Where have all the chemicals gone?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonico
A possible reason for the Coalition not to want the UN inspectors back in Iraq is that the US (and possibly UK) intelligence believed that they had been penetrated by interests favoured by the Iraqi regime.
We all remember the allegations about a certain NATO member state passing NATO plans (including targeting information) to the Serbs during the Kosovo conflict.
Just a thought, not statement of my belief!
A possible reason for the Coalition not to want the UN inspectors back in Iraq is that the US (and possibly UK) intelligence believed that they had been penetrated by interests favoured by the Iraqi regime.
We all remember the allegations about a certain NATO member state passing NATO plans (including targeting information) to the Serbs during the Kosovo conflict.
Just a thought, not statement of my belief!
OK, that all makes a degree of sense.
BUT
Do we really think, though, that the UN (as opposed to Russia and France) will oppose the lifting of sanctions?
In view of the cynicism and distrust of US motives, is it really wise to continue to exclude the UNSCOM inspectors - even if their only role was changed to be one of verification and validation of what the US and UK arms inspectors do and find? (Not a return to an exclusive inspection role, in other words). Do we seriously think that the UN would insist on "all or nothing"? In that role how much damage could they do, even if they are 'penetrated'?
Should what the Bush administration think of Blix be allowed to get in the way of what the rest of the International Community thinks and wants? UNSCOM is trusted and has credibility. US arms inspectors (without independent oversight) do not.
The fact that the "US and UK spent blood and $100B+ in treasure to overthrow Saddam" is an irrelevance to what should happen now. The US and the UK are not the kind of nations which go to war for plunder, nor should they be. You rightly condemn France and Russia for this kind of cynically self interested greed, let's not allow our two great nations to ape their behaviour and morality.
BUT
Do we really think, though, that the UN (as opposed to Russia and France) will oppose the lifting of sanctions?
In view of the cynicism and distrust of US motives, is it really wise to continue to exclude the UNSCOM inspectors - even if their only role was changed to be one of verification and validation of what the US and UK arms inspectors do and find? (Not a return to an exclusive inspection role, in other words). Do we seriously think that the UN would insist on "all or nothing"? In that role how much damage could they do, even if they are 'penetrated'?
Should what the Bush administration think of Blix be allowed to get in the way of what the rest of the International Community thinks and wants? UNSCOM is trusted and has credibility. US arms inspectors (without independent oversight) do not.
The fact that the "US and UK spent blood and $100B+ in treasure to overthrow Saddam" is an irrelevance to what should happen now. The US and the UK are not the kind of nations which go to war for plunder, nor should they be. You rightly condemn France and Russia for this kind of cynically self interested greed, let's not allow our two great nations to ape their behaviour and morality.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And is there proof that either Ritter or Galloway took Iraqi money?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76196,00.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins012403.asp
"The fact that Scott Ritter, George Galloway, various U.S. congressmen, and journalists from throughout the Arab and Western world have taken millions in Saddam's cash for their service to the regime......"
OK Ritter's a sex offender (if he wasn't set up), Galloway's a stupid, gullible, greedy, unpatriotic lefty ****, many US congressmen are similar and journos (as we know are unreliable scum).
But where's the proof of these people taking cash from Saddam?
OK Ritter's a sex offender (if he wasn't set up), Galloway's a stupid, gullible, greedy, unpatriotic lefty ****, many US congressmen are similar and journos (as we know are unreliable scum).
But where's the proof of these people taking cash from Saddam?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone seen this? Could be the tip of the iceberg and justify why it was right to go in.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/wo...00/3010001.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/wo...00/3010001.stm
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a crock.
One truck which may or may not be equipped to replicate certain biological agents doesn't prove Dick Squat.
How old is the truck, and how long has the equipment been fitted to it? When was it manufactured, and when was it registered? What's the wear and tear on the gearshift, the pedals, the door handles like? Is this a well-used biological weapons laboratory, or a very recent fit-up?
This war had Jack Schitd to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction. Everyone knows it. Why are we pretending?
Face it; chemical weapons are not WMD. They are local theatre denial weapons.
Biological weapons are only WMD if you have the means to deploy them widely, and even then, it's hit and miss.
The only real WMD are nukes, and thanks to our excellent allies and true friends in Tel Aviv, Saddam didn't have any.
This war was all about oil and money, control of the reserves, the dollar versus the Euro, and about curtailing Saudi influence, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a naive fool.
Saddam Hussein was (as I have said before) a psycopathic genocidal fascist thug who needed got rid of, and that was reason enough to go in and remove him. Switching from the Dollar to the Euro was a real threat to the US/UK way of life, and that was also reason enough. The UN is a useless, pointless waste of time, money, effort and oxygen, and ignoring it was the right thing to do.
Why are we bothering to pretend?
The UN only continues to exist because the Yanks give it money, credence, a place to live, and the ultimate threat of the availability of military force. Without the US, the UN is nothing. Can anyone really, seriously, imagine the desperate, disparate nations of the world organising anything, or achieving consensus, without the Americans providing leadership, commonsense and money?
To hell with the whiners, the apologists, the sycophants, the pinkos and the softcocks.
Let's just come straight out and admit why we did this thing, and challenge anyone who wants to, to make us undo it.
The only thing we have to be, which we have not been so far, in order to retain the moral high ground, is honest.
One truck which may or may not be equipped to replicate certain biological agents doesn't prove Dick Squat.
How old is the truck, and how long has the equipment been fitted to it? When was it manufactured, and when was it registered? What's the wear and tear on the gearshift, the pedals, the door handles like? Is this a well-used biological weapons laboratory, or a very recent fit-up?
This war had Jack Schitd to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction. Everyone knows it. Why are we pretending?
Face it; chemical weapons are not WMD. They are local theatre denial weapons.
Biological weapons are only WMD if you have the means to deploy them widely, and even then, it's hit and miss.
The only real WMD are nukes, and thanks to our excellent allies and true friends in Tel Aviv, Saddam didn't have any.
This war was all about oil and money, control of the reserves, the dollar versus the Euro, and about curtailing Saudi influence, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a naive fool.
Saddam Hussein was (as I have said before) a psycopathic genocidal fascist thug who needed got rid of, and that was reason enough to go in and remove him. Switching from the Dollar to the Euro was a real threat to the US/UK way of life, and that was also reason enough. The UN is a useless, pointless waste of time, money, effort and oxygen, and ignoring it was the right thing to do.
Why are we bothering to pretend?
The UN only continues to exist because the Yanks give it money, credence, a place to live, and the ultimate threat of the availability of military force. Without the US, the UN is nothing. Can anyone really, seriously, imagine the desperate, disparate nations of the world organising anything, or achieving consensus, without the Americans providing leadership, commonsense and money?
To hell with the whiners, the apologists, the sycophants, the pinkos and the softcocks.
Let's just come straight out and admit why we did this thing, and challenge anyone who wants to, to make us undo it.
The only thing we have to be, which we have not been so far, in order to retain the moral high ground, is honest.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue Wolf
I suppose I am as cynical as the next guy. But within the last two weeks (or so) I have heard Adm Boyce (CDS), Gen Jackson (CGS) and AM Burridge (OC Brit Forces, Gulf) each say, without apparant coercion, that they are still convinced that there are WMD in Iraq. I simply cannot believe that such men could be involved in a conspiracy of the sort your views imply.
I believe that the collective term "WMD" was Soviet in origin and they defined it to include what NATO called NBC weapons. It is a useful shorthand but cannot be taken too literally in all circumstances. I can think of many areas of NZ where the release of nerve gas would only destroy some sheep. But the same release by terrorists in the London underground at rush hour would cause a massacre. The dispatch of terrorists already infected with Smallpox or Ebola in airliners to major Western cities does not bear contemplation. And it was these delivery "systems", rather than crude missiles, shells and bombs that threatened the West .
It is clear that Iraq sheltered many terrorist organisations, some of which may have had loose links with Al Qa'eda, that did not look kindly on the West.
I suppose I am as cynical as the next guy. But within the last two weeks (or so) I have heard Adm Boyce (CDS), Gen Jackson (CGS) and AM Burridge (OC Brit Forces, Gulf) each say, without apparant coercion, that they are still convinced that there are WMD in Iraq. I simply cannot believe that such men could be involved in a conspiracy of the sort your views imply.
I believe that the collective term "WMD" was Soviet in origin and they defined it to include what NATO called NBC weapons. It is a useful shorthand but cannot be taken too literally in all circumstances. I can think of many areas of NZ where the release of nerve gas would only destroy some sheep. But the same release by terrorists in the London underground at rush hour would cause a massacre. The dispatch of terrorists already infected with Smallpox or Ebola in airliners to major Western cities does not bear contemplation. And it was these delivery "systems", rather than crude missiles, shells and bombs that threatened the West .
It is clear that Iraq sheltered many terrorist organisations, some of which may have had loose links with Al Qa'eda, that did not look kindly on the West.
Strictly speaking what you say is correct FV, but that isn't the definition of WMD used to 'sell' this war. It was clear that what the US Government was talking about was large quantities of militarily deployable chemical weapons, perhaps with a robust bio programme and a developing nuclear threat.
Merely harbouring terrorists who 'did not look kindly on the West' would put much of the ME on the target list, perhaps together with the UK, and even the USA itself.
Merely harbouring terrorists who 'did not look kindly on the West' would put much of the ME on the target list, perhaps together with the UK, and even the USA itself.
From the Washington Post 11 May 2003
BAGHDAD -- The group directing all known U.S. search efforts for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is winding down operations without finding proof that President Saddam Hussein kept clandestine stocks of outlawed arms, according to participants.
The 75th Exploitation Task Force, as the group is formally known, has been described from the start as the principal component of the U.S. plan to discover and display forbidden Iraqi weapons. The group's departure, expected next month, marks a milestone in frustration for a major declared objective of the war.
BAGHDAD -- The group directing all known U.S. search efforts for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is winding down operations without finding proof that President Saddam Hussein kept clandestine stocks of outlawed arms, according to participants.
The 75th Exploitation Task Force, as the group is formally known, has been described from the start as the principal component of the U.S. plan to discover and display forbidden Iraqi weapons. The group's departure, expected next month, marks a milestone in frustration for a major declared objective of the war.
The problem is that while Iraq probably did have illegal WMD programmes, which put it technically in breach of UN requirements and resolutions, the US justification for war was on the basis that Iraqi WMD posed a 'clear and present danger' to US security, with the inference that WMD were not only being developed and/or tested, but were actually deployed and available. The USA's pre-war intelligence reports made this clear, emphasising the widespread distribution and availability of WMD. The impression given was that allied troops would be in great danger from Iraqi WMD, and would be tripping over these as they advanced. It was not the case that war was being launched because the Iraqis had a handful of truck-mounted research labs.
Thus finding laboratory equipment is technically interesting, and a breach, but does not constitute the level of threat which the US suggested existed in Iraq, and therefore doesn't satisfy those who are looking for proof.
Thus finding laboratory equipment is technically interesting, and a breach, but does not constitute the level of threat which the US suggested existed in Iraq, and therefore doesn't satisfy those who are looking for proof.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL Why am I not surprised. First the bitch was that they hadn't found ANY WMD, etc. Even though the bullets were still flying all over Iraq. Now we find the labs, mobile labs, in DIRECT violation of UN resolutions (the ones everyone said they didn't violate) but that isn't enough anymore. Now its only a TECHNICAL violation of the resolutions. What utter cr*p. Please admit just once that if you saw GWB walk across the waters of the Engish Channel your only comment would be " See I told you he can't swim"
You are all frauds.
You are all frauds.
If the US hadn't wanted people to judge what it meant by WMD, it should not have been so clear in its pre-war briefings.
We were led to expect a smoking gun. NOT blueprints for a gun which might one day, in the distant future, begin to smoke.
And again: Where have all the chemicals gone? Not four derelict lorries.
We were led to expect a smoking gun. NOT blueprints for a gun which might one day, in the distant future, begin to smoke.
And again: Where have all the chemicals gone? Not four derelict lorries.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not four derelict lorries.
Thats interesting but what about the Opinions of experts who have stated publically that these are genuine chemical weapons manufacturing plants on wheels.
Like I said before no matter what is uncovered you will never be satisfied
Thats interesting but what about the Opinions of experts who have stated publically that these are genuine chemical weapons manufacturing plants on wheels.
Like I said before no matter what is uncovered you will never be satisfied
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair point FV, though the Aum Sect had nowhere the level of "success" they had hoped for by releasing Sarin in the Tokyo subway.
