Albert Lea Discussion Forum » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: Current Events
Topic: WMD's
started by: jimhanson

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 12 2004,7:13 pm

This has been on some of the military Forums for about a week, but I hadn't heard of the Worldtribune, so didn't put much credibility in it (an internet search for the Worldtribune shows articles going back to 2000, their "mission statement" says they specialize in covering international affairs for Americans). According to their story, the U.N. has determined that Saddam moved WMD's to other countries before, during, and after the war--and that many of the WMD's have been scrapped by looters. Rocket engines have been showing up in salvage yards--engines with tags showing they had been fired, and engines from rockets not disclosed to the U.N. Also, fermenters (for making biological weapons OR medicines--but mounted on portable trailers--wink, wink) and centrifuges for nuclear production have also shown up. The U.N. confirms reports that WMD's were sent to Syria, the Bekkah Valley, and Jordan.

A watered-down version came out in the New York Times. Link < http://www.nytimes.com/2004....AVISTA1 >

That led to the U.N. report--
Link < http://www.un.org/Depts....435.pdf >

Especially look at item #15, and scroll down to the end of the report to view satellite photos with 1 metre resolution

Worldtribune story link

< http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html >

Nothing from Dan Rather and the major networks, yet. Let's see, released on a Friday, during coverage of a major news event--you wouldn't suppose they were trying to downplay the story, would you?

(sarcasm)

One person commenting said:

Quote

I can see all the excuses from liberal land coming already--
"They weren't active"
"They weren't pointed at us"
"The trailer-mounted fermenters and centrifuges COULD have been used for peaceful purposes"
"The inspectors should have been given more time"
"Saddam was disarming"
"It's all for oil"
"Yeah, but all those jobs they're adding aren't GOOD jobs (oops, that one was for job loss)
"we never said Bush lied"

Sarin gas shells, mustard gas shells, thousands of gallons of Sarin "insecticide" (stored in underground bunkers with other ammo, protected by camoflage--the Iraqis have a fetish about keeping their ammo dumps free of bugs), Artillery shells filled with Sarin and labled "insecticide" (what a unique way to deliver "insecticide"--does Orkin know about this?) Mig-25s and 27s buried in the desert sand. "Nope, no Weapons of Mass Destruction Here!"

Posted by cpu_slave on Jun. 14 2004,10:47 am

The missiles engines found were from Al Samoud 2 missiles, the same missiles that were cited by the UN as being non-compliant to resolutions and that were in the process of being destroyed BEFORE the US even invaded in March 2003.

Quote

From UN Report "…that some of the materials may have been removed from Iraq by looters of sites and sold as scrap."

DUH! Even during the invasion the Iraqis were looting anything and everything. Remember the museums and hospitals that were completely stripped of anything of value during the invasion? Or how about the looted electric companies where even the copper wire was stripped out and sold as scrap? Are you naļve enough to think that the looting Iraqis would have simply left any Iraqi military equipment untouched?

How about point 14- right above 15 that you point to as proof to aid your argument:

Quote

From UN Report "…In general, from 1999 to 2002 Iraq procured 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. Although some of the goods may have been acquired by Iraq outside the framework of mechanisms established under Security Council resolutions, most of them were later declared by Iraq to UNMOVIC in its semi-annual monitoring declarations."

Wow- even the UN report itself says they have no evidence that there was a chemical or biological weapons program going back at least FOUR YEARS before we invaded. What you point to as proof of a program is missiles that were found and in the process of being destroyed before the US began the invasion. Believe it or not, not everyone has ADD and some of us actually remember what was going on prior to the invasion, and these missiles were news and being destroyed by Saddam in an effort to stave off an invasion by the US. Being the case, it is not suprising that parts of these missiles are turning up. Even so- they are finding the engines and not any sort of 'payload'...

As for you 'news source'

Quote

This newspaper exists because we believe the world's most influential nation is poorly served by U.S.media outlets

Let me guess- more of that ‘liberal media bias’? Isn’t that the same reasons given by the likes of Rush and Ann to be in the ‘media’?
The ‘World Tribune’- run by the same guy that brings you the Washington Times- another right wing mouth piece. It’s pretty obvious to see their political skew once you see some of the other ‘headlines’ and ‘editorials’ – heck even the ‘letters to the editor’ sound like parrots from the right. Some of their ‘sources’ for news? Washington Times, Drudge Report, NewsMax.com- It's not hard to see what agenda their pushing...

Sorry Jim- there are no ‘WMD’ in Iraq- 18 months with not having found anything pretty much proves it- but I do enjoy attempts by people to sway the ignorant sheep. You might have better luck proving Saddam was a cross-dresser than proving the WMD argument.

Quote

It's as simple as Got Proof?

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 14 2004,2:29 pm

Quote

The ‘World Tribune’- run by the same guy that brings you the Washington Times

Oldest debating trick in the book--impugn the source. That's why, as I said, I didn't post the Worldtribribune site until it had further verification--and I DID include the liberal N.Y. Times site (same article, with a conspicuous difference--they removed Saddam's name), AND added the U.N. link. You don't like the Washington Times--but we are supposed to believe the Washington Post? WHY? Perhaps you would agree with me, the N.Y. Times and the U.N. are not to be believed?

