WoMD ... so where are they? (page 50)

Realist

jayson,

The French the Russians the Germans all said that WMD existed Simon. Blix said that WMD existed.

no, they said they do not know and want the inspections to continue. the german foreign minister for instance stated specifically regarding powells report to the UN: "sorry but i am not convinced! [that there are WMDs]"

I talked about that in a post not to long ago. You must not read all my posts accept to argue. Also, how did the US sell Iraq those Russian tanks? And the Migs? Those were of US origion? How about the French nuclear reactor that the now President of France sold Iraq. How do you pin that on Bush? I'm all ears.

you must not read all my posts either (i don't blame you though because there are hundreds of posts and dozens of threads regarding the war) otherwise you would know that i do not hold the french, russian or german gov. in a much higher esteem than the US gov. Are the people in charge in these countries just as huge lying pricks as bush and his band? absolutely! did they care about the people in iraq? absolutely not! the govs. on all sides care only about 2 things: a) reelection and b) profit for them and their employers (and i am not talking about the population but about the small influencial circles that largely run all our countries).

However, the Middle East would be better off if we did take it over. The thing is we don't want it.

you mean better off like south america? oh where would these poor bastards be without the fantastic help of US welfare institutions such as the american fruit company or exxon oil?

of course the US gov. doesn't want the people! but it wants the resources namely the oil! just as in latin america.

Maybe someone in the UK could phrase this better than I will because I am so polerized against the European way of (or lack of) self defense rights.

ahh ok...i completely misunderstood that in your previous post. i agree...criminals have too many rights in europe.

Amazing how everything was fine until Bush, rummie, and wolfie. Now all of a sudden America = nazism. Oh, the bellyaching of the left.

actually nothing was fine before bush. clinton and albright are largely responsible for at least half a million deaths in iraq. clinton was just a little more descrete than bush's admin who is arrogantly pissing off the entire world.

History shows it Realist.

oh really? hussein wanted to conquer the entire world? very realistic!

he wanted the disputed regions of iran and kuwait. (both cases were originally backed by the US). to conclude from this that he wanted war with the world is crazy.

dubla,

yes, thats quite a bit different from your original statement, which was:

again sorry for being to vague.

so, what youre now saying, is that the media is always pro-war, regardless of who is in office, right? if so, fair enough....at least youre retracting your statement about bush controlling the media.

ok let me try to make it clear one more time...the white house (respectively the people who control the white house and your president (bush's family actually belongs to that group)) control the media. since every war is instigated by these people the media backs the wars.

Next, one must also believe contradictory things about George W. Bush. One must believe him to be, on one hand, a calculating, Machiavellian conspirator who managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people in order to justify starting a war. On the other hand, he must be enough of an amiable dunce to forget to arrange for WMDs to be "found" in Iraq after the war. In fact, our inability to find such weapons so far is the best evidence that Bush did not fabricate the administration's fears of Iraqi WMD. Why would he jeopardize his credibility over an issue he knew to be fabricated, knowing a) that he would not find a WMD arsenal in post-war Iraq, and b) the lack of such an arsenal would invite closer scrutiny of the administration's pre-war arguments? If Bush were smart enough to create the extraordinary conspiracy with which his critics have charged, you'd think he'd be smart enough to address that question before committing himself to pursuing it.

simply because it doesn't matter! the US public stays united behind bush. 50% of the american people even believe WMDs were already discovered! look at yourself, thichi, jayson, yeru! does it matter whether he finds wmds? obviously not. you will believe bush if he says the WMDs were transported to iran or given to al quaida.

and the rest of the world didn't trust bush in the first place. so without international inspectors that would doubtlessly disprove false claims nobody would believe such a finding.

thichi,

If Saddam Hussein never had WMDs, why didn't he just let the UN Inspectors into his nation so he could keep on torturing and building palaces? If he never had WMDs, what did he use to gas the Kurds?

he did let the inspectors in!

did he have WMDs in the past? of course. does that mean he horted them until the last minute just so the US would have a reason to remove him? and why didn't he use them against the US troops? where would the logic be in this scenario? why would hussein have done that?

William Penwell

Breaking News 6/13/03
Second intelligence report: "No Reliable Information" Iraqis Stockpiling Chemical Weapons

by David E. Kaplan and Mark Mazzetti

In October 2002, a classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared jointly by U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons. But one month later, the Defense Intelligence Agency issued a report stating that there was "no reliable information" showing that Iraq was actually producing or stockpiling chemical weapons, U.S. News has learned.

The DIA's classified November assessment mirrors a September analysis that the agency made on the same subject. That report was first disclosed by the magazine early this month, fueling a controversy about whether President Bush and top aides overstated the threat posed by Iraq in making the case for war. Administration officials deny manipulating intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs and say they are confident that the Defense Department eventually will find weapons of mass terror.

The newly-disclosed DIA report, classified "secret,'' is entitled, "Iraq's Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapon and Missile Program: Progress, Prospects, and Potential Vulnerabilities.'' Its existence raises more questions about the quality of U.S. intelligence before the March invasion. In one section about Iraq's chemical weapons capabilities, the report says: "No reliable information indicates whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where the country has or will establish its chemical agent production facility." The report cites suspicious weapons transfers and improvements on Iraq's "dual-use" chemical infrastructure. Nonetheless, says a DIA spokesman, "there was no single piece of irrefutable data that said [Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein] definitely has it."

In recent days, President Bush has tempered his rhetoric about Iraq's terror weapons capabilities. "I am absolutely convinced, with time, we'll find out that they did have a weapons program," he told reporters this week. This departs from language used by his senior advisors before the war. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld perhaps was the most expansive: "There's no debate in the world as to whether they have those weapons. There's no debate in the world as to whether they're continuing to develop and acquire them. There's no debate in the world as to whether or not he's used them. There's no debate in the world as to whether or not he's consistently threatening his neighbors with them. We all know that. A trained ape knows that."

Yet, the DIA reports indicate that Rumsfeld's own analysts were more cautious in their conclusions about the threat posed by Iraq. "The DIA can be more conservative in their assessments, because they have a greater detachment from the policy makers than CIA does," says Patrick Lang, who worked as a top Iraq analyst for both agencies. The administration's handling of its intelligence dossier on Iraq, before the war, is under scruntiny by congressional committees. Those inquries could lead to public hearings.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/usinfo/press/intell.htm

searchfothetruth

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=416351

Jayson

Again Mark you don't play by the rules. Funny how I am singled out and your posting continues. (Hmmmmmmm) Do you not know what a link is WITHOUT the whole article?

ThiChi

I know, and not a word from you know who......

Guest 77

Ah, let's keep this thread alive.

The Fictional War On Terrorism

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=40857

Guest 77

searchfothetruth

Jayson/ThiChi,

Stop moaning boys...I print it out because I know how much trouble you have looking up links, at least with it written out in front of you, you may read SOME of it.

If you look back at this page alone the both of you have done exactly what your MOANING at me for!

Try and discuss what's IN the articles for a change!

IslandWoman

Hi to everyone on this thread. I have not kept up with all the postings here so if what I have to say has already been covered please excuse my post.

Remember when Secretary Colin Powell appeared before the U.N. and held up photos showing evidence that Iraq was moving around WMD or whatever. The photos were taken by satellite I believe and showed trucks being moved from one place to another.

What I don't understand is that if we could "see" them moving trucks around in their country how is it we could not "see" them moving all the WMD out of their country? Isn't that what some in the U.S. are now saying, that possibly the WMD were moved out before the war? How is it our intelligence gathering efforts could pick up a couple of trucks being moved around the country months before the war but did not "see" a whole bunch of trucks being driven out of the country just before the war?

IW

Simon

ThiChi / Jayson

I do not appreciate the snide point that you are trying to make, ie. that I allow one thing and not the other or am being unfair.

If you have a problem, let me know by PM or email without the sarcastic comments and then I may be able to do something. Otherwise, assume that there is the possibility that I haven't seen the post yet !

expatbrit

I claim the 500th post on this thread in the name of Michael Moore.

Expatbrit

WoMD ... so where are they?

Share this