"Evidence of WMD"

[Zeebadee]

You never answered my earlier post.

[bishop]

"the american", i think you should stick to debating your points, rather than continuing your ad hominems towards rick.. that behavior is against our etiquette here, in case you haven't read it.

Go back and read what Kay and Deulfer has to say. They both believe once the sanctions were lifted, Hussein would immediately pick up where he left off. Kay had stated it was possible they had been moved to a neighboring state. Now, if you were building dolls, would you raid a plastic explosive plant for the material? It doesn't tkae a rocket scientist to put two and two together, nuclear weapons plants were also raided. Who really close to Iraq has started developing a nuclear program now? Who is Israel squinting really hard at? Can you be this naive not to see it as only a coincidence?

that's a good argument for containment... a good argument for continued inspections. not a good argument for invasion. a good argument for invasion would've been stockpiles and/or active wmd programs.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: bishop "the american", i think you should stick to debating your points, rather than continuing your ad hominems towards rick.. that behavior is against our etiquette here, in case you haven't read it.

Ad Hominin attacks are only tolerated towards right wing Bush supporting robots that spew the lies of the Criminal in office.

Remember that.


Baka Valley, that's where you'll find the WMD materials everyone is looking for, and thats where Syria has drawn the line as it's point of pull back.

Interseting.

[bishop]

no they aren't, but i don't expect you to exert any rationality on the issue...

baka valley.. you have any proof of this aside from a worldnetdaily/newsmax "report"? sounds just like another apologist excuse, or flailing attempt at winning vindication. maybe we should invade them too, eh?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: bishop no they aren't, but i don't expect you to exert any rationality on the issue... baka valley.. you have any proof of this aside from a worldnetdaily/newsmax "report"? sounds just like another apologist excuse, or flailing attempt at winning vindication. maybe we should invade them too, eh?

Point proven.

Anyway, no I will use other sources:

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM Monday, August 25, 2003 U.S. intelligence suspects Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have finally been located. Unfortunately, getting to them will be nearly impossible for the United States and its allies, because the containers with the strategic materials are not in Iraq. Instead they are located in Lebanon's heavily-fortified Bekaa Valley, swarming with Iranian and Syrian forces, and Hizbullah and ex-Iraqi agents, Geostrategy-Direct.com will report in Wednesday's new weekly edition. U.S. intelligence first identified a stream of tractor-trailer trucks moving from Iraq to Syria to Lebaon in January 2003. The significance of this sighting did not register on the CIA at the time. http://www.iranianvoice.org/article1090.html The U.S. intelligence community has new information that could shed light on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction arsenal. But chances are the Bush administration won't be releasing this information for a while. Here is what we have learned: Over the last few months, the intelligence community has received new evidence that a sizable amount of Iraqi WMD systems, components and platforms were transferred to Syria in the weeks leading up to the U.S.-led war in Iraq in March 2003. The convoys were spotted by U.S. satellites in early 2003, but the contents of the WMD convoys from Iraq to Syria were not confirmed. Confirmation later came from Iraqi scientists and technicians questioned by a U.S. team that was searching for Saddam's conventional weapons. But all they knew was that the convoys were heading west to Syria. But over the last few months, U.S. intelligence managed to track the Iraqi WMD convoy to Lebanon's Bekaa Valley. Through the use of satellites, electronic monitoring and human intelligence, the intelligence community has determined that much, if not all, of Iraq's biological and chemical weapons assets are being protected by Syria, with Iranian help, in the Bekaa Valley. http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/...y25/may25.html There was an immediate and popular call for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. That has yet to occur. If it does, Syria has said it will retain fortified control of Lebanon's Bekaa Valley . What does this have to do with weapons of mass destruction? Reports are that U.S. intelligence now suspects that those weapons are hidden in the Bekaa Valley. In 2003, our spies reported a stream of tractor-trailer trucks from Iraq through Syria to the valley. But the whereabouts of the weapons of mass destruction was not yet a big issue then. The general assumption was that they were still in Iraq. Now, in the clear light of hindsight, it seems painfully obvious that the trucks carried what we were looking for in all of the wrong places. http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stori...50310003.shtml

Just food for thought.

[The American]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Point proven. Anyway, no I will use other sources: Just food for thought.

Interesting. I will look into that farther. Thanks for those links.

[Mr.Vicchio]

No problem The American,

Is this solid in your face info? No, is it very intersting and plausible, absolutely. Especially with Syrais withdrawl TO that valley..

[The American]

[quote]

Quote by: bishop "the american", i think you should stick to debating your points, rather than continuing your ad hominems towards rick.. that behavior is against our etiquette here, in case you haven't read it.

You may be right. A blanket insult if you may? Strike one up for me then. I will stop. However, they were his words. If he did not mean them, why did he say? Now, if you are keeping score, would you please inlighten me on the attacks and insults that have occurred against me in the short time I have been here? Have you hurled them yourself? Don't worry, I am not a complainer. But as I say, you are judged by your words. I have the memory of the elephant, and I "will" dig them up, and use them against you. It is the process of debate. If you do not mean what you say, don't say it. If it is a mistake, admit it.

that's a good argument for containment... a good argument for continued inspections. not a good argument for invasion. a good argument for invasion would've been stockpiles and/or active wmd programs.

And if you are not allowed to contain and inspect, what then? Tell me what happens when you are run out of the country, despite your agreement to U.N. Resolutions for a cease fire and end to a war? How long does diplomacy take getting kicked around, before you say enough is enough? 12 years? That is two years shy of what you spend in school. (not counting college) 12 years is a long long time. Do you understand what inspectors were saying weeks before deadline? Hussein was given plenty of time, he was also given 48 hours to leave Iraq, he did not use either wisely.

[The American]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio No problem The American, Is this solid in your face info? No, is it very intersting and plausible, absolutely. Especially with Syrais withdrawl TO that valley..

It is links such as these I keep for future references. They may come in handy.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Point proven. Anyway, no I will use other sources: "Over the last few months, the intelligence community has received new evidence that a sizable amount of Iraqi WMD systems, components and platforms were transferred to Syria in the weeks leading up to the U.S.-led war in Iraq in March 2003." Just food for thought.

Horseshit. Then why wasn't the invasion delayed until we could get confirmation of exactly where the WMD's were? Bush's war was predicated on the fact of WMD's in Iraq, this was the primary mission. If we were truly after WMD's then wouldn't the prime target for invasion be the country they were being stored in? Wouldn't Syria be a much smaller and easier objective than Iraq? And why would Syria accept such material anyway? What leader in his right mind would voluntarily accept the "thousands of tons" of lethal material to store in his country that Bush claimed we knew they had?

The pathetic Bushistas continue to hope against hope not that the WMD's never existed, but that saddam really had this stuff, and it will eventually be found. Hell, they wouldn't even care if it was found and used against us, as long as it vindicated Bush's war.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Very nice and reality free analysis.

First off, we didn't know WHAT was in those convoys. We still don't. We suspect that may very well be where the WMD materials went.

I understand you are firmly in the bubble of "bush is a liar blood for oil" but do try to step back once in a while and look at the big picture. This isn't Hollywood, we can't use satilites, UAV's or "spies" to penetrate into moving trucks and know what's in them, this is the real world.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I understand you are firmly in the bubble of "bush is a liar blood for oil" but do try to step back once in a while and look at the big picture.

Nice of you to try and tell me what I believe, but it adds nothing to your post.

Quote by: Mr. Viccio This isn't Hollywood, we can't use satilites, UAV's or "spies" to penetrate into moving trucks and know what's in them, this is the real world.

That doesn't seem to stop you from claiming those "moving trucks" carried away Bush's justification for his war. Cling to your pathetically feeble hopes of finding WMD's, and continue to tell others what constitutes the "real world".

