WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon 865 Replies latest social current

Guest 77

Jayson, please justify the Europeans killing and stealing land from Native American Indians, please. I can't wait to hear your answer.
Guest 77
Jayson

Dear Guest77,
Could you please explain how you see your question relevent to the thread topic of "where are the Iraqi wmd?"
dubla

realist-
if you still want to believe in the honesty of your gov. fine. nothing can convince you of the opposite.
how many times do i have to say on one thread that i believe the u.s. government lies just like all governments do? how many times do i have to say that i dont trust bush or any other politician? geez, its hard to get through to some people.....they hear what they want to hear in order to paint the picture they want to display it seems.
powell presented stuff to the UN that was poorly fabricated trash. that he didn'T write these reports himself is no excuse. the secretary of state should check twice before he talks to the UN in such an important matter. after all this was about war and not about the seating order.
the war was inevitable, long before powell or bush got involved. all this talk about the latest "evidence" is all irrelevant at the end of the day, at least to me personally. ive only humored the arguments because some on here have fashioned their entire stance around them.
what happened to these anyway? last thing i heard is that the experts dissmissed the claim of mobile WMD factories.
well, you heard wrong. there was a debate about it, but they were never "dismissed" as you heard. but, i suppose iraq couldve needed mobile laboratories to make cookies, cakes, and such.
iraqi officials obviously disagreed with the assumption that 1000 tonnes were missing otherwise they would not have submitted such a doc.
really? iraq disagreed? wow, what a shock....and up to that point they had been so forthcoming about any and all banned weapons.
i noticed you bolded the "not jumping to conclusions" part, obviously because it suits your argument.....lets not forget the sentences following that one:
However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.
they couldnt produce the evidence, and your only response to that is to question the numbers blix provided, with absolutely no backing or merit to your claim. hey, if it makes you sleep better at night, then believe all the numbers were a big lie.......heck, i would take saddams word on any of these issues. after all, hes never lied before, right?
aa
Guest 77

Jayson do you see any parallels? Was it really about WoMD's and 'freeing' the oppressed citizens?
Guest 77
Guest 77

Jayson do you see any parallels? Was it really about WoMD's and 'freeing' the oppressed citizens?
Guest 77
Jayson

Dear Guest77-
Um still lost. Is this your own personal theroy? If you have a point make it.
Realist

dubla,
how many times do i have to say on one thread that i believe the u.s. government lies just like all governments do? how many times do i have to say that i dont trust bush or any other politician? geez, its hard to get through to some people.....they hear what they want to hear in order to paint the picture they want to display it seems.
so why are you defending powells obviously fabricated report?
the war was inevitable, long before powell or bush got involved. all this talk about the latest "evidence" is all irrelevant at the end of the day, at least to me personally. ive only humored the arguments because some on here have fashioned their entire stance around them.
the war was indeed inevitable. but not because hussein posed a threat but because he was an easy target.
well, you heard wrong. there was a debate about it, but they were never "dismissed" as you heard. but, i suppose iraq couldve needed mobile laboratories to make cookies, cakes, and such.
the last news report that i saw stated that the experts which were brought to iraq strongly doubt that the vehicles were used to produce dangerous germs. the labs were lacking essential parts required to produce bioweapon materials.
really? iraq disagreed? wow, what a shock....and up to that point they had been so forthcoming about any and all banned weapons.
well there are 2 opinions on the issue...the iraqi and the US opinion. and i don't see any reason to trust the US more than iraq.
i noticed you bolded the "not jumping to conclusions" part, obviously because it suits your argument.....lets not forget the sentences following that one:
i bolded the parts because you had bolded the ones that supported your opinon.
they couldnt produce the evidence, and your only response to that is to question the numbers blix provided, with absolutely no backing or merit to your claim. hey, if it makes you sleep better at night, then believe all the numbers were a big lie.......heck, i would take saddams word on any of these issues. after all, hes never lied before, right?
i asked the question before....how did the inspection teams come up with the original numbers and the numbers of how much was destroyed? that iraq didn't even try to come up with an explanation of what happened to these weapons is somewhat hard to believe. non of us knows enough about the inspection process and what is going on behind the scenes to come to a certain conclusion whether iraq had something left of its WMDs or not.
after the motto cui bono i don't see how hussein could have profited from keeping WMDs and not giving explanations as to where the WMDs went. but the US was obviously profiting from it.
i find powell and bush not at all more trustworthy than hussein and his guys. and so far it seem hussein was telling more the truth about the WMDs than powell and bush.
dubla

