Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Archives > Archives > Key Thread Archive
Reload this Page >

When the Dust settles, If there are NO Weapons of MD, will the US plant some ?

When the Dust settles, If there are NO Weapons of MD, will the US plant some ?

 
Old 03-20-03, 06:55 PM
  #76  
DVD Talk Legend
 
DeputyDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,080
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Since reports are that the White House is confirming that it was a SCUD, I'm going to believe that until proven otherwise. I guess Blix missed one.
DeputyDave is offline  
Old 03-20-03, 07:01 PM
  #77  
DVD Talk Legend
 
DeputyDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,080
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
OK, I’m going on the assumption that most reasonable people accept that Saddam has not been totally honest about the destruction of all WMD’s. The question now is what will Saddam do now. Looking at the big picture, the most damaging thing to his enemies (the US) is to NOT use them and continue to keep them hidden. That way when they are eventually found the anti-bush crowd (i.e. the rest of the world) will be able to point and say we planted the “glove”. The problem is that there is a very good chance that Saddam will not be around to reap the benefits of this plan.

Will Saddam be able to control his megalomaniac tendencies enough to follow this path, or will he decide to attack with WMD’s regardless of the long-term consequences?
DeputyDave is offline  
Old 03-20-03, 07:02 PM
  #78  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: State of perpetual confusion
Posts: 3,609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Dah-Dee
Your favorite ( ) news source and mine ( ), CNN, ( ) is sticking with:
Edited for Rod Thorn
Dah-Dee is offline  
Old 03-20-03, 07:23 PM
  #79  
Premium Member
 
bfrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 20,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not a such a scale. But the facts might get adjusted.
bfrank is offline  
Old 03-20-03, 08:20 PM
  #80  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: State of perpetual confusion
Posts: 3,609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by eXcentris
I wonder what people will think if, right after Iraq is "liberated", stockpiles of WMD's are found. I for one would be extremely suspicious.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight..... And the cigarette-smoking man will beckon to you from the shadows, offering to explain the sinister goings-on....
Dah-Dee is offline  
Old 03-20-03, 08:42 PM
  #81  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,950
Received 48 Likes on 39 Posts
Iraq Confirms It Fired Missiles at Kuwait

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq confirmed on Thursday it had fired missiles at U.S. military bases in Kuwait, after earlier denying having done so.

In a statement broadcast by Iraqi television, Iraq's central military command said its units on the Iraq-Kuwait border had pounded "the dens of evil, treachery and tyranny" across the frontier at Ali al-Salem air base, Shuwaikh port close to Kuwait City and Camp Doha, the main U.S. base for its invasion of Iraq.

Kuwaiti officials said earlier that Iraq fired at least two Scud missiles at the Gulf state but they were intercepted, though Iraq denied having Scuds and any involvement in a strike.

The officials also said Iraq fired two other missiles -- smaller, Chinese-made ones -- into Kuwait's northern desert.

The salvo, the Iraqi statement said, was an expression of Iraq's "firm determination to teach the criminal invaders, hard lessons and make them taste bitter pain."
X is offline  
Old 03-20-03, 08:43 PM
  #82  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 32,717
Received 415 Likes on 293 Posts
Originally posted by Dah-Dee
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight..... And the cigarette-smoking man will beckon to you from the shadows, offering to explain the sinister goings-on....
The weapons inspectors, who are (supposedly) experts in their field have found nothing in what? 6 months of searching? And that was with "tips" from US/UK intelligence. You are now going to tell me that US/UK soldiers magically stumbling upon stockpiles of WMD's woudn't be suspicious in the least? Are you going to deduct that:

1. The weapons inspectors are incompetent bumbling idiots that didn't know what the hell they are doing.

2. The soldiers planted the weapons there.

3. The soldiers stumbled on the evidence by chance!

4. The US/UK knew all long where the weapons were but had no intention of revealing that evidence.


Oh, and you might want to try thinking before posting your snide remarks. Twice in the same thread doesn't do much for your (gasp!) credibility...
eXcentris is offline  
Old 03-20-03, 09:02 PM
  #83  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: State of perpetual confusion
Posts: 3,609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by eXcentris
Oh, and you might want to try thinking before posting your snide remarks. Twice in the same thread doesn't do much for your (gasp!) credibility...
Relax. Big breaths. Count to ten. Repeat. Or .... go club a seal!