I don't doubt the integrity of senior officers either, but the question remains, if there are, or were, banned weapons in Iraq, which justified the military action taken, given that Saddam was supposed to be on the brink of using them, then why didn't he use them, why has no-one been able to find them, and where are they now?
Frankly, I couldn't give a toss whether he had the damn things or not; he was someone who needed got rid of, and now he's gone.
But equally frankly, I simply don't believe the reasons given for the invasion, I do believe it was done for other reasons, and I would find it easier to respect those responsible for initiating the action taken if they had the balls to come straight out and admit it.
Ebolar or smallpox on an airliner would be a major worry, but equally, it could be launched from anywhere.
I don't doubt the integrity of senior officers either, but the question remains, if there are, or were, banned weapons in Iraq, which justified the military action taken, given that Saddam was supposed to be on the brink of using them, then why didn't he use them, why has no-one been able to find them, and where are they now?
Frankly, I couldn't give a toss whether he had the damn things or not; he was someone who needed got rid of, and now he's gone.
But equally frankly, I simply don't believe the reasons given for the invasion, I do believe it was done for other reasons, and I would find it easier to respect those responsible for initiating the action taken if they had the balls to come straight out and admit it.
Ebolar or smallpox on an airliner would be a major worry, but equally, it could be launched from anywhere.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not four derelict lorries.
The point we are all arguing the toss over is : Where are the chemical and biological nasties that Saddam was supposed to have, ready and available. Where are the stores of weapons. Remember, we went into Iraq, because he had umpteen thousand Gallons of Sarin and Anthrax. What did he do, flush them down the toilet when the 5-Oh crossed the border?
We went into Iraq, and good men and women died, to save the world from the threat of weapons of Mass destruction, except, they don't appear to have been found yet. We asked the question, "Well surely they've gone to the sites that they had earmarked as definite centres?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3018063.stm
US Central Command began the war with a list of 19 top weapons sites - only two remain to be searched.
Another list enumerated 68 top "non-WMD sites," without known links to special weapons but judged to have the potential to offer clues. Of those, the tally at midweek showed 45 surveyed without success.
"Why are we doing any planned targets?" said Army Chief Warrant Officer Richard L Gonzales, leader of Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha, reports the Washington Post.
"Answer me that. We know they're empty."
Normally, I agree with Blue Wolf's arguements, but this time I hesitate. Yes, we may have been right to get rid of Saddam. Unfortunately, it appears that his role was very much the same as Tito's. If we can't get food into the bellies, money into the pockets and fuel into the cars of the Iraqi civpop , then we're going to be in trouble.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it doesn't look 45 minute deployable, it looks looted of canvas, tires, plumbing and everything else a person could carry.
FORGIVE me Solotk for pointing out what should be obvious to anyone who has watched events unfold in the last month, but there is not a building or a vehicle in Iraq that has not been looted unless it was guarded from day one. For you to assume that the trailer in question is derelict because it lacks canvas, and some piping is to admit that you will only believe what you want to believe.
If SH didn't have WMD please explain to the surving Kurds who killed their people. Did he dump them down the toilet? I don't know, but I would be willing to wait the months and years all of the hand wringers were willing to wait before I started throwing bricks. I am sure that after the shock and awe campaign said weapons, stocks of raw material and manufacturing equipment are either carefully hidden or buried or are in serious disrepair.
You didn't really expect to find a freshly painted bomb wrapped in plastic waiting at SH's palace for the press to photograph did you. Actually you probably did, and if it had been there you would have said it was planted by the US.
FORGIVE me Solotk for pointing out what should be obvious to anyone who has watched events unfold in the last month, but there is not a building or a vehicle in Iraq that has not been looted unless it was guarded from day one. For you to assume that the trailer in question is derelict because it lacks canvas, and some piping is to admit that you will only believe what you want to believe.
If SH didn't have WMD please explain to the surving Kurds who killed their people. Did he dump them down the toilet? I don't know, but I would be willing to wait the months and years all of the hand wringers were willing to wait before I started throwing bricks. I am sure that after the shock and awe campaign said weapons, stocks of raw material and manufacturing equipment are either carefully hidden or buried or are in serious disrepair.
You didn't really expect to find a freshly painted bomb wrapped in plastic waiting at SH's palace for the press to photograph did you. Actually you probably did, and if it had been there you would have said it was planted by the US.