PDA

View Full Version : So Where Are The Weapons Of Mass Destruction?


empiremaker03
Apr 14th, 2003, 05:01 AM
so will this be more of the same? for those that can remember the Clinton Administration lied its ass off--particularly the State Department to justify dropping bombs over Belgrade...the article below relays the initial reason for the *kabal* attacking a foreign country that is not occupying foreign land or that has attacked...now all one sees on the news channel is "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and bin laden & "weapons of mass murder" are just stickling points...i wonder where all this newfound concern for the Iraqi people was during Gulf War I or the decade long sanctions that have brutalized so many Iraqi children...I know where it was: in the words of former Secretary of Hate Madleline Albright in discussing the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children resulting in some manner from the sanctions "we think the price is worth it" Does that price meaning not giving Iraq the means to continue its weapons buildup?

By Andrew Gumbel
The Independent - UK
4-13-3

They were the reason the United States and Britain were in such a hurry to go to war, the threat the rank-and-file troops feared most.

And yet, after three weeks of war, after the capture of Baghdad and the collapse of the Iraqi government, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction those weapons that President Bush, on the eve of hostilities, said were a direct threat to the people of the United States have still to be identified.

Many influential people disarmament experts, present and former United Nations arms inspectors, our own Robin Cook have begun to wonder aloud if the weapons exist at all.

The public surrender of a senior Iraqi scientist could yet backfire against the US and Britain. Lieutenant-General Amer Hammoudi al-Saadi, who handed himself over to US forces yesterday, continued to proclaim that Iraq no longer holds any chemical or biological weapons. He should know: the British-educated chemical expert headed the Iraqi delegation at weapons talks with the United Nations.

The few "discoveries" trumpeted in the media the odd barrel here, a few dozen shells there have not been on a scale that could reasonably justify the unprovoked military invasion of a sovereign country, and in most cases have been proven to been no more than rumour, or propaganda, or a mixture of the two.

It could still be that, as American forces advance on Tikrit, Saddam's home town, chemical or biological weapons may be discovered, or even deployed by diehard Iraqi troops. But if the casus belli pleaded by George Bush and Tony Blair turns out to be entirely hollow and it should be stressed that we can't yet know that what does it say about their motivations for going to war in the first place? How much deception was involved in talking up the Iraqi threat, and how much self-deception?

As Susan Wright, a disarmament expert at the University of Michigan, said last week: "This could be the first war in history that was justified largely by an illusion." Even The Wall Street Journal, one of the administration's biggest cheerleaders, has warned of the "widespread scepticism" the White House can expect if it does not make significant, and undisputed, discoveries of forbidden weapons.

Before the war, American intelligence officials said that they had a list of 14,000 sites where, they suspected, chemical or biological agents had been harboured, as well as the delivery systems to deploy them. A substantial number of those sites have been inspected by the invading troops. Evidence to date of a "grave and gathering" threat: precisely zero.

Much of what has been unearthed points to something we knew about all along: the weapons programmes that Iraq ran before the 1991 Gulf War, before sanctions, before regular US and British bombing raids in the no-fly zones and before the UN weapons inspection regime that ran from 1991 to 1998.

US troops have discovered a few suspect barrels here, a sample bottle of nerve agent there, stacks of chemical suits and some drugs typically used to counteract the effects of a chemical attack, such as atropine and 2-pam chloride. According to many military experts, these finds suggest the vestiges of a weapons programme that has been dismantled, not one that is up and running. The US government argues that the weapons have been deliberately dispersed and hidden a claim that would have more merit if there were any evidence of where the materials might have gone.

In his State of the Union address in early February, President Bush was quite specific about the materials he believed Saddam was hiding: 25,000 litres of anthrax, 38,000 litres of botulinum toxin and 500 tons of sarin, mustard and nerve gas. These days, he does not mention weapons of mass destruction at all, focusing instead on the liberation of the Iraqi people as if liberation, not disarmament, had been the project all along.

The administration has shown its embarrassment in other ways. On day two of the war, Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, said finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction was the invading force's number two priority after toppling Saddam Hussein itself a reversal of the argument presented at the UN Security Council.

A week later, Victoria Clarke, the Pentagon spokeswoman, pushed the issue further down the list, behind capturing and evicting "terrorists sheltered in Iraq" and collecting intelligence on "terrorist networks". Now we are told that hunting for weapons is something we can expect once the fighting is over, and that it might go on for months before yielding significant results. "It's hard work," a plaintive Ms Clarke said last week.

Nonsense, say the disarmament experts. "It's clear there wasn't much," said Professor Wright, "otherwise they would have run into something by now. After all, they've taken Baghdad." Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector who spent four months badgering the United States and Britain in vain for reliable intelligence information about the whereabouts of lethal weapons, now says he believes the war was planned on entirely different criteria, well before his inspection teams went back into Iraq in December.

"I think the Americans started the war thinking there were some [weapons]. I think they now believe less in that possibility," he told the Spanish daily El Pais. "You ask yourself a lot of questions when you see the things they did to try to show that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons, like the fake contract with Niger."