[The American]

Quote by: Zeebadee This is a joke, right?? You're not seriously claiming this war is justified because we've managed to dig up a few items (including your best and funniest item, a plane with no wings buried in the sand) that may or may not have been weapons related are you?? Where are all these "thousands of tons" of WMD's that Powelll went before the UN and claimed we had proof of? Ok, if they can't show us that, then just show us the proof we claimed to have. Not "it appeared that", "observations by government employees", "strong indications", or "There are indications", but something real and tangible. Read Bush's speech in Cincinnati (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html) and compare it with reality. If there weren't already thousands dead in this insane ego trip of Bush's, your continuing feeble attempts to justify the war would be pitiful. And if you're really worried about that Soviet built plane they dug up, we have an F-104 mounted on display down at our local airport that can counter the threat.

To answer your question, it is not a joke. Now, your next step, is to step back in time, place yourself within that time period, when we relied heavily on what our intelligence and world intelligence was telling us. Working on hindsight now, does not cut the mustard. Did Congress issue a warning? Yes. Did they vote to use action? Yes.

Reality. Are we obtaining our goals set? Yes. So what's the problem? NYT has put forth this article on weapon sites that have been looted and destroyed before and after invasion. Is the world a better place because of U.S. and coalition actions? Yes. The middle east is changing its face, as our goals implied. I don't worry about buried planes in Iraq, they only confirm Hussein was hiding his junk. You didn't even read that speech you tossed to me did you? Recent reports confirm a part of it.

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th. Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace. We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden. The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people. and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times. And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family. On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured. America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity.

So now, the question put to you, what part of it did you not understand? Humanity violations? Deception? Violation of a cease fire?(which in itself is an act of war) Even the Food for oil scam was mentioned. Ties to terror? Harboring terrorists?(Training camps to the north) Not accounting for chemicals they said they had? (which was stated in Blix's report to the Security Council) Long range missiles? Tell me, what is it you are trying to make me see here? That we would not find WMD? When did you know this? Before or after invasion?

Would you be one of those who work on hindsight, by what you know now, compared to what the best intelligence agencies in the world were saying at the time? Be reasonable.

[tusaki]

Most of the anger comes from the inability to prove, once and for all, Saddam really posed a serious threat. The US government wasn't able to convince many people before the war (outside the US), and support for the main reasons the war was started is waning. Many people are happy the dictator is gone, and they are happy the Iraqi’s, freed from a dictator, are able to live freely (Not -now-, but in a decade or so, once the situation has stabilized. (whether it will stabilize or not is another debate)).

But conclusive evidence that WMD were being mass produced, being prepared for a mass attack on the free world through terrorists (which is what was implied), was not found. Not then, not now. So now it becomes a political game... which side do you believe? both sides cannot be -conclusively- proven. I'm inclined to believe Saddam never posed a threat to the free world, because he would risk annihilation by the US, Europe or Israel if he ever attacked one of those. And he only had the technology to build missiles capable of reaching Israel. Now I do trust the Israeli military and intelligence service enough to claim that if there was ever any good evidence of Saddam having the will and the capacity to attack Israel with WMD, they would pre-emptively strike the factories and storages of such weapons. As they have done in 1981.

Terrorists, a dictator and various humanitarian reasons are all good reasons to topple Saddams regime. However, it is a game of costs. The only way to mobilize the public for support on such a war, is to make them believe Saddam was capable and planning to attack the US. So, enter the WMD. Studies have shown that exaggeration of a threat, or even make-believe, was used in the past for political ends. Why would this be any different? I don't believe that president Bush is an evil actor, I really think he means to do well. But the WMD argument is flaky, and could possibly, let me rephrase this... it is most likely to have just been a rouse to get support at home for the war. The real reasons could have been humanitarian (unlikely, unfortunately wars are never started for humanitarian reasons, these reasons are always given after the war to justify the war). Or geopolitical (likely). I don’t believe it was for the oil, I believe it was to create a foothold in the middle east. Either that, or it is president Bush's vision to do something 'grand' and 'fix' the middle east. I do suspect the latter could be a motive too, because as far as I can judge, he has a drive to 'be' something through his actions.

