for dubla on iraq

by Realist 24 Replies latest social current

Realist

Hello Dubla,

i really don't intend to get into a personal quarrel about this issue but what stunned me was your statement about my knowledge on the iraq issue. are you sure your knowledge exceeds mine? i reviewed the WMD thread and after all it seems your assessment of the situation was far more erroneous than mine. no wmds, no mobile weapon labs or revived weapons programs and no connection to al quaida were found. when i say that iraq had no wmds that could have been declared i am in the company with at least several UN weapon inspectors who admit now that there were most likely NO wmds left after 1994-1995. for reference look for instance at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm

you my have also seen the NYtimes article (reported also elsewhere) that revealed what powell himself thought about the poor quality of the report he presented to the UN. powell quote: "i am not gonna read this bullshit!"...referring to the document he nevertheless presented the next day. in case you missed that i can dig that up for you.
also perhaps you read what blix and el baradei had to say recently on the information given by US officials. for reference look at e.g.: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/
the uranium lie which you had difficlties to admit in the WMD thread as well as other halftruth and lies is mentioned in here.

concerning lybia...both sides the US as well as lybia had an interest in opening buisness again. as you know most UN sanctions were already lifted but the US had kept the embargo against lybia. negotiations on lifting the sanctions had long started before the iraq war. now he has agreed to all the US demands (how much does he pay again for the lockerby victims without any solid proof for lybian involvment?) and thus the sanctions are lifted. this has officially all to do with the fight agaist terrorism (after the iraq disaster bushi and blairi both needed a little popularity boost) and WMDs in reality of course very little however.

also isn't it amazing how quickly gadhafi is turned from a monster into a reliable member of the "civilized" world? the despot, the tyrant is now a welcome guest. reminds me a lot of hussein 15 years ago.

what annoys me most in this case is the audacity of the US to demand lybia to give up its (not existing) WMDs while they start to produce small acually usable nuclear bombs. if the axis of evil indeed exsits than its fremost memeber is undoubtedly the US.

best,
realist
Xena

nice to see you back realist
even it if is just for the war threads
Pleasuredome

are you sure your knowledge exceeds mine?

his knowledge exceeds everyone else's.
if the axis of evil indeed exsits than its fremost memeber is undoubtedly the US.
absolutely.
dubla

Realist-
when i say that iraq had no wmds that could have been declared i am in the company with at least several UN weapon inspectors who admit now that there were most likely NO wmds left after 1994-1995. for reference look for instance at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm
maybe you missed part of what i said, and you are definitely backtracking now. lets back up a bit. here was your comment to me:
he could not prove that the WMDs were distroyed because the accused weapons simply never existed.
in response, i said the following:
i have to correct you on one point....the accused wmds did in fact exist...the numbers that were used were the actual numbers admitted to by saddam, as i showed you in previous threads. if you wouldve said that "in your opinion" the accused weapons were destroyed during bombings in the first gulf war, then you wouldve had at least a valid stance, but saying they never existed just shows your lack of knowledge on the subject.
read that statement, then re-read your quote at the top of this post.....ive put in bold/italics the points that connect in the three quotes, and show your backtracking. again, stating they never existed is just laughable....stating they were destroyed in the mid 90s is at least possible, so im glad you switched to that stance.
are you sure your knowledge exceeds mine? i reviewed the WMD thread and after all it seems your assessment of the situation was far more erroneous than mine.
ive already admitted as much.....maybe you missed these statements by me:
and i am more skeptical now than i was then, about the justification that was used to go in (i just havent had the opportunity to express it publically...if youd like to discuss it in a thread, id be happy to)
its pretty obvious to me that saddam wasnt the immediate threat he was made out to be.....he was a threat nonetheless, and im glad hes gone, as are the iraqis.
aside from what pleasuredome might imply, im not above admitting i was wrong on an issue. i felt very strongly that saddam still possesed wmds that were ready to deploy, and so far it appears that he didnt.....as i said many times before, my personal stance was never based on any intelligence reports (uranium, etc.), but only on simple logic (that being, they were there at one point, and saddam refused to show they were destroyed, an extremely easy task according to hans blix). obviously, saddam defied simple logic and insisted on keeping unnecessary sanctions on his country, if in fact the weapons were long since destroyed.
the uranium lie which you had difficlties to admit in the WMD thread as well as other halftruth and lies is mentioned in here.
i just reviewed the "uranium" discussion in that thread, and couldn't find one instance in which i claimed the report was factual. i never had any difficulties admitting anything about it....why are you trying to paint a false picture regarding an old thread? the only thing that was in question is whether or not the uranium report came from powell (or that it was forged by the cia).......big difference. just a side point.....you call the uranium a "lie", and in the link you provided, blix calls it an intelligence failure......that sort of manipulation of the facts is going on a lot lately. either way, it was a false report, and i never tried to argue anything to the contrary, despite your attempt to make it look as if i did.
also isn't it amazing how quickly gadhafi is turned from a monster into a reliable member of the "civilized" world?
hes no less of a monster in my mind, and i stick by my statement that the decisive actions in iraq (not to mention afghanistan) sped up the process.
aa
dubla

