Iraq submits weapon report.........

[Bluga]

I hate you Moonbeam

There's no right for USA to attack Iraq, period.

 

[Gaard]

We have showed our close allies,...

Exactly who and when? (and I'd ask what but... ) Got any links?

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
Iraq is making the claim that they dont. It is then up to the weapons inspectors to prove them wrong. The US says they have the proof, but for some "strange" reason, they sit on it. The inspectors have already requested the US hand over information that would make their efforts move more quickly.

we dont' sit idle on ANYTHING, heck we started bombing AF a month or so after 9/11. There is some reason we are sitting idle.

Let me clarify then. I know we have been bombing Iraq for over 3 months now. We've already stationed over 200,000 troops in the region. Bush is just waiting for the right moment to attack, regardless of any info.

What I meant was that the US is sitting on the information, because there is no information. All the US needs is for some proof to come out showing that Iraq has WMD, and they have not shared it with ANY allies, nor the UN, nor the American public. They can go the ultra safe route, and give the info to the inspectors, who then would validate Bush's claims. But they dont do that either. Why? Becuase they dont have such information. Instead, the Bush Administration is running a smear campaign against the inspectors to discredit them, so we can step in and take care of the job ourselves.

Why not attack N. Korea who has WMD, and openly supports terrorism? Because they DO have WMD and we dont wanna mess with that.

No, i know what you meant originally. Let me clarify, there is a reason we are sitting idle on giving the evidence. Thats what I meant.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: charrison


1. We have been bombing IRaq about once a week for about 12 years now, not 3 months.
2. We have our cards, they just have not been played yet. If we announce were we know stuff is, it will not be there.
3. This information has been shared with our close allies.
4. Bush will be sharing this intel within the next week to the UN.

1. I am well aware of our patrols of the no fly zone, which resulted in a few squirmishes. The past three months bombers have flown into cities to take out military sites (and in some cases, civilian). We went from patrols where we shoot back if fired upon, to strategic targeting of sites. And the number of flights each day has multiplied as a result of the new procedures, which began about 3 months ago.

2. We dont need to share it with the American public. We can tell the inspectors where it is, they can go to those sites, and we would be DONE with this cat and mouse game. Why not do so? Why withhold info from the inspectors?

3. Everything I have read has shown me that the US has not shared information regarding WMD proof to anyone. In fact, many foriegn leaders spoke up during the whole UN fiasco a while back about how the US has given them absolutely nothing other than their "word" about such proof.

4. I hope you are right on this point.

you guys know those 'no fly zones' are only considered legitimate by the Brits and us. The U.N. never created nor do they recognize the 'no fly zones' We imposed that upon the Iraqis, being the big, bad boys we are.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Gaard
We have showed our close allies,...

Exactly who and when? (and I'd ask what but... ) Got any links?

There's more but my wife is calling, bbl.



P.M. Blair

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Mr. Speaker, thank you for recalling Parliament to debate the best way to deal with the issue of the present leadership of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.

Today we published a 50-page dossier, detailing the history of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme, its breach of United Nations resolutions, and the current attempts to rebuild that illegal programme. I have placed a copy in the Library.

At the end of the Gulf war, the full extent of Saddam's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes became clear. As a result, the United Nations passed a series of resolutions, demanding that Iraq disarm itself of such weapons and establishing a regime of weapons inspections and monitoring to do the task. They were to be given unconditional and unrestricted access to all and any Iraqi sites.

24 Sept 2002 : Column 2

All this is accepted fact. In addition, it is fact, documented by UN inspectors, that Iraq almost immediately began to obstruct the inspections. Visits were delayed; on occasions, inspectors threatened; matériel was moved; special sites, shut to the inspectors, were unilaterally designated by Iraq. The work of the inspectors continued, but against a background of increasing obstruction and non-compliance. Indeed, Iraq denied that its biological weapons programme existed until forced to acknowledge it after high-ranking defectors disclosed its existence in 1995.

Eventually, in 1997, the UN inspectors declared that they were unable to fulfil their task. A year of negotiation and further obstruction occurred until finally, in late 1998, the UN team was forced to withdraw.

As the dossier sets out, we estimate on the basis of the UN's work that there were up to 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agents, including 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent; up to 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals; growth media sufficient to produce 26,000 litres of anthrax spores; and over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents. All of this was missing and unaccounted for.

Military action by the United States and United Kingdom followed and a certain amount of infrastructure for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and missile capability was destroyed, setting the Iraqi programme back, but not ending it.

From late 1998 onwards, therefore, the sole inhibition on Saddam's WMD programme was the sanctions regime. Iraq was forbidden to use the revenue from its oil except for certain specified non-military purposes. The sanctions regime, however, was also subject to illegal trading and abuse. Because of concerns about its inadequacy?and the impact on the Iraqi people?we made several attempts to refine it, culminating in a new UN resolution in May of this year. But it was only partially effective. Around $3 billion of money is illegally taken by Saddam every year now, double the figure for the year 2000. Self-evidently, there is no proper accounting for this money.

 

[SherEPunjab]

regarding britain,

I'm just surprised Tony Blair still has white hair. I thought it would have turned brown by now.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard
We have showed our close allies,...

Exactly who and when? (and I'd ask what but... ) Got any links?

There's more but my wife is calling, bbl.



P.M. Blair

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Mr. Speaker, thank you for recalling Parliament to debate the best way to deal with the issue of the present leadership of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.

Today we published a 50-page dossier, detailing the history of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme, its breach of United Nations resolutions, and the current attempts to rebuild that illegal programme. I have placed a copy in the Library.

At the end of the Gulf war, the full extent of Saddam's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes became clear. As a result, the United Nations passed a series of resolutions, demanding that Iraq disarm itself of such weapons and establishing a regime of weapons inspections and monitoring to do the task. They were to be given unconditional and unrestricted access to all and any Iraqi sites.

24 Sept 2002 : Column 2

All this is accepted fact. In addition, it is fact, documented by UN inspectors, that Iraq almost immediately began to obstruct the inspections. Visits were delayed; on occasions, inspectors threatened; matériel was moved; special sites, shut to the inspectors, were unilaterally designated by Iraq. The work of the inspectors continued, but against a background of increasing obstruction and non-compliance. Indeed, Iraq denied that its biological weapons programme existed until forced to acknowledge it after high-ranking defectors disclosed its existence in 1995.

Eventually, in 1997, the UN inspectors declared that they were unable to fulfil their task. A year of negotiation and further obstruction occurred until finally, in late 1998, the UN team was forced to withdraw.

As the dossier sets out, we estimate on the basis of the UN's work that there were up to 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agents, including 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent; up to 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals; growth media sufficient to produce 26,000 litres of anthrax spores; and over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents. All of this was missing and unaccounted for.

Military action by the United States and United Kingdom followed and a certain amount of infrastructure for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and missile capability was destroyed, setting the Iraqi programme back, but not ending it.

From late 1998 onwards, therefore, the sole inhibition on Saddam's WMD programme was the sanctions regime. Iraq was forbidden to use the revenue from its oil except for certain specified non-military purposes. The sanctions regime, however, was also subject to illegal trading and abuse. Because of concerns about its inadequacy?and the impact on the Iraqi people?we made several attempts to refine it, culminating in a new UN resolution in May of this year. But it was only partially effective. Around $3 billion of money is illegally taken by Saddam every year now, double the figure for the year 2000. Self-evidently, there is no proper accounting for this money.

I must be missing something. The sharing of evidence that Iraq has WMD consists of telling the UK that, based on the U.N. inspectors reports, we estimate that XXX amount of XXX is missing? (And did I read that wrong? Isn't it saying that we came to this conclusion back in the late '90s?)

 

[etech]

Gaard

I must be missing something. The sharing of evidence that Iraq has WMD consists of telling the UK that, based on the U.N. inspectors reports, we estimate that XXX amount of XXX is missing? (And did I read that wrong? Isn't it saying that we came to this conclusion back in the late '90s?)

Yes, you missed reading the link.


The dossier is based on the work of the British Joint Intelligence Committee. For over 60 years, beginning just before world war two, the JIC has provided intelligence assessments to British Prime Ministers. Normally, its work is obviously secret. Unusually, because it is important that we explain our concerns about Saddam to the British people, we have decided to disclose its assessments.

I am aware, of course, that people will have to take elements of this on the good faith of our intelligence services, but this is what they are telling me, the British Prime Minister, and my senior colleagues. The intelligence picture that they paint is one accumulated over the last four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative. It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population, and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability.