Just trying to keep the mood lighter than it has any right to be. If it helps, add a when in doubt while reading posts....
Dah-Dee is offline  
Old 03-20-03, 09:04 PM
  #84  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 27,261
Received 141 Likes on 97 Posts
Originally posted by eXcentris
The weapons inspectors, who are (supposedly) experts in their field have found nothing in what? 6 months of searching? And that was with "tips" from US/UK intelligence. You are now going to tell me that US/UK soldiers magically stumbling upon stockpiles of WMD's woudn't be suspicious in the least? Are you going to deduct that:

1. The weapons inspectors are incompetent bumbling idiots that didn't know what the hell they are doing.

Pharoh is offline  
Old 03-20-03, 09:15 PM
  #85  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: State of perpetual confusion
Posts: 3,609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by eXcentris
The weapons inspectors, who are (supposedly) experts in their field have found nothing in what? 6 months of searching? And that was with "tips" from US/UK intelligence. You are now going to tell me that US/UK soldiers magically stumbling upon stockpiles of WMD's woudn't be suspicious in the least? Are you going to deduct that:

1. The weapons inspectors are incompetent bumbling idiots that didn't know what the hell they are doing.

2. The soldiers planted the weapons there.

3. The soldiers stumbled on the evidence by chance!

4. The US/UK knew all long where the weapons were but had no intention of revealing that evidence.
It seems to me that the most logical explanation for discovery of WMD, during or following hostilities, would be that the military action made it impossible for Iraq to continue moving any mobile WMDs or to continue concealing immobile WMD. Regarding immobile WMD, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we discover and secure involved facilities that Iraq has managed to hide (e.g., deep underground) since the first Gulf War. I certainly don't believe the U.S. intelligence community has some omniscient power to have 'magically' located all such facilities prior to sending in troops to hunt for them without interference from Saddam's thugs. There's no conspiracy here: Iraq admitted to vast quantities of WMD; agreed to destroy the same; won't provide documentation of such destruction. We're going in to help with that process, being the benevolent humanitarian superpower that we are.

Edit: Oops, forgot to address your enumerated....points:
1. Yes, bumbling...incompetent, check...idiots, yup...don't know, of course.
2. Redikkerus!
3. Possible.
4. Not likely.

P.S. -- Speaking of snide, read your post again. Sheesh.

Last edited by Dah-Dee; 03-20-03 at 09:22 PM.
Dah-Dee is offline  
Old 03-20-03, 10:45 PM
  #86  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: TX USA
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 9 Posts
My gosh, was there ever any doubt that Iraq has WOMD? Everyone agreed back in '98 when the inspectors were booted out that they were there. I'm sure that, in the years since, with no inspectors looking over their shoulders, Iraq looked around and said, maybe we better destroy all this stuff and never again try to build more.

Was looking around and found this report from September of 2001. If this much was known then, imagine what Iraq could have been doing in the year and a half since.

Last edited by collven; 03-20-03 at 11:13 PM.
collven is offline  
Old 03-20-03, 10:57 PM
  #87  
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: When the Dust settles, If there are NO Weapons of MD, will the US plant some ?

Originally posted by Original Desmond
when the dust settles, if, all shocks of shocks, there happens NOT to be any weapons of mass destruction, will the US plant some in Iraq ?

cos if they don't, they will look like the biggest bullies and wallies in history!

What the heck is a wally? I gather that is not a compliment. If they do find weapons of mass destruction, will you eat your words?
cwilli is offline  
Old 03-20-03, 11:47 PM
  #88  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: TX USA
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 9 Posts
This is a pretty clear picture of what was known when the inspections stopped in '98.
Report submitted by the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission established by the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 9 (b) (i) of Security Council resolution 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991. .


Pretty dry reading, so I will go straight to the conclusions:

VI.CONCLUSIONS

67. It is suggested that three central facts emerge from this report on the Commission’s work with Iraq during the last six months: the disarmament phase of the Security Council’s requirements is possibly near its end in the missile and chemical weapons areas but not in the biological weapons area; Iraq is permitting the monitoring work of the Commission to be exercised only at a less than satisfactory level, yet its development is vital to the future; full disclosure by Iraq of all necessary materials and information remains the crucial ingredient for both an end to the disarmament process and future monitoring.

68. Iraq’s present stance rests on its ambit claim that it has already fulfilled all of the Council’s disarmament requirements. It has asked the Council to accept this claim, immediately.

69. Argumentation Iraq employs in support of its claim includes the demand that the Commission prove to Iraq that it continues to hold prohibited weapons and associated capabilities. This argumentation, were it to be accepted, would reverse the onus of disclosure clearly placed upon Iraq by the Council and instead would require the Commission to make the full disclosure of proscribed items, that only Iraq can make. The question may be asked what sound purpose would be served were the Commission to substitute an overall statement of its own, for Iraq’s statement. Would Iraq then be asked to verify the Commission’s statement?

70. The biological weapons area is a revealing example of these facts. For half of the eight year period of the relationship between Iraq and the Special Commission, Iraq declared that it had no BW programme. When that claim was no longer tenable, Iraq provided a series of disclosure statements all of which have been found by international experts, on multiple occasions, to be neither credible nor verifiable.

71. The Commission has worked as constructively as it could, with Iraq, to try to shed light on the biological weapons area, including by suggesting a new approach in June this year. But, Iraq failed to take that opportunity, failed to provide the disclosures which are essential to the fulfilment of the disarmament mandate in the BW area.

72. As indicated in this report, the priority issues in the missile and CW areas, while important, are not large in number. Cooperation by Iraq, full disclosure, could see those areas able to be considered for transit to long-term monitoring and verification, at a relatively early date.

73. It must be recorded however, that for this to be the case, a satisfactory resolution of the question of the chemical warfare agent VX needs to be achieved, because of its implications for both the CW and missile files. This involves not just the question of VX weaponization, but also the more fundamental question of Iraq’s record of VX production. Again, there can be no substitute for full disclosure by Iraq on this matter, a disclosure which has never been made.

74. This report also discusses the additional very serious impediments to the Commission’s disarmament work caused by Iraq’s unilateral destruction and concealment actions and its withholding of relevant documents.

75. The Council may need to consider, at some stage, that the effect of these actions by Iraq may prove to be that the Commission is obliged to conclude that it is unable to provide 100% verification of the claimed fate or disposition of prohibited weapons.

76. In cases where such a conclusion comes to be accepted by the Council, then the effectiveness of the future monitoring system, including the Commission’s right of full access to any relevant sites, becomes even more important. As this report records, the Commission is studying the nature and resource requirements of the future monitoring system. It expects to seek the Council’s guidance in this area, shortly.

77. As indicated in this report the Commission is ready to assist, as the Council may require, in any comprehensive review to take place of Iraq’s compliance with its obligations under relevant Security Council resolutions. With respect to its mandate under section C of resolution 687 (1991), the Commission would be able to provide a comprehensive statement of the present disarmament situation, with an indication of the level of verification achieved.

78. The Commission is grateful to the Council for diligent attention it has continually given to it and its task.
collven is offline  
Old 03-21-03, 09:12 AM
  #89  
DVD Talk Legend
 
DeputyDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,080
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by eXcentris
The weapons inspectors, who are (supposedly) experts in their field have found nothing in what? 6 months of searching? And that was with "tips" from US/UK intelligence. You are now going to tell me that US/UK soldiers magically stumbling upon stockpiles of WMD's woudn't be suspicious in the least? Are you going to deduct that:

1. The weapons inspectors are incompetent bumbling idiots that didn't know what the hell they are doing.

2. The soldiers planted the weapons there.

3. The soldiers stumbled on the evidence by chance!

4. The US/UK knew all long where the weapons were but had no intention of revealing that evidence.


Oh, and you might want to try thinking before posting your snide remarks. Twice in the same thread doesn't do much for your (gasp!) credibility...
EXcentris, you lost some credibility with me by arguing that Iraq has no WMD’s. By honestly suspecting that the US would lie about and plant WMD’s before Saddam would lie about and try and hide them… well, to me you just showed your hand behind your real beliefs and why you protest this war.

