PDA

View Full Version : Russia Moved Iraqi WMD



M1A2U2
03-30-2005, 05:14 PM
Russia Moved Iraqi WMD
Charles R. Smith
Thursday, March 3, 2005
Moscow Moved Weapons to Syria and Lebanon
According to a former top Bush administration official, Russian special forces teams moved weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq to Syria.

"I am absolutely sure that Russian Spetsnatz units moved WMD out of Iraq before the war," stated John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for international technology security.

According to Shaw, Russian units hid Saddam's arsenal inside Syria and in Lebanon's Bekka valley.

"While in Iraq I uncovered detailed information that Spetsnatz units shredded records and moved all WMD and specified advanced munitions out of Iraq to Syria and Lebanon," stated Shaw during an exclusive interview.

"I received information from several sources naming the exact Russian units, what they took and where they took both WMD materials and conventional explosives. Moscow made a 2001 agreement with Saddam Hussein to clear up all Russian involvement in WMD systems in Iraq," stated Shaw.

Shaw's assertions match the information provided by U.S. military forces that satellite surveillance showed extensive large-vehicle traffic crossing the Syrian border prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Moscow Paranoid About WMD

Shaw's information also backs allegations by a wide variety of sources of Russia's direct involvement in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. One U.N. bioterrorism expert announced that Russia has been Iraq's "main supplier of the materials and know-how to weaponize anthrax, botulism and smallpox."

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Robert Goldberg cited former U.N. weapons inspector Richard Spertzel, who stated that Moscow supplied Baghdad with fermentation equipment to produce biotoxins.

According to Spertzel, the Russians on the U.N. inspection team in Iraq were "paranoid" about his efforts to uncover smallpox production.

Goldberg noted that no country has "done more to rebuild" Saddam's chemical and biological weapons programs or "been more aggressive in helping hide the truth" than Russia.

It is a fact that Saddam Hussein rose to power backed by Russian weapons and Russian money. Saddam was in debt to Moscow for over $8 billion for the arms he purchased from Russia when he was captured by U.S. forces.

The primary Iraqi chemical weapons were VX nerve gas and mustard gas, a blistering agent, both obtained from Russia.

According to the book "Russian Military Power," published in 1982, "It is known that the Soviets maintain stocks of CW (chemical weapons) agents."

The two primary Russian chemical weapons in the 1982 Soviet inventory were the nerve agent "VX" and "blistering agents - developments of mustard gas used so effectively in World War I."

Russian Chemical Weapons in Iraq

Iraq did most of its WMD killing using Russian-made MiG and Sukhoi aircraft equipped with chemical sprayers. In addition, Saddam used French-made artillery and helicopters to dump gas on Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurds.

Iraq obtained Russian delivery systems and the same inventory of Russian-made chemical weapons at the same time. Iraqi SU-22 Fitter attack jets were armed with Warsaw Pact-designed bombs filled with chemical weapons. Iraq used these Russian jet fighters to drop chemical weapons on Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war.

Iraq tried to use these SU-22 jets during the 1991 Gulf War, but they were detected and destroyed on the ground before they could launch a deadly chemical attack.

Other Russian weapons found with chemical weapons include the FROG-7 missile, 122 mm rockets, 152 mm artillery and the M-1937 82 mm mortars. All the Iraqi artillery missiles, rockets, shells and mortar rounds filled with chemical weapons are of Russian design.

Iraqi forces were trained by Russians in the use of chemical weapons and equipped by Russia with anti-chemical suits. The Iraqi armed forces were trained, equipped and supplied with the proper logistics to perform chemical warfare by Russia.

Lebanon and Syria

The arming of Iraq with such weapons has a direct impact on events today in the Middle East. The presence of former Iraqi WMD systems in Lebanon raises serious questions surrounding the Feb. 14 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Many blame Syria for Hariri's murder.

However, the possibility that Hariri discovered the location of the Iraqi WMD systems inside his country lends some credible backing to a Syrian assassination effort to silence him.

In addition, the sudden sale of advanced missile and other weapons to Damascus by Moscow also supports the allegation that Syria is hiding something for Russia.

Russian weapons makers have previously insisted on hard, cold cash payments for their missiles, especially after the fall of Saddam and the collapse of credit deals done with Baghdad. More importantly, the Syrian economy is in bad shape, making it difficult for Damascus to come up with the required money for advanced Russian weapons.

Instead, it now appears that Moscow has extended both very good terms and no down payment required to Syria for an extensive purchase of advanced missiles and weapons. This is in contrast to weapons sales to other "good" Russian customers such as China, which can afford to pay up front for weapon systems.

CIA Failed

There is no question that the Russian effort to remove Iraqi WMD systems was the most successful intelligence operation of the 21st century. The Russians were able to move hundreds of tons of chemical, biological and nuclear materials without being discovered by CIA satellites or NSA radio listening posts.

"There is a clear sense on how effective they were," noted Shaw.

"The fact that the CIA did not know shows just how successful the Russian operation was," he concluded.

Azide
03-30-2005, 05:25 PM
There is no question that the Russian effort to remove Iraqi WMD systems was the most successful intelligence operation of the 21st century. The Russians were able to move hundreds of tons of chemical, biological and nuclear materials without being discovered by CIA satellites or NSA radio listening posts.

"There is a clear sense on how effective they were," noted Shaw.

"The fact that the CIA did not know shows just how successful the Russian operation was," he concluded.

rofl

This last part ridicules the whole article, if the athour wanted to be taken seriosuly he should have omitted this paragraph.

nagant_m44
03-30-2005, 05:35 PM
Hey look who posted the article! MIA2U2!!

