Senators Told Iraq Had WOMD & Delivery Capability

by Satanus 85 Replies latest social current

• 

  imallgrowedup

  Pat,

  Anyway, my point is and i won't argue it because it's a waste of time any more in this polarized forum is that it seemed well-documented that the US was sending in spies on the UN Inspection Team and Saddam threw them out.

  As I said in my earlier post to Simon, I don't doubt that they were spying.

  They probably were. However, in order to find something that someone else wants hidden, more than likely, you're going to have to employ spy tactics to find it. It's just part of the way these things work. Because the first team had been destroying banned weapons, and the inspectors themselves said there were more, I still believe that they were getting too close to what he REALLY did not want to be found, and he tossed them out because he knew he wouldn't face any serious repercussions.

  IMHO there are too many unexplained things that point to the fact that if we weren't spying on them, we should have been!

  First of all, why was Saddam annexing public buildings and declaring them "Presidential Palaces", thereby exempting them from inspection, just prior to the ejection of the first inspection team?

  Second, it is a proven fact that a terrorist training facility was found outside of Baghdad, with an American airplane on the premises. Why do you suppose it was there? Who do you think put it there? Who do you think used it? Link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm

  Third, it is also a proven fact that we found approximately 30 airplanes buried as deep as 20 to 30 feet in the Iraqi desert. If Saddam would go to these lengths to hide his aircraft, how far would he go to hide his WMD that the first group of inspectors knew existed?! I believe we would have been foolish NOT to be spying on him! He is a devious man and was not cooperating with the inspectors as he agreed to do! Link: http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/884/documentid/2186/history/3,884,2186

  I've yet to find someone with views differing from my own to answer any of the questions I've put forth (I added the third one today). Could it be that no one likes the answer they would have to give? Will you be the brave soul to answer them?

  growedup
• 

  DakotaRed

  DakotaRed, my challenge was about you saying 'ancient' history. I mean, where have you been about 'modern' history of the Native American Indians?

  Guest, you mentioned matters that happened in the 1700's. You said nothing about "modern" matters. What happened in the 1700's is indeed ancient history.

  About diseased blankets given to Native people to wipe them out in this day and age? How about the story that was aired on a show similiar to 60 minutes where the government gave Native people in Arizona 'radioactive' building materials to build their home!!!!! Now if you consider the last 25-50 years as being 'ancient' history, then my time table of time is really screwed up.

  More red herrings? Did it ever occur to you that scientists didn't even know the full effects of possibly radioactive materials on people until quite some time after the invention of the nuclear bomb? If you have documentation of deliberate dissemination of radioactive materials to people, please present it, not just some wild eyed theory.

  In 1990 Canada had the Oka crisis in which most of this news was blocked out in the USA. Back in 1880's (ancient history), the Candian government came up with an 'Act' called the Indian Act. In that first edition, they defined of an Indian was a 'none person!'

  Uh, you first state it was the US doing this mass genocide against Indians and now give mention to Canada? I am unaware of the US annexing Canada. No one has said that Indians were treated fairly long ago, but where is either the US or the Canadian governments defining todays Indians as "none persons?"

  May I refer you to 'ancient' history about Andrew Jackson's treatment of the Cherokee's. He removed the Cherokee's from their homeland and had the old people and young children walk in the dead of winter (500 miles) to another location. This in defiance to Chief Justice John Marshall's order that the Cheokee's had a right to stay in their homeland.

  The Trail Of Tears was a dark spot on our history and I will make no attempts at justification of it. I happen to agree with you that what was done to Indians back in the 1700's and 1800's was indeed heinous and wrong. But again, it was quite some time ago, wasn't it? Shall we resurrect the dead and apologize to them while prosecuting the rest?

  My question to you is, is justice prejudice? Does justice apply only to modern times and not 'ancient' times? Apparently killing people in ancient history (in the past)compared to modern times differ greatly, how interesting! I'll have to think that through. It was OK to kill Indians in 'ancient' history but not in modern times, hmmmm some reasoning.

  If you have an effective method of resurrecting the dead, I will join you in prosecuting the perpetrators of those deeds. Sorry, but I am unaware of any effective means to travel back in time to correct many misdeeds done against many people from both sides. No one has said it was okay, but what do you propose we do towards dead people today? How far back in history shall we go to prosecute dead people? Shall that prosecution also include Indians accused of scalping? Or, those Indians that slaughtered white women and children too? Shall we include modern European nations since it was they who brought much of that to this continent?