Update: Seven SCUDS have been confirmed so far as being shot at out troops in Kuwait. (Or wait, maybe WE shot them at OURSELVES)
DeputyDave is offline  
Old 03-21-03, 09:34 AM
  #90  
DVD Talk Legend
 
DeputyDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,080
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I just read this: Chemical Weapons . I hope it's wrong
text:Inside the Ring

Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough

U.S. intelligence officials tell us the evidence that Iraqi artillery units are preparing to use chemical warfare shells is based on reconnaissance photographs of the shells.
The rounds were identified as chemical weapons-capable shells with slots where a vial of nerve agent or biological-weapons dust is inserted before firing.
No evidence of the actual chemical or biological agents has been spotted so far. Officials said the weapons of mass destruction vials are kept separate from the artillery shells and then brought to the units before being fired.
The artillery units with the special shells were bombed Wednesday in southern Iraq in a pre-emptive strike. Officials believe the Iraqis, if they use weapons of mass destruction, will draw on their hidden stocks of VX nerve agent, an extremely potent poison.

Military ruler
We are told that Army Lt. Gen. John Abizaid, one of two deputy commanders of U.S. Central Command, will likely be the top U.S. military officer in post-war Iraq.
The Arabic-speaking West Point graduate would essentially run the country while the United States maintained order and then slowly handed off power to Iraqi citizens.
Retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, who directs the Pentagon's office of Iraqi reconstruction, is now in Kuwait readying his team, which will follow the ground troops all the way to Baghdad.
Gen. Abizaid is helping to direct the war from Central Command war headquarters in As Saliyah, Qatar.
One of three regional rulers in post-Saddam Iraq has been designated. She is career Foreign Service Arabist Barbara Bodine, who last served as U.S. ambassador to Yemen. She will run civilian affairs in Baghdad and central Iraq, along with two other U.S. regional administrators.
Miss Bodine's appointment has angered some FBI and law enforcement officials because of her role in hampering the FBI's investigation of the October 2000 al Qaeda bombing of the destroyer USS Cole in Aden, Yemen.
She clashed with FBI counterterrorism official John O'Neill during the probe. She blocked Mr. O'Neill from returning to Yemen after a trip back to the United States, scuttling an aggressive investigation into the blast. Mr. O'Neill retired from the FBI and was killed in the September 11 World Trade Center attack.

Bogus intelligence
U.S. intelligence officials said they have serious doubts about the intelligence information being provided by captured al Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
Contrary to news reports this week praising Mohammed's role in supplying information about al Qaeda terrorism, officials said Mohammed appears to be supplying disinformation designed to fool U.S. intelligence, as well as information that is accurate but already widely known.
"What he's telling us has been in the press and has been known well before he was captured," one official told us. "He's trying to deceive his interrogators."
For example, Mohammed said that Osama bin Laden picked the targets attacked September 11, something that was known from other intelligence and from a videotape of bin Laden himself.
Other information on al Qaeda plans provided by Mohammed also were known from other intelligence that has been made public.

Quake or nuke
It is a hallway maxim at the CIA and other spy agencies that when an intelligence analyst smells flowers, he looks for a hearse.
That pessimism was at work recently when the ground shook in China's remote western Xinjiang province on Feb. 24.
U.S. intelligence agencies at first thought that China had conducted an unannounced underground nuclear test at its Lop Nur testing facility in the area. Analysts at first feared they had been caught napping again, as happened with India's underground nuclear test in May 1998, which was a major U.S. intelligence failure.
The event in Xinjiang was in fact an earthquake measuring 6.8 on the Richter scale. The quake killed 263 persons and injured 4,000 others.

Admiral's war message
On the eve of war with Iraq, Vice Adm. Timothy Keating, Central Command's top naval officer, sent a message to the 5th Fleet telling sailors "you are about to begin a momentous task: the liberation of Iraq."
"You have worked very hard preparing for this moment," Adm. Keating said. "You are ready. For some of you, this is a culmination of years, decades perhaps, of training. For others, this is your first exposure to the frightening reality of armed conflict.
"In any case, you will be called upon for sacrifice, for strenuous labor, for gut-wrenching, split-second decisions. You will make the right call. You will find a reservoir of strength and wisdom. I know you will because you have been schooled in the traditions of our glorious service, our United States Navy."
The strike-fighter pilot added that "it is time for us to go to work."
"Do so aggressively, intelligently, with audacity and courage. Go fully confident in the knowledge that you have earned the support of your countrymen and of millions of freedom-loving people around the world."
The Navy has deployed five carrier battle groups, which kicked off the war Wednesday night by firing more than 40 Tomahawk weapons into Baghdad and other sites.

Bunker buster
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has pointed to the 1991 bombing of the Amiriyah bunker in the Baghdad suburb as an example of how Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein fights.
In a recent prewar press conference, Mr. Rumsfeld said Saddam put civilians in a military command bunker knowing allied planes would eventually strike it.
Sure enough, on Feb. 13, 1991, an Air Force jet attacked the communications command bunker with a penetrating bomb. At daylight, the Iraqi regime displayed the dead civilian bodies to the international media as an example of America's murderous ways.
In his new book, "War with Iraq: Critical Lessons," retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Buster Glosson writes a detailed description of how the target, No. L30, was chosen.
"Why were civilians in the bunker?" asks Gen. Glosson, who designed the air campaign. "At this point in the war, how likely was it that people would go to a bunker on their own when they could very easily see we were only bombing things of military significance in Baghdad. In other words, the safest place to be in Baghdad was in an apartment complex or in a housing area."
He answers his own question: "Saddam did it on purpose. Saddam wouldn't have cared about the fact that a lot of people that were killed were dependents of the military and the intelligence service. That fact was irrelevant to him. All life, except his own, is irrelevant to him."


•Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough are Pentagon reporters. Mr. Gertz can be reached at 202/636-3274 or by e-mail at [email protected]. Mr. Scarborough can be reached at 202/636-3208 or by e-mail at [email protected]
DeputyDave is offline  
Old 03-21-03, 10:05 AM
  #91  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,193
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by eXcentris
The weapons inspectors, who are (supposedly) experts in their field have found nothing in what? 6 months of searching? And that was with "tips" from US/UK intelligence. You are now going to tell me that US/UK soldiers magically stumbling upon stockpiles of WMD's woudn't be suspicious in the least? Are you going to deduct that:

1. The weapons inspectors are incompetent bumbling idiots that didn't know what the hell they are doing.

2. The soldiers planted the weapons there.

3. The soldiers stumbled on the evidence by chance!

4. The US/UK knew all long where the weapons were but had no intention of revealing that evidence.


Oh, and you might want to try thinking before posting your snide remarks. Twice in the same thread doesn't do much for your (gasp!) credibility...
And how would we get all these chemical and biological weapons there to plant them? It would take an operation of hundreds of people all who would need to keep quiet about it. A little too risky to even try anything like that. And why would Iraq need artillery shells capable of firing chemical weapons if they don't have any? If they don't have any chemical weapons then it would mean the artillery shells are designed with less than the optimal explosive power. Not too logical.
al_bundy is offline  
Old 10-13-03, 12:36 PM
  #92  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,983
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
so its been awhile. no big caches of WMD have been found. I haven't seen manufactured intel yet, anyone else?
Venusian is offline  
Old 10-13-03, 12:39 PM
  #93  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think they're hoping we forgot about the WMD thing.
shaun3000 is offline  
Old 10-13-03, 12:50 PM
  #94  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: |-|@><0r [email protected]|)
Posts: 17,214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by shaun3000
I think they're hoping we forgot about the WMD thing.
...or bury us in "We did it for another reason, you're just trying to revise history because of the upcoming election" rhetoric.

We know better.

- David Stein
sfsdfd is offline  
Old 10-13-03, 12:54 PM
  #95  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,189
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally posted by sfsdfd
...or bury us in "We did it for another reason, you're just trying to revise history because of the upcoming election" rhetoric.

We know better.

- David Stein
Or perhaps say, everyone was wrong about WMD, including Clinton (Numanoid's law), and every other country around.