Quote

From UN Report "…that some of the materials may have been removed from Iraq by looters of sites and sold as scrap."

DUH! Even during the invasion the Iraqis were looting anything and everything.

That's the whole point of the Times article, and the U.N. report--These are PROSCRIBED (forbidden) weapons, according to the UN resolutions. Points 13, & 14 say, in effect "yes, these are proscribed weapons (weapons that are forbidden by our resolution), obtained from "outside sources" (like the Russians and the French--who broke the U.N. embargo, and now have been shown to be part of the largest bribery scandal in the history of the world--the "Oil for food" program). But that's O.K.--Saddam told us about these illegal weapons, and we didn't do anything about them.

The thing that SHOULD be embarrassing to the U.N., and to the Russians and the French, is that these weapons existed at all. They weren't "old" weapons, they were modern ones--bought during the time that the UN itself was "enforcing" "trade sanctions" against Iraq--with two Security Council members breaking the sanctions. Remember, at the time, the UN, France, and Russia bleating "give sanctions time to work" (12 years?)

--all the while they were subverting them.

It is interesting that indeed, these were found and sold by looters--NOT SADDAM--OR THE UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS.

Quote

Believe it or not, not everyone has ADD and some of us actually remember what was going on prior to the invasion, and these missiles were news and being destroyed by Saddam in an effort to stave off an invasion by the US

See sections 7&8 of the U.N. report--section 7 says that officials in this yard alone had "7-12 missiles"--the UN says in both sections that other missiles may have gone to other areas. These are not the primitive "in-country" missiles that SAddam started destroying piecemeal--too late.

Quote

"Got Proof?"

How absurd--N.Y. Times runs this article, the U.N. publishes the article. All the previous items?

Quote

Sarin gas shells, FOUND mustard gas shells FOUND, thousands of gallons of Sarin "insecticide" (stored in underground bunkers with other ammo FOUND, protected by camoflage--the Iraqis have a fetish about keeping their ammo dumps free of bugs)

, Artillery shells filled with Sarin and labled "insecticide" FOUND (what a unique way to deliver "insecticide"--does Orkin know about this? No need for crop sprayers any more--just pack "insecticide" in artillery shells and "fire for effect" on your fields) Mig-25s and 27s buried in the desert sand FOUND. "Nope, no Weapons of Mass Destruction Here!"

What does it take to convince a liberal that Saddam is no Abraham Lincoln? That he doesn't mean us well? That he has the will, the capability, and the history to use WMDs? DOES HE HAVE TO THUMB HIS NOSE AT THE UN, SET HUNDREDS OF OIL WELLS ON FIRE, INVADE NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES, OR KILL THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE in order to convince liberals that he is not the ogre those mean old conservatives make him out to be? OH, WAIT, HE'S ALREADY DONE THOSE THINGS! Liberals have been wrong on nearly every aspect of this war--perhaps they just need "more proof".

Posted by cpu_slave on Jun. 14 2004,4:33 pm

Quote

Oldest debating trick in the book--impugn the source.

Come one now jim- if the source has a known political skew and a history of agenda pushing are we to simply overlook that and conclude if it is merely published it must therefore be true?

Quote

That's why, as I said, I didn't post the Worldtribribune site until it had further verification--and I DID include the liberal N.Y. Times site

Then you come back and do the exact same thing- pointing out the slant of the NY Times! Now let’s take a step back here and look at the bigger picture, politics. We all know that since the WMD rhetoric used to sell the public on this war was overstated it has come back to bite this administration at a bad time, namely election season. That is why you see the right-slanted media over blowing any insignificant find in Iraq as the ‘smoking gun’ while the more left-slanted media at the same time tries to underplay any actual significance without hard proof. Either way- one rusty old bomb with sarin is a far cry from what the administration was stating at the start of this mess. Remember, the administration that told the world that Saddam was sitting on stockpiles of WMD and that we could get the proof by invading? Again, after 18 months we still can not produce one thing on Powells’ list to the UN so along comes this theory that if they found some parts in a scrap yard that Saddam must have did it, never mind that these ‘found’ parts are nothing new.

Quote

That's the whole point of the Times article, and the U.N. report--These are PROSCRIBED (forbidden) weapons, according to the UN resolutions.

And we knew of these before the start of the war, remember? The missile went over the mileage range limit by a couple of hundred miles and therefore they were “forbidden”. This is still far short of proving that Iraq with it’s “weapons” was a direct threat to the US. Besides, these missiles were not pointed to as “WMD” before the invasion, so why the misdirect now? Oh that’s right, politics.

Quote

They weren't "old" weapons, they were modern ones--bought during the time that the UN itself was "enforcing" "trade sanctions" against Iraq—

Yes, we all know Saddam violated UN resolutions and skirted sanctions, but this still falls short on the WMD meter. Israel violates resolutions daily and with the US in it’s corner nothing bad happens to them- but if they were sitting on a big oil reserve I think things may have been different…

Quote

Make up your mind- do you believe that the Samoud 2 missiles were primitive or modern? You can not have it both ways! Before the war I believe the number was somewhere around 25-30 Samoud 2 missiles, all dismantled prior to the US invasion. Not to hard to figure that the parts of them that are worth a few bucks would turn up somewhere…

Quote

All the previous items?

