No Evidence Against Iraq, You Say?

by DakotaRed 49 Replies latest jw friends

  • dubla
    dubla
    some of us wish to see evidence that they still have these weapons

    it is truly hard to fathom that there are actually intelligent people out there naive enough to think that saddam willingly complied and fully destroyed all of his wmd. surely if he had, he wouldve produced documentation of this dismantling immediately, when he was ordered to do so (res.1441), wouldnt he? if he fully complied with the orders to destroy all of his wmd, why not fully comply with 1441, and produce the documentation? or maybe he destroyed all of these massive weapons and simply forgot to make a record of it.....now thats a valid possibility i suppose. the evidence you beg for is already in front of you. its a fact the weapons were there, its a fact that complete documentation on their disposal has not been given...............connect the dots.

    wake up people.

    aa

  • amac
    amac

    Another point to consider Expat...

    If Iraq does not do this then:

    4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12 below;

    Notice that any noncompliance is to be reported to the Council for assessment, not automatic war. I have no doubt that Iraq has failed to meet all of the resolutions, but are these infractions deserving of war and the loss of many, many lives? I have not seen enough evidence for this personally.

  • amac
    amac

    dubla -

    Unfortunately, I am not personally aware of what weapons that Iraq had previous to their required dismantling. And I didn't get a chance to read that 1,200 page (or whatever it was) document on what they have done to comply. I really don't have the time in my life to research to that level, so I rely heavily on the government to do so and then provide evidence of these discrepancies. I have yet to see enough proof for me to support the death of many people to ensure the lives of others. Now if you happen to have a synopsis of the WMD that were there and that have not been proven to have been dismanteled, I would be interested in seeing it.

  • Trauma_Hound
    Trauma_Hound

    What's the matter Dakota, can't come up with anything against Retired Colonel Mike Turner? LOL, I think he knows more about this, than you do.

    http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2003/mar/030311.turner.html

    Another good one. :)

    http://www.msnbc.com/news/884624.asp

    FBI probes fake papers on Iraq
    Investigation eyes possible role of foreign intelligence service
    By Dana Priest and Susan Schmidt
    THE WASHINGTON POST
    WASHINGTON, March 13 — The FBI is looking into the forgery of a key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program, including the possibility that a foreign government is using a deception campaign to foster support for military action against Iraq.

    “IT’S SOMETHING we’re just beginning to look at,” a senior law enforcement official said yesterday. Officials are trying to determine whether the documents were forged to try to influence U.S. policy, or whether they may have been created as part of a disinformation campaign directed by a foreign intelligence service.
    “We’re looking at it from a preliminary stage as to what it’s all about,” he said.
    The FBI has not yet opened a formal investigation because it is unclear whether the bureau has jurisdiction over the matter.
    The phony documents — a series of letters between Iraqi and Niger officials showing Iraq’s interest in equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons — came to British and U.S. intelligence officials from a third country. The identity of the third country could not be learned yesterday.

    The forgery came to light last week during a highly publicized and contentious United Nations meeting. Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the Security Council on March 7 that U.N. and independent experts had decided that the documents were “not authentic.”
    ElBaradei’s disclosure, and his rejection of three other key claims that U.S. intelligence officials have cited to support allegations about Iraq’s nuclear ambitions, struck a powerful blow to the Bush administration’s argument on the matter.
    To the contrary, ElBaradei told the council, “we have to date found no evidence or plausible indications of the revival of a nuclear program in Iraq.”
    The CIA, which had also obtained the documents, had questions about “whether they were accurate,” said one intelligence official, and it decided not to include them in its file on Iraq’s program to procure weapons of mass destruction.

    FBI DELVES IN

    The FBI has jurisdiction over counterintelligence operations by foreign governments against the United States. Because the documents were delivered to the United States, the bureau would most likely try to determine whether the foreign government knew the documents were forged or whether it, too, was deceived.
    Iraq pursued an aggressive nuclear weapons program during the 1970s and 1980s. It launched a crash program to build a nuclear bomb in 1990 after it invaded Kuwait. Allied bombing during the Persian Gulf War in 1991 damaged Iraq’s nuclear infrastructure. The country’s known stocks of nuclear fuel and equipment were removed or destroyed during the U.N. inspections after the war.
    But Iraq never surrendered the blueprints for its nuclear program, and it kept teams of scientists employed after U.N. inspectors were forced to leave in 1998.

