WMD (Weapons of Mass Disappearance)

War, News and Stories of Iraq

Moderator: Super Moderators

User avatar
diep
Pirate
Posts: 44
Joined: 09-22-2003 03:37 PM

Post by diep » 10-07-2003 01:37 PM

I'm not sure where SOME of you are obtaining the idea that Bush SAID that Iraq was posing an IMMINENT danger -- when he didn't -- he said "some threats need to be addressed BEFORE they become imminent."

Just some simple facts for Cherry:

On March 17, two days before the war, Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.''

Powell told the UN about: 25,000 liters of anthrax, mobile biological and chemical weapons production facilities, Iraqi defectors claiming stuff, unmanned aircrafts, vast amounts of chemical weaponry, aluminum tubes for centrifuges. All of these have not turned up or have been proven to be faulty intelligence. No imminent dangers projected here?

BUT STRANGE ENOUGH Powell said in Cairo in February 2001, “He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.

It's not very difficult what to conclude: the IDIOTS are in charge, and the SHEEP can't still believe they are led astray.

Cherry Kelly
Pirate
Posts: 12852
Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
Contact:

Post by Cherry Kelly » 10-08-2003 10:57 AM

diep - your "answers" are not applicable to the point made about "imminent" danger (my post you quoted).

Did you read through the 98 quotes - you want more of them? All quotes -
2001-2002
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen. Bob Graham, D-FL, and others. Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin, D-MI. Sept. 19, 2002."We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA. Sept. 27, 2002.
"(We) know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Vice President Al Gore. Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Vice President Al Gore. Sept. 23, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV. Oct. 3, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-WV. Oct 10, 2002.
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA. Oct. 10, 2002
"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 ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY. Oct 10, 2002.

and 2003

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry, D-MA. Jan. 23, 2003.


try those on for size.... interesting ehh?

User avatar
diep
Pirate
Posts: 44
Joined: 09-22-2003 03:37 PM

Post by diep » 10-11-2003 02:58 PM

Cherry, it's clear that you, just like the people you quote are 'people who think they know, but they actually deal in a limited number of ideologically constructed "stories" about the world that rely heavily on stereotype and prejudice, and are infrequently submitted to serious pragmatic challenge'. :)

Who cares about the word 'imminent' , it's the threat that was totally miscalculated alltogether.

Or are you still quoting the find of one vial some scientist had stored in his family fridge at his home for ten years, as proof for an active program of biological warfare?

User avatar
CindyLouWho
Pirate
Posts: 3533
Joined: 01-02-2003 03:00 AM

Post by CindyLouWho » 10-12-2003 08:15 PM

Next I suspect we'll hear that this was not a PRE-EMPTIVE war, but a DEFENSIVE one.

:rolleyes: , :rolleyes: and :rolleyes: !!

swimmbadd
Pirate
Posts: 1879
Joined: 03-16-2003 03:00 AM

Post by swimmbadd » 11-02-2003 10:25 PM

I don’t think there is any doubt there were weapons of mass destruction. The main question is where are they now?. Why did we allow them to leave the country? It has become my belief that this war was for the wrong reason under the guise of a right one, other wise the weapons would not have been allowed to leave the boarders of Iraq.

Do you remember hearing of the cargo ship that left Iraq? What was it carrying? Where did it go? Was it ever investigated or boarded? Why was it allowed to leave?
Now we hear of old satellite photos revealing convoys leaving Iraq going into Syria just before the war.
Why did we let that happen?
The answer is because this war really wasn’t about weapons of mass destruction.
It was a personal vendetta. Were it not so we would never have let them leave the country.

But they did leave the country and will now fall into the wrong hands to be used against us by the highest bidder. It appears that we have been led into creating our own worst nightmare.

I predict that after mid 2005 we will see those weapons being used against us. Which will be a convenient excuse for more war. Probably THE WAR.

Eh I could be wrong ;) I Hope so.

--Rick--
Last edited by swimmbadd on 11-02-2003 10:27 PM, edited 1 time in total.
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy!

User avatar
CindyLouWho
Pirate
Posts: 3533
Joined: 01-02-2003 03:00 AM

Post by CindyLouWho » 11-03-2003 12:19 AM

Rick,

I think you've got it exactly right ... sadly.

No, this was not a war about weapons of mass destruction. It was also not a DEFENSIVE war ... first time our military has been used PRE-EMPTIVELY and ILLEGALLY. (Way to go, GW!!! You've won the cowboy-dork-of-the-century-award!)

We will probably never know where the WMD are (some that we gifted Saddam with, aren't we the sweetest & most generous?!?).

So now we are even MORE HATED, globally, than we ever were before this invasion (and we already WERE) with 70% of the WORLD AGAINST us attacking Iraq (but hey, who cares about popularity contests .. until Nov of 04!) ... so why wouldn't these missing WMD's be used against us in the future? Sadly, I think we may depend upon it.

Anyone got any oxycontin?

:(

User avatar
BenSlain
Pirate
Posts: 3419
Joined: 09-14-2000 02:00 AM

Post by BenSlain » 11-03-2003 01:04 AM

Swim-"I predict that after mid 2005 we will see those weapons being used against us. Which will be a convenient excuse for more war".

If anybody uses these wepons against us I don't think it would be a convenient excuse. I think it would be a GOOD REASON for war.

Maybe the reason these wepons got out of the country is because is cause we draged our ass getting there. How many months did the UN, France and Germany set us back. And I 'm not saying I'm happy about being there but I always think if you're gonna go....go hard and fast.
Put in a prison cell, but one time he could-a been The champion of the world.

User avatar
CindyLouWho
Pirate
Posts: 3533
Joined: 01-02-2003 03:00 AM

Post by CindyLouWho » 11-03-2003 01:28 AM

BenSlain wrote: How many months did the UN, France and Germany set us back.


Total COP (hehe, pun intended) OUT!

Ever stop to consider that UN, Germany, France AND THE REST OF THE FREE WORLD (or at least 70%) might have been correct in that we shouldn't have INVADED (lets call it what it is) Iraq in the first place?

Seriously, in your heart of heats, is there ANY chance that 70% of the world might have been right and we might have been wrong?


(p.s. XOXO, and I mean that)

mudwoman
Pirate
Posts: 9375
Joined: 05-17-2000 02:00 AM

Post by mudwoman » 11-03-2003 02:46 AM

BenSlain wrote: Maybe the reason these wepons got out of the country is because is cause we draged our ass getting there. How many months did the UN, France and Germany set us back. And I 'm not saying I'm happy about being there but I always think if you're gonna go....go hard and fast.
In addition to Cindy's comments, I would like to remind you of this fact:

If the US wanted to invade, let's say France (just to keep things light and friendly - tehe) tomorrow we could not. The logistics of moving a couple of hundred thousand troops, their weaponry, support equipment and supplies, plus several aircraft carriers with all their support craft, positioning aircraft, calling up the national Guard (because we do not have a large enough standing army)...well...you get the picture...takes months of planning and moving the pieces around on the 'War Board'.


BTW: You might be interested (or not) that my daughter's first hubby was French. A sculptor. Anyway, she is a dual citizen. American/French. She holds both French and American passports.

Since she spends time in France due to her work (art book editor and author), speaks fluent French and has friends there this is handy.

All that said, the reason she chose to apply for dual citizenship is because when she travels across most of Europe (the Mediterranean countries in particular such as Greece, where she once lived) it is a much easier using a French passport than an American one. She also has an easier time "being French" when she travels to Russia and even Japan!

Seems the world is not very friendly to Americans these days.
Last edited by mudwoman on 11-03-2003 02:50 AM, edited 1 time in total.

