So is the Truth Finally Out on WMDs? - 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 08-01-2003, 10:16 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:27 PM
So is the Truth Finally Out on WMDs?

Aide: Saddam Did Get Rid of Iraq WMD
1 hour, 51 minutes ago

By SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A close aide to Saddam Hussein says the Iraqi dictator did in fact get rid of his weapons of mass destruction but deliberately kept the world guessing about it in an effort to divide the international community and stave off a U.S. invasion.

The strategy, which turned out to be a serious miscalculation, was designed to make the Iraqi dictator look strong in the eyes of the Arab world, while countries such as France and Russia were wary of joining an American-led attack. At the same time, Saddam retained the technical know-how and brain power to restart the programs at any time.

Both Pentagon officials and weapons experts are considering this guessing-game theory as the search for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons continues. If true, it would indicate there was no imminent unconventional weapons threat from Iraq, an argument President Bush used to go to war.

Saddam's alleged weapons bluff was detailed by an Iraqi official who assisted Saddam for many years. The official was not part of the national leadership but his job provided him daily contact with the dictator and insight into the regime's decision-making process during the past decade and in its critical final days.

The official refused to be identified, citing fear of assassination by Saddam's paramilitaries who, he said, remain active throughout Iraq. But in several interviews, the former aide detailed what he said were the reasons behind Saddam's disinformation campaign ó which ultimately backfired by spurring, rather than deterring a U.S. invasion.

According to the aide, by the mid-1990s "it was common knowledge among the leadership" that Iraq had destroyed its chemical stocks and discontinued development of biological and nuclear weapons.

But Saddam remained convinced that an ambiguous stance about the status of Iraq's weapons programs would deter an American attack.

"He repeatedly told me: 'These foreigners, they only respect strength, they must be made to believe we are strong,'" the aide said.

Publicly Saddam denied having unconventional weapons. But from 1998 until 2002, he prevented U.N. inspectors from working in the country and when they finally returned in November, 2002, they often complained that Iraq wasn't fully cooperating.

Iraqi scientists, including those currently held by the U.S. military, have maintained that no new unconventional weapons programs were started in recent years and that all the materials from previous programs were destroyed.

Both Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have come under fire in recent weeks as weapons hunters come up empty and prewar intelligence is questioned.

The White House acknowledged recently that it included discredited information in Bush's State of the Union speech about alleged Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium - a key ingredient for nuclear weapons.

More importantly, no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons have been found.

Before the invasion, the British government claimed Saddam could deploy unconventional weapons within 45 minutes. The Bush administration insisted the threat was so immediate that the world couldn't afford to wait for U.N. inspectors to wind up their searches. Despite the warnings, Iraqi troops never used such weapons during the war.

Intelligence officials at the Pentagon, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said some experts had raised the theory that Iraq put out false information to persuade its enemies that it retained prohibited chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

"That explanation has plausibility," said Robert Einhorn a former assistant secretary of State for nonproliferation. "But the disposition of those missing weapons and materials still has to be explained somehow."

Iraq's claims that it destroyed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons materials could never be verified by U.N. inspectors who repeatedly requested proof.

However, U.N. inspectors, who scoured Iraq for three and a half months before the war, never find any evidence of renewed weapons programs.

"The longer that one does not find any weapons in spite of people coming forward and being rewarded for giving information, etc., the more I think it is important that we begin to ask ourselves if there were no weapons, why was it that Iraq conducted itself as it did for so many years?" Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, told The Associated Press in June.

Saddam's aide suggested the brinkmanship ultimately backfired because U.S. policy switched in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, from containing the Iraqi leader, to going after those who could supply terrorists with deadly weapons.

He described Saddam as almost "totally ignorant" of how Western democracies functioned and attributed his failure to grasp the impact of Sept. 11 to the fact that he increasingly surrounded himself with yes-men and loyalists who were not qualified to give him expert advice on economic, military or foreign policy matters.

___


Very interesting.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-02-2003, 12:55 AM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:27 PM
I do believe that was a theory presented here in FYM. That he was faking having them.

Matt
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-02-2003, 03:31 AM   #3
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 12:27 PM
Melon, this article is pure bullshit. Does anybody in their right mind believe that George W. Bush and Tony Blair are going to guarantee that they will find WMD's and then NOT find them? Do not be fooled by news articles such as this one. It's complete crap.

Bush and Blair have been reiterating for WEEKS that they will find WMD's. I GUARANTEE that they will find them. They have to find WMD's. They are not going to stake their political careers on a promise that they cannot keep.