  • rem
    rem
    13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

    What are these 'serious consequences' to be? The serious consequences are to be above and beyond the inspections and current sanctions. If the UN members refuse to enforce UN resolutions then they turn the UN into an impotent bureaucracy.

    rem

  • dubla
    dubla

    amac-

    Unfortunately, I am not personally aware of what weapons that Iraq had previous to their required dismantling................ Now if you happen to have a synopsis of the WMD that were there and that have not been proven to have been dismanteled, I would be interested in seeing it.

    well, its pretty common knowledge, and saddam has never denied that he had stockpiled wmd. unfortunately, i dont have time to gather links right now, ill be back on monday to do so if someone else hasnt provided you with the proof by then. this evidence has already been given a hundred times over to the public, and im sure it wont be hard to find on the web.

    aa

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    So much confusing information. I wonder how history will judge us?

    Meanwhile, just to keep things in perspective:

    Englishman.

  • DakotaRed
    DakotaRed

    Who sold Iran & Iraq WMD's ?

    Being as though they use French Mirage jets, have Russian AK-47s rifles and a French Nuclear plant that Israel destroyed, you tell me.

    Who trains terrorists the best and the most?

    If you went and read the links, the camp in Iraq is claimed to be a majot terrorist training camp.

    Now it all flies back into the faces of the UK and US leaders...

    Thats assuming incorrectly that it was the US and UK that armed him.

    What's the matter Dakota, can't come up with anything against Retired Colonel Mike Turner? LOL, I think he knows more about this, than you do.

    Charlie, I have no need to discredit or say anything against Col. Turner. But, may I ask you how you figure he is so much more an expert than the former Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell?

    Turner has his opinion and unless he is clairvoyant, it is only his opinion. But, Powell received far more training and rank in the Army than Turner did. To me, Turners assertion of giving in to terrorism so as to avoid any possible reprisals is tantamount of you allowing a loved one to be raped so as you wouldn't be hurt. Give in now and where does it stop? Or, do you advocate the US becoming another radical Islamic nation with no freedoms, as many in the Muslim world do without?

    You wish to follow Turner, be my guest. I choose to listen to the one who was far ahead of him, Colin Powell.

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Dubla,

    it is truly hard to fathom that there are actually intelligent people out there naive enough to think that saddam willingly complied and fully destroyed all of his wmd.

    Saddam has destroyed under UN supervision more weapons that were destroyed in the Gulf War. As we speak missiles that might be used to carry chemical or nuclear warheads are being melted down in compliance with UN resolutions. Complied he has done to a degree, this is provable, complying he is also doing to a degree, this too is provable. What not as yet been proved is that he is hiding weapons of mass destruction. I suspect that he is, but evidence has not as yet been uncovered to this effect by UN inspectors.

    Is he being forced to comply by threat of force. Yes of course but as I have stated before, the Arab who is overwhelmed by the enemy considers survival victory and so do his people, this is a traditional response. Saddam is less of a threat at this moment than he has been for the past couple of decades. As noted above no link has yet been found between 9/11 and Iraq and the US have climbed down from their previous belligerent insistence on this point and anybody with a cursory knowledge of Middle East affairs know that Saudi Arabia is far more dangerous in this regard than Iraq.

    Intelligent people ( thanks, by the way...lol ) are not naive enough to think that Saddam and Iraq is more dangerous today than they were twelve years ago and the US has not proven its case to the satisfaction of most of the UN member nations that Iraq is a threat that cannot be contained by more prudent methods than Bunker bombs. Saddam knows his already tattered country would lose any war launched against it by any major force, and I am quite sure that he knows that a war will shortly be launched but quite clearly the US have lost the propaganda war, the most important one in today’s media soaked world, and this seems to have been the object of the Iraqi regime.

    As I am repeating myself in my posts, I will disgracefully bow out of these discussions now.

    Best regards to all - HS

  • freeman
    freeman

    I’m wondering, just what it would take for those earnestly opposed to war to agree that Iraq under its present regime constitutes an unacceptable threat that must be dealt with expediently?

    I say this assuming that everyone is aware that the Director of Central Intelligence, George J. Tenet, has stated openly that the Iraqi regime has an active terrorist training camp not far from Baghdad that is known to be frequented by Bin Laden disciples. Bin Laden disciples have used the Bowing 727 jet fuselage parked in the middle of this camp to practice how to hijack airplanes.

    I have a hard time understanding why that one reason alone is not enough to take action.

    Freeman

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit