• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Why you SHOULD care if they don't find WMD's

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
You think UNMOVIC found WMD in Iraq??
link
U.N. inspectors found no evidence Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but had many questions and leads to pursue when their searches were suspended just before the U.S.-led invasion, chief inspector Hans Blix said in his final report.
 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
how many died from planes being intenionally crashed into buildings before 9/11? If we could have avoided that should we have?

That's about how much warning we will get in the event of a WMD attack,....
who would have known that terrorists were going to use planes AS missiles, instead of just taking hostages, the intelligence community clearly was not ready for this. our intelligence agencies i would think definitely FOR MANY YEARS have known the deadliness of wmds and focused much more on those types of intelligence, which is probably why you haven't seen an attack on american soil. why do you think terrorists would go through so much trouble to hijack planes and suicide themselves, when they could get simply go to iraq and get a few vials of sarin or anthrax and spread it around at the rose bowl or something, possibly affecting at least 100,000 people?

maybe if you think about that, you'd realize something.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: jahawkin
You think UNMOVIC found WMD in Iraq??
link
U.N. inspectors found no evidence Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but had many questions and leads to pursue when their searches were suspended just before the U.S.-led invasion, chief inspector Hans Blix said in his final report.
yes read that right in the beginning too, keep going.....

"many questions" is what you are looking for, "we have no credible evidence from you, where are they" is generally how it plays out, but go on, you will see for yourself...
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: drewshin
Originally posted by: Alistar7
how many died from planes being intenionally crashed into buildings before 9/11? If we could have avoided that should we have?

That's about how much warning we will get in the event of a WMD attack,....
who would have known that terrorists were going to use planes AS missiles, instead of just taking hostages, the intelligence community clearly was not ready for this. our intelligence agencies i would think definitely FOR MANY YEARS have known the deadliness of wmds and focused much more on those types of intelligence, which is probably why you haven't seen an attack on american soil. why do you think terrorists would go through so much trouble to hijack planes and suicide themselves, when they could get simply go to iraq and get a few vials of sarin or anthrax and spread it around at the rose bowl or something, possibly affecting at least 100,000 people?

maybe if you think about that, you'd realize something.
What about the terorist camp in northern Iraq? Powell said it was being run by a group with ties to AQ and was being used to teach WMD use. We found the camp, full of AQ, and recipes for WMD and dispersion manuals. You think they are learning about it as a hobby?

I have no doubt they are working on an effective dispersion method.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: mastertech01
If it is PROVEN he flat out lied, Ill join in the crowd to say he was wrong to lie. I still wont be unhappy the Iraq regime has fallen. And I hope if he is PROVEN NOT to have lied, that you likewise will be MAN enough to admit you were wrong, even if you are a little boy (as many of the posters here on either side of the fence ARE indeed)
I will be first to step up.

If Bush shows the evidence that he said he had and used for the justification of the war. He started the war, and it is for him to justify his actions through PROOF. Now, how long should we give him to provide that which he must already have?
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: jahawkin
You think UNMOVIC found WMD in Iraq??
link
U.N. inspectors found no evidence Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but had many questions and leads to pursue when their searches were suspended just before the U.S.-led invasion, chief inspector Hans Blix said in his final report.
"119. The destruction of the chemical weapons agent mustard gas, which had started
at the end of February, was completed in March 2003. Under UNMOVIC
supervision, Iraq destroyed the 155 mm shells and the mustard gas contained in
them.The shells found in 1997 were stored at a declared location ? the former
Muthanna State Establishment. In total, there were 14 shells, containing
approximately 49 litres of the agent ? four of them had been earlier emptied and
sampled by UNSCOM. The agent was destroyed by chemical reaction and the empty
shells with explosives. Samples taken from the shells showed that mustard gas
produced over 15 years ago was still of high quality ? 97 per cent purity."


you think they didn't?


2. Destruction of additional items identified by UNSCOM after 1994
8. In 1996, UNSCOM found new evidence of chemical production and analytical
equipment and precursor chemicals acquired for chemical weapons purposes still
remaining in Iraq. Many of those items had been exempted from destruction by the Commission in 1995 on the basis of false Iraqi declarations as to their past use or intended purpose. In 1997, UNSCOM designated for destruction and supervised the
disposal of the following newly identified items and materials (see S/1996/848):
? 325 pieces of production equipment (of those, possession of 120 pieces was
only disclosed by Iraq in August 1997);
? 125 pieces of analytical instruments;
? 275 tons of precursor chemicals.

thats AFTER 1994, they found and destroyed more than that before then...
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: mastertech01
If it is PROVEN he flat out lied, Ill join in the crowd to say he was wrong to lie. I still wont be unhappy the Iraq regime has fallen. And I hope if he is PROVEN NOT to have lied, that you likewise will be MAN enough to admit you were wrong, even if you are a little boy (as many of the posters here on either side of the fence ARE indeed)
I will be first to step up.

If Bush shows the evidence that he said he had and used for the justification of the war. He started the war, and it is for him to justify his actions through PROOF. Now, how long should we give him to provide that which he must already have?
We gave Saddam twelve + years.....;)
 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: drewshin
Originally posted by: Alistar7
how many died from planes being intenionally crashed into buildings before 9/11? If we could have avoided that should we have?

That's about how much warning we will get in the event of a WMD attack,....
who would have known that terrorists were going to use planes AS missiles, instead of just taking hostages, the intelligence community clearly was not ready for this. our intelligence agencies i would think definitely FOR MANY YEARS have known the deadliness of wmds and focused much more on those types of intelligence, which is probably why you haven't seen an attack on american soil. why do you think terrorists would go through so much trouble to hijack planes and suicide themselves, when they could get simply go to iraq and get a few vials of sarin or anthrax and spread it around at the rose bowl or something, possibly affecting at least 100,000 people?

maybe if you think about that, you'd realize something.
What about the terorist camp in northern Iraq? Powell said it was being run by a group with ties to AQ and was being used to teach WMD use. We found the camp, full of AQ, and recipes for WMD and dispersion manuals. You think they are learning about it as a hobby?

I have no doubt they are working on an effective dispersion method.
if they are working on an effective dispersion method, why attack iraq? at least when saddam was in power we knew where all these supposed weapons were, now we have NO idea at all. and what would an effective dispersion mthod be that would be easy to sneak into the country and not destroy the wmd's before dispersion, a super big water hose with accessory fan? if they did happen to get wmd's into the country i foresee maybe 20-30 people dying, but causing much more mass hysteria than actual casualties.
 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: mastertech01
If it is PROVEN he flat out lied, Ill join in the crowd to say he was wrong to lie. I still wont be unhappy the Iraq regime has fallen. And I hope if he is PROVEN NOT to have lied, that you likewise will be MAN enough to admit you were wrong, even if you are a little boy (as many of the posters here on either side of the fence ARE indeed)
I will be first to step up.

If Bush shows the evidence that he said he had and used for the justification of the war. He started the war, and it is for him to justify his actions through PROOF. Now, how long should we give him to provide that which he must already have?
We gave Saddam twelve + years.....;)

so bush should get twelve years as well. wow, the depths....aah nothing :) another alistar straw man, never answers questions, but just says something totally off-track.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
He suggested we demand instant proof from Bush, I gave you the CIA's offical assessment from Oct of 2002, I gacve you the British Assessment, I gave you the two final reports to the UN security council from inspections teams. That was the intelligence that was relied upon, read it yourself.

He says bush must give what he has now, Saddam had his weapons, but we gave him 12+ years tp give them up, and he never came clean, and yet more time was what he needed according to some.

Bush needs more time too....
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: flavio
Maybe we should invade Georgia?
thankfully soviet authorites caught him, the US has been working with Soviet officials to combat the sale and spread of materials like this for over ten years there....

 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Nice quote in your sig:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Dick Cheney
August 26, 2002



From the report by UN Inspections teams on March 6th 2003:


"In
February 2003, an UNMOVIC team discovered an additional two undeclared 122
mm chemical warheads"

looks like Dick was right, they were there in Feb. 2003, they were there in Aug. 2002, unless they were new, take your pic....
Why did you only quote part of the statement Ali?

An UNMOVIC inspection team found 12 undeclared 122 mm chemical
warheads and motors at the Al Ukhaidar ammunition depot (11 of them were
unfilled and 1 filled with water)
.

 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
not warheads capable, but actually FILLED. Huge difference I am sure is not lost on you.

Those were ready to fire, and were identical to some used on the Kurds.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Dick Cheney
August 26, 2002


absolute fact as proven by UN inspections.....
But actually filled!!! Yeah, 11 filled with nothing and 1 filled with water.

An UNMOVIC inspection team found 12 undeclared 122 mm chemical
warheads and motors at the Al Ukhaidar ammunition depot (11 of them were
unfilled and 1 filled with water).


 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
you are correct, I did not intenionally leave that out. I apologize, ty for clarifying that.

118. During an inspection on 7 January 2003 of the Al Mamoun site, UNMOVIC
inspectors observed two large propellant casting chambers. Iraq declared that those
casting chambers had originally been acquired for the Badr 2000 project. That was a
proscribed project, and although UNSCOM had supervised the destruction of the
two casting chambers in 1991 Iraq had managed to refurbish them for use in their
current solid propellant missile projects.


?

just read the whole report, then make up your mind, their conclusions state their is no way to validate Iraq's claims, and even if they could, that would still leave not only massive amounts of WMD unaccounted for, but the technology and equipment would still be in place.

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
THE ASSESSMENT OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT IRAQ?S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

CIA's Oct 2002 Assessment


UN UNRESOLVED DISARMAMENT ISSUES IRAQ?S PROSCRIBED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES


Thirteenth quarterly report of the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in accordance with paragraph 12 of Security Council resolution 1284 (1999)
30 May 2003United Nations Security Council

13. Again, with respect to anthrax, the Commission, as it reported, had strong indications ? but not conclusive evidence ? that all the quantities produced had not been destroyed, and that hence even today such quantities could remain.

There are the facts at debate, the US and british assessment, and the last two UN reports, from march and may of 2003. Notice the UN felt there was still a very likely chance there was still Anthrax left in Iraq in may of 2003....

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
If Bush didn't go into Iraq, we would all be speaking Iraqi now. :)
:D

warning next time please, now I have to wipe my screen off again

(have to remember not to take a sip of pepsi when reading new posts.....)
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Alistar7
You will have to show me where top administration officials seriously overstated the intelligence, as in the British case with the 45 minute assessment. Do that he will get the same thing from me he did last election, snubbed at the ballot box. Yes, I did not vote for Bush.
From The New Republic, The First Casualty - The Selling of the Iraq War

From late August 2002 to mid-March of this year, the Bush administration made its case for war by focusing on the threat posed to the United States by Saddam Hussein's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and by his purported links to the Al Qaeda terrorist network. Officials conjured up images of Iraqi mushroom clouds over U.S. cities and of Saddam transferring to Osama bin Laden chemical and biological weapons that could be used to create new and more lethal September elevenths. In Nashville on August 26, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney warned of a Saddam "armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror" who could "directly threaten America's friends throughout the region and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail." In Washington on September 26, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed he had "bulletproof" evidence of ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. And, in Cincinnati on October 7, President George W. Bush warned, "The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons." Citing Saddam's association with Al Qaeda, the president added that this "alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."

Yet there was no consensus within the American intelligence community that Saddam represented such a grave and imminent threat. Rather, interviews with current and former intelligence officials and other experts reveal that the Bush administration culled from U.S. intelligence those assessments that supported its position and omitted those that did not. The administration ignored, and even suppressed, disagreement within the intelligence agencies and pressured the CIA to reaffirm its preferred version of the Iraqi threat. Similarly, it stonewalled, and sought to discredit, international weapons inspectors when their findings threatened to undermine the case for war.

[ ... ]

Unbeknownst to the public, the administration faced equally serious opposition within its own intelligence agencies. At the CIA, many analysts and officials were skeptical that Iraq posed an imminent threat. In particular, they rejected a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. According to a New York Times report in February 2002, the CIA found "no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups."

[ ... ]

Woolsey's main piece of evidence for a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda was a meeting that was supposed to have taken place in Prague in April 2001 between lead September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence official. But none of the intelligence agencies could place Atta in Prague on that date. (Indeed, receipts and other travel documents placed him in the United States.) An investigation by Czech officials dismissed the claim, which was based on a single unreliable witness. The CIA was also receiving other information that rebutted a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. After top Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah was captured in March 2002, he was debriefed by the CIA, and the results were widely circulated in the intelligence community. As The New York Times reported, Zubaydah told his captors that bin Laden himself rejected any alliance with Saddam. "I remember reading the Abu Zubaydah debriefing last year, while the administration was talking about all of these other reports [of a Saddam-Al Qaeda link], and thinking that they were only putting out what they wanted," a CIA official told the paper. Zubaydah's story, which intelligence analysts generally consider credible, has since been corroborated by additional high-ranking Al Qaeda terrorists now in U.S. custody, including Ramzi bin Al Shibh and September 11 architect Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

[ ... ]

But the Pentagon found an even more effective way to pressure the agency. In October 2001, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith set up a special intelligence operation in the Pentagon to "think through how the various terrorist organizations relate to each other and ... state sponsors," in Feith's description. Their approach echoed the "Team B" strategy that conservatives had used in the past: establishing a separate entity to offer alternative intelligence analyses to the CIA. Conservatives had done this in 1976, criticizing and intimidating the agency over its estimates of Soviet military strength, and again in 1998, arguing for the necessity of missile defense. (Wolfowitz had participated in both projects; the latter was run by Rumsfeld.) This time, the new entity--headed by Perle protégé Abram Shulsky-- reassessed intelligence already collected by the CIA along with information from Iraqi defectors and, as Feith remarked coyly at a press conference earlier this month, "came up with some interesting observations about the linkages between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

[ ... ]

That same day, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice appeared on the political talk shows to trumpet the discovery of the tubes and the Iraqi nuclear threat. Explained Rice, "There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly [Saddam] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Rumsfeld added, "Imagine a September eleventh with weapons of mass destruction. It's not three thousand--it's tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children."

Many of the intelligence analysts who had participated in the aluminum-tubes debate were appalled. One described the feeling to TNR: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

[ ... ]

In speeches and interviews, administration officials also warned of the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. On September 25, 2002, Rice insisted, "There clearly are contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq. ... There clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship there." On the same day, President Bush warned of the danger that "Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness." Rice, like Rumsfeld--who the next day would call evidence of a Saddam-bin Laden link "bulletproof"--said she could not share the administration's evidence with the public without endangering intelligence sources. But Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee, disagreed. On September 27, Paul Anderson, a spokesman for Graham, told USA Today that the senator had seen nothing in the CIA's classified reports that established a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

[ ... ]

That same evening, October 7, 2002, Bush gave a major speech in Cincinnati defending the resolution now before Congress and laying out the case for war. Bush's speech brought together all the misinformation and exaggeration that the White House had been disseminating that fall. "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program," the president declared. "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." Bush also argued that, through its ties to Al Qaeda, Iraq would be able to use biological and chemical weapons against the United States. "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," he warned. If Iraq had to deliver these weapons on its own, Bush said, Iraq could use the new unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that it was developing. "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas," he said. "We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States." This claim represented the height of absurdity. Iraq's UAVs had ranges of, at most, 300 miles. They could not make the flight from Baghdad to Tel Aviv, let alone to New York.

[ ... ]

In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, Bush introduced a new piece of evidence to show that Iraq was developing a nuclear arms program: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. ... Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."