Quote

Sarin gas shells, FOUND mustard gas shells FOUND, thousands of gallons of Sarin "insecticide" (stored in underground bunkers with other ammo FOUND, protected by camoflage--the Iraqis have a fetish about keeping their ammo dumps free of bugs) , Artillery shells filled with Sarin and labled "insecticide" FOUND (what a unique way to deliver "insecticide"--does Orkin know about this? No need for crop sprayers any more--just pack "insecticide" in artillery shells and "fire for effect" on your fields) Mig-25s and 27s buried in the desert sand FOUND. "Nope, no Weapons of Mass Destruction Here!"

Please cite a source for all these ‘finds’ and how these items fit into the administrations WMD list. All I can find on the sarin is one 'suspected' shell but further tests were needed to conclusively identify, a far cry from the ‘thousands of gallons of sarin’ that you state as 'found'. As for the planes, Saddam's regime had about 300 combat aircraft, all of them survivors of the Gulf War. Most were aging Soviet-era MiGs, Sukhois and older French Mirage fighters. The best were the MiG-29 Fulcrums, one of the most advanced fighters produced in the Soviet era. Again, nothing new here.

Quote

What does it take to convince a liberal that Saddam is no Abraham Lincoln?

Who the hell said he was Abe? When did simply being against this administration make me a liberal? I guess it’s the old ‘if your not behind this administration then you’re a dirty liberal hippy commie’ rhetoric that the neo-cons are so bent on believing. Not everything is black or white, left or right, republican or democrat, conservative or liberal despite what the left and the right would have you believe.

Quote

That he has the will, the capability, and the history to use WMDs?

Holy jumpin' jesus jim- I can name several countries that fit this description: Germany, Russia, France, China, etc. Hell, even the US fits that description. Even so, is this all that is needed to invade? No proof, no evidence, just the history, will, and capability? Man, should I go back into hiding because I have a history of intelligence, have the will and am capable of using it? I guess by your neo-con logic that means I am an intimate threat and need to be dealt with before it’s too late… :laugh:

Quote

Liberals have been wrong on nearly every aspect of this war--perhaps they just need "more proof".

No, this administration has been wrong on nearly every aspect of this war- and the sheep that swallowed all the BS are finally starting to ask the questions that needed to be asked, like:
Where is the WMD that, as the administration stated, was all over the place in Iraq?
Why are the people still fighting and US soliders still dying? Saddam is gone, most of his leadership captured so you cant blame it all on him.
Remember, it was this administration that sold you on the Iraq war, making you believe that after we walked into Iraq that the citizens would be throwing flowers and oil at us in thanks for ‘liberating’ them. Didn’t go as planned now did it? Still, I find it silly that conservatives are still holding onto hope that something, anything would be found to prove the WMD claims. Sorry, but something ‘suspected’ as sarin, a few old buried jets (that we knew he had prior to Gulf War I) and missile engines from systems scrapped before we invaded are a far cry from all the ‘evidence’ pointed to by this administration. Like the old lady from the classic Wendy’s commercial, Where’s the Beef?

Jim, you seem pretty partisan-blinded on this issue. Step back and ask yourself how you would feel if all the events happened but instead of bush it was gore in the oval office? Thought so…

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 15 2004,11:17 am

Quote

Come one now jim- if the source has a known political skew and a history of agenda pushing are we to simply overlook that and conclude if it is merely published it must therefore be true?

Not only the Worldtribune (The Washington Times is biased but the Washington Post isn't?), but I also cited the N.Y. Times (one of the most liberal papers out there), and the U.N. report itself.

Quote

The missile went over the mileage range limit by a couple of hundred miles and therefore they were “forbidden

Saddam said he had only the older missiles. HE LIED. He said he had only 50 of the old missiles, and "volunteered" to get rid of a few at a time. HE LIED. The missile in the photo was mis-identified by Saddam--HE LIED. The salvage yard says they can recall up to 12 missiles going through the yard--perhaps more--and this is just one salvage yard. The obvious conclusion--SADDAM LIED.

Quote

Yes, we all know Saddam violated UN resolutions and skirted sanctions, but this still falls short on the WMD meter.

Violated UN sanctions? Hell, yes!--at least 12 of them! Skirted sanctions? Yes, with the complicity of Germany, France, and Russia--UN members, Security Council members, Friend of Saddam, and profiteers of the largest bribery scandal in the history of the world. Remember, these "friends" not only refused to support action against Saddam (and we can now see why), but actively worked against us.

Quote

Make up your mind- do you believe that the Samoud 2 missiles were primitive or modern?

Read carefully--the missiles were newer than any he had acknowledged--deliberate deception. The gas shells were old--that's why the chemicals didn't mix--these were "proscribed" (forbidden)--and he said he had gotten rid of them--deliberate deception.

Quote

Please cite a source for all these ‘finds’ and how these items fit into the administrations WMD list.