My guess is that, since the moment they made their promise that they would find weapons of mass destruction, they have had -- at the very least -- evidence of the manufacture of WMD's. They wouldn't have made such a promise otherwise. They are politicians. They calculate their moves. I would bet that they simply are looking for anything that will further substantiate their evidence.

This is like a trial in a court of law. The rule, as I understand it, is that a lawyer never asks a question without knowing the answer beforehand.

There is no fucking way Bush and Blair would guarantee they will find WMD'S without having an ace in the hole. Bank on it.

I'm predicting that -- once they find their WMD's -- the debate will center around what constitutes a WMD, although Bush and Blair might make that a moot point.

Bush will never be nailed on anything.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 08-02-2003, 03:53 PM   #4
Acrobat
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 489
Local Time: 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler
Melon, this article is pure bullshit. Does anybody in their right mind believe that George W. Bush and Tony Blair are going to guarantee that they will find WMD's and then NOT find them? Do not be fooled by news articles such as this one. It's complete crap.

Bush and Blair have been reiterating for WEEKS that they will find WMD's. I GUARANTEE that they will find them. They have to find WMD's. They are not going to stake their political careers on a promise that they cannot keep.

My guess is that, since the moment they made their promise that they would find weapons of mass destruction, they have had -- at the very least -- evidence of the manufacture of WMD's. They wouldn't have made such a promise otherwise. They are politicians. They calculate their moves. I would bet that they simply are looking for anything that will further substantiate their evidence.

This is like a trial in a court of law. The rule, as I understand it, is that a lawyer never asks a question without knowing the answer beforehand.

There is no fucking way Bush and Blair would guarantee they will find WMD'S without having an ace in the hole. Bank on it.

I'm predicting that -- once they find their WMD's -- the debate will center around what constitutes a WMD, although Bush and Blair might make that a moot point.

Bush will never be nailed on anything.
So in other words your saying Bush/Blair will plant the WMD's ? Personally I think they already would have planted them if Bush had not screwed the CIA Director around since they would be the obvious choice to plant the weapons. The Military won't plant them so Bush is in a bit of a pickle right now.
__________________
EvolutionMonkey is offline  
Old 08-02-2003, 05:51 PM   #5
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 633
Local Time: 07:27 PM
Here's the deal.

Fact: Saddam had WMD at one time.

Fact: Saddam used WMD on his own people at one time.

Fact: After 'inspections' running up until Saddam threw the UN out of his country in 98, there were still a lot of weapons that were unaccounted for.

Fact: Not one Iraqi will be killed by Quassi and not more woman raped by Uday ever again.

To me, it is not important if we ever find weapons. I think the job in Iraq was something that needed to be done and was something that the former administration didn't have the you know what to do. (A similar case in Afganistan.)
__________________
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 08-02-2003, 06:58 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:27 PM
I agree, wolfwill23
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-02-2003, 07:39 PM   #7
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: 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by wolfwill23
Here's the deal.

Fact: Saddam had WMD at one time.
Right, we even helped him to produce and develop them

Quote:
Fact: Saddam used WMD on his own people at one time.
Not only on his own people, we gave him informations that he could use them as efficient as possible against Iran

Quote:
Fact: After 'inspections' running up until Saddam threw the UN out of his country in 98, there were still a lot of weapons that were unaccounted for.
Almost, but not 100% correct, inspections weren't running good, so the US decided to bomb a region, because of that the UN inspectors left the country, after that Saddam didn't let them enter the country again.

Quote:
Fact: Not one Iraqi will be killed by Quassi and not more woman raped by Uday ever again.
But people like him are exchangable, if we screw it up again, we install the next dicatator (remember Hussein got the power because of us - the western world)

Quote:
To me, it is not important if we ever find weapons. I think the job in Iraq was something that needed to be done and was something that the former administration didn't have the you know what to do. (A similar case in Afganistan.)
If the reason would have bin a humanitarian much more people would have agreed to this mission. But now it tastes like the US just wanted the oil and military bases in the Arab world
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 01:25 AM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:27 PM
Yes, Klaus, you are right. The Western world did put Hussein in power and that is something I am saddened over. But in all honesty, we did not know the terrible man he was at the time. But we can all now see it was a terrible mistake to prop him up like that. But that's been said and done. We can't change the past. But we can darn sure take steps to minimize the disastrous effects of our big mistake, and that's exactly what we did when we put him out of power. Wouldn't you agree?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 01:37 AM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:27 AM
Quote:
But in all honesty, we did not know the terrible man he was at the time
this is not correct


Bush 1, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolferwits all knew about and condoned the chem/bio weapons he used. The U. S. wanted Iraq to contain the Iranian revolution.
The left him in power after Gulf War 1 and were indifferent when he gassed the Shia in Southern Iraq, that are aligned with Iran.