realist-
so why are you defending powells obviously fabricated report?
the reason i originally got involved in the powell debate is simply because there were posters making his presentation out to be something it wasnt......namely, they were stating that powell claimed to know exactly where stockpiles of wmd were, which ive shown is entirely false. please note that ive never stated powells information was 100% lock tight solid evidence (in fact, ive said several times that imo, the "jury is still out")........i just dont hold the same "he was bold face lying" opinion that you do. i dont think it all has to be as black and white as your side paints it to be.......usually the truth lies somewhere in between, which would be my guess here......maybe the intelligence evidence was faulty.....which as ive said before, would mean simply that every intelligence agency in the world failed miserably on this one.
the last news report that i saw stated that the experts which were brought to iraq strongly doubt that the vehicles were used to produce dangerous germs. the labs were lacking essential parts required to produce bioweapon materials.
there were selected experts that doubted the biolabs, yes.....there were quite a few more that stated the labs couldnt have been conceivably used for anything else....like say, pies and fresh bread.
and i don't see any reason to trust the US more than iraq.
do you see a valid reason to trust iraq more than the u.s. (perhaps saddams long history of being completely honest to his people and the entire world)? or is it just a toss up, and whenever there is a toss up you automatically side against the u.s.?
asked the question before....how did the inspection teams come up with the original numbers
oh, thats pretty simple....they counted them........weve been over this, and youre aware of it, but nothing short of a 2003 inventory will suffice for you. all ive asked all along is "what happened to them"? still no intelligent answer.
that iraq didn't even try to come up with an explanation of what happened to these weapons is somewhat hard to believe.
oh, they came up with an explanation....they said they "destroyed them all".....which is all fine and dandy, providing they can produce documentation of it. i think weve passed the "broken record" stage a while back, and we are well beyond the "dead horse" stage at this point.
after the motto cui bono i don't see how hussein could have profited from keeping WMDs and not giving explanations as to where the WMDs went.
and i dont see how he would have profited by keeping inspectors out of iraq from 1998-2003, knowing full well this was keeping sanctions on his country. why not just fully cooperate the entire time, if he had nothing to hide? another question ive yet to hear a decent response to.
and so far it seem hussein was telling more the truth about the WMDs than powell and bush.
yes, hussein maintained all along that he held no components to his nuclear program, that it was all in the past, and had no plans to ever revive the project......yet, im sure youve seen this:
Obeidi told CNN the parts of a gas centrifuge system for enriching uranium were part of a highly sophisticated system he was ordered to hide to be ready to rebuild the bomb program.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/26/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html
now, this is not a "smoking gun", not proof of any current wmd....but it is proof (more proof i should say), that iraq lied on its weapons declaration, and that saddam has been lying about this equipment all along. if they lie about one aspect of their wmd programs, why are you so eager to believe they would tell the absolute truth about the other aspects? baffling.
aa
Realist

dubla,
i just dont hold the same "he was bold face lying" opinion that you do. i dont think it all has to be as black and white as your side paints it to be.......usually the truth lies somewhere in between, which would be my guess here......maybe the intelligence evidence was faulty.....which as ive said before, would mean simply that every intelligence agency in the world failed miserably on this one.
maybe it is not just black and white. maybe powell indeed believed he was telling the truth (although NYtimes artices and other reports contradict that opinion) - in that case powell was at least very naive - ergo he is not a man who is capable of being the secretary of state.
there were selected experts that doubted the biolabs, yes
if i remember correctly early inspections came to the result that the labs were bio weapon labs. however the real experts which were flown to iraq only later came to the conclusion the labs were not used to produce bio weapons.
do you see a valid reason to trust iraq more than the u.s. (perhaps saddams long history of being completely honest to his people and the entire world)? or is it just a toss up, and whenever there is a toss up you automatically side against the u.s.?
i didn't say i trust hussein more than bush. they both are somewhere between a pig and a swine. (no offense intended to any hogs who may read this).
or is it just a toss up, and whenever there is a toss up you automatically side against the u.s.?
well ususally the US admin is lying - so in most cases i am simply against the hypocrisy displayed.
prime example is the genetically modified crops.
here the US has a very solid case imo. there is absolutely NO rational reason for the EU to not allow imports of these crops. everybody knows its an eonomical/ideological conflict. what does Bush say??? instead of admitting that its about exports he says europe is endangering africa!!!! WHAT A FUCKING LIE! does this bastard give a cold rats ass about africa??? certainly not. he is just trying to tell the world how noble the US is (thats the usual tactics...in their propaganda its always about bringing freedom, democracy and prosperity to the world ...in reality its about economical interests).
it is this kind of screaming dishonesty that aggrevates me more than anything.
oh, thats pretty simple....they counted them
who counted them? the inspectors? how did they do that? and why weren'T the weapons distroyed right after they were counted?
and i dont see how he would have profited by keeping inspectors out of iraq from 1998-2003, knowing full well this was keeping sanctions on his country. why not just fully cooperate the entire time, if he had nothing to hide? another question ive yet to hear a decent response to.
i think we don'T even know half of what was actually going on. one thing seems clear though ...the US was interested in keeping the conflict boiling.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/07/18/un.inspector/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm
http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-2/432/432_06_InspectionsScam.shtml
demands were made on iraq and spy activities by the US were made that imo gave iraq the right to disagree on further resolutions about inspections.
yes, hussein maintained all along that he held no components to his nuclear program, that it was all in the past, and had no plans to ever revive the project......yet, im sure youve seen this:
Obeidi told CNN the parts of a gas centrifuge system for enriching uranium were part of a highly sophisticated system he was ordered to hide to be ready to rebuild the bomb program.
i think we should wait until more neutral sources report about this case. uranium centrifuges are huge machines and a couple of parts burried 12 years ago in a garden hardly constitute a smoking gun.
also in my opinion iraq had the right to produce nuclear weapons but thats beside the point.
if they lie about one aspect of their wmd programs, why are you so eager to believe they would tell the absolute truth about the other aspects? baffling.
i think its absolutely possilbe that hussein was lying about the WMDs and possible programs. i don't think its very probable / reaosnable however. hussein must have known that any attempt to produce nuclear weapons would have caused a response by either the US or israel (which bombed a nuclear reactor in iraq in the 80ties). why would he have risked that?
and to turn your question around....if bush lied (and that part of the reports were poor fabrications is an established fact) about one aspect of the WMDs in iraq why are you so eager to believe he would tell the truth about the other aspects?
PS: by the way...one question...what does dubla mean?
dubla

realist-
if i remember correctly early inspections came to the result that the labs were bio weapon labs. however the real experts
the "real experts"? you mean, anyone disagreeing with the original "expert" opinions can be the only "real experts"? um, okay.
does this bastard give a cold rats ass about africa??? certainly not.
your mind-reading ability is nothing short of astounding.
who counted them? the inspectors? how did they do that? and why weren'T the weapons distroyed right after they were counted?
how did they count them? um, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc..........it takes some time to destroy weapons, and they were in the process of doing that when they left in 1998. part of the original inventory (as stated on the '95 u.n. report you referred to) was iraqs ADMITTED stockpiles that had yet to be inspected....lets not forget that (and ive maintained that its common sense that the actual numbers would be considerably higher than the admitted numbers)......thus the "unaccounted for" weaopns.
one thing seems clear though ...the US was interested in keeping the conflict boiling.
if youre referring to scott ritter (your first article), i think we can all agree that his allegations havent been backed by anything solid.
and lets look at your second article....a timeline from the non-biased (according to the antiwar crowd) bbc:
28 February 1991: Gulf War ends, leaving Iraq subject to UN sanctions and arms inspections.
29 October 1997: Iraq bars US weapons inspectors, provoking a diplomatic crisis which is defused with a Russian-brokered compromise.
13 January 1998: Iraq blocks an inspection by a US-dominated team and accuses its leader, Scott Ritter, of spying for America.
23 February 1998: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announces a deal on weapons inspections after meeting Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.
31 October 1998: The Iraqi leadership says it has ceased all co-operation with Unscom, the United Nations Special Commission set up for weapons inspections in Iraq.
14 November 1998: Baghdad tells the UN it is willing to allow inspections to resume.
17 November 1998: Unscom inspectors return to Iraq.
16 December 1998: The UN orders weapons inspectors out of the country after Unscom chief Richard Butler issued a report saying the Iraqis were still refusing to co-operate. US air strikes on Iraq begin hours later.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm
um, yeah, that surely looks like it was the u.s. who wanted to keep things brewing, and doesnt at all show any lack of cooperation from saddam on any of the inspections issues.
i wont bother commenting on the obviously heavily biased propaganda in article three, from the "socialst worker on-line".
imo gave iraq the right to disagree on further resolutions about inspections.
well then, its your opinion that saddam had every right to keep inspectors out of his country.....again, you are on an island with this one, compared to the majority of the world.
i think we should wait until more neutral sources report about this case. uranium centrifuges are huge machines and a couple of parts burried 12 years ago in a garden hardly constitute a smoking gun.
i said specifically that it wasnt a smoking gun, did you miss that? the point i was making is that any parts of any centrifuges should have been declared somewhere in that 13,000 page report. any non-declaration constitutes non-compliance, as im sure you know. why should they lie about anything? after all, they didnt have anything to hide, right?
why would he have risked that?
why is north korea risking it? why did hussein do any of the irrational things he did? hmmm, the word madman pops back to mind, but weve already been down that path.
if bush lied (and that part of the reports were poor fabrications is an established fact) about one aspect of the WMDs in iraq why are you so eager to believe he would tell the truth about the other aspects?
i think if bush was wrong, he didnt know it. i believe that bush, along with every country in the world, truly believed saddam still had wmd. i love how bush is, when convenient, painted as a complete dunce with half a brain.....but when its convenient, he surely couldnt have been dumb enough to think those reports were credible. which is it? is he a mastermind that pulled the wool over everyones eyes? or is he the idiot that didnt think about the criticism that would no doubt follow after the u.s. failed to find what he knew full well wasnt there? you cant have it both ways.
PS: by the way...one question...what does dubla mean?
my initials, a.a......."double a", shortened to dubla.
aa

WoMD ... so where are they?

Share this