Sponsoring this...


Consume this...

Supplement with this...

Polling this...

Legalize this...




Watch this...



  • Jihadwatch_1

Advocate this...

Support this...

Blog Widget by LinkWithin

« Discovery through the stats of this... | Main | Asleep at this... »

June 11, 2004

Comments

rb


"Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared."

Er.....

Hasn't Baghdad been under American control since April 2003! Are you telling me that these "WMD" ware smuggled out of Baghdad without any Americans (or journos) noticing? You have to be kidding!

I haven't seen ths report anywhere else so one can reasonably doubt it's claims.

Why can't you accept that there was little to no WMD threat in Iraq? Repeating it your yourself won't make it true! Even if you find some old bits and pieces, are we expected to believe that the US, at a distance of 7000 miles and with a 400bn military budget was in ANY danger at all from Iraqi "WMD"?

If there are now any WMD in the region it is odds on that they have a US flag stamped on them.

And even if Iraq did once have WMD, well, so does the US. Why is the US allowed to have WMD and not Iraq?

Furthermore, don't you find it somewhat ironic that men armed with little more than boxcutters and a willingness to die was all it took to perpetrate 9/11?

Last time I checked, boxcutters ain't WMD!

rb

http://www.worldonline.co.za/tiscali/news/news_story.jsp?content=121369

Ah-ha!

Here's very differenmt reference to this story from the AP. It appears that Perricos was talking about a scrapyard in Jordan.

"United Nations weapons experts have found 20 engines used in Iraq's banned Al Samoud 2 missiles in a scrapyard in Jordan along with other equipment which could be used to produce weapons of mass destruction, says the acting chief United Nations inspector."

Perhaps they are just selling scrap metal over the border. What else would you do with them now?

Anyway, I can't be sure, but I have two points.

1. If this was a really important discovery Bush would be all over it. I've heard little so far.

2. If this was an important discovery one would have to ask how the AMERICANS FAILED TO NOTICE THIS since they've been in Baghdad for a YEAR!

In any case, Al Samoud was a 25 year-old design that had allegedly been adapted to be fired to a distance of 180 miles. This was, I grant you, 30 miles longer than the sanctions of the 90's allowed, but still little threat to the world a large. To call it WMD is a stretch, in my opnion.

The US and UK have FAR more hardware.



Pat

rb: you miss some crucial points: while the US does have WMD ( as have France and the UK, for instance) it is a) a democracy with free elected leadership that is b9 not know for using it on its population or in a simple border war. Hence your comparison runs foul from the beginning
Saddam was a dangerous men, he used WMD on defenseless civilians, he tortured, maimed or let these things happen..... big difference

tgom: you also miss some crucial points too, from my point of view: there was never a doubt, that the Iraq had WMD and that Saddam had used them in the past. My major problem was and is, that the US gov. claimed that these weapons were the mains reason for the war and that the threat had increased significantly in order to make immideate action inevitable. Non of this has proved to be correct. At best the US gov. fell for lies and deceit of poeple pushing their own agenda, at worst some leading members of the US gov. deliberately had false evidence produced and/or collected in order to push their own agenda.
Is the world better of without a tyrant like Saddam in charge of a powerful nation? For now, certainly!
But has the world become more secure through the war? I can't see that and I fear we are turning for the worse and will yet see worse things happening.the above mentioned proliferation after the US took over in Iraq is just another example for that.

tallglassofmilk

Despite your arguments I still:

a) take pleasure in pointing out the incompetence of the UN but more importantly recognize the need to raise people's awareness of this... because the mainstream media won't.

b) contend that Saddam had WMDs at his disposal and the only thing stopping him from using them on anyone was his own will; it is up for discussion whether or not this imposed an imminent threat to the US. I believe terrorism poses a direct imminent threat but not Saddam and WMDs. That being said, I do believe Saddam and his WMDs were a direct imminent threat to others.

c) believe it is a misperception that a large portion of the population believes Bush lied about WMDs or cares. Furthermore, only the dhimmist of the dim think that WMDs is the only reason we went to Iraq.

Plus, all the people saying we didn't have enough reason to take Saddam out are the same people who support the 9/11 commission and want to point fingers at the people who didn't prevent foreseen dangers of terrorism. Saddam was assisting terrorists and training them. If the people want the government to protect them from potential dangers then that is all the more justification for us doing it. Ironic the looney left don't make this connection.

Also, it takes time to see the positive results of war. All of you over there in Europe who've been freed of tyrants already know that.

By the way, it's a frightening realization that the falsification of documents by government officials is not limited to the subject of war. Or to the US government for that matter.

tallglassofmilk

Also rb, it's extremely naive of you to think that you can discount the validity of something just because it's not in the mainstream press. Plenty of juicy, truthful information never sees the light of day. Surely you aren't closed-minded enough to deny this.

By the way, what was the point of linking to the same AP article I had already linked to in the post?

Jason

Why does everyont keep bringing up "imminent threat"? Bush specifically admitted Iraq wasn't an imminent threat, and that we needed to take it out before it became one.

Brand-new equipment, plus items tagged by the UN inspectors, was thrown out quickly as if it were scrap. If you don't think that's a huge red flag that screams "Coverup in progress!", there's something wrong with you.

rb

Hi tgom!

"By the way, what was the point of linking to the same AP article I had already linked to in the post?"