Anxious to find a "smoking gun", a team of US disarmament experts has been set up to question Iraqis involved in weapons programmes, while others comb sites and analyse samples in the field using mobile labs.

The move has alarmed the weapons inspectors at the UN, where Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, pointedly said last week: "I think they are the ones with the mandate to disarm Iraq, and when the situation permits they should go back to resume their work."

The US team has attempted to lure some of the inspectors, who are recognised as the sole legitimate international authority on Iraq's weapons programmes.

The latest theory being touted in Washington by the usual unnamed government sources is that the Iraqis have moved their weapons out of the country, very possibly into Syria. This claim appears to have originated with Israeli intelligence which has every motivation for stirring up trouble for its hostile Arab neighbours and has been bolstered by reports of fighting between Iraqi Special Republican Guard units and US special forces near the Syrian border.

Disarmament experts do not give the claim much credence. After all, any suspicious convoy or mobile laboratory would almost certainly be spotted by US planes or spy satellites and bombed long before it reached Syria.

But the notion does provide the hawks in Washington with a compelling plot device not unlike the McGuffin factor in Alfred Hitchcock's films a catalyst that may or may not have significance in itself but that gets the suspense going and keeps the story rolling.

If the Bush administration should ever seek to turn its military wrath on Damascus, the weapons of mass destruction it is failing to find in Iraq might just provide the excuse once again.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=396733

JonBcn
Apr 14th, 2003, 09:17 AM
bugger the WMDs.

Next up: Syria.

tennisjam
Apr 14th, 2003, 11:42 AM
You can't compare Clinton's intervention on Belgrade and Bush's on Iraq...

Though I share the same point of view about using the "mass destruction weapons theme" as a reason for attacking Iraq for many other real reasons...

Milosevic was really continuing his genocide he commited already in Bosnia and Croatia and wanted it to be done on Kosovo...

You should know that it took years and over 300 000 death civilians to make NATO react...

I think this price was really huge and more than enough...It should have been done much earlier...

bee
Apr 14th, 2003, 12:30 PM
Now that the US won the war, I don't think WMD would ever be mentioned again!!! They would hoped that people will forget that was the reason they gave to start attacking Iraq !!! :)

empiremaker03
Apr 14th, 2003, 02:55 PM
Now that the US won the war, I don't think WMD would ever be mentioned again!!! They would hoped that people will forget that was the reason they gave to start attacking Iraq !!! :)

*they* don't have to worry b/c people will...

"You can't compare Clinton's intervention on Belgrade and Bush's on Iraq"...no? that illegal war set the stage for another--and of course attacking Serbia was far worse since it truly did not present any threat whatsoever to the U.S. and that was all about oil--that nice little pipeline going through Kosovo

kiwifan
Apr 14th, 2003, 03:13 PM
bugger the WMDs.

Next up: Syria. :worship: :worship: :worship:

I was going to post that new information indicates that the WMDs were moved to Syria probably in the French embassy. :p :p :p

"Living In the Past" - Jethro Tull

Warrior
Apr 14th, 2003, 04:20 PM
The U.S. weapons inspectors need MORE TIME!

Warrior
Apr 14th, 2003, 04:50 PM
Before the war, 71% of American said that the war is justified only if WMD are found. Now 58% say that war was justified even if they won't find the WMD. So it's no longer relevant to US government on a national level.

empiremaker03
Apr 14th, 2003, 05:31 PM
The U.S. weapons inspectors need MORE TIME!

i thought that was what the UN inspectors were claiming:confused:

if that 13% difference is an accurate reflection of shift in opinion (what cannot take a poll seriously unless all the methodology is stated) what does that say about that population? I guess the ends justify the means but that is not how a republic is supposed to operate

Warrior
Apr 14th, 2003, 05:37 PM
It was a joke! :rolleyes: US government complainted it takes too much for UN to find anything. Now they can't find anything themselves. So I was sarcastic anout, by say that now US needs more time to find WMD.

empiremaker03
Apr 14th, 2003, 05:42 PM
So I was sarcastic anout, by say that now US needs more time to find WMD.

:)

*JR*
Apr 14th, 2003, 08:40 PM
Well, they learned a LITTLE something from the Gulf War. After hunting for a "saleable" rationale, a perplexed Sec'y of State Jim Baker finally blurted out (in the midst of a, duh, recession) that it was about "jobs, jobs, jobs". (Of course the jobs Jimmy was mainly thinking of were those of Bush, Sr., himself, and co., which were "terminated" anyway within 2 years). So that's one reason they didn't give this time. :rolleyes:

empiremaker03
Apr 14th, 2003, 08:47 PM
the Gulf War, well why now and not then? why did *they* let the Iraqi people suffer 12 more years under this manical dictator? *they* left him in power by design and help crush the Kurdish rebellion by doing nothing...so 12 years later son is doing what daddy should have done? oh how i disfavor the cultish Bonesmen from Yale

decemberlove
Apr 14th, 2003, 08:47 PM
give em time im sure theyll plant something ;)

Rollo
Apr 14th, 2003, 10:32 PM
They'll find WMD. Saddam wasn't laying them out on display after all.
And then all of the anti-war people can think as decemberlove does:)
It will take a bomb (literally) in your own nation to wake the lot of you up to the culture war in your midst, but that's another subject. With luck it won't come to that.

As for Bosnia- If you see that war as illegal then Iraq was too. On the other hand those who favored action in Iraq can rightly point out that Europe, the UN, and Germany in particular were all grossly ineffective at stopping a horrific war in Europe's own backyard. European-style diplomacy was a disaster.

decemberlove
Apr 14th, 2003, 11:01 PM
They'll find WMD. Saddam wasn't laying them out on display after all.
And then all of the anti-war people can think as decemberlove does:)
It will take a bomb (literally) in your own nation to wake the lot of you up to the culture war in your midst, but that's another subject. With luck it won't come to that.


i actually agree with you somewhat.
i was being sarcastic... perhaps i should've used a different smiley? :)

Rollo
Apr 14th, 2003, 11:15 PM
I caught it december love. I did smile back :)

Interesting user name. Do you love december? No sarcasm allowed this time ;)

decemberlove
Apr 14th, 2003, 11:25 PM
lol
birthday month. so yes i do :)

Rollo
Apr 15th, 2003, 12:46 AM
Aha-and yuo live on the Jersey shore? I only know Atlantic City in Jersey. Have a friend in near Trenton-Princeton area, which was very nice.

You didn't get hit with the snow a few days back did you?

As for a december b-day, hope it's early enough to get it's due with Christmas so close!

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 15th, 2003, 01:09 AM
Actually, the bombing of Serbia probably was illegal under international law, and I'm pretty confident that the recent war in Iraq was. However, I believe that the first breach was justified. International law is important but it is not the be-all and end-all.

empiremaker03
Apr 15th, 2003, 02:54 AM
this is an international board so many are not familar with the greatest political document in history rivaled only by the Magna Carta--the U.S. Constitution...and what the founders who drafted that believed was that only Congress had the authority to declare war. The president aka as the 'commander-in-cheif' along with the entire federal branch was to have very limited powers, which to some extent is only due to the separation of powers within the three branches of government--Federal, Legislative, and Judicial...also, the founders believed that the military should be of a temporary nature meaning not having a standing army, which is crucial to any dictatorship...the current war was NOT declared by Congress but the con artists & shysters only gave permission for use of force, which is a copout to end all copouts with debate hardly worthy of a high school contest

Fingon
Apr 15th, 2003, 05:05 AM
Actually, the bombing of Serbia probably was illegal under international law, and I'm pretty confident that the recent war in Iraq was. However, I believe that the first breach was justified. International law is important but it is not the be-all and end-all.

Actually, the recent war probably was illegal under international law, and I'm pretty confident that the bombing of Serbia was. However I believe that the second breach was justified. International law is important but it's not the be-all and end-all.

Car Key Boi
Apr 15th, 2003, 09:05 AM
Actually, the recent war probably was illegal under international law, and I'm pretty confident that the bombing of Serbia was. However I believe that the second breach was justified. International law is important but it's not the be-all and end-all.

;)

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 15th, 2003, 11:21 AM
I don't know what Fingon intended, but he ended up saying the same as me: the bombing of Serbia (which he put second) was justified. :)

decemberlove
Apr 15th, 2003, 07:59 PM
Aha-and yuo live on the Jersey shore? I only know Atlantic City in Jersey. Have a friend in near Trenton-Princeton area, which was very nice.

You didn't get hit with the snow a few days back did you?

As for a december b-day, hope it's early enough to get it's due with Christmas so close!

i live bout 45 minutes north of AC...
princeton is bout an hour drive northwest of me...

we didnt really get much snow more like sleet during the day turning to ice at night. which was lovely cos i was out in it :sad:

its 20 days before xmas.. so usually no one cuts me on the presents.. cept some cheap relatives that live out of state.

Fingon
Apr 15th, 2003, 11:12 PM
I don't know what Fingon intended, but he ended up saying the same as me: the bombing of Serbia (which he put second) was justified. :)

read again, I said the second breach was justified. since we are talking here about two breaches and the first was Serbia, the second is obviously Iraq.

And what I meant is is that if you are going to follow the law when it suits you, then anyone can do the same, and my sentece is as justified as yours and I said exactly the opposite.

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 16th, 2003, 12:39 AM
lol Fingon, I'm not stupid. Read my post again, then read your post. I know that the Iraq war was later chronologically than the bombing of Serbia, but you listed the latter second...then said the second was justified.

Sheeeeesh, do I have to explain all my jokes these days??

http://66.227.101.70/otn/angels/newangel.gif

empiremaker03
Apr 16th, 2003, 02:22 AM
unless of course u r talking about the first Gulf War which was before the bombing of Belgrade...too much war on tv and not enough tennis

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 16th, 2003, 03:17 AM
lol, true