Joolz
Pirate
Posts: 11976
Joined: 12-25-2002 03:00 AM

Post by Joolz » 11-03-2003 04:49 AM

mudwoman... I was reading your story about your daughter, and it made me think of something I heard this weekend... A friend of ours (a big ol' guy, ex-Marine) recently went to Paris (alone). I saw him Friday night for the first time since his return mid-week. He was telling me that he found it unwise to say he was an American (although most people could tell just by observing him). He found himself almost to the point of fighting on a couple of occasions, although he managed to avoid any actual physical confrontations (he IS a big dude). He said he found that kinda sad... where Americans were once welcomed with open arms in France (as long as you weren't with a Brit -- no love lost there LOL), now he felt despised. I have nothing against the French, nor does my friend (still don't, neither of us), but it is growing obvious that Americans are not as welcome there -- and no doubt in other parts of Europe, as well as the rest of the world -- as they once were.
Last edited by Joolz on 11-03-2003 05:05 AM, edited 1 time in total.
Image Anchors Aweigh!

User avatar
diep
Pirate
Posts: 44
Joined: 09-22-2003 03:37 PM

Post by diep » 11-03-2003 09:55 PM

swimmbadd wrote: I don’t think there is any doubt there were weapons of mass destruction. The main question is where are they now?. Why did we allow them to leave the country?
--Rick--


Hmmm, I admire your faith in the Holy Grails of Mass Destruction, but the most reasonable stance on it, viewing all published evidence, is that there weren't any weaponized materials in use, or even usefull for sale on the black weapon market.

So your question should be first: 'where is the evidence of their existence?'.

Still holding my breath :o

User avatar
Iris
Pirate
Posts: 13539
Joined: 01-01-2003 03:00 AM

Post by Iris » 11-04-2003 05:37 AM

If this was a war against a cruel dictator and mass graves, why pick on only Saddam?

If this was a war against an "imminent threat" why let it leave?

If this was a war against terrorists, why leave our borders open?
We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

swimmbadd
Pirate
Posts: 1879
Joined: 03-16-2003 03:00 AM

Post by swimmbadd » 11-04-2003 04:17 PM

Ben I agree it would be a good reason but what I'm saying is, is that it seems to have been planned for that out come.

I'm not saying I actually believe it is that way but that certain things indicate that's the case.
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy!

mudwoman
Pirate
Posts: 9375
Joined: 05-17-2000 02:00 AM

Post by mudwoman » 12-07-2003 02:57 AM

Image

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 12-08-2003 11:18 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105086,00.html

Iraqi Colonel: WMD Could've Been Launched in 45 Minutes--

Sunday, December 07, 2003
FOX NEWS--

Saddam Hussein (search) had weapons of mass destruction and his army was capable of firing them off in less than 45 minutes, according to statements from an Iraqi colonel.

Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh told the London Telegraph that cases of WMD warheads were shipped under cover of darkness to front-line units, including his own, near the end of 2002, in a report published in Sunday editions.

In September of 2002 the British government published a controversial intelligence report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, claiming WMD could be launched within 45 minutes. Al-Dabbagh said he believed he was the source of the claim, which was widely criticized as being a ploy by British Prime Minister Tony Blair (search) to gain support for military action in Iraq (search).

"I am the one responsible for providing this information," al-Dabbagh, 40, told the Telegraph when shown the dossier. "It is 100 percent accurate."

"Forget 45 minutes, we could have fired these within half-an-hour," he was quoted as saying.

Al-Dabbagh told the paper that the weapons were Iraqi-manufactured and were designed to be launched from hand-held rocket-propelled grenades. Whether the weapons contained biological or chemical agents was not made clear by al-Dabbagh, the report said.

Iraqi military commanders could use the weapons only on the personal orders of Saddam, al-Dabbagh told the paper, adding: "We were told that when the war came we would only have a short time to use everything we had to defend ourselves, including the secret weapon."

So why weren't the weapons launched against the allied forces encroaching on Iraq? Al-Dabbagh said the majority of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam.

"The West should thank God that the Iraqi army decided not to fight," he told the paper. "If the army had fought for Saddam Hussein and used these weapons there would have been terrible consequences."
racehorse
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Iraq”