Iraq successfully concealed both the size and level of progress of its nuclear program. Four months after the June 1981 bombing by Israel of Iraq’s Osirak reactor, Jaffar Dhia Jaffar (deputy minister of industry, head of reactor physics at Tuwaitha and now believed to have been the head of Iraq’s nuclear weapon program) reportedly convinced Saddam Hussein that remaining in the NPT while embarking on a clandestine nuclear weapon program would present no serious difficulties.
Over the next decade, a nuclear program code-named Petrochemical-3 employed over 20,000 employees-7,000 of them scientists and engineers -- at an estimated cost of $7 to $10 billion. This program included at least two major enrichment programs (EMIS and centrifuges, plus preliminary work with chemical enrichment), direct foreign technical assistance, and massive foreign procurement -- much but not all of which fell within the domain of legal dual-use items. For example, so as not to arouse suspicion, the calutron program imported large iron-pole magnets (4.5 meters in diameter) from a European foundry in crude, unfinished form; such iron forgings were finished to specification in Iraq. The Iraqis obtained the design for buildings at the Ash-Sharqat nuclear facility that were planned to house calutrons by duplicating the Yugoslav-built Tarmiya site.
Iraq did have a major petrochemical industry which helped provide cover for its nuclear-weapon-program purchases. However, at least three other factors also helped shield its foreign procurement of nuclear-related dual-use items from drawing too much attention.
In 1997 UNSCOM, (which actually found WMD) made this report.
quote:
UNSCOM
3 December 1997
Major Sites Associated With Iraq's Past WMD Programs
Biological sites:
1 - Salman Pak: Laboratory scale research on Anthrax, Botulinum toxin, Clostridium, perfringens (gas gangrene), mycotoxins, aflatoxins, and Ricin. Researchers at this site carried out toxicity evaluations of these agents and examined their growth characteristics and survivability. Located 40 km SE of Baghdad.
2- Al Hakum: This site was specifically designed and constructed as Iraq'ss main biological agent production facility. Prior to the Gulf War this facility produced thousands of lines of Anthrax and concentrated Botulinum toxin. Hundreds of litres of Clostridium perfringen were also produced. The site was destroyed by UNSCOM in May and and June 1996. Located 60 km SW of Baghdad.
3 - Daura Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Facility. Also known as Al Manal, this site was taken over by the BW program in fall 1990. Site conducted initial research on viral warfare agents including: haemorraghic conjunctivitis, human rota virus, and camelpox. The site was also used to produce thousands of litres of botulinum toxin. Located in Southeastern outskirts of Baghdad.
4 - The Agricultural and Water Resources Research Centre at Fudaliyah: Also known as Al Safa, this site was a dedicated aflatoxin production facility. Nearly 2000 litres of agent were produced. Site was converted from a scientific agricultural research station. Located in Northeastern outskirts of Baghdad.
5- Taji Single Cell Protein Plant: This site was converted for the production of hundreds of litres of Botulinum toxin in the late 1980s. Located 10 km NW of Baghdad.
6 - Muthanna State Establishment: Initial location for Iraq's BW program in 1985/86. Researchers at this site carried out initial toxins evaluations of several BW agents and examined their growth characteristics and survivability. Agents investigated include Anthrax, botulinum toxin, aflatoxin, and ricin. Muthanna also conducted small scale production of botulinum toxin. BW equipment moved to Salman Pak in 1987. Muthanna heavily damaged during Gulf War. Muthanna also provided weaponization expertise to the BW program, primarily CW munition technology and testing. Located 170 km NW of Baghdad.
Chemical sites:
1 - Muthanna State Establishment: This 5 km by 5 km facility was Iraq's primary chemical weapons research, development, and production facility. The site operated continuously from 1983 to 1991, producing thousands of tons of precursors, nerve agents and mustard gas. Chemical agents included mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and VX. The site was heavily bombed during the Gulf War. From 1992 to 1994 the UNSCOM Chemical Destruction Group operated at this site to eliminate remaining precursor materials, destroy production plants and equipment, and hydrolyse or burn remaining chemical warfare agents. Located 120 km NW of Baghdad.
2 - Fallujah I: This site was intended to be an additional precursor production facility for the chemical weapons program. The facility was in the initial phases of construction at the time of the Gulf War. Located 60 km WNW of Baghdad.
3- Fallujah II: This facility produced chemical weapons precursors destined for the Muhanna site. Products included chlorine, phosphorous trichloride and oxychlorode, thiony1 chloride, and with high probability two direct nerve agent precursors. The site was bombed during the Gulf War. Remaining precursors and equipment were transferred to the Muthanna site for destruction under the supervision of the Chemical Destruction Group. Located 65 km WNW of Baghdad.
4 - Fallujah III: This site was in the late stages of construction at the time of the Gulf War. The facility, intended to support the Muthanna site, contained multi-purpose production plants. These production areas were all destroyed by bombing in 1991. The intended products of this site remain unclear, but may be connected with the VX program. Located 70 km WNW of Baghdad.
5 - Muhammadiyat: This site was the primary storage area for filled chemical weapons. At the time of the Gulf War the site contained numerous CW munition, many filled with chemical agent. The site was heavily damaged during the war. The UNSCOM teams, and the Chemical Destruction Group completed elimination of CW weapons that survived the bombardment. Located 140 km W of Baghdad.
Nuclear Sites
1- Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center: Main site for Iraqi nuclear program. Activities included: several research reactors, plutonium separation and waste processing, uranium metallurgy, neutron initiator development and work on number of methods of uranium enrichment. Tuwaitha also is the location of the Osiraq reactor bombed by Israel in 1981. All nuclear fuel at this site was removed under IAEA monitoring. Equipment directly tied to the nuclear weapons program was destroyed in place. Located 18 km SSE of Baghdad.
2 - Tarmiya: Main site for electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS) program for the enrichment of uranium. Site included both 1200 mm and 600 mm separators. Much of the equipment at this site was disassembled unilaterally by Iraq, and the components hidden from IAEA inspector teams. These pasts were eventually turned over to IAEA personnel and destroyed in place. Located 30 km NW of Baghdad.
3 - Al Atheer Centre: This site was designed and constructed as the major facility for nuclear weapons development and testing. Activities at the site were to included.: uranium casting and metallurgy, core assembly, explosive lens assemble, and detonics testing A high explosives test bunker near the site was used for hydrodynamic experiments. The large nuclear weapons related buildings and bunkers were destroyed under IAEA/UNSCOM supervision in summer 1992. Located 68 km SW of Baghdad.
4 - Al Furat: This site was intended for the design, assembly, and testing of gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment. A 100 centrifuge cascade was planned. All centrifuge related components were destroyed under IAEA supervision. Located 27 km SW of Baghdad.
5 - Al Jesira Factory: Uranium feed stock production facility. Products included: uranium dioxide, uranium tetrachloride, and uranium hexaflouride. The facility was destroyed during the Gulf War. Located 385 km NW of Baghdad.
6 - Akashat Mine: Uranium ore production site. Associated with the Al Qaim site. Located 420 km W of Baghdad
7 Al Qaim: Production of yellow cake (refined uranium ore) from 1984 to 1990. All of the yellow cake used by nuclear program allegedly came from this site. Ore was supplied to the facility by both Iraqi and foreign sources. Located 380 km WNW of Baghdad.
8 - Rashidiya: Centrifuge development centre. Engaged in centrifuge design and testing. Located in Northern outskirts of Baghdad.
9- Al Sharqat: Site intended as a duplicate of the Al Tarmiyah EMIS facility. The site was still under construction in 1991. Located 255 km NW of Baghdad.
10 - Petrochemical-3 Centre: Complex of five office buildings housed the Iraqi nuclear weapons design effort. Inspection of this site in September 1991 yielded documentary proof of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program. Located in central Baghdad.
Ballistic missile sites:
1- Taji: This site was the primary location for Iraq's indigenous long-range missile program. Activities included air frame design, construction and modification, and liquid fuel rocket engine development and production. UNSCOM teams destroyed prohibited missiles, support systems, development and construction equipment, and specialized tools and dies. Located 30 km N of Baghdad.
2- Nassr State Establishment: This large machine tool and metal working facility was the initial location of the SCUD modification and range extension program. The site continued to manufacture components for both the air frame and indigenous SCUD engine programs. UNSCOM teams destroyed speciality dies at this site. Located 10 km N of Baghdad.
3- Al Rafah: This location was one of the production areas for the indigenous rocket engine program. The site also included facilities for the static testing of the indigenous liquid engines. UNSCOM teams destroyed engine production related equipment. Located 60 km W of Baghdad.
4 - Al Farouq Factory at Darwah: This factory produced locally manufactured transporter/launchers for the long-range missile program. The site was completely destroyed during the Gulf War. Located in the Northwest outskirts of Baghdad.
5- Al Qa Qaa: This site was responsible for the explosive filling of long-range missile warheads. Warhead processing facilities at the site were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. Located 38 km S of Baghdad.
6 - Karama: This facility conducts research and development efforts on indigenous guidance and control systems. It is still not clear to what extent this site contributed to the long-range program. Located in the North-western outskirts of Baghdad.
7 - Yawm al Azim: This site is part of the Balat al Shuhada group of facilities responsible for development of the BADR-2000 missile. This plant contained static test equipment and other development technologies. All long-range missile test and development equipment was destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. Located 65 km S of Baghdad.
8 - Taj al Marik: This site is part of the Balat al Shuhada group of facilities responsible for development of the BADR-2000 missile. This plant produced solid propellant for the BADR system All buildings and equipment involved in the BARR program were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. Located 47 km SW of Baghdad.
9- Dhu al Figar: This site is past of the Balat al Shuhada group of facilities responsible for development of the BADR-2000 missile. This plant manufactured the motorcases for the BADR program. The site was bombed during the Gulf War. UNSCOM teams completed destruction of remaining production equipment. Locate 80 km WSW of Baghdad. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/l...71203_sites.htm
Great stuff Ron, you're playing bloodhound tonight aren't ya?
I have reams and reams of this stuff and the actual IAEA/UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports in PDF files. Some of it is so dry and detailed and numeric in it's resporting my eyeballs roll back in my head from exhaustion trying to take it all in.
Some of the Executive Summaries contradict what is in the actual reports themselves, and most of the verbal reports given to the Security Council are so contrary to what is in the reports themselves you would never know Blix or El Baradei were discussing the same report. It was if they wrote a politically-acceptable summary that they read without ever reading the actual report itself.
What I find most interesting, is that long before 2002, both the IAEA and UNSCOM were unanimous in the fact that Sadaam not only had and posessed chems and bios and components for nuclear programs - but that he was engaged in deliberate deceit and concealment from UN Inspection teams.
Regardless of the arguments the Left has made in nitpicking the war to oust Sadaam - the entire world was witness to the fact the guy had used WMD gas on the Iraqis and the Kurds.
9/11 changed our complete perspective and thinking.
I hope it wasn't too little too late and that the 12 years Sadaam had to hide, conceal, move or destroy his stockpiles - that some of that stuff is going to rear it's ugly head on Ameica's shores sometime soon.
Sadaam has a lovely game he plays of outlasting his enemies. I can only hope Bush is wise to him this time and unlike his father - refuse to play the UN's game and make sure his regime is good and dead.
It just seemed to me that they are doves and didn't want Iraq to look bad in hopes that the UN would cave in and say that Iraq was now clean of WMD.
Also it seemed that UNMOVIC just didn't do as good as a job as UNSCOM. UNSCOM found much more WMD and Programs. It was like UNMOVIC just said "What WMD we don't see not stinking WMD".
Maybe UNMOVIC should have recruited David Kaye as a consultant.
Originally posted by Ron Ackerman So did Blix and El Baradei gloss over the facts?
It just seemed to me that they are doves and didn't want Iraq to look bad in hopes that the UN would cave in and say that Iraq was now clean of WMD.
Also it seemed that UNMOVIC just didn't do as good as a job as UNSCOM. UNSCOM found much more WMD and Programs. It was like UNMOVIC just said "What WMD we don't see not stinking WMD".
Maybe UNMOVIC should have recruited David Kaye as a consultant.
Unequivocally NO.....
UNMOVIC and IAEC were reporting on the IRAQ of 2002-2003 not the Iraq of decades past..... when the UN and UNSC decided upon using UNMOVIC and IAEC to investigate Iraq's present status, THAT is what they investigated... BY complying Iraq made its case to have sanctions removed and live free from attacks by the USA ... THAT is why USA attacked. They could not allow the investigation to wrap up and see Iraq free again... it would be politically embarassing and lose whatever holds they had on that region... now they gain a protectorate to govern with rich resources to plunder.
Quoting violations of decades past is irrelevant when evaluating Iraq's status prior to war. And that is how UNMOVIC and IAEC treated it. It was an EVALUATION... not a summary of the past.
Originally posted by rowdyrjp
UNMOVIC and IAEC were reporting on the IRAQ of 2002-2003 not the Iraq of decades past..... when the UN and UNSC decided upon using UNMOVIC and IAEC to investigate Iraq's present status, THAT is what they investigated... BY complying Iraq made its case to have sanctions removed and live free from attacks by the USA ... THAT is why USA attacked. They could not allow the investigation to wrap up and see Iraq free again... it would be politically embarassing and lose whatever holds they had on that region... now they gain a protectorate to govern with rich resources to plunder.
Quoting violations of decades past is irrelevant when evaluating Iraq's status prior to war. And that is how UNMOVIC and IAEC treated it. It was an EVALUATION... not a summary of the past.
The Canadian "Democrats" are out in force....
______
"All in all, a great day if you believe stopping the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons is a good thing. But, it was a very bad day indeed if world security takes a back seat to your personal hatred of George W. Bush."
We will always remember.
We will always be proud.
We will always be prepared
So that we may always be free!
Quoting violations of decades past is irrelevant when evaluating Iraq's status prior to war. And that is how UNMOVIC and IAEC treated it. It was an EVALUATION... not a summary of the past.
Hooboy you raving Socialists are a hoot!
Your interpretation Rowdy Osama IS IRRELEVANT and factually wrong - even if that is what UNMOVIC and the IAEA were supposedly doing according to you.
READ UN1441 you dunce!
Read the Resolution that ESTABLISHED UNMOVIC.
They weren't there to "evaluate" Iraq's "status" prior to war - they were established to VERIFY IRAQ WAS IN COMPLIANCE with ALL UN Resolutions post UN687
Iraq was NOT in compliance with either 687, 1441 OR the 1991 Cease Fire that gave him originally until JUNE 30, 1991 to completely disclose and provide evidence he had destroyed and complied with ALL the terms.
He didn't - I don't care how you emoting twits want to package your attempts to demonize the war in April.
Sadaam didn't want peace or he would have absolutely and unconditionally without question or doubt complied with all the terms set forth in 1991.
But he didn't.
He wouldn't have made efforts to hide and conceal; he wouldn't have declared Jihad on America; he wouldn't have made bold claims of using WMDs on our troops if they attacked; he wouldn't be targeting Coalition aircraft with SAM missiles over 12 years, and he wouldn't have made threatening remarks to Kuwaait and launch Silkworm missiles and long-range Scuds and Samouds at them (all banned weapons btw).
How willing you people are to completely overlook those facts to justify Sadaam so you can condemn America to satisfy the needs of your agenda is sickening, and the reason WHY America wants out of the UN and WHY America is going to do things our own way - WITHOUT consulting YOU FIRST.
Get used to smelling our exhaust because you're always going to be behind us trying to catch-up to get on the bus we're driving.
Absolutely rowdy.
We all know Iraq had WMDs before...no one disagrees with that. It was whether they had them in 2002-2003 that mattered to this war. And it appears...ermm...they don't.
They weren't there to "evaluate" Iraq's "status" prior to war - they were established to VERIFY IRAQ WAS IN COMPLIANCE with ALL UN Resolutions post UN687
Iraq was NOT in compliance with either 687, 1441 OR the 1991 Cease Fire that gave him originally until JUNE 30, 1991 to completely disclose and provide evidence he had destroyed and complied with ALL the terms.
He didn't - I don't care how you emoting twits want to package your attempts to demonize the war in April .
So let me get this straight INVAR. When the UNSC sent in Mr. Blix and co. they ere NOT there to see if Iraq was presently in compliance but ... and I want to get this right... they were there to discover if Iraq had been in compliance since 1991... and if not then there present status would be ... what?.. irrelevant?,...... Is that what you are saying?
Give me a break... such an investigation would be absurd!!!!!
Was Mr. Blix equiped with a time machine?
Obviously.... by passing resolutions in to send UNMOVIC and IAEC these .. decisions SUPERCEDE.. the earlier ones.
Whether the blame for earlier failures lies mostly with Iraq or mostly with UNSCOM or mostly with USA/UK... or any division thereof. The point is ALL sides agree those earlier attempts to verify compliance failed miserably.
At that point UNSC had to decide to send a force or try again with a less combative team of investigators.... ones that would not be prone to as much conflict as UNSCOM considering it was led by Americans.
USA agreed to this as well.
ALL that should be debated then was whether or not in 2002 - 2003 Iraq failed to comply/ cooperate.
We all know they did not fail. We all know that UNMOVIC and IAEC were satisfied at the progress they were making.
Therefore USA and UK committed an illegal act of war by invading, occupying and conquering Iraq. They should be under sanctions. They are guilty. Case closed.
It is inspiring when someone from the PRO-WAR side takes the time to do a little research and realize the error of that position.
By bringing the argument BACK where it belongs with resolution 1441.... it is evident to any that read it... that I raq was meeting all of its requirements.
The USA and UK obviously need to be sanctioned.
1441 clearly lays out a plan whereby Iraq can meet its requirements {from earlier resolutions} by completely cooperating with 1441. Obviously earlier deadlines from decade old resolutions could not be met... no one posesses a time machine that I have heard of.
UN states that 1441 is a final oppurtunity to comply for Iraq.
Iraq took this seriously and complied. No amount of propaganda can deny this. The only proof of non-compliance would have been discovery of hidden weapons .. un-declared.. by UNMOVIC and IAEA... OR ... interference with inspectors.{2 weeks prior to WAR UNMOVIC and IAEA reported to UN their findings to date.... they still had questions... they still had some wrapping up to do of their investigation... but Iraq was cooperating.. and most of the INTEL passed to them from UK and USA was proving to be of no use or in fact downright false}. {ie) supposed sites that in fact contained no WMD's but that UK and USA intel were CERTAIN would; Forged documents claiming attemptes by Iraq to purchase Uranium}. Since no violations were occurring and no evidence of WMD's was discovered ..... Iraq complied. Therefore Gulf War 2 was illegal.
Unfortunatly Iraq did NOT comply with 1441. Let's not forget that with 1441 it was Iraq's responsibility to demonstrate that they disposed of the WMD and that they complied. Saddam didn't do that, the inspectors were not there to be detectives to try and discover where Saddam hid the WMD or interogate the scientist or search for documents that said the WMD was gone. No they were there for Saddam to take to the disposal sites, to present the scientist for interviews, to show them the documentation that he had disposed of the WMD.
Why did he not do that? Who knows!!!!
If he was smart he would have at least forged the documents, taken the inspectors to fake sites, found some low lifes to pretend to be scientist. But he wasn't smart. He under estimated the will of George W. Bush and Tony Blair to see this to the end.
They will find WMD or at least proof of WMD program. Something happened to his WMD. It's just a matter of finding out what.
Originally posted by Ron Ackerman Unfortunatly Iraq did NOT comply with 1441. Let's not forget that with 1441 it was Iraq's responsibility to demonstrate that they disposed of the WMD and that they complied. Saddam didn't do that, the inspectors were not there to be detectives to try and discover where Saddam hid the WMD or interogate the scientist or search for documents that said the WMD was gone. No they were there for Saddam to take to the disposal sites, to present the scientist for interviews, to show them the documentation that he had disposed of the WMD.
Why did he not do that? Who knows!!!!
If he was smart he would have at least forged the documents, taken the inspectors to fake sites, found some low lifes to pretend to be scientist. But he wasn't smart. He under estimated the will of George W. Bush and Tony Blair to see this to the end.
They will find WMD or at least proof of WMD program. Something happened to his WMD. It's just a matter of finding out what.
Oh.... so you present 1441 link as evidence.... not of seeing reality... but of somehow supporting USA propaganda...
ok... gotcha now...
1. Iraq met the 30 day deadline for disclosure... this is not disputed.
2. Iraq even reversed its position on the presidential palaces part of the investigation request and allowed it.
3. After discussions with UNMOVIC and IAEA Iraq agreed to allow private interrogations of their scientists. {before Iraq had wanted a representative present}
4. UNMOVIC and IAEA bot reprted satisfactory cooperation.
5. UNMOVIC and IAEA both reported that in their estimation the ENTIRE investigation could be wrapped up within a few more months.
6. NO evidence of banned un-declared WMD's
7. Any sites USA and UK proposed to UNMOVIC and IAEA proved to contain no WMD or materials used for WMD purposes.
8. USA and UK INTEL indeed consisted of FORGED documents. Lending more and more credence to Iraq's claims of having NO WMD!!!
9. Upon insistence from UNMOVIC that Al-Samoud II missiles ... while conventional in nature and technically within the set parameters of agreed upon missile limits..... were easy to modify for greater distances... Iraq agreed to destroy them as well!!!!
In fact Iraq continued to destroy them under supervision from UNMOVIC members right up until USA and UK forces forced them out.
10. The USA + UK repeatedly told the WORLD that they knew precisely where the WMD were ... ... that they were in fact right outside of Baghdad... apparently buried in sites north, south, east and west of the city.... That they would reveal Iraqi lies to the world as soon as they took Baghdad. That none were found... while Baghdad has been under constant surveillance.... IS the last proof ... UNDENIABLE... that the only lies in this whole affair were being perpetrated by the USA/UK !!!!
In conclusion... if this ever makes it to a court of LAW... {World Court .. hopefully}... The evidence would lead to an easy conviction against USA and UK forces for War Crimes.
NO SPIN YOU GUYS CAN CREATE CAN DENY ANY OF THESE COLD HARD FACTS!!!!!
He had WMD in 1997/98. UNSCOM destroyed only a portion of it. Saddam admitted that there was more. They showed no proof of it's destruction. He had from 1998 to 2002 to hide it or destroy it which do you think he did. If he destroyed it where is the documentation that he did that? Why not give that documentation to inspectors?
Oh and as far as that 12,000 page declaration. All he did was give them what they have already seen. There was nothing new in that documentation.
As far as scientist interviews. Only a couple without minders and still they had to be in bugged hotel rooms.
Your right UNMOVIC did not find evidence of banned WMD. Well except for the Mustard Gas War Heads. Oh did we forget about those? And what about the missiles that they were destroying.
As far as forged documents, there were how many? Was it 12 pages/letters? So your baseing your the war was not just on 12 pages of possibly forged docuements. My wife thinks that the documents were legit but the date was changed to a more current date but that's just her theory.
Let's not bring up the thousands of pages of other documentation that the intellegence services have. Did you read the UK Dossier on Saddams WMD? Have you read UNSCOM's reports? Did Saddam murder hundreds of thousands of his own people? Did he use Chemical Weapons in Halabja during the Iran/Iraq War?
Originally posted by Ron Ackerman Ok smarty pants, explain this.
He had WMD in 1997/98. UNSCOM destroyed only a portion of it. Saddam admitted that there was more. They showed no proof of it's destruction. He had from 1998 to 2002 to hide it or destroy it which do you think he did. If he destroyed it where is the documentation that he did that? Why not give that documentation to inspectors?
Oh and as far as that 12,000 page declaration. All he did was give them what they have already seen. There was nothing new in that documentation.
As far as scientist interviews. Only a couple without minders and still they had to be in bugged hotel rooms.
Your right UNMOVIC did not find evidence of banned WMD. Well except for the Mustard Gas War Heads. Oh did we forget about those? And what about the missiles that they were destroying.
As far as forged documents, there were how many? Was it 12 pages/letters? So your baseing your the war was not just on 12 pages of possibly forged docuements. My wife thinks that the documents were legit but the date was changed to a more current date but that's just her theory.
Let's not bring up the thousands of pages of other documentation that the intellegence services have. Did you read the UK Dossier on Saddams WMD? Have you read UNSCOM's reports? Did Saddam murder hundreds of thousands of his own people? Did he use Chemical Weapons in Halabja during the Iran/Iraq War?
Oh.... so you present 1441 link as evidence.... not of seeing reality... but of somehow supporting USA propaganda...
ok... gotcha now...
1. Iraq met the 30 day deadline for disclosure... this is not disputed.
2. Iraq even reversed its position on the presidential palaces part of the investigation request and allowed it.
3. After discussions with UNMOVIC and IAEA Iraq agreed to allow private interrogations of their scientists. {before Iraq had wanted a representative present}
4. UNMOVIC and IAEA bot reprted satisfactory cooperation.
5. UNMOVIC and IAEA both reported that in their estimation the ENTIRE investigation could be wrapped up within a few more months.
6. NO evidence of banned un-declared WMD's
7. Any sites USA and UK proposed to UNMOVIC and IAEA proved to contain no WMD or materials used for WMD purposes.
8. USA and UK INTEL indeed consisted of FORGED documents. Lending more and more credence to Iraq's claims of having NO WMD!!!
9. Upon insistence from UNMOVIC that Al-Samoud II missiles ... while conventional in nature and technically within the set parameters of agreed upon missile limits..... were easy to modify for greater distances... Iraq agreed to destroy them as well!!!!
In fact Iraq continued to destroy them under supervision from UNMOVIC members right up until USA and UK forces forced them out.
10. The USA + UK repeatedly told the WORLD that they knew precisely where the WMD were ... ... that they were in fact right outside of Baghdad... apparently buried in sites north, south, east and west of the city.... That they would reveal Iraqi lies to the world as soon as they took Baghdad. That none were found... while Baghdad has been under constant surveillance.... IS the last proof ... UNDENIABLE... that the only lies in this whole affair were being perpetrated by the USA/UK !!!!
In conclusion... if this ever makes it to a court of LAW... {World Court .. hopefully}... The evidence would lead to an easy conviction against USA and UK forces for War Crimes.
NO SPIN YOU GUYS CAN CREATE CAN DENY ANY OF THESE COLD HARD FACTS!!!!!
Originally posted by Ron Ackerman
Ok smarty pants, explain this.
He had WMD in 1997/98. UNSCOM destroyed only a portion of it. Saddam admitted that there was more. They showed no proof of it's destruction. He had from 1998 to 2002 to hide it or destroy it which do you think he did. If he destroyed it where is the documentation that he did that? Why not give that documentation to inspectors?
Iraq declared in there 12000 page document the extent of their military capability and research at that time. They also declared that the remaining WMD's left after after UNSCOM "mission" had been destroyed. They stated clearly that they were no longer in possession of any banned WMD!!!
The USA and UK position is that anything short of video taped evidence of each and every weapon being destroyed is a failure to comply.
The Iraqi position was... they sufferred under years of bombings... years of sanctions.... a suspicious UNSCOM... and still went ahead and destroyed their WMD's... cooperated with UNMOVIC .. and met their deadline to declare.... Iraq felt that these actions were enough evidence of compliance.
Since the USA and UK would not be satisfied... UNMOVIC and IAEA's job was to determine if Iraq was telling the truth.
UNMOVIC and IAEA found no evidence to contradict the Iraqi declaration. THEREFORE Iraq MUST be viewed as being in compliance with 1441 {from a legal perspective} . Could Iraq have hidden the WMD? Perhaps... perhaps OJ really was the killer to... BUT that is irrelevant... What is relevant is that no evidence has been found to contradict Iraq's declaration ... any legal finding would have to be with them!!!!
Oh and as far as that 12,000 page declaration. All he did was give them what they have already seen. There was nothing new in that documentation.
Because Iraq had nothing NEW to declare. Their position was that they were in compliance with 1441. Any new, or hidden weapons or research would be a violation of 1441. Therefore the declaration contained no new information. Just an admission of their present capabilities.
As far as scientist interviews. Only a couple without minders and still they had to be in bugged hotel rooms.
Enough that UNMOVIC and IAEA were staisfied with the progress. It was their assessment that was crucial... not the armchair inspectors in Washington and London.
Your right UNMOVIC did not find evidence of banned WMD. Well except for the Mustard Gas War Heads. Oh did we forget about those? And what about the missiles that they were destroying.
As far as I know the only weapons found were declared. Do you have a link stating otherwise? I think you may be referring to weapons that were scheduled for destruction and declared. However if otherwise... please post a link.
As far as forged documents, there were how many? Was it 12 pages/letters? So your baseing your the war was not just on 12 pages of possibly forged docuements. My wife thinks that the documents were legit but the date was changed to a more current date but that's just her theory.
My lord, it is not just the date. The representatives from the IAEA stated CLEARLY that there many inconsistencies in the documents that made it PAINFULLY obvious that they were forged. Since then intelligence officials in USA have gone on the record as stating that they had informed the Whit House that these documents were bogus BEFORE the president used them. And yet Bush used them anyway!!! I mean c'mon... doesn't that alone punch a massive whole in the JUST WAR argument?
Let's not bring up the thousands of pages of other documentation that the intellegence services have. Did you read the UK Dossier on Saddams WMD? Have you read UNSCOM's reports? Did Saddam murder hundreds of thousands of his own people? Did he use Chemical Weapons in Halabja during the Iran/Iraq War?
What Saddam and his soldiers did to put down civil uprisings is despicable... there is a special place in hell reserved for those who slaughter. Hundreds of Thousands though? Where do you get that number from... are you adding in all the deaths due to sanctions? Just curious.
HOWEVER.... and this is IMPORTANT. UNMOVIC and IAEA were there for a specefic reason... to verify Iraqi claims.. PERIOD.
These other allegations.. no matter how horrific are irrelevant to this case. If the USA had wanted to prosecute Saddam for human rights violations during those conflicts... they could have made that case... they did not.. no one did.... Why?
You know this confuses me the most. Seriously ... there exist measures to deal with these types of accusations.. the World Court. A conviction would have led to a DEMAND that Iraq hand guilty parties over for sentencing. A conviction would have led to a UN formation of a coalition to go in and tear down the regime if Iraq refused to hand the guilty over.
Not to be too suspicious... but why wasn't this done?
Is it possible that the evidence {other than testimony of exiles}
does not exist? I am asking. This part is what baffles me.
Was Saddam the monster the media portrayed him to be?
If he was the above scenario should have been rather simple... and none of the allies would have been bickering.
If not.. well what kind of propaganda machine {USA} are we dealing with?
rowdy said: Is it possible that the evidence {other than testimony of exiles}
does not exist? I am asking. This part is what baffles me.
Do you really believe anyone in Iraq would have volunteered to be a witness against Sadam? They still are scared to death that he's going to somehow come back to get them. What part of "scared for your life" don't you understand?
What is really stupidly ironic is that the French, Germans, Russians, Italians, Japanese and English--they are the ones with the history of attempting world domination. Where beyond our physical US have we ventured to seize territory? How is that compared to Germany's efforts in both world wars (we haven't started a world war yet, have we?). Or Stalin's mass murder of 20M. Or Japan's intentions in WWII, or England's very extensive colonialization. Let's see, India and Pakistan, can that be traced back to US or to England? Even Iraq, who was there first, England or US? Italy--well Mussolini wasn't planning to install democracies around the world, was he? And, of course, no one can forget Napoleon.
Let's see, who have I left out?
Come back with slavery and explain England's role. Come back with American Indians and explain Spain's role, then England's, then France's.
Great points manewell, but you're wasting your time trying to reason with a bunch of Sadaam and Bin Laden-loving, Genocide-tolerating, American-hating imbeciles that will find any and every excuse and twist of logic to support and excuse everyone else in the world in order to accuse America for causing all the world's problems.
You would be more succesful reasoning with a toddler than you would with these people.
Understand their agenda - and know thy enemies - of which these people are.
Originally posted by INVAR Great points manewell, but you're wasting your time trying to reason with a bunch of Sadaam and Bin Laden-loving, Genocide-tolerating, American-hating imbeciles that will find any and every excuse and twist of logic to support and excuse everyone else in the world in order to accuse America for causing all the world's problems.
You would be more succesful reasoning with a toddler than you would with these people.
Understand their agenda - and know thy enemies - of which these people are.
I don't expect to change any of their minds. I only counterpost so others on these boards who have not yet made up their minds can hear the other side.
Originally posted by Manewell rowdy said: Is it possible that the evidence {other than testimony of exiles}
does not exist? I am asking. This part is what baffles me.
Do you really believe anyone in Iraq would have volunteered to be a witness against Sadam? They still are scared to death that he's going to somehow come back to get them. What part of "scared for your life" don't you understand?
What is really stupidly ironic is that the French, Germans, Russians, Italians, Japanese and English--they are the ones with the history of attempting world domination. Where beyond our physical US have we ventured to seize territory? How is that compared to Germany's efforts in both world wars (we haven't started a world war yet, have we?). Or Stalin's mass murder of 20M. Or Japan's intentions in WWII, or England's very extensive colonialization. Let's see, India and Pakistan, can that be traced back to US or to England? Even Iraq, who was there first, England or US? Italy--well Mussolini wasn't planning to install democracies around the world, was he? And, of course, no one can forget Napoleon.
Let's see, who have I left out?
Come back with slavery and explain England's role. Come back with American Indians and explain Spain's role, then England's, then France's.
US propoganda, US imperialism == el crappo
Thank you for an intelligent response without any of the insults and vulagarities we often get from that other guy.
I would still be interested in a response to my questions though... Why didn't USA go after the supposedly much easier to prove human rights violations than the MUCH harder to prove WMD fiction? Did Saddam commit these atrocities? I am very baffled why he wasn't prosecuted on those grounds if he was guilty.
Now on to your responses:
Do you really believe anyone in Iraq would have volunteered to be a witness against Sadam?
While they are still in Iraq and Saddam still in power... no. Providing of course that he was the madman the media portrays him to be. However.. where was the USA getting its INTEL for these atrocities then? If it is not reliable.. then how can they use it as a moral fallback position when the WMD's aren't found?
Where beyond our physical US have we ventured to seize territory?
I assume you mean other than during World Wars, Korean War, Vienam War etc.etc.
Or do you refer to territory that you seize and keep even after a War or battle or whatever....
well Hawaii comes to mind... yuo guys did take it and keep it and pretty much eradicate native language and culture yes?
Many other situations {Philippines, South America} ... what the USA does is a more subtle form of Empire. They go in and crush a Gov that they don't approve of { either themselves or by funding terrorists like the Contras} Then they put a pro-USA GOV in power that becomes dependent on the USA for trade and defense. It may not be officially a state.. but it does qualify as a protectorate.
There is nothing like beating a dead horse you guys.
I think this one's been beat to death a long time ago.
Now, let's see if it's really dead. Let's kick it.
The only way to know for sure is to be patient and let the Iraqi people help uncover this truth.
Originally posted by USA1 There is nothing like beating a dead horse you guys.
I think this one's been beat to death a long time ago.
Now, let's see if it's really dead. Let's kick it.
The only way to know for sure is to be patient and let the Iraqi people help uncover this truth.
But that in itself is what has the rest of the world giving our heads a shake.
It wasn't OK to be patient before.
But now we are expected to be patient.
Why exactly?
You know 10 years from now... the Iraqis may have a better lifestyle. SO? Will that excuse or justify this war? I just don't buy that argument. Every action has to be judged on its own merits.... in other words the ENDS never justify the MEANS.
It is one thing to be patient and quite another to be pessimistic. The UN was pleading ignorance for the last 10 years and the Arab countries looked the other way for 30 years in regards to Iraq. I don’t call that patience. I call it stupidity.
If you feel that time was unjust then, you should give the coalition at least half of that amount of time to find WMD, right? The weapons inspectors let the Bath party lead them around by the hand so, more time would have meant nothing.
I'm patient enough to ask the Iraqi people if they are better off in 10 years but, I don't think it will take that long. Rome wasn't built in a day you know. Iraq will become the jewel of the gulf when this is done and the Iraqi people will prosper in their own way of life with the new ability to be free.
Originally posted by USA1 It is one thing to be patient and quite another to be pessimistic. The UN was pleading ignorance for the last 10 years and the Arab countries looked the other way for 30 years in regards to Iraq. I don’t call that patience. I call it stupidity.
If you feel that time was unjust then, you should give the coalition at least half of that amount of time to find WMD, right? The weapons inspectors let the Bath party lead them around by the hand so, more time would have meant nothing.
I'm patient enough to ask the Iraqi people if they are better off in 10 years but, I don't think it will take that long. Rome wasn't built in a day you know. Iraq will become the jewel of the gulf when this is done and the Iraqi people will prosper in their own way of life with the new ability to be free.
Five years or fifteen years was never a figure either UK or US governments implied it would take to find WMD. What were all those survelance photos that Powell used at the UN? Photos of weapons facilities, trucks carrying chemicals around, Bunkers? were they all fake or what? The purpose of those photos was to put across the idea that we knew EXACTLY where and what was going on in Iraq and that the country was primed and ready to attack it's neighbours, and bases in Cyprus, Turkey etc.
They "implied" many things that didn't turn out to be true so why should anyone believe them when they say what is going on now? Surely they are still - as one of Blair's politicians said today - still putting the right "gloss" on information.
And who's to say with any confidence that they might if they feel so inclined just do exactly the very same thing again?
The only thing in dispute is the document about nuclear weapons material from Africa. All of the other information is viable. The coalition never set an end date and that includes any ongoing searches.
I have a hard time with those on this board who lack patience. Everybody wants the smoking gun but, they all want it right now or it's not true because the stuff wasn't laying out in the open for us to discover. Saddam is a madman but, he isn't stupid.
Originally posted by USA1 The only thing in dispute is the document about nuclear weapons material from Africa. All of the other information is viable. The coalition never set an end date and that includes any ongoing searches.
I have a hard time with those on this board who lack patience. Everybody wants the smoking gun but, they all want it right now or it's not true because the stuff wasn't laying out in the open for us to discover. Saddam is a madman but, he isn't stupid.
BUT c'mon. The USA stated clearly that they KNEW where the WMD's were! This wasn't going to be a lengthy search. This was supposed to show how inept UNMOVIC was and how the WMD's were right under their noses! This was supposed to expose the "shell game " USA charges that Iraq played.
But now we are told a different story.
One of many disturbing inconsistencies and downright lies that make it hard for me to trust ANYTHING that the USA claims.
BUT c'mon. The USA stated clearly that they KNEW where the WMD's were! This wasn't going to be a lengthy search. This was supposed to show how inept UNMOVIC was and how the WMD's were right under their noses! This was supposed to expose the "shell game " USA charges that Iraq played.
But now we are told a different story.
One of many disturbing inconsistencies and downright lies that make it hard for me to trust ANYTHING that the USA claims.
No the USA did not state that, in fact they stated that there were over 1000 sites that they had to look at. The USA stated that he had a program and never showed that he discontinued the program.
I think you need to go back and read the presidents addresses and Colen Powels address to the United Nations. Also read Tony Blairs Dossier.
I don't know who is making up this stuff but you are falling for it hook, line and sinker.
Originally posted by Ron Ackerman No the USA did not state that, in fact they stated that there were over 1000 sites that they had to look at. The USA stated that he had a program and never showed that he discontinued the program.
I think you need to go back and read the presidents addresses and Colen Powels address to the United Nations. Also read Tony Blairs Dossier.
I don't know who is making up this stuff but you are falling for it hook, line and sinker.
There were American Generals on TV DURING the WAR who stated clearly that the WMD's would be found near Baghdad buried to the North, South, East and West of the city limits. These would be shown to the world.
I watched this on... I think it was MSNBC... but it may have been CNN... I did flip channels back and forth alot then.
There were American Generals on TV DURING the WAR who stated clearly that the WMD's would be found near Baghdad buried to the North, South, East and West of the city limits. These would be shown to the world.
I watched this on... I think it was MSNBC... but it may have been CNN... I did flip channels back and forth alot then.
Retired Generals, talking heads. You have to look at what Colen Powel, Condellesa Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the people have said. What the UN Security Councel said. Not the Talking Heads on TV. Maybe you also get your news from the tabloids too.
Yes I watched the TV news but I also watch C-SPAN when they were at the UN. I also went the UN site and looked up documentation as other sites like Janes Defence. You have to realize that those generals are basing the OPINION on the same information that you and I can get from the sources I stated then they form their OPINION based on their Military experience or maybe even their political views.
Originally posted by Ron Ackerman
Retired Generals, talking heads. You have to look at what Colen Powel, Condellesa Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the people have said. What the UN Security Councel said. Not the Talking Heads on TV. Maybe you also get your news from the tabloids too.
Yes I watched the TV news but I also watch C-SPAN when they were at the UN. I also went the UN site and looked up documentation as other sites like Janes Defence. You have to realize that those generals are basing the OPINION on the same information that you and I can get from the sources I stated then they form their OPINION based on their Military experience or maybe even their political views.
So even though the presentations by these retired Generals was offerred up as EXPERT, in the KNOW, facts... we are to discard them as irresponsible TV... OK I can see where you are coming from... But at the time that is not how it was represented.
What of the claims by Powell, and Rumsfeld regarding the "mobile wmd labs" which in fact turned out to be nothing of the sort.
I think the problem here is that the USA puts out so much info... from so many sources... it is easy for it to claim that any given source was misinformed.... course that is the nature of propaganda now isn't it!!
I think the problem here is that the USA puts out so much info... from so many sources... it is easy for it to claim that any given source was misinformed.... course that is the nature of propaganda now isn't it!!
Is there something that the U.S. does that you do NOT consider a "problem," rowdydrip?
You sound like a broken record........ But then all propagandists as yourself usually do.
______
"All in all, a great day if you believe stopping the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons is a good thing. But, it was a very bad day indeed if world security takes a back seat to your personal hatred of George W. Bush."
We will always remember.
We will always be proud.
We will always be prepared
So that we may always be free!
Is there something that the U.S. does that you do NOT consider a "problem," rowdydrip?
You sound like a broken record........ But then all propagandists as yourself usually do.
YES THERE IS!!!!
I have stated numerous times that I admire the effort that Bush is putting forth to get both Palestinians and Israelis following the "roadmap"
In fact, getting away from politics... I LOVE American entertainment.
Rock Music... TV...... MOVIES...... You guys are incredibly creative.
Why should my opinion regarding pre-emptive strikes and invasions have any bearing on these things. I am not narrow minded. I have told you many times I have friends and relatives that are American.... there are just some specific aspects of foreign policy that I strongly disagree with.
Remember.. a difference of opinion is not and should not be indicative of hatred.
So even though the presentations by these retired Generals was offerred up as EXPERT, in the KNOW, facts... we are to discard them as irresponsible TV... OK I can see where you are coming from... But at the time that is not how it was represented.
What of the claims by Powell, and Rumsfeld regarding the "mobile wmd labs" which in fact turned out to be nothing of the sort.
I think the problem here is that the USA puts out so much info... from so many sources... it is easy for it to claim that any given source was misinformed.... course that is the nature of propaganda now isn't it!!
The retired Generals are Experts but it's hard to tell how long they have been retired. And lets face it, the CIA isn't going to confide in them with information because well they are retired. But they can provide lots of other expert analysis. I think one of the best analyzers is Bob Bevalaquva x-special forces officer, Major I think.
The Mobile Weapons Labs were in fact that, they just couldn't prove that they were used recently but they are only used for one purpose. Unless you listen to Scott Ritter and he is just a flake. He said they were used to inflate weather balloons. Yeah Right!!!
As far as sources, we have a lot of TV news, Radio news, and newspapers, Some of which are left some of which are right and some of which try to be neutral. The key here is to not listen to their analysis because of their slant one way or another but to listen to the actual interviews with Donald, Condalezza, Colen and the President.
I find that the best news programs are on Sunday Morning and that's Fox News Sunday with Tony Snow or Meet The Press with What's his name (can't remember his name right now) When they have those people on you are getting it straight from the horses mouth. Of course I haven't seen the President on those shows but I have seen the Vice President. Any other time I find that the analysis of whatever the President says is usually wrong.
Take for instance that 12 word line in the State of the Union Address. Here the exact words from the Presidents speech and what everyone is complaining about,
" The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Notice it does not say CIA, Niger, Italy or an exact amount".
Everyone wonders why WMD hasn't been found. Maybe this can explain it from that same speech.
"The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses."
So instead of listening to the talking head analysis and leftist propaganda, go out and read the real information. Hell sometimes they do slip up and you get something real juicy.
The Mobile Weapons Labs were in fact that, they just couldn't prove that they were used recently but they are only used for one purpose. Unless you listen to Scott Ritter and he is just a flake. He said they were used to inflate weather balloons. Yeah Right!!!
My understanding, from several news agencies, is that THIS {weather balloon} is the only VERIFIABLE usage of the trucks in question.
I do not discount "the possibility" that they may have had some sort of WMD use. But once again, it would be an UNVERIFIABLE possibilty and therefore useless as evidence in the WMD argument.
As far as sources, we have a lot of TV news, Radio news, and newspapers, Some of which are left some of which are right and some of which try to be neutral. The key here is to not listen to their analysis because of their slant one way or another but to listen to the actual interviews with Donald, Condalezza, Colen and the President.
I have watched interviews with them as well. Mr Rumsfeld stated several times that Iraqi scientists would come forward and show them where all the WMDs are. Saddam is gone... the regime in ruins... and yet the scietists say the same thing... Iraq has no WMDs and hasn't had any for some time.
