Weapons of mass destruction

[zigmeister]

I have never known Maggie to not be authentic. I am sure we can discuss this with respect for the others view points. In my book Maggie has always raised the bar, but she should also beable to express her point of view. A view which I happen to agree with. However, whether there was or there wasn't Weapons of Mass destruction here we are. All of us have one thing in common for the most part, we have pink paper in our shoe boxes waiting for this RV to pop or not. I think we can agree on that.

[DiveDeepSix]

I have never known Maggie to not be authentic. I am sure we can discuss this with respect for the others view points. In my book Maggie has always raised the bar, but she should also beable to express her point of view. A view which I happen to agree with. However, whether there was or there wasn't Weapons of Mass destruction here we are. All of us have one thing in common for the most part, we have pink paper in our shoe boxes waiting for this RV to pop or not. I think we can agree on that.

Dang it Zig, now I have to find a new hiding spot for my dinar LOL, what next? Change my luggage combination from 12345 to something else I suppose.

[40oz]

Nobody mentions in this thread that Saddam started selling his oil for Euros rather than US dollars, a de facto declaration of war against the USA and dollar.

[Maggie123]

Nobody mentions in this thread that Saddam started selling his oil for Euros rather than US dollars, a de facto declaration of war against the USA and dollar.

BINGO!!! 40oz

[Carrello]

Hey Carrello, I have no particular disagreement with you, but

you must be reading the personal accounts of the guys that are,

and were there in Iraq.....There is no question WMD's were and

some may still be there.

Those are the facts. The Left Wing is responsible for the

allegations that no WMD's were a factor....pure poppycock

propoganda.....Laugh if you like, you cant deny facts.

Well, I like it that you deal in facts, because I have some of I have accumulated too. Let's get this one out of the way first regarding the Democratic votes yeh/nay for the Iraq war: House - 82-126, and the Senate 29-21. 111 votes for and 147 against for Congressional Democrats.

I believe the issue is the type of WMDs we are talking about. As you know, there were WMDs found, but not the type the United States government was wishing for. The US citizens were told by our Bush and Cheney that Saddam had or was about to have nuclear weapons, and this was the PR campaign sold to the American people, governments around the world, and our Congress. Gasses were found, but nothing nuclear.

Search for the 'smoking gun'

By Wolf Blitzer

CNN

Friday, January 10, 2003 Posted: 5:58 PM EST (2258 GMT)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Last September 8, I interviewed President Bush's National Security Adviser, Dr. Condoleezza Rice. I was pressing her on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities.

"We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon," she told me. "And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought -- maybe six months from a crude nuclear device."

Dr. Rice then said something that was ominous and made headlines around the world.

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

I thought of those comments this week following the statement from the chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, acknowledging that no "smoking gun" has been found yet since the resumption of the weapons inspections. Still, Blix did not offer Iraq a clean bill of health. ...."

Bush's famous moment warning us of Iraq's nuclear ambitions and the mushroom cloud speech at the United Nations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gUzD1Ud4Lk

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from

• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03, a quote in an article from the Right's own American Progress http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24970.html/Africa."

Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 80

Updated - February 11, 2004

"The quality of the intelligence analysis has also come under scrutiny. The failure to find weapons stocks or active production lines, undermining claims by the October 2002 NIE and both President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell (Document 16, Document 27), has been one particular cause for criticism. Controversy has also centered around specific judgments - in the United States with regard to assessments of Iraq's motives for seeking high-strength aluminum tubes, and in the United Kingdom with respect to the government's claim that Iraq sought to acquire uranium from Africa. Post-war evaluation of captured material, particularly two mobile facilities that the CIA and DIA judged to be biological weapons laboratories, has also been the subject of dispute. (Note 5)"

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/

But Hans Blix found no nuclear weapons:

Blix insists there was no firm weapons evidence

Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor

The Guardian, Thursday 28 April 2005 08.03 EDT

The head of the United Nations weapons inspectors in the run-up to the Iraq war, Hans Blix, last night undercut one of the main grounds offered by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, in his legal advice to Tony Blair.

