List of WMD finds?

[Old300]

Hey y'all. I know of a few WMD-related finds in Iraq over the past few months: a few sarin shells rigged as IED's; the sarin or cyclosarin shells the Poles found a while back; the enriched uranium from Iraq that was discovered in Holland; the nuclear material we removed from the country recently that's in the news today; and I vaguely remember reading about some random mustard and sarin gas shells found here and there.

Also, of course, the Iraq Survey Group revealed the banned missile programs and dual-use facilities that violated various UN Security Council resolutions.

And I think I remember that an Iraqi government scientist buried a bunch of vials of sarin in his backyard.

Anyway, I was wondering whether someone out there is organized and industrious enough to collect and post news links to these and any other WMD finds. It would be best if whoever undertakes this task would link to only very reputable news sites.

I want this information for ammo in political arguments with friends. It'd also be good for some of those who still claim that "Bush lied!" and "There were no WMD!" could read the truth for themselves.

Thanks in advance. I think this'll be good for everybody (and I'd do it myself if I had the time). Thanks again.

[ArmedPacifist]

for ****s sake

Die already :fork:

[Old300]

I might not get any takers on helping me with this, but it's still an important issue, especially to those who oppose the war. Just yesterday PM Blair's concession that "we may never find" WMD was front page news on both sides of the Atlantic. The issue isn't dead and, until it is, I think it's important that we be clear about not only what we haven't found - and of course we haven't found as much as we'd expected - but also what have found - and what we have found is much more than war critics would like to admit. Thanks.

[OB Kenobi]

I might not get any takers on helping me with this, but it's still an important issue, especially to those who oppose the war. Just yesterday PM Blair's concession that "we may never find" WMD was front page news on both sides of the Atlantic. The issue isn't dead and, until it is, I think it's important that we be clear about not only what we haven't found - and of course we haven't found as much as we'd expected - but also what have found - and what we have found is much more than war critics would like to admit. Thanks.

No one denies that George Bu$h Sr and Reagan sent Saddam that WMD and/or the equipment to produce it to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, the issue in dispute is whether or not Saddam continued hsi WMD program. A few stray shells from that era don't mean much, after all, Bu$h Jr didn't allow the inspections to complete. Just look at how long it has taken troops to find this much with unfettered access to all of Iraq.

Face it, George Bu$h (and Tony Blair) is a liar and their political careers are coming to an end. We can only hope that there will also be criminal prosecution for their treasonous acts.

[OB Kenobi]

I might not get any takers on helping me with this, but it's still an important issue, especially to those who oppose the war. Just yesterday PM Blair's concession that "we may never find" WMD was front page news on both sides of the Atlantic. The issue isn't dead and, until it is, I think it's important that we be clear about not only what we haven't found - and of course we haven't found as much as we'd expected - but also what have found - and what we have found is much more than war critics would like to admit. Thanks.

No one denies that George Bu$h Sr and Reagan sent Saddam that WMD and/or the equipment to produce it to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, the issue in dispute is whether or not Saddam continued hsi WMD program. A few stray shells from that era don't mean much, after all, Bu$h Jr didn't allow the inspections to complete. Just look at how long it has taken troops to find this much with unfettered access to all of Iraq.

Face it, George Bu$h (and Tony Blair) is a liar and their political careers are coming to an end. We can only hope that there will also be criminal prosecution for their treasonous acts.

[Operation Ivy]

Face it, George Bu$h (and Tony Blair) is a liar and their political careers are coming to an end. We can only hope that there will also be criminal prosecution for their treasonous acts

:roll:



Bush 4 More Years

[OB Kenobi]

I might not get any takers on helping me with this, but it's still an important issue, especially to those who oppose the war. Just yesterday PM Blair's concession that "we may never find" WMD was front page news on both sides of the Atlantic. The issue isn't dead and, until it is, I think it's important that we be clear about not only what we haven't found - and of course we haven't found as much as we'd expected - but also what have found - and what we have found is much more than war critics would like to admit. Thanks.

No one denies that George Bu$h Sr and Reagan sent Saddam that WMD and/or the equipment to produce it to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, the issue in dispute is whether or not Saddam continued hsi WMD program. A few stray shells from that era don't mean much, after all, Bu$h Jr didn't allow the inspections to complete. Just look at how long it has taken troops to find this much with unfettered access to all of Iraq.

Face it, George Bu$h (and Tony Blair) is a liar and their political careers are coming to an end. We can only hope that there will also be criminal prosecution for their treasonous acts.

[OB Kenobi]

I might not get any takers on helping me with this, but it's still an important issue, especially to those who oppose the war. Just yesterday PM Blair's concession that "we may never find" WMD was front page news on both sides of the Atlantic. The issue isn't dead and, until it is, I think it's important that we be clear about not only what we haven't found - and of course we haven't found as much as we'd expected - but also what have found - and what we have found is much more than war critics would like to admit. Thanks.

No one denies that George Bu$h Sr and Reagan sent Saddam that WMD and/or the equipment to produce it to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, the issue in dispute is whether or not Saddam continued hsi WMD program. A few stray shells from that era don't mean much, after all, Bu$h Jr didn't allow the inspections to complete. Just look at how long it has taken troops to find this much with unfettered access to all of Iraq.

Face it, George Bu$h (and Tony Blair) is a liar and their political careers are coming to an end. We can only hope that there will also be criminal prosecution for their treasonous acts.

[OB Kenobi]

What the hell is going on!? I didn't mean to post that multiple times.

[Old300]

I might not get any takers on helping me with this, but it's still an important issue, especially to those who oppose the war. Just yesterday PM Blair's concession that "we may never find" WMD was front page news on both sides of the Atlantic. The issue isn't dead and, until it is, I think it's important that we be clear about not only what we haven't found - and of course we haven't found as much as we'd expected - but also what have found - and what we have found is much more than war critics would like to admit. Thanks.

No one denies that George Bu$h Sr and Reagan sent Saddam that WMD and/or the equipment to produce it to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, the issue in dispute is whether or not Saddam continued hsi WMD program. A few stray shells from that era don't mean much, after all, Bu$h Jr didn't allow the inspections to complete. Just look at how long it has taken troops to find this much with unfettered access to all of Iraq.

Face it, George Bu$h (and Tony Blair) is a liar and their political careers are coming to an end. We can only hope that there will also be criminal prosecution for their treasonous acts.

Even if it were true that Iraq ceased production of WMD after the Iran war, their stockpiles and latent programs would still be dangerous.

But you may remember that, after one of Saddam's son-in-laws defected to Jordan in the mid-1990's, UNMOVIC learned of a lot of new material and, after months of Iraqi obfuscation and stalling, were allowed to inspect and destroy most of it (i.e. most of the new stuff they'd learned about).

The fact remains that there are tons - many tons, in fact - of WMD materials that have never been accounted for, as per the terms of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreements and numerous binding UN Security Council resolutions.

No, we haven't found a smoking gun. And Tony Blair might be right: we may never find one.

But that stuff is out there. Saddam didn't just destroy it out of the kindness of his heart; nor did he keep such desctruction secret, for doing so - if one is insane enough to believe that he did, indeed, do so - not only cost him billions in oil revenues, much of his army, and the skies over half of his country but, ultimately, his job and, hopefully soon, his life as well.

[Sayeret]

A few stray shells from that era don't mean much, after all, Bu$h Jr didn't allow the inspections to complete. Just look at how long it has taken troops to find this much with unfettered access to all of Iraq.

Same old OB Kenobi

[Harlequin]

But that stuff is out there. Saddam didn't just destroy it out of the kindness of his heart; nor did he keep such desctruction secret, for doing so
It just boiles down whether somebody believes or not and not whether somebody _known_. IMO only believing is not enough.

[Old300]

But that stuff is out there. Saddam didn't just destroy it out of the kindness of his heart; nor did he keep such desctruction secret, for doing so
It just boiles down whether somebody believes or not and not whether somebody _known_. IMO only believing is not enough.

That's why I want news links - to limit subjectivity regarding the issue.

[He219]

OB Kenobi, those multiple posts will get you banned! Stop it.
;)


Also, you are a complete fool to say that the US shipped WMD's to Iraq. The US furnished cultures available to the international bio-medical industry for other uses. Saddam decided to produce WMD with those cultures using fermenters and other WMD related equipment supplied by Germany and many others in the international community.

Are you also about to recuse the entire international communtiy for supplying Saddam with this stuff and Sadddam using it to put together a WMD program and that he used offensively against the Iranians and the Iraqi Kurds?


:roll:

[OB Kenobi]

Even if it were true that Iraq ceased production of WMD after the Iran war, their stockpiles and latent programs would still be dangerous.


What stockpiles?



But you may remember that, after one of Saddam's son-in-laws defected to Jordan in the mid-1990's, UNMOVIC learned of a lot of new material and, after months of Iraqi obfuscation and stalling, were allowed to inspect and destroy most of it (i.e. most of the new stuff they'd learned about).


Ah, so they destroyed them?



The fact remains that there are tons - many tons, in fact - of WMD materials that have never been accounted for, as per the terms of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreements and numerous binding UN Security Council resolutions.


Do you have any evidence of this "fact"?



No, we haven't found a smoking gun. And Tony Blair might be right: we may never find one.

So you don't actually have any evidence of this "fact"?



Saddam didn't just destroy it out of the kindness of his heart; nor did he keep such desctruction secret, for doing so - if one is insane enough to believe that he did, indeed, do so - not only cost him billions in oil revenues, much of his army, and the skies over half of his country but, ultimately, his job and, hopefully soon, his life as well.

Unless ofcourse Saddam realized he was going to be invaded no matter what he did. Ten years of bombing, ever heightening belligerency by the US and UK, the invasion of Yugoslavia, and finally the son of his arch enemy coming into office might have given him a clue. Better in that case to make a fool out of the Bu$h petroleum oligarchy and Neocons when they fail to find the WMD than commit suicide.

That would also explain why the Iraqi resistance was so well-prepared.

There is more than one way to fight a war, and the arrogant aggressor tends to lose every time. The aggressor loses because he goes to war under false pretenses, because he cannot sustain the will to fight.

Simply put, Bu$h chose an unpopular war, and failed to make the case for that war. In large part because of his family's sordid past and business connections.

Unpopular wars don't last very long in Democratic societies. If this was Nazi Germany or the USSR maybe he could have squeezed a few more years out of it, but in America this kind of thing won't fly. Bu$h may have fooled some Americans once, but he's not going to get away with it again.

[Old300]

Even if it were true that Iraq ceased production of WMD after the Iran war, their stockpiles and latent programs would still be dangerous.


What stockpiles?



But you may remember that, after one of Saddam's son-in-laws defected to Jordan in the mid-1990's, UNMOVIC learned of a lot of new material and, after months of Iraqi obfuscation and stalling, were allowed to inspect and destroy most of it (i.e. most of the new stuff they'd learned about).


Ah, so they destroyed them?



The fact remains that there are tons - many tons, in fact - of WMD materials that have never been accounted for, as per the terms of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreements and numerous binding UN Security Council resolutions.


Do you have any evidence of this "fact"?



No, we haven't found a smoking gun. And Tony Blair might be right: we may never find one.

So you don't actually have any evidence of this "fact"?



Saddam didn't just destroy it out of the kindness of his heart; nor did he keep such desctruction secret, for doing so - if one is insane enough to believe that he did, indeed, do so - not only cost him billions in oil revenues, much of his army, and the skies over half of his country but, ultimately, his job and, hopefully soon, his life as well.

Unless ofcourse Saddam realized he was going to be invaded no matter what he did. Ten years of bombing, ever heightening belligerency by the US and UK, the invasion of Yugoslavia, and finally the son of his arch enemy coming into office might have given him a clue. Better in that case to make a fool out of the Bu$h petroleum oligarchy and Neocons when they fail to find the WMD than commit suicide.

That would also explain why the Iraqi resistance was so well-prepared.

There is more than one way to fight a war, and the arrogant aggressor tends to lose every time. The aggressor loses because he goes to war under false pretenses, because he cannot sustain the will to fight.

Simply put, Bu$h chose an unpopular war, and failed to make the case for that war. In large part because of his family's sordid past and business connections.

Unpopular wars don't last very long in Democratic societies. If this was Nazi Germany or the USSR maybe he could have squeezed a few more years out of it, but in America this kind of thing won't fly. Bu$h may have fooled some Americans once, but he's not going to get away with it again.

I really don't know what to say to any of that.

Anyway, if somebody has the links I asked for, I (and a lot of other people, probably) would appreciate it. Thanks.

[stephane from Paris]

Hey y'all. I know of a few WMD-related finds in Iraq over the past few months: a few sarin shells rigged as IED's; the sarin or cyclosarin shells the Poles found a while back;

You begin badly since Pole defence minister admit recently they didn't find WMD in these shell!!!!!
The problem is some medias jumped on it but don't says the end of the story!!!!!!
Still NO WMD found!!!! And certainly not the amount Powell said he has proofs of it in UN council!
btw Blair asked this week they don't find some and perhaps they never find any!

[mack pl]

the sarin or cyclosarin shells the Poles found a while back

Chemical munitions found by Polish soldiers in Iraq date back to 1980s

MONIKA SCISLOWSKA, Associated Press Writer

(07-02) 05:36 PDT WARSAW, Poland (AP) --

Warheads believed to contain the deadly nerve agent cyclosarin that were found by Polish troops in Iraq date back to Saddam Hussein's war with Iran in the 1980s, authorities said Friday.

"Beyond any doubt, the warheads date back to 1980-88 and were used against the Kurds and in the Iraqi-Iranian war," said a statement from the Polish command.

Last month, Polish troops in south-central Iraq recovered 17 rockets for a Soviet-era launcher and two mortar rounds filled with chemical substances, said Lt. Col. Robert Strzelecki, a spokesman for the Polish-led force, in a telephone interview from Iraq.

"Laboratory tests showed the presence in them of cyclosarin, a very toxic gas, five times stronger than sarin and five times more durable," multinational force commander Gen. Mieczyslaw Bieniek told Poland's TVN24 at the force's Camp Babylon headquarters.

"If these warheads, which were still usable, were used on a military base like Camp Babylon, they would have caused unforeseeable damage," Bieniek said.

The tests were done by American experts in the United States and Iraq and are still ongoing.

The munitions were found in a bunker in the Polish sector.

In May, an artillery shell apparently filled with the sarin nerve agent was discovered at the side of the road in Baghdad by U.S. forces. Officials at the time stopped short of claiming the munition was definite evidence of a large weapons stockpile in prewar Iraq or evidence of recent production by Saddam's regime.

..........
Regards

[Mark Sman]

A good starting place, and place to keep up with new stuff.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf

[Mark Sman]

List of UNMOVIC reports
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/document_list.asp

[He219]

You begin badly since Pole defence minister admit recently they didn't find WMD in these shell!!!!!
The problem is some medias jumped on it but don't says the end of the story!!!!!!

Greetings stephane,

You must be mistaking this with the Roland Missiles France sold to Saddam that were found by the Poles.
;)

Two warheads found by the Poles in June did test for cyclosarin. The US tested negative on the other fourteen found ...

[Secret Squirrel]

Hey y'all. I know of a few WMD-related finds in Iraq over the past few months: a few sarin shells rigged as IED's;

I thought it was one shell from the Iraq-Iran war era that was mistakenly used as an IED. The shell in question needed to be fired and not blown up (it had two chemical inside that, when fired, the tubes would break and the chemicals inside would mix during flight to produce sarin).


the sarin or cyclosarin shells the Poles found a while back;


You mean the ones in rusted shells that were either bought or found depending on which report you believe? The ones that also had almost nothing left in them?


; the nuclear material we removed from the country recently that's in the news today;

can you be a little more specific?


and I vaguely remember reading about some random mustard and sarin gas shells found here and there.

vaguely? random? was this thrown in for affect?


And I think I remember that an Iraqi government scientist buried a bunch of vials of sarin in his backyard.

I could be wrong, but i think sarin was produced during an attack (ie. mixing two chemicals). Sarin has an extremely high rate of evaporation so it would be easier to deal with it while it was still two seperate chemicals. Of course i dont know this for a fact, its just my opinion.


I want this information for ammo in political arguments with friends. It'd also be good for some of those who still claim that "Bush lied!" and "There were no WMD!" could read the truth for themselves.

Bush's claim was that Saddam was actively producing and stockpiling WMDs and that Saddam was a threat to America and world peace. Finding shells dated from the Iraq-Iran war, which are more or less useless, are hardly the smoking gun that Bush sold in the run up to war.

*note* i've left out some parts of the original post, if you have a problem with this i can put them back in. I included the posts i was responding to.

[Mark Sman]

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/resolutions/s-res-1441.pdf

To bad Iraq didn't comply with the terms of the cease fire.

[Secret Squirrel]

You begin badly since Pole defence minister admit recently they didn't find WMD in these shell!!!!!
The problem is some medias jumped on it but don't says the end of the story!!!!!!

Greetings stephane,

You must be mistaking this with the Roland Missiles France sold to Saddam that were found by the Poles.
;)

Two warheads found by the Poles in June did test for cyclosarin. The US tested negative on the other fourteen found ...


NOw AP and dpa state that US milittary says that shels found by Poles are rusted and not-usable, and almost no gas left in them..WTF?
In POlish
http://info.onet.pl/945176,11,item.html <--how good is your polish? mine sucks so if someone could translate it would be appreciated.

[OB Kenobi]

OB Kenobi, those multiple posts will get you banned! Stop it.
;)


Have you considered adding a delete button? I've seen those kinds of things on some other boards, very impressive technology. :lol:



Also, you are a complete fool to say that the US shipped WMD's to Iraq. The US furnished cultures available to the international bio-medical industry for other uses. Saddam decided to produce WMD with those using fermenters supplied by Germany and other WMD related equipment provided by the international community.


I am not insinuating that the US was the only country involved, but anyone but a fool would have to admit that the US heavily backed Saddam against Iran during the time, as well as certain Islamic terrorist factions against the USSR. Besides the involvement of European countries that were highlighted by the Bu$h administration as a response to Franco-Germanic opposition to the war, you seem to forget that Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia also backed Saddam against Iran. Saddam was a willful creation of many interests, it is these policies that created him, and the relationship between all the powers involved that must be looked at if the terror problem is to genuinely be addressed. Only a fool would think that Iraq or "terror" is just an Islamic problem.



Are you also about to recuse the international communtiy for Saddam using this stuff to put together a WMD program and that he used offensively against the Iranians and the Iraqi Kurds?

:roll:

No, I think Bu$h has spent four years covering up the crimes of his father and spreading the wealth from the poor to the rich.

I'm no Democrat, I'm not a Muslim, I'm not anti-American (I'm also not blindly pro-American), but I know a crook when I see one and George Bu$h is the biggest crook we've had in the government in maybe... EVER.

[Mark Sman]

Bush's claim was that Saddam was actively producing and stockpiling

Source please. This works both ways.

[Secret Squirrel]

Bush's claim was that Saddam was actively producing and stockpiling

Source please. This works both ways.

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

“We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP **** Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003

[martinexsquaddie]

blair came out with the fact iraq could hit cyprus with 20 minutes
so far squat has been found of WMDs ready to go that were anything other than battlefield weapons

[Old300]

The way this discussion is going demonstrates the reason I want links to credible news stories about WMD. All of us can agree that we haven't found stockpiles of weapons; but we must also agree that we have, indeed, found some WMD.

The truth in this issue is somewhere between "We've found WMD!" and "You haven't found any WMD." I know that a compromise between that dichotomy sounds like a logical impossibility, but it isn't.

We've found quite a few dangerous things, but much less than we'd wish. I'd just like to know exactly what the situation is. Thanks.

[FallenAngel]

Some of the UN resolutions Iraq was violating regarding WMDs.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

[He219]

No one denies that George Bu$h Sr and Reagan sent Saddam that WMD and/or the equipment to produce it to Iraq
I do. Equipment?


I am not insinuating that the US was the only country involved, but anyone but a fool would have to admit that the US heavily backed Saddam against Iran during the time..
That's a whole lot different than writing that crap that the US furnished WMD's to Saddam and the equipment to produce them.
;)


.. as well as certain Islamic terrorist factions against the USSR
The US suppoting Islamic 'terrorists'? Source?






Ultimately, the burden of proof lay upon Saddam. This was a stipulation of GW1 peace terms. What actually happened to his WMD program and stockpiled weapons?
;)

[BlackRain]

What the hell is going on!? I didn't mean to post that multiple times.

That's okay we know you are "special" and we allow for your posting "disabilities". :D


Perhaps George Bu$h had something to do with it?

[Operation Ivy]

You begin badly since Pole defence minister admit recently they didn't find WMD in these shell!!!!!
The problem is some medias jumped on it but don't says the end of the story!!!!!!

Greetings stephane,

You must be mistaking this with the Roland Missiles France sold to Saddam that were found by the Poles.
;)

Two warheads found by the Poles in June did test for cyclosarin. The US tested negative on the other fourteen found ...

Stephane just got served :D

[Mark Sman]

Bush's claim was that Saddam was actively producing and stockpiling




"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Supported by UNMOVIC reports that many materials aquired by Iraq were dual use. The key part of the Bush statement being "had the materials.",




“We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs21376.pdf



"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP **** Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003

And this quote is not a Bush statement, just as the following ones are not.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 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 ... 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."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

"Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years."
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/#2

[Secret Squirrel]

The way this discussion is going demonstrates the reason I want links to credible news stories about WMD. All of us can agree that we haven't found stockpiles of weapons; but we must also agree that we have, indeed, found some WMD.

The truth in this issue is somewhere between "We've found WMD!" and "You haven't found any WMD." I know that a compromise between that dichotomy sounds like a logical impossibility, but it isn't.

We've found quite a few dangerous things, but much less than we'd wish. I'd just like to know exactly what the situation is. Thanks.

the WMD debate over Iraq has nothing to do with searching the desert and holding up a few shells as a reason for war. Bush couched his war in the rhetoric of self-defense.

[quote] THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished citizens and fellow citizens: Every year, by law and by custom, we meet here to consider the state of the union. This year, we gather in this chamber deeply aware of decisive days that lie ahead.

You and I serve our country in a time of great consequence. During this session of Congress, we have the duty to reform domestic programs vital to our country; we have the opportunity to save millions of lives abroad from a terrible disease. We will work for a prosperity that is broadly shared, and we will answer every danger and every enemy that threatens the American people. (Applause.)

There are days when our fellow citizens do not hear news about the war on terror. There's never a day when I do not learn of another threat, or receive reports of operations in progress, or give an order in this global war against a scattered network of killers. The war goes on, and we are winning. (Applause.)

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

This threat is new; America's duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the United States of America. (Applause.)

Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again, and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again, this nation and all our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility. (Applause.)

America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm. We're strongly supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency in its mission to track and control nuclear materials around the world. We're working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union, and to strengthen global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction.

In all these efforts, however, America's purpose is more than to follow a process -- it is to achieve a result: the end of terrible threats to the civilized world. All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attacks. And we're asking them to join us, and many are doing so. Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others. (Applause.) Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people. (Applause.)

Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom. (Applause.)

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. [b/] These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

[b] The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, [my words, a pity IAEA said such a report didnt exist] had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. [my words, a pity that the document was forged] Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. [my words, those tubes have been deemed not sufficent for the supposed purpose that Bush has claimed] Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

(note, some parts have been edited out because of the sheer length of the speech. All parts left are complete intact paragraphs).

[Old300]

[quote=Old300]The way this discussion is going demonstrates the reason I want links to credible news stories about WMD. All of us can agree that we haven't found stockpiles of weapons; but we must also agree that we have, indeed, found some WMD.

The truth in this issue is somewhere between "We've found WMD!" and "You haven't found any WMD." I know that a compromise between that dichotomy sounds like a logical impossibility, but it isn't.

We've found quite a few dangerous things, but much less than we'd wish. I'd just like to know exactly what the situation is. Thanks.

the WMD debate over Iraq has nothing to do with searching the desert and holding up a few shells as a reason for war. Bush couched his war in the rhetoric of self-defense.


THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished citizens and fellow citizens: Every year, by law and by custom, we meet here to consider the state of the union. This year, we gather in this chamber deeply aware of decisive days that lie ahead.

You and I serve our country in a time of great consequence. During this session of Congress, we have the duty to reform domestic programs vital to our country; we have the opportunity to save millions of lives abroad from a terrible disease. We will work for a prosperity that is broadly shared, and we will answer every danger and every enemy that threatens the American people. (Applause.)

There are days when our fellow citizens do not hear news about the war on terror. There's never a day when I do not learn of another threat, or receive reports of operations in progress, or give an order in this global war against a scattered network of killers. The war goes on, and we are winning. (Applause.)

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

This threat is new; America's duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the United States of America. (Applause.)

Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again, and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again, this nation and all our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility. (Applause.)

America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm. We're strongly supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency in its mission to track and control nuclear materials around the world. We're working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union, and to strengthen global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction.

In all these efforts, however, America's purpose is more than to follow a process -- it is to achieve a result: the end of terrible threats to the civilized world. All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attacks. And we're asking them to join us, and many are doing so. Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others. (Applause.) Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people. (Applause.)

Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom. (Applause.)

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. [b/] These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

[b] The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, [my words, a pity IAEA said such a report didnt exist] had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. [my words, a pity that the document was forged] Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. [my words, those tubes have been deemed not sufficent for the supposed purpose that Bush has claimed] Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

(note, some parts have been edited out because of the sheer length of the speech. All parts left are complete intact paragraphs).

What's your point?

[Secret Squirrel]

What's your point?

My post was partly in response to Mark Sman (he asked for evidence) and to try and explain to you that old chemical shells were not a driving force behind Bush's claims for going to war. He argued that Saddam had collaborative connections to AQ, and that Saddam was actively seeking and trying to produce WMDs.

[Mark Sman]

So basically he said the same thing as Hillary Clinton did, and Bill Clinton before that.

[XASA]

So basically he said the same thing as Hillary Clinton did, and Bill Clinton before that.

But Bill didn't start a war due to bad intelligence ;)

[ArmedPacifist]

.. as well as certain Islamic terrorist factions against the USSR
The US suppoting Islamic 'terrorists'? Source?



Are you denying the United States supplied/trained and supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan?

Including mr. bin laden himself?

[Old300]

So basically he said the same thing as Hillary Clinton did, and Bill Clinton before that.

But Bill didn't start a war due to bad intelligence ;)

With the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, Bill Clinton (with the help of about 250 Democratic representatives and senators including a guy named John Kerry) made regime change in Iraq official US government policy. That doesn't mean that Bush was right to go to war (although I believe he was), but it does mean that it's pretty outrageous for people to pretend that deposing Saddam was some kind of "neo-con" (whatever that means) plot, using manipulated intelligence to help the Saudi Royal family (Michael Moore's rather brilliant theory) or Halliburton (the previous explanation of the anti-war Left), etc.

EVERYBODY (Ok, except Scott Ritter) thought Saddam had WMD; and many of the people who are the President's critics today had supported regime change for years based, primarily, on the threats posed by Iraqi WMD (raise your hands, Senators Kerry and Edwards!).

My purpose in starting this thread was simply to get credible reporting on WMD finds in order to get a clear understanding of where we are today.

[Old300]

.. as well as certain Islamic terrorist factions against the USSR
The US suppoting Islamic 'terrorists'? Source?



Are you denying the United States supplied/trained and supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan?

Including mr. bin laden himself?

I've never understood this line of argument. Actually, it's rather charitable of me to call it a line of "argument", because usually, as is the case here, there is simply an accusation - the US supported the Taliban and Saddam! - without any attempt at linking that accusation to a relevant conclusion.

So go on, then: tell us why our support of the Taliban and Saddam in the early '80s is relevant to American foreign policy in 2001 and 2002.

What does our support of Stalin in the 1942-1945 say about the Cold War? For that matter, what does our perpetual state of war with Britain from 1775-1814 say about our "special relationship" today?

Merely noting that we used to have a different attitude towards particular groups of people than we do now is not an argument. It's a reflex; and it is annoying.

[ArmedPacifist]

.. as well as certain Islamic terrorist factions against the USSR
The US suppoting Islamic 'terrorists'? Source?



Are you denying the United States supplied/trained and supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan?

Including mr. bin laden himself?


So go on, then: tell us why our support of the Taliban and Saddam in the early '80s is relevant to American foreign policy in 2001 and 2002.




the Taliban did not exist at the time you supported the Mujahadeen, they came into power later with your help, after the Russians were driven out. Thanks in great part to the CIA and the United States Government.

Just a little correction.

[Old300]

.. as well as certain Islamic terrorist factions against the USSR
The US suppoting Islamic 'terrorists'? Source?



Are you denying the United States supplied/trained and supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan?

Including mr. bin laden himself?


So go on, then: tell us why our support of the Taliban and Saddam in the early '80s is relevant to American foreign policy in 2001 and 2002.




the Taliban did not exist at the time you supported the Mujahadeen, they came into power later with your help, after the Russians were driven out. Thanks in great part to the CIA and the United States Government.

Just a little correction.

assuming you're right - and that's a great assumption indeed, considering the support that the Saudis and Pakistanis gave the Taliban over the years - all you've demonstrated is that the defeat of the Soviets led - eventually, not immediately, and certainly not directly - to the establishment of another regime inimical to American interests. A regime that we opposed from day one, during both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

I think that it is appropriate to remind you of my WWII analogy again: were we wrong to enter into a pact with Stalin, even though doing so led - indirectly, but more directly than our support of the Mooj led to the establishment of the Taliban - to the enslavement of half of Europe and a 40 year war that threatened the destruction of the planet?

As in Afghanistan, the answer is, "no". You shall have to come up with better reasons for hating my country than our support of a guerrilla war against the Soviet Union.

[ArmedPacifist]

It doesn't matter what you think, it happened, face it.


Oh yeah and the part about me hating America.....yeah can I get some documentation on that?

[Old300]

[quote="ArmedPacifist"]It doesn't matter what you think, it happened, face it.

Um, wow.

The fact of an event's occurrence is different from the meaning of an event's occurrence. For example, if someone wrote, "It doesn't matter what you think, it happened, face it", that writing wouldn't have meaning without an interpretation of it. But if I write, "Anybody who thinks that writing 'It doesn't matter what you think, it happened, face it,' is an intelligent argument is not worth my time, and is probably already ignored by everyone who follows these forums closely," I've offered an interpretation.

See?

Stay in school.

[AVZ]

...Tell us why our support of the Taliban and Saddam in the early '80s is relevant to American foreign policy in 2001 and 2002.

What does our support of Stalin in the 1942-1945 say about the Cold War? For that matter, what does our perpetual state of war with Britain from 1775-1814 say about our "special relationship" today?



It says: Either the US or the counterparts switched in their political opinions very fast, doesn't it!!!?????????? ;)

[He219]

The US suppoting Islamic 'terrorists'? Source?
Are you denying the United States supplied/trained and supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan?

Including mr. bin laden himself?

You circumvent the question and ask another.

Do you really believe Mujahedeen fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan (including OBL) during the 80's were 'terrorists'. Do you also consider Iraqi insugents as terrorists?

At what point did OBL become a 'terrorist'. Did the US personally train and equip OBL?

;)





Next time, answer the question.

[Mark Sman]

But Bill didn't start a war due to bad intelligence

No, he just bombed Iraq. Oh wait, thats an act of war.

[He219]

He argued that Saddam had collaborative connections to AQ, and that Saddam was actively seeking and trying to produce WMDs.

Has this been disproven or something?

[Sayeret]

Are you denying the United States supplied/trained and supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan?

Including mr. bin laden himself?

ArmedPacifist if the US or any other country allowed Afghanistan to be taken over by the Soviets you would probably would be whinning about that right now.

[Phx_PL]

Are you denying the United States supplied/trained and supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan?

Including mr. bin laden himself?

ArmedPacifist if the US or any other country allowed Afghanistan to be taken over by the Soviets you would probably would be whinning about that right now.

then we will have second chechnya right now :|

[Sayeret]

Its odd that OB Kenobi and ArmedPacifist yell at Bush for going to Iraq because Iraq doesn't have terrorists in it despite the fact that OB Kenobi said that every other Arab country in the Middle East supports terrorists except Iraq.


Iran Iran Iran. What about Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen, Qatar, Sudan, Libya, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Colombia, Chechnya, Bosnia, etc? They're ALL mixed up in "terrorism." Why does Bu$h play these games and pretend they are not?

I also find it odd that ArmedPacifist and OB Kenobi want terrorists to be fought but yell at Israel for fighting terrorism. You guys try to act like your such big human right people but fail to see that thousands of innocent Iraqis were killed by Saddam and can't accept any good from the war. OB Kenobi says he isn't a blind pro-American which he may not be but he sure is blind when it comes to the war in Iraq.

[He219]

...Tell us why our support of the Taliban and Saddam in the early '80s is relevant to American foreign policy in 2001 and 2002.

What does our support of Stalin in the 1942-1945 say about the Cold War? For that matter, what does our perpetual state of war with Britain from 1775-1814 say about our "special relationship" today?



It says: Either the US or the counterparts switched in their political opinions very fast, doesn't it!!!?????????? ;)

The Taliban did not exist until '94. Iran and Syria were the main threat throughout the 80's ...


RUMSFELD: Well, Iraq was in a battle, war with Iran. And the United States had just had 241 Marines killed. And President Reagan asked me to take a leave of absence from my company and serve as a temporary special envoy, and I traveled throughout the Middle East for a period of months. And we were trying to get the Syrians to get out of Lebanon and stop killings Americans at the Marine barracks. And among other things, we believed that it would be helpful if Saddam Hussein's Iraq would behave in a way in that region that would be helpful to our goals with respect to Syria and the terrorist threat that existed. And we decided it was worth having me go in and meet with him. In that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a matter or fact, and discussed a host of other things.

CNN.com - Interview With Donald Rumsfeld (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/21/cst.01.html)


The Soviet Union became a threat to the free world with it's expansion into Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, Southwest Africa and Central Americal and Cuba under totalitarian rule.

Therefore, political opinions were not 'switched', rather reactive and adaptive to the threat at hand.
;)

[Durandal]

He argued that Saddam had collaborative connections to AQ, and that Saddam was actively seeking and trying to produce WMDs.

Which is fact.

Saddam had connections to AQ as well as several other terrorist organizations. All fact. I mean, do you simply ignore the intel the Jordanians got out of the AQ guys they rounded up a couple months ago? Come on now.

Saddam has in the past produced WMDs and would do so in the future. I hardly doubt even YOU would claim that Saddam would not attempt such production in the future had he still been in power.

Put two and two together...a willingness to produce and use WMDs and the various levels of monetary support, sheltering, and contacts with various terrorist organizations is simply not a stable equation at all.

The fact that we HAVE found WMDs (regardless of age and quantity) and WMD production facilities regardless of whether they whether dual use or not is simply ignored by the media and you.

Sticking you head in the sand and simply ignoring facts because you hate Bush is silly.

[He219]

The last time I checked, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was considered an al-Qaida terrorist before and after the invasion. I also recall Saddam directly funding of Hamas terrorists in Israel and elsewhere. He also payed lavish sums to the families of 'martyrs'.

Also, UNMOVIC writes this (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf) in May, 2004:

One of the issues currently under the examination by UNMOVIC in the framework of work on the compendium is the evaluation of Iraq's procurement network that operated from 1999 to 2002, the period in which inspectors were absent from Iraq. During this period, Iraq utilized a sophisticated procurement network for the aquisition of foreign materials, equipment and technology.

Iraq produced a variety of dual-use biological and chemical items and materials, including chemicals, equipment and spare parts. To date, UNMOVIC has found no evidence that these were used for proscribed chemical or biological weapon purposes.

However, in several instances Iraq provided misleading declarations regarding the suppliers and sources of the items and materials

There is much evidence that from 1999 to 2002 Iraq procured materials, equipment and components for use in it's missile programmes. In several instances, the items procured were used by Iraq for programmes, such as the production of Al Samoud 2 missiles, that were determined by UNMOVIC in Feburary 2003 to be proscribed. This can be illustrated by the aquisition of at least 380 SA-2 missile engines for Iraq's prime missile establishment ...
Saddam was a threat. The missing WMDs are a threat. These are undeniable facts.

the State of the Union Speech says it all:

The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
;)

[ArmedPacifist]

The US suppoting Islamic 'terrorists'? Source?
Are you denying the United States supplied/trained and supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan?

Including mr. bin laden himself?

You circumvent the question and ask another.

Do you really believe Mujahedeen fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan (including OBL) during the 80's were 'terrorists'. Do you also consider Iraqi insugents as terrorists?

At what point did OBL become a 'terrorist'. Did the US personally train and equip OBL?

;)





Next time, answer the question.

I believe both sides were guilty of terrorism and terrorist acts.

And yes the US personally trained Osama Bin Laden.

[One?]

Mr Taliban was in washington at one point how come they weren't terrorists back then?

[He219]

And yes the US personally trained Osama Bin Laden.
I thought it was the Pakistanis. Source?

[He219]

Mr Taliban was in washington at one point how come they weren't terrorists back then?

I take it you mean OBL. At what point was this?

That would answer a whole lot.

[Durandal]

Mr Taliban was in washington at one point how come they weren't terrorists back then?

Because they weren't. The Taliban was a political/religious group that took power in A-stan. They sent a diplomatic mission here. Nothing unusual about that. The US, I may add never really recognized them as the legit government either...

The Taliban got wrecked because they would not hand over OBL and the rest of his AQ fan boys.

It REALLY is not all that hard to understand.

[ArmedPacifist]

Are you denying the United States supplied/trained and supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan?

Including mr. bin laden himself?

ArmedPacifist if the US or any other country allowed Afghanistan to be taken over by the Soviets you would probably would be whinning about that right now.

what the **** are you smoking?

They did let the Soviets take over Afghanistan.....Remember? It was occupied for several years.....



Its odd that OB Kenobi and ArmedPacifist yell at Bush for going to Iraq because Iraq doesn't have terrorists in it despite the fact that OB Kenobi said that every other Arab country in the Middle East supports terrorists except Iraq.


I also find it odd that ArmedPacifist and OB Kenobi want terrorists to be fought but yell at Israel for fighting terrorism. You guys try to act like your such big human right people but fail to see that thousands of innocent Iraqis were killed by Saddam and can't accept any good from the war. OB Kenobi says he isn't a blind pro-American which he may not be but he sure is blind when it comes to the war in Iraq.


Yeah feel free to NOT make up ****......as I recall I haven't said a goddamn thing about George Bush, or terrorism in Iraq. So please feel free to exercise some STFU action alright?

[One?]

No Mr. Taliban came because the US had interests in afghanistan. When those interests were declined they became terrorists.

As for Mr OBL he was in the states as a student. It is known all over the arab world that bin laden was nothing if it wasn't for the US. They didn't fund him with money because he had alot of it. They aided in training and weapons, also with propaganda. I mean if you are trying to deny the US help and the CIA help in A-Stan then you people have some serious issues. Talk to Prince Bander about Bin Laden and the US. Or you know what, just look up some TV interviews wether they are in arabic or English and he should at least mention the US aid to bin laden once.

Bin Laden was the connection between all the arab fighters, and the other leaders. He used his network against the russians and now he is using his network against his former ally.

[Durandal]

No Mr. Taliban came because the US had interests in afghanistan. When those interests were declined they became terrorists.

I mean if you are trying to deny the US help and the CIA help in A-Stan then you people have some serious issues.

Bin Laden was the connection between all the arab fighters, and the other leaders. He used his network against the russians and now he is using his network against his former ally.

You need to cut that Michael Moore IV you got in your arm.

Of course the CIA trained Afghanistan freedom fighters. The Soviet Union invaded A-Stan and we supplied the Afghans with the tools and training. This is no secret. The United States was also supply a huge amount of aid to refugees and the general population of the country following the war. This came in food and other items, not arms military training etc.

Again, we did not fight the Taliban because they WERE terrorists. We fought them because the protected and helped the terrorists.

[Phx_PL]

Bin Laden was the connection between all the arab fighters, and the other leaders.

in fact not all
sunni only

[He219]

No Mr. Taliban came because the US had interests in afghanistan. When those interests were declined they became terrorists.
What the heck are you writing about, 'interests'?
The Taliban became supporters of terrorists by harboring and sheltering AQ.


As for Mr OBL he was in the states as a student. It is known all over the arab world that bin laden was nothing if it wasn't for the US. They didn't fund him with money because he had alot of it.
They aided in training and weapons, also with propaganda. I mean if you are trying to deny the US help and the CIA help in A-Stan then you people have some serious issues.
You are the one with issues because you can't answer the question.

It is common knowledge that the US trained and equipped Mujahads fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. There is a difference between Mujahads you know, like how some people equate the Northern Alliance with the Taliban.

When did the US directly train Osama BL? That is the question I asked.
You answer with some monotonous diatribe on US Cold War policies.


Talk to Prince Bander about Bin Laden and the US. Or you know what, just look up some TV interviews wether they are in arabic or English and he should at least mention the US aid to bin laden once.

Bin Laden was the connection between all the arab fighters, and the other leaders. He used his network against the russians and now he is using his network against his former ally.

Sorry, but I'm not on speaking terms with Mr. Prince Bander at this time.
:roll:

OBL was within a splinter group of Mujahads and among Arab fighters only. He lead an organization called Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) and was supported by Saudi Arabia and the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

The ISI is the weak link to US funding and Arab Mujahads, FAR from direct US support for OBL in the 80's.

:lol:




Interesting how you Bush haters get on a tangent of 80's foreign policy.

[Secret Squirrel]

He argued that Saddam had collaborative connections to AQ, and that Saddam was actively seeking and trying to produce WMDs.

Which is fact.

Saddam had connections to AQ as well as several other terrorist organizations. All fact. I mean, do you simply ignore the intel the Jordanians got out of the AQ guys they rounded up a couple months ago? Come on now.

really? someone proved that there was a collaborative relationship between Saddam and AQ? I hope you're not simply referring to Shakir for your smoking gun.



Saddam has in the past produced WMDs and would do so in the future. I hardly doubt even YOU would claim that Saddam would not attempt such production in the future had he still been in power.

You can see into the future? Well damn why didnt you let us all know this before. If i knew you could see into the future i would never question your points.


Put two and two together...a willingness to produce and use WMDs and the various levels of monetary support, sheltering, and contacts with various terrorist organizations is simply not a stable equation at all.

Lets see, he used chemicals in the Iran-Iraq war and on the Kurds in 1988. Ok, so that was 16 years ago? Which terrorists groups did he shelter? You mean the supposed training camps on the boarder that were disproven, or as you probably think, ignore by the media? Why would a secular dictator whos paranoid about losing power willingly let terrorists set up shop in his country?


The fact that we HAVE found WMDs (regardless of age and quantity) and WMD production facilities regardless of whether they whether dual use or not is simply ignored by the media and you.

Yea you found shattered shells that all date back to the Iran-Iraq war. Shells that were rusted probably forgotten.


Sticking you head in the sand and simply ignoring facts because you hate Bush is silly.

sticking your head in Bush's ass and simply ignoring the facts because you love Bush is silly.

[Phx_PL]

what the f*** are you smoking?

They did let the Soviets take over Afghanistan.....Remember? It was occupied for several years.....

It was cold war - remember?
US should send military to rescure country that was laying in the soviet influence area? That's what you are trying to say?

besides UN didn't let the soviets occupied Afganistan - remember resolution 37/37?

Only way to fight betwen two world gigants was to support local groups. In other case half of the world would be post nuclear desert :|

[Sayeret]

Yeah feel free to NOT make up ****......as I recall I haven't said a goddamn thing about George Bush, or terrorism in Iraq. So please feel free to exercise some STFU action alright?

There are some stuff you said about bush but it doesn't really matter whether not you like him or not. That wasn't the point. You accuse the US of supporting terrorists and yell at them for that and then yell at them when they fight terrorists and you yell at Israel when they fight terrorists.


Maybe you haven't said anything about terrorism in Iraq but you have continually opposed the war and maybe I should not have but I assumed that you believed that Saddam Hussein didn't support terrorism since but you seemed to be against the war for every reason that bush gave.

armedpacifist wrote:

Are you denying the United States supplied/trained and supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan?

Including mr. bin laden himself?
sayeret wrote:
ArmedPacifist if the US or any other country allowed Afghanistan to be taken over by the Soviets you would probably would be whinning about that right now.

ArmedPacifist wrote:
what the f*** are you smoking?

They did let the Soviets take over Afghanistan.....Remember? It was occupied for several years.....

They gave the Mujadeen Stingers, AK-47s, Blowpipe missiles and a bunch of other weapons so they could kick the Soviets out.

[He219]

really? someone proved that there was a collaborative relationship between Saddam and AQ? I hope you're not simply referring to Shakir for your smoking gun.
The collaboration between Saddam and AQ was already determined during President Clinton's tenure and listed in a 1998 indictment (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm).

The last time I checked, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was considered an al-Qaida terrorist before and after the invasion. He along with Abu Nidal were sheltered by Iraq. I also recall Saddam directly funding Hamas terrorists. He also payed lavish sums to the families of 'martyrs' who died in suicide attacks against Israelis.


sticking your head in Bush's ass and simply ignoring the facts because you love Bush is silly.
Concordantly the same goes for you and your 'ignoring the facts because of your hate for Bush is silly' ...
;)

[MEGR]

If AQ wasn't in iraq before the invasion, they sure as hell are in there now.

[ArmedPacifist]

Sayaret, please feel free to stick to what is posted in this thread and not what you THINK I stand for.


Also I know what the US gave to Afghanistan, isn't it ironic that a few pages back it was your side that claimed no such thing even happened.

[One?]

AQ and Saddam collaberating is this a joke?

Saddam the person who killed hundreds of clerics is now working with an extremist muslim? And those same extremists called upon the death of saddam. You are mixing up Ansar Al-Islam in northern Iraq with saddam. Those are a taliban style group that fought the kurds. But could you please prove the connection between AQ and Saddam. Just like I was supposed to prove the US aiding OBL.

[He219]

Thanks one! I forgot all about Ansar Al-Islam.
:lol:

You didn't like my link of how the Clinton Administration already determined the AQ/Saddam link?



http://www.latefinal.com/archives/hayes.jpg

What? Clinton era intelligence corroborated this (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp) book?

Counterpoint: Case Decidedly Not Closed (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540586/).

So there is some truth to the AQ/Saddam 'connection'?
But we already know what you wish to believe; Saddam wasn't a threat to nobody ...
;)

[Sayeret]

Also I know what the US gave to Afghanistan, isn't it ironic that a few pages back it was your side that claimed no such thing even happened.

What do you mean, my side?

Btw stop trying to be clever or witty.

[He219]

Food for thought. Reed 'em and weep.. :lol:


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 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 . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"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."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 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. 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."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 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. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently ****e to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... "
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.


Don't believe (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp) it?
;)

[Operation Ivy]

Damn He219 just served all of ya :D

[Kilgor]

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.


Fat piece of disgusting sh1t ! :bash:

like michael moore :P

[budanski]

Clinton Administration's Al Qaeda/Iraq link. (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98110402.htm)


"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.

[MEGR]

Shouldn't the question be why Iraq gave inspectors such a hard time? Y did they violate UN resolutions? Hey, maybe they thought they could get away with it. We haven't found any WMDs, except for Sarin (but i guess that doesn't count), but where did they go? If we can't find them, isn't that a bad thing?

[ibstolidude]

No one denies that George Bu$h Sr and Reagan sent Saddam that WMD and/or the equipment to produce it to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, the issue in dispute is whether or not Saddam continued hsi WMD program. - actually most intelligent people WILL deny this, despite their reservations about Bush's "reasons" for war. They no more did this than Carter or Ford did. Companies sold, in many cases of biological agents - gave, such agents and compounds legally, with few exceptions. The vast majority of these transactions took place with civilian companies and within the legal framework of the time, although the CDC and it's formative agencies did regularily give compounds to research facilities worldwide. To claim that the POTUS gave the weapons is not based on the actual facts surrounding the time.

[ibstolidude]

I mean if you are trying to deny the US help and the CIA help in A-Stan then you people have some serious issues. Talk to Prince Bander about Bin Laden and the US. Or you know what, just look up some TV interviews wether they are in arabic or English and he should at least mention the US aid to bin laden once. - Anyone who believes that the US aided the Taliban during the Soviet occupation needs a history lesson - as for as UBL, even UBL denies the US aided him.

this myth has been debunked time and time again.
UBL in '96 - "“Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help,” bin Laden told British journalist Robert Fisk in 1993. In 1996, Mr. Fisk interviewed bin Laden again. The arch-terrorist was equally adamant: “We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans supported the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies.”"


The name of the taliban alone is cause enough for understanding from where the "movement" came. The name means - students - named for the groups/movement of students/ refugees from the afghan wars living in Pakistan. They first became a force in Afghan politics in 1994, when the country was in the throes of a civil war between north and south. Many Afghans welcomed a new movement that seemed honest, devout, and eager to impose order, an end to the decades of war - still to day the most common reason many of the "simple people" of afghanistan have forsaken the old government - they seek a return to a degree of normalacy.

It is a common misconception that is often used to critise the US policies, when in fact the US did little to directly support the Taliban's goals..it is wonderful to think that the monstrous apetite of the US's involvment/meddling on other countries came back to bite them, but the reality does not support it in THIS case...although many faliures to curtail the regime or to take steps to prevent the events and failures of US policies in Afghanistan were not taken/failed and warrant great critisism, many people prefer to make up their cases and instead claim the US created the Taliban.

It was impossible for the US to support the Taliban during the 80's as the Taliban rose to power in Kabul in 1996.
Anticipating the cop-out of" the US supported those that became the Taliban" -The majority of the leaders and upper ranks of the Taliban was comprised of Afghans who originally grew up in refugee camps in Pakistan and were taught this fiery brand of fundamentalist Islam in Madrases. -hence the name "Talib" - "student"
If any US situation created, which aided in the creation of the Taliban, it would be the US withdrawal of support from Afghanistan when at the time of percieved Soviet failure.. as the soviets withdrew (89) (and strong US aid subsided) the soviet placed government (Nagil Bila) continued until overthrown in 1992.. the country fell back into a "warlord" system that in essence was a series of fiefdom's lacking a central government of power...these faction began fighting for the central government control... it was a digression of a hundred years, the economy was shot, the infastructure was destroyed ... the warlords fell into seeking vegencance upon each other and claiming/spreading their own area's of influence. Ethnic division bred into this internal wafare.

Fighting subsequently continued among the various mujahidin factions, giving rise to a state of warlordism that was an opportunity the Taliban took. The Taliban was comprosed of the Pashtun ethnic group which comprised 45% of the population - the next closest group the Tajiks 24%. Backed by foreign sponsors ( arab money and the Pakistani intelligence services that helped train them), the Taliban developed as a political force and eventually seized power. The Taliban were able to capture most of the country, approx 90% at it's peak. They took Kabul in 1996 - gained the seat of power and began a rule impossing Sharia—Muslim law—.

There was certainly a failure of US policy during the end of the Soviet occupation, but lets call apples, apples and oranges, oranges...the US did not back the Taliban movement nor did they back UBL. The arguement could be made that our efforts to arm the Mujahedin through the use of the Pakistani Intelligence service as a"proxy", resulted in the growth of the PIS which went on to aid the Taliban, but to claim the US supported the Taliban or UBL is just plain false.

- http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9998
as Dana Rohrabacher put it:
"We at one point in that march came across a camp of tents," Rohrabacher
said of his visit to Jalalabad, then under siege by the Afghan rebels. "I
was told at that point I must not speak English for at least another three
hours because the people in those tents were Saudi Arabians under a crazycommander named bin Laden and that bin Laden was so crazy that he wanted to kill Americans as much as he wanted to kill Russians."

- the reason people like believe this joke is that it (like many urban myths) offers a "reap what you sow" quality..as aid was offered and given to some in the struggle against the Soviets....unfortunately history does not support it this myth.

From Victor Hansons' research:
"In the course of researching my book on Bill Clinton and bin Laden, I interviewed Bill Peikney, who was CIA station chief in Islamabad from 1984 to 1986, and Milt Bearden, who was CIA station chief from 1986 to 1989. These two men oversaw the disbursement for all American funds to the anti-Soviet resistance. Both flatly denied that any CIA funds ever went to bin Laden. They felt so strongly about this point that they agreed to go on the record, an unusual move by normally reticent intelligence officers. Mr. Peikney added in an e-mail to me: “I don’t even recall UBL [bin Laden] coming across my screen when I was there.”"

[Secret Squirrel]

Thanks one! I forgot all about Ansar Al-Islam.
:lol:

You didn't like my link of how the Clinton Administration already determined the AQ/Saddam link?



http://www.latefinal.com/archives/hayes.jpg

What? Clinton era intelligence corroborated this (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp) book?

Counterpoint: Case Decidedly Not Closed (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540586/).

So there is some truth to the AQ/Saddam 'connection'?
But we already know what you wish to believe; Saddam wasn't a threat to nobody ...
;)

You've read this book or are you just holding it up because its been published by a person with access to the internet and public sources of information. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe the U.S still has a "50 year rule". I'd take anything this "ideological warrior" says with a grain of salt as its clearly written to defend the Iraq invasion. Just like people would be wise to question works by David Irving concerning the holocaust, this author has a clear agenda. Hayes supported the war on the grounds that Saddam had WMDs . When he was asked if the war had been justified because the WMD claims have yet to be validated, he responded with "If one cannot prove a negative where there is doubt, one should make war and ask questions later, hopefully getting some answers." Hrm, seems a little too pro-war in my opinion, especially when you're playing with the lives of soldiers. Also, hes kind of selective in what he presents as fact. For example, when something counters his points he writes "the erroneous assumption the [sic] intelligence officials are disinterested actors whose assessments are somehow above politics." It must be nice to try to write a piece of historical literature when only what you believe, not what you can prove, is taken as fact. It would be fine if he just stated that it was his own opinion.

[ArmedPacifist]

Also I know what the US gave to Afghanistan, isn't it ironic that a few pages back it was your side that claimed no such thing even happened.

What do you mean, my side?

Btw stop trying to be clever or witty.

your side, the people arguing against me.....quoting me and insulting me also telling me I have said things that I actually have not said.

Want it in bold?

Sorry, didn't mean to be witty.


Damn He219 just served all of ya :D

Last I checked, the information presented to the senate was false
Last I checked, Kerry wasn't the head honcho with final say
Last I checked, there have been no weapons of mass destruction (key word being MASS destruction) found in Iraq.

So what's your point? How easily a false intelligence report can influence a bunch of politicians and your president?


Oh wait I'm being witty again. Sorry

[One?]

He219: Saddam was a threat to his own people no one else.

[Mark Sman]

Last I checked, the information presented to the senate is a huge generalisation encompasing intelligence that turned out to be both valid and invalid.
Last I checked, Kerry was a senior senator with a responsibility to show leadership in making crucial calls like going to war or not. He cast his vote.
Last I checked, there have been weapons of mass destruction (key word being Sarin) found in Iraq.

So what's your point? How easily propaganda can influence people opinions about the president of the United States


Oh wait, that was all very dismissive. Sorry?

[Kilgor]

what HE219 is also trying to say that these people who so called supported military action now do a about face and call the invasion illegal and unjustified to play partisan politics

[ArmedPacifist]

Last I checked, the information presented to the senate is a huge generalisation encompasing intelligence that turned out to be both valid and invalid.
Last I checked, Kerry was a senior senator with a responsibility to show leadership in making crucial calls like going to war or not. He cast his vote.
Last I checked, there have been weapons of mass destruction (key word being Sarin) found in Iraq.

So what's your point? How easily propaganda can influence people opinions about the president of the United States


Oh wait, that was all very dismissive. Sorry?

Those who have done NBC training in say...the Army, like myself know that Sarin is a chemical agent and not a weapons of mass destruction like say the N is.

Oh yeah and your not one to talk about propaganda, you are convinced that 30 year old artillery shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war, are weapons of mass destruction. rofl

[Mark Sman]

Sorry, those of us who had to learn by our ABC's, may not be as up to speed.

So, to review, Chemical weapons are not WMD in what army's NBC program?

If so, why include the C in the same training as the N and the B.

[usa320]

This is horse****.

Bottom line is, WMD or not, Saddam Was a bad man who murdered hundreds of thousands for anything ranging from shoplifting to voting "no" to re-elect him. He rape, maimed and killed. He had to go.

Bottom Line is, stuff that the UN tagged and knew was there prior to the war, went missing durring and after the war. Therefore, saddam obviously had intent to hide things, including things we knew he already had.

Bottom Line is: Saddam Hussein, and his regime commited human rights abuses that would make Milosevic blush. Saddam Hussein, and his regime lied to the world for 12 years. Saddam Hussein, and his regime, defied the world. They broke 19 United Nations resolutions. They failed to comply with the CEASE-FIRE (resolution 687) that ended gulf war one. Since they failed to comply with the cease fire, it was only a matter of time until hostilities resumed again. [/b]

[ArmedPacifist]

That would be Nato

[Mark Sman]

You see, I didn't know NATO was an army. Then again I had tolearn it by the ABC's way back in hte day.

Incidentally, why do they include the C in the same training with the N and the B if it is in a different class.

[ArmedPacifist]

Nato is a standard....

N.B.C. <----see those cool lil' dots there? Those are the different things that can kill you other than by conventional means. However, only one of them is considered a WMD. That would be the one the N stands for.

Want me to tell you what the N stands for? :lol:

[Mark Sman]

Uh dur, Nuke

Biological is number two, which I guess you say ain't WMD either

C obvious chemical.

Wanna guess what ABC was?

[Sayeret]

Armedpacifist wrote:


Last I checked, the information presented to the senate was false
Last I checked, Kerry wasn't the head honcho with final say
Last I checked, there have been no weapons of mass destruction (key word being MASS destruction) found in Iraq.

So what's your point? How easily a false intelligence report can influence a bunch of politicians and your president

Last time I check Bill Clinton was once the US President.
Last time I checked Mustard gas and Sarin were considered Weapons of Mass destrutcion.
Last time I checked even your beloved UN considered Mustard Gas and Sarin to be a WMD

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_weapons_mass_destruction.html


Those who have done NBC training in say...the Army, like myself know that Sarin is a chemical agent and not a weapons of mass destruction like say the N is.

Oh yeah and your not one to talk about propaganda, you are convinced that 30 year old artillery shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war, are weapons of mass destruction. rofl

Last time I checked the UN considered Sarin a WMD no matter how old it was.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_weapons_mass_destruction_page004.html

Last time I checked people showed a little more respect to people who are killed.

