WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon 865 Replies latest social current

dubla

realist-
interesting story (the first one you posted).....i hadnt seen that yet. i thought it was curious that the skeptics hadnt even examined the trucks first hand..?? but, in any event, there will always be skeptics, even if 3000 tons of chemical agent are found (the skeptics will claim it was planted). i would be interested to see how many experts have examined the trucks, and how many of them came to each conclusion (either they were for bio weapons, or not). sounds like the jurys still out, which is what ive been saying all along.
aa
patio34

Hi Dubla,
Sorry, but I haven't read all of the posts in this lengthy thread. It's interesting that you're willing to wait on the "jury" to come back in. I think that most of the country's population feels that way. However, the media and congress is beginning to get restless and wanting some solid answers.
What do you think of the US News & Report's article last week that discusses a leaked document that indicates there was intelligence that there was NO WMDs in Iraq? How long do you intend to wait on the jury or accept the PC version (Pentagon-correct)? I have trouble waiting on authorities that seem to be blatantly breaking international laws in my name since it's a democracy. This government's aggressive war invasion and occupation policies don't represent me.
Here's a link to the US News article in case you want to see it: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/usinfo/popunder2.htm
Pat
dubla

patio-
What do you think of the US News & Report's article last week that discusses a leaked document that indicates there was intelligence that there was NO WMDs in Iraq?
i havent read it, and i couldnt get into your link. if that was found to be true, it would be quite the scandal story.
How long do you intend to wait on the jury or accept the PC version (Pentagon-correct)?
its never been about the pentagon for me.....its never been about what bush said, or powell, or rummy........my belief that saddam had wmd has always been about common sense. it only made sense to me that if he couldnt show documentation on their destruction, he still had them. it only made sense to me that he wouldnt put his country through a decade of sanctions for no good reason (why play games with the world for 10+ years if you dont even have wmd?). the bottom line is, saddam was in violation of a number of u.n. resolutions.....and if he didnt have any of these weapons, it really didnt make a whole lot of sense to violate any of the resolutions. the u.s./u.k. enforced the resolutions that some of the u.n. didnt want to enforce. every u.n. security council member believed iraq had wmd. if the u.s. intelligence proves to be inaccurate, this also proves that the intelligence agencies of every country in the world are faulty.
as far as how long im willing to wait, ive seen estimates on the weapons search going into at least september, so thats one time line to look at. personally, i would be shocked if nothing is found, but once again, that has nothing to do with what my government has told me. if ive been lied to about how much evidence we actually had, it wouldnt bother me one bit....i expect to be lied to at every turn, as every citizen of every country should expect. if the bush adminstration goes down in a big ball of flames, it wont hurt my feelings....im far from a bush disciple.
I have trouble waiting on authorities that seem to be blatantly breaking international laws in my name since it's a democracy.
if youre talking about the war, the idea that international laws were broken is certainly an opinion and not a fact.
aa
Realist

hello Dubla,
lets forget about the WMDs for a second....don't you find it alarming that the US and british gov. falsified information in order to convince the public to support an unjustified war? from oil and halliburton over the WMD and the supposed al quaida connection so far everything the sceptics doubted seems to have been indeed lies from the bush admin.

searchfothetruth

Patio,

Just thought i'd post that article you mentioned:

Pentagon Report Found
'No Reliable Evidence'
Of Iraq WMD By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
The Independent - UK
6-7-3

A report by the Pentagon's intelligence agency concluded last year there was "no reliable evidence" to prove Saddam Hussein had developed chemical weapons - further undermining claims from Washington and London that the Iraqi regime presented a genuine threat to the West.

A leaked copy of the report by the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) reveals that, despite extensive analysis, experts were unable definitively to conclude Iraq was either stockpiling or producing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The report's contents will add to the considerable pressure Tony Blair and President George Bush face as their pre-war claims come under intense scrutiny.

"There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has - or will - establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities," a summary page of the DIA report said. The report does not suggest Iraq did not have WMD. Indeed, it concludes that Iraq "probably" has such stockpiles. But its language is far more circumspect than that of senior Bush administration officials and the President himself, who insisted Iraq not only had large stocks of WMD but it was capable of delivering them in weapons.

On 19 September, for instance, Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, told Congress that Iraq had "amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin and mustard gas".

Last summer, speaking to the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, Mr Rumsfeld was more explicit. "They have them, and they continue to develop them, and they have weaponised chemical weapons," he said. "They've had an active programme to develop nuclear weapons. It's clear they are a tively developing biological weapons."

The DIA report, entitled Iraq: Key Weapons Facilities - An Operational Support Study, suggests Iraq had developed biological weapons, though it made clear experts were uncertain of the nature of those weapons or how many had been developed. "Iraq is assessed to possess biological agent stockpiles that may be weaponised and ready for use,'' it said. "The size of those stockpiles is uncertain and is subject to debate. The nature and condition of those stockpiles are unknown."

Yesterday, Vice-Admiral Lowell Jacoby, the DIA director, said the summary page - "a single sentence" - ought not to be interpreted that the DIA "doubted the existence of the WMD programme". However, he confirmed the DIA had no hard information on weapons, stockpiles or locations.

Analysts were quick to jump on the summary report, obtained by Bloomberg News, as evidence the US and Britain had overstated the case in regard to Iraq's weapons capability.Jonathan Tucker, a former UN weapons inspector and senior research fellow at the US Institute for Peace, said: "The DIA report suggests that before the Iraq war, the US intelligence community did not have hard evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed large stocks of chemical and biological warfare agents that posed an imminent threat to US national security."

