• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

U.S. Weapons Inspector: Iraq Had No WMD

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Well, well, well....I've said it back in March 2003 and I've stayed "firm with my resolve" (as appointed-President Bush likes to say) that the Bush Regime would never find proof of its allegations that Iraq had WMDs...because they didn't have them...just as this US Inspector is about to report.

And I'll say it again that this US invasion of Iraq was fraudulent and each and every member of the Bush REGIME needs to be put against a wall, blindfolded and SHOT for the massacre the wrought on Iraq.

This invasion was sold to us on the immenent threat of HUGE amounts of WMDs that Colin Powell could "put his finger on" right away, and now a year and a half later what do we have? NOTHING.

This was fraud on the part of Bush & his Regime to give themselves something to do and a vendetta to settle (Bush getting Saddam for Saddam's assassination attempt on Bush's daddy).

Death to the Bush Regime for putting our loyal American troops in harm's way for NOTHING! And causing injured troops by the thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths. This is a sad day for America.


U.S. Weapons Inspector: Iraq Had No WMD

http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne...p;cid=542&ncid=716
By KATHERINE PFLEGER SHRADER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein did not have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, but left signs that he had idle programs he someday hoped to revive, the top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq concludes in a draft report due out soon.

According to people familiar with the 1,500-page report, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, will find that Saddam was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining a dual-use industrial sector that could produce weapons.

Duelfer also says Iraq only had small research and development programs for chemical and biological weapons.

As Duelfer puts the finishing touches on his report, he concludes Saddam had intentions of restarting weapons programs at some point, after suspicion and inspections from the international community waned.

After a year and a half in Iraq, however, the United States has found no weapons of mass destruction ? its chief argument for going to war and overthrowing the regime.

An intelligence official said Duelfer could wrap up the report as soon as this month, but noted it may take time to declassify it. Those who discussed the report inside and outside the government did so Thursday on the condition of anonymity because it contains classified material and is not yet completed.

If the report is released publicly before the Nov. 2 elections, Democrats are likely to seize on the document as another opportunity to criticize the Bush administration's leading argument for war in Iraq and the deteriorating security situation there.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) has criticized the president's handling of the war, but also has said he still would have voted to authorize the invasion even if he had known no weapons of mass destruction would be found there.

Duelfer's report is expected to be similar to findings reported by his predecessor, David Kay, who presented an interim report to Congress in October. Kay left the post in January, saying, "We were almost all wrong" about Saddam's weapons programs.

The new analysis, however, is expected to fall between the position of the Bush administration before the war ? portraying Saddam as a grave threat ? and the declarative statements Kay made after he resigned.

It will also add more evidence and flesh out Kay's October findings. At that time, Kay said the Iraq Survey Group had only uncovered limited evidence of secret chemical and biological weapons programs, but he found substantial evidence of an Iraqi push to boost the range of its ballistic missiles beyond prohibited ranges.

He also said there was almost no sign that a significant nuclear weapons project was under way.

Duelfer's report doesn't reach firm conclusions in all areas. For instance, U.S. officials are still investigating whether Saddam's fallen regime may have sent chemical weapons equipment and several billion dollars over the border to Syria. That has not been confirmed, but remains an area of interest to the U.S. government.

The Duelfer report will come months after the Senate Intelligence Committee released a scathing assessment of the prewar intelligence on Iraq.

After a yearlong inquiry, the Republican-led committee said in July the CIA kept key information from its own and other agencies' analysts, engaged in "group think" by failing to challenge the assumption that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and allowed President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell to make false statements.

The Iraq Survey Group has been working since the summer of 2003 to find Saddam's weapons and better understand his prohibited programs. More than a thousand civilian and military weapons specialists, translators and other experts have been devoted to the effort. U.S. Weapons Inspector: Iraq Had No WMD
 
That same report also said that Iraq wanted to produce WMD in the future once sanctions were lifted. I don't know how they can read people's minds, know what Iraq "wanted" to do, and predict the future. Oh well.
 
