Proof of Iraq's WMD - Here you go, dicatorial sympathizers

[Capitalist Imperial]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62211,00.html

[Pinko]

Is that a reason to bomb Iraq into the stone age or a reason to take Saddam up on his offer of giving unfettered access to UN weapons inspectors?
(which was rejected a few weeks ago by the US)

[Cassius Clay]

So what if Iraq has WMD, so does Isreal and Russia. Are you going to go and bomb them with 100 F-16's, answer no because you know you would be lucky if 10 of those F-16's came back. Oh yeah there is the small matter of oil is well. I still don't understand why anybody is actually taking these claims that Iraq must be invaded seriously.

Because he has WMD? so what almost a dozen nations have the 'Bomb' and they don't attack anybody (except the US ofcourse)

Because he has used chemical weapons on his own people? America bombed Japan and used Napalm in Vietnam.

Because they are in violation of UN resolutions? So is Isreal.

And finally because he is a Tyrant? So is Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and dozens of other states, believe it or not Iraq is one of the more liberal regimes in the Middle East which to a certain extent has women rights and religious tollerence (well before the Gulf War anyway and if you weren't a sunni or kurd, actually take back that statement).

Believe it or not I actually to a certain extent supported the US military campaign in Afghanistan, afterall Bin Landen and his ilk are scum which was what the Soviets were telling you. But Iraq is purely about American economic/oil and Imperialist considerations.

[Capitalist Imperial]

The US does not plan to bomb Iraq back to the stone age. The operation will not be the desert showdown of '91. U.S. Forces deployed will probably be about 25% of gulf-war levels, and the fighting will probably tend to be more urban in nature, as we are going directly for regime change, which was not an objective in 91.

The operation will carry with it much more close-in street fighting and shelling, much more risk of collateral damage and possible US casualties. This would be a situation much like Somalia (however our forces will deploy with provisions and expectations of an offensive posture, a pretense of firefight and actual combat action, unlike in Somalia where we were stabbed in the back during what was to be a peacetime operation in support of the UN, and still came away relatively good considering to odds against us.

As for saddams offer, it was not unconditional, unrestricted access to all facilites, as the UN requests. For instance, I'm sure installations like these were not on Iraq's access list:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62333,00.html

[Pinko]

Bombing people into the stone-age is a figure of speach.

A link to an article. (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/comment/0,11538,771063,00.html)
Some quotes from the article:

"The US administration stated that its agenda was not really the return of the inspectors, but a regime change in Iraq."

"Ralph Ekaus and Scott Ritter of the former UNScom have provided substantial evidence that Iraq has disarmed. Yet there has been no sign that the UN intends to lift economic sanctions, for fear of a US veto. Instead, the UN general secretary is insisting on the return of inspectors, without UN agreement on the schedule of inspection or any undertaking to lift sanctions once the inspection is satisfactorily completed."

Another link. (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,770481,00.html)
A quote:

"Last week Iraq was sharply rebuffed by Britain and the United States when it sent a letter to the UN, inviting the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, to Baghdad for technical talks about resuming inspections."

As for that article that you posted a link to, there is no proof contained there to sugest anything. So a few buildings that have "dual-use capabilities" have been erected.
The weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq in the first place because the US was using them for its own agenda. Iraq seems to be willing to let the inspectors back in as long as there is an end in sight for the sanctions. Inspectors have been excluded since because there has been no declaration that the sanctions will end if the inspection team is satisfied of the lack of Iraq's WMD capability.
As for there being other proof, the US has said time and again that it has proof of this and that, but it has turned out to be nothing but hot air. The US has failed before to show a link between Al-Qaida and Iraq (claiming it was proof), so until the rest of the world responds to this proof I will be viewing it with extreme skepticism.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 9:55 pm on Sep. 7, 2002
So what if Iraq has WMD, so does Isreal and Russia. Are you going to go and bomb them with 100 F-16's, answer no because you know you would be lucky if 10 of those F-16's came back. Oh yeah there is the small matter of oil is well. I still don't understand why anybody is actually taking these claims that Iraq must be invaded seriously.



Dude,you have no idea what you are talking about. If we needed to eradicate targets in Russia or Israel, we would do it just as effectively as we would against Iraq (OK, it would be a litte tougher, but we would not suffer even close to the 90% loss you suggest.

Do you forget who the world's only superpower is?

America backs down from no one.

As for the WMD issue, russia developed their stckpile against ours during the cold war, and they are a much more stable nation. Israel has also dmonstrated responsibility with their nukes (which are US manufacturesd and approved).

[vox]

Again, the administration promises "proof," but does not deliver. I'm still waiting.

Also, if the issue is weapons, then weapons inspectors would seem to be the answer. The policy of containment has worked for ten years, but now, suddenly, Bush says we must attack, which everyone seems to think will further destabilize the region.

For right-wingers, who seem to get a thrill out of wholesale slaughter, for such is their inherent lack of humanity, this is seen as a good thing. To decent people the world over, however, this aggression is seen as nothing more that Western imperialism in one of its ugliest forms.

vox

[reagan lives]

Yep, nothing I like more than bloodshed. Every night I dream about mass murders. I especially like when people who are different from me get killed...like brown people or yellow people. I demand that my government constantly destroy as many innocent people as possible to satiate my bloodlust. Well observed, vox.

[marxistdisciple]

On a program tonight on Channel 4 here in the UK, about 74% of the voters believed a war with Iraq was unjustifiable. 66% believed the war on terrorism was not working and undermining it's purpose. After the Mirror survey saying 70% of the public were against the war, I'd say we should stay out of it.

PLEASE CI! Proof?? "Without identifying them, Baute described the sites as having potential "dual-use capabilities," meaning they could potentially be locations for both civilian and military nuclear programs"

And my house could potentially store nuclear waepons in the basement too....hardly profound really is it? And it even comes from fox news of all sources...what more can I say? 'If...but....maybe...when....possibly' constitutes the "evidence" so far.

[vox]

RL,

Right-wingers support the policies of the Bush administration, not me. That includes slaughtering civilians, and don't think I don't remember your comment in which you dismissed civilian death as "collateral damage." I do.

Perhaps, though, you simply agree with Colin Powell, who said that the number of Iraqi civilians slaughted was "not a number (he's) particularly interested in." That says a lot, doesn't it? Yes, it really does.

The policies of slaughter are the policies of the right-wing. One need only look at the history of US foreign policy to recognize this. Of course, I also remember you saying that history doesn't matter.

vox

[pastradamus]

Not only are the yanks ignorant to human suffering,but careless whilst delivering it!

Its a FACT that in the gulf war,
1 in every 4 brittish soldier killed,died due to friendly fire,coming from american,missiles & A-10 bombers ect...

[Pinko]

Have a read of this.
http://pilger.carlton.com/print/19182

[Toxic Paradox]

I'm failing to realize how people can actually believe that the US government is going to wage war on Iraq because they could possess the means to rebuild a stockpile of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Oh, yes, and couple that with the fact that, in our president's own, wise words, "Saddam Hussein is evil." What a crock of bullshit. The Bush administration is using the attacks of last September to scare people into believing that Iraq is an "immenent threat". It's right in front of us all.. Is it really a coincidence that they decided to release this information to the American public so close to the "anniversary" of the attacks?
There's always that one word that seems to pop up everywhere when we're dealing with something like this... "Oil"... Let's see.. 90% of the oil Iraq produces ends up in America.. And you've got a president and a vice president that were both oil execs, who are presenting a feeble argument and are prepared to defy UN regulations to attack this country... Hmm.. Maybe it's time for us to do the math here...

[honest intellectual]

Only one Middle Eastern country has nuclear weapons and that's <<drumrrrrrrrrrroll>> ISRAEL!

[j]

If invading Iraq is so goddamn justifiable then why does the entire rest of the world (Britain a wavering exception) think differently?

And "collateral damage?" What the fuck is that? Is that code for civilian death? Didn't we just expereince a great loss of civilian life in the US and proclaim the ones who did it to be "evil-doers?" If we kill civilians in Iraq, how in the world is that fucking justifiable???!!!!

Man, fuck you. You stupid piece of shit. I am so fucking angry right now!!! An american life is worth NO MORE than an Iraqi life!!!! When will people realize this? I want to fucking scream at the top of my motherfucking lungs!!!!

KILLING CIVILIANS IS WRONG AND NEVER JUSTIFIABLE!!!!!!!

j

[Tkinter1]

"If invading Iraq is so goddamn justifiable then why does the entire rest of the world (Britain a wavering exception) think differently?"

It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks. We make the decisions that are best for our interests and the worlds.

"And "collateral damage?" What the fuck is that? Is that code for civilian death?"

any damage that wasn't planned is collateral damage in my opinion

"Didn't we just expereince a great loss of civilian life in the US and proclaim the ones who did it to be "evil-doers?" If we kill civilians in Iraq, how in the world is that fucking justifiable???!!!!"

Its not our plan to kill civilians. You know that, so stop.

"Man, fuck you. You stupid piece of shit. I am so fucking angry right now!!! An american life is worth NO MORE than an Iraqi life!!!!"

and...who said it was?

"When will people realize this? I want to fucking scream at the top of my motherfucking lungs!!!!"

and thats all you CAN do.

"KILLING CIVILIANS IS WRONG AND NEVER JUSTIFIABLE!!!!!!!"

Thank you captain obvious.

[pjhaynes]

America should allow Iraq to inspect US weapons of mass destruction with the help of the UN.
Why should we trust Bush? America was best buddies with sadam pre 1991 then because they were no longer happy with him suddenly the rest of the world had to hate him too! its been the same over history.

Wake up America, you are fast alienating yourself in this world as your "allies" abandon you.

[Brian]

Its a FACT that in the gulf war,
1 in every 4 brittish soldier killed,died due to friendly fire,coming from american,missiles & A-10 bombers ect...

Got any proof? A link?

Right-wingers support the policies of the Bush administration, not me. That includes slaughtering civilians, and don't think I don't remember your comment in which you dismissed civilian death as "collateral damage." I do.

Not every right-winger supports Bush, I suggest you stop stero-typing so quickly.Also about the civilian deaths,like the old saying goes You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs!


(Edited by Brian at 7:04 am on Sep. 17, 2002)

[Son of Scargill]

http://www.bushwatch.net/iraqevidence.htm#blair

"PRESIDENT MISSTATES ‘FACTS’"

In his meeting with Blair, Bush cited a satellite photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency as evidence of Iraq’s impending rearmament. However, in response to a report by NBC News, a senior administration official acknowledged Saturday night that the U.N. report drew no such conclusion, and a spokesman for the U.N. agency said the photograph had been misinterpreted.

Blair cited a newly released satellite photo of Iraq identifying new construction at several sites linked in the past to Baghdad’s development of nuclear weapons. And both leaders mentioned a 1998 report by the U.N.-affiliated International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, that said Saddam could be six months away from developing nuclear weapons.

“I don’t know what more evidence we need,” Bush said, standing alongside Blair. “We owe it to future generations to deal with this problem.”

In a joint appearance before the summit, the two leaders repeated their shared view that Saddam’s ouster was the only way to stop Iraq’s pursuit — and potential use — of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

“The policy of inaction is not a policy we can responsibly subscribe to,” Blair said as he joined Bush in trying to rally reluctant allies to deal with Saddam, perhaps by military force.

--MSNBC, Sept. 9, 2002

"CONTRARY TO BUSH'S CLAIM..."

Contrary to Bush’s claim, however, the 1998 IAEA report did not say that Iraq was six months away from developing nuclear capability, NBC News’ Robert Windrem reported Saturday.

Instead, Windrem reported, the Vienna, Austria-based agency said in 1998 that Iraq had been six to 24 months away from such capability before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the U.N.-monitored weapons inspections that followed.

The war and the inspections destroyed much of Iraq’s nuclear infrastructure and required Iraq to turn over its highly enriched uranium and plutonium, Windrem reported.

In a summary of its 1998 report, the IAEA said that “based on all credible information available to date ... the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material.”

--MSNBC, Sept. 9, 2002

"WHITE HOUSE ADMITS ERROR"

A senior White House official acknowledged Saturday night that the 1998 report did not say what Bush claimed. “What happened was, we formed our own conclusions based on the report,” the official told NBC News’ Norah O’Donnell.

Meanwhile, Mark Gwozdecky, a spokesman for the U.N. agency, disputed Bush’s and Blair’s assessment of the satellite photograph, which was first publicized Friday. Contrary to news service reports, there was no specific photo or building that aroused suspicions, he told Windrem.

The photograph in question was not U.N. intelligence imaging but simply a picture from a commercial satellite imaging company, Gwozdecky said. He said that the IAEA reviewed commercial satellite imagery regularly and that, from time to time, it noticed construction at sites it had previously examined.

Gwozdecky said the new construction indicated in the photograph was no surprise and that no conclusions were drawn from it. “There is not a single building we see,” he said.

--MSNBC, Sept. 9, 2002

[pjhaynes]

Quote: from Brian on 12:58 pm on Sep. 17, 2002


Its a FACT that in the gulf war,
1 in every 4 brittish soldier killed,died due to friendly fire,coming from american,missiles & A-10 bombers ect...

Got any proof? A link?

Right-wingers support the policies of the Bush administration, not me. That includes slaughtering civilians, and don't think I don't remember your comment in which you dismissed civilian death as "collateral damage." I do.

Not every right-winger supports Bush, I suggest you stop stero-typing so quickly.Also about the civilian deaths,like the old saying goes You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs!


(Edited by Brian at 7:04 am on Sep. 17, 2002)


So brian are the victims of sept 11 just a few eggs for Bin Ladens omelet? i doubt you would think so.
America has what it has asked for from IRAQ, the return of inspectors. Yet they are still talking about war!

I think bush doesn't know what he really wants.

[Brian]

I wasn't talking about the victims of 9-11, I was talking about the Iraqi civilians that have been killed from U.S and British air craft carrier launched air strikes.

Read my statement clearer next time dimwit!

[Pinko]

Scott Ritter
"...since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability has been verifiably eliminated. This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles; the associated equipment of these factories; and the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories."
Would you like o know more? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,794771,00.html)

[Pinko]

Quote: from Brian on 12:58 pm on Sep. 17, 2002


Its a FACT that in the gulf war,
1 in every 4 brittish soldier killed,died due to friendly fire,coming from american,missiles & A-10 bombers ect...

Got any proof? A link?



Sources vary radicly. The official British casualty number from the Gulf war is 24, this does not include the servicemen killed by unexploded munitions after the ceasefire. Nine of these 24 were killed in an A-10 attack on a British armoured column (37.5%). This only takes into account this one incident where and A-10 launched missiles at British armour.
The total number of British troops killed in the entire scenario was 47, leaving 23 lost in the definitions of various statistics.
But during the action, 37.5% of British casualties were caused by friendly fire. There could be more, claims abound, but our government doesn't like to paint the US in a bad light.

"Twenty-four British servicemen killed, nine by U.S. fire, with 10 wounded. Two Frenchmen killed, estimated 25 wounded. Italian airman killed. Allied Arab casualties totaled 39."
Would you like to know more? (http://ww2.pstripes.osd.mil/01/feb01/gulfwar02.html)



Ah, you may say, friendly fire has occured in every war.

"Fratricide has occurred in every war. I have heard that response countless times with respect to this incident. This is undoubtedly true. What does not occur in every war, is a fratricide ... followed by a cover-up ... followed by lying to the soldier's family about how he died ... followed by awarding decorations for heroism and promotions to those committing the fratricide ... followed by several more cover-ups ... followed by several military investigations ... followed by sacrificing several individuals as scapegoats ... followed by several national television appearances ... followed by a General Accounting Office investigation ... followed by a U.S. Senate hearing. The entire process lasted almost five years, at considerable taxpayer expense."
Would you like to know more? (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2061/index.html)

[Tkinter1]

"Twenty-four British servicemen killed, nine by U.S. fire, with 10 wounded. Two Frenchmen killed, estimated 25 wounded. Italian airman killed. Allied Arab casualties totaled 39."

"Would you like to know more?"

That link didn't show anything. From what that site says only 9 were killed by US fire....

"1 in every 4 brittish soldier killed,died due to friendly fire,coming from american,missiles & A-10 bombers ect..."

WHERE DID U GET THAT FROM???

[Pinko]

Nine as a percentage of the twenty four killed is 37.5%, quite a bit more than the 25% represented by the fraction of one in four.

So that statement: "1 in every 4 brittish soldier killed,died due to friendly fire,coming from american,missiles & A-10 bombers ect..." is an understatement. More than one in four of British casualties were accounted for by US fire.

[Tkinter1]

yeah but i dont think Britain sent over an army of 24 to assist the US. You made it out to be like there were 24,000 british troops and 1 in 4 of them died to US fire.

[pjhaynes]

Brian, piss off. your statement sounded like you meant that the Iraqi civilians were just worthless. I was pointing out that, by your statement, the victims of 11/9 were not a few broken eggs because they were american. I was saying that it seemed that you placed a greater value on US citizens lives compared to everyone else.

I wasn't trying to bring the 11/9 people into it anyway, they were a comparison.

maybe its you who should "Read my statement clearer next time dimwit!"

[Tkinter1]

9/11

dude come on

[IHP]

oi, Tkinter, im guessing by 9/11 that you're a yank. realize that there is a world beyond the U$. most other countries state the day of the month before the month, and then the year. which makes a hell of a lotta sense.

so "dude, come on" yaself!

[suffianr]

Now, now, children, there's no need for animosity against America, is there? :biggrin:

[IHP]

i made no attack against america, i apoligise if this was as it appeared. i simply wished to inform the gentleman of the calendar outside of his country :biggrin:

--IHP

[peaccenicked]

I am writing a speech for Bush.
''In the name of America and the ''free world''.. I president Bush assert my right as commander in chief of the world to control oil production in the middle east and get a little bit of revenge for daddy in the process.
I have to thank the media for their scare mongering tactics, the population will soon be buying nuclear bunkers again. Its like the good old days of the cold war.
I hope my friends in the arms industry are grateful as Monica Lewinsky.
Reading the papers I am almost get scared myself but I have to remember it is a build up of lies we have planted over the years to gear the God almighty American people and the free world....10 downing street, to blast our new stuff on the weak forces of the middle east who dont stand a chance and steal their oil. Move on to Iran. Rock and roll over.''



(

(Edited by peaccenicked at 4:52 pm on Sep. 26, 2002)

[pjhaynes]

Tkinter1, its 11/9 to me so i WILL say it that way.

otherwise i would be talking about the 9th of November (9/11).

PS: whats wrong with "animosity against America"? its allways good fun.