Two months after fighting in Iraq ended, US and British troops have failed to uncover any conclusive proof that Saddam had developed or stock-piled WMD. Congress is currently reviewing the pre-war intelligence and the CIA has ordered its own internal review.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=413164

dubla

patio-
now that i have read the article (thanks search), i can better respond.....
What do you think of the US News & Report's article last week that discusses a leaked document that indicates there was intelligence that there was NO WMDs in Iraq?
the article doesnt say that....in fact, it says:
The report does not suggest Iraq did not have WMD. Indeed, it concludes that Iraq "probably" has such stockpiles.
and yes, i have already seen this over the weekend. its apparently going to be declassified, and the government has said that the report doesnt contradict any of their claims of iraqs wmd. this article seems to back up that claim....as the dia report in fact suggests that iraq still did posses stockpiles of unconventional weapons........the only question it casts is "how definitive was the evidence?". the answer to that question, as ive stated, is irrelevant to my personal beliefs on the matter, as they have never stemmed from this "evidence".
realist-
don't you find it alarming that the US and british gov. falsified information.....
if this is proven to be true, it wouldnt surprise me.........as ive said, i expect blatant lies from every government across the globe. is it alarming? of course.....its alarming that no one on this planet will ever get the whole story from any government.
......in order to convince the public to support an unjustified war?
"unjustified" is a matter of opinion. resolution 1441, which was unanimously voted for in the u.n., specifically called for war if iraq didnt comply....the only thing that wasnt agreed upon was the timeline for action. you can repeat your claims that the war was unjust or illegal ad nausem, but it wont make it fact......itll still be an opinion, and ill still have mine.
aa
Jayson

I'm sorry you now feel it is such an unimportant issue. Would you honestly be so keen to drop the subject if weapons had been found (and if they still are)?
It may be a waste of time for you to discuss this issue (and I agree with you, it would be) but it's perhaps the most important thing that has happened to the world in several years which is why so many people are so keen to debate the rights and wrongs of it.

Simon,
This is an important issue. I said so in the begining of this thread. I supported you about the first points you made. When you began your anti Bush mantra and refused to look at any of the resources that I gave you (as others of your point of view continue to do) we have 20 pages on all of this reteric that goes no where. You have given zero fact or proof that Bush or Blair lied. ZERO. If anything the lack of the ability to gather intel on Iraq gives leverage to the ideals of the invasion not less. All your opinion is formed by Al-Jazirah "west." I simply have better things to do that participate in the next 20 pages about nothing. It does not mean that you are right I just buy into the saying "who is the bigger fool the fool himself or the one who argues with him." I gave you sources Simon you gave back crap. And that crap was debunked by dubla and you just kept on. I said, as has Blix, (Is he credible to you) that the scouring of Iraq is going to take time. If you had read the material that I suggested that was a fact before the war started. The WMD are an issue. But they are not the only issue. Your thinking is to small to understand the big picture about this. But thats OK you don't have to understand. Maybe my thinking to to broad. But thats OK too. I just hope that we don't have to wait until 2008 for JWD to level out. I got some private Email from friends here a bit ago. It basicly said that maybe my problem is that I am responding to the wrong threads. When I posted as "Iwasyoungonce" none of this "crapola" existed. I don't like the anti-american sediment here. I know that others don't either. But it's your choice to feel the way you do. Its choking JWD. I am glad that Iraq is lifted from the boot of Saddam. It does not bother me one bit that it was done by force. Finding WMD was not the issue. Preventing them from being aquired and used yes part of the equasion. However, it was not the only issue. I know it is for you Simon; Live well and be happy. Now, I have to go for a motorcycle ride...
Pleasuredome

dubla
resolution 1441, which was unanimously voted for in the u.n., specifically called for war if iraq didnt comply

could you "specifically" back that up?
clause 10 of the UN resolution 1441 said:
10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
now didn't the US breach clause 10 by removing 8,000 pages of the Iraqi declaration before it was handed over to the non-permanent members of the UN security council?
I'LL BE BACK!
dubla

pleasure-
could you "specifically" back that up?
i thought it was common knowledge.....unless of course "serious consequences" simply meant no pudding after dinner.?
now didn't the US breach clause 10 by removing 8,000 pages of the Iraqi declaration before it was handed over to the non-permanent members of the UN security council?
i dont see how..? it was agreed by the permanent members (not just the u.s.) that taking out the "how to" manuals on nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons was in everyones best interest. do you disagree with that decision, and if so, why?
clause 10 speaks of providing information on iraqs programs to unmovic and the iaea......are there specifically non-permanent members in unmovic or the iaea that were not provided this information? if so, please provide links to back this up....im unaware of it.
aa
Pleasuredome

i thought, i though, i thought....
serious consquences means war, does it? oh yes very specific!
"how to" manuals
what does this BS mean? i take you were privy to that info then?
unmovic has to report to the security council, including the non-permanent members who the take a vote on what action is to be taken. if you're going remove 8,000 pages of documentation, so non members dont get the full picture, then how can the come to a fair view of the declaration?
it was agreed by the permanent members (not just the u.s.) that taking out the "how to" manuals on nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons was in everyones best interest. do you disagree with that decision, and if so, why?
if what you say was right, then how kind of the US to everyone this favour. whats the big deal about it? just ignore the pages for goodness sake. if it had been anyone else who had removed pages from a document like this you would have made a big deal of it.
just do yourself a favour dubla. stand back, take a look at the big picture, and say "yes, it's a piece of $hit"

WoMD ... so where are they?

Share this