In the interest of brevity, will you acknowledge finding a Sarin gas shell, and mustard gas shells? I thought he said he got rid of all of these--he wasn't supposed to have them. Where did they come from? More looters raiding his secret stockpiles? There ARE a lot of drums of "insecticide" (whose base is SARIN). Yes, this COULD be one of those "dual-use" chemicals--but why put them in ammunition dumps, covered by camoflage? Why put it in artillery shells (but to be fair, the shells WERE labeled "insecticide"--enough to placate most liberals). What a unique way to spray crops--you could cover most of Freeborn County with a half-dozen firebases!) Those supersonic jet fighters (Mig-25--still one of the flat-out fastest fighters in existence, Mig-27--the one you can buy a ride on to nearly 100,000 feet higher than any of our current fighters--the Mig-29--acknowledged to be the equal of our F-16) buried in the desert--I'm sure a creative liberal mind can find a "dual-use" reason for them, too. ("Hiding weapons--uh, no, we were going to use them for "crop dusters" for "insecticide" after we kicked out the infidels")--WHERE'S "BAGHDAD BOB" WHEN YOU NEED HIM--even James Carville couldn't explain this fairy tale.

Quote

this administration has been wrong on nearly every aspect of this war

Liberals forecast "thousands of US deaths"--"hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths", "a quagmire" (they like that word--from the people that brought you "quagmire" in Vietnam), "no link, no link" of Iraq as a sponsor or haven for terrorists, "Bush Lied" about WMDs.

Quote

Step back and ask yourself how you would feel if all the events happened but instead of bush it was gore in the oval office?

Reminded of the quote: "God smiles upon fools and the United States of America" Maybe it WASN'T the Supreme Court (as liberals like to say) that intervened in Gore's Florida Fiasco--There MUST be a Divine Intervention--can you IMAGINE a President Gore, after his crazy rant last week? Too timid, then too vituperative--he must be "re-inventing" himself yet again!

The reality is that the war was won in a matter of days--as one wag put it--less time than it took Janet Reno to take Waco"--no quagmire here. Military casualties were few in comparison to the number of troops involved--about the same as the number of homicides in Michigan annually. Yes, there were civilian casualties--that is inevitable in war--but the U.S. went to great lengths to minimize them. I would guess that Saddam killed more people than the U.S. did. More evidence of Saddam's terror complicity comes forth every week. Any way you put it--the world is a better place without Saddam--the Middle East may see an example a country being ruled without a king or dictator, Libya has renounced its own WMD. I'd say it is worth it.

P.J. O'Rourke said it best--"I'm not against the WAR, I'm against the PEACE". Dennis Miller added "Go in there and tell them we are going to crank up the war again--no more nice guys--shoot at a U.S. soldier, and there will be hell to pay!"

Posted by cpu_slave on Jun. 15 2004,4:05 pm

Quote

Not only the Worldtribune (The Washington Times is biased but the Washington Post isn't?), but I also cited the N.Y. Times (one of the most liberal papers out there), and the U.N. report itself.

Jim- I think you are misunderstanding my statement about media bias- to put it bluntly –ALL MEDIA IS BIAS one way or the other. My linking the worldtribune.com site to the Washington Times and the rest of the right was to show which way this particular news source slanted. As for the UN report itself- I find no wording in it saying these missile engines are proof of Saddams WMD.

Quote

Saddam said he had only the older missiles…

Before the invasion, Saddam was in the process of destroying the handful of missiles that violated the UN sanctions list. The UN never said that Saddam could not have any missiles or planes, it just limited the types to those that had no real range.

Quote

The salvage yard says they can recall up to 12 missiles going through the yard--perhaps more--and this is just one salvage yard. The obvious conclusion--SADDAM LIED.

12? Less than half of what was destroyed prior to the invasion? Just how many salvage yards are there that specialize in recycling the types of metals contained in these missiles? Again, this is a conclusion drawn without any actual proof, only speculation and assumptions.

Quote

Violated UN sanctions? Hell, yes!--at least 12 of them!

Again- Israel has violated how many? For how many years longer than Iraq?

Quote

the missiles were newer than any he had acknowledged

What? He admitted to having them to the UN well before the invasion and even destroyed them before we went in.

Quote

The gas shells were old--that's why the chemicals didn't mix--these were "proscribed" (forbidden)--and he said he had gotten rid of them--deliberate deception.

Just how many 'sarin shells' have we found over there? One? Which could have been filled with chemicals terrorists brought with them from other countries? I know a few gun show regulars who have more 'WMD' in their basements than that.

Quote

In the interest of brevity, will you acknowledge finding a Sarin gas shell, and mustard gas shells?

One shell found with suspected sarin (still waiting for the tests to prove – been down this road before with the ‘smoking gun’ only to later find that the initial field tests were wrong-) and 10 shells which contain the decayed residue of mustard gas predating the first gulf war which were on a < UN list from 2003 >, but the inspectors were pulled out before they could be destroyed. Now some of the same shells are turning up and this is supposedly some sort of ‘big find’? The smoking gun? Ok- you got me, yes they found some shells- so are these shells the ‘huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons’ that bush and the gang were pointing to as the need to rush in?

As for the jets, we knew he had them because he had them for over a decade and again, they were not on the UN sanctioned list. Realistically, they were probably buried out there so they would survive a US air attack and be used in a fight. Only problem was Saddams army really did not want to fight so there they sat until we 'found' them.

Quote

The reality is that the war was won in a matter of days--as one wag put it— less time than it took Janet Reno to take Waco"--no quagmire here.

Days? Really? Then why have nearly as many soldiers died after the victory? We will see if we really ‘won’ when we see who the Iraqi people freely elect as their leader and the violence ended. Besides, if you want to compare this to Waco, then how many months did Reno stay there ‘nation building after the victory?’ How many soldiers died liberating ‘Waco’ and then in the subsequent months guarding it? How many billions of dollars were spent rebuilding Waco after we liberated it?

Quote

Any way you put it--the world is a better place without Saddam—

I will agree with this, especially if we leave Iraq a better place then we found it. There are some who say that the people there can only be ruled by a dictator and that they are not ready for democracy- that’s why these people never really tried a revolution on their own (oh wait- the Kurds tried when they thought Bush Sr. was going to help- and without it they were slaughtered)

I guess time will only tell us if this whole episode was worth it as far as freeing a people. Only problem is that in order to achieve this goal we were lied to by this administration telling us that we needed to invade before Iraq attacked us with all those pesky WMD's.

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 15 2004,6:58 pm

Quote

My linking the worldtribune.com site to the Washington Times and the rest of the right was to show which way this particular news source slanted.

Which is why I linked the liberal N.Y. Times and the original UN document.

Quote

Before the invasion, Saddam was in the process of destroying the handful of missiles that violated the UN sanctions list.

Yep, a few at a time--and you say "handful of missiles that violated the un sanctions list". Obviously, he DIDN'T destroy those missiles, did he--they are being unearthed now. He DID produce missiles that violated the UN resolution--obviously, the UN resolution meant so little to the UN that they didn't bother to enforce their own resolution--and it meant so little to Saddam that he wasn't afraid of being caught with them by the toothless UN. It didn't mean anything to the complicent French, supplying the missiles to Saddam in violation of the UN embargo that they themselves signed off on.

So much for the UN--"resolve, talk, cheat, resolve again, talk, talk.....". The Husseins COUNTED on UN inaction, and the obstructionism of the French. In the words of Saddam's son to his bodyguard on the eve of the war--"This Bush, I think he means to come...". Words MEAN things to some people--unlike Mr. Clinton, who made empty threats--who considered a promise a "point to start negotiations", who could parse the meaning of IS.

Quote

Israel has violated how many?(UN sanctions)

Do you really want to get into moral relativism here? This, from the same people that can't stand to have any other president compared to Clinton?

Quote

(Sarin-filled artillery shells) Which could have been filled with chemicals terrorists brought with them from other countries?

It was inevitable that this would be accused of being a "plant". How is it, that it is plausible that terrorists would bring a nerve-gas shell into Iraq ](ever heard the saying "Like carrying coals to Newcastle"? Carrying coal to a place that is famous for mining coal?), but it considered implausible that Saddam buried and shipped out his WMDs before and during the war?

Quote

but the inspectors were pulled out before they could be destroyed

Saddam had 12 years to destroy the banned gas shells--BUT DIDN'T. Recall, the inspectors weren't "PULLED OUT"--Saddam KICKED THEM OUT.

Quote

the Kurds tried (to revolt) when they thought Bush Sr. was going to help- and without it they were slaughtered)

True, and it is a shameful period in U.S. history--ranks right up there with the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, and Somalia as far as promising one thing, then reneging, cutting and running. It is that reason why the U.S. is considered an unreliable ally in the world--you can't depend on their actions. Reagan and Thatcher changed that in the 1980s--the world knew that when Thatcher gave fair warning to the Argentines in the Falklands that they were coming, and that when Reagan built up the military, stated that we would build and deploy SDI, and told Gorbachev "tear down this wall"--he meant what he said--not empty words. Subsequent politicians--administrations and legislators--are small in stature compared to them.

Posted by hoosier on Jun. 16 2004,8:45 am

CPU_Slave 1
Jim 0

Posted by cpu_slave on Jun. 16 2004,11:09 am

Sorry Jim- but when someone has to needlessly resort to bringing up Clinton in their debate it is obviously over. I am so tired of the ‘Clinton got a blow-job’ – ‘Clinton and Whitewater’ – ‘Clinton and the meaning of IS’ – because honestly this debate had nothing to do with him- It had to do with Saddam, Iraq, Bush, the current administration, the UN, and WMD.

Perhaps we need a < Godwin’s Law >pertaining to the frequent invoking of Clinton in debates not directly relating to him…

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 16 2004,4:35 pm

Not one rebuttal to the last post? What ABOUT the missiles? Moral Relativism? The implausibility of planted evidence, the libs refusal to believe that the WMDs might actually have been moved--as the cited news sources say? What about appearance of gas shells--items that Saddam says he destroyed--items that he wasn't supposed to have--items that show him to be a liar? What about the shameful record of U.S. foreign policy (I'm even agreeing with you there) and the horrible record of the U.S. as a dependable ally?

We can't even talk about Clinton, but it's OK to bash Reagan, Bush 41, or Bush 43 at will? Who came up with that one? Have you been on the Democratic Underground site again? Predictably, they don't allow criticism of their proposals on the site. Like him or loathe him, Clinton WAS president for 8 years--the policies and actions (or inactions) are still with us today--like the proverbial "elephant in the room", he is too big to be ignored.