This is one of the main reasons the Administrationís rhetoric rang so hollow in Europe and with UN members.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 02:13 AM   #10
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 633
Local Time: 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep



The left him in power after Gulf War 1 and were indifferent when he gassed the Shia in Southern Iraq, that are aligned with Iran.

This is one of the main reasons the Administrationís rhetoric rang so hollow in Europe and with UN members.
The reason Saddam stayed in power after Gulf I is because of two things:
1. We had a deal with the Saudis that we would not roll into Baghdad. Big mistake IMHO.

2. After the 'highway of death' situation (where allied forced killed hundreds or thousands of Iraqi soldiers), the world opinion quickly turned about the war and all the sudden the US was this war mongering machine (just like the world sees us today.)
__________________
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 02:51 AM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
I agree, wolfwill23
Everything to justify a cheating president,...
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 02:53 AM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by wolfwill23



2. After the 'highway of death' situation (where allied forced killed hundreds or thousands of Iraqi soldiers), the world opinion quickly turned about the war and all the sudden the US was this war mongering machine (just like the world sees us today.)
Ehm, before this war started, more than 75 % was agianst it ( except in the states and the UK )
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 02:58 AM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by wolfwill23


The reason Saddam stayed in power after Gulf I is because of two things:
1. We had a deal with the Saudis that we would not roll into Baghdad.
Why do you think this ageement was made?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 04:25 AM   #14
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: 08:27 PM
You can be pretty sure, that if they find WMDs or Factories to build WMDs today lots of people will think "ok, they had enough time, they didn't allow UN inspections, they need it to save the reputation of their government leaders -> they planted them"
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 11:31 AM   #15
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by EvolutionMonkey


So in other words your saying Bush/Blair will plant the WMD's ?
I wouldn't phrase it quite that way. I can't say whether or not the deposed Iraqi regime had chemical/biological weaponry and/or manufacturing plants. I don't know.

Actually, let me back up. I now do know that the former Iraqi government had something in the manner of chemical/biological munitions and/or manufacturing plants. I know that to be the case because Bush and Blair have been telling me so on an almost daily basis, and they would not make a guarantee that they will find WMD's without knowing with absolute certainty that they will indeed find them. (And I mean that. I am being absolutely sincere here).

When Bush and Blair show us the WMD's, will I automatically assume that they planted them? No.

But that is not the primary issue here. WMD's are not the issue central to why I am outraged by the behavior of President Bush. It's how he got us to where we are.

I take issue with the President almost solely because of the spurious campaign -- the so-called "case" -- he made to go to war with Iraq. He deceitfully implicated Iraq in the events of September 11, a connection he will never be able to prove. But he doesn't need to prove it. He made the connection and it became truth.

Furthermore, his "case" to go to war with Iraq was almost entirely based on the presumption that Iraq was producing and maintaining an arsenal of WMD's, and that Iraq posed an IMMINENT threat to the free world, but when troops arrived in Baghdad and WMD's were not immediately found, Bush (and his supporters) changed the meaning of the invasion. At this point, they decided it was about saving the poor, oppressed, tortured Iraqi people. Actually, they changed that meaning just as the invasion started, I suppose as a means of hedging their bets.

After the events of 9/11, President Bush's administration set up the Office of Homeland Security, which served well in inducing fear in Americans with the ridiculous Orange and Red Alerts and so forth, which in turn meant more support for President Bush and his advisors going to war with Iraq, the nation he deceitfully implicated as being connected to the events of 9/11. I call the implication "deceitful" because it is impossible to prove, short of one of the 19 terrorist hijacker's friends or relatives coming forth with a paper trail showing a clear connection between Baghdad and the 19 hijackers. (The frustratingly tragic and predictable irony here is that, because of our invasion of Iraq, the U.S. now probably has a legitimate need for increased security measures at home. In other words, the once ridiculous Orange Alerts will now probably be worth paying attention to. Bush's mad joke has become reality.).

Getting back to the original question of whether or not I believe any found WMD's would have to have been planted, my answer is this: It doesn't matter. President Bush is the captain of the boat. We're his passengers. He has taken us down a river of lies to get us to where we are. I am disgusted and disheartened.
__________________

__________________
pub crawler 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 02:27 PM.


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