---------
What I am looking for was the report that the US shared with a large number of nations. At first it was going to be publicly released but I assume for security reasons it was not. It was striking that after that report was released it seemed that many of them changed their views on Iraq.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: etech
Gaard

I must be missing something. The sharing of evidence that Iraq has WMD consists of telling the UK that, based on the U.N. inspectors reports, we estimate that XXX amount of XXX is missing? (And did I read that wrong? Isn't it saying that we came to this conclusion back in the late '90s?)

Yes, you missed reading the link.


The dossier is based on the work of the British Joint Intelligence Committee. For over 60 years, beginning just before world war two, the JIC has provided intelligence assessments to British Prime Ministers. Normally, its work is obviously secret. Unusually, because it is important that we explain our concerns about Saddam to the British people, we have decided to disclose its assessments.

I am aware, of course, that people will have to take elements of this on the good faith of our intelligence services, but this is what they are telling me, the British Prime Minister, and my senior colleagues. The intelligence picture that they paint is one accumulated over the last four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative. It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population, and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability.

---------
What I am looking for was the report that the US shared with a large number of nations. At first it was going to be publicly released but I assume for security reasons it was not. It was striking that after that report was released it seemed that many of them changed their views on Iraq.

Hmmm. I'm still not getting it. So we submitted a dossier to the UK stating what we had determined based on the work of the British JIC? If it was from the British JIC, wouldn't the UK already know what we tell them?

No disrespect intended, but I thought this rockhard evidence we have would be something more than "we've determined that Iraq has WMDs".

 

[etech]

Gaard

C'mon Gaard, this really isn't that difficult. Britain has a Joint Intelligence Committee. It has determined that Iraq is hiding WMD.

The US has intelligence services, they have determined that Iraq is hiding and developing WMD.

It appears to me that it was all done separately and they have reached the same conclusion. The US has disseminated it's information to the governments of some countries. I'll have to find that old report again to detail which ones but I don't see it as that important. I believe that sometime within the next two weeks more information will be released by the US and Britain, which will contradict Saddam?s, report.

I'm willing to wait and see what happens before I side with Saddam. What about you?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: etech
Gaard

C'mon Gaard, this really isn't that difficult. Britain has a Joint Intelligence Committee. It has determined that Iraq is hiding WMD.

The US has intelligence services, they have determined that Iraq is hiding and developing WMD.

It appears to me that it was all done separately and they have reached the same conclusion. The US has disseminated it's information to the governments of some countries. I'll have to find that old report again to detail which ones but I don't see it as that important. I believe that sometime within the next two weeks more information will be released by the US and Britain, which will contradict Saddam?s, report.

I'm willing to wait and see what happens before I side with Saddam. What about you?

Ok, so they came to the same conclusion seperately? Right?

Look, I'm not in a position to speak for anyone else, but because I voice concerns over this thing doesn't mean that I'm on SH's side. If you (and others) are fine with your country going to war over reasons like "Trust me" or "We have evidence, we just can't say what it is" that's cool with me. I would hope that you would extend me the same courtesy. I've been called everything from a treehugger to a pacifist to a sympathiser. The fact is, I'm just as against SH having WMD as you are. The fact is, if he does have them I'm all for going in and throwing down the hammer. But another fact that a lot of people on this board don't seem to realize is that if one has questions regarding whether or not our government is being truthful with us, if one has questions regarding motives for sending in troops, if one doesn't agree with you on what constitutes evidence, or for what reasons a war is warranted....it doesn't mean that person is any less of an American. It doesn't mean that person is on the side of the other country.

If, at some point in the future, the rockhard evidence that our president says he has is revealed, I say go in.

Do you understand my concerns?

 

[etech]

Have we gone to war with Iraq yet?


edit/

BTW,


Kuwait rejected an apology by neighboring Iraq

KUWAIT (Reuters) - Kuwait rejected an apology by neighboring Iraq on Saturday for its 1990-1991 occupation of the Gulf Arab state and accused President Saddam Hussein of inciting terrorist attacks against U.S. troops in Kuwait.

"The speech contained incitement and encouragement of terrorist acts which the whole world has rejected and condemned," the information minister and official government spokesman, Sheikh Ahmad al-Fahd al-Sabah, told the Kuwait News Agency.
....

