US gives up search for Iraq WMD

...hmmm ......duh?

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002



Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George Bush March 18, 2003


We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003


We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003


We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George Bush May 3, 2003




time's up
 
Stern, you need to read the Dulfer Report. Primarily the Key Findings.

Here is just the first line:

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.
Click to expand...

Here is some more:

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.
Click to expand...


You need to understand there were intelligence fialures and let all that crap go.
 
Well so, why didn't the US then allow the UN inspections to go forth, to confirm or not that there were WMD's.
 
well, the WMDs are propbably in iran, off we go!
 
maybe, the WMD's of Iraq were smuggled across the border into Syria, Iran etc, god knows where they could be now, being sold to north korea probably. (if iraq had them in the first place)

but id like to say that im sure North Korea , Iran and a few more countries could have them too. secretly.
 
Grey Fox said:
Well so, why didn't the US then allow the UN inspections to go forth, to confirm or not that there were WMD's.
Click to expand...


Several reasons.

Saddam had a 2000 man unit to stall the inspectors before they left in the 90s.
The 17 UN resolutions violated by Iraq.
The Al Soumoud II, a missile capable of hitting israel and was still in Iraq's aresnal until just before the war.


There are other things, too. There is a misconception that Iraq "couldn't hit Kuwait with anything" when, in fact, a missile landed 50 yards from the front gate of the base I was stationed at a good 50 miles from the Kuwait/Iraq Border.

Another misconception is that the "US didn't allow the inspections to go forth" when it was actually the US, Britain, Poland, and a great deal of other nations that didn't allow the inspections to continue.
 
What is it with this rationalization?

A) Couldn't find WMD's in Iraq. So... It's obvious that he had the weapons smuggled to other members of the Axis of Evil through the asses of camels that signed a blood pact with Saddam and Osama, vowing to crush the United States into dust!

B) Or maybe they just weren't there.
 
Bodacious said:
Stern, you need to read the Dulfer Report. Primarily the Key Findings.

Here is just the first line:



Here is some more:




You need to understand there were intelligence fialures and let all that crap go.
Click to expand...
There were many, many, people that doubted these intelligence reports. Why the hell couldn't Bush wait a little while to confirm these? After all, we did have inspectors on the ground that could have checked up on these.

I wouldn't worry about them for much longer.
Click to expand...
Debka has a reputation for printing stories where only about 1% of them are true. I wouldn't take anything they say seriously.
 
B) Or maybe they just weren't there.
Click to expand...

That is the answer.

The only evidenc of smuggling is that missing HDX/RDX stuff and there is debate on whethere that is WMD or not. I don't think that stuff was in violation of the UN resolutions so it doesn't matter anyways.

The Duelfer Report tell you everything you need to know about the search for WMDs.
 
Absinthe said:
Amazing! Starting shit with another country when we don't even have everything under control in either Iraq or Afghanistan!

Any way, that site looks very fishy. I don't buy it.
Click to expand...


Here you go, maybe you will believe Al Jazzera

There was a UN resolution and everything, even backed by france.

I read or heard somewhere Israel has the capability to decimate Syria within 6 days or less.
 
Bodacious said:
Here you go, maybe you will believe Al Jazzera

There was a UN resolution and everything, even backed by france.

I read or heard somewhere Israel has the capability to decimate Syria within 6 days or less.
Click to expand...

dont watch al jazeera, they brainwash you into becoming a Terrorist. and yes, just like fox news incourages people to join the us marines im sure.
 
KoreBolteR said:
dont watch al jazeera, they brainwash you into becoming a Terrorist. and yes, just like fox news incourages people to join the us marines im sure.
Click to expand...

soooo ...you've watched it then? how else would you know they're brainwashing people? if you've watched it then there's a chance you've also been brainwashed


*stern breaks out the lobotomy tools, starts up chainsaw*

not to worry, I can help you ...hold still
 
CptStern said:
soooo ...you've watched it then? how else would you know they're brainwashing people? if you've watched it then there's a chance you've also been brainwashed


*stern breaks out the lobotomy tools, starts up chainsaw*

not to worry, I can help you ...hold still
Click to expand...
Everyone got their tinfoil hats ready?
 
Yeah but if you watch both, then you become a nice moderate.

By Bodacious
Several reasons.

Saddam had a 2000 man unit to stall the inspectors before they left in the 90s.
The 17 UN resolutions violated by Iraq.
The Al Soumoud II, a missile capable of hitting israel and was still in Iraq's aresnal until just before the war.


There are other things, too. There is a misconception that Iraq "couldn't hit Kuwait with anything" when, in fact, a missile landed 50 yards from the front gate of the base I was stationed at a good 50 miles from the Kuwait/Iraq Border.

Another misconception is that the "US didn't allow the inspections to go forth" when it was actually the US, Britain, Poland, and a great deal of other nations that didn't allow the inspections to continue.
Click to expand...

Iraq had very good reason to not allow the inspectors in 92', the inspections were just used as cover for CIA operations, even a UN inspector himself said that it was a skeam, that they were just forced to do CIA work.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html

The Al Suomoud missles were disabled a long time ago, if you watched actual news, not FOX news you would have known that. Only the engines were left, and the Iraq government allready began destruction.

The other nations were the ones to stop the inspections, but that is just because the US was allready going to war with Iraq, what choice did they have, to let the inspectors stay while a war was going on.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2586425.stm
 
How did they justify going to war? On the say so they had wmd's. Did they find any? Did they fuc|<. Will they be held accountable for starting an unjustified war? Will they fuc|<.
 
Simple reason the WMD issue was brought up:

People are incapable of acting without the idea of a direct threat to themselves, they had to think that Iraq was a threat to them specifically before they'd support a war.

It's just the way governments operate. All the world over. Not just the US, or the UK, but France, Russia, Canada etc.
 
heh for some reason I cant see canada invading anyone ..that's just not what canadians do ..but to touch on your point comrade:


"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
 
CptStern said:
soooo ...you've watched it then? how else would you know they're brainwashing people? if you've watched it then there's a chance you've also been brainwashed


*stern breaks out the lobotomy tools, starts up chainsaw*

not to worry, I can help you ...hold still
Click to expand...

hehe :p

but i watch Fox news , that cancels it out ya see :cat:

id say out BBC news is the best news, as its mentioned in faranheit 9/11 for being the only news channel to pick up on something, oh cant remember what it is!. but BBC news is the best !!! :farmer:
 
CptStern said:
heh for some reason I cant see canada invading anyone ..that's just not what canadians do ..but to touch on your point comrade:


"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Click to expand...
Lol, until I saw the name at the end I thought it was a quote about the Iraq war :LOL:
 
'man makes money money makes man war' - Roots Manuva (I think)

Edit: Could be Phi Life Cypher thinking about it..
 
Grey Fox said:
The Al Suomoud missles were disabled a long time ago, if you watched actual news, not FOX news you would have known that. nly the engines were left, and the Iraq government allready began destruction.
Click to expand...

Source? I got one for you. My job in Kuwait, before I got deployed to Iraq was to pipe CNN to the genrals and to make sure it stayed online. Therefore, I watched CNN 8 hours a day. The Al Samoud II missiles were still being destroyed when we rolled in. I remember CNN saying we found some that were in line to be destroyed weeks after the war had started.

That blows your false accusations out of the water. The fact is, Iraq was violationg UN resolutions up until the war started. He violated the no fly zone, too, many times. All of those an act of war in themselves.

The other nations were the ones to stop the inspections, but that is just because the US was allready going to war with Iraq, what choice did they have, to let the inspectors stay while a war was going on.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2586425.stm
Click to expand...

The US lead and was a voice of the coalition. The only nation that tried to stop it was France threatening a veto of the vote go to war and germany doing the same. The other nations expressed no reservations about going to war.
 
Bodacious said:
Source? I got one for you. My job in Kuwait, before I got deployed to Iraq was to pipe CNN to the genrals and to make sure it stayed online. Therefore, I watched CNN 8 hours a day. The Al Samoud II missiles were still being destroyed when we rolled in. I remember CNN saying we found some that were in line to be destroyed weeks after the war had started.

That blows your false accusations out of the water. The fact is, Iraq was violationg UN resolutions up until the war started. He violated the no fly zone, too, many times. All of those an act of war in themselves.



The US lead and was a voice of the coalition. The only nation that tried to stop it was France threatening a veto of the vote go to war and germany doing the same. The other nations expressed no reservations about going to war.
Click to expand...

definately, Mis-using UN Oil for Food money

and thats just 1 example out of thousands.
 
KoreBolteR said:
maybe, the WMD's of Iraq were smuggled across the border into Syria
Click to expand...
Bingo.
Sattelites picked up massive traffic between Iraq and Syria before the US invasion.
Officers in Saddam's regime confessed to this during intergation as well. God knows where they are now.
 
I can see how all the confilcting news reports cause average people to be left in a state of muddled confusion, I mean one station says this with little or no evidence and the other says "YOUR wrong!" with little or no evidence. Maybe thats the conspiracy!
sigh... I need a good news program
 
Traffic doesn't prove anything, really.
I would have expected a large scale exodus from Iraq before it became a warzone. I definitely would have left.

Still, it's pretty sad that the best-case scenario in the search for WMDs is that the war caused a huge pile of N/B/C weapons to be distributed throughout the mideast.
 
No surprises here... least the US government has admitted it now. Blair had already tapdanced his way through all manner of media hoops and ended with "intelligence was wrong. Whoops".

Saddam is said to have made all manner of statements regarding Iraq's potential for ranged warfare (I'm talking international rather than rifles here, heh), but the majority preceded either war and were undoubtedly half-truths, as the man was a liar and a bluffer as well as proficient at gassing civillians.

So yes, he had neurotoxic weaponry and all manner of biological crap previously, he just disposed of them well before the conflict. He probably wasn't as blind to international "progress" as a lot of people think.

At one point Saddam was said to have denied he still had scuds, and then he went ahead and ruined that statement by launching them at military camps when the war began. The Coalition probably hoped like hell then that he'd lied about both the missiles and the WMDs. He hadn't, but meh.

There's no proof that Saddam ever acted in support of terrorists anyway (don't get me started on suspects though, especially considering the Guantanamo fiasco)- he just made unpleasant comments in favour of their actions.
 
The point is, if we'd removed sanctions etc. He obviously wouldn't have obtained WMDS... becuase that wasn't his idea.. and he's really a nice guy

:upstare:

:p
 
ComradeBadger said:
The point is, if we'd removed sanctions etc. He obviously wouldn't have obtained WMDS... becuase that wasn't his idea.. and he's really a nice guy

:upstare:

:p
Click to expand...

good ol' uncle saddam :p

.. he had a gold plated AK-47 you know!
 
It's really sad that, as mentioned before, nobody will get screwed for this.

After putting across the WMDs as FACT, and not a possibility many people started supporting the war - they were lied to. Pure and simple.

You can say "pre-emptive!", yes we need to do pre-emptive strikes on nations to stop the possibility of them attacking us. Hang on, so just how many radical anti-western groups are well up for attacking the UK, US, other war supporters now we had that handy pre-emptive strike?

Pre-emptive strikes where there is no threat, creates a threat.

And now pro-war people will say- "Aaahh, but we've helped Iraq now". Yes, we have, Saddam was evil. But is it right to rally your countries population through deceit, and send soliders to their deaths on a different pretense to the one you come out the other side on.

And if Bush or Blair decide Iran, or indeed any country, needs invading - well, then it's obvious they have no regard for actually saving these other countries. Afghans a mess because so many resources moved out to go to Iraq - how the hell can they re-build three countries when they can barely sort out the two they're involved in now.

It's all a great farce resulting with the world splitting dramatically into anti-terrorism/ terrorism factions, many lives being lost, and my perception of the people in power sliding down down down.

Do something good for once you politicians; not come out the other side of a f**k up waving the good samaritan flag. That's a cheap, and brave card to play with all these civilian deaths, torture, and public deception going on.
 
1) Regardless, war or not, the hatred for the west was there.

2) Saddam wasn't well liked enough to gain support now from terrorist factons


Anyway, I'm interested to hear this: burner69, what would you do?
 
I don't doubt that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing (we did the right thing for the wrong reasons and all that stuff) and I'd have supported the war even if regime change was used as the primary excuse (even though the UN would declare the war illegal, but they're very good at watching as countries slowly get fecked up). It's just that now we're stuck in a circle that's downright homicidal- the Iraqi people want both the insurgents and the Coaltion to leave, yet if we pulled out now (while much of the country is without power, sewage processing or even water) we'd be horribly criticised on all sides.

It was a war that we shouldn't have started, simply because getting rid of Saddam wasn't worth all the crap the forces involved have had to contend with from all ends of the planet. The world seemed pretty happy with a dictator in Iraq, and obviously that's what everyone should listen to...
 
ComradeBadger said:
1) Regardless, war or not, the hatred for the west was there.

2) Saddam wasn't well liked enough to gain support now from terrorist factons

Anyway, I'm interested to hear this: burner69, what would you do?
Click to expand...

We can't attack countries because they hate us. What we need to do is stop giving them reason to hate us - which the Iraq war, and no doubt the Iran (or whatever country's next) will bring.

They aren't supporting Saddam, they're attacking in protest of the West muscling in and changing their lives.

I wouldn't have let a maniac like that get in that position in the first place.
But if I was presented with information that said that they may have WMDs, I'd certainly make sure it was substantiated by letting my weapons inspectors search about - the last thing I'd do would be launch a full frontal assault which, if he had these 45min WMDs, would intimidate him into using them, and whether he had them or not, would do what is happening now - giving 'terrorists' a common enemy to team up against, and actively attack.
 
It's been proven that weapons inspectors fail to actually find anything.. they failed the first time around..

Oh, and wouldn't not letting a maniac get in that position be 'muscling in and changing their lives'
 
ComradeBadger said:
It's been proven that weapons inspectors fail to actually find anything.. they failed the first time around..

Oh, and wouldn't not letting a maniac get in that position be 'muscling in and changing their lives'
Click to expand...
Well, no.
If you stop him from getting there in the first place it won't effect anyone - because they won't know about him.

And I believe there is evidence to suggest the CIA helped pop him in power in the first place -that clearly effected many ppls lives.
 
Indeed, but you can't deal with that now. I'm talking last year, what would you do: war with Iraq is on the cards.. what would you do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
From Warren Spector to Arkane Studios: Half-Life 2's cancelled Ravenholm episode
Replies
2
Views
10K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Community Interviews: Final Exchange development team
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
Omnomnick
Valve Is On The Move! - ValveTime News Round-Up (20th August 2016)
Replies
0
Views
15K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
Back
Top