Realist-
just a side note regarding all weapons being destroyed prior to 1995.
52. In the period from August to October 1997, UNSCOM supervised the destruction of 325 pieces of newly identified production equipment, 125 pieces of analytical instruments and 275 tons of precursor chemicals.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/UNSCOM/1051/sres97-774.htm
technically these fall under production, not acutal weapons, so i suppose thats what the article is going on?
aa
Farkel

: when i say that iraq had no wmds that could have been declared i am in the company with at least several UN weapon inspectors who admit now that there were most likely NO wmds left after 1994-1995.
Where did you get that information? I saw an interview several weeks ago with Hans Blix, the CHIEF UN weapons inspector where he stated the not only he, but MOST inspectors who worked for him believed and still believe Iraq has hidden WMDs. He believes they are carefully hidden, but will be found.
Farkel
Crazy151drinker

Realist,
I see youre up to your normal isolationalist pretend peace views.
Realist

dubla,
i missed these discussions!
yes you are right...my original statement about the WMDs was misleading. but i hope you trust me when i say that i am aware that hussein had WMDs at one point. everyone ones that. the question is, were there weapons he could have declared before the new war started or not. in my opinion there were none he could have declared.
so why did hussein not document these weapons? perhaps US teams destroyed them in 1992? perhaps the iraqis did not accurately write down the produced amounts and destroyed amounts (quite possible in an arabic country). in any case i find it quite easy to believe that the US set hussein up. they left him in charge in 1991 just to have a pseudo threat whenever they needed one. in addition it allowed the US to sell billions of war material to the saudis.
about the uranium...the CIA and/or MI6 were in posession of these documents for something like a year then powell presents this to the UN and on the very next day it is found to be a poorly fabricated frogery. now does that sound as if the CIA made this shit up or does it sound like a intelligence failure? if it is the latter than the CIA is should better close down and let the mossad take over. and if you would have read the NYtimes article about powells own comments to the report you would know he was knowingly presenting this shit ... i call something like that a lie.
regarding your second post...as you know fertilizers can be used to produce chem weapons...the discovery of such indeed proofs very little.
farkel,
i put the link in my first post. (its from an USA today article).
some other links: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=14007683_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-REPORT--IRAQ-HAD-NO-WMDs-AFTER-1994-name_page.html
also what blix said i that interview stays in contrast to what he normally says...which goes something like that:
NYtimes:
Ex-U.N. Inspector Has Harsh Words for Bush

By WARREN HOGE (NYT) 708 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 3 , Column 1
ABSTRACT - Hans Blix, former chief UN weapons inspector, says Bush administration convinced itself of existence of banned weapons in Iraq based on dubious findings, was not interested in hearing evidence to the contrary and relied too much on defectors who told Americans and British what they wanted to hear; says war did not make world safer, but has bred more terrorism and hatred of West, and that it was wrong to strike some 'theoretical' link between Saddam Hussein and Sept 11 terrorists; concedes that until month before war he also believed Iraqi had banned weapons; comments during tour promoting book Disarming Iraq (M
Crazy,
yes i am still fighting for showing bush for what he really is!
dubla

Realist-
so why did hussein not document these weapons? perhaps US teams destroyed them in 1992? perhaps the iraqis did not accurately write down the produced amounts and destroyed amounts (quite possible in an arabic country). in any case i find it quite easy to believe that the US set hussein up.
the two suppositions you make are weak, at best. if the u.s. teams destroyed them or if the iraqis didnt accurately provide the amounts, dont you think the chief weapons inspector, hans blix, wouldve had the insight to discover such obvious mistakes? who had a better handle on the weapons declarations than him? blix is the one who made it clear there were unaccounted stockpiles, and blix is the one who implied that accounting for them wouldve been and shouldve been an extremely easy task.
i call something like that a lie.
i was merely pointing out that in the link you provided, the issue was cleary labeled an intelligence failure......you can call it whatever you want to, thats your prerogative.
aa
Aztec

OMG, I've tripped and fallen into Heaven! Dubla, Realist and Crazy all in one place! and ! I missed you guys.
~Aztec

for dubla on iraq

Share this