 

[bsd]

Originally posted by: woodie1
Another of his bedtime stories.

hello gimp

 

[bsd]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Few of us will get through twenty thousand pages of Arabic, so it won't be too difficult to call the whole thing a hoax. We must not allow Saddam to derail our oil grab with possible extraneous facts. Fortunately Saddam also has a credibility problem so I think it's safe to say that we can dismiss the report out of hand even after not reading it.

i think youve been looking into the moonbeam of madness a little too long.

 

[bsd]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: etechGaard

I must be missing something. The sharing of evidence that Iraq has WMD consists of telling the UK that, based on the U.N. inspectors reports, we estimate that XXX amount of XXX is missing? (And did I read that wrong? Isn't it saying that we came to this conclusion back in the late '90s?)

Yes, you missed reading the link.The dossier is based on the work of the British Joint Intelligence Committee. For over 60 years, beginning just before world war two, the JIC has provided intelligence assessments to British Prime Ministers. Normally, its work is obviously secret. Unusually, because it is important that we explain our concerns about Saddam to the British people, we have decided to disclose its assessments. I am aware, of course, that people will have to take elements of this on the good faith of our intelligence services, but this is what they are telling me, the British Prime Minister, and my senior colleagues. The intelligence picture that they paint is one accumulated over the last four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative. It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population, and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability. ---------What I am looking for was the report that the US shared with a large number of nations. At first it was going to be publicly released but I assume for security reasons it was not. It was striking that after that report was released it seemed that many of them changed their views on Iraq.

Hmmm. I'm still not getting it. So we submitted a dossier to the UK stating what we had determined based on the work of the British JIC? If it was from the British JIC, wouldn't the UK already know what we tell them?No disrespect intended, but I thought this rockhard evidence we have would be something more than "we've determined that Iraq has WMDs".

look the inspectors and french can determine how much is out there. You get the quantity of agents produced from the special chemicals that were actually bought and we know about since the french old a lot of this stuff to them, minus what we destroyed, equals what is still out there somewhere.

 

[bsd]

Talk about preparing your own grave, turkeys praying for an early christmass etc... get this;

Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, denying that Iraq had any banned weapons, said the authorities had distributed ?hundreds of thousands, if not millions? of guns to Iraqi families to fend off a US-led war.

clever boys!

 

[bsd]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: etechGaardC'mon Gaard, this really isn't that difficult. Britain has a Joint Intelligence Committee. It has determined that Iraq is hiding WMD.The US has intelligence services, they have determined that Iraq is hiding and developing WMD. It appears to me that it was all done separately and they have reached the same conclusion. The US has disseminated it's information to the governments of some countries. I'll have to find that old report again to detail which ones but I don't see it as that important. I believe that sometime within the next two weeks more information will be released by the US and Britain, which will contradict Saddam?s, report. I'm willing to wait and see what happens before I side with Saddam. What about you?

Ok, so they came to the same conclusion seperately? Right? Look, I'm not in a position to speak for anyone else, but because I voice concerns over this thing doesn't mean that I'm on SH's side. If you (and others) are fine with your country going to war over reasons like "Trust me" or "We have evidence, we just can't say what it is" that's cool with me. I would hope that you would extend me the same courtesy. I've been called everything from a treehugger to a pacifist to a sympathiser. The fact is, I'm just as against SH having WMD as you are. The fact is, if he does have them I'm all for going in and throwing down the hammer. But another fact that a lot of people on this board don't seem to realize is that if one has questions regarding whether or not our government is being truthful with us, if one has questions regarding motives for sending in troops, if one doesn't agree with you on what constitutes evidence, or for what reasons a war is warranted....it doesn't mean that person is any less of an American. It doesn't mean that person is on the side of the other country.If, at some point in the future, the rockhard evidence that our president says he has is revealed, I say go in. Do you understand my concerns?

can i say shortsighted, or you dont get responsibility do you? to you to augment to your insult collection?