  About Casino's and treaties, your way off base. Your so off base on this issue that you better go back and do some home work. If you knew the full story as why the government is allowing and permitting casino's on Indian reserves it would shock you. In fact, Time magaizine had a two part story about Native casino's and who's profiting. I'll give you a clue, the government gave a non-Indian women an Indian status so she can open a casino! The government is still pursuing their aim of assimilating the Indians.

  May I suggest you do some more research. One misdeed is not a wholesale genocide of a people. Some tribes where I live are prospering quite well with this. Like I originally said, though, "some." Just like when white start a business, not all prosper, do they?

  You complain about the Indians being "assimilated." That also means a broader acceptance into the society, does it not? Individuals may still retain individual cultures, many do, but society as a whole should accept all and segregate none. If Indians can take advantage of treaties and have businesses on their lands that aren't allowed elsewhere, I applaud them for choosing that, if they so choose. If the wealth isn't reaching all within the tribe, I blame that on Tribal Councils, not the US Government. They should ensure the equitable dispertion of profits amongst the people.

  Untaxed merchandise? Have you read the part in YOUR USA constitution that Indians are exempt from taxation? If the USA is a Christian nation then why are they not following Jesus words at Matt. 5:37, "Just let... your ...Yes mean Yes..." when it come to keeping treaties?

  Uh, I was referring to sale of items that are heavily taxed off the reservations. Through a quirk in the law, federal taxes are not charged on such item on the reservations and some tribes have taken to selling these items to all, legally. The Seminoles in Florida were doing quite well with tax free cigarettes 10 or 15 years ago. Smokers that bought off the reservation were paying a great deal more than those who shopped on the reservation.

  So killing isn't bad, its not 'pure' evil you say? I guess it all depends on who's doing the killing and what era, correct?

  Again, a red herring, but since you brought it up, please show were anyone has condoned the killing of Indians or even settlers 200 years ago. Again, I ask, what do you propose we do to the dead? Shall we try them and resentence their skeletal remains to another death?

  After that, please explain the relevance of this to Saddam Hussein and Iraq today.

  Lew W
• 

  Guest 77

  Dakota Red, let me begin by saying, treaties with the Indians wasn't their idea! There were NO reservations when treaties were made!
• 

  Guest 77

  Dakota Red, let me start by saying, treaties were made by the Europeans (why?) AND there were no reservations at the time in making these treaties!

  Time magazine had two articles dealing with Indian casinos and who's profiting from them. Why not check the back issues of Time magazine on the internet. The government gave a non-native women a native status so she could open a casino.

  Ancient? Yeah, I guess a child of 6 looking at a bearded man can say, he's ancient, right?

  Red Herrings? How many people have you conned in your life? Documenation you say? When did a thief tell you he steals or a liar telling you he's a liar? Really D.R., you can do better than that!

  Resurrecting the past? So, I suppose everything you talk about is 'only' the present and future, right?

  To make a long story short, do some reading by Robert M. Utley and George Catlin.

  About treaties, how can Indians take advantage of treaties when the US doesn't honor them?

  About Saddam, if he had chemical weapons, why didn't he use them? He knew such weapons would do severe damage. The US government knew by the experience of the Spaniards that disease kills. Because the Native people were in the majority, and to steal their land what better way to rid the Indians than by diseases.

  By the way, your constitution is extracted from the Five Nation confederacy. It would interest you to know that Franklin and Jefferson spent a great deal of time with the Five Nation Confederacy. You can find that information in the book, "Exiled In The land Of The Free" Prefaced by Senator Daniel K. Inouye. The book talks about Democracy, Indian Nations and The U.S. Constituion.

  Red Herrings, thanks for the laugh.

  Guest 77
• 

  imallgrowedup

  Guest,

  Honestly, the indian issue is completely and totally separate from the WMD issue. It certainly is an interesting issue to debate, especially since I have all kinds of information to contribute to the subject. However, I will not allow myself to be distracted from the topic of this thread, which is WMD. I think it would be a great idea to open a new thread on this very fascinating subject and keep this one going as a discussion of WMD. What do you think?

  As far as why Saddam didn't use the WMD that many believe he had/has, I have some theories to present. I have copied and pasted this from a pm message I've sent, however, I think it bears repeating in this thread. Please poke holes in it if you see any, but please don't bring up the indians again, because that is not the discussion topic, okay?! :-) Here is my reasoning:

  First, Saddam "fell off the face of the earth" after the first strike, and from what we can tell, apparently there was no one running the show after that. In the US, no WMD are to be used without the explicit consent and order of the Commander-in-Chief. Even if Saddam gave also gave this authority to Uday and Qusay, all three of them were underground, and therefore, there was no one who had the authority to give that order in a position to do so.

