What event caused AT's P&N forum to be created...?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
H

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Alistar7 said:
It did spawn from OT, the event was consuming OT so this forum was created.
Click to expand...

* < ding > * < ding > * < ding >

We have a winner! I know. I was there, and if I recall correctly, I may even be the one who set it up in the software. ():)

Legend has it that I was also at least partially responsible for OT and HD for the same reasons. The threads were overtaking the posts in the original GH forum.

OTOH, I claim no responsiblity for L&R. :hmm:
 
A

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
"Invasion"...? We were attacked by the ruling apparatus of Afghanistan.

It was the Iraqi war, the other event triggered by 9/11. At first they tried condensing it into two threads, one pro, one con, which failed miserably & led to the creation of P&N.
 
A

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
BigDH01 said:
Regardless of how you feel about it, invasion is the correct technical term, even if you feel it was justified.
Click to expand...

I know, just having a little fun with an old friend.

Perspective is important too, I wouldn't be surprised to find out many Iraqi's feel liberated as opposed to invaded.

The war was justified imho, even if just along humanitarian lines. The mission itself failed, w/e WMD Saddam had managed to keep were safely sent to Syria before we put a boot on the ground. A regime with the technical knowledge, ability, industrial capability, & a clear desire to maintain all of that was removed at least.
 
shira

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Since the creation of ATPN is obviously no longer news, and clearly isn't political, doesn't this thread belong in OT? :p
 
UberNeuman

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Alistar7 said:
I know, just having a little fun with an old friend.

Perspective is important too, I wouldn't be surprised to find out many Iraqi's feel liberated as opposed to invaded.

The war was justified imho, even if just along humanitarian lines. The mission itself failed, w/e WMD Saddam had managed to keep were safely sent to Syria before we put a boot on the ground. A regime with the technical knowledge, ability, industrial capability, & a clear desire to maintain all of that was removed at least.
Click to expand...

Negative.
 
sandorski

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,710
6,266
126
Alistar7 said:
Where are they? According to Blix there was still at least 20,000 liters of anthrax unnaccounted for among other things.
Click to expand...

Dude, I stopped replying to you all those years ago because of questions like this. Been answered, numerous times.
 
A

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
sandorski said:
Dude, I stopped replying to you all those years ago because of questions like this. Been answered, numerous times.
Click to expand...

That was never answered, please feel free to enlighten me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26671-2003Jun6?language=printer

Go back and take a look at the report Hans Blix delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax, Blix reported "no convincing evidence" that they were ever destroyed. But there was "strong evidence" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had admitted "and that at least some of this was retained." Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax." Cirincione concluded that "it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin."

On the question of VX, Blix reported that his inspections team had information that conflicted with Iraqi accounts. The Iraqis claimed that they had produced VX only as part of a pilot program but that the quality was poor and the agent was never "weaponized." But according to Blix, the inspections team discovered Iraqi documents that showed the quality of the VX to be better than declared. The team also uncovered "indications that the agent" had been "weaponized." According to Cirincione's August 2002 report, "it is widely believed that significant quantities of chemical agents and precursors remain stored in secret depots" and that there were also "thousands of possible chemical munitions still unaccounted for." Blix reported there were 6,500 "chemical bombs" that Iraq admitted producing but whose whereabouts were unknown. Blix's team calculated the amount of chemical agent in those bombs at 1,000 tons. As Blix reported to the Security Council, "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."
 
sandorski

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,710
6,266
126
Alistar7 said:
That was never answered, please feel free to enlighten me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26671-2003Jun6?language=printer

Go back and take a look at the report Hans Blix delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax, Blix reported "no convincing evidence" that they were ever destroyed. But there was "strong evidence" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had admitted "and that at least some of this was retained." Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax." Cirincione concluded that "it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin."

On the question of VX, Blix reported that his inspections team had information that conflicted with Iraqi accounts. The Iraqis claimed that they had produced VX only as part of a pilot program but that the quality was poor and the agent was never "weaponized." But according to Blix, the inspections team discovered Iraqi documents that showed the quality of the VX to be better than declared. The team also uncovered "indications that the agent" had been "weaponized." According to Cirincione's August 2002 report, "it is widely believed that significant quantities of chemical agents and precursors remain stored in secret depots" and that there were also "thousands of possible chemical munitions still unaccounted for." Blix reported there were 6,500 "chemical bombs" that Iraq admitted producing but whose whereabouts were unknown. Blix's team calculated the amount of chemical agent in those bombs at 1,000 tons. As Blix reported to the Security Council, "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."
Click to expand...

Nah, it's over, that Anthrax would now be expired, if it existed. There was no credible reason for an Invasion. Period.

I now go back to Silent Mode.
 
A

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
It existed. People seem to forget the burden of proof was on Saddam, one he accepted willingly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2677315.stm

What is required under Security Council Resolution 1441 is simply a finding that Iraq has not "fully co-operated" with the weapons inspectors.

The case that Iraq is not fully "co-operating" was laid out by the chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, to the Security Council on 9 January.

Missing items:

Anthrax: Mr Blix told the Security Council that Iraq's declaration did not account for missing amounts (some 26,000 litres) of anthrax and that "Iraq's account of its production and unilateral destruction of anthrax... may not be accurate." After the talks in Baghdad, Mr Blix said this issue remained unaddressed.

VX nerve agent: Mr Blix said to the Council that "we have found no additional information in the declaration that would help resolve this issue". The UN says that 1.5 tonnes are missing. This is also unresolved after the Baghdad talks.

Biological growth media: Iraq imported more than it declared. Mr Blix told the Council no explanation had been given.
Iraq has argued that it destroyed the VX, and that the anthrax and growth media were either destroyed or are no longer of any use. Mr Blix says that documents, witnesses and other evidence should be produced to support that.


Who do you believe, Blix or Saddam?
 
A

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
This is probably closer to the truth than anything, but either way Saddam blatantly defied with what he agreed to follow at his own peril. Misjudgement on his part...

http://opinion.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=23976&content=34931492&pageNum=-1

Saddam Hussein was interrogated while detained in Iraq by FBI agent George Piro and this is what agent Piro had to said in an interview with Scott Pelley for ?60 Minutes?:

"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.

"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight-year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.

"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.

He told me he initially miscalculated President Bush and President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. Which was a four-day aerial attack. So you expected that initially," Piro says.

Piro says Saddam expected some kind of an air campaign and that he could he survive that. "He survived that once. And then he was willing to accept that type of attack. That type of damage," he says.

"Saddam didn't believe that the United States would invade," Pelley remarks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom