Has the US anything to hide? - Page 2 - 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 04-24-2003, 04:04 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:02 AM
After the UNs failure throughout the 1990s in regards to searching for WMD plus the influence France could bring on any UN inspection process to frustrate the attempts to find the weopons, its a wise choice that Bush has made to for go the UN inspectors at the current time. This is a matter of national security and the UNs failures and political bias towards Saddam have destroyed much of any credibility they once had.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 04:32 AM   #17
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
After the UNs failure throughout the 1990s in regards to searching for WMD plus the influence France could bring on any UN inspection process to frustrate the attempts to find the weopons, its a wise choice that Bush has made to for go the UN inspectors at the current time. This is a matter of national security and the UNs failures and political bias towards Saddam have destroyed much of any credibility they once had.
What was the failure of the UN inspections throughout the 1990s? FYI, the inspectors discovered and destroyed more weapons than were destroyed during the first Gulf War. I wouldn't call that a failure.
And why would you expect France to frustrate attempts to find weapons?
And why do you think the inspectors have/had a bias towards Saddam?
All they did was look for those WMD's, not make political statements. That was the job of the members of the Security Council.

Should Bush go forward with this I would be very sceptical should they find any weapons. The reason to go with this war was Saddam's supposed possession of WMD. Until now they haven't found any. Now the USA is going to look for them alone and suddenly they should pop up? Hmm, suspiciously convenient, isn't it? Of course it might be that they really found WMD's, but their refusal to let a third party check it with them does create many doubts.
BTW, how is this a matter of national security for the USA? Saddam's gone, right? So what's the specific security threat here? Is it that there may be WMD's hidden? Why doesn't an international coalition have the duty to look for this? If the concern for the USA is that these supposed WMD's fall in the hands of terrorist then it's not just a case of national security for the USA alone, but for the whole world. So the whole world should help to find these weapons.

You cannot first invade claiming anUN resolution is backing you up on this and then ignoring said UN resolutions.

C ya!

Marty
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn is online now  
Old 04-24-2003, 04:58 AM   #18
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:02 AM
STING2: so you think France would block the search of UN inspectors just because of the fun of it?

France had a financial benefit from the no war situation with saddam (as US companies now have a benefit from the war-situation) but do you really think france would veto actions of UNMOVIC?
That mould make them as trustworthy as US officials who "enforced UN resolutions" and are now unwilling to let UN do their job.
US does now what Saddam did the for years: they don't let UNMOVIC inside the Iraq.
I could see the motivation of Saddam:
Hiding his WMDs
But what's the motivation of the US? Let's hope it's not faking proofs again to justify the war.

Do you really think that those people there who were fooled several times by the US don't think that US might do that again? (after G.W. senior faked stuff to legitimate his Gulf War, after they faked satelite photos to get their military bases in saudi arabia, after G.B. and US faked stuff to convince UN to make a new resolution that would clearly legitimate this move?

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 05:21 AM   #19
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 11:02 AM
Hello,

This is an interesting article I read in the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com):

Quote:
More than half of Iraq's top 'weapons sites' searched with no result
By Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press, 04/23/03


WASHINGTON -- American forces are changing their search strategy after coming up empty at most of the top suspected weapons sites in Iraq, officials said Wednesday.

And the White House appeared to be trying to scale back expectations that weapons of mass destruction will be found.

Troops on the ground have searched more than 80 sites that prewar U.S. intelligence judged the most likely hiding places for chemical and biological weapons as well as evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program, Defense Department officials said on condition of anonymity.

There are more than 1,000 suspected sites but 100 or so were the searchers' top priority.

Some analysis is pending on some substances found. But finding no stockpiles of chemical or biological agents after more than a month into the campaign, teams are now setting aside the search list and deciding where to go more on the basis of new information from Iraqis, three defense officials said Wednesday.

"We did have several hundred sites that we had some history of intelligence on that we were going to exploit," said Lt. Gen. David McKiernan, commander of land forces in Iraq. "This regime over the last decade has been pretty good at hiding material and moving it around, so it was no surprise to any of us that many of these sites that we've already exploited have not necessarily turned up the material."

Two other officials said that in recent days officials have realized the list is of questionable value because of the ability of the Iraqis to destroy or remove weapons and equipment.

Although U.S. officials say the war is not over, more forces are headed home. The aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman and its battle group of 11 ships has been released from wartime duty and is scheduled to arrive at its home port of Norfolk, Va., in May, officials said Wednesday. The Truman left Norfolk Dec. 5 and originally was to complete its sea duty in early June.

The Truman is now in the Mediterranean Sea, along with the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier battle group. Two other carriers, the USS Kitty Hawk and the USS Constellation, left the Persian Gulf last week. The only carrier now in the Gulf is the USS Nimitz.

Also, two of the three Marine Expeditionary Units that fought in Iraq are preparing to head home. The 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit will soon be headed back to Camp Lejeune, N.C., and the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit will follow a short time later en route home to Camp Pendleton, Calif., officials said. Both units have about 2,200 people.

The sites in Iraq searched for chemical and biological weapons have included mosques, homes, factories and government ministries. In some cases teams arrived to find buildings completely empty -- swept of any evidence, one official said.

One search team also interviewed an Iraqi scientist last week who said some weapons were moved to Syria and others were destroyed before the war. His account has not yet been verified.

McKiernan called the search "ad hoc" now, meaning troops will move on information culled from various intelligence, which could include captured Iraqis, documents and other sources.

Another official said the Pentagon still intends eventually to search all of the more than 1,000 possible sites, which he called "guesses" based on satellite data, other surveillance, information gathered by United Nations weapons inspectors over the years, from Iraqi defectors and elsewhere.

The prewar list did not reflect an intelligence failure, he said. But rather, moving to the new system is a natural evolution of the hunt, now that American officials are inside Iraq and can speak to Iraqis who have knowledge of weapons programs.

The existence of weapons of mass destruction -- and goal of disarming Iraq -- were the mains reasons given by the administration for the war, which did not get U.N. approval.

Hans Blix, the U.N.'s chief weapons inspector, commented Tuesday on the lack of U.S. findings.

"It is conspicuous that so far they have not stumbled upon anything," he said in New York.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Tuesday there was "no question we remain confident that WMD (weapons of mass destruction) will found."

On Wednesday he said the president still believes weapons exist there. Asked what will happen if none are found, he said "the chances of success depend not on finding something by bumping into it," but on information provided by Iraqis involved in the programs.

Asked if he meant searches might not find the weapons but rather some kind of evidence they previously existed, Fleischer said: "There are no changes in the American position. We have high confidence that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction ... that indeed will be found in whatever form it is."
So does this mean it's also a failure of the USA that they don't find anything? As the article says, the USA attacked Iraq because it claimed Iraq was hiding WMD. Now they cannot find anything (and remember, unlike during the 3 months the UN inspectors were given by the USA last year, they don't need to depend on Iraqi cooperation, they are in control in Iraq right now) and are even trying to scale back expectations that they ever find those rumoured WMD.
I hope you understand why I'm sceptical should WMD's be found all of a sudden by US people without any checks by UN inspectors.

C ya!

Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is online now  
Old 04-24-2003, 01:31 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 07:32 AM
I don't understand why they just don't let the UN have a bigger role!

it's annoying
is bush really so arrogant and childish?

[whine]but we did it...we beat them...*whine*...I wanna disarm....no bad UN...me me me[/whine]
__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 01:58 PM   #21
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:02 AM
Basstrap:

maybe he is not childish but worse - he might be affraid that he could be proven wrong?

Klaus

Quote:
[snippet from BBC online:
Can we trust the intelligence services?
By Paul Reynolds


Dr Blix mentioned technical flaws in the dossiers, especially a failure (in this case it was a failure by the British) to realise that documents alleging an Iraqi attempt to buy uranium from Niger were forgeries.

There has been a dereliction of duty
Alex Standish
Jane's Intelligence Digest

There has also been the non-appearance of 1.4 tons of VX nerve agent, 20,000 chemical capable artillery shells, 25,000 litres of anthrax, 12-20 Scud missiles, mobile biological warfare laboratories and chemical and biological weapons "deployable within 45 minutes", all of which Iraq was alleged to have had.

And perhaps more fundamentally there are allegations that the impetus for publishing the dossiers and interpreting the evidence in the most prejudicial way possible was not intelligence-led but political.

Mr Standish said the charges against Iraq were "politically driven."

"There were three planks in the argument," he said. "The first was to find links between Iraq and 11 September and when that failed, between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

"The second was to find weapons of mass destruction and the third was the human rights issue.

"Only the third plank remains and the details of those human rights abuses were well-known and cobbled together in a document which was a cut-and-paste job from other publications."

He concluded: "There has been a dereliction of duty."

He was especially critical of the uranium claim which appeared in the UK's dossier.

"The documents making the uranium link were faxes allegedly between Iraq and Niger," he said. "They should have been analysed more carefully.

"The result was they relied on documents which were fakes. If you put your heads above the parapet as they did and it all blows up in your face, then the situation is very serious."

What next?
full article at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2971907.stm

I said before the beginning of the war that i was sure that US can't afford it that there won't be any WMDs, because of that they could be willing at the end to bring the WMDs they are looking for themself in the country.

Remember we are talking about a government who can't even admit that they accidentially killed reporters.
Do you think they could admit (if they would really find no WMDs - speculation, i know) that there were no WMDs?

