 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Where are the WMDs-2?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 May 03 - 06:36 PM Simpler still is "Where are they hidden?" sung interminably, á la "Why are we waiting?" to the tune of "Oh Come all ye Faithfull". Where are they hidden? Where are they hidden? Where are they hidden, Oh where, where, where? Where are they hidden? Where are they hidden? O where are they hidden? Where are they hidden? Where are they hidden? O where, where, where? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Charley Noble Date: 30 May 03 - 09:21 AM Maybe we can put together a ditty based on Rumsfeld's answer to his rhetorical question of just why we haven't found the WMD's: "I think the answers are several reasons. And number one it's not because they're not there," saying Iraq is a large country, about the size of California, that there are hundreds of sites to search and that Saddam hid his weapons. The phrase "it's not because they're not there" has a pleasant ring to it, don't you think? Beats all heck out of "The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind." Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: CarolC Date: 30 May 03 - 12:30 AM Rumsfeld I found the last couple of paragraphs particularly chilling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Walking Eagle Date: 29 May 03 - 09:42 PM Whooo doggies! No weapons as of this date may29th. No sir, not one speck,drop, or bug. Verrrrrrry interesting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Charley Noble Date: 29 May 03 - 08:31 AM The CIA now claims the two trucks are indeed mobile labs but with unfortunately no tace of known illicit WMD's. Apparently, either the trucks were never operational or had been purged with the Iraqi equivalent of Mr. Clean. The trucks in question are only one of a three-component system. The other two components are probably still stuck in the design/production process back at Langley; they just couldn't get the stuff to the field in a timely fashion. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: DougR Date: 29 May 03 - 02:55 AM AM: Duh! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: ard mhacha Date: 28 May 03 - 05:39 AM Rumsfeld has just announced that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. Ard Mhacha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Charley Noble Date: 11 May 03 - 08:56 PM Well, they were mentioning in the weekend papers that the Coalition forces had discovered at least two trucks that appeared to be mobile bio-labs; one had been scavenged by Iraqies while it was being guarded. Keep tuned! Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: CarolC Date: 11 May 03 - 12:47 PM Here's an interesting article about a secret (or at least "little known") intelligence gathering group working for Bush and Rumsfeld, and the effect they are having on the decisions that are being made about such issues as war with Iraq. And it offers some interesting information about Iraq's WMDs: Selective Intelligence |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: GUEST,Boab Date: 09 May 03 - 03:04 AM Again---!!!---I find myself agreeing with Doug R. A new thread would have made more sense if the Irish question was to be discussed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: DougR Date: 08 May 03 - 05:32 PM AM: I don't recall commenting on the "Troubles" in Ireland. My remarks were aimed at McGrath's when he said Blair mislead the Parliment about the situation in Iraq. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Gareth Date: 08 May 03 - 03:05 PM Mmmm ! Since when have the English Tories been friends of mine or Wales. However this is not the point. You accused Tony Blair of lying over these accusations. I asked you for some concrete proof of this lie. Where is it ??? I would also question why you call these campaigns low and dirty tricks. Did not Collins himself not use these tactics ??? Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: stevetheORC Date: 08 May 03 - 02:32 PM Yes the Army & Ruc proberbly did collude with Protestant death squads after all they spent so long been murderd & tortured themselfs by the IRA. I assume that you condone Murder by the IRA but not by the RUC/Army? Is it any wonder that there is still no peace in Ireland when people like yourself spend so much time raking up the past. Shall we talk of all the bombings both in Ireland and over here, the Kneecappings, the tar and feathering shall I go on. No I will leave it at that, if you wish to continue then feel free after all it is still a free society. De Orc |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: ard mhacha Date: 08 May 03 - 02:15 PM Mr Stevens has all the proof he needs, now don`t tell me Gareth you don`t believe that your friends in England would stoop so low as to employ such dirty tricks. Renember the Brits have been found GUILTY of torture in Ireland on two occasions in the past 20 years Ard Mhacha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Gareth