Lord Goldsmith said there would have to be evidence that Iraq was not complying with the inspectors.

But Mr Blix, who has since retired to Sweden, said his inspectors found no compelling evidence that Iraq had a hidden arsenal or was blocking the work of the inspectors. He said there had been only small infractions by Iraq.

"We did express ourselves in dry terms but there was no mistake about the content," he said. "One cannot say there was compelling evidence. Iraq was guilty only of small infractions. The government should have re-evaluated its assessment in the light of what the inspectors found.

"We reported consistently that we found no weapons of mass destruction and I carried out inspections at sites given to us by US and British intelligence and not found anything."...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/apr/28/iraq.iraq

and, yes, there were WMDs found;

American Forces Press Service

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

By Samantha L. Quigley

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.

"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal. ...."more

Anytime you want to discuss Vietnam, let me know.

[cris]

Ahh...well, Im glad we have established that there were WMD's

We can also pretty clearly make the intuitive leap that there are

and continue to be WMD's, simply based on the reports of our

fellow DVers who have witnessed these stockpiles and that have

written about them in this thread.

We can also establish that some of the very Democrats that were

hot to get involved in the War, turned around and condemned it.

Falsely claiming that no WMD's existed. All for political gain.

Here's some more information....Saddam's attempts to obtain

nuclear weapons is documented fact.....This is just one of the ways

he was trying, and is definitely a scary proposition for the ME

Saddam Hussein weighed nuclear 'package' deal in 1990, documents show

Iraq President Saddam Hussein, who was later executed, had sought the purchase of a $150 million nuclear "package" deal in 1990. (Darko Bandic/associated Press)

Network News

By Joby Warrick

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

As troops massed on his border near the start of the Persian Gulf War, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein weighed the purchase of a $150 million nuclear "package" deal that included not only weapons designs but also production plants and foreign experts to supervise the building of a nuclear bomb, according to documents uncovered by a former U.N. weapons inspector.

The offer, made in 1990 by an agent linked to disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, guaranteed Iraq a weapons-assembly line capable of producing nuclear warheads in as little as three years. But Iraq lost the chance to capitalize when, months later, a multinational force crushed the Iraqi army and forced Hussein to abandon his nuclear ambitions, according to nuclear weapons expert David Albright, who describes the proposed deal in a new book.

Iraqi officials at the time appear to have taken the offer seriously and asked the Pakistanis for sample drawings as proof of their ability to deliver, the documents show. "With the assurance of [iraqi intelligence agency] Mukhabarat . . . the offer is not a sting operation," an Iraqi official scrawls in ink in the margin of one of the papers.

Khan's alleged interest in selling nuclear secrets to Hussein has been reported in numerous books and news articles. An internal Mukhabarat memo that surfaced in the late 1990s discussed a secret proposal by one of Khan's agents to sell a nuclear weapons design for an advance payment of $5 million.

But the newly uncovered documents suggest that Khan's offer of nuclear assistance was more comprehensive than previously known. A 1990 letter attributed to a Khan business associate offered Iraq a chance to leap past technical hurdles to acquire weapons capability.

"Pakistan had to spend a period of 10 years and an amount of 300 million U.S. dollars to get it," begins one of the memos. "Now, with the practical experience and worldwide contacts Pakistan has developed, you could have A.B. in about three years' time and by spending about $150 million." "A.B." was understood to mean "atomic bomb," Albright wrote in "Peddling Peril: How the Secret Nuclear Trade Arms America's Enemies," released this week.

At the time of the 1990 offer, Iraq was embarked in a crash program to develop nuclear weapons in the face of a threatened U.S.-led attack over its occupation of Kuwait. By that date, Iraqi scientists had acquired a limited amount of weapons-grade enriched uranium but lacked several key components, including a workable design for a small nuclear warhead.

[Carrello]

Cris, thank you for the article. Most interesting, and it does prove my point. According to your article dated 2010, Saddam Hussein looked to Khan to obtain nuclear weapons and a delivery system in 1990. In 2002, Hans Blix and the United Nations did not find any evidence of nuclear weapons in Iraq, so Khan's plan was never gotten, not to say Saddam did not pay him for the paper being offered.

Your article is dated 2010, and our conversation started regarding who and what got us into the war in 2003, so this article would not apply to what we have been debating.

I include further information on the status of decisions to go to war by retired General Colin Powell, former Secretary of State at the time of invasion, and a life long Republican:

Colin Powell with vial he said could contain anthrax, at the United Nations in 2003.

WASHINGTON -- In his new book, former Secretary of State Colin Powell provides what may be the most authoritative confirmation yet that there was never a considered debate in the George W. Bush White House about whether going to war in Iraq was really a good idea.

In a chapter discussing what he calls his “infamous” February 2003 speech to the United Nations where he authoritatively presented what was later exposed as gross misinformation about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Powell notes that by that time, war “was approaching.”

“By then, the President did not think war could be avoided,” Powell writes. “He had crossed the line in his own mind, even though the NSC [National Security Council] had never met -- and never would meet -- to discuss the decision.”

The National Security Council, which was at the time led by Condoleezza Rice, is the president’s foremost advisory body for national security and foreign policy.

The book, “It Worked For Me: In Life and Leadership,” which will be released May 22, is largely a series of leadership parables from Powell, who now spends a lot of time on the lecture circuit. The Huffington Post obtained an advance copy.

Bush insisted in his own 2010 memoir, "Decision Points," that the invasion was something he came to support only reluctantly and after a long period of reflection. During his book tour, he even cast himself as “a dissenting voice” in the run-up to war. “I didn't wanna use force,” he said.

But Powell supports the increasingly well-documented conclusion that there was actually no decision-making point -- or decision-making process -- during the events between the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, which had nothing to do with those attacks.

Former CIA Director George Tenet made an admission similar to Powell’s in his own 2007 memoir. "There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat," he wrote. Nor "was there ever a significant discussion" about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.

Indeed, history shows that Bush had long wanted to strike out at Saddam Hussein and was trying to link Iraq to 9/11 within a day of the terrorist attacks.

The first concrete evidence was the Downing Street Memos first published in 2005, which documented the conclusions of British officials after high-level talks in Washington in July 2002 that “[m]ilitary action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

An analysis of the historical record by the National Security Archives in 2010 concluded that, “In contrast to an extensive record of planning for actual military operations, there is no record that President George W. Bush ever made a considered decision for war. All of the numerous White House and Pentagon meetings concerned moving the project forward, not whether a march into conflict was a proper course for the United States and its allies. Deliberations were instrumental to furthering the war project, not considerations of the basic course.”

The war, which President Barack Obama officially brought to an end Dec. 31, cost the U.S. government around $3 trilllion, left 4,487 U.S. servicemembers dead and killed more than 100,000 Iraqis. The Pentagon counts 32,226 U.S. servicemembers wounded, but the toll, including cumulative psychological and physiological damage, may be as high as half a million.

In Powell’s explanation of how he came to provide the misleading and inaccurate account of Iraq’s WMD capability at the UN, the former secretary of state points an incriminating finger at Vice President **** Cheney’s office -- confirming previous reports such as the one by Karen DeYoung, in her Powell biography.

In the new book, Powell describes his reaction to the initial “WMD case” from the White House. “It was a disaster. It was incoherent,” he writes. “I learned later that Scooter Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, had authored the unusable presentation, not the NSC staff. And several years after that, I learned from Dr. Rice that the idea of using Libby had come from the Vice President, who had persuaded the President to have Libby, a lawyer, write the ‘case’ as a lawyer's brief and not as an intelligence assessment.”

Powell gives himself credit for rejecting continued appeals from Cheney to add “assertions that had been rejected months earlier to links between Iraq and 9/11 and other terrorist acts.”

All in all, Powell acknowledges that the speech was “one of my most momentous failures, the one with the widest-ranging impact.” But he also concludes that “every senior U.S. official would have made the exact same case,”

He adds: “I get mad when bloggers accuse me of lying -- of knowing the information was false. I didn’t.”

The lesson of all this, Powell writes, is to follow these guidelines: “Always try to get over failure quickly. Learn from it. Study how you contributed to it. If you are responsible for it, own up to it.”

But Powell didn’t exactly own up to this for years. His former chief of staff, Col. Larry Wilkerson, first went public in 2005 with details of a secret cabal led by the vice president which hijacked U.S. foreign policy and hoodwinked the president. Wilkerson also argued for years that there was never a formal decision to go to war. Powell conspicuously failed to back him up at the time.

So what does Wilkerson make of Powell’s conclusory lessons? “Powell’s rules are for everyone else,” he told HuffPost on Wednesday.

[GI_Jane]

Social Dinar

I remember the 2004 IED. I was in Iraq when it exploded in Baghdad and was found to have Sarin gas.

Desimo,

You are correct on the underground tunnels. In the Balad hospital, which we bombed, we found many underground tunnels large enough to drive large trucks in.

And of course I read the book "Saddam's Bombmaker" by khidhir hamza, who told the story of Saddam's nuclear program and how he used the chemicals during the Gulf War. Pretty good read.

BUT.....we also used White Phosphorus in Fallujah, but some consider it an incendiary weapon. Either way, it is against the Geneva Convention.

US used white phosphorus in Iraq

Falluja suffered great damage during the offensive

US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said.

"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.

The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.

BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.

Col Venable denied that white phosphorous constituted a banned chemical weapon.

White phosphorus is an incendiary weapon, not a chemical weapon

Col Barry Venable

Pentagon spokesman

US military interview

Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians.

The US state department had earlier said white phosphorus had been used in Falluja very sparingly, for illumination purposes.

Col Venable said that statement was based on "poor information".

'Incendiary'

The US-led assault on Falluja - a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency west of Baghdad - displaced most of the city's 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed.

Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases.

"However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."

WHITE PHOSPHORUS

Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination

Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh

Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)

Protocol III not signed by US

Rai interview

And he said it had been used in Falluja, but it was a "conventional munition", not a chemical weapon.

It is not "outlawed or illegal", Col Venable said.

He said US forces could use white phosphorus rounds to flush enemy troops out of covered positions.

"The combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said.

San Diego journalist Darrin Mortenson, who was embedded with US marines during the assault on Falluja, told the BBC's Today radio programme he had seen white phosphorous used "as an incendiary weapon" against insurgents.

However, he "never saw anybody intentionally use any weapon against civilians", he said.

'Particularly nasty'

White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.

Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful... These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears... it could burn right down to the bone."

A spokesman at the UK Ministry of Defence said the use of white phosphorus was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area.

But Professor Paul Rogers, of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.

He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."

When an Italian TV documentary revealing the use of white phosphorus in Iraq was broadcast on 8 November it sparked fury among Italian anti-war protesters, who demonstrated outside the US embassy in Rome.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4440664.stm

[cris]

Cris, thank you for the article. Most interesting, and it does prove my point. According to your article dated 2010, Saddam Hussein looked to Khan to obtain nuclear weapons and a delivery system in 1990. In 2002, Hans Blix and the United Nations did not find any evidence of nuclear weapons in Iraq, so Khan's plan was never gotten, not to say Saddam did not pay him for the paper being offered.

Your article is dated 2010, and our conversation started regarding who and what got us into the war in 2003, so this article would not apply to what we have been debating.

If you'll notice my post...#15...and your respose....#26

I have made, and with your help, proven my point in posts #55 & #56

Is there anything else you'd like to discuss?.......I think you may

have inadvertently confused me with the original member that started this

thread 'surfpunk'......or maybe someone else?