Btw NBC stands for Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical which are all WMD and like it or not your not the one who decides what a WMD is.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_weapons_mass_destruction_page002.html

[Phx_PL]

Last I checked, there have been weapons of mass destruction (key word being Sarin) found in Iraq.


You mean that sarin founded by Poles at the desert?
Last I checked, there havn't been any large amount of sarin (or cyclosarin) in that shells.


Chemicals Not Found in Iraq Warheads (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/Search?todate=20040703&fromdate=20040703&tab=article_tab&adv=a&keywords=&headline=&byline=Walter+Pincus&postpage=&source=washingtonpost.com&source=APOnline%2CAP&source=*******&daterange=0&specificMonth=7&specificDay=3&specificYear=2004&FromRangeMonth=6&FromRangeDay=25&FromRangeYear=2004&ToRangeMonth=7&ToRangeDay=8&ToRangeYear=2004&searchArticles.x=100&searchArticles.y=2)
(The Washington Post)
By Walter Pincus, Page A21, July 03, 2004
Sixteen rocket warheads found last week in south-central Iraq by Polish troops did not contain deadly chemicals, a coalition spokesman said yesterday,...

[BlackRain]

Thread Analysis:
The anti-war crowd is attempting to rewrite history and refuses accept that the entire world believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.



http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/gay16.jpg

[stephane from Paris]

Mark Sman wrote:

Last I checked, there have been weapons of mass destruction (key word being Sarin) found in Iraq.



You mean that sarin founded by Poles at the desert?
Last I checked, there havn't been any large amount of sarin (or cyclosarin) in that shells.


Chemicals Not Found in Iraq Warheads
(The Washington Post)
By Walter Pincus, Page A21, July 03, 2004
Sixteen rocket warheads found last week in south-central Iraq by Polish troops did not contain deadly chemicals, a coalition spokesman said yesterday,...



Thanks , no mistaking with last year Rolland missile affairs!
As i said it's easy to remove the end of the story.

[MEGR]

Wasn't there an IED found with Sarin aboot a month ago.. Found by US forces, not the Poles.

[Secret Squirrel]

Wasn't there an IED found with Sarin aboot a month ago.. Found by US forces, not the Poles.

You mean the one that blew up? It's been dated, like all the others, to the Iraq-Iran war. It was also a dual canaster shell (two chemicals inside that break from their respective tubes and mix during flight to produce sarin).

[Phx_PL]

Wasn't there an IED found with Sarin aboot a month ago.. Found by US forces, not the Poles.

You mean the one that blew up? It's been dated, like all the others, to the Iraq-Iran war. It was also a dual canaster shell (two chemicals inside that break from their respective tubes and mix during flight to produce sarin).

word

more info at BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722255.stm)

[He219]

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20040708/amdf615587.jpg

Saddam was a threat to his own people no one else.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040701/thumb.kuw10107011342.kuwait_saddam_trial_kuw101.jpg

Kuwaitis Tareq Bu Hemit, left, and Talal Al Kandari follow the proceedings of Saddam Hussein 's trial at the Arab desk of KUNA (Kuwait News Agency) in Kuwait City on Thursday July 1, 2004 reacting to reports that the Iraqi ex president had called Kuwaitis 'dogs' during his court appearence and that given the chance he would take over Kawait again.




So much for that theory, one!
;)

[afrographX]

Thread Analysis:
The anti-war crowd is attempting to rewrite history and refuses accept that the entire world believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

If the whole world believed there were WMD why did the security council didn't pass the Iraq resolution :roll:

[Secret Squirrel]

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20040708/amdf615587.jpg

Saddam was a threat to his own people no one else.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040701/thumb.kuw10107011342.kuwait_saddam_trial_kuw101.jpg

Kuwaitis Tareq Bu Hemit, left, and Talal Al Kandari follow the proceedings of Saddam Hussein 's trial at the Arab desk of KUNA (Kuwait News Agency) in Kuwait City on Thursday July 1, 2004 reacting to reports that the Iraqi ex president had called Kuwaitis 'dogs' during his court appearence and that given the chance he would take over Kawait again.




So much for that theory, one!
;)

Oh yea because Saddam was on the verge of trying to annex Kuwait again. :roll:

[He219]

So you are also saying that Saddam was a threat to his 'own' people only?

Saddam was a threat to his own people no one else.
Does that include the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Iranians, the Kuwaitis, the Saudis, the pilots patrolling the No Fly Zone, etc. ?
;)


Oh yea because Saddam was on the verge of trying to annex Kuwait again. :roll:
You'll just say something contradictory like "But we already used force to check him before and he certainly woulnd't go out of line again with the threat of immediate military invasion to .. what?"
;)

[afrographX]

This is horse****.

Bottom line is, WMD or not, Saddam Was a bad man who murdered hundreds of thousands for anything ranging from shoplifting to voting "no" to re-elect him. He rape, maimed and killed. He had to go.

Bottom Line is, stuff that the UN tagged and knew was there prior to the war, went missing durring and after the war. Therefore, saddam obviously had intent to hide things, including things we knew he already had.

Bottom Line is: Saddam Hussein, and his regime commited human rights abuses that would make Milosevic blush. Saddam Hussein, and his regime lied to the world for 12 years. Saddam Hussein, and his regime, defied the world. They broke 19 United Nations resolutions. They failed to comply with the CEASE-FIRE (resolution 687) that ended gulf war one. Since they failed to comply with the cease fire, it was only a matter of time until hostilities resumed again. [/b]

lol wake up dude. so the criteria for the attack were:

-human right abuses, take a look at the annual Amnesty International report
-sadam 'lied to the world' (whatever that means), Bush lied to the world, too like many other statesman for numerous reasons
-they didn't follow UN-resolution, Israel is ignoring UN-resolutions on a constant base, the USA don't care about the UN anyway

[He219]

If the whole world believed there were WMD why did the security council didn't pass the Iraq resolution :roll:

Because of the Axis of the Weasels just loves to back the United States ..
http://accuweather.ap.org/apdbs/Intl_Photos/views/micro/7360/7360333.jpghttp://accuweather.ap.org/apdbs/Intl_Photos/views/micro/7327/7327147.jpghttp://accuweather.ap.org/apdbs/Intl_Photos/views/micro/6948/6948564.jpg


Funny how Russia (once a Superpower and now something else) along with France (also something else) were the veto wielding members on the UN Security Council for a resolution that would have sent a unanimous United Nations enforcement message to the world after 12 years of failed disarmament policy towards Iraq!


Here (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19267) we see France do it again ...
p-)

[Sayeret]

afrographX


-human right abuses, take a look at the annual Amnesty International report
sadam 'lied to the world' (whatever that means), Bush lied to the world, too like many other statesman for numerous reasons
-they didn't follow UN-resolution, Israel is ignoring UN-resolutions on a constant base, the USA don't care about the UN anyway


AfrographX what are you talking about? Theres over 60,000 civilians who are dead because of Saddam Hussein. Are you denying the fact that 5,000 Kurds were gassed in Halabja in 1988 or that there are over one hundred mass graves in Iraq?

Yes, we all know that Bush is corrupt and only wants oil and that Israel is some big bad oppressive country, you've told us that several times.[sarcasm]

[He219]

lol wake up dude. so the criteria for the attack were:

-human right abuses, take a look at the annual Amnesty International report
-sadam 'lied to the world' (whatever that means), Bush lied to the world, too like many other statesman for numerous reasons
-they didn't follow UN-resolution, Israel is ignoring UN-resolutions on a constant base, the USA don't care about the UN anyway

Tell that to the Presidental contender:


""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. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently ****e to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... "
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.


Even though I don't like that guy, I stand by this statement!
:D

[Durandal]

He219, you are on it...


:D

[BlackRain]

Thread Analysis:
The anti-war crowd is attempting to rewrite history and refuses accept that the entire world believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

If the whole world believed there were WMD why did the security council didn't pass the Iraq resolution :roll:

1) You really need to learn how to write a sentence.

The most important part of the UN Security Council Resolutions authorizing force is found here:


Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses tointernational peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and
complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

The List of Security Council Resolutions Concerning Iraq

Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions
Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated seventeen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002

Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.

Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999


Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).


Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.


Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.


Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998


"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.


Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998


"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."

UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997


"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.


Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997

"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997


"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996


"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996


Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994


"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.


Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.


Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.

UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991


"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.


"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.


Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.


Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.


Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.


Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991


"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."


Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.


Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.

UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991


Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."


Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.


Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."


Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.


Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.


Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.


Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.


Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.


Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991


Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.


Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.


Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990


Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."


Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
Complete Index of UN Security Council Resolutions

Additional UN Security Council Statements

In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The index for UNSC Presidential Statements is on the UN website. The list of statements includes:

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1991
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 5, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 19, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 28, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 6, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 11, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 12, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, April 10, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 17, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, July 6, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, September 2, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 24, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 8, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 11, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 18, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 8, 1994
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 19, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 14, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, August 23, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 30, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 13, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 29, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 13, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 3, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 22, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 14, 1998

[Mark Sman]

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/resolutions/s-res-1441.pdf

To bad Iraq didn't comply with the terms of the cease fire.

[Secret Squirrel]

So you are also saying that Saddam was a threat to his 'own' people only?

Saddam was a threat to his own people no one else.
Does that include the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Iranians, the Kuwaitis, the Saudis, the pilots patrolling the No Fly Zone, etc. ?
;)


Oh yea because Saddam was on the verge of trying to annex Kuwait again. :roll:
You'll just say something contradictory like "But we already used force to check him before and he certainly woulnd't go out of line again with the threat of immediate military invasion to .. what?"
;)

what? no sources? no intelligence that Saddam has the ability and/or the oppurnity to attack Kuwait? woot

[Durandal]

what? no sources? no intelligence that Saddam has the ability and/or the oppurnity to attack Kuwait? woot

Jesus, what is this, 1936? Give him time man.

He only attacked Kuwait once.

He only attacked Iran once.

He only gassed the Kurds once.

He only murdered hundreds of THOUSANDS of his own people once well, ok at least twice.

He only supported a COUPLE terrorist organizations...even if you do not believe the AQ connections.

I mean WOULD have been next!?

How F*cking stupid are you people.

I REALLY try NOT to be offensive unless I see stupid stuff and right now...

I see dumb people.

[Secret Squirrel]

what? no sources? no intelligence that Saddam has the ability and/or the oppurnity to attack Kuwait? woot

Jesus, what is this, 1936? Give him time man.

He only attacked Kuwait once.

He only attacked Iran once.

He only gassed the Kurds once.

He only murdered hundreds of THOUSANDS of his own people once well, ok at least twice.

He only supported a COUPLE terrorist organizations...even if you do not believe the AQ connections.

I mean WOULD have been next!?

How F*cking stupid are you people.

I REALLY try NOT to be offensive unless I see stupid stuff and right now...

I see dumb people.

if you see dumb people then stop looking in the mirror. He attacked Kuwait, and he discoveried what would happen if he tried it again. He attacked Iran with U.S support.

[BlackRain]

He attacked Iran with U.S support.

Tell that to the sailors on the USS Stark. http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id344.htm

[Sayeret]

I noticed that a lot of Americans who consider themselves left wing seem to take anti-American stances often.

[He219]

He attacked Iran with U.S support.
Jimmy Carter's support?
:cantbeli:

You must be counfused again.

It was Secretary of State Henry Kissinger that sanctioned the Shah of Iran to attack Iraq over the Shatt al-Arab waterway in 1975. Iraq made those territorial concessions in the Algiers Accords to normalize relations.

After the Islamic Revolution in Iran and Saddams Baath coup in Iraq, both in 1979, the situation changed.

September 22, 1980: Saddam took the initiative to sieze Khuzestan and launched the Iran-Iraq War. The Carter Administration did not support Iraq at the time of Invasion.

The United States did not have diplomatic relations with either belligerent in 1980 and announced its neutrality in the conflict. One typically humanitarian State Department official explained in 1983: "we don't give a damn as long as the Iran-Iraq carnage does not affect our allies in the region or alter the balance of power."[29] In fact, however, the United States was not indifferent to the war, but saw a number of positive opportunities opened up by its prolongation. Source (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/united_states_iran_iraq_war1.php)

Ronald Reagan became President in 1981:

The U.S. was in a strange position throughout the war: It wasn't sure exactly how to react. Policymakers definitely did not want Iran to emerge victorious. The consensus was that Khomeini was a serious threat to the stability of the region and to U.S. vital interests, notably oil supplies and Israeli security.

On the other hand, Saddam was viewed as a psychopath backed by the Soviet Union who was less of a threat to American interests, but certainly no friend. Thus, the policy that emerged was to support the pro-Western regimes in the region, bolster their defenses, and hope the combatants weakened each other to the point where neither would emerge from the war as a regional threat to the region.

The Iran-Iraq War (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/iraniraq.html)

[Secret Squirrel]

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

[He219]

I just referenced the same information if you didn't notice.

Where the heck does it say ANYTHING about the US SUPPORTING IRAQ IN THE INVASION OF IRAN, September 22, 1980????


He attacked Iran with U.S support.

Weeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaak stuff there just posting that link. At least quote the line in context as I did.
:P


September 22, 1980: Saddam took the initiative to sieze Khuzestan and launched the Iran-Iraq War. The Carter Administration did not support Iraq at the time of Invasion.

The United States did not have diplomatic relations with either belligerent in 1980 and announced its neutrality in the conflict. One typically humanitarian State Department official explained in 1983: "we don't give a damn as long as the Iran-Iraq carnage does not affect our allies in the region or alter the balance of power."[29] In fact, however, the United States was not indifferent to the war, but saw a number of positive opportunities opened up by its prolongation. Source (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/united_states_iran_iraq_war1.php)

[OB Kenobi]

I also find it odd that ArmedPacifist and OB Kenobi want terrorists to be fought but yell at Israel for fighting terrorism. You guys try to act like your such big human right people but fail to see that thousands of innocent Iraqis were killed by Saddam and can't accept any good from the war. OB Kenobi says he isn't a blind pro-American which he may not be but he sure is blind when it comes to the war in Iraq.

Yes, Iraq is one of the few Islamic nations that didn't support Al Qaeda. I can assure you that our good "friends" in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia did a hell of alot more to support terror than Saddam ever did. Maybe you have forgotten when Bin Laden branded Saddam a heretic and called for a Jihad against him? Why, it's almost like Bu$h has been doing everything possible to appease Saudi Arabia. Maybe he's not telling us something.

But, how about this. How about you explain to us why we attacked Iraq, since you claim to know so much more about it than I do.

[Sayeret]

How about you explain to us why we attacked Iraq, since you claim to know so much more about it than I do.

I just think you should be more objective at times and I'd say the same thing to you if you were talking about Tony Blair or any other leader. Your hatred for Bush seems to blind you at times. Even if Bush attacked Iraq for corrupt reasons as you suggust it still helps much of the world to get rid of a person like Saddam Hussein.

[Mark Sman]

It doesn't matter how much evidence is provided.

No amount of documents of record will help

No attempt to teach history will work.

If someone is bound and determined to ignore everything that doesn't agree with their preconceptions.

Anyone who needs a quick guide on how to perpetuate an argument against evidence just follow the steps. Be careful though, it will only work if the audience has the same preconceptions. Difficult to do in non-homogenous societies. Requires massive prep-work.

Tactic 1: Change the subject. Denial.
Tactic 2: Blame one side for what the other did. Sow confusion.
Tactic 3: Insult the intelligence of the opposition. Discredit.
Tactic 4: Claim moral high ground. Dishonor.
Tactic 5: Declare victory.

[He219]

Yes, Iraq is one of the few Islamic nations that didn't support Al Qaeda. Maybe you have forgotten when Bin Laden branded Saddam a heretic and called for a Jihad against him?
Saddam reached out to AQ because the US was a common enemy, regardless if OBL rebutted his overtues. Nevertheless "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq".


According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes. Source (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031201-123723-4738r.htm)


I can assure you that our good "friends" in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia did a hell of alot more to support terror than Saddam ever did.
Is that why AQ is trying to kill Pervez Musharraf or overthrow the Kingdoom of Saud?

The ISI supported the zfghan Mujahads of the Russian invasion and Pakistan recognized the Taliban that eventually sheltered AQ.

How did Pakistan support terror more than Saddam?

[Secret Squirrel]

I just referenced the same information if you didn't notice.

Where the heck does it say ANYTHING about the US SUPPORTING IRAQ IN THE INVASION OF IRAN, September 22, 1980????


He attacked Iran with U.S support.

Weeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaak stuff there just posting that link. At least quote the line in context as I did.
:P


September 22, 1980: Saddam took the initiative to sieze Khuzestan and launched the Iran-Iraq War. The Carter Administration did not support Iraq at the time of Invasion.

The United States did not have diplomatic relations with either belligerent in 1980 and announced its neutrality in the conflict. One typically humanitarian State Department official explained in 1983: "we don't give a damn as long as the Iran-Iraq carnage does not affect our allies in the region or alter the balance of power."[29] In fact, however, the United States was not indifferent to the war, but saw a number of positive opportunities opened up by its prolongation. Source (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/united_states_iran_iraq_war1.php)

Oops, my mistake. I had that page open when i meant to post this link...

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)

Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

[Mark Sman]

**** Russia had closer ties with Hitler, the day before they invaded.

[OB Kenobi]

He only gassed the Kurds once.

What are your thoughts about the Turkish genocide against the Kurds?

[Mark Sman]

Small potatos compared to their Armenian masacres.

[Secret Squirrel]

**** Russia had closer ties with Hitler, the day before they invaded.

Russia and Germany had a non-aggression pact. Did i suggest Iraq had the same deal with the U.S? I said Iraq had U.S support.

[He219]

**** Russia had closer ties with Hitler, the day before they invaded.
Now that was funny. LOL


Really Secret Squirrel, your statement was thus:


He attacked Iran with U.S support.

And the evidence you show starts in 1982?
At that time they were long bogged down.



Heck, I can do better than that:

In March 1981, Secretary of State Alexander Haig told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he saw the possibility of improved ties with Baghdad and approvingly noted that Iraq was concerned by "the behavior of Soviet imperialism in the Middle Eastern area."

The U.S. then approved the sale to Iraq of five Boeing jetliners, and sent a deputy assistant secretary of state to Baghdad for talks. Washington extended a $400 million credit guarantee for U.S. exports to Iraq.


You missed your own statement by two years and the Carter Administration.
;)

[OB Kenobi]

How about you explain to us why we attacked Iraq, since you claim to know so much more about it than I do.

I just think you should be more objective at times and I'd say the same thing to you if you were talking about Tony Blair or any other leader. Your hatred for Bush seems to blind you at times. Even if Bush attacked Iraq for corrupt reasons as you suggust it still helps much of the world to get rid of a person like Saddam Hussein.

Ok, Saddam's gone, but I don't see things getting better. I see them 100x worse than if the sanctions were ended and he was given the chance to rebuild Iraq and torture his own people instead of the DIA doing it.

[Secret Squirrel]

**** Russia had closer ties with Hitler, the day before they invaded.
Now that was funny. LOL


Really Secret Squirrel, your statement was thus:


He attacked Iran with U.S support.

And the evidence you show starts in 1982?
At that time they were long bogged down.

You missed it by two years and the Carter Administration.
;)

whats wrong? You cant refute the arguments and evidence in the article i posted? Hrm, wasnt there still a war in 1982? Wasnt he still attacking Iran in 1982? Guess i should have made my statement a little more clearer, my mistake. Guess we should also ignore the help Saddam received from the U.S for getting into power to begin with? I suppose we should also ignore the intel containing names from the U.S that Saddam used to hunt down and assassinate? In 1982 was the war really bogged down or was Iraq on the defensive? ;)


The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].

What was the Reagan administration's response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results." But the department noted in late November 1983 that "with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq ha[d] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack" [Document 25]. The State Department argued that the U.S. needed to respond in some way to maintain the credibility of its official opposition to chemical warfare, and recommended that the National Security Council discuss the issue.

Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons [Document 26].

[Durandal]

He only gassed the Kurds once.

What are your thoughts about the Turkish genocide against the Kurds?

Ask me in a different thread there smart guy.

I will, however, give a short reply to your "smoke and mirror" "straw man" question.

Turkey has its own issues. I am not happy with their civil rights record OR their treatment of the Kurds.

With that said.

What Turkey does or does not do is irrelevant to this discussion. Saddam has shown a historical LOVE for causing people, ethnic groups, and nations great amounts of pain and suffering.

If he were in power he would be doing it now to his people and simply waiting for the correct moment to do something at an international or regional level. To think otherwise is pure folly.

[Durandal]

The quotes you posted below do little to really support what ever point you are trying to make. In fact quite the opposite.


The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].

What was the Reagan administration's response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results." But the department noted in late November 1983 that "with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq ha[d] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack" [Document 25]. The State Department argued that the U.S. needed to respond in some way to maintain the credibility of its official opposition to chemical warfare, and recommended that the National Security Council discuss the issue.

Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons [Document 26].

[He219]

I agree, yet he did say his statement wasn't clear; Indeed, it was FALSE and MISLEADING!

Secret Squirrel:
We all know the US backed Iraq over Iran, for obvious reasons, yet you shows no proof that the 'US supported the attack against Iran'!

"Also attacked in 1982", sheesh, that's WEAK!



And that long un-refereced quote;
How does that relate to your last big statement 'the US getting Saddam in power'?


You are digging your own hole there buddy!
:lol:

[Sayeret]

I heard a while back that the reason the US started support Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war was because Iran support Hezbollah which was the same terrorist group that bombed the US Marine barracks in 1983.

[OB Kenobi]

[quote=OB Kenobi]Yes, Iraq is one of the few Islamic nations that didn't support Al Qaeda. Maybe you have forgotten when Bin Laden branded Saddam a heretic and called for a Jihad against him?



Saddam reached out to AQ because the US was a common enemy, regardless if OBL rebutted his overtues. Nevertheless "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq".


Saddam didn't "reach out" to AQ, it is speculation that he did.


I can assure you that our good "friends" in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia did a hell of alot more to support terror than Saddam ever did.



Is that why AQ is trying to kill Pervez Musharraf or overthrow the Kingdoom of Saud?


Where did all the hijackers come from? Where did Al Zarqawi get his training? Where do the Wahabbis come from? Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. These nations are the power bases for Al Qaeda, whether or not the current rulers are entirely in on it. They at the very least tolerate much of it.

Perhaps they want to do something about it, but the fact remains this is where the terror is coming from, not Iraq. They have now infiltrated Iraq thanks to Bu$h's foolish invasion, the removal of Saddam has done absolutely nothing against the terror and has only increased it.



The ISI supported the zfghan Mujahads of the Russian invasion and Pakistan recognized the Taliban that eventually sheltered AQ.


After the USSR and US pulled out, Pakistan decided to try to grab Afghanistan for itself through the Taliban. They seemed to have no issues with Al Qaeda's use of the Taliban either. Through the Taliban, Pakistan gained control of 80% of Afghanistan and was well on the way to controlling all of it.

So what's in Afghanistan? Heroin, and oil and gas routes worth billions. Btw, have you heard of Enron's involvement in all this? Yes, Enron!

http://www.alternet.org/story/12525
http://www.counterpunch.org/tomenron.html
http://www.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=7079
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/kissingerunocal.htm

Back to the usual suspects again. Saudis, Texans, Pakis, oil.



How did Pakistan support terror more than Saddam?

See above.

Now don't bring up Al Zarqawi again who isn't Iraqi, and was protected by anti-Saddam Kurds (Ansar al-Islam), not Saddam. An interesting article related to all this:

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/abu-musab-al-zarqawi/

[Secret Squirrel]

The quotes you posted below do little to really support what ever point you are trying to make. In fact quite the opposite.


The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].

What was the Reagan administration's response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results." But the department noted in late November 1983 that "with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq ha[d] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack" [Document 25]. The State Department argued that the U.S. needed to respond in some way to maintain the credibility of its official opposition to chemical warfare, and recommended that the National Security Council discuss the issue.

Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons [Document 26].

Interesting, in the same post you said my quote doesnt support "whatever point" i'm trying to make but yet it does the opposite? rofl Notice oil interests yet no condemnation of the use of chemical weapons when he actually used them.


Conclusion

The current Bush administration discusses Iraq in starkly moralistic terms to further its goal of persuading a skeptical world that a preemptive and premeditated attack on Iraq could and should be supported as a "just war." The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik that determined this country's policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons. Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.

[Secret Squirrel]

I agree, yet he did say his statement wasn't clear; Indeed, it was FALSE and MISLEADING!

Secret Squirrel:
We all know the US backed Iraq over Iran, for obvious reasons, yet you shows no proof that the 'US supported the attack against Iran'!

"Also attacked in 1982", sheesh, that's WEAK!



And that long un-refereced quote;
How does that relate to your last big statement 'the US getting Saddam in power'?


You are digging your own hole there buddy!
:lol:

The long un-referenced quote comes from the article i posted, you know that article with the primary sources and such. I had assumed you read it. ;) The war was bogged down in 1982? Hrm, or was it a case that Iraq was put on the defensive? The U.S did help Saddam into power. And i'm still waiting for you to defend the book you posted (I assumed you at least read the book? and that you're familar with the sources and mis-intrepretations by the author?). Or are you just going to wink and ignore it? ;)

[Durandal]

Conclusion

The current Bush administration discusses Iraq in starkly moralistic terms to further its goal of persuading a skeptical world that a preemptive and premeditated attack on Iraq could and should be supported as a "just war." The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik that determined this country's policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons. Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.

Then you go on to post an opinion, not fact. Sorry man who cares. The last thing we need is yet ANOTHER opinion on the matter.

[He219]

The long un-referenced quote comes from the article i posted, you know that article with the primary sources and such. I had assumed you read it. ;) The war was bogged down in 1982? Hrm, or was it a case that Iraq was put on the defensive? The U.S did help Saddam into power. And i'm still waiting for you to defend the book you posted (I assumed you at least read the book? and that you're familar with the sources and mis-intrepretations by the author?). Or are you just going to wink and ignore it? ;)

Always reference (for others besides myself) to validate the source.
;)

Indeed the text you posted is quite interesting as it shows both US objections to and simultaneous inaction on Saddam's use of 'foreign procured' WMDs, a far cry from 'The US equipping Saddam with WMD'.

It correlates the following US posture on December 20th, 1983:

RUMSFELD: Well, Iraq was in a battle, war with Iran. And the United States had just had 241 Marines killed. And President Reagan asked me to take a leave of absence from my company and serve as a temporary special envoy, and I traveled throughout the Middle East for a period of months. And we were trying to get the Syrians to get out of Lebanon and stop killings Americans at the Marine barracks. And among other things, we believed that it would be helpful if Saddam Hussein's Iraq would behave in a way in that region that would be helpful to our goals with respect to Syria and the terrorist threat that existed. And we decided it was worth having me go in and meet with him. In that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a matter or fact, and discussed a host of other things.

CNN.com - Interview With Donald Rumsfeld (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/21/cst.01.html)



Aslo, If Iraq was on the defensive in 1983, how could the US support Iraq to attack Iran?

Consider revising your broad misstatement to this:
After Saddam invaded Iraq, the US aided Iraq (in a defensive posture from Iranian success in the Iran-Iraq war ..)

The most recent statement you made was even worse.


Guess i should have made my statement a little more clearer, my mistake. Guess we should also ignore the help Saddam received from the U.S for getting into power to begin with?
Again, defend your charge that the 'US got Saddam in Power'!


As for the Book and Article I linked to, 'Case Closed', notice my simultaneous counterpoint, 'Case Decidedly Not Closed', that negates the defense thereof.

However, the evidence share the facts of Intelligence collected throughout the Clinton Administration and subsequent interrogations of Iraqi officials after the fall of Saddam. The interpretation of the evidence documented is what is in question, not the fact that contacts between Saddam and AQ existed.

The Report to be Released today on Itelligence about Iraq's WMD in itseft is a matter of conjecture to the validity of intelligence accrued.

[afrographX]

Thread Analysis:
The anti-war crowd is attempting to rewrite history and refuses accept that the entire world believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

If the whole world believed there were WMD why did the security council didn't pass the Iraq resolution :roll:

The most important part of the UN Security Council Resolutions authorizing force is found here:


[/quote]

The important thing is that there were states who weren't convinced of the WMD-lie. Moreover Colin Powell, who presented the alleged evidence to the UN, admitted later that those evidence were unfounded.

[He219]

The important thing is that there were states who weren't convinced of the WMD-lie. Moreover Colin Powell, who presented the alleged evidence to the UN, admitted later that those evidence were unfounded.

Nuts!
:cantbeli:

The reality is that most States were convinced Saddam had WMDs.
UNSOCM even listed the materials in question.

It was the objections of military intervention to resolve the status of Iraq's WMD dispositon that led to fracturing within the UN.

You should say that Colin Powell presented 'erroneous (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19324)' evedence and not 'unfounded'. Cite the reference next time.

You call the semblances of those 'Balloon Filling' trailers wiped clean with Ammonia as unfounded?
:lol:


Personally I believe that it still is premature to conclude what the dispositon of Saddam's WMDs really was. Only time will tell where they went.

[Secret Squirrel]

Conclusion

The current Bush administration discusses Iraq in starkly moralistic terms to further its goal of persuading a skeptical world that a preemptive and premeditated attack on Iraq could and should be supported as a "just war." The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik that determined this country's policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons. Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.

Then you go on to post an opinion, not fact. Sorry man who cares. The last thing we need is yet ANOTHER opinion on the matter.

read the article; check the documents linked. ;)

[Secret Squirrel]

The long un-referenced quote comes from the article i posted, you know that article with the primary sources and such. I had assumed you read it. ;) The war was bogged down in 1982? Hrm, or was it a case that Iraq was put on the defensive? The U.S did help Saddam into power. And i'm still waiting for you to defend the book you posted (I assumed you at least read the book? and that you're familar with the sources and mis-intrepretations by the author?). Or are you just going to wink and ignore it? ;)

Always reference (for others besides myself) to validate the source.
;)

Indeed the text you posted is quite interesting as it shows both US objections to and simultaneous inaction on Saddam's use of 'foreign procured' WMDs, a far cry from 'The US equipping Saddam with WMD'.

when did i say the U.S equiped Saddam with WMDs?




Guess i should have made my statement a little more clearer, my mistake. Guess we should also ignore the help Saddam received from the U.S for getting into power to begin with?
Again, defend your charge that the 'US got Saddam in Power'!

So you dont believe the CIA assassinated Qasim or provided the Ba'ath party with a long list of "commies", which were subsequently hunted down and either tortured and killed?



As for the Book and Article I linked to, 'Case Closed', notice my simultaneous counterpoint, 'Case Decidedly Not Closed', that negates the defense thereof.

However, the evidence share the facts of Intelligence collected throughout the Clinton Administration and subsequent interrogations of Iraqi officials after the fall of Saddam. The interpretation of the evidence documented is what is in question, not the fact that contacts between Saddam and AQ existed.

Have you seen the primary sources from the Clinton era intelligence? Have they hit the archives yet? I'd like to know the specifics you're referring to, if possible with a link to an edu site or somewhere respectable that has the documents.

[He219]

Indeed the text you posted is quite interesting as it shows both US objections to and simultaneous inaction on Saddam's use of 'foreign procured' WMDs, a far cry from 'The US equipping Saddam with WMD'.

when did i say the U.S equiped Saddam with WMDs?
Excuse me, it's just a general statement directed at OB Kanoobi's charge.
;)



So you dont believe the CIA assassinated Qasim or provided the Ba'ath party with a long list of "commies", which were subsequently hunted down and either tortured and killed?
That's conjecture. Sources, references please?




Have you seen the primary sources from the Clinton era intelligence? Have they hit the archives yet? I'd like to know the specifics you're referring to, if possible with a link to an edu site or somewhere respectable that has the documents.
Unfortunately not to date. That's information privy to the Senate Intelligence Committee that they 'leak' ...
:(

Wrt the Clinton Administration, anybody have the full 1998 indictment (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm)?

"Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
:D

[Secret Squirrel]

Indeed the text you posted is quite interesting as it shows both US objections to and simultaneous inaction on Saddam's use of 'foreign procured' WMDs, a far cry from 'The US equipping Saddam with WMD'.

when did i say the U.S equiped Saddam with WMDs?
Excuse me, it's just a general statement directed at OB Kanoobi's charge.
;)

Just making sure that the comment wasnt directed at me. woot




So you dont believe the CIA assassinated Qasim or provided the Ba'ath party with a long list of "commies", which were subsequently hunted down and either tortured and killed?
That's conjecture. Sources, references please?

The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein,Andrew and Patrick Cockburn, 2000. More sources (published) at http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html





Have you seen the primary sources from the Clinton era intelligence? Have they hit the archives yet? I'd like to know the specifics you're referring to, if possible with a link to an edu site or somewhere respectable that has the documents.
Unfortunately not to date. That's information privy to the Senate Intelligence Committee that they 'leak' ...
:(

Are you refering to the memo by Feith, U.S. Under Secretary for Policy, that he prepared for the Senate Intelligence Committee?

[M1A2U2]

People said they wont sources on the fact that There are unnacounted for WMDs that the UN knows exsisted. Well here is your source. Read it and cry.

http://globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2004/australia_iraq-wmd-intell_01mar04_appendixd.pdf

Thanks for waisting my time with your stupid arguments

[Secret Squirrel]

People said they wont sources on the fact that There are unnacounted for WMDs that the UN knows exsisted. Well here is your source. Read it and cry.

http://globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2004/australia_iraq-wmd-intell_01mar04_appendixd.pdf

Thanks for waisting my time with your stupid arguments

Maybe you could read the thread before posting Sherlock? I dont recall anyone asking for sources regarding unaccounted WMDs (unless i missed that? or you're a little late in posting? maybe next time you could quote the person you're replying too). But thanks for wasting my time with your "stupid" post. woot

[M1A2U2]

Here you go secret squirrel.


Harlequin wrote:
But that stuff is out there. Saddam didn't just destroy it out of the kindness of his heart; nor did he keep such desctruction secret, for doing so
It just boiles down whether somebody believes or not and not whether somebody _known_. IMO only believing is not enough.


That's why I want news links - to limit subjectivity regarding the issue.

I just posted the link. Thanks for waisting my time again squirrel.

[Secret Squirrel]

Here you go secret squirrel.


Harlequin wrote:
But that stuff is out there. Saddam didn't just destroy it out of the kindness of his heart; nor did he keep such desctruction secret, for doing so
It just boiles down whether somebody believes or not and not whether somebody _known_. IMO only believing is not enough.


That's why I want news links - to limit subjectivity regarding the issue.

I just posted the link. Thanks for waisting my time again squirrel.

Thanks for putting it in context. If it's such a waste of your time, "just say no". woot

[M1A2U2]

well you were just proven wrong about my post being random as well as being proven wrong about saddam not having WMDs. How does it feel?

[Secret Squirrel]

well you were just proven wrong about my post being random as well as being proven wrong about saddam not having WMDs. How does it feel?

Yea i was wrong about you being random, you're just kind of slow. woot Whos talking about Saddam having WMDs? Dont you even know the context of the thread or the debate? It has nothing to do with rusted shells scattered and dated to the iraq-iran war. Oh sorry to have wasted your time again. rofl But really, if all these WMDs are unaccounted for, then they shouldnt be too hard to find if they're actually there? woot