 

[Hamburgerpimp]

It's funny how the sheltered armchair politicians are yelling for war when there is no evidence he has WMD. Get a clue people. Our U.S Troops and their families deserve better than "we think he's lying"

 

[Dudd]

If we have any hard proof, now is the time to step forward. If Bush had evidence of WMD before, I can see why he wouldn't release that info. All Saddam would do is say yep, you are right, there they are, please weapons inspectors, clean them up. But, now that the Iraqis have declared themselves free of WMD, if the US/UK have any info that contradicts that, they can show it to the world, say that Saddam is deceiving us, and then we must go to war. Of course, that's assuming that we have evidence. Even if we do have verifiable evidence, I don't feel that we should go to war. All we'd do is put Saddam's back against the wall and give him the opportunity to use his WMD without having anything to lose. MAD has worked since WWII, so why start a new policy now? Let the weapons inspectors do their work, but remind Saddam that every city in Iraq will become a smoldering hole in the ground if his weapons are used in an attack on us.

 

[MadRat]

Remember 9/11. It may have not been Saddam behind it, but he cheered them for it. Let him pay with his life.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: bsd

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: etechGaardC'mon Gaard, this really isn't that difficult. Britain has a Joint Intelligence Committee. It has determined that Iraq is hiding WMD.The US has intelligence services, they have determined that Iraq is hiding and developing WMD. It appears to me that it was all done separately and they have reached the same conclusion. The US has disseminated it's information to the governments of some countries. I'll have to find that old report again to detail which ones but I don't see it as that important. I believe that sometime within the next two weeks more information will be released by the US and Britain, which will contradict Saddam?s, report. I'm willing to wait and see what happens before I side with Saddam. What about you?

Ok, so they came to the same conclusion seperately? Right? Look, I'm not in a position to speak for anyone else, but because I voice concerns over this thing doesn't mean that I'm on SH's side. If you (and others) are fine with your country going to war over reasons like "Trust me" or "We have evidence, we just can't say what it is" that's cool with me. I would hope that you would extend me the same courtesy. I've been called everything from a treehugger to a pacifist to a sympathiser. The fact is, I'm just as against SH having WMD as you are. The fact is, if he does have them I'm all for going in and throwing down the hammer. But another fact that a lot of people on this board don't seem to realize is that if one has questions regarding whether or not our government is being truthful with us, if one has questions regarding motives for sending in troops, if one doesn't agree with you on what constitutes evidence, or for what reasons a war is warranted....it doesn't mean that person is any less of an American. It doesn't mean that person is on the side of the other country.If, at some point in the future, the rockhard evidence that our president says he has is revealed, I say go in. Do you understand my concerns?

can i say shortsighted, or you dont get responsibility do you? to you to augment to your insult collection?

Say whatever you wish to dude. Can I say sheep?

 

[bsd]

Originally posted by: Hamburgerpimp
It's funny how the sheltered armchair politicians are yelling for war when there is no evidence he has WMD. Get a clue people. Our U.S Troops and their families deserve better than "we think he's lying"

thats like taunting an armed robber because you dont know if he has bullets in it.

 

[bsd]

Originally posted by: Dudd
If we have any hard proof, now is the time to step forward. If Bush had evidence of WMD before, I can see why he wouldn't release that info. All Saddam would do is say yep, you are right, there they are, please weapons inspectors, clean them up. But, now that the Iraqis have declared themselves free of WMD, if the US/UK have any info that contradicts that, they can show it to the world, say that Saddam is deceiving us, and then we must go to war. Of course, that's assuming that we have evidence. Even if we do have verifiable evidence, I don't feel that we should go to war. All we'd do is put Saddam's back against the wall and give him the opportunity to use his WMD without having anything to lose. MAD has worked since WWII, so why start a new policy now? Let the weapons inspectors do their work, but remind Saddam that every city in Iraq will become a smoldering hole in the ground if his weapons are used in an attack on us.

you can use a schrodingers cat theory to pretend he isnt a threat, but there is a clash of oil interests in that region, and if he has nukes by the time it kicks off then all the worse for us. but as far as i know he bought x amount of chemicals and less than half has been destoryed by the UN, so where is the rest? lost in transit? if you have a black box and know sth bad migh tbe going on in it, but arent certain, then take precautionary measures.

 

[bsd]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Remember 9/11. It may have not been Saddam behind it, but he cheered them for it. Let him pay with his life.

he laughed on iraqi tv on the wednesday, and by friday he was shitting through the eye of a pin.

 

[etech]

Gaard

Say whatever you wish to dude. Can I say sheep?

You can say it, but I can define it as people who would side with Saddam vs. their own govenment. Touche'