If you are going to launcha Preemptive war the reasons you giove..all of them..must be proven 100% or you are in the same category than those countries we have fought in the past who had launched wars for conquest....Aggressors! I believe that history will label us and the Dub as Aggressors!
 
Damn right, Red Dawn; the US had its Special Forces in Iraq before this "war" even started and they should have been able to pull out at least one small iota of evidence to back up its claim before making such a devastating strike against a country.

This is no better (in fact, its much MUCH worse) than the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan could ever have hoped to be.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If you are going to launcha Preemptive war the reasons you giove..all of them..must be proven 100% or you are in the same category than those countries we have fought in the past who had launched wars for conquest....Aggressors! I believe that history will label us and the Dub as Aggressors!

Yes, and with good reason. I still remember the Canadian PM's response to the Iraq situation. "Show me proof that Iraq has WMD". The US never produced any proof, so Canada never joined the war.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If you are going to launcha Preemptive war the reasons you giove..all of them..must be proven 100% or you are in the same category than those countries we have fought in the past who had launched wars for conquest....Aggressors! I believe that history will label us and the Dub as Aggressors!
Perhaps. However I think history will show that this war was the right thing to do, just done for the wrong reasons.

Of course I firmly believe we should be going after all the Saddam like dirtbags of the world. Anyone that treats their own people like he did need to be removed from life.

 
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If you are going to launcha Preemptive war the reasons you giove..all of them..must be proven 100% or you are in the same category than those countries we have fought in the past who had launched wars for conquest....Aggressors! I believe that history will label us and the Dub as Aggressors!
Perhaps. However I think history will show that this war was the right thing to do, just done for the wrong reasons.

Of course I firmly believe we should be going after all the Saddam like dirtbags of the world. Anyone that treats their own people like he did need to be removed from life.
hehe and I agree with you, rare 🙂
except I think that if you are on the other hand going to do it you better do it right and not at all since the unknown factor is too great
 
Originally posted by: shinerburke
[Of course I firmly believe we should be going after all the Saddam like dirtbags of the world. Anyone that treats their own people like he did need to be removed from life.
And who the hell appointed the US as the World Police? What right do WE have pushing our culture on everyone else? We're no better than tyrrants doing what Bush & his goon Regime has done. Its the same as what the Soviets (EDIT: with their Communism) were doing back in the 70s/80s...why is it "right" because "we" are doing it and not them?
 
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If you are going to launcha Preemptive war the reasons you giove..all of them..must be proven 100% or you are in the same category than those countries we have fought in the past who had launched wars for conquest....Aggressors! I believe that history will label us and the Dub as Aggressors!
Perhaps. However I think history will show that this war was the right thing to do, just done for the wrong reasons.
How can it be right if the reasons were wrong?

Of course I firmly believe we should be going after all the Saddam like dirtbags of the world. Anyone that treats their own people like he did need to be removed from life.
If we did that it would turn out like the Crusades and we would become just like the Crusaders...becoming more Tyranical than those whom we ousted!

 
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Originally posted by: shinerburke
[Of course I firmly believe we should be going after all the Saddam like dirtbags of the world. Anyone that treats their own people like he did need to be removed from life.
And who the hell appointed the US as the World Police? What right do WE have pushing our culture on everyone else? We're no better than tyrrants doing what Bush & his goon Regime has done. Its the same as what the Soviets (EDIT: with their Communism) were doing back in the 70s/80s...why is it "right" because "we" are doing it and not them?

:cookie:
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If you are going to launcha Preemptive war the reasons you giove..all of them..must be proven 100% or you are in the same category than those countries we have fought in the past who had launched wars for conquest....Aggressors! I believe that history will label us and the Dub as Aggressors!
Perhaps. However I think history will show that this war was the right thing to do, just done for the wrong reasons.
How can it be right if the reasons were wrong?

Of course I firmly believe we should be going after all the Saddam like dirtbags of the world. Anyone that treats their own people like he did need to be removed from life.
If we did that it would turn out like the Crusades and we would become just like the Crusaders...becoming more Tyranical than those whom we ousted!
It was right because it got rid of a dirtbag who routinely tortured and killed his own people. He needed to go.

