European intelligence- Confirmed: Iraq sought Niger Uranium

[He219]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20040628/niger_base_map.gif
Confirmed: Iraq Had Talks on Buying Uranium for Nukes (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/nuclear_iraq_uranium_dc)

LONDON (*******) - Iraq (news - web sites) was among several countries in negotiations to buy supplies of illicit uranium from Niger at least three years before the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), the Financial Times reported Monday.

Intelligence officers learned between 1999 and 2001 that smugglers planned to sell illicitly mined uranium from the West African country to several states, including Iraq, the newspaper reported, citing senior European intelligence sources.

Although the European intelligence material suggested a proactive role by the sellers, intelligence officials said that Iraq actively sought supplies, the FT said.

In the run-up to the war against Iraqi, President Bush (news - web sites) and British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) both accused Saddam of trying to buy uranium from Niger as part of a program to build nuclear weapons.

But their assertions were widely dismissed after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog, said documents meant to support the claims were clearly forged.

Although the United States later retracted the accusation, Britain stuck to its guns and continued to declare it had additional evidence not seen by the IAEA. The accusation formed part of Britain's September 2002 dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which Blair used to justify going to war.

The FT said the smugglers planned to sell uranium mined illicitly in Niger to Iran, Libya, China and North Korea (news - web sites).

Despite evidence that it was supplied to at least two of those countries, it was not clear if talks with Iraq ever led to exports, the report added.

The intelligence officials said human intelligence sources showed there was sufficient evidence to conclude the West African country was the center of a international uranium smuggling operation.

"The sources were trustworthy. There were several sources, and they were reliable sources," an unidentified official involved in the European intelligence gathering operation told the paper.

To date, despite widespread searches in Iraq, there have been no discoveries of an active program to build weapons of mass destruction.

The Axis of the Weasel's agenda starts to unravel ...
:lol:

[He219]

Here is the original article:

IRAQ: Evidence of Niger uranium trade 'years before war' (http://search.ft.com/search/article.html?id=040628000877&query=niger+uranium&vsc_appId=totalSearch&state=Form)


By Mark Huband
Financial Times; Jun 28, 2004

When thieves stole a steel watch and two bottles ofperfume from Niger's embassy on Via Antonio Baiamonti in Rome at the end of December 2000, they left behind many questions about their intentions.

The identity of the thieves has not been established. But one theory is that they planned to steal headed notepaper and official stamps that would allow the forging of documents for the illicit sale of uranium from Niger's vast mines.

The break-in is one of the murkier elements surrounding the claim - made by the US and UK governments in the lead-up to the Iraq war - that Iraq sought to buy uranium illicitly from Niger.

The British government has said repeatedly it stands by intelligence it gathered and used in its controversial September 2002 dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes. It still claims that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger.

But the US intelligence community, officials and politicians, are publicly sceptical, and the public differences between the two allies on the issue have obscured the evidence that lies behind the UK claim.

Until now, the only evidence of Iraq's alleged attempts to buy uranium from Niger had turned out to be a forgery. In October 2002, documents were handed to the US embassy in Rome that appeared to be correspondence between Niger and Iraqi officials.

When the US State Department later passed the documents to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog, they were found to be fake. US officials have subsequently distanced themselves from the entire notion that Iraq was seeking buy uranium from Niger.

However, European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq.

These intelligence officials now say the forged documents appear to have been part of a "scam", and the actual intelligence showing discussion of uranium supply has been ignored.

The fake documents were handed to an Italian journalist working for the Italian magazine Panorama by a businessman in October 2002. According to a senior official with detailed knowledge of the case, this businessman had been dismissed from the Italian armed forces for dishonourable conduct 25 years earlier.

The journalist - Elisabetta Burba - reported in a Panorama article that she suspected the documents were forgeries and handed them to officials at the US embassy in Rome.

The businessman, referred to by a pseudonym in the Panorama article, had previously tried to sell the documents to several intelligence services, according to a western intelligence officer.

It was later established that he had a record of extortion and deception and had been convicted by a Rome court in 1985 and later arrested at least twice. The suspected forger's real name is known to the FT, but cannot be used because of legal constraints. He did not return telephone calls yesterday, and is understood to be planning to reveal selected aspects of his story to a US television channel.

The FT has now learnt that three European intelligence services were aware of possible illicit trade in uranium from Niger between 1999 and 2001. Human intelligence gathered in Italy and Africa more than three years before the Iraq war had shown Niger officials referring to possible illicit uranium deals with at least five countries, including Iraq.

This intelligence provided clues about plans by Libya and Iran to develop their undeclared nuclear programmes. Niger officials were also discussing sales to North Korea and China of uranium ore or the "yellow cake" refined from it: the raw materials that can be progressively enriched to make nuclear bombs.

The raw intelligence on the negotiations included indications that Libya was investing in Niger's uranium industry to prop it up at a time when demand had fallen, and that sales to Iraq were just a part of the clandestine export plan. These secret exports would allow countries with undeclared nuclear programmes to build up uranium stockpiles.

One nuclear counter-proliferation expert told the FT: "If I am going to make a bomb, I am not going to use the uranium that I have declared. I am going to use what I acquire clandestinely, if I am going to keep the programme hidden."

This may have been the method being used by Libya before it agreed last December to abandon its secret nuclear programme. According to the IAEA, there are 2,600 tonnes of refined uranium ore - "yellow cake" - in Libya. However, less than 1,500 tonnes of it is accounted for in Niger records, even though Niger was Libya's main supplier.

Information gathered in 1999-2001 suggested that the uranium sold illicitly would be extracted from mines in Niger that had been abandoned as uneconomic by the two French-owned mining companies - Cominak and Somair, both of which are owned by the mining giant Cogema - operating in Niger.

"Mines can be abandoned by Cogema when they become unproductive. This doesn't mean that people near the mines can't keep on extracting," a senior European counter-proliferation official said.

He added that there was no evidence the companies were aware of the plans for illicit mining.

When the intelligence gathered in 1999-2001 was thrown into the diplomatic maelstrom that preceded the US-led invasion of Iraq, it took on new significance. Several services contributed to the picture.

The Italians, looking for corroboration but lacking the global reach of the CIA or the UK intelligence service MI6, passed information to the US in 2001 and to the UK in 2002.

The UK eavesdropping centre GCHQ had intercepted communications suggesting Iraq was seeking clandestine uranium supplies, as had the French intelligence service.

The Italian intelligence was not incorporated in detail into the assessments of the CIA, which seeks to use such information only when it is gathered from its own sources rather than as a result of liaison with foreign intelligence services. But five months after receiving it, the US sent former ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to assess the credibility of separate US intelligence information that suggested Iraq had approached Niger.

Mr Wilson was critical of the Bush administration's use of secret intelligence, and has since charged that the White House sought to intimidate him by leaking the identity of his wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA agent.

But Mr Wilson also stated in his account of the visit that Mohamed Sayeed al-Sahaf, Iraq's former information minister, was identified to him by a Niger official as having sought to discuss trade with Niger.

As Niger's other main export is goats, some intelligence officials have surmised uranium was what Mr Sahaf was referring to.

:lol:

[cut]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20040628/niger_base_map.gif
Confirmed: Iraq Had Talks on Buying Uranium for Nukes (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/nuclear_iraq_uranium_dc)

LONDON (*******) - Iraq (news - web sites) was among several countries in negotiations to buy supplies of illicit uranium from Niger at least three years before the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), the Financial Times reported Monday.

Intelligence officers learned between 1999 and 2001 that smugglers planned to sell illicitly mined uranium from the West African country to several states, including Iraq, the newspaper reported, citing senior European intelligence sources.

Although the European intelligence material suggested a proactive role by the sellers, intelligence officials said that Iraq actively sought supplies, the FT said.

In the run-up to the war against Iraqi, President Bush (news - web sites) and British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) both accused Saddam of trying to buy uranium from Niger as part of a program to build nuclear weapons.

But their assertions were widely dismissed after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog, said documents meant to support the claims were clearly forged.

Although the United States later retracted the accusation, Britain stuck to its guns and continued to declare it had additional evidence not seen by the IAEA. The accusation formed part of Britain's September 2002 dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which Blair used to justify going to war.

The FT said the smugglers planned to sell uranium mined illicitly in Niger to Iran, Libya, China and North Korea (news - web sites).

Despite evidence that it was supplied to at least two of those countries, it was not clear if talks with Iraq ever led to exports, the report added.

The intelligence officials said human intelligence sources showed there was sufficient evidence to conclude the West African country was the center of a international uranium smuggling operation.

"The sources were trustworthy. There were several sources, and they were reliable sources," an unidentified official involved in the European intelligence gathering operation told the paper.

To date, despite widespread searches in Iraq, there have been no discoveries of an active program to build weapons of mass destruction.

The Axis of the Weasel's agenda starts to unravel ...
:lol:

before you start talking about weasel's which European intelligence agency is it?

[moughoun]

Yes,it doesn't count if it's any of the coalition of the willing p-)

[Secret Squirrel]

Yes,it doesn't count if it's any of the coalition of the willing p-)

Hrm...first it was a forged document...then it was an assumption as to what Mr Sahaf meant...oh and of course the human intelligence factors...I dont know, i'm still a little paranoid when it comes to human intelligence regarding Iraq (we all know how Bush's secret Iraqi intelligence source played out).

[scm77]

Uh-oh! If Saddam was looking for Uranium, that would mean that Bush didn't lie!

So obviously that intelligence report is complete rubbish. ;)

[scm77]

The Axis of the Weasel's agenda starts to unravel ...
:lol:

rofl woot

Of course if this does get any media exposure, the dems will just say "It's not important if Iraq was looking for uranium of not. Whats important is the President took us to war on a lie." etc. etc.

[Kitsune]

He219, why do you still try to do this. Quote form the first articles:

To date, despite widespread searches in Iraq, there have been no discoveries of an active program to build weapons of mass destruction.

I tell you this: I lived at the time just before Gulfwar II started. And therfore I know what Bush claimed.
He said: "This Iraqi dictator is amassing and stockpiling WMDs. He secretly has chemical weapons hidden away. He secretaly produces more poison gas. He is stockpiling it. We have proof that he does this, also to protect our sources we cannot say what proof.
There is also a program underway in Iraq to create biological weapons. For this Saddam uses mibile laboratories, mounted on trucks. They are devising the most deadly weapons known to man. We have lots of proof for this.
And there is a nuclear program aimed at creating a nuclear bomb. Saddam is close to this goal...very close. He has or has tried to buy Uranium from Niger. We have proof. Undeniable proof. We have to act know or truth will face us in the form of a mushroom shaped cloud...

All in all we have amassed a mountain of undeinable proof, that Saddam is doing this. He has to be stopped. Before it is to late. Remember Hitler."

After the war...not stockpiles of WMD, neither chemical nor biological nor nuclear were found. Iraq is gone...so no reason to keep this mountain of evidence secret any longer...but where is it? It's gone. In fact it wasn't there from the first place.

Bush lied. Face it.

If now, surprisingly, a big hidden laboratory where WMDs are created, would be found in the deserts of Iraq, it would not change the fact. Because he knew nothing about it.
If someone frame someone else for murder, to have him locked away but later on it is found out that, unkown to the lier, the guy actually did commit the murder, does that make the lier a better man?

Bush lied. To the American people. To you. Straight to your face. Why do you let him get away with it? He could do it again after all.
But its your decisision. I would not. And most British think the same about Blair. They are not as forgiving as you are.

[AVZ]

Yeah, and exactly those Weapons of "mass" destruction were delivered by the US during the Iraq - Iran war!!!!!!!!!!

Each time you hear something like "WMD found in Iraq" you have to ask:

- How old are those shells ???????? (referrring to Iraq - Iran war)
- if the Iraqis would have produced it, they would probably have more than plenty of it/and would have used it against the coalition during the war/Invation of their country!!!!!!
- one yar is over and they haven't found any BIG prove for it




II do not believe in those comments. Not yet nor in future.

[Macs.]

Yeah, and exactly those Weapons of "mass" destruction were delivered by the US during the Iraq - Iran war!!!!!!!!!!


You can't just blame the US for that, many countrys (Yeah, even germany and france :roll: ) sold technic to produce WMDs and closed their eyes.

The West could solve 2 problems at one time at the iraq - iran war.

1. Weaken the radical iran
2. Make some money

[budanski]

I tell you this: I lived at the time just before Gulfwar II started. And therfore I know what Bush claimed.
He said: "This Iraqi dictator is amassing and stockpiling WMDs. He secretly has chemical weapons hidden away. He secretaly produces more poison gas. He is stockpiling it. We have proof that he does this, also to protect our sources we cannot say what proof.
There is also a program underway in Iraq to create biological weapons. For this Saddam uses mibile laboratories, mounted on trucks. They are devising the most deadly weapons known to man. We have lots of proof for this.
And there is a nuclear program aimed at creating a nuclear bomb. Saddam is close to this goal...very close. He has or has tried to buy Uranium from Niger. We have proof. Undeniable proof. We have to act know or truth will face us in the form of a mushroom shaped cloud...

All in all we have amassed a mountain of undeinable proof, that Saddam is doing this. He has to be stopped. Before it is to late. Remember Hitler."

After the war...not stockpiles of WMD, neither chemical nor biological nor nuclear were found. Iraq is gone...so no reason to keep this mountain of evidence secret any longer...but where is it? It's gone. In fact it wasn't there from the first place.
Bush lied. Face it.

If now, surprisingly, a big hidden laboratory where WMDs are created, would be found in the deserts of Iraq, it would not change the fact. Because he knew nothing about it.
If someone frame someone else for murder, to have him locked away but later on it is found out that, unkown to the lier, the guy actually did commit the murder, does that make the lier a better man?

Bush lied. To the American people. To you. Straight to your face. Why do you let him get away with it? He could do it again after all.
But its your decisision. I would not. And most British think the same about Blair. They are not as forgiving as you are.
:roll: yeah, I lived at that time myself, and I know what everyone else was claiming (http://www.lifegoeson.net/InTruth/iraqnuke.htm)... The fact that you leave out that what Bush knew or claimed was widely shared, known and believed throughout the world intelligence community. Most of the intelligence came from UN inspectors themselves. What do you suppose supported the UN's resolutions on Iraq since 1991? We would just assume that the opposition opted to stay out due to moral obligations (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,918857,00.html).

A centrifuge (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1968195) here (under a rose bush) and a little Sarin and Mustard there, was still enough evidence that Saddam did not disarm (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18242&start=80). Combine that with the extended delivery systems that were prohibited and the binary shells we are still finding and Saddam was a threat...Period!

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Saddam was a threat eh? With his Iran war era artillery shells with no tubes, that were burried...I'd sure want to fire those ones off :roll:

Can you hit the US from Iraq with a well placed artillery shot? I think not, so Iraq wasnt an "iminent" threat.

Extended delivery systems? He had a couple missles laying around that he shouldnt have had...hardly justification for 855 dead US soldiers.

I too heard the reports that "Saddams stockpiling weapons of mass destruction under schools n hospitals ect" I too believed those, but its been long since "major combat operations" are over.

You guys are grasping at straws trying to "prove" the whole WMD thing, you know why? You shouldnt have to, because if he was supposidly stockpiling a bunch of weapons (wmds) like we were lead to believe, when you found them it would be clear and straightforward...and you wouldnt have people arguing against the point.

[budanski]

Saddam was a threat eh? With his Iran war era artillery shells with no tubes, that were burried...I'd sure want to fire those ones off :roll:

Can you hit the US from Iraq with a well placed artillery shot? I think not, so Iraq wasnt an "iminent" threat.

Extended delivery systems? He had a couple missles laying around that he shouldnt have had...hardly justification for 855 dead US soldiers.