Buckeye67
03-30-2005, 05:41 PM
I predict great things for this thread.

anonymous individual
03-30-2005, 05:44 PM
Dude, where did you find the article?

goldman
03-30-2005, 05:46 PM
Actualy ive read about this before somewhere.

Secret Squirrel
03-30-2005, 05:46 PM
Newsmax strikes again! rofl

DarkCypher
03-30-2005, 05:48 PM
I think it's been mentioned here before too.
If it were true it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

TuNeRsHaRk
03-30-2005, 05:55 PM
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/negative4.jpg

anonymous individual
03-30-2005, 05:57 PM
I think it's been mentioned here before too.
If it were true it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

I wouldn't be surprised too, but the chances are not high.

M1A2U2
03-30-2005, 06:10 PM
Well we will find out tomorrow when the Intelligence investigation is released

drucul
03-30-2005, 06:22 PM
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/negative4.jpg
Just what i was think.

Pooga
03-30-2005, 06:46 PM
ing.

Kilgor
03-30-2005, 06:50 PM
The story smells like one big giant turd.

NicNZ
03-30-2005, 06:51 PM
And here I was expecting to see a string of patriots unleashing spiels on how terrible it was that the WMD were smugged out of Iraq at the zero hour, confounding Lord Bush's masterful idea to invade Iraq ;)

I'll just make two quick points regarding crediblity. First, never trust any one who makes comments with self-proclaimed "absolute certainty", such as:

"I am absolutely sure that Russian Spetsnatz units moved WMD out of Iraq before the war," stated John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for international technology security.

Also, never trust loaded commentaries; where one truthful statement is made that implies further facts, which may indeed be false. An example of an implied fact is highlighted below: It is correct that Iraq's SU-22's were destroyed before they could launch but whether they were going to be used for chemical strikes is entirely speculative.


Iraq tried to use these SU-22 jets during the 1991 Gulf War, but they were detected and destroyed on the ground before they could launch a deadly chemical attack.

soma
03-30-2005, 08:01 PM
Smells good.

Michael RVR
03-30-2005, 08:09 PM
Of course its bs, that whole WMD thing was a total fantasy story. ;)

M4ko
03-30-2005, 08:38 PM
Actualy ive read about this before somewhere.

This was all over the news last year or year before that. But it died out in a week since there was no proof. ... something about locks being untouched... on hangers where WMD was supposedly stored.

Pooga
03-30-2005, 09:19 PM
If its erroneous to still assert that WMDs are in Iraq, it's erroneous to assert that President Bush lied that Iraq had them because he would have known that we wouldn't find them and people would get mad.

So take that!

Michael RVR
03-30-2005, 09:30 PM
it's erroneous to assert that President Bush lied that Iraq had them because he would have known that we wouldn't find them and people would get mad.

So what, you dont lie because you think that one day when it no longer matters people will care ? Yeah right :lol:

M1A2U2
03-30-2005, 09:47 PM
Actualy ive read about this before somewhere.

This was all over the news last year or year before that. But it died out in a week since there was no proof. ... something about locks being untouched... on hangers where WMD was supposedly stored.

That wasnt over wmds...i think your talking about the thing right before the election that kerry sprung out that backfired on him. As for the WMDs, there was a US intelligence report filed that said they were prob sent to syria

Here is a map a syrian defector made
http://www.2la.org/syria/wmd/WMD-location-map.jpg

Furthermore Al Quaeda attempted to attack Jordan with VX gas across the Syrian border. They were stopped...iraq is the only country that can produce vx gas...

Secret Squirrel
03-30-2005, 09:55 PM
edit

Secret Squirrel
03-30-2005, 09:56 PM
iraq is the only country that can produce vx gas...

Iraq is the only country that can produce vx gas? Other than the stuff in the U.S and Russia, among others, Syria has claimed to have produced it and the Japanese doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo has also claimed to have produced and used it for 3 assassination attempts.

M4ko
03-30-2005, 10:14 PM
It was over WMDs. Saying that Russian Special Forces (Spetcnaz) moved all WMD into Syria. And Russia was calling it ludicrious due to the fact that they wouldnt be able to hide colums of trucks.

ExtraT
03-30-2005, 10:20 PM
Iraq is the only country that can produce vx gas? Other than the stuff in the U.S and Russia, among others, Syria has claimed to have produced it and the Japanese doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo has also claimed to have produced and used it for 3 assassination attempts.

Hmmm... I thought the Japanese cult produced Sarin?

Secret Squirrel
03-30-2005, 10:33 PM
Iraq is the only country that can produce vx gas? Other than the stuff in the U.S and Russia, among others, Syria has claimed to have produced it and the Japanese doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo has also claimed to have produced and used it for 3 assassination attempts.

Hmmm... I thought the Japanese cult produced Sarin?

They used sarin for the subway attack. But they tried using vx gas for three attempted assassinations (only one was successful).

dutch508
03-30-2005, 11:05 PM
We've found enough chemicals around Baghdad to create alot of nasty s**t.

We've found tons of cyanide power.

By we I mean my guys and me.

Of course it can all be explained by saying it could have been used in industry...

AmericanImperialist
03-30-2005, 11:24 PM
Of course its bs, that whole WMD thing was a total fantasy story. ;)
You Aussies didn't seem to think so(and neither did the Russians). ;)

Hugh Jardon
03-30-2005, 11:49 PM
This story is crap.

Too bad the color of the money that financed the deaths of the children of Beslan is not. :fork:

Dred_Roberts
03-31-2005, 12:40 AM
This thing sounds too much like a conspiracy theory. It’s just too big; it is one of those too good to be true stories. I think its a good thing that Sadam is out of power, but even from the beginning I saw the "reasons" for war as just fishing around anyway. Anyone who says Sadam's regime didn't need to be removed should talk to the Kurds who were gassed with WMDs and to the Marsh Arabs who's whole way of life was destroyed when Sadam ordered the marshes drained. So I think our obsession with WMDs is pathetic, if they were there once they weren't when we got there, and if it was some great conspiracy then the government pulled a fast one on us, so hats off to them. In the end the Iraqi's have the chance to rebuild their country and live a better life, god willing.