What is this, like the Devil himself "NONE MAY DARE SAY HIS NAME?" Are we to refer to him, like the devil, by NUMBER--666--"the mark of the beast"--to avoid saying his name?

Posted by cpu_slave on Jun. 16 2004,5:18 pm

Quote

Not one rebuttal to the last post?

I have already addressed most of the points already- do you want me to go over them again? You really must be bored.

Quote

What ABOUT the missiles?

The missiles that were destroyed? What? You don’t think that parts of them can show up? that they somehow mysteriously vanish completely?

Quote

Moral Relativism?

You want to discuss Chenny’s business dealings with Iraq during the ‘sanction period’? Fine- let’s open that box. Dresser corp (which was a subsidiary of Halliburton while he was CEO) sold Saddam 73 million worth of oil well equipment. But the only one who had evidence of it ,who would prove it, was Chalabi. He got it when his people raided Saddam's HQ just after the war started. And now the US has it because they raided Chalabi's place a month or so ago when the crap hit the fan with him. They said it was because of him leaking info to Iran but it was because he was leaking info about those who broke sanctions i.e. the Oil for Food /UN debacle.

Quote

the libs refusal to believe that the WMDs might actually have been moved

Moved exactly where Jim? We had satellites watching the borders we could not actually put our troops on- so if saddam ‘moved’ anything out of Iraq we would have *proof*-

Quote

What about appearance of gas shells--items that Saddam says he destroyed-

Old shells with decayed residue? Those shells? Perhaps they were simply overlooked? Still, wasn’t this ‘WMD’ supposed to be stockpiled everywhere? So why can’t we find it?

Quote

We can't even talk about Clinton

Jim- if you want to start a discussion about Clinton, start another thread. Instead, in this thread you brought up Clinton out of the blue- in comparison to threats. You could have easily made a better comparison to Bush Sr. but the ‘right’ in you wouldn’t allow it. This thread is about WMD and the claims *this* administration made, not the former. I know you neo-cons love to throw out ‘Clinton’ every time you get the chance, but it’s getting really old. Is it too much to ask that you at least try and defend something on it’s own merit without having to point to Clinton and bring up blow-jobs- IS- etc? Sure, some of his policies are with us today- but WMD in Iraq was not one of them. If you are looking for someone to blame saddam on, you could start with Rumsfeld, Reagan, and Bush Sr. They are the ones that put him in power, backed the war with Iraq and supplied him with all those chemical weapons. Yet you will still try and put the blame on Clinton…

Posted by irisheyes on Jun. 16 2004,6:27 pm

Quote (cpu_slave @ June 16 2004,5:18:pm)

This thread is about WMD and the claims *this* administration made, not the former.
If you are looking for someone to blame saddam on, you could start with Rumsfeld, Reagan, and Bush Sr.

I thought you don't want former administrations brought up? Looking at several different threads, the trend has been that bashing Clinton is a very touchy subject for some. Yet as long as the former President being blamed is a Republican (Reagan, & Bush Sr. in this example) it's fair game.
It doesn't make any difference to me whether someone bashes Reagan, Bush Sr. or Jr., so why does Clinton have the Golden pass with many liberals?

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 16 2004,8:04 pm

Quote

defend something on it’s own merit without having to point to Clinton and bring up blow-jobs-

Can you find me one instance where I've brought up the subject? All of my posts have been relative to lying to Congress, lying to the people, admitted perjury, etc. There is no defense for these charges--Clinton copped a plea on his final day in office to avoid indictment the following day, when he would have been a private citizen, and no longer exempt. Despite all of the Democratic faithful echoing the party line "It's all about Sex", I don't recall a single one of the indictments for his shameful sexual behavior. Methinks is is a ~~Freudian~~ make that Pavlovian slip--the minute somebody brings up Clinton, the auto-response is "It's all about Sex!"

Regarding the moving of the WMD's

Quote

Moved exactly where Jim? We had satellites watching the borders we could not actually put our troops on- so if saddam ‘moved’ anything out of Iraq we would have *proof*-

I realize that there can NEVER be enough proof for a Bush-basher, but try this site--it even has a map. Just so it can't be construed as an "unauthoritave source", there are also links to CNN, the London Daily Telegraph, Fox News, Newsmax, and the Wall Street Journal. The stories talk about the proposed chemical bomb planned to explode in Jordan, which would have killed 80,000 people (no WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION, here!)

(sarcasm) The planner trained in Iraq under Al Zarcowi (nope, no terrorist here!). The question--WHERE did the "friendly material" (the NON-WMDs) come from? Through Syria. Where did they get them? Do they have a production capability of their own?
< http://deneb.bu.edu/essays/wmdsyria/ >

Quote

You want to discuss Chenny’s business dealings with Iraq during the ‘sanction period’? Fine- let’s open that box. Dresser corp (which was a subsidiary of Halliburton while he was CEO) sold Saddam 73 million worth of oil well equipment. But the only one who had evidence of it ,who would prove it, was Chalabi. He got it when his people raided Saddam's HQ just after the war started. And now the US has it because they raided Chalabi's place a month or so ago when the crap hit the fan with him. They said it was because of him leaking info to Iran but it was because he was leaking info about those who broke sanctions i.e. the Oil for Food /UN debacle.