[Maggie123]

Carrello I Can't Thank You Enough For Your Research And The Time You Put In To Show The Truth For What It Is. Your Information Makes A Compelling Argument Of How Many Lies Were Told In Order To Gain support For The Invasion Of Iraq. You Did Not "Sugar Coat" It. You Also Showed What Saddam Hussein Was Doing. I Would Say That You Should Certainly Be Commended For Being Objective And Honest In What You Brought In.

Some Highlights from both of your post that stood out for me were...

Carrello

Posted Yesterday, 05:32 PM

I believe the issue is the type of WMDs we are talking about. As you know, there were WMDs found, but not the type the United States government was wishing for. The US citizens were told by our Bush and Cheney that Saddam had or was about to have nuclear weapons, and this was the PR campaign sold to the American people, governments around the world, and our Congress. Gasses were found, but nothing nuclear.

"Cris, thank you for the article. Most interesting, and it does prove my point. According to your article dated 2010, Saddam Hussein looked to Khan to obtain nuclear weapons and a delivery system in 1990. In 2002, Hans Blix and the United Nations did not find any evidence of nuclear weapons in Iraq, so Khan's plan was never gotten, not to say Saddam did not pay him for the paper being offered.

Your article is dated 2010, and our conversation started regarding who and what got us into the war in 2003, so this article would not apply to what we have been debating.

You clearly were NOT confused about who you were responding to and cris just showed that they were still trying to justify the Lies even 7 years later...

Proper procedures were not followed by going through discussions with the National Security Council to even talk about it being the right thing to do in the first place...

"Former CIA Director George Tenet made an admission similar to Powell’s in his own 2007 memoir. "There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat," he wrote. Nor "was there ever a significant discussion" about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.

Indeed, history shows that Bush had long wanted to strike out at Saddam Hussein and was trying to link Iraq to 9/11 within a day of the terrorist attacks.

The first concrete evidence was the Downing Street Memos first published in 2005, which documented the conclusions of British officials after high-level talks in Washington in July 2002 that “[m]ilitary action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

An analysis of the historical record by the National Security Archives in 2010 concluded that, “In contrast to an extensive record of planning for actual military operations, there is no record that President George W. Bush ever made a considered decision for war. All of the numerous White House and Pentagon meetings concerned moving the project forward, not whether a march into conflict was a proper course for the United States and its allies. Deliberations were instrumental to furthering the war project, not considerations of the basic course.”

This is how Cheney "helped"...

"In Powell’s explanation of how he came to provide the misleading and inaccurate account of Iraq’s WMD capability at the UN, the former secretary of state points an incriminating finger at Vice President **** Cheney’s office -- confirming previous reports such as the one by Karen DeYoung, in her Powell biography.

In the new book, Powell describes his reaction to the initial “WMD case” from the White House. “It was a disaster. It was incoherent,” he writes. “I learned later that Scooter Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, had authored the unusable presentation, not the NSC staff. And several years after that, I learned from Dr. Rice that the idea of using Libby had come from the Vice President, who had persuaded the President to have Libby, a lawyer, write the ‘case’ as a lawyer's brief and not as an intelligence assessment.”

Powell gives himself credit for rejecting continued appeals from Cheney to add “assertions that had been rejected months earlier to links between Iraq and 9/11 and other terrorist acts.”

Then there is this to consider from 2005...

"The head of the United Nations weapons inspectors in the run-up to the Iraq war, Hans Blix, last night undercut one of the main grounds offered by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, in his legal advice to Tony Blair.

Lord Goldsmith said there would have to be evidence that Iraq was not complying with the inspectors.

But Mr Blix, who has since retired to Sweden, said his inspectors found no compelling evidence that Iraq had a hidden arsenal or was blocking the work of the inspectors. He said there had been only small infractions by Iraq.

"We did express ourselves in dry terms but there was no mistake about the content," he said. "One cannot say there was compelling evidence. Iraq was guilty only of small infractions. The government should have re-evaluated its assessment in the light of what the inspectors found.

"We reported consistently that we found no weapons of mass destruction and I carried out inspections at sites given to us by US and British intelligence and not found anything."...

