WMD curiosity lapse



Babbar

New Member
Aug 10, 2003
163
0
0
76
by Larry Elder

"Week after week after week after week," said Sen. Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, about President Bush's rationale for going to war with Iraq, "we were told lie after lie after lie after lie." Were we?

Jordan recently seized 20 tons of chemicals trucked in by confessed al Qaeda members who brought it in from Syria. The chemicals included VX, Sarin and 70 others. But the media seem curiously incurious whether one could reasonably trace this stuff back to Iraq. Had the terrorists released a "toxic cloud," Jordanian officials say 80,000 would have died.

So, I interviewed terrorism expert John Loftus, who once held some of the highest security clearances in the world. Mr. Loftus, a former Army officer, was a Justice Department prosecutor. He investigated CIA cases of Nazi war criminals for the U.S. attorney general. Author of several books, Mr. Loftus once received a Pulitzer Prize nomination.

John Loftus: There's a lot of reason to think [the source of the chemicals] might be Iraq. We captured Iraqi members of al Qaeda, who've been trained in Iraq, planned for the mission in Iraq, and now they're in Jordan with nerve gas. That's not the kind of thing you buy in a grocery store. You have to have obtained it from someplace.

Q: They couldn't have obtained it from Syria?
A: Syria does have the ability to produce certain kinds of nerve gases, but in small quantities. The large stockpiles were known to be in Iraq. The best U.S. and allied intelligence say that in the 10 weeks before the Iraq war, Saddam's Russian adviser told him to get rid of all the nerve gas. It would be useless against U.S. troops; the rubber suits were immune to it. So they shipped it across the border to Syria and Lebanon and buried it. Now, in the last few weeks, there's a controversy that Syria has been trying to get rid of this stuff.

They're selling it to al Qaeda is one supposition. We know the Sudanese government demanded the Syrian government empty its warehouse in Khartoum where they've been hiding illegal missiles along with components of weapons of mass destruction. But there's no doubt these guys confessed on Jordanian television that they received the training for this mission in Iraq.... And from the description it appears this is the form of nerve gas known as VX. It's very rare, and very tough to manufacture... one of the most destructive chemical mass-production weapons that you can use....

They wanted to build three clouds, a mile across, of toxic gas. A whole witch's brew of nasty chemicals were going into this poison cloud... over shopping malls, hospitals.

Q: You said the Russians told Saddam, "There is going to be an invasion. Get rid of your chemical and biological weapons."
A: Sure. It would only bring the United Nations down on their heads if they were shown to really have weapons of mass destruction. It's not generally known, but the CIA has found 41 different material breaches where Saddam did have a weapons of mass destruction program of various types. It was completely illegal. But no one could find the stockpiles. And the liberal press seems to be focusing on that.

Q: It seems to me that this is a huge, huge story.
A: It's embarrassing to the (press). They've staked their reputations that this stuff wasn't there. And now all of a sudden we have al Qaeda agents from Iraq showing up with weapons of mass destruction.

Q: David Kay said, in an interim report, there was a possibility WMD components were shipped to Syria.
A: A possibility? We had a Syrian journalist who defected to Paris in January. The guy is dying of cancer, and he said, "Look, my friends in Syrian intelligence told me exactly where the stuff is buried." He named three sites in Syria, and the Israelis have confirmed the three sites. They know where the stuff is, but the problem is the United States can't just go around invading Arab countries.... We know from Israeli and defectors' intelligence that the son of the Syrian defense minister was paid $50 million to bring the stuff across the border and bury it.

Q: Why would al Qaeda attack Jordan?
A: Jordan is an ally of the United States. It's at peace with Israel. And Jordan has a long history of trying to prosecute terrorists.... There are a lot of reasons.... They want to make an example of them. They want to terrorize as many of the Arab states as possible. This is sort of a political dream for the president. The worst nightmare is al Qaeda gets weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. And it looks like it's coming true.

A Syria/Iraq/al Qaeda/WMD connection? Why, this calls for a congressional investigation.

Larry Elder is a nationally syndicated columnist.
 

Fixey

New Member
Mar 9, 2004
635
0
0
LOL, sell that to Fox man, its good story telling. You are realy talented.
 

limerickman

Moderator
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
115
63
In response to your post, I want to commend you for posting some evidence to back up your contention (in previous mails) that you sincerely believe that there are/were WMD held by Iraq.

The interview which you posted is very interesting to read.
I don’t know who John Loftus is - but I accept that he is an expert in this field - as your interview highlights.

I am a little bit concerned that, given the evidence which Loftus has provided, none of the reported biological or military weapons of mass destruction have been uncovered.
If you take the evidence which the Bush government had - they claimed that Hussein had stockpiles of anthrax and smallpox.
The Bush government claimed that Hussein would supply these to terrorists attacking the United States.
In addition, the Bush government also claimed that Hussein would use these weapons if there was a US invasion of Iraq.
Hussein did not use these weapons on the invading US forces in March 2003.
The USA has been in Iraq for the past 14 months and they have no turned up one scintilla of anthrax or smallpox or indeed any other nerve agent.
Yesterday, they did turn up some sarin gas - which was produced during the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980’s (when the USA gave Hussein financial and military backing against Iran).
As for the Bush government claim that Hussein had nuclear weapons of mass destruction, no evidence has been produced to show the world that Hussein possessed these weapons.

The evidence provided by John Loftus is what’s known as hearsay evidence.
Without corroborative physical proof (documentation, physical hardware etc), it is extremely difficult to ascertain the veracity of his hearsay evidence.
What is apparent from this article is that if Loftus claims are true, there is a substantial conspiracy on behalf of the Iraqi’s, Syrians and Al Quaeda, to cover up this whole affair from the rest of the world.
Between them, they have managed to disseminate a large quantity of material from Iraq
into other Arab countries, under the noses of the USA, Israel, the UN and the various intelligence agencies.
If you factor in the fact that Iraq was under intense scrutiny since 11th Sept 2001, when Bush started to publicly blame Saddam Hussein for the World Trade Center attacks, it
makes Loftus claims of these alleged movements, even more far fetched.

Having said all of this, I am glad that Barbar has taken the time to at least post some independent analysis to back up his/her position.
I disagree with barbar’s points but, my estimation for his/her contribution to this discussion has just increased tenfold.
 

Babbar

New Member
Aug 10, 2003
163
0
0
76
Originally posted by limerickman
In response to your post, I want to commend you for posting some evidence to back up your contention (in previous mails) that you sincerely believe that there are/were WMD held by Iraq.


It is not just I who believe that the WMD existed. Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Tom Dashle, the head of state of Germany, England, France, Spain, Italy, Russia, and many others had independent, verified evidence of WMD.

Further, the fact that he used them on the Kurds and Shiites is compelling evidence in and of itself, not to mention the recent discovery of mustard gas and SARIN in roadside bombs in Iraq.

Every thinking person in the world knows Saddam had WMD and intended to use them again. Every thinking person in the world knows Saddam was trying to obtain the means to produce nuclear weaponry to use against Israel and the U.S.

Here are a few more bits if evidence that debunk once and for all the myth that "Bush lied:"

The radical, anti-American left cheered Bob Woodward's new book "Plan of Attack" as ironclad evidence of some President Bush illegality, lie, or another.. I wonder why that are not also embracing other parts, too.

Mr. Woodward reports that Bush was "deeply skeptical" about the CIA's conclusions about Iraqi WMD's, even after reading a Top Secret document titled "Baghdad Has Chemical and Biological Weapons." Mr. Woodward describes an Oval Office meeting in which George Tenet responded to the President's doubts by throwing up his arms and declaring "It's a slam-dunk case."

According to Woodward's account, even that didn't convince the President. He asked "George, how confident are you." According to the book, Tenet "threw his arms up again. 'Don't worry. It's a slam-dunk.'"

Woodward's account indicates that the President instructed the CIA director to assemble the evidence on WMDs, cautioning "Make sure no one stretches to make our case."
 

Babbar

New Member
Aug 10, 2003
163
0
0
76
by Jack Kelly

For most Democrats and journalists, the question of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is a closed, because it is politically embarrassing for President Bush if none are found. But if Saddam's arsenal exists, and our enemies have access to it, we could suffer something far worse than embarrassment if we pretend that it does not exist. Here are some dots crying out for connection:


Explosives and poison gas that could have killed as many as 20,000 people and decapitated his government came from Syria, Jordan's King Abdullah told the San Francisco Chronicle last Saturday. An al Qaida cell associated with Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian national thought to be masterminding al Qaida operations in Iraq, smuggled three cars containing 17.5 tons of explosives and a deadly chemical agent of an undisclosed type into Jordan early in April. Targets for the attack were Jordan's military intelligence headquarters, the prime minister's office, and the U.S. embassy, which are located close to each other in the Jordanian capital of Amman.

Former U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told Congress last fall that U.S. satellite reconnaissance showed substantial truck traffic between Iraq and Syria in the weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last March 19.

A Syrian journalist who defected to Europe told a Dutch newspaper Jan. 5 that chemical and biological weapons developed by Saddam Hussein's regime were being stored in tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria; in the village of Tal Snan, near a big Syrian air force base, and on the Lebanese border south of the city of Homs. Nizar Najoef told the Dutch Telegraaf that the WMD transfer was organized by the commanders of Saddam's Special Republican Guard with the help of a cousin of Syrian strong man Bashir Assad. Najoef's remarks strengthen the view of some in U.S. and Israeli intelligence that many of Saddam's most deadly weapons were moved to Syria just before the war began. "People below the Saddam-Hussein-and-his-sons level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to destroy and disperse," James Clapper, head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (since renamed the National Geo-Spatial Intelligence Agency), told the New York Times last October.

On April 12, the official Iranian news agency "reported" that U.S. forces were secretly hiding weapons of mass destruction in southern and western Iraq. This is, of course, a lie. But the telling of it suggests the Iranians think U.S. forces might soon be discovering some hidden caches of WMD. The Iranians were especially alarmed that the U.S. was interviewing scientists connected with Saddam's weapons programs. "A professor of physics at Baghdad University told the MNA correspondent that a group of his colleagues who are highly specialized in military, chemical and biological fields have been either bribed or threatened during the last weeks to provide written information on what they know about various programs and research centers and the possible storage of WMD equipment," the Iranian news agency said. Charles Duelfer, who has replaced Kay as chief weapons inspector, told Congress March 29 that few Iraqi scientists have been willing to talk to Americans. "Many perceive a grave risk in speaking with us," Duelfer said. "On the one hand, there is the fear of prosecution or arrest. On the other, there is fear former regime supporters will exact retribution."

Mohammed El Baradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reported April 11 that large amounts of nuclear-related equipment, some of it contaminated, and a small number of missile engines have been smuggled out of Iraq for recycling in European scrapyards. UN satellite photos have detected "the extensive removal of equipment and, in some instances, removal of entire buildings" from sites subject to UN monitoring, El Baradei said in a letter to Security Council members, a copy of which was obtained by the Washington Post.

El Baradei said it wasn't clear whether this was merely looting, or part of a systematic effort to destroy evidence. "In any event, these activities may have a significant impact on (IAEA's) continuity of knowledge of Iraq's remaining nuclear-related capabilities and raise concern with regards to the proliferation risk associated with dual use material and equipment disappearing to unknown destinations."
 

Babbar

New Member
Aug 10, 2003
163
0
0
76
Now, suppose given all of this evidence, and the recent use of SARIN gas in Iraq by terrorists, that the President had told CIA Director Tenet that he didn't believe the intelligence and was not prepared to use it.

What do you think the radical left would be saying now? No, don't bother, we all know that it would be just another verse of the lynch Bush mantra.

If the evidence of the WMD being in Syria is hearsay, then so is all the "evidence" on the so-called "prison abuse" scandal.

All the "evidence" that "Bush lied," maniuplated oil prices with a secret deal with the Saudis, that Halliburton has defrauded the government, that.....<<fill in the blank of any bit of liberal anti-Bush rhetoric>> is less than hearsay, is not even circumstantial, and would be tossed out of any court in the land. Furthermore, it wouldn't even have made the news were not the U.S. media so biased.
 

limerickman

Moderator
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
115
63
Originally posted by Babbar
Now, suppose given all of this evidence, and the recent use of SARIN gas in Iraq by terrorists, that the President had told CIA Director Tenet that he didn't believe the intelligence and was not prepared to use it.

What do you think the radical left would be saying now? No, don't bother, we all know that it would be just another verse of the lynch Bush mantra.

If the evidence of the WMD being in Syria is hearsay, then so is all the "evidence" on the so-called "prison abuse" scandal.

All the "evidence" that "Bush lied," maniuplated oil prices with a secret deal with the Saudis, that Halliburton has defrauded the government, that.....<<fill in the blank of any bit of liberal anti-Bush rhetoric>> is less than hearsay, is not even circumstantial, and would be tossed out of any court in the land. Furthermore, it wouldn't even have made the news were not the U.S. media so biased.

In practical terms, hearsay evidence is "I saw Barbbar driving at
50mph in a 40mph zone" : it is verbal and not corroborated.

Whereas "I saw Barbbar driving at 50mph in a 40mph zone - and here is the reading on my speed gun to prove it, with Barbbars
car registration number".
That is the difference between hearsay and corroborative evidence.
Hearsay - like what was presented about WMD/Biological-nuclear
weapons by the US goverment - is not sufficient.
It is not sufficient to accuse Iraq of having WMD.
It requires physical proof on the part of the USA to be provided.
If the USA could materialise evidenceof WMD, iw ould be persuaded : however I listened to the evidence provided by both the US and British goverments for the justification to go to war
and none of it stands up.
And this is the salient point : if there was evidence that Hussein had all this stuff and had planned to use it, no one in their
right thinking mind would oppose the basis upon which the war
was being prosecuted.
But the evidence presented on the part of the British and the US
has never materialised.
Not one ounce of depleted Uranium has been uncovered : not one
single shred of documentation has been found among the Iraq archives.
Either the Hussein regime was very clever at covering it's tracks
or lies upon lies has been told by the British and US goverments ?
At the moment, the lies of the British and US goverments have been exposed.

Tp prosecute their case, all the British and US goverments could come up with were words/speculation/conjecture.

Your own Secretary of State Colin Powell is on record in February
2004 stating "we probably over estimated the extent of SH's
WMD capability" : he said this 12 months after he went to the UN with doctored pictures, and statements caliming that Hussein had
mobile means of lauching a biological attack !

Your country has had the run of Iraq for the past 15 months : and
yet you still, still believe that this war was prosecuted on safe
evidence.
The constant refrain from your goverment has been :
"there was a breakdown in intelligence" 11th Sept 2001.
"there was a breakdown in intelligence" WMD in Iraq
"there was a breakdown in intelligence" The US inability to capture Mullah Omar and BinLaden.
"there was a breakdown in intelligence" alleged abuse in Guantanemo.
"there was a breakdown in intelligence" abuse in Abu Guraib.
Your secretary of defence, Rumsfeld, allegedly spends hours upon hours reading, analysing, extrapolating, data : and yet his constant refrain is "there was a breakdown in intelligence".
Either the man is a fool (which he is not) or he is a pathological
liar.

Quite frankly the level of ineptitude on the part of the Bush goverment is what is really frightening.
These so-called third world wiseasses - as your referred to them -
have managed to cover up the most sophisticated WMD program
and your own country continues to say ""there was a breakdown in intelligence"

I'll tell you what I believe : the whole thing about Al Qaeda and Iraq and the evidence of your country, is a smokescreen.
This ideologically driven Bush goverment believe that his version of Christianity is locked in to a war with Islam (for whatever reason).
His spurious claims about WMD etc are merely a front for a battle
against Islam and everything it stands for.
 

alicem

New Member
Feb 12, 2004
185
0
0
49
Originally posted by limerickman
In practical terms, hearsay evidence is "I saw Barbbar driving at
50mph in a 40mph zone" : it is verbal and not corroborated.

Whereas "I saw Barbbar driving at 50mph in a 40mph zone - and here is the reading on my speed gun to prove it, with Barbbars
car registration number".
That is the difference between hearsay and corroborative evidence.
Hearsay - like what was presented about WMD/Biological-nuclear
weapons by the US goverment - is not sufficient.
It is not sufficient to accuse Iraq of having WMD.
It requires physical proof on the part of the USA to be provided.
If the USA could materialise evidenceof WMD, iw ould be persuaded : however I listened to the evidence provided by both the US and British goverments for the justification to go to war
and none of it stands up.
And this is the salient point : if there was evidence that Hussein had all this stuff and had planned to use it, no one in their
right thinking mind would oppose the basis upon which the war
was being prosecuted.
But the evidence presented on the part of the British and the US
has never materialised.
Not one ounce of depleted Uranium has been uncovered : not one
single shred of documentation has been found among the Iraq archives.
Either the Hussein regime was very clever at covering it's tracks
or lies upon lies has been told by the British and US goverments ?
At the moment, the lies of the British and US goverments have been exposed.

Tp prosecute their case, all the British and US goverments could come up with were words/speculation/conjecture.

Your own Secretary of State Colin Powell is on record in February
2004 stating "we probably over estimated the extent of SH's
WMD capability" : he said this 12 months after he went to the UN with doctored pictures, and statements caliming that Hussein had
mobile means of lauching a biological attack !

Your country has had the run of Iraq for the past 15 months : and
yet you still, still believe that this war was prosecuted on safe
evidence.
The constant refrain from your goverment has been :
"there was a breakdown in intelligence" 11th Sept 2001.
"there was a breakdown in intelligence" WMD in Iraq
"there was a breakdown in intelligence" The US inability to capture Mullah Omar and BinLaden.
"there was a breakdown in intelligence" alleged abuse in Guantanemo.
"there was a breakdown in intelligence" abuse in Abu Guraib.
Your secretary of defence, Rumsfeld, allegedly spends hours upon hours reading, analysing, extrapolating, data : and yet his constant refrain is "there was a breakdown in intelligence".
Either the man is a fool (which he is not) or he is a pathological
liar.

Quite frankly the level of ineptitude on the part of the Bush goverment is what is really frightening.
These so-called third world wiseasses - as your referred to them -
have managed to cover up the most sophisticated WMD program
and your own country continues to say ""there was a breakdown in intelligence"

I'll tell you what I believe : the whole thing about Al Qaeda and Iraq and the evidence of your country, is a smokescreen.
This ideologically driven Bush goverment believe that his version of Christianity is locked in to a war with Islam (for whatever reason).
His spurious claims about WMD etc are merely a front for a battle
against Islam and everything it stands for.


Hey Lim ( :) ) et al

the phrase "It's a slam-dunk case." from a previous post says it all to me (EEK face....)

As for the religion stance, now, that is interesting and I will be intrigued to see how the thread pans out. No comment from me yet on that one. If I ever post on that part I will quote Iraqui/Kurdish friends words not my own biased opinion of having been a Christian from birth hence not really 'getting it' as so many seem to think they do.

To me, it is a "WAKE UP case"

Please stop trusting the 'media' and ask your neighbours, friends, immigrants, those who have worked to help in such troubled areas and then the picture will become clearer.

The Media just 'loves' blackouts and I watch about 11 individual news channels in order to attempt to form a coherent view. Even those and various broadsheets don't convey the full extent of pro/anti Hussein.

Ambiguous, I know

Alice x
 

limerickman

Moderator
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
115
63
Originally posted by alicem
Hey Lim ( :) ) et al

the phrase "It's a slam-dunk case." from a previous post says it all to me (EEK face....)

As for the religion stance, now, that is interesting and I will be intrigued to see how the thread pans out. No comment from me yet on that one. If I ever post on that part I will quote Iraqui/Kurdish friends words not my own biased opinion of having been a Christian from birth hence not really 'getting it' as so many seem to think they do.

To me, it is a "WAKE UP case"

Please stop trusting the 'media' and ask your neighbours, friends, immigrants, those who have worked to help in such troubled areas and then the picture will become clearer.

The Media just 'loves' blackouts and I watch about 11 individual news channels in order to attempt to form a coherent view. Even those and various broadsheets don't convey the full extent of pro/anti Hussein.

Ambiguous, I know

Alice x

Noone in the antiwar side is saying that Hussein was a great bloke.
Far from it.
His treatment of the Kurds and Shia was despicable.
But - this behaviour was evident when the USA supported him during the 1980's : so to say that the USA removed him because
he was a bad bloke just smacks of double standards.

The case for any war must be irrefutable.
The evidence has to be clear.
I will say it before and I will continue to say it - no proof of WMD
was ever proffered.
THe USA has had free access to the entire Iraq region for 15 months.
It has, in it's captivity, a large number of the so-called house of
cards suspects.
AND THE USA STILL HAS NOT TURNED UP ONE DOCUMENT - ONE DEPLETED URANIUM SHELL - IN 15 MONTHS.

How much more proof do people need to be convinced that this war was premised on lies - articulated by a president who has not
got the moral courage to question those around him.
I believe that Bush deliberately ignored the evidence (or lack of), he willfully bought this line from his advisers and he chose to go to war.
 

zapper

Banned
Mar 11, 2004
2,495
0
0
Originally posted by limerickman
Noone in the antiwar side is saying that Hussein was a great bloke.
Far from it.
His treatment of the Kurds and Shia was despicable.
But - this behaviour was evident when the USA supported him during the 1980's : so to say that the USA removed him because
he was a bad bloke just smacks of double standards.

The case for any war must be irrefutable.
The evidence has to be clear.
I will say it before and I will continue to say it - no proof of WMD
was ever proffered.
THe USA has had free access to the entire Iraq region for 15 months.
It has, in it's captivity, a large number of the so-called house of
cards suspects.
AND THE USA STILL HAS NOT TURNED UP ONE DOCUMENT - ONE DEPLETED URANIUM SHELL - IN 15 MONTHS.

How much more proof do people need to be convinced that this war was premised on lies - articulated by a president who has not
got the moral courage to question those around him.
I believe that Bush deliberately ignored the evidence (or lack of), he willfully bought this line from his advisers and he chose to go to war.

LM, As long as you will continue to cry the "No proof of WMD" rhetoric, I will continue to state the opposite..Surprising, I know huh?:p

Free access to the entire Iraq region. A portion of that free access we uncovered more than 300,000 Iraqi bodies and how do you assume they were killed perhaps they were forced to sit at a computer and read your posts...I know they are killing me:D But to be serious here. Those innocent people were killed by more than just gunfire or a sword..They were killed with WMD's.

I understand the case for war must contain strong evidence.. However, in my "opinion" it is IRREFUTABLE that he slaughtered his own people. It is IRREFUTABLE that he invaded another sovereign nation and brutalized them. It is IRREFUTABLE that he shot at planes every day enforcing U.N. sanctions. It is IRREFUTABLE that he ignored/mocked the U.N. for more than 12 years prior to our invasion. It is IRREFUTABLE that he was not using the Oil for food program to FEED HIS PEOPLE. It is IRREFUTABLE that a regime change was in order. So, although the WMD's have yet to be found with the exception of a shell or two etc, it is IRREFUTABLE that we gave him much too much time by screwing around with the U.N. so he could have hidden/transported them anywhere!

Lets' face it, I will give you that a case could be made either way and I'm being "liberal" here. But at the end of the day, in the long run....The world is much better off without SH in power and that sir is IRREFUTABLE!
 

limerickman

Moderator
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
115
63
Originally posted by zapper
LM, As long as you will continue to cry the "No proof of WMD" rhetoric, I will continue to state the opposite..Surprising, I know huh?:p

Free access to the entire Iraq region. A portion of that free access we uncovered more than 300,000 Iraqi bodies and how do you assume they were killed perhaps they were forced to sit at a computer and read your posts...I know they are killing me:D But to be serious here. Those innocent people were killed by more than just gunfire or a sword..They were killed with WMD's.

I understand the case for war must contain strong evidence.. However, in my "opinion" it is IRREFUTABLE that he slaughtered his own people. It is IRREFUTABLE that he invaded another sovereign nation and brutalized them. It is IRREFUTABLE that he shot at planes every day enforcing U.N. sanctions. It is IRREFUTABLE that he ignored/mocked the U.N. for more than 12 years prior to our invasion. It is IRREFUTABLE that he was not using the Oil for food program to FEED HIS PEOPLE. It is IRREFUTABLE that a regime change was in order. So, although the WMD's have yet to be found with the exception of a shell or two etc, it is IRREFUTABLE that we gave him much too much time by screwing around with the U.N. so he could have hidden/transported them anywhere!

Lets' face it, I will give you that a case could be made either way and I'm being "liberal" here. But at the end of the day, in the long run....The world is much better off without SH in power and that sir is IRREFUTABLE!

Hussein was murdering his fellow Iraqi's by the hundreds of thousands as Rumsfeld shook hands with Hussein in 1983.
That is irrefutable !!!!

Look no one on the antiwar side has endorsed what Hussein and his regime did.

The fact of the matter - and I will continue to repeat this - is that the US provided a list of lies upon which to remove SH.
The Bush goverment trotted out a lot of reasons to invade Iraq.
No evidence to support these lies have materialised.

Indeed, mass graves have been discovered : containing bodies of marsh arabs, kurds and shia, who were encouraged to rise up by GB 1 in the aftermath of Gulf War 1.

The fact of the matter is that wedding parties in Eastern Iraq are
being executed by US forces - Iraqi prisoners are being physically and psychologically abused.
The US endorsed executive to run Iraq are slowly being assasinated, one by one, in terrorist attacks.
The economic impact of this illegal war is also taking effect : oil has hit $41 per barrel and the OPEC will not agree to boost
production.
Your presidents poll ratings are plummeting.
In the meantime, he is trying to get the international community to endorse a UN resolution (amazing how the USA use the UN when it suits them - remember Hans Blix ???) that enshrines the occupation of Iraq for a further 12 months until June 2005.
Like I said to you before Zapper - Bremer will be there until 2005 !

General's Hoare and Zinnini have now come out to say that the
politicians like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have not got the first idea
of how to handle this disaster.

I go back to the point - if there was one shred of physical evidence that SH had nuclear/biological wepaons of mass destruction, the actions of the USA could be supported.
However, no evidence has been provided.
Whether Hussein shot at planes or abused the oil for food program is not what is at issue here.
What is at issue is that the Bush goverment made specific charges about WMD and Al Qaeda concerning Iraq.
BUSH LIED WHEN HE MADE THESE CHARGES.
 

alicem

New Member
Feb 12, 2004
185
0
0
49
urgh, too het up to type my reply. I would loose my temper and spill so much . :(

Alice
 

zapper

Banned
Mar 11, 2004
2,495
0
0
Originally posted by limerickman
Hussein was murdering his fellow Iraqi's by the hundreds of thousands as Rumsfeld shook hands with Hussein in 1983.
That is irrefutable !!!!

Look no one on the antiwar side has endorsed what Hussein and his regime did.

The fact of the matter - and I will continue to repeat this - is that the US provided a list of lies upon which to remove SH.
The Bush goverment trotted out a lot of reasons to invade Iraq.
No evidence to support these lies have materialised.

Indeed, mass graves have been discovered : containing bodies of marsh arabs, kurds and shia, who were encouraged to rise up by GB 1 in the aftermath of Gulf War 1.

The fact of the matter is that wedding parties in Eastern Iraq are
being executed by US forces - Iraqi prisoners are being physically and psychologically abused.
The US endorsed executive to run Iraq are slowly being assasinated, one by one, in terrorist attacks.
The economic impact of this illegal war is also taking effect : oil has hit $41 per barrel and the OPEC will not agree to boost
production.
Your presidents poll ratings are plummeting.
In the meantime, he is trying to get the international community to endorse a UN resolution (amazing how the USA use the UN when it suits them - remember Hans Blix ???) that enshrines the occupation of Iraq for a further 12 months until June 2005.
Like I said to you before Zapper - Bremer will be there until 2005 !

General's Hoare and Zinnini have now come out to say that the
politicians like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have not got the first idea
of how to handle this disaster.

I go back to the point - if there was one shred of physical evidence that SH had nuclear/biological wepaons of mass destruction, the actions of the USA could be supported.
However, no evidence has been provided.
Whether Hussein shot at planes or abused the oil for food program is not what is at issue here.
What is at issue is that the Bush goverment made specific charges about WMD and Al Qaeda concerning Iraq.
BUSH LIED WHEN HE MADE THESE CHARGES.

Lim, your shred of physical evidence? Read the news...Have you not heard of the sarin shell? 3 liters...one drop kills 1 person...how many drops in 3 liters??? There is your one shred! I'll wait for my appology....
 

limerickman

Moderator
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
115
63
Originally posted by zapper
Lim, your shred of physical evidence? Read the news...Have you not heard of the sarin shell? 3 liters...one drop kills 1 person...how many drops in 3 liters??? There is your one shred! I'll wait for my appology....

No apology.
Even your country's State Dept has said that this find doesn't constitute WMD.

Hard lines, old man.
If you're going to read the news - do so fully.

Try again !
 

el Ingles

New Member
Oct 3, 2003
730
0
0
66
As the sarin shell seems to date back to before gulf war 1 and the US is now saying they were conned by Chalibi the case for WMD´s seems even shakier now than a week ago - why not just admit it , it´s about the oil isn´t it .

ps we´ve all been told for decades that one drop of this will kill thousands etc , it didn´t kill here and it didn´t conform to those claims of lethality when used in the Japanese subway . It works in the lab but in nature .................
THis has always been the problem , how to weaponise it . Iraq , for example tried to make VX ,and did , but just could not make a usable weapon - the principle reason why gas has not been used by the west as a weapon of war since WW1 was it´s unpredictability and the need to use so much more than theory said was required .
There are rumours of it´s use by the US in Vietnam and the USSR in Afganistan but only rumours or hearsay .
 

limerickman

Moderator
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
115
63
Originally posted by el Inglés
As the sarin shell seems to date back to before gulf war 1 and the US is now saying they were conned by Chalibi the case for WMD´s seems even shakier now than a week ago - why not just admit it , it´s about the oil isn´t it .

ps we´ve all been told for decades that one drop of this will kill thousands etc , it didn´t kill here and it didn´t conform to those claims of lethality when used in the Japanese subway . It works in the lab but in nature .................
THis has always been the problem , how to weaponise it . Iraq , for example tried to make VX ,and did , but just could not make a usable weapon - the principle reason why gas has not been used by the west as a weapon of war since WW1 was it´s unpredictability and the need to use so much more than theory said was required .
There are rumours of it´s use by the US in Vietnam and the USSR in Afganistan but only rumours or hearsay .

Watch out, El Ingles, Pavlov's dog is about !