I've heard the crusaders analogy and it just doesn't hold up. We are not and would not be involved in erradicating a group of people based on their religion. Try as some might to make this into a Christian v. Muslim fight that is simply not the case. We are after a small extreme radical minority of Muslims who have taken it upon themselves to rid the world of those who don't believe in what they do. So you see, in this case we are not the Crusaders, we are figthing the crusaders.

 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Of course I firmly believe we should be going after all the Saddam like dirtbags of the world. Anyone that treats their own people like he did need to be removed from life.
If we did that it would turn out like the Crusades and we would become just like the Crusaders...becoming more Tyranical than those whom we ousted!

Not only that, but historically every single crusade ended in failure and a massive loss of life.
 
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If you are going to launcha Preemptive war the reasons you giove..all of them..must be proven 100% or you are in the same category than those countries we have fought in the past who had launched wars for conquest....Aggressors! I believe that history will label us and the Dub as Aggressors!
Perhaps. However I think history will show that this war was the right thing to do, just done for the wrong reasons.
How can it be right if the reasons were wrong?

Of course I firmly believe we should be going after all the Saddam like dirtbags of the world. Anyone that treats their own people like he did need to be removed from life.
If we did that it would turn out like the Crusades and we would become just like the Crusaders...becoming more Tyranical than those whom we ousted!
It was right because it got rid of a dirtbag who routinely tortured and killed his own people. He needed to go.

I've heard the crusaders analogy and it just doesn't hold up. We are not and would not be involved in erradicating a group of people based on their religion. Try as some might to make this into a Christian v. Muslim fight that is simply not the case. We are after a small extreme radical minority of Muslims who have taken it upon themselves to rid the world of those who don't believe in what they do. So you see, in this case we are not the Crusaders, we are figthing the crusaders.
My analogy has noithing to do with religion. I mean like the Crusaders, for us to defeat those whom we attack and occupy we have to become as ruthless if not more if we have any hope of defeating them.
 
We already have a massive loss of life (1000+ dead American troops, thousands upon thousands of dead, innocent Iraqis)...now we're just waiting for the other shoe (of failure) to drop!
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If you are going to launcha Preemptive war the reasons you giove..all of them..must be proven 100% or you are in the same category than those countries we have fought in the past who had launched wars for conquest....Aggressors! I believe that history will label us and the Dub as Aggressors!
Perhaps. However I think history will show that this war was the right thing to do, just done for the wrong reasons.
How can it be right if the reasons were wrong?

Of course I firmly believe we should be going after all the Saddam like dirtbags of the world. Anyone that treats their own people like he did need to be removed from life.
If we did that it would turn out like the Crusades and we would become just like the Crusaders...becoming more Tyranical than those whom we ousted!
It was right because it got rid of a dirtbag who routinely tortured and killed his own people. He needed to go.

I've heard the crusaders analogy and it just doesn't hold up. We are not and would not be involved in erradicating a group of people based on their religion. Try as some might to make this into a Christian v. Muslim fight that is simply not the case. We are after a small extreme radical minority of Muslims who have taken it upon themselves to rid the world of those who don't believe in what they do. So you see, in this case we are not the Crusaders, we are figthing the crusaders.
My analogy has noithing to do with religion. I mean like the Crusaders, for us to defeat those whom we attack and occupy we have to become as ruthless if not more if we have any hope of defeating them.
Ahhh...well ok. I can see that point. Misread your previous post. Been at work since 2am and I'm a bit loopy right now.

Still would being ruthless in ridding the world of that type of scum necessarily be a bad thing? I know we are supposed to always be the nice guy and take the high ground. But I've always believed what General Patton said when it comes to war.

"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."



 
This self-indulgent Bush invasion was fraudulently sold to us as a war on terror with imminent threats of massive WMDs to the US homeland, not a friggin' Mary Poppins human rights campaign.

It is, was and always will be wrong to use the 9/11 deaths in vain for a joke of a Regime that Bush heads.
 
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
This self-indulgent Bush invasion was fraudulently sold to us as a war on terror with imminent threats of massive WMDs to the US homeland, not a friggin' Mary Poppins human rights campaign.