  Secondly, the first strike was only days after the second group of weapons inspectors left Iraq. Since Saddam went to such great lengths to hide his aircraft (30 of them were found buried in the desert), I can only imagine what he would do to hide the wmd. I believe the news reports which say that former Iraqi regime members are talking, and are saying that the wmd were hidden just inside the Syrian and Iranian borders to be credible. WMD don't have to be big huge apparatuses, some are no bigger than a test tube - others, like Yeru says, are no bigger than a 2-litre bottle of coke. Items this size can easily be hidden from another government (ie. the US, Britain, Iran and Syria), as well as a border patrol. I think it is entirely plausible that Saddam didn't have time to get them back before the first strike, and/or didn't have time to unearth them from where they were buried.
  
  Third, by the time we reached Baghdad, most of the Iraqi army had deserted or surrendered. Even if Saddam had been around to order the wmd that he got back from Syria and Iran to be used, there wouldn't have been many soldiers around to take that order.
  
  Fourth, we know that Saddam was in the process of making WMD because of intelligence reports which showed Saddam was getting uranium from (I belive) Nigeria. There is no other use for uranium except for bomb-making purposes. If he didn't have wmd, or was in the process of making non-biological wmd, why was he purchasing uranium?

  growedup
• 

  Satanus

  grow

  Fourth, we know that Saddam was in the process of making WMD because of intelligence reports which showed Saddam was getting uranium from (I belive) Nigeria.

  Double check this story. It was a false one. An agent was sent to niger, to check it. His report and others found no support for it. His wife suffered for his honesty.

  SS
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Actually SS that story was never shown to be "fake". The guy that investigated the claim...Ambassador Wilson, had exactly ZERO training in intelligence. He sat in a hotel room in Nigeria and conduct interviews and then declared the report false.
• 

  Simon

  Incredible isn't it? They found Saddam ... one man able to move around and finally hiding in a hole in the ground. One Iraqi among millions.

  Forgive me, but with all the spy equipment trained on Iraq and the fact that WoMD should be harder to move and hide I think it's incredible that they haven't been found if in fact they do exist, don't you? The speed that the Iraqi's apparently converted weapons factories into old abandoned buildings without the surveillance noticing was astounding! Maybe we should hire them to come and do construction work ...

  I think someone should be asking the people who make billions from the spy satellites just what the heck they are in fact supposed to provide 'cause so far we seem to have got diddly squat !
• 

  LucidSky

  Actually SS that story was never shown to be "fake". The guy that investigated the claim...Ambassador Wilson, had exactly ZERO training in intelligence. He sat in a hotel room in Nigeria and conduct interviews and then declared the report false.

  Condi Rice already admitted the Niger uranium story was a fake on Meet the Press months ago. Strangely, no one cares who faked it. That information was reported by Wilson a year before, yet it was still used in the President's State of the Union speech. Strangely, no one cares how that happened either. When Wilson made this known to the public again, his wife's identity as a secret agent was leaked -- a very serious crime, but again no one really about that either. Lucid
• 

  Satanus

  Maybe wilson was not a spy, maybe he was. Anyway, the cia must have felt he was connected enough in africa, as it hired him to go to niger to check out this claim. His past experince included the following:

  He had been a State Department officer there in the mid-1970s. He was ambassador to Gabon in the early 1990s. And in 1997 and 1998, he was the senior director for Africa at the National Security Council and in that capacity spent a lot of time dealing with the Niger government. Wilson was also the last acting US ambassador in Iraq before the Gulf War, a military action he supported. In that post, he helped evacuate thousands of foreigners from Kuwait, worked to get over 120 American hostages out Iraq, and sheltered about 800 Americans in the embassy compound. At the time, Novak's then-partner, Rowland Evans, wrote that Wilson displayed "the stuff of heroism." And President George H. W. Bush commended Wilson: "Your courageous leadership during this period of great danger for American interests and American citizens has my admiration and respect. I salute, too, your skillful conduct of our tense dealings with the government of Iraq....The courage and tenacity you have exhibited throughout this ordeal prove that you are the right person for the job."

  http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=823

  Here is an excerpt from wilson's comment on the matter: http://www.tjm.org/articles/msg00114.html

  The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq - and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

  I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

  Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

  He claims that the ambassador to niger at thart time had already debunked the niger/iraq/uranium story.

  SS