This is a serious problem - because people who disslike or even hate the US won't trust US inspections, and even if US inspectors find WMDs they'd say that they lie and that they faked it. I'm affraid of a) US credibillity and a growth of antiamericanism because of this

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 04:04 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,269
Local Time: 04:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Basstrap
is bush really so arrogant and childish?
Apparently he is.

Klaus, yeah, Bush actually wrong-heaven forbid! That could hurt his chances of re-election!

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 04-24-2003, 08:24 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:02 AM
Popmartijn,

"What was the failure of the UN inspections throughout the 1990s? FYI, the inspectors discovered and destroyed more weapons than were destroyed during the first Gulf War. I wouldn't call that a failure."

If you want detailed look at the failures of the UN inspection team, I suggest you pick up "THE THREATENING STORM" by Kenneth Pollack. He goes through the history of that process in part of the book and lays it out.

The UN inspectors only had real success when Iraqi defectors told US intelligence where certain things were. In addition, Saddam at the option at that point to block the inspectors while taking the weapons and hiding them somewhere else. It was Saddam who gave up some WMD in the hopes the inspectors would say, "we have found everything and can go home now". The inspection process was always incumbent upon cooperation from Saddam at some point.

France weakened the inspection process in its later years in addition to weaking UN sanctions against Iraq. They also made deals with Saddam, and did their best to prevent the overthrow of one of the worst Dictators in history. Why should anyone trust what France has to say in regards to Iraq and Saddam?

Several inspectors including Hans Blix have not been as forcefull as say Mr. Butler in their pursuit of Iraqi WMD. What is needed now, is the ensurence that Saddam's WMD is found. This process must not be disrupted by those that have policital desires to perhaps prevent the USA from finding those weapons.

"Should Bush go forward with this I would be very sceptical should they find any weapons. The reason to go with this war was Saddam's supposed possession of WMD. Until now they haven't found any. Now the USA is going to look for them alone and suddenly they should pop up? Hmm, suspiciously convenient, isn't it? Of course it might be that they really found WMD's, but their refusal to let a third party check it with them does create many doubts"

A third party can check the WMD once it is found. But the USA does not want a third party in there that could botch or hide such WMD from US forces. I would always be very suspicious of a third part, perhaps in someone influenced by France and Germany, and then no WMDs are found. This is a matter of US national Security and were not going to put that in the hands of a third party!

"BTW, how is this a matter of national security for the USA? Saddam's gone, right? So what's the specific security threat here? Is it that there may be WMD's hidden? Why doesn't an international coalition have the duty to look for this? If the concern for the USA is that these supposed WMD's fall in the hands of terrorist then it's not just a case of national security for the USA alone, but for the whole world. So the whole world should help to find these weapons."

Saddam may be gone, but the USA must ensure that Iraq does not have WMD. Thats why we launched the war in the first place. The Europeans said no to that war. They don't think Saddam has any. We know that Saddams regime still has WMD because they have failed to account for WMD they admitted they still had in the 1990s. The USA realizes there are countries that don't want the USA to find this WMD. We do not need these countries to be apart of the process. The best way to prevent that is to do the operation ourselves.

"You cannot first invade claiming anUN resolution is backing you up on this and then ignoring said UN resolutions."

The UN resolutions specifically authorized member states to use all means necessary to disarm Iraq. The USA is doing that. The other countries decided they did not want to be apart of that. The time for peaceful inspections has long since passed. The US military will accomplish what the UN has failed to do for 12 years, that is ensuring that Iraq does not have WMD.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 08:43 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:02 AM
Klaus,

This war was justified whether or not WMDs are ever found in Iraq. Why? Because Iraq admitted to the UN that it had ten thousand liters of Anthrax, and 30,000 chemical capable munitions. They admitted this in the late 1990s before UN inspectors were forced to leave. Iraq claims they destroyed the weapons of which there would be evidence of their destruction. OF course Iraq claimed they destroyed the evidence which is impossible. This stuff does not completely vanish into thin air no matter what you do with it. Its Iraq's failure to account for such weapons, no matter where they may be now, or their condition, which is why the USA had to launch the invasion.

It was never incumbent on the USA or the UN to prove that Iraq still had WMD! It was incumbent upon Iraq to prove that they did not have WMD. This little fact is one that few people here have allowed to sink in.

The USA never faked anything to legitamite the first Gulf WAR. Thats just fantasy rubbish by those that oppose the USA had every turn. There is mistaken evidence here and there, but that should not lead one to conclude, that oh its a conspiracy. Carefull examinition of the problems debunks these myths. But of course because of our culture, with Oliver Stone movies and the "X-Files", people like to dream up things to support their political thoughts.

