WMD Mega-Thread
- Thread starter SkunkApe
- Start date
- Status
David Park
Member
From http://www.belgraviadispatch.blogspot.com/
Comments, DaveB?
faustulus
Member
No offense Khornet, but please explain to me how comparing not finding one man, is linked to finding numerous weapons. As I said if you want to say that it is analogous to anything it would be something along these lines: The U.S. knew there were 55 leaders of the Baath party in Iraq before the war. They have found none of them, therefore they must not have exisited.
The problem is they have found some of them. What are the chances of finding 55 people out of what 3 million, yet not being able to find evidence of WMDs that they said they had evidence exisited before the war. If there was enough evidence to attack a sovergin nation you would think they would have some inclination as to where they were. They supposedly had pictures, you are saying we could get pictures in a country that was hostile to us but can't find the bloody elephant now we are crawling all over the place?
gunsmith
member
The British inquiry should be why
The brits are set to begin an inquiry, and we'll all mebbe know more soon.
Tony Martin is in jail,not whether Tony Blair was wrong for helping
out the free world
The brits are set to begin an inquiry, and we'll all mebbe know more soon.
Tony Martin is in jail,not whether Tony Blair was wrong for helping
out the free world
fallingblock
Member
Golly....
It's gone all 'quiet' again
It's so unlike "The Guardian" to misquote AND mislead:banghead:
It's gone all 'quiet' again
It's so unlike "The Guardian" to misquote AND mislead:banghead:
Seeker
Member
I wonder if the U.S has ever ignored or violated a U.N Resolution?
What about when the UN wants unfettered access to US National Parks, or your guns?
Not defendin' SaDamn just think our gov. ain't being square w/ us.
Seems to me CIA issued a report before the war that Iraq wasn't a threat - politicals insisted that he was.
While Blix was doing his thing there was talk that CIA/US new right where the WMD were - but we didn't share that info w/ inspectors.
Now it seems that the CIA/US didn't not only share the locations of he WMD w/ the inspectors but appearently won't share the info w/ the CIA/US as we havem't found the WMD yet.
The war wasn't about oil. The US will, however, oversee oil sales for the forseeable future, and I hear that a new super tanker was launched and named the "Condolezza Rice".
I hear on right wing radio that the WMD don't matter as we freed those people from "the Tyrant", but where in the Constitution does it say that is the business of the US. I thought the business of the US was Business, if this is true what is the business that made war w/ Iraq good for business?
IIRC, a wise gentleman warned of 'foreing entanglements'. And another warned us against The Military-Industrial Complex - both were wartime generals.
So Heck Yes it matters if the WMD are found! Not that that willjustify the war but it will let us know that we weren't lied to completely. Surw we know he had chem weapons - we sold them to him, but if he was a threat why didn't he use them between Gulf Wars? Why didn't he use them during this Gulf War? I recently heard a Gulf War II filed cmdr say that there were no WMD with the Iraqi combat units and he doesn't think there ever was.
...but you know me... I tend to question authority.
And just for the record - I don't think G.W. Bush is lying, but I do believe he would unwittingly repeat non-truths told him by DickCheney/Don Rumsfeld.
jmbg29
member
rrader
member
SkunkApe:
The Detroit Free Press, NY Times, Boston Globe, LA Times, and BBC, have all taken an anti-war stance and are nearly as guilty of biased reportage as is the Guardian.
The fact that each of these papers may repeat the same lie doesn't make it true.
Since when have any of these been "reputable" news sources with regards to the Iraqi war?
Show some hard evidence of the US Army staging this rescue. Point to a source within the unit that admits to it, or physical evidence of blank rounds being used, etc....
I can point to the 7 members of Lynch's squad killed execution-style after surrendering as evidence of the danger she was in, what do the Freep or any of the other disreputable leftwing rags have in the way of hard evidence? Shrill, paranoid rantings don't count.
The Detroit Free Press, NY Times, Boston Globe, LA Times, and BBC, have all taken an anti-war stance and are nearly as guilty of biased reportage as is the Guardian.
The fact that each of these papers may repeat the same lie doesn't make it true.
Since when have any of these been "reputable" news sources with regards to the Iraqi war?
Show some hard evidence of the US Army staging this rescue. Point to a source within the unit that admits to it, or physical evidence of blank rounds being used, etc....
I can point to the 7 members of Lynch's squad killed execution-style after surrendering as evidence of the danger she was in, what do the Freep or any of the other disreputable leftwing rags have in the way of hard evidence? Shrill, paranoid rantings don't count.
fallingblock
Member
rrader...
Surely you're not implying that "The New York Times" would have anyone on staff who would falsify an article?
Surely you're not implying that "The New York Times" would have anyone on staff who would falsify an article?
The earlier Wolfowitz comment
has also been debunked. Seems that he was explaining that there were a number of good(in administration opinion, though also mine) reasons to go to war, but that not all could be brought on board with each reason with the exception of WMDs, so they emphasized that one. That is, the Admn. believed there was a terror connection, that SH had aggressive intent, that the citizens were being abused, That the UN had a duty to intervene with force,AND that SH had WMD.