BTR-80
03-31-2005, 09:49 AM
Why didn't they moved out Saddam Hussein?

rofl rofl rofl

DPGLAW
03-31-2005, 11:32 AM
I wouldn't doubt the veracity of the statement that the soviets moved these weapons. They are the country that supplied, to Saddam and his army, like 99% of the weapons that were and are being used to attack our troops and from the reading I have done on this subject, I absaolutely believe that the Russians were also the country that gave Saddam most of his NBC weapons. So why wouldn't they try to get them out, especially as if they were found by the coalition of the willing, than the Russians would be in heaps of international trouble because of there acts of supporting terror, which they do on a regular basis...i.e. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Al_Qaeda, and NK. As a coutnry, we the US, should make no mistake about it that the soviets (Russians) are our enemies and not our friends. They were supplying the Iraqis with weapons and equipment, (NVG's, MANPADs, RPG's, missiles, etc.) even AFTER the start of the war. If that dosent make both them and thr outher countries that did the same thing, such as France, our enemies, I dont know how far a coutnry has to go to finally be considered our enemy. This knowledge was gained from reading the book TREACHERY, By: Bill Gertz, it shows how all of these countries which are our supposed allies are in reality, our enemies. We as a country need to stop treating them as an ally and treat them like what they are, our enemies, or we will end up paying the consequences with American lives one day because we essentially tacitly accepted this horrendouns behavior and allowed it to continue.

Furthermore, I heard on the radio today that there will most definitely be a coup de tat in the Soviet union (or lack of union :) ) by a military faction which will form a dictatorship. This was on 1010 wins which is a very respectable, unbiased, radio news station. So I tend to believe it. I hope this does not happen because of all the nukes that Putin failed to protect, if a military dictator gets hold of that capibility than those missles could come screaming at us ehre in the US and most certainly, chechnya would be taken out. If that were to happen we wouyld have to turn the Sov. Un. into a parking lot and that would start world war 3 which none of us want to happen. As an explination for the reason I have called what is now technically known as Russia, the Soviet Union, I offer this explination. If you look at the coutnry, lack of human rights, gov't control over news and other outlets, as well as the strentghning of the security services which is reminiscent of the KGB along with the nationalization of industry. They have also been supporting the enemies of us in the west as they did back in the day with all of the Soviet "client states". These are all reasons that they ahve reverted to their old ways and are essentially going back in time to create the cold war. We here in the US were stupid to think that they could ever be a civilized, free nation.

DPGLAW
03-31-2005, 11:50 AM
This was originally written about by Bill Gertz of the Washington Times
in Oct. 2004.

Regards,
Hist2004

As stated in my post as well, the whole book about how our "allies" are in reality, our enemies is called "Treachery", by: William Gertz. This is a great book with alot of supporting evidence to the effect that these countries are really our enemies, not allies and in that book Mr. Gertz also includes alot of documents, both classified and un-classified, which he obtained from various sources that support the assertions made in this article and in his book. That is why I take these allegations as fact and in turn, very seriously. It is a shame that allies that have been our side for so long have now turned to enemies and are actively supporting groups trying to kill Americans. Rather pathetic actually.

Argyll
03-31-2005, 11:57 AM
So as well as invading Syria,Iran and North Korea,your next step is to Invade Russia.....................jesus we're all focked!!

M4ko
03-31-2005, 12:18 PM
Why didn't they moved out Saddam Hussein?

rofl rofl rofl

Your saying that he couldnt have fleed anywhere by himself? He stayed in Iraq on purpose.

M4ko
03-31-2005, 12:26 PM
I wouldn't doubt the veracity of the statement that the soviets moved these weapons. They are the country that supplied, to Saddam and his army, like 99% of the weapons that were and are being used to attack our troops and from the reading I have done on this subject, I absaolutely believe that the Russians were also the country that gave Saddam most of his NBC weapons. So why wouldn't they try to get them out, especially as if they were found by the coalition of the willing, than the Russians would be in heaps of international trouble because of there acts of supporting terror, which they do on a regular basis...i.e. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Al_Qaeda, and NK. As a coutnry, we the US, should make no mistake about it that the soviets (Russians) are our enemies and not our friends. They were supplying the Iraqis with weapons and equipment, (NVG's, MANPADs, RPG's, missiles, etc.) even AFTER the start of the war. If that dosent make both them and thr outher countries that did the same thing, such as France, our enemies, I dont know how far a coutnry has to go to finally be considered our enemy. This knowledge was gained from reading the book TREACHERY, By: Bill Gertz, it shows how all of these countries which are our supposed allies are in reality, our enemies. We as a country need to stop treating them as an ally and treat them like what they are, our enemies, or we will end up paying the consequences with American lives one day because we essentially tacitly accepted this horrendouns behavior and allowed it to continue.

Furthermore, I heard on the radio today that there will most definitely be a coup de tat in the Soviet union (or lack of union :) ) by a military faction which will form a dictatorship. This was on 1010 wins which is a very respectable, unbiased, radio news station. So I tend to believe it. I hope this does not happen because of all the nukes that Putin failed to protect, if a military dictator gets hold of that capibility than those missles could come screaming at us ehre in the US and most certainly, chechnya would be taken out. If that were to happen we wouyld have to turn the Sov. Un. into a parking lot and that would start world war 3 which none of us want to happen. As an explination for the reason I have called what is now technically known as Russia, the Soviet Union, I offer this explination. If you look at the coutnry, lack of human rights, gov't control over news and other outlets, as well as the strentghning of the security services which is reminiscent of the KGB along with the nationalization of industry. They have also been supporting the enemies of us in the west as they did back in the day with all of the Soviet "client states". These are all reasons that they ahve reverted to their old ways and are essentially going back in time to create the cold war. We here in the US were stupid to think that they could ever be a civilized, free nation.

DPG ive noticed you post alot of personal, fact-twisted bs. You are right that underneath somehwere, these tactical allies such as Russia and France are enemies to some extent. But saying that Russia supplied Iraq with all the weapons they are using right now against US is idiotic. US supplied Iraq with chem and bio weps in the 70s and equipment such as helicopters, planes etc. Most weapons taht are being used right now are BROUGHT into the country and paid for by other muslim countries including Saudi Arabia. Saddams army that used most of Russian equipment has been dismantled and all the equipment has been taken over or destroyed by US. If you call Russia a terrorist supplier then call US the same since they funded Afgans and Osama Bin Ladden(terrorist #1) during Afghan-Soviet conflict.

You can not call Russia and France enemies directly becuase there is alot of strategic involement going on between US and them.

Dima-RussianArms
03-31-2005, 12:27 PM
I wouldn't doubt the veracity of the statement that the soviets moved these weapons. They are the country that supplied, to Saddam and his army, like 99% of the weapons that were and are being used to attack our troops and from the reading I have done on this subject, I absaolutely believe that the Russians were also the country that gave Saddam most of his NBC weapons. So why wouldn't they try to get them out, especially as if they were found by the coalition of the willing, than the Russians would be in heaps of international trouble because of there acts of supporting terror, which they do on a regular basis...i.e. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Al_Qaeda, and NK. As a coutnry, we the US, should make no mistake about it that the soviets (Russians) are our enemies and not our friends. They were supplying the Iraqis with weapons and equipment, (NVG's, MANPADs, RPG's, missiles, etc.) even AFTER the start of the war. If that dosent make both them and thr outher countries that did the same thing, such as France, our enemies, I dont know how far a coutnry has to go to finally be considered our enemy. This knowledge was gained from reading the book TREACHERY, By: Bill Gertz, it shows how all of these countries which are our supposed allies are in reality, our enemies. We as a country need to stop treating them as an ally and treat them like what they are, our enemies, or we will end up paying the consequences with American lives one day because we essentially tacitly accepted this horrendouns behavior and allowed it to continue.

Furthermore, I heard on the radio today that there will most definitely be a coup de tat in the Soviet union (or lack of union :) ) by a military faction which will form a dictatorship. This was on 1010 wins which is a very respectable, unbiased, radio news station. So I tend to believe it. I hope this does not happen because of all the nukes that Putin failed to protect, if a military dictator gets hold of that capibility than those missles could come screaming at us ehre in the US and most certainly, chechnya would be taken out. If that were to happen we wouyld have to turn the Sov. Un. into a parking lot and that would start world war 3 which none of us want to happen. As an explination for the reason I have called what is now technically known as Russia, the Soviet Union, I offer this explination. If you look at the coutnry, lack of human rights, gov't control over news and other outlets, as well as the strentghning of the security services which is reminiscent of the KGB along with the nationalization of industry. They have also been supporting the enemies of us in the west as they did back in the day with all of the Soviet "client states". These are all reasons that they ahve reverted to their old ways and are essentially going back in time to create the cold war. We here in the US were stupid to think that they could ever be a civilized, free nation.

So, how much do they go for nowadays? I mean tinfoil hats...
Your uptake on situation/conditions in SU/Russia is beyond laughable, to put it mildly - you are clueless and there isn't a single word that correlates with reality overthere in your ANALytical post.
Teenagers are not known for being rational and can be easily influenced, but you have taken it to a completely new level rofl

Aren't you the guy who wants to join Army intelligence or something like that when he grows up? Hey, good luck with that rofl I mean if US intelligence recruits from people like you that really explains alot :lol:

V0rkutinetz
03-31-2005, 12:41 PM
I wouldn't doubt the veracity of the statement that the soviets moved these weapons. They are the country that supplied, to Saddam and his army, like 99% of the weapons that were and are being used to attack our troops and from the reading I have done on this subject, I absaolutely believe that the Russians were also the country that gave Saddam most of his NBC weapons. So why wouldn't they try to get them out, especially as if they were found by the coalition of the willing, than the Russians would be in heaps of international trouble because of there acts of supporting terror, which they do on a regular basis...i.e. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Al_Qaeda, and NK. As a coutnry, we the US, should make no mistake about it that the soviets (Russians) are our enemies and not our friends. They were supplying the Iraqis with weapons and equipment, (NVG's, MANPADs, RPG's, missiles, etc.) even AFTER the start of the war. If that dosent make both them and thr outher countries that did the same thing, such as France, our enemies, I dont know how far a coutnry has to go to finally be considered our enemy. This knowledge was gained from reading the book TREACHERY, By: Bill Gertz, it shows how all of these countries which are our supposed allies are in reality, our enemies. We as a country need to stop treating them as an ally and treat them like what they are, our enemies, or we will end up paying the consequences with American lives one day because we essentially tacitly accepted this horrendouns behavior and allowed it to continue.

