'Biochemical plants' found in Iraq hunt

[DKSuddeth]

I have to question that theory as well since months before then we had people in our administration practically screaming that they knew where they were with all the satelite imagery bullshit.

I'm starting to think that the bush admin just likes to throw accusations around without any proof whatsoever in the hopes that something sticks.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
And of course with election time around the corner also!

As I said in another thread.....timing.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Ouch. That really hurts. If I found out that Saddam and Osama were gay lovers I would admit there was a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq. The rumor that Sadaam and Osama are gay lovers is just as absurd as the rumor that OCA and NewGuy are gay lovers. I categorically reject both rumors as the mindless drivel that they obviously are.

You obviously don't catch onto sarcasm too fast. Is there actually that rumour going around? I just made that shit up off the top of my head as an example of the left's blind opposition.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by clumzgirl
I'm not sure anyone's mentioned this yet: Isn't it possible that Saddam HAD WMDs throughout the 90s, and the early W. Bush administration, but after 9/11 decided to cover his ass and shipped them out of the country? You know, to Pakistan? He probably had an evacuation plan in case something like, oh say, invasion was imminent. Those weapons were gone before we even got there. But that's not to say they weren't there when W. and intelligence first said they were.

With respect to your question, they WMD were either destroyed or removed. No doubt. Saddam continued to insist that Iraq did not have WMD right up to the beginning of the war. He agreed to the most intrusive inspection regime in history to prove it. Bush did not believe him and launched a "pre-emptive" war. But Bush was wrong.

It is beyond doubt that Saddam had chemical weapons. You may recall that Donald Rumsfeld was dispatched to Iraq during the Reagan Administration to reassure Saddam that his chemical weapons were okay with us. In fact the US continued to supply Iraq with military aide and financial assistance long after it was well known that Saddam was using his wmd against both Iraqi civilians and Iran. The US, under both Reagan and Bush I made a strategic decision that Iraq was the our best ally against the Iranian fundamentalists that had taken over Iran (along with the US embassy).

Apart from the obvious question of whether we are going down the same road by supporting dictatorial SOB's like the government in Uzbekistan, quite possibly the next Saddam we may have to deal with in a decade or so, it leaves open the question of why the US did not confront Iraq about its use of WMD during the Reagan and Bush I administrations.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
And of course with election time around the corner also!

Uh..he kicked Saddam's ass last year.

Not around election time.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
With respect to your question, they WMD were either destroyed or removed. No doubt. Saddam continued to insist that Iraq did not have WMD right up to the beginning of the war. He agreed to the most intrusive inspection regime in history to prove it. Bush did not believe him and launched a "pre-emptive" war. But Bush was wrong.

Here is the problem w/ your 'facts'. Saddam was required by the UN to PROVE he got rid of them, or didn't have them. He NEVER provided compelling evidence that he was in compliance with UN resolutions.

A multi-national force, headed by the US and Brittan went in to find out, one way or another.


fixed this bit for you:

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
it leaves open the question of why the US did not confront Iraq about its use of WMD during the Reagan and Bush I, and Clinton administrations.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
In fact the US continued to supply Iraq with military aide...

aid not aide

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by dmp
Here is the problem w/ your 'facts'. Saddam was required by the UN to PROVE he got rid of them, or didn't have them. He NEVER provided compelling evidence that he was in compliance with UN resolutions.

A multi-national force, headed by the US and Brittan went in to find out, one way or another.


fixed this bit for you:

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.

As far as your "multi-national force" goes. Gimme a break. Latvia and Slovenia are on board. Weeeee! It is better described as a multi-national farce.

Finally, regarding your point that Saddam did not prove he did not have WMD. That is what the weapon inspectors were there to determine. They were withdrawn in favor of war, death and destruction. Turns out Saddam was right all along.

 

[_dmp_]

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.

As far as your "multi-national force" goes. Gimme a break. Latvia and Slovenia are on board. Weeeee! It is better described as a multi-national farce.

Finally, regarding your point that Saddam did not prove he did not have WMD. That is what the weapon inspectors were there to determine. They were withdrawn in favor of war, death and destruction. Turns out Saddam was right all along.