Date: 08 May 03 - 12:06 PM "Blair and his predecessors lied in their teeth when they denied the British Army and the RUC were in collusion with protestant paramilitaries" Can we have some proof of that. My memory is that the British Government set up the Stevens enquiry to look in to those allegations. P O'Neil for Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: ard mhacha Date: 08 May 03 - 07:07 AM Doug R,Blair and his predecessors lied in their teeth when they denied the British Army and the RUC were in collusion with protestant paramilitaries. They murdered two catholic lawyers, and many other innocent catholics at the behest of their British masters. Ard Mhacha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: GUEST,Boab Date: 08 May 03 - 03:27 AM Doug R. is correct; after having to squirm with the rest of the world at the constant barrage of lies from the "coalition" leaders in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, it's going to take something like "Monday follows Sunday" in any future statement coming from this gangster crew before I [and many many others] will accept any assertion of theirs as fact. The latest momentous discovery of a vehicle which is purportedly causing great elation and excitement in the nest of the "liberators" is another in a long, long line of unconvincing "events". The story goes that it has been scrubbed so clean that no trace of any chemical can be found. So the conclusion?---it can only have been used as a mobile chemical lab! What are they trying to do--keep it simple for us? For pete's sake---even the proverbial country yokel, having cleaned illegal shit out from his cart would have the gumption to recontaminate it with some other [legal] crap. Keep trying boyos---you'll finally come up with something fool-proof. But just think---there are millions of non-fools.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: GUEST Date: 07 May 03 - 03:56 PM "Search for ancient Talmud (collection of oral law interpreting Bible part of which known as Babylonian Talmud completed in 6th century) was carried out by US WMD hunter unit MET Alpha" If the Talmud is now the object of searches by the WMD-hunters, it looks as if their definition of WMDs is rather broad... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: GUEST Date: 07 May 03 - 03:27 PM Last Updated on May 7, 2003, 9:39 PM (GMT+02:00) Experts confirm truck handed over to US forces in northern Iraq is first biological-chemical weapons mobile lab discovered till now. Saudi Arabia has foiled wave of terrorist attacks in kingdom, seized large cache of weapons and explosives. Interior ministry ran pictures of 19 wanted suspects over television, but provides no information on their organization or targets. Last week, US advised Americans to avoid travel to Saudi Arabia because of terror concerns. DEBKAfile: US-Saudi intelligence cooperation against Islamic terrorism has stepped up since Iraq War Former Iraqi Brig. Gen. Hosin Homamed al-Joubri who fought Americans in Gulf War is appointed Tikrit governor. His deputy is former Iraqi air force colonel Gaza Al-Nasere. Both signed statements renouncing loyalty to Baath and rejecting its claim to power New York Times: A special US team seeking 7th century copy of Jewish Talmud underneath Iraqi intelligence command in Baghdad has found plans and maps for terror strikes against strategic Israeli targets based on detailed information from 1990s: a perfect mock-up of Knesset, official buildings in Jerusalem in fine detail, satellite pictures of nuclear complex and a female mannequin in Israeli Air Force uniform in front of Israeli officers' ranks and insignia Search for ancient Talmud (collection of oral law interpreting Bible part of which known as Babylonian Talmud completed in 6th century) was carried out by US WMD hunter unit MET Alpha teamed up with Chalabi's Iraqi Congress DEBKA-Net-Weekly Reports Exclusively: Bush administration plans to expose close relations between Chirac and Saddam and their families as revealed in secret Iraqi intelligence archives uncovered in Baghdad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Teribus Date: 07 May 03 - 03:29 AM MGOH, Context and time frame regarding remarks made by Tony Blair to the House of Commons are important. The forty five minute time scale indicated was in one of his speeches right at the start of the Iraqi affair. You contend that that was misinformation by which Blair's government was able to survive a vote in the House of Commons early to mid-March (about five months later). In what way was that misinformation? The bulk of the outstanding items had not been traced, some of the items that the Iraqi Authorities had categorically said they did not have had been uncovered and the UN Inspection Teams were still not receiving the level of co-operation required. The way the JIC works is that data is analysed and best and worst case evaluations are made based on that analysis - it is then up to the HM Government to make their assessment. At no time could Tony Blair, or George W Bush have stated hand-on-heart that the worst case scenario could be ruled to be beyond the bounds of possibility. That still remains the case today, with the exceptions I have previously stated - No deception programme in operation, full access to Iraqi Government files and freedom to interview whoever they like. By February this year, it was becoming abundantly clear that regime change was essential if the problems related to Iraq's disarmament were to be resolved. Essential, because for Iraq to provide proof of verifiable disarmament, that, required a commitment and a will to comply on the part of the Iraqi Government - the Ba'athists had no intention of complying, the lack of full and pro-active co-operation was a consistant element of every report made by both Hans Blix and Mohamed Al-Baradei. Tweed, As someone who has worked on the "downstream" side of the oil and gas industry you will be fully aware that we have always bought our processed oil and gas from such as Texaco/Shell, Exxon/Mobil or whichever MajorOil Corp. That was the same before the recent Iraqi conflict and will remain the same now - so not a single thing has changed - your "And now" doesn't enter the equation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: DougR Date: 06 May 03 - 04:29 PM An excellent post, Wolfgang, and you may be surprised to know that I agree with your points. However (there is always a however, or a but, right?), I seriously doubt that sufficient evidence could be found that would "change the minds" of those who felt the war was just, and those that thought it was not. Not in this community anyway. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Wolfgang Date: 06 May 03 - 08:43 AM It can't be so difficult: If an action has a positive consequence it doesn't mean necessarily that the action was good. If an action has a negative consequence it doesn't mean necessarily that the action was bad (I'm sure I'm doing injustice to many of you but sometimes I think only McGrath has an understanding of that in his argumentation). I've been reading this morning for the first time how glad Iraqi sportsmen (especially footballers) are that they are not tortured anymore after a bad performance. That is a result of this war I thoroughly approve of. Should I therefore in retrospect approve of the war? I see not the slightest reason for that. Those who have been for the war now try to demonstrate the others all positive consequences of it like that the Iraqis are better off without Saddam. That's completely pointless for it was known before the war that this would be one of the positive outcomes. Those who have been against the war are in not the slightest need to revise that position when one expected positive outcome has turned up. Those who have been against the war now try to point to all possible negative outcomes like the looting of the museums or the killing of civilians. That's pointless too for those who have been for the war have been for it despite knowing that there would be destruction and civilian deaths and injuries (knowing the press, you could also foresee that one particular incident would be given a face like in this case the young boy who lost family and limbs). If that happens it was to be expected and poses no need for a change of opinion. Sorry, but too many arguments I see in these threads are not arguments meant to warrant a change of position but merely arguments to try to make the opponents feel uncomfortable: "Tell that to the young boy who..." "Don't you agree that getting rid of Saddam..." I personally only consider arguments worthwhile that could, at least in principle, lead to a change of position like "If I would have know that before, I might have developed a different position." I think a tremendously high number of casualties, much higher than all expectations, could be an argument for someone who was for the war to reconsider. Similarly, the detection that a very grave imminent danger that was not know before the war was prevented could lead to a change of position in someone who was against the war. I see neither the possible detection of WMDs nor the lack of finding them a convincing reason for a change of opinion. However, finding out for sure that country leaders have lied in full knowledge of the facts about reasons for a war, would be worth reconsidering an opinion about the necessity of war. As by now, that is still hypothetical, but we'll see in the years to come. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Tweed Date: 06 May 03 - 07:00 AM Gahhh...my apologies TIA, my last one shoulda been addressed to teribus. DouglaR, this Foxation of yore's iz getting a little outta control! I'm expecting any day to find they've placed the Al Bundy News Hour the six o'clock slot ;~). Just kiddin' you, ...sorta... Tweed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: DougR Date: 06 May 03 - 02:00 AM McGrath: what information do you have that Tony Blair was misleading Parliment? Are you relying on the fact that no WMDs have been found to date? Is that proof none are there? Or do you have some factual information to offer us? Anyone can offer an opinion, but your statement is made with such authority, I would assume you have some inside information even the press does not have. If so, please share it with us. I'm sure the Fox News Network would love to have it! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Tweed Date: 06 May 03 - 12:43 AM TIA, I've installed fuel storage tanks and lines for the last twenty three years. I am on the downstream side of the oil biz I reckon;~) Yerz, Tweed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: TIA Date: 05 May 03 - 08:59 AM Teribus: I can tell from your posts that you are sufficiently well-informed to know that a dirty bomb does not require weapons-grade material. It requires simply ANY radioactive (even low-level alpha emitters), that when dispersed by conventional explosives are toxic upon inhalation (i.e. just the sort of stuff looted from the research center and waste facility). The toxicity doesn't even have to be high - the word radioactive in the same sentence as bomb would create exactly the fear and panic that terrorists prize. So, did conquering Iraq make us safer? (And let's not shift to the "are the Iraqi people better off now discussion - it's a good one, but not the reason we were sold this war). Respectfully, TIA |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 May 03 - 05:25 AM The justification given for the war by Tony Blair was that Saddam had stocks of illegal weapons which he was in a position to use or pass on to others who would use them. "Forty five minutes" was the time scale indicated in one of his speeches. On the basis of that of that misinformation, Blair's government was able to survive a vote in the House of Commons. If he had lost he would have resigned, and the British would not have gone to war. "Regime change" was always stated by the British government as being a desirable side-effect, never as being a valid legal basis for a war. No one denies that in 1998 Iraq had not accounted for weapons which it had definitely possessed. The claim of the Iraqi government was that these were destroyed. The inspectors were still investigating this claim when they were forced out by the pre emptive action by the US and UK. It now seems increasingly possible that on this matter at least the Iraqi government may have been telling the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Teribus Date: 05 May 03 - 01:59 AM MGOH, The WMD material stocks, agents, munitions and weapons systems that this war was about, were the ones that were known to exist, but were unnaccounted for as of December 1998 (Detailed in the UNSCOM Report of January 1999) - If you contend that that report was lying, then the fault lies with the UN. The inspectors return to Iraq was due entirely to pressure applied by the US Government. Having returned they did not receive the full and active co-operation of the Iraqi Authorities, promised by Saddam Hussein in November 2002. That brought about the change of emphasis to the removal from power of the regime that was hindering the disarmament process. TIA, The work carried out by IAEA in Iraq recently clearly established that Iraq had no stock of weapons grade radioactive material. The main point of the IAEA inspection campaign that remained unresolved related to the interviewing of those known to have been part of the Iraqi nuclear programme. Those interviews were required to verify that the Iraqi nuclear weapons programme had indeed been stopped. Tweed, Phrases in your post such as "the horrendous damage done to civilians there," - and "bombed the crap out of a nation" - are more than slight exaggeration. Going on Saddam's own averages the number of Iraqi civilians who would have suffered "horrendous damage" during the same period would have been 11,844 - approximately ten times the number of civilian casualties reported during the conflict. As for, "and now we can buy the oil after it's processed by Texaco/Shell, Exxon/Mobil or whichever MajorOil Corp with a finger in the pie," Where was Iraqi oil refined before? You should take the time and effort into looking at how the "downstream" side of the oil industry works. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: TIA Date: 04 May 03 - 11:04 PM Here's the latest score: Iraqi National Museum - looted Iraqi Nuclear Research Facility - looted Iraqi Nuclear Plant - looted Iraqi Oil Ministry - safe and sound So, we invaded Iraq to prevent WMDs and/or WMD materials from falling into terrorist hands, then stood by while goodness-knows-who looted nuclear facilities potentially putting dangerously radioactive material if not into terrorist hands, at least on the black market to the highest bidder. Do you feel safer now from a dirty bomb? Like hell this was about WMDs! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 May 03 - 09:12 PM Getting rid of Saddam is one of the consequences of what happened, but by no means the only one. However desirable that consequence might have been, it was carried out through an illegal war, launched on the basis of lies. In legal terms, it was a terrorist action, and that has terrifying implications for the future. So far as Iraq is concerned it is too early to be sure of the outcome, but it seems likely that there will either be a popular Islamic Government, which will not be friendly to the USA, or there will be an imposed puppet regime, which will need to be repressive if it is to survive, and could well bear considerable similarity to Saddam's regime in that respect. In either case considerable civil disorder, possibly amounting to extended civil war, seems likely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Walking Eagle Date: 04 May 03 - 08:43 PM Well, I'm spring cleaning my house and I still haven't found any. Hey Bobert! Has Pepe unearthed any on his ranchero? We know that the feds are looking towards him for a fall guy! Seriously, I really would like to believe that there are some out there, somewhere. Maybe the feds should just check the ship to area of our shipping receipts and go from there. The best thing about this mess is that people are putting the pressure on and not allowing the govt. to forget about this. We have to keep it on until we get a satisfactory resoultion to this. Keep it on folks, keep sending email and letters asking where they are and when we should expect a preliminary report on them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: DougR Date: 04 May 03 - 01:23 PM McGrath: so you believe that it was a mistake to replace Saddam, right? Spaw: were you referring to the speech Bush made on the aircraft carrier? I don't recall him saying we had a list of the sites. Can you refer me to some proof that he said that? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: ard mhacha Date: 04 May 03 - 07:34 AM Gareth, a government which gives free rein to terrorists to carry out its murders is the same government that rules in this fag-end of the British Empire, the sick six counties in north-east Ireland. Ard Mhacha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 May 03 - 07:40 PM An unpleasant government is no more. Lynch mobs sometimes strung up people who were actually guilty. If this war was carried out on a false pretext, and Parliament was tricked into supporting it by lies, that matters. Those who believe that everything is permitted, so long as the aim is to achieve something good, should remember that this is precisely the way every terrorist orgabnisation would justify its actions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Gareth Date: 03 May 03 - 07:26 PM Well, there are those who say that there are no WMD's, and if they are discuvered will claim that they were planted. Fair enough, why should prejudice be confounded by fact. One major question. Why did the Iraqui Government give the weapons inspecters the run a round ? What we do know is an unpleasent government is no more - Is this bad ??????? An with a bit of lcvk democracy will prevail in the US of A as well. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Ebbie Date: 03 May 03 - 07:18 PM EEEEEEWWWWWWWW, Tweed. Bite your tongue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Tweed Date: 03 May 03 - 06:45 PM I am in total agreement with you McGrath. The amount of dis-information has done the job on most of America. They are now too relieved (and rightly so) to have their sons and daughters returning home, and thankful to Bush and Rummy for keeping them almost all safe. The whole thing seems to be carefully orchestrated and reads like a bestseller novel. Americans are still blind to the result of the war, even with all the news coverage we saw little of the horrendous damage done to civilians there, and were instructed early on not to bother looking at "the disgusting" images on Al Jazeera, knowing we would possibly be jolted into thinking like humans again. Nope, there's no need to find the WMD anymore. We have bombed the crap out of a nation with no air force, emerged triumphant, and now we can buy the oil after it's processed by Texaco/Shell, Exxon/Mobil or whichever MajorOil Corp with a finger in the pie, and we can use our taxes to pay for the cleanup. The WMD scandal will not truly surface for 20 or 30 years and by then people will care less about them than they do now. .....Dammit here's another one of them fast forward flashes I've been getting lately.... {{{{{{{{{{{{{0}}}}}}}}}}}}} |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 May 03 - 03:26 PM Well, actually UNMOVIC and IAEA have far less cooperation from the present regime in Iraq than they did from Saddam. In fact they aren't even being allowed into the country, so far as I can see, which is surely a very serious breach of the UN Security Council resolutions. Even if anything does turn up, and even if it can be demonstrated that it wasn't planted, it