Furthermore, I heard on the radio today that there will most definitely be a coup de tat in the Soviet union (or lack of union :) ) by a military faction which will form a dictatorship. This was on 1010 wins which is a very respectable, unbiased, radio news station. So I tend to believe it. I hope this does not happen because of all the nukes that Putin failed to protect, if a military dictator gets hold of that capibility than those missles could come screaming at us ehre in the US and most certainly, chechnya would be taken out. If that were to happen we wouyld have to turn the Sov. Un. into a parking lot and that would start world war 3 which none of us want to happen. As an explination for the reason I have called what is now technically known as Russia, the Soviet Union, I offer this explination. If you look at the coutnry, lack of human rights, gov't control over news and other outlets, as well as the strentghning of the security services which is reminiscent of the KGB along with the nationalization of industry. They have also been supporting the enemies of us in the west as they did back in the day with all of the Soviet "client states". These are all reasons that they ahve reverted to their old ways and are essentially going back in time to create the cold war. We here in the US were stupid to think that they could ever be a civilized, free nation.

So, how much do they go for nowadays? I mean tinfoil hats...
Your uptake on situation/conditions in SU/Russia is beyond laughable, to put it mildly - you are clueless and there isn't a single word that correlates with reality overthere in your ANALytical post.
Teenagers are not known for being rational and can be easily influenced, but you have taken it to a completely new level rofl

Aren't you the guy who wants to join Army intelligence or something like that when he grows up? Hey, good luck with that rofl I mean if US intelligence recruits from people like you that really explains alot :lol:
rofl rofl rofl
May be instead of Army Intel, he should be resident reporter for Weekly World News.

roland
03-31-2005, 12:42 PM
Bill GERTZ is a liar that works for liars.
This @ss hole is a traitor.
http://www.miquelon.org/mediapol/journ/Gertz-Bill.jpg
I think we can lend you this one, just ask:
http://www.metaphor.dk/guillotine/Media/DropBlade.jpg

redfox0035
03-31-2005, 12:43 PM
First they have to find:

1) Kornet-E ATGMs that were, according to American press, moved to Iraq (thousands & thousands of them).

2) Explosives that were moved to Syria by Special Forces.

M1A2U2
03-31-2005, 12:55 PM
http://globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2004/australia_iraq-wmd-intell_01mar04_appendixd.pdf

Would someone please explain to me why this document shows for so many unaccounted for WMDs?

Argyll
03-31-2005, 01:02 PM
Maybe ...........just maybe they actually did destroy them,after all if the Regime knew the invasion was pending ,then they would have known that Iraq would never be the same again............so why ship anything to potential enemies?

The Iraqi's have been playing oneupmanship with the UN and the US foe the past twelve years.........

Maybe you could explain this to me?

http://www.wmd.gov/report/index.html

Pooga
03-31-2005, 04:37 PM
it's erroneous to assert that President Bush lied that Iraq had them because he would have known that we wouldn't find them and people would get mad.

So what, you dont lie because you think that one day when it no longer matters people will care ? Yeah right :lol:

Fa shizzle.

M1A2U2
03-31-2005, 05:22 PM
Maybe ...........just maybe they actually did destroy them,after all if the Regime knew the invasion was pending ,then they would have known that Iraq would never be the same again............so why ship anything to potential enemies?

The Iraqi's have been playing oneupmanship with the UN and the US foe the past twelve years.........

Maybe you could explain this to me?

http://www.wmd.gov/report/index.html

IM not saying i dont believe the report. What im saying is that the document i posted shows that certain weapons were tagged by the UN but cannot be accounted for. There would be evidence that these weapons were destroyed.

Pooga
03-31-2005, 07:05 PM
If the USA believes the weapons were transported to Syria and Iran,then they're guilty of negligence for allowing it to happen thus increasing the risk of them falling into the wrong hands…

Then is the world guilty of negligence for allowing WMD to have been held by the wrong hands?

Argyll
03-31-2005, 07:19 PM
If the USA believes the weapons were transported to Syria and Iran,then they're guilty of negligence for allowing it to happen thus increasing the risk of them falling into the wrong hands…

Then is the world guilty of negligence for allowing WMD to have been held by the wrong hands?

By which hands?............Saddams,Ghadaffi's,French,Russian,British or American........(remember who set Saddam up in the WMD game) whose hands?

Read what I wrote........why travel to places like Iraq,when you can get the stuff elsewhere........where do you think the Jap cult got their sarin from?

Saddam was no more a threat to his neighbours than he was to the West,his Army was in dissaray,he couldn't put up a fight if he wanted to,the people around him told him what he wanted to hear,his hatred for Israel was well known,but even Mossad didn't say much in relation to his alledged WMD's that were 45 minutes ready to launch!!!!

Pooga
03-31-2005, 07:31 PM
If the USA believes the weapons were transported to Syria and Iran,then they're guilty of negligence for allowing it to happen thus increasing the risk of them falling into the wrong hands…

Then is the world guilty of negligence for allowing WMD to have been held by the wrong hands?

By which hands?............Saddams,Ghadaffi's,French,Russian,British or American........(remember who set Saddam up in the WMD game) whose hands?

Same subhetc, or however you spell subject. You said that if the WMDs were transported to Iraq's neighboring countries, then the US is guilty of negligence for letting them fall into the wrong hands. But the WMDs were in the wrong hands before the "US" stepped in. So is the world guilty of negligence for letting the wrong hands hold the WMDs before they fell into more wrong hands? It seems hard to believe that Syria or Iran's hands are more wrong than Iraq's were.

Frank Discussion
03-31-2005, 07:39 PM
They were supplying the Iraqis with weapons and equipment, (NVG's, MANPADs, RPG's, missiles, etc.) even AFTER the start of the war.

Prior to 1991 the United States, France, Germany and the UK also supplied the Hussein regime with weapons and technology. It was perfectly acceptable to arm Saddam as long as he was fighting Iran.

But then no one ever climed US foreign policy was far-sighted, did they?

AmericanImperialist
03-31-2005, 07:50 PM
If the USA believes the weapons were transported to Syria and Iran,then they're guilty of negligence for allowing it to happen thus increasing the risk of them falling into the wrong hands…

Then is the world guilty of negligence for allowing WMD to have been held by the wrong hands?

By which hands?............Saddams,Ghadaffi's,French,Russian,British or American........(remember who set Saddam up in the WMD game) whose hands?





I hope you're not trying to assert that the U.S. set up Saddam with a WMD program. If you are, thats an absolutely rediculous statement to make. He porchased -without US government knowledge and completely legally- some anthrax spores from a scientific company under the guise that they were to be used educationally.

AmericanImperialist
03-31-2005, 07:54 PM
They were supplying the Iraqis with weapons and equipment, (NVG's, MANPADs, RPG's, missiles, etc.) even AFTER the start of the war.

Prior to 1991 the United States, France, Germany and the UK also supplied the Hussein regime with weapons and technology. It was perfectly acceptable to arm Saddam as long as he was fighting Iran.

But then no one ever climed US foreign policy was far-sighted, did they?
The United States did not arm Saddam during the Iran Iraq war. I see this getting thrown all the time. The United States provided intelligence to Saddams regime as it fit the US. We played Iran and Iraq against each other.

M1A2U2
03-31-2005, 08:13 PM
They were supplying the Iraqis with weapons and equipment, (NVG's, MANPADs, RPG's, missiles, etc.) even AFTER the start of the war.

Prior to 1991 the United States, France, Germany and the UK also supplied the Hussein regime with weapons and technology. It was perfectly acceptable to arm Saddam as long as he was fighting Iran.

But then no one ever climed US foreign policy was far-sighted, did they?
The United States did not arm Saddam during the Iran Iraq war. I see this getting thrown all the time. The United States provided intelligence to Saddams regime as it fit the US. We played Iran and Iraq against each other.

Im not arguing with you man but the fact is that th us sold iraq the proper materials to make wmds during the 80s. However i see it as a moot point.
By making the argument that we supplied saddam means that it is our moral responsibility to remove him and clean up the mess we made.

Frank Discussion
03-31-2005, 08:19 PM
The United States did not arm Saddam during the Iran Iraq war. I see this getting thrown all the time. The United States provided intelligence to Saddams regime as it fit the US. We played Iran and Iraq against each other.

I'll concede your point, according to SIPRI data US arms sales to Iraq for the period 1973-2002 (conventional weapons sales) accounts for only .46%.

.46% really isn't worth quibbling about and I agree with your assessment that the US played Iraq and Iran off against each other.

MKtexan
03-31-2005, 08:27 PM
edit

M4ko
03-31-2005, 09:24 PM
such intelligent posts.

Agyll, how are RUssians going to move WMDs straight to Russia without entering a nonhostile country first?

M1A2U2, US Armed alot of countries, when their ideological view start to contradict US views should it be responsibility of Americans to remove those people from power too?

Pooga
03-31-2005, 10:00 PM
such intelligent posts.
Unless you're hiding one up your sleeve I don't see the point of you saying that…

p-)

nagant_m44
03-31-2005, 11:12 PM
I wouldn't doubt the veracity of the statement that the soviets moved these weapons. They are the country that supplied, to Saddam and his army, like 99% of the weapons that were and are being used to attack our troops and from the reading I have done on this subject, I absaolutely believe that the Russians were also the country that gave Saddam most of his NBC weapons. So why wouldn't they try to get them out, especially as if they were found by the coalition of the willing, than the Russians would be in heaps of international trouble because of there acts of supporting terror, which they do on a regular basis...i.e. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Al_Qaeda, and NK. As a coutnry, we the US, should make no mistake about it that the soviets (Russians) are our enemies and not our friends. They were supplying the Iraqis with weapons and equipment, (NVG's, MANPADs, RPG's, missiles, etc.) even AFTER the start of the war. If that dosent make both them and thr outher countries that did the same thing, such as France, our enemies, I dont know how far a coutnry has to go to finally be considered our enemy. This knowledge was gained from reading the book TREACHERY, By: Bill Gertz, it shows how all of these countries which are our supposed allies are in reality, our enemies. We as a country need to stop treating them as an ally and treat them like what they are, our enemies, or we will end up paying the consequences with American lives one day because we essentially tacitly accepted this horrendouns behavior and allowed it to continue.

Furthermore, I heard on the radio today that there will most definitely be a coup de tat in the Soviet union (or lack of union :) ) by a military faction which will form a dictatorship. This was on 1010 wins which is a very respectable, unbiased, radio news station. So I tend to believe it. I hope this does not happen because of all the nukes that Putin failed to protect, if a military dictator gets hold of that capibility than those missles could come screaming at us ehre in the US and most certainly, chechnya would be taken out. If that were to happen we wouyld have to turn the Sov. Un. into a parking lot and that would start world war 3 which none of us want to happen. As an explination for the reason I have called what is now technically known as Russia, the Soviet Union, I offer this explination. If you look at the coutnry, lack of human rights, gov't control over news and other outlets, as well as the strentghning of the security services which is reminiscent of the KGB along with the nationalization of industry. They have also been supporting the enemies of us in the west as they did back in the day with all of the Soviet "client states". These are all reasons that they ahve reverted to their old ways and are essentially going back in time to create the cold war. We here in the US were stupid to think that they could ever be a civilized, free nation.

aw damn, here we go again... Every thread blames Russia for something these days...

M4ko
04-01-2005, 01:28 AM
such intelligent posts.
Unless you're hiding one up your sleeve I don't see the point of you saying that…

p-)

then you missing out on alot.

M1A2U2
04-01-2005, 01:58 AM
such intelligent posts.

Agyll, how are RUssians going to move WMDs straight to Russia without entering a nonhostile country first?

M1A2U2, US Armed alot of countries, when their ideological view start to contradict US views should it be responsibility of Americans to remove those people from power too?
good point but i see if differently with saddam hussein. It wasnt a question of ideology more of a question of "how can we screw over Iran?" I see it like putting hitler and stalin in a fighting ring and arming one of them. You really dont care what happens as long as the guy u hate dies. Furthermore your player is expendable. If he collapses there will be no effort to send in troops to help him.

M4ko
04-01-2005, 03:51 PM
such intelligent posts.

Agyll, how are RUssians going to move WMDs straight to Russia without entering a nonhostile country first?

M1A2U2, US Armed alot of countries, when their ideological view start to contradict US views should it be responsibility of Americans to remove those people from power too?
good point but i see if differently with saddam hussein. It wasnt a question of ideology more of a question of "how can we screw over Iran?" I see it like putting hitler and stalin in a fighting ring and arming one of them. You really dont care what happens as long as the guy u hate dies. Furthermore your player is expendable. If he collapses there will be no effort to send in troops to help him.

You do understand that your talking about US interests only without taking in concideration of the World views?

M4ko
04-01-2005, 04:10 PM
DPGLAW

KGB was created to protect the nation. First and last defence. Thats why KGB was left in power after collapse of communism, otherwise it wouldve been alot worse for Russia if KGB didnt stay. And now they are using Soviet technics to strenghten the government, majority of population in Russia believes only in strong government and the only kind of government that can get Russia back on its feet. Your views are all about kicking Russias ass, that i can see. But im guessing your young and dont understand that its not enough to just think that way, you also have to accept your enemies strenghts, otherwise youre history if you ignore them.

The "parking lot" made me laugh. Even if someone accidentily or purposely nukes Chechnya (which let me tell you is not on anyone's list) no other country will dare to launch a nuke at Russia, becuase then taht country WILL be a parking lot and they know it, ofcourse not saying that Russia wont be severly damaged or destroyed either.

He219
04-01-2005, 04:25 PM
You present an equal and opposite adversarial tone, M4ko.
;)

I don't believe the KGB was designed to protect a nation. The Soviet Union comprised many nations and the KGB was the pivotal element of totalitarian control within a police state. The Gestapo and Stasi did just the same.

The KGB transformed into the FSB, an entity of the Interior Ministry of Russia. Indeed the FSB's purpose is for the defense and protection of the Russian State.


As for Syria, Iraq and Iran's views being 'definately not American'; all I have to say is that this is an extraordinarily simplistic point of view. First of all, who are you referring to; The Baathists in Syria, Saddam's Baathists in Iraq, the Mullahs of Iran? You can't claim to know the interests of the Iraqi peoples while they were subjugated by a ruling Sunni Baathist minority, equally so for an Iraninan populous disenfrachised with the Islamic Revolution.

It's far more complex than the perpetuation of cold war era polarization.

As for resources, you would have to qualify military reaction versus invasion with the intent to occupy. The air war against Balkan ethnic cleansing is a prime example of limited military resource allocation with the effort to stimulate political re-evaluation.

M4ko
04-01-2005, 04:31 PM
By having a full control you assure great protection. Your parents had full control of you before your teens. This is where increase of control from today's Russian governtment comes: from the idea of strenghtening the state in all criterias.

I was talking about Syrian mutual freindship with Saddam's regime not whoever is the canditate to take power in Iraq now.

He219
04-01-2005, 04:36 PM
By having a full control you assure great protection. Your parents had full control of you before your teens.

I was talking about Syrian mutual freindship with Saddam's regime not whoever is the canditate to take power in Iraq now.
At what point is 'full control' relinquished to a maturing populous within a national identity? To what lenghts are individual freedoms curtailed in favor of 'full control'?

That's where I have a totally divergent view of what you are promoting.
:D

M4ko
04-01-2005, 04:54 PM
By having a full control you assure great protection. Your parents had full control of you before your teens.

I was talking about Syrian mutual freindship with Saddam's regime not whoever is the canditate to take power in Iraq now.
At what point is 'full control' relinquished to a maturing populous within a national identity? To what lenghts are individual freedoms curtailed in favor of 'full control'?

That's where I have a totally divergent view of what you are promoting.
:D

Hmm, i cant tell you what should be done in the future nor do I promote Putin's new regime, im only analyzing what is happening right now, and I do support it.
Free market did not work for Russia for different reasons. Maybe becuase Russians arent used to it or just couldnt do anytying about big guys taking over the major industries and profiting only for their own good, i cant say exactly why. But its definately not working. Therefore Putin stepped in as the big guy and took over some strings so now most of the benifits of those strings will either go to the population or the government from which nation as a whole will benefit. In US money play a major role in the government, its a system taht ve been working for US for a long time. In Russia it was taken advantage of and had to be destroyed.

You also have to understand that during communism life in Russia was very good, im saying it from experience of a regular guy not a political/ideological person who may have suffered from communist regime. Taking taht into account Putin turned back to Soviet ways, not even Soviet but a strong leader in general, kind of leaders that have always been part of Russia.

Pooga
04-01-2005, 04:56 PM
Argyll, about what you said like 500 years ago: I'm having trouble seeing how it's the US's fault for letting Saddam get WMDs, and not the world's. Whatever, it's lost its bite.

M4ko
04-01-2005, 05:03 PM
Full control is not excercised by Putin right now, but rather hes taken over major influential sources. Look at it this way. Putin is the leader who has to be commited for whats best for his country. If you rent a room from a landlord or have a boss at work, basicaly have someone who has some kind of control of you, dont yoiu think they should have that power over you to make sure everything goes smoothly? BOss/landlord has almost full control over the facilities or most of your actions that have something to do with the facility that boss/landlord owns.