This manipulation of the quote is like Maureen Dowd's careful ellipses in the Bush comment about Al Qaeda. She lied.
Every time I read a news story I have to think about what might be true, what is the bias of the writer/publisher, and what I myself want to be true.
A writer recently remarked that he was talking to applicants for journalism school, and they were telling him their reasons for applying were things like "I want to make a difference" and "I want to help people". How 'bout "I want to put the facts before the public"?
has also been debunked. Seems that he was explaining that there were a number of good(in administration opinion, though also mine) reasons to go to war, but that not all could be brought on board with each reason with the exception of WMDs, so they emphasized that one. That is, the Admn. believed there was a terror connection, that SH had aggressive intent, that the citizens were being abused, That the UN had a duty to intervene with force,AND that SH had WMD.
This manipulation of the quote is like Maureen Dowd's careful ellipses in the Bush comment about Al Qaeda. She lied.
Every time I read a news story I have to think about what might be true, what is the bias of the writer/publisher, and what I myself want to be true.
A writer recently remarked that he was talking to applicants for journalism school, and they were telling him their reasons for applying were things like "I want to make a difference" and "I want to help people". How 'bout "I want to put the facts before the public"?
This article has been taken down from the Guardian site, and from one other site I read. I don't know what that means...
If this turns out to be invented, or taken out of context (to the extent that it gives the wrong meaning), I'll eat some crow.
Here's a quote from someone on another forum about the Guardian article (which was quoted verbatum from Der Welt:
HERE is the *source* of the 'source': Der Welt's article that was quoted.
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." appears in the original Der Welt article as this:
"Auf die Frage, warum eine Atommacht wie Nordkorea anders behandelt würde als der Irak, wo kaum Massenvernichtungswaffen gefunden worden seien, antwortete der stellvertretende Verteidigungsminister wieder sehr offen: Betrachten wir es einmal ganz simpel. Der wichtigste Unterschied zwischen Nordkorea und dem Irak ist der, dass wir wirtschaftlich einfach keine Wahl im Irak hatten. Das Land schwimmt auf einem Meer von Öl."
And it is accurately translated, for those who cannot read German.
BTW, Der Welt is Germany's counterpart to the NY Times (biggest, oldest most respected paper in the nation). Which means they are not a "left wing whacko" news source (like people say the Guardian is) and yet, tho "mainstream" like the Times, they still have their reputation for journalistic integrity intact...
db
If this turns out to be invented, or taken out of context (to the extent that it gives the wrong meaning), I'll eat some crow.
Here's a quote from someone on another forum about the Guardian article (which was quoted verbatum from Der Welt:
HERE is the *source* of the 'source': Der Welt's article that was quoted.
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." appears in the original Der Welt article as this:
"Auf die Frage, warum eine Atommacht wie Nordkorea anders behandelt würde als der Irak, wo kaum Massenvernichtungswaffen gefunden worden seien, antwortete der stellvertretende Verteidigungsminister wieder sehr offen: Betrachten wir es einmal ganz simpel. Der wichtigste Unterschied zwischen Nordkorea und dem Irak ist der, dass wir wirtschaftlich einfach keine Wahl im Irak hatten. Das Land schwimmt auf einem Meer von Öl."
And it is accurately translated, for those who cannot read German.
BTW, Der Welt is Germany's counterpart to the NY Times (biggest, oldest most respected paper in the nation). Which means they are not a "left wing whacko" news source (like people say the Guardian is) and yet, tho "mainstream" like the Times, they still have their reputation for journalistic integrity intact...
db
Steve B
Member
Of course there were no WMD. All those dead Kurds died from old age, they weren`t gassed....
DaveB, buddy...
I really think you oughta read the transcript of Wolfowitz' remarks.
Citing Der Welt for its solid reputation since it's the 'German equivalent of the NYT'??? You think the NYT is respectable? And you trust Der Welt via the Guardian, despite the transcript?
I really think you oughta read the transcript of Wolfowitz' remarks.
Citing Der Welt for its solid reputation since it's the 'German equivalent of the NYT'??? You think the NYT is respectable? And you trust Der Welt via the Guardian, despite the transcript?
George Hill
Member
This whole WMD issue is irking me.
Bush is a liar, but Clinton's Operation Desert Fox and UN Resolution 1441 were okay? Okay, if Bush was lying then so was Clinton and everyone who signed the UN resolutution.
And the Guardian/UK is a joke.
Bush is a liar, but Clinton's Operation Desert Fox and UN Resolution 1441 were okay? Okay, if Bush was lying then so was Clinton and everyone who signed the UN resolutution.
And the Guardian/UK is a joke.
DaveB,
See David Park's post above for link. Also checkFree Republic (I know it's right-wing, but there are more links there).