It was a different article with a very different spin. Or at least it should have been. I felt that the article you posted misrepresented the quotations from the UN rep. Swings and roundabouts I suppose!

"I take pleasure in pointing out the incompetence of the UN but more importantly recognize the need to raise people's awareness of this... because the mainstream media won't."

The UN HAS become a flawed talking shop, but consider this - the UN is only as strong as all member states want it to be! As far as many US politicans are concerned, the UN is a barrier to their nationalistic/unilateral agenda. It is, in short in their interests to run down the UN. It is easily within in the US's power to make the UN work, but it chooses not to.

If the US had agreed to allow the UN to control the situation that has arisen in Iraq, your troops might not be so pressed as at present. There might have been troops from many more countries to help out. Instead you refuse to allow the UN in because you wish to retain control on the ground! That's your choice, not the UN's.

As far as I'm concerned the US criticism of the UN is like the pyromaniac who complained that his house was burning down!

"Plus, all the people saying we didn't have enough reason to take Saddam out are the same people who support the 9/11 commission and want to point fingers at the people who didn't prevent foreseen dangers of terrorism."

That's because Saddam had nothing to do with 911! It's the hard right-wing that have linked the two in order to gain support for the war. Military action would not have prevented 9/11. INTELLIGENCE might have.

"Also, it takes time to see the positive results of war. All of you over there in Europe who've been freed of tyrants already know that."

The Marshall plan was indeed a wonderful thing, yet Europe had, in part, firm democratic foundations within similar cultures on which to build, and a good industrial infrastructure that could be rebuilt. Iraq, on the other hand, has little of these and has suffered not only under Saddam but also as a result of power-games of the West.

Indeeed, Saddam rose to power partly due to the fact that the CIA sponsored a 1963 coup by the Baathist party, of which he was a member! Look it up. Yet another spectacular case of "blowback"....

So, in short, they trust us little more than they trusted Saddam. This is not an "either/or" option, bacause for many in Iraq there is a third possibility whether we like it or not - clerical, anti-western, Islamic rule.

If we are going to coax the Middle East away from terrorist extremism, we're going to have to give them more reasons to trust us.

We've done a very poor job so far. If I were an Iraqi, faking reasons for military occupation, killing thousands of my countrymen and then installing a puppet regime would NOT gain my trust.

Moze

“That's because Saddam had nothing to do with 911!”

To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens on the subject of an Iraq/Al Qaeda connection, you can quickly discount the argument of any one who thinks this connection did not exist.

I think you protest too much.

As for WMD, it is my opinion that any WMD we do find is incidental. There simply is not a concerted effort to find WMD. Apparently, the media expected US marines to drive into down town Baghdad and parallel park a Humvi between a couple of war heads. Finding WMD might cause the US media to throw some other mud at the Bush Administration, but it won’t contribute to the stability of the interim Iraq government. It’s a question of priority.

I am not alone in my opinion, either:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary—to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

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

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country… Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

I’ve got more where these came from…

Cheers,

rb

Hi Moze!

"I’ve got more where these came from…"

No doubt. But the quotations you have given merely how demonstrate either how poor US intelligence actually was, or how willing many politicians (Dem or Rep) were willing to "go with the flow".

Before the war over two million marched beacuse they could readily see that there was little justification for war. Our concern was not for Saddam, it was for the thousands who would inevitably get caught in the crossfire.

The idea that "you have to break and egg to make an omlette" is easy to say when it isn't YOUR family that's getting bombed.


"There simply is not a concerted effort to find WMD."

You are truly deluding yourself here! Finding WMD would ease criticism on Bush. With this in mind you can guarantee that Iraq has been well and truly searched. There have been various teams at work for over a year. Furthermore, how could any waepons program that is so hidden and scattered constitute a immediate threat.

"To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens on the subject of an Iraq/Al Qaeda connection, you can quickly discount the argument of any one who thinks this connection did not exist."

Hitchens is wrong, in my opinion. For a start, there are far more tangible links with the Saudi government. Whay not occupy Saudi Arabia? It is just as, if not more, tyrannical as Saddam's regime was. Most of the hijackers were Saudi, after all!

NO clear link has been established between Al Qaeda and Saddam. No clear link has ever been explained in detail. No clear link has ever been substantiated by an intelligence agency.

Even GWB has stated that he never implied that there was a link, even though he did the upmost to "link" the two by speaking about them as a common threat.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks,"
- GWB 18th September 2003.

Moze

“The idea that ‘you have to break and egg to make an omlette’ is easy to say when it isn't YOUR family that's getting bombed.” -- rb

Jane, er, rb, you ignorant slut… Don’t you get it? September 11 bombed my family, and YOURS.

“Hitchens is wrong, in my opinion.” Well, Hitchens is right in mine, which is why I paraphrased him. You get all twitter-pated with my view that there’s a tangible link between Iraq (read Saddam) and al Qaeda, and then you offer up the Saudi Royal Family and Saudi Arabia as a more acceptable object of “occupation.” How militaristic of you!

It’s always easy to hide behind the hypothetical. How about addressing the problem that given half a chance Saddam and every running dog al Qaeda lacky that could get a dull machete within inches of your neck or mine wouldn’t hesitate to do another Nick Berg?

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Cheers,

The comments to this entry are closed.

Reciprocate this...

Bearing this...


  • Bfllogo

Latest additions to this...


Rolling this...