now seems pretty crystal clear that the rationale given for the invasion - that Saddam had stocks of Atomic, Biological or Chemical Weapons that he could deploy at a few moments notice, or hand over to third parties - was in fact a fabrication, designed to fool other countries into backing an invasion which had completely different motivations. However, especially so far as Bush is concerned, it doesn't really seem as if producing the smoking gun is particularly important. Blair probably cares a lot more about it, but than, whatever he cares about isn't too important now. So, if there's nothing to find, it's quite possible that nothing will in fact be found. Why risk planting the evidence when it's not even needed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Teribus Date: 03 May 03 - 06:09 AM Spaw, If that is what he said, then it now becomes a case of let's wait and see what the results are. The fact that the Ba'athist Regime has gone provides the Coalition Forces with two things that UNMOVIC and IAEA never had while they were there: 1. Completely unrestricted access to Iraqi Government Files. 2. Complete freedom to interview personnel involved, who can now answer without fear for the consequences to themselves and their families. Information from such, could well have resulted in the identification of a list of sites. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: catspaw49 Date: 02 May 03 - 11:23 AM Y'all didn't listen to his speech yesterday? Why, George said they have "hundreds of sites" and that "we have the list." Shades of Joe McCarthy.......... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Charley Noble Date: 02 May 03 - 11:06 AM Teribus- You're right, of course. No interested party should be surprised by the dilapidated state of Iraq's oil industry. Given the 10 years of UN embargoes, war damages, skimming of profits by Saddam's elite, there was very little left to renovate or even maintain whatever was left of the system. But the point I was making is if "oil" were one of the major reasons for our latest military adventure, remobilizing that resource will take major upfront investment and time which may be a surprise to the public. Of course, the costs would have been much higher if the oil fields had been more successfully sabotaged. In any event the current estimates will be much more modest and predictable than trying to locate and extract new oil reserves. It will be interesting to see what new agreement will be worked out between the Iraqi interim government and the international oil industry. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Teribus Date: 02 May 03 - 04:48 AM Charlie, "Now, oil industry consultants are complaining that the oil fields were inadequately maintained and it will be months before they can be brought back to safe efficient production." Now? - The state of Iraq's oilfields has been known about for years, with predictions ranging from a time-span of three to five years and estimated costs stated as being somewhere between 5 to 7 billion dollars - that is to get the Iraqi oil industry back to 1990 production levels. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: CarolC Date: 01 May 03 - 08:35 PM Carol C - your post has been filed for future evidence. Very good. I'll be delighted if nothing comes of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Gareth Date: 01 May 03 - 07:40 PM Carol C - your post has been filed for future evidence. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: CarolC Date: 01 May 03 - 09:53 AM Slightly off topic, but maybe not: I saw Richard Perle on Koppel last night, beating the war drums for a possible attack on Syria. Now the excuse is that the Syrians are oppressing the Lebanese. Hold on to your seats, folks... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Jim the Bart Date: 01 May 03 - 09:38 AM The funny thing about WMD's is that, in one sense, the claim that you have them serves the same purpose as actually having them. So Hussein uses what he has against the Kurds in the North and Shiites in the south, and proves that he's the baddest guy on the block. Now he can go back to licking the wounds he suffered at the hands of the original Gulf War coalition without worrying that he will be beset by hoards of religious fanatics from across the border trying to unseat him. As a deterent to hostile neighbors, such as Iran, and his own hostile citizenry,the belief that Hussein had chemical and biological weapons was as good as having them - as long as the inspectors didn't come back with proof that they were all gone. So Saddam puts off the inspectors, leading everyone to believe he has something to hide; and, in truth, he does:he is hiding that he is a toothless tiger, trapped in a box of his own making. So, what's his plan? Syphon off all the dough he can into hidden accounts while keeping his house of cards from imploding. And when it looks like the game is up, get while the getting is good, leaving videos and look-alikes to make it