread personally, ive enjoyed it all the way through......its been very telling of some.
aa
Jayson

Discuss the topic
If you are not happy with the thread then stop replying to it an bringing it to the top all the time.
The topic via the begining of the thread was "where are the WMD?" In Europe this is an/the only issue. In the US it is not. At least in the sense of proving Bush was justified. "Pre-eminate threat." This term makes the need for it's use irrelevant. There is no such thing. Other factors like oil, contracts, control, power, influence, the dollar vs the euro, and the placement of western troops were also factors. The UN's role in future world politics is a major factor. It's France's as well as most Middle Eastern dictatorships only world platform to spew from. Saddam as a figure of defiance and instability were center to Arab hate propaganda. Some people just need killing. Saddam and the regime he lead is a good example. I wonder if those graves were full of little blond haired blue eyed girls and boys if Europe would be so quick to dismiss them. They are the reason that I don't care to need to prove Bush right. He was and is right. Period. My concerns over where are the WMD are not about Bush or lying. I understand that Intel was piss poor. Everyone believed them to exist. The fear and urgency should be to find them to ensure that they are not "Out There." I hope Saddam did distroy them prior to the War. It would be great to find evidence of this. I am glad that they were not used on Coalition troops. It was understood in the begining that the US would bear the brunt of the cost of this war and the rebuilding of Iraq. Supporters understand this it's not new news. I think that those who oppose the current direction things have gone are really undercover Racists who are so angry that 10's of thousands even millions of Arabs will not die as they have been doing for decades. There is a good chance that they will grow up and procreate. Curse Bush for helping the unpure!
Jayson

What more proof does one need of a Weapon of Bass Distruction does one need than this I ask you? The Mass of Ass actually rattles I tell you.
Realist

lock the thread if you want. its getting tiresome anyway. if people still believe even after such a fiasco that bush is a honest guy than so be it.
dubla,
well finally, a semi-admission......that wasnt like pulling teeth, was it?
it really doesn't matter what i say the facts speak for themselves. if you still want to believe in the honesty of your gov. fine. nothing can convince you of the opposite.
powell presented stuff to the UN that was poorly fabricated trash. that he didn'T write these reports himself is no excuse. the secretary of state should check twice before he talks to the UN in such an important matter. after all this was about war and not about the seating order.
youre confused. you see, in 1995, we had an actual inventory number, now we do not
call me confused or whatever...fact is there has to be a list according to which chemicals are missing. i don't care how you want to call that list.
yes, he mislead everyone about the mobile labs too....oh wait, theyve been found.
what happened to these anyway? last thing i heard is that the experts dissmissed the claim of mobile WMD factories. the fact that such vehicles exist does not mean they are used to produce WMDs.
a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were “unaccounted for”. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist.
iraqi officials obviously disagreed with the assumption that 1000 tonnes were missing otherwise they would not have submitted such a doc.

WoMD ... so where are they?

Share this