By the way, US forces went into Saudi Arabia because Iraq had moved all 7 Divisions of the Republican Guard into Kuwait! Most people here don't understand from a military standpoint what those 7 divisions could have done in a matter of hours and days if US forces had not deployed to Saudi Arabia. The 7 divisions certainly were not there to fight the Kuwaiti military which was defeated in under 12 hours. Where do you dig this "faked" rubbish up?

France has been blocking US efforst in regards to Iraq for years now. They have weakened UN sanctions, weakened the Arms inspection process that was in place before 1998, and blocked the only way Iraq could be satisfactorily disarmed if Saddam would not cooperate, which he didn't. France has done everything it could on the side, to prevent the complete disarmament of Iraq.

The US interest in Iraq is the disarmament of the WMD, the Overthrow of one of the worst dictators in history, and ensuring that the Worlds main flow of oil supply is not disrupted. When Iraqi oil starts to be pumped at pre 1991 levels, energy prices will drop worldwide. That benefits average consumers and people like me and you, not Oil bigwigs in France and Texas.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 08:53 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:02 AM
Popmartijn,

I have said this fact plenty of times. It was never incumbent upon any member state of the UN or the USA to prove Iraq still had WMDs. It was incumbent upon Iraq to prove that they did not have WMD.

The Job US forces are doing now in Iraq is making sure Iraq no longer has any WMDs. It was Iraq that claimed it had ten thousand liters of Anthrax and 30,000 Chemical capable munitions. They have the documents to prove that. Iraq's failure to account for such weapons is why the invasion had to take place. It was never the job of the USA to prove that Iraq had weapons it had already admitted it had. Iraq is a huge country and these things could have been hidden and buried anywhere? How many people go missing every year and our never found? Thousands. Finding these WMD is going to take time.

My only concern is if Iraq had help from middle eastern or European countries in shipping the WMD out of the country or hiding in such a way that it may never be found.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 08:56 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 12:02 PM
Holla STING2!

FYM is soooo booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooring.


At the moment. So I decided to take a break it down on the one.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 09:04 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:02 AM
Klaus,

"I said before the beginning of the war that i was sure that US can't afford it that there won't be any WMDs, because of that they could be willing at the end to bring the WMDs they are looking for themself in the country."

"Remember we are talking about a government who can't even admit that they accidentially killed reporters.
Do you think they could admit (if they would really find no WMDs - speculation, i know) that there were no WMDs?"

"This is a serious problem - because people who disslike or even hate the US won't trust US inspections, and even if US inspectors find WMDs they'd say that they lie and that they faked it. I'm affraid of a) US credibillity and a growth of antiamericanism because of this"

It was NEVER incumbent on the USA to prove that Iraq had WMDs. It was incumbent upon Iraq per UN resolutions following the first Gulf WAR, that they prove that they no longer had such weapons!

If the USA never finds any WMD inside Iraq, then one can conclude that at least Iraq was satisfactorily disarmed as it was required to do, despite the fact that the WMD ten thousand liters of Anthrax and 30,000 chemical capable WMD shells are still unacounted for. Iraq's failure to account for these weapons which they did have in 1998, is the reason the USA had to invade Iraq.

The US tank Commander in the "reporter incedent" did what he was trained to do based on what he saw. When are other reporters and the rest of the international community going to admit that it was indeed and accident. When are they going to admit that the US government told them prior to the start of the war that they could never promise them or anyone their safety if they remained in the city.

Your concerned about Anti-Americanism from people who will be anti-American regardless of the process. I'm concerned in making sure Iraq is indeed disarmed. Something the UN failed to do for 12 years!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 09:07 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:02 AM
Hello HIPHOP,

BASSTRAP,

The Crybaby Weasel department has been occupied by France for some time now. Although do is talk talk talk. The USA certainly talks to, but it also ACTS! Its US actions that brought the war in Bosnia to an end. Its US actions that brought the Kosovo war to an end. Its US actions that have overthrown Saddam and will ensure that the country is disarmed.

France and others can keep on talking instead of acting. Its what their good at.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 09:32 PM   #29
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:02 AM
STING2:

it's maybe not necessary because of the laws but it is definetly necessary for the credibility of the US in the mid-east.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 09:42 PM   #30
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:02 AM
p.s. we will see how many weapons were left in the future, i wouldn't call it a failiure yet, because we didn't find weapons yet that were violating the UN rules and could have been a threat to other countries Or do you know more than i do at the moment?.

My point is:
To fight terrorism effective we have to fight the sources not the symtoms.
The american way of life is attractive enough, we don't need brute force to convince others to follow this lifestyle or at least not hate us because of it. I think we have good chances to convince by living up our ideals.

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus 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 05:02 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