I too heard the reports that "Saddams stockpiling weapons of mass destruction under schools n hospitals ect" I too believed those, but its been long since "major combat operations" are over.

You guys are grasping at straws trying to "prove" the whole WMD thing, you know why? You shouldnt have to, because if he was supposidly stockpiling a bunch of weapons (wmds) like we were lead to believe, when you found them it would be clear and straightforward...and you wouldnt have people arguing against the point.
I've addressed your previous comments here (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18242&start=80).



Well, theres no point arguing that the WMD in the form of artillery shells (most likely from Iran-ear) would post absolutely no threat to the United States, even with the tubes. And defineatly shouldnt be considered an iminent (sp?) threat in any way, its just hardcore right wing's searching for reasons to justify there war for there president.

If it was a threat to anyone from the US it would be to the soldiers dealing with the weapons / testing them. Some iminent threat.....
Keep moving the goal posts.:roll: Ah, so now it's been redefined to: 'pose no threat to the United States...' They were required to destroy EVERYTHING they had, right down to the very last vial of anthrax and sarin gas shell. This according to the UN Resolutions Iraq had broken. The UN resolution regarding Iraq's WMDs states that any and all banned weapons had to be destroyed and their destruction verified. NO mention is made as to dates of manufacture, methods used, quantities etc. Also, Iraq was prohibited from even having programmes related to banned weapons. Oh well, the critics has never allowed facts to get in the way of their rhetoric.

Bush never said imminent threat or anything remotely close when he made the case for war (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html). Bush described Iraq’s chemical weapons programs and Saddam’s willingness to use them. Bush then asked, ‘does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?’ Bush is clear, Iraq might be dangerous now, but the real threat is in the future.

I don't like sounding like a broken record but this topic comes back up everytime. WMD was but one of many reasons to go into iraq. Future threats from WMDs, Saddam's human right abuses, A threat to the area, Saddam's support of terrorism, Iraq’s failure to meet its obligations it agreed to as conditions to ending the Persian Gulf War and Saddam’s ‘eleven-year history of defiance’. This defiance by many is considered the primary justification of war. However, Bush’s critics conveniently don’t mention this.

Its kids like you who like to hark the "Bush Lied" rhetoric.

[Trigger]

Saddam was a threat eh? With his Iran war era artillery shells with no tubes, that were burried...I'd sure want to fire those ones off :roll:

Can you hit the US from Iraq with a well placed artillery shot? I think not, so Iraq wasnt an "iminent" threat.

*Extended delivery systems? He had a couple missles laying around that he shouldnt have had...*hardly justification for 855 dead US soldiers.

I too heard the reports that "Saddams stockpiling weapons of mass destruction under schools n hospitals ect" I too believed those, but its been long since "major combat operations" are over.

You guys are grasping at straws trying to "prove" the whole WMD thing, you know why? You shouldnt have to, because if he was supposidly stockpiling a bunch of weapons (wmds) like we were lead to believe, when you found them it would be clear and straightforward...and you wouldnt have people arguing against the point.

*Also known as terrorists

*Maybe we should have waited for 855,000 dead civilians before acting, is that your logic?

You are so far out to lunch on this it's not even funny.
Why don't you wait for a topic you're qualified to discuss next time.

[Roxer]

If someone frame someone else for murder, to have him locked away but later on it is found out that, unkown to the lier, the guy actually did commit the murder, does that make the lier a better man?



Your analogy is somewhat intellectually dishonest. It goes on the presumption that the individual started out to lie before taking the action. That is a straw man argument - in other words, you cannot prove a negative. Lawyers convict individuals all the time on circumstantial evidence. Must be an accepted practice because all nations use it – even foreign intelligence services that all said the same thing including the UN. A better look is to say:

To your father keeping some of your stuff in his house:

I need my old jacket - he says it's in the attic packed away. You check and it's not there. You later find it in the basement. You retrieve it and he states that he knew it was in the house somewhere, but it was not where he said it was. Was he lying? Maybe he moved it without knowing? Who knows, but to suggest that he was knowingly lying is a bit over-the-top. When you can conclusively prove that by other than innuendo, let me know. It's funny you will accept circumstantial evidence concerning the President lying, but not as to the intelligence behind his statements. Go figure.