Actually Carrello, I found it hard to not copy and paste all of your info, it was all so relevant and right on target to the discussion at hand. I would say you made a pretty overwelming argument that...

YES! We Were Lied To About Why We Went To War In Iraq.

[rightsonword]

Ahh, so you are saying that the one article you dug up is undisputable evidence, that the people who have been there and seen them with their own eyes and posted here are lying? Is that what you are saying? Once again you have generalized, apparently you haven't read what others have written or you wouldn't be making statements that Iraq had no active chemical weapons or nuke program. Let me guess you don't think Iran is in the process of making nukes either? Were you in Iraq? Didn't think so. My comprehension and reading skills are fine, and as far as my real world knowledge I don't think you want to open that can of worms bud. Off to work, you kids play nice now ya hear!

Really? So statements by our own intelligence officials and others mean nothing. This is almost as comical as you repeatedly stating that people here were denying any weapons were found. I must say, your ability to knock down strawmen is really sometihng. Again, for the 329473289482 time, please read what has been written. This way you won't make baseless assumptions.

Bye, bye for now.

[GotSix]

Really? So statements by our own intelligence officials and others mean nothing. This is almost as comical as you repeatedly stating that people here were denying any weapons were found. I must say, your ability to knock down strawmen is really sometihng. Again, for the 329473289482 time, please read what has been written. This way you won't make baseless assumptions.

Bye, bye for now.

You really got it all wrong....action speaks louder than words or any intelligence for that matter....you fail to remeber how the U.N. came to us begging for help cause Iraqi would not allow the inspectors back in...that's a third party asking for help not the US imposing....& after 9/11 we are ready to call out anyone.....even if it's a bluff

[keepmwlknfny]

Nobody mentions in this thread that Saddam started selling his oil for Euros rather than US dollars, a de facto declaration of war against the USA and dollar.

Easily forgotten by many!!

+1!

[rightsonword]

You really got it all wrong....action speaks louder than words or any intelligence for that matter....you fail to remeber how the U.N. came to us begging for help cause Iraqi would not allow the inspectors back in...that's a third party asking for help not the US imposing....& after 9/11 we are ready to call out anyone.....even if it's a bluff

So, a third party asking for help is a declaration of war? Especially after intelligence reports showed Saddam had nothing and we were blowing things way out of proportion? How do you reconcile the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism and 9/11, yet we went after him as opposed to North Korea, Pakistan, or Syria who actually had an active weapons program?

There was no justification for the war and Bush and league lied about the evidence they had. What we know now only reinforces what we knew then: that Saddam was not seeking nukes, did not have an active chemical weapons program, and that Bush lied about the evidence.

Nobody mentions in this thread that Saddam started selling his oil for Euros rather than US dollars, a de facto declaration of war against the USA and dollar.

Good point. Money is a big justification for any war.

[Jmasters]

Well yeah, news today is all propaganda. They are not going to tell us what we "really" need to hear and that is why we have to get news ourselves and not just rely on the local news channels. If anyone has netflix, check out "gashole" among others and see what our leaders have done to keep us down as a nation. It's sickening. There are other documentaries on netflix but I can't remember all of them but "gashole" would be a good start.

It's a good movie.Thanks for bringing it to others attention who have not seen it yet.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Jmasters

[blunter]

well, I have always believed that he had them. And anyone who believes he didn't, let's just call them "liberals".

Wow, I can't imagine that some people especially in the US still believe that war against Iraq is because of their WMDs and 9/11. Wake up mate. your government have lied to you so many times and u still believe their BS.

[GotSix]

So, a third party asking for help is a declaration of war? Especially after intelligence reports showed Saddam had nothing and we were blowing things way out of proportion? How do you reconcile the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism and 9/11, yet we went after him as opposed to North Korea, Pakistan, or Syria who actually had an active weapons program?

There was no justification for the war and Bush and league lied about the evidence they had. What we know now only reinforces what we knew then: that Saddam was not seeking nukes, did not have an active chemical weapons program, and that Bush lied about the evidence.