One year earlier, Cheney's office had received from the British, via the Italians, documents purporting to show Iraq's purchase of uranium from Niger. Cheney had given the information to the CIA, which in turn asked a prominent diplomat, who had served as ambassador to three African countries, to investigate. He returned after a visit to Niger in February 2002 and reported to the State Department and the CIA that the documents were forgeries. The CIA circulated the ambassador's report to the vice president's office, the ambassador confirms to TNR. But, after a British dossier was released in September detailing the purported uranium purchase, administration officials began citing it anyway, culminating in its inclusion in the State of the Union. "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," the former ambassador tells TNR. "They were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more persuasive."

[ ... ]

Powell's evidence consisted of tenuous ties between Baghdad and an Al Qaeda leader, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, who had allegedly received medical treatment in Baghdad and who, according to Powell, operated a training camp in Iraq specializing in poisons. Unfortunately for Powell's thesis, the camp was located in northern Iraq, an area controlled by the Kurds rather than Saddam and policed by U.S. and British warplanes. One Hill staffer familiar with the classified documents on Al Qaeda tells TNR, "So why would that be proof of some Iraqi government connection to Al Qaeda? [It] might as well be in Iran."

[ ... ]
That's just a sample. It is a long, detailed article, full of specific examples of Bush & Co. overstating and distorting their intelligence information. Worth a read.

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Powell's evidence consisted of tenuous ties between Baghdad and an Al Qaeda leader, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, who had allegedly received medical treatment in Baghdad and who, according to Powell, operated a training camp in Iraq specializing in poisons. Unfortunately for Powell's thesis, the camp was located in northern Iraq, an area controlled by the Kurds rather than Saddam and policed by U.S. and British warplanes. One Hill staffer familiar with the classified documents on Al Qaeda tells TNR, "So why would that be proof of some Iraqi government connection to Al Qaeda? [It] might as well be in Iran."


You do realize he was captured, in Baghdad?????

The camp was also there, complete with recipes for WMD and dispersion manuals and dead Al-Queda. They also found chemical protection suits identical to ones issued to regular Iraqi forces, same with the weapons and ammo. Coincidence?

and from the Iraqi Daily News

Ansar al-Islam is a radical Kurdish Islamic group that is supportive of Saddam Hussein's regime. This group is located in the pseudo-autonomous Northern Iraq. This group has ties with Taliban and al-Qaeda. It is the most radical group operating in the Iraqi Kurdistan region.

"According to some reports, the group has received $600,000 from al-Qaeda, and a delivery of weapons and Toyota Land Cruisers. There are also reports stating that Ansar al-Islam received $35,000 from the Mukhabarat branch of Iraqi Intelligence Service, in addition to a considerable quantity of arms."

We also know for a fact Al-Queda was invited to Baghdad for meetings and did attend, although not much is known further on that.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
From the UN reports in 2003

In addition, photographic evidence shows that R-400A bombs had been located at Al Walid
Airbase in October 1991. This contradicts the declaration by Iraq that R-400A bombs had only
been deployed to Al Azzizziyah and Airfield 37 and that all such bombs had been destroyed in
July or August 1991.

As it has proved impossible to verify the production and destruction details of R-400 bombs,
UNMOVIC cannot discount the possibility that some CW and BW filled R-400 bombs remain in
Iraq.

30 May 2003United Nations Security Council

13. Again, with respect to anthrax, the Commission, as it reported, had strong
indications ? but not conclusive evidence ? that all the quantities produced had
not been destroyed, and that hence even today such quantities could remain.


Theres the UN telling you they cant be sure they are all gone, and more likely than not, they are still there in may of 2003.
 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,940
10
81
the problem, just as with the war and all the supposed false "finds" after it started, is that everything is based on a probability, or a might have, or a could have, or could have been used, or a possible whatever.

where's the hard evidence? we just raped a country based upon unproven allegations. that's certainly no way to conduct ourselves, and certainly not following the American standard of historical importance: innocent until proven guilty.

show us the money,,,the real deal,,,and make us believers.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY