Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

so much for U.S. claims

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Blix slams allies over Iraq weapons

Hans Blix

Hans Blix is due to retire at the end of the month

The United Nations chief weapons inspector has criticised the quality of the intelligence given to him by the United States and Britain about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

Hans Blix told the BBC that his teams followed up US and British leads at suspected sites across Iraq, but found nothing when they got there.

The BBC's Greg Barrow at the UN says the comments will add to the growing controversy over the quality of intelligence used in the run-up to the Iraq war.

However US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has insisted that the information had been good.

I thought - my God, if this is the best intelligence they have and we find nothing, what about the rest?

Hans Blix

In a BBC interview on Thursday, Mr Blix said he had been disappointed with the tip-offs provided by British and US intelligence.

"Only in three of those cases did we find anything at all, and in none of these cases were there any weapons of mass destruction, and that shook me a bit, I must say."

He said UN inspectors had been promised the best information available.

"I thought - my God, if this is the best intelligence they have and we find nothing, what about the rest?"

Unproven

On Thursday, the chief weapons inspectors gave what is likely to be his last report to the UN Security Council before he retires later this month.

His briefing recorded an open verdict over whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

WERE WE MISLED OVER WMD?

I supported the war, with or without the discovery of WMD, but if there are questions of deception then there must be an inquiry - democracies must remain open

Shawn Hampton, Oregon, US

Have your say

Saddam Hussein's regime might have hidden weapons, or it might have destroyed them, Mr Blix said.

But following the fall of Saddam Hussein, he said, the conditions were now right for the truth to come out either way.

In his report, which covers the last three months since inspectors were withdrawn before the US-led invasion of Iraq, Mr Blix said Iraq had left "many unanswered questions" about its non-conventional weapons, but this did not mean such dangerous arms still existed.

Both US and British intelligence sources have told the BBC that evidence against Iraq was distorted in order to justify the war against Iraq.

However the US administration has defended the intelligence it presented.

US President George W Bush on Thursday said it would take time to find Iraq's chemical and biological weapons, but he promised to "reveal the truth" about them.

"Saddam Hussein's got a big country in which to hide them. Well, we'll look," President Bush told US troops in Qatar.

Restricted inspections

Mr Rumsfeld, for his part, said the case put before the UN Security Council by US Secretary of State Colin Powell in February would in time "be proved accurate".

Weapons inspector in November

The inspectors looked, but found little incriminating evidence in Iraq

However the defence secretary added that his department would co-operate with any Congressional investigation into the issue.

The US has rejected calls for the return of UN inspectors to hunt for Iraqi weapons.

But it has said it plans to widen the search, by interviewing low-ranking officials and relying on interrogations of alleged war criminals.

A small team from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is due to arrive in Iraq on Friday to check on looting of atomic materials, but the US has barred it from visiting all but one site at the Tu nuclear research complex south of Baghdad.

US Defence Department officials quoted by Reuters news agency are insisting that US troops accompany the UN inspectors at the site, and that the visit sets no precedent for a future role in Iraq for the IAEA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Blix was just on the news tonight, stating he has a U.N. list of known WMDs from Iraq, that haven't been accounted for.

Gee, what does that mean?

if you read the article, he said that America gave him info. He is complaining about the lack of solid evidence. So where did he get that list of wmd that are unaccounted for class?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

In fairness, the US always said that they never intended to give that major intel nuggets to Blix because the US feared that this disclosure would compromise those providing the intel.

If weapons aren't found, I think it would certainly compound an already bad situation; however, at least Saddam is gone...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
In fairness, the US always said that they never intended to give that major intel nuggets to Blix because the US feared that this disclosure would compromise those providing the intel.

If weapons aren't found, I think it would certainly compound an already bad situation; however, at least Saddam is gone...

I agree. But it really does undermine their stand. Because we are talking about one of the best (allegedly) intelligence in the whole world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The U.S. will be in a world of hurt if they don't find convincing evidence. The question has been posed many times, if they were so certain of their existence and had proof, why can't they find any weapons? The government owes it to the world to find these weapons ASAP. The whole reason behind it was to attack Saddam before he attacked us, I hope I'm wrong, but increasingly there is no evidence that he was a danger to us. Key people in the administration are saying he maybe didn't have any prior to hostilities. I was tentatively in favor of this war when it started, but now justification seems to be fading with each passing day. Americans don't care if there are no biological/chemical weapons found, this worries me quite a bit. Because if none are found, what the hell did all those people (of all nationalities) have to die for? To make D. Cheney, and GWB's friends a few million dollars richer? It's a safe bet that it wasn't to "free the Iraqi people." Was it to secure an election? Before I get any accusations, trust me I am not left-wing. This is not a left wing, right wing issue, this is an issue of honesty, humanity, honor and integrity.

Edited by ElGaucho
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
The whole reason behind it was to attack Saddam before he attacked us, I hope I'm wrong, but increasingly there is no evidence that he was a danger to us.

none of the countries of the ME, with the exception of maybe Kuwait and Israel, had even the slightest contention that Saddam or Iraq was a threat to them. even countries bordering with Iraq such as Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia merely laughed at the thought of Iraq being a real viable threat to their countries. and so the question is, if countries within the region itself took this argument as a joke, then how could the thought of him being a threat to the US hold any water at all?

a counter-argument may be made that Saddam would probably have provided WMD's (assuming that he had them in the first place) to terrorist organizations who would then use them against the U.S. but again, this argument doesnt amount to much, for 1) Saddam was a secularist Ba'athi who was very opposed to and suspiscious of religious organizations and personalities, whether Shi'ite or Sunni, because they provided a potential threat to his rule and control, and 2) no such links, whether with Al Qaeda or whoever else, have proved to show anything significant or even eye-catching, expect maybe a walk down the parks of Powell's la-la land.

Edited by Frodo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
a counter-argument may be made that Saddam would probably have provided WMD's (assuming that he had them in the first place) to terrorist organizations who would then use them against the U.S. but again, this argument doesnt amount to much, for 1) Saddam was a secularist Ba'athi who was very opposed to and suspiscious of religious organizations and personalities, whether Shi'ite or Sunni, because they provided a potential threat to his rule and control, and 2) no such links, whether with Al Qaeda or whoever else, have proved to show anything significant or even eye-catching, expect maybe a walk down the parks of Powell's la-la land.

Yes, I know that Saddam had a secular Ba'athist regime (Ba'ath party was co-founded by a Christian). But it could've been conceivable that Saddam would ally with a group with the intention that they attack the U.S. Unlikely allies have always existed (U.S. and U.S.S.R. during WW2.) However, as the evidence of the existence of those weapons is not presented, it's clear that Saddam perhaps was not a real and immediate danger to those outside Iraq. This administration could have a lot of explaining to do.

Edited by ElGaucho
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Yes, I know that Saddam had a secular Ba'athist regime (Ba'ath party was co-founded by a Christian). But it could've been conceivable that Saddam would ally with a group with the intention that they attack the U.S.

whatever else may be said of Saddam (i.e. that he was a murderer, torturer, and very evil evil man), i doubt he would have been so stupid as to make a move like this. if Saddam would have ever used any of his WMD's, he would have used them when they were in abundant stockpiles in the first Gulf War against the allies. but he knew that such a move would have been disastrous and would have resulted in the total annihilation of himself and Iraq (precisely because Bush Sr. hard warned that any such move on his part would result in a direct nuclear retaliation). and so, though it would surely have been possible and feasible that Saddam may have made exceptions as to his picks of allies, still the very likely consequence of such a move would have deterred him from doing so, i believe.

Edited by Frodo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
at least Saddam is gone...

but at what cost? and to what end? and who will succeed him? someone like him but stamped with a US mark of approval? where is the promised freedom? is freedom or liberation even feasible under the reins of an occupation? is it even possible to conceive of such a thing?

Edited by Frodo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
The U.S. will be in a world of hurt if they don't find convincing evidence. The question has been posed many times, if they were so certain of their existence and had proof, why can't they find any weapons? The government owes it to the world to find these weapons ASAP. The whole reason behind it was to attack Saddam before he attacked us, I hope I'm wrong, but increasingly there is no evidence that he was a danger to us. Key people in the administration are saying he maybe didn't have any prior to hostilities. I was tentatively in favor of this war when it started, but now justification seems to be fading with each passing day. Americans don't care if there are no biological/chemical weapons found, this worries me quite a bit. Because if none are found, what the hell did all those people (of all nationalities) have to die for? To make D. Cheney, and GWB's friends a few million dollars richer? It's a safe bet that it wasn't to "free the Iraqi people." Was it to secure an election? Before I get any accusations, trust me I am not left-wing. This is not a left wing, right wing issue, this is an issue of honesty, humanity, honor and integrity.

ElGaucho: how do you reconcile the fact that the war planners, these neocons, have been talking about regime change in iraq for YEARS. at least since 1997. they weren't able to convince anyone of immediate dangers then ... in another four years saddam's weapons were back to working order (despite the sanctions) ...

something doesn't add up .. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Old Marine Vet
I agree. But it really does undermine their stand. Because we are talking about one of the best (allegedly) intelligence in the whole world.

Not really, the intelligence community was gutted by the Clinton administration, his CIA chiefs, under his direction did away with almost all human, on the ground, down and dirty (spooks), intell work, and opted to really mostly on Satellite and radio intercept info instead.

Bush simply hasn't had enough time to bring the CIA and other intell agencies up to speed!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Old Marine Vet
Because if none are found, what the hell did all those people (of all nationalities) have to die for?

Do you think the Iraqis would be better off then, with Saddam still there, killing hundreds of thousands of his own people?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Old Marine Vet
Yes, I know that Saddam had a secular Ba'athist regime (Ba'ath party was co-founded by a Christian).

Hmmmmm, Saddam is in power through the Baath party, Saddam has WMD.

Syria, which right on Iraqs western border is also a country run by the Baath Party, gee, I don't think you would need to be a rocket scientist to figure out where Saddam could hide them real quick, outside of Iraq, could you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Do you think the Iraqis would be better off then, with Saddam still there, killing hundreds of thousands of his own people?

come on old vet, i thought we had agreed to stop playing pretend a while back. do you really wish to convince us that you care one eeny weeny iota about the Iraqi peoples success, well-being, or prosperity? or that you care about human rights or the awful things Saddam did to his people? stop playing the compassionate, motherly, liberal, unselfish, noble and moralistic American who cares so much for Iraq and its people that you just had to go to war to ease their suffering and give them a hand. it's become dull and ponderous and i dont think you've convinced the Iraqis themselves of this intention or goal let alone the rest of the Muslim world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Syria, which right on Iraqs western border is also a country run by the Baath Party, gee, I don't think you would need to be a rocket scientist to figure out where Saddam could hide them real quick, outside of Iraq, could you?

talking out of ur arse once again, arent you? Iraq and Syria, though both Ba'athist regimes, have NEVER had good relations with each other since at least the 70's. even during the Iran-Iraq war when most of the Arab world allied with Saddam against Iran and acted as fronts for the sell and purchase of weaponry, Syria stayed at the least neutral and at most gave tacit support to Iran instead. you know absolutely nothing of ME politics or culture, of it's history or it's regional problems and the relationships between the countries there. to borrow one of your expressions, you know nothing,"zip, zilch, zero". why do you then feel this compelling urge to comment and make a complete clown out of yourself?

Edited by Frodo
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Old Marine Vet
ElGaucho: how do you reconcile the fact that the war planners, these neocons, have been talking about regime change in iraq for Y

Wrongo! When Clinton (scumbag) was in office he gutted the intelligence community and the military, there was no plans during his tenure to have any regime change in Iraq, all this guy did in response to terror, was fire a few cruise missiles at empty tentes, this guy couldn't take care of business in Somalia, do you think he would have the stones to take on Iraq?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Old Marine Vet
come on old vet, i thought we had agreed to stop playing pretend a while back. do you really wish to convince us that you care one eeny weeny iota about the Iraqi peoples success, well-being, or prosperity? or that you care about human rights or the awful things Saddam did to his people?

If the american public didn't believe that, how come they couldn't really care now if WMDs are found or not??

The real reason for going into Iraq, in my opinion is to fight terror, by giving the rest of the Arab/Muslim world a wake up call by showing that we can really kick any of their asses if we thought that they are providing support and supplies to terrorism.

Finding the 2 mobile chemical/Bio labs and Abbu Abbas in Iraq is proof enough for me that not only did he harbor terrorists, but that he was making WMDs which he could have supplied to them also!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Wrongo! When Clinton (scumbag) was in office he gutted the intelligence community and the military, there was no plans during his tenure to have any regime change in Iraq, all this guy did in response to terror, was fire a few cruise missiles at empty tentes, this guy couldn't take care of business in Somalia, do you think he would have the stones to take on Iraq?

the neoconservatives she is referring to (Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsefield, ect...) had a report typed up during the Clinton years regarding the hegoministic plans for ruling the world by force.

Bush just happened to have the perfect excuse to carry out these plans and capitalize on the Sept. 11 events to impliment them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Old Marine Vet
talking out of ur arse once again, arent you? Iraq and Syria, though both Ba'athist regimes, have NEVER had good relations with each other since at least the 70's.

Wait a minute! During Gulf War I, didn't the Iraqis fly a lot of their planes into Iran for safe keeping??

If that is true, that kind of cancels you premise!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
If the american public didn't believe that, how come they couldn't really care now if WMDs are found or not??

ahhh, the wonderful works of propaganda. a majority of Americans (around 52%), according to the polls, also believe that Iraq was directly involved in the 9-11 attacks. does that mean it's true? i have a good motto for you old vet, would be "whatever Americans believe is the Gospel truth!".

The real reason for going into Iraq, in my opinion is to fight terror, by giving the rest of the Arab/Muslim world a wake up call by showing that we can really kick any of their asses if we thought that they are providing support and supplies to terrorism.

Jesus loves you old vet, he really does. That's it, say it as it is. All for one and one for all. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Wait a minute! During Gulf War I, didn't the Iraqis fly a lot of their planes into Iran for safe keeping??

If that is true, that kind of cancels you premise!

The Iraqis, as in Iraqi defectors, DID fly into Iran because they didn't want to waste their lives. But the Ba'ath regime of Mr. Saddam Tikrit did not have a policy to keep their planes in Iran for safe keeping.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Wrongo! When Clinton (scumbag) was in office he gutted the intelligence community and the military, there was no plans during his tenure to have any regime change in Iraq, all this guy did in response to terror, was fire a few cruise missiles at empty tentes, this guy couldn't take care of business in Somalia, do you think he would have the stones to take on Iraq?

clinton didn't take them up on the offer but there were plenty of wheels turning ...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclin...intonletter.htm

excerpt

We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

signed by

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Old Marine Vet
Under the hateful Taliban, you could drive across Afghanistan, day or night. Now you can't move after dark for fear of theft, killing or rape. Under the hateful Saddam, you could drive across most of Iraq without danger, day or night. Now you can't. American "liberation" has become synonymous with anarchy. - Robert Fisk, writing from Nasiriyah, 31 May

This goof has about as much credibility in the U.S. right now, as Tammy Faye Baker!

Sure you could move about without fear in afganistan under the taliban, if you were a member of the Taliban, if you weren't you were dead meat!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Old Marine Vet
BTW I don't think Clinton is such a scumbag. He's more eloquent than Dubya. If he was going on a 3rd term, I would have certainly voted for Clinton

Really? So you as a muslim admire a man that is a physical coward, a womanizer, a serial sex offender, an abject liar, and a thief?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
So what does that mean, Syria will refuse to return the poison gas and bio agents?

You cannot find OBL, cannot find Saddam, cannot find the WMD, now what? Syria has WMD? No? SO Iran has it? Oh wait, Clinton has it because that was part of his master plan to disband the CIA so he could keep it in his backyard. I have a suggestion, why don't you find it on Mars?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
So what does that mean, Syria will refuse to return the poison gas and bio agents?

aha, creating an agenda against another country. guess who came up with that scape-goat? Ariel Sharon, the butcher of Sabra and Shatilla. then when you invade Syria and nothing again is found, then the excuse will be that they somehow slipped their way into Iran, or maybe Pakistan or Libya. next thing we'll hear is that Saddam, the butcher of Baghdad, came up with some awesome form of technology and electronically transferred the WMD's to Mars or Venus.

do you really, in all honesty, believe yourself?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Really? So you as a muslim admire a man that is a physical coward, a womanizer, a serial sex offender, an abject liar, and a thief?

Clinton, in my opinion, was no better than Bush. Bush simply has the coincidence of a trajic event (the 9-11 attacks) that he has capitalized on and milked till the breasts are sucked dry.

True, Clinton was eloquent, he knew how to walk the walk and talk the talk. He was well-educated, graduated from Yale in law, had a specific charm to him, knew how to get his ass out of trouble if need be. He was the quintessential "enemy with the smiling face". He looked civilized, acted civilized, the whole aura around him was one of being "civilized'. He knew exactly what people wanted to hear, knew how to express himself well, was really a great actor.

Bush is just an idiot, and everyone can see that. The hawks behind the veil are the ones who call the shots, he just presents whatever is spoon-fed to him, and does a very bad job at it at that.

But neither was better than the other, and Clinton would probably have the done the same thing if he had been in Bush's shoes, except with more elegance, that is the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The real reason for going into Iraq, in my opinion is to fight terror, by giving the rest of the Arab/Muslim world a wake up call by showing that we can really kick any of their asses if we thought that they are providing support and supplies to terrorism.

Finding the 2 mobile chemical/Bio labs and Abbu Abbas in Iraq is proof enough for me that not only did he harbor terrorists, but that he was making WMDs which he could have supplied to them also!

The real reason for the invasion of Iraq was a very simple three letter word: O I L

WMDs, War on Terror, Axis of Evil, 'With us or against us', 'Crusade', blah blah blah is fodder for cattle that will chew at anything however outrageous thrown at it.

Maybe as a sidenote you might want to wonder why JFK was assassinated and by whom!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...