It is, was and always will be wrong to use the 9/11 deaths in vain for a joke of a Regime that Bush heads.

:cookie:
 
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Ahhh...well ok. I can see that point. Misread your previous post. Been at work since 2am and I'm a bit loopy right now.

Still would being ruthless in ridding the world of that type of scum necessarily be a bad thing? I know we are supposed to always be the nice guy and take the high ground. But I've always believed what General Patton said when it comes to war.

"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
Well it would mean a significant shift in American Policy (back to Imperialism) as we would have to confiscate those whom we conguer resources and riches to pay for our adventurism. In the end we'd fail and we'd sow more death, sorrow, horror and destruction than those whom we are trying to rid the world of.
 
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Ahhh...well ok. I can see that point. Misread your previous post. Been at work since 2am and I'm a bit loopy right now.

Still would being ruthless in ridding the world of that type of scum necessarily be a bad thing? I know we are supposed to always be the nice guy and take the high ground. But I've always believed what General Patton said when it comes to war.

"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

That is the problem. The Iraqi people are not the enemy. Some people forget that. It is like the police leveling a whole town to arrest one criminal. It is wrong.

 
Originally posted by: SickBeast
That same report also said that Iraq wanted to produce WMD in the future once sanctions were lifted. I don't know how they can read people's minds, know what Iraq "wanted" to do, and predict the future. Oh well.
I agree. It's not like the Bush Regime . . . there's very little doubt that they WANT to produce new nukes in the future . . .

 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Ahhh...well ok. I can see that point. Misread your previous post. Been at work since 2am and I'm a bit loopy right now.

Still would being ruthless in ridding the world of that type of scum necessarily be a bad thing? I know we are supposed to always be the nice guy and take the high ground. But I've always believed what General Patton said when it comes to war.

"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
Well it would mean a significant shift in American Policy (back to Imperialism) as we would have to confiscate those whom we conguer resources and riches to pay for our adventurism. In the end we'd fail and we'd sow more death, sorrow, horror and destruction than those whom we are trying to rid the world of.
You are most likely correct......eh.....maybe after I've had some sleep we can discuss it some more.

Right now I'm heading home and going to bed.

Someone please give PhillyTIM his cookies while I'm gone....I don't want the troll to go hungry just because I'm sleeping.
 
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Ahhh...well ok. I can see that point. Misread your previous post. Been at work since 2am and I'm a bit loopy right now.

Still would being ruthless in ridding the world of that type of scum necessarily be a bad thing? I know we are supposed to always be the nice guy and take the high ground. But I've always believed what General Patton said when it comes to war.

"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

That is the problem. The Iraqi people are not the enemy. Some people forget that. It is like the police leveling a whole town to arrest one criminal. It is wrong.
Not talking about the Iraqis....I was talking in more of a sense in going after the bad guys...

Really got go sleep now.....

 
Saddam needed to go, BUT it should have done as a UN function not as a brash, unplanned attack. We left Afghanistan (which had 100x the terrorism threat that Iraq had) to attack Iraq which is creating more problems to the new Afghan government than we could possibly fathom. Getting rid of Saddam is a noble cause, but dammit, you just can't free people that don't know or understand what freedom is without major, major problems. There are insurgents running rampant, kidnappings, scores of civilian deaths and pipeline sabotage that will cripple the Iraqi economy.

In summary....

Wanting to get rid of Saddam.... Good.
Leaving Afghanistan ................ Bad.
Claiming WMD's ...................... Bad.
Preemptive strike .................... Bad
No UN support ......................... Bad
No plan after war is over .......... Very Bad.
 
On Topic Statement: This is a rehash of a rehash of a rehash... Nutshell is that Saddam stated he had X amount of WMD's and only provided proof that he destroyed Y amount and the US removed Saddam because of the remaining amounts (Z). X-Y=Z. (the nutshell doesn't even go into the number of times that Saddam blocked investigators)

Thread Hijack topic: Throughout all of history, the strongest nation was the "police" for it's reachable world. Having the military power that the US does makes the US the current world "police". You can not like it all you want but it is true and unchangable.
 
Back
Top