The article does exonerate the statement made to the US in his January State of the Union speech - like it or not. And as a side note - 4 years to find them in the first place and now they are just starting to trickle out. Maybe in another 3 years, but not in this microwave world. It took us five years to find Eric Rudolph in a territory the size of Ashville, NC...

[Secret Squirrel]

The article does exonerate the statement made to the US in his January State of the Union speech - like it or not. And as a side note - 4 years to find them in the first place and now they are just starting to trickle out. Maybe in another 3 years, but not in this microwave world. It took us five years to find Eric Rudolph in a territory the size of Ashville, NC...


However, European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq.

why wasnt Niger invaded? Maybe I was out of the news loop but when did these multiple European intelligence offciers reveal their information? Just recently? Seems like a silly thing to wait this long when a country is selling uranian to various "trouble" countries.


The FT has now learnt that three European intelligence services were aware of possible illicit trade in uranium from Niger between 1999 and 2001. Human intelligence gathered in Italy and Africa more than three years before the Iraq war had shown Niger officials referring to possible illicit uranium deals with at least five countries, including Iraq.

Hrm possible deals...maybe my neighbor who owns a gun is going possibly shoot me...i better go call the cops.


The UK eavesdropping centre GCHQ had intercepted communications suggesting Iraq was seeking clandestine uranium supplies , as had the French intelligence service.

Guess we'll have to wait 30 years to see exactly what the UK intercepted.


But Mr Wilson also stated in his account of the visit that Mohamed Sayeed al-Sahaf, Iraq's former information minister, was identified to him by a Niger official as having sought to discuss trade with Niger.

As Niger's other main export is goats, some intelligence officials have surmised uranium was what Mr Sahaf was referring to.

Ah so he's assuming to know what the discussion was about, but he doesnt actually know.

http://img77.photobucket.com/albums/v233/SSSquirrel/secret_squirrel.gif

[usa320]

What kind of dumbass uses comics to try and argue a point?

A nuclear bomb could go off and Saddam could admit it was his and these people hate America so much they still wouldnt believe it.

Thats all this is... Its not about insufficient proof, Its not about money or oil. The reason these people dont believe any of the clear evidence shown is that they hate America so much, why, beats the hell out of me, that they can not STAND to see America do anything right, they pop a ***** thinking about the US Failing in Iraq... Hate to make you stuborn guys impotent, but were winning.

WTF is the problem with France, they knew for a fact that this Uranium trade was going on, just as we did, just as Italy and the UK did, just as Germany and Russia did... yet they still wouldnt support us...

[Secret Squirrel]

What kind of dumbass uses comics to try and argue a point?

A nuclear bomb could go off and Saddam could admit it was his and these people hate America so much they still wouldnt believe it.

Thats all this is... Its not about insufficient proof, Its not about money or oil. The reason these people dont believe any of the clear evidence shown is that they hate America so much, why, beats the hell out of me, that they can not STAND to see America do anything right, they pop a ***** thinking about the US Failing in Iraq... Hate to make you stuborn guys impotent, but were winning.

WTF is the problem with France, they knew for a fact that this Uranium trade was going on, just as we did, just as Italy and the UK did, just as Germany and Russia did... yet they still wouldnt support us...

what kind of "dumbass" writes a post without any "points"? Your attempts at broad brushing everyone against the war or who question the reasons as being nothing more than "anti-american" is just plain ignorant. It also shows you cant rationalize your argument so you have to try and find a simple reason that fits into your demented mindset. Is Tane also Anti-American too?

[East]

It is quite possible for Hussan to have smuggled the WMD's out of Iraq when he felt war was imminent...

[budanski]

It is quite possible for Hussan to have smuggled the WMD's out of Iraq when he felt war was imminent...
Not possible. Its not like he's done such acts in the past (http://216.26.163.62/2002/me_iraq_07_23.html). ;)


"Iraq also requested that Teheran return more than 40 military aircraft flown to Iran during the 1991 Gulf war to prevent their destruction by the United States."