As of now, the Guardian's ombudsman is saying that the qouote was misconstrued, and that they will be printing a retraction tomorrow.
We sure need some honest newsmen badly these days.
See David Park's post above for link. Also checkFree Republic (I know it's right-wing, but there are more links there).
As of now, the Guardian's ombudsman is saying that the qouote was misconstrued, and that they will be printing a retraction tomorrow.
We sure need some honest newsmen badly these days.
Who really gassed the Kurds?
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/02/NYT010203.html
A War Crime or an Act of War?
By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE
MECHANICSBURG, Pa. -- It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.
But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.
I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.
This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.
I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.
IN fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.
We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.
Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.
Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades -- not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.
All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition -- thanks to United Nations sanctions -- Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.
Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.
Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/02/NYT010203.html
A War Crime or an Act of War?
By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE
MECHANICSBURG, Pa. -- It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.
But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.
I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.
This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.
I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.
IN fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.
We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.
Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.
Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades -- not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.
All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition -- thanks to United Nations sanctions -- Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.
Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.
Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?
I think it's rediculous.
There is little doubt that Hussein had WMD. Hell, he used them on the Iranians and Kurds. According to the cease-fire agreement he had to prove that he destroyed them. He didn't do this. Thefore he is in breach.
Could someone please explain why he would voluntarily destory the WMD and not provide documentation that he did which would have proven his case and not resulted in the war?
During the war we found about nine mobile bological labs, or what the liberals consider to be ice cream trucks, a nuclear underground facility, and chemical weapons, excuse me fertilizer that farmers keep in a military bunker.
Hussein could have hid the weapons extremely well, destoryed them when he say the capture of Baghdad was imminent, or had them moved.
Whether they are found or not is irrelvant in my opinion.
The BBC Lynch story is a lie. The US never claimed that there was fighting within the hospital. However, they didn't know if there would be or wouldn't be and prepared for the worst at they should have. There was fighting outside the hospital.
The BBC story claimed that Americans fired blanks within the hospital which is rediculous. What soldier is going to lose valuable time changing from blanks to real bullets in the middle of a firefight.
It's all horse crap.
There is little doubt that Hussein had WMD. Hell, he used them on the Iranians and Kurds. According to the cease-fire agreement he had to prove that he destroyed them. He didn't do this. Thefore he is in breach.
Could someone please explain why he would voluntarily destory the WMD and not provide documentation that he did which would have proven his case and not resulted in the war?
During the war we found about nine mobile bological labs, or what the liberals consider to be ice cream trucks, a nuclear underground facility, and chemical weapons, excuse me fertilizer that farmers keep in a military bunker.
Hussein could have hid the weapons extremely well, destoryed them when he say the capture of Baghdad was imminent, or had them moved.
Whether they are found or not is irrelvant in my opinion.
The BBC Lynch story is a lie. The US never claimed that there was fighting within the hospital. However, they didn't know if there would be or wouldn't be and prepared for the worst at they should have. There was fighting outside the hospital.
The BBC story claimed that Americans fired blanks within the hospital which is rediculous. What soldier is going to lose valuable time changing from blanks to real bullets in the middle of a firefight.
It's all horse crap.
We're sorry! The file you requested is not available at this location.
Looks like they took it down, Khornet.
If its the same thing I read last night, though, it was just the transcript of the actual speech and not the question and answer session that followed. The quote about the oil allegedly came from the question/answer session.
Looks like they took it down, Khornet.
If its the same thing I read last night, though, it was just the transcript of the actual speech and not the question and answer session that followed. The quote about the oil allegedly came from the question/answer session.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030531-depsecdef0246.html might be the correct link.
db
db
Yum.
Preliminary conclusion: out of context.
Jerks.
My opinion is still that W exaggerated the WMD threat (lied to us and to the world), and that a "free and open debate" should have taken place before we went to war. The only reason the president can commit troops to war is in the event of an emergency - when Congress cannot convene and vote quickly enough. According to the Constitution, it's not the President's sole decision. We have a President, not a King.
There was no emergency concerning Iraq, and I defy anyone to convince me different.
When Congress abdicates its responsibilities, we need to throw the bastids out.
db
Preliminary conclusion: out of context.
Jerks.
My opinion is still that W exaggerated the WMD threat (lied to us and to the world), and that a "free and open debate" should have taken place before we went to war. The only reason the president can commit troops to war is in the event of an emergency - when Congress cannot convene and vote quickly enough. According to the Constitution, it's not the President's sole decision. We have a President, not a King.
There was no emergency concerning Iraq, and I defy anyone to convince me different.
When Congress abdicates its responsibilities, we need to throw the bastids out.
db
David B Hussein playing cat and mouse with the WMD has been going on for twelve years.
I am glad that President Bush acted to remove a chief threat to the US then wait for the mushroom cloud to occur, from Hussein giving a nuke to Al Qaida.
I am glad that President Bush acted to remove a chief threat to the US then wait for the mushroom cloud to occur, from Hussein giving a nuke to Al Qaida.
- Status
