More of the TRUTH slowly leaks out...Iraqi Scientists tell of obfuscation

The Kurds were gassed before the Gulf War in the late 80's. With coalition assistance their towns were rebuilt and taken out of the grip of the regime after the Gulf War once no fly zones were established in Iraq. I think you are refering to the rebellion of the Shiites in the south that was put down.

 

Believe me, I'm not trying to condone how Gulf War I was handled, especially the aftermath. I'm simply trying to make the point that the people that say we don't have proof that saddam has WMD's are just flat out wrong given the FACT that he has already used them against the Shiites and Kurds before and after GW I. Dubbya said the reason for GW II was because of the WMD's. He has them and he's used them. We took him out. What is the issue here?

 

The issue is that we invaded on the pretext that he still had WMD's and there has been no proof that he did have them when we invaded. That was the crux of the article, the title stated that more of the TRUTH about the WMD's coming out and I simply don't see that.

 

huh? 1441, you know that thing that allegedly gave us authority to attack a sovereign nation, had nothing to do with tyranny. We can't even find your cirumstantial Iraqi jet liner in Salman Pak that supposedly trained terrorists with box cutters. All this time we've had control of Salman Pak, which we were told was a veritable gold mine of terrorist activities, and we can't find even one canister of all these tons of WMD we've said they had. Simply because he had and used WMD in the past is not proof that he has them currently so consider that a really dead end.

And really johnheath you've got to be kidding about this spying. The US has had it's own spies in the UN inspections crew to spy on Iraq and we've even bugged the UN. Spying is business as usual in these situations. When you can't find the WMD that we launched a full scale war against let's talk about spying? Nice diversionary tactic there.

All the mounting evidence points to the US Congress and the American people being lied to by this administration.

 

your argument makes total sense..but it's completely out of context...read the discussion i was having with F.D....his point was that there were 2 alternatives:

1. no WMD
2. he did have them but he didn't use them, so he's not such a bad guy after all.

i was contesting point #2, saying saddam doesn't win brownie points for merely not using WMD on the coalition

 

I'm sorry, I thought the argument was that

1. We were told he was a threat to the US. Since he didn't use WMD when we invaded his country then he wasn't the threat we were told he was.

2. He didn't use WMD like we were told he would because he doesn't have any. So why did we invade?


I don't believe anyone is saying he's not a bad guy, only that we were intentionally misled on the degree to which he was a threat to the US because we invaded his country and weren't attacked with WMD and so far can't find any. That being the case, why was the war necessary?

 

This is where common sense applies IMHO. He used them in the 80's. He used them in the 90's. On his own people. Do you really think he just all the sudden decided to completley disarm given the past 30 years of his brutal dictatorship? Where there's smoke, there's fire.

Besides, per 1441 we're not supposed to prove he has them. He is supposed to prove he DOESN'T have them. Regardless of what side of the political fence you sit on, you can't believe that saddam has proved he has no WMD's.

 

You mean aside from the fact that we run the country and can't find any?

 

This is amusing.

Any kind of documented liberal source that implicates any member of this administration of having a very shady past or participating in activities that go against the best interest of the American public is dismissed as hearsay and propaganda.

Any kind of well spun interview with a few clueless iraqi officials is put on a pedestal as being undisputable proof.


Accuse me of being pro-saddam or anti-american all you want, it doesn't change the fact that no one on this message board liked Saddam and no one here hates america.

For the last time, disliking this administration does not mean we hate America.

 

YET. It's only been 2 weeks! 2 weeks! He's had 12 years to hide them. Iraq is bigger than California. It's going to take more than a few weeks to find them.

I give up...I'm going back to the "Creed sucks" thread! On that, there's no debate...

 

Iraqi Defense Minister: Yes, sir...you wanted to see me?

Saddam: I have developed the perfect solution to our military difficluties in the past...aside from the incompetence of my 'former' Defense Minister, that is.

IDM: *gulp* Yes sir. Might I ask what it is?

Sadd: Well, we will invest millions in developing chemical weapons, aside from those we were given.

IDM: But were we to use them against the US, Israel, or any of our other major enemies, we would be destroyed, sir....with all due respect.