[He219]

As you wipe egg off your face, Kitsune, make sure to look back in the future to all those disparaging remarks you made in the past about the United States and our President ...

:lol:

[Secret Squirrel]

It is quite possible for Hussan to have smuggled the WMD's out of Iraq when he felt war was imminent...
Not possible. Its not like he's done such acts in the past (http://216.26.163.62/2002/me_iraq_07_23.html). ;)


"Iraq also requested that Teheran return more than 40 military aircraft flown to Iran during the 1991 Gulf war to prevent their destruction by the United States."

sarcasm regarding the possibility for Saddam to have smuggled things out of his country? Hrm, I dont know the answer specifically, but i assume there have been at least some technological changes regarding surveillance in the past 12-14 years since the first Gulf war.

[East]

The thing is...we just don't know. There are to many *what if's?*

[Kitsune]

He219 wrote:
As you wipe egg off your face, Kitsune, make sure to look back in the future to all those disparaging remarks you made in the past about the United States and our President ...



Thats quite an enigmatic statement...hmmm...I got to think about it for a while....hmmm.....















...is this egg a symbol or something? For what?.....hmmm.....damn this will take all night...













:lol:

[Roxer]

What kind of dumbass uses comics to try and argue a point?

A nuclear bomb could go off and Saddam could admit it was his and these people hate America so much they still wouldnt believe it.

Thats all this is... Its not about insufficient proof, Its not about money or oil. The reason these people dont believe any of the clear evidence shown is that they hate America so much, why, beats the hell out of me, that they can not STAND to see America do anything right, they pop a ***** thinking about the US Failing in Iraq... Hate to make you stuborn guys impotent, but were winning.

WTF is the problem with France, they knew for a fact that this Uranium trade was going on, just as we did, just as Italy and the UK did, just as Germany and Russia did... yet they still wouldnt support us...

what kind of "dumbass" writes a post without any "points"? Your attempts at broad brushing everyone against the war or who question the reasons as being nothing more than "anti-american" is just plain ignorant. It also shows you cant rationalize your argument so you have to try and find a simple reason that fits into your demented mindset. Is Tane also Anti-American too?

Given that you did use a "comic" to make your point, he is right. As to the other points, I can concede to you. Broad brushing is wrong as questions should be asked regardless of one's position on the war. The comic is of course based on conjecture, which is funny since you just "fisked" the original article poitning out those things you see as inferences.

[Secret Squirrel]

What kind of dumbass uses comics to try and argue a point?

A nuclear bomb could go off and Saddam could admit it was his and these people hate America so much they still wouldnt believe it.

Thats all this is... Its not about insufficient proof, Its not about money or oil. The reason these people dont believe any of the clear evidence shown is that they hate America so much, why, beats the hell out of me, that they can not STAND to see America do anything right, they pop a ***** thinking about the US Failing in Iraq... Hate to make you stuborn guys impotent, but were winning.

WTF is the problem with France, they knew for a fact that this Uranium trade was going on, just as we did, just as Italy and the UK did, just as Germany and Russia did... yet they still wouldnt support us...

what kind of "dumbass" writes a post without any "points"? Your attempts at broad brushing everyone against the war or who question the reasons as being nothing more than "anti-american" is just plain ignorant. It also shows you cant rationalize your argument so you have to try and find a simple reason that fits into your demented mindset. Is Tane also Anti-American too?

Given that you did use a "comic" to make your point, he is right. As to the other points, I can concede to you. Broad brushing is wrong as questions should be asked regardless of one's position on the war. The comic is of course based on conjecture, which is funny since you just "fisked" the original article poitning out those things you see as inferences.

the comic elucidated my previous points as i examined parts of the article. The article in question is written in a way that suggests a lot of things but fails to conclusively prove anything, so it was more or less pointless (just as its pointless to try and argue using merely cartoons). I proved my point when usa320 only responded to the cartoon rather than to the questions/points i made regarding the article. woot