Wikileaks reveals WMDs

[Dr Grump]

If you would care to rea the wikileaks revelations they were all over the country. they are finding WMD production facilities almost every month.

The means of delivery close range would be the G-6 which can launch a 155 projectile over 45 km. Long range would be the SCUD missile which as was seen in the war was capable of reaching most of the middle east.

Actually yes he did. Or did you forget the launch of the Exocet missiles against the USS Stark by an Iraqi fighter way back in 1987?

Maybe. Like I stated I am no fan of Bush. Senior or Junior. But Obama is certainly giving them a run for their money. I told my wife when he was elected, he would be either one of the very best presidents we would ever have or one of the worst. So far it is looking like the one of the worst.

How do you figure? If you're a lib and want to be taken care of cradle to grave, then yes he is certainly your man. On the other hand if you are an adult and like to think and do for yourself, then no he is awful and making this country into a ghost of its former self.

1) Where was the USS Stark parked? New York Harbour? Long Beach? Pearl Harbour. Just because you're in THEIR neighbourhood, doesn't mean that the US was in danger in any way, shape or form. The 'factories' were no longer a threat. Sadman was a sabre rattler who wouldn't do jack shit. He was a ruthless totalitarian dictator, not a person who had a death wish. He was smart enough to know taking on the US was a suicide mission, and he was smart enough not to do so.

2) A society is judged by the way it treats it's most vulnerable citizens. Conservatives make out that most people on food stamps or need help are lazy, good for nothing layabouts. While there are people who certainly fit into that category, the vast majority do not. Most people I know who have fallen on hard times HATE handouts and feel very bad about it. I believe in the social safety net at the bottom of the cliff, not a hammock. All Obama is doing is trying to look after the most vulnerable. If you guys could get past the generic, sound-bite politics that infest your country, you will find what he is doing goes a little more deeper than soembody wanting to be 'taken care of from the cradle to the grave'.

3) Your country is becoming a ghost of its former self because you had CEO's of money institutions earning 10s of millions of dollars with no regulations to reel them in when they started doing dodgy deals. And what happened when these finacial institutions collapsed and it was suggested more regulation was needed? They screamed blue murder and still demanded their bonuses. And do you think these guys earning all these monies are liberals? Doubtful. Your GoP screwed the pooch, and like every other conservative hypocrite the world over that demand people take responsibility for their actions, refuse to take responsibility for their own..

Go sell your medicine to some other poor saps...I ain't buying...

 

[JakeStarkey]

They certainly had no weapons ready. However there have been at least 50 chemical shells found for the G-6 155 howitzers they had. They also clearly had the ability to fill those shells. So yes they did have WMDs available. We are just fortunate that they chose not to use them. Also the fact that 500 tons of uranium that was sent to Canada also disproves the contention that they had none...or are you saying the uranium showed up after Saddam was deposed?

And I am most certainly not defending Bush. His administration was very poor, but Obama's is proving to be even worse.

The verdict on Obama regarding national security is out. There certainly has been nothing remotely like 9-11. If the Iraqis had the capacity to fill the shells, they would have. They did not. We did not have a capacity to deliver them. If the 500 tons of uranium was in Canada, then it was not in Iraq. Your argument is not convincing at all.

Try reading the CNN article Jake. The 500 tons was shipped from Iraq TO canada. Obama is not responsible for national security any more than Bush was. that is the responsibility of our intel services and the military. It is the administrations job to make sure they have the ability to do their jobs. So far both have been wanting.

The Iraqi's clearly had the ability to fill them. There is no doubt of that. they chose not to do so. Probably because they realised that if they used them on us they, and their families, would have been wiped off the face of the planet.

Your argument is nonexistent as you clearly know nothing of what you are speaking. Read the articles, read the wikileaks releases and then get back to us when you have something to share.

Westwall, you can't make a sensible discussion out of your material. Sorry, that's the way it is. I certainly know that you are screwing the evidence on this. Your conclusions are non sequiturs.

The simplest argument is that the dog did not bark. If the Iraqis had WMDs, the government would have barked all night.

Now I leave the field to you, and bid you a good night.

 

[DiveCon]

The verdict on Obama regarding national security is out. There certainly has been nothing remotely like 9-11. If the Iraqis had the capacity to fill the shells, they would have. They did not. We did not have a capacity to deliver them. If the 500 tons of uranium was in Canada, then it was not in Iraq. Your argument is not convincing at all.

Try reading the CNN article Jake. The 500 tons was shipped from Iraq TO canada. Obama is not responsible for national security any more than Bush was. that is the responsibility of our intel services and the military. It is the administrations job to make sure they have the ability to do their jobs. So far both have been wanting.

The Iraqi's clearly had the ability to fill them. There is no doubt of that. they chose not to do so. Probably because they realised that if they used them on us they, and their families, would have been wiped off the face of the planet.

Your argument is nonexistent as you clearly know nothing of what you are speaking. Read the articles, read the wikileaks releases and then get back to us when you have something to share.

Westwall, you can't make a sensible discussion out of your material. Sorry, that's the way it is. I certainly know that you are screwing the evidence on this. Your conclusions are non sequiturs.

The simplest argument is that the dog did not bark. If the Iraqis had WMDs, the government would have barked all night.

Now I leave the field to you, and bid you a good night.

keep proving yourself a fucking idiot
its very funny
you should be on TBS

 

[JakeStarkey]

As usual, divedweeb, you have nothing.

 

[DiveCon]

As usual, divedweeb, you have nothing.

as usual, you are projecting your own faults

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is too nice a night to quarrel with divedweeb. Dweeb you are on your own with Dweeb2. See ya tomorrow.

 

[DiveCon]

It is too nice a night to quarrel with divedweeb. Dweeb you are on your own with Dweeb2. See ya tomorrow.

jokey, you are one of the most pathetic idiots on this board
and thats saying something
i hope that one day you grow up and realize it before you get any worse

 

[westwall]

If you would care to rea the wikileaks revelations they were all over the country. they are finding WMD production facilities almost every month.

The means of delivery close range would be the G-6 which can launch a 155 projectile over 45 km. Long range would be the SCUD missile which as was seen in the war was capable of reaching most of the middle east.

Actually yes he did. Or did you forget the launch of the Exocet missiles against the USS Stark by an Iraqi fighter way back in 1987?

Maybe. Like I stated I am no fan of Bush. Senior or Junior. But Obama is certainly giving them a run for their money. I told my wife when he was elected, he would be either one of the very best presidents we would ever have or one of the worst. So far it is looking like the one of the worst.

How do you figure? If you're a lib and want to be taken care of cradle to grave, then yes he is certainly your man. On the other hand if you are an adult and like to think and do for yourself, then no he is awful and making this country into a ghost of its former self.

1) Where was the USS Stark parked? New York Harbour? Long Beach? Pearl Harbour. Just because you're in THEIR neighbourhood, doesn't mean that the US was in danger in any way, shape or form. The 'factories' were no longer a threat. Sadman was a sabre rattler who wouldn't do jack shit. He was a ruthless totalitarian dictator, not a person who had a death wish. He was smart enough to know taking on the US was a suicide mission, and he was smart enough not to do so.

2) A society is judged by the way it treats it's most vulnerable citizens. Conservatives make out that most people on food stamps or need help are lazy, good for nothing layabouts. While there are people who certainly fit into that category, the vast majority do not. Most people I know who have fallen on hard times HATE handouts and feel very bad about it. I believe in the social safety net at the bottom of the cliff, not a hammock. All Obama is doing is trying to look after the most vulnerable. If you guys could get past the generic, sound-bite politics that infest your country, you will find what he is doing goes a little more deeper than soembody wanting to be 'taken care of from the cradle to the grave'.

3) Your country is becoming a ghost of its former self because you had CEO's of money institutions earning 10s of millions of dollars with no regulations to reel them in when they started doing dodgy deals. And what happened when these finacial institutions collapsed and it was suggested more regulation was needed? They screamed blue murder and still demanded their bonuses. And do you think these guys earning all these monies are liberals? Doubtful. Your GoP screwed the pooch, and like every other conservative hypocrite the world over that demand people take responsibility for their actions, refuse to take responsibility for their own..

Go sell your medicine to some other poor saps...I ain't buying...

The Stark was in international waters. The factories so long as they exist are a threat. Saddam poisoned tens of thousands of Kurds and fought a 10 year war with Iran, and invaded Kuwait, so your contention he was merely a sabre rattler is not born out by fact.
He also continuously violated the UN orders (and fired at US aircraft) while Clinton was pres or have you forgotten that too?

Why is it then that conservative areas ALLWAYS give more to charity then liberal areas? There have been many studies carried out and here is a link to a story about one of them.
Guess what conservatives are FAR more charitable then liberals. Liberals are only charitable with other peoples money...not their own.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.c...s-out-conservatives-really-are-compassionate/

Here I agree with you. The executive compensation levels are ridiculous. Especially for those who have failed. If you need a government bailout there is no Earthly reason for you to get a frikin bonus. Those are for people who did something good for the company. I was absolutely outraged when Barney Frank made sure the bailout funds would be able to be used for bonuses. What a complete asshole. Any politician (of whatever party) who voted for that dreck should be in jail.

 

[westwall]

The verdict on Obama regarding national security is out. There certainly has been nothing remotely like 9-11. If the Iraqis had the capacity to fill the shells, they would have. They did not. We did not have a capacity to deliver them. If the 500 tons of uranium was in Canada, then it was not in Iraq. Your argument is not convincing at all.

Try reading the CNN article Jake. The 500 tons was shipped from Iraq TO canada. Obama is not responsible for national security any more than Bush was. that is the responsibility of our intel services and the military. It is the administrations job to make sure they have the ability to do their jobs. So far both have been wanting.

The Iraqi's clearly had the ability to fill them. There is no doubt of that. they chose not to do so. Probably because they realised that if they used them on us they, and their families, would have been wiped off the face of the planet.

Your argument is nonexistent as you clearly know nothing of what you are speaking. Read the articles, read the wikileaks releases and then get back to us when you have something to share.

Westwall, you can't make a sensible discussion out of your material. Sorry, that's the way it is. I certainly know that you are screwing the evidence on this. Your conclusions are non sequiturs.

The simplest argument is that the dog did not bark. If the Iraqis had WMDs, the government would have barked all night.

Now I leave the field to you, and bid you a good night.

I hate to tell you Jake old chum...if you can't understand what I am writing that is on you pardner...not me. I suggest a remedial English class..it will do you some good.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We all understand what you are about, Westwall, I think. No, the Iraqis did not have WMDs, if they did they did not have the capacity to deliver them, and everything you have written in defense of your positions molders in ruins, just like all those readytogo WMD labs throughout Iraq.

Your argument is the type that history and government instructors love to post in Discussions. so the silly neo-con arguments can be shown not only incorrect in questions and answer but nefarious in intent as well.

 

[Bonano]

Of course there were WMDs in Iraq, the merruccans had tons and weren't afraid to use them either!

Anyways, the Iraqis wouldn't have wasted them on the US, they would have lobbed them at Israel or Iran.

 

[RoccoR]

Bonano, et al,

This is not even close.

Of course there were WMDs in Iraq, the merruccans had tons and weren't afraid to use them either!

Anyways, the Iraqis wouldn't have wasted them on the US, they would have lobbed them at Israel or Iran.

(COMMENT)

But there will always be those that "have to believe" that WMD was an issue.

The battlefield remnants found were not the weapons or programs the Administration was looking for or discussed in pre-war media ramps.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[CMike]

i am sure that early on i said that, and then later, when small labs or whatever, i have said that the iraqi programs had been generally ended. I am sure you said, "the syrians have it. Invade syria to find out." this issue is a non-issue. bush himself has said that if he had flatly known that the wmds were not there,he would not have invaded.

you are not a conservative, that's for sure, only a stupid reactionary, while i am a gop moderate conservative. So two words for you: Buh bye.

i'd like to see a source for that

+1

 

[JakeStarkey]

And Karl Rove in his book said it as well, guys. You have lost this one, flat.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bush Admits WMD "Main Reason" for Iraq; Press Ignores Admission Such a strange brain of Bush.

 

[CMike]

Bush Admits WMD "Main Reason" for Iraq; Press Ignores Admission Such a strange brain of Bush.

Once again, where does he say that he wouldn't have invaded, had he believed Hussein had no WMD?

This is what Pres. Bush said.

Text Of Bush Iraq Speech To U.N. - CBS News

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped — by the might of coalition forces, and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities and to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear: to him, and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge — be his deceptions, and by his cruelties — Saddam Hussein has made the case again himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities — which, the Council said, "threaten(ed) international peace and security in the region."

This demand goes ignored. Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human rights found that Iraq continues to commit "extremely grave violations" of human rights and that the regime's repression is "all pervasive." Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents — all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.
I
n 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary-General's high-level coordinator of this issue reported that Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for — more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.I

n 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded the Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September 11th. And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.


United Nations inspections also reveal that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995 — after four years of deception — Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its unclear program — weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials, and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that could inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and arms his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, "condemning" Iraq's "serious violations" of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994 and twice more in 1996, "deploring" Iraq's "clear violations" of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing "flagrant violations" and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior "totally unacceptable." And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it has been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq — four years for the Iraqi regime to plan and build and test behind a cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in the country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic and the facts lead to one conclusion. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.Delegates to the General Assembly: We have been more than patient. We have tried sanctions. We have tried the carrot of "oil for food" and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the U.N. to be effective and respected and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. Right now these resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans and others — again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues

as required by the Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis — a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised elections.The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people, who have suffered for too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it and the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980, and Kuwait in 1990. He has fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council on a new resolution to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately and decisively to hold Iraq to account. The purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced — the just demands of peace and security will be met — or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.
Events can turn in one of two ways.

If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully, dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. Delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand as well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That he would not have invaded has been documented.

You don't like it, neo-con weirdos: who cares? Truth is truth, and you don't have it.

 

[CMike]

The 2nd in command of Hussein's air force and the chief of Israeli counter intelligence said it was moved to Syria.

A good chunk was probably looted too.

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says - January 26, 2006 - The New York Sun

Saddam's WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says - December 15, 2005 - The New York Sun

 

[CMike]

That he would not have invaded has been documented.

You don't like it, neo-con weirdos: who cares? Truth is truth, and you don't have it.

No it hasn't. I just posted the text of why he invaded.

He gave numerous reasons.

Notice that I posted the entire speech, which makes it in context.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Karl Rove has said that Bush would not have invaded. No WMDs were found. The evidence for removal to Syria is unverifiable, merely the whinings of people trying to save their lives, and no one of creditability in Israeli intelligence said any such thing based on solid evidence.

The truth, as always, is not in the neo-cons.