Sadd: Of course we would...but that's the genius of my plan. We will invest millions in developing the weapons, and millions more in burying them soemwhere very, very hard to find! Ha ha! Brilliant!

IDM: Again, sir, I am a little slow today. What would the advantage of that be?

Sadd: Well, clearly you are slow...can't you see? In the event of a war, we will hide our weapons so deep that our enemies, if they conquer us, will not be able to find them! It's infallible! What better use for our weapons than to be buried somewhere in the event that we are invaded!

IDM: Ummm...but...oh, never mind. Brilliant plan, sir. Shall we hide our tanks, guns and all...bury them in the desert too?

Sadd: you just don't get it. Those are weapons weapons...to be used to defend me and my state in the event of war. The other weapons are to be used by hiding them...IS it clear now?

IDM: Very clear, sir.

 

Isn't that what the U.N. Inspectors said?

 

1) the 'mounting evidence ' quote you were dismmissing was a response to people in this very thread calling your latest red herring part of the 'mounting evidence' that Iraq has WMD, NOT that there was some sort of tip-off conspiracy.

2) So, let's see here...the purpose of the UN inspections was to make sure that the Iraqis have no WMD..( actually, if you'll think back, the original claim in here and in Washington was about nukes, but, oh, never mind...that one's slipped away too)...and we went to war because we said the insopections weren't working. And now you post something which says that, not only were the Iraqis afraid of the inspections, they were destroying everything and anything that could be assosciated with chemical experiments, however benign....and you see this as what, exactly? proof that the insoections werent working becuase the Iraqis were tipped off, you say, and had time to destroy everything? WHich is what we wnat...no? You think that, weapons being destroyed, scientists paranoid about Un inspections etc. is a bad thing? This tip off yoheory you have is enough, in your mind, to replace the WMD arguement for going to war!?

3) Which one of us is *purposely* not getting it, again?

 

Vengeance had a good point. If the U.S. wasn't willing to give the UN weapons inspectors the time they wanted to find out about WMD, then why should critics of the war give the U.S. any more time?

 

i dont get why they wont let the UN inspectors back in to help find them.

 

ask the people of Iraq

 

Just a couple of items:

Mulder:

Are you aware that in 1995, after the defection of Hussein Kamel, UNSCOM inspectors uncovered masses of anthrax and nerve gas? And destroyed it? You should refrain from stating that the Iraqis never had WMD, or that none have been found within the past 12 years. That is patently false.

Timing:

As for the airliner at Salman Pak, we know that it was there earlier in March because a civilian organization flew a satellite over the site and took pictures of it. It is gone now.

Any chance that the Iraqis scrambled to destroy evidence before the war? Nah, impossible...

I am not going to get into another pissing match over where Iraq's WMD are right now. I have already stated my belief that they are buried, and it appears that at least some of them may have been hastily destroyed by the Iraqis before the war. Why the Iraqis didn't document such destruction or invite some UNMOVIC people to witness it is beyond me, but...

I believe that anyone who assumes that they had/have no WMD simply because they were not used during the war and have not been found two weeks after the war's end is simply not using their head, and it is pointless to argue with such a person. All I can say is, time will tell which of us are using our heads. It is a large country littered with buried bunkers, and WMD could be in any of them. It could take months to find them... But for those who are too impatient, speculate away.

 

I could just look back, but I'm assuming the question you're answering wasn't either How should we decide if US troops should stay in Iraq, or What type of government should Iraq have....right?

 

outlaw:

Because were we to do that - what the Russians and French - then it would be months before the inspectors OK'd Iraq, and therefore months before the sanctions were lifted. Once the sanctions are lifted, Iraq's recovewry can go into high gear, and both the US and Iraq will benefit from that recovery. France and Russia are in the mindset of "anything that will thwart America's aims is good"; this is a sort of delaying action on their part...

 

i have no problem asking the iraqis that question...i don't think it would be as demonstrably against as you do. anti-american rallies on the news aren't the only source of information on that topic...don't forget that the troops were talking to all sorts of people who said, "please don't leave us this time...please finish the job this time." we have now liberated two muslim nations from a despotic ruler in the past 5 or so years. but we're the enemy of islam, right?