appear that he's still around. Let America spend Billions of dollars and its entire stock of goodwill on a pointless war that was, in reality, over before it began. Until we find either WMD's, or Saddam and his sons, we won't really know what went on in Bagdad in the days before the War. Wishing you all a great Beltaine, From here at conspiracy central. Bart |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Charley Noble Date: 01 May 03 - 08:45 AM The Saddam gang probably hid their WMD's in ancient ceramic jugs at the National Museum. Someone is in for one big surprise when their winning bid at e-Bay is delivered. I also agree that it's unlikely "if any evidence (of WMD disposal) would have been seen as adequate by the people who were set on invasion." But weren't they really after "regime change". No, wasn't it "oil"? Now, oil industry consultants are complaining that the oil fields were inadequately maintained and it will be months before they can be brought back to safe efficient production. Wouldn't it be ironic if Chaney stumbled upon a WMD site while exploring the underground complex at the Baghdad airport. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Apr 03 - 01:39 PM Well the Ba'ath party regime was pretty bizarre. But they did say they had destroyed all the weapons. The thing was, conclusive evidence that they were tellig the truth hadn't been produced. Hans Blix specifically pointed out the elementary fact that the absence of such evidence did not mean that the weapons still had to exist. He was busy trying to find out, and believed he was getting somewhere, when he was rudely interrupted. Proving you haven't got weapons of mass destruction is quite hard to do actually. I don't know how I'd prove I haven't got any. All right, it's not quite the same when there is evidence that you had them at one time, and it's a matter of demonstrating that you have destroyed them, but even that is not straightforward. I doubt very much if any evidence would have been seen as adequate by the people who were set on invasion. In fact, it appears that, when the Iraqis showed signs of greater cooperation with Blix and co, this was the signal for pushing ahead with war without delay, even before all the forces were in place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Dave Bryant Date: 30 Apr 03 - 09:01 AM Charlie - surely the best way would have been to stencil "Made in USA" all over them ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs-2? From: Teribus Date: 30 Apr 03 - 05:59 AM There is a point being missed with respect to WMD. The trail as I understand it is as follows: 1. In 1991, Iraq committed to the verifiable destruction of all it's existing WMD's and to verifiable, total dismantling of the research and development programmes associated with those weapons. To facilitate the verification aspect, the UN placed inspections teams (UNSCOM & IAEA) in Iraq, to work with the Iraqi authorities. This required commitment to the intent of disarmament on the part of the Ba'athist regime and for its full co-operation. 2. Between the years 1991 and 1998 it became obvious to the UN inspection teams that within the regime in Baghdad there was no no intent to disarm and that the degree of co-operation being received fell increasingly short of what was required. Eventually inspections teams were withdrawn in December 1998. 3. The Inspection teams reported the status of their work to the UN in January 1999. That report detailed stocks of material, chemical and biological agents and munitions and weapons systems that they knew existed and that had not been destroyed. 4. Only after the goading of the UN by the current American Administration were inspection teams reinstated in Iraq operating under the terms of a new resolution. Very early on in the inspection process it was clear that full co-operation was still being withheld and that questions relating to the WMD's mentioned in point 3. above continued to remain unresolved. The UN knew of their existence in 1998, by December 2002 they may have been destroyed in the interim, but no conclusive proof was profferred on the part of the Iraqi Authorities, so the questions remained open to doubt. 5. Now, post deposition of the Ba'athist Regime in Iraq, the search for that material, chemical/biological agents, munitions and weapons, can continue. The greatest change now being that there is no administration prohibiting interviews that are open and intimidation free. There is no active deception programme in operation. So, in actual fact, they don't have to find anything - they only have to establish beyond doubt what happened to them. If they were destroyed between the years 1998 and 2002 it makes the behaviour and actions of the Iraqi Ba'athist Regime appear to be bizarre to say the least, that is what leads me to suspect that this stuff has not been destroyed. There are a number of extremely rational explanations as to why it was not used during the conflict, but if there, it will be found. |
