years to find WMD's now??

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by DKSuddeth, Jan 21, 2004.

  1. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    I'm sure most of you don't care one whit about the 'imminent threat' argument but I, for one, feel misled...and NO, its not due to my 'liberal' ways and its certainly not because of my intelligence.

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/21/sprj.nirq.main/index.html

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It could take years before investigators are able to uncover the details of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs under Saddam Hussein, according to the House Intelligence Committee's chairman.

    "Every day is a new day for the intelligence people," said Rep. Porter Goss, R-Florida. "I would say that we are probably a couple of years away from getting through all the material and talking to all the people we need to talk to about exactly what was going on, not only with the Saddam Hussein regime but with some of the Taliban and some of the things that have been going on in North Korea, Libya, Iran and other places."

    The CIA's Iraq Survey Group, under David Kay, continues to search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and evidence that Saddam concealed such programs from the international community. The search is expected to continue for another three to six months.

    Kay presented a preliminary report to the House Intelligence Committee in October that said the group found no weapons of mass destruction, but did uncover evidence that Saddam's regime planned to manufacture them.

    The Bush administration said last year that the Iraqi threat of weapons of mass destruction was a main reason for its decision to launch a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March.

    In his State of the Union address Tuesday night to Congress and the American people, President Bush cited the Kay report as support for the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

    "Had we failed to act, [Saddam's] weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day," Bush said.
     
  2. jon_forward
    Offline

    jon_forward Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,436
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    nashville.tn
    Ratings:
    +5
    the military was told the main objective was regime change, pure and simple. The military view on WMD is that they were moved to Syria and elsewhere. Dk, you have a right to feel the way you do.sorry to say I dont see it in the same light as you do...:beer: saddam was and to a lesser extent still is a very dangerous person
     
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Considering the Europeans are still finding ordnance from WWII, right out in the open, I doubt I'll lose sleep wondering why we can't find weapons that might be buried in sand, were carted off to another country, or may have actually been destroyed.

    The UN didn't buy the 'destroyed' arguement, if for no other reason that Saddam had lied about this after the Iran-Iraq war. That's one of the problems with lying, people make you prove what you are claiming.
     
  4. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    I am not going to lose sleep over where they are. We know he had them and we know he would continue to and has used them. I still think they are there and if not, hey, Saddam shouldn't have bluffed. We called it and he paid the price.
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Sometimes one finds the most interesting places that are unexpected: http://www.guardian.co.uk/libya/story/0,14139,1125310,00.html

    Libya's black market deals shock nuclear inspectors

    Ian Traynor in Vienna
    Saturday January 17, 2004
    The Guardian

    Colonel Muammar Gadafy of Libya has been buying complete sets of uranium enrichment centrifuges on the international black market as the central element in his secret nuclear bomb programme, according to United Nations nuclear inspectors.
    The ease with which the complex bomb-making equipment was acquired has stunned experienced international inspectors. The scale and the sophistication of the networks supplying so-called rogue states seeking nuclear weapons are considerably more extensive than previously believed.

    The purchase of full centrifuges, either assembled or in parts, marks a radical departure in what is on offer on the black market, sources said. While it is not yet clear where Col Gadafy obtained the centrifuge systems, at least 1,000 machines, believed to have been made in Malaysia, were seized last October by the Italian authorities on a German ship bound for Libya.

    Diplomatic sources familiar with the results of a recent visit to Libya by nuclear experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the Gadafy bomb programme differed in crucial respects from nuclear projects in Iran, Iraq or North Korea.

    "What was found in Libya marks a new stage in proliferation," said one knowledgeable source. "Libya was buying what was available. And what is available, the centrifuges, are close to turnkey facilities. That's a new challenge. Libya was buying something that's ready to wear."

    As the climax to nine months of secret negotiations with British and US intelligence, Col Gadafy announced last month that he was renouncing his weapons of mass destruction programmes after purchasing what sources said were "a few thousand" centrifuges for enriching uranium to weapons grade.

    Another well-placed source said: "We all now realise there is this extraordinarily developed and sophisticated market out there enabling anyone to get this centrifuge equipment."

    Mohammed El Baradei, the IAEA chief, visited Libya a couple of weeks ago to view the Libyan equipment and take charge of the upcoming effort to dismantle the Libyan bomb programme. He described the experience as "an eye-opener".

    A centrifuge is made up of hundreds of separate components. Typically, a country covertly seeking the uranium enrichment technology will seek to cover its tracks by obtaining a design blueprint and then purchasing the varied components separately from different suppliers.

    The German ship was seized by Italians after a tip-off from the CIA. Knowledgeable sources said the centrifuges on board were "made-to-order" in Malaysia for Libya, based on designs directly or indirectly from Pakistan.

    While US government sources have claimed that the seizure persuaded Col Gadafy to do his deal with Washington and London, diplomats and analysts closely following the nuclear trade are convinced that the ship was impounded because of information provided by the Libyans.

    According to this version circulating in Vienna, headquarters of the IAEA, Col Gadafy told the CIA about the shipment as a goodwill gesture to convince the Americans and the British that he was committed to the deal being negotiated.

    A Finnish expert leading the IAEA investigations into the Libyan and Iranian nuclear projects has so far been denied access to the equipment impounded by the Italians, apparently because of the tug-of-war between the Americans and the Vienna agency over how to dismantle the Libyan programme.

    Senior US and British officials are due in Vienna on Monday to negotiate with Dr El Baradei over how to proceed in Tripoli. The Americans will be led by John Bolton, the hawk in charge of nuclear proliferation issues at the State Department. He has a reputation for scorning the UN agencies and his officials disparaged the El Baradei trip to Tripoli as a publicity stunt.
     
  6. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    by jon forward
    But the US citizens were not. It was all about the threat from WMD's.

    Or maybe they were moved to the emerald city where the tyrannical Oz has them.

    by kathianne
    and that would be why?

    as evidenced by the lack of WMD's to be found.

    by moi
    Twice in a row, thats disconcerting. If people don't care about where they are now it can only mean they truly felt that they didn't exist. If they didn't truly exist why was it all blown out of proportion by the administration if for no other reason than to scare the people into supporting war?
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    DK, I can't speak for anyone else, but I thought the WMD were there. Why wouldn't I? Our intelligence thought so, the UN thought so, European intelligence thought so, ME intelligence thought so. IF, (and that is a big IF), they aren't, well Saddam played the wrong hand. Again, I really not bothered if they are not there or we don't find them.
    The other reasons being given, would have been good enough in the first place. Truth is, for me at least, seems we should have taken him out after Kuwait, certainly when he tried to have Bush I assassinated. I would even think the same if it had been Clinton he'd tried to hit.
     
  8. Sabir
    Online

    Sabir Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    In the UK I certainly dont think Tony Blair did him self any favours on the WMD issue. I do think he overstated this in an effort to get the country behind him for the war.

    I suppose politicians do this all the time but in this instant I wish he had not.
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    It seems to me a month or so ago, whomever had given him that info on 45 minutes came forward. I believe it was yesterday that BBC came out with Kelly being of the mind that Saddam and WMD were an 'imminient threat', though nothing about 45 minutes. If he overstated his intelligence and subsequent analysis, it doesn't appear to have been by much.l
     
  10. Sabir
    Online

    Sabir Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Fair enough, he had to go by what the intelligence services told him.

    But even if he was told by the intelligence services about the 45 minute threat, I never bought it. I just could not see how Iraq could deliver WMD to the UK in that time. I have no doubt that Saddam would have liked them but the whole imminent threat thing was a none starter for.
     

Share This Page