It is practicaly the same in US, the more money you have the more influence you can extort on environment around you, so i wouldnt call US a true democracy either.

Argyll
04-01-2005, 05:09 PM
Argyll, about what you said like 500 years ago: I'm having trouble seeing how it's the US's fault for letting Saddam get WMDs, and not the world's. Whatever, it's lost its bite.

Nah I said it was the USA's fault for letting them slip out of the country,there was nothing the west could do to prevent Saddam manufacturing such weapons,same way as nobody has stopped the Korean's or the Libyans who actually owned up to having an fully operational WMD program..............how the fek was this missed?

bloddyaxe
04-01-2005, 06:47 PM
Seriously does anyone believe that Saddam wouldn't have used his WMDs if he had them?? really?

If I was a cornered dictator I would be launching those nukes like on new years eve! boom there goes Ryihad, boom goodbye Tel aviv etc etc...


In reality there were no real wmds... in reality Saddam was no threat.
Anyhow its not the worlds responsibility to stop people from owning wmds.

I think its every nations right to own whatever weapons they want, anti-personell mines, nukes, biological weapons and everything.

But as we all know, Bush wanted to oust Saddam, because "He tried to kill my fatherr!" And seriously, him being the most "powerful" man on earth, why try to stop him when you can support his decision...


The article, on the other hand, was the most crazed and delusional thing I've read in a week... or a year even..

Opening Batsman
04-01-2005, 08:16 PM
I wouldn't doubt the veracity of the statement that the soviets moved these weapons. They are the country that supplied, to Saddam and his army, like 99% of the weapons that were and are being used to attack our troops and from the reading I have done on this subject, I absaolutely believe that the Russians were also the country that gave Saddam most of his NBC weapons. So why wouldn't they try to get them out, especially as if they were found by the coalition of the willing, than the Russians would be in heaps of international trouble because of there acts of supporting terror, which they do on a regular basis...i.e. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Al_Qaeda, and NK. As a coutnry, we the US, should make no mistake about it that the soviets (Russians) are our enemies and not our friends. They were supplying the Iraqis with weapons and equipment, (NVG's, MANPADs, RPG's, missiles, etc.) even AFTER the start of the war. If that dosent make both them and thr outher countries that did the same thing, such as France, our enemies, I dont know how far a coutnry has to go to finally be considered our enemy. This knowledge was gained from reading the book TREACHERY, By: Bill Gertz, it shows how all of these countries which are our supposed allies are in reality, our enemies. We as a country need to stop treating them as an ally and treat them like what they are, our enemies, or we will end up paying the consequences with American lives one day because we essentially tacitly accepted this horrendouns behavior and allowed it to continue.

Furthermore, I heard on the radio today that there will most definitely be a coup de tat in the Soviet union (or lack of union :) ) by a military faction which will form a dictatorship. This was on 1010 wins which is a very respectable, unbiased, radio news station. So I tend to believe it. I hope this does not happen because of all the nukes that Putin failed to protect, if a military dictator gets hold of that capibility than those missles could come screaming at us ehre in the US and most certainly, chechnya would be taken out. If that were to happen we wouyld have to turn the Sov. Un. into a parking lot and that would start world war 3 which none of us want to happen. As an explination for the reason I have called what is now technically known as Russia, the Soviet Union, I offer this explination. If you look at the coutnry, lack of human rights, gov't control over news and other outlets, as well as the strentghning of the security services which is reminiscent of the KGB along with the nationalization of industry. They have also been supporting the enemies of us in the west as they did back in the day with all of the Soviet "client states". These are all reasons that they ahve reverted to their old ways and are essentially going back in time to create the cold war. We here in the US were stupid to think that they could ever be a civilized, free nation.
You should be a comedian!!!!!! rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

Mr.K
04-02-2005, 01:30 AM
damn double post

Mr.K
04-02-2005, 01:32 AM
Russia won't nuke Chechnya, there is oil over there.
As for national identity, chechens have their flag, their religion and their language while being included in the Russian Federation. Look at Tatarstan, they're muslim and have their own culture while being in the Russian Federation (Ok, well they can't really declare independance since they are surrounded ;), but still nobody hangs them on the street for being muslim)
Russia will also not give up Chechnya, because if they do, 1 week later there will be an american base there. And that's a too close for comfort.

Opening Batsman
04-02-2005, 02:04 AM
(Ok, well they can't really declare independance since they are surrounded ;)
That didn't stop Lesotho. :lol:

username
04-02-2005, 02:19 AM
One question.... Why would Spetsnatz be given the task of moving all these weapons? Spetsnatz are trained in unvonventional and I would assume from their prior unit's conventional warfare. They are soldiers for fighting. Now carrying highly powered explosives and things' like chemical and biological weapons I would assume requires some amount of training.

Would it then not be the role of say engineer's or special chemical weapons teams to move in what I am going to describe as very dangerous equipment across a country? Spetznatz CQBing a bottle of anthrax across the Iraqi desert just doesn't seem right.

Azide
04-02-2005, 03:59 AM
very good argument, but it is not needed as this article is complete BS! ;)

Frank Discussion
04-02-2005, 06:56 PM
One question.... Why would Spetsnatz be given the task of moving all these weapons?

They wouldn't. It just sounds more sinister to mention Spetsnaz as being involved.

OMEGA7
04-03-2005, 05:10 AM
[quote="M1A2U2"][quote]Russia Moved Iraqi WMD
Charles R. Smith
Thursday, March 3, 2005
Moscow Moved Weapons to Syria and Lebanon
According to a former top Bush administration official, Russian special forces teams moved weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq to Syria.

"I am absolutely sure that Russian Spetsnatz units moved WMD out of Iraq before the war," stated John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for international technology security.

who's gonna save Republic people?