Take for instance that 12 word line in the State of the Union Address. Here the exact words from the Presidents speech and what everyone is complaining about,
" The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Notice it does not say CIA, Niger, Italy or an exact amount".
Everyone wonders why WMD hasn't been found. Maybe this can explain it from that same speech.
"The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses."
BUT that is Bush's opinion!! Surely the opinion of MR. BLIX in charge of UNMOVIC is more credible on this issue than a politician who is 1000's of miles away and has never participated in the weapon inspection program?
I just don't understand why any of us should give USA authorities the benefit of the doubt.. when they were not the ones doing the job! I have more respect, in regards to international problem solving, for the UN and its agencies than I do the leaders of any ONE nation my own included!!!!!
Case in point. My Gov. totally screwed up on the SARS issue. They did not take the WHO's advisory seriously... felt it was a threat in ....China... not here. And paid the price. Toronto has been reeling from the effects for months now... and they say in the fall there could be another outbreak!!!!
My Gov. should have respected the authority of the WHO.
The USA should have respected the authority of the UN.
You have every right to disagree... but consider what I have said.
Originally posted by rowdyrjp Originally posted by Ron Ackerman
The Mobile Weapons Labs were in fact that, they just couldn't prove that they were used recently but they are only used for one purpose. Unless you listen to Scott Ritter and he is just a flake. He said they were used to inflate weather balloons. Yeah Right!!!
My understanding, from several news agencies, is that THIS {weather balloon} is the only VERIFIABLE usage of the trucks in question.
I do not discount "the possibility" that they may have had some sort of WMD use. But once again, it would be an UNVERIFIABLE possibilty and therefore useless as evidence in the WMD argument.
As far as sources, we have a lot of TV news, Radio news, and newspapers, Some of which are left some of which are right and some of which try to be neutral. The key here is to not listen to their analysis because of their slant one way or another but to listen to the actual interviews with Donald, Condalezza, Colen and the President.
I have watched interviews with them as well. Mr Rumsfeld stated several times that Iraqi scientists would come forward and show them where all the WMDs are. Saddam is gone... the regime in ruins... and yet the scietists say the same thing... Iraq has no WMDs and hasn't had any for some time.
Take for instance that 12 word line in the State of the Union Address. Here the exact words from the Presidents speech and what everyone is complaining about,
" The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Notice it does not say CIA, Niger, Italy or an exact amount".
Everyone wonders why WMD hasn't been found. Maybe this can explain it from that same speech.
"The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses."
BUT that is Bush's opinion!! Surely the opinion of MR. BLIX in charge of UNMOVIC is more credible on this issue than a politician who is 1000's of miles away and has never participated in the weapon inspection program?
I just don't understand why any of us should give USA authorities the benefit of the doubt.. when they were not the ones doing the job! I have more respect, in regards to international problem solving, for the UN and its agencies than I do the leaders of any ONE nation my own included!!!!!
Case in point. My Gov. totally screwed up on the SARS issue. They did not take the WHO's advisory seriously... felt it was a threat in ....China... not here. And paid the price. Toronto has been reeling from the effects for months now... and they say in the fall there could be another outbreak!!!!
My Gov. should have respected the authority of the WHO.
The USA should have respected the authority of the UN.
You have every right to disagree... but consider what I have said.
Just when I thought you were ready to turn.
The Mobile Labs are not for weather balloons! That was the left's and Scott Ritter's wishful thinking. There is only one use for them and it's not that. Again you turn to the media which is the WRONG thing to do.
Who's to know whether the Scientist have come forward. I haven't seen anything either way in the news or anywhere else. Except that the Iraqi's are afraid that Saddam will return. I don't know if that is true with the scientist also.
It's not Bushes opinion if it says Intelligence Sources
As far as the USA respecting the authority of the UN. It was the UN that created the Sanctions, It was the UN that requested Iraq rid itself of WMD. It was the UN the gave an ultimatum. It was the UN Security Councel that voted unaminously on 1441 for Saddam to disarm or else. It was the UN that gave him 12 years to do it. And what did Saddam do he defied the UN by not honoring their demands. The US did the UN's dirty work because of a few wimpy countries that didn't. Why? Because they were in Iraq's back pocket.
Originally posted by Ron Ackerman
The US did the UN's dirty work because of a few wimpy countries that didn't. Why? Because they were in Iraq's back pocket. [/B]
You are ignoring the fact that according to Iraq and the {lack of} findings by UNMOVIC and IAEA they did comply with 1441!
I really don't see how that is debatable.
As for the trucks. With no evidence whatsoever of WMD use... how can you say that WAS there use? Maybe there usage was entirely benign.
Originally posted by Ron Ackerman Just when I thought you were ready to turn.
The Mobile Labs are not for weather balloons! That was the left's and Scott Ritter's wishful thinking. There is only one use for them and it's not that. Again you turn to the media which is the WRONG thing to do.
The mobile labs WERE for weather balloons. This was reported a couple of weeks ago in the British press. The reason why they know they were used for weather balloons is that we (the British) sold them to Iraq.
Last Update: Monday, June 16, 2003. 5:00pm (AEST)
Intelligence group confirmed Iraqi weapons lab: PM
Prime Minister John Howard says an Australian intelligence organisation, the Office of National Assessments, has advised him that at least one mobile laboratory found in Iraq was used to produce biological weapons.
The Opposition asked John Howard to respond to reports that two trailers found in Iraq were not mobile germ warfare laboratories, but produced hydrogen for artillery balloons.
Mr Howard says he asked the agency which advises him on intelligence matters to look into the report.
"I had some investigations made through the Office of National Assessments and I have been informed as follows: that United States and United Kingdom intelligence agencies have concluded that at least one of the three vehicle trailers found in Iraq is a mobile production, biological weapons production facility," Mr Howard said.
Mobile Chemical Weapons Labs Discovered South of Baghdad
American troops have discovered 11 mobile laboratories that could be used for production biological and chemical weapons. The labs were buried at a site near Karbala, about 50 miles south of Baghdad.
The labs, which measure roughly 20 feet square, contained computerized equipment that can be used to quickly produce chemical weapons. There were no chemical or biological weapons inside of the mobile labs. Along with the equipment, about 1,000 pounds of documents were discovered.
The labs were "clearly marked so they could be found again," said Brig. Gen. Benjamin Freakley of the Army's 101st Airborne Division.
In February, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations Security Council that American intelligence has uncovered evidence that Iraq had production facilities for biological weapons "on wheels and on rails." He called them "most worrisome."
In another development related to weapons of mass destruction, a high-level Iraqi scientist has surrendered to American troops. Jafar Jafar, who was in charge of Iraq's nuclear weapons program, is being interviewed by U.S. experts.
Jafar gave himself up in an unnamed Middle Eastern country. It's believed he knows the location of facilities connected to Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
Jafar is the second Iraqi scientist reportedly in custody. Over the weekend, Saddam's top science adviser surrendered to U.S. authorities in Baghdad.
Originally posted by Ron Ackerman Who do you believe?
Good question.
This story - afaik - was not reported in the British press. But I have not heard one British politician use the 11 buried mobile labs story to help them out of the hole they're in.
It sure does seem that the USA keeps talking and talking about possible uses for this and the ease with which something could be used for something else... and that stands up and goes AHA!!! As though these speculations {which is all anything "possible" qualifies as} were somehow proof of anything more than their own fertile imaginations.
You are ignoring the fact that according to Iraq and the {lack of} findings by UNMOVIC and IAEA they did comply with 1441!
I really don't see how that is debatable.
As for the trucks. With no evidence whatsoever of WMD use... how can you say that WAS there use? Maybe there usage was entirely benign.
Nobody in the UNSC said that Iraq was in compliance. And the majority of the UN members said that Iraq wasn't in compliance. They just couldn't agree on what to do about it.
quote:
Originally posted by DaveDom
The mobile labs WERE for weather balloons. This was reported a couple of weeks ago in the British press. The reason why they know they were used for weather balloons is that we (the British) sold them to Iraq.
Why do you need a mobile lab with a fermenter for a weather balloons. I would like to see an explanation on how this mobile lab is used with a weather balloon. I don't get it!
So somebody anybody find me an article on how and why a mobile lab is used with weather balloons.
Originally posted by Ron Ackerman Nobody in the UNSC said that Iraq was in compliance. And the majority of the UN members said that Iraq wasn't in compliance. They just couldn't agree on what to do about it.
Why do you need a mobile lab with a fermenter for a weather balloons. I would like to see an explanation on how this mobile lab is used with a weather balloon. I don't get it!
So somebody anybody find me an article on how and why a mobile lab is used with weather balloons.
Of course no one claimed Iraq was in compliance yet, UNMOVIC and IAEA still had a few months of work left before they could clear Iraq for removal of sanctions for complying with 1441. But as far as they got, until USA forced them out, no evidence was found to show them NOT in compliance.
Also I am tired of the whole 12 years yada yada yada BS argument. 1441 began a whole NEW timetable to judge by. It acknowledged the failure of earlier resolutions and the teams sent in to enforce them. In order to ensure 1441 would be more successfull the UN created UNMOVIC to replace UNSCOM. This was agreed to by the UNSC {USA included} and was appreciated by Iraq... which had felt that UNSCOM had been too confrontational as well as being part of the USA INTEL .
Since 1441 is recent, NO ONE can claim that Iraq violated it for years.
Since Iraq met its deadlines and cooperated, no one can claim Iraq violated 1441 at all.
Since UNMOVIC and IAEA were of the opinion that the entire investigation would be done in a few more months, and had found zero evidence to contradict Iraqi claims of ridding themselves of WMDs, Iraq should be viewed as having complied.
Since the only obstacle to a complete evaluation on Iraq's status {compliance or non-compliance} is the criminal invasion of Iraq by USA and UK forces then the USA needs to be sanctioned and the rest of the world should refuse to purchase Iraqi oil so long as the USA is the one selling it.
As to those trucks {hate to call them labs if they are not}. The UK have apparently come forward and admitted they sold the vehicles to Iraq for weather balloons!
Of course no one claimed Iraq was in compliance yet, UNMOVIC and IAEA still had a few months of work left before they could clear Iraq for removal of sanctions for complying with 1441. But as far as they got, until USA forced them out, no evidence was found to show them NOT in compliance.
Also I am tired of the whole 12 years yada yada yada BS argument. 1441 began a whole NEW timetable to judge by. It acknowledged the failure of earlier resolutions and the teams sent in to enforce them. In order to ensure 1441 would be more successfull the UN created UNMOVIC to replace UNSCOM. This was agreed to by the UNSC {USA included} and was appreciated by Iraq... which had felt that UNSCOM had been too confrontational as well as being part of the USA INTEL .
Since 1441 is recent, NO ONE can claim that Iraq violated it for years.
Since Iraq met its deadlines and cooperated, no one can claim Iraq violated 1441 at all.
Since UNMOVIC and IAEA were of the opinion that the entire investigation would be done in a few more months, and had found zero evidence to contradict Iraqi claims of ridding themselves of WMDs, Iraq should be viewed as having complied.
Since the only obstacle to a complete evaluation on Iraq's status {compliance or non-compliance} is the criminal invasion of Iraq by USA and UK forces then the USA needs to be sanctioned and the rest of the world should refuse to purchase Iraqi oil so long as the USA is the one selling it.
As to those trucks {hate to call them labs if they are not}. The UK have apparently come forward and admitted they sold the vehicles to Iraq for weather balloons!
Ok I misspoke on about 12 years of 1441 when I meant to say 12 years of defying the UNSC Resolutions.
You bring up some good points. Especially with UNSCOM and UNMOVIC. Sure Saddam liked UNMOVIC because they were wimps and Hans Blix is a dove. Saddam tell them anything and they would believe it.
I don't think it right to call it the Criminal Invasion of Iraq when that isn't proven. That's just your rhetoric.
It doesn't matter what purpose the trucks were sold for. What matters is what they actually used them for.
If I'm a leader of a country with sanctions that say I can't buy equipment used for military or weapons purpose. How do you think I would get them. RIGHT! We want them for a legitimate reason like to service our weather balloons. Once I get them I can do whatever I want to them like add fermenters and cooling systems etc. So I tell you that I purchase them for weather Balloons and you believe me.
Ok I misspoke on about 12 years of 1441 when I meant to say 12 years of defying the UNSC Resolutions.
OK, I understand in that regard. Question: Do you think that since the UNSC agreed to 1441 as a final chance to straighten this out.... that Iraq's actions after 1441 are the only ones relevant when discussing whether or not Iraq was cooperating and complying?
You bring up some good points. Especially with UNSCOM and UNMOVIC. Sure Saddam liked UNMOVIC because they were wimps and Hans Blix is a dove. Saddam tell them anything and they would believe it.
I know that the USA has a low opinion of UNMOVIC now, but they did agree to endorse it for 1441... correct?
Perhaps it is only the results that bother them. But if such an organization is authorized for a search and you don't like the fact that they tell you there are no weapons .... how can you decide to just ignore that? {you being ... USA, just my stream of consciousness style of posting}
I don't think it right to call it the Criminal Invasion of Iraq when that isn't proven. That's just your rhetoric.
I thought that was an established fact. Seriously, even if it turns out that Saddam was every bit as clever at tricking the inspectors as the USA says... even if massive quantities of WMDs are found... even if Saddam were Hitler re-incarnated... wouldn't the invasion STILL be criminal?
I am not talking about moral... just criminal.
No matter if Saddam is ultimately innocent or guilty of violating 1441, USA and UK forces invaded Iraq in violation of international law... or am I mistaken on some point of law here?
It doesn't matter what purpose the trucks were sold for. What matters is what they actually used them for.
I agree with you 100%. But since there is ZERO evidence that they were used for weapon purposes {tests have come back negative} don't we have to assume they were legit?
If I'm a leader of a country with sanctions that say I can't buy equipment used for military or weapons purpose. How do you think I would get them. RIGHT! We want them for a legitimate reason like to service our weather balloons. Once I get them I can do whatever I want to them like add fermenters and cooling systems etc. So I tell you that I purchase them for weather Balloons and you believe me.
Like I said above your theory is sound, I agree with it 100%.
But in the absence of evidence it is just a theory. It has NO evidentiary weight in arguing whether or not Iraq was violating 1441.
I personally find this to be the heart of the pro-war argument.
Saddam very well could be in violation of 1441. But if UNMOVIC and IAEA cannot discover any evidence to prove this, and Iraq meets its deadlines and doesn't interfere with the inspections..... What choice is there but to consider them {legally} in compliance?
Question: Do you think that since the UNSC agreed to 1441 as a final chance to straighten this out.... that Iraq's actions after 1441 are the only ones relevant when discussing whether or not Iraq was cooperating and complying?
The actions of Saddam's regime, and history of compliance with UNSC disarmament resolutions must be used as the context. If you asked someone a serious question and made it clear that their honest answer was expected, and dishonesty could invite the gravest mortal consequences, and they lied to you 10 times, would you consider the 11th response to be necessarily more honest?
Keep in mind that 1441 begins by incorporating and invoking all previous resolutions.
quote:
I know that the USA has a low opinion of UNMOVIC now, but they did agree to endorse it for 1441... correct? Perhaps it is only the results that bother them. But if such an organization is authorized for a search and you don't like the fact that they tell you there are no weapons .... how can you decide to just ignore that? {you being ... USA, just my stream of consciousness style of posting}