You are stupid

 

[DKSuddeth]

With respect to your question, they WMD were either destroyed or removed. No doubt.

you have ironclad proof of this I'm sure.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
you have ironclad proof of this I'm sure.

No. Stupid people don't worry about ironclad anything. They are too busy being dumb.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dmp
No. Stupid people don't worry about ironclad anything. They are too busy being dumb.

They have ironclad minds. -With a wicked echo.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
With respect to your question, they WMD were either destroyed or removed. No doubt. Saddam continued to insist that Iraq did not have WMD right up to the beginning of the war. He agreed to the most intrusive inspection regime in history to prove it. Bush did not believe him and launched a "pre-emptive" war.

Your assertions are ridiculous, not to mention contradictory to your own words!

You want to use the weapons inspectors as defense that there were no WMD in Iraq. Now the weapons inspectors make a declaration in front of the 9/11 commission and you immediately scoff at it. I guess they're only beneficial when it supports your lame argument?

But Bush was wrong

Yes, let's ignore the democrat dipshits who said the same damn thing! Funny how your weak liberal mind blocks that out!

"I share the [Bush] administration's goals in dealing
with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction."

-- Congressman Dick Gephardt (D-Iowa)
September 19, 2002

"As we survey the landscape of threats to our security
in the years ahead, the greatest are terrorists like
Al Qaeda and rogue regimes like Saddam Hussein's.
Saddam hates America and Americans and is working
furiously to accumulate deadly weapons of mass
destruction, and the missiles, planes, and unmanned
aerial vehicles to use in attacking distant targets
.... The essential facts are known. We know of the
weapons in Saddam's possession: chemical, biological,
and nuclear in time. We know of his unequaled
willingness to use them. We know his history. His
invasions of his neighbors. His dreams of achieving
hegemonic control over the Arab world. His record of
anti-American rage. His willingness to terrorize, to
slaughter, to suppress his own people and others. We
need not stretch to imagine nightmare scenarios in
which Saddam makes common cause with the terrorists
who want to kill us Americans and destroy our way of
life."

-- Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut)
September 13, 2002

"While the distance between the United States and Iraq
is great, Saddam Hussein's ability to use his chemical
and biological weapons against us is not constrained
by geography - it can be accomplished in a number of
different ways - which is what makes this threat so
real and persuasive."

-- Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California)
October 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the
Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think
there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He
has systematically violated, over the course of the
past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that
has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical
and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This
he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the
mandate and authority of international weapons
inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying
time against enforcement of the just and legitimate
demands of the United Nations, the Security Council,
the United States and our allies. Those are simply the
facts."

-- Congressman Henry A. Waxman (D-California)
October 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left,
intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and
sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,
though there is apparently no evidence of his
involvement in the terrible events of September 11,
2001. 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. Should he succeed
in that endeavor, he could alter the political and
security landscape of the Middle East, which as we
know all too well affects American security. Now this
much is undisputed."

-- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-New York)
October 10, 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein
is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of
the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United
Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them."

-- Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
September 19, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to
America and our allies, including our vital ally,
Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has
sought weapons of mass destruction through every
available means. We know that he has chemical and
biological weapons. He has already used them against
his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to
build more. We know that he is doing everything he can
to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he
gets closer to achieving that goal."

-- Senator John Edwards (D-North Carolina)
October 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling
evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a
number of years a developing capacity for the
production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
At what point we do what President Kennedy did in
1962, which is to make that information available to
the American people and to the international community
as a predicate for whatever use of force will follow,
is going to be an important strategic decision for
this administration."

-- Senator Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Quoted from "Meet the Press"
December 8, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is
working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and
will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five
years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain
access to enriched uranium from foreign sources --
something that is not that difficult in the current
world. We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction."

-- Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-West Virginia)
October 10, 2002

"Make no mistake: Saddam Hussein is a ruthless tyrant,
and he must give up his weapons of mass destruction.
We support the President in the course he has followed
so far -- working with Congress, working with the
United Nations, insisting on strong and unfettered
inspections. We need allies today in 2003, just as
much as we needed them in Desert Storm and just as we
needed them on D-Day in 1944, when American soldiers
-- including my father -- fought to vanquish the Nazi
threat. We must convince the world that Saddam Hussein
is not America's problem alone -- he's the world's
problem. And we urge President Bush to stay this
course for we are far stronger when we stand with
other nations than when we stand alone."

-- Governor Gary Locke (D-Washington)
Democratic Response to President Bush's
"State of the Union" address
January 28, 2003

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein.
He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his
offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat
because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation.
He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He
miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated
America's response to that act of naked aggression. He
miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire.
He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into
Israel and trying to assassinate an American
President. He miscalculated his own military strength.
He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his
misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's
response to his continued deceit and his consistent
grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the
world, through the United Nations Security Council,
has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq
disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the
threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real ..."

-- Senator John Kerry (D-Massachussetts)
January 23, 2003

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
you have ironclad proof of this I'm sure.

Nope. But we know that Saddam had WMD. Ample proof of that available.

We also know that neither the UN inspectors nor the US occupaition forces have found any. A third possibility exists that they were hidden very, very well but it is unlikly. US has interviewed most of the remenents of the Iraqi scientific and military establishment.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
We also know that neither the UN inspectors nor the US occupaition forces have found any. A third possibility exists that they were hidden very, very well but it is unlikly. US has interviewed most of the remenents of the Iraqi scientific and military establishment.

And yet additional data still flows in:

Secret bunkers held chemical weapons, says Iraqi exile

For seven years, before he was tortured and sentenced to death, Rashid (not his real name) worked at the top of Iraq's scientific establishment. He says he regularly met Saddam Hussein and his cousin and strongman deputy prime minister Abdul Tawab Huweish. After the Gulf War he was put in charge of a taskforce code named "Al Babel" to develop stealth technology to make aircraft and missiles undetectable on radar.

Rashid, who now lives in Melbourne, also claims to have had access as a trusted insider to secret underground bunkers where chemical weapons were stored. "Saddam gave me access to everything, he was so desperate to perfect the stealth technology," he says.

Now Rashid's great fear is that Saddam loyalists still active in postwar Iraq may get to the chemicals and weapons he saw hidden away before fleeing for his life.

"If those weapons still exist, the worry is that they will be used against the Iraqi people, the US forces or even sold off to al-Qaeda. Maybe those weapons no longer exist, but I find it hard to believe they could disappear so easily," he says.

Rashid's days of working at the top came to an abrupt end in 1998 when he was arrested with a group of other scientists and army officers on charges of plotting to remove Saddam. He was taken to a high-security jail in the centre of Baghdad, run by the Mukhabarat (secret police), where he was tortured for three weeks, suffering severe spinal injuries.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/31/1080544556813.html?from=storyrhs

 

[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.

 

[William Joyce]

Party affiliation doesn't explain these quotes.

Liberman, Feinstein, Waxman and Levin are all Jews. They wanted war on Iraq because it would make Israel stronger/safer.

Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards were all vying for President. They knew that crossing Jewish interests would be a bad idea on the way to achieving that goal.

Graham is a Floridian and represents Jews.

Rockefeller, I don't know.

 

[jimnyc]

William, you never fail to surprise me!

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Nope. But we know that Saddam had WMD. Ample proof of that available.

We also know that neither the UN inspectors nor the US occupaition forces have found any. A third possibility exists that they were hidden very, very well but it is unlikly. US has interviewed most of the remenents of the Iraqi scientific and military establishment.

Why is it unlikely they were hidden? Any data to back that up?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by William Joyce
Party affiliation doesn't explain these quotes.

Liberman, Feinstein, Waxman and Levin are all Jews. They wanted war on Iraq because it would make Israel stronger/safer.

Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards were all vying for President. They knew that crossing Jewish interests would be a bad idea on the way to achieving that goal.

Graham is a Floridian and represents Jews.

Rockefeller, I don't know.

Man, all you had to do was know they all want money and power.

Rockefeller should have given you that much.

You are supposed to be the superior race and you missed common conspiracy theory?