'Biochemical plants' found in Iraq hunt

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Thank you for "fixing" my post, but most readers may recall that Saddam was not an ally during the Clinton Administration and did not receive military and financial support during the Clinton Administration. Please don't help me. I wrote what I indended. You clearly missed the point.

Are you going to argue that Saddam was an ally of the first Bush administration? that explains so much.
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
the truth of the matter is that we truly don't know, where they are of if they were destroyed. so to say he HAS WMD's is ludicrous if you can't provide the evidence. You can say he HAD WMD's all you want since he have historical proof.

the people dead from chemical weapons are all i need to know that Saddam needed to be stopped.
 
Originally posted by Avatar4321
the people dead from chemical weapons are all i need to know that Saddam needed to be stopped.

then whos going to stop us? we've used chem weapons in the past. hell, we're the only nation to use the atomic bomb offensively.

your simplistic answer is mind boggling :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
then whos going to stop us? we've used chem weapons in the past. hell, we're the only nation to use the atomic bomb offensively.

your simplistic answer is mind boggling :rolleyes:

Please don't be comparing WWII and the A Bomb with Saddam's attempted genocide against the Kurds.
 
Originally posted by dmp
Please don't be comparing WWII and the A Bomb with Saddam's attempted genocide against the Kurds.

then people shouldn't use simple minded answers that don't mean jack shit to explain away their simple desires.

I also said chem weapons, you didn't miss that did you?
 
Originally posted by dmp
Why is it unlikely they were hidden? Any data to back that up?

I chose the word "unlikely" carefully. I don't pretend to have a crystal ball. It seems unlikely to me for several reasons.

First, of course is that the weapons were not found by the UN inspectors before the war. They were intrusive inspections.

Second, they have not been found by the US teams in the year since the war began. Not only do the US inspectors have all the intel that is available from US agencies, they also can go through every ministry in Iraq, interview top Iraqi weapons experts and military officers and bribe anyone they want. Still, no WMD.

Mostly though, it is because I think Saddam thought he could outlast the US. Resolve on the economic sanctions at the UN evaporated. Russia and France were calling for lifting the sanctions entirely. It has been written and said by many, libs and neo-cons alike, that Saddam was a SOB, but was also a cunning survivor. He must have known that if the UN found WMD he was toast, but if he ditched them, he could probably survive, get out from under the sanctons (which was his primary goal) and in a few years, when the heat was off, rebuild his military capabilities.
 
Originally posted by st8_o_mind
He must have known that if the UN found WMD he was toast, but if he ditched them, he could probably survive, get out from under the sanctons (which was his primary goal) and in a few years, when the heat was off, rebuild his military capabilities.

And now we won't have to worry about him possessing or rebuilding those weapons. And if he did ditch them, all he had to do was show proof to the inspectors - but he didn't.
 
Originally posted by Avatar4321
the people dead from chemical weapons are all i need to know that Saddam needed to be stopped.

Too bad don rumsfeld doesn't feel the same way. As you may recall, in the mid-eighties rummy was sent to Iraq to negotiate continued support for saddam during the iran/iraq war. Rummy had specific instructions from State that he was to assure Saddam that we did not have any problems with his chemical weapons which US intel had confirmed that Saddam was using.

www.internationalist.org/ chemwarhoax0503b.html
 
Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Too bad don rumsfeld doesn't feel the same way. As you may recall, in the mid-eighties rummy was sent to Iraq to negotiate continued support for saddam during the iran/iraq war. Rummy had specific instructions from State that he was to assure Saddam that we did not have any problems with his chemical weapons which US intel had confirmed that Saddam was using.

www.internationalist.org/ chemwarhoax0503b.html

Seems that link did not work. Google search "don rumsfeld" AND "saddam hussein" and about a dozen of the photo's of rummy and saddam shaking hands are listed.
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
And if he did ditch them, all he had to do was show proof to the inspectors - but he didn't.

Hans Blix has covered this ground. It is difficult to prove something was destroyed. Blix said they they (the UN) could verhify that some of the chemicals known to have been produced were destroyed but could not confirm that all was destroyed. Blix said that did not prove Iraq did not destroy them, only that the UN could not confirm it.
 
Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Hans Blix has covered this ground. It is difficult to prove something was destroyed. Blix said they they (the UN) could verhify that some of the chemicals known to have been produced were destroyed but could not confirm that all was destroyed. Blix said that did not prove Iraq did not destroy them, only that the UN could not confirm it.

There were chemicals that were accounted for in 1998 and were gone during inspections in 2002. They refused to respond to repetitive requests to give them up or prove their destruction.

When you are under world scrutiny and you know you have to destroy your weapons, you don't claim to have gotten rid of them and then use a lame excuse that you don't have proof.

I suggest you read both Blix's and Kay's reports again, there were MANY items unaccounted for and Iraq refused to cooperate on their whereabouts.
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
then people shouldn't use simple minded answers that don't mean jack shit to explain away their simple desires.

I also said chem weapons, you didn't miss that did you?

How can you not understand what that means?

In one thread - you compared the US using the Atom Bomb against JAPAN to Saddam Gassing the Kurds...

How thick can one be?
 
Originally posted by dmp
How can you not understand what that means?

In one thread - you compared the US using the Atom Bomb against JAPAN to Saddam Gassing the Kurds...

How thick can one be?

I wonder sometimes. did you just decide not to see what I was responding to? or is it that, like many others, you simply don't care about anything but what YOU think is right?
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I wonder sometimes. did you just decide not to see what I was responding to? or is it that, like many others, you simply don't care about anything but what YOU think is right?

Of course I read what you were replying too - But you distinctly linked WW2 actions to what Saddam did...in a way which indicates 'after all...we do that stuff TOO"

that's BS, my nubian brother.
 
Originally posted by dmp
Of course I read what you were replying too - But you distinctly linked WW2 actions to what Saddam did...in a way which indicates 'after all...we do that stuff TOO"

that's BS, my nubian brother.

Thats JAMAICAN, mon :p:
 

Forum List

Back
Top