If they do not have them, they did according tot he UN's reports (and Iraq's admissions) but destroyed them and did not account for them. What a terrible mistake that only Bush could make. So long as it isn't just political, I suppose.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 10-13-03, 12:57 PM
  #96  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,189
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
From the Kay report

What have we found and what have we not found in the first three months of our work?

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the U.N.


Examples of concealment
Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

– A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to U.N. monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW (chemical biological weapons) research.

– A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW (bioweapons) agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N.

– Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

– New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the U.N.

– Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation.

– A line of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

– Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N.

– Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 km – well beyond the 150-km range limit imposed by the U.N. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

– Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300-km range ballistic missiles – probably the No Dong – 300-km range anti-ship cruise missiles and other prohibited military equipment.

In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence – hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use – are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts.
Kay report in its entirety
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/w...-kay-text.html
kvrdave is offline  
Old 10-13-03, 01:02 PM
  #97  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,196
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
There you go w/ the truth again kvrdave... won't you ever learn


nemein is offline  
Old 10-13-03, 01:15 PM
  #98  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: |-|@><0r [email protected]|)
Posts: 17,214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by kvrdave
Or perhaps say, everyone was wrong about WMD, including Clinton (Numanoid's law), and every other country around.
And how many of those other countries used those beliefs as the basis for a land invasion to destroy a sovereign government?

And how many of those other countries staked their international reputation on later finding indisputable evidence of WMDs? How many said, "Trust us now, and we'll prove it later"?

As for the list you posted:

"Equipment"
One of the major complaints about the pre-war sanctions was that a huge number of routine materials were banned because they might possibly be used in a very tangential way to make weapons. Case in point: chlorine, routinely used in water purification. So the "equipment" found here could have been, like, a test tube. If this were remotely incriminating, we'd have heard all about it, in great detail.

"A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW (bioweapons) agents"; "clandestine attempts to obtain missiles"
Please tell me we didn't destroy a government on "maybe"s and "possibly"s and "attempt"s. The loud-and-clear message presented to the American people was not couched in such softness. This smacks of desperation.

"Vehicles"; "fuel for SCUD missiles that could carry WMD-based warheads"
Neither a plane nor SCUD missile constitutes a weapon of mass destruction. They're wholly conventional weapons. Even if they're in technical violation of U.N. restrictions, that's hardly a reason to destroy their government.

"Plans and advance design work"
Last I checked, a blueprint for a missile did not constitute a dangerously imminent threat.

How can you present this, with a straight face, as damning evidence of weapons of mass destruction? Look at this list, again, and ask yourself why such a massive threat that required a huge land invasion has turned up these tattered scraps of evidence - the harshest found in the following six months. Doesn't this speak volumes?

- David Stein

Last edited by sfsdfd; 10-13-03 at 01:22 PM.
sfsdfd is offline  
Old 10-13-03, 01:25 PM
  #99  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 27,261
Received 141 Likes on 97 Posts
Originally posted by sfsdfd
And how many of those other countries used those beliefs as the basis for a land invasion to destroy a sovereign government?

And how many of those other countries staked their international reputation on later finding indisputable evidence of WMDs? How many said, "Trust us now, and we'll prove it later"?

.....

- David Stein

And you do not allow for the possibility that these countries acted the way they did simply out of selfish political motives? That they acted purposefully as an impediment to the US and the UK, and contrary to the advice of their intelligence services?
Pharoh is offline  
Old 10-13-03, 01:35 PM
  #100  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: |-|@><0r [email protected]|)
Posts: 17,214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Pharoh
And you do not allow for the possibility that these countries acted the way they did simply out of selfish political motives? That they acted purposefully as an impediment to the US and the UK, and contrary to the advice of their intelligence services?
Or maybe they didn't have enough proof to justify toppling a nation. As evidenced by the uniform cry from overseas: "We need more proof." As in: "We're not convinced that the threat is as imminent as you say."

But you know, I don't much care why other countries took the stances they did, because I can't vote in their elections. Why they chose not to put their countries' reputations at risk is their business. In other words: Don't change the subject.

The fact remains that we put our reputation at stake, and to date, we have been grossly unable to back up our statements. So it looks like we destroyed a nation without sufficient justification. Other countries and prior Presidents do not factor into this equation.

- David Stein
sfsdfd is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.