Ex-Iraq WMD Hunter Fears U.S. Credibility Erosion - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-27-2004, 04:40 PM   #31
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 04:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I'd be interested to see more. Israel's intelligence group is highly regarded.
That's what bugged me, someone makes these claims and then nothing to support it. I think it's going to be a long time before anyone trust any government's intelligence source after the debacle that Powell demonstrated in front of the UN.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-28-2004, 01:05 AM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:42 AM
What bothers me is when people simply overlook the fact that Saddam failed to account for thousands of liters of Anthrax, Hundreds of Pounds of Mustard Gas, 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells to name a few things. Its a fact, according to UN inspectors, that Saddam had this stuff and has still failed to account for it to this day, regardless of where it is located or the state of condition it is in, destroyed, intact, or something in between. And destroyed does not meen disappeared. When such items are destroyed like anything, they don't completely disappear into thin air.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-28-2004, 09:53 AM   #33
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 04:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
What bothers me is when people simply overlook the fact that Saddam failed to account for thousands of liters of Anthrax, Hundreds of Pounds of Mustard Gas, 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells to name a few things. Its a fact, according to UN inspectors, that Saddam had this stuff and has still failed to account for it to this day, regardless of where it is located or the state of condition it is in, destroyed, intact, or something in between. And destroyed does not meen disappeared. When such items are destroyed like anything, they don't completely disappear into thin air.
Did anyone here in the last few posts say anything about how Saddam didn't fail to account for anything? I'm curious because I don't see anything about that. The discussion was about how different sources are claiming they have evidence and they know where things are. These are two entirely different issues and I'm not sure why you can't see that.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-28-2004, 10:11 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Did anyone here in the last few posts say anything about how Saddam didn't fail to account for anything? I'm curious because I don't see anything about that. The discussion was about how different sources are claiming they have evidence and they know where things are. These are two entirely different issues and I'm not sure why you can't see that.
Its about WMD and it is indeed related. The fact of the matter is that there has never been intelligence capability of the level described by many in regards to detecting WMD. Covert Intelligence can certainly be useful, but it is rare that it can tell you where a stash of several viles of Anthrax are in a country the size of Iraq.

That is why the chief basis for war was not on "intelligence" but Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm with the UN inspections process.

That was the main case the administration presented. Saddam's failure to account for WMD was at the front. US Intelligence from the CIA played the supporting role.

It is also incorrect to say that much of this CIA intelligence was wrong since most of Iraq has yet to be searched. You can say nothing in regards to intact WMD has been found yet, but you cannot claim that the CIA was "wrong" simply based on that fact.

A large volume of Anthrax and Mustard Gas can be stored in a very small area, which makes the possibilities for hiding and concealment enormous.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-28-2004, 10:22 PM   #35
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 04:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Its about WMD and it is indeed related. The fact of the matter is that there has never been intelligence capability of the level described by many in regards to detecting WMD. Covert Intelligence can certainly be useful, but it is rare that it can tell you where a stash of several viles of Anthrax are in a country the size of Iraq.

That is why the chief basis for war was not on "intelligence" but Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm with the UN inspections process.

That was the main case the administration presented. Saddam's failure to account for WMD was at the front. US Intelligence from the CIA played the supporting role.

It is also incorrect to say that much of this CIA intelligence was wrong since most of Iraq has yet to be searched. You can say nothing in regards to intact WMD has been found yet, but you cannot claim that the CIA was "wrong" simply based on that fact.

A large volume of Anthrax and Mustard Gas can be stored in a very small area, which makes the possibilities for hiding and concealment enormous.
Do you even read people's post anymore?

*Forget it, it's not worth it.*
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-29-2004, 01:58 AM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Do you even read people's post anymore?

*Forget it, it's not worth it.*
I read your posts and responded to it. Perhaps you did not read mine.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-01-2004, 04:13 AM   #37
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 04:42 AM
this looks like it slipped by...

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The United States did not heavily support or install Saddam Hussein.


I beg to differ. The US did heavily support Saddam. AFTER he had already used chemical weapons against Iran (and his own people) during the Iran/Iraq war , the US government gave Saddam tactical advice on defeating Iran, as well as authorizing the sale of more chemical weapons to Iraq from 1985-1990, including such lovely numbers like Anthrax and e. coli. Plus another $308 million in military equipment.* No, we didn't support him at all...

Quote:
The United States has excellant political abilities as well as its military capabilities. Thats why the USA has been so successful in the foreign policy area since World War II where as many countries in Europe sit on the sidelines.
So successful? Oh yes, they throw money and weapons at Saudi-Arabian and Afghani fundamentalists in the hopes of getting Russia out of Afghanistan, which happens, but then leaves a war ravaged Afghanistan alone and practically welcomes the Taliban into Afghanistan as the new government. We can all see what swell guys the Taliban were. nevermind those 'freedom fighters' who turned out to be a swell bunch of guys in their own right.

Then we throw tons of support behind Israel in the Israel/Palestinian conflict, much to the dismay and anger of practically the entire Arab culture.

Then we willingly aid Saddam Hussein in the Iran/Iraq war, knowing full well he has gassed Iranians and his own people, and not to outdo ourselves, we sell him more chemical weapons (my, we are a peace loving bunch, aren't we?). And we all know how well Saddam turned out.

Many high-figure Republicans (including the Bushes) ally themselves very strongly with Saudi-Arabian royalty who are known to be a not so tight-knit and indeed quarrelsome bunch (but hey, they've got money, and money talks!), and indeed some Republican families and businesses (and again, the Bushes are here too) even had extensive business dealings with the bin Laden family - and oh look, the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers turn out to be Saudi Arabian.

And this is only in the middle-east.

So you see, I don't quite agree with your assertion that we've been quite successful in foreign policy.



*Edit* much of this info is paraphrased from Michael Moore's book Dude, Where's My Country?. I can provide sources if need be.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 05-01-2004, 04:44 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:42 AM
Diemen,

#1 I can post the Weapons tables I have on Iraq's military equipment from the IISS(International Institute Of Strategic Studies) which breaks down the quantity and type of military equipment in possession by all countries around the world as well as giving economic and other military data. The IISS "Military Balance" Book comes out on an anual basis and is most detailed source on the topic.

The vast majority of Iraq's weapon's systems came from the SOVIET UNION. As a matter of fact, the United States did not send Iraq any weapon systems during the Iran/Iraq war.

The United States sent a small amount of money, Trucks, Transport Helicopters, Food, computers and other machine parts and raw materials, and biological cultures for medical research. The United States also gave information on Iranian troop positions, information they were getting from the Soviets as well.

Anthrax and E. Coli are NOT Chemical weapons! If the technology and technical ability are available, Anthrax can be weaponized in order to make a weapon.

The United States has never sent weaponized Anthrax to Iraq or any other country! Since Iraq was not under US sanctions in the 1980s, they were allowed and did recieve like most other countries in the world, various biological cultures that have important medical and scientific uses.

The United States never sent Chemical Weapons to Iraq either. Iraq had been producing its own Chemical weapons since the 1970s and its programs were advanced by the Soviets who are #2 after Saddam as far as using Chemical Weapons on the battlefield.

It is true that some mechanical parts and raw materials from the USA could have been converted to help in the production of Chemical Weapons, but virtually any country that ever traded with Iraq could then be implicated. Fact is, many resources have duel uses.

Iraq was the chief client State of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Billions of dollars worth of Soviet material was either purchased from the Soviet Union by Iraq or sent by the Soviet Union to Iraq. The Soviet Union kept 2,000 Military advisers in Iraq throughout the Iran/Iraq war and after and only withdrew them weeks prior to the start of the first Gulf War in 1990/1991.

The Persian Gulf States, Soviet Union and China sent Iraq over 100 Billion dollars in financial aid during the 1980s. The United States contribution was 5 Billion, less than 5% of the total.

That brings me to my next point:

You correctly quoted me as saying : "The United States did not heavily support or install Saddam Hussein"

You then say "No, we didn't support him at all"

But if you look at my original quote, you'll see that I never said that the USA did not support Saddam at all.






"So successful? Oh yes, they throw money and weapons at Saudi-Arabian and Afghani fundamentalists in the hopes of getting Russia out of Afghanistan, which happens, but then leaves a war ravaged Afghanistan alone and practically welcomes the Taliban into Afghanistan as the new government. We can all see what swell guys the Taliban were. nevermind those 'freedom fighters' who turned out to be a swell bunch of guys in their own right."

The USA funding and weapons sent to Afghanistan amounted to a few Billion dollars which is not much money in defense terms. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan provided 2/3s of the weapons and money independently of the USA. The Soviet Union withdrew because they no longer wanted to tolerate the cost of keeping Afghanistan's Communist Government in power nor were they willing to make send the necessary amount of military force to pacify Afghanistan and close its border and cutting supplies for the rebels.

When the Soviet Union left, US interest in the country went as well. Afghanistan then returned what to what had been the norm in Afghan history, warlords controlling bits and pieces of the country with no central government. That was in 1991. The Mujahadeen to a certain degree split up at that time with most of the members forming the Northern Alliance.

It was not until 1996 that the Taliban came into the country from just across the border in Pakistan. Pakistan had a conflict prone relationship with the Northern Alliance and the introduction of the Taliban helped get them off their back allowing Pakistan to send more military resources to its border with India to reinforce their forces there in case full scale war broke out between India and Pakistan.

The USA had no active involvement in the creation of the Taliban or Al Quada.




"Then we throw tons of support behind Israel in the Israel/Palestinian conflict, much to the dismay and anger of practically the entire Arab culture."

Israel was invaded, unprovoked, by 5 Arab countries on the day of its formation in 1948. US aid was vital in helping prevent the Arab countries from overruning Israel which would have led to the mass slaughter of Jews not seen since a few years earlier when Hitler had engaged in it. US support and aid to the ONLY Democracy in the Middle East has been vital to preventing it from being overrun and destroyed by the Arab countries.




"Then we willingly aid Saddam Hussein in the Iran/Iraq war, knowing full well he has gassed Iranians and his own people, and not to outdo ourselves, we sell him more chemical weapons (my, we are a peace loving bunch, aren't we?). And we all know how well Saddam turned out."


The USA sent some aid to Saddam in the 1980s, but it did not send any weapon systems. It did not send Chemical weapons either. Iran was the USA's chief Ally in the region with the exception of Saudi Arabia. When Saddam unfortunately invaded Iran, the USA provided a small amount of support to help insure that Iran would not win because of the cost of Iranian victory could have meant Iranian control of Iraq and the entire Persian Gulf region.

Fact is, Iraq was already a client state of the Soviet Union and recieved nearly all of its weapons from the Soviet Union, while most of the money was supplied by the Persian Gulf States as well as the Soviet Union. Support from the United States was a tiny fraction of the total.





"Many high-figure Republicans (including the Bushes) ally themselves very strongly with Saudi-Arabian royalty who are known to be a not so tight-knit and indeed quarrelsome bunch (but hey, they've got money, and money talks!), and indeed some Republican families and businesses (and again, the Bushes are here too) even had extensive business dealings with the bin Laden family - and oh look, the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers turn out to be Saudi Arabian."


The strong relationship between the United States government and the Saudi Royal family was started by Franklin Roosevelt in the 1940s. Ever since then, both Democrats and Republicans have had strong ties to the Saudi Royal family. Ever Presidential administration of the United States has had strong ties with Saudi Arabia since the 1940s.

Usama Bin Ladin picked the nationality of the hijackers because he knew it would be an effective way to drive a wedge in the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States. He wanted 9/11 to be conducted by mainly Saudi individuals in his camps so that he could get the American response and charge typified in your response that Saudi Arabian Government and or general population helped out with 9/11.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-01-2004, 04:52 PM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 05:42 AM
Quote:
Anthrax and E. Coli are NOT Chemical weapons! If the technology and technical ability are available, Anthrax can be weaponized in order to make a weapon.
Of course they are not chemical weapons. They are considered to be biohazards.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 05-01-2004, 05:22 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn


You're either with us, or you're against us.


Marty
I was realy suprised to hear that this quote was used by Lenin first.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 05-01-2004, 05:30 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
What bothers me is when people simply overlook the fact that Saddam failed to account for thousands of liters of Anthrax, Hundreds of Pounds of Mustard Gas, 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells to name a few things. Its a fact, according to UN inspectors, that Saddam had this stuff and has still failed to account for it to this day, regardless of where it is located or the state of condition it is in, destroyed, intact, or something in between. And destroyed does not meen disappeared. When such items are destroyed like anything, they don't completely disappear into thin air.
I thought that Anthrax is dangerous for 3 year and nervegas about 5 year,....

well, 1991 + 3 = 1994 and 1991 + 5 = 1996 I guess that those WMD`s where not so dangerous in 2003 anyway,...
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 05-01-2004, 05:33 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 11:42 AM
I found this articel from 2002 and i do not know what to think of it,..



Don't trust Bush or Blair on Iraq

The Scott inquiry revealed the cynicism of politicians' approach

Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday August 21, 2002
The Guardian

Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the past is repeatedly cited by the US and British governments as justification for his removal from power now. But just what was their response to his use of poison gas against Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s? Far from condemning his actions, they stepped up their support for Baghdad.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...778172,00.html
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 05-01-2004, 09:15 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rono
I thought that Anthrax is dangerous for 3 year and nervegas about 5 year,....

well, 1991 + 3 = 1994 and 1991 + 5 = 1996 I guess that those WMD`s where not so dangerous in 2003 anyway,...
#1 Well, no one knows precisely when the last WMD was manufactured in Iraq.

#2 People in the USA have been injured and killed from the clean up of old Chemical weapons from as far back as World War II.

Depending on how Anthrax and nervegas are maintained determines their shelf life.



As to the article about Saddam's use of Chemical weapons in the 1980s and the West reaction to it, one has to understand when it happened and what the situation was.

At that time Saddam had only invaded and attacked 1 country, Iran. To have attacked Saddam at that time would have only helped Iran achieve its goals of conquering Iraq and overrunning the Persian Gulf.

At the time in the 1980s, the United States and other Western military's were primarily positioned to defend against a massive Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. This was an obstacle in the 1980s and before to getting heavily involved military wise in the Persian Gulf, although it would not necessarily prevent such involvement given the right circumstances and conditions.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-02-2004, 02:41 AM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


#1 Well, no one knows precisely when the last WMD was manufactured in Iraq.

#2 People in the USA have been injured and killed from the clean up of old Chemical weapons from as far back as World War II.

Depending on how Anthrax and nervegas are maintained determines their shelf life.




Well, dangerous for people while cleaning up and usable as weapons is a big difference,..

I got my information from a interview with Scott Ritter, a UN weapons inspector.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 05-02-2004, 06:32 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:42 AM
The point is, if such materials can still kill after that amount of time, then they can still be used as weapons.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com