Dude...go back to sleep....you really have no clue......I'll continue to fight the fight....what about U

[Heavyduty053]

Yes they are sitting right up there in Washington.

[GotSix]

Yes they are sitting right up there in Washington.

So what's your boy Obama doing with it...

Edited August 13, 2012 by GotSix

[Heavyduty053]

So what's your boy Obama doing with it...

Where you been, he is destroying this country along with the dummys in congress who have lost all common sense.

[dontlop]

http://www.husseinandterror.com/ <<< if you can find one thing on this web page that is not true i will listen to you..

how many of you actually read joint resolution 114 ... this is what congress sent to the president after 911 ... it is not what the poresident sent to congress .. itsa joint resolution from congress and senate that was voted on and approved by house and senate .. with 80% approval bipartisian approval .. blaming bush shows ignorance on the subject ..

after bush had congressional approval he could of gone straight for iraq and never look back .. but instead he went bact to the cia .. "head of the cia "... george tennant .. and asked are you sure about the weapons of mass destruction .. and guess what he said .. we all remember .. ...HE SAID ITS A SLAM DUNK ... yet you blame bush as if it was he who said it ...

bush only claimed he had intell that saddam had wmds .. he wasnt over their spying on iraq .. all he could do was rely on his sources .. colon powel .. george tenant ...congress ..

bush made the right decision given the circumstances ... unanimous vote by the united nations security council .. how many of you know what democrat leaders were telling bush .. after all they just left the white house .. and provided most of the intell .. hey look at sandy burger stuffing documents he stole down his pants from the national archives .. to cover clintons knowledge .. and we know clinton did nothing ... alkieda was 100% operational in afganistan when bush took office .. clintons biggest accomplishment was towing home the uss cole ..... if clinton had done his job this would of never happened ... if clinton documents showed alkieda was going to attack using aircraft as missles .. why didnt clinton act ..?

these terrorists entered our country under clinton .. bush wasnt like obama pointing the finger and blaming others .. bush did his job .... im glad obama wast president .. look at what he does with the tough problems .. remember bp oil spill .. he stood in the bacround blaming bp .. instead of protecting our country .. look at our economy all obama does is blame bush .. .. clinton left a national security disaster and a recession and 5.7 trillion in debt .. for bush ... ..bush exposed democrat policies in the housing and banking industry for 6 years before he sent palson in to expose the truth about our financial problems .. democrats called bush stupid for 6 years saying that everything is fine with bear stearns and fany mae and freddy mac... wheres barney frank .. cris dodd now .. oh they conviently resigned .. wheres george tenant ....gone ,,, wheres colin powel .. gone .. think about it .. dont run your flaps till you yourself have proof .. i know i know your intel is good .. you get breifed daily by cia and fbi .. like bush did ..

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

-- Sen. Hillarious Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

ya george bush did it .. all by himself ..

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm <<<< want to read more ?

Edited August 13, 2012 by dontlop

[dontlop]

We brought Mr Bremer a container of the radioactive uranium found abandoned near the Tuwaitha nuclear facility and urged him to allow the return of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to carry out a full survey and decontamination of Iraq.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/us-administration-served-iraqi/

Published on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 by Agence France Presse

Greenpeace Says "Frightening" Radioactivity in Iraqi Villages

TUWAITHA, Iraq - Environmental group Greenpeace called on the US-led coalition governing Iraq to clean up villages surrounding a nuclear site outside Baghdad that have been contaminated by "frightening levels" of radioactive material.

Greenpeace activist William Peden of Scotland tries to convince a US soldier of the 1st Armored Division to accept back a canister (behind) containing 'yellow cake' or Uranium Oxide which was looted during the war from the nuclear facility in Tuwaitha, 50 kilometers south of Baghdad, Tuesday, June 24, 2003. The canister was found by the environmentalist group Greenpeace in the village near the facility and allegedly is contaminated. Following the fall of Saddam Hussein, residents living near the complex reportedly took barrels of nuclear materials known as 'yellow cake' and other containers for use to store food and water and unaware that the barrels were radioactive and toxic. The canister was eventually brought into the facility. (AP Photo/Bullit Marquez)

Carrying Arabic and English banners that read "Al-Tuwaitha - nuclear disaster. Act now!", Greenpeace activists returned a large uranium "yellowcake" mixing canister to US troops stationed inside the nuclear plant, 20 kilometres (12 miles) east of the capital.

The canister -- the size of a small car -- contained significant quantities of radioactive yellowcake and had been left open and unattended for more than 20 days on a busy section of open ground near the Tuwaitha plant, Greenpeace said Tuesday.

"No one cares about us. We are dying slowly. Our whole neighborhood is contaminated. Although Greenpeace came, it is too late," said Tareq al-Obeidi, a 41-year-old Tuwaitha city council member.

"We need medicine and good hospitals. Removing it from the garbage is just the beginning of our long suffering," he said.

Greenpeace said there were three kilograms (6.6 pounds) worth of yellowcake -- slightly enriched uranium -- inside the mixer looted following the ouster of Saddam Hussein's regime.

"It is a disgrace that occupying forces can say they are taking care of human health here in Iraq and they can still allow this to lie open on the ground where children can play in it," said Greenpeace spokeswoman Sara Holden.

Greenpeace said in a statement released in Baghdad that "if this had happened in the UK, the US or any other country, the villages around Tuwaitha would be swarming with radiation experts and decontamination teams.

"It would have been branded a nuclear disaster site and the people given immediate medical check-ups."

Greenpeace activists display a banner at the main entrance to the nuclear facility in Tuwaitha, 50 kilometers south of Baghdad, Iraq Tuesday June 24, 2003 as they wait for the US soldiers to take back a canister containing 'yellow cake' or Uranium Oxide which was looted during the war. The canister was found by the environmentalist group Greenpeace in the village near the facility and allegedly is contaminated. Following the fall of Saddam Hussein, residents living near the complex reportedly took barrels of nuclear materials known as 'yellow cake' and other containers for use to store food and water and unaware that the barrels were radioactive and toxic. (AP Photo/Bullit Marquez)

Much of the material was looted from the facility by villagers who used it for house building and water and food storage, according to Greenpeace International official Mike Townsley.

During a week-long survey, Greenpeace said it had uncovered radioactivity in a number of buildings, including one source measuring 10,000 times above normal and another, outside a 900-pupil primary school, measuring 3,000 times above normal.

Locals were still storing radioactive barrels and lids in their houses, several objects carrying radioactive symbols lie discarded in the community, and there are "consistent and repeated stories of unusual sickness after coming into contact with material from the Tuwaitha plant," the statement said.

Greenpeace said the preliminary survey "highlights the total failure of the occupying forces to address the urgent need for a full assessment, containment and clean up of missing nuclear material from the Tuwaitha nuclear facility."

The environmental group accused the coalition of refusing so far to allow experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to carry out proper documentation and decontamination in Iraq.

"The Greenpeace team has only been surveying for eight days and has discovered frightening levels of radioactive contamination," said Townsley.

"The IAEA must be allowed to return with a full mandate to monitor and decontaminate. They may believe they have accounted for most of the uranium, but what about the rest of the radioactive material?"

© 2003 AFP

###

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0624-09.htm

Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article

[jg1]

Wow, what a thread. Thanks for all of this discussion. I just wonder if there is more truth in this thread than in the media articals we read. And I am wondering how much of Sudam's WMD were taken into Seria ready to be used on his people.

[cbs71]

Indeed.

Gashole? I have known a few of those in my day.

:lol:

It's a good movie.Thanks for bringing it to others attention who have not seen it yet.

You're quite welcome my friend.

[cajunrescuemedic]

It's easy to sit back on your computer and get an opinion based on your favorite news channel. What a lot of people just don't get, is that the news media has their own agenda. I've been in Iraq...I've seen things with my own eyes that the news media refuses to report. I've said this before and I'll say it again, the news media reports what they want to report, and it's not necessarily the truth.