[Gorgo]

Is this about Hussein Kamel?

Note added later. Of course it is. Another of Bush's lies recycled to support his crimes.

Quote by: The American In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents.

[Gorgo]

Then look at what reality is telling us. It is illegal to attack other countries. Why are you supporting these criminals?

Quote by: The American Now, your next step, is to step back in time, place yourself within that time period, when we relied heavily on what our intelligence and world intelligence was telling us.

[The American]

Quote by: Gorgo Is this about Hussein Kamel? Note added later. Of course it is. Another of Bush's lies recycled to support his crimes.

Produce the records showing the destruction then. In not doing so, you paint Blix, Kay, and Duelfer to be liars. Intentional liars, which is a pretty stout accusation with no basis. In order to do so, you have to produce the records now, at this time. I am waiting.

[The American]

Quote by: Gorgo Then look at what reality is telling us. It is illegal to attack other countries. Why are you supporting these criminals?

You must live a pretty torturous life. I pity you. According to your belief and generalizations, America has been a criminal since her birth. Was it right what we did to the Indian? How about the African American? The Chinese? The Japanese? The German? The Muslim? The Terrorist? Get a grip on yourself. If you think America is that bad, why do you even reside within its borders? How do you awake each morning and walk outside to enjoy it's sunshine? If life is this bad for you, take my friendly advice and do one of two things, or do them both. See a shrink, I do not see how much confusion and hatred can be directed at one group. Two, you are not that far from Canada, they could accept you with open arms until you are able to find yourself. Quit being such a pessimist and enjoy life for once. Believe me, it is not all that bad here in the U.S.

[The American]

Quote by: tusaki Most of the anger comes from the inability to prove, once and for all, Saddam really posed a serious threat. The US government wasn't able to convince many people before the war (outside the US), and support for the main reasons the war was started is waning. Many people are happy the dictator is gone, and they are happy the Iraqi’s, freed from a dictator, are able to live freely (Not -now-, but in a decade or so, once the situation has stabilized. (whether it will stabilize or not is another debate)). But conclusive evidence that WMD were being mass produced, being prepared for a mass attack on the free world through terrorists (which is what was implied), was not found. Not then, not now. So now it becomes a political game... which side do you believe? both sides cannot be -conclusively- proven. I'm inclined to believe Saddam never posed a threat to the free world, because he would risk annihilation by the US, Europe or Israel if he ever attacked one of those. And he only had the technology to build missiles capable of reaching Israel. Now I do trust the Israeli military and intelligence service enough to claim that if there was ever any good evidence of Saddam having the will and the capacity to attack Israel with WMD, they would pre-emptively strike the factories and storages of such weapons. As they have done in 1981. Terrorists, a dictator and various humanitarian reasons are all good reasons to topple Saddams regime. However, it is a game of costs. The only way to mobilize the public for support on such a war, is to make them believe Saddam was capable and planning to attack the US. So, enter the WMD. Studies have shown that exaggeration of a threat, or even make-believe, was used in the past for political ends. Why would this be any different? I don't believe that president Bush is an evil actor, I really think he means to do well. But the WMD argument is flaky, and could possibly, let me rephrase this... it is most likely to have just been a rouse to get support at home for the war. The real reasons could have been humanitarian (unlikely, unfortunately wars are never started for humanitarian reasons, these reasons are always given after the war to justify the war). Or geopolitical (likely). I don’t believe it was for the oil, I believe it was to create a foothold in the middle east. Either that, or it is president Bush's vision to do something 'grand' and 'fix' the middle east. I do suspect the latter could be a motive too, because as far as I can judge, he has a drive to 'be' something through his actions.

Now I like this post, well executed.

[Matt W]

TA, can you stick to the point, rather than 'constructively criticising'? Makes you sound incredibly condescending.