You had all the right words, just didn't finish connecting the dots. I highlighted the operable words. "Desser sold oil well equipment to Iraq for use in the Oil for Food/UN debacle" The difference? Desser sold legal equipment to Iraq--not proscribed (forbidden) by UN mandates--so that Iraq could "trade oil for food". There is no way Saddam could make other use of that material. France, Germany, and Russia, however, sold munitions, fermenters, missle parts, airplanes, etc. to Iraq--in contravention of the UN sanctions that they had signed. The largest bribery scandal in the history of the world--and Goofy Anus (Kofi Annan) from the UN is holding up the inquiry--3 months, already--claiming "we don't have enough money to investigate it in depth". Perhaps it has to do with the fact that his son is the president of a Panamanian company that received some of the kickbacks?

Posted by cpu_slave on Jun. 17 2004,9:10 am

Quote

I don’t have a problem when someone brings up past administrations with a relevant connection, but let’s face it, many times Clinton is brought up needlessly. It’s getting to be if the right is loosing an argument, they come back with ‘well clinton got a blow-job’ , ‘clinton and the meaning of ‘is’’ which really has nothing to do with the argument at hand. I guess if we can’t change that, then the level of these discussions is going to rapidly deteriorate with all the ‘bushisms’ we can also throw in for no reason other than to just do so.

Quote

the minute somebody brings up Clinton, the auto-response is "It's all about Sex!"

we can argue this in another thread if you would like, because I seen the entire episode as a witch hunt. I admit you did not bring up the blow-job, but you have to admit that the lies and such were connected to this one incident. It would be akin to bringing up ‘OJ being free is an injustice’ but denying that you even brought up the subject of him being a killer. See what I am getting at here?

Quote

Through Syria. Where did they get them?

There is a terrorist training ground if there ever was one. So what are you saying, that Iraq is the only place in the area that can make WMD? If so, than why are we having such a problem with Iran now?

Quote

Desser sold legal equipment to Iraq--not proscribed

Then why are they denying it and trying to hide it? Something doesn’t smell right… but go ahead and put your blinders back on just the same...

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 17 2004,11:59 am

Quote

I admit you did not bring up the blow-job, but you have to admit that the lies and such were connected to this one incident.

That's the whole point--Clinton CHOSE to lie, when he didn't even HAVE to. If it truly was "just about sex"--he would have been beat up a bit in the press, he would have been denounced in the well of the Senate, and that would have been it. As it was, he showed his lack of character by going into attack mode--asking Betty Currie to lie for him ("you were with me all the time, right?"), attacking the veracity of the women that accused him ("drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, no telling what you'll get"), he lied to Hillary, who defended him on national TV, he lied to the television cameras and to us (pointing his finger, "I never had sex with that woman Not once" (OK, that part was true, it was MULTIPLE TIMES

), He lied to the Special Prosecutor, he lied to Congress.

Never forget, it was the LAST TWO items that he would have been indicted for, but instead COPPED A PLEA ON HIS LAST DAY IN OFFICE. Not one charge of "having sex in the oval office".

Quote

There is a terrorist training ground if there ever was one. So what are you saying, that Iraq is the only place in the area that can make WMD?

That's the whole point of the article link I provided--they caught the guys trying to explode the bio-bomb in Jordan--and they said it came from materials moved from Iraq. From DebkaFiles, as reported in Worldnetdaily

Quote

The convoys were spotted by U.S. satellites in early 2003, but the contents of the WMD convoys from Iraq to Syria were not confirmed.
Confirmation later came from Iraqi scientists and technicians questioned by a U.S. team that was searching for Saddam's conventional weapons. But all they knew was the convoys were heading west to Syria.

But over the last few months, U.S. intelligence managed to track the Iraqi WMD convoy to Lebanon's Bekaa Valley.

Through the use of satellites, electronic monitoring and human intelligence, the intelligence community has determined that much, if not all, of Iraq's biological and chemical weapons assets are being protected by Syria, with Iranian help, in the Bekaa Valley.

The Syrians received word from Saddam Hussein in late 2002 that the Iraqi WMD would be arriving and Syrian army engineering units began digging huge trenches in the Bekaa Valley.

Saddam paid more than $30 million in cash for Syria to build the pits, acquire the Iraqi WMD and conceal them.

At first, U.S. intelligence thought Iraqi WMD was stored in northern Syria. But in February 2003 a Syrian defector told U.S. intelligence the WMD was buried in or around three Syrian Air Force installations.

But intelligence sources said the Syrians kept dual-use nuclear components for themselves while transferring the more incriminating material to Lebanon.

Since then, big explosion in one of the Syrian installations--reported by some as a missile explosion.

Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 17 2004,2:15 pm

NOT for cpu-slave--but for anybody else reading. CPU_slave and I have been "arguing" (but not "convincing" each other!

)about a multitude of topics--but they aren't rancorous--just friendly "discussion". I've had the same (shall we call it "strident"?) discussions with Liberal--I respect him, have met with him, and feel I can call him my friend. CPU_slave and I have also PMd each other several times, and I have mentioned the way that he courteously defends his WRONG positions. I have always said that the value of this Forum is not in the debate, but in the formulation of our OWN thoughts--an appraisal of what we really believe. I ran across this on "I love Jet Noise" (subtitled "The sound of Freedom--or one of us being wrong")

Quote

This is why campus "tolerance" movements and speech codes are so dangerous. Often one doesn't know why a line of reasoning is wrong until it is questioned, explored, and exposed. This is why I used to enjoy writing papers - it wasn't so much the process of writing that I enjoyed. But when I was done, I had worked out my position on a topic that interested me (and if it didn't interest me, I refused to write about it - much to my teachers' annoyance). Often, especially when I was younger, I began a paper with one topic sentence and in working through the logic of the argument, would arrive at a different conclusion by the end of the paper. The process was fascinating to me.

Other times in class discussions, a question was posed and I had no idea what the answer was until another student advanced an idea that was obviously wrong. Suddenly, on hearing the wrong answer, the correct answer would leap into my mind as if by magic.

That sums up my position exactly--So--I should say "THANK YOU, LIBERAL & CPU_SLAVE, for the WRONG answers"--you help me compose my thoughts!

(sarcasm). I'm leaving for those trips to the Arctic I mentioned a few weeks ago (they have been delayed for two weeks, because there was still two feet of ice on the lakes as of last week), and will have only a couple of days home until mid-July. No computer access--telephone by satphone only--Lots of big fish, billions of bugs, (let's see, which is worse, pesky, non-thinking liberals, or pesky, non-thinking bugs?) and not a liberal around (even in Canada!)

for well over 150 miles (If you think we have a dislike for Washington, you should spend some time in the Western Provinces and NW Territories, and see what they think of THEIR government--socialized medicine, gun control, outrageous taxes, etc.!)

See you in a few weeks--by that time, Mr. Kerry should have self-destructed!

Posted by farouk on Jun. 18 2004,8:11 am

Isn't it interesting the miles of crap we will consume to be able to support our beliefs. I guess that I am no different. I believe that Bush wanted to go into Iraq to avenge his family honor. Chenney wanted the war as part of his secret energy deal.
Oh say does anyone know what Chenney's smerk is about. Is it about the sh!t kickn we just took or about the one he is going to let us have.
Oh well, I just wanted to come in as say that I was not buying any of this WMD stuff today.

Posted by cpu_slave on Jun. 18 2004,10:05 am

Quote

< From UN Report- >

…An example is the discovery by Danish troops of 120-mm mortars in southern Iraq in January, reported in the media as possibly containing a blistering chemical-weapons agent. A statement was later made by the Danish Army to the effect that the laboratory test results on the 120-mm mortars had been negative for the presence of chemical weaons agents.

and the rest of the report is also an interesting read, basically stating what I already knew- Iraq had NO WMD for the past several YEARS! Do you think the reason that other nations did not join shrubs ‘coalition’ is because they had access to this information and could see the truth for themselves? Yet the neo-cons would still have you believe that the WMD are there, and that the countries that refused to go along with this whole thing did so because they were supporting saddam. More of that ‘if you are not with us you’re against us’ rhetoric.

This whole episode would be like after Pearl Harbor, we attacked Scotland because of the Loch Ness Monster…

Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 02 2004,12:23 pm

Here's a startling find. From today's BBC NEWS:

Quote

Troops 'foil Iraq nerve gas bid'

The gas is said to be five times deadlier than sarin
Poland's Defence Ministry says its troops in Iraq have thwarted an attempt by militants to buy a quantity of warheads containing nerve agents.
The country's military intelligence chief said troops had increased efforts to find the weapons when told they were on the market for about $5,000 each.

Gen Marek Dukaczewski was commenting on last month's recovery of 17 warheads for a 1980s Soviet-era rocket system.

Tests indicate some warheads contain cyclosarin, more powerful than sarin.

Believed to have been used by Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war
Gen Dukaczewski said an attack using such weapons was hard to imagine.

The former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein produced cyclosarin in the 1980s to fight Iran but was bound by UN resolutions following the 1991 Gulf War to destroy stocks and cease production.

'Mortified'

Gen Dukaczewski said the shells had been purchased in June after individuals contacted officials in its military zone in south-central Iraq.

Poland leads a multinational force in south-central Iraq
"We were mortified by the information that terrorists were looking for these warheads and offered $5,000 apiece," he said.

"An attack with such weapons would be hard to imagine. All of our activity was accelerated at appropriating these warheads."

US experts carried out tests on the warheads, which indicated the presence of cyclosarin and mustard gas.

The general said the ammunition had been buried in order to avoid it being discovered by UN weapons inspectors.

They were located in a bunker in the Polish sector, but officials refused to reveal their exact whereabouts.

Inconclusive searches by inspectors led the US to accuse Saddam Hussein of failing to surrender chemical and biological weapons and were cited as one of the reasons for the US-led invasion in 2003.

In May, an artillery shell apparently filled with sarin exploded at a roadside near Baghdad but caused no serious injury.

Quote

CYCLOSARIN
Nerve agent five times more powerful and durable than Sarin
Symptoms are shortness of breath, muscle spasm, unconsciousness.

Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 02 2004,12:27 pm

Here's ther picture.